It includes sons, daughters, wives, concubines, man servants, maid servants, the queen’s lady-in-waiting, and even the house boy, and even the stable boy.

Unless I am to believe that 1 Chronicles 10:6 means that Saul brought all of these people on the battle field (which is a ridiculous assumption because most of these people would have been unfit to fight) then the Chronicler by by no means is trying to say that Saul’s whole houshold died in a single say. He is just simply throwing out the statement that “Saul’s house” was just destroyed.

Anothjer fact is it doesn’t even have to indicate that everyone in the family was killed at all. The term can also mean that “Saul’s house” was overthrown in the “DYNASTIC” sense, meaning that this was simply the end of his dynasty.

Here’s a good discussion: http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sauldead.html

Bact to Saul and the death of his family.

1 Chronicles 10:6 does say that. BUT, it doesn’t say when the rest would have died out. TO anyone who has read the Bible, THE BIBLE IS NOT STRICTLY CHRONOLOGICAL.

The Books of Samuel actually agree with the Chronicler. But it shows the growing weakness of and eventual extinction of “the House of Saul” in a more slower pace. For example, 2 Samuel 3:1 says “There was a long war between the HOUSE OF SAUL and the house of David; David grew stronger and stronger, while the HOUSE OF SAUL became weaker and weaker.”

In other wordsm, it still existed when David became King, but it was declining fast. AND SHORTLY AFTER THIS, Saul’s last son Ish-Bosheth was murdered completerly destroying Saul’s Dynasty. (2 Samuel 4: 1, 12)

Als, closer to the end of his reign, David eradicated most of what what left of Saul’s house. (2: Samuel 21: 1, 14 ). David’s son Solomon finished the job when he killed Shimei who was seemingly the last decsendent of Saul (1Kings 2: 41, 46 )

So, this isn’t a contradiction. One account is just more chronological than the other. But both accounts do agree that it did happen.

“Others, the story of Michal, daughter of Saul in Samuels. It is said that she never had a child; and that she had five children. That is a logical contradiction.”

IT is true that David said Michal wouldn’t have any children. (2 Samuel 6: 23) — But so where is the reference that she had 5 children. I cannot find it.

“Also in Samuel, Samuel’s first born son is Joel. But in Chronicles, his first born son is apparently Vashni. ”

This one is easy. Joel and Vasni are the same person. Different Bible translations of the same Bible verse you seem to refer to (1 Chronicles 6: 28 ) show this to be true.

Here’s a list of the differing Translations of the same verse: http://bible.cc/1_chronicles/6-28.htm

“In Chronicles, Saul and his whole family die together. But in Samuel, only Saul died and his son was the made King.”

This is not true. It never says that the WHOLE family died together. It just says that Saul killed himself and that three of his sons were killed by the Philistines. (1 Samuel 31: 2, 6 )

His son, named Ish-Bosheth, that became king is obviously a fourth son that didn’t go to war with his his father and his three bothers (who were named Jonothan, Abinadab, and Malki-Shua [1 Samuel 31: 2 ])

“In Timothy, it is said that scripture is the word of God; but in Corinthians, it is said that it is not.”

Wow! Talk about a whomping misrepreserntation. Paul wrote the letters to Timothy as well as the two letters to the Corinthians. — But there is no indication that Paul considered his OWN writtings scripture, though certainly Peter did.

“In Luke, blasphemy is an unforgivable sin; but in Acts, it is said there are no unforgivable sins.”

You have to define “Blasphemy.” — Luke quotes Jesus as saying only blaspheemy against the holy spirit is not forgiven, while blasphemy blasphemy against Jesus himself is forgivable (Luke 12: 10 )

Considering the fact that the Book of Acts was written by the same person that wrote the Book of Luke, a contradiction between the two books is not likely. — So you would have to produce the verse in Acts that shows the contradiction you speak of.

“In Acts, Judas took the silver given to him and bought a field. In Matthew, Judas threw the silver to the ground and immediately went to hang himself.”

Both are true. Let me explain.

It is true that Judas threw the thirty silver pieces back at the priests. The preists were the ones that personally bought the field.

Judas, even though he was dead by the time the field was purchased, STILL gets the credit for buying the field BECAUSE THE MONEY WAS BLOOD-MONEY IT WAS ILLEGAL FOR THE PRIESTS TO CLAIM IT BACK AFTER JUDAS GAVE IT BACK (MATTHEW 27: 6 ) — So even though Judas gave the money back, it was still in Judas’ name. So therefore when the priests purchased the field with the money Judas got the credit.

You quoted two things that I said and claimed “Thank you for illustrating my point”. This statement is ironic because at no point did you make a point, nor explain how those quotes “illustrate” your point. That’s all I was saying. I’m honestly just not following you. But I have a feeling that’s part of the plan.

Real quick.

“Namely, as a literalist, you must subscribe to the belief that information can be withheld from God, or that God must inquire about certain things. But, you must also believe he is all-knowing.”

Can you explain why this must be true?

And can you give chapter and verse for all those “contradictions” so that I may respond?

Namely, as a literalist, you must subscribe to the belief that information can be withheld from God, or that God must inquire about certain things. But, you must also believe he is all-knowing.

Others, the story of Michal, daughter of Saul in Samuels. It is said that she never had a child; and that she had five children. That is a logical contradiction.

Also in Samuel, Samuel’s first born son is Joel. But in Chronicles, his first born son is apparently Vashni.

In Chronicles, Saul and his whole family die together. But in Samuel, only Saul died and his son was the made King.

In Timothy, it is said that scripture is the word of God; but in Corinthians, it is said that it is not.

In Luke, blasphemy is an unforgivable sin; but in Acts, it is said there are no unforgivable sins.

In Acts, Judas took the silver given to him and bought a field. In Matthew, Judas threw the silver to the ground and immediately went to hang himself.

If you had ever made a point through all your shuck and jive, I’d be following you right now.

Sorry, brother, no one here is taking you seriously anymore. You don’t form arguments, or support the statements you’ve made after being challenged, you just regurgitate what you’ve been taught. But, don’t worry, the second you come back with a rational argument, I’ll be right there with you.

“Consider the difference between Acts and Matthew on when the field of Akeldama was purchased. According to Acts 1:18,19, Judas Iscariot bought the field with the thirty pieces of silver which he received for betraying Christ. Shortly thereafter he died in the field, “so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood”

On the other hand, according to Matthew 27:3-10, the remorseful Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver into the temple and then hanged himself. The chief priests could not put the silver into the treasury, since it was “blood money” (Matt. 27:6). “So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day”

The chronological question is apparent: Did Judas buy the field before he died, or did the chief priests buy the field after he died?

twom