-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How many did David kill?
- Thread starter Jim1999
- Start date
Hi Jim......
The KJV study bible I use has this note....
"Assuming that all the passages are discussing the same campaign, the proper full figures are as follows...
from The Syrians (Arameans) one thousand chariots, seven thousand charioteers, and 20,000 footmen were captured. As well, 22,000 Aramean soldiers were killed, Thus the 40,000 "horsemen" (2 Sam 10:18) and 40,000 "footmen" (v 18) are merely rounded-off figures for the 42,000 foot soldiers either captured or slain. The word "horsemen" is thus used imprecisely or they may have miscopied from the listing in 2 Samuel 8:4"
Help, or made worse ?
The KJV study bible I use has this note....
"Assuming that all the passages are discussing the same campaign, the proper full figures are as follows...
from The Syrians (Arameans) one thousand chariots, seven thousand charioteers, and 20,000 footmen were captured. As well, 22,000 Aramean soldiers were killed, Thus the 40,000 "horsemen" (2 Sam 10:18) and 40,000 "footmen" (v 18) are merely rounded-off figures for the 42,000 foot soldiers either captured or slain. The word "horsemen" is thus used imprecisely or they may have miscopied from the listing in 2 Samuel 8:4"
Help, or made worse ?
Thanks, Bro. Curtis.
I really thought more would respond to a Bible question, where no one person or denomination is under attack, but edification is up front.
Over the years, several solutions have been postulated. I say postulated because any answer is speculation.
1. If one understands the Hebrew numbers, they will know how confusing they can be, and easily misread or copied. It has been suggested that it is so here and therefore the actual numbers cannot be determined, but round figures are adequate to relate the events. A similar event happens with the age of Ahaziah,,,in one place he is 22 and in another scripture he is 42...the difference in one number to the other is something like a comma ('). The context has the proper age of 22. He obviously can't be older than his father.
2. Some liberals and others use this passage to show that the Bible has errors or contradictions, proving that is a mere book and not the Word of God. We deny this solution out right for obvious reasons.
It does show the inadequacies of ALL versions in our hands, and that we should be more diligent with our dogmas. It may be simply a copyists error. Most of us do not claim infallibility in any version of scripture, but only the original autographs.
3. Bro. Curtis demonstrates another possibilities, which links closely to the errors due to language formations and misinterpretations. So easy to do.
It is an interesting study, not to prove the Bible unreliable, but to the contrary, to illustrate how simply we can be brought to a legitimate understanding without violating either the context or content of scripture, even when it appears to contradict other scriptures.
Cheers, and good studies.
Jim
I really thought more would respond to a Bible question, where no one person or denomination is under attack, but edification is up front.
Over the years, several solutions have been postulated. I say postulated because any answer is speculation.
1. If one understands the Hebrew numbers, they will know how confusing they can be, and easily misread or copied. It has been suggested that it is so here and therefore the actual numbers cannot be determined, but round figures are adequate to relate the events. A similar event happens with the age of Ahaziah,,,in one place he is 22 and in another scripture he is 42...the difference in one number to the other is something like a comma ('). The context has the proper age of 22. He obviously can't be older than his father.
2. Some liberals and others use this passage to show that the Bible has errors or contradictions, proving that is a mere book and not the Word of God. We deny this solution out right for obvious reasons.
It does show the inadequacies of ALL versions in our hands, and that we should be more diligent with our dogmas. It may be simply a copyists error. Most of us do not claim infallibility in any version of scripture, but only the original autographs.
3. Bro. Curtis demonstrates another possibilities, which links closely to the errors due to language formations and misinterpretations. So easy to do.
It is an interesting study, not to prove the Bible unreliable, but to the contrary, to illustrate how simply we can be brought to a legitimate understanding without violating either the context or content of scripture, even when it appears to contradict other scriptures.
Cheers, and good studies.
Jim