David in the Bible and the Quran

The Biblical Story of David: A Critical Examination and Comparison with the Quranic Story

Originally posted on the Quran and Bible blog

“By Allah’s will they routed them; and David slew Goliath; and Allah gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: But Allah is full of bounty to all the worlds.”

–         Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:251

            One of the most legendary figures in the traditions of the Abrahamic religions is King David (Dawud in Arabic).  Honored by Jews, Christians and Muslims, David is without a doubt one of the most famous men in history.[1]  However, as is often the case with historical figures, there are numerous and frequently contradicting traditions about the King of Israel.  This fact can be observed when comparing the Biblical and Quranic versions of the story of David.  Most of the information about David is found in the Bible, but as is often the case with Biblical information, the facts about David’s life are inconsistent and contradictory.  In this article, we will examine the Biblical story of the life of David and analyze its inconsistencies.  We will then study the Quranic account of his life and compare it to the Bible.  Through this examination, we will see indisputable evidence of the weakness of the Biblical version, and instead establish the Quranic narrative as a more realistic and trustworthy account.

David in the Bible

            The primary account of David’s life and reign as King of Israel is found in 1 and 2 Samuel, as well as 1 Chronicles.  As such, we will be relying primarily on these books of the Tanakh to summarize and then examine the life of David.  

            The character of David is first introduced in 1 Samuel 16, where it is stated that God chose the young man as the heir to the throne of Israel:

“The Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.””[2]

At this point in time, David was a young man who tended his father’s sheep, and was still unknown to the people of Israel.[3]  

            But the opportunity soon came for this unknown sheep herder to be thrust into the limelight, for Saul, then ruler of Israel, was being tormented by an “evil spirit from the Lord” and asked his court attendants to find someone who could play a lyre, which it was believed would alleviate Saul’s suffering.[4]  It was then that one of the attendants suggested that Saul seek out David, the youngest son of Jesse, who was known to play the lyre and was also a “brave man and a warrior”.[5]  Thus, the young David was introduced to Saul’s court and remained in the service of the king as his armor-bearer and to help him whenever the evil spirit returned to torment him some more.[6]

            Soon, war broke out between Israel and the Philistines, and arguably the most well-known story of David’s life was about to unfold.  The mighty Philistine army was led by the giant Goliath, who challenged the Israelites to send one of their champions to fight him, but his challenge was not met for forty days due to the overwhelming fear among the Israelite ranks.[7]  

            It was by chance that the young David, who was still tending sheep for his father, encountered the Philistine warrior.  He had been sent by his father to check on his older brothers, who were soldiers in the Israelite army, and to bring them some food.[8]  Angered by the “uncircumcised Philistine’s” defiance of the “armies of the living God”, David went to Saul and requested that he be allowed to fight the colossal Philistine, but Saul initially refused, noting that David was just a young man with no combat experience, whereas Goliath had been a “warrior from his youth”.[9]  However, David recounted his experience with lions and bears as a herder for his father’s sheep, and confidently asserted that God would protect him from Goliath just as He had protected him from the lions and the bears.[10]  As a result, Saul gave him permission to fight the Philistine warrior.  The rest, of course, is history, as David slew the mighty Goliath and the Philistine army retreated from battle.[11]

            From this point on, David became a trusted officer in Saul’s army.  However, as his reputation spread among the Israelites, David’s growing influence began to worry Saul.  Seeing that God had chosen David, Saul saw him as a threat and began scheming to eliminate him.  One such scheme was the request to David to provide a seemingly impossible gift for the hand of Saul’s daughter, Merab:

“Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’” Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.”[12]

However, the scheme did not go as planned, for David went out with his troops, killed 200 Philistines and brought their foreskins to Saul, far exceeding Saul’s request for only 100 Philistine foreskins.  Seeing this as further evidence of God’s protection of David, Saul felt even more threatened and now saw David as his enemy.[13]

            As a result, Saul embarked on a relentless campaign to kill David, but was thwarted each time thanks to the efforts of Jonathan (Saul’s son) and David’s wife Michal, Saul’s daughter.[14]  However, despite Saul’s bloodthirsty attempts on his life, David did not return the favor.  Instead, on at least two occasions, David spared Saul’s life, electing not to kill him when he had the chance.[15]  

            To escape Saul’s relentless schemes, David eventually escaped into Philistine territory, settling in Gath.[16]  During this time, he raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites, killing all men and women but taking animals as spoils.[17]  

            Eventually, war again broke out between Israel and the Philistines and David accompanied Achish, the king of the Philistines, to the battlefield.  However, due to the mistrust of the Philistine officers, Achish sent David back home.[18]

            Meanwhile, Saul had gone to a “medium” in Endor and requested that she conjure up the spirit of the prophet Samuel.  He did this after praying to God for guidance and receiving no answer.[19]  The spirit of Samuel prophesied that Saul and his sons would die the next day and that the Philistines would be victorious over the Israelite army.[20]  The reason for this sentence against Saul was that he had disobeyed God’s commands and hence his kingdom was now going to be taken away and given to David.  And so it happened that Saul’s sons (including Jonathan, who had helped David and was sympathetic to him) were killed in the ensuing battle against the Philistines.  Saul himself was wounded and committed suicide.[21]

            With his tormentor dead, David still mourned for Saul and Jonathan and instructed the people of Judah to do the same.[22]  He was then made King of Judah and, after a lengthy war with Abner (who was formerly the commander-in-chief of Saul’s army), also became the King of Israel.  He was 30 years old when he became king of a unified Israel and would reign for 40 years.[23]  

            One of his first acts as king was to conquer Jerusalem, which had up to that point, been occupied by the Jebusites.[24]  After his victory, he took many concubines and wives and many sons and daughters were born to him.  Pleased with David’s obedience and service, God made a covenant with him, promising to establish his throne on Israel “forever”.[25]  Afterwards, David launched many military campaigns to subdue the Philistines, the Moabites, the Edomites and other nations.[26]

            During one such military campaign, when the Israelite army was besieging Rabbah, David stayed in Jerusalem.[27]  What followed was one of the most controversial episodes of the king’s life, namely the adulterous relationship with a beautiful woman named Bathsheba.  Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah the Hittite, was fighting on the front lines as part of the Israelite army, but David had fallen in love with her and eventually impregnated her.[28]  To avoid a scandal, David had Uriah recalled from the front lines and ordered him go to his wife, in an attempt to make it appear that Bathsheba had been impregnated by her husband, and not David.  However, the honorable Uriah felt ashamed at having all the comforts of home while his comrades were fighting on the front lines.[29]  As such, he refused to go home and sleep with his wife.  Frustrated, David schemed to have Uriah killed on the front lines instead, so that he could marry Bathsheba.  His plan succeeded and Uriah was killed in battle.[30]

            With Uriah out of the picture, David was free to marry Bathsheba.[31]  However, he would be called to answer for his abhorrent sins.  The prophet Nathan came to David and warned him of God’s impending judgment on him:

“This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight.  You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”[32]

Feeling remorse for having offended God, David repented of his sins and was spared death.[33]  Unfortunately, a punishment was still to be implemented, though not the one that was required by the Mosaic Law.[34]  Instead, David’s punishment was that the child from his adulterous relationship with Bathsheba would die.  And so, the child was struck by an illness and died seven days later.[35]

            But this was not the end of David’s relationship with Bathsheba.  After the death of their son, David slept with Bathsheba again and another son was born to them, whom they named Solomon.[36]

            For the rest of his reign, David had to deal with various insurrections and conspiracies, including one involving his son Absalom.[37]  The resulting conflict ended with Absalom’s death.  Another insurrection led by a Benjamite named Sheba ended when a “wise woman” from the besieged city of Abel Beth Maakah persuaded her people to kill Sheba to avoid an attack by David’s forces.[38]

            Besides fighting off insurrectionists, David also attempted to achieve reconciliation with the Gibeonites, who had been persecuted during Saul’s reign.[39]  A severe famine which lasted 3 years during the reign of David was blamed on Saul’s abuses and giving reparations to the Gibeonites was seen as the only way to atone and lift the famine.  The Gibeonites did not request any monetary payments but something else entirely:

“They answered the king, “As for the man who destroyed us and plotted against us so that we have been decimated and have no place anywhere in Israel, let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed and their bodies exposed before the Lord at Gibeah of Saul—the Lord’s chosen one.””[40]

David accepted this request and handed over two of Saul’s sons from his concubine Rizpah and five of Saul’s grandsons from his daughter Merab, all of whom were executed by the Gibeonites.[41]

            One of David’s most significant acts in the last years of his reign was the purchase of the “threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite”, better known today as the Temple Mount, where Solomon’s temple would be built.  David paid 50 shekels of silver for the land and built an altar to God.[42]  As a result, the plague that had struck Israel shortly after David’s census was removed.[43]

            When David had become old and was incapable of being king, his son Adonijah installed himself as the ruler of Israel.  However, David was reminded by Bathsheba that he had promised her that their son Solomon would be the king after David.[44]  Thus, David installed Solomon as king.[45]  Finally, after 40 years as King of Israel and Judah, David died, bringing to end a legendary reign and beginning a long-lasting legacy.[46]  Speaking of David, the Book of Acts stated:

“God testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.’”[47]

An Analysis of the Biblical Story of David

            In the summary above, we have seen the story of David’s life and reign in detail.  Now, we can begin the process of analyzing the Biblical story and see if it can stand the weight of critical scrutiny.  

            We mentioned that David was first introduced to Saul when the latter sorely needed relief from an evil spirit that was tormenting him.  David was at this time a relatively unknown sheep herder, but his skill at playing a lyre allowed him to serve Saul and alleviate his torment.  This is the story as recounted in 1 Samuel 16.  However, this account is directly contradicted in the very next chapter, when Saul’s army was facing off against the Philistines.  It was during this encounter that David slew Goliath.  However, despite already having met David and having him in his service, Saul was apparently unaware of who David even was:

“As Saul watched David going out to meet the Philistine, he said to Abner, commander of the army, “Abner, whose son is that young man?” Abner replied, “As surely as you live, Your Majesty, I don’t know.”  The king said, “Find out whose son this young man is.”  As soon as David returned from killing the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul, with David still holding the Philistine’s head.  “Whose son are you, young man?” Saul asked him.  David said, “I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem.””[48]

The contradictory nature of David’s introduction to Saul is obvious.  As Thomas Paine stated:

“These two accounts belie each other, because each of them supposes Saul and David not to have known each other before.”[49]

In fact, the contradictions do not stop there.  As D. Rudman has observed:

“…so much of the material in the MT of I Samuel xvii contradicts that of the previous chapter: the second introduction of David’s family (xvii 12-13 cf. xvi 1-13), David’s return to tend the sheep at a time of crisis for Israel, despite being “a man of war” (xvii 15V. cf. xvi 18), David’s reappearance on the scene without reporting to his master Saul, despite his position in the court (xvii 20-31 cf. xvi 21-23), and Saul’s surprising ignorance of David’s identity (xvii 55-58).”[50]

            Another discrepancy in the story of David is the episode of the legendary duel between the young sheep herder and the Philistine warrior Goliath.  As mentioned above and as is well-known, David killed Goliath.  But this is only one version.  Scholars have long noted that three versions of Goliath’s death are found in the Bible.  The first one is found in 1 Samuel 17, but what about the other two?  These versions are found in 2 Samuel 21 and 1 Chronicles 20, respectively, but most modern translations have hidden the discrepancy.  Let us look at the passages in question as found in the New International Version:

“In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.”[51]

“In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.”[52]

In a footnote to 2 Samuel 21:19, the NIV admits that its rendition of the verse is actually not representative of the actual Hebrew text, for it notes (emphasis in the original):

“See 1 Chron. 20:5; Hebrew does not have the brother of.”[53]

In other words, the translators elected to alter the text to avoid a glaring error and simply cross-referenced 2 Samuel 21:19 to 1 Chronicles 20:5 as the reason for this deliberate deception.  But this does not solve the problem.  As Steven L. McKenzie, professor of Hebrew at the Bible Rhodes College observes (emphasis in the original):

“The name Lahmi is actually the second part of the word ‘Bethlehemite’ (Hebrew: beth-lahmi).  The Chronicler’s solution to the contradiction, therefore, was to invent a brother for Goliath.  He then made up a name for him out of the word ‘Bethlehemite’ from 2 Sam. 19:21.”[54]

Hence, we not only have contradictory versions of who actually killed Goliath, we also have deliberate attempts by redactors and modern translators to hide these contradictions.  

            Moving on, we mentioned above that Saul eventually came to regard David as a threat to his rule.  As such, Saul tried to eliminate David, first by sending him on impossible missions and then by trying to kill him directly.  Regarding the former, one such mission was Saul’s request to David to provide a gift for his daughter’s hand, which was 100 Philistine foreskins, a mission that David performed very successfully, managing to bring twice as many foreskins.[55]  However, David’s own words later in his life contradicted the exact details of this grisly episode.  According to 2 Samuel 3:14, when David requested that Ish-Bosheth (the son of Saul) return David’s wife Michal, he referred to the gift he had given to Saul:

“Then David sent messengers to Ish-Bosheth son of Saul, demanding, “Give me my wife Michal, whom I betrothed to myself for the price of a hundred Philistine foreskins.””

Moreover, what makes the entire episode rather questionable is that after escaping into Philistine territory to avoid Saul’s relentless efforts to kill him, David managed to earn the Philistine king’s trust, despite the fact that he had done so much to harm Philistine interests in past encounters.  How could a man who had killed a Philistine champion and mutilated other Philistines have so easily found himself in the care of his enemies?  

            Next, we should consider the circumstances surrounding Saul’s death in the battle with the Philistines shortly after receiving the warning from Samuel’s spirit.  The first issue concerns the actual incident of Saul’s consultation with the “medium”.[56]  As we saw above, after receiving no response from God, Saul consulted the medium, and was subsequently warned that he and his sons would die in the battle against the Philistines due to his disobedience of God’s commands:

“Because you did not obey the Lord or carry out his fierce wrath against the Amalekites, the Lord has done this to you today. The Lord will deliver both Israel and you into the hands of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The Lord will also give the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines.”[57]

Yet this reason is directly contradicted by another version of the story found in 1 Chronicles 10, which provided other reasons as well for Saul’s death:

“Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord; he did not keep the word of the Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the Lord. So the Lord put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse.”[58]

The Chronicler’s statement is clearly at odds with 1 Samuel 28.  Whereas 1 Samuel 28 stated clearly that Saul only consulted the medium after he had prayed to God and had not received a response, the Chronicler claimed that Saul “did not inquire of the Lord”.  So, had Saul consulted God or had he not?  The answer to this question depends on which source we use, but they both cannot be right.

            Next, let us consider the actual circumstances of Saul’s death.  Here too, the Bible provides contradictory information.  We saw above that, according to 1 Samuel 31, Saul was wounded by Philistine archers and eventually killed himself by falling on his own sword.  Here is how the story is told in 1 Samuel 31:3-6:

“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.”

1 Chronicles 10:3-6 says the same thing:

“The fighting grew fierce around Saul, and when the archers overtook him, they wounded him.  Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come 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.  So Saul and his three sons died, and all his house died together.”

It is very clearly stated in both sources that Saul killed himself.  It appears to be an open and shut case.  Unfortunately, it is not.  This version of Saul’s death is contradicted by another account found in 2 Samuel 1.  According to this account, an Amalekite found a critically wounded Saul and finished him off at his request:

“Then David said to the young man who brought him the report, “How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?”  “I happened to be on Mount Gilboa,” the young man said, “and there was Saul, leaning on his spear, with the chariots and their drivers in hot pursuit.  When he turned around and saw me, he called out to me, and I said, ‘What can I do?’ “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.””[59]

Moreover, yet another account states that Saul had been killed by the Philistines and not by his own hand or by an Amalekite:

“When David was told what Aiah’s daughter Rizpah, Saul’s concubine, had done, he went and took the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan from the citizens of Jabesh Gilead. (They had stolen their bodies from the public square at Beth Shan, where the Philistines had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa.)”[60]

Undoubtedly, the three accounts contradict each other.  Either Saul killed himself after being wounded by the Philistines or he was killed by the Amalekite after being wounded and attempting suicide or he was simply killed by the Philistines.  All three accounts cannot be true.

            Next, we come to the most controversial incident in the Biblical David’s life, the adulterous affair with Bathsheba.  The details of this incident have been provided above.  The account states that after being threatened for his abhorrent actions (committing adultery with Bathsheba and having Uriah killed), David repented and was spared death.  However, this directly contradicts the Mosaic Law which required the death penalty for adultery.[61]  Hence, both David and Bathsheba should have been stoned to death.  The Bible does not even mention whether Bathsheba was also allowed to repent or not.  Only David is mentioned.  However, they were still punished, though not according to the Law.  According to the story, God struck the child that was born from the adulterous relationship with a lethal illness, which claimed his life after seven days.  This punishment contradicts a basic principle of justice laid out in Deuteronomy:

“Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.”[62]

The same principle is laid out in the Book of Ezekiel:

“The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.”[63]

Clearly, David and Bathsheba both deserved death for their sins, not their son.  From the perspective of the Mosaic Law, the entire incident was a miscarriage of justice. 

            Another problem with the story is that it is not found in the other version of David’s life (i.e. 1 Chronicles).  The Chronicler repeated many of the stories found in 1 and 2 Samuel (some with contradictory information as we have seen), yet the story of David’s adultery is curiously absent.  The author even began the story in the same way as the author of 2 Samuel, with the war against the Ammonites:

2 Samuel 11:1 – In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem. 1 Chronicles 20:1 – In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, Joab led out the armed forces. He laid waste the land of the Ammonites and went to Rabbah and besieged it, but David remained in Jerusalem. Joab attacked Rabbah and left it in ruins.

But while the account of the war in 2 Samuel 11 is interrupted by the Bathsheba affair and only completed at the end of 2 Samuel 12, the account in 1 Chronicles completely omits the story and instead only summarizes the war against the Ammonites.[64]  Scholars have noted this discrepancy and suspect that it was deliberate.  For example, Marc Zvi Brettler observes that the Chronicler omitted many of the more sordid and embarrassing parts of David’s story.  He states:

“Chronicles similarly omits the unflattering set of events that happened next in Samuel: the rape of David’s daughter Tamar by Amnon, her half-brother; the murder of Amnon by his half-brother Absalom; and the (largely successful) rebellion by Absalom, followed by his death.  These events suggest a measure-for-measure punishment of David and his house.  They reflect badly on David, so the Chronicler omitted them (perhaps with the hope that his book would displace Samuel as an authoritative version of history).”[65]

Similarly, John C. Endres states:

“The stories the Chronicler omitted include many incidents in which David’s loyalty and character seem compromised, where he appears weakened by sin that affects him and most of his household negatively. […] The Chronicler omits much of the negative portrayal of David (“whitewash”), perhaps to make him appear more religious and saintly.”[66]

These seemingly deliberate omissions have led some scholars to believe that the story of the adulterous affair was inserted by a later redactor.[67]   

            Moving on, let us discuss the story of David’s reconciliation with the Gibeonites.  It was mentioned above that during the reign of Saul, the Gibeonites had been greatly persecuted.  During David’s reign, an attempt at atoning for Saul’s sins was made.  The Gibeonites requested that seven of Saul’s male descendants be handed over to them so that they could be executed.  Like the story of David and Bathsheba’s first son dying from an illness as a punishment for the adulterous affair, the story about the Gibeonites contradicts the principal of justice laid out in the books of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel.  What had the descendants of Saul done to be executed for his sins?  Why were they liable?  

            Furthermore, there is no record in the Bible of Saul’s alleged crimes against the Gibeonites, as even Jewish sources have noted.  As J. David Bleich explains (emphasis in the original):

“The Gemara, Yevamot 78b, quite cogently poses the question: Where is it related that Saul killed the Gibeonites?  In point of fact, Saul committed no untoward act against the Gibeonites.  The Gemara replies that although Saul did not kill the Gibeonites, he did annihilate the priests who were the inhabitants of the city of Nob. […] Subsequent to the destruction of Nob, the Gibeonites who were dependent upon the priests for food and drink, no longer had a source of sustenance and consequently a number of them perished.  Since Saul was, at least indirectly responsible for their death, Scripture regards him as culpable for the demise of the Gibeonites.”[68]

Similarly, McKenzie states:

“…there is no reference in Samuel or anywhere else in the Bible to Saul’s execution of the Gibeonites.  It is possible that the Gibeonites held a grudge against Saul for some act of his during his reign that went unrecorded.  But the story in 2 Samuel 21 is a thinly disguised excuse for the bloodbath by which David secured his hold on the throne.”[69]

It is also interesting to note, as McKenzie does,[70] that during the rebellion of Absalom, a man named Shimei accused David of being a murderer and usurper of Saul’s throne, which would suggest that the executions of Saul’s descendants in the Gibeonite episode was a deliberate act of murder, designed to eliminate any possible threats to David’s throne.[71]  McKenzie also observes that 2 Samuel 9 originally followed 2 Samuel 21 (the latter mentions the episode with the Gibeonites).[72]   This makes sense since 2 Samuel 9 begins in the following way:

“David asked, “Is there anyone still left of the house of Saul to whom I can show kindness for Jonathan’s sake?””[73]

If this had occurred before the execution of seven of Saul’s male descendants as told in 2 Samuel 21, then David’s question would make no sense since there would have been several surviving members of Saul’s household.  Yet 2 Samuel 9 only mentions Mephibosheth, the lame son of Jonathan, as the only survivor of the “house of Saul”.  This very clearly contradicts the claim that David later handed seven of Saul’s male descendants over to the Gibeonites.  For scholars like McKenzie, the correct order of the story suggests that David skillfully eliminated any potential threat to his rule.[74]

            A third discrepancy in the story of David and the Gibeonites is specifically regarding Saul’s five grandsons who were among the seven male descendants handed over to the Gibeonites for execution.  As mentioned above, the NIV states that the five males were the sons of Merab.  However, a footnote to the verse states (emphasis in the original):

“Two Hebrew manuscripts, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac (see also 1 Samuel 18:19); most Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts Michal.”[75]

In other words, most manuscripts of the Bible mentioned Michal, not Merab.  In addition, the Jewish historian Josephus believed that Michal had five children with Paltiel, before she was sent back to David.[76]  So why did the translators elect to forego the overwhelming manuscript evidence and place Merab into the text instead of Michal?  The reason may be to avoid casting light on yet another contradiction, since according to 2 Samuel 6:23, Michal was supposed to have been childless all her life:

“And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.”

Hence, a possible motive for the translators of the NIV to substitute Merab for Michal may have been to hide the contradiction!

            Next, as mentioned above, near the end of his life, David purchased the “threshing floor” to build an altar to God.  This site would become the Temple Mount where Solomon would build the temple.  The reason David purchased the land was to stop the plague that was ravaging the Israelites due to David’s census.  Before we discuss the significance of the “threshing floor”, we need to analyze the contradictory nature of the story of the census.  

            It was previously mentioned that God commanded David to take a census of Israel (2 Samuel 24:1).  However, a different version (yet again) in 1 Chronicles 21 states that it was Satan who incited David to take the census.  Let us read the verses side by side:

2 Samuel 24:1 – Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.” 1 Chronicles 21:1 – Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

The contradiction is clear and is made even clearer by the fact that, according to the Chronicler, the resulting plague that God sent on the Israelites was due to David’s command to Joab to include the tribes of Levi and Benjamin in the census, which Joab found “repulsive” (and so did God):

“But Joab did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering, because the king’s command was repulsive to him.  This command was also evil in the sight of God; so he punished Israel.”[77]

Why would God have found David’s order to be “evil” if He had commanded David to take the census in the first place, as 2 Samuel 24:1 states?  It can be plainly seen that in 2 Samuel 24, God was already angry at Israel, but in 1 Chronicles 21, He became angry after the census.  Furthermore, the Chronicler contradicts 2 Samuel by claiming that the census was Satan’s idea and was not a command from God.  

            Another contradictory element of the story is the actual result of the census itself, since 2 Samuel 24 does not agree with 1 Chronicles 21 as to the total tally.  According to 2 Samuel 24:9, the number of “fighting men” in Israel and Judah was 1.3 million (800,000 in Israel and 500,000 in Judah).  However, 1 Chronicles 21:5 claims that the number was 1.1 million (630,000 in Israel and 470,000 in Judah), which may be due to the fact that Joab did not count the Levites and Benjamites.  In any case, there is no way both tallies can be correct.  Interestingly enough, Josephus provided yet another tally (while taking into account that Joab had not counted the Levites and Benjamites):

“Now the number of the rest of the Israelites was nine hundred thousand men, who were able to bear arms and go to war; but the tribe of Judah, by itself, was four hundred thousand men.”[78]

Hence, the total tally according to Josephus was the same as reported in 2 Samuel 24, though the individual tallies for Israel and Judah were different.  At the same time, Josephus was clearly more influenced by the report in 1 Chronicles 21, since he claimed that it was David who had ordered the census on his own authority (instead of following God’s command as stated in 2 Samuel 24) and that Joab had not counted the tribes of Levi and Benjamin.[79]

            Having analyzed these contradictions, we can finally come to the “threshing floor” which David purchased to build an altar to God.  This piece of land would be the spot on which Solomon would build the temple.[80]  However, it was supposed to have other significance, for the author of 2 Chronicles equates it with “Mount Moriah”.[81]  Mount Moriah was, of course, supposedly the site of the “binding of Isaac”, when Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac as God had commanded.[82]  Surprisingly, however, the link between the “threshing floor” and “Mount Moriah” is found only in 2 Chronicles 3 and nowhere else.  This is despite the fact that, if the Chronicler was correct, the “threshing floor” was the actual site of the binding of Isaac, one of the most important events in Biblical history!  But if this was the case, then why was such an important site treated simply as just a “threshing floor” which belonged to a Jebusite?  It seems that David (and the author of 2 Samuel) was completely unaware of the actual significance of the site (assuming it was the original site of Isaac’s near sacrifice) and neither God nor the prophets ever bothered to illuminate him!  As Islamic scholars Abdus Sattar Ghauri and Ihsanur Rahman Ghauri rightfully observe:

“Had ‘Moriah’ been the name of the place, and that too, from the times of the Patriarch Abraham or even before that; and that too, in connection with such a conspicuous event as that of the offering of his only son for sacrifice at this place; how could it be possible that the angel of the Lord, and king David, and the redactor of the book, and the owner of the place, Ornan the Jebusite, might so indifferently, rather disdainfully, have disregarded even the mention of the proper name of this place throughout the narrative!”[83]

Scholars have also stated that the reason for the absence of any association of the “threshing floor” with the “Moriah” of Genesis 22 is because no such association originally existed.  As Rivka Gonen observes:

“The substitution of  the Land of Moriah, a vague geographical location, with the universally known mountain on which Solomon  built his Temple could not have occurred during the First Temple period, because Mount Moriah is not referred to in any other book save Chronicles.  It has already been mentioned that Chronicles is a late book, the work of the editor sometime after the return of the exiles from Babylon.  […] Thus the verse in II Chronicles began the tradition of identifying Mount Moriah with the Temple Mount.”[84]

Hence, the association of the “threshing floor” with “Mount Moriah” was almost certainly an invention of a later writer.  For further proof of this, the Book of Genesis states that Abraham’s journey to Moriah took three days.[85]   Given that Abraham lived with his family in Mamre,[86] it seems hard to believe that it would have taken him three days to get to the site (and still only see it at a “distance”).  As Abdus Sattar Ghauri and Ihsanur Rahman Ghauri note:

“If he started his journey from Hebron, he had to travel twenty miles. If he started from Mamre, he had to travel only eighteen miles. If he started from Beersheba, he had to travel for about forty miles. Whatever the starting point of his journey be; as he was travelling on his donkey, and started the journey early in the morning, and undertook the journey earnestly; it may have taken him merely a day or so to reach his destination, had it been in Jerusalem (which was between eighteen to about forty miles from his every possible place of residence).”[87]

Clearly, the association of the “threshing floor” with “Mount Moriah” cannot be sustained.  The evidence is simply lacking.

            Finally, we can note one final contradiction in the story of the purchase of the “threshing floor”.  According to 2 Samuel 24:24, David paid 50 shekels of silver for the site and oxen, which the NIV notes is equivalent to 575 grams (1.25 pounds) of silver.[88]  However, 1 Chronicles 21:25 states that David paid 600 shekels of gold for the entire site, which is equivalent 6.9 kilograms (15 pounds) of gold.[89]  The important question is not really how much David paid (though there is an obvious contradiction) but whether he bought only the threshing floor and some oxen or the entire site.[90]  The answer again depends on which source we use.

            In closing, the above analysis has provided strong evidence of the inconsistencies and contradictions surrounding the story of the great Biblical figure David.  Let us now examine the Quranic account, and how it differs from the Bible’s account of David.   

