Samson

[Zzyzx]

.
Bible tales about Samson

Judges 13:5 Samson went down to Timnah together with his father and mother. As they approached the vineyards of Timnah, suddenly a young lion came roaring toward him. 6 The Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon him so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat.

19 Then the Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon him. He went down to Ashkelon, struck down thirty of their men, stripped them of everything and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle.

3 Samson said to them, “This time I have a right to get even with the Philistines; I will really harm them.� 4 So he went out and caught three hundred foxes and tied them tail to tail in pairs. He then fastened a torch to every pair of tails, 5 lit the torches and let the foxes loose in the standing grain of the Philistines. He burned up the shocks and standing grain, together with the vineyards and olive groves.

14 As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting. The Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon him. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands. 15 Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men.

17 So he told her everything. “No razor has ever been used on my head,� he said, “because I have been a Nazirite dedicated to God from my mother’s womb. If my head were shaved, my strength would leave me, and I would become as weak as any other man.�

25 While they were in high spirits, they shouted, “Bring out Samson to entertain us.� So they called Samson out of the prison, and he performed for them. When they stood him among the pillars, 26 Samson said to the servant who held his hand, “Put me where I can feel the pillars that support the temple, so that I may lean against them.� 27 Now the temple was crowded with men and women; all the rulers of the Philistines were there, and on the roof were about three thousand men and women watching Samson perform. 28 Then Samson prayed to the Lord, “Sovereign Lord, remember me. Please, God, strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes.� 29 Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, 30 Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!� Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.


Summary:

1. Killed a lion bare handed
2. 'Struck down' / Killed thirty men
3. Caught 300 foxes and tied their tales together
4. 'Struck down' / Killed 1000 men
5. Lost strength when hair was cut
6. Regained strength and pushed down pillars of a large temple collapsing it onto 3000 people

Really? All true?

Killed 1000 men with the jawbone of a donkey? Really? Did they just line up and kneel?

A haircut caused loss of strength? Really? (No wonder I haven't pushed down any temples lately)

Pushed down a large building? Really?

Columns two feet diameter and twenty feet high would weigh over 10,000 pounds each* – times two – not considering the resistance of the entire structure – not considering that downing two columns is not likely to collapse an entire building. (*area of 2' circle = 3.14 x 20' tall = 62.8 cubic feet x 170 pounds / cubic food marble = 10,700#)

Is it more rational to consider the Samson tale a myth, perhaps on the order of Paul Bunyan – with a tiny kernel of truth with a whole lot of exaggeration?

(Note: Historians believe Bunyan was based in large part on an actual lumberjack: Fabian Fournier, a French-Canadian timberman who moved south and got a job as foreman of a logging crew in Michigan after the Civil War https://www.history.com/news/was-paul-b ... eal-person )

[1213]

…It is being demonstrated for all of us by some participating here….

Sorry, I have seen only subjective opinions, nothing substantial.

…Did Samson catch 300 fox, tie their tails together and attach flaming torches?

That is what the story tells and I believe it. The problem is, I have no means to prove anything from the history. Even if I could take you back in time, you could say it was just an illusion. There is simply no means that I know to prove anything from the history. Also, even if I could do the same, it would not prove it happened then. So, this remains a matter of belief, sorry.

[Zzyzx]

.

That is what the story tells and I believe it. The problem is, I have no means to prove anything from the history. Even if I could take you back in time, you could say it was just an illusion. There is simply no means that I know to prove anything from the history. Also, even if I could do the same, it would not prove it happened then. So, this remains a matter of belief, sorry.

Are you the person who argued that WWII couldn't be proved to have happened (or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki)?

I remember debating someone who argued that none of that could be proved -- so it is 'just a matter of belief' -- and therefore s/he shouldn't be expected to prove any of the Bible tales.

Someone also argued that it could not be proved that the Earth is spherical -- 'So don't expect me to prove Bible tales are true'. What they are saying is that they refuse to accept rock-solid evidence from multiple worldwide sources AND, in the case of spherical Earth, evidence that they can observe personally. That is known as willful ignorance.

In any event, people are not asked to make life decisions based on tales from ancient literature (other than religious tomes). Those who DO promote using the tales to make modern life decisions ARE legitimately asked if the tales are true and accurate. When they cannot furnish verifiable evidence, a rational person declines to accept the offering.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 29 by Zzyzx]

Most readers likely realize that a claim of catching 300 foxes is unrealistic (even for a strong man)...

Perhaps there was a plague of foxes at the time. God works in mysterious ways you know. But if that was how he helped to burn down the standing grain, vineyards and olive groves I'm thinking that a bolt of well aimed divine lightning might have done the trick without inflicting uncalled for pain and suffering on innocent animals.

[Zzyzx]

.

. . . a bolt of well aimed divine lightning might have done the trick

Prepare for rebuttal from Apologists claiming that catching 300 foxes and using them to set fires is more believable than a lightening strike (and/or that lightening wouldn't have burned all those things).

[Purple Knight]

.

. . . a bolt of well aimed divine lightning might have done the trick

Prepare for rebuttal from Apologists claiming that catching 300 foxes and using them to set fires is more believable than a lightening strike (and/or that lightening wouldn't have burned all those things).

The much more likely explanation is that God is the biggest animal abuser of all, and that torturing animals the way it tortures us makes it all warm and fuzzy inside, look at Samson, and go, "Awww! They he thinks he's people."

[brunumb]

.

. . . a bolt of well aimed divine lightning might have done the trick

Prepare for rebuttal from Apologists claiming that catching 300 foxes and using them to set fires is more believable than a lightening strike (and/or that lightening wouldn't have burned all those things).

Ah, but you missed the important part. Divine lightning. The omnipotent one knows exactly what would be needed.

[Difflugia]

Are you the person who argued that WWII couldn't be proved to have happened (or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki)?

I remember debating someone who argued that none of that could be proved -- so it is 'just a matter of belief' -- and therefore s/he shouldn't be expected to prove any of the Bible tales.

Someone also argued that it could not be proved that the Earth is spherical -- 'So don't expect me to prove Bible tales are true'. What they are saying is that they refuse to accept rock-solid evidence from multiple worldwide sources AND, in the case of spherical Earth, evidence that they can observe personally. That is known as willful ignorance.

A lot of (most?) apologetic arguments boil down to a conflation of possible and probable, particularly when inerrancy's involved. There's this underlying, but (usually) unstated idea that all outcomes are equally likely, so any one of them is as valid as any other.

I think one of the problems with this argument in apologetics is that it rapidly becomes a slippery slope without the apologist even noticing. Stringing improbabilities together results in something exponentially more improbable, but apologists still treat a string of contingent improbabilities as though they're all independent. The story of Samson being historically true in a literalist, inerrant way requires that Samson caught three hundred foxes and killed a thousand men with a bone and killed a lion with his bare hands. The probability of all three being true is the individual probabilities multiplied together and those are just the mundane details of the story. What's the probability that this isn't an older, foreign story shoehorned into a monotheistic, post-Canaanite milieu? The whole Nazirite thing is a dodge to explain the long hair as part of the story in a Yahwistic way. Samson ignores literally every other requirement for being a Nazirite. He drank (the word translated "feast" in 14:10, מִשְ�תֶּה, is from the Hebrew root שתה, "to drink," and refers to a drinking party). He had no scruples about eating honey out of a dead lion (which is itself an unclean animal) even though Nazirites aren't supposed to touch anything dead (how long would it take bees to set up shop in a dead lion, anyway?). The only thing he did was grow his hair out, which (improbably?) gave him magic strength. Is that a genuine detail of a historical event or a papered-over solar myth?

[1213]

….Is it naive and gullible to believe someone who says they have a friendly giant invisible rabbit?
Is it naive and gullible to believe a claim that the rabbit died and came back to life?
Is it naive and gullible to believe that the rabbit goes to heaven when it dies?

Why would it be naïve and gullible?

Is it naïve and gullible to believe you?

Is it naïve and gullible to believe what history books say? Why not?

I truly appreciate Apologists attempting to defend the Samson tale as literal. That should erase doubt in the mind of readers regarding the credibility of the defender. Most readers likely realize that a claim of catching 300 foxes is unrealistic (even for a strong man) -- let alone the killing of 1000 with the jawbone of a donkey -- and pushing down a large building. …

Opinion noted.

[1213]

…I remember debating someone who argued that none of that could be proved -- so it is 'just a matter of belief' -- and therefore s/he shouldn't be expected to prove any of the Bible tales...

I don’t say you shouldn’t expect, I just say, it is not possible to prove any historical matter, all history is matter of belief.

[Zzyzx]

.

….Is it naive and gullible to believe someone who says they have a friendly giant invisible rabbit?
Is it naive and gullible to believe a claim that the rabbit died and came back to life?
Is it naive and gullible to believe that the rabbit goes to heaven when it dies?

Why would it be naïve and gullible?

I leave this for readers to consider.