Biola University Prof Argues That David R*ped Bathsheba, Compares to Plantation Owner Assaulting Slaves
A recent conversation between Dr. Sean McDowell, the Associate Professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, and Dr. Carmen Imes, the Associate Professor of Old Testament, saw the novel “MeToo” reading of David and Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 take center stage, with the latter arguing that David raped Bathsheba and comparing the situation to a plantation owner raping his slaves in the antebellum South.
During the interaction, the two professors let feminism take the wheel, lumping Bathsheba in with “sexual assault victims” while McDowell mostly lobs good-natured objections at her to easily bat away.
Some quotes from Imes:
“Part of the reason we have more people willing to call this rape now is because, before 30 years ago there really were not very many women in biblical studies. And the more we have women in the room having the conversation, the more we have a kind of sensitivity.”
“All of David’s wives are in a position where consent is not a category that’s very meaningful.”
On Deuteronomy 22:23-24: “Maybe an appropriate analogy would be a plantation in the American South…The plantation owner takes one of the slaves into his bed or visits her in her shack and rapes her. Who’s she gonna cry out to? He’s the boss. Everyone on that plantation is under his command.”
“What really matters about the way that we teach this story…is that there are people in every audience who have experienced unwanted sexual experiences, whether it’s defined as rape or as someone crossing the line without their consent. And the the way we characterize Bathsheba as we talk about her, I think, sends a signal to people that tells them: how are we going to handle their story? Are we a safe person for them to disclose what’s happened to them, or are we going to victim blame?”
“I’m hesitant to call this adultery, even though it is clearly a sexual relationship between a married man and a married woman, so it qualifies as adultery. When we use the word adultery, it implies that there’s consent on both sides.”
You can see an extended discussion of their conversation here. and a discourse here on why David did NOT rape her.
h/t to Woke Preacher TV for the transcript and some of the text.
About Author
Is fear of one’s well being, the fear of what might possibly happen, even the fear of death itself, any excuse to sin?
What did Joseph do?
Men have just as much reason to fear what could possibly happen as do women. The text of scripture doesn’t change based on whether or not a woman is reading or studying it. What she’s claiming is that the fear of what could possibly happen, the fear and expectation that everyone would also commit the sin of partiality out of fear for themselves, should one refuse to sin is an excuse to willingly consent to and commit the sin.
What did Jesus do? Should He have sinned in order to avoid the cross?
What’s ironic about these feminist types is that they simultaneously claim to be as strong as men in all ways, while also appealing to the fact that they are the weaker vessel. That’s about the only correct part of her argument. Women are indeed the weaker vessel. And the scripture pertaining to consent is only to determine the woman’s guilt. The adulterous man is guilty whether the woman consents or not. God’s standards already give women a very significant benefit of the doubt in this regard, much more than men, but for some reason it’s still not enough for the feminists.
It is preemptive false accusation of all who might hear the cries (Duet. 19). It is justification of wickedness and condemnation of righteousness (Prov. 17:15). And it also can implicate one in further sins. In Bathsheba’s case, the murder of her husband, for which she shares the blame because she did not cry out, whether she consented or not at the time.
If women don’t “cry out” then they certainly can’t turn around and blame men for not doing anything about it. Just from a plain old logical standpoint. You can’t blame men for not doing anything about something they don’t know about. Can’t have it both ways. We men are just men. We’re not God. We cannot read minds. We cannot magically just know stuff.
Further throughout scripture, many men in power were held accountable. Including Kings. There is no scriptural basis whatsoever to begin to assume that David wouldn’t have been held accountable just because he held a position of authority. To judge it as such is to employ quite a bit of presentism.
“For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, 7 always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. ” – 2 Tim. 3:6-7
This is a good example of how faith without works is dead. If you cannot act on, and live according to, your faith, then you have no faith at all.
If you believe there should be no partiality, that all should be held to the same standard, then you have to live accordingly. If you don’t, then you are implicitly lending endorsement to the existence of partiality, further entrenching and ingraining that wickedness. You have to act on it. Then let God handle the outcome. If you believe those in power and authority should be held to the same standard, then live by that faith. Nothing good will ever result in not acting on that faith. If women don’t cry out, then they have no one to blame but themselves. I can assure them that we men are in the same boat when it comes to fear of that which could possibly happen. We don’t have it any easier. Joseph being one example of many. But we must remember that the commandments of God are not grievous (1 John 5:3). To treat them as such is to insult Him.
As the old saying goes, do what’s right and let the chips fall where they may. In the immediate, the repercussions could very well indeed be difficult, as happened to Joseph. But in the long run, God wins. He lifted up Joseph, and delivered him out of what was, by all appearances, a mess that was impossible to escape. We must remember this. God absolutely will keep His word. Trust it. Live it.
I think this could be even more argued of Solomon than of David. On my reading of the Song of Solomon, the harem lady is complaining how she is in love with a shepherd boy her own age but she has been forced into Solomon’s harem, and Solomon is responding by ignoring all that and telling her how hot she is. Its obvious that kings keeping harems is abusive, and Samuel was told to tell the people this when they asked for a king in hopes it would disuade them. “He will take your sons for this servants and your daughters for his harem…” isn’t that what it says? Its what I remember anyway. That David was a bad dude is obvious from the story of Abigail, and that him being “a man after God’s own heart” is only Judean propaganda against the other Israelite tribes and not a statement from God is just obvious. David is a criminal cattle russler who works for the Philistine ling and makes raids into Israel to steal their cattle and give it to the Philistines when Saul is persuing him to kill him (yes, this is literally in the text and if you never noticed it then its because you’re a KJVO but don’t understand old English). So the whole “David is a greeeeeeat guy, the Lord’s anointed” etc. is propaganda by the tribe of Judah that wanta to establish its guy over the other tribes. Its why the kingdom splits into Judah and Samaria after Solomon. The majority of Israel could not stand David or Solomon, although they seemed to have lived Saul. David’s bad reign constantly has the people trying to get one of his sons to overthrow him. If you set aside the lie that the OT is inerrant for a moment you can see that Samuel is Judean propaganda against Benjamin and the Calebites etc. So what? It doesn’t really effect Christianity unless you’re a Zionist Dispensationalist nutter. Jesus being called “son of David” is just to try and get the Jews to accept him; it doesn’t mean David was actually anything like Christ in character nor that David was really a “saint.”
1 Samuel 13:13-14
Its not possible to go to Amalek and kill “everything that breathes.” One rat hides in a hole and Saul fails. That’s why Samuel invented the command, because he was mad at Saul for having made a sacrifice himself when Samuel was late and lied and told Saul that the Lord has rejected him rom being king and will take him from the throne. Yet Saul continued as king for 40 years and was NEVER removed from the throne; he died still king, wounded in battle, but its 40 years later. So Samuel needs to self-fulfill his presumptious false prophecy of the Lord taking the throne from Saul, so he sends Saul to die in Amalek, hoping Saul will die, but also crafts the command so that if Saul succeeds, he still fails, because to wipe out “everything that breathes” in all of Amalek is impossible. Now, Saul bringing back the king Agag and some sheep to sacrifice in Gilgal, well once he sacrificed them they would be dead, so how can Samuel use this as proof of Saul not obeying? Samuel is clearly a liar and clearly a false prophet and clearly just a politician using fake prophecy to try and control a king. Also, Samuel chose Saul as king because he was so shy Samuel thought he could control him, but he looked the part being a head taller than everyone else in Israel; but Samuel was shocked that Saul eventually got over the shyness and stopped being Samuel’s puppet so much, and this is why Samuel wants rid of Saul so bad. Its so easy to see through. Samuel now chooses David, a new upstart he thinks he will be able to control better; but Samuel dies before he can get David on the throne, ironically the false prophet who told Saul 40 years ago that God would take him off the throne and replace him with a new guy, that false prophet ends up dying BEFORE Saul. And then Saul calls Samuel’s sould up from sheol by the witch at Endor to allow Samuel to give his last false prophecy, “Tomorrow you AND YOUR SONS will be with me.” Yet, even though the text says Saul died the next day, his sons DID NOT. And on of his sons even lived for decades, the crippled one Mephibosheth, who David let eat at his table. So much for Samuel being a real prophet.
1 Samuel 31:2
Matt. 1:1-17
Etc. …….
It can also be pointed out, per the written torah in the penteteuch, anyone can offer animal sacrifices anywhere, just by making an altar of unworked natural stones stacked up. It does not require a priest or levite, and yet Samuel also is NOT a real levite as he was only adopted by Eli the levite and is not himself an actual levite. So if Saul is the Lord’s Anointed, he has as much authority as Samuel to offer a sacrifice before battle. But honestly, so does any Israelite. This is not the Day of Atonement sacrifice or something that requires the high priest, and even if it did, Samuel is not the high priest either. So what is being claimed here, that Saul has no right to offer a sacrifice on his own, is political propaganda from Samuel and is not in accordance with the Law of Moses at all.
You might as well just throw your Bible in the trash, and admit you’re just a pagan.
Allow me to summarize your ramblings for you …
“The Bible is in error, and the erroneous parts are those that say anything positive about the Jews”
🙄
I hate to have to burst your bubble, Dave, but the nazis beat you to this stupid mess. They already tried it. Butchered the Bible down to nothing to create the “Positive Christianity” cult.
The books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are in the genre of political propaganda, and its absurd anyone ever classed them as having the same status as the Bible generally as the literal word of God. They contain the political propaganda of the Judeans to a divine right to rule over the other tribes of Israel that they really never had, especially Samuel though.
The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David (Rev. 5:5), does indeed rule all of every tribe, nation, and tongue, both Jew and Gentile …
Like it or lump it. That’s what God did. If you have any complaints you can try to tell Him that He did wrong on the day of judgment, and see how that works out for you …
The New Testament authors using Old Testament references as memes to convince Jews to accept Christ does not make the Old Testament political propaganda of the Judeans against the Benjamintes and other tribes infallible history. Its no different than if a Gentile called Jesus the “true Hercules” meaning something like he’s the true strong man that binds the devil in order to convert Gentiles. The New Testament gives Jesus titles that are aimed at converted Jews; doesn’t make Jewish fake history all true.
So now the NT is also deceitful … ???
What does the same book say about liars in Rev. 21:8?
Now what ????
You yourself are engaging in deceitful propaganda, and have already been corrected here several times, such as your false claim that the sons of Saul were not killed in battle, when scripture clearly says they were. But you make such false and deceitful claims without bothering to take two minutes to verify the truthfulness, why? Well because adherence to scripture is not your primary concern. You don’t really care what it says about anything at all. You’re talking out your backside, throwing everything you can think of against the wall, hoping something sticks. It is very clear that your main concern, indeed your religion, is your hatred of the Jews. Everything else is bent, twisted, contorted, modified, taken from, added to, altered in every way your imagination can dream up to fit and further that anti-Jew narrative.
Like I said, you might as well just throw the entire Bible in the trash, and go ahead and admit you’re just a skin-worshiping pagan. Now you’ve claimed both OT and NT are just deceitful propaganda. By the time you’re done trying to make it nothing but a book about the condemnation, blame, and hatred of Jews, there will be nothing left. Then you’ll finally be “free” to do what you’re already trying to do now. and what you obviously want to do – try to take God’s place and make it all up as you go. A common sin among all who claim the Bible is in error. The next words out of their prideful mouths are dictates to the rest of us what they believe the real truth of matters to be, as if we should all bow down and worship at their feet, because their own opinions and theories are deemed more authoritative than scripture.
Dave, you are clearly not a Christian. You might as well quit pretending to be. That false claim of yours is the worst lie, propaganda, and act of deceit presented here thus far and by far.
You may not know of Josh McDowell, Sean’s father. He himself was an atheist who set out to disprove scripture, and ultimately failed miserably, finally reaching the conclusion that it is indeed true. See, Dave, you can continue all your efforts, and continue to fail miserably, but sooner or later you’re going to realize that even if it weren’t true, whoever wrote it would still be far more intelligent than you, and far more intelligent than any human being ever has been or ever will be. Dave, you can’t even make one single small claim that even remotely remains congruent and consistent with the rest of scripture. Even on a fairly ancillary matter such as the death of Saul’s sons. Scripture does not conflict with itself, and through perfect consistency at every level, proves its inerrancy, and has stood the test of thousands of years. So you have to just start tossing out the parts that don’t jive with your narrative. And like lies begetting lies, snowballing, trying to cover your posterior at every turn, before you’re done trying to patch over all the massive holes in your narrative, there’s nothing left of it at all.
If you were smart, you’d realize the reason you have to go through such contortions is because the author of the book, the Holy Spirit, is far more intelligent than you ever will be. Right, you end up outsmarted at every turn, not by dummies like myself, but outsmarted by the Book itself and the God who authored it.
If your inquiry is honest, then sooner or later you’ll realize that it is all true, and that it could not have been authored by mankind. It’ll outsmart you at every turn. Just as Sean’s father discovered, and later wrote many books on the subject, such as “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” …
But in the meantime, quit dragging Jesus’ name through the mud pretending to be a Christian, when you clearly are not.
“Ancillary” is the wrong word, because the death of Saul’s sons was everything but ancillary. It was God’s way of clearing the path to the throne for the king that he had chosen. Saul’s sons were killed in battle, but Saul fell on his own sword. He was hit with an Amalekite arrow, but did not immediately die from it, and then fell on his sword (1 Samuel 31).
As you know, from referencing the account of Saul consulting the medium, Samuel himself did not author the entirety of the books of 1st and 2nd Samuel. The authorship notes in the Ryrie study Bible, indicate that it may have been Nathan and/or Gad who completed the works (1 Chronicles 29:29). I have not researched it further than that. But it’s clear that the entirety of the books could not have been written solely by Samuel. The account simply bears his name, and is told from that perspective, and is done so for good reason, by the leading of the Holy Spirit.
The reason the books are about Samuel the prophet, and the accounts are told from that perspective, is to show how David was a king whom God chose. Understand, you also have to contend with historical facts, Dave. Saul was a historical king. David was his historical successor. David was not of the house of Saul. David’s path to the throne was what can only be described as a miraculous work of God, from lowly shepherd boy rising all the way to being king. These are all very well documented historical facts. So ask yourself, how and why the people accepted David as king, as they did. Ask yourself why and how it possibly could’ve been a ruse by Samuel, when Samuel wasn’t even alive when Saul and his sons died on the battlefield. Did Samuel somehow collude with the Amalekites to make sure they killed Saul and his sons? Did Samuel somehow brainwash Saul into falling on his own sword, when the arrow(s) didn’t do the job?
It is impossible for it to have all been a ruse, or propaganda, just made up by Samuel, or even by a band of cohorts. There is no possible way it could’ve all been orchestrated by mankind. God did it. And the more you study it, if you are honest, the more you’ll come to realize that fact. God did it, and God wrote it down. The evidence is undeniable.
And it all points directly to Jesus Christ. Every bit of it. Every word of it. Every account and every prophecy. Without error.
You seem to think the OT and NT are at odds somehow. You’d better think again.
Dave, you will never even make it out of the books of 1st and 2nd Samuel. You’ll spend the rest of your life trying to plug holes in your wild theories, and each time you try to fix one, another dozen will appear. You will never prove it wrong.
Titles like “lion of Judah” aren’t literal; they’re a lot like memes. They can’t be “lies” because they’re symbols not literal statements. Jesus is not a literal animal lion after all.
It means Jesus is of the tribe of Judah and the house of David, you dummy …
As I said, it all points to Jesus Christ. Even the Old Testament. Every bit of it. That’s what it’s all about from cover to cover.
The word Judean is derived from the name Judah, as is the English word Jew. The Hebrew “Jehudah”, and Greek spelling of it, “Iouda”, are from the name Judah. From the time of the split of Israel between northern and southern tribes, and the defeat and destruction of the northern tribes, the name Judah became synonymous with all Jews. And the Bible records it from the book of Esther onward, referring to those of tribes other than the tribe of Judah as Jehudah/Iouda. Since you referred to Judeans as a tribe of Israel, the only possible implication could be that you were referring to the tribe of Judah. Not the kingdom of Judah, because the Benjamites were a part of the kingdom of Judah.
Unless, that is, you’re so ignorant you think “Judean” is one of the twelve tribes. Given the mess you’ve been posting, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least to discover that you are indeed that ignorant of scripture. You clearly don’t have much of a clue about any of it.
He doesn’t have to literally be of the tribe of Judah to be the “Lion of Judah.” The phrase can have a different meaning, such as that he is the lion that destroyed Judah, which he did, in 70 AD; it was the risen Christ who ordered the destruction of Jerusalem, as Paul says that the Jews “both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16) The wrath of Christ came on them to the uttermost when he forever destroyed thier nation and genetics in 70 AD. All “Jews” afterward are descendants of Gentiles who deconverted from Christianity and invented an evil anti-christ system they wrote down in the Talmud. There is no such thing as a “Jew” today as in a descendant of the Jews of the first century; Christ as the “Lion of Judah” wiped them out and devoured them.
Complete and total nonsense. What do you think Jesus secretly sneaked off to Rome after He rose from the dead, to orchestrate the destruction of Jerusalem?
Not all Jews lived in Jerusalem. Some lived in Galilee, some in Samaria, and Judea was a much larger area than just Jerusalem. Rome did not kill all the Jews. Not even close.
Many Jews mentioned in scripture lived past 70 AD. The Apostle John lived to about 100 AD, and wrote down the book of Revelation, according to the instruction of Jesus’ messenger, around the year 95 AD. Yet, for some odd reason, guess what, true and real Jews, descendants of Jacob, are mentioned in the book of Revelation, written 15 years after the destruction of Jerusalem. Several of the Apostles lived past 70 AD, I believe. And there is no indication anywhere that any and all Jews had been eradicated.
You have zero scriptural or historical basis for your claims. None whatsoever. And there are mountains of evidence to prove that many true Jews lived past 70 AD, including the evidence of scripture itself written by Apostles who lived past that time, as well as accounts of early church leaders, and historians.
Hoo boy, I believe the old timers might be setting in. Revelation was written 25 years after, not 15. The point remains. It references the true Jews, and existence of true Jews, long after 70 AD.
Its the meaning of Daniel 9, namely, that the Messiah after being cut off “but not for himself” causes the prince that is to come and destroy the temple to destroy the temple. I’m following of course real translations here like KJV and Geneva.
“Not all Jews lived in Jerusalem. Some lived in Galilee, some in Samaria” — you fail to distinguish between the tribes.
At that time, Jews also lived outside of the land of Israel. And accounts of this are given in the Epistles. Paul visited the Synagogues everywhere he went. There were Jewish people and Synagogues in the Greek and Roman cities. There were also many in Alexandria and norther Egypt. Essentially all throughout the Roman empire. Many had businesses and traded, traveled all the time, lived in other parts of the world.
And within the land of Israel, there were basically three regions at that time, where Jews lived: Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. Nazareth was in Galilee, which is why Jesus was sometimes called Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus of Galilee. Jerusalem was in Judea, and the region of Judea was fairly large.
The claim that all true Jews, descendants of Jacob, were killed in 70 AD is just about as ridiculous and baseless as it can get. As is the claim that even all of one single tribe would’ve been. Such a notion is pretty much dumber than dirt, to be honest. And it is nowhere to be found in scripture or historical records. Nowhere. The fact that a warped and contorted interpretation of Daniel 9, reading a bunch of mess into it that isn’t there, is your go-to defense, pretty much shows just how ridiculous it is.
Like I said, your religion is skin worship and hatred of Jews. Everything else you warp and contort to fit that anti-Jew narrative. You don’t care what the scripture actually says about anything.
Now you’re trying to weasel out of your claim that all Jews were killed by claiming only certain tribes? SMH
Even if you wrongly believe the prophecies of Daniel 9 pertaining to the Antichrist and the 7-year tribulation have already been fulfilled, there is nothing in that scripture anywhere that even remotely hints at the notion that all Jews will be destroyed along with the city and sanctuary. None. That’s all entirely a product of your wild imagination. You’re just desperately making mess up as you go, digging your hole deeper with every post.
Judeans as I’ve used it to this point means the leadership of the kingdom of Judah as opposed to the Northern Kingdom, and of course their policy is that the king has to be of the tribe of Judah. So I don’t see what you are carping about. There is a connection between the Judeans (the politicians of Judea) and the tribe of Judah (which they insist the kings must come from, which is the ONE and only reason they want to portray the Benjamite Saul as having been a bad king, although they in reality have zero examples of it). Saul was the best king Israel ever had. There were no disturbances of the people trying to over throw him as there constantly were with David; Saul effectively chased out and hunted cattle russlers like David; Saul ran the wizards and witches out of the land; Saul clearly took a harsh stance against homosexuality as demonstrated by basically disowning Jonathan when he thought Jonathan and David might be gay (“you have chosen the son of Jesse to the confusion of your mother’s nakedness”); the only bad thing they can come up with against Saul is that he offered a sacrifice on his own once (which the law of Moses permits) and that he didn’t complete the genocide of the Amalakites as quickly as Samuel wanted because he waited to kill the king Agag and intended to execute him in a big ceremony at Gilgal. That’s super weak. The Judean propaganda is easy to see through. Saul was a better king than David, not to mention Saul was never a traitor against his own country, whereas David worked as a cattle russler for the Philistines.
