Possible findings?

Submitted by Jill Williams on Fri, 06/27/2008 - 18:49.

I think I may have found a couple of interesting things today:

1. Exodus 2:18-4:18
When [the priest's daughters] got home to their father, Reuel...Moses agreed to settle down there with the man, who then gave his daughter...to him for his wife...Moses went back to Jethro his father-in-law...
(The Message)
Obviously, that's just a really short paraphrase, but it's all I need. Now, "father", "gave [Reuel's] daughter...to [Moses] for his wife", and "Moses went back to Jethro his father-in-law". Now, since Moses married Reuel's daughter, that makes Reuel's Moses's father-in-law. But in that last part, Moses's father's-in-law name is Jethro. So that can mean only 1 of 2 things: 1) The author made a mistake, so the Bible is in fact not the inerrent word of God. Or 2) Reuel and Jethro were a homosexual couple, thefore Moses had two fathers-in-law. (Plese note that Moses only had one wife at that time, so there'd be no other way for him to have two fathers-in-law.) Either way, this'll defineately make some Christians unhappy. I don't mean to offend anyone though, just writing my own opinion.

2. God is cocky in today's reading! I mean, He purposely makes Pharioh stubborn so that He can show off His powers. That's definately cockiness! The author(s) seems to continuelly make God out to be mean, hateful, cocky, etc. The author(s) much not have like God very much!

Submitted by David Schoen on Sat, 06/28/2008 - 18:28.

I just want to say that it's important to remember centrality of God's sovereignty, particularly within the Pentateuch. What we in the post-Enlightenment world view as offensive would be entirely appropriate for a God/King to behave.

On the Reuel/Jethro finding (Reuel literally means "friend of God", while Jethro means "His excellency") lets not rule out that there simply could be two names for the same person, or that one is his actual name, while the other being the man's title. Remember Jethro is called a 'priest of Midian' which could warrant a special title.

Also, if there was more than one source for the passage, that could explain the discrepency as well.

Just a thought

Dave

Submitted by Jill Williams on Sat, 06/28/2008 - 22:16.

Wow, my first reply to a journal entry; thanks! :)