...is an ancienty "treaty" or covenant agreement between a king and his people. For some general defense of Deuteronomy, see here where many links below will lead. On the matter of the destruction of the Canaanites, see here[Off Site].
Thou shalt lend to many nations, and shall not borrow. Skeptic McKinsey bellows, "As a prophecy this has clearly failed. Today Israel borrows heavily from the United States and has sought billions of dollars in loan guarantees." If statements so diverse as this one and his statement on Deut. 28:33-4 were found in the Bible, McKinsey would no doubt claim it was a contradiction. But, I’ll harmonize anyway. In Deut. 28:33-4 he’s saying that the Jews have lent for most of their history, but in recent times they have had to borrow. This, like the one below, is a conditional prophecy detailing the other side of the coin. In vs. 4-5 states that this blessing is dependent on their obedience; it is not an "all the time" prophecy.
16: 3 says, "Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith..." 16:8 says, "Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly..." Which is correct? Read it carefully: The context of 16:8 is that of observances. The only observance on the six days is to eat unleavened bread; the seventh day observance is an assembly. It is a positive command; 16:3 is a negative one, "Do not eat leavened bread these seven days, eat it unleavened." This is in addition to any ritual eating during the six days.
Deuteronomy 20:19
In light of this admonition to spare the trees, what about 2 Kings 3:19? And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all wells of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones. What about it, indeed? Deut. 20:19 refers to desroying trees for making siege engines which are fruit trees; as the next verse says, "Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued." This is not what is in mind in 2 Kings 3:19, which only orders the destruction of the "good" trees, the best ones -- which leaves behind other, smaller, younger trees.
No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. One Skeptic objects to this as a punishment for deeds done by parents. This is hardly a "punishment" of any sort, except by modern standards of political correctness. It carries no effect other than to keep the people noted from attending meetings in order to preserve the symbolic message of perfection (like the requirement for sacrifices without blemishes). Another issue: Was David in violation of this verse?
The stranger that is within thee (the Jews) shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him; he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail. Skeptic McKinsey says, "According to this prophecy Jews would be borrowers and not lenders. If Jews had always been debtors instead of great creditors throughout history, Christians would hail this as a fantastic prophecy instead of the failure it is." In context, these verses constitute one of the curses that God pronounces on the Jews should they not follow his commandments (v. 15). In addition, it only applies to the covenant that was established in Old Testament, which terminated in 70 AD. It is not an "always all the time" prophecy. However, I wonder here what it is McKinsey is exactly trying to say. Is he falling for the old stereotype of Jews as usurious lenders? Do we have shades of anti-Semitism here? Bottom line: Can he produce documentation that the majority of the Jewish people since this judgment have NOT been "borrowers"? Or is he content with pseudo-chauvanist generalities like the above? (Plus this contradicts his assertion on Deut. 15:6 above!)
As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: Kornform, my AOL skeptic, once threw this one at me, asking if I'd ever seen an eagle flying around with its young on its wings! But the context of the verse, and the Hebrew preposition involved, indicate that this is describing an eagle gathering its chicks UNDER itself WITH its wings after disturbing the nest. On the other hand, some commentators have indicated that eagles and
other birds do catch their fledgling young on their wings when they tire of flying. [Tigay, Deuteronomy commentary, 463]
And of Naphtali he said, O Naphtali, satisfied with favor and full with the blessing of the Lord: possess thou the west and the south. Dennis McKinsey says, "In truth Naphtali received a district in the north of Palestine but none in the south and the west." The phrase "the west and the south" may also be translated "southward to the lake" as it is in the NIV. In this case all that the text is saying is that Naphtali will dwell in the land to the north of the lake (Galilee), which it did occupy. The text literally read, "take possession of sea and south" -- their territory surrounded the Sea of Galilee and went south to the Dead Sea.
![[ Go To Top Of This Page ]](top_of_page_16x21.gif){kind=small}