LordReed:
I asked what version you used. And what else you call stopping a tribute? Of course it's a rebellion.

Meanwhile still waiting for where in the Bible it says Israel ruled Aram. You brought it up I dunno why you suddenly reluctant to provide the passage.

I use the Easy-to-Read translation because it is easy to read. The passage tells you they stopped paying tribute but it also goes on to tell you that in addition, Moab broke away from the rule of Israel. Stopping the paying of tributes is not necessarily the same as breaking away from the rule of another over one.

As for Aram, it is found right there in the book of Kings. In Chapter 19, we read that God sent Elijah into Aram

14 Elijah said, “Lord God All-Powerful, I have always served you the best that I can, but the Israelites broke their agreement with you. They destroyed your altars and killed your prophets. I am the only prophet left alive, and now they are trying to kill me.”
15 The Lord said, “Go back. Take the road that leads to the desert around Damascus. Go into Damascus and anoint Hazael as king over Aram.
16 Then anoint Jehu son of Nimshi as king over Israel. Next, anoint Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel Meholah. He will be the prophet who takes your place.
17 Jehu will kill anyone who escapes Hazael’s sword, and Elisha will kill anyone who escapes from Jehu’s sword.
18 I still have 7000 people in Israel who have never bowed down to Baal or kissed that idol.” - 1 Kings 19 vs 14 - 17

Kobojunkie:
I use the Easy-to-Read translation because it is easy to read. The passage tells you they stopped paying tribute but it also goes on to tell you that in addition, Moab broke away from the rule of Israel. Stopping the paying of tributes is not necessarily the same as breaking away from the rule of another over one.

Basically it boils down to what version you are interpreting from. That's OK I try not to debate version differences and interpretation.

As for Aram, it is found right there in the book of Kings. In Chapter 19, we read that God sent Elijah into Aram

It doesn't say Israel ruled Aram though.

LordReed:
■Basically it boils down to what version you are interpreting from. That's OK I try not to debate version differences and interpretation.
■It doesn't say Israel ruled Aram though.

1. The fact that the message is retained across translations means obviously the problem is not with what is written but the one thinking an interpretation is necessary.

2. So, Israel installing its own ruler of choice over Aram does not imply in any way that Israel ruled over Aram? WOW! You be genius!.... moving on then!

Kobojunkie:
1. The fact that the message is retained across translations means obviously the problem is not with what is written but the one thinking an interpretation is necessary.

2. So, Israel installing its own ruler of choice over Aram does not imply in any way that Israel ruled over Aram? WOW! You be genius!.... moving on then!

LoLz! Because it says the god sent Elijah to Aram to anoint a King automatically means Israel was ruling Aram? You have to be daft to think so.

Maybe Israel was also ruling Babylon that's why the god said Nebuchadnezzar was the greatest of Kings. What kind of daft thinking is that? Bwahahahahaha!