Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Bible_Study_Guys's Journal: Taking a break... 19

Journal by Bible_Study_Guys
Well guys, we turned out 3 pretty good topics I think. Eugene said before the last topic that he though he should take a break. GLH and I have both been very busy also, and I think it is better that we don't try to do any more topics until after the first of the year. Most of you are busy also and really won't have time to read and do the research that many of you do when preparing your comments.

We had a lot of discussion and participation, and I thank everyone who read our journal, and especially those who commented. I hope everyone has a wonderful Thanksgiving, and a very merry Christmas/Hanaukka/Quanza/<Whatever you celebrate> and a happy new year. I hope to see you all again in January.

-TechnoLust

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Taking a break...

Comments Filter:

  • I was reading in Genesis lately, particularly the story about Joseph in Egypt. Most of it is fairly straight forward, but an interesting an rare "historical" note was included by Moses that I would like some commentary on (attn: Chacham)

    Here is the text...

    13 And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.

    14 And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house.

    15 And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us abread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth.

    16 And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail.

    17 And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year.

    18 When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not ought left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands:

    19 Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate.

    20 And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh's.

    21 And as for the people, ahe removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.

    22 Only the land of the apriests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands.

    23 Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land.

    24 And it shall come to pass ain the increase, that ye shall give the bfifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones.

    25 And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's servants.

    26 And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the apriests only, which became not Pharaoh's.

    It appears from this story that Joseph actually helped Pharoah take more control over Egypt (and more) then he already had, essentially placing everyone but the priests in servitude.

    Its like he leveraged some insider trading information to purchase the whole company.

    Now Joseph to me was the model employee. I think God liked how good of an employee Joseph was. Joseph, and Jacob his father had employers that tried to keep them around becuase they know God prospered everything they did.

    But my question is what is the rest of the worlds take on this use of foreknowledge on Josephs part?
    • I see nothing wrong in Joseph's use of his foreknowledge on Pharoah's behalf. Actually, God needed an absolute monarch to demonstrate His power in Exodus.

      As I see it (in my very humble opinion), God was setting the stage for Moses in Exodus through Joseph in Genesis.

      BTW, excellent idea, guys. I hope you keep it up.


      • I agree there isn't anything really wrong with it, but anyone have any references to other scripture or historical documents on this event?
        • I did some googling and found this link. It is pretty interesting from a historical perspective. Note- turn off background colors, it has a really annoying one.

          http://www.angelfire.com/ga/Godandscience/egypt/ jo seph.html
        • I'll make a huge stretch here and suggest the story of Jesus telling Peter to "catch a fish" to pay their taxes. Depending on who you ask, the fish either a) had a coin in its mouth for the taxes, or b) was sold by Peter to pay the taxes. Needless to say, there are some testy debates about this that I'd rather not repeat (or re-hash) here.

      • I use my God given talents at work every day to help the company prosper. When I was in college, I used my musical talents to travel with the school's choir and recruit students. It's like you said, Joseph was doing his job. God wants us to do our best at whatever we do.
      • Actually, God needed an absolute monarch to demonstrate His power in Exodus.

        Interesting point. However, Pharoah was already the absolute monarch. He just didn't own the people.

        As I see it (in my very humble opinion), God was setting the stage for Moses in Exodus through Joseph in Genesis.

        Not sure how it helped, but it sounds interesting.

    • but an interesting an rare "historical" note was included by Moses

      Moses included nothing. He wrote *exactly* word for word, letter for letter, what G-d commanded him to write.

      that I would like some commentary on (attn: Chacham)

      Asked for by _name_. Wow. Now *that* will get my ego going. :-P

      Sorry, I didn't answer earlier, I just didn't see the comment when I originally checked the story.

      It appears from this story that Joseph actually helped Pharoah take more control over Egypt (and more) then he already had, essentially placing everyone but the priests in servitude.

      That didn't necessarily help him with control. The Pharoah was considered a god, and had ultimate power over all of his subjects. Making them slaves was more psycological than anything else, but it also in an non-tyrranical and more legal way, gave the Pharoah control.

      Its like he leveraged some insider trading information to purchase the whole company.

      Something I would do if it weren't illegal.

      Besides, G-d gave the dream to foretell Pharoah about the famine, and therefore to prepare his people.

      I think G-d liked how good of an employee Joseph was.

      G-d liked how Joseph lived and acted. Being a good employee is merely one aspect of living an appropriate life.

      But my question is what is the rest of the worlds take on this use of foreknowledge on Josephs part?

      It's not foreknowledge, as much as it was a hint to them to prepare.
      • Moses included nothing. He wrote *exactly* word for word, letter for letter, what G-d commanded him to write.

        I agree, but Moses saw a lot more then he wrote. I was curious as to how much is it traditionally held was revealed (i.e. "here's what your gonna write about... in the beginning"), and how much came from abridgement from older records (albeit commanded by G-d to do so).

        Making them slaves was more psycological than anything else, but it also in an non-tyrranical and more legal way.

        I guess what intruiges me so much about this strikes a chord with me, in a contemporary way. Actually two chords that might be related.

        I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it seems that a semi-socialist government could reasonable become a fully-socialist government with this method.

        The other but more mysterious is in the messianical allegory Joseph plays with Israel. We talk a lot about Moses and the exodus as a messianic prototype.

        I mean I've heard much about how he leads Israel "out of the world" as it were (Egypt's allegorical role as the world was replaced later by Babylon as they were taught to "flee Bablylon").

        They pass through (cut through actually as in "cut a covenant" if my understanding of Hebrew is up to par) first the Red Sea, and then later the river of Jordan as they reach the Promised Land. This is much like Abraham walking through the cows that were cut into two.

        But Joseph's messianical role was different. He was betrayed and sold into the world, in order to raise up through the ranks of the world so that G-d could provide a salvation for the world, even Israel.

        But in so doing, Israel leaves the promised land, and winds up (not by Josephs doing however) in slavery.

        Its a peculiar twist on the typical allegory, but not without precident. Adam (who I place as the Ancient of Days spoken of in Ezekiel) played a simular messianic role of bringing a race into the world.

        Anyway, that chord is more mysterious and probably not very fleshed out. In fact its more like a question is inside that I'd like to ask, and all I can do is explain what the question is about.

        I mean, do you see it? It has some elements of Moses, and some elements of Adam (taking people out of the paradise, putting them into the world). Its rather interesting.

        I'll also note that it was through doing something bad that was the precipitator both removals, but both are neccisary for a messianic role to come.
        • but Moses saw a lot more then he wrote.

          Not really. He saw nothing from Genesis or the last eight verses in Deuteronomy. Most of the rest are commandments and encouragement, not stories. So, overall, he saw less than he wrote.

          I was curious as to how much is it traditionally held was revealed (i.e. "here's what your gonna write about... in the beginning"), and how much came from abridgement from older records (albeit commanded by G-d to do so).

          The first verse reads "In beginning", there is no "the", and adding "the" changes the meaning of the first verse.

          Tradition tells us that G-d wrote the Bible twenty-two generations before the world was created. Also, the Talmud relates that G-d look at the Bible and created the world. Thus, the Bible is a blueprint, not a history.

          Everything is in the Bible. If you see it as shorthand, than you just don't know how to look (and almost every human falls into that category).

          The Bible is there not as a history. It is to teach and command. Thus, that which is relevant is included outright.

          I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it seems that a semi-socialist government could reasonable become a fully-socialist government with this method.

          Socialism is an excellent idea. Personally, I'm a Socialist at heart. (Though I vote Republican/Liberatarian). If people agree to Socialism (and don't mix it up with Communism!) they could make the most wonderous society.

          I mean I've heard much about how he leads Israel "out of the world"

          I'm not sure that I have ever heard that.

          They pass through (cut through actually as in "cut a covenant" if my understanding of Hebrew is up to par) first the Red Sea,

          The sea split, and the people passed through. And he split is, "Vah'yee'buhkah". And he passed through (the nation) "Vah'yah'ahvore". The word for convenant is different than both of those "Kuh'rahs".

          This is much like Abraham walking through the cows that were cut into two.

          Not really. Abraham made a convenant. The purposes and translations of it are allegorical and Kabbalistic. The walking through the seas was a miracle, and had nothing to do with a convenant.

          But Joseph's messianical role was different.

          If you translate the word messiah, as savior, than messiah fits here. However, the Hebrew word for Messiah "Muh'shee-ach" means, annointed, as Kings and the High Priest. A leader, however, is appointed, and thus the word messiah would not apply.

          He was betrayed

          He was not betrayed. In fact, the brothers thought that he wronged them! And in fact, Joseph did make a mistake by reported thier (incorrectly understood) "bad deeds". They responded by forming a court and sentencing him. They ended up sending him to slavery to the Ishmaelites.

          and sold into the world, in order to raise up through the ranks of the world so that G-d could provide a salvation for the world,

          Salvation for Egypt and surrounding areas. That's where the famine was. It was not everywhere.

          even Israel.

          This is correct.

          But in so doing, Israel leaves the promised land, and winds up (not by Josephs doing however) in slavery.

          As told to Abraham by G-d. This led to the fullfillment of the convenant and ultimately to the Jewish People being created and taking the land.

          Adam (taking people out of the paradise, putting them into the world).

          The whole world was a form of paradise at the time. The Garden of Eden was special because it had the Tree of Life in it. There were other mystical qualities as well, but I doubt that they are relevant here.

          I'll also note that it was through doing something bad that was the precipitator both removals,

          "Bad" is a relative term. That is, relative to the vantage point of the viewer.
          • overall, he saw less than he wrote.

            Au Contrare, Moses saw the whole earth and everything in it from the beginning. He only wrote what God told him to write.

            The first verse reads "In beginning", there is no "the", and adding "the" changes the meaning of the first verse.

            Unfortunately it isn't proper english that way. But it sounds like you believe as I that it wasn't "the" beginning, but rather a beginning. However its not improper to still reference it as "the" as long as the antecedent is commonly understood. In this case "the" is the work of salvation for mankind in my book, and not a universal "the".

            Everything is in the Bible

            I'm not in the Bible, do I not count? Just kidding, but seriously I'll agree that the Bible plays a different role then a historical document. I think it is a more legal document if a contemporary analogy is to be made. In that way the history is just there to justify the actions taken, and make good on contracts made and spell out laws of those contracts.

            In that way, everything is in the Bible, all the covenants, laws and commandments neccisary for salvation.

            If people agree to Socialism (and don't mix it up with Communism!) they could make the most wonderous society.

            If my understanding is correct, Jewish immigration camps in Israel have what can be called a socialist system. I think they do it pretty well. Others I don't really like.

            I'm not sure that I have ever heard [leading out of the world].

            You haven't? Its the whole basis of Zionist doctrine, which first shows up in the Bible right after Moses's exodus. G-d commands that his people are a peculiar people, gives them a promised land, and tells people to leave where they are at to go there. However, zion was even before Moses, as Jerusalem (Melchisidec's) and salem (Enoch's) were also zions and were litterally taken out of the world into heaven.

            So, Sodom and Gommorah were a "world" metaphor (to go with Jerusalem), then Egypt (with Moses), then Babylon. In fact, that is why its so important to note the scattering of Israel. As a nation they that which was not good and were removed back into the world.

            These days the Zionist movement is litteraly out of the whole world, to the promised land. Much of what Isaiah wrote about we are watching it happen. Soon (as in a few hundred years or tomorrow kind of soon) their temple will be built, and they will know the Messiah they've been looking for all these years.

            What we have yet to see is the gathering of the ten tribes. We need to see Levites as I recall, as we need aaronic priests to perform sacrifice in the temple. Its ironic that they have found a gene that litterally marks decendents of Aaron.

            Anyway, I probably learn when to hold my tongue. Your right its all in the Bible, everything G-d planned to do for Israel and the rest of the world.

            The word for convenant is different than both of those "Kuh'rahs".

            But if I remember right you don't say "make a covenant" you say "cut a covenant" in the strict hebrew sense.

            I personally interpret the spliting of the red sea as a covenant of salvation for Israel, as long as the persevier to the promised land. Its an allegorical re-emphasising of the covenant made to Abraham. G-d shown the way as a pillar of light to the Israelites also, as he walked with Abraham between the split cows.

            Jews still see themselves as a covenant people do they not?

            the Hebrew word for Messiah "Muh'shee-ach" means, annointed, as Kings and the High Priest.

            Exactly, hence the significance of the obescience of the brothers to Joseph. Joseph gained the birthright and priesthood, in that way he was like (until Ephraim was adopted?) as Israel, Isaac and Abraham. I only ask the question becuase as I understand it Joseph is not a tribe of Israel, but his sons Ephraim and Manassah are? Either way Ephraim got the right hand of Israel, although that portion of the politics is muddy to me.

            the brothers thought that he wronged them!

            You'll have to explain this one more then that. From what it appears, they didn't have authority to make such a judgement while Israel was still alive. So it sounds more like a secret conspiracy to me then a justified court, and it appears to read that way to me in the Bible.

            Salvation for Egypt and surrounding areas.

            Right, here "world" is meant allegorically. Abraham's covenant did litterally mean the whole world would be benefited by his seed however.

            As you mentioned... This led to the fullfillment of the convenant, but I'd ammend that to a fulfillment as the final fulfillment is yet to come.

            The whole world was a form of paradise at the time.

            However it happened, they were cast out of a happy place God made for them into the world which was a step down, a fall. Whether the world fell with them, or they fell into it is an interesting subject but won't have much bearing on the allegory here.

            "Bad" is a relative term. That is, relative to the vantage point of the viewer.

            Agreed, which is why I chose not to use the word "sin".

            • Moses saw the whole earth and everything in it from the beginning.

              Not sure where you get that from. That is not how I understand it.

              Unfortunately it isn't proper english that way.

              Yes it is. For example, imagine a cook teaching a young apprentice. "In beginning to cook, first wash your hands." In fact, adding "the" in this case make no sense.

              Similarly, the first verse of the Bible sounds silly when adding "the". Because, with the word "the" the first verse encapsulates all six days of creation. A mere summary that G-d created Heaven and Earth. Besides being extraeneous, the second verse should not start with the word "and". If the summary was over, and the second verse started detail, it should start off "The land was...". The word "And" makes it a continuation of the previous verse. But how can it be a continuation of an all-encompassing verse?

              But it sounds like you believe as I that it wasn't "the" beginning, but rather a beginning

              No, that is not what I believe.

              Further, you will never find the word for "beginning" ("rayshis") in any of the Old Testament to stand by itself. It is always followed by "of" (it is always "duhvook"). So, it is not talking about the "beginning". It must be talking about the beginning of something.

              However its not improper to still reference it as "the" as long as the antecedent is commonly understood.

              But there is no antecendent referred to here.

              The first verse is an introductory verse. Saying that in beginning of G-d's creation of Heaven and Earth.... The second verse then starts with "and" to show that it (and the subsequent verses) is a continuation of the first verse.

              Now how's that for Bible study? :-)

              I'm not in the Bible, do I not count?

              Yes you are. As is everyone and everything. They are merely scratching the surface with the Bible Codes. Everything that happened or ever will happen is somehow in the Bible. It is mentioned in Ethics of our Fathers.

              I think it is a more legal document if a contemporary analogy is to be made.

              I think of it more as a Doctor's prescription to ensure a healthy life for the soul.

              In that way the history is just there to justify the actions taken,

              Not at all. History is there to learn from. The good things to do, and the mistakes not to do.

              If my understanding is correct, Jewish immigration camps in Israel have what can be called a socialist system.

              I believe you are referring to Kibutzim. They are not immigration camps though. People want to live there. I'm not sure, but I think it's more of a Communist idea.

              I think they do it pretty well.

              I believe they do. Since you know what you are getting in to, and can leave at any time.

              You haven't? Its the whole basis of Zionist doctrine, which first shows up in the Bible right after Moses's exodus.

              I never read the Zionist doctrine. I am a Zionist however. I pray three times a day asking for G-d to return us there.

              However, zion was even before Moses, as Jerusalem (Melchisidec's) and salem (Enoch's) were also zions and were litterally taken out of the world into heaven.

              Not really. Jerusalem got its name from Melchisidec (Shem, son of Noah) and Abraham. Melchisidec's called it "Shalem" (what you said was "salem"), and Abraham called it by G-d's name and the hebrew word "Yayruheh". G-d then mixed the two together and god "Y'rushuhlayim", what in English is known as Jerusalem.

              However, the term Zion only shows up much later. It is a reference to the Temple Mount, and the Holy Temple itself.

              But if I remember right you don't say "make a covenant" you say "cut a covenant" in the strict hebrew sense.

              Yes, that is true. But the cutting will refer to some action to solidify the prophesy. The convenant itself is just a promise.

              I personally interpret the spliting of the red sea as a covenant of salvation for Israel, as long as the persevier to the promised land.

              I don't see anything wrong with that. And it may be a nice poetic translation. However, being G-d didn't prophesy about it, I don't see a convenant here.

              Its an allegorical re-emphasising of the covenant made to Abraham.

              The convenant with Abraham referred to going to Egypt and coming out with riches. That was mostly over by now. If the convenant needed re-emphais wouldn't the ten plagues be enough?

              G-d shown the way as a pillar of light to the Israelites also, as he walked with Abraham between the split cows.

              Abraham was asleep at that point and probably didn't see it. The pillar of light for the Jews was to show them the way. That sounds like opposite purposes.

              Jews still see themselves as a covenant people do they not?

              In a sense, a people that made a convenant. But the convenant was made with the acceptance of the Bible, over four-hundred years after the convenant with Abraham.

              Joseph gained the birthright and priesthood,

              Joseph gained the birthright. The priesthood was kept by G-d to choose, and not given to anyone until Aaron (and Phineous).

              in that way he was like (until Ephraim was adopted?) as Israel,

              Not at all. The twelve tribes made up Israel. In fact, most Jews today come from Judah, Benjamin, and Levi.

              I only ask the question becuase as I understand it Joseph is not a tribe of Israel, but his sons Ephraim and Manassah are?

              Both.

              When counting twelve tribes, the brothers are eleven, and Ephraim and Manassah are each half-tribes. Thus, is a sense Joseph is one tribe, but he is never mentioned when counting, instead his name is appended to one of his sons.

              Either way Ephraim got the right hand of Israel, although that portion of the politics is muddy to me.

              Nah. Jacob just phrophesied about his sons, and thus honored him.

              You'll have to explain this one more then that. From what it appears, they didn't have authority to make such a judgement while Israel was still alive.

              Since Jacob favored Joseph, they may have figured him to not be able to judge impartially. They however, tried to.

              • "In beginning to cook, first wash your hands."

                My grammer checker keeps trying to make that "To begin".

                So, it is not talking about the "beginning". It must be talking about the beginning of something.

                Exactly.

                They are merely scratching the surface with the Bible Codes.

                I'm not into that. I've read up on it, and there's plenty of mathmetitians that point out that any sufficiently large work can be decoded into particular phrases. It has to do with sufficient entropy generated to produce any set of sought after occurances. Besides, bible codes are hardly rabbinical.

                History is there to learn from. The good things to do, and the mistakes not to do.

                That doens't neccisarily counter what I'm talking about. In fact it appears to be just the other side of the token ;)

                The convenant with Abraham referred to going to Egypt and coming out with riches.

                If I placed my Isaiah correctly, that was just foreshadowing to the scattering and gathering of Israel that would indeed bless the whole earth.

                As it works out, there wasn't a "until 6 generations" or other limit that I can tell. There were a few parts of the covenant as I remember it. There was the land, the cursing/blessing thing, but also that through his generations all the world would be blessed.

                That did happen to Egypt, it was blessed by his posterity, but the fulfillemnt of the whole world is yet to happen. Although part of the land was restored to Israel again these days.

                Abraham was asleep at that point and probably didn't see it. The pillar of light for the Jews was to show them the way. That sounds like opposite purposes.

                I'm not sure that is true. Abraham didn't need to be shown the way between the cows, never the less G-d's presence and passing through them with Abraham is indicative of the "Emmanuel" doctrine of Isaiah and others. It also means G-d is doing (or will do) his part.

                Jerusalem got its name from Melchisidec (Shem, son of Noah)

                I don't strictly adhere to that. Believe me I have plenty of reason to believe it, I think he was a litteral descendant of Shem. But for my own reasons I won't say he was in the next generation quite yet.

                I was incorrect before to reference the city of Enoch as "Salem". I actually don't know its name, it is always refered to as "the city of Enoch".

                the cutting will refer to some action to solidify the prophesy. The convenant itself is just a promise.

                I agree. Some tokens of covenants (like the rainbow) are reaccuring to signify the renewing or continued promise (or prophesy as you put it for G-d's end). The cutting of the Red Sea and river Jordan are to me just such a reaccuring significance.

                But the convenant was made with the acceptance of the Bible, over four-hundred years after the convenant with Abraham.

                Ahh yes the reading from the temple top? I count that as a one of the reaffirmations or renewals. Its interesting to note that Abraham was seeking the blessings that he read his forefathers (mostly before the flood) had, so in a way his covenant wasn't new to him either. But he did recieve some interesting changes, in that there were no more people brought up to heaven, his posterity would instead stick with the earth and bless it to the end.

                The priesthood was kept by G-d to choose, and not given to anyone until Aaron (and Phineous).

                Moses had the Priesthood, as he recieved it from Jethro (a priest of Midian). To me the significance of Aaron's priesthood (the one G-d gave him) is that it was crafted for him and his generations, and again was a bit different.

                The other Priesthood order was called after Melchisidec, as I understand, as was Abraham (who payed tithes to Melchisidec), Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Elias, Elijah, and other miracle working prophets. Joseph had this also, as my understanding recalls. I think the school of the prophets also kept this priesthood order.

                The twelve tribes made up Israel. In fact, most Jews today come from Judah, Benjamin, and Levi.

                In a strict sence, they are then Benjamites, Levites and Jews, and all Israelites. The Jew's are just the dominant tribe that never lost its roots.

                There are in the region however, people claiming to be Ephraimites and Manasaites.

                When counting twelve tribes, the brothers are eleven, and Ephraim and Manassah are each half-tribes. Thus, is a sense Joseph is one tribe, but he is never mentioned when counting, instead his name is appended to one of his sons.

                That makes sense to me. I've found many different orderings of the twelve tribes, essentially kicking out Ruben for "defiling his father's bed" and being cursed rather then blessed by Israel "you will not excell" or whatnot. Like the Melcisidec is Shem thing though, I hold out for more before I actually subscribe to Ruben being kicked out.

                Jacob just phrophesied about his sons, and thus honored him.

                My understanding is that they were adopted by Israel. Did not Israel say "these shall by mine, and your seed after this shall be thine" or something like that?

                Also, you might have to go through the bible recount of Joseph's trial, from the perspective of a trial before I see it. Right now I might just be to indoctrinated another way.
                • Just a note. I ought to read this and respond tomorrow night or Sunday.
                • My grammer checker keeps trying to make that "To begin".

                  Fix your grammer checker. :-) Anyway, the word "the" does not exist, and the commentaries talk about it. Having "the" there changes the meaning, and makes no sense.

                  >>It must be talking about the beginning of something.
                  Exactly.


                  But as I pointed out, whatever it was the beginning of must be specified within the next few words.

                  I'm not into that. I've read up on it, and there's plenty of mathmetitians that point out that any sufficiently large work can be decoded into particular phrases. It has to do with sufficient entropy generated to produce any set of sought after occurances.

                  Actually, the Journal of Nature (or one of those journals) published the Bible Codes study to show how amazing it was. Noone said that it proves anything, just that it is highly improbable to be there by mistake, and no other work tested showed anything nearly readible with similar tests. Let alone events that happened hundreds and thousands of years after it was written.

                  Now, there are those who say that it proves G-d because only G-d could write it like that. That has been thoroughly disproven with other people forming there own readable paragraphs.

                  Besides, bible codes are hardly rabbinical.

                  I never said that it was. I just said that the Bible has everything in it, and that the Bible Codes merely scratch the surface.

                  That doens't neccisarily counter what I'm talking about. In fact it appears to be just the other side of the token ;)

                  Actually, you theorized why stories were mentioned. I mentioned the traditions associated with them, which are very much in opposition to your stated opinion. Specifically, that the Bible is not a history, and the stories are very specifically for us to learn from, and therefore only that which is relevant to learn from is mentioned.

                  If I placed my Isaiah correctly, that was just foreshadowing to the scattering and gathering of Israel that would indeed bless the whole earth.

                  If we are talking about the convenant G-d made with Abraham, it was fulfilled when the Jews went into Israel.

                  Abraham asked about G-d's promise that his children would inheret the land, and G-d solidified it with the convenant. They got it, promise fullfilled. The convenant with Abraham does not seem to mentined anything past that.

                  I'm not sure that is true.

                  I am. Genesis sayd very clearly that Abraham fell into a deep slepp and then G-d passed through the cut pieces.

                  Abraham didn't need to be shown the way between the cows,

                  Just a note. You do realize that none of the animals there were cows....

                  never the less G-d's presence and passing through them with Abraham is indicative of the "Emmanuel" doctrine of Isaiah and others. It also means G-d is doing (or will do) his part.

                  No it doesn't. Going through the pieces was merely a hysical manifestation on a promise in the form of a convenant. Genesis does not provide any reason to believe that it meant anything special.

                  Further, there is no Emmanuel doctrine. Emmanuel was a baby born to a young girl who was not old enough to bear children (possibly the King's daughter) to serve as a sign for a specific event. That miracle has little to no bearing anywhere else.

                  I don't strictly adhere to that. Believe me I have plenty of reason to believe it, I think he was a litteral descendant of Shem. But for my own reasons I won't say he was in the next generation quite yet.

                  I am just telling you what the Oral Law says about the Written Law. Believe what you will, but the Written Law is only half of what was given on Mount Sinai.

                  I was incorrect before to reference the city of Enoch as "Salem". I actually don't know its name, it is always refered to as "the city of Enoch".

                  To my limited knowledge, the city of Enoch has no relevance to Jerusalem.

                  I agree. Some tokens of covenants (like the rainbow) are reaccuring to signify the renewing or continued promise (or prophesy as you put it for G-d's end). The cutting of the Red Sea and river Jordan are to me just such a reaccuring significance.

                  You seem to have missed my point. Which is understandable, being I didn't explain it....

                  Anyway, there are two types of prophesies. Those associated with a physical action, and those that are not. The former cannot be changed, the latter can be changed. For example, when Jonah prophesied there was no physcal action involved, thus destruction was able to be averted. But, with Solomon's loss of rulership over the ten tribes, the prophesy included the ripping of a cloth, thus not being able to be avoided.

                  Now, when Abraham asked with what guarantee would he know that his children would get the land, he was basically asking, "if they sin, the prophesy can be averted". With the physical actions associated with the convenant, it solidified the prophesy, and thus his children were guaranteed to get the land even if they didn't deserve it. (Without that explanation I challenge you to find how the convenant answered Abraham's request.)

                  A rainbow is not a physical action associated with a prophesy. In fact, it is a terrible thing. It is as if G-d is saying "I wanted to destroy the world right now, but I won't because I made a promise not to." Don't forget it is a called a rain *bow* (the Bible uses the word "kehshes" which means the bow in a bow and arrow). The bow is a reference to the bow used with an arrow. The rainbow is referencing war, not beauty.

                  The splitting of the sea may be an action but there was no promise assoaicted with it, thus it had nothing to do with any prophesy what-so-ever.

                  Ahh yes the reading from the temple top?

                  No. The one made on Mount Sinai. Instead of being a convanant with Abraham about his children, this one was specifically with the Children themselves.

                  Moses had the Priesthood,

                  No, he did not. He was only allowed in the Tabernacle for the eight days, and then no more. Further, his children did not get it after him. Thus, it was a "special case".

                  as he recieved it from Jethro (a priest of Midian).

                  Ridiculous. Jethro was a priest that was thrown out of town! Besides, a priest of one nation has nothing to do with getting the priesthood istelf. That is a gift that only G-d can give.

                  To me the significance of Aaron's priesthood (the one G-d gave him) is that it was crafted for him and his generations, and again was a bit different.

                  The other Priesthood order was called after Melchisidec, as I understand, as was Abraham (who payed tithes to Melchisidec), Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Elias, Elijah, and other miracle working prophets. Joseph had this also, as my understanding recalls. I think the school of the prophets also kept this priesthood order.


                  No, they did not. Let me explain.

                  Being a priest literally means to service someone deserving it. Thus, in a mundane sense, a doctor healing a king is being a priest to him. Though it is never used in that sense.

                  Being a priest to G-d, means that the person services G-d, in a way that others cannot. For example, only someone from the priestly family can do the service on the Day of Atonement.

                  At first, priests were chosen one by one by G-d. Malchitzedek got it, but after him his children didn't. G-d only gave it as a family tradition to Aaron and his sons (not including Phineus, he got it later).

                  The prophets were not priests. (Well, some were, but by family.) Miracles are not wrought by priests. Prpohets bring us G-d's word. Priests service G-d for us.

                  In a strict sence, they are then Benjamites, Levites and Jews, and all Israelites. The Jew's are just the dominant tribe that never lost its roots.

                  Incorrect. The term Jew did come from Judah, because that was the dominant tribe. However, it never referred to only Judah. For example, in the Book of Esther Chapter 2 verse 5, the verse refers to Mordechai as both a Jew and a Benjamite.

                  There are in the region however, people claiming to be Ephraimites and Manasaites.

                  Yes, and they are trying to become Jews. Let's not argue on semantics here. Jew refers to the entire Jewish nation that exists today.

                  and being cursed rather then blessed by Israel

                  It was not a curse. It was a reprimand. Even if what he did was correct, moving his father's bed without asking was innapropriate.

                  My understanding is that they were adopted by Israel. Did not Israel say "these shall by mine, and your seed after this shall be thine" or something like that?

                  I don't see that.

                  Also, you might have to go through the bible recount of Joseph's trial, from the perspective of a trial before I see it. Right now I might just be to indoctrinated another way.

                  Just note, Genesis chapter 37 verse 2 points out the Joseph told bad tidings of his brothers. That was a bad thing to do. His brothers, however, did not seem to do anything incorrectly. The Bible does not seem to point out their selling of him as a bad thing. The trial that I mentioned is a tradition, it is not mentioned in the Bible outright.
                  • Actually, you theorized why stories were mentioned.

                    Not really.

                    the Bible is not a history

                    Which is an assertion I'm honestly not interested in. The bible has history, and that is good enough for me.

                    Abraham asked about G-d's promise that his children would inheret the land, and G-d solidified it with the convenant. They got it, promise fullfilled. The convenant with Abraham does not seem to mentined anything past that.

                    Actually, the fact that Israel (Abraham's children) seems to keep returning to that land makes me recon that it didn't stop there. As long as there are children of Abraham, and they keep returning, I don't see how or why we should interpret only Moses's Exodus as fulfilling Abraham's covenant.

                    Genesis sayd very clearly that Abraham fell into a deep slepp and then G-d passed through the cut pieces.

                    True, but that hardly means he was not aware of it, now does it. After all, it was writen, and Jacob became aware of the ladder when he slept.

                    Going through the pieces was merely a hysical manifestation on a promise in the form of a convenant.

                    Its a physical manifestation of God being with Abraham. Emmanuel means "God is with us".

                    there is no Emmanuel doctrine

                    This one I cannot swallow. God goes out of his way to show he is with his people, with the ark, Moses's upheld arms, the cloud and pillar of fire, and the baby.

                    The splitting of the sea may be an action but there was no promise assoaicted with it

                    Hmmm, just read this part last night in fact...

                    Exodus 14:

                    13 And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever.

                    14 The LORD shall afight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.


                    Aside from that it is associated with their return to the promised land.

                    No, he [Moses] did not [have the priesthood].

                    I'll draw again from the law...


                    Exodus 28:
                    40 And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.

                    41 And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office.


                    You'll recognize immediately that annointing, consecration, and sanctification of temple gear are priests duties. Not to mention when Moses laid his hands on Joshua, and Aaron and his sons to ordain them to thier office.

                    Jethro was a priest that was thrown out of town!

                    Middianites were wanderers, there was no "town" to be thrown out of, nor was their wandering becuase of anyones particular exile.

                    Being a priest literally means to service someone deserving it.

                    This is something I like, but an unfamiliar where you got it from. The english word for priest comes from a mesopitamian word meaning either "lead ox" or "one who watches the bridge".

                    The hebrew forms of priest (as I recall) come from "kahan" which means a mediator. This makes more sense to me since the priest's duties were to service Israel, as much as service God. For instance as you mention the day of Atonement, the priests duties on that day were to seek atonement for Israel to God. Its a two way street.

                    Also note where they were the ones that serviced requisite sacrifices, and cleansing of Israel.

                    Moses and the other miracle doing prophets were also mediators. Note how Moses contends with God over Israel's fate when God realizes that they are worshiping a golden calf at the bottom of the mountain. Another good chapter to watch Moses intermediate between God and Israel is the chapter in Exodus where the Red-Sea is parted.

                    Incorrect. The term Jew did come from Judah, because that was the dominant tribe. However, it never referred to only Judah.

                    Not true, when the inheritance is designated upon arival to the promised land, Judah is refered to as only a tribe, as well as when they were traveling through the wilderness.

                    It wasn't until the split with the northern kindgom that Judah became a designation of a state as well as a tribe.

                    I have no problem with either way of speaking, I am just using Judah to represent the tribe for the purposes of this discussion however. I use Israel denotes the nation, as is used today also.

                    It was not a curse. It was a reprimand.

                    A repremand is "you should not have done this" and indeed Israel says something like that. But "you shall not excel" is a curse.

                    As a side note, I always considered the "defiling my bed" to reference Ruben's sleeping with his father's concubine Bilhah, not some unmentioned act of moving it.

                    I don't see that [Ephraim and Menassah were adopted by Israel direclty].

                    Oh, that comes from the law also.


                    Genisis 48:
                    3 And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me,

                    4 And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting cpossession.

                    5 And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine.

                    6 And thy issue, which thou begettest after them, shall be thine, and shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance.


                    Genesis chapter 37 verse 2 points out the Joseph told bad tidings of his brothers.

                    I see "evil report", which is not uncommon. David brough back reports of what his brothers were doing out in the fields all the time. If they were doing good, it was a good report. If they were doing evil, it was an evil report.
                    • >>Actually, you theorized why stories were mentioned.

                      Not really


                      I was referring to your original comment [slashdot.org] which stated:
                      but an interesting an rare "historical" note was included
                      and another comment [slashdot.org] which stated:
                      In that way the history is just there to justify the actions taken
                      Those are two reasons that you gave. First, that it is historical, second that stories are given to justify actions.

                      The bible has history, and that is good enough for me.

                      That is not a good approach. In one short distinction, with a history (everything must be included and) there must be a reason to leave things out. With a teaching (everything is left out and) there must be a reason for inclusion. Looking at the Bible as a history makes all inclusions devoid of necessary reasons.

                      Actually, the fact that Israel (Abraham's children) seems to keep returning to that land makes me recon that it didn't stop there. As long as there are children of Abraham, and they keep returning, I don't see how or why we should interpret only Moses's Exodus as fulfilling Abraham's covenant.

                      The convenant says (Genesis 15:13 through 15:16)
                      1. your children will be strangers...afflicted...400 years.
                      2. The nation...I will judge...great riches.
                      3. fourth generstion will return here
                      Now, what part of that talks about a continuation? Once the "fourth generation" returned, the convenant was finished. In the times of Moses the second two steps were fullfilled.

                      True, but that hardly means he was not aware of it, now does it.

                      Yes, it does. He was asleep. And even if G-d told him about it, the flame was still not for him to see. If it was, G-d would have let him see it either before or after his deep sleep. This is in stark contrast to the pillar of flame by the sea which was specifically to light the way, and thus to be seen.

                      After all, it was writen, and Jacob became aware of the ladder when he slept

                      The ladder was in his dream. Thus he was aware of it.

                      Its a physical manifestation of God being with Abraham.

                      Not it isn't. When Elijah was in the cave and waiting to hear from G-d, he disregarded much and only listened to the soft voice. G-d's does not show that he is with people with something as drastic as fire. It is generally used as a miracle to show that G-d runs the world, not to show manifestation.

                      >>there is no Emmanuel doctrine

                      This one I cannot swallow. God goes out of his way to show he is with his people, with the ark, Moses's upheld arms, the cloud and pillar of fire, and the baby.


                      The ark did not show that he was "with" the people. It was a box to hold the ten commandments written on the sapphire. As such it was treated with great respect and had more holiness than most other things.

                      Moses's upheld arms were to get the people to look towards Heaven and pray to G-d.

                      The baby was a small miracle (similar to Sarah having Issac) to show that G-d controls nature, and was used to avert a war. It had little to do to show that G-d was with the people.

                      >>The splitting of the sea may be an action but there was no promise assoaicted with it

                      Hmmm, just read this part last night in fact...


                      Those verses are not promises by G-d. They were prophesies by Moses.

                      Aside from that it is associated with their return to the promised land.

                      How? It was miracle during the Exodus, but how is it associated with returning to the land? In fact, most of the people by the sea did not go into the land.

                      You'll recognize immediately that annointing, consecration, and sanctification of temple gear are priests duties.

                      No, they are not. Annointing is usually done by prophets. I don't recall concecration and sanctification being done only by priests.

                      Not to mention when Moses laid his hands on Joshua, and Aaron and his sons to ordain them to thier office.

                      Actually, G-d put his spirit on Moses. Moses was now a conduit (similar to a lit candle lighting another candle) to give spirit to Aaron and Joshua.

                      Middianites were wanderers, there was no "town" to be thrown out of, nor was their wandering becuase of anyones particular exile.

                      The Bible refers to the land of Midian, so I am sure sure how to understand them to be wanderers.

                      Also, Jethro's daughters were afraid of the other herdsmen. First, if he was a priest, he should have had servants do that, not his daughters. Secondly, the other herdsman would not have bothered the daughters of the priest. Both of those point to him being thrown out. He was their erstwhile priest. The relevance of which is to show how far he had come. He believed in G-d so much that he gave of the grandeur associated with being a pagan priest.

                      This is something I like, but an unfamiliar where you got it from. The english word for priest comes from a mesopitamian word meaning either "lead ox" or "one who watches the bridge".

                      It is the translation. Also, Targum Oonk'liss (Aramaic translation G-d gave with the Bible orally, collected later by Oonk'liss) translates the word "chohayne" (same a kohayne) in Genesis 14:18 with the Aramaic word "mee-shah-mayshe", which means to service.

                      The hebrew forms of priest (as I recall) come from "kahan" which means a mediator.

                      The Hebrew word for mediator is "maylitz". Specifically, one who speaks on another's behalf. An example is Genesis 42:23. "because the translator (maylitz) was in between them." It is used here as translator, because the translator speaks on another's behalf.

                      If someone does something (not necessarily speaking) on another's behalf, he is called a messenger "shuh-lee-ach". The Talmud even discusses this word with relevance to the priests.

                      This makes more sense to me since the priest's duties were to service Israel, as much as service God.

                      They never serviced Israel. They serviced *for* Israel, since the other Israelites were not allowed to do such service.

                      For instance as you mention the day of Atonement, the priests duties on that day were to seek atonement for Israel to God.

                      Actually, they do it *because* G-d told them to. It was part of the atonement process. But, nowadays, when there is no temple to service in, the Day of Atonement still atones, regardless of the lack of priestly service.

                      Also note where they were the ones that serviced requisite sacrifices, and cleansing of Israel.

                      But it is because G-d said that only they could do it. For example, imagine someone is convicted of a crime, and then the President pardons him. Has the President "served" the person? I don't think so. He just did what the Constitution said he should do. Even though the pardon is specifically for the convicted, it is not called servicing him.

                      Moses and the other miracle doing prophets were also mediators.

                      They were sometimes, but not necessarily. The word for prophet is "Nuh-vee", which means "one who brings". They are called that since they bring the word of G-d to the people. This has nothing to do with mediation.

                      Note how Moses contends with God over Israel's fate when God realizes that they are worshiping a golden calf at the bottom of the mountain.

                      Interesting point here. The golden calf was used by the multitude as a mediator to replace Moses who they thought died. Anyway, Moses prayed for them (not himself), he didn't necessarily mediate. It was this selflessness that made Moses the greatest leader.

                      Another good chapter to watch Moses intermediate between God and Israel is the chapter in Exodus where the Red-Sea is parted.

                      Actually, that's a good example to see where he is G-d's messenger. He did very little mediation or service there.

                      >>The term Jew did come from Judah, because that was the dominant tribe. However, it never referred to only Judah.

                      Not true, when the inheritance is designated upon arival to the promised land, Judah is refered to as only a tribe, as well as when they were traveling through the wilderness.


                      Yes, the term "Judah" (Y'hoo-duh) refers to the tribe, the term "Jew" (Y'hoo-dee) refers to the entire nation.

                      It wasn't until the split with the northern kindgom that Judah became a designation of a state as well as a tribe.

                      Or the exile when the term "Jew" appeared.

                      I have no problem with either way of speaking, I am just using Judah to represent the tribe for the purposes of this discussion however. I use Israel denotes the nation, as is used today also.

                      OK, thanx for the note.

                      A repremand is "you should not have done this" and indeed Israel says something like that. But "you shall not excel" is a curse.

                      Interesting. I didn't know the KJV translated "al toh-sar" like that. So, I guess that's why you understood it as a curse. Unfortunately, that is not what it means.

                      The word "al" in this context does mean "(you) shall not". But, "toh-sar" means "you shall become more". The root of the word is "yeser" which means "more" or "extra". "Toh-sar" has the Tuth (tuff) at the beginning which adds the word "you". It then is verb-ified as a commandment. Thus, "you shall not become more".

                      The "more" being referenced is simple. Reuben was the first-born, and the first-born gets double in the inheritance. Jaacob told Reuben that he would not be getting his extra share. This was a punishment not a curse.

                      As a side note, I always considered the "defiling my bed" to reference Ruben's sleeping with his father's concubine Bilhah, not some unmentioned act of moving it.

                      The Talmud says that anyone who thinks that Reuben sinned is mistaken. What he did, however, was dishonorable, and thus the Bible likened it to doing a terrible deed. However, when Jacob recounts it, he merely references something about his bed, which is much closer to what actually happened.

                      >>I don't see that [Ephraim and Menassah were adopted by Israel direclty].

                      Oh, that comes from the law also.


                      You are correct. I missed that. Though they were not adopted per se, rather, they were now counted amongst the tribes as Reuben and Simeon.

                      I see "evil report", which is not uncommon.

                      It was very uncommon.

                      Anyway, the words used are "dee-buh-sum ruh-uh". The first word "dee-buh-sum" is the plural of the word "dee-buh". That word is used when the "spies" spoke about the land. They spoke "dee-buh", which means "bad things". They were severely punished for it, and the nation that accepted it was now to wander for fourty years. "dee-buh" is a very, very bad thing to do, the fact that it is pluralized by Joseph and the word "ruh-uh" is appended makes it even worse. Joseph did a bad thing there, and was punished for it appropriately.

                      David brough back reports of what his brothers were doing out in the fields all the time. If they were doing good, it was a good report. If they were doing evil, it was an evil report.

                      Tradition tells us that Joseph brought back exactly three "bad" reports. And he was punished for each.
                    • The convenant says (Genesis 15:13 through 15:16)

                      That explains it, I'm taking the promise from Genisis 12:1-3

                      1 NOW the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

                      2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

                      3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

                      That after all was the promise that Abraham was worried about after all. I notice that in verse 18 is the covenant spelled out as a covenant and says essentially the same thing as in chapter 12,

                      18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this bland, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

                      The extent of that promise has not been realized yet, I'll note. But your right, the prophesy is right there, in the middle of the cut animals that was fulfilled with the return of Israel. I just never associated that as "the" Abrahamic covenant. The other promises of the covenant, I see no reason why they are not in force.

                      G-d's does not show that he is with people with something as drastic as fire.

                      You say this after we are talking about the pillar of fire that lead the way out of Egypt, or represented the litteral presence of God to Moses. A agree though, the still small voice is how I hear God's voice, rather then see fires/etc...

                      I find the lesson of Elijah to be very interesting. Here we have someone who brought fire from the sky, to show Israel God was around, alive, awake, and in charge (as you mention). But when Israel doesn't come around, he gets discouraged and runs off to Sinai (remembering glory days gone by of Moses?)

                      When he gets there, he sees why such great events do not persuade. They don't persuade him. Then he hears a still small voice, and realizes or remembers that God's word has its own power, without the fireworks.

                      Moses's upheld arms were to get the people to look towards Heaven and pray to G-d.

                      Interesting take. I like it. It is mentioned as you say I think, but I don't have the reference. I still take it as the precurser to the Ark, which was a reminder of God's covenant to be with them and fight for them (as Moses prophesied at the Red Sea.) It all comes around.

                      They were prophesies by Moses.

                      No? The promised land was a prophecy by Moses? A prophecy from God's prophet is not a promise from God?

                      How? It was miracle during the Exodus, but how is it associated with returning to the land?

                      Here is where I give a sigh, as this was covered before. The journey starts with the parting of the Red Sea, and ends with the parting of Jordan.

                      Annointing is usually done by prophets. I don't recall concecration and sanctification being done only by priests.

                      Yeah? Temple santification and concecration was done by someone without the priesthood? That would be news to me.

                      Secondly, the other herdsman would not have bothered the daughters of the priest.

                      This could be true, but I find it a stretch. That well was not Jethro's, it was one of many wells dug for Bedoins going by as I saw it. I do not see that everyone had the same respect for priests in the Bible.

                      The Hebrew word for mediator is "maylitz"

                      Your avoiding something. What does "kahan" translate to then?

                      They never serviced Israel.

                      I'm not sure how you get this. Atonement is a two way servicing, no matter how you slice it. Also, these people needed these sacrifices to be performed for their own benefit, or needed to be cleansed from leprosy, etc... I think I'll need more background from you to see how these things do not service Israel.

                      You give interesting insight, but I think it gets quipped much to often.

                      But, nowadays, when there is no temple to service in, the Day of Atonement still atones, regardless of the lack of priestly service.

                      I'm not sure how this can happen either, or where the presidence is layed out.

                      Even though the pardon is specifically for the convicted, it is not called servicing him.

                      It does do service to the pardoned. It services their desires. Either that or I'm missing the distinction.

                      He did very little mediation or service there.

                      Oh but he did, the people complained to him, he then tells them what God wants. Then he talks to God, bringing the complaints which is why God which is not explicitly noted but alluded to in God's response "wherefore criest thou unto me?" and tells him what to do.

                      This pattern repeats when Israel complians to Moses about food and water later.

                      They spoke "dee-buh", which means "bad things".

                      So bad things as in murmuring (which is what I understand the spies did), lying, or just giving news about someone's bad behaviour?

                      It then is verb-ified as a commandment. Thus, "you shall not become more".

                      I appreciate the in-depth commantary on that verse. Thank you.

                    • But your right, the prophesy is right there, in the middle of the cut animals that was fulfilled with the return of Israel. I just never associated that as "the" Abrahamic covenant.

                      Since convenant is a promise associated with a physical event (commanded by G-d) that is the *only* convenant.

                      Well, not even true. The "convenant of Abraham" is a reference to circumcision. In fact, at a circumcision, the father makes a blessing about entering his son into the convenant of Abraham our father.

                      The other promises of the covenant, I see no reason why they are not in force.

                      The promises are still in effect. They just aren't a convenant.

                      You say this after we are talking about the pillar of fire that lead the way out of Egypt, or represented the litteral presence of God to Moses. A agree though, the still small voice is how I hear God's voice, rather then see fires/etc...

                      Yes, I do. Simply because G-d never uses fire when the main point is to show that he is with Israel. While the pillar of fire did show that, that was secondary to the main purpose of lighting the way. When G-d wants to do something specifically directed at "I am with you" it is done in a "soft voice".

                      But when Israel doesn't come around,

                      They did come around. They just didn't return to G-d and change their ways (a very hard thing to do). So, eventually, they drifted again.

                      he gets discouraged and runs off to Sinai (remembering glory days gone by of Moses?)

                      I have not reviewed this lately. Though, I do not believe that he was discouraged. Elijah was too great a person to do that. Tradition even tells us that he was Phineus (grandson of Aaron).

                      and realizes or remembers that God's word has its own power, without the fireworks.

                      Or that simply, when G-d shows that he is "with" you, it is done by a small voice. The other things were almost testing Elijah.

                      I still take it as the precurser to the Ark, which was a reminder of God's covenant to be with them and fight for them (as Moses prophesied at the Red Sea.)

                      The Ark was not the convenant. The actual convenant were the two sapphire tablets which had the Ten Commandments written on them. I wonder though, if the physical manifestation was Moses's mining them, or G-d's writing on them. Generally, the physical manifestation of convenants are carried out by human's, not G-d.

                      And, the prophesy of fighting for them, I believe was with the Egyptions, and not for generations. That is not to say that G-d didn't fight later on, just that the verse was not for generations.

                      The promised land was a prophecy by Moses?

                      At that point, yes. G-d promised many people about the land. It all means the same thing, but the difference is who makes it into a convenant.

                      A prophecy from God's prophet is not a promise from God?

                      No, it isn't. A prophesy can change (when not associated with a commanded physical action). A prophesy tells about the future. I am not sure that a promise can change.

                      Here is where I give a sigh, as this was covered before. The journey starts with the parting of the Red Sea, and ends with the parting of Jordan.

                      I just don't see it that way. Two events, forty years apart. I think it more coincidental that they split the sea.

                      The splitting when leaving Egypt was more miraclous. Traditions argue whether it was fifty or hundreds of miracles that happened by the sea. (See the Passover Hagadah.) Some even say they didn't go to the other side, that they just made a big "U", and that it's purpose was to be miraculous, and finish the Egyptians. The splitting when going into the land, however, was less miraculous, killed noone, and definitely got them to the other side. Completely coincidence. If you say splitting seas is more convenants, then how do you explain Elijah's splitting just before he left in the chariot of fire?

                      Temple santification and concecration was done by someone without the priesthood? That would be news to me.

                      I don't recall if it was required. On what do you base this requirement? Note, that the vessels were forged by non-priests.

                      I do not see that everyone had the same respect for priests in the Bible.

                      Check the story by Pharoah, and that he told Joseph that the priests have special rules.

                      Jethro was *the* priest of Midian, not just *a* priest. Religions such as theirs seemed to have one main priest, and he was treated with great respect.

                      Your avoiding something. What does "kahan" translate to then?

                      I addressed it directly*.
                      It is the translation. Also, Targum Oonk'liss (Aramaic translation G-d gave with the Bible orally, collected later by Oonk'liss) translates the word "chohayne" (same a kohayne) in Genesis 14:18 with the Aramaic word "mee-shah-mayshe", which means to service.
                      Atonement is a two way servicing, no matter how you slice it.

                      Atonement has a few steps, starting with repentance. It is all between man and G-d (unless a person was involved). It is one way, from man to G-d. Since G-d did say that the person has to pay for and lean on an animal brought as a sacrifice, the priest is brought into the equation. But the priest is not necessarily doing it because the person asked. He does it because G-d commanded them to. This is where the Talmud discusses whose messengers the priests are. But noone argues that the the priests do it because they are commanded to do it.

                      >>But, nowadays, when there is no temple to service in, the Day of Atonement still atones, regardless of the lack of priestly service.

                      I'm not sure how this can happen either, or where the presidence is layed out.


                      The precendence is a verse in Hosea 14:3. Which says to return to G-d with words, and to use lips for animal (sacrifice). Thus, words can do for sacrifices. Though sacrifices are required when availible.

                      It does do service to the pardoned. It services their desires. Either that or I'm missing the distinction.

                      It is a weak distinction. I was just saying that people don't say, "The President serviced the pardonned." He is said to have done his, "constitutional duties".

                      Then he talks to God, bringing the complaints which is why God which is not explicitly noted but alluded to in God's response "wherefore criest thou unto me?" and tells him what to do.

                      I think then he *prayed* to G-d, to which G-d replied that his prayers were not needed, since a miracle was about to happen. Thus He said, "stop praying and get moving".

                      This pattern repeats when Israel complians to Moses about food and water later.

                      Not really. By the and water, Moses asks about *himself* saying that the nation is to hard for him to bear alone.

                      So bad things as in murmuring (which is what I understand the spies did), lying, or just giving news about someone's bad behaviour?

                      The spies didn't murmur, or lie. The word for murmur, or rather, complain is "Vah-yee-loh-noo". That means, "and they complained", which is used by the multitude in the story about the water. They basically decided to complain. By the spies, they reported exactly what they saw, but included their own commentary on their abilities to take over the land. That is in a way maligning the land itself (besides doubting G-d's capabilities).

                      It was the same by Joseph. He saw what his brothers did, and offered negative commentary. No lies though. Joseph was much to great a person to lie, or to murmur.

                      I appreciate the in-depth commantary on that verse. Thank you.

                      You're most welcome. I so often want to talk, but rarley find anyone to listen. :-)

                      ====

                      * I can be such a jerk sometimes. I don't mean any of this personally. Please tell me if it bothers you how I argue.

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

Working...