Could this really have happened?

Well, yeah, it's a huge plot hole but, most good yarns don't stand up to scrutiny. After 20 teenagers are murdered alone in dark places by the crazed axe guy, one more slips into the breach and that kind of stuff can fill theatres and later people will rent it!Tale of Two Cities was a good yarn but really, could two individuals who were not identical twins look enough like each other to fool that many people? Story tellers have obligations to entertain and I think Samson and Deliah was a good yarn as well as having some important teachings.I for one am not going to complain about the Philistine's stupidity in the story. The bad guys always have some sort of lapse like that. I mean why didnt' Darth Vader finish Luke and party off right away? Well, you know that would have killed the story!lfen

Yes, a dramatic death scene, with "a cast of thousands" is good box office. I wonder how long the Bible would have lasted without that kind of embellishment. Samson getting his weekly haircut in prison wouldn't be much of a page-turner.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

They were dumb enough to believe it was in the hair in the first place.

You're not answering the question: if they were dumb enough to think Samson's hair had magic powers, why wouldn't they cut his hair off?If somebody is dumb enough to think there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, why wouldn't they go look for it? If somebody is dumb enough to think a copper bracelet cures arthritis, why wouldn't they wear one?The story is implausible because the dumb people don't follow the dumb illogic of their own dumb ideas.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Story makes no reference that his power would return if his hair grew back. Remember the hair was never cut, so the power was there from birth. Once they cut the original birth hair, the power was gone forever. This was confirmed in the story, because his hair grew back, and he did not have the power. This must have been what they were thinking.

But that's what the Philistines thought.Put yourself in their position. Delilah had told them that Samson's power was in his hair. Why would they cut it once to capture him and then just let it grow back?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This is an interesting tale(the pharaoh midwife saga).
Why would the late arrival of the midwives prevents them from carrying out Pharaoh's command... unless they arrived 20 years late when these fellas started brandishing swords?I think the moral of the story is .... if God can harden Pharaoh's heart, He certainly can soften Pharaoh's brainEdited by honda33, : edited for spelling

But your just adding stuff to the story.Let's look at the facts, according to the story, and you can see there is perfectly good logic in them letting his hair grow back.Fact 1
"No razor has ever come on my head; for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother's womb
(His hair was from birth)fact 2
If I am shaved, then my strength will go from me, and I will become weak, and be like any other man."
(If he is shaved, he will loose his strength)fact 3
22 However the hair of his head began to grow again after he was shaved.
(his hair grew back)fact 4
25 It happened, when their hearts were merry, that they said, "Call for Samson, that he may entertain us." They called for Samson out of the prison; and he performed before them. They set him between the pillars;
(even though his hair grew back, he did not have his power)(if your going to ask a question, ask why he did not have his power, even though his hair grew back)(to me it is obvious from this fact that the
Philistines knew exactly what they were doing, and knew his power had left him for good, however they did not know where the strength actually came from, all Samson had to do was reconcile with God, and it didn't matter if he had hair or not)I think it is safe to say from the facts of the story, that once a razer was taken to his head, he was to loose his power forever. And that is exactly what happened. The strength was in his birth hair, not just his hair.So why ask the question, "why let his hair grow back"?
It is an illogical question.Just examine the facts of the story and you can see why. Don't add stuff to it, that isn't there.

That is not the moral of the story. There is no evidence that the pharohs brain was soft. He made an intelligent decision, which led to the loss of Samson's strength.

It's obvious that they didn't know what they were doing, since he killed them all. It's also obvious that his power hadn't left him for good. The strength wasn't in his hair at all, but the Philistines thought it was. So the obvious question is, "Why would they let his hair grow back?" They would have thought that the hair would bring back his strength and he would kill them. You're confusing two stories again.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Perhaps he behaved in an 'unNazarite' way because his free will was denied by God? Samson never chose to be a Nazarite. The Samson narratives are riddled with inconsistencies, mythological leitmotifs, and illogical claims, the weirdest thing about this thread is that some people actually think that Samson's adventures were real!I am now beyond the point where I am amazed at people's gullibility, I don't even shake my head in bewilderment anymore. Brian.

It's obvious that they didn't know about the convenant between him and God, and that it could be reconciled. Yes, I will agree with that. That still has nothing to do with the question: "why did they let his hair grow back?" Because it wasn't his power, it was God's. After the birth hair was cut, letting his hair grow back had nothing to do with the strength that he drew from the Lord. So the Philistines were ok in letting his hair grow back, as far as they knew. I can't believe your asking this question again. They wouldn't have thought that since he would never regain his birth hair. Remember, he told the girl, a razor was never taken to his head. That is part of the story.Examine the facts again. But this time try to make sense of them. Yea, I know. He made an incorrect statement, but I thought I would point out that it has nothing to do with anything.

Who might that be? Well we just dealt with the first one. The "logical" question of "why did they let his hair grow back?" And we find that it is an illogical question, and that you have mis-understood the story. Because that is why he was born. He was fulfilling his purpose in life. The bible covers that also.

