₦airaland Forum

📖 2 Samuel 12
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
⁹ Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

¹⁰ Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.


In Matthew 1: 1_17, we see a comprehensive list of the generations that eventually produced Jesus in the flesh.

However out of all the names on this list, a particular name is omitted: Bathsheba's_


📖 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias.
— Matthew 1:6

Why was her name not mentioned?

Was she abominable by her adultery with king David? I don't think so.

Tamar committed incest with Judah her father in law, but her name was boldly written in Jesus' genealogy (Matthew 1: 3)

It's worthy to note that Bathseba was identified by her husband's name: Uriah_ and not king David who later married her.

God is perfect (2 Samuel 22:31 Psalm 18:30) Therefore He's incapable of mistakes, therefore His WORD is perfect_

📖 The law of the LORD is perfect...
— Psalms 19:7

I believe God didn't mention her name but used her husband's name to remind us all of the troubles that befell David to this day several years after his adultery and murder of Uriah.

It's sad that many men and women today refuse to heed God's perfect Word concerning their adulterous lifestyles, basking in fleeting pleasures.

But God cannot be fooled.

Proverbs 6
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
³² But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

³³ A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.

judewrites:
📖 2 Samuel 12
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
⁹ Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

¹⁰ Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.


In Matthew 1: 1_17, we see a comprehensive list of the generations that eventually produced Jesus in the flesh.

However out of all the names on this list, a particular name is omitted: Bathsheba's_


📖 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias.
— Matthew 1:6

Why was her name not mentioned?

Was she abominable by her adultery with king David? I don't think so.

Tamar committed incest with Judah her father in law, but her name was boldly written in Jesus' genealogy (Matthew 1: 3)

It's worthy to note that Bathseba was identified by her husband's name: Uriah_ and not king David who later married her.

God is perfect (2 Samuel 22:31 Psalm 18:30) Therefore He's incapable of mistakes, therefore His WORD is perfect_

📖 The law of the LORD is perfect...
— Psalms 19:7

I believe God didn't mention her name but used her husband's name to remind us all of the troubles that befell David to this day several years after his adultery and murder of Uriah.

It's sad that many men and women today refuse to heed God's perfect Word and live an adulterous lifestyle... thinking they are enjoying life.

But God cannot be fooled.

It is funny how Christians argue points in a circular manner.
1. Tamar engaged in incest .
2. Bathseba engaged in adultery.
3. The assumed writer of Mathew's gospel decided in his wisdom to mention Tamar who committed incest in the genealogy of Jesus but for reasons best known to him alone decides NOT to mention Bathseba in the genealogy but rather identifies her through the name of her murdered husband Uriah.
4. In conclusion incest is a better sin than adultery because God cannot be fooled .


This is the manner in which some Christians make circular arguments that are contrary to all forms of logic.

Christians need to open their minds and proceed to go down the rabbit hole. It costs you nothing to research the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS PUZZLE to understand that the writers of Mark,Matthew and Luke were scribes who were not witnesses to the ministry of Jesus and and such either 1.Copied the accounts from one another. 2.Copied the accounts from the same sources. 3.Relied on oral traditions.

Each of these nameless writers wrote their accounts from a particular point of view and with a decided agenda from the beginning.
Mark which was the first gospel written was obviously written with the aim of telling the Jesus story with no frills and direct to the point while Mathew's gospel which obviously was copied from Mark had an agenda to tell the story from a Jewish stand point. Luke on the other hand copied both Mark and Mathew and embellished the Jesus story from the Gentiles point of view. The gospel of John on its own part is a story for another day.

Is it not clearly for identification purposes, ehn?

Goosethetruth:
It is funny how Christians argue points in a circular manner.
1. Tamar engaged in incest .
2. Bathseba engaged in adultery.
3. The assumed writer of Mathew's gospel decided in his wisdom to mention Tamar who committed incest in the genealogy of Jesus but for reasons best known to him alone decides NOT to mention Bathseba in the genealogy but rather identifies her through the name of her murdered husband Uriah.
4. In conclusion incest is a better sin than adultery because God cannot be fooled .


This is the manner in which some Christians make circular arguments that are contrary to all forms of logic.

Christians need to open their minds and proceed to go down the rabbit hole. It costs you nothing to research the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS PUZZLE to understand that the writers of Mark,Matthew and Luke were scribes who were not witnesses to the ministry of Jesus and and such either 1.Copied the accounts from one another. 2.Copied the accounts from the same sources. 3.Relied on oral traditions.

Each of these nameless writers wrote their accounts from a particular point of view and with a decided agenda from the beginning.
Mark which was the first gospel written was obviously written with the aim of telling the Jesus story with no frills and direct to the point while Mathew's gospel which obviously was copied from Mark had an agenda to tell the story from a Jewish stand point. Luke on the other hand copied both Mark and Mathew and embellished the Jesus story from the Gentiles point of view. The gospel of John on its own part is a story for another day.

Sin is sin...no sin is greater than the other. Both incest, adultery and murder attracts God's wrath and can condemn anyone to hell.

However, God particularly punished David for his adultery and murder. Remember David was the man after God's heart.

I'm speaking out of my opinion, so your contribution is appreciated.

judewrites:
Sin is sin...no sin is greater than the other. Both incest, adultery and murder attracts God's wrath and can condemn anyone to hell.

However, God particularly punished David for his adultery and murder. Remember David was the man after God's heart.

I'm speaking out of my opinion, so your contribution is appreciated.

Like I said :you need to go down the rabbit hole and research these things no matter how difficult it seems .
Why is Tamar's sin of incest exalted in the Bible while Bathseba's sin of adultery is apparently condemned?
Your explanation that it is the:"The word of God" is flawed.
The simple fact is that these books were written by men with personal agenda's ,masquerading as writing under the influence of a God.

Goosethetruth:
It is funny how Christians argue points in a circular manner.
1. Tamar engaged in incest .
2. Bathseba engaged in adultery.
3. The assumed writer of Mathew's gospel decided in his wisdom to mention Tamar who committed incest in the genealogy of Jesus but for reasons best known to him alone decides NOT to mention Bathseba in the genealogy but rather identifies her through the name of her murdered husband Uriah.
4. In conclusion incest is a better sin than adultery because God cannot be fooled .


This is the manner in which some Christians make circular arguments that are contrary to all forms of logic.

Christians need to open their minds and proceed to go down the rabbit hole. It costs you nothing to research the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS PUZZLE to understand that the writers of Mark,Matthew and Luke were scribes who were not witnesses to the ministry of Jesus and and such either 1.Copied the accounts from one another. 2.Copied the accounts from the same sources. 3.Relied on oral traditions.

Each of these nameless writers wrote their accounts from a particular point of view and with a decided agenda from the beginning.
Mark which was the first gospel written was obviously written with the aim of telling the Jesus story with no frills and direct to the point while Mathew's gospel which obviously was copied from Mark had an agenda to tell the story from a Jewish stand point. Luke on the other hand copied both Mark and Mathew and embellished the Jesus story from the Gentiles point of view. The gospel of John on its own part is a story for another day.

Tamar was raped by her brother. She didn't commit any incest.

GothamCities:
Tamar was raped by her brother. She didn't commit any incest.

Can you define incest?
The answer is in your post. Lol....😉

Your second assignment is to go and read Genesis chapter 38 because your premise is already flawed. Genesis 38 is the story of the incestuous relationship between a father in law and a daughter in law. Happy reading!

Goosethetruth:
Can you define incest?
The answer is in your post. Lol....😉

Your second assignment is to go and read Genesis chapter 38 because your premise is already flawed. Genesis 38 is the story of the incestuous relationship between a father in law and a daughter in law. Happy reading!

Can you define robbery? If someone robbed somebody, is it the robbed that committed robbery or the robber?

Tamar rejected her brother's advances but being weaker, was forced and raped. How can you accuse her of incest when she didn't make the move or willfully engaged in it?

GothamCities:
Can you define robbery? If someone robbed somebody, is it the robbed that committed robbery or the robber?

Tamar rejected her brother's advances but being weaker, was forced and raped. How can you accuse her of incest when she didn't make the move or willfully engaged in it?

Oga,
Nobody is talking about the Tamar in 2nd Samuel Chapter 13 who was abused by her brother Amon.

The Tamar we are talking about is found in Genesis chapter 38 who disguised herself as a prostitute to engage in incestuous relationship with her father in law Judah.

Argument is NOT knowledge. Educate yourself please. The Bible is a vast book and many names are mentioned in different books severally. I expect you to read the different chapters mentioned and enlighten yourself and while at it try to understand the concept of incestuous relationships. Incest is not judged on guilt but sexual relationships between same family members.However I won't be surprised if you come back with more arguments after all this is Nairaland.com where the WRONG is always the RIGHT!

Goosethetruth:
Oga,
Nobody is talking about the Tamar in 2nd Samuel Chapter 13 who was abused by her brother Amon.

The Tamar we are talking about is found in Genesis chapter 38 who disguised herself as a prostitute to engage in incestuous relationship with her father in law Judah.

Argument is NOT knowledge. Educate yourself please. The Bible is a vast book and many names are mentioned in different books severally. I expect you to read the different chapters mentioned and enlighten yourself and while at it try to understand the concept of incestuous relationships. Incest is not judged on guilt but sexual relationships between same family members.However I won't be surprised if you come back with more arguments after all this is Nairaland.com where the WRONG is always the RIGHT!

Oh, my bad!

You're talking about the one that seduced Jacob her father-in-law, pretending to be a prostitute.

I apologize for the misconception.

By the way, Jesus Christ of Israel was not a descendant of Solomon since Solomon was eliminated by God of Israel as possible like for the King forever from the blood of David. The genealogy in the book of Matthew likely belongs to the man, Joseph, and not the person of Jesus Christ of Israel..

GothamCities:
Oh, my bad!

You're talking about the one that seduced Jacob her father-in-law, pretending to be a prostitute.

I apologize for the misconception.

Jacob keh!
Okay ooo.
I give up.....😆😆😆

The name of the father in law is Judah.
You need to calm down so you don't get these names twisted.
The story is in Genesis Chapter 38.

Goosethetruth:
Jacob keh!
Okay ooo.
I give up.....😆😆😆

The name of the father in law is Judah.
You need to calm down so you don't get these names twisted.
The story is in Genesis Chapter 38.

Yeah, Judah. That was just an oversight.

Your too know attitude is appalling. Please stay humble. There's nothing praiseworthy in pride. My apology is a reflection of humility and not inferiority of knowledge. I've probably read the Bible cover to cover many more times than you've done. It is not uncommon to have slight oversights.

Please humble yourself.

Shalom.

GothamCities:
Yeah, Judah. That was just an oversight.

Your too know attitude is appalling. Please stay humble. There's nothing praiseworthy in pride. My apology is a reflection of humility and not inferiority of knowledge. I've probably read the Bible cover to cover many more times than you do. It is not uncommon to have slight oversights.

Please humble yourself.

Shalom.

Says a person that jumped on my comment trying to lecture me about incest and its application in everyday usage in English language.....lol😁

Secondly your empty booast that you have read the Bible from cover to cover several more times than me is just an attempt to score cheap beanie points. It is not how many times you read but did you comprehend what you claim to have read. However from your attitude on this thread I seriously doubt this.
As I told you when all this back and forth began this is Nairaland.com where the wrong poster always claims to be right and you come across as a typical example of this.
It is no big deal to accept you do not know something because that is the simplest way to attain knowledge.Several times during this exchanges I posted Bible books,chapters and verses but in your know it all attitude,you refused to check these passages and kept on blundering all over the thread.
And as per your jibe about reading the Bible several times more than me,I just chuckle and laugh out loud because from your performance on this thread,I assure you that where your knowledge of the Bible ends is where my own knowledge begins.
My last response to you on this minute issue.

Goosethetruth:
Says a person that jumped on my comment trying to lecture me about incest and its application in everyday usage in English language.....lol😁

Secondly your empty booast that you have read the Bible from cover to cover several more times than me is just an attempt to score cheap beanie points. It is not how many times you read but did you comprehend what you claim to have read. However from your attitude on this thread I seriously doubt this.
As I told you when all this back and forth began this is Nairaland.com where the wrong poster always claims to be right and you come across as a typical example of this.
It is no big deal to accept you do not know something because that is the simplest way to attain knowledge.Several times during this exchanges I posted Bible books,chapters and verses but in your know it all attitude,you refused to check these passages and kept on blundering all over the thread.
And as per your jibe about reading the Bible several times more than me,I just chuckle and laugh out loud because from your performance on this thread,I assure you that where your knowledge of the Bible ends is where my own knowledge begins.
My last response to you on this minute issue.

