1 Sam 7:13: "So the Philistines were subdued and they came no more unto the coast of Israel; and the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel."
The great Biblical commentator Dummelow writes: "This must be understood as the optimistic notice of a later writer. The narrative of [chapter 14] shows that Israel did not succeed in recovering from the Phillistine oppression."
Two chapters later:
1 Sam 9:16: (Samuel is talking): To morrow about this time I will send thee a man out of the land of Benjamin, and thou shalt anoint him to be captain over my people Israel, that he may save my people out of the hand of the Philistines; for I have looked upon my people, because their cry has come unto me."
and
1 Samuel 13:5
And the Philistines gathered themselves together to fight with Israel, thirty thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the sea shore in multitude: and they came up, and pitched in Michmash, eastward from Bethaven.
Also, Deut. 23:3: "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation . . ." Yet, the whole Book of Ruth is about Ruth, the grandmother of David. She was a Moabite.
More mistakes in the Bible to be explained...
-
_GoodK
More mistakes in the Bible to be explained...
Two more Biblical mistakes.
-
_3DOP
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:46 pm
I Samuel 7:13 apparently precedes a successful occupation of some hotly sought territory by the Philistines. They were subdued in this battle described in ch. 7, after having been victorious during the affair when Israel lost the ark of the covenant over 20 years before. But according to 7:13, this would not be the end of the fighting for, "the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel." Did a Philistine army ever cross over one of the borders into Israel again after they were routed in chapter 7? Yes, but not in this place, and not victoriously. Whatever the author of I Samuel 7 meant regarding "the coasts of Israel", it permits the possibility that the "hand of the Lord" might defeat the Philistines at Michmash. Michmash was not traditionally a territory that had ever been occupied by the Philistines, but required a flanking operation to the east which was not the "coast" from whence a frontal assault by the Philistines might be expected to come. If the Philistines had victoriously broken through in the same place described in ch. 7, it might be more problematic. As it is described, they had a ceremony at this location in chapter 7 where Samuel sets up a stone, and names it Ebenezer, between Mizpah and Jeshanah, which had been the site of conflict. Then we immediately read how that the Philistines never again "entered the coast". It seems to me like it might be justified to allow that the author of ch. 7 was not precluding the possibility of what occurred later. Rather, the Philistines never approached by way of the rock of Ebenezer again.
Regarding the grandmother of David, it had been about 500 years since the decree that a Moabite could not enter the congregation. Think of how the ethnic make-up of nations changes over a course of the centuries, especially when there is no religious separatism to keep people from intermarrying. Ruth came from Moab, but who would think that she would still be rejoicing over how the descendants of Lot had refused Israel passage when they emerged from the wilderness of Sinai even if she were full blooded Moabite? She gives little indication that she supported the hiring of Balaam to curse the Israelites. It seems like one is justified in interpreting the law here with the context. The law said that no Moabite could enter even after ten generations, but how was one a Moabite? Not merely by blood, which was probably watered down before the tenth generation anyway, but also by attitude.
No good law can be interpreted as given without any exception if truth, goodness, and common sense suggests an alternative. In my opinion, the Israelites would have been legitimately permitted to allow first generation Moabites to have "entered the congregation" if they exhibited the faith and loyalty of Ruth. When after her Israelite husband died, her mother-in-law encouraged Ruth to go away back to her own people:
That law in Deuteronomy was never going to apply, nor was it intended to apply, to anyone who acted like Ruth, no matter who they had for a Mommy or Daddy. Jesus ate some corn that was against the Sabbath laws and so did King David demonstrating the legitimacy of allowing a careful examination not merely of the letter, but also the spirit of the law. Even if we interpreted the law with the most rigorous unwillingness to interpret the spirit of the law, but the letter, we are still probably okay. Who would think that according to the letter of the law, when an Israelite man and a Moabite woman have a child, it would be considered Moabite? Do we think that in that society, the mother's or the father's seed would define his ethnicity? Even if you say they are half and half, would the letter of the law still prohibit someone with David's obvious virtue and religious fervor from being considered a church member? What about the fact that a half and halfie, was one of David's parents and the other was full Israelite. That means David is now one-fourth Moabite. I just don't see how the Israelites could have applied that law to the letter practically speaking in this instance. There is no doubt in my mind that God never intended for that law to apply to anyone except those who continued to approve of the actions taken by the children of Lot at the time of crossing of the frontiers of the Promised Land. I would further suggest that the same law would be legitimately cited to exclude anyone, even Israelites from the congregation who for any reason came to be traitors to their people.
Surely, canon law by the times of David had arrived at the only just conclusion in permitting him and others like him to enter the congregation of the Lord. It is likely that no one even considered citing Deut. 23:3 against someone because one-fourth of his blood came from a grandmother who was courageously loyal and faithful to Israel, but was born in Moab five hundred years after the events that prompted the passage of the law.
Regarding the grandmother of David, it had been about 500 years since the decree that a Moabite could not enter the congregation. Think of how the ethnic make-up of nations changes over a course of the centuries, especially when there is no religious separatism to keep people from intermarrying. Ruth came from Moab, but who would think that she would still be rejoicing over how the descendants of Lot had refused Israel passage when they emerged from the wilderness of Sinai even if she were full blooded Moabite? She gives little indication that she supported the hiring of Balaam to curse the Israelites. It seems like one is justified in interpreting the law here with the context. The law said that no Moabite could enter even after ten generations, but how was one a Moabite? Not merely by blood, which was probably watered down before the tenth generation anyway, but also by attitude.
No good law can be interpreted as given without any exception if truth, goodness, and common sense suggests an alternative. In my opinion, the Israelites would have been legitimately permitted to allow first generation Moabites to have "entered the congregation" if they exhibited the faith and loyalty of Ruth. When after her Israelite husband died, her mother-in-law encouraged Ruth to go away back to her own people:
---Ruth 1:15, 16See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods; return after your sister-in-law. But Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave you or return from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God...
That law in Deuteronomy was never going to apply, nor was it intended to apply, to anyone who acted like Ruth, no matter who they had for a Mommy or Daddy. Jesus ate some corn that was against the Sabbath laws and so did King David demonstrating the legitimacy of allowing a careful examination not merely of the letter, but also the spirit of the law. Even if we interpreted the law with the most rigorous unwillingness to interpret the spirit of the law, but the letter, we are still probably okay. Who would think that according to the letter of the law, when an Israelite man and a Moabite woman have a child, it would be considered Moabite? Do we think that in that society, the mother's or the father's seed would define his ethnicity? Even if you say they are half and half, would the letter of the law still prohibit someone with David's obvious virtue and religious fervor from being considered a church member? What about the fact that a half and halfie, was one of David's parents and the other was full Israelite. That means David is now one-fourth Moabite. I just don't see how the Israelites could have applied that law to the letter practically speaking in this instance. There is no doubt in my mind that God never intended for that law to apply to anyone except those who continued to approve of the actions taken by the children of Lot at the time of crossing of the frontiers of the Promised Land. I would further suggest that the same law would be legitimately cited to exclude anyone, even Israelites from the congregation who for any reason came to be traitors to their people.
Surely, canon law by the times of David had arrived at the only just conclusion in permitting him and others like him to enter the congregation of the Lord. It is likely that no one even considered citing Deut. 23:3 against someone because one-fourth of his blood came from a grandmother who was courageously loyal and faithful to Israel, but was born in Moab five hundred years after the events that prompted the passage of the law.
-
_Trevor
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7213
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm
-
_3DOP
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:46 pm
Hi Trevor.
Trevor
Do we really need to point out problems in the Bible to conclude that it is not the "Word of God?"
3DOP
Unsolved problems are problematic. The more problems with a proposition, the less tenable the position seems to be. Thus, there will always be attempts to present problems on one side of a proposition, and a possible solution on the other. In order to best judge the veracity of a proposition, the same person must objectively present in his own mind both the problem and the possible solution. You have probably guessed my position. I am not suggesting that I have proved anything with my comments above. What I am saying is that if I denied that the Bible is the Word of God, I would not agree that the alleged mistakes cited in the opening post were unsolvable problems. Do you agree?
I don't know what else to say to your comment. Surely you agree that a negative conclusion to the proposition "The Bible is the Word of God", cannot be arrived at if one cannot discern a single problem with the proposition? I had a little spare time and spent several hours providing a solution to two problems I had never heard before. I'll be candid with you, I know of a couple problems that I haven't solved, but no one else has ever cited.
My belief in Biblical inerrancy does not come from faith in the Bible itself. I believe in God, His Son, and the Catholic Church apart from the written Scriptures. It is a smaller, but still significant part of a bigger package and I think there are sometimes unwarranted assumptions on the part of those who think they oppose the proposition, "The Bible is the Word of God." I think it is not often appreciated that mere inerrancy implies only negatively that something is without error. It doesn't positively imply beauty, goodness, or even truth. I think we could probably agree that the collection of Scriptures that are inspired are definitely clumsy, unsystematic, and often confusing in my opinion. I cannot and will not defend the idea that taken together, one can easily perceive a unified work of art by the reading of all of the Catholic canon of 73 books. Much less do I think that they can effectually communicate God's revealed truth merely by the reading of them.
I have probably said too much. I often regret being candid. In any case, I am sorry if you think that exploring alleged mistakes in the Bible is a useless exercise. I can't agree with that were I on either side of the argument. Judging by the content of some of the threads in this forum, there are some Bible skeptics who agree with me and not you! I always want to emphasize common ground when I can. I don't disagree with anybody about everything. I am sure that includes you Trevor, we just haven't found it yet.
Regards,
3DOP
Trevor
Do we really need to point out problems in the Bible to conclude that it is not the "Word of God?"
3DOP
Unsolved problems are problematic. The more problems with a proposition, the less tenable the position seems to be. Thus, there will always be attempts to present problems on one side of a proposition, and a possible solution on the other. In order to best judge the veracity of a proposition, the same person must objectively present in his own mind both the problem and the possible solution. You have probably guessed my position. I am not suggesting that I have proved anything with my comments above. What I am saying is that if I denied that the Bible is the Word of God, I would not agree that the alleged mistakes cited in the opening post were unsolvable problems. Do you agree?
I don't know what else to say to your comment. Surely you agree that a negative conclusion to the proposition "The Bible is the Word of God", cannot be arrived at if one cannot discern a single problem with the proposition? I had a little spare time and spent several hours providing a solution to two problems I had never heard before. I'll be candid with you, I know of a couple problems that I haven't solved, but no one else has ever cited.
My belief in Biblical inerrancy does not come from faith in the Bible itself. I believe in God, His Son, and the Catholic Church apart from the written Scriptures. It is a smaller, but still significant part of a bigger package and I think there are sometimes unwarranted assumptions on the part of those who think they oppose the proposition, "The Bible is the Word of God." I think it is not often appreciated that mere inerrancy implies only negatively that something is without error. It doesn't positively imply beauty, goodness, or even truth. I think we could probably agree that the collection of Scriptures that are inspired are definitely clumsy, unsystematic, and often confusing in my opinion. I cannot and will not defend the idea that taken together, one can easily perceive a unified work of art by the reading of all of the Catholic canon of 73 books. Much less do I think that they can effectually communicate God's revealed truth merely by the reading of them.
I have probably said too much. I often regret being candid. In any case, I am sorry if you think that exploring alleged mistakes in the Bible is a useless exercise. I can't agree with that were I on either side of the argument. Judging by the content of some of the threads in this forum, there are some Bible skeptics who agree with me and not you! I always want to emphasize common ground when I can. I don't disagree with anybody about everything. I am sure that includes you Trevor, we just haven't found it yet.
Regards,
3DOP
-
_Doctor Steuss
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4597
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:57 pm
3DOP wrote:[...]
It is likely that no one even considered citing Deut. 23:3 [...]
Hola 3DOP,
Could this not mostly be because David et.al. (including Ruth) predate Deuteronomy (at least from a more secular perspective)?
-Stu
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
-
_rcrocket
3DOP wrote:Surely, canon law by the times of David had arrived at the only just conclusion in permitting him and others like him to enter the congregation of the Lord. It is likely that no one even considered citing Deut. 23:3 against someone because one-fourth of his blood came from a grandmother who was courageously loyal and faithful to Israel, but was born in Moab five hundred years after the events that prompted the passage of the law.
No such canon law exists. Either the Bible is in error, or it is incomplete. How can you make all these suppositions about what was going on? Suppositions in the face of clear contradiction don't cut it.
-
_rcrocket
3DOP wrote:Then we immediately read how that the Philistines never again "entered the coast". It seems to me like it might be justified to allow that the author of ch. 7 was not precluding the possibility of what occurred later. Rather, the Philistines never approached by way of the rock of Ebenezer again.
Or, maybe the great Biblical scholar Dummelow is right -- somebody added a complete lie to the text. You're just adding complete supposition unsupported by any text or commentary.
-
_3DOP
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:46 pm
tumult
what's all the fuss: joshua, judges, samuel, kings is fiction written by Jeremiah. aurguing points there is like arguing harry potter.
3DOP
Okay. Discussion over.
rcrocket
Or, maybe the great Biblical scholar Dummelow is right -- somebody added a complete lie to the text. You're just adding complete supposition unsupported by any text or commentary.
3DOP
Okay. I'm stopping.
rcrocket
No such canon law exists. Either the Bible is in error, or it is incomplete. How can you make all these suppositions about what was going on? Suppositions in the face of clear contradiction don't cut it.
3DOP
Look, I am sorry for not giving you an essay in Jewish tradition. I just can't. An answer to your question would also just take too long. In the end, you will probably conclude negatively about me anyway. Did you see nothing in anything that took several hours to prepare that made any sense to you? I can agree with something you said. I'll be leaving you with that...
Good luck to you rcrocket.
Stu
Hola 3DOP,
Could this not mostly be because David et.al. (including Ruth) predate Deuteronomy (at least from a more secular perspective)?
3DOP
Hola. An amicable fellow! You have probably seen elsewhere that I don't think that trail permits us to maintain the integrity of Jesus' view of the Old Testament as recorded in the Gospels. By the way, I have deleted this board from a short-term presence among my easily accessed favorites. I doubt I'll be back to see the chortles about any reference to integrity in the Gospels. I don't like it here. What do you think of how after you get a certain number of posts they call you G-d? I was uncomfortable with being here for that reason anyway. See you around.
what's all the fuss: joshua, judges, samuel, kings is fiction written by Jeremiah. aurguing points there is like arguing harry potter.
3DOP
Okay. Discussion over.
rcrocket
Or, maybe the great Biblical scholar Dummelow is right -- somebody added a complete lie to the text. You're just adding complete supposition unsupported by any text or commentary.
3DOP
Okay. I'm stopping.
rcrocket
No such canon law exists. Either the Bible is in error, or it is incomplete. How can you make all these suppositions about what was going on? Suppositions in the face of clear contradiction don't cut it.
3DOP
Look, I am sorry for not giving you an essay in Jewish tradition. I just can't. An answer to your question would also just take too long. In the end, you will probably conclude negatively about me anyway. Did you see nothing in anything that took several hours to prepare that made any sense to you? I can agree with something you said. I'll be leaving you with that...
Either the Bible is in error, or it is incomplete.
Good luck to you rcrocket.
Stu
Hola 3DOP,
Could this not mostly be because David et.al. (including Ruth) predate Deuteronomy (at least from a more secular perspective)?
3DOP
Hola. An amicable fellow! You have probably seen elsewhere that I don't think that trail permits us to maintain the integrity of Jesus' view of the Old Testament as recorded in the Gospels. By the way, I have deleted this board from a short-term presence among my easily accessed favorites. I doubt I'll be back to see the chortles about any reference to integrity in the Gospels. I don't like it here. What do you think of how after you get a certain number of posts they call you G-d? I was uncomfortable with being here for that reason anyway. See you around.
-
_GoodK
3DOP wrote:tumult
what's all the fuss: joshua, judges, samuel, kings is fiction written by Jeremiah. aurguing points there is like arguing harry potter.
3DOP
Okay. Discussion over.
rcrocket
Or, maybe the great Biblical scholar Dummelow is right -- somebody added a complete lie to the text. You're just adding complete supposition unsupported by any text or commentary.
3DOP
Okay. I'm stopping.
rcrocket
No such canon law exists. Either the Bible is in error, or it is incomplete. How can you make all these suppositions about what was going on? Suppositions in the face of clear contradiction don't cut it.
3DOP
Look, I am sorry for not giving you an essay in Jewish tradition. I just can't. An answer to your question would also just take too long. In the end, you will probably conclude negatively about me anyway. Did you see nothing in anything that took several hours to prepare that made any sense to you? I can agree with something you said. I'll be leaving you with that...Either the Bible is in error, or it is incomplete.
Good luck to you rcrocket.
Stu
Hola 3DOP,
Could this not mostly be because David et.al. (including Ruth) predate Deuteronomy (at least from a more secular perspective)?
3DOP
Hola. An amicable fellow! You have probably seen elsewhere that I don't think that trail permits us to maintain the integrity of Jesus' view of the Old Testament as recorded in the Gospels. By the way, I have deleted this board from a short-term presence among my easily accessed favorites. I doubt I'll be back to see the chortles about any reference to integrity in the Gospels. I don't like it here. What do you think of how after you get a certain number of posts they call you G-d? I was uncomfortable with being here for that reason anyway. See you around.
Back to CARM I guess ! Let the unchallenged attack on Mormonism continue!