How do Christians deal with the violence in the Bible?

That is yoru claim. Now, prove it.

Remember, most scholars think the Epsistal of James is a pseudographical work. (see Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3)

Luthor?? Luthor?? This is the guy who wrote 'Jews and their lies', right.
I just want to knwo where you are coming from.

According to the Bible God can and does make mistakes. The Flood was one.

Yup, begins there and continues on into 9. If you don't see the tone of regret and mistake then fine. But reading it literally would carry yet another example of GOD once again simply not being too smart, to having once again failed to realize what he was doing.

No, it's not me, it's the Bible that builds that portrait. And I agree to a great extent with you, the God of the Bible, if it's read literally, does not inspire worship.

iano has answered that he believes any actions performed by God are justified, because by his definition God can do no evil and therefore all of Gods acts are "good" automatically regardless of human opinion.I would answer this assertion by saying that human morality IS God's morality, if a literal interpretation of the Bible is used.

Remember why Adam was sent out of the Garden of Eden? He ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and became "like God" in being able to understand right and wrong.

From the usual commentaries at Blue Letter Bible.org:JF&B ... tree of the knowledge of good and evil--so called because it was a test of obedience by which our first parents were to be tried, whether they would be good or bad, obey God or break His commands.Matthew Henry:
There was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so called, not because it had any virtue in it to beget or increase useful knowledge (surely then it would not have been forbidden), but, First, Because there was an express positive revelation of the will of God concerning this tree, so that by it he might know moral good and evil. What is good? It is good not to eat of this tree. What is evil? It is evil to eat of this tree. The distinction between all other moral good and evil was written in the heart of man by nature; but this, which resulted from a positive law, was written upon this tree. Secondly, Because, in the event, it proved to give Adam an experimental knowledge of good by the loss of it and of evil by the sense of it. As the covenant of grace has in it, not only Believe and be saved, but also, Believe not and be damned (Mk. 16:16), so the covenant of innocency had in it, not only "Do this and live,’’ which was sealed and confirmed by the tree of life, but, "Fail and die,’’ which Adam was assured of by this other tree: "Touch it at your peril;’’ so that, in these two trees, God set before him good and evil, the blessing and the curse, Deu. 30:19. These two trees were as two sacraments.David Guzik:
ii. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the "temptation" tree; eating the fruit of this tree would give Adam an experiential knowledge of good and evil. Or, it may very well be that it is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil not so that man would know good and evil, but so that God could test good and evil in man

It seems the serpent tempted with the truth - their eyes were opened, and they understood good and evil as God does. This seems to say that man can deem an act to be good or evil just as God can. If man sees that an act is evil, and man has the same moral compass as God, then how could an evil act like genocide be justified if God does it?

Their eyes were opened, and they suddenly knew good from evil. They knew that they were naked. Are you saying that they somehow realized they were naked because they disobeyed God? The text seems to say that it was the fruit itself that gave them the knowledge.

The strong convictions they fell under, in their own bosoms: The eyes of them both were opened. It is not meant of the eyes of the body; these were open before, as appears by this, that the sin came in at them. Jonathan’s eyes were enlightened by eating forbidden fruit (1 Sa. 14:27), that is, he was refreshed and revived by it; but theirs were not so. Nor is it meant of any advances made hereby in true knowledge; but the eyes of their consciences were opened, their hearts smote them for what they had done. Now, when it was too late, they saw the folly of eating forbidden fruit. They saw the happiness they had fallen from, and the misery they had fallen into. They saw a loving God provoked, his grace and favour forfeited, his likeness and image lost, dominion over the creatures gone. They saw their natures corrupted and depraved, and felt a disorder in their own spirits of which they had never before been conscious. They saw a law in their members warring against the law of their minds, and captivating them both to sin and wrath. They saw, as Balaam, when his eyes were opened (Num. 22:31), the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand; and perhaps they saw the serpent that had abused them insulting over them. The text tells us that they saw that they were naked, that is, [1.] That they were stripped, deprived of all the honours and joys of their paradise-state, and exposed to all the miseries that might justly be expected from an angry God. They were disarmed; their defence had departed from them. [2.] That they were shamed, for ever shamed, before God and angels. They saw themselves disrobed of all their ornaments and ensigns of honour, degraded from their dignity and disgraced in the highest degree, laid open to the contempt and reproach of heaven, and earth, and their own consciences. Now see here, First, What a dishonour and disquietment sin is; it makes mischief wherever it is admitted, sets men against themselves disturbs their peace, and destroys all their comforts. Sooner or later, it will have shame, either the shame of true repentance, which ends in glory, or that shame and everlasting contempt to which the wicked shall rise at the great day. Sin is a reproach to any people. Secondly, What a deceiver Satan is. He told our first parents, when he tempted them, that their eyes should be opened; and so they were, but not as they understood it; they were opened to their shame and grief, not to their honour nor advantage. Therefore, when he speaks fair, believe him not. The most malicious mischievous liars often excuse themselves with this, that they only equivocate; but God will not so excuse them.

Actually, it wasn't the serpent that said they had become like God, but God Herself.

a. Understanding the idea behind Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil is tough. Perhaps there is a note of sarcasm in God here (as Elijah used in 1 Kings 18:27) regarding Satan's empty promise to become like gods; or, perhaps the idea focuses on man's greater knowledge (though in a bad sense) now that he has the experiential knowledge of evilb. In mercy, God was protecting Adam and Eve from the horrible fate of having to live forever as sinners by prohibiting them from eating from the tree of life