Bible Study Cover to Cover

quote:

---

in order not to give offspring to his brother. that means that god punished him because he wouldn't give his brother an heir.

---

If we read the Bible the way we read any other book, the reason for the wasting of the seed would be the reason for God's disappointment.Of course I find the double standards in this story very fascinating. There seems to be no issue with Judah having sex with a temple prostitute (or so he thought) or the fact that even though Tamar was not married to Judah she had no qualms about doing what was necessary to get the child she was due by Hebrew laws. The end seems to justify the means in this case.So God was disappointed because the brother didn't perform his duty, but wasn't disappointed in Judah for not following through with giving her the youngest son or with the temple prostitute issue.The point of the story being to explain the bloodline as opposed to setting down rules.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

In Genesis 12 Abram builds an altar for the first time (Gen. 12:7). The altar signifies Abram is living by faith. He serves God and all he has is for God. Abram is offering to God of what he has.

​

This is at least Abram's desire - to live for God; to live unto God; to offering his life and all that he has for God. Of course Abram will need perfecting by God to live this way. And immediately after offering to God in chapter 12 he is tested by the famine which causes him to go down into Egypt.

​

If anyone can receive it, there is a deeper significance in the altar. The altar of Abram can be compared to the tower of Babel. The tower of Babel was made with bricks which the people burned (Gen. 11:3)

---

I think they actually wanted to study the text and not the added dogma.You're inferring a lot on the text. The altar is a means of praising God and saying thank you, YHWH just gave him land. There's nothing in the text about Abraham's desires, offering his life and all he had for God, etc. The text also doesn't support the idea that the famine was a test. It was just a famine. "Immediately" after the altar ceremony Abraham continued towards Negev. The famine and Egypt are a start of another story. The text doesn't imply that the rain stopped right after the altar ceremony.The rest of your post is a sermon contrived to make a dogmatic religious point out of one line of text that isn't really saying much of anything other than Abraham built an altar.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

You don't see that using one line to imply all that you did is going beyond the text?Famines happen and the text didn't present it as a test.

quote:

---

I am considering the whole big picture of Abram experience and all that is taught about him in the entire Bible.

---

Why not look at the whole story and what the author was saying, instead of making a story out of one line?When we read a story, we don't read the end first. Whatever is written later is irrelevant to what this author wrote in his time.Those two lines don't tell us anything other than he was thankful for the land and then he had to go to Egypt due to a famine.I don't wish to divide and conquer. I want people to read the whole story as the author wrote it or at least the best translation of what the author wrote. What can we learn from the story, not how can we make one line work for us.Abraham is considered the "father" of Judaism.God contacted Abram and said if Abram would leave his home and his family, then God would make him a great nation and bless him. Abram accepted this offer, and established a covenant with God.Now if you want to look at the ten trials of Abraham and discuss whether the text presents a test from God or just difficult times, we can. The Ten Trials of AbrahamThe famine is listed as a test, but the text doesn't really present it as such, nor does Abraham seem distressed by it. Abraham seems to have made out pretty good in Egypt.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

That is arbitrary of you to say that. It is the same book. How are you so sure that all that goes before is concluded and has nothing to do with this new section ?

---

The altar ended that sequence. Now there was a famine in the land. Very nonspecific. As I said it doesn't imply any immediate relation to the altar. We have no idea how much time has passed. The text does not imply that the famine was immediate.

quote:

---

Plus the fact that when Abram has his unfortunate experience in Egypt, where does he go ? He goes BACK to where he was before.

---

What unfortunate experience in Egypt? Abram made out well. He (Pharoh) treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, menservants and maidservants, and camels. Pharoh got the raw end of the deal there. Abram didn't seem distressed that he was back in Negev. So Abram went up from Egypt to the Negev, with his wife and everything he had, and Lot went with him. Abram had become very wealthy in livestock and in silver and gold. How exactly is Abram doing bad, other than he hasn't reached the end destination yet?

quote:

---

You see the place of the first altar is the connection. The place where he first called on the name of the Lord Jehovah. The place between the "heap of ruins" (Ai) and "the house of God" (Bethel).

​

So the stories are indeed connected. They are related. Abram arrives at a place where he fellowships with God. He moves away and descends down into Egypt in doubt and ubnbelief. Yet God is FAITHFUL and brings him out of there with all that he needs. Abram realizes that he needs to go BACK to the beginning. This beginning is where he made his first altar and called on God.

---

And you call me arbitrary?What doubt and unbelief does he suffer in Egypt?I didn't say the stories were unrelated, I said your statement that the famine was immediately following the altar is not supported by the text.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

In the story of Abram, the tent is just a tent. It is the shelter of choice for shepherds on the move. Abram made a choice to forgo worshiping idols to following a living God that contacted him.I don't understand the need to create symbols out of the mundane. Just because we can make everything symbolize something, doesn't mean we should. People can suffer a spiritual crisis when they actually read the text and find that their clergy or teachers have been creating a meaning out of one sentence that has nothing to do with the story. This can cause mistrust in their clergy and by association doubt or mistrust in God.If one loves and trusts God, then there should be no need to make more out of the ancient writings than they really are. They are tales of the past. The storytellers were talking to the people of their time, not trying to blend into some futuristic doctrine of a different religion.If we can't respect the stories in their own right, how can we learn from them?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

There may be no need. But it also does not hurt if the things symbolized are not contrary to plain teaching.

---

Yes it does hurt some people. People should be able trust that their religious leaders and teachers are teaching them what God needs them to know about how he wants his people to behave towards each other. Good to know, though, that you do know you are full of D'rash. Out of curiosity, why present d'rash (sermon) when people are discussing p'shat (plain reading)?
How does that help in a debate since you can pretty much make up what you want?
How does that show people what the words in the Bible really say, when you've admitted that you create alternate meanings or interpretations that may or may not agree with the plain text. That's why we call your posts sermons. I have no problem with sermons, but in a debate it is useless since you can say anything you want in a sermon. D'rash has its place, but not in a debate.

quote:

---

But a picture is worth 1,000 words. Or at leat 873 words or so. So there is no real need to forbid me teaching the Bible with some symbolism.

---

That doesn't mean they are the correct words? People can make up what they want to about a picture.

quote:

---

By Abraham pitching his tent God had a place on the earth to come down and fellowship with man. We should see the connection between Abraham's tent of fellowship with God and the tent tabernacle built by the Israelites in Exodus.

---

You're teaching that God needed a tent to be able to fellowship with man. God didn't even go into the tent, if you talking about Genesis 18.No tent was needed for A&E. No tent was needed for Moses. No tent was needed for Gideon. No tent was needed for Mary or Joseph.What practical application in life are you trying to teach? How does any of what you're presenting help people in their day to day lives to treat each other well or understand what the writers were telling their audience?Edited by purpledawn, : Added thoughts

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I would also add that 'exclusion' (your term) and 'unaware' (my term) are not interchangeable. The definitions have separate meanings and each will provide distinct implications.

​

I do not suggest the Lovebirds were 'excluded' from the Tree of Life before Gen 3:22-24, but rather that they were simply 'unaware' of that Tree until those verses.

---

I grew up with the dogma, and there are still things I've missed. We've assumed or been taught that the Lovebirds knew about the tree of life because the narrator mentioned it. We aren't taught to read the Bible as we do other books. In any other book we don't assume the characters know what the narrator knows.The A&E story doesn't say the Lovebirds were ever told the tree of life was different than any of the other trees as you pointed out in Message 93. They may have unknowingly eaten from the tree of life, but it isn't obvious that they knew that the tree was the only thing that allowed them to live "forever".Fascinating. We learn something new every day.

quote:

---

3) Yeshua HaMashiach, as portrayed in the gospels, continued and culminated the early radical tradition of the Prophets by rejecting the cherished religious dogmas of the time; his disciples must do no less.

---

Some Christians do forget that Jesus was battling the Jewish dogma of the time. Many still miss the spirit of the issue.

quote:

---

6) Nevertheless, Yeshua speaks of the religious right and these timeless verses continue to say it all ...

​

How right Isaiah was when he prophesied concerning you, saying, 'this people pays me lipservice, but their hearts are far from me.

​

They worship me in vain, for they teach as doctrines the commandments of men.'

​

You neglect the commandments of God, in order to maintain your human traditions.

​

How clever you are at setting aside the commandment of God in order to maintain your traditions...

​

In this way by your traditions, handed down among you, you make God's word null and void.

​

And you do many other things just like that.

​

If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.

---

Amen

quote:

---

This is how God's children and the devil's children are distinguished. No person who fails to practice righteousness and to love his brother is from God. (1 John 3:10)

---

Nicely done.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz