Claiming that "incited" should be interpreted as "allowed" is the opinion I'm talking about.
Oh okay fair enough, but even in Job 2:3 the word incited is used, and as Mr. Lyons says, "The Hebrews often used active verbs to express not the doing of the thing, but the
permission of the thing which the agent is said to do"
Whether or not God allowed Satan do do anything at other times is a moot point.
What?? Of course it's "moot" it shows us that God allows Satan to do things.
Job has nothing to do with any of this.
Yes it does, if you just read Job 1:20 without reading Job 1:11-12, you'll think God was the one who took all of Job's things away. It's the same way with II Samuel and I Chronicles. If you just read II Samuel without reading I Chronicles you'll think God's the one who moved David to number Israel, but if you read BOTH passages you'll see that it's really Satan who does the moving. The verses compliment each other, they don't contradict.
Mr. Lyons is rationalizing.
You know for a fact that this statement, "Throughout the Bible, Gods allowance of something to take place often is described by the sacred writers as having been done by the Lord" some of the authors say that things the Lord allowed are what he himslef did." is false?
You're presenting a very thin and for the most part baseless speculation (really not much more than a hopeful guess) as if it were the most logical explanation.
The explanation is very logical according to the Bible.
God can't tempt people to sin
1 passage said God moved against David, and another passage said Satan moved against David
The Bible shows us that God allows Satan to do things
Therefore God must've allowed Satan to move against David.
What's illogical about that?
No, it attempts to, but I don't think it would convince anyone unless they really, really wanted to be convinced.
Okay well we all have our own opinions
The fact that somebody felt the need to write a monstrous article, entirely based on speculation, to explain away the differences between two sentences should be your first indication that it is a contradiction.
Hahaha the article wasn't that monstrous. It was like nine paragraphs and took me less than 10minutes to read. We both have different views of what monstrous is. When I think of monstrous I think of a couple pages.
I think you might need to look up "contradiction" and "refute" and start over.
Nah, I'm good
They still contradict, because the explanation has no evidence.
When you say, "evidence" are you talking about external evidence?
Just because you can say it means another thing doesn't mean that it does. It is based on wishful thinking rather than proper interpretation, as it ignores context and the meaning of the hebrew word because they don't want it to be a contradiction.
First off, we know from the Bible that God allows Satan to do things, so saying that this is what he did in this passage isn't "wishful thinking."
Seccond it doesn't ignore the context because what David did was a sin(vs 10) and God doesn't tempt people to sin, therefore based on just that fact alone he couldn't have been the one to move David to sin.
Thirdly they're not ignoring the meaning of the Hebrew word as I posted above Mr. Lyons says, "The Hebrews often used active verbs to express not the doing of the thing, but the
permission of the thing which the agent is said to do"
And last of all you can't just say people "don't want" it to be a contradiction. I'm not telling you that you, "want it to be one." What we want is irrelevant.
