Thursday, 3 May 2018

Is Every Living Thing Made of Water including Jinns?



I can't help but point out that water is literally produced from fire:

Flames consist primarily of carbon dioxide, water vapor, oxygen and nitrogen. (Wikipedia)
E.g. for methane combustion, we have the following chemical reaction:



(Image source: Wikimedia commons)

But I don't think this is the way it's intended to be interpreted. The Qur'an also says:

And We did certainly create man out of clay from an altered black mud. -- Qur'an 15:26

Clearly this does not mean that man is some kind of clay monster. It seems reasonable to interpret Qur'an 15:27 in the same spirit.

We don't view man being made out of clay as conflicting with the notion of man being made out of water. They mean different things.





Aisha Khaja: “Dr. Shabir, the question that we have is, the Quran states every living thing was made of water. How is this the case for jinns who were created from fire?


Dr. Shabir Ally: “It’s interesting that the tafsir of the Imam al-Razi actually answers this question.

He says that even though the verse in question—the 21st chapter in the Quran, the 30th verse—says […] “we created from water every living thing”, this excludes the angels and jinns.

Because we know from elsewhere in the Quran and in the other literature that the angels were created from light and the jinn from a smokeless sort of fire.
So, they are excluded.
I would like to add here that generally in the Quran when the word “kulla”, or everything, is used, it doesn’t necessarily mean everything, literally everything. It means everything within a certain context.
And even in our everyday speech. If you’re leaving the house for a picnic and somebody says, you have everything, or do we have everything?
The answer is usually, yes. But it doesn’t mean everything including the kitchen sink obviously, right? It means everything that we need for the trip.
And it seems also to me that the context of this statement within the verse is the earth and living things on the earth.
So, whereas, you know, jinns and angels existed before the creation of the earth.
The idea in the Quranic verse now is that God created the earth and every living thing on earth is made from water.”
Aisha Khaja: “So, when God references angels and jinns in the Quran it’s always within a separate context or?”
Dr. Shabir Ally: “Well, that would be like prior to the creation of the earth itself because these are the spirit creatures that may have existed before the earth was created.
Angels are definitely very ancient and jinns too seem to have proceeded human beings in the creation plan of God.”

---------------
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. (Genesis 7:4)

Notice how yahweh said "every living subtance" will be wiped off the face of the earth? Did he wipe of noah and his family and the animals? Why then use "Every living substance"?


Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve. (Mark 11:11)

Surely Jesus could not have looked at everything? don't get carried away with the use of language.

I wonder, if three bakers were to come visit the author of this list and one were to say: "Bread is made from flour," the next were to say "bread is made from dough" and the third were to say: "Bread is made from wheat," if he would consider this a "contradiction" too?

 

If two physicists now came along and one said "bread is made from atoms" and the other said "bread is made from molecules," would this be an even further "contradiction"? 

 

The blood of all living creatures is composed of 55 percent plasma, which in turn is composed of more than 90 percent water. As opposed to 1400 centuries ago when the Qur'an was first revealed by God, today it is a well known fact that the major "ingredient" in the human body is water (a matter emphasized ONLY in the Qur'an and not in the Bible). It is further very well known that mankind is made from "dust" (when you place his body in the grave and leave it for a number of years, and the water evaporates, what form does his body revert to? Further, what is "clay"? Is it not a special form of water and dust? It is equally obvious that if God created everything then there must have been a time when everything we see was "nothing," including humans. 

 

However, our current author severely dislikes all Muslims and is bent on discovering "contradictions." The irony of the matter is that although he has no formal knowledge of these matters but manages to brand all of these statements to be "contradictory," in spite of that, when truly objective and unbiased Christian scholars who are world renown specialist in this field are presented with the very same verses and many more, and spend over three years studying them in detail, we find these world renown Christian scholars so totally amazed at their accuracy in matters which were only scientifically proven in the last twenty years that they found no recourse but to admit that it must have come from God and even to go so far as to suggest the total replacement of current scientific terminology with that used by God in the Qur'an. But they is saying this with regard to the Muslim Qur'an and not their own Christian Bible. Who are some of these men? Among them are Prof. Keith Moore, Prof. E. Marshall Johnson, Prof. Joe Leigh Simpson, Prof. T.V.N. Persaud , Dr. Maurice Bucaille, and Dr. Tejatet Tejasen to name but a few. 

Monday, 30 April 2018

What Did Ruth and Boaz Do on the Threshing Floor?

Many people have different views as to what Ruth and Boaz did on the threshing floor during the night that the two were together. Here is what I wrote in my book “Unusual Bible Interpretations: Ruth, Esther, and Judith.” 

The two widows, Naomi of Judea and Ruth the Moabite, return from Moab to Judea some 10 years after Naomi left Bethlehem in Judea. They are penniless. To secure food Ruth gleans barley stalks in the field of Boaz, a kinsman of Naomi. Boaz is fascinated by Ruth from the moment he sees her, even before he knows who she is, and his interest in her increases upon acquaintance. However, after the barley harvest ends, after around three months, Boaz made Ruth no offer of marriage. Naomi suggests to Ruth that they need to take matters into their own hands.
  • Naomi tells Ruth that they need to find “rest” for her, meaning “security,” and security at that time was achieved for women by marriage.

  • She tells Ruth to go to Boaz at night when he is sleeping on the threshing floor. If the purpose was simply to talk, why was she told to go at night and why while he was sleeping?

  • She instructs her to “wash herself, anoint herself [put on perfume], and dress [in her best clothes].” This is usually not needed for a conversation. The only other time that the three instructions are used in Scripture is in Ezekiel 16:9–10, in regard to preparation for marriage.

  • Although Rashi did not think that Ruth and Boaz had a sexual encounter, he interprets the text to mean that Naomi suggested that Ruth wear her best Sabbath clothing; although Naomi told Ruth to clothe herself before going to the threshing floor, Ruth put on the special clothes after she arrived because “if I go all decorated, whoever meets me and sees me will say I am a prostitute.”

  • Naomi suggests that Ruth should not make herself known to Boaz until after he has “finished eating and drinking.” Is she suggesting that Ruth wait until Boaz is intoxicated? Gersonides interprets “do not make yourself known to the man” as “do not let anyone see you going to the field tonight.”

  • Ruth should then see where Boaz lies down, and then “go in and uncover his feet and lie down, and he will tell you what you should do.” Is the uncovering of his feet a euphemism? The word used here and translated as “feet” is margelotav, bearing the root r-g-l, “foot.” However, the term only appears in the Bible in regard to the unique feet (or lower extremity) of an angel in Daniel 10:6, where Daniel describes a vision he had of an angel that did not look like a human. Isaiah 6:2 uses the usual word for feet and states that he saw a vision in which an angel covered his face and feet with wings. Why did the angel need to cover his “feet”? Is it possible that Naomi (or the author of the tale) is using this form of “feet” as a euphemism for penis? If not, why does Naomi instruct her to uncover his feet? If the purpose was to alert Boaz that she was present, wouldn’t it make more sense to uncover the upper part of his body?[2]

  • Ruth agrees to the plan. The narrator states that after eating and drinking, Boaz’s “heart was merry” (inebriated?), Ruth “came softly, uncovered his feet, and lay down.”

  • It isn’t until around midnight that Boaz wakens and is startled to find a woman lying at his feet. Why didn’t he awaken when Ruth lay beside him? If one overindulges in alcohol, one frequently awakens in the middle of the night when much of the effects of the drink wears off.

  • Ruth identifies herself to Boaz and adds, “Spread your coat over your handmaid, for you are a near kinsman.” This reminds us of the Joseph story, in which Joseph escapes the clutches of his master’s wife, but she grabs his coat and holds onto it since he avoided having sex with her.[3] Here, Ruth is saying the opposite: “Spread your coat over your handmaid.” Does the narrator want us to understand that contrary to Joseph, Ruth is asking for sex? Or, is she asking for protection?

  • Besides reminding readers of the Joseph story, it is likely that the narrator wants readers to recall the story of Tamar and Judah. The patriarch Judah did not allow Tamar to fulfill the levirate marriage with his third son, because his first two sons had died after being married to her.[4] Like Ruth, Tamar clothed herself and resorted to sex: “She discarded her garments of widowhood, covered herself with a veil, and wrapped herself [like Ruth, in clothing].” She sat by the road and enticed Judah to have sex with her. He did so without knowing who she was (similar to Ruth meeting Boaz in the dark) and the levirate procedure was fulfilled, resulting in twins – one of whom, according to Ruth 4, was the ancestor of Boaz.

  • Boaz tells Ruth that he will do what she wants and says, “Tarry here tonight.” Why did he want Ruth to remain? Should we understand that he was not concerned with her returning home at night, given that she left hours later while it was still dark, “before one could recognize another person”?

  • Why did Boaz warn her to “let it not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor”?

  • Boaz gave Ruth a gift when she left the threshing floor to return home, and this reminds 

  • readers of the gift that Judah gave to Tamar after he had sex with her.[5]

  • When Ruth returned home, Naomi asked her, “Who are you, my daughter?” Was Naomi 

  • inquiring whether Ruth was now engaged to Boaz as a result of the encounter?

  • Ruth did not tell Naomi what Boaz “said,” she told her “all that the man had done to her.”

  • Needless to say, every one of these facts can be interpreted in an innocuous way.[6]

Josephus abridges the notices of Ruth 3:6-7 concerning Ruth's carrying out Naomi's instructions regarding the sleeping Boaz. His statement about Ruth's initially being "concealed" from him draws on Naomi's instruction (3:4) and Ruth's execution of these (3:7) Josephus eliminates the sexually "loaded" phrase about-her "uncovering" Boaz' "feet" (penis?).


Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities Book five page 82 By Flavius Josephus


—
[1] Antiquities 5:9:3.

[2] Other examples where “feet” seem to be a euphemism for genitals are: II Samuel 11:8, where King David instructs Uriah to go home and have sex with his wife: “Go down to your house and wash your feet.” In Isaiah 7:20, the prophet predicts that God will have Assyria shave the Israelites’ beards and “the head and hair of the feet.” Deuteronomy 28:57 speaks of an afterbirth that came “out from between her feet.”
Why does Deuteronomy 25 rule that a man who refuses to perform the Levirate marriage has to have his shoe pulled off his foot? In the Ancient Near East, a shoe was a euphemism for the female genital. Pulling a shoe from a man’s foot may be a symbolic way to acknowledge his refusal to have sex with his brother’s widow in the Levirate ceremony (Richard Gist, You Don’t Understand the Bible Because You Are Christian [Friesen Press, 2014]).
F. Campbell in Anchor Bible lists other citations where foot may be a euphemism: Exodus 4:25; Judges 3:24; I Samuel24:3; II Kings 18:27; Isaiah 6:3, 36:12; and Ezekiel 16:25.
Ibn Ezra and Gersonides, avoiding any suggestion of intimacy, define margelotav as the feet and foot of the bed, respectively. Saadiah Gaon understands that Naomi was saying “lie by his feet.”

[3] Boaz is compared to Joseph in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 19b, and in the Targum to verse 8.

[4] Genesis 38.

[5] Genesis 38.


[6] An argument can be made that the feet of many men get cold before the rest of their body and uncovering Boaz’s feet was a means to awaken him. The Targum states that Boaz acted toward Ruth “according to the prophecy that was revealed to him.”

---------------------

Joshua the son of Nun, married a prostitute called Rahab. this prostitute is one of the Great ancestor of Jesus.
-----------------
Eight prophets, who were also priests, descended from Rahab the prostitute, and they are: Neriah; his son Baruch; Seraiah; Mahseiah; Jeremiah; his father, Hilkiah; Jeremiah’s cousin Hanamel; and Hanamel’s father, Shallum. Rabbi Yehuda said: So too, Huldah the prophetess was a descendant of Rahab the prostitute, (Talmud Megillah 14b)
For Rahab (the prostitute)converted and married Joshua, and therefore Huldah descended from both Joshua and Rahab. (Talmud Megillah Daf 14b)
---------------
According to the genealogy of Jesus found in Matthew, Rahab the Prostitute is one of his great ancestor. Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, (Matthew 1:5)
do Christians accept their god coming from the lineage of a "whore, prostitute"

Wednesday, 18 April 2018

Two Staffs

Moses had first encountered G-d, Who had dispatched Moses on his mission to redeem the nation of Israel. When Moses demurred, doubting whether the Jews would believe that he really had been sent by G-d, He gave him a sign to perform: “Hashem said to him: What is that in your hand? And he said: A staff. And He said: Cast it on the ground! So he cast it on the ground, and it became a snake” (Exodus 4:2-3).
This week’s parashah recounts the riposte. G-d sent Moses and his brother Aaron to confront Pharaoh with the demand to send out the Children of Israel. And when confronting Pharaoh, the staff and its transformation was again a major theme.

But there are two important differences between the two events. The first is that in the interaction between G-d and Moses at the burning bush, it was Moses’s staff that was transformed. When Moses and Aaron confronted Pharaoh it was Aaron’s staff that was transformed. G-d told Moses: “Say to Aaron, Take your staff and cast it before Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:9).

The second difference is the animal that the staffs were transformed into. Moses’s staff at the burning bush was transformed into a נָחָשׁ, nahash – a snake. Aaron’s staff in Pharaoh’s palace was transformed into a תַּנִּין, tannin – a crocodile.

This difference is often lost in translation: the JPS translation, for example, renders both נָחָשׁ(Exodus 4:3) and תַּנִּין (7:9) as “serpent”; ArtScroll translates them both as “snake”; the Margolin Edition translates נָחָשׁ as “snake” and תַּנִּין as “serpent” – as though the words are synonymous.

This is not as unfounded as it seems: Rashi interprets תַּנִּין in Exodus 7:9 to mean “snake”; and Targum Yonatan renders נָחָשׁ (4:3) into Aramaic as חִוְיָא (snake), and תַּנִּין (7:9) as חִיוִי חוּרְמַן, “poisonous snake”. Several Midrashic and Talmudic sources (such as Sh’mot Rabbah 3:12, Lekach Tov on Exodus 7:9, Avot de-Rabbi Natan 43, and others) also imply that נָחָשׁand תַּנִּין are synonymous.

However, the fact remains that the Torah uses two distinctly separate words in these two instances. According to the simple reading of the text Moses’s staff turned into a snake and Aaron’s staff turned into a crocodile, and “no Scriptural verse leaves its plain literal meaning” (Shabbat 63a, Yevamot 11b et. al.).

According to the Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi, France, c.1160-c.1235), the word תַּנִּין applies to two different species: “Those mentioned on the land are a kind of species of snake, and those mentioned in the water are a kind of species of huge fish which resembles a snake” (Sefer ha-Shorashim, entry תנן).

Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire 1913-1946), in his commentary to Exodus 7:9, writes that “the Hebrew tannin denotes any large reptile, sea or river monster, and more especially the crocodile, as the symbol of Egypt”.

Commensurate with this, the S’forno (commentary to Exodus 4:3), the Ibn Ezra (commentary to Exodus 4:17 and 7:10), the Ramban (commentary to Exodus 4:21), the Malbim (commentary to Exodus 7:15) and others distinguish between the נָחָשׁ (snake) which Moses’s staff became and the תַּנִּין (crocodile) which Aaron’s staff became.

The Ibn Ezra, for example, explains the word הָאֹתֹת, “the signs” (Exodus 4:17) to mean that the staff “turned into a snake in the sight of Israel and a crocodile in front of Pharaoh” – that is to say, there were two separate signs (hence the word “signs” in the plural). And later, when Moses and Aaron stood before Pharaoh, and Aaron cast his staff onto the ground (Exodus 7:10), the Ibn Ezra comments that “this, too, was a miracle – that the staff turned into a crocodile, which was unlike the miracle that He performed for Israel, when it only turned into a snake”.

Why the difference?

Let us begin our answer with a question: When G-d first charged Moses with the task of redeeming the Jewish nation and he doubted that they would believe him (Exodus 4:1-5), why did G-d use the transformation of the staff into a snake as a sign? What kind of faith can be based on a conjuring trick? Transforming a staff into a snake? Well, yes, impressive, but Pharaoh’s magicians matched it. Indeed plenty of stage magicians can probably do better.

In fact, when G-d transformed Moses’s staff into a snake, He was giving an important coded message. Several Midrashim (for example Sechel Tov on Exodus 4:3, Sh’mot Rabbah 3:12, and Tanhuma, Sh’mot 23 among others) explain that the snake is the symbol of lashon ha-ra, evil speech, slander. When Moses had argued that “they [the Children of Israel] will not believe me” (Exodus 4:1) he had slandered them unjustly, and G-d implicitly reprimanded him by transforming his staff into a snake.

Hence the transformation of staff into snake (which sign Moses did not have to do for the Children of Israel) was intended not as a miracle for Israel to make them believe, but rather as a reprimand to Moses for this unwarranted slander.

Transforming Aaron’s staff into a crocodile was also symbolic: as several Midrashim (for example Sechel Tov on Exodus 7:9, Sh’mot Rabbah 3:12, and Yalkut Shimoni, Exodus 181 among others) explain, the crocodile represents Egypt and Pharaoh, following “Thus says Hashem G-d: I am hereby against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great crocodile” (Ezekiel 29:3).

By transforming his staff into a crocodile, Aaron challenged Pharaoh and Egypt. And when Pharaoh’s magicians reproduced the sign by transforming their own staffs into crocodiles and Aaron’s crocodile ate theirs (Exodus 7:10-12), he allegorised Pharaoh and the Egyptians’ inevitable defeat at the hand of Israel.

In the words of the Ba’al ha-Turim (Rabbi Ya’akov ben Asher, Germany and Spain, c.1275-1343), “he allegorically demonstrated to him that just as this crocodile returned to being dry wood, so too Pharaoh would return to being dust and rotting [flesh] and worms”. Or as Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch (Germany, 1808-1888) expressed it two-thirds of a millennium later, “This sign says to Pharaoh, ‘You and your gods are no more than a stick in my hand’”.

It is intriguing, then, to note in this context that in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, the god Sobek – the god of pharaonic power, fertility, and military prowess and who was supposed to provide protection against malignant forces – was written either as a crocodile on a shrine or as a mummified crocodile; also that the hieroglyph for a generic pharaoh was a pair of crocodiles.

Why was it Aaron’s staff rather than Moses’s which G-d transformed into a crocodile?

I suggest that we can extrapolate the answer from the Midrashic explanation of why G-d told Moses to tell Aaron to use his staff to transform the waters of the River Nile into blood (Exodus 7:19), to bring the frogs up from the rivers (8:1), and to smite the dust of Egypt that it turn into lice (8:12). Why Aaron with his staff, and not Moses with his staff?

The waters of Egypt had protected Moses when, as a helpless baby, the ark in which he lay floated peacefully on the River Nile. Thus it was not appropriate for Moses, whose life had been saved by the waters, to then smite those waters, either by turning them to blood or by bringing forth the frogs. Smiting the waters was left to Aaron.

Similarly, when Moses had killed the Egyptian slave-driver for beating the Jewish slave (Exodus 2:11-12), he hid the corpse in the sand, giving him time to avoid detection for the time it took him to escape from Egypt. It was thus equally inappropriate for Moses to smite the dust of Egypt by turning it to lice; that, too, was left to Aaron and his staff (Sh’mot Rabbah 9:10, 10:4, 10:6; Tanhuma, Va’eira 14).

And extrapolating from this, it is consistent that it was inappropriate for Moses, who had been raised in Pharaoh’s palace, fed and clothed, educated and protected, by the Egyptian royal house, to have his staff transformed into a crocodile, for him to show how Egyptian royalty was no more than a piece of dead wood.

Moses owed some residual loyalty to the Egyptian royal house which had rescued and raised him as an infant.

The trend emerges that Moses’s staff was designated to perform wonders for Israel, while Aaron’s staff was designated to perform wonders for the Egyptians. So complementing this, when Israel stood at the shore of the Red Sea with Pharaoh and the remnants of the Egyptian army closing in on them, G-d told Moses – not Aaron – to stretch forth his staff over the waters to split the sea for Israel (Exodus 14:15-16).

Likewise when battling Amalek, it was Moses who stood “with the Staff of G-d in my hand” (Exodus 17:9).

And one final thought about Moses’s and Aaron’s staffs. Aaron was the leader whose overriding characteristic was peace, whose most powerful instinct was his love of peace. “Hillel said: Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace” (Pirkei Avot 1:12). The Talmud and the Mdrashim are replete with stories of how Aaron would do anything for the sake of peace.

This was the contrast between Moses and Aaron: “Moses would say: Let the law [i.e. strict justice] pierce the mountain! Whereas Aaron loved peace and pursued peace, always bringing peace between man and his fellow” (Sanhedrin 6b).

Moses kept the nation in line through justice, while Aaron kept them in line through peace and love of peace:

“Whenever Aaron would walk along the way and encounter an evil man, he would greet him with peace. If the next day that same man would consider committing any sin, he would say to himself: Woe is me! How will I be able to raise my eyes after doing this and look Aaron in the face?! I would be so ashamed before him, since he greeted me with peace! And consequently, that man would restrain himself from sinning” (Avot de-Rabbi Natan 12:3).

Therefore when it came to striking against a truly evil nation, enemies of Israel, Aaron was the right man for the job, and his staff was the right tool for the job. Moses, the man of strict justice, was not the right man to bring plagues against Egypt: after all, what sin had the ordinary Egyptian civilian committed, that he deserved to be smitten with blood, frogs, or lice? Strict justice may have prevented the blanket condemnation of the nation.

It was Aaron, the supreme peacemaker, and his staff who had to bring these plagues upon Egypt. It was only Aaron who could teach us the message: If you want peace, then you have to destroy the enemy of Israel whose ambition is to exterminate Israel. That is the way to bring peace into the world – even, when necessary, when that entails suspending strict justice.

by Daniel Pinne

Tuesday, 17 April 2018

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS CORRUPTION


fact, the author of Chronicles... makes the claim that the 70 sabbatical years from the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites until the destruction of the Temple were not observed. (6)
According to the Damascus document (of which seven copies were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls) the Lord gave the Torah to Moses in its entirety in written form. These writings were sealed in the Ark for approximately five centuries, however, and were therefore unfamiliar to the masses. Discussing the problem of David’s adulterous relationship with Bathsheba (7) and why he was not put to death, the Damascus document answers, “the books of the Law had been sealed in the Ark from the time of Joshua \c. 1200 B.C.E.] until the time of King Josiah of Judah [seventh century B.C.E.] , when they were rediscovered and republished [see 2 Kings 22] .” (8) Meaning that David and the rabbis who were his contemporaries were completely oblivious to what lay written in the Torah.
Whether we conjecture that the Torah was placed within the .Ark or simply beside it, the subject is highly convoluted. The .Ark itself was lost to the Philistines for seven months during the Philistine invasions (c. 1 050- 1020 B.C.E.); upon its recovery, fifty-thousand and seventy Israelites from the town of Beth-shemesh were destroyed by God for daring to peek intothe Ark. (9) By the time King Solomon ordered that the Ark be  moved to the First Temple, 1 Kings 8:9 informs us that its sole contents were the two tablets which Moses had brought back from Sinai - not the entire Law. Even if the Torah was kept separately from the Ark, it seems to have disappeared entirely from Jewish life for centuries. Seventy sabbatical years (five centuries), if not more, passed without any public recital of the Law, culminating in the introduction of foreign gods and pagan rites into the Israelite populace. This is surely a clear indication that the Torah had long since been erased from the nation’s collective memory. Not until the eighteenth year of King Josiah’s reign (640-609 B.C.E.) was the Torah ‘miraculously rediscovered,’ 10 prompting Josiah’s sweeping reforms against child sacrifice and other pagan rituals. But the Torah was still not in common use for another two centuries at least. It seems to have disappeared from Jewish consciousness as suddenly as it appeared. There is good evidence to suggest that the first reading and expounding of the Law to the general public (after the time of Moses) did not occur until Ezra’s promulgation c. 449 B.C.E. Note that there is a massive gap of over 170 years from the time of the Law’s rediscovery (621 B.C.E.) to Ezra’s recital. (11)
footnote :
6 A. Demsky, “Who Returned First: Ezra or Nehemiah”, Bible Review, vol. xii, no.
2, April 1996, p. 33.
7 For the story of Bathsheba see 2 Samuel 1 1 .
8 G.A. Anderson, “Torah Before Sinai - The Do’s and Don’ts Before the Ten
Commandments”, Bible Review, vol. xii, no. 3, June 1996, p. 43.
9 See 1 Samuel 6:19.
10 2 Kings 23:2-10.
11 Dictionary of the Bible, p.954

Sunday, 8 April 2018

“Angels don’t harm Prophets”


A Christian said “Angels don’t harm Prophets” he was trying to make a point saying, that Prophet Muhammed Pbuh was “harmed” in the Cave when he received his first revelation.  Firstly, Prophet Muhammed Pbuh was not “harmed or attacked” in the Cave. Secondly, he was squeezed tightly, there was no grievous bodily harm in any way, scholars have given their opinion to why he was squeezed.  Some scholars say he wasn’t dreaming, this was a real event, it was a physical event not a dream. Others say Gabriel (Pbuh) is indicating Prophet Muhammed Pbuh will be inspired with a heavy message, it was not going to be easy and physically painful.  And some scholars deprive, this was an indication of three significant trials, (1st the boycott, where Muslims for two and a half years literally had almost no food to eat. 2nd the assassination attempt, and the Hijra 3rd the most difficult time for Prophet Muhammed Pbuh was the battle of Uhud, when Prophet Pbuh was surrounded by the Quraish). So, these three times it is as if he is being indicated, you will have three traumatic experiences and every time Allah Swt will open the way out for you.

------------

We can conclude the tight squeeze had its unique meaning behind it. Christians who bring this event trying to show a negative meaning behind it only dig their hole even deeper. One doesn’t have to go far to destroy this argument that “Angels never harm the Prophets”. If there’s one thing that we can be certain about is, Christians have no knowledge of the Midrash relating to the story of Moses, or else they would have refrained from making such ludicrous claim.

We have writings found in the Midrash where Moses was harmed by an Angel.


