The Bible is true, but what you heard about it is not.

[AronRa]

Someone posted tha comment on my video, Theism is Not Rational:

One answer: The Bible is true, biut what you've been told about it is NOT...... http://thechristianmythbusterseries.com

Then he commented on another video, Why does anyone believe the Bible?

You should be the high priest of the church of satan! You've got the perfect look.

Actually I've met Lucien Greaves of the Satanic Temple, and I think he has a very different look from me.

Then he sent me a private message:

I am a devout Christian and would like to debate you that the Bible is true, it's just what you've heard about it that is not.

To which I replied,

It's just what I've heard about the Bible that's not true, and not what I've read in it myself? OK. Are we still talking about giants, witches, dragons, magick spells, hordes of re-animated corpses, and animals who talk and act like people? A world-wide flood? The firmament? Where we're supposed to believe that everyone spoke the same language until 3,700 years ago? That two million slaves took forty years to walk a distance that should've only taken two weeks following the coastline? A savior who's life story matches that of a dozen previous myths from neighboring regions, but which didn't match the prophesies he was supposed to fulfill? A tale of magical anthropomorphic immortals where gullibility is the sole criteria for redemption? Sure, we can have that conversation. What kind of format are you looking for? My preference would be a written discussion in public archives, like on the League of Reason forums. http://leagueofreason.org.uk/index.php That way we can present evidence, links, illustrations, etc. But if you're only arguing for Christianity rather than the religious extremism of creationism, then we don't need scientific evidence, and a live discussion on Google hangouts could be fun too. I'm really pressed for time at the moment though. I have to present at INR5 in Vancouver next week, and I'm behind on some other projects too. Maybe we can do something after that.

When is after that you are talking about? Because I would like to get a project I'm working on finished too. Maybe early July? Why don't we set a date for early July?

After the 5th annual Imagine No Religion conference, I'll only have a couple weeks to compose another presentation for the next Oklahoma Freethought convention. So yeah, sometime in July would be fine. I've already created a thread for our discussion, So contribute to that whenever you like.

 

[Inferno]

Looking forward to it. :lol:

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Hurrah! Someone to carry-on where abelcainsbrother left off!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[shauk100]

Can't wait for the debate! We have not set a date yet, and Aron and I are both trying to finish our projects, but we said tentatively around the 1st week of July, but that may have to change. I hope not, I'm hoping to finish with mine by that time.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I doubt this person will show up. However, thank you AronRa for changing the way you format your opening posts. I appreciate it.

 

[Visaki]

Greetings,

Hurrah! Someone to carry-on where abelcainsbrother left off!

Kindest regards,

James

Indeed, the timing is very nice. Here's for hoping we get some opposition back to the board.

I doubt this person will show up. However, thank you AronRa for changing the way you format your opening posts. I appreciate it.

If abelcainsbrother wasn't banned I'd direct him to Arons post to see how quoteing is properly done.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Omnomnomnomnom...

 

[Prolescum]

Can't wait for the debate! We have not set a date yet, and Aron and I are both trying to finish our projects, but we said tentatively around the 1st week of July, but that may have to change. I hope not, I'm hoping to finish with mine by that time.

Welcome to the forum



ETA:

You should be the high priest of the church of satan! You've got the perfect look.

Is this the level of discussion we can expect? Whether this is intended as a joke, a provocation masquerading as a joke, or a genuine exclamation of surprise that a man with long hair can articulate an argument, or whatever else (I don't care), it's certainly not conducive to an in depth discussion on a heavily disputed topic.

I would rather it is dispensed with early on and hopefully have the chance to enjoy the simple pleasure of two minds engaged in that most sapient of life's gifts: talking over each other.

 

[AronRa]

Ok thanks, but it's sort of a debate, isn't it?

If a debate is just when two people posit arguments before an audience, then you can say that this is a debate. However, it is more appropriate to call this a discussion, because we're not on stage together and there is no moderator imposing equal time limits for each of us to make our points. I have a rule that I won't debate anyone who nominates themselves; only if people nominate someone else to represent them, or if I am invited to represent someone. So the only debates I've ever had (so far) have been on the radio, at the invitation of others. That, and one formal written debate with a half-dozen moderators back in 2005, which sadly, is no longer available online.

What we're doing is unstructured, with no need of any moderator or limits on responses. We're going to be talking TO each other instead of past each other, trying to convince the audience instead. I know that religious believers are supposed to proselytize assertions of a-priori assumptions which are 'fixed' and not open for evaluation, but the challenge for me is to see when it is possible to reason against faith, which is a wholly dishonest and crippling impairment of cognizance.

This should be an interesting discussion, because you've assumed the burden of proof in an impossible task, to vindicate what has already been completely disproved throughout in myriad ways. The only possible out for that is whatever you meant when you said that what I've heard about the Bible is not true. I'm guessing you weren't referring to when I've heard that the Bible was "the divinely-inspired word of God" or that it was literally accurate verbatim. My guess is that you've no idea what you've gotten yourself into, and that consequently your faith is now at risk. That's why I'm keen to play along.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Can't wait for the debate! We have not set a date yet, and Aron and I are both trying to finish our projects, but we said tentatively around the 1st week of July, but that may have to change. I hope not, I'm hoping to finish with mine by that time.

Well, I was wrong before I even posted my comment. Damn.

However, if you do not mind me asking, what project are you working on?

 

[Dustnite]

Well, I was wrong before I even posted my comment. Damn.

However, if you do not mind me asking, what project are you working on?

The Alan Parsons Project

 

[shauk100]

I am testing the format of this forum because it is different than I'm accustomed to, and I don't have time to read all the instructions. Do I hit reply at the top? Do I have to reply to an individual or is there a button that just keeps the same post going? What happens if I hit "new topic" does the original post disappear from the new topic or just add to it? I don't want it to stray from the OP.

 

[Deleted member 619]

If you wish to reply to a specific post, hit 'quote' on any given post and the post you are replying to will appear in your 'compose post' window with the appropriate tags attached, and it will look like this:

[quote="shauk100"]I am testing the format of this forum because it is different than I'm accustomed to, and I don't have time to read all the instructions. Do I hit reply at the top? Do I have to reply to an individual or is there a button that just keeps the same post going? What happens if I hit "new topic" does the original post disappear? I don't an that![/quote]

You can put the tags in wherever you like, so that you can do this:

[quote="Shauk100"]I am testing the format of this forum[/quote]

and it will look like this:

I am testing the format of this forum

See open and close tags if 'fisking' is your thing. You needn't put the name of the person to whom you're responding in the tags, in which case it will look like this:

[quote]I am testing the format of this forum[/quote]

Which will display like this:

I am testing the format of this forum

Although 'netiquette' dictates that you should include the moniker of the person to whom you're responding in at least the first quote of a chain, and change this if you respond to another poster.

'New topic' starts a new thread. dissociated with the thread to which you are responding. If you simply wish to post a reply in a thread without adding the comments of others, just hit reply.

Alternatively, you can play with the tag buttons in the reply dialogue to finds out how it works. If you're unsure, ask. You've already won some brownie points by asking these questions, IMO.

 

[shauk100]

If you wish to reply to a specific post, hit 'quote' on any given post and the post you are replying to will appear in your 'compose post' window with the appropriate tags attached, and it will look like this:

[quote="shauk100"]I am testing the format of this forum because it is different than I'm accustomed to, and I don't have time to read all the instructions. Do I hit reply at the top? Do I have to reply to an individual or is there a button that just keeps the same post going? What happens if I hit "new topic" does the original post disappear? I don't an that![/quote]

You can put the tags in wherever you like, so that you can do this:

[quote="Shauk100"]I am testing the format of this forum[/quote]

and it will look like this:

I am testing the format of this forum

See open and close tags if 'fisking' is your thing. You needn't put the name of the person to whom you're responding in the tags, in which case it will look like this:

[quote]I am testing the format of this forum[/quote]

Which will display like this:

I am testing the format of this forum

Although 'netiquette' dictates that you should include the moniker of the person to whom you're responding in at least the first quote of a chain, and change this if you respond to another poster.

'New topic' starts a new thread. dissociated with the thread to which you are responding. If you simply wish to post a reply in a thread without adding the comments of others, just hit reply.

Alternatively, you can play with the tag buttons in the reply dialogue to finds out how it works. If you're unsure, ask. You've already won some brownie points by asking these questions, IMO.

Got it, I hope. Thanks Hack!

 

[shauk100]

I know most people, especially scholars would shriek at the idea of being told they have climbed the wrong mountain their whole academic careers, and that is the kind of reaction and resistance I get to these things because nobody wants to be wrong. Nobody wakes up and hopes to believe a really good lie for the day. I told the last atheist I spoke with he had drinken the kool-aid, and of course he came back with the same thing to me. But do I have proof? Can words prove anything to some people or does it have to be material proof for some to believe something? And I do mean words, not something I etherealize or spiritualize or make up myself.

Does this mean you guys will never find anything wrong with what I say? Hell no, but what’ll matter is if I know when I’m wrong and admit it. Even scholars seek to get their work critiqued (if they’re smart) so they can get right with the truth. In this battle of the minds, TRUTH is at stake here.

The Bible is far too great a book and message to have been fabricated just to control the masses as many assert. With the Bible, I hold to the simple fact that if it is true and holy inspired as claimed, it cannot contradict itself. I had an atheist send me an alleged 101 contradictions in the Bible, I debunked the first four in bout 15 minutes and he conceded and turned to non-bible sources to try and bash me, when I was using the Bible to prove a point. He was putting the Bible on trial, but got hostile and had to attack the messenger instead of the message because he could not refute what I said. I hope I don’t have to deal with that here, because I won’t. The Apostle Paul never had to convince anyone (it's not a Christian's job to convince anyone) - he shared it, even debated it. If they just mocked (LOL, etc.) and scoffed he used the Hebraic expression of wiping the dust off his feet to make an example of them. Like slamming the door behind you and moving on.

Part of my argument will be that mankind (without the holy spirit, sometimes even with because it’s a growing process, but less likely) is presumptuous, self-centered and cares more about winning than the truth. But to clarify presumptuous, my claim here is just what I said at the onset “The Bible is true, but what you’ve heard about it is not.” And that has proven correct for me going on about ten years now, because mankind is often cocky, mean-spirited, presumptuous and mocks and scoffs at what he can’t refute if he wants to refute it. But if this is a quest for the truth, then what does it matter if one of us is wrong - right? It’s the truth and the truth only that should matter.

The things I plan on showing you are a case of tradition vs. the Bible. Will you turn to non-bible sources and say “well, so and so has a doctors degree and doesn’t say that.” or will you do the fair thing and let scripture interpret itself? Even if it calls an ace a spade? Maybe what you call a spade is wrong, and a ripped off term and really should be called an ace. If we let scripture interpret scripture, it will define our words. I don’t think anyone is holy inspired today, at least not like they were in the first century. I tell Christians if you’re holy inspired than go to the cancer wards and start sending people home like they could in the 1st century. I know translations are not holy inspired, so I examine the Hebrew and Greek words often. I also know that God (according to His word) hides things, then reveals them. It is my assertion He is now revealing things not known for millennia to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

I don’t know how much I can contribute until my and Aron’s agreement of around the 1st week of July comes when my book on Genesis is finished, but I will check periodically, so I hope noone starts saying I’m purposely avoiding answering, because that’s not my style, I (like Aron, I think, though I don’t know him) am a very in your face kind of guy.

 

[Collecemall]

Thus he shows more competence than ACB in a total of three posts. At least the bar isn't set too high eh?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

With the Bible, I hold to the simple fact that if it is true and holy inspired as claimed, it cannot contradict itself.

How did Judith die? How did king Saul die? If I am not mistaken those have contradictory accounts in the bible.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Welcome to LoR, shauk100!

It'd be interesting to know what the "101 contradictions" were and how you debunked them...!?

I trust you realise that arguing about meanings using English (American) is pointless as the bible needs to be argued from its original languages - Aramaic and Hebrew (OT) and Koiné (NT)?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

I know most people, especially scholars would shriek at the idea of being told they have climbed the wrong mountain their whole academic careers, and that is the kind of reaction and resistance I get to these things because nobody wants to be wrong. Nobody wakes up and hopes to believe a really good lie for the day.

While this may be true for many people, you'll find a different response here. There's nothing I love more than discovering I was wrong about something, because it means I've learned something, and that's my favourite pastime. You can't learn anything when you're right all the time.

I told the last atheist I spoke with he had drinken the kool-aid, and of course he came back with the same thing to me.

I don't do kool-aid.

But do I have proof? Can words prove anything to some people or does it have to be material proof for some to believe something? And I do mean words, not something I etherealize or spiritualize or make up myself.

Some terms need defining here, because at least three words are being horribly misused, namely 'etherealise' (whatever the fuck that is), 'spiritualise' (how this terms applies to language I have no idea, and I'm pretty good with words) and 'proof' (proof is a formal procedure applicable only to axiomatically complete systems of deductive logic and definitely doesn't apply to anything you've said).

As for the rest, no; words will simply not suffice, unless, since you wish to talk about how our rejection of your celestial peeping-tom is based on being misinformed about the hokey blurble, you can provide documentary evidence that's somehow been missed by ALL the world's biblical scholars that your interpretation supersedes or is more robust than theirs.

Frankly, I'm intrigued to see what your approach will be, setting aside the fact that there are things in the wholly babble that are demonstrably plain, flat wrong, and cannot be reconciled with a divine inspiration, let alone the authorship of an allegedly omniscient entity (setting aside that omniscience is self-refuting).

Does this mean you guys will never find anything wrong with what I say?

I already have. See above.

Hell no, but what’ll matter is if I know when I’m wrong and admit it.

My recommendation for you, just so that you know the sort of thing you're likely to encounter here, would be to look up some key terms. The first would be the Dunning-Kruger effect, because that's a really important to grasp if you're going to claim some special competence at anything. Secondly, two perceptual issues to be aware of, namely pareidolia, and confirmation bias.

Even scholars seek to get their work critiqued (if they’re smart) so they can get right with the truth. In this battle of the minds, TRUTH is at stake here.

There's another term that requires definition, because the way it's used by most theists in my experience, which is vast, is so nebulous that it rarely makes contact with any robust definition. I have a pretty rigid definition for truth, and there is much in the bible that fails to meet it.

The Bible is far too great a book and message

What's great about it? It isn't internally consistent, it's poorly written, containing so many passages so oblique as to be entirely message-free, and that brings me to the second part of this fragment of your text, namely the message. If the word 'great' is still intended to be applied here to the 'message' of the bible, then you've already lost the whole shooting match, because the central message of this book of preposterous guff is about the most depraved bit of moral turpitude in all of fiction.

to have been fabricated just to control the masses as many assert.

Nobody here will be saying that, not least because it wasn't fabricated, but cobbled together out of already extant myths, with events transplanted from one myth to another in the most slapdash fashion so that, for example, you get an exodus (for which there is exactly diddly-squat in evidential terms) that should have taken, at most, a fortnight, yet takes forty years, even with the assistance of an allegedly omnipotent entity (yet another self-refuting attribute).

With the Bible, I hold to the simple fact that if it is true and holy inspired as claimed, it cannot contradict itself.

There's your malfunction, right there, and it demonstrates that you aren't actually ready for this discussion, because there is a direct relationship between the diameter of your argument and its circumference, given as a multiple of pi. This 'last atheist you spoke to' was he three years old or four? This sentence can most readily be critiqued with the saying that 'circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because...

I had an atheist send me an alleged 101 contradictions in the Bible,

OK, then you'll have no trouble debunking an allegedly omnipotent entity that was defeated by iron chariots.

Seriously, contradictions in the bible have little interest for me, but I know I can come up with some if you want to play the amateur game. I'd much rather go for the jugular, because your astral voyeur is an impossible entity, having been imbued in your badly-written bit of fanfic to have mutually exclusive and logically absurd attributes.

I debunked the first four in bout 15 minutes and he conceded

Good for you. Now that you've given us your pathetic C.V., perhaps you can set aside blowing your own trumpet, because nobody here is interested in your anecdotes concerning quite probably fictitious people you've debated with. You won't find anybody here telling you about previous demolitions of moronic drivel but, more importantly, they don't have to, because you can find them for yourself. This self-aggrandisement is most often, again in my vast experience at demolishing vacuous crap, more for your benefit than for ours, and we're not remotely interested in it, we're only interested in the gymnastics you're about to engage in in a futile attempt to support the absurd claim you've erected for yourself, especially against a known and experienced bible-skeptic in a community of skeptics. Seriously, nobody cares who you claim to have beaten in a debate. That was that (assuming you haven't simply fabricated it, which is par for the course) and this is this, and all your focus should be on this, because you're only ever as good as your last performance, as they say in my business.

and turned to non-bible sources to try and bash me, when I was using the Bible to prove a point.

The only points you can prove using the bible are a) that the bible says X, and b) that people are fucking stupid and gullible and will believe some really ridiculous shit. All attempts at employing the bible to support arguments for the existence of the entities or events described therein fall under the rubric of the previously elucidated fallacy, the commission of which is a schoolboy error of absolutely epic proportions.

This brings me to another recommendation, namely some study of logical fallacies. You can find a good précis of logical fallacies HERE, with a more basic elucidation of the most common and egregious fallacies HERE. You should check all your arguments against those, because it will ensure that you look vaguely competent, as it will serve as an error-checking mechanism and will save Aron and others the effort of elucidating those fallacies for you.

He was putting the Bible on trial, but got hostile and had to attack the messenger instead of the message because he could not refute what I said. I hope I don’t have to deal with that here, because I won’t.

The fallacy you're committing here is known as 'poisoning the well', a version of the genetic fallacy (of which the ad hominem you allege here is also a subset). Trust me, nobody here will attack you (unless you demonstrate yourself to be a total cunt, in which case I might well), but they will attack your arguments with extreme prejudice. As long as you understand that you are not your arguments, and that taking offence at the tone with which your arguments are eviscerated (and trust me, I've seen enough already to know that they will be) as committing any insult to you commits yet another logical fallacy, namely the category error, you'll be fine.

The Apostle Paul never had rot convince anyone - he shared it, even debated it. If they just mocked (LOL, etc.) and scoffed he used the Hebraic expression of wiping the dust off his feet to make an example of them. Like slamming the door behind you and moving on.

Well, Paul never met your magic man or had any contact with him. Pretty much everything Paul said can be discounted (and that's even assuming he said any of it, which is very much not in evidence).

Part of my argument will be that mankind (without the holy spirit, sometimes even with because it’s a growing process, but less likely) is presumptuous, self-centered and cares more about winning than the truth.

Except, of course, that you've already committed a massive, howling, carpet-bitingly stupid logical fallacy just in this bit telling us what you will argue, namely the non sequitur, because this has exactly fuck all to do with your claim concerning what we have heard about your idiotic book of fuckwittery. It's entirely irrelevant, and that's even before we pick apart propagandistic terms like 'holy spirit', whatever the holy fuck that is, and which, whatever it is, is once again begging the question. It may well be that your statement is correct, and that 'without the holy spirit, mankind is presumptuous (by the way, nothing even comes close to the presumptuousness of assuming that the whole universe was made just for you), but that says nothing about the existence of this 'holy spirit'.

Oh, and gotta love the beautiful bit of fuckwittery inherent in the accusation of being presumptuous, self-centred and caring more about winning than the truth coming from somebody who began by giving us his C.V. detailing alleged previous conquests and proceeded to poison the well.

But to clarify presumptuous, my claim here is just what I said at the onset “The Bible is true, but what you’ve heard about it is not.” And that has proven correct for me going on about ten years now, because mankind is often cocky, mean-spirited, presumptuous and mocks and scoffs at what he can’t refute if he wants to refute it.

And here you've done it again. There is literally no connection between the first part of this up to the quotation and what follows the quotation. Seriously, if this is the quality of argumentation you have to offer, you're in for a rude awakening, because this is among the most ludicrous errors in logic you can commit, and will be pounced on by an experienced skeptic. Seriously, let me parse that into a single sentence so that you can see the logical disconnect:

Mankind is often cocky, mean-spirited and presumptuous, therefore the bible is true, but what you've heard about it isn't.

Does that really make sense to you? If it does, I retract all my previous advice and replace it with a single piece of advice now: Run the fuck away, because if this is the level of mastery of logic you can muster, you're about to find out what the tribulation of your dear and fluffy magic Jewish zombie really felt like, because you're going to get fucking crucified.

But if this is a quest for the truth, then what does it matter if one of us is wrong - right? It’s the truth and the truth only that should matter.

Glad you feel this way, because you're 'not even wrong'. Thus far, you've failed to meet the standard of competence to deserve the appellation 'wrong'.

The things I plan on showing you are a case of tradition vs. the Bible.

Then you're going to struggle, because nobody here will be dealing with tradition, it will be a case of facts vs the buy-bull.

[Will you turn to non-bible sources and say “well, so and so has a doctors degree and doesn’t say that.”

Setting aside that you're once again attempting to poison the well, the short answer is 'no', because to do so commits yet another logical fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam), and your opponent has a much better grasp of logic than that.

or will you do the fair thing and let scripture interpret itself?

If I know Aron, he'll be doing the correct thing and measuring what the babble says against empirical facts. The simple fact to be noted here is that, if your silly book of bollocks were actually the word of an omniscient, omnipotent entity, it would require no interpretation. Thus, that any believer attempts any interpretation other than a direct, literal translation defeats your silly magic man and kills it stone dead. Of course, it's also the only way to keep this entity alive, which is yet another contradiction inherent in this book of semi-literate bullshit, written by piss-stained goat-roasters in the ignorant infancy of our species.

Even if it calls an ace a spade? Maybe what you call a spade is wrong, and a ripped off term and really should be called an ace. If we let scripture interpret scripture, it will define our words. I don’t think anyone is holy inspired today, at least not like they were in the first century. I tell Christians if you’re holy inspired than go to the cancer wards and start sending people home like they could in the 1st century. I know translations are not holy inspired, so I examine the Hebrew and Greek words often. I also know that God (according to His word) hides things, then reveals them. It is my assertion He is now revealing things not known for millennia to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Ah, the old 'if you believe, you will believe' trope, with another liberal dose of circular reasoning.

I don’t know how much I can contribute until my and Aron’s agreement of around the 1st week of July comes when my book on Genesis is finished, but I will check periodically, so I hope none starts saying I’m purposely avoiding answering, because that’s not my style,

And some more well-poisoning.

I (like Aron, I think, though I don’t know him) am a very in your face kind of guy.

If you think you're in-your-face, wait till you get a load of me.

Anyhoo, some pointers for you there that, if taken seriously, might well set you up to look less incompetent than all who've come before you, though you'll forgive me if I allow respiration to continue within normal parameters in the interim, I hope.

Edit: Tags and typos

 

[shauk100]

Greetings,

Welcome to LoR, shauk100!

It'd be interesting to know what the "101 contradictions" were and how you debunked them...!?

I trust you realise that arguing about meanings using English (American) is pointless as the bible needs to be argued from its original languages - Aramaic and Hebrew (OT) and Koiné (NT)?

Kindest regards,

James

Dragan, I've added a few since then ....

101 Contradictions in the Bible:
101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible
Shabir Ally

1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
• God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
• Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

I was amazed to find this next passage that has a parallel, which according to the translations would contradict if it implied the popular notion of satan, but I knew this was not the case and by this point knew where it was going. It seemed like one passage after another was being revealed to me in this new light. Here are the parallel passages, in 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 we read:

2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah. (cf.1Ch 21:1) And Satan (adversary) stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.

Which was it, Satan or Jehovah God?! It had to be one or the other! The context of the passage indicates it was Jehovah God who temporarily became the adversary of David and Israel when David doubted. Again, the YLT correctly uses the word adversary instead of the confusing transliteration, "Satan:" “And there standeth up an adversary against Israel, and persuadeth David to number Israel.”

2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
• Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
• One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

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

First off, they don't even get the amount right in 2 Samuel - see below for yourself, because the House of Judah and the House of Israel always comprised all 12 tribes (see Gen 49:28 Judah is one of the tribes!), only sometimes they were referred to as Israelites. You have to understand the history of Israel and the split of the tribes after Solomon's death to understand the Bible....

2Sa 24:9 And Joab gave the king the number of all the people: there were in Israel eight hundred thousand fighting men able to take up arms; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand.

800,000 + 500,000 = 1,300,000

1Ch 21:5 And Joab gave David the number of all the people; all the men of Israel, able to take up arms, were one million, one hundred thousand men; and those of Judah were four hundred and seventy thousand men, able to take up arms.
1Ch 21:6 But Levi and Benjamin were not numbered among them, for Joab was disgusted with the king's order.
1Ch 21:7 And God was not pleased with this thing; so he sent punishment on Israel.

1,100,000 + 470,000 = 1,570,000 - (2 of the tribes in v.6 "But Levi and Benjamin were not numbered among them, for Joab was disgusted with the king's order.")

= real close to 1,300,000! Keep in mind these are rosters taken by fallible men too.

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

Look, the Septuagint gets it right...

2Sam 24:13 And Gad went in to David, and told him, and said to him, Choose [one of these things] to befall thee, whether there shall come upon thee [for] three years famine in thy land; or that thou shouldest flee three months before thine enemies, and they should pursue thee; or that there should be [for] three days mortality in thy land. Now then decide, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me. (LXX)

-vs.-

1Chron 21:12 either three years of famine, or that thou shouldest flee three months from the face of thine enemies, and the sword of thine enemies [shall be employed] to destroy thee, or that the sword of the Lord and pestilence [should be] three days in the land, and the angel of the Lord [shall be] destroying in all the inheritance of Israel. And now consider what I shall answer to him that sent the message. (LXX)

5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
• Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
• Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

2Kings 8:26 Twenty and two years old [was] Ochozias when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and the name of his mother [was] Gotholia, daughter of Ambri king of Israel. (LXX)

2Chron 22:2 Ochozias began to reign when he was twenty years old, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and his mother's name was Gotholia, the daughter of Ambri. (LXX)

6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
• Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
• Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)

Both verses use G3638 ὀκτώ oktō A primary numeral; “eight”: - eight (ABP+) in the Greek. As for the Hebrew, both verses use Strong’s H8083 and have H6240 עשׂר ‛âśâr following it, which appears to use (th) as in eighth.


For H6235; ten (only in combination), that is, the “teens”; also (ordinal) a “teenth”: - [eigh-, fif-, four-, nine-, seven-, six-, thir-] teen (-th), + eleven (-th), + sixscore thousand, + twelve (-th).