Another Graph

[Gob]

Does for me, I have faith.

[rubato]

Why?

For the same reason that books about Germany are not about baking custards in Patagonia

So god based the whole "Old testament" in Israel, ignoring the rest of the world, why?

The Yahweh of the OT was a small local tribal god with no international ambitions, Israelites only! Children of Abraham*. The Chosen People. It was in the NT when he got ambitions to having an international franchise.




yrs,
rubato

* Muslims claim the same lineage. Thus THEY were the legitimate children of Abraham and the chosen people. Being a broad-minded person I give their claims equal merit.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Fair enough Meade.

It's irrational and somewhat silly, but at least you can justify it to yourself, which is all that matters really.

It is not irrational - it may be wrong but that's another matter (depending on what you mean by "it's" - thank you, Bill)

It's not silly either but you can justify to yourself saying that it is. Which is sad. Fairy Nuff!

[Gob]

I bet I can make a better argument for it being irrational and silly, than you can for it being a good way of transmitting the word.

[RayThom]

Our resident atheist chimes in using Scripture yet again.
Will wonders never cease?

Resident atheist... so what am I chopped Talmud? How does one go about earning this residency status?

From MY New Testament:
God is a Concept by which we measure our pain / I'll say it again / God is a Concept by which we measure our pain / I don't believe in... bible... [John 22:19]

[MajGenl.Meade]

I bet I can make a better argument for it being irrational and silly, than you can for it being a good way of transmitting the word.

Really? Opinion (yours) vs. facts (sales figures)?

[Sue U]

Oh FFS. The "Old Testament" is the folkloric origin myth and legal guide of my people, written by my people, for my people, in various pieces over many centuries and more or less codified between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE. What is your (or anyone's) problem with that?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Whose problem? Gob's? (And I don't have a problem with that).

[Sue U]

Yes, I meant Gob, if it wasn't clear.

ETA:

I forgot the pomes. Prior post should read "folkloric origin myth, legal guide and literary anthology" etc.

[Big RR]

Muslims claim the same lineage. Thus THEY were the legitimate children of Abraham and the chosen people.

From what I recall, moslems are supposedly descended from Ishmael, the illegitimate son of Abraham and his wife's maid--not sure if that descent makes them "legitimate" children of Abraham (especially in a time when legitimacy counted. As I recall, DBA used to distinguish between the children of Israel and the children if Ishmael.

Personally, I don't think it makes a difference to the claim of being children of god, but then who knows.

[rubato]

Muslims claim the same lineage. Thus THEY were the legitimate children of Abraham and the chosen people.

From what I recall, moslems are supposedly descended from Ishmael, the illegitimate son of Abraham and his wife's maid--not sure if that descent makes them "legitimate" children of Abraham (especially in a time when legitimacy counted. As I recall, DBA used to distinguish between the children of Israel and the children if Ishmael.

Personally, I don't think it makes a difference to the claim of being children of god, but then who knows.

Their claims are symmetrical.

Jews claim that they are the legitimate heirs through Isaac and the Moslems are the children of the the other child Ishmael.

Moslems claim that they are the legitimate heirs through Ishmael and the Jews are the children of the other child Isaac.

As far as I know they are both equally correct. Both claim that their ancestor was the one chosen as a sacrifice:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ ... ifice.html

In defense of the Koranic version in the Bible god recognized the children of both of Jacobs wives and their two servants as his legitimate children so it is reasonable to treat both sons as legitimate. Thus Ishmael would be the older son and the only one which could have been described as Abraham's "only" son.



yrs,
rubato

PS
I have seen nothing to indicate that 'legitimacy' mattered at all back then. David had eight wives and had sons with six of them.

[Big RR]

I have seen nothing to indicate that 'legitimacy' mattered at all back then.

Deuteronomy 23:2:

"No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD

there are other quotes.

Yes, David had multiple wives, but they were wives, not mistresses; the same is strue about Solomon (although he had concubines as well).

It is important to understand that Hagar was not the wife of Abraham, and the bible specifically states that Isaac was his heir, even though Ishmael was older. Legitimacy was important to the early Jews as it defined inheritance.

[Lord Jim]

It is important to understand that Hagar was not the wife of Abraham

I should hope not...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh well, the Bible acknowledges both Ishmael and Isaac as sons - God promised that he would raise a nation from Ishmael. The Bible and the Qur'an agree that Ishmael was the father of the Arabic peoples.

The Genesis material seems to have origins 600 years before Christ. The Qur'an was written 600 years after Christ, using the Hebrew writings but adding thereto. In defense of the Qur'an, it never states that the sacrifice was Ishmael nor does it state that it was Isaac. You'd think that Mahomet might have mentioned it, given the importance.

In any other field one might give more credence to the original writing and recognize that something from 1200 years later might just be less authoritative. And I do concede that antiquity is not a guarantee of accuracy. Arabic scholars continue to debate the issue of the sacrifice which arose long after the Qur'an was written.

Ishmael was older than Isaac. But then again, as both traditions agree, Hagar and Ishmael (aged 14) left while Isaac was a wee bairn (about 1). Some years later, Abraham was asked to sacrifice his only son, which was Isaac. Isaac was the only son he had - Ishmael having been long gone. Isaac was the child from whom God promised to raise a might nation that would bless the earth - Abraham's only chance.

So we've got Isaac - a blessing to all the earth, fulfilled in Yeshua, the Christ
and
we've got Ishmael - who "shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren"

Not that there could be anything accurate in the Hebrew scriptures of course

[Gob]

Oh FFS. The "Old Testament" is the folkloric origin myth and legal guide of my people, written by my people, for my people, in various pieces over many centuries and more or less codified between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE. What is your (or anyone's) problem with that?

No problem with that, (except when Christians use it as the "word of god",) you know, like all the bits of Leviticus they like to use, (and the bits they conveniently forget...)

[Econoline]

Hagar was Sarah's servant, and bore Abraham's first son (with Sarah's explicit permission; she changed her mind after giving birth to Isaac).

Bilhah was the servant of Jacob's (Israel's) second wife, Rachel, and bore Jacob's 5th and 6th sons. Zilpah was the servant of Jacob's first wife, Leah, and bore Jacob's 7th and 8th sons. All were recognized as "legitimate" for the purpose of inheritance. (And the 4th, 11th, and 3rd sons became, arguably, more important than the firstborn, Reuben--though Reuben DID get a sandwich named after him, so that's something anyway...)

Ah, the big, happy, "traditional" biblical family...

[Big RR]

Agreed re Jacob, econo; but as I recall Jacob divided his inheritance among all 12 sons just before he died; I imagine if he did not do that, that Reuben might have gotten more than the sandwich franchise, and the sons of the slaves might have received nothing--although perhaps some Talmudic scholar could explain inheritance laws at that time.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well the 3rd son got the jeans franchise, so that was no small deal. And what about #8? Moses may have got the burning bush but #8 got the mulberry bush and immortality in childhood rhymes.

[Lord Jim]

this is damn near as boring as a cricket game...

[Big RR]

#4 Meade? Wasn't that Naphthali (sp?). A Mulberry bush?