Because they had just had a conversation that mentioned the midwives attending births. But it states explicitly in the text that they attended births:Exodus 1:16 "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool,So, you are still saying that the midwives never attend births? Did midwives carry out these duties 3500 years ago in Hebrew society? Please provide supporting references. So does a little common sense. I already said that I considered exactly what you are saying, but I rejected it based on what the text actually says. You see, unlike a lot of people at this site, I actually do read the Bible and research it. Unlike some people, I do not project back in time a modern day job description onto a distant era and just assume that nothing has changed. Why would he say: "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool” if he didn’t think midwives attended the births?The midwives were ordered to kill baby boys when they were born.
God knows where your logic is mate, have you read the text and even thought about how flawed your argument is?The pharaoh orders the midwives to kill all baby boys whose birth they attend. You say that the pharaoh is aware that midwives are used after births as well. Why didn’t the pharaoh just tell the midwives to kill the baby boys at the first opportunity? He didn’t, because the text informs us that Hebrew women did have midwives in attendance.Another question might be, why did the midwives not inform pharaoh that they didn’t attend births at the appropriate time?Now, much more reasonable would be a conversation along these lines:Pharaoh: "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live."Midwives: Sorry, but we do not attend births, the Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women, they give birth before we arrive. Pharaoh I see, fine I’ll go with plan B, let’s through the babies in the Nile. It is as if some people lose the ability to read when they are faced with an insurmountable error in the Bible, because if you actually read the conversation nothing of what you claim is even reasonable.Look at the conversation with an open mind, just for a second, and you will see how straightforward it is.Right after pharaoh has ordered them to kill the babies, this is written:Exodus 1:17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live.It is so obvious that they attended the births but let the boys live, they didn’t do what they were told, they did something else. Historical research is initially all about speculation, and rational narratives go a long way towards reconstructing an accurate past.And you are correct, the problem isn’t an errant or unbelievable Bible, that the Bible contains errors and impossible events has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. The discussion here is about how illogical some of the narratives are. Again, all enquiries begin with speculation, and the plausibility of a text determines how trustworthy the story is. But, you don’t have to be very intelligent to see the huge error in thought here. The one big threat to your security depends on a man’s hair being short, so you allow it to grow long, Jesus even Bush could work that out. This is yet another illogical argument. But, by you logic, you would have to prove that EVERY judgement throughout history man has made has been illogical! Again, you go imposing a modern day situation back onto an ancient time. The modern day example is far more complex than the little tale we are looking at. We are told in the Bible that Samson had already slaughtered over 1000 Philistines, they know the cure, they applied the cure, then they sat back and watched the danger return. Why would they ignore them? Of course it is speculation. But, to even attempt to speculate about any Bible event means that we first need to get rid of a lot of ”background noise’. Once we rationalise a text, which allows us to reject impossible claims or to remove events from the Bible that have been demonstrated to be untrue, then from this we can examine the textual claims that remain in order to try and construct a reasonably accurate event. For these examples to be taken literally you have a huge task ahead of you. For example, for the midwives tale to be taken literally you would have to demonstrate that there were Hebrews enslaved by a pharaoh sometime in the 2nd millennium BCE. Good luck with that because after more than 150 years of intensive research, not a single scholar has successfully achieved this. You would also have to demonstrate that a pharaoh would bother consulting with slaves in this manner. You would also have to demonstrate that there was a group in Egypt at a certain time that had a extremely increased population growth rate. So, you are quite incorrect to say we can take any of these examples literally. That isn’t what I am asking. George Bush is basically a moron, but how many decisions do you really think Bush is allowed to make. Luckily he has a team of advisors and is not making decisions by himself.We know that George Bush is a moron, however, we do not even know who the pharaoh was, so how can you say he was dumb? That the pharaoh isn’t named in the Bible is a hugely suspicious omission, and yet another clue that these tales are fiction. Numerous pharaoh have shown that they were indeed extremely intelligent, so once you present the name of the pharaoh we can look at what we know of him and perhaps come to some conclusions about your stance. Everything you have said is speculation! The problem is, you haven’t read the texts properly. Plus you are starting out with a faulty premise. Who said it was?But, as I said earlier, to speculate on an event first requires that the evidence about an event is rationalised, and any unreasonable (in the historian’s opinion) claims removed.The story of the midwives reeks of fantasy, not only because of the attending a birth error, but because of many other factors.BrianEdited by Brian, : formatting of quotes

quote:

---

I wonder how long the Bible would have lasted without that kind of embellishment. Samson getting his weekly haircut in prison wouldn't be much of a page-turner.
  —"Ringo"

---

Walter Ong has hypothesized based on studies of the transmissions of oral traditions that in the absence of writing, a tradition must remain relevant and retainable if it is to survive in a purely oral culture. For this reason, embellishment, adaptation and contextualization would have been NECESSARY tools of the trade for the Hebrew poets, orators etc. who were charged with the preservation of their myths.
Having said this, I am probably not as skeptical regarding the historical basis for many of the biblical tales as many on this forum. "Myth" does not mean untrue or not historically accurate. In concede that in almost every instance, the biblical "histories" have been edited, transformed, adapted and contextualized for their preservation and in many cases to support political and religious policies of the ruling classes. Does this mean that”in the present instance”there was no Samson, or that he was not freakishly strong? Not necessarily. There may well have been a figure from the pre-monarchic period upon whom these legends developed.