126 replies to this topic

[volgadon]

Quote

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.

Rebellion was punished very severely. To you it might seem like cutting off the nose to spite the face, but don't let your modern sensibilities override historical fact.

[volgadon]

Quote

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.

The OT wasn't r=written by historians, nor was the history of the Moabite War written by an Israelite Anthony Beevor. One of the main devices of the Bible is the use of key words which tend to relate to other incidents, as well as being formulaic.

[maklelan]

jo1952, on 31 July 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.

  

They approached the prophet to find out what to do about how to proceed. I don't believe this indicates they feared that the Moabites were coming to get them.  

jo1952, on 31 July 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

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....

The additional detail in those accounts helps to clarify the sense of "deliver into the hands of." In light of the circumstances consistently surrounding its use elsewhere, I don't think it methodologically sound to suggest disparate circumstances surround its use here.

jo1952, on 31 July 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.

It says "every fenced city, and every choice city." "Fenced" means "walled."

jo1952, on 31 July 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.

It may not have been choice, but it was unquestionably walled, since the king offers his son as a sacrifice upon the wall.

jo1952, on 31 July 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.  

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.

The events described in 2 Kings were incredibly common to the Near East at that time period. The circumstances do not have to be fully and explicitly fleshed out for us to know what was going on. Back then when a vassal rebelled you could go to battle to try to reinstitute the vassal state or to utterly destroy it ("scorched earth policy") and steal what money you could from them. They had no self-sustaining economy back then, so empires grew and were maintained on bringing in money, either from conquest, from trade, or from vassalage.

jo1952, on 31 July 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.

When the armies came through and destroyed everything they would take what was owed and then some.

jo1952, on 31 July 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.

But their campaign was designed to cripple Moab's ability to produce an agricultural supply of any kind, much less a surplus. That was the point of the scorched earth policy. It is similar to the practice of sowing the enemies crops with salt.

jo1952, on 31 July 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.

I read Elisha's prophecy as saying exactly that.

jo1952, on 31 July 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.

I think this reads quite a bit into the text that is neither stated, suggested, nor supported by the cultural and literary context.

jo1952, on 31 July 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.

Obviously we take different approaches to the question.

jo1952, on 31 July 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.

Often "land" in these contexts means the inhabitants of the land.

jo1952, on 31 July 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.

I do read it as saying he understood his god to be upset with his country.

jo1952, on 31 July 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.

  

I believe the biblical texts merit the same approach.

jo1952, on 31 July 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

I appreciate your time and the insight you have shared; though I am not convinced or persuaded at this time to change my stance.

I appreciate your time as well.

[Pa Pa]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2011 - 11:12 AM, said:

All,

The question I am raising here was prompted by a statement made by Dan McClellan on the CARM forum:

I believe the God(s) of the Bible is real…words can just poorly disrobe him (them) Father, Son and Holy Ghost. A god is merely an immortal being. The God, is the author of all truth. Modern day Christians just deny the type of beings they are with the Nicene Creed. I am not sure why it took them 300 years to define “God”.

[Zakuska]

maklelan, on 03 July 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:

I pointed out in great detail that it absolutely was not. That is the concern that you've yet to directly address. You've only asserted that his prophecy was fulfilled and have ignored my reasons for concluding otherwise.



What those verses show is that the prophecy was mostly fulfilled. The Israelites had been victorious in many battles against the Moabites, but in the final and decisive battle where they were fighting against the king himself, they were run off. The main part of Elisha's prophecy, that Moab would be delivered into Israelite hands, was absolutely not fulfilled. Moab remained autonomous and her king remained in power in a city that withstood the Israelite/Judahite/Edomite siege and ran those forces off. The vassalage that Moab threw off at the death of Ahab was not restored. As I have said many, many times, winning most of the battles doesn't matter if you fail in the last battle and ultimately fail to achieve the goal of the campaign.



Up until the last battle, and in that battle the Moabites won, sending the Israelites packing. The Moabites were not ultimately delivered into the hands of the Israelites. They got away. Their country wash ravaged, but they escaped from the hands of the Israelites at the crucial juncture.



But it did mean the forces said to be delivered into their hands were completely at their mercy. They completely routed their forces and there was no indication that they had to retreat or were driven back after an initial advance. It meant the complete subjugation of the enemy forces that were said to be delivered into their hand.



Neither of those verses uses the word קצף.



I specifically said it could not have come from God, and the notion that it came from Chemosh not only has contextual support, it is the only reading that is contextually supported. The fact that wrath overtook an army that was attacking a city immediately following a dramatic sacrifice by the defending city makes it undeniable that the wrath was from the city's patron deity. In this post I show that this motif appears repeatedly in ancient literature. You have not responded to any of these facts, you have just nakedly asserted that I am wrong.



You and all these translations are simply wrong. That word is never used in this way to refer to the wrath of a human. It does not mean that, period.



I've explained exactly how the context actually does suggest exactly that. You've never directly engaged those comments, you've only said "Nu-uh!"



Only if you import the presupposition that such an event could never happen, but since that's what this entire discussion is about, what you're doing is begging the question.



And this is just a poor apologetic attempt to find some answer other than the clear one, namely that Chemosh drove off Yahweh's forces. The word in question here simply cannot refer to the wrath of the king of Moab. The word's usage and the immediate context make that clear. His act of desperation cannot be interpreted as a great indignation that swept over the Israelite forces. That's a ludicrous reading.



Your simply stating that does not actually show it to be true. You have to back up your assertion with an argument, which you have shown you cannot do.



It does not go against the tenor of the whole Bible if you recognize that the Bible recognizes the existence and potency of the other gods on numerous occasions. An honest and objective reading will show that to be the case. It is only problematized when someone sets out with the conclusion already in mind that such cannot be allowed to be the case. Again, all the evidence is stacked against you and all you seem to be able to do is flippantly dismiss my argument and reassert the very assertions I've shown to be fallacious and uninformed.

And please, please, please stop using different colors. It gives every line an opening and closing color stamp, and it makes formatting my response so very complicated.

I read the whole thread and I just wanted to comment on this post. Im finding myself leaning to the other side on this one.  I think Zerinus brings up some valid points here.  While it is true the final city did not fall and the king of the moabites was not killed. The king did kill the hier to the throne and thus brought an end to his rule and for all intents and purposes signaled a victory for the Israelites. This is echoed in the words... "Should have reign in his stead".

The purpose was fulffilled so the Israelites went home. Thus the people of the king hated the Israelites for what they had done and had "indignation" towards them, because they had brought an end to the reign of the king and the heir to the throne was dead.

[maklelan]

Zakuska, on 02 August 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

I read the whole thread and I just wanted to comment on this post. Im finding myself leaning to the other side on this one.  I think Zerinus brings up some valid points here.

I think the points he brings up merit attention, but I also think he completely ignores numerous critical points of mine that quite undermine his position.

Zakuska, on 02 August 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

While it is true the final city did not fall and the king of the moabites was not killed. The king did kill the hier to the throne and thus brought an end to his rule and for all intents and purposes signaled a victory for the Israelites.

It killed the first heir, but the text implies he has other sons (it specifies he sacrificed his firstborn), and they would obviously take the place of the oldest on the throne. This isn't really a significant point.

Zakuska, on 02 August 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

This is echoed in the words... "Should have reign in his stead".

The Hebrew literally reads "and he took his son the firstborn, which will reign instead of him . . ." The tense and mood of the English translation is subjective. Irrespective, the next oldest son would simply take his place.

Zakuska, on 02 August 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

The purpose was fulffilled so the Israelites went home. Thus the people of the king hated the Israelites for what they had done and had "indignation" towards them, because they had brought an end to the reign of the king and the heir to the throne was dead.

Another heir would already be in line, and even if he ran out of sons, there were numerous provisions for guaranteeing continuity of rule back then. Additionally, within only a few years Moab gained back all the land the Israelites had taken from them under their vassalage.

[volgadon]

http://books.google....chemosh&f=false