"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....