Pew reports that 74 percent of Catholics have no objections to couples cohabiting – in other words 3/4 of all Catholics accept fornication!
The Catholic Herald reports today:
Nearly three quarters of Catholics in the United States are not opposed to couples cohabiting before marriage, despite the Church’s moral teaching.
A new survey by the Pew Research Center, released Nov. 6, reports that Americans as a whole are very accepting of unmarried couples living together, even if they have no plans to marry. Additionally, Pew found that a shrinking percentage of adults are getting married, and an increasing number of adults have decided to cohabit.
Only 14% of adults surveyed said they did not believe that it was ever acceptable for two unmarried adults in a romantic relationship to live together. An additional 16% said that they agreed with cohabitation only if there were plans for the couple to one day get married.
Of the people surveyed, 69% said they believed it was acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together, without any plans to eventually wed.
In 2002, the National Survey of Family Growth found that while 54% of adults between the ages of 18 and 44 had ever cohabited with a romantic partner, 60% had ever been married. By 2017, the number of adults who had ever been married dropped to 50%, while the number of adults who had cohabitated rose to 54%.
Categories: Degeneracy, Fornication, Islam, The Roman Catholic Church
stew and faiz probably will recall this discussion but it is like a theme in these spiritual adulterers
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/28/common-mistakes-in-salah-digital-mimbar-video/
@ Heathcliff
Throwback refutation.
“What is really interesting is verse 28 – “if you fear poverty, soon Allah will enrich you”. the reason for that was because Muhammad had conquered the Hijaz (the Arabian peninsula, especially around Mecca and Medina, and no pagans or idol worshippers were allowed. ……. So now, there is no revenue from the pilgrimmages, so, according to verses 28-29, they will allow the Christians and Jews to be in the Islamic state, provided they surrender and don’t fight/resist, and pay the Jiziye with humiliation, and they cannot evangelize or build new churches or even criticize Islam.”
so how the jiziyah would have enriched the muslims ? the jews and christians were carrying hoards of wealth?
You see how the clown keeps repeating the same debunked arguments? I refuted this brainless polemic about the jizya in my article, but Kennywise can only repeat the lie like a broken record.
plus, EVERY verse you quote , can you QUOTE 4 VERSES before it and 4 verses AFTER because your own hands will HUMILIATE you.
Since God is All-Knowing, He would have known that a war with the Byzantines was coming, and thus, He was reassuring the Muslims that even though they had lost one form of revenue, they would soon get a different form in the form of the jizyah and the spoils of war that they were sure to capture upon defeating their enemies. This actually proves that the Quran is from God, because it effectively made a prophecy that came true within 30 years of Prophet Muhammad’s death! Allahu Akbar!
However, as far the jizyah is concerned, it would hardly have enriched the Muslims. Rather, it was taxation in general (such as land taxes) and the enormous amount of wealth that would be seized from the Byzantines and Persians that would provide the revenue for the expanding Muslim state. In this regard, the Muslim empire was no different from any other nation throughout history. They all collected taxes from their subjects! This will be discussed in more detail later.
Temple then gave a sob story about how the poor Christians had to deal with the “fear of persecution” and that conversions to Islam occurred “over the centuries” (in effect, he admits there were virtually no so-called “forced conversions”) due to the “economic and social pressures of being ‘Dhimmi’”. This claim is common among Christian apologists, but it is nothing more than an over-exaggerated revisionism of actual history.
While there were certainly periods of time when Christians and other groups were unfairly treated by some Muslim rulers (especially under the rule of the Umayyad dynasty, who ironically, also heavily taxed converts as well), this was largely the exception and not the rule. Let’s look at the example of the Egyptian Copts.
During the initial period after the conquest of Egypt and up to the time of the Umayyads, Coptic Christians actually had another option other than paying the jizyah or converting. Since the tax could not be taken from monasteries and monks, joining a monastery would allow a person to avoid paying the jizyah. But by the time of the Umayyads, monks also began to be taxed. The Christian scholar Jurji Zaydan described it this way:
“[w]hen the Copts found that conversion to Islam would not exempt them from poll-tax nor from its extortion by violence, some of them bethought of taking the monk’s robe, since monks were exempted from the poll-tax. The Umayyad viceroys, perceiving their object, proceeded to impose poll-tax on the monks, and became so vindictive that some wanted to enforce it on the dead as well as the living, by making the survivors pay poll-tax for their dead relatives. Many such incidents are reported for the Umayyad period…”[12]
Later on, Umar II, one of the few just rulers of the Umayyad dynasty, reversed these policies. According to Zaydan:
“[t]his process was carried on by the Umayyads, who overlooked the charted of Omar, until the Caliphate came to his grandson and admirer Omar II, who, amongst other instances of imitation of Omar I, wrote to his viceroys bidding them restore the provisions of the charter.”[13]
The Umayyads were so corrupt that they even placed heavy taxes on converts to Islam! They even took the jizyah from converts and persecuted Islamic scholars such as Abu Haneefa (the founder of the Hanafi school in Sunni Islam) when they spoke out against such blatant violations of Islamic law. As Muslim author Dr. Nazeer Ahmed states:
“[t]he Omayyads forgot the fraternal message of Islam and treated the new converts with disdain. Often, the converts were forced to pay the Jizya even after they had accepted Islam. It was against such discrimination that Imam Abu Haneefa (who lived through the Abbasid revolution) fought. In one of his dictums Abu Haneefa said: “The belief of a newly converted Turk is the same as that of an Arab from Hejaz”. But the Omayyads resented such reforms and Imam Abu Haneefa was jailed for his activism.”[14]
And it was Umar II yet again who tried to reverse these unjust policies.[15]
Moreover, it is frankly silly to claim that Copts converted to Islam to escape the jizyah, when the reality was that the jizyah was just ONE of the taxes they had to pay during the Umayyad reign and even during the early years of the Islamic conquests. According to Daniel C. Dennett, in his book Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam, every Coptic man (not women and children) had to pay:
The poll tax (i.e., jizyah);
A land tax;
A tax known as the embole (which was paid in the form of crops);
A tax to cover the upkeep of Muslims;
A tax for the support of local officials.[16]
He also noted that converting to Islam during the Umayyad reign did not exempt the converts from paying the jizyah, as already noted, a practice of the Umayyads that violated Islamic law.[17]
But things were a little different during the initial conquest. Dennett explained that there were different agreements in Egypt, based on the different situations in different cities. According to him, the Copts agreed to pay the jizyah at a rate of 2 dinars for every “adult able-bodied male” and 1 dinar for land, as well as a tax on produce and a payment for the needs of the Muslims (i.e., clothing, entertainment, etc.). But Alexandria, which had been taken by force, was simply annexed. Meanwhile, the Pentapolis “paid a fixed, annual sum, to be neither increased nor decreased”. Thus, there were different tax policies depending on different circumstances.
Dennett also made an astute and interesting observation regarding the so-called “economic motive for conversion”. He stated that:
“[i]f in Egypt conversion had freed a man from all tribute since the beginning of the Arab empire until after the death of Abd-al-Aziz in 703, and if after the census of ibn a-Habhab in 725 conversion freed a man of his poll tax but not his land tax, then it follows that the economic motive for conversion was stronger from 640 to 703 than after 725. We should therefore expect more conversions before 703 than after 725. The facts, however, indicate exactly the opposite. The only mention of conversion in Severus before 703 is the statement that al-Asbagh compelled by force many persons to become Muslims…
In three passages, therefore, mentioning conversion in this Christian authority [Severus], the two passages which ascribe conversion to an economic motive fall at a time when…conversion freed a man only of a poll tax, not of tribute.”[18]
So there really was not much “economic motive for conversion” after all. Temple, like most Christian apologists, made a silly argument based on hyperbolic emotional arguments rather than facts.
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/the-temple-of-ignorance-a-response-to-ken-temple-on-dhimmis-jizyah-and-islam-part-ii/
@ QB
I’m starting to think the blog needs to establish a UN and Geneva conventions because these nukes are being used too recklessly and we gotta get some charters or something.
Nah, the UN is useless anyway and I have way too much fun nuking clowns.
“The historical research principle of embarrassment points to the truth of it.”
no it doesn’t. it is just a made up criteria because there is no eyewitness SOURCE .
embarrassment is not reliable because adultery could be embarrassing to you, it may not have been EMBARRASSING to the anonymous person who thought even gods prophets could become weak and do adultery. your level of embarrassment vs theirs is completely unknown.
this criteria cannot “point to the truth ” of any fictional story which has embarrassing details in it.
this criteria could be hiding an even MORE embarrassing problem and the author lessened it by having david repent of his adultery.
“The historical research principle of embarrassment points to the truth of it.”
here is the contention. you do not know the theological views of those who believed that a prophet who was again and again in “contact” with almighty could slip and sin.
all i need to do is ask you is hypothetical about jesus in the garden of eden and his “flesh nature”
A:
god is able to prevent adam from FREELY choosing not to sin, agree or disagree?
god is able to prevent jesus from freely choosing not to sin, agree or disagree?
god is able to prevent david from freely choosing not to sin, agree or disagree (INTENTIONAL sins such as adultery which require stoning to death in bible)?
b:
satan is too much of a competitor for god and he is able to do what god is unable to prevent.
now you will say some pagan nonsense that “you have exalted the prophets”
no, we have exalted God , because He is the CAUSE/reason for the prophets not to sin.
God knows that people could easily use argument against him that even his prophets which he was in “contact” with regularly were slipping and doing DISGUSTING filthy sins and they were no role models to follow. Why even send such LAWS on adultery when the very best slipped and sinned?
ofcourse crosstians understood this so they made jeser in “sinless lamb”
and his flesh actions like calling women dogs, trashing tables, killing tree and innocent pigs as “loving and sinless”
temple wrote :
Mark 7:19 is clear on the food laws.
but that seems to be a big problem .
the law of clean and unclean goes back in time. one can argue that god is kosher and prefer kosher sacrifices
Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; 3 and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth.
Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, 9 two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after seven days the waters of the flood came on the earth
20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
it makes absolutely no sense that the diety who was kosher and liked the odor of dead clean animals developed a taste for BACON “in his flesh”
so what drove mark to say “all foods were clean” ? was he hanging around with bacon eaters ? since mark seems to be a gentile writing for gentiles, then it make sense why he would make his jesus sound gentile friendly . why make things difficult for pork eaters ?
btw, noah did not offer a sin sacrifice , but a thanks giving or gratitude offer. will ken temple offer yhwh a pig sacrifice to show his gratitude?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQqL6pytuTc
birkat hagomel
so ken how will you be showing your birkat hagomel to yhwh? since “all foods are clean” and torah laws pertaining to gratitude offering = ETERNAL , then is pig on the menu?
“Mark 7:19 is clear on the food laws.”
no, it is some gentile pagan who made his jesus into gentile pagan. he CONTRADICTED thousands of years of TRADITION (divinely revealed) .
yes, and the food does reach the heart just like the odor of the animal reaches yhwhs heavenly nostrils.
its spiritual as well as physical. jesus came to CONTRADICT well established divinely revealed tradition.
quote:
The short answer to why Jews observe these laws is: because the Torah says so. The Torah does not specify any reason for these laws, and for a Torah-observant, traditional Jew, there is no need for any other reason. Some have suggested that the laws of kashrut fall into the category of “chukkim,” laws for which there is no reason. We show our obedience to G-d by following these laws even though we do not know the reason. Others, however, have tried to ascertain G-d’s reason for imposing these laws.
In his book “To Be a Jew” (an excellent resource on traditional Judaism), Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin suggests that the dietary laws are designed as a call to holiness. The ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, pure and defiled, the sacred and the profane, is very important in Judaism. Imposing rules on what you can and cannot eat ingrains that kind of self control, requiring us to learn to control even our most basic, primal instincts.
Donin also points out that the laws of kashrut elevate the simple act of eating into a religious ritual. The Jewish dinner table is often compared to the Temple altar in rabbinic literature. A Jew who observes the laws of kashrut cannot eat a meal without being reminded of the fact that he is a Jew
http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm
ken “all foods are clean” temple, why yhwh came to CONTRADICT thousand years of divine tradition?
i am just asking about JEWISH yhwh “in the flesh” here, not about a pagan gentile like you.
“The ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, pure and defiled, the sacred and the profane, is very important in Judaism. Imposing rules on what you can and cannot eat ingrains that kind of self control”
jesus went further and told ken temple to pluck his eye out.
“But both David and Solomon repented.”
why did david request a beautiful girl to keep him warm in bed? why not for example just make a fire and have that keep him warm? since you like “argument from embarrassment” do you reckon that writers were hiding king daves sexual fetishes ?
just curious?
u have history of attacking the prophet of ISlam, i ask you to use argument from embarrassment and tell me why king dave SOUGHT beauiful young girl to keep him warm in his old age when fire was easily available? does it look like daves SEXUAL addiction didnt leave him in old age? This same dave who jesus talks about highly in ot. what lies did ot writers make about dave?
king davy required beautiful young girl to keep him warm in bed, this same profit who had many wifes but WENT on to bang next mans wife. so whats this keep him warm in bed?
this temple filth bag has FETISH attacking prophet of islam, i ask him about the SEXUAL FETISH OT writers were covering up .
@ mr.heathcliff
Isn’t it the other way around? The clothes or blankets could not warm the king. His attendants thought a young maid could help him keep warm and they put the question to him. Tellingly the narrator does not report King Davids answer. Moreover, the narrator states that they were not intimate, 1 Kgs. 1:1-4.
Would you agree that the narrative in 1 Kgs.1 does not tell us a story of a an old sex addicted king to use your words?
So they bring a beautiful young girl who kept king dave warm in bed
“Tellingly the narrator does not report King Davids answer. Moreover, the narrator states that they were not intimate, 1 Kgs. 1:1-4.”
now why would the narrator want to tell the people that they were not intimate?
judging by king daves past history in the ot, why would he refuse a beautiful young girl?
”
Tellingly the narrator does not report King Davids answer. “
“The clothes or blankets could not warm the king”
so make the fire?
“His attendants thought a young maid could help him keep warm and they put the question to him”
do you mean they had a taste for beautiful girls or king did not have taste for ugly girls?
“Would you agree that the narrative in 1 Kgs.1 does not tell us a story of a an old sex addicted king to use your words?”
ken temple is using argument from embarrassment to make case for king davids ADULTEROUS nature, i am applying his standard and saying that 1 kings was covering up something even more embarrassing.
Yes, and not only that, she was also very attractive. So is it not the other way around, that the story in 1 Kings 1 is not about an old king with a massive “sexual addiction”?
What I am suggesting is that the story is about a king who no longer has the power to rule.
“es, and not only that, she was also very attractive. So is it not the other way around, that the story in 1 Kings 1 is not about an old king with a massive “sexual addiction”?”
what do you mean?
“What I am suggesting is that the story is about a king who no longer has the power to rule.”
so?
“So is it not the other way around, that the story in 1 Kings 1 is not about an old king with a massive “sexual addiction”
why did the writer say that they werent having sex? what did the writer know about king dave and his sex life which caused him to say this?
ken temple believes that the king was ADULTEROUS and he had a bunch of women which were his concubines and i am saying that in his old age that addiction did not die out.
All I am saying the story is not about old king David’s, in your words, “sex fettishes” or “sexual addiction”.
Yes, and I am asking if it is not really the other way around. David did not ask for a woman to keep him warm in bed. His attendants did. When asked we tellingly are not given his reply. So his attendants take action and find a beautiful young maid, she is in his bed but he did not know her. In all David does not act. So I am suggesting the story is not talking about an old king who is “sexually addicted” – could you agree to that?
“David did not ask for a woman to keep him warm in bed. ”
david judging by his addiction in ot for beautiful women would not have refused a beautoful woman keeping him warm in bed
“His attendants did. ”
Cause they knew his tastes
“When asked we tellingly are not given his reply.”
because he agreed and they knew his taste for young women
“So his attendants take action and find a beautiful young maid,”
yes, to keep king david warm in bed
” she is in his bed but he did not know her. ”
We do not know this. This could be an embarrasing detail the writer is adding in the story after he found out david sex addiction continued in his old age
”
In all David does not act. ”
why would he in a story which is covering up his adulterous life?
”
So I am suggesting the story is not talking about an old king who is “sexually addicted” – could you agree to that?”
No, ken temple believes that david had an adulterous nature , so i cannot agree to that.
so fire was not.convenient but a beautiful young woman was?
doesnt something sound fishy here? Old man, young woman keeping him warm in bed?
“In all David does not act.”
Whedon’s Commentary on the Bible:
“1. David was old — As he was thirty years old when he began to reign, and reigned forty years, (2 Samuel 5:4,) he MUST NOW HAVE BEEN IN HIS SEVENTIETH YEAR.
Stricken in years — Literally, as the margin, entered into days; far gone in days, having reached an advanced period of life. …
Verses 1-4
DAVID’S OLD AGE, 1 Kings 1:1-4. …
Verse 2
2. His servants — Josephus calls them his physicians.
Let her cherish him — Literally, let her be to him a female nurse. IT WAS ONE PART OF HER SERVICE TO ATTEND TO HIS PRIVATE WANTS, to perform the various little items of nursing expected of a familiar attendant. All this is comprehended in the word סכנת, a female attendant. ANOTHER PART OF HER SERVICE WAS TO LIE IN THE KING’S BOSOM, THAT IS, SLEEP WITH HIM, and THUS COMMUNICATE TO HIM ANIMAL HEAT AND VIGOUR. This method of recruiting the wasted vigour of age is natural and well known; but while it benefits the old, it must needs take away from the strength of the young. The too common practice of young persons sleeping with aged aunts, uncles, or grandparents is the ruin of many a naturally vigorous and healthy constitution.
Verse 3
3. Abishag a Shunammite — So called from her native city Shunem, in the tribe of Issachar, the modern Solam, at the base of the Little Hermon. See on Joshua 19:18. A needless controversy has been raised as to whether Abishag really became the acknowledged wife or concubine of David. In what respects she served the king is here precisely told, and all beyond this is fruitless speculation. The fact, however, that she slept in the king’s bosom placed her virtually in the position of a concubine, so that Adonijah’s subsequent effort to obtain her as his wife was construed by Solomon into an attempt to invade the royal harem, and thus establish a claim to the throne. …” (Whedon’s Commentary on the Bible on 1 Kings 1:1-3 –
so why would dave need to act when his young girl would perform on him?
On this basic point Whedon too reads it as not about old age “sexual fettishes”:
“4. The king knew her not — This explicit statement, as well as all that goes before, is a sufficient vindication of David from the charge of taking a fair young concubine in his old age in order to gratify lewd passions”.
I don’t think there is any doubt about what kind of services Abishag was to offer. The story imho as it stands portrays king David as no longer interested nor strong enough and so serves as a contrast to his previous behaviour as well as the background for the following succession disputes.
“The story imho as it stands portrays king David as no longer interested nor strong enough and so serves as a contrast to his previous behaviour as well as the background for the following succession disputes.”
of course you would think that and make “contrast to his previous behavior” because you and the author of kings is disgusted by his previous behavior, so in order to cover it up , you have to think king could not get it up and was “no longer interested” although looks mattered and was important for the writer to say “they weren’t having sexual intercourse”
With the utmost respect, I understand it the way around. I am not embarrassed and I do not think the author of this passage was either. The narrator reports simply that this was about the end of the road. The once vigourous king David is no longer strong enough to rule or to know a beautiful woman in his bed. Had the author wished to clear king David I would think it to make more sense to have him refuse beautiful women when he was in his prime. Not as here when he is, old, weak and cold about to breathe his last.
I for one also see no indication that the author of this passage saw the taking of a young concubine as a moral sin. So I don’t think that the author saw this as an opportunity to “clear” David.
I for one also see no indication that the author of this passage saw the taking of a young concubine as a moral sin. So I don’t think that the author saw this as an opportunity to “clear” David.
I for one also see no indication that the author of this passage saw the taking of a young concubine as a moral sin. So I don’t think that the author saw this as an opportunity to “clear” David.
I for one also see no indication that the author of this passage saw the taking of a young concubine as a moral sin. So I don’t think that the author saw this as an opportunity to “clear” David.
“taking of a young concubine”
the job of this young girl was to keep king daves bed warm. this is the part i don’t get. why bring young BEAUTIFUL girl to keep BED warm ?
your “concubine” is an interpolation
“I for one also see no indication that the author of this passage saw the taking of a young concubine as a moral sin.”
you don’t know if she was a concubine plus according to ken temple concubinage = adultery, plus the writer had to make sure the readers get to know that the two did not know each other. something the writer had to add in there…i wonder why ?
“The narrator reports simply that this was about the end of the road.”
he just had to add that the girl was young, beautiful and keep the temp of the body high?
”
The once vigourous king David is no longer strong enough to rule or to know a beautiful woman in his bed.”
because he didn’t want david to continue on with his sins in private.
“Had the author wished to clear king David I would think it to make more sense to have him refuse beautiful women when he was in his prime”
there were other ways, like have king dave repent again and again for his disgusting sins in the bible, but when it came to his old age, the writer was embarrassed that da ve continued with his sinful ways with abishaag so had to tell the readers “they did not know each other”
would you fix the ending or the prime ?
” Not as here when he is, old, weak and cold about to breathe his last.”
this would give more the reason why the ending had to be one where it said “he did not know her sexually”
” Not as here when he is, old, weak and cold about to breathe his last.”
weak and cold, but where you got “breath his last” from ?
can i ask why you think a young beautiful 12 year old girl would do a better job in keeping dave warm then an older one?
Ok I may have misunderstood you, so disregard the “young concubine” comment.
From the context, I get he is about to die. His weak old in bed, is getting cold. These are his last days Before he dies in the next chapter, 1 kgs. 2
As I said I don’t think there is any doubt about the services Abishag was to provide, whatever her young age which is not mentioned. The narrator stated that in a dry manner and I don’t read it as he was embarrased. So I stand by what I mentioned namely: “The narrator reports simply that this was about the end of the road. The once vigourous king David is no longer strong enough to rule or to know a beautiful woman in his bed. Had the author wished to clear king David I would think it to make more sense to have him refuse beautiful women when he was in his prime. Not as here when he is, old, weak and cold about to breathe his last.”
The point I am trying to convey is simply that the narrator as I read the story did not use this opportunity to clear David – he did not “willingly” refuse to be intimate. He was old, weak, cold anf about to breathe his last. That’s how I read it. An author could have made an apology for David in many ways. But to me 1 kgs 1:4 is for the above reasons not an apology for the old king David.
“From the context, I get he is about to die. His weak old in bed, is getting cold. These are his last days Before he dies in the next chapter, 1 kgs. 2”
quote the verses.
you making david too weak .
“As I said I don’t think there is any doubt about the services Abishag was to provide, whatever her young age which is not mentioned. ”
daves service men picked up a YOUNG beautiful nara to keep dave WARM in his bed
“The narrator stated that in a dry manner and I don’t read it as he was embarrased.”
how do you know it was a “dry manner” ?
“The point I am trying to convey is simply that the narrator as I read the story did not use this opportunity to clear David – he did not “willingly” refuse to be intimate. He was old, weak, cold anf about to breathe his last. That’s how I read it.”
quote the verses. which part are you reading “breath his last ” into ?
1 Kgs. 2:1-2: “When the time drew near for David to die, he gave a charge to Solomon his son…2 “I am about to go the way of all the earth…”
1 kgs 2:10-11: “Then David rested with his ancestors and was buried in the City of David. 11 He had reigned forty years over Israel—seven years in Hebron and thirty-three in Jerusalem.”
Breathe his last = to die or am I misunderstanding something?
“From the context, I get he is ABOUT to die. His weak old in bed, is getting cold. These are his last days Before he dies in the next chapter, 1 kgs. 2”
i looked at the context, i don’t see where david is “about to die”
” She became the king’s attendant and served him, but the king did not know her sexually”
so you think this service was just for a few days?
“1 King David was old and advanced in years; and although they covered him with clothes, he could not get warm. 2 So his servants said to him, “Let a young virgin be sought for my lord the king, and let her wait on the king, and be his attendant; let her lie in your bosom, so that my lord the king may be warm.” 3 So they searched for a beautiful girl throughout all the territory of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king. 4 The girl was very beautiful. She became the king’s attendant and served him, but the king did not know her sexually.”
5 Now Adonijah son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, “I will be king”; he prepared for himself chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him. 6 His father had never at any time displeased him by asking, “Why have you done thus and so?” He was also a very handsome man, and he was born next after Absalom. 7 He conferred with Joab son of Zeruiah and with the priest Abiathar, and they supported Adonijah. 8 But the priest Zadok, and Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and the prophet Nathan, and Shimei, and Rei, and David’s own warriors did not side with Adonijah.
9 Adonijah sacrificed sheep, oxen, and fatted cattle by the stone Zoheleth, which is beside En-rogel, and he invited all his brothers, the king’s sons, and all the royal officials of Judah, 10 but he did not invite the prophet Nathan or Benaiah or the warriors or his brother Solomon.
11 Then Nathan said to Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, “Have you not heard that Adonijah son of Haggith has become king and our lord David does not know it?
comment : SO when did they ask this question ?
12 Now therefore come, let me give you advice, so that you may save your own life and the life of your son Solomon. 13 Go in at once to King David, and say to him, ‘Did you not, my lord the king, swear to your servant, saying: Your son Solomon shall succeed me as king, and he shall sit on my throne? Why then is Adonijah king?’ 14 Then while you are still there speaking with the king, I will come in after you and confirm your words.”
15 So Bathsheba went to the king in his room.
”
The king was very old; Abishag the Shunammite was attending the king. 16 Bathsheba bowed and did obeisance to the king, and the king said, “What do you wish?” 17 She said to him, “My lord, you swore to your servant by the Lord your God, saying: Your son Solomon shall succeed me as king, and he shall sit on my throne. 18 But now suddenly Adonijah has become king, though you, my lord the king, do not know it. 19 He has sacrificed oxen, fatted cattle, and sheep in abundance, and has invited all the children of the king, the priest Abiathar, and Joab the commander of the army; but your servant Solomon he has not invited. 20 But you, my lord the king—the eyes of all Israel are on you to tell them who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him. 21 Otherwise it will come to pass, when my lord the king sleeps with his ancestors, that my son Solomon and I will be counted offenders.”
22 While she was still speaking with the king, the prophet Nathan came in. 23 The king was told, “Here is the prophet Nathan.” When he came in before the king, he did obeisance to the king, with his face to the ground. 24 Nathan said, “My lord the king, have you said, ‘Adonijah shall succeed me as king, and he shall sit on my throne’? 25 For today he has gone down and has sacrificed oxen, fatted cattle, and sheep in abundance, and has invited all the king’s children, Joab the commander[a] of the army, and the priest Abiathar, who are now eating and drinking before him, and saying, ‘Long live King Adonijah!’ 26 But he did not invite me, your servant, and the priest Zadok, and Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and your servant Solomon. 27 Has this thing been brought about by my lord the king and you have not let your servants know who should sit on the throne of my lord the king after him?”
fire did not keep dave warm
Extra blankets did not keep dave warm
beautiful abishag did in his bed?
And the writer tells his readers they did not have sex and jane believe this writer?
The writer did not say anything about daves coming close to death…he did tell his readers about the “know” part. now why would his readers want to know about fragile about to die guy not having “knowing her” ?
@mr. Heathcliff
Very respectfully, the text says he is old, in bed cold, could not get warm. His sons begin to fight over the kingship. After the succession is taken care of he breathes his last. I don’t think Seeing these as his last days is terribly unreasonable. Yes, the not “know part” is simply the beginning of the end.
“the text says he is old, in bed cold, could not get warm.”
abishaq was brought to fix the problem of feeling cold.
this is not evidence that he would expire very soon
”
. I don’t think Seeing these as his last days is terribly unreasonable. ”
you seem to be reading the text as if it is a diary with mon, tue, wed, thurs, fri, sat and sun..
”
His sons begin to fight over the kingship. ”
how long did that last?
are you going to use a diary again ?
Yes, the not “know part” is simply the beginning of the end.
”
Yes, the not “know part” is simply the beginning of the end.”
u mean after SERVING king dave(let her lie in your bosom, so that my lord the king may be warm
The girl was very beautiful. She became the king’s attendant and served him, but the king did not know her sexually.)
i am asking why drop in that line ? When a nurse in a HOSPITAL is attending dying patient, would it make sense “they did not have it off “?
hi everyone, I just wanted to drop in to say that I successfully chewed the cud tonight
IM A CUD CHEWER, MOMMY!!!
Make sure to tell Jeff too! He misses the time in 4004 BC when he and Yahweh were roommates!
Do you also have a divided hoof? 😂