Bathsheba's child

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Bathsheba's child

Post #1

Post by Athetotheist »

In 2 Samuel 11, David gets Bathsheba pregnant and arranges her husband Uriah's death so he won't find out. In chapter 12 the prophet Nathan confronts David about what he has done and David repents. Nathan tells David that God has forgiven him, but then in verse 14 Nathan says this:

"However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also born to you shall surely die."

We are then told:

"And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bore to David, and it became ill. David therefore pleaded with God for the child, and David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground......Then on the seventh day it came to pass that the child died" (vv. 15-16, 18).

Here is a story in which a king does something scandalous and the king's national deity can't come up with any better way to deal with it than to strike an innocent child with a slow, wasting death.

When Bible-based arguments fail, Bible apologists often fall back on asking, "If you don't believe the Bible, where do you get your morals?" How moral would they consider any religion in which any other god did the same thing, in the same way, for the same reason we read about here? In what non-biblical context would they find this story morally acceptable?

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Bathsheba's child

Post #71

Post by ttruscott »

Athetotheist wrote:
Tart wrote:The only innocent person to ever die was Jesus on the Cross... So if it was Zeus who killed Christ, is he guilty?
If Jesus was the only innocent person ever to die, what was Bathsheba's child guilty of?
In suport of the interpretation that death can prove sin in infants there is the story of sinful foetus in Gen 25:21 ... Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 But the children STRUGGLED TOGETHER within her; and she said, “If it is so, why then am I this way?� So she went to inquire of the LORD.

23 The LORD said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb;
And two peoples will be separated from your body;
And one people shall be stronger than the other;
And the older shall serve the younger.�


First the words: struggled together: Strong's H7533 - ratsats

to crush, oppress

(Qal) to crush, get crushed, be crushed
to crush, oppress (fig)
crushed (participle passive)

(Niphal) to be crushed, be broken

(Piel) to crush in pieces
to grievously oppress
(fig)

(Poel) to oppress (fig)

(Hiphil) to crush

(Hithpoel) to crush each other: The word together was chosen to denote reciprocity as the Hithpoel form of the verb is used in this verse.

Why would orthodoxy (both Jewish and Christian) continually interpret ratsats as to struggle, jostle or wrestle when it means to crush into pieces?

Because these eisegetic words can attribute Rebecca's painful discomfort to natural causes but trying to murder each other implies awareness, agenda and evil intent. First, if it was all so innocent and ordinary, why did GOD contend that their fighting had a political motivation for their behaviour with ramifications about the law of primogeniture???

Secondly, how could they be involved in murdering each other without one at least being evil? Both might have been being evil or one might have been righteous, ie, following GOD's plan in this fight, but both could not have been righteous. Evil in the womb is NOT innocent at birth.

Third, unless they had a pre-conception life and made decisions about their fates by their free will and knew how GOD was proceeding with them, how did the infants possible know about the law of primogeniture (who serves who) so that GOD could express that as the reason they were fighting so hard in the womb???

So you might have a personal antagonism to the idea of a sinful infant, ie, that infants are NOT innocent, but it is a Biblical doctrine and fits both the orthodox and PCE doctrines of the sinfulness of everyone at birth...we just differ on how we get the sinful nature we are born with, ie, the blasphemous GOD made us that way or the PCE version that we chose by our free will to break HIS law and became sinners before conception as human.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Bathsheba's child

Post #72

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Athetotheist wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote:Okay I was wondering why you pointed that out to me (it wasn't me that suggested the child was guilty in some way). So I was a little confused as to what that has to do with the points I presented....
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 687#994687
Glad we could get that cleared up, since I went on to address the points you presented in my post #43.

Yes I saw that but I find what you wrote either unrelated to what I wrote (you seem to be addressing an allegation that the baby died because Bathsheba neglected to take care of it... I'm not sure what that's about.) or rather garbled and difficult to follow... something about "preserving justice" (?) ... two witnesses (again I don't understand what that has to do with my post...) and like I said something about blasphemy (presumably directed at another poster).

I got you were comparing Gods actions to David's, that's about the only thing I recognised that related to what I wrote.

Thanks anyway,


JW
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Bathsheba's child

Post #73

Post by Tart »

Athetotheist wrote:
Tart wrote:Well the simple truth is this, and its funny you talk about this, because the innocent being sacrificed was Jesus on the cross, for your sins and my sins... Im guilty... I have committed adultery... I have killed people... And children have been unborn because of my sins...

This is exactly why we need to have faith in Christ... This is why we need to have faith...
Whatever you may have done----or may *think* you've done----you didn't do any of it before you were a month old, did you?
Nope... I suppose you could call me utterly selfish when i was a month old, and Christ told us to deny ourselves and take up our cross...

Im trying to really get to the heart of the issue of why people deny Christ... I think becuase of this stupid little story is underlining a greater issue.

I dream of a Body in a time when the fall of the world never happened... When the Spirit of God could have ruled the world, what that mighta looked like... though i suppose, all these things were meant to happen...

And God is powerful enough to restore all things, and make new, and control reality... That is what makes God God... And Faith will prevail no matter what destiny has in fate.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Bathsheba's child

Post #74

Post by JehovahsWitness »

[Replying to post 71 by ttruscott]

Could it not simply be that they were two babies jostling for space in their mothers womb? I don't see anything in the definition that mentions "murder" (or attempted murder). Most murders involve a struggle but not every struggle is attempted murder. Any parent (or law enforcement officer) especially of boys, knows that!

GENESIS 25: 23

The LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples will be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger.�
Where does it say the babies in Rebecca's womb knew about anything( the law of primogeniture or any law at all for that matter). God said HE knew who would serve who (which would be him looking into the future and explaining what would happen... we call that PROPHECY...), but where does it say they were aware of any of this?




JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Bathsheba's child

Post #75

Post by Athetotheist »

Tart wrote:I suppose you could call me utterly selfish when i was a month old, and Christ told us to deny ourselves and take up our cross...
How many month-old babies did he say that to?

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Bathsheba's child

Post #76

Post by Athetotheist »

ttruscott wrote:So you might have a personal antagonism to the idea of a sinful infant, ie, that infants are NOT innocent, but it is a Biblical doctrine and fits both the orthodox and PCE doctrines of the sinfulness of everyone at birth...we just differ on how we get the sinful nature we are born with, ie, the blasphemous GOD made us that way or the PCE version that we chose by our free will to break HIS law and became sinners before conception as human.
Actually, I don't believe that we're born with a "sinful" nature at all. You assume that we have a sinful nature because that's what your religion teaches you, so your argument doesn't demonstrate that we have a sinful nature; it merely demonstrates that your religion says we do.

The point I'm trying to make is that even if Bathsheba's child was guilty of some "sin" at birth, that's not what Nathan says the child is to die for; Nathan says that the child is to die for what *David* did, which isn't supposed to happen. So either the child isn't dying for his own sin, or he is but Nathan is lying about it. Which do you find preferable?

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Bathsheba's child

Post #77

Post by ttruscott »

JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 71 by ttruscott]

Could it not simply be that they were two babies jostling for space in their mothers womb? I don't see anything in the definition that mentions "murder" (or attempted murder). Most murders involve a struggle but not every struggle is attempted murder. Any parent (or law enforcement officer) especially of boys, knows that!
But that does not account for YHWH's description of the incident from HIS pov of political struggling and gain.

Nor does it address that "to crush each other to pieces" is not just jostling nor wiggling for room! To accept the orthodox opinion one must believe there is no difference between "to crush each other to pieces" and "jostling in a tight space".

Ask yourself:
1. Why does orthodoxy interpret crushing each other to pieces as jostling, which is nowhere found in the meaning of the word??? There is a mystery here based upon a false premise...why did YHWHY who knows all, answer the way HE did? If not enough space was the answer why is a political motivation for their behaviour given??? Don't just think you know the answer to this question - really accept it as a problem and strive to answer it.
GENESIS 25: 23 The LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples will be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger.�
Where does it say the babies in Rebecca's womb knew about anything( the law of primogeniture or any law at all for that matter). God said HE knew who would serve who (which would be him looking into the future and explaining what would happen... we call that PROPHECY...), but where does it say they were aware of any of this?
Excuse me, this is given as the reason for their jostling hatred of each other... How could it be motivating them if they were tabula rasa?? If they were just wiggling around then YHWH's answer to Rebecca about the intensity of the pain (which must have been abnormal within the context) as to why it was so painful is meaningless. The answer was that it was not just meaningless wiggling at all but politically motivated murder by crushing each other to pieces!!!
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Bathsheba's child

Post #78

Post by JehovahsWitness »

GENESIS 25: 23

The LORD said to her, “... And two peoples will be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other�
ttruscott wrote:... that does not account for YHWH's description of the incident from HIS pov of political struggling and gain.

Why does this have to have anything to do with a prehuman life. Prophecy is history recorded in advance, if God foretold that the Allied forces would overpower the Germans in WWII, would that mean that they all had prehuman lives?..I'm just not seeing anything but a prediction about future power.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Bathsheba's child

Post #79

Post by JehovahsWitness »

ttruscott wrote:
Nor does it address that "to crush each other to pieces" is not just jostling nor wiggling for room!

They obviously didn't "to crush each other to pieces" because the babies were born whole and alive. A dictionary (or concordance) presents various options on a given word, it's not saying that all the options must be applicable to every given usage, that is not how dictionaries/concordances WORK.

Strong gives us the following options, we may pick ONE if we like
a primitive root; to crack in pieces, literally or figuratively:--break, bruise, crush, discourage, oppress, struggle together.
... so a simple struggle without the notion of intent to cause death, crush to pieces, is an option and one which by far by the majority of translators, seem to have chosen .

See various translations
https://biblehub.com/genesis/25-22.htm
GENESIS 25:22
The babies jostled each other within her - NIV
Indeed I have not found a single translation that says "and the children attempted to murder each other within her" As for your seeing "a political motivation" to the babies struggle, that is entirely in your imagination. Verse 22 makes no such suggestion, it simply speaks of Rebecca's physical discomfort because the babies were "struggleing" no more no less. The drama you have built up in your head is entirely your own.

(I have no idea what the "orthodox opinion" is but if it does not recognise the difference between "to crush each other to pieces" and a simple struggle without imposition of cause, intent or outcome then it's garbage).
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sun Jan 12, 2020 12:11 am, edited 5 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Bathsheba's child

Post #80

Post by JehovahsWitness »

ttruscott wrote: why did YHWHY who knows all, answer the way HE did?

Because he was letting Rebecca know what what the FUTURE held for the boys and their eventual descendants. The boys he explained were "struggling" (not attempting to murder each other - see above) which would be typical of their future relationship. Their descendents would become opponents. What in all that imposes past existences?
ttruscott wrote: why is a political motivation for their [the twins] behaviour given?

It isn't. It seems you are attempting to transfer Gods prophecy about future events (verse 23) to the description of the situation that promted the enquiry (verse 22). The prophecy that God uttered, imposes no "political motivation" on the BABIES at the time they were struggling in Rebecca. Let's look again at the prophecy[/b]
GENESIS 25:23 ESP

And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.�
So Jehovah (YHWH) provides a prophecy with three elements
  • a) Rebecca was carrying "two nations"/"peoples"

    b) the one shall be stronger than the other

    c) the older shall serve the younger
"two nations"/"peoples": Obviously she wasn't literally carrying crowds of people inside her, but figuratively she was since the two individuals would become (future) forefathers to two separate nations.

the one shall be stronger than the other Jacob would prove "stronger" than Esau in some sense and his descendants (The Isarelites) would prove militarily/politically or spiritually be stronger than the Edomites. This implies future aggression although it is not stated explicitly.

the older shall serve the younger applicable to the twins, the birthright that ordinarily went to the first-born son (the older) would go to Jacob (The younger twin).
So God is not saying "The babies are struggling because they want world domination" he in fact makes no comment as to why the babies were struggling. He certainly doesn't say they are trying to kill each other. Gods reply can be summed up as... "The boys are struggling (now). I will tell you what will happen to them in the future, hopefully you can take comfort in knowing what the FUTURE holds for your boys"
ttruscott wrote: ...this is given as the reason for their jostling hatred of each other..
No it is not! Firstly there is no mention of the babies "hating" each other. The question of why the babies were struggling doesn't even come up. Look at verse 22 (b) Rebecca asks "“Why is this happening to me?� she inquires about herself, not the babies. She is effectively asking why she is having an unusually difficult pregnancy. God's response comforts her and explains what will become of the two boys but at no time does God say "they are struggling because of (a), (b) or (c).
CONCLUSION Though promted by Rebecca's discomfort at the time, the entire prophecying is framed in the future and obviously looks to the FUTURE not the past. There is absolutely nothing that imposes a prehuman existence either for the two nations or the babies.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Post Reply