Is Jesus a blameless lamb or blameful god?

Question

The "Lord" tempted David . . . 2 SAMUEL 24:1 or "Satan provoked David . . . I CHRONICLES 21:1 (b) 700 or 7000? "Horsemen" or "Footmen" . . . ? 2 Samuel 10:18 vs 1 CHRONICLES 19: 18 (c) Solomon had 2000 baths or 3000 baths? 1 KINGS 7-26 vs 2 CHRONICLES 4:5 (d) Solomon had 4000 stalls of horses or 40000? 2 CHRONICLES 9:25 vs 1 KINGS 4:26 (e) Did Saul enquire of the Lord or didn't he? 1 SAMUELS 28:6 vs 1 CHRONICLES 10:13-14 (f) Heaven, no man hath ascended JOHN 3:13 Contradicted by. 2 KINGS 2:11 Elijah ascended, and GENESIS 5:24 Enoch ascended. (g) Jesus lost "None" of his disciples JOHN 18:9 Contradicted by. He lost only "One" JOHN 17:12 (h) ALL are sinners 2 CHRONICLES 6:36 Contradicted by: "Whosoever is born of God DOTH NOT commit sin. . ." 1 John 3:9

Answer 1

In answer to the question: Blameless Lamb

This is a very good exercise in Biblical study. Did you look all these up and actually read them or copy them from a website claiming that they are all contradictions?
On the surface, they do appear to be contradictions to the casual reader. But when one does a little research, they show a different face.
Let's address them one at a time.

A
The Books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles are parallel recordings of events that took place over the same general time period and were written by different persons from different perspectives. Naturally they used different phrases and words on occasion.
To understand what you perceive as an inconsistency, you must read the entire section in context, not just take a single sentence out of context.
In essence, though, Satan caused Israel to be disobedient which in turn caused God to become angry. From one person's perspective, Satan caused Israel's problem and from the other perspective God's anger caused Israel's problem.


B
I think you are experiencing another translation issue.
The KJV states in one passage that he destroyed 700 chariots and in the other passage that he slew 7000 men who fought in chariots. I am sure you can agree that destroying chariots and killing the men who fought in chariots are not the same thing.
Do not be drawn in by the image of a chariot as seen in the movies or in pictures entirely. While it is true that nobles and kings rode in chariots of that type, common soldiers generally were carted about in what is essentially wagons. There could be as many as a dozen men in each chariot.

C
You completely misread (did you actually read it?) this. He did not take that many baths.
The use of the word bath here is as a quantity of water. The cisterns of these places (there were two different places discussed) held enough water for that many baths.
One place was a temple and the other place was a palace.

D
None of these passages in my Bible mentions 40000. Where did you get that number? Possibly a typo in your book?

E
Ah yes, this is a classic.
The word enquire has more than one meaning (I suspect the original Hebrew texts use different words in each passage). In one case it means to ask for something. In the other case it means to consult about about something. If Saul consulted the priests about the enemy, the he has enquired of the Lord, but if he did not pray to God, then he did not enquire of the Lord.
Granted this is very confusing and it is quite understandable that someone could take it as a mistake. But what it actually teaches is that talking to your preacher about a problem is not the same thing as talking to God about it.

F
I think I see your confusion. Perhaps I can explain by paraphrasing:
No man has gone to Heaven (by his own power) except Christ. Elijah and Enoch were taken to Heaven by God. In my texts, the word "ascended" is not used in regard to Elijah or Enoch.

G
Jesus did not lose (were not killed) any of His disciples while He was among them. Yet Judas was lost (spiritually) by his own hand. Even so, Judas did not die until after Christ was taken and even then, he died by his own hand. So there is no contradiction here either. It is possible that the original Greek texts can shed more light on the subject.

H
All are sinners. Even those who are born again begin as sinners.
However, once salvation is granted, the heart and soul of the born again is sealed and is the property of Christ. It can never again be stained with sin. Even if the flesh should falter to temptation, the Sin does not come upon the heart and soul of the saved. The saved strive to avoid sin as best they can.

I hope that I have been able to clear things up for you a little bit. It is important to read the scripture in context and with the understanding that the original text was in a different language and some words' translations may be difficult to follow.
The best example is in the Gospel according to John chapter 21:

15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you LOVE Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My lambs."
16 He *said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you LOVE Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Shepherd My sheep."
17 He *said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep."

In these passages, the original Greek writings use agapao for "LOVE" and phileo for "love".
Agapao - This is a very special and deep kind of love. It means to love dearly.
Phileo- This is a friendly kind of affection. In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance it states the difference between agapao and phileo is that agapao is more of a heart love and phileo is more of a head love.

The point is that English translations do not always tell the whole story. When in doubt, go to the source.

Answer 2

blameless lamb.