Abraham's Circumcision and Circumcision Today.

[Wanda]

I was questioning circumcision a few years back, while trying to understand this God of love,  and my research uncovered some revealing information, in regards to the  physicall circumcision of Abraham's day.

This information is not the same from my previous research, which I can't find now , but it does speak of the same type of procedure.Abraham would have had, at the age of 99.  The source was from a Christian magazine, hence I'm not including the link here. I've also shortened  the original, to only include the most pertinent information, as well as omitting certain terminology that might make some uncomfortable.

Today's  circumcision is a much more radical procedure, it was dictated by man, and is not the biblical commanded circumcision from God. That shouldn't be surprising to many of us here.

Abraham's circumcision  was a relatively minor ritual procedure in which only the redundant end of the foreskin extending beyond the tip of the glans was removed. This was called "Milah". It is from this term that the Jewish Religious Covenant circumcision ritual Bris Milah or Brith Milah got its name.

This type of procedure  would leave the forskin intact with natural development continuing,  with the necessary protection of the underlying  glands.  The foreskin would not be stripped back off the glans and would naturally separate from the glans gradually as the child matures, much as it would had the child not been circumcised. The sensitive frenulum would not have been disturbed or moved, and the foreskin remaining would continue to cover and protect a substantial portion of the glans, especially when flaccid, and the glans would appear as uncircumcised. There would be minimal loss of sensitivity or intended protection.

Today's  circumcision is nothing less than mutilation, plain and simple.

Hard to  consider Abraham would have willingly gone through such a radically mutilating and painfull  procedure, even for God.

[indianabob]

Great question Wanda,

Maybe I can comment from an amateurs perspective and in a light hearted humorous manner.
I'm not a doctor although I can pretend to be one with the guys at the coffee shop. (smile)

I'll begin with a response to your final sentence.

""Hard to  consider Abraham would have willingly gone through such a radically mutilating and painfull  procedure, even for God. ""

Comment: you do recall I'm sure that ole Abraham was ready to stab, kill, take the life of his only son for God...?

So why do you feel that he would mind a little temporary pain and relief from the duties of a husband?
Most guys are really not that squeamish about "taking it for the team" even in regards to sports like football etc.
Plus God had just made a covenant with Abram that promised many great things for him and his progeny. Gen 17:11

So the loss of a little foreskin was also meant to humble the men of that tribe for all generations to come.
You know how egocentric men tend to be.
Maybe we need humbling if we are in covenant with and in the service of creator God.
An always present reminder of who we are and of our obligations and thankfulness to God.

[Wanda]

Bob -

I appreciate your reply, however, the post was about two completely different circumcisions, the less radical that God required of Abraham, and the  circumcision of mutilation that's performed today. The first being from a God of love and the second being from the dictates of man.

I should have ended the post to say, this is just one more example of how man, not only perverts the word of God, but also paints him as a diabolical God, instead of the God of Love that he truly is.

[indianabob]

Hi again Wanda,
Just had to comment even if in a light hearted manner.

Do not disagree with anything you wrote except to say the following.
I think that I am young enough to qualify as one who has been the subject of said mutilation. However, I have never heard it described that way in reference to men.

As a man who was mutilated in 1935 I have never felt in any way uncomfortable with my condition, perhaps because I didn't know any better.
Both of my boys were also circumcised on the eighth day in 1966 and in 1970, so what ever the technique or procedure was at that time would apply I think.
To this time I have heard no complaints from them or their wives. 
Friend, Indiana bob

[Wanda]

😂 I wasn't expecting a comment like this, but thanks for the laugh Bob. I guess it's true, you don't miss what you never had, or in this case what you can't remember having.