h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Alrighty, then. This is one of the funnest (and funniest) ones...


A people known as the Amalekites are destroyed to extinction by Saul (1Samuel 15:7-8)

- "Saul routed Amalek from Havilah to the approaches of Shur, on the frontier of Egypt. He took Agag, king of Amalek, alive, but on the rest of the people he put into effect the ban of destruction by the sword."

But then Amalek rises from the dead, and David has to send them to extinction a second time (1Sam 27:8-11):

- "David and his men went up and made raids on the Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites - peoples living in the land between Telam, on the approach to Shur, and the land of Egypt. In attacking the land David would not leave a man or woman alive, ...

This second extinction doesn't discourage the hardy Amalekites, however, and their twice-dead peoples manage to kidnap two of David's wives (1Sam 30):

- "Before David and his men reched Ziglag on the third day, the Amalekites had raided Negeb and Ziglag... David's two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail... had been carried off with the rest."

And in the ensuing counter-attack, 400 twice-dead escape, while the rest are killed a third time (1Sam 30:17-18):

- "From dawn to sundwon David attacked them, putting them under the ban so that none escaped except four hundred young men, who mounted their camels and fled.. David rescued everything the Amalekites had taken, and rescued his two wives."

-

First of all, I'd better make it clear that I'm not sure what exactly the author of Samuel was saying in these passages. I'd have to do some more research first. However, we're hardly in a position to say (two and a half millenia after the fact) that the author obviously doesn't know what he's talking about just because it looks funny to us.

Second, if this was a fake, don't you think that the faker would try a little harder? I mean, if I was going to try to forge, say, an encyclopedia from 1920, I wouldn't put an entry in there for the space shuttle. That would be stupid. Likewise, I highly doubt that the author of Samuel would be so stupid as to make such an 'obvious' blunder. If every single Amalekite had been killed in 15:7-8, I certainly hope that he wouldn't be daft enough to bring them back in chapter 27. People that are stupid enough to do something like that probably wouldn't be writing down part of the Israelites' history.

Logically, if Amalekites show up in chapters 27 and 30, then they probably weren't all dead. Presumably there wasn't just one Amalekite town or army, so chapter 15 could have simply been referring to one city's population. I don't know. I wasn't there. Besides, there is a fairly substantial amount of time between 15 and 27, so it doesn't take much to assume that any surviving Amalekites from 15 were fruitful and multiplied.

If you want a better rebuttal than this, let me know and I'll go and do some proper research.

There is no rebuttal necessary for this one. In this case, the authors exaggerated the scope of the victory all three times. This was a series of wars against the Amalekites, and never was the victory as total as written. I'm sure there were some other accomplishments made by the Amalekites during this period, but the history was written by the victors.

My point is, if we can't believe them here, where can we believe them? Where does exaggeration and outright lying end and true history begin?

"A truthful witness does not lie." Proverbs 14:5

I guess I'm not seeing the exaggeration. Each time, the attack is limited to a certain area or group, so the author could be quite correct in saying that everyone was killed. In the first instance, the attacks were "from Havilah to the approaches of Shur, on the frontier of Egypt." Is it too much to assume that there were Amalekites living outside of that area? In the second instance, it's just as valid to assume that it is saying that David killed everyone that he attacked as it is to say that he killed everyone in the land. The third instance is clearly limited to a single group.

How about this... "The Mexicans killed every Texan at the Battle of the Alamo." Now, I certainly hope that you wouldn't assume that I meant that all of the residents of Mexico got together and completely wiped out every single resident of Texas. You know better than that. Granted, the language could be a bit more specific, but my statement is not an exaggeration. It depends on how you want to look at it.

I suggest you do a bit more reading...

1Sam 15:1-3 - God instructs Samuel to attack Amalek. These instructions leave little doubt that extinction is the purpose. But if further argument is necessary, Samuel's restatement of God's commands can be read in 15:18, and he specifically uses the word 'extinction.'

The rest of chapter 15 deals unfavorably with Saul. God's instructions were to kill every man, woman, child, sheep, goat, ass and camel. Saul spares Agag, and brings home some of the better livestock. For disobeying God's instructions, Saul is cast out, and Samuel fulfills God's instructions by slaying Agag, king of the Amalekites. God is happy with Samuel at this moment, so we can only assume that God's instructions have now been carried out to the letter, and that Amalek is extinct.

As for the "Havilah to the approaches of Shur" thing, it isn't possible to ascertain with absolute surety, because we don't know anything of the geographical boundaries of Amalek, but it reads as if this was to show how complete the victory was, by encompassing all of Amalek's lands. It would be similar to saying that Scotland routed England from York to Cornwall, or that the state of Georgia routed Florida from Jacksonville to Key West.

