We have discussed ad infinitum in a prior post and thread the utter irrelevance of this Samuel quotation that referred to a call for vengeance for events that occurred four centuries before the timeframe in which the quote itself is cited. Quite apart from the utter disingenuous nature of this line of reasoning it exposes a form of interpretation bereft of scholarship.
This quote was inserted to reflect that even a God may have an unfettered vengeance for a tribe that killed another innocent tribe. Indeed, one does not have to go to Samuel. The Book of Exodus speaks of every first born being killed as the Angel of Death “passed-over” the homes of Jewish slaves.
Without a serious study of Old Testament sources, a clipboard cut and paste job of disparate quotes is as relevant as a colloquy in the Hindu Gita where a re-incarnated god called Krishna who takes the form of a disguised charioteer and who, not unlike the mythical Zeus, demands a massacre of another warring faction for their evil deeds. Release the Kracken.
When you say that a quote was inserted, what do you mean? Inserted by whom?
And if so, what’s the guarantee that the rest were not “inserted”? Blind faith?
In the Gita, were children and infants selected for slaughter, specifically by human effort?
As for kraken, did you watch the movie? If so, how was it?
:^)