Why do we judge Michal so harshly?

probinson said:

You're the one hung up on assumptions and inferences. I'm simply pointing out that this is not an assumption at all.

Click to expand...

Yes it is. You just won't admit it. But you're still arguing the subject, which you said you weren't going to do. Something about disputing over words...

That's not an inference. It's a mathematical fact that if A=B and B=C that A=C.

Click to expand...

Nope. It's a mathematical deduction. A, B and C are the "facts". Any time you express something in the form of an equation, you are deducing (i.e. inferring).

In geometry, those aren't called "assumptions". They're called "givens", because, well, they're given to you.

Click to expand...

And you assume that a given is true for the sake of the proof. It's 'given' to you and not proven so you assume that it is true without demanding proof.

To assume means "to take for granted". "Granted" and "given" are the same thing.

So, to assume means to "take as a given."

To quote you, "nonsense".

As a programmer, I use if/then constructs every day. I CAN NOT make assumptions about the "if" construct without "proving" them, or I would have no logical control over the flow of the program.

In a more practical sense, if I measure a board, and that board is 4' long, and then I measure another board, and that board is also 4' long, I have "proven" that the boards are 4' long. If I then measure a third board that is also 4' long, it requires no "assumption" that it is the same length as both of the other 2 boards.

Click to expand...

Still missing the key point. An assumption doesn't stop being an assumption just because it's proven later or earlier. Whenever you rely on the fact to build an equation or to prove something else, you are assuming it to be true.

An assumption need not be based on arbitrary, capricious or imaginary facts in order to be an assumption.

Yes. Particularly so since you got off on this "assumption" tangent.

Click to expand...

Going off on a tangent is not what being obtuse means, Pete.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

If you want to obfuscate the point that it was wrong for Michal to despise David in her heart and strive over the exact meaning of words, you are free to do so. It's pretty clear to most people though, without the need for any dissertation on the proper use and/or application of the words "assumption" and "inference".

So what's your point as it pertains to this discussion? Do you have one, or do you just want us to recognize and praise you for your intellectual prowess and masterful use of the terms "assumption" and "inference"?

Click to expand...

My point is clear. I'm not obfuscating anything. IMHO, you just don't like admitting that you make as many assumptions as the next person.

My point is that it's not explicitly stated in the text that it was wrong for Michal to despise her husband.

That point is being read into the text (i.e. assumed).

Like I've said half a dozen times now. I don't disagree that she was wrong to do so. I do disagree, however, with the idea that you appear to be suggesting that such is the main point of the passage.

I also don't disagree with Jimbo that David was wrong to treat her the way he did. That's also an inference based on assumptions that I bring to the text from elsewhere in Scripture (i.e. that husbands are supposed to love their wives).


I'm not looking for praise. I find it rather interesting that you resort to ad hominem now, though. You know what they say about the first person to resort to ad hominem...

Tamara224 said:

My point is clear. I'm not obfuscating anything.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are. You are basically saying that we can not ever know anything with certainty.

Tamara224 said:

I do disagree, however, with the idea that you appear to be suggesting that such is the main point of the passage.

Click to expand...

Well now see, THAT is an assumption, and a wrong one at that.

My point is Michal was in sin. Nowhere have I even implied that "such is the main point of the passage."

Tamara224 said:

I'm not looking for praise. I find it rather interesting that you resort to ad hominem now, though. You know what they say about the first person to resort to ad hominem...

Click to expand...

You mean like you did way back at the beginning of the discussion (in post #5 of your other thread), but then later edited?

probinson said:

Yes, you are. You are basically saying that we can not ever know anything with certainty.

Click to expand...

Nope. Never said it, never implied it. We can know plenty with certainty.

All I'm discussing is the process by which we arrive at that knowledge.

You are the one who wrongly believes that an assumption is never based on truth, facts or knowledge.

An assumption is a lot like faith. I assume that God is faithful. So do you. We're not wrong to assume that. Nor does it mean that I have no certainty of it. I am so certain of it that I take it for granted every single day of my life. I assume it every time I go boldly before God and present my petitions.

Faith is what? The assurance of things proven and the certainty of facts known? Or something else?

Well now see, THAT is an assumption, and a wrong one at that.

Click to expand...

Okay. I stand corrected, then. It wasn't an assumption, though. It appeared to me that you were suggesting it. But I'm willing to say that I inferred wrongly.

My point is Michal was in sin. Nowhere have I even implied that "such is the main point of the passage."

Click to expand...

Okay.

You mean like you did way back at the beginning of the discussion (in post #5 of your other thread), but then later edited?

Click to expand...

I edited my post because I was wrong to goad an entire forum out of my frustration with you and Joe. I apologized for it.

Is it still being held against me? Okay. That's to be expected. We can't erase our words in people's memories as easily as we can in our posts.

Tamara224 said:

Okay. I stand corrected, then. It wasn't an assumption, though. It appeared to me that you were suggesting it. But I'm willing to say that I inferred wrongly.

Click to expand...

You do amuse me today.

Tamara224 said:

I edited my post because I was wrong to goad an entire forum out of my frustration with you and Joe. I apologized for it.

Is it still being held against me? Okay. That's to be expected. We can't erase our words in people's memories as easily as we can in our posts.

Click to expand...

Not at all. In fact, when I saw you edited your post, I also edited my post which quoted yours out of courtesy to you. I certainly wouldn't have done that had I wanted to hold it against you.

But while I do not hold it against you, you implied something about "the first person to resort to ad hominem" in a discussion. Factually, that was you, way back before the discussion even got going.

probinson said:

You do amuse me today.



Not at all. In fact, when I saw you edited your post, I also edited my post which quoted yours out of courtesy to you. I certainly wouldn't have done that had I wanted to hold it against you.

But while I do not hold it against you, you implied something about "the first person to resort to ad hominem" in a discussion. Factually, that was you, way back before the discussion even got going.

Click to expand...

I see it differently. But okay.

Maybe it would just be best if we both agreed not to make it personal from here on out?

Tamara224 said:

An assumption isn't necessarily wrong, Pete. That it is correct does not make it not an assumption.

It's an assumption merely because it's not EXPLICITLY stated in the text.

IOW, we bring that presupposition to the text.

Assumption + Facts = Inference

Assumption: Despising people is wrong
Facts: Michal despised David
Inference: Michal was wrong to despise David


It's okay. I am not arguing with you that she was wrong to do it. Just observing that the text doesn't explicitly state that it was wrong. That we believe it is wrong to do so is, therefore, (as pertains to this text) an assumption. And that we believe that Michal, specifically, was wrong, is an inference.

Click to expand...

This whole time I've been agreeing with Pete and Balance, and still do, on the basic arguement about the OP but for the first time I now understand where you're coming from and agree with what you're saying here on this one point. Where in the Bible does it specifically say that despising someone in your heart is a sin? To my knowledge, no where, although we can make a good inference that it is a sin and is wrong to do so.

Why can men just get it through his head that God can do whatever he wants to whomever he wants any time he chooses in any way he chooses and doesn't need the man or the woman permission to do so. Oh good grief Charlie Brown.

nephilimiyr said:

Where in the Bible does it specifically say that despising someone in your heart is a sin? To my knowledge, no where, although we can make a good inference that it is a sin and is wrong to do so.

Click to expand...

See, I still wouldn't call that an inference.

Here is a truly contrived example for you; if I am giving you directions, and I say to you, "At the third stop light, turn the opposite of left", which way are you going to turn? Do you have to "infer" that you must turn right, or can you be absolutely certain of the fact that I am telling you to turn right?

The Bible may not specifically tell us that despising someone in our hearts is sin, but it DOES specifically tell us to Love our enemies. We also know that "despising" is not a characteristic of Love.

This whole discussion reminds me of that episode of the Brady Bunch where Mike and Carol tell Greg that he's not supposed to drive the car anywhere, and so he borrows his friend's car to go get some concert tickets, claiming that their "exact words" were not to drive their car, and so he wasn't really disobeying them to take someone else's car, since they didn't specifically tell him that.

JimB said:

Here’s the biblical text from 2 Samuel 6:

12And it was told King David, "The LORD has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God." So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing. 13And when those who bore the ark of the LORD had gone six steps, he sacrificed an ox and a fattened animal. 14And David danced before the LORD with all his might. And David was wearing a linen ephod. 15So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting and with the sound of the horn.

16As the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, and she despised him in her heart. 17And they brought in the ark of the LORD and set it in its place, inside the tent that David had pitched for it. And David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD. 18And when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts 19and distributed among all the people, the whole multitude of Israel, both men and women, a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins to each one. Then all the people departed, each to his house.

20And David returned to bless his household. But Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, "How the king of Israel honored himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ female servants, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!" 21And David said to Michal, "It was before the LORD, who chose me above your father and above all his house, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the LORD—and I will make merry before the LORD. 22I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in your eyes. But by the female servants of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor." 23And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.
​

Click to expand...

It is an account given of what happened. IMHO, it's a modest way of saying, "they stopped having marital relations".

Plenty can be learned from this passage, especially about relationships. IMHO, it's about more than "worship style".

probinson said:

See, I still wouldn't call that an inference.

Here is a truly contrived example for you; if I am giving you directions, and I say to you, "At the third stop light, turn the opposite of left", which way are you going to turn? Do you have to "infer" that you must turn right, or can you be absolutely certain of the fact that I am telling you to turn right?

The Bible may not specifically tell us that despising someone in our hearts is sin, but it DOES specifically tell us to Love our enemies. We also know that "despising" is not a characteristic of Love.

This whole discussion reminds me of that episode of the Brady Bunch where Mike and Carol tell Greg that he's not supposed to drive the car anywhere, and so he borrows his friend's car to go get some concert tickets, claiming that their "exact words" were not to drive their car, and so he wasn't really disobeying them to take someone else's car, since they didn't specifically tell him that.

Click to expand...

OH boy, drawing anologies from The Brady Bunch show? I have to say this about you and Tamara, you are both very strong willed people.

nephilimiyr said:

OH boy, drawing anologies from The Brady Bunch show? I have to say this about you and Tamara, you are both very strong willed people.

Click to expand...

Yes, sometimes to my own detriment.

(I love the Brady Bunch)

JimB said:

Getting personal, are you, Jiminpa? I’ll overlook (and not report) this broadside. (Apparently, you have nothing constructive to add to this thread.)

Fact is, like you, I once swallowed everything I was spoon-fed by my P/C mentors taught (and mis-taught) me … until I realized that they weren’t infallible, after all, and probably were also mis-taught the stuff tfrom previous generations. They just passed down error as a whole package to me and I swallowed it without questioning it.

A lot of what we have learned just may be wrong, J-pa, and it takes courage to admit it and relearning what we have mis-learned. But I have discovered that it takes more courage than many P/C’s have to ever admit they were wrong about anything.

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.​

Click to expand...

You have no clue what I question or don't.

Scripture is not automatically invalidated by charismatics seeing it correctly.

I don't see the harm in trying to get you to examine your biases.

JimB said:

Oh, so that is what you were trying to do: get me “to examine my biases” and it wasn’t just a nasty remark.

Of course ...

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.​

Click to expand...

What would "just a nasty remark" accomplish?

lismore said:

Michael was Saul's daughter too, given to another man by Saul when David ran away, another reason for David to shun her company?

Click to expand...

Incorrect, on this point.
A. David specifically demanded her back.
B. David especially would have had physical relations with her, cf. Absolom and david's concubines, and Solomon's behavior w/ his brother, who had asked for Abishag.


Best wishes,
goldenboy

JimB said:

I love the way the Bible presents its heroes warts and all, and none more blotched than David. We tend to want to see him through rose-colored glasses, overlooking his massive flaws. I will admit that David is, in many respects, a man to be admired, but when David failed, which was far too often, he did it in massive proportions. David did nothing in small measures—when he was brave, he was the bravest; when he worshiped, he set the standard; he was a genius, musically, militarily, diplomatically, politically, poetically, and in almost every way we count genius. But when it came to family, David was as colossal a failure at home as he was a genius everywhere else.
​

In the case of Michal’s criticism of David’s wild dance in the streets of Jerusalem (a criticism which 2 Samuel 6 reports but does not condemn any more than it supports David’s dance), my sympathies lie partially with Michal. And for the following reasons: 2 Samuel chs. 11 thru 16, much less ch. 6, does not present a glowing picture of the king. For years Michal had been handed back and forth to men, David to Phalti and back to David, as though she were chattel property. Her dowry (a stinking sack of Philistine genitalia) left much to be desired—think about it, a princess who should have had a dowry of gold and silver was given a rotting back of Philistine foreskins. Then there’s David’s betrayal of their vows by marrying Abigail while still claiming Michal as his wife. Then there’s David’s adultery with Bathsheba and the much more serious criminal act of murdering her husband to have Bathsheba added to his growing harem. Then we have David’s lack of discipline of his children that produced a rape within his own household, followed by the vengeful murder of his son, Amnon, by his half-brother, Absalom, followed by David’s unwise handling of the problem, later pointed out to him Joab, yet which resulted in not only a future rebellion in his kingdom but the untimely death of Absalom. There’s David’s blindness of Absalom’s treachery, the resulting rebellion, and David’s escape to avoid being murdered by his own son. And on and on the salacious soap opera of David’s life continues right up until his tragic numbering of Israel that caused 70,000 deaths. David’s life, for all its military victories, was one tragic familial mistake after another.

While I do not justify Michal’s sin of “despising David in her heart,” I do not turn a blind eye to David, who did not exactly help the situation and who gave his wife more than enough cause to sin.
​

Michal, who probably knew David’s shortcomings better than anyone, witnessed all of his many foibles and faults, sins and crimes. Is it any wonder, after all that David put Michal and his household through that when he did his little Texas two-step in the town streets—“uncovering himself today,” as Michal charged, “in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself”—she was a tad suspicious of his motives? If I had a marital track record like David’s, who would blame my wife (or any wife) for being distrustful of me?

~Jim

Mercy triumphs over judgment. ~James 2.13​

Click to expand...

You know Jim, I have issues going on in my life right now that have me a bit emotional, and I have to keep my head in real life no matter how much I want explode, and it is really hard for me to keep a lid on what I want to say here right now, so I ask you to bear with me while I explain my thoughts on this discussion. The tendency for me is to get really angry with the way you come on this board and show nothing but unwavering contempt for charisma and Pentecostalism. If the major charismatic and pentecostal denominations came out with the statement that God is good I would expect you post a rebuttal. But then I thought about it, and realized that if my beliefs can't stand up against purely compulsion driven criticism they can't be very strong beliefs. So maybe it is time to take a look at your view that Michal is just a misunderstood heroin and David's abandon in worshiping God was wrong, (did I get that right?).

When I look at the scripture I see that David was in fact dancing before the Lord and that scriptural narrative mentions nothing about him showing anything to anyone, or being concerned with anything but the return of the Ark of the Covenant. (v.12 -15) That focus on God in worship is consistent with David's character throughout scripture. In verse 16 Michal, and scripture here points out that she is Saul's daughter, sees David's joy and worship before the Lord and despises him in her heart. The next 4 verses are again about David and God and the people, no mention of any wrongdoing on David's part. Then David comes home to bless his house, and is met by Michal, making sarcastic accusations. In verses 21 and 22 David defends himself pointing out that what he did he did before the Lord. Then he gets to the real issue for her, that God chose David above her father, and moves back on to how much he is unconcerned about maintaining dignity when he is before the Lord. v.23--again calls her the daughter of Saul and says that she had no child.

Sorry, but scripture doesn't treat Michal very kindly, and the only one in scripture accusing David of any wrongdoing here is Michal.