by AwSnap 37 Replies latest watchtower bible
So, er, Glenster...are you agreeing with me? 1 Sam 16:14 also appears to show that the evil spirit belonged to the LORD.
If I were to bring this up to a jw, I'm afraid they'd just say I'm nitpicking.
ps...everybody should check out that youtube video above, it's pretty funny.
It is not that Jehovah actually sent an evil spirit to terrorize Saul, but by removing his holy spirit from the disobedient king a vacancy was left, a vacancy that was promptly filled by a bad spirit or mental inclination. Since Jehovah made the evilly inclined possession possible by the removal of his holy spirit, Jehovah is referred to as the source of the evil spirit.
But isn't that functionally equivalent?
I.e., if Jehovah knows that his holy spirit is the only thing protecting Saul's mind, and he knows that if he removes his spirit that inevitably a "bad spirit" will enter into Saul's mind, yet he goes ahead and does it anyway....what is the practical difference between that and actually sending a real bad spirit himself?
"So, er, Glenster...are you agreeing with me? 1 Sam 16:14 also appears to
show that the evil spirit belonged to the LORD."
No. I Sam 16:14 is more clear that His own spirit was a different one. (Also
see 1 Cor.5:5) 1 Samuel 19:9 refers to this with "from," which indicates God
sent the other spirit.
"It is not that Jehovah actually sent...."
It says it was from God, which implies "sent."
Saul had fallen out of favor with God, so Saul was sup-
posed to be tormented for having done that
I do not know whose comment this is... but I must disagree with it. It directly contradicts the MERCY of the MOST Holy One of Israel... to say that someone "was supposed to be" tormented... for falling out of favor with God. That denotes that the MOST Holy One of Israel PUNISHES those who aren't on His "side," and that is a lie. How do we KNOW? Look to Christ. True, Judas apparently was "tormented" for a hot second... but WHO tormented him... Christ? Or his own conscience?
To me, "allowing a place for the Devil" is a bit different than someone sending their evil spirit upon me.
Indeed, it is! The one making the ALLOWANCE... is responsible (vs. the MOST Holy One of Israel being responsible as a result of having SENT such a spirit).
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")
Again, "This is one of those instances where the "lying pen" of the "scribes" has done its thing... " Same for 1 Samuel 16:14. Please see Jeremiah 8:8
if Jehovah knows that his holy spirit is the only thing protecting Saul's mind, and he knows that if he removes his spirit that inevitably a "bad spirit" will enter into Saul's mind, yet he goes ahead and does it anyway....what is the practical difference between that and actually sending a real bad spirit himself?
Hmmm... let's put it into today's terms. I have two sons, both play high school football. The older one is a quarterback; the younger, a running back. The older one had been the high school "hero" for, say, the past two years. The younger one, however, is starting to make a name for himself as one who can get the ball across the goal line. Where the fans USED to cheer for the older brother, they now cheer for the younger. Because he is going off to college soon, I buy the older son a car. Now, he gets to drive it, but it's in my name (as is the insurance). Saturday night rolls around and it's the big game: rather than being on his "game," and playing up to his potential, older son plays a lousy game (he has let his jealousy for the younger son become a distraction). Younger son, however, makes an amazing catch (that older son had intended him to miss) and wins the game for the team. The crowd goes wild!
Rather than congratulating his younger brother, older brother goes out and gets drunk (helps him "deal" with his "feelings"); however, I REFUSE to let him drive the car... with the insurance... that is in MY name. So... I take the keys. Well, rather than stopping and thinking about WHY he's lost the keys to his car... and perhaps "changing" his "attitude"... older son sulks even more... SO much so that, eventually, he steals the neighbors c... gets in a wreck... and ends up losing an eye!! Now, he can't play football at all anymore. And he goes downhill from there. Eventually, his jealousy becomes SO bad... that he tries to kill his younger brother.
Now, I ask you: is it MY fault that older son lost his eye? Is it my fault he got in a wreck? But, wait... I TOOK HIS CAR KEYS. Surely, it's MY fault that he didn't change his attitude so as to get his keys back, and thus, it was MY fault he stole the neighbor's car... and thus MY fault he got in a wreck... and so, based on your theory... MY fault that he lost his eye. Right?
, the other a bit of a screw up and somewhat jealous of the other son. Both are adults. The younger one does pretty much what I ask him to: did well in school, has a fairly good job, pays his bills, etc. The other son did okay in school, too, and so I helped him buy a car. It is in both of our names, with me as the primary. So, he goes to work, like a good guy, but AFTER work he goes out drinking, so that he ends up getting a couple few DUIs, scrapes some cars, etc. Then, he loses his license. Now, I am responsible for the CAR he's driving (insurance goes with the CAR, which is in MY name)... so, I take my keys BACK. Rather than apologizing, ceasing his drinking binges... and PROVING to me that he can be trusted with my car (and no, buying a car is not an option cause he's got no license)... he decides to go out and steals someone else's keys ('cause he NEEDS a car, don't he?)... mean that I am responsible???? You're kidding, right?
Think about what you are accusing the MOST Holy One of Israel of doing... of being responsible for.
C'mon, folks. With minimal exception, earthling man is responsible for what has happened to earthling man. There are just those who can't/won't/don't admit it.
I bid you all peace.
A slave of Christ,
SA
P.S.: otherwise, at I Sam.16:14 you have the Lord doing the holy hokey pokey.
(You put your spirit in, you take your spirit out,
you make your spirit shake, and you turn it all about....)
Just another case of OT writers trying to justify the bad behaviour of oen of their "heroes" by blaming it on something that God did.
"Oh, Our King Saul did something bad, it must have been the will of YHWH, YHWH must have put an evil spirit in him to act like the humicidal ass we all know him to be".
P.S.: otherwise, at I Sam.16:14 you have the Lord doing the holy hokey pokey.
(You put your spirit in, you take your spirit out,
you make your spirit shake, and you turn it all about....)
Funny way to explain it , but it certainly DOES appear that God was playing the hokey pokey in a way.
Aguest, your story was interesting...LOnnnng, but interesting. I can see where you're coming from. And all that would make sense, except the scripture SAYS the evil spirit came from god. Your story would be dead on if you, the father, took away your son's carkeys and then gave him the neighbors carkeys although you knew he was drunk.
PSacramento...I thought you were a bible believer? Care to elaborate? You believe the Bible comes from God, but men screwed it up too...is that how I should take that?
May you have peace!
the scripture SAYS the evil spirit came from god.
Well, yes, it does NOW. Perhaps you missed my comment that:
"This is one of those instances where the "lying pen" of the "scribes" has done its thing... Please see Jeremiah 8:8".
THAT verse states:
"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made {it} into a lie." (NASB)
My point is that this verse, the way it is written... CANNOT BE TRUE. That is why Christ said, when he came, that he came "to bear witness to the TRUTH." I ask you: do you think the Christ that you've read about would have put a bad spirit into someone? Is it written that he ever did? Or, to the contrary, is it written that he CAST OUT such bad spirits? If then, Christ, who is recorded to say that he did NOTHING of his own initiative, but only what he observed the FATHER doing... cast OUT bad spirits... how can we even THINK that the MOST Holy One of Israel would... COULD... be responsible for someone having a BAD spirit?
Think about it: Cain was warned of his anger. We've been told that jealousy is "rottenness to the bone." Saul was angry and jealous. God's Spirit COULDN'T continue to reside in him... so it HAD to be removed. If SAUL didn't do anything to stop that (i.e., "cleanse[d] the INSIDE of his vessel")... then how is GOD to blame if an unclean (bad) spirit came and resided in him? We can't.
And that is the DANGER: we read things "written in the Bible" that directly CONTRADICT the PERSON that the MOST Holy One of Israel IS. We KNOW what kind of PERSON He is... because Christ gave us a GLIMPSE by the kind of person HE was/is. Thus, WE HAVE NO EXCUSE to go believing... and teaching... that the unkind, unloving, UNRIGHTEOUS acts contributed to God in the OT... we actually committed by Him. They weren't. They COULDN'T be.
OUR job... is to ALSO "bear witness" to that TRUTH... just as Christ bor witness to it: by how we live our lives... and what we teach and tell others... about God.
I bid you the greatest of peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
"This is one of those instances where the "lying pen" of the "scribes" has done its thing ...I have never heard of this term, and possibly passed over it. My apologies (I googled it and now understand). Thanks for taking the time to post on this thread.
Words have a large range of meaning. Evil, which in this passage is "raraah" in the Hebrew, does NOT have one simple meaning. It can mean unhappy, tormented, distressed, grieved, sinful, bad, sorrow, displeasing, etc.
In this passage, it would probably be best to apply the meaning "distressing," as in God sent to Saul a distressing spirit to grieve and torment him.
