Avenging Of Blood

Mr. M · Jan 27, 2022

Exodus 17:14. Then the Lord said to Moses, Write this for a memorial (zikrown)
in the book and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance (zeker) of Amalek from under heaven.

While a memorial (zikrown) exists to help perpetuate a memory (zakar); a remembrance (zeker) refers to the effect the memory has on a person, or people. For example, the memorials of the Confederacy continue to be controversial in the South. Statues of Civil War heroes have been removed. The Confederate flag, the most visible memorial of that period, has been banned from flying over municipal and state buildings. This has been necessary, because the remembrances associated with them are polarizing to society. Ideally, memorials should unite the people in a society. For the Memorials found in the Torah, the purpose is to bind the people to God.

Notice the verse states that this memorial exists for the sake of Joshua. The incident with Amalek occurred shortly after passing through the Red Sea. So God intends to settle this
issue later, by the hand of Joshua. This ultimately will not take place until much later.

Deuteronomy 25:17-19. Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God. Therefore it shall be, when the Lord your God has given you rest from your enemies all around, in the land which the Lord your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance, that you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget.

Now forty years later, Moses addresses the next generation on the steppes of Moab in preparation for entering the promised land. The older generation who came out of Egypt has all passed away. The text says “zakar Amalek”, and the translation implies that the people are being instructed to remember this incident. This would not be the case, for the narrative of the Exodus would have included this as a part of the stories told by the adults to the children they were raising. The stories involving Amalek were not just about a merciless attack, but also a rousing tale of Joshua and a group of valiant men who went out against them. They could not prevail unless Moses held his staff above them on the overlooking mountain. The correct translation, therefore, would be ‘you have been perpetuating the memory of Amalek’. With this story comes the concern over the remembrance of what the Amalekites did in attacking the weakest of the people. God is dealing with bitterness, hatred and the desire for vengeance. This is the remembrance which must be blotted out.

The avenging of blood is one of God’s priorities and the Law of Moses required the establishment of sanctuary cities for a man to flee to if he witnessed an accidental death. If he feared that he would be held accountable for the death by a family member; ‘the avenger of blood’ would seek to slay him. (Deuteronomy 19, Joshua 29).

Vengeance is Mine, and recompense...Deuteronomy 32:35.

The avenging of blood has to be handled only in accordance with God’s instructions.
Once the vengeance has been granted, the remembrance must be blotted out.

The final word of the text in Deuteronomy 25:19 is ‘shahach’ and means ‘forgotten, to become oblivious to’, and yet the translator decides to translate into the exact 180 degree opposite, saying ‘Do not forget’. Thus the instruction becomes, ‘do not ever let go of that bitterness, that hatred. No! That is not God’s Will for the heart of man, and especially His people. The instruction is shahach, Let it be forgotten!. Blot out the remembrance. This was not a plan for genocide, this was a plan for healing the hearts of man. This is God’s heart for man, not vengeance.

Clare73 · Jan 27, 2022

Minister Monardo said:
Exodus 17:14. Then the Lord said to Moses, Write this for a memorial (zikrown)
in the book and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance (zeker) of Amalek from under heaven.

While a memorial (zikrown) exists to help perpetuate a memory (zakar); a remembrance (zeker) refers to the effect the memory has on a person, or people. For example, the memorials of the Confederacy continue to be controversial in the South. Statues of Civil War heroes have been removed. The Confederate flag, the most visible memorial of that period, has been banned from flying over municipal and state buildings. This has been necessary, because the remembrances associated with them are polarizing to society. Ideally, memorials should unite the people in a society. For the Memorials found in the Torah, the purpose is to bind the people to God.

Notice the verse states that this memorial exists for the sake of Joshua. The incident with Amalek occurred shortly after passing through the Red Sea. So God intends to settle this
issue later, by the hand of Joshua. This ultimately will not take place until much later.

Deuteronomy 25:17-19. Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God. Therefore it shall be, when the Lord your God has given you rest from your enemies all around, in the land which the Lord your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance, that

you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget. (Deuteronomy 25:17-19) Now forty years later, Moses addresses the next generation on the steppes of Moab in preparation for entering the promised land. The older generation who came out of Egypt has all passed away. The text says “zakar Amalek”, and the translation implies that the people are being instructed to remember this incident. This would not be the case, for the narrative of the Exodus would have included this as a part of the stories told by the adults to the children they were raising.