I still haven't read passage in question yet, so I'm not sure I can add anything meaningful, but isn't it likely that they were Amalekites outside Amalek? If you invaded Germany in 1870 and eradicated all the Germans (I am not recommending you do this), you'd still have large and angry German minorities in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Poland, etc.

Also, how did you address the apparent idiocity of the author?

This sounds like quite a reach. First of all, peoples did not mingle so much in this area of history. War was an all-or-nothing proposition, and people of one nationality held an absolute and abiding hatred for those outside their own because of that. Only many centuries later did "enlightened" rulers begin to accept the concept of taking people prisoner and not subjecting them to slavery... I believe the Babylonian Captivity is the first documented instance. Any people of Amalek who were not living in Amalek would only have lived in neighbor states as slaves, and been unable to regroup.

Then comes the second problem: if Germany were destroyed, as you say, and the German peoples of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and others moved back to Germany, and they in turn are destroyed... who repopulates the third time?

As for apparent idiocy, I don't have to account for it. If this is the Word of God, then your god is an idiot. If the writer of these books are idiots, how many others are?

And for the possibility of forgery: he didn't have to be careful, and he wasn't likely to be smart enough to be so. The principles of logic were not well known in Israel, and would remain so until the conquest by the Greeks. Meanwhile, literacy was horribly low, and the only people who could read were preachers who accepted every word of the Torah, just as you accept every word of the Bible, and do not question it. It took approximately 1600 years for man to evolve to the point where he could examine the Bible with a critical eye, but people within the faith still find it impossible, which is why you have never heard of this discrepancy (or any of the tons of others). The last time real Christians attempted to view the Bible with a critical eye was in the late 18- early 1900's, in a movement originally sponsored by the Catholic Church called Modernism. The result: preachers abandoned the church in droves, and/or published works so damaging to the faith that the pope eventually excommunicated the lot and declared Modernism to be a heresy.

Okay, I'm writing this as a Christian who is just beginning to read through the Bible in a critical way. Far too many Christians unquestioningly accept the scripture, and I'm determined not to be like that.

Regarding the Amalekites, my understanding of the logic of these verses is this:

The Amalekites were a Bedouin people who lived in the Negev and Sinai. This implies that they were at least partly nomadic. Therefore is it not reasonable to assume that while Saul killed all of Agag's people, there were many Amalekites around who the Israelite army never made any contact with?

As far as mixing of races is concerned, read the passage again. In 1Sam 15:16 a people known as the Kenites are mentioned who lived alongside the Amalekites. The Kenites had also lived alongside the Jews in earlier times (See Jdg 1:16, 4:17-23). The Kenites were Bedouin. Therefore is it not reasonable to assume that another Bedouin people, e.g. the Amalekites, could be living in the territories of other Middle Eastern peoples, and thus could have avoided the Israelite attack on the main body of their nation?

1 Sam 15:8 states that Saul killed "all of his [agag's] people". This does not explicitly state that he killed all of the people known as Amalekites.

And as far as the later verses are concerned regarding David's destruction of the Amalekites, could the explanation be that God was using David to kill all of the Amalekites who were not under Agag, and who Saul's army had missed out in the original expedition? Therefore David's wars against the Amalekites can be seen as a continuation of a holy war.

I don't see any evidence to support the Bedouin theory, but I do find some to negate it:

"Saul went to the CITY of Amalek..." 1Sam 15:5

As far as "the rest of Agag's people," Agag is the king of all Amalekites... therefore, "the rest of his people" are the rest of the Amalekites. Extinction accomplished.

There is also very little reason to believe that your Kenites were Bedouins, from your own quote of Judges 1:16:

"The descendants of the Kenite, Moses' father-in-law, came up with the Judahites from the city of palms... But they later left and settled among the Amalekites."

Bedouins don't settle, they're nomads.

Okay, let's assume that you're correct, and that neither the Amalekites nor the Kenites were Bedouin. This does not negate the possibility that there were Amalekites living alongside other middle eastern peoples, out of the borders of Amalek proper. If Kenites lived with the Jews and the Amalekites fairly happily, regardless of whether or not they were Bedouin and regardless of whether or not they were nomadic, so could Amalekites live alongside people of other nations.

Therefore as far as the Amalekites living alongside other ethnicities is concerned, the fact that they were either Bedouin or city dwellers does not make much difference - people could and did live in the territories of other nations.

This makes the Bedouin point a quibbly one, because it is essentially irrelevant, but I enjoy a good quibble. True, Saul went to the city of Amalek, showing that many Amalekites did live in a settlement. However, the Amalekites inhabited the Negev and the Sinai, places of such aridity that they were unlikely to be able to support large settlements. It is possible therefore that some Amalekites lived in a settlement known as Amalek, referred to as a city but more likely a town, while others of their nation were nomadic (Often a necessity in desert regions).

"The highly mobile -- nomadic or seminomadic -- lifestyle of the Amalekites, as described in all biblical passages that mention their name, should prepare the reader to understand Edom as a homeland from which later generations ranged far and wide." (Anchor Bible Dictionary, volume 1, page 170)

Quibbly point settled.

"as described in all biblical passages that mention their name": kindly show me the passages, and the quibble will be settled.

I don't have a bible to hand, so I'll do some reading later today.

But for starters, there is evidence which implies a nomadic or seminomadic nature to Amalekite life. They lived in the negev and in sinai - most peoples who lived in this area were at least partly nomadic due to necessity. I can look up verses for further evidence, but only one springs immediately to mind - In 1 Samuel 30 (I forget the precise verse), when David destroys the Amalekites, a group of "young men" are described as escaping on camels (this has already been mentioned in this forum). The use of camels implies a primarily nomadic way of life. City dwellers would, by and large, use donkeys or other pack animals to transport their goods.

This is also getting off the point a little. The fact remains that it is perfectly feasible for groups of Amalekites to have evaded Saul's attack on their capital, either because they were scattered around due to their nomadic way of life, and/or because they were living amongst people of other nations.

Perfectly feasible, I agree... in fact, I made a remark to that effect quite a bit ago. However, it is my purpose here to show that the Bible is in error. According to the Bible, ALL Amalekites were destroyed by Saul and Samuel, then ALL Amalekites were again destroyed by David, only to have them steal a pair of his wives at a later date. What may have happened is irrelevant... it is what the Bible SAYS happened that is the core of the issue. And this is only one place where the Bible spews idiocy... I have more of this sort of thing.

Okay, I'm willing to accept that what actually happened is not relevant, as we've just essentially been debating our own understanding of events rather than what is recorded in the Bible, and we do appear to agree that Saul did not destroy all of the Amalekites in his attack. In order to prevent the debate degenerating to point-scoring, I apologise for moving the emphasis onto inconsequential issues and suggest that we forget about whether or not the Amalekites were Bedouin, seminomadic and living in other areas, as I can see that this is not a central issue. You're quite correct in saying that what the Bible actually says is the important point, and that at least on a surface level there is discrepancy.

So give me a while to do some proper research and reexamine what the Bible does actually say, both in the passages in 1 Samuel and elsewhere in the Old Testament.

Quite frankly, I'm not entirely sure how to resolve this apparent contradiction. I think Possum is on the right track, though. However, I tend to subscribe to the "Innocent until proven guilty" theory. If you were to read something from Suetonius and you found something that didn't look quite right, I would wager that you would give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he might just have known what he was talking about. If you go through the Bible with the assumption that it is lying, then I guarantee you will find something to back up your claims. However, in my experience, I haven't heard of any such 'contradiction' that hasn't been refuted. We have provided some explanations which are, in my opinion, every bit as valid as your interpretations.

I for one am perfectly willing to continue to debate the fate of the Amalekites, but I really don't think that we would get anywhere. At best, you have shown that this passage of the Bible may be exaggerating, which is a far cry from destroying its credibility. Perhaps you have some better examples of Biblical contradictions? (Or, if you prefer, we can stick to this one...)

The best biblical contradiction is still the one I presented as a challenge in the first post in this thread (a challenge which, I have noticed, yet goes unanswered). The events surrounding the crucifixion and subsequent ressurection are recounted in four entirely different versions... not even Matt and Mark can agree here, and Matt almost entirely plagiarized Mark. Take any one single event, and compare the gospel accounts, and you find four different stories. One perfect example involves the discovery of the open tomb:

Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James (which, since James is Jesus' brother, would be Jesus' mom), and Salome approach at sunrise. A young man in a dazzling white robe meets them at the tomb, and tells the ladies what has happened, and instructs them to tell the disciples.

Luke: Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Joanna, along with some unnamed "other women" approach at dawn. Two young men in dazzling robes tell them Jesus is raised up, and the women run off to tell the disciples (unordered).

Matt: Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" come to the tomb as dawn is breaking. There is a mighty earthquake, and an angel of god descends from heaven. The guards at the tomb (a detail mark and Luke forgot to mention) fall, paralyzed by fear, as the angel informs the two Marys, and orders them to tell the disciples. Before they can get there, though, Jesus appears suddenly, scaring the women. They instantly recognize him, and he instructs them to inform the disciples as well.

John: While it is still dark, Mary Magdalene comes alone to the tomb. She sees the tomb is open, and runs off to fetch Peter and "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (let's not get into a debate over the identity of this guy... there's no conclusive evidence for any theory), and they peer in for a look, then return home. Mary is left to weep alone, until two angels descend from heaven to console her. Then Jesus appears beside her, and she first mistakes him for a gardener, until he barks her name. He tells her to instruct the disciples.

I put these in this order for a reason. This is the chronological order the gospels were written. We can see two things:

- They cannot agree on a single detail, other than the fact that Mary Magdalene is present, and the stone is already rolled away.

- Each telling becomes more embellished. Mark lays down the first story, and it is incredibly simple. Luke passes on much of Mark's story, but adds a few cast members. Matt departs almost entirely from these two, and John is more embellished even than Matt.

Now, I know that people can witness the same events, and interpret them differently, but they will still have many common elements. It is these common elements that corroborate each other that policemen and historians use to sift through opinion to arrive at truth. But even your average dean of students at a high school knows that when four different accounts cannot agree on a single detail, at a maximum, only one can be true.

"If you can convince me that I'm wrong, then I will be more than happy to turn my back on Christianity"

Now THIS is a challenge I like.

"Can you satisfactorily explain how the cosmos began without a God of some sort"

On a macroscale of cosmology, the universe didn't begin. You are assuming that universal being is a subset of linear process, when it is actually the other way around, as demonstrated mathematically by Einsteinian special relativity. The whole myth about "in the beginning" actually originated with the Sumerians, was changed around a bit by the Akkadians, and was passed on to the Jews by the Chaldeans, none of whom had an inkling about special relativity theory at all. Next question.

"Can you satisfactorily explain why the cosmos exists as it does, in a manner that is so completely suitable for mankind? "

Sure. The cosmos exists as a bootstrap comparison of form with conscious observation providing the context. In order to imminantize its own existence, it experiences temporal process and within that linear framework organizes parts of itself into observer-participants capable of reflecting on the whole and providing the context which is the ground of being.

Even if this is total bullshit, it is still a hell of a lot more interesting to me than the theory that it was wished into being ex-nihilo from raw firmament by a big invisible Jewish war-diety. And you are committing post-hoc fallicy in assuming that the universe is magically able to provide for human beings; it is more sensible to observe that human beings are able, through adaptation, to make room for themselves in a corner of the cosmos, which is rather hostile, given the ice ages, meteorites, floods, earthquakes, and so forth.

"Can you satisfactorily explain how inorganic matter magically transformed itself into sentient life? "

Sure. Organicism is an epiphenomenal property of matter arranged into particular patterns of process interaction. When those processes cease, the matter reverts to an inorganic state, and the sentience loses cohesion.

"Can you satisfactorily explain why, after forty years of searching, we haven't heard so much as a peep out of extra-terrestrial life when science says that the galaxy should be teeming with it?"

Yes. Refer to my article about SETI. The universe has a radius of approximately 15 billion light years, that we know of. It's volume is far greater. Our listening radius of 40 light years could hardly scratch the surface; in fact, a mosquito pissing in the mediterranean would make a bigger splash than we have, cosmically speaking. So the universe really could be teeming with life, and we'd never know it. Space is that big.

"Can you satisfactorily explain the radically changed lives of millions of people over the past two thousand years? "

Well, sure. The Crusades, the Conquistadors, the Spanish Inquisition, the Nazis, the British Colonialists, the Americans, the Turks, are just a few examples of upstanding Christ-worshippers who have slaughtered countless people in the name of the Prince of Peace. Nothing says 'radical change' like having your family beheaded in front of your eyes because they happen to worship Allah instead of Yahweh.

"Can you satisfactorily explain the millions (if not billions) of inexplicable happenings / miracles that people have experienced?"

You'd have to enumerate some of these, but I would start with schizophrenia as a possible explanation.

"Trust me, I've tried to reason my way out of Christianity, and it doesn't work"

Well, I actually did reason my way out of it, so it can work. Here's some tips.

1> Realize that you are worshipping a jewish mountain-dwelling war God and his Avatar, and are doing so by practicing ritual cannibalism.

2> Realize that any God that would send the majority of humanity to eternal damnation for a difference of opinion is a sadistic psychopath, and therefore any covenant with him isn't worth the blood it's written with.

3> Realize that the earth isn't flat.

4> Write an essay on the historic significance of the Scopes Monkey Trial.

5> Study some other major belief systems, and internalize the concept that followers of those faiths feel the same way about them, exactly the same way, that you do about yours, and with as much reason.

That should get you started. Check back with me in a month and we'll see how you're doing.

Twophlag Gargleblap - hi! You seem to know something about cosmology, so perhaps you can enlighten me. Where does the concept that before the Universe there was Chaos, fit in with your wordy para? I'm not saying it doesn't - I genuinely have no idea! It's just something I've read about and I'm curious.

And I don't know that the cosmos is too hostile...well obviously it is to an extent, but there's food and material for comfort, so it's not too bad. I quite like it, in fact.

The alien stuff...I agree that 40 years is no time at all. Especially since for all of that time our modus operandi hasn't been particularly advanced in terms of interstellar communications.

Let's not condone the barbaric acts of Christians in distant and recent history. Let's remember as well that non-Christians have done vicious stuff too. Does this excuse the Christians? NO. And what about the Vatican silence on the Holocaust? Hey, I'm Catholic and I condemn that. It's taken them 50 years to SPEAK about it. But one thing Christians don't - or shouldn't - pretend is that they are non-human. And humans make mistakes. Self-righteous ones more so than others. To paraphrase Graham Greene, 'there is nothing worse than a Catholic gone wrong'. We're the ones who are supposed to be admitting we're sinners, however, so we don't *all* believe we're angels. Because some - a lot - of us are far from it. Like all humans.

1> Realize that you are worshipping a jewish mountain-dwelling war God and his Avatar, and are doing so by practicing ritual cannibalism.

You're confusing Catholicism with Christianity as a whole. I thought only Catholics believed in transubstantiation. Am I wrong? I'd like to be!

2> Realize that any God that would send the majority of humanity to eternal damnation for a difference of opinion is a sadistic psychopath, and therefore any covenant with him isn't worth the blood it's written with.

Is this a reference to Christians who say you'll go to Hell if you don't believe? I don't personally believe that. Because, let's say there's a random tribe down the Amazon. No one's ever told them about Jesus. Are they going to Hell? They've never had a chance! I can't hold with that. But from a purely logical and mercenary point of view, if there is a God, and he's vicious, it'd be wiser to follow Him here and be made fun of and then get Heaven for eternity than do other stuff and incur His wrath. That just makes sense from a purely cold and logical viewpoint (although pure logic, like pure communism, always falls down when applied to humanity). Makes more sense than saying 'Hey, He might be evil, let's not follow Him'. If He is evil, then the ultimate power in the world is evil. Whoops. Although personally, if I ever discovered He WAS evil, I'd say 'oh well, I'm going to carry on doing things this way anyway - because I believe it's right.'

3> Realize that the earth isn't flat.

You'll have to explain to me who actually believes it IS flat. This is news to me!

4> Write an essay on the historic significance of the Scopes Monkey Trial.

A Creation V Evolution point? All theologians I've spoken to within Christianity argue for both. It is possible. And anyone who argues against evolution is shooting themselves in the foot - I hope we're agreed on that point!

5> Study some other major belief systems, and internalize the concept that followers of those faiths feel the same way about them, exactly the same way, that you do about yours, and with as much reason.

Yeah. And, when you think about it, how arrogant to assume that I must be right. But you don't believe in something unless you believe in it, do you? C. S. Lewis had some interesting points to make about that in his Narnia book 'The Last Battle'.

I realize I've stumbled across this long after anyone's posted, so I won't feel suicidal if no one replies!

"You're confusing Catholicism with Christianity as a whole. I thought only Catholics believed in transubstantiation. Am I wrong? I'd like to be!" - Catholics and Lutherans (who call themselves Catholics, and the only real difference is a refusal to defer to the Vatican) believe in transubstantiation, and there might be a couple of other fundamentalist groups, as well. Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind, but I've never seen one of their services, so I can't say for certain. However, he said "ritual" cannibalism, as opposed to the very real version that Catholics believe they are practicing. For all other Christian sects, the cannibalism is only symbolic, but it *is* ritual cannibalism.

Your answer number 2 is a reiteration of Pascal's Wager. And just as it was wrong when he proposed it, it is even more wrong now. Pascal's Wager assumes only two possible outcomes... no god at all, or his personal god. What if you're worshipping the wrong god? What if you're worshipping the right god in the wrong way? There are so many possible religious "answers" out there that you have little chance at all. You have better odds of getting bit by a snake in a thunderstorm with a winning lottery ticket than of winning at Pascal's Wager, which is why they don't play it in Vegas.