Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Kesler · 01-05-2010, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andykiwi

The Serpent isn't linked to Satan until Revelation - the last book in the Bible.

Although Revelation (12:9 and 20:2) are explicit in equating Satan and the serpent, I think that Paul alludes to this identification, too:

Quote:

Romans 16:20 (Compare the curse on the serpent in Genesis 3:15)
20 The God of peace will shortly crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

rhutchin · 01-05-2010, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The usual explanation is that God ordains all that happens but is not the cause of all that happens. Thus, while Satan incites David to number Israel (and thereby to sin), it is God who has the ultimate say in whether to allow this temptation to proceed or stop it in its tracks. God allows Satan to tempt David but prompts Joab to protest the action giving David the opportunity to back off from his sinful action. David declines to back off.

To the Christian, Satan is the instigator of the census by David and tempts him to sin, but Satan can only do that which God allows. Had David been thinking clearly, he would have called for Gad, his seer, and asked him to inquire of God whether he should do the census.

The Bible clearly indicates that God will allow people to be tempted yet promises that, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."

2 Samuel 24:1 says the Lord was angry and the Lord incited David to this act. How does this reconcile with your apology?

The writer attributes to God the ultimate say in the matter. Even though it was Satan who tempted David to number Israel, God had to decide to allow it.

However, the writer of Samuel ups the ante. Israel had sinned against God (the specifics are not given). As a result the anger of God was kindled against Israel. Consistent with that, the writer then says it was God who moved David to sin (and thereby bring judgment on Israel). The author of Chronicles does not mention God's wrath on Israel so he just deals with Satan's role.

rhutchin · 01-05-2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarmStephanieE

Glad to hear the feedback here. Thank you for your time on this. I couldn't begin to list the many attempts to explain this without getting a headache but here are a few of my favorites that really don't work. The poster on the christian site is not buying it either, and sees through most of their slick sales tactics. However, the poster is considering conversion to christianity ANYWAY.

...

2) The apparent favorite, God permits stuff to happen. That is so convenient.

...

Convenient and consistent with God's omniscience and omnipotence which grants to Him final say in all that happens so that God ordains all that happens.

rob117 · 01-05-2010, 02:21 PM

This is an example of the earlier theology of 2 Samuel being replaced by the later theology of Chronicles. In the pre-exilic period (Samuel) the nature of Yahweh was still seen as primarily cultic. Good and evil were not ordained by God, but had independent existence; thus God is capable of evil. This belief was held in common with Israel's neighbors-- the Babylonians believed their individual gods to be capable of both good and evil; the boundary between the human and the divine was not one of morality, simply of power.

Chronicles comes from the Persian period, in which the idea of God as the author of morality was more extensively developed, and the Jews had come under the influence of Zoroastrian dualism. The idea that God would have incited David to commit a cultic sin for the sole purpose of having an excuse to punish him was not palatable to the Chronicler. So in the process of lifting the text from Samuel to Chronicles, the author replaced God with Satan to bring the account more in line with his theology.

EDIT: Just wanted to throw in how interesting it is that the authors of later OT books did not hold the earlier books to the same standard of inerrancy that modern day believers hold them to.

CarmStephanieE · 01-05-2010, 07:03 PM

How very interesting!

I've learned much here. Thank you all for your insight on this.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-05-2010, 02:21 PM	#14
rob117 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: New York State Posts: 440	This is an example of the earlier theology of 2 Samuel being replaced by the later theology of Chronicles. In the pre-exilic period (Samuel) the nature of Yahweh was still seen as primarily cultic. Good and evil were not ordained by God, but had independent existence; thus God is capable of evil. This belief was held in common with Israel's neighbors-- the Babylonians believed their individual gods to be capable of both good and evil; the boundary between the human and the divine was not one of morality, simply of power. Chronicles comes from the Persian period, in which the idea of God as the author of morality was more extensively developed, and the Jews had come under the influence of Zoroastrian dualism. The idea that God would have incited David to commit a cultic sin for the sole purpose of having an excuse to punish him was not palatable to the Chronicler. So in the process of lifting the text from Samuel to Chronicles, the author replaced God with Satan to bring the account more in line with his theology. EDIT: Just wanted to throw in how interesting it is that the authors of later OT books did not hold the earlier books to the same standard of inerrancy that modern day believers hold them to.

01-05-2010, 07:03 PM	#15
CarmStephanieE Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Midwest Posts: 42	How very interesting! I've learned much here. Thank you all for your insight on this.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.