"TESTICLES' well in hand.....!!!!
pla...@iamerica.net
'TESTICLES' & 'TESTAMENTS'
It was customary in Biblical times
for males to seal a contract or agreement
by CLUTCHING and GRASPING each
other's testicles.
The first 'testament' occurs
when "...Abraham said unto his eldest
servant of his house, that ruled
over all that hehad, Put, I pray
thee, thy hand under my thigh:"
(Genesis 24:2), and "...the
servant put his hand under the thigh
of Abraham his master, and sware to him
concerning that matter."(Genesis 24:9--
--The Hebrew word 'yarek' translated
'thigh', means 'testicles'). This 'matter'
was about finding an appropriate wife for
Isaac.
A second incident occurs between
Jacob and his uncle Laban when they
make a compact concerning Rachel and
Leah. The incident begins "Now
therefore come thou, let us make a
covenant, I and thou...And Jacob took a
stone, and set it up for a pillar...and they
took stones, and made an heap: and
they did eat there upon the heap...And
Laban said, This heap is a witness
between me and thee this day...if thou
shalt take other wives beside my
daughters...Behold this heap, and be-
hold this pillar, which I have cast betwixt me
and thee...And Jacob sware by the
fear of his father Isaac."(Genesis 31:44-53).
The Hebrew phrase 'pahad yishaq'
translated 'fear of his father', means 'father's
testicles'. The image of the upright
thrusting pillar, and the stones at it's base,
leave little to the imagination in any event.
The male reproductive organs were
held to be sacred by the Israelite God,
Yahweh, and altogether appropriate for
oath taking.
The testament was thereby considered
a sacred pact between the two
protagonists. In spite of which, the amoral
Jacob goes on to father "...sons of
Bilhah, and sons of Zilpah, his...(other)
wives..."(Genesis 37:2). In all, Jacob
fathers "All the souls...of his loins...were
threescore and six;"(Genesis 46:26); or
"...all the souls that came out of the
loins of Jacob were seventy souls..."(Exodus
1:5). Here, one can take their pick as
to how many children Jacob fathered.
Later, Jacob concludes another
'testament' in the incident "And the time
drew nigh that Israel must die: and he
called his son Joseph, and said unto him,
If now I have found grace in thy sight,
put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh,
and deal kindly and truly with me; bury
me not, I pray thee, in Egypt:"(Genesis
47:29).
Surely some of you readers have
wondered about the source of the word
'testament' in our English language?
Kinda makes one wonder about the
source of other English words such as 'hypocrisy',
'religion', 'dogma', 'Jesus Christ', 'priest',
'Easter', and so on, doesn't it?
Meanwhile, let's all continue to enjoy
and marvel over the contents of our
holy Bible...........certainly a GREAT book
by any measure.
Lee
<pla...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
news:381ab471...@news.iamerica.net...
>
> 'TESTICLES' & 'TESTAMENTS'
>
> It was customary in Biblical times
> for males to seal a contract or agreement
> by CLUTCHING and GRASPING each
> other's testicles.
Although it did happen, we don't have enough information to say it was
"customary," since it is only referenced twice in the Bible (Genesis 24:2,
9; and Genesis 47:29), both in contexts where the patriarch was near death
and was asking someone to carry out their will on a solemn oath. Apparently
it was culturally accepted, usually translated euphemistically as placing
the hand "under the thigh."
> The first 'testament' occurs
> when "...Abraham said unto his eldest
> servant of his house, that ruled
> over all that hehad, Put, I pray
> thee, thy hand under my thigh:"
> (Genesis 24:2), and "...the
> servant put his hand under the thigh
> of Abraham his master, and sware to him
> concerning that matter."(Genesis 24:9--
> --The Hebrew word 'yarek' translated
> 'thigh', means 'testicles'). This 'matter'
> was about finding an appropriate wife for
> Isaac.
No, actually the Hebrew word translated "thigh" means "thigh." A typical
usage occurs in Judges 3:21, where it says that Ehud "drew the sword from
his right thigh." To put the hand "under the thigh" was a figurative,
euphemistic way of telling someone to grasp the testicles and take an oath.
Further, I'm not sure how you are trying to bring the word "testament" into
it. Testament is an English word, carried over from Middle English which
borrowed it from Latin, and it is sometimes used to translate biblical words
for covenant or the final will of an individual. But Genesis was written in
Hebrew, not English, so why are you trying to make an issue of the
linguistic similarity between the English words "testament" and "testicles"?
That seems irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the historical meaning of
the passage. In the original Hebrew of this passage, there is no
etymological connection between the "oath" that Abraham asked his servant to
swear, and the euphemistic phrase "under the thigh." In other words, the
oath or covenant had no necessary connection to the practice of placing the
hand under the thigh. Covenants were often sealed in other ways, such as
making an animal sacrifice (see God's covenant with Abraham, Genesis 15).
The important thing was the content of the covenant or promise itself, not
the cultural practice used to ratify the covenant.
> A second incident occurs between
> Jacob and his uncle Laban when they
> make a compact concerning Rachel and
> Leah. The incident begins "Now
> therefore come thou, let us make a
> covenant, I and thou...And Jacob took a
> stone, and set it up for a pillar...and they
> took stones, and made an heap: and
> they did eat there upon the heap...And
> Laban said, This heap is a witness
> between me and thee this day...if thou
> shalt take other wives beside my
> daughters...Behold this heap, and be-
> hold this pillar, which I have cast betwixt me
> and thee...And Jacob sware by the
> fear of his father Isaac."(Genesis 31:44-53).
>
> The Hebrew phrase 'pahad yishaq'
> translated 'fear of his father', means 'father's
> testicles'. The image of the upright
> thrusting pillar, and the stones at it's base,
> leave little to the imagination in any event.
Actually, you've badly misunderstood this passage. First of all, the
context indicates your translation is impossible. How could Jacob take an
oath "by his father's testicles" if his father wasn't there? It was LABAN
that Jacob was dealing with; Isaac was back in the vicinity of Kiriath Arba
(Hebron). Secondly, although the Hebrew word pahad can mean thigh, there is
only one instance of this usage of the word cited in the Hebrew Bible,
according to Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, and that usage is in Job
40:17. That single usage of the word is thought to be a loan word from
Aramaic, and is so rarely used that it has no bearing on the meaning of this
passage. By an overwhelming usage count, the common meaning of pahad in
biblical Hebrew was "fear" or "dread." Nearly all translations, including
the one you've cited, translate the phrase as "the fear of his father
Isaac." And in this particular context, the "Fear of his father Isaac" is a
reference to God himself. In other words, Laban is saying, swear by the
fearsome God of your father Isaac.
> The male reproductive organs were
> held to be sacred by the Israelite God,
> Yahweh, and altogether appropriate for
> oath taking.
It is true that the Patriarchs in 2 instances ratified their final wills by
having someone place their hand under the thigh, but that was just a
cultural practice of the day, akin to our exchange of rings and vows in a
wedding ceremony. If God accomodated to the language and customs of the
people he was communicating with, as he did when ratified his covenant with
Abraham by means of an animal sacrifice in Genesis 15, what difference does
that make? What's your point?
> The testament was thereby considered
> a sacred pact between the two
> protagonists. In spite of which, the amoral
> Jacob goes on to father "...sons of
> Bilhah, and sons of Zilpah, his...(other)
> wives..."(Genesis 37:2). In all, Jacob
> fathers "All the souls...of his loins...were
> threescore and six;"(Genesis 46:26); or
> "...all the souls that came out of the
> loins of Jacob were seventy souls..."(Exodus
> 1:5). Here, one can take their pick as
> to how many children Jacob fathered.
Agreed, Jacob was often not an admirable character. But again, what's your
point? If the early accounts of the Patriarchs were simply mythical
fabrications designed to sustain faith in in idealistic but imaginary past,
surely they would have sugar-coated Jacob's flaws and made him out to be
more of a hero. But the Bible in no way downplays Jacob's shortcomings, and
a very significant part of the message of Genesis is that God's GRACE was
the basis for his covenant with Israel, not the merits of the patriarchs
themselves. You think that by highlighting Jacob's flaws you're somehow
undermining the Bible, but the Bible's very point is that Jacob WAS deeply
flawed, and in spite of that fact, God graciously upheld his covenant and
continued working through Jacob's line to further His redemptive plan.
> Later, Jacob concludes another
> 'testament' in the incident "And the time
> drew nigh that Israel must die: and he
> called his son Joseph, and said unto him,
> If now I have found grace in thy sight,
> put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh,
> and deal kindly and truly with me; bury
> me not, I pray thee, in Egypt:"(Genesis
> 47:29).
Yes, this is the second usage of this phrase in Genesis.
> Surely some of you readers have
> wondered about the source of the word
> 'testament' in our English language?
As a matter of fact, it does not make me wonder that at all. If our
English word "testament", which comes from medieval Latin, and our word for
"testicle" both derive etymologically from a common root word (both are
related to the Latin word "testis", which means a witness), that may be of
some interest to linguists. But it does not prove that "testament" came
from "testicle", for the etymology of "testament" predates the first known
use of testicle. All you can see is that these 2 words both seem to be
related to a common root.
More importantly, this little etymological excursus distracts from the real
point, which is that you are trying to make a mockery of God's covenants in
the Bible by making an association with a cultural practice that modern
civilized cultures find odd. But you have not succeeded, because you have
mistranslated one of your passages above, and in the other two cases, you
seem to be implying that the entire concept of covenant or testament in the
Bible is derived from or synonymous with placing the hand "under the thigh."
That is not true; the concept of covenant transcends any particular cultural
practices, and covenants could be (and were) made and ratified in a variety
of ways throughout the Bible. To name just a few, convenants could be
ratified by animal sacrifice (Genesis 15), a rainbow (Genesis 9), a promise
to David that his line would have an eternal reign (2 Samuel 7), and
ultimately by the blood of Christ (Matthew 26:28). The important thing
about covenants between God and man is the content of the covenant, the
promise of God that he will graciously act on our behalf. To try to reduce
the biblical covenant to a rarely mentioned, odd cultural practice, based on
an anachronistic reading of modern languages back into the original text as
you have done, is absurd.
> Kinda makes one wonder about the
> source of other English words such as 'hypocrisy',
> 'religion', 'dogma', 'Jesus Christ', 'priest',
> 'Easter', and so on, doesn't it?
No it doesn't. You have not succeeded in calling into question a whole
range of important Christian concepts, just based on your tendentious
attempt to equate "testament" with "testicles", and then read that concept
back into the ancient Hebrew. Dabbling in the etymology of English words
may be interesting, but it has little bearing on the meaning of the Bible,
which was written in Greek, Hebrew, and a few instances of Aramaic.
[snip]
pla...@iamerica.net
wrote:
><pla...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
>> 'TESTICLES' & 'TESTAMENTS'
======================
You're 100% WRONG.
'yarek' is the common Biblical euphamism
for 'testicles' found throughout your 'holy' Bible.
Vetus Testamentum XL, 4, (1990), pp.464-472,
"HEEL" and "THIGH", The Concept of
Sexuality.....,", by S.H. Smith has "....to
swear an oath, Abraham has him place
his hand 'tht yrky'....upon his genitals...the
word 'yarek....is intimately connected
with....procreation.....euphemistic uses
of 'yrk'....."
