"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0vpts05drldkhpcaqhvvigohd7qiin0vej@4ax.com...

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 14:55:15 +1100, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Andrew W \(Paranormal Agnostic\)"
<nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> pontificated:

Now when we think of a chariot, we think of one horse,
one chariot. In reality, larger chariots were used to
go into battle, each of which held ten men and was
pulled by ten horses.

Where did you get the information about the size of the chariots used in
those days and exactly how many men and horses they required?

Just curious.

Well first let me say that one need not know this bit
of history, as the number of horses per chariot can be
determined by the Biblical text itself (see the
response I just sent to Bill).

The information is sparse, but I learned it through
school studies, books at the library, documentaries,
the web, studying the games at the Coliseum and even
from watching the movie, "History of the World Part I",
by Mel Brooks some years ago. :)

Remember the scene where they're being chased by the
Roman soldiers and they run across the "wacky weedus"
(Roman Red) and make the "mighty joint" and get the
soldiers high by lighting it and letting the smoke
drift back and the soldiers end up off the road? If
you ever happen to see it (again), take a look at the
large chariots (10 soldiers each) that were following
them, along with the small ones (1 or 2 men each).

It's good to be the king. :)

Lol.
Okay, because of your jovial and inventive response I won't say anything
unkind.

I was going to say that you guessed the number appropriate to fix the
discrepancy but I won't now.

"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:av7ss0heitn8b1ioqhnuei6kk2oqm6c95v@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 14:16:32 -0800, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Bill Litchfield" <jomarie@hscis.net>
pontificated:

"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:olnrs0p0mb7f7nhurjiqbtiinop4d8qu46@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:53:06 -0800, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Bill Litchfield" <jomarie@hscis.net>
pontificated:

"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:n9vqs011cq8u95tumgh9tabp4no6s4u3pv@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 06:24:50 -0800, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Bill Litchfield" <jomarie@hscis.net>
pontificated:

Thank you for proving my point. Right away, you refer
him to an atheist web page. The fact is, I corrected
these people myself on a point, to see what would
happen. I just chose a popular supposed contradiction
at random and sure enough, they had it listed there.
They had an email link, so I used it. The supposed
"contradiction" disappeared and so did the email link.
After quite a while, I went back and checked. The
supposed "contradiction" was back and still no email
link. Eventually, that did reappear and I emailed them
again about the same thing. It still remains and I
have had no reply from them. I went there again just
now to check again, but I'm getting, "The connection
was refused", no matter what I click on. I doubt
they're blocking my IP, since I'm sure it has changed
since then, but something's not working there.

Tell me what the supposed contradiction was, Davie.

Okay, Billy.

It is 1 Kings 4:26 / 2 Chronicles 9:25.

Okay, thank you. Now, there *is* a vast difference between 4,000 stalls
and
40,000 stalls. They can't both be right.

It doesn't say they and you claim. You haven't read
the text carefully.

I'm curious though to know how you
refuted this contradiction. Please enlighten us!

"And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for
his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."
- 1 Kings 4:26 KJV

"And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and
chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he
bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at
Jerusalem." - 2 Chronicles 9:25 KJV

Note the wording of 1 Kings 4:26. It says that Solomon
had (read carefully now and pay attention to the caps),
"forty thousand stalls of horses FOR his chariots".

Now, that means that he had forty thousand stalls that
would each hold one horse. It doesn't say how many
stalls he had total, nor does it say how many chariots
he had. He did have for each horse a stall though.
And he had forty thousand horses, it appears. Okay,
let's move on.


Now we read 2 Chronicles 9:25. It says that Solomon
had, "four thousands stalls for horses AND chariots".

Note that this is an entirely different statement. It
doesn't talk about stalls for his horses, but rather,
stalls for his horses when tied to a chariot.

Now when we think of a chariot, we think of one horse,
one chariot. In reality, larger chariots were used to
go into battle, each of which held ten men and was
pulled by ten horses. That means that four thousand
chariots had ten horses each, which is forty thousand
horses tied to four thousand chariots, requiring four
thousand stalls for the time in which the horses were
connected to the chariots. Since you have forty
thousand horses, when they were not connected to the
chariots, you would need forty thousand smaller stalls
for them, which would mean "forty thousand stalls of
horses FOR his chariots". That is a total of forty
four thousand stalls (forty thousand smaller stalls for
just horses and four thousand larger stalls for when
his horses were tied to his chariots), not a total of
forty thousand and not a total of four thousand and it
makes perfect sense, is logical and no contradiction is
found in the text.

I.e, Solomon had a total of forty four thousand stalls.

Forty thousand stalls that held one horse each

Four thousand stalls for his chariots, when ten horses
each were connected to them.

That's amazing, Dave - absolutely astonishing, as a matter of fact. Did
you
dream up this refutation all by yourself, or did you have help from your
mentors? I haven't seen such ***** genius in many, many years!
My hat's off to you Dave, and I sincerely mean that. I'll be laughing and
chuckling about this one for weeks to come!

Bill, you are a fool. I presented solid information
and stuck with the exact wording of the text and we
both know that. Had my post not been factual, you
would have jumped all over it. The fact is, that you
refuse to admit that this web site is wrong, because
the idea of doing that scares you. Sleep good tonight
Billy, huh?

ROFLMAO!! The exact wording of the text says nothing about large chariots
holding ten men and pulled by ten horses, Dave! I still would like to know
if that stroke of interpretive genuis was yours or if you borrowed it from
one of your Fundie Funny Friends. Gotta be a classic, and one I'll remember
for a long time.