A racist God?
- Thread starter randyk
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
If i understand you correctly, you say God relates to the individuals in any race or culture, God is not a racist. I agree.
When God spoke to Israel with special instructions, God did not tell the nations they were excluded. Ruth illustrates this. She was a gentile that God accepted as his own. She is even listed as an ancestor of Christ in the book of Matthews.
When God spoke to Israel with special instructions, God did not tell the nations they were excluded. Ruth illustrates this. She was a gentile that God accepted as his own. She is even listed as an ancestor of Christ in the book of Matthews.
There are so many examples of proselytes throughout history (such as Ashkenazi Jews) that your statement has effectively 0% chance of being true (save for some immaculate conception where "stones can be raised as offspring of Abraham"). All it takes is for a Jewish person to have one nonJewish ancestor in order to qualify as descending from a nonJew.
Those of Judah descended from the nonJews that led up to Judah's birth. There would be a very slim type of immaculate conception scenario where any Jew had nonJewish ancestors.
I don't see why you would seemingly be thrown off by the archeological evidence showing that Jews and Arabs descend from Canaan.
Those of Judah descended from the nonJews that led up to Judah's birth. There would be a very slim type of immaculate conception scenario where any Jew had nonJewish ancestors.
I don't see why you would seemingly be thrown off by the archeological evidence showing that Jews and Arabs descend from Canaan.
You have surely violated an instruction of Scripture. You have gone off on your own "private interpretation", a wild tangent from the truth. When an individual comes up with an interpretation all his own, contradicted by the witness of the body of Christ though the centuries; he had better rethink his interpretation. There is a web site with over 100 commentaries from the church in history where you can search, and I've not found a one that agrees with your odd interpretation. As an example:
John Calvin, 16th century:
"One of themselves, a prophet of their own I have no doubt that he who is here spoken of is Epimenides, who was a native of Crete; for, when the Apostle says that this author was “one of themselves,” and was “a prophet of their own,” he undoubtedly means that he belonged to the nation of the Cretans."
Matthew Henry, 17th century Presbyterian:
"One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, that is, one of the Cretans, not of the Jews, Epimenides a Greek poet, likely to know and unlikely to slander them. A prophet of their own; so their poets were accounted, writers of divine oracles; these often witnessed against the vices of the people: Aratus, Epimenides, and others among the Greeks;"
John Gill, 18th century Baptist:
"One of themselves, even a prophet of their own,.... This was Epimenides, in whose poems stand the words here cited; the apostle rightly calls him "one of themselves", since he was a Cretian by birth, of the city of Gnossus;"
Adam Clarke, 19th century Methodist:
This was Epimenides, who was born at Gnossus, in Crete, and was reckoned by many the seventh wise man of Greece, instead of Periander, to whom that honour was by them denied. Many fabulous things are related of this poet, which are not proper to be noticed here. He died about 538 years before the Christian era. When St. Paul calls him a prophet of their own, he only intimates that he was, by the Cretans, reputed a prophet.
The closest thing to what you are trying to say is from: The Popular Commentary (Paul E. Kretzmann) 20th Century Lutheran:
"Since the false teachers of whom Paul speaks were Jews by descent, but Cretans by nationality, St. Paul adds a sentence for their benefit: There said one of them, their own prophet: Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. The apostle here places deceivers and deceived into one category, reminding them of the saying of one of their own poets, Epimenides, of the sixth century before Christ, who was regarded by the Cretans themselves as a prophet. The Cretans as a people are represented as liars, as men who deliberately made use of hypocritical, shady methods."
Those come from the website: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng.html
As to a 'literal translation' toss the NKJV and return to the KJV, ... ERV or ASV or even the YLT. The REB is not a paraphrase but a translation using "Dynamic Equivalence" translation.
John Calvin, 16th century:
"One of themselves, a prophet of their own I have no doubt that he who is here spoken of is Epimenides, who was a native of Crete; for, when the Apostle says that this author was “one of themselves,” and was “a prophet of their own,” he undoubtedly means that he belonged to the nation of the Cretans."
Matthew Henry, 17th century Presbyterian:
"One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, that is, one of the Cretans, not of the Jews, Epimenides a Greek poet, likely to know and unlikely to slander them. A prophet of their own; so their poets were accounted, writers of divine oracles; these often witnessed against the vices of the people: Aratus, Epimenides, and others among the Greeks;"
John Gill, 18th century Baptist:
"One of themselves, even a prophet of their own,.... This was Epimenides, in whose poems stand the words here cited; the apostle rightly calls him "one of themselves", since he was a Cretian by birth, of the city of Gnossus;"
Adam Clarke, 19th century Methodist:
This was Epimenides, who was born at Gnossus, in Crete, and was reckoned by many the seventh wise man of Greece, instead of Periander, to whom that honour was by them denied. Many fabulous things are related of this poet, which are not proper to be noticed here. He died about 538 years before the Christian era. When St. Paul calls him a prophet of their own, he only intimates that he was, by the Cretans, reputed a prophet.
The closest thing to what you are trying to say is from: The Popular Commentary (Paul E. Kretzmann) 20th Century Lutheran:
"Since the false teachers of whom Paul speaks were Jews by descent, but Cretans by nationality, St. Paul adds a sentence for their benefit: There said one of them, their own prophet: Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. The apostle here places deceivers and deceived into one category, reminding them of the saying of one of their own poets, Epimenides, of the sixth century before Christ, who was regarded by the Cretans themselves as a prophet. The Cretans as a people are represented as liars, as men who deliberately made use of hypocritical, shady methods."
Those come from the website: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng.html
As to a 'literal translation' toss the NKJV and return to the KJV, ... ERV or ASV or even the YLT. The REB is not a paraphrase but a translation using "Dynamic Equivalence" translation.
I was replying to 2ndTimothyGroup where he seemed to indicate that the Apostle Paul in Romans 7 was speaking of himself prior to conversion, regeneration; but then went to Colossians to indicate after conversion the Christian experiences perfect sanctification. I disagreed with that, if I followed his thought correctly.
To define words in a Bible translation, you must use an English dictionary close to the same time frame as the translation. In the 1828 Webster's English Dictionary, you find the following definition of "moral" -
"1. Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined."
When using a modern translation, liberal ones or conservative ones, the definitions of "moral" are as I quoted from Merriam-Webster. There are a couple more modern English dictionaries where the definitions are:
Macmillan Dict. "moral" 1a
"based on what you believe is right instead of what the law or rules say is right moral obligation/duty"
Cambridge Advanced Learners Dict. "moral" B2
"relating to the standards of good or bad behaviour, fairness, honesty, etc. that each person believes in, rather than to laws"
I believe good morals are decided by God's laws, not an individual's belief, or the standards of popular vote. So, it makes no difference how many times anyone quotes "sexually immoral" out of some translation, it is only a man's opinion and NOT God's law! I repeat with no hesitancy, the translation "sexually immoral" is a ridiculous, meaningless translation.
If the idea of a broad idea of carnal lusts is needed, use "lascivious" which has a broad meaning, rather than substituting "sexual immorality" in place of a traditional word of known and accepted meaning, such as "fornication". Fornication in the 1828 Webster's is defined thus:
"1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman."
That is clearly speaking of the sexual sin between opposite sex partners, male with female because that is the biblical genders in a marriage. Of course, the modern evangelicals and fundamentalists for years have tried to say "fornication" can mean same sex relationships as well as opposite sex sins; but then they bellyache when the lGBTQ crowd pushes for marriage where "fornication" would then fit the situation.
"1. Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined."
When using a modern translation, liberal ones or conservative ones, the definitions of "moral" are as I quoted from Merriam-Webster. There are a couple more modern English dictionaries where the definitions are:
Macmillan Dict. "moral" 1a
"based on what you believe is right instead of what the law or rules say is right moral obligation/duty"
Cambridge Advanced Learners Dict. "moral" B2
"relating to the standards of good or bad behaviour, fairness, honesty, etc. that each person believes in, rather than to laws"
I believe good morals are decided by God's laws, not an individual's belief, or the standards of popular vote. So, it makes no difference how many times anyone quotes "sexually immoral" out of some translation, it is only a man's opinion and NOT God's law! I repeat with no hesitancy, the translation "sexually immoral" is a ridiculous, meaningless translation.
If the idea of a broad idea of carnal lusts is needed, use "lascivious" which has a broad meaning, rather than substituting "sexual immorality" in place of a traditional word of known and accepted meaning, such as "fornication". Fornication in the 1828 Webster's is defined thus:
"1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman."
That is clearly speaking of the sexual sin between opposite sex partners, male with female because that is the biblical genders in a marriage. Of course, the modern evangelicals and fundamentalists for years have tried to say "fornication" can mean same sex relationships as well as opposite sex sins; but then they bellyache when the lGBTQ crowd pushes for marriage where "fornication" would then fit the situation.
The Berean Study Bible seeks to connect readers with the Greek and Hebrew root words and
meanings in an easy-to-read format. The study Bible merges two previous translations, the
Berean Literal Bible and the Berean Interlinear Bible. The Berean Study Bible was created to
offer an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts in a reader-friendly format.
You have not dealt with the Berean Study Bible at all.
meanings in an easy-to-read format. The study Bible merges two previous translations, the
Berean Literal Bible and the Berean Interlinear Bible. The Berean Study Bible was created to
offer an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts in a reader-friendly format.
You have not dealt with the Berean Study Bible at all.
The word fornication is a blanket term for illicit sexual intercourse in all its various forms. Fornication comes from five separate words in the Bible, two from the Hebrew and three from the Greek (zanah, taznuwth, porneia, porneuo, ekporneuo). These words all share similar connotations. They can mean literal fornication such as illicit sexual relations between two unmarried persons; it can also mean a spiritual act of unfaithfulness, and/or adultery, harlotry, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, including any other sexual restriction that God has placed on mankind; to indulge in unlawful lust of either sex is fornication, and that includes homosexuality.
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed
an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither
the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts,
nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
733. arsenokoites
arsenokoites: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity
Original Word: ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: arsenokoites
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace)
Definition: a sodomite
Usage: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast.
HELPS Word-studies
733 arsenokoítēs (from 730 /árrhēn, "a male" and 2845 /koítē, "a mat, bed")
– properly, a man in bed with another man; a homosexual.
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed
an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither
the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts,
nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
733. arsenokoites
Strong's Concordancearsenokoites: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity
Original Word: ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: arsenokoites
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace)
Definition: a sodomite
Usage: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast.
HELPS Word-studies
733 arsenokoítēs (from 730 /árrhēn, "a male" and 2845 /koítē, "a mat, bed")
– properly, a man in bed with another man; a homosexual.
Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
You have surely violated an instruction of Scripture. You have gone
off on your own "private interpretation," a wild tangent from the truth.
@Jon-E
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
You have surely violated an instruction of Scripture. You have gone
off on your own "private interpretation," a wild tangent from the truth.
@Jon-E
You have written silliness, and that definition you give claiming it is "Strong's Concordance" is NOT. You may be quoting some modern perversion calling itself the Strong's Concordance. Strong's reads this way:
"G733
ἀρσενοκοίτης
arsenokoitēs
ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace
From G730 and G2845; a sodomite: - abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.
Total KJV occurrences: 2"
You follow the words of man instead of studying for yourself. The translation you quote from 1 Cor. 6:9 "perform homosexual acts" can apply to "sodomites", "pederasts" or "homosexuals". Those 3 words are NOT synonymous. Tell us all why you think "arsenokoites" means "homosexuals" instead of "sodomites"? You are merely picking a translation that fits your preconceived notions. There are rules for interpretation and I suggest you study up on them. There is a good book on interpretation that has been placed online, and a few axioms and rules from that book: https://icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf
p13 "It is not hoped that any number of axioms and rules of interpretation will compensate the unfortunate interpreter who is lacking in good judgment and sound common sense."
* I'll let the readers decide this point
p25 "AXIOM : By one expression one thought is conveyed, and only one."
*This does away with "that's just your interpretation" and it also stops the nutty idea that in prophecy a statement can have a near and a far meaning.
p26 "AXIOM : The function of a word defends on its association with other words."
* This is pretty clear. Such as "foot" may mean on thing in one spot and a different meaning in another, depending on its association with other words, the immediate context.
p27 "AXIOM : A correct definition of a word substituted for the word itself will not modify the meaning of the text"
* We see the importance of accurate definitions, whether in English or the original language.
p45 "RULE :—A correct text of a passage must be obtained before it is interpreted."
* The only difference in the TR behind the KJV in 1 Co. 6:9 is the order of "kingdom" and "God" as compared to the latest Greek text, the NA28. In the KJV it is "kingdom of God" and in some modern versions you find "God's kingdom", but the Greek malakos and arsenokoites are the same. There is no differences in the TR behind the KJV and the NA28.
p49 "RULE:—If a translation be used, it must be an exact
equivalent of the original, or the difference must be no by
the interpreter."
p105 "RULE:—An interpretation must not be influenced by a
preconceived opinion."
This is the most clear book on hermeneutics I've ever found, even better than Bernard Ramm. As I have said before, if I were queer as a 3 dollar bill, the arguments from using standard and sound hermeneutics would the same.
"G733
ἀρσενοκοίτης
arsenokoitēs
ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace
From G730 and G2845; a sodomite: - abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.
Total KJV occurrences: 2"
You follow the words of man instead of studying for yourself. The translation you quote from 1 Cor. 6:9 "perform homosexual acts" can apply to "sodomites", "pederasts" or "homosexuals". Those 3 words are NOT synonymous. Tell us all why you think "arsenokoites" means "homosexuals" instead of "sodomites"? You are merely picking a translation that fits your preconceived notions. There are rules for interpretation and I suggest you study up on them. There is a good book on interpretation that has been placed online, and a few axioms and rules from that book: https://icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf
p13 "It is not hoped that any number of axioms and rules of interpretation will compensate the unfortunate interpreter who is lacking in good judgment and sound common sense."
* I'll let the readers decide this point
p25 "AXIOM : By one expression one thought is conveyed, and only one."
*This does away with "that's just your interpretation" and it also stops the nutty idea that in prophecy a statement can have a near and a far meaning.
p26 "AXIOM : The function of a word defends on its association with other words."
* This is pretty clear. Such as "foot" may mean on thing in one spot and a different meaning in another, depending on its association with other words, the immediate context.
p27 "AXIOM : A correct definition of a word substituted for the word itself will not modify the meaning of the text"
* We see the importance of accurate definitions, whether in English or the original language.
p45 "RULE :—A correct text of a passage must be obtained before it is interpreted."
* The only difference in the TR behind the KJV in 1 Co. 6:9 is the order of "kingdom" and "God" as compared to the latest Greek text, the NA28. In the KJV it is "kingdom of God" and in some modern versions you find "God's kingdom", but the Greek malakos and arsenokoites are the same. There is no differences in the TR behind the KJV and the NA28.
p49 "RULE:—If a translation be used, it must be an exact
equivalent of the original, or the difference must be no by
the interpreter."
p105 "RULE:—An interpretation must not be influenced by a
preconceived opinion."
This is the most clear book on hermeneutics I've ever found, even better than Bernard Ramm. As I have said before, if I were queer as a 3 dollar bill, the arguments from using standard and sound hermeneutics would the same.
I said the word means sodomites, and that includes homosexuals, despite your claim to my post being silliness. Why do you pretend otherwise? Oh, that is a rhetorical question, though I still wonder why you wish to defend homosexual behavior. Are you gay? Is that why you defend, whitewash, and deny that homosexuality is immoral, sinful behavior according to what the Bible explicitly states? Would you likewise defend a pedophile or persons committing incest? Saying it is not sinful because there is a semblance of a loving relationship involved? As if the human heart were not wicked above all things?
Also, I did not pick a translation based on my preconceived notions. I quote from
the Berean Study Bible because it is accurate and comprehensive. The KJV is quite
familiar to me, but it contains many errors. I am also quite familiar with the NIV,
and sometimes quote either of them. Most other translations I do not care for.
I suspect your real issue is the one involving the Biblical condemnation of homosexual
behavior as being immoral and sinful and against the revealed written Word of God.
And again I ask you why.
Also, I did not pick a translation based on my preconceived notions. I quote from
the Berean Study Bible because it is accurate and comprehensive. The KJV is quite
familiar to me, but it contains many errors. I am also quite familiar with the NIV,
and sometimes quote either of them. Most other translations I do not care for.
I suspect your real issue is the one involving the Biblical condemnation of homosexual
behavior as being immoral and sinful and against the revealed written Word of God.
And again I ask you why.
The men who you have used as your examples, themselves, have ideas about scripture that are widely unrecognized- plenty of people reject Calvin, his infant baptisms and his brand of predestination. I don't hold his ideas about scripture higher than anyone else's; mine or even yours for that matter. Notice how all of these commentaries simply assume it is Epimenides and don't state how they came to that conclusion? Calvin said he had "no doubt" Paul was "undoubtedly" talking about a prophet of the Cretans. Why? What is the source of his certainty and why did he not question this assumption of his? Did he get this from the Holy Ghost- or did his study of classical antiquity give him this bias? When Calvin read Paul, how did he interpret "from such withdrawl thyself", and "from such, turn away", and "reject a divisive man"... how did he interpret that as "Make sure heretics that refute your doctrines get executed by the civil authorities"? He is no more an authority on scripture than the pope is the head of the Church.
-
1
- Show all
I agree with your post. In fact, I USED to know a thing or two of John Calvin, thinking that I was a blend between Calvin and Luther, but once I received Circumcision of the Heart, I cast aside all human doctrine that I'd been taught and began reading the Bible without the aid of commentary. So glad that I did! Why? I have a completely new and whole comprehension of the Word of the Lord. Nowadays, I haven't a clue as to what either Calvin or Luther taught, nor do I give a rats tail end.
Amazed, I found the below Scripture AFTER the Lord began to teach me the Core Doctrine of the Bible:
Jeremiah 31:33-34 RSV - "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Amazed, I found the below Scripture AFTER the Lord began to teach me the Core Doctrine of the Bible:
Jeremiah 31:33-34 RSV - "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
-
1
- Show all
So, you are saying that there are no Jews who are of pureblooded descent from the sons of Israel?
How then will there be 144,000 Jewish people, 12,000 from every tribe, that are spoken of in the book of Revelation?
I am not contending that there are not those of Gentile descent who have received the doctrines of Judaism as being their religion.
I am saying that the term "Jew' has two definite meanings, which may not overlap:
1) those who believe in the doctrines of Judaism
2) those who are descended from Jacob; who are of Jewish descent.
The latter category cannot be infiltrated by those of non-Jewish descent, by definition;
While the former category can include anyone.
The latter category being a race that has been preserved throughout the centuries; otherwise there would be no possibility of Revelation 7:1-8 ever coming to pass.
How then will there be 144,000 Jewish people, 12,000 from every tribe, that are spoken of in the book of Revelation?
I am not contending that there are not those of Gentile descent who have received the doctrines of Judaism as being their religion.
I am saying that the term "Jew' has two definite meanings, which may not overlap:
1) those who believe in the doctrines of Judaism
2) those who are descended from Jacob; who are of Jewish descent.
The latter category cannot be infiltrated by those of non-Jewish descent, by definition;
While the former category can include anyone.
The latter category being a race that has been preserved throughout the centuries; otherwise there would be no possibility of Revelation 7:1-8 ever coming to pass.
There are no pureblooded Jews that exist in the world (barring the possibility of supernatural activity such as immaculate conceptions). Purebloodedness isn't even a Biblical concept. Being a descendant of someone does not mean that you must be a pureblooded descendant. Who fed you this story about purebloodedness?
Revelation 7 talks about 144,000 from the tribes of the children of Israel. 12,000 of those are from the tribe of Judah (Jews). Another passage describes the 144,000 being virgin men that never knew the touch of women. In your view can someone be both a descendant of Judah at the same time as being a descendant of Benjamin?
Also, when Paul mentions that he is from the tribe of Benjamin, does he suddenly no longer count as being from the tribe of Benjamin because he turned to Christ? No. So why then would any of the 144,000 be required to identify as NonChristian Jews in order to qualify to be counted in that number?
No. One can by definition be of Jewish descent at the same time as being of nonJewish descent. They aren't mutually exclusive statuses. Timothy is an example of someone in the NT that very explicitly fits into the category of being both from Jewish and nonJewish ancestry.
We see OT permissibility of proselytes being welcomed into the tribal houses (e.g. Egyptians after the third generation in Deuteronomy). The idea of any Jewish person being "pureblood" makes absolutely no sense and is contrary to established Biblical practices. And we see empirically that Jews and Arabs descend from Canaan. More than that, even Abraham was born from nonJew parents, meaning that every Jew also descends from nonJews/nonIsraelites/nonHebrews.
If humans were asexually reproducing organisms, I might agree with your interpretation. But we aren't asexually reproducing organisms and therefore your premise doesn't make sense.
Revelation 7 talks about 144,000 from the tribes of the children of Israel. 12,000 of those are from the tribe of Judah (Jews). Another passage describes the 144,000 being virgin men that never knew the touch of women. In your view can someone be both a descendant of Judah at the same time as being a descendant of Benjamin?
Also, when Paul mentions that he is from the tribe of Benjamin, does he suddenly no longer count as being from the tribe of Benjamin because he turned to Christ? No. So why then would any of the 144,000 be required to identify as NonChristian Jews in order to qualify to be counted in that number?
No. One can by definition be of Jewish descent at the same time as being of nonJewish descent. They aren't mutually exclusive statuses. Timothy is an example of someone in the NT that very explicitly fits into the category of being both from Jewish and nonJewish ancestry.
We see OT permissibility of proselytes being welcomed into the tribal houses (e.g. Egyptians after the third generation in Deuteronomy). The idea of any Jewish person being "pureblood" makes absolutely no sense and is contrary to established Biblical practices. And we see empirically that Jews and Arabs descend from Canaan. More than that, even Abraham was born from nonJew parents, meaning that every Jew also descends from nonJews/nonIsraelites/nonHebrews.
If humans were asexually reproducing organisms, I might agree with your interpretation. But we aren't asexually reproducing organisms and therefore your premise doesn't make sense.
