Abraham learns way back when
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.
Abraham will understand
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?
I don’t know Sanskrit either. It appears to be an old MS. Maybe pages damaged.
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?
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.
I never said that. There is one covenant of which circumcision is the sign.
You lost me. I am not Jewish. How could you think I would ever be part of the Abrahamic covenant?
How?
Sorry but I have a boat load of commentaries that disagree that it is the “only possible interpretation”. In fact I couldn’t find any that agreed with you, surprise, surprise. And a sprout coming out of what appears to be a dead stump could certainly be considered the renewal of life.
If you want to argue based on verb tense you need to do it using the Hebrew.
And why would a different description of the borders matter? It is all the same general area. You are starting to clutch at straws here.
Didn’t say it did. I asked how it fits into your understanding since you never mention Sarah.
1 Like
Exactly.
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of might,
the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord—
Is 11:1-2 (a messianic prophesy)
1 Like
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.
B6: I never said that. There is one covenant of which circumcision is the sign.
J6: 17:9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep 24 the covenantal requirement 25 I am imposing on you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 17:10 This is my requirement that you and your descendants after you must keep: 26 Every male among you must be circumcised. 27 17:11 You must circumcise the flesh of your foreskins. This will be a reminder 28 of the covenant between me and you. 17:12 Throughout your generations every male among you who is eight days old 29 must be circumcised, whether born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not one of your descendants. 17:13 They must indeed be circumcised, 30 whether born in your house or bought with money. The sign of my covenant 31 will be visible in your flesh as a permanent 32 reminder. 17:14 Any uncircumcised male 33 who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off 34 from his people – he has failed to carry out my requirement.”
Please see the reapeated use of “must,” “impose,” “my requirement,” etc. This was a covenant,not a sign.
xxxx
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.
B10: You lost me. I am not Jewish. How could you think I would ever be part of the Abrahamic covenant?
J10: Please see J6 above. If circumcision was a covenant, and bequeathal of land was a covenant; the we cannot cherry pick.
xxxx
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.
B13: Sorry but I have a boat load of commentaries that disagree that it is the “only possible interpretation”. In fact I couldn’t find any that agreed with you, surprise, surprise. And a sprout coming out of what appears to be a dead stump could certainly be considered the renewal of life.
J13: Renewal of life is possible at moral level from a dead stump; not biological level. Commentaries are not Word of God. Would Jesus be bound by the commentaries? Commentaries at what time? What perspective? Julius Wellhaisen and Brevar Childs were not bound by the commentaries. I would rather hear what you may have to say.
Actually you are supporting my view. Indeed, sprout can come out of the tree. But how would a descendant come out of dead human beings? In fact, beaglelady’s comment makes it clearer: A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of might,
the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord— So it is the spirit that come back. We are discussing whether the Zera id biological or moral. Here is support for moral, not biological, please.
xxxx
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?
B14: If you want to argue based on verb tense you need to do it using the Hebrew.
The point is why is the difference of borders between Abraham and Eekeil-Exodus?
And why would a different description of the borders matter? It is all the same general area. You are starting to clutch at straws here.
J14: I am not on the tense at all. I am on the change in borders. You are presuming that both borders refer to the same area. The Bible does not say so. Please do not interpolate. I am saying that the difference in borders indicates that these are different areas. In particular, the borders at the time of Abraham are marked by two rivers. It simply does not match with Israel that is marked by one river. If we consider the second river to be the Nile, then it does not match with the borders told in Exodus and Ezekiel. One possible conclusion is that the Jews have redacted and changed the borders as per their political needs. And, if the borders are political then there is no divine bequeathal here.
xxxx
J12: This allows cherry picking. I don’t have any reply to this.
B12: How?
Please see J6 above.
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.
B16: Didn’t say it did. I asked how it fits into your understanding since you never mention Sarah.
J16: There was no occasion to mention Sarah. Please indicate the significance, and I will try to respond to me best ability.
I am reproducing J13 from Bill reply below.
J13: Renewal of life is possible at moral level from a dead stump; not biological level. Commentaries are not Word of God. Would Jesus be bound by the commentaries? Commentaries at what time? What perspective? Julius Wellhaisen and Brevar Childs were not bound by the commentaries. I would rather hear what you may have to say.
Actually you are supporting my view. Indeed, sprout can come out of the tree. But how would a descendant come out of dead human beings? In fact, beaglelady’s comment makes it clearer: A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of might,
the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord— So it is the spirit that come back. We are discussing whether the Zera id biological or moral. Here is support for moral, not biological, please.
The covenant with God’s oath is found in Genesis 12:1-3.
The ceremony is recorded in Genesis 15.
The sign is recorded in Genesis 17.
One covenant often referred to as the Abrahamic Covenant (singular).
The illustration is of a tree stump. That is purely biological. Pretty sure trees don’t have a moral level. What Isaiah is saying is simply, “As a tree can return from a stump, a dead burned stump BTW, the Nation of Israel will return from destruction”. This is a prophecy which actually was fulfilled. You continue to ignore what Isaiah has to say about the remnant of Israel.
The significance is you ignore Sarah, who wouldn’t fit into you “moral descendants” idea even though she is included in the story. Your theory has to explain all the parts of the story to be meaningful.
bharatjj you are getting way too literal. Isaiah is using the stump as a simile for the remnant of Israel
2 Likes
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.
B6: I never said that. There is one covenant of which circumcision is the sign.
J6: 17:9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep 24 the covenantal requirement 25 I am imposing on you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 17:10 This is my requirement that you and your descendants after you must keep: 26 Every male among you must be circumcised. 27 17:11 You must circumcise the flesh of your foreskins. This will be a reminder 28 of the covenant between me and you. 17:12 Throughout your generations every male among you who is eight days old 29 must be circumcised, whether born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not one of your descendants. 17:13 They must indeed be circumcised, 30 whether born in your house or bought with money. The sign of my covenant 31 will be visible in your flesh as a permanent 32 reminder. 17:14 Any uncircumcised male 33 who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off 34 from his people – he has failed to carry out my requirement.”
Please see the reapeated use of “must,” “impose,” “my requirement,” etc. This was a covenant,not a sign.
B6: 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.
The covenant with God’s oath is found in Genesis 12:1-3.
The ceremony is recorded in Genesis 15.
The sign is recorded in Genesis 17.
One covenant often referred to as the Abrahamic Covenant (singular).
J6: It seems to me you are cherry picking. Gen 17 has two components.
One: The COVENANT ITSELF: 17:9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep 24 the covenantal requirement 25 I am imposing on you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 17:10 This is my requirement that you and your descendants after you must keep: 26 Every male among you must be circumcised. 27 17:12 Throughout your generations every male among you who is eight days old 29 must be circumcised, whether born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not one of your descendants. 17:14 Any uncircumcised male 33 who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off 34 from his people – he has failed to carry out my requirement.”
Two: The Sign: 17:11 You must circumcise the flesh of your foreskins. This will be a reminder 28 of the covenant between me and you. 17:13 They must indeed be circumcised, 30 whether born in your house or bought with money. The sign of my covenant 31 will be visible in your flesh as a permanent 32 reminder.
A plain reading says quite clearly that circumcision is a “the covenantal requirement.” Circumcision ALSO serves as a sign. But the sign does NOT cancel the Covenant itself. That would be saying that the exchange of papers of a Treaty between two countries implies that the treaty is itself cancelled. No Bill, that does not work as far as I understand.
Let me brief restate why we are discussing this. The main question is whether God bequeathed the Land of Israel to the biological descendants of Abraham. If bequeathal and circumcision are both covenants then one cannot accept one and reject the other. Please explain how you derive the idea that Gen 17 allows to jettison the circumcision and enjoy the bequeathal of land.
xxxx
J13: Renewal of life is possible at moral level from a dead stump; not biological level. Commentaries are not Word of God. Would Jesus be bound by the commentaries? Commentaries at what time? What perspective? Julius Wellhaisen and Brevar Childs were not bound by the commentaries. I would rather hear what you may have to say.
Actually you are supporting my view. Indeed, sprout can come out of the tree. But how would a descendant come out of dead human beings? In fact, beaglelady’s comment makes it clearer: A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of might,
the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord— So it is the spirit that come back. We are discussing whether the Zera id biological or moral. Here is support for moral, not biological, please.
B13: The illustration is of a tree stump. That is purely biological. Pretty sure trees don’t have a moral level. What Isaiah is saying is simply, “As a tree can return from a stump, a dead burned stump BTW, the Nation of Israel will return from destruction”. This is a prophecy which actually was fulfilled. You continue to ignore what Isaiah has to say about the remnant of Israel.
J13: Please do not mix up Isaiah 11:1 and 6:13. 11:1 tells of stump of Jesse and David being born of him. That cannot be superimposed mindlessly on 6:13 which says: “Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be subject to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak Whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump.” The word is BURNING. The stump of a tree can provide shoots. But ashes of a burnt people do not provide children. The “The holy seed” can only be a moral stump; I cannot be biological stump after destruction. Yes, the Nation of Israel will return because the moral message of One God will be preserved “in the air,” so to say and will be picked up again by the people WHO NEED NOT BE BIOLOGICAL DESCENDANTS.
xxxx
J16: There was no occasion to mention Sarah. Please indicate the significance, and I will try to respond to me best ability.
B16: The significance is you ignore Sarah, who wouldn’t fit into you “moral descendants” idea even though she is included in the story. Your theory has to explain all the parts of the story to be meaningful.
J16: I do not understand how Sara would not fit into “moral descendants.” Please explain.
Pl see my reply to Bill
I did and you’re not making sense. You are making BioLogos seem busy, but you’re not making sense. We have educated clergy, Christian and Jewish, as well as scholarly commentaries to teach us. That’s what I’m going with.
What about Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones?
btw, the seeds of some trees don’t germinate unless they are scorched.
And Genesis 17:8 clearly says it is to the descendants that God promised to Abraham.
I never said that.
Genesis 17:1-8 restates the original covenant with it’s promise of land and descendants. You didn’t mention verse 8, " And I will give to you and to your descendants after you the land where you live as a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." It’s hard to live in trading rights.
Genesis 17:9-14 then introduces circumcision as the sign of this covenant. If it is truly a second covenant what did God promise to do? All these verses do is place a requirement on Abraham. There is no promise which is the point of a covenant.
It is you who is mixed up. I never mentioned Isaiah 11:1. That was beaglelady.
A stump, even if it is burned, can still send up shoots. The shoots would grow into the same tree. So when the Nation of Israel returns it will be composed of the same people as before. The Remnant of Israel. Look it up. And you are just being silly if you think Isaiah was speaking of burnt people.
Moral descendants wouldn’t need a mother. Only biological descendants.
B6: I never said that.
Genesis 17:1-8 restates the original covenant with it’s promise of land and descendants. You didn’t mention verse 8, " And I will give to you and to your descendants after you the land where you live as a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." It’s hard to live in trading rights.
Genesis 17:9-14 then introduces circumcision as the sign of this covenant. If it is truly a second covenant what did God promise to do? All these verses do is place a requirement on Abraham. There is no promise which is the point of a covenant.
J6: Gen 17:8, the word possession: “property 30, possession 12, own 6, possess 3, plot 2, allotted 2, owned 1, inheritance 1, ownership 1, own possessions 1, portion set apart 1, site 1, possessions 1, possessed 1, territory 1, place 1.” Of these, possession 12 of trading rights, own 6 trading rights, possess 3 trading rights, allotted 2 trading rights, owned 1 trading rights, inheritance 1 trading rights, ownership 1 trading rights, own possessions 1 trading rights, portion set apart 1 trading rights, possessions 1 trading rights, possessed 1 trading rights. Please look at these like we have Trade Agreements. This was possibly misinterpreted by the Jews as land ownership for political conquest.
xxxx
B13: It is you who is mixed up. I never mentioned Isaiah 11:1. That was beaglelady.
The stump of a tree can provide shoots. But ashes of a burnt people do not provide children.
A stump, even if it is burned, can still send up shoots. The shoots would grow into the same tree . So when the Nation of Israel returns it will be composed of the same people as before. The Remnant of Israel. Look it up. And you are just being silly if you think Isaiah was speaking of burnt people.
J13: I accept my error of mixing beaglelady comment.
Let us avoid “silly.” How will Israel return with with “same” biological Zera when Zera has been burnt? Only moral Zera can return. Isaiah does say Isaiah 6:13 ends: “The holy <06944> seed <02233> is its stump <04676>” This Zera can ony be understood as moral since "Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be subject to burning”—the tenth portion has been burnt. No biological Zera remains. Human reproduction does not follow plant reproduction. The “same” people could refer to the same moral people. There is no “family” in Hebrew. That is a political translation.
xxxx
B16: Moral descendants wouldn’t need a mother. Only biological descendants.
J16: I am at a loss. I understand human beings as biological + moral. Biology is not negated by morality. The problem arises when we draw political inferences from biological inheritance. Men+women will continue to give birth to children and, hopefully, give moral message of one God rather than the political message of conquering the land of other believers.
The persecution of the Jews, the Holocaust, the Inquisitions, the harvesting of souls–all of these and more have come out of these clergy and commentaries.