Why can't it be God?
Why can’t you answer the questions?
Why must it be God?
Why can’t it be fictional?
Two very simple questions, have a go at answering them.
You can look at the story from 2 perspectives.
I can look at it from a lot more than 2 perspectives.
You can say it was God, or not,
No you can’t. This was an enquiry about the possible historicity of a biblical passage. Historical enquiry cannot include fantasy beings as an explanation for anything.
then try to make the story fit from there.
This is the exact opposite of what historical research is! You do not make the story fit anything, you examine the story on its own merits and then apply what knowledge you already have and then conclude whether parts or the entire story is plausible. An historian NEVER embarks on a research topic with the attitude that they already have an accurate record of what they are investigating.
What would be the point in investigating the historicity of a biblical event if you already believe that you have an accurate record?
But either way, it is an over generelized story of what happened, and not short hand from a court case.
No, it isn’t an over generalised story of what happened, it is a story of what someone is claiming happened, there’s a big difference. Also, we do not know if it is over generalised or not because we do not know the author’s intentions.
There are way to many details left out for you to try and logically break it down to the level you are trying to, and make sense out of it.
When taken with the rest of the prehistory books of the Bible, and placed into an historical context, there is more than enough information to make an informed conclusion.
He knew because God was blessing the jews by allowing them to multiply.
Where are we told this?
Thats the moral of that whole passage.
Really? I thought the moral of the story was that obedience to God brings rewards, and this is why the midwives are rewarded by having their own families.
You see, my conclusion is based on the text, your conclusion is based on what you imagine.
Exodus 1:21
And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own.
I didn't say telling a lie was lawful, I said what they said to him was considered lawful.
But, what they said to him was a lie. So, how do you consider it lawful?
Again you try to break it down too far, even what I said, and turn it into something it's not.
This is what textual analysis is mate. You do not just break the text down to what you want it to be, you break it down into as many possibilities as you can and then decide which scenario is the most plausible.
Yes, that is exactly what the story is about, the Jews multiplying.
That statement has nothing to do with the midwives being there or not, it's information that lends itself to the growth of the Jewish population, and how God was protecting them.
God protected them so well that every boy two years old and under was thrown into the Nile, except for Moses.
But, seriously, I am more inclined towards the story being the prelude of the Moses myth, and perhaps borrowing from the earlier Sargon literature.
I wasn't there, so I don't "know this".
So stop making absolute statements then. You *think* this is what the story is about, just as I *think* that the story is part of the Moses story.
It is what the story is about, and why I think the possibility remains that it is not a myth.
The Book of Exodus, at face value, has been shown beyond all doubt to be fiction. Now, this does not mean that there aren’t historical kernels within the text. It is a Herculean task to filter out the exaggerations, historical inaccuracies and outright fiction from the rest of the text. To say that the story is not a myth is, at this moment in time, contrary to all of the extant evidence.
Judges 13:3 The angel of Yahweh appeared to the woman, and said to her, "See now, you are barren, and don't bear; but you shall conceive, and bear a son.
4 Now therefore please beware and drink no wine nor strong drink, and don't eat any unclean thing:
5 for, behold, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head; for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb: and he shall begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."
Sure sounds like his power came from God, and it was in his hair, a sign of the convenant made between Samsons parents, and God.
Pray tell where the quote you provided mentions God providing Samson with superhuman strength. All the text says is that a barren woman will give birth to a son who will begin to Judge Israel. Anything else is just you adding to the text.
When his hair was cut, God left him, not his strength.
Why would God leave him when his hair was cut, this makes no sense at all. If it is because the long hair was the sign of a Nazarite then what about all the other things Samson did that was against the rules of being a Nazarite. For example, he touched corpses and God did not leave him, so why should the hair be any different?
Judges 16:28 Samson called to Yahweh, and said, "Lord Yahweh, remember me, please, and strengthen me, please, only this once, God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes."
29 Samson took hold of the two middle pillars on which the house rested, and leaned on them, the one with his right hand, and the other with his left.
30 Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" He bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell on the lords, and on all the people who were therein. So the dead that he killed at his death were more than those who he killed in his life.
How can one say God didn't give him power to topple the temple, according to the story?
Quite easily, if you critically analyse the text.
First off, the text you quoted does not mention the spirit of God coming upon Samson as he carried out this superhuman feat. When God is with Samson, the text explicitly states so.
Judges 14:6
The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told neither his father nor his mother what he had done.
Judges 14:19
Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. He went down to Ashkelon, struck down thirty of their men, stripped them of their belongings and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle. Burning with anger, he went up to his father's house.
Judges 15:14-15
As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting.
The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. 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.
So, where in the text you quoted does the “Spirit of the LORD” come upon Samson?
To save you some time, Samson does NOT need the Spirit of the LORD to carry out superhuman feats:
Judges 16:3
But Samson lay there only until the middle of the night. Then he got up and took hold of the doors of the city gate, together with the two posts, and tore them loose, bar and all. He lifted them to his shoulders and carried them to the top of the hill that faces Hebron.
Judges 15:8 is sometimes also said to be an example of Samson’s superhuman abilities without the Spirit of God upon him, but I wouldn’t argue too much in its favour:
He attacked them viciously and slaughtered many of them. Then he went down and stayed in a cave in the rock of Etam.
You really need to try reading the entire texts, these ad hoc claims of yours are contradicting the Book you allegedly follow.
He sacrificed himself in the end to get his power back one more time, and do what God had made him to do. He fulfilled his calling, that's power.
Nice sentiments, but unbiblical.
Brian
Yes, your tremendous grasp of the text has floored me, especially the large chunks that you ignore.
™ Version 4.2