Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-19-2012, 09:00 AM

At least this author is up front:

Quote:

Who Killed Saul?

This is a common question. There are two different accounts in the Bible of who killed king Saul. This causes an apparent conflict because both cannot be true. One of the accounts must be a lie. That is just a simple fact. The two accounts are mutually exclusive of each other.

However, there are no real conflicts in the Bible. There are only what appear to be conflicts on the surface. ...

There is a similar attempt to explain this here.

A more amusing attempt here.

Quote:

3. I Sam 31:4 does not say that Saul succeeded in committing suicide. He took "a" sword and fell on it, yes, and he was dead by the time his armour bearer saw him in the next verse, yes, but he may have failed in his suicide attempt.

4. Remember that Saul was somewhat of a coward and didn't do things well. In fact, it doesn't even say that he had his own sword in his hand. He had to ask his armour bearer to fall on him and eventually took "a" sword; not "his" sword, to fall upon.

5. It could have been quite a while between the time he asked his armour bearer to kill him and the time he took a sword and fell on it. Also, when people actually die directly from such action, the bible often describes it with words like, "he fell on his sword that he died". In this case, it merely says that Saul fell upon "a" sword, and we may have to look elsewhere to know what it was and who it was that really finished him off.

andrewcriddle · 06-19-2012, 11:58 AM

Reading the text as it now stands, (i.e. ignoring issues about different sources underlying the text), I think one has to regard the Amalekite as an unreliable witness who wrongly believes that he can get a bigger reward from David by exaggerating his role in the death of David's enemy Saul.

Andrew Criddle

aeebee50 · 06-19-2012, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeebee50

Too bad Saul could not have been hit by a lightening bolt. That would be awesome.

Would have been more awesome if he had been run over by a truck full of bibles.

How about a chariot full of bibles or scrolls?

semiopen · 06-21-2012, 07:56 AM

From a technical point of view the OP link states

Quote:

4. Saul would not have asked the Amalikite to run him thru because he was just as uncircumcised as the Philistines.

Is there a reason to think that the Amalekites were not circumcised?

Amalek is a descendant of Esau who is a descendant of Abraham so there is reason to believe that they were.

Agag may contradict this

Quote:

The rabbis taught that the Jews took vengeance on Agag for the cruelties they had undergone at the hands of the Amalekites, who, to mock at the Israelites, their God, and the rite of circumcision, mutilated every Jew that fell into their power.

The rabbis were hardly contemporaries of Samuel though.

The circumcision queston is important with the forced conversion of the Idumeans (Edomites) where this wouldn't involve forced circumcission if they were already circumcised.

The obvious interpretation of the significance of the descent from Abraham is that these peoples were circumcised.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-19-2012, 11:58 AM	#12
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Reading the text as it now stands, (i.e. ignoring issues about different sources underlying the text), I think one has to regard the Amalekite as an unreliable witness who wrongly believes that he can get a bigger reward from David by exaggerating his role in the death of David's enemy Saul. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.