You're right; there is no reference to Satan in the Samuel account. But there is no reference to God in 1 Chronicles 21:1 either! 2 Sam. 24:1 says God moved David to take the census, and 1 Chr. 21:1 says Satan moved David. So, again, why assume that the Chronicles verse is more specific?God_Is_Truth said:i find no reference to Satan in the 2 Samuel account. Chronicles however contains both God and Satan and that is why i argue it's the more specific account.
It clarifies how God moved David to take the census. It does not make the reference that God moved David to take the census in 2 Sam. 24:1 obsolete, as you would have us to believe.because Chronicles clarifies the Samuel account and says it was Satan who incited David.
You continually assert that I make the assumption that the word 'moved', as used in 2 Sam. 24, is causative, or determinitive. Yet, you also assume that it does not.you are assuming the definition of "moved". you assume it's causative, when it does not have to be so.
Satan did it. you don't believe he can force people into sin do you? regardless, the word "moved" does not have to be interpreted determinitively here.
purely an assumption.
again, assuming that "moved" is determinitive.
However, the burden of proof lies in your hands, because in the Biblical account, the word 'moved' was causative - it did involve David taking the census. You assume that it means David had a choice, or that it wasn't determinitve. But I ask, where is your proof?
And looked what happened to Jonah! You think Jonah freely chose to be swallowed by a whale? God told Jonah to go to Ninevah, and it may not be what Jonah wanted, but God got His way anyways, regardless of how Jonah felt about it.God "moved" Jonah to go to Ninevah, but he said no.
Besides, the word 'moved' is not used in Jonah. God did not 'move' Jonah to go to Ninevah; He simply said, "Arise, go to Nineveh".
My reason for saying text like that are 'figurative' is not so that it fits my theology, but because Scriptures tell us so! If we were to take all the proof texts that Open Theists show to support their idea that God 'repents', or changes His mind, then we would have to ignore Numbers 23, because it seriously contradicts those texts:ok. but why do you decide to interpret texts like "and the Lord repented of the evil he had planned to bring" as figurative? do you have any reason for doing so besides making it fit your theology? shouldn't we have a better reason than that?
God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
This verse shows us that the other texts that says God repents must be figurative.