- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The move of Jesus in and amongst Islam is truly a thing to behold these days
Posted on 12/29/25 at 5:39 pm to 3down10
Posted on 12/29/25 at 5:39 pm to 3down10
quote:So you admit we need to do something about the Islamic threat. Finally! Was that so hard?
Same can be said of members from any religion
quote:No one is talking about overgeneralization. We are talking about the real threat of people who want to kill us for ideological reasons. They are constantly scheming to kill us and when we don't catch them, they execute their plan to mass murder people. And they are not trying to kill us because we are putting political pressure on them. They hated infidels long, long before we were a country
Am I to judge all Christians based on these actions?
0
Posted on 12/29/25 at 7:00 pm to 3down10
quote:It absolutely is. Those people exist and all you have to do is read about the recent Australia attacks to find out
It's not a brute fact
quote:"Collectivism" has nothing to do with this conversation. No one is arguing that we should judge all people by the actions of one/the few. No one is advocating for that. We are simply acknowledging the truth that Islamic purists/conservatives wage jihad against the infidels. It is an undeniable truth.
it's collectivism
quote:They aren't relevant to the conversation. They aren't attacking infidels.
I can show you plenty of Muslims who don't believe in the crap
quote:This is a strawman. I never suggested such a thing.
you will paint them with the actions of a few to justify your evil
quote:So we should denounce the jihadists? Good. I'm glad we agree
Shitty people exist in all religions and whatever
quote:You are correct
you surely don't hold all Christians responsible for the actions of a few
quote:Incorrect and that is again, a strawman. I never said such a thing
in this case, it's all you see
quote:I asked you a question which proves my point. You didn't answer
They do not.
quote:I have never done this
Once again you see them all the same instead of as individuals
quote:That's precisely what I've been trying to do all along. You are mischaracterizing my intent
pointing and holding the guilty accountable
quote:What I told you was a fact and had nothing to do with Muslims who are not jihadists
Once again painting them all based on the actions of a few
quote:I'm allowed to defend myself and my country against enemies. The jihadists have proven they will attack us no matter what we do. Why? Because we are infidels
you've allowed the worst of them to define your own standards
quote:The graphic you posted has nothing to do with the centuries old belief of the purists/jihadists
God taught me
Posted on 12/29/25 at 7:04 pm to 3down10
quote:I JUST posted testimony about a Muslim who told you that they are taught to hate infidels from birth, and it has literally nothing to do with any political dynamics. You are talking about modern politics which is way, way, way downstream of the underlying issue.
Hamas is funded by blah blah blah
quote:You may be right but it's irrelevant to the theological beliefs of the Islamic purists/conservatives
Israel allowed October 7th to happen to gain support
quote:I did and you totally missed the point
Since you want to bring some reality to this conversation
Posted on 12/29/25 at 7:05 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
I JUST posted testimony about a Muslim who told you that they are taught to hate infidels from birth, and it has literally nothing to do with any political dynamics. You are talking about modern politics which is way, way, way downstream of the underlying issue.
So what?
Posted on 12/29/25 at 7:09 pm to 3down10
quote:You can't possibly think that they targeted Jews because of Australia's involvement in "bombing campaigns."
Australia's military does take part in the attacks in the middle east with bombing campaigns
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN POLITICS
Muslims hated infidels WAY before Australia was a country
My word you are freaking dense
quote:Oh really? Let's hear your take on this
this attack was obviously motivated by other factors
quote:Ok. Prove it
I'm pretty sure the point is to discourage that kind of behavior among them
quote:How is that relevant? Were those people killed because our founding documents said that they were religious apostates who must be eliminated from existence? No. Another stupid point
What do you say to the over 100,000 civilians the US has killed in the past 25 years?
quote:God instructs us to acknowledge and fight against immorality
The only thing I fear is breaking a commandment and to disappoint God
Posted on 12/29/25 at 7:16 pm to 3down10
quote:I have said not one hypocritcal thing. I have merely pointed out the reality of Islamic jihadists
I'm pointing out your hypocrisy
quote:I am not ignorant about Islam. I have studied it. I have read the Quran and the Hadith. I have seen imams debate. I have seen the stories of countless people who are Muslim and who are former Muslim. I have also witnessed many, many atrocities Muslims have committed
ignorance
quote:Really? I raped and tortured people who weren't enemy combatants?
you are just as guilty of the sins you blame them for.
quote:This is NOT what happened. You are ignorant about the history of Islam and the Quran
You attack them, they attack back
quote:When did I lump them all together? Show me the quotes
you don't make that distinction
quote:Prove it. Show me the quotes. Moreover, you're still wrong. No one is trying to blame peaceful Muslims for the crimes of jihadists. Literally no one. You are boxing the air
It's the most relevant thing because you're trapped in it.
quote:What does this have to do with the Quran telling Muslims to kill infidels? What does this have to do with the Khawarijite vs Mutazalite debate? NOTHING
We've killed over 100,000....
Posted on 12/29/25 at 7:32 pm to Squirrelmeister
Now provide direct evidence of Mohammad.
Nothing is written until 200 years after hid death, by people that never knew or saw him. No parchment, no papyrus nothing exists.
But he boarded a winged horse and flew to heaven, from a city he supposedly never visited or saw.
But he’s supposedly buried in his wife’s house.
Nothing is written until 200 years after hid death, by people that never knew or saw him. No parchment, no papyrus nothing exists.
But he boarded a winged horse and flew to heaven, from a city he supposedly never visited or saw.
But he’s supposedly buried in his wife’s house.
Posted on 12/29/25 at 8:47 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Not for your sake, but for others, I’ll explain to you what your intellectual and academic self failed to investigate on your own.
Man I really thought you’d have pussed out. Bravo!
quote:
Just like in the book of Job, God as the first cause used Satan as a secondary cause to incite David to sin. Satan implants the thought to take down God’s chosen seevant
Satan isn’t in 2 Samuel 24. You love to make shite up.
quote:
God did not command David directly, but the passage in 2 Samuel
Let’s check that, Foo. Let’s see what the Truthful scriptures actually state. Let’s prioritize the text of the Bible rather than Foo’s fantasies and dogmas! Let’s me show everyone that you are full of shite.
quote:
Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
quote:
David even acknowledged his sin against God, which he wouldn’t have done if God had commanded David directly.
Only in Foo’s tapioca brain are those fantasies.
quote:
You are free to stop with your baseless attacks
Nothing I do or point out is baseless. There you go attempting to project your own faults onto others, as always. Sad.
Later
Posted on 12/29/25 at 9:00 pm to bluedragon
quote:
Now provide direct evidence of Mohammad
Maybe you have me confused with someone else? Admittedly I’m not that educated on the religion of the Mohammedeans.
I have read some articles though that there are a lot of secular Muslim scholars that are doubting the existence of the historical Mohammed. I read some of their arguments but I’m not convinced one way or another.
I am however 100% convinced Christians were worshipping Jesus as a mythical character who died and resurrected in the heavens before any legends of a historical Jesus ever started. Was there some crazy Jewish rabbi named Yeshu/Iesous… that’s very plausible and even probable, and that guy might have even pissed off some Romans and got killed. I’m positive though that Christians were worshipping a Jesus who was completely celestial and one day was going to come to earth to judge the living and the dead before any historical Jesus nutcase would have gotten himself killed and whose followers would have claimed that Jesus was the celestial Jesus. We know Mark, which was the first or second gospel, was written as an allegory for deeper truths and wasn’t intended to be taken as literal historical events.
So historical Jesus: maybe, but if one existed, it was only because he or his followers claimed to be that angel and firstborn son of god that may Christians were already worshipping.
Historical Mohammed: maybe, it’s plausible, but I’d like to learn more.
Posted on 12/29/25 at 10:18 pm to WossNess
quote:
The true Hebrew bloodline jews that's are still found in present day Ethiopia tolerate and love Jesus. The watered down invader colonizers jews in present day Isreal dont. The jews in Ethiopia can also trace their bloodline directly to Abraham. The European jews in Isreal cant.
You are an absolute idiot…what kind of comic book bullshite do you use to reference your preferred historical record?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 2:08 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:He’s in 1 Chronicles 21, which is the parallel passage.
Satan isn’t in 2 Samuel 24. You love to make shite up
This is why you need to read the Bible within its own context.
quote:The text doesn’t say that God spoke directly to David. It says He incited David against Israel. 1 Chronicles 21 explains how God incited David against Israel: by involving Satan as the tempter, to which David succumbed and later admitted to his sin in doing so.
Let’s check that, Foo. Let’s see what the Truthful scriptures actually state. Let’s prioritize the text of the Bible rather than Foo’s fantasies and dogmas! Let’s me show everyone that you are full of shite.quote:
Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
God’s statement about number Israel was His decree regarding what David would do, but He didn’t speak directly to David. The context shows this to be the case, both in David’s repentance and in the parallel passage including Satan.
quote:I acknowledge you have difficulties reading and understanding the Bible, which is why I try to explain it to you like I would a child, but if you read the text for yourself, you won’t need to assume I’m fantasizing.
Only in Foo’s tapioca brain are those fantasies.
In 1 Chronicles 21:8-17, David admits his sin in numbering the people. He doesn’t ask God why he was punished for doing what God commanded him to do, because God didn’t speak directly to him. We are given insight into God’s decree, but David didn’t have it. He was acting in his own hubris, giving into temptation by Satan.
quote:Pretty much everything you say is baseless. You twist the Bible and take words out of context to make it say something it doesn’t say. Your arguments are nothing more than your own opinions, using cherry-picked passages, interpreted either by your own ignorance or by something outside of the Bible. You are not a serious person but a liar.
Nothing I do or point out is baseless. There you go attempting to project your own faults onto others, as always. Sad.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 5:59 am to Squirrelmeister
Not one person within Mohamad’s life wrote the book.
The New Testament is written by eye witnesses within their lifetimes. Followed by 500 witnesses when he ascended into heaven. There is historical support for the evidence across the region,
Zero witnesses for Islam. You stand more of a chance by reading LRon Hubbard and Science Fiction novels than Islam.Then can gather with the movie stars and howl at the moon with them. Scientology has better grounds to stand on.
The New Testament is written by eye witnesses within their lifetimes. Followed by 500 witnesses when he ascended into heaven. There is historical support for the evidence across the region,
Zero witnesses for Islam. You stand more of a chance by reading LRon Hubbard and Science Fiction novels than Islam.Then can gather with the movie stars and howl at the moon with them. Scientology has better grounds to stand on.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:16 am to FooManChoo
quote:quote:He’s in 1 Chronicles 21, which is the parallel passage.
Satan isn’t in 2 Samuel 24. You love to make shite up
Ah yes you took the bait. 1 Chronicles 21 is the version 2.0 of the 2 Samuel 24 scene. Chronicles was a re-write, i.e. overwrite, of the older text. Chronicles was a fictive history written to replace their older fictive history.
quote:
This is why you need to read the Bible within its own context.
