An Argument between Yair Davidiy (on behalf of Brit-Am) and James Rodriguez (4 February 2016, 24 Shevet, 5776)
Continued from Field of Moab, Fied of Moab. Recap, Plain Ruth, Moabitess.
Subject Headings:
#1 Pagan Women versus Pagan Men?
#2 Questioning Polemic Techniques is itself a Technique!
#3 The River Arnon, Border of Moab
#4 Simple meaning of words?
#5 Evading an Unanswered Challenge.
#6 What Does "Foreigner" Mean?
#7Â Examples that are not really relevant to the case.
#8 The Term "Moab" or "Moabite" was NEVER Applied to Israelites!
#9 No Israelites Ever Called Moabites
#10 No Statistic Majority Because there are no Statistics!
#11 What is Conversion to Judaism?
#12 Denying the Talmud and Historical Sources.
#13 The Girls and the Warriors.
#14 Facts are also Necessary!
Please Scroll Down!
Note by Yair Davidiy.
The notes below are from a polemical discussion between Yair Davidiy (representing Brit-Am) and James Rodriguez.
They continue from the articles concerning Ruth listed above.
James Rodriguez argues that Ruth the ancestress of King David and of the future Messiah was really an Israelitess and not a foreigner as the Bible (Ruth 2:10) describes her.
The debate expanded to include additional points including the validity of the Jewish Oral Law; acceptance of Moabite and Ammonite females into the community but excluding the males; descent from a Jewish Mother; etc.
These matters are all interlocked with each other. The conclusions concerning any one of these points has implications for the others.
The subject matter also has ideological and other implications as will be seen.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#1 Pagan Women versus Pagan Men?
James Rodriguez:
Deu 23:3 "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD forever,
Neh 13:1 On that day they read from the Book of Moses in the hearing of the people, and in it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever come into the assembly of God,
Neh 13:23Â In those days I also saw Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab.
Neh 13:25Â So I contended with them and cursed them, struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, "You shall not give your daughters as wives to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons or yourselves.
 The oral law has some historical value. However, I do not elevate it above the written law as you do. Although Nehemiah only saw Jewish men married to pagan women, he clearly expounds the prohibition in Deu 23:3, which is referred to in the context contained in the very first verse of the chapter (Neh 13:1), to both sexes (Neh 13:25). Deu 7:3 also excludes both sexes:
Deu 7:3Â You must not intermarry with them. Do not let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters,
There is no indication in the scriptures of any conversion exception among the nations from which God forbid Israel to intermarry. That is an unfortunate assumption made by the sages about Ruth. Additionally, it would be illogical and partial for God to allow a converted Moabite female to marry an Israelite male, but exclude a converted Moabite male from marrying an Israelite female. The logical choice is to exclude both, as Nehemiah indicates.
Neh 13:26 further implicates Solomon sinned by marrying Naamah the Ammonitess. Yet his son, Rehoboam, was still considered Jewish. This indicates Jewishness can be obtained by either parent.
===============================
Brit-Am Answer:
Nehemiah 13:1 quoted from the general prohibition against Ammonites and Moabites (Deuteronomy 23:3) as a result of which the Jews separated themselves from the pagan admixture (Hebrew: "arev" in the maculine tense, Nehemiah 13:3). He then dealt with several other matters at the end of which he returned and demanded that the Amonite, Moabite, Ashdodite (Philistine) women and their children be sent away. He then quoted the prohibtion against intermixing with ALL pagans who remained pagans (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). He did NOT THEN mention the prohibtion against Ammonites and Moabites. The whole section needs to be related to as one whole with the gap between the two subjects (Ammonites and Moabites on the one hand in Nehemaih 13:1 and pagans in general in Nehemiah 13:25 on the other being taken into account.Â
One cannot take one declaration concerning a certain matter and then seek to relate it to another issue 20 verses later while disregarding everything that was spoken about in the meanwhile. If the Rabbis would do something like that you might justifiably protest them doing it despite whatever logical explanation they might offer. You however do worse and offer no logical explanation for it.
The Oral Law and Rabbinical Tradition existed from the beginning alongside the Written Scripture. There is no dichotomy between the two. The one needs the other.
When the Lost Israelites return according to the Abarbanel they will bring with them their non-Israelite wives and children.
See the Biblical Commentator Isaac Abarbanel (1435-1509) on Deuteronomy 30:9 (see also his work, "Mashmia Yeshua" 2:3). Abarbanel says that at the time of Future Redemption the returnees will come with their non-Israelite women and their children and will be accepted. It will not be as it was in the time of Ezra when the foreign women with their children were sent away.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that one of the reasons (re Talmud, Yebamot 17) why the Ten Tribes were disowned until the End Times was because they had begotten "Strange Children" (Hosea 5:7).
This refers to children born from non-Israelite mothers.
At present however, the Jews of Judah are OBLIGATED to keep the Law. The Ten Tribes are temporarily free from it though this may change.
These matters are for the future.
At present we are discussing the past and the present but not the future.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#2 Questioning Polemic Techniques is itself a Technique!
James Rodriguez:
The article titled, "Field of Moab" by Yair Davidiy
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/field.html
was especially interesting.
It utilizes questionable logic and scholarship designed to diminish the possibility of Ruth's Israelite ancestry. The introduction utilizes
an appeal to ridicule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
setting a laughable tone for the rest of the article.
In section two, the author engages in
"poisoning the well"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
by undermining a certain group's doctrinal understanding (sure glad I'm a Levite :).
Section three
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/field.html#a3
 is designed to question the meaning of arvoth Moab. It creates the illusion of a discrepancy, yet exposes somewhat of an inconsistency. It claims the area of Israel's encampment :
".....is NEVER called "Land of Moab", or just "Moab", or anything else but always "Arvoth Moav" and the term "Arvoth Moav" is NEVER used for anything else."
Deu 32:49 and Deu 34:1 indicate the plains [arabah] of Moab were an integral part of the land [eretz] of Moab:
Deu 32:48-49Â Then the LORD spoke to Moses that very same day, saying: 49Â "Go up this mountain of the Abarim, Mount Nebo, which is in the land [eretz] of Moab, across from Jericho; view the land of Canaan, which I give to the children of Israel as a possession;
Deu 34:1Â Then Moses went up from the plains [arabah] of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is across from Jericho. And the LORD showed him all the land of Gilead as far as Dan,
Just because their encampment was never officially called the land of Moab in no way negates the particular tract of land the plains lied on was never referred to as such.
===============================
Brit-Am Answer:
Our use of known defined polemic techniques does not necessarily invalidate their pertinence.
If you use arguments that are inconsistent and illogical or associated with bad people espousing bad doctrines we are allowed to show this.
Our declaration concerning the "Land of Moab" never being associated iwth Israelites was mistaken.
We have apologized for this,
See:
Brit-Am Now no. 2564
http://hebrewnations.com/features/now12/2564.html
#2. Acknowledgment of Error re "Land of Moab"
Nevertheless this very error of ours served to highlight one important truth:
Terms associated with Moab such as "Aravoth Moab" and Land ["Erets"] of Moab were only used for what became Israelite areas before the Conquest and allocation of the lands to Israelite Tribes had been completed . After then the terms are not found in such contexts anywhere in Scripture.
Not only that but the country Ruth came from is always referred to in the Book of Ruth as "Field of ["Sedeh"] Ruth" (Ruth 1: 1, 2, 6).Â
We showed how this term ONLY applied to areas Moabites lived in.
See:
Field of Moab: Recap.
Ruth Came from Moab and was a Moabitess!
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/recap.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#3 The River Arnon, Border of Moab
James Rodriguez:
Section five presents a glaring contradiction.
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/field.html#a5
The article states:
"Since the Israelites were forbidden to conquer any Land of Moab but permitted to take Moabite Land that the Amorites had "purified" by prior possession then it would seem that the "Field of Moab" here must have been in that area which they later did conquer. Not so."
