Was Ruth an Israelite?

Newbirth

Well-known member
The "Plains of Moab" was a territory held by Israel.....not Moab. Moab held it at one time but lost it to a King that Israel defeated.....and Israel became the new owners. Moses gave that land (East of Jordan) to three Israelite tribes. Ruth was born there about 150 years later....during the time of the Judges.

That logic does not pan out sir...Where did the Moabites go sir? Did the Moabites suddenly become Israelites? Yes or No?
No. I'm saying that Ruth was an Israelite of either the tribe of Gad, Asher or Manesseh..... because they inhabited that area called the "Plains of Moab" at the time Ruth was alive.
here are the many words that are translated from
בִּשְׂדֵ֣י
(bis·dei)
agricultural (1), battlefield* (1), country (14), countryside (1), countryside* (1), field (235), fields (32), ground (3), ground* (1), land (16), lands (1), mainland (2), soil (2), territory (2), wild (7).
And which of those tribes were their women called Moabites sir? Were Israelites living in Egypt called Egyptians sir? You are making an assumption that Ruth was an Israelite of either the tribe of Gad, Asher or Manesseh. Where is your proof text?
The Nation of Moab is south of there.
So what? Moabite women also liver in the field of Moab
There was no change. She was Israelite from birth!
where is your proof text? Moab is not a tribe of Israel
I have given you scripture that shows the added words that try to define her as a Moabite woman.
the added words do not try to define anything. She was called a Moabitess in vs 22 check your lexicon for the Hebrew word used
I have shown you what the area where Naomi went is called "FIelds of Moab".....not the Nation of Moab.
Does that mean a Moabite woman cannot live in the fields of Moab?
I have shown you that Ruth's sister went back to her Elohiym which are not necessarily dieties...but can be men.
Israelites did not worship men. This does not help your position. You are saying that she went back to a place where possibly men were worshipped.
.
I have shown you the added words to scripture that try and make her say....."I will become your people and will worship your God." She doesn't say that at all.
Ok so how would you translate vs 10?
[Ruth 1:17] 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.
I don't see how that helps your argument. If she were an Israelite she wouldn't have to hold on to Naiomi to be with her God, since she would already be serving the same God.
If Ruth was a Moabite she would probably be unaware of this name for Yahweh. The Hebrew calls it Jehovah in the literal.
No they don't Jehovah is not a Hebrew word
[Exodus 6:3] and I appear unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; as to My name Jehovah, I have not been known to them;
LoL..https://biblehub.com/lexicon/exodus/6-3.htm
Moses was told the Name of the Lord. Even the Patriarchs did not know it. By the time of Ruth it was known to most Israelites but rarely spoken out of respect. If she had been of the Nation of Moab she would not know this name....Jehovah.
That is the silliest argument ever...she was married to an Israelite sir, she also lived with her mother in law an Israelite woman.
 

Bob Dobbalina

Active member
The error has been fully explained yet you prefer to embrace it rather than learn. Nothing new in that. You have the freedom to remain ignorant. Good bless America.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
This question is important because the story of Ruth is replete with seeming contradictions that serve as evidence of error to unbelievers.
that is why they are unbelievers...they like you believe the scripture is full of contradictions.
I know non-believers who study the scriptures more than Christian siblings and we as Christians are called to answer questions such as this.
God gives believers understanding the question is , who gives the unbelievers understanding?
1 John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
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.
The question has been addressed long ago. The male carries the seed, not the female.
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.
And that is what you do
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.
Then you don't believe the scripture. 2 Cor 1:
11 Ye also helping together by prayer for us, that for the gift bestowed upon us by the means of many persons thanks may be given by many on our behalf.

12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

13 For we write none other things unto you, that what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end;
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
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.
God is not the author of confusion you are confusing the issue
I like Hawkeye's thesis.
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
It's true to scripture as current linguistic experts indicate, without adding or taking from the text.
Every language is different therefore word for word translations usually doesn't make any sense.
The only thing it requires is a willingness to look beyond tradition, which is very hard for so many it seems.
Well sir you can go outside the kingdom of God to look for God, but why do you need company?
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
 

Hawkeye

Active member
Nevermind.
I believe that sometimes it's pointless to carry on conversations with folks who are so wrapped up in their tradition they refuse to think. I wish to thank you for this enlightening thread as the traditional story of Ruth converting to Judaism has been around since translators figured out how to push their own theology and ignore what scripture really says.

I learned about the incorrect translations in Ruth as a young man and was intrigued as to why this false story of her being from the Kingdom of Moab seemed so important for some folks. I still wonder why, when faced with the reality of what scripture really does say....that some just close their eyes and pretend they didn't see ....or hear anything as well.

When engaging in legitimate debate with folks like this it's better to just finally say,

"I'm sorry you don't understand the truth of scripture but I really am glad we had the opportunity to discuss this very important subject. My wish is that Yahweh will bestow blessings upon your home....and all within."

I'll probably go ahead and post this message to those who were unable to understand the true story of Ruth....but like I said.....I thank you for beginning this thread. The subject has always been one of my favorites.

Hawkeye
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
that is why they are unbelievers...they like you believe the scripture is full of contradictions.

God gives believers understanding the question is , who gives the unbelievers understanding?
1 John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

The question has been addressed long ago. The male carries the seed, not the female.

And that is what you do

Then you don't believe the scripture. 2 Cor 1:
11 Ye also helping together by prayer for us, that for the gift bestowed upon us by the means of many persons thanks may be given by many on our behalf.

12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

13 For we write none other things unto you, that what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end;
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

God is not the author of confusion you are confusing the issue

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Every language is different therefore word for word translations usually doesn't make any sense.

Well sir you can go outside the kingdom of God to look for God, but why do you need company?
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Newbirth,
The bottom line really is that according to Jehovah's own words, no Moabite may enter the assembly. Ever. Period. So how could the Messiah have come from this line?

The fact that Ruth must have been a Jew living in Moab doesn't take away from the kinsman redeemer message in any way. It's still a beautiful message!
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Newbirth,
The bottom line really is that according to Jehovah's own words, no Moabite may enter the assembly. Ever. Period. So how could the Messiah have come from this line?
The male carries the gene to make male babies that is the Y chromosome. So messiah does not come from the line of Ruth...You do not understand genealogy. Males have X Y chromosomes females have only X chromosomes.
The fact that Ruth must have been a Jew living in Moab doesn't take away from the kinsman redeemer message in any way. It's still a beautiful message!
the fact that you say, must have been, is evidence that you are guessing. You trying to make a Moabite woman an Israelite is a funny story.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
The male carries the gene to make male babies that is the Y chromosome. So messiah does not come from the line of Ruth...You do not understand genealogy. Males have X Y chromosomes females have only X chromosomes.

the fact that you say, must have been, is evidence that you are guessing. You trying to make a Moabite woman an Israelite is a funny story.
Do you understand that Ruth could not have entered the Assembly?
Do you know what that means?
The fact that you believe Boaz would have married a woman who couldn't have entered the Assembly is funny.
 

Stephen

Well-known member
Well....as pointed out the Hebrew does not say what your above passage says it says. It simply affirms that Ruth's people are Naomi's people and their God is the same. Words have been added to scripture to alter this fact....and that is a fact because of the Italics.

Lets examine YLT of verses 15 and 16 of chapter 1

And she saith, 'Lo, thy sister-in-law hath turned back unto her people, and unto her god, turn thou back after thy sister-in-law.'
And Ruth saith, 'Urge me not to leave thee -- to turn back from after thee; for whither thou goest I go, and where thou lodgest I lodge; thy people is my people, and thy God my God.


These verses affirm that Orpah the Moabite's people and God are a different people than Naomi's people and God. According to your premise, Orpah the Moabite's people and God are the same people and God as Naomi's.

Verse 16 doesn't make any sense in light of the context you wish to impose onto verse 15.


Now....the word "god" in verse 15 is elohiym which does not necessarily mean a diety. It could be a person....such as a magistrate; a judge; a mayor of a community, etc. Ruth's statement to Naomi is one of confirmation that she worships the same Yahweh that Naomi does, i.e. "Your people are my people, your God my God."

OK. I'm not sure how that means anything. You are saying that Ruth is only choosing because of the people that Orpah was going to versus the people that Naomi was going to, and has absolutely nothing to do with setting aside what is behind, and choosing a new God.

Verse 17 makes absolutely no sense in that paradigm. Why on earth would Ruth need to swear an oath, to do something of absolutely no spiritual significance?


It's always been a question....why would Yahweh allow a Moabite to enter the family tree of Messiah [Deuteronomy 23:3] when it was strictly forbidden for Israelites to do so....under a curse. 1000 years later it is still a curse [Nehemiah 13:23-26] and Solomon lost his Kingdom [I Kings 11:1-13] midway between the two events for the same offense.

The answer to the question is that God has on multiple occasions called people who are not his people, his people. As a Christian, I am one of those who were not his people, but am now his people (Romans 9:25 quoting Hosea 1:9 and 2:23).

Perhaps God is consistent. A true Israelite is somebody who has circumcised their heart, and God cares not about their lineage. As he proclaims in Amos 9, Israel and Judah were no different than the nations around them. That same passage is cited by James as to why Gentiles are accepted into the ecclesia at the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15).

I've already established (and given scripture) showing that the PLains of Moab was where three Israelite tribes dwelt.....because of the good farm land. They won this land in battle against King Sihon [Numbers 21:26-29] who had previously won it from the King of Moab. The area was called (still is) the "Plains of Moab" so it would be quite natural for a woman who lived there to be called a Moabitess woman. This territory was from the Arnon River on the south to the Jabbock river on the north....and east of the Jordan. What better place to take your family (perhaps to stay with kin folk) than an agricultural farm land during a famine in your home territory in Judah [Deuteronomy 3:20].

No. It would not be quite natural for a woman from the tribe of Gad or Reuben to be called a "Moabite" woman. It would likely be a demeaning term. It would also be different than the rest of scripture. As a case in point, the book opens by identify the location a man comes from with "a man from Bethlehem in Judah". The geographic location is identified by which tribe is occupying the land.

Gentiles being a part of worshipping the one true God wasn't strictly forbidden. For example:
  • Uriah the Hittie (one of David's mighty men),
  • Ittai the Gittite (commander of 1/3 of David's army) who nearly quotes Ruth's speech in 2 Sam 15:18-23)
  • The Rachabites (Jer 35) were even accepted in to the temple by Jeremiah and deemed more faithful than Jews

Under your idea, it would be impossible to identify somebody as being a Moabite even when it directly calls them a Moabite on at least 6 occasions. If the bible wanted to identify Ruth the Moabite's tribal affiliation as "Gad" or "Reuben", it would say "Ruth the Gadite" or "Ruth the Reubenite" as it does elsewhere. Instead it repeatedly calls her "Ruth the Moabite"

Lets see what how this area is described in scripture.

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

What do you think the word sadeh means. (Strongs #7704.....a field; flat country; ground; land; soil) Because the King James calls it the "Country of Moab" does not make it the Nation of Moab.

It should be more precisely described as fertile, rolling countryside good for growing crops and raising cattle. That what scripture says [Numbers 32:1-5]. Moses gave it to three specific tribes... Reuben, Gad and Manesseh. From one of these tribes Ruth was born and raised. She was Israelite.

If the bible intended to identify the land occupied by Gad or Reuben, it would say "Gad" or "Reuben" as it does elsewhere (1 Sam 13:7, 2 Sam 22, 23, 34), or even Gilead.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Do you understand that Ruth could not have entered the Assembly?
exactly what assembly?... Women do not carry the gene to make the boy child.
Do you know what that means?
It means that you don't know what you are talking about
The fact that you believe Boaz would have married a woman who couldn't have entered the Assembly is funny.
What assembly are you talking about? Boaz would marry any woman that he fancies...The gene of the man is preserved in the male child and passed down from the male child... That you would think Ruth had some input in the seed of the messiah shows your ignorance. Women do not carry the gene to make boys...that should end this discussion if you had any understanding. It really does not matter where Ruth came from.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
exactly what assembly?... Women do not carry the gene to make the boy child.

It means that you don't know what you are talking about

What assembly are you talking about? Boaz would marry any woman that he fancies...The gene of the man is preserved in the male child and passed down from the male child... That you would think Ruth had some input in the seed of the messiah shows your ignorance. Women do not carry the gene to make boys...that should end this discussion if you had any understanding. It really does not matter where Ruth came from.
Okay, never mind.
 

Cynthia

Active member
That would certainly remove alot of the force of Ruth's determination in the opening chapter:

14 At this they wept aloud again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law goodbye, but Ruth clung to her.
15 “Look,” said Naomi, “your sister-in-law is going back to her people and her gods. Go back with her.”
16 But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God.
Yes, as the passage states in Ruth 1.4 'They took for themselves wives of the women of Moab.'
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
For anyone interested in the truth:

According to the Sages of the Talmud, "entering into the assembly" means marriage.

Maimonides codifies this law of the four nations as follows:

Any gentile who converts to Judaism and accepts upon himself all the commandments of the Torah and slaves who are freed from slavery, attain the status of a Jew as the verse says: 'As for the congregation, there shall be one statute, both for you and for the stranger that sojourneth with you' (Numbers 15:15). And such a person is allowed to enter the congregation immediately except for an individual of the following nations: Amon, Moab, Egypt and Edom. When an individual from one of these nations converts to Judaism, he is a complete Jew in every respect except for the aspect of marriage into the congregation.

So Boaz could not and would not have married an ethnic Moabite because she couldn't have entered the congregation.
 

Cynthia

Active member
How is it that a Moabite is in the lineage of Yeshua when there was a curse on such unions at the time?
in a review of the lineage of Jesus, Ruth's husband Boaz was 29th from Joseph (Mary's betrothed) in accordance with Matthew, and he was 45th from Joseph in the account of Luke. So the time for the curse to the 10th generation was overtaken many times and would not affect the lineage.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
in a review of the lineage of Jesus, Ruth's husband Boaz was 29th from Joseph (Mary's betrothed) in accordance with Matthew, and he was 45th from Joseph in the account of Luke. So the time for the curse to the 10th generation was overtaken many times and would not affect the lineage.
The curse said Moabites could not enter the congregation forever.
 

Hawkeye

Active member
The error has been fully explained yet you prefer to embrace it rather than learn. Nothing new in that. You have the freedom to remain ignorant. Good bless America.
Here is a map showing the location of the three tribes that received possession of the "Plains of Moab" from Moses [Numbers 32:1-5][Joshua 13:8-13].

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ea/1b/ee/ea1beecd882bbed98824ce818064ecb2.jpg


After the Israelites fought King Sihon there were no more people left alive on the "Plains of Moab".....except the Israelites: [Deuteronomy 2:26-37]

Specially note verse 34. Note that the Kingdom of Moab is south of the Arnon River and is no where near the "Plains".....or as verse #1 in Ruth says:

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 Plains begin at the northern tip of the Dead Sea as indicated on this map...................
plains-of-moab-map Images - Frompo - 1

.......and run up the Jordan River to the Sea Of Galilee.

It's my feeling that Ruth probably came from the tribe of Manasseh. This would tie in the Messianic genealogy to both Joseph and Judah. The scepter promise and the blessings from Jacob. [Genesis, Chapters 48 and 49]

Thanks again for starting this thread.
 

Stephen

Well-known member
For anyone interested in the truth:

According to the Sages of the Talmud, "entering into the assembly" means marriage.

Maimonides codifies this law of the four nations as follows:


So Boaz could not and would not have married an ethnic Moabite because she couldn't have entered the congregation.


I couldn't find anything that Maimonides says specifically about the book of Ruth, he's an 8th century commentator.

An extended class on Ruth can be found at torah.org. The class specific to this discussion would be class 35.

https://torah.org/learning/ruth-class35/
 

Hawkeye

Active member
forever in that context was 10 generations. why else was it mentioned if it in fact was infinite?
The curse was still in effect when Israel returned from the Babylonian captivity....almost 800 years later [Ezra 9:1-2] [Nehemiah 13:23-27].

This is more than 10 generations.
 
Top