Well.. most of them appear to be, (white) and what has been stolen ?

*IDENTITY*

How ?

A report on TV yesterday showed the trauma that young growing teenagers who were conceived by sperm donor experience, as they begin to realize they have biological roots out there somewhere..and a biological father.

DONOR 1025 One young fellow, struggled to find his biological father, and went to the sperm donor clinic and found ONLY a number...'Donor 1025'.

They would not tell him more. It struck him, that if he could be conceived this way, maybe OTHERS had the same father..and thus he might have biological brothers and sisters 'out there'.

He set up a web site, and asked if others had the same donor number.
Sadly, he didn't find any at first but a LOT of other young people DID find their biological brothers and sisters by using his site and the 'donor number' technique.

Personally, I believe we have missed the boat totally by placing the desire to 'have a baby' ahead of the interests of that very child.
But more than this, we have lost the sense of connection and identity that being born is meant to provide us.

In ancient Israel, the importance of having direct biological descendants, was so critical that if a man died before having children, his brother was expected to inseminate the widow on his behalf. Presumably this meant a marriage.

But.. name, family links.. biological connection... its all been "stolen" from these innocent young victims of our own desire to 'have a child'.

David
I agree with you but only because there are too many people in the world already.
They should adopt a starving kid from Africa instead and churches ought to issue the pill.
By Law. No pill no food
We need to slow birth ratge world wide not increase it.
As for the young man with the number I assume he had a mum and dad who raised him and spent lots of money at the Drs etc.
I would say to him be grateful somebody dontated something so he or she could have two parents who very much loved and wanted him.
I would say he or she was very lucky and to get over it and stop lookng to create a drama where there is none.
Sorry Davo but this type of self indogence when others have real problems bugs me.
Love the parents and family you have.
Be gateful

I on seeing the threads name though it might address the fact white children did in fact get taken away from parents.
It is true that while I do not disagree with the fact a stolen generation took place.
And hold the view it was not always right and not always wrong, it was often based on income and others views.
I know my family for a short time lived in a city, and that a child welfare out of control took 5 lots of kids from the 22 homes in that street into care.
They attempted to take my family but failed.
We need to remember it was another time, not driven by the understanding we have today.
And we need to understand it was driven by Christians, who blindly though they knew better .
Strange but true given the way it turned out but those who tried so very hard to have me removed from my family came from both the ALP and the Catholic church.
A funny world isn't it? that Christian family saw each of its children serve prison terms.

Hi Belly_and_Palif... yes you both make good points.

The only major point though of this thread, was to highlight the sense of connection that we all have with our biological forebears
and I think we are seeing in these precious young lives, the sad reality of how a person feels when that real biological connection is denied them through no fault of their own, and where they had less than zero choice in the matter.

Belly, its interesting that this kind of program (which is in my view, equally hurtful as the 'Church' driven programs of the past)
is actually "Secular Driven" and is a classic example of what I usually term MIUAUG (Makeitupasyougo) social morality and ethics.

-I want to have a child.
-I cannot have one.
-I must find a way no matter what.
-I want to be fulfilled.
-I will get some persons sperm and do it that way.

The major problem with this, is it's lack of understanding of the nature of human beings. The vast genealogies in the old testament..
testify to the importance of family connection.

Numbers 1
1 The LORD spoke to Moses in the Tent of Meeting in the Desert of Sinai on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. He said: 2 "Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every man by name, 'one by one'.

"One....by one"... each individual has importance, value and significance, but that cannot be separated from his family line either.

How far did this reach ? Right down to 'now' and to OLO

Numbers 1:47 "The families of the tribe of Levi, however, were not counted along with the others. 48 The LORD had said to Moses: 49 "You must not count the tribe of Levi or include them in the census of the other Israelites. 50 Instead, appoint the Levites to be in charge of the tabernacle of the Testimony"

One of our posters on OLO is from that last group...the priestly clan... and knows it.

"Connection"

Have you ever had issues with procreating naturally, david?

Isn't this attitude in direct conflict with the arguments presented by anti-abortion protesters? One of the pro-life arguments is that if a girl gets knocked up, she should carry it to term and then she can adopt it out. It seems that these kids and parents who cannot conceive can't win either way, according to the fundamentalists.

Fascinating stuff, BOAZ-David, your mentioning of levirate marriage obligations in ancient Israel in the context of personal identity, biological paternity, and limitation as to the extent of any census. King David's experience with this last comes to mind. Fascinating, too, that the first named component of your user name was the successor to a repudiated levirate marriage right: you know, the spitting in the shoe with regard to Ruth, and all that. Halitzah.

I have a question for you.

In the posterity of Josiah (one of the kings in the Davidic line of ancient Israel, for the benefit of those readers not familiar with the Book, their genealogy, or both), and in the light of the institution of levirate marriage, who's son was Jehoiachin? Make sure your answer is consistent with the implications of I Chronicles 3:15 and does not require any alteration thereto.

Tip: I Chronicles 3:15 cites Shallum, who when placed upon the throne immediately after the death of Josiah by the people of Judah was given the throne-name of Jehoahaz, as the fourth son of Josiah. In relation to the chronological order of the births of the sons of Josiah, recorded in various other places in the scriptural account, this statement appears to be incorrect.

You have me intrigued with the second-last line of your second post on this thread. Without outing him (and by definition the poster must be male) give us some more clues. I can think of at least one who's name fits, and another who's actions and record in fulfilling the function are absolutely outstanding. I love a good mystery, the key to the solving of which is often the asking of oneself the right questions. The most penetrating and incisive questions. But I need more information.

Don't keep us in suspenders, BOAZ-David! More clues please.

Bugsy and Stg

firstly...I've not had trouble reproducing naturally. I have 3 children of my own and my wife.
YES..I do understand the position of those who have not been able to do likewise.

NO, I don't deny them the opportunity to seek other options of a legal nature, but....... THE POINT I'm making here, is that of 'connection'.

HOW can we deny our children who have a biological father ... (his sperm) the knowledge of that person?

CLEARLY.. children born of sperm donation DO want to have that sense of connection... they do... it's undeniable. So, why not simply give it to them ?

To do so does not detract from all the qualities of father/mother hood and family that the non biological parents will experience.. everyone knows they are a kind of adoptive situation anyway.
But to deny the sense of biological connection to those who long for it.. is well.. no comment.

This raises a question. "Should infertile men allow their wives eggs to be fertilized by the sperm of another man" ?

SECULAR VIEW.. "probably yes"

CHILDS VIEW...."maybe ok as long as I know who my biological father is"

RELIGIOUS VIEW.. On this, I can only speak as a Christian. The closest parallel in the old testament is this, that a man whos brother dies before he has children, was expected to produce a child FOR his brother with the widow. That way, the biological connection would still be within the genes of the immediate family.

So, perhaps, at a stretch, the sperm of the brother (if any) of the infertile father, might be admissable in such a case. The child then would have a closer sense of family connection.

I'm really raising questions here more than providing answers, and this is a 'work in progress' for sure.
So all input is valued.

What about the donor's right to anonymity? This is what many donors want and studies have plainly shown that without the guarantee of anonymity donations will drop. But recipients feel that they will benefit..

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/11/3022

So, there is definitely a legal point of view to protect the rights of previous donors who gave their sperm under the condition of anonymity.

But "stolen generation"? You can get over that, doesn't Christianity constantly go on about humans being much more than mere genes? Where is the logic in this whole thing? If you believe in souls and that humans are the product of their upbringing and spiritual development and not merely meatbags, then you have no leg to stand on regarding the idea that you have to know the identity and have a connection with your biological parent. Isn't your spiritual parent much more important?

The drive for knowing the identity of a parent is really just a curiosity thing, one that anyone can get over. It is not a deeply spiritual scar that will last their lifetimes. Believe me, I do know.

I agree. I am not interested in this from a religious point of view, which you full well know. But I am glad somebody has raised this.

It isn't something that has affected me, but it is a major problem for many others. It is too easy to suggest that they should 'move on'. Some cannot. They may love and value their parents but are driven by the need to know who fathered them.

The other aspect is the multi-donor. This is a crazy situation. It is ludicrous that there can be many siblings out there that are unaware that they are so.

I have to concede that this situation IS the result of a society that will go after what it wants; whatever the cost.

So, in a nutshell Boaz, you would deny these kids the right to exist.

I assume that, to be consistent, you are also pro-abortion?

I do wonder how much of Boazzy's intent is about concern for the well being of kids growing up not knowing who their biological father is and how much a diversion from whack a mossie with a whack a makitupasyougosecularist (although I won't be surprised if whack a mossie shows soon).

The issues that spring to mind on the stated topic
- The situation described by BD is nothing like the horror faced by those forcible removed from families based on racial or social bias.
- The need to know about biological medical history is genuinely important and can make a difference in detection and early treatment of many issues.
- The desire to know about family can be a significant priority for some people. Not being allowed to know may make that even worse.
- I suspect that some people who's fathers were donors might have some concerns if donors were able to locate them without prior consent.
- Donors may have good reason for wanting their privacy protected at the time of donation and later when their circumstances may have changed significantly. I could be very harmfull to existing relationships if previously unknown and unannounced children or siblings were able to track down donors and their families without consent.
- Personally I'm of the view that a medical procedure raises significantly less moral and ethical issues than a roll in the hay with the sister in law. Maybe that was the best option at the time but science has given us some better options.

R0bert

"Deny them the right to exist" ?

Pericles.. in a nutshell...no. Where did I suggest or say that ?

Where is CJ Morgan when I need him ? ... "Tells porkies..stretches the truth" *Points at Pericles*....

No Pericles, I'm saying that IF a childless couple desperately want a child, and the man is infertile, then.. based on the closest parallel to this I can find in the Old Testament (there is zero in the new).. the sperm should come from the brother or close relation to the man.
Secondly, I said quite clearly I thought.. that the child needs to know its biological heritage.

I say that..because the evidence is there for us all to see.

Re Bugsy's comment, can you elaborate Bugsy ? "Believe me...I know" ?

I think it is something we can 'get over' to a degree, but the question will always be gnawing deep down.... maybe?

Finally, regarding 'rights' and the right to anonymity, I suppose we have to give a weighting to 'rights' and to me, the right of the 'yet to be conceived' who have no choice in the matter... is a higher priority. Surely we have an obligation to the helpless ?

Robert.. I won't dignify that snide comment in your post with any response other than this line.

Boaz, a little flustered?

>>"Deny them the right to exist" ? Pericles.. in a nutshell...no. Where did I suggest or say that ?<<

How's this for starters?

>>Personally, I believe we have missed the boat totally by placing the desire to 'have a baby' ahead of the interests of that very child<<

That suggests that it would be better not to have the baby, right?

Or this:

>>-I want to have a child.
-I cannot have one.
-I must find a way no matter what.
-I want to be fulfilled.
-I will get some persons sperm and do it that way.

The major problem with this, is it's lack of understanding of the nature of human beings<<

The "nature of human beings" would then, naturally, to have the baby. You are suggesting this is not a good idea.

What is one supposed to think?

Actually Boazy, I don't think I will elaborate.

But seriously, families (and people) have been torn apart by war, disease and whole mess of other catastrophes, not knowing who your biological father is is something that people can learn to get over.

Especially since they have parents, often a biological one in the mother, that went to the trouble to go through the process to produce them in the first place. Even if the question is deep down and gnawing, if a sperm donor wants to remain anonymous for whatever reason, then they can just get over it. I also know a few people who know who their father is and wish they didn't because of the pain of rejection involved. And no, it's not me.

Pericles... this has been a worthwhile exercise for many reasons, but one which stands out... is that it has shown how you jump onto something and 'spin' it. You drew a conclusion based on limited points made by me and you radicalized it. i.e. you observed a few points which pointed to nothing other than 'selfishness' and took that to mean 'deny them existence'... well done. Now we all know.

Take a deep breath and look at the other posts, I am saying that a BETTER way of fulfilling BOTH the parental desire AND the childs sense of connection, would be to take a sperm donation from the brother or close relative of the infertile father.

I also said this is a work in progress.. I'm thinking on the fly here.
It strikes me that we need to determine what frame work is the over-riding one for this procedure if at all..
1/ Is it for the 'fulfilment of parental desire' of infertile couples?
2/ Is it to achieve '1' but with the view to providing a biological extention to the family line?
If 2, then a near relative of the male would be best.

BUGSY..no drama about not elaborating, and thanx for your contribution, though I think its much easier to just 'say' "they can get over it" when we are not them.
I'd be interested in a response from one of 'them' :) if someone said that.

I also take your point about those who DO know their fathers and wish they didn't for reasons you outlined.

The problem is, Boaz, as it is with most of your ideas, that you never bother to think things through to a logical conclusion.

Your admission that this is "a work in progress.. I'm thinking on the fly here" is actually a poor excuse for fuzzy thinking and a fundamental lack of understanding of the real world.

>>You drew a conclusion based on limited points made by me and you radicalized it<<

On the contrary, I took your position, and expanded upon it in a direction that you had not considered. Because it was a moral/ethical direction, I thought that it might help you understand where you were - perhaps inadvertently - headed.

>>I am saying that a BETTER way of fulfilling BOTH the parental desire AND the childs sense of connection, would be to take a sperm donation from the brother or close relative of the infertile father<<

More fuzzy thinking. Better? For whom? Who are you to predict that a child will be less disturbed to discover that his uncle is also his father, than if his father were a complete stranger? Would you like to be the person who has to sort out the traumas that result from that awareness?

Drop the subject, Boaz. If you haven't even thought it through this far, then you are way out of your depth.

"Where is CJ Morgan when I need him ?" Don't fret, Boazy - I'm here, shaking my head as I usually do when I read the nonsense you post.

Actually, I think that this thread is an eye-opener as to what is the fundamental motive for your prolific xenophobic posts. If you'd read any more anthropology than the single outmoded essay to which you frequently and inappropriately refer, you'd be aware that the levirate marriage that is your model for this thread is one that is widely adopted by relatively primitive, patriarchal/patrilineal societies that are organised into endogamous clans. That is, those kinds of societies in which the maintenance of the male 'line' is seen to be essential in order to maintain and reproduce the patriclan.

Much of your thinking seems to emulate this kind of primitive 'us and them' ideology, including its patriarchal overtones and inward-looking worldview. Yes, knowledge of one's biological paternity is important in societeies that subscribe to this ideology - which is what it is, rather than being a 'natural' or innate need.

Fortunately, our society has evolved far beyond the stage where such a patrilineal ideology is adaptive or even desirable, but vestiges persisist beyond their usefulness - mostly in the form of outmoded religious ideas and cultural practices. Children who feel some sort of loss from not knowing their biological paternity do so because they have learnt to, raher than experiencing some kind of innate yearning.

Lastly, I agree with R0bert that "The situation described by BD is nothing like the horror faced by those forcible removed from families based on racial or social bias".

Boazy's claim that he is talking about the "real STOLEN GENERATION" is both inappropriate and offensive to Aboriginal people who suffered from removal from their families and kin by governments, and churches acting on governments' behalf.

"......... I am saying that a BETTER way of fulfilling BOTH the parental desire AND the childs sense of connection, would be to take a sperm donation from the brother or close relative of the infertile father." (Quote:BOAZ).

Just to clarify; I agree with the concerns of the child of a sperm donor. I do NOT agree with the above. This has the potential to cause further distress.

"Boazy's claim that he is talking about the "real STOLEN GENERATION" is both inappropriate and offensive to Aboriginal people who suffered from removal from their families and kin by governments, and churches acting on governments' behalf." (Quote:CJ Morgan)

You have my word that I am not attempting to complicate matters CJ; but the main issue I would have is with one word only, and that is "real". (Hmmmmmmm......; and perhaps 'stolen generation' in relation to what David is saying. That phraseology is recognised for exactly what it is, and how it has affected those who were removed under false pretences).

And 'stolen generation' DOES apply to the white population too. The removal of many children from their British families, being told they were orphans, and in many cases being worked like slaves, and suffering physical and sexual abuse, MUST also be acknowledged.

I completely acknowledge both.

I WILL complicate things here...........;David;- most of this was done in the Name of the Father...........

Ginx-even though you resorted to a pretty woeful effort of personal abuse to me, (which doesn't bother me) I quite happy with your last post. Yes.. I've been wondering why no one took me to task earlier on the question of the Aboriginal removals. I don't deny that for a moment, but I reserve the decision on the wisdom and impact for a case by case look. I cannot call it a stolen 'generation' as such.

PERICLES resorts here to 'ur out of ur depth' and dabbles in a bit of intellectual supremacism there.. he draws the wrong conclusions from my posts, (as he often does) and then blames me for his own shoddy thinking. (not to mention a 'WHACK A BOAZ' poke)

Moving on..

CJ.. aah.. as usual, also in 'whack-a-Boaz' mode, seeks to undermine the whole thing with a "I know more than you do" kind like a school yard bully..or..the private school kid at the bus stop with the kid from the Technical school".. we all know that type.
The problem is... CJ also is in denial along with Pericles.
From his of intellectual ivory pulpit 6 feet above contradition, he preaches to we, his congregation as follows:

"Children who feel some sort of loss from not knowing their biological paternity do so because they have learnt to, rather than experiencing some kind of innate yearning."

Well golly gosh.. gee.. I suppose the parents of these children have spent a considerable time 'educating' their sperm donor children to LONG for their biological fathers ? duh... your conclusion flies in the face of reality CJ.. given the strong (very) sense of individual identity enculturated into Western Children, (specially american) it simply won't do to draw such a conclusion. Western societies are NOT strong on Patriarchal or patrilineal culture, so that does NOT explain the longing these real world children experience.

Pericles.. you need another whack here.. (I'm not yet satisfied) criticizing me for openly sharing my thinking is a work in progress is lame. You could have chosen to 'contribute' rather than just trying to tear down

Actually, Boazy, your starting points are not very good really. I especially think that the idea of brother or close male family memebers should be donors where possible is particularly ill-concieved, for want of a better pun. This is because there are so many exceptions to this situation, that it itself would be the exception rather than the rule. Consider that most families these days have only 2 children, what is the chance out of all those that the father-to-be has a brother? Or even those that have a brother, those eligible to donate? Considering that the father-to-be may have a genetic disease or some other condition that has made him sterile or whatever and may also be carried by his brother. Or how many men that cannot conceive have brothers that they wouldn't ask for whatever reason (alcohol/drugs/disease/estrangemnt/embarrassment etc.) So, narrowing this down, it would be a relatively "lucky" few that ever got to do this sort of thing for their siblings. Let alone having it as a standard policy for donations.

So, eliminating that idea, many men (approximately half or more according to sperm bank sources) would prefer to be anonymous and would seriously consider not donating if that was not guaranteed. Of those who would consider not being anonymous, most would prefer to have only a one-off meeting, probably out of curiosity. If they were counselled before donating and told that their offspring could follow them up and attempt to have a relationship with them later in life, a majority would decline to donate.

But to follow up your statement that "Western societies are NOT strong on Patriarchal or patrilineal culture, so that does NOT explain the longing these real world children experience".

This statemnet is not true, what have you based this on? Western society is overwhelmingly patriarchal and family oriented. All education does not come from parents, as you should be painfully aware Boazy, the signs and lessons are all around you, you yourself say that knowing your biological fathers is important, this is not a biological "longing" it is society saying that family is important and biological parents are somehow family. It is in movies, books, stories, and attitudes everywhere.

I say that family is important, but biological parents that do not want anything to do with you and are in fact complete strangers do not need to be counted as "family", the people who raised you and count you as their own are your family. In this way children can certainly "get over it". Unless you are genetically predisposed to mental illness (which should be weeded out at the donation stage), it won't make them suffer either and shouldn't bother them unless everyone keeps telling them how important it is to know their biological father. It isn't, and it isn't a biological longing or innate yearning.

And when you think that it is much easier to say "they can get over it when you aren't one of 'them'", what makes you think that I am not one of "them" (whatever "them" means).

Thanks Bugsy - you've said pretty well what I would have in response to Boazy's little spray.

Face it, Boazy - with the exception of your biblical references, you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about here. Best leave it alone, eh?

