CX

How about an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent immaterial deity? What's more contradictory than that?

GakuseiDon

Yes, I agree too.

Does anyone know of a site that actually lists strong arguments? If not, maybe I'll create one...

Doctor X

GPLindsey:

Just to answer your question, it is a contradiction. The Chronicles rewrites the Deuteronomistic History of Samuel-Kings. One of the things the Chronicler does is remove some of the "messy bits" like YHWH's evil, Solomon loving foreign women, et cetera.

As for contradiction, many exist.

--J.D.

beastmaster

I doubt that this is a true contradiction.

The word "satan" is Hebrew for "stumbling block" or "opposition." I don't see any evidence from the context that 1 Chron. intends to refer to the guy-in-the-red-jumpsuit-with-pointy-horns. Seems to me that both passages are simply saying that Israel ran into some sort of difficulty which caused David to take a census; the only difference is that the former specifies that the cause of the difficulty is God's anger.

Of course, I am no expert.

Calzaer

Is there a site other than the SAB that lists ANY arguments?

The SAB has plenty of great arguments, it also has plenty of silly arguments. It's EXHAUSTIVE. The authors aren't trying to judge on the quality of the contradictions, they're simply listing all the contradictions (that a layman would see as contradictions). If you start only listing the "strong" arguments, you get into matters of opinion, which are tougher to list in an annotated format.

Doctor X

beastmaster:

It is a contradiction in that it shifts the blame from YHWH to Satan.

Granted, our wonderful stumbling block--stn--has yet to become the pointy-eared-horn'd-Beast-from-the-Bottomless-Pit that will impregnate Mia Farrow; however, he has, at this stage of mythmaking, become an "agent." He is similar to the "Destroyer" of Exodus and the "Prosecutor" of Job. Indeed, later commentators would make that very connection.

It is a "contradiction" in that by rewriting the Samuels passage the Chronicler removes the blame from YHWH--a bit like stating Oswald killed JFK when any idiot knows it was Star Fleet Command.

Of course . . . the Chronicler did not expect his work to end up in the same book as his sources!

Incidentally, for anyone interested in the development of the stumbling block into Saddam Hussein's playmate, Neil Forsyth's, The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth, Princeton University Press, is a great and very readable resource.

--J.D.

beastmaster

Doctor X,

I simply don't see anything in 1 Chron. that supports the inference of stn being an "agent" (as opposed to it referring to the general concept of "opposition" or "adversity"). There are absolutely no other mentions of stn in 1 Chron. Seems strange to interpret the passage as introducing a character who never reappears. On what basis do you believe that the author is referring to an entity?

It seems to me the most natural English-language rendering of the verse would be: "Opposition (or adversity) confronted Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel." That makes some sense from the context, given that Joab is off hacking and slaying and massacring all sorts of people in 1 Chron. 20. It wouldn't be surprising if Israel suffered a military reversal, which incited a nervous David to count the measure of his remaining forces.

Note, I fully recognize that you are not alone in thinking that stn refers to the Devil here.

gregor

A prime contradiction is the Easter story. There is no logical way to explain who went to the tomb, who saw whom, and what happened thereafter.

A good discussion is found at this site: www.ffrf.org/lfif/stone

All attempts to square these are very weak.

[Shout out to Dr. X, from a fan from www.randi.org]

gregor

Beastmaster

Why does God punish David if there is no contradiction?

If there is no contradiction, then you're saying:

God got mad and compelled a census; Adversity compelled a census; and God punished the Jews because either God or adversity compelled a census.

Doctor X

gregor:

Oh hey! Is Genghis Pwn still wacking off to pictures of underaged girls there? Apparently he has been banned here a few times.

beastmaster:

Why do I get into these things without my sources in front of me?

Anyways, I think Satan is used by the Chronicler more than once, but I will have to check that. One thing I recall is that unlike other examples of "a satan" as in "an obstacle," this one lacks the indefinite article. "Satan" is an "individual" in the context of the passage--much like "the Destroyer" as noted above. The Chronicler does not bother with providing anyother details.

It remains a contradiction, because the Chronicler added it to the Deuteronomistic story which shifts the blame from YHWH to "someone else." The Chronicler represents a post-exillic . . . exhilic . . . ex . . . post-being in Babylon reinterpretation of the DH--to put it simply. Here, the Chronicler is not interested in explaining why David and Solomon fucked up--and led to "our downfall."

Thus, the Chronicler, by changing the story, contradicts his source.

How much of his "Satan" is an independent person is anyone's guess, frankly.

I will check my sources on the passage latter to see if other examples exist which can flesh it out.

Certainly, as others state, greater contradictions exist in the OT and NT--like man being created twice and Junior being born twice roughly ten years appart! I rather like a Judas who hangs himself in one text and explodes in another!

--J.D.