Was Ruth an Israelite?

[Newbirth]

I didn't say that I agreed with what the Jewish Rabbis teach on this subject, I was just pointing it out.

In fact if one reads Ezra 9 and 10, when the Israelites returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, the men had to "dismiss" their pagan wives and the children they'd had by them. They didn't decide that it would be okay to convert their wives.

Ezra 9: 10 But now, our God, what can we say after all this? For we have abandoned your commandments, 11 which you gave through your servants the prophets: The land which you are entering to take as your possession is a land unclean with the filth of the peoples of the lands, with the abominations with which they have filled it from one end to the other by their uncleanness. 12 Do not, then, give your daughters to their sons in marriage, and do not take their daughters for your sons. Never promote their welfare and prosperity; thus you will grow strong, enjoy the produce of the land, and leave it as an inheritance to your children forever.

So this seems to contradict what the Rabbis say.

If Rabbis knew and understood the scripture they would believe Jesus is the Messiah.

 

[Hawkeye]

I'd just like to throw in here for whatever it's worth...according Judaism the restriction on Moabites becoming Israelites did not apply to women. A Moabite woman could have converted to Judaism.
Also, during those days, according to Jewish law, children followed the father, not the mother.

All that said, I personally think Ruth was most likely an ethnically Jewish woman of Moab.

O.K. ............then why did the Lord get so mad at Solomon 400 years later for cohabiting with them? [I Kings 11:1]

Had they not converted......is that why? Or did Yahweh just want Israel to remain separate from Moab as He originally demanded with the curse? Nehemiah tells us the curse is still in effect after the return from Babylon. [13:23-26]

That's a long time................

 

[Newbirth]

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

I don't understand your question. It appears as if you believe that the Israelites always obeyed all the commands of God.
Where does God kill them for intermarriage?

 

[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.

I think you're missing the point. The "Plains of Moab" IS a land mass and Ruth was called a Moabite woman because she was born and raised there. Exactly like a woman of French descent being born and raised in Texas......and called a Texan for the rest of her life.

My wife is Ojibway (American Indian) but we live in California where she is referred to as a Californian. She's not called "Mexican" even though they used to hold this territory....and gave it the name, California. She's called that....because that's where she's from..........

The Nation of Moab is never referred to in the Book of Ruth and the only other thing that people associate Ruth and her sister-in-law with being National Moabites is in verse 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.

That assumption is wrong on two accounts. First....the Hebrew word is eloiym which may also refer to humans....such as "Judges or Rulers".....and #2 the Moabites did not have plural gods. Only one...and his name was Chemosh [I Kings 11:7]

 

[Hawkeye]

I don't understand your question. It appears as if you believe that the Israelites always obeyed all the commands of God.
Where does God kill them for intermarriage?

[Numbers 25:1-9]

About 24,000....or so.

But then about 200 years later Yahweh says its O.K. for Israelites to marry Moabites? Yeah....sure He did.......

 

[Newbirth]

I think you're missing the point. The "Plains of Moab" IS a land mass and Ruth was called a Moabite woman because she was born and raised there. Exactly like a woman of French descent being born and raised in Texas......and called a Texan for the rest of her life.

By your definition, there were no Israelites until there was a piece of land called Israel.

My wife is Ojibway (American Indian) but we live in California where she is referred to as a Californian. She's not called "Mexican" even though they used to hold this territory....and gave it the name, California. She's called that....because that's where she's from..........

You are conflating tribal lineage with nationality.

The Nation of Moab is never referred to in the Book of Ruth and the only other thing that people associate Ruth and her sister-in-law with being National Moabites is in verse 15:

Because they belong to the Moabites tribe. That is not rocket science. 16 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:
Evidently, Ruth had another God.

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.

That assumption is wrong on two accounts. First....the Hebrew word is eloiym which may also refer to humans....such as "Judges or Rulers".....and #2 the Moabites did not have plural gods. Only one...and his name was Chemosh [I Kings 11:7]

Then she was admonished to go back to her God. Clearly, they did not have the same God...16 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:

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

[Numbers 25:1-9]

About 24,000....or so.

But then about 200 years later Yahweh says its O.K. for Israelites to marry Moabites? Yeah....sure He did.......

This is where Zero Mostel begins singing "Tradition". So many can't think beyond what they've been spoon-fed.

 

[Newbirth]

[Numbers 25:1-9]

2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.

About 24,000....or so.

But then about 200 years later Yahweh says its O.K. for Israelites to marry Moabites? Yeah....sure He did.......

Exodus 23:24
Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.
This is the reason for God's anger sir.

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

I don't understand your question. It appears as if you believe that the Israelites always obeyed all the commands of God.
Where does God kill them for intermarriage?

Where did I assert that God killed anyone for intermarriage?

 

[Newbirth]

Where did I assert that God killed anyone for intermarriage?

So YHWH's prohibition against intermarriage is of no consequence?....what would the consequences be ?

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

So YHWH's prohibition against intermarriage is of no consequence?....what would the consequences be ?

The question remains- Where did I assert that God killed anyone for intermarriage?

 

[Hawkeye]

By your definition, there were no Israelites until there was a piece of land called Israel.

You are conflating tribal lineage with nationality.

Because they belong to the Moabites tribe. That is not rocket science. 16 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:
Evidently, Ruth had another God.

Then she was admonished to go back to her God. Clearly, they did not have the same God...16 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:

You need to reread this thread as many of your points have been refuted already by scripture.....and I don't think you're getting the gist of this argument at all. Maybe I'm wrong about..... that but I don't want to keep repeating myself to correct mis-translated scripture. That gets boring to others..... to keep reading the same thing. This happens quite frequently when latecomers enter a thread.

So....please reread and then we'll discuss if you desire.

 

[Hawkeye]

By your definition, there were no Israelites until there was a piece of land called Israel.

And...............???

You are conflating tribal lineage with nationality.

Moab was not a tribe. It was a nation!

Because they belong to the Moabites tribe. That is not rocket science. 16 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:
Evidently, Ruth had another God.

This scripture has been refuted. It does not say what you think it does. Words have been added.

Then she was admonished to go back to her God. Clearly, they did not have the same God...16 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:

Ditto!

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

So YHWH's prohibition against intermarriage is of no consequence?....what would the consequences be ?

YHWH deals with His people in a number of ways throughout scripture. Please don't read into my posts what isn't there. What's the point of that?

 

[Hawkeye]

The question remains- Where did I assert that God killed anyone for intermarriage?

I'm having trouble following some of these counter arguments. It seems like some are on a different subject.

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

I'm having trouble following some of these counter arguments. It seems like some are on a different subject.

Post #19 Bob (me) asked *So YHWH's prohibition against intermarriage is of no consequence? If so, how did you come to that conclusion?*
Post #23 Newbirth replies. *I don't understand your question. It appears as if you believe that the Israelites always obeyed all the commands of God.*
*Where does God kill them for intermarriage?* This exchange is between Newbirth and me and doesn't pertain to your thesis.
Post #29 Bob *Where did I assert that God killed anyone for intermarriage?*

I think you're up to speed on this exchange. I don't want to distract you any further.

 

[Rachel Redux]

I don't understand your question. It appears as if you believe that the Israelites always obeyed all the commands of God.
Where does God kill them for intermarriage?

I think the main point in all this is that Yeshua couldn't have come from Ruth's direct descent if she had been an ethnic Moabite, even if she converted. I think Ezra 8-10 makes that clear.

 

[Rachel Redux]

O.K. ............then why did the Lord get so mad at Solomon 400 years later for cohabiting with them? [I Kings 11:1]

Had they not converted......is that why? Or did Yahweh just want Israel to remain separate from Moab as He originally demanded with the curse? Nehemiah tells us the curse is still in effect after the return from Babylon. [13:23-26]

That's a long time................

You don't seem to be following very well

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

This question is important because the story of Ruth is replete with seeming contradictions that serve as evidence of error to unbelievers. I know non-believers who study the scriptures more than Christian siblings and we as Christians are called to answer questions such as this.

When anyone has been willing to address the question, the default answer seems to be that YHWH forgave for the sake of diversity of all things. It's as if the Kingdom of God is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Hallmark Television Network. Of course, this approach allows one to answer without having to actually think about the question. I don't believe the scriptures are that simplistic; there are mysteries therein and we are called to study, not parrot the words of the pastor who's a parrot himself.

So one can believe that God is capricious in His ways or maybe there is a logical answer that doesn't dance around the question. I like Hawkeye's thesis. It's true to scripture as current linguistic experts indicate, without adding or taking from the text. The only thing it requires is a willingness to look beyond tradition, which is very hard for so many it seems.

 

[Newbirth]

You need to reread this thread as many of your points have been refuted already by scripture

Your misunderstanding of the scripture does not refute anything'

.....and I don't think you're getting the gist of this argument at all. Maybe I'm wrong about..... that but I don't want to keep repeating myself to correct mis-translated scripture. That gets boring to others..... to keep reading the same thing. This happens quite frequently when latecomers enter a thread.

So....please reread and then we'll discuss if you desire.

My response was to a specific point that Ruth is not a Moabite.