[greenbear]

Whether any one had sex with any one or not would any one of these thirty men keep the answer to the riddle to himself and not tell the others?

George, you are a little bit over the top. I admitted I didn't read the other thread, and I said I wasn't going to...I don't have time to go back and read every single encounter. In relation to THIS thread, I didn't see where Custer "twisted your words" etc. as you charged her. She didn't, and she gave good arguments, which NOBODY answered. But since you started the thread, you should have answered - at least once, for the record.
I am not impressed with your multiple colored posts, long searches, cut and pastes. I am only impressed with substance, which is sadly lacking in your posts, particularly in this thread.

The fact is that she gave valid arguments, she didn't make any personal attacks (at least on this thread), and you didn't answer. Your response to my "distant" observations is a little bit jaded, brother.

Originally Posted by greenbear

Whether any one had sex with any one or not would any one of these thirty men keep the answer to the riddle to himself and not tell the others?

UH, you brought up the sex act, and defended it, and insisted that this was the sense of the passage...not sure where you are going with this...

[George]

Originally Posted by Steve Schwenke

George, you are a little bit over the top. I admitted I didn't read the other thread, and I said I wasn't going to...I don't have time to go back and read every single encounter. In relation to THIS thread, I didn't see where Custer "twisted your words" etc. as you charged her. She didn't, and she gave good arguments, which NOBODY answered. But since you started the thread, you should have answered - at least once, for the record.
I am not impressed with your multiple colored posts, long searches, cut and pastes. I am only impressed with substance, which is sadly lacking in your posts, particularly in this thread.

The fact is that she gave valid arguments, she didn't make any personal attacks (at least on this thread), and you didn't answer. Your response to my "distant" observations is a little bit jaded, brother.

Steve,

We are told NOT to judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

If you are too busy, or unwilling to search out a matter - then you shouldn't be judging a matter - That is if you wanted to follow what the Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to do.

If you think that it is "right" for a Christian to twist a persons words; wrest a persons words; take a persons words out of context, change a persons words; and attribute words to another Christian they never said, I'm afraid that there is nothing I can do to help you. On the other hand, when you support, condone, and defend a person who engages in these deceptive practices then you demonstrate that you lack spiritual discernment and understanding, and as such I refuse to "engage" you in this matter any further.

But if you think it is Scriptural to comment or pass judgment on a matter when you are unwillingly to examine the matter thoroughly, then you are failing to practice what the Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to do.

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

It seems - just when there might be a little peace here on the AV1611 Bible Forums another "peace loving "brother" (or sister) comes out of the woodworks and "stirs the pot" again!

Now, I don't know what your "problem" is, but I am not going to "play your little game". You can gnatstrain and criticize me all you want from here on out, but just like custer before you, I am notifying you that I will NOT be replying to any more of your Posts.

Proverbs 13:10 Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.

Proverbs 17:14 The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.

Proverbs 18:6 A fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes.

Proverbs 22:10 Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Steve Schwenke

George, you are a little bit over the top. I admitted I didn't read the other thread, and I said I wasn't going to...

And yet you chose to comment on issues you admittedly hadn't searched out.

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

All of the "points" Custer brought up that had to do with Scripture (there weren't many) were directly responded to by more than one person.

[greenbear]

Pastor Steve's

The Judges 14:18 passage (which I realize is a sidelight to the main event) was interesting. I was raised in an independent, fundamental Baptist church, Christian school, etc. I have NEVER heard that this refered to "marital relations." I have always heard it as Custer put it. They used her against Samson to get information. The text is clear. If the 30 of them had raped her, chances are she would be dead...like the woman in Judges 19, which really showed the depths of depravity in Israel. The three commentaries somebody provided didn't deal with the context. It certainly shows how sheltered I have been in my life, but it doesn't prove that the passage MUST be interpretted to mean that they raped her, or abused her. The context is clear - they used her to get information to put Samson in a bad position, and he knew it.

greenbear's

Whether any one had sex with any one or not would any one of these thirty men keep the answer to the riddle to himself and not tell the others?

Pastor Steve's

Originally Posted by Steve Schwenke

UH, you brought up the sex act, and defended it, and insisted that this was the sense of the passage...not sure where you are going with this...

Here's where I'm going with it, Pastor Steve:

Pastor Steve's

The Judges 14:18 passage (which I realize is a sidelight to the main event) was interesting.
I was raised in an independent, fundamental Baptist church, Christian school, etc. I have NEVER heard that this refered to "marital relations." I have always heard it as Custer put it.

What does whether or not you've ever heard this before have to with the price of tea in China?

Who ever said it was referring to "marital relations"? Marital relations are between a husband and wife.

Let me try to clearly articulate what I am saying apart from any twisting and wresting and illogical arguments that have been used against my words.


This is my understanding of the passage:

Samson makes a bet with his companions that they cannot find out his riddle.

Jg*14:12 And Samson said unto them, I will now put forth a riddle unto you: if ye can certainly declare it me within the seven days of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty sheets and thirty change of garments:
Jg*14:13 But if ye cannot declare it me, then shall ye give me thirty sheets and thirty change of garments. And they said unto him, Put forth thy riddle, that we may hear it.

Samson tells them his riddle:

Judges 14:14 And he said unto them, Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness.

The thirty young men are unable to solve Samson's riddle.

And they could not in three days expound the riddle.

They determine to resort to a different strategy as they realized they could not solve the riddle using their brains. So they approach Samson's wife. They threaten to burn her and and her family if she does not find the answer to the riddle from her husband and declare it's meaning to them. They justify themselves by accusing her and her family of setting a snare for their own counrtymen in order to take their possessions. In reality, it was of their own free will that they entered into the bet with Samson. They are what are called "sore losers" and "cheaters" and "false accusers".

Judges 14:15 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson's wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father's house with fire: have ye called us to take that we have? is it not so?

Samson's wife cries and manipulates her husbands emotions for seven days until he can't take it any more and he breaks down and tells her. She tells the riddle to the the young men.

Judges 14:16 And Samson's wife wept before him, and said, Thou dost but hate me, and lovest me not: thou hast put forth a riddle unto the children of my people, and hast not told it me. And he said unto her, Behold, I have not told it my father nor my mother, and shall I tell it thee?
Judges 14:17 And she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted: and it came to pass on the seventh day, that he told her, because she lay sore upon him: and she told the riddle to the children of her people.

Samson's companions go to Samson before sunset of the seventh day and answer his riddle.

Judges 14:18 And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day before the sun went down, What is sweeter than honey? and what is stronger than a lion?

Sampson answers them with an accusation. Hopefully, we can all agree that by "my heifer" he is referring to his wife. He is aware that she is the only one who he told his riddle to and his companions are actually countrymen of his new wife so he may suspect she has mixed loyalties. Samson was not aware of the threats made to his wife and her father's house. She should have told him about the threats rather than betray him, in my opinion, but she was a gentile and probably did not trust in the God of Israel to deliver her and her families' lives by her husband's hand.

I believe since Samson knew it was his wife that betrayed him, and did not know about the threats that were made to her, and that she had betrayed him in favor of this group of young men that were her countrymen, my view is that he suspected she was sexually intimate with one of the party. Without knowing that these men had threatened her I think he would question if her loyalty and love were to one of the other men in the party instead of to him. Samson wasn't privy to the narrative as we are as we read the passage. It does appear to me that she was being falsely accused by Samson if I interpret his accusation correctly. You see, the question is not whether she had sex with any of the young men but rather did Sampson believe that she had at the moment he spoke those words.


And he said unto them, If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.

I can have full respect for someone elses differing view of what Samson meant by "plowed with my heifer". What I have a problem with is when someone adds to and takes away from what I have written changing the meaning of my words and when someone falsely accuses me. Pam's, and now your, assertion that I have argued that all thirty men raped her to get her to tell them the the answer is just one example of why I have no desire to "discuss" anything with Pam. Her false accusation that I have a filthy mind is another:

custer post # 36

I want to make it perfectly clear that I had never even heard of ANYONE believing a "sex act" was alluded to in Judges 14...and, frankly, I think it takes a dirty mind to have read that into the passage! These 30 men in the passage did not sweet-talk and sleep with this woman - they threatened to KILL her, for crying out loud! Plus, as my 16-year-old son pointed out after hearing all this garbage, we're talking about ONE woman, THIRTY men, and SEVEN days...what in the world?????? FILTH!!!
Also, in verse one of chapter 15, Samson decides he wants to "go in to" his wife...does anybody actually think he would WANT her if he thought she had been with those other men??? (Yes, he had a harlot in 16:1, but that's different than choosing a wife! Right, men?)
Greenbear's "Samson's metaphor for the sex act" was a clever tool of the devil to plant that nasty thought in the mind of everyone reading this thread EVERY TIME we read Judges 14 from now on!

Because you, Pastor Steve, have never heard this interpretation from your Baptist children's Sunday school on through whatever formal education you have had makes no difference to me. I'm not really into the 'consensus" method of interpreting the scriptures, anyway.

I do seem to have some support for my view on Samson's metaphor in some older commentaries and it seems in ancient times, though.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Judges 14:18

If ye had not ploughed with my heifer - If my wife had not been unfaithful to my bed, she would not have been unfaithful to my secret; and, you being her paramours, your interest was more precious to her than that of her husband. She has betrayed me through her attachment to you. Calmet has properly remarked, in quoting the Septuagint, that to plough with one's heifer, or to plough in another man's ground, are delicate turns of expression used both by the Greeks and Latins, as well as the Hebrews, to point out a wife's infidelities...

In this sense Samson's words were understood by the Septuagint, by the Syriac, and by Rabbi Levi. See Bochart, Hierozoic. p. 1, lib. ii., cap. 41, col. 406. The metaphor was a common one, and we need seek for no other interpretation of the words of Samson.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Judges 14:18

and he said unto them, if ye had not ploughed with my heifer; meaning his wife, whom he compares to an heifer, young, wanton, and unaccustomed to the yoke3; and by "ploughing" with her, he alludes to such creatures being employed therein, making use of her to get the secret out of him, and then plying her closely to obtain it from her; and this diligent application and search of theirs, by this means to inform themselves, was like ploughing up ground; they got a discovery of that which before lay hid, and without which they could never have had the knowledge of, as he adds:

ye had not found out my riddle; the explanation of it. Ben Gersome and Abarbinel interpret ploughing of committing adultery with her; in which sense the phrase is used by Greek and Latin writers4; but the first sense is best, for it is not said, "ploughed my heifer", but with her.


Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible
Judges 14:18
Ver. 18. If you had not employed my wife to find it out, as men plough up the ground with a heifer, thereby discovering its hidden parts: he calls her
heifer, either because he now suspected her wantonness and too much familiarity with that friend which she afterwards married; or because she was joined with him in the same yoke; or rather, because they used such in ploughing.



I'll repeat my reasons for my understanding that Samson's words were an accusation that his secret was found out by one of the men having an adulterous affair with his wife (now that my understanding of the context of this passage should be clear) by examining Samson's accusation:

And he said unto them, If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.

1) Literally plowing the ground with an ox to reveal the hidden parts of the ground.
2) Figuratively employing methods of uncovering Samson's secret from his wife. The idea of revealing secret things or hidden parts does have the feel of sexual immorality.
3) Although given in language rather than an image, this analogy is also addressed to the eye and can be pictured by the imagination. The physical form of a plowman behind the plow and...well, hopefully we all get the idea.
4) What does a plowman do after plowing the ground? HE SCATTERS SEED.

It's just so obvious to me that plowing has been a metaphor for sex in every "primitive" agrarian society in history. It even is in ours.




You are free to take my interpretation or leave it but please do not join with Pam in twisting, wresting, changing meaning, adding on, and taking away from my words, and using ridiculously absurd illogical arguments. You are free to pick apart the whole thread if you like and try to find any of my words to use against me. I am not a skilled debater and I've never encountered these types of sophist arguments before that twist your brain inside out and leave you wondering what just hit you. If you care to continue to discuss the topic on this thread feel free but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from misstating my argument.

Originally Posted by greenbear

Did you READ what I wrote??? Let me quote myself for you again. This is approaching absurdity.

Please note that I am assuming Sampson's words "plowed with my heifer" refer to the sex act or I would not have referred to it as "Sampson's metaphor for the sex act." Sheesh!!! What I find so hilarious is that you use a man's description of having sex with his wife as evidence that "yoked" passages can apply to marriage when it has been clearly shown that they do not!!! And here we are now arguing about Sampson plowing with his heifer and what does it all mean! Unbelievable!!! I have been chuckling all day long.

Greenbear, this is what started it. However, you did not clarify that you meant that Samson THOUGHT they had used her sexually, and so I (and I think Custer also) assumed that you thought that they actually had. A little bit of clarity goes along way.
Now, you got all bent out of shape for some weird reason, and just attacked me mercilessly. I stated that I had not heard your interpretation, but I also stated that it doesn't mean it is non-existent. Then you fly off the deep end about my "sheltered" little Baptist Sunday School....etc, etc, etc. Take a chill pill will ya???
If you want to discuss the matter, then discuss it. If you want to call people names, insinuate that they are stupid, and beneath your dignity, that is your decision. However, it is NOT EDIFYING; it is selfish and filled with pride.

Romans 12:18 - If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

I have not attacked you (trust me, you would know it if I did!), I have not denigraded you, I have not maligned you. So why the vicious, childish attacks???

We are told NOT to judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

I have made my judgment based upon the only criteria I have - your written words. Just because I said I have not read the other thread doesn't mean I have not read your posts on other threads...

If you are too busy, or unwilling to search out a matter - then you shouldn't be judging a matter - That is if you wanted to follow what the Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to do.

Oh, I see...you get to accuse me of not following Christ....that's great...whatever happened to that "judge righteous judgment thing???"
I judged THIS MATTER meaning THIS THREAD...since where is it wrong to do that??? So anytime I enter a forum I must read all posts and all threads before I make a judgment??? My comments were in regards to this thread...as I stated...

If you think that it is "right" for a Christian to twist a persons words; wrest a persons words; take a persons words out of context, change a persons words; and attribute words to another Christian they never said, I'm afraid that there is nothing I can do to help you. On the other hand, when you support, condone, and defend a person who engages in these deceptive practices then you demonstrate that you lack spiritual discernment and understanding, and as such I refuse to "engage" you in this matter any further.

As I stated, I did not see Custer twist, wrest, etc... anything ON THIS THREAD, and that is why I said what I said...looks like the pot calling the kettle black to me...

But if you think it is Scriptural to comment or pass judgment on a matter when you are unwillingly to examine the matter thoroughly, then you are failing to practice what the Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to do.

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

I stated from the beginning that my observations were from THIS THREAD, AND I limited my comments TO THIS THREAD....

It seems - just when there might be a little peace here on the AV1611 Bible Forums another "peace loving "brother" (or sister) comes out of the woodworks and "stirs the pot" again!

Now, I don't know what your "problem" is, but I am not going to "play your little game". You can gnatstrain and criticize me all you want from here on out, but just like custer before you, I am notifying you that I will NOT be replying to any more of your Posts.

How do you define peace? By bullying everyone with your lengthy posts, complete with multiple colors, different fonts, different size type, etc???
Do you define peace as "winning" every argument?
Do you define peace as being the "chief teacher" and instructor?
So we can't lodge anything that is contrary to your position?
We can't call you out when your behaviour is wrong?

Ok, gotcha...where I come from, that is called, coercion, manipulation, controlling, and (in real plain words) a bully.

The evidence is in the childish manner in which you refuse to respond to anyone who doesn't give you your way...that's what little kids in grade school do, not grown up adults, esp. those who profess to love the Lord.

Proverbs 13:10 Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.

Proverbs 17:14 The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.

Proverbs 18:6 A fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes.

Proverbs 22:10 Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.

But who is the proud one here?

Originally Posted by Diligent

And yet you chose to comment on issues you admittedly hadn't searched out.

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

All of the "points" Custer brought up that had to do with Scripture (there weren't many) were directly responded to by more than one person.

I was particularly looking for someone to address the 17 scripture references she provided that didn't quite fit George's definition of yoke...I don't recall seeing anyone address that...If they did, point me to it!

As I replied to George, my observations were limited to this thread...I didn't know it was a rule that I had to read all threads before I could comment on one thread.

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Steve Schwenke

Greenbear, this is what started it. However, you did not clarify that you meant that Samson THOUGHT they had used her sexually, and so I (and I think Custer also) assumed that you thought that they actually had. A little bit of clarity goes along way.
Now, you got all bent out of shape for some weird reason, and just attacked me mercilessly. I stated that I had not heard your interpretation, but I also stated that it doesn't mean it is non-existent. Then you fly off the deep end about my "sheltered" little Baptist Sunday School....etc, etc, etc. Take a chill pill will ya???
If you want to discuss the matter, then discuss it. If you want to call people names, insinuate that they are stupid, and beneath your dignity, that is your decision. However, it is NOT EDIFYING; it is selfish and filled with pride.

Romans 12:18 - If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

I have not attacked you (trust me, you would know it if I did!), I have not denigraded you, I have not maligned you. So why the vicious, childish attacks???

I had mistakenly assumed that the context of the story was understood by all throughout this thread. My mistake.

Sorry if you look back and see a few poorly articulated thoughts from somebody in the midst of trying to extricate herself from the twists and turns of a sophist's arguments for the first time in her life. I believe you are searching for gnats so you can ignore the camel.

You sure seem to think you can read hearts and minds, Pastor Steve. I'm sure I wasn't as unedifying in my post to you as you have been in your posts to me and brother George, so far. "Vicious, childish attacks???" That's ironic coming from you, in my opinion.

I have not attacked you (trust me, you would know it if I
did!)

Wow. I'm quaking in my boots.

I think I'll try to follow brother George's example and have no further communication with you. So if you feel the need to tear me apart and further malign my character and intentions then you just have at it, brother.