Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
fullywired

Exodus 4:24-26

50 posts in this topic

I found this passage rather puzzling

"And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the LORD met him and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses' feet, and said, "Surely you are a husband of blood to me!" So He let him go. Then she said, "You are a husband of blood!" -because of the circumcision" (Exodus 4:24-26).

Now I understand that Zipporah was Moses's wife but why did the lord want to kill Moses ? and what was the significance of the circumcision it all seems a little vague to me

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i expect it's probably some legend that got hopelessly tangled in the telling and re-telling and re-telling. Genesis & Exodus are full of these incomprehensible little episodes that have kept the industry of biblical study going for thousands of years.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this passage rather puzzling

"And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the LORD met him and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses' feet, and said, "Surely you are a husband of blood to me!" So He let him go. Then she said, "You are a husband of blood!" -because of the circumcision" (Exodus 4:24-26).

Now I understand that Zipporah was Moses's wife but why did the lord want to kill Moses ? and what was the significance of the circumcision it all seems a little vague to me

fullywired

I double checked that chapter to see if anything else might be pertinent to it, the only thing I can come up with is that god is bat **** crazy and just likes to kill people.

21The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’ ”

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this passage rather puzzling

"And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the LORD met him and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses' feet, and said, "Surely you are a husband of blood to me!" So He let him go. Then she said, "You are a husband of blood!" -because of the circumcision" (Exodus 4:24-26).

Now I understand that Zipporah was Moses's wife but why did the lord want to kill Moses ? and what was the significance of the circumcision it all seems a little vague to me

fullywired

The explanation is probably that there is another document that provides the rest of the story, but it is long since lost. I vaguely recall a midrash story that provides an explanation, but my memory is pretty foggy. Anyway, try finding it in the midrash stories.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- post removed -

do you have any opinions of your own, or do you just wish to repeat me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I double checked that chapter to see if anything else might be pertinent to it, the only thing I can come up with is that god is bat **** crazy and just likes to kill people.

21The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’ ”

Actually I heard an interesting explanation for this one once. Apparently God wanted to make sure his message was cemented, making sure the Egyptians knew that their gods were useless, as well as letting other nations know not to mess with the Israelites.

My best guess is after this he put on a black resperator helmet and snuck q horse head ounder some guys sheets.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you have any opinions of your own, or do you just wish to repeat me?

Yeah, I've noticed he's done this several times.... do any of us warrant stalkers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I heard an interesting explanation for this one once. Apparently God wanted to make sure his message was cemented, making sure the Egyptians knew that their gods were useless, as well as letting other nations know not to mess with the Israelites.

My best guess is after this he put on a black resperator helmet and snuck q horse head ounder some guys sheets.

sounds very much like the basis for US foreign policy ...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds very much like the basis for US foreign policy ...

Zing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i find the old testament quoters kinda silly. at bare minimum the text has gone through like, three languages, at most a bit more than that. when you translate between languages you find that preserving exact sentiments is... pretty much impossible. filter though more than one such translation and holy chrome, who KNOWS what the original text actually meant!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've noticed he's done this several times.... do any of us warrant stalkers?

It was a spam bot, each post had a surreptitious placement of a 1x1 pixel image that links to another site.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another thing to consider about biblical stuff.. there are SO MANY versions existing today... what translation do you consider valid? why? i was raised (in the distant past) on the NIV (New International Version)... why is this more correct than the KJ (King James) version? They don't exactly say the same thing given their differing language. Surely divinely inspired transcript must perfectly retain its meaning, yeah? So, which is that perfect meaning? And, as always... why, why, WHY!?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a little more searching and found this ,which is to long to post in it's entirety .it is a possible explanation .which acknowledges that it is the most difficult passage to understand ,.it is a PDF file

Allen-Ex4-Bloody-BSac.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I double checked that chapter to see if anything else might be pertinent to it, the only thing I can come up with is that god is bat **** crazy and just likes to kill people.

The other thing: God really really digs circumcised penises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i find the old testament quoters kinda silly. at bare minimum the text has gone through like, three languages, at most a bit more than that. when you translate between languages you find that preserving exact sentiments is... pretty much impossible. filter though more than one such translation and holy chrome, who KNOWS what the original text actually meant!

That's why it uses simple words and phrasing which easily and precisely translate into any language.

If someone intended to preserve the meaning, they would have been extremely careful not to mistakenly claim God had murderous intent if that weren't what the text said, however that's is indeed what the text says. It's no big deal. God regularly flies off the handle over little things in this part of the Bible so it's hardly an odd case of God threatening to kill someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why it uses simple words and phrasing which easily and precisely translate into any language.

What Old Testament word means "midge"? The critter that tormented the Egyptians before the Exodus matches the description of a "midge," a small fly-like critter that lives in the Nile delta. But the OT writers didn't have a word for "midge" so they used "lice" and "fleas." So the English language translation is not exactly accurate or precise.

KJV specifies that one of the rivers of Eden flows out of "Ethiopia." In order to do that, it would have to flow across the Isthmus of Suez between the Med and the Red Sea. There aren't even any paleo-channels there. So how did that little gem originate? There were several small kingdoms, collectively named "Cush" along the Nile to the south of Egypt - near Ethiopia. In languages still spoken in Iraq, "Kush" means "mountain," as in the "Hindu Kush." The translators saw the word "Kush" and mistook it for "Cush."

So while the OT may be written in "simple words and phrases," it's still more than the KJV translators could handle. These little mistakes are mostly entertaining, but the word for "young woman" got translated as "virgin" and became part of church dogma - the "virgin birth" was a translation mistake!

These weren't deliberate attempts to deceive. They were just mistakes. But over time, folks who didn't know even that much took the translations as literally true and compounded the error.

If someone intended to preserve the meaning, they would have been extremely careful not to mistakenly claim God had murderous intent if that weren't what the text said, however that's is indeed what the text says. It's no big deal. God regularly flies off the handle over little things in this part of the Bible so it's hardly an odd case of God threatening to kill someone.

The OT god probably wasn't Jehovah, at least not originally. The descriptions of an angry murderous god are consistent with that of Baal. That's the dominant god of the OT - Marcion's evil creator-god that Jesus came to replace.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Old Testament word means "midge"? The critter that tormented the Egyptians before the Exodus matches the description of a "midge," a small fly-like critter that lives in the Nile delta. But the OT writers didn't have a word for "midge" so they used "lice" and "fleas." So the English language translation is not exactly accurate or precise.

KJV specifies that one of the rivers of Eden flows out of "Ethiopia." In order to do that, it would have to flow across the Isthmus of Suez between the Med and the Red Sea. There aren't even any paleo-channels there. So how did that little gem originate? There were several small kingdoms, collectively named "Cush" along the Nile to the south of Egypt - near Ethiopia. In languages still spoken in Iraq, "Kush" means "mountain," as in the "Hindu Kush." The translators saw the word "Kush" and mistook it for "Cush."

So while the OT may be written in "simple words and phrases," it's still more than the KJV translators could handle. These little mistakes are mostly entertaining, but the word for "young woman" got translated as "virgin" and became part of church dogma - the "virgin birth" was a translation mistake!

These weren't deliberate attempts to deceive. They were just mistakes. But over time, folks who didn't know even that much took the translations as literally true and compounded the error.

The OT god probably wasn't Jehovah, at least not originally. The descriptions of an angry murderous god are consistent with that of Baal. That's the dominant god of the OT - Marcion's evil creator-god that Jesus came to replace.

Doug

I think there are some people who just want to argue that God is a psychopath, so they can hate him. Which seems curious to me, since these same people are usually very keen to point out that God is a fictional character that doesn't exist. They can't have it both ways, you might think, but they still seem to want very strongly to hate this character that supposedly doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are some people who just want to argue that God is a psychopath, so they can hate him. Which seems curious to me, since these same people are usually very keen to point out that God is a fictional character that doesn't exist. They can't have it both ways, you might think, but they still seem to want very strongly to hate this character that supposedly doesn't exist.

How about the god of the bible as being nothing more than a human being who is a psychopath that decided to play god and screwed the world over because of his own selfish desire? Who has no more power than some petty black magic at his disposal.

There has been many psychopaths throughout time who have thought they were god.

Edited by Mystic Crusader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another thing to consider about biblical stuff.. there are SO MANY versions existing today... what translation do you consider valid? why? i was raised (in the distant past) on the NIV (New International Version)... why is this more correct than the KJ (King James) version? They don't exactly say the same thing given their differing language. Surely divinely inspired transcript must perfectly retain its meaning, yeah? So, which is that perfect meaning? And, as always... why, why, WHY!?

Good point. In my youth I went to a fundamentalist church and the preacher there considered anything but the KJV the work of Satan
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost sounds like Moses`s wife may have had a son by the pharaoh. because the frist state ment said I the lord will kill your son, even your frist born

And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, [even] thy firstborn.

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=4&v=24&t=KJV#24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are some people who just want to argue that God is a psychopath, so they can hate him. Which seems curious to me, since these same people are usually very keen to point out that God is a fictional character that doesn't exist. They can't have it both ways, you might think, but they still seem to want very strongly to hate this character that supposedly doesn't exist.

Whether god exists, or whether god is a psychopath, are theological issues that are not amenable to reason. I'll have to stick to history, as theology is unknowable.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Old Testament word means "midge"? The critter that tormented the Egyptians before the Exodus matches the description of a "midge," a small fly-like critter that lives in the Nile delta. But the OT writers didn't have a word for "midge" so they used "lice" and "fleas." So the English language translation is not exactly accurate or precise.

And that changes the message how exactly?

KJV specifies that one of the rivers of Eden flows out of "Ethiopia." In order to do that, it would have to flow across the Isthmus of Suez between the Med and the Red Sea. There aren't even any paleo-channels there. So how did that little gem originate? There were several small kingdoms, collectively named "Cush" along the Nile to the south of Egypt - near Ethiopia. In languages still spoken in Iraq, "Kush" means "mountain," as in the "Hindu Kush." The translators saw the word "Kush" and mistook it for "Cush."

And that changes the message how exactly?

So while the OT may be written in "simple words and phrases," it's still more than the KJV translators could handle. These little mistakes are mostly entertaining, but the word for "young woman" got translated as "virgin" and became part of church dogma - the "virgin birth" was a translation mistake!

All these are well known.

Note that these little mistakes do not change the meaning significantly. If the murderous God of the Old Testament wasn't murderous, the entire thing would have to be rewritten.

The OT god probably wasn't Jehovah, at least not originally. The descriptions of an angry murderous god are consistent with that of Baal.

Except that Baal is mentioned several times as a false god and there isn't a single word of when Baal was replaced by Jehovah or why. This is the most unsupportable theory I've heard so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are some people who just want to argue that God is a psychopath, so they can hate him.

Why would anyone want to hate God for no reason?

Which seems curious to me, since these same people are usually very keen to point out that God is a fictional character that doesn't exist. They can't have it both ways, you might think, but they still seem to want very strongly to hate this character that supposedly doesn't exist.

You're confusing two statements. The first is that God is a fictional character that some people believe existed and still exists. You can hate fictional characters.

The second is that the common belief that God, fictional or not, describes pure good, pure love, pure forgiveness and so on when the Bible clearly shows that God was, at least at first, a very disturbing character who killed without mercy, who enjoyed watching humans brutalize each other, and treated the humans he created in ways any modern person would find deplorable.

The best solution is to say that God is a fictional character from a less civilized time and shouldn't be a model for modern human behavior. For example, just because in the Bible God commanded the Israelites to commit genocide doesn't mean that geocide can be justified now.

So yes it's possible to discuss God as both a fictional character and a possible thing that exists.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are some people who just want to argue that God is a psychopath, so they can hate him. Which seems curious to me, since these same people are usually very keen to point out that God is a fictional character that doesn't exist. They can't have it both ways, you might think, but they still seem to want very strongly to hate this character that supposedly doesn't exist.

I hate the Joker, from Batman. He's a terrible, evil character hat does terrible things. I like Spiderman, especially early stories of him as a teenager.

In Lord of the Rings Frodo is a sort of whiny twit, much prefer Sam overall.

Or, when reading mythologies there are gods and goddesses I like, I dislike, or sound like they'd be good to have at a party.

They are still fictional, but I can hate fictional characters.

The real problem is the people who claim that God is the source or morality, or something similar and then worship a god that kills kids, or says it's ok to sell them into slavery, or that it's ok to pillage a town and kill all but the little girls, which you can keep for yourself.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that changes the message how exactly?

Because there was no Hebrew word for "midge" the exact story could not be told, let alone translated into English. Your statement that the OT could be "easily and precisely" translated into English is thus shown to be inaccurate. One must be familiar with the culture, geography and biology before an accurate translation is possible. And that takes a lot of time and effort.

And that changes the message how exactly?

"Ethiopia," in this case, is a translation mistake. The KJV translators could not "easily and precisely" translate the story.

All these are well known.

When a translation error becomes part of the myth and ultimately, dogma, as happened with the "virgin birth," that is a major change in the meaning of the texts.

Note that these little mistakes do not change the meaning significantly. If the murderous God of the Old Testament wasn't murderous, the entire thing would have to be rewritten.

According to Christian tradition, Marcion the Heretic tried to do exactly that.

But nobody's arguing that the OT god wasn't murderous. But even that is subject to mythical input. At Gebel Ghorabi - "Mount Horeb" - which is part of the same massif as Gebel Saniya - "Mount Sinai", are a large number of graves of Egyptian miners who died there during the three centuries or so that the Egyptians worked the mines. As "Mount Sinai" was the place where the "golden calf" story happened, desert nomads put two-and-two together and got the story of god ordering Moses to kill 3000 people in retribution for the Golden Calf. The story is a myth, but one rooted in the reality of the graves. So maybe, the OT god wasn't quite as blood-thirsty as he was made out to be.

Except that Baal is mentioned several times as a false god and there isn't a single word of when Baal was replaced by Jehovah or why. This is the most unsupportable theory I've heard so far.

The story of the OT is Jehovah's triumph over Baal.

Baal was gradually replaced by Jehovah. Count the references to Baal and Jehovah book-by-book and array the proportions on a time line. You can see it happening. There are 34 references to Baal in the Pentateuch and only three to Jehovah. By Second Kings, the transition is pretty much complete.

Look at the story of the Red Sea crossing: the "east" wind blew from Baalzephon (Gebel Seipha) to the crossing site. Baal is given credit for the miracle, not Jehovah.

Remember Baalam? He owned the talking donkey. Baalam was a priest of Baal. The OT refers to his god as "Lord" and "the Almighty."

I am not the first to propose that the OT is in large part about Baal. If you have never heard that, then you need to do some Bible study.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.