The midrash tells that the daughter of Pharaoh would kiss and hug Moses as if he were her own son, and she would not take him out of the royal palace. Because of his beauty, everyone desired to see him, and no one who saw him could tear his eyes away. Moses’s life was in danger, despite the daughter of Pharaoh’s guarding of the infant. One time Pharaoh held Moses and hugged him. Moses took Pharaoh’s crown from the monarch’s head and put it on his own, as he would later do when he grew up. Pharaoh’s magicians, who were sitting there, explained: “We fear that this child will take your crown and place it on his own head, lest this be the one who we prophesy will seize the kingdom from you.” Some of the magicians said to kill the child, and some said to have him burnt. Jethro was sitting among them (as one of the magicians). He told them: “This child is witless. In order to test him, set before him two bowls, one containing gold, and the other, a coal. If he stretches his hand to the coal, he is witless and does not deserve to die; but if he stretches his hand to the gold, he did this with intelligence, and he is to be put to death.” They immediately set before him the gold and the coal and Moses put forth his hand to take the gold, but Gabriel came and pushed his hand away. Moses took the coal and put his hand, with the coal, in his mouth. His tongue was burnt, thus causing him to be (Ex. 4:10) “slow of speech and slow of tongue” (Ex. Rabbah 1:26). The Rabbis observe that the daughter of Pharaoh raised in the palace the one who would eventually bring all manner of troubles upon her father as punishment for the subjugation of Israel, as is said in Ezek. 28:18: “So I made a fire issue from you, and it has devoured you,” thus symbolizing the manner in which the future redemption would occur.

 The midrash replies that she saw the Shekhinah (the Divine Presence) with him, and the wording “va-tire-hu” alludes to the name of God (Ex. Rabbah 1:24). Another approach is based on the continuation of the verse, that relates that the child’s weeping motivated the daughter of Pharaoh: “She saw that it was a child, a boy crying. She took pity on it.” The Rabbis maintain that divine intervention was needed for the infant to cry, which they learn from a close reading of v. 6. The beginning of the verse refers to Moses as a “child [yeled],” and then calls him a “boy [na’ar],” from which the Rabbis learn that Moses was a yeled, that is, an infant, but he conducted himself as a na’ar (an older child). Thus, when the daughter of Pharaoh opened the ark, Moses, unlike other babies, did not cry. The angel Gabriel immediately came and hit Moses so that he would cry, thereby arousing the compassion of the daughter of Pharaoh (Ex. Rabbah 1:24). Another tradition claims that the daughter of Pharaoh suffered from leprosy and she went down to bathe in the water to be cured of her disease. When she touched Moses’s ark, she was miraculously cured, leading her to take pity on the child and love him so strongly (Ex. Rabbah 1:23).




Notice how Angel Gabriel according to the Jewish Midrash pushed baby Moses’s hand towards the coal, which he eat and burnt his mouth causing him speech impediment. Also Angel Gabriel according to the Midrash “hit Moses when he was a baby” arousing compassion to the daughter of Pharaoh.

In both instance the Angel caused actual physical harm to Moses, that is when he was a baby! So much for “Angels don’t harm Prophets” it gets worse we read from the “Torah” Yahweh tried to kill Moses?

At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. (Exodus 4:24)

Wait a tick Yahweh wanted to kill Moses what for?  Starting from verse 1 all the way to verse 23 there is no sign of Yahweh showing his wrath to Moses. Yahweh had a straight forward conversation with Moses commanding and instructing him what needs to be done. Why all of a sudden did Yahweh sought to kill him? For what reason do you see the gap between verse 23 and 24 like a major leap something happened in between those verses. What could have possibly happened that Yahweh wanted to kill him? Something is missing, furthermore there is no grammatical or linguistic way to solve this problem. this isn't half of what comes next.

Here’s what Rashi say’s regarding this verse

on the way, in an inn and sought to put him to death: [I.e., He sought] Moses, because he had neglected to circumcise his son Eliezer. Because he neglected it, he was [to be] punished with death. It was taught in a Braitha: Rabbi Jose said: God forbid! Moses did not neglect it, but he reasoned: Shall I circumcise [him] and go forth on the road? It will be dangerous for the child for three days. Shall I circumcise [him] and wait three days? The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded me, “Go, return to Egypt.” [Moses hurried to Egypt intending to circumcise Eliezer upon his return.] Why [then] was he to be punished with death? Because first he busied himself with [the details of] his lodging. [This appears] in tractate Nedarim (31b). The angel turned into a sort of serpent and swallowed him [Moses] from his head to his thighs, and then [spit him out and] swallowed him from his feet to his private parts. Zipporah therefore understood that it was because of [the failure to perform] the circumcision [that this occurred]. — [from Ned. 32a, Exodus Rabbah 5:5]

we have a very graphic and detailed explanation of what really happened according to Jewish belief. Here's the striking part on how an Angel turned into a Serpent and swallowed Moses half way? 
"The angel turned into a sort of serpent and swallowed him [Moses] from his head to his thighs, and then [spit him out and] swallowed him from his feet to his private parts."This is an unusual event which is spoken by classical Jewish scholars. Can you imagine Yahweh sent an Angel to kill his Messenger who he himself, sent to carry out a mission?


