Posted on 03/19/2010 8:34:02 PM PDT by restornu
She is called a harlot, but then everything else about her says NOTHING about her selling herself for her living. Any idea how much flax she would have to taken up to her roof to hide two grown men. When would she have the time to sell herself and raise and harvest and dry and sell flax.... threat/material etc?
I just expect if somebody is called a harlot, then I would read something, anything that describes what she does as being related to said business.
In some translations she's called an innkeeper instead of a harlot.
They could have been offered as payment, and were being dried for the extraction of the fiber to make linnen. Any step in the process would add value to the flax.
Being a harlot would not necessarily require that she be on her back 24/7.
I saw an article a few years back which said some high dollar call girls were also full-time college students, 'working' their way through school. They worked shorter hours for far better pay than their more conventionally employed counterparts.
Interesting and curious. And thanks.
IF.... this were in the Wall Street Journal or a Forbes business story then I would not 'quibble' regarding the business. However, there can be NO doubt the Heavenly Father touched this woman as noted in Joshua 2:9-13 by her knowledge of who these men were and why they showed up at her business/home. NO pillow talk described.
I can take things as they are, but what I read does not fit the claim she was a hooker.
I read what is Written. And what is Written does not indicate anything about Rahab as being a hooker as she is labeled. Nothing Written about her indicates she makes a living off selling herself for income, except that she is called a harlot.
Now given she knew who these men were and what the LORD had promised was going to happen, where did she get this information, not likely something some 'john' pass on in pillow talk. The label does not fit the story and so I question the label.
There are many characters in the Bible that we don't much about, or their lives or work.... Just because the bible says she was a harlot, does not mean we need to know any more narrative about her as being a harlot, besides, the bible tells us that she stopped being a harlot when she decided to join Israel... Just because there are people in the bible, and the only thing it says, was that they were a .. i.e. a king, a horse care taker, a slave, tax collector, or whatever, does not mean we need to know everything about them, unless ? the bible goes more into what and who they are..... I don't waste my time on those things I can't figure out myself from the bible unless GOD would reveal it to me... How about the man who , when he saw the ARK about to fall to the ground off the cart, and touched the ARK, GOD smote him... do we know much about what he work or job was ? All we know is ? he touched the ARK, and was dead on the spot.. Lesson learned ? don't touch what GOD has made holy...
Actually, I am not convinced she ever was a 'harlot'. Not that I consider a 'harlot' committing the unpardonable 'sin'. However, I would at least expect to find something/anything given all that is Written about her to indicate something that gives credibility that she actually was a hooker. Instead what is Written about her is that she was a hard working, 'GOD' fearing woman that in spite of her city being destroyed, did what was right and was protected.
I don't know is there a Saint Rahab, or do people still refer to her as 'that' harlot?
Marvel Comics’ “Secret Wars” mini-series in the 1980’s accurately portrayed that time period, so it would be logical to conclude the Beyonder is the most powerful force in the universe, and that Spider-Man is the most heroic of all.
AMEN! AMEN!
To me the arrogance of worldly man in this statement is breathtaking. The scientists find Jericho. As they dig, all the objective details of the Bible story are verified, right where they should be. The Bible works like a literal map. The human archaeologist adds one thing into the mix, his speculation on the date and since this conflicts with the Bible he concludes it must mean the Bible is wrong. Incredible.
The Bible is most certainly a book of history. The first 17 books of the Old Testament are classically referred to as the "historical books". They are written, in the most part, as historical narratives with innumerable geographic and chronological markers for us to verify the events. In the New Testament, the Gospels are all written as historical narrative and should be treated as such. In fact, in the introduction to the book of Luke, the author Luke tells us directly that he is writing as a historian to give a written and orderly account of real things as they really happened by interviewing real, first hand witnesses, and researching everything else that's been written already. Thus the Bible certainly contains a whole lot of history. For the time period covered it is the most extensive source of eyewitness history we have. As history it should be read literally.
The question of whether to read the Bible literally or figuratively is dictated by genre and context. Different genres are interpreted differently. The genre of historical narrative is to be interpreted literally unless dictated otherwise by the context. These books purport to report what happened and are written to taken at their word. The genres of poetry (psalms, song of Solomon, etc) and prophecy (Isaiah, Daniel, Revelation) are to be taken more figuratively or symbolically. Every time a passage is a parable Jesus or the narrator tells us ("And then he told them a parable...",) - we don't have to guess what is being used as a parable, the text tells us every time. Most people telling you that you can't trust or understand the Bible have never read the Bible cover to cover. Do not listen to these people. It was written for all man to hear, understand and use as an infallible guide. It is God's greatest gift to us. No one is too dumb or ignorant to understand, use and be blessed by the wisdom of scripture but, alas, many are too smart to do so.
The word "harlot" was used to describe her. No further details are necessary.
I have no authority to 'judge', God has spoken (waaay above my pay grade).
However, it is not uncommon in the Bible for those whom society might look down upon to find favor with God. So it is with all of us, for none are without sin. Society just apparently deems some sins more virtuous than others.
Regardless of her occupation or past, she did God's will, and she and her house were spared of all the town and those in it.
My other simple point (no Forbes needed) is that many people have multiple sources of income (nothing new), so having flax drying on the roof (another income source?, for the fiber or for her own use?) is not the big deal some would make it.
As for "hooker", well that is a late 20th century affectation, even 100 years ago (and today in some locales), the world's oldest profession was practiced in 'houses' rather than cheap motels. Some of those houses were large and eloquent places of business, and many ran charitable institutions as well, including orphanages, in a time when there was no government Welfare or food stamps.
In Genesis 1:21 the creation narrative names Taninim Gedolim”: Big reptile or lizard. Later in Exodus 4:3 Moses casts his staff on the ground and it becomes a “nahash” which is Hebrew for serpent or snake. Then, before Pharaoh it becomes a ”tannin” which is the singular case for ”taninim” above.
This sense of naming becomes surprising in God’s discussing kashrus in Leviticus 11:19 where He mentions the Hebrew word “Tinshemet” in referring to a bird, and a little later in v30 He uses to same word in referring to a reptile. It takes on special significance in the modern paleontological sense of referencing the relationship of the hip structure of birds to similar structures in the hips of Ornisthician dinosaurs such as the Stegosuars and Hadrosauridae of the Mesozoic era.
Why would God and The Bible have used these terms overall no less than for the latter two? These juxtapositions would form yet another of my ongoing arguments (Israel=struggle) with Him had He something else entirely in mind.
I like your tag line
Just got back from a museum exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls and related biblical artifacts. They had a copy of Paul's letter to the Romans. When I say a copy it was a copy made by someone who saw the ACTUAL letter. I saw the original writing from 150AD. To look on a parchment written by someone who probably knew the Apostle Paul and copied his letters...Well I'm glad the lights in the room were very low. The most amazing thing is that, through all the transcribing and translations, the text of our modern day Bible EXACTLY matches the ancient scroll. They also had chapters of Luke and Matthew's account of the last supper.
But if the Resurrection is true, then clearly scientific materialism is not where you want to put your faith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.