New Believer's Question ........

[mizpeh]

Jeremiah 18:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

God is involved in the affairs of other nations as noted above and the example of Jonah and Nineveh, but Israel is his peculiar treasure and He blessed them with a great truth and benefits because of the promises He made to their fathers. Rom 9:4-5, Isa 43:10-12, 44:8.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Newman

pelathais- Wow! Do you teach history? All I know is that I was stunned by the movie and the brutality of tribal warfare and survival from long ago. It helped me see the OT in a new light.

Or else he reads and watches National Geographic.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Jeremiah 18:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

God is involved in the affairs of other nations as noted above and the example of Jonah and Nineveh, but Israel is his peculiar treasure and He blessed them with a great truth and benefits because of the promises He made to their fathers. Rom 9:4-5, Isa 43:10-12, Isa 44:8.

Yes, and then when they acted like any other nation, God punished them as if they were any other nation.

Leviticus 18:3; Leviticus 18:24-28; 2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chronicles 36:14; and a host of others.

[timlan2057]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Mel's movie was a great acheivement- in particular the work of the actors. The historical gaffes were egregious- the Mayans were generally less aggressive than portrayed and the Spanish didn't suddenly appear on the Mayan shores at the time of the Mayan collapse- 1100 -1200 A.D.

The whole thing would have worked better with the Aztecs, that's an accurate portrayal, despite what some of their 20th century apologists would say. And the capture of an enemy for either "sport" (torture) or human sacrifice was a common theme in many cultures that practiced that ritual. But the withered corn crops and plague were a part of the Mayan collapse and not the Aztec.

Still, if you sort out the intentional "liberties" the producers and writers took, it is an incredible accounting of Meso-America before the arrival of the Europeans. Other themes that were similar was the conquest of the rather peaceful Arawak by the canniblistic Caribs. The Europeans were actually putting an end to genocide when small pox inadvertantly finished what the Caribs had started.

The movie 1492: Conquest of Paradise got it so wrong in the way that the producers sought to blame everything on the Europeans. That is one film that actually stands out as racist propaganda.

Ah well, slightly off-topic but since we're talking about movies here, I've heard from history profs that the opening battle scene between the Romans and Germanic tribes in Russell Crowe's Gladiator was the most accurate portrayal of ancient warfare that they had seen.

[pelathais]

It will really your fault if we manage to hijack the thread...

I only saw Gladiator once and I was in and out of the room up until the part where Marcus Aurelius dies. The Roman method of the phalanx took advantage of their heavier armor and superb discipline.

In their ranks the mass of soldiers acted like a huge chopping machine. In the famous battle against the Celtic queen Bodica, the 10,000 Romans were faced some 200,000 angry Celts. The Roman's bases had been destroyed and there was no help on the way. The Roman commander, Paulinus chose to make his stand in a field where the surround in valley formed something of a funnel. He hoped that this would prevent him from being encirled and cause the Celt attack to stack up. The plan worked.

To the warriors on the field most historians add another several hundred thousand who turned out for the show. The Celt rear was clogged with their baggage train and camp followers. Bodica had been unstoppable up until then and an enthusiastic mob anticipated seeing more Roman blood.

Instead of straight lines along the front, Paulinus had his men form a zig zag or saw tooth like line with its points pointing out toward the enemy. As the Romans advanced the crowded Celts were channeled into the "V" shaped Roman lines and the individual warriors were hacked from two or sometimes three sides. The plan was a marvel of ingenuity and its execution was a marvel of discipline.

[OneAccord]

God is a Holy God. Sin cannot exist in the place where God is. IN OT times, to eradicate sin, God eradicated the sinner. But, with the NT, God made a better way. A way to eradicate sin, without eradicating the sinner. He sent His Son Jesus to become the sinner for us. Upon Him, the sins of the world was placed. Through Him a way of escape was made so we do not have to die for our sins.

Well... thats what the Bible teachs.

[timlan2057]

Originally Posted by pelathais

It will really your fault if we manage to hijack the thread...

I only saw Gladiator once and I was in and out of the room up until the part where Marcus Aurelius dies. The Roman method of the phalanx took advantage of their heavier armor and superb discipline.

In their ranks the mass of soldiers acted like a huge chopping machine. In the famous battle against the Celtic queen Bodica, the 10,000 Romans were faced some 200,000 angry Celts. The Roman's bases had been destroyed and there was no help on the way. The Roman commander, Paulinus chose to make his stand in a field where the surround in valley formed something of a funnel. He hoped that this would prevent him from being encirled and cause the Celt attack to stack up. The plan worked.

To the warriors on the field most historians add another several hundred thousand who turned out for the show. The Celt rear was clogged with their baggage train and camp followers. Bodica had been unstoppable up until then and an enthusiastic mob anticipated seeing more Roman blood.

Instead of straight lines along the front, Paulinus had his men form a zig zag or saw tooth like line with its points pointing out toward the enemy. As the Romans advanced the crowded Celts were channeled into the "V" shaped Roman lines and the individual warriors were hacked from two or sometimes three sides. The plan was a marvel of ingenuity and its execution was a marvel of discipline.

Yeah, I guess Philip of Macedon came up with the phalanx, Alexander perfected it and the Romans picked it up.

Alexander beat Darius and the Persians at Gaugamela in 331 BC with two elite phalanx units and about three more not-so-elite and his usual cavalry, some horse archers, regular infantry and a few mercenary units from throughout the Greek city-states and provinces.

Remember those old Avalon Hill games where you had to move those cardboard counters all over a board marked off with hexagons?

I still have Alexander somewhere in my closet - the game that replayed the battle of Gaugamela. I played that game quite a bit in my room as a single evangelist - some of those pastors might have had a coniption if they knew I was in the evangelists' quarters rolling dice.

Anyway, the game accurately reflected Alexander being outnumbered by the Persians 35,000 to 200, 000.

And of course the old saw applies that his better trained units - principally his phalanx units - were responsible for his victories against armies that vastly outnumbered him.

However, the Persians 200K were made up of almost half mercenary units who fought with little passion. It didn't take much for the mercenaries to turn tail and run when Alexander's phalanxes began rolling up the Persian frontline infantry.

Playing the board game as the Persians, where of course all of your units are going to be involved in the attack, showed - accurately, I think - that if all the Persian units would have participated enthusastically, the Greeks would have had a much tougher time of it.

No nostalgic old fogey here.

I love how computers make these wargames much easier than keeping track of endless little cardboard squares.