Arguing with a random chapter in the Bible: 1 Chronicles 21

[amorphous_constellation]

Flipped to a random spot, and landed in Chronicles. Now I proceed to look at it with a bit of scrutiny

1 Chronicles 21:1
It seems apparent here that god does not like census-taking, because it probably presupposes faith. If david had faith, apparently he would not dare count his army, but would trust in them regardless of their actual size

The trouble with carrying this sort of thought into the real world, is that we live in a highly detailed world, where details have to be assessed constantly for the world to work. Car checkups, health checkups, house maintenance, I'm not sure that any of this maintains itself on faith. And I'm sure that the best modern armies of any nation have their inventory counted down to the last coat button

1 Chronicles 21:10
The verses from 10 to 13 indicate a logical fallacy, because each of the three options is actually carried out by god, as the first cause, or generator of them. Although god seems to physically do nothing in any of the three, as he sends a mediating power in all three, he apparently would give a first motion to all three options. And to stop any of the three, the ability to withdraw them would be equal in his hands, whether it was via army, angel, or plague etc.

None of the options seems to then, be more open to arbitrary chance than the next one. God would command all 3 to go forward, and could stop all 3 with equal efficacy, if he was powerful enough

1 Chronicles 21:24
To me this is probably the hardest to understand passage in the chapter, thoroughly flummoxing me. The king seems to make an incredible claim, that the whole ordeal had cost him nothing. But if seventy thousand men died of a plague, with the king as the root cause, then I don't think a sum of money can alleviate that. And it surely cost the poor farmer too, if he knew anyone that died. An uprising could have occurred

 

[Brian2]

Flipped to a random spot, and landed in Chronicles. Now I proceed to look at it with a bit of scrutiny

1 Chronicles 21:1
It seems apparent here that god does not like census-taking, because it probably presupposes faith. If david had faith, apparently he would not dare count his army, but would trust in them regardless of their actual size

The trouble with carrying this sort of thought into the real world, is that we live in a highly detailed world, where details have to be assessed constantly for the world to work. Car checkups, health checkups, house maintenance, I'm not sure that any of this maintains itself on faith. And I'm sure that the best modern armies of any nation have their inventory counted down to the last coat button

David was the one who was a lad and went up against Goliath, trusting the Lord and wondering why nobody else had gone up to fight because the fight was against the Lord really and it did not matter how small you were. Now he had become concerned about how many soldiers he had.

1 Chronicles 21:10
The verses from 10 to 13 indicate a logical fallacy, because each of the three options is actually carried out by god, as the first cause, or generator of them. Although god seems to physically do nothing in any of the three, as he sends a mediating power in all three, he apparently would give a first motion to all three options. And to stop any of the three, the ability to withdraw them would be equal in his hands, whether it was via army, angel, or plague etc.

None of the options seems to then, be more open to arbitrary chance than the next one. God would command all 3 to go forward, and could stop all 3 with equal efficacy, if he was powerful enough

That sounds right but I suppose God was not worried about the logic of David's thinking but looked at his heart and how it reasoned about the matter.

1 Chronicles 21:24
To me this is probably the hardest to understand passage in the chapter, thoroughly flummoxing me. The king seems to make an incredible claim, that the whole ordeal had cost him nothing. But if seventy thousand men died of a plague, with the king as the root cause, then I don't think a sum of money can alleviate that. And it surely cost the poor farmer too, if he knew anyone that died. An uprising could have occurred

1 Chron 21:24 But King David replied to Araunah, “No, I insist on paying the full price. I will not take for the Lord what is yours, or sacrifice a burnt offering that costs me nothing.”

David had been told to build an altar and sacrifice to the Lord on someones land. This land would be a holy place no doubt from then on and David wanted to do the right thing by the owner of the land and by God and he also did not want to sacrifice what did not belong to him, that would not be much of a sacrifice. David was a stickler for doing the right thing at times.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

David was the one who was a lad and went up against Goliath, trusting the Lord and wondering why nobody else had gone up to fight because the fight was against the Lord really and it did not matter how small you were. Now he had become concerned about how many soldiers he had.

If I recall, he used a 'sling,' which I'm sure was actually no joke as deadly tool, and probably is kind of an overlooked ancient weapon. In fact I think there might have been ancient army units that preferred them. So if david knew what his sling could do, then it seems probable that he fought goliath with both knowledge and faith in mind.

By not counting his army units, doesn't david 'put god to the test,' by assuming that a divine power will guide them to sure defense regardless of their number or skill?

That sounds right but I suppose God was not worried about the logic of David's thinking but looked at his heart and how it reasoned about the matter.

It seems that he reasoned with great fear, but also apparently with a certain logic in mind, that god would more readily restrain an angel than he would men. It seems more likely that were god all-powerful, he would restrain an angel just as quickly as he would restrain men. Unless the passage implies that men have more free-will than angels.

David had been told to build an altar and sacrifice to the Lord on someones land. This land would be a holy place no doubt from then on and David wanted to do the right thing by the owner of the land and by God and he also did not want to sacrifice what did not belong to him, that would not be much of a sacrifice. David was a stickler for doing the right thing at times.

If the people under the king perceived that he was at the root cause of the plague-based destruction after the census, (aside from the decision of god, who didn't like the census-taking, and so sent the punishment) costing seventy thousand lives, then I don't understand how a monetary transaction would cause the general people, or god, to see him in much of a better light. Then again, ancient peoples of all kinds were likely superstitious about transactions with gold, and how it was handled, or where it was stored.

 

[Brian2]

If I recall, he used a 'sling,' which I'm sure was actually no joke as deadly tool, and probably is kind of an overlooked ancient weapon. In fact I think there might have been ancient army units that preferred them. So if david knew what his sling could do, then it seems probable that he fought goliath with both knowledge and faith in mind.

By not counting his army units, doesn't david 'put god to the test,' by assuming that a divine power will guide them to sure defense regardless of their number or skill?

David tried armour and could not move well in it and so opted for the light and fast strategy using a weapon he had no doubt used against wild animals as a shepherd. (1Sam 17:34-37)
If he had no skill at all as a fighter then going against Goliath might be seen more as being foolhardy.

It seems that he reasoned with great fear, but also apparently with a certain logic in mind, that god would more readily restrain an angel than he would men. It seems more likely that were god all-powerful, he would restrain an angel just as quickly as he would restrain men. Unless the passage implies that men have more free-will than angels.

Yes I don't know.

If the people under the king perceived that he was at the root cause of the plague-based destruction after the census, (aside from the decision of god, who didn't like the census-taking, and so sent the punishment) costing seventy thousand lives, then I don't understand how a monetary transaction would cause the general people, or god, to see him in much of a better light. Then again, ancient peoples of all kinds were likely superstitious about transactions with gold, and how it was handled, or where it was stored.

I see it as David wanting to do things right and so when asked to make a sacrifice by God, to not just basically get someone else to sacrifice the land and animals etc and call it his own sacrifice.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

well that concludes our debate @Brian2, thanks for participating. I've little else to say

 

[Brian2]

well that concludes our debate @Brian2, thanks for participating. I've little else to say

Me too.