Question about 1 Samuel 15

[CShephard53]

Is that supposed to be an argument? I'm kind of confused, honestly. Because if it is, it's not a very good one. You're using a very literal mindset for a figure of speech. Context.

 

[mont974x4]

Nothing in the text indicates a need for a non-literal interpretation.

I won't be going to my grandfather because we'll both be dead and in the ground. I'll be going to him because we'll both be with the Lord for eternity. The same was true when David was talking about his son.

 

[CShephard53]

Nothing in the text indicates a need for a non-literal interpretation.

I won't be going to my grandfather because we'll both be dead and in the ground. I'll be going to him because we'll both be with the Lord for eternity. The same was true when David was talking about his son.

Dude, you're trying to apply theological concepts in retrospect. That doesn't fly. Try looking at the culture and figures of speech, eh?

 

[mont974x4]

Try looking at context, eh? The whole context of Scripture, look at all the passages relating to death.

There is no biblical support for your idea, it just doesn't make any sense.

 

[CShephard53]

Try looking at context, eh? The whole context of Scripture, look at all the passages relating to death.

There is no biblical support for your idea, it just doesn't make any sense.

You don't even know what idea I'm presenting, yet you say there's nothing in the Bible to support it? Use your head. I'm not saying aoa is impossible, but that it's not directly or indirectly supported by Scripture.

You can't simply go 'oh, we'll look at all the Bible passages talking about death', you'd have to narrow it to that particular author. And even if you did that, you'd see that it uses other similar figures of speech. Let me know when you have an argument for your claims, eh?

 

[mont974x4]

You are saying that David simply meant that he was going to die one day and meet his son at that point, but that it couldn't mean that they would meet in Heaven/eternal life. You are correct that the text does not directly say anything about eternal life, but using common sense and looking at ALL applicable passages we can safely say that David did mean eternal life, not simply buried in the ground.

You are taking one verse and building an ideal on it and this is a mistake. Do your own homework, all I can do for you is offer the right direction.

I'll leave you to your arrogance and your misinformed ideas. Wlecome to the ignore list.

 

[CShephard53]

You are saying that David simply meant that he was going to die one day and meet his son at that point, but that it couldn't mean that they would meet in Heaven/eternal life. You are correct that the text does not directly say anything about eternal life, but using common sense and looking at ALL applicable passages we can safely say that David did mean eternal life, not simply buried in the ground.

You are taking one verse and building an ideal on it and this is a mistake. Do your own homework, all I can do for you is offer the right direction.

I'll leave you to your arrogance and your misinformed ideas. Wlecome to the ignore list.

It's not inferred in the text. You can't look at all of the verses, you look at the ones by that author. It's not talking about that in context, at all. You have no argument, only claims, and then claim you're right.
I'm not taking one verse and building an idea. I'm taking a lack of information and saying you can't make a judgment one way or the other. You want to put me on ignore for disagreeing with you and asking for sufficient evidence? That's your problem. But when you put people on ignore, you don't respond, and when you don't respond in the world of debate you concede.

You also accuse me of arrogance and misinformed ideas, that's ad hominem- a fallacy. Try to avoid those.

You also claim to be using common sense- I look at context and don't make inferences based on what I think or feel it says. Inductive Bible study might be a more known term.

 

[TexasSky]

The Amalekites attacked the Israelites without provocation when they left Egypt during the Exodus.
(Exodus 17:8)

They attacked them again after the wars in Canaan.
(Judges 3:12-13; Eglon, king of Moab, joined with the Ammonites and Amalekites to attack Israel. Israel became slaves to the king of Moab for 18 years.)

The Amalekites would wait until Israelites planted, and when they were ready to harvest, they would raid their lands, leaving the Israelites to starve. (Judges 6:1-4)

The Judges account gives the best explanation for why God told Saul to destroy them. It was, an eye for an eye.

When the Midianites and Amalekites attacked Israel, the bible says they camped on the land, ruined the crops all the way to the Gaza, and "did not spare a living thing for Israel, neither sheep nor cattle nor donkeys. They came up with their livestock and their tents like swarms of locusts. It was impossible to count the men and their camels; they invaded the land to ravage it."

This was a long, long history of father passing down to son the belief that it was okay to wipe out and starve out Israel.

This was time after time after time when God spared them, and they repeated the process.

This was "an eye for an eye."

The women and children were as guilty as the men. The weaker participants were as responsible for the starvation of Israel as the warriors were.

Eventually, it became clear, the only way to end this was to wipe out the tribe.

Now, if you wiped out the warriors, you left the women and children to slowly die of starvation and exposure. You left them with an unbearably painful death.

So, this was ALSO mercy.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

That does not mean it's proven beyond reasonable doubt. That only means it's tradition, and that there's argument based on an imbalance of God's character and subjecting God to our ideas. While God is merciful, He is also just.

Perhaps you have some reason NOT to want to buy into it . . . your preference . . . but I will take God's own word

James 2:12-13
12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged bythe law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
NASU

Mercy WILL triumph over judgement . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

You are saying that David simply meant that he was going to die one day and meet his son at that point, but that it couldn't mean that they would meet in Heaven/eternal life. You are correct that the text does not directly say anything about eternal life, but using common sense and looking at ALL applicable passages we can safely say that David did mean eternal life, not simply buried in the ground.

