Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Amalekites are destroyed again and again and again.....
The Revenge of Reason
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 173 (79741)
01-21-2004 8:24 AM


(1SA 15:7-8, 20) The Amalekites are utterly destroyed.
(1SA 27:8-9) They are utterly destroyed (again?).
(1SA 30:1, 17-18) David smites them (again?).
I don't understand how the same people can be completely snuffed out three times. Where do they keep coming from?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brian, posted 01-21-2004 9:45 AM The Revenge of Reason has not replied
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 01-21-2004 1:47 PM The Revenge of Reason has not replied
 Message 4 by john6:63, posted 01-21-2004 1:55 PM The Revenge of Reason has not replied
 Message 55 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-26-2004 11:07 PM The Revenge of Reason has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 2 of 173 (79753)
01-21-2004 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Revenge of Reason
01-21-2004 8:24 AM


Hi Revenge,
The term to 'utterly destroy' is really just a figure of speech and is not to be taken literally.
My home nation's football team was 'utterly destroyed' by Holland 6-0 but the football team still exists.
These verses you quote are to report that the Amalekites simply suffered heavy defeats. It is all part of the type of propaganda of the time. Check the Merneptah stele and the Moabite stone, similar claims are made against Israel in those inscriptions.
Try not to take the BIble too seriously.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Revenge of Reason, posted 01-21-2004 8:24 AM The Revenge of Reason has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by berberry, posted 01-22-2004 2:05 PM Brian has replied
 Message 27 by Abshalom, posted 01-25-2004 11:17 AM Brian has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 173 (79832)
01-21-2004 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Revenge of Reason
01-21-2004 8:24 AM


And to think that Christians don't believe in spontaneous generation.
[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 01-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Revenge of Reason, posted 01-21-2004 8:24 AM The Revenge of Reason has not replied

  
john6:63
Inactive Junior Member


Message 4 of 173 (79834)
01-21-2004 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Revenge of Reason
01-21-2004 8:24 AM


You will also notice that 1 Samuel 15:10-11 says that the Lord was not happy, b/c Saul didn’t do as the Lord Commanded. Saul didn’t destroy all of them, for he spared Agag and the best of the sheep, oxenetc. This isn’t suggesting that an entire race of people where now extinct. Saul attack was upon a certain village or encampment.
1 Samuel 20? Do you mean 1 Samuel 15:18-20? If so, this is a conversation between Saul and Samuel as to why he (Saul) disobeyed Gods command.
1 Samuel 27:8-9, doesn’t say that David utterly destroyed. It does say that he left no man or woman alive; this was just a village or an encampment, not the whole race of people.
1 Samuel 30:1, says nothing about David fighting the Amalekites. The Amalekites attack the city of Ziklag, the city in which David is from. David at the time of the attack was north w/ the Philistine army and the city of Ziklag was left unguarded.
1 Samuel 30:17-18, David surprises the Amalekites off guard, for they expected David to be far north. Again David attacks the Army.
Keep in mind it wasn’t the entire race that was destroyed, just a regiment, a villageetc, but entire race didn’t lay extinct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Revenge of Reason, posted 01-21-2004 8:24 AM The Revenge of Reason has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 173 (80085)
01-22-2004 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Brian
01-21-2004 9:45 AM


Pesky little devils, those Amalekites.
The fact is that 'utterly destroyed' is a very specific phrase. There is only one way it can be interpreted, especially if the book in which it appears is one that contains only "truth". If the giver of all truth meant to say 'dealt a blow' or 'inconvenienced' or 'nearly destroyed' one would think he'd be able to find the words to do so without resorting to such hyperbole.
How seriously are we to take the Bible if we are to regard it as inerrant? If we find places in it where the word 'utterly' must be interpreted as 'sort of' or 'mostly' how then are we to interpret words like 'day', 'earth', 'kill', 'salvation', 'resurrection' or 'virgin' to name just a few other biblical keywords?
Why is it necessary to decode a book that is supposed to be inerrant? Why shouldn't reading it and taking it at its word be enough?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Brian, posted 01-21-2004 9:45 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by john6:63, posted 01-22-2004 3:27 PM berberry has replied
 Message 8 by Brian, posted 01-23-2004 3:44 AM berberry has replied

  
john6:63
Inactive Junior Member


Message 6 of 173 (80104)
01-22-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by berberry
01-22-2004 2:05 PM


Your not one of those who believes the original autographs were written in English are you?
[This message has been edited by john6:63, 01-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by berberry, posted 01-22-2004 2:05 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by berberry, posted 01-23-2004 1:09 AM john6:63 has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 173 (80241)
01-23-2004 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by john6:63
01-22-2004 3:27 PM


"One of those"? Who believes that? I wouldn't even try to imply that the fundamentalists who live here in Mississippi believe that. I'm not stupid, thank you very much.
As I understand fundamentalist logic (if you'll pardon the oxymoron) the King James version of the Bible is inerrant. The King James is in English. If this is correct then it follows that the English word 'utterly' is an accurate translation of the original. I understand that some fundamentalists allow that the Bible may contain minor copyist errors. Is that your position? If so, I would again pose my question about which words are to be taken literally and which are not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by john6:63, posted 01-22-2004 3:27 PM john6:63 has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 8 of 173 (80256)
01-23-2004 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by berberry
01-22-2004 2:05 PM


Hi,
Pesky little devils, those Amalekites.
No more so than those pesky Israelites.
The fact is that 'utterly destroyed' is a very specific phrase.
I disagree; I think it is a very subjective and relative phrase. To utterly destroy a nation doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no one left in that nation, it can mean that the nation has suffered a very heavy defeat.
As I said in an earlier post, this type of rhetoric was very common in the ancient near east, nations were utterly destroyed on a regular basis. Take the Israelites as an example, in the victory hymn of the Merneptah Stele dated to around 1205 BCE:
"Israel is laid waste, its seed is not."
This implies that the Israelites were wiped out, the ‘seed’ of Israel is finished there are no more Israelites, yet in the mid ninth century BCE, Mesha the King of Moab claims this victory over the ‘Israelites’:
I will see my desire on him and his house. And Israel surely perished for ever. Omri took the land of Medeba
How could Israel have been laid waste and have no more seed and still be a nation powerful enough to have oppressed Moab for many days?
Omri [was] king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab many days, for Chemosh was angry with his
These claims are just part of the mindset of the people of that time, what they meant by ‘utterly destroy’ was to inflict a heavy defeat on an enemy.
There is only one way it can be interpreted, especially if the book in which it appears is one that contains only "truth".
Well this depends on which type of truth you are talking about, if you are talking about the accuracy of historical events then the Bible is not the book for that. The bible makes all sorts of ridiculous claims that were supposed to be historical, but the ‘history’ writing of the Hebrew Bible is not the same type of history that we write today, it isn’t even ancient Greek historia . The authors were not writing a critical account of any past events, they were writing for religious purposes, and this is one reason why most of the Hebrew Bible is full of propaganda. There is very little verifiable history in the Hebrew bible.
If the giver of all truth meant to say 'dealt a blow' or 'inconvenienced' or 'nearly destroyed' one would think he'd be able to find the words to do so without resorting to such hyperbole.
But they clearly exaggerated the victory, as was the norm in those days, everyone was writing the same way.
How seriously are we to take the Bible if we are to regard it as inerrant?
If you consider the Bible to be inerrant then the different meaning s of words are they least of your problems.
If we find places in it where the word 'utterly' must be interpreted as 'sort of' or 'mostly' how then are we to interpret words like 'day', 'earth', 'kill', 'salvation', 'resurrection' or 'virgin' to name just a few other biblical keywords?
But some of these words do have more than one meaning.
Day, for example, can refer to the part of a 24 hour period when it is light, it can also refer to the entire 24 hour period as well. ‘Earth’ can mean the planet or it can mean the ‘soil’. Resurrected also has more than one meaning, as well as being resurrected from the dead, you can resurrect an old philosophy, or you could resurrect your career!
The virgin birth is based on a mistranslation, which has been dealt with here so many times that I am totally bored with it.
Why is it necessary to decode a book that is supposed to be inerrant?
Is it supposed to be inerrant?
Why shouldn't reading it and taking it at its word be enough?
Because taken as written the Bible is hilarious. But seriously, it has to be reinterpreted because so much of it has been proven incorrect that reinterpreting the text is the only way that some people can maintain this silly inerrancy stance. We also have to remember that some of the Hebrew words do have many meanings. Look at the numbers in the Exodus group, if we take the Bible account at face value then we have 2 or 3 million Israelites in the group, this is absolutely absurd, so scholars have to look at alternate meanings. One explanation is that the word used for ‘thousand’ in Hebrew is ‘eleph’ and can mean ‘family’ or even ‘tent’, now to most people it is much more plausible for there to be 600 families or 600 tents rather than 600 000 men of fighting age.
I personally study the Hebrew Bible in the same way that I would study any other ancient text, when people view the Bible as something special, something supernatural, all it is doing is making the Bible into something it isn’t.
The Bible is a wonderful collection of books, but taking these books literally involves an exercise in denial that goes beyond my comprehension.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by berberry, posted 01-22-2004 2:05 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by berberry, posted 01-23-2004 12:59 PM Brian has replied
 Message 41 by doctrbill, posted 01-26-2004 12:16 AM Brian has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 173 (80315)
01-23-2004 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Brian
01-23-2004 3:44 AM


