by YoYoMama 30 Replies latest jw friends
Frenchy: You make some interesting points. Jehovah had annointed Saul and though he had gone bad, David knew that it wasn't his job to stop him. He respected Jehovahs timetable and waited until he acted accordingly.
SS: Yes I read your post and you are misinterpreting those scriptures. Since you have the WT CD, look up those scriptures in the index for an accurate explanation.
Haha, how on earth can you possible 'misinterpret' scriptures that plainly state that David turned human beings over to others to be sacrificed? Your ability to ignore reality is right in line with your brainwashed background.
>Since you have the WT CD, look up those scriptures in the index for an accurate explanation.
I don't need to. I let the scriptures do the talking.
SS
In the 11th century B.C.E., Gibeon and its vicinity witnessed a conflict between the army of Ish-bosheth under the command of Abner and that of David under the leadership of Joab. Initially, doubtless to settle the issue as to who should be king over all Israel, a combat with 12 men from each side was staged. But this decided nothing, for each warrior transfixed his opponent with the sword so that all 24 perished. Thereafter, fierce fighting erupted, with Abner losing 18 times as many men as Joab. All together there were 380 casualties, including Joab’s brother Asahel, killed by Abner. (2Sa 2:12-31) In revenge over Asahel, Joab later murdered Abner. (2Sa 3:27, 30) Sometime after this, near the great stone in Gibeon, Joab also killed his own cousin, Amasa, a nephew of David, whom David had appointed army chieftain.—2Sa 20:8-10.
Throughout the centuries, the original Gibeonites continued to exist as a people, although King Saul schemed to destroy them. The Gibeonites, however, patiently waited on Jehovah to reveal the injustice. This he did by means of a three-year famine in David’s reign. Upon inquiring of Jehovah and learning that bloodguilt was involved, David interviewed the Gibeonites to ascertain what should be done to make atonement. The Gibeonites rightly answered that it was not “a matter of silver or gold,” because, according to the Law, no ransom could be accepted for a murderer. (Nu 35:30, 31) They also recognized that they could not put a man to death without legal authorization. Therefore, not until David’s further questioning did they request that seven “sons” of Saul be handed over to them. The fact that bloodguilt was upon both Saul and his household suggests that, although Saul probably took the lead in the murderous action, the “sons” of Saul may directly or indirectly have shared in it. (2Sa 21:1-9) In that event this would not be a case of sons dying for the sins of their fathers (De 24:16) but would involve the administration of retributive justice in harmony with the law “soul will be for soul.”—De 19:21.
Wow, thanks yoyo for reminding me just what a sick and bloodthristy god 'Jehovah' was!
Yo
>bloodguilt was upon both Saul and his household suggests that, although Saul probably took the lead in the murderous action, the “sons” of Saul may directly or indirectly have shared in it.
Note the words used above: suggests, probably, may. That is pretty weak. Compare that to the commentary below.
Pasted from
. http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/smcdownlds/2sam.html
For the sin of one man (Saul), God punished everyone with famine. To stop the famine, God required human sacrifices
David delivered two of Saul's sons and five of his grandsons (who were sons of David's ex-wife Michal) to the Gibeonites to be put to death. This was in spite of the promise he had made to Saul not to kill any of his offspring after his death:
1Sam:24:17: And he said to David, Thou art more righteous than I: for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil.
1Sam:24:20: And now, behold, I know well that thou shalt surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel shall be established in thine hand.
1Sam:24:21: Swear now therefore unto me by the LORD, that thou wilt not cut off my seed after me, and that thou wilt not destroy my name out of my father's house.
1Sam:24:22: And David sware unto Saul. And Saul went home; but David and his men gat them up unto the hold.
SS
YoYoMama,
David showed restraint by not physically harming Saul. Even today the same restraint occurs, for the xJWs are NOT trying to physically harm the GB, they are only doing what David himself did to King Saul; hide, harass and form fellow "good for nothing men" who join them into a fighting force.
Fulfilled Prophecy???
IW
YoYoMama,
The explanation you posted from the WT CD is pure speculation.
Note the following speculative words (in capitals) the Society uses to try to justify this account:
The fact that bloodguilt was upon both Saul and his household SUGGESTS that, although Saul PROBABLY took the lead in the murderous action, the “sons” of Saul MAY directly or indirectly have shared in it. (2Sa 21:1-9) IN THAT EVENT this WOULD not be a case of sons dying for the sins of their fathers (De 24:16) but WOULD involve the administration of retributive justice in harmony with the law “soul will be for soul.”—De 19:21.[/b]
This sort of rhetoric is typical of both the Society and Bible apologists in general.
How do they proceed?
ASSUMPTION #1: The Bible is ALWAYS, ALWAYS right and true and just. The opposite possibility can't even be contemplated!
ASSUMPTION #2: Since the Bible is so perfect, anything in it that looks stupid or barbarous or unintelligible has to be explained away, attributing that interpretation to the imperfect understanding of human readers.
ASSUMPTION #3: When something as barbarous as mass murder is involved, the easiest way to get around it and justify it is to invoke some huge abstract principle of justice or balancing the scales or whatever: "They all had to die so that God's righteous law would be obeyed!" This tactic is used for everything from the blood-soaked pages of the Hebrew Scriptures right up to Armageddon.
ASSUMPTION #4: EVEN when it isn't clearly stated that one of these abstract principles of justice had to be satisfied by means of killing large numbers of people, the Society or the Bible apologist will drag one in from left field to make the horrible event more palatable.
Try going into court some day and, say, telling the judge: "Oh yes, I did kill this man, but you see, his behavior SUGGESTS that he MAY have been transgressing the divine law against fornication, in which case it WOULD NOT be classified as murder but only as upholding God's righteous standards. No, I don't have any firm proof that he even did fornicate, but still, this is how it is, and you have to accept it."
Oh yes, let us all be more like righteous David.
comment
David huh, oh yeah I remember he's the guy took another guys wife made her pregant, had him killed and then married the bitch. Then the God of love destroyed the child to punish David. What was the kid did? oh yeah he was born. David seemed to affirm the love of men (Jonathan) being of more import than the love of women. And before I forget while hiding in the hills keeping other thieves away from his private stock of borrowed herds to kill and feed off of, he wants to have the owner pay him for stealing his goods and keeping other thiefs from it. The owners wife was so enamored with David that she married him, just another piece of tail to David as he had lots of wives. What a guy huh.
yep, buff, that's David in a nutshell.
Gotta love the WT:
In the 11th century B.C.E., Gibeon and its vicinity witnessed a conflict between the army of Ish-bosheth under the command of Abner and that of David under the leadership of Joab. Initially, doubtless to settle the issue as to who should be king over all Israel,Whenever you see the word "doubtless" in a society publication, you know that you are in for a few paragraphs of creative writing to follow.
