It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

King David incited by Satan or Yawhve? or both?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
First Chronicles 21
Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, “Go, number Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, and bring me a report, that I may know their number.”

Second Samuel 24
Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” 2 So the king said to Joab, the commander of the army, who was with him, “Go through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and number the people, that I may know the number of the people”

Same story with a different character or the same character? What your take ATS'ers.




posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
These are two different authors that recorded different descriptions of the same event. As for the later version written in Chronicles, Ezra, who is the accepted author of Chronicles, most likely viewed God as being the 'bad guy' in the situation to be silly and wrote instead that satan was most likely the culprit. Given the context of Hebraic ideology at the time, it is unlikely that he viewed them as equals of any sort either, which rules out the possibility of any hidden agenda or mistake being made to try and hide the foolish notion that they are one and the same.

For further reading: Samuel and Chronicles, biblical contradiction?



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Septimus
You do see how the average person might be confused though, right? The bible makes two different statements about the same incident. It doesn't do much for those who claim biblical inerrancy.


edit on 11/14/2014 by Klassified because: how, not where



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

The average person doesn't go looking for these kinds of contradictions though, and probably never would have noticed this unless they were specifically looking for a screw up somewhere. It's an old contradiction, and has been parroted, explained, and argued for years.

edit on 14-11-2014 by Septimus because: added more



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Septimus
a reply to: Klassified

The average person doesn't go looking for these kinds of contradictions either.


You are quite right average people will read these texts and will not realize the contradiction. However I have to point something out (I'm just assuming). Every King had a scribe to put in paper anything he says or decreed.
There is supposed to be only one valid document. Just thinking.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Septimus
a reply to: Klassified

The average person doesn't go looking for these kinds of contradictions though, and probably never would have noticed this unless they were specifically looking for a screw up somewhere. It's an old contradiction, and has been parroted, explained, and argued for years.

This is true, but the average person might just run across a thread like this. My point being, the explanation of this isn't near as important as the fact it is there in the first place.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego
Neither Kings nor Chronicles are the original court chronicles.
They are both histories written later using the original chronicles and other material, and they even say so.They keep saying "You will find more details about this reign in the original chronicles of the kings", which no longer exist.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

Can you explain both? Why there is a contradictory text about the same incident? And how it pass the scrutiny of the people that arrange the bible as we know it today?



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego
The two accounts were written by two people with two different viewpoints.
The inconsistency shows how much the people who collected and arranged the Bible respected the material they found, because they did not make a point of going through it all and harmonising everything to one viewpoint.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Abednego
Neither Kings nor Chronicles are the original court chronicles.
They are both histories written later using the original chronicles and other material, and they even say so.They keep saying "You will find more details about this reign in the original chronicles of the kings", which no longer exist.



Nicely done.
So we have 2 versions made using the original and now lost chronicle. One book is the authorized version, the other the unauthorized version. Which one is true?

(Just adding to the debate)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego
It really comes down to the individual christian, and how they believe. You have those who believe the bible is infallible, and therefore, there are no errors or contradictions in it. Then you have those who believe the bible is inspired, and god didn't try to micro-manage it, because it was unnecessary to accomplish his goals.

For the first group, this contradiction, among many others in scripture poses a problem. Especially for those who only believe the majority text, which the KJV is based on, is the inerrant word of god.
For the second group, it poses no problem at all, because the core message of the bible is intact. Even a thousand contradictions doesn't change "God's" message to us.

So both DISRAELI and Septimus are correct from their respective postion.


edit on 11/14/2014 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Abednego
The two accounts were written by two people with two different viewpoints.
The inconsistency shows how much the people who collected and arranged the Bible respected the material they found, because they did not make a point of going through it all and harmonising everything to one viewpoint.



If that was the case then they should have included all the Apocrypha, since - "the people who collected and arranged the Bible respected the material they found, because they did not make a point of going through it all and harmonizing everything to one viewpoint."



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego
Wearing my "student of history" hat, I would say Samuel-Kings was more reliable most of the time.
For one thing, the consensus would be that it was written earlier.
Chronicles was probably written during the time of Exile. It takes Samuel-Kings as its basis, often using the same wording, but also adds things. Some of the "new" material looks like information from the original chronicles which Kings did not bother to use, so Chronicles may be more informative about the later kings.
Other "new" material is rather tendentious, presenting a more "priestly" viewpoint. A good example is the story which pushes back to David's time the preparations for the building of the Temple.
There is a real contradiction in their stories of the succession to David, which is a panic-driven political crisis in 1 Kings (see my thread later tonight) and a calm, peaceful handover in 1 Chronicles. The version I believe is the one in Kings.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Abednego
It really comes down to the individual christian, and how they believe. You have those who believe the bible is infallible, and therefore, there are no errors or contradictions in it. Then you have those who believe the bible is inspired, and god didn't try to micro-manage it, because it was unnecessary to accomplish his goals.

For the first group, this contradiction, among many others in scripture poses a problem. Especially for those who only believe the majority text, which the KJV is based on, is the inerrant word of god.
For the second group, it poses no problem at all, because the core message of the bible is intact. Even a thousand contradictions doesn't change "God's" message to us.

So both DISRAELI and Septimus are correct from their respective postion.



Nice answer. Your right on that one.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I share the same answer, since Samuel-Kings is the older one, is the one that should be more reliable.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Two different worlds. the right and left side of reality. this duality is found throughout the bible. Many times the names are close but not the same.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego

Chronicles is newer and reflects a differentiated view of God that is more in line with the New Testament which claims God is only good. Whereas the OT often shows God as an angry vengeful tribal deity. The view of Gods nature had evolved by chronicles as they began to recognize a difference between God stand Satan. In kings they viewed the acts of satan as coming from God. Jesus and his apostles consistently railed against this view of god as two faced causing both good and evil. And the works of satan are clearly laid out separately from the works of god in the NT for the first time.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Abednego
The two accounts were written by two people with two different viewpoints.
The inconsistency shows how much the people who collected and arranged the Bible respected the material they found, because they did not make a point of going through it all and harmonising everything to one viewpoint.



So, in other words, one of the accounts is inaccurate. Meaning, there is an error in the Bible?



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: new_here
I have never been one of those people who claim "There is no error in the Bible".
I don't think that's how the Bible works.
So that line of attack is being wasted on the wrong person.






edit on 15-11-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Abednego

originally posted by: Septimus
a reply to: Klassified

The average person doesn't go looking for these kinds of contradictions either.


You are quite right average people will read these texts and will not realize the contradiction. However I have to point something out (I'm just assuming). Every King had a scribe to put in paper anything he says or decreed.
There is supposed to be only one valid document. Just thinking.


Satan was creared by Yahweh. It is His lower nature. All of us have a beast to overcome. When Yahweh hung on a cross as Christ, the beast was sacrificed to allow the Son to rise again as a new creation. Christ was baptized as a man for this purpose, as are we all.

The temple sacrifice burns the beast. Water cleanses the temple. Baptism is for this purpose and is symolism for the flood. God's image is man. He uses the image to see himself. We see ourselves as the image rises. Fire burns upward. Yeast makes bread rise. Water evaporates and distills upward. Alchemy transforms in a process.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join