At 12:45 AM 10/6/2002 -0400, you wrote: Lewis, 'allo. I haven't had any coffee yet, but....
> I just re-read 28. In English of course. My Greek is insufficient for the job. Neither is mine. I read it in the original Hebrew or in an English translation. In this case, I'm using The Living Nach (Early Prophets), translation by Rabbi Yaakov Elman, Moznaim Publishing Corporation, New York/Jerusalem, 1994. I will be providing the translation where it's applicable. I was for a while teaching myself Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew simply for the reason I have little faith in the fidelity of most of the modern English translations. I haven't had as much time as I'd like to follow up on that goal of late. There is no mention in the text of a familiar. How do we know she had a familiar? You've got to stick with what's in the text. I believe the proper word here is "Arrggg"? :) Hmm, Ok. I have a copy of e-Sword (e-word.net) I just loaded up. It has a dozen or so translations as well as comparison and commentary features. I don't generally like to read from any of the electronic study programs (just my personal taste -- I like paper better), but in cases like this they have their uses. The translation I'd read before did mention she had a "familiar spirit"... but let me look in more detail here. Mind you, my knowledge of more recent (last few hundred years) Magick practices is most likely leading me to misinterpret some of the conventions of the ancient magic practices and terms. .. Oh yes, much better. Some of the translations still use the term "familiar spirit" which is confusing to me as they ... apparently intend here something different then I would read it as. (To me a "familiar spirit" would be... well, I assume you recall the incidences of casting out demons into wild animals? If they are bound (magically) in such as way as they serve you (or pretend they are anyway), answering questions or doing tasks then that is what the phrase means to me.) I see now. The "obe" word that is used to refer to a necromancer is translated in the versions I have to everything but simply "Necromancer" or "Speaker with the Dead" -- except for the Contemporary English Version. I do remember reading about the meaning of the word now, long ago though it was. >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. No -- she raised his spirit, not his flesh. It says, 28:12: Then the woman saw Samuel and shrieked. She demanded of Saul, "Why have you misled me -- you are Saul!" You have a much better translation than I do. For example, I have two dozen of them loaded, none saying "shrieked", but Strong's dictionary, etc quite plainly say that is what zaw-ak' means. [snip] The words Samuel's apparition uses are very personal. The incident he refers to, with his prophecy to Saul that the kingship would go to David, was not public. It happened in private between Saul and Samuel. The whole tone of this incident, the wording, the way it happens, makes me think that it must be Samuel's voice from beyond the grave, or God speaking to Saul through the guise of Samuel. (Yes, I've stopped doing G-d, Michael was right, it's just a habit from my paper writing.) I pretty much agree, though I am still... a little unsure how to read the necromancer's "shriek" and sudden recognition of Saul. The most amusing interpretation of course is she shrieked because it actually worked for a change :) and it was not a trick on her part. No -- there is no reference there to a familiar. She only describes him at first, but then Saul speaks to him directly. Perhaps. Looking at Strong's dictionary it can be read either way. Either Saul was speaking through her directly (as apparently I read was the usual custom of her kind) or he was speaking in the form of an apparition or some similar manner. I lean to the first simply for it seems the most consistent answer. As to what truly transpired there's just not enough information there for me to say without using other sources to make inferences. Yes, if I as a Jew believed in the concept of Fallen Angels. But I don't. Not the Christian concept, at any rate. We don't believe in Satan (or Angels, for that matter) acting independently or against God and therefore, anything that Saul saw here would have to come from God. So I think what we've got here is two divergent views of a Biblical passage simply because our different religions have different ideas of what demons are, of what the Satan is, of what Angels are. I probably should have said this clearer before... as it sometimes leads to misunderstandings. While it's true that once-upon-a-time I was a party-line Baptist, that's been a very long time now. And though sometimes I may say I'm something of a Gnostic (or Sufi) none of those are true either. I don't belong an any organized Religion. If anyone presses me on the issue (WatchTower folk at 6AM before my coffee for instance) I usually just quote them a few lines I made up years ago: You ask me "What is your Religion?" I say, "Ask God what his religion is. That is mine. That is me." ..and leave them standing there confused. :) (It's a bit like a koan in that it's short and has many layers of meaning to it.) What I'm saying, more simply, is that I'm divorced from all organized Religions. If I say that I believe a certain religious text means such and such, it usually has little bearing on what I personally believe. (Or that is, since I'm generally not invested in the outcome of the interpretation it tends to make me less biased and willing to change my views more rapidly.) For a long time now I've held nothing personal against "Satan". I would say he's my "friend" but the Christian's would give me odd stares if I did. I would mean by that that he directly serves God's purpose in anything that he does. I could easily write a chapter on this, but I'll refrain. Sometimes when talking about it though I like to use the imagery of a crucible... in purely Christian terms you might say that Satan was the fire of the crucible that is used to burn away (or separate) the impure from the pure. Divine alchemy. Doesn't mean I'm going to be dropping to my knees and praying to Satan next time we meet in the halls, but I might give him a pat on the back: "Nice job. Keep it up." :) Basically I personally agree with you on that point and your interpretation of the incident as a whole. If you believe that Israel's fate hinged on Saul alone. While it's true that a leader's resolve may affect the outcome of a battle, it doesn't alone determine the outcome. But the point isn't a battle. The point is that Saul went to someone for a prophecy, that person gave him the prophecy, and it seemed to have been a true prophecy. The language in the text itself does not point to it being a demon or anything else. A familiar is not even mentioned. It did seem that Saul/God was... disappointed. The tone is essentially "fatally" disappointed in fact. As if Saul /God had resigned himself to this outcome long ago. As if he was sorry to have to read the judgement aloud, but what was done was done. I understand the reasoning here, but the text again does not seem to support this. He tried to consult God before he went to the Witch of Endor, and God refused to answer him: 28:5: When Saul saw the Philistine camp, he became fearful; he became very frightened. 6: He inquired of God, but God did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets. His breaking faith with God was in his not fulfilling God's commandment to punish the Amalekites, and this whole battle was the result. He had a chance to do Teshuva (repentance) -- indeed, he could have done so at any time, and perhaps he would not have lost his life. But he would have lost his kingship. This was ordained from the moment he refused to kill the Amalekites. This act of necromancy was an act of desparation and of fear. He did not want to give up his kingship and again become Saul the regular Jew. One does wonder here of course about free will, about far along a path one can go before Fate... before there is no turning back as far as God is concerned. I have a problem with deconstructionsim where it conflicts with the obvious intent of the text (especially the Bible) -- at least the way you describe it. Yes, different generations will see new things or understand the text slightly differently, but the understanding still has to come from what we know -- the words of the text. And yes, I know that you're going to say that we can't really know the meaning of ancient languages. But my people have made a study of this language for over 3,000 years, and I daresay that the Hebrew of the Torah is one of those languages that defy the normal muddle that time makes of most texts. I think most people have problems with deconstructionism in general, but it's hard to take any higher level English courses without running into it. (I was amused a few years ago with what was supposed to be Babylon 5's final episode "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars" where some scholars try to deconstruct the history of everything that had come before and thereby minimalize the parts of those in it.) Hebrew (along side Greek) I believe would qualify as one of the most... documented languages over a period of time that's still in use. There comes a point were some of us though can not stand the imperfection and ambiguity of the OT/Tenach and have to restrain a general desire lay it aside and start again from whole cloth. I suppose a great deal of that though lies in the imperfections of the translations, not the original text (though it has many failings as well). > Speaking of Noah, I leave you with a question that I have occasionally > wondered about... Were Dinosaurs clean or unclean? ;-) Depends. Did they chew their cud and have split hooves? If the answer to both questions is yes, they'd be kosher. But that's if you believe they existed exactly as we've reconstructed them (and exactly when ...) Well, for Noah's sake, if they were around, I'd be hoping they were unclean simply for the fact that having to deal with seven Tyrannosaurs Rex at once would be a bit of challenge I'd think. :) Judith (who loves these great Biblical discussions ...) --min, who still hasn't had any coffee ______________________________________________________________________ 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
