Is 1 Samuel 15:3 Killing Order In the Quran?

1 Samuel 15:
And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.

Advertisements


Categories: Islam

Tags: , , , ,

2 replies

  1. kevin, lizzie, graham = the same person

    >DR
    >I told you to look no further than 1 Samuel 15:18.
    >And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the
    >SINNERS the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.
    >Did you read the word “SINNERS”?
    >Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also
    >the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
    >Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear
    >the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of
    >the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the
    >wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

    TILL
    And I have answered your quibble. To save the time of rehashing it, I’m
    just going to cut and paste my reply below and ask you again to show us
    where the language of the text gives any reason for the command to destroy
    the Amalekites except the attack on Israel 400 years earlier.
    ***********************

    So I will ask my question again. Where does the biblical text give a single
    reason for the command to utterly destroy the Amalekites except the
    Amalekite attack on Israel 400 years earlier?

    What you quoted does not give a reason for the command. It simply states
    that Samuel told Saul that Yahweh had told him to go and utterly destroy
    “the sinners” the Amalekites. I assume that since you believe in the
    inerrancy of the Bible you will agree that any person or any group of people
    could have been referred to as a “sinner” or “sinners.” If that were the
    reason why people should have been killed, then Yahweh, to be consistent,
    should have ordered the Israelites to kill everyone in the world and then
    turn their swords on themselves, because there would be no one that could
    not be described as a “sinner.”

    The justification that you simplistic biblicists have given for Yahweh’s
    command to massacre the Amalekites has been that they were so morally
    corrupt that it was necessary to exterminate them. However, there is no
    text that you can point to that will justify this claim. How does the fact
    that the Amalekites were called “sinners” prove that they were any more
    morally depraved than other tribes, including even the Israelites?

    Try to address the issue, DR. What language in the text gives any REASON
    for the command to destroy the Amalekites except the reference to the
    Amalekite attack on Israel 400 years earlier? I’m going to quote the text
    again. Try not to snip it this time.

    >2 Thus says YAHWEH of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. >3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'” >4 So Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers, and ten thousand soldiers of Judah. >5 Saul came to the city of the Amalekites and lay in wait in the valley. >6 Saul said to the Kenites, “Go! Leave! Withdraw from among the Amalekites, or I will destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites
    withdrew from the Amalekites.

    I again call your attention to verses 2 and 6, so will you please answer
    three questions: (1) What reason did verse 2 give for the command to
    destroy the Amalekites? (2) What reason did verse 6 give for the safe
    passage out of the city that Saul gave to the Kenites? (3) What language
    in the text gives any other reason for the massacre except the Amalekite
    attack on Israel 400 years earlier?

    So I will ask my question again. Where does the biblical text give a single
    reason for the command to utterly destroy the Amalekites except the
    Amalekite attack on Israel 400 years earlier?

    What you quoted does not give a reason for the command. It simply states
    that Samuel told Saul that Yahweh had told him to go and utterly destroy
    “the sinners” the Amalekites. I assume that since you believe in the
    inerrancy of the Bible you will agree that any person or any group of people
    could have been referred to as a “sinner” or “sinners.” If that were the
    reason why people should have been killed, then Yahweh, to be consistent,
    should have ordered the Israelites to kill everyone in the world and then
    turn their swords on themselves, because there would be no one that could
    not be described as a “sinner.”

    The justification that you simplistic biblicists have given for Yahweh’s
    command to massacre the Amalekites has been that they were so morally
    corrupt that it was necessary to exterminate them. However, there is no
    text that you can point to that will justify this claim. How does the fact
    that the Amalekites were called “sinners” prove that they were any more
    morally depraved than other tribes, including even the Israelites?

    Try to address the issue, DR. What language in the text gives any REASON
    for the command to destroy the Amalekites except the reference to the
    Amalekite attack on Israel 400 years earlier? I’m going to quote the text
    again. Try not to snip it this time.

    >2 Thus says YAHWEH of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. >3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'” >4 So Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers, and ten thousand soldiers of Judah. >5 Saul came to the city of the Amalekites and lay in wait in the valley. >6 Saul said to the Kenites, “Go! Leave! Withdraw from among the Amalekites, or I will destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites withdrew from the Amalekites.

    I again call your attention to verses 2 and 6, so will you please answer
    three questions: (1) What reason did verse 2 give for the command to
    destroy the Amalekites? (2) What reason did verse 6 give for the safe
    passage out of the city that Saul gave to the Kenites? (3) What language
    in the text gives any other reason for the massacre except the Amalekite
    attack on Israel 400 years earlier?

    DR > They were called Sute in the Babylonian inscriptions, in those of Egypt
    Sittiu, >and the Amarna tablets include them under the general name of
    Khabbati, or >”plunderers.”

    TILL
    Which, if so, proves what? “Plunderers” were not at all uncommon in those
    days. Could you tell us, for example, how David lived during the time that
    he was in flight from King Saul?

    I’ll give you a hint. Read 1 Samuel 20-31 to find the answer, and notice
    chapter 27 in particular. After you have found the answer, would you mind
    telling us what it is?
    that would in no way indicate that the Amalekites of Saul’s time were plunderers.

    My point is that you are implying above that the meaning of a name by which the Amalekites were known tell us something about their character, but you fail to realize that even if the name did mean “plunderers,” that would in no way indicate that the Amalekites of Saul’s time were plunderers. The tribal name could have been acquired in earlier times and remained with them even though the later generations had turned from “plundering.” So we are still waiting to see you prove that the Amalekites of Saul’s time were as morally degenerate as you and others have claimed.

    Also keep in mind that if “plunderers” deserved extermination, then David and his band of marauders deserved extermination, because they survived by plundering villages in the territory where they had taken refuge from Saul.

    DR >Their kings bore the hereditary name of Agag (Num. 24:7; 1 Sam. 15:8).

    TILL
    Which would prove what about their moral character?

    DR >The text hints at two sins that must have been relevant to the Amalekites
    >comdemnation by Yahweh i.e. WITCHCRAFT & IDOLATRY.

    TILL
    Why does this statement have to have been “relevant” to the Amalekites? Saul had disobeyed Yahweh by keeping Agag and some of the prime livestock alive instead of “utterly” destroying them as commanded in verses 2-3. Witchcraft and idolatry were both condemned in the law, so Samuel merely used them in a simile to express to Saul how serious his act of disobedience was. There is nothing at all in the statement that even implies that the Amalekites were in some way extremist in their practicing of witchcraft and idolatry.

    Sorry, but you’ll have to try again.

    TILL
    It is? Then why don’t you do a literary analysis of the context to show us what makes it so clear that witchcraft and idolatry were at “the heart of the controversy between Yahweh and the Amalekites? I taught college literature for 30 years before I retired, so I think I will have some ability to recognize any linguistic reasons for concluding this if you’ll just point them out.

    Meanwhile, why don’t you explain to us why the context didn’t make it plain
    that the witchcraft and idolatry of the Amalekites were the reasons for
    Yahweh’s command? Let’s notice again two verses that you and the other
    defenders of this moral atrocity don’t seem too eager to address.

    >1 Samuel 15:2 Thus says Yahweh of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for
    what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt….”

    If witchcraft and idolatry were “at the heart of the controversy,” why didn’t Yahweh say, “I will punish the Amalekites for their witchcraft and idolatry”? Why did he leave out completely “the heart of the controversy” and bring up something that had happened 400 years ago and didn’t have anything to do with the Amalekites of that time?

    Will you address this issue, or will you ignore it again? In other words, will you be a coward again?

    >5 Saul came to the city of the Amalekites and lay in wait in the valley. >6 Saul said to the Kenites, “Go! Leave! Withdraw from among the Amalekites, or I will destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.”

