# 1 Samuel 6:19



## Romans922 (Oct 24, 2008)

Issue of 50,070 men or 70 men. Some will say 70 because Beth-Shemesh couldn't have had 50,070 men and that some manuscripts don't have the 50,000 word. 

What do you do with this? Which do you choose? Even some of the modern translations are different on their approach.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Oct 24, 2008)

I would stick with the 50,070 because it seems to fit into the context of a "great slaughter" like the "great slaughter" in 4:10 of 30,000 Israelites. That approach just seems, in my opinion, to be more consistent with the idea of a great slaughter that the writer is trying to convey.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 26, 2008)

At the risk of getting a posse after me I want to quote from a man who knows his Bible, even though he is off on doctrine (an IFB) and on having a gracious character. But this is not a bad shot at the problem:



> 1. Don’t forget that Bethshemesh had *“suburbs”* (Josh. 21:16).
> 
> 2. Don’t forget that it is not just *“the MEN of Bethshemesh”*, but *“THE PEOPLE* (1 Sam. 6:19).
> 
> ...



*[He was referring to the New Scofield] 

And no, I don’t follow Ruckman’s textual theories, but then again, how many of you follow Bruce Metzger’s theories? Don’t bust my chops here and I won’t bust yours. Sometimes Ruckman does decent work.

Steve


----------

