Exodus 4: 24-26 WTF???

· I was just reading Exodus for the hundredth time and noticed something very peculiar.

24 On the way (to Egypt), at a place where they spent the night, Yahweh met him (Moses) and tried to kill him.25 But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her sons foreskin, " Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" 26 So he let him alone. It was then she said, " A bridegroom of blood by circumcision."

WTF?

I have some questions for everyone. What's a bridegroom of blood?

Why was Yahweh trying to kill his friend Moses? He messed with him bad by not letting him see the promised land, but this earlier event is just unexplainable.

Anyone?

en.wikipedia.org...

Mutilate your penis and god wont kill you?

God wants your foreskin!
Best to just give him it, he can be quite unreasonable when denied (see: flood)

a reply to: Rasalghul

I found this explanation heres the link : www.faithwriters.com...

Its seems god really wanted moses sons foreskin! But in actuality he wanted moses to not break his promise to his god, which was moses had to circumcise his son. God was going to kill moses and moses wife cut off her kids foreskin. Apparently its about having a rebellious heart.

a reply to: Rasalghul














Can't everybody just get along?

a reply to: jobless1
Alright. I bet it had more meaning then. Seems like pointless mutilation, that poor baby. AND with a flint. Was that the tool in use at the time for circumcision?

a reply to: jobless1
Thanks for the link.

a reply to: Rasalghul

I'm more shocked that you have read this passage 100 times...

a reply to: chrismarco

That's a weird thing to say. I haven't really read it 100 times. I was obviously exaggerateing. You that bored you send dumb messages for fun?

a reply to: Rasalghul

Interestingly the more I read up on this passage the more I question things about it. Apparently god wanted the Jewish people to be his servants. he would of Owned and used them just like the pharaoh of Egypt I'm guessing god didn't want to completely free the Jew's something Moses would of questioned. The act of circumcising his son was to solidify the agreement that god would free the Jews of Egypt and that they would now be Gods servants "not free men". Aka Moses didn't agree to it his wife did it to save his life. The first action after freeing them from Egypt was to have them wonder in the desert for 40 years.

Pharaoh was also offered to let the Hebrews go that same distance in an observed journey (“yalak”) to offer a sacrifice to the God. What sacrifice? Undoubtedly it would have been the same sacrifice that was offered on Passover, in order to purchase their freedom from Pharaoh’s ownership through the blood of a substitute. And it can be assumed that the ultimate outcome would have been the same -- complete exit from Egypt.

originally posted by: jobless1
a reply to: Rasalghul

Interestingly the more I read up on this passage the more I question things about it. Apparently god wanted the Jewish people to be his servants. he would of Owned and used them just like the pharaoh of Egypt I'm guessing god didn't want to completely free the Jew's something Moses would of questioned. The act of circumcising his son was to solidify the agreement that god would free the Jews of Egypt and that they would now be Gods servants "not free men". Aka Moses didn't agree to it his wife did it to save his life. The first action after freeing them from Egypt was to have them wonder in the desert for 40 years.

Pharaoh was also offered to let the Hebrews go that same distance in an observed journey (“yalak”) to offer a sacrifice to the God. What sacrifice? Undoubtedly it would have been the same sacrifice that was offered on Passover, in order to purchase their freedom from Pharaoh’s ownership through the blood of a substitute. And it can be assumed that the ultimate outcome would have been the same -- complete exit from Egypt.

Its interesting in how movies don't actually go into the real details that would make this story compelling, Its all parting seas and let my people go and destruction

Is this why you don't pay a Rabbi at a Bris? He gets to keep the tips?

a reply to: jobless1
I figure the 40 years in the desert was to unindoctrinate a generation until no one knew anything about the Egyptian gods and goddesses.

A kind of spiritual cleansing.

40 is significant for a few reasons, one being the number of days it takes to embalm or mummify someone. And Noah.

Exodus in English makes for an entertaining read for sure.

As Jobless1 says:

Apparently god wanted the Jewish people to be his servants. he would of Owned and used them just like the pharaoh of Egypt

Yes. That's the point. The burning bush (remember when america had a dynasty of pants on fire bush that one time?) wants Israel (as in the descendants of Jack, "jewish" is a premature label at this point) to drop Pharaoh in order to worship their actual boss in the desert, not to lollygag around doing cattle related metallurgy and what ever people do when led by less enlightened bosses.
The bush wins because: his original servant Abraham is now a large crowd with radical building skills, wealth, and utter devotion, just like Lincoln had when he "freed the slaves" who were still under his authority, and thus was called a tyrant by John W.B.
The Jacksons win because, much like now, when someone tells them to do the dishes they have the best answer of all:

"you're not my manager. Creator of the universe is, and he said nothing about that. In fact he's not in right now so good luck trying to influence his policies or by way of consequence, ours."

A technique so great it was duplicated almost universally. Also it has been somewhat edulcorated as in the boss isn't in BUT the pope speaks for him for instance.

I'd rather be god's servant than a man's servant any day. God nags me never. Plus he had like perfect SATs.

Desert walk purposely is so the people who had been enslaved would die before the group reached the lands given by their creator to their common ancestor, thereby breaking the not killing commandment.
I suppose the slave generation of Moses and the invader-killer generation of Josh are the least cool on the list, but the fact that they went through that and still kept their faith means something or other must have impressed them.
Enough to cut their babies' tips off for many generations and keep them in servitude to the same absent personage. Until of course the doubters rise and get invaded by some other Pharaoh, Caesar, or what have you.
Some pull through and keep the faith even now.

a reply to: Rasalghul

Simple man...

The god of the OT wants blood... Theres never an explanation for it, except for the fact that this critter is a blood thirsty, wicked creation...

The reason given is found later in Leviticus... "the life of every creature is in the blood"

So again, blood is what the OT god wants... his rules are pretty simple

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


NO worries though... Jesus corrected this silly critter...


38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

Blood and retaliation Vs Mercy and forgiveness

a reply to: Rasalghul

Moses was to become the leader and adjudicator of the new nation of Israel, a prophet who spoke to God and the example of what God wanted, to all those people.

Reading between the lines (and also agreeing with the Samaritan interpretation of what is going on) Zipporah had no allegiance to these Egyptian slaves that Moses was setting out to free. Her life and that of her child(ren) was totally disrupted and they were being dragged away into mortal danger on account of some strangers.

(The Samaritan version is that Zipporah repented of her hard heartedness and cut herself in repentance).

I think the sense of what Zipporah said was "some bloody husband you are!" essentially meaning: "look to the lengths I will go to in this marriage".

Taking the bait because # it, it's still better than television

a reply to: Akragon


How's that turning the other cheek worked out for Christian nations so far?
I see.

An eye for an eye, since Ham Ur Abi (remember Noah's sons?) is also a way to say no overkill.
As demonstrated throughout, rules aren't absolute by any means.
Jeez those people.. Ever since they ate the fruit of the tree of science of good and evil they all think they know good from evil, and that good is what they happen to think is good at that time with the perceptions and biases they carry along.

a reply to: wisvol

How's that turning the other cheek worked out for Christian nations so far?

Point me out a "Christian" nation... and I will gladly respond accordingly

Speaking of which... attempt to define what Christian means...

Seems to me Christians don't even know

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Rasalghul

Blood and retaliation Vs Mercy and forgiveness

There's an old saying quoted by seminarians,

"The New Testament, in which God was in a much better mood."

a reply to: schuyler

Why create something only to be pissed off about what it does?

Didn't said false god already go though a bunch of "creating" only to say "it was good"?

Sounds like incompetence to me...