| Latest Additions |
| Latest Additions |
| MOST RECENT ADDITIONS TO THIS SITE Some of this site's readership repeat their visits, I presume for any new material. My thoughts certainly don't merit reading more than once! Anyway, I'll use this page to put my latest additions, along with a tag to jump to the page involved. Please keep in mind, it's not that 'unusual' that I have to backtrack when I notice some illogic or incorrect information. Nah! Articles are sorted with the 'lastest' at the top of the page. SUBJECT: Act 7:42 (Amos 5:25) SITE PAGE: Passages - New Testament Gospels [TEXT] This quote comes from Stephen's speech in his own defense. The whole speech is interesting, and if you have the time, you should go over it, a few words at a time (use a literal translation or the greek itself). Contrary to a lot of scholars' opinions, few of the speeches in Acts syntactically 'match up' author-wise. In other words, it's unlikely they're all written by the same writer (e.g. 'Luke'). In the translated english, they do sound alike, though. And while we're on the subject of authorship, it's also unlikely much of Acts might have been written by 'Luke'. Only a few stories and 'glue' verses match to the gospel of Luke (the match is much higher for Mark and Matthew, and even some of Paul's epistles). Acts is likely a 'Readers Digest' of earlier writings, similar to the gospel of Luke. The issue in this verse begins with the phrase 'give them up to do service to the host of heaven'. 'Give them up' is to 'deliver' or 'hand over' (like a sack of groceries). 'Do service' probably is closer to 'worship', as it's used both in the NT and the OT/LXX. And the 'heavenly host' is very likely other gods (literal stars/planets, which were worshiped as gods as in the quoted Amos 5:25-27). Your first inclination is to assume Stephen (and Amos) are talking about the 'Golden Calf Incident', where Moses took his ever-loving-time getting down from Sinai, thereby 'forcing' the jewish women to hand over their ear-rings. Stephen, being the master orator that he was, then associates the naughty-gods-tent with the tent of the covenant (Tabernacle) and then the Temple that Soloman built, essentially concluding 'You're wasting your time!'. God lives in Heaven (Isa 66:1) ... that tent-thing and temple-thing have no relevance. Stephen had pretty much slaughtered the Torah, and the rocks soon came flying. Luckily Stephen had REALLY good eyesight and could see Jesus standing next to God up in heaven (v56). He reported this situation, but the jews put in their ear-plugs (v57) and then 'rushed' him. It turns out, someone else was standing listening to Stephen (v58). And about twenty or so years later, that listener was applying Stephen's arguments AGAIN (though emphasizing they came directly from Jesus ). But my real question is 'How did the disciples go from argueing 'healing on the sabbath' to 'YHWH dumped Israel years ago' SO FAST?' Goodness, it must have only been a couple of months since Jesus had died. The account of 'Stephen' is a REAL curiousity. EXTRA I: Reading the OT, it's never quite clear whether the 'gods' actually existed. There's many 'I'm the only God' verses, but that's for the Israelites. In the NT, there's separate 'powers and authorities' along with the 'Adversary', which sounds a whole lot like 'gods'. But the book of Enoch assures us they're actually bad angels. Well, ok. Enoch should know. EXTRA II: Most Christians today don't see any need for 'the Temple'. When Jesus died, the curtain to the Holy of Holies got ripped up. Of course, it was right after that and Pentecost, that the disciples started meeting in the Temple (Acts 2:46). Paul, the newly minted Nazorite, also went to the Temple to worship (Acts 21:26; later with the gentile Titus?; v27). It's obvious to me NONE of them had 'connected the dots' like Stephen did. EXTRA III: When I run my greek syntactical analyses, the Stephen account always suggests a 'late' dating. In other words, it's closest pattern match is with books like 2 Thes, 2 Peter 3, etc. On the surface, that hints at 're-written theology'. But it's also possible it was translated from aramaic to greek 'late'. That wouldn't make sense, though ... Stephen himself was greek and quoted from the LXX. Hmmm, maybe 'Stephen' knew the Temple's eventual demise? Obviously, the disciples and Paul got it wrong, but Stephen didn't. Think about it (and don't say 'Holy Spirit' either; that'd suggest everyone but Stephen wasn't inspired). SUBJECT: Mat 16:13 SITE PAGE: Passages - New Testament Gospels [TEXT] If you read this passage in the KJV or as here, the YLT, you won't see any problem. But apparently the early Byzantine group of copyists saw a problem ... and thus likely added 'I' into the text to confirm that Jesus was indeed talking about himself ... not a separate 'Son of Man'. The more 'correct' manuscripts don't have the 'I', and so the modernish translations leave it out (Darby kind of waffles). If you consult Mark's version (Mar 8:27), it doesn't even include the 'Son of Man' phrase, instead using 'me'. Luke's version (Luk 9:18) follows Mark. Now, at the time, the 'Son of Man' was expected 'real soon', along with the 'Kingdom of God' (Daniel 7). The only question was simply identifying him. Alternatively, per Numbers, a 'king from the east' was expected as well (this was the 'Star' prophesy, which Josephus happily assigned to the Roman army commander Vespacian, and later the Pharisee leadership assigned to Titus his son). Of course, the zealous jews thought the 'king from the east' would destroy Rome, but found out they were unbelievably wrong (thus destroying the Temple and later, Jerusalem). But knowing the identity of the 'Son of Man' was a hot topic at the time, and Matthew seems to lead off with the question of the Son of Man. Matthew doesn't get far, since the next verse begins listing all the competitors to 'the Son of Man'. And so, the question subtly shifts to identifying who Jesus was. The question in my mind is 'what happened'? There was no real reason for Matthew to 'add' the Son-of-Man identifier. Why put it there? Why not just add it to 'the list'. My guess is that at the time, the 'Son of Man' was NOT the same as the 'Messiah'. One, the Son of Man, came down from God, bringing final judgment to mankind, and having divine powers. The other (the Davidic messiah) was a powerful king who would destroy the nasty gentiles, namely the Romans. I suspect Mark didn't know the fate of Jerusalem (and so, a Davidic messiah was still possible), but Matthew did know. Matthew's job was to equate the 'Son of Man' to the 'Messiah', thereby avoiding the problem of Jerusalem being destroyed. EXTRA: Today, we happily equate just about everything about Jesus ... messiah, 'star and scepter', prophet, Son of God, Son of Man, and so forth, no matter WHAT the prophesy was talking about. Those jews at the time just obviously 'didn't get it'. Jesus TRIED to tell them. But noooooo, they (and the disciples, Paul, and just about everyone else) thought the end was at hand. 2,000 years later, we're a WHOLE lot more educated, and SMART too!! We'd never make THAT mistake. Yep. SUBJECT: Exodus - YHWH SITE PAGE: Passages - Old Testament As you read through Exodus, you may (or may not) notice quite a bit of ODD details that are easy to skip over. Here's a few that may raise your eyebrows a bit! Exo 15:3 YHWH is a war-man (per the hebrew). The more modern translations shift to 'warrior' since we wouldn't want to imply God is a man. Even so, when I pray to God, I have a little trouble imagining him battling Pharoah. Crushing Pharoah, sure. But 'battling' him?? That's what the 'legion of angels' are supposed to do (Jesus at his arrest). Interestingly, Pharoah was not killed in his battle with YHWH (though his army was, and probably never even heard of 'YHWH'). Pharoah lived to fight another day. Exo 15:11 It turns out, YHWH is one of many gods. But He IS the most powerful. Obviously, whoever wrote this wasn't aware YHWH was the ONLY god (at least, later on anyway). Exo 15:14-15 In YHWH-time, it's possible to have the future happen in the past. The NET translation solves this problem by simply changing the words and their tenses. Congrats to the intrepid translators! Exo 33:2 YHWH sent an angel to clear out Canaan of the standard list of occupants, in preparation for the Israelites. This passage is often put in parentheses, since it breaks the flow (and appears to be added later). As a minor matter, it also ignores that the Jebusites were still in Jerusalem during the time of Saul, and of course Joshua was rumored to have fought the Canaanites, including Jericho. Some (liberal) scholars suggest there were actually no battles. Maybe an angel was the correct answer? I'll be expanding this list. I have no doubt there'll be more. SUBJECT: Exodus 15:20 (also Numbers 12) SITE PAGE: Passages - Old Testament This is the verse that introduces Miriam's Song of the Sea in the next verse. If you use a 'literal' translation (e.g. Young's), you'll notice this verse seems to duplicate another introduction at the start of the next verse. The hebrew syntax patterns for both verses indeed are a little different. This verse (20) matches the Deuteronomy/Isaiah group of writings (maybe the time of Hezekiah or Josiah?). The next verse (21) is a little earlier, matching Hosea and the early 'king' histories. But the issue of interest here is the word that Young translates as 'inspired', describing Miriam. If you look up the hebrew word (nebiy'ah), the lexicons don't waste time: 'prophetess'. And there's quite a number of them: Judges 4:4 (Deborah the prophetess / judge), and similarly 2 Kings 22:14 (2 Ch 34:22), Neh 6:14 and Isa 8:3+. In Gensenius (lexicon), 'prophetess' is the preferred translation, but he does include 'poetess', strongly suggesting 'NOT!'. The Septuagint (later greek translation) also goes with 'prophetess'. Soooo ... Miriam was a prophet-ess. A 'prophet-ess' of whom?? The Bible doesn't disappoint us. In Micah 6:4, Miriam is listed as one of those 'sent' by YHWH to the Israelites. The verb 'sent' is indeed to send a representative, in this case, of YHWH. A similar usage is at Exo 3:10, where YHWH 'sent' Moses to free the Israelites. YHWH, though, doesn't just let his prophets (and prophet-ess'es) do just ANYTHING. In Numbers 12, Miriam and Aaron question Moses having a non-jewish wife (I guess Miriam, who is listed first, is the ring-leader). The logic they use is 'Has YHWH indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?'. Presumably everyone agrees Miriam and Aaron DO speak for YHWH, though it's not clear what this has to do with Moses' new wife. Ah ... but YHWH is listening! He orders them out of the tabernacle, and comes down in His pillar of a cloud. He explains to Aaron and Miriam, that normal prophets get their revelations from dreams. They speak in riddles (e.g. Pharoah's dream?). Moses, on the other hand, gets his directly, even as he speaks (thus a pecking-order of revelation, I guess). Plus, Moses has seen YHWH's image. Aaron and Miriam haven't. In any event, YHWH is really ticked off and then leaves. In his wake, Miriam is leprous (but not Aaron). I just KNEW it .... that Miriam was indeed the ring-leader. She should have KNOWN, prophesying for YHWH from dreams and riddles is NOT the same as prophesying directly. Lesson learned. Ah, but the 'plot' thickens (as it always does). If you analyze the hebrew syntax in Numbers 12, it's not consistent throughout. Numbers 12:5-7 matches the Deu/Isa time period (YHWH appearing in a cloud-pillar and seeming to contrast Moses with other prophets). The rest of Numbers 12 is closest to Job syntax or much later. I'd suspect the initial account involved true prophets of YHWH versus false ones, during the split kingdom (see Isaiah and Deuteronomy for more true-prophet-distinctions). And in the likely updated account, it's apparent Miriam (but not Aaron) had to go. EXTRA: As a Christian (or at least one believing in Jesus; there IS a difference), I think it's odd that both the OT and NT seem to start out with the genders being 'theologically' equal. For example, Eve listened to a sneaky snake, but Adam was also misled (and punished). Abraham was a good man but the account doesn't hide his problems. And so also Sarah. You have male religious leaders, and periodically some female ones too (Miriam, Deborah, and so forth). But as you shift forward in time, the female gender appears to disappear, and even be visibly erased (e.g. Miriam). Similarly in the NT, Jesus appears to recognize both genders, with the primitive church clearly being periodically taught by women as well as men. But again, with time, the emphasis shifts to the male group, even going so far as to tag 'Eve' with the origin of sin. The primitive NT church is especially intriguing. The involvement of women prophesying and teaching must have been quite a cultural shock ... and thus not accidental to the account. EXTRA II: I'm one of those that thinks YHWH is indeed the only God, all powerful, and acts in chosen ways relative to the nutty humans on planet Earth. And that He periodically uses prophets (mouthpieces) to get the humans back on-track. But I also think the nutty humans periodically figure they can use YHWH for their own ends, and always for perceived good 'religious' reasons. Thus, sometimes I wonder if the odd 'ungodly' behavior of YHWH is a clue that He's being 'used'. Or, to put it another way, the Christian concept of 'the Father' is quite a bit different from some of the OT's depictions. In the NT period and a couple of centuries after, the Christians were struggling with the same issue (Marcion, etc.). SUBJECT: Exodus 14 (Israel's escape) SITE PAGE: Passages - Old Testament The whole sequence of Israel's escape from Egypt is either an impressively powerful account of YHWH, or a badly written myth to motivate later passover participants. Personally I suspect it might be both. I had already concluded that Exodus, similar to Genesis, was 'packaged' fairly late in the OT writing sequence (based on the hebrew syntax patterns). But that's not to say the individual pieces might not be earlier. Exodus 15 and its 'Song of Moses' (and Miriam's older verses) clearly don't match Exodus syntax patterns, and are probably much older. But, Exodus 14 is interesting. You can play 'detective' yourself and see how the 'escape' is actually two escapes. First, read down through chapter 14, and where you see something ODD, draw a line. Here's some examples to get you started: - Verse 4 gets repeated almost verbatim in verse 18, only to get repeated again in verse 19 - Verse 5 has the 'king of Egypt', where previously it was 'Pharoah'. This moves back and forth, as the account proceeds. - In verse 5 also, the king seems to feel 'we' have made a mistake, but in verse 3, he seems to happily point out the Israelites are 'lost'! Let's go get'em! - Verse 7 seems unclear whether Pharoah took just his 'chosen' chariots, or 'all his chariots'. This is best seen in how the translators attempt to figure the flow out. - Verse 9-10 has the Israelite camped out 'before the sea' when they see Pharoah approaching. They cry out to Moses in verse 11 and in verse 13, Moses calms them down, even promising they'll never see the Egyptians again. EVER. And to just 'be quiet'. But by verse 14, YHWH seems to enter the picture complaining about Moses crying to him and telling Moses they should 'journey' into the sea, with YHWH dividing the waters. - Also in verse 11, the Israelites point out there are no graves in Egypt. Are they joking (the pyramids), or is the account written when Egypt used cremation? - Verse 19 has the 'angel of God' journeying 'before' the camp and at the rear. The same verse also has a pillar of a cloud also journeying from the front, but standing from the rear (which proceeds to then hide the camp). - In verse 21-23, Moses raises his hand, and YHWH has an east wind blow all night long. Then the Israelites proceed to walk into the sea on dry land. The Egyptians follow, apparently now able to see the Israelites escaping. Note that the 'east' wind requires an east-west body of water (river, divisable swamp, or sea). - In verse 24, however, at the morning watch, YHWH is busily peaking through the pillar of fire and cloud. He then proceeds to 'trouble the Egyptian camp'. He takes the wheels off their chariots or makes sure they won't turn. The Egyptians become fearful and decide to exit (apparently not yet in the sea). - But by verse 25, the Egyptians are back in the sea and at sunrise (about when YHWH is peaking through the pillar), YHWH and Moses cause the water to drown them. Actually I didn't see a BIG problem, until I came to the Angel of God vs the pillar of the cloud (or fire, whichever). One is 'late' (angels), and since there's a duplication, the other would probably be earlier. The name of the leader of Egypt added more clues: why two? Plus duplicated 'honoring', and the two accounts soon became obvious. So, how'd you break yours out? My 'late' account has YHWH baiting Pharoah, turning the Israelites up against the 'sea', clearing an opening, and then destroying all the Egyptians (v 1-4, 9-10, 15-16, 19a, 21-23, and 26-30). I broke it out by collecting the 'Pharaoh' title verses, the angel-leader verse, and then connecting the related verses. The presumed earlier version has the King of Egypt also chasing after the Israelites, a cloud hiding the camp (with Moses cautioning them to 'be quiet!'). And then the next morning YHWH messing up the attack chariots and the Egyptians fleeing in fear (using the verses not listed above). Indeed, if you break it out, you literally have two accounts that read quite well. So, why would a drowning-Egyptian-army account be needed? YHWH certainly can 'peer' through the clouds. He did that at Babel too. I'd guess it has to do with chapter 15 (Song of Moses). In theory, chapter 14 originally didn't match Miriam's song nor the expanded Song of Moses. What to do? Conflate the 'Song' into those messed up chariots!! In many ways, this is a lot like the Genesis flood account where the details don't match, demonstrating two conflated accounts (and the so-called JEPD theory). But with the Exodus escape account, I feel a bit disappointed. I was quite willing to believe in a split-sea drowning (though trying to get the Red Sea or even 'Reed Sea' to turn around 90 degrees was proving a little difficult). But with the 'older' account, YHWH peering through the clouds at the Egyptian camp seems more fun to me. And their wheels falling off is even funnier. OK, I'll go with the 'Egyptian Chariot Wheel Escapade' using Yul Brynner (ok, Ian Keith) and him swearing up a storm at the broken chariot wheels! The final scene has the Egyptians trudging back, thirsty, but thanking their lucky stars that YHWH didn't drown them in the desert. EXTRA: If you read the account in non-literal translations, many of the 'problems' are no longer visible. For example, in verse 24 where YHWH is messing up the chariots, you'll see the word 'army' instead of 'camp' (with the implication that the action is occurring in the middle of the sea-bed). But you'll notice, it's at the morning watch (early), with YHWH peering down through the pillar of fire (the primary identifier). So, what's a pillar of cloud doing there ALSO? Indeed, here we have ANOTHER visible problem in the text. Both Exodus and Numbers make sure it's understood the fire-pillar is for the night and the cloud-pillar is for the day; not both at the same time (Exo 13:21-22, Exo 40:38, and Num 9:15-16). Interestingly, the Septuagint translators (LXX) went with 'camp', not 'army'. I suspect they noticed the same issues. EXTRA II: Not to question the scholarly community, but a syntactic analysis of Exo 15 (with or without inclusion of vowel-less lemmas) and the 'Song of Moses' suggests another alternative. Oh, isn't that just peachy? The 'Song of Moses' most closely matches Deuto-Isaiah and Job (along with the formatting of the Psalms). The remainder of Exo 15 is earlier ('Song of Miriam' and the need for water account). Soooo ... now I'm (truly) guessing that the Song of Moses worked off of an earlier version of an Egypt-army drowning account. Oh, gee ... maybe from Miriam? EXTRA III: It's interesting to listen in a church class on the Israelite escape. There's no problem with YHWH splitting the waters (which makes sense, since YHWH is divinely powerful). Where the expressed problem comes is what body of water is deep enough (and in the 'right' location) to accomodate drowning an army (with bodies floating up on the shore). I suspect common sense always 'wins-out' ... something is wrong with the account. SUBJECT: 1st/2nd/3rd John SITE PAGE: Passages - New Testament Epistles Who wrote the Johnine epistles? Ignoring scholarly attempts to date the theology, the greek syntax patterns in 1st John VERY CLOSELY match the gospel of John. Indeed, the rabbi'ish chapters in the gospel of John can literally duplicate 1st John BETTER than 1st John can ! This strongly suggests that the 'pre-final' John writer (pre-redactor, if you will) probably wrote 1st John, either about the same time or closely thereafter. Similarly 3rd John almost exactly matches 1st John (and John) on its syntax patterns. To be honest, I had previously thought 1st John would be significantly earlier than John, given its heavy emphasis on the immediacy of the end-time (unlike John). But Romans, Matthew and Luke all 'date' later than the fall of Jerusalem and also expect a near-term end-time (happily commiting Jesus to the timing). So the important question ..... did John the apostle do the writing (both John and 1st John)? I had thought theologically 'not likely'. The gospel of John was just too 'different' from the synoptics. But then I got to looking at the 'Son of Man' and it tracking back to Daniel and Ezekiel (Revelations also tracking to Ezekiel). These in-turn track to Ugarit traditions of 'El' and his visier-god Baal (matching the Daniel 7 write-up). And all of these track to the Enoch Similitudes which appear to show up approximately 45ce. With all these 'clues', I think John's 'high-Christology' might be just the 'greek' version of the 'Son of Man' (which is indeed frequent in the gospel of John). Where the synoptic miracles seemed to have meant the end-time dispensation and messiah of Israel, John's miracles showed Jesus as the eternal Daniel/Enochian Son of Man. 'John' effectively re-wrote the 'end-time' logic. What about 2nd John? That one's a mystery. 2nd John doesn't match 1st or 3rd John. It's closest match is to the Ephesians letter, and to a lesser degree the gospel of John. Just guessing, I'd bet 2nd John provided the tradition that the Johnine community was in Ephesus. It may well have ended up there, even if both John and 1st John (and Revelations) have a strong Palestinian tradition. SUBJECT: PRAY-TIME SITE PAGE: Theology Like most (all?) Christians, I grew up with prayer. You have your meal prayers, your worship-time prayers, and then any events that suggest more prayers. If you want to truly learn about 'prayer', next time in a public Christian setting, don't pray and then see what happens. You're with your Christian friends about to tear into a great meal, and they bow their heads to pray. You don't. Uh, huh. What has been violated? Because something definitely has. In the NT, prayer is interesting. In the synoptics (Mat/Mar/Luk), it's the normal greek word for prayer. But in John, the translated word always comes from the greek word 'ask'. What is so interesting about Jesus, is that he spent a whole lot of time trying to get his disciples to 'ask'. He told them that with enough belief, they could even move mountains. That's one of the reasons Palestine today is one mess of jumbled up real estate! But you do have to wonder what the disciples thought about mountain-moving. Did they try it? Maybe the point was that believers needed a little more confidence in talking with God. Growing up with a pastor-father where prayers were 'what you do', and then leaving Christianity for thirty years, my return was marked by refusing to pray except alone. There had been too many prayers that had meant nothing in my early years. But in not publicly praying, I began to notice that other Christians seemed quite uncomfortable. It's pray-time! SUBJECT: HONESTY (DIVINE & HUMAN) SITE PAGE: Theology If you have your Bible, read Exo 3:18 and then Exo 5:1. Both refer to a short religious pilgrimage into the desert to worship YHWH. In the first reference, the elders seem to be explaining the need for the pilgrimage, while the second reference is a direct quote from YHWH. In both instances, YHWH, the elders, Moses and Aaron clearly intend to not return to Egypt. Indeed in Exo 3:22 are special jewelry-theft instructions direct from YHWH; jewelry for what? At the Mt Sinai pawn shop? Well, OK, maybe so. Now if you're not quite sure, check the actual hebrew in Exo 5:1 ... the base for the word 'pilgrimage' is the arabic 'haj' ... the same as today's 'hajira' and indeed its common use in the OT. Now, here's the question for you. Did (and can) God (YHWH) lie? If my son said he'd like to take a quick 3-day holiday from his college work (forced-slavery), but actually intended to quit school and head for the Baja, I'd say he was not being honest with me (thereby allowing me to request back my monetary funding). And if he even planned on 'stealing' my car as well, I might even be a bit incensed. But that's exactly what YHWH advocated. We all smile ... it was YHWH! Sure, why not?! Now later on in the NT, the advocates of the messiah said God couldn't lie (indeed, that was one of Jesus' arguments). What God said, God delivered. Hmmm, we're starting to get on thin ice here, aren't we? Does God only lie to Pharoahs (who were lower-case-gods)? Or like today's politics, is honesty relative? For me, I prefer a hard look at the original Exodus account ... I'd suspect the honesty of the human writer a whole lot sooner than YHWH (God). And for very obvious reasons. EXTRA CREDIT: The subject of gold and silver here is interesting. First, in the EXO 3:22 version, it's 'vessels' of gold and silver (hebrew = utility objects). And it's from their FEMALE neighbors (both Egyptian and not). Wow. Even my 'wealthy' neighbors don't have gold and silver vessels (mainly bronze, here in Sedona). Clearly, the Israelites lived in an upscale neighborhood (as servants/slaves). It's also interesting that not just the Egyptian neighbors were relieved of their wealth; presumably anyone sticking around and not going on the 'haj'. And lastly, where did the booty end up? That would be the neato golden calf, after Moses disappeared on the mount. But, read the passage carefully (Exo 32:2); the calf-gold came from the women's and teenager earrings (and so appropriate too). That left the 'vessels' for the tabernacle later (Exo 25 and then 36+)? Think about this: the Commaches in the late 1800s, raided the Texas gulf coast, 'spoiling' the fair citizens of Victoria Texas. Returning north, they were wearing the various european fashions of the time. Just like the Israelites leaving Egypt! SUBJECT: Exodus 4:24-26 SITE PAGE: Passages - Old Testament [TEXT] This is a fairly well known passage, and a passage that most commentaries try to kind of 'slide by'. The quote here suggests that YHWH wanted Moses DEAD. The verb 'seek' could be a strong desire, but more likely 'looking for' as suggested in the Septuagent. Oddly enough, a similar usage is in verse 19, where the egyptians 'seek' Moses' life, so maybe it's inherent in killing. The next verses have Zipporah circumsizing 'her' son with some sort of encantation (normally the text would be for 'his' son; compare to Exo 18:2; and then 18:5). Like everyone else, I haven't a clue! But I think there ARE some clues: (1) The passage has a lot of similarities to 1st Kings 13:18+, where a 'man of God' is literally killed by YHWH, when he mistakenly eats with a false prophet. So, YHWH is certainly capable of killing 'his own'. (2) The section 'seems' out of place in the storyline. From our hebrew syntax pattern analysis, Exo 4 has a pretty tight match to the 'Elohim' writer of the JEPD theory (quite a bit 'Elohim' doesn't match the Elohim segments!). But from verse 24 to verse 26, the pattern suddenly doesn't match at all. Instead, it shifts to hebrew found in Hosea. So, chances are, this segment wasn't originally part of Exo 4. (3) Interestingly enough, the small section DOES also have a good match to Ruth and some of the Genesis 'Sarah' segments. On this site we mention a possible 'women's stories' book that seems to have been incorporated into Genesis (including Ruth). If you read this from a female point of view (and indeed the LXX), you get the feeling Moses didn't want to do HIS JOB (Zipporah pointing out some of his short-comings; even sexual ... he WAS 80 years old, you know). So, which is it? I'd say #3. Later on Miriam (another strong female figure) is not too happy with Moses either! Indeed, reading much of 'Moses', I get the feeling he was kind of a wimpy leader (definitely requiring YHWH to nudge (shove?) him along). EXTRA: Our pastor took on this passage (with everyone holding their collective breaths). 'His' take was that 'Zipporah' was CLEARLY the problem. Now, why am I am I not surprised?! SUBJECT: MESSIANIC WHIPS SITE PAGE: Theology I was reading a good article in the Journal of Bibical Literature (Fall 2009) on John 2:15 and Jesus' use of a corded whip to drive the merchants out of the Jerusalem temple. The English translations strongly suggest that Jesus used the whip (and thus violence) against the merchants. Luckily, by careful interpretation of the greek, it becomes apparent that Jesus' whip was likely used on the animals, with their surprised owners in hot pursuit. Whew. But the passage IS interesting, because Jesus clearly planned the whole event. Why the conclusion? He made the whip himself (his dad was a craftsman, and probably even Jesus also). Now, anyone that's dealt with moving animals needs to be familiar with their nature, and presumably Jesus knew the oxen definitely would need motivating; not sure about the sheep. But why design a whip similar to a 'flagellum'? This was a small Roman tool (thus the latin loan-word), whose sole design was intended to inflict pain (on people). I'd assume Jesus knew the oxen had strong hides (and sheep wooly coverings), so maybe it didn't hurt too much. But living out here in the American west and reading about 1800s oxen-pulling wagon trains, a flagellum? Well, ok, Jesus wasn't sitting high up on a wagon. Plus, he was in close quarters too. You have to admit, Jesus probably had REALLY thought this whole thing out, right? EXTRA CREDIT: Apparently, the reason sheep, oxen, doves and money-changers were in the temple courts, was that the Chief Priest Caiaphas recently arranged for them to be there. This was in contrast to the visiting humans, who (1) had to take a bath before entering and (2) couldn't even bring in a staff (thus Jesus with a hidden whip?). Certainly the new policy represented greater convenience for sacrificers, and surely the cash-flow could more easily be managed. I get the feeling later on, that Caiphas was really gunning for Jesus over more than his messianic claims. EXTRA CREDIT II: On our Theology page, we have an entry on 'the Temple' and its odd involvement in the new messianic movement. This section (and the synoptics account before passover) seems as opposing the symbolic failure of the temple (and Moses law). Indeed, you'd think Jesus clearly wanted everyone to (physically) visit the Temple PROPERLY. Well, ok. SUBJECT: Proverbs 30:7-9 SITE PAGE: Passages - Old Testament [TEXT] Like many with Christian parents, mine had given me a special Bible. My Dad liked the ASV; my Mom liked the KJV, and so the gift was an ASV. Later when my Mom died, I was lucky to receive her Bible ... an NKJV. She never gave the KJV up ... and my Dad still has his ASV. I generally don't put notes in my Bibles, since I shift from version to version. But the one from my parents, I had highlighted this passage. Like most teens, I thought I could manage my future and this was the future I wished to have. Now, it's 40+ years later. After entering a seminary, I had walked away from the church. I didn't think they were honest with their belief (nor me with mine). And I pursued a career that promised neither riches nor poverty. Now, I'm retired and I have come to an accomodation with honesty and God. I guess it really can't be achieved. And in a way, I imagine Him chuckling, as if I too could be a god. But He did indeed give me what I asked for, 40 years ago. And so, I bumble along with Him, imagining Him saying 'Don't you EVER learn ANYTHING?!'. EXTRA CREDIT: Per many commentaries, Proverbs 30 et al. aren't from Solomon. These proverbs include aramaic words, which of course we know Solomon didn't know. I always wondered, though, how Solomon talked to his Egyptian wife. Hmmm. Syntactically, these proverbs have a closest match with the hebrew in Hosea. Well, anyway, the philosophy of Proverbs 30 almost seems like SedonaChristian.com in its tone, with the author admitting not being too wise. I especially like his warning ... 'Add not to His (God's) words, lest He reason with thee,and thou hast been found false.' (v6 YLT). I don't think most pastors are too concerned with this ancient caution. Definitely not Saul aka Paul. SUBJECT: 2 Peter 3:8 SITE PAGE: Passages - New Testament Epistles [TEXT] This is the one-day-equals-a-thousand-years passage. Most cross-referencing Bibles cite Psa 90:4 as what the writer was refering to ('For a thousand years in Thine eyes are as yesterday ...' YLT). The big problem was that the apostles (and Jesus, if you think Mark was 'inspired') had promised the End-Time in their lifetime ('generation'). By the time of 2 Peter 3, obviously some had noticed that nothing had happened. And so the writer provides an explanation ... God's calendar is different from man's. Today, two thousand years later, this little tidbit might seem obvious. But at the time, I seriously doubt so many early Christians would have ever risked life-and-limb for the 'Coming' THOUSANDS of years later! 2 Peter 3 seems a little disingenuous. Earlier this year, I finished 'dating' the greek syntax patterns, stretching from the LXX, through the apocrypha, pseudepigraphia, the NT and into the 'Ancient Fathers'. Interestingly enough, there is indeed a slow transition in the greek syntax patterns that allows sorting the writings and approximating their dates of 'final' composition. What was surprising was that the Epistle of Barnabas (as well as Hermas the Shepherd) sorted at about the same time as Philippians (i.e. much earlier than what scholars assign). And so, I went back through Barnabas, and indeed it does read very similar to early-Acts. Maybe 'Barnabas' was for real? The early Christian leaders thought so. Most interestingly, Barnabas also has the God-time dating, though not as an apology for No-End-Time-Yet. Barnabas mentions the calculation, with presumably 4,000 years before Jesus, 2,000 years after Jesus, and then 'the End' (though the LXX would have indicated only 500 years more, after Jesus). The NT problem was a little different from 2 Peter's; various writers had to explain why the End-Time would be EARLY! And so you can find references to the time being shortened (Mat 24:22, Mar 13:20, Rom 9:28, 1Co 7:29). But with no end-time, the 2 Peter 3 writer re-introduced God-time as an obvious piece of logic ('6,000 THOUSAND years, guys, remember?'). Sooooo ... hmmmm .... 2,000 years AFTER Jesus? That would be maybe year 2030 or so? I'll still be alive by then (in theory anyway). SUBJECT: PROTECTING GOD SITE PAGE: Theology I was with a Christian friend, driving up to Flagstaff up through Oak Creek Canyon. We were chatting on this and that, and she asked about our internet sites. I noted that the tourist internet site-visits were down (and indeed throughout Sedona), but that our 'black site' was going well. 'Black site?!', she asked. So, I explained that the site design was meant to discourage Christians from reading it; it was meant for those who had 'walked away'. As we swung around another tight curve in the highway switchbacks, she swung HER head around and asked 'Oh, so you're protecting God from Christianity?' Well, that sounded like an odd conclusion, though I suppose in the literal sense, maybe so? Obviously, God doesn't need any protecting. But folks' view of God and their relationship to Him does (I think). The more Christians get wound up with their beliefs, the more they demand their view of God for others. And so, I do believe 'protecting God' is something you have to do, to survive among the Christians. They really do want to take 'your God' away from you, . . . . and give you theirs. How can you detect this? It's easy. Whenever they begin to talk with certainty about 'God this' and 'God that', start listening closely. Why? Because they're human like you. How would they know that? The most they could 'know' is what you could know (i.e. the Bible, early Christian practices, etc). That's it. Ah, but there's a little 'ace card' up their sleaves. The Holy Spirit. That trumps 3000 years of human struggles with 'knowing God'. In an instant in time, your Christian friend has more than even the disciples who walked with Jesus (or Jesus himself!). And so, that is why you must 'protect God'. Too many Christians want to own God. Including yours. SUBJECT: Luke 13:1-5 SITE PAGE: Passages - New Testament Gospels [TEXT] This is one of those odd NT passages that kind of leaves you wondering. Only Luke mentions it. Jesus responds to two events that jews at the time presumably assigned to God. Some Galileans has been ignomously killed by Pilate with their blood 'mixed with sacrifices'. And eighteen people had been killed, when the Siloam tower collapsed in Jerusalem. The assumption seems to have been, that both groups were more sinful than their respective compatriots. Jesus says 'nay', and then suggests the same punishment for his listeners, should they not repent. I accidentally mentioned this passage to a God-does-everything-for-the-best Christian. Before I had gotten to Jesus' response, my friend had made the disciples' assumption concerning God's involvement in the two events, but with a twist. Instead of the galileans or crushed Jerusalem-ites being extra sinful, he assumed the more modern 'God-does-everything-for-the-best' rationale. This assumption surprised me. First, although he was a life-time Christian, he wasn't that familiar with the details of Jesus' teachings (nor I). And second, the passage 'seems' to match the bumper-sticker saying 'S__t happens' (i.e. no divine or personal payback). Jesus does, however, jump the A<>B but B=A logic-rules, suggesting that 's__t' WILL happen, absent repentence. Interestingly, the idea of 'suffering' seems to be the main theological issue these days. I never really thought Jesus might lean on the side of the random event. For God, falling towers and nasty rulers are essentially 'all in an earthly day' ... but personal repentence is the REAL issue. EXTRA CREDIT: If you track Jesus' teaching, he seems to have moved from the 'Repent or die!!' theology (as if they could avoid death at the end-time), to the 'Father-Knows-Best' theology (worry not; be a flower!). And so today, you have your pastors-from-hell group, versus your pastors-trust-the-Father group. Our pastor seems to be in the latter group. But sometimes I wonder if instead, there might have been literally TWO Jesus-teachers (meaning, one of the accounts of Jesus either might not have happened or represented a radically different perspective). The 'repent' teaching mainly tracks back to the OT prophets, along with the eminent end-time. The 'Father-Knows-Best' theology tracks to the Psalms, along with the pseudepigraphia just before Jesus' time. I wouldn't be surprised if, at the time, one represented the influential John-the-Baptist group (fire and brimstone and nothing less!), versus the Jerusalem-based apostles (who seemed to include a LOT of pseudepigraphia concepts)? Of course, then you have 'Paul' (who ignored 'both'). SUBJECT: GODS (the earthly kind) SITE PAGE: Theology I recently got a copy of the greek interlinear of the 'Ancient Fathers' (actually 3!). The period followed the 'apostolic age' (the one where the apostle-promised end-time didn't happen). The 'new age' seemed to be characterized by 'bishops' doing their level-headed best to get in charge of the whole kaboodle. Clement clearly was a 'softie', arguing that bishops were kind of like apostles. Ignatus, though, didn't waste time (his time being limited by his trip to Rome for a meeting with some lions). He said bishops were the earthly version of God, and the elders the equivalent of the apostles (Magnesians 6.1). That's pretty impressive, since the last of the apostles was barely in his grave (John?). Fast-forward to today. Here in Sedona Arizona, our little congregation has never known a 'bishop'. Our pastor quotes Clement, but only if the quote supports pre-Clement ideas. And as the winter snow softly falls outside, he intones 'What does God think about .... ?' and deftly fills in the blanks with the latest political hot-topic. I suspect the guys that see their future with lions are more up front about climbing into the shoes of God. But without lions in your future, you just let everyone 'in' on what God REALLY thinks. In Ignatus's time, some of the believers didn't quite go for the logic (and thus his visit with the lions). But today, as long as you agree, why not? For sure, if 'what God's thinks' doesn't sound right, you can easily enough choose another of the 'Ignatus-gods' down the street. Of course the pastors down the street don't see it that way (and certainly not ours). But I do have to wonder why they desperately NEED to 'speak for God'. If they wanted, they could just read their Bibles. Wow! EXTRA CREDIT: If you read Didache 4:1, it kind of joins the chorus too; 'remember the one who preaches God’s word to you, and honor him as though he were the Lord'. OK, maybe a little step short of 'God'. |
| Copyright ©, 2010, dmbarnhart |
| Prev Back Next |