Good grief, I’ve never heard anything as insane as this mess you’re spewing.
1 Samuel 20:30-34, when Saul says that to Jonathan, is about the fact that Jonathan had accepted that David would be king, rather than himself inheriting the throne. Saul said, “For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.”, and it is because Jonathan would not inherit the throne, that Saul sought to kill David. That’s what that scripture means. Saul is telling Jonathan that he has disgraced his parents. He is hurling insults at his son, as he insulted Jonathan’s mother by calling him the son of a perverse and rebellious woman. It has nothing to do with any accusation of homosexuality, or anything sexual at all. If it did, then that statement would indicate that Jonathan should’ve slept with his mother! SMH No, Saul was angry because Jonathan was allowing David to live, when David was a threat to his own inheritance of the throne.
Which is one reasons why, as I stated earlier below, why your claim that David killed Saul’s sons is hogwash. He certainly had no cause to murder Jonathan, because Jonathan was not a threat. He had already accepted the fact that God had chosen David, according to prophesy. Jonathan was his friend, and no threat whatsoever. David would’ve had no reason to kill him.
Accepting some notion that David might become king has nothing to do with his “mother’s nakedness” but if he is kissing David, it does. Its a clear accusation of homosexuality. And since David was sexually depraved, stealing Abigail from Nabal, and stealing a few other women (although the propagandist always covers for him except with Bathsheba), and dancing naked before the ark, and putting up with his sons raping his daughters, there is no reason to think that a homosexual laizon was beyond what David might do.
“He certainly had no cause to murder Jonathan,” — to silence his ex-boyfriend from telling everyone he had been gay once is a motive.
When Jesus kissed the Disciples, does that mean He was sinning?
If so, then you have now destroyed the entire Gospel, by claiming Jesus wasn’t sinless.
You’re not just applying presentism, you’re also applying certain culturalism of presentism. You can go to France right now, and what do the French do when they greet each other? They kiss on both cheeks. Men, women, they all do it, and it doesn’t have any sexual or romantic meaning whatsoever.
You need to go read Deut. 19:15-21. Falsely accusing someone of homosexuality is a death penalty offense, by the law. It’s no small matter. Do you have two or three witnesses? Nope. You have zero witnesses.
Nobody with respect for the Lord would go around flippantly making such accusations without absolute proof. Much less all the flippant imaginative mess you’re slinging at the wall here, making things up as you go.
“I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,” – Jesus (Matt. 12:36)
Just about every word you speak, Dave, is careless. Very careless. I told you, if you want to exercise your imagination, go write a science fiction novel. By trying to mess with scripture you are treading on very dangerous ground. And you absolutely will pay for it one day.
You’d be wise to repent and quit this mess of yours right now, Dave.
I’ve been telling you, Dave. By the time you’re done, you’ll have to throw out the entire Bible.
Just now you have undermined the Gospel itself.
Once you’ve done that, you might as well have a Bible burning bonfire.
You’re demonstrating here exactly what I told you will happen if you continue. Plug one hole, and ten others open up. Before you’re done, you have to claim the entire thing is an erroneous lie. At which point, the truth is revealed, that you are in fact not a Christian
The Author of the Bible is a lot smarter than you!
The gospel never makes a claim that David was literally a “man after God’s own heart” but undermines that lie from the Propaganda Book of Samuel, when the Blind man says to Jesus “Son of David, have mercy on me” and Jesus ACTUALLY DOES, whereas David in Samuel says “My Soul HATES the lame and the blind.” The point of the irony of the blind man appealing to Jesus as “Son of David” is to show that the book of Samuel is not entirely true, and David is NOT equal to Christ, that unlike Christ, David did NOT have God’s heart, that God’s heart as revealed in God Incarnate, in Christ, shows God LOVES the lame and the blind.
Dave, that verse is 2 Samuel 5:8, and you can read commentaries on it.
David’s sins are recorded in the books of 1st and 2nd Samuel. His sin with Bathsheba, murder of Uriah, is in 2 Samuel 11.
You’re claiming that the books of 1st and 2nd Samuel are just lies and propaganda to make David look good, while you try to substantiate your arguments with scriptures recording David’s sins that are found in those same two books.
That’s very bad circular reasoning.
Nobody claims David was perfect, for crying out loud. He obviously sinned and sinned badly. Nobody disputes that. Nobody claims he was divine.
Sure, Jews were sinners, including Jesus’ ancestors, and so were Gentiles. So was and is every human being all the way back to Adam. Everybody but Jesus. He’s the one and only perfect human being to ever have walked the earth.
Your thinking is extremely warped, and frankly flat-out reprobate, because of the racism in your heart and your racist way of viewing things. Do you think Jesus was perfect because all of His ancestors were perfect, and of a perfect race? Do you think there are races that aren’t from Adam, and Jesus was just one of an entire race of perfect people? What difference would it make to Jesus’ perfection, whether or not David had sinned less or more than he did? None. No difference whatsoever.
Do the sins of your ancestors from 28 generations back make you any less or more of a sinner?
What exactly do you believe, Dave?
The reason Jesus’ lineage to David is mentioned heavily is because it FULFILLED PROPHECY of the Messiah. Do you not understand this?
What does the Bible say, Dave … it says Jesus became flesh.
What does it say about the flesh? What does it say about the Spirit?
See the Spirit overcomes the flesh. The fact that Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us is what makes the Gospel the Gospel.
He overcame the flesh, and He perfectly did so, without falter. That’s the whole point.
Your mind, Dave, is messed up and confused by a very racist and Darwinist view and underlying belief, that doesn’t come anywhere close to jiving with scripture. It is blinding you. And you’re not going to properly understand scripture as long as that mess is between your ears and in your heart. You will not properly understand it until the Holy Spirit is leading you to understanding. You need to repent.
The world says seeing is believing. Jesus says believing is seeing. Until you truly believe and repent, you will not see …
Saul’s sons were murdered by David later after he took the throne. They did not die the same day as Saul.
What is your source and evidence for this claim that 1 Samuel 31:2 is a lie?
That’s not all of his sons. Samuel said “you are your sons” not “you and just 3 of your sons.” If your standard of prophecy is that by a guess he gets it partly right, so he’s a real prophet, you might as well declare Alex Jones a prophet.
The original Hebrew is just the plural of the word for son. It means more than one. Probably those who had joined him on the battlefield that day.
First you claimed none of Saul’s sons died. Then you claimed David murdered them all. (meanwhile the son who remained, Ish-bosheth, also called Eshbaal meaning “man of Baal” was assassinated, and David not only had nothing to do with it, he punished the men who assassinated him)
What does this say about you and your standards, considering your wild and baseless claims? When you haven’t even gotten anything partly right. And since you’re rejecting scripture, making up a bunch of stuff it doesn’t say, claiming the scripture is wrong, and in some cases claiming it is an outright lie, you have put yourself in the shoes of a prophet, as if you have some sort of special gnostic knowledge. And as a self-proclaimed prophet, you yourself are batting precisely zero. You haven’t even gotten anything partially correct. You’re 1000x worse than Alex Jones.
You’re not worth wasting any more of my time.
Johathan was David’s good friend from childhood. There’s no way David would’ve murdered him.
There were thousands of witnesses on that battlefield. What makes you think whoever finished the book of 1 Samuel, and penned chapter 31, could’ve possibly gotten away with such a lie?
If it were all a lie, don’t you think somebody would’ve caught it at the time, much less in the several thousand years since?
Now thousands of years later, you’re going to set the record straight?
Based on what evidence?
By what authority?
I’m not going to ask by what scripture, because there is no scripture that remotely indicates the books you listed are lies. On the contrary, the remainder of scripture substantiates the veracity of those accounts.
You can’t just eliminate those. Right, you’d then have to eliminate all the prophecies about Jesus that reference back to that information. As I said, by the time you were done, there would be nothing left of the Bible at all.
I don’t know where you’re getting the nonsense you’re spouting here, Dave. Seems to me it’s coming from nowhere but talking out your own backside, and you’re just making up a mess of stupidity as you go.
If you want to exercise your imagination, go write a science fiction novel or something, alright. You’re not going to accomplish anything by trying (and failing) to rewrite the Bible. It was written by somebody a lot smarter than you.