Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Proverbs 5:4 But in the end she is bitter as wormwood, Sharp as a two-edged sword. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Proverbs 5:4 But in the end she is bitter like [the extract of] wormwood, Sharp as a two-edged sword. |
Bible Question: What is the answer to "B"? |
Bible Answer: Who Killed King Saul? ____________________ "What had actually happened was that after Saul had killed himself, and the armorbearer had followed his lord’s example by taking his own life (1 Sam. 31:5), the Amalekite happened by at that moment, recognized the king’s corpse, and quickly stripped off the bracelet and crown before the Philistine troops discovered it." ____________________ 'This item is available on the Apologetics Press website at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/567 'AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies 'Who Killed King Saul? 'by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. 'A skeptic wrote to ask the following question: “Bible contradictions, are they real?” He then answered his own question (which makes one wonder why—if he already knew the answer—he was writing us in the first place): “Yes. How did Saul die? 2 Samuel 21:12 says he was killed by a Philistine. 1 Samuel 31:4 says he killed himself. 2 Samuel 1:18-20 says he was killed by an Amalekite. Which one is it?” 'With just a few short sentences, the skeptic appears to have documented a legitimate discrepancy within the biblical text. The key word here, however, is “appears.” As is so often the case, there is much more to the matter than merely quoting a single verse or two in an effort to make the Bible appear to contradict itself. An examination of these passages—in their historical context—makes for an interesting and educational study. (...) ____________________ "...it is only a record of what the Amalekite mercenary SAID had taken place." ____________________ 'How can this [the Amalekite's] story be reconciled with the accounts in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 21? Isolated from both the general and immediate historical context, the simple fact is that it cannot. Is there, then, an unavoidable, unexplainable contradiction as the skeptic has alleged? No, there is not. There is another possible explanation. In his book, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer elaborated on this possibility when he wrote that the Amalekite’s story "is not presented as being an actual record of what happened during Saul’s dying moments; it is only a record of what the Amalekite mercenary SAID had taken place. Coming with Saul’s crown and bracelet in hand and presenting them before the new king of Israel, the Amalekite obviously expected a handsome reward and high preferment in the service of Saul’s successor. In the light of the straightforward account in the previous chapter, we must conclude that the Amalekite was lying in order to gain a cordial welcome from David. But what had actually happened was that after Saul had killed himself, and the armorbearer had followed his lord’s example by taking his own life (1 Sam. 31:5), the Amalekite happened by at that moment, recognized the king’s corpse, and quickly stripped off the bracelet and crown before the Philistine troops discovered it. Capitalizing on his good fortune, the Amalekite then escaped from the bloody field and made his way down to David’s headquarters in Ziklag. But his hoped-for reward turned out to be a warrant for his death; David had him killed on the spot...His glib falsehood had brought him the very opposite of what he had expected, for he failed to foresee that David’s high code of honor would lead him to make just the response he did (1982, pp. 181-182, emp. added)." 'It would not be unusual for a Bible writer to record a story that was told at the time as the truth when, in fact, it was a lie. Moses recorded Satan’s lie to Eve in Genesis 3:4, without comment on its false nature. The writer of 1 Kings 13 recorded the lie of the older prophet to the younger prophet (a lie that ultimately caused the younger prophet’s death). John recorded Peter’s three-fold lie when he denied being one of Christ’s disciples (18:15-27). Other similar examples could be offered. 'The point is, just because the Amalekite mercenary CLAIMED to have killed King Saul does not mean that he was telling the truth when he made such a claim. 'In fact, we know he was not because elsewhere (e.g., 1 Samuel 31:4-5) the actual facts of the case are presented with great clarity. Once again, the skeptic’s claim of a biblical discrepancy can be answered by a common-sense appeal to reason that provides a solution consistent with the available facts.' (The above excerpt is taken from the first and last paragraphs of the article. To read much more go to: www.apologeticspress.org/articles/567) Grace to you, Kalos |