Tag Info

Sticking just to the text: In the earlier passage, God commanded Moshe to strike the rock and he obeyed. In the present passage, God commanded Moshe to speak and he struck instead. (It's been 39 years, so "that's what we did last time" probably doesn't apply.) Why is this a problem? Look at what Moshe said: shall we bring water for you out of this ...

I have always assumed that Aaron was born before this decree was made. (He's three years older.) The text only tells us that Pharaoh made the decree and Moses was born (and his mother hid him etc). If Aaron had been born under the decree then I would expect the text to be different from what it is, but we are left to reason from the absence of information ...

I believe your first option is the best but with a little modification. Moses originally had an Egyptian name that sounded almost exactly like a Hebrew name. The pun involved in the name is elaborate and crosses languages. Names like Tutmose, Ramose, Amenmose are well attested from Egypt. The addition of -mose makes it "born of Amen," "child of Tut," or ...

Scholars have been raising doubts about Moses' authorship since the mid-1600s, when Thomas Hobbes noted that certain passages in the five books of the Torah seemed to indicate they had been added by a later writer. Genesis 12:6, "At that time the Canaanites were in the land." And they still were in Moses' time. Numbers 21:14, referring to "the Book of the ...

P.J. Wiseman posits the theory that the 'toledoth' indicates authors who were eyewitnesses to the events mentioned in Genesis. This is based on the pattern of writing found on ancient Babylonian tablets predating Abraham where the word translated 'generations of' is used to indicate the ownership or authorship of the clay tablet. He suggests that the ...

Could be retranslated as "bridegroom of blood" ("bloody bridegroom" could be an attempt to smooth the english genitive) which could just be a lament about the fact that Zipporah's son almost died because Moses had failed in his responsibility. Conversationally, I have heard people wonder if she disagreed with circumcision. I don't think so, given her ...

This question is interesting in its own right, but all the more so in light of John's pronouncement in Matthew 3:9 that God is able from stones to raise up children for Abraham. One way we might understand the argument in Exodus 32 is to note that Moses does not ask God to remember his promise so much as to remember his servants to whom he made the promise. ...

Might be 32:11 rather than 34:11. Classical Hebrew does not include consistency of person or voice in the same way that modern English does. Not only is the language different, the idiom is different. You can see this all over the Psalms - what appear to us to be jarring changes of person, voice and subject within a verse or two. Ex 32:11 sounds fine to me, ...

What Moses did wrong is exactly what the Hebrews did wrong when they sent the spies and they believed the pesimistic report given by the spies. In both cases, G-d told them that they could do something that in any other circumstance would be considered a miracle . . . and they didn't believe Him. Consider these facts. At Exodus 6:8 G-d promises to the ...

The context of 2 Tim 3:1-9 speaks of people who were ostensible converts to Christianity, but whose deeds betray their spiritual folly. That is, Jannes and Jambres are mentioned in a context of believers who are hypocrites. Thus the context of 2 Tim 3:1-9 is not talking about unbelievers but of apostates, who make an ostensible claim to faith. There is a ...

The etymology given for his name is "Min ha-mayim mashitehu". Which goes along with the active verb: moshet, or the passite constructure mashut, or whatever construction you want with the three consonsants "M""Sh" and "T". The "T" is missing, so it's not Hebrew, and this is clearly made up etymology justifying the name in hindsight, as most of the Hebrew ...

Suggesting one point of view. Israelites were in Egypt since the time of Joseph. At that time, Israelites were well respected by Egpytians. It was only latter that a Pharaoh who didn't know Joseph came. So it's highly possible that Egpytian culture would have been influenced by the Hebrews Remember Pharaoh and his people knew about sacrifices and God of ...

The torah repeats other commands (caring the widow, orphan, and stranger; not cooking a kid in its mother's milk; keeping shabbat; others); how much the moreso for a command involving direct exposure to God's force, which we learn from Nadav and Avihu in Leviticus has fatal consequences. Further, when the revelation begins, the sensory impact is racheted up ...

One reason for the redundancy is the unfaithfulness of the people. What we continually see in Exodus through Deuteronomy (interesting, huh, a second giving of the law) is that the people are incredibly unfaithful to God. There unfaithfulness is very repetitious; therefore God is repetitious in his commands. Plain and simple, they never listened the first ...

This is the Wikisource translation : And it was on the way, in a lodging, and Yahweh met him, and sought to put him to death. And Zipporah took a flint, and cut off her son's foreskin, and touched it to his feet, and said, "for a blood groom you are to me". And he backed off him, then she said "blood groom", to the circumcision. I personally didn't ...

You are correct in noting that His promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could have been fulfilled through Moses. However, consider verses 11-12. Moses points to two aspects of the Exodus that would be affected by a rejection of Israel: God demonstrated His mighty power in bringing out the Israelites from Egypt. This would effectively be wasted effort on ...