How did Saul die?

[jbertonbounds]

.betraying Christ is right up there in serving God..as is robbing the money bags for the poor.?

    doesn't mean nothing..that GOD CAN USE EVIL FOR A GOOD PURPOSE...or make all things work to the

   good of those who love God.?

    as a man, he has bore the image of the corrupt one..as all have..and will bear the image of the incorrupt

one,also.  As a choice for a disciple...he was specifically chosen for a specific purpose in the outworkings of

God's will. I feel from the start.

   You can not serve GOD AND MAMMON..for you will hate the one and despize the other. The love of money

is the root of  all evil.   Did he love money..or did he love Christ?

    Do I think he repented and had great sorrow at the magnitude of that fall? yes.  So much sorrow and pain

that he didn't want to live anymore..that he couldn't bear it.  Do I think Grace will be show to him?

yes....I beleive he represents the corrupt image in all men...to the selling your birthright for a bowl of stew

to eating from a tree that did not belong to you...to preaching a ministry for millions on tv..and conning

people.

Sheila, that was so beautiful!  Thank you.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[lastpost]

Re. apologetics concerning the discrepancies in 1 Samuel 31:4-6 and 2 Samuel 1:8-10 about the manner in which Saul died. I found this yesterday and I felt that it was not seeking the truth of the matter by looking at all angles...

Mr Bert Thompson, Ph.D. writes on a Christian apologetics website:

"It would not be unusual for a Bible writer to record a story that was told at the time as the truth when, in fact, it was a lie. Genesis 3:4, without comment on its false nature. The writer of 1 Kings 13 recorded the lie of the older prophet to the younger prophet (a lie that ultimately caused the younger prophet's death). John recorded Peter's three-fold lie when he denied being one of Christ's disciples (18:15-27)".

With respect to Mr. Thompson, such passages do not offer any evidence at all that the Amalekite is lying in 2 Samuel 1:10. Indeed, because such passages offered by Mr Thompson are verifiable in the Bible as being lies, the assumption that the Amalekite is lying in 2 Samuel 1:10 becomes even more groundless because there is no Biblical verification or slight indication that the Amalekite is lying. Each of the passages mentioned by Mr. Thompson has a Biblical reference that a lie was told whereas - and this is the whole point - there is no Biblical reference indicating a lie being told in 2 Samuel 1:10, not even the slightest hint of it.

The author states that a lie was told in Genesis 3:4...
"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die"...
...and that this is said "without a comment on its nature" (so says the author). However, on the contrary, the Bible states prior to this in verse 3:1 about the nature of the serpent...
"Now the serpent was more shrewd/crafty (aruwm => shrewd, crafty, sly, guileful) than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made".
This is more than a mere indication that the word of the serpent cannot be trusted. Furthermore, there are references to the devil being in the "beginning" (Genesis), which is strongly infers the serpent: In John 8:44, Jesus told the religionists of the day...
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it".
Further references strongly indicating that the serpent and the devil are either one and the same or closely allied are: II Corinthians 11:3, Ezekiel 28:15, I John 3:8, Ezekiel 28:13. All this would clearly indicate that the serpent in Genesis could not be trusted to tell the truth.

Next, we are told by the author that the lie in 1 Kings 13 "was told at the time as the truth when, in fact, it was a lie", and we are expected to accept this as proof that the Amalekite is lying in 2 Samuel 1:10. However, in 1 Kings 13:18, we read this...
"He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him".
In the very same verse as the lie, the lie itself is declared as a lie: "But he lied unto him". How does this in any way prove that the Amalekite is lying in 2 Samuel 1:10 when there is no Biblical clue or reference to the fact that the Amalekite is lying?

Next, we are referred to "Peter's three-fold lie when he denied being one of Christ's disciples", and we are expected to accept that this shows that the Amalekite is lying in 2 Samuel 1:10. Before Peter's denials, Christ Himself prophesised that Peter would deny Him three times (Mark 14:30, Matthew 26:34). So, not only did we know that Peter was one of Christ's disciples and therefore the fact that he lied is obvious, but also Christ Himself proclaims prior to Peter's denials to expect the denials! Peter's three lies (denials: John 13:38) were well known by the writer, John, and so it is hard to see how this episode can be claimed by the author as "a story that was told at the time as the truth when, in fact, it was a lie". Therefore, it is also difficult to see how this episode relates to someone else recorded in the Bible (the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1:10) as being a liar when there is no Biblical suggestion at all that he is a liar.

Mr Thompson then concludes his article stating, in order to prove that the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1:10 was not telling the truth:
"we know he was not [telling the truth] because elsewhere (e.g., 1 Samuel 31:4-5) the actual facts of the case are presented with great clarity".
Again, the whole point is evaded. There is no evidence to suppose that the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1:10 was not telling the truth, and there is no evidence to prove that the way Saul died in 1 Samuel 31:4-6 is the true method of his death. We see here...
"4 ...Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.
6 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together".
The Bible tells us that all of Saul's men died together that very day (v.6). If anything is shown in this passage, it is that anyone associated with Saul who could see the events clearly because they were in the midst of the affray, who could report back the truth about Saul's death, was in fact dead because they all died "together that very day". Therefore, if anything is to be deduced from 1 Samuel 31:4-6, it is that, during battle, those in close enough proximity to Saul to see his manner of death were also killed there and then, and there was no accurate eye-witness left to relate the manner of Saul's death. If this is the case, then the testimony of the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1:7-10 has a stronger likelihood of being true...
"7 And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I.
8 And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite.
9 He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me.
10 So I stood upon him, and slew him".
Samuel 1:14-16 states...
"14 And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord's anointed?
15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.
16 And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord's anointed".
These verses strongly indicate that David believes the Amalekite to be guilty of killing Saul. David asks the Amalekite...
"How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord's anointed?"
Why would David bother to ask the Amalekite why he was not afraid to stretch forth his hand to destroy the Lord's anointed, if David did not believe the Amalekite's report? There is no indication or even the slightest hint that David does not believe the Amalekite.

In summary, why does the Amalekite have to have been a liar? It could have been an Israelite who was mistaken (if not lying) and who was "on the other side of the valley" (1 Samuel 31:7) and who therefore could not see what was going on but assumed erroneously that he saw Saul fall on his sword. It could even have been David himself ordering the record of Saul's death to be changed because he wanted a more fitting end for "the Lord's anointed" (but the truth also getting out that the Amalekite killed Saul thus producing two versions). Or it could even have been the scribe or the one who ordered the scribe to write the record because he thought it a more fitting for "the Lord's anointed" to honourably kill himself than have a low Amalekite run him through. Or it could have been such a long time period before the event was written down that it altered through the years from its original and perhaps there became two versions due to lack of communication.

Whatever scenarios a person can come up with, there is no Biblical inference in any way or manner that the story of the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1 is not perfectly true and that the Amalekite was not telling the exact truth. If a person wants to convince himself that the Amalekite was lying about Saul's manner of death, it may become truth to himself but the reality is that the Amalekite could easily have been telling the truth.

[micah7:9]

Very good commentary, still we/I am not taking in to consideration of the mind of David, what was his mental state, he was a warrior and he felt or knew that Saul sought to kill him, and that Saul was the Lord's anointed.

It is true that Saul and all his army was slain and that no one saw Saul's demise. And this Amalikite maybe thought that killing Saul would cause David to reward him with something worthy(money/gold/silver), so the Amalikite thought to tell his story to gain recognition from David.
But in David's heart he loved Saul even tho Saul sought to kill him, and Saul was still the King and God's anointed so instead of being an acceptance and relief to David for killing Saul, David was angry that an Amalikite(non Israelite) had taken the Kings life, when David had a chance he said no, this is the Lord's anointed.

I don't know maybe I read to many Raymond Chandler novels. :Chinscratch: Great in put. :dsunny:

[ded2daworld]

It's still simple for me. God was an eyewitness to the whole thing.
So either the Bible was wrong in it's account or the amelikite was lying.
I'm siding with the bible no matter how many experts are called in to say the amelekite MAyBE told the truth, contradicted the
inspired word, and was rewarded for telling the truth with death. :Peace2:

[micah7:9]

There are two different stories, that's the Bible, not me, or anyone else.

"So either the Bible was wrong in it's account or the amelikite was lying."(Ded)

Now God, by His Spirit wrote the Bible, I agree, but He wrote two different accounts of one happening, and He included the Amelakite's story.
Now maybe I'm wrong but if you are siding with the Bible, the Bible gives two accounts. I'm just wondering why you have chosen 1 Sam. as the truth and 2 Sam. as the untruth? There are no witnesses to either one.

[ded2daworld]

Just because the bible quoted what the amelekite said doesn't mean the amelikite was telling the truth.
Based on reasoning the bible only quotes people when they speak the truth then Peter really didn't know Jesus when Jesus was about to be crucified.

[micah7:9]

"..... then Peter really didn't know Jesus when Jesus was about to be crucified."

Well, I don't really see Peter to "know" Jesus who was about to be crucified.

Luk 22:58  And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.
Luk 22:59  And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean.
Luk 22:60  And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
Luk 22:61  And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
Luk 22:62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

Luk 22:31  And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
Luk 22:32  But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
Before you were converted, did you know Jesus?

Peter had known Jesus so much that all he wants to do is go a fishing after the crucifiction.

No, I do not beleive Peter KNEW Jesus until Act 2:14  But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice,..." Now Peter knew Jesus the Christ.
But again this is just how it is understood to me.

[lastpost]

Matthew 4:

19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
20 And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.

Regardless of his name, when does a disciple of Jesus Christ become a disciple of Jesus Christ? Is it when a choice has been made to follow Him? Is it when he spends his days listening to Him and watching Him?

My opinion is this:
At first the followers of Christ watched Him and listened to Him in wonder - they had never heard anyone speak in such a wondrous manner before.
And as they listened to Him, so their awe for Him grew and grew.
And as their awe for Him grew, so their love for Him grew and grew.
The emanations of love from Jesus Christ reached far beyond His disciples. There were those amongst the priesthood who fought back that love but His followers loved Him like they had never loved before - they loved Him like they had never loved before! How they loved Him!
And through it all, during their time with Him, the question was in their minds: "Is it true? Is it all true!"

Besides, this in no manner gives an iota of credence to the conjecture that our friend the Amalekite was lying because the Bible does not hint that he was lying whereas the Bible clearly demonstrates that Peter was lying during His denial.

[ded2daworld]

So it is not an indication someone is lying if they contradict the biblical account?...
IMO...weird way to interpret.

[micah7:9]

So it is not an indication someone is lying if they contradict the biblical account?...
IMO...weird way to interpret.

I don't understand?

[lastpost]

Friend, I truly apologise if my probing and sifting causes offence. I have no intention of upsetting people because of the things I write. I have spent, I suppose, 35 years seeking truth and I question just about everything. Yes, I do have "radical" beliefs compared to most people in this forum but I share the basics: Belief in Jesus Christ the Saviour of all mankind, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit - and that through Jesus the Christ and His Holy Purpose, every child of God shall at some time receive an existence beyond any description of written or spoken human words as pre-ordained by the Father. I realise that if I voice my beliefs being "radical" that they may cause offence and so if that is the case then I heartily apologise because sometimes I feel the pain I cause to others, which perhaps is a "safety valve" for me. It is not for me to say what a person should believe - that is between them and God. Goodness, Lord forbid that I should interfere!

[micah7:9]

No offence here :dsunny:

[ded2daworld]

Okay, I guess I must point out what a careful reading of scripture reveals.
The amalekite said he talked to Saul before he died yet the armor bearer isn't mentioned and the armor bearer was actually there at the time of Saul's death.
AFTER the armor bearer saw that Saul was dead, the armor bearer then killed himself.
There is no mention of the amelikite and the armor bearer was there from the time Saul was wounded until he died.
The Amalekite said that he came upon Saul standing and leaning on his spear saying he was in the throes of death.
Saul (apparently still standing) asks the Amalekite to stand over him and kill him. Hard to stand over someone still standing - especially since "Saul was head and shoulders over every man"
Why didn't the Amalekite mention the armor bearer since the amalekite claims to have killed Sau?l The armor bearer certainly would have tried to stop the amalekite from killing Saul, but scripture says the armor bearer watched terrified as Saul died.
It seems obvious the amalekite came on the scene soon after Saul and the armor bearers death, took the jewls before the philistines came and cut off Sauls head.
I have no proof but I believe David knew Saul would have never asked an amalekite to kill him. The usual practice was to ask a trusted friend or relative if possible - as Saul did with the armor bearer.
David would not have killed the man if the amalekite had simply told the truth that he came upon the scene soon after the death of Saul. As it was, I suspect David knew the man was lying for he said, "by your own words have you been convicted." - before he had him killed.
Finally, there is no reason to believe the account of a non-believer over God's eyewitness inspired account. :Peace2:

