I'm really in need of clarifications on some issues I just discovered while I took it upon myself to study the Bible more closely in a bid to know more about My God..


I however stumbled on some stories that I feel contradict each other outrightly...
I may have read it or interpreted it wrongly but I need some one to shed light on this issue ...


1. HOW DID SAUL AND DAVID MEET

1Samuel 16:17 says they met when David became Saul's musician and armor bearer

1Samuel 17:55 says they met after David killed Goliath...

They first met at the naming ceremony of Dino Melaye
3rd Samuel 20:17

JhyMedex:
I'm really in need of clarifications on some issues I just discovered while I took it upon myself to study the Bible more closely in a bid to know more about My God..


I however stumbled on some stories that I feel contradict each other outrightly...
I may have read it or interpreted it wrongly but I need some one to shed light on this issue ...


1. HOW DID SAUL AND DAVID MEET

1Samuel 16:17 says they met when David became Saul's musician and armor bearer

1Samuel 17:55 says they met after David killed Goliath...

That's just one out of a thousand Bible contradiction. Pls keep reading and keep discovering. You'll soon be free.

youngest85:
They first met at the naming ceremony of Dino Melaye
3rd Samuel 20:17

lol... wat is a Dino Malaye... is that the name of a new kind of WASTE BAG?..

otemdomino:


That's just one out of a thousand Bible contradiction. Pls keep reading and keep discovering. You'll soon be free.

4 real?.. what you mean a thousand?..

I think you should rephrase your question to make it a bit understandable.


In my own opinion and understanding, their first meeting was when he was sick and David played musical instrument for him.

It didn't say in Samuel that they met for the first time, in fact, Saul didn't say anything to prove that he never met David.

His question was "whose son is this youth". Although it is possible that Saul have completely forgot he had met with David before then but the question here isn't about David as an individual but his true identity.

Remember he was to marry Saul's daughter because Saul promised to give his daughter to whoever slays the giant and his family too were to be exempted from paying tax so it just right that Saul enquired about his true identity to know were his daughter is going.

In their first meeting, Saul met an ordinary musician but in Samuel, he asked for the true identity of the young man who's to become his son Inlaw.

Kondomatic:
I think you should rephrase your question to make it a bit understandable.


In my own opinion and understanding, their first meeting was when he was sick and David played musical instrument for him.

It didn't say in Samuel that they met for the first time, in fact, Saul didn't say anything to prove that he never met David.

His question was "whose son is this youth". Although it is possible that Saul have completely forgot he had met with David before then but the question here isn't about David as an individual but his true identity.

Remember he was to marry Saul's daughter because Saul promised to give his daughter to whoever slays the giant and his family too were to be exempted from paying tax so it just right that Saul enquired about his true identity to know were his daughter is going.

In their first meeting, Saul met an ordinary musician but in Samuel, he asked for the true identity of the young man who's to become his son Inlaw.

Thanks for the explanation.
Once it comes to the bible, some people seem to pretend not to understand english.....

Pls i am just here to give an answer and not an argument. Saul met David in 1sam 16:21 it was d same saul who gave David his last preparation to face Goliath in 1sam 17:38.
So saul couldnt had not known David as u think it was in 17:55
Now in those days their is always a perculiarity or rather grace exuded by israelites dat is tied to the tribe they came from. And always a man is known and recognized by his tribe first because it goes a long way to show his abilities or perculiarities.
Saul asked Whose son is this youth? And not Who is this?
He was astonished at what David did and needed to know where exactly he came from dat he had such perculiarity or grace. Remember dat as a king Saul might have forgotten d tribe of David because in 16:18 David's hometown was mentioned.
Let me bring it down to our present day. Assuming buhari needs someone who can cook and someone brought u and said u re from kwara, son of Xyz. And suddenly u achieved a great feat and bubari becomes so astonished dat he asks Where are u from?
Pls am not here to argue i just came to drop an answer to ur question

felixomor:


Thanks for the explanation.
Once it comes to the bible, some people seem to pretend not to understand english.....

Welcome.


The mistake we make while reading the Bible is to think that everything is written in chronological order. The authors sometimes apply what's called hysterologia in their narration to align it with certain events.

Kondomatic:
Welcome.


The mistake we make while reading the Bible is to think that everything is written in chronological order. The authors sometimes apply what's called hysterologia in their narration to align it with certain events.

Exactly

otemdomino:


That's just one out of a thousand Bible contradiction. Pls keep reading and keep discovering. You'll soon be free.

There are no contradictory stories in the Bible. Any "sincere" seekers of Bible truth can receive it if they pray for the Holy Spirit to guide them.
Just wondering, since you are a "religion scholar", are there any contradictions in the Qu'ran?
Why the cowardly position when it comes to anything Muslim...by the "free-thinkers"?

Kondomatic:
I think you should rephrase your question to make it a bit understandable.


In my own opinion and understanding, their first meeting was when he was sick and David played musical instrument for him.

It didn't say in Samuel that they met for the first time, in fact, Saul didn't say anything to prove that he never met David.

His question was "whose son is this youth". Although it is possible that Saul have completely forgot he had met with David before then but the question here isn't about David as an individual but his true identity.

Remember he was to marry Saul's daughter because Saul promised to give his daughter to whoever slays the giant and his family too were to be exempted from paying tax so it just right that Saul enquired about his true identity to know were his daughter is going.

In their first meeting, Saul met an ordinary musician but in Samuel, he asked for the true identity of the young man who's to become his son Inlaw.

felixomor:


Thanks for the explanation.
Once it comes to the bible, some people seem to pretend not to understand english.....

LWKMD!!! Hee hee hee heee hee hee hee!

Kondomatic:
I think you should rephrase your question to make it a bit understandable.


In my own opinion and understanding, their first meeting was when he was sick and David played musical instrument for him.

It didn't say in Samuel that they met for the first time, in fact, Saul didn't say anything to prove that he never met David.

His question was "whose son is this youth". Although it is possible that Saul have completely forgot he had met with David before then but the question here isn't about David as an individual but his true identity.

Remember he was to marry Saul's daughter because Saul promised to give his daughter to whoever slays the giant and his family too were to be exempted from paying tax so it just right that Saul enquired about his true identity to know were his daughter is going.

In their first meeting, Saul met an ordinary musician but in Samuel, he asked for the true identity of the young man who's to become his son Inlaw.

thanks alot for taking your time to explain...
But 1Sam 16:19-22
will make us understand that Saul knows and has been in contact with Jesse the Father of David.. Not just once but twice...

1st when he sent for David
2nd when he talked to Jesse about David staying permanently on his Service..

he was said to be very fond of David and made him his Armor bearer...

We are to understand that there is a relationship between Saul and David prior to the Goliath incidence...

But we hear Saul asking during the Goliath rage as if he had never met or Known David or Jesse his father . ...

felixomor:


Thanks for the explanation.
Once it comes to the bible, some people seem to pretend not to understand english.....

I really Don't like you that much..
I've seen how you respond and tackle issues on this forum..
And it's just despicable and unbecoming of someone who claims to be a Doctor ...

I'll appreciate if you let the intelligent people speak...
Thanks..

JhyMedex:

I really Don't like you that much..
I've seen how you respond and tackle issues on this forum..
And it's just despicable and unbecoming of someone who claims to be a Doctor ...

I'll appreciate if you let the intelligent people speak...
Thanks..

Next. Please .....
Mscheww

zionmade:
Pls i am just here to give an answer and not an argument. Saul met David in 1sam 16:21 it was d same saul who gave David his last preparation to face Goliath in 1sam 17:38.
So saul couldnt had not known David as u think it was in 17:55
Now in those days their is always a perculiarity or rather grace exuded by israelites dat is tied to the tribe they came from. And always a man is known and recognized by his tribe first because it goes a long way to show his abilities or perculiarities.
Saul asked Whose son is this youth? And not Who is this?
He was astonished at what David did and needed to know where exactly he came from dat he had such perculiarity or grace. Remember dat as a king Saul might have forgotten d tribe of David because in 16:18 David's hometown was mentioned.
Let me bring it down to our present day. Assuming buhari needs someone who can cook and someone brought u and said u re from kwara, son of Xyz. And suddenly u achieved a great feat and bubari becomes so astonished dat he asks Where are u from?
Pls am not here to argue i just came to drop an answer to ur question

Well like you said you don't want to argue...
I don't intend for this to be an argument...
it's a discussion and clarification dearly needed by a young Christian...

Your analogy though is lob-sided..
But Thanks for saying something...

PastorAIO:




LWKMD!!! Hee hee hee heee hee hee hee!

Yeah Pastor in the house.. how about your explanation Sire?..

JhyMedex:

Yeah Pastor in the house..
how about your explanation Sire?..

My brother, the question should not be whether or not there are contradictions in the bible. But rather the question should be why the writers of the bible blatantly and obviously took contradictory stories and laid them side by side.

If you read the bible is not just you will see some seemingly inadvertent contradictions as if it was sloppy work, but instead they are laid side by side in such a manner that it is obvious that the writer intends for you to compare and contrast them.

So the question is Why!! What are the authors of the bible trying to get at when they do this? Take for example the opening two chapter of the bible. The creation story in Genesis 1 is in total contradiction to the creation story in Genesis two.

Abeg you can ignore those fake assed Biblianist apologists.

These contradictions are obviously a literary device in the bible. Take for example the story of Noah and the Ark. first the animals are brought in 2 by 2. Then the another version has the clean animals brought in 7 by 7 etc. Why? And the writers of the bible are obviously not even trying to hide these blatant contradictions.

The first thing that we can say is that the writers of the bible were [b]NOT [/b]trying to write history. That was not their goal or agenda.

You cannot take the tales of the bible as historical facts.

There is a theory that what they were doing was documenting their folk tales and mythologies. For example in Ancient Greece the very first historian ever was a guy called Herodotus. What he was do when he would write the story of an historical episode is first write one version and state that this is the version that he learned from so so so and so place then immediately write another version and say that 'but the people from the other side have this other version'. The idea was to document all the versions of a tale that he could find, not necessarily to ascertain which version was the actual facts.

Then there is also a very clear literary pattern that can be seen in the different version. For example when we look at the first two chapters of Genesis we find that when the second creation story starts, the literary style (in Hebrew so it is lost in translation into English) changes. In the first chapter the creation is done by Elohim. In the Second chapter the style changes and also the name of the deity. Now it is Yahweh.

Throughout the OT there is obviously a stylistic disctinction between Elohim and Yahweh. For Example Elohim seems more lofty and transcendental. More mystical, metaphysical. Yahweh on the other hand seems so much more physical. Yahweh goes on a walk through the Garden of Eden in the Evening. Jacob wrestled physically with Yahweh all night. Moses saw the back of Yahweh's head etc. You can even call Yahweh to come and eat with you as Abram did.

These are two very clear depictions of Deity, and often the same story is told twice. With a Yahwist version and an Elohim version.

What is obvious is that the writers were not writing history but were getting at something else altogether different, a lot of which is lost in translation when you read the bible in English.

JhyMedex:

I really Don't like you that much..
I've seen how you respond and tackle issues on this forum..
And it's just despicable and unbecoming of someone who claims to be a Doctor ...

I'll appreciate if you let the intelligent people speak...
Thanks..

felixomor:


Next. Please .....
Mscheww

You see the problem is that there is a whole new cult that has being invented based on the text of the bible and the twisting of it's meanings. In a bid to try to insist that the bible is one cogent narrative these cult members are actually turned into sociopathic hateful disciples of mendacity. Very rarely will you see them present an argument. Rather they will attack and curse anyone that doesn't agree with their inanity. This is the state of affairs with these people who insist on calling themselves Christians (though they have no lineage to any of the actual apostles of Jesus).

PastorAIO:


You see the problem is that there is a whole new cult that has being invented based on the text of the bible and the twisting of it's meanings. In a bid to try to insist that the bible is one cogent narrative these cult members are actually turned into sociopathic hateful disciples of mendacity. Very rarely will you see them present an argument. Rather they will attack and curse anyone that doesn't agree with their inanity. This is the state of affairs with these people who insist on calling themselves Christians (though they have no lineage to any of the actual apostles of Jesus).

Why mention me to write this?

felixomor:


Why mention me to write this?

Because I was addressing the manner in which you (and others) behave, not only on this thread but on others too.

PastorAIO:


Because I was addressing the manner in which you (and others) behave, not only on this thread but on others too.

Hian

The problem starts when you try to endow bible with some power or meaning or authority that it doesn't possess.
And all this in spite of the fact that in the very same bible they are told that god will write his laws in their hearts and it is the Holy Spirit that is to guide them in all things. But these people insist on clinging onto texts and letters. Why??
Well I suspect it is because they needed to create an authority with which they could use to challenge the authority of the church itself. So from the Protestant reformation the seeds were sown for all the hogwash that you see today.

PastorAIO:
You see the problem is that there is a whole new cult that has being invented based on the text of the bible and the twisting of it's meanings.
In a bid to try to insist that the bible is one cogent narrative these cult members are actually turned into sociopathic hateful disciples of mendacity

The bible in some places is cogent, some places not cogent, another place silent and some other places deductive reasoning is employed

PastorAIO:
Very rarely will you see them present an argument.
Rather they will attack and curse anyone that doesn't agree with their inanity

Pinocchio!

PastorAIO:
This is the state of affairs with these people who insist on calling themselves Christians
(though they have no lineage to any of the actual apostles of Jesus)

If as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name:
then why would lineage to any of the actual apostles of Jesus be of importance

MuttleyLaff:

Pinocchio!

If as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name:
then why would lineage to any of the actual apostles of Jesus be of importance

Lineage is important because Christianity is a tradition.

PastorAIO:
Lineage is important because Christianity is a tradition.

No, not as you want to make all believe, in regards to any of the actual apostles of Jesus
Direct descent of or to any of the actual apostles of Jesus does meet any criteria to be a believer
nor does it qualify to be a prerequisite for a believers' faith

MuttleyLaff:
No, not as you want to make all believe, in regards to any of the actual apostles of Jesus

Please explain this in plain English.

Are you saying Christianity is NOT a tradition?

Or are you saying that 'actual apostles' don't need to receive the tradition?

MuttleyLaff:
The bible in some places is cogent, some places not cogent, another place silent and some other places deductive reasoning is

Please stay on topic. We are talking about blatant contradictions. Some examples have been mentioned. If you feel you can explain the discrepancies according to your worldview then please go ahead.

PastorAIO:
(though they have no lineage to any of the actual apostles of Jesus).

PastorAIO:
Lineage is important because Christianity is a tradition

PastorAIO:
Please explain this in plain English.

Are you saying Christianity is NOT a tradition?

Or are you saying that 'actual apostles' don't need to receive the tradition?

Please tell how being a direct descendant to any of the actual apostles of Jesus counts in this matter

Tradition evolves and regardless of what the actual apostles of Jesus did in Biblical times, it changes.

PastorAIO:
You see the problem is that there is a whole new cult that has being invented based on the text of the bible and the twisting of it's meanings.
In a bid to try to insist that the bible is one cogent narrative these cult members are actually turned into sociopathic hateful disciples of mendacity. Very rarely will you see them present an argument.
Rather they will attack and curse anyone that doesn't agree with their inanity. This is the state of affairs with these people who insist on calling themselves Christians
(though they have no lineage to any of the actual apostles of Jesus).

PastorAIO:
Please stay on topic

As you can seen from the above underlined, unlike you going on a rant
my comment is on topic and related to refuting that the bible is not always a cogent narrative

PastorAIO:
We are talking about blatant contradictions. Some examples have been mentioned.
If you feel you can explain the discrepancies according to your worldview then please go ahead.

No, can do.
I deplore needless waste of time getting me to reinvent the wheel.
- Kondomatic did justice to OP's

MuttleyLaff:


As you can seen from the above underlined, unlike you going on a rant
my comment is on topic and related to refuting that the bible is not always a cogent narrative
]

So in your mind now you have refuted it.

No, can do.
I deplore needless waste of time getting me to reinvent the wheel.
- Kondomatic did justice to OP's

JhyMedex:

thanks alot for taking your time to explain...
But 1Sam 16:19-22
will make us understand that Saul knows and has been in contact with Jesse the Father of David.. Not just once but twice...

1st when he sent for David
2nd when he talked to Jesse about David staying permanently on his Service..

he was said to be very fond of David and made him his Armor bearer...

We are to understand that there is a relationship between Saul and David prior to the Goliath incidence...

But we hear Saul asking during the Goliath rage as if he had never met or Known David or Jesse his father . ...

So since you are now advocating for kondomatic then perhaps you can take up the baton for him at the point where he ran away.

His response was refuted with the the bible passages in the above quote. Please address that and tell us how you square the circle.

MuttleyLaff:




Please tell how being a direct descendant to any of the actual apostles of Jesus counts in this matter

Tradition evolves and regardless of what the actual apostles of Jesus did in Biblical times, it changes.

Let me get you straight. When you say 'in this matter' I presume you are talking of this issue of being a Christian. Yes or no?

Secondly you are claiming that you do not need to receive the apostolic tradition in order to be a Christian. Is this what you're saying?