    *******So if witchcraft and idolatry were “at the heart of the controversy,” why didn’t Saul tell the Kenites they could go because they weren’t practicing witchcraft and idolatry? Why did he bring up something that wasn’t even “the heart of the controversy”? ********

    DR >1 Samuel 15:32 Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the >Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the >bitterness of death is past. >1 Samuel 15:33 And Samuel said, AS THY SWORD HAS MADE WOMEN CHILDLESS, SO >SHALL THY MOTHER BE CHILDLESS AMONG WOMEN. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces >before the LORD in Gilgal. >Samuel did not say, what TILL wants us to believe, that this was a vendetta >because of something that happened 400 years before. Samuel said something >different but TILL knows better (so he thinks). Amalekites were corrupt and >and lived from plundering the resources of others. They had no mercy and >they received an approriate Divine retribution.

    TILL
    If the Amalekites actually existed and if they had a king named Agag, we would expect them to be no different from the Israelites, Moabites, Philistines, Assyrians, etc., who all had barbaric customs. That isn’t the issue at all. The issue is the claim made by you and others that the Amalekites were so totally corrupt and morally depraved that Yahweh really had no choice but to exterminate them from the face of the earth. You have been challenged to post biblical and extrabiblical evidence that would prove the Amalekites were any more barbaric and morally depraved than other tribes living in that time. I will be glad to do a search and repost this challenge if you deny that this was what I defied you and the others to show.

    So the fact that Samuel said that Agag’s sword had made other women childless would not in any way indicate that the Amalekites were any more corrupt than the Israelites or the Moabites or the Assyrians, etc., whose swords had also made women childless. We want to see you prove your claim that the Amalekites were so extremely wicked that they had to be exterminated, whereas other tribes were allowed to continue living.

    Well, please notice, DR, that I said “if so,” so why don’t you explain to us how you know that the Amalekites were nomadic shepherds? You are making an assertion here that I am asking you to prove. Furthermore, I’d like for you to explain to us why it would necessarily follow that nomadic shepherds would be “plunderers.” Is it your position that all nomadic tribes were plunderers? If so, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

    You quoted a source, but your source doesn’t give any information to justify its claim that the Amalekites were “as plundering and dangerous as the Bedouin Arabs.” Your source simply asserted that they were. The rest of the quotation clearly shows that this source is just another inerrantist group trying to justify a Yahwistic massacre of children and babies on grounds that cannot be sustained by any kind of evidence.

    You cannot sustain your case with non sequiturs, so please tell us what evidence you or Jamiesson, Fausset & Brown or anyone else has to justify the fundamentalist claim that the Amalekites were so morally corrupt that the “God of Israel” had no choice but to order their “removal.” (I just love the euphemistic ways that biblicists have of referring to this massacre. It wasn’t a massacre; it was just a “removal.”)

    Furthermore, if we are going to accept what the biblical record says, then your case for the nomadic custom of the Amalekites is weak indeed. In their wilderness years, the Israelites encountered the Amalekites at a place called Rephidim (Ex. 17:8). The exact location of this place is not known, but it was apparently in the proximity of Mount Horeb (Sinai), because the two verses prior to this refer to the incident where Moses brought forth water from a rock at Horeb (Mt. Sinai). Mount Sinai or Horeb would certainly have been located south of Canaan, which later became Israel, so the Israelites’ encounter with the Amalekites occurred south of Canaan, somewhere in the Sinai wilderness.

    When Saul was commanded to utterly destroy the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:2-3), he “defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt” (v:7). These locations were south of Israel and would therefore have put the Amalekites in the same region where the Israelites encountered them on the way out of Egypt, so if they were “nomadic shepherds,” who went about “plundering,” they were still wandering and plundering in the same region they had been in 400 years earlier in their engagement of the Israelites. We also see that these “nomadic shepherds” lived in a city, because 1 Samuel 15:5 says, “Saul came to the CITY of the Amalekites and lay in wait in the valley.”

    Did nomadic shepherds build cities, DR? We’ll eagerly wait to see your answer and to see just how many verbal knots you can twist yourself into in order to deny the obvious: 1 Samuel 15:2-6 gave ONE reason and one reason only for the massacre of the Amalekites. It was a pay back for something that their ancestors had done 400 years earlier. If the primary reason for this massacre was what you claim it was, then how do you explain the Bible’s complete silence on the wickedness of the Amalekites as the reason why yahweh ordered their massacre? Can you understand plain language, DR? If so, read the following and see if you can find THE reason and the ONLY reason that was given for the command to massacre the Amalekites.

    >1 Samuel 15:2 Thus says Yahweh of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites FOR WHAT THEY DID IN OPPOSING THE ISRAELITES WHEN THEY CAME UP OUT OF EGYPT. >3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'”

    >4 So Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers, and ten thousand soldiers of Judah. >5 Saul came to the city of the Amalekites and lay in wait in the valley.
    >6 Saul said to the Kenites, “Go! Leave! Withdraw from among the Amalekites, or I will destroy you with them; FOR YOU SHOWED KINDNESS TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL WHEN THEY CAME UP OUT OF EGYPT.”

    You can find NOTHING in the Bible or in extrabiblical evidence to support
    your fundamentalist claim that these people were so utterly wicked that they
    had to be utterly destroyed. If you could cite evidence to support this
    claim, you would have done so long before now.

    Isn’t it pathetic when a person becomes so emotionally attached to
    irrational religious beliefs that he will take complete leave of his senses
    in order to defend those beliefs?

    TILL
    What do I think of the NLT translation of Judges 3:13? No more than what I think of other translations that say the same thing, except that “city of
    palms” is used instead of Jericho.

    But I have a question, and I would like to know what you think about it. You claimed earlier in this posting that you knew that the Amalekites were “plunderers” because they were “nomadic shepherds.” In reply to that I pointed out, among other things, that the Amalekites of Saul’s time lived in a city (1 Sam. 15:5). I asked you if “nomadic shepherds” built cities, but I haven’t had time to get your answer. I’ll look forward to it. When you send it, tell us if you think it very likely that “nomadic shepherds” would have armies that could ally themselves with tribes that weren’t “nomadic shepherds.” In other words, if the Amalekites allied themselves with the Ammonites to battle against the Israelites, wouldn’t they have been a people settled enough in their culture to have a concern about Israelite activities to the extent that they would form an alliance? These are problems for your position besides the crass assumption that “nomadic shepherds” would necessarily have been “plunderers.” You have yet to sustain this assertion.

    Furthermore, Judges 3:13 relates an incident that allegedly happened early
    after the Israelite conquest of Canaan, so this would have been something
    that had also happened around 400 years before the time of Saul. How can
    you use this to make an evaluation of the morality of Amalekites who lived
    400 years after this time? You seem to be arguing that the Amalekites of
    about 1400 BC were a barbarous people; therefore, the Amalekites who lived
    400 years later were also a barbarous people. Can you say non sequitur?
    Could you judge the morality of people living in modern Europe on the basis
    of what their ancestors may have been 400 years ago?

    You do have trouble with rational thinking, don’t you, DR?

    >DR
    > 1 Samuel 14:48 (The New Living Translation)
    >14:48 He did great deeds and conquered the Amalekites, saving Israel from
    >all those who had plundered them.

    TILL
    Then are you saying that on the basis of this verse, the massacre of the
    Amalekites was justified on the grounds that they had “plundered” Israel?
    Let’s look at the statement in context.

    >1 Samuel 14:47 When Saul had taken the kingship over Israel, he fought against all his enemies on every side–against Moab, against the Ammonites, against Edom, against the kings of Zobah, and against the Philistines; wherever he turned he routed them. >48 He did valiantly, and struck down the Amalekites, and rescued Israel out of the hands of those who plundered them.

    So if the mere fact that the Amalekites had “plundered” the Israelites was reason to eradicate them, including even children and babies, why did Yahweh single out only the Amalekites for extermination? Why didn’t he also order the extermination of the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Edomites, the Philistines, and all others who had “plundered” the Israelites. Why don’t we let the Bible itself tell us why?

    >1 Samuel 15:2 Thus says Yahweh of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites FOR WHAT THEY DID IN OPPOSING THE ISRAELITES WHEN THEY CAME UP OUT OF EGYPT. >3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'” >4 So Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers, and ten thousand soldiers of Judah. >5 Saul came to the city of the Amalekites and lay in wait in the valley. >6 Saul said to the Kenites, “Go! Leave! Withdraw from among the Amalekites, or I will destroy you with them; FOR YOU SHOWED KINDNESS TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL WHEN THEY CAME UP OUT OF EGYPT.”

    Let’s juxtapose this passage with Deuteronomy 25:17-19.

    >17 Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey out of Egypt, >18 how he attacked you on the way, when you were faint and weary, and struck down all who lagged behind you; he did not fear God. >19 Therefore when Yahweh your God has given you rest from all your enemies on every hand, in the land that Yahweh your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget.

    ***

    There’s your reason, DR, for any person open-minded enough to see it. Your
    inspired, inerrant word of God alleges that Moses told the Israelites in the
    wilderness, over 400 years before Saul, never to forget what the Amalekites
    had done but to “remember what Amalek did to you on your journey out of
    Egypt.” So 400 years later, Yahweh (presumably) sent a prophet to Saul and
    said to him, “I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait
    for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt” (1 Sam. 15:2).

    This was a grudge, DR, and anyone who has not been blinded by a fanatical
    belief in the absurd premise that the Bible is inerrant can see that it was.
    Some nations carry grudges like this, as we have seen in the modern
    conflicts between ethnic groups in the former republic of Yugoslavia.

    You just won’t admit that this was the reason for the massacre, because you know how morally despicable this would paint your presumably morally perfect Yahweh.

    > TILL
    >> Also keep in mind that if “plunderers” deserved extermination, then David
    >> and his band of marauders deserved extermination, because they survived by >> plundering villages in the territory where they had taken refuge from >>Saul.

    TILL
    Why did you pass over this without comment, DR? If “plundering” was grounds for exterminating an entire nation, including even children and babies, then why didn’t Yahweh order the extermination of David? Look at what your inspired, inerrant word of God said about this “man after God’s own heart.”

    >1 Samuel 27:7 The length of time that David lived in the country of the
    Philistines was one year and four months. >8 Now David and his men went up and made raids on the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites; for these were the landed settlements from Telam on the way to Shur and on to the land of Egypt. >9 David struck the land, leaving neither man nor woman alive, but took away the sheep, the oxen, the donkeys, the camels, and the clothing, and came back to Achish. >10 When Achish asked, “Against whom have you made a raid today?” David would say, “Against the Negeb of Judah,” or “Against the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites,” or, “Against the Negeb of the Kenites.” >11 David left neither man nor woman alive to be brought back to Gath, thinking, “They might tell about us, and say, ‘David has done so and so.'” Such was his practice all the time he lived in the country of the Philistines.

    Talk about “plunderers,” DR, the Amalekites didn’t compare to David, who
    raided cities and “left neither man nor woman alive.” So try to answer the
    question this time, DR. If the “plundering” of the Amalekites was
    justification for exterminating them, why did Yahweh allow David to plunder
    and go unpunished?

    >> DR
    >> >Their kings bore the hereditary name of Agag (Num. 24:7; 1 Sam. 15:8).
    >> TILL >> Which would prove what about their moral character?

    DR
    >The text hints at two sins that must have been relevant to the Amalekites
    >comdemnation by Yahweh i.e. WITCHCRAFT & IDOLATRY.

    TILL
    Why does this statement have to have been “relevant” to the Amalekites?
    Saul had disobeyed Yahweh by keeping Agag and some of the prime livestock
    alive instead of “utterly” destroying them as commanded in verses 2-3.
    Witchcraft and idolatry were both condemned in the law, so Samuel merely
    used them in a simile to express to Saul how serious his act of disobedience
    was. There is nothing at all in the statement that even implies that the
    Amalekites were in some way extremist in their practicing of witchcraft
    and idolatry.

    Sorry, but you’ll have to try again.

