Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

29

In the 1950s, a guy named Ras Shamra unearthed tablets which may describe a Ugaritic pagan ritual of a kid being cooked in milk. You can read all about Ras Shamra's discoveries in this PDF document (info on this topic on p.5). In the above article and in countless others I've read, this ritual is described as historical fact and assumed without any ...


25

One of the principles of talmudic reasoning is that there are no unnecessary words in torah -- so since this law is stated three times, we must be able to learn something new from each statement. Tractate Chullin (113-116) explains that there are three prohibitions: cooking meat and milk together eating such a mixture deriving benefit from such a mixture ...


13

The question rests on a severe anachronism, in that many or most ancient cultures in contact with Israelite culture did not have a conceptualization of 'monotheism' or 'henotheism' until well after the biblical books were written. Just to illustrate this, the Greek word 'atheism' was used to describe the Jewish people, because from a Greco-Roman perspective ...


11

RJ Rushdoony in his Institutes of Biblical Law vol 1 Pg 300 says: The Ras Shamra tablets indicate that such seething was a Canaanite sacred ritual. It would appear that the fertility cults believed that they could either stimulate or destroy fertility at will, since it was under their control. It is speculated that this law was implemented as an act of ...


7

It is the 3rd and 7th day after touching the dead corpse That seems somewhat implied from the context of the verses you quote. I honestly would not have ever thought to consider Tuesday/Saturday, but in thinking about your question, I could see how someone might question it (though days of the week are not really mentioned in context). However, the ...


6

The confusion comes in part from imperfect translation. The commandment, in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, reads as follows: לֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה לְךָ פֶסֶל, וְכָל-תְּמוּנָה, אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל, וַאֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת--וַאֲשֶׁר בַּמַּיִם, מִתַּחַת לָאָרֶץ. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any ...


6

The commingling of life and death was sacrilegious in the Hebrew Bible. For example, animals that are scavengers (lobster, shrimp, swine, dogs, vultures, lions and tigers, etc.) may thrive by habit on waste (garbage, refuse, scum, and/or other dead and decayed creatures), and thus they are unclean. Such animals could not be used for human consumption or ...


6

Hard to say exactly what they were. Apparently they were worn underneath the robes, and it was important that they breathe well (Ez 44:18). Being worn underneath, any artwork found of the priests would not show them. Worn underneath the tunic, the use of "undergarment" in translations makes sense, but they are not the "drawers" we think of. As the verses ...


5

You write, However, Torah couldn't possibly be written before the split between Israel and Judah. They each got their own slightly different torah. Neither have power to "correct" the other. I disagree. The fact that both Israel and Judah have their own slightly different version of the Pentateuch is actually evidence that the Pentateuch was written ...


4

Jacob Milgrom considers four theories about how the command came about: Maimonides suggested that it was a reaction to a specific Canaanite practice. Philo suggested the practice was inhuman for the same reason killing a young animal and its mother on the same day or killing an animal before it's weaned. Beginning with the work of Émile Durkheim, it has ...


4

The phrase here, as in many places in Exodus through Deuteronomy where God gives commands, is בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. Literally this is "sons of Israel", though some translations say "children of Israel" instead. In Hebrew all nouns have gender (there is no neuter), so a masculine plural like בְּנֵי means either an all-male group or a mixed group. (You only ...


4

Excellent question. Let's explore some explanations. 1) The first explanation is simply that they were indeed unlawful priests (c.f. Judges 17). 2) That the text would mention this transgression without consequence seems strange to many commentators who propose a second explanation - that the word "priest" here means "advisor". Let's examine a textual ...


4

This is begging the question; who (from a Hebrew Bible–only perspective, remember) says that Melchizedek is a particularly important figure? He seems to be a historical curiosity, someone not of Abraham’s descent who taught the worship of the One God.¹ There are, of course, significant doctrinal implications to the fact that the One God had worshipers ...


3

I think you misunderstand what factors cause a person to become ritually impure and the dietary laws known as kashrut. The crow/raven is in a class of birds that are "unclean" meaning that they are not suitable for eating. The Torah's list of clean birds is limited to birds who are not birds of prey and those who are not scavengers, like the crow. These we ...


3

It is helpful to understand the purpose(s) of the Mosaic Law. Quickly: It was intended to point people to their need for a Savior (Gal 3:19; Rom 5:20). It was intended to highlight their sinful nature (Rom 7:7). It taught many aspects of God and peoples' relationship to him. For examples, the sacrificial system was a reminder of humanity's need for a ...


3

Divine agency In many Ancient Near Eastern cultures, there was a political concept we call 'agency'. In this, the delegate or ambassador of a god simply spoke in the first person on that god's behalf. The use of agency is only touched on rarely in the broader historical narrative of Genesis–2 Kings, where we sometimes find the Messenger of YHWH speaking ...


3

The new testament ἄγγελος can mean messenger. For example, in Revelation Jesus says to the angel of the church of xxx write. This can mean either write this to the pastor or a guardian angel over the church. So here when it says The Law was instituted through the work of angels, could it possible mean the work of prophets? Clearly it was administered ...


3

In the case of Moses the manna is clear. In dire straights God provided what was needed to be sustained in a desert without food and water. God preserved them. Therefore ‘man shall not live by bread alone’ means man must rely on God who gives life and sustains life in providing anything we need. In the case of Jesus, He is referring to the manna as God’s ...


2

The Lord Jesus' use of the text, taken in the wider context of his teachings, is perfectly aligned with the original account of the manna in Exodus 16, and also with Moses' epexegetical comments, when they are understood in their context. The Giving of the Manna The people were truly, legitimately hungry. Yahweh had just delivered them from Egypt, and ...


2

Basically your right it was about status but although the Bible does not describe the ceremony of marriage with a wife there are several bread crumbs that when collected together give us a good idea of the envelope of that ceremony and custom that did take place which would have established the status of a wife above a concubine. There must have been some ...


2

In part, this is derived from Deut. 33:2 and Psa. 68:17. In Deut. 33:2, it is written, And he said, "Yahveh came from Sinai, and He rose up from Seir to them; He shined forth from mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of holy ones; from His right hand, a fiery law for them." וַיֹּאמַר יַהְוֶה מִסִּינַי בָּא וְזָרַח מִשֵּׂעִיר לָמֹו הֹופִיעַ ...


2

The Hebrew Scriptures identify human beings as temporarily "lower" than the angels (e.g. Ps 8:5, although some translations take the meaning as "lower than God"). Moreover, the OT repeatedly depict angels as purveyors of divine revelation; the term "angel" itself means messenger. That is a very general picture, which James B. Jordan buttresses further by ...


2

The way the date is given is perfectly in keeping with how dates are cited in Biblical Hebrew: first the year (described in relation to a significant figure), then the month and day. So for example, Haggai 1:1, "In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month." It is clearly not the sixth month/first day of Darius' ...


2

בִּשְׁנַת שֵׁשׁ־מֵאֹות שָׁנָה לְחַיֵּי־נֹחַ בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשִׁבְעָה־עָשָׂר יֹום לַחֹדֶשׁ Literally: In year 600 of the years (belonging) to the life of Noah, in month two, in (the) 17(th) day (belonging) to the month. "Year 600 of the years (belonging) to the life of Noah", means the year ending with his 600th birthday, i.e., the year when he was ...


2

The hypothesis of a link between the Five Books of the Psalmer and the Five Books of Moses is not a novel one. It dates back to even some of the earliest interpreters: The ancient rabbins saw in the Five Books of the Psalter the image of the Five Books of the Law. This way of looking on the Psalms as a second Pentateuch, the echo of the first, passed ...


1

Israel was carried "On Eagles Wings" as she was led from Egypt, to Sinai where God visibly appeared to her and made an Everlasting Covenant with her; making her a chosen people unto Himself, and a great nation, which would strike terror and dread amongst her enemies, and be a sign to all the nations of the earth that God was with them. He sanctified her, and ...


1

Some of the ceremonial points of the Law weren't actually kept from the time of the Judges to Hezekiah (2nd Kings 18) and Josiah (2nd Kings 22). The book of Deuteronomy was not well known in this period. So its conceivable that like all the good kings he didn't practice certain parts of the Law, like Passover or the Feast of Tabernacles (those are ...


1

We need to look at who wrote the Torah, or Pentateuch, then at when each section could have been written. Tradition says that the Torah, with all its contradictions and inconsistencies, was written by one man, Moses, around 1400 BCE, but this is clearly not the case. In the nineteenth century, Julius Wellhausen carried out stylistic analyses, and was able ...


1

The bride (or her parents) paid the dowry. If there was a divorce the bride got her money back. Concubines got nothing after a 'divorce' as no dowry was paid. A wife paid to get married, a concubine did not. A contract was drawn up in the case of the wife but not the concubine. This answer is based on deduction from what scriptural refereces there are and ...


1

It is always God who reveals Himself and speaks to Moses and to the prophets. However, if we take a close look, we may find that even though God is speaking and being addressed as God, He really is represented by His messenger who speaks in His Name and with His authority. The mention of God´s Angel in Moses´ encounter with God in the burning thornbush ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible