Very true, I can accept that. But the basis of the story is fiction anyway, so it's more likely that the people writing the story didn't know what they were talking about when they wrote it and used "Ethiopian" (I don't know what the original text says, I can't read the original language) thinking, as you say, that if someone had a dark skin, they were Ethiopian, no matter how far south that is from Thebes. I'm not terribly concerned about the minutiae of the biblical stories, it's the stories themselves that bother me.

For instance that Ruth is the ancestor of David, who was supposedly of the "House of Judah." Ruth was a Midianite, an unclean forbidden person. Her son, Obed, was not a Judean, he was the son of Boaz, an Ephraimite, and Jesse, David's father was his son. Therefore David, and as his descendant, Jesus, was not a Judean but an Ephraimite. But David was "of the house of Judah."

Agrippina wrote:Very true, I can accept that. But the basis of the story is fiction anyway, so it's more likely that the people writing the story didn't know what they were talking about when they wrote it and used "Ethiopian" (I don't know what the original text says, I can't read the original language) thinking, as you say, that if someone had a dark skin, they were Ethiopian, no matter how far south that is from Thebes. I'm not terribly concerned about the minutiae of the biblical stories, it's the stories themselves that bother me.

For instance that Ruth is the ancestor of David, who was supposedly of the "House of Judah." Ruth was a Midianite, an unclean forbidden person. Her son, Obed, was not a Judean, he was the son of Boaz, an Ephraimite, and Jesse, David's father was his son. Therefore David, and as his descendant, Jesus, was not a Judean but an Ephraimite. But David was "of the house of Judah."

"ethiopia" is just the greek translation of hebrew "kush", both words meaning simply "dark", so possibly the words were sometimes used to describe someone with a dark complexion. By the way neither was the way the people living south of Egypt called themselves.

And as far as i can recall, Ruth was a Moabite, not a Midianite. And I don't recall Boaz being called an "ephraimite"

I must check my Moabites and Midianites, it seems I'm getting them mixed up all over the place.

Ruth 1:2 And the name of the man was Elimelech and...his wife Naomi, Ephraimites of Bethlehem-judah...
Ruth 2:1 And Naomi had a kindsman of her husband's a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech; and his name was Boaz.

It doesn't say that Boaz was of the tribe of Judah, but it does say that Elimelech, his kinsman was an Ephraimite, therefore I deduce that if they are kinsmen, they are both of the tribe of Ephraim and not Judah.

There's also this little prohibition that the writers of the NT overlook when they claim Jesus descendency from Ruth:

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:

So both David and Jesus fall under this prohibition

I just checked the passage and it doesn't say "Ephraimites" but "Ephrathites". In the Bible i have at home it says in a footnote that "Ephrata" is just another name for Bethlehem. Here's a link where the passage can be read.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

Agrippina wrote:There's also this little prohibition that the writers of the NT overlook when they claim Jesus descendency from Ruth:

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:

So both David and Jesus fall under this prohibition

if David falls under some kind of prohibition because of that law, why wasn't his ancestry kept hidden? He was after all the founder of the Judahite royal house. BTW Rehoboam was Solomon's son by an Ammonite woman and he was his sucessor anyway.

Kapyong wrote:Gday,

NineOneFour wrote:Well, here is the dilemma: either Matthew is lying and making shit up, which is quite possible, given his previously proven mendacity, or Jesus is an idiot/liar/etc. and Matthew is reporting correctly.

Pardon?

So, you actually believe there are ONLY two types of writings ever :
1. true history
2. LIES
?

Seriously ?
If a book is not true history, then you think it MUST be a LIE !?
Have you never even HEARD of fiction? myths? legends? allegory? literature?

Because - according to your argument :
* Shakespeare is a LIAR - Romeo and Juliet are LIES.
* the greek myths are LIES - Isis and Osiris are a LIE.
* J.K. Rowling is a LIAR - Harry Potter is a LIE.
* Arthur Conan Doyle is a LIAR - Sherlock Holmes is a LIE.
* George Lucas is a LIAR - Luke Skywalker is a LIE.
* J.R.R. Tolkein is a LIAR - Frodo is a LIE.
* James Bond is a LIE
* Johny Appleseed is a LIE
* Homer Simpson is a LIE
* Robin Hood is a LIE
etc. etc.


Simply ridiculous.


Kapyong

Another guy who can't read for shit.

People like you are why I've given up on this thread.

jparada wrote:

Agrippina wrote:There's also this little prohibition that the writers of the NT overlook when they claim Jesus descendency from Ruth:

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:

So both David and Jesus fall under this prohibition

if David falls under some kind of prohibition because of that law, why wasn't his ancestry kept hidden? He was after all the founder of the Judahite royal house. BTW Rehoboam was Solomon's son by an Ammonite woman and he was his sucessor anyway.

Exactly which only goes to show that the people who were making up the mythology didn't bother to learn the rules, or that they simply ignored them, or made up new ones.

In the Bible, there is very little consistency.

Agrippina wrote:
Exactly which only goes to show that the people who were making up the mythology didn't bother to learn the rules, or that they simply ignored them, or made up new ones.

In the Bible, there is very little consistency.

Actually, although I admit this one does sound kind of like a long-shot, the grammar in the OT uses a masculine plural - which of course can be interpreted as including feminines as well (roughly the same rules apply as in French, afaict) - but at least the rabbis, when interpreting the laws there, understood the nouns used as only forbidding males (unto the whateverth generation) of those ethnicities from conversion. I am not saying it's the most natural way of understanding the text, but it is within the boundaries of what the text actually may be saying.

There are more obvious examples of them not getting it right, this one's a tad weaksauce. (I will maintain, though, that the only reason I point out this is so we atheists don't start fabricating stuff the way religious people tend to - I've seen enough of that and I sort of hope to oppose such fabrication. In fact, most religions have such a weak foundation that if we opponents of them dropped like 95% of our arguments, we'd still be in the lead by a wide margin. At this point, I think we can afford separating the wheat from the chaff in our arguments, so to speak.)

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Agrippina wrote:
Exactly which only goes to show that the people who were making up the mythology didn't bother to learn the rules, or that they simply ignored them, or made up new ones.

In the Bible, there is very little consistency.

Actually, although I admit this one does sound kind of like a long-shot, the grammar in the OT uses a masculine plural - which of course can be interpreted as including feminines as well (roughly the same rules apply as in French, afaict) - but at least the rabbis, when interpreting the laws there, understood the nouns used as only forbidding males (unto the whateverth generation) of those ethnicities from conversion. I am not saying it's the most natural way of understanding the text, but it is within the boundaries of what the text actually may be saying.

Of course you're right. They were no averse to taking the women from the forbidden tribes as wives, as in this case where the sons of Naomi, an Ephraimite were the first husbands of Orpah and Ruth. Besides that though Ruth and Boaz were not from Judah. It doesn't say that Boaz was from the tribe of judah, although he came from Bethlehem, and Elimalech was definitely said to be an Ephraimite from Bethlehem-Judah, and a kinsman, so that makes Boaz not a member of the tribe of Judah.

Another point is that the religion is handed down from mother, and not father. You are not a jew in the religion if your mother is not a Jew. But you are quite right, Ruth's ancestry didn't count but from a religious point of view, you would think they'd have made her a woman from Judah just to make the point. But that's me being picky.

Agrippina wrote:
Another point is that the religion is handed down from mother, and not father. You are not a jew in the religion if your mother is not a Jew. But you are quite right, Ruth's ancestry didn't count but from a religious point of view, you would think they'd have made her a woman from Judah just to make the point. But that's me being picky.

yeah but ...
1) we know there's been movements of Judaism that have considered patrilineal descent to define who was a Jew (some claim nearly all pre-Pharisaic variations of Judaism)
2) even those seem to accept conversion as a thing (Samaritanism seems to be an exception, if only I had time to read their version of the Torah and so on, I'd know more about that)
3) most scholars ever seem to think one of the points of Ruth is that conversion is just as valid as being born into Judaism. Some Christian scholars have interpreted it differently just to take a jab at Judaism. Making her a woman from the tribe of Judah (or any of the Hebrew tribes) would kind of make that point impossible - hey, a Jew converting to ... Judaism? That's, uh, meaningful I guess? (Further point: converts to Judaism are considered tribeless. How far back that notion goes isn't clear to me, but ... may be a consequence of things in Ruth (so just done to make that book not stand out too much), may be a consequence of rules in the Torah, may just be arbitrary decisions by some pharisaic sage. OTOH, I think at least the Karaites agreed on this, and they're pretty fundamentalist when it comes to only deriving rules from scripture, so ...)

It's all too confusing for me. Anyway, I said at the outset that I was told to read the Bible, so I read the Bible, and I'm commenting on what is said, in the Bible. Anything interpreted or written by theologians don't count, because they're not included in the Bible. Of course if I did a study of all the opinions of all the Rabbis, and all the theologians who aren't Jewish, I'd find excuses for all the inconsistencies. But that's not the point. The only research I'm using is to explain what isn't in the Bible, such as the history, or mythology of non-biblical people, for the analysis itself, I'm pointing out what the Bible, and nothing else says. So if the Bible says that Mobites are forbidden, and it doesn't say somewhere else that Moabite women are not forbidden, then in the strict sense, the children of Moabites and Ephraimites are not Judeans.

I don't know if that makes sense. It does to me, and it does to my editor as well. It's merely a matter of pointing out that I've read the Bible and what the Bible says, not the people who interpret it, but what the words say, is full of inconsistencies. And the reason I'm doing that the way I'm doing it is because the way it is written is the way people read it. They go to theologians for interpretation, and very few ordinary people read it in any way other than their own language. When you read the KJV Bible, in English, and analyse what that version says, you come up with what I've said in my writing.

I'm sure there are explanations, and I'm sure that rabbis in the first century wrote screeds of explanations as to why the book says what it does, but that's not what the object of the exercise was.

Well, one important point is: the rabbis read it in the original language, you don't. (Early Christians read it in Greek, which also may be the reason some of the understandings they had don't jive with whatever version you're reading, which may very well be a sort of halfways masoretic, halfways septuagint-influenced rerendering. In addition, there seems to have been more flexibility in what the text even was up until about 100-200CE, as the preponderance of a "Qumran" version of the Biblical texts in addition to the LXX and Masoretic versions has been unearthed, as well as further uncategorized versions. If the English text says "Moabites", the Hebrew may very well say something that is more inclined towards meaning "Moabite men". I'm not talking about screeds of explanations - I'm (mostly) talking about differences in language.

The text you're reading is not the text people were reading back then, it's not the text Christians were reading in medieval times, it's just an attempt at approximating it. (EDIT: of course, there's some modern believers that hold the KJV to be inspired - at times even more than the untranslated texts. But seriously, discussing anything with them is not really worth anyone's time, as they're pretty much so stupid they're beyond contempt.)

Zwaarddijk wrote:Well, one important point is: the rabbis read it in the original language, you don't. (Early Christians read it in Greek, which also may be the reason some of the understandings they had don't jive with whatever version you're reading, which may very well be a sort of halfways masoretic, halfways septuagint-influenced rerendering. In addition, there seems to have been more flexibility in what the text even was up until about 100-200CE, as the preponderance of a "Qumran" version of the Biblical texts in addition to the LXX and Masoretic versions has been unearthed, as well as further uncategorized versions. If the English text says "Moabites", the Hebrew may very well say something that is more inclined towards meaning "Moabite men". I'm not talking about screeds of explanations - I'm (mostly) talking about differences in language.

The text you're reading is not the text people were reading back then, it's not the text Christians were reading in medieval times, it's just an attempt at approximating it.

I hear what you're saying. I'm actually not nitpicking about that sort of thing in my writing. Well I have a little in my blog, but the final product will be more about the incorrect history and the way that religious people today look at it. I don't know if you saw the original idea, I started out saying I was going to rewrite the Bible, but then once I got into it I changed my mind and became a little more serious about it. I'll show some pieces from it once it's finished.

Agrippina wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Agrippina wrote:
Exactly which only goes to show that the people who were making up the mythology didn't bother to learn the rules, or that they simply ignored them, or made up new ones.

In the Bible, there is very little consistency.

Actually, although I admit this one does sound kind of like a long-shot, the grammar in the OT uses a masculine plural - which of course can be interpreted as including feminines as well (roughly the same rules apply as in French, afaict) - but at least the rabbis, when interpreting the laws there, understood the nouns used as only forbidding males (unto the whateverth generation) of those ethnicities from conversion. I am not saying it's the most natural way of understanding the text, but it is within the boundaries of what the text actually may be saying.

Of course you're right. They were no averse to taking the women from the forbidden tribes as wives, as in this case where the sons of Naomi, an Ephraimite were the first husbands of Orpah and Ruth. Besides that though Ruth and Boaz were not from Judah. It doesn't say that Boaz was from the tribe of judah, although he came from Bethlehem, and Elimalech was definitely said to be an Ephraimite from Bethlehem-Judah, and a kinsman, so that makes Boaz not a member of the tribe of Judah.

Another point is that the religion is handed down from mother, and not father. You are not a jew in the religion if your mother is not a Jew. But you are quite right, Ruth's ancestry didn't count but from a religious point of view, you would think they'd have made her a woman from Judah just to make the point. But that's me being picky.

The bit in bold is just inaccurate. I had written this before.

jparada wrote:I just checked the passage and it doesn't say "Ephraimites" but "Ephrathites". In the Bible i have at home it says in a footnote that "Ephrata" is just another name for Bethlehem. Here's a link where the passage can be read.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

Now i have to ask, why did they include the Book of Ruth in the Canon if it supposedly showed David as not being an israelite?

NineOneFour wrote:

Kapyong wrote:Gday, blah blah blah

Another guy who can't read for shit.

People like you are why I've given up on this thread.

Don't give up, just ignore them and say what you want about the fairy tale of Matthew.

jparada wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Actually, although I admit this one does sound kind of like a long-shot, the grammar in the OT uses a masculine plural - which of course can be interpreted as including feminines as well (roughly the same rules apply as in French, afaict) - but at least the rabbis, when interpreting the laws there, understood the nouns used as only forbidding males (unto the whateverth generation) of those ethnicities from conversion. I am not saying it's the most natural way of understanding the text, but it is within the boundaries of what the text actually may be saying.

Of course you're right. They were no averse to taking the women from the forbidden tribes as wives, as in this case where the sons of Naomi, an Ephraimite were the first husbands of Orpah and Ruth. Besides that though Ruth and Boaz were not from Judah. It doesn't say that Boaz was from the tribe of judah, although he came from Bethlehem, and Elimalech was definitely said to be an Ephraimite from Bethlehem-Judah, and a kinsman, so that makes Boaz not a member of the tribe of Judah.

Another point is that the religion is handed down from mother, and not father. You are not a jew in the religion if your mother is not a Jew. But you are quite right, Ruth's ancestry didn't count but from a religious point of view, you would think they'd have made her a woman from Judah just to make the point. But that's me being picky.

The bit in bold is just inaccurate. I had written this before.

jparada wrote:I just checked the passage and it doesn't say "Ephraimites" but "Ephrathites". In the Bible i have at home it says in a footnote that "Ephrata" is just another name for Bethlehem. Here's a link where the passage can be read.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

Now i have to ask, why did they include the Book of Ruth in the Canon if it supposedly showed David as not being an israelite?

It does say Ephrathites, meaning of Ephrata, the old name for Bethlehem. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
My speed-reading skills sometimes let me down, I'll fix my thinking on that. So Boaz was from Bethlehem and of Judah, therefore David and (Jesus) were therefore of the right lineage. I'll have to fix that. It will teach me to read more carefully. Thank for all for pointing that out to me.

This is interesting:

Ephratah Fruitful. (1.) The second wife of Caleb, the son of Hezron, mother of Hur, and grandmother of Caleb, who was one of those that were sent to spy the land (Ch1 2:19, Ch1 2:50). (2.) The ancient name of Bethlehem in Judah (Gen 35:16, Gen 35:19; Gen 48:7). In Rut 1:2 it is called "Bethlehem-Judah," but the inhabitants are called "Ephrathites;" in Mic 5:2, "Bethlehem -Ephratah;" in Mat 2:6, "Bethlehem in the land of Judah." In Psa 132:6 it is mentioned as the place where David spent his youth, and where he heard much of the ark, although he never saw it till he found it long afterwards at Kirjath-jearim; i.e., the "city of the wood," or the "forest-town" (Sa1 7:1; compare Sa2 6:3, Sa2 6:4).

Ephrathite A citizen of Ephratah, the old name of Bethlehem (Rut 1:2; Sa1 17:12), or Bethlehem-Judah.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd123.htm

Gday,

NineOneFour wrote:

Kapyong wrote:Gday,

NineOneFour wrote:Well, here is the dilemma: either Matthew is lying and making shit up, which is quite possible, given his previously proven mendacity, or Jesus is an idiot/liar/etc. and Matthew is reporting correctly.

Pardon?
So, you actually believe there are ONLY two types of writings ever :
1. true history
2. LIES
?
Seriously ?
If a book is not true history, then you think it MUST be a LIE !?
Have you never even HEARD of fiction? myths? legends? allegory? literature?

Because - according to your argument :
* Shakespeare is a LIAR - Romeo and Juliet are LIES.
* the greek myths are LIES - Isis and Osiris are a LIE.
* J.K. Rowling is a LIAR - Harry Potter is a LIE.
* Arthur Conan Doyle is a LIAR - Sherlock Holmes is a LIE.
* George Lucas is a LIAR - Luke Skywalker is a LIE.
* J.R.R. Tolkein is a LIAR - Frodo is a LIE.
* James Bond is a LIE
* Johny Appleseed is a LIE
* Homer Simpson is a LIE
* Robin Hood is a LIE
etc. etc.


Simply ridiculous.


Kapyong

Another guy who can't read for shit.
People like you are why I've given up on this thread.

WTF?
YOU said, and I quote :

either Matthew is :
lying ...
or ... Matthew is reporting correctly.

They are YOUR words !
YOU insisted right there that there are only two possibilities :
* lies
* correct reporting

Which is complete and utter bollocks.


Kapyong

Kapyong wrote:Gday,

NineOneFour wrote:(snip)

Another guy who can't read for shit.
People like you are why I've given up on this thread.

WTF?
YOU said, and I quote :

either Matthew is :
lying ...
or ... Matthew is reporting correctly.

They are YOUR words !
YOU insisted right there that there are only two possibilities :
* lies
* correct reporting

Which is complete and utter bollocks.


Kapyong

No, he suggested that when someone's writing a book with the intention of marketing it as an historical document, it might be worthwhile putting some actual fucking history in it.

* Shakespeare is a LIAR - Romeo and Juliet are LIES.
* the greek myths are LIES - Isis and Osiris are a LIE.
* J.K. Rowling is a LIAR - Harry Potter is a LIE.
* Arthur Conan Doyle is a LIAR - Sherlock Holmes is a LIE.
* George Lucas is a LIAR - Luke Skywalker is a LIE.
* J.R.R. Tolkein is a LIAR - Frodo is a LIE.
* James Bond is a LIE
* Johny Appleseed is a LIE
* Homer Simpson is a LIE
* Robin Hood is a LIE
etc. etc.

These are all examples of fiction. Fiction, by definition, is "any form of narrative which deals, in part or in whole, with events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary and invented by its author(s). Although fiction often describes a major branch of literary work, it is also applied to theatrical, cinematic, and musical work. In contrast to this is non-fiction, which deals exclusively in factual events (e.g.: biographies, histories)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction

The bible is presented to society- by religion, religious leaders, and itself- to be a work of non-fiction, and historically accurate. Ergo, any intentional deceit on behalf of the author(s) is bastardly and should be condemned in the harshest possible meaning of the word.