2 Samuel 24. How can you possibly justify this?

[Justin108]

2 Samuel 24:15

"So the Lord sent a plague through Israel from the morning until the completion of the appointed time. Seventy thousand men died from Dan to Beer Sheba."



So God killed 70 000 men. Why? Because David decided to take a census! Why would God kill 70 000 because David took a census? A census! He counted people!
What could possibly justify this senseless slaughter?

Even if David was in the wrong for taking a census, why punish his people? David is the one that messed up, so in response God kills 70 000 other men? What possible justification is there for this? How was David's actions evil and why were 70 000 other people punished for David's actions?

[ttruscott]

What is the punishment for those not-so-wicked who pick up sticks on the Sabbath?

The answer is in Numbers 15...

First the law is set: Num 15:27 “ ‘But if just one person sins unintentionally, that person must bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering. 28 The priest is to make atonement before the Lord for the one who erred by sinning unintentionally, and when atonement has been made, that person will be forgiven. By unintentional is meant by error or mistake when angry or driven by need in thinking the law did not apply to his situation such as needing to cook his meal for his family.

Then also:
Num 15:30 “ ‘But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or foreigner, blasphemes the Lord and must be cut off from the people of Israel. 31 Because they have despised the Lord’s word and broken his commands, they must surely be cut off; their guilt remains on them.’ � To sin defiantly was to express a contempt for YHWH and His stupid laws publically:
Benson Commentary:

Numbers 15:30. The soul that doeth aught presumptuously — Hebrew, With a high hand, or, with violence. It is meant to express the action or conduct of a man who knowingly and wilfully broke the law, and when admonished, despised the admonition, and set the law at naught....He sets God at defiance, and exposeth him to contempt, as if he were unable to punish transgressors. But every wilful sin is, in the nature of things, a reproach or dishonour to the Lord

and Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

Presumptuously - The original (compare the margin, and Exodus 14:8) imports something done willfully and openly; in the case of a sin against God it implies that the act is committed ostentatiously and in bravado.

Then come the story of the man gathering wood on the sabbath. HE was pronounced guilty of a capital crime therefore he was seen not as a man driven by need to find wood but as a scorner of GOD and HIS laws and defiant of the government YHWH had set up with Moses for the Israelites.

For anyone to report him to the authorities would suggest that he did not gather bits of wood for a fire (to which many turned a blind eye as historical sources have suggested) but was more likely to have been flaunting the law defiantly and gathering a great bundle to sell to his neighbours who needed wood but who were careful about the law.

So the punishment for those not-so-wicked who pick up sticks on the Sabbath is to bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering.

The punishment for a person blaspheming GOD in defiance to HIS laws, brandishing his contempt in GOD's face before the congregation by whatever method was a death by stoning.

Reading the story and not just cherry picking a verse to insist it supports an anti-YHWH bias goes a long way....

[Justin108]

BTW I used to be an atheist, so don't think I don't know what I'm talking about.

What changed your mind?

This is the TDD forum not the CA forum. In here people should have already excepted the Bible as authoritative. If you do not then there is nothing you have to debate about.

Is that why I never see you on CA? Because you need an excuse to avoid questions?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 52 by Justin108]

What changed my mind is irrelevant in this forum. This forum is for those that have already made up their mind there is a God and that the Bible is His word. I invite you to read the purpose of this forum. viewtopic.php?t=3168

I have heard all the questions you can possibly come up with. I watch as you ignore others. Why should I think I would be treated any differently? You don't even listen the rules of a simple internet forum. LOL Gezzzz.

The CA board is chaos and this board is getting there. They should just name it CA #2. The fact that you chase people onto boards that having nothing to do with your type of argument makes you a stalker. If I wanted to engage in unending atheist jibbish I would. Been there, done that, done with it. I was talking to people about your small subjects before online message boards existed. I see no reason going over subjects that you have already been given answers to by others or to satisfy you just because you're new to it.

[KenRU]

Why don't you let me be the judge of what matters to me or what I think is relevant?

Nope. That is not how debate works in this forum. This is the TDD forum not the CA forum. In here people should have already excepted the Bible as authoritative. If you do not then there is nothing you have to debate about.

Sounds to me like the OP doesn't remotely fall into this category, and perhaps your problem is with the OP? And not the questions that are relevant to it?

And perhaps your problem is that answers are coming from a source you don't wish to accept.

Correction. You provided NO answers to my questions.

Again, this is not the forum for your discussion.

I disagree. Let’s check that link you provided below:

Here is the full quote:

“The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.�

It says nothing about everyone accepting the bible as authoritative. It only says that you do not have to defend its authority, WHICH I NEVER ASKED YOU TO DO.

It also says nothing about asking questions about another’s interpretation or understanding about the bible’s instructions. In fact, it seems to me, that it would be the subforum that encouraged such a dialogue.

As far as the OP, it was asked in a forum where the Bible is held as having the final say. What else would be expected in a forum that the purpose of the forum is for "debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority." You're trying to have a debate without having to accept the purpose of this forum.

False. My questions to you could have easily been asked by someone who does or does not believe in a god.


So, let’s look once again at my questions:


-What is the punishment (according to the bible) for picking up sticks on the Sabbath?

If qualifiers (Deut 32:4) are necessary to make sense of this, and for you to consider when answering, I provide the following:

-If the punishment ascribed (death) is only for those already wicked (as you argue), then why even make the rule, and not just punish those for their wickedness in the first place?

-What is the punishment for those not-so-wicked who pick up sticks on the Sabbath?


I never asked you to prove the bible true. My questions relate to both the OP and items you posted.

Of course, you are free to ignore them. But let’s not cite non-existent rules violations as your reason.

viewtopic.php?t=3168

Thanks for providing this. It helped a lot : )

-All the best

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 51 by ttruscott]

Thanks, ttruscott, I appreciate you answering my questions. I was wondering how it was reconciled. Numbers does seem to qualify the commandment further.

As always, thanks for responding!

-all the best

[2timothy316]

Why don't you let me be the judge of what matters to me or what I think is relevant?

Nope. That is not how debate works in this forum. This is the TDD forum not the CA forum. In here people should have already excepted the Bible as authoritative. If you do not then there is nothing you have to debate about.

Sounds to me like the OP doesn't remotely fall into this category, and perhaps your problem is with the OP? And not the questions that are relevant to it?

And perhaps your problem is that answers are coming from a source you don't wish to accept.

Correction. You provided NO answers to my questions.

Again, this is not the forum for your discussion.

I disagree. Let’s check that link you provided below:

Here is the full quote:

“The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.�

It says nothing about everyone accepting the bible as authoritative

It says I don't have to defend it's authority. That means here, it has authority. Period. If you don't accept verses like Deut 32:4, yes that is fine, but is it as authoritative here your discussions are moot and they don't have to be addressed because you are in the wrong forum. I don't have to prove Deut 32:4 as true. Don't you get it? You must use the Bible to say the opposite. Not your own words but God's Word. I'm not here to debate what you think is good or bad. I'm here to debate what the Bible says is good and bad. You keep going like I have to prove it is true to you but I don't have to. But for me to stay in this discussion I am in my rights to require that you accept the scripture as authoritative. Since you will not, I see no reason to keep reading your post.

[2timothy316]

If qualifiers (Deut 32:4) are necessary to make sense of this....

This is what doesn't count here. It's not 'if' scripture is necessary for a reliable answer, it is necessary for a reliable answer. That is what authoritative means.

Search Results
au·thor·i·ta·tive
əˈTHôrəˌt�div/
adjective
adjective: authoritative

1.
able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.
"clear, authoritative information and advice"

You don't have to agree, but if you dont agree, you can't expect people to debate you about it. So take it to the CA forum. Thanks! Good bye

[KenRU]

Why don't you let me be the judge of what matters to me or what I think is relevant?

Nope. That is not how debate works in this forum. This is the TDD forum not the CA forum. In here people should have already excepted the Bible as authoritative. If you do not then there is nothing you have to debate about.

Sounds to me like the OP doesn't remotely fall into this category, and perhaps your problem is with the OP? And not the questions that are relevant to it?

And perhaps your problem is that answers are coming from a source you don't wish to accept.

Correction. You provided NO answers to my questions.

Again, this is not the forum for your discussion.

I disagree. Let’s check that link you provided below:

Here is the full quote:

“The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.�

It says nothing about everyone accepting the bible as authoritative

It says I don't have to defend it's authority. That means here, it has authority. Period.

Correct, so far, I’m with ya.

If you don't accept verses like Deut 32:4, yes that is fine, but is it as authoritative here your discussions are moot and they don't have to be addressed because you are in the wrong forum.

You’re plain and simply wrong. Read your own link.

I don't have to prove Deut 32:4 as true.

I never asked you too. Perhaps you should have read my questions abit more thoroughly?

Don't you get it?

I do, you don’t, as is evident by your own post, and misattributing assumptions to my questions.

You must use the Bible to say the opposite.

I was asserting NOTHING. You clearly approached my questions to you with baggage of your own creation.

Not your own words but God's Word.

I offered no words of my own, only yours and the bible. And you still had issues.

I'm not here to debate what you think is good or bad.

Once again, please show me where I ever even mentioned good or bad. You can’t because I didn’t. You are either making stuff up, or are confusing me with another poster.

I'm here to debate what the Bible says is good and bad.

In general, sure. But you are on this thread to discuss 2 Samuel.

You keep going like I have to prove it is true to you but I don't have to.

Once again, I never asked you to prove anything. I asked you some questions, which ttruscott was kind enough to answer.

But for me to stay in this discussion I am in my rights to require that you accept the scripture as authoritative.

Absolutely false. The link you provided says no such thing.

Since you will not, I see no reason to keep reading your post.

Please show me where the rules state I must accept the bible as authoritative?

So take it to the CA forum. Thanks! Good bye.

Thanks for the advice, but given that you misread the rules of the forum, attribute things to my posts that are not there, nor are said by me, I think I won't take your advice. You do not have a good track record imo.

but nonetheless, I still wish you all the best

[2timothy316]

Since you will not, I see no reason to keep reading your post.

Please show me where the rules state I must accept the bible as authoritative?

You must accept that I can use it as a primary reference. If you do not then head back to the CA forum.

pri·ma·ry
ˈprīˌmerē,ˈprīm(ə)rē/
adjective
adjective: primary; adjective: Primary

1.
of chief importance; principal.

You don't have to personally accept it as authoritative but in debate here, the assumption is that it is and it doesn't have to be proven as such but your questions keep going as it is not and I do not have to address your dismissal of the Bible. This is not about what you and I feel. This forum is about Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma in Christianity and the debate is using the Bible 'as the primary reference' to defend or debunk these TDDs. This forum is for those that already accept there is a God. The big pool where people have moved past the question 'is there truth in God's Word'. You are not using or recognizing the Bible as the primary reference. You only recognize yourself and what you feel is right. You are making your own philosophy as your primary reference. Here, you are not the primary reference. Do you understand?

[KenRU]

If qualifiers (Deut 32:4) are necessary to make sense of this....

This is what doesn't count here. It's not 'if' scripture is necessary for a reliable answer, it is necessary for a reliable answer. That is what authoritative means.

You're not making sense. I don't have to accept it (by forum rules) so the "if" OBVIOUSLY comes from my point of view, not yours. Your pretense at offense continues to be exposed.

If you want to claim offense for me saying something as innocuous as "if what you say is true, then", well, I submit you probably should not be on a debate forum at all.

Search Results
au·thor·i·ta·tive
əˈTHôrəˌt�div/
adjective
adjective: authoritative

1.
able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.
"clear, authoritative information and advice"

You don't have to agree, but if you dont agree, you can't expect people to debate you about it. So take it to the CA forum. Thanks! Good bye

Still not making sense. I don't have to agree, and I don't. However, my questions to you had nothing to do with this, so your concern is once again exposed unwarranted.

You have yet to show where my questions were not allowable by forum rules.

But, it certainly wasn't for lack of trying.

-all the best