Brian, you don't sound like a fundamentalist to me, at least not as I understand that term. I agree with most of what you say and I think the Bible is a wonderful book with much to teach (and btw I didn't even believe that until I had read Isaac Asimov's guide). However, as you seem to say, it has to be interpreted critically to be of any real use. This is not the view of the fundamentalists I know. They would say that the Bible is precisely accurate in everything it says, that no higher criticism is necessary and that such criticism is in fact sinful.
I am homosexual, and my biggest problem with the Bible is the perceived injunctions against homosexuality. Many people here in the South use these passages to defend their intolerance. I like to take them at their word - that word being that the Bible is inerrant - and try to demonstrate how absurd their position is. You can often influence young people this way, but the older fundamentists will generally cling to their ignorance like Linus clings to his blanket.
My position is that either the bible is inerrant or it isn't. If it is inerrant then it should be unnecessary to worry about translation errors. Surely God would see to it that the received word is accurate, if he in fact influenced or dictated the composition of the original texts. If it is not inerrant, then any and all passages have to be suspect at least to some degree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Brian, posted 01-23-2004 3:44 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Brian, posted 01-23-2004 2:33 PM berberry has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 10 of 173 (80338)
01-23-2004 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by berberry
01-23-2004 12:59 PM


Hiya, hope you are well
Brian, you don't sound like a fundamentalist to me, at least not as I understand that term.
Thank goodness for that! I don’t even believe in God, I see no reason to. I was in no way attempting to defend bible inerrancy with my initial message, I was only making people aware that this example may not be an error at all, because victories over enemies was often exaggerated in near eastern societies.
I agree with most of what you say and I think the Bible is a wonderful book with much to teach (and btw I didn't even believe that until I had read Isaac Asimov's guide). However, as you seem to say, it has to be interpreted critically to be of any real use. This is not the view of the fundamentalists I know. They would say that the Bible is precisely accurate in everything it says, that no higher criticism is necessary and that such criticism is in fact sinful.
This inerrancy position is the result of religious dogma, and we also have to remember that fundamentalists are not exactly known for being intelligent. In fact, fundamentalists are totally braindead, they would say that black is white if it supported their childish stance. I have said many times that anyone who claims that the Bible is precisely accurate in everything it says simply haven’t studied the Bible, they have been indoctrinated by morons who do not have the capability to add two and two together. I have seen it so many times, a fundamentalist comes across a website, usually ‘answersingenesis’ and they see an apologetic that seems to explain a particular problem they have, however, your average fundamentalist is too dense to investigate the apologetic to see if it holds water and they repeat it to others and it catches on. The funny thing about the fundamentalist mindset is that once they have found an apparent apologetic they have total allegiance to that apologetic, it doesn’t matter how many times they are shown errors in the apologetic, they keep clinging it. The cognitive dissonance of the fundamentalist would be rather amusing if it wasn’t such a tragedy, I find it embarrassing that adults can be so stupid.
I am homosexual, and my biggest problem with the Bible is the perceived injunctions against homosexuality.
Yes, we have had a few discussions here about this. But, as I am sure you know, the Bible is not as clear on this issue as the fundies think it is.
Many people here in the South use these passages to defend their intolerance.
They do seem particularly hung up on this ‘sin’, but a sin is a sin, whether it is stealing, or adultery, or lying, but the fundies don’t appear to bothered about these other sins.
I like to take them at their word - that word being that the Bible is inerrant - and try to demonstrate how absurd their position is.
Well good luck to you, you do know that even if you showed them an airtight error they wouldn’t accept it, they would have some explanation regardless of how absurd it is? We are not talking about decent people here, we are talking about ignorant homophobic bigots who should not be allowed to have children.
You can often influence young people this way, but the older fundamentalists will generally cling to their ignorance like Linus clings to his blanket.
One of the things I hate about this inerrancy stance is that fundy parents are suffocating their children with this garbage, they are polluting their children’s minds before the child has developed the ability to make a choice. Imagine Kent Hovind’s kids, what choice did they have?
My position is that either the bible is inerrant or it isn't.
Well it is categorically wrong about many things, there really is no debate about this outside of the fundy asylum.
If it is inerrant then it should be unnecessary to worry about translation errors. Surely God would see to it that the received word is accurate, if he in fact influenced or dictated the composition of the original texts. If it is not inerrant, then any and all passages have to be suspect at least to some degree.
I can only really comment on archaeology, history, and the Old testament since these are my areas of study, but I can state without fear of contradiction that the vast majority of ‘history’ in Genesis through to II Kings is not supported by external sources. In fact, the evidence from archaeology and textual sources has undermined almost all of the primary history of the Hebrew Bible.
Best wishes.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by berberry, posted 01-23-2004 12:59 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 01-23-2004 3:05 PM Brian has replied
 Message 12 by berberry, posted 01-23-2004 3:11 PM Brian has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 11 of 173 (80349)
01-23-2004 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Brian
01-23-2004 2:33 PM


Who Be the Amalakites?
The Amalekites:
This nomadic nation was, in ancient times, Israel's eternal foe. Shortly after the Israelites left Egypt and were wondering the desert, the Amalekites attacked the weary nation, slaughtering the weak and elderly. The Israelites, under the leadership of Joshua, later avenged the attack and defeated the Amalekites, but failed to completely eradicate the nation. Israel was then plagued with raids Amalekite raids. Today, the name Amalek is a symbol for evil and hatred against Jews, and Haman, the Persian leader who vowed to destroy all Jews, is considered a descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites.
Brian...while I am not a strict fundie, I do question your assertion that most biblical interpretation of history is in error. Lets assume that you give me ten sources that counter it. Can we assume that these sources have a verifiable counterproof? If so, can we assume the motive as a pure one or as merely an attempt to refute the bible! I am not going to defend biblical history, but let me examine the counter evidence. I don't think that all biblical scholars are merely going off of the opinions of a few illiterate buffoons. I may need to study this further, however. In any case, I think that what you accuse biblical inerrency folks of doing...which is remaining in a comfort zone of denial...I would suggest that many atheists also dwell in their own comfort zone behind the facade of intellectualism and denying the possibility that the premise of the Bible is a true one>>Namely that there is a factual spiritual battle within cosmic and human consciousness. Some of us believe that this ain't no fairy tale! We all are not ignorant by simply refusing to bow before intellectuals armed with a few errors in scripture and thus gleefully refuting an entire belief system. Bottem line: Human wisdom is NOT the standard here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Brian, posted 01-23-2004 2:33 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Brian, posted 01-24-2004 11:07 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 01-24-2004 1:50 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 18 by sidelined, posted 01-24-2004 3:36 PM Phat has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 173 (80353)
01-23-2004 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Brian
01-23-2004 2:33 PM


I think we're on the same page for the most part, but I still disagree with you about the word 'utterly'. That is an absolute term and anyone who regards the bible as inerrant would have to take it as such. It is easy enough to use that word the way a sportscaster would, but I should think that God would want such a word used only where it precisely applies if he in fact wished that his book should be viewed as absolute truth for all time. If a fundie were to insist that the meaning of 'utterly' is elastic I would allow it, but I would then insist that EVERY word of the Bible is suspect because if God said 'utterly' when he meant 'sort of' then how can we ever know precisely what he meant by anything else?
You're right, it is difficult (usually impossible) to get anywhere arguing inerrancy with a fundamentalist, but I've found that you can sometimes do some good with young people. It helps if they go to public schools and do well in science, but sadly many today are "educated" at home using materials from Bob Jones University. It's not only sad, it's frightening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Brian, posted 01-23-2004 2:33 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 13 of 173 (80459)
01-24-2004 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Phat
01-23-2004 3:05 PM


Re: Who Be the Amalakites?
Hi,
The Amalekites:
This nomadic nation was, in ancient times, Israel's eternal foe. Shortly after the Israelites left Egypt and were wondering the desert, the Amalekites attacked the weary nation, slaughtering the weak and elderly. The Israelites, under the leadership of Joshua, later avenged the attack and defeated the Amalekites, but failed to completely eradicate the nation. Israel was then plagued with raids Amalekite raids. Today, the name Amalek is a symbol for evil and hatred against Jews, and Haman, the Persian leader who vowed to destroy all Jews, is considered a descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites.
So what evidence do you have that these events happened, other than an unreferenced (and contrary to forum rules) cut and past job? What evidence do you have that there was a nation known as the Amalekites. When is this conflict dated too? How does it fit in with overall history of the region? WHat evidence do you have that there ever was a Joshua? what evidence do you have that the Amalekites suffered these various attacks. What evidence do you have that the Israelites left Egypt. What evidence do you have that there ever was a King called Agag the Amalekite? These are just a few question that need ot be addressed before your claim can be taken seriously.
Brian...while I am not a strict fundie, I do question your assertion that most biblical interpretation of history is in error.
You are perfectly entitled to disagree with me.
Lets assume that you give me ten sources that counter it. Can we assume that these sources have a verifiable counterproof?
Yes. But remember that historical research is similar to scientific research. Just as no scientific theory is ever ‘proven’ no historical theory is ever proven either. However, just as there should be ways to falsify a scientific theory, there are ways to falsify historical accounts and the vast majority of the so-called historical events in the primary history books of the Hebrew Bible have been falsified. So, if you want historians to accept a particular biblical event as being accurate, you really need to provide good evidence to support that biblical event. For example, to claim that Joshua and his armies conquered the whole of Palestine and absolutely defeated every kingdom therein, you would need to provide evidence that all these cities show signs of destruction at more or less the same time. You would also have to provide evidence to explain where the Israelites came from, was Joshua a real person, why are there no mentions of Egyptians in Palestine in the Bible accounts? (plus much more of course) The truth of the matter in regard to biblical history is that most of it is not even plausible.
History writing is very complex, historians do not take the bible stories on faith, they need good evidence before they accept anything and most bible event do not have good evidence. You may wonder why so many ‘biblical historians’ claim that these events do have good evidence, well, basically they haven’t got a clue what they are talking about and they are only presenting the ‘evidence’ that they think supports their view. They never produce a critical evaluation of the evidence, and they only survive because their intended audience are as simple as they are, and this audience uncritically absorbs their materials, and so their misrepresentations of the evidence have continued shelf life.
If so, can we assume the motive as a pure one or as merely an attempt to refute the bible!
But why should an historical investigation into the origins of near eastern cultures have anything to do with the Bible? This approach was one reason why archaeologists have called for the discipline of ‘biblical archaeology’ to be replaced by the term ‘Syro-Palestinian archaeology’. The big problem in the early 19th century was that every find in the near east was automatically compared to the Bible. It didn’t help that nearly all of the ‘archaeologists’ were from North American protestant seminaries or that most of them were not trained archaeologists (even Albright wasn’t an archaeologist).
You share a common misconception, namely that all historians who do not agree with the biblical accounts have set out to disprove the Bible, this is not the case. A fly in the ointment here would be to account for those Christian historians and archaeologists who had to change their views in face of the evidence that they themselves discovered. I honestly find it difficult to think of any Christian archaeologist/historian/orientalist scholar, who has studied the evidence for the origins of the Israelites, who supports the Bible’s version of Israel’s origin. This is not to say that there aren’t any, so if you know of any, let me know please. We do have people, such as Nahum Sarna and Bryant Wood, who try to rationalise the problems with the biblical texts, but even these two reinterpret the text to some degree, also, their hypotheses do not stand up to any critical analysis. A lot of Wood’s work is used by Christiananswers.net, but despite Wood having been shown where his work is severely flawed, he continues to claim ridiculous things such as maintaining his delusion that he has disproved Kenyon’s dating of the destruction of Jericho.
I may need to study this further
If you require a reading list I would be happy to provide one.
however. In any case, I think that what you accuse biblical inerrency folks of doing...which is remaining in a comfort zone of denial...
For which there is ample proof.
I would suggest that many atheists also dwell in their own comfort zone behind the facade of intellectualism
Why would they do this?
and denying the possibility that the premise of the Bible is a true one>>Namely that there is a factual spiritual battle within cosmic and human consciousness.
Factual! Sorry not factual, but a BELIEF, get your FACTS right.
Some of us believe that this ain't no fairy tale!
Yes it is amazing how gullible people can be isn’t it? I am sure you will grow out of this.
We all are not ignorant by simply refusing to bow before intellectuals armed with a few errors in scripture and thus gleefully refuting an entire belief system.
So why are you all ignorant then?
Bottem line: Human wisdom is NOT the standard here.
The standard where?
We are discussing the slaughter of the Amalekites, an event that should be detectable in human history, so what are you talking about?
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 01-23-2004 3:05 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 01-24-2004 11:47 AM Brian has replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 14 of 173 (80466)
01-24-2004 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Brian
01-24-2004 11:07 AM


Re: Who Be the Amalakites?
We are discussing the slaughter of the Amalekites, an event that should be detectable in human history, so
Why should that be the case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Brian, posted 01-24-2004 11:07 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Brian, posted 01-24-2004 12:28 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 15 of 173 (80474)
01-24-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ConsequentAtheist
01-24-2004 11:47 AM


Re: Who Be the Amalakites?
Hi,
Well if the Bible is a reliable history book then the 2-3 million people that the Amalekites attacked should be traceable, These 2-3 million were said to have left Egypt by Phatboy's source. Now, if this was proven then the slaughter of the Amalekites would at least be plausible.
Are the Amalekites referred to in any other near eastern texts? Do they disappear from history 'overnight'.
What I was getting at is that even if the Amalekites were a tiny little tribe that may have been archaeologically invisible, the background of the defeat has to be supported.
In this case, one problem of the background to the story would be the absence of any evidence to support the claim that 3 million Israelites left Egypt. These are the same three million that the Amalekites were said to have attacked, would they actually have attacked a group of 3 million!
So for the story to be accurate, the circumstances of the event need to be established, and they aren't.
You know as well as I do that this is not supported by the evidence. So, if there is no proof that the Israelites left Egypt then it is reasonable to assume, based on the evidence, that the Amalekites did not attack the Israelites.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 01-24-2004 11:47 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 01-24-2004 7:33 PM Brian has replied
 Message 24 by Phat, posted 01-24-2004 11:35 PM Brian has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024