    DR >it is clear from this context that this is at the heart of the controversy
    >between YAHWEH and the Amalekites.

    TILL
    It is? Then why don’t you do a literary analysis of the context to show us
    what makes it so clear that witchcraft and idolatry were at “the heart of
    the controversy between Yahweh and the Amalekites? I taught college
    literature for 30 years before I retired, so I think I will have some
    ability to recognize any linguistic reasons for concluding this if you’ll
    just point them out.

    Meanwhile, why don’t you explain to us why the context didn’t make it plain
    that the witchcraft and idolatry of the Amalekites were the reasons for
    Yahweh’s command? Let’s notice again two verses that you and the other
    defenders of this moral atrocity don’t seem too eager to address.

    >1 Samuel 15:2 Thus says Yahweh of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites
    >for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of
    >Egypt….”

    If witchcraft and idolatry were “at the heart of the controversy,” why
    didn’t Yahweh say, “I will punish the Amalekites for their witchcraft and
    idolatry”? Why did he leave out completely “the heart of the controversy”
    and bring up something that had happened 400 years ago and didn’t have
    anything to do with the Amalekites of that time?
    Will you address this issue, or will you ignore it again? In other words,
    will you be a coward again?

    >5 Saul came to the city of the Amalekites and lay in wait in the valley.
    >6 Saul said to the Kenites, “Go! Leave! Withdraw from among the
    > Amalekites, or I will destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to
    >all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.”

    So if witchcraft and idolatry were “at the heart of the controversy,” why
    didn’t Saul tell the Kenites they could go because they weren’t practicing
    witchcraft and idolatry? Why did he bring up something that wasn’t even
    “the heart of the controversy”?

    TILL
    DR passed over all of this without comment, so I will ask him to answer the
    question above. If witchcraft and idolatry were “at the heart of the
    controversy,” why didn’t Yahweh say this when he gave his command to Saul,
    and why didn’t Saul say to the Kenites that they could leave because they
    weren’t practicing witchcraft and idolatry?

    Why didn’t DR answer this question? Why is he evading it? Why didn’t he,
    as I requested, point out specific language in the text that would show that
    the witchcraft and idolatry of the Amalekites were the reasons why Yahweh
    ordered them exterminated?

    Anyway, after skipping all of this and leaving it unanswered, DR went on as
    follows.

    >DR >Their Rebellion and Witchcraft was evident earlier when the Amalek dared to
    >raise their hands (fist) against Yahweh’s throne. Do you need it more >explicit than rendered by THE NEW LIVING TRANSLATION? >Exodus 17:15,16 (The New Living Translation) >17:15 Moses built an altar there and called it “The LORD Is My Banner.” >F28 >17:16 He said, “They have dared to raise their fist against the LORD’s >throne, so now F29 the LORD will be at war with Amalek generation after >generation.” >FOOTNOTES: >F28: Hebrew Yahweh Nissi. >F29: Or Hands have been lifted up to the LORD’s throne, and now.

    TILL
    Is DR so dense that he cannot see that his answer above merely confirms what I have been saying? Saul’s massacre of the Amalekites was a payback for something that their ancestors had done 400 years earlier. For the sake of argument, I am conceding the historicity of the Amalekite attack on Israel as claimed in Exodus 17, BUT THAT HAD HAPPENED 400 years before the time of Saul. How could a morally perfect deity hold a tribe of people responsible for something their ancestors had done 400 years before? That’s the problem, and DR won’t confront it.

    For the sake of argument, I’ll concede the historicity of this Amalekite
    attack in Exodus 17 and even concede that this was an act of raising their
    fist against Yahweh’s throne. So with that concession, DR, I want you to
    explain to us the morality of exterminating the Amalekite nation 400 years
    LATER for the incident recorded in Exodus 17.

    Are you going to do that, DR, or are you going to continue evading the
    issue? What is morally right about killing people for something their
    ancestors did 400 years earlier?

    Like

  2. Seriously?!!!???

    God commanding the children of Israel to fight means He ordered them to kill babies? What logic is this?

    Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: