Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
PERSONAL COMMENTARY
Wouldn’t this be the parent’s issue for not having the child circumcised? Why is the child going to be abandoned and cut off from his family?
The UnHoly Bible 
February 19th, 2007 at 5:37 am
I agree… This seems a bit harsh on the child.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
“Male child” isn’t a newborn infant. “Male child” is the Hebrew word ‘zakar’. Compare with “child”, the Hebrew word ‘yeled’ (eg. Genesis 21:15). The later is the traditional word for child, while the former refers simply to males, young and old, human and animal.
Looking at verse 10 of this chapter, God is simply saying that every male needs to be circumcised. There’s no precedent for eight-day old infants being cut off or “abandoned” from God’s people so it’s probably safe to say that God isn’t telling new parents their children will be forcibly removed if they didn’t follow His commandment 🙂
February 19th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Thanks Jason.
February 19th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
It is funny to me that people have to walk around the world to explain the Bible.
For example, Jason just walked around the world to say that “male child” does not actually mean male child in the scripture at hand.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
It’s just as funny to see the lengths people will go to to disprove Scripture and how little they trust Christians.
The Hebrew word is what it is. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried. From the Strong’s Hebrew dictionary: Zakar: properly, remembered, i.e. a male (of man or animals, as being the most noteworthy sex):–X him, male, man(child, -kind). The word is used to describe mankind in Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13.
This isn’t a trick 🙂
February 20th, 2007 at 5:40 am
Jason is right.In the NASB it says “But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be (A)cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”The Amplified also puts it clearly. So do most of the versions that I read here:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017:14;&version=49;God bless you Paul!Mark.
April 6th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
So it’s okay to shun a person for not having a circumcision? Wow, that’s tolerant.
April 7th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
aNON2 you continue to make ignorant comments that just show how narrow minded you are, please consider keeping them to yourself.