Did God Command Genocide?

What exactly did God command the Israelites to do to the Canaanites in the Old Testament? Dr. Craig responds!

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[jon]

Fundamentalists: "Yahweh is perfect and just, so when he kills a guilty, born-into-sin baby for its father David's actions (2 Samuel 12:14-16), and has David's wives publicly-r*ped (2 Samuel 12:11) for David's actions, Yahweh is acting perfectly and justly. Amen."

Sane person: I thought you said you believe in objective morality, that killing born babies is objectively wrong, r*pe is objectively wrong, and punishing people for the actions of others is objectively wrong? No, clearly you don't.

[lormanias]

No.
Yahweh explicitly ordered genocides.
Only someone that refuses to see denies it.

[JonTopping]

How does Craig handle the verses that say to kill every man woman and child? I know the typical responses, I'm just curious how he goes about it, because here he explicitly denies there ever being a genocidal command, and then doesn't deal with this issue, so how does he answer this when it comes up?

[KenAmmi-Shalom]

On Atheism, there's nothing wrong with genocide--even if that is what it was.

[Jay_in_Japan]

Question: In the Bible, God gives detailed commands about what kinds of fabric to not mix, what kinds of shellfish to avoid, etc.
If he had the time for such trivial considerations, then why didn't God command in the Bible to e.g. totally ban slavery? Something which is much more relevant to human well-being? Something that is so morally reprehensible?

Instead of commanding that they free the slaves of conquered peoples- an obvious good- God condones the opposite, that the Israelites make slaves of the conquered!

If anything points to the Bible as being a product of primitive savages and not of a morally enlightened Divine, it's this.

Unless you can explain it?

[infinightsky]

I guess the young women were kept because they stayed to fight, right?

[Ejaezy]

You guys need to stop making excuses for god. God clearly tells Saul to wipe out ALL of the Amalekites, including children and babies. Now the bible says that god HATES the hands that shed innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17), so why is it acceptable for god to use his people to shed innocent blood (1 Samuel 15) or why is it okay for god to use his own hands (2 Samuel 12) to shed innocent blood?

[Eben_Haezer]

Have you read on Dr. Michael Heiser's work on this Mr Craig ?

[tronmason]

Joshua 11:20 - Moses commanded Joshua to "exterminate them without mercy." Joshua 11:10 - They put everyone to the sword. Totally destroyed them not sparing anyone that breathed.

[danr.]

So they got killed because they wouldn't move....?? Not sure about this.

Deuteronomy 7:2
"...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy."

[reasonforge]

The problem with paying attention to details is that it undermines people that have a sloppy cynical narrative. I think that WLC is showing great prejudice against systems of epistemology that ignore or accept evidence based on its usefulness to a desired narrative and placing far too much faith in trying to figure out what is really true.

[andrewdickson]

Considering we define genocide (according to Miriam Webster) as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" how can we interpret Deuteronomy 20:16-18 as anything other than a command for genocide? Now we know the Canaanites weren't actually wiped out and that their genetic heritage is alive and well. So either the writer of this passage is embellishing the facts to make Israel sound like might warriors or god didn't truly mean what he said. Neither are acceptable positions for a christian surely?

[Jay_in_Japan]

"God didn't command the Germans to commit genocide, they just needed Lebensraum. Anyone killed was killed because they resisted."
Oh, well that makes it better. Thanks Dr. Craig!

[nosegrindv]

God first gave them 400 years to repent, until the fullness of their sin. Just as the inhabitants of Jericho heard of Israel's God long in advance of their arrival, and as some chose YHWH and were spared, so also these other nations knew about the God of Israel in advance, but they chose to continue in their idolatry sacrificing their children in the flames.

[munafghori]

Those who defend genocide on canaanites must remember that God could find ways and protect childrens and plantation because he is wise, powerful and very able. but he did not save those little kids who have nothing to do with those sins. It is simply very immoral to genocide. For all is god of Bible doesn't love children and plantation. For God in bible humanity is mere thing for his fantasies.

[ArKritz]

Andrea Yates, is that you inside of WLC?

[Jay_in_Japan]

God does explicitly command infanticide, though (Amalekites) 👶🗡 Let's see the mental gymnastics for that 🤸‍♀️

[DigitalHammurabi]

“As people like Dawkins and others have claimed.”

Does others in this sentence mean “consensus scholarship” among subject matter experts? You should stay in your lane, sir.

[samuelcallai]

... what bible do you read? Of course he commanded. And it doesn't make it immoral.

[NayBuster]

The Apologetics Issue: Why Presupp/Based Apologetics Should Be The Only Apologetics.

I'm sure you have heard the famous expressions from atheists:
-Give me proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
-Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So what would the claptrap actually be? Direct spatial evidence of God himself? (And considering God is the cause of the spatial, wouldn't that be an oxymoron? A rhetorical request?) Cause otherwise it wouldn't be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", or "extraordinary evidence", so to say. Which is impossible to do, which in turn keeps their "unconvinced" card in play. Opening the stage curtains to the greatest theatrical play: Trying to woo one with the maxed-out potential of playing hard to get.

-The evidence is unconvincing!
You MISS the point. You cannot be convinced!
(Did you mean the imaginary multiverse cope by any chance?)
-i can be convinced by any proof/evidence actually.
! Like what exactly?! The HELL do you want?! (puns indeed intended)
-..Like direct spatial evidence of God.
..You are invincible.

And with that, the push for proof is.. shooed. End of act.

And sure enough, they don't want the charade to end either, ascertained and self-evident by their incessant prompting for proof still and all.
Oblivious to the bare ludicrosity of it all. Or is it out of compulsion, or just compulsed?
Reckon it's their fixated attempt at concealing their pseudo standing in the charade.
Added they want to save the opportune to strut their weaving skills, it's their whole shtick after all.
The dodgy champion of beliefs, dodging even it's very belief! K. yourself O.

Anyone asking for proof at all on THE MATTER OF GOD to begin with is already a cocksure sign that they are of the kind mentioned above.
Affixed to do the aforementioned deeds, nay, hell-bent on it.

The classical apologist dishonors God by elevating these children to the position of judge with God being the one on trial, laughable, of course it results in gavel pummeling enthusiasts.
Now what the based apologist, formerly pressupp does is confiscate it.

The classical apologist often say that based apologetics is the death of apologetics.
Exactly, because there is nothing to discuss about the existence of God when everybody already knows that God exists. It/classical apologetics in fact only works to feed and strengthen the atheist's delusion.
The definition of atheism starts with the letter "a", without, wilfull rejection of God right from the get go.
You can't step into their materialist house (worldview) after that and cause any change as their worldview is already set.
They are in fact eagerly waiting for you to step in and show you their invincible mental gymnastics. All debates or discussions on the matter of God with no basis on God is a circus, their circus.
There is nothing you can do to make them concede that God exists within/by agreeing to the confines of their own terms, which only serves to, I repeat, feed their delusion.
Issue: God was not the God you can reason to, God is the God you can't reason without. Colossians 1:16-17, Romans 11:36.
The only thing you can do forth is lay to waste their baseless play house to absurdity for them to get the message. If they still choose absurdity over knowledge, then shake the dust off your feet and leave them.

The classical apologist is like the fool who builds his house on the sand. Colossians 2:8.
The based apologist who base their house on the scripture is the one who builds his house on the rock. Matthew 7:24.
The based apology also works as a powerful gun (Atheist Mouth Zipper: AMZ) to shut the mouth of unbelievers, the goats, and move on to the sheep who will hear the Lord's voice. John 10:27-28.
It ties the unbeliever's very own supposed skepticism of God into a knot, resulting in an abandonment of all previous acknowledgements. Beauty in irony. Romans 1:22.
Why call it Based and not Presupp? It reveals the baselessness of the opposition all the more as their ultimate authority: their reasoning without basis, is naturally reduced to mere opinions and all.