When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib was come (Isaiah 37)

I was considering taking a break for a few days before Isaiah chapter 37, but then I figured I should do it while the previous chapter was still pretty fresh in my mind, since this is just more of the same story. I was talking with Steve Wells about Rabshakeh's claim that God told the Assyrians that they could defeat Judah, and we both agreed that it was strange, however it seems from this chapter that he was bluffing.

So king Hezekiah rends his clothes, puts on sackcloth, and goes to the Temple, where he sends for Isaiah. Isaiah sends word back that Rabshakeh was blaspheming, and God is still with Judah. God promises that the king of Assyria will die by the sword in his own land. Rabshakeh returns to Assyria to find that the nation is at war, and he hears that the Ethiopian army is coming. He sends a message to Jerusalem saying, don't think we won't be back to defeat you; we've defeated a lot of other nations and your time is coming!

Hezekiah gets the letter and puts it before God and prays. The wording of the prayer prompts the SAB to ask Who is the Lord of this world? which I actually addressed in Ruth chapter four, where the answer is complicated. Hezekiah points out in his prayer that all the nations that were conquered by Assyria were idolatrous nations, whose gods were only pieces of wood to be cast in the fire, but the God of the Jews is different, and can deliver them from Assyria. Isaiah sends word that his prayer will be answered and God says to the king of Assyria that all his conquests were really no big deal compared to the power of God. God predicts that the Assyrians won't even come back.

So, God kills 185,000 Assyrian soldiers while they sleep, and when the remaining soldiers wake up, obviously they are rather alarmed. This is a lot of killing on God's part, but remember this is an army that was threatening Judah, and had already killed who knows how many in destroying all the kingdoms mentioned previously in this chapter. At least they died in their sleep. So Sennacherib the king, who sounds like he was present at this event, goes back home to Nineveh, where his children assassinate him as he's praying. Yes, that's pretty cold, but does the wording of verse seven imply that God made Sennacherib's sons do this? I think it's likely that they intended to do this all along, and God just sent Sennacherib home so it happened sooner rather than later, but you can interpret it as you want.

But Rab-shakeh said unto them (Isaiah 36)

Isaiah chapter 36 doesn't sound like a prophecy, but rather a straightforward telling of an event in Judah's history. King Sennacherib of Assyria sends an army with a message, which boils down to, "Don't ally with Egypt; ally with us, because your own God has told us that we can destroy you." King Hezekiah's representatives ask Rabshakeh, the messenger, to speak in Assyrian so the inhabitants of Jerusalem won't overhear him, but he repeats his message louder and in Hebrew so everyone can hear it.

Rabshakeh prefaces his repetition with what is perhaps some coarse language about eating dung and drinking piss, hinting at the likelihood of a siege against Jerusalem. This prompts the SAB to ask Is every word of God pure? First of all, I suspect the word "piss" was not considered so crass in the 15th century as it is today; the word "piss" or "pisseth" appears eight times in the KJV, but never "urine" or "urinate" which we in modern times would consider more neutral language. Thus, in addition to this verse being something a foreigner said, I don't think "piss" or "dung" are particularly vulgar. However, there are other verses to deal with here. More generally, I have to ask what is meant by "pure"; I mean, this claim is being made particularly by Proverbs 30:5, but does it really mean there's nothing ugly in the Bible? I mean, really, if you wanted to, the list in the second section could be made much longer, and I assume the author of Proverbs 30 (Agur the son of Jakeh, apparently) was familiar with the scriptures. The Hebrew word behind "pure" in Proverbs 30 and Psalm 119 has the essential meaning of being refined by fire, like a metal such as gold. The Hebrew word for "pure" in Psalm 12, however, has the connotation of being ceremonially clean. While I think the latter comes closer to the kind of purity I think the SAB is trying to imply, I believe in general the idea is that the Bible is unadulterated by falsehoods, and that still not to say that there's no instance of lying in the Bible, but that there's no lying by God. I don't know if this is right or even if it totally makes sense, but I don't think there's any clear contradiction here nonetheless.

I don't know if there is any real need to comment on the existence of a nearly identical passage in 2Kings 18; I don't think there is anyone who would claim the Bible is free from repetition.

Thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns (Isaiah 34)

Okay, back to Isaiah chapter 34 for another end times prophecy, and it's a pretty violent one by the look of it, or at least the SAB marks it as such. I answered whether God gets furious in Isaiah chapter 27, and the answer was yes.

So, God here has fury on the armies of all nations, and slaughters them all. It's surely hyperbolic language, but the blood of this slaughter melts away mountains. Clearly this is a massive killing unlike any other with the probable exception of Noah's flood, so yeah, it's violent, but these are armies we're talking about, so it's arguably violence begetting violence. This is likely God protecting Israel from some sort of massive invasion.

