DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://unitedindiversity.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Our Latest Spiritual Posts
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2176--------------------------------------------------
King David
By: Kerry Date: July 30, 2025, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is often said of David that he committed adultery, perhaps
you've heard it said or even said it yourself; but the Bible
doesn't say that. So what his sin? The psalm of repentance
says his sin was against God only. Wouldn't it have been a sin
against Uriah if he committed adultery with his wife?
Psalm 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this
evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou
speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
So why wasn't it a sin against Uriah? The answer may be in the
Jewish custom of the time for men to divorce their wives before
leaving to fight in a war. That way if they were killed in
battle but not identified as dead, their wives could marry
again. If a man disappeared without divorcing his wife, she was
left in limbo since women couldn't file for divorce. Does this
make sense?
We may also have a poor view of Bathsheba if we imagine she was
bathing in a place where David or anyone else on David's roof
could see her. That would mean she was immodest and even
suggests she was "tempting" David. What happened there?
2 Samuel 11:2 And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David
arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's
house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the
woman was very beautiful to look upon.
3 And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is
not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the
Hittite?
4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto
him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her
uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.
Was Satan involved somehow, tempting David through the sin of
lust? The interpretation I have adopted is that Satan did take
advantage of a weakness. Some say David was curious about who
the mother would be of the son to inherit the throne. God did
not reveal it to him, but David persisted in wanting a vision of
it. He got that vision, perhaps courtesy of Satan; and oddly
enough, the vision was accurate but the knowledge should not
have been made known to him then. Did David eat of the
forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Yes, Bathsheba was meant to be the mother of the son who would
inherit the throne. God wanted the two be married, but later.
David met her too soon, fell in love at sight and was carried
away.
Such are my beliefs.
#Post#: 2178--------------------------------------------------
Re: King David
By: Mike Waters Date: July 30, 2025, 12:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is it not a fact that whereas, (if a woman committed adultery
she was made to be an object of public 'entertainment' for
onlookers to get their kicks by stoning her to death), there is
no consideration given to, if or how, an adulterous man should
be treated?
IMO such a conundrum makes consideration of the rights or wrongs
of David's behaviour almost beyond analysis.
Such are my 'doubts'.
On a parallel theme how can we judge a 'mediterranean' religion
which developed concurrently with the building of the Pillars of
Hercules as monuments to the observation of ships falling off
the edge of a flat world as they ventured out into the Atlantic.
#Post#: 2179--------------------------------------------------
Re: King David
By: Kerry Date: July 30, 2025, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Mike Waters link=topic=71.msg2178#msg2178
date=1753896041]
Is it not a fact that whereas, (if a woman committed adultery
she was made to be an object of public 'entertainment' for
onlookers to get their kicks by stoning her to death), there is
no consideration given to, if or how, an adulterous man should
be treated?
IMO such a conundrum makes consideration of the rights or wrongs
of David's behaviour almost beyond analysis.
[/quote]
While it is true that society was very patriarchal then, a man
who committed adultery was to be put to death too.
Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with
another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his
neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely
be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married
to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man
that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away
evil from Israel.
Of course, there had to be eye-witnesses to the deed; and they
had to agree with each other on the facts before the death
penalty could be carried out. Committing such sins almost
openly so that people could witness them was an offense against
common decency as well as a sin against the husband of the
adulterous wife. I believe the idea was that if a sin was
public like that, the punishment should be public too.
We're still left with the fact assertion that the Bible doesn't
call David an adulterer.
#Post#: 2180--------------------------------------------------
Re: King David
By: Dave Date: July 30, 2025, 2:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=71.msg2176#msg2176
date=1753867705]
It is often said of David that he committed adultery, perhaps
you've heard it said or even said it yourself; but the Bible
doesn't say that. So what his sin? The psalm of repentance
says his sin was against God only. Wouldn't it have been a sin
against Uriah if he committed adultery with his wife?
Psalm 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this
evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou
speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
So why wasn't it a sin against Uriah? The answer may be in the
Jewish custom of the time for men to divorce their wives before
leaving to fight in a war. That way if they were killed in
battle but not identified as dead, their wives could marry
again. If a man disappeared without divorcing his wife, she was
left in limbo since women couldn't file for divorce. Does this
make sense?
We may also have a poor view of Bathsheba if we imagine she was
bathing in a place where David or anyone else on David's roof
could see her. That would mean she was immodest and even
suggests she was "tempting" David. What happened there?
2 Samuel 11:2 And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David
arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's
house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the
woman was very beautiful to look upon.
3 And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is
not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the
Hittite?
4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto
him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her
uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.
Was Satan involved somehow, tempting David through the sin of
lust? The interpretation I have adopted is that Satan did take
advantage of a weakness. Some say David was curious about who
the mother would be of the son to inherit the throne. God did
not reveal it to him, but David persisted in wanting a vision of
it. He got that vision, perhaps courtesy of Satan; and oddly
enough, the vision was accurate but the knowledge should not
have been made known to him then. Did David eat of the
forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Yes, Bathsheba was meant to be the mother of the son who would
inherit the throne. God wanted the two be married, but later.
David met her too soon, fell in love at sight and was carried
away.
Such are my beliefs.
[/quote] Kerry I loved that line: "David met her too soon, fell
in love at sight and was carried away"
The shortest sermon I've heard in a long time lol.
My beliefs are that in God's plan it's all about timing, there's
always man's timing and then there's the Lords.
I was wondering in psalm 51 as it doesn't state that it is David
who is 'fessing up, the writer confesses that he was shapen in
iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me' that could be
true of all of us.
It takes the Prophet to show David his deeds, there is no
repentance until, it wasn't just the faithful husband but the
first child also paid the price.
Maybe lust at first sight, she was a bride bought at a price and
from there on David is carried away on the slippery slope, As
the old song says "Money can't buy you love" and neither is the
will of God rescinded.
A lot hinges on that fatal word "Sin"
#Post#: 2181--------------------------------------------------
Re: King David
By: Dave Date: July 30, 2025, 2:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Imho If the woman was caught in the 'act' so was a man or did he
pull his trousers up very quickly????
As the old song says;
"Mercy there was great and grace was free, pardon there was
multiplied to me, there my burdened soul found liberty"
The one thing David did know was that mercy and grace were free.
#Post#: 2182--------------------------------------------------
Re: King David
By: Mike Waters Date: July 30, 2025, 5:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Dave link=topic=71.msg2181#msg2181
date=1753902841]
Imho If the woman was caught in the 'act' so was a man or did he
pull his trousers up very quickly????
[/quote]
Thankfully this is not one of those forums with fierce debate
between those who believe in absolute verbal inspiration of
every word translated in a particular 'Biblical version', versus
the liberals who regard the Bible as an outdated tool of divine
communication.
Otherwise there would be argument between those who see nothing
in the Bible about it being essential to lower the trousers in
order to commit the 'act', and those modern liberals who would
even question "who it is that should wear the trousers".
Tha's enough frivolity from the 'court jester'.
#Post#: 2183--------------------------------------------------
Re: King David
By: Rita Date: July 31, 2025, 2:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the sin was that Bathsheba was pregnant and David tried
to cover it up by encouraging Uriah to go sleep with her. Then
when that didn’t work, David had him killed in battle- all to
cover up the consequences of his actions. If he didn’t consider
he had done anything wrong, why would he have tried to cover it
all up.
Also the encounter was ‘ At a time when Kings went to war ‘ …. ‘
but David stayed in Jerusalem. It doesn’t state why he didn’t go
into battle, but if he had his encounter with Bathsheba wouldn’t
have happened. Also Bathsheba may have equally thought that
David was away at war when she chose to bath in sight of the
palace
I always presumed that David suppressed the sin and just thought
he could hide it away, isn’t that often a human trait when we do
things wrong. We numb our consciences. Isn’t that the part that
is between us and God.
#Post#: 2184--------------------------------------------------
Re: King David
By: Kerry Date: July 31, 2025, 7:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Dave link=topic=71.msg2180#msg2180
date=1753902196]
Kerry I loved that line: "David met her too soon, fell in love
at sight and was carried away"
The shortest sermon I've heard in a long time lol.
My beliefs are that in God's plan it's all about timing, there's
always man's timing and then there's the Lords.
I was wondering in psalm 51 as it doesn't state that it is David
who is 'fessing up, the writer confesses that he was shapen in
iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me' that could be
true of all of us.
It takes the Prophet to show David his deeds, there is no
repentance until, it wasn't just the faithful husband but the
first child also paid the price.
Maybe lust at first sight, she was a bride bought at a price and
from there on David is carried away on the slippery slope, As
the old song says "Money can't buy you love" and neither is the
will of God rescinded.
