Robert F. Smith, on 05 July 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:
I guess, if you like the WWF, and if you fully agree with Maklelan's main point, "namely that Chemosh drove off Yahweh's forces." I think that that was the thing that stuck in Zerinus' craw the most -- quite aside from all the ad hominems.
I disagree that there were ad hominems. I have criticized his approach, but never his person. I don't think it's that big a deal, though, to recognize that an author of one of the biblical texts could have interpreted a specific event as the intervention of a foreign deity. It doesn't really bear at all on the actual existence of the deity.
Robert F. Smith, on 05 July 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:
Zerinus might have been far more comfortable believing that the God of Israel had himself sent the Assyrians packing after their unsuccessful seige of Jerusalem in the days of King Hezekiah and the Prophet Isaiah (II Kings 19). So did Chemosh likewise drive off the Israelites (II Kings 3)? We even have the Moabite Mesha Stele to provide the direct point of view of the Moabites (and the very same King Mesha) about how they routed the Israelites on another occasion.
In my opinion the Mesha Stela refers to the same campaign. There are a number of inconsistencies between the two accounts regarding who reigned when and for how long and what cities were involved with the military campaign, but there's little reason to think they refer to two separate clashes between the two nations. Line 19 of the Mesha Stela states that Chemosh ran the Israelite forces off, which would actually mean 2 Kgs 3:27 could be an accurate description of the events (not necessarily the divine intervention, but the outcome of the battle).
Robert F. Smith, on 05 July 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:
The analogy is pretty clear, as is the analogy with kings Ahaz and Manasseh of Judah offering their own sons as a human sacrifices (II Kings 16:3, 21:6).
Who is correct? Well, the New Jerusalem Bible inserts a note (l) to II Kings 3:27, saying "The king of Moab sacrificed his son in a desperate attempt to placate his god Chemosh. Performed on the ramparts, the sacrifice provoked panic among the beseigers, who seem to have expected Chemosh to intervene." The New Oxford Annotated Bible agrees with this assessment. That is not quite the same as "Chemosh drove off Yahweh's forces."
It's also not what the text says. I disagree with those notes.
Robert F. Smith, on 05 July 2011 - 09:34 AM, said:
I'm not sure that the Bible in the KJV always "provides its own context and history,". . .
For most intents and purposes it does. I am not suggesting that studies outside the context of the Bible itself are of no value; but when that study leads to vague and inconclusive opinions that contradict what the internal context of the Bible more clearly and obviously supports, then the latter interpretation obviously wins.
Quote
. . . and I fear that you and Maklelan are talking past each other since you are each coming at the fundamental questions using very different methods.
I don’t agree. I think he was talking a lot of plain nonsense.
Quote
You might want to approach such difficult issues with a willingness to at least consider the scholarly approach which Brother Joseph so obviously thought important. That is, as long as you take the trouble to address such questions seriously, at least consult some of the professional Bible commentaries at your local public library, including (just for example) the Anchor Bible translation-commentary series or the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Many serious books and articles have been written about the context and history of the biblical world which I'm sure you would find fascinating and informative. Indeed, I can recall almost a half-century later now just how enthralled I was when I first went to Israel without a clue as to what I was seeing and hearing, but I started traveling the country, reading books by such authors as Josephus, and gradually learning to dig a little deeper. The surprise of discovery and the richness of new information has not ceased to interest me all these years later. It even helps me in Sunday School.
Okay, in my last reply to maklelan (post #92), I had quoted from one non-LDS Bible commentary, and from three non-LDS modern Bible translations, to provide alternative viewpoints. Do they count?
For most intents and purposes it does. I am not suggesting that studies outside the context of the Bible itself are of no value; but when that study leads to vague and inconclusive opinions that contradict what the internal context of the Bible more clearly and obviously supports, then the latter interpretation obviously wins.
I don’t agree. I think he was talking a lot of plain nonsense.
Okay, in my last reply to maklelan (post #92), I had quoted from one non-LDS Bible commentary, and from three non-LDS modern Bible translations, to provide alternative viewpoints. Do they count?
Yea, I guess so, but see the standard sources which I quoted above, and they don't share Maklelan's view. I'm only suggesting that both you and Maklelan take a broader view. But without all the vituperation.
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also." Mark Twain
Robert F. Smith, on 05 July 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:
Zerinus might have been far more comfortable believing that the God of Israel had himself sent the Assyrians packing after their unsuccessful seige of Jerusalem in the days of King Hezekiah and the Prophet Isaiah (II Kings 19).
Well, that is what the Bible itself says happened, and I believe the Bible. Don’t you?