The article implicates there is no indication that the "field [sadeh] of Moab", in Num 21:20, was in the area the Israelites later conquered: Â
Num 21:20Â and from Bamoth, in the valley that is in the country [field/sadeh] of Moab, to the top of Pisgah which looks down on the wasteland.Â
Num 21:13 refutes this claim:
 "From there [border of Edom and Moab] they moved and camped on the other side of the Arnon, which is in the wilderness that extends from the border of the Amorites; for the Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites. "
The Israelites made their way from the south side of the Arnon up to the north side of the Arnon (see Map below). Â
This area was later conquered and given to Reuben :
Jos 13:15-17Â And Moses had given to the tribe of the children of Reuben an inheritance according to their families. 16Â Their territory was from Aroer, which is on the bank of the River Arnon, and the city that is in the midst of the ravine, and all the plain by Medeba; 17 Heshbon and all its cities that are in the plain: Dibon, Bamoth Baal, Beth Baal Meon,
The map  illustrates these were cities north of the Arnon, thus confirming the field/sadeh of Moab was in the land conquered by Israel and is akin to the "plains" of Moab:
===============================
Brit-Am Answer:
The verse you quoted says:
Num 21:
13 "From there [border of Edom and Moab] they moved and camped on the other side of the Arnon, which is in the wilderness that extends from the border of the Amorites; for the Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites. "
The Bible tells us the Israelites skirted i.e. went around Edom (Numbers 21:4). They were not allowed to conquer lands Moabites were living in (Deuteronomy 2:9). They would therefore have continued their circuit and come to the area NORTH of the ARNON which had once been Moabite but the Amorites had taken it from them. This is simple. Look at your own map, above.
Numbers 21:20 lists the places the Israelites had come to.
Num 21:20Â and from Bamoth, in the valley that is in the country [field/sadeh] of Moab, to the top of Pisgah which looks down on the wasteland.
It mentions the valley that is "in the country [field/sadeh] of Moab" but since the Israelites were encamped just to the north of the Arnon and the Moabites were just to the south of it this does not obviate the Field of Moab being also just to the south of the Arnon River like the Moabites themselves.
This is part of our argument. It is strong and true.
BUT even if hypothetically something was wrong with it (and in this case such is not the case) it would not mean much.
The word "Moab" means "Moab."Â Someone who wishes to say otherwise has the onus on them. We should not have to prove that Moab means Moab. They who say that Moab means something other than Moab should have to do the proving.
They would have to prove NOT concerning an era (i.e. the Israelites coming out of Egypt) hundreds of years beforehand but concerning the time in question. i.e. the period in which Boaz and Moab existed existed.
This has not been done and evidently cannot be done.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
James Rodriguez:
The article titled, "Field of Moab" by Yair Davidiy
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/field.html
 concludes:
"The simple meaning of the Hebrew Bible says that Ruth was a Moabite woman. That is how it was always understood.
The simple meaning of the Hebrew also says Moses was an Egyptian (Ex 2:19). Though we know other scriptures indicate he was an Israelite, it is an example of how simple meanings are not always so simple. Just because that is how it was always understood, does not make it true and/or correct.
That is appealing to tradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
===============================
Brit-Am Answer:
Again "Egyptan" means "Egyptian."
We have the case you quoted of Moses being referred to as an Egyptian by the daughters of Jethro. This was how they perceived him perhaps because of his dress, tonsure, manner of speech, etc.
This is understandable. An honest mistake.
The Bible however does not call Moses an Egyptian.
The Bible does say that Ruth came from Moab (Ruth, 1,2, 6) and was a Moabite woman (Ruth 1:4) and a foreigner (Ruth 2:10) to Israelites.
As for our using the technique of appealing to tradition, what is wrong with that?
Just because the tradition in question is Rabbinically Jewish does not make it invalid.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#5 Evading an Unanswered Challenge.
James Rodriguez:
re the article
Plain Ruth. Exegesis in the Light of Reason by Yair Davidiy
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/ruth2.html
Yair said:
Simple answers to the tough questions in the section titled,
"Some hard questions for the Ruth was an Israelite people"
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/ruth2.html#a6
Question 1: The Hebrew expression "Sedeh Moab" literally the "Field of Moab"Â in the Book of Ruth has always been understood to mean the Country of Moab meaning the Moab of the non-Israelite Moabites. Where in the Book of Moab is there the slightest hint as to a different meaning?
JR replies:
Answer: My answer was given in a previous email titled Bible Basics concerning the Field of Moab.
===============================
Brit-Am Answer:
We too have answered in our article,
Field of Moab: Recap.
Ruth Came from Moab and was a Moabitess!
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/recap.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#6 What Does "Foreigner" Mean?
James Rodriguez:
re the article
Plain Ruth. Exegesis in the Light of Reason by Yair Davidiy
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/ruth2.html
#6. Some Hard Questions for the "Ruth was an Israelite" People.
Yair said:
Question/comment 2. Ruth is described as one of the Moabite women (Ruth 1:4) whom the sons of Naomi married before their death. Ruth is described as a Moabitess (Ruth 1:22, 2:26) and as a foreigner (Ruth 2:10).
JR replies:
Answer/reply: I'll reply to Ruth the foreigner here and the rest of the comment is covered below. The generic Hebrew term for 'foreigner' [nokriy] is defined by Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Dictionary as:
H5237Â [nokriy]
1) foreign, alien
1a) foreign
1b) foreigner (substantive)
1c) foreign woman, harlot
1d) unknown, unfamiliar (figuratively)
Notice the entry in the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of The Bible, which defines Hebrew terms in their ancient context:
(N-K-RY) - Foreigner: One who is not known. [freq. 45] |kjv: stranger, strange, alien, foreigner, outlandish| {str: 5237}
The term in Ruth 2:10 is used as an adjectival noun [nkrie] and can describe someone of foreign descent (non-Israelite-Jdg 19:12) and/or someone unknown or unfamiliar (Pro 27:2). The context would dictate the correct definition.
It should be noted that at this stage Ruth does not know Boaz is her kinsman, and she does not find out until Naomi tells her so in chapter two verse 20; for verse one and three of this chapter is only the authors narrative and not something that was spoken to Ruth. Hence when she does meet and speak to Boaz (vs 8-13), she expresses great gratitude for his kindness to one who, as she believes, is a complete and utter stranger to him and having no claim on him at all.
So in ignorance of his identity as a kinsman, she is surprised that he should treat a stranger [unknown, unfamiliar] to his family in such a generous fashion. Ruths comment had nothing to do with being a racial foreigner/stranger at all. This conclusion is confirmed by Boazs reply to Ruth in verse eleven:
And Boaz answered and said to her, "It has been fully reported to me, all that you have done for your mother-in-law, since the death of your husband, and how you have left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and have come to a people whom you did not know before [unknown, unfamiliar].
===============================
Brit-Am Answer:
The word "nocriah" in Ruth 2:10 is how Ruth describes herself to Boaz. This word is translated as "foreigner."
According to the simple meaning it means a foreign non-Israelite woman cf. Ezra 10: 14, 17, 18;Â 1-Kings 11:1;Â Nehemiah 13:26.
If Scripture intended another meaning it would have indicated as much as it does everywhere else.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#7 Â Examples that are not really relevant to the case.
James Rodriguez:
re the article
Plain Ruth. Exegesis in the Light of Reason by Yair Davidiy
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/ruth2.html
#6. Some Hard Questions for the "Ruth was an Israelite" People.
Yair said:
Question/comment 2a:
The Bible in hundreds of instances uses ethnic appellations such as Edomite, Moabite, Ammonite, Philistine, etc. The intention is always the simple meaning. Where in the Bible is the intention to Israelites who were merely living in the countries concerned?
JR replies:
Answer/reply: The names Gilead/Moab were used interchangeably to describe land north of the Arnon all they up to the Jabbok River. Centuries after the conquest, which places us close to the time frame of Ruth, Northern and Southern Gilead were occupied by Israelites being referred to, in this instance, as men of Gilead:
Jdg 12:4Â Now Jephthah gathered together all the men of Gilead and fought against Ephraim. And the men of Gilead defeated Ephraim, because they [Ephraim] said, "You Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites and among the Manassites."
Besides Manasseh, the other tribe referred to as "Gileadite" was Ephraim. The passage suggests the Gileadites consisted of Israelites from both Ephraim and West-Mannaseh, as the tribe of Ephraim's Eastern boundary was the Jordan River.
'
Additionally, we are told Elimelech's family were oddly called Ephrathites (Rth 1:2). Ephrath was an ancient name of Bethlehem (Gen 35:19; 48:7). We also find the author of Judges refer to Samson's father-in-law as a Timnite (Jdg 15:6). Timnah was the ancient name of a city in Judah (Gen 38:12). So this illustrates, at the time of the Judges, Israelites were sometimes referred to not only by the current tribal name, but also the ancient name of the district in which they lived. '
===============================
Brit-Am Answer:
In all the cases you mentioned we know what is meant from the context.
In all the Bible we do not have a single known instance where an Israelite is referred to as a "Moabite."
Not only that but from the context and narrative Ruth is not only referred to as a Moabite but depicted as one.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#8Â The Term "Moab" or "Moabite" was NEVER Applied to Israelites!
James Rodriguez:
The preservation of a land's old name by an invading or occupying force was common practice in ancient times. ' An example of this practice can be found by comparing Numbers 21:20 with Rth 1:1 . It demonstrates the use of the same name for a geographic location, occupied by two different nations, centuries apart:
Num 21:20 And from Bamoth in the valley, that is in the country H7704 of Moab,H4124 to the top of Pisgah, which looketh toward Jeshimon (KJV).'
Rth 1:1Â Â Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled,that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country H7704 of Moab,H4124 he, and his wife, and his two sons (KJV).'
The context of Numbers chapter 21 suggests the 'country or fields of Moab' belonged to and was occupied by the Amorites, at that specific point in time, which Moses referred to as the 'country [sadeh- plains, fields] of 'Moab' . Some time later, in the period of Ruth, this same parcel of land, now possessed and occupied by Israelites, was still being referred to as the 'country [sadeh- plains, fields] of Moab'. Bamoth (aka Bamoth-Baal), Pisgah, and Jeshimon were all located in the country or fields of Moab in the tribe of Reuben's territory during the period of the Judges .''
The author(s) of the books of Judges, Ruth and Samuel (most likely Samuel), ' had a curious habit of referring to Israelites who, at the time, occupied lands currently known as Timnah, Gilead and Ephrath as Timnites, Gileadites and Ephrathites (1 Sam 17:12). Would it not be consistent to also refer to Israelites living in the territory referred to as the plains/fields of' Moab as Moabites(s)? It becomes even more compelling when we find this land or city labeling is a consistent theme throughout Samuel's writings:
Jdg_12:13,15' After him, Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite judged Israel. 15' Then Abdon the son of Hillel, the Pirathonite died and was buried in Pirathon in the land of Ephraim, in the mountains of the Amalekites.
Abdon was an Ephraimite living in a city called Pirathon and was referred to, not as an Ephraimite, but a Pirathonite.
1Sa_18:19 But it happened at the time when Merab, Saul's daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as a wife.
Adriel was an Israelite from the city of Abel-Meholah. It was located west of the Jordan, South of Bethshean, in the territory of either Issachar or West Manasseh. Again Samuel addressed him not by his tribal name but the area in which he lived.
1Sa_23:19 Then the Ziphites came up to Saul at Gibeah, saying, "Is David not hiding with us in strongholds in the woods, in the hill of Hachilah, which is on the south of Jeshimon?
Ziph was a village in the Judean Mountains (Joshua 15:24,55), Southeast of Hebron. Once again, we see Samuel addressing Israelites based on the district they occupied and not by their tribal name. To compound the circumstantial evidence, Samuel never used the tribal designation Reubenite, Gadite, or Manasite, in the singular or plural in any of the writings attributed to him, in describing Israelites living east of the Jordan in the land of Moab/Gilead. Thus we can safely conclude he referred to Israelites living in the land of Moab/Gilead, north of the Arnon, as Moabite (ess) (Rth 1:22, 2:2,6, 21; 4:5, 10) and Gileadite(s) (Jdg10:3; 11:1,40; 12:7)!
We also have David's wives named Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the Carmelitess after two cities in Judah (1 Sa 27:3). Ruth occupied the "sadeh" [plains, land] of Moab in Reuben/Gad's territory. It is only textually consistent for her to be called a Moabitess or one of the 'women of Moab' (Rth 1:4).
This is the main point of confusion in determining Ruth's racial lineage. Israelites living in the "country, plains, or land of Moab" were actually referred to as "Moabites" not because they were descendants of Lot (Moabites) but because they simply dwelled there!
===============================
Brit-Am Answer:
All of the above claims have already been answered by us, at least once.
We repeat NO-WHERE in the Bible do we find the term Moab or Moabite applied to Israelites. "Sedeh Moab" means Country of Moab. If you claim otherwise you should prove it.
For example,
France means France and Frenchman means someone who is French.
Theoretically an American living in a place that had once belonged to France might be called a Frenchman and  be considered foreigner by his fellow Americans BUT the explanation would have to be explained.
It is not a hypothesis to be simply hurled forward. This is especially so if everything else we know in the example discussed indicates that France means France as we know it and Frenchman means a French man. So too, Moab mean Moab and Moabitess means Moabite woman until proven otherwise.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#9 No Israelites Ever Called Moabites
James Rodriguez:
re the article
Plain Ruth. Exegesis in the Light of Reason by Yair Davidiy
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/ruth2.html
#6. Some Hard Questions for the "Ruth was an Israelite" People.
Yair said:
Question 2b: The intention is always the simple meaning. Where in the Bible is the intention to Israelites who were merely living in the countries concerned?
JR replied:
Answer: The country [sadeh] of Moab is akin to the Plains of Moab, located in the area given to Reuben . This was illustrated in a prior email.
==============================
Brit-Am Answer:
Concerning the Field of Moab it was not illustrated because it is not so.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#10 No Statistic Majority Because there are no Statistics!
James Rodriguez:
re the article
Plain Ruth. Exegesis in the Light of Reason by Yair Davidiy
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/ruth2.html
#6. Some Hard Questions for the "Ruth was an Israelite" People.
Yair said:
Question/comment 2c: As far as I know there are NONE in the "Old Testament" and there certainly are none as far as Moab is concerned. Where do you draw the line?If someone wants to argue differently they should prove it since the STATISTICAL MAJORITY of all cases, in this case all 100% of all proven cases, is as we say.
JR replied:
Answer/reply: The STATISTICAL MAJORITY indicates Samuel used district designations to identify Israelites. Utilizing your own point of reasoning, we have to conclude Samuel referred to Reubenites residing in the sadeh/plains of Moab as Moabites(s).
==============================
Brit-Am Answer:
 No-where in the Buible are Israelites called Moabites.
If you wish to say otherwise provide an agreed upon example, with references.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#11 What is Conversion to Judaism?
James Rodriguez:
re the article
Plain Ruth. Exegesis in the Light of Reason by Yair Davidiy
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/ruth2.html
#6. Some Hard Questions for the "Ruth was an Israelite" People.
Yair said:
Question 3: If Ruth was not a Moabitess but an Israelitess why does the Bible not say so?
JR replied:
Answer: I think the more important question should be, If Ruth was a convert to Judaism, why does the bible not say so as exemplified by Esther 8:17? The mention of her conversion would have been just as important for God to directly reveal in order to support and justify an exception to His Holy Law (Deu 23:3). Perhaps He did not mention it because she was not a convert but an Israelite. Her conversion has been assumed over the ages. What God has decided to reveal has not been diligently searched out (Pro 25:2).
==============================
Brit-Am Answer:
Conversion to Judaism is accepting the Jewish Religion in a way acceptable to the Jewish Religious Authorities.
Ruth said:
Ruth 1:
16 But Ruth replied, 'Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.'
Boaz said to Ruth:
Ruth 2:
11 Boaz replied, 'I've been told all about what you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband, how you left your father and mother and your homeland and came to live with a people you did not know before. 12 May the Lord repay you for what you have done. May you be richly rewarded by the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge.'
Ruth was a Moabitess (Ruth 2:6), and a foreign woman (Ruth 2:10), who had come shelter under wings of the God of Israel (Ruth 2:11).
This formulation was considered a recognition of valid socially-accepted conversion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#12 Denying the Talmud and Historical Sources.
James Rodriguez:
re the article
Plain Ruth. Exegesis in the Light of Reason by Yair Davidiy
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/ruth2.html
Yair said:
Question 3a: Why did the Talmud and Josephus and other sources all take it for granted that Ruth was a Moabitess?
JR replied:
Answer: Because her conversion has been assumed over the ages.
==============================
Brit-Am Answer:
Why was it accepted if it was not so?
Mistakes happen. Misunderstanding occur.
Nevertheless if one wishes to challenge a universally accepted fact then you have to work at it and show why.
You can just make statements and propose outlandish possibilities especially when they may have grave consequences and far-reaching implications.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#13 The Girls and the Warriors
James Rodriguez:
re the article
Plain Ruth. Exegesis in the Light of Reason by Yair Davidiy
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/ruth2.html
Yair said:
Question 3b: The Sages in the Talmud (Yebamoth 76b) said that Ruth was a Moabitess and that the interdiction applied to males and not to females since the reason for prohibition is given (DEUTERONOMY 23:4) as not supplying food and water to the migrating Israelites. This was the task of the menfolk, not of the females. THEREFORE THE FEMALES WERE NOT PROHIBITED! What is wrong with this solution? It has parallels in Biological Genetics. - Apart from the fact that it is Jewish?
JR replies:
Answer: Jewish commentary has value. But the scriptures indicate it was customary for women of the ancient near east to supply and distribute water (Exo 2:16; Gen 24:11-14). Food preparation and distribution was done by both men and women (Gen 19:3; 27:17). Hence supporting the Moabite/Ammonite marriage prohibition of both sexes, just as Nehemiah states (Neh 13:25).
==============================
Brit-Am Answer:
We have answered this question in our article,
"Nehemiah".
In short the logistics of supplying ca. 3 million people with food and water would have required male manpower. Other factors were also involved including the danger of promiscuity and the social climate of the age in question.
Also the Bible itself gives the Ammonites and Moabites not supplying food and water as the reason for the prohibition. There was a reason for this explanation being given.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
James Rodriguez:
re the article
Plain Ruth. Exegesis in the Light of Reason by Yair Davidiy
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/ruth2.html
Yair said:
Question 3c: You have no problem with using computers, and cell-phones, and medicines, etc, produced by Jewish experts. Why should solutions to Biblical problems be any different?
JR replied:
Answer: I love my Jewish brethren. But if you want to believe the creation of potentially harmful radioactive devices and dangerous prescription drugs somehow equates to better understanding of the Biblical text, then be my guest. What I find problematic and somewhat ironic with some of our brethren is how the opinions of Jewish Talmudic experts hold more weight than the actual Jewish authors of whom [the Almighty] spoke to directly.
Yair said:
Question 3d/comment: There are probably a few more difficult questions we could ask to be answered but let us first say the No-Sayers answer satisfactorily just ONE of the above.
JR replied:
Answer/reply: I'd be more than happy to take on more difficult questions. Shalom my brother.
==============================
Brit-Am Answer:
First answer the simple questions already given.
We do not doubt your intellectual prowess BUT if the facts are not there then there is little you can do about it.
Sorry.
Â
 Â