Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bill Rea <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>]

I wrote:-

>>David's half dozen doesn't raise any moral qualms except the acquistion
>>of Bathsheba. But even here Nathan the Prophet was not sent
>>to David until after Uriah was dead. If God had sent Nathan after David
>>had shagged Bathsheba he (God) could have saved Uriah's life.

and James asked:-

>Are you suggesting that Yah was only upset with David for having Uriah
>bumped off and not for the original doing the dirty on him with his wife?

I was drawing attention to an aspect of the story I have not seen or heard
anyone deal with before. The writer is clearly trying to tell us that
David shagging Bathsheba was wrong. People read all sorts of things into
the text. For example, Bryant wrote:-

>Genesis 4 shows polygamy being introduced by Lamech (4:19) which by
>inference is condemned.

If a person infers that polygamy is condemned because it was first
practiced by Lamech, what then should be infered from God's silence
until Uriah was dead?


Bill Rea, IT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz               </   New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332       /)  Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator                   (/'