Plot holes in the bible and what the motivation for it would be

a reply to: Raggedyman

All good but the cracks in Romes pagan beliefs and believing
Ceasar was god were growing long before Constantine.
Christianity was spreading profusely long before
if I'm not getting old?

Now I'm looking for clarification, In Samuel 1 The people of Israel decide to have a monarchy instead of a theocracy. Samuel at the time was running the show and from the sounds of it was doing a good job. God doesn't like the fact that the people want a monarchy, yet its God that selects Saul. Saul handsome and tall and does great things for unify tribes Israel. Then one day he does a sacrifice to god without having a priest around (Samuel loses his #). Then Samuel tells Saul to wipe out all the Amalekites and to leave none alive. Saul wipes out all the Amalekites and wanting to show favor to his God spares the king and the best livestock so as to sacrifice to him. This is the last straw for Samuel, Samuel says

And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the LORD your God, with which he commanded you. For then the Lord would have established your kingdom in Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not continue. The LORD has sought out a man after his own heart, and the LORD has commanded him to be a prince over his people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you”. I Samuel 13:13-14

So God selects Saul then goes, oops, nope I reject you.

I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments”. I Samuel 15: 11-12

And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel. I Samuel 15:35

Saul did two things wrong not kill every living Amalekites and not have a priest around when doing a Sacrifice. Up until this point Saul was doing amazing things for Israel. But as I have read because he didn't have a priest for the sacrifice he was putting himself before god and because he didn't listen to Samuel about killing all the Amalekites he was putting himself before god. I'm sure we all can agree on this.

What I would argue is that Samuel is a power broker in Israel. Everything in Samuel 1 praises Saul up and down about how awesome he is. Then as soon as Saul disobeys Samuel (Samuel was the priest he was waiting for) and Samuel was the one who told to kill all the Amalekites and it was even Samuel who killed the spared king of Amalekites. Everything in Samuel 1 then turns on Saul.

This is the old testament and God says " I regret I have made Saul King". This strikes me as odd why would God regret anything. God rejected Saul as soon as he disobeyed him. Then he immediately chose another king that would replace him. Also he inflicts Saul with an evil spirt. Doesn't sound like a God with regret. Sounds like some person altered the story to make Saul look like a dick because he was falling out of favor with the people. Also to religious endorse the next King of Israel.

disturbintati beat me to it.
all I can say is, Westerns won't get Easterners were trying to teach.

They'll either corrupt it or misinterpret it all together.

a reply to: randyvs

No question

But it was Constantine who pretty much made Rome then the Byzantines a christian? empire

a reply to: DiaJax

Or read it as its written, Saul disobeyed God and was punished for his disobedience

Saul started off as a good king, his arrogance and self importance became his undoing

God didnt want kings but, God gave Israel what they wanted. It didnt turn out very good in the end

Samuel was a messenger, if a messenger is a power broker in your books, then yes, Samuel was a power-broker.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Durn book is always about the jews, why don't the gentiles ever get the good roles?

Seems kinda racist.

a reply to: D8Tee

There are some very interesting Gentile books from that period around
Funny, as good books about the Jews go, it really paints them in a poor light.
Not many books are about exposing the floors of the people writing down their own history

a reply to: Raggedyman

I can see your point.

You've found the hole in my argument. The only way my argument works is if Samuel isn't able to talk to God but it says it in the book.

These aren't holes but what's the deal with Saul wanting to give his daughters to David even though he real dislikes David?

What's the deal with the Philistines its like they are always at war with the Philistines?

Man the Books of Samuel is a gore fest. They don't mess around in old testament.

a reply to: luciferslight

Its' impossible to understand what you understand?

that's understandable

But seriously if you have any recommended reading I'll have a gander.

originally posted by: DiaJax
a reply to: Raggedyman

I can see your point.

You've found the hole in my argument. The only way my argument works is if Samuel isn't able to talk to God but it says it in the book.

These aren't holes but what's the deal with Saul wanting to give his daughters to David even though he real dislikes David?

What's the deal with the Philistines its like they are always at war with the Philistines?

Man the Books of Samuel is a gore fest. They don't mess around in old testament.

Sauls daughters will be Davids queens and their children, Sauls grandchildren, 1 may become king.
Saul didnt care about Israel, it was arrogance, ambition and vanity, he wanted a lineage of kings from his family.

The Philistines were most probably from Greece, hated Gods people for stealing what they considered their land. Tribal disputes, bit like Africa now. The whole ancient and near east have always been at conflict.

No God didnt mess around, God offered Israel peace if they followed His instructions, they didnt
God is about justice and destroying tose against Him. Same as today

If you choose to believe of, of course

originally posted by: DiaJax
a reply to: luciferslight

Its' impossible to understand what you understand?

that's understandable

most likely. If I told you something in symbols, you will interpret it literally.

Example: Let's go shoot the bull.
I don't mean let's go kill a bull, but have a conversation.

It's symbolic or metaphoric.

As for reading material, I only have a website to take you where I got the info. PORN

a reply to: DiaJax

I'd be curious to know exactly how the Roman Empire transitioned into Christianity. People hold their beliefs very dear you would be hard pressed to get anyone to switch.

Classical Graeco-Roman religion wasn’t very compelling and had become largely formal by the time Jesus was crucified. There was also an official religious establishment and the Emperors were deified. People were mostly tired of traditional religion and many adopted foreign beliefs — Mithraism, the Greek mystery cults, Christianity of course, and many others. These cults were incorporated into the Empire together with the conquered peoples who believed in them. So Rome was a very multireligious society, not a monolithically religious one like the modern West.

Most Romans probably believed a little bit of this and that. They didn’t hold their beliefs very dear. It is only monotheists and people for whom religion is a badge of identity who do that. Western and Islamic society are very unusual in that regard.

When an upstart from England declared himself Emperor and marched on Rome to conquer it, he found it politically convenient to adopt a sympathetic attitude towards Christianity — or maybe he did, as he reported, see a vision. He didn’t become a Christian himself — not until he was on his deathbead — but he deproscribed Christianity and allowed its adherents to preach. The new, passionate faith quickly spread among the embers of the Empire’s dying beliefs.

This is another instance I could see a government body altering texts in order to have a easier transitioning period.

Oh, you want the conspiracy theorist version. Forget everything I wrote above. God sent aliens to brainwash the Romans into becoming Christians.

a reply to: DiaJax

God had nothing to do with it. Samuel, a charity orphan taken into the Temple, sees his opportunity and slithers his way into the chief priest’s favour. He then does away with the chief priest and assumes his title. Then he begins arrogating secular power to the Temple. But he knows the Hebrews won’t be ruled by priests, so he needs a king. He finds Saul, who — he thinks — is strong, stupid and malleable. And so he is — until he decides to go it alone. Whereupon Samuel, using his prophetic and priestly authority, deposes Saul and sets up another candidate he’s been grooming, David.

And they all lived happily ever after, except of course for the Philistines, who were given haemorrhoids for stealing the Ark of the Covenant.

This is the old testament and God says " I regret I have made Saul King". This strikes me as odd why would God regret anything.

It happens a lot in the Old Testament. The idea that God is omnipotent and infallible came a lot later in history. The God of the OT is just a garden-variety Bronze Age tribal deity. The only thing distinguishing Yahweh from the rest is that his followers worshipped him exclusively.

originally posted by: DiaJax
The bible has some wildly entertaining stories about "stuff" and I always find in curious how people are taken by a book that has so many plot holes.

The Bible is not a novel. If you want plot holes then read the de Vinci Code. The Bible's a collection of books from a number of different authors, and divided into the New and Testaments.

a reply to: paraphi

Definitely not a novel by definition.

But also it is a romanticized version of the history of many peoples, much is fictional and pseudepigraphal. Meaning, for instance, Daniel is not the author of Daniel, and everything pre 600BC regarding the internal story of said book , is pseudepigraphal and was written after 600 BC.

So it is not history or fiction but historical fiction which let's be fair so are many novels.

Dewey defeats Truman comes to mind.

One could say it is a religous novel like they say about so many non Canonical texts like the superior Homilies and Recognitions of Clement aka Travels of Peter, a book that has MSS. as old as the oldest Bible and one from 410AD that's the oldest dated MS. in the world, the Sryiac(Christian Aramaic) version. The Greek MS. is anterior to this though.

And that is far more historically believeable than anything in the Bible, which is quasi-novel, actually a catolog of quasi-novels, quasi-history and oracles, and some Law.

So parts of it could definitely be accurately called allegorical novellas at the very least.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
The Bible itself is a giant black hole of ignorance.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: DiaJax

It happens a lot in the Old Testament. The idea that God is omnipotent and infallible came a lot later in history. The God of the OT is just a garden-variety Bronze Age tribal deity. The only thing distinguishing Yahweh from the rest is that his followers worshipped him exclusively.

Oh why didn't someone say this in the first place. All my plot holes go out the window the instant God becomes fallible.
Everything instantly makes sense if God doesn't know everything.

a reply to: DiaJax

Sometimes what you imagine to be a plot hole is a literary device signaling to pay attention to something, and to use your mind to fill in the gaps.

It is full of allegory, exo-esotericism and has layers of interpretation.

For certain it is not a book for the simple minded to understand but imagine that they do.

To take everything literally or think that a plot hole wasn't deliberate, even if a redaction or ommission, is fallacy.

It's usually the way it was meant to be. Either to be preserved through oral teachings and keep from the profane, or something like that.

Talmud and Zohar are the written results of oral traditions.

And fill the gaps

The Bible is not one whole book but a collection of books.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Thank you for this reply.

Yes I can't truly comprehend the spiritual elements of the book so what I am left with the literal. I come here to question the contradictions cause I'm sure there are those that are more familiar the book then I. Also I doubt I'm the first person to bring this up.

So your telling me that in order to understand this "literary device" I would have to become a believer? You have access to knowledge beyond my comprehension?

If this is the case wouldn't their be a supplementary document aid those in the "full" understanding of the bible? Are those documents the Talmund and Zohar?

Whatever your response I will have to take a look at the Talmund and Zohar.

One more thing could you enlighten me to the relationship between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I feel that something happened between these three that shaped all of the holy books.

Thanks again