Sorry.  Moved the subject

Just for the record I was trying to show how YHWH is unchanged in the Torah  and the NT says peace, love, god is not jealous, grace and god would never kill a baby or anyone.

YHWH  "has killed babies and parents"

YHWH  "Will kill babies and parents when he returns"

FOR DISOBEYING YHWH's TORAH ! 

Why do you want to disobey the Torah?

Do you want to do what David did?

Are you or your husband going to accidentally have an affair?

YHWH has a provision for a true accident in his Law.

If an affair on purpose, then whatever YHWH 's Judgment will be

Will be just 

I didn't declare that it is just

YHWH declared Judgment 

David said it was just

The Judgment on David came from a Just Judge YHWH

FYI verses 10, 11 and 12 are not extant in the DSS at all. There is a gap between 9 and 13 to allow there to have been verses there, but we can not be certain if the text we have is the text originally there.

This is something to chew on. It just doesn't read like say Isaiah or Jeremiah. It has a flare more like Job and yes Kings. Things were always clear in Isaiah when someone or some situation was being used to teach a lesson for generations. Makes sense that this falls into the "interesting reading, but don't get life lessons from it" category. I just kept saying - I understand how Yah dealt with Abraham and Moseh, but His dealings with Dowd according to Samuel just don't make any sense to me.
It just wasn't the Yahowah that I have come to know. Not that it couldn't be true, just that is seemed inconsistent with His other teachings. For instance, Moseh was integrally important to our having the Torah - but he still wasn't allowed to go into the promise land. Yah didn't say "Oh Moseh, you are some important that I forgive you and you are good to enter in, but that wife of yours is going to be raped daily be a group of badgers." Yah protected Sarah from being molested even when Abraham lied and said she was his sister. He seemed to be so loving and gentle with women and children that belonged to Him; something is completely different with Dowd though. It doesn't feel the same.

Well, I am going to say this and then be done with it. It is very "religious" to sit around discussing who can and cannot be examined for truth. How is that different than xthains saying you can't question Paul? My goal is to get to the truth about the nature of Yahowah, and I will question anyone and everyone that seems to present a picture of Yah that is inconsistent with the rest of His nature and what He said about Himself. To indicate that Dowd might be "too special", "too important", "too close" to question these writings reek's of religion. People hear will mock the inaccurate picture of "Jesus", but Dowd can't be touched? Really? He is more special that "jebus"?
I personally would rather die in the wilderness searching for truth and questioning things that defy logic than to enter into the promise land believing my Father authorizes the rape of women - period. I am not going to accept that my Father punishes men by having their wives raped. Do you all have any idea how horrible rape is? Would you really walk into a room, see your wife in a heap on the floor, covered in blood and bruises and completely humiliated and declare "oh well, God is just"? Would you really watch your child die a slow and agonizing death, from all indications a painful death, and say in your heart of hearts "well, the kid must have had it coming."
Yes, I am going to question why Dowd mourned the death of Amnon, who was killed by Abshalom for RAPING Dowd's daughter! Why do we hear about him mourning for Amnon, not looking at Abshalom for 2 years, yet we hear nothing of him comforting Tamar. Who took care of Tamar - ABSHALOM, why is that? I asked what I felt was a legitimate question - is the same word for "lay with" used for Bathsheba and Dowd the same word for "lay with" used for Tamar and Amnon. No response apart from don't question this matter, Yah loved Dowd. Sorry, but it may be ugly, it may be uncomfortable, it may make you sweat, and shake, and tremble, and fear, and dread - but there is nothing at all to indicate Bathsheba was a willing participant in this affair. A woman whose husband was off fighting a war is simply taking a bath. The beloved king sends his men for her. What are her choices? "No" didn't work for Tamar. Once Tamar was raped by Amnon she asked him not to send her away, because that was worse than rape. So, Bathsheba becoming Dowd's "wife" is still no indication she was a willing participant in the first encounter. Why was it okay for Dowd to keep her as a wife? Why was he allowed to parade her around after he killed a man to get her? Do you mean to tell me, in your heart of hearts, that is seems fine with Yahowah for rich and powerful men to kill "lesser" men for their beautiful wives and that Yah will bless the children of that union (since aparently this baby needed to die, but Shelomoh was okay)? Look at your wife. Look at her in the eye. I want you to tell her that it might be Yah's will for some powerful guy that Yah loves to come and have you killed so he can have sex with her and make babies that will build wonderful temples to Yah. And please don't tell me that Dowd was "special", what does that make Uriyah? Someone even indicated that Uriyah should have just went in and had sex with her. Really, and cover up Dowd's sin? Would the child still have died? Would the child have been allowed to become king?
The incidents surrounding Dowd as put forth in 2 Samuel absolutely, positively throw out the concept of free will. They indicate some people are "more special" than others and that if a "special" person sins against Yah, Yah will simply punish the "lessors". I am not questioning whether or not Dowd was loved, I am questioning the events put forth in the book of 2 Samuel. These events are completely inconsistent with the nature of Yah. Show me any other time that Yahowah indicated that the rape of women was a valid punishment for the sins of men. Yah was protective of women in His Family that He kept Sarah from being raped/molested even when Abraham put her in that position and literally gave her away - twice. Yah was so protective of the children in His family that He always created a way for children to be spared from punishment - whether it be the blood on the doorpost or Egyptian women disobeying an order from the Pharaoh himself to kill them. Why in the world would I then begin to believe and accept that Yah changed all of that for His "love of Dowd" and start raping the women of HIS Family and killing the babies of HIS Family. These weren't women outside His Family, these were daughters of Yahowah Himself. If I am not protected in my Father's house - where can I be safe? If Yahowah Himself would give me away to be raped or have my watch my child die a slow and agonizing death - who can I turn to? Who can ever love me? And to watch a board of men sit here and say "well, Yah is just", "well, Yah loves Dowd", "well, Dowd was special", and "don't question it". When the hell did we stop questioning things? That is the entire premise that brought us all here in the first place!
This issue, this one right here is where many people are atheist. Because when it comes to real issues of controversy, real issues where something doesn't seem right, fit right, smell right, look right, everyone from Jews, to xthians, to Muslims all turn a blind eye and say "oh well, God says it, I believe it, it is settled". This ain't settled for me. "I" want to know if Yah truly authorizes the rape of women. Tell me, when did you ever see Yah enacting a slow death on someone? Even when He authorized a killing it was quick and humane. Even the son of Pharaoh was killed in one night - why would Yah make a child of His own suffer for seven days? It doesn't sit right, it doesn't read right, it doesn't taste right.

For instance, read 2 Samuel 24:1 - tell me what your book says. Who does it say caused Dowd to number the people? Does that taste right to you? Does that smell right to you? Does that look right to you? Does that taste right to you?

1and2 Samuel are considered 1and2 Kings is some bibles.
1and2 Kings = 3and4 Kings.

1and2 Samuel doesn't read like the prophets. Yahowah
doesn't speak 1st person. It is more like paul's letters.
Someone saying Yahowah said. History would be a good
explanation.

1 Sam 1:30 - sick H2470

BDB Thayer Strong KJC
Original: ???
- Transliteration: Chalah
- Phonetic: khaw-law'
- Definition:
1. to be or become weak, be or become sick, be or become diseased, be or become grieved, be or become sorry
a. (Qal) to be weak, be sick
b. (Piel)
1. to be or become weak, feel weak
2. to become sick, become ill
3. (CLBL) to entreat, pray, beg
c. (Niphal)
1. to make oneself sick
2. to be made sick
3. to be tired
d. (Pual) to be made weak, become weak
e. (Hithpael) to make oneself sick
f. (Hiphil)
1. to make sore
2. to make sick
3. to show signs of sickness, become sick
4. to grieve
g. (Hophal)
1. to be made sick
2. to be wounded
- Origin: a primitive root [compare H2342, H2470, H2490]
- TWOT entry: 655
- Part(s) of speech: Verb

- Strong's: A primitive root (compare H2342 H2490); properly to be rubbed or worn; hence (figuratively) to be weak sick afflicted; or (causatively) to grieve make sick; also to stroke (in flattering) entreat: - beseech (be) diseased (put to) grief be grieved (be) grievous infirmity intreat lay to put to pain X pray make prayer be (fall make) sick sore be sorry make suit (X supplication) woman in travail be (become) weak be wounded.
Total KJV Occurrences: 76
• beseech, 1
Mal 1:9

• besought, 5
Exod 32:11; 1Kgs 13:6; 2Kgs 13:4; 2Chr 33:12; Jer 26:19

• carefully, 1
Mic 1:12

• diseased, 3
1Kgs 15:23; Ezek 34:4; Ezek 34:21

• entreat, 3
1Kgs 13:6; Ps 45:12; Prov 19:6

• entreated, 1
Ps 119:58

• grief, 2
Isa 17:11; Isa 53:10

• grieved, 2
Isa 57:10; Amos 6:6

• grievous, 4
Jer 10:19; Jer 14:17; Jer 30:12; Nah 3:19

• infirmity, 1
Ps 77:10

• laid, 1
Deut 29:22

• pain, 1
Jer 12:13

• pray, 3
Zech 7:2; Zech 8:21; Zech 8:22

• prayer, 1
Dan 9:13

• sick, 34
Gen 48:1; 1Sam 19:14; 1Sam 30:13; 2Sam 13:2; 2Sam 13:5; 2Sam 13:6; 1Kgs 14:1; 1Kgs 14:5; 1Kgs 17:17; 2Kgs 1:2; 2Kgs 8:7; 2Kgs 8:29; 2Kgs 13:14; 2Kgs 20:1; 2Kgs 20:12; 2Chr 22:6; 2Chr 32:24; Neh 2:2; Ps 35:13; Prov 13:12; Prov 23:35; Song 2:5; Song 5:8; Isa 33:24; Isa 38:1; Isa 38:9; Isa 39:1; Ezek 34:4; Ezek 34:16; Dan 8:27; Hos 7:5; Mic 6:13; Mal 1:8; Mal 1:13

• sore, 2
Eccl 5:13; Eccl 5:16

• sorry, 1
1Sam 22:8

• suit, 1
Job 11:19

• supplication, 1
1Sam 13:12

• travail, 1
Jer 4:31

• weak, 4
Judg 16:7; Judg 16:11; Judg 16:17; Isa 14:10

• wounded, 3
1Kgs 22:34; 2Chr 18:33; 2Chr 35:23


Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries
H2470 ????? chalah (khaw-law') v.
1. (properly) to be rubbed or worn
2. hence (figuratively) to be weak, sick, afflicted
3. or (causatively) to grieve, make sick
4. also to stroke (in flattering), entreat
[a primitive root]
KJV: beseech, (be) diseased, (put to) grief, be grieved, (be) grievous, infirmity, intreat, lay to, put to pain, X pray, make prayer, be (fall, make) sick, sore, be sorry, make suit (X supplication), woman in travail, be (become) weak, be wounded.
Compare: H2342, H2470, H2490


2 Sam 12:15 sick


Original: ????
- Transliteration: 'anash
- Phonetic: aw-nash'
- Definition:
1. to be weak, sick, frail
a. (Qal)
1. to be incurable
2. to be sick
3. desperate, incurable, desperately wicked, woeful, very sick (pass participle) (metaph.)
b. (Niphal) to be sick
- Origin: a primitive root
- TWOT entry: 135
- Part(s) of speech: Verb

- Strong's: A primitive root; to be frail feeble or (figuratively) melancholy: - desperate (-ly wicked) incurable sick woeful.
Total KJV Occurrences: 9


BDB Thayer Strong KJC
• desperate, 1
Isa 17:11

• incurable, 5
Job 34:6; Jer 15:18; Jer 30:12; Jer 30:15; Mic 1:9

• sick, 1
2Sam 12:15

• wicked, 1
Jer 17:9

• woeful, 1
Jer 17:16


Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries
H605 ?????? 'anash (aw-nash') v.
1. to be frail, feeble, or (figuratively) melancholy
[a primitive root]
KJV: desperate(-ly wicked), incurable, sick, woeful.


Septuagint
14 Only because thou hast given great occasion of provocation to the enemies of the Lord by this thing, thy son also that is born to thee shall surely die.

KJV
14 Howbeit H657, because by this deed H1697 thou hast given H5006 great occasion H5006[ H8763] to the enemies H341[ H8802] of the LORD H3068 to blaspheme H5006[ H8765], the child H1121 also that is born H3209 unto thee shall surely H4191[ H8800] die H4191[ H8799].


Israeli Authorized Version
14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of YY to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

weak, frail doesn't necessarily mean torment

children are protected by their parent's relationship with Yahowah.
Yahowah loved David dearly, he was already forgiven.2Sam 12:13

maybe the child would have been another Ishmael.(Just what we
need,Islam reinforced.) Allah is satan, there is only one
David knew what he was doing just like Abraham. He didn't fall down and his... well we know the rest.

There are a lot of maybes. No one knows Yahowah's mind.Isa 55:8

some ramblings from the old

Okay, so I just started looking at verse 11, and I have noticed one very interesting thing.

'issah the word for woman or wife is not present in the verse at all. The word used is nashey, which as near as I can tell means a debt. I'm having a bit of trouble because Logos exigentical guide has it linked to 'issah when I try to look it up, but 'issah is Alef Shem Hay, and nashey is Nun Shin Yod. Nashey is only used in one other place that I can find and it means debt there. Debt doesn't really makes sense in the context. I am going to delve more into this and will post again later.

It doesn't say rape. It says the sword will never leave his house.
He will give his wives to his neighbors.
Maybe this is symbolism like most of the Torah.
This was not the first of his children (sons) to die.

Maybe his wives would be unfaithful to him as he was to them
with his neighbors in front of all Israel.( if you can call multiple
wives faithful). All of them playing around in front of all Israel
with his friends and neighbors would be humilitating, shaming.
Rightful punishment.

Tamar was forced 2Sam 13:11-12
2 sam 12:11 give

It is quite possible that these are histories written by men, not voiced by Yahowah. Bad choice of words, bad interpretation,
satan meddling. Like 2Sam 24:1-3 and 1Chron 21:1-3
Who knows? All one can do is try to be rational.

I am still waiting on a little help with these verses. Can someone please let me know if the word same word for "lay with" and "lie with" were the same Hebrew word or different words used in the following verses:

2 Samuel 11:4
2 Samuel 12:11
2 Samuel 13:14

If they are the same word, is there a Hebrew word for "rape" or is there only one word for both of those acts? That opens up a whole new can of worms, but at least we can start there.

Also, there is another dependency between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. In the punishment choices give to Dowd - 2 Samuel indicates 7 years of famine while 1 Chronicles says 3.

Finally, both renditions indicate Dowd NEVER made a choice! He was given 3 choices: famine, defeat, and plague. Add Dowd said was "don't let me fall into the hands of my enemy", then plague started. Also, this is again Dowd asking for the punishment for "his" sin to go on to "him" and YHWH deciding to punish the people instead. But, something doesn't sound right in this either. Both stories indicate that Yahowah "relented" and asked the "evil" and asked the destroyer to stop. The English word relent means to become compassionate or forgiving and even to change one's mind. It almost reads as if Yahowah didn't realize quite what He was doing and when He realized the "evil" (it says after He saw the evil) only then did He decide the punishment was too much.

This, again, doesn't sound like Yahowah. It reads as if Yahowah went into a temper tantrum and started killing people, then snapped out of it only after 70,000 people had been killed. It sounds more like the Hulk than Yahowah. Is this English translation of those events correct?

Here are the word definitians that James talked about except I couldn't find Nash.

H7901
שׁכב
shâkab
BDB Definition:
1) to lie down
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to lie, lie down, lie on
1a2) to lodge
1a3) to lie (of sexual relations)
1a4) to lie down (in death)
1a5) to rest, relax (figuratively)
1b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
1c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
1d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
1e) (Hophal) to be laid
Part of Speech: verb

H6031
ענה
‛ânâh
BDB Definition:
1) (Qal) to be occupied, be busied with
2) to afflict, oppress, humble, be afflicted, be bowed down
2a) (Qal)
2a1) to be put down, become low
2a2) to be depressed, be downcast
2a3) to be afflicted
2a4) to stoop
2b) (Niphal)
2b1) to humble oneself, bow down
2b2) to be afflicted, be humbled
2c) (Piel)
2c1) to humble, mishandle, afflict
2c2) to humble, be humiliated
2c3) to afflict
2d4) to humble, weaken oneself
2d) (Pual)
2d1) to be afflicted
2d2) to be humbled
2e) (Hiphil) to afflict
2f) (Hithpael)
2f1) to humble oneself
2f2) to be afflicted
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root [possibly rather identical with H6030 through the idea of looking down or browbeating]

H7693
שׁגל
shâgal
BDB Definition:
1) to violate, ravish
1a) (Qal) to violate, ravish
1b) (Niphal) to be ravished
1c) (Pual) to be ravished
Part of Speech: verb

H802
נשׁים / אשּׁה
'ishshâh / nâshı̂ym
BDB Definition:
1) woman, wife, female
1a) woman (opposite of man)
1b) wife (woman married to a man)
1c) female (of animals)
1d) each, every (pronoun)
Part of Speech: noun feminine

H582
אנושׁ
'ĕnôsh
BDB Definition:
1) man, mortal man, person, mankind
1a) of an individual
1b) men (collective)
1c) man, mankind
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H605

H605
אנשׁ
'ânash
BDB Definition:
1) to be weak, sick, frail
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to be incurable
1a2) to be sick
1a3) desperate, incurable, desperately wicked, woeful, very sick (passive participle) (metaphorically)
1b) (Niphal) to be sick
Part of Speech: verb

This is the only "nash" I could find, except gnash. Mike has the BDB definitions.
Here are the Mickelson defs,, a little different ' not much. They do confirm James' Idea about enosh and adam.

James, yours and your wife's idea of the baby being weak and
being blamed on Yahowah because of the times is very good.
I hadn't thought of it. That still happens today. Good deduction.


H802 ??????? ??????? 'ishshah (ish-shaw') n-f.
1. irregular plural, nashiym {naw-sheem'}
2. a woman (used in the same wide sense as H0582)
[feminine of H376 or H582]
KJV: (adulter)ess, each, every, female, X many, + none, one, + together, wife, woman. Often unexpressed in English.
Root(s): H376, H582, H582
[?]


H582 ??????? 'enowsh (en-oshe') n-m.
1. (properly) a mortal (and thus differing from the more dignified H0120)
2. (hence) a man in general (singly or collectively)
[from H605]
KJV: another, X (blood-)thirsty, certain, chap(-man); divers, fellow, X in the flower of their age, husband, (certain, mortal) man, people, person, servant, some ( X of them), + stranger, those, + their trade. It is often unexpressed in the English versions, especially when used in apposition with another word .
Root(s): H605
Compare: H376
See also: H120
[?]


H120 ????? 'adam (aw-dawm') n-m.
1. ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.)
[from H119]
KJV: X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
Root(s): H119
[?]


H376 ????? 'iysh (eesh) n-m.
1. a man as an individual or a male person
2. often used as an adjunct to a more definite term (and in such cases frequently not expressed in translation)
[contracted for H582 (or perhaps rather from an unused root meaning to be extant)]
KJV: also, another, any (man), a certain, + champion, consent, each, every (one), fellow, (foot-, husband-)man, (good-, great, mighty) man, he, high (degree), him (that is), husband, man(-kind), + none, one, people, person, + steward, what (man) soever, whoso(-ever), worthy.
Root(s): H582
Compare: H802
[?]

For whatever reason you cannot find nash in most, if any, dictionaries or lexicons, but it is used 212 times in the Hebrew text. Because of this we are left to determine the distinction between nash and ‘issah based solely on the context in which it is used. What I wrote earlier is my best attempt to do this, and while it fits most of the places where nash is used there are a few that I am not comfortable saying that that is what was intended.

There are areas where that understanding completely fits, areas where it may or may not fit and areas where it is a bit troublesome for it to fit. When speaking of the sons of God taking the daughters of man for their wives nash is used. If like me you believe this to be refereeing to the descendants of Adam, those with a neshamah, marrying the daughters of men without a neshamah, it fits perfectly. In Genesis Noah is told to take with him his ‘issah, his son’s and his sons nash. Here there must be a distinction, why else would two different words be used, but it is not clear since little is known of Noah’s son’s wives. Later however Rachael and Leah are referred to as Ya’aqob’s nash, so it certainly doesn’t seem to fit there.

So again this understanding may be flawed.



If we are to view Samuel as Scripture and thus the inspired word of God then we would have to say yes. IF we do not view it as Scripture, but the writing of men then the question becomes did Yah do these things, or did they happen and were then attributed to Yah? Based on my limited study Samuel appears to be Scripture.



I don’t believe there is a concept of household salvation in Scripture, at least not that I am aware of. Children seem to be under the veil of their parents, but spouses are each free to make their own choice. If you spouses choose not to form a relationship with Yah, why would Yah want them to be with Him?

I didn’t mean to say that these were neshamahless women, but that Yah views them the same as he views animals since they do not have a relationship with Him. Yah does not know or care about those who do not have a relationship with Him. Of more accurately since Yah exists outside of time and past, present and future are all one to Him, Yah does not know or care about those that will never come to know Him.



Free Will exists to the point where we can choose Yah or not. If we choose to become His child then punishing us to teach us a lesson is not a violation of free will.

A somewhat crude analogy would be that to punish me for something horrible that I did, my father takes my dog which I love and care about, and gives it to a neighbor he knows will take care of it.

Again I am not stating this as fact, just attempting to understand it based on observation. Like I said there are aspects of God we don’t see often and thus know little about.

This is one thing that is not covered much because it is Yah’s desire that both parents actively engage in raising the child to be a part of His family. And I don’t think Yah tells us much because He doesn’t want us banking on our children being saved because of us, as always salvation should not be the focus. Yah wants us to raise our children to know Him. If the parents know Him then it is more likely that the child will grow to know Him, if one parent knows Him and one doesn’t then it depends on who has the biggest influence of the child. And again Yah outside of time knows what choice the child will make. There is no direct statement as to how Yah will judge rather or not a child has a relationship with Him that I know of.



I have not studied much of the book of Samuel so I cannot say.



Because sex in Scripture is so related to marriage that I don’t see this so much as Yah giving them for sexual favors, but just a way of saying that I will take your wives and give them to your neighbor this very night. In Scripture there was no marriage ceremony, marriage was sex, and so your neighbor will lay with them this day is saying your neighbor will be married to them this day.

While it isn't the exact same thing Yah did have Hosea marry and have children to a prostitute.

Also it may not explicitly state consent of the wives, it never says they didn’t consent either. So we do not know the full facts.



I’m not very comfortable with idea of God actively punishing people. In the ones I have seen here God is not punishing those that don’t know Him, but rather using them to punish Dowd who does know Him. And I don’t think that Yah does it frequently, by in large I think He lets us suffer the consequence of our actions, but doesn’t actively punish us. These examples of Him punish Dowd seem to be the exception, and Dowd appears to be a very special circumstance. As Yada has said before Yah plays favorites, and Dowd is one of His favorites. So perhaps Yah was so determined to have a relationship with Dowd that He did actively engage to teach Dowd a lesson to keep him on the path.

I think there is much truth to Yashayahuw 55:8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” declares יהוה.”

I will have to look into that a bit more dajstill.

First thing I notice is that 2 Sam 24:1-15 are not extant in the DSS. Also in the 4 verse which are extant 16-20, there are 7 deviations between the DSS and MT three of which are statements that were removed from the MT.

This would indicate that this chapter was not particularly well kept. That said it is impossible without having a text as old as the DSS or at least older than the MT to determine what we have that is accurate and what we have that isn't.

I will look into it a little more when I get some time and let you know if I find anything else.

Dajstill,

I know nothing about scripture and scripture analysis, but your tenacious search for the truth and what is indeed 'inspired' in these writings is heartfelt.

Exodus 34:6-7

"And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “ The compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

How could our Merciful Father punish innocent little ones? How can God "abounding in love" and "forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin" but "does not leave the guilty unpunished"?

Doesn't "forgiving" imply staying punishment?
and what 'sin' was the child guilty of?

Edited by user Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:31:35 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

This is something I have thought about and I am not sure if that is accurate. For instance, many women use pain medication in child bearing (has been used for thousands of years) and not all women have an equal amount of pain. The second issue is that if Chawah's punishment is meted out to all women, I am wrong for being here and even pursuing a relationship with Yahowah. My husband would be a "ruler" over me. So, this means that it would be best for all women to remain single so that they have no "ruler", no "king" except for Yahowah. However, if men are allowed to rule over women, there is no such thing as rape, incest, etc. A man is allowed to do whatever he pleases. Did Yahowsha' speak only to men when He declared there is no one over us except for Yahowah? Would a woman be free of "rule" of her husband after 50 years? Or, is she an indentured servant for all of her life?

That again puts women in the place of cattle, with no ability to know Yahowah for themselves, since they would have a permanent ruler. Women would have been given a slavery position for all of eternity. Is that what we are positing? I have actually seen the "curse of Eve" used for some pretty horrid behavior, including the very real fundamentalist perspective that even the spanking (beating) of women is permitted because the husband is to rule over her.

Also, by this notion all men should be share cropping and working in the field. However, by the time Abram is on the scene, men of Yahowah have slaves and servants working for them. Why would a woman still be cursed and be ruled by man and not Yahowah when men are allowed to use hired (or forced hands) for their tilling of the land?

The statement of fact versus action He caused is interesting. I have to admit, through the use of modern medicine childbirth wasn't painful in the least for me. With my eldest I spent most of the time in the hospital watching football (he was born on a Sunday). Laughter may be a good medicine, but nothing rocks like an epidural! With my twins, I was literally on my blackberry on the operating table until right before surgery (I used to be a slight workaholic, okay a BIG workaholic). So, I guess I should just be grateful to be born at this particular time, because epidurals do rock and that whole "rule over" women thing has gone a bit old fashion.

And fella's here is a little diddy from Sojourner Truth about women - it deals with the whole Chawah situation and I think it's kind of funny!

AIN'T I A WOMAN?

by Sojourner Truth


Delivered 1851 at the Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio

Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say.
***********************************************************************

And now "ole dajstill" is off to avoid the "presidential" debates once again. Hmmm, what should I watch on Netflix?

It's the same with men. We have created machines that make working the ground simpler and easier. Now a handful of men can work a field that would have taken a hundred men 1,000 years ago. And as you pointed out man learned early on that they could force other men to do the work for them. So we have come up with ways to make the punishment less, but in the natural state it still exists.

I'm glad cgb pointed out the YY review. When I was reexamining the verse yesterday and noticed that the word for dominion or rule was mashal, the same word used for Proverbs or word pictures, I was wondering how it fit in, but, "Adding to the possibilities,mashal, translated as “dominion and rule,” can also mean “to liken one thing to another, making a comparison by way of a parable, proverb, or metaphor.” So here, rather than saying that men will “exercise authority over and control” women, God could be saying that Chawah would now serve as a picture or symbol of something else—of something more important and difficult to understand. The Spirit, perhaps." makes a lot of sense.

I would say they are showing us two sides, or views, of Dowd. Samuel shows us Dowd from the perspective of man, and the Psalms show us Dowd's internal thoughts, struggles and dealings with Yah.