>Creates the world
>Can't defeat iron chariots
What gives?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>Creates the world. >Can't defeat iron chariots. What gives?
>Creates the world
>Can't defeat iron chariots
What gives?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
J1ahweh can't defeat R1a chariots of Dyeos phater
Wesley's Notes for Judges 1:19
1:19 Could not drive - Because of their unbelief, whereby they distrusted God's power to destroy those who had chariots of iron, and so gave way to their own fear and sloth, whereby God was provoked to withdraw his helping hand.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Judges-1-19/
Benson Commentary
Jdg 1:19. Could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley — Because of their unbelief, through which they distrusted God’s power to destroy those who had chariots of iron, and so gave way to their own fear and sloth, whereby God was provoked to withdraw his helping hand.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/judges/1-19.htm
i.e. reading stuff into the text that is not implied
It's derived from Joshua 17 which describes the same conflict
If I said "I couldn't bench 1 plate on Tuesday the first"
And somewhere else I wrote "my barbell was stolen on Tuesday"
At the very least you don't need to conclude I was physically unable to bench 1 plate.
So when one book says God was unable to defeat an enemy on account of their strength, and another book says the army of Israel was fearful and didn't trust God, we don't need to conclude God doesn't possess the power to defeat that enemy, even if it's a plausible reading of the first passage.
inb4 this gets zero replies by all the trannies who are here to "own the chuds"
>when one book says God was unable to defeat an enemy on account of their strength, and another book says the army of Israel was fearful and didn't trust God, we don't need to conclude God doesn't possess the power to defeat that enemy
first of all:
>when one book says God was unable to defeat an enemy on account of their strength ... we don't need to conclude God doesn't possess the power to defeat that enemy
christian apologetics, gentlemen.
we need to conclude that not only was yahweh conceived as a limited being at the time this story was set in writing, but that the authors managed to contradict each other. joshua 17 does not clarify or override judges 1, but merely contradicts it, as any hodgepodge of fairy tales written over a long time period surely will.
I bet you think Genesis 2's more in-depth description of the creation of man on day 6 from Genesis 1 is a contradiction too.
I bet you think genesis 2 is a more in-depth description instead of a parallel and contradictory text variant.
Giga cope
Shouting "cope" is not a refutation, bring something of value to the conversation or be ignored.
Okay israelite ignore people
"The lord was with them, but then they weren't with the lord and so the lord wasn't with them anymore"
not only does this clearly not appear in the etxt and not only are Welsey and benson objectively coping giga hard. But if they really believed this was what the text was supposed to say, you'd fricking think the text would have made it a pointed point that it was "because of a lack of faith in god to defeat the iron chariots and thus god's withdrawal of anti-chariot support" and not simply "because of the iron chariots." since this sounds like a central point and critical religious lesson if one was intended. Rather than just a narrative of half-remembered history.
it's Bronze Age mythology and follows Bronze Age rules, get over it. Materialist concepts of deity. This is a supreme being that must cast bear spells and rain spells and frog spells and trumpet spells in order to achieve effects in the world instead of post-classical cope of subtle transcendent immateriality.
I replied to the wrong person, sorry. meant for you
>EVERYTHING HAS TO BE FRICKING WRITTEN LITERALLY BECAUSE.....BECAUSE I SAY SO FRICKER, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LOGICAL INFERENCES OR ANALYISIS.
the alternative is yahweh failing to communicate properly, also there is zero external support for any kind of metaphorical reading, it's all christards performing mental gymnastics in the face of manifest moronation.
do you ever wonder why those "explanations" never cite any sources? they just raise additional questions like 'but how does he know?' almost as if they were completely made up.
You know the iron chariots get destroyed in the very next chapter, right?
Gross mistranslation, the "he" in that sentence is referring to Judah, not YHWH, and the phrase "could not" is more correctly translated to "did not" or "could not bring himself to", it's not an expression of him being incapable of doing the task, but not having the spine to actually do it.
This too.
the problem is not that "he" refers to Yahweh, because it doesn't like you say the problem is
>19 The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron
It says the Lord was with Judah, as in helping them when they went into battle in this specific instance.
Your translation is wrong
> In their Hermeneia commentary, Mark S. Smith and Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith noted three things about this verse. First is that the phrase "Yahweh was with x" implies divine favor and so Judah enjoys full support from Yahweh in their conquest of the hill country. Also this is the only example of this construction with את in the book (instead עם occurs elsewhere in Judges, cf. 1:22, 2:18). Second, they note that כי may not be an adversative but a particle indicating the reason or evidence of the preceding assertion (as it is used later in the same verse). Third, they note that the verse has a late grammatical construction found in post-exilic and Qumran Hebrew (ל + לא-infintive) which means "it was not possible to". So they translate the verse as follows: "Yahweh was with Judah and he took possession of the hill country, for it was not possible to dispossess the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron". This conveys quite a different meaning than the usual rendering. They also suggest that this verse may be a rather late redaction on the basis of the linguistic evidence.
> The adversative implies that Judah had divine favor in taking the land in the plains but could not do so. The alternate reading makes Yahweh support Judah in taking the hill country ("the divine favor toward Judah pertains to the action that immediately follows") and so they were successful. Indeed Judah is the only success mentioned here other than the Josephites' conquest of Bethel in v. 22; all the other tribes fail in driving out the Canaanites from the land, and none of them are said to have Yahweh's divine favor except for the tribes of Joseph in their successful conquest of Bethel (v. 21-27). The translation of the verbal construction also removes the necessary implication of a failed conquest. It was not possible to do Y so Judah did X, and they were victorious, thanks to Yahweh (cf. the same construction in 1 Chronicles 15:2 which does not imply that non-Levites tried to carry the ark but failed).
> The verse under discussion here seems to be derivative of the story in Joshua 17 which concerned the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim instead of Judah, who received an allotment in the hill country but wanted more land and were afraid of the military superiority of the Canaanites in the plains with their iron chariots. Their attitude contrasts sharply with the story of Caleb in ch. 14, suggesting that they lacked faith in Yahweh's promise and wanted an extra allotment that avoided the problematic lowlands. Joshua promises that they will lay claim to these lands only after they put in the effort to overwhelm the Canaanites and drive them away. So it is more a matter of reluctance and cowardice than Yahweh failing to deliver for them. So the thought in Judges 1:19 may similarly be that the Judahites were intimidated of the powerful Canaanites in the plains and stopped short of attempting to drive them from the land.
Again, mistranslation, Judah was too intimidated by the enemy's iron chariots and in an act of faithlessness to God he retreated, even though the Lord was with him and he would have surely won with His aid had he mustered the courage to go forth and fight, and just like this anon says
God destroyed the iron chariots in the very next sentence.
There are similar instances of men aided by God that did not trust in His promise of deliverance like with the Israelites with the Canaanites, or king Saul, or in a broader sense Jacob and his wife Rachel and God's promise of giving them a child.
Shhhh, let them complain about the sacrifice made famous for not happening next