You are taking one verse and building an ideal on it and this is a mistake. Do your own homework, all I can do for you is offer the right direction.

I'll leave you to your arrogance and your misinformed ideas. Wlecome to the ignore list.

Hey Mont . . . actually I would agree with Jaws . . . the afterlife was an almost non-existant concept in ancient Judaism. There is like 2 or 3 passages in the WHOLE OT that even hint at an afterlife (one in Daniel, the Witch of Endor and Samuel, and me thinks the others are prophetic IE You will not allow your holy One to undergo decay).

Fact is that the concept of afterlife and resurrection did NOT really take hold in Judaism until the intertestamental period with the advent of the Pharisees . . . and then the teaching became popular (rightly I might add) . . . for rememeber the Sadducees didn't believe in these things.

 

[mont974x4]

Actually, the afterlife was a real concept. They went to Sheol, of course things changed at the Cross, but David knew he would see/meet his son again.

 

[CShephard53]

Actually, the afterlife was a real concept. They went to Sheol, of course things changed at the Cross, but David knew he would see/meet his son again.

Sheol mean the grave, the pit. Death. Not necessarily hell. It's funny how you still hold the belief that David thought his son was going to heaven when that's not what the text suggests.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Actually, the afterlife was a real concept. They went to Sheol, of course things changed at the Cross, but David knew he would see/meet his son again.

Yeah sheol is a real OT concept . . . but it wasn't associated with consciousness . . . those in the grave were thought to be none conscious . . . hence the Psalmist's "who can praise you from Sheol . . ."

 

[CShephard53]

Perhaps you have some reason NOT to want to buy into it . . . your preference . . . but I will take God's own word

James 2:12-13
12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged bythe law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
NASU

Mercy WILL triumph over judgement . . .

Is that a universal thing to make small God's wrath against sin? I think not.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Is that a universal thing to make small God's wrath against sin? I think not.

I dont make light of the wrath of God at all . . . you should probably seek to ask me more questions before you post such a rhetorical question about me.

Do aborted full term fetus's go to hell jaws?

 

[CShephard53]

I dont make light of the wrath of God at all . . . you should probably seek to ask me more questions before you post such a rhetorical question about me.

Do aborted full term fetus's go to hell jaws?

Can't say. See, I happen to take a middle of the road stance on this- that we cannot know for sure. When I hear people misrepresenting Scripture to try and provide a biblical basis for their ideas, I argue. My stance is that no statements should be made other than, "I hope God sends them to heaven, but the Bible isn't clear on it." And if statements taking a solid position are made, then I argue. I debate. I provide logic for why it's inconclusive. If we had anyone here who was trying to say that babies go to hell, I'd be going after their arguments also.

You're putting forward a solid stance. By my own conviction, I argue until the topic's closed.

 

[dcyates]

Hey Mont . . . actually I would agree with Jaws . . . the afterlife was an almost non-existant concept in ancient Judaism. There is like 2 or 3 passages in the WHOLE OT that even hint at an afterlife (one in Daniel, the Witch of Endor and Samuel, and me thinks the others are prophetic IE You will not allow your holy One to undergo decay).

Fact is that the concept of afterlife and resurrection did NOT really take hold in Judaism until the intertestamental period with the advent of the Pharisees . . . and then the teaching became popular (rightly I might add) . . . for rememeber the Sadducees didn't believe in these things.

You're right; the entire concept of the afterlife is all but completely non-existent in the OT.

Although Jaws is correct on this, I find several of his responses to be rather arrogant and disrespectful in tone. Just some friendly advice, Jaws: try to watch that. Let's remember: You get further with a gun and a smile than you do with just a gun.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Can't say. See, I happen to take a middle of the road stance on this- that we cannot know for sure. When I hear people misrepresenting Scripture to try and provide a biblical basis for their ideas, I argue. My stance is that no statements should be made other than, "I hope God sends them to heaven, but the Bible isn't clear on it." And if statements taking a solid position are made, then I argue. I debate. I provide logic for why it's inconclusive. If we had anyone here who was trying to say that babies go to hell, I'd be going after their arguments also.

You're putting forward a solid stance. By my own conviction, I argue until the topic's closed.

I think I was quite clear that the Bible was silent on the issue . . . and that what I was putting foreward were philosophical hypotheses.

 

[CShephard53]

You're right; the entire concept of the afterlife is all but completely non-existent in the OT.

Although Jaws is correct on this, I find several of his responses to be rather arrogant and disrespectful in tone. Just some friendly advice, Jaws: try to watch that. Let's remember: You get further with a gun and a smile than you do with just a gun.

Tell that to someone who actually cares what you think. You haven't earned the right to give me advice. I don't know you, and I haven't asked for advice. I give advice to people who ask and friends. Again, I didn't ask for your advice, and you don't know me nor have shown me that you care enough to be a friend, especially when you accuse me of arrogance publicly. You got a problem, you take it to me in person. Advice, great. Addressing a problem, great. Try following Jesus on that one. You know, take it to your brother in person. Then with 2-3 people. Then with the church.

 

[CShephard53]

I think I was quite clear that the Bible was silent on the issue . . . and that what I was putting foreward were philosophical hypotheses.

You never stated it directly, which probably would have helped. Clarity is so important. I probably didn't help.