-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
"chained wife"?
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
blugrniz4u
Member
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
A
Anonymous
Guest
I tried envisioning the situation and here is what I came up with.
1. David had already been in bed for the night and couldn't sleep so he went up to the roof to meditate. It is supposedly dark by now.
2. Bath-sheba supposed she was safe from prying eyes bathing in her home or perhaps in a courtyard.
3. They had no electric lights and no streetlights. David could see the alluring form of a beautiful woman, perhaps disrobing and bathing, but was unable to identify her in the dim light of an oil lamp from a distance.
4. David inquired of a servant, "Who is the woman that lives in the third house from the end of the next street over?"
5. The servant advises David that she is a married woman and he sends for her anyway. David's bad.
6 Bath-sheba came to him willingly, not of necessity. A king of Israel did not have the authority to demand a woman's favors. Her bad.
7. There is not one iota of Biblical evidence indicating, much less proving that David's men provided their wives a "get" before war. Such, if it were done would only be effective if the husband were unaccounted for.
8. David had just participated in a major war, destroying the allies of the Ammonites and quite likely the remaining clean up was not worthy of David's participation.
Just thinking.
Indeed! To assume that is speculation at its worst. There is just nothing there in the text or history to even hint at that as the reason for what took place.
if it is not in the bible it did not happen? how thick did you want the book to be?John Whitten said:
really?Dr. K.R. Allen said:
you are the final authority on jewish history?
is that a fact?Scarecrow said:"lol - yes and you were the one that hijacked your own topic...
huh......i would have sworn that it was john's warning where it left the track.
steve, the judaizing pharisee
A
Anonymous
Guest
steve, the judaizing pharisee,
Sorry if I hijacked your thread, definitely not intentional. I'm thinking that you are too clever for thick-headed people like me. I now think that I did not "get" :lol: the intent of the original post. Apparently, I am not alone, seems someone later referred to "the unasked question" in the OP. The turn I was taking was the response to what "appeared" to me, on your part to be defining David's sinful act excusable by utilizing some Jewish "history or mythology" (Talmud), regarding war time "gets". It is a slippery slope when we start introducing talmudic teaching to define Biblical events. Jewish history does not have reliable credentials compared to the Bible. Scriptural context clearly shows that David was in no way justified in taking another man's wife, evidenced by God's condemnation through His prophet Nathan.
BTW, I would never call you a judaizing pharisee. Perhaps a tendency to judaizing, but not a pharisee. Besides, I'd much rather call you Steve. Easier to spell.
Sorry if I hijacked your thread, definitely not intentional. I'm thinking that you are too clever for thick-headed people like me. I now think that I did not "get" :lol: the intent of the original post. Apparently, I am not alone, seems someone later referred to "the unasked question" in the OP. The turn I was taking was the response to what "appeared" to me, on your part to be defining David's sinful act excusable by utilizing some Jewish "history or mythology" (Talmud), regarding war time "gets". It is a slippery slope when we start introducing talmudic teaching to define Biblical events. Jewish history does not have reliable credentials compared to the Bible. Scriptural context clearly shows that David was in no way justified in taking another man's wife, evidenced by God's condemnation through His prophet Nathan.
BTW, I would never call you a judaizing pharisee. Perhaps a tendency to judaizing, but not a pharisee. Besides, I'd much rather call you Steve.
Easier to spell.
well, you did get a discussion going where i had failed.John Whitten said:
yes, she actually showed interest in discussing it
unlike all of the other posters who put me down for attempting to discuss it.i am sure that you are aware of the fact that a great portion of our bible existed ONLY as an oral jewish history for generations until it was finally written.
to arbitrarily throw out jewish history, the very history of our savior, is to ignore the clues that make the richness of the bible come forth. it puts much more color in the picture that we are given from scripture.
how many times did i say exactly that?
i wish that you understood the concept.
it is like being pregnant in that a person is or os not.
either a person teaches that you MUST follow the law in order to be saved, or they do not.
i teach that it is very unwise to ignore the desires of our heavenly Father.
steve, the assumed judaizing pharisee
Scarecrow
Member
...ok...so does the law save us ...or are we saved by grace through faith, and that not our own but a gift from God, and not by works that any man should boast?
What I see in the scriptures (hold on to your seat Steve...this is what a direct answer looks like) is that we are saved by grace ALONE through faith in the redemptive works of my Lord and my God Jesus (thank you Thomas), and that our rewards in heaven are based on our good works which were set out for us to walk in before the foundations of the earth.
Now, if you would Steve, please give me a straight answer as to who and what YOU believe Jesus is and was.
P.S. I'm not into dunking...water boarding is much more effective and less messy...
What I see in the scriptures (hold on to your seat Steve...this is what a direct answer looks like) is that we are saved by grace ALONE through faith in the redemptive works of my Lord and my God Jesus (thank you Thomas), and that our rewards in heaven are based on our good works which were set out for us to walk in before the foundations of the earth.
Now, if you would Steve, please give me a straight answer as to who and what YOU believe Jesus is and was.
P.S. I'm not into dunking...water boarding is much more effective and less messy...
if my answer was too complicated for you to understand let me simplify it, no the law does not save us.Scarecrow said:
of course, and in judging our good works, He will take into account our obedience to ALL that He has asked of us.
steve, the incredulous judaizing pharisee
A
Anonymous
Guest
Scarecrow said:
Well, not so fast.....he hasn't exactly answered definitively yet
ahhh yes, he-who-scares-crows.Scarecrow said:
quite the legalist, aren't you? i knew that you had that'n in there and was wondering what you would do with it.
the truth is, you really do not know exactly what thomas was thinking when you read the english translation of the greek translation of the (probably) hebrew rendition of his words.
while i believe in the inerrancy of the holy word, i do not believe in the inerrancy of translation. so trying to prove doctrine by what we think he said, much less thought, is not a good idea.
steve, not at all a judaizing pharisee, but more of a karaite
A
Anonymous
Guest
Steve wrote,
I understand what you are saying here, but I fear that such input from unverifiable history tends to pollute truth rather than enhance it. I believe this one of the reasons the Lord adds a curse to anyone who adds to or takes away from the words of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the last book of the bible.
A
Anonymous
Guest
If any history does not have the seal of the Holy Spirit inside the front cover, it is suspect. Genuine verification will require many different sources, lending credibility to the same information. Even then, such "histories" can never come close to the holy Word of God. Not only am I for sola scripura, I am also a devotee to the idea that the best way to interpret scripture is with scripture, not from outside sources.steve said:
john,
i am sorry that you see it that way.
to me it is not about adding to or subtracting from scripture, it is about enhancing our understanding of scripture. knowing more about the lives, lifestyles, needs, likes, customs, etc. of the people that we study in scripture helps me understand more about their successes and failures.
being led of the Holy Spirit in this is very important to me.
steve, the non- judaizing non-pharisee
i am sorry that you see it that way.
to me it is not about adding to or subtracting from scripture, it is about enhancing our understanding of scripture. knowing more about the lives, lifestyles, needs, likes, customs, etc. of the people that we study in scripture helps me understand more about their successes and failures.
being led of the Holy Spirit in this is very important to me.
steve, the non- judaizing non-pharisee
I see this subject, question, and answer is still been left unanswered.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Steve, the position I take is exactly the position that Moses and all the prophets as well as the Apostles of the Lamb, take. How can one improve on that?steve said: