Sabbath question

[christ_undivided]

This is scripture??????

They write their own dictionaries and pretend historical distinctions never existed.

It the same issue with them denying "Hebrews/Jews" are not a race. They've claimed to be a priestly order and privileged race for thousands of years.

They want to distance themselves from that "bad narrative"..... so they fabricate claims out of "thin air" to support their claim.

It is exactly the same thing happening now with the use of "pronouns" and "gender". Modern Judaism has been doing this for a very long time.

It is maddening. If they can't prove their claims with facts, they will "fabricate" NEW FACTS....

 

[Hawkeye]

Scripture was not needed. You needed to be informed what the word tribe means. That is the job of a dictionary.

According to scripture.......Moab was a Kingdom....not a tribe. I've given you every opportunity to show me (in scripture) where Moab is not a Kingdom.....but a tribe. I will trust divinely, inspired scripture over dictionaries that are "works of men".

Now please don't bother me again with this inane, silly little idiosyncrasy of yours. I won't again respond..... and everyone will know why.

[Numbers 22:10] 10 And Balaam said unto God, Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, hath sent unto me, saying,

 

[Open Heart]

According to scripture.......Moab was a Kingdom....not a tribe. I've given you every opportunity to show me (in scripture) where Moab is not a Kingdom.....but a tribe. I will trust divinely, inspired scripture over dictionaries that are "works of men".

Now please don't bother me again with this inane, silly little idiosyncrasy of yours. I won't again respond..... and everyone will know why.

[Numbers 22:10] 10 And Balaam said unto God, Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, hath sent unto me, saying,

Tribes can have land and leaders. It doesn't mean they aren't tribes.

 

[christ_undivided]

Tribes can have land and leaders. It doesn't mean they aren't tribes.

It doesn't mean they're not a KINGDOM.....

See how easy that was?

 

[Jewjitzu]

No matter what you folks bring forth to dispute valid scripture…..you have to deal with (Deuteronomy 23:3) and (I Kings, chapter 11). Ruth was an Israelite before she even married into Naomi’s family!

So you didn't respond to my reply concerning Jesus being a mamzer since Joseph didn't father him even though he was legally married to Mary according to Christian tradition, and what problems you see with 1 Kings 11.

So, I dealt with the mamzer issue which wouldn't apply to Ruth and her progeny since she was a convert and married into the house of Boaz.

 

[Hawkeye]

You posted Ruth 1:16. That doesn't address the plural gods in 1:15.

For the third (and final) time.....I did not post 1:16. I posted 1:15.

Yep, so why do you use the ones you do?

I use primarily.....Young's Literal Translation and the King James.

The King James because that's what most folks are familiar with and Young's because of what he stood for.

Robert Young was an accomplished nineteenth century Hebrew/Greek scholar that published his translation as well as "Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible".....found in most theological libraries.

He vowed to translate literally no matter the consequences. He was a "Scottish Free Church" (Presbyterian) member and it's rumored he lost some friendships because he translated (in some cases) totally against his own theology.

To me.....this displays character of the highest form.....so I trust his translation more than most.

The King James is full of error but easily discerned to make sure you understand the error.....and refrain from its belief.

Depends the context. The term Jews comes from Judah, a tribe of Israel who are all Israelites. As such the southern kingdom encompassed Judah, Benjamin, and the separate Levites. So I think we agree.

Yes.....I've read many of your well respected posts to know that we agree on many things.

The problem is that Israelites don't refer to themselves as foreigners to each other, especially using the term nokri which is used of idolaters.

They do when they are separated by more than just a river:

Moses, initially was opposed to Reuben, Gas and the half tribe of Manasseh to having a separate location on the east side of Jordan apart from the rest of Israel [Numbers chapter 32] but relented. He originally thought they may be attempting to avoid helping their brother tribes against the Heathen Nations across Jordan.

This land, The Plains of Moab..... was well watered and very suitable for livestock and agriculture and Joshua was glad Moses had given them they're requests [Joshua 22:1-4].

The Easter tribes built themselves an altar by the river which upset the western tribes to the point they readied for war;

Joshua 22:10-12] And when they came unto the borders of Jordan, that are in the land of Canaan, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by Jordan, a great altar to see to.
And the children of Israel heard say, Behold, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh have built an altar over against the land of Canaan, in the borders of Jordan, at the passage of the children of Israel. And when the children of Israel heard of it, the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered themselves together at Shiloh, to go up to war against them.

 

[Hawkeye]

So you didn't respond to my reply concerning Jesus being a mamzer since Joseph didn't father him even though he was legally married to Mary according to Christian tradition, and what problems you see with 1 Kings 11.

So, I dealt with the mamzer issue which wouldn't apply to Ruth and her progeny since she was a convert and married into the house of Boaz.

"Mamzer"..... child of a union not sanctioned by biblical law as interpreted by the rabbis.

Since I'm not a Jew I don't follow Rabbinical interpretations......but I have a feeling that a union between Mary and the Holy Spirit was sanctioned by Yahweh......no matter what a Rabbi says.

Are you of the opinion that miracles cannot happen?

[I Kings chapter 11] describes this: KJV............

1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

Is it not strange that Solomon would do this knowing that Yahweh had prohibited the very thing? And.....indeed Solomon had his heart turned toward idolatry (verse 4). Because of this the kingdom was divided and Benjamin (one Tribe) was given to Judah. [II Chronicles 11:12-17] describes the addition of Benjamin.....and later Levi.

[Genesis 44:18-34] describes the special relationship between Benjamin and Judah.

That's the problem.....although the Kingdom may have been divided anyway for some other reason. Who knows?

The "Mamzer" thing was not an issue between Boaz and Ruth since she was already of Israel and needed no conversion.

 

[Jewjitzu]

For the third (and final) time.....I did not post 1:16. I posted 1:15.

15
Look,” said Naomi, “your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods; follow her back home.”

16
But Ruth replied:
“Do not urge me to leave you
or to turn from following you.
For wherever you go, I will go,
and wherever you live, I will live;
your people will be my people,
and your God will be my God.

You've been quoting verse 16.

I use primarily.....Young's Literal Translation and the King James.

The King James because that's what most folks are familiar with and Young's because of what he stood for.

Robert Young was an accomplished nineteenth century Hebrew/Greek scholar that published his translation as well as "Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible".....found in most theological libraries.

He vowed to translate literally no matter the consequences. He was a "Scottish Free Church" (Presbyterian) member and it's rumored he lost some friendships because he translated (in some cases) totally against his own theology.

To me.....this displays character of the highest form.....so I trust his translation more than most.

The King James is full of error but easily discerned to make sure you understand the error.....and refrain from its belief.

Ok, I don't respect either. But I quote the English translations so people can relate.

Yes.....I've read many of your well respected posts to know that we agree on many things.

Ok, that's great, really.

They do when they are separated by more than just a river:

Moses, initially was opposed to Reuben, Gas and the half tribe of Manasseh to having a separate location on the east side of Jordan apart from the rest of Israel [Numbers chapter 32] but relented. He originally thought they may be attempting to avoid helping their brother tribes against the Heathen Nations across Jordan.

This land, The Plains of Moab..... was well watered and very suitable for livestock and agriculture and Joshua was glad Moses had given them they're requests [Joshua 22:1-4].

The Easter tribes built themselves an altar by the river which upset the western tribes to the point they readied for war;

Joshua 22:10-12] And when they came unto the borders of Jordan, that are in the land of Canaan, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by Jordan, a great altar to see to.
And the children of Israel heard say, Behold, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh have built an altar over against the land of Canaan, in the borders of Jordan, at the passage of the children of Israel. And when the children of Israel heard of it, the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered themselves together at Shiloh, to go up to war against them.

Not a great example. Nokri isn't used anywhere.

 

[Jewjitzu]

"Mamzer"..... child of a union not sanctioned by biblical law as interpreted by the rabbis.

It's a child born out of wedlock, from adultery. If the woman isn't Jewish, the child isn't Jewish. So the mamzer issue wouldn't apply.

Since I'm not a Jew I don't follow Rabbinical interpretations......but I have a feeling that a union between Mary and the Holy Spirit was sanctioned by Yahweh......no matter what a Rabbi says.

In Hebrew, ruach hakodesh, spirit of holiness, with respect to marriage means a union to separate oneself for one person exclusively. Marriage in Hebrew is called Kiddushin. I think you can see the connection. Any child born from the union of his married parents is in the spirit of holiness, as God meant it to be.

Jesus, if he wasn't born from Joseph, would be a mamzer. All prophecies related to Abraham and David, and kings coming from their loins, verify that David's lineage can come no other way.

I don't have a problem with Jesus born naturally. But, not being divine. It would make things easier for him. The early Nazarenes believed just that according to Eusebius in his EH.

Are you of the opinion that miracles cannot happen?

Sure. But there isn't a virgin birth. Can you tell me what the sign of a pregnant virgin is? It must be visible. And how does it differ from a pregnant non-virgin?

Here is the sign of a virgin, Deut 22:15.

[I Kings chapter 11] describes this: KJV............

1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

Yep, the swaying to false gods.

Is it not strange that Solomon would do this knowing that Yahweh had prohibited the very thing? And.....indeed Solomon had his heart turned toward idolatry (verse 4). Because of this the kingdom was divided and Benjamin (one Tribe) was given to Judah. [II Chronicles 11:12-17] describes the addition of Benjamin.....and later Levi.

Solomon did this trying to build alliances, trying to outsmart God. That was his problem.

[Genesis 44:18-34] describes the special relationship between Benjamin and Judah.

Ok.

That's the problem.....although the Kingdom may have been divided anyway for some other reason. Who knows?

In Rehoboam's time, it was split because he tried imposing harsh taxes.

The "Mamzer" thing was not an issue between Boaz and Ruth since she was already of Israel and needed no conversion.

It wasn't an issue because she was a convert and part of Israel. That's how conversion works. You're given legal paperwork showing you're part of the nation of Israel, and when marrying into a family, your Ketubah, marriage contract, shows your husband and the new family you're a part of legally.

 

[Jewjitzu]

They do when they are separated by more than just a river:

Moses, initially was opposed to Reuben, Gas and the half tribe of Manasseh to having a separate location on the east side of Jordan apart from the rest of Israel [Numbers chapter 32] but relented. He originally thought they may be attempting to avoid helping their brother tribes against the Heathen Nations across Jordan.

This land, The Plains of Moab..... was well watered and very suitable for livestock and agriculture and Joshua was glad Moses had given them they're requests [Joshua 22:1-4].

The Easter tribes built themselves an altar by the river which upset the western tribes to the point they readied for war;

Joshua 22:10-12] And when they came unto the borders of Jordan, that are in the land of Canaan, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by Jordan, a great altar to see to.
And the children of Israel heard say, Behold, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh have built an altar over against the land of Canaan, in the borders of Jordan, at the passage of the children of Israel. And when the children of Israel heard of it, the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered themselves together at Shiloh, to go up to war against them.

Strong's Hebrew: 5237. נָכְרִי (nokri) -- foreign, alien

Can you find a reference for nokri used of an Israelite or Jew to each other?

Anyway, I'm getting ready for Shabbat.

Shabbat Shalom.

BTW, I don't post on Shabbat so I'll be offline until tomorrow night, at least.

 

[Hawkeye]

15
Look,” said Naomi, “your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods; follow her back home.”

16
But Ruth replied:
“Do not urge me to leave you
or to turn from following you.
For wherever you go, I will go,
and wherever you live, I will live;
your people will be my people,
and your God will be my God.

You've been quoting verse 16.

O.K. I would like you right now (don’t dilli dally) go to post #164……..read it four or five times and then tell me where I posted (Ruth 1:16).

If you come back and tell me I did I am going to ignore the rest of what you have to say. I really don’t want to do that…..so please read it thoroughly so you will be able to convince yourself I really didn’t quote it! If you insist that I did I am going to suspect you have a comprehension situation.

Ok, I don't respect either. But I quote the English translations so people can relate.

Most English translations have multiple error regarding the gospels.

 

[American Gothic]

STOP SURFING THE NET ON SABBATH!!
or God maybe won't bless you or Whatever

ha ha////
"Law Keeperz" pppdttt

 

[Jewjitzu]

O.K. I would like you right now (don’t dilli dally) go to post #164……..read it four or five times and then tell me where I posted (Ruth 1:16).

I don't dilly dally on the Sabbath.

Post in thread 'Sabbath question' https://forums.carm.org/threads/sabbath-question.14702/post-1166503

expand...

(Ruth 1:15) your people, my people, your God, my God!

She already wassa’

I guess you mistakenly used the wording from Ruth 1:16 and put it into Ruth 1:15?

So, don't dilly dally and admit your mistake.

If you come back and tell me I did I am going to ignore the rest of what you have to say. I really don’t want to do that…..so please read it thoroughly so you will be able to convince yourself I really didn’t quote it! If you insist that I did I am going to suspect you have a comprehension situation.

See above. No issue with my comprehension.

Most English translations have multiple error regarding the gospels.

No doubt.

 

[Hawkeye]

I don't dilly dally on the Sabbath.

At 4:17 p.m. on Friday I last posted to you. I don’t know where you are but I’m in California and the sun had not yet gone down to begin Sabbath.

I guess you mistakenly used the wording from Ruth 1:16 and put it into Ruth 1:15?

You are correct. I did (in post #172)………but…….

So, don't dilly dally and admit your mistake.

You had stated (in post #183) that I had not responded to the statement in (Ruth 1:15) regarding gods. I then replied in post #190 that I did………in post #164

See above. No issue with my comprehension.

Yes, I believe you have excellent comprehension but just didn’t realize I had indeed responded to your query in an earlier post.

No doubt.

No question about it.

 

[Jewjitzu]

At 4:17 p.m. on Friday I last posted to you. I don’t know where you are but I’m in California and the sun had not yet gone down to begin Sabbath.

I'm EST.

You are correct. I did (in post #172)………but…….

You had stated (in post #183) that I had not responded to the statement in (Ruth 1:15) regarding gods. I then replied in post #190 that I did………in post #164

I used #172 as my reference.

Yes, I believe you have excellent comprehension but just didn’t realize I had indeed responded to your query in an earlier post.

Ok.

No question about it.

Yep.