You must have mistaken me for someone else. I had no single argument with you, neither did I lecture you on any matter regarding incest as a topic. Always check monikers before you respond to people. Go through our conversations. And if you're noble enough, apologize for your error.

GothamCities:
Tamar was raped by her brother. She didn't commit any incest.

Gothamcities,
Is this quote not from you or were you just coming in from Gotham City when you typed this statement!

GothamCities:
Can you define robbery? If someone robbed somebody, is it the robbed that committed robbery or the robber?

Tamar rejected her brother's advances but being weaker, was forced and raped. How can you accuse her of incest when she didn't make the move or willfully engaged in it?

Mr Gothamcity,
Is this not you?
Or were you coming in from fighting The Joker,the Penguin and Batman?
I don't like talking to people who have very short attention spans. A written discussion that happened this morning is being denied by the same person this evening.
I have wasted enough time on you.

Goosethetruth:
It is funny how Christians argue points in a circular manner.
1. Tamar engaged in incest .
2. Bathseba engaged in adultery.
3. The assumed writer of Mathew's gospel decided in his wisdom to mention Tamar who committed incest in the genealogy of Jesus but for reasons best known to him alone decides NOT to mention Bathseba in the genealogy but rather identifies her through the name of her murdered husband Uriah.
4. In conclusion incest is a better sin than adultery because God cannot be fooled .


This is the manner in which some Christians make circular arguments that are contrary to all forms of logic.

Christians need to open their minds and proceed to go down the rabbit hole. It costs you nothing to research the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS PUZZLE to understand that the writers of Mark,Matthew and Luke were scribes who were not witnesses to the ministry of Jesus and and such either 1.Copied the accounts from one another. 2.Copied the accounts from the same sources. 3.Relied on oral traditions.

Each of these nameless writers wrote their accounts from a particular point of view and with a decided agenda from the beginning.
Mark which was the first gospel written was obviously written with the aim of telling the Jesus story with no frills and direct to the point while Mathew's gospel which obviously was copied from Mark had an agenda to tell the story from a Jewish stand point. Luke on the other hand copied both Mark and Mathew and embellished the Jesus story from the Gentiles point of view. The gospel of John on its own part is a story for another day.

Not to mention Rahab was a harlot and gets a mention by name. If adultery was the big bad who is more adulterous between a harlot and some one who was probably intimidated into sex.

LordReed:
✓ Not to mention Rahab was a harlot and gets a mention by name. If adultery was the big bad who is more adulterous between a harlot and some one who was probably intimidated into sex.

There is no scriptural evidence that the Rahab mentioned in Matthew is the same Rahab you refer. Christianity is wholly responsible for creating that particular link you posted.

Kobojunkie:
There is no scriptural evidence that the Rahab mentioned in Matthew is the same Rahab you refer. Christianity is wholly responsible for creating that particular link you posted.

Well that is true that there is no place from the Bible that evidences the 2 Rahabs as the same person. But it is both Jewish and Christian tradition that she married into the Hebrew community of the time.

LordReed:
✓ Well that is true that there is no place from the Bible that evidences the 2 Rahabs as the same person. But it is both Jewish and Christian tradition that she married into the Hebrew community of the time.

He story has it that she was already living in the land of Canaan meaning she was probably of Hebrew descent— the father of the Hebrews is Eber, Abraham's great, great, great, great, great grandfather(I think) — only that she may have gone on to marry an Israelite after she defected from her previous nation, right?

Anyways, no question that she may have done that but no evidence that the Rahab mentioned in the book of Matthew is Rahab, the prostitute.

Kobojunkie:
He story has it that she was already living in the land of Canaan meaning she was probably of Hebrew descent— the father of the Hebrews is Eber, Abraham's great, great, great, great, great grandfather(I think) — only that she may have gone on to marry an Israelite after she defected from her previous nation, right?

Anyways, no question that she may have done that but no evidence that the Rahab mentioned in the book of Matthew is Rahab, the prostitute.

Point taken.

Damn. Can't make simple responses anymore. Is this word count thing not excessive?