Glaring omission in yesterday’s Watchtower Study

by Bloody Hotdogs! 46 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • tijkmo

    i don't know how sorry king david was....

    i know he wasn't as sorry as me....

    f-ing load of good it did me


    Good point, PaintedToeNail! I never thought of that!?

  • Sulla

    Watchtower at it again, I see. They always make it seem like there was this functioning moral law in 750 BC whereby a judicial committee, I guess, would meet to determine whether someone was guilty of adultery and then pass a stoning sentence on them. The Deuteronomic code, where we find this idea of stoning adulterers, is developed later than David. And, in any case, the idea that it might apply to the king is really tendentious.

    That aside, it seems to me the idea behind the entire story, which includes Absolom's civil war and so on, is a reflection on the cost of sin. Turns out, it's bad. King sins, everybody suffers. And that's just the way it is.

  • Sulla

    One of the embarrassing difficulties for religious groups who draw upon the Hebrew Scriptures (AKA The Old Testament) is it is brim full of murderous rage and violence that, by today's standards is monstrous and outrageous. Hence, when using "stories" from those scriptures, you have to sanitize them and leave out so much that has modern, rights-oriented thinkers reasonably wondering what "sort" of "god" is the god of the Jews?

    Today's standards? Well, the complaint that the Hebrew scriptures are full of stories of a wrathful God doing horrible things through nasty and brutish agents is a pretty old one. Marcion, for example, figured that the OT God was a different dude from the NT God entirely for exactly this reason. So, it isn't exactly like we've raised our standards.

    But any theology that insists that God is the person who raised Jesus, having previously freed the Jews is going to have to deal with the OT as it is, without these offensive little stories we see from, for example, JW apologists. (My favorite: had Bathsheba been stoned, the fetus would have died in the womb and, therefore, would not be in line for a resurrection. So, you see, we came out ahead!)

    In general, the older (non-fundamentalist) Christian approach has been to observe that God comes to us as we are. And if we are thuggish bronze age warlords who fuck your wife and then arrange to have our thuggish and brutal relatives get you killed, he comes to us. And if we are refined and sensitive modern types who never would -- ever could -- even consider such an act even if we had the power of a bronze age warlord because we are really so much better than that bunch... well, he comes to us as well.

    But, yes, I think we have to hold out the possibility that God might smite your ass.

  • tiki

    interesting spin, data-dog...but remember who it was that got uriah conveniently out of the way...and women those days had no say in anything. bathsheba had to yield to the king no matter what the consquences. i think the guilt ball is completely in david's court.

    about the lineage to the messiah - perhaps bathsheba possessed a superior gene pool, so was used for the privilege. of course, that is going to land us in a rough position trying to explain off whether or not david acted on free will in gathering her to his inner chamber....

  • Pistoff

    The story of David is told from the perspective of the priestly class, who hated all kings but hated the southern kings less.

    David was a pig; when David rode into town, sex and death were the outcome.

    Nabal, wife of Abigail? Dead. Fell over, at God's hand, so the account says. David marries Abigail. Convenient.

    Jonathan? Dead. David loved him though, so don't go thinking David was just killing off the rightful heir.

    Bathsheba? Only the most famous and open of the stories against the 'good king' David, yet with the warm spin that God kindly forgave him.

    Too bad he couldn't spare the poor schmuck who was just trying to keep the ark from falling; another of David's murders?

    This and all other OT stories have to be understood as 'history' written with an agenda by later authors, not as real events.

  • daringhart13

    Long a pet project story for me.........but not any longer.

    Many believe he killed the baby BECAUSE it was in the line leading to the Messiah.....and illegitimate.

    Before you say it.....NO, it doesn't make sense.......Rahab was a hooker and got be in the line to Christ.....but an innocent baby?

    Don't get a migraine thinking about this too long.......

  • StephaneLaliberte

    Questions From Readers (15th of May 2005)

    Why were David and Bath-sheba not put to death for committing adultery, whereas their newborn son died?


    We must remember that if the case had been handled by human judges, the parents as well as the unborn child in the womb would have lost their lives. The loss of the son might also have helped David to realize more keenly how displeased Jehovah was with his sin with Bath-sheba. We can be confident that Jehovah dealt with the matter justly, for “perfect is his way.”—2 Samuel 22:31.


    Free will? What man could exercise his free will when faced with this...

    mmmmmm.... I know standards of beauty have become a little unrealistic today, but I aint buying this image...

  • frankiespeakin


    Good quote, it certainly makes plain the psychopathic nature or mind set of the Governing Body. I'm useing your quote on another thread:

Share this