Timeline for What is the meaning of "He is to thee a covering of the eyes"(Gen. 20:16)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 29 at 1:53 | vote | accept | Tau | ||
| Oct 6, 2022 at 20:48 | comment | added | Bleeped | If we look at the other word eyes, H5869; we find this word within Engedi and Eneglaim in Ezekiel 47:10, an eye of covering as a net: And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many. | |
| May 4, 2019 at 4:10 | comment | added | Philip | It also could be the immense fortune Abimelech gave Abraham and Sarah was a reconciliatory approach to the misunderstanding of them being a godless nation. As Enegue brilliantly noted, at this point in time the Philistines were not the pagan society they were hundreds of years later. They were a God-fearing nation. If you think about it, it was really Abraham and Sarah at fault, but Abimelech himself did all the reconciliation. Such can be attributed as proof he believed in God. Also, God Himself appeared to Abimelech personally in a dream. That never happened to Pharaoh in Genesis 12. | |
| May 4, 2019 at 4:08 | comment | added | Philip | Wtih regard to the event of the text, Tau, it could be that Sarah was vindicated from the entire ordeal, as she was just an accessory to the crime. While Abraham, who answered directly to Abimelech for the issue, was the mastermind. | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 0:59 | comment | added | Tau | @enegue Great answer! I appreciate the fact that you distinguished Abraham's "covering"(the fact that he was her husband), from the intending meaning "covering of the eyes" which denotes a payment to Abraham for the "wrongful intent", even though it was without guile. Strongs, as you know is directly tied to the KJV-and therefore inadequate to answer my second question: whether or not Sarah was 'vindicated' or 'reproved'. Thank you! | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 0:25 | history | edited | enegue | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed a typo
|
| Nov 14, 2015 at 0:17 | comment | added | rhetorician | Fine answer. Don | |
| Nov 13, 2015 at 12:40 | history | edited | enegue | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarification
|
| Nov 13, 2015 at 1:47 | history | edited | enegue | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Nov 13, 2015 at 1:35 | history | edited | enegue | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Nov 13, 2015 at 1:23 | history | answered | enegue | CC BY-SA 3.0 |