I don’t have time to go through old posts and justify or explain everything I wrote.
interesting
Abraham sat and had emotions
@riversea let me try to explain.
Perhaps I can clear up the confusion. The conversation earlier got diverted into the topic of circumcision and you brought up the idea that “Jesus is a serpent” from another thread.
To Christians the image of the serpent is one of evil (think Garden of Eden) so we would never equate Jesus with a serpent. Mormons are a different group, of which beaglelady is NOT a member, who associate Jesus with the Aztec plumed serpent god.
So there is no connection between the Mormons and the topic of this thread. This is just like an actual conversation between people that can switch back and forth between different topics as thoughts and ideas come up. In this case it was you who went off topic and not beaglelady. And going off topic isn’t a bad thing, but it can make it difficult to follow the multiple threads of conversation.
1 Like
Abram was more than a trader. See Genesis 14. He had a trained force of 318 men who were able to defeat the forces of 4 kings.
There is nothing about “trading rights” that I can see. God said He was giving Abraham land. The TWOT says of erets, Strong 0776, the first major usage is the whole earth, which is probably not what God was giving Abram and the second major usage is “…a particular territory. Here the references to Palestine are of special significance.”
The first condition that Abram had to fulfill was to leave his homeland without being given a destination. Which he did. There were no further conditions placed on Abram. You are mixing in the Moasic Law, which was another covenant, and the only covenant with conditions as you point out. Yes the Children of Israel certainly failed to keep the commandments, but that has no bearing on the Abrahamic convenant. In Leviticus 26 God gives the promises of blessings and curses which depended on Israel’s obedience.
And where is this second covenant documented? There is only one Abrahamic covenant between God and Abraham which is developed progressively in Genesis 12, 15, and 17. He promises Abraham a huge family that will inherit a piece of land in Canaan and bring universal blessing to all humanity through Jesus (something we only know in looking back). Since covenants had outward signs as reminders God instituted circumcision in every generation to remind the Hebrews of His promise. Note the land is not promised to all humanity only a blessing and circumcision is required to participate in living on the land.
Abraham with emotions
BL2.1 How do you understand the covenant with Abraham? Who promised what to whom? Were conditions applied?
BJ2.1 The first covenant was to bequeath land of Canaan to the biological descendants of Abraham. Abraham was a trader. Abraham or his family were not kings. Abraham never captured ant land. Thus, one possibility is that when God bequeathed land of Canaan, He may have bequeathed the trading rights to the family of Abraham. The condition was that Abraham’s descendants would worship only One God and no idols.
BL2.2. A covenant is a relationship between two partners who make binding promises to each other and work together to reach a common goal. They’re often accompanied by oaths, signs, and ceremonies. Covenants define obligations and commitments, but they are different from a contract because they are relational and personal.
The Five Key Covenants God Makes With Humans in the Bible | BibleProject™
BL2.3Abram was more than a trader. See Genesis 14. He had a trained force of 318 men who were able to defeat the forces of 4 kings.
BJ2.3. I admit that there is no clear evidence whether Abraham was a trader or a king. I was thinking of him being a temporary resident in Gerar (Genesis 20:1); he taking some sheep o Abimelech, I presume, as a gift to make a treaty (Gen 21:27); and he bought land to bury Sarah (Gen 23:5-7). 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. These must be the servants like the one who went to get a wife for Jacob. The narrative does not address Abraham as a king or ruler even once. Thus, the balance of evidence appears to be in favour of trader.
BL2.4 There is nothing about “trading rights” that I can see. God said He was giving Abraham land. The TWOT says of erets, Strong 0776, the first major usage is the whole earth, which is probably not what God was giving Abram and the second major usage is “…a particular territory. Here the references to Palestine are of special significance.”
BJ2.4 The Bible frequently uses the word Kingdom (basileia <932). Nowehere in Abraham described as a king. His sojourn in the South clearly shows him to be subservient to the Pharaoh. So the giving of land can mean “land for trading.” Even the conflict over wells of Beersheba is more between two groups of agriculturists rather than two kings.
BL2.5 The first condition that Abram had to fulfill was to leave his homeland without being given a destination. Which he did. There were no further conditions placed on Abram. You are mixing in the Moasic Law, which was another covenant, and the only covenant with conditions as you point out. Yes the Children of Israel certainly failed to keep the commandments, but that has no bearing on the Abrahamic convenant. In Leviticus 26 God gives the promises of blessings and curses which depended on Israel’s obedience.
BJ2.5. Which leaving are you indicating? He went to the south, then he went to Gerar. Neither destination was specified by God. These destinations could be dictated by unknown considerations, which could be trade.
BJ3.1 The second covenant. Then Abram was made father of all humanity. His name was changed from Abram to Abraham. Thereafter, material progress was bequeathed to his biological descendants; and spiritual progress was bequeathed to his moral descendants, that is, those who believed in his message of One God.
BL3.2 And where is this second covenant documented? There is only one Abrahamic covenant between God and Abraham which is developed progressively in Genesis 12, 15, and 17. He promises Abraham a huge family that will inherit a piece of land in Canaan and bring universal blessing to all humanity through Jesus (something we only know in looking back). Since covenants had outward signs as reminders God instituted circumcision in every generation to remind the Hebrews of His promise. Note the land is not promised to all humanity only a blessing and circumcision is required to participate in living on the land.
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.” Thanks.
Abraham nice
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.
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.
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
Abraham was with his wife
Male circumcision is a good thing for both men and women, and hardly persecution.
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?
How was Abraham back when
Abraham ask questions
Because they don’t know any better? (Being angry at being circumcised as adults would be way more understandable. ; - )
Abraham sits near by
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.
Internal introversion with external extroversion seems to be the winning formula.
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