You can't expect to post controversial, offensive and silly ideas in this forum and avoid criticism by claiming that you're thinking "on the fly". Next time you feel the need to share your thoughts with us, I suggest you think them through and research them before publishing. That way you might at least have some kind of credible response to the criticism you will inevitably provoke.

"Ginx-even though you resorted to a pretty woeful effort of personal abuse to me...." (Quote:BOAZ)

Sorry. I'll try to do better next time.

BOAZ_David,

Was that Baalam's ass I just heard? "... with the exception of your biblical references, you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about here."

Looks like that's it then, mate. 'Pearls before swine', and all that. Back to the Bible.

An additional question for you. Most times in the OT men are named according to the formula "X son of Y". Not infrequently some men are named "X of (place name)". What does this latter naming convention signify about such men?

Thank you for the acronym MIUAUG. I found it useful in another thread.

Bugsy... in spite of disagreement, its good that you take the trouble to at least engage on the issue.

Ginx.. yes.. do better..next time..'think'.

If a forum is not a place for *thrashing out* ideas and issues..then I have no clue what it is. This IS a place for thinking on the fly, and engaging with others to gain deeper insights on things through the contribution of others.

I'm simply raising an issue which has become very important to a segment of our society, and I am offering an opportunity to discuss that issue. "Its not about me"...but some seem to want to make it that.

For the information of those who claim the West is 'patriarchal' etc etc.. I find it totally 'isolationist' when it comes to biological connection. The reason it resonates more with me, is that I lived IN a VERY connected society for some years. Every second person was pointed out to me as 'a relative' and then the genealogy/kinship was explained.

"Feeling connected" seems to me to be an important part of life.

Forrest.. please give an example... but I think linking a person to place is an alternative to 'father' as most place names were derived from a person.. the founding patriarch of the area..which are named after him. If might be that the father is not known, but the 'greatx5' one is....ie. 'placename'

Boazy,

I am sure there are sound theological reasons for eschewing the sperm donor approach. I presume however that this would be a step up from grudge pregnancies as it doesn't seem as adulterous.

However you seem to focus on the trauma faced by kids who know they had a sperm donor father but don't know who he is. Isn't the obvious solution to that just educating and encouraging the parents not to let it slip? If the kids don't know then in their mind their real father is their father and their biological father doesn't exist. Otherwise, even if they knew the identity of their father, it would compromise their relationship with their father and thus the ability of the family unit itself to properly nurture them.

One example could be Elnathan of Jerusalem. Jeremiah of Libnah could be another. Jesus of Nazareth? I was wondering, was this naming convention used to indicate a man who was the last of a male line?

As the last of a male line, such a man could either have no posterity at all, or leave only daughters as heirs. Elnathan of Jerusalem, for example, is recorded as having had a daughter, Nehushta. To all accounts, Elnathan was a relatively prominent personage in Jerusalem. Nehushta is recorded in II Kings 24:8 as the mother of Jehoiachin (aka Jeconiah, Coniah, Koniyahu).

The interesting thing is that the Lachish Ostracon III, dating from around this time, records ".... The commander of the army, Koniyahu son of Elnathan, has arrived in order to go down to Egypt ....". Rank and name fits with time. This was the ostensible Crown Prince of Judah. Yet he is referred to as a son of Elnathan.

I also note that, prior to Hezekiah, from Rehoboam onward only one wife of any king is listed as "daughter of X of place name", whereas after Hezekiah all wives recorded are so named. Was this a policy instituted by Hezekiah, and carried on by the arrangers of dynastic marriages, in a seemingly successful attempt to avert the prophetic injunction of Isaiah laid upon the sons of Hezekiah, making them equally, or perhaps totally, the children, in law, of other men?

Hezekiah's recorded response to Isaiah's injunction, "Good is the word of the Lord" has always seemed to me enigmatic. Could it be that for men in such end of the line situations, certain marriages offerred revival of the line, or at least a formal recognition of its actual continuity, through the daughters?

"If a forum is not a place for *thrashing out* ideas and issues..then I have no clue what it is. This IS a place for thinking on the fly, and engaging with others to gain deeper insights on things through the contribution of others.

I'm simply raising an issue which has become very important to a segment of our society, and I am offering an opportunity to discuss that issue. "Its not about me"...but some seem to want to make it that." (Quote:BOAZ)

Sounds good in theory.

This from a man who makes reference to 'his' thread being shut down. This from a Christian who gives his own PERSONAL view of same sex relationships showing a fair degree of intolerance....

And you refer to thinking!!You have more twists than a Rubic's Cube!
AND a marked sensitivity and intolerance to those who have the right to disagree with you.

I wish you were gaining deeper insights through the contributions of others because of your thinking on the fly;-(which is glaringly apparent); but you are not. This is YOUR statement David; you do NOT practice what you preach....

I've been thinking about the implications of unknown donor vs near relative as the parent of your child.

First I'll assume that modern technology is used to implant the sperm rather than the traditional method, if not that raises a whole bunch of other issues which could make an interesting discussion.

The dynamics of someone with regular contact with the child who knows that they are the biological father of the child would seem to open up a whole rats nest of potential issues for parents and the child. There seems to be a large number of ways that scenario could massively complicate the parenting of a child or intefere with the development of the child.

In regard to the child never knowing that dad is not the biological father, every time I go for a medical check up part of the quiz is about family history for certain conditions. Assuming that you were either high or low risk because the health of the person you think of as dad could be dangerous.

I do agree with Boazy's stated position about using the forum to explore idea's and develop our own thinking on issues. That's not the impression I have of what he was doing here nor does it seem to fit particulary well with Boazy's ongoing attacks on "make it up as you go" but I can live with that.

R0bert

David you said "stolen Generation" , who has stolen the generation?

BD old mate is it relevant? in some country towns the definition of confusion has reference to fathers day.
Few would know who dad is in any case.

BELLY :) I smiled when I read that..... I recall being in a native village in Sabah one time, and as part of the 'visiting team' and being 'The Missionary' I was confronted with some situations which would make Jerry Springer look tame. aarggh...

ROBERT.. I congratulate your thoughtful contribution.... well done!

Your point about the dynamics of a child who knows that a near relative is his biological father.... yes..exactly. What about 'Inheritance' ? dodgy or vexacious claims ? "I'm HIS son, (and 'he' happens to be rich) so I want a share of 'his' stuff.

But while there is always a negative potential in any situation, that being one, I feel it places the onus on us to re-create a stronger concept and practice of extended family solidarity. Most people will comply with cultural expectations unless they want to be totally ostracized, so such claims would be unnacceptable. I think on balance, its still better for a child to know his biological father, than not.
If parents 'keep it from him' and he finds out when he is 45..... I think the shock might be quite severe and the reaction might be "WHY THE HELLLLL DID YOU KEEEEEP THIS FROM ME ALL THIS TIME"...

GINX just limit your discussion to the POINT and all will be well.
ps... r u being 'intolerant' of my view ? :)

FOREST.."fascinating".. I'd love to spend a few hours exploring those things, more appropriate for a Bible study evening mate :) Too much to taken in and process here this morning. But by all means follow though with anything you see as relevant.

ANGELA.. will puh-leasseee stop hogging the threads with your HUGE postings :) err..my use of the word 'stolen' was really a discussion starter, not a firm expression of viewpoint.

"GINX just limit your discussion to the POINT and all will be well.
ps... r u being 'intolerant' of my view ?" (Quote:BOAZ)

PS? Without question I AM intolerant of your point of view. I am devoid of tolerance of the intolerant; particularly when they espouse their pernicious views from a holier-than-thou aspect. Look at your last post preacher; you list each name and pass judgment. As I've previously said, you elevate yourself. Why?

I HAVE encountered this type of religious hypocrisy online before; it's a large cyber world! BUT;-I have NEVER encountered on this level. NEVER.

The irony preacher, is that you are a striking example of EVERY possible negative example of religion. Intolerant/patronizing/bullying. You set the very worst example whilst trying to persuade those who dare to disagree with you that yours is the one true path.

YOU talk to ME missionary; and I will respond to you.EACH AND EVERY TIME. Your 'marking' of my posts and those of others is of little relevance, specifically because of the staggering double standard and hypocrisy you demonstrate.

When it comes to sticking to the point, you are breaking new ground in separating each poster out for your judgment, rather than 'sticking to the point'.

I have done the same to you.

Hi there Ginx.... you said:

"a holier-than-thou aspect. Look at your last post preacher; you list each name and pass judgment. As I've previously said, you elevate yourself. Why?"

"Holier" ? where do you get that idea? on what grounds ? I've often said.. I'm a filthy sinner.. saved by Grace.. thats 'it'.

Realizing my own lack of worth, and sinfulness, does not disqualify me from pointing poeple to Gods grace and the Messiah Christ Jesus.
If it did, you would never have heard of Christ...ever.

Why do you confuse 'responding to contributions' as 'patronizing' ?
I began the thread..and people respond.. so sorry if I express satisfaction with the response.. if this is 'patronizing' then guilty as charged.

I took the trouble to mention each name so people realize I'm responding to them.... "Pass judgement" ? my goodness you certainly have a colorful imagination, thats about as far as I can go in describing 'you', as opposed to 'irritating twat'.. which is direct personal abuse.

Now..you just add to that little outburst with

-Ur Holier than thou
-You 'Judge' people
-You Patronize people.

But you finish it off with 'Ive NEVER seen it this bad' kind of thing.
Honestly, I think we are seeing more an expression of your own issues, because most others are able to interact quite amicably.

Pity you can't tolerate my intolerance.. which sounds pretty intolerant to me :) See... the whole 'tolerance' thing is only 'allowed' when those on one side of the issue use it as a weapon against those who disagree with them. Well..newsflash, this is a democracy, and I can disagree and assert, and interact..and calling me an irritating patronizing intolerant twat only stiffens my already rock solid resolve.

Yeah, thanks for pointing to gods grace in every thread you have ever responded to BD, we really like that sort of thing around here and honestly don't deserve the salvation offered. Personally, I would never have heard about Jesus and his teachings if it wasn't for the online missionaries. Now I'm off top buy a bible and a holiday to the Creation Museum in Kentucky! WOOHOO.

Are you really so wrapped up in your own little pious world that you can't see what's so evident?

Poster's here tolerate you, some of them only barely. That's it. If you get support it is in the form of a 'Bible at sixty paces' thing.

As to the rest of your usual rambling dirge; thanks; you amply demonstrate what I'm saying.

Oh,....and get your facts right;I didn't use THAT word. But YOU did. Freudian?

BD this is an interesting topic, and although I haven’t completely made up my mind about this yet, I tend to feel that, in principle, biological grounds are a good reason for disclosure for medical background reasons. Also, perhaps these children should have the same rights as adopted children.

On the other hand, I’d say that we can’t neglect the fact that even in the mainstream family, there’s a chance that either the husband has had an affair that resulted in a pregnancy he might not even know about or doesn’t want to know about, or the wife has had an affair with the chance that one of the couple’s children might be another man's.

I found a study on recipients’ choices between anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors that may be of interest to you.
Although it’s not an Australian study it can still give us some insight on statistics although IVF for lesbian couples doesn’t apply to Australia- therefore I promise not to bash you if you ignore this.

Of course, not only white women have used sperm donors as your title suggests; but I suppose in Australia white women using a donor would be in the majority.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/3/820
The majority of candidates preferred to use an identifiable donor because they thought it was the child’s right to know who its natural father is.

I find the idea of the brother-in-law having to impregnate his diseased brother’s wife appalling; has the woman a say in this at all? Perhaps she doesn’t WANT sex with her brother in law or have this man’s child…

I have one question. If the sperm of a sperm donor is used by about 15 different women there will be 15 half-brothers and sisters walking around. What if, coincidentally, a half-brother and sister would end up marrying and starting a family- would this inbreeding impose a risk to their offspring?

Thanx Celivia

your input further expands our thinking on this.. I won't ignore it :)

Bugsy and Ginx.. *points to Celivia's post*..its easy isn't it.. leave aside prejudice and hate.. and engage with the issue at hand...

bingo...we then have a useful discussion.

No, Boazy- with you it's never a "useful" discussion.

Ditto, Bugsy!

Celivia,

The possibility of the siblings inbreeding exists. However certainly in Queensland there is a limitation on the number of families that can get impregnated with a particular donor's sperm. This limitation is based on keeping the probability of that situation arising low. In other words the number crunchers believe that the present limitations should safely avoid that situation.

David,

Interesting that you should emphasise intolerance of intolerance as being intolerant. I haven't been following your interactions and this comment is not meant to apply to any particular person. However, in my humble opinion based on my observations, people who accuse others of being intolerant are apparently usually the most intolerant just like people who accuse others of being narrow minded tend to be the most narrow minded. Both are usually euphemisms for "I don't respect your right to comment if you don't agree with me" cloaked in rhetorical garb. Again I'm not noting that because I have the information to offer an opinion that it applies in here. I'm saying it simply because I have observed it and thought you might also share my interest and perhaps have observed it also. Your opponent would probably not own up if they had observed it just in case it reflects on them so I'm asking you.

What a thoughtful, challenging question, Celivia. I have never applied myself to thinking on the present-day aspects of sperm donation, and must admit I have, as of now, no insights to offer into it, but your question will now run around my brain, too, I assure you. Thank you.

Some years ago I was searching the web using the term "halitzah", which is a Jewish term for levirate marriage obligation, or more correctly, the act of its formal repudiation by the man having the right/obligation under the Law, the traditional "spitting in the shoe", which spitting, oddly enough, is, I note, not mentioned in the account given in the fourth chapter of Ruth. That may be of some help if you are seaching the topic yourself.

