Zone1 Samuel, Saul, and David

[Meriweather]

So what did the Amalekites do that justified their genocide? They didn't believe in Yahweh and they were on land the Israelites wanted.
Gee, it would be a pity if some future people took the bible and used that to rationalize genocide.

Has God given any other nation the command to kill all and destroy all they had? We have this one instance where the Jews insist that the command came from God--and no other instance. Of course, there are some Arabs who hold the belief if they should ever launch such an attack and it succeeded, then that success had to be the will of God. There are some believe the Twin Towers fell only because it was the will of God. Couldn't have happened otherwise, just as one cannot lift a little finger without it first being the will of God.

 

[Meriweather]

So let's look at that. Saul decided to keep some of the best cattle to sacrifice to Yahweh. Not an unreasonable thing, since Yahweh kept asking these people who were barely living past subsistence farming to keep sacrificing perfectly good animals to him. (That is when God didn't demand the sacrifice of a virgin because dad made a foolish oath).

Once more: The entire animal was not burnt, just the fat of the animal was burnt as a sacrifice. The rest of the animal was boiled and the people feasted on that. Here we can wonder if human nature came into play. Yes, they definitely wanted to thank and praise God for the victory...but did they also look forward to their own feast? Was Saul's heart entirely pure in his reasoning for sparing the best of the herds?

It seems you still do not see the theme of Jephthah's daughter which was to warn people not to make vain/unwanted oaths to God. Making an oath in those days was a very serious undertaking.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm am just not seeing where God or Samuel come out as the good guy here. Or Saul, for that matter, because he still committed genocide.

You are not looking far enough or hard enough. Granted, I easily run off to explore every 'what if' that comes to mind, but I do try to return to the basics.

Do you remember the story of Samuel, whom the Judge, Eli, took under his wing when Samuel was a very small child? Eli had two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, who didn't take the Law and customs too seriously. For example, no one was to eat until the fat sacrifice to God had been burned in its entirety. Then it was boiled meat they were to eat. Hophni and Phinehas would take raw meat and run off to roast it, because they preferred roast meat to boiled meat. They even ate their roast meat before the sacrifice had been completed.

We can see why people were thinking a king might be better than Judges. Samuel became a judge, and he had no better luck with his sons, and it appears (to me) that he also went looking for a young man he could take under his wing, one he could manage. He first chose Saul, who wasn't as malleable as Samuel may have hoped, so he went on a new search and found David.

Most Gentiles in these modern times, don't know, or perhaps don't remember, that the Judges were also the military leaders of their day. These Judges were, in effect, Generals, Priests, Prophets, Kings. It appears their children weren't all that interested in their heritage--and maybe not fit for it, either. Would a single king fare better? David did have Solomon...but his other sons...tsk-tsk.

Saul was a military leader, a tall man who is said to have stood a head and shoulders above others in his tribe. He had faced the cruelties of war; he had to give all to protect the eyes of men in a town that had been taken. He had seen and heard about all the Amalekites had done to Israel. Saul's was a message to the other tribes, that he would not stand for this continued behavior from the Amalekites.

I ponder the possibility that Samuel wanted to be the man, the power, behind the King. Easier to manage one man than an entire panel of Judges?

 

[JoeB131]

More apologetics... always amusing.

Let's stay on obedience. Obedience to what is right is good. My question is whether the order came from God or from Samuel. God is love, and a command to annihilate this specific community of Amalekites. (Amalekites were a collection of nomadic tribes, said to be the descendants of Esau. Jacob had stolen Esau's inheritance, which is why I am also interested in Esau.) Moving on...

Uh, how is genocide "Good"?

The Israelites were also nomadic tribes, and when the two tribes ran into each other, the Amalekites were barbaric. Their strategy was to attack and kill women and children first. When the Israelites were in dire straights due to hunger, thirst, illness and lack of shelter, there was no help and no mercy from the Amalekites, because the Amalekites who saw it a provident time to attack.

So the Israelites killed women and children second, that makes it okay somehow?

After decades of being slaughtered like this by the Amalekites, the story that remains is the instance where the tables were turned, and Israel did exactly the same to one of the nomadic tribes of Amalekites.

Here is where I come back to the question of who--God or Samuel--was the author of the command to kill all the Amalekites and all they possessed. God is love. Would He give such an order? Considering all the Israelites had already endured at the hands of the Amalekites who slaughtered their women and children and would readily slaughter future generations, how could such an order be considered any less than loving? Israelite survival could well have depended on it.

No question at all. God followed Samuel's lead to replace Saul with David, who was an even bigger $#!thead that Saul was.

Has God given any other nation the command to kill all and destroy all they had? We have this one instance where the Jews insist that the command came from God--and no other instance. Of course, there are some Arabs who hold the belief if they should ever launch such an attack and it succeeded, then that success had to be the will of God. There are some believe the Twin Towers fell only because it was the will of God. Couldn't have happened otherwise, just as one cannot lift a little finger without it first being the will of God.

Um, yeah, pretty much the whole Book of Judges, God is ordering Genocide

Once more: The entire animal was not burnt, just the fat of the animal was burnt as a sacrifice. The rest of the animal was boiled and the people feasted on that. Here we can wonder if human nature came into play. Yes, they definitely wanted to thank and praise God for the victory...but did they also look forward to their own feast? Was Saul's heart entirely pure in his reasoning for sparing the best of the herds?

Not wanting his people to go hungry... um, yeah, I'd say Saul was a good leader. At least until he started going crazy.

It seems you still do not see the theme of Jephthah's daughter which was to warn people not to make vain/unwanted oaths to God. Making an oath in those days was a very serious undertaking.

Actually, I suspect it was Disneyfying a more unpleasant story. The Hebrews probably practiced human sacrifice just as much as any other barely literate bronze age people. But when it came time to put their history into writing in the early Iron Age, they edited out the nastier bits. But Jephthah's daughter still had this tradition of girls mourning for her, so they had to do a rewrite.

 

[JoeB131]

You are not looking far enough or hard enough. Granted, I easily run off to explore every 'what if' that comes to mind, but I do try to return to the basics.

Do you remember the story of Samuel, whom the Judge, Eli, took under his wing when Samuel was a very small child? Eli had two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, who didn't take the Law and customs too seriously. For example, no one was to eat until the fat sacrifice to God had been burned in its entirety. Then it was boiled meat they were to eat. Hophni and Phinehas would take raw meat and run off to roast it, because they preferred roast meat to boiled meat. They even ate their roast meat before the sacrifice had been completed.

We can see why people were thinking a king might be better than Judges. Samuel became a judge, and he had no better luck with his sons, and it appears (to me) that he also went looking for a young man he could take under his wing, one he could manage. He first chose Saul, who wasn't as malleable as Samuel may have hoped, so he went on a new search and found David.

Most Gentiles in these modern times, don't know, or perhaps don't remember, that the Judges were also the military leaders of their day. These Judges were, in effect, Generals, Priests, Prophets, Kings. It appears their children weren't all that interested in their heritage--and maybe not fit for it, either. Would a single king fare better? David did have Solomon...but his other sons...tsk-tsk.

Saul was a military leader, a tall man who is said to have stood a head and shoulders above others in his tribe. He had faced the cruelties of war; he had to give all to protect the eyes of men in a town that had been taken. He had seen and heard about all the Amalekites had done to Israel. Saul's was a message to the other tribes, that he would not stand for this continued behavior from the Amalekites.

I ponder the possibility that Samuel wanted to be the man, the power, behind the King. Easier to manage one man than an entire panel of Judges?

I think the clearer theme of the Book of Judges was that Israel was in a state of tribalism and anarchy under the judges. It's the last line in the book that with no King, each man did what he thought was right. Which DOES put Jephthah's daughter murder, Samson's terrorism, the near extermination of the tribe of Benjamin and then allowing the tribe members to kidnap women to rebuilding their ranks, in the right context. A king brought order and unity.

Of Course, Saul went nuts. David abused his position. Solomon let all these foreign gods set up shop so he could please his 300 wives and 900 concubines, and the guys after them split the Kingdom. So King didn't work out so good, either.

 

[Meriweather]

Uh, how is genocide "Good"?

I said obedience to what is right is good.

 

[Meriweather]

Actually, I suspect it was Disneyfying a more unpleasant story.

I don't see it that way. Governing a large group of people has always had its challenges, no matter what type of government being tried. Judges, Kings, Dictators, Presidents, Democracies, Republics...all end up failing. What I see with Judges, with Samuel in particular, is a deep desire for something to work.

He saw the failing Judges, yet he also foresaw the failure of Kings. The hope he saw was for a people living outside the influence of outsiders.

The Judge, Eli, was known to be a good man, but he was held up as an example of a parent who (somehow) failed to properly parent his sons. Yet, Samuel found himself in precisely the same situation. His sons went the wayward way as Eli's sons, and like Eli, Samuel turned to someone outside his family to bring under his influence. Samuel and Eli were both devoted to the ways of God...their sons not so much. Eli found Samuel.....Samuel found Saul and David.

 

[Meriweather]

So the Israelites killed women and children second, that makes it okay somehow?

The Israelites had a case of self-defense--kill or be killed. I don't know, I wasn't there.

Here is what I do see. The bad blood between the tribes can be traced back to Esau and Jacob. Jacob, with the help of his mother cheated Esau. The Israelites argued that cheating Esau was actually ordained by God. I wonder.

That is like saying God could not do a thing with Jacob unless he cheated his brother. Personally, I don't think God needed Jacob to cheat his brother. Had their been peace between Esau and Jacob, then would their have been this great animosity between the Amalekites (descendants of Esau) and the Israelite descendants of Jacob?

I go back to how could a mother deceive her husband and cheat one of her children?

Joe, you go off on the train of thought that the Amalekites should have been allowed to go free to continue to massacre the Israelite women and children. You seem to see that as better than the Israelites massacring the Amalekite women and children. I see both as deplorable. But even more deplorable would be to allow either side to continue. One had to stop the other.

What could have stopped them? I return to Jacob not cheating his brother, but rather in trusting God to prosper him despite not inheriting. I argue that Jacob's disobedience to the will of his own father (Isaac) may have brought a curse down upon his own descendants. The problem with that theory is that there is no way to go back to see if Esau and Jacob's descendants actually would have gotten along more amicably had their uncles been at peace with one another.

Soooo...we're both "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" events others lived through in real time.

 

[seaofnails]

King David was anointed to be King by Gods will - because God had commanded Prophet Samuel to choose someone and anoint them as King.

King Saul was then overcome and possessed by an evil spirit of jealousy, Saul also started a campaign to hunt David down and kill him, because of Saul's actions, David's life was in danger, living became a horrible sorrowful lonely and hard road, always running and hiding and living in fear and anxiety.
Also, God's commandment to Saul was to deal with a nearly 500 year old generational war, wherein the Amalekites waged a 500 year generational war against the Jews.

after 500 years of generational war against innocent people , God decided to completely destroy and exterminate the Amalekites - remove them from the earth.

the philistines also recently were attacking - the Ishmaelites also were attacking and Moab - it would be impossible for Israel to protect their families and children fighting waring nations who surrounded them with intent to exterminate them and their families

after 500 years of generational war against innocent people - God decides that every Amalekite would be killed, man, woman and child. He also decided that the Ishmaelite people would also be removed from the earth.

when we look at the survival of Israel and their families and children - we can see the importance that King Saul must obey,

 

[JoeB131]

after 500 years of generational war against innocent people , God decided to completely destroy and exterminate the Amalekites - remove them from the earth.

So God ordered a Genocide, and the Hebrews were okay with that.

Good thing no one else would ever think that Genocide was okay because God was on their side...

Oh, Damn ....

 

[seaofnails]

the very purpose of the USA bombing of the German Cities was intended to directly target and terrorize and kill the civilian population - to force Germany to surrender and stop terrorizing

it is estimated that 400,000 to 600,000 Innocent German civilians were intentionally killed

Same in Japan - the purpose of the USA bombing Japan was intended to to directly target and terrorize and kill the civilian population - to force Japan to surrender and stop terrorizing

it is estimated over a million Innocent Japanese civilians were intentionally killed

in Italy the USA intended to directly target and terrorize and kill the civilian population in an attempt to break the will of Italy to continue with the war.

it is estimated 30,000 innocent Italian civilians were intentionally killed

but the Bible message is simply that " God would be on the side... """" of someone who was defending themselves.

" God would be on the side... " of someone who from the time of Moses until King Saul - for nearly 500 years the entire eXistance and relationship of the Amalekites had been nothing but terrorizing and attacking the Israelites, from the time of Abraham, down to King Saul here in Deu 25:

when the Israelites were traveling - out of Egypt; and passing PEACEFULLY near the territory of The Amalekites - The Amalekites attacked the weak, feeble, tired, old men and woman and children who were at the very rear / back end of the traveling procession, as the Israelites were traveling - The Amalekites attacked in a surprise attack - and they and killed / murdered the faint and weary travelers who were at the rear of them -

and since that day they continually attacked them with terrorist attacks. for 500 years until King Saul.

Deu 25:17 Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; :18 How he met thee by the way and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary.

this is what must be done and has been done in every major war, the USA was fighting a war against 3 superpowers, Italy, Germany and Japan - this war was impossible for the USA to sustain itself and the only choice was to kill the woman and children of our enemies.

 

[JoeB131]

this is what must be done and has been done in every major war, the USA was fighting a war against 3 superpowers, Italy, Germany and Japan - this war was impossible for the USA to sustain itself and the only choice was to kill the woman and children of our enemies.

But the point was, we didn't keep killing them after they surrendered, that was the thing.

 

[seaofnails]

this is what the meaning of slavery means in the Old Testament -

you take your societies and populations that have attacked innocence and you enslave them - for generations ........... the EVIL civilizations my Fathers AND THEIR BROTHERS died AND BLED to destroy and conquer

 

[JoeB131]

this is what the meaning of slavery means in the Old Testament -

you take your societies and populations that have attacked innocence and you enslave them - for generations ........... the EVIL civilizations my Fathers AND THEIR BROTHERS died AND BLED to destroy and conquer

The Bible was fine with slavery. The only thing it had was some cutouts for when the Hebrews enslaved other HEbrews.

The bible even says you can buy slaves from neighboring countries... DOes that mean I can own Canadians or just Mexicans.

 

[seaofnails]

.
Would you please explain why you believe that slavery is something the Old Testament promotes for the Hebrews ?

i am certain that there are no manuscripts for this claim.

 

[themirrorthief]

Because God looks at the INTENT of the person. David was greatly loved by God because of his attitude toward God. David was admittedly a sinful man, but God saw something different in his heart that Saul didn't possess. As the saying goes, "love covers (overlooks) a multitude of sins.

Btw, Samuel was faithful to God and only spoke as God commanded him. If you still believe Samuel was unfair, you are really saying GOD was unfair.

sending someone to burn in a lake of fire for eternity seems a bit much for the sin of say obescity

 

[Carl in Michigan]

sending someone to burn in a lake of fire for eternity seems a bit much for the sin of say obescity

What is "obescity"?

 

[foggedinn]

After being anointed, Saul prophesized with the prophets. He was overcome with the Spirit of the Most High. It is very intense in the beginning but attenuates over time. Saul's dynastic ambitions for his own family became more important to him than obeying God.

 

[seaofnails]

.
The punishment for participating in the enslavement / slave trade of fellow Israeli citizens was punished by the death penalty

A Fully Automatic Death Penalty.
what many people do not realize is that when there is a capital punishment such as " death penalty "

" death penalty " - for the crime of participating in the slave trade
" death penalty " - for the crime of endangering the health your spouse and family by commuting fornication
" death penalty " - for the crime of rape
when there is a " death penalty " for these crimes - there is also another side of prosecuting those who break these laws that is also punishable with lesser punishment and more leniency - in looking for burden of proof

in looking for - BURDEN OF PROOF - this protects the accused whose crimes could possibly be overly exaggerated and those who are even falsely accused, for example someone is accused of rape and the accused rapist did not use violent force to have intercourse with someone claiming to be a victim - in other words violence was not inflicted upon the victim but the victim testifies that they participated in sex because they feared for their life.

even though violent force was not used

what are the judges to do when the - BURDEN OF PROOF - simply do not show evidence of a literal rape ?

and all the Judges have to consider as evidence is the accusation and testimony of someone claiming to be a victim..
There are many cases where lack of evidence exists and giving the " death penalty " to someone who was simply accused without evidence - would be killing many people who had not committed the crime but were simply accused.
The law of the Bible deals with all of this - in giving the " death penalty " - for the crime of rape and also deals with the woman who is planning to marry a husband when she lies about having sexual relations with another man previous to marrying her husband.

This is how diseases, sickness, viruses and plagues and genetic problems were inflicting families in these times when the law was given.

There was a separate set of punishment for violent forceful rape " death penalty " - for the crime of rape

and

There was a separate set of punishment for knowing endangering your spouse by committing a blood crime and being dishonest about exchanging bodily fluids when the woman marries her husband.

both were punishable by the " death penalty " - the males received the same " death penalty " - for the crime of adultery against their wives - by having sexual relations with a whore or with a woman who was not a virgin.

also, the law commands to not to ever participate in the rounding up of slaves who were slaves from foreign lands who have escaped and run away from their slave owners and are hiding in Israel. there would be a punishment for this as well.

Please Notice Deu 23:15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

Here, the Israelites were commanded to not - OWN - innocent, regular people as slaves ) were not to take part in { slave trade } and rounding up and RETURNING or SELLING any escaped slaves of neighboring nations.

They were to take care of these escaped slaves, KEEP, Care for and Feed them and respect them and give them a place and a chance for freedom. To work and be a Hired SERVANT / WORKER in Israel. As a Productive part of Society.

This is the FACT.

It is true. ……….. That the PUNISHMENT of slavery was the Death Penalty.

the punishment for RAPE – also - is the DEATH penalty, According to the Bible..

Check it out.................... Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

Deu 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

the punishment for RAPE - is the DEATH penalty, According to the Bible..

If there was no proof of rape, then the man who had sex with the woman who accused Him of rape was that the man was to PROVIDE SUPPORT to the woman for the rest of His life - just for seducing her.
no evidence of violent force exists - what are the judges to do when the - BURDEN OF PROOF - simply do not show evidence of a literal rape ?

If, a woman is sexually assaulted in the Bible - the BIBLICAL LAW DEMANDS that the Rapist financially supports the woman He is just simply accused of raping for the rest of his life - he is to pay her money in some form of payment -

He work for the rest of His life to support the victim or be put to death. A mandatory lawsuit/ Fully Automatic. In the Bible - The rapists and the slave traders, kidnappers and pedophiles are to be - put to death. Mandatory death, And If a woman is forced into sexual intercourse and not completely complicit but slightly resisted at the start - but gave in and encouraged and proceeded to participate and REFUSED TO HAVE THE WILL TO SAY NO - AND --- FAILED TO RESIST - and - it is not a violent rape- the woman STILL MUST be supported by the man - and the father can brought in on the judgment and defend his daughter and help her make the decision on what happened,.

In the Bible days, The Jews following their God did not intend for things to be any more barbaric, wild or evil or insane than honorable American citizens do today.

Please do not pretend that the Bible is not able to be rationalized and understood by people who actually take the time to study and examine it in full details.

The Jews did not have the ability to make effective prison systems and control and protect their society from criminals with MODERN TECHNOLOGY of monitoring systems, cameras, forensic evidence, fingerprints, photos, telephones, Telegram Messaging systems, railroads in an organized network across the entire country.

The Biblical Jews did not have massive amounts of materials to make chains, steel bars, windows, and ventilation systems and air and water supplies and great powerful scopical binoculars, with satellites, guns and police with police water cannons and infrared sensors.

The law was given to protect the accused and to protect the victim - however punishment for blood crimes were given due to prevent man and woman from infecting the innocent with diseases, sickness, viruses and plagues and genetic problems that were inflicting families in these times when the law was given.


Please study and explain what You are saying.
Because taking a single mental step is not completing a long journey..