Quote
So did Chemosh likewise drive off the Israelites (II Kings 3)?
It doesn’t say that it did. The Bible passage in question is vague and doesn’t expressly state that that is what happened; unlike the example of Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, which expressly states what happened.
Quote
We even have the Moabite Mesha Stele to provide the direct point of view of the Moabites (and the very same King Mesha) about how they routed the Israelites on another occasion. The analogy is pretty clear, as is the analogy with kings Ahaz and Manasseh of Judah offering their own sons as a human sacrifices (II Kings 16:3, 21:6).
I see no analogy whatsoever. Ahaz and Manasseh sacrificed their kids as part of their idolatrous practices, not in order to drive out any besieging armies; and in fact, the Bible suggests exactly the opposite—That God allowed the Assyrian invasions as a punishment against Israel for such idolatrous practices, not the other way round.
Quote
Who is correct?
You tell me!
Quote
Well, the New Jerusalem Bible inserts a note (l) to II Kings 3:27, saying "The king of Moab sacrificed his son in a desperate attempt to placate his god Chemosh. Performed on the ramparts, the sacrifice provoked panic among the beseigers, who seem to have expected Chemosh to intervene." The New Oxford Annotated Bible agrees with this assessment. That is not quite the same as "Chemosh drove off Yahweh's forces."
That is still guesswork. It may be true; but we don’t know for sure because the context is inconclusive. It doesn’t tell us for sure that that is what happened, or how it happened. It is not good scholarship to draw definitive conclusions from incolclusive data.
For most intents and purposes it does. I am not suggesting that studies outside the context of the Bible itself are of no value; but when that study leads to vague and inconclusive opinions that contradict what the internal context of the Bible more clearly and obviously supports, then the latter interpretation obviously wins.
There was nothing vague or inconclusive about my conclusions. You simply asserted that they were vague and inconclusive, but as I pointed out, they are the only possible conclusions when the text is allowed to stand on its own. The notion that a presupposition of univocality must be imposed upon any text is demonstrably misguided. The Bible is not perfectly consistent.
zerinus, on 05 July 2011 - 11:42 AM, said:
I don’t agree. I think he was talking a lot of plain nonsense.
But you were unable to show this to be the case. You could only assert it on the grounds that the Holy Ghost told you the Bible was true except for the places where Joseph Smith corrected it.
Robert F. Smith, on 05 July 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:
Yea, I guess so, but see the standard sources which I quoted above, . . .
They are good sources, but nothing "standard" about them. As I said, that is still guesswork. Guesswork is never a substitute for the truth. The best anybody can do in this situation is to guess, because we don't have enough information to do better. And I don't like taking somebody's guesses (including my own) as a substitute for the truth.
Quote
. . . and they don't share Maklelan's view.
I am sure they don't! No right-minded scholar worthy of the name would.
Quote
I'm only suggesting that both you and Maklelan take a broader view.
Maybe maklelan can do with that advice, but I don't. I think that my views have been as "broad" as they need be in this discussion.
[color="#8B0000"]Well, that is what the Bible itself says happened, and I believe the Bible. Don’t you?
1 Sam 13:1 says that Saul was one year old when he began to reign over Israel, and that he reigned two years. Do you believe the Bible? I don't think you do. I think it's a dogma that you impose upon the text without bothering to check and see if it actually makes sense to do it.
zerinus, on 05 July 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:
It doesn’t say that it did. The Bible passage in question is vague and doesn’t expressly state that that is what happened; unlike the example of Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, which expressly states what happened.
It leaves only one logical interpretation. There's nothing vague about that. It only becomes vague when you refuse to accept that one logical interpretation (in fact, it becomes totally senseless).
zerinus, on 05 July 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:
That is still guesswork. It may be true; but we don’t know for sure because the context is inconclusive. It doesn’t tell us for sure that that is what happened, or how it happened. It is not good scholarship to draw definitive conclusions from incolclusive data.
It's even less good to impose upon the data an a priori assumption about what they are and are not allowed to say. Without that imposition, there is nothing inconclusive or vague about the text.
Mark Smith shares my view. He's one of the world's leading authorities on Israelite conceptions of deity. Are you saying that just because Mark Smith agrees with my reading he is not right-minded and is not worthy to be called a scholar?
zerinus, on 05 July 2011 - 12:30 PM, said:
Maybe maklelan can do with that advice, but I don't. I think that my views have been as "broad" as they need be in this discussion.
Like I said, this kind of fundamentalism cannot be reasoned with.
