What is the State of Israel?

[VERITAS]

Tim, that statement was not made by me but by MessiahTruth.com - a counter-missionary (read anti-Christian) website. As I said to Tom, I only included it to show that these ideas about intermarriage are not unique to me but are valid extrapolations from the Bible. (Including Jews who have the most to lose by such extrapolations/admissions...)

 

[TimV]

But do you believe that statement is true? In the part of my post deleted by Phillip I asked you to clearly say whether or not you believe this statement. You didn't, so may I ask you again, do you believe the statement, or not?

[Edited on 3-12-2005 by TimV]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by VERITAS
Tim, that statement was not made by me but by MessiahTruth.com - a counter-missionary (read anti-Christian) website. As I said to Tom, I only included it to show that these ideas about intermarriage are not unique to me but are valid extrapolations from the Bible. (Including Jews who have the most to lose by such extrapolations/admissions...)

I too would like to know the answer to Tim's question.

And I guess I am confused as to why it would show something was a valid extrapolation from the Bible if an anti-Christian, atheistic group held to it? Does that mean that it is a valid extrapolation that Jesus was a gay man who was not God? That is the statement about the Gospels from some in the Jesus Seminar. Wouldn't the exact opposite be true: that a statement from a counter-missionary group would help to prove it was not a valid extrapolation?

 

[VERITAS]

MessiahTruth.com
The Torah prohibits Jews from marrying gentiles. The Torah further teaches that if a Jewish man marries a gentile woman, he must divorce her, send her away, and send the children who resulted from this illegal union as well.

The Bible prohibits certain people from marrying certain other people. As Tom and I have pointed out it specificially forbid the children of Israel from marrying:

1) Ammonites
2) Moabites
3) Canaanites
4) Amorites
5) Perizzites
6) Hittites
7) Hivites
8) Jebusites
9) Girgashites

If further limited marriage to the following people groups before the passing of 3 generations:

10) Edomites (the descendants of Israel's twin brother)
11) Egyptians

And from what point did one calculate the 3 generations? (I think Sheshan marrying off his daughter to Jarha, the Egyptian, probably fell into this category...)

Nehemiah understood the prohibition against intermarriage to include the people of:

12) Ashdod/Ashdothites (apparently a Philistine city where the Anakim people fought Joshua; before Nehemiah's day the Assyrians had taken the city calling it Asdudu. The Assyrian people were Semitic with strains of Hurrian, Sumerian and Hittite. Modern excavations reveal 20 levels of human settlement!)

Note: It is from the extrapolation of the Law by Nehemiah that I would concur with the quote by the Jewish counter-missionary. Is he saying something fundamentally different from what the Bible itself says?

Neh 13:23-27 "In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: {24} And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people. {25} And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. {26} Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. {27} Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?"

Ezra 9:10-15 "And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments, {11} Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness. {12} Now THEREFORE give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. {13} And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this; {14} Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping? {15} O LORD God of Israel, thou art righteous: for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot stand before thee because of this."

Ezra 9:10-15 ""But now, O our God, what can we say after this? For we have disregarded the commands {11} You gave through Your servants the prophets when You Said: 'The land you are entering to possess is a land polluted by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity from one end to the other. {12} THEREFORE, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a peace treaty with them at any time, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance.' {13} "What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins have deserved and have given us a remnant like this. {14} SHALL WE AGAIN BREAK YOUR COMMANDS AND INTERMARRY with the peoples who commit such detestable practices? Would you not be angry enough with us to destroy us, leaving us no remnant or survivor? {15} O LORD, God of Israel, You are Righteous! We are left this day as a remnant. Here we are before you in our guilt, though because of it not one of us can stand in Your Presence.""

Ezra 10:2-3, 10-11, 19 "Then Shecaniah son of Jehiel, one of the descendants of Elam, said to Ezra, "We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us. But in spite of this, there is still hope for Israel. {3} Now let us make a covenant before our God to send away all these women and their children, in accordance with the counsel of my lord and of those who fear the commands of our God. Let it be done according to the Law. ...{10} "And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. {11} Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives."...{19} "And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass."

The next verse tells how Nehemiah drove the son of the high priest away from him because he was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite. (Sanballat was the Persian satrap of Samaria.)

There were several other marriage restrictions in Israel:

13) an illegitimate ("bastard" in KJV) child was prohibited from entering into the congregation of the Lord for 10 generations. (The Text doesn't specify what kind of unions would constitute an illegitmate child.)

14) priests could not marry:
a) widows (Lev 21:14; Ezek 44:22)
b) whores (Lev 21:7, 9, 14; Ezek 44:22)
c) "profane" women (non-Israelite? idol-worshipper?; Lev 21:7, 14)
d) divorced women (Lev 21:7, 14; Ezek 44:22)
e) anyone outside of the family (Lev 21:14; Ezek 44:22)

That left them 2 choices:
a) Israelite virgins (Lev 21:14; Ezek 44:22)
b) widows of fellow priests (Ezek 44:22)

"Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him." --Lev 21:15

15) the daughters of priests, if they married anyone other than a priest could then not eat of the sacred contributions - i.e. the tithe.

"If a priest's daughter marries anyone other than a priest (NIV says "outsider"), she may not eat any of the sacred contributions. {13} But if a priest's daughter becomes a widow or is divorced, yet has no children, and she returns to live in her father's house as in her youth, she may eat of her father's food. No unauthorized person, however, may eat any of it." --Lev 22:12-13

Of course, if she had illicit sexual relations with anyone - Isaelite or non-Israelite she was to be burned to death (Lev 21:9).

16) The other tribes were restricted from marrying anyone outside of their own tribe if proprietoral land was at risk:

"They said, "When The LORD commanded my lord to give the land as an inheritance to the Israelites by lot, he ordered you to give the inheritance of our brother Zelophehad to his daughters. {3} Now suppose they marry men from other Israelite tribes; then their inheritance will be taken from our ancestral inheritance and added to that of the tribe they marry into. And so part of the inheritance allotted to us will be taken away. {4} When the Year of Jubilee for the Israelites comes, their inheritance will be added to that of the tribe into which they marry, and their property will be taken from the tribal inheritance of our forefathers." {5} Then at The Lord's Command Moses gave this order to the Israelites: "What the tribe of the descendants of Joseph is saying is right. {6} This is what The LORD Commands for Zelophehad's daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father. {7} No inheritance in Israel is to pass from tribe to tribe, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal land inherited from his forefathers. {8} Every daughter who inherits land in any Israelite tribe MUST marry someone in her father's tribal clan, so that every Israelite will possess the inheritance of his fathers. {9} No inheritance may pass from tribe to tribe, for each Israelite tribe is to keep the land it inherits." {10} So Zelophehad's daughters did as the LORD commanded Moses. {11} Zelophehad's daughters--Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah--married their cousins on their father's side. {12} They married within the clans of the descendants of Manasseh son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in their father's clan and tribe. {13} These are The Commands and Regulations The LORD Gave through Moses to the Israelites on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho." --Num 36:2-13

And last but not least what was the fundament difference between an Israelite and a "Gentile"? A Gentile was not a specific nationality, but was rather a euphemism for an unbeliever, someone outside the covenant. So, when the counter-missionary says that the Torah forbid "Jews" (I would say the children of Israel; Israelites) from marrying gentiles, is he saying something contrary to Scripture? Is his extrapolation from the Text invalid?

 

[TimV]

So, when the counter-missionary says that the Torah forbid "Jews" (I would say the children of Israel; Israelites) from marrying gentiles, is he saying something contrary to Scripture? Is his extrapolation from the Text invalid?

Yes, if it is not explained, like the law "thou shalt not kill" is explained, including the exceptions, which include more that Egyptians and Edomites, as the verse dealing with women captured in battle shows. Egyptians and Edomites are clearly case law examples, one group coming from Ham, and the other from Shem. There was no need to mention Midianites, for example, as they were also from Shem and Jethro and his families were incorperated into Israel without problem.

And when Israel need a foriegn contruction expert he send for Hiram in 1 kings 7

13Now King Solomon sent and brought Huram from Tyre. 14He was the son of a widow from the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a bronze worker; he was filled with wisdom and understanding and skill in working with all kinds of bronze work. So he came to King Solomon and did all his work.

Even if the widow did wrong in not waiting for three generations to marry the Phoenician, the issue of that union was given full status in the community. It is similar with traditional Jewish law as well.

Although marriage to a non-Jew may be forbidden, you fail to grasp a vital distinction between two different types of forbidden marriage: marriages that are never valid even if they are entered into, and marriages that may be considered sinful but that are nonetheless legally valid if they do occur. Incest and adultery are in the former category, marriage to a non-Jew is in the latter.

Also, it is a simple fact that, in practice, the children of mixed marriages are not treated as mamzerim, even by traditional Jews, and they never were, with a few specific exeptions.

See further

http://www.aish.com/torahportion/mayanot/Jewish_Rights.asp

[Edited on 3-12-2005 by TimV]

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by VERITAS
And last but not least what was the fundament difference between an Israelite and a "Gentile"? A Gentile was not a specific nationality, but was rather a euphemism for an unbeliever, someone outside the covenant. So, when the counter-missionary says that the Torah forbid "Jews" (I would say the children of Israel; Israelites) from marrying gentiles, is he saying something contrary to Scripture? Is his extrapolation from the Text invalid?

And so we are back to the beginning, realizing that all this means nothing for us today in any direct fashion. The older covenant under which national Israel operated has been done away with, fulfilled in Christ and superceeded by the new covenant made with the new nation.

There are no biblical old covenant Jews today, since no one can keep the terms of that older covenant.

Modern Jews are creatures of the rabbis and the Talmud. They are specifically anti-trinitarian. Biblical Jews, such as Abraham and Moses, were trinitarian.

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." (John 8:56)

"Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. " (1 Cor. 10:1-4)

"So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening." (Acts 28:23)

It really doesn't matter today how physical Jews go about claiming their lineage, whether by father or mother. It does not matter whom they marry, whether another Jew or a gentile. Even if you could come up with a fool-proof DNA marker that would prove "Jewishness", it would, in reality, prove nothing. It would only serve to puff up those who have abandoned the true covenant of God.

God's covenant promises and blessing go to those who are the true sons of Abraham, those found to be in Christ, the true Seed of Abraham.

 

[VERITAS]

Originally posted by TimV
Although marriage to a non-Jew may be forbidden, you fail to grasp a vital distinction between two different types of forbidden marriage: marriages that are never valid even if they are entered into, and marriages that may be considered sinful but that are nonetheless legally valid...

"...Sin is the transgression of the Law." --1 John 3:4

First, if a marriage is forbidden then WHERE is it forbidden if not in the Law/Covenant? If it is forbidden by the Law and someone transgresses the Law that is sin. God then may or may not forgive their transgression, but He was not required to. And marriage isn't a sin that one just falls into. It is a conscious decision. And it wasn't an obscure law that few people knew about.

Secondly, if a marriage is made outside the boundaries of the law then HOW is it valid? Is it valid according to the Law/Covenant? Is it valid in the eyes of God?

I would say that any union between a man and a woman who commit themselves to one another before God and man constitute a "valid" marriage - meaning that they shouldn't then seek to be loosened from the marriage. That's not the same thing as being covenantally valid (under the O.C.).

Israel was unique. Their government was a Theocratic Monarchy. Disobedience was against God. When something is said to be valid it means to be legal, executed with the proper legal authority and formalities, justifiable, and appropriate to the end in view. None of these definitions could be used for an illegal marriage under covenant stipulations.

Thirdly, if the marriage was "legal" and "valid" then why was the apparent remedy to put away the foreign spouse and the children that resulted from that union - and that in spite of the fact that God hates divorce? What kind of legality or validity is it if they must be sent away!?!

 

[TimV]

Secondly, if a marriage is made outside the boundaries of the law then HOW is it valid? Is it valid according to the Law/Covenant? Is it valid in the eyes of God?

Sometimes, as I've tried to tell you, otherwise Ruth's marriage to Boaz wasn't valid, and despite what you think, or wish, the marriage was valid.

Thirdly, if the marriage was "legal" and "valid" then why was the apparent remedy to put away the foreign spouse and the children that resulted from that union - and that in spite of the fact that God hates divorce? What kind of legality or validity is it if they must be sent away!?!

I was commanded on a few occasions, I can only think of one example now, just like I can only think of one time God commanded genocide, specifically demanding the killing of women and children, even though this goes against specific general commands like not holding the son guilty for the sins of the fathers.

 

[VERITAS]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht
Modern Jews are creatures of the rabbis and the Talmud...

It really doesn't matter today how physical Jews go about claiming their lineage, whether by father or mother. It does not matter whom they marry, whether another Jew or a gentile. Even if you could come up with a fool-proof DNA marker that would prove "Jewishness", it would, in reality, prove nothing. It would only serve to puff up those who have abandoned the true covenant of God.

I feel like the statement regarding Jacob in Heb 11:21 when I read Tom's posts: "[he] worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff."

I totally agree with EVERYTHING you said and your posts bless my heart and make me worship in spirit and in truth.

And although none of this SHOULD have any significance for faith and practice in the Christian's life, a wrong view does (as is apparent by these posts) hold sway over both one's theology and their politics (and possibly their proclamation of the Gospel to such individuals).

My emphasis has been from the get-go that if these things are so, then therein lies an apologetic against Judaism that they might be willing to listen to. It doesn't require going to the New Testament and quoting things that they do not believe are Biblical. The Old Testament was the only Scripture available to the apostles and was what they had to work from... There are tons of other historical arguments that I have used, but this one cuts to the very foundation of their theological (and political) existence.

I'm not asking for Christians to believe some "new thing," only that which is "written in the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24:14; Isa 8:20). "Why should it then be thought a thing incredible...?"

 

[VERITAS]

Originally posted by TimV
...otherwise Ruth's marriage to Boaz wasn't valid, and despite what you think, or wish, the marriage was valid.

Was it legal or valid for David to eat the showbread? No. Jesus specifically says that it was not, yet God apparently excused David's transgression (probably in favor of a greater good - the preservation of David's life).

Ruth may have been a valid convert to the God of Israel (what she says to her mother-in-law doesn't necessarly equate to faith and she, unlike Rahab, is not listed in Hall of Fame of Faith in Heb 11), but she was still a Moabite and marriage to them was forbidden. It was wrong when Mahlon married her. It must still have been wrong when Boaz married her (even though he was following the Law in keeping his kinsman's property from removing from tribe to tribe or outside the family of Israel).

HOWEVER, there is little-to-nothing in the Scripture about non-Israelite "conversion" or such individuals becoming PART and HEIRS of the Covenant. Perhaps this was because such a thing was rare or unheard of. We have no statistics... No legal prescriptions...

Originally posted by TimV
I can only think of one time God commanded genocide, specifically demanding the killing of women and children, even though this goes against specific general commands like not holding the son guilty for the sins of the fathers.

I don't assume that those children were morally innocent and held guilty for the sins of their fathers. I hold tenaciously to the doctrine of Original Sin (and the imputation of such) for ALL people - young and old. Those children might not have committed as many ACTUAL sins as their heathen parents, but they were under the curse of sin nonetheless and the wages for such is death. But that's another topic... My point is that God's Command in those instances does not contradict other principles in His Law. There is no shadow of turning in the God of Israel.

[Edited on 3-12-2005 by VERITAS]

 

[TimV]

HOWEVER, there is little-to-nothing in the Scripture about non-Israelite "conversion" or such individuals becoming PART and HEIRS of the Covenant. Perhaps this was because such a thing was rare or unheard of. We have no statistics... No legal prescriptions...

The other explaination is that you are unfamiliar with Reformed theology.

Heb 11:30By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. 31By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.

 

[VERITAS]

I'm beginning to think that you're just a contentious person, Tim, and would have something smart to say no matter what I say.

I'm not disputing that Rahab became an HEIR of THE Covenant (from God's perspective) by His Grace through her faith in the God of Israel. But Hebrews 11 *IS* from God's perspective. Is there anywhere in the Old Testament where it says anything about Rahab's "conversion"? No. It simply says that she, like all her countrymen, had heard of the miraculous things that God was doing for His people (Josh 2:9-14) and she made a covenant with the spies. It says that she "dwelleth IN Israel even unto this day" (Josh 6:25), but as I've pointed out dwelling in Israel doesn't necessarily equate to be in Israel's Covenant with God.

Rahab was saved the same way Abel, Enoch, Noah and Abraham were saved: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the Law." (Rom 3:28) In fact, this is the way all men - Israelites or non-Israelites are and were saved. Which goes back to my point about David. Of course we know that David was a man after God's Own Heart, but did that excuse his ancestors from transgressing the Law. Does the fact that one of their offspring is beloved of God negate the fact that they broke the covenant?

You mentioned the Midianites and say:

There was no need to mention Midianites, for example, as they were also from Shem and Jethro and his families were incorperated into Israel without problem.

But I had already stated that: "Likewise, Moses' father-in-law (and thus his daughter, Zipporah) is called both a Kenite and a Midianite (Judg 1:6; Num 10:29). The Kenites were a tribe of Canaan who must have intermarried with the Midianites so as to make their tribal affiliation undistinguishable. " The Canaanites were NOT descendants of Shem. (Not that that matters, there were lots of descendants of Shem who were not part of the Covenant people.) But Israel was strictly forbidden from marrying Canaanites. (Moses' marriage to Zipporah preceeded the Law.)

But here's an example of an Israelite man with a Midianite woman:

Num 25:1, 6-15 "While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women," ...{6} "Then an Israelite man brought to his family a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. {7} When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand {8} and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them--through the Israelite and into the woman's body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; {9} but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000. {10} The LORD said to Moses, {11} "Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned My Anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for My Honor among them, so that in My Zeal I did not put an end to them. {12} Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. {13} He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites." {14} The name of the Israelite who was killed with the Midianite woman was Zimri son of Salu, the leader of a Simeonite family. {15} And the name of the Midianite woman who was put to death was Cozbi daughter of Zur, a tribal chief of a Midianite family."

Apparently the Lord didn't share your view...

Furthermore when you mention the fact that Hiram's mother was from the tribe of Naphtali and his father was "a man from Tyre" then you are having to assume that he was a Phoenician and not simply an Israelite who had been born there. I believe that Paul was a full-blooded Benjamite even though he wasn't born in the Land: "a man from Tarsus named Saul"... (Acts 9:11)

It helps to pay attention to the WORDS of Scripture, Tim. "Take heed WHAT ye hear" (Mark 4:24); "Take heed therefore HOW ye hear" (Luke 8:18).

Regarding intermarriage examples, I have a few of my own:

1) Jephthah, the son of Gilead and a harlot, was driven away by his (half?) brothers saying, "You shall have no inheritance in our father's house, for you are the son of another woman."

What does this mean? The tribes of Israel themselves were from Jacob and 4 different women! Was it because his mother was a harlot? Ok. But it doesn't say that she was from another ethnic group and there wasn't any prohibition (that I recall) against marrying a harlot (if indeed he did). Harlots in Israel were supposed to be stoned to death (and maybe she was which was why Gilead had custody of Jephthah, but he should have been stoned too then). And the fact that these other boys are worried about the INHERITANCE speaks to the issue about whether outsiders (if that's the reason behind their actions) were considered a legitimate part of Israel and the covenant.

2) the son of an Israelite/Danite woman and an Egyptian father:

"Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. {11} The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) {12} They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them. {13} Then the LORD said to Moses: {14} "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. {15} Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; {16} anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an ALIEN or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death." --Lev 24:10-16

Notice first that the man isn't simply called an "Israelite" like the man that he fought with was and then notice that the Lord says the Law applies to anyone living in the Land "whether an ALIEN" or someone who was born in the Land. This seems to distinguish this Danite woman's son not as a full-blood heir to the covenant, but as an "alien" or at the very least a "half-breed"... Furthermore it points out the fact that just because Israel might allow foreigners to live among them didn't mean that those foreigners were exempt from the civil, ceremonial and religious laws of Israel. The covenant was indivisable. Blaspheming God was certainly an irreligious thing, yet it was not to go unpunished. God was King. His Word was Law. Obedience to the Law of His Kingdom was paramount, but no amount of obedience or faith in Him automatically conferred covenantal status upon a foreigner.

Enough for today. I'm going to go snuggle up against my hubby and read over my Sunday school lesson for tomorrow...

 

[TimV]

I'm not disputing that Rahab became an HEIR of THE Covenant (from God's perspective) by His Grace through her faith in the God of Israel. But Hebrews 11 *IS* from God's perspective. Is there anywhere in the Old Testament where it says anything about Rahab's "conversion"?

There doesn't need to be (even though there is), as, for so many other things, the further and clearer explaination is given in the New Testament.

And, as typical, you've yet to admit that the passage about the women taken in battle from foriegn wars were legally married by Israelites.

You are the one being evasive. First you ask me for any proof at all that any nonIsraelites are allowed to intermarry with Israel. You mock me, and say you've never read anything about this in the Bible, then, after I give you verse, you don't appologise. Rather you say " "Aha!" only TWO exceptions!" So much for integrity.

Rahab's marriage was valid, whether you want it to be or not, your silly theories not withstanding.

 

[VERITAS]

whatever