by EdenOne 13 Replies latest jw friends
Deuteronomy 23:3 - " No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the Lord, even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter the assembly of the Lord for ever
I need clarification: Are those generation generations, or overlapping generations?
zed
Eden, this depends on one's understanding of the Hebrew word 'ohlam. If you translate it as "forever," like most Bible translators, then it becomes a problem. This meaning is traced to the origin of the word. Here is what TDOT has to say:
Times indefinite. Hidden or remote time. Aram. (sing.) or (plur.); 244b; Heb. sometimes m., pl.—what is hidden; specially hidden time, long; the beginning or end of which is either uncertain or else not defined. 244a never. According to context, it could point to: 1) Of time long past, antiquity, e.g., Deut. 32:7; Am. 9:11; Mic. 7:14; Is. 63:9. 2) Mostly it refers to future time, in such a manner, that what is called the terminus ad quem, is always defined from the nature of the thing itself.
Its etymology has been and remains disputed or at best uncertain, and the various studies suggest that no real progress has been made. Following E. Jenni, most scholars translate `oulām as “long time” or “farthest, remotest time.” Various nuances of this translation must then also be distinguished contextually. See TDOT, vol. X, p. 531.
So, according to TDOT, vol. XI, p. 149, an etymological relationship between `lm and `oulām seems unlikely. However, I personally believe that the word is semantically related to the verb `ālam and the noun ta`älumâ belonging to the semantic field “to hide.” So by translating it as "hidden time" or "indefinite time," one would alleviate the problem somewhat.
This helps explain why the GB believes that they can capriciously change doctrines and all the good little dubbies should must obediently fall into line: God set the example of changing his mind, often with no explanation, and he would kill anyone that disagreed disobeyed.
SAHS:
The three worship festivals held by the Jews every year under the Law were obligatory only for males. (Compare Exod 23:14-17) So in these cases the ancestry of one's wife was of little consequence. The two geneology lists in Matthew and Luke also focus on the father. I take it that as far as official descent was concerned, the Jews placed the importance on him rather than the mother.
I see your point about the particularness of the Law in other respects. Although, in the case of Ruth, I like the fact that her faith was rewarded rather than her ancestry (which she had nothing to do with) being held against her.
Take Care
