Buttermilk, anyone?

[duxrow]

:yo: When Job (19:21) tells about 'escaping by the skin of his teeth", it isn't hard to translate that as a narrow escape, and to see that hyperbole and malapropism are both components of the figure.
More difficult is his 'continuing parable' in 29:6, "When I washed my steps with butter, and the rock poured me out rivers of oil". It would be a slippery and smelly mistake to think real butter for washing the steps of the front porch; but when we learn of the "steps of a righteous man", who takes steps to remedy a situation; and the contrast between mother's milk and father's milk, then the true light begins to shine. As we churn the spiritual milk by mulling it over in our mind, it turns to butter, and brings our steps into harmony with God.
Not everyone's, naturally; some people just get sour milk.. :winking0071:
Amen?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:yo: When Job (19:21) tells about 'escaping by the skin of his teeth", it isn't hard to translate that as a narrow escape, and to see that hyperbole and malapropism are both components of the figure.
More difficult is his 'continuing parable' in 29:6, "When I washed my steps with butter, and the rock poured me out rivers of oil". It would be a slippery and smelly mistake to think real butter for washing the steps of the front porch; but when we learn of the "steps of a righteous man", who takes steps to remedy a situation; and the contrast between mother's milk and father's milk, then the true light begins to shine. As we churn the spiritual milk by mulling it over in our mind, it turns to butter, and brings our steps into harmony with God.
Not everyone's, naturally; some people just get sour milk.. :winking0071:
Amen?

I don't have any trouble with understanding the sense of poetic expressions like "washed my steps in butter." I think of it communicating the feeling of buttery smoothness - the literal image of physical butter doesn't even come to mind. I automatically abstract the relevant concept and it all makes perfect sense.

But the idea of "father's milk" doesn't make any sense to me at all. Where did you get that idea? And what is it supposed to mean?

[duxrow]

I don't have any trouble with understanding the sense of poetic expressions like "washed my steps in butter." I think of it communicating the feeling of buttery smoothness - the literal image of physical butter doesn't even come to mind. I automatically abstract the relevant concept and it all makes perfect sense.

But the idea of "father's milk" doesn't make any sense to me at all. Where did you get that idea? And what is it supposed to mean?

:yo: 1Cor3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

1Pet 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Isaiah 28:7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. 28:8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean. 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

1Samuel 1:23 And Elkanah her husband said unto her, Do what seemeth thee good; tarry until thou have weaned him; [Samuel] only the LORD establish his word. So the woman abode, and gave her son suck until she weaned him.Remembering how Jesus spent ~3 yrs with his "twelve", but said he had many things to say to them, yet, and that the Holy Spirit would be sent to lead them into [what he had left to tell them?] .. That happened in the Book of Acts, which some say has more chapters being written even until these present days..

Welcome back, Ram -- :grouphug5:

[Beck]

I see a couple of things here. One Job is expressing that in times past that God shined upon him as a candle upon his head, Job remembers that in times past he had a abundance of cows which gave milk and adundance of oil that even his steps was given with milk to wash his feet in.

Now I don't take that literally, but in his case he is expressing what onces was. Job goes on in chapter 30 to express his present time.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:yo: 1Cor3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

1Pet 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Isaiah 28:7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. 28:8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean. 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

1Samuel 1:23 And Elkanah her husband said unto her, Do what seemeth thee good; tarry until thou have weaned him; [Samuel] only the LORD establish his word. So the woman abode, and gave her son suck until she weaned him.Remembering how Jesus spent ~3 yrs with his "twelve", but said he had many things to say to them, yet, and that the Holy Spirit would be sent to lead them into [what he had left to tell them?] .. That happened in the Book of Acts, which some say has more chapters being written even until these present days..

Welcome back, Ram -- :grouphug5:
Thanks for the welcome brother-man! :hippie:

Now I'm guessing you are saying that the reference to the Word/Teachings of the Bible are the "Father's milk." Is that correct? I still don't get it ... because all those references seem to be using the idea of a baby drinking milk from it's mother's breast. So where is the image of the "father's milk?"

[duxrow]

Thanks for the welcome brother-man! :hippie:

:yo:Now I'm guessing you are saying that the reference to the Word/Teachings of the Bible are the "Father's milk." Is that correct? I still don't get it ... because all those references seem to be using the idea of a baby drinking milk from it's mother's breast. So where is the image of the "father's milk?"

"Milk of the Word", 1Pet 2:2, and Jesus is The Word, (male). Just as us "babes" need mother's milk in order to grow physically, so also we need Father's Milk (the Bible) in order to grow spiritually. OK? :thumb:

p.s.

