Key OT Teachings

[GWH]

An old testament teaching that is very important to understand salvation is the plan that God gave to Israel.

We do not need to practice these ceremonies and things but they were given to help us see or understand the plan of salvation.

The sanctuary set up was a pattern of heavenly things. The high priest was a pattern of Jesus’s ministry.

We can understand more about the heavenly things by looking at the patterns given by God.

Heb 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Heb 9:23-24
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Jer. 31:31-34. Here we find mention of the coming new covenant (NT), which will differ from the OC by GW indwelling the hearts of
God's people, who thereby will know/experience the Lord's HS. That the NC will therefore supersede the OC which foreshadowed it is the subject of Heb. 7:11-10:10.

 

[GWH]

Gen 7:4. After Noah’s family was safely in the ark, God waited seven days before executing judgment on sinful humanity in the form of forty days of rain that flooded the earth. This event is reprised in Num. 14:20-35, which records the Lord’s judgment of Israel’s sins by making that generation wander in the wilderness for forty years before entering the land of Canaan.

The writer of Hebrews cited Israel’s wandering (in Heb. 3:7-4:13), stating that the opportunity for entering “God’s rest” or being saved provided “Today” ends when a sinner hardens his heart and refuses to cooperate with God’s voice (cf. Psa. 95:7-8, Isa. 6:9-10 = Matt. 13:14-15).

>>>Psa. 78:18&56. These verses refer to the Israelites putting God to the test. This is what atheists do, and even some Believers would rather not walk by faith, wishing that God would zap evildoers or perform miracles to prove He exists. However, Jesus said we should not put the Lord our God to the test. (Matt. 4:7)

Instead, the purpose of this life is for God to test humanity and see who qualifies for heaven. This is indicated in Psa. 81:7 & 95:8-9, which refers to God testing the Israelites in the wilderness even as they tested Him. Paul instructs us in 2Cor. 13:5 to examine or test ourselves to see if we are saved or in the faith.

>>>Psa. 97:10. “Let those who love the Lord hate evil.” (Cf. Pro. 8:13) Notice that we are to hate evil deeds, but Jesus taught us to love evil-doers or God’s enemies (Matt. 5:44), because before we accept God as Lord, that is what we all were (Rom. 5:10). So we have now noted that there is righteous anger, prudent fear and divine hatred.

 

[GWH]

Gen. 9:6. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” Capital punishment is appropriate for capital crimes. The crime in this case is murder, which killing in self-defense is not. The moral principle seems to be "life for life" (Exo. 21:23, Lev. 24:18, Deut. 19:21). The crime and its punishment are NOT morally equivalent!

This is the first time the role of humanity in establishing moral laws and enforcing them with just or logical consequences is affirmed in the Bible. The NT equivalent is Rom. 13:1-4, which is intended to discourage people from violence.

 

[GWH]

Gen. 9:7-17. In verse seven, humanity is commanded to “Be fruitful and increase in number”, but not to overpopulate and pollute the earth. In verse 15 God says, “Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.”

If God promises not to destroy life again, neither should mankind create a flood of pollution that destroys it, but rather mankind should be good stewards of our earthly resources and perhaps limit procreation (by peaceful means!) at this point if needed in order to do so.

Of course, sin is the worst form of polluting the earth, and foul language is a type of air pollution (Eph. 4:29&5:4).

 

[GWH]

As was indicated in the OP, this thread is for the purpose of surveying the OT for significant teachings, especially those that are related to the NT and cited therein, so feel free to comment and add any such passages that are skipped. Thanks.

Here is the next one I noticed:

Gen. 11:9b. “…The Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.”

This verse apparently contradicts the teaching of Paul in 1Cor. 14:33: “God is not a God of disorder/confusion but of peace.”

How can these two ideas be harmonized?

 

[GWH]

As was indicated in the OP, this thread is for the purpose of surveying the OT for significant teachings, especially those that are related to the NT and cited therein, so feel free to comment and add any such passages that are skipped. Thanks.

Here is the next one I noticed:

Gen. 11:9b. “…The Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.”

This verse apparently contradicts the teaching of Paul in 1Cor. 14:33: “God is not a God of disorder/confusion but of peace.”

How can these two ideas be harmonized?

Bumped for comment/answers.

 

[GWH]

Bumped for comment/answers.

Well, my comment is this:

The OT tends to blame everything on God rather than recognize His permissive will,
but the NT teaching regarding God's omnilove as expressed by the teaching of Paul
in 1Cor. 14:33 that “God is not a God of disorder/confusion but of peace” leads me
to conclude that Gen. 11:9b. “…The Lord confused the language of the whole world;
from there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth” should be
understood as God permitting people to scatter and develop different languages.

God's intentional will was revealed in this regard was indicated by the reversal of Babel
when the Holy Spirit caused folks from different regions to understand unlearned languages
on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1-10.

 

[GWH]

The next two teachings in Genesis need to be understood together.

Gen. 12:3b. All people on earth will be blessed through Abraham. About 2,000 B.C., Abraham became a monotheist and moved from Ur to Canaan, where he became the patriarch of the Hebrews, who became the Israelites after the Exodus and eventually the Jews by the time of Jesus, who fulfilled God’s promise made to Abraham by completing His mission as Messiah or the Savior of all humanity who accept Him as Lord.

This covenant is restated in Gen. 17:1-14, 18:18-19 & 22:15-18. Abraham is also claimed as the patriarch of the Arabs through Ishmael (Gen. 16:12, 17:19-21 & 21:9-21), who are part of the Gentiles or people who would be blessed by accepting God’s Messiah (Eph. 2:11-3:6).

Gen. 15:6. Abraham’s faith in the Lord was credited to him as righteousness. This was a major teaching of the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans (Rom. 4:3,9-12&16-17). This is why Paul taught that a true Jew is one whose “circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code” (Rom. 2:29). Thus, all who become one with Jesus are spiritual Jews and God’s chosen people (Eph. 2:13-3:6), although it is possible that the political nation of Israel may play a further role in history before the eschaton/Judgment.

 

[GWH]

Gen. 22:8. These words of Abraham to Isaac may be viewed as the first prophetic reference to Jesus (John 1:29), although they had an immediate fulfillment (in v.13). Many years later, Moses instituted the sacrificial system that also portrayed the future messianic atonement. Jesus instituted the observance of the Lord’s Supper as a remembrance of the fact that His death fulfilled this system, so that NT believers no longer need to practice it (cf. Heb. 7:11-10:1).

After Abraham, Isaac had two sons, Esau and Jacob. Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel (in Gen. 32:28 & 35:10), had twelve “sons”, whose families moved to Egypt because of drought and famine in Canaan, where they became slaves of the pharaohs (Gen. 47:21) until Moses led the Exodus.

In 1Cor. 9:24-27 & 10:1-5 Paul compared seeking heaven to the Israelites who failed to qualify for entering Canaan. He viewed the rock which provided them water as equivalent to Christ. This implies that OT foreshadowings augment general revelation in serving as a proto-gospel (TOP #10).

>>>TOP #10: Although God’s creation reveals His power and love, godless people suppress truth and exchange it for the lie of idolatry. [Rom. 1:18-25, cf. #3] This is what Adam and Eve did (Gen. 3:1-7, cf. 2Thes. 2:10-13). Paul says men are without excuse, both because God’s eternal power and moral nature (love) are manifested by creation (Rom. 1:20). Apparently, creation combined with conscience or moral sense (Rom. 2:14-16) that manifests a moral Authority TOP #23)–and combined with OT law for the Jew (TOP #22)–serves as a provisional or proto-gospel (Col. 1:23, Rom. 10:13-18, Gal. 3:8), which is the revelational basis for divine salvation and judgment (TOP #24-26 & 281).

 

[GWH]

Exo. 3:6. “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Jesus cited this verse as evidence of the resurrection, indicating the power of God to make people be like angels in heaven (Matt. 22:29-32).

When Moses was called by God, he asked God to reveal His name, and God’s answer is our next key teaching.

Exo. 3:14. God is “I AM” or the source of being/existence.

Thousands of years later Rene Descartes (d.1650) became famous for saying, “cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”), which expresses the fact that our own self-consciousness is the only truth that we know with certainty. Otherwise we walk by faith
regarding ultimate reality and even scientific theories or mathematical axioms. We think we are; I AM is God. (2Cor. 5:7)

 

[GWH]

Upon further reflection, a few items have been added to this list, including the following:

The first nine chapters of 1Chronicles record genealogies, then chapters 10&11 recount 2Samuel 1&2 about the death of Saul and anointing of David to be king, omitting Abner’s opposition but in chapters 13-16 elaborating about the return of the ark to Jerusalem that ends with a psalm of David that qualifies for inclusion in this list:

1Chron. 16:8-36. Give thanks to the Lord… Sing to the Lord, all the earth; proclaim His salvation… Who made the heavens… O families of nations… worship the Lord… for He comes to judge the earth. Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good; His love endures forever… Amen.”

