Author Topic: Saul and David not listed as Kings of Judah? (Read 6558 times)

Redoubter · « **on:** May 07, 2012, 09:50:34 PM »

In the REG, Visualizer, and REG updates threads (I cannot search Rulings ATM, that seems to be down on the site), Saul and David are not listed as Kings of Judah. They obviously were.

King Saul was anointed King of all Israel before the thrones of Judah and Israel were divided, and David was also explicitly anointed King of Judah before being King of all Israel and Judah.

Can this be updated, as it actually matters for certain cards?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #1 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:09:14 PM »

They obviously weren't. You can't be King of something that didn't exist. Argument could be made for David but I personally them as weak, because again, Judah did not exist yet.

Chris · « **Reply #2 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:11:53 PM »

I agree with Alex.

Redoubter · « **Reply #3 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:12:43 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on May 07, 2012, 10:09:14 PM

They obviously weren't. You can't be King of something that didn't exist. Argument could be made for David but I personally them as weak, because again, Judah did not exist yet.

Actually, David has definitive proof in the Bible that he was king of Judah.

David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years. In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years. (II Samuel 5:4-5)

Saul was anointed King over all of the tribes of Israel, which included the tribe of Judah and all of its lands. If that's not the definition of being King of Judah (as in, being the king of the tribe and ruling the lands of that name), then I don't know what is.

And yes, David has definitive evidence. I could only even barely see an argument against Saul, but he was king of the tribe. That's the same thing.

Drrek · « **Reply #4 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:14:21 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on May 07, 2012, 10:09:14 PM

They obviously weren't. You can't be King of something that didn't exist. Argument could be made for David but I personally them as weak, because again, Judah did not exist yet.

The country of Judah did not exist, but David and Saul were kings over the Tribe of Judah. Also I say that David at least should be a king of Judah since he was made king over Judah before he was king over all of Israel.

Chris · « **Reply #5 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:16:08 PM »

I can see David being a King of Judah, however, Saul definitely was not, since "King of Judah" is referring specifically to the nation, not the tribe.

Redoubter · « **Reply #6 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:16:40 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on May 07, 2012, 10:14:21 PM

The country of Judah did not exist, but David and Saul were kings over the Tribe of Judah. Also I say that David at least should be a king of Judah since he was made king over Judah before he was king over all of Israel.

The country of Judah did not exist because it had not split from Israel yet. Various kings of England were still kings of other parts of the English Isles even if those places hadn't revolted and left the United Kingdom at the time of their rule. Same thing applies in this case.

Judah did not exist as a separate country because it was a tribe of Israel. Saul was king of all of the tribes of Israel, not just 11.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #7 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:17:51 PM »

You would have to provide proof that Redemption defines King of Judah as anything but the country of Judah, of which there is no current proof (also I can't access to REG for some reason).

Redoubter · « **Reply #8 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:19:45 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on May 07, 2012, 10:17:51 PM

You would have to provide proof that Redemption defines King of Judah as anything but the country of Judah, of which there is no current proof (also I can't access to REG for some reason).

Nope, I would not. It would have to be defined by the Elders because it is not currently defined.

You'd be the one to have provide proof by that it defines the country , because it is not specified (checked the REG for you, does not say).

Praeceps · « **Reply #9 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:51:22 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on May 07, 2012, 10:16:40 PM

Quote from: Drrek on May 07, 2012, 10:14:21 PM
The country of Judah did not exist, but David and Saul were kings over the Tribe of Judah. Also I say that David at least should be a king of Judah since he was made king over Judah before he was king over all of Israel.

The country of Judah did not exist because it had not split from Israel yet. Various kings of England were still kings of other parts of the English Isles even if those places hadn't revolted and left the United Kingdom at the time of their rule. Same thing applies in this case.

Judah did not exist as a separate country because it was a tribe of Israel. Saul was king of all of the tribes of Israel, not just 11.

That would be like saying that George III was a ruler of the United States because they were colonies of England before they revolted and split away. George III didn't rule the United States, he ruled over the 13 Colonies which became the United States. They are two separate political entities. Just because Saul ruled over the Nation of Israel which happened to include the tribe of Judah doesn't make him the king of Judah. The Kingdom of Judah and the Tribe of Judah are two different things, otherwise we could have Kings of Benjamin, Dan, Issachar, etc...

For the same reason David can't be listed as a King of Judah, because the Kingdom of Judah didn't exist yet. He was crowned King in Hebron over the Tribe of Judah who refused to submit to the authority of Saul's son. David folded the Tribe of Judah back into the Kingdom of Israel upon the Death of Saul's son. My proof? Solomon was crowned king of Israel, not Israel and Judah.

Redoubter · « **Reply #10 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:58:19 PM »

Quote from: Praeceps on May 07, 2012, 10:51:22 PM

That would be like saying that George III was a ruler of the United States because they were colonies of England before they revolted and split away. George III didn't rule the United States, he ruled over the 13 Colonies which became the United States. They are two separate political entities. Just because Saul ruled over the Nation of Israel which happened to include the tribe of Judah doesn't make him the king of Judah. The Kingdom of Judah and the Tribe of Judah are two different things, otherwise we could have Kings of Benjamin, Dan, Issachar, etc...

For the same reason David can't be listed as a King of Judah, because the Kingdom of Judah didn't exist yet. He was crowned King in Hebron over the Tribe of Judah who refused to submit to the authority of Saul's son. David folded the Tribe of Judah back into the Kingdom of Israel upon the Death of Saul's son. My proof? Solomon was crowned king of Israel, not Israel and Judah.

To the first paragraph, your example is very flawed. King George III was king of the British Americas. If we had split with a new throne but stayed a monarchy, he still would have been a King of British America. That he's not king of the US is a very different scenario, and, again, flawed logic.

The whole point of him being anointed king is that he was king of "Benjamin, Dan, Issachar, etc... ". They don't have any game-play influence, however, and can be disregarded for Redemption purposes. Saul was crowned king of all the tribes, not just 11.

On your second paragraph, that's like trying to say that various monarchs in British history who were crowned by different areas of the Isles in defiance of the rest were not monarchs of their regions. This is actually where the split of Judah from Israel occurred, so it is absolutely against scripture to say there was no Judah. They revolted and crowned David. He was King of Judah.

Again, either the Elders will have to rule this or you'll have to prove that they intended "country of Judah after they revolted and crowned David" and not "tribe of Judah" or "country of Judah", because it is not clarified any more tightly than "Judah".

Chris · « **Reply #11 on:** May 07, 2012, 11:12:39 PM »

I actually think the burden of proof falls on you, because the fact that King Saul and David aren't considered Kings of Judah for gameplay purposes suggests that those in charge during the printing of those cards agree with us, not you.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #12 on:** May 07, 2012, 11:13:15 PM »

"King of Judah" in Redemption has always meant "King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah" beginning with Rehoboam. David and Saul have never been ruled as Kings of Judah, and that is intentional.

Drrek · « **Reply #13 on:** May 07, 2012, 11:15:30 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 07, 2012, 11:13:15 PM

"King of Judah" in Redemption has always meant "King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah" beginning with Rehoboam. David and Saul have never been ruled as Kings of Judah, and that is intentional.

Types out a reply that what we really need is a definition of King of Judah, sees while you were typing a new reply was posted, post contains definition of King of Judah.

Redoubter · « **Reply #14 on:** May 07, 2012, 11:17:36 PM »

Chris, I understand that it has not been challenged but it is not defined is my point.

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 07, 2012, 11:13:15 PM

"King of Judah" in Redemption has always meant "King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah" beginning with Rehoboam. David and Saul have never been ruled as Kings of Judah, and that is intentional.

So we ignore II Samuel 5 where David is first crowned King of Judah, and that he ruled as King of Judah for seven and a half years because of gameplay purposes? Where did this come from, and why is this a case where scripture would be ignored?

Like I said before, I can at least vaguely see an argument against Saul, even though I vehemently disagree. David, however, was crowned as King of Judah, and his covenant with God had his descendents ever on its throne while God was obeyed. I can see no reason whatsoever for David to be denied as King of Judah.

As a side note, I've been researching online and have found no source that did not refer to both as "King of Unified Israel and Judah" or "King of Israel and King of Judah" in some way.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #15 on:** May 07, 2012, 11:22:18 PM »

Judah didn't exist until Rehoboam. Israel just shrunk at that time. They were Israelite Kings. Any reference to Judah is talking about the tribe, not the area (which was Judah and Benjamin).

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #16 on:** May 07, 2012, 11:22:35 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 07, 2012, 11:13:15 PM

"King of Judah" in Redemption has always meant "King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah" beginning with Rehoboam. David and Saul have never been ruled as Kings of Judah, and that is intentional.

P.S. I'm not ignoring II Sam 5, I just see that as talking about David being King of the tribe of Judah. I appreciate Redoubter's emphasis on Biblical accuracy. It's just in this case that there is a nuance of definitions that has previously been decided to be significant enough to make this ruling.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #17 on:** May 07, 2012, 11:29:26 PM »

When David was crowned King of Judah, that was the tribe of Judah, not the nation. They were different, as the Nation of Judah included the tribe of Benjamin as well. Trust me, this is ot the first time the issue has been raised, and a decision was made that King of Judah = King of Southern Kingdom, to the exclusion of David and Saul.

EDIT: Instaposted

Redoubter · « **Reply #18 on:** May 07, 2012, 11:30:31 PM »

To Prof Alstad: Search is down, otherwise I would have tried to find those threads first.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on May 07, 2012, 11:22:35 PM

P.S. I'm not ignoring II Sam 5, I just see that as talking about David being King of the tribe of Judah. I appreciate Redoubter's emphasis on Biblical accuracy. It's just in this case that there is a nuance of definitions that has previously been decided to be significant enough to make this ruling.

I still don't understand why, if Judah separated itself from the Kingdom of Israel for 7 and a half years and had David as their king, that they would not be a country at that point by this definition, and a separate Kingdom altogether. That's a long time for someone to be King without having a Kingdom. And no one was anointed King of Judah by God without Judah being a Kingdom.

If this is the ruling of the Elders, I will enforce it as always when a judge, but I again restate my vehement opposition to this definition as it is contrary to scripture.

Chris · « **Reply #19 on:** May 07, 2012, 11:35:19 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on May 07, 2012, 11:30:31 PM

To Prof Alstad: Search is down, otherwise I would have tried to find those threads first.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on May 07, 2012, 11:22:35 PM
P.S. I'm not ignoring II Sam 5, I just see that as talking about David being King of the tribe of Judah. I appreciate Redoubter's emphasis on Biblical accuracy. It's just in this case that there is a nuance of definitions that has previously been decided to be significant enough to make this ruling.

I still don't understand why, if Judah separated itself from the Kingdom of Israel for 7 and a half years and had David as their king, that they would not be a country at that point by this definition, and a separate Kingdom altogether. That's a long time for someone to be King without having a Kingdom. And no one was anointed King of Judah by God without Judah being a Kingdom.

If this is the ruling of the Elders, I will enforce it as always when a judge, but I again restate my vehement opposition to this definition as it is contrary to scripture.

It is not contrary to scripture. The "southern kingdom of Judah" and David's reign over the tribe of Judah are two completely separate things, and the ruling reflects that.

Redoubter · « **Reply #20 on:** May 07, 2012, 11:39:36 PM »

Quote from: Chris on May 07, 2012, 11:35:19 PM

It is not contrary to scripture. The "southern kingdom of Judah" and David's reign over the tribe of Judah are two completely separate things, and the ruling reflects that.

Did Judah have no lands while he was their King? And how was he anointed King without a Kingdom? Judah did control the southern lands, it was a Kingdom, and the scriptures even say that "he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years." (direct quote from II Samuel 5)

If Judah was not separate why separate it in what he was King over. If it was not separate, how did "he reigned over Judah seven years and six months". (direct quote from II Samuel 5)

All scriptural and scholarly evidence has David as a King of Judah, and I will always be against this ruling, even if I enforce it in-game because it has been ruled.

megamanlan · « **Reply #21 on:** May 08, 2012, 12:00:34 AM »

Just to note for all of you: the Country of Judah had two tribes in it: Judah and Benjamin.

I'm mixed on it, so I'll just watch and see the other arguments.

Redoubter · « **Reply #22 on:** May 08, 2012, 12:09:55 AM »

Quote from: megamanlan on May 08, 2012, 12:00:34 AM

Just to note for all of you: the Country of Judah had two tribes in it: Judah and Benjamin.

I'm mixed on it, so I'll just watch and see the other arguments.

For point 1, I've already addressed that and showed that it is biblically established that David was a King of Judah for seven years. It actually supports my argument that they were a separate country that two tribes went under "Judah".

On the second, there is no ruling question. I am very upset that the gameplay effect of this identifier supersedes biblical purity, but the Elders have already given the ruling.

Chris · « **Reply #23 on:** May 08, 2012, 12:16:37 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on May 08, 2012, 12:09:55 AM

On the second, there is no ruling question. I am very upset that the gameplay effect of this identifier supersedes biblical purity, but the Elders have already given the ruling.

Those of us that disagree with you have actually done an excellent job of backing up our beliefs as legitimate, just as you have yours, and the point of contention is that the powers-at-be have agreed with our side. To simply dismiss our arguments is nothing short of insulting.

Redoubter · « **Reply #24 on:** May 08, 2012, 12:27:03 AM »

Quote from: Chris on May 08, 2012, 12:16:37 AM

To simply dismiss our arguments is nothing short of insulting.

There are things that I would hold to be true and important in biblical accuracy. That David was a King of Judah and the Davidic Covenant that came of that is actually very important to the fulfilling of prophecies through the end of Judah and beyond to Jesus' lineage. And I have every right to be upset about this ruling, disagreement or no.

To dismiss my statement that the tribes of Benjamin and Judah declared David their King over the Kingdom of Judah, when I back this up with scripture, could be said to be equally insulting. But I'm not insulted, I'm disappointed. Mostly because I've seen no scriptural evidence to support the ruling, only debate over what is a nation, a tribe, a country, etc., and it seems to be implied that gameplay reasons dictate this ruling.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #25 on:** May 08, 2012, 12:50:42 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on May 07, 2012, 11:39:36 PM

Did Judah have no lands while he was their King? And how was he anointed King without a Kingdom?

It is possible for a group of people to call their leader a king without that group of people being recognized by the international community as a kingdom. I could call myself the king of my science lab. However, that doesn't make my science lab a kingdom.

Quote from: Redoubter on May 08, 2012, 12:27:03 AM

There are things that I would hold to be true and important in biblical accuracy. That David was a King of Judah and the Davidic Covenant that came of that is actually very important to the fulfilling of prophecies through the end of Judah and beyond to Jesus' lineage.

I'm all for Biblical accuracy as well (as anyone who knows me well can attest). Can you explain how saying that "David was a king of Israel in the lineage of the tribe of Judah" is insufficient for backing up any Biblical prophecy?

STAMP · « **Reply #26 on:** May 08, 2012, 11:52:46 AM »

When it comes to Biblical accuracy, I Am the King.

That being said, unfortunately, Redoubter, there are instances where the gameplay definition becomes more redefined than what Bibloids would expect. Would I prefer it to be different? In almost all cases, yes. However, based on the definition the Elders are using, Saul and David cannot be kings of Judah.

Do I believe the Elders use this process of "redefinition" to get around the inflexibility of the Bible?

Ummm....I hope not!

SirNobody · « **Reply #27 on:** May 08, 2012, 11:55:04 AM »

Hey,

Quote from: Redoubter on May 07, 2012, 10:19:45 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on May 07, 2012, 10:17:51 PM
You would have to provide proof that Redemption defines King of Judah as anything but the country of Judah, of which there is no current proof (also I can't access to REG for some reason).

Nope, I would not. It would have to be defined by the Elders because it is not currently defined.

As an aside to this topic, the "burden of proof" is always on the side of change in Redemption. If the status quo establishes something to be a certain way the "burden of proof" is always on the party wishing to change the status quo.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

megamanlan · « **Reply #28 on:** May 08, 2012, 11:57:50 AM »

I think the Elders just don't want to claim someone to be a king before the country was founded.
My only question would be, why isn't Reheoboam King of Isreal and Judah, since he ruled both at one time or another.

Chris · « **Reply #29 on:** May 08, 2012, 01:03:01 PM »

The problem is that, while Redoubter is technically correct, the "King of Judah" identifier is referring to a different nation, if the tribe that David ruled over before being anointed king over all Israel can even be considered a nation at all. As everyone else has noted, it's referring specifically to the southern kingdom that split off from the northern kingdom of Israel after Solomon's death. While they might share the same name and tribe, they should still (in my opinion) be considered different nations for Redemption purposes, because they were, in fact, different nations.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #30 on:** May 08, 2012, 01:52:11 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on May 08, 2012, 11:57:50 AM

I think the Elders just don't want to claim someone to be a king before the country was founded.
My only question would be, why isn't Reheoboam King of Isreal and Judah, since he ruled both at one time or another.

Interesting point; his tenure as King over unified Israel was incredibly short-lived (a matter of days, really) but he was in fact King over unified Israel. I'd say it's an interesting argument to be sure.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #31 on:** May 08, 2012, 02:00:49 PM »

Side battle awesomeness and be able to GoJ a hero? Me like.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #32 on:** May 08, 2012, 02:13:04 PM »

Quote from: Wings of Music on May 08, 2012, 02:00:49 PM

Side battle awesomeness and be able to GoJ a hero? Me like.

That's always been possible. Using Rehoboam with Gates of Samaria, on the other hand...

Wings of Music · « **Reply #33 on:** May 08, 2012, 02:18:03 PM »

I guess the point got across despite my efforts to prevent it.

megamanlan · « **Reply #34 on:** May 08, 2012, 06:30:28 PM »

I would think that Rehoboam should be a King of Isreal since there are other kings in the game noted as Kings of a country even though they lasted about a month as King. (I am trying to remember the King off-hand, but it slips my mind at the moment.)

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #35 on:** May 08, 2012, 06:44:54 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on May 08, 2012, 06:30:28 PM

I would think that Rehoboam should be a King of Isreal since there are other kings in the game noted as Kings of a country even though they lasted about a month as King. (I am trying to remember the King off-hand, but it slips my mind at the moment.)

Like King Zimri? 2 Weeks, I believe. He's an Israelite King.

Or maybe Emperor Otho or Emperor Galba or Emperor Vittalleus? Less than a year. Still Emperors.

megamanlan · « **Reply #36 on:** May 08, 2012, 07:47:43 PM »

Yea all of them.

Praeceps · « **Reply #37 on:** May 08, 2012, 11:04:18 PM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on May 08, 2012, 06:44:54 PM

Quote from: megamanlan on May 08, 2012, 06:30:28 PM
I would think that Rehoboam should be a King of Isreal since there are other kings in the game noted as Kings of a country even though they lasted about a month as King. (I am trying to remember the King off-hand, but it slips my mind at the moment.)
Like King Zimri? 2 Weeks, I believe. He's an Israelite King.

Or maybe Emperor Otho or Emperor Galba or Emperor Vittalleus? Less than a year. Still Emperors.

I believe Zimri was only one week.

1 Kings 16:15 In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign seven days in Tirzah. And the people were encamped against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines.

And Rheboam does deserve the King of Israel identifier. After all he was the fourth, and last, king to rule the united kingdom.

galadgawyn · « **Reply #38 on:** May 09, 2012, 02:37:24 AM »

I think the problem here is that there are different entities that share the same name and different political entities in the same territory. Like the different Babylonian Empires or the different French or English Kingdoms.

Jefferson Davis was president of the Confederate States; Lincoln and other presidents before and after ruled over the same territory and people, does that mean they were presidents of the Confederate States also? They both ruled over Georgia. What if the South won the Civil War? The North would continue to call itself the U.S.A but it wouldn't be the same country.

Does any Egyptian King count as a king of every kingdom that ruled there throughout history? Now in a history class they use different terms to differentiate the different kingdoms. I think in this case, Redemption is going for simplicity.

That is, I don't think they are really saying that David was not a King of Judah in some sense but rather when they want to refer to "a ruler of the Southern Kingdom after the split with Reheboam" they use the term "King of Judah" for simplicity. For comparison, during his reign Solomon ruled over Moab, Edom, Syria, etc. but I don't think he would count as a king of those. With limited terminology and space on cards, Redemption can't possibly cover all the complexities of history.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #39 on:** May 09, 2012, 04:30:51 AM »

However it is funny that (a converted) David isn't protected by Gates of Jerusalem but is protected by Gates of Samaria, since he ruled from Jerusalem and Samaria wasn't even founded until much later.

STAMP · « **Reply #40 on:** May 09, 2012, 11:45:42 AM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on May 09, 2012, 04:30:51 AM

However it is funny that (a converted) David isn't protected by Gates of Jerusalem but is protected by Gates of Samaria, since he ruled from Jerusalem and Samaria wasn't even founded until much later.

megamanlan · « **Reply #41 on:** May 09, 2012, 12:40:52 PM »

I think we already decided on why David is not a Judean King, but now we are discussing with Rehoboam is not an Isrealite King.

News:

Author Topic: Saul and David not listed as Kings of Judah? (Read 6558 times)

Chris

Chris

Chris

Warrior_Monk

Chris

Chris

Chris

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk