BEALE Sorry Till it's not that simple. You can't say that one sentence in a book is false and one true without some objective means of determining which is which. You have none, so therefore your argument flops around like a dead fish on the dock.
TILL Okay, then let me tell you my "objective" means of determining that at least one statement in the biblical account of the Amalekite massacre is false.
(1) It is objectively true that the Bible says that Yahweh commanded Saul to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites and "spare them not but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling" (1 Sam. 15:3).
(2) It is objectively true that the Bible says that Saul "smote the Amalekites" and "utterly destroyed *all* the people with the edge of the sword," except for the Amalekite king Agag, whom he captured alive (1 Sam. 15:7-8).
(3) It is objectively true that the Bible says the prophet Samuel hacked Agag, the Amalekite king, to pieces with a sword "before Yahweh in Gilgal" (1 Sam. 15:32-33).
(4) It is objectively true that the Bible says that Saul's massacre of the Amalekites occurred in the region "from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt" (1 Sam. 15:7).
(5) It is objectively true that the Bible says that after Saul utterly destroyed the Amalekites in the region from Havilah to Shur and after Samuel had killed Agag, David's band of guerilla marauders raided the Amalekites, "smote the land, and saved neither man nor woman alive" (1 Sam. 27:9).
(6) It is objectively true that the Bible says that David's slaughter of the Amalekites occurred in the same region where Saul had allegedly "utterly destroyed" the Amalekites (1 Sam. 27:8). Let's hope that Mr. Beale will take careful notice of what his inspired, inerrant word of his transcendental Yahweh says about the place where David's attack occurred: "And David and his men went up, and made a raid upon the Geshurites, and the Girzites, AND the Amalekites; for these nations were the inhabitants of the land, who were of old, as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt."
The next verse then says that David saved neither man nor woman alive.
So let's notice what we have here. Saul attacked the Amalekites from Havilah to Shur "that is before Egypt" and utterly destroyed all of the Amalekites, but later David raided the Amalekites who inhabited the land "as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt." Hence the Bible proclaims a proposition that is both X and not X. Saul utterly destroyed all of the Amalekites but simultaneously did not utterly destroy all of the Amaelites.
I don't need to know if these Amalekites were real people. All I need to know is that the Bible declares that all of the Amalekites in a particular region were killed and then turns around and states that more Amalekites in this same region were killed. If that is not declaring X but not X, then what would it take for the Bible to violate Beale's law of contradiction?
What we are seeing from Beale is the same tactic that we see from all inerrantists. When they find plain statements in the Bible that indicate biblical errancy, they insist that the Bible doesn't really mean what it plainly says. Hence, we find Beale telling us this:
BEALE The word 'all' always refers to a class which is based on the context. See below.
TILL So *all* doesn't really mean all, and I've heard that quibble before too in the matter of Moses and Aaron changing *all* the water, throughout *all* the land of Egypt into blood (Exodus 7). When confronted with a demand to know how that pharaoh's magicians could have done "in like manner with their enchantments" (v:22), inerrantists assert that "all" didn't mean all but only a "conspicuous excess." If Beale is going to play that game, let him explain to us how he knows (especially when it isn't possible to know anything) that when the Bible writer said that Saul "utterly destroyed" ALL of the Amalekites except for Agag, he didn't mean exactly what that appears to mean.
Beale asked us to "see below," so let's look at what he said "below."
BEALE v.7: Saul attacked the Amalekites from Havilah to Shur.
Since the name Havilah was shared by several localities,
further identification was necessary to avoid confusion.
(Anchor Bible Commentary, I, 188)
v.8: Saul destroyed all the Amalekites in this region with the exception of Agag.
Thw word 'all' in this verse clearly refers back to the class of people who lived in the region that Saul attacked. Surely you don't expect anyone to believe that people Saul killed people in regions where they weren't attacked? The burden lies on you to establish that every single Amalekite living was in the region mentioned. Since I'm quite sure you can't do that, I see no way for you to establish a contradiction.
TILL In response to this, I will just ask Beale to see above where I showed that it is objectively true that the Bible says that David killed Amalekites in the same region (Shur even to the land of Egypt) where it was earlier declared that Saul had "utterly destroyed" ALL Amalekites. So it isn't incumbent on me to prove anything; it is incumbent on Beale to prove that when the Bible says that Saul "utterly destroyed" ALL the Amalekites in the region of Shur, this didn't mean exactly what it said.
Beale cannot argue that it couldn't have meant that Saul and Samuel killed every last Amalekite because that would cause the account of David's raid against the Amalekites in the region of Shur to be in contradiction with the account of Saul's raid in the same region. To so argue is to prove inerrancy by assuming inerrancy.
Mr. Beale finds himself in a bind, and I think he knows it.
TILL
>I will ask Beale to answer this true or false question: "Saul utterly
>destroyed all of the Amalekite people with the edge of the sword, except for
>their king Agag." If he doesn't answer, I will assume that he cannot answer
>without conceding his point or giving an answer that clearly conflicts with
>what the Bible plainly says.
BEALE I don't see any questions in that paragraph Till.
TILL We loosely refer to true or false "questions" when they aren't really questions but statements. I think Beale understood what I meant, but to remove any doubt, I will reword my statement.
Please tell us if the following statement is true or false: "Saul utterly destroyed all of the Amalekite people with the edge of the sword, except for their king Agag."
Now all Beale needs to do is answer "true" if this is a true statement or "false" if it is a false statement.