Details on How To Contribute to Brit-Am
http://britam.org/contribute-Brit-Am.html
Brit-Am Now no. 1583
The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel Movement
10 October 2010, 2 Cheshvan 5771
Contents:
1. Michelle Bowie: Celeb and the Kenizzites.?
2. Zeev Barkan: Oldest Known Example of the Star of David.
3. Addition to Article: King David and the Oral Law.
The Choice is between an Ancient Oral Tradition and a New One Derived from Base Motives!
|
Brit-Am Discussion Group 
|
Contents by Subject |
Research Recognition Reconciliation Contribute |
|
Site Map Contents in Alphabetical Order |
 This Site |
1. Michelle Bowie: Celeb and the Kenizzites?
Re: Brit-Am Now no. 1582
Shalom Yair,
Yes, indeed Caleb was a Kenizzite, but we see here also he is listed as being a son of Hezron
I suspect then, he is most likely a descendant of Shelah, the only surviving son of Judah by his first wife:
1Ch 2:3 The sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three were born unto him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him.
1Ch 2:18 And Caleb the son of Hezron begat children of Azubah his wife, and of Jerioth: her sons are these; Jesher, and Shobab, and Ardon.
This then would make Caleb half Israelite and half Canaanite or more accurately Kenizzite.
Below are verses showing his ties to Judah through Hezron, son of Phares. Most likely, he married into the Phares line?..but without further scripture to prove this, it is speculation.
Gen 46:12 And the sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Pharez, and Zerah: but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Pharez were Hezron and Hamul.
Num 26:21 And the sons of Pharez were; of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites: of Hamul, the family of the Hamulites.
Blessings, MB
Zeev Barkan: Oldest Known Example of the Star of David
From: zeev barkan
Subject: I found the picture
Hi Yair,
In 18/07/06 I published our correspondence regarding Oldest Jewish Star of David (see below) and only now I closed the circle
See
http://star-of-david.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html#115328821738181528
See the original
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31383164@N06/4480995095/
3. Addition to Article:
King David and the Oral Law
The Choice is between an Ancient Oral Tradition and a New One Derived from Base Motives!
http://www.britam.org/DavidandOralLaw.html#Choice
The simple literal common sense meaning is that Ruth was of non-Israel Moabite origin.
This however would seem to contradict a Biblical commandment not to accept Moabites into the fold.
The Rabbis resolve this by explaining that the prohibition applied to males and not females and they quote the relevant Biblical verses to justify their statement.
I personally accept this because I am Jewish by religion and understand that an Oral Law or Explanation must have existed from the beginning.
Otherwise numerous commandments and statements remain without explanation as to their practical application.
In addition the Bible itself gave the Sages authority to decide how the Law should be applied which is why seventy elders were appointed by Moses.
Suppose however I was not Jewish and did not feel obligated to accept the Law as expounded by the Sages?
I would then find in the case of Ruth the explanation of the Prohibition applying to males only to be a possibility.
Or I would leave the case open. Not every problem or apparent contradiction has to have an immediate answer.
The solution offered by people like Fix saying that Ruth was really an Israelite woman is in effect far-fetched.
It needs proving.
It would require Biblical verses to support it.
The supporting verse would have to apply to Ruth and the resulting scenario would have to be compatible to the simple literal sense of the Book of Ruth as read and especially as read in the Hebrew and in line with everything else in the Book.
The explanation of Fix does not do that.
Fix in effect has a thinly disguised double edged motivation for his proposed solution:
(a) He considers the Moabites to have been somehow racially inferior to the Israelites. By accepting Ruth as being from Moab he would be admitting that the ancestor of David came in part from inferior stock!! David would be a product of miscegenation!
(b) By not saying that Ruth was really an Israelitess he would be leaving the Rabbinical solution open as a likely possibility. This is anathema!
Because Fix (and people like him) has these ulterior motivations they in effect invent an oral tradition of their own!
In other words it is not a case of accepting the literal meaning (as proposed by Fix etc) in place of the Oral Law Rabbinical explanation.
It is rather a choice between accepting one Oral Law Explanation (of the Rabbis) that is consistent with the Literal Meaning instead of another Oral Tradition (of Fix etc) that is inconsistent with the Literal meaning and has base motivations.
In addition to all this the so-called Oral Tradition of the Rabbis has thousands of years behind it and can be shown to have existed from the very beginning; from the time of the Bible itself!
What we have said regarding the preferability of the Rabbinical Explanation in the case of Ruth applies in all other cases.
If you are not Jewish we do not say that you should automatically accept Rabbinical Authority.
Just keep an open mind, search for the truth and accept the possibility that maybe the Rabbis were right.
They were not evil. Nor were they stupid. They did have traditions. They knew Hebrew. They argued with each other, contradicted each other, and in the end reached conclusions supported by logical analysis of Scripture.
To Make an Offering to Brit-Am:
http://www.britam.org/contribute-Brit-Am.html
Pleased with what you read?
Click Here to make an offering. |
'It is impossible to rightly govern the world without
God or the Bible.'
George Washington
Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.
[1-Kings 19:12] AND AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE A FIRE; BUT THE LORD WAS NOT IN THE FIRE: AND AFTER THE FIRE A STILL SMALL VOICE.
| PREVIOUS ISSUES |