Was Abraham Father of the Jews or of Humanity?

Faith & Science Conversation
299

I found this: “Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37:1–14) came to him after God had directed him to prophesy the rebirth of Israel in chapter 36. God announced, through the prophet, that Israel will be restored to her land in blessing under the leadership of “David, My servant [who] shall be king over them” (Ezekiel 37:24), clearly a reference to the future under Jesus Christ the Messiah, descendant of David (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6–7; Luke 1:31–33). However, this promise seemed impossible in light of Israel’s present condition. She was “dead” as a nation, deprived of her land, her king, and her temple. She had been divided and dispersed for so long that unification and restoration seemed impossible. So God gave Ezekiel the vision of the dry bones as sign.” (What is the meaning of the Valley of Dry Bones in Ezekiel 37? | GotQuestions.org).

This is clearly speaking of moral dryness. The Jews had become morally dead. God enlivened their morality. This, again, means Zera is moral, not physical.

300

You are very, very, very, very, very confused. Do you really think my own clergy and my commentaries did all this bad stuff? Are they time travelers? What is the harvesting of souls?

301

You found commentary. Did it cause the holocaust?

302

How can a shoot be the same tree when it sprouts from a burned stump? The entire plant wasn’t destroyed. It was just “almost” destroyed, but a remnant remained.

That isn’t what Isaiah is saying. From the commentary you used earlier:

So when you say Isaiah is saying all of Israel is destroyed you are wrong. Isaiah never says Israel is “completely” destroyed. You also ignore the actual history, as recorded in the OT, that some Hebrews were left behind when most of the nation was carried off and survived until the Hebrews returned.

It is a simile and not meant to be taken completely literally.

Sorry but you are being silly again. The concept of inheritance and family runs all through the OT.

Sorry but that is what the OT says. You want to argue that the Jews just changed their Holy Scriptures for political purposes.

303

No time travel. Just lethargy. God has given us minds. The difficulty is that we do not want to exercise our minds to get to the truth. We are happy to live in our false shells that have been created by commentaries. This attitude has led to the Abrahamic religions–Judaism, Christianity and Islam–to claim exclusivity thus bringing forth equal and opposite reaction from others. The commentators were in some way beneficiaries of the exclusivity principle hence they used their knowledge to promote politics rather than theology. Of course, not all of them. But here I am not holding brief for one against the other. This exclusivity had led to the persecution of the Jews, the Holocaust, the Inquisitions, the harvesting of souls. (Harvesting of souls refers to doing charity to make conversions to your religion. Used against missionaries). So, I request you to use your mind rather than follow commentaries mindlessly.

304

B18: : How can a shoot be the same tree when it sprouts from a burned stump? The entire plant wasn’t destroyed. It was just “almost” destroyed, but a remnant remained.

J18: Nowhere does the Bible say “almost.” No interpolations, please.

xxx

B13: That isn’t what Isaiah is saying. From the commentary you used earlier:

The difference is not material, since in any view Isaiah speaks of an extermination of the actually existing people: but the first explanation excludes Isaiah’s characteristic doctrine of the Remnant , which we should certainly expect to find in his inaugural vision.

B13: So when you say Isaiah is saying all of Israel is destroyed you are wrong. Isaiah never says Israel is “completely” destroyed. You also ignore the actual history, as recorded in the OT, that some Hebrews were left behind when most of the nation was carried off and survived until the Hebrews returned.

J13: I do not find this quote in the commentary. Be that as it may, the word “burnt” is used without any objectives. No interpolations please.

xxx

J17: Human reproduction does not follow plant reproduction. The “same” people could refer to the same moral people.

B17: It is a simile and not meant to be taken completely literally.

J17: Again, it is politically convenient to dismiss the Word of God as similie when inconvenient.

xxx

J18: There is no “family” in Hebrew. That is a political translation.

B18: Sorry but you are being silly again. The concept of inheritance and family runs all through the OT.

J18: Please let us stick to the text and specific comments rather than general speculations, if I may say so. Please mention the specific verse elsewhere in the OT that has bearing on this.

xxxx

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.

B16: Sorry but that is what the OT says. You want to argue that the Jews just changed their Holy Scriptures for political purposes.

J16: Yes, that IS my argument. And, as I said in my comment to Beaglelady, this politics is responsible for the persecutions, Inquisitions and the rest.

305

THIS!

You sound just like a cult leader! But why not name the commentaries you don’t like. Surely you have read most of them to make such sweeping generalizations?

306

Yes, I have read a number of commentaries. I agree with some, disagree with others. But that is not the point. I am requesting you not to hide behind the curtain of unspecified commentaries and refuse to engage with an argument. Let us discuss with out own minds, that is what I ask. Please read my comment. I am making no generalization. I am making no aspersion on any commentary. I am only asking you to discuss rather that invoke an unspecified commentary and present it as truth.

307

In that case, you surely won’t mind mentioning the ones you agree with, or disagree with as the case may be. You are the one who made disparaging comments about commentaries. I just want you to back up your claims. Why are you trying to change the subject?

308

Nowhere does the Bible say “completely”. No interpolations, please. And, BTW, since Isaiah doesn’t say Israel was completely destroyed the almost is implied.

You even included the quote in your post 139.

Right, no adjectives so it could be complete or it could be partial. You have never put a log on a fire and see where it is “burnt” but not completely? That is why you have to take Isaiah’s concept of the Remnant of Israel into account. Something you seem to steadfastly ignore as it destroys your theory. You can’t just cherry pick words and assign them meaning without taking into consideration what the author says in total.

You should be trying to understand what was written. It is not dismissing the Word of God. It is just a figure of speech.

You won’t like it, but God also promised the land to Jacob, but I only quote this to show that “family” and inheritance does exist in the OT.

Really? At the time of the Inquisitions the Jews didn’t control Israel. Also during the Holocaust. I think you are just trying to blame the Jews for their problems and you are not doing a good job of it.

2 Likes
309

mishpachah <04940>
Definition:
1 clan, family
1a clan
1a1 family
1a2 tribe
1a3 people, nation
1b guild
1c species, kind
1d aristocrats

In the AV it is translated as families 290 times.

nachalah <05159>
Definition:
1 possession, property, inheritance, heritage
1a property
1b portion, share
1c inheritance, portion

In the AV it is translated as inheritance 192 times.

310

I like Julius Wellhausen: What are generally cited as points of superiority in Gen. i. over Gen. ii. iii. Are beyond doubt signs of progress in outward culture… but in its general views of God, nature, and man, Gen. i. stands on a higher, certainly on a later, level. To our way of thinking its views are more intelligible, simpler, more natural, and on this account they have been held to be also older ( Prolegomena, 308).
But that is not the point. We need to think why there is so much violence in the name of God. Surely, there must be some misunderstanding. I am not disparaging anyone. All I am saying is that we need to look beyond conventions.

311

B18: Nowhere does the Bible say “completely”. No interpolations, please. And, BTW, since Isaiah doesn’t say Israel was completely destroyed the almost is implied.

J18: Let us agree that both interpretations are possible (though I think “burnt” tells of complete destruction)…

xxx

B13: Right, no adjectives so it could be complete or it could be partial. You have never put a log on a fire and see where it is “burnt” but not completely? That is why you have to take Isaiah’s concept of the Remnant of Israel into account. Something you seem to steadfastly ignore as it destroys your theory. You can’t just cherry pick words and assign them meaning without taking into consideration what the author says in total.

J13: I am happy to learn about the theory of Remnant of Israel. Please elaborate with details of OT verses.

xxx

B18: You won’t like it, but God also promised the land to Jacob, but I only quote this to show that “family” and inheritance does exist in the OT.

Genesis 18:1-7
So Isaac called Jacob and blessed him and commanded him, saying to him, “You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and from there take to yourself a wife from the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother. May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, so that you may become a multitude of peoples. May He also give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your descendants with you, so that you may possess the land where you live as a stranger, which God gave to Abraham.”

J18: We have come a whole circle. My OP was with “Zera” in this quote. So, this quote can be understood as (1) bequeathal to moral descendants; (2) bequeathal of trading rights. Please appreciate that the purpose of this post is to examine why there is so much violence between the believers of Abrahamic religions. I am not baiting any religion. I think we need to work out why God would want His believers to fight with each other in His name. Please provide your solution to this problem.

xxxx

J16: Yes, that IS my argument. And, as I said in my comment to Beaglelady, this politics is responsible for the persecutions, Inquisitions and the rest.

B16: Really? At the time of the Inquisitions the Jews didn’t control Israel. Also during the Holocaust. I think you are just trying to blame the Jews for their problems and you are not doing a good job of it.

J16: Please see my response to Beaglelady. I am not into specific viewpoints. All I am saying is that we need to review the conventional understandings in view of the violence and mess that they have allowed to happen.

312

Please indicate how Zera translates to family. The use of family generally cannot be superimposed on bequeathal.

313

Some examples.
Deuteronomy 30:1-5
Isaiah 10:20-21, 11:11, 11:16
Jeremiah 16:14-15, 30:8-9
Ezekiel 37:21-22, 24, 26-27

I don’t think anything you have said so far addresses the cause or the history of the conflict between the three religions. And for Jews and Christians God doesn’t want His believers to fight.

As to the solution there is only one, Christ’s return.

In the OT land was passed down by inheritance through the family. Kind of like today. So family and bequeathal go together. You may be using the word in a idiosyncratic manner.

bequeathal: To pass (something) on to another; hand down:

1 Like
314

It is the point. You said that commentaries led to the holocaust, etc. What an irresponsible statement! Why not mention which ones did that? Will a bad commentary start another holocaust?

You don’t know enough to address the problem of anti-Semitism, or other violence in the name of God.

315

Paul gets it.

Romans 9:27, Romans 11:5

316

Please, I quote from my earlier post. “God has given us minds. The difficulty is that we do not want to exercise our minds to get to the truth. We are happy to live in our false shells that have been created by commentaries.”
Let us say for a minute that I don’t understand the Bible. Will you then please explain why there is so much conflict between the three Abrahamic religions–all rooted in the OT? Beaglelady, I am trying to crack this question. I am not in this forum to proselytize. Let us work together to solve this puzzle. I have benefited much here. Going forward, I welcome your critical inputs.

317

You could repeat this 100X and it still wouldn’t make sense. You think that unless we agree with you we are not “exercising our minds to get to the truth.”

318

Thanks for the input.
Romans 11:1-4: So I ask, God has not rejected his people, has he? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew! Do you not know what the scripture says about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars; I alone am left and they are seeking my life!” But what was the divine response to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand people who have not bent the knee to Baal.”
Here the remnants are those who have not taken to idol worship. Although Paul says I am descendant of Abraham, the word sperma also means
2c) whatever possesses vital force or life giving power
2c1) of divine energy of the Holy Spirit operating within the soul by which we are regenerated (https://classic.net.bible.org/strong.php?id=4690).
Therefore, like “Zera” this is amenable to a moral interpretation.
In any event, we were talking in OT about the time of Isaiah; not Paul.