King:
Credit cards didnt charge interest back in those days as it had not been invented. For some strange reason usury is a crime, but rape and slavery are fine with God.
Why are many OT heroes rich and powerful and rarely humble and poor ?
by mP 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
King Solomon
mP said:
Credit cards didnt charge interest back in those days as it had not been invented. For some strange reason usury is a crime, but rape and slavery are fine with God.
I suppose it's possible Noah did what many JWs did, and took out a HELOC on the family lean-to to finance the construction project, knowing he'd never have to pay it back because of the upcoming Armageddon (Flood Edition)....
-
mP
King
I suppose it's possible Noah did what many JWs did, and took out a HELOC on the family lean-to to finance the construction project, knowing he'd never have to pay it back because of the upcoming Armageddon (Flood Edition)....
mP:
That makes Noah dishonest, and yet we have jesus saying we should pay our taxes. Im confused.
-
MrFreeze
The OT used the old trick "If you are good, God will bless with you abundance. If you are bad, God will punish you greatly." That's why all the good guys in the OT struck it rich.
-
mP
MrFreeze:
The OT used the old trick "If you are good, God will bless with you abundance. If you are bad, God will punish you greatly." That's why all the good guys in the OT struck it rich.
mP -> MrFreeze:
Your statement good is wrong. None of the heroes above were "good" in anyway. They were angry, nasty and often bloody murders. If you however realise that "good" is connected with "god" then its a fair statement. However a more appropriate is favourite.
Where does Moses or King David give money to orphans or help the sick ?
-
Cold Steel
Where does the Bible say David was destined to be King? Even if he was (I await the scripture). Does that mean David and kill and take from anyone with impunity. I know your going to bringin up the death of Bethsehebas son, so i wil preempt this and say child mortality....
Jeremiah 1:4-5. "Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 'Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.'"
All prophets and kings were foreordained. But all you guys are nit pickers, and I'm smiling when I say it. Certainly many of the prophets had the means to do what the Lord wanted them to do, but they weren't high rollers. As for David's son by Bathsheba, the scripture states: " And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord . And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." After seven days, the child died. David had another son, and this was Solomon.
Please show me where it says some hero was poor, scriptures.
One does not have to prove a negative. Although the Patriarchs had power and wealth, many of the later prophets apparently did not. Samson wasn't born into a wealthy family, and there's no evidence that Jonah was wealthy, or Elijah, or Elisha, or Jeremiah, or Isaiah, or Nathan, or Zechariah, or Malachi. And just because a person had means in the OT doesn't mean he was a high roller. Many desert nomads today still have wives and flocks, but they live hard lives. The original implication was that these prophets were somehow high rollers, and they weren't. And again, Joseph was exalted above his brethren by the Lord, but a few generations the Israelites were slaves, and Moses was born a slave and then, by the hand of the Lord, made a prince. Did he have wealth? Yes, but he also developed leadership skills that would come in handy while leading the Israelites out of Egypt and into the desert. Did Moses have wealth in the desert as a prophet and leader? Who knows what his personal possessions were? But he lived a hard life in one of the most treacherous deserts on Earth.
The notion that all of God's people in the OT were living lives of comparative luxury just can't be supported by holy writ. One can say that Noah must have been rich so he could build an ark in the wilderness, but we don't know the details. Perhaps he contracted some of the work out, but the Lord always gives his prophets the means to complete the commandments He gives them. So are we to think that somehow Noah lived a cushy life? Well, we know his life was frequently threatened due to his teachings. People either become angry or they ridicule. We know that none of the contractors joined them when the time was up. After the flood, I guess one could say that Noah was the wealthiest guy on Earth...by default. But I don't think he lived in luxury.
-
mP
mP -> Cold
Where does the Bible say David was destined to be King? Even if he was (I await the scripture). Does that mean David and kill and take from anyone with impunity. I know your going to bringin up the death of Bethsehebas son, so i wil preempt this and say child mortality....
Cold -> MP:
Jeremiah 1:4-5. "Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 'Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.'"
All prophets and kings were foreordained. But all you guys are nit pickers, and I'm smiling when I say it. Certainly many of the prophets had the means to do what the Lord wanted them to do, but they weren't high rollers.
mP -> Cold
Im sorry, no where does the Bible present a prophecy saying David will become king. At no stage while he is fiddling does Nathan or anyone else proclaim such a statement. Your scriopture hardly shows prophecy at all, its also circular.
cold -> MP:
As for David's son by Bathsheba, the scripture states: " And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord . And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." After seven days, the child died. David had another son, and this was Solomon.
mP -> Cold:
I thought it might help to include the scripture as a reference to all.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/2sa/chapter_012.htm
15 Then Nathan went to his own house.
And Jehovah proceeded to deal a blow to the child that the wife of U·ri´ah had borne to David so that it took sick. 16 And David began to seek the [true] God in behalf of the boy, and David went on a strict fast and came in and spent the night and lay down on the earth. 17 So the older men of his house stood up over him to raise him up from the earth, but he did not consent and did not take bread in company with them. 18 And it came about on the seventh day that the child gradually died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child had died; for they said: “Look! While the child continued alive we did speak to him, and he did not listen to our voice; so how can we say to him, ‘The child has died’? Then he will certainly do something bad.”
19 When David got to see that his servants were whispering together, David began to discern that the child had died. So David said to his servants: “Has the child died?” To this they said: “He has died.” 20 Then David got up from the earth and washed and rubbed himself with oil and changed his mantles and came to the house of Jehovah and prostrated himself; after which he came into his own house and asked, and they promptly set bread before him and he began to eat. 21 Consequently his servants said to him: “What does this thing mean that you have done? For the sake of the child while alive you fasted and kept weeping; and just as soon as the child had died you got up and began to eat bread.” 22 To this he said: “While the child was yet alive I did fast and I kept weeping, because I said to myself, ‘Who is there knowing whether Jehovah may show me favor, and the child will certainly live?’ 23 Now that he has died, why is it I am fasting? Am I able to bring him back again? I am going to him, but, as for him, he will not return to me.
4 And David began to comfort Bath-she´ba his wife. Further, he came in to her and lay down with her. In time she bore a son, and his name came to be called Sol´o·mon. And Jehovah himself did love him. 25 So he sent by means of Nathan the prophet and called his name Jed·i·di´ah, for the sake of Jehovah.
Im sorry the text seems to imply the first child was having a troubled time, you are just rationalising that Jehovah intervened in some twisted form of justice. Superstituous nonsense is also present there with David fasting, obviously they were confused and shocked at the sick kid. The new son was not Solomon but Jedidah, Solomon was his regal name not his personal name. Seems strange to punish David by klling one son just to give him another. Again this justice is really broken, simply because it did not teach David to stop murdering.
It was an unfortunate incident of child mortailty, that makes more sense.
-
mP
mp -> cold:
Please show me where it says some hero was poor, scriptures.
cold -> mP:
One does not have to prove a negative.
mP -> cold
Of course one does, anytime one makes ANY statement whether it is positive negative or other and one is challenge they should back it up. This is nonsense, sounds like a poor excuse. Im not asking for a definitive encyclopedia but at the very least a start like a scripture.
-
mP
cold -> mP:
lthough the Patriarchs had power and wealth, many of the later prophets apparently did not. Samson wasn't born into a wealthy family, and there's no evidence that Jonah was wealthy, or Elijah, or Elisha, or Jeremiah, or Isaiah, or Nathan, or Zechariah, or Malachi.
mP -> cold:
Its not particularly fair or honest to assume your opinion is right especially when youhave no evidence, or scriptures. The scriptures say little of Samson or Jonah full stop, except for their magical journeys. We dont know if they had kids or siblings or anything. With this lack of evidence its more honest to leave them alone.
re: Nathan:
Considering he was the Kings high priest, i would think this in itself shows him to be important and rich.
re: Malachi
We know next to nothing about this individual, we dont even know his/her name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malachi
The form mal'akhi, signifies "my messenger"; it occurs in Malachi 3:1 (compare to Malachi 2:7 ). But this form of itself would hardly be appropriate as a proper name without some additional syllable such as Yah, whence mal'akhiah, i.e. "messenger of Yahweh."
Cold:
And just because a person had means in the OT doesn't mean he was a high roller. Many desert nomads today still have wives and flocks, but they live hard lives. The original implication was that these prophets were somehow high rollers, and they weren't
mP:
The ones that have their lives and positions documented show them to be were rich and powerful. perhaps in the ancient world they might not have had big screent tvs but the rest of the populationwould have been impressed and many would have aspired to hope to achieve the same. This was the implication and its a fair one.
Sure one can have multiple wives and children but the scriptures clearly show that Jacob and others have many other riches. For example 70 family members and slaves are said to travel with Jacob to Egypt upon Josephs invitation. How exactly does one man provide for so many children and wives ? The sensible answer is he didnt do all the work himself he had slaves.