2 Samuel 24:1, 1 Chronicles 21:1, and the evolution of a dualistic cosmology

Compare;


2 Samuel 24:1(thought to have been written just after the reign of Solomon, about 900 BCE)
" Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."' --NIV.


1 Chronicles 21:1 (composition late 6th cent BCE)
" Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel".--NIV.

These are two accounts of the same event (the text just before and right after each passage bears this out) written several hundred years apart. One identifies God as the instigator, the other lays the blame on Satan.

Thoughts?

I have studied this one also and I would say the main thing it proves is that the bible is not inerrant. I think that the thing that sticks out the most though is that in the 2 Samuel version, it doesn't make sense. But in the 1 Chronicles version it does. In Samuel, God tells him to do something, he does it, and GOD PUNNISHES HIM!!!!!!
In Chronicles though, Satan compells David so it makes much more sense.
All in all it is an obvious contradiction.

thank you.

One more thing. If you read further and get to the part with Araunah, and read that same part in the other book, it says Ornan instead. Now those are obviously not the same names, thus there is a contradiction that follows the last!

Quagmire said:

Compare;


2 Samuel 24:1(thought to have been written just after the reign of Solomon, about 900 BCE)
" Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."' --NIV.


1 Chronicles 21:1 (composition late 6th cent BCE)
" Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel".--NIV.

These are two accounts of the same event (the text just before and right after each passage bears this out) written several hundred years apart. One identifies God as the instigator, the other lays the blame on Satan.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Yup bibles (meaning translations) are not inerrant. But the original scriptures are.

Heres how Youngs Literal has Samuel

24:1 And the anger of Jehovah addeth to burn against Israel, and [an adversary] moveth David about them, saying, `Go, number Israel and Judah.'

I think that the bible is errant and always has been. This is shown in the NT more though, mainly in the gospels.

AK4 said:

Yup bibles (meaning translations) are not inerrant. But the original scriptures are.

Heres how Youngs Literal has Samuel

24:1 And the anger of Jehovah addeth to burn against Israel, and [an adversary] moveth David about them, saying, `Go, number Israel and Judah.'

Click to expand...

Interesting, AK4. I never heard of this translation before. Wiki gives it a favorable review, but I'd be interested to see what some of the bonofide scholars (there are a few in here) think about it.

Quagmire said:

Interesting, AK4. I never heard of this translation before. Wiki gives it a favorable review, but I'd be interested to see what some of the bonofide scholars (there are a few in here) think about it.

Click to expand...

Yes, i will just generalise here, all the translations may have some strong spots and then some very bad spots, and vise versa.

Lets for example say the KJV and its sister translations (copy cats)--the translation of words like olam (hebrew)/aionis (greek) which basically means age lasting or even just a lifetime of a person into everlasting and the way they translate sheol (hebrew)/hades (greek) which mean grave or pit or abode of the dead (where there is no thoughts actions or devise or anything to the deceased) into hell (a place eternal torture, screaming, yelling, crying, skin melted off, poked and all kind of dispicable acts or thoughts the deprived human mind can think of).

But you have a translation like the Concordant that has at least the olam and aionis (eonis) consistently translated correctly through out its translation. Those KJV and sisters dont even stay consistent with these words.

Oh you never heard of Youngs literal translation. I think its pretty good also. It is pretty literal and for me hard to read because of its old english style ( i think its old english). I use it when i really need more clarification of some verse or so that maybe isnt clear to me in another translation (that dont fit the whole context of Gods Word). I often go here Online Bible - Search Bible Study Tools - Gateway to Resources and click on the using section and you will see a list of different translations.

I dont trust one particular translation over another though

The Deuteronomic histories are at pains to show how the Davidic dynasty was flawed. Chronicles is doing the opposite. This may go some distance to explaining how the devil and God get credit for the same inspiration. There's also the point that God, at times, uses (subverts) fallen spirits to attain his good ends.

Here's the concordance for 2 Sam 24:1 with the Masoretic text:
Blue Letter Bible - 2Sa 24 (KJV)

וַיֹּסֶף אַף־יְהוָה לַחֲרֹות בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיָּסֶת אֶת־דָּוִד בָּהֶם לֵאמֹר לֵךְ מְנֵה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־יְהוּדָֽה׃

With apologies to Young's Literal Translation, there's nothing in there that would be translated as "an adversary" (which is why it's in brackets in the Young's translation)

God and Satan are obviously not the same as portrayed in the bible , but to add something, don't you think that if Satan were the most intelligent and beautiful of all the angels(as the bible explicitly says), he would return back to following God in the realization of his judgment by God? And why shouldn't Satan be allowed to be a Christian?
One last thing; there is no proof that the bible ever was inerrant or God's word.
Everyone is inspired by something. If a movie is inspired by a true story, that doesn't make it all true.

The 1985 translation of the Masoretic texts, by JPS (Jewish Publication Society) has God in 2 Samuel 24:1, and Satan in 1 Chronicles 21:1. There's no Satan or "Adversary" in the JPS's translation.

Then again, different texts or translations give different heights to Goliath.

ThuggishSplicer said:

God and Satan are obviously not the same as portrayed in the bible , but to add something, don't you think that if Satan were the most intelligent and beautiful of all the angels(as the bible explicitly says), he would return back to following God in the realization of his judgment by God? And why shouldn't Satan be allowed to be a Christian?
One last thing; there is no proof that the bible ever was inerrant or God's word.
Everyone is inspired by something. If a movie is inspired by a true story, that doesn't make it all true.

Click to expand...

Satan isnt lucifer and vise versa. Satan stays the serpent/leviathan/devil or just plain satan throughout the whole bible. Lucifer is a christain hoax where the translators purposely translate a word thats means howl or to howl in many other places in the bible and they translate it just this one time into lucifer and then they make up the fallen angel story because of the garden of eden coming up in later verses. The whole chapter is about the king of assyria (or was it babylon) and he was in the heaven or garden of eden of his own mind and so then God brought him back down to earth.

doppelgänger;1388197 said:

Here's the concordance for 2 Sam 24:1 with the Masoretic text:
Blue Letter Bible - 2Sa 24 (KJV)

וַיֹּסֶף אַף־יְהוָה לַחֲרֹות בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיָּסֶת אֶת־דָּוִד בָּהֶם לֵאמֹר לֵךְ מְנֵה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־יְהוּדָֽה׃

With apologies to Young's Literal Translation, there's nothing in there that would be translated as "an adversary" (which is why it's in brackets in the Young's translation)

Click to expand...

Your right i think Youngs and the NASB put some things in brackets just for clarification, but is not real scripture.

doppelgänger;1388197 said:

Here's the concordance for 2 Sam 24:1 with the Masoretic text:
Blue Letter Bible - 2Sa 24 (KJV)

וַיֹּסֶף אַף־יְהוָה לַחֲרֹות בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיָּסֶת אֶת־דָּוִד בָּהֶם לֵאמֹר לֵךְ מְנֵה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־יְהוּדָֽה׃

With apologies to Young's Literal Translation, there's nothing in there that would be translated as "an adversary" (which is why it's in brackets in the Young's translation)

Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for pointing that out Dopp.

AK4 said:

Your right i think Youngs and the NASB put some things in brackets just for clarification, but is not real scripture.

Click to expand...

Doesn't look like it clarifies so much as changes the meaning.

AK4 said:

Satan isnt lucifer and vise versa. Satan stays the serpent/leviathan/devil or just plain satan throughout the whole bible. Lucifer is a christain hoax where the translators purposely translate a word thats means howl or to howl in many other places in the bible and they translate it just this one time into lucifer and then they make up the fallen angel story because of the garden of eden coming up in later verses. The whole chapter is about the king of assyria (or was it babylon) and he was in the heaven or garden of eden of his own mind and so then God brought him back down to earth.

Click to expand...

:yes:In Genesis, you will never find the words Satan, and Lucifer.

ThuggishSplicer said:

:yes:In Genesis, you will never find the words Satan, and Lucifer.

