Okay, they are totally whacko. more from the july 15 tower

therevealer

this is from page 13, paragraph 12 and my question is did they just use David in this little illustration. Are they kiddin me?

Mad Sweeney

Evidently, Bath-sheba was good for something, not "good for nothing."

StoneWall

Hahaahaha...I was thinking the same thing about David.

I can only visualize using him as a example of what not to do. Such as not to commit Adultery,have someone murdered etc.

tec

Its a good example. I thought the same thing as you, but really, all they just have to say to someone bringing Bathsheba up is: 'and look how well that turned out.'

Tammy

keyser soze

but really, all they just have to say to someone bringing Bathsheba up is: 'and look how well that turned out.'

Her husband might beg to differ.

tec

I was using sarcasm. I meant it turned out bad, Keyser. Adultery, murder (behind the scenes, at least), and a child died. All because David did not keep his eye from straying.

That's why its a good example for them to use.

Tammy

keyser soze

Wasn't Jesus supposed to have descended from David, through Bath-sheba? It's been so long since I've read anything in the bible.

blondie

You are correct Keyser....Solomon was David and Bathsheba's second son.

It is good to note that David had several wives already and his adultery was taking someone else's wife, not having more than one wife. Evidently (smile) Job felt he should have only one wife (although his contemporary Abraham had 2 wives/concubines at the same time).

tec

Keyser - Matthew mentions Solomon, Luke doesn't - he mentions a Nathan, son of David (I don't remember the names from the OT, so I don't know what the relation would be). Both of them are giving the lineage of Joseph, though.

Tammy

Okay, they are totally whacko. more from the july 15 tower

Share this