Re: The Erotica in the Song of Solomon
Libertarius
Weatherwax wrote:
> I have often commented on the song of praise in verses 7:1-6.
>
> Below is the NET Bible translation of the passage:
>
> Song of Solomon 7:1-6
>
> How beautiful are your sandaled feet,
> O nobleman's daughter!
>
> The curves of your thighs are like jewels,
> the work of the hands of a master craftsman.
>
> Your "navel" is a round mixing bowl-
> may it never lack mixed wine!
>
> Your belly is a mound of wheat,
> encircled by lilies.
>
> Your two breasts are like two fawns,
> twins of a gazelle.
>
> Your neck is like a tower made of ivory.
> Your eyes are the pools in Heshbon
> by the gate of Bath-Rabbin.
>
> Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon
> overlooking Damascus.
>
> Your head crowns you like Mount Carmel.
> The locks of your hair are like royal tapestries-
> the king is held captive in its tresses!
>
> How beautiful you are! How lovely,
> O love, with your delights!
> http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
>
> The poem begins by commenting on the woman's feet. It next goes
> to the theighs, and continues up to the locks of hair. But why
> does the author praise both the "navel" and the "belly"?
>
> The problem is that the word "shorer" (Strong's #08326) is of
> uncertain meaning. A better translation, supported by several
> authorities, may be "vulva". This would fit with the ascending
> order, and to its description as a round bowl containing mixed
> wine.
===>Apparently the Anchor Bible
translates SHORER as "vulva."
It is the only way the sequence makes sense.
Also, have you seen Ariel and Chana Bloch's
translation?
Here is an Editorial Reviews from AMAZON.COM
Ariel and Chana Bloch's new translation of the Song of Songs--
the most sexually explicit and sensually rich book of the Bible--
is pure delight from beginning to end. Its introduction is an
accessible,
sophisticated, entertaining, and comprehensive orientation to the
literary
and religious history of the Song of Songs. The Blochs say the speakers
in this poem "don't suffer love, they savor it." Their translation,
overflowing with full--almost to the point of florid--feeling
("Feast, friends, and drink / till you are drunk with love!"),
arrives at a time when many Jews and Christians are opening themselves
to the religious dimensions of sexuality and human love. Song of Songs
has a
great deal to teach us; this translation is sure to attract many eager
students.
--Michael Joseph Gross
As I discovered many years ago, you can prove practically anything from
the Bible, especially if you believe it is "the Word of God".
E.g. oral sex is quite biblical! ;-) -- L.
Weatherwax
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
I have seen very good reviews on Block's translation, but I do
not have it.
The use of "vulva" in verse 7:2 also brings up an interesting use
of wine in the Bible
Song of Songs 7:2
Your "navel" is a round mixing bowl-
may it never lack mixed wine!
I have already commented on how the reference to wine in 8:2
indicates that the woman wanted the man to nurse at her breast:
Song of Songs 8:2
I would give you spiced wine to drink,
the nectar of my pomegranates
In Song of Songs, and the Old Testament, wine is an aphrodisiac.
Some of the other uses of wine in the Song include:
Song of Songs 1:4
We will rejoice and delight in you;
we will praise your love more than wine.
Song of Songs 4:10
How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
How much better is your love than wine;
Song of Songs 5:1
I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride;
I have gathered my myrrh with my balsam spice.
I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey;
I have drunk my wine and my milk!
And there are several references to vineyards and vines. In
these verses the vineyards often represent the ripening or
blossoming bodies of the young lovers:
Song of Songs 1:6
My brothers were angry with me;
they made me the keeper of the vineyard.
Alas, my own "vineyard" I could not keep!
Song of Songs 2:13
The fig tree has budded,
the vines have blossomed and give off their fragrance.
Arise, my darling;
my beautiful one, come away with me!"
Song of Songs 2:15
Catch the foxes for us,
the little foxes,
that ruin the vineyards-
for our vineyard is in bloom.
Song of Songs 7:12
Let us rise early to go to the vineyards,
to see if the vines have budded,
to see if their blossoms have opened,
if the pomegranates are in bloom-
there I will give you my love.
The Bible often uses wine as an aphrodisiac. The daughters of
Lot used wine to get their father drunk so that he would sleep
with them (Genesis 19:30-38.)
In 2 Samuel 11, David commits adultery with Bathsheba. When she
becomes pregnant, David recalls her husband, Uriah, back from the
front so that Uriah would sleep with her and think that it was
his child. When Uriah did not sleep with his wife, David got
Uriah drunk. This was to arouse Uriah's passion, but it failed.
So David had Uriah killed.
According to 9:20, Noah was the first to plant a vineyard. The
story goes on to say that Noah got drunk and uncovered himself
inside his tent, then Ham entered and saw Noah's nakedness.
The story has puzzeled to numerous readers. Why does the author
portray Noah as a drunk? What atrocity did Ham do when he saw
Noah naked? Why did Noah curse Canaan, the son of Ham, instead
of Ham himself?
According to Rabbi H. Hirsch Cohen, ("The Drunkeness of Noah",
University of Alabama Press) the answer to these questions are
found in the first line of the Chapter:
Genesis 9:1
Then God blessed Noah and his sons and said to
them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth."
The command was given to all of them. Did God give Noah a
command he could not carry out because of his age? Or did Noah
refuse to obey the command? Neither, Noah did the best he could
to obey. He drank wine to arouse his sexual passion. Then he
went into his tent where his wife would be waiting. Ham's
interrouption prevented the plan from working. It is now only
logical that because Ham had destroyed Noah's future posterity,
that Noah would curse Ham's offspring.
--
Wax
Bob Crowley
Well, if the Flood story is correct, Noah has gone from seeing a lush
verdant world full of life to one initially of muddy lifelessness, one
family only surviving, all his former friends and relatives dead, and
now he has to start all over again. I think if I were in that
position, I might be tempted to try to forget it all with the help of
a potent liquer. I mean all he has to talk to is his wife, and if she
nagged, boy what a life!
And the bit about Ham seems false, since Noah didn't even find out
about it until he woke up. Seondly how much notice do you take of a
drunk's curse. Or was it a convenient excuse to use African natives
for slaves and exploit them?
Bob Crowley.
Weatherwax
"Bob Crowley" <bobcr...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
> "Weatherwax" <weath...@worldnet.net> wrote in
< CLIP >
Your scenario ignores the command God gave to be fruitful and
multiply. Noah had to at least attempt to obey it.
I did not go into the concept, but in many ancient cultures,
including Semitic cultures, it is believed that a person aquires
some of the essence of what he sees. Therefore, nobody was
permitted to see the face of God. Only the high priest could
enter the Holy of Holies. And seeing somebody's nakedness robbed
the person of his potency.
To the Hebrews, the story was a convient excuse to use Canaanites
as slaves (9:26-27.) Christians decided that Ham was the
ancestor of the black race, and therefore they could be used as
slaves. Isn't it wonderful how religion can justify the worse
crimes?
--
Wax
Bob Crowley
I ignored it because I did not really think it relevant to the
business about Noah's being drunk. However the command is no
different from that given to Adam and Eve. Since the story was
written long after the "event", then by that time slavery would have
been a well established fact. And the command would have been given
to the whole family, not just Noah. He did have three sons who had
wives, as I read the record.
>
> I did not go into the concept, but in many ancient cultures,
> including Semitic cultures, it is believed that a person aquires
> some of the essence of what he sees. Therefore, nobody was
> permitted to see the face of God. Only the high priest could
> enter the Holy of Holies. And seeing somebody's nakedness robbed
> the person of his potency.
>
> To the Hebrews, the story was a convient excuse to use Canaanites
> as slaves (9:26-27.) Christians decided that Ham was the
> ancestor of the black race, and therefore they could be used as
> slaves. Isn't it wonderful how religion can justify the worse
> crimes?
Correct, and the aparthied policy in South Africa was based in some
part on just this Biblical story. Africans were seen as inferior, as
under the above curse, as they were supposed to be the descendants of
Ham, whereas the Semites came from Shem, and the rest (I assume) from
the third. Therefore slavery, exploitation and division were
acceptable in God's eyes, so they taught. It was particularly notable
in the Dutch Reformed Church, and Nelson Mandela wrote that for the
Afrikaaner, the Church and aparthied were inseparable.
However atheist idealism can also be used to justify the worst crimes
eg. the gulags in Soviet times, and the North Korean example today,
where a corrupt regime can use completely atheistic ideology to
suppress their own people, supposedly for the sake of the people (eg.
Christ's "you know how it is, how the rulers lord it over the people,
and call themselves the 'friends of the people' . But that is not how
it is to be with you." - approximate quote).
The problem is MAN, not religion or any other 'ism'. Knives are tools
used to cut things. That can also include throats. The knife is
neutral. It is the user's INTENTION that is the crux of the matter.
Bob Crowley
Weatherwax
The point is that the command was given to Noah along with the
rest of the family. Why would it be given to him if he would not
be able to obey it? If he was able to obey it, why didn't he?
You are equating Marxist socialism with atheism. It is true that
Marxism is atheistic, but Marxism also contained numerous dogmas
and beliefs which made it analytically the same as a religion.
The followers of Marx recite his words with the same religious
intensity and sincerity as Pat Robertson recites the Bible.
Atheism itself is nothing more than the belief that there is no
god. It is not a social or political philosophy.
>
> The problem is MAN, not religion or any other 'ism'.
> Knives are tools used to cut things. That can also include
> throats. The knife is neutral. It is the user's INTENTION
> that is the crux of the matter.
Religion is not neutral. It is a powerful force which can drive
a person to use a knife to cut a throat.
--
Wax
Thomas P.
Crowley) wrote:
snip
>
>Correct, and the aparthied policy in South Africa was based in some
>part on just this Biblical story. Africans were seen as inferior, as
>under the above curse, as they were supposed to be the descendants of
>Ham, whereas the Semites came from Shem, and the rest (I assume) from
>the third. Therefore slavery, exploitation and division were
>acceptable in God's eyes, so they taught. It was particularly notable
>in the Dutch Reformed Church, and Nelson Mandela wrote that for the
>Afrikaaner, the Church and aparthied were inseparable.
>
>However atheist idealism can also be used to justify the worst crimes
>eg. the gulags in Soviet times, and the North Korean example today,
>where a corrupt regime can use completely atheistic ideology to
>suppress their own people,
There is no such thing as an atheist ideology.
> supposedly for the sake of the people (eg.
>Christ's "you know how it is, how the rulers lord it over the people,
>and call themselves the 'friends of the people' . But that is not how
>it is to be with you." - approximate quote).
>
>The problem is MAN, not religion or any other 'ism'. Knives are tools
>used to cut things. That can also include throats. The knife is
>neutral. It is the user's INTENTION that is the crux of the matter.
And an ideology is used to justify actions. A religious ideology is
particulary powerful as a justification, since it is considered sinful
to oppose it.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Your Name Here=Harvey
weath...@worldnet.net says...
The problem with religion - is that it was distorted a very long
time ago, and now we are discussing it after the fact.
There are other noah stories from other cultures - so, are they
describing the same person - probably not, due to geographical
differences/etc.
The bible is not 100% accurate or true, so why treat the words as
such?
I surmise that the bible is simply an illustrative story to illustrate
religious ideals, etc. They didn't have television or a newspaper
in those days, etc - no media or multimedia - but they did have
story telling, which is how Genesis comes down to us.
And there has been the notion put forward, that information is still
contained within the stories of the bible, encoded such that it will
survive any distortions along the way - because it is storytelling.
Well, this was put forward as regards to native legends of the
American Indians, which seems to be similar to other stories of other
native cultures, that all of them using figurative language to
describe events and concepts.
That they were started - knowing that to survive the centuries
delivering an important message, they have to be a story within a
story.
Religion is distorted because of the power structure it sets up and
tries to maintain.
In no particular order:
They have to have material to feed the masses, they want an
'establishment' in control - themselves - the church, clergy, etc.
They seek to maintain 'control' and set themselves up as an authority
on all matters metaphysical - yes, burn the witches, etc to get rid
of any opposition and alternate views.
History has shown the above to be correct.
'They' however will reinvent themselves (to retain control) and cover
their tracks (burning alternate early versions of the bible, they
disagree with - and editing the bible to suit themselves) - and
deny everything of the above, making themselves seem to be clean
and pure as the undriven snow.
The true nature of religion -
is to unite people the world over - to live in harmony and peace with
each other, via good morals.
The matter of life and death - is simple and straighforward -
there is an afterlife, and we all go to it, in our own good time.
No matter what we believe in.
The reasons why this has been distorted, has been because religion
has sought power and control over the people, it says it serves -
wherein fact religion had it's own agenda all along.
To control the people.
The reality of what the early church was like, would most probably
shock everyone today.
That women were regarded as second class citizens - that sex with
women was regarded as dirty and unclean. That most probably the church
was run by homosexuals - in light of the above, sentences - the
environment was there, for homosexuality to thrive.
I don't have any evidence for this, but given the environment of
those times - this is not so far fetched.
Harvey
Weatherwax
"Your Name Here=Harvey" <y...@somewhere.not.aus> wrote
>
>
> The problem with religion - is that it was distorted a very
long
> time ago, and now we are discussing it after the fact.
I hope that you are not thinking that I'm claiming that the flood
story is true. All that I am doing is looking at it from a
literary standpoint. The author was telling a story. The
"drunkeness of Noah" had troubled numerous readers. Therefore I
submitted an explanation of what the author may have had in mind
when he wrote about it.
Sometimes I believe that I am the only person who enjoys reading
the Bible just for its literature.
How does that differ from the church today?
You have made several excellent points. Unfortunately there are
too many to respond to.
--
Wax
Weatherwax
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote in
>
> And an ideology is used to justify actions. A religious
> ideology is particulary powerful as a justification, since it
is
> considered sinful
In the words of Blaise Pascal:
Men never do evil so completely
and cheerfully as when they do it
from religious conviction.
--
Wax
Your Name Here=Harvey
weath...@worldnet.net says...
>
>
>
>"Your Name Here=Harvey" <y...@somewhere.not.aus> wrote
>>
>>
>> The problem with religion - is that it was distorted a very
>long
>> time ago, and now we are discussing it after the fact.
>
>I hope that you are not thinking that I'm claiming that the flood
>story is true. All that I am doing is looking at it from a
>literary standpoint. The author was telling a story. The
>"drunkeness of Noah" had troubled numerous readers. Therefore I
>submitted an explanation of what the author may have had in mind
>when he wrote about it.
>
>Sometimes I believe that I am the only person who enjoys reading
>the Bible just for its literature.
>
I have nothing to disagree with reading the bible as literature,
which it is.
And I see nothing wrong with picking at the details in it.
It is those 'others' who treat as the bible as 'holy' and infallible,
etc, whom I think are misled.
I would suggest analysing the bible from all manner of views
and disciplines, that much can be learnt from such analysis.
Exactly yes.
>
>You have made several excellent points. Unfortunately there are
>too many to respond to.
>
>--
>Wax
>
>
There are so many points to discuss in the matter of religion and
the bible, etc. The actual history of what actually happened, as
regards the history of the christian church, and the history of the
bible --- reveals much about them.
And the many points I raised - do affect, have affected christianity
and religion.
Harvey
Bob Crowley
enforce (not that there "is a god" makes much difference as far as
mankind is concerned), in the sense that there is now no ultimate
arbiter of right and wrong. Therefore whatever the majority or power
clique has in mind will become the new idealism.
That there was "no god" meant that the Bolsheviks (I prefer that term)
believed they could more or less treat "opponents" any way they liked,
including murdering 15000 Polish officers during the early stages of
World War II for example.
It may seem beneficial for a while, but sooner or later the real
colours of humanity come out.
> The problem is MAN, not religion or any other 'ism'.
> > Knives are tools used to cut things. That can also include
> > throats. The knife is neutral. It is the user's INTENTION
> > that is the crux of the matter.
>
> Religion is not neutral. It is a powerful force which can drive
> a person to use a knife to cut a throat.
Money is not neutral in that case. Watch what some people do for
money. Nor is sex, or power, or ambition, or marketing, or sales (eg.
arms sales), or intellectual pride, or philosophy (eg. Peter Singer),
or the press, or politics, or economics, or music ....
Bob Crowley
Thomas P.
Crowley) wrote:
>"Weatherwax" <weath...@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<ZCbkc.2743$Xj6....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
snip
>> Atheism itself is nothing more than the belief that there is no
>> god. It is not a social or political philosophy.
>>
>Yes, but the fact there is "no god" makes morality much harder to
>enforce
That would be an assertion. Do you have any data?
(not that there "is a god" makes much difference as far as
>mankind is concerned), in the sense that there is now no ultimate
>arbiter of right and wrong. Therefore whatever the majority or power
>clique has in mind will become the new idealism.
That is always the way it is.
>
>That there was "no god" meant that the Bolsheviks (I prefer that term)
>believed they could more or less treat "opponents" any way they liked,
>including murdering 15000 Polish officers during the early stages of
>World War II for example.
How did self-declared Christian armies act differently? People were
killed as a means of gaining or maintianing power. It was done by
people who believed and who didn't believe in any god. Atheism was
never a justification, but religion has often been.
>
>It may seem beneficial for a while, but sooner or later the real
>colours of humanity come out.
Whether a person is an atheist or a theist that would be true. I,
however, see no reason to believe that men are inherently evil or
good.
snip
Weatherwax
If the purpose of religion is to enforce morality, then it fails.
As Blaise Pascal himself said:
Men never do evil so completely
and cheerfully as when they do it
from religious conviction.
Abraham was willing to murder his own child because God told him
to. Is that morality?
Do you realize that Hitler used religious arguments to justify
the extermination of Jews?
The Bible has been used to support wars, slavery, dictatorships,
and racism. Women have been dehumanized. Gays and Lesbians have
been villianized. And act of hatred have been sanctified.
> > The problem is MAN, not religion or any other 'ism'.
> > > Knives are tools used to cut things. That can also include
> > > throats. The knife is neutral. It is the user's INTENTION
> > > that is the crux of the matter.
> >
> > Religion is not neutral. It is a powerful force which can
drive
> > a person to use a knife to cut a throat.
>
> Money is not neutral in that case. Watch what some
> people do for money. Nor is sex, or power, or ambition,
> or marketing, or sales (eg. arms sales), or intellectual pride,
> or philosophy (eg. Peter Singer), or the press, or politics,
> or economics, or music ....
But religion is the only force which has the power to make the
act appear moral.
--
Wax
Bob Crowley
Christ himself warned us about this when he said (Matthew 7: 21 - 23)
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord', will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On
that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your
name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in
your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away
from me, you evil-doers'".
And of course, there was another warning about "wolves in sheep's
clothing" and "I am sending you out as sheep among wolves".
So Christ knew that actions would be done in His name that would give
Him a bad name. He took the risk, but He also warned us that those
who do these things will be condemned, not rewarded. We can all
probably name some historical figures and institutions who fall into
this category, but we would probably be worried if we could see how
often we fall into this category ourselves.
The problem is still MAN, not "religion".
Bob Crowley.
John Smith
Isn't it possible that Noah was pissed because he assumed Ham was coming
into Noah's tent expecting to hook up with Noah's wife, but instead
found Noah. This from the philosophy of save a marriage, call ahead
before coming home.
JS
John Smith
>>To the Hebrews, the story was a convient excuse to use Canaanites
>>as slaves (9:26-27.) Christians decided that Ham was the
>>ancestor of the black race, and therefore they could be used as
>>slaves. Isn't it wonderful how religion can justify the worse
>>crimes?
>
> Correct, and the aparthied policy in South Africa was based in some
> part on just this Biblical story. Africans were seen as inferior, as
> under the above curse, as they were supposed to be the descendants of
> Ham, whereas the Semites came from Shem, and the rest (I assume) from
> the third. Therefore slavery, exploitation and division were
> acceptable in God's eyes, so they taught. It was particularly notable
> in the Dutch Reformed Church, and Nelson Mandela wrote that for the
> Afrikaaner, the Church and aparthied were inseparable.
The teaching of slavery using the Noah/Ham story as support for
apartheid was a tool of people who were not Hebrews, but were
christians. It seems clear how the christians decided to use Ham and
his son as excuses for slavery.
What isn't clear is how the Noah/Ham story suggests that the Hebrews
used it to support slavery?
JS
Weatherwax
"Bob Crowley" <bobcr...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.04050...@posting.google.com...
> "Weatherwax" <weath...@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:<4Cikc.2482$Ut1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > "Thomas P." <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote in
> > >
> > > And an ideology is used to justify actions. A religious
> > > ideology is particulary powerful as a justification, since
> > > it is considered sinful
> >
> > In the words of Blaise Pascal:
> >
> > Men never do evil so completely
> > and cheerfully as when they do it
> > from religious conviction.
>
> Christ himself warned us about this when he said
> (Matthew 7: 21 - 23) "Not everyone who says to
> me, 'Lord, Lord', will enter the kingdom of
> heaven, but only the one who does the will of my
> Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me,
> 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name,
> and cast out demons in your name, and do many
> deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare
> to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you
> evil-doers'".
But that only applies to the other person. It certainly does not
apply to you, because you know the truth. Unfortunately, that is
the way every Christian look at it.
> And of course, there was another warning about
> "wolves in sheep's clothing" and "I am sending you
> out as sheep among wolves".
>
> So Christ knew that actions would be done in His
> name that would give Him a bad name. He took the
> risk, but He also warned us that those who do these
> things will be condemned, not rewarded. We can all
> probably name some historical figures and institutions
> who fall into this category, but we would probably
> be worried if we could see how often we fall into this
> category ourselves.
>
> The problem is still MAN, not "religion".
Unfortunately, Christian have interpreted that to mean that
anybody who does not believe in the truth (as you do) is your
enemy. The greater danger would be that this "wolf in sheep
clothing" will corrupt your children and neighbors. Therefore
he must be disposed of immediately.
--
Wax
Will you speak falsely for God,
and speak deceitfully for him?
Job 13:7
Thomas P.
wrote:
>"Weatherwax" <weath...@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<4Cikc.2482$Ut1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
The problem is man-made religion, which is claimed to have a divine
origin. It has been used and is still being used to justify the
suppression and killing of others. The victimization of pagans, Jews,
Moslems, other Christian sects, women, children, homosexuals etc. has
all been justified and even required by some interpretation of some
Christian teaching. Dogma is inherently evil.
Weatherwax
"John Smith" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
>
> The teaching of slavery using the Noah/Ham story as
> support for apartheid was a tool of people who were
> not Hebrews, but were christians. It seems clear how
> the christians decided to use Ham and his son as
> excuses for slavery.
>
> What isn't clear is how the Noah/Ham story suggests
> that the Hebrews used it to support slavery?
I don't know how this topic got away from the Song of Songs, but
at least I get to point out one of the poetic passages in
Genesis.
Genesis 9:25-27
Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
he will be to his brothers."
Worthy of praise is the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem!
May God enlarge Japheth's territory and numbers!
May he live in the tents of Shem
and may Canaan be his slave!"
The Bible often uses the term "Canaanite" generally to refer to
any of the non-Israelite inhabitants of the land. Numerous
passages in the Old Testament reveals that these Canaanites were
used as slaves:
In Joshua 9 the Gibionites were made to serve God and the
Israelites:
Joshua 9:27
"and Joshua made them in that day woodcutters
and water carriers for the community, and for the
altar of the LORD to this day at the place which he
chooses.
King Solomon is recorded as having made other Canaanites into
slaves:
1 Kings 9:20-21
9:20 Now several non-Israelite peoples were left in
the land after the conquest of Joshua, including the
Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.
9:21 Their descendants remained in the land (the
Israelites were unable to wipe them out). Solomon
conscripted them for his work crews, and they
continue in that role to this very day.
--
Wax
Weatherwax
> have a divine origin. It has been used and is still being
> used to justify the suppression and killing of others. The
> victimization of pagans, Jews, Moslems, other Christian
> sects, women, children, homosexuals etc. has all been
> justified and even required by some interpretation of
> some Christian teaching. Dogma is inherently evil.
> Thomas P.
That is why we must destroy all the heretics so that we may live
in peace and love under the one true and God given religion. And
we all know which religion that is.
--
Wax
John Smith
> I don't know how this topic got away from the Song of Songs, but
> at least I get to point out one of the poetic passages in
> Genesis.
>
> Genesis 9:25-27
>
> Cursed be Canaan!
> The lowest of slaves
> he will be to his brothers."
>
> Worthy of praise is the LORD, the God of Shem!
> May Canaan be the slave of Shem!
>
> May God enlarge Japheth's territory and numbers!
> May he live in the tents of Shem
> and may Canaan be his slave!"
So, I've got to wonder if slaves in the time of genesis scripture has
the same meaning as slave in contemporary meaning.
Maybe slavery in the time of the genesis scripture was just reference to
a group of people working in what we would now refer to as blue collar
jobs (in the USA). Somebody's got to do the work of building and
cleaning and repairing, tilling and planting and harvesting.
Maybe this has nothing to do with the current meaning of slavery.
JS
Weatherwax
> scripture has the same meaning as slave in contemporary
> meaning.
>
> Maybe slavery in the time of the genesis scripture was
> just reference to a group of people working in what we
> would now refer to as blue collar jobs (in the USA).
> Somebody's got to do the work of building and
> cleaning and repairing, tilling and planting and harvesting.
>
> Maybe this has nothing to do with the current meaning
> of slavery.
It was slavery. Some translations try to cover it up by calling
them "servants". Or people will try telling you that they were
merely "indentured servants". But they were slaves.
Slaves were bought and sold just as they were in other civilized
nations:
Leviticus 25:44-
25:44 "'As for your male and female slaves who
may belong to you-you may buy male and female
slaves from the nations all around you.80 25:45
Also you may buy slaves from the children of
the foreigners who reside with you, and from their
families that are with you, whom they have fathered
in your land, they may become your property. 25:46
You may give them as inheritance to your children
after you to possess as property. You may enslave
them perpetually. However, as for your brothers the
Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly.
Many slaves came from prisoners of war. However, men captives
were too hard to handle, therefore they would be killed and the
women and children would be kept:
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
20:10 When you approach a city to wage war against
it, offer it terms of peace. 20:11 If it accepts them and
submits to you, all the people found in it will become
compulsory servants to you. 20:12 But if they do not
accept terms of peace but make war with you, then
you are to lay siege against their city. 20:13 The Lord
your God will deliver it over to you and you must kill
every single male by the sword. 20:14 However, the
women, little children, cattle, and anything else in the
city-all its plunder-you may take as your booty.
You may appropriate the spoils of your enemies that
the Lord your God has given you.
Indentured servants were different from ordinary slaves, although
the same word is used for them. A Hebrew could not be made into
a slave. However, sometimes a person would go into debt and sell
himself as an indentured servant. This would last for six years
and he would then go free. However, if his master was an asshole
and would not allow him to take his wife and children with him,
he would have to remain a slave in order to be with his family:
Exodus 21:22
21:22 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you
for six years, but in the seventh year he will go out free
without paying anything. 21:3 If he came in by himself
he will go out by himself; if he had a wife when he
comes in, then his wife will go out with him. 21:4 If his
master gave him a wife, and she bore sons or daughters,
the wife and the children will belong to her master, and
he will go out by himself. 21:5 But if the servant should
declare, 'I love my master, and my wife, and my
children; I will not go out free,' 21:6 then his master
will bring him to the judges, and he will bring him to
the door, or the doorposts, and his master will bore
through his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him
forever.
--
Wax
Bob Crowley
It applies to the reader and hearer just as much as the "other
person". It is a warning, not to assume one's salvation. However
human nature being what it is, with "one bunch of sinners pretty much
the same as the next" according to somebody I knew, we find it a lot
easier to find the splinter in the next bloke's eye than the log in
our own. So you are correct, but if I were you I would not generalise
about "every Christian".
I could show you a case personally where I believe a man thinks
everybody else is wrong unless they agreed with his personal theology,
and he's quite prepared to deliberately ruin lives in the process.
But if I did so, I would in fact be qualifying myself for the same
charge.
In other words, Christians have the same poor (terrible) basic human
nature as the rest of us. Old habits like gossip, criticism,
condemnation die hard. And for some reason we seem to be designed to
be rather rigid when it comes to life beliefs. So rather than
practising brotherly love in Northern Ireland, SOME Catholics and SOME
Protestants kill and persecute each other over their interpretations
of Christ's teachings. God's Judgement is waiting for them.
On the other hand, if we think something is true (whatever it may be),
we are expected to stick up for it. If you, for example (I assume you
are an atheist) were to be held hostage by a terrorist outfit, and
told that if you did not recant as an atheist and convert to their
religion, they would torture and kill you, God will hold you in more
esteem if you stick to your atheist convictions (faith) than if you
recant out of fear and self preservation. He will expect you to live
by what you believe to be true.
Bob Crowley.