Click to expand...

You might want to check your bible translation, because if your bible has satan or lucifer in Genesis, then its most likely the only one and therefore your translation might have even more errors---I will take a guess, you have a mormon bible?

In Hebrew, Satan means "adversary". It wasn't until much later that satan became a supremely evil being.

i think its old english

Click to expand...

It's not old english. Old English the language of Beowulf. Here's a sample from Bede:
Waes Þær in neaweste untrumra monna hus, in Þæm heora Þeaw wæs Þat heo Þa untrumran ond Þa ðe æt forðfore wæron inlædan sceoldon, ond him Þær ætsomne Þegnian
"it was the custom to carry in those who were ill and those who were near to death, and minister there to them together"

Satan isnt lucifer and vise versa. Satan stays the serpent/leviathan/devil or just plain satan throughout the whole bible. Lucifer is a christain hoax where the translators purposely translate a word thats means howl or to howl in many other places in the bible and they translate it just this one time into lucifer and then they make up the fallen angel story because of the garden of eden coming up in later verses.

Click to expand...

Not really. As I am lazy, I'll just quote an earlier post I wrote on this topic:

In the old testament up until around the time of Jesus, there was no supremely evil being, and satan (stn-שָׂטַן) was more or less an angelic office. The only reference to Lucifer in the Old Testament is Isiah 14:12 (the passage is probably refering to Nebuchadnezzer) where the word is day star (Hebrew Helal). When tranlated into Latin (in the vulgate), the line reads "Quomodo cecidifti de caelo lucifer" lucifer meaning roughly "light-bearer." Lucifer was the Roman "morning star" and corresponded fairly well to Helal, hence the translation.

Oberon said:

In Hebrew, Satan means "adversary". It wasn't until much later that satan became a supremely evil being.



It's not old english. Old English the language of Beowulf. Here's a sample from Bede:
Waes Þær in neaweste untrumra monna hus, in Þæm heora Þeaw wæs Þat heo Þa untrumran ond Þa ðe æt forðfore wæron inlædan sceoldon, ond him Þær ætsomne Þegnian
"it was the custom to carry in those who were ill and those who were near to death, and minister there to them together"



Not really. As I am lazy, I'll just quote an earlier post I wrote on this topic:

In the old testament up until around the time of Jesus, there was no supremely evil being, and satan (stn-שָׂטַן) was more or less an angelic office. The only reference to Lucifer in the Old Testament is Isiah 14:12 (the passage is probably refering to Nebuchadnezzer) where the word is day star (Hebrew Helal). When tranlated into Latin (in the vulgate), the line reads "Quomodo cecidifti de caelo lucifer" lucifer meaning roughly "light-bearer." Lucifer was the Roman "morning star" and corresponded fairly well to Helal, hence the translation.

Click to expand...

Exactly, the vulgate who screwed up the meanings also of olam and aionis and maybe hades--- i have to check on that last one again Here you go for "lucifer"

Isa. 13:6 eiliu Howl ye
Isa. 14:31 eili HowlI
sa. 15:2 iilil shall howl
Isa. 15:3 iilil shall howl
Isa. 16:7 iilil Howl
Isa. 16:7 iilil shall howl
Isa. 23:1 eililu Howl ye
Isa. 23:6 eililu Howl ye
Isa. 23:14 eililu Howl ye
Isa. 52:5 eililu make to howl
Isa. 65:14 eililu shall howl
Jer. 4:8u eililu Howl
Jer. 25:34 eililu Howl
Jer. 47:2 ueill and shall howl
Jer. 48:20 eilili Howl
Jer. 48:31 ailil will I howl
Jer. 48:39 eililu They shall howl (Howl ye)
Jer. 49:3 eilili Howl (Howl ye)
Jer. 51:8 eililu howl
Ezek.30:2 eililu Howl ye
Hos. 7:14 iililu They howled
Joel 1:5 ueililu And howl
Joel 1:11 eililu howl
Joel 1:13 eililu And shall be howlings
Amos 8:1 ueililu and howl
Micah 1:8 uailile howl ye
Zeph. 1:11 aililu Howl
Zech.11:2 eill howl
Zech.11:2 eililu howl
Isa. 14:12 eill Lucifer (??)

And notice carefully that the Hebrew verb eill in Isa. 14:12 is the identical form of the first verb eill in Zech. 11:2. Now try substituting the personal noun "Lucifer" in place of the verb "howl" in the two places it occurs in Zech. 11:2. Here as in many Scriptures, the trees are likened to people who are crying out because of the death and destruction:

Let me show another thing these rascally decietful lying scholars have done to hide their true agenda--

Now we are to believe that Jesus was jewish and king of the jews and He came first to save them and then to save the gentiles right? This is what we've been taught all our lives. Now if this is true why was one (if they all werent jews) of His disciples A CANAANITE!!!! I know what your thinking---"man, where is he coming up with this stuff"? Ahhh, its those sly decietful scholars and theologians who have kept you in the dark. Check it out.


Matt
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]10:1 Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]10:3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus , and Thaddaeus ; [/FONT]
10:4 Simon the Zealot (2581), and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Strong's Number: 2581[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Word[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Word Origin[/FONT]kananite�[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]of Aramaic origin, cf (07067)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]TDNT Entry[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Kananites[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Definition [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Canaanite = "zealous"

1. the surname of apostle Simon, otherwise known as "Simon Zelotes"

1. [/FONT]

Now tell me, why would they put zealot instead of canaanite? Is their a hidden agenda here? Well think about where all the other disciples came from too and then you may see. And still theres more

Exactly, the vulgate who screwed up the meanings also of olam and aionis and maybe hades

Click to expand...

Actually, aionis and hades are greek, not latin. The vulgate is latin.

Here you go for "lucifer

Click to expand...

The problem here is that none of the verses you quote use lucifer in the vulgate, the first bible to include the word, with the exception of Is. 14:12.

Now try substituting the personal noun "Lucifer"

Click to expand...

Why? The nouns are different. In Isaiah 14:12, the words translated as "lucifer" by Jerome are heilel ben shakhar/ שָׁחַר בֶּן הֵילֵל

I can only say once again that the reason for “Lucifer” in Isaiah is that Jerome used a roman equivalent to the Hebrew​

Now we are to believe that Jesus was jewish and king of the jews and He came first to save them and then to save the gentiles right? This is what we've been taught all our lives. Now if this is true why was one (if they all werent jews) of His disciples A CANAANITE!!!! I know what your thinking---"man, where is he coming up with this stuff"? Ahhh, its those sly decietful scholars and theologians who have kept you in the dark. Check it out.


Matt
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]10:1 Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness.
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

Click to expand...

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]10:3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus , and Thaddaeus ; [/FONT]
10:4 Simon the Zealot (2581), and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Strong's Number: 2581[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Word[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Word Origin[/FONT]kananite�[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]of Aramaic origin, cf (07067)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]TDNT Entry[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Kananites[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Definition [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Canaanite = "zealous"

1. the surname of apostle Simon, otherwise known as "Simon Zelotes"

[/FONT][/FONT]Now tell me, why would they put zealot instead of canaanite? Is their a hidden agenda here?

Click to expand...

Speaking as one of those "sly deceitful scholars" I am sorry you feel deceived, but I assure you there is no "hidden agenda." I suspect you simply don't have access to the greek, but whatever the case your analysis is off. Matt. 10:4 reads "Simon ho Kananaios/ Σιμων ο Καναναιος." The word Kananaios/Καναναιος in greek means "cananaean" or "zealot." It is not to be confused with Kananites/ Κανανιτης which means "man of canaan." Once again, you have your nouns confused. However, it is not your fault. If I remember correctly, Strong's corresponds to the KJV, which relies a great deal on the greek Textus Receptus. Here the reading is "Kananites/ Κανανιτης." However, the leading textual critics (see especially Bruce M. Metzger) prefer the other reading. Hence the confusion with "canaanite" vs. "zealot."[/FONT]