PDA

View Full Version : Ex 16-18 vs Num 11



apostoli
05-19-2014, 02:41 AM
Has anyone investigated the apparent discrepancy between Exodus chapters 16 to 18 and Numbers chapter 11?

On face value we have parallel accounts of two events but an apparent scribal (priestly) redaction of a third (assuming these accounts are of the same chronological events).

Also there is a contradictory time differential wherein the parallel events of Numbers 11 occurred after 26 months of exile, whereas the parallel events of the book of Exodus occurred within a couple of months of the commencement of the exile.

RBerman
05-19-2014, 10:14 AM
It's not clear to me what parallel accounts you're talking about. Are you saying that the appointment of seventy elders to "receive some of the Spirit that is on Moses" to assist with a crisis of revolt in Numbers 11:16-30 is the same as Moses, at Jethro's recommendation, choosing "heads over the people, chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens" to help judge the people's disputes, prior to Sinai, in Exodus 18:13-26? While both episodes involve delegation of powers, they don't sound like parallel accounts of the same event. Or are you talking about something else?

apostoli
05-19-2014, 01:14 PM
It's not clear to me what parallel accounts you're talking about.Note the complaints of the Israelites, the then appearance of the manna and then the partridges, and finally the delegation of Moses' responsibilities. In the later case, Exodus has Jethro the priest of the Midianites (Moses' father-in-law) instigating such. In Numbers Moses appeals to YHWH to reduce his burden and so YHWH reduces the spirit given to Moses and redistributes it towards the seventy.


Are you saying that the appointment of seventy elders to "receive some of the Spirit that is on Moses" to assist with a crisis of revolt in Numbers 11:16-30 is the same as Moses, at Jethro's recommendation, choosing "heads over the people, chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens" to help judge the people's disputes, prior to Sinai, in Exodus 18:13-26? While both episodes involve delegation of powers, they don't sound like parallel accounts of the same event. Or are you talking about something else?On face value focusing exclusively on Ex 18 I might agree. However, taking Ex 15-17v nto account we find identical circumstances of the Israelites revolt ie: the Israelites starvation and the solution = the delivery of the manna and partridges. If the events are separate then from the Israelites viewpoint we have a "been there, done that event" (with a 26 month interval between identical events). If these are two separate chronicles, then we have to accept that Moses' implementation of Jethro's advice failed and he had to start all over again using YHWH's direct intervention. That is a possibility, but still we are stuck with reconciling the background story and the occasion of the manna and partridges...

RBerman
05-19-2014, 01:36 PM
Are you saying that the appointment of seventy elders to "receive some of the Spirit that is on Moses" to assist with a crisis of revolt in Numbers 11:16-30 is the same as Moses, at Jethro's recommendation, choosing "heads over the people, chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens" to help judge the people's disputes, prior to Sinai, in Exodus 18:13-26? While both episodes involve delegation of powers, they don't sound like parallel accounts of the same event. Or are you talking about something else?

On face value focusing exclusively on Ex 18 I might agree. However, taking Ex 15-17v nto account we find identical circumstances of the Israelites revolt ie: the Israelites starvation and the solution = the delivery of the manna and partridges. If the events are separate then from the Israelites viewpoint we have a "been there, done that event" (with a 26 month interval between identical events). If these are two separate chronicles, then we have to accept that Moses' implementation of Jethro's advice failed and he had to start all over again using YHWH's direct intervention. That is a possibility, but still we are stuck with reconciling the background story and the occasion of the manna and partridges...

Certainly there are some similarities between the two events, as I discussed. For that matter, one could argue that the same thing happens over and over in the book of Judges: Israel rebels, is conquered, repents, and successfully rises against their oppressors. I would not attempt to collapse all those into a single event, though. For that matter, Mark's gospel account contains both the feeding of the five thousand (Mark 6) and the feeding of the four thousand (Mark 8), and specifically mentions that they were different events. (Mark 8:19-21) Jesus also appears to have cleansed the temple on two different occasions. Are you of the higher critical school that collapses all these into single events, or perhaps myths altogether?

apostoli
05-19-2014, 03:44 PM
Are you of the higher critical school that collapses all these into single events, or perhaps myths altogether?No!

Should you need to categorize me, I'd put me into the analytical school (in Jewish terms Hillel vs Shammai). It is obvious in scripture that here and there, there are priestly redactions (revisions). The most famous and obvious being David's census of his troops which is variously attributed as God inspired or Satan inspired (imo, David & the Israelites got full of themselves and determined they were not dependent on YHWH for their victories - it was simply a matter of muscle. Which is why YHWH punished all of Israel for David's census, and why David himself had to repent to save Israel from YHWH's wrath).

Could Numbers 11 be another priestly redaction which attempted to impose a priestly perspective on a shameful event ie: Jethro, Moses' father-in-law was a priest of the Medianites, Moses' wife was a Midianite, such is kept quite in Numbers, to presumably excuse what was presumably a priestly inspired genocide of the Midianites (many a commentor, Jewish and otherwise make mention of the competition between what is termed the YHWHists and the ELists. Which might be interpreted as the competition between the Levites and the order of Melkezidek, plus both competing against the various Baal priesthoods) .


Certainly there are some similarities between the two events, as I discussed. For that matter, one could argue that the same thing happens over and over in the book of Judges: Israel rebels, is conquered, repents, and successfully rises against their oppressors. I would not attempt to collapse all those into a single event, though. For that matter, Mark's gospel account contains both the feeding of the five thousand (Mark 6) and the feeding of the four thousand (Mark 8), and specifically mentions that they were different events. (Mark 8:19-21) Jesus also appears to have cleansed the temple on two different occasions. Are you of the higher critical school that collapses all these into single events, or perhaps myths altogether?Now how often do you have the Israelites starving and God sending manna and partridges to save them and then Moses delegating his authority? The similarities are too identical to be taken as separate events, though with a huge stretch of the imagination they might be conceived as such. It is interesting that on delivery of manna, partridges and delegation of powers that the scribes didn't comment that "once again" YHWH delivered his people in the same way that he had done more than two years earlier...

RBerman
05-19-2014, 04:32 PM
Should you need to categorize me, I'd put me into the analytical school (in Jewish terms Hillel vs Shammai). It is obvious in scripture that here and there, there are priestly redactions (revisions). The most famous and obvious being David's census of his troops which is variously attributed as God inspired or Satan inspired (imo, David & the Israelites got full of themselves and determined they were not dependent on YHWH for their victories - it was simply a matter of muscle. Which is why YHWH punished all of Israel for David's census, and why David himself had to repent to save Israel from YHWH's wrath).

The "analytical school" sounds an awful lot like the Higher Critical school that wrecked mainline Christianity in Europe and America. I do agree that God punished David for pride in the census results. I understand why some blanch at one text saying God inspired it and another text saying Satan inspired it, but redaction is not the only explanation, and certainly not the best one for those who believe that the Bible is God's Word.


Could Numbers 11 be another priestly redaction which attempted to impose a priestly perspective on a shameful event ie: Jethro, Moses' father-in-law was a priest of the Medianites, Moses' wife was a Midianite, such is kept quite in Numbers, to presumably excuse what was presumably a priestly inspired genocide of the Midianites (many a commentor, Jewish and otherwise make mention of the competition between what is termed the YHWHists and the ELists. Which might be interpreted as the competition between the Levites and the order of Melkezidek, plus both competing against the various Baal priesthoods).

I see no reason to think it was a redaction. I noted several other repeated events on which one could fire the "redaction-cannon" if one was inspired to do so, but why go there?


Now how often do you have the Israelites starving and God sending manna and partridges to save them and then Moses delegating his authority? The similarities are too identical to be taken as separate events, though with a huge stretch of the imagination they might be conceived as such. It is interesting that on delivery of manna, partridges and delegation of powers that the scribes didn't comment that "once again" YHWH delivered his people in the same way that he had done more than two years earlier...

Does the Bible always say "once again" when a similar event happens more than once? Do you, in your own life? I don't, and an argument from such silence is no argument.

apostoli
05-19-2014, 08:22 PM
Should you need to categorize me, I'd put me into the analytical school (in Jewish terms Hillel vs Shammai). The "analytical school" sounds an awful lot like the Higher Critical school that wrecked mainline Christianity in Europe and America.The "German" school of thought to which you refer has been quite devastating on mainline protestant christianity but has had little impact on the more scholastic branches (eg: the RCC). Basically, I deal in facts as opposed to wishful thinking or aberrant literalism (eg: according to scripture, a day in God's eyes is not the same as ours, thus a day to God is likened to a thousand years to us).

Imu, when we learn that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (1 Tim 3:16), we shouldn't be expecting a book containing literal histories or sciences or an "Idiots guide to life" but a discourse on failures and successes from which we can draw upon to guide our direction. My favourite example is King David, whom on the scriptural account, I perceive as a most despicable person with no saving graces, yet YHWH saw some virtue in him, to the extent that YHWH permitted David to be worshiped in direct equivalence (1 Chron 29:20). The scriptural evidence is that like Christianity, David usurped the Levitical priesthood and as a consequence discarded Moses' ordinances which was the Levitical bulwark.


I do agree that God punished David for pride in the census results.It is nice when we can agree on some things ;-}


I understand why some blanch at one text saying God inspired it and another text saying Satan inspired it, but redaction is not the only explanation, and certainly not the best one for those who believe that the Bible is God's Word.The fact that the texts we have received down to this age have been redacted in various places is indisputable - there is sufficient manuscript evidence to prove the point (especially with the masoretic text used by many modern bible translations). Imo, it doesn't really matter, as the scribes were attempting to teach (albeit at times there appears to be political motivations), not implement some idolatrous phenomena (as protestants have had a tendency to do, and in so doing have diminished the message God intended - thus the decline in most protestant denominations).


I see no reason to think it was a redaction. I noted several other repeated events on which one could fire the "redaction-cannon" if one was inspired to do so, but why go there?Most people follow a path to see or revisit where it concludes. In Biblical study the aim is to seek out the lesson we are being taught, we "go there" to seek out the truth rather than close our eyes to reality.

Unfortunately, none of your excuses have four events in the same chronological order as each other. Possibly the parallel accounts in Exodus 16-18 and Numbers 11 are co-incidental - but probability suggests otherwise, especially when we take to account Aaron's apparent hatred of the Midianites (on the basis of scriptural imputation, such hatred being inspired by Moses' wife's influence on Moses, which takes us back to Jethro, the priest of the Midianites who for a time was Moses' chief adviser).


Does the Bible always say "once again" when a similar event happens more than once? Do you, in your own life? I don't, and an argument from such silence is no argument.An empty comment.

If we assume that the parallel scenarios of Exodus 16-18 and Numbers 11 are separate events, first we need to deduce what happened with the Judges instigated by Moses on Jethro's advice. What happened to them that led to Moses' appeal to YHWH and the establishment of the 70? Scripture is silent on the matter!!!

The argument stems from the fact that both accounts present four circumstances in the same chronological order, with the only discrepancy being who instigated the last event. Plus the background stories in Numbers and Exodus. Only the profoundly deaf and/or blind would argue that here we have an argument from silence (cp. Is 6:10; Acts 28:27) but the coherent person would perceive something requiring investigation = What are we to learn from the two accounts?

All the above aside: We are left with the biblical silence that Moses' establishment of the Judges via Jethro's advice was a dismal failure that was abandoned. Numbers 11 tells us that two years later Moses appealed to God to take the load from his shoulders which led to the dissolution of his spirit and its redistribution amoungst the selected seventy. If we have two different events then we are still left with a major problem concerning Moses' ready adoption of Jethro's ...if it was against God's will, why did God wait two years before intervening, but still implementing what Jethro had suggested?

RBerman
05-20-2014, 12:13 PM
The "German" school of thought to which you refer has been quite devastating on mainline protestant christianity but has had little impact on the more scholastic branches (eg: the RCC). Basically, I deal in facts as opposed to wishful thinking or aberrant literalism (eg: according to scripture, a day in God's eyes is not the same as ours, thus a day to God is likened to a thousand years to us).
Context, please. Psalm 90:3-4 is not saying that anytime we see the word "day" in the Bible, it may actually mean "a thousand years." It's saying that the lifespans of men are nothing in comparison with God's eternity. Which of us is really engaging in "aberrant literalism" in his interpretation of that verse?


Imu, when we learn that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (1 Tim 3:16), we shouldn't be expecting a book containing literal histories or sciences or an "Idiots guide to life" but a discourse on failures and successes from which we can draw upon to guide our direction. My favourite example is King David, whom on the scriptural account, I perceive as a most despicable person with no saving graces, yet YHWH saw some virtue in him, to the extent that YHWH permitted David to be worshiped in direct equivalence (1 Chron 29:20). The scriptural evidence is that like Christianity, David usurped the Levitical priesthood and as a consequence discarded Moses' ordinances which was the Levitical bulwark.
The Bible is not an idiot's guide to anything. It is however a revelation of God's will for his people, either by instruction or by example. The Bible always grounds its theological claims in historical claims. If the history is not true, then the theological claims should not be taken seriously either. Paul makes this argument about the resurrection of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15, for instance. Does it matter whether Christ's resurrection really happened? It does; otherwise, "Your faith is in vain."


The fact that the texts we have received down to this age have been redacted in various places is indisputable - there is sufficient manuscript evidence to prove the point (especially with the masoretic text used by many modern bible translations). Imo, it doesn't really matter, as the scribes were attempting to teach (albeit at times there appears to be political motivations), not implement some idolatrous phenomena (as protestants have had a tendency to do, and in so doing have diminished the message God intended - thus the decline in most protestant denominations).

Your claim of redactions is in fact heavily disputed, though perhaps not in the circles in which you walk.


Unfortunately, none of your excuses have four events in the same chronological order as each other. Possibly the parallel accounts in Exodus 16-18 and Numbers 11 are co-incidental - but probability suggests otherwise, especially when we take to account Aaron's apparent hatred of the Midianites (on the basis of scriptural imputation, such hatred being inspired by Moses' wife's influence on Moses, which takes us back to Jethro, the priest of the Midianites who for a time was Moses' chief adviser).
Your assessment of "probability" seems colored by your redactionist bias.


If we assume that the parallel scenarios of Exodus 16-18 and Numbers 11 are separate events, first we need to deduce what happened with the Judges instigated by Moses on Jethro's advice. What happened to them that led to Moses' appeal to YHWH and the establishment of the 70? Scripture is silent on the matter!!!

The argument stems from the fact that both accounts present four circumstances in the same chronological order, with the only discrepancy being who instigated the last event. Plus the background stories in Numbers and Exodus. Only the profoundly deaf and/or blind would argue that here we have an argument from silence (cp. Is 6:10; Acts 28:27) but the coherent person would perceive something requiring investigation = What are we to learn from the two accounts?

All the above aside: We are left with the biblical silence that Moses' establishment of the Judges via Jethro's advice was a dismal failure that was abandoned. Numbers 11 tells us that two years later Moses appealed to God to take the load from his shoulders which led to the dissolution of his spirit and its redistribution amoungst the selected seventy. If we have two different events then we are still left with a major problem concerning Moses' ready adoption of Jethro's ...if it was against God's will, why did God wait two years before intervening, but still implementing what Jethro had suggested?

Again, the two events are separate issues, with separate consequences. Exodus 16 describes the institution of a legal system which consisted of more than Moses. The Israelites would have needed one, without the Egyptian court system they had left behind. This freed up Moses not to have to hear every petty squabble between two people. Surely you don't take the Bible's further "silence" on the tribal judicial system to mean that it collapsed, and all million people resumed bringing their individual complaints to Moses directly?

Whereas in Numbers 11, the seventy elders were appointed as a buffer between the griping tribes and Moses, who was going bonkers from the constant complaining. The text specifically says that the Spirit resting on the elders only caused them to prophecy a single time. The elders are mentioned again in Deuteronomy 27, 29, 31; Joshua 7,8, 23, etc.

apostoli
05-21-2014, 12:18 PM
Again, the two events are separate issues, with separate consequences. Exodus 16 describes the institution of a legal system which consisted of more than Moses. The Israelites would have needed one, without the Egyptian court system they had left behind. This freed up Moses not to have to hear every petty squabble between two people. Surely you don't take the Bible's further "silence" on the tribal judicial system to mean that it collapsed, and all million people resumed bringing their individual complaints to Moses directly?

Whereas in Numbers 11, the seventy elders were appointed as a buffer between the griping tribes and Moses, who was going bonkers from the constant complaining. The text specifically says that the Spirit resting on the elders only caused them to prophecy a single time. The elders are mentioned again in Deuteronomy 27, 29, 31; Joshua 7,8, 23, etc.The fact is that scripture provides two identical scenarios of four events with only the last having a different impetuous. Focusing on the last, according to scripture, was it Jethro who suggested a method to relieve Moses' burden which Moses implemented or was it Moses' appeal to YHWH's intervention two years later that relieved Moses of his burden which according to Numbers 11 causes a diminution in his Spirit allocation?

RBerman
05-21-2014, 12:52 PM
The fact is that scripture provides two identical scenarios of four events with only the last having a different impetuous. Focusing on the last, according to scripture, was it Jethro who suggested a method to relieve Moses' burden which Moses implemented or was it Moses' appeal to YHWH's intervention two years later that relieved Moses of his burden which according to Numbers 11 causes a diminution in his Spirit allocation?

They are not identical; we have discussed the several ways they are different, from the burden at hand, to whose idea it was to do something, to what was done. Their only similarity is that Moses got help, which is surely something that happened not just twice, but many times.

apostoli
05-21-2014, 08:20 PM
They are not identical; we have discussed the several ways they are different , from the burden at hand, to whose idea it was to do something, to what was done.News to me! Show me where...


Their only similarity is that Moses got help, which is surely something that happened not just twice, but many times.Obviously you haven't read either Exodus or Numbers in the context we are discussing. There are three identical circumstances that proceed the establishment of the judges:

1. The Israelites sojourn in the desert
2. They are hungry. God sends them manna.
3. They hunger for meat. God sends them partridges.

According to Numbers the Israelites are on the verge of stoning Moses and Moses can no longer take the pressure. In Exodus everything seems OK, and Jethro suggests a way for Moses to relieve his day to day burden. On the basis of those two circumstances you may have point. However, you still haven't accounted for the background story ie: the sojourn in the desert, the manna and the partridges...

The author of Numbers apparently didn't have a high opinion of Moses, once describing him as the meekest of men (ie: spineless).

RBerman
05-22-2014, 05:51 AM
News to me! Show me where...
I am referring to posts #2 and #8 in this thread.


Obviously you haven't read either Exodus or Numbers in the context we are discussing. There are three identical circumstances that proceed the establishment of the judges:

1. The Israelites sojourn in the desert
2. They are hungry. God sends them manna.
3. They hunger for meat. God sends them partridges.

According to Numbers the Israelites are on the verge of stoning Moses and Moses can no longer take the pressure. In Exodus everything seems OK, and Jethro suggests a way for Moses to relieve his day to day burden. On the basis of those two circumstances you may have point. However, you still haven't accounted for the background story ie: the sojourn in the desert, the manna and the partridges.
The sojourn in the wilderness lasted forty years and was the background for many events, some of which would have resembled each other in the monotony of the desert. It seems a safe bet that, over the course of their time in the wilderness, the Israelites complained not just twice but many times that every single meal was manna. But to avoid tedium, we only hear about two occasions.


The author of Numbers apparently didn't have a high opinion of Moses, once describing him as the meekest of men (ie: spineless).
Jesus praises meekness in Matthew 5:5, quoting Psalm 37;11, which is describing what God's people should be like. Psalm 45:4 lists meekness as an attribute of the conquering king of Israel. Are you sure it's an insult?

apostoli
05-22-2014, 07:09 AM
The sojourn in the wilderness lasted forty years and was the background for many events, some of which would have resembled each other in the monotony of the desert. It seems a safe bet that, over the course of their time in the wilderness, the Israelites complained not just twice but many times that every single meal was manna. But to avoid tedium, we only hear about two occasions.That would have to be the lamess (and most biblically ignorant) statement I have ever read. It ignores all the biblical facts presented to us...


Jesus praises meekness in Matthew 5:5, quoting Psalm 37;11, which is describing what God's people should be like. Psalm 45:4 lists meekness as an attribute of the conquering king of Israel. Are you sure it's an insult?There is a difference between what Jesus describes as meekness and what Numbers describes of Moses. Aaron and his wife were on a persecution quest of Moses' wife, YHWH punished Aaron's wife in a most severe manner - Moses just hid in a corner (so to speak).

RBerman
05-22-2014, 02:39 PM
There is a difference between what Jesus describes as meekness and what Numbers describes of Moses. Aaron and his wife were on a persecution quest of Moses' wife, YHWH punished Aaron's wife in a most severe manner - Moses just hid in a corner (so to speak).

Or perhaps Moses left vengeance to God.

apostoli
05-22-2014, 11:44 PM
Or perhaps Moses left vengeance to God.If so, then why did Moses plead with YHWH to heal Miriam of the leprosy that YHWH had just inflicted upon her?

RBerman
05-23-2014, 05:43 AM
If so, then why did Moses plead with YHWH to heal Miriam of the leprosy that YHWH had just inflicted upon her?

"Leaving vengeance to God" doesn't mean that you don't pray for your sick sister.

apostoli
05-23-2014, 06:12 PM
"Leaving vengeance to God" doesn't mean that you don't pray for your sick sister.I suspect you are missing the point of Numbers 12. There is depicted an obvious conflict between Moses and the priesthood...YHWH intervened, basically said that while amoungst the priesthood there are prophets, he (YHWH), one on one, only talks to Moses. Miriam seems to be the the chief culprit in causing the conflict between Moses and Aaron, thus it is her that is exclusively punished.

All that aside you have still not reconiled the parallel circumstances of Ex 16-18 and Num 11. Namely, in both circumstances...

1. The Israelites sojourn in the desert
2. They are hungry. God sends them manna.
3. They hunger for meat. God sends them partridges.
4. Moses needs an administrative support structure.

According to Numbers the Israelites are on the verge of stoning Moses and Moses can no longer take the pressure. In Exodus everything seems OK, and Jethro suggests a way for Moses to relieve his day to day burden. A big problem, is that you have yet to lay an argument supported by scripture. You still need to present an emphatic accounting of the background story ie: the sojourn in the desert, the manna and the partridges as a replication of events, which effectively produced the Judges...

As I appealed earlier, you need to explain what happened to the Judges that Moses had appointed two years earlier under identical circumstances? What was the necessity of the 70?

I can, imaginatively, do a reconciliation, but, imo, it wouldn't stand up in court ;-{

If you are confounded by the biblical evidence then just say so...

RBerman
05-23-2014, 08:37 PM
I suspect you are missing the point of Numbers 12. There is depicted an obvious conflict between Moses and the priesthood...YHWH intervened, basically said that while amoungst the priesthood there are prophets, he (YHWH), one on one, only talks to Moses. Miriam seems to be the the chief culprit in causing the conflict between Moses and Aaron, thus it is her that is exclusively punished.

All that aside you have still not reconiled the parallel circumstances of Ex 16-18 and Num 11. Namely, in both circumstances...

1. The Israelites sojourn in the desert
2. They are hungry. God sends them manna.
3. They hunger for meat. God sends them partridges.
4. Moses needs an administrative support structure.

According to Numbers the Israelites are on the verge of stoning Moses and Moses can no longer take the pressure. In Exodus everything seems OK, and Jethro suggests a way for Moses to relieve his day to day burden. A big problem, is that you have yet to lay an argument supported by scripture. You still need to present an emphatic accounting of the background story ie: the sojourn in the desert, the manna and the partridges as a replication of events, which effectively produced the Judges...

As I appealed earlier, you need to explain what happened to the Judges that Moses had appointed two years earlier under identical circumstances? What was the necessity of the 70?

I can, imaginatively, do a reconciliation, but, imo, it wouldn't stand up in court ;-{

If you are confounded by the biblical evidence then just say so...

A "reconciliation" is only necessary if you think they are the same event, and you are trying to explain why the descriptions differ at various points. Instead what we have are two stories, within the sameforty year time frame, which have some points of overlap and some points of difference.

Exodus 16-18
1) The Israelites, fresh out of Egypt, have run out of food.
2) God sends quail as a temporary measure.
3) God provides manna as a long-term solution.
4) Noah needs help mediating the squabbles of the people. At Jethro's advice, he sets up a series of appellate courts.

Numbers 11
1) The people are sick of eating manna all the time.
2) Noah can't handle their constant griping to him, and God gives him seventy Spirit-filled men to act as a buffer and hear the complaints.
3) God sends quail that make them sick for complaining.

So there are no "identical circumstances." There is only the reality that, when wandering homeless in the Sinai desert for years, issues of food and governance will be chronic problems that have to be addressed and re-addressed.

apostoli
05-23-2014, 11:31 PM
A "reconciliation" is only necessary if you think they are the same event, and you are trying to explain why the descriptions differ at various points. Instead what we have are two stories, within the sameforty year time frame, which have some points of overlap and some points of difference.in the two accounts we are not dealing with a forty year period but 26 months in which identical circumstances are related. If you actually decide to read scripture, you will find that there is no overlap but equivalence of identical circumstances that, as a single event, are in descrepency by two years.


Exodus 16-18
1) The Israelites, fresh out of Egypt, have run out of food.In Numbers the Israelites had been out of Egypt for over two years, In Exodus only a couple of weeks/months. The texts don't support your assumptions. The Israelites are depicted as experiencing a one off event - a miracle in both accounts of the one event! (one account of two events if you count the partridges).


2) God sends quail as a temporary measure.But first he sends manna in both accounts and then in response to the Israelites complaints, in both accounts, he engorges them with partridges.


3) God provides manna as a long-term solution.As far as I have gleaned there is no scripture that supports your assumption of a long term solution. You seem to have ignored the partridges which your opinion regarding seperate events always followed the manna, and subsequently the redistribution of Moses' authority...


4) Noah needs help mediating the squabbles of the people. At Jethro's advice, he sets up a series of appellate courts.Noah? Moses would be a better bet! But let us let your lapse pass...

You aren't being attentive to the problem as your "Noah" slip indicates.

In Exodus, Moses has taken to himself to shoulder all the administrative needs of the Israelites. Jethro advises him to outsource (distribute his responsibilities). in Numbers, Moses is crumbled, can't take the pressure anymore and appeals for YHWH's help - which results in the diminution of Moses' power (ie: his Spirit is fragmented and distributed amoungst the 70).


Numbers 11
1) The people are sick of eating manna all the time.
2) Noah can't handle their constant griping to him, and God gives him seventy Spirit-filled men to act as a buffer and hear the complaints.
3) God sends quail that make them sick for complaining.For someone who pretends to advocate the inefficacy of scripture, it is revealing that you resort to such twisting, poking and prodding of scripture to make it fit your opinion. For now, I'll put such down to what appears your current Noahic condition (see Gen 9:21)


So there are no "identical circumstances." There is only the reality that, when wandering homeless in the Sinai desert for years, issues of food and governance will be chronic problems that have to be addressed and re-addressed.Hey, there is only a difference of around 20-24 months between when the accounts of Exodus and Numbers occurred. And these accounts are identical (except for the why/how of Moses' abrogation)and are unique in scripture. I really wish you would focus on the issues at hand and not introduce extrapolations that have no scriptural support.

RBerman
05-24-2014, 07:24 AM
in the two accounts we are not dealing with a forty year period but 26 months in which identical circumstances are related. If you actually decide to read scripture, you will find that there is no overlap but equivalence of identical circumstances that, as a single event, are in descrepency by two years.
I don't know why you assume I have not read the Scripture. You are of course correct about the time interval between these two events, but my point was larger: Over the course of forty years in the wilderness, stuff like this probably happened all the time, not just twice.


In Numbers the Israelites had been out of Egypt for over two years, In Exodus only a couple of weeks/months. The texts don't support your assumptions. The Israelites are depicted as experiencing a one off event - a miracle in both accounts of the one event! (one account of two events if you count the partridges).
Obviously a miracle that happened twice was not a "one off event." (I already mentioned the two times that Jesus fed large crowds with a small meal; do you think that was only one event too, even though Mark's gospel references the fact that it was two different times?) It's only your prior decision to try to squeeze both stories into the same event that generates all these problems.


But first he sends manna in both accounts and then in response to the Israelites complaints, in both accounts, he engorges them with partridges.
Not exactly. In Exodus 16, he announces the coming manna, but before the manna has even arrived, the quails do.


In the evening quail came up and covered the camp, and in the morning dew lay around the camp. And when the dew had gone up, there was on the face of the wilderness a fine, flake-like thing, fine as frost on the ground. (Exodus 16:13-14)


As far as I have gleaned there is no scripture that supports your assumption of a long term solution. You seem to have ignored the partridges which your opinion regarding seperate events always followed the manna, and subsequently the redistribution of Moses' authority...
See above about the timing of the manna and quails the first time around. As far as whether there was a long term solution, surely you don't think the Israelites wandered for forty years in the wilderness without (1) food, and (2) a governmental hierarchy beyond "Moses at the top, and everyone else underneath"?


Noah? Moses would be a better bet! But let us let your lapse pass...
Whoops. Thanks for the gracious response. Sometimes I'm amazed at the words that slip from my fingers.


You aren't being attentive to the problem as your "Noah" slip indicates.
Oh well, so much for graciousness. It was nice for the brief period between your sentences. Anyway...


In Exodus, Moses has taken to himself to shoulder all the administrative needs of the Israelites. Jethro advises him to outsource (distribute his responsibilities). in Numbers, Moses is crumbled, can't take the pressure anymore and appeals for YHWH's help - which results in the diminution of Moses' power (ie: his Spirit is fragmented and distributed amoungst the 70).
Exactly. The circumstances were somewhat different, as were the process and the solution.


Hey, there is only a difference of around 20-24 months between when the accounts of Exodus and Numbers occurred. And these accounts are identical (except for the why/how of Moses' abrogation)and are unique in scripture. I really wish you would focus on the issues at hand and not introduce extrapolations that have no scriptural support.

As we have seen, the accounts, while sharing similarities that should not surprise us given the Israelites situation, have differences due to the circumstances of their respective moments.

apostoli
05-24-2014, 10:30 AM
I don't know why you assume I have not read the Scripture. You are of course correct about the time interval between these two events, but my point was larger: Over the course of forty years in the wilderness, stuff like this probably happened all the time, not just twice.Yet scripture is silent.

Earlier you suggested that if x is in scripture you'd believe it, if it isn't you won't. Your speculations are absent from scripture. So what is your stance now?

In your opinion, what happened to Moses' appointment of the judges in Exodus? Was his "inspired" decision such a failure that it required YHWH's intervention? Why was it necessary for YHWH to diminish Moses' spirit and reallocate it to the replacement 70? None of these questions can be answered directly from scripture.

We know from scripture that the judges system was a dismal failure, ultimately becoming so corrupt the people pleaded for a king to be enthroned to rule instead of the judges. We also know the "king" idea was a dismal failure. If both were YHWH instigated then scripture would indicate YHWH is/was a failure! However, if both ideas were man made then YHWH is off the hook. Numbers indicates the 70 are God's idea, Exodus indicates that they were Jethro's/Moses' idea.

If Exodus & Numbers provide two separate events with parallel circumstances then YHWH is proved a failure in his dealings with Israel. If Numbers is a priestly redaction revisiting the same event, then YHWH is off the hook.

Of course there is another explanation I could give to reconcile the two accounts, but such would be idle speculation...and you have indicated you have no tolerance for idle speculation...

RBerman
05-24-2014, 05:55 PM
Yet scripture is silent. Earlier you suggested that if x is in scripture you'd believe it, if it isn't you won't. Your speculations are absent from scripture. So what is your stance now? In your opinion, what happened to Moses' appointment of the judges in Exodus? Was his "inspired" decision such a failure that it required YHWH's intervention? Why was it necessary for YHWH to diminish Moses' spirit and reallocate it to the replacement 70? None of these questions can be answered directly from scripture.
As you say, Scripture is silent, so we don't know for sure. For that matter, we only know a few times that the Israelites ate, and none that they ever "relieved themselves" in the wilderness. But presumably those sorts of maintenance functions went on every day, without being documented. Presumably the normal operations of society (child-rearing, cleaning, judges adjudicating disputes) went on every day, though Scripture doesn't specifically say so. So no, I don't think the legal system instituted in Exodus 18 was a "failure." However, the seventy elders of Numbers 11 had a different job than those judges, as I described previously.


We know from scripture that the judges system was a dismal failure, ultimately becoming so corrupt the people pleaded for a king to be enthroned to rule instead of the judges. We also know the "king" idea was a dismal failure. If both were YHWH instigated then scripture would indicate YHWH is/was a failure! However, if both ideas were man made then YHWH is off the hook. Numbers indicates the 70 are God's idea, Exodus indicates that they were Jethro's/Moses' idea.
We know that the national judgeship ultimately became corrupt by the time of Eli and his sons. They wanted a new president, as it were. That's a separate question from whether more local government was functioning, as when Ruth and Boaz had their issues ironed out by the elders at the gates of the city.

Furthermore, God ordaining something doesn't mean that the results will be great; God ordained Saul to be king of Israel, in order to chastise Israel; Saul turned out to be a corrupt king. So if you wanted to argue that the Levitical law was like that (ordained by God, yet actually bad), then at least you'd be somewhat closer to reality than saying that God never ordained the Levitical law in the first place, even though the first words of the book of Leviticus are, "The Lord called Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying,..." But even then, you'd have to reckon with the many places in the Bible that praise "the Law," meaning the Mosaic Code. They'd have to all be wrong too.

apostoli
05-24-2014, 11:20 PM
...the seventy elders of Numbers 11 had a different job than those judges, as I described previously.What was their "different job" according to scripture? Moses had already implemented the judges for administrative affairs and the levites for religious affairs, what is left in the governance of Moses' people for the 70 to do? Were they a police force that checked that the judges and religious leaders were doing their job correctly? If so, from scriptural and historical accounts of the judges and levitical system, they were a dismal failure. Jethro had advised Moses to delegate his day to day activities but he should preside over greater matters. Now from Numbers 11 we find Moses couldn't cope with the pressure so (speculatively) YHWH implemented a council of seventy elders. If it wasn't for Numbers 12 that scenario would seem to settle things (as long as we ignore the Israelites sojourn in the desert and the consequent appearance of the manna and the partridges and the consequential episode of Moses' delegating his power/s).


Furthermore, God ordaining something doesn't mean that the results will be great; God ordained Saul to be king of Israel, in order to chastise Israel; Saul turned out to be a corrupt king.Actually God did not ordain Saul he anointed him, in the same way that he (God) anointed the the pagan king Cyrus to conquer Israel and then rule over Israel in exile.

David might be demonstrated to be morally corrupt and blood thirsty (the later being the reason he was prohibited from implementing his aspiration of making Jerusalem (his capital) yhe centre of religious devotion). He too was anointed, but scripture no where indicates that God sanctioned any of his activities (except for maybe David having himself worshiped in equivalence to YHWH)..

ps: I'm not aware of scripture ever depicting Saul as corrupt. Defective and self possessed possibly. corrupt - not that I can find.


closer to reality than saying that God never ordained the Levitical law in the first place, even though the first words of the book of Leviticus are, "The Lord called Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying,..." But even then, you'd have to reckon with the many places in the Bible that praise "the Law," meaning the Mosaic Code. They'd have to all be wrong too.Have a close read of the NT, whenever Jesus referred to the Law he always pointed to and quoted from the Decalogue. Whenever he referred to the Mosaic law he was highly critical...

As I suggested earlier, have a close read of Levitcus and you will find that Jesus' sacrifice is invalid under the levitical rules. Probably why he is high priest according the order of Melchizedek and not counted amoungst the Cohen of the levites.

foudroyant
05-24-2014, 11:41 PM
He too was anointed, but scripture no where indicates that God sanctioned any of his activities (except for maybe David having himself worshiped in equivalence to YHWH).

An assertion which was already disproved in Post #57

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1152-Determinism-amp-Paul/page6

apostoli
05-25-2014, 12:40 AM
He [David] too was anointed, but scripture no where indicates that God sanctioned any of his activities (except for maybe David having himself worshiped in equivalence to YHWH).An assertion which was already disproved in Post #57

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1152-Determinism-amp-Paul/page6Did YHWH sanction the statutory rape and adultery of Bathsheba, and the consequent murder of her husband? From the scriptural account, definitely not. Did YHWH sanction David's blood lust? From the scriptural account, definitely not! Did YHWH sanction David's territorial aspirations. Apparently not. His kingdom quickly crumbled.

I presume you are relying on your final comment in post #57 of the thread "Determinism & Paul" ...


Despite his faults the LORD pointed out that David had done good.
This is what the LORD said unto Solomon concerning David:
As for you, if you will walk before Me as your father David walked, in integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you and will keep My statutes and My ordinances then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, just as I promised to your father David, saying, 'You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.' (1 Kings 9:4, NASB)

Point of fact, there is no indication that YHWH rewarded David or later kin for having "had done good". David's kingdom was crumbling in his life time, and ultimately collapsed under Solomon's line, to the point that his line was cursed by YHWH (ie: why any claim to the throne of David via Joseph for Jesus is invalid if Jesus was natural offspring of Joseph).