The next book of the English Bible after Eccl. is Song of Songs. This book celebrates romantic love, and it appears as though it could have been a dramatic form in the vein of Job. Its descriptions of physical beauty seem strange, but SofS 3:11-5:1 refer to Solomon’s wedding and bride, so perhaps the teaching to be gleaned from this book is that physical beauty is good and romantic love is appropriate as long as it expresses marital commitment. (Although this does not jibe with the reference to Solomon’s wives in 1Kings 11:3.)

Obadiah is the shortest book in the OT and although its addressee is Edom, what it says could have a general application:

Oba. 15. “The day of the Lord is near for all nations. As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon you own head.” (cf. Rom. 2:6).

Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther are historical books that contain no teachings seemingly akin to the Gospel, but rather they lay the groundwork for an interpretation of salvation more related to political Zionism.

Comments, approvals?

 

[OMC]

DT 30:19. We have moral free will, which makes us accountable for our attitudes and actions, our belief and behavior, with ultimate logical or appropriate consequences, which are termed heaven or hell

Deuteronomy 30:19 does not teach “moral free will” in the abstract; it teaches covenantal accountability grounded in God‑given capacity to choose obedience or disobedience. The verse is not philosophical—it is judicial. And yes, of course i will discuss it.

JSH 24-26. God will save everyone who cooperates with Him. The conquest of Canaan (in JSH 6:17-21, 8:2, 10:28 & 11:20) is cited by skeptics as condoning unjust violence by God against innocent babies. However, the Bible teaches that God is just (RM 3:22-30, 9:14), so we should be careful lest our explanations of God’s will seem unloving or unfair.

Joshua 24:24–26 records Israel’s covenant renewal, where the people pledge to serve the LORD alone.
This passage does not teach that “God will save everyone who cooperates with Him,” but that Israel is accountable to obey the covenant they have entered.
Regarding the conquest of Canaan (Joshua 6:17–21; 8:2; 10:28; 11:20), skeptics often accuse God of unjust violence; however, Scripture consistently teaches that the Canaanites were not innocent, having filled up their iniquity (Genesis 15:16) and practiced abominations such as child sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31).
God’s judgments are always righteous (Romans 3:22–30; 9:14), and we must be careful that our explanations of His actions do not imply that He is unloving or unfair, when the biblical record shows His justice, patience, and holiness.

JSH 24:15. We must choose whom we will serve. As a song by Bob Dylan phrased it: “You may serve the devil or you may serve the Lord, but you gotta serve somebody.” This teaching correlates with DT 30:19 and contradicts Calvinism's view that God determines whom one may serve, although He does limit the essential spiritual choices to either Him/Christ = Lord or anti-Him/Christ = the devil/Satan. We "gotta" serve the One or the other one, and we gotta do it God's Way

When I read Joshua 24:15, I see a covenant command, not a philosophical debate about free will. Joshua is confronting Israel with the reality that every human being must serve someone, and neutrality is impossible. Dylan’s lyric captures the moral polarity well, but the Scripture itself is stronger: I must choose whom I will serve, because God has already acted in redemption and now demands exclusive loyalty. This correlates with Deuteronomy 30:19, where God sets life and death before Israel and commands them to choose life. It does not contradict God’s sovereignty, nor does it support the claim that God “determines whom one may serve”; rather, it affirms that God limits the spiritual options to Himself or the adversary, and holds me accountable for my response. I must serve the LORD, and I must do it God’s way, under His covenant terms, with no illusion of autonomous self-rule.

 

[GWH]

Deuteronomy 30:19 does not teach “moral free will” in the abstract; it teaches covenantal accountability grounded in God‑given capacity to choose obedience or disobedience. The verse is not philosophical—it is judicial. And yes, of course i will discuss it.

Joshua 24:24–26 records Israel’s covenant renewal, where the people pledge to serve the LORD alone.
This passage does not teach that “God will save everyone who cooperates with Him,” but that Israel is accountable to obey the covenant they have entered.
Regarding the conquest of Canaan (Joshua 6:17–21; 8:2; 10:28; 11:20), skeptics often accuse God of unjust violence; however, Scripture consistently teaches that the Canaanites were not innocent, having filled up their iniquity (Genesis 15:16) and practiced abominations such as child sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31).
God’s judgments are always righteous (Romans 3:22–30; 9:14), and we must be careful that our explanations of His actions do not imply that He is unloving or unfair, when the biblical record shows His justice, patience, and holiness.

When I read Joshua 24:15, I see a covenant command, not a philosophical debate about free will. Joshua is confronting Israel with the reality that every human being must serve someone, and neutrality is impossible. Dylan’s lyric captures the moral polarity well, but the Scripture itself is stronger: I must choose whom I will serve, because God has already acted in redemption and now demands exclusive loyalty. This correlates with Deuteronomy 30:19, where God sets life and death before Israel and commands them to choose life. It does not contradict God’s sovereignty, nor does it support the claim that God “determines whom one may serve”; rather, it affirms that God limits the spiritual options to Himself or the adversary, and holds me accountable for my response. I must serve the LORD, and I must do it God’s way, under His covenant terms, with no illusion of autonomous self-rule.

I do not see how your post responds to the new additions, but here is my reply:

1. Deut. 30:19 describes a moral choice, and choice connotes free will/volition, so whether viewed as covenantal or
philosophical, it is true.

2. The principle of cooperation with God in the covenant is generalized in the Gospel, which is the full/best context
for interpreting the OT.

3. No one is innocent, but the NT does not command genocide of the guilty, so an explanation that justifies such by Joshua is needed.

4. I like your connection of Josh. 24:15 with Dylan's "You Gotta Serve Somebody". Yes, the spiritual choice is binary.

 

[OMC]

I do not see how your post responds to the new additions, but here is my reply:

1. Deut. 30:19 describes a moral choice, and choice connotes free will/volition, so whether viewed as covenantal or
philosophical, it is true.

2. The principle of cooperation with God in the covenant is generalized in the Gospel, which is the full/best context
for interpreting the OT.

3. No one is innocent, but the NT does not command genocide of the guilty, so an explanation that justifies such by Joshua is needed.

4. I like your connection of Josh. 24:15 with Dylan's "You Gotta Serve Somebody". Yes, the spiritual choice is binary.

sorry i did not see the new addition, you said the second page but never qualified what i was to be answering to, so i just picked a spot that stood out. What did you want me looking at?

"No one is innocent, but the NT does not command genocide of the guilty, so an explanation that justifies such by Joshua is needed".

You’re assuming Joshua describes genocide, and that is the very point Scripture itself corrects.
The destruction of the Canaanites was not indiscriminate killing; it was a one‑time, covenant‑specific act of divine judgment on a culture whose iniquity had reached its full measure (Genesis 15:16) and whose practices included child sacrifice and systemic abominations (Deuteronomy 12:31; Leviticus 18:24–28).
The NT does not repeat that command because the NT does not administer land‑based covenant judgment — Christ Himself now executes final judgment (Acts 17:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7–10).
So I don’t “justify genocide”; I explain covenantal judgment.
The moral principle stays the same — God judges sin — but the covenant administration changes.
That is the biblical explanation, and it is sufficient for me.

 

[GWH]

sorry i did not see the new addition, you said the second page but never qualified what i was to be answering to, so i just picked a spot that stood out. What did you want me looking at?

"No one is innocent, but the NT does not command genocide of the guilty, so an explanation that justifies such by Joshua is needed".

You’re assuming Joshua describes genocide, and that is the very point Scripture itself corrects.
The destruction of the Canaanites was not indiscriminate killing; it was a one‑time, covenant‑specific act of divine judgment on a culture whose iniquity had reached its full measure (Genesis 15:16) and whose practices included child sacrifice and systemic abominations (Deuteronomy 12:31; Leviticus 18:24–28).
The NT does not repeat that command because the NT does not administer land‑based covenant judgment — Christ Himself now executes final judgment (Acts 17:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7–10).
So I don’t “justify genocide”; I explain covenantal judgment.
The moral principle stays the same — God judges sin — but the covenant administration changes.
That is the biblical explanation, and it is sufficient for me.

