IF's Bible Study

[Icarus Fallen]

Men and Brethren (you too, Lucia et al),

I'm a novice to the scriptures and therefore seek guidence in my quest for understanding 'the inerrant Word of God'. I've noticed (in other discussions here and elsewhere) that certain apologists quite often refer/defer to the original Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew texts when trying to ascertain the meaning(s) most likely intended by the author(s) of a given passage. It is my hope that such knowledgeable individuals will see fit to chime-in and shed light upon some of the more perplexing scriptures the Bible has to offer.

To get the ball rolling, I offer-up Ezekial 23:20-21. The verses read as follows:

20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
21 Thus thou calledst to rembrance the lewdness of thy youth, in bruising thy teats by the Egyptians for the paps of thy youth.

In all honesty, I find the process of exegeting via analogy/metaphor to be very compelling! Israel: the unfaithful wife; God: the doting and ever-faithful husband -- together forever in a marriage of necessity. It's all so poetic, it makes me wanna puke. Yet, given the degrading nature (WRT women) of so many scriptures, the analogy makes perfect sense here, ...doesn't it.

What I find perplexing about this passage, though, is the degree of graphic detail to which God supposedly inspired Ezekial to write. Why do we need to know that the "paramours" were endowed like asses and ejaculated like horses? I mean, forgive me for asking, but let's face it: that's Bible!

So, what I'd like to know is this: regarding 20, what, exactly, did the author mean to accentuate, by "whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses"; and regarding 21, what historical correlary might there be, for "in bruising thy teats by the Egyptians for the paps of thy youth."?

Might the original langauge paint a clearer picture?

Might the presumed analogy really be an invocation of actual events, such as the temple prostitution referred to later by Hosea?

[Icarus Fallen]

Brethren (yes, just the guys this time),

Getting back to the Bible, I've been moved to provide you with a word of caution from 'the inerrant Word of God'.

Deuteronomy 23:1

1No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.

Best guard the gonads, fellas; it seems our salvation might hang in the balance!

And of course, the possible implications of this ascription of sacredness to the male genitalia are of no little consequence ...and may actually point up another cog in the machinery of sex-based subjugation that continues to clickety-clack to this very day.

Discuss.

[Icarus Fallen]

Moderator Intervention:
I have reviewed the tread and believe that it does fall within the scope of the forum. However, the tone is more pejorative than academic and would benefit from a more respectful stance being taken.

Brethren,

Resisting the urge to continue in the current vein and to post a lengthy exposition on the writings of Paulus (specifically as they relate to 'a woman's place' in the Church and beyond), I think a change of direction might be in order.

To that end, I'll ask you to consider the implications of God-sanctioned adultery.

(2 Samuel 12:11-12) 11Thus says the LORD: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. 12For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.' [emphasis IF's]

Now, I realize that God was pissed at Dave, but I wonder of the message sent by using the sin of adultery (an act clearly condemned in the Ten Commandments) as a method of punishment?! Doesn't this imply that we might be expected to follow a slightly modified version of the trusty ol' adage: "Do as I say; not as I do."? At least as far as Dave's wives and neighbor were concerned, it was apparently: "Do as I say 'til I say to do otherwise."!

But then, God didn't stop there. No, to underscore the point (namely "His" ANGER at Dave) and to show that the maxim still applied in its unmodified form, "He" went on to murder a new-born.

(2 Samuel 12:14-19) 14Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD,* the child that is born to you shall die.’ 15Then Nathan went to his house.
The LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became very ill. 16David therefore pleaded with God for the child; David fasted, and went in and lay all night on the ground. 17The elders of his house stood beside him, urging him to rise from the ground; but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. 18On the seventh day the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead; for they said, ‘While the child was still alive, we spoke to him, and he did not listen to us; how then can we tell him the child is dead? He may do himself some harm.’ 19But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, he perceived that the child was dead; and David said to his servants, ‘Is the child dead?’ They said, ‘He is dead.’ [emphasis IF's]

As you can see, in light of the commandment WRT murder, God showed us via the ruthless murder of an innocent child, that "Do as I say; not as I do." was still fully in play.

Bear in mind: we're talking about more than 'bodily death' here. Setting in motion the post-Eden laws of physics, which are believed to eventually result in the bodily deaths of all created beings and their off-spring, is one thing; intervening in the 'natural order', by "striking the child" with an "illness" that would kill him slowly (the baby reportedly suffered for seven days, remember) ...is quite another. I believe it's usually called "murder" ("torture" might also apply in this case).

Glory be to "His" Loving, Just, and Merciful Name ...???!

Discuss.

[Icarus Fallen]

Brethren,

Looking back through this thread, I think I may have overloaded your systems just a bit (via the rapid-fire approach); which might explain the tepid response thus far. So, in turn, I think it'd be wise to start over and spend a little more time and energy on each and every one of the passages individually.

Beginning with the selection in the original post: in my opinion, Ezekiel 23 really is a fascinating exercise in extended metaphor, in which Samaria and Jerusalem are portrayed as a sister tandem of 'adulterous prostitutes', both figuratively married to the GOD of the bible. Samaria is played by Oholah in this lusty tale of intrigue; while the role of Jerusalem is brought to life by the slightly more promiscuous Oholibah. Assuming the entire story is metaphorical, though, doesn't negate the prospect that any or all of the images may bear various degrees of correlative significance to certain historical events and/or circumstances involving the people of Samaria and Jerusalem during their exhilic captivity. In that line of inquiry, I humbly seek the guidance of those better educated than myself in the art of biblical interpretation ...to help me understand the deeper significance and/or direct correlations to historical events.

Having already mentioned the donkey-like genitals and horse-like ejaculations of the "paramours", I feel obligated to highlight some of the similarities of certain other events in the 'lives' of both sisters.

First for Samaria, from verse 8:

8She did not give up the prostitution she began in Egypt, when during her youth men slept with her, caressed her virgin bosom and poured out their lust upon her. [emphasis IF's]

Then for Jerusalem, from verse 21:

21So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.[c] [emphasis IF's]

What might Ezekiel have been driving at with these sexually-explicit (if not downright perverted) images -- to wit: the "caressing, fondling, and pouring out of lust" of (and onto) the "virgin bosom/young breasts" of the sisters?!

Discuss (for the time being, Ezek. 23 only, please).

[S-word]

Brethren,

Another puzzling passage to consider, I give you Genesis 38:7-10:

Genesis 38:7-10 7But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death. 8Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother.’ 9But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother’s wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother. 10What he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also.

So, the pull-and-pray method of birth-control is definitely out of the question! Take heed, Christian couples, lest God "put you to death" for such a crime!

Of course, there are some other dynamics in play here as well -- a father's sanctioning of the bumping of uglies as "the duty of a brother-in-law"; the performance of that "duty" (minus the proper method of climaxing); and probably the biggest of all issues in question: what, exactly, was it about the whole sordid scenario that was found "displeasing in the sight of the LORD"?

Does anyone have a more poetic than literal interpretation in mind here?

Discuss.

That which was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, was the fact that Onan refused to obey the law that stated that if a man die childless, his brother was to go into the widow of his dead brother and sire a child for the posterity of his brother, and it was for that reason that Onan was put to death.

If the Lord was to put to death all the men who have spilt their seed on the ground, down the shower drain, in the bed, etc, etc, then there would not be too many mature males on this earth, even those dishonest men who claim that they have never masturbated or used the pull away method, or harvested their seed in a rubber type ballon then dumped it.

[xavier phoenix]

Brethren,

Another puzzling passage to consider, I give you Genesis 38:7-10:

Genesis 38:7-10 7But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death. 8Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother.’ 9But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother’s wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother. 10What he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also.

So, the pull-and-pray method of birth-control is definitely out of the question! Take heed, Christian couples, lest God "put you to death" for such a crime!

Of course, there are some other dynamics in play here as well -- a father's sanctioning of the bumping of uglies as "the duty of a brother-in-law"; the performance of that "duty" (minus the proper method of climaxing); and probably the biggest of all issues in question: what, exactly, was it about the whole sordid scenario that was found "displeasing in the sight of the LORD"?

Does anyone have a more poetic than literal interpretation in mind here?

Discuss.

That which was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, was the fact that Onan refused to obey the law that stated that if a man die childless, his brother was to go into the widow of his dead brother and sire a child for the posterity of his brother, and it was for that reason that Onan was put to death.

If the Lord was to put to death all the men who have spilt their seed on the ground, down the shower drain, in the bed, etc, etc, then there would not be too many mature males on this earth, even those dishonest men who claim that they have never masturbated or used the pull away method, or harvested their seed in a rubber type ballon then dumped it.

I agree here that it does indeed have to do with carrying on the family line. Read Dueteronomy 25:5-10 -

5 "When brothers live on the same property [a] and one of them dies without a son, the wife of the dead man may not marry a stranger outside [the family]. Her brother-in-law is to take her as his wife, have sexual relations with her, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law for her. 6 The first son she bears will carry on the name of the dead brother, so his name will not be blotted out from Israel. 7 But if the man doesn't want to marry his sister-in-law, she must go to the elders at the [city] gate and say, 'My brother-in-law refuses to preserve his brother's name in Israel. He isn't willing to perform the duty of a brother-in-law for me.' 8 The elders of his city will summon him and speak with him. If he persists and says, 'I don't want to marry her,' 9 then his sister-in-law will go up to him in the sight of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, and spit in his face. Then she will declare, 'This is what is done to a man who will not build up his brother's house.' 10 And his [family] name in Israel will be called 'The house of the man whose sandal was removed. '

The part I have bolded I believe is much worse than what it appears. There are a lot of references of shoes/sandals that seem to be metaphors for reproductive organs throughout the bible. I wonder if that metaphor is used here as well. I also believe the spitting reference is meant to replicate the act of Onan's act of spilling his seed.

Another example of action taken against one who has damaged a family line: “If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity,� (Deut 25:11,12). It is the woman who is punished here, even in the act of defending her husband. The reason she is punished lays in how she defends her husband. ‘Seizing his genitals’ implies the bodily harm to them. If harm is done to the genitals, it can cause sterilization, which in turn would prevent the blood line from continuing for that man. The point here is to show the importance of the reproductive organs in the process of creating descendants.

[JehovahsWitness]

Brethren?

I'm in spiritual turmoil over some of this stuff; and what I've presented thus far ...doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what's in store!

Is anyone out there?

Could you explain exactly what is the source of your "turmoil"? Your interpretation of the verses seem more or less accurate .. I'm not actually understanding WHAT your "turmoil" is.