Glaring omission in yesterday’s Watchtower Study

by Bloody Hotdogs! 46 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Bloody Hotdogs!
    Bloody Hotdogs!

    Did anyone notice a glaring omission in yesterday’s Watchtower study article? The entire first half dealt with David’s affair and God’s ‘heartwarming’ forgiveness. Jehovah did not save David from facing the consequences of his actions, but in a wonderful act of mercy, freely forgave him.

    Nowhere in the article or in the comments was Bathsheba’s baby mentioned – you know; the one that Jehovah personally ‘dealt a blow’. As far as I can tell, Jehovah tortured that baby to death over seven full days while forcing its parents to watch in horror. Some of the worst consequences of David’s actions were actually caused by Jehovah, not just ‘allowed’. The Watchtower article’s point kinda falls apart when the true story is told.

  • Slidin Fast
    Slidin Fast

    I discussed that very point with my wife when I got home. It seems like Manaseh's repentance was a bit convenient as well.

  • frankiespeakin

    Killing innocent people by Jehovah should just be viewed as collateral damage. The flood, armegeddon, whipping out whole cities, they are all heavy with collateral damage as jehovah gets kind of clumsy when he's mad at something.

  • jookbeard

    sledgehammer to crack an egg shell, who's want to worship such an evil god.

  • Apognophos

    Although my take on this, when I was a believer, was that God allowed the baby to die rather than actively striking it with illness, admittedly that's much the same thing because it's represented as the consequence for David's sin. I agree that it was interesting that they left the consequence out of the article.

    During the study I was also thinking, "Boy, it's good to be the king. Much better than that poor shmuck who picked up sticks on the Sabbath."

  • Eustace

    The narrative of David is actually quite interesting and dramatic. It involves making you think David will get away with it, but then God goes to tremendous lengths to show everyone how angry he was about what David did.

    A lot of times that's how life works. The moral order is reasserting in a way that seems belated, but with a divine kind of ferocity, as if to make up for lost time.

    It figures the bland corporate "Christians" the JWs have become with just leave God's wrath against David out of the story.

    They want elders, COs and DOs to be the ones looked at as having all the power, not God.

  • Eustace

    *the JWs have become would just leave God's wrath against David out of the story.


    Some one mentioned that in a comment. I would have to check on the official stance in the CD Library. Another glaring omission was that David was spared mostly because the messiah was to come through his lineage. Had that not been the case then he may have been treated differently. God could have executed him after Solomon was born, problem solved. I am not the judge, and I am glad for that...

  • BluesBrother

    This was my point entirely. The article glossed over that fact and only said that "Jehovah mercifully intervened, dealing with David and Bathsheba himself" (par 9)

    Merciful eh? Put yourself in the couple's place , you have committed adultery, the woman has given birth to their child. Would you be grateful for mercy if you were spared , but the baby's life was deliberately taken instead? Any parent would surely say "No! let it be me!"

    In fact , I do not see this as forgiveness at all, because a terrible punishment was exacted despite the fact that David had apparently truly repented.

    Typical Watchtower, they pick the most promlematical portion of scripture to illustrate the need for forgiveness. I would bet that in many dub households they had discussions about that.

  • blondie

    I also noticed that the WTS says that David was spared because he was repentant....but where is there any mention of Bathsheba's repentance?

Share this