tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post962609349471658003..comments2023-10-20T06:41:31.943-07:00Comments on Visits to Candyland: How To Study the BibleElena LaVictoirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-54765187407484328432010-05-18T11:27:17.605-07:002010-05-18T11:27:17.605-07:00I only agreed with the portion of Henry's comm...I only agreed with the portion of Henry's commentary that I posted. If there were two witnesses for her adultery, then I suppose she deserved to be stoned under the Law. But I don't think anyone deserves death by gang rape.Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120027058653022897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-6449880834620393552010-05-18T11:12:35.732-07:002010-05-18T11:12:35.732-07:00It never crossed my mind that the concubine was ge...<b>It never crossed my mind that the concubine was getting what she deserved. </b><br /><br />Yeah.<br /><br /><b>Who is Matthew Henry who was quoted here? </b><br /><br />Matthew Henry was a venerable English commentator on the Bible from the 17th and 18th century. He was also a Presbyterian minister. I think those two aspects contribute to his commentary still being "in print," as this is America's heritage. <br /><br />His commentaries also appear to have received the endorsement of other, perhaps more influential, clergy: Amazon quotes one such endorsement made by Spurgeon, e.g.Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-23161519859562527842010-05-18T05:53:17.201-07:002010-05-18T05:53:17.201-07:00Thank you for the link to the commentary. I will ...Thank you for the link to the commentary. I will definitely study this further and go back to read Judges.<br /><br />Who is Matthew Henry who was quoted here?Mrs. Cotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15978458558662816811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-80272591104155972852010-05-18T05:37:14.942-07:002010-05-18T05:37:14.942-07:00Matthew Henry also wrote,
In the miserable end of...Matthew Henry also wrote,<br /><br /><i>In the miserable end of this woman, we may see the righteous hand of God punishing her for her former uncleanness, when she played the whore against her husband, v. 2. Though her father had countenanced her, her husband had forgiven her, and the fault was forgotten now that the quarrel was made up, yet God remembered it against her when he suffered these wicked men thus wretchedly to abuse her; how unrighteous soever they were in their treatment of her, in permitting it the Lord was righteous. Her punishment answered her sin, <b>Culpa libido fuit, poena libido fuit—Lust was her sin, and lust was her punishment.</b> By the law of Moses she was to have been put to death for her adultery.</i> <br /><br />It never crossed my mind that the concubine was getting what she deserved.Sue Beehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13342939305850558827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-46170267151174383602010-05-17T11:43:03.388-07:002010-05-17T11:43:03.388-07:00I agree with Matthew Henry on this one:
The three...I agree with Matthew Henry on this one:<br /><br /><i>The three remaining chapters of this book contain a very sad history of the wickedness of the men of Gibeah, in Benjamin. The righteous Lord permits sinners to execute just vengeance on one another, and if the scene here described is horrible, what will the discoveries of the day of judgment be! Let each of us consider how to escape from the wrath to come, how to mortify the sins of our own hearts, to resist Satan's temptations, and to avoid the pollutions there are in the world.</i><br /><br />The whole thing just seems to spin out of control. Even though the husband pushes her out the door, he demands retribution for her death. Maybe he wanted her returned intact? The text says that she had cheated on him, so perhaps he thought it would be a worthy punishment for her.<br /><br />At any rate, they all go to war against the Benjaminites and wipe out all of the women, iirc, so there is no one for the men to marry because they've all vowed to not marry their daughters to them. How they end up getting 600 suitable wives for the men is a pretty awful story in its own right.<br /><br />And yet, Saul and Paul are both Benjaminites, so God still permits some good from the terrible actions.Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120027058653022897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-87588409659892764452010-05-17T07:37:12.664-07:002010-05-17T07:37:12.664-07:00How should we look at a passage like this? I'm...<b>How should we look at a passage like this? I'm a new Catholic and I haven't a clue what the Church would have to say in this case.</b><br /><br />This is a good question and, at risk of going off-topic, I'd like to add my two cents.<br /><br />Catholics look to the Bible to reveal the nature of God. So, first off, this passage tells us that God loves sinners, <b><i>really</i></b> loves <b><i>real</i></b> sinners. <br /><br /><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=2RzD7j8g3iEC&lpg=PP1&ots=kfAa_r7T3K&dq=tammi%20schneider&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">One of my commentaries on Judges</a> (a volume in Lit Press's Berit Olam series written by Tammi Schneider) observes that this is what happens when leadership is absent. You can <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=2RzD7j8g3iEC&lpg=PP1&ots=kfAa_r7T3K&dq=tammi%20schneider&pg=PA245#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">read most of the chapter here</a>. <br /><br />(<a href="http://kilbabo.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/book-review-tammi-schneiders-judges/" rel="nofollow">Here's a review of the commentary</a> - I can't tell whether Schneider's is Catholic/Christian - maybe she isn't.) <br /><br />Of course, those of us reeling from the recent clergy sex abuse and coverup scandal may be skeptical <b><i>of leadership.</i></b><br /><br />It has been said that the way a society treats its most vulnerable - women in those days ... or children today - reflects their inner spirit. There's no question that the author of Judges wants to show Israel's dark underbelly and this story is the book's climax. <br /><br />The only time the tribes join up and fight together is <b><i>in civil war against Benjamin</i></b> as a result of this incident. However, they were supposed to work together to drive out the original inhabitants of Canaan. (and that's a theological problem for another day).Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-61243695913227760242010-05-17T06:51:18.131-07:002010-05-17T06:51:18.131-07:00Since I don't take Candy's teaching as inf...Since I don't take Candy's teaching as infallible I'm not perturbed by possibility that she is mistaken. <br /><br />However, I couldn't stop thinking about the second scripture, Judges 19, you posted for comparison. With Lot's daughters I could take comfort in that God and his angels didn't allow the daughters to be abused by the men even though Lot probably would have. In the second though, there is no such comfort. A woman is raped to death. <br /><br />It seems as though since she was actually the other man's concubine she should have been protected as a guest in the house too instead of being pushed out the door. The whole matter is so perverse I can't wrap my head around it.<br /><br />How should we look at a passage like this? I'm a new Catholic and I haven't a clue what the Church would have to say in this case.Mrs. Cotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15978458558662816811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-22793464280858520312010-05-15T09:21:36.969-07:002010-05-15T09:21:36.969-07:00His daughter's take advantage of him too . . ....His daughter's take advantage of him too . . .Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120027058653022897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-60974758717857426082010-05-14T17:27:17.067-07:002010-05-14T17:27:17.067-07:00Lot is honest almost to a fault, one could say. Bu...Lot is honest almost to a fault, one could say. But the fault belongs to Lot's neighbors who selfishly demand too much of Lot's hospitality. They take advantage and Lot is Christlike.Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-29968153459416459142010-05-14T12:13:27.590-07:002010-05-14T12:13:27.590-07:00Candy seems to be reacting to the horror of the ev...<i>Candy seems to be reacting to the horror of the event as if God Himself were condoning the behavior of giving one's daughters up to evil, violent men. But we can't explain unpleasant things away; we have to face them and try to understand what God is trying to tell us.</i><br /><br />I agree. <br /><br /><i>I wonder why Candy is surprised that women at that time, in that part of the world would be treated as such.</i><br /><br />I think that as Jennie says, Candy doesn't understand why someone who was favored by God would consider doing something so terrible. But there are many examples of patriarchs doing things which are not condoned by God. Polygamy is a practice which still exists in the Middle East, but which is condemned by God.<br /><br />I remember feeling very confused when I first realized that Jesus was not descended from the noble figure of Joseph, but from Judah, who hires his daughter-in-law as a prostitute! She was even in the right in that story! <br /><br />But we can't try to explain away things because we are uncomfortable with them. So, I still think that Lot was being perfectly honest.Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120027058653022897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-86178101533448220372010-05-14T06:13:14.108-07:002010-05-14T06:13:14.108-07:00I wonder why Candy is surprised that women at that...I wonder why Candy is surprised that women at that time, in that part of the world would be treated as such. Middle eastern women don't seem to fare that much better today!Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-30551872345454298852010-05-13T13:35:12.350-07:002010-05-13T13:35:12.350-07:00Kelly, I agree with your analysis of the passage o...Kelly, I agree with your analysis of the passage on Lot and his daughters. Candy seems to be reacting to the horror of the event as if God Himself were condoning the behavior of giving one's daughters up to evil, violent men. But we can't explain unpleasant things away; we have to face them and try to understand what God is trying to tell us. I can remember reacting the way Candy did to the story about the concubine that you mentioned. I kept seeking the answer and soon it was explained by another believer who was more mature than I.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-71900262651846973002010-05-13T11:55:45.590-07:002010-05-13T11:55:45.590-07:00Surely indeed!
supreme confidence or utter arroga...Surely indeed!<br /><br />supreme confidence or utter arrogance, one or both?Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-4428211509414861762010-05-13T11:29:22.903-07:002010-05-13T11:29:22.903-07:00As for Lot lying, Peter would hear none of it
Wel...<i>As for Lot lying, Peter would hear none of it</i><br /><br />Well, I'm not sure there is any nice way to say this, but being a long time reader of Candy's blog, I'm not sure she feels that lying would rule out a person from being "just."<br /><br /><i>On verse 14, Sarna writes this:<br /><br />"who are married - This rendering, which is that of the Septuagint, assumes that Lot had two married daughters in the city. </i><br /><br />Well, the Septuagint, there you go. We know what Candy's opinion of the Septuagint is: <i>the Septuagint, which is a severely corrupted Greek translation of the Hebrew texts. This Greek Septuragint is rejected by fundamental Jews.</i><br /><br /><i>She says in the comment guidelines that she takes comments down for being "foolish and unlearned."<br /><br />I guess she is unaware of your background Kelly!</i><br /><br />Hey, if you disagree with her, then surely you are foolish. ;)Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120027058653022897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-67732111398782109592010-05-13T05:21:21.982-07:002010-05-13T05:21:21.982-07:00I see she deleted all but two comments, including ...I see she deleted all but two comments, including the rather effusive "I hope you never take this blog down..."<br /><br />She says in the comment guidelines that she takes comments down for being "foolish and unlearned." <br /><br />I guess she is unaware of your background Kelly!Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-38195323633654867872010-05-12T20:59:14.623-07:002010-05-12T20:59:14.623-07:00As for Lot lying, Peter would hear none of it:
&q...As for Lot lying, Peter would hear none of it:<br /><br /><i>"And delivered <b>just</b> Lot"</i> (2 Pet. 2:7) - other translations read "righteous." Let Scripture interpret Scripture. cf. Rev. 21:8; Ps. 116:11<br /><br />Of course, Sarna agrees with Kelly on the question of Lot's daughters' status. I know that Candy won't look at a commentary. On verse 14, Sarna writes this: <br /><br /><i><b>"who are married</b> - This rendering, which is that of the Septuagint, assumes that Lot had two married daughters in the city. The Hebrew, however, does not use a defined verb, which leaves open the possibility that the reference is to his prospective sons-in-law."</i> [page 137].<br /><br />Also Sarna writes of verse 8: <br /><br /><i>"The Akkadian phrase corresponding to our Hebrew is <b>ša zikaram la idū</b>, 'who has not known a male' ... used in legal formulations to describe a woman engaged to be married and still living in her father's house. Her violator incurs the death penalty."</i> with a reference to the code of Hammurabi. [page 136]<br /><br />It wouldn't surprise me if the Genesis story developed later, even in response to, the Judges tale, rectifying the outcome.Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-70048235644373608942010-05-12T20:02:53.049-07:002010-05-12T20:02:53.049-07:00Genesis 19:14 ESV: So Lot went out and said to his...<i>Genesis 19:14 ESV: So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, <b>who were to marry his daughters</b>, “Up! Get out of this place, for the Lord is about to destroy the city.” But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.</i><br /><br />20th century English clears things right up.:)<br /><br />Also, compare this to the Jacob/Leah/Rachel story in Genesis 29, particularly verse 21:<b>Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife that I may go in to her, for my time is completed.”</b><br /><br />Rachel was Jacob's "wife" but he had not had sex with her.Sue Beehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13342939305850558827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-49000687254670676672010-05-12T17:00:42.655-07:002010-05-12T17:00:42.655-07:00Well, I agree with Candy that normally if it says ...Well, I agree with Candy that normally if it says that someone is married, then I would think in the conventional sense.<br /><br />However, it does seem that Lot's daughters are there in the house, but that he went out to speak with his sons-in-law. That, to me, brings to mind the binding nature of betrothal.<br /><br />But I'm not sure it is really that important. Maybe he had two married daughters and two virgin daughters still at home. Maybe he went out, and after the sons-in-law refused to listen, brought his daughters back home with him. Maybe he lied and said they were virgins to make them more enticing to the crowd.<br /><br />Candy never did address my reference to Judges 19. Now she's deleted all the comments which disagree with her analysis, so I guess it's preserved here.Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120027058653022897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-85538525365759882022010-05-12T16:05:10.858-07:002010-05-12T16:05:10.858-07:00I just left this as a comment:
Main Entry: es·pou...I just left this as a comment:<br /><br />Main Entry: es·pouse <br />Pronunciation: \is-ˈpau̇z also -ˈpau̇s\<br />Function: transitive verb<br />Inflected Form(s): es·poused; es·pous·ing<br />Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French espuser, from Late Latin sponsare to betroth, from Latin sponsus betrothed — more at spouse<br />Date: 15th century<br />1 : marry<br />2 : to take up and support as a cause : become attached to<br />synonyms see adopt<br /><br />Betrothed is the same as espoused. At least in my dictionary, maybe not so much hers.amulbunny's random thoughtshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10621932038345682056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-87480420346589690202010-05-12T14:48:52.599-07:002010-05-12T14:48:52.599-07:00Simplistic answers for simplistic people I guess. ...Simplistic answers for simplistic people I guess. <br /><br />I remember in the series I did on one of her mentors, Sam Gipp, that he said that the bible was for the "common man" and that always tickled me because at the time the scriptures were written, the "common man" couldn't have read them!Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.com