The Truth About Ruth The 'moabite'..grab Your Bibles - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Truth About Ruth The 'moabite'..grab Your Bibles (5255 Views)
Was Ship Load Of BIBLES Really Sunk By Abiola? / The Latest 'threat' To Malaysian Muslims: Solar-powered Talking Bibles / Imagine A Worldwide Ban On Bibles (2) (3) (4)
| The Truth About Ruth The 'moabite'..grab Your Bibles by JesusisLord85: 12:00am On Sep 13, 2014 |
Shabbath Shalom Israel. So I was speaking to a 'christian' the other day and he talked about Ruth in the bible, saying it was amazing how God bent his rules for her. i.e. a Moabite marrying into Israel at that time. So grab your bibles. Today, I am going to prove to you, with scripture, that the Ruth almost all 'christians' refer to as Moabite, was in fact an Israelite dwelling in the plains of Moab. I shall be posting maps in following posts so you can refer to them as you read. You ought to send this to your pastor too. Ruth 1:1 "Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons." So we know this story took place in the time of the judges were set up to govern the tribes. Keep this in mind, write it down, it will be important later. Now I am uploading maps. We shall go into the book of Numbers to see how the land was divided, and who lived where. Now as Israel left Egypt, they had no land, they were wondering in the wilderness. The Israelite shad no land. They are coming out of Egypt. One of the images shows the path Israel took. You will see they went round Edom and did not enter Moab. Verse 13 "13 From thence they removed, and pitched on the other side of Arnon, which is in the wilderness that cometh out of the coasts of the Amorites: for Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites. So Israel camped near Jahaz, near the Arnon river (see maps). From there, they sent messengers to the King of the Amorites. They wanted to pass through his land. Sihon, King of the Ammorites declined and went out to fight against Israel. Let's see what happens. Numbers 21:23-24 " And Sihon would not suffer Israel to pass through his border: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel into the wilderness: and he came to Jahaz, and fought against Israel. 24 And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from Arnon unto Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon: for the border of the children of Ammon was strong. So look at your maps. The land that was being occupied by the Ammorites was taken from them by Israel. Now, what is the history with this particular land. How did the Ammorites get it in the first place? vs 26. For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon.” This shows that Sihon, King of the Ammorites, had fought against a former King of moab, and took away all his land down to the river. So all the land the Ammorites had, used to belong to the Moabites. Effectively, the original land of the the Moabites was almost cut in half, and the Arnon river formed a natural border between Amon and Moab (the piece Sihon did not capture). This is why when you look at certain maps, while you see this land as belonging to the Amorites, you still see within a piece of it called the “Planes of Moab”. Because it used to be Moab’s land. This is important to understand Let's get a bit more history on this: Numbers 21:29 “Woe to thee, Moab! thou art undone, O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon king of the Amorites. So when Sihon captured the upper portion of Moab he put all the women and children into captivity. The Moabites dwelling in the lower portion remained in their land, and not in captivity. They stayed below the Arnon river, and the Arnon river became the border between Moab and the Ammorite territory Numbers 22:1 “And the children of Israel set forward, and pitched in the plains of Moab on this side Jordan by Jericho." Notice, the Plains of Moab are not down where Moab territory is. They are in the land that the Ammorites had conquered as theirs. They are totally separate. This is where Israel set up camp. Balak (King of Moab) saw what Israel did and was worried they would put him in captivity. (vs 22:3), like they did to the Ammorites. When Israel took over the land, what happened to the Moabite captives that the Ammorites had been keeping captive? Deuteronomy 2:32-33. "And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:" They left none to remain. Man woman and child was kiled in every city. So the Ammorites, and the Moabite slaves they held perished together when Israel took the lmd of the Ammorites. So we know there were no Ammorites or Moabites at all above the Arnon river. Which territory did Israel take next? Deuteronomy 3:1-3 shows that they conquered Og, King of Bashan also. They also killed every inhabitant. So after this, they went above jabok river and fought King Og at Edrei. They smote everyone here too. Until none was left. They utterly destroyed the Kingdom of Og also. Man, Woman and child. verse 8: "And we took at that time out of the hand of the two kings of the Amorites the land that was on this side Jordan, from the river of Arnon unto mount Hermon;" So Israel conquered the land of the Ammorites, and the Kingdom of Og. They destroyed every inhabitant. So we know there were no Moabites living in Israel's newly captured territory. (refer to maps to refresh memory) Note that the newly captured lands of Israel, was NOT the land of Canaan - the promised land. That was the land on the opposite side of the Jordan river. Now that we have that history. Let’s see what happened next: In Numbers 32:1-5, you will see that the tribes of Reuben and Gad saw that the land they were in was good for them, as they were blessed with lots of cattle. So they asked Moses in verse 5 “let this land be given unto thy servant…” VErse 19 says “For we will not inherit with them on yonder side Jordan, or forward; because our inheritance is fallen to us on this side Jordan eastward.” In verse 33, you will see Moses grants them this wish. Hence the maps that show Israel in their settled lands will show certain tribes living East of the Jordan River i.e. NOT in the land of Canaan. Now let’s jump ahead to the time of the Judges. After all, the story of Ruth took place in the time of the Judges. Ruth 1:1 “Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons” Now, Ruth took place in the time of the judges. Let's see if we can glean any vital evidence in this land dispute that arose at that time: Judges 11:4 And it came to pass in process of time, that the children of Ammon made war against Israel. Not the Ammorites, whom they had destroyed. But the Ammonites. Refer back to map see where these lived. In Judges 11:1-15 (please open your bible and read it) the Kind of Ammon claims falsely, Israel took his land in times past. vs 15 “And said unto him, Thus saith Jephthah, Israel took not away the land of Moab, nor the land of the children of Ammon”. By Moab, they mean the piece of land south of the Arnon river, where the Moabites that were not conquered dwelt. They did not touch that land on their way fro Egypt. The Lord told them: Deut 2:9 "9 And the Lord said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession." Jephthah gives us a vital piece of information: Verse 26 “While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover them within that time?" Jephthah showed us Israel had been in that land for 300 years - the land they took from the Ammorites. So we know Ruben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh was still living in that land 300 years after Moses gave it to them. This is VERY important to keep in mind. The other tribes crossed the river and moved into their land. (Please see image showing Israel in their settled land, by tribe) We now have the historical background. Armed with that, I will now prove that Ruth was in fact an Israelite. Ruth 1:1-2 :Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. 2. And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there. So almost all churches teach that Ehimelech left the land of Judah and went to sojourn in the land of Moab i.e. the land south of the Arnon River. The scripture says the “country of Moab”. There is a reason the scripture says the “country of Moab”, and not “land of Moab”. The Country of Moab is not talking about the land in which the Moabites lived, south of the Arnon river. But rather, it is talking about the Plains of Moab north of the Arnon, and on the coast of the Dead see (see maps again). The land given to the tribe of Reuben. Even though this land was given to Reuben, the bible still calls this particular area “The Plains of Moab”. Numbers 33:50 “And the Lord spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying, Numbers 36:13 “These are the commandments and the judgments, which the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses unto the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho.” So this part of the land was still being so-called even after Israel took over the land. So which one is it Ruth is from? The plains of Moab (within the land given to Ruben), or the land of the Moabites, south of the Arnon river? Precepts brethren.. Numbers 21:17-20 17 Then Israel sang this song, Spring up, O well; sing ye unto it: 18 The princes digged the well, the nobles of the people digged it, by the direction of the lawgiver, with their staves. And from the wilderness they went to Mattanah: 19 And from Mattanah to Nahaliel: and from Nahaliel to Bamoth: 20 And from Bamoth in the valley, that is in the country of Moab, to the top of Pisgah, which looketh toward Jeshimon. Verse 20 is a giveaway. According to this verse, Bamoth is in the Country of Moab, where Ruth came from. A cursory glance at the maps provided will reveal to you that Bamoth is indeed in the plains of Moab, in the territory given to the tribe of Reuben. No Moabite descendants dwelled here. So now we know the Plains of Moab is the same thing as the country of Moab. Numbers 21:20 tells us Bamoth is in the country of Moab. And since we know Ruth is from the country of Moab, this proves Ehilelech and Naomi went to the Plains of Moab, and NOT the land of the moabites. Let's seek to find out where does the confusion comes from? {break}
|
| Re: The Truth About Ruth The 'moabite'..grab Your Bibles by JesusisLord85: 12:00am On Sep 13, 2014 |
{continued} As you see in the maps. At one time the land north and south of the Arnon river belong to the Moabites. The northern portion was taken by the Ammorites in battle, but the Moabites held unto the land south of the border, such that the river became their border with the Ammorites. Israel then took over this Northern portion of the land that used to belong to Moab. However, despite the land now belonging to one of the tribes of Israel, the bible still refers to it as the land of Moab: Deuteronomy 34:5 “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord.” It says this because the land used to belong to Moab. But let’s see what verse 8 says: “And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.” So the Israelites mourned for Moses in the Plains of Moab. Though it says Moses died in the land of Moab. This is because the plains of Moab is the ‘country’ part of the land. Just like people who live in an urban area say they are going to the country i.e. countryside/rural area. That is what is going on here. What does country mean in this instance? One of the definitions is “cultivated field” or “plain” as opposed to mountain. So this is where Ruth was from. Contrary to what modern-day Christians teach and hear in church, Ruth was an Israelite from the tribe of Reuben. Ok. So now I imagine many of you at your computers with your hands up.So let’s deal with the verses the naysayers will point to: 1. If Ruth was an Israelite, why does the bible call her, and her sister Women of Moab? Ruth 1:3 “And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons.4 And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years." Ok, so they took wives of the 'women of Moab'. The phrase 'Women of Moab' is only used once in the entire bible. In the other cases, when the bible is dealing with Moabite women, it refers to them as ‘Daughters of Moab”. A daughter of Moab, according to scripture can be found in Isaiah 16:2: Isaiah 16:2 “For it shall be, that, as a wandering bird cast out of the nest, so the daughters of Moab shall be at the fords of Arnon.” The blue letter bible gives us the Stong's reference so we can see the Hebrew. In this instance the phrase refers to Strongs number 4124. The Hebrew is Mow’ab. And the meaning given is “of his father” (i.e the Actual guy who’s name is Moab, son of Lot) or “a son of Lot by his eldest daughter” or “the nation descended from the son of Lot” So the female descendants would be the Daughters of Moab. Simple. Now, lets see what the original says about 'Women of Moab'. This is Strong's number 4125. This is not only a different number, but it also has a different meaning. The reference in this verse has Hebrew Mow’abiy and it means: "A citizen of Moab" "An inhabitant of the land of Moab" This says NOTHING at all about being a descendant. In this instance, if you happen to be living in a particular place, you were known as a ‘Woman of x”, irrespective of where you descend from. 2. Ruth cant be an Israelite because she referred to Naomi being a "different people" than she was? Ruth 1:8 "And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mother's house: the Lord deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me. 9 The Lord grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept. 10 And they said unto her, Surely we will return with thee unto thy people. Well. Here is the answer: verse 7 “Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah.” So Naomi was going back to the land of Judah. Same place her husband came from (see verse 1 again).All Ruth was saying is let me return with you to your own tribe. Naomi told them to return to their mothers houses, in the land of Reuben, while Naomi would go back to the land of Judah. 3. Ruth Must be a Moabite because she has a different god 15 And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law. 16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: “Got you”! Some are thinking. But, nope. We have the background, something must be going on in this conversation between Ruth and Naomi. So let’s prove that this is not talking about idols or other gods. I’ll first give a clue: Ruth 1:1 “Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land.” The story took place when the judges were ruling. Which god did ruth’s sister in law go back to? The word "God" in blue letter bible, in this instance, has Strong’s reference H430, pronounced ‘elohiym’. The meanings are: a.rulers, judges The scripture means she went back unto her judges. Judges over her tribe. There were different judges over different tribes Deut 16:18 “Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment.” Now “thy God, my God” confused people. People think this pertains to the Most High. Let precept show this is not the case: Ruth is simply talking about her the Judges. In response to Naomi telling her to go to her land, to her judges. Ruth is telling Naomi, she will return with her. She will leave the land of Reuben, and those judges, and go to the land of Judah, and be under those judges, as we read in Deuteronomy 16:18. The judges were men considered wise among their tribes, and they were very powerful. Let’s see what Exodus 22:28 called them: Exodus 22:28 “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.” Obviously, this verse is not talking about idols. The Most High is telling Israel not to speak against the judges. Hence ‘nor curse the ruler of thy people’. So now, let’s focus on ‘thy people shall be my people” For those with KJV bibles, you will notice “shall be” is in italics. Italics in a KJV means the word was not there in the hebrew writings, but the translators entered it so it reads better. The men who translated the bible into English inserted ‘shall be’. This is not necessarily an attempt to deceive. After all, they put it in italics. (google italicises words in the king james bible, to understand this fact).But anyway, it would otherwise read: “And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people, my people, and thy God my God” In other words, your people are my people. Final argument. Why did Ruth say she is a “stranger”? The word stranger is used in the bible to refer to one of another nation. It is also used to refer to one of another tribe. And, of course, as we commonly use it today, it can mean someone you hardly know. With regards to one of a different tribe, here is a precept: Numbers 16:40 “To be a memorial unto the children of Israel, that no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the Lord; that he be not as Korah, and as his company: as the Lord said to him by the hand of Moses.” So, here, only a Levite, of Aarons line, may offer incense before the Lord. Nobody else (stranger) is permitted. Clearly, the other tribes are counted as ‘strangers’ to the Levites given they are not the sons of Aaron. They are of a different tribe. There are several examples of this in the book of Numbers. Go check. Let’s move on. Let’s examine the context: Ruth 2:10 Then she fell on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, and said unto him, Why have I found grace in thine eyes, that thou shouldest take knowledge of me, seeing I am a stranger?” Now what happened before this. If ye will read, you will see Boaz is being particularly nice, and protective of Ruth (see verses 8-9). She could be saying “why do you take knowledge of me, given you don't know me”. Or she could be saying “why do you take knowledge of me, seeing I am of a different tribe”. It is the former. Why? Let’s see how Boaz responds: Verse 11 “And Boaz answered and said unto her, It hath fully been shewed me, all that thou hast done unto thy mother in law since the death of thine husband: and how thou hast left thy father and thy mother, and the land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people which thou knewest not heretofore.” So Boaz is saying, he has been told of her, and her good works. (see verses 5&6, Boaz’s servants gave him the detail of Ruth). 'Land of nativity' means the land Ruth was born in. We have already proved that the land Ruth was born in, the country of Moab, was the land of the Tribe of Reuben. This land was also known as the plains of Moab. And when Boaz says “a people which thou knewest not heretofore”, he is saying just that. She doesn’t know those people of Judah. The tribes were settled in the land of their respective inheritance by this time, and had been for a long time.. To think one in Moab would know all the people in all the other tribes is unrealistic. One final point. Dost thou know what the law saith regarding the Kinsman? Numbers 27:8-11 8 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. 9 And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. 10 And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. 11 And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the Lord commanded Moses. This is what happened. Ruth knew Boaz was a near Kinsman and wanted him to marry her, to fulfil the law. But what did Boaz say unto her? Ruth 3:12 “And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.” This is why Boaz hesitated to take Ruth as his wife. He wanted to be careful to keep the law of the Kinsman. Someone had rights to her, ahead of him. The law it says it should be the nearest relative. Because the other guy did not fulfil his duties, Boaz was able to. See verse 13: Ruth 3:13 “Tarry this night, and it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform unto thee the part of a kinsman, well; let him do the kinsman's part: but if he will not do the part of a kinsman to thee, then will I do the part of a kinsman to thee, as the Lord liveth: lie down until the morning.” So question. If Boaz was this careful to observe the law of the kinsman, why would he be so careless as to ignore the law regarding the Moabites, and marry one, if Ruth is a Moabite by blood? What does the law say about the descendants of Moab? Deuteronomy 23:3 “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:” So those of you who think Ruth is a Moabite, given all I have written, and given Boaz was keeping the law, do you not think it strange he would go and marry of the people which the Most High said should not come unto his people? Ye men of Israel (Yoruba, Igbo, Ewe, Ashanti, Efik et al)… This is why you should put down your epistles, and read the scriptures and gain understanding. 99.9% of christians will tell you Ruth is a Moabite by blood. When all you have been told is to read the new testament and psalms, how would you know what is in the law and the prophets. May Israel awaken and know the truth. Psalms 119:104 “Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way” Shalom 1 Like |
| Re: The Truth About Ruth The 'moabite'..grab Your Bibles by JesusisLord85: 11:24am On Sep 13, 2014 |
FYI.. The images in OP: Image 1: This shows the path the Israelites took from Egypt to Jahaz, before they took the land of the Ammorites Image 2: This shows the land the Moabites once held. From the Zareed river up to the Jabbok River. The top half was taken by the Ammorites at some time..even before Israel got to the area Image 3: This is a closer view of the land the Ammorites held (which they took from Moab). Moab was able to hold onto the southern portion of their original land. Notice the Plains of Moab in Ammorite territory Image 4: This shows the land of the Ammorites was given to the tribe of Reuben. You will notice here, the Plains of Moab, and the town Bamoth. Where Ruth is from. I am posting below, an image showing where all twelve tribes eventually settled. Shalom
|
| Re: The Truth About Ruth The 'moabite'..grab Your Bibles by Yinkatolu: 7:23pm On Sep 13, 2014 |
So then y did bible refer to Ruth and Orpah as Moabite in Ruth 1:3. was there a mix up somewhere? |
| Re: The Truth About Ruth The 'moabite'..grab Your Bibles by mkpakanaodogwu(m): 8:03pm On Sep 13, 2014 |
Following |
| Re: The Truth About Ruth The 'moabite'..grab Your Bibles by JesusisLord85: 12:40am On Sep 14, 2014 |
Yinkatolu: So then y did bible refer to Ruth and Orpah as Moabite in Ruth 1:3. was there a mix up somewhere? Hey, this is the first question I addressed. Please see halfway down the second part of my post. I am using my phone so can't quote the portion for you. Shalom |
| Re: The Truth About Ruth The 'moabite'..grab Your Bibles by BabaGnoni: 4:03am On Sep 14, 2014 |
Yinkatolu: So then y did bible refer to Ruth and Orpah as Moabite in Ruth 1:3. was there a mix up somewhere? mkpakanaodogwu: Following @JesusisLord85 Good work bro on your critical explanation and especially the proper and exact interpretation of the Ruth text (i.e. Ruth 1:16) 16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: MY SUBMISSION ON F4: THE DEIFICATION OF MAN https://www.nairaland.com/1790500/word-faith-movements-doctrine-proponents/4#24553236 ...We'll put them under the microscope, and zoom on to "gods" "gods" in Psalms 82.6 is elohim in the Hebrew text whilst "gods" in John 10:34 is theoi in Greek text We've noticed that elohim is translated to "gods". This is OK, because apart from using Elohim for God, elohim (i.e. elohim with small "e'') actually is also used for judges (i.e. Psalms 82:1-4 shows this, and *Exodus 21:6, *Exodus 22:8-9 and Exodus 22:28 too translates elohim as judges) or for other people who hold positions of authority and rule (e.g. for Moses in Exodus 7:1, Exodus 4:16 or others mentioned in the Book of Judges) It is becoming evident that "...gods..." in the Psalms 82.6 is not calling Christians, God with a small "g" (i.e. as be in the same league as God but with a small "g'') The verse has nothing to do whatsoever with Christians at all, at all Christians have no business attaching with the verse as it is about judges, judges given authority to perform martial and judicial duties So how come WoF openly and unashamedly teach this doctrine, the way they teach it (i.e. wilfully misinterpret Psalms 82:6) Why? What for? What's the gain? It is because of greed, that is why... MY SUBMISSION ON F4: THE DEIFICATION OF MAN https://www.nairaland.com/1790500/word-faith-movements-doctrine-proponents/4#24553236 1 Like |
| Re: The Truth About Ruth The 'moabite'..grab Your Bibles by JesusisLord85: 10:21am On Sep 14, 2014 |
Will soon follow up with a topic about Rahab |
| Re: The Truth About Ruth The 'moabite'..grab Your Bibles by MoyoGENERAL: 12:54pm On Sep 14, 2014 |
bro..................... I enjoy your historical correlations to drive home your points!!!!! I am a lil bit unclear about the place where she said.." your God my God" if she was referring to " the judges" as stated by you, then why didn't the bible quote it as "your god my god"...and again I would have love if you can " state the exact period this Ruth incidence happened so that we can correlate it with what was happening in Israel at that time" so that we will know may be they had a judge then, or may be not, or may be they had a faltering judge (who we obviously cannot ascribe the title "God" to.)..... God bless |
| Re: The Truth About Ruth The 'moabite'..grab Your Bibles by JesusisLord85: 6:46pm On Sep 14, 2014 |
MoyoGENERAL: bro..................... Hey, the word god can be used to mean judge. Remember the OT is written in Hebrew. So when this was spoken back then, to them, it would be as if the person said "your judge, my judge", though the word itself has several slightly different meanings. It is not the same as God. For example Exodus 22:28 “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.” In other words, respect your leaders. So you see, gods does not necessarily mean idols. One of the definitions is 'ruler', and in this context, would be the correct one. With regard to the time in history, we do not know exactly when. But we know two key things: 1. This was at the time when Israel has taken the promised land (hundreds of years later). 2. As scripture says it was during the time when the judges ruled. Now, there was not just one judge over a tribe. There were judges, plural. The judges ruled, then later, the people asked for a King. Saul was the first King (see 1 Samuel) Shalom |
| Re: The Truth About Ruth The 'moabite'..grab Your Bibles by ArchyPita(m): 3:26am On Aug 07, 2016 |
JesusisLord85: |
(1) (Reply)
Question My 11years Daughter Asked Me / ”my Son Saddens Me”—septuagenarian Father Of Gay Pastor / How The Devil Successfully Made Homosexualism Sane.
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 120 |