Possibly your antagonism is towards my current statement (not covered in the post you cite) that David had himself worshiped in equivalence to YHWH. If so, read 1 Chronicles 2:29 where it is plainly stated that David was worshiped along with YHWH by the Israelites of the time...

ps: I just checked to see what I had replied to your post #57 of the thread "Determinism & Paul" and discovered I never did. Sorry about that. It seems phat8594, dacristoy and RBerman took over the thread and your post got lost in the mix...

foudroyant
05-25-2014, 12:45 AM
For you to assert that God didn't sanction any of David's activities goes against the evidence now presented:

David kept true to the covenant he made with Jonathan (1 Samuel 20:15-17) by caring for Meshibosheth which was a good thing.
Then David said, "Is there yet anyone left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan's sake?"
Now there was a servant of the house of Saul whose name was Ziba, and they called him to David; and the king said to him, "Are you Ziba?" And he said, "I am your servant."
The king said, "Is there not yet anyone of the house of Saul to whom I may show the kindness of God?" And Ziba said to the king, "There is still a son of Jonathan who is crippled in both feet." (2 Samuel 9:1-3, NASB)

Before his death David provided an abundant amount of materials for Solomon to build the Temple which was a good thing.
But the LORD said to my father David, Because it was in your heart to build a house for My name, you did well that it was in your heart. (1 Kings 8:18, NASB cf. 1 Chronicles 28:19)

Despite his faults th LORD pointed out that David had done good.
This is what the LORD said unto Solomon concerning David:
As for you, if you will walk before Me as your father David walked, in integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you and will keep My statutes and My ordinances then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, just as I promised to your father David, saying, 'You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.' (1 Kings 9:4, NASB)

Added to this is that David killed Goliath.
---------------------------------------------------
And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king. (1 Chronicles 29:20, KJV)

David did not have himself worshiped in equivalence to God in the same way Naboth was not accused of blaspheming "God and the king" in equivalence (1 Kings 21:13, KJV).
In both instances what was done unto God is in the absolute - not so concerning what was said to have been done unto people.

The same would apply here:
serve now the LORD your God, and his people Israel (2 Chronicles 35:3, KJV).
The word used in the LXX is a derivative of latreuw - the worship due unto God alone.

apostoli
05-25-2014, 12:56 AM
For you to assert that God didn't sanction any of David's activities goes against the evidence now presented:

David kept true to the covenant he made with Jonathan (1 Samuel 20:15-17) by caring for Meshibosheth which was a good thing.
Then David said, "Is there yet anyone left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan's sake?"
Now there was a servant of the house of Saul whose name was Ziba, and they called him to David; and the king said to him, "Are you Ziba?" And he said, "I am your servant."
The king said, "Is there not yet anyone of the house of Saul to whom I may show the kindness of God?" And Ziba said to the king, "There is still a son of Jonathan who is crippled in both feet." (2 Samuel 9:1-3, NASB)

Before his death David provided an abundant amount of materials for Solomon to build the Temple which was a good thing.
But the LORD said to my father David, Because it was in your heart to build a house for My name, you did well that it was in your heart. (1 Kings 8:18, NASB cf. 1 Chronicles 28:19)

Despite his faults th LORD pointed out that David had done good.
This is what the LORD said unto Solomon concerning David:
As for you, if you will walk before Me as your father David walked, in integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you and will keep My statutes and My ordinances then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, just as I promised to your father David, saying, 'You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.' (1 Kings 9:4, NASB)

Added to this is that David killed Goliath.
---------------------------------------------------
And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king. (1 Chronicles 29:20, KJV)

David did not have himself worshiped in equivalence to God in the same way Naboth was not accused of blaspheming "God and the king" in equivalence (1 Kings 21:13, KJV).
In both instances what was done unto God is in the absolute - not so concerning what was said to have been done unto people.

The same would apply here:
serve now the LORD your God, and his people Israel (2 Chronicles 35:3, KJV).
The word used in the LXX is a derivative of latreuw - the worship due unto God alone.The final judgement is God's. There is nothing left of David's kingdom, and the temple and everything associated with it has ceased to exist. Same fate as Sodom, Gomorrah, Tyre etc

foudroyant
05-25-2014, 01:05 AM
The final judgment is God's...and He has already told us in the passages I cited that David did do these good things.

apostoli
05-25-2014, 01:49 AM
The final judgment is God's...and He has already told us in the passages I cited that David did do these good things.Is so, why was David punished and his kingly line via Solomon extinguished?

I'm sure David occasionally did something beneficial to someone other than himself (most dictators do), but the reality is he messed up more readily than most people eg: the census that brought down the entire wrath of YHWH upon David's subjects.

As we agree: The final judgment is God's...and YHWH's ultimate judgement upon David and his people is self evident...

In anycase: A discussion on David and his failures and/or successes has no relevance to reconciling Ex 16-18 & Num 11. So if you want to discuss David and his failures and/or successes start a new thread...

foudroyant
05-25-2014, 02:01 AM
I already cited the link for the discussion and you never addressed it when I did but then you continue to repeat the same false assertion.

RBerman
05-25-2014, 05:34 AM
Did YHWH sanction the statutory rape and adultery of Bathsheba, and the consequent murder of her husband?
At least in America, "statutory rape" means having sex with someone unqualified to give consent as an adult, usually a young teenager. Bathsheba was already married, so it's hard to see how that term would apply to her. Perhaps it means something different in your country?


What was their "different job" according to scripture? Moses had already implemented the judges for administrative affairs and the levites for religious affairs, what is left in the governance of Moses' people for the 70 to do? Were they a police force that checked that the judges and religious leaders were doing their job correctly? If so, from scriptural and historical accounts of the judges and levitical system, they were a dismal failure. Jethro had advised Moses to delegate his day to day activities but he should preside over greater matters. Now from Numbers 11 we find Moses couldn't cope with the pressure so (speculatively) YHWH implemented a council of seventy elders. If it wasn't for Numbers 12 that scenario would seem to settle things (as long as we ignore the Israelites sojourn in the desert and the consequent appearance of the manna and the partridges and the consequential episode of Moses' delegating his power/s).
Numbers 11 doesn't go into great detail about what the Seventy did with their Spirit shared-power, but the context of their appointment is that Moses was being inundated not with court cases, as in Exodus 18, but with personal attacks and gripes about the general state of the nation. That sounds like a different job than the job of sub-judges mediating disputes among the people, and it certainly would have taken more than seventy guys in Exodus 18 to fill the need for "chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens." (Exodus 18:21)


Actually God did not ordain Saul he anointed him, in the same way that he (God) anointed the the pagan king Cyrus to conquer Israel and then rule over Israel in exile.
"Ordain" means "to set in order" or "to choose." God chose to anoint Saul for a purpose.


ps: I'm not aware of scripture ever depicting Saul as corrupt. Defective and self possessed possibly. corrupt - not that I can find.
Fair enough, if you mean "corrupt" in the sense of being subject to bribery. I was using the term more generally to refer to his rebellion against God.


Have a close read of the NT, whenever Jesus referred to the Law he always pointed to and quoted from the Decalogue. Whenever he referred to the Mosaic law he was highly critical.
Jesus praises the two great commandments as the summation of the whole law which men must keep. They come from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18.


As I suggested earlier, have a close read of Leviticus and you will find that Jesus' sacrifice is invalid under the Levitical rules. Probably why he is high priest according the order of Melchizedek and not counted amongst the Cohen of the Levites.

That is true, but as I suggested earlier, you should "have a close read" of Hebrews, which describes the Levitical law not as an ungodly fabrication but as a once-commanded practice which God has seen fit to fulfill in Christ, rendering its further observance obsolete thereafter.

apostoli
05-25-2014, 07:26 AM
At least in America, "statutory rape" means having sex with someone unqualified to give consent as an adult, usually a young teenager. Bathsheba was already married, so it's hard to see how that term would apply to her. Perhaps it means something different in your country?Spain only recently changed their age of consent from 13 to 16yo for females. They are only a few decades different from some states in the USA where once the age of marriage was 9yo. So legalistically you might stand to give debate. However, David was in multiple breaches of the Decalogue, so he was in breach of God's Law (albeit probably not Moses' ordinances - somewhere here on TWEB there was a discussion of the ancient Jewish custom and in some parts of the world a current custom of marrying off 9 year olds to old men. Note that in Moses' ordinances all a man had to do was marry whomever he raped to get off scott free).

In every country of the world statutory rape defines anything that is not allowed by common law. As is evidenced in multiple societies (eg: in the current news Pakistan and India) young girls are prime bait for any licentious male. If you read through Moses' ordinances he institutionalised such a viewpoint... Sharia law in the Muslim subjection of woman is very dependent on Moses' propositions. The Taliban and their law is simply Moses in action in modern times - if you support the idea that Moses' ordinances were God inspired then I must assume you are a supporter of the Taliban who perceive themselves as God inspired and thus are one of the few groups remaining who actually implement Moses' ordinances.

RBerman
05-25-2014, 11:59 AM
Spain only recently changed their age of consent from 13 to 16yo for females. They are only a few decades different from some states in the USA where once the age of marriage was 9yo. So legalistically you might stand to give debate. However, David was in multiple breaches of the Decalogue, so he was in breach of God's Law (albeit probably not Moses' ordinances - somewhere here on TWEB there was a discussion of the ancient Jewish custom and in some parts of the world a current custom of marrying off 9 year olds to old men. Note that in Moses' ordinances all a man had to do was marry whomever he raped to get off scott free).

In every country of the world statutory rape defines anything that is not allowed by common law. As is evidenced in multiple societies (eg: in the current news Pakistan and India) young girls are prime bait for any licentious male. If you read through Moses' ordinances he institutionalised such a viewpoint... Sharia law in the Muslim subjection of woman is very dependent on Moses' propositions. The Taliban and their law is simply Moses in action in modern times - if you support the idea that Moses' ordinances were God inspired then I must assume you are a supporter of the Taliban who perceive themselves as God inspired and thus are one of the few groups remaining who actually implement Moses' ordinances.

Those who support Moses are actually supporting the Taliban? Ladies and gentleman, I rest my case. Have fun in your thread.

apostoli
05-26-2014, 04:05 AM
Those who support Moses are actually supporting the Taliban? Ladies and gentleman, I rest my case. Have fun in your thread.The thread died ages ago when you contradicted yourself (I'll believe it only if it is in scripture) and then started to justify your opinion using idle speculations that have absolutely no support in scripture.

Also you misrepresent my position. I do not advocate that "Those who support Moses are actually supporting the Taliban" but more precisely "Those who support Moses' ordinances as practical persuasions to an ordered society are actually supporting the Taliban, who to my knowledge are the only group that currently implements them to their full measure".

Best you do a bit of historical research. In the western world many of Moses' ordinances influenced thought well into the early twentieth century (particularly in protestent dominated countries)...the total abrogation of his ordinances has been a slow process, only resolved through political processes (eg: the end of the usary laws is a major watermark. The advent of democracy, the emancipation of women and the end of slavery in all its forms are particular watermarks).

foudroyant
05-27-2014, 02:12 AM
More stupidity from apostoli.

Typical.

apostoli
06-14-2014, 01:22 PM
More stupidity from apostoli.

Typical.More illiteracy from foudroyant, who can't comprehend the discussion. Typical!!!

Simply put, for foudroyant's benefit, the Taliban implement Moses ordinances, the rest of the world rejects them!!!! America and its allies (including my country) haVE HAD (DO HAVE) many a war to suppress the implementation of Moses' ordinances.

Moses' ordinances promote the failed societies of Communism, Maoism, Socialism, Nazism, the Kibbutznik etc etc etc of the utopian and fanatical fringe... Thus as failed social paradigms are proven not to have any divine inspiration...

ie: Moses ordinances were not inspired ny YHWH, but were politically conceived as a social intervention...

I'm, happy for you to prove me wrong, but documented history supports my viewpoint. The onus is on you to prove my viewpoint is aberrant...

foudroyant
06-14-2014, 03:24 PM
1. Is the Pentateuch inspired? (Parts of it?)
2. Was Moses called by God?

apostoli
06-14-2014, 09:48 PM
1. Is the Pentateuch inspired? (Parts of it?)Why not? Sure!!! However, consider what that inspiration actually tells you! Imo, the general failure of mankind when left to their own devices. Intersestingly, have a read of Genesis 5, whilst Adam had many children, only one is said to have been in his image, and this individual is traced as the root of the Messianic linage. Can you name him?


. Was Moses called by God?So scripture tells us, and scripture tells us he was a failure in the performance of his duties, and imposed his personal opinions over and above the commandments of YHWH - to the extent that God prohibited him from entering the promised land...

Of interest: These days with modern transport you can travel the Sinai in less than a day. Refugees have in modern times demonstrated that, on foot alone, on average it might take three weeks (most of which is spent hiding from Bedouim bandits, slavers etc). So why did it take the Israelites 40 years to traverse such a small area. Scripture gives the answer, can you?