A lot hinges on that fatal word "Sin"
[/quote]Were both Cain and Abel shapened in inequity? I think
so. I don't know how literally to take some details in that
story. I don't think Abel killed a lamb for a sacrifice -- I
think he offered himself up like a sheep. It was an acceptable
offering.
Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give
it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a
contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Abel tamed the wild beast inherited from his parents. Cain did
not.
Genesis 4:6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and
why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou
doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be
his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass,
when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his
brother, and slew him.
Neither was guilty because of what they inherited; bot only one
tamed the wild beast. Both were given a chance to undo in part
the harm their parents let loose into the world. If we love, we
are willing to bear the burdens of others.
Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the
law of Christ.
#Post#: 2185--------------------------------------------------
Re: King David
By: Kerry Date: July 31, 2025, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Dave link=topic=71.msg2181#msg2181
date=1753902841]
Imho If the woman was caught in the 'act' so was a man or did he
pull his trousers up very quickly????
As the old song says;
"Mercy there was great and grace was free, pardon there was
multiplied to me, there my burdened soul found liberty"
The one thing David did know was that mercy and grace were free.
[/quote]What about the woman "caught" in the act which John
wrote about? Where was her guilty partner? The "scribes and
Pharisees" were putting on a real act. It would have been
comical if a life hadn't been at stake.
John 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman
taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery,
in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned:
but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse
him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the
ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and
said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first
cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own
conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even
unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing
in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman,
he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no
man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I
condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
So they said she was caught in the act. Was she? Did anyone
see the actual act itself? If so, where were the eyewitnesses
and where was her guilty partner in sin? Was he someone too
important to prosecute or something?
Secondly, why bring her case to Jesus? They had judges to hear
cases. The death penalty couldn't be imposed by such courts
however; and that was both Roman and Jewish law since the
Sanhedrin had ruled to suspend it to placate the Romans. Any law
could be suspended to save lives; and the Sanhedrin was correct
to rule that way. Along come the scribes and Pharisees trying
to cause trouble by bringing a mob with them, tempting Jesus to
say to stone her so they could run to the Romans to report
Jesus' crime.
What I find laughable is that not one of the hypocrites was
willing to say he was without sin and to cast the first stone.
#Post#: 2186--------------------------------------------------
Re: King David
By: Kerry Date: July 31, 2025, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Rita link=topic=71.msg2183#msg2183
date=1753947218]
Perhaps the sin was that Bathsheba was pregnant and David tried
to cover it up by encouraging Uriah to go sleep with her. Then
when that didn’t work, David had him killed in battle- all to
cover up the consequences of his actions. If he didn’t consider
he had done anything wrong, why would he have tried to cover it
all up.
[/quote]Uriah's hands weren't totally clean either. He committed
blasphemy when talking with David. David had been anointed by
God, so swearing by his life was blasphemous.
2 Samuel 11:11 And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel,
and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of
my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into
mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as
thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.
David should have arrested him for that and had him put on trial
for it. It was part of David's job to enforce God's laws; and he
failed to do it. He was in an awkward position since David's
affair with Bathsheba might have come out before or during the
trial.
[quote]Also the encounter was ‘ At a time when Kings went to war
‘ …. ‘ but David stayed in Jerusalem. It doesn’t state why he
didn’t go into battle, but if he had his encounter with
Bathsheba wouldn’t have happened. Also Bathsheba may have
equally thought that David was away at war when she chose to
bath in sight of the palace
I always presumed that David suppressed the sin and just thought
he could hide it away, isn’t that often a human trait when we do
things wrong. We numb our consciences. Isn’t that the part that
is between us and God.[/quote]
We may be used to people having bathtubs or hot tubs on their
rooftops; and it is easy to skip over some of cultural context.
She had just had a period.
4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto
him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her
uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.
So that the purification bath required seven days after the
menstrual blood had stopped. It would have been done in what is
called a "mikveh." The water may not be collected to fill the
tub by human hands. Most mikveh's are underground and get their
water from springs. Rain water is a possibility too.
Unclean things do not make mikvehs' unclean.
Leviticus 11:36 Nevertheless a fountain or pit, wherein there is
plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their
carcase shall be unclean.
It is improbable then Uriah's house had a mikveh out in the
open.
Another curious detail is most women can't become pregnant a
week after their last period. I've no theory about that; but
perhaps David thought he could get away with sex figuring she
wouldn't get pregnant?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page