1) Who made that rule?
2) There was transmission all along. All the men in Deuteronomy 25 who were over 52 years old would have been 6 to 21 years old at the time Moses defeated the Amalekites in Exodus 17:8, Exodus 17:14. They would have been talking about it, repeatedly.
3) Do we know the story was not told to the children?

The stories involving Amalek were not just about a merciless attack, but also a rousing tale of Joshua and a group of valiant men who went out against them. They could not prevail unless Moses held his staff above them on the overlooking mountain.

The correct translation, therefore, would be ‘you have been perpetuating the memory of Amalek’. With this story comes the concern over the remembrance of what the Amalekites did in attacking the weakest of the people. God is dealing with bitterness, hatred and the desire for vengeance. This is the remembrance which must be blotted out.

The avenging of blood is one of God’s priorities and the Law of Moses required the establishment of sanctuary cities for a man to flee to if he witnessed an accidental death. If he feared that he would be held accountable for the death by a family member; ‘the avenger of blood’ would seek to slay him. (Deuteronomy 19, Joshua 29).

Vengeance is Mine, and recompense...Deuteronomy 32:35.

The avenging of blood has to be handled only in accordance with God’s instructions.
Once the vengeance has been granted, the remembrance must be blotted out.

The final word of the text in Deuteronomy 25:19 is 'shahach' and means ‘forgotten, to become oblivious to’, and yet

the translator decides to translate into the exact 180 degree opposite, saying ‘Do not forget’. Thus the instruction becomes, ‘do not ever let go of that bitterness, that hatred. No! That is not God’s Will for the heart of man, and especially His people. The instruction is shahach, Let it be forgotten!. Blot out the remembrance. This was not a plan for genocide, this was a plan for healing the hearts of man. This is God’s heart for man, not vengeance.

We have here the fruits of decades of dispensational hermeneutics in prophecy; i.e., a now well-formed habit of altering the meaning of the Scriptures to fit one's theology.

I am always startled, stunned and staggered when godly men, seemingly without pause, take it upon themselves to rewrite the God-breathed Scriptures, based on their personal notions of what the heart of God has to be.

However, God had a running vengeance on Amalek and the Amalekites starting in Exodus 17:8, Exodus 17:14-16,
running through Numbers 24:7, 20; Numbers 25:16,
to Deuteronomy 25:17-19 (which is translated correctly, in agreement with all these texts),
and then on to 1 Samuel 15:2, 1 Samuel 27:8.

Deuteronomy 25:17-19 is interpreted correctly, being in complete agreement with all these Scriptures on the subject.

What would ever make you disagree with at least seven texts?

Mr. M · Jan 27, 2022

Clare73 said:
1) Who made that rule?

What rule?

Clare73 said:
2) There was transmission all along. All the men in Deuteronomy 25 who were over 52 years old would have been 6 to 21 years old at the time Moses defeated the Amalekites in Exodus 17:8, Exodus 17:14. They would have been talking about it, repeatedly.
3) Do we know the story was not told to the children?

That is exactly what I said. Try reading my notes again.
They would have been perpetuating the memory through stories to the children and
would not have to be told to remember. This is what I explained,
that zakar means more than simply remember, but to perpetuate a memory from generation
to generation.

Clare73 said:
We have here the fruits of dispensational hermeneutics in prophecy; i.e., a now well-formed habit of altering the meaning of the Scriptures to fit one's theology.

I am always startled, stunned and staggered when godly men, seemingly without pause, take it upon themselves to rewrite the God-breathed Scriptures, based on their personal notions of what the heart of God has to be.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and no interest in "dispensationist hermeneutics".
Just so much cheap talk. I really have no concern or interest in how stunned and staggered
you are, nor do I need your approval for the hours I have spent studying the zakar-zeker-zikaron
relationship throughout the OT.
I stand by what I have said, to blot out a remembrance is to remove the bitterness, hatred,
and desire for revenge that all people would hold in their heart after such an experience.
Are you familiar with the "Jewish fables" that explain why there were still Amalekites even
after Saul went and destroyed their capital city, as authorized by the Lord? That was the
approved vengeance, to destroy their capital city and every soul, even the cattle. Once
the vengeance was accomplished, they were to forget the past, and become oblivious to it.

Deuteronomy 25:19 Therefore it shall be, when the Lord your God has given you rest from
your enemies all around, in the land which the Lord your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance, that you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
You shall not forget.
And yet, here is the definition. And yes, I know that translators use the opposite meaning,
claiming the context calls for it. I don't buy that. I see misinterpretation of what the Lord
desired to accomplish in the hearts of his people.
shahakh=to forget, to no longer care, to become oblivious
H7911 - šāḵaḥ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

You can try to trivialize my efforts with some stupid theological fancy term, but it is you
that is towing some party line. I am pointing out what I see, an error in translation
and interpretation, and not trying to hold up some theology perspective that I am oblivious to,
but you apparently have studied enough to claim to be identifying it in my writing.
I did my own research. You have obviously studied someone else's. If you are outraged
by my views, get over yourself. If you want to actually do some studying, have at it.
Exodus 17:14 Then the Lord said to Moses, Write this for a memorial in the book
and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out
the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
memorial H2146 - zikārôn - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)
remembrance H2143 - zēḵer - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

After you have spent a few days sorting out the inconsistencies in the translation
of these two words, and realize how important this is, then you can ask why this
wasn't handled by Joshua, as the verse indicates, but left until Saul, the first king.

Clare73 said:
However, God had a running vengeance on Amalek and the Amalekites starting in Exodus 17:8, Exodus 17:14-16,
running through Numbers 24:7, 20; Numbers 25:16,
to Deuteronomy 25:17-19 (which is translated correctly, in agreement with all these texts),
and then on to 1 Samuel 15:2, 1 Samuel 27:8.

And what about after Saul? Did God still have a running vengeance?
What does forgiveness mean to you? It means shahakh=forgetaboutit!!!!
Not, "you shall not forget". That is dumb. But you go with it. I am sure the academics
you are defending appreciate your outrage. Sleep well.

Clare73 · Jan 27, 2022

Minister Monardo said:
What rule?
That is exactly what I said. Try reading my notes again.
They would have been perpetuating the memory through stories to the children and
would not have to be told to remember. This is what I explained,
that zakar means more than simply remember, but to perpetuate a memory from generation
to generation.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and no interest in "dispensationist hermeneutics".
Just so much cheap talk. I really have no concern or interest in how stunned and staggered
you are, nor do I need your approval for the hours I have spent studying the zakar-zeker-zikaron
relationship throughout the OT.
I stand by what I have said, to blot out a remembrance is to remove the bitterness, hatred,
and desire for revenge that all people would hold in their heart after such an experience.
Are you familiar with the "Jewish fables" that explain why there were still Amalekites even
after Saul went and destroyed their capital city, as authorized by the Lord? That was the
approved vengeance, to destroy their capital city and every soul, even the cattle. Once
the vengeance was accomplished, they were to forget the past, and become oblivious to it.

Deuteronomy 25:19 Therefore it shall be, when the Lord your God has given you rest from
your enemies all around, in the land which the Lord your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance, that you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
You shall not forget.
And yet, here is the definition. And yes, I know that translators use the opposite meaning,
claiming the context calls for it. I don't buy that. I see misinterpretation of what the Lord
desired to accomplish in the hearts of his people.
shahakh=to forget, to no longer care, to become oblivious
H7911 - šāḵaḥ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

You can try to trivialize my efforts with some stupid theological fancy term, but it is you
that is towing some party line. I am pointing out what I see, an error in translation
and interpretation, and not trying to hold up some theology perspective that I am oblivious to,
but you apparently have studied enough to claim to be identifying it in my writing.

I did my own research. You have obviously studied someone else's. If you are out-
raged by my views, get over yourself. If you want to actually do some studying, have at it.

I am not outraged. . .should I not be stunned that you have taken the liberty to contradict something so clearly presented in the Biblical narrative regarding God's vengeance (1 Samuel 15:2-3) on the Amalekites, in the texts I've provided?
If not some practice somewhere of reinterpreting Scripture, where would you get the notion, in light of this exceedingly clear Biblical narrative that Deuteronomy 25:17-19 is in error?
Calling such an unequivocal word of God "in error" is staggering to me.

Exodus 17:14 Then the Lord said to Moses, Write this for a memorial in the book
and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
memorial H2146 - zikārôn - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)
remembrance H2143 - zēḵer - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

No study of someone else's anything, other than reading the next verse of the narrative.

Exodus 17:15-16 "The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation."

That cannot be interpreted as "forgiveness," and the Biblical record of that war
runs through Numbers 24:7, 20; Numbers 25:16,
to Deuteronomy 25:17-19 (which is translated correctly, in agreement with all these texts),
and then on to 1 Samuel 15:32-33, 1 Samuel 27:8-9 and to
1 Samuel 15:2-3 - "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Not go, attack the Amalekites and devote to the LORD (totally destroy as a sacrifice to justice, Leviticus 27:29) everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them, put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

After you have spent a few days sorting out the inconsistencies in the translation
of these two words, and realize how important this is, then you can ask why this
wasn't handled by Joshua, as the verse indicates, but left until Saul, the first king.
And what about after Saul? Did God still have a running vengeance?

See 1 Samuel 30 (vv. 17-18)

What does forgiveness mean to you? It means shahakh=forgetaboutit!!!!
Not, "you shall not forget". That is dumb. But you go with it. I am sure the academics
you are defending appreciate your outrage. Sleep well.

No academics, just the overwhelmingly clear verses of the Scriptural narrative.

You're blowin' my mind on this!

Clare73 · Jan 27, 2022

Mr. M · Jan 27, 2022

Clare73 said:
I am not outraged. . .should I not be stunned that you have taken the liberty to contradict something so clearly presented in the Biblical narrative regarding God's vengeance (1 Samuel 15:2-3) on the Amalekites, in the texts I've provided?
If not some practice somewhere of reinterpreting Scripture, where would you get the notion, in light of this exceedingly clear Biblical narrative that Deuteronomy 25:17-19 is in error?
Calling such an unequivocal word of God "in error" is staggering to me.

I have no problem with God's prescribed vengeance that was taken on Amalek. My point
is how the people were to treat the issue once the vengeance was complete. You clearly
don't understand the difference between questioning God's word, and how it was translated.
Once the action was taken, they were to let go of the remembrance of what had happened.
I gave you the word, and a link to the Strong's. The word means forget, not "Do not forget".
Stagger over that. Your responses and opinions are always short of the details you leave out
in your lackadaisical reading of the notes. Obviously, we have plenty of information about
Amalek, right up until God gave the command to avenge Israel against them. The fact that
they are in the narrative gives them a memorial. The issue is dropped from then on, and
the collective memory of the Israelites, who were to let go of any hatred they may have been
holding on to for all those years until Saul. God's words were fulfilled, and Amalek continues
to this day to represent how God deals with His enemies, and those of His people. His people,
on the other hand, are supposed to let it go. If you don't get that, excuse me for not being
staggered by your inability to comprehend.
The main point of the notes was that Exodus 17:14 does not mean God would order a genocide
against those people, but the way to deal with the remembrance of them in the hearts of His
people. God's vengeance was ordered, but the King and some choice cattle were spared.
They continued to trouble the land (Ziklag incident) with David in 2 Samuel, but the
incident after the Red Sea crossing was avenged. There was never peace between Amalek
and Israel, but there was also never any command to attack them again. David pursued them
to regain what they had carried away in a raid, with assurances of God's favor.
What God retains, and what He expects His people to retain are two vastly different notions.
God did not command Israel to never forget what Amalek did. As usual, you also did not respond
to the errors in your reading of the notes from the last post. Or did you forget that what you
claimed I said about passing down the memory of Amalek to the children was completely
opposite of what I had presented. Again, not staggered. I have seen this in your comments
many times. Yet, nothing that suggests due diligence on your part. Just assumptions and
vain criticisms that are based on your faulty comprehension, not in the details I presented.
Neither of your responses corrected anything from the OP, just showed your errors in
reading the posts. A remembrance is not a memory, it is the effect a memory has on
the hearts of a people. Are you holding onto any roots of bitterness or resentment?
I hope not. God's word advises against such retention.

Clare73 · Jan 28, 2022

Minister Monardo said:
I have no problem with God's prescribed vengeance that was taken on Amalek. My point is how the people were to treat the issue once the vengeance was complete. You clearly don't understand the difference between questioning God's word, and how it was translated.
Once the action was taken, they were to let go of the remembrance of what had happened. I gave you the word, and a link to the Strong's. The word means forget, not "Do not forget".

The end of remembrance is not about Israel's memory, it is about the memory of the whole world--"under heaven."

Minister Monardo said:
Exodus 17:14. Then the Lord said to Moses, Write this for a memorial (zikrown) in the book and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance (zeker) of Amalek from under heaven.

You utterly misunderstand the use of that phrase.

In the context of and consistency with all the related Scriptures, Exodus 17:14 means Amalek's memory will be blotted out from the face of the earth, he will be (future) totally destroyed and totally forgotten
(2 Samuel 15:2-3).
Does not the context, as well as the text ("under heaven") give you pause in re-translating God's word?

Exodus 17:14 is not about Israel forgetting anything, Israel is to keep it on a scroll.
It's about the memory of Amalek on the face of the earth (under heaven) being wiped out for all mankind as though he never even existed.

Stagger over that.

And I am! . . .at your misunderstanding of the use of the phrase.

Your responses and opinions are always short of the details you leave out
in your lackadaisical reading of the notes. Obviously, we have plenty of information about
Amalek, right up until God gave the command to avenge Israel against them. The fact that
they are in the narrative gives them a memorial. The issue is dropped from then on, and
the collective memory of the Israelites, who were to let go of any hatred they may have been
holding on to for all those years until Saul. God's words were fulfilled, and Amalek continues
to this day to represent how God deals with His enemies, and those of His people.

His people, on the other hand, are supposed to let it go. If you don't get that, excuse me for not being staggered by your inability to comprehend.
The main point of the notes was that Exodus 17:14 does not mean God would order a genocide against those people,

You keep on stunning me!

You are denying the plain text of the Scriptures where he did precisely that in:

1 Samuel 15:2-3 - "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Not go, attack the Amalekites and devote to the LORD (totally destroy as a sacrifice to justice, Leviticus 27:29) everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them, put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

but the way to deal with the remembrance of them in the hearts of His
people. God's vengeance was ordered, but the King and some choice cattle were spared.
They continued to trouble the land (Ziklag incident) with David in 2 Samuel, but the
incident after the Red Sea crossing was avenged. There was never peace between Amalek
and Israel, but there was also never any command to attack them again.

Because David subdued them (1 Chronicles 18:11, 13);

David pursued them to regain what they had carried away in a raid, with assurances of God's favor.
What God retains, and what He expects His people to retain are two vastly different notions.
God did not command Israel to never forget what Amalek did.

And yet they were to write it on a scroll (Exodus 17:14). . .for what. . .to help forget it?
God said he would see to it that the world, not Israel, would forget that Amalek ever existed.
Israel was to keep the memory on a scroll, to remember why the Amalekites were Israel's' enemy whom they must fight over the next 350 years.

As usual, you also did not respond to the errors in your reading of the notes from the last post.

Correct, I misunderstood you to be saying the text does not show that it was talked about.
I apologize.

Or did you forget that what you claimed I said about passing down the memory of Amalek to the children was completely opposite of what I had presented. Again, not staggered. I have seen this in your comments many times. Yet, nothing that suggests due diligence on your part. Just assumptions and vain criticisms that are based on your faulty comprehension, not in the details I presented.

Neither of your responses corrected anything from the OP, just showed your errors in
reading the posts. A remembrance is not a memory, it is the effect a memory has on
the hearts of a people.

Which is a misunderstanding of the use of that phrase.

Mr. M · Jan 28, 2022

Clare73 said:
In the context of and consistency with all the related Scriptures, Exodus 17:14 means Amalek's memory will be blotted out from the face of the earth, he will be (future) totally destroyed and totally forgotten

And yet, here we are discussing them.

Clare73 said:
You are denying the plain text of the Scriptures where he did precisely that in:

1 Samuel 15:2-3 - "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Not go, attack the Amalekites and devote to the LORD (totally destroy as a sacrifice to justice, Leviticus 27:29) everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them, put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

I have not denied the "what" of the narrative, only the why. The title of the OP is "Avenging of blood".
Some comments suggest that this was a genocide. I know what Saul was commanded to do,
and what he did.

Clare73 said:
Because David subdued them (1 Chronicles 18:11, 13)

Other than the 400 who escaped. It was only a raiding party that David was pursuing,
not an attack of Amalekite cities, as with Saul. David later subdued the neighboring nations
for a time. At what point are they blotted out from under heaven?

Clare73 said:
And yet they were to write it on a scroll (Exodus 17:14). . .for what. . .to help forget it?
God said he would see to it that the world, not Israel, would forget that Amalek ever existed.
Israel was to keep the memory on a scroll, to know the reason for future battles over the next 350 years.

Yep. That is why the scroll is called a memorial.
A remembrance is not a memory, it is the affect/reaction/ response to that memory.

Clare73 said:
Which is a misunderstanding of the use of that phrase.

Do explain. Exodus 3:15 The name YHVH, is it a memorial, as in most translations, or a
remembrance.
Exodus 3:15 [OJB] And Elohim said moreover unto Moshe, Thus shalt thou say unto Bnei Yisroel: Hashem, Elohei Avoteichem, Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchak, and Elohei Ya’akov, hath sent me unto you: this is Shemi l’olam, and this is My remembrance unto all generations.

Is this a name by which we remember the Lord, or is it a name that was given
to call on Him to be remembered?

Clare73 · Jan 28, 2022

Minister Monardo said:
And yet, here we are discussing them.

I have not denied the "what" of the narrative, only the why. The title of the OP is "Avenging of blood".
Some comments suggest that this was a genocide. I know what Saul was commanded to do,
and what he did.

To be Biblically technical and correct, it was a "devoting" of them to the LORD (total destruction, Leviticus 27:29) as sacrifices to justice (1 Samuel 15:2-3) for waylaying Israel, it was not a "genocide."

Not was it an "avenging of blood."
That regulation applies to individuals, not nations.

Other than the 400 who escaped. It was only a raiding party that David was pursuing, not an attack of Amalekite cities, as with Saul. David later subdued the neighboring nations for a time.

At what point are they blotted out from under heaven?

Read it again. . .details matter.

The memory of Amalek would be blotted out from under heaven, not the Amalekites themselves blotted out.

Yep. That is why the scroll is called a memorial.

A remembrance is not a memory, it is the affect/reaction/ response to that memory.

Do explain. Exodus 3:15 The name YHVH, is it a memorial, as in most translations, or a
remembrance.
Exodus 3:15 [OJB] And Elohim said moreover unto Moshe, Thus shalt thou say unto Bnei Yisroel: Hashem, Elohei Avoteichem, Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchak, and Elohei Ya’akov, hath sent me unto you: this is Shemi l’olam, and this is My remembrance unto all generations.

Is this a name by which we remember the Lord, or is it a name that was given
to call on Him to be remembered?

The whole narrative concerning the Amalekites, from Exodus 17:14 to 1 Chronicles 18:11, 13, is most clear that Israel was to remember over the next 350 years why the Amalekites were their enemies and were to be totally destroyed ("devoted to the LORD," Leviticus 27:29).

It's not my job to convince you. The evidence of the Biblical narrative speaks for itself.

Mr. M · Jan 28, 2022

Clare73 said:
It's not my job to convince you. The evidence of the Biblical narrative speaks for itself.

Sure. Depending on which translation you use. I spent several months about 4 years ago
reading every verse where zeker and zikron were used. There is no basis for me to be
convinced of anything by you. You are entitled to your opinion. Have a great weekend.

Clare73 · Jan 28, 2022

Minister Monardo said:
Sure. Depending on which translation you use. I spent several months about 4 years ago
reading every verse where zeker and zikron were used. There is no basis for me to be
convinced of anything by you. You are entitled to your opinion. Have a great weekend.

The evidence of the Biblical narrative from Exodus 17:14 to 1 Chronicles 18:11, 13 speaks for itself.

Search

Search

Avenging Of Blood

Mr. M

Well-Known Member

More options

Clare73

Blood-bought

More options

Mr. M

Well-Known Member

More options

Clare73

Blood-bought

More options

Clare73

Blood-bought

More options

Mr. M

Well-Known Member

More options

Clare73

Blood-bought

More options

Mr. M

Well-Known Member

More options

Clare73

Blood-bought

More options

Mr. M

Well-Known Member

More options

Clare73

Blood-bought

More options

Similar threads