[lastpost]

1 Samuel 31:4-6 and 2 Samuel 1:8-10

Thank you for your considered response ded2daworld, it is appreciated.

"Okay, I guess I must point out what a careful reading of scripture reveals. The amalekite said he talked to Saul before he died yet the armor bearer isn't mentioned and the armor bearer was actually there at the time of Saul's death."

My friend, you are mixing up two Scriptural accounts here, I understand what your opinion is but that does not make it true if there is no clear Biblical reference to "prove" it as true: You are choosing elements from 1 Samuel 31:4-6 and 2 Samuel 1:8-10. In 2 Samuel 1:8-10 there is no armourbearer mentioned. How do we know that armourbearer was not killed elsewhere or even in that spot on the battlefield while Saul was still alive but wounded? We do not know the armourbearer was not dead.

"Why didn't the Amalekite mention the armor bearer since the amalekite claims to have killed Sau?l"

Because the Scripture 2 Samuel 1 does not mention an armourbearer. The armourbearer could so easily have already been killed. It was the fiercest of battles. It is wishful thinking to conjecture on this account and not conjecture the account in 1 Samuel 31:4-6 which could have been brought about by a whole set of different scenarios. Nobody witnessed it and so that account could have been recorded in any one of a number of ways.

In reality, Saul falling on his own sword may never have even happened. It could simply be made up by David, a scribe or his masters for political reasons or reasons of morale (David cetainly didn't like the idea of the Amalekite taking Saul's life), a mistake of a band of Israelites who couldn't even see the faces of the people in battle, it could have been misreported or the story changed before it was written down and ended up being a second way that Saul died even though it never happened...the list of conjecture could go on and on, in the same way as conjecture about the Scripture in 2 Samuel 1. But none of it is provable by the Bible, only through wanting it to be true without the real facts to secure a certain outcome of conjecture as verifiable.

The armor bearer certainly would have tried to stop the amalekite from killing Saul, but scripture says the armor bearer watched terrified as Saul died."

Yes, the Scripture 1 Samuel 31 says the armourbearer watched terrified as Saul died, but you are reading about the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1.

Just because Saul was still alive it does not mean his armourbearer was alive too. There was a lot of death in those hours. Certainly in 1 Samuel 31:4-6 the armourbearer is there but this is a different account.

"Saul (apparently still standing) asks the Amalekite to stand over him and kill him. Hard to stand over someone still standing"

Yes friend, when the Amalekite saw Saul, he was leaning on a spear but that does not mean that Saul was standing up. Saul could easily have been severely wounded on the ground but propping himself up with his spear in the ground and him grasping his arm around it using his spear to take the weight of his upper body.

Even if Saul was half-standing and leaning on his spear, he wanted desperately to be slayed because "agony (shabats) had come upon" him (v.9) but his "life is yet whole" in him. Saul wanted to die. How easy was it for Saul to simply slide down so that the Amalekite could place a foot on him and slay him. Saul was in agony, saw the Amalekite, wanted to die and had the thought that he could slip to the ground and be released from his agony and so asked the Amalekite to help him die.

"David would not have killed the man if the amalekite had simply told the truth that he came upon the scene soon after the death of Saul. As it was, I suspect David knew the man was lying for he said, "by your own words have you been convicted." - before he had him killed."

"14 And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD'S anointed?
15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.
16 And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD'S anointed."

Friend, I do not see any reason to change the meaning of what is written in this Scripture and to add to it something that it does not say. David is aghast that the Amalekite could have the nerve to "destroy the LORD'S anointed" and therefore passed judgement on him that he should die because in his admission of taking Saul's life: "by your own words have you been convicted", he had voiced the unthinkable to David: "I have slain the LORD'S anointed", and as far as David is concerned, nobody can "I have slain the LORD'S anointed" without losing his life.

"Finally, there is no reason to believe the account of a non-believer over God's eyewitness inspired account."

But you are assuming that 1 Samuel 31 is "God's eyewitness inspired account" and that 2 Samuel 1 is not "God's eyewitness inspired account". It is simply your choice. But it doesn't mean 2 Samuel 1 is not "God's eyewitness inspired account".
Scripture tells us that there are no "believer" eyewitnesses left alive to explain Saul's suicide in 1 Samuel 31 so that account is no more likely to be true than 2 Samuel 1.

I certainly understand why you think what you do concerning this issue. I believe that God inspired all Scripture but I also believe that He has chosen to use humans to play a part in His Holy Purpose and that includes inspired opinions and keeping spoken historical records until such a time as they could be written down. As such I consider it quite possible that God has allowed these records to be saved as open to conjecture until a future time and for a reason of His own. It is not a problem to me. Peace.

[micah7:9]

That, lastpost, was a wonderful post. :Peace2: I am going to re read there is so much there, and especially the last paragraph for me anyway. :dsunny:

[ded2daworld]

Lastpost said, "The armourbearer could so easily have already been killed. It was the fiercest of battles."
The scripture was clear that the armor bearer killed himself the same way Saul did after making sure that Saul was already dead.
I guess my wonderment is that to me the scripture is plain and for some reason people would rather believe a liar over God's account.
Yes the amalekite account is also recorded in God's word but since it conflicts with the plain account previously so I wonder why the amalekites restimony would be taken as truth. :Peace2:

[redhotmagma]

Ded, the problem is there is nothing plainly stating that the Amalekite is lying.  So if you're looking for a plain explanation its not there.  You are making an inference, which may be correct, I don't know, but its not there in scripture.  Its not like one is an allegory and the other is a surface meaning.  They are both historical accounts, given as factual with nothing else to distinguiish them as true or false.  Also labeling the Amalekite as an unbeliever is a guess, and especially compared to Saul, who if he were living in this age, would probably not be called a believer.  The Amalekite may have been a proselyte.  We don't know, it doesn't say, but there were many foreigners in the service of David, and I would assume Saul.  And many that followed Yah, but they were still called what their nationality was. 

So IMO what we are left with is conflicting stories, with no way to verify which is correct. 

[redhotmagma]

Some other conflicting stories:

Acts 9:7  The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one.

Acts 22:9  Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
----------------------------------------------
Exo 6:3  I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name 'The LORD' I did not make myself known to them.

Gen 24:12  And he said, "O LORD, God of my master Abraham, please grant me success today and show steadfast love to my
master Abraham.

Now there may be explanations for these seeming contradictions (or they are just paradox).  But from the text itself there is none.  We can make inferences, like Moses or
Ezra went back and inserted YHWH into time of Abraham, or Exo 6:3 means something besides they didn't actually know that name at all.  I don't know.  But what I see is that the bible is not a book written from a modern scientific/historic perspective.  They had different ideas of recording truth, and documentation than we do now, and to impose our 20th century scientific mind on a culture that we know so very little about (if you look, we really don't know what a vast majority of the Hebrew words mean, we have educated guesses) is going to lead to a dead end.

When Paul wrote, "the letter kills but the spirit gives life" I believe it was given especially for us in this day and age, who are 3500 years removed from an all but completely lost culture.  We want this systematic neat and clean Bible, but I don't think thats the case.  And I think thats by Gods design. 

All scripture is God breathed.  Is it perfect??

Lets look at another example of God breathed.

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

Was Adam perfect??  Some say yes.  But if that was the case then he wouldn't have sinned. 

If God can work through an imperfect, God breathed creature, down through the centuries, then He can work through an imperfect but nonetheless inspired collection of books. 

Its Gods MO to work through the messy.  Does this demean the scriptures?  I'm sure it does to some.  I can just feel the heat of torches and hear the clang of pitchforks.  But IMO, this lifts up the scripture into reality, and we don't have to idolize it, but see that it is given to show the way to Jesus Christ, but is not Him. 

:2c: :Peace2:

[sheila]

1 Samuel 31......it was the next day that the Philistines came to strip the dead aand found Saul and cut off his

  head. I think the Amalekite was a robber that was pillaging dead bodies...and sought some favour and renown

for himself..taking the crown from Saul's dead body and running to David with it.

    I think he didn't want to reveal he was a pillager of the dead bodies[theif] [I just happened to be there]

     I think  he did it under cover of night..before the next day when the Philistines came to strip the dead..
 
   and I think the spirit of the liar and theif ws in him tht claimed to kill the Lord's annointed/Saul.

          my deductions only





   

[micah7:9]

Some other conflicting stories:

Acts 9:7  The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one.

Acts 22:9  Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
----------------------------------------------
Exo 6:3  I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name 'The LORD' I did not make myself known to them.

Gen 24:12  And he said, "O LORD, God of my master Abraham, please grant me success today and show steadfast love to my
master Abraham.

Now there may be explanations for these seeming contradictions (or they are just paradox).  But from the text itself there is none.  We can make inferences, like Moses or
Ezra went back and inserted YHWH into time of Abraham, or Exo 6:3 means something besides they didn't actually know that name at all.  I don't know.  But what I see is that the bible is not a book written from a modern scientific/historic perspective.  They had different ideas of recording truth, and documentation than we do now, and to impose our 20th century scientific mind on a culture that we know so very little about (if you look, we really don't know what a vast majority of the Hebrew words mean, we have educated guesses) is going to lead to a dead end.

When Paul wrote, "the letter kills but the spirit gives life" I believe it was given especially for us in this day and age, who are 3500 years removed from an all but completely lost culture.  We want this systematic neat and clean Bible, but I don't think thats the case.  And I think thats by Gods design. 

All scripture is God breathed.  Is it perfect??

Lets look at another example of God breathed.

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

Was Adam perfect??  Some say yes.  But if that was the case then he wouldn't have sinned. 

If God can work through an imperfect, God breathed creature, down through the centuries, then He can work through an imperfect but nonetheless inspired collection of books. 

Its Gods MO to work through the messy.  Does this demean the scriptures?  I'm sure it does to some.  I can just feel the heat of torches and hear the clang of pitchforks.  But IMO, this lifts up the scripture into reality, and we don't have to idolize it, but see that it is given to show the way to Jesus Christ, but is not Him. 

:2c: :Peace2:

Very good word. Thank you.

[sheila]

no torch here...the ark  WORD[of the testimony] had coverings/veils.....seals...and only Jesus Christ was worthy to

  open/reveal them.   Same with the scriptures...it is by the Holy spirit we understand what 'it is written"

  or 'you have heard it is said,but I say" in the scriptures.

      I had my ethiopian enuch expierence a long time ago...then a 'Phillip" was sent by the Holy spirit

   

[ded2daworld]

All I'm saying is the amalekite testimony was Totally different than previously stated. The armor bearer saw Saul die by throwing himself on his sword. Saul had the crown and jewels when he died - the amalekite HAD to have taken the crown and jewels after Saul had died. ...AND after the armor bearer had died. The amalekite only knew that Saul had died with his crown intact. Even in the margins(not part of the word of God) it says "Saul kills himself"
Bible interpretation also has a rule that what comes first takes precedence over what follows if there is a conflict.
One of the members said there was no eyewitness in Sam 31 but God inspires the scripture and he certainly knows what happened. It makes me wonder how someone can give such weight to a persons words over what God said. "Then Saul fell on his sword" When the armorbearer saw that Saul was dead HE TOO(also) fell on his own sword (inlike manner to Saul)

[rosered]

Again my old friend WW says


The answer is simple. Wrong translation.
Both Acts verses translate "hear" from teh Greek word ἀκούω which has 2 meanings.
a] Hear
b] Understand

Regarding the Exo and Gen verses I see no (semingly) contradiction at all.

[sheila]

right..and we often sy 'see?" when we spek and want to know if they 'understand" or 'hear" what we say

with understanding.

[ded2daworld]

Another solution to hearing.

I mumble something unintelligible somewhat loudly.
Someone else says to me, "What did you say? I didn't hear you."

They DID hear me - they just didn't understand me.