Why do we use Hebrew words
-
Here is another longer exerpt from a different commentary...
Here is an exerpt of one of the commentaries on this.
The Adoption of Manasseh and Ephraim
(48:1-7)
The last days of JacobÂ’s earthly sojourn drew to a close. Sensing this, Joseph was summoned to his fatherÂ’s side where Jacob pronounced a unique blessing upon him. The death of which Jacob had so frequently spoken and, at one time, desired was now soon to visit him. Joseph took his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, along with him to see their grandfather one final time and to bid him farewell. Gathering up his strength, Jacob sat up in bed in order to speak words of vital significance to Joseph. While JacobÂ’s words were reminiscent of the past, this was no muddled musing as one might expect of an aged man nearing his final hour. Instead, Jacob focused JosephÂ’s attention upon the two most important events of his life as an explanation for what he was about to do.
Now it came about after these things that Joseph was told, “Behold, your father is sick.” So he took his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim with him. When it was told to Jacob, “Behold, your son Joseph has come to you,” Israel collected his strength and sat up in the bed. Then Jacob said to Joseph, “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me, and He said to me, ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful and numerous, and I will make you a company of peoples, and will give this land to your descendants after you for an everlasting possession.’ And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are. But your offspring that have been born after them shall be yours; they shall be called by the names of their brothers in their inheritance” (Genesis 48:1-6).
Twice God had appeared to Jacob at Luz (Bethel, 28:10-17; 35:9-12), and in both appearances God had blessed him, promising him that he would become a great nation and that he would possess the land of Canaan. While it was nowhere recorded that God specifically promised Jacob that the land would be an “everlasting possession” (verse 4), it was told Abram in 17:7. This was probably orally passed on through Isaac.
Joseph’s sons, Manasseh and Ephraim,102 were born in the land of Egypt. As sons of Joseph their future in Egypt may have seemed very bright. Perhaps they might fill the shoes of their father, taking places of power and influence in Pharaoh’s administration. But their greatest hope lay in a land they had not yet seen, for they were destined to be a part of the “company of peoples” (verse 4) that God had promised Jacob.
Reuben, due to his sin of laying with Bilhah, JacobÂ’s concubine (35:22), would be stripped of his birthright (cf. 49:4). This privilege was conveyed upon Joseph, but in an unusual way. No doubt the normal course would have been to give the birthright to the next son, Simeon, or to the next after him, Levi, but both of these sons were guilty of the mass murder of the Shechemites (34:25ff.). It was Joseph instead who was to receive the rights of the firstborn:
Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn, but because he defiled his fatherÂ’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; so that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright. Though Judah prevailed over his brothers, and from him came the leader, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph) (I Chronicles 5:1-2).
Jacob achieved his purpose by adopting both of JosephÂ’s sons as his own, on a par with Reuben and Simeon (verse 5). Now each of them would receive one portion, but in so doing Joseph received a double portion:
And I give you one portion more than your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorite with my sword and my bow (Genesis 48:22).
The effect, as noted by the chronicler, was to give the birthright to Joseph. Any other sons which might be born to Joseph (but donÂ’t seem to have been) would receive their inheritance as though they were the sons of either Ephraim or Manasseh (verse 6).
The twin appearances of God to Jacob at Bethel (once before he departed from Canaan to seek a wife in Haran (28:10-17) and once after he returned to Canaan from Paddan-aram (35:9-15)) were even more significant in the light of the partial fulfillment of GodÂ’s promises to him in these appearances. God had promised Jacob that he would be with him to guide, protect, and provide, and that He would bring him safely back to Canaan. This God had done, in spite of the dangers he had faced and the obstacles that were in his path. Since GodÂ’s word had been fulfilled in the short-term promises, surely His more distant promises were assured also.
The primary focus of Jacob in his report to Joseph was the promise of the land of Canaan and the assurance that Jacob would become a numerous people, a company of peoples (verse 4). If God had assured Jacob of becoming a great and numerous people, then surely he was justified in adopting two more sons who would contribute to this proliferation of people.
If the justification for JacobÂ’s adoption of JosephÂ’s sons is found in the promise God had made at Bethel, the reason seems to be reported in verse 7:
Now as for me, when I came from Paddan, Rachel died, to my sorrow, in the land of Canaan on the Journey, when there was still some distance to go to Ephrath; and I buried her there on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem) (Genesis 48:7).
Joseph was the son of Rachel, Jacob’s chosen wife. His partiality to Joseph significantly contributed to Joseph’s rejection by his brothers and his journey to Egypt (cf. 37:4). A major factor in his preference for Joseph was the fact that he was the first-born of Rachel, his bride by choice. (Leah was his wife “by chance,” Bilhah and Zilpah “by competition.”)
While Rachel was the younger of his wives, she died prematurely on the way to Ephrath (Bethlehem). By inference, had she not died so early in life she would have presented Jacob with many other sons. The adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh provided Jacob with two more sons, technically “through Rachel.” The promise of God at Bethel in combination with the preference of Jacob for Rachel provides the backdrop for the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh. In addition to this must be mentioned the faithfulness of Joseph to the God of his fathers, even while in a foreign land and in adverse circumstances. He, as the savior of his people, surely was worthy of the favor his father bestowed upon him.
To read the full article, go here The View From the Graveyard -
so the hebrews followed the faith of the mothers, except in this unusual situation where a pronouncement by Jacob made it the exception to the rule? isn't this rather convenient?
There is no where in scripture is it stated that the hebrew culture is matriachy in nature.
back to my question:
and yaffa's replyOriginally posted by Chin Eng:so can we conclude that the God of Ishmael is also the the God of Isaac? purely from the standpoint of history, deviations in the modern times nonwithstanding?
Genesis 21:14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.Originally posted by Yaffa:Well, clearly both Isaac and Ishmael have Abraham as their father, however, in the Jewish lineage, the children follow the faith of their mother. So since Sarah was Isaac's mother and she was Jewish, Isaac's God is the God of Abraham (since he too was Jewish).
Ishmael's mother was an Egyptian, so Ishmael couldn't be of the same faith as Abraham unless he conscientiously made the decision himself. No where in the Torah does it mention that Ishmael did so.
15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. 16 Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, "I cannot watch the boy die." And as she sat there nearby, she began to sob.
17 God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. 18 Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation."
19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink.
20 God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer. 21 While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt.
Would God have taken care of Ishamel, if Jehovah is not the God of Ishamel?
I am guessing that the answer is: well, because God had already given Abraham a promise, therefore God has to keep it. Unfortunately, I don't see why He needs to keep it because Ishmael was a result of a disobedience and disbelief of Sarah. There is really no reason for God to continue to bless Hagar and Ishmael. -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
so the hebrews followed the faith of the mothers, except in this unusual situation where a pronouncement by Jacob made it the exception to the rule? isn't this rather convenient?
Take that one up with Yahweh. It is already stated that they were accepted as part of the 12 tribes, it would also then seem that if they were adopted, they would have done so properly and would have been raised in the tradition of Yahweh, otherwise, why would Yahweh sanction such a move? Still if you ask any Jew, the faith follows the mother. That has always been and will always be. So why are you arguing the point here?
I am sure Yahweh has good reason for allowing Jacob to adopt Ephraim and Manasseh. -
There is no reason, but while Hagar and the youth were in the desert, the angel of Yahweh visited them and said that ishamel would be a great too... hence we have the arab nations today.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Would God have taken care of Ishamel, if Jehovah is not the God of Ishamel?
I am guessing that the answer is: well, because God had already given Abraham a promise, therefore God has to keep it. Unfortunately, I don't see why He needs to keep it because Ishmael was a result of a disobedience and disbelief of Sarah. There is really no reason for God to continue to bless Hagar and Ishmael.
You may not see why Yahweh needed to keep the promise, but I am sure that He had very good reason. or do you presume to know more than Yahweh??
Like Yaffa said, there is no mention in the Torah that Ishmael ever sought Yahweh. -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
Please go an read the articles that I posted. There are inferences to the fact, plus you want to argue with the history of the Jewish people and their laws? It is purely stated for all to see, my wife confirms it as well, as a Jew are you saying she does not know her own culture??
There is no where in scripture is it stated that the hebrew culture is matriachy in nature.
[/b]
I think that you are confused here. The distinction is this, whether one is considered a Jew or not is determined by the mother, but as to which tribe one belongs to is determined by the father. -
On one hand, whether one is Jewish or not is determined by the mother, on the other in the case of Ephraim and Manasseh, Jacob say it's ok, it's ok.... double standard. Sure you can quote a multitude of reasons from a multitude of websites. Yet every single one of them is in conflict with the first premise: the one about it's the mother that determines where one is a Jew or not - the one that states that Ephraim and Manasseh is NOT Jewish!
A cultural practice does not make it a biblical practice. Nowhere is it stated in the Bible that the race is following the mother, so what if practice does that. If the practice is such and there is no teaching in the Bible, then the practice is in conflict with the Bible.
The entire Bible (Torah, if you will) is extremely patriachy in tone and practice. Sure the Hebrew mom's got influence... so do Chinese moms. So what!
Again, why is the God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac and NOT God of Sarah, Rachel and Leah.....????? There is nothing tribal in this statement. It is a declaration of faith on Yehovah! It is NOT God of Judah, Reuben, Gad etc etc!
The Ishmael thing.... I am not asking if he is Jewish, I am asking if the God of Ishmael at that time is also the God of Jacob. The fact that his mother is Egyptian has nothing to do with anthing.
Neither am I saying that the Muslims are right NOW! I am only asking if the God that attended to Ishmael is the same God, and that this God followed Ishmael (an Egyptian) throughout his life.
Is it so difficult to say: Yes?
brey, I have said it before.... don't know, say don't know. Don't give me this "ask God" or "take it with God" thing. -
In Judiasm, the status of whether a person is Jewish or not is considered to be "inherited" through the mother. This Halacha has been around since the origins of Judaism as a culture, at least as far back as when the Torah was received by Moses on Mt. Sinai. Many claims, however, have attempted to place the inauguration of this "Custom" significantly more recently than the correct date.
Without discussing Individual claims for when it was that this "Custom" originated, I will explore the documentary evidence that this law was well known at the destruction of the second temple. Since many will contend that direct evidence from the Old Testament was posiibly more recently modified, the oldest documents extant are from just before, during, and after the destruction of the temple.
In any case, The Mishna, which was a compilation of sayings from the Tannaic period (from approximately 50 B.C.E. - 200 C.E.) about the law as they understood it, seems to take the fact that matrilineal descent for granted. According to one opinion listed, a woman who has a baby from a non-jewish man is considered to be a "Mamzer," (Leviticus 20, Deuteronomy 23, verse 3) According to the other opinion, which is listed as the one we follow, there is no legal distinction between this child and one born from both Jewish parents, except that he cannot claim membership in a tribe, as this is a status inherited from the father. (This means that the child is non a Levite, but otherwise has no practically different rules than a member of the other 11 tribes. However, it has been contended that the Mishna may not be the same text as that which originally existed, though at the least, it is the same manuscript as was in use in 600 C.E.
If someone were to reject the Mishna as a source, due to the fact that it cannot be verified far enough back, there are sources form the Midrash, a set of collections of Tannaic literature explaining scripture, some of which, it is clear, dates to well before the destruction of the second temple, we see that this understanding of Matrilineal descent is taken for granted as well. The example I remember most clearly is from when Joseph marries an "Egyptian" woman, (Genesis 41, 50) the Midrash explains how the children, Ephraim and Menashe, are jewish. The reason given is that the girl Joseph marries is the daughter of Dina, who was raped by Shechem, (Genesis 34) (And the daughter of this union is assumed to be Jewish.) Contrast this with the casual liason that Yehuda (Judah) had with Tamar, (Genesis 38 ) when he thought that she was not a jewess (and it is clear from midrashic sources that he is not concerned with any offspring that may have resulted, seeing as the child would clearly not be Jewish.)
There are those who feel, however, that since the Midrash was not widely distributed, and many textual discrepancies exist, therefore, though there is no specific evidence, large sections of it could have been altered in the intervening 2000 years, and a more reputable source, such as the Talmud, is needed, since it is clear from documentary evidence that it was not changed significantly since it was written, 1500 years ago. In Tractate Avodah Zarah, which discusses business and personal relationships between Jews and those non-Jews who practice Idol Worship, it is clear in several places that a relationship between a jewess and a non-jew is Jewish, especially in cases involving capture by a non-jewish army, where we say that a child born to the woman through rape, is a Mamzer, since it is a forbidden relationship since the woman is married. A proof that children of jewish men with non-jewish women is from the discussion in the Talmud of the payment for rape (50 peices of silver, in Deuteronomy 22, verse 28 ) where it says that a non-jewish woman is not entitled to this specific payment, and is instead entitled to a seperate type of damages claim, which a jewish woman (according to most opions, including the one that is followed) is not.
It is possible, given all of these sources, still to doubt that the rule was given more than 3000 years ago to moses, but to claim that it originated after the holocaust is patently ridiculous, and claiming it originates during the 2000 yeaars of exile since the destruction of the Second Temple is a only somewhat less difficult to support claim -
Religious identity is due to matrilineal descent, meaning the Mommy determines the child’s religion—Jewish or not.
Though both parents contribute to the genetic make-up of a child, the father’s involvement in conceiving the child is fleeting compared to the pregnancy and birth that the mother experiences. Clearly the mother’s involvement in the child’s formation is incomparably greater than the father’s. Furthermore, much has been scientifically demonstrated that aside from genetic make-up, a baby is greatly influenced by the conditions of the womb, and these factors have long-term effects on that person. So even before birth, a baby’s life-long being is deeply bound with that of his or her mother. All this considered, it is no surprise then that the very essence of the child – who he or she will be – is determined by the mother. Whether a child is Jewish or not is not a minor detail of the child’s composition, it is a question of his or her very identity—thanks to Mom.
Whether a child is Jewish or not is not a minor detail of the child’s composition, it is a question of his or her very identity—thanks to MomOn the other hand, tribal association is via paterilineal descent, so the Dad determines if his offspring are Kohanim, Levites or Israelites (and specifically which Israelite tribe).
All three tribal divisions have the common essential factor of being Jewish, as determined by the mother. The difference in these three is their function— their Jewish job-description. A Kohain, Levite and Israelite each have his (or her) unique spiritual profession, whether it be in the Temple or in the office. Each one is educated towards a specialized tribal role—as taught by the father.
The Torah obligation for continued education of children is actually only the father’s (though a mother is duly credited for her educating, albeit her non-compulsory prerogative). Thus the child follows the spiritual path he learns from his father. For example, a Kohain-in-training learns about his (or her) G-dly vocation from his father, and not his mother—so too with Levites and Israelites. The father is a living example of how conduct oneself as a professional Kohain/Levite/Israelite.
Additionally, many of the laws of Kohanim and Levites are only practiced by males (such as the prohibition for a kohain to purposely become ritually impure, or laws pertaining to the Temple service), thus it is logical for these laws to be transmitted paterilineally from father to son.
[In the case of a person born of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, the tribe association is irrelevant since he/she is not Jewish. In the reverse situation—Jewish mother and non-Jewish father—the child is Jewish and a (tribe-less) Israelite.] -
"The example I remember most clearly is from when Joseph marries an "Egyptian" woman, (Genesis 41, 50) the Midrash explains how the children, Ephraim and Menashe, are jewish. The reason given is that the girl Joseph marries is the daughter of Dina, who was raped by Shechem, (Genesis 34) (And the daughter of this union is assumed to be Jewish.) Contrast this with the casual liason that Yehuda (Judah) had with Tamar, (Genesis 3 when he thought that she was not a jewess (and it is clear from midrashic sources that he is not concerned with any offspring that may have resulted, seeing as the child would clearly not be Jewish.) "
Please explain: How did Dinah marry a priest of On that resulted into her daughter that married Joseph... Genesis 34 did not say what happened to her. Everything stated here is extra-Biblical in nature. If it is not stated in the Bible, we can assume anything we want.... midrash or not!
...so.... is the God that tended to Ishmael all his life the same God of the Hebrews...? Or are you continuing to ignore this question.
Another question: Is Rahab of Jericho a Jewish? -
In the time of the Patriarchs it appears that descent followed the father. However, the period of the Patriarchs was before the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai. It was only with the revelation on Sinai that the Jewish people received their legal system. Therefore it is impossible to bring Halachic, legal proofs from the Patriarchs. Our source for Halacha is the Written and Oral Torah.
The Mishna in Tractate Kiddushin 66b states that if a child's mother is not Jewish, then the child is not Jewish.
The Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 68b, derives this Halacha from a verse in Deuteronomy 7:1-5, which also contains the prohibition against intermarriage. "When the L-rd your G-d brings you to the land that you will inherit, many nations will fall away before you; the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Prizites, the Hivites and the Jebusites... And you shall not marry with them; do not give your daughters to his sons and do not take his daughters for your sons. For he will turn your son away from me and they will worship other gods...." The Talmud points out that the verse only seems to be concerned with the son of the Israelite woman being turned away, "for he (the gentile)" will turn your son away. It does not seem to be concerned that "she (the gentile) will turn your son away." The implication is that the son of the Jewish woman and gentile man is still considered "your (the Jewish grandfather in this case) son," but in the case of a gentile woman married to a Jewish man, the child is not considered "your son" and therefore there is no concern about his turning away. This follows Rashi and Tosfot Ri Hazaken in their explanation of the Gemara.
Tosfot (ad loc. "Amar krah" ) offers a number of different methods of derivation from the verse, but agrees with the conclusion. This law is also found in the Mishna in Yevamot (ch. 2, 21a): "He counts as a brother in every respect unless he was the son of a maidservant or of a gentile woman."
This halacha is codified in the Code of Jewish Law, Even HaEzer 8:5, and in Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Relationships, 15:4. Maimonides states: "This is the general rule: The status of an offspring from a gentile man or from a gentile woman is the same as his mother's; we disregard the father."
Another source in the Torah is the verse in Leviticus 24:10: "the son of an Israelite woman went out - and he was the son of an Egyptian man." This person is described as being "in the midst of the community of Israel" - in other words, Jewish.
Probably the most explicit verse against patrilineal descent is in the book of Ezra 10:2-3: Some of the Jews who had returned from the exile declare, "We have trespassed against our G-d and have taken foreign wives of the people of the land. Yet, there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. Therefore, let us make a covenant with our G-d to put away all the wives and such as are born to them, according to the counsel of the L-rd and of those who assemble at the commandment of G-d; let it be done according to the law."
Sources are also in Midrash Rabbah, Numbers, 19, and Jerusalem Talmud, Kiddushin 3:12.
Do we ignore the father completely? Certainly not. The father is the one who determines what tribe the child is from. That is: Kohen, Levi, Yisrael. Also, in determining royalty and other leadership roles among the Jewish people we go from father to son. -
If you do not take the midrash then there is nothing else to explain to you. There is more to Jewish culture than you choose to understand. Even John said in the bible that should all these things be written, there would not be books enough on the earth to record all the accounts.Originally posted by Chin Eng:"The example I remember most clearly is from when Joseph marries an "Egyptian" woman, (Genesis 41, 50) the Midrash explains how the children, Ephraim and Menashe, are jewish. The reason given is that the girl Joseph marries is the daughter of Dina, who was raped by Shechem, (Genesis 34) (And the daughter of this union is assumed to be Jewish.) Contrast this with the casual liason that Yehuda (Judah) had with Tamar, (Genesis 3 when he thought that she was not a jewess (and it is clear from midrashic sources that he is not concerned with any offspring that may have resulted, seeing as the child would clearly not be Jewish.) "
Please explain: How did Dinah marry a priest of On that resulted into her daughter that married Joseph... Genesis 34 did not say what happened to her. Everything stated here is extra-Biblical in nature. If it is not stated in the Bible, we can assume anything we want.... midrash or not!
...so.... is the God that tended to Ishmael all his life the same God of the Hebrews...? Or are you continuing to ignore this question.
Another question: Is Rahab of Jericho a Jewish?
There a many things extra-biblical in nature that are recorded and passed down via oral tradition, which can now be found in the Talmud, which is the Jewish account of their walk with Yahweh. These things are NOT ASSUMED, they are the RECORDS OF THE JEWS IN THEIR WALK WITH YAHWEH. A walk that many so called christians take very lightly.
Yahweh is the God who tended to Ishmael. In regards to your post as to you see no point in Yahweh keeping His promise, then you are sadly mistaken, this promise Yahweh made was to Avraham, if our Yahweh would be so changeable as you think He should be, then where lies the assurance and promise of our salvation because just as easily as Yahweh would have reneged on His promise to Avraham, He can reneg on our promise of salvation.
Rahab of Jerico was indeed considered Jewish, she converted.
—Biblical Data:
A woman of Jericho who sheltered the spies sent by Joshua to search out the land. Having arrived at Jericho, the two spies remained at Rahab's house, situated in the wall of the city and having a window on the outside (Josh. ii. 1, 15). Rahab was ordered by the king, who had been informed of the arrival of the spies, to deliver them to him; she, however, hid them on the roof and declared that they had come and gone without her knowing who they were (ii. 3-6). In her conversation with the spies upon the roof, Rahab proved to have been well informed of the progress of the Israelites since they had crossed the Red Sea. She told them that she was certain of their final conquest of the land, and asked them to reward her by sparing herself and her whole family—her father, mother, brothers, and sisters, all of whom lived in the interior of the city (ii. 8-14). After she had let the spies down through the window of her house, they enjoined her to take her whole family into her house, which she should distinguish by placing a scarlet string or rope in the window through which they had made their escape (ii. 15-21). At the conquest of Jericho by the Israelites, Joshua ordered the two spies to rescue Rahab and her family, whose descendants thenceforward dwelt in Israel (vi. 22-23, 25).E. G. H. M. Sel.
—In Rabbinical Literature:
Rahab was one of the most beautiful women in the world, the mere mention of her name exciting inordinate desire (Meg. l5a; Ta'an. 5b). Later Jewish commentators, Rashi among them, interpret , the Hebrew term for "harlot," as "one who sells food," basing their view on Targum Jonathan (to Josh. ii. 1), which renders it by (= "innkeeper"; comp., however, David Ḳimḥi ad loc.). In the Talmudic literature, however, it is accepted that Rahab was a harlot. She was ten years old when the Israelites came out of Egypt, and she pursued her immoral calling during the forty years that the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness. There was not a prince nor a ruler that had not had relations with her; and she was therefore well informed of what was going on outside Jericho (Mek., Yitro, 'Amalek, 1; Zeb. 116b). At the conquest of that city by the Israelites, Rahab became a sincere proselyte to the cult of Yhwh. She then married Joshua and became the ancestress of eight priests who were prophets as well, Jeremiah among them, and of the prophetess Huldah (Meg. 14b). Rahab was also one of the proselyte women styled "the pious" ("ḥasidot"; Midr. Tadshe, in Epstein, "Mi-Ḳadmoniyyot ha-Yehudim," Supplement, p. xliii.). The words "and the families of the house of them that wrought fine linen," etc. (I Chron. iv. 21), are considered by the Rabbis to refer to the house of Rahab (Ruth R. ii. 1).
The conversion of Rahab is regarded by the Rabbis as more complete than that of Jethro and Naaman; for while the latter two did not free themselves entirely from a belief in other gods, Rahab acknowledged that Yhwh was the only God both in heaven and on earth (Mek., l.c.; Deut. R. ii. 19). This acknowledgment of Rahab called forth the admiration of God Himself, who said: "On earth thou couldest see with thine eyes that there is no other God besides Me; but to acknowledge also that I am the only God in heaven needs special faith. I promise thee, therefore, that one of thy descendants [referring to Ezekiel] shall see what no prophet before him shall have seen" (comp. Ezek. i. 1); thus making Ezekiel also one of Rahab's descendants (Midr. Shemuel, in Yalḳ., Josh. 10). Rahab's reward was alluded to by Hezekiah in his prayer for recovery from his sickness (comp. II Kings xx. 2), when he said that as Rahab was greatly recompensed for the rescue of only two men, he who rescued so many from idolatry certainly deserved some reward (Eccl. R. v. 2).E. C. M. Sel. -
Brey,Originally posted by breytonhartge:There is no reason, but while Hagar and the youth were in the desert, the angel of Yahweh visited them and said that ishamel would be a great too... hence we have the arab nations today.
You may not see why Yahweh needed to keep the promise, but I am sure that He had very good reason. or do you presume to know more than Yahweh??
Like Yaffa said, there is no mention in the Torah that Ishmael ever sought Yahweh.
here is a very simple answer on why Yahwah blessed Ishamel.
Because Abraham asked Yahwah to bless Ishamel and Yahwah said YES.Genesis 17: 17-19
17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?" 18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"
19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. -
Exactly.... but our dear mod is incapable of admitting some as simple as this. Instead he goes around quoting from various pro-hebrew sources. Fact remains that Ishmael is blessed and God of Abraham, Jacob and Issac tended to him all his life.Originally posted by vince69:Brey,
here is a very simple answer on why Yahwah blessed Ishamel.
Because Abraham asked Yahwah to bless Ishamel and Yahwah said YES.
The Rahab thing? See, there is another way to be a Jew beyond just being born to a Jewish women......conversion.
Brey has the tendency to make something very simple to something very complicating. No need for those lengthy quotation... just write from your heart! -
...and I am wondering now what these Jews are doing to make sure that such truths and records are make known to all....Originally posted by breytonhartge:There a many things extra-biblical in nature that are recorded and passed down via oral tradition, which can now be found in the Talmud, which is the Jewish account of their walk with Yahweh. These things are NOT ASSUMED, they are the RECORDS OF THE JEWS IN THEIR WALK WITH YAHWEH. A walk that many so called christians take very lightly.
and as I'd asked previously, where are the prominent Jewish evangelists who can "set things right" instead of blaming the world for getting it all wrong! -
hurr???Originally posted by Chin Eng:Exactly.... but our dear mod is incapable of admitting some as simple as this. Instead he goes around quoting from various pro-hebrew sources. Fact remains that Ishmael is blessed and God of Abraham, Jacob and Issac tended to him all his life.
The Rahab thing? See, there is another way to be a Jew beyond just being born to a Jewish women......conversion.
Brey has the tendency to make something very simple to something very complicating. No need for those lengthy quotation... just write from your heart!
ok, lah... I am a very simple person, I only know when Yahweh says yes, He really meant it and I can trust He will be faithful to do it....
-
sorry, last line was not meant for you.....Originally posted by vince69:hurr???
ok, lah... I am a very simple person, I only know when Yahweh says yes, He really meant it and I can trust He will be faithful to do it.... 
your posts are always short and sweet. Good communicator! -
you want to cast the blame there are many more to accuse, how about the early founding fathers after the apostles who corrupted and changed the way the church operated. blame Martin luther who despised the teachings of Yahweh such that He condemned literally thousands to death.Originally posted by Chin Eng:...and I am wondering now what these Jews are doing to make sure that such truths and records are make known to all....
and as I'd asked previously, where are the prominent Jewish evangelists who can "set things right" instead of blaming the world for getting it all wrong!
If you do a proper search on the internet, I am sure you will find much information, the question is do you want to know? from your attitude, it seems that you have no use for such information. -
I never said otherwise. You inferred, which is a problem with you.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Exactly.... but our dear mod is incapable of admitting some as simple as this. Instead he goes around quoting from various pro-hebrew sources. Fact remains that Ishmael is blessed and God of Abraham, Jacob and Issac tended to him all his life.
The Rahab thing? See, there is another way to be a Jew beyond just being born to a Jewish women......conversion.
Brey has the tendency to make something very simple to something very complicating. No need for those lengthy quotation... just write from your heart!
But conversion has to be according to Law and you have to keep the sabbath, and all the feasts of Yahweh. -
Originally posted by breytonhartge:
I inferred and it's a problem?
I never said otherwise. You inferred, which is a problem with you.Originally posted by breytonhartge:
You guys infer and it's OK?
Please go an read the articles that I posted. There are inferences to the fact, plus you want to argue with the history of the Jewish people and their laws? It is purely stated for all to see, my wife confirms it as well, as a Jew are you saying she does not know her own culture??
Why am I not surprise about the double standardness?
-
As far as I last checked, the internet only came up over the last 10+ yrs.Originally posted by breytonhartge:you want to cast the blame there are many more to accuse, how about the early founding fathers after the apostles who corrupted and changed the way the church operated. blame Martin luther who despised the teachings of Yahweh such that He condemned literally thousands to death.
If you do a proper search on the internet, I am sure you will find much information, the question is do you want to know? from your attitude, it seems that you have no use for such information.
Again I asked, when the founding fathers after the apostles corrupted and change the way the church operated and Martin Luther despised the teachings of Yahweh... where were you guys? wallowing in self-pity?
On one side, according to you, the gospel was corrupted.... on the other side, those who is suppose to know that the gospel was corrupted DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
The internet tells me much.... one of the stuff? The Jewish world isn't exactly in harmony as to who is a Jew and how is a Jew defined.... that much is sure. -
I thought that you agreed to let this down already... still have hangups?Originally posted by Chin Eng:As far as I last checked, the internet only came up over the last 10+ yrs.
Again I asked, when the founding fathers after the apostles corrupted and change the way the church operated and Martin Luther despised the teachings of Yahweh... where were you guys? wallowing in self-pity?
On one side, according to you, the gospel was corrupted.... on the other side, those who is suppose to know that the gospel was corrupted DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
The internet tells me much.... one of the stuff? The Jewish world isn't exactly in harmony as to who is a Jew and how is a Jew defined.... that much is sure.
IF you disagree with the whole Jewish thing, then why even bother??? -
I agreed to let the Yeshua thing down.Originally posted by breytonhartge:I thought that you agreed to let this down already... still have hangups?
IF you disagree with the whole Jewish thing, then why even bother???
I am still following up the other other things..... and you can hardly expect me NOT to follow up thing that has yet to surfaced?
Brey... hindsight is 20/20.... we all can look back and criticised on whatever that has happened. You obviously do not agree with what has happened or what was done by the church fathers. However I don't think you have the right to do that unless you are able to prove that there were alternatives - perhaps one that was provided by any Jewish evanglist and having done that, the world rejected this "Hebraic" message.
Right now in 2006, can we look back and condemned everything that has happened? And mournfully declared that the world was Hellenised or Westernised?
Have you noticed, one thing: I have never ever said that your belief is WRONG!
I am saying: if what you believe is RIGHT, what has been done about it, or what are you guys doing about it? Other than look at others with this holier-than-thou view and declare that everyone's got it wrong. -
Concerning Ishmael....
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=277&letter=I&search=ishmael
In Rabbinical Literature:
The name of Ishmael is an allusion to God's promise to hear the complaints of Israel whenever it suffered at the hands of Ishmael (Gen. R. xlv. 11). Abraham endeavored to bring up Ishmael in righteousness; to train him in the laws of hospitality Abraham gave him the calf to prepare (Gen. R. xlviii. 14; comp. Gen. xviii. 7). But according to divine prediction Ishmael remained a savage. The ambiguous expression in Gen. xxi. 9 (see Hagar) is interpreted by some rabbis as meaning that Ishmael had been idolatrous; by others, that he had turned his bow against Isaac. According to the interpretation of Simeon b. Yoḥai, Ishmael mocked those who maintained that Isaac would be Abraham's chief heir, and said that as he (Ishmael) was the first-born son he would receive two-thirds of the inheritance (Tosef., Sotah, v. 12, vi. 6; Pirḳe R. El. xxx.; Gen. R. liii. 15). Upon seeing the danger to Isaac, Sarah, who had till then been attached to Ishmael (Josephus, "Ant." i. 12, § 3), insisted that Abraham cast out Ishmael. Abraham was obliged to put him on Hagar's shoulders, because he fell sick under the spell of the evil eye cast upon him by Sarah (Gen. R. liii. 17).
Ishmael, left under a shrub by his despairing mother, prayed to God to take his soul and not permit him to suffer the torments of a slow death (comp. Targ. pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. xxi. 15). God then commanded the angel to show Hagar the well which was created on Friday in the week of Creation, in the twilight (comp. Ab. v. 6), and which afterward accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness (Pirḳe R. El. xxx.). But this was protested against by the angels, who said: "Why should Ishmael have water, since his descendants will destroy the Israelites by thirst?" (comp. Yer. Ta'an. iv. 8; Lam. R. ii. 2). God replied: "But now he is innocent, and I judge him according to what he is now" (Pirḳe R. El. l.c.; Gen. R. l.c.; et al.). Ishmael married a Moabitess named 'Adishah or 'Aishah (variants "'Ashiyah" and "'Aifah," Arabic names; Targ. pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. xxi. 21; Pirḳe R. El. l.c.); or, according to "Sefer ha-Yashar" (Wayera), an Egyptian named Meribah or Merisah. He had four sons and one daughter. Ishmael meanwhile grew so skilful in archery that he became the master of all the bowmen (Targ. pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. xxi. 20; Gen.R. liii. 20). Afterward Abraham went to see Ishmael, and, according to his promise to Sarah, stopped at his son's tent without alighting from his camel. Ishmael was not within; his wife refused Abraham food, and beat her children and cursed her husband within Abraham's hearing. Abraham thereupon asked her to tell Ishmael when he returned that an old man had asked that he change the peg of the tent. Ishmael understood that it was his father, took the hint, and drove away his wife. He then married another woman, named Fatimah (Pekimah; Targ. pseudo-Jonathan l.c.), who, when three years later Abraham came again to see his son, received him kindly; therefore Abraham asked her to tell Ishmael that the peg was good.
Ishmael then went to Canaan and settled with his father (Pirḳe R. El. l.c.; "Sefer ha-Yashar," l.c.). This statement agrees with that of Baba Batra (16a)—that Ishmael became a penitent during the lifetime of Abraham. He who sees Ishmael in a dream will have his prayer answered by God (Ber. 56a).
I am not able to verify the accuracy of the Rabbinical literature. I am also not able to edit the various symbols found in the original website. -
Scholarship: The Significance of the small silent aleph
Clifford Denton
(This article was written in April 1991 and resulted in the launch of the Journal Tishrei. The message is still relevant today.)
One of the pleasures I have each week is to turn to the last but one page of the Jerusalem Post International Edition. Just to have this weekly communication from Jerusalem seems hard to believe. Is this the same Jerusalem that I read about in the Bible?
That is not a straightforward question to answer of course, but for one, like me, who has had his eyes opened wide to the significance of the modern day Jerusalem, there is a very special time of reflection each week, as I can hold this newspaper in one hand and the Bible in the other.
However, it is on that last but one page that I wish to focus. To turn to the last but one page of most of our newspapers would be quite common for a lot of people. There is a little light relief in reading the sport's page before turning to the international news towards the front of the paper. In the Jerusalem Post International Edition it is not so. The attraction there is a half page called 'Shabbat Shalom'. This is where a meditative message is given for the Jewish Shabbat by one of the Rabbis. It is usually in the form of a message from the Torah. I have often been given some new insight on a passage of scripture which is as much a part of our Bible as it is the Torah. There is sometimes a little Jewishness to filter out, or a wider perspective to take on a passage, when it is related to the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. However, one has to confess that the Rabbis have something to teach us.
On 16th of March this year Rabbi Riskin, Dean of the Ohr Torah institutions and chief Rabbi of Efrat set me thinking again about the need for Christian scholarship in our generation through his analysis of one word in the first chapter of Leviticus.
The Rabbi quoted from the Israeli poet Nahman Bialik, who said that studying a Bible translation is like kissing a woman through a veil. He was saying that even the 'best' of translations, including the King James' version, is bound to miss the full impact of some of the words whose meaning is only conveyed by the original Hebrew.
continued... -
Scolarship part2
In the first chapter of Leviticus, an English translation records an incident as follows: 'And the Lord called unto Moses and spoke to him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying .... '. The Rabbi then goes on to say that a child reading this from the Hebrew will have greater understanding than 'even a learned but Hebrewless cardinal'. The reason is as follows.
The Hebrew word vayikra has the basic translation 'and the Lord called'. As the Rabbi states, 'the last letter of the Hebrew word vayikra, the silent aleph, is enjoined by the scribes to be written in an uncharacteristically tiny script, our tradition to this day.'
The Rabbi goes on to say, 'No matter how exquisite King James' English may be, a little aleph cannot be translated; it must be experienced. Indeed, any letter written smaller than others takes on significance, but when it is an aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, its smallness looms even larger.'
continued...