Isn't it odd that it speaks against lying in the bible. (soul, church)

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Jacob's was not that nice a person but neither was Esau. Even though Esau was Isaac's fave son, it was God's will that had the final say in the matter as to who would slave for who. But later on God blessed Esau too. But the OP is about this:

Rather than the Genesis writings about Jacob excusing what occurred it showed Jacob knew it was wrong to deceive his father. It could have turned out real bad for Jacob if Isaac got wind of the deception so the mother steps in and says if anything goes wrong the curse will be on the mother. The story shows that God's will rules in the affairs of man without giving excuse to the offender. No one in the story of Jacob did said it was O.K. for him to lie. Therefore lucidkitty in fact is making a deceptive statement not based on fact concerning Jacob and her idea that God thought it was O.K. for him to deceive his father.

Esau was not a nice person? HOW was he not nice? You are referring to later interpreations of Esau and Jacob's character in which the very well-defined Good vs Evil qualities are present - as I pointed out in my post. Nowhere, in Genesis, does it say or imply that Esau was not a "nice person" and therefore deserved what he got. Read my post again, and then read Genesis. Despite the attempts to paint him as a brutish fool - an objective reader's sympathies will remain with Esau.

As for Lucidkitty's statement - you excused Jacob's behavior because it was "God's will", and because he didn't commit a "crime" - while freely admitting that what he did was wrong. You said:

Likewise there was no crime committed by Jacob. But according to conscience we know it was wrong as did he. He knew if he got caught in the act Isaac could have cursed him. But Jacob's act was necessary in bringing about God's hidden intention. After all, Esau DID sell his birthright to Jacob so all that should have gone to Esau went to Jacob. All Jacob did was ensure he got what was legally coming to him.

Jacob did commit a crime - not a crime from the later Torah, but you're falsely assuming that the world was lawless without Torah, and that only the Noahide Laws were the ones that people were bound to follow. This is faulty thinking. Onan, in Genesis, was struck down dead for committing a "crime" when he violated brother-in-law marriage - a law later explicated in the Torah (though it's familiar from extra-biblical sources). Likewise, Judah was guilty of sin when he refused to fulfill that same duty to Tamar. Many more examples could be given, with Jacob's deception and theft of the birthright one of them. Your theory on "lawlessness" is highly flawed, and based on an extremely Fundamentalistic and limited reading of Scripture. The Patriarchs and those before them had their own laws that were part of their ANE background. The Bible did not rise out of a vacuum, and you've been shown that in other threads. You can deny it all you want, but you would still be in error.

Lucidkitty's question still stands - and you further proved her point by your words above.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by whoppers

Esau was not a nice person? HOW was he not nice? You are referring . . . "

Read what I wrote again. I didn't say Esau was not a nice person. What did I say?

[NoCapo]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Read what I wrote again. I didn't say Esau was not a nice person. What did I say?

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Jacob's was not that nice a person but neither was Esau.

(Emphasis added)

I think this was whopper's point, that in order to excuse or lessen Jacob's bad behavior, later writers and interpreters have vilified Esau, portraying him as an uneducated, violent brute who didn't really deserve the birthright in the first place.

-NoCapo

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by NoCapo

(Emphasis added)

I think this was whopper's point, that in order to excuse or lessen Jacob's bad behavior, later writers and interpreters have vilified Esau, portraying him as an uneducated, violent brute who didn't really deserve the birthright in the first place.

-NoCapo

Were either of the brothers educated? You atheists are fond of making the point that biblical folk were ALL unducated. And violent brutes to boot. Which begs the point.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

Were either of the brothers educated? You atheists are fond of making the point that biblical folk were ALL unducated. And violent brutes to boot. Which begs the point.

We're not saying that... I do know what you mean, though - and I do not engage in that.

If you read my original post (that Eusebius was replying to, and NoCapo was referring to) - you'll see that I pointed out that Jewish tradition saw Jacob's "dwelling in tents" as a reference to his high literacy and education level (as opposed to Esau's). Here's another reference to that idea - from early Aramaic translations of Genesis:

And the two boys grew up, and Esau was a skilled hunter, a man who went to the fields, but Jacob was a perfect man who frequented the schoolhouse.
(Targum Onqelos, Genesis 25:27)

And Jacob was a man perfect in good work, dwelling in schoolhouses.
(Targum Neophyti, Genesis 25:27)

You'll also see that it is the Bible and tradition which referred to Esau as a dumb brute, essentially - not Atheists heh heh! In the original Genesis story, it appears as if the details concerning the birth of Esau (that he was hairy) are merely to prepare us for the later incident in which Jacob impersonates his brother and tricks his blind father by wearing "hairy arms"; such a trick would not have made sense if the original notice of Esau's hairiness was not given at the birth. Of course, later interpreters and biblical writers would seize on this detail and use it to paint a negative picture of Esau generally. Especially see the quotation from Jubilees I gave earlier (19:13-15), the reference from Malachi (1:1-3), but also other sources such as Pseudo-Philo where God's preference is given more detail:

There were born two sons, Jacob and Esau.
And God loved Jacob, but He hated Esau because of his deeds.
(Biblical Antiquities 32:5)

This refers to deeds (which we never hear about in Genesis) that determines how God viewed Esau (and later Edom). Later prophets would give some details concerning this, such as when Amos wrote that Esau "chased after his brother with the sword, and he cast aside all pity; his anger ripped at his prey, and his wrath stormed forever" (1:11 - though these are allusions to Edom, using the imagery of Esau to heighten the imagery), and Obadiah's declaration that Edom shall be covered in shame and "cut off forever", "for the violence done to your brother, Jacob" (1:10).

One could also point to later comparisons of Esau with Rome, the violent, conquering, crucifying brute of the ancient Mediterranean World which the Jews prayed and hoped that a Messiah would free them from. Especially see the imagery in the book of Revelation for a Christian perspective, and Romans 9:10-13.


They were not "savages". I agree 100%.
I know what you're referring to (in regards to atheists being fond of painting all biblical characters as savages), but I assure you - that is not what any of us are saying right now. I, personally, don't say that at any time. It was a different time, different place, different people - and this doesn't make them savages. They were quite intelligent and sophisticated for their time, as was their literature. I agree with you that accusing them of being savages is an easy excuse for many, but it's not one that I agree with.

What we are discussing is how Esau became demonized, and Jacob elevated - and the morality involved. NoCapo summed it up wonderfully.

Jacob tricking his father (in awesome anachronistic clothing ha ha!). Can you imagine if an artist painted Biblical scenes today in that fashion - with characters wearing suits and ties, and carrying briefcases? Maybe Bathsheba would be wearing short-shorts (when she was wearing anything at all, that is hee hee!), and Joab (David's "fixer") would be wearing a Mafia-suit?

[sanspeur]

What I find odd is that although the bible does speak out against lying, lying is so prevalent on all of the Christian apologetic sites.

[Eusebius]

The Bible is quite clear that people did not think it was O.K. to lie way back then.

For instance, when Abraham said Sarah was his sister the king asked why he lied. He didn't really lie. Sarah was his sister. But just the king asking him why he lied shows that they didn't believe it was O.K. to lie. Besides, he didn't really lie.

Gen 20:12 And, moreover, truly, my sister is she, the daughter of my father is she, yea, but not the
daughter of my mother, and she becomes my wife.

Jacob knew it was wrong to deceive his father Isaac. The Bible does not show it was O.K. to lie.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by whoppers

Esau was not a nice person? HOW was he not nice? You are referring to later interpreations of Esau and Jacob's character in which the very well-defined Good vs Evil qualities are present - as I pointed out in my post. Nowhere, in Genesis, does it say or imply that Esau was not a "nice person" and therefore deserved what he got. Read my post again, and then read Genesis. Despite the attempts to paint him as a brutish fool - an objective reader's sympathies will remain with Esau.

If your brother (if you have one) plotted to murder you, would you think he was nice? I wouldn't. Esau plotted to murder Jacob.

As for Lucidkitty's statement - you excused Jacob's behavior because it was "God's will", and because he didn't commit a "crime" - while freely admitting that what he did was wrong. You said:

Likewise there was no crime committed by Jacob. But according to conscience we know it was wrong as did he. He knew if he got caught in the act Isaac could have cursed him. But Jacob's act was necessary in bringing about God's hidden intention. After all, Esau DID sell his birthright to Jacob so all that should have gone to Esau went to Jacob. All Jacob did was ensure he got what was legally coming to him.

Jacob did commit a crime - not a crime from the later Torah, but you're falsely assuming that the world was lawless without Torah, and that only the Noahide Laws were the ones that people were bound to follow. This is faulty thinking. Onan, in Genesis, was struck down dead for committing a "crime" when he violated brother-in-law marriage - a law later explicated in the Torah (though it's familiar from extra-biblical sources). Likewise, Judah was guilty of sin when he refused to fulfill that same duty to Tamar. Many more examples could be given, with Jacob's deception and theft of the birthright one of them.

I appreciate much of what you wrote above but Jacob did not steal Esau's birthright. Remember Esau sold the birthright to Jacob? That is not stealing. Of course Jacob knew it was wrong to deceive Isaaac as his very words show. His mother knew it was wrong in the relative sense but in the absolute sense knew he had to deceive Isaac. In the diving alchemy the wrong done by Jacob was transformed into right.

Your theory on "lawlessness" is highly flawed, and based on an extremely Fundamentalistic and limited reading of Scripture.

Ghee, you must either have omnipresence or omniscience. How did you know I have "limited reading of Scripture"? That is so embarrassing for you to leak that secret out about me. (spoken tongue in cheek).

The Patriarchs and those before them had their own laws that were part of their ANE background. The Bible did not rise out of a vacuum, and you've been shown that in other threads. You can deny it all you want, but you would still be in error.

I never said the Bible arose out of a vacuum. It arose out of a straw broom.
Look, the Bible is an historical account (whether you believe that or not) of the genealogical lineage of both the promised Messiah and other lineages and the New Testament has a lot of material on the historicity of the lineage of that promised Messiah proving the promised Messiah had come (whether you believe that or not, I could care less). I don't want to get into a debate with you on that point. When Cain and Abel were living there was no law against murder and no ANE proof of any codified laws as such. It was only AFTER the world-wide flood of Noah's day did God make the law against murder.

Lucidkitty's question still stands - and you further proved her point by your words above.

This question falls flat on its face:

Isn't it odd that it speaks against lying in the bible. Yet it was fine in God's eyes for Jacob to deceive his father?

Where in the Bible does it state it was fine in God's eyes for Jacob to deceive his father? Don't go by what I say. Find the verse that says it was O.K. If you can't, then Lucidkitty's premise is deceptive.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

If your brother (if you have one) plotted to murder you, would you think he was nice? I wouldn't. Esau plotted to murder Jacob.

If YOUR brother tricked you out of, and then stole (yes, stole) your birth-right, would you think he was nice? I wouldn't. And according to the laws of that time, it would have been entirely appropriate for Esau to want to kill Jacob, and no jury would have convicted him. Isaac certainly would not have done so - for he was grief-stricken at what his youngest son had done to him and Esau. If what Jacob did was so on the up-and-up, then he would not have run for his life. He could have just said "Yeh, hey - that Oracle thing - I was meant to ********* over, dear brother. God's will, and all that stuff."

You're too busy engaging in the same demonization of Esau that others later did. WHO went to Esau and begged for forgiveness in the end? It was Jacob, now transformed into Israel - a better man. Jacob was a stinker and deserved everything that happened to him, and more. You're just too blinded by the polemics of the authors (who were, after all, Israelites!), and your Sunday School upbringing that you miss much in the story that is so blindingly obvious if you're willing to see it.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

I appreciate much of what you wrote above but Jacob did not steal Esau's birthright. Remember Esau sold the birthright to Jacob? That is not stealing. Of course Jacob knew it was wrong to deceive Isaaac as his very words show. His mother knew it was wrong in the relative sense but in the absolute sense knew he had to deceive Isaac. In the diving alchemy the wrong done by Jacob was transformed into right.

Perhaps we need to be more specific: Jacob tricked Esau out of his birthright (as if that's possible without a patriarchal father's permission...), and then stole the blessing from him by lying to his father. If his earlier trickery was absolute, he would not have had to deceive his father to steal the blessing of the firstborn. Invoking "relative" sense to excuse Rebeccah is not necessary or even accurate - she received exactly what she deserved when she said "let the curse fall upon me": she never saw her beloved son again, and possibly never had a good relationship with her husband after that as well.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Ghee, you must either have omnipresence or omniscience. How did you know I have "limited reading of Scripture"? That is so embarrassing for you to leak that secret out about me. (spoken tongue in cheek).

Those who have spent a large amount of their life studying scripture in a professional setting can spot someone employing a "limited reading of scripture" in their argumentation fairly easily. In fact, you're probably misunderstanding what I wrote in the first place about a "limited reading". Pointless to explain until you get some Hebrew and higher-level education under your belt concerning the ANE and it's relationship to the Hebrew Bible. By your own admission - you do not even read Biblical Hebrew.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

I never said the Bible arose out of a vacuum. It arose out of a straw broom.
Look, the Bible is an historical account (whether you believe that or not) of the genealogical lineage of both the promised Messiah and other lineages and the New Testament has a lot of material on the historicity of the lineage of that promised Messiah proving the promised Messiah had come (whether you believe that or not, I could care less). I don't want to get into a debate with you on that point. When Cain and Abel were living there was no law against murder and no ANE proof of any codified laws as such. It was only AFTER the world-wide flood of Noah's day did God make the law against murder.

Again, more nonsense revealing the level of your engagement with the Biblical texts, the ANE and history in general - your still stuck at Sunday School 101. Your Noah thread revealed much of that to a large number of people. No point to comment beyond that. Time to step it up a notch, Eseubius, and join those people who can approach the Bible with a degree of competence.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

This question falls flat on its face:
Where in the Bible does it state it was fine in God's eyes for Jacob to deceive his father? Don't go by what I say. Find the verse that says it was O.K. If you can't, then Lucidkitty's premise is deceptive.

I would suggest that a simple verse is not going to provide you with some sort of magic proof for that statement, which is why I have spent some time explaining a bit of it. Funny how you interpret the Bible to say that it was okay for Jacob to lie and trick his way into the birthright - because it was God's will. But then you say "Don't rely on what I say - show me a single verse" lol. Really.. Either your reading is faulty, or you're just making excuses now - I'm not sure which.

Have you not been paying attention?

[Eusebius]

Jacob neither tricked Esau nor stole Esau's birthright.