David in the Quran

            Dawud (peace be upon him) is mentioned in various places in the Quran.  He is regarded as a prophet who received the Zabur (often equated with Psalms)[91] and was a righteous servant of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He).[92]   Unlike the Bible, which provided a long account of David’s rise to power and specific events during his 40-year reign, the Quran does not provide a biographical account of the great prophet.  Rather, as with most other Biblical figures mentioned in the Quran, David is mentioned in different places, sometimes in passing references and at times, in longer passages.  Here, we will provide a short summary of the Quranic references to his life.[93]

            Like the Bible, the Quran first introduces Dawud (peace be upon him) in the famous encounter with the Philistine warrior Jalut (Goliath).  Led by king Talut (Saul), the Israelite army defeated the Philistines and Dawud (peace be upon him) killed Jalut:

“By Allah’s will they routed them; and David slew Goliath; and Allah gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: But Allah is full of bounty to all the worlds.”[94]

Eventually, Dawud would become king and was commanded by Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) to judge according to His Laws and to remain on His path:

“O David! We did indeed make thee a vicegerent on earth: so judge thou between men in truth (and justice): Nor follow thou the lusts (of thy heart), for they will mislead thee from the Path of Allah: for those who wander astray from the Path of Allah, is a Penalty Grievous, for that they forget the Day of Account.”[95]

And this he did as per Allah’s will, as attested in the Quran:

“And remember David and Solomon, when they gave judgment in the matter of the field into which the sheep of certain people had strayed by night: We did witness their judgment.  To Solomon We inspired the (right) understanding of the matter: to each (of them) We gave Judgment and Knowledge; it was Our power that made the hills and the birds celebrate Our praises, with David: it was We Who did (all these things).”[96]

            The ahadith also describe Dawud’s piety and service to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He).  For example, a hadith in Sahih Bukhari states:

“Narrated Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin Al-‘As: Allah’s Apostle told me, “The most beloved prayer to Allah is that of David and the most beloved fasts to Allah are those of David. He used to sleep for half of the night and then pray for one third of the night and again sleep for its sixth part and used to fast on alternate days.””[97]

He was also described as one who did not take his position as king as a privilege which he could exploit for his own comfort and gain.  In another hadith from Sahih Bukhari, it is stated:

“Narrated Al-Miqdam: The Prophet said, “Nobody has ever eaten a better meal than that which one has earned by working with one’s own hands. The Prophet of Allah, David used to eat from the earnings of his manual labor.””[98]

Dawud’s kingdom was made strong by the military strength provided to Him from his Lord.  The Quran states: 

“It was We Who taught him the making of coats of mail for your benefit, to guard you from each other’s violence: will ye then be grateful?”[99]

It should be noted, however, that the Quran’s account does not provide any details which would agree with the Bible’s claims of widespread violence against various nations and the murders of countless men and women.[100]    

            Also unlike the Bible, the Quran does not attribute the abhorrent sins of adultery and murder to the great prophet.  However, he is shown as being repentant whenever he committed some unknown mistakes in his life.  One such example is mentioned in the Quran:

“Has the Story of the Disputants reached thee? Behold, they climbed over the wall of the private chamber; When they entered the presence of David, and he was terrified of them, they said: “Fear not: we are two disputants, one of whom has wronged the other: Decide now between us with truth, and treat us not with injustice, but guide us to the even Path. “This man is my brother: He has nine and ninety ewes, and I have (but) one: Yet he says, ‘commit her to my care,’ and is (moreover) harsh to me in speech.”  (David) said: “He has undoubtedly wronged thee in demanding thy (single) ewe to be added to his (flock of) ewes: truly many are the partners (in business) who wrong each other: Not so do those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and how few are they?” And David gathered that We had tried him: he asked forgiveness of his Lord, fell down, bowing (in prostration), and turned (to Allah in repentance).  So We forgave him this (lapse): he enjoyed, indeed, a Near Approach to Us, and a beautiful place of (Final) Return.”[101]

It will be noticed that the parable of the ewes mentioned by the “disputants” is similar to Nathan’s parable mentioned in 2 Samuel 12.  However, while Nathan’s parable referred to David’s alleged adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah, the Quranic parable of the disputants does not specify what Dawud’s sin was.  Unfortunately, this did not stop some Muslim exegetes from assuming that he must have committed adultery, being obviously influenced by Judeo-Christian traditions!  As Suzanne Haneef explains:

“Because the nature of this test is not stated in the Qur’an, some of the classical commentators sought to provide an explanation of it from Judaic sources.”[102]

But as she also rightfully observes:

“It is quite unimaginable that God would bestow such high praise on a person, much less on a prophet, after he had followed his lust to commit the awful crime and sin that is reported of David (A) in the Old Testament, an explanation which was nevertheless accepted by some early Qur’anic commentators.”[103]

In fact, Haneef relates that during the Caliphate of Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him):

“…the fourth caliph…considered what had been ascribed to David (A) in the Biblical narrative so grave a slander as to declare that if anyone narrated the story of David in the manner in which it was told by the story-tellers, he would have him flogged with 160 stripes, that being a suitable punishment for slandering God’s prophets…”[104]

Of course, other exegetes were more cautious in blindly accepting the “Isra’iliyat” traditions.  For example, Ibn Kathir stated:

“In discussing this passage, the scholars of Tafsir mention a story which is mostly based upon Isra’iliyat narrations. Nothing has been reported about this from the Infallible Prophet that we could accept as true.”[105]

            Finally, when Dawud’s life came to its predetermined end, his son Suleiman (Solomon) inherited his throne:

“And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: “O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)””[106]

Thus was the life of Dawud (peace be upon him), the servant of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He).  Unlike the Biblical account, the Quranic version of the great prophet’s life provides a much more consistent story, free of any contradictions and inconsistencies.  Furthermore, given the Quran’s descriptions of Dawud (peace be upon him) as a righteous man, unlike the Bible, the famous statement about him found in the Book of Acts makes sense:

“God testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.’”

One wonders that if the stories about murder and adultery were true, would God have so honored such a man?  The answer seems to be a resounding “no”.

Conclusion

            In this article, we have examined the Biblical and Quranic versions of the life of David.  In a detailed analysis, we summarized the Biblical account and identified several contradictory elements in the story.  These contradictions cannot be reconciled but are not at all surprising given that the Bible has multiple sources on the life of David, which were written by different authors in different time periods (e.g. 1 and 2 Samuel vs. 1 Chronicles).  In contrast, the Quranic account, while very brief, lacks any of the contradictory elements found in the Bible.  

And Allah knows best!


[1] There is no doubt that David (peace be upon him) did actually exist and was not a “fictional” character, as skeptics often claim about many of the Biblical figures.  The skeptics generally agree that David was a historical king, though they question the size and wealth of his kingdom as portrayed in the Bible.  For more on this, see Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 128-130.

[2] 1 Samuel 16:1 (New International Version).

[3] 1 Samuel 16:11.

[4] 1 Samuel 16:15-17.

[5] 1 Samuel 16:18.

[6] As we will see later in the analysis of David’s story, this version of his introduction to Saul is directly contradicted by another account which is ironically also found in 1 Samuel!

[7] 1 Samuel 17:8-11, 16.

[8] 1 Samuel 17:17.

[9] 1 Samuel 17:32-33.

[10] 1 Samuel 17:34-37.

[11] As we will see, however, this famous story from the Bible is also contradicted by other versions.

[12] 1 Samuel 18:25.

[13] 1 Samuel 18:29.

[14] 1 Samuel 19.

[15] 1 Samuel 24; 1 Samuel 26.

[16] 1 Samuel 27: 1-3.

[17] 1 Samuel 27:8-9.

[18] 1 Samuel 29.

[19] 1 Samuel 28:6.

[20] 1 Samuel 28:16-19.   As we will see later, this part of the story has another, contradictory version.

[21] 1 Samuel 31.  In the next section, we will discuss the contradictions in the Bible surrounding Saul’s death.

[22] 2 Samuel 1.

[23] 2 Samuel 5: 4-5.

[24] 2 Samuel 5:6-7.

[25] 2 Samuel 7:16.

[26] 2 Samuel 8.

[27] 2 Samuel 11:1.

[28] 2 Samuel 11:2-5.

[29] 2 Samuel 11:6-13.

[30] 2 Samuel 11:18-21.

[31] 2 Samuel 11:27.

[32] 2 Samuel 12:11-12.

[33] 2 Samuel 12:13.

[34] Leviticus 20:10 required the death penalty for both the adulterer and the adulteress:

“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.”

[35] 2 Samuel 12:15-18.

[36] 2 Samuel 12:24.

[37] 2 Samuel 15.

[38] 2 Samuel 20.

[39] 2 Samuel 21:1.

[40] 2 Samuel 21:5-6.  As we will see, this part of the story contradicts Mosaic Law.

[41] 2 Samuel 21:8.  The NIV indicates that it was Merab’s five sons who were executed, but a footnote to the verse states that most manuscripts mention Michal, not Merab.  We will discuss this inconsistency in greater detail in the next section and suggest a possible motive for the NIV translators’ decision to put Merab into the text instead of Michal.

[42] 2 Samuel 24:24-25.  The rather mundane description of the land as simply the “threshing floor” will be further discussed in the next section.  We will also discuss the contradictory versions of David’s purchase of the site.

[43] The census story also has another version, which we will discuss later.

[44] 1 Kings 1:17.

[45] 1 Kings 1:30.

[46] 1 Kings 2:10-11.

[47] Acts 13:22.

[48] 1 Samuel 17:55-58.

[49] Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Edited by Moncure Daniel Conway.  San Bernardino: Wildside Press LLC., 2014, p. 116.

[50] D. Rudman, “The Commissioning Stories of Saul and David as Theological Allegory”. Vetus Testamentum 50, no. 4 (2000): 519-530.

[51] 2 Samuel 21:19.

[52] 1 Chronicles 20:5.

[53] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+samuel+21&version=NIV#fen-NIV-8600d

[54] Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 76.

[55] Regarding the actual act of mutilating the Philistine soldiers, it is clear that it was not seen as sinful behavior, since David was never reprimanded for it.  Further still, he spent most of his time in Philistine territory as a raider, killing untold numbers of people, men and women, while capturing large amounts of spoils.  Yet, the Bible (1 Kings 15:5) states that in David’s whole life, God only considered his actions against Uriah the Hittite to be sinful (!):

“For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.”

[56] This “medium” is better known as the “witch of Endor”.

[57] 1 Samuel 28:18-19.

[58] 1 Chronicles 10:13-14.

[59] 2 Samuel 1:5-10.

[60] 2 Samuel 21:11-12.

[61] Perhaps even more egregious is the fact that, according to the story, David and Bathsheba were allowed to stay together!  In fact, he even impregnated Bathsheba again, leading to the birth of Solomon!

[62] Deuteronomy 24:16.

[63] Ezekiel 18:20.

[64] In fact, Bathsheba is only mentioned once by the Chronicler (1 Chronicles 3:5) and in a completely mundane way:

“…and these were the children born to him there: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon. These four were by Bathsheba daughter of Ammiel.”

[65] Marc Zvi Brettler, How to Read the Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2005), p. 132.

[66] John C. Endres, First and Second Chronicles (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2012), p. 49.

[67] See McKenzie, op. cit., p. 157.

[68] J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems (New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1989), p. 16.

[69] McKenzie, op. cit., p. 136.

[70] Ibid.

[71] 2 Samuel 16:5-8.

[72] McKenzie, op. cit., p. 136.

[73] 2 Samuel 9:1.

[74] McKenzie, op. cit., pp. 136-138.  He also suggests (p. 138) that Michal, the daughter of Saul, did not have any children with David since any child from their union would be a descendant of Saul, and thus a potential threat to David’s throne. 

[75] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+samuel+21&version=NIV#fen-NIV-8589a

[76] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 7:13.

[77] 1 Chronicles 21:6-7.

[78] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 7:13.

[79] Ibid.  Josephus wrote:

“Now king David was desirous to know how many ten thousands there were of the people, but forgot the commands of Moses…”

[80] 2 Chronicles 3:1.

[81] Ibid.

[82] Genesis 22.  The only difference is that this verse refers to the “land of Moriah” instead of “Mount Moriah”.

[83] Abdus Sattar Ghauri and Ihsanur Rahman Ghauri, The Only Son offered for Sacrifice: Isaac or Ishmael? With Zamzam, al-Marwah and Makkah in the Bible and a Brief Account of the History of Solomon’s Temple and Jerusalem, Second (Revised) Edition (Al-Mawrid, 2013), Location 1793.  Kindle Edition.

[84] Rivka Gonen, Contested Holiness: Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Perspectives on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Jersey City: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 2003), pp. 41-42.

[85] Genesis 22:4.

[86] Genesis 13:18.

[87] Ghauri and Ghauri, op. cit., Location 1817.

[88] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+samuel+24&version=NIV#fen-NIV-8717e

[89] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+chronicles+21&version=NIV#fen-NIV-10960d

[90] Christian apologists have attempted to harmonize the two accounts by claiming that the author of Samuel only provided the price for the threshing floor and oxen whereas the Chronicler provided the price for the entire site.  See for example Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p. 242. 

But this argument only explains the contradiction of the different prices paid.  It does not explain the contradiction of whether David purchased only the threshing floor and some oxen or if he purchased the entire site which is now known as the Temple Mount.

However, regarding the different prices paid by David, it could be argued from a close reading of 1 Chronicles 21 (specifically verses 22-25) that David actually bought the “site” of the threshing floor and not the entire “Temple Mount” (emphasis ours):

“David said to him, “Let me have the site of your threshing floor so I can build an altar to the Lord, that the plague on the people may be stopped. Sell it to me at the full price.”  Araunah said to David, “Take it! Let my lord the king do whatever pleases him. Look, I will give the oxen for the burnt offerings, the threshing sledges for the wood, and the wheat for the grain offering. I will give all this.”  But King David replied to Araunah, “No, I insist on paying the full price. I will not take for the Lord what is yours, or sacrifice a burnt offering that costs me nothing.”  So David paid Araunah six hundred shekels of gold for the site.”

There is no indication that David purchased the entire lot but rather the specific “site” of the threshing floor.  Of course, given the fabulous wealth of David’s kingdom, it is hard to believe why he would not have simply purchased the entire land.  He certainly could have easily afforded it!

[91] Surah Al-Isra, 17:55 states:

“And it is your Lord that knoweth best all beings that are in the heavens and on earth: We did bestow on some prophets more (and other) gifts than on others: and We gave to David (the gift of) the Psalms.” (Yusuf Ali translation)

Also, Surah An-Nisa, 4:163 states:

“We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms.”

However, as Suzanne Haneef cautions (emphasis in the original):

“David (A) was especially honored being the recipient of a divinely revealed scripture known as the Zabur, meaning ‘writing,’ ‘scripture’ or ‘book’.  And since the Psalms are the sacred text ascribed to David (A), Muslims have equated the Zabur with the Psalms, although which psalms, if any, actually originated with David (A) is unknown” (A History of the Prophets of Islam: Derived from the Quran, Ahadith and Commentaries (Chicago: Kazi Publications, Inc., 2003), Volume 2, p. 236).

Dr. Jerald F. Dirks urges even more caution (emphasis in the original):

“As the Qur’an refers to a book of revelation, i.e., Zabur, given to David, the equation is often made that Psalms is Zabur.  However, this equation appears to be erroneous, even though Psalms may very well include some portions of Zabur” (The Cross and the Crescent: An Interfaith Dialogue between Christianity and Islam (Maryland: Amana Publications, 2001), p. 54).

[92] Surah Sad, 38:17 states:

“Have patience at what they say, and remember our servant David, the man of strength: for he ever turned (to Allah).”

[93] For a more detailed account, see Suzanne Haneef, op. cit., pp. 229-244.  For the Quranic account of Saul, see pp. 225-228.  It should be noted that the Quran provides a much more sympathetic account of Saul, describing him as a righteous king who was faithful to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He).

[94] Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:251.  Unlike the Bible, however, there is no contradiction in the Quran in this regard. 

[95] Surah Sad, 38:26.

[96] Surah Al-Anbiya, 21:78-79.

