Why I Can’t Agree With the Bible: 1 Chronicles: Part 2


I again have very little to say about this book. I doubt I’ll have much to say about the next one either. Both 1st and 2nd Chronicles are really just repeats of what I’ve already discussed.

The 2nd part of 1 Chronicles talked about David. Since I’ve already asked a ton of questions about David, I don’t have much to add to the list.

The one thing I do have to say is this: 1 Chronicles says that Satan rose up against David. I don’t remember that being said before. Satan hasn’t really been brought up very often at all. So why is this claim being made now? Is it a result of certain changes experienced by the authors? Is it a different tactic used to get people to follow Yahweh and give up the worship of other gods? Or did the earlier authors simply view Satan’s role as unimportant or obvious? There has to be a reason why this (and other) new details were added when they weren’t there before.

Advertisements

5 responses to “Why I Can’t Agree With the Bible: 1 Chronicles: Part 2

  • trotter387

    You raise a really interesting point because bible translators have discussed this for many years. Should the this Hebrew word translated as Satan actually be translated with a lower case ‘s’.

    The technical view is that the word is better translated as ‘the resister’ or ‘resister’ which is the original Hebrew meaning.

    Reviewing the context of 1 Chron 21:1 it is clear to see that David himself had resisted the instructions he received and that the registration or census was not approved by God.

    Your other question linked to how visibly Satan was to the early bible writers again requires a review of the relationship Israel had developed with Yahweh or Jehovah, what we understand is by the time of the Exodus the Israelites were required to separate themselves from the nations because these governments worshipped false gods. As Alexander Hislop made the point in the 1890’s this was because they accepted the point that all religion in opposition to Jehovah was led or created by Satan.

    Satan’s role was well-known to the Israelites because Moses also wrote the Bible book of Job which gave a real time account of events in the spirit realm.

    The bible does stand up to scrutiny. Additionally there is a point to be made about science and the bible, no where does the bible claim to be a science text book, it is a life guide. Where science and the bible do touch the accuracy is interesting.

    You raise the point about Newton the same applies to Einstein and Hawkin this is because our knowledge base is expanding so we should keep asking questions. As a person with a faith I still ask the difficult questions.

    Enjoyed the blog and your answers to the point raised.

    Like

  • Willie Mac

    Satan has always been minimized and placed behind the scenes. The time for him to be confronted openly was not yet to occur. The Jews were not at all ignorant of the existence of Satan, but they were more aware (at least the faithful ones) that Yahweh was much greater than the adversary. In the Old Testament, as long as Israel was faithful Yahweh fought their battles; when they were not, he handed them over to their enemies (who were aligned with adversary). But the Scripture is also clear that even the evil one is not outside of the sovereignty of Yahweh. Thus, Satan is present but pictured as a minor foe behind the scenes making life difficult for those who trusted in Yahweh’s present and future deliverance. Also you have to keep in mind 1&2 Kings focus on both the Southern and Northern kingdom and does so in a negative, prophetic pessimistic light; whereas 1&2 Chronicles covers mostly the Southern kingdom and paints a brighter, more hopeful picture of Israel’s future because of God’s covenant with David, which is to be everlasting. I will have to go back and see what questions you asked about David.

    Like

  • Why I Can't Agree With the Bible: 1 Chronicles: Part 2 | Christians Anonymous

    […] Source: Why I Can’t Agree With the Bible: 1 Chronicles: Part 2 […]

    Like

  • peddiebill

    If I were to claim that because Euclid was hopeless at algebra he had nothing to teach us about maths, or that because Newton knew no relativity we could forget his laws of motion I suspect some very learned people would say:”hold on a moment!” Dismissing the Bible which was a gradually emerging set of religious and sociological ideas is equivalent to dismissing science which was a gradually emerging set of ideas about the natural world and which in the Bible days very little was known.
    Does rejecting the Bible mean that none of its history, its poetry, its moral teaching, its insights into the human condition are of any value. So you think that the golden rule about loving your neighbour as yourself is not a useful insight, or that we need to learn from the story of the Good Samaritan?
    Few modern Christians take the Bible as all literally true : Google “Biblical Inerrancy” and “Bill Peddie” if you dont believe me! However to reject the lot is a bit like saying modern people need to know no history or literature and that there is no value in learning the history of any branch of knowledge, or tossing out Shakespear because he got some history wrong.

    Like

    • hessianwithteeth

      At what point did I suggest that the Bible should be thrown out? I don’t think it is morally relevant today because we have different moral standards today, but at no point have I said that the whole Bible is wrong. However, comparing the Bible to science is silly. Newton’s laws don’t reflect reality very well, but we use them as a stepping stone to get a better understanding. If we through them out, we would have nothing to expand on. We’d have to start all over. What would be the consequences of throwing out the Bible? It’s moral codes were pretty common at the time, not just among Jews, but among other people in the same area. It’s historical information is not as good as other historical information from the time, thus why historians don’t use it. Sure, we’d lose some poetry, but there’d still be similar poetry from the time. All we’d really lose out on would be the opportunity to worship the particular god written about in that book.
      There is a reason that I’m going through the Bible bit by bit: I’m showing people why I don’t agree with the Bible. I’m not saying what other people can or can’t believe. I’m asking questions and giving alternative solutions. I’m pointing out problems, but that doesn’t mean I’m not also mentioning what I agree with.

      Like

Tell us what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: