Well, it would appear Esther's birth name was Hadassah and Esther was a "throne name" - so I would guess Ishtar was the inspiration.
In Judaism Purim is the celebration of Esther and the deliverance from Haman' evil plot to kill all the Jews. However, its timing and parts of the ritual suggest it is tied to the spring renewal festival and the 'casting out of the scapegoat of the old year" (perhaps Bramble could explain what that means?)
Apparenlty Esther is the only book of the Bible not represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls. hmmmmmm.
What is your question Eyes? Curiosity is killing me - lol!
Anyway, here is what I found within Judaism on Evening Star, Morning Star, and the Serpent:
Ok...if you insist...drum roll please...
Just kidding it isnt that big a thing but ya'll have the history so could you please clear up this little nagging thorn for me?
Remember Noah? Course you do.
Genesis 9:21-27:
And Noah began to be an husbandman and he planted a vineyard:
And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
And Ham, the fater of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their fathers nakedness.
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
And he said, 'Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
And he said, 'Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
God shall enlarge Japheth, and Canaan shall be his servant."
Ok, first question; the 'nakedness' of Noah can refer to either his own physical being without clothing, it can refer to his wife's physical being without clothing and in some cases can be referring to sexual intercourse. Which is it here?
Next question: why did Noah curse Canaan and not Ham? Canaan was Ham's youngest son, is that significant? VP taught that the son's actions were the responsibility of the father. But then again he also taught concerning this section that Ham had castrated Shem and so both lines were cursed but that is not what my Bible says.
Sorry to derail here but this topic has been buggin me for years. We could start another thread.
But really spirit beings cannot copulate with flesh. I find it difficult to imagine spirit being attracted to flesh. The opposite of course, ie flesh being attracted to spirit...the NT speaks of the differences between flesh and spirit, its like apples and oranges. So I'm not so sure that Rashi had the right of it there. Perhaps the serpent was jealous..an argument can be made for that I think....
Actually there is biblical documentation to the contrary. In Noah's day and before, the son's of the gods were marrying the daughters of men and created nepheshem (I know that is the wrong word, but it is close). Basically they created some sort of superhuman and that is why God allowed the flood to occur.
Just kidding it isnt that big a thing but ya'll have the history so could you please clear up this little nagging thorn for me?
Remember Noah? Course you do.
Genesis 9:21-27:
And Noah began to be an husbandman and he planted a vineyard:
And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
And Ham, the fater of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their fathers nakedness.
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
And he said, 'Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
And he said, 'Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
God shall enlarge Japheth, and Canaan shall be his servant."
Ok, first question; the 'nakedness' of Noah can refer to either his own physical being without clothing, it can refer to his wife's physical being without clothing and in some cases can be referring to sexual intercourse. Which is it here?
Next question: why did Noah curse Canaan and not Ham? Canaan was Ham's youngest son, is that significant? VP taught that the son's actions were the responsibility of the father. But then again he also taught concerning this section that Ham had castrated Shem and so both lines were cursed but that is not what my Bible says.
Sorry to derail here but this topic has been buggin me for years. We could start another thread.
Here are the verses with some of Rashi' commentary:
And he drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent.
and he uncovered himself Heb. וַיִתְגָּל, the הִתְפָעֵל conjugation, [the reflexive].
22. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness, and he told his two brothers outside.
And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw (Gen. Rabbah 36:7) Some of our Sages say: Canaan saw and told his father; therefore, he was mentioned regarding the matter, and he was cursed.
saw his father’s nakedness - Some say that he castrated him, and some say that he sodomized him. — [from Sanh. 70a] \b
23. And Shem and Japheth took the garment, and they placed [it] on both of their shoulders, and they walked backwards, and they covered their father's nakedness, and their faces were turned backwards, so that they did not see their father's nakedness.
24. And Noah awoke from his wine, and he knew what his small son had done to him.
25. And he said, "Cursed be Canaan; he shall be a slave among slaves to his brethren."
Cursed be Canaan You have caused me to be incapable of begetting another fourth son (Gen. Rabbah , manuscripts, and early editions read: a fourth son) to serve me. Cursed be your fourth son, that he should minister to the children of these older ones [shem and Japhet], upon whom the burden of serving me has been placed from now on (Gen. Rabbah 36:7). Now what did Ham see (what reason did he have) that he castrated him? He said to his brothers,“The first man [Adam] had two sons, and one killed the other so as to inherit the world, and our father has three sons, and he still desires a fourth son!” - [from Gen. Rabbah ibid. 5, 22:7]
26. And he said, "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem, and may Canaan be a slave to them.
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem Who is destined to keep His promise to his seed to give them the land of Canaan.
27. May God expand Japheth, and may He dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be a slave to them."
Cursed be Canaan You have caused me to be incapable of begetting another fourth son (Gen. Rabbah , manuscripts, and early editions read: a fourth son) to serve me. Cursed be your fourth son, that he should minister to the children of these older ones [shem and Japhet], upon whom the burden of serving me has been placed from now on (Gen. Rabbah 36:7). Now what did Ham see (what reason did he have) that he castrated him? He said to his brothers,“The first man [Adam] had two sons, and one killed the other so as to inherit the world, and our father has three sons, and he still desires a fourth son!” - [from Gen. Rabbah ibid. 5,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I had to think on this for a while and I am still adjusting to being a mom again.
So is the Rabbi saying that Ham castrated Noah because he was jealous and did not want another brother?
But why was Canaan cursed and not Ham. Ham had other children why did God choose the youngest?
Am I bugging you yet? This topic has always just been like a sticker under the skin, just enough pain to bug me.
Thanks to all of you who have posted on this thread... It echoes a lot of questions that I have had regarding the subject of women. The information from the Jewish line of reasoning has helped a lot!
Something I was thinking about with Miriam (backtracking a long way back in the thread, I know) is that she may have been influenced by the myth of Sargon - meaning that this story may have sprung to mind when it came time to save her brother. The same story may also have influenced the decision of Pharoah's daughter to keep Moses rather than having him killed.
Also, the serpent in voodoo represents change and transformation. I have also read (somewhere) that the snake is considered the giver of knowledge in voodoo.... interesting in the concept of the transformation of Adam and Eve after their temptation.
As for the status of women within the church - it always rubbed me the wrong way when I heard LCM teach that the only reason God was talking to Deborah and not a man was because there were no men who had risen up to hear... As if God was somehow insulted that He had to speak to a WOMAN.
Basically, modern Christianity has removed the woman from any place of authority within the church - I think it has a lot to do with the Eve being the one who brought the downfall of humanity. She was the cause, right?
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
If she was indeed the cause - why doesn't it make her responsible for the downfall of man? (Not that I'm saying she should have eaten the fruit - or whatever it was...) But Adam was the one who seems to bear the responsibility according to scripture. After all, he was only tempted by his wife, while she was tempted by the serpent who was more crafty than any beast of the field.
My point? That because Eve (erroneously) is so tied into the fall it is easy to manipulate the image of women into the temptesses, the cause of suffering for man, and those that must hold their tongues when speaking of spiritual matters.
And as far as the question of Jesus Christ being married (to Mary Magdalene or any other woman) what are the implications if it was true? And I really don't know if it is or not - I wasn't there... The implications would be staggering. Sex would not have the stigma attached to it in our society - it would not be viewed as something base and vile - instead it could be viewed as something holy.... It would place wives at a greater position for respect, because if Jesus Christ didn't NEED a woman in his life, then why would anyone else who is truly desiring to be spiritual need one?
If he is the "second Adam" then who is his Eve? The best explanation I have heard in support of the case that he was never married is that his Eve was Israel, the bride of Christ... but if he was to be tempted in all things like as we are and yet without sin, it almost follows that he would need to have that woman that he cared about as much as Adam cared about Eve...
Been thinking a lot about the Shekinah as the female aspect of God, too. Thanks so much for the information. God is represented with some female characteristics in the Bible, and it makes sense for there to be a female side to God. Since God is the Creator, He/She/It(?) would sensibly have both characteristics of Mother and Father...
As Father, He provides seed (an outside influence on the "egg".)
As Mother, She provides the egg (the basics from which life is produced.
The snake in mythology is a really interesting study. They symbolize things quite different than the tempter in Genesis. Renewal, immortality, healing, eternity...
If you don't think so then answer this one question.. what does the Bible call a man who is promiscuous? A Harloteor? A Stud? Naw.. he's called the king of Israel.. David... Solomon etc.
Re:<B><I><font color=red>"Does the Bible really denigrate women?"</font></I></B>
If you don't think so then answer this one question.. what does the Bible call a man who is promiscuous? A Harloteor? A Stud? Naw.. he's called the king of Israel.. David... Solomon etc.
<center>sudo</center>
Well Sudo, I was thinking there were several possibilities, one of them being yes, it does. Another one being no, but man's interpretation of it has. Or perhaps it didn't as origially written, but then as it was changed and passed down it became something that denigrated women.
'How many of the biblical stories can be traced back to "pagan" religions and which ones are they? '
I haven't read a scholarly work, but I would like to. I know there are Gilgamesh/ Horus similarities to Bible stories. I've read that Yaweh once had a wife, a goddess, Ashtoreth.
Here is a site of links that I explored, but unfortunately my memory eludes me tonight!
If I recall correctly the Egyptians had a "Flood" story that predated the Moses version. I am looking for that link again now.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
I hope that works.
Abi, in light of "Does the Bible denegrate women" I have always had a question concerning the man who gave his daughter over to the mob (she was of course raped to death) in stead of sending out the person that they wanted. A similar theme was taking shape in Sodom with Lot and his family before the Angels stepped in and stopped it. So here is the question, " Do you know of any ancient custom or law or something that would account for this behavior?" Once again we are in an "ich" area. What's the whole story here?
If I recall correctly the Egyptians had a "Flood" story that predated the Moses version. I am looking for that link again now.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
I hope that works.
Abi, in light of "Does the Bible denegrate women" I have always had a question concerning the man who gave his daughter over to the mob (she was of course raped to death) in stead of sending out the person that they wanted. A similar theme was taking shape in Sodom with Lot and his family before the Angels stepped in and stopped it. So here is the question, " Do you know of any ancient custom or law or something that would account for this behavior?" Once again we are in an "ich" area. What's the whole story here?
I'll start with the latter and then go back to the former . . .
One theory rests with a sacred code of hospitality regarding "guest-right", that required strangers to be offered food, drink and a place to sleep. There are anthropoligists who believe this duty even extended to providing sexual comapnionship to a guest as well as guarding their lives. Another theory, that would fit with this, is that children, especially daughters, were viewed as property more than as loved ones.
However, this would directly contradict everything the Bible says about rape and the legal punishment for it, as well as God's commands to be fruitful and multiply and the Bilbical verses that refer to children as a precious gift from God.
The woman who was gang raped and left to die wasn't left so by her father, she was a concubine and interestingly enough, of the tribe of Levite. During the time period when this occured, Israel was in the midst of a political upheaval. The result of her rape and death was an all out war against the tribe of Benjamin. The ironic ending to all of this is, after vowing to NOT allow any of the women from the other tribes to marry any of the men from the tribe of Benjamin because they raped and murdered a Levite woman, the tribes then decide to murder thousands of men, women, and children at the Rock of Rimmon and then allow the tribe of Benjamine to forceably take the surviving virgins as wives.
I see all of this as a lesson in politics and religion run amok. I don't see it as something God willed or commanded, but as a lesson in what happens to people who are zealously and fundamentally religious beyond reason and to people who are zealous and hungry for political power. It is also a lesson it the dangers of anarchy.
I'll start with the latter and then go back to the former . . .
One theory rests with a sacred code of hospitality regarding "guest-right", that required strangers to be offered food, drink and a place to sleep. There are anthropoligists who believe this duty even extended to providing sexual comapnionship to a guest as well as guarding their lives. Another theory, that would fit with this, is that children, especially daughters, were viewed as property more than as loved ones.
You're absolutely right, I had forgotten about that "guest-right" thing. But just as you I kind of question just how "sacred" or aligned with the will of God it might have been.
The woman who was gang raped and left to die wasn't left so by her father, she was a concubine and interestingly enough, of the tribe of Levite. During the time period when this occured, Israel was in the midst of a political upheaval. The result of her rape and death was an all out war against the tribe of Benjamin. The ironic ending to all of this is, after vowing to NOT allow any of the women from the other tribes to marry any of the men from the tribe of Benjamin because they raped and murdered a Levite woman, the tribes then decide to murder thousands of men, women, and children at the Rock of Rimmon and then allow the tribe of Benjamine to forceably take the surviving virgins as wives.
Ok, this is just plain wacky! It just makes me wonder where my little emoticon is that shakes his head in wonder.
I see all of this as a lesson in politics and religion run amok. I don't see it as something God willed or commanded, but as a lesson in what happens to people who are zealously and fundamentally religious beyond reason and to people who are zealous and hungry for political power. It is also a lesson it the dangers of anarchy.
I agree with your assesment here. But it still makes me wonder why or how this total disregard for females could have been condoned or encouraged by God.
However, this would directly contradict everything the Bible says about rape and the legal punishment for it, as well as God's commands to be fruitful and multiply and the Bilbical verses that refer to children as a precious gift from God.
So this leads me to thinking or rather wondering why both the "guest rights" and the laws against rape and such included in the OT.
Although your point about that one instance of being a lesson of sorts makes perfect sense, but what about the custom to begin with. Do you think that perhaps the original intent was lost or buried beneath the quest for power or religious zealousness?
So this leads me to thinking or rather wondering why both the "guest rights" and the laws against rape and such included in the OT.
Although your point about that one instance of being a lesson of sorts makes perfect sense, but what about the custom to begin with. Do you think that perhaps the original intent was lost or buried beneath the quest for power or religious zealousness?
well I am not sure the "guest rights" is an OT law so much as an OT custom. I will have to see if I can find anything one way or another on that.
I tend to view the OT history as just that, history. Not necessarily God's will, but what occured, often in the name of God - right or wrong. From that, we can learn much, but that doesn't mean everything that occured was what God willed.
well I am not sure the "guest rights" is an OT law so much as an OT custom. I will have to see if I can find anything one way or another on that.
I tend to view the OT history as just that, history. Not necessarily God's will, but what occured, often in the name of God - right or wrong. From that, we can learn much, but that doesn't mean everything that occured was what God willed.
It probably was a custom, but it is part of the "story" in more than one place and where in heavens name did they come up with the entire dingy idea in the first place?
I am beginning to really comprehend your viewpoint concerning the OT. The more that we pick at it even in the small sense of this thread the more it looks like mostly history, as you say of what occured not necessarily what God wanted to occure or how he wanted it to occure.
I just need to say for the record, "Thank you Abi for talking with me so much on this thread. Your insights have helped me to see many things in a fresh light. In short, doctrinal discussion with you is refreshing and enjoyable. I really hope that we can continue for as long as we want to, running amok and everything!"
I would say yes. I think that the second creation story, Gen ch 2, had that as a basic theme for a reason--so women would be under authority due to gender.
I was involved in a writing discussion once that took an interesting turn. If you had ( and could)to send your daughter 'back in time' to save her life, where and when would you send her?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
42
13
47
5
Popular Days
Apr 12
19
Apr 11
13
May 27
12
Apr 13
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 42 posts
Bramble 13 posts
Eyesopen 47 posts
JavaJane 5 posts
Popular Days
Apr 12 2007
19 posts
Apr 11 2007
13 posts
May 27 2007
12 posts
Apr 13 2007
11 posts
Abigail
Well, it would appear Esther's birth name was Hadassah and Esther was a "throne name" - so I would guess Ishtar was the inspiration.
In Judaism Purim is the celebration of Esther and the deliverance from Haman' evil plot to kill all the Jews. However, its timing and parts of the ritual suggest it is tied to the spring renewal festival and the 'casting out of the scapegoat of the old year" (perhaps Bramble could explain what that means?)
Apparenlty Esther is the only book of the Bible not represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls. hmmmmmm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Ok...if you insist...drum roll please...
Just kidding it isnt that big a thing but ya'll have the history so could you please clear up this little nagging thorn for me?
Remember Noah? Course you do.
Genesis 9:21-27:
And Noah began to be an husbandman and he planted a vineyard:
And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
And Ham, the fater of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their fathers nakedness.
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
And he said, 'Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
And he said, 'Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
God shall enlarge Japheth, and Canaan shall be his servant."
Ok, first question; the 'nakedness' of Noah can refer to either his own physical being without clothing, it can refer to his wife's physical being without clothing and in some cases can be referring to sexual intercourse. Which is it here?
Next question: why did Noah curse Canaan and not Ham? Canaan was Ham's youngest son, is that significant? VP taught that the son's actions were the responsibility of the father. But then again he also taught concerning this section that Ham had castrated Shem and so both lines were cursed but that is not what my Bible says.
Sorry to derail here but this topic has been buggin me for years. We could start another thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Actually there is biblical documentation to the contrary. In Noah's day and before, the son's of the gods were marrying the daughters of men and created nepheshem (I know that is the wrong word, but it is close). Basically they created some sort of superhuman and that is why God allowed the flood to occur.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Here are the verses with some of Rashi' commentary:
And he drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent.
and he uncovered himself Heb. וַיִתְגָּל, the הִתְפָעֵל conjugation, [the reflexive].
22. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness, and he told his two brothers outside.
And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw (Gen. Rabbah 36:7) Some of our Sages say: Canaan saw and told his father; therefore, he was mentioned regarding the matter, and he was cursed.
saw his father’s nakedness - Some say that he castrated him, and some say that he sodomized him. — [from Sanh. 70a] \b
23. And Shem and Japheth took the garment, and they placed [it] on both of their shoulders, and they walked backwards, and they covered their father's nakedness, and their faces were turned backwards, so that they did not see their father's nakedness.
24. And Noah awoke from his wine, and he knew what his small son had done to him.
25. And he said, "Cursed be Canaan; he shall be a slave among slaves to his brethren."
Cursed be Canaan You have caused me to be incapable of begetting another fourth son (Gen. Rabbah , manuscripts, and early editions read: a fourth son) to serve me. Cursed be your fourth son, that he should minister to the children of these older ones [shem and Japhet], upon whom the burden of serving me has been placed from now on (Gen. Rabbah 36:7). Now what did Ham see (what reason did he have) that he castrated him? He said to his brothers,“The first man [Adam] had two sons, and one killed the other so as to inherit the world, and our father has three sons, and he still desires a fourth son!” - [from Gen. Rabbah ibid. 5, 22:7]
26. And he said, "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem, and may Canaan be a slave to them.
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem Who is destined to keep His promise to his seed to give them the land of Canaan.
27. May God expand Japheth, and may He dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be a slave to them."
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
So that is more or less the traditional take via Judaism. I am sure, though, that there are rabinnical arguments for other interpretations as well. :)
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I had to think on this for a while and I am still adjusting to being a mom again.
So is the Rabbi saying that Ham castrated Noah because he was jealous and did not want another brother?
But why was Canaan cursed and not Ham. Ham had other children why did God choose the youngest?
Am I bugging you yet? This topic has always just been like a sticker under the skin, just enough pain to bug me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Thanks to all of you who have posted on this thread... It echoes a lot of questions that I have had regarding the subject of women. The information from the Jewish line of reasoning has helped a lot!
Something I was thinking about with Miriam (backtracking a long way back in the thread, I know) is that she may have been influenced by the myth of Sargon - meaning that this story may have sprung to mind when it came time to save her brother. The same story may also have influenced the decision of Pharoah's daughter to keep Moses rather than having him killed.
Also, the serpent in voodoo represents change and transformation. I have also read (somewhere) that the snake is considered the giver of knowledge in voodoo.... interesting in the concept of the transformation of Adam and Eve after their temptation.
As for the status of women within the church - it always rubbed me the wrong way when I heard LCM teach that the only reason God was talking to Deborah and not a man was because there were no men who had risen up to hear... As if God was somehow insulted that He had to speak to a WOMAN.
Basically, modern Christianity has removed the woman from any place of authority within the church - I think it has a lot to do with the Eve being the one who brought the downfall of humanity. She was the cause, right?
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
If she was indeed the cause - why doesn't it make her responsible for the downfall of man? (Not that I'm saying she should have eaten the fruit - or whatever it was...) But Adam was the one who seems to bear the responsibility according to scripture. After all, he was only tempted by his wife, while she was tempted by the serpent who was more crafty than any beast of the field.
My point? That because Eve (erroneously) is so tied into the fall it is easy to manipulate the image of women into the temptesses, the cause of suffering for man, and those that must hold their tongues when speaking of spiritual matters.
And as far as the question of Jesus Christ being married (to Mary Magdalene or any other woman) what are the implications if it was true? And I really don't know if it is or not - I wasn't there... The implications would be staggering. Sex would not have the stigma attached to it in our society - it would not be viewed as something base and vile - instead it could be viewed as something holy.... It would place wives at a greater position for respect, because if Jesus Christ didn't NEED a woman in his life, then why would anyone else who is truly desiring to be spiritual need one?
If he is the "second Adam" then who is his Eve? The best explanation I have heard in support of the case that he was never married is that his Eve was Israel, the bride of Christ... but if he was to be tempted in all things like as we are and yet without sin, it almost follows that he would need to have that woman that he cared about as much as Adam cared about Eve...
Been thinking a lot about the Shekinah as the female aspect of God, too. Thanks so much for the information. God is represented with some female characteristics in the Bible, and it makes sense for there to be a female side to God. Since God is the Creator, He/She/It(?) would sensibly have both characteristics of Mother and Father...
As Father, He provides seed (an outside influence on the "egg".)
As Mother, She provides the egg (the basics from which life is produced.
Just thinking, or as you said....
running AmOK AMOK AMok!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
The snake in mythology is a really interesting study. They symbolize things quite different than the tempter in Genesis. Renewal, immortality, healing, eternity...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Fascinating discussion! Thank you all very much!
I'm reading through some of the links on here, but don't have anything to contribute... yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I look forward to any discussion on these points. I really love this thread!
We can of course feel free to "amok" in here. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
Have started reading it and once school is done for summer and I don't also have to read boring stuff with tables of contents, I'd love to share too.
Right from the first page, it was very interesting, definately got my attention.
Alot of 'who knew?'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
A few discussion questions from the back of the book (paraphrased). . .
Does the Bible really denigrate women?
Do you think some of the stories of the Bible could have been attempts to influence the politics of the times and/or translated with changes to do so?
and one that really really interests me that isn't from the book
How many of the biblical stories can be traced back to "pagan" religions and which ones are they?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Abigail,
Re:"Does the Bible really denigrate women?"
If you don't think so then answer this one question.. what does the Bible call a man who is promiscuous? A Harloteor? A Stud? Naw.. he's called the king of Israel.. David... Solomon etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Well Sudo, I was thinking there were several possibilities, one of them being yes, it does. Another one being no, but man's interpretation of it has. Or perhaps it didn't as origially written, but then as it was changed and passed down it became something that denigrated women.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Abigail,
And then again there's the more obvious answer isn't there? Geeze.. do I really have to spell it out for an intelligent person like you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
'How many of the biblical stories can be traced back to "pagan" religions and which ones are they? '
I haven't read a scholarly work, but I would like to. I know there are Gilgamesh/ Horus similarities to Bible stories. I've read that Yaweh once had a wife, a goddess, Ashtoreth.
Here is a site of links that I explored, but unfortunately my memory eludes me tonight!
http://www.mythinglinks.org/NearEast~TigrisEuphrates.html
Another link: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/axismundi/2002...h_Making_In.pdf
Edited by BrambleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Excellent links Bramble.
If I recall correctly the Egyptians had a "Flood" story that predated the Moses version. I am looking for that link again now.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
I hope that works.
Abi, in light of "Does the Bible denegrate women" I have always had a question concerning the man who gave his daughter over to the mob (she was of course raped to death) in stead of sending out the person that they wanted. A similar theme was taking shape in Sodom with Lot and his family before the Angels stepped in and stopped it. So here is the question, " Do you know of any ancient custom or law or something that would account for this behavior?" Once again we are in an "ich" area. What's the whole story here?
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I'll start with the latter and then go back to the former . . .
One theory rests with a sacred code of hospitality regarding "guest-right", that required strangers to be offered food, drink and a place to sleep. There are anthropoligists who believe this duty even extended to providing sexual comapnionship to a guest as well as guarding their lives. Another theory, that would fit with this, is that children, especially daughters, were viewed as property more than as loved ones.
However, this would directly contradict everything the Bible says about rape and the legal punishment for it, as well as God's commands to be fruitful and multiply and the Bilbical verses that refer to children as a precious gift from God.
The woman who was gang raped and left to die wasn't left so by her father, she was a concubine and interestingly enough, of the tribe of Levite. During the time period when this occured, Israel was in the midst of a political upheaval. The result of her rape and death was an all out war against the tribe of Benjamin. The ironic ending to all of this is, after vowing to NOT allow any of the women from the other tribes to marry any of the men from the tribe of Benjamin because they raped and murdered a Levite woman, the tribes then decide to murder thousands of men, women, and children at the Rock of Rimmon and then allow the tribe of Benjamine to forceably take the surviving virgins as wives.
I see all of this as a lesson in politics and religion run amok. I don't see it as something God willed or commanded, but as a lesson in what happens to people who are zealously and fundamentally religious beyond reason and to people who are zealous and hungry for political power. It is also a lesson it the dangers of anarchy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
The flood story is found in a number of religions. Wikipedia has some good information HERE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
You're absolutely right, I had forgotten about that "guest-right" thing. But just as you I kind of question just how "sacred" or aligned with the will of God it might have been.
Ok, this is just plain wacky! It just makes me wonder where my little emoticon is that shakes his head in wonder.
I agree with your assesment here. But it still makes me wonder why or how this total disregard for females could have been condoned or encouraged by God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
So this leads me to thinking or rather wondering why both the "guest rights" and the laws against rape and such included in the OT.
Although your point about that one instance of being a lesson of sorts makes perfect sense, but what about the custom to begin with. Do you think that perhaps the original intent was lost or buried beneath the quest for power or religious zealousness?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
well I am not sure the "guest rights" is an OT law so much as an OT custom. I will have to see if I can find anything one way or another on that.
I tend to view the OT history as just that, history. Not necessarily God's will, but what occured, often in the name of God - right or wrong. From that, we can learn much, but that doesn't mean everything that occured was what God willed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
It probably was a custom, but it is part of the "story" in more than one place and where in heavens name did they come up with the entire dingy idea in the first place?
I am beginning to really comprehend your viewpoint concerning the OT. The more that we pick at it even in the small sense of this thread the more it looks like mostly history, as you say of what occured not necessarily what God wanted to occure or how he wanted it to occure.
I just need to say for the record, "Thank you Abi for talking with me so much on this thread. Your insights have helped me to see many things in a fresh light. In short, doctrinal discussion with you is refreshing and enjoyable. I really hope that we can continue for as long as we want to, running amok and everything!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Does the Bible denigrate women?
I would say yes. I think that the second creation story, Gen ch 2, had that as a basic theme for a reason--so women would be under authority due to gender.
I was involved in a writing discussion once that took an interesting turn. If you had ( and could)to send your daughter 'back in time' to save her life, where and when would you send her?
OT times in the near east wasn't real popular.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.