The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - Ch. 4 - Kill 'Em Again, God

by RunningMan 13 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • RunningMan
    RunningMan

    Well, I'm back. After residing in the real world for the last five days, I am pleased to return to cyberspace with another installment of my book.

    First of all, thanks for all the nice comments everyone. I have sent out more copies this morning, and if anyone else wants a formatted copy of the entire book, just drop me your email address.

    As well, I am aware that James Patrick Holding (aka Robert Turkel) has published a very short and inadequate refutation of my last article. I have never engaged him myself, however the editor the Skeptical Review (Farrell Till) has debated him on numerous occasions with predictable and humorous results. Here is one of Till's articles about Turkel: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/turkel1.html

    KILL ‘EM AGAIN GOD, THE OLD FASHIONED WAY

    There’s nothing that the Bible likes better than a good, old fashioned, smiting. In fact, the Bible writers liked killing so much, that sometimes, they couldn’t restrain themselves from killing the same people several times. This undoubtedly felt so good at the time that they didn’t worry about the apologetic problems that would arise later.

    This chapter deals with some of the more obvious ones.

    PHARAOH'S REMARKABLE HORSES

    Going once:

    In response to Pharaoh's hard heartedness in not letting the Israelites leave, God sent ten plagues upon

    So, there they go. All of the Egyptians livestock are now dead.

    Going twice:

    Unfortunately, the dead animals haven’t learned their lesson, so when plague 10 rolls around , they get targeted again. Exodus 12:29 informs us: “And at midnight, Jehovah struck every firstborn in Egypt, from the Pharaoh's firstborn, who was to sit on his throne, to the firstborn of the prisoners of war in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of cattle.”

    Notice that “every firstborn in ” is killed. This would mean every firstborn of every family of humans and animals. Cattle are specifically listed. I wonder what they did to deserve this notoriety. They always seem so unassuming. They must be plotting something.

    Now, how is it that the firstborn of animals are killed, when all of the animals had already been killed in plague 5? Please note that if every firstborn is killed, that would also include horses. I bring this up because it becomes important in a minute.

    Going three times?

    Well, stubborn Pharaoh still hasn’t learned his lesson. After a momentary lapse where he lets the Israelites go, he changes his mind and chases after them. Exodus 14:9 points out: “And the Egyptians pursued them, and overtook them camping by the sea, all the Pharaoh's chariot-ponies and cavalry horses and his troops, by Pi-Hahiroth, in front of Baal-Sephan.”

    The Israelites must have been moving slowly indeed, if Pharaoh overtook them on twice-dead ponies. In spite of the remarkable accomplishments of these dead steeds, they get it one more time. In Exodus 14:23, the washes over the Egyptians, killing them, their ponies, and their cavalry horses.

    It’s too bad these horses were so thoroughly killed. These remarkable animals would surely have made valuable breeding stock.

    The Amalekites - Three Time Losers

    The Amalekites caught the brunt of God’s anger several times. Their first death was recorded in 1 Samuel 15:7,8: “And Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is East of Egypt. And he took Agag, the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.”

    So, no more Amalekites, right? Wrong! Shortly after, while Saul was still King and David was a military leader, they return. Not bad for a tribe that was utterly destroyed. 1 Samuel 27:8,9 says: “Now David and his men went up, and made raids upon the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites, for these were the inhabitants of the land from of old, as far as Shur, to the . And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive...”

    Well, that should just about finish them off. They were “utterly destroyed”, followed by a good smiting. Since neither man nor woman was left alive, that should pretty much do it for the Amalekites.

    Not quite. In 1 Samuel 30:1, they’re back, and stronger than ever: “Now when David and his men came to Ziklag, on the third day, the Amalekites had made a raid upon the Negeb, and upon Ziklag.” They seem pretty feisty for a group that has just been killed twice. What’s a righteous king to do with people like this? You guessed it, kill them again.

    1 Samuel 30:17: “And David smote them from twilight until the evening of the next day, and not a man of them escaped, except four hundred young men who mounted camels and fled. David recovered all that the Amalekites had taken, and David rescued his two wives.”

    Smiting is apparently rather time consuming. I also find it amusing that “not a man of them escaped”, except for four hundred men.

    Well, that pretty well wraps it up for the Amalekites. But wait. In Esther 3:1, a reference is made to “Haman, the Agagite.” If you look in 1 Samuel 15:7,8, which is quoted above, you will find that Agag was the King of Amalek. So, when the events recorded in Esther took place, around 484 B.C., there were still Amalekites alive and well.

    God certainly had it in for the Amalekites. Not only did he entirely wipe them out three times, but he even intended to destroy the memory of them. Exodus 17:14 says: “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.”

    Now, that’s good thinking. If God wanted to blot out the memory of Amalek, why would he set up a memorial in the most widely published book in history? Apparently he didn’t do a very good job of blotting out Amalek. Not only can we still read about him, but his ancestors survived for about another 800 years. For all we know, there might still be some around...

    SAUL, THE MDS SUFFERER

    One of the worst cases of multiple death syndrome (MDS), that is recorded in the Bible is King Saul. He was not a very popular man. It seemed that everyone wanted him dead - himself, the Philistines, his attendant, and even God. Let’s take a look at some of his deaths.

    1 Samuel 31:4 - “Therefore, Saul took his own sword and fell upon it.” This is a pretty straight forward, definitive statement of how Saul died.

    In the next chapter, 2 Samuel 1, a young Amalekite takes credit for Saul’s murder. You can hardly blame him, after being killed three times himself, he probably just wanted to be on the giving end of one of these deaths. In verse 10, he claims: “So I stood beside him, and I slew him...”. Technically, this is not a problem in the bible. It is understood that the young man was lying. It’s really just an interesting aside in the chain of events.

    In 2 Samuel 21:12, we find another definitive statement regarding Saul’s death: “David went and took the bones of Saul, and the bones of his son Jonathan from the men of Jabesh-Gilead, who had stolen them from the public square of Beth-Shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, on the day the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa.”

    Did you notice the problem, here? Yes, that was a terrible run-on sentence. In addition, we now find that Saul did not commit suicide after all, but rather, was killed by the Philistines.

    But, we’re not done, yet. In 1 Chronicles, chapter 10, another person takes credit for Saul’s death, and we have to assume that this one isn’t lying. Verses 13 and 14: “So Saul died for his unfaithfulness... Therefore, the Lord slew him, and turned the kingdom over to David, the son of Jesse.”

    So, Saul committed suicide, was killed in war, and was executed by God. I guess the Bible writers really wanted him dead.

    JUDAS GETS IT TWICE

    One of the prime laws governing any story character is: Don’t mess with the author. Killing the author tends to be a career limiting move for a character.

    Now, no one denies that Judas Iscariot was a bad dude. Killing the son of God is bad enough, but as a character in a book, he should know that the author always has the last word. So, it’s not too surprising that Judas gets nailed twice. What makes this even more remarkable is that in both cases, he does it himself.

    The first suicide of Judas is recorded in Matthew 27:5. “And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.”

    Now, in all fairness, the Bible does not say that Judas died from the hanging. Although, I think most people would assume that he did. In fact, if the hanging was not fatal, why bother mentioning it at all?

    Acts 1:18 couldn’t leave well enough alone. The writer of this book had to come up with an even better story - and it really is better, filled with gory details: “Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.”

    Apparently, the writer of Acts couldn’t resist finding a prophecy fulfillment in Judas’ death, so he found an obscure scripture in Psalms and made the events fit the reference. As a bit of speculation, I wonder if this is where we get the expression, “bought the farm.”

    Some people have put forward the hypothesis that he hanged himself on a tree that had a branch overhanging a cliff. When he jumped off, the branch broke, and he fell, splitting himself open. This isn’t a bad story, except that it is pure speculation - there is nothing in the bible to indicate that it happened. As well, under this scenario, he would not “fall headlong”. He would have fallen feet first.

    However this really happened, it is clear that God’s inerrant word of truth is a little confused.

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien
    Yes, that was a terrible run-on sentence.

    LOL

    all hail Amalek!!

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    care to take any bets on how long it will be before hooberus posts a refutation?

  • MidwichCuckoo
    MidwichCuckoo

    hmmmm, now why am I thinking 'George A Romero'?.....

  • Euphemism
    Euphemism

    Great stuff as usual! I'd have to disagree with your section on Saul, however.

    2 Sam 21:12 does not say that the Philistines hung Saul's live body. It says they hung his bones. They took his dead body from the battlefield and displayed it publicly. No contradiction there.

    Regarding 1 Chron 10:14, the narrative arc of 1 Samuel makes it pretty clear that Saul lost the battle--and therefore committed suicide--because of God's disfavor on him. In other words, God set him up to die--whether by his own hand or that of the Philistines. So I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that God killed him.

    Take another Biblical example, Uriah (Bathsheba's husband). David did not literally kill him; Uriah was killed by Philistines. Still, David plotted and arranged for Uriah's death. So it can reasonably be said that David killed Uriah. By the same logic, 1 Chronicles can reasonably say that God killed Saul, by arranging for his death.

  • PaulJ
    PaulJ

    Good stuff!!!!

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    This leads to another related question. I had never believed all the Egyptian livestock was killed at the 5th plague. I wanted to show that the writer had it wrong. To prove it I copied the NWT text of

    (Exodus 9:1-7) 9"

    Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: "Go in to Phar´aoh and you must state to him, ‘This is what Jehovah the God of the Hebrews has said: "Send my people away that they may serve me. 2 But if you continue refusing to send them away and you are still keeping hold of them, 3 look! Jehovah’s hand is coming upon your livestock that is in the field. On the horses, the asses, the camels, the herd and the flock there will be a very heavy pestilence. 4 And Jehovah will certainly make a distinction between the livestock of Israel and the livestock of Egypt, and not a thing of all that belongs to the sons of Israel will die."’" 5 Moreover, Jehovah set an appointed time, saying: "Tomorrow Jehovah will do this thing in the land." 6 Accordingly Jehovah did this thing on the next day, and all sorts of livestock of Egypt began to die; but not one of the livestock of the sons of Israel died. 7 Then Phar´aoh sent, and, look! not so much as one of Israel’s livestock had died. Nevertheless, Phar´aoh’s heart continued to be unresponsive, and he did not send the people away. "

    Just on the safe side I checked another transation

    Exodus 9:3-7 (New International Version)
    New International Version (NIV)
    Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


    3 the hand of the LORD will bring a terrible plague on your livestock in the field—on your horses and donkeys and camels and on your cattle and sheep and goats. 4 But the LORD will make a distinction between the livestock of Israel and that of Egypt, so that no animal belonging to the Israelites will die.' 5 The LORD set a time and said, "Tomorrow the LORD will do this in the land." 6 And the next day the LORD did it: All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one animal belonging to the Israelites died. 7 Pharaoh sent men to investigate and found that not even one of the animals of the Israelites had died. Yet his heart was unyielding and he would not let the people go.

    Notice the subtle difference? The simple addition of the words "All sorts of livestock" , totally changes the meaning of the verse.

    Now I am not a Hebrew scholar , able to debate the correct wording but perhaps others can do so. If pressed , I would guess that the WTS may answer something like the context of the chapters of Exodus make it obvious that not all their animals died, so they felt free to write it that way

  • z
    z
    it is clear that God’s inerrant word of truth is a little confused.

    ROFLMO

  • RunningMan
    RunningMan

    Euph:

    2 Sam 21:12 does not say that the Philistines hung Saul's live body. It says they hung his bones. They took his dead body from the battlefield and displayed it publicly. No contradiction there.

    That's not quite correct. Take another look at 2 Sam 21:12:

    “David went and took the bones of Saul, and the bones of his son Jonathan from the men of Jabesh-Gilead, who had stolen them from the public square of Beth-Shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, on the day the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa.”

    Yes, it does say that the Philistines hung his bones, but it also says "on the day the Philistines killed Saul". So, there really is a contradiction - one scripture says he committed suicide, the other says he was killed by the Philistines.

    And, on the subject of subtle translation differences, if the Almighty of the Universe can't keep a book straight and consistent, then he isn't very friggin almighty is he?

  • greven
    greven
    the hypothesis that he hanged himself on a tree that had a branch overhanging a cliff. When he jumped off, the branch broke, and he fell, splitting himself open. This isn’t a bad story, except that it is pure speculation - there is nothing in the bible to indicate that it happened. As well, under this scenario, he would not “fall headlong”. He would have fallen feet first.

    The real problem with this 'solution' is not how he fell IMO. Heck he could have made a 'salto mortale' for all I care... The real problem is that in one story his throws the coins down in the temple and then hangs himself. The pharisees then buy a field with this money as it is blood money and they feel a little giddy putting it in the contribution box

    Yet in the other story judas himself buys a field with the blood money... This has interesting repercussions later on. In both stories a different reason is given for naming the field 'bloodfield': the first says it is because it was bought with blood money, the second because judas spilled his guts there....

    Greven

    ps. Farell Till helped me unravel the bible as well! After my religion fell to pieces I diceded to follow debates pro and con for a while. He certainly stood out both in wit as well as reasoning skills.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit