If any other god.....

[Athetotheist]

"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:3)


"And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon....

And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city."(Deuteronomy 3:2,6)

If these directives were attributed to any deity other than Jehovah, would Bible apologists accept any excuse for them? If any apologist for another deity offered an excuse for such behavior in that deity, would Bible apologists concede and fall silent?

[Difflugia]

Both "sides" of that question can understand the use of hyperbolic and figurative language within accounts meant to be taken historically.

Just so we're on the same page, do you think that Matthew 27:51-53 is hyperbolic and figurative? Is any of the following account "meant to be taken historically?"

And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent; and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.

In any case, could you maybe provide an example of classical history that includes "hyperbolic and figurative language within accounts meant to be taken historically?" Preferably one with hyperbole and figurative language similar to that in the Bible, but still treated by historians as reliable in some way. So we're clear on where I'm going, my claim will be that the language of any writing considered to be historical is fundamentally different than that of the Bible. I had a similar conversation with Goose a few years ago.

[The Tanager]

If I undersatand this correctly, the burden of proof is on the one who asserts the Bible means something other than what it says.

When an athlete says that her team killed the other team, the default is not that a murder took place unless someone can prove it was figurative language. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim, whatever they are claiming the Bible says.

[The Tanager]

Just so we're on the same page, do you think that Matthew 27:51-53 is hyperbolic and figurative? Is any of the following account "meant to be taken historically?"

This passage has a different kind of content than what this thread is about, so I don’t see how it is relevant. The Hebrew texts we are talking about could be one way and the Matthew text different. But having said that, I think it could be hyperbolic and figurative, yes. Other contemporary texts (as I remember) would offer similar types of occurrences accompanying the deaths of well known figures to note their importance. The author of Matthew mirroring that does not discount all that he claims.

In any case, could you maybe provide an example of classical history that includes "hyperbolic and figurative language within accounts meant to be taken historically?" Preferably one with hyperbole and figurative language similar to that in the Bible, but still treated by historians as reliable in some way. So we're clear on where I'm going, my claim will be that the language of any writing considered to be historical is fundamentally different than that of the Bible. I had a similar conversation with Goose a few years ago.

In the Annals of Tiglath-Pileser, we get this: “With the help of Assur, my lord, I led forth my chariots and warriors and went into the desert. Into the midst of the Ahlami, Arameans, enemies of Assur, my lord, I marched. The country from Suhi to the city of Carchemish, in the land of Hatti, I raided in one day. I slew their troops; their spoil, their goods and their possessions in countless numbers, I carried away.”

To take these words at face value, Tiglath would have had to travel hundreds of miles in one day, battling the enemies as he went. This doesn’t mean Tiglath didn’t win such battles.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #23

In the Annals of Tiglath-Pileser, we get this: “With the help of Assur, my lord, I led forth my chariots and warriors and went into the desert. Into the midst of the Ahlami, Arameans, enemies of Assur, my lord, I marched. The country from Suhi to the city of Carchemish, in the land of Hatti, I raided in one day. I slew their troops; their spoil, their goods and their possessions in countless numbers, I carried away.”

To take these words at face value, Tiglath would have had to travel hundreds of miles in one day, battling the enemies as he went. This doesn’t mean Tiglath didn’t win such battles.

Is Tiglath acting on explicit instructions such as those given in 1 Samuel 15:3?

[The Tanager]

Is Tiglath acting on explicit instructions such as those given in 1 Samuel 15:3?

Why do you think that would make a difference?

[TRANSPONDER]

If I undersatand this correctly, the burden of proof is on the one who asserts the Bible means something other than what it says.

When an athlete says that her team killed the other team, the default is not that a murder took place unless someone can prove it was figurative language. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim, whatever they are claiming the Bible says.

In the case of battles where people 'slew'other people, areyou really going to argue they scored a tactical victory and the other side simply retreated? Are you going to put down the extermination of the Flood to metaphor?If co, then nothing in the Bible can be trusted, can it?

No, I think we can be trusted to be aware when hyperbole and metaphor is being (possibly) used and when it is (probably) not, and the burden of proof is on the other to show that slaughter of women and children is merely a metaphor for a nation agreeing to cede an adjustment of the border.

[The Tanager]

In the case of battles where people 'slew'other people, areyou really going to argue they scored a tactical victory and the other side simply retreated?

I'm arguing that when talking about slaying everyone, it doesn't literally mean they slayed everyone or every category talked about, but it was just a way people exaggerated their victory like we still do today.

Are you going to put down the extermination of the Flood to metaphor?If co, then nothing in the Bible can be trusted, can it?

No, that doesn't logically follow. You keep claiming that metaphor means not true at all, but I see no reason offered to conclude the same.

No, I think we can be trusted to be aware when hyperbole and metaphor is being (possibly) used and when it is (probably) not, and the burden of proof is on the other to show that slaughter of women and children is merely a metaphor for a nation agreeing to cede an adjustment of the border.

I follow reasons, not what you or me or anyone else thinks is hyperbole and metaphor in writings from a culture not our own. If you want to claim a text means X, then back it up instead of trying to shift the burden. If you don't have sound reasons (and "I can just tell" isn't a sound reason) then don't make the claim.

[Athetotheist]

Is Tiglath acting on explicit instructions such as those given in 1 Samuel 15:3?

Why do you think that would make a difference?

It would make a difference in that explicit instructions are not metaphorical or figurative.

[The Tanager]

It would make a difference in that explicit instructions are not metaphorical or figurative.

Why? If a coach tells his team to go out there and kill or destroy their opponent, he can't be speaking metaphorically or figuratively?

[Athetotheist]

It would make a difference in that explicit instructions are not metaphorical or figurative.

Why? If a coach tells his team to go out there and kill or destroy their opponent, he can't be speaking metaphorically or figuratively?

Weak Analogy Fallacy:
"When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument."
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... ak-Analogy

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
(1Samuel 15:2-3)

Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.
(1Sam. 15:7-9)

Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.”
(1Sam. 15:10-11)