Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ 1 Samuel

[Chip]

I haven't yet read that part of the bible, but it also sounds like the parts you are claiming are rhetoric could also just be where the bible is just plain wrong. Also if you are leading people into warfare, but are also wanting them to be selective in who they kill, then rhetoric like "put everything to death" not only doesn't serve your purpose but actually works against it.

[jimwalton]

> but it also sounds like the parts you are claiming are rhetoric could also just be where the bible is just plain wrong.

That's always a possibility we have to consider (or else we're just biased and closed-minded), but in this case that's not the most plausible conclusion. Based on the language and the cultural background, as well as the Bible's admission that the Amalekites remained as a people group, jumping to the conclusion that the Bible is just plain wrong here is not inferring the most plausible analysis. If you haven't read or studied the text, coming to that conclusion before any research is just plain bias.

> Also if you are leading people into warfare, but are also wanting them to be selective in who they kill, then rhetoric like "put everything to death" not only doesn't serve your purpose but actually works against it.

The rhetoric was that of a decisive and complete victory, not of genocidal slaughter. Such language was somewhat common in the day.

• Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later 15th c.) boasted that "the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent." In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the 15th and 14th centuries BC.
• Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322-1295 BC) recorded making "Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)" and the "mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity)." Not true; just rhetoric.
• The "Bulletin" of Ramses II tells of Egypt's less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slew "the entire force" of the Hittites, indeed "all the chiefs of all the countries," disregarding the "millions of foreigners," which he considered "chaff."
• In the Merneptah Stele (ca. 1230 BC), Rameses II's son Merneptah announced, "Israel is wasted, his seed is not," another premature declaration. Not true, didn't happen, no genocide.
• Moab's king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of "Israel has utterly perished for always," which was over a century premature. The Assyrians devastated Israel in 722 BC.
• The Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (701-681 BC) used similar hyperbole: "The soldiers of Hirimme, dangerous enemies, I cut down with the sword; and not one escaped."

> then rhetoric like "put everything to death" not only doesn't serve your purpose but actually works against it.

They were familiar with the rhetoric and knew exactly what Samuel was instructing them to do. They set an ambush in a particular ravine (1 Sam. 15.5), and in one night (15.11-12) accomplished the task. They were attacking the city and military where the king was (15.8). From these actions, Saul understood that he had "totally destroyed" them (15.8). Saul claimed he had done what was asked (15.13).

[Chip]

>> but it also sounds like the parts you are claiming are rhetoric could also just be where the bible is just plain wrong.
> That's always a possibility we have to consider

Thank you for acknowledging that.

> If you haven't read or studied the text, coming to that conclusion before any research is just plain bias.

To be clear I haven't concluded that they are wrong, just that there wasn't anything in the points you made that couldn't also be explained by them being wrong (which you seem to agree on)

Also I'm glad that you were able to draw the list of other figures using hyperbole. However, if the distinction isn't in the bible itself the rest cannot be blamed for not knowing this. Also a post hoc report using hyperbole to bolster the results and image of the winner isn't the same what is supposed to be a direct quote of an instruction before going into battle. The latter can be very misleading and do harm.

[jimwalton]

> Thank you for acknowledging that.

We always have to be good enough scholars and unbiased people to pursue the truth wherever it leads. It's not responsible to just pay attention to the evidence that leads in the direction we want it to go.

> However, if the distinction isn't in the bible itself the rest cannot be blamed for not knowing this.

My observation is that warfare rhetoric of "kill 'em all" is part of their cultural river. We have many similar expressions, like "Kill 'em," "slaughter them," "whoop their butts," or "cream them." We have plenty of these for decisive victories. The coach sits in the locker room and says, "Today we're gonna kill 'em. We're going to hand them their butts on a platter. They won't know what hit 'em. Now let's go out there and slaughter the bums." These are instructions before the game. None of it is meant as literal; it's part of our cultural rhetoric, and we all know that. You can't dig up something like this 3,000 years later and think this was a gladiatorial match of actual blood-letting, even though that's what the language clearly indicates. We have to understand the cultural river to understand the vernacular.

[Chip]

M> y observation is that warfare rhetoric of "kill 'em all" is part of their cultural river. We have many similar expressions, like "Kill 'em," "slaughter them," "whoop their butts," or "cream them." We have plenty of these for decisive victories.
The coach sits in the locker room and says, "Today we're gonna kill 'em. We're going to hand them their butts on a platter. They won't know what hit 'em. Now let's go out there and slaughter the bums." These are instructions before the game. None of it is meant as literal;

Very true but in non warfare situations it is easy recognised precisely because it is so out of place when taken literally. The locker room talk would be taken one way if the coach is handing out football boots. It would be taken another way entirely if he was handing out assault rifles.

[jimwalton]

But I already shown you sufficient evidence that this was typical ancient Near Eastern warfare rhetoric. If you don't follow the evidence where it leads, I don't have much else to give you. All I have is the evidence that in the ANE, "Kill 'em all" was rhetoric about a decisive victory. You want to say, "Well, that's not necessarily how we would understand it." Um, that doesn't matter; what matters is how they would understand it. I have no place to take you except to the evidence.

[Chip]

> But I already shown you sufficient evidence that this was typical ancient Near Eastern warfare rhetoric.

You have. Thank you.

> You want to say, "Well, that's not necessarily how we would understand it." Um, that doesn't matter; what matters is how they would understand it.

But my later point is that it is how we would understand it does matter when we're the ones reading it. If the author is using language that requires us to know so much from sources outside the texts before we can even be sure that is literal or not then the authors are at fault.

[jimwalton]

> But my later point is that it is how we would understand it does matter when we're the ones reading it.

I agree with this, but this is more a matter of translation and our cultural mindset than it is God's fault. Cultures change. Before America, no one was thinking personal rights, individual freedoms, and liberty and justice for all. Now we can't think otherwise. It's all about that stuff. We've been enculturated into a completely different mindset than what existed previously. We have different paradigms and a different worldview. We can't think otherwise.

But we're not just talking about going back into European history on this stuff, but back in the ancient Near East. They thought completely differently than we do. Their world was about order, disorder, and non-order—a mindset we don't have a clue about. Their world was honor and shame; ours is guilt and guilt. Their world was about communal identity; ours is about individualism.

They can only use the language of their culture and worldview as we can only use the language of ours. If you want to study the Renaissance, or Elizabethan England, you have to do everything possible to enter that world's worldview, language, values, and paradigms. If you want to know about class distinctions and mannerisms in 18th c. France, you have to study. You can't just read a text and think you have it.

It's no different with the Bible. You can't just read a text and think you have it as far as some of this stuff is concerned. It takes research. The Bible was written in a particular cultural context, language, and mindset. If we want to know what the author meant, we have to get into the author's head. It sounds like you're saying, "I should be able to understand it in simple English or it's no good." In my opinion, hardly ANYTHING is like that.

[Scape211]

>But we're not just talking about going back into European history on this stuff, but back in the ancient Near East. They thought completely differently than we do.

Its also important to understand cultural difference around the globe ALONG with cultural differences from 2000+ years ago. For example, we think about time, family, money, society, etc very differently in America than people do in Africa in our current day. Add 2000 years on top of that and its gets even harder to identify certain ancient text meaning. Heck I have trouble understanding the meaning of some co-worker's emails....

[Chip]

> But my later point is that it is how we would understand it does matter when we're the ones reading it.
> I agree with this, but this is more a matter of translation and our cultural mindset than it is God's fault.

If God exists and wrote or in some other way made the book inerrant and wants us to read this book, but provides it in a language he knew would die out, with some words we would only find in that very book and won't provide a modern accurate translation himself then I'm not going to blame the translators.

If God can dictate the thing in its original language I don't think it's too much to think he could give ther translators a similar level of help.