The "Theological Dictionary of the O.T.",
Vol. 4, pp. 441-444, has ".....ancient
custom for someone taking an oath to
place his hand 'under the thigh'('tachath
yarekh) of the other party.(footnote 9
has "KBL, 419").
'Yarek' as a euphemism for 'genitals' and
'testicles' is found in (typically):
V.T XXXI, 3 (1981), pp 269-281 "The Case
Of An Immodest Lady.....", Lyle Eslinger
having "....'yarek', usually translated as
'thigh', can also refer to male and female
genitals...."; and additional resources
found in footnote 18.
V.T. XXXIV, (1984) "On The Suspected
Adultress.." T. Frymer-Kensky, pp. 19,
has "Since 'yarek' is well attested as a
term for the male genitalia.......", etc, etc
Could go on and on and on here.
How much will it take to get your attention?
====================
>..........To put the hand "under the thigh" was a figurative,
======================
You're WRONG 'again'.
V.T., XXXV, 2, 1985, pp.192-200, "More On
'Pahad Yishaq'...Oath By The Thigh" by Meir
Malul. He has 'yarek'=thigh > testicles
(footnote #7): and "...the thigh, as a
euphemism for the genitals...."; and 'Beth
Mikra' 14, pp.40...."oath by the thigh,
namely by the genitals (the use of the
word 'yarek', 'thigh', as a euphemism for
genitals is found also in Gen 46:26,
Ex 1:5, Judges 8:30....." (footnote 9);
and "However, internal biblical evidence
shows clearly that the word for
'thigh' is a euphemism for 'genitals'...
'pahad yishaq' would then mean
literally 'GENITALS OF ISAAC'.....";
and "Isaac takes an oath while touching
Abraham's thigh, ie, genitals...."; and
"the word 'yarek' in these passages is
used euphemistically of 'genitals'; and
"Speiser ('Genesis, pp.178).....an oath....
touching of this vital part entails the
threat of sterility....." (footnote 22).
Did you get the part about the phrase
'pahad yishaq' translating literally correct
as 'GENITALS OF ISAAC'.....?
etc, etc, etc, etc,
=====================
>> The male reproductive organs were
>> held to be sacred by the Israelite God,
>> Yahweh, and altogether appropriate for
>> oath taking.
>It is true that the Patriarchs in 2 instances ratified their final wills by
>having someone place their hand under the thigh, but that was just a
>cultural practice of the day, akin to our exchange of rings and vows in a
>wedding ceremony. If God accomodated to the language and customs of the
>people he was communicating with, as he did when ratified his covenant with
>Abraham by means of an animal sacrifice in Genesis 15, what difference does
>that make? What's your point?
======================
I suspect it'd be all too subtle for you to
grasp at this time.
======================
>> Later, Jacob concludes another
>> 'testament' in the incident "And the time
>> drew nigh that Israel must die: and he
>> called his son Joseph, and said unto him,
>> If now I have found grace in thy sight,
>> put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh,
>> and deal kindly and truly with me; bury
>> me not, I pray thee, in Egypt:"(Genesis
>> 47:29).
>Yes, this is the second usage of this phrase in Genesis.
>> Surely some of you readers have
>> wondered about the source of the word
>> 'testament' in our English language?
>As a matter of fact, it does not make me wonder that at all. If our
>English word "testament", which comes from medieval Latin, and our word for
>"testicle" both derive etymologically from a common root word (both are
>related to the Latin word "testis", which means a witness), that may be of
>some interest to linguists. But it does not prove that "testament" came
>from "testicle", for the etymology of "testament" predates the first known
>use of testicle. All you can see is that these 2 words both seem to be
>related to a common root.
=====================
You're WRONG 'again'.....!
Any good dictionary will take the wonder
out of it.
"Testament" derives from Latin *testamentum*,
meaning "a will."
"Testicle" derives from *testiculus*, a diminutive
of *testis*, which means "witness." *Testes* is
not only one of the words we use in place of the
word "testicles," but also the Latin plural of *testis*.
As the Romans used the term, the testes
were witnesses to (evidence of) virility.
=========================
>More importantly, this little etymological excursus distracts from the real
>point, which is that you are trying to make a mockery of God's covenants in
=============(SNIP)==============
So you were WRONG on every single point....!
Don't go away angry though.........!
(Damned 'LYING' Christian 'Apologists'....!)
================================
Christ's Disciple
I "Could rebuke them sharply" Titus 1:13 (KJV).
It might awaken you out of your foolish stuper...
For you are certainly fulfilling Scriptual prophesy "Evil men and SEDUCERS
shall wax WORSE and WORSE, decieved, and being decieved"
pla...@iamerica.net wrote in message
<381bca06...@news.iamerica.net>...
Lee
<pla...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
news:381bca06...@news.iamerica.net...
Sorry, but these quotations agree with the standard lexicons and with what
I've already written. The first one translates the meaning of the phrase
"tht yrky" (literally "under my thigh") as "upon his genitals", which is
indeed semantically correct, and in THIS context within THIS euphemistic
phrase there certainly IS a connection with procreation. But notice that of
"yarek" ITSELF he says that the word is used "euphemistic[ally]". But if
"yarek" referred directly and literally to genitals, it would not be
"euphemistic" would it? It IS euphemistic, which means an indirect and
polite way of referring to something private, and it is euphemistic because
it normally means thigh. Is this not exactly what I've already said? In
the above passage, the literal translation of "yarek", as everywhere in the
Bible, is the thigh, the part of the leg between the knee and the hip.
There is NO debate about this. In THIS context, and in this particular
phrase "put your hand under my thigh", the phrase itself is a euphemistic
way of saying grasp the genitals. I AGREE with that. The part I don't
agree with, and the part that you seem to be missing, is that the word
"yarek" by itself still refers to the physical part of the body called the
thigh. So, for example, in Judges 3:21, when Ehud drew his sword from his
right thigh, I think it means his right thigh. This and many similar uses
will indicate that "yarek" means "thigh" in the Hebrew, and that it is only
in combination with other words in certain euphemistics phrases (such as
"put your hand under my thigh") that its semantic content is equivalent to
grasping the genitals. There are only a handful of these euphemistic uses
in the Bible, and of these, only the 2 I mentioned above refer to the custom
of "putting the hand under the thigh." But the vast majority of uses, and
the first meaning of "yarek" given in the lexicons, is the literal thigh.
Otherwise, how are you going to account for the standard references to the
human thigh in the Bible? Are you trying to say that Ehud drew his sword
from his right genitals? What a hoot!
> The "Theological Dictionary of the O.T.",
> Vol. 4, pp. 441-444, has ".....ancient
> custom for someone taking an oath to
> place his hand 'under the thigh'('tachath
> yarekh) of the other party.(footnote 9
> has "KBL, 419").
This quotation adds nothing to your point, for I already agree as I stated
in my first post and restated here, that the phrase "under the thigh" refers
to the genitals. But you are trying to make the broader point that the word
"yarek" (thigh) BY ITSELF must mean genitals throughout the Hebrew Bible. I
think you even used the word "throughout" above, did you not? And that
claim is demonstrably false, for in the majority of usages, such as the one
I cited from Judges, it is CLEAR that the word simply and literally means
"thigh".
> 'Yarek' as a euphemism for 'genitals' and
> 'testicles' is found in (typically):
> V.T XXXI, 3 (1981), pp 269-281 "The Case
> Of An Immodest Lady.....", Lyle Eslinger
> having "....'yarek', usually translated as
> 'thigh', can also refer to male and female
> genitals...."; and additional resources
> found in footnote 18.
This quote also is in full agreement with what I think, and with the
evidence of Scripture. Please notice, my friend, your own quote: it says
"'yarek', usually translated as thigh." And it adds that it CAN refer to
genitals, which I agree with in the case of the euphemism "under the thigh."
But again, this in no way supports your claim that "yarek" means genitals
throughout the Hebrew Bible. In fact, this quote refutes your own claim,
because it seems to suggest that it normally does refer literally to the
human thigh.
> V.T. XXXIV, (1984) "On The Suspected
> Adultress.." T. Frymer-Kensky, pp. 19,
> has "Since 'yarek' is well attested as a
> term for the male genitalia.......", etc, etc
I agree that "yarek" can refer to the male genitalia. But I do not see this
writer saying anything that supports your more radical point, which appears
to be that "yarek" always or mostly refers to the genitalia. This writer is
simply saying, here is one possible meaning of this word, which is well
attested. I agree with that, particularly when "yarek" is used as part of
the euphemistic "under the thigh" phrase, where the context and phrase
itself make the meaning fairly clear. We have the 2 instances of this
usage in the Bible that I have already cited above. And we have three other
references to the "thigh" or "loins" that use this word, and are probably
referring euphemistically to the procreative aspect (Gen 46:26; Ex. 1:5, Ju
8:30). But this writer is NOT saying that "yarek" always, or even usually,
refers to the genitalia. And that is because it doesn't. As your own quote
from above states, it "usually" is translated thigh. And that's my point.
> Could go on and on and on here.
Well, I'm sure you could, but if you keep giving quotes that support my
point and refute yours, you won't be accomplishing much for yourself.
> How much will it take to get your attention?
How much will it take to get you to read and comprehend your own quotes?
And how much will it take to get you to just read the Bible itself with some
common sense and objectivity? Doesn't it make sense to you that the ancient
Hebrews had a word for thigh ("yarek"), which normally refers literally to
the thigh, but in a few contexts and combined with certain words, it can
mean genitals? Otherwise how can you account for the many passages like the
Judges 3:21 example I gave, where it is CLEAR that it refers to the actual
thigh? Let's focus on this example to make my point. How would you
translate the passage that says "Ehud drew his sword from his right thigh"?
Please notice also that the other
There are several problems with this quotation. First of all, like your
other quotations, this one has the same problem in that it refers to a
couple of specific euphemistic uses of "yarek", and I agree "yarek" can be
used that way. But it doesn't establish your point, which is that "yarek"
means genitals throughout the Bible. It only means genitals in a few
specific contexts, particularly when it's combined into a euphemistic phrase
like "under the thigh." Normally, though, it refers to the literal thigh.
Second, your quote above refers to the 3 other euphemistic instances of
"Yarek" found in the Bible, but the word in question here is "pahad", not
"yarek". So it's hard to see what bearing that part of the quote has on the
point at hand, except just to make the analogy that the other Hebrew word
for "thigh" can sometimes be a euphemistic reference to genitals. We
already knew that. But that does not establish that "Pahad" can mean
genitals, or that that is what it means in this passage.
Third, your quote doesn't give enough context to show that the writer is
referring to the actual passage we are discussing above, which is Genesis
31:53. Please provide more context so I can see this writer is actually
referring to Genesis 31:53. I'm assuming you're giving a relevant quote
here, but it would be useful to see the reference to the passage in the
quote.
Fourth, please give more context on your quote where it says "Isaac takes an
oath while touching Abraham's thigh, ie, genitals." I'm not clear on what
he is referring to in the Bible, because in the Genesis 31 passage we're
discussing here, it is Jacob taking an oath with Laban, not Isaac with
Abraham.
