Mind blown, learning of women apostles for the first time.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

No, go ahead, do it  !!!

 OR 

 

Anyone know the maximum number of times you can use the words pimp, threesome, *******, *****, ****boy, **** toys, and orgy without getting banned?

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

 ha ha I have an open mind about it, and while I do not actively use it (I look at it when a Google Search brings it up), I would expect it to have a link to its source, just like the Google AI does in its search reply. If there isn't one, I will seek one out for myself.

I shared this on FB, we can't be too sure on AI for facts. 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPGEpT0Dj8F/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

[Tacenda]

I typed all of the below that I received today in the mail, a small section of the Deseret News that was sent to me. The article is a few pages long and features this researcher's findings along with photos of him holding pottery that shows evidence. I'd type the whole thing but think the whole article is probably on the web somewhere. Just thought it was funny I received this today, since posting the topic centered on women in the Bible not being represented etc.  

"Tad Walch posted this in the Deseret News: 'Stunning find': Meet the missing woman in the Bible rediscovered by a BYU researcher

A BYU researcher has conclusively recovered the name of the woman who received the New Testament letter known as 2 John, according to a new book. 

Meet Electa, an early Christian woman whose identity was concealed for nearly 2,000 years due to corrupted Greek texts and centuries of New Testament commentaries that mistakenly believed the original writer called her on "an elect lady".

Her name has been considered a mystery because scribes copying original Greek texts accidentally dropped two letters, says Lincoln Blumell, associate dean of research in the BYU Department of Ancient Scripture.

Part of the problem was that every study of the past 150 years universally accepted the mistake without questioning the manuscript texts. 

That error shrouded Electa's actual name, which in Greek is Eclecte (eh-KLEK-tay), from billions of Bible readers because scholars thought it was instead the Greek adjective eclecte, meaning elect. (Electa is the Latin version of her name.)"

 

 

Edited December 22, 2025 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I typed all of the below that I received today in the mail, a small section of the Deseret News that was sent to me. The article is a few pages long and features this researcher's findings along with photos of him holding pottery that shows evidence. I'd type the whole thing but think the whole article is probably on the web somewhere. Just thought it was funny I received this today, since posting the topic centered on women in the Bible not being represented etc.  

"Tad Welch posted this in the Deseret News: 'Stunning find': Meet the missing woman in the Bible rediscovered by a BYU researcher

A BYU researcher has conclusively recovered the name of the woman who received the New Testament letter known as 2 John, according to a new book. 

Meet Electa, an early Christian woman whose identity was concealed for nearly 2,000 years due to corrupted Greek texts and centuries of New Testament commentaries that mistakenly believed the original writer called her on "an elect lady".

Her name has been considered a mystery because scribes copying original Greek texts accidentally dropped two letters, says Lincoln Blumell, associate dean of research in the BYU Department of Ancient Scripture.

Part of the problem was that every study of the past 150 years universally accepted the mistake without questioning the manuscript texts. 

That error shrouded Electa's actual name, which in Greek is Eclecte (eh-KLEK-tay), from billions of Bible readers because scholars thought it was instead the Greek adjective eclecte, meaning elect. (Electa is the Latin version of her name.)"

“Conclusively”? Ummmmm…..no.

There were scholars who thought it might have been Electra. All this researcher has reportedly done is found out that Eclecte is a real name and theorized that some of the letters were lost. That is not conclusive.

They also face another problem. The last verse talks about her “elect sister”. Is that also a woman name Eclecte? Or is that Electra? So did the scribes lose some letters in both places?

This is bad sensationalist reporting.

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“Conclusively”? Ummmmm…..no.

There were scholars who thought it might have been Electra. All this researcher has reportedly done is found out that Eclecte is a real name and theorized that some of the letters were lost. That is not conclusive.

They also face another problem. The last verse talks about her “elect sister”. Is that also a woman name Eclecte? Or is that Electra? So did the scribes lose some letters in both places?

This is bad sensationalist reporting.

Yes, I did wonder about this being new information. I also typed Walch, Welch. That I need to correct. 

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Anyone know the maximum number of times you can use the words pimp, threesome, *******, *****, ****boy, **** toys, and orgy without getting banned?

I would not at all say the inclusion of the 5th century BCE versions of these terms (real and imagined) in an ancient narrative evaluated by modern readers exploring themes of female roles, agency, power/empowerment in a patriarchal world proves that the author had a dirty mind and more than Mormon's epistle (Moroni 9) prove he had a sadistic (and dirty) mind. What does it mean to read the Book of Esther "with any imagination" relative to a dirty mind? When I suggested you have one, it was in jest, pointing out with a non sequitur that your answer to my question as to whether the instances of women in the Bible not being represented (the absence of evidence) harmfully outweigh the instances in which they are represented was a non sequitur. I think I straightened things out here: Posted yesterday at 05:26 PM without suggesting the Bible is dirty (interpreting innocent things in a lascivious, vulgar, lewd, prurient way) or written by similarly dirty minds. Though it does touch on many sensitive topics.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I shared this on FB, we can't be too sure on AI for facts. 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPGEpT0Dj8F/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

Sorry I can't understand this.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Sorry I can't understand this.

Maybe it didn't go through? Or did you watch the whole thing? It shows toward the end her asking it question upon question and AI finally just admits that it doesn't know what it had appeared it did at first.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

These are the three main words:

ἀπόστολος, apóstolos ; g652
 From    ἀποστέλλω {g649}
 Mean    a delegate specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ [“apostle”] (with miraculous powers)
 KJV    apostle, messenger, he that is sent
 TGL (PDF)    68
 TGL (IMG)    68
(Α ἀπόστολος–ἀπόστολος TGL (IMG))

ἀποστολή, apostolḗ ; g651
 From    ἀποστέλλω {g649}
 Mean    commission, i.e., (specifically) apostolate
 KJV    apostleship
 TGL (PDF)    68
 TGL (IMG)    68
(Α ἀποστολή–ἀποστολή TGL (IMG))

ἀποστέλλω, apostéllō ; g649
 From    ἀπό {g575} and στέλλω {g4724}
 Mean    set apart, i.e., (by implication) to send out (properly on a mission) literally or figuratively
 KJV    put in, send (away, forth, out), set [at liberty]
 TGL (PDF)    67
 TGL (IMG)    67
(Α ἀποστέλλω–ἀποστέλλω TGL (IMG))

Where are you getting the meanings from, specifically this one “a delegate specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ [“apostle”] (with miraculous powers)”

[Calm]

7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The advantage of Walter Bauer's lexicon is for providing a lot of other usages of the word outside of the New Testament, including the Septuagint and early Christian literature.

Never mind my question, should have finished reading.   

Is Bauer’s lexicon viewed as influenced by theology as Strong’s often is iirc?

Edited December 23, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Clear said:

I DO think it is helpful to learn at least a minimal amount of Greek before arguing about Greek.

How much Greek have you learned and from what (online apps, college courses, native speakers, etc) out of curiosity?

I may have missed it, but I don’t remember reading your training for reading and translating Greek.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Clear said:

So, the term is a generic term used for anyone or anything that is “sent”.  IF one wants to use an unambiguous term in modern Greek for an apostle in a religious context, one can add a prefix ιερ (holy) to αποστολος resulting in (ιερ-αποστολος) which indicates the term is specifically meant for a religious apostle to remove confusion as to what sort of apostle is being referred to.

 

But the Bible is a religious, not a secular text, so shouldn’t religious context be assumed rather than a secular one unless more local context indicates a secular use?  Does Biblical Greek (since we aren't talking anbout modern Greek, I am not sure why you mention prefixes) always use prefixes in cases where there would have been ambiguity if the context didn’t make a possible definition clearly the one meant?

If I happen to pick up just the word “bread” being used in a conference talk I am listening to but can hardly hear for a moment because of background noise, I am thinking it’s either referring to sacrament bread or a religious symbolic usage such as “I am the bread of life” rather than how my kids would ask me to pick up some bread from market or in a show that’s a period piece, it might be used secularly to refer to money.  I wouldn’t assume without the qualifier “sacrament” or a quote using the term symbolically that it was meant to be a secular, generic “bread”.

Edited December 23, 2025 by Calm

[InCognitus]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Never mind my question, should have finished reading.   

Is Bauer’s lexicon viewed as influenced by theology as Strong’s often is iirc?

Hopefully not as much as others.  It draws from a wide variety of ancient sources, including Classical Greek Literature.  Since my copy of the book is in Utah, and I'm in Arizona, I will rely on Google AI to provide a summary as follows:

"Walter Bauer's authoritative work, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (commonly known by the abbreviation BDAG in its third English edition), does not draw from a single, simple list of sources. Instead, it is a comprehensive dictionary that draws from a vast body of Greek literature across several periods to provide context for New Testament word usage. 

The sources for the lexicon include:

 

• The New Testament: All occurrences of words in the New Testament are categorized and referenced.
• Early Christian Literature: A broad range of writings from early Christian authors is used.
• Classical Greek Literature: References from classical authors are included to show the broader linguistic context of words.
• Intertestamental Literature: Writings from the period between the Old and New Testaments are referenced.
• Papyri and Epigraphs: The lexicon incorporates evidence from non-literary sources like ancient papyrus documents and inscriptions, which provide a "panoramic view of the world of Jesus and the New Testament".
• Modern Literature (Scholarly): The third edition, specifically, adds over 25,000 references to modern scholarly literature to reflect current research and understanding. 

The specific, full list of abbreviations and sources used in the lexicon itself is extensive and provided in the front matter of the physical and digital editions of the book, such as the widely used third edition published by the University of Chicago Press."

I'm going to double check the definitions when I get back home because I don't remember if I checked everything I posted against the BDAG book.

I have used it to check some of the Classical Greek sources.  I also try to use a concordance to the Septuagint for Greek words to get Old Testament usage in context as well.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I would not at all say the inclusion of the 5th century BCE versions of these terms (real and imagined) in an ancient narrative evaluated by modern readers exploring themes of female roles, agency, power/empowerment in a patriarchal world proves that the author had a dirty mind and more than Mormon's epistle (Moroni 9) prove he had a sadistic (and dirty) mind. What does it mean to read the Book of Esther "with any imagination" relative to a dirty mind? When I suggested you have one, it was in jest, pointing out with a non sequitur that your answer to my question as to whether the instances of women in the Bible not being represented (the absence of evidence) harmfully outweigh the instances in which they are represented was a non sequitur. I think I straightened things out here: Posted yesterday at 05:26 PM without suggesting the Bible is dirty (interpreting innocent things in a lascivious, vulgar, lewd, prurient way) or written by similarly dirty minds. Though it does touch on many sensitive topics.

Mormon’s epistle wasn’t filled with innuendo. Esther is.

I mean it starts with the Persian King starting a 180 day party for the nobility. The place is decorated and they break out the gold stuff. And it spends time focusing on how well appointed the beds are. This isn’t some courtly rarefied setup. It is a sex party. And the King orders that nothing is off limits. Do what you want! Orgy time!

Then presumably while drunk the king calls for his queen to parade herself before this frat boy like party wearing only her crown. Queen Vashti was not into this so she refuses. The king holds a council on what to do about this and a big hubbub takes place about sexual politics. It is suggested that if the Queen gets away with it women will all despise their husbands everywhere and the entire social order will be overturned. Fragile masculinity and the attendant paranoia oozing out of these frat boys. So the Queen is either banished or killed. Then they send a decree reinforcing feminine subservience throughout the land! Huzzah!

Then we get the Cinderella story where somehow every virgin everywhere is supposed to be evaluated so the best could be chosen as queen. Okay, that is not historical. We know that at that time Persian law was a little more restrictive than that on who the King could marry. Mordecai could have kept his cousin Esther out of this but didn’t. Mordecai comes across as a bit of a pimp honestly.

Then Esther is taken into the harem. She wins favor with the chief eunuch and gets the best in cosmetics and beauty treatments and a bunch of attendants who were also almost certainly tutors teaching her the arts of the harem and the eunuch himself probably tutored her as well. Yes, this tutoring would be primarily in seduction and sex. Then we have an improbable year long purification. She learned well and seduces the king and is chosen as queen. Presumably at some point she does for the King what the previous Queen would not.

Then some background stuff happens and another huge feast is started (does anyone in this administration actually do anything except these half year feasts?) and Mordecai stops a conspiracy. Then Haman gets his promotion and Mordecai refuses to reverence him. Mordecai was hanging out outside the harem and the king’s gate being a pest so his refusal to bow is noted. Haman’s people are (coincidentally if you think the account is historical) enemies of the Jews so Haman decides to take out his wrath on both Mordecai and all the Jews. Good going Mordecai. Being a weird pest hanging out outside the harem every day (do you even have a job?) threw his whole people under the bus. Honestly Mordecai comes across as someone seeking royal favor. A kind of toady hangin out outside the palace hoping his cousin’s marriage will benefit him somehow.

Also Haman wasn’t a deity Mordecai. Just do the respectful reverence thing you obstinate idiot. 

Then Haman and the king are drinking at one of their parties and the king goes along with this hare-brained scheme to mass murder all the Jews on a specific day and it is published abroad and everyone is confused by the king’s idiocy. Way to stabilize your kingdom you drunken idiot. Seriously, if you want to kill some people off you don’t give them advance warning you moron. You buffoon. You sex-addled drunkard.

So Mordecai starts another fun little demonstration with sackcloth. Way to draw even more attention to yourself Mordecai. You don’t think you have done enough damage? So Esther sends out a eunuch to talk to Mordecai and he tells her not to think she can escape this. Nice, Mordecai. You marry your cousin to the King and then you don’t trust her to do anything but says salvation may come to the Jews from somewhere else but her house will be destroyed. Then a weirdly defensive bit about maybe she was put in this position to save the Jews. You literally put her there Mordecai. What was your plan? Sheesh.

So Esther decides to go in to the king to plead for mercy. He has to hold up the sceptre or she dies. There is no other record of this practice and I suspect it is there primarily for the phallic imagery. So Esther turns on the charm and the sceptre rises to attention at her approach and Esther touches the tip of the sceptre as she arrives. They are not talking about a sceptre at this point. The King offers her up to half the kingdom but she demurs. Esther knows that the key to seduction is to keep him wanting more. Then she invites the King and Haman specifically to a private party with only the three of them there. Presumably the kind of party they love. Threesome action! Esther is good at this. They get together and whatever happens happened (use your imagination) and the King again asks what she wants. She offers yet another party for the next day. She is drawing him in. At this point he is a dog on her leash. Esther has game.

Then the King is so wound up after that night that he needs something to calm him down so he picks the most boring thing he could think of and has the chronicles of the kingdom read to him to hopefully bore him to sleep. Then he realizes Mordecai needs a reward and in a comedy of errors Haman ends up having to parade Mordecai through the streets while seeting in impotent rage. It is not clear if this is done in the middle of the night. Funnier if it was.

So the private party of three takes place again the next night. Haman is pulled out of his griping session with his friends and wife to go to the hot threesome party mark two. The King has been pulled in by the seduction and Esther reveals Haman’s treachery and the King’s naivete in throwing out the stupid “kill the Jews” order. The King is angry at Haman for this tricker. Haman realizes his life is in danger and runs to the queen and begs before her for mercy and the King returns and catches Haman on the Queen’s bed begging for mercy but looking like he is defiling the Queen. The King was okay with this threesome stuff but not okay with the two having a one on one meetup plus the King is probably not up for the threesome anymore at all so he has Haman killed. Oh threesomes, you destroy so many lives.

Then Mordecai is put in charge of Haman’s house which is not a thing that would happen. The Queen goes in unto the King again and the sceptre dutifully rises (she has still got it) and the Queen begs the King to not massacre her people. Then the King gives a stupid line about the King’s decrees being irrevocable (I call bovine excrement on that). So instead the King instead gives the Jews the right to self-defense so they can kill people and prevent the massacre. So this brain genius King is starting riots in the streets throughout the empire. Good governing you stupid and horny dope. They also gave the Jews the right to plunder their attackers.

Woohoo, the Purge is ON!!!!!! And the Jews were eager to get on with the murdering and plundering. Some were so afraid of the Jews or wanted in on the looting so much that they converted and became Jews. Mass circumcisions throughout the land!!!! Hooray!

Then the Jews killed 75,000 people and the Queen told the King to make sure all of Haman’s sons were hanged. And there was much rejoicing. (Monty Python cheering)

Then they declared a new holy day (probably why this story was written) and Mordecai was a kind of Neo-Joseph to that horny drunken King. And there was much rejoicing.

And if you doubt this story you just have to check the chronicles of the Persian-Median empire (yeah, no one could realistically do that).

 

That is the expurgated version anyways. Remember that the Jews have a long storied history of ascribing all kinds of sexual deviancy and hedonism to non-Jews. It goes back to the earliest written parts of the Old Testament all the way to Romans Chapter One where Paul explains that these sexual urges occur because the sinners have rejected God and led to a justification for homophobia many venerate to this day. The Christians took up that torch very well. Without God everyone becomes a rampant hedonist. There are a lot more innuendos that these pious Jews could mentally play with to come up with all kinds of sordid fan fiction that is just implied.

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Mormon’s epistle wasn’t filled with innuendo. Esther is.

I mean it starts with the Persian King starting a 180 day party for the nobility. The place is decorated and they break out the gold stuff. And it spends time focusing on how well appointed the beds are. This isn’t some courtly rarefied setup. It is a sex party. And the King orders that nothing is off limits. Do what you want! Orgy time!

Then presumably while drunk the king calls for his queen to parade herself before this frat boy like party wearing only her crown. Queen Vashti was not into this so she refuses. The king holds a council on what to do about this and a big hubbub takes place about sexual politics. It is suggested that if the Queen gets away with it women will all despise their husbands everywhere and the entire social order will be overturned. Fragile masculinity and the attendant paranoia oozing out of these frat boys. So the Queen is either banished or killed. Then they send a decree reinforcing feminine subservience throughout the land! Huzzah!

Then we get the Cinderella story where somehow every virgin everywhere is supposed to be evaluated so the best could be chosen as queen. Okay, that is not historical. We know that at that time Persian law was a little more restrictive than that on who the King could marry. Mordecai could have kept his cousin Esther out of this but didn’t. Mordecai comes across as a bit of a pimp honestly.

Then Esther is taken into the harem. She wins favor with the chief eunuch and gets the best in cosmetics and beauty treatments and a bunch of attendants who were also almost certainly tutors teaching her the arts of the harem and the eunuch himself probably tutored her as well. Yes, this tutoring would be primarily in seduction and sex. Then we have an improbable year long purification. She learned well and seduces the king and is chosen as queen. Presumably at some point she does for the King what the previous Queen would not.

Then some background stuff happens and another huge feast is started (does anyone in this administration actually do anything except these half year feasts?) and Mordecai stops a conspiracy. Then Haman gets his promotion and Mordecai refuses to reverence him. Mordecai was hanging out outside the harem and the king’s gate being a pest so his refusal to bow is noted. Haman’s people are (coincidentally if you think the account is historical) enemies of the Jews so Haman decides to take out his wrath on both Mordecai and all the Jews. Good going Mordecai. Being a weird pest hanging out outside the harem every day (do you even have a job?) threw his whole people under the bus. Honestly Mordecai comes across as someone seeking royal favor. A kind of toady hangin out outside the palace hoping his cousin’s marriage will benefit him somehow.

Also Haman wasn’t a deity Mordecai. Just do the respectful reverence thing you obstinate idiot. 

Then Haman and the king are drinking at one of their parties and the king goes along with this hare-brained scheme to mass murder all the Jews on a specific day and it is published abroad and everyone is confused by the king’s idiocy. Way to stabilize your kingdom you drunken idiot. Seriously, if you want to kill some people off you don’t give them advance warning you moron. You buffoon. You sex-addled drunkard.

So Mordecai starts another fun little demonstration with sackcloth. Way to draw even more attention to yourself Mordecai. You don’t think you have done enough damage? So Esther sends out a eunuch to talk to Mordecai and he tells her not to think she can escape this. Nice, Mordecai. You marry your cousin to the King and then you don’t trust her to do anything but says salvation may come to the Jews from somewhere else but her house will be destroyed. Then a weirdly defensive bit about maybe she was put in this position to save the Jews. You literally put her there Mordecai. What was your plan? Sheesh.

So Esther decides to go in to the king to plead for mercy. He has to hold up the sceptre or she dies. There is no other record of this practice and I suspect it is there primarily for the phallic imagery. So Esther turns on the charm and the sceptre rises to attention at her approach and Esther touches the tip of the sceptre as she arrives. They are not talking about a sceptre at this point. The King offers her up to half the kingdom but she demurs. Esther knows that the key to seduction is to keep him wanting more. Then she invites the King and Haman specifically to a private party with only the three of them there. Presumably the kind of party they love. Threesome action! Esther is good at this. They get together and whatever happens happened (use your imagination) and the King again asks what she wants. She offers yet another party for the next day. She is drawing him in. At this point he is a dog on her leash. Esther has game.

Then the King is so wound up after that night that he needs something to calm him down so he picks the most boring thing he could think of and has the chronicles of the kingdom read to him to hopefully bore him to sleep. Then he realizes Mordecai needs a reward and in a comedy of errors Haman ends up having to parade Mordecai through the streets while seeting in impotent rage. It is not clear if this is done in the middle of the night. Funnier if it was.

So the private party of three takes place again the next night. Haman is pulled out of his griping session with his friends and wife to go to the hot threesome party mark two. The King has been pulled in by the seduction and Esther reveals Haman’s treachery and the King’s naivete in throwing out the stupid “kill the Jews” order. The King is angry at Haman for this tricker. Haman realizes his life is in danger and runs to the queen and begs before her for mercy and the King returns and catches Haman on the Queen’s bed begging for mercy but looking like he is defiling the Queen. The King was okay with this threesome stuff but not okay with the two having a one on one meetup plus the King is probably not up for the threesome anymore at all so he has Haman killed. Oh threesomes, you destroy so many lives.

Then Mordecai is put in charge of Haman’s house which is not a thing that would happen. The Queen goes in unto the King again and the sceptre dutifully rises (she has still got it) and the Queen begs the King to not massacre her people. Then the King gives a stupid line about the King’s decrees being irrevocable (I call bovine excrement on that). So instead the King instead gives the Jews the right to self-defense so they can kill people and prevent the massacre. So this brain genius King is starting riots in the streets throughout the empire. Good governing you stupid and horny dope. They also gave the Jews the right to plunder their attackers.

Woohoo, the Purge is ON!!!!!! And the Jews were eager to get on with the murdering and plundering. Some were so afraid of the Jews or wanted in on the looting so much that they converted and became Jews. Mass circumcisions throughout the land!!!! Hooray!

Then the Jews killed 75,000 people and the Queen told the King to make sure all of Haman’s sons were hanged. And there was much rejoicing. (Monty Python cheering)

Then they declared a new holy day (probably why this story was written) and Mordecai was a kind of Neo-Joseph to that horny drunken King. And there was much rejoicing.

And if you doubt this story you just have to check the chronicles of the Persian-Median empire (yeah, no one could realistically do that).

 

That is the expurgated version anyways. Remember that the Jews have a long storied history of ascribing all kinds of sexual deviancy and hedonism to non-Jews. It goes back to the earliest written parts of the Old Testament all the way to Romans Chapter One where Paul explains that these sexual urges occur because the sinners have rejected God and led to a justification for homophobia many venerate to this day. The Christians took up that torch very well. Without God everyone becomes a rampant hedonist. There are a lot more innuendos that these pious Jews could mentally play with to come up with all kinds of sordid fan fiction that is just implied.

I have a hard time with the OT so I would pay for a copy of “Nehor Annotates the Old Testament”! 

Edited December 23, 2025 by Peacefully

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe it didn't go through? Or did you watch the whole thing? It shows toward the end her asking it question upon question and AI finally just admits that it doesn't know what it had appeared it did at first.

Ah very interesting! Becoming more and human like! Thank you.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Mormon’s epistle wasn’t filled with innuendo. Esther is.

I mean it starts with the Persian King starting a 180 day party for the nobility. The place is decorated and they break out the gold stuff. And it spends time focusing on how well appointed the beds are. This isn’t some courtly rarefied setup. It is a sex party. And the King orders that nothing is off limits. Do what you want! Orgy time!

Then presumably while drunk the king calls for his queen to parade herself before this frat boy like party wearing only her crown. Queen Vashti was not into this so she refuses. The king holds a council on what to do about this and a big hubbub takes place about sexual politics. It is suggested that if the Queen gets away with it women will all despise their husbands everywhere and the entire social order will be overturned. Fragile masculinity and the attendant paranoia oozing out of these frat boys. So the Queen is either banished or killed. Then they send a decree reinforcing feminine subservience throughout the land! Huzzah!

Then we get the Cinderella story where somehow every virgin everywhere is supposed to be evaluated so the best could be chosen as queen. Okay, that is not historical. We know that at that time Persian law was a little more restrictive than that on who the King could marry. Mordecai could have kept his cousin Esther out of this but didn’t. Mordecai comes across as a bit of a pimp honestly.

Then Esther is taken into the harem. She wins favor with the chief eunuch and gets the best in cosmetics and beauty treatments and a bunch of attendants who were also almost certainly tutors teaching her the arts of the harem and the eunuch himself probably tutored her as well. Yes, this tutoring would be primarily in seduction and sex. Then we have an improbable year long purification. She learned well and seduces the king and is chosen as queen. Presumably at some point she does for the King what the previous Queen would not.

Then some background stuff happens and another huge feast is started (does anyone in this administration actually do anything except these half year feasts?) and Mordecai stops a conspiracy. Then Haman gets his promotion and Mordecai refuses to reverence him. Mordecai was hanging out outside the harem and the king’s gate being a pest so his refusal to bow is noted. Haman’s people are (coincidentally if you think the account is historical) enemies of the Jews so Haman decides to take out his wrath on both Mordecai and all the Jews. Good going Mordecai. Being a weird pest hanging out outside the harem every day (do you even have a job?) threw his whole people under the bus. Honestly Mordecai comes across as someone seeking royal favor. A kind of toady hangin out outside the palace hoping his cousin’s marriage will benefit him somehow.

Also Haman wasn’t a deity Mordecai. Just do the respectful reverence thing you obstinate idiot. 

Then Haman and the king are drinking at one of their parties and the king goes along with this hare-brained scheme to mass murder all the Jews on a specific day and it is published abroad and everyone is confused by the king’s idiocy. Way to stabilize your kingdom you drunken idiot. Seriously, if you want to kill some people off you don’t give them advance warning you moron. You buffoon. You sex-addled drunkard.

So Mordecai starts another fun little demonstration with sackcloth. Way to draw even more attention to yourself Mordecai. You don’t think you have done enough damage? So Esther sends out a eunuch to talk to Mordecai and he tells her not to think she can escape this. Nice, Mordecai. You marry your cousin to the King and then you don’t trust her to do anything but says salvation may come to the Jews from somewhere else but her house will be destroyed. Then a weirdly defensive bit about maybe she was put in this position to save the Jews. You literally put her there Mordecai. What was your plan? Sheesh.

So Esther decides to go in to the king to plead for mercy. He has to hold up the sceptre or she dies. There is no other record of this practice and I suspect it is there primarily for the phallic imagery. So Esther turns on the charm and the sceptre rises to attention at her approach and Esther touches the tip of the sceptre as she arrives. They are not talking about a sceptre at this point. The King offers her up to half the kingdom but she demurs. Esther knows that the key to seduction is to keep him wanting more. Then she invites the King and Haman specifically to a private party with only the three of them there. Presumably the kind of party they love. Threesome action! Esther is good at this. They get together and whatever happens happened (use your imagination) and the King again asks what she wants. She offers yet another party for the next day. She is drawing him in. At this point he is a dog on her leash. Esther has game.

Then the King is so wound up after that night that he needs something to calm him down so he picks the most boring thing he could think of and has the chronicles of the kingdom read to him to hopefully bore him to sleep. Then he realizes Mordecai needs a reward and in a comedy of errors Haman ends up having to parade Mordecai through the streets while seeting in impotent rage. It is not clear if this is done in the middle of the night. Funnier if it was.

So the private party of three takes place again the next night. Haman is pulled out of his griping session with his friends and wife to go to the hot threesome party mark two. The King has been pulled in by the seduction and Esther reveals Haman’s treachery and the King’s naivete in throwing out the stupid “kill the Jews” order. The King is angry at Haman for this tricker. Haman realizes his life is in danger and runs to the queen and begs before her for mercy and the King returns and catches Haman on the Queen’s bed begging for mercy but looking like he is defiling the Queen. The King was okay with this threesome stuff but not okay with the two having a one on one meetup plus the King is probably not up for the threesome anymore at all so he has Haman killed. Oh threesomes, you destroy so many lives.

Then Mordecai is put in charge of Haman’s house which is not a thing that would happen. The Queen goes in unto the King again and the sceptre dutifully rises (she has still got it) and the Queen begs the King to not massacre her people. Then the King gives a stupid line about the King’s decrees being irrevocable (I call bovine excrement on that). So instead the King instead gives the Jews the right to self-defense so they can kill people and prevent the massacre. So this brain genius King is starting riots in the streets throughout the empire. Good governing you stupid and horny dope. They also gave the Jews the right to plunder their attackers.

Woohoo, the Purge is ON!!!!!! And the Jews were eager to get on with the murdering and plundering. Some were so afraid of the Jews or wanted in on the looting so much that they converted and became Jews. Mass circumcisions throughout the land!!!! Hooray!

Then the Jews killed 75,000 people and the Queen told the King to make sure all of Haman’s sons were hanged. And there was much rejoicing. (Monty Python cheering)

Then they declared a new holy day (probably why this story was written) and Mordecai was a kind of Neo-Joseph to that horny drunken King. And there was much rejoicing.

And if you doubt this story you just have to check the chronicles of the Persian-Median empire (yeah, no one could realistically do that).

 

That is the expurgated version anyways. Remember that the Jews have a long storied history of ascribing all kinds of sexual deviancy and hedonism to non-Jews. It goes back to the earliest written parts of the Old Testament all the way to Romans Chapter One where Paul explains that these sexual urges occur because the sinners have rejected God and led to a justification for homophobia many venerate to this day. The Christians took up that torch very well. Without God everyone becomes a rampant hedonist. There are a lot more innuendos that these pious Jews could mentally play with to come up with all kinds of sordid fan fiction that is just implied.

But I'm not seeing the imprint of a dirty mind in the telling of the story or the other examples. The imprint of politics and ideology, yes.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

But I'm not seeing the imprint of a dirty mind in the telling of the story or the other examples. The imprint of politics and ideology, yes.

I suspect this dirty mind is part of why the Book of Esther was so controversial. Hence why the Book of Esther was not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls because they were a bunch of apocalyptic killjoys.

[Clear]

Calm said: “But the Bible is a religious, not a secular text, so shouldn’t religious context be assumed rather than a secular one unless more local context indicates a secular use? “

I think this is perfectly good logic.   The problem is not in your logic, but lies in the ambiguity of language.

 

1) THERE IS AMBIGUITY INHERENT TO BIBLICAL  GREEK (AND HEBREW AS WELL)

Part of the problem is that religious histories are written, using secular language and language has ambiguity.  Translation from source language increases ambiguity.  (Let’s leave translator bias out of this for the moment…)

Let me give you a simple example (that you ought to look up for yourself).

If you look up the secular Koine Greek word for “message” is it ἀγγελία (angelia) and the koine for “messenger”, is ἄγγελος (angel).  The words are similar since their roots are the same. (Just as a person who “runs” is a “runner”.   

The words “messenger” and “message” are secular words that religion makes use of and only the context can tell us if the messenger (angel) is a divine being, or a mortal boy, sent to give his father the message that “it is time for dinner”.  The simple base word “messenger” (“αγγελοσ”) without additional context doesn’t distinguish between the two.  Without context, the greek word αγγελοσ is ambiguous.

 

2) AN EXAMPLE OF BIBLICAL AMBIGUITY CLARIFIED BY ADDITIONAL CONTEXT

Let me give you an example from the Greek Septuagint. 

In 2^nd Kings 1:2-3, verse 2 text tells us Ahaziah “sent messengers” (ἀπέστειλεν ἀγγέλους / i.e. sent “angels”).  These angels/αγγελους are simply mortal men.

In verse 3 the text tells us the “angel of the Lord said to Elijah” (ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἐκάλεσεν Ἠλειοὺ).  THIS angel/αγγελος is a divine messenger.  

We are using a single word to describe two different types of beings.

The first angel/ανγελοσ is a mortal person who has a message while the Second angel/αγγελοσ is a divine messenger of Jehovah. 

IF you remove the context “of the Lord”, then one cannot distinguish the two types of beings. 

Thus, the base word “angel” simply means “messenger”.  One MUST add additional context to know if it is a messenger/angel that is a man, or if it is a messenger/angel that is a divine being.

Below is a picture of the text.  The verses are circled in red and the two occurrences of the word Angels/messengers are highlighted in yellow:

 

The same is true for the Hebrew word for messenger, “malak”.  The base word Malak simply means messenger.  One must add additional context if one means a divine being with a message, or one means a young boy sent to his father with the message that “dinner is ready”.   For Hebrew readers, the same verses from Ben Chayim is pictured below; the verse numbers are circled in red and the two instances of angels/malachim are highlighted in yellow.

Notice the SAME pattern for angel/malak in hebrew as for angel/αγγελοσ in Koine Greek . 

The Malakim in verse two are the mortal messengers sent from King Ahaziah and the second divine messenger is a Malak Jahweh (messenger/angel of Jehovah).  

IF you leave the word Malak, but REMOVE the additional context (“of Jehovah”) from the sentence, one cannot tell if the second messenger is divine, or if it refers to another mortal man.

I hope this example is understandable and makes sense that sacred texts use secular words and one MUST add additional context to distinguish what certain words meant.  

 

3)  THE KOINE GREEK SECULAR WORD APOSTLE/αποστολοσ FOLLOWS THE SAME PATTERN

The same principle applies to the Greek word for “apostle”.  It is simply someone who is “sent” and the text MUST add context to tell if the person “sent” is a holder of divine priesthood or a person who is sent to help with chores.

Edited December 23, 2025 by Clear

[CV75]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect this dirty mind is part of why the Book of Esther was so controversial. Hence why the Book of Esther was not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls because they were a bunch of apocalyptic killjoys.

And of course some other more likely factors to consider: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1388&context=insights

Although I do like this image, courtesy AI:

 

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And of course some other more likely factors to consider: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1388&context=insights

Just a lot of other reasons the Essenes were killjoys.

[CV75]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Just a lot of other reasons the Essenes were killjoys.

Killjoys they may have been, but I see no evidence they thought the writer(s) of Esther had dirty minds. I think all things considered, they probably considered the storytelling techniques reflected more sophistication that that: subtlety, wit, irony, social commentary, innuendo, double entendre, etc. and not vulgar, crude, explicit or base jokes  generally considered "dirty," and not even coming close to what Nephi called "much rudeness." Plus these were social norms not generally considered shocking at the time.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Killjoys they may have been, but I see no evidence they thought the writer(s) of Esther had dirty minds. I think all things considered, they probably considered the storytelling techniques reflected more sophistication that that: subtlety, wit, irony, social commentary, innuendo, double entendre, etc. and not vulgar, crude, explicit or base jokes  generally considered "dirty," and not even coming close to what Nephi called "much rudeness." Plus these were social norms not generally considered shocking at the time.

I think they did think the writer of Esther had a dirty mind. He married off the Jewish heroine to a filthy Gentile. What a disgusting pervert!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I think they did think the writer of Esther had a dirty mind. He married off the Jewish heroine to a filthy Gentile. What a disgusting pervert!

Oy vey iz mir, what a shanda! What will the neighbors say? ...Meh, just bring me grandchildren...

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Oy vey iz mir, what a shanda! What will the neighbors say? ...Meh, just bring me grandchildren...

I mean to the Essenes intermarrying with the non-believers is probably almost as bad as not dying horribly in a failed revolt against Rome hoping for a deus ex machina to save them