NathanH83

Does God Really Mean What He Says?
————

Some skeptics argue that the Bible has a contradiction in regards to the destruction of the Amalekites.

In 1 Samuel 15, Saul is commanded to completely destroy all the Amalekites.

“Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”
-1 Samuel 15:3 (NKJV)

And it says Saul destroyed them all except Agag:

“He also took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy them. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.”
-1 Samuel 15:8-9 (NKJV)

Saul destroyed all the people and left alive Agag and a whole bunch of animals. But even Agag was later killed by the prophet Samuel:

“But Samuel said, ‘As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.’ And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.”
-1 Samuel 15:33 (NKJV)

But then later on, in 1 Samuel 27 (several years later) it says that David attacked more Amalekites:

“And David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites. For those nations were the inhabitants of the land from of old, as you go to Shur, even as far as the land of Egypt. Whenever David attacked the land, he left neither man nor woman alive, but took away the sheep, the oxen, the donkeys, the camels, and the apparel, and returned and came to Achish.”
-1 Samuel 27:8-9 (NKJV)

How could David be encountering more Amalekites in chapter 27 if Saul and Samuel had already “utterly destroyed them all” years earlier in chapter 15?

Atheists and skeptics will say this is a contradiction.

Some Christians will argue that when God says to destroy all the Amalekites, He’s just being hyperbolic, which means God is just exaggerating.

HYPERBOLIC
Definition:
“Relating to or containing hyperbole; exaggerating or diminishing beyond the fact; exceeding the truth; as a hyperbolical expression.”
-Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary

In other words, God doesn’t really mean what he says. (Uhuh, yea right!)

Notice how this Christian says that God is just being hyperbolic in 1 Samuel 15:
youtube.com/shorts/pcOn98wVF6...

Does God really mean what he says? Or is He just being hyperbolic and exaggerating the truth?

I believe God means what he says.

Here’s my answer to this question:

———-
Saul destroyed all the Amalekites in a specific region
———-

In 1 Samuel 15:7 it says that Saul only attacked the Amalekites from Havilah to Shur, which is before Egypt.

“And Saul attacked the Amalekites, from Havilah all the way to Shur, which is east of Egypt.”
1 Samuel 15:7 (NKJV)

My Orthodox Study Bible says this:

“Saul attacked the Amalekites from Havilah all the way to Shur, which is before Egypt.”
-1 Kingdoms 15:7 (OSB)

But later on in 1 Samuel 27:8 it says that David finished off the rest of the Amalekites from Shur as far as the land of Egypt.

“And David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites. For those nations were the inhabitants of the land from of old, as you go to Shur, even as far as the land of Egypt.”
-1 Samuel 27:8 (NKJV)

The way it sounds to me is that Saul attacked the Amalekites from Havilah to Shur (BEFORE you get to Egypt), but then David attacked the rest of the Amalekites from Shur AS FAR AS the land of Egypt.

Think of it this way. Imagine there’s 3 points on a map:

A. Havilah
B. Shur
C. Egypt.

Saul attacked all the Amalekites from point A to point B.
David attacked the rest of the Amalekites from point B to point C.

Even though Saul was commanded to utterly destroy all the Amalekites, he and his men had no desire to utterly destroy them. They disobeyed God.

In other words, Saul didn’t do the job thoroughly, so David picked up Saul’s slack and finished what he started.

Now you may say: “But it says Saul killed them ALL except Agag!”

“He also took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed ALL THE PEOPLE with the edge of the sword.”
-1 Samuel 15:8 (NKJV)

“See! It says he killed them ALL except Agag!”

No, it doesn’t. It says he killed them all from point A to point B:

“And Saul attacked the Amalekites, from Havilah all the way to Shur, which is east of Egypt.”
1 Samuel 15:7 (NKJV)

Saul killed them ALL from this point to that point. “ALL” within these parameters does not mean “ALL” of them in the whole wide world.

If I say, “I finished off ALL the M&M’s in my bag,” that doesn’t mean “I consumed all the M&M’s in the whole entire world!”

