'elohiym el-o-heem' | plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. |
Yhovah yeh-ho-vaw' | from 'hayah' (1961); (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:--Jehovah, the Lord. Compare 'Yahh' |
Nowhere does the scripture say Ruth was born and raised an Israelite.In post #237 I said that Beth-Poer was Northwest of Nebo. I don't know why I said that as it's obviously northeast. Nevertheless.....in the Land of Moab where Ruth was born and raised an Israelite....and where Moses was buried. This territory was subsequently ceded to the tribe of Reuben.
But poor on the truthI'm usually pretty good reading maps.
That is assumptions and guesswork...you have not provided proof of anything that you are claiming.I have suspected for a long time that Ruth was actually of the tribe of Manasseh. The scriptures aren't clear as to which of the three tribes she belonged....but certain possibilities point toward Manasseh.
That is not a fact you simply made a claim...The fact is that Ruth said she was a foreigner...deal with it...The fact that she was raised an Israelite and therefore did not contaminate the bloodline of our Savior with the 10 generation curse is beyond question.
In your estimation where did her sister-in-law go? You seem to be suggesting that the reference is to human judges in which case vs 16 shows the daughter in law is referring to both their god in the same way. That would make Naiomi's God a regular judge also..[Ruth 1:15-17] 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. And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
Strong's definitions:
H430
'elohiym
el-o-heem' plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
H3068
Yhovah
yeh-ho-vaw' from 'hayah' (1961); (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:--Jehovah, the Lord. Compare 'Yahh'
We've already pointed out that Moab only had one god, Chemosh and the Hebrew is in the plural in verse 15 ...so it is obviously speaking of humans....judges, magistrates, mayors, officials, etc.
Since Ruth is saying in vs 16 their gods are judges in vs 17 Jehovah is simply a judge to her...Whereas in verse 17 Ruth uses the word Yahweh (Jehova).
you missed the part where she is referring to Naioni's god as ElohimSo... in the most famous verse in the Book of Ruth she uses the word for judges for the local eloyim but uses the word for the Eternal Great God of the Universe when referring to to the Lord.
That is an assumption at best, the context shows she refers to Naiomi's god as Elohim the same word used for god in Genesis...That proves Ruth's story is being told by a third person who refers to Naiomi's God as Jehovah. But in any case it would be impossible for the wife if an Israelite to not know the God of Israel is JehovahWho ever wrote the Book of Ruth (most say Samuel) would not have her recorded as using this word, Yahweh if she was not an Israelite by birth.
That has no bearing on Ruth's lineage...All it says is that the Israelites knew the name of god and their Moabitess wives did also..[Exodus 6:3] And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
The Moabites were the children of Lot [Genesis 19:30-38] and originally inhabited the area of the eastern shores of the Dead Sea from the River Jabbock in the north to the southern end of the Dead Sea which was the border with Edom.[Ruth 1:15-17] 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. And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
Strong's definitions:
H430
'elohiym
el-o-heem' plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
H3068
Yhovah
yeh-ho-vaw' from 'hayah' (1961); (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:--Jehovah, the Lord. Compare 'Yahh'
We've already pointed out that Moab only had one god, Chemosh and the Hebrew is in the plural in verse 15 ...so it is obviously speaking of humans....judges, magistrates, mayors, officials, etc.
Whereas in verse 17 Ruth uses the word Yahweh (Jehova).
So... in the most famous verse in the Book of Ruth she uses the word for judges for the local eloyim but uses the word for the Eternal Great God of the Universe when referring to to the Lord.
Who ever wrote the Book of Ruth (most say Samuel) would not have her recorded as using this word, Yahweh if she was not an Israelite by birth.
[Exodus 6:3] And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
this is not scripture...Here is where the young Israelite woman called Ruth met (and married into) the family of Naomi...scripture calls Ruth a Moabitess. This is what you are commending. Why should anyone be trying to twist the scripture to support something it does not say?You can cite all the scriptures you want but the posters here know better because the traditions of men are more important than what scripture actually says. I commend you for your perseverance in the face of idiocy.
yes I posted that...can you show where the scripture identifies Ruth as an Israelite?It has been posted that
“Nowhere does the scripture say that Ruth was born an Israelite.”
The scripture says she was a Moabitess... one cannot be a Mosbitess and an Israelite at the same time. Why wasn't Moses' wife called an Israelite?Likewise, nowhere do the scriptures say that she wasn’t.
So why are you supporting someone who is making false claims against the scripture...The scripture calls Ruth a Moabitess, not an IsraeliteAs Christians, we are called upon not just to read but to study the scriptures. One reason people struggle with their Christian walk is because their allegiance is to their pastor and his traditions rather than YHWH.
This has nothing to do with feelings...Does the scripture call Ruth a Moabitess or not?If you feel that you fully understand God, he ain’t God.
Numbers 21:20] And from Bamoth in the valley, that is in the country of Moab, to the top of Pisgah, which looketh toward Jeshimon.I’m called a New Yorker, despite having been born in Arkansas.
Those who champion the traditions of men are often the ones responsible for propagating those traditions; i.e., hell hath no fury like a “pastor” proven wrong.
[Deuteronomy 1:5] On this side Jordan, in the land of Moab, began Moses to declare this law, saying,For anyone to completely ignore [Deuteronomy 23] where Yahweh puts a curse on the intermarrying of racial Moabites with Israel and not understand that this did not include Ruth is completely ignoring Biblical fact and common sense.
I knew a person long ago who insisted that Yahweh changed His mind about the curse in [Deuteronomy 23] and wanted to be inclusive of all folks.......thereby allowing Ruth (a racial Moabitess in his view) to marry Boaz. This would allow a "Hallmark Card" approach to the bloodline of Our Savior and make everyone happy. Folks would no longer march in the streets demanding "Social Justice" for the Moabites!Two different Moabs.....one where the racial Moabites lived and the other called the Land of Moad (The Plains of Moab) that Israel had conquered....and where Ruth would be born and raised about 150/200 years later.
It is amazing how much people will defer to traditions when asked to choose between man-made ideas and scriptural coherence. Their faith is in the linguistic skills of long-dead scholars and scribes rather than scripture. As stated previously, I truly believe you’re speaking to the lurkers because those who post here already know everything.I knew a person long ago who insisted that Yahweh changed His mind about the curse in [Deuteronomy 23] and wanted to be inclusive of all folks.......thereby allowing Ruth (a racial Moabitess in his view) to marry Boaz. This would allow a "Hallmark Card" approach to the bloodline of Our Savior and make everyone happy. Folks would no longer march in the streets demanding "Social Justice" for the Moabites!
Well....not only could this person not show me the pertinent passage where that was stated......but could not answer the question regarding the division of David's Kingdom under Solomon [I Kings, chapters 11&12] because he cohabited with Moabites (and others) 400 years later. He also would not discuss the criticism offered by Nehemiah [Nehemiah 13:23-27] over this Moabite question taking place almost 700 years after that.
When you know that Ruth was an Israelite...... dwelling on the "Plains of Moab"....... owned by Israel for centuries....then these silly arguments just dissipate and the truth of scripture comes forth. Faith is in
You must be right because only a few have bothered to post. I'm not sure why that is.....It is amazing how much people will defer to traditions when asked to choose between man-made ideas and scriptural coherence. Their faith is in the linguistic skills of long-dead scholars and scribes rather than scripture. As stated previously, I truly believe you’re speaking to the lurkers because those who post here already know everything.
Here are a few reasons why folks should question their pastors on this subject:hell hath no fury like a “pastor” proven wrong.
I can empathize with those who’ve spent their whole lives believing error; it’s very hard to dislodge all the bull durham that calcifies around the traditions of men, especially if you’ve spent any part of your life propagating it.....it must be lack of interest in the subject.
What folks just can't seem to get their head around is that you can be a Moabitess and an Israelite as well....from birth. This is the same as being an Israelite and a Galilean from birth:I can empathize with those who’ve spent their whole lives believing error; it’s very hard to dislodge all the bull durham that calcifies around the traditions of men, especially if you’ve spent any part of your life propagating it.