Isaiah 24:21 ???

[james2ko]

Ruth 1:3*In time E·lim′e·lech the husband of Na′o·mi died, so that she remained with her two sons. 4*Later the men took wives for themselves, Mo′ab·ite women. The name of the one was Or′pah, and the name of the other Ruth.


compare this to:

1Kings 11:1 And King Sol′o·mon himself loved many foreign wives along with the daughter of Phar′aoh, Mo′ab·ite, Am′mon·ite, E′dom·ite, Si·do′ni·an [and] Hit′tite women, 2*from the nations of whom Jehovah had said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not go in among them,


According to both accounts, the sons took Moabite women who, according to 1Kings, are 'foreign' women.


If the ruth was an isrealite, she would not have been called a 'moabite' even if she was dwelling in the lang of Moab. Naomi was not called a Moabite and she was living in that land. The only women who were 'moabites' were 'foreign' women.....ie, non isrealites.

And If Ruth was an Isrealite, then why would she be called a 'moabite' even after returning to Judah?
Ruth 4:10*And also Ruth the Mo′ab·i·tess, the wife of Mah′lon, I do buy for myself as a wife to cause the name of the dead man to rise upon his inheritance

that wouldnt make any sense in calling her a moabite if she was an isrealite. And if you still are not sure if Ruth was a moabite, then perhaps you need to ask yourself why you dont believe what the bible says.

You did not answer my question. One on one--yes or no?

 

[Pegg]

You did not answer my question. One on one--yes or no?

why do you need a one on one? this answer is too easy because the bible clearly states she was a moabite and a moabite is not an isrealite.

 

[james2ko]

why do you need a one on one? this answer is too easy because the bible clearly states she was a moabite and a moabite is not an isrealite.

I'll take that as a no and a sign of your uncertainty or fear of what might be revealed.

 

[james2ko]

why do you need a one on one? this answer is too easy because the bible clearly states she was a moabite and a moabite is not an isrealite.

The bible also clearly states Moses was an Egyptian:

Exo 2:17-19 Then the shepherds came and drove them away; but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock. 18 When they came to Reuel their father, he said, "How is it that you have come so soon today?" 19 And they said, "An Egyptian delivered us from the hand of the shepherds, and he also drew enough water for us and watered the flock."​

An Egyptian is not an Israelite. Get my point?

 

[Benoni]

The bible also clearly states Moses was an Egyptian:

Exo 2:17-19 Then the shepherds came and drove them away; but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock. 18 When they came to Reuel their father, he said, "How is it that you have come so soon today?" 19 And they said, "An Egyptian delivered us from the hand of the shepherds, and he also drew enough water for us and watered the flock."
​

An Egyptian is not an Israelite. Get my point?

I agree with Pegg, here. (which I think is a first) Maybe I am speaking out of context of your conversation but Moses went to Egypt and his clothing made him appear as an Egyptian. But that does not make his origin Egyptian.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

we can argue with the bible, or we can allow the bible to guide our thinking. In this case, the bible says that Ps 44 is written by the Sons of Korah and i'll accept that over the views of ordinary people anyday of the week.

And Psalm 145 - David's Psalm of Praise - suggests Davidic authorship (which is almost certainly not true). Attribution is a weak argument.

 

[Benoni]

James2. I got it.

 

[james2ko]

I agree with Pegg, here. (which I think is a first) Maybe I am speaking out of context of your conversation but Moses went to Egypt and his clothing made him appear as an Egyptian. But that does not make his origin Egyptian.

My point to Pegg was that we should think twice before taking biblical statements at face value without first considering the historical, situational, and geographical context of other scriptures that may support or oppose the original statement.

 

[Benoni]

My point to Pegg was that we should think twice before taking biblical statements at face value without first considering the historical, situational, and geographical context of other scriptures that may support or oppose the original statement.

I saw what you were saying and totally agree.

 

[CMike]

The bible also clearly states Moses was an Egyptian:

Exo 2:17-19 Then the shepherds came and drove them away; but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock. 18 When they came to Reuel their father, he said, "How is it that you have come so soon today?" 19 And they said, "An Egyptian delivered us from the hand of the shepherds, and he also drew enough water for us and watered the flock."
​

An Egyptian is not an Israelite. Get my point?

Not quite.

The daughters thought he was an Egpytian.

 

[james2ko]

Not quite. The daughters thought he was an Egpytian.

Did you even bother to skim through our discussion to get its context? :no:

 

[CMike]

Did you even bother to skim through our discussion to get its context? :no:

LOL not really. It's way long.

I thought I might as well use the christian method of pulling out a passage out of context.

 

[james2ko]

LOL not really. It's way long.

I thought I might as well use the christian method of pulling out a passage out of context.

Well I must say, you are very good at it. I would have to say that comes with lots of practice

 

[dantech]

Alright kids, break it up you two...

 

[james2ko]

Alright kids, break it up you two...

"But daddy, he started it"..:ko: