tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post5252550915142609300..comments2024-03-24T11:03:03.106-07:00Comments on Just Genesis : Abusing Biblical ListsAlice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post-72007979440046115652015-03-01T09:31:58.001-08:002015-03-01T09:31:58.001-08:00That was my point, of course. Ruth and David were ...That was my point, of course. Ruth and David were related by blood to Abraham and Moses. These ruling lines intermarried. <br /><br />The Deuteronomist Historian would like us to forget that. Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post-75172469472651829022015-02-28T19:43:23.323-08:002015-02-28T19:43:23.323-08:00" According to Deuteronomy 23:3, no descendan..." According to Deuteronomy 23:3, no descendant of Moab was allowed in the assembly of Israel, yet David appeared in the assembly and he is a descendant of the Moabite woman Ruth.<br />"<br /><br />Ruth was called a Moabite because she lived in the land of Moab, she came from the loins of Jacob, just as any (most) other Hebrew. This is a problem when people take scripture literally, without understanding how ancient Hebrew works, nor how their culture operates.<br /><br />Saying that Ruth is a Moabitess (by blood) is basically akin to saying that the most high himself is a liar, since no person from Moab (by blood) were allowed to enter into the congregation of the most high.Richard Høyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09365747744136261072noreply@blogger.com