Christian don’t believe in Hadiths, nor do they Believe in the Midrash or the commentaries written by Rabbi, either way Christian have no say. Both Muslims and Jews have their own Belief and tradition written down in black and white. Unfortunately, Christians have nothing of the sort, so when they come across the Midrash or Hadith they feel frustrated.

to sum it all up:

Moses was “Hit” by an Angel when he was a baby. He was made to eat hot coal by an angel which burnt his mouth and he was also half swallowed by a serpent send by Yahweh who tried to kill him and this is all found in the Jewish oral tradition. we conclude according to the Jews “Angels do harm Prophets”

Wednesday, 21 March 2018

The Ten Commandments in American Life


Marc Zvi Brettler


The Ten Commandments have been in the news for the last few years, as the courts attempt to decide their place in public life. In 2005 the Supreme Court allowed a large Ten Commandments monument to stand near the Texas State Capital in Austin (see Van Orden v. Perry).1In McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, McCreary County was ordered to remove its framed Ten Commandments from its courthouse.2 In the Supreme Court’s most recent session, in Pleasant Grove City, UT, et al. v. Summum, it rejected a demand to place the Seven Aphorisms of Summum in a park in Utah that already contained a Ten Commandments monument.3 On July 31, 2001, Roy Moore, the former Alabama chief justice, placed a two-and-a-half ton Ten Commandments monument in the central rotunda of the Alabama Capitol, and claimed, “Today a cry has gone out across our land for the acknowledgment of that God upon whom this nation and our laws were founded . . . . May this day mark the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and the return to the knowledge of God in our land.” 4 The monument was later removed, and Moore was impeached. Additional cases are likely to emerge in coming years. The issue has become symbolic of the separation of Church and State as expressed in the Constitution’s establishment clause. A group called “The Ten Commandments Commission—A Judeo Christian Initiative for a Better Tomorrow” 5 has been pushing for a congressional bill that supports the importance of the Ten Commandments and an annual Ten Commandments Weekend.6
Biblical scholars have been following these developments with great interest. Based on scholarly understanding of biblical text, there are a handful of reasons, examined in this article, that make the public display of Ten Commandments (or Decalogue) monuments problematic.
The Fraternal Order of Eagles, an international nonprofit organization,7 erected many Ten Commandments monuments after discussions with Cecil B. DeMille, the director of the movie “The Ten Commandments.” Both the movie and many artistic depictions of the Ten Commandments illustrate two tablets with rounded tops and five commandments on each tablet. Six biblical texts speak of “two stone tablets,” but they offer no additional information about size or shape. The tradition that they are semiround on the top, as seen in monuments and some famous paintings (Rembrandt’s Moses), is a medieval Christian tradition, based on the shape of the Roman diptych, which was unknown in the ancient Near East. Not all artists accepted this tradition—Michelangelo’s famous Moses shows two rectangular tablets, which is likely more accurate historically.
No biblical tradition states that the commandments were split evenly, five and five. In fact, the late Moshe Weinfeld, a biblical scholar who taught for many years at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has suggested that the two tablets each contained the entire text of the Decalogue. He argues that the Ten Commandments are related to covenants and the ancient Near Eastern treaties on which they were based. These covenants were typically copied in duplicate, with identical, complete copies going to the vassal and the overlord, which suggests that the Ten Commandments could have been written in a similar manner. Oddly, it seems that no representation of the Ten Commandments follows what is explicitly said in Exodus 32:15: “tablets inscribed on both their surfaces: they were inscribed on the one side and on the other.” 8 Many ancient documents were written this way to conserve writing material. Thus, in a variety of ways, modern public depictions of the Decalogue are quite inaccurate.
Another issue with Ten Commandments monuments is that they contain the text of the Decalogue as found in Exodus 20, although it also appears in the Hebrew Bible in Deuteronomy 5. The two versions are different. For example, Exodus states:
Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God: you shall not do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, or your cattle, or the stranger who is within your settlements. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth and sea, and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.
while Deuteronomy reads:
Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your ox or your ass, or any of your cattle, or the stranger in your settlements, so that your male and female slave may rest as you do. Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the LORD your God freed you from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the sabbath day.
These differences, both of which claim divine authority, are not trivial. Both of the versions claim to be divine revelation. Exodus opens in chapter 20: “God spoke all these words, saying.” Deuteronomy 5 similarly states, “Face to face the LORD spoke to you on the mountain out of the fire.”
To complicate the matter further, the translation above was from the standard Hebrew text of Exodus. But the Septuagint (LXX), the ancient Greek text and likely translated from a slightly different Hebrew text, is a bit different; for example, it has a different order for the murder, adultery, and theft commandments. The Samaritan community’s Bible also has a different Ten Commandments and includes a commandment to worship God on Mount Gerizim, in the city of Shechem. Choosing a particular text for the Ten Commandments means enfranchising a particular religious community and its traditions at the expense of others.
The most significant complication of defining which ten are authoritative is that the term “Ten Commandments” does not appear in Exodus 20, but only in Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4. It also is found in Exodus 34:28, right after a set of laws that have some similarity to what we call the Ten Commandments but are also different from them. Thus, leaving aside differences between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, and the differences between ancient translations and versions and the standard Hebrew text, biblical scholars are not even sure whether the term “Ten Commandments” refers to what is written in Exodus 20, Exodus 34, or Deuteronomy 5.
The translation used in most Ten Commandment monuments is from the King James Version of 1611, sometimes with slightly updated language; this raises the issue of how unclear words in the Hebrew should be rendered. It renders what is typically called the seventh commandment as “Thou shalt not kill,” and some use this verse to argue that the Bible opposes capital punishment. But the Bible elsewhere suggests that capital punishment is legitimate in certain cases (Ex 21:15–17: “He who strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death. He who kidnaps a man—whether he has sold him or is still holding him—shall be put to death. He who insults his father or his mother shall be put to death.”), and allows killing during war. Furthermore, the Hebrew says lo’ tirtzach, which means “Do not commit murder,” or do not engage in unsanctioned killing. The use of the King James Version on the monuments supports one particular interpretive tradition of lo’ tirtzach, which is not historically accurate.
Most monuments list the Ten Commandments preceded by anachronistic Roman numerals before each commandment, but numbers are lacking in the Hebrew, which in the Exodus 20 version contains as many as thirteen statements:
  1. 1. I the LORD am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage
  2. 2. You shall have no other gods besides Me.
  3. 3. You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth.
  4. 4. You shall not bow down to them or serve them. For I the LORD your God am an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generations of those who reject Me, but showing kindness to the thousandth generation of those who love Me and keep My commandments.
  5. 5. You shall not swear falsely by the name of the LORD your God; for the LORD will not clear one who swears falsely by His name.
  6. 6. Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God: you shall not do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, or your cattle, or the stranger who is within your settlements. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth and sea, and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.
  7. 7. Honor your father and your mother, that you may long endure on the land that the LORD your God is assigning to you.
  8. 8. You shall not murder.
  9. 9. You shall not commit adultery.
  10. 10. You shall not steal.
  11. 11. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  12. 12. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house.
  13. 13. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female slave, or his ox or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.
There is no obvious way to reduce these thirteen to ten. Any reduction would involve either saying that number 1 is an introduction and does not count, and/or combining several related statements into a single commandment (for example, 12 and 13). Different religious traditions have done this in different ways, and there is no consensus position—thus, not all people would agree on what the seventh commandment is. Judaism’s position changed over time, and now considers, in contrast to most branches of Christianity, “I the LORD” as the first commandment.
Most monuments have written on top, in big block letters: “THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.” This too raises problems. Several times in the Bible these are called in Hebrew ’aseret hadevarim, “the ten words” or “sayings,” but never the Hebrew equivalent of “the ten commandments.” This wording difference is significant: “I the LORD” is a saying but not a commandment. Those who insist on writing The Ten Commandments support the Christian position that “I the LORD” is an introduction, and “You shall have no other gods” begins the first commandment, rather than the Jewish position, that the first saying is “I the LORD.” In other words, the title “The Ten Commandments” supports a particular religious position.
An overarching issue that scholars have with Ten Commandments displays is that the Decalogue is not presented anywhere in the Bible as a universal system of ethics, incumbent upon all of humanity. It is very clearly presented as an Israelite document—it speaks of a God who brought “you” out of Egypt. Some of its commandments, such as observing the sabbath, are nowhere else in the Bible suggested to be universal in scope. In fact, it is addressed to upper-class property owners (note that in the sabbath law, the addressees own cattle and slaves), and its final saying about coveting addresses males only. But setting it up in public spaces suggests that it is everyone’s document and all must heed it. The classical rabbis were well aware of this and discussed what they called the Seven Noahide laws—laws that all children of Noah, namely all humanity, must observe.9 There is some overlap between these laws and the Decalogue, but they are not identical. Thus, even from a biblical and from a postbiblical traditional Jewish perspective, the Decalogue is not a set of ethical principles that all must follow.
The tenets of the Decalogue are very appealing, and they could certainly help create a better society, but there are issues with displaying it publicly, especially in or near courthouses. Some of these issues, including the shape of the tablets, could be addressed. The text of Exodus and Deuteronomy could be carved out in Hebrew, so we need not worry about translation issues or the priority of Exodus over Deuteronomy or vice versa. However, while solving one issue, another would be created as most Americans would not be able to read or understand it in Hebrew. Other issues, however, go to the very heart of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” By choosing a particular translation for the Decalogue and by deciding how the sayings should be divided into ten, one form of religion is being fostered at the expense of others. Furthermore, a document that is presented as particularistic should not be displayed in such a manner that suggests that it is universal.
The Decalogue is fascinating for many reasons. People continue to wonder about its origin, its original text, and how it attained such a prominent place in the Bible as the only text publicly proclaimed to all Israel. Yet careful study of the Decalogue indicates that it is not presented as a universal ethical code. For all of these reasons, and others not examined here, public displays of the Ten Commandments are problematic indeed.

Notes

1 http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/03-01500qp.pdf
2 http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/03-01693qp.pdf
3 http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/07-00665qp.pdf
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore
5 http://www.tencommandmentsday.com/
6 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-598
7 http://www.foe.com/about-us/ten-commandments.aspx
8 Translations generally follow the new Jewish Publication Tanakh translation. 
9 See the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 56a; see http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Jews_and_Non-Jews/Legal_Issues/Noahide_Laws.shtml

Bibliography


  • Aaron, David H. Etched in Stone: The Emergence of the Decalogue. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.
  • Clines, David J. A. “The Ten Commandments, Reading from Left to Right.” In Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 205; Gender, Culture, Theory, 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995, 26–45.
  • Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985, esp. 341–50.
  • Levinson, Bernard M. Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008, 72–84.
  • Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy. OTL, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002, 74–84.
  • Nielson, Eduard. The Ten Commandments in New Perspective. SBT27. Naperville, Ill: Allenson, 1968.
  • Propp, Exodus 19–40. William, H. C. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2006, 166–81.
  • Segal, Ben-Zion, ed. The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985.
  • Stamm, Johann Jakob, and Maurice Edward Andres. The Ten Commandments in Recent Research. SBT22. Naperville, Ill: Allenson, 1967.
  • Weinfled, Moshe, Deuteronomy 1–11. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1991, 242–319.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  This is not merely an epistemological maxim ; it is also a logical principle of inference . In other words, the mere absence of evidence ...