storytime

Wasn't David's taking the kingdom from Saul due to the prophet Samuel's stripping the garments from Saul? Or maybe I've mixed the storyline.


I find a similarity between the story of David and Jonathan and NT Jesus . Jonathan strips his garments in show of leaving behind his loyalty with Saul his earthly father and giving loyalty to David as the new king. In NT, Jesus requires leaving all behind and following him in loyalty, instead of calling the Pharisees and Sadducees Lords.

JaronK

That only reenforces the marriage concept... remember, marrying a wife to someone to secure a political alliance was common back then. But also remember that David also married Jonathan's sister, so it didn't need to be Jonathan... the tie to Saul already existed.

But then you get the later passages about how much delight Jonathan took in David and how he loved David in ways he couldn't love a woman, and the return comments about David's similar feelings towards Jonathan and how he couldn't love Jonathan's sister like he loved Jonathan, plus the tragic death scene where David talks about how he loves him... it's pretty clear what's going on there.

JaronK

semiopen

Could be, clothes and garments are imoirtant keys in the bible... this link suggests he is divesting himself of manhood by taking off his warrior clothes:

http://www.fresnofamous.com/content/...e-1-samuel-181

Maybe it's my short attention span, but I like arguments that can be easily understood. The link quotes quite a few different passages and gives reasonable explanations. Haven't immediately found anything that supports my Greek theory though.

storytime

I wanted to add this: What was the peace offer? It was convert to Israelite tradition or die. OT relates how Israelites were commanded to offer people in land of Canaan the opportunity to convert - which offered them peace as slaves to Israelites - as "food" for them, slave labor. If people refused that peace offer, God commanded they be killed.

storytime

Seems more reasonable that it would be his loyalty to Saul being divested instead of his manhood. As you say, garments were symbolizing different things. The NT veil being split in two seems to note a division of Jews from Jews.

btw, I agree with your horror story comparison.

storytime

a side note: The other children of Joseph born to him in Egypt were not considered in the House of Israel. Joseph's marriage to an Egyptian then constituted his own house name separate from that of Jacob-Israel. An oddity of sorts.

semiopen

A little swipe at the Kingdom of Israel maybe, even though the story apparently comes from the Elohist source. This bothers the talmudic sages who say that his wife converted to Judaism before their marriage... sometimes I wish those guys had run their opinions by me before writing them.

His wife was supposedly Potiphar's (Potipherah) daughter, and Potphar's wife made a prophetic error when she attempted to seduce Joseph by thinking she would bear his children instead of her daughter.

Quite a peculiar story.

storytime

Well, the OT does say that God calls them a peculiar people as if He didn't even know what to make of them.

Maybe Potphar's wife merely wanted a roll in the hay, so to speak. :grin:

JaronK

That makes no sense. If homosexuals didn't reproduce, they'd mostly disappear in one generation. Basic natural selection... if you don't make more of yourself, then there won't be more of yourself.

Furthermore, your math makes no sense. You're assuming that the remaining 80% of the population doesn't generate at least 1.2 children per person or so. As long as they do, even if a static 20% didn't reproduce, you'd still have an increasing population.

Nope, your math just sucks. If 80% of the population reproduces and creates 1.5 children each on average (that is to say, an average of 3 children per couple) then that's enough to increase the population by 20% every generation, even if that other 20% of the population doesn't breed at all. And again, you're running on the assumption that homosexuals don't breed at all, which is insane as they'd die out within a generation if it was true. Gays have just as much desire for children as straights... they just don't have them accidentally during casual sexual encounters.

Your theory is based on bigotry hiding behind really really bad math and a lack of understanding, with an ad hominem (assuming everyone who opposes you is in denial) thrown in for good measure.

And you're still assuming homosexuals don't breed. They do so less in the case of pure homosexuals, but they still do breed (I know a number that have) and bisexuals breed just as much as straights.

JaronK

Keith&Co.

Not entirely accurate. Not all genetic traits are isolated to those individuals that show that trait.

Assuming that it's the gene pool that produces homosexuals 10% of the time, the homosexuals do not have to reproduce. The genes of all the people producing children will create the next generation, 10% of which will be homosexual.