2Sam 24:13 vs 1Chr 21:12; Famine: 7 or 3 years?

LET us explain another claim of contradiction put forward by MUSLIM DEFENDER BEN LANCUYAN.

Lancuyan posited this question to me:

God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

We have already proved in our previous posts that there are NO CONTRADICTIONS in the Bible. People like Lancuyan are either confused or have been misled by detractors of the Holy Book.

I praise and thank God for this new opportunity to further prove the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures.



To see the root of Lancuyan's confusion, let us read the two texts that he cited.

2Samuel 24:13

So Gad came to David and told him, and said to him, "Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land? Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days' pestilence in your land? Now consider and see what answer I shall return to Him who sent me."

 
1Chronicles 21:11-12

So Gad came to David and said to him, "Thus says the LORD, `Take for yourself either three years of famine, or three months to be swept away before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you, or else three days of the sword of the LORD, even pestilence in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.' Now, therefore, consider what answer I shall return to Him who sent me."

So, in 2Samuel 24:13the prophet Gad told David of "seven years of famine," while in 1Chronicles 21:12, he was quoted as saying "three years of famine."

In Lancuyan's mind, "seven" and "three" are contradictory. He needs to be enlightened.



As I have said before, everyone should see differences in accounts as mere differences in POINTS OF VIEW or in the EXPRESSIONS used by the various authors. They usually MEAN THE SAME.

Between 2Sam 24:13 and 1Chr 21:12, there is really no difference in the BIBLICAL MEANING of "seven" and "three."

In the Bible, "seven" and "three" are synonymous. They have similar meanings. And that similar meaning is DIVINE or SPIRITUAL PERFECTION.

THREE is associated with the PERFECTION of GOD. While SEVEN is related with the PERFECTION of the SPIRIT.



When the author of 2Sam 24:13 wrote about what the prophet Gad told David, he merely quoted what the prophet actually said. So, 2Sam 24:13 says, "seven years."

Now, we already said in our other posts that the author of 1Chronicles is a priest or a religious person.

When he wrote 1Chr 21:12, he stressed that fact that the punishment being meted out to David was FROM GOD. It was an expression of GOD'S PERFECT WILL.

So, instead of simply quoting what the prophet said, the author of 1Chr 21:12 put God directly into the quotation by using "three."



And again, NO CONTRADICTIONS in the Bible.

What Bible detractors like Lancuyan and Muslim defenders call "contradictions" are only signs of their own lack of knowledge and understanding of what they are attacking.

Muslim exposes error in Quran 19:28

I WELCOME debates and discussions with MUSLIMS who ATTACK the BIBLE, CHRISTIANITY and the LORD JESUS. These debates expose more about Islam than their intended targets.

One thing exposed is the ERROR in QURAN 19:28, which a MUSLIM named BEN LANCUYAN, AFFIRMED--wittingly or unwittingly.

Quran 19:28 is about Islam's version of the Virgin Mary, who the verse (ayah) described as the "SISTER OF AARON."

The verse reads, starting from Quran 19:27 (from the Meanings of the Quran by Muhammad Mohsin Khan):

Then she brought him (the baby) to her people, carrying him. They said: "O Mary! Indeed you have brought a thing Fariyy (a mighty thing). [Tafsir Al-Tabari]

"O sister (i.e. the like) of Harun (Aaron)! Your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman."

MARY, 'SISTER OF AARON'

In Quran 19:28, it is CLEAR that "Mary," the mother of the Islamic Jesus (Isa), is described as the "SISTER OF AARON."

Anyone who knows BIBLICAL HISTORY knows that Mary is NOT the "SISTER OF AARON."

Mary lived in New Testament times (6BC to 100AD), while Aaron lived in the Old Testament--some 1,200 up to 1,600 years earlier.

For those who don't know Aaron, he was the brother of Moses, who liberated the Israelites from Egypt, sometime in 1600BC to 1200BC.

The time difference makes the claim of Quran 19:28 as IMPOSSIBLE.

So, to people who know HISTORY and the BIBLE, there is a SERIOUS ERROR in Quran 19:28.

MARY is NOT the SISTER of AARON. It is that simple.

MARY, 'DAUGHTER OF IMRAN'

The claim of QURAN 19:28 that MARY is the BIOLOGICAL or LITERAL "SISTER OF AARON" is BOLSTERED by the claim of other verses in the Quran, specifically QURAN 66:12.

QURAN 66:12 states:

"And Maryam (Mary), the daughter of 'Imran who guarded her chastity. And We breathed into (the sleeve of her shirt or her garment) through Our Ruh [i.e. Jibril (Gabriel) ], and she testified to the truth of the Words of her Lord [i.e. believed in the Words of Allah: "Be!" - and he was; that is 'Îsa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) as a Messenger of Allah], and (also believed in) His Scriptures, and she was of the Qanitun (i.e. obedient to Allah) ."

Who is IMRAN?

IMRAN is the Arabic equivalent of the name AMRAM, the FATHER of AARON in the OLD TESTAMENT.

Exodus 6:20 says:

"Amram married Jochebed his father's sister and she bore him Aaron and Moses, and the length of Amram's life was one hundred thirty-seven years."

So, the claim of QURAN 19:28 that MARY is the "SISTER OF AARON," plus the claim of QURAN 66:12 that MARY is "the DAUGHTER OF IMRAN" provide CLEAR BASIS for saying that the QURAN SEES MARY is the LITERAL and BIOLOGICAL SISTER of AARON.

And for those who know HISTORY and the BIBLE, QURAN 19:28 and QURAN 66:12 PROVE a SERIOUS ERROR in the TEXTS.

 

NO ERROR, SAY MUSLIMS

Not surprisingly, MUSLIMS, like LANCUYAN who ATTACK the Bible based on the flimsiest of reasons, insist that there is "no error" with Quran 19:28 declaring that MARY is the "SISTER OF AARON."

But it was in defending Quran 19:28 that Lancuyan affirmed its error.

Lancuyan said in his blog (Defender of the Straight Path):

"We, MUslims will die with fact that Mary is NOT a biological sister of Aaron."

Oddly, as I said, Lancuyan made that statement while trying to disprove any error in Quran 19:28.

As it turned out, he even HIGHLIGHTED the error by directly CONTRADICTING the claim of the verse that Mary is the "SISTER OF AARON."

In short, even Lancuyan agrees that Mary "SISTER OF AARON" is WRONG.

Even Muslims DISAGREE with the claim of QURAN 19:28.

Ahaziah: How old was he when he ruled?

MUSLIM  DETRACTORS continue their attack on the Bible by bringing up more supposed contradictions in the Holy Book.

One detractor, Ben Lancuyan, pointed out what he claimed were inconsistencies between 2Kings 8:26 and 2Chronicles 22:2.

Ben asked,

How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

As I already proved before, there are NO CONTRADICTIONS in the BIBLE. DETRACTORS only DO NOT UNDERSTAND or REFUSE to UNDERSTAND the TEXTS.

Again, let us explain what DETRACTORS DO NOT COMPREHEND.

Let us start by reading the two verses.

2Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign; he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of King Omri of Israel. 

2Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign; he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

TAKEN in ISOLATION, or OUT OF CONTEXT, it would appear that there is inconsistency. In 2Kings 8:26, Ahaziah began to reign when he was 22 years old. Meanwhile, in 2Chr 22:2 he was 42 years old.

But put in CONTEXT, we would see that 2Kings 8:26 and 2Chr 22:2 are talking of TWO DIFFERENT THINGS using TWO DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW.

KING AT 22 BUT DID NOT REIGN UNTIL 42

2Kings 8:26 refers to the time when Ahaziah took the throne in Judah after his father, Jehoram, died.

Jehoram died when he was 40 years old. He was 32 years old when he became king and died after an eight-year term. (2Chr 21:20)


With his father only 40 years old when he died, it is understandable that Ahaziah was only 22 when he assumed the throne.

That was why 2Kings 8:26 said that "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign."

However, it should be noted that Ahaziah was not supposed to take the throne because he was the youngest among Jehoram's sons. Heirs to the thrown were usually the eldest or older sons.

But all of Ahaziah's older brothers were killed by the Philistines. (2Chr 21:16; 2Chr 22:1)

Having no one else to take the throne, the people of Jerusalem hailed Ahaziah as king.

2Chronicles 22:1 says:

The inhabitants of Jerusalem made his (Jehoram's) youngest son Ahaziah king as his successor; for the troops who came with the Arabs to the camp had killed all the older sons. So Ahaziah son of Jehoram reigned as king of Judah.

Because he was not really supposed to take the thrown, he was not suited to be king. So, he sat as king but it was really his mother, Athaliah, who ran the throne.

2Chronicles 22:3 says:

He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, for his mother was his counselor in doing wickedly.

It was only 20 years later, when he was already 42 when he actually reigned. That is why 2Chr 22:2 said that "Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign."



22 VS 42, A CONTRADICTION?
So, 2Kings 8:26 said "22" and 2Chr 22:2 said "42." Do they contradict?

NO. In fact, THEY are BOTH CORRECT.


As I said, it was a matter of POINT OF VIEW.

The SCRIBE who wrote 2Kings 8:26 considered the time (age 22) when Ahaziah ASSUMED or TOOK the throne.

The CHRONICLER, who wrote 2Chr 22:2, considered the time when Ahaziah ACTUALLY RULED as KING (age 42).


So, NO CONTRADICTION.

2Sam 24:9 vs 1Chr 21:5: Bible Contradictions?

MUSLIM DETRACTORS of the BIBLE and CHRISTIANITY cite 2Samuel 24:9 and 1Chronicles 21:5 to show supposed "contradictions" in the Bible.

One such MUSLIM DETRACTOR is BEN LANCUYAN who posed to me the question below:

How many fighting men were found in Judah?
Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

LIKE MOST Muslim detractors, BEN LANCUYAN, SIMPLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND what he is asking about.


THERE are NO CONTRADICTIONS between 2Samuel 24:9 and 1Chronicles 21:5. We will see that with a simple reading and study of the two verses.

2Samuel 24:9 (NRSV)
Joab reported to the king the number of those who had been recorded: in Israel there were eight hundred thousand soldiers able to draw the sword, and those of Judah were five hundred thousand.

1Chronicles 21:5 (NRSV)
Joab gave the total count of the people to David. In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who drew the sword, and in Judah four hundred seventy thousand who drew the sword.

A careful reading of the two verses will show CLEAR DIFFERENCES in WHO WERE COUNTED.

In 2Sam 24:9, we can see that the 800,000 counted were "SOLDIERS." In Hebrew, the word used was "IS HA-YIL," which refers to members of the ARMY or as SOLDIERS.


Now, WHO WERE the ONE MILLION (1,000,000) COUNTED or REFERRED TO in 1Chr 21:5? Were they also "SOLDIERS"?


NO.


1Chronicles 21:5 REFERRED to MEN "IN ALL ISRAEL" "WHO DREW THE SWORD." Meaning, the 1,000,000 did not only include SOLDIERS but even those who were NOT SOLDIERS--ALL MEN who COULD USE a SWORD.


So, that clearly explains the difference between the NUMBERS given by 2Sam 24:9 and 1Chr 21:5.


2Sam 24:9 = 800,000 SOLDIERS
1Chr 21:5 = 800,000 SOLDIERS + 200,000 NON-SOLDIERS




In short, CLEARLY THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN 2Sam 24:9 and 1Chr 21:5.


If only MUSLIM DETRACTORS would study the verses well--and IF ONLY THEY STUDY ALL the SUPPOSED CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE--THEY WILL SEE that THERE ARE REALLY NO CONTRADICTIONS.

We pray and hope that MUSLIM DETRACTORS would LOOK FOR the TRUTH and NOT LOOK for WAY to DISTORT WHAT is TRUE.


SALAMAT po.

2Sam 24:1 vs 1Chr 21:1?

ILABAS po natin ang sagot natin sa PAG-ATAKE ng isang BALIK ISLAM sa BIBLIYA at sa ating mga KRISTIYANO.

Pilit pong pinalalabas ni Ansary Abdulaziz na mayroon daw "salungatan" sa Bibliya.

Matagal na po nating NAPATUNAYAN at NAIPAKITA na WALANG KONTRADIKSYON sa BIBLIYA. Ang KONTRADIKSYON po ay NASA ISIP lang ng nagsasabi na may salungatan sa Banal na Kasulatan. HINDI po kasi sila MARUNONG MAGBASA ng BIBLIYA.

Akala po nila ay ganun-ganon lang ang pagbabasa ng Kasulatan. May tama pong paraan sa pag-unawa sa sinasabi ng kahit na anong TEKSTO.

Para po TAMA ang MAKUHANG KAHULUGAN sa TALATA ay may mga GUIDELINE na dapat sundin.

Ang mga alituntunin na iyan ang ginagamit sa EXEGESIS o ang PAGKUHA ng KAHULUGAN MULA sa MISMONG TALATA.

Sa EXEGESIS po ang KAHULUGAN ay GALING sa KONTEKSTO at KAHULUGAN ng mga SALITA sa TALATA.

Ang KABALIKTARAN po niyan ay ang EISEGESIS o ang PAGLALAGAY ng tao ng SARILI NIYANG UNAWA sa TALATA.

Iyan po ang ginagawa ni Abdulziz kaya sinasabi niya na may "kontra-kontra" sa Bible.

Tinitingnan lang niya ang mga salita at INILAGAY NIYA ang PANSARILI niyang UNAWA sa talata. Halimbawa po sa mga salinglahi ni Hesus.

Ngayon ay may isa na naman siyang sinasabi.

Sabi niya, "2 Samuel 24:1 at 1Cronica 21:1. Ang Panginoon ni David, kung gayon, ay si Satanas?"

Muli ay SORRY dahil MALI na naman ang UNAWA ni Abdulaziz sa sinasabi ng mga talata.

Para po maunawaan natin iyan ay basahin natin ang 2 Sam 24:1 at 2 Chr 21:1.

Sabi sa 2Sam 24:1, "Muli ang galit ng PANGINOON ay nag-alab laban sa Israel, at KANYANG IKINILOS si David laban sa kanila ..."

Sabi naman sa 1Chr 21:1, "Tumayo si SATANAS, at kinilos si David ..."

Malamang ang nasa isip ni Abdulaziz, "Ayan! Hindi ba magkakontra? Ang sabi sa 2 Sam 24:1 ay ang PANGINOON ang NAGKILOS. Sa 1 Chr 21:1 ay si SATANAS na."

Kaya nga nasabi rin niya, "Ang Panginoon ni David, kung gayon, ay si Satanas?"

MALI po ang UNAWA ni Abdulziz. HINDI niya KINUHA ang KONTEKSTO ng dalawang talata bago siya NAGSALITA.

MAGKAIBA ang SUMULAT sa 2Samuel at 1Chronicles at MAGKAIBA ang POINT OF VIEW ng mga NAGSULAT.

Ang PUNTO DE VISTA sa 2SAMUEL ay HISTORICAL. Ang layunin ng sumulat ay IULAT ang KATOTOHANAN na lahat ng bagay ay NANGYAYARI dahil HINAYAAN ng DIYOS.

Sa kabilang dako, ang NAGSULAT ng 2CHRONICLES ay PARI o RELIGIOUS LEADER. Kaya ang PUNTO DE VISTA niya ay sa isang BELIEVER o MANANAMPALATAYA.

Sa mata ng HISTORICAL WRITER sa 2Samuel DIYOS ang AKTUWAL na NAGKILOS kay DAVID.

Alam niya na WALANG BAGAY na NANGYAYARI na HINDI NILOOB ng DIYOS. Iyan ay FACTUAL na BAGAY.

Sa pagsulat ng RELIGIOUS WRITER ng 1Chronicles ay TINUKOY niya si SATANAS dahil iyon talaga ang gawain ni SATANAS.

Sa Job 1:6-12 ay mababasa natin kung paano kumikilos si Satanas.

Diyan ay hiniling ni Satanas na SUBUKIN si Job na TAPAT na LINGKOD ng Diyos.

PUMAYAG ang Diyos na SUBUKIN ni Satanas si Job at iyon ang nangyari.

Diyos ang NAGSABI ng "SIGE" pero si SATANAS ang KUMILOS.

Kung babalikan natin ang 2Sam 24:1, sinasabi roon na nagalit ang Diyos at sinabi na Siya ang "nagkilos" kay David.

Iyan ang sinabi sa 2Samuel dahil walang bagay na mangyayari kung hindi gustuhin ng Diyos.

Sa kaso pa ni Job ay ang DIYOS ang sinasabi niyang "gumawa" ng pagsubok sa kanya.

Sinabi ni Job sa Job 1:21, "Hubad akong naluwal mula sa tiyan ng aking ina at hubad din akong aalis.

Ang Diyos ay nagbigay at ANG DIYOS AY KUMUHA; purihin nawa ang ngalan ng PANGINOON."

Paki pansin po na SI SATANAS TALAGA ang KUMILOS para SUBUKIN si Job, pero ang DIYOS o ang PANGINOON ang sinasabi ni Job na KUMUHA sa mga ibinigay sa kanya.

Ganoon din yan sa 2Sam 24:1 at 1Chr 21:1 kaya WALANG KONTRA-KONTRA riyan.

HINDI lang NAIINTINDIHAN ni Abdulaziz ang binabasa niya.