Paul Bethke vs the 613 Mitzvot

[Craig B]

Wow. That is a weird translation by the NIV. There is no word(s) for "private parts" in that verse. Also no word for "your" and "Euphrates" is not there either.

The hebrew says:

20 "On that day, the Lord shall shave with a hired razor on the other side of a river, on the king of Assyria, the head and the hair of the legs, and also the beard shall be removed."

The NIV is notorious for oddities, and for adding explanatory glosses (here "Euphrates") as if they were part of the text. But look at the AV. "20 In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard." I have always understood "feet" to be a circumlocution for pubic hair, and have read that in commentaries. Is it excluded by the Hebrew text? But as in the Hebrew there is no "your". To whom would a reader of the Hebrew text assume that the hair belongs?

 

[JayUtah]

I was taught (by a rabbi) that "feet" can be a euphemism in the Hebrew OT text for genitals, such as in what the seraphim in Isaiah's vision in chapter six were covering with their wings. The text literally says "feet" there but it's to be understood differently. Similarly in Song of Solomon when she's talking about her lover's "countenance" being like a big cedar tree, she's obviously not talking about his forehead. I would have to review my notes to remember all the euphemistic expressions in the Torah, but I remember this one well.

 

[halleyscomet]

I was taught (by a rabbi) that "feet" can be a euphemism in the Hebrew OT text for genitals, such as in what the seraphim in Isaiah's vision in chapter six were covering with their wings. The text literally says "feet" there but it's to be understood differently. Similarly in Song of Solomon when she's talking about her lover's "countenance" being like a big cedar tree, she's obviously not talking about his forehead. I would have to review my notes to remember all the euphemistic expressions in the Torah, but I remember this one well.

It's always interesting to see how different translations handle the euphemisms. Ruth would be another place where "feet" is a euphemism for genitals.

Ruth 3:4 And it shall be, when he lies down, that you shall mark the place where he shall lie, and you shall go in, and uncover his feet, and lay you down; and he will tell you what you shall do.

It sounds like the lead-in to a porno when you know what the code words are.

A single wealthy man is sleeping in his threshing room to guard his grain when a fit, foreign widow who he knows and has been going out of his way to help comes in, whips out his junk and waits for him to make the next move? Damn. I'd marry her too.

I mean, she takes the initiative (hot!), makes her intentions crystal clear (hot!), is still communicative about listening to his desires (HOT!) and does this all in a manner convenient for his work????

Communication, consideration and he already knew she was an upstanding and loyal person from her treatment of her mother-in-law. The threshing room shagging was probably just icing on the, er, cake...?

 

[abaddon]

It's always interesting to see how different translations handle the euphemisms. Ruth would be another place where "feet" is a euphemism for genitals.

Ruth 3:4 And it shall be, when he lies down, that you shall mark the place where he shall lie, and you shall go in, and uncover his feet, and lay you down; and he will tell you what you shall do.

It sounds like the lead-in to a porno when you know what the code words are.

A single wealthy man is sleeping in his threshing room to guard his grain when a fit, foreign widow who he knows and has been going out of his way to help comes in, whips out his junk and waits for him to make the next move? Damn. I'd marry her too.

I mean, she takes the initiative (hot!), makes her intentions crystal clear (hot!), is still communicative about listening to his desires (HOT!) and does this all in a manner convenient for his work????

Communication, consideration and he already knew she was an upstanding and loyal person from her treatment of her mother-in-law. The threshing room shagging was probably just icing on the, er, cake...?

Definitely upstanding. Definitely a solid member of the tribe.

 

[abaddon]

I was taught (by a rabbi) that "feet" can be a euphemism in the Hebrew OT text for genitals, such as in what the seraphim in Isaiah's vision in chapter six were covering with their wings. The text literally says "feet" there but it's to be understood differently. Similarly in Song of Solomon when she's talking about her lover's "countenance" being like a big cedar tree, she's obviously not talking about his forehead. I would have to review my notes to remember all the euphemistic expressions in the Torah, but I remember this one well.

"under the thigh". When taking an oath, one must grasp ones crown jewels. Wouldn't that make board meetings and the like far more entertaining. NDAs would become very odd. Court proceedings would become orgiastic saturnalia.