Ah yes the context. We’ll get into that.
quote:quote:The text doesn’t say that God spoke directly to David. It says He incited David against Israel.
Let’s check that, Foo. Let’s see what the Truthful scriptures actually state. Let’s prioritize the text of the Bible rather than Foo’s fantasies and dogmas! Let’s me show everyone that you are full of shite.quote:
Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
It literally does say the LORD said “Go, number Israel and Judah.” In the same sentence as the LORD inciting David. Who the frick you think the LORD was talking to when he said “Go, number Israel and Judah.” You don’t like 2 Samuel 24, so you wipe your arse with that page and cherry pick the verse from another book and author meant to replace the text you don’t like. You and that Levite scribe who wrote Chronicles would be two peas in a pod. Sorry, Foo, you’re not getting away with this one.
quote:
1 Chronicles 21 explains how God incited David against Israel: by involving Satan as the tempter, to which David succumbed and later admitted to his sin in doing so.
Here’s the actual Truth. Chronicles was written by a Levite scribe in the late Persian period to overwrite the Samuel/Kings material from the early Persian Period (the so called Deuteronomist Reform). Before the late Persian period, “a satan” (not THE Satan) was an angel who worked for Yahweh as a prosecutor. The Persian religion around this time became dualistic - the good/creator deity Ahura Mazda got a bad/enemy/nemesis deity called Ahriman Ha Satan. As the Persians were the overlords of Jerusalem, who had funded the new temple by Yahweh’s messiah, Cyrus the emperor of Persia and King of Babylon (Isaiah 45:1), they got to have some say in how the priests in Jerusalem ran their religion. They adopted the concept of the Satan being a singular particular deity who opposed the “good” deity Yahweh. I used quotes on “good” because Yahweh himself was also evil.
So the Levite scribe, now having “THE Satan” in his arsenal, re-wrote the story as Satan being the one who enticed David. That means the chronicles and Samuel material contradict, unless you want to claim that Yahweh (the LORD) and Satan are the same.
quote:
God’s statement about number Israel was His decree regarding what David would do, but He didn’t speak directly to David.
Pathetic hypocrite.
quote:
Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
quote:
You twist the Bible and take words out of context to make it say something it doesn’t say. Your arguments are nothing more than your own opinions, using cherry-picked passages, interpreted either by your own ignorance or by something outside of the Bible. You are not a serious person but a liar.
You’re the liar, and the cherry picker. Just like you won’t admit Mark says to take a staff and wear sandals, Matthew says not to take a staff and not wear sandals, and Luke says not to take a staff. A lying, cherry-picking fool you are, Foo, and a hypocrite. You are the very one who makes the Bible say stuff it doesn’t actually say, case in pony 2 Samuel 24 says The LORD told David to take a census and you say “nuh uh” and stick your fingers in your ears like Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber.
So I was hoping you would mention 1 Chronicles 21 and I was hoping you’d say it was a parallel passage. We know you think both that and 2 Samuel were the same event and that they don’t contradict. Let’s see what kind of mental gymnastics you come up with now, if you have the courage to respond to me.
2 Samuel 24:
- Yahweh incites David
- Joab takes kindly to David’s command
- Israel has 800,000 fighting men
- Judah has 500,000 fighting men
- offer 7 years of famine
- Araunah the Jebusite owned the threshing floor
- David purchased oxen and threshing floor for 50 shekels of silver
1 Chronicles 21:
- Satan incites David
- Joab is pissed at David
- Israel has 1,100,000 fighting men
- Judah has 470,000 fighting men, excluding Benjaminites and Levites (Levites didn’t have to fight because… they were Levites, so to mention counting or not counting Levites doesn’t even make sense)
- offer 3 years of famine
- Ornan the Jebusite owned the threshing floor
- David purchased the threshing floor for 600 shekels of gold
(Of course the sacrifice had to be made on the threshing floor. :lol: after all, Yahweh was Baal Hadad the god of grain and rain)
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:27 am to bluedragon
quote:
Not one person within Mohamad’s life wrote the book.
I agree that’s most likely. It doesn’t necessarily make or not make Mohammed a historical person.
quote:
The New Testament is written by eye witnesses within their lifetimes
Not exactly. Paul claims he was an eyewitness to the risen Jesus when Jesus appeared to him (we don’t know if he meant in a dream which was pretty typical, or a hallucination or something while awake). 2 Peter, written mid/late second century, claims to have been an eyewitness, but it’s a forgery. So all we have is Paul. And none of the four canonical gospels claim to be written by eyewitnesses. In the beginning of Luke, he specifically says he is not an eyewitness. At the end of John, we find out the author is claiming that the ones who told him all this stuff to write down were eyewitnesses, but not the author himself.
quote:
Followed by 500 witnesses when he ascended into heaven.
Followed? That reference was from Paul but he wrote decades or even a century before some of the gospel material was more or less finalized. And we don’t have eyewitness testimony or records from these supposed eyewitnesses… only a claim by Paul that there were 500 eyewitnesses. And you should re-read 1 Corinthians 15… Paul didn’t write that they witnesses Jesus ascending into heaven, only that he had appeared to them. Your pastors might have pulled the wool over your eyes. You should read the bible yourself.
quote:
There is historical support for the evidence across the region,
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
quote:
Zero witnesses for Islam. You stand more of a chance by reading LRon Hubbard and Science Fiction novels than Islam.Then can gather with the movie stars and howl at the moon with them. Scientology has better grounds to stand on.
Those and Christianity are all in the same bucket. Lots of people have been duped.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:13 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:I assumed you would respond with saying they aren’t related because of some sort of rewrite, but the truth is the truth. Your speculations do not change that.
