Good one, Robdar!!
I wish I could take credit for it. Credit goes to Lewis Black, a Jewish comedian:
I think it's meant as the flip side of the Holy Spirit dwelling in someone
who's in God's favor. Saul had fallen out of favor with God, so Saul was sup-
posed to be tormented for having done that (1 Sam.16:14-16). (Also see 1 Cor.
If there really was a god who messed w people like that, he could simply readjust his victim's brain chemistry in any way that he wanted. He could make his mood so dark, that he would gladly cut his own throat to escape it.
On the other hand, god could tailor the brain chemistry so that a person felt totally confident, both for the present and the future. A guy could feel invincible, no matter what. W the right brain chemistry, a guy could have an aura, the oratorial skill, the energy to build the biggest coompany on the planet, the biggest religion, country, brothel, drug rings, whatever. All it would take is a god to continuously maintain the appropriate brain chemistry. Slightly exaggerated, but it gives the idea.
and may you all have peace!
First, let me say that I don't usually come to this "area" of the Board... unless I am directed to by the Holy Spirit. And, so... well, here I am. And I am to speak plainly to those here... and so I will:
Saul was jealous of David. Jealousy is "rottenness... to the bones." The spirit... is IN the bones - the bones is where the spirit "resides". So, since Saul's rottenness was all the way to the point of where the God's Spirit dwelled in him... God's Spirit could no longer reside in Saul. That is because Saul was now UNCLEAN (down to the bones... the MARROW!)... and the HOLY Spirit of God... His CLEAN Spirit... CANNOT reside in an unclean "vessel."
Having God's Spirit in him was a protection to Saul. HE should have recognized that... and did all that HE could to ensure that that Spirit remained with him and IN him. After all, he was the leader of God's people... with a very heavy responsibility. He didn't, however... and his jealousy was SO deep... that even he couldn't root it out in the end. Thus, it was SAUL... who "allowed place for the Devil."
This is one of those instances where the "lying pen" of the "scribes" has done its thing... and the WTBTS "scribes"... who do not walk by FAITH... in the Holy Spirit... but by SIGHT... including what they read "in the Bible"... are no different. The WTBTS has furthered the lie of the scribes' pen in its 'splanation... which ANOTHER LIE... and a blasphemy: it is true that the MOST Holy One of Israel removed His spirit from within Saul. BUT... it was NOT the fault of the MOST Holy One of Israel... in ANY way... that a bad spirit overtook Saul. Nor did such spirit COME from the Most Holy One of Israel. That could NEVER occur... for a "house" divided against itself... cannot stand. God does not HAVE a "bad" Spirit... or any "bad spirits."
Nor can it be God's fault if one doesn't "cover" oneself so as to prevent a bad spirit from overtaking one. The lay people who had such spirits went to and received relief from God's servants, including the Prophets. Including the disciples. Including Christ. Saul had access to at least two of these: Samuel and/or Nathan, Prophets of the MOST Holy One of God... and Christ, the SON and Word of God. He took advantage of none of these. It was his own fault.
I, SA, have spoken these things to you just as I have heard and received them from the Holy One of Israel, THE Holy Spirit, my Lord and master, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, the Son and Christ, of the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies.
I bid you all peace.
Servant to the Household of God, Israel, and all those who go forth, and a slave of Christ,
It is important to ensure you are not looking at details that the writers/editors never intended. These details might simply be ornaments on the wall and were not intended to be taken down.
Firstly, you need to determine when the words were spoken/written/edited. Since this is 1 Samuel, the material was written/edited during or shortly after the Babylonian Exile.
Secondly, the view that the Ancients took of "history" is quite different from ours. They wrote/edited history for the purpose of addressing an issue they were currently encountering. They had an axe to grind, with details included only to carry a story along. (To reduce confusion, I will leave it to my following post in this thread to provide information on "historiography".)
Thirdly, a depiction of "God" is really a reflection of that community's moral, ethical and religious beliefs. Hence the variance between a "God" of an OT tribe to a "God" of an urban community of Roman times. Their views of God do not necessarily agree with the Reality.
Fourthly, not everything in the Bible is correct. Writers/editors made mistakes; editors amended words and introduced their own comments and included clarifications.
So do not look for details that a writer only used to be able to make a story. Don't make everything walk on all four legs. Look for the overall total storyline and the intended message for the time it was written.
As I said, in the next post I will provide some words on historiography.
Some thoughts related to "Historiography"
"It must be acknowledged that Biblical narrators were more than historians. They interpretively recounted the past with the unswerving purpose of bringing it to bear on the present and the future. In the portrayal of past events, they used their materials to achieve this purpose effectively." (NIV Study Bible, book of Jonah, “Introduction: Interpretation”)
The following is from DOTHB, pages 418-421:
Modern readers often approach the Bible with an incorrect set of assumptions and expectations. Thus the problem lies not with the Bible, but with the way in which it has been read. ...
The biblical writers may not have understood their task simply as relating what happened in the past. ... Ancient history writing was not journalism; it was closer to storytelling than to the objective reporting of past events. ... The primary objective of ancient history writing was to “render an account” of the past that explained the present.
Ancient historians had axes to grind—theological or political points to make. Second, a civilization rendering an account of its past also entailed an expression of the corporate identity of the nation—what it was and what principles it stood for. Hence, the historian’s primary concern was not detailing exactly what happened in the past as much as it was interpreting the meaning of the past for the present, showing how the “causes” of the past brought about the “effects” of the present. ...
An aetiology is a story that explains the cause or origin of a given phenomenon—a cultural practice or social custom, a biological circumstance, even a geological formation. It is not a scientific explanation, not historical in the modern sense of an event that actually took place in the past exactly as described; aetiologies can be quite imaginative, even if not always constituted of fiction. An aetiology is, rather, a story that “renders an account”—that is, offers some explanation—of present conditions and circumstances based on past causes.
The Bible’s historical literature is aetiological in the sense that it seeks to “render an account” of the past—to provide an explanation (aitia) for circumstances or conditions in the historian’s day. Whether the events that the Bible relates as past causes or explanations actually took place as described was not the ancient historian’s primary concern. ...
To attempt to read the account of Israel’s history in the Bible from a modern perspective as strictly a record of actual events is to misconstrue its genre and force it to do something that it was not intended to do. ...
In the Bible, history was written for an ideological purpose. History writing was theology. ...
Biblical historiographers used the same techniques that ancient Greek historians used to render an account of their national past, including paratactic organization, the use of genealogies to frame narratives, the composition of speeches, and the invention of stories and sources to fill gaps in the narrative. ...
The differences between Chronicles and Samuel-Kings show that the recounting of exactly what happened in the past was not the chief objective of biblical historiographers. Rather, history served ideological purposes. It was the forum for the presentation of theology. Biblical historians used history to draw and illustrate theological lessons. The composition of speeches was a principal tool for the Chronicler and other biblical historians to draw out the lessons that they found in history. Chronicles exemplifies the inventiveness of biblical historians and the freedom they exercised in shaping sources and filling in gaps left by them.
Thanks for posting once again Doug, that article on Historiography puts into words how I believe the Bible should be read, and explains where many go wrong in trying to understand it, not least the JW's !
Saul had fallen out of favor with God, so Saul was sup-
posed to be tormented for having done that To me, "allowing a place for the Devil" is a bit different than someone sending their evil spirit upon me.
God does not HAVE a "bad" Spirit... or any "bad spirits." Well, then, I am simply not understanding since the scripture says "an evil spirit from the LORD" (or "Jehovah'sbad spirit came to be on Saul")
Doug Mason, your first posts make sense ...is this how the jw's look at it as well?
Robdar...thanks for posting that video. It gave my the first laugh of the day
"To me, 'allowing a place for the Devil' is a bit different than someone
sending their evil spirit upon me."
To me, too. If He just allowed it to go somewhere, it might not have gone
where He wanted it.
"God does not HAVE a 'bad' Spirit... or any 'bad spirits.' Well, then, I am
simply not understanding since the scripture says 'an evil spirit from the LORD'
(or 'Jehovah'sbad spirit came to be on Saul')"
See I Sam 16:14: "But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit
from the Lord troubled him."