Drew J

Yes we can. You theists do it all the time by saying he's good. Good is a judgement. So is bad. You theists can't say God is not to be judged and then judge him as good. To say he can't be judged is to in a way, bite the hand that feeds you.

rlogan

Toto, that was the earliest reference to the practice I've seen by thousands of years (twelve thousand years ago). Thank you. The other references to independent origins were useful. The upshot of the whole is that it is still speculative as a pre-existing practice.

I see too that most of the Biblical references I reviewed used it as a metaphor for the law and distinguishing between Jews and others. A derisive term in the OT - the uncircumcised.

Exodus 4 has a strange passage:

"25": Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

"26": So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

I don't get it. Somehow this prevents the Lord from killing Moses at the inn on his way back to Egypt.

It is a curious thing that it was not practiced while wandering through the desert. Jmebob - I've not seen that interpretation in the things I have read (regarding sand). And this lack of practice while wandering in the desert seems to go against it.

Sven, those were the good old days - when men ruled the roost.

OK Greg - you need to educate yourself. Saying that to someone who has asked a question is an insult. You still have nothing of value to say about the thread topic and want to continue derailing. I have no interest in this argument you want. Do you have any information whatsoever on the Biblical origins or interpretation of this practice?

mike_decock

I have split the post debating male vs. female cirumcision to a new thread.

-Mike...

premjan

the jews were just distinguishng themselves from africans by circumcising the men instead of the women. also, submergence of sexuality is generally supposed to make you smarter. that may have been the intention. plus you get aroused more slowly, hence fewer distractions.

Jackalope

It's been suggested that a closer translation is, "Truly, you are a bloody bridesgroom." Which to me at least hints at some other meaning going on there. What that meaning might be is truly obscured by centuries of insertions, deletions and redactions. As well as simple error creeping in. But yes, that's an extremely weird passage.

Gregg

Doubtful. My understanding is that Jewish male circumcision began during the Babylonian exile, with the priests justifying it by writing it into the holy texts.

Boro Nut

That's right Magus55. Jews chop part of their knob off out of love for their god, so they would forever remember his eternal promise to them. Rastafarians do much the same, except they tie a knot in it instead. There is a long tradition of mixing sexual mutilation with deep spiritual love. Vincent Van Gogh chopped his knob off and posted it to the woman he loved. I'm not aware she returned it so it must have hit the spot. Her name was Margaret or Ellen or Mary, but no-one now knows who she was. I do though. It was Margaret.

Boro Nut

M. Hoz

No way.There were no Jewish Priests in BABYLON
you *!





*I shall not use that word.

Toto

Can we call agree that there is no Biblical explanation for circumcision (other than the dubious covenant with God), and no reliable historical explanation? Doesn't this exhaust this topic as far as this forum goes?

Amlodhi

Ezra 1:2-3 "Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia . . . (3) Who is there among you (in Babylon) of all (God's) people, his God be with him and let him go up to Jerusalem. . ."

Ezra 1:5 "Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests , and the Levites, with all them whose spirit God had raised, to go up to build Jerusalem . . ."

Amlodhi