Regarding a justification of Joshua's genocide, the writer of Heb. 12:4-11 indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (Pro. 3:12, Isa. 33:14-15 Rev. 3:19). If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage of Scripture purporting to describe God’s will (such as Josh. 6:17-24, 8:2&24 & 10:28-40, 11:6-23), then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what people perceived rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of God’s nature. Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God.

Appealing to the covenant or land does not justify genocide, but I have a two-fold answer:

On the one hand, the Canaanites would have been spared if they had cooperated with the immigration of the Israelites instead of opposing them/God's will, as the Gibeonites did (although via deception),

and on the other hand, because the whole Canaanite society was completely corrupt and children in those days were deemed to share the destiny of their parents, the genocide could be viewed as capital punishment that is justified in Rom. 13:1-5.

The late OT (Ezekiel) and NT revealed that children should not be punished for the sins of parents and conversion should be via peaceful persuasion rather than coercion, but capital crimes warrant capital consequences.

How does that seem?

 

[OMC]

Regarding a justification of Joshua's genocide, the writer of Heb. 12:4-11 indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (Pro. 3:12, Isa. 33:14-15 Rev. 3:19). If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage of Scripture purporting to describe God’s will (such as Josh. 6:17-24, 8:2&24 & 10:28-40, 11:6-23), then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what people perceived rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of God’s nature. Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God.

Appealing to the covenant or land does not justify genocide

I don’t see Joshua’s actions as genocide, since Hebrews 12 shows God’s wrath as fatherly discipline for His people, while the destruction of the Canaanites was a judicial punishment on a culture whose wrongdoing had reached its peak. That’s why I disagree with the idea that covenant context can’t justify it, because the text itself frames it as divine judgment, not unrighteous anger.

God declared the timing and purpose of Canaan’s judgment centuries earlier​

Genesis 15:16 “For the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.”​

This verse lays the foundation, showing that God Himself set the timeline: judgment would come only when their wrongdoing reached its full measure. It’s not genocide; it’s divine justice declared long before Joshua’s time.

God commands the judgment explicitly​

Joshua 6:17 “And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD.”​

Joshua 10:40 “So Joshua smote all the country… as the LORD God of Israel commanded.”​

I believe Joshua often emphasizes that the destruction was carried out “as the LORD commanded.” This isn’t human anger, but rather obedience to a divine decree.

On the one hand, the Canaanites would have been spared if they had cooperated with the immigration of the Israelites instead of opposing them/God's will, as the Gibeonites did (although via deception)

Scripture shows the Canaanites could have been spared if they had responded like the Gibeonites, but God’s judgment on Canaan had been declared long before Joshua, and their resistance only revealed the depth of their iniquity.
In Joshua’s account, the Gibeonites survived because they turned toward Israel rather than fighting, and though their deception wasn’t praised, their submission was accepted, leading Joshua to make peace with them.
This proves the conquest wasn’t blind ethnic destruction; mercy was available to any who humbled themselves before Israel’s God. Still, this doesn’t mean the Canaanites were judged merely for resisting Israel’s arrival.
Genesis 15:16 had already set the divine timetable, declaring judgment only when the Amorites’ sin reached its full measure.
The Gibeonites’ example shows God’s willingness to spare those who turned to Him, but the entrenched corruption of Canaanite culture — child sacrifice, ritual prostitution, sorcery, and violence — was revealed in their resistance, confirming the justice of the divine sentence.

 

[GWH]

I don’t see Joshua’s actions as genocide, since Hebrews 12 shows God’s wrath as fatherly discipline for His people, while the destruction of the Canaanites was a judicial punishment on a culture whose wrongdoing had reached its peak. That’s why I disagree with the idea that covenant context can’t justify it, because the text itself frames it as divine judgment, not unrighteous anger.

God declared the timing and purpose of Canaan’s judgment centuries earlier​

Genesis 15:16 “For the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.”​

This verse lays the foundation, showing that God Himself set the timeline: judgment would come only when their wrongdoing reached its full measure. It’s not genocide; it’s divine justice declared long before Joshua’s time.

God commands the judgment explicitly​

Joshua 6:17 “And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD.”​

Joshua 10:40 “So Joshua smote all the country… as the LORD God of Israel commanded.”​

I believe Joshua often emphasizes that the destruction was carried out “as the LORD commanded.” This isn’t human anger, but rather obedience to a divine decree.

Scripture shows the Canaanites could have been spared if they had responded like the Gibeonites, but God’s judgment on Canaan had been declared long before Joshua, and their resistance only revealed the depth of their iniquity.
In Joshua’s account, the Gibeonites survived because they turned toward Israel rather than fighting, and though their deception wasn’t praised, their submission was accepted, leading Joshua to make peace with them.
This proves the conquest wasn’t blind ethnic destruction; mercy was available to any who humbled themselves before Israel’s God. Still, this doesn’t mean the Canaanites were judged merely for resisting Israel’s arrival.
Genesis 15:16 had already set the divine timetable, declaring judgment only when the Amorites’ sin reached its full measure.
The Gibeonites’ example shows God’s willingness to spare those who turned to Him, but the entrenched corruption of Canaanite culture — child sacrifice, ritual prostitution, sorcery, and violence — was revealed in their resistance, confirming the justice of the divine sentence.

Well, I disagree with Google's definition of genocide, so I will say it means attempting to murder everyone who shares the same genetic pool within an area, which in this case would refer to the inhabitants of Canaan.

It has nothing to do with sin, although that can be either the pretext if done by humans or the valid reason if God deems it to be necessary and just.

I am glad you apparently agree that if the Canaanites had repented (like Nineveh), their destruction would have been cancelled.
What do you think about my second point, that because the whole Canaanite society was completely corrupt and children in those days were deemed to share the destiny of their parents, the genocide could be viewed as capital punishment that is justified in Rom. 13:1-5?

My third point was that the late OT (Ezekiel) and NT revealed children should not be punished for the sins of parents and conversion should be via peaceful persuasion rather than coercion, but capital crimes warrant capital consequences for adults.

We might also note that the genocide was never completed, which became a cause of temptation to worship Baal.

 

[OMC]

Well, I disagree with Google's definition of genocide, so I will say it means attempting to murder everyone who shares the same genetic pool within an area, which in this case would refer to the inhabitants of Canaan.

Defining genocide as “trying to kill everyone who shares the same genetic pool in an area” doesn’t match how the term is understood in history, law, or Scripture. Genocide is about the intent to destroy a protected group as such, not just wiping out a local population. The people of Canaan weren’t one genetic lineage but several distinct nations, judged for specific covenant-breaking actions rather than their ethnicity. The biblical commands regarding Canaan were judicial, territorial, and moral, tied to the land’s corruption and the nations’ practices, not their genetics or identity. So, your definition blends territorial destruction with genetic extermination. In short, it describes local population removal, not genocide, and the biblical account portrays the Canaanite judgment as a targeted moral sentence, not an effort to wipe out a unified genetic group. And I am not GOOGLE! If you want to talk scripture, I'm your man, but if you are going to jump on the "kill the disabled guy because he uses tech to communicate" bandwagon then I'm out of here.

 

[GWH]

Defining genocide as “trying to kill everyone who shares the same genetic pool in an area” doesn’t match how the term is understood in history, law, or Scripture. Genocide is about the intent to destroy a protected group as such, not just wiping out a local population. The people of Canaan weren’t one genetic lineage but several distinct nations, judged for specific covenant-breaking actions rather than their ethnicity. The biblical commands regarding Canaan were judicial, territorial, and moral, tied to the land’s corruption and the nations’ practices, not their genetics or identity. So, your definition blends territorial destruction with genetic extermination. In short, it describes local population removal, not genocide, and the biblical account portrays the Canaanite judgment as a targeted moral sentence, not an effort to wipe out a unified genetic group. And I am not GOOGLE! If you want to talk scripture, I'm your man, but if you are going to jump on the "kill the disabled guy because he uses tech to communicate" bandwagon then I'm out of here.

Well, I guess I wrongly assumed that "geno" referred to genes and "cide" referred to murder.
I see you got hung up/anal about Google and ignored whether my justifications were logical.
Bad hair day?

 

[OMC]

Well, I guess I wrongly assumed that "geno" referred to genes and "cide" referred to murder.
I see you got hung up/anal about Google and ignored whether my justifications were logical.

Your fixation on the Google definition doesn’t change the fact that my argument addressed the logic directly, because the issue isn’t the etymology of geno‑cide but whether your reasoning follows from the textual evidence, and on that point your accusation simply misses the argument I actually made.