Forsaken the Foreskin

[paarsurrey]

The narrative is not in strict chronological order.

Who fixes the order of the verses and on what basis?

Regards

 

[Akivah]

So you are saying that Mosheh is the firstborn son of the Pharaoh, which he was not. Also, is it not strange that God tells Mosheh he is going to be killed?

EDIT:
though I appreciate your effort

I have no idea how you pulled that out of what I posted. I'm beginning to think that you're not serious about learning.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I have no idea how you pulled that out of what I posted. I'm beginning to think that you're not serious about learning.

It seems fairly obvious to me; perhaps you should read it again with an open mind. Anyway, you suggest that I am not serious about learning; does that apply to you also?

 

[Smart_Guy]

Is "Moshe"the Hebrew name for the Prophet Moses?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Is "Moshe"the Hebrew name for the Prophet Moses?

Or Mosheh, yes

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The narrative is not in strict chronological order.

Who fixes the order of the verses and on what basis?

Sarna notes:

These various obscurities arise primarily because the account here is only a truncated version of a larger, popular story that circulated orally in Israel. Its details were well known and were expected to be supplied by the audience. There are several such fragmentary narratives in the Book of Genesis: the marriage of Cain (4:17), the Song of Lamech (4:23-24), the celestial beings and terrestrial girls (6:1-3), the depravity of Canaan (9:18-29), the nocturnal assailant of Jacob (32:23-33), and Reuben's affair with his father's concubine (35:22).

Also, and in addition to Alter, the Wikipedia article is interesting, particularly …

Hyam Maccoby, in The Sacred Executioner, interprets the passage as meaning that when God met Moses he (Moses) tried to kill him (Moses' son). On this view the story is an aetiological myth about the origin of circumcision as a substitute for human sacrifice. [source]

… thus making it a southern counterpart to the akedah.

Two things seem fairly clear to me:

• that a scrap of etiological myth found itself spliced into the 'J' component of Exodus, and
• that those who seek to identify Moses as the son of Pharaoh haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Or Mosheh, yes

Oops, I dropped the "h" by mistake (typo), sorry!

Thanks for the heads up man

 

[paarsurrey]

24 At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses[a] and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)

(Source: Biblegateway)

This seems to be an imagination of the narrators/scribes.
G-d is projected as a ferocious or ill-tempered human being.

Regards

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, the Old Testament contains legends and anti-Christian thoughts.
Some explain that before Christ, God was vengeful, prideful and bloody.
Well, God has never been that way. He has always been loving and forgiving.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well, the Old Testament contains legends and anti-Christian thoughts.
Some explain that before Christ, God was vengeful, prideful and bloody.
Well, God has never been that way. He has always been loving and forgiving.

I try to separate the metaphor from the non-metaphor in Scripture. We have the religious basis for interpretation.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, the Old Testament contains legends and anti-Christian thoughts.
Some explain that before Christ, God was vengeful, prideful and bloody.
Well, God has never been that way. He has always been loving and forgiving.

The why the verse in Torah?

24 At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses[a] and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)

(Source: Biblegateway)

The Christians also believe the above.

Regards

 

[Desert Snake]

The why the verse in Torah?

24 At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses[a] and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)

(Source: Biblegateway)

The Christians also believe the above.

Regards

and yet we don't practice circumcision. So, we either believe it and disagree with the implication, or don't believe it's necessary. Wow, we really have a problem don't we.

 

[paarsurrey]

and yet we don't practice circumcision. So, we either believe it and disagree with the implication, or don't believe it's necessary. Wow, we really have a problem don't we.

That could mean that you imply the OT is corrupted.

Regards

 

[Desert Snake]

That could mean that you imply the OT is corrupted.

Regards

I don't, some Christians might. I believe the Covenant is continued in the New Covenant, and we don't have to follow all the old laws in the Torah. I believe we are better off following some, however. It is up to the individual Christian if they want to follow old Laws from the OT, that's their prerogative, but we are pretty much absolved from them, technically.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't, some Christians might. I believe the Covenant is continued in the New Covenant, and we don't have to follow all the old laws in the Torah. I believe we are better off following some, however. It is up to the individual Christian if they want to follow old Laws from the OT, that's their prerogative, but we are pretty much absolved from them, technically.

If the Covenant is the same and is continued then why name it a New Covenant. Did G-d change or His attributes changed?

Regards

 

[Desert Snake]

If the Covenant is the same and is continued then why name it a New Covenant. Did G-d change or His attributes changed?

Regards

No, the Covenant changed. The Covenant may have been parallel anyway, so the 'differences' may only have been slight.

Jesus as man enacted the New Covenant.