@Ray pls no need for name calling, we're gentlemen. Ok lets make a truce, go back and respond on page 4 on John the Baptist being Elijah and I'll gladly explain how Saul died. Deal?

i'm of d belief that if you don't have a sustainable explanation,don't negate/attack the pre-existing one.
and pls don't give me d evolution sh*t!

Geez! This noblechild character...

What has that got to do with the topic for goodness sake

Why should I bother with something that wasn't even a contradiction, or related to the topics that I posted. On top of that, it was a lost Christian that mistaken my thread for a Christian chatbox.

Why should I treat something that I or any other atheist didn't ask? Since when do a Christian(the questioner) become an ally that I should challenged your irrelevant and unnecessary explanation?

Honestly, dude (I don't call people dude unless I'm really exasperated), I think it would be better if you quit commenting on this thread, till you have something meaningful to contribute.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out, bye!

Ray McBlue: Geez! This noblechild character...

What has that got to do with the topic for goodness sake

Why should I bother with something that wasn't even a contradiction, or related to the topics that I posted. On top of that, it was a lost Christian that mistakened my thread for a Christian chatbox.

Why should I treat something that I or any other atheist didn't ask? Since when do a Christian(the questioner) become an ally that I should challenged your irrelevant and unnecessary explanation?

Honestly, dude (I don't call people dude unless I'm really exasperated), I think it would be better if you quit commenting on this thread, till you have something meaningful to contribute.

Don't let the door hit your back on your way out, bye!

Ok sorry I thought the thread was in contracdicting scriptures and some of ur friends said we didn't have answers to that question that's why I took it up in the first place. Kindly repost the question on Saul's death and call ur friends, I'll give u the answer straight up.

[size=16pt]Who Killed Saul?[/size]


Saul was slain by God

1 Chronicles 10:14- And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse

Saul killed himself

1 Samuel 31:4- Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.

An Amalekite killed Saul

2 Samuel 1:8-10 “He asked me,‘Who are you?’ 'An Amalekite,’ I answered. “Then he said to me, ‘Stand here by me and kill me! I’m in the throes of death, but
I’m still alive.’ “So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive. And I took the crown that was on his head and the band on his arm and have brought them here to my lord.”

No! It's the philistines!

2 Samuel 21:12 he went to the people of Jabesh-gilead and retrieved the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan When the Philistines had killed Saul and Jonathan on Mount Gilboa, the people of Jabesh-gilead stole their bodies from the public square of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hung them.

^ The story of Saul's death is clearly narrated in 1Samuel 31 & 1 Chronicles 10, Saul went to war with the Philistines and was defeated, while he was trying to flee he was shot with an arrow which was fatal. Knowing he could not escape, he then told his armour bearer to kill him honourably, but when armour bearer refused, he fell on his own sword. But the Philistines still came, cut of his head and abuse his body.
To the question, Saul killed himself although he was already fatally wounded by the Philistines. The issue that the Philistines slain him him was because he died in battle with them and off course they cut off his head.
The issue of the Amelakite is very simple, the young man knew Saul was dead and that David had been crowned king & it was only Saul standing in his way, so the young came to give David the news but decided to add a lie that he did it supposing to win favour from David, but of course he paid for that lie with his life.
Finally the case of God killed Saul and gave the kingdom to David is just the summary of 1 Chronicles chapter 10. If the you read the verses preceding that you will see it was clearly stated how Saul died, but in summary the writer said God did it simply because the Jews (Israelites) had this believe (they still do) that no one could defeat them except God allowed it, that why severally when the lost any battle, they never accepted the opposition was stronger, but rather came back and I atoned for their sins against God either by fasting, sacrifice and killing anyone who was responsible for the sin. Since Saul was anointed, the writer summarizes that Saul was kill because he disobeyed God, don't forget the same writer had in earlier in the same passage clearly stated how Saul died. Shallom!

Now, don't feel smug, because that one is pretty straight forward. I left it out of my original post for a reason, you know? Why it took you so long to explain, still baffles me. Could it be that you are scared you might shoot yourself in the foot?

Alright, I concede that one, the contradictions are officially refuted.


Now here comes the hard one;

2 Samuel 24:1- And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against
Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

The contraction

1 Chronicles 21:1- And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Refute this one, and I will acknowledged your bible knowledge prowess, however grudgingly.

Ray McBlue: Now, don't feel smug, because that one is pretty straight forward. I left it out of my original post for a reason, you know? Why it took you so long to explain, still baffles me. Could it be that you are scared you might shoot yourself in the foot?

Alright, I concede that one, the contradictions are officially refuted.


Now here comes the hard one;

2 Samuel 24:1- And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against
Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

The contraction

1 Chronicles 21:1- And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Refute this one, and I will acknowledged your bible knowledge prowess, however grudgingly.

No it didn't take me any time has said earlier I can answer all, but ur comments made me change my mind. As per the same the next one, its quite very interesting and I think I'll oblige u.

Let's see what you got.

Going through your explanation again, I realized that I May have spoken in haste. You hinted that Saul wasn't dead when he fell upon the sword, which prompted the 'Philistines to finish up the job. 'They cut off (beheaded) and abused his body' - your words not mine.

That implied that the Philistines were the original killers, but that wasn't the case as this verses below showed;

1 Samuel 1-6 Philistines fought against Israel; the Israelites fled before them, and many fell slain on Mount Gilboa. The Philistines pressed hard after Saul and his sons, and they killed his sons Jonathan, Abinadab and Malki-Shua. The fighting grew fierce around Saul, and when the archers overtook him, they wounded him critically. Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse me." But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. So Saul and his three sons and his armor-bearer and all his men died together that same day."

The bold clearly proved that Saul commited suicide, rather than in the hands of the Philistines like 2 Samuel 21:12 stated. So did Saul died twice or something?

Sorry mate, the contradiction is back into play. You refuted nothing. Nice try though.

Ray McBlue: Going through your explanation again, I realized that I May have spoken in haste. You hinted that Saul wasn't dead when fell upon the sword, which prompted the 'Philistines to behead him and abused his body' - your words not mine.

That implied that the Philistines were the original killers, but that wasn't the case as this verses below showed;

1 Samuel 1-6 Philistines fought against Israel; the Israelites fled before them, and many fell slain on Mount Gilboa. The Philistines pressed hard after Saul and his sons, and they killed his sons Jonathan, Abinadab and Malki-Shua. The fighting grew fierce around Saul, and when the archers overtook him, they wounded him critically. Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse me." But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. So Saul and his three sons and his armor-bearer and all his men died together that same day."

The bold clearly prove that Saul commited suicide, then how come 2 Samuel 21:12 stated otherwise? Did Saul died twice or something?

Sorry mate, the contradiction is back into play. You contradicted nothing. Nice try though.

No I didn't hint that, Saul fell on his sword and died after been fatally wounded by the Philistines, what I ws trying to say was the fear he had about what the Philistines will do to him actually befell him.

noblefada:
No I didn't hint that, Saul fell on his sword and died after been fatally wounded by the Philistines, what I ws trying to say was the fear he had about what the Philistines will do to him actually befell him.

Still doesn't refute the verse that stated that he died in the hands of the philistines.

In fact, you seem to be arguing on my side.

Ok I said this one is not only interesting but its actually a mystery of the scriptures and I can confidently tell u that less than 5% of xtians are actually aware of it. I'll try and explain as simply as possible because I would prefer to teach it in a church meeting.
Now we have a Scenario where there look like there is a contradiction, on one hand it is said that God was responsible while on the other it is said the devil was the one!
Now the mystery behind those scriptures is this, the early Israelites did not have a revelation who the devil was, in fact God shielded them from knowing who the devil was, so many of them including the prophets & priest attributed everything that happened both good & bad to God, and God was very ok with it as long as it kept them for knowing the devil, in fact in the all of the OT the devil appears only 4 times, once in leviticus, in deutronomy, I chronicles & once in the psalms, while the word satan appears only 15 times, 11 of those in the book of Job, once in chronicles and I think 3 times in Zachariah. So you see the people of those times did not have any revelation of satan so attributed all things supernatural to God, except in rare cases like the writer of the Chronicles.
Now the case of Job is very interesting, because though satan was mentioned 11 times, Job himself didn't know or had an understanding of satan. This is why, the first chapter clearly said that satan was the one responsible for Job's misfortunes Job 1:1-12; Vs 12 And the LORD said unto satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
It shows clearly that satan was the one responsible but when the calamity befell Job, what did he say Job 1:20-22; Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped, And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
No the Lord was not responsible, the devil was.
So the correct rendering was that satan stirred up David to number the people, the writer of Samuel did not have knowledge about satan. Hopes that clarifies this. Shallom.

Ray McBlue:

Still doesn't refute the verse that stated that he died in the hands of the philistines.

In fact, you seem to be arguing on my side.

Pls go back and read it again I made that clear, He died in a battle against the Philistines who of course were responsible for his death.

Blah blah blah,

In one verse, it clearly stipulated that God was the instigator, in another, god was replaced by satan as the instigator in chief. How does that even make sense?

Okay, even if god had allowed satan to incite David, how could God sent
Satan to do a job and yet God is not
responsible for the sin?

noblefada:
Pls go back and read it again I made that clear, He died in a battle against the Philistines who of course were responsible for his death.

Okay, so I may've missed the part where you said that the philistines were responsible for his death, so what?

The bible never told us that the Philistines were responsible for Saul's death. To be responsible for ones death literary translate: to cause someone's' death however indirectly, but to kill on the other hand, is simply to put an end to, to extinguish. It was very literal when it said Saul died in their hands. It specifically used the word killed to drive the message home.

lana_Vello:
so how dyu fink everyfin came about?

how do you think god came about?

nnofaith: how do you think god came about?

i dnt try 2 demystify tinz dat r gr8er dan my lil carnal mind.
wen y'al can giv an xplanatn 2 aw d planets came by& wat encompasses d endlez space,mayb God wud reveal his awesomeness 2u

lana_Vello:
i dnt try 2 demystify tinz dat r gr8er dan my lil carnal mind.
wen y'al can giv an xplanatn 2 aw d planets came by& wat encompasses d endlez space,mayb God wud reveal his awesomeness 2u

reveal his awesomeness?! the problem with you theists is that you forget that most atheists were once theists. i dont need him to reveal his awesomeness to me. i need him to show his face in public were everybody can see and verify, let him clarify things to everybody. untill he does that, i will still hold my conviction that everything started from NOTHING.

"everytin startd from notin"
so wu/wat started dose tinz?wah force ignited tinz 2 start from notin? tel me!!

lana_Vello:
i dnt try 2 demystify tinz dat r gr8er dan my lil carnal mind.
wen y'al can giv an xplanatn 2 aw d planets came by& wat encompasses d endlez space,mayb God wud reveal his awesomeness 2u

in other words, you are too lazy to think and therefore will accept the only explanation you know no matter how ridiculous. How about you start by spelling properly? Rule 21

@noblefada, nice try there. One question though, how did you come about the conclusion that the amalekite lied? Was it recorded anywhere that he lied about being the killer of Saul? Or did you just insert that excuse to dismiss that part?

On one narrative, Saul asked his servant to kill him but he refused so he committed suicide. On another occasion, Saul told an amalekite to kill him and he did.

Which is which? Don't dismiss an account as a lie without proof!

m using my mobile + pretty busy hence d frequent use of short4ms.
your opinion....ya biz,
so y don't u quit foolin around & ans d question,betastil gimme ya own sensible xplanatn since trolls are now "diligent" enof to tink.

lana_Vello: "everytin startd from notin"
so wu/wat started dose tinz?wah force ignited tinz 2 start from notin? tel me!!

ok let me humor you; god created the universe right?
who created god? Nothing. no?
nothing created god, nothing created the universe QED.

Mr Troll: @noblefada, nice try there. One question though, how did you come about the conclusion that the amalekite lied? Was it recorded anywhere that he lied about being the killer of Saul? Or did you just insert that excuse to dismiss that part?

On one narrative, Saul asked his servant to kill him but he refused so he committed suicide. On another occasion, Saul told an amalekite to kill him and he did.

Which is which? Don't dismiss an account as a lie without proof!

No I did not insert anything, that's why will tell u guys that the bible is not a literal work. From those passage its clear that Saul's armour bearer died with him, but more importantly when the young gave report to David in 2chronicles 1 and David asked him to be killed, he said the man testified himself, because David knew he ws lying.

the bible told us "he was evidently lying.see1sam 31:3,4 for the true account"
2 sam1:10 TLV

@nofaith,lmao. idk wu created God. i told u earlier,i don't try to demystify tinz beyond me. so y not illuminate me on how u came abt dat?
besides,wat do u tink existed b4 dz world of ours?

lana_Vello: @nofaith,lmao. idk wu created God. i told u earlier,i don't try to demystify tinz beyond me. so y not illuminate me on how u came abt dat?
besides,wat do u tink existed b4 dz world of ours?

nothing

noblefada:
No I did not insert anything, that's why will tell u guys that the bible is not a literal work. From those passage its clear that Saul's armour bearer died with him, but more importantly when the young gave report to David in 2chronicles 1 and David asked him to be killed, he said the man testified himself, because David knew he ws lying.

una don come again with the literal and figurative nonsense!

It is clear in 2nd Samuel that David ordered the man killed for murdering Saul, not for lying that he did. How do you just get to accept one version as true and the other as false without any evidence. It wasn't shown in the passage that the man lied, apparently he even brought Saul's crown and band as proof. Just accept it man, the bible writers didn't actually know the true story of how Saul died so they just wrote all the different accounts:suicide, murder, death in battle

noblefada, sorry mate. But your explanations are turning out to be full of holes! You gotta step up your game if not for your own sake, then, for the sake of your belief.

lana_Vello: @nofaith,lmao. idk wu created God. i told u earlier,i don't try to demystify tinz beyond me. so y not illuminate me on how u came abt dat?
besides,wat do u tink existed b4 dz world of ours?

There's nothing to demystify. The origin of the universe has been traced to as far back as the big ban.g, what caused the big ban.g though has remained unknown. There are several theories that abound. . . Some say it could be the remnant of a former universe, others say this universe might be one of many out there. Read up the multiverse theory. Intelligent Design proponents also speculate that the big ban.g was caused by an intelligent designer. All these theories have their associated problems but the fact still remains that what came before the big ban.g is still unknown. Only dumb sheeple still cling unto the notion of a 6 day creation debacle.

P.S: Using a mobile phone is no excuse for improper spelling. I'm on mobile right now at work too. . .

oh,so they gat many theories that doesn't even answer your question.
i arrived late hence didn't c d fault yu found in d creation story. kindly post it!
oh,you're workin&typin? cool story. can't do d same,datz wah makes u a troll en me,vello