Saul finished off ALL of the Amalekites that were within the parameters in which it says he traveled, namely from Havilah to Shur. If there were Amalekite travelers in the world who went to Ethiopia, or Egypt, or Babylon, or anywhere else in the world, then obviously Saul didn’t get those Amalekites. He got them ALL from point A to point B. David finished off the rest from point B to point C.

In other words, Saul killed the Amalekites that were living within the boundaries of the country of Amalek (in-between Havilah and Shur), but David later killed more Amalekites who were living outside the country of Amalek (in-between Shur and Egypt).

How many Amalekites were trading spices in Egypt who neither Saul nor David destroyed? Obviously they didn’t get to them!

So, you see, the Bible was not being parabolic. It means what it says. Saul killed ALL the Amalekites from this point to that point. It’s not a contradiction. It’s literal, and very specific.

But that doesn’t make God a genocidal maniac like these atheists are suggesting. God was pronouncing judgment on wicked people. God is a righteous judge.

So again:
Saul: Havilah - Shur (Before Egypt)
David: Shur - as far as Egypt.

Saul attacked the Amalekites from Havilah to Shur (Before Egypt), and David finished off the Amalekites from Shur as far as the land of Egypt.

It’s NOT a contradiction.

Skip the Carousel

1 2 3

6 days ago | [YT] | 21

NathanH83

So much for the New Testament never referencing the Apocrypha.

Skip the Carousel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 month ago | [YT] | 44

NathanH83

Notice how, according to Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary, the word “usury” historically used to mean just “interest”. That’s how it’s used all throughout the 1611 King James Bible.

But they changed the definition. Now, the modern definition means “illegal interest,” which means charging too much (like charging over the agreed upon amount stipulated by local law).

They literally changed the definition of the word “usury” so that they can get away with disobeying God’s law, but not feeling condemned by the Bible for it.

It also means bacon. 🥓

1 month ago | [YT] | 32

NathanH83

‪It’s not Replacement Theology. It’s “Cut Off/Grafted In” theology. Any Jew who doesn’t believe in Jesus is cut off. Any Gentile who believes in Jesus is grafted in. That’s not replacement. That’s “Cut Off/Grafted In.”‬

2 months ago | [YT] | 47

NathanH83

The butterfly doesn’t replace the caterpillar. But rather, the caterpillar changed and became the butterfly.

If you’re trying to go back to the former things, you’re clinging to an empty caccoon.

But the tomb is empty. Why are you searching for the living among the dead? He is not there! He is risen!

2 months ago | [YT] | 27

NathanH83

Does Biblical inerrancy require that the Hebrew text today be perfect?

No. Biblical inerrancy only requires that the ORIGINAL Hebrew is perfect, and that it has been transmitted down to us through a translation like the Greek Septuagint. If the modern Hebrew texts are corrupted, that does not contradict the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.

Ok, but what if the Greek Septuagint has mistakes?

If there are mistakes in the Greek Septuagint, then by the witness of 2 or 3 other texts, like the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Hebrew Masoretic, in addition to early Jewish historians and Church fathers, and New Testament quotations, we should be able to determine what those mistakes are in the Greek Septuagint, and reconstruct the original. And thus, by doing so, the transmission from the original autographs has not been lost to us.

Keep in mind, there are mistakes in some copies of the Septuagint that are not in other copies. For example, just because Brenton’s Septuagint has Methuselah outliving Noah’s flood, that does not mean that the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) has him outliving the flood. Brenton’s follows Codex Vaticanus for Methuselah’s age (167), but the OSB follows Codex Alexandrinus (187). The 20-year difference either has him dying 14 years after the flood, or 6 years before.

The Hebrew Masoretic says that Methuselah was 187. Eusebius said that in his day some copies of the Septuagint say that Methuselah was 167 (and died after the flood), and others say 187 (and died before the flood).
The New Testament tells us that only 8 people came off Noah’s ark, so Methuselah could not have been on board. So by the account of 2 or 3 witnesses, the 187 number has to be correct. And thus, the original number is preserved, and Biblical inerrancy is fulfilled.

2 months ago | [YT] | 23

NathanH83

I wonder if people noticed that I snuck this in on purpose? I purposely threw in a screenshot of a Bible translation (I think from the King James) that calls the epistle to the Hebrews "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews".
Even though I never explicitly said that it was written by Paul, I threw that screen grab in there on purpose. I know people like to argue that Paul didn't write Hebrews, but they really don't know that.

2 months ago (edited) | [YT] | 14

NathanH83

Noah's Flood was about 3,000 BC.
The Tower of Babel was 400 years later about 2,600 BC.
The first Egyptian Pyramid was about 2,450 BC.
The Great Pyramid of Giza was about 2,350 BC.
Abraham was born about 2,000 BC.

3 months ago | [YT] | 53

NathanH83

One of Gail Riplinger’s complaints is that I said that the King James Version was translated from the Leningrad Codex from the 11th century AD. She says, No that’s wrong. The King James was translated from the Ben Chayyim Hebrew, not the Leningrad Codex.

Ok? So I’m thinking, how does that help your point? The Ben Chayyim is an even NEWER Hebrew text, not older. The Ben Chayyim dates to the 1500’s, even later than the Leningrad Codex.

So my point still stands, that the oldest complete Hebrew text that modern versions (ESV, NIV, NASB) ARE based on is the Leningrad Codex. The Ben Chayyim that the King James Version is based on is even newer than that.

But the early churches were using the Greek Septuagint which WAS translated a few hundred years before Christ, and therefore must have been translated from an older copy of the Hebrew, older than the Leningrad Codex, older than the Aleppo Codex, older than the Ben Chayyim, older than EVERY HEBREW TEXT that translators use today.

And this older Hebrew text MUST have included these extra 650 years in the Genealogies of Genesis 11. That’s the only way that they could have ended up in the Greek Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the writings of Flavius Josephus.

If this “error” (if it was an error) originated with the Greek Septuagint, there’s no way that it would have made its way into the Samaritan Pentateuch, since the Samaritan text is a Hebrew text that pre-dates the Greek Septuagint itself. And Josephus wasn’t using the Greek Septuagint either. Josephus was given the Hebrew scrolls from the temple. When Titus Flavius destroyed the temple in 70 AD, he gave the Hebrew scrolls to Josephus. So why does Josephus side with the Greek numbers in Genesis 11?

By the way, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the original genuine numbers of Josephus agree with the Hebrew in Genesis 5. So I’m not so confident that the Greek Septuagint is right about the extra 500 or so years before the Flood. But after the Flood? We definitely have 3 textual witnesses for the 650 years.

3 months ago | [YT] | 27

NathanH83

I don’t see anything wrong with supporting Israel, I think antisemitism is wrong, and I think it’s dumb to blame Israel for things they didn’t do (like murdering Charlie Kirk -give me a break!)

BUT, I think Christians ought to be careful not to put them up on a pedestal, and bow down and worship them, as if they’re the superior race.

If Jews in the 1st century are guilty of removing things from the Hebrew Bible (as evidenced by the Greek Septuagint) then we should be honest and acknowledge that, and not resort to calling it antisemitism. Especially since there’s clear evidence even from Josephus (a Jewish historian) that the Jews did in fact alter things in the Hebrew text.

Josephus was given the Hebrew scrolls from the temple in Jerusalem, and yet he often sides with the Greek Septuagint (like including the extra 600 years in the genealogies Genesis 11).

Wanting to defend the ORIGINAL Hebrew over the Masoretic is not inherently antisemitic. In fact, it’s the opposite of antisemitism, because it’s wanting to defend the original.

But bowing down to the Masoretic, which has been altered, is similar to bowing down to the golden calf altar, because it’s not putting God first. It’s putting a text first rather than letting God lead you to the texts that Jesus and the disciples quoted from.

Skip the Carousel

1 2 3 4 5 6

3 months ago | [YT] | 35