beastmaster

gregor, Here's the way I am understanding the two passages in their contexts:

(1) David's generals are enjoying great military success. (2 Sam 23; 1 Chr. 20).
(2) Suddenly, the Jews suffer a military reversal. (2 Sam 24:1; 1 Chr. 21:1). Because this is somewhat embarrassing for the Jews, both authors treat the fact in a roundabout way. For the author of Samuel, the reversal is described as "God's anger kindling against Israel" and, for the Chronicler, it is described as "opposition arising."
(3) The military reversal makes David nervous and incites him to count his forces.
(4) For YHWH, the census shows David's lack of faith in YHWH's providence, and so the Big G decides to punish the Jews accordingly.

I disagree with any suggestion that Chronicles "shifts the blame" for inciting the census from YHWH to a third party entity (Satan) that is rebellious to the Spirit of God. I think both passages are simply describing the same thing: David suffered a military defeat. For both authors, it was the will of God that David suffer that defeat. For both authors, David's reaction to the defeat of conducting a census contradicted the will of God.

However, the more I read and consider the two passages, the more I am convinced that my assumption that the two passages both refer to a military reversal is potentially as ad-hoc and unjustified as any other interpretation.

beastmaster

It may well be the case that the author of Chronicles is employing an anthropomorphism here, as suggested by the absence of an indefinite article. But I am hesitant to exclude the possibility that this is a figurative anthropomorphism, akin to Father Time or Old Man Winter. I have significant doubts that the passage refers to Satan as the Devil, an agent with an agenda, an "individual."

I agree with you that this is not a "great" contradiction. More like an ambiguity.

Magus55

There is no contradiction in ways to be saved. John 3:16 sums it up. What do you mean by confession? Confession to a priest, or to God? If its too God, that is part of belief in the Savior and turning your life from sin. No where in the Bible does it say water Baptism is a requirement. Baptism by the Holy Spirit is, but that comes once you accept Jesus as your savior. And works come after being saved as a sign of you turning your life to God. Works will never save you, they are only a sign of your saved state.

Magus55

How is that a contradiction? Not knowing something isn't a contradiction.

Sauron

Not knowing something? What are you referring to?

The contradiction comes from the discrepancies in the gospel accounts of the resurrection.

Celsus

Yes, it's called the Secular Web Library.

Joel

Peter Kirby

The Secular Web Library has nice big lists of contradictions.

What someone might want to do is to is to compile all the arguments that are available concerning each issue and then given some analysis of the rebuttals to the alleged contradiction. There is plenty of such inerrantist rebuttal material on the web, but not so much errantist response to that material.

I myself have never believed in inerrancy and find it hard to devote much time to it.

best,
Peter Kirby

Celsus

Paul Carson's list of New Testament Contradictions is one such compilation.

One of my favourite series of absurdities is the image of Hagar hoisting the 14- or 15-year-old* Ishmael on her back when she is cast out by Abraham (Gen 21:14). Fourteen is old enough to get married in most pastoral societies... Just before these verses is the story of Abimelech attempting to take the rather aged Sarah to sleep with (Gen 20). I don't know how Christians can read their Bible and not feel uncomfortable.

Joel

* Gen 16:16--Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born; Gen 21:5 states that he was 100 when he had Isaac.

GPLindsey

The fun part about Biblical inerrancy is that it rests on the notion that God is the author--it is his Word, not ours. I take from that that God wouldn't change the meanings of words around as he directed the Bible to be written over the centuries. He is timeless and unchanging--he is not bound by the nuances of how ancient languages wrote this or that word.

If my NIV version says "Satan" in Chronicles, and I understand Satan to be the evil guy described in the new Testament, then God obviously meant for me and others to read that as the same Satan. He doesn't expect everyone to learn ancient Hebrew or Aramaic to understand what the ancient authors REALLY meant, since he is the lone, unchanging author. How different authors over the centuries interpreted words as they were writing the Bible is irrelevant--God would make sure that the NIV in my hands in the 21 century accurately portrayed his meaning. Satan is Satan!!

If God isn't the author and the Bible isn't inerrant, then of course everything falls into place--the contradictions, blunders, revisions, etc., are the result of fallable humans writing and rewriting their histories and legends over many centuries. The Bible is still facinating, but it is not infallible.

premjan

if God did not exist, man would have to invent him.
-- I forget who

I think the above explains the existence of God quite adequately. Man wishes to have an omnipotent parent in his own image, so he creates one. God represents the sum total of all of man's historical goals and aspirations.