Why does the bible lie in itself?

Question

who incited david to count the fighting men of israel
2 Samuel 24:1 says God did how ever
I Chronicles 2 1:1 says Satan did

and

in that count have many fighting men were found in israel
2 Samuel 24:9 says 800,000 however
I Chronicles 21:5 says 1,100,000

actually to those who say im into the bible. i dont believe in god one reason being this however i came across an article of 101 of these contradictions. i looked each one up to verify authenticity but good answers down their

Answer 1

In otherwards When David displeased God by numbering Israel, 2 Samuel 24:1 says God moved him to do it, whereas 1 Chronicles 21:1 says Satan caused him to do it. Also, in 2 Samuel 24:9 the sum given is 800,000 Israelites and 500,000 Judeans, whereas 1 Chronicles 21:5 numbers Israel’s fighting men at 1,100,000 and Judah’s at 470,000.

How can these differences be harmonized?

God is sometimes spoken of in Scripture as doing what he merely permits to be done by another. Thus in 2 Samuel 24:1 it states: “The anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.” But Jehovah was not the one that moved David to sin. It was Satan, as 1 Chronicles 21:1 states: “Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.” God was displeased with Israel and hence permitted Satan to bring this sin upon them, and for that reason 2 Samuel reads as though God did it himself. Rotherham’s translation shows it was by God’s sufferance rather than his doing: “The anger of Yahweh kindled against Israel, so that he suffered David to be moved against them saying, Go count Israel and Judah.” The Septuagint in its English translation goes so far as to insert “Satan” in the place of the pronoun “he”. The marginal reading in the King James Version gives “Satan” instead of “he”.

Regularly enlisted in the royal service were 288,000 troops, divided into 12 groups of 24,000 each. They served under a rotation system whereby each group of 24,000 served one month during the year. There were an additional 12,000 attendant on the twelve princes of the tribes, making a total of 300,000. Apparently the 1,100,000 of 1 Chronicles includes this 300,000 already enlisted, whereas 2 Samuel does not. (Num. 1:16; Deut. 1:15; 1 Chron. 27:1-22) As for Judah, 2 Samuel apparently counted in 30,000 who were in an army of observation stationed on the Philistine frontiers, and which were not included in the 1 Chronicles figure. (2 Sam. 6:1)
We note that in 2 Samuel the record does not say “all they of Israel were”, as it does in the more complete summation in 1 Chronicles, but just “there were in Israel”, not using the all-inclusive expression, since it did not include in its numbering the regularly enlisted forces. Again, in 1 Chronicles the account does not say “all they of Judah were”, as it did in the case of Israel, but only “and Judah was”, since it left out 30,000 and hence was not all-inclusive.

So when the entire picture is brought under examination, when we remember that the accounts were written by different men, who had different views in mind, we can harmonize the two accounts without difficulty.

Answer 2

Census~ I am now in Chronicles so I'll explain it from here:

The census of David in this chapter is also recorded in 2 Sam, but there it does state that it was because God was angry with Israel that He moved David to take the census. The account of the census has been problematic because God does not cause anyone to sin, and because it is not apparent why such a census was wrong. (Numbers 1:2, 3 26:2-4). The problem is calrified by comparing these two verses. God did not directly incite David to do something for which He would turn around and judge him(v. 14) rather, He allowed Satan to influence David to do what David had probably already had in his heart to do (James 1:14, 15).

This is similar to when the Lord allows Satan to trouble Job or when He permitted an evil spirit to torment Saul.

Answer 3

All the books of the bible were compiled from oral traditions long after the facts if any occurred by scribes of varying talents, styles and agendas The book of Ruth was added to legitimize marrying gentles at a time when there were a lack of eligible nice Jewish girls. In the first millennium AD when the bible we know was put together the compiler's were more worried about what the books vouchsafed as a belief system (no Gnostic practices or female priests etc) then the historical accuracy. Both the Christian and Jewish bibles have not been open to changes in content for close 1400 years.

Answer 4

I think you make the mistake of thinking that the first logically excludes the second. God tempts no man, but He is willing to allow such. If you put these two together, God intended to test David and the devil was His agent. Take another read through the book of Job for a full fledged perspective on this. I will have to compare the 2 accounts you listed for numbering the people and get back to you about the discrepancy. Email me.

Answer 5

Goodness sake, son, we have trouble getting people to agree on the count of our dead or the dead of the enemy today! Who is included? Camp followers? Supply people? Who?

And who says BOTH of them couldn't count, or if they did, that Satan wouldn't lie and present a different count?

There's plenty of possible reasons without assumming, unjustly, that it "MUST BE A LIE".

Worse, to dismiss one of the most important documents in Western Civilization because you think (or even if it did) lie in some section, is just silly.

No, I'm not religious. Just tired of this particular argument. Most people have actually been paying attention to the last few centuries as MOST Christians no longer believe in the utter truth of every word in the Bible, as well as still cherishing the document that Modern Christianity is based on.

Oh, there's still Literalists around. Literalism totally dominates Islam (great target there, if you like finding a couple of lies in holy texts and want to use them to dismiss a couple of thousand years of history, culture, beliefs, etc.).

Most Christians just find your question silly and go back to reading the newest scientific discoveries.

Answer 6

The Bible is a book of perspective, how would they have had an accurate account of measuring the numbers of people back then anyway? They didn't, the different writers though, of those different books maybe heard different, or saw different numbers for themselves, and estimated. It's very likely that they were different numbers, but that doesn't matter, it's more trying to show that a lot of people were fighting.

Answer 7

You seem pretty interested in the Bible. Thank you Dharmana... I am also bored with obscure bible passages that even I never heard of from some really archaic version of the Bible.

Answer 8

The bible can't "lie"

It is merely a book on which to justify your life and the choices you make.

By the way I pray for you and all who think like that.
GOD BLESS

Answer 9

Stock answer 12785: You are not interpreting it correctly.
Stock answer 46378: You need the spirit to read the bible.

I don't know. It seems to me that if the bible needs to be adaptively reinterpreted to be self-sane then there is no way we can be sure of anything it says.

Answer 10

In the bottom one coudl either men have their own count on things...i could say o about 80000 and someone could think somewhat different