Another Graph

[MajGenl.Meade]

A mistype, Big RR. It was supposed to be a continuation of #8 comment ! Now corrected.

[Big RR]

OK, I see; thanks.

And I guess Naphtali was 6th.

[Big RR]

If I recall correctly, Jacob was a bit of a finagler himself--stealing Isaac's blessing (and inheritance) from his brother Esau by pretending to be his brother near a dying, blind Isaac. And then he gave his son Joseph a coat made our of many crullers.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Jacob - root refers to the heel of the foot and to supplanting. Jacob according to the story was born clutching Esau's heel. Esau later uses the name in the other sense of "supplanting". As to the coat, well he had to didn't he? Krispy Kreme had discarded them all in plastic bags and you can't let a good cruller go to waste.

[Sue U]

Not to be too picky and pedantic (too late!), but Jacob also made Joseph's sons his own just before his death, and famously crossed his hands to put his right hand on the younger boy's head. They became progenitors of their own tribes and their descendants were granted their own territories in the conquest of Canaan. (We still bless our children today with an invocation to make them like Ephraim and Menasheh.)

[rubato]

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.

Then you have redefined "legitimacy" to mean something completely different from the modern sense. The children of servants and 2rd, 3rd, 4th, nth "wives" are all legitimate. What does "illegitimate" actually mean in that sense? You have to define it.

And as I pointed out the Koran has it the other way where Ishmael, his first son, was his heir. It is merely battling text-myths, both are equally valid.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

No, I haven't defined anything; in modern times legitimacy is generally defined as a child born of a valid marriage. In the US we may have but one spouse--in other countries we may have more than 1 and all those marriages are valid. David had more than one wife, and the children of all his wives were legitimate. As I understand it (and I invite any OT scholars to weigh in), the legitimate children who may inherit (pursuant to Jewish law at that time; it may well have changed since, much as the practice of having multiple wives has changed) are those born of a man's wife/wives; he can also choose to include others among his children (rightful heirs), much as we can put others in our wills, but if he does not, only the legitimate children inherit under the law.

Now the Koran disagrees, but then the OT presents the Jewish history, not the Islamic one. Even if both stories of Abraham are myths, the Jewish view of legitimacy is a fact.

[MajGenl.Meade]

... and to correct rubato again... the Qur'an and Genesis both refer to Ishmael as the foundation of a people - the Arabs. They both refer to Isaac as the foundation of a people - Israel.

The Qur'an does NOT say that Ishmael was the sacrifice, only that there was a sacrifice of Abraham's heir contemplated. Equally it does not say the sacrificial heir was Isaac. In all events, the Qur'an is informed by Genesis from which Mohamet took the story.

The argument that Ishmael was the heir arose after the Qur'an.

[rubato]

No, I haven't defined anything; in modern times legitimacy is generally defined as a child born of a valid marriage. In the US we may have but one spouse--in other countries we may have more than 1 and all those marriages are valid. David had more than one wife, and the children of all his wives were legitimate. As I understand it (and I invite any OT scholars to weigh in), the legitimate children who may inherit (pursuant to Jewish law at that time; it may well have changed since, much as the practice of having multiple wives has changed) are those born of a man's wife/wives; he can also choose to include others among his children (rightful heirs), much as we can put others in our wills, but if he does not, only the legitimate children inherit under the law.

Now the Koran disagrees, but then the OT presents the Jewish history, not the Islamic one. Even if both stories of Abraham are myths, the Jewish view of legitimacy is a fact.

You you have already seen as I and others have pointed out that the children of Jacob his two wives and his wives slaves were all legitimate. Therefore you have to come up with a new definition. And how did someone become a 'wife' back then? Was there a ceremony? Was she sold or traded by her family?

And God was apparently ok with incest back then because Sarah was Abraham's half-sister.

11 Abraham replied, “I said to myself, ‘There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.’ 12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife. 13 And when God had me wander from my father’s household, I said to her, ‘This is how you can show your love to me: Everywhere we go, say of me, “He is my brother.”’”

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

rubato--Jacob apparently chose to recognize his children by his slaves as his children, which permitted them to share in his inheritance--so? That's what I said anyone could do. Hell, Jacob chose to include two of his grandchildren (Joseph's sons, as pointed out by Sue) as his sons and heirs as well.

and as for how someone became a wife--I don't know. But it was clearly recognized that many men had more than one wife, as well as others with whom they had (illegitimate) children. Indeed, your discussion of Jacob and the women with whom he had children recognizes this.

[Lord Jim]

Once again in a discussion about religion, rube brings a butter knife to a gun fight....

[Joe Guy]

Is there such a thing as 'infinity'?

yrs,
jay

[rubato]

But still completely unlike the modern definition of "illegitimate". By your account, all of BB King's children which he acknowledged as his are legitimate even if he never married their mothers.


So you still have to come up with a definition of "illegitimate" which would apply. "Child of unmarried parents" cannot be it.


yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

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?

I had that same thought.

Well, "resident" or not, there's this:

[Lord Jim]

Some people give a better performance with an audience...

[RayThom]

Some people give a better performance with an audience...

God watching his children having sex? Now there's an outright psycho-theology conundrum open for debate. I wonder what positions He prefers... or maybe He's into kink? That's an image that cannot be undone.

"Joe and Mary Do Bethlehem" -- what a concept.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh, I think it's pretty clear who's got the obsession here....

[kmccune]

How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?.It seems some of this stuff needs to be addressed with common sense and proper perspective .

[oldr_n_wsr]

So you still have to come up with a definition of "illegitimate" which would apply. "Child of unmarried parents" cannot be it.

Diana Ross called it a "Love Child".
If only all children were loved (and wanted).

[RayThom]

So you still have to come up with a definition of "illegitimate" which would apply. "Child of unmarried parents" cannot be it.

How about a "booty call with lasting results?"