Finally, to the actual issue at hand. In Genesis 31:53, as I argued in my
first post above, the passage should be translated as Jacob swore an oath
"by the fear of his father Isaac." All of the major recent translations
that have been done by committees of Bible scholars (NIV, NASB, NRSV)
translate it this way. The standard lexicons, including Brown-Driver-Briggs
and William L. Holladay's Concise_Hebrew_And_Aramaic_Lexicon, translate it
this way. And by the way, since you quote Speiser below, let's throw him
into the mix. He similarly translates the passage as "the Awesome One of
Isaac", and shows that this phrase refers to God himself (E.A. speiser,
Genesis, in the Anchor Bible Commentary, [Gen. 31:42, 53). As I wrote
before, the word "pahad" virtually ALWAYS means fear or dread in the Hebrew
Bible, and you'll see that if you check the standard lexicons and
dictionaries. The only possible exception to that is the use of "pahad" as
a possible loan word from Aramaic in Job 40: 17. And besides all these
translations and reference works that support this translation, there is
this simple fact, which you would understand if you would simply read the
passage in contect. How can Jacob take an oath "by Isaac's genitals" if
Isaac isn't even there? This would be an unprecedented use of this social
custom in the Bible, to claim that you could an oath by the genitals of
someone who isn't present. But it was VERY common to refer to the "God of
your father" in the context of taking an oath, and in EVERY usage of "pahad"
in the Hebrew (except for the instance in Job I mentioned above) it means
fear or dread. So, in this passage, Jacob is simply taking an oath by "the
Fear (or Speiser's "Awesome One") of his father Isaac. There is no other
legitimate reading.
> "Speiser ('Genesis, pp.178).....an oath....
> touching of this vital part entails the
> threat of sterility....." (footnote 22).
Again, I already agree with this. When "thigh" is used in the phrase "under
the thigh" as a euphemism for the genitals, it is usually in the context of
taking an oath which, if broken, would "entail the thread of sterility."
But how does this support your argument, which is that "yarek" means
genitals "throughout" the Hebrew Bible? And besides, Speiser (as I've shown
in the previous paragraph) AGREES that the Genesis 31 passage means "by the
Awesome One of his father Isaac." You're taking one contextual instance
where "yarek" means that, and trying to apply it to the whole. You can't do
that, at least if you want to have any linguistic integrity to the actual
evidence.
> Did you get the part about the phrase
> 'pahad yishaq' translating literally correct
> as 'GENITALS OF ISAAC'.....?
Unfortunately, you've not established that the Genesis 31:53 passage means
this at all. Please explain why all the scholars, reference works, and
translations I cited above are all wrong. And please this time make it
clear that your quotations indicate they are actually referring to the
passage in question.
[snip]
And your point is? I agree with this etymology, except that you omitted the
fact that both "testament" and "testicle" are related to the common root of
"testis" (a witness). But you still have not established your original,
rather ridiculous point, which was that somehow the word "testament" derived
directly from the word "testicle", and that somehow this had significance
for the Bible. These formerly Latin words, that came to English through
middle English, have no significance for understanding the meaning of HEBREW
words in the HEBREW Bible.
> >More importantly, this little etymological excursus distracts from the
real
> >point, which is that you are trying to make a mockery of God's covenants
in
>
> =============(SNIP)==============
>
> So you were WRONG on every single point....!
Funny, it sure doesn't look that way to me. It appears to me that you're
just "quote-mining" a few isolated references to a couple of instances of a
term in the Bible, and then trying to say that applies to the usage of the
term everywhere in the Bible. And even the quotes you've supplied don't
support your position.
> Don't go away angry though.........!
>
> (Damned 'LYING' Christian 'Apologists'....!)
Don't worry, I'm not angry, because I have supported my argument from the
biblical text, rather than giving irrelevant quotations to cover up weak
argumentation. If you want to believe that Ehud strapped his sword to his
right genitals, go ahead, but forgive me for thinking that, contrary to your
purpose, it's not the BIBLE that ends up looking ridiculous here.
Godschild
I am sorry to say this...but it (the word) says thigh...not to grab
the testicals of a fellow person....
You are a person who likes to take things out of context and add your
own wording....do you not planet?
The hebrew word you are referring to means thigh......not genitals...
May I suggest you get a study bible or something....I personally think
you are a bit dilusional......
I ran into this woman called Dore...and she calls herself Christ...you
and she related?
Although great importance is placed on the man in the bible....there
is not one ounce of proof they ACTUALLY TOUCHED EACHOTHERS
PRIVATES...
I think you have a rather perverted mind sir or miss planet...
for some reason....i think you are male....
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 00:00:54 GMT, "Lee" <Darwin...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
Godschild
wrote:
Lee....its good to see someone knows what the heck they are talking
about here...
Instead of someone so full of themselves and perversion....
I like your style.....and you show such great intelligence....
I guess the true light of intelligence is showing thru in you...
I dont know if you are christian or not....but boy do you know a whole
(excuse my french here) hell of alot...
keep it up...wish I had your mind :)
Gods Child......
Godschild
Your resources are obviouly bias.....
And of course....are full of malarky....
and yes....you dont have the proper interpretations of the hebrew
words you are referring to...
You really need to search out a rep. person in the areas of hebrew to
straighten you out on the subject....
ie: someone who knows what they are talking about.....
International.com
wrote:
>
><pla...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
>news:381ab471...@news.iamerica.net...
>>
>> 'TESTICLES' & 'TESTAMENTS'
>>
>> It was customary in Biblical times
>> for males to seal a contract or agreement
>> by CLUTCHING and GRASPING each
>> other's testicles.
As I have had one of my testicles removed because of Cancer, would
that mean my contract would only be half binding, or would the other
party have to grab twice as hard?
Contractor.
pla...@iamerica.net
>> >> 'TESTICLES' & 'TESTAMENTS'
>> ======================
>> You're 100% WRONG.
==========(SNIP)==========
Bah! You quibble over my grammar and waste
'band-width' backing away from the issue.
Here's my exact words again:
> (The Hebrew word 'yarek' translated
> 'thigh', means 'testicles').....'yarek' is the
> common Biblical euphamism for 'testicles'
> found throughout your 'holy' Bible.
If I had intended to claim that 'yarek' translates
to ''testicles' in each and every instance, I
would have made THAT abundantly clear.
The clues that I did NOT intend that are:
1. I used parentheses to confine the
meaning to the passage that I quoted.
2. I introduced the 'euphemistic' application
to differentiate from the 'literal' application.
The 'issue' remains the obscene practices sanctioned
and tolerated by your biblical God throughout your
Divinely Inspired and Inerrant 'holy' Bible.
Perhaps your 'fan-club' (Gods...@interspring.co.uk
(Godschild)) can further illuminate the issues
involved in the widespread deceptions introduced
into the Bible by your discredited and dishonorable
'Ecclesiastical establishment' and its unethical
'Apologists' and dishonest 'translators'.
=====================
Lee
<pla...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
news:381db7bb...@news.iamerica.net...
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:32:10 GMT, "Lee" <Darwin...@yahoo.com>
>
> Bah! You quibble over my grammar and waste
> 'band-width' backing away from the issue.
>
> Here's my exact words again:
>
> > 'thigh', means 'testicles').....'yarek' is the
> > common Biblical euphamism for 'testicles'
> > found throughout your 'holy' Bible.
>
> to ''testicles' in each and every instance, I
> would have made THAT abundantly clear.
And you did with your comment above. I repeat here my original comment, and
your first response to it:
=====================
Me: > No, actually the Hebrew word translated "thigh" means "thigh."
======================
You: You're 100% WRONG. 'yarek' is the common Biblical euphamism for
'testicles' found throughout your 'holy' Bible.
==================
By this comment, which you did not delimit or qualify in any way, you give
the misleading perception that 'yarek' is used in "common"[ly] "throughout"
the Bible for this purpose. It is not. There are only 2 instances of the
'under the thigh' euphemistic rendering, and about 3 others which we've
already cited above that refer to the thigh euphemistically in connection
with procreation. But in the VAST majority of uses, it simply means
"thigh". And you were contesting that point. My only concern here is that
you were playing fast and loose with the linguistic evidence, and trying to
insinuate a broader point on the basis of very scanty linguistic evidence.
> The clues that I did NOT intend that are:
>
> 1. I used parentheses to confine the
> meaning to the passage that I quoted.
>
> 2. I introduced the 'euphemistic' application
> to differentiate from the 'literal' application.
But you only admitted this after I forced you to clarify it. Please note
that in your original post, you did not mention euphemism at all. I was the
one that first pointed out, in my first response to you, that this word
literally means "thigh" and that only in a handful of contexts in the OT (5,
to be specific) and in combination with such words as "under the thigh",
could it be taken as a euphemism for testicles.
> The 'issue' remains the obscene practices sanctioned
> and tolerated by your biblical God throughout your
> Divinely Inspired and Inerrant 'holy' Bible.
If this is truly the whole point of your original post, then you have indeed
"wasted" your own time. There were no doubt many things done by ancient
cultures that to modern sensibilities seem strange, including or especially
the instance of crucifying an innocent man on a cross (Jesus Christ). And
Christians have no problem acknowledging that there were some rather unusual
cultural practices in the Bible. But this does not make the Bible untrue,
or evil. We find it odd and even repulsive to think of grasping someone's
testicles to seal an oath, and that is just one of the many odd practices we
can find rather crude in many ancient cultures. But surely they would have
been even more repulsed to see the barbarity of some of our modern
practices: weapons of mass destruction, the murder of millions of healthy,
viable and unprotected babies in the womb, etc.
My point in all this is, the Bible doesn't ADVOCATE or ENJOIN us to engage
in such ancient cultural practices; it simply reports them. And the mere
fact of the Bible's accurate reporting of such details, as well as its
reporting of the very human flaws and failings of many of the biblical
heroes such as the patriarchs, is a literary argument in support of the
Bible's historicity, and is one argument against the notion that the Bible
(at least in Genesis) was just weaving clever myths to build up Hebrew
religion.
You think that by emphasizing these ancient practices that you are somehow
calling into question the Bible. But 2 things can be said in response. 1)
Christians can fully acknowledge the historicity of the Bible, including
these practices. We welcome historical and archeological scrutiny of the
Bible. Such practices are certainly odd to us moderns, but there is nothing
inherently harmful or evil about them, and the Bible neither requires them
nor endorses them. They were just an ancient method of doing business. 2)
It seems odd that you spend so much time focusing on the minutia of the
Bible and miss the larger truths being taught there: truths about human
sin, God's righteousness and grace, and redemption. These are the major
themes of the Bible, and you seem to be missing the forest on account of the
trees. Focusing on odd cultural practices that are rarely mentioned is not
going to get you very far. If you really want to attack the substance and
the heart of the Bible and Christianity, go after these major themes, and
the historical events (such as the crucifixion and resurrection) that relate
to them.
> Perhaps your 'fan-club' (Gods...@interspring.co.uk
> (Godschild)) can further illuminate the issues
> involved in the widespread deceptions introduced
> into the Bible by your discredited and dishonorable
> 'Ecclesiastical establishment' and its unethical
> 'Apologists' and dishonest 'translators'.
> =====================
>
I can only conclude from this response that you are unwilling to admit when
you are wrong. First of all, it should be noted by anyone reading this that
you snipped over 90% of my last response to you, dismissing it only with the
words that it's "wasting your time." I will take this to mean that you are
unable to respond substantively to my comments, and you are now simply
blowing smoke trying to cover up for your ignorance about the Scriptures.
It seems clear to me that you don't even read the contexts of the passages
you mock. You simply go hunting for some strange-sounding verse or phrase
that you hope will allow you to "score points" against the Bible, and then
you try to back it up with some pseudo-scholarly sounding discourse or
quotations. This may be entertaining to you, but it is not scholarship.
Second, it should be noted that you only backed away from your original,
outrageous claims when I challenged you. I first introduced the concept
that the word "yarek" in the phrase "under the thigh" was a euphemism. You
then began to employ that phrase, as above, after I used it and you had no
choice.
Third, you have failed to address the point that every one of your
quotations either supported the position I already held and refuted yours,
or was misleading or unclear. Since you have failed to clarify these
quotations and to produce valid ones that support your point, I assume you
are unable to do so.
Fourth, you've failed to acknowledge that your translation of "pahad yishaq"
as the "genitals of Isaac" in Genesis 31:53 is totally unwarranted by the
context or the linguistic evidence. It clearly means the "fear of his
father Isaac", supported overwhelmingly by accurate translations and
commentators, and your translation is wrong.
Finally, you have apparently abandoned your silly etymological attempt to
derive the English "testament" from "testicles" and to read that very
questionable etymological view back into the ancient Hebrew text.
Thus, I conclude that in this thread, you have wasted your own time. You
have neither succeeded in debunking the Bible, nor have you established
yourself as a credible linguist or student of Hebrew Scripture. Keep up the
good work!
Godschild
Lee....no use explaining to this ignorant uneducated fool about what
the words mean....
He or she is blind and has the sense of a grade school child stuck on
their own gentials.....
geeezeeee.....
On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 19:24:41 GMT, "Lee" <Darwin...@yahoo.com>
pla...@iamerica.net
(Contractor) wrote:
>><pla...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
>>> 'TESTICLES' & 'TESTAMENTS'
>>> It was customary in Biblical times
>>> for males to seal a contract or agreement
>>> by CLUTCHING and GRASPING each
>>> other's testicles.
>As I have had one of my testicles removed because of Cancer, would
>that mean my contract would only be half binding, or would the other
>party have to grab twice as hard?
>Contractor.
============================
Did you hear the one about Jesus Christ
having THREE balls...?
He made it pay when he'd go into a bar
and bet any guy there that between the
two of them, they had FIVE balls!
He'd win every time........!
But then came the day when the guy Jesus
was trying to entice into his standard wager
told Jesus that "Well buddy, YOU'D better have
FOUR balls cause I only got ONE....!"
Sorry.......!
=========================
woz
you are anti_christ
... the spirit that possesses you can only be put asunder by Jesus Christ
Son of the One True God.
You know the path you have chosen and you know what awaits you.
The day will envelop you without warning and you will receive your reward.
The battle has been won.
<pla...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
news:381e0f28...@news.iamerica.net...
pla...@iamerica.net
>Face it planet@ss
>you are anti_christ
><pla...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
>> Did you hear the one about Jesus Christ...
========(SNIP)============
Why yes, I do have more Jesus 'jokes'.....!
Thank you for asking....!
Jesus Jokes #1
Jesus Christ went to the Bethelem whore house
and asked the Madame for a girl with syphilis.
The Madame said "Please tell me why you want
a girl that has syphilis?" But Jesus insisted and
the Madame said "O.K., that'll be 30 sheckles."
So Jesus reached under his tunic and pulled out
a dead frog, paused, put it back, reached into
another pocket and pulled out 30 sheckles and
gave the money to the Madame. Afterwards,
the Madame asked Jesus, "Why did you insist
on a girl with syphilis?"
And Jesus answered
"Well, I want to give syphilis to my wife Mary
Magdalene, who will give it to John the Baptist,
who in turn will give it to my mom, the Blessed
Virgin Mary, and she'll give it to St. Peter; He's
the bastard that stepped on my pet frog!"
Jesus Jokes #2
Jesus was trying to plow his corn field but the
mule wouldn't budge. All Jesus' screaming and
yelling wouldn't budge the mule. Along came
Moses, who stopped to watch the crazed Jesus'
antics. "I know how to get the mule moving,"
said Moses. And Jesus watched as Moses went
behind the mule, lifted it's tail, reached underneath;
and the mule give a loud "Hee-Haw", leaped into
the air, and dashed across the field, over the hill,
and out of sight! Jesus said "What the hell did
you do to the mule?" Moses answered "I just
gave his balls a good squeeze!" Jesus lifted his
robe and said "Well, you better squeeze my
balls too, cause I hav'ta catch that damn mule
and return it to Noah!"
"He's only got the two of them you know......!"
Jesus Jokes #3
Melchizedech came upon Jesus Christ sprinkling
a pale pink powder around the garbage dumps
outside Nazareth. "What are you doing that for,
Jesus?" asked Melchizedech. Jesus answered
"This is an 'anti-Satanic' powder. It'll keep Satan
and his minions away from the town." Melchizedech
asked then "And how do you know that your
pale pink powder IS effective and will keep
Satan away?" Jesus giggled and replied "Well,
nobody has seen Satan around here since I strarted
sprinkling my pale pink powder around here.....have
they!"
Melchizedech walked off, muttering under
his breath "You crazy damn doofus....!"
Jesus Jokes #4
The Blessed Virgin Mary went to the doctor,
who in turn examined her and pronounced
her to be very pregnant. "But that's impossible!"
said Mary. "I've NEVER had sexual intercourse
with a man." The Doctor replied, "Now, think
hard....there MUST have been a instance when
a male impregnated you. Were you raped? Were
you 'petting' in the back seat with your boyfriend?
Were you careless around toilet seats? Were...."
Mary exclaimed "THAT must be it! I sleep in the
same room with my cousin Elisabeth and her
husband Zach. And he's MIGHTY sloppy...!"
Jesus Jokes #5
Jesus asked little Noah "And what would you
like to be when you grow up, little boy?" Little
Noah answered "An ark-eologist, you dumb-bell..."
Jesus Jokes #6
At the Last Supper, Judas asked for some of
the 'body and blood' that Jesus was selling.
Jesus said "Sure, Judas....wanna' eat and drink
it here or take it with you?" Judas answered "Both....!"
Jesus Jokes #7
Jesus was helping King Solomon build the
Temple. He was examining each nail, keeping
some and throwing away the others. Solomon
asked "Why are you throwing away so many
nails, Jesus?" And Jesus answered "Because
they have the head on the wrong end." Solomon
thought for a moment and said "You fool! Those
are for the other side of the Temple!"
Jesus Jokes #8
When the villiage idiot Jesus Christ saw a sign
in the post office announcing "WANTED FOR
INSURRECTION.........", he thought it meant
'resurrection' and turned himself in! When it
was explained to him that a 'insurrectionist'
was wanted, Jesus applied for the job....!
Jesus Jokes #9
At the crucifixion, the Roman soldier looked
around for some wine to offer Jesus(Mk 15:23).
He noticed the Blessed Virgin Mary was carrying
a wine jug. Grabbing the wine jug, he was going
to pour Jesus a drink. But the BVM fought him
off savagely, kicking, screaming, scratching,
and biting the Roman soldier. He said "The hell
with it" and walked off.
From the cross Jesus moaned "Mother....why
did you prevent the soldier from offering me a
refreshing drink of wine? I'm so thirsty!"
The BVM shrieked at Jesus "We're saving it
for the party tonight! T.G.I.F.....!"
=====================
Lee
news:381f666b....@news.iamerica.net...
Planet, you are on thin ice before a holy and righteous God, and I will pray
for His mercy on you, for you truly do not know Whom you are mocking.
Before you begin hacking out the usual stream of invective and mockery, I
wish you would ponder these words from the book of Hebrews:
"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of
the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of
judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone
who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or
three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be
punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an
unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has
insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, 'It is mine to
avenge; I will repay,' and again, 'The Lord will judge his people.' It is a
dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews
10:26-31).
I know you don't believe any of this, and you enjoy making fun of
Christianity, but I wouldn't be doing my job as a Christian if I didn't at
least warn you that there will be a payday, for "men will have to give
account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken"
(Matthew 12:36). I don't want to see you consigned to eternal punishment,
and I wish you could experience the joy and freedom and fullness of life in
Christ. It's as simple as this: reject your current way of life, your
mockery, and your unbelief. Believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the
savior who died for your sins and rose from the dead. For "if you confess
with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised
him from the dead, you will be saved.' (Romans 10:9). This is my last post
on this thread, because you'll obviously treat all this as a joke, and I
don't enjoy treating serious subjects like this one flippantly. But I pray
that privately you'll consider these words and where your life is headed.
GodsChild
****** You are such a lost soul and such a child... I guess you have
nothing better to do than mock God. Well my child....and that is what
you are...for nothing you say is from that of an adult mouth. Your
day will come....you are walking the line I am sure you really dont
want to walk.
I guess you just dont know better and were never taught to have
rational thought or reason.. For if you had...and did not believe n
God...you wouldnt look for so much attention in these ng. I feel for
you...for you really must not of got any attention as a child from
your family..
Oh well.....I guess negative attention to you is some attention....
Get past the immature works Planet...and try and have some real
discussion.....that is if you are capable to it.....which I doubt.....
Bob Marley
SAD..........
pla...@iamerica.net wrote in message
<381f666b....@news.iamerica.net>...
pla...@iamerica.net
wrote:
>If your gonna blaspheme, at least make it worthwhile.......those jokes were
>SAD..........
=======================
Here's a few more for your amusement:
Jesus Joke #10
The Blessed Virgin Mary comes home shouting,
"Jesus, Jesus, pack your bags! I won the
lottery! I'm rich!"
Jesus exclaims, "Wow! That's great! Should
I pack for the beach or for the mountains, or what?"
The Blessed Virgin Mary says, "I don't care. Just
get the hell out of my house you lazy bastard!".
Jesus Joke #11
The two 'crucified' thieves and Jesus all are
sent to an Orientation Session in heaven
and asked, "When you're in your tomb, and
your loved ones are mourning you, what
would you like to hear them say about you?"
The first thief says, "I would like to hear they
say that I was the greatest thief that ever lived."
The second thief says, "I would like to hear
them say what a wonderful husband, father,
and neighbor I was and who made everyones'
life a little happier and better."
Jesus, still shakeing and trembling from
his ordeal replies, " I would like to hear
them say.......LOOK, HE'S MOVING!!!!!!!"
Jesus Joke #12
Jesus went to the doctor with two black eyes.
The doctor asked "How did this happen, Jesus?"
Jesus says, "It happened in church this
morning, Doc. I was kneeling behind this
very attractive woman. And when she
stood up, I noticed her dress was wedged
in the crack of her ass. So I reached over
and tried to workout it out with my finger.
That's when she turned around and
socked me in the eye!"
"And the other eye, Jesus?", asked the doctor.''
Jesus says, "Well, I figured since she
didn't like what I'd done, I'd just reach
back over and tuck her damn dress back in....!!!!"
=======================