Hindsight supports the story of Samuel (lived between the period of Judges/Kings) and his "weaning" as a precept of how 'receiving the Holy Ghost' leads us from the Milk to the Meat of the Word. Samuel the Ghostwriter was called up from the dead by Saul, but that leads to another perspective and why the OT kings couldn't be priests ('cept Melchizedek), but now in the NT we are called BOTH
KINGS AND PRIESTS. :-)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"Milk of the Word", 1Pet 2:2, and Jesus is The Word, (male). Just as us "babes" need mother's milk in order to grow physically, so also we need Father's Milk (the Bible) in order to grow spiritually. OK? :thumb:

No ... I really don't like the idea of "Father's milk." It just doesn't make any sense. The Word is not identical to Jesus as a man. If you want to suggest the Bible is male because Jesus is male, then you need to point out where it's pecker is. It is an error to force that metaphor beyond it's limits. There are many metaphors for the Word. For example, it is water. And it is meat. And it is bread. It is a lamp. What are we supposed to imagine - a runny mess of lit up milky meaty watery bread? No. We are supposed to understand that those are different metaphors for different aspects of one thing.

Great chatting.

[duxrow]

Maybe, with time, you'll think differently.

Consider, if you will, the egg: and how it's good to eat,
whether sunnyside or scrambled, it surely is a treat...
Hard-boiling it will keep it from making such a mess,
and everybody knows you can't return it to the nest.

Consider, if you will, the egg: and its astounding age,
Only three weeks from creation, it begins the chicken stage!
First it must escape the plate, and other gruesome deadly fate,
But victory is very sweet to eggs which have no hands or feet.

Consider, if you will, the egg: and how it's like a seed,
With all that gooey mess inside becoming a new breed.
The yolk and white together forming fuzzy little chicks,
So kids the world wide over can rejoice and get their kicks.

But only if the Rooster has equipped the egg for life,
Otherwise the egg is only fit for fork and knife.

Consider, if you will, the egg: in all its rounded glory,
but if the egg is on your face, that's quite another story.
The blood of Christ is offered: eternal life is true,
Read all about it in the Bible, or get prepared to rue...

Remember how Ps91 speaks of his "feathers", and Jesus said about gathering Jerusalem "as a hen gathers her chicks". haha. So the 'bird' biz is based on Bible..

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Maybe, with time, you'll think differently.

Consider, if you will, the egg: and how it's good to eat,
whether sunnyside or scrambled, it surely is a treat...
Hard-boiling it will keep it from making such a mess,
and everybody knows you can't return it to the nest.

Consider, if you will, the egg: and its astounding age,
Only three weeks from creation, it begins the chicken stage!
First it must escape the plate, and other gruesome deadly fate,
But victory is very sweet to eggs which have no hands or feet.

Consider, if you will, the egg: and how it's like a seed,
With all that gooey mess inside becoming a new breed.
The yolk and white together forming fuzzy little chicks,
So kids the world wide over can rejoice and get their kicks.

But only if the Rooster has equipped the egg for life,
Otherwise the egg is only fit for fork and knife.

Consider, if you will, the egg: in all its rounded glory,
but if the egg is on your face, that's quite another story.
The blood of Christ is offered: eternal life is true,
Read all about it in the Bible, or get prepared to rue...

Remember how Ps91 speaks of his "feathers", and Jesus said about gathering Jerusalem "as a hen gathers her chicks". haha. So the 'bird' biz is based on Bible..
Ha! Cute poem. I particularly like the final stanza.

But I don't quite get the point. I've got no problem with the bird metaphors for God. My issue was the idea of "Father's milk." If I try to think from whence such milk could flow from a male, I am left with an image I don't desire. If you begin with a "milk" metaphor, you have constrained yourself to either a feminine or a homosexual image. I prefer the former, and so the image of "Father's milk" just doesn't work for me. Can you understand the root problem here? Males do not provide "milk" and so the image of "Father's milk" does not work as a metaphor for anything.

[duxrow]

Ha! Cute poem. I particularly like the final stanza.

My issue was the idea of "Father's milk." If I try to think from whence such milk could flow from a male, I am left with an image I don't desire. If you begin with a "milk" metaphor, you have constrained yourself to either a feminine or a homosexual image. I prefer the former, and so the image of "Father's milk" just doesn't work for me. Can you understand the root problem here? Males do not provide "milk" and so the image of "Father's milk" does not work as a metaphor for anything.

Just because we all know about Mother's milk coming in such cute :cow: containers, doesn't mean we can't allow as how Father's milk could be Words from the Bible.. ha. It's GROWTH I'm referring to here--not gender, and especially not cross-gender. Yes, I see the root problem here, but if you think of "milk" as something we need for growing, and remembering about "the foolishness of God", 1Cor1:25, the metaphor should fly...:planeup2:

Similitudes can't "fit" in all respects (otherwise they'd be samo-samo), and we see "the Water of the Word" more than we see "the Light of the Word", so I agree that the Milk of the Word is less familiar. :thumb:

[Rose]

Just because we all know about Mother's milk coming in such cute :cow: containers, doesn't mean we can't allow as how Father's milk could be Words from the Bible.. ha. It's GROWTH I'm referring to here--not gender, and especially not cross-gender. Yes, I see the root problem here, but if you think of "milk" as something we need for growing, and remembering about "the foolishness of God", 1Cor1:25, the metaphor should fly...:planeup2:

Similitudes can't "fit" in all respects (otherwise they'd be samo-samo), and we see "the Water of the Word" more than we see "the Light of the Word", so I agree that the Milk of the Word is less familiar. :thumb:

For me "Father's Milk" goes back to the root problem of needing to fit female metaphors onto a male god...it just doesn't work. A true god would be neither male nor female, that is why the whole idea of the Bible being the "word of God" just doesn't work when one views it as a book which portrays "God" as a masculine warrior god, who is arbitrarily bias against women. MALE, Male, male! Where is the balance?

Rose

[duxrow]

For me "Father's Milk" goes back to the root problem of needing to fit female metaphors onto a male god...it just doesn't work. A true god would be neither male nor female, that is why the whole idea of the Bible being the "word of God" just doesn't work when one views it as a book which portrays "God" as a masculine warrior god, who is arbitrarily bias against women. MALE, Male, male! Where is the balance?

Rose
Hi Rose, I understand your view, and may have led into it when I first used that word "male" -- but when we read all 66 books, it includes Gal 3:28 where New Creatures are neither male nor female. We gotta have BOTH (and viva la diff) but the gender issue is often argued -- not seeing how the Son becomes a Father who carries the FAMILY NAME and that the seed planted (women are called LAND in Jeremiah 3:1) produces IAW natures Law.. We aren't robots, and yes we still have a surplus of silly women and foolish fellows, but really we find women do most of the teaching in Sunday School, and isn't that where the kids first get their indocrination?:)
Nice chatting, as usual. Blessings!

[Rose]

Hi Rose, I understand your view, and may have led into it when I first used that word "male" -- but when we read all 66 books, it includes Gal 3:28 where New Creatures are neither male nor female. We gotta have BOTH (and viva la diff) but the gender issue is often argued -- not seeing how the Son becomes a Father who carries the FAMILY NAME and that the seed planted (women are called LAND in Jeremiah 3:1) produces IAW natures Law.. We aren't robots, and yes we still have a surplus of silly women and foolish fellows, but really we find women do most of the teaching in Sunday School, and isn't that where the kids first get their indocrination?:)
Nice chatting, as usual. Blessings!

Granted, the New Testament says there are neither male nor female in Christ, but that does not solve the problem of the complete male bias of the Bible which includes a totally male god!

As for women teaching Sunday School, how benevolent of men to allow women to teach...even if it is only male children. :lol:

Rose

[CWH]

Granted, the New Testament says there are neither male nor female in Christ, but that does not solve the problem of the complete male bias of the Bible which includes a totally male god!

As for women teaching Sunday School, how benevolent of men to allow women to teach...even if it is only male children. :lol:

Rose

Well, some Sunday school teachers are men. If most Sunday school teachers are females who taught children, most pastors are males who preach to all gender and age. Sounds equal.


May God's Blessings be given to all. Amen.

[duxrow]

So men began as the Head of Household and mighty men to go to war, but have you noticed how the tide seems to have changed? Maybe women will compass the male species--will the U.S. have a woman PreZ do you think? Colleges today report on the students; that a majority are women now. Despirte octoMom, families today aren't as large as in years past, and in my neighborhood they aren't attending church as they used to--and attacking the TV is maybe not the real cause.. hmmm?

[Rose]

So men began as the Head of Household and mighty men to go to war, but have you noticed how the tide seems to have changed? Maybe women will compass the male species--will the U.S. have a woman PreZ do you think? Colleges today report on the students; that a majority are women now. Despirte octoMom, families today aren't as large as in years past, and in my neighborhood they aren't attending church as they used to--and attacking the TV is maybe not the real cause.. hmmm?

I'm not talking about men verses women. I'm talking about what the Bible says about women and its biased nature slanted towards the male. When societies allow women to compete with men intellectually in the workforce it is apparent that both are equally capable. It is in the hierarchical order found in the Bible where women are arbitrarily restricted from learning that I'm addressing.

Rose

[duxrow]

I'm not talking about men verses women. I'm talking about what the Bible says about women and its biased nature slanted towards the male. When societies allow women to compete with men intellectually in the workforce it is apparent that both are equally capable. It is in the hierarchical order found in the Bible where women are arbitrarily restricted from learning that I'm addressing.
Rose

biased towards the male? Adam said "this woman you gave me" [reason for the fall], but a close reading tells me it was HIS fault (she was deceived..) -- too bad the early "christian" writers didn't report it accurately, but you can't blame that on the Bible, can you? :yo:

And on and on it goes..the Covenant was 'promised' to Abram, but wasn't christened until Moses came down from the Mount, and the people agreed to it; (synecdoche) as we must agree with Jesus under the New Covenant.

Agree about men/women equally capable (astronauts too!), but don't see any "arbitrary restriction" in the Scriptures: some Great Women there... (Tamar, Rahab, Jael) :dizzy:

[Rose]

biased towards the male? Adam said "this woman you gave me" [reason for the fall], but a close reading tells me it was HIS fault (she was deceived..) -- too bad the early "christian" writers didn't report it accurately, but you can't blame that on the Bible, can you? :yo:

It seems Paul thought it was Eve's fault, and only childbearing would save the woman.
1Tim.2:14-15 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

And on and on it goes..the Covenant was 'promised' to Abram, but wasn't christened until Moses came down from the Mount, and the people agreed to it; (synecdoche) as we must agree with Jesus under the New Covenant.

Agree about men/women equally capable (astronauts too!), but don't see any "arbitrary restriction" in the Scriptures: some Great Women there... (Tamar, Rahab, Jael) :dizzy:

The verses are too numerous to mention, but I will list a few examples.

1. Throughout the whole Bible women were considered the property of men (that pretty arbitrary)

2. If a man raped a virgin woman all that was required was a payment of 50 shekels to the girls father, and he had to marry her (:eek:)

3. Men could have numerous wives and concubines, women were allowed one husband (:confused:)

4. Men could divorce their wives, women could not divorce their husbands.

5. Women were considered unclean twice as long after the birth of a female baby then after the birth of a male baby.

That's pretty good for starters...:winking0071:

Rose

[duxrow]

2. If a man raped a virgin woman all that was required was a payment of 50 shekels to the girls father, and he had to marry her ..

We oughta have that law today--rapists would be less likely if they thought they'd have to marry the girl, instead of only serving 5-10 in the slammer. And, I'm reminded of that famous rape case which the defense won when he asked the victim to thread a needle and he wouldn't let her hold the needle... (*kidding/2*)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

2. If a man raped a virgin woman all that was required was a payment of 50 shekels to the girls father, and he had to marry her ..

We oughta have that law today --rapists would be less likely if they thought they'd have to marry the girl, instead of only serving 5-10 in the slammer. And, I'm reminded of that famous rape case which the defense won when he asked the victim to thread a needle and he wouldn't let her hold the needle... (*kidding/2*)
That's not a very funny joke Bob.

[Rose]

2. If a man raped a virgin woman all that was required was a payment of 50 shekels to the girls father, and he had to marry her ..

We oughta have that law today--rapists would be less likely if they thought they'd have to marry the girl, instead of only serving 5-10 in the slammer. And, I'm reminded of that famous rape case which the defense won when he asked the victim to thread a needle and he wouldn't let her hold the needle... (*kidding/2*)

Is that the best you could do for a response? How sad...:(

I know you are just kidding, but it is precisely that flippant attitude that has cost women much pain and suffering at the hands of men.

Rose

[CWH]

It seems Paul thought it was Eve's fault, and only childbearing would save the woman.
1Tim.2:14-15 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


The verses are too numerous to mention, but I will list a few examples.

1. Throughout the whole Bible women were considered the property of men (that pretty arbitrary)

2. If a man raped a virgin woman all that was required was a payment of 50 shekels to the girls father, and he had to marry her (:eek:)

3. Men could have numerous wives and concubines, women were allowed one husband (:confused:)

4. Men could divorce their wives, women could not divorce their husbands.

5. Women were considered unclean twice as long after the birth of a female baby then after the birth of a male baby.

That's pretty good for starters...:winking0071:

Rose

I know Rose will probably jump towards the heavens when she read my response:
Are you saying to be equal and fair:

1. Throughout the whole Bible men should also be considered the property of women.

2. Also if a woman raped a virgin man all that was required was a payment of 50 shekels to the man's father, and she had to marry him (:eek:)

3. Women could also have numerous husbands and male-concubines, men were allowed one wife

4. Women could also divorce their husbands, husband could not divorce their wife.

5. Men were also considered unclean twice as long after the birth of a male baby then after the birth of a female baby.


It may sounds stupid or perverse but I am trying to make you see the reverse of your thinking which if allow to happen will not necessary be good and may turn the world upside down. There is some logic as to why Adam should "rule" over Eve.


May the wisdom of God bestows on us, Amen :pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It may sounds stupid or perverse but I am trying to make you see the reverse of your thinking which if allow to happen will not necessary be good and may turn the world upside down. There is some logic as to why Adam should "rule" over Eve.

Yes, it does sound very stupid and perverse.

And why does it sound stupid and perverse? Not because the rule of men is good! It is stupid and perverse because the rule of men over women is just as stupid and perverse as the rule of women over men. This has been explained a dozen times, but you don't listen.

The "logic" as to why Adam should rule over Eve is the logic of DOMINATION. That is bad and perverse logic that is the root source of all the evil in the world. Hitler wanted to rule over others, and Christians think that God wants to rule over everyone. It's time to change that way of thinking, and see that PARTNERSHIP and COOPERATION is the way to peace and love on this earth. The whole problem is that you believe that some people should dominate others.

[CWH]

Yes, it does sound very stupid and perverse.

And why does it sound stupid and perverse? Not because the rule of men is good! It is stupid and perverse because the rule of men over women is just as stupid and perverse as the rule of women over men. This has been explained a dozen times, but you don't listen.

The "logic" as to why Adam should rule over Eve is the logic of DOMINATION. That is bad and perverse logic that is the root source of all the evil in the world. Hitler wanted to rule over others, and Christians think that God wants to rule over everyone. It's time to change that way of thinking, and see that PARTNERSHIP and COOPERATION is the way to peace and love on this earth. The whole problem is that you believe that some people should dominate others.

Actually, I would rather the Rose response so that we can see from the woman's point of view.


Yes, it does sound very stupid and perverse.

And why does it sound stupid and perverse? Not because the rule of men is good! It is stupid and perverse because the rule of men over women is just as stupid and perverse as the rule of women over men. This has been explained a dozen times, but you don't listen.
Good, then you agree with some of my points such as women should not have many husbands and male-concubines or it will results in much more social and marital problems that we are seeing today. This shows that we may not be wiser than what the Bible was advocating.

I am not a male chauvinist and I always respect women. I may seem to be not listening because I see fairness between gender in different ways. God made male and female differently so that we can have different roles to play. Fairness does not mean apples to apples; it could also mean I do this, you do that such as you stay at home and look after the children while I go to work and provide for the family; You do teach the children, while I discipline them etc. This is what I call fair and equal. And I see all these in the Bible. Now who is not listening?.....

Of course, there are instances whereby I believe some evil people (more males than females) abuse their positions or misinterpret what the Bible said to their own advantage.

Yes, I purposely reverse Rose's thinking so that all could see how the world will look like if women "dominates" over men. Of course, it may seem ideal to have equal dominance but in the real world someone have to be the more dominant figure. It's like have 2 US presidents running the country, people will be confused as to who to listen to and there will be conflicts and divisions among the the top leaderships; it will be more chaotic than to have only one president making the final decisions. That goes the same with the family.


May God provide us with His knowledge and let us be not wise in our own eyes, Amen. :pray:

[duxrow]

:hangman:
Life is just a bowl of cherries? ..don't think so. The glass is half-full or half-empty, and with vinegar or prune juice sometimes..

:yo: I've observed how boys/girls play happily(?) under mostly Mom supervision till teenage -- where the rubber really meets the road.

Or maybe AMA will find that DNA glitch and have it corrected.. :winking0071:

Lighten up, folks -- it'll all be history soon, doncha think? :hide:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Lighten up, folks -- it'll all be history soon, doncha think? :hide:
Good advice. History starts now! (http://www.biblewheel.com/index.php/2010/05/06/anthem-for-the-world-we-all-want/)