 

[Zivan]

The NIV is notorious for oddities, and for adding explanatory glosses (here "Euphrates") as if they were part of the text. But look at the AV. "20 In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard." I have always understood "feet" to be a circumlocution for pubic hair, and have read that in commentaries. Is it excluded by the Hebrew text?

The word translated as "feet" is רגלים (raglayeem). The singular form is רגל (regel) and means both "foot" and "leg" (same in modern hebrew).

In biblical hebrew (not in modern hebrew) it is also used as a euphemism for "genitals", although words for "loin" and "bowels" are more commonly used. (In modern hebrew we use the actual terms, plus all the slang words just like in english).

In verse 20 it is understood to means "legs" because it is referring to soldiers being killed in war. (It would only be a euphemism for "genitals" if that made sense in context, but it does not in this case).

But as in the Hebrew there is no "your". To whom would a reader of the Hebrew text assume that the hair belongs?

The verse is talking about King R'tzeen of aram (damascus) and King Pekakh of israel (as mentioned in verse 1) being conquered by the king of assyria (Tiglath-Pileser). They were then both killed.

(The kingdoms of Aram and Israel were planning to go to war against the kingdom of Judah. King Ahaz (akhaz) of Judah asked the king of Assyria for help).

The hebrew word translated as "hired" is also translated in other places as, "officers", "mercenaries", "hired men", "great ones", "princes".

The word "razor" here means "swords" and "shaved" means the conquered kingdoms were "shorn" of the "head" (king), "legs"(soldiers) and "beard" (governors/advisors).

We know from non-biblical sources (inscriptions from Assyria) that this happened and that the king of judah, ahaz/akhaz, paid tribute to Tiglath-Pileser.

Too bad that PB wants to ignore what chapter 7 (and 8) is actually saying and keep deluding himself that this is about a ridiculous "virgin birth" of a messiah.

Sorry to interrupt your sex talk fun guys

 

[Craig B]

In verse 20 it is understood to means "legs" because it is referring to soldiers being killed in war. (It would only be a euphemism for "genitals" if that made sense in context, but it does not in this case).

With respect, I think it does.

The word "razor" here means "swords" and "shaved" means the conquered kingdoms were "shorn" of the "head" (king), "legs"(soldiers) and "beard" (governors/advisors).

I think that the shearing is intended to denote a humiliation of the person receiving the treatment, and that the euphemism interpretation is perfectly plausible.

Sorry to interrupt your sex talk fun guys

Indeed; we can't have sex talk in the Word of God ... can we?

 

[Zivan]

With respect, I think it does. I think that the shearing is intended to denote a humiliation of the person receiving the treatment, and that the euphemism interpretation is perfectly plausible.

It is not about mere humiliation.

It is about death and exile.

II Kings 15:29-30
29) "In the days of Pekah (Pekakh) the king of Israel, Tiglath-pileser the king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, the entire land of Naphtali; and he exiled them to Assyria."

30) "And Hoshea the son of Elah revolted against Pekah (Pekakh) the son of Remaliah, and he struck him and slew him,"

II Kings 16:5
"Then Rezin (R'tzeen) the king of Aram and Pekah (Pekakh) the son of Remaliah the king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to wage war, and they besieged Ahaz, but could not wage war [with him].

II Kings 16:7-9
7) "And Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser the king of Assyria, saying, "I am your servant and your son. Come up and save me from the hand of the king of Aram and from the hand of the king of Israel who have risen up against me."

8) "And Ahaz took the silver and the gold that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king's palace, and sent them to the king of Assyria as a bribe."

9) "And the king of Assyria heeded him, and the king of Assyria went up to Damascus and seized it, and exiled [its inhabitants] to Kir, and he slew Rezin (R'tzeen)."

Indeed; we can't have sex talk in the Word of God ... can we?

Haha, it is all over the place in the "word of god".

Check out ezekiel 23..........!

 

[Craig B]

Haha, it (sex talk) is all over the place in the "word of god".

Check out ezekiel 23..........!

I was being ironic.

 

[JayUtah]

It would only be a euphemism for "genitals" if that made sense in context, but it does not in this case.

I agree that context is king. I work with a number of non-native English speakers and it's always fun to talk about the contextual nuances of our respective languages.

 

[Craig B]

... The verse is talking about King R'tzeen of aram (damascus) and King Pekakh of israel (as mentioned in verse 1) being conquered by the king of assyria (Tiglath-Pileser). They were then both killed.

(The kingdoms of Aram and Israel were planning to go to war against the kingdom of Judah. King Ahaz (akhaz) of Judah asked the king of Assyria for help).

The hebrew word translated as "hired" is also translated in other places as, "officers", "mercenaries", "hired men", "great ones", "princes".

The word "razor" here means "swords" and "shaved" means the conquered kingdoms were "shorn" of the "head" (king), "legs"(soldiers) and "beard" (governors/advisors).

We know from non-biblical sources (inscriptions from Assyria) that this happened and that the king of judah, ahaz/akhaz, paid tribute to Tiglath-Pileser.

Too bad that PB wants to ignore what chapter 7 (and 8) is actually saying and keep deluding himself that this is about a ridiculous "virgin birth" of a messiah.

Sorry to interrupt your sex talk fun guys

Here is what 2 Chronicles 28 has to tell us about the fate of Judah at the hands of Syria and Israel. Tribute was the least of Ahaz's problems, if this is true.

2 Chronicles 28:5 Wherefore the Lord his God delivered him (Ahaz) into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter. 6 For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah an hundred and twenty thousand in one day ... 8 And the children of Israel carried away captive of their brethren two hundred thousand, women, sons, and daughters, and took also away much spoil from them, and brought the spoil to Samaria.​

It seems that Isaiah's reassuring prophecy was complete nonsense at every level.

 

[abaddon]

But if you take note it refers to adultery that is the cause of corruption, using a person as a metaphor. It is also noted the jubilation when this cause is dealt with.

How odd. You are unable to really define what adultery is. You bible heroes engage in it as a matter of course. But now it is worse.

Exactly how does one engage in "metaphorical adultery"?

I have no idea what that might be and you cannot define it.

I will admit it sounds vaguely interesting. Have you considered setting up a website to facilitate same? It would likely be a money spinner for you.

 

[Border Reiver]

So in plain words the Creator will judge those who commit adultery as referred to in the letter to the Hebrews---Hebrews 13:4 Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Yes, Yahweh will not tolerate a man who divorces his wife without first giving her the proper paperwork. (Deut 24:1)

 

[Craig B]

Lev 4:23 When he is made aware of the sin he committed, he must bring as his offering a male goat without defect.

So the preaching of the Gospel is to make people AWARE of sin.

Paul, when you read the preaching of the Gospel and become aware of sins you have committed, do you bring male goats without defect? To whom do you bring them?

 

[halleyscomet]

Since the moderators didn't change the thread title, this thread remains about Paul Bethke and what Mitzvot he does and does not follow. I've repeatedly asked him about this one:

Ex. 20:15 — Not to covet and scheme to acquire another's possession — Yemenite->Ex. 20:14

While he made it clear he thinks it should be followed, he never said if he follows it himself. To handle cases like this I'm adding a category to the answer sheet called "Do as I say, Don't do as I do." I think it's cowardly to say other people should do something and then refuse to answer if you do it yourself.

I'm also going to list the following under that category as well:

Ex. 21:10 — Not to withhold food, clothing, and sexual relations from your wife

Now I want to revisit one currently listed as "unknown"

Gen. 1:28 — To have children with one's wife

Paul, do you have kids?

Do you believe God wants married couples to have children as a Mitzvot?

 

[halleyscomet]

I'm going to list this one as "follows" largely because, given his racial attitudes, if Paul Bethke were to enslave anyone they would likely be black.

Ex. 21:2 — Purchase a Hebrew slave in accordance with the prescribed laws

 

[Border Reiver]

Looks like you are seething again, ranting on about prophecy which is so clear, which you so infuriatingly cannot fathom.

Deut 24:1 “Suppose a man takes a wife and marries her. Now if she doesn’t find favour in his eyes because he has found something indecent in her, he is to write her a certificate of divorce, hand it to her and send her out from his house.

Do you not understand that there is something indecent in her---meaning she is not a virgin and she has engaged in an unethical way. This the man may find out later after the ceremony.

If it meant that "He has found out that she was not a virgin" it would say that. Instead it says something that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. You choose to interpret it one way, countless scholars interpret it in other ways. You've given NO ONE any reason to believe that your interpretation is correct, having zero expertise in reading the original language, or in understanding the cultural context it was written in originally.

Instead, all you have is your personal belief that you and only you correctly understand.

It has always been the purpose of the Creator for a man to have only one wife and a woman to have only one husband---it makes no difference what man has instituted later. It is the Creator who determines the precepts.

Odd then that He never came right out and said that then isn't it. And that he blessed the key Biblical players that didn't practice the "one man, one wife" rule. Abraham had two wives, Issac had two, David had several and Solomon had hundreds, plus concubines/slave girls. NONE of them were punished by Yahweh for having done so. Therefore we can conclude that either:

1. Yahweh didn't care enough to make his prohibition explicit; or
2. Yahweh did not prohibit polygamy;

The words I use have a Scriptural connotation which does not line up with the definition of the modern language.

Or with the original language either.

The connotation that you choose to place on an interpretation of the original is solely your own.

 

[Paul Bethke]

If it meant that "He has found out that she was not a virgin" it would say that. Instead it says something that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. You choose to interpret it one way, countless scholars interpret it in other ways. You've given NO ONE any reason to believe that your interpretation is correct, having zero expertise in reading the original language, or in understanding the cultural context it was written in originally.
Instead, all you have is your personal belief that you and only you correctly understand.

The term indecent has that meaning of sexual impurity—the only thing that makes a woman indecent is adultery, there is nothing else. A woman defiled by adultery if she remarries is indecent.
You SEE sexual purity is the call of decency.

Odd then that He never came right out and said that then isn't it. And that he blessed the key Biblical players that didn't practice the "one man, one wife" rule. Abraham had two wives, Issac had two, David had several and Solomon had hundreds, plus concubines/slave girls. NONE of them were punished by Yahweh for having done so. Therefore we can conclude that either:

1. Yahweh didn't care enough to make his prohibition explicit; or
2. Yahweh did not prohibit polygamy;

It is what the Creator determined at the beginning, as Jesus pointed out, man has always detracted from what Yahweh instituted, and so Jesus brings the sanctity of marriage back to the original position of importance. The Churches today have also neglected to pursue the teachings of Jesus with regards to what is written in the New Testament as it is wrongly called.

Or with the original language either.
The connotation that you choose to place on an interpretation of the original is solely your own.

The purpose of marriage as the Creator decreed at the beginning will not change—one husband for one wife. This is why the Creator destroyed the people in the time of Noah, because the marriage covenant was violated—this is established because this is what was decreed in that time.

By this time you should be familiar with what Jesus reiterated---
Mat 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
Mat 19:5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

AND

Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

 

[halleyscomet]

The term indecent has that meaning of sexual impurity—the only thing that makes a woman indecent is adultery, there is nothing else. A woman defiled by adultery if she remarries is indecent.

You SEE sexual purity is the call of decency.





It is what the Creator determined at the beginning, as Jesus pointed out, man has always detracted from what Yahweh instituted, and so Jesus brings the sanctity of marriage back to the original position of importance. The Churches today have also neglected to pursue the teachings of Jesus with regards to what is written in the New Testament as it is wrongly called.







The purpose of marriage as the Creator decreed at the beginning will not change—one husband for one wife. This is why the Creator destroyed the people in the time of Noah, because the marriage covenant was violated—this is established because this is what was decreed in that time.



By this time you should be familiar with what Jesus reiterated---

Mat 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Mat 19:5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?

Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."



AND



Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

This from the guy who complained when we pointed out his obsession with sex.

There are multiple relevant questions that have been asked lately but all of them are ignored so he can rant, AGAIN, about his definitions of adultery.

 

[Peregrinus]

The purpose of marriage as the Creator decreed at the beginning will not change—one husband for one wife.

Except, of course, in those cases - patriarchs reportedly held in esteem by their "creator" - who had multiple wives. And more than a few concubines into the bargain.