King David incited by Satan or Yawhve? or both?

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.

Yeah whats the point in attempting to confirm or verify two separate accounts of such apparent importance?

Instead you can have two vague and inconsistent accounts and have people conjure up a contrived explanation....its the best way to truth, no matter what 'cap' you're wearing.

a reply to: Prezbo369
I refer you to the answer I gave new_here.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Prezbo369
I refer you to the answer I gave new_here.

I'm very aware of how you think the bible works, I just pointed out how ridiculous that thinking is.

Is this how truth is determined? take to contradictory accounts and proclaim they are both true?....

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Is this how truth is determined? take to contradictory accounts and proclaim they are both true?....

Do you mean "two"?
Let me explain;
"To" means "in the direction of".
"Too" means "excessive".
"Two" is the number.

At no point have I ever proclaimed that they are both equally true.
I refer you to the answer I gave Abednego, when he asked me which one I believed.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Do you mean "two"?
Let me explain;
"To" means "in the direction of".
"Too" means "excessive".
"Two" is the number.

Haha yes! good one!

It was an error for sure, and what with you belonging to a long line of 'teachers' i'm certain you picked it up immediately. However i'm also sure that pointing out such a typo is merely your frustration showing. That or you've suddenly become a grammar Nazi, I don't know which.

At no point have I ever proclaimed that they are both equally true.
I refer you to the answer I gave Abednego, when he asked me which one I believed.

No you defended the obvious with:

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 they didn't bother to check what they later claim was written/inspired by a god and so could be misinterpreted massively?

Why would you or anyone else place any kind of trust in a collection of stories about stories that was compiled in such a loose and dopey fashion?

originally posted by: DISRAELI
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.

Disraeli,
I'm truly sorry that came off sounding like an attack. I re-read it, and I do see how you got there. I am confused that some say the Bible is the Word of God, and yet I have through the years found passages that seemed to contradict other passages. I only seek to understand; my questions were sincere but poorly worded. Let me try again:

In your opinion, are one of those accounts inaccurate (instead of being easily explained away) indicating an error within the Bible in that instance?

Here, have a on me.

originally posted by: new_here
In your opinion, are one of those accounts inaccurate (instead of being easily explained away) indicating an error within the Bible in that instance?

If we're talking about the two histories in general, I gave my opinion there in my last 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.

In other words, the true account of "what happened when David died" is more likely to be the one in Kings, so in that respect Chronicles is certainly "in error".
On the specific case mentioned in the OP, I think Septimus and Zardust have explained how it came to be viewed from different viewpoints.

Since my understanding of the Bible doesn't rest on "biblical inerrancy", the discovery of "contradictions" doesn't create a problem.
The anti-religious trolls of the world hate that.
They actually WANT Christians to believe in biblical inerrancy, because that makes them easier targets.
So if that position is discarded, they get annoyed and frustrated and start frothing at the mouth.

I don't put my trust in the detailed accuracy of the stories.
I put my trust in the Biblical God and find him in the stories.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
I don't put my trust in the detailed accuracy of the stories.
I put my trust in the Biblical God and find him in the stories.

Lol what?

You don't trust the detailed accuracy of the stories, you just trust the claims made within the stories about a god anyway......irrationality is par for the course with your beliefs.

I would just stick to pointing out typos and calling people trolls if I were you...

Just for knowledge I'm a Christian, I do believe in GOD.
I was raised a Christian, I did a lot of work at my church. I was a teacher at Sunday school. I used to preach. The thing was, that at that moment it looks that I was on my way to take charge of the church. Until one day based on that possibility I asked GOD for wisdom. From that moment things started to change. Up to the point that I had to leave the church (some may say that it was devil that made leave, but it took me a while, like 2 years or so, to realize it wasn't the devil). During that period I kept studying the bible (and a whole lot of others books). Up to this day.

Now, the thing about the bible is that it was edited during the Nicaea Council, those people there wanted to have something they can manipulate (that is why the bible has some very general argument, that can be apply to almost any occasion). In the other hand the bible was not supposed to be read by the common person. For that, they made the catechism. That is why the bible if full of contradictions, that eventually I'm going to be asking for your opinion (just for the debate and not for the purpose of questioning god).

a reply to: Abednego

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

Samuel's numbering was recorded as older than that of the Chronicles (Ezra) and both are believed to be authored by two men. Samuel authored 1st and 2nd Samuel as one complete work while Ezra authored 1st and 2nd Chronicles as one complete work but this is argued by scholars so it is not written in stone. The way that I believe is that two men from years apart authored their accounts of the history of the Hebrews from their own sources.

I did note that Samuel's account had 30,000 more men of Judah then that of Ezra and that this difference could have been that Samuel counted Benjamin as part of Israel at that time but that Ezra did not count the 30,000m men as part of Judah. Now if you take that 30,000 men and apply it to Ezra's account you will see that the numbers are not skewed.

Samuel (Samuel)
Israel 800,000
Judah 500,000

Ezra (Chronicles)
Israel 1,100,000
Judah 470,000

Now take the 30,000 men from Ezra's Israel and move it to Ezra's Judah and you will see the balance of the census.
Why? Because Ezra's sources did not recognize that Benjamin stayed with Judah when the nation split whereas Samuel took into account that Benjamin was part of Judah. It was a matter of how the historian wanted to recognize Benjamin in the historic accounts. In one sense Judah is considered the tribe of Judah and in another sense Judah is considered as a nation divided from Israel. In one sense Benjamin is a tribe that belongs with the nation Israel and in another sense Benjamin separated from Israel and belongs with Judah. So as you can see that both accounts are intended to be accurate by their authors and leaves the reader to judge in their own understanding.

a reply to: Abednego

That is why the bible if full of contradictions, that eventually I'm going to be asking for your opinion (just for the debate and not for the purpose of questioning god).

Most bibles have been edited that is for sure and there may be some very puzzling questions to be answered but that is not to say that most are not man made puzzles. Anything a human attempts to accomplish will not be perfect and an error on the part of men should not detract the entirety of the work.

The first century Jewish Christians are an example of how change can become corrupt. Once these people were persecuted and destroyed and their faith restructured into the mess we have today will undoubtedly show you that we need to return to the first century structure of Christianity. Christianity today is mocked because of ignorance. Not stupidness but simply ignorance.

Throughout most of the NT you can note that much of it is written in ignorance of the doctrine of Christ Jesus. Actually it can be regarded as a transition between rabbinic teachings and the teachings of Jesus. Most people are not aware of this when they read the NT. The NT comprises of authors who in their time were born and raised with the rabbinical doctrine and had to be taught (even unto death) the doctrine of Christ Jesus. Most who wrote their letters were not aware of the entire picture and in fact had no idea that the kingdom of heaven (God) was the New Jerusalem. It was not revealed to them till most all had died and John received this knowledge in Revelation from Christ Jesus. Actually all died in Faith.

So what is my point? My point is that there may seem to be a contradiction and in fact is a contradiction but not in the doctrine of Christ Jesus. The contradiction lies between the camps of Jesus and the rabbis while the authors of these letters were not privy to the differences. They did not scribe these letters with the intent that we should put them in a book and nit pick every word as superior to all truth. Man did that deed all by themselves and man is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Read the historicity and intent of the authors and you will then have a greater picture of the kingdom of heaven.

a reply to: Septimus

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.

I don't believe that to be the case at all.

From the onset of the Hebrews becoming a nation God was against it. This particular happening of the census was to satisfy David’s ego which was to show just how great he had become. David was not humble and did not rely upon God to be his strength in this particular case. Instead he took this census to compare his throne with other nations. He was on an ego trip from a little man under Saul to a king of Judah and now the king of all twelve tribes of Israel. From a humble beginning to the leader of the known world would become pride and delusional grandeur. Those qualities are against God’s nature and are sin. In anger God moved against Israel and allowed a Satan to punish Israel.

Note that 1st Chronicles (Ezra) states that Satan stood up against Israel. You must remember that the Hebrews did not accept the idea of Satan as do the NT Christians of today. To their mindset Satan was a good angel that only obeyed the commands of God and angels could not sin or trespass the commands of God. When a Christian reads this they have a different mindset than that of a Jew. The Christian looks upon Satan as evil with the intent to destroy God's creation. A Jew who reads this believes that angels cannot sin or trespass God’s perfect will. So 2nd Samuel is saying that the anger of God was directed against Israel while 1st Chronicles states that God’s angel stood up against Israel to do God's will. To the Jewish mind this is a historical accurate account with no controversy whatsoever. The controversy lies with the Christian mind that does not understand the Hebrew mind.

a reply to: Seede

I recall God not wanting man to have kings, and gave ample warning against them.

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day; with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods; so they are doing to you also."

I think this is where man began the steady fall from grace and being close to God (at least as close as they could be in those times). Thank you for the summation, that makes sense. The mentioning of Persian influence at the time had me confused. It's tempting to believe that their dualistic perspectives had an impact on Ezra, but I believe he held his faith, especially when you consider the Hebrew word of 'Satan' meaning to 'obstruct or oppose/an adversary.' It would make more sense that an angel carry out the punishment of God rather than have God Himself come down and punish David.