| Author | Message | ||
     Board Administrator (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 64 Registered: 5-2004 Rating: N/A |
from Bob's link in the following message. A LOMA LINDA SERMON — DELIVERED AT SLIGO CHURCH | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3004 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Do you think this speaker went "pornographic" with the Gospel in her sermon? http://members.aol.com/tekoa777/sex.html
Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 1812 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Bob, This is disgusting to say the least. It is taking the name of God in vain. Trivializing Him and the beauty of the right use of sex at the same time. Possibly in this same vein is the RC belief on the Trinity. They say that God is love, and is continually (from eternity) bringing forth the Son. Out of the love between Father and Son the Holy Spirit is brought forth. You can find this detailed in "My Catholic Faith: A Handbook of Religion" by Louis Morrow; and more completely with references to the early fathers in the "Handbook of SDA Theology". He must increase, but I must decrease. (John the Baptist) | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3006 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Do you realize this is the senior Pastor at Loma Linda Hill Church speaking at a conference in the Sligo Church? Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Jodi Thiessen (Jodi) Moderator Username: Jodi Post Number: 1681 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
"This seed that comes in your STOMACH".... Obviously this pastor from LLU has not had children, I take it! | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3007 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Jodi, unclear as to what you meant, "I take it!"  Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 1813 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Bob, Hyveth Williams is reported to have been very successful in church growth in Massachusetts (?). Believe that is why she was chosen as senior pastor for the Hill Church. This is incredible as the Hill Church has always been very conservative, and she is very liberal. One of the problems of her kind of church growth -- and of the development of the "mega-churches" too -- is that they attract people from surrounding churches. They have little influence on the unchurched in the community. He must increase, but I must decrease. (John the Baptist) | ||
| Board Administrator (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 63 Registered: 5-2004 Rating: N/A |
FWIW.....this discussion is NOT IMO a doctrinal issue. But about a very polarizing "pastor" in the Adventist Denomination. FWIW...one of my sisters once went to one of this woman's seminars....and came back completely DISGUSTED with both her and her concept of Adventism!!!!! The thread title WILL BE CHANGED and the thread moved to a more appropriate area! | ||
| robert d lackey (Boblackey) member Username: Boblackey Post Number: 1166 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
There is NOTHING in a woman's relationship with Christ that would arouse a woman sexually. I know they say men and women are moved to sexual stimulation differently, but this women's presentation is more akin to something one would find in the Mormon Church and is shocking and blatant heresy to any conservative protestant. Yes there is love between Christ and the female believer. The greatest love one can find. But it has NOTHING to do with a sexual aspect. Sexual desire is of the flesh and part of our nature natures. It will not be part of the World to Come in the Kingdom. Mormon theology not withstanding, there is no need for sex and the emotional baggage that goes with it in heaven. Believers will not have sex and populate planets across the universe as Mormon's teach with women of high posiiton having thousands and millions of babies with their husbands, which they marry in this life. This is not Bibilical and this lady needs to resign from the Adventist church and find her a good Mormon man and then she can make love for eternity and preach this kind of trash. This lady is similar to the Islamics who teach that men who died in a Holy War, even if they have to kill themselves and murder those who are infidels, will go to a place of sexual fullfillment in heaven where many virgins who are always 28 years old, are never sick, always pretty and sexy, never have the so-called "wrong time of the month" and will be a sex slave for these men for eternity. Hello. Does anybody with any brain at all believe such a thing? Over 600 people committed suiside in Iraq in 2005. Many others in other places around the world. The men who flew those planes into the Word Trade Center in New York thought that act of murder and suiside, almost 3,000 people were killed, would assure them their spot in sex heaven. It is beyond me as to how human beings can get sucked into such thinking as that, the Wacko in Waco and that Applegate guy who got all those people in California to kill themselves so they could ride a comet to a better life. These people are NUTS!!!!!!!!! Including the SDA preacher lady. =============== As to the Trinity. That is settle doctrine in the Christian church for almost 2,000 years. And it developed, not out of tradition or the mixing of pagan ideas with Christian ideas, but from careful study of the NT. The last chapter of Matthew not only clearly teaches the Trinity but a THREE DIP IMMERSION. This nobody can deny. But the liberal scholars, to get around the Trinity and the proper mode of Christian baptism, tell us the last chapter of Matthew is a forgery. BTW Adventists out there. Your denomination is wrong about the mode of Christian baptism. Only the Greek Orthodox Church, the Church of the Brethern, the Grace Brethern Church and a few others have it right. It is a three dip immersion. One dip in the name of the Father. Another in the name of the Son. And finally a THIRD DIP in the Name of the Holy Sprit. The mightly Roman Catholic Church even baptised that way until the 1200! And Hubb. The Catholic publication you have is someone in the Roman Catholic Church, as they do with Mary and many other doctrines, trying to explain something that is beyond the scope of Scripture and should be left as a mystery of God. Ellen White is quility of that. I know we have all seen or hear an Adventist trying to present something they see in the Bible and they say we need to go to the SOP for FUTHER INSPRIRATION ON THIS TOPIC SO WE CAN SHINE MORE LIGHT ON IT. Again I hate to say it because Tom Norris is so mean to some on it. They way he talk to Ulrike back in December may be the reason I don't notice her posting here now. But Tom is right on this to. Ellen White is used just like the RCC uses "traditon". To ADD to the Scritpures. Oh Tom. I hope you are sorry for calling Ulrike stupid and that she needs to be shut up for holding to theology you feel is heresy and is in the way of solid Adventist reform. Actually what needs to happen is those in Adventism that are close to Ford and Questions on Doctrine, OR the ones such as Ulrike or Jackson or Larry Kirkpatrick, need to leave and form a break off denominaiton. Yes the SDA church IS split. You've said that yourself. But it really needs to put that split into action. Someone needs to pull a "Luther" on oneside or the other. This crap has be going on since 1888! | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3010 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
J.R., doesn't bother me in the least that you have catagorized her and her subject in this manner. They have a whole thread over at HS.com where they sort of support what this lady says, certainly Marco hasn't identified it for what it is. Interesting, and he is right next door to her, but then again, he is right next door to Graham Maxwell also.  Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| J. R. Layman (Daneanderthal) Moderator Username: Daneanderthal Post Number: 469 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Here is an interesting post, from over at http://heavenlysanctuary.com by a poster by the name of Scott. He apparently visited a set of meetings featuring Hyveth Williams.....so we have his first person account of his encounter with her style of “preaching.” "I have never read anything about Hyveth good or bad because, for the most part, I stay out of most of the California issues. | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 1818 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Bob, I attended the Hill Church at Loma Linda several years ago. We were in the SS class taught by Hyveth Williams. Up close and personal, she seems reasonable. I got the feeling that she is in over her head and trying to live up to other's expectations. This may explain some of the "off the wall" things she might say. She is well thought of by the people in her church. ------------------------------ About the Trinity, Bob, I think you make a mistake in always insisting that the Protestants have a unitary belief on everything. You would enjoy the Handbook of SDA Theology. It is Volume 12 of the SDA Commentary series, and can be bought separately. You wouldn't have to agree with everything, but there is some very good material there. Here are some of the headings about the Doctrine of God: Philosophical Antecedents -- Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism. Patristic Period -- Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Trinitariam Heresies, Augustine, The Athanasian Creed. Medieval Period -- Thomas Aquinas. The Reformation -- Martin Luther, John Calvin, Anabaptism, Arminius. The Modern Period -- Schleiermacher, Barth, Whitehead, Pannenberg, The Open View of God. Seventh-day Adventists -- As you go through the "Doctrine of God" you find that there were very important differences all through-out. These are, of course, scholarly views. It is hard to say what the "man in the pew" believed during this time. ----------------------------------------- About baptism: The Bible teaches baptism by immersion. If a person wants a "three dip" baptism, I have no problem with that. However, Jesus was apparently baptized by a single immersion. Also, I think that the symbolic value of baptism is satisfied by a single immersion. If a person desires a more complete baptism, here is a verse to think about: . . . 11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:" Matthew 3:11 (KJV) He must increase, but I must decrease. (John the Baptist) | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3011 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Here is a review of active and retired women ministers by one Josephine Benton. Here is what she says of Hyveth Williams, at least about church growth, not how she managed the growth. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/called/benton-09.htm
Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 2527 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Didn't Mary have sex with God? Didn't the Holy Spirit impregnate her? | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 2528 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Josephine Benton was a classmate of mine a "few" years ago. If a pastor is demonstrating growth in their church, don't knock it, which is what the administration is doing. Like Gamaliel said, if it's truth, it will stand on its own (paraphrase). Not all churches grow with the same uniform preaching, do they? I've only heard Hyveth on tape, and liked her love and acceptance demonstrated to everyone. If it's not to everyone's tastes, then don't listen. | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3012 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Gee, Elaine, you really are "opened minded" aren't you? Who are the babies that God wants to have with you, not to take the analog too far, but pornography is pornography whether in sermons or magazines, isn't it Elaine? But then again, I guess we haven't found out your position on pornography yet, have we? I would question whether church growth was the only thing to judge a pastor by, one of the Presbyterian ministers here tried to use the same argument with the fact that the Presbyterian church was propering here, until I reminded him of the brand new Mormon Temple and it's Italian marble construction. He saw my point. Wonder if you do? (Message edited by Bob_2 on January 13, 2006) Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3013 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Also, feet in the Boaz/Ruth story are not his genitals, I am pretty sure. According to Ruth 3 and John Gill's commentary, it literally was a sleeping at Boaz's feet and covering his feet. http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=ru&chapter=003&verse=009 Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3014 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Elaine, read this commentary also, a little less racy than Hyveth put together: http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/ruth/gill/ruth3.htm Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 673 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Bob said: "Oh Tom. I hope you are sorry for calling Ulrike stupid and that she needs to be shut up for holding to theology you feel is heresy and is in the way of solid Adventist reform." Ha! You have got to be kidding? I am unapologetic! Was Jesus "sorry" for calling the Pharisees bad names for their stubbornness in fighting the Gospel? Hardly. Was Paul "sorry" for calling the Circumcision Party "dogs" and "evil workers"? And lambasting them for their continual attempts to sabotage the church by promoting law keeping as part of the Gospel? Just like Ulrike I might add. Was Luther "sorry" for calling the Pope the "antichrist," and the "whore of Babylon," and a "demon" as well as many other names that are unprintable? Luther did not mince words as he bluntly said that "The Pope" was "born from the devils behind." Was he sorry for speaking such nasty things about the Pope? Ha! If anything he claimed he was not tough enough! (The Church and the Pope, Chapter 5, Against the Papacy, An Institution of the Devil.) In fact, in Matthew 23 Christ calls the scribes and Pharisees blunt and nasty names 16 times. He used "hypocrites" (7 x's), "son of Hell" (1x),"blind guides" (2x's), "fools and blind" men (3 x's), "whitened sepulchers" (1x), "serpents" (1x), and "offspring of vipers" (1x). Wow! And do you think he was sorry for that? Hardly. So this idea that bluntly labeling an enemy of the Gospel, like any of the TSDA's, or even the leaders of the wicked SDA Hierarchy, like Bill Johnsson, is bad or unchristian is absurd. In fact Jesus did this 16 times in one chapter alone! What does that tell you? And Paul too was not shy about pointing his finger at the TSDA's of his day, and letting everyone know that they were cultic frauds and religious pretenders--just like Ulrike. Phil. 3:2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; In fact, instead of Luther being "sorry" for being so tough on the Pope, remarked: "There are many that think I am too fierce against popedom; on the contrary, I complain that I am, alas, too mild!" (Against Catholicism, a pamphlet, par 5, 1535.) So I stand with Jesus and the Apostles, and the mighty Luther. I am NOT "sorry" in the least for being so truthful, blunt, and condemning of our cultic friend Ulrike of the Circumcision Party or of the SDA leaders? Ha! If anything I am far too polite and restrained on this delusional woman that is obsessed with false doctrine, even as I am too mild on the wicked and deceiving church leaders. She makes war against the Gospel at every opportunity, and so too does the Review and all the church leaders. All of them are enemies of the Adventist Movement. And it is time that this fact becomes known by the entire Adventist Community. Not to be "mean" for the sake of being unkind, but to defend the Gospel and the Fundamentals, and to expose these wolves in sheep's clothing that are destroying the mission and the message of the Adventist church. Alas, if anything, especially when compared to Jesus, Paul or Luther, I am far, far too "mild" on these Protestant Pretenders. So on this point I am guilty. Please forgive this fault of mine. However, if Ulrike dares to continue on with her deceitful religious games I will try to do better, and follow the example of Jesus, Paul and Luther in this matter so that she, and others, will understand that the Gospel and the history of the church is not something to be trifled with and made to fit her delusions. She is a great deceiver; a self-condemned cultic fool and there is no sense in pretending otherwise. She a stubborn and unbalanced Pharisee, and she needs to shut up, because the Adventist Movement does not need any of her silly delusions and unbalanced deceit. Maybe she understands this point already and has decided not to post if she can't deceive and double-talk without consequence. Maybe she has even learned to try and be more honest in this discussion about Reform Adventism? But I doubt it. She is no doubt trying to figure out a way to rehabilitate her sorry positions that have been shown to be nothing more than worthless trash and legions of false doctrines. She is pitiful. And now is no time to pretend otherwise. It is time for truth telling in the SDA church, and that is what we are doing. Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 674 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Bob said: "Actually what needs to happen is those in Adventism that are close to Ford and Questions on Doctrine, OR the ones such as Ulrike or Jackson or Larry Kirkpatrick, need to leave and form a break off denomination." Actually what needs to happen is the Adventist Community should rise up and take back their Movement. They need to become organized and overthrow the hierarchy that has hijacked this denomination and ruined it by deceit, legalism, and incompetence. And this can easily be done if the people just stand up and refuse to follow the false doctrine of tithe. That would put the wolves to flight, even in a panic, because they live on this false and absurd doctrine that has no place in the church. And they are such fools and theological buffoons that they have built the entire modern SDA organizational model on this outrageous heresy, and that is the secret to bring it all down with a crash! So it is time for all that are honest and Adventist minded to demand Reform and Re-organization, determining to hold the leaders legally accountable for what they have done. Following such a formula, it would not take much for the people to regain control of the Adventist Movement and return to the Protestant Path, including the return to the original version of the Three Angels messages that was repudiated at Glacier View. But the people need to determine that the search for truth must once again become the top priority of this unique religious Community. And so far, many are content to believe the legions of myth and false doctrine that proliferate within the Adventist Community. This attitude must change, and truth, not tradition, must become the number one priority. Then the majority can set things right and move forward within the Adventist Apocalyptic to do great things for God. And the minority, which is the unrepentant, stubborn, and foolish TSDA's, and the evil self-serving hierarchy, can leave and do whatever it is that they do. But it is those that are just pretending to be Adventist Protestants are the ones that need to leave and go off into oblivion. Those that are honest and sincere, and value the Pioneers, including the genuine Ellen White that has been hidden from the church, need to stay and clean up this mess, and set the record straight. For they are the real Adventists, and this Movement needs their support. Bob said: "Yes the SDA church IS split. You've said that yourself. But it really needs to put that split into action. Someone needs to pull a "Luther" on one side or the other. This crap has been going on since 1888!" The leaders are the ones that created this split and they keep it alive on purpose. Why? Because they like a divided church because it keeps the many factions at war with one another rather then uniting to hold them accountable and throw them out the door. So there is a reason why the church is split, it is so the hierarchy can better control and manipulate things. But this time honored "divide and conquer" strategy that has been used forever, needs to end. It has been discovered and is being exposed for all to see. The time has come to put an end to the artificial divisions and for sanity to return to the Adventist Community. There is only one version of the Gospel and one version of the Three Angels Messages. And it is time that all the various factions unite under the genuine version of the fundamentals, and throw out the bums, like that alpha wolf Bill Johnsson, and reform and re-organize this self-destructing, mismanaged, and corrupt denomination. Once the Adventist Community understands that there is no need for all this infighting and division that has been caused by the deceitful and incompetent leaders, this church can come together and save the Adventist Movement and get it working again just in time for the final events that are so close to ending the world. In fact, once the truth about 1888, Ellen White, and the Three Angels Messages, including the massive fraud about tithe becomes known, the church will understand that they have been greatly deceived, manipulated, and abused by their leaders just as the Roman Catholics discovered that the Pope had deceived the church in their day. And what did they do when the Catholics figured it out? They PROTESTED. And they did it so loud and so effectively that to this day they are called Protestants. So that day has come again, but this time for the Adventist church. And it is clearly here for all those that have ears to hear and eyes to see. Thus it is time for the Adventists to Protest the legions of false doctrine that their leaders have been forcing down their throats all these years. It is time for Review, the White Estate, and the General Conference to be held accountable for their gross mismanagement, legalism, and fraud. In other words, it is time for an Adventist Reformation. It is time. Tom Norris, for Adventist Reform | ||
| ArthurKlym (Artklym) member Username: Artklym Post Number: 375 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
I have ignored this thread, but decided this morning to take a look. I even downloaded one of her sermons which I will listen to later. I have not formed an opinion, but my first impression is that people are overreacting. What I think this tempest in a teapot illustrates is that using sermons that shock one into thinking in different and uncomfortable ways will get you in trouble. (I remember reading about a preacher who got himself crucified for using shocking illustrations. In fact, in the culture of first century Palestine, Jesus' sermons were far more shocking than anything I have read in this thread. We are so used to reading the gospels that we have lost how stunning Jesus' comments really were.) I suggest that those who think that sexual illustrations or metaphors have no place in Christian sermons or writings band together to strip Song of Solomon from the Bible. Adventism in particular and conservative Christians in general tend to be Victorians at their core. | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 2531 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Art, I can only say, "Amen!" | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3015 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Elaine and Art, what babies does God want to have with us? Elaine never answered maybe Art can use the analog , if that's what it is to help out Pastor Williams. While you are at it, share with us how the analog would apply to both men and women. Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| ArthurKlym (Artklym) member Username: Artklym Post Number: 377 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
I read the link that was provided. It was remarkable in that the alleged statements were not given a context. Nonetheless, what I read seemed to be metaphors. Last time I checked Jesus was a human being, not a beast (as in a lamb, but he was and is termed 'the lamb of god.") I have never met a Christian who bathes in blood, yet most claim to have been washed in the blood. I have never seen a Christian who routinely wears a robe, but many claim to be clothed in the robe of Christ's righteousness. Many claim to have died to self, but seem remarkably alive in their own bodies or selves. If you preached sermons regularly I'll bet I could take snippets out of them and make you appear pretty ridiculous. That would be particularly true if you used sexual metaphors. I found the comments somewhat jarring as well, but some of the best speakers I have ever heard used examples or metaphors that were startling at first blush. While we don't know of him using sexual metaphors, Jesus did exactly the same thing. That is to say that he used metaphors and examples that shocked people. The Song of Solomon is chock full of sexual metaphors, some of which are pretty graphic. Most Christians believe that specific graphic sexuality to be the inspired Word of God. The Christian church is declared in parts of the alleged Word of God to be the bride of Jesus prepared for her wedding night. I have heard of very few wedding nights that did not include sex. Sounds like a metaphor of Jesus or god having sex with his people. The OT has many examples where the people of Israel are condemned for having sex with other gods and thereby being unfaithful to god (who the people presumably should be having sex with or why would they be termed unfaithful?) The author of the article in the link that was provided ridiculed the speaker for her poor grammar. From what I have read that same criticism can be applied to the woman declared by the Seventh-day Adventist church to be god's special messenger and a prophet. And yes, there are many reputable sources for the claim that "feet" in the Ruth and Boaz story is a euphemism for genitalia. | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3016 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
What church boils down to is what one is comfortable with at the 11 AM hour on worship day. I wouldn't feel comfortable with this gal as my pastor, given what I've seen and heard. However, sign up if it floats your boat. Personally, I think this is why there is such a racial gap at 11 am. People want the bizarre the shake 'em up blare of the hip hop, or rap to bleed into the worship of their God. I have had to accept the ability to head on down the road if my taste is not met. Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 1827 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Art, A very discriminating post. I'm glad to see that at last you agree with Ellen White. She said that in many places we need to preach sermons that "startle" people. Here is the statement that is to the point: . . . "I found the comments somewhat jarring as well, but some of the best speakers I have ever heard used examples or metaphors that were startling at first blush. While we don't know of him using sexual metaphors, Jesus did exactly the same thing. That is to say that he used metaphors and examples that shocked people." I doubt that very many people slept through Hyveth's sermon!! I do have a bone to pick with her. When I was in her Sabbath School class several years ago, she decried the presentation of "beasts" in our evangelistic sermons. Well, . . . if Hyveth's sexual comments are acceptable, what is wrong with "beasts"? I need to have a nice long talk with Hyveth -- with my wife present, of course! He must increase, but I must decrease. (John the Baptist) | ||
| Dennis Hokama (Dennis) member Username: Dennis Post Number: 736 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
After hearing Scott's description of Hyveth's full breasts which she frequenlty shows off, I am tempted to visit her church to get a good look, since I pass it every morning on the way to the Schuman Sabbath School. I think she is right about the meaning of uncovering Boaz's "feet," despite the commentary provided. Of course conservative Victorian prudes like JOHN GILL (1697–1771)are going to translate it literally to sanitize it! So what? I just checked Gill's comments on I Sam 24:3, and Judges 3:24 which use the phrase "cover his feet" in a context in which bodily function is quite obviously alluded to, and his attempt to make it literally cover his feet with with his cloak render both passages absurd. The reason why David was able to cut off a piece of Saul's garment without the latter noticing was that Saul went in the cave to urinate or defecate and therefore took off his cloak and left it somewhere a safe distance away to avoid having it get in the way or get soiled. Gill, by contrast, says Saul covered his feet with the garment and then claims that is why Saul didn't notice David cutting off a piece. That is just an insult to our intelligence! Ditch Gill! | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3027 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Hey, Dennis, with all due respect, put up or shut up, give me a scholar that Hyveth would have got this idea from let alone you, sheeeesh. Everyone was letting their "Johnson" hang out in the threshing stall, is that you final answer? I would accept maybe a speculation that Gill uses that maybe the practice included maybe Ruth laying across his feet. Sheeesh, the next thing we know you will be suggesting Mary when she anointed Jesus feet, you will be saying the act was a little higher up????? Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 2553 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
You will find a number of commentators (previously I was aware of this, also) who said "feet" was a euphemism applied to one's private parts of anatomy. Why would Ruth be uncovering Boaz' feet anyway, if not to have him marry her? Levirate marriage was the custom then. Why did David "uncover" Saul's feet in the cave where he was hiding? do you think it actually meant feet? The Jews had a more honest view of sex than later Christians, but they also used this term as mentioned above. Check it out. Hyveth is right. | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 2554 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
What a paradox! Those who accept completely a virgin birth, but sex is somehow obscene!! Preposterous! Reminds me of young kids who, when told of how their parents conceived them, said "Gross!" Perhaps all of us should have been born of virgin mothers! | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3040 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Elaine you said:
Source pleeeesssse!! I did check several sources and never saw the "pornographic" version Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3041 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Note Ruth 4
If feet are an euphemesim for privates, what does this verse mean. Sounds like he, after marriage did what it took to conceive a child. "Uncovering" may have been a tradition, but doesn't necessarily point to private of Boaz. Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Dennis Hokama (Dennis) member Username: Dennis Post Number: 737 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Bob2, Temper, temper! I thought everybody knew that this phrase was a euphemism, but I guess overestimated people on this thread. Why don’t you start with the good old SDABC Vol 2, p. 569, commenting on I Sam 24:3. “Cover his feet. A euphemism for having a bowel movement. (See Judges 3:24, margin)” Now when it gets to Ruth, it chickens out and forgets all about the euphemistic use of the phrase, and resorts to a literal translation. That is typical of a conservative bible commentary, but does it make sense to admit it is a euphemism in I Sam and Judges but not in Ruth? I suggest using some critical thinking. Now I don’t know what is wrong with your search engine, but why don’t you try entering "uncover his feet, euphemism” in Google and see how many hits you get. I got over 40. Here are just two, but I didn’t go an exhaustive search. http://www.hypertextbible.org/ruth/3/conclusion.htm http://www.homiliesbyemail.com/res/hbem/Archives/p22p27eb.txt Any more questions? Anyway, what’s with the 18th century Victorian commentary as final authority? Everything more modern too liberal for you? | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 924 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Being more sexually obsessed then probably any other nation there are some that seem to assume sex acts everywhere. But by doing so they ignore the importance of feet to the ancient world. Of course in an ancient society if you feet don't work you won't earn a wage, most likely end up a begger, like a blind man capable of little value to that society. But if you get carried away with the feet as euphomism then you get in trouble when you see the other Bible mentions. For instance the sandal used to seal the deal in Ruth. 8 So the kinsman-redeemer said to Boaz, "Buy it yourself." And he removed his sandal. From the Expositor's Bible Commentary 4 Naomi further instructed Ruth to "note" (lit., "know") where Boaz lay down and then to go in, uncover his feet, and lie down. She would then wait for Boaz to tell her what to do. Naomi probably had in mind that Boaz would recognize Ruth's action as an appeal to marry her as the next of kin. Many scholars point out that the word "feet" is frequently used as an euphemism for the sexual organs and is so used here (cf. Exod 4:25; Judg 3:24; 1 Sam 24:3; Isa 6:2; 7:20; Ezek 16:25). Others caution against rashly accusing Naomi of encouraging Ruth to such an act of boldness and immorality. The verb shakab ("lie down") frequently refers to sexual intercourse, but again that interpretation is not unequivocal here. Staples ("Ruth," pp. 150, 156-67) interpreted Ruth's act as an example of sacred prostitution at the high place in Bethlehem, but the extreme cultic interpretation he gives the book has been almost universally rejected as without foundation. 8 Some time must have passed between v. 7 and v. 8, though the reader is not told at what time Ruth entered the threshing floor. At midnight (lit., "in the half of the night"), Boaz awoke suddenly (perhaps from a bad dream or from the cold caused by his uncovered feet) and discovered that a woman was lying at his feet. A Targum interpretation says, "His flesh became weak like a turnip!" In the darkness he did not immediately recognize Ruth. If he shared the widespread belief in demons in the ancient Near East, he might have feared that the figure was that of a night demon and "turned" himself away (lapat means "to turn" or "twist away," "touch," "look around," "bend forward"; it is found elsewhere only in Judg 16:29; Job 6:18) in haste to escape the clutches of the supposed demon. The important thing is that in turning himself, Boaz discovered the woman lying at his feet. 9 Boaz recognized the shadowy figure as a woman, as his question "Who are you?" uses the feminine singular pronoun 'at. Ruth immediately identified herself as his "servant" Ruth (here 'amah is used, not shiphah; cf. comment on 2:13). Then she asked him to spread the corner of his "garment" (kanap "wing"; KJV, RSV, "skirt"; cf. comment on 2:12) over her since he was a go'el (cf. comment on 2:20). Ruth's request has been interpreted as a request for protection or for marriage ("marry me," TEV). Deuteronomy 22:30 (23:1 MT) and Ezekiel 16:8 support the interpretation that the request suggests marriage. Marriage, however, was only one function of the go'el (cf. comment on 2:20); he was also to serve as protector of needy members of the family. It would be an arbitrary judgment to insist that Ruth was proposing marriage, though it is true that the custom of placing the corner of a garment over a maiden as a symbol of marriage is known among the Arabs. It may be significant that she said, "You are a kinsman-redeemer," rather than, "You are my kinsman-redeemer," as there was a closer kinsman (3:12; 4:1). Naomi could not have been ignorant of the existence of the nearer kinsman, though Ruth may have been. It is increasingly clear that Boaz interpreted Ruth's bold actions as a request for marriage. Some commentators have cynically described the entire episode as an example of the wily ways of a woman to get her man. This kind of interpretation shows a lack of sensitivity to the chain of events that are unfolding in the story. About the Sandal 8 In the presence of the gathered witnesses, the kinsman renounced his right to the land and invited Boaz to buy it. In a time when few written records were kept, attestation by a number of witnesses made transactions legally secure. The Hebrew is not clear as to whose sandal was transferred. Some say it was Boaz's; others, that it was the kinsman's. The practice of removing a sandal described here is different from that described in Deuteronomy 25:9 (which suggests contempt for a husband's brother who refused to fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to the widow), unless in both cases it symbolized no more than a release from a social obligation. Here it appears to be a ritual used to confirm the ratification of a transaction. Most scholars believe that it was the kinsman who removed his sandal and gave it to Boaz to symbolize the completion of the transaction (this interpretation is supported by some Greek versions and by the Vulgate). Those who say it was Boaz's sandal believe the sandal was the "price" by which Boaz purchased the right to Ruth, but this interpretation seems unlikely. See Deuteronomy 25:7-10 concerning the humiliation of the man who chose not to accept his role as redeemer (go'el). None of the disgrace of that regulation seems to be suggested in the encounter between Boaz and the other kinsman. ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Dennis Hokama (Dennis) member Username: Dennis Post Number: 738 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Expositor's Bible Commentary: "Many scholars point out that the word "feet" is frequently used as an euphemism for the sexual organs and is so used here..." Hyveth obviously chose to go along with "many scholars." How horribly irresponsible of her! If only she had been wise enough to use John Gill(1697–1771)as her exclusive authority! | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3047 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
OK Dennis, lets dissect this:
OK, what is the expression that might offend or suggestion of something unpleasant that a foot or sandal represents. Could their not be a custom literally of this nature rather than someone imagining the "worst". Could Boaz not have been a gentleman as suggested by Wesley protecting her and his reputations. Also, the Expositor's says "frequently used", maybe this is a case where it was not used? This is John Wesley's Notes on the Bible: http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/ruth/wesley/ruth3.htm
Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3049 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Matthew Henry's Commentary says about Ruth 3:
Further in Matthew Henry, Ruth 4's comment:
I can't imagine that sex was engaged in or anything inappropriate before this other kinsman told Boaz he wasn't interested, can you? Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Dennis Hokama (Dennis) member Username: Dennis Post Number: 739 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Bob2, I guess you just must have a thing for 18th century Victorian prude commentators (Matthew Henry : 1662-1710; John Wesley: 1703-1791). Do you suppose they knew more about ancient euphemisms and were more objective in dealing with sexual content than modern commentators? You are engaging in “special pleading” apologetics rather than objective scholarship: “If I do enough back flips, can’t I please, please be allowed to continue believing what I have always believed about Ruth??” Whatever floats your boat is fine with me.  OK, what is the expression that might offend or suggestion of something unpleasant that a foot or sandal represents. Could their not be a custom literally of this nature rather than someone imagining the "worst". Could Boaz not have been a gentleman as suggested by Wesley protecting her and his reputations. This is called making a “special pleading.” You wish to plead for the improbable existence of another offensive idea represented by “uncovering his feet”other than exposing sex organs or anus that scholars have already stated was the basis (examples such as Judg 3:24; 1 Sam 24:3) for that particular euphemism? Think about what you are saying. How much sense does it make to argue that one euphemism may theoretically represent a whole bunch of unrelated offensive ideas (despite there being no scholar who argues that!) such that one cannot tell what that euphemism means? And all of these back flips just to save Bob2's (and other 18th century Victorian commentators) preconception about how Ruth “ought” to have behaved? Of course (even for Freud), sometimes feet means feet, so context is what governs our judgement as to whether the interpretation of the phrase should be literal or is an idiomatic expression. In this case, “uncover his feet” is highly peculiar unless understood in an idiomatic way. When understood as a euphemism for sex organs, it makes more sense, except for the fact that it is highly offensive from a prudish Victorian mind set. “...imagining the worst.” From a Victorian perspective, this might be so. But you have no basis for projecting your Victorian mind set onto the culture of Ruth’s day. Have you ever read the book of Judges, which precedes Ruth? The whole book in an antidote to Victorian suppositions, but don’t skip over the last half of chapter 21 where the kidnaping and raping of Shiloh women is legitimized as a method for obtaining a wife. In that context, Boaz and Ruth were acting very modestly even as interpreted by Hyveth. I can't imagine that sex was engaged in or anything inappropriate before this other kinsman told Boaz he wasn't interested, can you? Given your apparently Victorian mind set (I assume this might have something to do with hour insistence on choosing three 18th century Victorian commentators) I can understand why anything sexual might seem unimaginable to you, but I don’t think Boaz, Ruth, or Naomi were Victorian prudes. Therefore, whether or not a sexualized interpretation is imaginable to you might not be relevant from an exegetical perspective. I have to admit that Hyveth’s interpretation seems scandalous even to me if I judge it from my cultural perspective. But then I am also offended much more by divinely sanctioned slavery, human sacrifice, genocide, death penalties for Sabbath breaking and swearing at parents, etc. (Compared to that, what’s a little mutually agreeable “uncovering of feet”?) That doesn’t cause me to go about finding desperate exegetical tricks to rationalize all that away. I just shrug and accept it as being the culture out of which Christianity eventually evolved. You equate sex with inappropriate behavior, but that again is your own mind projection onto Naomi, Ruth and Boaz. Whatever they did was appropriate in their own minds and within their own culture. That is what counts. What you or I think is appropriate doesn’t count in terms of figuring out what they actually did, though it may determine what we “believe” they did. Hey, when I first discovered how babies were actually made, I was incapable of believing that my parents would actually do something as nasty as that. But I no longer think of sex as something nasty, so I eventually gave my mother permission to conceive me. | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3053 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Interesting that you would choose to believe that genitals were uncovered by Ruth rather than a tradition of uncovering feet or laying across feet or being somewhere, the threshing floor, that women normally did not go. Maybe your mind wants to go pornographic here rather than seeing a tradition of the past. Wonder what you found out about "giving a sandal" to someone meant in Bible times other than a promise or commitment? Notice the Bible is lot older than Henry or Wesley!!!! By the way, I can't find the Expositor's online, that could be another reason for using Henry, Wesley and Gill. Don't knock Gill, he was the first to do a verse by verse commentary of the Bible. Quite a bit of effort to be ignored by yourself and others. (Message edited by Bob_2 on January 23, 2006) Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3056 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Notice this also, maybe Hyveth could have taken the high ground, eh? :
Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Dennis Hokama (Dennis) member Username: Dennis Post Number: 740 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
The more prudish road is not necessarily the "higher road," nor prudishness next to Godliness, as you apparently suppose. It may have seemed like the Roman Catholic church was taking the high road when it demanded that all its priests be celibate, but a whole lot of altar boys soon found out differently, didn't they? I am not saying, nor have I ever said that Hyveth had no other option than to take the genital approach to the Boaz story. It just so happens that an SDA pastor who is a good friend of mine from college days has a Ruth-Boaz sermon based on the conventional literal "feet" interpretation that he tells every so often. About 8 years ago, I criticized his sermon in a letter, telling him that he had misinterpreted the euphemism, etc. When I saw the Hyveth X rated version, I sent him an e-mail about it. I don't expect him to change his sermon. Sermons consist of homiletic treatments of scripture and need not be serious theology. We will have a good laugh about it, as I will see him at a retreat in a few weeks. My only point is that Hyveth is not being academically irresponsible in her treatment of Ruth, and may even be right. Whether taking that stance publicly proves to be politically wise or not is another question. But if she can get away with it, I say more power to her because I am sick and tired of prudish sermons. P.S. Ron uses the Expositor's all the time, and even though it is conservative, it does acknowledge other positions, which is very valuable. Who knows but that he might be able to show you how to get that online. | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3058 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
My point is not about prudishness, but when one studies many scholars and picks the most risque interpretation says something about the exegesist or should I say eisegesist. Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Dennis Hokama (Dennis) member Username: Dennis Post Number: 741 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Hey, Dennis, with all due respect, put up or shut up, give me a scholar that Hyveth would have got this idea from let alone you, sheeeesh. It seems to me that you started out with a lot more points than you will now admit to having. Now you at least seem to admit that Hyveth can justify her position with responsible scholarship. I will settle for that. If it makes you happier to believe that Ruth snuck in and literally uncovered Boaz's feet in the middle of the night (maybe she had a foot fetish?), hey, knock yourself out. | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3059 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Dennis, again, for someone that didn't read carefully, the threshing floor was an inappropriate place for a virtuous woman. Boaz respected her that she was not a woman without virtue and took care of the kinsman thing before he "went into her". Wouldn't that have been maybe just as or more of a refreshing message at a women's conference than that Ruth and Boaz had pornographic actions before marriage? Tone down your mind about the traditions of Ruth's time. Maybe the prostitutes acted the way you and Hyveth imagined on the threshing floor but I like to think Ruth and Boaz did not, given their was unfinished business before they could consumate anything. Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3060 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Hopefully Hyveth's singleness is not some sort of nunnery, like the nun's believing they are the brides of Christ? Christ doesn't want to have babies with my wife or me. Let's get our analogies cleaned up, not prudishness, just common sense. Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2061 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Bob, You're proving my point about the US being "puritanical" at its core. (From another discussion). I have absolutely no thoughts on this matter; however, I do think that we, in the 21st century and after 2000 years of Christianity, are attributing mores and prohibitions to a culture that was way different than ours. It's something like watching a 50's "B" movie about some character in the Bible. While it makes a good story, the fact that it's in English (often the Queen's English), and the female costar looks like she just stepped out of the ultimate "makeover spa" does something to its authenticity. | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3061 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Not sure what you are saying, but when the sandal is given to the other kinsman as a toke of a promise, it is likely we are not into another euphemism that Dennis loves so well. I am not trying to protect Boaz and Ruth's virtue, or make them out to be puritanical, but why does everyone in the modern day wish to have Ruth gazing or uncovering a penis, when historians, and the one above a Jew, saying it is not that risque? Now if you want risque, talk to Lot and his two daughter after Sodom and Gomorrah, where their decendents created a real mess in the Middle East. Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 683 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Although few know it today, when Jesus was hanging on the cross, he was completely naked and totally humiliated. Those famous pictures that show him with a loincloth were not historically accurate, but rather they were attempting to sanitize the event and make it less shameful to our eyes. But the Romans were not about to give Jesus, or anyone else that they crucified, the slightest bit of dignity. And thus, the Son of God, and the King of the Jews was displayed on the cross totally and 100% naked for all to see. There is no debate about this. So let the mind take this in, and understand this theological and historical fact. Moreover, it is very interesting to note that on the Judgment day, those that failed to understand this Gospel point about seeing Jesus "naked" also failed to comprehend the Gospel and were lost. These religious pretenders failed to look at the facts of the Gospel Story, preferring a more civilized version that was more suitable to their prudish tastes. But this was a fatal mistake. Matt. 25:44 “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked…?’ Thus, the Gospel is not for the prudish, or for those that want to look away, unless the story is cleaned up and sanitized. It is far better to deal with the facts than to run from them, no matter how much this may shock our sensibilities. For those that play games with the Gospel facts, “These will go away into eternal punishment. (Matt. 25:46) Today, like in ancient time it was shameful to be naked in public. There can be no debate about this. But that is how heaven currently views the church. This is how they are looking at us all. Why? Because we are silly fools that know not the Gospel. We argue over this minor point and that diversion. We embrace one myth after another, even as we deny the Gospel Story, which is the only thing that can save our sorry souls. Rev. 3:17 ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, Rev. 16:15 (“Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame.”) When will the SDA Community decide to get dressed and act rationally, with honesty, purpose, and point? When will they stop acting like a foolish nudist colony in front of the entire universe? This is the real question? This is the real "scandal." Rev. 3:18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. Tom Norris, for Gospel Reform | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2064 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Bob, I don't have an opinion about the feet, uncovered or otherwise. I'm just making an observation that we often place our cultural values and cultural biases on the mental pictures we make as we read the Bible or even history. The ancient cultures were not the same people we are used to seeing around, only different. It's not about clothes and hairstyles. Culture makes a bigger difference in so many other ways. I think we would be in for a big shock if we could be placed back into the societies that make up the Bible stories. | ||
| Dennis Hokama (Dennis) member Username: Dennis Post Number: 743 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
"...but I like to think Ruth and Boaz did not, given their was unfinished business before they could consumate anything." Well, if you like to think a thought, then it must be true! Who needs the text? | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3062 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Sirje, I guess I give people of today a little more credit. When I was a kid reading the story of Lot and his wife and two daughters coming out of Sodom and Gomorrah, I did not hear for awhile about those two daughters and what they did with, not to, their dad. I was shocked. No euphemism here, and no attempt to cover the story would succeed since it is there plain for all to see. If I was a prude as the discussion may have suggested, I would probably try some gyration with the story. There are some that are capable of seeing something for what it is, not whether it suits a political idealogy, with pro-choice, and pro-life as litmus tests, as examples. Some see the quandry that an absolute position on every issue to preserve an idealogy presents, it ends in intellectual dishonest, which we SDAs that have been born into the church, have seen plenty of, and may be the worst plague of the modern SDA church, IMHO. Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3063 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Dennis, God bless, you have your teeth a little to deep in this issue. Read Ruth 3 and 4 again. See an attempt by Boaz to protect Ruth's reputation and goes quickly to resolve the other kinsman issue, giving his sandal as a committment to the deal, then goes in to Ruth and she conceives. What sort of euphemism can you find for the "covering of a foot". I paid attention to the texts, I think you were looking for euphemisms where there may be none. Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3064 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
OK, here is the tradition a little earlier in the Bible. What's the euphemism Dennis for the sandal, something sexual, maybe the spitting in the face isn't literal, but euphemistic, go for it.
Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3065 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Here's Wesley's Notes on this passage:
Prudish, or just stating what the tradition was? Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Dennis Hokama (Dennis) member Username: Dennis Post Number: 744 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
"I paid attention to the texts. I think you were looking for euphemisms where there may be none." Well, if you had paid attention to this text provided by Ron Corson, I doubt you would have written the above: Expositor's Bible Commentary: "Many scholars point out that the word "feet" is frequently used as an euphemism for the sexual organs and is so used here..." I am only agreeing with those "many scholars." But I am only saying that is the probable interpretation; not that there is no other possible interpretation, or that it is a historical event. | ||
| Dennis Hokama (Dennis) member Username: Dennis Post Number: 745 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
"This passage"??? Good Lord! We are not discussing the meaning of the loosed shoe of Ruth 4. We are discussing "uncovered his feet" of Ruth 3. Nice try, but pulling a switcheroo is not going to work here. Try sticking the subject if you wish to continue the argument. | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 3066 Registered: 1-2005 Rating: N/A |
Well, the sandal is the covering of the foot, if she uncovered his feet, maybe she simply unbuckled his sandals. Mary, when she anointed Christ's feet, it was considered and intimate act, was it not? Don't tell me you belief she anointed his genitals? Sin of Credulity - when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse:they believe in anything.--Muggeridge | ||
| Dennis Hokama (Dennis) member Username: Dennis Post Number: 746 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Here's Wesley's Notes on "this passage:" Are you saying that "this passage" referred to above was Wesley's comment on Ruth 3? yes or no. If no, then you might as well confess you have been playing a desperate game of switcheroo. Your introduction of the story of Mary's anointing of the feet of Jesus in this connection amounts to committing several logical fallacies including faulty comparison, and ad baculum. In the first place, there is no phrase "uncovering his feet" in the Mary-Jesus story, so you are committing a false comparison of apples to oranges. In the second place, the interpretation of Ruth must be done on the merits of those cicumstances. In any case, it is not legitimate to try to blackmail one into submitting to a certain interpretation of Ruth in order to save the story of Mary's anointing of Jesus' feet. Each case must be interpreted on their respective merits. | ||
| John Alfke (John8verse32) member Username: John8verse32 Post Number: 1798 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
the story of Lots incentuous relationship with his daughters points out several issues... it is so improbable that it cannot honestly be taken as real factual history... .....A) if he was so drunk that he couldn't recognize his daughters, how could a besotted elderly Lot get it up two nights in a row? .....B) how could he not recognize what was happening if he was not drunk.....therefore the incest would have been deliberate.... .....C) how could two sisters, two nights in a row, say..."It worked....I'm pregnant" the following morning? the real story behind the story is most likely that when the ancient tales told around the campfire were finally put into writing, the Hebrews were in captivity in Bablyon, learning how to read and write. And among their ancient oral campfire stories were the tales of how Joshua had triumphed over the Caananites...actually made the sun back up!!!like our stories of tall lumberjacks in the NorthWest, or John Wayne during "the Longest Day"...or the tale of Moses who needed a heroic story to aggrandize him like that of Sargon... who was rafted down the river in a basket of reeds a thousand years before the hebrews borrowed the story for their hero. the Joshua tale says they killed them all.... but kept the virgins.... in order for this small, jingoistic tribes ambitions to be satisfied by taking the land they claimed was their God given right. In writing down the "we killed them all but kept the virgins" story, they needed both authority (God told us to kill them) and motive, and justification.... what better rationalization to kill the Moabites, with a motive of taking their land, than to fabricate this love-in-the-cave tale which made Moab, the father of the moabites who needed to be killed, into a bstrd... unable to qualify for legal inheritance back to the story where Olde Abe and Lot had agreed to split up the valley... no legal marriage? child of incest? this results in no inheritance for the Moabites, so the Hebrews were told by Joshua that it was not only ok to kill them, but that it was their God given duty, because they had no inheritance rights to the land they were squatting on. Either that, or when the tales were written down, the love-in-the-cave tale was concocted to justify all the killing the Hebrews had already done. This tale therefore says less about Lot and his "knowing" his daughters, and more about the nature of the OT being the propagandized autobiography of a small nomadic tribe which attempted to aggrandize their place in the world by claiming their God told them to do it. funny thing? it took a Christianized West to first blame them, then to help them reach the promised land by believing all their tall tales!!!! If God had really been on Issac's side of the divide (instead of Ishmael), s/He should have given the oil rich deserts to His favorite tribe. Instead, we have God's self-described favorite people living on a small, desert strip of land, with no oil, hemmed in by Ishmaels angry decendants to whom god apparently gave the oil sands and the desire to kill everybody.... except let's hope they save the virgin Christian Science Monitor reporter..... "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, & intellect intended us to forgo their use." Galileo | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 2564 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
So who here will admit to knowing all about, and understanding Hebrew customs when Ruth lived? And how do you explain the passage in 1 Samuel 24:3 where Saul went into a cave "to cover his feet"? (KJV). Most other versions say "to relieve himself." |