Verse four has some interesting language that the SAB marks with the "Science" icon; and indeed, what is being described here sounds very scientifically unsound. It's pretty reasonable to assume "the host of heaven" refers to the stars, so is the imagery of them falling suggestive of a meteor shower? Possibly, but there is the matter of the sky being "rolled together as a scroll" and the fact that it says "all their host", suggesting the sky is essentially obliterated. While it's entirely possible that God miraculously causes the universe to collapse (because he certainly could), and that would sort of fit this description, we're talking about stars that are tens of thousands of light years away (if we're just talking about our galaxy--unfathomably more if the whole universe) collapsing on a time scale that would supposedly be visible from earth. I don't think I have any idea what this verse could reasonably mean! (I mean, it's been suggested by astrophysics that the universe could possibly collapse in on itself in a reverse of the Big Bang, but not only does current evidence suggest that won't happen, we're talking about trillions if not quadrillions of years.)

So the chapter goes on to talk about more violence, this time specifically mentioning Idumea (also known as Edom), but while God is definitely spilling the blood of people, it's apparently also animal sacrifices, as a number of animals are mentioned in verse six. (I don't know why the mention of the fat of sacrifices leads the SAB to talk about fat people, but it does.) Verse seven mentions "unicorns", verse 13 has "dragons", and verse 14 has a "satyr" calling to others of its kind. I talked about mythological beasts in the KJV in chapter eleven, where I said that most of them are questionable translations, a "unicorn" most likely being some sort of wild horned animal, a "dragon" being some sort of large, scary beast, and "satyrs" are probably wild goats. Yes, verse 14's "screech owl" is "lilith" in the Hebrew, which is sometimes considered something mythological, but the word only appears here in the entire Bible, so who knows what is meant?

Verses nine and ten talk about the land becoming burning pitch, supposedly forever (at least it's supposed to be free of people forever), although it goes on to say that various birds will come to live there, which I assume couldn't happen if it's on fire, so this is admittedly a bit unclear.

Then came Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household (Isaiah 22)

Isaiah chapter 22 is a larger one, but it still doesn't have a lot of notes. I don't know where "the valley of vision" is, but it sounds like Isaiah is talking about Judah again. I'm not really clear on what's going on here, as a lot of it sounds like military conquest, but "thy slain men are not slain with the sword, nor dead in battle" sounds like it isn't. Much of this sounds particularly like a siege against Jerusalem, so perhaps that's what happened without much killing in actual battle. Verse eleven sounds like someone in mortal danger who for a moment has peace, which would fit with a siege, I suppose. Definitely, in the end they go to exile, I assume to Babylon. I don't know who Eliakim is, but apparently after the siege (or whatever) he takes care of the people who remain. I answered whether it's okay to call someone "father" in Matthew 23, but I think this verse is inconsequential because it doesn't say Eliakim is actually called "father" by anyone. Verse 23 says, "I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place," which makes it sound like his leadership is secure, but then verse 25 says, "In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed," so who knows what it all means?

I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation (Isaiah 21)

Isaiah chapter 21 is a medium-sized chapter that has few notes. The one note that it has other than "Boring" is a note that it's absurd that Isaiah is in pain; I'm not sure why this should be absurd whether it's actual physical pain or some metaphor of emotional anguish, either way, it happens. Anyway, the first part of the chapter is a prophecy about Babylon, and the second part is about Edom and Arabia. In both cases, the prophecy seems to be about coming military conquest, with no time frame for the former but a year for the latter.

Out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice (Isaiah 11)

Isaiah chapter eleven for a turn is positive prophecy, seemingly about the Messiah and the end times. It opens talking about "a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots" which, as the SAB admits dubiously, is why Christians believe this is a prophecy about Jesus, who is a descendant of David son of Jesse. Will the Messiah be a descendant of David? I don't know why I didn't answer this in Mark chapter twelve, as that's where the key verse is that triggers this supposed contradiction. I mean, the answer is yes, but why does it seem like Jesus is arguing against it? I would suggest that the point Jesus is making is that the Messiah is not merely the son of David, but one who is greater than David, being also the son of God. Jesus is quoting Psalm 110, which I don't know whether Jews saw it as a Psalm about the Messiah, but it describes someone who David calls "my Lord" and "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek" (remember Melchizedek from Genesis chapter 14 was unique in the Bible for being both a king and a priest) so it's definitely someone important, and Jesus is implying it's the Messiah. Note also that Jesus implies David had the Holy Ghost, so perhaps that's another entry for the "When was the Holy Ghost given?" page?

Anyway, Isaiah talks about the righteousness of the coming Messiah, and how he will judge not just by looking and hearing. He will "smite the earth...and...slay the wicked" which prompts the SAB to ask, "Is this passage describing Jesus, the Prince of Peace?" Yes, sometimes in order to have peace, you need to get rid of wickedness; does that really not make sense? It seems almost obvious to me. The SAB also comments on the absurdity of him doing this "with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips", but this is just poetic, symbolic language that I believe is meant to imply the absolute authority of his words. In verse five, the SAB claims as an aside that the word translated "reins" actually means "kidneys", although I can't find any evidence of that myself; rather this word "חֲלָצָיו" seems to literally be another word for "loins". Isaiah then talks for a bit about predator and prey animals living in peace; apparently they will all become herbivores as "the lion shall eat straw like the ox." The SAB asks, "I wonder what will become of the spiders. Will they be friendlier toward flies? And will the parasitic wasps find another way to feed their larvae? Or will they continue to feed off the living bodies of caterpillars?" It's an interesting set of questions, and I assume the answer is yes, even insects and the like will also stop being predatory, and in some fashion parasites will also change or perhaps cease to exist; I think that's the general idea here.

While verse eight goes along with the general narrative of the previous verses, I feel I should give it special attention just because of the mention of the "cockatrice". Yes, the SAB gives the correct definition of this animal, and it's something peculiar to the KJV (although not entirely unique) that there are various mentions of mythical beasts throughout the text, this being (I think) the first time it's come up in a passage I'm blogging. The KJV mentions cockatrices four times, satyrs twice, unicorns nine times, and dragons 35 times; there may be other mythical beasts that I'm not aware of (not to mention beasts particular to Hebrew culture such as the Leviathan and Behemoth). I think particularly in the case of the Hebrew, it's a bad guess at what the original word meant; I don't know if the translation team believed these creatures to be real. (And really, translation of an ancient language can be tough; a lot of modern translations chose "viper" here, but Isaiah later (59:5) talks about "cockatrice's eggs", but vipers are viviparous animals apparently, so...?) In any case, I think the thing that needs to be said is that it's not always clear what animal the Hebrew is talking about, and even if it might be referring to a mythical beast, there is such a thing as poetic license and symbolism (I think most of the mentions of dragons in the book of Revelation are properly translated, and the picture of a dragon is symbolic) that allows for it. Here in Isaiah, however, I think we're just looking at a poor translation choice; cockatrices certainly do not exist, nor have they ever, and I doubt that Isaiah had ever heard of such a creature. (Although who knows? The Wikipedia article on the cockatrice mentions that there was a folk belief in Egypt that Ibis eggs could possibly produce a venomous snake-bird hybrid. If it's old enough, the Israelites might have heard of it?) Anyway, the Hebrew word here is also found in Proverbs 23:32, where the KJV chooses the word "adder" instead, so make of that what you will.

Speaking of mythology, verse twelve talks about returning the people of Judah "from the four corners of the earth." This seems to be a pretty literal translation from the Hebrew and not an English phrase, so does Isaiah think the earth is flat? It's possible, but I find it really unlikely, given the fact that evidence of the earth's curvature is pretty readily available to people of any tume and culture, such as seeing ships disappear over the horizon, or seeing the shadow of the round earth pass over the moon during an eclipse. Of course people even in the present day believe in a flat earth, so anything is possible. I just don't think this particular phrase proves anything.

Verse 14 talks about Judah subduing the Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites. The SAB assumes this is talking about war, but Isaiah never says that there's any violence in so many words, so I'm not 100% sure that's right. It's certainly not an unreasonable assumption under normal circumstances, but this verse seems to be talking about the end times, and there's a lot of supernatural stuff going on in those days. Nonetheless, I think the book of Revelation does say that there are battles at certain times in the last days, so it's certainly possible that's what's going on here, and yes, the Messiah would lead the army. Yes, verse 15 is talking about the Red Sea and the Euphrates River, and some translations of this verse go ahead and spell it out for the reader. It seems from verse 16 that God's attack on these bodies of water serve the purpose of the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus: to facilitate bringing the Israelites home from exile.

The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh (Isaiah 9)

Isaiah chapter nine is another very bleak chapter, for the most, although the beginning bit is positive. There is a prophecy that seems to be of the Messiah, although the SAB disputes this because (I guess?) in the New Testament, Jesus is never known by any of the names in verse six. I wonder who else it could be, though, as there are parts that seem they couldn't fit anyone else. A child born who is known as "The mighty God"? (I checked the Hebrew, and there's no ambiguity.) And he sits "upon the throne of David...henceforth even for ever"? That's Jesus. I assume these names (which modern-day Christians use for Jesus) are going to be used in later times, perhaps particularly the "end times". I addressed what Jesus's name is in John chapter one.

Now on to the bleak part. Isaiah speaks once again of a day when Judah will be attacked, and bad times will follow. God won't even show mercy to the most vulnerable of society, because apparently everyone is evil. "[N]o man shall spare his brother" probably doesn't mean literally people are attacking their near family, but rather Jews are attacking Jews. On the other hand "they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm" may actually be a euphemism for people eating their own children, which is arguably worse. Much of this is marked by the SAB with cruelty, injustice, and intolerance, and it's arguably so, but once again, this is a nation that turned its back on God and did evil things, and this is just the consequences.

I know that ye will not yet fear the LORD God (Isaiah 8)

In Isaiah chapter eight, God commands Isaiah to write about his son Mahershalalhashbaz (literally "Swift is booty, speedy is prey" because prophets need to give their kids weird names). I assume the "prophetess" is Isaiah's wife, although I don't know if she's called this because she's a female prophet, or if they give such a title to prophets' wives (my guides say the latter, but if so, this is the only instance of it being used that way, which I find suspect; I'm going to believe she also had the gift of prophecy). God gives the child his name, saying that it's because before the child is old enough to speak, Judah's riches will be plundered by the king of Assyria, which God proceeds to compare to a flooding river. In verse nine, God tells the people that they will be "broken in pieces", which the SAB calls unjust, and it's a matter of opinion, but the SAB misunderstands the meaning of the verse, I think; God is not saying he will break the people of Judah for doing these things, he is saying that even if they try and form an army ("associate yourselves") or take up weapons ("gird yourselves"), the Assyrians will defeat them. (Or it possibly could be a warning to other people who want to defeat Judah that they will lose, since verse ten says "God is with us"? Actually, I'm leaning towards this, mostly because of "...give ear, all ye of far countries..." In either case, it's not a punishment for associating and girding.) Isaiah says that God told him not to be like the other people (unfaithful Judahites, or foreigners? Still not 100% sure about this.) and not to listen to conspiracy theories, but rather fear the Lord. I addressed the question of whether one should fear God at length in Joshua chapter four, where the answer was yes, but the key takeaway was why one should fear God and what it looks like. Isaiah says God is a sanctuary to those who are faithful, but in Israel and Judah, God will be a stumbling block and a snare for the unfaithful. There is prophesied a time coming when instead of seeking God, people will seek witches and wizards and communication with the dead. They should consult God's word, but they won't, so they will curse God and be cast into darkness.

They shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Isaiah 7)

Isaiah chapter seven should be interesting, as it has a prophecy supposedly about Jesus, although there is some controversy, which the SAB brings up, and we'll discuss when we get there.

So, in the time of king Ahaz of Judah, Israel (the northern kingdom, separate from Judah, often called "Ephraim") tries to attack Judah with the help of Assyria. Ahaz finds out that Israel is getting help from Assyria, and is troubled. God tells Isaiah to go and talk to Ahaz and reassure him that they won't prevail. The SAB notes that in 2Chronicles 28, Ahaz is actually taken captive by Israel and Assyria, so is this failed prophecy? Well, I'd want to look into whether these nations defeated Judah as a whole, which they did not in the end, although that surely was no consolation for Ahaz; the whole of 2Chronicles 28 goes into detail about the sins of Ahaz, and how he turned to the gods of Assyria for help instead of the God of Israel. But back to our current story... Isaiah tells Ahaz that in 65 years, Israel/Ephraim will be destroyed.

God challenges Ahaz to suggest a sign, pretty much saying "The sky's the limit!" but Ahaz declines to choose. So God tells Ahaz that the sign will be that a "virgin" will conceive and give birth to a son named Immanuel. This prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 is quoted in Matthew 1:23 as a prophecy of Jesus's birth. Now the SAB has some notes about this prophecy that are worth reviewing. First of all, there is some dispute about the word translated "virgin" here; despite what the SAB says, "עַלְמָה" is an ambiguous Hebrew word that can mean either "virgin" or "young woman". So how do we know which was meant? Well, long before Jesus's time (nearly 300 years), Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and translated this ambiguous Hebrew word "עַלְמָה" into "παρθένος", which definitely means "virgin", so it's actually not the fault of the KJV translation team (it's also "virgo" in the Latin Vulgate, which was likely one of the sources used). There are very few Bible translations that render this word "young woman" although many have a footnote saying it's a possible meaning. As the SAB itself points out, a prophecy of a "young woman" conceiving isn't much of a prophecy, as that happens every single day. But let's talk about the second point, which is that Jesus was born hundreds of years after Ahaz, so it's not much of a sign anyway. I'm pretty sure I have mentioned that sometimes prophecy has multiple times it's fulfilled, and this prophecy is apparently one with that quality. There must have been a woman who was a virgin who conceived and had a child named Immanuel in Ahaz's time. This may have not been miraculous; perhaps she was a virgin at the time of the prophecy, but conceived in the normal fashion, thus giving a time frame for the sign: about nine months. Yes, as the SAB points out, there's no mention in the book of Isaiah of this birth actually happening, but that doesn't personally bother me; it was a private sign for Ahaz, so perhaps Isaiah himself never saw it. Third point on this prophecy is one that many people point out; Jesus was never called Immanuel other than in Matthew 1:23 where the prophecy is quoted. However, it is quoted there with a note in the Greek; it says, "...they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." No, Jesus is never called by the name Immanuel/Emmanuel, but being God in human form, he definitely was known as "God with us." The rest of the prophecy talks about the boy eating "butter and honey" which prompts the SAB to ask about dietary restrictions, which I addressed in Genesis chapter nine, but I don't think this verse really is an issue with the topic, nor do I think Jesus was a vegetarian, because it probably would have been mentioned somewhere in the gospels.

At the end of the chapter, it says essentially that God will send insects from Assyria and Egypt (bees and flies respectively) which somehow seems to add to the desolation. It also says the people will shaved by the king of Assyria on their beards and feet; feet don't have a lot of hair, but the SAB suggests "feet" is a euphemism for genitals, which is entirely likely. It sounds like finally, there is some restoration of the keeping of livestock, but not agriculture, and people will largely live on butter and honey.

All the mighty men of valour (2Samuel 23)

2Samuel chapter 23 only opens with a contradiction if you assume all of this is chronological, which, as I said in the last chapter, I don't believe to be true. What were the last words of David? This chapter claims these verses were, 1Kings 2 does not make such a claim.

How many men did the chief of David's captains kill? This seems possible to be a contradiction, but notice that the names are different in 1Chronicles 11. It seems more likely to me that David had two different chiefs at different times. Admittedly, "Hachmonite" and "Tachmonite" look very similar in Hebrew, although 800 and 300 do not. I should also note that with these numbers being so round, probably both 800 and 300 are rounded up.

How many mighty men did David have? I always find it interesting when a supposed contradiction comes up in a single narrative; I usually assume that there's a misunderstanding rather than an actual contradiction. So what is going on here? Was the author of this chapter bad at counting? If, indeed, there are 36 here, I have a suggestion: David was #37. It's a real possibility, but now I'm going to immediately pivot and give what I think is an even better idea: Joab. Joab is only tangentially touched on in the list here, but it seems rather likely given Joab's track record throughout the story of David, that Joab would be considered one of the "mighty men". The person who wrote this may have felt they included Joab since his name appears in there twice.

David did that which was right (2Samuel 22)

One important thing to say about 2Samuel chapter 22 is that it's out of chronological order. It's been a while since I read 2Samuel, but I seem to recall the last few chapters are a bit of a muddle, and while I don't know about the scholarly consensus on this, I've always suspected that they were added on later. This may make sense of a few issues in the text.

So this is pretty much a psalm. There's going to be some poetic license. There's a lot of flowery speech about God's nostrils and riding on cherubs. Has there ever been a righteous person? Yes, but there is some subjectivity in the term "righteous" that muddies the water here. Sometimes we're talking about being completely righteous and innocent before God, that is, a person has not personally sinned. Sometimes the word "righteous" is used to describe something that a person seeking righteousness will do. Also, the Jewish concept of being "righteous" was largely different than the Christian concept, although there is overlap. The Christian doctrine of "original Sin" suggested that being fully righteous could only be attained through a positional righteousness with respect to Christ, nonetheless Jewish understanding of righteousness was also in part about attempting to grow closer to God. That being said, there's something about being "righteous" that is largely about trying to do right in both religious traditions, although sometimes the term is used to refer to someone who is completely blameless. See? Clear as mud! So, as for the "No" verses: As I've said before, Job is not a theologian, and he's talking from a place of great despair throughout his book. Isaiah is probably talking about the current state of the people of Israel, although many people do interpret this verse to be a universal decree, which is not necessarily a problem; compared to God, humans' acts of righteousness are comparatively "filthy rags." The verse in Isaiah chapter 41 may be similar, but it's worth noting overall that Isaiah has verses on both sides here, so it's unlikely his intentions are contradictory, especially since it appears that even just earlier in chapter 41 Isaiah is talking about "the righteous man". Romans 3:10 is Paul quoting from Psalm 14, which is translated differently in the KJV, and I believe is hyperbole, but Paul is trying to make a point about the law, and the impossibility of man fulfilling it, therefore full righteousness is only truly possible through the grace of God.

Did David sin? Of course he did, but yes, this deserves some examining. Probably the number one thing to say about David is that generally, people don't consider killing people in the course of warfare to be a sin; it's pretty clear David didn't. That's not the source of the contradiction, however. Yes, David sinned in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba, and he at least felt that he had sinned in performing a census, although the latter is less clear. I believe that this chapter was written before Bathsheba, so while realistically, it's unlikely David was perfect, he had no significant sins at the time this was written. On the other hand, 1Kings was definitely written after David sinned, so what can be said? Something that is very important with respect to sin in God's eyes is repentance, which David was genuinely very good at in all the instances where he was called out. In the Jewish Law, when one sins, if one then repents and gives the proper sacrifice, then one is following the Law. It's really for this reason that David is often brought up as an example of righteousness; not because he was perfect, but because he sought the will of God.

The SAB marks other matters in this psalm with a number of things that are subjective, except for violence, but once again, we're talking about warfare, and scientific issues, but as I've said many times before, in poetry, there's a lot of flowery speech that isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally.

Gibeon had made peace with Israel (2Samuel 21)

2Samuel chapter 21 is where we finally get to the famine which was somehow caused by Saul's actions. As I discussed to some extent in chapter twelve, I don't really have a good explanation for why people are being punished for Saul's sin long after he's dead, nor why the proper response was to kill some of his descendants. I'll freely admit this seems unjust and cruel, but maybe I'll check out some commentaries and leave more thoughts in the comments. (Oh, and the SAB is right that there is no record of Saul killing Gibeonites; I guess they don't list it as a "contradiction" because there's no verse that says this to contrast with. I suppose that's more of an "omission".) I also just noticed that it's a bit odd that the Gibeonites say, "...neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel..." and then request killing some men in Israel.

I answered whether all of Saul's family died with him in chapter two. I answered how many sons Michal had in chapter six, but the supposed contradiction raises another question: who was the father of these five sons, since David was Michal's husband? Did David sacrifice his own sons, or did Michal somehow have five sons in the brief time she was married to Phalti? Either answer is strange... I answered who killed Saul in 1Samuel chapter 31, with further commentary in 2Samuel chapter 1. The answer was, "It's complicated..."

Does God approve of human sacrifice? The simple answer is no, but there definitely is a lot to be clarified. Yes, God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but he never intended him to go through with it. Yes, it talks in Exodus and Leviticus about devoting firstborn sons to God, but that was never understood to mean child sacrifice, and in fact, the verse in Leviticus is in the same chapter as an explanation of how you redeem a human being that you have vowed to the Lord. I admittedly don't know what is going on in Numbers 31, but it actually doesn't specify that the women were killed, only that they were "the LORD's tribute", which could mean just about anything. (Perhaps they were destined to marry Levites?) I addressed Jephthah's supposed sacrifice of his daughter when I covered Judges eleven, where I pointed out that there's no indication God approved, and it's possible that the "sacrifice" was that she would be an eternal virgin. The killing that Josiah did was about punishing idolatry rather than giving a human sacrifice to God. Yes, Jesus was in a very real sense a human sacrifice, but in a special way that is an exception to the general rule.

The chapter ends with some giant killing, and the SAB asks, Who killed Goliath? and Whom did Elhanan kill? Now, both contradictions are fixed by the words in italics, which makes a good time to stop and talk about italics in the KJV. The KJV throughout its text has words in italics, and I think it's a great thing that other versions should have (and a few do); they indicate words that the translators put in for clarity that aren't technically in the original manuscripts. The words "the brother of" aren't in the Hebrew, and aren't even in the Greek of the Septuagint. They are nonetheless added to most translations because of the text at 1Chronicles 20:5 to avoid these two contradictions. It's reasonable to assume a scribal error here because of this. I find it interesting that the KJV is full of italics, but as far as I know the SAB only points them out here because setting them aside allows for two contradictions to be added to the text. Anyway, there's some interesting stuff here about giants; when it says someone is a "son of the giant", they probably mean Goliath. The man with the extra fingers and toes is odd, but this is not an unheard of mutation.

King David mourned many days for his son (2Samuel 18)

2Samuel chapter 18 opens with David finally organizing his retaliation against Absalom. He apparently still has thousands of men on his side, and he divides them into three armies. The men tell him to not fight because his life is more important than theirs, and so he stays behind. 20,000 men are killed, probably mostly by David's soldiers. I think that verse eight is really saying that the slaughter was worse just because they were fighting in the forest, not that the forest literally killed people.

Now Absalom comes riding on a mule, and he gets his head caught in some tree branches. This is supposed to be ironic, because one of the things people admired Absalom for was his huge head of hair, and it proves to be his undoing. So somehow, he's left there by himself just hanging by his hair, and a man reports this to Joab, who gets angry with the man for not taking advantage of the situationa5 and killing Absalom. The man replies that David told everyone that no matter what happens, not to hurt Absalom. Joab clearly doesn't care, and stabs Absalom in the heart with three arrows; ten men with him also attack Absalom. Joab blows a trumpet and the fight ends. They throw Absalom's body in a pit and cover him with stones. I addressed whether Absalom had children in 2Samuel chapter 14.

A man wants to run to David and tell him the news, but Joab stops him, because he knows David won't be happy (and perhaps he wants to make sure the king doesn't know who struck the killing blow), but then he tells a different man to run and tell David. In the end, both men go, David finds out, and he appears to be heartbroken.

Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite (2Samuel 11)

2Samuel chapter 11 is a story that a lot of people know, and the objections to the content are pretty standard. King David is not at war while all his soldiers are, and hanging out in Jerusalem, he sees Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite, bathing. So he sends for her and has sex with her. However, as the timing was that she had just been purified from her period, she gets pregnant. David wants to cover up that he's responsible, so he sends for Uriah and tells him to go sleep with his wife. Uriah doesn't. So David has Uriah sent back to war with a letter to Joab essentially arranging for Uriah's death. Uriah dies, Bathsheba mourns, and David marries her. So, sex, violence, deception, and it's all a big mess, and David is pretty awful.

However...

This is not my view on this chapter, but is a view shared with me by an Orthodox Rabbi. I put it out here to highlight the subjectivity of Biblical interpretation.

Uriah, living among Jews with a Jewish wife, would have adopted Jewish customs. You won't find it in the Bible, but a custom among Jews is, if you go to fight in a war, you divorce your wife, because she can't remarry without a bill of divorce or a dead body. In the unfortunate event that your body is lost, she'd be stuck married to you forever. So, Bathsheba being divorced means David is not technically committing adultery.

Why does David kill Uriah? Well, Uriah tips his hand by referring to Joab as, "...my lord Joab..." David knows Joab is fomenting a rebellion, and Uriah is part of it. So David has Uriah killed to get rid of a traitor, and send a message to Joab. So it's not technically murder.

Again, I don't agree with this view; I think it has problems, such as why is David trying to cover up what he did if he didn't do anything wrong? And why does God punish David in the next chapter, and why does he punish him in that particular manner? Still, I think it's food for thought, and I don't personally have any good responses to the SAB for this chapter.

And David smote Hadarezer king of Zobah (2Samuel 10)

2Samuel chapter ten has a story that the SAB marks as absurd that I can see absurdity on multiple levels. David decides to send some emissaries to king Hanun because he apparently had a good relationship with his father. Hanun is told by his advisors that the men are spies, so he shaves half their beards and cuts off half of their clothes (although it's not really clear which half, probably the bottom). This of course sounds pretty absurd on the face of it, but there's something strange even if you understand that this was intended to embarrass the men. If Hanun really thought they were spies, why not kill them or imprison them rather than shame them? There's a lot of weird going on here.

So the Ammonites realize that David doesn't like them anymore, and they get some help from Syria to fight against the Israelites. It ends up being a very confusing battle, where the Israelite fighters show up, and the Syrians run away, so the Ammonites run away, too, and then somehow David comes face to face with the Syrians and they fight, with David being victorious.

How many men did David kill? You know, not only is this clearly an error, but the numbers in either case are pretty questionable. Didn't it say earlier in the chapter that there were 33,000 Syrians? Where did the extra ones come from? I guess they came with this guy Hadarezer in verse 16? Oh, Chronicles says Hadarezer is the king of Zoba, so who knows if these are new soldiers? I've got nothing here, honestly.

So, the battle ends, and Hadarezer's people serve Israel while the rest of the Syrians are too scared to fight anymore.

Abiathar the son of Ahimelech (2Samuel 8)

So, back to 2Samuel chapter eight, which was clearly a trap because the SAB sees a lot of violence and injustice, which is hard to deny here. You do have to realize that Israel is at war with all these nations, and nobody has invented the Geneva Convention yet. It's ugly. David is killing two-thirds of the Moabites (it seems reasonable to assume these are POWs) and enslaving the other third; which is a better fate? Hopefully the slaves were treated well, but we can only guess. Why does David hough the chariot horses? I don't know, as it seems pointless and cruel, although a bit of research suggests this doesn't kill the horse, but makes it unsuitable for war use. How many horsemen did David take? This may be a scribal error, or perhaps the writer of Chronicles felt that since there were thousands of footmen, there ought more likely have been thousands of horsemen; who knows?

Yes, God is giving David all of these violent victories, but in the end, it's about preserving Israel against violent enemies who probably would have done the same or worse to them. I don't know that there is anything else I can say about it.

Was Abiathar the father or the son of Ahimelech? I did some research, and there are actually two different Ahimelechs in the Bible, but this doesn't clear up the problem as Ahimelech the Hittite doesn't have a genealogy given, and is clearly nothing to do with this. It seems pretty evident that Ahimelech is the father of Abiathar, and this verse is in error; perhaps the verse in 1Chronicles 24 copied the error, as it was written later. However, the verse 1Chronicles 18:16 says, "Abimelech the son of Abiathar" which may not be a scribal error; Ahimelech may have had a grandson named Abimelech. In the Hebrew alphabet h and b don't look as much like each other as they do in the Latin alphabet.

Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven (John 14)

John chapter 14 continues Jesus's parting message to the Apostles. He talks a lot about Heaven and the Holy Ghost. Speaking of Heaven, When was heaven created? The verses on this page are talking about different things. "In the beginning" and "when the earth was created" are the same time. As I'm pretty sure I mentioned in Genesis somewhere, the Jews believed in three "heavens": the atmosphere, outer space, and the dwelling place of God (in 2Corinthians 12:2 Paul talks about being "caught up to the third heaven"). Now here in John 14, Jesus is not talking about creating Heaven, but essentially preparing it for guests in some way. Theologically, up until now, nobody has been in Heaven but God and his angels.

I just talked about the disciples asking where Jesus was going in the previous chapter. The SAB marks Jesus's claim to be the only way to Heaven as intolerant, and while I suppose it may be, if it's the truth, it's the truth. Now of course there are Christians who believe in universal salvation, and they would say everyone gets to Heaven because Jesus died for the sin of the world, which is certainly possible, but seems unlikely given other things Jesus says. Jesus says, "if you have seen me you have seen the Father," prompting the SAB to ask, "Can God be seen?" (which I answered in John chapter one) and "Is Jesus God?" (which I answered in another post in John one).

Jesus says, "whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do." This the SAB calls, "The greatest lie ever told." Now I understand why someone would think that, because on the straightforward fully literal sense, it's not true. Once again, I don't think it's saying what the SAB thinks it's saying. The phrase "in my name" doesn't mean, "If you tack the name Jesus onto the end of any prayer, your wish will be magically granted." Rather, as I've discussed before, a person's "name" is like their reputation, and in Jesus's case--and here in this verse--it means the essence of who Jesus is. The point here, and I know skeptics are going to call it a cop-out, is that if you ask for something that aligns with God's will, you will see your prayer answered.

Will Jesus's second coming be visible to all? I don't think this is really a contradiction. Once again, this is a matter of taking "no more" to be a more absolute statement than Jesus is meaning it to be. I think it suffices to say that nobody living at the time Jesus spoke those words would see Jesus again on earth after his ascension. Who sent the Holy Ghost? Again, not a contradiction; both Jesus and the Father sent him.

Is Jesus peaceful? I'm sure I covered this somewhere in one of the other gospels, but yes, these verses can be confusing. Let me clear up a handful that don't really belong here. The Matthew 26 and Luke 22 passages are not about peace or war, but are simply about self-defense; in the Luke passage, Jesus suggests the Apostles should arm themselves, because they will likely find themselves in danger after Jesus is gone, and in Matthew, Jesus is just telling Peter to let things unfold as peacefully as possible rather than starting a fight he can't win. As for the rest, the peace that Jesus brought to earth was peace between man and God by taking away the sin of the world. However people who accept this peace will often find themselves in struggle against those who do not accept it. And of course, in the Revelation passage, there is a literal war, with Jesus as the commander-in-chief of one side.

"Is Jesus God?" and "Who is the Lord of the earth?" are questions I answered in John chapter one and John chapter 12 respectively.

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself (2Sam 5)

Finally in chapter 5, David becomes king over all of Israel, and remains king for 40 years. This prompts the SAB to see a possible contradiction in certain events that occur in the reign of David, particularly the eventual rebellion of Absalom. I don't think I buy the logic here; if anything, it almost seems worse than the SAB is insinuating. 2Sam. 15:7 says "And it came to pass after forty years..." I say, counting from when? In the immediate context, it sounds like Absalom spent 40 years kissing up to the people, which could have happened starting before David became king, or a long time afterwards, as one might wonder how he could be doing the stuff described in that chapter while his father was on the run from Saul. On the other hand, the 40 years in the context in this chapter could mean that David was king for 40 years until he was deposed temporarily by Absalom. In any case, I don't see any of this dating to be clear enough to base a contradiction on.

Apparently, one of the first things that David has to deal with as king is some sort of challenge on his authority by the Jebusites. On the face of it, it does sound fairly cruel, but I'm not sure what's going on here at all. Are the Jebusites telling David he has to kill his own people? Are they using their own disabled population as human shields? I don't know, so I'm not sure how to comment on it. The SAB calls it violent and unjust, and I'm inclined to agree that far.

David builds himself some sort of palace, and takes more women, neither action being commented upon here, but I believe the latter being condemned elsewhere. With more women come more children, and a list is given here; the SAB points out this list doesn't match other lists, and once again, what can I say but they sure don't match. It may be that none of the lists is meant to be exhaustive, but then one might ask why, and why the particular names on each list? I certainly don't know.

So the Philistines come up and move in on David, and David inquires of the Lord if he should respond. God says yes, and vows to help, exactly as the SAB says. As I've said before, if the land is being invaded, why shouldn't they defend themselves and why shouldn't God help them do so? And when they find the Philistines' idols left behind, why shouldn't they burn them?

The Philistines come back, and this time God gives David some tactical advice, which for some reason the SAB finds absurd, but who would be better at giving tactical advice than an omniscient being?

So Saul died for his transgression (1Sam 31)

Here in the final chapter of this book, the SAB has only one question: "How did Saul die?" The page pointing out the apparent inconsistency gives four possible answers. Now while one can easily dismiss the account of the Amalekite as a lie (after all, he had no witnesses, and apparently assumed that telling David that he had killed Saul would curry favor) I don't think it's necessary, and besides, preachers who cover that story rather like to point out the irony of Saul being killed by an Amalekite, since he was ordered by God to wipe them out and failed.

The thing is, all four of these explanations can be correct in a sense. As I've said before, in some sense, everyone gets killed by God, so no need to explain that. Saul was killed by the Philistines because he died while in battle with them, being struck a mortal blow by Philistine arrows. Knowing that he was as good as dead he endeavored to kill himself rather than be subjected to torture. It may be that he failed to kill himself, and the Amalekite ended up landing the final death blow upon Saul.

The battle is a resounding defeat, and Saul dies along with his three sons, and many of the troops. The next day, Saul's body is captured by the Philisties, who hang his head on the wall of the city of Bethshan.

And two hundred abode by the stuff (1Sam 30)

Amalekites, don't they ever quit? Apparently not in chapter 30. Now I'll say that I'm fine with standing on what I had said before, but here there may be yet another possibility as to what's going on. It might be that the story in chapter 27 is a telescoping of several events into a single story, and the time that David wiped out the Amalekites in that chapter was actually an out-of-order version of this story, if you follow. This time, despite the claim of the marginal note on verse 17, the genocide is not complete, nor was it unprovoked.

The SAB says "David just keeps getting more wives." While true in a more general sense, there are no new wives in this chapter, David still being at two or three, depending on whether you count Michal. There is also a note once again concerning Abiathar's dubious lineage.

After the battle, David decides that those people who stayed behind to guard the supplies deserve the spoils of war just as much as those who rode out for the battle.

This battle was indeed violent, but I have nothing to add to comments I've given before in this book and in other places.