History Fridge / TheBible

21st Apr '17 4:07:50 AM Vampireandthen
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** But that only leads to a new question: If there was no sun on the first day, where exactly did that light come from?

to:

*** But that only leads to a new question: If there was no sun on the first day, where exactly did that light come from?from?
**** The sun is a big, burning ball of gas. Light isn't just generated by gas, mind you. Though, plants do need sunlight to survive. However, think about what kind of plants these must have been to survive in a world without life.
21st Dec '16 8:36:34 AM Furienna
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Some people might argue that since David was the king, Bathsheba had no choice but to let him do what he wanted to do with her. But she ''did'' have a choice, as we could later see with Susanna in the Apocrypha version of The Book of David (she refused to cheat on her husband, even if that almost ended badly for her). So if Bathsheba had been as righteous as Susanna, or if she simply had really loved Uriah, it is very likely that she would have refused to sleep with David, even if that could have had harsh consequences for her. Of course, we never got to hear her side of the story or hear her feelings about what happened. But it makes sense to think that Bathsheba was stuck in a loveless marriage to a man, whom she found nice but boring and whom she couldn't love back. So when David summoned her to him and told her that he wanted her, she found it flattering and exciting and didn't care if what they did was wrong or not. Either way, it is pretty safe to conclude that she wasn't innocent. Because if she had been a guiltless victim of David's lust for her, the text would have ''told us'' that she was.

to:

** Some people might argue that since David was the king, Bathsheba had no choice but to let him do what he wanted to do with her. But she ''did'' have a choice, as we could later see with Susanna in the Apocrypha version of The Book of David Daniel (she refused to cheat on her husband, even if that almost ended badly for her). So if Bathsheba had been as righteous as Susanna, or if she simply had really loved Uriah, it is very likely that she would have refused to sleep with David, even if that could have had harsh consequences for her. Of course, we never got to hear her side of the story or hear her feelings about what happened. But it makes sense to think that Bathsheba was stuck in a loveless marriage to a man, whom she found nice but boring and whom she couldn't love back. So when David summoned her to him and told her that he wanted her, she found it flattering and exciting and didn't care if what they did was wrong or not. Either way, it is pretty safe to conclude that she wasn't innocent. Because if she had been a guiltless victim of David's lust for her, the text would have ''told us'' that she was.
15th Dec '16 11:45:34 PM Furienna
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** But that only leads to a new question: If there was no sun on the first day, where exactly did the light come from?

to:

*** But that only leads to a new question: If there was no sun on the first day, where exactly did the that light come from?
15th Dec '16 11:44:05 PM Furienna
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** But that only leads to a new question: If there was no sun on tehe first day, where exactly did the light come from?

to:

*** But that only leads to a new question: If there was no sun on tehe the first day, where exactly did the light come from?
15th Dec '16 11:42:09 PM Furienna
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** [[CaptainObvious be animals, right?]]

to:

** [[CaptainObvious be Be animals, right?]]



** Noah most likely didn't look up on Wikipedia how many species he had to take. More likely, he did what everyone did before Linnaeus: classified things by phonetics. If there's no obvious visual way to tell the difference between two species, he probably just assumed they were the same. So he would have only had, say, 2 ants, 2 bees, 2 wasps, 2 beetles, etc.. Not to mention, "the world" to Noah may have just meant Europe, Africa, and Asia. So if that's true, then that means that perhaps the Americas and Australia were uneffected and so any species that lived there wouldn't have been effected either-and beetles and ants live just about everywhere.

to:

** Noah most likely didn't look up on Wikipedia how many species he had to take. More likely, he did what everyone did before Linnaeus: classified things by phonetics. If there's no obvious visual way to tell the difference between two species, he probably just assumed they were the same. So he would have only had, say, 2 ants, 2 bees, 2 wasps, 2 beetles, etc.. Not to mention, "the world" to Noah may have just meant Europe, Africa, and Asia. So if that's true, then that means that perhaps the Americas and Australia were uneffected and so any species that lived there wouldn't have been effected either-and either - and beetles and ants live just about everywhere.



*** The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally (even Jesus taught in parables, after all). It is a compilation of attempts by early man to understand humanity and the universe we inhabit. Whether they had divine help is a matter of belief, but to take the stories in it literally is to deliberately make oneself ignorant of the many layers of knowledge and truth contained within. Adam and Eve are just one example, where in nitpicking the unlikelihood of inbreeding as the origin of life, we fail to spot it actually does describe in a sense the origin of life.

to:

*** ** The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally (even Jesus taught in parables, after all). It is a compilation of attempts by early man to understand humanity and the universe we inhabit. Whether they had divine help is a matter of belief, but to take the stories in it literally is to deliberately make oneself ignorant of the many layers of knowledge and truth contained within. Adam and Eve are just one example, where in nitpicking the unlikelihood of inbreeding as the origin of life, we fail to spot it actually does describe in a sense the origin of life.



** OR the plants were already feeding on the day 1 light and since God is pretty OCD with context, established the rule on an object to generate said light. IE, he didn't create fire until the point for having a fire in the first place was present

to:

** OR the plants were already feeding on the day 1 light and since God is pretty OCD with context, established the rule on an object to generate said light. IE, he didn't create fire until the point for having a fire in the first place was presentpresent.
*** But that only leads to a new question: If there was no sun on tehe first day, where exactly did the light come from?
11th Dec '16 9:43:38 PM Furienna
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** I couldn't help but think while reading the above that Jesus is referred to as the firstborn of all Creation, and is commonly acknowledged (in Christian circles, at least) as God's son. And in keeping with the pattern, God has put the younger children--Christians--ahead of the firstborn by sacrificing him. -SirMayday

to:

** I couldn't help but think while reading the above that Jesus is referred to as the firstborn of all Creation, and is commonly acknowledged (in Christian circles, at least) as God's son. And in keeping with the pattern, God has put the younger children--Christians--ahead children -Christians - ahead of the firstborn by sacrificing him. -SirMayday



* Jesus is technically a bastard child. Going on the assumption that Mary was a virgin who had never done the deed, he quite literally had no father. Going on the assumption that Mary was a virgin--as in unmarried--he was also a bastard child.

to:

* Jesus is technically a bastard child. Going on the assumption that Mary was a virgin who had never done the deed, he quite literally had no father. Going on the assumption that Mary was a virgin--as virgin - as in unmarried--he unmarried - he was also a bastard child.



*** The crime Jesus was actually crucified for was sedition. The punishment for sedition was death via crucifixion. When Jesus tells says that his followers must take up their cross, it was less of a reference to the symbology associated with Jesus and the cross and more that he was telling his followers that to follow him is certain death. Whether you subscribe to the Kingdom of Heaven being an actual physical place (which would require a physical king) or an other wordly realm, it was an insult to Rome and inherent challenge to its authority.

to:

*** The crime Jesus was actually crucified for was sedition. The punishment for sedition was death via crucifixion. When Jesus tells says that his followers must take up their cross, it was less of a reference to the symbology associated with Jesus and the cross and more that he was telling his followers that to follow him is certain death. Whether you subscribe to the Kingdom of Heaven being an actual physical place (which would require a physical king) or an other wordly realm, it was an insult to Rome and inherent challenge to its authority.authority.






** Yeah, someone must have spilled the beans. Otherwise, we wouldn't have known about it.






* Looking at the story of Joseph in Genesis, at first glance, it appears to be a RagsToRiches story about a guy who really [[EarnYourHappyEnding earns his happy ending]]. Fred Clark, in a Slacktivist blog entry titled "Joseph and the Appalling Tyrannical Despot", shows the FridgeHorror behind this, discussing how the story credits Joseph with establishing the system of despotic tyranny and slavery that characterized the Pharaohs' regime in Egypt. He concludes that this is a "just-so story", about how Egypt got its tyranny. However, taking the story in combination with the Exodus narrative leads to an alternative interpretation -- as a cautionary tale. The lesson advanced is that an absolute government might serve you well for the present, especially under a benevolent ruler; however, in creating such a state, you are in fact fashioning the tools of oppression that can be used by a less ethical successor. NiceJobBreakingItHero indeed. [[note]] This anti-absolute government interpretation would certainly be in keeping with Samuel's warnings to Israel about the dangers of having a king (cf. 1 Samuel 8). Such an interpretation, if accurate, would make the Bible a very revolutionary text for its time; when the Bible was written, people generally took it for granted that absolute government was the way to get things done. The notion of the enlightened despot who brings prosperity remains with us even now, motivating such disparate entities as ISIS, North Korea, and the People's Republic of China. [[/note]]

to:


* Looking at the story of Joseph in Genesis, at first glance, it appears to be a RagsToRiches story about a guy who really [[EarnYourHappyEnding earns his happy ending]]. Fred Clark, in a Slacktivist blog entry titled "Joseph and the Appalling Tyrannical Despot", shows the FridgeHorror behind this, discussing how the story credits Joseph with establishing the system of despotic tyranny and slavery that characterized the Pharaohs' regime in Egypt. He concludes that this is a "just-so story", about how Egypt got its tyranny. However, taking the story in combination with the Exodus narrative leads to an alternative interpretation -- - as a cautionary tale. The lesson advanced is that an absolute government might serve you well for the present, especially under a benevolent ruler; however, in creating such a state, you are in fact fashioning the tools of oppression that can be used by a less ethical successor. NiceJobBreakingItHero indeed. [[note]] This anti-absolute government interpretation would certainly be in keeping with Samuel's warnings to Israel about the dangers of having a king (cf. 1 Samuel 8). Such an interpretation, if accurate, would make the Bible a very revolutionary text for its time; when the Bible was written, people generally took it for granted that absolute government was the way to get things done. The notion of the enlightened despot who brings prosperity remains with us even now, motivating such disparate entities as ISIS, North Korea, and the People's Republic of China. [[/note]][[/note]]
11th Dec '16 8:54:51 PM Furienna
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Some people might argue that since David was the king, Bathsheba had no choice but to let him do what he wanted to do with her. But she ''did'' have a choice, as we could later see with Susanna in the Apocrypha version of The Book of David (she refused to cheat on her husband, even if that almost ended badly for her). So if Bathsheba had been as righteous as Susanna, or if she simply had really loved Uriah, it is very likely that she would have refused to sleep with David, even if that could have had harsh consequences for her. Of course, we never got to hear her side of the story or hear her feelings about what happened. But it makes sense to think that Bathsheba had become stuck in a marriage to a man, whom she found dull and didn't love. So when David summoned her to him and told her that he wanted her, she found that flattering and exciting and didn't care if what she did was wrong or not. Either way, it is pretty safe to conclude that she wasn't innocent. Because if she had been, the text would have ''told us'' that she was.

to:

** Some people might argue that since David was the king, Bathsheba had no choice but to let him do what he wanted to do with her. But she ''did'' have a choice, as we could later see with Susanna in the Apocrypha version of The Book of David (she refused to cheat on her husband, even if that almost ended badly for her). So if Bathsheba had been as righteous as Susanna, or if she simply had really loved Uriah, it is very likely that she would have refused to sleep with David, even if that could have had harsh consequences for her. Of course, we never got to hear her side of the story or hear her feelings about what happened. But it makes sense to think that Bathsheba had become was stuck in a loveless marriage to a man, whom she found dull nice but boring and didn't love. whom she couldn't love back. So when David summoned her to him and told her that he wanted her, she found that it flattering and exciting and didn't care if what she they did was wrong or not. Either way, it is pretty safe to conclude that she wasn't innocent. Because if she had been, been a guiltless victim of David's lust for her, the text would have ''told us'' that she was.



** As stated above, God was giving Abraham a SecretTestOfCharacter, which the latter passed. Before he had to carry it out, God stopped him and provided a lamb for sacrifice. Even if that hadn't happened God, being TheOmnipotent, could have easily done something such as reverse time, [[BackFromTheDead bring Issac back to life]] or prevent the knife from penetrating his skin to name a few.
** The location where Abraham was willing (probably) to sacrifice Issac has been lost to history. Oddly enough, one decent guess is Golgotha - the place Jesus was crucified. (Also note: if the location was remembered, would crucifixions have taken place there? Probably not...) -Robinton

to:

** As stated above, God was giving Abraham a SecretTestOfCharacter, which the latter passed. Before he had to carry it out, God stopped him and provided a lamb for sacrifice. Even if that hadn't happened God, being TheOmnipotent, could have easily done something such as reverse time, [[BackFromTheDead bring Issac Isaac back to life]] or prevent the knife from penetrating his skin to name a few.
** The location where Abraham was willing (probably) to sacrifice Issac Isaac has been lost to history. Oddly enough, one decent guess is Golgotha - the place Jesus was crucified. (Also note: if the location was remembered, would crucifixions have taken place there? Probably not...) -Robinton



* This was pointed out to me in jest but upon further meditation it makes complete sense: Old Testament God was a giant raging jerk of the brimstone and hellfire sort; if you sinned against him he'd call down plagues and curses and floods and all sort of nasty stuff, and woe betide you if you were even a little rude to his Chosen People. New Testament God preaches mercy and kindness and turning the other cheek and treating your fellow man as you would have him treat you and being understanding to the ignorant. What happened in between? [[YouNeedToGetLaid He got laid.]]

to:


* This was pointed out to me in jest jest, but upon further meditation it makes complete sense: sense upon further meditation: Old Testament God was a giant raging jerk of the brimstone and hellfire sort; if you sinned against him he'd call down plagues and curses and floods and all sort of nasty stuff, and woe betide you if you were even a little rude to his Chosen People. New Testament God preaches mercy and kindness and turning the other cheek and treating your fellow man as you would have him treat you and being understanding to the ignorant. What happened in between? [[YouNeedToGetLaid He got laid.]]



* The story of Jesus healing the 10 lepers in Luke 17:11-19 ends with only one of the lepers coming back to thank Jesus - and he was a Samaritan. I initially assumed his ethnicity was meant to be some sort of contrast to the other 9 who should have been the grateful ones instead, being the ones waiting for the Messiah and all. Then it hit me, Jesus told the lepers to go show themselves to the priests, which was normal Jewish custom to do if you wanted to be 'officially clean'. The problem is that Jesus wasn't exactly a popular figure back then with the high priests and all and it was most likely said priests would dissuade the lepers from going back to Jesus. Of course not all the lepers were told this - the Samaritan was left out because he would be ostracized by the priests! He would then be the only one who felt a need to go back to Jesus! - Tropers/{{Pachylad}}

* There's an instance in the new testament where Jesus healed a blind man by spitting into his hand and rubbing said hand over the man's face ([[http://members.optusnet.com.au/~lakolberg/transcripts/C101B.html see here]]). Up until recently, this seemed like a random and gross thing for Jesus to do, considering there are other points where he heals people without even touching them. However, with the development of modern biology and forensics, saliva is known to be the most pure and potent source of DNA, the building blocks of life. Going on the assumption that Jesus is the son of God, then the blind man had just received a face full of super-duper holy DNA. A case of modern science adding a layer of context to biblical lore.

to:

* The story of Jesus healing the 10 lepers in Luke 17:11-19 ends with only one of the lepers coming back to thank Jesus - and he was a Samaritan. I initially assumed his ethnicity was meant to be some sort of contrast to the other 9 who should have been the grateful ones instead, being the ones waiting for the Messiah and all. Then it hit me, Jesus told the lepers to go show themselves to the priests, which was normal Jewish custom to do if you wanted to be 'officially clean'. The problem is that Jesus wasn't exactly a popular figure back then with the high priests and all all, and it was most likely said priests would dissuade the lepers from going back to Jesus. Of course not all the lepers were told this - the Samaritan was left out because he would be ostracized by the priests! He would then be the only one who felt a need to go back to Jesus! - Tropers/{{Pachylad}}

* There's an instance in the new testament where Jesus healed a blind man by spitting into his hand and rubbing said hand over the man's face ([[http://members.optusnet.com.au/~lakolberg/transcripts/C101B.html see here]]).face. Up until recently, this seemed like a random and gross thing for Jesus to do, considering there are other points where he heals people without even touching them. However, with the development of modern biology and forensics, saliva is known to be the most pure and potent source of DNA, the building blocks of life. Going on the assumption that Jesus is the son of God, then the blind man had just received a face full of super-duper holy DNA. A case of modern science adding a layer of context to biblical lore.
** Saliva was actually used a lot in the folk medicine of the time. It is true though that as far as we know, Jesus used it only that once.




to:

**** The serpent was also condemned to lose his legs and having to crawl on the ground for all eternity. So no, he was not let off the hook at all!


Added DiffLines:

** It seems like they both were forced to evolve into what would be the ideal gender roles way into the 20th century. Women had to become the legal property of their husbands and give birth to children, and men had to become the bread-winners of their families (the farmer bit shouldn't be taken so literally; a man could just as well live in a city and have a more urban occupation, as long as he had a job and supported his wife and children).


Added DiffLines:



Added DiffLines:

11th Dec '16 9:11:53 AM Furienna
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Some people might argue that since David was the king, Bathsheba had no choice but to let him do what he wanted to do with her. But she ''did'' have a choice, as we could later see with Susanna in the Apocrypha version of The Book of David (she refused to cheat on her husband, even if that almost ended badly for her). So if Bathsheba had been as righteous as Susanna, or if she simply had really loved Uriah, it is very likely that she would have refused to sleep with David, even if that could have had harsh consequences for her. Of course, we never get to hear her side of the story or know her feelings about what happened. But it makes sense to think that Bathsheba had become stuck in a marriage to a man, whom she found dull and didn't love. So when David summoned her to him and told her that he wanted her, she found that flattering and exciting and didn't care if what she did was wrong or not. Either way, it is pretty safe to conclude that she wasn't innocent. Because if she had been, the text would have ''told us'' that she was.

to:

** Some people might argue that since David was the king, Bathsheba had no choice but to let him do what he wanted to do with her. But she ''did'' have a choice, as we could later see with Susanna in the Apocrypha version of The Book of David (she refused to cheat on her husband, even if that almost ended badly for her). So if Bathsheba had been as righteous as Susanna, or if she simply had really loved Uriah, it is very likely that she would have refused to sleep with David, even if that could have had harsh consequences for her. Of course, we never get got to hear her side of the story or know hear her feelings about what happened. But it makes sense to think that Bathsheba had become stuck in a marriage to a man, whom she found dull and didn't love. So when David summoned her to him and told her that he wanted her, she found that flattering and exciting and didn't care if what she did was wrong or not. Either way, it is pretty safe to conclude that she wasn't innocent. Because if she had been, the text would have ''told us'' that she was.
11th Dec '16 9:08:43 AM Furienna
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Speaking of [=The Bible=], after reading first and second Samuel, I could never quite get over what David did to Bathsheba in Samuel 2. There were times I could succeed in not feeling anger whenever I thought of him, but I always held a certain amount of venom towards him for a short time. I thought "well so what if they patched things up? Bathsheba still got downgraded from being that special woman in marriage to a loving, monogamous man, to simply being another one of David's wives". I thought "why didn't David dissolve the marriage so she could go out to be someone elses only wife, instead of living the rest of her days competing with his other wives for attention?" I knew that God said he'd give David's wives to Absalom, but it later describes Absalom as laying with his ''concubines'' instead, so I always thought David had circumvented that command somehow....And then it hit me. Those concubines must've been David's wives at one point, as they were described as widows after David puts them in a house and doesn't lie with them again, therefore, it seems Bathsheba was the only wife David had left, as she isn't forced to live in confinement like David's former wives. Upon this revelation, one wonders whether God taking away David's other wives was to serve the double purpose of punishing David AND compensating Bathsheba so that she'd once again have a husband all to herself, and not have to be reduced to competing with other wives. In any case, it was upon this revelation that I was finally able to get over it completely (instead of only partially), knowing that Bathsheba was able to get David's full UNDIVIDED attention. -- {{Fionordequester}}
** You have to remember though that Bathsheba wasn't innocent. While she didn't kill Uriah, she did cheat on him. So losing her firstborn and having to compete with rivals was quite fair, when you think about that she had commited not only a great sin, but it was also serious crime at the time, and the normal punishment would have been that she and David would have been ''executed''.
** Some people might argue that since David was the king, Bathsheba pretty much had no choice but to let him do what he wanted to do with her. But she ''did'' have a choice, as we could later see with Susanna in the Apocrypha version of The Book of David (she refused to cheat on her husband, even if that almost ended badly for her). So if Bathsheba had been as righeous as Susanna, or if she simply had really loved Uriah, it is likely that she would have refused to sleep with David, even if that would have had harsh consequences for her. Of course, we never get to hear her side of the story or her feelins about what happened. But it becomes more and more reasonable to think, that Bathsheba had become stuck in a marriage to a man, whom she found dull and didn't love. So when David summoned her to him and told her that he wanted her, she found that flattering and exciting and didn't care that what she did was wrong or not. Either way, it is pretty safe to conclude that she wasn't innocent. Because if she had been, the text would surely have told us that she was.

to:

* Speaking of [=The Bible=], after After reading first and second Samuel, I could never quite get over what David did to Bathsheba in Samuel 2. There were times I could succeed in not feeling anger whenever I thought of him, but I always held a certain amount of venom towards him for a short time. I thought "well so what if they patched things up? Bathsheba still got downgraded from being that special woman in marriage to a loving, monogamous man, to simply being another one of David's wives". I thought "why didn't David dissolve the marriage so she could go out to be someone elses only wife, instead of living the rest of her days competing with his other wives for attention?" I knew that God said he'd give David's wives to Absalom, but it later describes Absalom as laying with his ''concubines'' instead, so I always thought David had circumvented that command somehow....And then it hit me. Those concubines must've been David's wives at one point, as they were described as widows after David puts them in a house and doesn't lie with them again, therefore, it seems Bathsheba was the only wife David had left, as she isn't forced to live in confinement like David's former wives. Upon this revelation, one wonders whether God taking away David's other wives was to serve the double purpose of punishing David AND compensating Bathsheba so that she'd once again have a husband all to herself, and not have to be reduced to competing with other wives. In any case, it was upon this revelation that I was finally able to get over it completely (instead of only partially), knowing that Bathsheba was able to get David's full UNDIVIDED attention. -- {{Fionordequester}}
attention.
** You have to remember though that Bathsheba wasn't hardly was innocent. While she didn't kill Uriah, she did cheat on him. So losing her firstborn and having to compete with rivals was quite fair, when you think about that she had commited not only a great sin, but it was also a serious crime at the time, and the normal punishment would have been that she and David would have been ''executed''.''executed''. So it was really merciful of God, that he would let them survive and become the parents of the next king of Israel (Salomon).
** Some people might argue that since David was the king, Bathsheba pretty much had no choice but to let him do what he wanted to do with her. But she ''did'' have a choice, as we could later see with Susanna in the Apocrypha version of The Book of David (she refused to cheat on her husband, even if that almost ended badly for her). So if Bathsheba had been as righeous righteous as Susanna, or if she simply had really loved Uriah, it is very likely that she would have refused to sleep with David, even if that would could have had harsh consequences for her. Of course, we never get to hear her side of the story or know her feelins feelings about what happened. But it becomes more and more reasonable makes sense to think, think that Bathsheba had become stuck in a marriage to a man, whom she found dull and didn't love. So when David summoned her to him and told her that he wanted her, she found that flattering and exciting and didn't care that if what she did was wrong or not. Either way, it is pretty safe to conclude that she wasn't innocent. Because if she had been, the text would surely have told us ''told us'' that she was.




11th Dec '16 8:52:21 AM Furienna
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Speaking of [=The Bible=], after reading first and second Samuel, I could never quite get over what David did to Bathsheba in Samuel 2. There were times I could succeed in not feeling anger whenever I thought of him, but, I always held a certain amount of venom towards him for a short time. I thought "well so what if they patched things up? Bathsheba still got downgraded from being that special woman in marriage to a loving, monogamous man, to simply being another one of David's wives". I thought "why didn't David dissolve the marriage so she could go out to be someone elses only wife, instead of living the rest of her days competing with his other wives for attention?" I knew that God said he'd give David's wives to Absalom, but it later describes Absalom as laying with his ''concubines'' instead, so I always thought David had circumvented that command somehow....And then it hit me. Those concubines must've been David's wives at one point, as they were described as widows after David puts them in a house and doesn't lie with them again, therefore, it seems Bathsheba was the only wife David had left, as she isn't forced to live in confinement like David's former wives. Upon this revelation, one wonders whether God taking away David's other wives was to serve the double purpose of punishing David AND compensating Bathsheba so that she'd once again have a husband all to herself, and not have to be reduced to competing with other wives. In any case, it was upon this revelation that I was finally able to get over it completely (instead of only partially), knowing that Bathsheba was able to get David's full UNDIVIDED attention. -- {{Fionordequester}}
*** Remember, Bathsheba wasn't innocent. While she didn't kill Uriah, she did cheat on him, so losing her firstborn and having to compete with rivals is quite fair.
** On another note, Abraham's apparent willingness to sacrifice Isaac, even though God said that he would provide a sacrifice, always bugged me. Abraham was about ready to kill his son when he heard the ram. But then again, this is the same guy who lied to both Pharaoh and Abimelech about his wife (saying she was his sister) and who lost faith that God would provide a son through Sarah and slept with her servant Hagar. By this point in the story Abraham has a well-established track record of jumping the gun and making baseless assumptions ''even when God has already demonstrated his will and his power in Abraham's life on numerous occasions''. The attempted sacrifice of Isaac is well within Abraham's character and experience ([[http://gallery.sjsu.edu/sacrifice/sumerians.html he did come from a society that practiced human sacrifice, after all]]).
*** I once heard a different interpretation of that story where Abraham is secretly testing God to see if he is the kind of deity that would demand a man to kill his son. Not sure if the text supports this at all, but it's given the story a greater poignancy and depth for me.
*** Here's the thing. God promised to make Abraham's descendants through Isaac a great nation, and if Isaac died, God wouldn't be able to keep his promise. God had already proven himself to be more than faithful in keeping his promises to Abraham (i.e. giving him a son when he was older than 100). In addition, he'd proven himself to be very, very powerful. In Abraham's place, I would assume that God would provide (provide a lamb, [[BackFromTheDead bring Isaac back to life,]] etc. Abraham knew what he was doing.
*** Abraham was stopped before he touched the knife, meaning it was the thought that counted. He was also extremely old, compared to a son who would have been in the prime of his youth. It may have been that he told his son about this and agreed to it. It could also then be tied in Jesus's (The Lamb's) sacrifice later on. It could be shown as practicing what you preach, in being willing to have yourself/your son do what you asked others to do, though goes even further in instead allowing animal sacrifices as a stopgap measure until the point when there was one final sacrifice that could pay for all.
*** As stated above, God was giving Abraham a SecretTestOfCharacter, which the latter passed. Before he had to carry it out, God stopped him and provided a lamb for sacrifice. Even if that hadn't happened God, being TheOmnipotent, could have easily done something such as reverse time, [[BackFromTheDead bring Issac back to life]] or prevent the knife from penetrating his skin to name a few.
*** The location where Abraham was willing (probably) to sacrifice Issac has been lost to history. Oddly enough, one decent guess is Golgotha - the place Jesus was crucified. (Also note: if the location was remembered, would crucifixions have taken place there? Probably not...) -Robinton

to:

**
*
Speaking of [=The Bible=], after reading first and second Samuel, I could never quite get over what David did to Bathsheba in Samuel 2. There were times I could succeed in not feeling anger whenever I thought of him, but, but I always held a certain amount of venom towards him for a short time. I thought "well so what if they patched things up? Bathsheba still got downgraded from being that special woman in marriage to a loving, monogamous man, to simply being another one of David's wives". I thought "why didn't David dissolve the marriage so she could go out to be someone elses only wife, instead of living the rest of her days competing with his other wives for attention?" I knew that God said he'd give David's wives to Absalom, but it later describes Absalom as laying with his ''concubines'' instead, so I always thought David had circumvented that command somehow....And then it hit me. Those concubines must've been David's wives at one point, as they were described as widows after David puts them in a house and doesn't lie with them again, therefore, it seems Bathsheba was the only wife David had left, as she isn't forced to live in confinement like David's former wives. Upon this revelation, one wonders whether God taking away David's other wives was to serve the double purpose of punishing David AND compensating Bathsheba so that she'd once again have a husband all to herself, and not have to be reduced to competing with other wives. In any case, it was upon this revelation that I was finally able to get over it completely (instead of only partially), knowing that Bathsheba was able to get David's full UNDIVIDED attention. -- {{Fionordequester}}
*** Remember, ** You have to remember though that Bathsheba wasn't innocent. While she didn't kill Uriah, she did cheat on him, so him. So losing her firstborn and having to compete with rivals is was quite fair.
fair, when you think about that she had commited not only a great sin, but it was also serious crime at the time, and the normal punishment would have been that she and David would have been ''executed''.
** Some people might argue that since David was the king, Bathsheba pretty much had no choice but to let him do what he wanted to do with her. But she ''did'' have a choice, as we could later see with Susanna in the Apocrypha version of The Book of David (she refused to cheat on her husband, even if that almost ended badly for her). So if Bathsheba had been as righeous as Susanna, or if she simply had really loved Uriah, it is likely that she would have refused to sleep with David, even if that would have had harsh consequences for her. Of course, we never get to hear her side of the story or her feelins about what happened. But it becomes more and more reasonable to think, that Bathsheba had become stuck in a marriage to a man, whom she found dull and didn't love. So when David summoned her to him and told her that he wanted her, she found that flattering and exciting and didn't care that what she did was wrong or not. Either way, it is pretty safe to conclude that she wasn't innocent. Because if she had been, the text would surely have told us that she was.

*
On another note, Abraham's apparent willingness to sacrifice Isaac, even though God said that he would provide a sacrifice, always bugged me. Abraham was about ready to kill his son when he heard the ram. But then again, this is the same guy who lied to both Pharaoh and Abimelech about his wife (saying she was his sister) and who lost faith that God would provide a son through Sarah and slept with her servant Hagar. By this point in the story Abraham has a well-established track record of jumping the gun and making baseless assumptions ''even when God has already demonstrated his will and his power in Abraham's life on numerous occasions''. The attempted sacrifice of Isaac is well within Abraham's character and experience ([[http://gallery.sjsu.edu/sacrifice/sumerians.html he did come from a society that practiced human sacrifice, after all]]).
*** ** I once heard a different interpretation of that story where Abraham is secretly testing God to see if he is the kind of deity that would demand a man to kill his son. Not sure if the text supports this at all, but it's given the story a greater poignancy and depth for me.
*** ** Here's the thing. God promised to make Abraham's descendants through Isaac a great nation, and if Isaac died, God wouldn't be able to keep his promise. God had already proven himself to be more than faithful in keeping his promises to Abraham (i.e. giving him a son when he was older than 100). In addition, he'd proven himself to be very, very powerful. In Abraham's place, I would assume that God would provide (provide a lamb, [[BackFromTheDead bring Isaac back to life,]] etc. Abraham knew what he was doing.
*** ** Abraham was stopped before he touched the knife, meaning it was the thought that counted. He was also extremely old, compared to a son who would have been in the prime of his youth. It may have been that he told his son about this and agreed to it. It could also then be tied in Jesus's (The Lamb's) sacrifice later on. It could be shown as practicing what you preach, in being willing to have yourself/your son do what you asked others to do, though goes even further in instead allowing animal sacrifices as a stopgap measure until the point when there was one final sacrifice that could pay for all.
*** ** As stated above, God was giving Abraham a SecretTestOfCharacter, which the latter passed. Before he had to carry it out, God stopped him and provided a lamb for sacrifice. Even if that hadn't happened God, being TheOmnipotent, could have easily done something such as reverse time, [[BackFromTheDead bring Issac back to life]] or prevent the knife from penetrating his skin to name a few.
*** ** The location where Abraham was willing (probably) to sacrifice Issac has been lost to history. Oddly enough, one decent guess is Golgotha - the place Jesus was crucified. (Also note: if the location was remembered, would crucifixions have taken place there? Probably not...) -Robinton
This list shows the last 10 events of 106. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Fridge.TheBible