Deuteronomy 24:16 vs 2 Sam 12:14

by erynw 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • erynw
    erynw

    I was looking at who incited David to take the census, Satan or Jahooba (2 Sam 24:1 vs 1 Chron 21:1). Anyway, I was searching the WT 2006 CD and I came across this QFR that has nothing to do with what I was looking for, but I could not believe what I was reading. THIS has to be one of the most inane "Reasonings" from the scriptures I have ever read. This is from the 8-1-1960 WT, QFR:

    How can Deuteronomy 24:16, which says, "Children should not be put to death on account of fathers," be harmonized with the fact that the offspring of the adulterous relation between David and Bath-sheba died due to their sin, as shown in 2 Samuel 12:14?—J. B., U.S.A.

    The law, as stated at Deuteronomy 24:16, shows that fathers were not to be put to death for their sons nor were sons to be put to death for their fathers. In man's administration of justice each was to die for his own sin, and not drag innocent relatives down with him. In this particular case of David and Bath-sheba neither of them had a right to the child and so there was no injustice in their being deprived of it. Besides, as an uncircumcised, unnamed infant it had not as yet developed any personality pattern or consciousness so as to appreciate life. Then again, Bath-sheba could have been stoned to death for her adultery, in which case the unborn child would also have perished. However, as previously noted in The Watchtower, David was shown mercy because of the Kingdom covenant, which Jehovah had made with him. Nevertheless, to drive home the fact of Jehovah's displeasure he let the child die, which was a very severe blow to King David. Two similar instances are recorded in David's life: One was in connection with the death of Uzzah, who tried to steady the ark of the covenant; the other was the destruction of tens of thousands of Israelites because King David presumptuously and proudly determined to number the hosts of Israel. (1 Chron. 15:13; 21:1-27) Such records as these magnify the supremacy of Jehovah God and underscore the words: "He [God] doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"—Dan. 4:35, AS.

  • oompa
    oompa

    Damn that is a doozy!! And now we support abortion through the final trimester.

    How do we know the baby was not named or circumcised? And how the hell does cutting the end of his penis off give him an appreciation of life? And he would not recognize his name for at least a year.

    buch of bogus bull$hit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!oompa

  • erynw
    erynw

    Guess I should have highlighted the last sentence as well. Basically, the answer is "God does what he damn well wants".

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    And how the hell does cutting the end of his penis off give him an appreciation of life?

    I dunno, but I guess they think that the intense pain makes the child realize, "My God, I'm alive! I never realized this before, but wow, I mean .... I think I feel excruciating pain, therefore I am. I know I exist. And now that my skinned pee-nee made me realize that I am a person and have individuality, I will swear that from this moment forward, I will make the most of life, and I will never ever take it for granted!"

  • AllTimeJeff
    AllTimeJeff

    This explanation was offered at Gilead, although the wording has softened. It is interesting how they open themselves up to supporting late term abortion with the reasoning used.

    Of course, you would have to have your head out of your ass to realize that at all....

  • Honesty
    Honesty

    In this particular case of David and Bath-sheba neither of them had a right to the child and so there was no injustice in their being deprived of it. Besides, as an uncircumcised, unnamed infant it had not as yet developed any personality pattern or consciousness so as to appreciate life.

    Where do they come up with this stuff?

    Oh yeah....

  • Awakened07
    Awakened07

    Wow, this thread topic is too good to let it drown. bttt.

    Thanks for the find, erynw.

  • fresia
    fresia
    Besides, as an uncircumcised, unnamed infant it had not as yet developed any personality pattern or consciousness so as to appreciate life.

    Psalms 139:16 says Jehovah saw even the embryo... so this is the scripture JW use in anti-abortion defence. Because if Jeh knew the embryo it had a right to live because it was classified a person, with personality. Contradiction don't you think.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    The shift from collective to individual responsibility in Israelite Law, as expressed in Deuteronomy 24:16, doesn't immediately apply to Yhwh. In the same book he is still described as "a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me" (5:9). Many post-Deuteronomistic Yhwh stories are still written from this perspective (e.g. the stoning and burning of Akan's entire family in Joshua 7, not to mention the genocide of the "Canaanites").

    However, it's only a matter of time before the gods are expected to abide by the standards they provide for humans: hence the discussion and opposite conclusion in Ezekiel 18. Interestingly, the whole episode of David's sin and punishment is dropped in 1 Chronicles.

  • oompa
    oompa

    ERYNW--IMOP this thread is so interesting you should re-list it with a subject line that fits. The one you have is really funny, since only Bible Geeks would even open it up, only to find the subject has nothing to do with the scriptures.

    good stuff....oompa

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit