I am at present reading 1st(finished) and 2 Samuel(started) and maybe I am miss reading or I do not understand what I am reading, so hopefully I will be enlightened by others. I have read this many times and years ago I had wondered, so I am bringing it up before you my friends in Christ.
I read in 1st Samuel, "Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.
So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together."
And then I read in 2nd Samuel, "And David said unto him, From whence comest thou? And he said unto him, Out of the camp of Israel am I escaped. "
"And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead? "
"Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him.
And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I.
And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite.
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.
So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord."
"And David said unto the young man that told him, Whence art thou? And he answered, I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite.
And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD'S anointed?
And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.
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. "
If chapter one " "Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it." "And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him."
"So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together."
Then in chapter 2, "And David said unto him, From whence comest thou? And he said unto him, Out of the camp of Israel am I escaped."
" How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead? " " So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord."
"And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.
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. "
So, chapter one seems to say that Saul killed himself and in Chapter two it was an Amalekite, who had escaped that killed Saul. What am I understanding wrong? Or what am I reading wrong?
:HeartThrob: :dsunny:
Upon reading these accounts, I don't believe they are necessarily in conflict. The first account is rather vague in comparison to the second account. I the first account, it simply says that Saul fell upon his sword. In the second account it says he did the same with a little help from the Amalekite. It seems to me that the first account simply did not include that detail. Then after that the others found him dead and killed themselves also. Saul's death was by assisted suicide. :2c:
When the bible states how things happened - it's the truth. When the bible states what someone has said - that is also the truth. However, when the bible quotes a man accurately, it doesn't mean the person was telling the truth. The amelikite was lying. He thought that because David was against Saul that he would get a reward for bringing the stuff back AND for killing Saul. David didn't know the man was lying. If the man had told the truth he would have indeed been rewarded for returning the items. As it was, the man basically confessed to murder since it was not up to him to decide whether to kill Saul even if Saul would die anyway. The amalekite assumed David would have wanted helpless Saul to be slaughtered. He didn't know that David had Saul helpless in the cave when Saul was relieving himself and didn't kill him then when he had the chance.
Boiled down, the Amelikite would have been rewarded if he had told the truth, he came upon the dead Saul shortly afterward.
Instead, he was punished for his lie which was basically bragging he had taken care of David's enemy for him.
Thank you Ded!!! :banana: :dsunny: I certainly believe the adage, "the forest for the trees." I know it is not a biblical adage, but when what you revealed was in plain site and I had not seen it for at least 30 years, I had a lot of forest in front of me. Praise the Lord.
Gee I hope I am not the only one who didn't see that :sigh: :doh:
Upon what scriptural evidence do you say he was lying?
Quote from: jbertonbounds on July 02, 2013, 07:20:45 PM
Upon what scriptural evidence do you say he was lying?
Thanks.....I'm back standing outside in front of a bunch of trees! :sigh: :dsunny:
This has interested me too for anumber of years.
Two different and contrary versions are given of Saul's death, one in 1 Samuel 31:4-6 and another in 2 Samuel 1:8-10. The first version of Saul's death has Saul taking his own sword by himself and willingly falling on it because his armour bearer would not run him through (suicide): "Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. " (1 Samuel 31:4).
The second Biblical version has Saul run through and killed by a sword held in the hand of an Amalekite: "behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I. And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. 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. So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen" (2 Samuel 1:10).
Which version is true is a matter for discussion. There is no further mention of the Amalekite's claim in the Bible, no denial of its authenticity or otherwise, and it has equal credence as that written in the first version in 1 Samuel 31:4-6.
Attempting to justify this obvious discrepancy by claiming that the Amalekite's story was made up would just be wishful thinking because there is simply no Biblical hint of this - one cannot change the truth in the Bible to suit a preferred theological opinion if one claims it is perfect truth. There is just as strong a case that the first version is incorrect - both versions are reported in similar fashion with no reference to point to which is correct or incorrect.
Furthermore, why should it be assumed that the second version of Saul's death, the Amalekite's version (2 Samuel 1:10) is the one that is erroneous? Surely the original narrator or scribe of the first version (1 Samuel 31:4) could just as easily have been inventing his version of Saul's death for his own reasons, perhaps to save the morale of the Israelite nation as a whole. However, if we are going to be even moderately honest with ourselves, we have to admit that if an Amalekite could lie, so could an Israelite!
If we are going to remain consistent in our proclamation: "If it says it in the Bible then it is true", then we cannot justifiably claim that the Amalekite was lying out of vanity or for whatever reason. If we now wish to decide that statements spoken by people in the Bible are lies - without any reference at all to the fact that they are lies - then surely every statement made by someone in the Bible must have the same criteria applied?
We cannot have it both ways: we cannot change something to suit our preferred stance, we cannot justifiably apply an unquestioning literalism to some things and then dismiss other things as error to suit, and perhaps claim it as Divinely inspired. Furthermore, this type of arbitrary "interpretation" must also be expanded to all statements in the Bible.
In this context, there are certain possibilities that could exist. Either:
A) The first version of Saul's death (1 Samuel 31:4) was true and:
(i) The Amalekite had fabricated his version of Saul's death (2 Samuel 1:10) for his own reasons;
(ii) Or the scribe who wrote about the Amalekite's version (2 Samuel 1:10) was writing about something that was invented either by himself or by his colleagues for their own reasons;
(iii) Or it was an account which had become changed from the original event through word-of-mouth corruption;
B) The first version of Saul's death (1 Samuel 31:4) was fabricated and:
(i) It was invented either by someone in the Israelite army or by the Levite priesthood because they did not like the fact that Saul was killed by an Amalekite, or it was fabricated for some other reason(s);
(ii) Or it was an account which had become changed from the original event through word-of-mouth corruption;
C) Both stories were held as fact by different factions within the Israelite nation and:
(i) There was never agreement on which version was true and so both were recorded;
(ii) One scribe did not know what the other had written;
D) Neither account was true (which we will never accept of course but it is an option)
However, among this uncertainty one thing is definitely irrefutable and rigidly incontrovertible: both accounts cannot be true because Saul of the Old Testament could only die once and by only one method!
One version must be false, or if such a different account of death is considered "not very clear" then we can also apply this method of deduction to just about any complete sentence or paragraph. Yet the Bible does not even remotely declare that either passage contains an untruth.
This is a good question , Just like the death of Judas two accounts and both different
Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
there is another place that also baffles me , in what way its written both say different ?
2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
Thanks lastpost, you have brought forth no ease to my query? But you have offered much as to why the Lord God recorded put forth His Word.
We must remember that 1Co 14:33 For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace, as He is in all the Churches of His people. (WNT)
So as I posted this thread and gave an applaud to the response of Ded and felt a relief to my question and then jbertonbounds, threw a wrench into my wheel, and you lastpost come along and grow more trees and put your foot in a clear pond and disturbed the entire thing. God bless you friend! :dsunny:
Quote from: rosered on July 03, 2013, 02:36:39 AM
This is a good question , Just like the death of Judas two accounts and both different
there is another place that also baffles me , in what way its written both say different ?
2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
I don't remember where I read something about 1 Chron.21:1 but it was something about a mistranslation of the word satan. I must now go and scramble or unscramble where I found or left it. :sigh: Thanks, and I am sincere.
Quote from: jbertonbounds on July 02, 2013, 07:20:45 PM
Upon what scriptural evidence do you say he was lying?
To answer the question, he was an Amalekite - 'nuff said. I think Ded hit the nail on the head, as I was going to take the same tack if no one else had.
jut saw this for the first time....Rose...re Judas...... burst asunder in the midst...reminded me of
Jesus sying..'you don't put new wine in old wineskins lest they bursst...and also this....'Have I not chosen
you twelve,yet one of you is a devil/liar?....thus Judas as the representative of the son of perdition.....
represent an unregenerate...old man..not born again from above of truth...thus let God alone be found true
all men are liars..etc. anyone else 'see it"?
Quote from: sheila on July 03, 2013, 03:43:14 AM
jut saw this for the first time....Rose...re Judas...... burst asunder in the midst...reminded me of
Jesus sying..'you don't put new wine in old wineskins lest they bursst...and also this....'Have I not chosen
you twelve,yet one of you is a devil/liar?....thus Judas as the representative of the son of perdition.....
represent an unregenerate...old man..not born again from above of truth...thus let God alone be found true
all men are liars..etc. anyone else 'see it"?
What?
Quote from: sheila on July 03, 2013, 03:43:14 AM
jut saw this for the first time....Rose...re Judas...... burst asunder in the midst...reminded me of
Jesus sying..'you don't put new wine in old wineskins lest they bursst...and also this....'Have I not chosen
you twelve,yet one of you is a devil/liar?....thus Judas as the representative of the son of perdition.....
represent an unregenerate...old man..not born again from above of truth...thus let God alone be found true
all men are liars..etc. anyone else 'see it"?
I understand what you are saying :thumbsup:
Judas was not made a vessel for the new wine , the Lords work
, he went to a desolate place , field of blood Men [and] brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Act 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place
Quote from: micah7:9 on July 03, 2013, 02:44:03 AM
Quote from: rosered on July 03, 2013, 02:36:39 AM
This is a good question , Just like the death of Judas two accounts and both different
there is another place that also baffles me , in what way its written both say different ?
2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
I don't remember where I read something about 1 Chron.21:1 but it was something about a mistranslation of the word satan. I must now go and scramble or unscramble where I found or left it. :sigh: Thanks, and I am sincere.
Hi Micah ,
I looked in several places and saw where the Lord in His anger , may have allowed satan to move David
just one notion the best of several others I did not bother to write here because the others just dont make sense :sigh:
Quote from: sheila on July 03, 2013, 03:43:14 AM
jut saw this for the first time....Rose...re Judas...... burst asunder in the midst...reminded me of
Jesus sying..'you don't put new wine in old wineskins lest they bursst...and also this....'Have I not chosen
you twelve,yet one of you is a devil/liar?....thus Judas as the representative of the son of perdition.....
represent an unregenerate...old man..not born again from above of truth...thus let God alone be found true
all men are liars..etc. anyone else 'see it"?
I find what you wrote confusing, would you explain how Judas who was chosen not a useful vessel to be used for the work of the Father"
Joh 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord;
neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. Joh 13:17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.
Joh 13:18 I speak not of you all:
I know whom I have chosen:
but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
Joh 13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.
Joh 13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. [/u]
Joh 13:26 Jesus answered,
He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
Joh 13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him.
Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. I see no disobedience in the act of Judas.
Now Micah I did not say he was of no use for Gods will , I just said that Judas would NOT be used to to spread the good news of the gospel ,[ no new wine for Judas ?) and that is true , , you cannot put old wine in new vessels , they burst
See how misunderstandings start ?
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
Quote from: rosered on July 03, 2013, 04:33:13 AM
Now Micah I did not say he was of no use for Gods will , I just said that Judas would NOT be used to to spread the good news of the gospel ,[ no new wine for Judas ?) and that is true , , you cannot put old wine in new vessels , they burst
See how misunderstandings start ?
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
I will say yes , but add that without Judas and his obedience, there would be no good news. Does that make Judas not a useful vessel for his use? I'm not trying to cause contention, but all things and persons are useful for His purpose and plan. Judas was very important in His plan and purpose.
Anyway, my opening post was about the dying/killing of Saul, how did it get here?
1SA 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword.
1 Samuel 31:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. 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.
2SA 1:2-10 Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.
2 Samuel 1:2-10
King James Version (KJV)
2 It came even to pass on the third day, that, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head: and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth, and did obeisance.
3 And David said unto him, From whence comest thou? And he said unto him, Out of the camp of Israel am I escaped.
4 And David said unto him, How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me. And he answered, That the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.
5 And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead?
6 And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him.
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, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.
2SA 21:12 Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
2 Samuel 21:12
King James Version (KJV)
12 And David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabeshgilead, which had stolen them from the street of Bethshan, where the Philistines had hanged them, when the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa:
1CH 10:13-14 Saul was slain by God.
1 Chronicles 10:13-14
King James Version (KJV)
13 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;
14 And enquired not of the Lord: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.
Can these verses all be saying the same things ?
Saul lived by the Sword and died by the Sword [Spirit and Word of God ] ?
by his own hand /power of poor choices
and the hand / power of another he was hurt and going to die slowly and surly ,
but asked for help to be taken quickly
and the Lord' s Judgment ??
Than could these be saying the same things
Quote from: micah7:9 on July 03, 2013, 04:42:54 AM
Quote from: rosered on July 03, 2013, 04:33:13 AM
Now Micah I did not say he was of no use for Gods will , I just said that Judas would NOT be used to to spread the good news of the gospel ,[ no new wine for Judas ?) and that is true , , you cannot put old wine in new vessels , they burst
See how misunderstandings start ?
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
I will say yes , but add that without Judas and his obedience, there would be no good news. Does that make Judas not a useful vessel for his use? I'm not trying to cause contention, but all things and persons are useful for His purpose and plan. Judas was very important in His plan and purpose.
Anyway, my opening post was about the dying/killing of Saul, how did it get here?
Oh dear,,,, Micha , so sorry , Saying it started with more discrepancies of the Bible ?
Yes we see where when satan fills the hearts or enters them , they all die , Judas , Ananias, with Sapphira only 3 prime examples of sure death
Luk 22:3 Then
entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath
Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land?
I can only share what comforts me Micah , I only hope anything I say would be considered
nothing more as we all share the things of God
I sure dont have any clues to many of the mysteries of God , only share in part with others in part , God bless :HeartThrob:
I tried to get back on track :dunno2:
.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.
I agree Shelia ,
But this is the death realm , all die in Adam .
none exempt from that
of the powers that be .
the hands of another , self , sickness old age. all die
If we are already dead to the world , than we are already Alive to Christ
But in Christ all shall be made alive :girlheart:
:Peace2:
Dear Micah, your honesty [ps. and sincerity] is refreshing, thank you, may I return the joyous symbol of the smiling sun...
:dsunny:
Ephesians 4:1-16
:HeartThrob:Thank you my friend in Christ, we are all in His Grace and His Faith :dsunny:
Quote from: sheila on July 03, 2013, 05:48:10 AM
.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:
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
"..... 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.
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.
So it is not an indication someone is lying if they contradict the biblical account?...
IMO...weird way to interpret.
Quote from: ded2daworld on July 04, 2013, 07:11:03 PM
So it is not an indication someone is lying if they contradict the biblical account?...
IMO...weird way to interpret.
I don't understand?
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!
No offence here :dsunny:
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:
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.
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:
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:
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.
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:
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
Quote from: redhotmagma on July 05, 2013, 05:19:31 PM
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.
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
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)
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.
right..and we often sy 'see?" when we spek and want to know if they 'understand" or 'hear" what we say
with understanding.
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.
Quote from: redhotmagma on July 05, 2013, 05:19:31 PM
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.
Exous 6:3 is a translation issue. The name in Exodus 6:3 is "sadday bael" as opposed to Yahweh. In this instance I believ God is speaking of revealing a certain aspect of His divine nature and eternal power that He had not previously revealed.
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:
Quote from: ded2daworld on July 05, 2013, 07:52:52 PM
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)
I just found this as I was reading, 2Sa 21:12 And David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabeshgilead, which had stolen them from the street of Bethshan, where the Philistines had hanged them,
when the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa:
Just mentioning it cause I just read it.
I know of no such law of Biblical interpretation.
The only law I know is that the spirit gives life, the letter kills.
Miniscule differences in narratives reflect the perspectives of the various narrators. Saul was slain by the Philistines. He killed himself because he was mortally wounded and in incredible pain from the wound, but the mortal wound was received from the Philistines. The rest is narrative perspective, jots and tittles.Large events recounted in few words leave much to interpret- and know possibility for absolute resolution- and I like it that way. i think God leaves the specks for people with logs in their eyes to stumble over. IMO, the perfection of the scriptures is by the Spirit- not by the letter.
Sounds reasonable, I just thought that when I opened the post there were two stories of Saul's death and I went on through the book(as one does) and found the Philistines doing the job.
And I am only throwing this in because it just comes out to 3 different explanations. And the number 3 we are told, is always a significant number. I am not trying to say nothing of it, it just fell in there. :dsunny:
eaglesway wrote: "IMO, the perfection of the scriptures is by the Spirit- not by the letter."
Which would include IMO any hope of trying to determine the true message through the words conveyed.
I state this both humbly and forthright. For the Spirit clears a path of understanding that is not intellectual; it is more than an understanding and much more than a feeling. Rather, it is more like a profound peace devoid of anything but love. A state of being. :HeartThrob:
Love Julie
Quote from: eaglesway on August 03, 2013, 11:45:42 PM
I know of no such law of Biblical interpretation.
The only law I know is that the spirit gives life, the letter kills.
Miniscule differences in narratives reflect the perspectives of the various narrators. Saul was slain by the Philistines. He killed himself because he was mortally wounded and in incredible pain from the wound, but the mortal wound was received from the Philistines. The rest is narrative perspective, jots and tittles.Large events recounted in few words leave much to interpret- and know possibility for absolute resolution- and I like it that way. i think God leaves the specks for people with logs in their eyes to stumble over. IMO, the perfection of the scriptures is by the Spirit- not by the letter.
"
Miniscule differences in narratives
reflect the perspectives of the various narrators."So then.....2 Tim. 3:16 does not mean what it says? I'm just thinking here, that's all.
And narratives just reflect perspectives?
And the miniscule things are not to be considered as important?
2Ti 3:16 every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that is in righteousness,(YLT)
2Ti 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.(KJV)
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 04, 2013, 12:45:12 AM
"Miniscule differences in narratives reflect the perspectives of the various narrators."
So then.....2 Tim. 3:16 does not mean what it says? I'm just thinking here, that's all.
And narratives just reflect perspectives?
And the miniscule things are not to be considered as important?
2Ti 3:16 every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that is in righteousness,(YLT)
2Ti 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.(KJV)
This is wonderful Spirit led discussion, so for want of comparing words to words and not losing the love of the Spirit, let's just consider how the word "HELL" has totally changed meaning. In fact it has made a complete abomination of Fathers Holy Word. Jesus said he would gather all to him. Paul said that Jesus would save ALL especially those that believed.
We are here, a scant few lead by the Spirit of Love knowing that what is taught in 1000's if not millions of churches every week is incomprehensible in the presense of even human love, let alone PERFECT LOVE. :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
So to your point, I would argue that Scriptures have been used greatly to DISPROVE the LOVE of Father. In fact by the will of Father himself, two people can read the same Scripture and come to polar opposite conclusions. :dontknow:
But we need not be suprised as Paul knew this time would come and it likely started while he was still alive or soon after.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
:HeartThrob: We just cannot know what the true meaning of words of that long ago. The word "gay" comes to mind. Now how did that happen in such a short time??? :sigh:
Pro 3:5 Trust in The Lord your God with all your heart and lean not on "our" understanding. :HeartThrob:
Gosh, I hope this does not come off harsh. :friendstu: Please forgive me if so. :HeartThrob:
It is not my intention to degrade the Scriptures, but rather give credence to the Spirit of discernment and all truth, for without it. Look what happened.
Love Julie :girlheart:
I'm sorry I missed something. :dontknow: I do that sometimes :(
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 04, 2013, 05:25:07 AM
I'm sorry I missed something. :dontknow: I do that sometimes :(
:HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :friendstu: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: Julie with :footmouth: I'm so sorry :crywipe:
How Laz sees it:
We've done three pages, and found three versions of events.
1. Saul was killed by the Philistines. That only means that he was killed/died in action against the Philistines. This version contains no details to give it credence. The Philistines simply recovered his already-dead body.
2. Saul was killed by an Amalekite, who just happened to wander by. Looks to me like this man was a liar trying to curry favor with David, not knowing that David reverenced Saul.
3. Saul fell on his sword. This version comes first, the details jibe, and since no witnesses survived to tell the tale, it must have been inspired by God, not related by a liar, or summed up by a vague, generalized phrase.
Micah, I think scripture is true even if we sometimes aren't told the whole story or get what seems to be conflicting accounts. I can see how the first account of Saul's death seems to conflict with the second only if we assume that the Amalekite was telling the truth. So I'm inclined to agree with Ded, but I understand what Lastpost is saying.
Likewise, Rosered, the stories of the death of Judas can seem to be conflicting just because we're not told the whole story. I've thought about that, and I think just because "falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out," that doesn't necessarily mean that's how he died. He could have hanged himself from a high tree maybe even on the edge of a cliff and died, but then the branch snapped or the rope broke and his body dropped to the ground. Just because we're not told the whole story doesn't mean the rest of it is false. It's a mystery. I think comparing translations can shine some light on the stories about the "adversary" and David. The word "adversary" does not necessarily always apply to Satan even though Satan means "Adversary." I attached a couple of screenshots for you Micah regarding 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1.
Amen to Sheila. We're all sinners. Judas may not be saved for eonian life, but Christ reconciles all those on the earth and those in the heavens. Judas will be saved from death as will all because scripture says all will be vivified, and God will be all in all.
Where's Columbo or Sherlock Holmes when we need them? There are mysteries in scripture that hopefully someday we'll understand. We're all just speculating on what is not written. Witness accounts are always according to the perspective of the witness, and even eyewitness accounts can differ. I understand the attempt to try to solve the mysteries, but I think we need to make sure we don't start to doubt the word of God in the process. I think Satan is rolling on the floor laughing out loud about all this. Personally I'm not going to waste what brain power I have left trying to come up with answers based on speculation that can't be verified. It's a mystery for a reason even if I don't understand what that reason is. I can live with that, and let it go to meditate on other things that are clear and edifying. That's just my opinion folks, but let me know if you find the answer somewhere else in scripture. I don't how you'd be convinced it was the answer though. It would just be another version of events in the mystery, right?
"For at present we are observing by means of a mirror, in an enigma, yet then, face to face" (1 Corinthians 13:12).
[attachment deleted by admin]
To be clear, my questioned post was nothing more than a query into how did Saul die. I find and accept what Laz has but forth, that seems to be all we know. Whether there is a "liar" involved, again we don't know and unless the Lord reveals what and how it happened the answer is up for grabs. But accusing the Amalekite to be a liar is only an assumption. There maybe something there and there be nothing at all, the author's of both Samuel and Kings, from what I gather are both unknown, so there is no one to consider as to how Saul died. All we know is that Saul died. :HeartThrob: :dsunny:
well...when Eve hd heard twoo different presentations of what the 'word of God" was to her..she had to make a
choice of who to beleive. And the same occurred with Jesus in the temptations in the wilderness...when
satan come 'quoting' the word of God.
just sayin....something for us all to consider...... :HeartThrob:
When did this happen? "....well...when Eve hd heard twoo different presentations ..."
Now that would be a pretty good discussion, Gen 2:16 And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man...
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man....
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Just sayin..... :HeartThrob:
Quote from: sheila on August 05, 2013, 03:39:52 AM
well...when Eve hd heard twoo different presentations of what the 'word of God" was to her..she had to make a
choice of who to beleive. And the same occurred with Jesus in the temptations in the wilderness...when
satan come 'quoting' the word of God.
just sayin....something for us all to consider...... :HeartThrob:
The serpent lied to Eve, and poor Eve fell for it. That lie was the beginning of the false doctrine of the immortality of the soul that became Plato's philosophy that was adopted by the church. That's how the church cons folks into thinking they'll be tortured alive forever in fire.
"But the serpent said to the woman: Not to die shall you be dying" (Genesis 3:4).
Satan misused scripture to try to con Christ, but he didn't fall for it. He just kept coming back with the sword of the spirit, the word of God, until Satan gave up and left him alone (Matthew 4:1-11).
The woman "fell" for it? The woman was made spiritually weak, just as Adam was. And the Lord God made them that way. The woman SAW Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, ... Yes, part of The Plan.
What the woman saw, made her eat, "..the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise(H7919 to be (causeatively make or act) circumspect and hence intelligent:),...." and becoming just like everyone of us until we are found. Yes, this is just my opinion.******and this has to do with Saul?
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 05, 2013, 06:21:27 AM
The woman "fell" for it? The woman was made spiritually weak, just as Adam was. And the Lord God made them that way. The woman SAW Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, ... Yes, part of The Plan.
What the woman saw, made her eat, "..the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise(H7919 to be (causeatively make or act) circumspect and hence intelligent:),...." and becoming just like everyone of us until we are found. Yes, this is just my opinion.******and this has to do with Saul?
I was simply replying to a posted comparison account in scripture. Eve believed Satan's lie that she wouldn't die even though the Lord said she would. I believe "out of Him and through Him and for Him is all" (Romans 11:36). So I don't believe in free will. Regarding: "and this has to do with Saul?" I didn't intend to hijack your thread when I replied to Sheila or Anna. I apologize for the distraction. I'd forgotten about the story of Saul's death, but I remembered the different accounts of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus and the death of Judas. I think all scripture is subject to interpretation because it comes through imperfect human vessels, and everybody has a different perspective. I think it is simply a matter of faith to believe scripture at all. Atheists think it is just a myth like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I think that's because they haven't been given faith. I know some folks say scripture text is without error, but then there are these stories that don't seem to harmonize. And that's not even taking into account the matter of incorrect translation let alone mistakes in copying the manuscripts due to human error or intentional changes due to intimidation by the church to conform to church doctrine. I think it's like anything where there are different accounts that don't exactly match each other. Somewhere in all those accounts there is a true story about what really happened, but we may not know what that is. I don't know how Saul died. I only think Saul lived and died because I believe scripture even though there are parts of it that are a mystery. How do you think Saul died after all this discussion?
Gotcha! Very good words, and posts get hijacked in the blink of an eye :)
But I must make note, you stated, "....just a myth like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny."
It that true about santa clause and the easter bunny just being a myth? :umnick: :btantrum: :laugh:
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 05, 2013, 04:37:57 PM
Gotcha! Very good words, and posts get hijacked in the blink of an eye :)
But I must make note, you stated, "....just a myth like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny."
It that true about santa clause and the easter bunny just being a myth? :umnick: :btantrum: :laugh:
I'm sorry if I was the one to break it to you, but the sad truth is yes.
:doh:
QuoteThis objection neglects the nature of the word used for "slain". It is nakah, an all-purpose word that can mean to strike, beat, wound, kill, and so on. It's obviously being used here is a primarily figurative sense of "defeat" in battle (as in, one football team "beat" the other one)
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sauldead.html
About Judas: "This man" isn't Judas but the person who bought the field. (gutting was done to traitors)
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 14, 2013, 10:44:27 AM
QuoteThis objection neglects the nature of the word used for "slain". It is nakah, an all-purpose word that can mean to strike, beat, wound, kill, and so on. It's obviously being used here is a primarily figurative sense of "defeat" in battle (as in, one football team "beat" the other one)
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sauldead.html
Awesome.
:thumbsup: