that's the nice thing about opinions spidey - we are each allowed our own thinking on this, the only point i was making [to end this discussion] was that to me it seemed out of place as if it were plopped in their, if you are of the opinion it has purpose then for you it does, to me if it had been left out it would not have taken away from or interrupted the ongoing thoughts/words/ideas/being written, it serves no real purpose to the story to me besides the making of a later statement when written and no - when moses was writing this, it his take on marriage [at least for himself] which was not one of "many wives" - he had only one, as to the others maybe so but moses could see clearly that one wife was meant to be other wise he would not have made the statement to begin with if god had shown him different.

Opinions don't dictate reality, opinions are formed by observations of reality. Either I'm right or I'm wrong, I can't be both.

spidey:

Then you could have mentioned that there was another thread? Or clarified the situation in another way. It's just kind of annoying to have your entire post ignored because someone feels that you didn't do your required reading.


tribo:

well thats why i'm here spidey just to annoy you -

do you presume i started this thread just so "you" could answer it? i'll give you the answer to that - no.

your annoyed at something you had no need to respond to to begin with and then have an " i dare you" treat me this way attude with me?

if i'm looking for your personal in put spidey - will headline the post with your name ok? otherwise to take offence at my not remembering the other post just shows your usual contempt for anything you see as something you wouldn't yourself do. and thats ok - but i don't have to [as the poster of the questions] have to abide by your rules of what you deem is right.

Personally I think the term "mother" was used because these folks knew dam well what a mother was. Moses or whoever else was writing a story. They were well aware of motherhood. It had been viewed by humans for the past 30,000 years or so and was most assuredly encapsulated in their spirituality prior to the the arrival of the "new kid on the block" or Christianity. Dont be silly. The odd conceptualization at this point in history would have been a male god giving birth from the heavens. I'll stay out of it though.

Tribo,

I posted and you referred me to Eljay's post. I read Eljay's posts and responded back...only to find out that you were talking about a post Eljay made in a thread that you can't find and didn't mention. It's annoying that you didn't mention that. I'm not sure how you expect anyone to discuss the issue with you when you are going to refer back to a thread that even you can't find. How can I know what Eljay said? How can I respond to what you said in that thread? Do you see my point?

I assume that you started a thread so that people can discuss this issue. But you didn't include the necessary reference points for us to understand where you are coming from. Basically, you gave a small snippet of the conversation and expected everyone to post in context to the original conversation, which is obviously an impossible task for those who didn't read the previous thread.

For your points:

1) I didn't imply that you created the thread so I could respond to it. Strawman fallacy.
2) I'm annoyed that you created a thread and expected informed responses, but didn't state which thread we should refer back to or even suggest that there is another thread. Annoyed, like a fly buzzing around my head. I'm sure your next leap is to claim that I am angry, I'm not. It's annoying and that's it, okay?
3) Sarcasm is the refuge of the weak. You screwed up by posting a single question and no exposition so that those who try to answer your question can know the context of the question.

For Instance: You said "its very to see that it has no connection between toe afore mentioned verse orh the verse(s) after the statement". How was anyone to know what two verses you were talking about? I assumed it was the two that had been discussed in this thread, but no, it was two completely different verses posted in a different thread, which you still can't remember the name of. "afore mentioned" would mean...mentioned before, right? Don't you think it would have been smart to let people know when and where they were mentioned?

I truly hope that you can see that I'm simply trying to help you out here. What you did with this thread was confusing and annoying, at least to me. I tried to answer your question only to discover that there was a great deal of information needed to understand your actual question. Your thread would better fulfill your purpose if you do the research and find the thread in question to offer the reader a link.

no prob spidey, i didn't think my answer to MM's post would go beyond that, thus - no continued explanation. "IF" MM had brought it up i would have then gone into a more indepth look at what i meant ok? But in 2 days i heard nothing from him, so thus no reson to state anything esle on the matter - or atleast i saw no reason to. now you ask today and as we have both noted - i dont remeber the original thread where we were talking on this maybe eljay does if so then i will bring that subject back if you wish but i think it has been cleared up dont you? or at leat explained opinion wise anyway.

you can always contact me privately if it "annoys" you to clear up something if i can, don't hesitate. thnx spidey.

well of course you can spidey, you can most definitely be right about being wrong or definitely be wrong about being right, either way it remains an opinion.

What a beautifully elegant bit of sophistry. I love it!

well K, actually within the confines of the book this is really more of a spiritual matter in the sense that it refers to what god will be doing with the Israelites later in the story. his marriage to his bride, god and the Hebrew nation of those who show faith and trust in him, thus the story continues with all the nation playing harlot and being a bad wife and deserving to be punished and how merciful god is with her till they refuse the ultimate sacrifice Jesus makes and with that they are both destroyed and banished among the earth, they loose any hope of being the bride god wanted them to be. but that again raises the question of divorce? god ""did"" put asunder his unbelieving bride [the Israelites] and in doing so commits that which he states is not meant to be? does that mean god can't follow his own rules? and if he can't then how can anyone? now i'm sure spidey will say no those who were of faith were saved and they became his bride. to that i would ask was not the "whole nation" god's chosen bride? did he not release ALL from bondage to egypt? If only some were meant to be the bride then why not just free those he already knew would be faithful and avoid all the unnecessary murder of those who died in the wilderness and later on?

Correct me if Im wrong but the Jews do not believe that Christ was the true Messiah? Why cant it just be left alone? With a background of the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, genocide and numerous other programs and edicts of expulsion, let alone the Holocaust, it is not hard to understand why Jews in some cases might have a very ambivalent attitude towards Christianity.

exactly what are you sayining -"Why cant it just be left alone?"

leave what alone??

Why would god or the Christians need to do anything with the Israelites? What do you mean exactly by "bride" in your analogy?

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.-Thats my favorite.

3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

well you have some interesting questions - some of which I'm not prepared to answer off the top of my head but - I'll answer what i can right now OK?

K:

Why would god or the Christians need to do anything with the Israelites? What do you mean exactly by "bride" in your analogy?

TRIBO:

personally, right off the bat, i will say i don't know "WHY" god had to do anything with the Israelites, all i can say is that throughout the old testament they are his chosen people and in various areas of the book referred to as his bride/wife for which they are scorned by the husband [god] over and over for playing the harlot[whore] prostitute, etc., for going after other gods.[ wealth, power, other nations ways of life ad nauseum. for this they are punished and killed on what seems a pretty regular basis the first ones to leave Egypt [that generation] did not enter the promised land because of mumbling and mumering agaist her husband [god]. this is the sense i mean as to them being his "bride" he chose them, they did not choose him. he tried to show his love and it was stepped on by them as the book says. they would have rather went back to their former lover/husband Egypt. than to die in the wilderness.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah,[or at least the majority don't] that's correct.

Jesus did not fulfill the totality of all the prophecy of the Jews - correct - what the Jews did not see is that there were 2 stages [faces] to the prophecy, they were and had always been expecting the savior king who would come and free them from their oppressors [whomever that may have been at the time] they saw the earthly warrior/ruler face of the messiah. but other prophecy pointed to the lamb of god the one who would free them from all tirrany by offering himself up as the highest sacrifice so that they could attain eternal life. they did not see this face of the suffering messiah, only the conquering king coming in a political way to free them from strife on earth. thus they still believe today, till the fullness of the gentiles [his new bride by default and the jews that will believe in jesus and be grafted back in as paul ststes] is completed then they [the non believing Jews] will see in his 2nd coming that which they have waited so long for. or so the story goes.

what is your understanding on what the "personal qualifications" of the Messiah are as to [the jews] their understanding and yours? what do you take as peronal qualifications?

K:

3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.


T:

i dont have enough to go on to attempt to answer these can you give further meaning to what you write here?

It was after the fall....

Tribo, I dont either and I don't feel qualified to speak of the Israelite at all. Thanks for trying. I actually thought you two were speaking of something other than what you were because I didn't really catch on that "bride" was an analogy of sorts. I took it literally thus my mother comment. Im stepping back. This thread has done like a 180.

2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.-Thats my favorite.

I just meant it sounded funny the way it was worded. As if Jesus Christ simply did not fill all of the job requirements that the Jews felt were indispensable. Its actually true at least based on what they felt the real Messiah should have been exactly. They were rather picky in what they wanted.

well hello ferralpussie, how are you today?

are you talking of rome's fall? or the season were entering? or someone tripping? looking forward to christmas are we? -

or by chance is this a word from god that my human understanding without the HS cannot yet percieve?

ok here's my answer:

the night was young. - your turn

Yes. That is the process to determine if the conclusion is based on context - rather than pretext. The text is pretty much silent on the matter - so it is hard to argue the presumption of what the possibilities are - unless they run contrary to an accepted context that is related, but not referenced by the original question.

Interpreting plot and theme, as well as consistancy of character and dialog tends to follow the same set of criteria. For instance, an actor may chose to use a southern accent in a period piece from New England - but it will be assumed by those viewing - that they are not a native, or that a considerable amount of time has been spent down south. It is what the context of the script would bare out. Else - you'll have a lot of confused viewers if you expect them to accept that the character is supposed to be a native.

yep, thats true their still picky -

its not that he wont fulfill all the requirements its that he did not do it all at once, they were not expecting 2 stages of his appearence only the conquering king, they did not see the first part which was the suffering atoning messiah. still dont for the most part. of course i'm talking traditional theology of a myth here - who knows if any is true.

I would assume that Adm and Eve had sexual relations more often than what is depicted in the bible but as I stated, what does that matter? As a story it really would not be an important or critical plot point. We can naturally assume that they would have been intimate with one another based on the circumstances. However, from the perspective of someone who believes in this and takes it literally and to be truth and factual, wouldn't you mainly just be concerned with whether or not Eve gave birth and became pregnant by Adam? I mean what is the significance of them getting jiggy with one another beyond that? We have to already assume that Yahweh had designed Eve in such a manner that sex would be pleasurable for her based on what I mentioned in my first post. Male sexuality is bound up in reproduction because you can not climax without that being involved. A woman on the other hand is not restricted by that. The functions are not mutually inseparable. In fact, sadly, in some African nations this is part of the reason why the bodies of young girls can be mutilated.

Tribo;

In terms of the structural literary features, it is verse 23 which is plopped in there. If I were to script chapter 2 of Genesis - it would be a narrative until verse 23 - which would be a cut to an actor saying the quote - then, beck to the narrative. This does not change the fact that verse 24, or the entire narrative for that matter - is not there for the intention of the reader. I believe that Genesis is written from this perspective until it catches up to Moses and what would have been his present day.

Oddly enough - I don't see you and Spider saying anything that isn't consistant with the theme of the text. Just sort of saying the same thing fem two different perspectives.