[97] Sahih Bukhari, 21:231.  See also Sahih Muslim, 6:2595.

[98] Sahih Bukhari, 34:286.

[99] Surah Al-Anbiya, 21:80.

As mentioned above (note #1), modern scholars have questioned the Biblical description of the power and wealth of David’s kingdom.  However, since the Quran does not provide any detailed accounts of just how large (or small) David’s kingdom was, the claims of the skeptics (if they are true) do not raise any serious objections to the Quranic account of David.  Certainly, even if David’s kingdom was much smaller in scale than the Bible claims, it could still have been a military power in the region.  Indeed, the 1993 discovery of the now famous “House of David” inscription at Tel Dan shows that David’s kingdom was well known even to the enemies of the Israelites.  As Finkelstein and Silberman explain, the inscription:

“…is dramatic evidence of the fame of the Davidic dynasty less than a hundred years after the reign of David’s son Solomon.  The fact that Judah…is referred to with only a mention of its ruling house is clear evidence that the reputation of David was not a literary invention of a much later period. […] Thus the house of David was known throughout the region; this clearly validates the biblical description of a figure named David becoming the founder of the dynasty of Judahite kings in Jerusalem” (The Bible Unearthed, op. cit., p. 129).

[100] In the same way, the Quran does not agree with the Bible regarding the battles waged by the Israelites against the Canaanites.  Whereas the latter claims that there were widespread acts of genocide against the indigenous populations on the order of God, the former does not state this at all.

Indeed, as Finkelstein and Silberman explain, the archaeological evidence shows:

“No evidence for David’s conquests or for his empire.  In the valleys Canaanite culture continues uninterrupted” (Ibid., p. 131).

[101] Surah Sad, 38:21-25.

[102] Haneef, op. cit., p. 238.

[103] Ibid., p. 240.

[104] Ibid., p. 241.

[105] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1958&Itemid=94

[106] Surah An-Naml, 27:16.

 



Categories: Archaeology, Bible, Christianity, God, Hadith, History, Islam, Qur'an

Tags: , , ,

78 replies

  1. “We follow the true prophets and honor the OT properly.” – Kennywise defender of the Biblical portrayal of David (as) 🤡 🤡 🤡

    Liked by 1 person

    • @ Qaqawani

      And? Early Muslim scholars had the tendency to try and harmonize accounts. Simply reading the verse you can see their reaching, let’s read what they’re trying to connect:

      38:21. Have you heard the tale of the two litigants who climbed the wall into his private quarters?
      38:22. When they reached David, he was startled, but they said: “Don’t be afraid. We’re two litigants, one of us did injustice to the other, and we need you to judge between us fairly. Don’t give us a verdict without thinking it through, guide us to the right way.”
      38:23. “My brother here owns ninety-nine sheep, while I own only one, he said “Give it to me!” And pressured me with his words.”
      ۩ 38:24. David answered: “He has done you wrong by demanding to add your sheep to his flock. Many business partners do injustice to one another. Those who really have faith and do good don’t do this, but these kinds of people are few.” David then realized that I had been testing him, so he asked his Lord for forgiveness, falling down on his face, repenting.
      38:25. I forgave him and his reward will be being brought close to Me, along with a good place to return to…

      How the heck is this story about David(as) having an affair? I eagerly await your explanation since you read the book…

      Liked by 2 people

    • Lol, I hate it when people respond to an article by copying a link and then running away.

      The fact is that the “earliest” Islamic traditions absolve David of the sin of adultery. If you had read the article, I cited Suzanna Haneef who pointed out that Ali, the 4th caliph and a companion of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) would flog anyone who accused David (pbuh) of adultery.

      Liked by 2 people

      • @ QB

        I do too. The hadith you quoted also refutes those who say early Muslims “believed in the Bible” because if this was true why would Ali (ra) have been upset and made a ruling of 80 lashes (40 for slander/ 40 for insulting a prophet)? Long story short I found a preview of the book online the WHOLE thing is some early commentators said the verse:

        38:25. I forgave him and his reward will be being brought close to Me, along with a good place to return to…

        Is referring to this slander with Bathsheba. The problem is:

        1. They have no evidence for this position and they’re just trying to reconcile with the Biblical narrative
        2. Context from the Qur’an defeats it and they’re isolating the verse. Again the verse before says he is repenting from judging too quickly without hearing the other person’s side:

        38:22. When they reached David, he was startled, but they said: “Don’t be afraid. We’re two litigants, one of us did injustice to the other, and we need you to judge between us fairly. Don’t give us a verdict without thinking it through…
        ۩ 38:24. David answered: “He has done you wrong by demanding to add your sheep to his flock. Many business partners do injustice to one another. Those who really have faith and do good don’t do this, but these kinds of people are few.” David then realized that I had been testing him, so he asked his Lord for forgiveness, falling down on his face, repenting.
        38:25. I forgave him and his reward will be being brought close to Me, along with a good place to return to…

        3. The Bible itself clears him of this slander. What does David (as) say in their text:

        20 The Lord has dealt with me according to my righteousness;
        according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me.
        21 For I have kept the ways of the Lord;
        I am not guilty of turning from my God.
        22 All his laws are before me;
        I have not turned away from his decrees.
        23 I have been blameless before him
        and have kept myself from sin.
        24 The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness,
        according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.

        https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+18&version=NIV

        Liked by 1 person

    • @ Qaqawani

      If you didn’t read the book why link it?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. “Saul did not enquire of the Lord”

    This does not refer to the incident with the witch of Endor but is a general synopsis of Saul’s life as a whole.

    “whose son is this youth?”

    Saul is not asking who David is but who his father is. Even if Saul had been told earlier names are easily forgotten. Probably moreso if you have an unclean spirit troubling you.

    Faiz has not proven that the account of the Amalekite killing Saul could not be true in any circumstances. Leaving this aside it is also possible that he was lying to ingratiate himself with David.

    As far as Goliath is concerned one chronicler is just using the name to signify that a giant man was killed. He is not claiming that it was the same Goliath that David slew.

    David simply states that his dowry was 100 foreskins so I don’t know what the contradiction is supposed to be.

    His wife became barren only after she cursed David, not before.

    The mention of the threshing floor is important because it is associated with God’s judgement. There are two different threshing floors therefore two different prices.

    We don’t know exactly where Abraham started journey from. It could have been well south of Beersheba. He was a nomad who travelled with his flocks. As usual Faiz bases his conclusions on his preferred bias driven assumptions.

    Of course I have to chuckle at islamic Dawuds repentance for his unknown and unrevealed sins. Just more proof to me that Islam is an invented religion. A blank sheet for the writer of the Koran and he couldn’t think of anything new to say about his prophet. A great chance for a revelation passed by.

    Like

    • Iggy is back after licking his wounds from the last beating he took! OK, here is the next round.

      “This does not refer to the incident with the witch of Endor but is a general synopsis of Saul’s life as a whole.”

      Honestly, do you even think before you babble on with your pathetic explanations? “Saul’s life as a whole” you say? But moron, the book of Samuel says that Saul DID pray to God for guidance, and received no answer. So that still contradicts Chronicles! You just proved my point!

      “Saul is not asking who David is but who his father is. Even if Saul had been told earlier names are easily forgotten. Probably moreso if you have an unclean spirit troubling you.”

      More speculation. The text is clear that Saul and David became very close. Read 1 Samuel 16. It even says that Saul sent messengers to JESSE asking him to allow David to remain in Saul’s service. Not only that, but no one seemed to know who David was.

      “Faiz has not proven that the account of the Amalekite killing Saul could not be true in any circumstances. Leaving this aside it is also possible that he was lying to ingratiate himself with David.”

      Iggy has yet to give evidence that can reconcile the contradictory accounts. And lookie here, Iggy makes up another assumption with no evidence! Funny how that always works out!

      Why would the Amalekite risk lying to “ingratiate himself with David” when he could easily be accused of killing Saul himself, perhaps as revenge for Saul’s earlier attack on his people?

      “As far as Goliath is concerned one chronicler is just using the name to signify that a giant man was killed. He is not claiming that it was the same Goliath that David slew.”

      Again, no evidence. Iggy seems to know a lot about what was going on in the writer’s mind! So there just happened to be 2 “giant men” named Goliath in the Philistine army? What a coincidence!

      “David simply states that his dowry was 100 foreskins so I don’t know what the contradiction is supposed to be.”

      LOL, Iggy tries to coolly brush aside the fact that a dowry of “100 FORESKINS” is quite a grisly dowry. Imagine if this was done by Muhammad (peace be upon him). Iggy would be foaming at the mouth! LOL, you crosstian hypocrites are hilarious!

      The contradiction is in the fact that he actually brought 200 foreskins.

      “His wife became barren only after she cursed David, not before.”

      Again, no evidence. Where does it say in the Bible that she had children beforehand? This was only mentioned by Josephus. Moreover, the manuscripts demonstrate this contradiction as well, though most say they were Michal’s children. The scribes could not figure out which was correct.

      “The mention of the threshing floor is important because it is associated with God’s judgement. There are two different threshing floors therefore two different prices.”

      More assumptions and no evidence! WOW! “Two threshing floors”? Where does it say that? Oh right…only in Iggy’s mind.

      “We don’t know exactly where Abraham started journey from. It could have been well south of Beersheba. He was a nomad who travelled with his flocks. As usual Faiz bases his conclusions on his preferred bias driven assumptions.”

      LOL! That’s rich, coming from an idiot who has tried to explain the contradictions with…drum roll…BIAS DRIVEN ASSUMPTIONS!

      It seems perfectly reasonable that Abraham would have traveled from his home in Mamre. But other locations have been considered as well, such as Beersheba, just to show how unlikely the story is. If we use your logic, we could place Abraham in Egypt if we wanted! 😉

      “Of course I have to chuckle at islamic Dawuds repentance for his unknown and unrevealed sins. Just more proof to me that Islam is an invented religion. A blank sheet for the writer of the Koran and he couldn’t think of anything new to say about his prophet. A great chance for a revelation passed by.”

      LOL, you should chuckle at yourself and your silly Bible with its ridiculous story telling and contradictions. Here, I’ll do it too…hahahahaha!

      Repentance can be for any sin. Why are you so interested in the sin? What are you, a Jerry Springer fan you pervert?

      Most likely, David’s sin was passing judgement too quickly despite the two men’s request that he listen to both their arguments, as indicated by the context of the verse. But it certainly was not the horrible sin of adultery, which if he had committed it, would have required the death penalty. Instead, you would have us believe that God took revenge by sparing David but killing his innocent son, thereby changing his mind about his own laws. Oh, here comes that chuckle again…HAHAHAHA!

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Your own mouth testified against you when you said, ‘I killed the Lord’s anointed.’”

      This seems to indicate that the Amalekite wasn’t lying, at least according to this version. There is no indication in 2 Samuel that he was lying. Once again, Iggy has to make things up to save his Bible.

      Like

  3. ” Whatever the starting point of his journey be; as he was travelling on his donkey, and started the journey early in the morning, and undertook the journey earnestly; it may have taken him merely a day or so to reach his destination, ”

    Wow. Einstein himself would have to be green with envy.

    Like

    • No wonder Einstein didn’t take the Bible seriously! LOL!!

      Liked by 1 person

      • The book by the Ghauris does not represent serious biblical scholarship and therefore is not taken seriously by biblical scholars. I think this is putting it mildly.

        The three day journey, mentioned in Genesis 22:4 does not throw any light at all on the location of mount Moriah, identified as the site of Solomon’s temple in 2 Chronicles 3:1 (post-exilic), but not otherwise mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.

        A journey of three days is a literary convention of saying a journey of a significant amount of time. See for example Gen. 30:36; 31:22; Ex 3:18; 5:3; 8:27; 15:22; Num. 10:33; 33:8; Jon: 3:3 (cf. the three day journey in the Gilgamesh epic). The number three of course is a number fraught with significance and one should be cautious to read too much into it (cf. Gen. 40:12; Ex 10;22-23; 19:11, 15, 16; Num. 19:12, 19; 31:19; Judg. 19:4; 1 Sam 9:20; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs. 12:5; Hos. 6:2; Esther 5:1).

        I think ancient Tel Beer Sheva, identified by scholars as biblical Beersheba, is about 70 miles or about 110 kilometers from Jerusalem, not that I think it really makes a difference in this context.

        Like

      • Sorry. The distance is as stated originally correct about 40 miles or 70 kilometers so scratch that. Sorry for the mistake.

        Like

  4. James White, in the debate with Shabir Ally last night, said regarding the translation of Psalms 22 that they found in Qumran a manuscript which contains “they have pierced my hand”.

    Here’s Tovia Singer refutes this misunderstanding made by James

    Liked by 3 people

  5. David did not know what the situation was with Saul’s family so he could honestly ask the question before Saul’s sons were given to the Gibeonites.

    The 200 foreskins were the total including David’s associates. David’s share was a 100.

    “More assumptions and no evidence! WOW! “Two threshing floors”? Where does it say that? Oh right…only in Iggy’s mind.”

    Evidently there are two separate occasions of a census being mentioned here. The angels are not the same and they end their mission at two different places, i.e. two different threshing floors which David bought at different prices. Its obvious from the text, unless you are biased and agenda driven.

    2 Sam 24 v 24 And Gad came that day to David, and said unto him, Go up, rear an altar unto the LORD in the threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite.

    1 Chr 21 v 18 Then the angel of the LORD commanded Gad to say to David, that David should go up, and set up an altar unto the LORD in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

    Abraham could have easily been three, or more, days journey away from Mt. Moriah. The text does not give his starting point. As a nomad he travelled with his flocks looking for pasture. That was his way of life. If we believe Faiz he must have been tethered to his house lol.

    Like

    • Yes, perhaps we could all respectfully agree that not too much should be made of the three days, you can see also above.

      Like

    • “David did not know what the situation was with Saul’s family so he could honestly ask the question before Saul’s sons were given to the Gibeonites.”

      2 Samuel 9 says only one of Jonathan’s sons was alive. Why would David ask if any of Saul’s male family members were still alive? Why wouldn’t they be?

      “The 200 foreskins were the total including David’s associates. David’s share was a 100.”

      LOL, another phantom assumption straight out of Iggy’s mind! Where does it say that in your scripture? You seem to put a lot of weight on your idiotic opinions!

      “Evidently there are two separate occasions of a census being mentioned here. The angels are not the same and they end their mission at two different places, i.e. two different threshing floors which David bought at different prices. Its obvious from the text, unless you are biased and agenda driven.”

      Oh how convenient! “Evidently”, you say?

      Or perhaps the only one who is “agenda driven” and “biased” is the clown Iggy? No, dummy. The text does not show two different threshing floors. They both refer to the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite:

      “Then the angel of the Lord ordered Gad to tell David to go up and build an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. 19 So David went up in obedience to the word that Gad had spoken in the name of the Lord.” (Chronicles)

      “On that day Gad went to David and said to him, “Go up and build an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.” 19 So David went up, as the Lord had commanded through Gad. 20 When Araunah looked and saw the king and his officials coming toward him, he went out and bowed down before the king with his face to the ground.” (Samuel)

      You’d have to be an idiot, which Iggy clear is, to think there are 2 different threshing floors. Next, you’ll claim there were 2 different Araunah the Jebusites! LOL!!

      “2 Sam 24 v 24 And Gad came that day to David, and said unto him, Go up, rear an altar unto the LORD in the threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite.

      1 Chr 21 v 18 Then the angel of the LORD commanded Gad to say to David, that David should go up, and set up an altar unto the LORD in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.”

      HAHAHAHA! Oh this is too funny! Ornan and Araunah are the same, you troglodyte! Plus, why on earth would David have built 2 altars on 2 different sites? Which one was then used as the site of temple altar?

      “Abraham could have easily been three, or more, days journey away from Mt. Moriah. The text does not give his starting point. As a nomad he travelled with his flocks looking for pasture. That was his way of life. If we believe Faiz he must have been tethered to his house lol.”

      More assumptions. How convenient! Abraham lived in Mamre, you silly clown:

      “Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord.”

      What was he doing building an altar when he was allegedly a “nomad” and would have moved to a different location in a short time? The text is clear that he lived in Mamre. Therefore, there is no reason to assume he was somewhere else. It is a reasonable assumption that his starting point would have been Mamre. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

      Like

  6. “2 Samuel 9 says only one of Jonathan’s sons was alive. Why would David ask if any of Saul’s male family members were still alive? Why wouldn’t they be?”

    Why should he be aware of this? Jonathan himself had died in the wars with the Philistines so why not more? Why should David know the exact situation concerning Saul’s household?

    “LOL, another phantom assumption straight out of Iggy’s mind! Where does it say that in your scripture? You seem to put a lot of weight on your idiotic opinions!”

    1 Samuel 18:27

    Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

    Like

  7. “HAHAHAHA! Oh this is too funny! Ornan and Araunah are the same, you troglodyte!”

    Where is your proof of this? This is just a theory as far as I know.

    “Plus, why on earth would David have built 2 altars on 2 different sites?”

    If he saw the angel at two different sites, both on Mt. Moriah, why should he not build an altar at each place at the time of each occurence? What are your criteria for claiming that this would be wrong in some way?

    “Which one was then used as the site of temple altar?”

    Perhaps it was not God’s purpose to pinpoint the site of the altar to a particular point on the ground. Just to give the general area where it should be placed. It is not a kaaba relationship between altar and event.

    Like

    • Lol, Iggy we both know that the word “proof” to you is meaningless. You reject any evidence that contradicts your personal opinion. I bet you still believe the earth is flat. 🤣

      Araunah and Ornan…the root is the same and the meaning is “a joyful cry” and “that rejoices”, respectively.

      https://biblehub.com/topical/a/araunah.htm

      https://biblehub.com/topical/o/ornan.htm

      So you’re telling me that there happened to be two guys whose names had the same root and meaning, who owned threshing floors that David wanted to buy? Only you would be so stupid!

      There is only one altar, moron. Where was the other one? The burden of proof is on you to prove your asinine theory.

      Like

      • “What was he doing building an altar when he was allegedly a “nomad” and would have moved to a different location in a short time? The text is clear that he lived in Mamre. Therefore, there is no reason to assume he was somewhere else. It is a reasonable assumption that his starting point would have been Mamre. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise”.

        Whether Abraham of Genesis is best described as a nomad or a semi-nomad has been a matter of intense scholarly debate, but a nomad of sorts seems accepted. That is if one believes in the historicity of Abraham and/or that Genesis preserves authentic information. I am not sure the altar is a very strong argument. In fact, the first two altars built by Abraham in Gen. 12:7 and 12:8 are followed by his movement no sooner than in the subsequent verse. And from Gen. 20ff Abraham has moved from Mamre, further to the south perhaps in the Beersheba region (even the Ghauris acknowledge that in the quoted passage – not that it makes much of a difference I think).

        Also, altars (or altar hearths) in ancient Palestine, could be elaborate structures such as the one uncovered at Megiddo, but were often quite primitive such as those found at Mt. Karkom. The altar Abraham built in Gen. 22:9 is apparently constructed ad hoc, with limited effort.

        Unfortunately, neither the “third day” nor the “altar” built in Mamre throw much light on the location of Mt. Moriah.

        Arauna is not Semitic and perhaps not even a name but a title. The assumption that it is Hebrew/Semitic and so derived from a root meaning of joy is an extremely outdated notion. Today, scholars see it as of Hurrian origin and etymology, perhaps a title meaning “king”, “ruler” or the like.

        Like

      • Hi fillintheblanks,

        Sorry, I was not ignoring you. I’ve been busy responding to the trolls. When I get a chance, I will respond to your points. Probably today or tomorrow, inshaAllah.

        Like

      • Hello fillintheblanks.

        “Whether Abraham of Genesis is best described as a nomad or a semi-nomad has been a matter of intense scholarly debate, but a nomad of sorts seems accepted. That is if one believes in the historicity of Abraham and/or that Genesis preserves authentic information. I am not sure the altar is a very strong argument. In fact, the first two altars built by Abraham in Gen. 12:7 and 12:8 are followed by his movement no sooner than in the subsequent verse. And from Gen. 20ff Abraham has moved from Mamre, further to the south perhaps in the Beersheba region (even the Ghauris acknowledge that in the quoted passage – not that it makes much of a difference I think).”

        I don’t think appealing to Genesis 12 solves the problem. That is because, in this case, Abraham was clearly on the move. He had been told to leave Ur (which by the way, didn’t exist at the time). So, he was clearly traveling to Canaan. But when he was at Mamre, there is no evidence that he was still traveling. In fact, he only briefly left Mamre because of a famine and traveled to Egypt. But then he returned back to the place where he had made the altar.

        As for Genesis 20, first of all, scholars have recognized for a long time that this chapter seems to be out of place. Genesis 18 and 20 are separated by the account of Sodom and Gamorah in Genesis 19. At the end of Gen 18, the three visitors had left Abraham. After the end of Gen 19, suddenly Abraham leaves Mamre.

        Even if we forget this strange separation of the chapters, you still have not proven that Abraham was a nomad or even a “semi-nomad”. That is because Genesis 21:33-34 states that Abraham stayed in the “land of the Philistines FOR A LONG TIME.” This refutes the claim that he was “nomadic”.

        “Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the Lord, the Eternal God. 34 And Abraham stayed in the land of the Philistines for a long time.”

        And Genesis 22:19 seals the deal. Abraham was in Beersheba and STAYED there:

        “Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.”

        There is no “perhaps”. He was in Beersheba. And as the Ghauris state, if he had to go from Beersheba to Jerusalem, it shouldn’t have taken more than a day.

        “Also, altars (or altar hearths) in ancient Palestine, could be elaborate structures such as the one uncovered at Megiddo, but were often quite primitive such as those found at Mt. Karkom. The altar Abraham built in Gen. 22:9 is apparently constructed ad hoc, with limited effort.”

        I agree, but that still does not prove that he was nomadic. In fact, the Bible clearly states that he usually stayed in one location for a long time, first Mamre, then Beersheba.

        “Unfortunately, neither the “third day” nor the “altar” built in Mamre throw much light on the location of Mt. Moriah.”

        The location of Mt. Moriah is certainly a problem. But that’s because of the Bible’s confusing narrative.

        “Arauna is not Semitic and perhaps not even a name but a title. The assumption that it is Hebrew/Semitic and so derived from a root meaning of joy is an extremely outdated notion. Today, scholars see it as of Hurrian origin and etymology, perhaps a title meaning “king”, “ruler” or the like.”

        I agree, Arauna was probably Hurrian in origin. But Ornan is the HEBREW version of Araunah. They are still the same person. The similarity in the names shows that it would a HUGE coincidence that there JUST HAPPENED to be two men with SIMILAR SOUNDING names, who BOTH owned threshing floors on the SAME site and BOTH sold the site AND some equipment AND oxen at the SAME time as a plague was devastating Israel. It’s just too convenient to say these were two different men.

        This is from another comment you made earlier:

        “A journey of three days is a literary convention of saying a journey of a significant amount of time. See for example Gen. 30:36; 31:22; Ex 3:18; 5:3; 8:27; 15:22; Num. 10:33; 33:8; Jon: 3:3 (cf. the three day journey in the Gilgamesh epic). The number three of course is a number fraught with significance and one should be cautious to read too much into it (cf. Gen. 40:12; Ex 10;22-23; 19:11, 15, 16; Num. 19:12, 19; 31:19; Judg. 19:4; 1 Sam 9:20; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs. 12:5; Hos. 6:2; Esther 5:1).”

        This seems like a cop-out to me. Genesis 22 does not state that it was a 3-day journey. It says that on the 3rd day, Abraham could see Moriah “in the distance”. So, he could have traveled a little longer, maybe even a whole day before he reached the location. This is especially true since he left the one donkey (Gen 22:3) he had brought for the journey with his servants (Gen 22:5). So, they walked on foot from that point on. And then when all was said and done, they returned to Beersheba (Gen 22:19), which again proves that he was not a nomad.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hello Quranandbibleblog,

        Thanks you for responding to the points raised. I’m a little uncertain if there was some misunderstanding so I’ill go point by point, asking a few questions along the way.

        You objected that: “I don’t think appealing to Genesis 12 solves the problem. That is because, in this case, Abraham was clearly on the move. He had been told to leave Ur (which by the way, didn’t exist at the time). So, he was clearly traveling to Canaan. But when he was at Mamre, there is no evidence that he was still traveling”.

        A. I truly do not comprehend. I appealed specifically to the two altars of Gen. 12:7-8 and here Abraham is already in Canaan – not traveling to it, see Gen. 12:5b. Consequently, these first two of Abraham’s altars seem relevant as examples of altars built only to be “abandoned” rapidly.

        B. You said in response to the other fellow: “What was he doing building an altar when he was allegedly a “nomad” and would have moved to a different location in a short time? The text is clear that he lived in Mamre. Therefore, there is no reason to assume he was somewhere else. It is a reasonable assumption that his starting point would have been Mamre. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise”.

        I simply pointed out that the starting point could be in the Beersheba/southern region on the textual evidence and it seems as if you changed your mind(?) and accept Beersheba as a starting point, now saying that “There is no “perhaps”. He was in Beersheba”. So I am little confused: what you at first was convinced to be a “reasonable assumption” is now categorically wrong – did I understand you correctly?

        You argued that the building of an altar implied staying at a place for a long time, in casu Mamre. I merely pointed out from both the textual (cf. Gen. 12:7-8) and the archaeological evidence that this argument is a non sequitur, as both sedentary people and nomads construct altars. Whether simple or complex. So the altar built at Mamre in Gen. 13:18 unfortunately does not help us get closer to an identification of Moriah. And now I understand you to say that he didn’t start from Mamre after all. So I am confused about your argument.

        C. I never claimed that Arauna and Ornan are two different men, as I assume Ornan is the Chronicler’s rendering of Arauna. You are confusing me with the other chap, I think. I have not had a chance to look at the scholarly literature or check the epigraphical onomasticon of the ancient near east for Ornan . I merely pointed out that you incorrectly identified and linked the original Arauna to a Hebrew or Semitic name with an etymology of “a joyful cry” (from a Hebrew root such as rnh or rnn) when this is clearly not a Semitic name of that etymology, but perhaps from the non-Semitic Hurrian language. You then responded saying “[I] agree, Arauna was probably Hurrian in origin”, so I am not sure what page we are on, when your position changes so drastically.

        D. On nomadism: As mentioned, scholars have debated whether Abraham’s lifestyle as portrayed is best described as nomadic, semi-nomadic or similar. This is based on many factors such as lifestyle (dwelling in tents etc.) and the many places where he stayed in the south such as Mamre/Hebron (E.g., Gen. 13), Gerar, somewhere between Kadesh and Shur, Beersheba, the Negev in general (cf. Gen. 20) and a text such as Gen. 13 describing the herdsmen dispute. Even if he did stay at long intervals in the same region he clearly also did move around, at times with a herd. In the present context it is ultimately of little consequence, and so need not be pressed too hard, as Abraham was clearly associated with various locations in the south, from where he might have, for all we can tell, started his journey.

        E. It is possible that Gen. 20 is not in its chronological order. Whatever the complex textual, literary compositional and redactional history behind the Abraham cycle as we have it, this unfortunately complicates the issues rather than throwing light on Moriah. So I am uncertain what the argument is here.

        G. “This seems like a cop-out to me. Genesis 22 does not state that it was a 3-day journey. It says that on the 3rd day…”

        So to your mind what should it have said? A two and half day journey? A two and a something day journey? Almost three days, but not quite? To me, this is not the point of the narrative. The point I argued with the examples, is that the third day/three days is not necessarily an exact figure but a significant number particularly in connection with journeys a fact that is noted by biblical scholars. You seem to want to take it very literally. Even if you take it as a precise number it is not necessarily inconsistent (though I think this is missing the point of the narrative). The 70 kilometers in a beeline might have taken only two days (or slightly less, one day seems a bit of a stretch though). However, the beeline route is through the Judean Highlands and that would have prolonged the theoretical journey from the south to the temple mount. Abraham might have chosen a different route, avoiding the Judean hills and possibly also the Shephelah, but then we will have to speculate what route that might have been. We are now entering the hypothetical realm and I do not think this is the point of the narrative. Therefore, I believe it best not to make too much of the “third day”. The holds true for the “altar” as well and so these points unfortunately do not help us in locating more precisely the land of Moriah.

        Like

      • Oh no, not again. Araunah is Hebrew now? Muhammed Hijab must be green with envy now that you’ve made more “Hebrew” errors than him.

        Like

      • Dummy, try to pay attention and stop interjecting in the middle of a conversation before reading the whole conversation and making a fool of yourself. I clarified that “Ornan” is the Hebrew version of Araunah, which seems to be a word of Hurrian origin. Plus, I also gave links to some sources about the root.

        Also, none of this changes the fact that the Bible is hopelessly contradictory. It’s funny how you morons try to nitpick on minor issues to distract from the larger issue. 😆

        Like

      • Pathetic Muslim apologetics. You are simply clueless. You linked to a Hebrew root for Araunah meaning “a joyful cry”, not the Hurrian for king or ruler. You have now twice been schooled on this, yet you keep making this clueless claim, showing you have no idea what you are talking about. Yeah, sure “El hay, living God” does not have deity in it and Elijah means “God is with us” as Hijab says. Not to mention all the other errors.

        Just jumping like a monkey from a tree to a tree. Reminds me of the debate between Osama Abdallah and Anthony Rogers. Every time Tony proved Osama wrong he jumped to a different place. At one point it got so painful that Osama stubbornly kept claiming that the house in Isaiah 60 was about the Kabaa. You look up the chapter and find out that it explicitly says Zion, that is Jerusalem in vs. 14: “The children of your oppressors will come bowing before you; all who despise you will bow down at your feet and will call you the City of the LORD, Zion of the Holy One of Israel”.

        Same thing here really, totally and utterly pathetic clueless claims about the Bible. Whatchaya gonna do with people like this?

        Liked by 1 person

      • 😆 Are you getting angry pathetic Crosstian apologist? Yes, I linked to a Christian source that defined the name with the root “a joyful cry”. Then I clarified that since recent scholarship has suggested a Hurrian origin, the name “Ornan” is the Hebrew version of “Araunah”. Get it Crosstian monkey?

        You seem to be quite obsessed with Hijab’s thrashing of Wood. I know it hurts. But clinging to minor issues will not save your pathetic pagan religion from being torn apart. 😁

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Al-Kindi

        Says Muslims jump around proceeds to talk about Rogers and another guy on a location in Isaiah…

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oh, now it’s a minor thing that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about? You didn’t clarify anything: You were called out on the fact that you couldn’t even tell the difference between a semitic and a non-semitic name, relying on outdated ressources, again showing you are clueless, and are trying to cover your up all your embarrassing errors. Recent research??? Do you have any idea when the Hurrian was first proposed?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dumbass, all I did was quote a Christian source. Yes, it was pointed out that recent scholarship points to a Hurrian origin. But how does that save the Bible from the contradiction regarding the price of the threshing floor? You see how you are nit picking on a minor issue to distract from the bigger issue?

        Recent scholarship has accepted the Hurrian theory stupid. It doesn’t matter when it was first proposed. Your nitpicking still doesn’t save your Bible. Stop whining pagan. 😂

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Just thought about this, who cares how they’re proven to be the same guy? The point is the contradiction and refuting that they’re not the same person when they are.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ok last word up since you are obviously beyond reach. comitting new errors with each new comment and when called out fail to admit. Recent scholarship, come on.

        Contradiction ??? I could bash the Bible all day if I wanted to. And you know why? Because I have actually studied the Bible, languages and the professional literature. But you know what, it is much more fun to point out your ignorance, confusion and contradictions. You are confused about the starting point, one day it’s here one day it’s there. You confuse Semitic and non Semitic names. One day it’s Hebrew next day its not. You don’t know what an altar is, you don’t know what pastoralism is, you don’t know about scholarship let alone “recent”, geography etc.

        And these are only the errors already pointed out, without even mentioning all those additional flaws. Yeah, yeah I know it’s the Bible that is confusing. Yeah that’s much easier than admitting that you have no clue what you are talking about, even when your errors are pointed out to you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • 😂 Dummy, you’re still not getting it. I quoted a Christian source, but it was pointed out that now the accepted view is that the name is of Hurrian origin. So what? This is all irrelevant anyway as it does NOTHING to explain the contradiction. Now stop barking and either submit a substantive rebuttal to the numerous contradictions in the Biblical story of David or run away like a coward while barking about irrelevant issues.

        So answer the questions: did David purchase the threshing floor for 50 shekels or 600 shekels? Were there two different threshing floors? Were there two different Jebusite men?

        Like

      • You still don’t get. I made three very simple points, none of which had anything to do with the contradiction of the price, a relatively minor point. I was simply repeating those numerous errors of yours already pointed out to you refuting the more substantial and interesting question of the location of the land of Moriah and the temple:

        1. All your arguments about the third day and altar were based on erroneous assumptions and ignorance.

        2. You committed so many errors in the process showing total ignorance in so many areas, contradicting yourself, confusing things etc that one cannot take you seriously. To list a few: biblical linguistics, Semitic philology, archaeology/history, history of scholarship, geography and topography, relying on outdated sources etc.

        3. There are even many more errors and flaws and I could spend all day listing them. But what”s the point? You apparently still think you “know “ something about the Bible even as you still deny the most obvious of your errors and ignorant comments already pointed out to you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lol, still barking? Come on moron. Answer the question. What was the cost of the threshing floor?

        And looks whose jumping like a monkey! As for the 3 days, I showed in one of my comments that Abraham lived in Beersheba. Therefore, there is no reason why even on the 3rd day, he would have seen Mt Moriah from a “distance”. The argument that the 3 days is just a figure of speech is a cop-out. Plus, the Bible doesn’t say he went on a 3 day journey. It says he saw the place on the 3rd day.

        Like

      • And no. I think they refer to the same man. The literature on the name Ornan is very thin. It is not clear if it is Hebrew but at least a very good option. I think Aramaic is also a very good alternative but may be wrong and I would have to look more into it.

        Like

      • 😂 Still beating around the bush? So how much did David pay for the threshing floor? What’s your excuse for the contradiction? Thank you for at least admitting that the excuses of retards like Watson have merit. He’s been arguing they were two different people.

        Like

      • Check out the commentary in Barnes Notes on the Bible about the 3rd day:

        “The story is now told with exquisite simplicity. “On the third day.” From Beer-sheba to the Shalem of Melkizedec, near which this hill is supposed to have been, is about forty-five miles. If they proceeded fifteen miles on the first broken day, twenty on the second, and ten on the third, they would come within sight of the place early on the third day.”

        😂 Well, let’s just set Abraham’s itinerary by randomly selecting how many miles he traveled on each day but make sure they add up to 45.

        Like

      • There is little point in going, on since you have no clue what you are tAlking about. You were already schooled about the third day and the topography and the hypothetical route. It says very little about the location of the land of Moriah. The fact that you even think it does, exposes your methodological desperation to show the Bible wrong at all costs. Unfortunately for you it backfires and exposes your complete and utter disrespect for sound methodology.

        The interpretation you cited is just as silly as yours, just from the opposite extreme. I don’t agree with either one of them.

        At least I am admitting if there is something I don’t know and that I would have to look into it. At least I have the tools to appreciate that some issues are complex and should be viewed in a nuanced perspective. You are just compounding your innumerable errors. Over and out.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lol, you keep avoiding answering the question. Keep barking. It just exposes you as a pathetic Crosstian pagan who has no answers and who can only throw out ad hominems.

        Of course you wouldn’t agree with your own scholars when they embarrass you. You throw them under the bus. The point is though that the metaphorical argument that you idiots use is a pathetic cop-out. You just made it up because you don’t have anything substantive.

        I’m still waiting for an answer: what was the cost of the threshing floor? You’ve already admitted there was only one threshing floor owned by one person. So what was the price for it that the adulterous, murdering, pillaging (after God’s own heart) king of Israel paid?

        Like

  8. I wonder how Mohammed would have dealt with the “trolls”?

    In the West Muslims are under restraint, shackled by secular law, fortunately for the rest of us.

    When all else fails Faiz goes go back to the “roots”.

    Another reason I don’t believe that they are the same persons and threshing floors is that the one talks as if he is a king. Onan was threshing the wheat himself which would hardly be the case if he were a king:

    “And Ornan turned back, and saw the angel; and his four sons with him hid themselves.

    Now Ornan was threshing wheat.”

    And Araunah said unto David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what seemeth good unto him: behold, here be oxen for burnt sacrifice, and threshing instruments and other instruments of the oxen for wood.

    “All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king. And Araunah said unto the king, The LORD thy God accept thee.”

    Like

    • Watson: I wonder how Mohammed would have dealt with the “trolls”?

      Most of the trolls ended up becoming fierce defenders of Islam.

      Watson: In the West Muslims are under restraint, shackled by secular law, fortunately for the rest of us.

      Ok boomer.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Lol, the troglodyte young earth Crosstian is again appealing to his personal opinions rather than presenting any hard evidence.

      Just because one version describes the owner of the threshing floor as “king” does not mean they were two different people. Plus, you’re basing this on a defective translation from the KJV. None of the other major translations describe Araunah as “king”. Instead, they say that he referred to David as the “king”.

      I know this is hard to accept troglodyte. But your Bible is a contradictory mess. But hey, at least we won’t exterminate you as your evil god would order. If you want to go to hell so bad, who am I to stop you? 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • hey whatson, any chance of you finding me a christian 12 year old girl so she could keep me warm at night? I will promise to write to the people that me and my christian 12 year old night nurse werent having sex.

      its not my fault watson, blankets and fire arent working.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Lol, the whore of Babylon bint Shaytan resorts to more cut and paste nonsense. We already know that David did not commit adultery because Ali (ra) would flog anyone who accused the prophet of that. This has already been discussed, but morons like the whore are too stubborn to accept facts.

    Later tafsirs resorted to the Biblical story to explain the “sin” that David had committed in the Quran. But as the context shows, the sin was David issuing a judgement without hearing the views of both sides in a dispute. See? Very simple. We don’t need to speculate by using an obscure Biblical story, which doesn’t even make any sense, to explain what sin David (phuh) committed.

    Now go back to worshiping your old-man god. 😂

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Hello again fillintheblanks. Sorry for the late reply. I was a little under the weather and was taking a break from blogging.

    A. I truly do not comprehend. I appealed specifically to the two altars of Gen. 12:7-8 and here Abraham is already in Canaan – not traveling to it, see Gen. 12:5b. Consequently, these first two of Abraham’s altars seem relevant as examples of altars built only to be “abandoned” rapidly.

    Okay, I see your point. But the fact still remains that Abraham (pbuh) did return to Mamre, where he had built an altar. Thus, the other altars Eventually, he did move to Beersheba, which clearly appears to be the origin point of his journey to Mt. Moriah.

    “I simply pointed out that the starting point could be in the Beersheba/southern region on the textual evidence and it seems as if you changed your mind(?) and accept Beersheba as a starting point, now saying that “There is no “perhaps”. He was in Beersheba”. So I am little confused: what you at first was convinced to be a “reasonable assumption” is now categorically wrong – did I understand you correctly?”

    Yes, I think we can conclude that he was in Beersheba.

    “You argued that the building of an altar implied staying at a place for a long time, in casu Mamre. I merely pointed out from both the textual (cf. Gen. 12:7-8) and the archaeological evidence that this argument is a non sequitur, as both sedentary people and nomads construct altars. Whether simple or complex. So the altar built at Mamre in Gen. 13:18 unfortunately does not help us get closer to an identification of Moriah. And now I understand you to say that he didn’t start from Mamre after all. So I am confused about your argument.”

    Actually, because it is certain that he was in Beersheba, and Chronicles links Mt. Moriah with the site of the threshing floor, it is obvious that Abraham would have traveled from Beersheba to Jerusalem. I think this only further shows that the Bible is contradictory. The distance from Beersheba to Jerusalem would not have taken more than 3 days, yet on the 3rd day, it says that the destination was still off in the “distance”.

    “C. I never claimed that Arauna and Ornan are two different men, as I assume Ornan is the Chronicler’s rendering of Arauna. You are confusing me with the other chap, I think. I have not had a chance to look at the scholarly literature or check the epigraphical onomasticon of the ancient near east for Ornan . I merely pointed out that you incorrectly identified and linked the original Arauna to a Hebrew or Semitic name with an etymology of “a joyful cry” (from a Hebrew root such as rnh or rnn) when this is clearly not a Semitic name of that etymology, but perhaps from the non-Semitic Hurrian language. You then responded saying “[I] agree, Arauna was probably Hurrian in origin”, so I am not sure what page we are on, when your position changes so drastically.”

    First of all, I didn’t make the claim. I simply cited a Christian source. And no matter what the origin of the name “Araunah” is, it is completely irrelevant. It does NOTHING to solve the contradiction. So I will ask you what the others could not answer. Since you admit that Araunah/Ornan are the same person, then why does the Bible offer contradictory information about the price of the threshing floor?

    You guys are getting stuck on irrelevant issues. Who cares what the origin of the name is? How does that refute my claim that there is a contradiction in the Biblical story? I never even talked about the etymology of the name in the article. You guys brought it up as if it makes difference. I never even looked into the etymology when I was writing the article because it was completely irrelevant.

    “D. On nomadism: As mentioned, scholars have debated whether Abraham’s lifestyle as portrayed is best described as nomadic, semi-nomadic or similar. This is based on many factors such as lifestyle (dwelling in tents etc.) and the many places where he stayed in the south such as Mamre/Hebron (E.g., Gen. 13), Gerar, somewhere between Kadesh and Shur, Beersheba, the Negev in general (cf. Gen. 20) and a text such as Gen. 13 describing the herdsmen dispute. Even if he did stay at long intervals in the same region he clearly also did move around, at times with a herd. In the present context it is ultimately of little consequence, and so need not be pressed too hard, as Abraham was clearly associated with various locations in the south, from where he might have, for all we can tell, started his journey.”

    Again, we have established that he was living in Beersheba at the time of the command to go to Mt. Moriah. So, regardless of the “debate” about his nomadism, it is again irrelevant because there is no doubt that he was NOT a nomad at the time. He was living in Beersheba. He was not moving around.

    “E. It is possible that Gen. 20 is not in its chronological order. Whatever the complex textual, literary compositional and redactional history behind the Abraham cycle as we have it, this unfortunately complicates the issues rather than throwing light on Moriah. So I am uncertain what the argument is here.”

    If the Bible is chronologically out of order, being that it is supposed to be the “inspired” word of God, I fail to see how this rescues the Bible. To avoid admitting a contradiction, you seem to be willing to admit that the Bible has confused the chronology. That still falsifies the Bible.

    “So to your mind what should it have said? A two and half day journey? A two and a something day journey?”

    I really don’t care what it should have said. The fact is that the description as it is in the Bible is confused. If after 3 days, Mt. Moriah was still off in the “distance”, then its location in Jerusalem (as Chronicles claims) doesn’t make sense.

    “Almost three days, but not quite? To me, this is not the point of the narrative. The point I argued with the examples, is that the third day/three days is not necessarily an exact figure but a significant number particularly in connection with journeys a fact that is noted by biblical scholars.”

    So are you telling me that one could also reasonably have described Abraham’s journey from Ur (which again didn’t exist at the time) to Canaan as a “three-day” journey, and it would only mean a very long journey?

    “You seem to want to take it very literally.”

    I find it very telling that you would want us to take it metaphorically, when the literal reading would be problematic. That’s very convenient, don’t you think?

    “Even if you take it as a precise number it is not necessarily inconsistent (though I think this is missing the point of the narrative). The 70 kilometers in a beeline might have taken only two days (or slightly less, one day seems a bit of a stretch though). However, the beeline route is through the Judean Highlands and that would have prolonged the theoretical journey from the south to the temple mount. Abraham might have chosen a different route, avoiding the Judean hills and possibly also the Shephelah, but then we will have to speculate what route that might have been. We are now entering the hypothetical realm and I do not think this is the point of the narrative. Therefore, I believe it best not to make too much of the “third day”. The holds true for the “altar” as well and so these points unfortunately do not help us in locating more precisely the land of Moriah.”

    This is all speculation, as you admitted. You need to provide proof for this. Otherwise, it gets us no where. I am simply going by the Biblical account.

    And again, it seems rather convenient that “three days” doesn’t really mean “three days”. But if it wasn’t literally 3 days, then how many days was it? And what was the purpose of even saying “On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance”?

    Like

    • Hello Quranandbibleblog

      Thank you for your response. I’ll respond to your points below.

      A. I think you misunderstand my point of the altars. You earlier said that: “What was he doing building an altar when he was allegedly a “nomad” and would have moved to a different location in a short time? The text is clear that he lived in Mamre.” I simply provided archaeological, textual and scholarly evidence refuting these notions. The more general point I am making is that the “altars” do not help us in any way to clarify the issue of the “land of Moriah”. And so I fail to see the relevance your current statement “But the fact still remains that Abraham (pbuh) did return to Mamre, where he had built an altar”.
      Consequently, do you concede then the point that the altar is irrelevant to the issue or not?

      You stated that “The distance from Beersheba to Jerusalem would not have taken more than 3 days, yet on the 3rd day, it says that the destination was still off in the “distance”. Again, I think you did not understand my point, or respond to it. How long, in your reckoning, “should” the journey take, assuming a beeline route from Beersheba to the “temple mt.” through the Judean Highlands. Are you saying now, in contrast to your earlier statement, that it took more than one day or…?

      B. Araunah is not relevant to my point, but you claimed they were identical based on the etymology and both being Hebrew, to refute the other chap, who said they were different. So I simply wanted to point out this was incorrect on philological grounds and a scholarly outdated position. Then I got confused because your position changed on virtually all points I raised so I wanted to be clear, also on this point. On a more general note I feel, as pointed out previously even if the tone quickly got out of hand, that in this debate there were so many errors, misrepresentation of facts and scholarship as well as lack of nuance, that I thought I point to evidence and scholarship. On an even more overall note all these errors do not inspire confidence. I never raised the point of the “contradiction” of the threshing floor price. I only commented on specific points raised in the heated debate, in order to throw some cool facts in there, so the debate might proceed in a more informed way. In a sense I regret this because nobody here seems to be interested in a nuanced discussion. I will describe my position below since you asked me specifically. You will probably not be happy with it, so you will have to take that up with whoever who wants to give it a go.

      C. Once more, I think you fail to see my perspective. I commented on specific on points raised in the debate, because I felt so many errors were being committed. You harshly told of the other fellow for stating Abraham was a nomad and so I commented that many scholars saw the patriarchs as nomads of sorts. My own position (backed by some scholarship) is that what is represented by Genesis is a lifestyle of mixed subsistence, thus at times pastoralist. I personally do not think nomad is an entirely satisfactory description, but perhaps, at least captures aspects of the lifestyle. But even today there are those who believe that the description of the patriarchs in Genesis conform to some kind of nomadism, at least in part, including those who have studied Bedouin lifestyle. So the other fellow’s comment of lifestyle was relevant to the issue. However, “nomadism”, in other words, became a point as you first said Abraham started in Mamre but then proceeded to change your position to Beersheba.

      D. You stated: “This is all speculation, as you admitted. You need to provide proof for this. Otherwise, it gets us no where”. I beg to differ: the speculation is purely on your part. I consistently maintained that no conclusions could responsibly be drawn from “the third day”. I pointed out that the one day it should have taken as per your theory is clearly not plausible. The 45 miles or 70 kilometers through the Judean Highlands in one day is practically impossible. I don’t know if one would even take that route in actual practice and if so how long it would take and so I refused to speculate about an alternate route concluding, once more, that: “Therefore, I believe it best not to make too much of the “third day”.

      You wrote: “So are you telling me that one could also reasonably have described Abraham’s journey from Ur (which again didn’t exist at the time) to Canaan as a “three-day” journey, and it would only mean a very long journey?”

      I think again you make so many misrepresentations I am beginning to think there is little point in this conversation. But to answer. No, that is not what I said. I wrote above: “The point I argued with the examples, is that the third day/three days is not necessarily an exact figure but a significant number particularly in connection with journeys a fact that is noted by biblical scholars”. It is a significant time as noted by biblical scholars. None of the numerous examples I provided indicated a length on that scale you impute to me nor did I suggest anything like this. You are focusing on a point that does not help us to understand better where the mountain in the “land of Moriah” is located. There is much more pertinent evidence in Gen. 22 suggesting to some scholars that it in fact alludes to the temple and this already in the period of the first temple, contrary to what you wrote. And there are numerous competent treatments in the literature on this issue. Instead you rely on the Ghauris whose book is so full of outlandish claims that they are not even taken seriously by biblical scholarship. Even such a point that you accepted from them as it would take only one day simply illustrates the ignorance. Forgive me, but I now feel I get a little upset about this ignorance and misrepresentation of the Bible and biblical scholarship. Why was this position and literature not mentioned? Why did you refer only to one side of the coin as described by Gonen as if scholarship is monolithic on this issue? Why did you not describe the other side of the coin, resulting in a skewed discussion and misrepresentation of the state of scholarship on this issue?

      E. You wrote “If the Bible is chronologically out of order …” I simply responded to your argument going along with it for the sake of argument, taking a somewhat neutral position. I merely pointed out that this argument is a non sequitur, not helping your case but rather makes it more difficult to say anything definitive on the location of the “land of Moriah”.

      F. For the moment (because I have not studied this particular issue in detail, nor did I comment on it. It is you who “demand” an answer from me), I can agree with the position described in a standard work such as the Old Testament Library’s commentary on I & II Chronicles by Sarah Japhet, ad. loc, explaining the differences in price in terms of the Chronicler’s overall methodology in the treatment of the transmitted historical sources and traditions. You may have a look at it. I understand this might not be the answer you are looking for,but then as I said you will have to take it up with whoever wants to have a go at it.

      The third day and the altar in my reading has little to offer with regards to the question whether the land of Moriah is alluding to the temple or not.

      Like

      • Hello fillintheblanks.

        “Consequently, do you concede then the point that the altar is irrelevant to the issue or not?”

        I concede that by, itself, it is not proof to establish that Abraham (pbuh) was sedentary. However, as a follow-up to that, I pointed out that Abraham (pbuh) did RETURN to the same area of Mamre where he had set-up the altar. He did not do that with the other sites. Therefore, that was his home until he moved to Beersheba. Perhaps this altar was a little different and more elaborate from the others he made. I hope that clears things up.

        “Again, I think you did not understand my point, or respond to it. How long, in your reckoning, “should” the journey take, assuming a beeline route from Beersheba to the “temple mt.” through the Judean Highlands. Are you saying now, in contrast to your earlier statement, that it took more than one day or…?”

        I would think not more than 2 days at most (see below).

        “B. Araunah is not relevant to my point, but you claimed they were identical based on the etymology and both being Hebrew, to refute the other chap, who said they were different. So I simply wanted to point out this was incorrect on philological grounds and a scholarly outdated position.”

        Fair enough.

        “On an even more overall note all these errors do not inspire confidence. I never raised the point of the “contradiction” of the threshing floor price. I only commented on specific points raised in the heated debate, in order to throw some cool facts in there, so the debate might proceed in a more informed way. In a sense I regret this because nobody here seems to be interested in a nuanced discussion. I will describe my position below since you asked me specifically. You will probably not be happy with it, so you will have to take that up with whoever who wants to give it a go.”

        Well so far, the only “error” on my part was in the comment about Araunah/Ornan, and that was a minor error which has no bearing on fact that the Bible is self-contradictory. This does not affect the strength of the arguments I make in the article. I admit I didn’t look into the Araunah/Ornan etymology very closely.

        The only part of the article that needs an update is the origin point of Abraham’s journey to Moriah. It was not Mamre, but Beersheba.

        “You harshly told of the other fellow for stating Abraham was a nomad and so I commented that many scholars saw the patriarchs as nomads of sorts. My own position (backed by some scholarship) is that what is represented by Genesis is a lifestyle of mixed subsistence, thus at times pastoralist.”

        I actually don’t disagree with this, but it is completely irrelevant. The fact is that when he was living in Mamre or in Beersheba, he was not a “nomad”. He may have been at other times, but when he is actually living in the same spot for a long time, then he was not a nomad.

        ” I consistently maintained that no conclusions could responsibly be drawn from “the third day”. I pointed out that the one day it should have taken as per your theory is clearly not plausible. The 45 miles or 70 kilometers through the Judean Highlands in one day is practically impossible. I don’t know if one would even take that route in actual practice and if so how long it would take and so I refused to speculate about an alternate route concluding, once more, that: “Therefore, I believe it best not to make too much of the “third day”.”

        You are arguing that it would have been “impossible” simply from opinion. But scholars don’t necessarily agree with you and see no problem with expecting the journey to take a day or two at most. I was a little generous and gave 2 days at most. Here is what the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges states:

        “The “place” was on a lofty eminence visible at a distance. Presumably “the third day” indicates a journey of 30 or 40 miles. The journey from Beer-sheba to Jerusalem is computed to take less than 24 hours.” (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/genesis/22.htm)

        Notice here that the commentary seems to state that the “the third day” was metaphorical, but this is only based on a presumption. The reality is though that it is not unreasonable to expect the journey to have take even less than a full day assuming a continuous journey. Of course, I am not saying they were traveling for 24 hours continuously, so it should have taken not more than 2 days at most.

        “There is much more pertinent evidence in Gen. 22 suggesting to some scholars that it in fact alludes to the temple and this already in the period of the first temple, contrary to what you wrote. ”

        First of all, it is not my problem that you only seem to give weight to “some scholars” whose views uphold your own opinions. The fact of the matter is that the location of Moriah is a matter of debate, but there is NO hard evidence that it was in Jerusalem. The only reason apologists need it to be in Jerusalem is because Chronicles makes that connection, and to deny it would mean denying a canonical book.

        ” Even such a point that you accepted from them as it would take only one day simply illustrates the ignorance.”

        Actually, there are not the only ones to make this claim, as I showed above. The traveling distance from Beersheba to Jerusalem should not take more than than 24 hours. Assuming a break in between for sleeping, at most, they should have reached their destination by the second day. So the Ghauris are actually not making an “outlandish” claim, as you assumed.

        “Forgive me, but I now feel I get a little upset about this ignorance and misrepresentation of the Bible and biblical scholarship. Why was this position and literature not mentioned? Why did you refer only to one side of the coin as described by Gonen as if scholarship is monolithic on this issue? Why did you not describe the other side of the coin, resulting in a skewed discussion and misrepresentation of the state of scholarship on this issue?”

        What “state of scholarship” are you referring to? There is no debate among scholars that Chronicles is a late book. I quoted Gonen to show that the link to Jerusalem is late and tenuous at best. If you disagree, then show me why. So far, the only things you have pointed out is that “third day” doesn’t have to be taken literally.

        “I simply responded to your argument going along with it for the sake of argument, taking a somewhat neutral position. I merely pointed out that this argument is a non sequitur, not helping your case but rather makes it more difficult to say anything definitive on the location of the “land of Moriah”. ”

        Fair enough.

        ” I can agree with the position described in a standard work such as the Old Testament Library’s commentary on I & II Chronicles by Sarah Japhet, ad. loc, explaining the differences in price in terms of the Chronicler’s overall methodology in the treatment of the transmitted historical sources and traditions. You may have a look at it. I understand this might not be the answer you are looking for,but then as I said you will have to take it up with whoever wants to have a go at it.”

        Thank you, I will check this out. But from what I gather from your vague summary, the contradiction is indeed there. Whatever the “methodology” of the Chronicler, he reported a price that was different from Samuel.

        “The third day and the altar in my reading has little to offer with regards to the question whether the land of Moriah is alluding to the temple or not.”

        The problem is that Chronicles makes this link. I agree that the actual location of Moriah cannot be determined, but there is very little evidence to link it reasonably to Jerusalem, which is what Chronicles does.

        Like

      • Hi Quranandbibleblog,

        Thanks again for your answer.

        A. I am sorry I have to ask, but I want to be clear. So you agree then that the altar is not helpful in determining more precisely the location of Moriah, contrary to what you stated previously? However, I think you made an incorrect assumption when you said that: “Abraham (pbuh) did RETURN to the same area of Mamre where he had set-up the altar. He did not do that with the other sites.”. In Gen. 12:8 Abraham builds an altar in Bethel and returns to it in Gen. 13:3ff: “From the Negev he went from place to place until he came to Bethel, to the place between Bethel and Ai where his tent had been earlier and where he had first built an altar…” So I think this simply confirms that the “altar argument” does not hold water and does not help us define more precisely the land of Moriah.

        B. You wrote: “You are arguing that it would have been “impossible” simply from opinion. But scholars don’t necessarily agree with you and see no problem with expecting the journey to take a day or two at most. I was a little generous and gave 2 days at most. Here is what the Cambridge Bible for Schools…”

        That is also an incorrect assumption. I have actually travelled in the Judean Highlands which is why I am somewhat familiar with the topography. For this reason I could state that the beeline route is not necessarily a route one would chose in actual practice. To get an idea of what I am saying you may simply check relevant charts, images and topographical maps.

        I can also say that if one took this route the 70/45 kilometers/miles would have taken much more than a day. Even 70/45 kilometers/miles on a flat or unchallenging course in one day would be a stretch so I do not think you or the Ghauris are being generous. One day is simply incorrect and unreasonable as a working hypothesis. For example, if we say about 42 kilometers a day on a flat or non-challenging course (equivalent of a marathon race that many middle aged runners take 5-6 hours to complete) would take nearly two complete days, not compensating for the topography. So it is not clear that this is entirely inconsistent with the three days. But again, this is not the point of the narrative and I am not going to speculate about an alternate route. You have not shown your claim that three literal (or two and then some) days clearly excludes the “temple mount” to be possible. In addition, neither you nor the Ghauris seem to take the topography into account.

        I am not sure why you appeal to the outdated Cambridge Bible for Schools Colleges (1895, and it is unclear to me if he actually says the distance is only 30-40 miles or this applies to the distance of third day only). The phrase in Gen. 22:4 that Abraham “saw the place in the distance” (in the Hebrew) is vague and does not give a precise indication of the distance. His top figure of 40 miles (equivalent to American miles?) is still well below than the 45 you stated above. So the figures the CBSC cites are not consistent with the text and/or the distance one can find by a simple Google search. So I am not sure why you cite this in support of your position. Also, like you and the Ghauris, the CBSC did evidently not take the topography into account.

        C. You wrote: ”First of all, it is not my problem that you only seem to give weight to “some scholars” whose views uphold your own opinions. The fact of the matter is that the location of Moriah is a matter of debate, but there is NO hard evidence that it was in Jerusalem. The only reason apologists need it to be in Jerusalem is because Chronicles makes that connection, and to deny it would mean denying a canonical book”.

        You misunderstood my reference to the “state of scholarship”: I was referring to the indications in Gen. 22 as discussed in the scholarly literature, not Chronicles on which, in contrast, scholarly consensus is that it refers to the temple. I did not take a position whether it is the “temple mount” or not. I simply stated 1) that you are focusing on a point (the third day) which is not very helpful in determining the location and that there is much more pertinent evidence available in Gen. 22 than the “third day” that have lead a number scholars to believe it actually alludes to the temple and that 2) it is not “some scholars” there is a substantial body of competent literature discussing this subject which you failed to mention resulting in a skewed discussion and misrepresentation of the state of scholarship. If you look back you can see that I am careful to take a neutral position. It is you who cited only the scholarship that coincidentally agreed with your conclusion. When in actual fact it is an issue that has been much studied and debated in the literature where both positions have been advanced.

        I am simply saying that the three days and the altar (I am not sure if you have now changed your position on this argument as well or not) that, according to you, rule out the “temple mount” cannot bear this burden and are not very helpful in locating the land of Moriah or if you wish the specific mountain in question.

        Like

  11. Hello fillintheblanks,

    “So you agree then that the altar is not helpful in determining more precisely the location of Moriah, contrary to what you stated previously? However, I think you made an incorrect assumption when you said that: “Abraham (pbuh) did RETURN to the same area of Mamre where he had set-up the altar. He did not do that with the other sites.”. In Gen. 12:8 Abraham builds an altar in Bethel and returns to it in Gen. 13:3ff: “From the Negev he went from place to place until he came to Bethel, to the place between Bethel and Ai where his tent had been earlier and where he had first built an altar…” So I think this simply confirms that the “altar argument” does not hold water and does not help us define more precisely the land of Moriah.”

    I never claimed that the altar argument helps us “define more precisely the land of Moriah”. I refered to it to show, incorrectly as you have pointed out, that Abraham (pbuh) was not nomadic. He was living in Mamre, and then in Beersheba. Both of these locations were his home for a long time. A nomad would not be sedentary for such long periods.

    “That is also an incorrect assumption. I have actually travelled in the Judean Highlands which is why I am somewhat familiar with the topography. For this reason I could state that the beeline route is not necessarily a route one would chose in actual practice. To get an idea of what I am saying you may simply check relevant charts, images and topographical maps.”

    I find it hard to believe that your experience would be the same as for someone living 3,000 years ago. I have yet to see any evidence that discounts the claim that the journey should not taken more than 2 days.

    “I am not sure why you appeal to the outdated Cambridge Bible for Schools Colleges (1895, and it is unclear to me if he actually says the distance is only 30-40 miles or this applies to the distance of third day only). The phrase in Gen. 22:4 that Abraham “saw the place in the distance” (in the Hebrew) is vague and does not give a precise indication of the distance. His top figure of 40 miles (equivalent to American miles?) is still well below than the 45 you stated above. So the figures the CBSC cites are not consistent with the text and/or the distance one can find by a simple Google search. So I am not sure why you cite this in support of your position. Also, like you and the Ghauris, the CBSC did evidently not take the topography into account.”

    Simply dismissing a source because its from 1895 does not serve as a good argument. Furthermore, Christian sources agree with the CBSC:

    “Verse 4. – Then on the third day – Jerusalem, being distant from Beersheba about twenty and a half hours’ journey according to Robinson, could easily; be within sight on the third day – Abraham lifted up his eyes, – not implying that the object of vision was above him (cf. Genesis 13:10) – and saw the place (which Calvin conjectures he had previously beheld in vision) afar off. Though Mount Moriah cannot be seen by the traveler from Beersheba till within a distance of three miles (Stanley, ‘Sinai and Palestine,’ p. 251), the place or region where it is can be detected (Kalisch).” (Pulpit Commentary)

    “Probably on the beginning of the third day. It is true, Moriah was not three days’ journey from Beer-sheba. But it must be considered that the ass, upon which he rode, is a dull and slow creature, and that Abraham went no faster than the rest of his company, who, for aught appears, were on foot; and that the provisions which they carried along with them, both for their own and the ass’s subsistence, and for sacrifice, must needs retard them.” (Matthew Poole)

    Other sources try to fit the number of miles traveled into precise increments to try to fit the journey into 3 days (Barnes’ Notes; Gill’s Exposition).

    “You misunderstood my reference to the “state of scholarship”: I was referring to the indications in Gen. 22 as discussed in the scholarly literature, not Chronicles on which, in contrast, scholarly consensus is that it refers to the temple.”

    Yes, I know that scholarly consensus is that Chronicles links Moriah with the site of the temple.

    ” I simply stated 1) that you are focusing on a point (the third day) which is not very helpful in determining the location and that there is much more pertinent evidence available in Gen. 22 than the “third day” that have lead a number scholars to believe it actually alludes to the temple and that 2) it is not “some scholars” there is a substantial body of competent literature discussing this subject which you failed to mention resulting in a skewed discussion and misrepresentation of the state of scholarship.”

    I’m all ears as to this “pertinent evidence available in Gen. 22”. I’ve been waiting for definitive proof, but you have instead resorted to vague argumentation.

    As it stands, I still have yet to see any definitive evidence that the journey from Beersheba to Jerusalem should have taken more than 2 days at most, especially considering that they left early in the morning, which to me indicates that the journey was taken with all haste.

    “If you look back you can see that I am careful to take a neutral position. It is you who cited only the scholarship that coincidentally agreed with your conclusion. When in actual fact it is an issue that has been much studied and debated in the literature where both positions have been advanced.”

    Until you present actual evidence to discount what multiple scholarly sources have said, as I have shown, your vague statements and neutrality are not helping the discussion. I would ask that you actually refer to such scholarship rather than vaguely referring to it.

    “I am simply saying that the three days and the altar (I am not sure if you have now changed your position on this argument as well or not) that, according to you, rule out the “temple mount” cannot bear this burden and are not very helpful in locating the land of Moriah or if you wish the specific mountain in question.”

    Again, the altar argument was made to show that Abraham had started from a specific location where he had been living (and hence, he was not a nomad). That argument has not changed, only the location.

    Furthermore, for your claim that the “third day” argument doesn’t work, I would need more evidence than just simply your opinion about the topography etc., when numerous scholarly sources say otherwise.

    Coming back to the other issue, I have yet to see any counter-argument to the contradiction between Samuel and Chronicles on the price of the threshing floor. They both cannot be correct, which is why it’s a contradiction. The scholarly source you previously referred to seems to confirm this, though I have not looked into the source itself.

    Like

    • Hello,

      Due to the many misrepresentations and the time it takes to write I doubt there is much point in continuing this discussion. However, I will respond briefly to you.

      You wrote: “I find it hard to believe that your experience would be the same as for someone living 3,000 years ago. I have yet to see any evidence that discounts the claim that the journey should not taken more than 2 days.” And “Simply dismissing a source because its from 1895 does not serve as a good argument. Furthermore, Christian sources agree with the CBSC:

      I feel you are grossly misrepresenting the evidence I put forward regarding the terrain and the CBSC.

      The tough, mountainous terrain that, shall we say is less than ideal for travelling existed also in Abraham’s (or the narrator’s time). So we have to take that into account and. Even if one does not have a personal experience with it you can get a feel for the terrain and topography by looking at relevant charts, maps and images. It is not simply a matter of opinion.

      I did not dismiss the source simply for having the year 1895 on the cover. I explained that the 30-40 miles given is not consistent with the modern figure of 45 miles. So this relevant piece information is not up-to-date. In addition, he does not explain how the travel time of 24 hrs. or slightly less was computed, so how would anyone have a chance to evaluate his claim except in very general terms? I don’t think the quote was terribly clear. However, in very general terms, if you and the CBSC mean an effective travel time of slightly less than 24 hrs., say 23 and something (not even compensating for at least 5 missing miles) is still not clearly inconsistent with two day and something worth of travelling. If Abraham effectively travelled for say 8-10 hrs. each day it is not inconsistent or far of the CBSC’s mark even if it might be close. It is you and the Ghauris’ position of travelling 70 kilometers through the Judean mountains in one day that is far too unrealistic and unreasonable.

      You may take a look at the helpful discussions of the various scholarly opinions and the question of the identification of Moriah in the below references as well as the bibliography cited there.

      J. D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity, Yale University Press (1993). Specifically, chapter 7, pp. 111-124.

      I. Kalimi, “The Land of Moriah, Mount Moriah, and the Site of Solomon’s temple”, in

      The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 83, No. 4 (Oct., 1990), pp. 345-362.

      After surveying Gen. 22 and the scholarly discussions Kalimi concludes on p. 350 that: “It appears, then, that the Temple Mount was identified with the site of the Aqeda during the period of the First Temple.” So that is one position of historical-critical scholarship using the source-crtical and documentary hypothesis approach. If this assesment is true, then tradition connected the site of the near-offering with the temple site already in the first temple period. The Chronicler probably knew of such a tradition going back to the first temple period though precisely how ancient such a tradition might be is uncertain.

      Like

      • “Due to the many misrepresentations and the time it takes to write I doubt there is much point in continuing this discussion. However, I will respond briefly to you.”

        You keep accusing me of “misrepresentations” but you done nothing but provide vague answers. So it’s not my fault that you are being so vague and that I have to “fill in the blanks” so to speak.

        “The tough, mountainous terrain that, shall we say is less than ideal for travelling existed also in Abraham’s (or the narrator’s time). So we have to take that into account and. Even if one does not have a personal experience with it you can get a feel for the terrain and topography by looking at relevant charts, maps and images. It is not simply a matter of opinion.”

        Um, yes, it is a matter of opinion and you have still not proven that the journey should have taken more than 2 days. You see what I am talking about? The vague answers?

        “I did not dismiss the source simply for having the year 1895 on the cover. I explained that the 30-40 miles given is not consistent with the modern figure of 45 miles. So this relevant piece information is not up-to-date. In addition, he does not explain how the travel time of 24 hrs. or slightly less was computed, so how would anyone have a chance to evaluate his claim except in very general terms? I don’t think the quote was terribly clear. However, in very general terms, if you and the CBSC mean an effective travel time of slightly less than 24 hrs., say 23 and something (not even compensating for at least 5 missing miles) is still not clearly inconsistent with two day and something worth of travelling. If Abraham effectively travelled for say 8-10 hrs. each day it is not inconsistent or far of the CBSC’s mark even if it might be close. It is you and the Ghauris’ position of travelling 70 kilometers through the Judean mountains in one day that is far too unrealistic and unreasonable.”

        On what basis do you say Abraham (pbuh) traveled only 8-10 hours? So you make assumptions like this, without proof, but criticize scholarly sources for saying something else?

        The traveling distance could be under 24 hours. But with sleeping and resting along the way, I have no problem believing they should have reached the destination by the 2nd day, or perhaps, be very close by the 2nd day so as to be able to see Mt Moriah from a “distance”. But 3 days and still being a few miles away seems to be a stretch. You have yet to demonstrate why you feel a 3-day journey is reasonable, aside from making vague statements.

        “After surveying Gen. 22 and the scholarly discussions Kalimi concludes on p. 350 that: “It appears, then, that the Temple Mount was identified with the site of the Aqeda during the period of the First Temple.” So that is one position of historical-critical scholarship using the source-crtical and documentary hypothesis approach. If this assesment is true, then tradition connected the site of the near-offering with the temple site already in the first temple period. The Chronicler probably knew of such a tradition going back to the first temple period though precisely how ancient such a tradition might be is uncertain.”

        I asked for the specific evidence these scholars use to arrive at this conclusion. What evidence is there in Genesis 22? I’m all ears.

        And if the site was linked to the Temple Mount, then why didn’t the author of Samuel make that connection? Are you telling me he wasn’t aware of this tradition or didn’t deem it important enough to mention?

        Also, to say that the link was made in the “period of the first temple” is also an extremely vague statement. The period lasted almost 500 years!

        I will check out the sources you listed, but for the time being, perhaps you could list the evidence in Genesis 22 instead of just redirecting me to different sources.

        Like

  12. Ok, Ive had it. I am not bothering to discuss any more. You have little knowledge of the Bible and scholarship misrepresenting it and me so many times. Changing position over and over being unclear. Last time saying Abraham did not return to an altar. I dont want to be harsh as this was done already above. But you made so many errors I cant take you seriously any more.

    I offered my point of departure that if we start out with two days or slightly less say for 70 kilometers and compensate for the highland route it is not entirely inconsistent with the third day. The source you “countered with” was not very precise. So I could only respond in very general terms as I clearly stated because the source you quoted differed with Sheikh Google with some 5-15 miles. What did you expect? The only thing that is clear is that yours and the Ghauris’ suggestion of 70 kilometers in one day in the highlands is unreasonable and not based on knowledge of the terrain. No need for “generosity” thank you very much. How can I take that seriously?

    All the issues have been discussed in the professional literature. The evidence is based on the historical-critical method, philology, literary, textual and source critical analysis. You may not agree, no problem, both opinions are there. It is not my problem any more that you are ignorant of critical scholarship and so you did not consult the relevant literature, resulting in the misrepresentiation of it as being monolithic on this question.

    Like

    • LOL, your arrogance is quite visible. Don’t blame me for your own failures in explaining your views and providing conclusive proof. Why should I take your word over scholarly sources? I have not insulted you in any way. You can disagree with my views, but giving vague answers and then getting frustrated when I criticize them, is uncalled for. No one held a gun to your head and asked for your opinions in the first place. You interjected yourself in this conversation, and now that I want actual answers from you, you get frustrated? That’s very pathetic.

      You’re still stuck on the Ghauris. That just shows how weak your counterargument is. The Ghauris’ explanation is not far-fetched at all:

      ““If he started his journey from Hebron, he had to travel twenty miles. If he started from Mamre, he had to travel only eighteen miles. If he started from Beersheba, he had to travel for about forty miles. Whatever the starting point of his journey be; as he was travelling on his donkey, and started the journey early in the morning, and undertook the journey earnestly; it may have taken him merely a day or so to reach his destination, had it been in Jerusalem (which was between eighteen to about forty miles from his every possible place of residence).””

      And multiple other sources corroborate this assessment. Beersheba to Jerusalem is a traveling distance about less than 24 hours, so to say it would have taken a day “or so” is not an outrageous claim at all. You just want to nitpick, without providing any evidence of your own except vague ramblings.

      Unlike you, I admitted my mistakes. But despite that, you have failed to provide any kind of substantive rebuttal to the main arguments I made in the article. I identified numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in between Samuel and Chronicles. You have not dealt with any of them, and the one you did discuss have been left unresolved due to your vague explanations.

      Well anyway, to each his own. Whatever you want to believe, that’s your business. But when you interject yourself into a conversation, give vague answers and then get frustrated, blame yourself not others.

      Like

  13. “Also, to say that the link was made in the “period of the first temple” is also an extremely vague statement. The period lasted almost 500 years!”

    That’s an honest appraisal. Whatever the case may be, once more, the master disciple of Muhammad Hijab shows of his profound knowledge. The period of the first temple lasted almost 400 years! Not 500! Go’ back to Hebrew school, hi hi. Are you making all these errors on purpose just to see if anybody is actually paying attention to all your nonsense?!

    Like

    • 🤣🤣🤣 So the Crosstian dog is back for more eh? The first temple period is usually assigned from 1000 BCE to 586 BCE. That’s 414 years dummy. To say it lasted “almost 400 years” is thus beyond stupid. Go back to elementary school and learn how to count! 🤣🤣🤣 Maybe you should change your name to Al-Khwarizm, since mathematics is not your strong point but you pretend it is. 😂

      Like

  14. Hi hi, so now 414 is closer to 500?

    Like

  15. Hi hi hi. Why are you upset with me? I just pointed out you got the period wrong with about a 100 years. Do you try to make at least one error each time you make a comment on purpose? Anyways, Have a nice day, I’m off.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: