An interesting thought that came to me is about the current scholarly belief that the first two or three chapters of Genesis weren't actually composed until the Babylonian captivity, as a refutation of the Myth of Redemptive Violence (i.e. Marduk vs. Tiamat). Point being, this was well after the wars of Numbers, Josue, and Kings, in which these decrees of turning captured women into sex/reproduction slaves would have been made.
The thing to remember is that before their encounter with the Persians and Zoroastrianism, the Hebrews WERE NOT MONOTHEISTIC. Instead, they were monolatrous, believing in many gods, but regarding all but one (Yhwh) as utterly unfit of worship. Before Babylon and Persia began empire-crafting, each people and/or city-state was thought to be the property of a specific god. This means that wars were "just" the material manifestation of a war BETWEEN TWO GODS. As I've mentioned before, I think this is why genocide/enslavement was decreedto utterly efface the defeated god by forever dispelling and/or adsorbing his only agents. Thus, the wars in Numbers et al. were actually a campaign to force all the other gods to acknowledge Yhwh as the only proper liege the "land of milk and honey" could ever have...or else. (Why does this put me in mind of the villain of the Belgariad? I haven't even read past the first one or two chapters...)
Still, I have to wonder what Yhwh IS recorded as taking delight in, at least in anything that was decidedly pre-Captivity. There's only so many wars the early Hebrews could have engaged in in Canaan before there were no more genocide/rape targets. Yhwh would have had to find something else to partake of (and I'd expect he'd eventually tire of sycophantry...). Power, like money, is only a means to an end, so I have to wonder what, ultimately, that end would be.
In other words, the "born of good intent" description of creation in the first one or two chapters of Genesis came AFTER all these wars. It may have had more to do with Babylonian and/or Persian ideas than original Hebrew theology.
Considering this possibility, and the contrast between the belligerence of the early Hebrews' Yhwh, and the justice obsession of the prophets' (i.e. after Persia) Yhwh, perhaps there's been more than a little Zoroastrian influence. Maybe someone should make a macro reading "Jesus, son of Ahura Mazda; NOT son of Yhwh" or thereabouts.
(Long story short: The Tanakh is managing to hold TWO Yhwh's who have little beyond the name in common, and people like Bob are missing the post-Persia one.)
