At 12:35 AM 10/4/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Actually, the major example that I can point to is I Samuel chapter 28, >verses 3-20, where after Samuel's death, Saul is in great turmoil It is >the eve of the battle between Israel and the Philistines. Saul is afraid >-- Samuel has just died and Saul knows that the kingship of Israel will be >given to David and not to his son Jonathan, in punishment for a previous >sin. He is beset by enemies, and having gotten no answer from G-d >(something I can't go into without another long post), Saul decides to >contact Samuel to ask him what to do. He consults with a medium (known in >Hebrew as a ba'al Ov V'yidoni, in English we'd call her a necromancer) and >she raises Samuel from the dead.
I just re-read 28. In English of course. My Greek is insufficient for the job. >What exactly is happening here? In the Jewish view, I've never seen a >commentary say that this was a demon. We've got three explanations here: >1. It was sleight of hand on the part of the medium. (Rabbi Shmuel Ben >Chofni Gaon) 2. It was Saul's fevered imagination. (Maimonides and Ralbag) >3. Samuel was really raised from the dead and gave a message to Saul. (I >believe Rav Sa'adiah Gaon says this, but I may be misunderstanding the source.) I would need to spend a couple hours doing more research, but from a straight read.... I might very well argue that the Witch of Endor's :) familiar was possessed by a demon, hence why she seeks to commune through it. More to that point, the way it is worded does not for me sufficiently indicate that Samuel was raised from the dead in the flesh, even from a temporary standpoint. The way she talks at one point it as if she is describing Samuel to Saul and he recognizing him by the "words", not by any manifestation of flesh. That is, it gives the appearance that the necromancer is what we call today "channeling" Samuel (through her familiar). >In the third view, it would be wrong to try to communicate with the dead >because their souls are at rest and doing so is disrespectful and >disturbing that rest. They've had their time here on earth. Now they're >having their just desserts. > >There are two reasons that I'd go with the third view (that necromancy >works but it's wrong.) > >1. In the story, the medium does not realize who Saul is until Samuel >appears. Meaning she seemingly did not conjure him knowingly. So >therefore, something unexpected (to her) is happening here. >2. The ghost of Samuel gives Saul several prophecies, which includes >telling Saul that the battle with the Phillistines will be lost and that >he and his son Jonathan will die tomorrow. And these prophecies come true. >How could this be a demon, then? Why not? They are supposedly the fallen of a race superior to Man (though not in potential) and as many would claim, at least originally, responsible for the general administration of the World itself. That they would know many, many things that are unknown to Men I have no doubt. I would assume being a "spirit" does also offer one a... unique point of view as to the events that are to unfold. As for prophesizing the events only a day a way, in this particular case that would be no great feat, I should think. There is what is called "self-fulfilling prophecy" (if you believe whole-heartedly that is thing is going to happen, you'll tend to make it happen in just that way, albeit subconsciously) ... if this were a demon, then, simply by speaking a few words, he here smashes Israel. The gain is fairly clear. >And let's say that necromancy doesn't work (for the sake of argument). Why >should this then be demons? Why would it not be G-d talking to Saul in a >way that he would understand? Actually, on my re-read of 28, that was what was in my mind. That this might have been a final test for Saul, and had he NOT went and consorted with the Witch of Endor and done these forbidden things, and broken faith, that perhaps God would intervened. Yes, my initial impression was most likely it was God, or an agent thereof, taking on the guise of Samuel. >I don't see that this is such a problem, btw. >The floodwaters might have taken forty days to come down. The rain >stopped. The waters did not go down until 1 year and 1 week. Why is that >impossible? > >And if G-d is creating the flood, why could he not make it rain for 40 >days and nights? Sorry, I meant to imply that I have no reason to doubt that these recorded periods are true (that even the period covering the rain fall and the upswelling of the oceans may have occurred over exactly 40 days), but simply that the general public doesn't know this because they've not read it for themselves. And even if they did, that it's impossible to know with absolute certainty without direct (or mayhaps indirect) intervention all the nuances of the teachings and laws that may be recorded in the books. I hate to mention the literary conception of Deconstructionism (ie, the meaning of a piece of literary work is not whatever the original author intended -- which is to an extent always unknowable -- but what the individual reader thinks it means) however it is obvious that this is continually occurring, albeit not purposely, throughout history because of misunderstandings in the current reinterpretation of meaning. The texts may not have changed, but the understanding of them can. (I won't go into this silly modern concept of a "rapture" that is slowly sweeping the Christian world, but that's an example.) Anyway, that was what I was trying to say. BTW, not that it matters but, the way I interpreted the original commandant regarding the usage of the name of God, it seemed to suggest that He was forbidding not only it's casual, irrelevant use but any corruption of it thereof. Thus anytime I see the diluted appellation "G-d" my reflex is to cringe just a bit. :) I know of course most folks strongly take the exact opposite stance... and cringe themselves whenever I directly say any of the "holy" names. One of the things I've wanted to do for years (when I become ridiculously wealthy :) is to produce all the books of the Bible as a *verbatim* motion picture series. The actors would do and say *exactly* what they say in the works, and speak only in the languages they would have spoke. With absolutely no nods to any modern interpretations. Needless to say, the 600-disc :) DVD set would contain a great deal of subtitling... but it would be a worthy project to devote a few years to. I would especially like to see Enoch (or my namesake Amos) produced. Enoch... that'll drive the special effects folks mad trying to figure out how to accurately model all the flying machines of God :) >Yes, actually, I must thank you -- You gave me an excuse to refresh my >memory and read through Samuel I a bit. I enjoyed that. I'm feeling a strong need to do that now over the weekend myself. Speaking of Noah, I leave you with a question that I have occasionally wondered about... Were Dinosaurs clean or unclean? ;-) --min >Judith ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
