Hedgeship of Adam ....

Slyzr

Well-known member
A kinsman redeemer is not a kinsman redeemer? That makes absolutely NO SENSE

Please try to make your point again using different words. I cannot reply to you unless I understand you.

You are saying he is not, a kinsman redeemer.

That was the point.

You are trying to argue for a kinsman redeemer NOT being a kinsman redeemer.

but a conversion thingy ..... which is not a kinsman redeemer.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
or are you saying she got anothers soul and went back.

Either way .... highly curious.

Or put another way if she is not a Jewish soul how could she do that extrapulation?

She must have something Jeswish.

Which is why people argue about her being Jewish all along.
For some reason, this bottom portion did not show up when I first replied. Perhaps you edited it in later?

The tradition is, if someone is a convert to Judaism, they had a Jewish soul that drove them to convert. Those who never convert do not have Jewish souls. There would be no such thing as someone who had a Jewish soul who didn't convert.

If you accept this tradition, then by extension you agree that Ruth had a Jewish soul which drove her to convert from Moabite to Jew.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
You are saying he is not, a kinsman redeemer.

That was the point.

You are trying to argue for a kinsman redeemer NOT being a kinsman redeemer.

but a conversion thingy ..... which is not a kinsman redeemer.
You are having a hard time understanding me, and given the awkwardness of some of your responses, my guess is that this is because your English is limited. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes conversations almost impossible.

I am NOT saying that Boaz was not a kinsmen redeemer. I'm simply pointing out that the only reason Ruth could marry him in this levirate marriage is because she converted, aka was born moabite and (due to her jewish soul) became a Jew.

If you still can't understand me, then my guess is that you speak too little English for any meaningful conversation. Be well.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
For some reason, this bottom portion did not show up when I first replied. Perhaps you edited it in later?

The tradition is, if someone is a convert to Judaism, they had a Jewish soul that drove them to convert. Those who never convert do not have Jewish souls. There would be no such thing as someone who had a Jewish soul who didn't convert.

If you accept this tradition, then by extension you agree that Ruth had a Jewish soul which drove her to convert from Moabite to Jew.

Then no kinsman redeemer.

Once again.

Unless she is stealing souls.

But that still does not make her Jewish unleess she is Jewish.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
Then no kinsman redeemer.

Once again.
I'm sorry, you are not making any sense. I have stated a number of times that Boaz is a kinsman redeemer, and that he could only marry Ruth because she had converted. This is not a hard concept. My conclusion is that you are not understanding because your English comprehension is simply to low for a conversation. Thus, I'm no longer going to reply, since you cannot understand conversational English.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
I'm sorry, you are not making any sense. I have stated a number of times that Boaz is a kinsman redeemer, and that he could only marry Ruth because she had converted. This is not a hard concept. My conclusion is that you are not understanding because your English comprehension is simply to low for a conversation. Thus, I'm no longer going to reply, since you cannot understand conversational English.

ok ......
 

Exeter

Active member
No Jew as successfully traced their genealogy to the biblical patriarchs.
I have Jewish ancestors whose documented line traces back to Noah..

Jesus said:
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
No evolution involved.

The Bible has numerous genealogies, particularly these:

Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Luk 3:23-38 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, (24) Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, (25) Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, (26) Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, (27) Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, (28) Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, (29) Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, (30) Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, (31) Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, (32) Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, (33) Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, (34) Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, (35) Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, (36) Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, (37) Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, (38) Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
I have a question, "was Ruth born in the Land of Moab or the country of Moab?". because the country of Moab is not the same location as the Land of Moab. please check your maps.

PICJAG, 101G.
This is Hawkeye's reply to that question from another sub forum:


Here is how "The Plains of Moab" became part of the nation of Israel:

When National territory is ceded to another Nation it generally keeps the same name it had. That's why Mexican California is still called "California. That's why many American states still maintain their "American Indian" names i.e. "Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas ....etc., etc.

If we named them all we would not have the room for anything else.

The Kingdom of Moab fought against King Sihon of the Amorites;
[Numbers 26:26-29]....and lost. Their territory, the Plains of Moab" were taken by Sihon.

The Amorites were subsequently destroyed by Israel....thereby ceding the "Plains" to Moses and the Israelites; Deuteronomy 2:32-34]. And....the war continued; [Numbers 21:30-35].

All this land was given to Reuben, Gad and Manasseh [Deuteronomy 3:12-16].

When Moses died the "Plains of Moab" were held by Israel (Circa 1450 B.C.). 300 years later....Israel still held that land [Judges 11:12-26].

This would be much like Russia asking us to return Alaska to them.

Ruth would have been born about 1322 B.C. which would place her on the "Plains during this period of time......when the Judges ruled [Ruth 1:1] before Israel had a King. The scripture places her in the "Country" (Sadeh) of Moab....which means "Plains, farmland, soil, agricultural areas, etc.

Ruth, the Moabitess is like saying......Julia, the Californian....who is actually a U.S. citizen, but born and living in an area that formerly belonged to Mexican California.

[Deuteronomy 2:34] tells us that no National Moabites were left on the Plains after Israel defeated Sihon and that land became the province of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh [Deuteronomy 29:8]. This territory retained the name of Moab just as Canaan retained the name of the Canaanites [Joshua 13:8-32 ].
 

101G

Well-known member
This is Hawkeye's reply to that question from another sub forum:


Here is how "The Plains of Moab" became part of the nation of Israel:

When National territory is ceded to another Nation it generally keeps the same name it had. That's why Mexican California is still called "California. That's why many American states still maintain their "American Indian" names i.e. "Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas ....etc., etc.

If we named them all we would not have the room for anything else.

The Kingdom of Moab fought against King Sihon of the Amorites;
[Numbers 26:26-29]....and lost. Their territory, the Plains of Moab" were taken by Sihon.

The Amorites were subsequently destroyed by Israel....thereby ceding the "Plains" to Moses and the Israelites; Deuteronomy 2:32-34]. And....the war continued; [Numbers 21:30-35].

All this land was given to Reuben, Gad and Manasseh [Deuteronomy 3:12-16].

When Moses died the "Plains of Moab" were held by Israel (Circa 1450 B.C.). 300 years later....Israel still held that land [Judges 11:12-26].

This would be much like Russia asking us to return Alaska to them.

Ruth would have been born about 1322 B.C. which would place her on the "Plains during this period of time......when the Judges ruled [Ruth 1:1] before Israel had a King. The scripture places her in the "Country" (Sadeh) of Moab....which means "Plains, farmland, soil, agricultural areas, etc.

Ruth, the Moabitess is like saying......Julia, the Californian....who is actually a U.S. citizen, but born and living in an area that formerly belonged to Mexican California.

[Deuteronomy 2:34] tells us that no National Moabites were left on the Plains after Israel defeated Sihon and that land became the province of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh [Deuteronomy 29:8]. This territory retained the name of Moab just as Canaan retained the name of the Canaanites [Joshua 13:8-32 ].
Rachel Redux, you are 100% Correct. COME TO THE HEAD OF THE CLASS. for the Country of Moab is another name for the plains of Moab. which is just east of Jericho.

for when the children of Israel came out of Egypt, they went around what was then the LAND of MOAB, because as you said, the Amorite, king of Heshbon took over the Land. and when he refuses to let Israel pass through the Land, as said, which use to be the Moabites to get to the Promise Land in Cannan he was defeated by Moses and the children of Israel. and king og meet the same fate also. and his land was taken when he went up against Moses and the children of Israel. and as said the two tribes saw the Land was good for cattle, they ask Moses if they could keep the Land and the two tribes was granted permission, after some soul searching, to keep the Land.

it's good to see a well-informed bible student here on the forum. be blessed, and I will keep an eye on your posts, ..... (smile). be blessed in the Lord.

PICJAG, 101G
 

Lee Magee

Member
Deuteronomy is Ezra's Torah , so the land of Israel, never actually belonged to Jews, but to the Persian Empire, that the Jews served under, probably as tax collectors. This is the reason for the twelve tribes, each division had to provide taxes or tribute for one month of the year.

1 Kings 4:7
Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, which provided victuals for the king and his household: each man his month in a year made provision.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
Rachel Redux, you are 100% Correct. COME TO THE HEAD OF THE CLASS. for the Country of Moab is another name for the plains of Moab. which is just east of Jericho.

for when the children of Israel came out of Egypt, they went around what was then the LAND of MOAB, because as you said, the Amorite, king of Heshbon took over the Land. and when he refuses to let Israel pass through the Land, as said, which use to be the Moabites to get to the Promise Land in Cannan he was defeated by Moses and the children of Israel. and king og meet the same fate also. and his land was taken when he went up against Moses and the children of Israel. and as said the two tribes saw the Land was good for cattle, they ask Moses if they could keep the Land and the two tribes was granted permission, after some soul searching, to keep the Land.

it's good to see a well-informed bible student here on the forum. be blessed, and I will keep an eye on your posts, ..... (smile). be blessed in the Lord.

PICJAG, 101G
Thank you but I can't take credit for that post. It was composed by Hawkeye, who is, indeed, a well informed Bible student.
 

Lee Magee

Member
Genesis precisely places "Eden" (παράδεισος) in Babylon, or the very place of captivity, i.e. these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity (Ezra 2). In other words these that went out of captivity are the "children of Adam", the beginning point.

Xenophon, Anabasis 2.4.13
Then they reached the Tigris river, near which was a large and populous city named Sittace, fifteen stadia from the river. The Greeks accordingly encamped beside this city, near a large and beautiful park (παραδείσου)

Xenophon, Anabasis 2.4.25
From the Tigris they marched four stages, twenty parasangs, to the Physcus river (Φύσκων = פישון "Phison")

Fake genealogies.

1 Chronicles 6:15
Zadok > Shallum > Hilkiah > Azariah > Seraiah > Jehozadak (who went into captivity by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar)

Ezra 7:1
Zadok > Shallum > Hilkiah > Azariah > Seraiah > Ezra (who went up from Babylon during reign of Artaxerxes II)

 

Lee Magee

Member
what is your proof of this?

PICJAG, 101G

Mesopotamia means between the rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates, this narrows down the location.

Gen 2:14
The name of the third river is Hiddekel that goes toward the east of Assyria, the fourth river is Euphrates.

αἴλουρος τίγρης חדקל "Tiger"
θήρας פרת "Lion"
 

101G

Well-known member
Mesopotamia means between the rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates, this narrows down the location.

Gen 2:14
The name of the third river is Hiddekel that goes toward the east of Assyria, the fourth river is Euphrates.

αἴλουρος τίγρης חדקל "Tiger"
θήρας פרת "Lion"
was not the Garden planted ..... "EASTWARD" in EDEN, and not in the center in Eden. and two Gen 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

here the term River is
H5104 נָהָר nahar (naw-hawr') n-m.
1. a stream (including the sea).
2. (especially) the Nile, Euphrates, etc.
3. (figuratively) prosperity.
[from H5102]
KJV: flood, river.

notice definition #1. (including the sea), or a large. body of water like a Gulf? and definition #2 (especially) the Nile, Euphrates, etc.
and over times rivers changes, and are altered, just something to think about.

PICJAG, 101G.
 
Top