Ah yes you took the bait. 1 Chronicles 21 is the version 2.0 of the 2 Samuel 24 scene. Chronicles was a re-write, i.e. overwrite, of the older text. Chronicles was a fictive history written to replace their older fictive history
It’s interesting that the new “rewrite” was added to the other story which was not rewritten, too. You honestly think they were so stupid that they would selectively alter their written history but just forgot to address the contradictions it would create with their old history? Or that it wouldn’t be changed later by others?
No, it is the same story. There was no rewrite. You throw speculative garbage out there because it is the only way to try to win the debate. You set the rules by telling those who believe the Bible how they are allowed to read it and interpret it, and even what books are authentic. It’s rather convenient for you
quote:Now who is projecting? I’m not throwing away one passage in favor of another. That’s what you are doing. What I’m doing is using both passages to come to a single interpretation. That’s how reading the Bible works.
It literally does say the LORD said “Go, number Israel and Judah.” In the same sentence as the LORD inciting David. Who the frick you think the LORD was talking to when he said “Go, number Israel and Judah.” You don’t like 2 Samuel 24, so you wipe your arse with that page and cherry pick the verse from another book and author meant to replace the text you don’t like. You and that Levite scribe who wrote Chronicles would be two peas in a pod. Sorry, Foo, you’re not getting away with this one
Who was God speaking to? We aren’t told. Could be Himself as a mere declaration. David being in the context doesn’t mean God spoke to him directly, only that he was the object of the decree to perform the census. Grammatically that interpretation works, but you again NEED it to say that God spoke to David personally in order to hang on to a contradiction that doesn’t need to exist.
quote:More pure speculation. It couldn’t be that this is God's word preserved from tampering through the centuries, so there must be a naturalistic reason for why the text says what it does, but not just a naturalistic reason, but one that casts doubt on everything written.
…So the Levite scribe, now having “THE Satan” in his arsenal, re-wrote the story as Satan being the one who enticed David. That means the chronicles and Samuel material contradict, unless you want to claim that Yahweh (the LORD) and Satan are the same
Like I said. If scribes were going to rewrite their scriptures, they wouldn’t leave evidence behind of the original as a contradiction. They would just go ahead and rewrite everything.
quote:Call names to divert away from what you’re doing. Classic.
Pathetic hypocrite
quote:I go out of my way to reference various scripture passages to support the interpretation of the passages in question. That isn’t cherry-picking. Cherry-picking is what you do, when you purposefully ignore the context or fantasize it away as something that doesn’t count for one reason or another, as you are doing here.
You’re the liar, and the cherry picker.
quote:Not at all. The language allows for a differentiation in what it means to take or procure. We went through that before.
Just like you won’t admit Mark says to take a staff and wear sandals, Matthew says not to take a staff and not wear sandals, and Luke says not to take a staff. A lying, cherry-picking fool you are, Foo, and a hypocrite.
quote:It doesn’t say “The LORD told David”, though. That was my point. You are inferring that God told David because it says He incited David. You ignore how God accomplishes His will throughout the Scriptures: He usually uses second causes, like Satan.
You are the very one who makes the Bible say stuff it doesn’t actually say, case in pony 2 Samuel 24 says The LORD told David to take a census and you say “nuh uh” and stick your fingers in your ears like Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber.
quote:You do realize you aren’t the first person to makes claims of contradictions in the Bible, right? You act as if this was some sort of trap or gotcha. It isn’t. It is just another example of you pivoting to another attack, as you always do.
So I was hoping you would mention 1 Chronicles 21 and I was hoping you’d say it was a parallel passage. We know you think both that and 2 Samuel were the same event and that they don’t contradict. Let’s see what kind of mental gymnastics you come up with now, if you have the courage to respond to me.
I’ll be generous and explain to you what you haven’t taken the time to look up yourself:
God inciting David vs Satan: God decreed it as the first cause. Satan executed it as the second cause. No contradiction.
Joab positive response vs negative response: he actually responds negatively in both accounts. He opens with a praise of sorts, which is customary when speaking to a king, but in both accounts he opposes the census, he recognizes that guilt will come on Israel, he appeals to David to act responsibly, and highlights that the census is unnecessary. The difference is about the level of explanation he gives between the accounts. The differences are about emphasis, and are not material differences.
Census totals: as with Joab’s response, this is about emphasis rather than a direct contradiction. You even hinted at this when you took note of groups that weren’t included. The account of Israel in Samuel seems to be speaking of the standing army of battle-ready troops while Chronicles lists totals, possibly including reserves, officers, etc. For Judah, it says plainly that certain tribes were excluded, which likely means from the context that either they weren’t fully counted, and/or they weren’t fully reported.
3 years of famine or 7: 2 Sam 21:1 says there were 3 years of famine already. One account adds another 3 (plus the current year) to get 7 total years, while the other account focuses only on the new/additional famine related to the census.
Ornan Vs Araunah: Same person. Different name or title. Happens several times in the Bible, like how Jehoiachin is also Coniah, or how Gideon is also called Jerubbaal.
Purchases price: one price is for the immediate use of the location, livestock, tools, etc. for a sacrifice while the other price is for the whole land and everything on it for building the temple. The smaller is part of the larger but the amount is emphasizing different aspects of the purchase.
quote:Its surprising that David would want to tear down the threshing floor and replace it with a temple that looked nothing like a threshing floor. It’s almost as if you are reading into the Bible things that aren’t there. Hmm. You wouldn’t do that, would you?
(Of course the sacrifice had to be made on the threshing floor.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:24 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
What does this have to do with the Quran telling Muslims to kill infidels? What does this have to do with the Khawarijite vs Mutazalite debate? NOTHING
8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 12:55 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
FooManChoo
quote:
It’s interesting that the new “rewrite” was added to the other story which was not rewritten, too. You honestly think they were so stupid that they would selectively alter their written history but just forgot to address the contradictions it would create with their old history? Or that it wouldn’t be changed later by others?
Not stupid. They weren’t writing a Bible. They didn’t know someone would come along later and try to put them in a collection and the for another group 2300 years later to claim univocality and that there are no contradictions. Samuel and Kings were probably supposed to be burned but were preserved.
quote:
No, it is the same story. There was no rewrite. You throw speculative garbage out there because it is the only way to try to win the debate.
Well the guys smarter on this subject than you and me that god PHDs and made it their life’s work wrote books explaining and showing the evidence that it’s a re-write, and they convinced me.
quote:
Now who is projecting?
You
quote:
I’m not throwing away one passage in favor of another
You are.
quote:
What I’m doing is using both passages to come to a single interpretation. That’s how reading the Bible works.
No, that is your dogma overriding what the books, written at different times by different authors with different theologies and different goals, literally state.
quote:
Who was God speaking to? We aren’t told
the frick, Foo. You tell me. In 2 Samuel 24 who was the LORD talking to? How do you even know it was the LORD speaking? We can read it plainly… Yahweh was angry, he incited David. Who’s “he”? It could be anyone, right? Satan? Solomon? Joab? Random person? Angel of the Lord? Anyone with a brain and can read knows “he” is Yahweh, from the context. It’s basic reading comprehension. But who do you think is “he”? But you think it is Yahweh talking right there. You think Yahweh said, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” Again anyone with half a brain understands from basic reading comprehension of maybe a first grade or kindergarten level that he’s talking to David. But who do you think he’s talking to? Is he talking to Satan, who isn’t even mentioned? Is Satan going to number Israel, or is David?
Idiot.
quote:
but you again NEED it to say that God spoke to David personally in order to hang on to a contradiction that doesn’t need to exist.
In 2 Samuel 24:2, the very next verse, the king (we all know this is David, maybe except you) relayed the message and sub-delegated the numbering to Joab. I don’t need it to say shite, but verses 1 and 2 indicate Yahweh told David to number the people, and David sub-delegated it to Joab.
Maybe you think the author of 2 Samuel was completely incompetent as a storyteller? He forgot to say that Yahweh told Satan to tell David? In 1 Chronicles 21 why is David taking orders from Satan? None of it makes any sense.
quote:
More pure speculation
That’s literally all you do to try to make contradictory stories speak with the same unifying non-contradictory voice.
quote:
Not at all. The language allows for a differentiation in what it means to take or procure. We went through that before.
It does not. Mark and Luke use the same exact verb, Mark says not to take a staff, while Luke says to take a staff. It’s clear and plain in English and in the Greek. You should next explain how down is up and up is down, and how left is right and right is left.
quote:
God inciting David vs Satan: God decreed it as the first cause. Satan executed it as the second cause. No contradiction.
If you’re going to make shite up that isn’t in evidence, why not say it is Satan as the first cause and Yahweh as the second. Maybe Satan told Yahweh to incite David.
quote:
Joab positive response vs negative response: he actually responds negatively in both accounts
But in Samuel, David’s words win him over and he does what he was told. In Chronicles, he disobeys David by not counting all the fighting men.
quote:
Census totals: as with Joab’s response, this is about emphasis rather than a direct contradiction. You even hinted at this when you took note of groups that weren’t included.
Everyone was counted in Israel in both versions. Why does the contradiction remain for Israelite fighting men?
quote:
The account of Israel in Samuel seems to be speaking of the standing army of battle-ready troops while Chronicles lists totals, possibly including reserves, officers, etc.
There’s our Foo, ladies and gents. He loves making shite up.
quote:
3 years of famine or 7: 2 Sam 21:1 says there were 3 years of famine already. One account adds another 3 (plus the current year) to get 7 total years, while the other account focuses only on the new/additional famine related to the census.
So now you are making even more composite stories - doing what you do best… making up what isn’t in evidence. 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles actually match if you go by the earliest copies (originals). The KJV and NASB use the MT which in 2 Samuel in the question to David it is 7 years. What is “the real” reading that God would have wanted us to preserve? In one variant, in the question, it is 7 years. In the older more original variants it is 3 years in the question. The question is about a future famine. You can’t make up shite about a past famine back tuck triple somersault.
quote:
Ornan Vs Araunah: Same person. Different name or title
Or, they are different traditions of the name of the owner of the threshing floor.
quote:
Purchases price: one price is for the immediate use of the location, livestock, tools, etc. for a sacrifice while the other price is for the whole land and everything on it for building the temple. The smaller is part of the larger but the amount is emphasizing different aspects of the purchase.
See what I bolded? You made all that shite up. It isn’t in evidence.
quote:
Its surprising that David would want to tear down the threshing floor
The part in bold - you made that shite up. Nothing says anything about him tearing down the threshing floor.
quote:
and replace it with a temple that looked nothing like a threshing floor
An altar, dummy, not a temple. David was to build an altar on the threshing floor.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 5:52 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:They've been accepted as written by Prophets, who weren't just writing for their leisure, but to record God's very revelation. If you claim books were edited or rewritten, you're going to have to prove it. Jesus considered the Old Testament to be God's word, not just words of men.
They weren’t writing a Bible. They didn’t know someone would come along later and try to put them in a collection and the for another group 2300 years later to claim univocality and that there are no contradictions. Samuel and Kings were probably supposed to be burned but were preserved.
quote:Of course you're convinced. You hate God and you're looking for anything to hang your hat on to justify your rebellion against your creator.
Well the guys smarter on this subject than you and me that god PHDs and made it their life’s work wrote books explaining and showing the evidence that it’s a re-write, and they convinced me.
quote:Not at all. They had one purpose and one message. You assume differently, which is why you have to pull everything out of context.
No, that is your dogma overriding what the books, written at different times by different authors with different theologies and different goals, literally state.
quote:You're incredulous precisely because you don't believe the parallel passage actually informs 2 Samuel. When you see the both together, it isn't hard at all to know what's going on. You're confused because you throw away a helpful passage.
You tell me. In 2 Samuel 24 who was the LORD talking to? How do you even know it was the LORD speaking?
I don't have to show that God is speaking to Satan or anyone else in particular. All that is necessary to defeat your argument is to show that grammatically and/or logically, God could be speaking to anyone other than David, or it could be even someone else speaking, instead of God. In Exodus 34, the Hebrew isn't always as clear with the pronouns, and therefore grammatically, "he" doesn't have to be directed to David. That's why I provided additional context, both immediately of David's repentance and sorry for his sin (and the absence of him defending himself, which you would expect if God commanded him directly to sin), as well as the parallel passage that explains that Satan was involved. That's why I keep saying you're cherry picking. You ignore the rest of the context.
quote:David wanted to number the people, but he wasn't going to oversee it, himself. That's why he delegated the project to Joab. It was by David's authority that Joab oversaw the project, and therefore it was David's sin that was the occasion for God's judgement.
In 2 Samuel 24:2, the very next verse, the king (we all know this is David, maybe except you) relayed the message and sub-delegated the numbering to Joab.
God didn't say, "David, go number the people", because the context doesn't indicate that David spoke to God about it. He repented for his sin. Therefore, God's statement was a declaration of His divine will, given to the reader through the Prophet. David wasn't the initial recipient, as the context indicates.
quote:You're the one stating there is a contradiction. All I have to do is show that there is a plausible explanation as to why a contradiction is not required as you are stating. As long as there is a plausible explanation, you can't reasonably call it a contradiction.
That’s literally all you do to try to make contradictory stories speak with the same unifying non-contradictory voice.
quote:We already went through this. Greek words have a range of meaning. It is incumbent upon you to say how the word cannot mean both to acquire and to take up. The message is clear: don't go and get anything for your trip, but leave fast.
It does not. Mark and Luke use the same exact verb, Mark says not to take a staff, while Luke says to take a staff. It’s clear and plain in English and in the Greek.
quote:I'm using both passages together. Satan is a created being, God isn't. God has ultimate authority and sovereignty. Satan is bound to what God allows. I'm sorry that you're so unacquainted with Christian theology that these concepts are confusing.
If you’re going to make shite up that isn’t in evidence, why not say it is Satan as the first cause and Yahweh as the second. Maybe Satan told Yahweh to incite David.
quote:That's not what the passage says. Both passages say that David's words prevailed against Joab, meaning that David did not relent but had Joab do as commanded. The difference is in the report that was recorded in the Bible. In Chronicles, it lists the full number of those counted in the census for us to know, but he held back the numbers from those he wasn't supposed to count. In Samuel, it doesn't reveal that information, but only gives the lower number (presumably minus those he wasn't supposed to count). The end result is the same, but it is communicated differently due to the different purposes of the writing.
But in Samuel, David’s words win him over and he does what he was told. In Chronicles, he disobeys David by not counting all the fighting men.
quote:Samuel uses the phrase "valiant men who drew the sword" while Chronicles just says "men who drew the sword". That's why I said it could be that one version is talking about those in the standing army or immediately ready to fight while the other includes reserves and others that could be called upon.
Everyone was counted in Israel in both versions. Why does the contradiction remain for Israelite fighting men?
quote:I'm not making up anything. I'm giving you a plausible explanation as to the differences, which do not necessitate a contradiction.
There’s our Foo, ladies and gents. He loves making shite up
You're looking at this all wrong: you think that because the message is the same but the details are different that that means there must be a contradiction. I'm telling you how a contradiction is not necessary if there are plausible reasons for the difference in the details.
quote:The context is the context. Earlier in David's reign there was famine. Future judgement could also have been famine. Combined together, you could 7 years. One account would list the total number of years while the other account would provide the exact amount for the specific punishment for the census.
So now you are making even more composite stories - doing what you do best… making up what isn’t in evidence.
quote:Or... they are the same person with different names, which I showed was somewhat common in the Bible.
Or, they are different traditions of the name of the owner of the threshing floor
quote:You're the one not reading the "evidence". Samuel says, "So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver" while Chronicles says "So David paid Ornan 600 shekels of gold by weight for the site"
See what I bolded? You made all that shite up. It isn’t in evidence.
In one account, a lesser amount was noted for just the floor and the sacrificial animals. The other had a larger amount for the entire site or place, which would eventually be used for the template. That's in the evidence.
quote:Read the next chapter. David had every intention on building the temple on that spot and even started preparations to do so, but God told him that he wouldn't be able to do it and had Solomon do it, instead.
Nothing says anything about him tearing down the threshing floor
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:26 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If you claim books were edited or rewritten, you're going to have to prove it
Foo, you called Chronicles “parallel” scriptures to Samuels/Kings. I completely agree in the sense that they are two versions of the same material. So why are there two versions?
We know the Chronicler used Kings as a source text. For one example, we have 2 Kings 18:13 and 2 Chronicles 32:1. The Chronicler copies word for word the phrases about Sennacherib conquering Hezekiah and Judah. There’s probably a thousand examples that shows the Chronicler copied Kings, but he changed a lot of it. This is not even debated among serious scholars. I’m not sure how you feel about it but thought this is important. But we don’t have to stop there… the author(s) of Samuel and Kings repeatedly states his sources as at least two books. The Book of the Kings of Israel, and the Book of the Kings of Judah. The Chronicler on the other hand says his source text is “the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah” (one singular book that includes stories from both nations). That’s the books of Samuels/Kings and that we have today. The Chronicler is repeatedly stating he has a source that he is using and he tells you what the source is.
So if the Chronicler, likely a Levite scribe, wrote a different version of events using Samuels/Kings as sources, that’s literally a re-writing of the earlier books. You might not want proof, but if you did, if you researched it for 5 minutes, you’d understand. Well, an open minded critical thinker would - only sure about you.
quote:
Jesus considered the Old Testament to be God's word, not just words of men.
That’s an anachronistic sentence, Foo. I know you know your mistake, but there was no Old Testament. There wasn’t even a Jewish Bible yet. There was the Septuagint of course, but there was no authoritative collection of canonical scripture. There were scriptures, of course, and Jesus and Jude and Paul and the rest of them considered 1 Enoch to be scripture. P.S. I’m talking about the fictional character of Jesus, who was a mythical fantasy.
quote:
Of course you're convinced
Because the evidence is overwhelming and shows it to be true. Sorry facts hurt your feelings.
quote:
You hate God and you're looking for anything to hang your hat on to justify your rebellion against your creator.
Don’t you tire of writing nonsense like this? quote:
You're incredulous precisely because you don't believe the parallel passage actually informs 2 Samuel
No, I don’t put the cart before the horse. I don’t decide what is true and then look for evidence to support an arbitrary assertion. You have that dogma “the texts must agree and speak with a unifying voice, therefore they can’t disagree, and anything they apparently disagree about isn’t a real valid disagreement, so there must be an explanation.” It’s fallacious.
quote:
I don't have to show that God is speaking to Satan or anyone else in particular. All that is necessary to defeat your argument is to show that grammatically and/or logically, God could be speaking to anyone other than David, or it could be even someone else speaking, instead of God.
You don’t understand what defeating an argument actually is. I can tell you what it’s not. It is not ginning up anything you want that isn’t in evidence in an attempt to explain the tiniest chance of “it’s not impossible”. That’s enough to convince you - I get it. But because I don’t have a dogma, you inventing things not in evidence to show me it’s not entirely possible that something isn’t contradictory isn’t a way to defeat my argument or do any convincing whatsoever. Ginning up excuses - apologetics - is good enough to validate your own beliefs and dogmas - but it isn’t enough to convince an outsider who doesn’t share your inherent dogmas already. You’re like a special ed student trying to convince Einstein he is mistaken on particle physics.
quote:
God didn't say, "David, go number the people", because the context doesn't indicate that David spoke to God about it.
It absolutely does indicate Yahweh (not “God”) spoke to David, in 2 Samuel. When you gin up fantasies, reject the plain meaning of the author, and insert ideas from other stories and authors, you can convince yourself of anything, apparently. You’ve become an expert at tricking yourself, while you are blissfully ignorant on how to make a persuasive argument to others.
quote:
You're the one stating there is a contradiction. All I have to do is show that there is a plausible explanation as to why a contradiction is not required as you are stating. As long as there is a plausible explanation, you can't reasonably call it a contradiction.
None of your arguments are plausible or based on the evidence. Your arguments are created by you, and you convince yourself two different reasons are “not impossible”. You confuse “not impossible” with “plausible”, but in your head you think “probable”. Your assertions not in evidence created out of thin air to convince yourself are not probable or likely, and aren’t even plausible. You fail.
quote:
We already went through this. Greek words have a range of meaning. It is incumbent upon you to say how the word cannot mean both to acquire and to take up. The message is clear: don't go and get anything for your trip, but leave fast.
bullshite. One says to take a staff, one says not to take a staff using the same verb. It’s unambiguous. The verb used in Matthew gets you butthurt. Focus on Mark and Luke. Same verb. Stop. Lying.
quote:
Samuel uses the phrase "valiant men who drew the sword" while Chronicles just says "men who drew the sword".
quote:
That's why I said it could be that one version is talking about those in the standing army or immediately ready to fight while the other includes reserves and others that could be called upon
quote:
Combined together, you could 7 years.
You don’t even understand that there are different manuscripts where the older ones say 3 and the more recent versions say 7, but none of it is about past famines. The number of years is in a question about a future famine. How can you be this stupid, Foo? Why are you trolling?
quote:
You're the one not reading the "evidence". Samuel says, "So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver" while Chronicles says "So David paid Ornan 600 shekels of gold by weight for the site"
You would think the almighty storm deity would pick some more competent scribes.Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:33 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:They are written for different purposes. Samuel and Kings were written earlier to highlight Israel's covenant faithlessness and why they were being punished by God. Chronicles was written to a post-exilic people to provide hope based on God's promises. The narratives are both from God but emphasize different elements. Like the gospels.
Foo, you called Chronicles “parallel” scriptures to Samuels/Kings. I completely agree in the sense that they are two versions of the same material. So why are there two versions?
quote:The "proof" is the opinion of scholars who do not take the Bible to be God's revelation, so they interpret Scripture according to other methods, with the assumption that it isn't God's word baked in. It's why I say presuppositions matter. If you assume it's not true, or if you assume miracles don't exist, or if you assume it was written by mere men without the inspiration of God, then you're going to have a completely different outlook on the Bible.
So if the Chronicler, likely a Levite scribe, wrote a different version of events using Samuels/Kings as sources, that’s literally a re-writing of the earlier books. You might not want proof, but if you did, if you researched it for 5 minutes, you’d understand. Well, an open minded critical thinker would - only sure about you.
You are the prime use case. Your self-deception will not allow you to see the Bible as one cohesive unit, written by one supernatural author through many human authors. You see it as a bunch of man-made superstition based in ignorance. It's why you keep cherry-picking verses and passages and ignoring other texts, because you see them as irrelevant due to the disconnect between authors and writings.
quote:You're wrong about that. Not only did Jesus hold the Jews accountable to Scripture, calling it such, but the Jews put the Scriptures in the temple, as Joseph writes about. There were other Jewish sects that had their own beliefs, but the leaders of the Jewish people knew what Scripture was.
That’s an anachronistic sentence, Foo. I know you know your mistake, but there was no Old Testament. There wasn’t even a Jewish Bible yet. There was the Septuagint of course, but there was no authoritative collection of canonical scripture. There were scriptures, of course, and Jesus and Jude and Paul and the rest of them considered 1 Enoch to be scripture. P.S. I’m talking about the fictional character of Jesus, who was a mythical fantasy.
quote:You are personally convinced by what you're read because you are blinded to the truth.
Because the evidence is overwhelming and shows it to be true. Sorry facts hurt your feelings.
quote:I don't tire from the truth.
Don’t you tire of writing nonsense like this?
quote:Yes, you do, when it comes to spiritual truth.
No, I don’t put the cart before the horse. I don’t decide what is true and then look for evidence to support an arbitrary assertion.
quote:It's not fallacious. If they are the word of God, then they must agree. I'm honest about my presuppositions. You are not honest about yours. You still pretend to be neutral.
You have that dogma “the texts must agree and speak with a unifying voice, therefore they can’t disagree, and anything they apparently disagree about isn’t a real valid disagreement, so there must be an explanation.” It’s fallacious.
quote:I know it better than you do. I've been arguing with enemies of God like you for decades. You aren't novel and you aren't special. Logically, all I have to do to defeat your claim of a contradiction is to show a plausible alternative that reconciles two paradoxical statements. A contradiction only exists when there is no way to reconcile competing truth claims. It isn't about convincing you of the truth of the Bible, but showing you that your claim of a contradiction isn't true. I'm not trying to prove to you the truth of the Bible, because I know you are blind and won't believe it no matter what. I'm just trying to show you that your arguments hold no water.
You don’t understand what defeating an argument actually is.
quote:I haven't made up anything I've said. You are repeating the same tired attacks against the Bible that have existed for centuries or longer. Others smarter than me have already addressed these time and time again. I can send you to a dozen websites devoted to answering alleged contradictions, but I'm trying to engage with you organically.
None of your arguments are plausible or based on the evidence. Your arguments are created by you, and you convince yourself two different reasons are “not impossible”. You confuse “not impossible” with “plausible”, but in your head you think “probable”. Your assertions not in evidence created out of thin air to convince yourself are not probable or likely, and aren’t even plausible. You fail.
Again, I don't need to prove to you what the right interpretation of a passage is. All I need to do is show that it isn't a contradiction, as you allege. Maybe one day you'll figure out what a contradiction actually is.
quote:I'm not trying to persuade you that the Bible is true. That is going to be impossible without the Holy Spirit opening your eyes. You're self-deceived, so nothing I say will convince you. All I'm trying to do is show you that when you think a contradiction exists, that it doesn't, necessarily.
It absolutely does indicate Yahweh (not “God”) spoke to David, in 2 Samuel. When you gin up fantasies, reject the plain meaning of the author, and insert ideas from other stories and authors, you can convince yourself of anything, apparently. You’ve become an expert at tricking yourself, while you are blissfully ignorant on how to make a persuasive argument to others.
You are inferring from the text that God is speaking directly to David. Based on the context of that chapter and the one following, it's clear that God wasn't speaking directly to David. The other book only shows that further. Like I said, you interpret the Bible according to your assumption that it's full of actual errors and contradictions, so you won't hear anything else. You are not neutral.
quote:Again, even verbs can have a range of meanings depending on context. I'm not going to get into this again with you, so you can just read this link explaining the usage of the verbs.
One says to take a staff, one says not to take a staff using the same verb. It’s unambiguous. The verb used in Matthew gets you butthurt. Focus on Mark and Luke. Same verb. Stop. Lying.
quote:Calling me stupid doesn't help your case. I hope you know that. Like I said previously, the context was that there was already 3 years of famine during David's reign. The census took nearly a year to complete, and if God already sent a famine during that time, then the 3 years choice for the future would amount to a total of about 7 years, as the text says. Whether or not there is a variant that says 3 years is irrelevant.
You don’t even understand that there are different manuscripts where the older ones say 3 and the more recent versions say 7, but none of it is about past famines. The number of years is in a question about a future famine. How can you be this stupid, Foo? Why are you trolling?
quote:You still don't get it, do you? The texts weren't meant to quote everything verbatim any more than the gospels were meant to. The same narratives were often times written to emphasize something different. Both narratives can have the same message with different details intended for different purposes.
You would think the almighty storm deity would pick some more competent scribes.
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News