Was Abraham Father of the Jews or of Humanity?

Faith & Science Conversation
266

To have “his 318 trained men” that must have been quite a large group of people. Probably in excess of 1,000 people. Given the population density at this period of time that is more than enough of a group for Abram to be considered a “king” even if the text never says it. There were “kings” who only had one city under their control. The fact that a survivor came to Abram for help would indicate he was considered an important figure and he had allies. Certainly more than what you would expect if he was a lowly trader.

Doesn’t sound subservient to me. If Abram was subservient Pharaoh would have just killed him and taken Sarai.

In your NSHO.

In a dry climate water was a precious resource. Something that kings, remember we are talking about city states here, would fight over.

Genesis 12:1

God said, “To the land which I will show you”. So you believe God was pointing Abram to a good area for trade? Later God says, “… for all the land which you see I will give to you and to your descendants forever.” God is describing a physical location. I have limited knowledge of the subject, but my impression is at this period of time trade routes were more important than exclusive trading rights, which probably didn’t even exist yet.

Genesis 17:14 says of the uncircumcised, “that person shall be cut off from his people.” Given the way property was handled in the Hebrew Bible it is my assumption that if a male was uncircumcised he couldn’t inherit property, which was the only way land was transferred.

267

Bill_II

12h

BJ2.3. The “his 318 trained men” had been born in his household (Gen 14:4). Now, kings do not rely on those born within their households to raise armies.

BL2.3 To have “his 318 trained men” that must have been quite a large group of people. Probably in excess of 1,000 people. Given the population density at this period of time that is more than enough of a group for Abram to be considered a “king” even if the text never says it. There were “kings” who only had one city under their control. The fact that a survivor came to Abram for help would indicate he was considered an important figure and he had allies. Certainly more than what you would expect if he was a lowly trader.

BJ2.3. That is like saying that Bill Gates is President of the US. We cannot make Abraham a king based on such conjectures. The Bible uses the word basileia <932> for kingdom 589 times. Not once in the narrative of Abraham.

BJ2.4 Nowehere in Abraham described as a king. His sojourn in the South clearly shows him to be subservient to the Pharaoh.

BL2.4 Therefore he treated Abram well for her sake; and he gave him sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male servants and female servants, female donkeys, and camels. And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him; and they escorted him away, with his wife and all that belonged to him. Doesn’t sound subservient to me. If Abram was subservient Pharaoh would have just killed him and taken Sarai. So the giving of land can mean “land for trading.”

BJ2.4. Again appears conjecture to me. If Pharaoh’s men carried Sarah to the Pharaoh’s house; and then escorted them away—it shows that Abraham was lesser than the Pharaoh.

BJ2.5. Which leaving are you indicating?

BL2.5 Genesis 12:1. These destinations could be dictated by unknown considerations, which could be trade. God said, “To the land which I will show you”. So you believe God was pointing Abram to a good area for trade? Later God says, “… for all the land which you see I will give to you and to your descendants forever.” God is describing a physical location. I have limited knowledge of the subject, but my impression is at this period of time trade routes were more important than exclusive trading rights, which probably didn’t even exist yet.

BJ2.5: “Will show you”—yes, it would be like someone telling Apple, “I will show u the markets in China.” You say: “… for all the land which you see I will give to you and to your descendants forever.” That is like giving trading rights. My study of India history tells me that East India Company was given trading rights by Indian rulers in 1500 CE.

BL2.6 In your NSHO. Even the conflict over wells of Beersheba is more between two groups of agriculturists rather than two kings. In a dry climate water was a precious resource. Something that kings, remember we are talking about city states here, would fight over.

BJ2.6: Yes, kings may fight over water. But remember that the people of the Pharaoh had closed up the wells. That clearly means that Abimelech was the King and Abraham an agriculturist.

BJ3.2. I was thinking of the covenant with Jacob. I don’t see how the bequeathal of land was related to any quid-pro-quo. It was absolute and straight with no conditions. Please explain where you draw this inference: “circumcision is required to participate in living on the land.”

BL3.2 Genesis 17:14 says of the uncircumcised, “that person shall be cut off from his people.” Given the way property was handled in the Hebrew Bible it is my assumption that if a male was uncircumcised he couldn’t inherit property, which was the only way land was transferred.

BJ3.2. “Cutting of from his people” would refer to not allowing marriages to prevent infections etc. That has nothing to do with bequeathal of land or trading rights. The land or trading rights was bequeathed to ZERA without any conditionality. We cannot redact conditions.

268

There is a sacred text named “YOGA VASISHTHA.” It tells of the discourse given by the Guru Vasishtha to Rama (~Indian name of Abraham). Here the idea of One God is deeply propounded. Indeed, modern Hinduism has strayed from this idea. But that does not cancel the One God at the time of Rama-Abram-Abraham.

1 Like
269

Abraham was with his wife

270

Male circumcision is a good thing for both men and women, and hardly persecution.

271

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As is your conjecture.

How do you get from “the land which you see” which is physical to trading rights which are not.

What does something that happened 3500 years later have to do with the cost of tea in China?

You really like to speculate. How does being cut off from your people have anything to do with marriage? The circumcision wasn’t done for health reasons. It was the mark of the covenant.

You got that right but it was bequeathed to the members of the covenant who bore the mark of the covenant. Do the moral descendants, whatever that is supposed to mean, bear the mark of the covenant?

272

How was Abraham back when

273

Abraham ask questions

274

Because they don’t know any better? (Being angry at being circumcised as adults would be way more understandable. ; - )

275

Abraham sits near by

276

Bill_II

1d

J1: Not once in the narrative of Abraham.

B1: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

J1: True. But neither can we make up the evidence.

J2: Again appears conjecture to me.

B2: As is your conjecture.

J2: Shall we agree that both are equally conjectures?

J3: That is like giving trading rights.

B3: How do you get from “the land which you see” which is physical to trading rights which are not.

J3: . The word “land” Hebrew “erets” has a range of meanings: land 1436, earth 546, ground 152, lands 54, country 28, territory 25, countries 19, earth’s 13, world 9, region 9, homeland 8, wild 8, local 6, area 5, neighboring 5, nations 4, place 4, floor 3, citizens 3, soil 3, areas 2, landed 2, land’s 2, surrounding 2, towns 2, regions 2, northland 2, home 2, downward 1, entire 1, earth’s surface 1, Canaan 1, dry desert 1, die 1, all 1, Negev 1, Syria 1, army 1, everywhere 1, district 1, dirt-covered 1, Israel 1, Egypt 1, you 1, surrounding lands 1, spot 1, resident 1, prematurely 1, them 1, underworld 1, wild animals 1, way 1, valley 1, places 1, northern 1, inhabitants 1, homelands 1, fields 1, fell to the ground unfulfilled 1, inhabited world 1, midair 1, netherworld 1, nearby 1, nation 1, exile 1. Which meaning is appropriate in a particular case has to be drawn from the context. The meanings “neighboring 5, floor 3, citizens 3, soil 3, landed 2, land’s 2, surrounding 2, die 1, all 1, army 1, everywhere 1, dirt-covered 1, you 1, surrounding lands 1, prematurely 1, wild animals 1, inhabitants 1, fell to the ground unfulfilled 1, midair 1, netherworld 1,” etc. do NOT tell of ownership of a land. Thus, trading rights would be possible (though not exegeted by convention).

J4: My study of India history tells me that East India Company was given trading rights by Indian rulers in 1500 CE.

B4: What does something that happened 3500 years later have to do with the cost of tea in China?

J4: The point is the idea; not the event. If the conquest of India was preceded by granting of trading rights; then why can that not be for Abraham?

J5: “Cutting of from his people” would refer to not allowing marriages to prevent infections etc.

B5: You really like to speculate. How does being cut off from your people have anything to do with marriage?

J5: The marriages in the past were made with the community (at least in some countries). The Bible tells of Moses deprecating marriage outside the Hebrews. Thus “cutting off” could well mean cutting of from relationships.

B6: The circumcision wasn’t done for health reasons. It was the mark of the covenant.

J6: Why not both? Why would God make a sign that had no purpose?

B7: The land or trading rights was bequeathed to ZERA without any conditionality.

J7: Where is “unconditional” said in the Bible?

B8: You got that right but it was bequeathed to the members of the covenant who bore the mark of the covenant. Do the moral descendants, whatever that is supposed to mean, bear the mark of the covenant?

J8: Nowehere is a physical mark required. You are interpolating, it seems to me.

277

Internal introversion with external extroversion seems to be the winning formula.

278

The concept of trading rights would have to exist during Abram’s time. You have never shown that it did. Yes trade existed, but the exclusive right to trade?

God said it was a sign of the covenant which gives it a purpose. Modern people like to think it was done for health reasons.

It is specified by the form of the covenant. Yes the word unconditional isn’t used. In Genesis 15 only God passed between the halves of the animals. Abram was asleep.

How exactly am I interpolating? You really need to read up on what constituted a covenant in the ANE.

1 Like
279

Abraham learns way back when

280

I am not of the Jewish faith so I really can’t give you an accurate answer.
There is more than one type of Jewish belief. If you were to ask a rabbi the answer would depend on what their group believes.

281

Abraham will understand

282

J4: The point is the idea; not the event. If the conquest of India was preceded by granting of trading rights; then why can that not be for Abraham?

B4: The concept of trading rights would have to exist during Abram’s time. You have never shown that it did. Yes trade existed, but the exclusive right to trade?

J4: I never said exclusive. We need a visa to enter and trade in a country. Olden times were no different. A foreigner would need some permission to trade. That is what is suggested in Gen 20:1 “temporary resident” in Gerar. Why would a king be a temporary resident? Again Gen 20:9 “Abimelech summoned Abraham…”

J9: I agree that I have not shown trading permission existed. But then you have not shown that it did not exist.

J6: Why not both? Why would God make a sign that had no purpose?

B6: God said it was a sign of the covenant which gives it a purpose. Modern people like to think it was done for health reasons.

J6: There is nothing “irrelevant” in this world. If one sees the signs of, say, the priests, Buddhist monks, Native Indian (feathers), Hindu women (bindi on the forehead), etc. these all have a purpose while also serving as identity. Circumcision was unlikely a sign of the covenant because the sign was hidden.

J10: If circumcision was the sign of the covenant then would any circumcised person have the right to the covenant?

J7: Where is “unconditional” said in the Bible?

B7: It is specified by the form of the covenant. Yes the word unconditional isn’t used. In Genesis 15 only God passed between the halves of the animals. Abram was asleep.

J7: You had originally said, “The land or trading rights was bequeathed to ZERA without any conditionality.” But then, somewhere along the way you brought in circumcision. As I had said in my original post, Zera can mean a “moral” descendant as indicated in Isaiah. So, if bequeathal was unconditional, then all moral descendants would have that claim. Bill, this was the original point. I would like you to respond to Isaiah.

J11: There also exists a problem as to which land was bequeathed. Abraham returned to Hebron after liberating Lot. At this time, God said to him, “To your descendants I give this land, from ‘river’ to ‘river.’” ( Bible , Genesis 15:18. Wenham reads the statement “from ‘river’ to ‘river’” as “from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates” (Wenham, Word…, Page 324). The Hebrew text, however, only says “river” to “river.”). The Bible gives us no clue to identify these rivers. However, God gave the area where Abraham was living as indicated in the term, “I give this land.” These borders, in my reading, do NOT match with Israel.

The borders of the Promised Land after the Hebrews entered Yisrael are told differently. The Book of Ezekiel written at this time defines the borders as having the Great Sea on the north, Jordan River on the east, waters of the Great Sea on the south and the Great Sea on the West ( Ezekiel 47:15-20.). Here the borders are marked by the sea on three sides. Moses had an encounter with God at Mount Sinai soon after crossing of the Yam Suph I. At this time, God said that the borders of the Promised Land were bound by, in Hebrew, “reeds, roar, roar, Philistine, desert, river” ( Bible , Exodus 23:31, Strong’s 5488, 3220, 3220, 6430, 4057, 5104).

The borders of the Promised Land are marked by two rivers in the pre-Exodus narrative and by three seas in the post-Exodus narrative. This transformation indicates that these refer to two altogether different areas. No wonder Sarna finds that the Genesis’ descriptions “cannot be reconciled with any historic reality of the past.” (Sarna, JPS , Genesis, Page 117.)

J8: Nowehere is a physical mark required. You are interpolating, it seems to me.

B8: This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you .

How exactly am I interpolating? You really need to read up on what constituted a covenant in the ANE.

J8: OK. I accept this. The link with ANE is not relevant to the sign.

J12: In your other post you say, “I am not of the Jewish faith so I really can’t give you an accurate answer. There is more than one type of Jewish belief. If you were to ask a rabbi the answer would depend on what their group believes.” The fact that the necessity of the sign to be part of the covenant is challenged, to me suggests that the covenant itself is challenged. How can the Jews on the one hand claim the land of Israel based on the covenant, then deny that same covenant?

283

I don’t know Sanskrit either. It appears to be an old MS. Maybe pages damaged.

284

Pretty sure I already posted this.

Or do you think it is ok to ignore what God says?

Actually I am circumcised (it was routinely done 70 years ago) but pretty sure I don’t participate in the covenant.

I did. Beginning at Post 144 way up there.

You never responded to Isaiah’s concept of the remnant of Israel. Which runs all through this book.

You are aware that this is a prophesy and not history, hopefully. And no one has ever said that Israel has occupied all of the Promised Land. There is a prophesy that they will at some point in the future.

Full quote.

The way I read this is the Hebrews were never able to fully occupy the Promised Land. And nobody has ever said that they did. But given the promise doesn’t depend on the Hebrews there is no problem.

No it doesn’t. God has promised to keep the land for Israel. God, in Jewish and Christian understanding, doesn’t change or lie so the promise is eternal. It does not depend on anything done by the Children of Israel.

B??: Since you believe the land is promised to all of Abraham’s moral descendants (does that mean I get a piece?) how does Sarah fit into the picture?

285

J6: Circumcision was unlikely a sign of the covenant because the sign was hidden.

B6: Pretty sure I already posted this. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you . Or do you think it is ok to ignore what God says?

J6: It is not OK to ignore what God says. But it is necessary to understand what God says. We must realize that (in my view, wrong) interpretations of God’s Word is the root of all the conflicts between believers. In this case, I am not challenging the covenant of circumcision. I am challenging the bequeathal of land to the covenantals. Your view is that two covenants (1) bequeathal of land; and (2) circumcision are not connected. I am saying that they have to be seen in totality. One cannot claim the benefits of one covenant while rejecting the other covenant.

xxxx

J10: If circumcision was the sign of the covenant then would any circumcised person have the right to the covenant?

B10: Actually I am circumcised (it was routinely done 70 years ago) but pretty sure I don’t: participate in the covenant.

J10: That is exactly the problem. One cannot cherry pick the word of God.

xxxx

J13: I would like you to respond to Isaiah.

B13: I did. Beginning at Post 144 way up there. According to the NJPS translation (which reads against the cantillation tradition marked by the signs in the Masoretic biblical text which serve as punctuation marks as well as musical notations), a small remnant will repent after the disaster; from this kernel the nation will be renewed. The renewal involves not exiles who return from afar but survivors who remain in the land. Thus Isaiah’s notion of renewal differs from the vision of renewal in Ezek., Jer., and Second Isaiah, which involve exile and return from exile. Alternatively (and in accordance with the cantillation), the first half of the v. can be translated much more negatively: “And when a tenth are left, they will again be burned.” In this rendering, the few survivors are subject to additional disaster. The second half is also obscure, but it seems to refer to the fact that renewed life can come out of the stump of terebinth and oak trees. Here the notion of the remnant that is saved from a devastating calamity does appear, however subtly.

J13: Renewed life does not come out of the stump. The only possible interpretation is that Zera refers to renewed “moral” life, not biological seed.

xxxx

J11: The Book of Ezekiel written at this time defines the borders as having the Great Sea on the north, Jordan River on the east, waters of the Great Sea on the south and the Great Sea on the West ( Ezekiel 47:15-20.)

B11: You are aware that this is a prophesy and not history, hopefully. And no one has ever said that Israel has occupied all of the Promised Land. There is a prophesy that they will at some point in the future.

J11: But the same borders are mentioned in Exodus 23:31, which is a bequeathal, not prophesy. (I should not have quoted Ezekiel. I admit I have not applied my mind to the distinction between prophecy and bequeathal).

xxxx

J14: No wonder Sarna finds that the Genesis’ descriptions “cannot be reconciled with any historic reality of the past.” (Sarna, JPS , Genesis, Page 117.)

B14: Full quote. The geographic boundaries given here represent a generalized ideal that cannot be reconciled with any historic reality of the past. They include Tyre-Sidon, Lebanon, and Byblos, which the Davidic-Solomonic empire, even at its height, never encompassed, as 1 Kings 5:1, 4 and 8:65 show. Moreover, the conquests of David aimed at asserting political and economic control beyond the borders of Israelite settlement, but there was no attempt to dispossess the local population and to settle Israelites in their stead.

The way I read this is the Hebrews were never able to fully occupy the Promised Land. And nobody has ever said that they did. But given the promise doesn’t depend on the Hebrews there is no problem.

J14: Ex 23.31 says I will set your boundaries… It could be said this was in future. But that is not the point. The point is why is the difference of borders between Abraham and Eekeil-Exodus?

xxxx

J12: The fact that the necessity of the sign to be part of the covenant is challenged, to me suggests that the covenant itself is challenged.

B12: No it doesn’t. God has promised to keep the land for Israel. God, in Jewish and Christian understanding, doesn’t change or lie so the promise is eternal. It does not depend on anything done by the Children of Israel.

J12: This allows cherry picking. I don’t have any reply to this.

xxxx

B15: B??: Since you believe the land is promised to all of Abraham’s moral descendants (does that mean I get a piece?) how does Sarah fit into the picture?

J15: Yes, all believers get the right to settle there.

xxxx

B16: As for your wife Sarai, you shall not call her by the name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.

J16: Biological descendants are OK. Bequeathal of land to them does not follow from this.