Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 193752 | ||
Hi MP, Thank you for your response. Before going into the “land of Moab” (pun intended!), I would like to address your comments as to the lineage of Ruth. You stated, “to begin with it is generally accepted that she was of Moabite descent.” No question about it! However, being generally accepted does not mean it is correct or scriptural! I would hate to be confined as to what is generally accepted! You stated, “From the text, as the ‘Moabitess’ she must be considered a descendant of Moab.” It could also mean she was from Moab, the “land of Moab” or the “plains of Moab.” Just as Naomi and her family were Ephrathites (Ruth 1:2) or Paul and Silas were Romans (Acts 16:37). You cited Ruth 1:16, “But Ruth said, "Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God.” Your comment: “…she (Ruth) removes all doubt. For certainly no Israelite would deny that her god was the God of Israel and swear Him allegiance with the same breath.” You have made a good point. However, the word “God” is translated from the word “elohim.” “Elohim” can also be translated as “Judge” as in a human Judge. It is used that way in Exodus 22: 8,9. This all took place “In the days when the judges governed” (Ruth 1:1). More telling is verse 17, wherein Ruth uses the name LORD, translated Jehovah. Jehovah was the covenant name given to Israel in Exodus 6:3. It is doubtful that the writer of Ruth would have recorded Ruth as using the name Jehovah had she not been an Israelite and had every right to do so. Next, let me address your statement, “Indeed the references regarding the land or plains across from Jericho are not what the scripture indicates as Moab. “ You then mention a scripture that does exactly that, Deuteronomy 32:49, and indicate there are other scriptures that do the same. This seems to be a bit of flawed logic. If that were true, then you would have to say the same about the passages in Ruth. The land between the Arnon and Jabbok Rivers was not part of the land promised to Israel. After the Amorites were conquered, the tribes of Gad and Reuben asked for the land because it was a very good area for livestock. Since it was not part of the “Promised Land”, I think that may be why it retained the name of Moab, but there is not doubt it retained the name. Below are the scriptures which mention “the land of Moab” in context and if it applies to the area of Gad and Reuben or the actual nation of Moab. SCRIPTURE THAT APPLIES TO THE NATION OF MOAB: Judges 11:18 Then they went through the wilderness and around the land of Edom and the land of Moab, and came to the east side of the land of Moab, and they camped beyond the Arnon; but they did not enter the territory of Moab, for the Arnon was the border of Moab. SCRIPTURE THAT APPLIES TO THE TERRITORIES OF GAD AND REUBEN: Numbers 21:20 and from Bamoth to the valley that is in the land of Moab, at the top of Pisgah which overlooks the wasteland. Deuteronomy 1:5 Across the Jordan in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to expound this law, saying, Deuteronomy 29:1 These are the words of the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the sons of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He had made with them at Horeb. Deuteronomy 32:49 Go up to this mountain of the Abarim, Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab opposite Jericho, and look at the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the sons of Israel for a possession. Deuteronomy 34:5-6 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no man knows his burial place to this day. Deuteronomy 34:6 And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no man knows his burial place to this day. OTHER REFERENCES TO MOAB: After Gad and Reuben were carried away into captivity, the land was retaken by Moab and was still referred to as the “land of Moab” in Chapter 48 of Jeremiah. Joshua 13:32 These are the territories which Moses apportioned for an inheritance in the plains of Moab, beyond the Jordan at Jericho to the east. Judges 3:28 He said to them, "Pursue them, for the LORD has given your enemies the Moabites into your hands." So they went down after him and seized the fords of the Jordan opposite Moab, and did not allow anyone to cross. See also Numbers 22:1, Numbers 26:3, Numbers 26:63, Numbers 31:12, Numbers 33:48. The list goes on. Thanks again, it is fun and informative. Someday, we will know it all! Jim |
||||||
2 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | maxpower | 193830 | ||
Jim, Actually I would argue that seeing that we are two thousand years into Christian history, generally speaking, things that are generally accepted are generally correct. If not, I would think that any real hope for clarity had been lost, long ago. ;) That not withstanding, yes there are references to the area between the rivers as the land of Moab. And, we could ignore the fact that elohim is not translated in the Ruth as judges, verse one does not contain elohim but shaphat. We could also assert that even though it is translated God, or some form thereof, thousands of times and judges in three verses, it should be changed to judges. We could also ignore the fact that the people called Ruth a ‘Moabite’ (2:6), a designation used in Judges 3:28 to indicate an enemy, and that she called herself a ‘foreigner’. (2:10) Instead we could maintain she was born an Israeli and these do not indicate otherwise. This, of course, would be in spite of the fact that no Israeli considers themselves a foreigner to their people, even though they do not lay their head within the borders of the Promised Land. Paul certainly did not; he may have been a Roman citizen, but he was an ‘Israelite’ (Rom 11:1) not a foreigner. So: We could ignore all that and say she was a Reubenite or Gadite, she lived in an area sometimes referred to as the land (or plains) of Moab, and she seemed to think there a difference between her people, one tribe of Israel, and Naomi’s, also an Israelite. If this is our interpretation, there was nothing notable about her intermarrying within Israel, moving from one area to another within Israel proper, and coming under the governance of a different judge; accept in her mind. All things being equal, I’d say we have just discovered the first irrelevant book of the bible; since there is nothing worthy of note in the marriage of one Israeli to another. After all, the only significant information in this record is the genealogy, which is of course set down in other places. OR We can accept what has always been taught; that Ruth was a Moabite, descendant of Lot, foreigner to the covenants of God; the translators were correct in there translation of Elohim, and that she lived in the kingdom of Moab, not the land between the two rivers where Reuben and Gad settled. This being the case we can further accept that she turned from idols to serve a living and true God; that she was accepted and redeemed by a righteous man of the tribe of Judah, became mother to Obed and great grandmother to David, king of Israel. In so doing she became another, in the checkered past of the Messiah, to demonstrate God mercy in redeeming His people. So, she became an example of God’s grace despite the judgment of Deuteronomy 23:3; and in so doing fulfilled the scripture “that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow…” (Gen 19:29) Therfore, in her, we see God working out what Moses heard on the mount, “…The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin...” (Ex 34:6) Previous to this, I have not considered that the book of Ruth might be just the ‘rags to riches’ story of an ancient Israeli woman, and after this posting I’m sure I will not again. It has always been an outstanding illustration for the young in faith, of the brilliance God’s providence and His mercy. So while it may be argued that there is practical evidence for both positions, even the practical favors the latter. Additionally, there is a glaring absence of divine purpose in the former argument and that should be weight enough for people of faith to reject it. Not to mention, the former sounds more like what ABC news would present as a rational explanation for the non-supernatural recordings of ancient mythology. Carry on... MP |
||||||
3 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 193860 | ||
Hi MP, Your arguments: 1. “things that are generally accepted are generally correct”; 2. The book of Ruth is boring and irrelevant if she is not a Moabite by birth; 3. It has always been taught that way!; 4. Without Ruth being Moabite there is no divine purpose!; and 5. My arguments sound like ABC News! Ouch! At least you didn’t compare me to Dan Rather! I will let others judge how valid these arguments are. 6. We could also ignore the fact that the people called Ruth a ‘Moabite’. I did not ignore the fact that Ruth is referred to, a number of times, as a Moabite or Moabitess. This referred to where she was from, not that she was a Moabite by birth. Like Jesus was called a Nazarene. 7.”she called herself a ‘foreigner’. (Ruth 2:10) Instead we could maintain she was born an Israeli and these do not indicate otherwise. This, of course, would be in spite of the fact that no Israeli considers themselves a foreigner to their people, even though they do not lay their head within the borders of the Promised Land.” The word translated “foreigner” is “Nokriah” and it can mean either “foreign” or “not known to you.” It depends on the context. When Ruth met Boaz she did not yet know he was her kinsman and he was a complete stranger to her. She was surprised that he would treat her in this generous manner. In Genesis 31:15 Rachel and Leah use the same “Nokriah” or “foreigners” to describe their relationship to their father Laban. I think you would agree that a better translation is “strangers.” ABC? God bless, Jim |
||||||
4 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | maxpower | 193890 | ||
Jim, 1. Precedent, both in Law and reason is granted weight, even great weight, when considering the validity of a previously held idea; or in this case interpretation. 2. I did not say anything about boring; that would be your observation. The book of Numbers; now that’s boring, but obviously quite relevant. While it is an oversimplification to say, it is “irrelevant if she is not a Moabite by birth.” Given the entire scope of the argument, I stand by the statement; it would indeed be largely, even if not utterly, irrelevant. 3. I did not offer how it had been taught as support the facts under consideration. In fact it would only be by inference that teaching was even mentioned. 4. The observation was, “there is a glaring absence of divine purpose;” I am open to hearing one. 5. I apologize, if these arguments originate with you, I’m sure you’re more offended by the ABC statement than I am at the revision of the book’s message. 6. You ignored the conjunction that created a joint assertion. The observation is, the people called her a Moabite, which is a designation used to indicate an enemy, and she called herself a foreigner. I did not disavow that you acknowledged the title of Moabite; in fact that is a major point of the discussion. Instead the point was, the transaction that took place in verse five and following, of the second chapter, is evidence that she was not of Israeli descent. 7. Actually, I would not agree, unless I was reading the KJV, where the translation is almost exclusively ‘stranger.’ While your explanation, again, stands to reason, it does hold consistent with scripture. For instance, you ignored verse fourteen, “Rachel and Leah said to him, 'Do we still have any portion or inheritance in our father's house? Are we not reckoned by him as foreigners (strangers)...” (Gen 31:14,15) Here, even were we to accept the translation ‘strangers’ as you suggest, Rachel is indicating by her statement, concerning inheritance, that her father no longer considers them blood. So, in the same manner, if Ruth is not Boaz’s blood she is not of Israel. If that’s a little thin for you, let’s look at a few instances from the KJV where the word is translated stranger: “…thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.” (De 17:15) “And his master said unto him, ‘We will not turn aside hither into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children of Israel...’” (Jud 19:12) “Moreover concerning the stranger, which is not of thy people Israel...” (2Ch 6:32) From these verses we may adduce with such probability, as almost to amount to certainty, that when the Old Testament refers to a ‘stranger’, as is done in the instance in question, it is correctly translated ‘foreigner’; not of Israel, and that Gen 31:15 actually supports that assertion and does not contradict it. So, Elohim – God not judges; Nokriah – foreigner not ‘previously unknown to me’. I’d say on these two alone there is enough to maintain she was not of Israel and was thus converted. Where she lived could of course be fodder another discussion… As Always, MP |
||||||
5 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | srbaegon | 193893 | ||
Hello MP, You've given a well-reasoned argument. Jim seems bent on proving his point despite the facts. On a side note, Numbers is NOT boring. :-) It may read like the "junk room" of Scripture, but there are wonderful displays of God's order and purposes, the method of divine revelation, and pictures of the church. Steve |
||||||
6 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | lionheart | 193900 | ||
Good day my brother, I gotta agree with you here. MP did an outstanding job in stating his case. Would that all of us would go to those lengths in our study of God's Word. There are three words that really make me scratch my head when it comes to Gods Word those being boring, irrelevant and if. They are terms that seem to get used quite frequently and very loosely at that. I have yet to see anything boring or irrelevant about the bible and when it comes to if that can be a very big word if we're not careful. Thanx for your observation. In Him: lionheart |
||||||
7 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | maxpower | 193907 | ||
Lionheart, I hope you did not take the comment on relevance to mean that I thought any portion of God’s Word could be irrelevant; my meaning was, that when we alter His Word, it becomes something else and thus irrelevant. See my response to Steve on the boring issue; I hope I clarified that, there. On the ‘if’ word; I’m a mathematical thinker, in its simplest form that is, Boolean if you know the meaning (sort of an if ‘a’ then ‘b’ approach). But, I see your point; it’s those easily spelled words that can get us in the most trouble. I’ll keep an eye on that one. Thanks for the positive comments, they’re appreciated. MP |
||||||
8 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | lionheart | 193987 | ||
MP, Not at all. You were quite clear. There are those though that do project that impression knowingly or not and it doesn't hurt to address these things from time to time. I hope I gave no offence to you. In Him, lionheart |
||||||