Curiously, in the present day, the apparent "right of first refusal", as it now appears to be viewed by some Jewish men, has even been used as a basis of monetary extortion by the male relative of the deceased with the levirate right/obligation in consideration of his repudiating it to allow a childless Jewish widow to remarry (someone else) with the full sanction of the law, believe it or not. It seems to be as much now, as it was then in Biblical times, to be about inheritance and property, as reproductive biology, sexual gratification, or surrogacy.

It is interesting to see Boaz' kinsman (brother or half-brother?) in Ruth 4:6 beg off from the levirate obligation with the excuse, whether real or one of convenience, with the words "lest I mar my own inheritance". I have never had it explained to me exactly in what circumstances such marring of an inheritance could have been effected, and I am most interested should anyone be able to shed any light on this aspect of levirate marriage.

In Biblical times, I don't think women sought to avoid levirate marriage anywhere near as much as men, for reasons of sheer survival. As it worked out for Ruth, Boaz (the original one) was the best sugar-daddy she could ever have had.

Thanks, BD, I like discussing the issues as well and find this an interesting topic.

mjpb
“words the number crunchers believe that the present limitations should safely avoid that situation”
That’s a relief; I wasn’t sure what the risks were but if, as you say, risks of this happening are minimal, I’m happy to withdraw my objections about this aspect.

Forrest Gumpp, thanks.
Like you, I haven’t given the matter much thought previously and I’m still making up my mind about this. That’s why I like other people’s input. I’m leaning towards the idea that the truth is always best and that all children should, in principle, have equal rights. As adopted children are being given the right to find out who their biological parents are, it feels wrong to me to deny the same right to children who were conceived differently.
Thank you for that idea of googling “halizah”, I will take some time over the weekend to look into it.
I can imagine that the levirate would have had benefits in the past when marriage often had not much to do with love.

Even though I think that IVF should be available, it does sadden me that there are so many orphans who’d be delighted to find an adoptive family.
Although I don’t think it’s the sole responsibility of infertile couples to adopt, I wish more would be interested.
Personally, if my husband had been infertile I’d have preferred adoption rather than IVF.
Adoption can be a long and frustrating process and perhaps more people would opt for abortion rather than IVF if the adoption process was a smoother and quicker one, especially since IVF isn’t without risk, frustrations and disappointments also.

Perhaps the answer lies not in making IVF less easily accessible but in improving and speeding up the adoption process. Orphans are not helped by long waiting lists and neither are loving (infertile) couples.

Getting a bit closer to the point I want to have illuminated, according to Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 10, Chapter 7, 2. , Mattaniah (who was given the throne-name Zedekiah upon 'accession') and Jehoiachin had the same mother. Jehoiachin's mother was Nehushta, already spoken of above. II Kings 24:18 and Jeremiah 52:1both state that Hamutal, daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah, was Mattaniah-Zedekiah's mother.

Could it have been that Hamutal was considered Mattaniah-Zedekiah's mother in the same way as Naomi was considered mother of Obed (who was actually borne by Ruth)? Could it have been that in each case (childless) daughter-in-law was effectively acting as a surrogate for mother-in-law? If this was so, the apparent conflict between II Kings 24:18 and Josephus would be resolved. Also, II Chronicles 36:10 expressly states that Mattaniah-Zedekiah was Jehoiachin's brother, as does, effectively, I Chronicles 3:16 but from a different perspective.

If Nehushta was a childless daughter-in-law to Hamutal prior to her surrogacy in bearing Mattaniah-Zedekiah is correct, of whom was Nehushta already the childless widow? Not by any chance Johanan, the first son of Josiah, of whom we hear next to nothing? Johanan would have been in his 13th year at the time of the 18th year of the reign of Josiah, when that famous Passover was celebrated. Johanan could have been married already: perhaps he also died at that very time, leaving a childless widow, Nehushta.

If Hamutal had been the mother of Johanan, that would have made Nehushta her daughter-in-law. If Hamutal's other son, Shallum (who was later given the throne-name Jehoahaz) refused a levirate obligation to his deceased brother, that would have left Hamutal as good as childless herself: one son dead, and the other living but under like condemnation to Onan in Genesis.

Perhaps Nehushta, like Ruth, loved her mother-in-law, and preferred a surrogacy for Hamutal over a levirate marriage to her late husband's half-brother Eliakim.

So Josiah fathered Mattaniah-Zedekiah with Nehushta, the son to which she had been married now being dead, acting as surrogate for Hamutal. (There had been a 13 year gap between his birth and that of the next youngest, Hamutal's second son, Shallum-Jehoahaz.) In these circumstances, the order of precedence of Hamutal's sons may well have been altered, resulting in Mattaniah-Zedekiah moving into third place ahead of Shallum-Jehoahaz, who was 13 years his senior.

Question: Upon the death of Hamutal, what would have been the status of Nehushta, now that any obligation of surrogacy to her mother-in-law, self-imposed or otherwise, was at an end?

Could Nehushta, even though she had in actuality borne a child on behalf of Hamutal, have been in law regarded as a still childless widow of Johanan? If so, a levirate marriage obligation, perhaps even a right, would have rested with Johanan's half-brother Eliakim (subsequently to be given the throne-name Jehoiakim) of ill repute. I suspect Eliakim-Jehoiakim moved quickly upon Hamutal's death to discharge his levirate obligation, the mandatory waiting time for determination of a posthumous pregnancy to JOHANAN having obviously long expired.

Another Question: Was Nehushta perhaps already unbeknown pregnant to Josiah a second time when Eliakim-Jehoiakim moved to exercise his levirate right or obligation? Was Jehoiachin, the acknowledged heir to Johanan (and thus direct successor to the throne of Josiah) by operation of the levirate law, also in truth the biological son of Josiah as well?

If so, when the prophetic injunction of Jeremiah 22:30, laid against Jehoiakim's line (for it is Jehoiakim that is omitted from the genealogy, at Matthew 1:11) is considered, Jehoiachin and his line was not subject to it. It had worked for Hezekiah, why not for Jehoiachin? Good would have been the word of the Lord.

And so, he who is held to have been accursed all these 2,600 years was never due to law, and possible also due to actual biological paternity, ever really subject to it. Quite a smokescreen!

Mr Gumpp, I salute you.

That has to be the neatest, subtlest and most comprehensive piece of satire I have seen on OLO...

>>Question: Upon the death of Hamutal, what would have been the status of Nehushta...?<<

Priceless!

Ah Pericles - I salute your infinite patience and wakefulness. I drifted off a few posts back... a bit like a bad seminar that you really needn't have attended.

Ah BOAZ! my dear fellow, I take it all back......

Pericles,

Its true, I do aspire to satire, perhaps more often than not, in this forum. Indeed, my user name, paying due regard to copyright (the Australian branch of the family spells the name with two 'p's), was in part chosen as a tribute to that most delightfully succinct piece of satire achieved by Winston Groom, at the mouth of his character, Forrest Gump, of the Ku Klux Klan. That bit about the tablecloths broke me right up when I first heard it, and it still does today.

Groom's Forrest effectively satirised himself in this instance, and I am firmly of the belief that the very best satire may be that achieved at one's seeming own expense. In this context could I commend to you, if you have not already seen it, "The Big Engine that Could- A Tale of the Days of Steam" that can be found here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=884#15541 and in two subsequent posts further down the thread.

I would most dearly love to accept your accolade, but I fear I must now emerge from the smokescreen and play 'Gloworm' to your 'Hipper'. It would be dishonest of me to continue to bask in the glory of your tribute, as your salute is due another.

I have but taken that which is writ upon the pages of the scriptures, not only in the plain dictionary meaning of its words in English translation, but also in the context, as I best understand it, of the Hebrew conventions and understandings as to levirate marriage as at around the time those scriptures were first written. The writings relating to the posterity of Josiah are riddled with seeming contradictions and enigmas. I have simply sought to allow those writings to resolve unequivocally their own seeming contradictions. It is my contention that they can do so in every single detail. When they do so, I completely agree with you that it may be able to be seen as the satire you describe, but it is the satire of their Author upon Himself!

Mr Gumpp, thank you for that link.

But I'm afraid I must now send you a bill for a replacement keyboard, as I was drinking coffee while reading.

NOWW....WHO would have thought ! :)

The interaction between Forest and Pericles is alone priceless.. SEE..where a topic can lead you blokes ?

1/ Forrest has demonstrated a knowledge of Scripture that I can only longingly aspire to. Clearly we are dealing here with a person of considerable breadth of knowledge.

2/ Others have grappled with the issue itself, and I'm sure we have all benefited from the various perspectives.

3/ Forrest has also demonstrated that there depths and layer upon layer of incredibly interesting information about ancient society and culture 'there' for the uptaking in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.

I apologise to any indigenous person who may have read this thread and felt that their situation was being 'sidelined'... as I stated earlier.. the title was deliberately provocative.

The 'religious' aspect that I've been criticized for, was not so 'religious' as cultural. There is a Mosaic command to the effect of a man raising a child to his dead brothers name, but I don't refer to that for 'divine authority' for the practice, simply to show that it became a cultural practice of the Jews.

All in all.. a most rewarding discussion thus far. (On the entertainment and information levels)

Forrest was battling to stay on topic. Trains (and Forrest liked trains) of thought were becoming tangled, then interwoven, and then irrelevant again, as he sat and sat on the park bench in his own inimitable way. It was a beautiful sunny morning, and from somewhere not too far away in his head, the strains of an old melody being sung by Doris Day could be heard.

"Tra la laa, Fiddly dee dee, it gives me a thrill,
To wake up in the morning to the mocking bird's trill.
Tra la laa, fiddly dee dee ......."

Mocking! That was it! A vision of his dear departed mother came to him in a flash.

"Forrest" she was admonishing in her most severe manner, "God is not mocked!"

Forrest had never forgotten that day - he had got in big trouble! Ever since, Forrest had been (at least so far as he thought his mother knew) a basically good boy: yes, he told the odd risque joke, and sometimes swore, but he didn't blaspheme. And Forrest well knew that he had done more than the odd bit of mocking, here and there - but mostly here. There was no way he could possibly have accepted Pericles' award for that particular bit of satire that would, in the moment of acceptance, have become mocking! Memories of the atrial fibrillation, and the creeping ever so carefully around the house in slippers, thinking 'no, not tonight, surely' and 'but the kids are still young' were still fresh in his mind, even though the AF had self-corrected and the angiogram was good. "Would have loved the award, but not worth the risk" thought Forrest to himself.

Forrest had also been grappling with what it was that Pericles had found so priceless in that particular quote for a long time. He speculated to himself as to what Pericles' real name could be. "Could it possibly be Slutskin?" he wondered, "or ...." Suddenly he had the answer as to what had so amused Pericles.

And he had a generation stolen from Matthew's genealogy! He was back on topic!

Pericles closed the office door behind him and replaced the wet newspapers. He would have to find a plumber soon, he thought. But one he could trust. Not easy.

With a casual flick he turned on the computer. Another note to self. Get hold of a permanent flick. More reliable. More... trustworthy.

The green glow of the screen reflected off his bacon sandwich, and onto the polystyrene cup. He shut his eyes while drinking the coffee. Much safer.

Should be able to decipher this one more quickly he thought. The Hipper reference in the previous message was easy enough, even though he hadn't actually recommended a medal. But this would be tougher, he knew.

What is he trying to tell me, he muttered. Everyone knows that Doris Day never sang Mockingbird Hill. It wasn't that she particularly disliked the song, but it always gave her indigestion. So did moules marinières. She didn't sing that either. Not after Cincinnatti, anyway.

Perhaps the message was an anagram of the Migil Five? Evil Figim? No, couldn't be. Figim disappeared in Cairo back in '44. Maybe "Doris Day" was a red herring. Hardly likely, considering her attitude towards moules marinières.

Pericles sighed. Gumpp was besting him once again. What would they say at the club? Was he over the hill. Mockingbird Hill...? No. Too obvious.

Then he spotted it. Gumpp knew full well that Pericles could not possibly be Slutskin. Non-Fermi conductors were such old hat, no-one worth their elephant stamp would touch them.

So it had to be - yes, that was it.

It was as he had suspected, an anagram.

But what sort of insults are "K"?

It seems Pericles may have seen in the question posed in an earlier post as to Nehushta's 'status' after the putative death of Hamutal, and its rhetorical answer, a satirically circumlocutory identification of her as effectively a court prostitute. The very silence of the scriptures with respect to her relationship with Eliakim-Jehoiakim is testimony as to its propriety, for Josiah still lived and reigned when that relationship commenced. Had it been anything other than something fully sanctioned by the law it would have been utterly scandalous. Scripture is normally forthrightly condemnatory of scandalous behaviour wherever and whenever found, without respect to rank or reputation. Nothing is said, so it has to be concluded the relationship was accorded the respectability of levirate marriage.

Archaeological evidence, in the form of the jar seals marked "Eliakim assistant to Jehoiachin" found near places where Eliakim-Jehoiakim had building projects, and dating from around this time (but seemingly before he had been placed on the throne), is supportive of such a levirate relationship having been publicly recognized from the outset.

The only problem with Jehoiachin's levirate status as heir to Johanan, was that it was not recognised by Nebuchadnezzar, who simply thought of him as Jehoiakim's son because Nehushta was (levirately) married to him. After the death of Jehoiakim (Josephus records Nebuchadnezzar as having had him killed) in unclear circumstances, Nebuchadnezzar had second thoughts as to the wisdom of Jehoiachin being allowed to remain on the throne in the event he came to resent his 'father's' having been killed. Shortly after, Nebuchadnezzar deposed Jehoiachin and took him as a prisoner to Babylon.

This brings us in a roundabout way to the matter of the date of accession of Jehoiachin, and it is with respect to this that we encounter a seemingly direct contradiction in the scriptural record. II Chronicles 36:9 states that Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign. II Kings 24:8 states that he was eighteen years old when he began to reign. The two references can't both be right, or can they?

During the contemplation time Forrest was allowing for his last question, he had been attempting to penetrate the enigma that Pericles had left him with. Forrest had come to the conclusion that Pericles was actually, secretly, a fellow Linux user, and of the K Desktop Environment to boot.

What else could Pericles enigmatic references to K words mean? Just about all of the applications in KDE used the naming convention of some smart arsed nerd name for the application preceeded by an upper case K, as for example, in Kate, or K Snapshot, a screenshot program. But there were just so many of them in the open source digital world that references could easily be confusing.

Forrest tried Googling 'K Word'. This didn't seem to get him definitively anywhere, which was really hardly surprising, for Microsoft probably had registered 'K Word' as a trademark. In the process Forrest did find an interesting etymology for the F-word, here: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-f-word.htm ; not all that far off-topic either! Forrest had even heard of a user-interactive relational database biographical/historical program about the late former President of the USA Dwight Eisenhower, called, appropriately enough, K Ike. But he had never used it.

A search for K Ike was inconclusive, but at the top of the page Google asked Forrest 'did you mean kike?' Forrest didn't, but clicked on it anyway. Bingo! Made the 'insult' connection!

Now Forrest may not have been the smartest man on the forum, but he knew what wasn't right. Here he was expounding upon Jewish conventions surrounding levirate marriage, and the scriptural genealogies of kings, and he was not about to alienate half his potential readership just to prove he had penetrated Pericles' enigma. Those whom it may have concerned would have to do their own googling and insult themselves! Doing it for them just wasn't Kosher.

"Should have picked up on that bacon sandwich comment", thought Forrest to himself. "Some people should be more observant, particularly after sunset on Fridays", Forrest pontificated with self-satisfaction.

II Chronicles 36:9 states that Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and that he reigned in Jerusalem three months and ten days. II Kings 24:8 states that Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign, and that he reigned in Jerusalem three months. Another writer has remarked that "It is a singular testimony to the fidelity of the Hebrew custodians of the text that this apparent discrepancy is left without a trace of attempt at correction.".

Once the status of Jehoiachin as the levirate heir to Johanan is accepted, everything makes sense. As the levirate heir to Johanan, the first son of Josiah, Jehoiachin was Josiah's lawful successor. If Jehoiachin's age at the time of Eliakim-Jehoiakim's death is accepted as being 18, and the length of the reigns that intervened between that time and the death of Josiah are subtracted from it, it should be possible to work out what Jehoiachin's age could have been at Josiah's death.

Subtracting 11 years (the stated duration of Eliakim-Jehoiakim's reign) plus three months (the stated duration of Shallum-Jehoahaz reign) from 18 would leave Jehoiachin as being, on the face of it, only seven years old at Josiah's death. If the Hebrew conventions relating to the reckoning of regnal years, as distinct from calendar years, are applied to the statements in the text, it is quite possible for Jehoiachin to have been both eight years old at the death of Josiah, and 18 years old at the death of Jehoiakim.

What may be seen as the apparent discrepancy in the duration of Jehoiachin's reign is easily explained when it is recognised that the chronicler has simply added the ten days that had immediately followed the death of Josiah before the installation of Shallum-Jehoahaz upon the throne, which ten days without doubt in law belonged to Jehoiachin, to the three months eleven years later for which Jehoiachin without question reigned.

Jehoiachin was thus eight years old upon accession. The same age as Josiah at his.

Now it has to be granted that there is no express scriptural statement that it was ten days between the demise of Josiah and the (unlawful) installation upon the throne of Shallum-Jehoahaz in the place of Jehoiachin, the rightful heir. It can be reliably inferred, however.

First, there would have been the prescribed seven days' mourning associated with the funeral of Josiah, before any other activities, such as popular movements to install Shallum-Jehoahaz, could have occurred. Jeremiah is highly likely to have, by his very presence, acted as a catalyst in ensuring the requirements of the law in these respects were fully observed.

That does not account for the additional three days required to extend the period to one of ten days. It is not difficult to explain, however, should it have been that Josiah was shot and killed by the archer on a Friday on the field of battle near Megiddo, lay in state in camp for all of the following sabbath, to be only taken to Jerusalem on the following Sunday for the commencement of the funeral and seven day mourning period. The mourning period would have in that circumstance ended on a sabbath, with the following Sunday being the day upon which the deposition and unlawful installation would have taken place. In total, ten days, just as the chronicler says.

All in all, Jehoiachin's levirate status under the law doesn't seem to have done him much good, with his having been rejected by his own subjects almost immediately upon accession, followed by having to live in the shadow of his supplanters for the next 11 or so years, to then reign in his own right for only three months, after which was to follow 37 years of imprisonment!

Just to stay on topic, it would thus appear, that if scriptural example is anything to go by, use of sperm from a brother-in-law in insemination (artificial or otherwise) of the spouse of an infertile man, or of an otherwise childless woman, might not necessarily be such an outstandingly good proposal these days.

Moving right along to the end of Jehoiachin's imprisonment, we encounter another seeming contradiction in the scriptural record. Jeremiah 52:31 states that Jehoiachin was released from prison in Babylon on the 25th day of the 12th month of the 37th year of his captivity. II Kings 25:27 gives the date for the same event as being the 27th day of the 12th month.

A resolution of this contradiction is achieved if the process of release from prison and public elevation was to have occurred over three days. One chronicler may have chosen the commencement of the process as its date, while another focussed upon its completion as its date. It is not hard to imagine that a sabbath may have intervened between the release and elevation, a sabbath respected by the Babylonian court to the end that the public ceremonies were held over until Jehoiachin was free in conscience to participate fully in them.

The chapter and verse numbers (those of the King James, or Authorized version of 1611) of the reference in II Kings are curiously interesting in themselves.

A very strong case can be made that the three days over which the release and elevation of Jehoiachin occurred were, day for day, 49 years to the day after the three days upon which Josiah was killed, lay in State, and was buried.

William Whiston, the translator of Josephus, in his Appendix to Josephus, makes the statement in Dissertation 5 that ".....during the Babylonian captivity, about whose 44th year fell the death of Nebuchadnezzar, and a year of Jubilee also." If this is correct, allowing that Jehoiachin went into captivity in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, counting forward to Nebuchadnezzar's death gives around 36 years. The scriptural record says 37. Twelve years before Jehoiachin's imprisonment, maybe less depending upon the effects of the regnal reckonings involved in calculating it, it would have been a Jubilee year. That could well have meant that Josiah died in a Jubilee year.

Who or what is identified by all this, BOAZ_David?