It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
I must admit that I haven't come prepared with an answer to this one.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
Firstly, the idea that God is the source of life is almost axiomatic for the Old Testament. That has to be the starting-point.
The simplest way of demonstrating it is by inviting you to focus on the word "blessing".
Look at the Creation story. God brings the various species into existence, which is in itself the act of giving them life. He does the same for the human species.
Then he "blesses" them, and says "be fruitful and multiply". These are not two different things. Being fruitful and multiplying is what is meant by "being blessed". A man is considered "blessed" when his estate is producing life in all directions, from his fields, from his herds, and from his wives.
Whenever men give thanks for the blessings they have received, they are assuming that God is the source of the blessings.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
So I suggest that the sin-offering actually relates to the general messiness of the birth-event itself.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
Note also that the uncleanliness is temporary, whereas the new life in her child is a semi-permanent effect. That again makes it difficult to connect the two.
originally posted by: Joecroft
But how can the “messiness”, of a woman giving birth be regarded as a sin. The “messiness” is just a natural part of giving birth…
That’s the funny thing though, the uncleanliness is only temporary, (1 week or 2, depending on the sex of the child) so why the need for a sin offering, after the allotted purification time has ended…?
Originally posted by DISRAELI
At first glance, these might look like rules of hygiene.
Any doctor would advise washing the hands after touching a dead body.
But this goes beyond questions of hygiene.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
The preparation of the “water of impurity” would not give it any particular antiseptic qualities, and its express purpose in the laws is “the removal of sin”.
I don’t really see how you have demonstrated in your OP, that the “water” aspect is additionally for “removal of sin”…when it could just as easily be down to hygiene only.
Originally posted by Joecroft
I don’t really see how you have demonstrated in your OP, that the “water” aspect is additionally for “removal of sin”…when it could just as easily be down to hygiene only.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
I did, by referring to the fact that Numbers calls it a water for the removal of sin.
Originally posted by Joecroft
Also how is it the “water of impurity” that removes sin. Isn't sin only removed through burnt offerings, and through praying for forgiveness directly from God…?
originally posted by: Joecroft
The taboo could just as easily be for hygiene purposes only and the same could apply for the “water of impurity”…which may have evolved from traditions over time as having good hygiene benefits, unbeknown to the Israelites at that time.
Originally posted by Joecroft
Also how is it the “water of impurity” that removes sin. Isn't sin only removed through burnt offerings, and through praying for forgiveness directly from God…?
originally posted by: DISRAELI
originally posted by: Joecroft
The taboo could just as easily be for hygiene purposes only and the same could apply for the “water of impurity”…which may have evolved from traditions over time as having good hygiene benefits, unbeknown to the Israelites at that time.
I offered in the opening post and repeated in the previous post some reasons why the taboo could not have been just a question of hygiene.
Shall I offer them a third time?
If people who are intending to please or come close to God (like the Nazirites and the priests) need to make a special point of avoiding association with death, that is hardly going to be for medical reasons.
If some people are banned from carrying out ceremonies of mourning, and the people at large are forbidden to attempt contact with the spirits of the dead, that will not be for medical reasons.
We are looking at the idea that God does not like being associated with death,
and that fits in very well with the standard Old Testament belief that he is the source of life.
I'm not convinced that the ashes of a heifer would have had any noticeable medical or antiseptic effect.
And if they did have this effect, they would surely have been used for cleansing purposes in other medical situations.
But the laws regarding cleansing from "discharges", and even the laws about the cleansing of lepers, just use ordinary water (Leviticus chs 14 & 15). I have not noticed the "water of impurity" being used for any other purpose except the cleansing of those who have made contact with death. This appears to be a special case.
Well, the laws of the Pentateuch offer several different routes to the removal of sin, so evidently the Israelites had not bought into the idea that there was only one way.
The "scapegoat" sent off into the wilderness is yet another approach to the problem.
originally posted by: Seede
Remarkable indeed. Great teaching. Had never heard it explained in that manner.
Once again, thanks for your input DISRAELI------------
originally posted by: DISRAELI
The word "murder", incidentally, is emotively inaccurate.
In Biblical terms, God is the source and owner of life. It is his property, that is the important point.
Murder is defined as the act of stealing his property, without his permission.
So it is not logically possible for God to be guilty of murder, any more than it is possible for a man to steal from his own orchard. It is his property, he is entitled to take it whenever he likes.
In fact, in principle, he is the ultimate cause of death in general, when he takes back to himself the life he gave in the first place.
As I observed in my "Death and the God of life" thread;
There is a paradox here. The God who is the source of Life is also, necessarily, the final cause of Death, because it takes place whenever he withdraws the life which he has given (as he is entitled to do).