Gershom_young

Why do you think these women are forgotten?

The answer is in the word. A woman is a womb-man. A man with the ability to produce life via her womb.

1 hour ago, pinacled said:

I presume you missed the part where the midianites are decendents of avraham. Meaning circumcision is a part of their customs. Not sure who taught you otherwise. But that is what is called inference without evidence. 

So how or why is circumcision "barbaric"?

It's not, or it wouldn't still be done routinely today. Might be a little painful for the child (if anyone even noticed), but this would probably pale in comparison to the pain experienced by the mother during the birth itself.

23 hours ago, JohnD said:

My take on the circumcision of Gershom and Eliezer is that Zipporah was the reason they were not circumcised (perhaps she deemed it barbaric or just not for her boys).

And yet she skillfully performed the circumcision herself with a rock? And remember, if it was about Zipporah, wouldn't it have been both boys who needed circumcising, instead of just one? I'm not sure there is any evidence Zipporah thought circumcision was barbaric, but if she was anything like women today, she would have wanted it done.

And the Lord dealt with the source by threatening to take away her husband in death. And she succumbed / submitted to the will of the Lord and did the deed herself.

IF correct, then Mo was just as henpecked as the rest of us when it comes to our wives putting their foot down. LOL 

I guess this is possible, but her ability to do the circumcision indicates to me there may have been another cause - Moses himself, perhaps? Wasn't Zipporah sent away at a later date - this also is not usually the case with henpecking wives, who like to be about in order to have someone to peck.

On 9/25/2021 at 10:35 PM, Dennis1209 said:

Exodus 4:24 (KJV) And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. 25. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

I've had some lingering questions pertaining to these passages myself? I'm under the assumption, this must have been Moses first born? 

There's a current thread on Worthy, about being stubborn. I think Moses might have been a little stubborn from these passages, smiting the rock, and making excuses of why he cannot do this and that [the Lord appointed Aaron to be Moses mouth piece]. It's interesting that Zipporah saved Moses's life, it appears she must have been disgusted with Moses by the verbiage.

But didn't Zipporah only circumcise one son? My thinking was therefore it was the younger son, possibly because the older was already circumcised.

Zipporah was required to circumcise "on-the-fly", so to speak. She didn't have time to prepare, she didn't have time to change into her "work" clothes, she didn't even have time to get a proper izmel, just grabbing hold of the nearest flint she could find. I would imagine this would have been reason alone for her to be upset, without considering any other issues. This said, does the passage indicate she was disgusted? Some commentaries indicate she didn't agree with circumcision, but I don't really see the proof of that in the passage. And if she was a daughter of Abraham, wouldn't it be more likely that she was disgusted with uncircumcision?

On 9/22/2021 at 6:37 AM, pinacled said:

Abraham had 8 sons. One from hagar, one from sarah, and 6 from keturah [genesis 25] whom he married after the passing of sarah.

One of the sons of keturah was midian whom is later referred to by tribal lineage. Being that midian was an heir of abraham. It should be apparent that he passed the covenant of circumcision to his offspring[genesis 17]. This very tribe is the lineage of yithro(Jethro father of tzipporah, moshe' wife . So it's no strange thing that tzipporah had her sons circumcised.

This is interesting. I didn't realise Midian was an heir of Abraham. I agree about Tzipporah - probably one "strange" thing was that a female did the circumcising, but that might be more about male pride than peculiarity. That said, if Jethro was descended from Abraham, I would think all three (Jethro, Moses and Tzipporah) would have wanted the sons circumcised.

On 7/18/2021 at 2:08 AM, Tammy Roesch said:

I never thought about it before, until today...  We were reading about the life of Moses for Church today....and the verse in the Bible that says, "And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand." Exodus 4:20.  The only other mention I can remember of Moses' children was a couple verses later when we are told that Moses had neglected to perform the rite of circumcision and the Angel of the Lord met him on the road threatening to kill him...and his wife came to his rescue and performed the rite herself on their youngest son.  That is all we know about his children.

So then, we jump years down the road....and we learn that the only people who left Egypt, who walked into Canaan was Caleb and Joshua. All the people over the age of 20 died in the wilderness. I wonder what happened to Moses' sons?  Did they go to Canaan or did they die along the way.  

I'm sure, many of these questions we'll never have answers to until we get to Heaven.  I'm sure looking forward to that!

I had never realised this myself. I've always thought of Zipporah as the type of heroine the woman was created to be, and that her quick action saved not only Moses' life, but preserved her son/s for an inheritance in Israel. However, the conspicuous absence of Moses' sons from the entry into Canaan probably means it wasn't such a happy ending for the family.

Perhaps Moses' wife and her sons went back to Ethiopia, and brought with them the Israelite traditions, to prepare the eunuch for  Philip's explanation of Isaiah in the New Testament? I understand Ethiopia was one of the countries that practiced circumcision historically (I'm not sure about other Jewish laws), so I guess this was probably learned from Israel at some stage.

I read on another site that physical circumcision removed the "foreskin of sin". Is that correct?

17 hours ago, Michael37 said:

I thought this was about moths. Sorry.

Technically speaking, you are correct! :-)

Choose your moths carefully, children. Or you might not be Jewish enough! :0

On 11/23/2020 at 3:18 AM, Jedi4Yahweh said:

I think you mixing terminology of Jew and Israelite.  Not all of Israel are Jews.  The northern 10 tribes if Israel were never considered Jews because they did not follow the teaching and the customs of the Judeans. Much of the northern tribes were rejected by Jews because they intermarried with Assyrians and other gentiles and followed pagan religions and formed their own religion similar to Jews but mixed with paganism.  Northern Israel had their own forbidden temple and worship sites.  They became known as Samaritans and Jews had no association with them.  And just because you lived in Judea and or belong to one of the southern 2 tribes of Israel did not mean you were a Jew either.  It was based on if you lived according to Jewish teachings.  A Jew could be anyone who follows the teachings and customs of the Jews and this could also apply to any tribe of Israel and also foreigners as well.  For example Ruth who was a gentile became known as a Jew because she joined herself to the Kingdom of Judah and their God and is the great grandmother of King David and Jesus.  On the other hand a Hebrew/Israelite is one determined by birth meaning that you were a decedent of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob and could be decided from either the mother or father.  For example their were many patriarchs such as Joseph and Judah that had gentile wives yet their children were also called Israelites.  Being a Jew is mostly related to being a follower of the religion and customs of the Jews/Kingdom of Judah.  Again, not all Israelites belong to the Kingdom of Judah nor followed the teachings of the Jews and therefor not called Jews.  Those who rejected the Jewish teaching were considered Samaritans, Sinners, Heathen or Gentiles even if they belonged to one of the tribes of Israel.

I think the OP was referring to a common tradition today to determine one's "Jewishness" by one's mother. I know in Acts, Paul considered Timothy a Jew because his mother was Jewish. But as the bible says in Romans 2:28-29

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Irrespective of whether one's mother was Jewish, or whether one was ritually circumcised by a certified mohel or mohelet (or whether one is a female).

22 hours ago, Mantis said:

Trump would have to be liked by the masses to be the anti-christ. The world hates him. That should speak volumes about him. The world hated Jesus too. Trump is hard to like by his demeanor and character but if you look at what he has done that is all that matters.

Well said. He is certainly well-liked, even loved, by his supporters. I hope he does win the presidency, considering the alternative and their disgraceful abuse of Christians for the past century. But I'm also cautious in that perhaps, when more is revealed, he will be liked by many more of the masses. Even many of those who currently hate him. I mean, what's not to like about thwarting communists, traitors and criminals?

I guess we will see.

2 minutes ago, blessings from above said:

Clarify kosher and what it means.

1. 1.

   (of food, or premises in which food is sold, cooked, or eaten) satisfying the requirements of Jewish law.

   "a kosher kitchen"

   • (of a person) observing Jewish food laws.
2. 2.

   informal

   genuine and legitimate.

   "she consulted lawyers to make sure everything was kosher"

3 minutes ago, Chicken coop2 said:

No, Trump has nothing to do with The Bible. 

I hope not.

1 minute ago, blessings from above said:

Oh ok I was thinking of the november final votes.

It's hard to tell what is true. Are the November final votes kosher, or do they need to undergo certification to count?

Just now, Chicken coop2 said:

Just hold your horses.  All will be official eventually. 

If Trump won, would you consider it a kind of deadly wound that was healed? Or is it all just a Freemason show, and nothing to do with the bible?

Just now, blessings from above said:

Didn't he win?

I thought the vote wasn't certified yet.

Just now, blessings from above said:

Biden when he officially takes office.

What if he loses, though?

12 minutes ago, blessings from above said:

I believe you thats why our new president is better.

Do you have a new president?

21 hours ago, Starise said:

Maybe this belongs in the " Christmas Is Evil" thread? Just sayin'...........

Oops! Sorry!

2 minutes ago, Starise said:

Wow this train left the rails big time. That's ok. I would rather discuss Christmas chickens than " Christmas is Evil".

 

Yes. It's a funny quirk of life, but there are few topics that generate more interest than Christmas chickens, and of course, the leader of the coop, ol' Rudolph the red-beaked chicken.

15 hours ago, Chicken coop2 said:

Rudolph the red beaked chicken. 

 

Had a very shiny comb?

On 11/14/2020 at 1:25 AM, Ozarkbound said:

It was required in the Old Testament. It started with Abraham.

Circumcision, yes. But I don't think it mattered to anyone whether the mohel was certified, just that the circumcision was done.

On 9/10/2003 at 5:26 AM, Guest shiloh357 said:

 

Not at all. Jewish people are very careful to have their children circumcized by a certifie Mohel. Since this is done in the presence of many withnesses, no one can claim they were circumcized ritually if they were not.

It's a good thing this wasn't required in the Old Testament, or Moses would have been killed. I can imagine the text in Exodus 4 - So Zipporah took a flint knife and circumcised her son, but because Zipporah was a woman and not a certified mohelet, and because there were no witnesses, the circumcision didn't count and Moses died for disobedience.

20 hours ago, Ozarkbound said:

Is it possible that this is speaking of some future time, the Lord's return perhaps? The reason I wonder about this is because Israel still does not obey his voice. They still deny Christ. I pray for the salvation of Israel, but it is still yet to come.

Isn't it we who are Israel, who are the true Jews and have received the true circumcision? We have been grafted into the Vine, which is Christ, our King and Shepherd who rules over us.

I think some of the passage refers to future events (e.g. the resurrection of the dead, which isn't happening much, or at all), but where it talks about Christ and the King and our obedience, I think that is still being fulfilled to this day.

Romans 2:28 - 29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

So the foreskin of the heart makes one stiffnecked (and hard-hearted?) Interesting that even female hearts need heart circumcision, but the physical circumcision was only for males. I don't think it is because males are more stiff-necked, though.