Why did King David take orders from Satan…???

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

See this is why I find the demiurge concept to be much easier to believe then the OT god being the Father..

It.. contradicts itself at every turn...

Gives a command then breaks it...

Kills anything and anyone without compunction...

Jealous, Wrathful, envious, deceitful... and a stack of other things which are straight up evil/wicked

Then Christians turn around and say "well we don't know the mind of God" ...

Except we do through his son... Oh...

When it comes down to it... the OT god is clearly...OBVIOUSLY not The Father...

So were left with either a false god posing as the Father and people just didn't realise it...

Or a fabrication of men with agenda's...

a reply to: Rex282

Nice post.

Colossians 2
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.

What is it that charged us with legal debt? The OT law, it is what stood against us and condemned us. Who set the OT law in place? Yahweh. He set up a law that was opposed to us.

This must mean that Yahweh is Satan, the one who opposes and condemns us, which is why one author calls him LORD and the other Satan. The "LORD" of the OT was actually Satan (the adversary) in disguise.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Originally posted by DISRAELI
These are two different ways of saying "the idea came from somewhere, and it was a bad one".
Chronicles was compiled at a somewhat later time, when people were more prone to attributing bad ideas to Satan.

Hmmm…but in one context, from verse (2 Samuel 24:1) one would have to assume the Lord’s anger against Israel was a righteous one, that made David act etc…

But if (1 Chronicles 21:1) is a re-written parallel verse, as two posters have already suggested, then how can Satan's name be attached to something which is meant to be righteous, in comparison to the original verse…?

I believe there are a few possible answers to this question…what do you think…?

- JC

a reply to: r0xor

Originally posted by rOxer
David didn't mention it; he didn't write Chronicles. Some other guy wrote Chronicles based on the historical teachings/sayings of David that were passed to him at that point, which may have only been as old as one or more generations.

But Christians believe Jesus words were handed down through spoken word of mouth to his Disciples, and they believe by faith that He originally spoke the words found in NT. So it’s the same parallel, in that someone wrote down David’s words, and believers take it on faith, that they are indeed, reading David's original words…

But either way, those words in Chronicles, were believed to be the word of one of Gods prophets i.e. King David…

Originally posted by rOxer
What you're quoting is the same story written differently at different times by different people. Samuel says it's the Lord's anger, while Chronicles says Satan rose against. Samuel is the older book of the two, and Chronicles is a summary of other books that come before it, in addition to some extra information.

But if it’s a retelling of the same story, then it’s a big leap to go from the sacred name of God i.e. Yahweh/Jehovah, too Satan!!! That’s a BIG name change…

Originally posted by rOxer
If your enemy rises up against you, your enemy would technically be inciting you also. Incitement = rising up against

Yes I agree, and I mentioned this in my OP; problem is, this explanation only fits the Chronicles verse on it’s own, in that an enemy, is inciting you to do something against it’s evil ways etc…

But that just doesn’t fit the (2 Samuel 24:1) because the Lord is not the enemy, or at least he shouldn’t be!!!

And if (1 Chronicles 21:1) is a retelling of the original 2 Samuel 24:1 verse, then it still doesn’t fit…

Originally posted by rOxer
If Satan rose against Israel, it would stir the Lord's anger.
…
…
…

I see what your saying but again this explanation only fits, 1 Chronicles 21:1, verse on it’s own, but seeing as that verse is a retelling of the first i.e. 2 Samuel 24:1, it doesn’t fit….because…

…In verse 2 Samuel 24:1, the Lords anger, burned AGIANST ISREAL!…and not some outside Evil…so key elements of the story are changing…as I’ll describe further down…

One verse states Satan i.e. an outside evil, rose against Israel, and the other verse states, it was the LORDS anger, which rose against Israel, and seeing as one is a retelling of the other, it just doesn’t quite fit IMO…

You see, in the original verse, the Lord is angry at Israel, presumably for doing nothing against the evil, which is taking place, hence the call and incitement to do something about it…

But in the 1 Chronicles verse, the focus gets shifted to being about Satan and the evil outside, which is what incites David, to do something about it…

But that’s not an exact retelling of the original, because the Lord is left out of the picture…and also, it leaves you wondering who called for, or incited the need for the census, was it Satan i.e. the evil taking place outside, or the Lord God…


You see, key element of the story have changed, in one it’s recognising the evil outside which calls/incites David into action, but in the original, it’s the LORD God who incites the census…of course it could be both, but the story has ultimately changed, because the Lord has been taken out of the picture, in the retelling version…


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft
I went through all this in the exchanges with another poster.
My response was "Two different people had two different ways of understanding and describing where an idea came from."
Since I don't hold myself bound to a literalistic view of inspiration, the fact that two authors understand the same thing differently is no big deal.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Or there is a third possibility - David said it was a divine mandate to cover for his own wrongdoing. The first author chronicled it as the "Lord's" will when it was merely David's and this is what got him into hot water with God later on, attributing his own selfish actions to God's will. The second author comes along and figures that it must have been Satan leading David astray and writes it that way.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I went through all this in the exchanges with another poster.
My response was "Two different people had two different ways of understanding and describing where an idea came from."
Since I don't hold myself bound to a literalistic view of inspiration, the fact that two authors understand the same thing differently is no big deal.

No offense intended, but that’s a very simplistic view IMO;

Aren’t you in the least bit curious and to how such a change came about and why? And additionally, there are not many other examples of the Lord, being changed to Satan…

See my reply to rOxer above…

- JC

Never mind that incongruity... why do these mystical, (allegedly) omnipotent and almost omnipotent beings need man to 'take a census at all?'

a reply to: Joecroft
It came about because the idea of Satan had been developed ("accuser" leading into "tempter"), and people did not think it appropriate to make God the source of bad ideas, so responsibility was transferred to Satan.
This would have been about the time of the Exile, when Chronicles was compiled, which gives a reason for thinking that Job dates from the same time.

David's conscious belief, at the time he made the census, would have been that the idea came from his own mind.
2 Samuel and Chronicles offer two different ways of saying there was more to it than that, and he should not have done it.
Neither version, incidentally, claims to have been written by David himself.

a reply to: ketsuko

So the first instance isn't inspired by God but the second is? Again, this still leaves an author attributing the actions of Satan to God. You can't deny that, it's right there to be read by all. Satan's actions are attributed to God, why would God allow Satan's actions to be attributed to him?

You keep looking over that glaring fact for some reason.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Well, those who put the bible together like to flaunt the truth right in front of us. I believe these two verses are parallel to one another, describing the same event. One says God, the other says Satan, this implies to me that the god of the OT is actually Satan, this was intentional.

Yeah,…it just too similar, to not be a re-written paralleled verse…

But to go from LORD God i.e. Yahweh/Jehovah, too Satan, is a BIG STEP…even if someone was rewriting it, from the their own perspective, it either shows some real truth IMO, or it distorts key elements of the original…

Now assuming like you say, that the LORD was secretly Satan, it would be a pretty bad move, to put that out into the open…why would anyone do that…?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
It's almost as if those who CAN see it are being told "look how brainwashed we have these people, we say it in plain words yet they still refuse to accept or see it." That's the sign of a sociopath. The god of the OT was a sociopath, which is why he mirrors the actions of them.

But don’t you see it in a different way? in that men hid the truth about the one true God; and that all the manipulation and evil atrocities committed in the OT etc… was really done by men, abusing the Name of God…

I can see it clearly now, and understand exactly what is going on between those 2 verses ( I know, big claim), I think there is only one truth to it IMO, which no one has posted yet!

And that truth is closely connected to the real reason why the sacred name of God was removed from the OT…to help hide the real truth…a truth that I believe, you’re already aware of…

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
S&F Good to see you back around brother. I've been missing your input here lately

I was on last night, and noticed you’ve been on a mission from God lol lately…

Anyway, Thanks bro…feels good to be back!

- JC

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

God didn't tell David to hold a census? It's right there saying God did tell him to in 2 Samuel.

The NASB puts it differently:

1 Now again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

God was angry with Israel for whatever Satan had tempted them with, and David held the census on his own authority. God did not tell him to take a census. Why would David apologize if God told him to do it? God didnt give any such order. You need to read the rest of the chapter for context.

How many times will the bible haters beat this long dead horse?

a reply to: DISRAELI

Originally posted by DISRAELI
It came about because the idea of Satan had been developed ("accuser" leading into "tempter"), and people did not think it appropriate to make God the source of bad ideas, so responsibility was transferred to Satan.

But God isn’t the bad one in the original, God is righteous in the original version, for inciting David and Israel to make a stand against the evil…

Although perhaps, like you say, people saw it differently later on…but how and why?, would be my question…

Originally posted by DISRAELI
David's conscious belief, at the time he made the census, would have been that the thought came from his own mind.
2 Samuel and Chronicles offer two different ways of saying there was more to it than that, and he should not have done it.

“came from his own mind”,

So No Lord God or Satan directing his incitement, it was King David all along….


Thanks for your input….


- JC

originally posted by: Joecroft
But God isn’t the bad one in the original, God is righteous in the original version, for inciting David and Israel to make a stand against the evil…

In the 2 Samuel version, God's anger "had been kindled" against Israel.
In other words, he was already motivated to punish them for other reasons, and chose to do so by inciting them to carry out a further offence. The thought may have been that this would bring about a more obvious link between sin and penalty.

"It came from his own mind" So No Lord God or Satan directing his incitement, it was King David all along….

I did say that this was his conscious belief.
Being a modern person, you know very well that people's decisions may be influenced by things of which they are not conscious.
That leaves plenty of room for unconscious influence from either God or Satan.

I just want to add this thought to my OP…

I think it’s fair to state that the 1 Chronicles 21:1 verse is a rewritten version of the original 2 Samuel 24:1 verse…

But here’s the thing that I wanted to highlight, Changing the Name YHWH to Satan, even if it was just giving extra information about David’s thoughts and actions, as some posters have pointed out etc… is a HUGE thing nonetheless …

I mean, where talking about the sacred name of God here, being changed to Satan…this is not something scribes/believers should have taken lightly…


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

I mean, where talking about the sacred name of God here, being changed to Satan…this is not something scribes/believers should have taken lightly…

We don't have to take it in any way, because it isn't happening.

No, it is NOT about changing the name of YHWH to Satan.
It is about transferring responsibility for the suggestion from God to someone completely different.

I have just recorded "A shot in the dark" and I'm in the middle of watching it.
One detective thinks the maid Maria did the murder.
But Clouseau thinks her employer Monsieur Ballon did it.
That does not mean that he is "changing the name" of Maria to "Monsieur Ballon".
It just means that he is transferring the finger of suspicion from one person to another.

2 Samuel and Chronicles are NOT using different names for the same individual.
They are using two different names because they blaming two different individuals.

a reply to: Rex282

Originally posted by Rex282
The word satan mean adversary.It is not an “evil spiritual being” that is at war with the creator God.When something is in opposition and stand against it is satan.The concept of satan as an evil spiritual being is the invention of mans religion and is the root.

The ludicrous events that the Israelites and Jews chronicled in the Tanakh scriptures is a testimony against them.In effect the creator God was many times satan to them.The term satan has a perspective of anything against and in opposition .

For example..The religious carnal mind is at enmity and is against the creator.It is the “seat/throne ”(synagogue) of satan.A diabolo (translated devil or demon) is a channel something moves through.The religious carnal mind concocts a plethora of phantoms to shift blame on.

These satans are all religious patsies people foist blame on for things and events that go against them.It is impossible to convince anyone that that are only “jousting with windmills”.It is the epitome of foolishness to believe a creator God has a true enemy.The only war between satan and the creator God is going on between the ears of man in their religious mind.There is a sure loser in that war that is already lost but does not know it.

That was an awesome post…and there is much truth in it…well said…

The only thing I disagree with, is that God does have an enemy, which is the Anti Christ, i.e. that which goes against the light of Gods truth; runs in opposition too it etc…but I guess I must be foolish…


Peace…


- JC

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

So the first instance isn't inspired by God but the second is? Again, this still leaves an author attributing the actions of Satan to God. You can't deny that, it's right there to be read by all. Satan's actions are attributed to God, why would God allow Satan's actions to be attributed to him?

You keep looking over that glaring fact for some reason.

There are two accounts of one instance. One author used God. The other used Satan.

I gave you a third possibility to your two - David said, "God made me." When it was always his own action/sin. The first author chronicled that dutifully as though David did not lie. The second chronicler said that Satan did it to illustrate that David lied.

How you can trust David as an infallible source when he arranged for one his own subordinates to die so that he could marry the man's wife with whom he was already having an affair ... Well, let's just say it makes David an unreliable source.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Originally posted by DISRAELI
We don't have to take it in any way, because it isn't happening.

Of course it isn’t happening, but it happened one way or the other, in the past…

And what do you mean, you don’t have to take it any way; that approach leaves us nowhere, as to what actually happened…

Originally posted by DISRAELI
No, it is NOT about changing the name of YHWH to Satan.
It is about transferring responsibility for the suggestion from God to someone completely different.

Sigh…

But God already took responsibility for it in the ORIGNAL version, the rewritten version, takes God’s name out of it; where in the Bible have you seen that take place, before…???

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I have just recorded "A shot in the dark" and I'm in the middle of watching it.
One detective thinks the maid Maria did the murder.
But Clouseau thinks her employer Monsieur Ballon did it.
That does not mean that he is "changing the name" of Maria to "Monsieur Ballon".
It just means that he is transferring the finger of suspicion from one person to another.

But God declared that HE was the one who incited it…the LORD God, not some random dude lol

Originally posted by DISRAELI
2 Samuel and Chronicles are NOT using different names for the same individual.
They are using two different names because they blaming two different individuals.

But if they’re blaming 2 different individuals, then what’s the real truth of it…?

I’ve already explained in my reply to rOxer that elements from the original version, have been lost/distorted in the rewritten version…

I mean imagine you’re the scribe, and you see the sacred name of God had incited something, in the original version…Now what on earth, is going to make you changed it…to something else!!!, anything else for that matter…???



- JC

a reply to: Akragon

Originally posted by Akragon
I believe you already know the answer...

Wow, that’s impressive…lol

I’ll give you a clue, NO ONE has posted the correct answer yet IMO…although one poster came pretty close…

Originally posted by Akragon
The OT god is the demiurge... which is pretty much satan

Still going with the demiurge theory eh…?

I’m a big fan of those Gnostic texts, as you know, but I don’t think they (the Gnostics) got everything correct…I think they recognised the problems within the OT and the atrocities committed there etc… and created a counter theology, to the standard Adam and Eve original sin theology…

I think there are problems with both theologies, and that neither one is completely true…although I do recognise the problems in the OT and where you’re coming from…

Originally posted by Akragon
Put the verses together and Satan is the Lord of Israel... who knew...

Oh wait, people did know... and they were exterminated for the very thought of truth

Well, the Lord God gave out the Ten commandments remember, (although later, men corrupted and added to them etc...) and those commandments are Good, Holy and Righteous…And Jesus even taught on them in the NT…

You need to use a different tool brother, the one big brush just doesn’t’ work IMO…

Selah…


- JC