Was Ruth an Israelite?

[Bob Dobbalina]

Well.....thank you very much for the kind words.

Earlier in this same thread the mention of "The Harlot Rahab" from Jericho marrying into the Messianic bloodline was brought up. If you would like to include her story here as well.....it might be apropos.

I remember reading two names, as you mentioned in your post, and always wondered how the two became conflated. Yes, the names are similar- Rahab and Rachab- yet they are also obviously different, enough so that one has to wonder how Rachab ceased to be, as far as what is taught in Bible study anyway.
Your thoughts on the matter are certainly appropriate and welcome here.

 

[Rachel Redux]

I remember reading two names, as you mentioned in your post, and always wondered how the two became conflated. Yes, the names are similar- Rahab and Rachab- yet they are also obviously different, enough so that one has to wonder how Rachab ceased to be, as far as what is taught in Bible study anyway.
Your thoughts on the matter are certainly appropriate and welcome here.

I don't think there is any way to be completely sure, we can only speculate. One clue is that the New Testament mentions Rahab the harlot in Heb 11:31 and James 2:25, but Matthew 1:5 uses Rachab and omits the word harlot.

 

[Hawkeye]

I don't think there is any way to be completely sure, we can only speculate. One clue is that the New Testament mentions Rahab the harlot in Heb 11:31 and James 2:25, but Matthew 1:5 uses Rachab and omits the word harlot.

There's a little more evidence that something is awry.... than that. We'll use the KJV since that's what most are familiar with. If we happen upon a bad translation of a passage we'll go to Young's Literal. Let's begin.

[Matthew 1:5] And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

Many folks will associate this woman of scripture with the "Harlot of Jericho":

[Joshua 2:1] And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there.

O.K. ! So it's spelled differently which is a minor point......but....is it the same woman?

Regarding the holiness of the priesthood:
[Leviticus 21:7] They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.
[Verse 14] A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.

Yahweh had problems with the priesthood marrying women of ill repute so it makes you wonder why He would insert a known prostitute into the Messianic line.

The term "Harlot" is used here describing Rahab in scripture; [Joshua 2:1][6:17][6:25] and always associates her with what she did in Jericho. In the New Testament it is the same:
[Hebrews 11:31][James 2:25] and she's always called the Harlot and what she did to save the spies in Jericho.

When she was rescued from Jericho she and her family were kept out side the camp [Joshua 6:23] as allowing them in would have brought major destruction to Israel [Deuteronomy 7:1-4] [Deuteronomy 23:14]. The main reason Yahweh had instructed Israel to kill all the people and livestock of Canaan was the diseased condition they were all affected by.....and to burn the cities to the ground. Would Salmon find a wife among such folks?

Josephus, the great Hebrew scholar in Ant. Book 5; Chapter 1; section 2 and 7 records the story of Rahab but makes no mention of a marriage to Salmon or her being the mother of Boaz. This deafening silence makes one wonder about the traditional story..... somewhat. Such a great woman in the line to King David would certainly require a footnote?

The New scriptures do indeed mention Salmon's wife.....but is it a different woman? The name is not the same.....with no mention of any obnoxious characteristics attached to her name....or where she came from.....or what she did (as it appears elsewhere). Scripture does not avoid unsavory comment of any of Israel's important folks. Note [Matthew 1] again:

(verses 5-6) And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

After all....Bathsheba's name is not even mentioned as she was an adultress.....but a prostitute from Jericho gets a free ride from Matthew? Matthew says nothing about a harlot, Jericho or her being a Canaanite.

So again.....why did this "touchie/Feelie" story originate among those of the early Church. Yahweh had expressly forbidden marriages to Canaanites

 

[Rachel Redux]

There's a little more evidence that something is awry.... than that. We'll use the KJV since that's what most are familiar with. If we happen upon a bad translation of a passage we'll go to Young's Literal. Let's begin.

[Matthew 1:5] And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

Many folks will associate this woman of scripture with the "Harlot of Jericho":

[Joshua 2:1] And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there.

O.K. ! So it's spelled differently which is a minor point......but....is it the same woman?

Regarding the holiness of the priesthood:
[Leviticus 21:7] They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.
[Verse 14] A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.

Yahweh had problems with the priesthood marrying women of ill repute so it makes you wonder why He would insert a known prostitute into the Messianic line.

The term "Harlot" is used here describing Rahab in scripture; [Joshua 2:1][6:17][6:25] and always associates her with what she did in Jericho. In the New Testament it is the same:
[Hebrews 11:31][James 2:25] and she's always called the Harlot and what she did to save the spies in Jericho.

When she was rescued from Jericho she and her family were kept out side the camp [Joshua 6:23] as allowing them in would have brought major destruction to Israel [Deuteronomy 7:1-4] [Deuteronomy 23:14]. The main reason Yahweh had instructed Israel to kill all the people and livestock of Canaan was the diseased condition they were all affected by.....and to burn the cities to the ground. Would Salmon find a wife among such folks?

Josephus, the great Hebrew scholar in Ant. Book 5; Chapter 1; section 2 and 7 records the story of Rahab but makes no mention of a marriage to Salmon or her being the mother of Boaz. This deafening silence makes one wonder about the traditional story..... somewhat. Such a great woman in the line to King David would certainly require a footnote?

The New scriptures do indeed mention Salmon's wife.....but is it a different woman? The name is not the same.....with no mention of any obnoxious characteristics attached to her name....or where she came from.....or what she did (as it appears elsewhere). Scripture does not avoid unsavory comment of any of Israel's important folks. Note [Matthew 1] again:

(verses 5-6) And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

After all....Bathsheba's name is not even mentioned as she was an adultress.....but a prostitute from Jericho gets a free ride from Matthew? Matthew says nothing about a harlot, Jericho or her being a Canaanite.

So again.....why did this "touchie/Feelie" story originate among those of the early Church. Yahweh had expressly forbidden marriages to Canaanites

Yes, I would agree with everything you said. I believe that the fact that Matthew doesn't mention Rachab as being the harlot of Jericho is the biggest clue that she isn't the same person.
I agree that Jehovah was very particular about the Messiah's bloodline. He chose Mary because she had found particular favor with him, after all.

 

[Hawkeye]

Yes, I would agree with everything you said. I believe that the fact that Matthew doesn't mention Rachab as being the harlot of Jericho is the biggest clue that she isn't the same person.
I agree that Jehovah was very particular about the Messiah's bloodline. He chose Mary because she had found particular favor with him, after all.

Very good point.........

 

[Newbirth]

So YHWH's prohibition against intermarriage is of no consequence? If so, how did you come to that conclusion?

it is no secret that Israel disobeyed YHWH at every opportunity...

 

[Hawkeye]

it is no secret that Israel disobeyed YHWH at every opportunity...

That's true......but was there a consequence for marrying a Moabite women? And....if so....why would Yahweh allow one to enter the bloodline of the Savior?

 

[Hawkeye]

That is rubbish, she was a Moabite. A Moabite is a descendant of Moab just as an Israelite is a descendant of Israel. France and Texas are land mass and don't have descendants. People have descendants.

[Mark 14:70] And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.

[Luke 13:1-2] There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?

[John 4:45] Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galilaeans received him, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast.

[Acts 2:7] And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

That's because they came from Galilee.......probably born and raised as was Ruth born and raised on the "Plains of Moab" which was owned and controlled at the time by Israel......just as Galilee was owned and controlled by Israel under the auspices of Rome during the time of Yeshua.

Hint......Galilee was a land mass.....not a nation.

 

[Newbirth]

[Mark 14:70] And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.

[Luke 13:1-2] There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?

[John 4:45] Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galilaeans received him, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast.

[Acts 2:7] And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

1 Chronicles 6:76
And out of the tribe of Naphtali; Kedesh in Galilee with her suburbs, and Hammon with her suburbs, and Kirjathaim with her suburbs.
You Just exposed your Ignorance....or you are deliberately trying to twist the scripture to support your nonsense...Moabite was not a name an Israelite would be called...

That's because they came from Galilee.......probably born and raised as was Ruth born and raised on the "Plains of Moab" which was owned and controlled at the time by Israel

Nope that is your supposition....15 And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law.
It is clear they were not the same people and did not have the same God...

......just as Galilee was owned and controlled by Israel under the auspices of Rome during the time of Yeshua.

yep...But not Moab...Naomi was leaving the land of Moab...to return to her people and her God

Hint......Galilee was a land mass.....not a nation.

How does that help your argument...out of the tribe of Naphtali; Kedesh in Galilee with her suburbs...It says nothing about Moab...Israelites are not called Moabites...never...And what about Ammonites...?
Deuteronomy 23:3
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:
Try to wiggle your way out of this...
1 Kings 14:21
And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess.

 

[Hawkeye]

1 Chronicles 6:76
And out of the tribe of Naphtali; Kedesh in Galilee with her suburbs, and Hammon with her suburbs, and Kirjathaim with her suburbs.
You Just exposed your Ignorance....or you are deliberately trying to twist the scripture to support your nonsense...Moabite was not a name an Israelite would be called...

Nope that is your supposition....15 And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law.
It is clear they were not the same people and did not have the same God...

yep...But not Moab...Naomi was leaving the land of Moab...to return to her people and her God

How does that help your argument...out of the tribe of Naphtali; Kedesh in Galilee with her suburbs...It says nothing about Moab...Israelites are not called Moabites...never...And what about Ammonites...?
Deuteronomy 23:3
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:
Try to wiggle your way out of this...
1 Kings 14:21
And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess.

Well I can see that you have not read through this thread as your silly statements have all be answered....most from scripture itself.

But for starters.....the word used for gods is "Elohim" in the Hebrew and can also be used to describe human beings....such as magistrates, judges etc, etc. And.....the word is plural [Deuteronomy 16:18]. ELOHIM! Israel was then ruled by Judges as it had no King.

The Nation of Moab only had one god.....Chemosh [Numbers 21:29][II Kings 23:13][Jeremiah 48:46].

You probably should just sit down and try to figure out why Yahweh would put a woman in Yeshua's blood line who was cursed for ten generations [Deuteronomy 23:3][I Kings 11:1-2] and while your at it.....reflect on why Solomon had his Kingdom divided for cohabiting with Moabite woman. This fact right there shows how silly your position is when Solomon's great grandmother could not have been a woman of Moab. The problems with this line did not begin until Solomon started fooling around with them. His great grandmother, Ruth....was obviously an Israelite! She was born and raised on the Plains of Moab....owned by Israel and continued in Israel's hands for 300+ more years [Judges 11:14-27].

Rehoboam was not in the bloodline of the savior. That line came down from David's son, Nathan [Luke 3:31-32]. Joseph, Yeshua's step father was in the line of Rehoboam and thus had the legal right to the throne....but not the blood right. That came down from Nathan to Heli who was the father of Mary. Joseph was then able to pass on the legal right to the throne from Solomon and Mary was able to pass on the blood right from Nathan.

[Zecharia12:10-12] And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of "Nathan apart", and their wives apart;

Stop and think......Joseph could not have two genealogies. Heli was his Father-in-Law. And Mary had the right of inheritance as she had no brothers....only a younger sister [Numbers 27:1-11]. Thus she was able to pass on the Royal bloodline from David/Nathan to Yeshua.

 

[Hawkeye]

1 Chronicles 6:76
And out of the tribe of Naphtali; Kedesh in Galilee with her suburbs, and Hammon with her suburbs, and Kirjathaim with her suburbs.
You Just exposed your Ignorance....or you are deliberately trying to twist the scripture to support your nonsense...Moabite was not a name an Israelite would be called...
How does that help your argument...out of the tribe of Naphtali; Kedesh in Galilee with her suburbs...It says nothing about Moab...Israelites are not called Moabites...never...And what about Ammonites...?
Deuteronomy 23:3

Do you know where the tribes of Gad, Reuben and Manasseh resided?

On the plains of Moab. Why wouldn't they be called Moabites just as Israelites living in Galilee were called Galileans?

[Joshua 13:29-32]
And Moses gave inheritance unto the half tribe of Manasseh: and this was the possession of the half tribe of the children of Manasseh by their families. And their coast was from Mahanaim, all Bashan, all the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, and all the towns of Jair, which are in Bashan, threescore cities: And half Gilead, and Ashtaroth, and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan, were pertaining unto the children of Machir the son of Manasseh, even to the one half of the children of Machir by their families.These are the countries which Moses did distribute for inheritance in the plains of Moab, on the other side Jordan, by Jericho, eastward. But unto the tribe of Levi Moses gave not any inheritance: the LORD God of Israel was their inheritance, as he said unto them.

Your arguments are invalid when it comes to plain scripture.

 

[Newbirth]

Well I can see that you have not read through this thread as your silly statements have all be answered....most from scripture itself.

But for starters.....the word used for gods is "Elohim" in the Hebrew and can also be used to describe human beings....such as magistrates, judges etc, etc. And.....the word is plural [Deuteronomy 16:18]. ELOHIM! Israel was then ruled by Judges as it had no King.

Which does not support your argument since your claim is that the land of Moab was under Israeli rule. Vs 1... Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.
See here the translators used the word judges to refer to judges... A certain man went to another country because there was a famine in his country...

The Nation of Moab only had one god.....Chemosh [Numbers 21:29][II Kings 23:13][Jeremiah 48:46].

They had one chief god depicted by idols which can be numerous...what is your point?

You probably should just sit down and try to figure out why Yahweh would put a woman in Yeshua's blood line who was cursed for ten generations [Deuteronomy 23:3][I Kings 11:1-2] and while your at it.....reflect on why Solomon had his Kingdom divided for cohabiting with Moabite woman.

What is your point here if Yeshua is the son of Yahweh?
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

This fact right there shows how silly your position is when Solomon's great grandmother could not have been a woman of Moab. The problems with this line did not begin until Solomon started fooling around with them. His great grandmother, Ruth....was obviously an Israelite! She was born and raised on the Plains of Moab....owned by Israel and continued in Israel's hands for 300+ more years [Judges 11:14-27].

There is no reason why Ruth could not be a Moabitess except that you don't believe the scripture and have to find a way around what it says...

Rehoboam was not in the bloodline of the savior. That line came down from David's son, Nathan [Luke 3:31-32]. Joseph, Yeshua's step father was in the line of Rehoboam and thus had the legal right to the throne....but not the blood right.

which is not an argument since his seed was not in Mary to make Yeshua

That came down from Nathan to Heli who was the father of Mary.

Which has nothing to do with Ruth since Ruth cannot pass on seed to make boys

Joseph was then able to pass on the legal right to the throne from Solomon

How can he do it when Yeshua did not come from his loins?

and Mary was able to pass on the blood right from Nathan.

I agree but only her half....she does not have the gene to make boys...she is born with all her eggs...These things have no bearing on Ruth being A Moabite...

[Zecharia12:10-12] And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of "Nathan apart", and their wives apart;

Stop and think......Joseph could not have two genealogies. Heli was his Father-in-Law. And Mary had the right of inheritance as she had no brothers....only a younger sister [Numbers 27:1-11]. Thus she was able to pass on the Royal bloodline from David/Nathan to Yeshua.

You have to do better than that, women do not have the gene to make boys. So your argument about Ruth has no bearing on Jesus

 

[Newbirth]

Do you know where the tribes of Gad, Reuben and Manasseh resided?

On the plains of Moab. Why wouldn't they be called Moabites just as Israelites living in Galilee were called Galileans?

Because it does not say plains of Moab...Now you might want to argue that it is some plains that is not the country of Moab.but notice what it says...6 Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the Lord had visited his people in giving them bread.
Obviously, if it was just a place within the promised land then God would have visited Naiomi also...

[Joshua 13:29-32]
And Moses gave inheritance unto the half tribe of Manasseh: and this was the possession of the half tribe of the children of Manasseh by their families. And their coast was from Mahanaim, all Bashan, all the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, and all the towns of Jair, which are in Bashan, threescore cities: And half Gilead, and Ashtaroth, and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan, were pertaining unto the children of Machir the son of Manasseh, even to the one half of the children of Machir by their families.These are the countries which Moses did distribute for inheritance in the plains of Moab, on the other side Jordan, by Jericho, eastward. But unto the tribe of Levi Moses gave not any inheritance: the LORD God of Israel was their inheritance, as he said unto them.

Your arguments are invalid when it comes to plain scripture.

actually, you have not shown the plains of Moab, on the other side Jordan, by Jericho, on your map...
Naiomi and her husband left their country and went to another country...Moab...
notice where Moab is...

 

[Hawkeye]

Which does not support your argument since your claim is that the land of Moab was under Israeli rule.

For some reason you do not believe Moses when he said multiple times that Gad, Reuben and Manasseh would take control of the Plains of Moab?

[Numbers 22:1] And the children of Israel set forward, and pitched in the plains of Moab on this side Jordan by Jericho.

[Numbers 26:3] And Moses and Eleazar the priest spake with them in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying,

[Numbers 26:63] These are they that were numbered by Moses and Eleazar the priest, who numbered the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho.

[Numbers 31:12] And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

[Numbers 33:48-49] And they departed from the mountains of Abarim, and pitched in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho. And they pitched by Jordan, from Bethjesimoth even unto Abelshittim in the plains of Moab.

[Numbers 33:50] And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying,

[Numbers 35:1] And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying,

[Numbers 36:13] These are the commandments and the judgments, which the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses unto the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho.

And..............that's just the Book of Numbers1 There are forty more Old Testament references to the Plains of Moab and the Israelite conquest and control of that area for the next 700 years or so. The date of the Exodus is estimated to be around 1400/1450 B.C. Ruth would have been born to one of the tribes 0f Gad, Rueben or Manasseh sometime about 200 years later.

Vs 1... Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.
See here the translators used the word judges to refer to judges... A certain man went to another country because there was a famine in his country...

The Hebrew does not say....Nation of Moab. The word is Sadeh. Here is the Literal Translation from the Hebrew: Young's Literal Translation

[Ruth 1: 1] And it cometh to pass, in the days of the judging of the judges, that there is a famine in the land, and there goeth a man from Beth-Lehem-Judah to sojourn in the fields of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.

The definition of Sadeh is: field, land

1. cultivated field
2. of home of wild beasts
3. plain (opposed to mountain)
4. land (opposed to sea)

If it were the "Nation" of Moab it would be neɪʃən/, ˈneɪ·ʃn, ˈneɪ·ʃnz;

Here is the transliterated Hebrew:

[Ruth ;] wayəhî bîmê šəfōṭ haššōfəṭîm wayəhî rā‘āḇ bā’āreṣ wayyēleḵə ’îš mibêṯ leḥem yəhûḏâ lāḡûr biśəḏê mwō’āḇ hû’ wə’išətwō ûšənê ḇānāyw:

They had one chief god depicted by idols which can be numerous...what is your point?

The point being.....she did not return to her gods. She returned to her judges. Elohim does not necessarily refer to gods.

What is your point here if Yeshua is the son of Yahweh?
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

He is also the Son of Mary who was the descendant of Nathan and He was pure Israelite. The bloodline was not contaminated by the mother of Rehoboam who could not enter the congregation for ten generations [Deuteronomy 23:3]. Why do you think scripture gives us two different genealogies?

There is no reason why Ruth could not be a Moabitess except that you don't believe the scripture and have to find a way around what it says...

Actually.....the reason I do believe she was an Israelite is because I have discarded phony Christian Fairy tales which attempt to tell us a "touchie Feelie" story which has no basis in fact. That is.....when you read the literal Hebrew and Greek and not some made up tale by dark ages translators that did not have a very good understanding of these ancient languages. When you do that...... most English contradictions in scripture just go away.

which is not an argument since his seed was not in Mary to make Yeshua

You've made my point! Joseph's seed was not in Mary......Nathan and his Father David had seeded the bloodline....Rehoboam had not. But Joseph....as a legal step father could.....and did pass on to Yeshua the legal birthright to the throne of David which came down from King Solomon.

Which has nothing to do with Ruth since Ruth cannot pass on seed to make boys

No....you're right....but she can pass on blood....and did.

How can he do it when Yeshua did not come from his loins?

Already explained. He (Joseph) was the legal step Father and since Yeshua was the eldest of His brothers.....the birthright was his.

I agree but only her half....she does not have the gene to make boys...she is born with all her eggs...These things have no bearing on Ruth being A Moabite...

Now this is ridiculous. Ruth's blood was in the veins of David, Nathan, Heli and Mary.

You have to do better than that, women do not have the gene to make boys. So your argument about Ruth has no bearing on Jesus

Good grief.....admit it. You've lost............

 

[Hawkeye]

Because it does not say plains of Moab...Now you might want to argue that it is some plains that is not the country of Moab.but notice what it says...6 Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the Lord had visited his people in giving them bread.
Obviously, if it was just a place within the promised land then God would have visited Naiomi also...

Looking at the Literal Hebrew will give us some insight: Young's Literal Translation:

[Ruth 1: 6] And she riseth, she and her daughters-in-law, and turneth back from the fields of Moab, for she hath heard in the fields of Moab that God hath looked after His people, — to give to them bread.

Do you actually think this word would have got into the Heathen Nation of Moab? No....of course not. But it would travel across the Jordan River to the three brother tribes of Israel who inhabited that area for the next 700 years after the Exodus.

[Deuteronomy 3:12-17] And this land we have possessed, at that time; from Aroer, which [is] by the brook Arnon, and the half of mount Gilead, and its cities, I have given to the Reubenite, and to the Gadite; and the rest of Gilead and all Bashan, the kingdom of Og, I have given to the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, to all that Bashan, called the land of Rephaim. ‘Jair son of Manasseh hath taken all the region of Argob, unto the border of Geshuri, and Maachathi, and calleth them by his own name, Bashan-Havoth-Jair, unto this day. And to Machir I have given Gilead. ‘And to the Reubenite and to the Gadite I have given from Gilead even unto the brook Arnon, the middle of the valley and the border, even unto Jabbok the brook, the border of the sons of Ammon, and the plain, and the Jordan, and the border, from Chinnereth even unto the sea of the plain, the salt sea, under the springs of Pisgah, at the [sun]-rising.

actually, you have not shown the plains of Moab, on the other side Jordan, by Jericho, on your map...
Naiomi and her husband left their country and went to another country...Moab...View attachment 766
notice where Moab is...

We're not talking about the Heathen Nation of Moab. We're talking about Israelite held "Plains of Moab" which they held for the next 700 years until Israel went into captivity in Assyria.

This is the land across the Jordan from Jericho.

[Numbers 33:48][33:50][35:1][36:13]

Jericho is no where near the Nation of Moab.

 

[Newbirth]

For some reason you do not believe Moses when he said multiple times that Gad, Reuben and Manasseh would take control of the Plains of Moab?

[Numbers 22:1] And the children of Israel set forward, and pitched in the plains of Moab on this side Jordan by Jericho.

[Numbers 26:3] And Moses and Eleazar the priest spake with them in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying,

[Numbers 26:63] These are they that were numbered by Moses and Eleazar the priest, who numbered the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho.

[Numbers 31:12] And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

[Numbers 33:48-49] And they departed from the mountains of Abarim, and pitched in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho. And they pitched by Jordan, from Bethjesimoth even unto Abelshittim in the plains of Moab.

[Numbers 33:50] And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying,

[Numbers 35:1] And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying,

[Numbers 36:13] These are the commandments and the judgments, which the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses unto the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho.

And..............that's just the Book of Numbers1 There are forty more Old Testament references to the Plains of Moab and the Israelite conquest and control of that area for the next 700 years or so. The date of the Exodus is estimated to be around 1400/1450 B.C. Ruth would have been born to one of the tribes 0f Gad, Rueben or Manasseh sometime about 200 years later.

The Hebrew does not say....Nation of Moab. The word is Sadeh. Here is the Literal Translation from the Hebrew: Young's Literal Translation

what does Ruth 2:10 say in the YLT...
10 And she falleth on her face, and boweth herself to the earth, and saith unto him, `Wherefore have I found grace in thine eyes, to discern me, and I a stranger?'
lookup the word for stranger...that should settle the issue...biblehub.com/lexicon/ruth/2-10.htm

[Ruth 1: 1] And it cometh to pass, in the days of the judging of the judges, that there is a famine in the land, and there goeth a man from Beth-Lehem-Judah to sojourn in the fields of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.

The definition of Sadeh is: field, land

1. cultivated field
2. of home of wild beasts
3. plain (opposed to mountain)
4. land (opposed to sea)

If it were the "Nation" of Moab it would be neɪʃən/, ˈneɪ·ʃn, ˈneɪ·ʃnz;

Here is the transliterated Hebrew:

[Ruth ;] wayəhî bîmê šəfōṭ haššōfəṭîm wayəhî rā‘āḇ bā’āreṣ wayyēleḵə ’îš mibêṯ leḥem yəhûḏâ lāḡûr biśəḏê mwō’āḇ hû’ wə’išətwō ûšənê ḇānāyw:

It can also mean land of Moab but I digress since Ruth herself calls herself a stranger/foreigner/ alien...go figure

The point being.....she did not return to her gods. She returned to her judges. Elohim does not necessarily refer to gods.

In this case, it does

He is also the Son of Mary who was the descendant of Nathan and He was pure Israelite.

Sir the ability to pass on seed comes from the male...Mary does not have the ability to pass on seed or Y chromosome to Jesus...

The bloodline was not contaminated by the mother of Rehoboam who could not enter the congregation for ten generations [Deuteronomy 23:3]. Why do you think scripture gives us two different genealogies?

You are bickering about women who cannot pass on bloodline....the ability to make boys...

Actually.....the reason I do believe she was an Israelite is because I have discarded phony Christian Fairy tales which attempt to tell us a "touchie Feelie" story which has no basis in fact. That is.....when you read the literal Hebrew and Greek and not some made up tale by dark ages translators that did not have a very good understanding of these ancient languages. When you do that...... most English contradictions in scripture just go away.

well, sir you have to spruce up your act since Ruth says that she is a foreigner...

You've made my point! Joseph's seed was not in Mary......Nathan and his Father David had seeded the bloodline....Rehoboam had not.

no, I didn't, Nathan cannot give Mary a Y chromosome...women have two X chromosomes one from each parent men have an X and a Y an X from the mother and a Y from the Father

But Joseph....as a legal step father could.....and did pass on to Yeshua the legal birthright to the throne of David which came down from King Solomon.

that may be so but not an issue for me...

No....you're right....but she can pass on blood....and did.

Oh, she can but she cannot pass on the Gene to make a male...

Already explained. He (Joseph) was the legal step Father and since Yeshua was the eldest of His brothers.....the birthright was his.

I have no argument with that but it has nothing to do with Ruth..

Now this is ridiculous. Ruth's blood was in the veins of David, Nathan, Heli and Mary.

well, they all had foreigner blood in them...I suppose that is why Jesus could die for the whole world...

Good grief.....admit it. You've lost............

lost what?..you have to find another translation that says Ruth is not a stranger or an Israelite is sometimes called a stranger...

 

[Hawkeye]

well.....I guess I'll ask the question once more since you seem hesitant to answer it.........

Do you believe Moses when he states some 48 times in scripture they have taken control of the plains of Moab and three tribes will be given that territory on the east side of Jordan?

Until you answer this there really is no point in discussing anything further as you are evading.

When you answer this in the positive (as you will have to do) then we can discuss your other points. But until you agree that Israel maintained control of an area east of Jordan which was called the "Plains of Moab"....and thousands of Israelites were born and bred there for the next 700+ years and the land was good for grazing animals and growing crops [Numbers 32:1-5] [Numbers 34:13-15] and the book of Ruth takes place about 200 years into this time period and there would absolutely be no reason whatsoever why an Israelite family would go to a heathen kingdom in the midst of a famine when three brother tribes lived just across the river in a fertile plain called Moab......and the literal Hebrew does not refer to it as a Nation but fields.......I will discuss this subject no longer with you because you simply are evading the obvious issue.

Good grief........Naomi and family would have to travel through the plains just to get to heathen Moab.....unless they went all the way around the southern point of the Dead Sea. Silly!

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

Silly it is but that doesn’t stop people from embracing tradition. I’ve come to understand that there’s nothing one can say or do to persuade another of their error. Only YHWH can pierce the delicious, hard candy coating that is the traditions of man.
The seeming contradictions in the book of Ruth are all reconciled by your thesis, without undermining widely accepted doctrine. Most prefer ignoring the questions raised by incorrect interpretation to challenging traditions, however, and this isn’t gonna change without divine intervention.
I appreciate how you persist in your postings despite the almost universal criticism from those who can’t be bothered to truly study the scriptures. I pray for your efforts each time you cross my mind because I truly believe your ministry is to the lurkers; people like myself who read but don’t comment. I spent years quietly on the sidelines; your exegesis breathed new life into my faith and I believe many others are quietly assessing your posts as well. Thank you and YHWH’s blessings on you and your family. J

 

[Newbirth]

well.....I guess I'll ask the question once more since you seem hesitant to answer it.........

Do you believe Moses when he states some 48 times in scripture they have taken control of the plains of Moab and three tribes will be given that territory on the east side of Jordan?

the plains of Moab is not the same place as the country of Moab...

Until you answer this there really is no point in discussing anything further as you are evading.

I already answered you are trying to make a point about something that is already settled...those are two different places... Since the place does not settle the question of whether Ruth is an Israelite or not...we should ask Ruth herself...Ruth 2:10 Then she fell on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, and said unto him, Why have I found grace in thine eyes, that thou shouldest take knowledge of me, seeing I am a stranger?

When you answer this in the positive (as you will have to do) then we can discuss your other points.

a yes answer does not tell whether Ruth is an Israelite or not...all it does is say there is a place called the plains of Moab.

But until you agree that Israel maintained control of an area east of Jordan which was called the "Plains of Moab"....and thousands of Israelites were born and bred there for the next 700+ years and the land was good for grazing animals and growing crops [Numbers 32:1-5] [Numbers 34:13-15] and the book of Ruth takes place about 200 years into this time period and there would absolutely be no reason whatsoever why an Israelite family would go to a heathen kingdom in the midst of a famine when three brother tribes lived just across the river in a fertile plain called Moab......and the literal Hebrew does not refer to it as a Nation but fields.......I will discuss this subject no longer with you because you simply are evading the obvious issue.

this has nothing to do with Ruth being an Israelite or a stranger...Ruth herself says that she is a stranger...Ruth 2:10 Then she fell on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, and said unto him, Why have I found grace in thine eyes, that thou shouldest take knowledge of me, seeing I am a stranger?

Good grief........Naomi and family would have to travel through the plains just to get to heathen Moab.....unless they went all the way around the southern point of the Dead Sea. Silly!

It appears they did since there was a famine in the land..Ruth 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

the plains of Moab is not the same place as the country of Moab...

I already answered you are trying to make a point about something that is already settled...those are two different places... Since the place does not settle the question of whether Ruth is an Israelite or not...we should ask Ruth herself...Ruth 2:10 Then she fell on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, and said unto him, Why have I found grace in thine eyes, that thou shouldest take knowledge of me, seeing I am a stranger?

a yes answer does not tell whether Ruth is an Israelite or not...all it does is say there is a place called the plains of Moab.

this has nothing to do with Ruth being an Israelite or a stranger...Ruth herself says that she is a stranger...Ruth 2:10 Then she fell on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, and said unto him, Why have I found grace in thine eyes, that thou shouldest take knowledge of me, seeing I am a stranger?

It appears they did since there was a famine in the land..Ruth 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.

It’s always easier to go along than to think for oneself. To believe that Ruth was anything other than Israeli is to make the word of YHWH, particularly the curse against intermingling, of no effect. For most, it is easier to deny YHWH than the traditions of men. Sad.