I am wondering, first of all, if any other Mormons here agree with this statement. Usually, when Mormons argue that the Hebrew Bible affirms the existence of a multiplicity of gods, they do so because they think this coheres with or supports in some way the LDS doctrine of a plurality of gods. Yet such a line of argument seems to be undermined if one denies the reality or existence of those gods described in the Hebrew Bible. Dan's interest in the Old Testament appears to have nothing to do with agreeing with any doctrine or theology that he finds there, but instead is focused only on critiquing the evangelical belief in the Bible as an authoritative source of truth about God. His point would be no different if his argument was that Noah's flood was a myth or that the Exodus didn't happen. Elsewhere Dan has stated quite clearly that he is not arguing for any correlation between the Hebrew Bible's gods and the gods of LDS theology. So my first question here, for anyone who is interested, is whether you as a Mormon agree with Dan on this point.
My second question is especially for Dan himself, though again I invite others to share their thoughts. Dan has argued that El and Yahweh were originally two separate deities in the ancient Near Eastern culture, deities of non-Israelite peoples, and that somewhere toward the end of the era of the Hebrew Bible the two deities were assimilated to one another or fused into a single deity. Now, consider the implications of this theory along with the claim that the Hebrew Bible affirms the reality of gods that in fact (according to Dan) were not real. The logical implication seems to be that Dan would also not believe in El or Yahweh. After all, they were no different, fundamentally, from the other ANE deities that Dan says were not real. So this leads me to wonder if it would not be accurate to conclude that when Dan says "I don't believe the gods described in the Hebrew Bible are real" that includes El and Yahweh. So Dan, I'm asking if this is correct. I'm also asking what other Mormons here think on this question.
I believe he is just like Christ, in every way…totally corporal. I believe he is my father and not someone who needs to be feared. I believe he walked in the cool of the day with Adam and Eve as the Bible states, because just like us, he feels. When he said the man “has become as one of us”, he meant it. God does not look like us, we look like him. Adam was created in his express image…this language was extended to Seth, so we could understand it and him. Men have seen him despite what John 1 say, which contradicts itself (the statement) in John 6:46. We know for a fact Adam saw him and walked with him. I am quoting from memory on the scripts, so forgive if in error. I believe that man instead of understanding that we are created in God’s image, seeks instead to create God in their image. No understanding the scriptures and a lack of prophets has led to a God who is incompressible in the eyes of many who say they believe.
So yes I believe…I just don’t believe what the EV Church has turned him into…or sought too.
"So now it's just another show, leave them laughing when you go. And if you care don't let them know. Don't give yourself away"Joni Mitchell There is no such thing as "Christian Tolerance"! Theo 1689 (CARMite) See my Poetry Blog
1 Sam 13:1 says that Saul was one year old when he began to reign over Israel, and that he reigned two years.
The Bible I am reading doesn't say that. The KJV renders it as follows:
1 Samuel 13:
1 Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,
2 Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Beth-el, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin: and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent.
And I take that to be a correct translation.
I checked at other translations, and I noticed that there are discrepancies between them. There appears to be an ambiguity in this verse, which allows for different possible translations. After looking at several different translations online, I think I know that the cause of the ambiguity is. Young’s Literal Translation, which translates it as close to the original Hebrew as possible, renders it as follows:
A son of a year is Saul in his reigning, yea, two years he hath reigned over Israel,
All the ambiguity seems to center on the phrase, “A son of a year is Saul in his reigning”. That does not mean is one year old when he began to reign. The expression “a son of” appears to be used idiomatically in Hebrew to express different concepts, such as Satan being called “son of the morning” (Isaiah 14:12); or someone being called “son of Belial” (1 Samuel 25:17), meaning a wicked or churlish person. I believe that the KJV has rendered that phrase most correctly as, “Saul reigned one year”. It is your reading that is incorrect.
The Bible I am reading doesn't say that. The KJV renders it as follows:
1 Samuel 13:
1 Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,
2 Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Beth-el, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin: and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent.
And I take that to be a correct translation.
It is not a correct translation. Here's the Hebrew:
בנ־שנה שאול במלכו ושתי שנים מלך על־ישראל
And Saul was one year old when he began to rule, and two years he ruled over Israel.
Literally it begins "son of a year was Saul when he began to rule." "Son of a year" is the idiom for "one year old." The KJV wanted it to make some sense, so they got creative, but it's not at all a correct translation of the Hebrew. The Hebrew says Saul was a year old when he began to rule over Israel, and that he ruled two years. The reason 1 Sam 13:1 says this is because the original numbers were lost from both clauses and the remaining construction happens to align with the construction for stating someone is one year old. The text is an error and it leaves the Bible asserting an absurdity. Do you believe the Bible or not?
zerinus, on 05 July 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:
I checked at other translations, and I noticed that there are discrepancies between them. There appears to be an ambiguity in this verse, which allows for different possible translations.
No, there's no ambiguity. Those other translations are relying on later traditions that give an age of thirty or forty years for Saul at the beginning of his reign. The text is corrupt but what is left very clearly states that Saul was one year old when he began to rule.
zerinus, on 05 July 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:
After looking at several different translations online, I think I know that the cause of the ambiguity is. Young’s Literal Translation, which translates it as close to the original Hebrew as possible, renders it as follows:
A son of a year is Saul in his reigning, yea, two years he hath reigned over Israel,
[color="#8B0000"]All the ambiguity seems to center on the phrase, “A son of a year is Saul in his reigning”. That does not mean is one year old when he began to reign.
Actually that's exactly what it means. "In his reigning" is an infinitive construct with an inseparable prefix and a 3ms pronominal suffix. When beth and kaph prefixes occur on infinitive constructs in this way they are rendered temporally. The suffix becomes the subject of the new verbal clause. It means, "when he began to reign." If there had been a kaph prefix it would be understood as "when he had reigned."
zerinus, on 05 July 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:
The expression “a son of” appears to be used idiomatically in Hebrew to express different concepts, such as Satan being called “son of the morning” (Isaiah 14:12); or someone being called “son of Belial” (1 Samuel 25:17), meaning a wicked or churlish person.
Actually you're referring to a couple different uses of "sons of." "Son of the Morning," or "Son of Shahar," is actually a reference to the Syro-Palestinian deity Shahar. That deity can be found in the Ugaritic texts. The sense there is filial. The second one is the genitive of quality. The person is the "son of" the semantic essence of the nomen rectum. The name "Belial" is associated primarily with laziness and worthlessness, so a person called a "son of Belial" is being called lazy or worthless. Another use is that of membership, as in "sons of Israel" and "sons of the prophets." "Son of a year," however, is a technical term that only means "one year old" (almost always in reference to an animal for sacrifice). It appears 53 times in the Hebrew Bible and not once does it refer to anything other than a living being that is a year old. You give someone's age in Modern and Biblical Hebrew by saying they are a son/daughter of X years. There are over 100 examples of that usage in the Hebrew Bible.
zerinus, on 05 July 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:
I believe that the KJV has rendered that phrase most correctly as, “Saul reigned one year”. It is your reading that is incorrect.
If we wanted to refer to the first year of someone's reign, we would use בשנה הראשונה למלכו, "in the first year of his reign" (2 Chr 29:3). If we wanted to say someone reigned one year, we would use שנה אחת מלך, "he reigned one year" (2 Kgs 8:26). The KJV has not rendered the phrase correctly, and my reading is not incorrect.
You give someone's age in Modern and Biblical Hebrew by saying they are a son/daughter of X years. There are over 100 examples of that usage in the Hebrew Bible.
And you ask the son/daughter of how many years are you.
I assure you that it is you that is ignorant of ancient Judaism. Read the Bible instead of listening to your teachers who appose [sic] the bible. -Echo
i REALLY NEVER NEW YOU WAS A UNLEARNED PERSON. -Lucy Ann Harmon, a facebook anti-Mormon
The Septuagint doesn't say anything at all about years.
I Samuel 13:1-3
1 And Saul chooses for himself three thousand men of the men of Israel:
2 and there were with Saul two thousand who were in Machmas, and in mount Baethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gabaa of Benjamin: and he sent the rest of the people every man to his tent.
3 And Jonathan smote Nasib the Philistine that dwelt in the hill; and the Philistines hear of it, and Saul sounds the trumpet through all the land, saying, The servants have despised [us].
Here is the KJV of I Samuel 13:1-3
1 Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,
2 Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin: and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent.
3 And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. And Saul blew the trumpet throughout all the land, saying, Let the Hebrews hear.
Now, if verse 3 is reflecting what happened during the two years, I find it remarkable that a two-year old would be able to blow a trumpet. If it is reflective of what happened in the next couple of years, it would still be a pretty amazing accomplishment for someone no older than a three or four-year old; though, I suppose, not impossible.
Regards,
jo
Edited by jo1952, 30 July 2011 - 03:25 AM.
"Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle." source unknown
The first part of the prophecy was that the Lord would deliver the Moabites into the hands of the three kings who were fearful that the Moabites would come and kill them. So, what happens? As prophesied, water comes into the valley where they were camped - which must have filled the ditches which Elisha instructed them to dig. At the point where the Moabites saw the water, they thought they were actually looking at the blood of the three kings whom they decided must have killed each other. So they entered the camp of the Israelites for the purpose of taking the spoils. However, the Israelites and the three kings were all very much alive and began to smite the Moabites. To me, this appears as the fulfillment of the first part of the prophecy. IOW, the Moabites were "delivered" into the hands of the Israelites because the Moabites went directly into the camp of the Israelites (thus, they were delivered into their hands).
The second part of the prophecy entails the destruction of the land and the stopping up of the wells of the Moabites. This also was accomplished according to the words of Elisha. Elisha never makes any mention of what may happen to the King of the Moabites (or his son).
How I see it, is that when the King of the Moabites saw that he was losing this battle, and even in taking seven hundred swordsmen to try to fight through to the King of Edom, he couldn't do it. In desperation, he sacrificed his son, perhaps hoping that his god would help him. By now, of course the remaining Moabites who were with the King would have been angry with the Israelites. We are not told if the walls that were left standing where the King sacrificed his son surrounded an intact city. Not only had the Israelites destroyed the land (I am thinking this would have caused a lot of problems for the Moabites to plant any crops); and stopped up their wells; now they had also witnessed their own king sacrifice his son who was the heir to his throne.
None of the verses state that the Israelites "fled". I believe the Israelites were satisfied that the Lord had preserved them, and that the prophecies of Elisha had been fulfilled. I don't think they feared any type of retribution from the Moabite's King's god. They HAD witnessed the power of their own God - why would they fear the Moabite god? They just had no reason to continue to fight. Their mission, so to speak, had been accomplished. In fact, it could be surmised that by not doing any more killing, the Moabites would actually suffer more harshly if they were unable to grow crops to avoid starvation. Also, the damaged land would not have been able to support their sheep.
So, did sacrificing his son help the Moabite King? I guess it depends on how you look at it. No more Moabites were smitten. Yet that is not the only way to harm an enemy. Did his god unstop the wells (though certainly the remaining Moabites were capable of unstopping them, the land had been destroyed). Did his god prepare the damage done to their land so that they could plant crops easily without suffering famine, and create enough grazing food for their sheep? We aren't told. But from where I am standing, it sure looks like the Moabites lost the war.
I would also point out, that if someone decides to interpret that the entire prophecy of Elisha was NOT, in fact, fulfilled, that this would relegate Elisha to the status of a false prophet.
Regards,
jo
Edited by jo1952, 30 July 2011 - 06:09 AM.
"Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle." source unknown
The Septuagint doesn't say anything at all about years.
The earlier manuscripts don't. Later ones add either 30 or 40 as Saul's age.
jo1952, on 30 July 2011 - 03:23 AM, said:
Now, if verse 3 is reflecting what happened during the two years, I find it remarkable that a two-year old would be able to blow a trumpet. If it is reflective of what happened in the next couple of years, it would still be a pretty amazing accomplishment for someone no older than a three or four-year old; though, I suppose, not impossible.
The problem is that earlier chapters describe Saul before he became king as a grown man who was taller than all the other Israelites. The text is not meant to say he was one year old, it's just the result of a textual corruption.
The first part of the prophecy was that the Lord would deliver the Moabites into the hands of the three kings who were fearful that the Moabites would come and kill them.
The three kings were not fearful that the Moabites would come kill them. When it says Moab rebelled it means he refused either to pay his tribute or to bring military aid, the two main requirements of most ancient vassal treaties (Moab was a vassal to Israel under Ahab). The new king got help from Judah and Edom so that he could attack Moab and destroy as much of it as possible. This way they recoup whatever funds should have been paid to them (and then some), destroy a potential future enemy, and leave an example of what happens when you rebel against Israel.
jo1952, on 30 July 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:
So, what happens? As prophesied, water comes into the valley where they were camped - which must have filled the ditches which Elisha instructed them to dig. At the point where the Moabites saw the water, they thought they were actually looking at the blood of the three kings whom they decided must have killed each other. So they entered the camp of the Israelites for the purpose of taking the spoils. However, the Israelites and the three kings were all very much alive and began to smite the Moabites. To me, this appears as the fulfillment of the first part of the prophecy. IOW, the Moabites were "delivered" into the hands of the Israelites because the Moabites went directly into the camp of the Israelites (thus, they were delivered into their hands).
But they were not delivered into Israelite hands. Many got away, and when Israel pursued them into Moab other forces were waiting for them. They did not capture or kill numerous Moabites, including the king. This is not what it means in the Hebrew Bible for a force to be "delivered into someone's hands." To be "delivered into someone's hand" is to be completely and totally subject to their will. See Deut 3:3; 20:13; 21:10; Jos 2:24; 2 Sam 21:9.
jo1952, on 30 July 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:
The second part of the prophecy entails the destruction of the land and the stopping up of the wells of the Moabites. This also was accomplished according to the words of Elisha. Elisha never makes any mention of what may happen to the King of the Moabites (or his son).
But not all the cities were destroyed. The word for "destroy" also means "smite," and the author is obviously trying to hedge his bet by stating that the slingers smote the walls of the final city, but the sense from the prophecy is very clearly destruction, not merely being struck. See 2 Kgs 3:25.
jo1952, on 30 July 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:
How I see it, is that when the King of the Moabites saw that he was losing this battle, and even in taking seven hundred swordsmen to try to fight through to the King of Edom, he couldn't do it. In desperation, he sacrificed his son, perhaps hoping that his god would help him. By now, of course the remaining Moabites who were with the King would have been angry with the Israelites. We are not told if the walls that were left standing where the King sacrificed his son surrounded an intact city.
If the walls were left standing then the city was intact. The only way they were able to get into the city in this time period to destroy it was by a breach in the wall. No such thing is indicated here.
jo1952, on 30 July 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:
Not only had the Israelites destroyed the land (I am thinking this would have caused a lot of problems for the Moabites to plant any crops); and stopped up their wells; now they had also witnessed their own king sacrifice his son who was the heir to his throne.
But the Hebrew simply does not at all support reading the "great wrath" that came over Israel as the wrath of anything other than a deity. That's not open to debate. The Hebrew simply cannot be read any other way.
jo1952, on 30 July 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:
None of the verses state that the Israelites "fled". I believe the Israelites were satisfied that the Lord had preserved them, and that the prophecies of Elisha had been fulfilled.
Not without destroying the city or taking the king. That's the main objective of the campaign.
jo1952, on 30 July 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:
I don't think they feared any type of retribution from the Moabite's King's god.
It doesn't say Sennacherib fled after his siege on Jerusalem ended with the angel of Yahweh killing 300,000 of his men. In fact, it uses the same phrase that is used here, saying he returned home.
jo1952, on 30 July 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:
They HAD witnessed the power of their own God - why would they fear the Moabite god? They just had no reason to continue to fight. Their mission, so to speak, had been accomplished.
No it had not.
jo1952, on 30 July 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:
In fact, it could be surmised that by not doing any more killing, the Moabites would actually suffer more harshly if they were unable to grow crops to avoid starvation. Also, the damaged land would not have been able to support their sheep.
That was not the concern.
jo1952, on 30 July 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:
So, did sacrificing his son help the Moabite King? I guess it depends on how you look at it. No more Moabites were smitten. Yet that is not the only way to harm an enemy. Did his god unstop the wells (though certainly the remaining Moabites were capable of unstopping them, the land had been destroyed). Did his god prepare the damage done to their land so that they could plant crops easily without suffering famine, and create enough grazing food for their sheep? We aren't told. But from where I am standing, it sure looks like the Moabites lost the war.
And if you read the account of the same incident on the Mesha Stele you will find Mesha crowing about how Chemosh ran off the Israelite forces who were attacking him, and how he then took two hundred of his men (the size of an actual military force from this time period) and took an Israelite stronghold and improved it. The text then described a building campaign.
jo1952, on 30 July 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:
I would also point out, that if someone decides to interpret that the entire prophecy of Elisha was NOT, in fact, fulfilled, that this would relegate Elisha to the status of a false prophet.
I think rather it would mean the author just presented the situation that way.
The earlier manuscripts don't. Later ones add either 30 or 40 as Saul's age.
I can understand why later ones would add 30 or 40 as Saul's age; afterall, we know such things as he had sons. So if the later ones added years to the earlier ones which had once said he was only one year old, it would make sense they felt the need to make some changes. OTOH, I find that the Septuagint, by NOT putting Saul's age in at all, more naturally leads a person to reasonably believe that Saul would have had the experience to do what he did which only age can bring to a person. What a mess!
Quote
The problem is that earlier chapters describe Saul before he became king as a grown man who was taller than all the other Israelites. The text is not meant to say he was one year old, it's just the result of a textual corruption.
Which versions of the Bible make the claim that Saul was only one year old when he began to reign over Israel? In your opinion, which version is the most reliable, in general? No wonder we are taught that many precious things have been lost. I would suppose that if precious things have been lost, it would probably be safe to say that other things have been lost as well; caused by such things as the textual corruption which you are describing. It seems to me that unless someone is sincerely and humbly searching for Truth about God, this type of corruption would be a stumbling block; i.e., fodder for the agnostic and/or the atheist. It could also undermine someone's faith if it is already faltering, and they then start noticing these inconsistencies...sigh.
Thanks!
jo
"Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle." source unknown
I can understand why later ones would add 30 or 40 as Saul's age; afterall, we know such things as he had sons. So if the later ones added years to the earlier ones which had once said he was only one year old, it would make sense they felt the need to make some changes. OTOH, I find that the Septuagint, by NOT putting Saul's age in at all, more naturally leads a person to reasonably believe that Saul would have had the experience to do what he did which only age can bring to a person. What a mess!
The earlier translators didn't want to try to make sense of an obviously senseless passage, so they just left it untranslated, but over time a tradition developed and gained enough strength that he was 30/40, and some translators inserted that into their translations into Greek.
jo1952, on 30 July 2011 - 05:46 PM, said:
Which versions of the Bible make the claim that Saul was only one year old when he began to reign over Israel?
All the early Hebrew manuscripts.
jo1952, on 30 July 2011 - 05:46 PM, said:
In your opinion, which version is the most reliable, in general? No wonder we are taught that many precious things have been lost. I would suppose that if precious things have been lost, it would probably be safe to say that other things have been lost as well; caused by such things as the textual corruption which you are describing. It seems to me that unless someone is sincerely and humbly searching for Truth about God, this type of corruption would be a stumbling block; i.e., fodder for the agnostic and/or the atheist. It could also undermine someone's faith if it is already faltering, and they then start noticing these inconsistencies...sigh.
This is why I believe it's important not to hang one's faith on fundamentalist assumptions about what the Bible is.
The three kings were not fearful that the Moabites would come kill them. When it says Moab rebelled it means he refused either to pay his tribute or to bring military aid, the two main requirements of most ancient vassal treaties (Moab was a vassal to Israel under Ahab). The new king got help from Judah and Edom so that he could attack Moab and destroy as much of it as possible. This way they recoup whatever funds should have been paid to them (and then some), destroy a potential future enemy, and leave an example of what happens when you rebel against Israel.
What about these verses?
II Kings 3:9-10
9 So the king of Israel went, and the king of Judah, and the king of Edom: and they fetched a compass of seven days' journey: and there was no water for the host, and for the cattle that followed them.
10 And the king of Israel said, Alas! that the LORD hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab!
It appears to me that their concern about the Lord delivering them into the hand of Moab (rather than the other way around), is WHY they went to Elisha in the first place; i.e., to find out what the Prophet could tell them about what the Lord had to say about their circumstances. So, even though it was Jehoram's original intent to obtain help in going to battle against the Moabites, by the time they got back to his camp, he was questioning their chances.
Quote
But they were not delivered into Israelite hands. Many got away, and when Israel pursued them into Moab other forces were waiting for them. They did not capture or kill numerous Moabites, including the king. This is not what it means in the Hebrew Bible for a force to be "delivered into someone's hands." To be "delivered into someone's hand" is to be completely and totally subject to their will. See Deut 3:3; 20:13; 21:10; Jos 2:24; 2 Sam 21:9.
I don't want to get involved with parsing words. I did look up the references you provided and I can see why you may have concluded that the Lord did not deliver the Moabites into the hands of the three kings in accordance with your definition. However, the actual detail given in the other passages was much more than was given by Elisha. So, based on only the information so far provided by you, this is still not enough to convince me that your interpretation of the situation is one I can agree with. But read on....
Quote
But not all the cities were destroyed. The word for "destroy" also means "smite," and the author is obviously trying to hedge his bet by stating that the slingers smote the walls of the final city, but the sense from the prophecy is very clearly destruction, not merely being struck. See 2 Kgs 3:25.
If the walls were left standing then the city was intact. The only way they were able to get into the city in this time period to destroy it was by a breach in the wall. No such thing is indicated here.
There really is not very much detail given. We have a pretty short synopsis of the events. I did not get the feeling that ALL of the cities WOULD be destroyed from Elisha's prophecy; only the "choice" ones. Now, one would think that the King would be in one of the choice cities; but that is not necessarily the case here. The city he was in could have been one of the last cities still unaffected by the armies of the three kings and not be indicative that this meant the city was one of their choice ones. It could merely have been the city he had retreated to when the Israelites finally caught up with him.
Quote
But the Hebrew simply does not at all support reading the "great wrath" that came over Israel as the wrath of anything other than a deity. That's not open to debate. The Hebrew simply cannot be read any other way.
I am not a Hebrew scholar, so my reasoning mind allows me to accept other possibilities, which are based on what is available in the text itself. So, I will have to do more study through other sources before I can place a stake in the ground. At this point, I can only use what is written in the text to arrive at some possible conclusions. The incentive for searching elsewhere would be to try to discover more information about the incident itself in order to help persuade someone’s conclusion which, in their mind, leaves Elisha in the position of being regarded as a false Prophet. I am not saying that you have put him into this position because your entire take on the incident is based on extra-Biblical knowledge which has persuaded you to believe that what was written about Elisha’s prophecy is not accurate. Thus, since you believe that his prophecy is not properly recorded, you have not been put into the position of considering him to be a false prophet.
Quote
Not without destroying the city or taking the king. That's the main objective of the campaign.
The text says only that Jehoram wanted to go to battle against the King of the Moabites; not that he necessarily wanted to destroy him. Surely, if he were destroyed, then he could not be persuaded to continue supplying Jehoram with sheep and with ram's wool, which is what the Moabites were refusing to continue to do. To kill Mesha and totally destroy the Moabites as an example for being disobedient to the Israelites, could have been like cutting off his nose to spite his face. IOW, how many other peoples were around who where sheepmasters who were capable of supplying the Israelites with the same things the Moabites did? Maps I looked at indicate the Moabites covered quite a bit of territory. It could have been Jehoram's intent to merely teach him a lesson, and persuade him to begin supplying the Israelites again.
Obviously there are examples in the OT where Israel did totally destroy a king and his people; however, there are various reasons and causes for going to such great destructive choices. It seems that if the Lord wanted a people to be totally destroyed, or wanted specific punishments to be meted out, He would say so. The type of punishment the Lord laid out seemed to be in accordance with the crime. IOW, it was not always an order for annihilation or for making slaves of a people. In fact, I think the Lord was not happy with Jehoram, and only allowed for the Moabites to be tricked into coming against the Israelite camp (thus delivering them into their hands); but not for the purpose of destroying the Moabites or making them subservient to Israel. The Lord merely gave the Israelites the upper hand in order that they would not be the ones who would be totally destroyed or made slaves.
Quote
It doesn't say Sennacherib fled after his siege on Jerusalem ended with the angel of Yahweh killing 300,000 of his men. In fact, it uses the same phrase that is used here, saying he returned home.
I approach each story portrayed in the OT on an individual basis. I can find similarities as well as dissimilarities in each one. I find this to be true in the Book of Mormon as well. I don’t automatically assume that just because one battle was conducted in a certain way where as many people are killed as possible, or where survivors are taken as slaves, that the next battle or war will run its course in the very same way. As far as your point that not all details are given concerning a siege, I can't argue with you. However, I would not automatically apply a similar conclusion about other battles of which there is little to go on.
Quote
And if you read the account of the same incident on the Mesha Stele you will find Mesha crowing about how Chemosh ran off the Israelite forces who were attacking him, and how he then took two hundred of his men (the size of an actual military force from this time period) and took an Israelite stronghold and improved it. The text then described a building campaign.
Thank you for the heads up on the Mesha Stele; I had no idea it even existed. I have been studying several different sites until I am satisfied that I read about it from several points of view and/or agendas concerning what the message meant, in addition to having read and studied the message itself.
It appears that the Mesha Stele covers more than just the battle with the three kings mentioned in the Bible which we are discussing. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of detail – but rather a synopsis of Moab’s entire reign. It is inconclusive about the particular battle in question. It also does not mention that he sacrificed his son in order to appease “Kemosh”. He also claimed that Israel had been destroyed forever; which obviously is not accurate. I did find it interesting that Moab believes his god was angry with the “land” and not with the people who worshipped him. He seemed unable to admit that his god could have been angry with him; whereas the three Kings seemed to be concerned with where they stood with the Lord.
Also, I have found historically (as well as today), that kings and other leaders of men, see themselves differently than others do. Therefore, there are no doubt some things which are “true” which are written on the Mesha Stele; but there are probably some things which are not. Man’s ego does not generally allow him to give an accurate account of events; especially when he wants to leave a legacy that he is somehow a hero. Therefore, I am left to read most records with a grain of salt.
Quote
I think rather it would mean the author just presented the situation that way.
I appreciate your time and the insight you have shared; though I am not convinced or persuaded at this time to change my stance.
Best regards,
jo
"Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle." source unknown
0
This topic is locked
Robert F. Smith, on 05 July 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:
