|
Post by Dave on Feb 15, 2021 13:17:30 GMT -5
When I die – and my spirit crosses the vail into heaven – there is an immediate judgment = DO I BELONG THERE
Answer – no all men are sinners
Satan (the prosecutor) will be right there reading my list of chata 1 – beginning with my very first chata – MOM FEED ME NOW! From there the list grows – sins I do not remember – sins I didn’t even realize were sins By the time the prosecutor is up to age 4 months – it is obvious I am a yester ra driven animal that does not belong in heaven
If the prosecutor keeps reading my list of chata – it may take hours if not days to read each and every one
I will be punished for my list – longer the list the longer the punishment (Proportional)
2- The only hope – the only salvation from this pending punishment = the Divine Pardon granted to those who die in Christ - vrs those who just die in belief vrs those who never had a chance
There are three groups - a. those who die in Christ = Born Again – Elisha – Moses – David – John – Paul – many others large and small – the man on the cross next to Jesus = all First Fruits – ZERO time in punishment
c. those who never had a chance = they reap what they sow – they spend time regretting not being more Perfect – each man his due – proportional according to DEEDS, WORKS, and FRUIT = Proportional Punishment – because they did not know better
b. those who just die in belief - saved for sure awaiting the First Resurrection BUT – because they knew better and still lived in the world – their Proportional Punishment is even more sever – because they knew better
b.1. those who die in belief – and preach error = the least in heaven (Mat 5:20)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2021 13:37:56 GMT -5
You have a interesting functional role of the archon and their kingdom.
So when these self creatures play to make the world look yummy, are they sinning to God when they do this?
I suppose you would say no/
OK so why was mankind placed in their kingdom?
But if you say yes, you have GOD intentionally creating sinning creatures with self, so you cannot say yes, they sin.
SO you would say it is OK to be a self creature because you are born to obey and do God's will.
So these archons can live and do, and anything they suggest to man, is never a sin. The words they speak are never sinful?
How can this be?
Mr 5:2 Jesus met a man with an unclean spirit,
Who had inside of him over 1000 devils, (and your saying archons do not rule and possess you? Well this is one extreme example of ruling over a human)
What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Why do the archon devils speak as one voice, why have you Jesus, Son of the Most High, come to torment us?
This term 'basanizo' is a negative term, Jesus was opposing these opposers.
Mt 8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. 7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
Diseases can torment man. Is there any way of creatures causing disease by suggesting bad foods to eat?
Mt 8:29 art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
What time? DO the archons have a time of their end?
Mt 14:24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
A natural tormenting, assuming no powers of spirit control the elements of nature?
Re 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Seems all archons come to end at the hand of GOD.
SO why would create self creatures, allow them to possess man, and than make them come to an end?
So I do not see a prosecuting idea, but one Being seeking to devour another... how do they do this, by getting you to sin, and these angels also sin.
About this word in Greek, I never studied before.
In connection with his instruction to those in positions of trust in the church, the apostle outlined some general principles that were to be followed by all who were associated in church fellowship. The younger members of the flock were urged to follow the example of their elders in the practice of Christlike humility: “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time: casting all your care upon Him; for He careth for you. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: whom resist steadfast in the faith.”
Thus Peter wrote to the believers at a time of peculiar trial to the church. Many had already become partakers of Christ's sufferings, and soon the church was to undergo a period of terrible persecution. Within a few brief years many of those who had stood as teachers and leaders in the church were to lay down their lives for the gospel. Soon grievous wolves were to enter in, not sparing the flock. But none of these things were to bring discouragement to those whose hopes were centered in Christ. With words of encouragement and good cheer Peter directed the minds of the believers from present trials and future scenes of suffering “to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away.” “The God of all grace,” he fervently prayed, “who hath called us unto His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered awhile, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. To Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”
These grievous wolves enter the flock, and suggest dysfunctional ways to break faith in Jesus, and so create a lukewarm church, instead of a hot church for Jesus.
There are four verses that use dike, referring to the crimes one does that requires the death penalty, ie serious crimes.
And there are four verses that use anti-dike, referring to a prosecutor, who wishes to make sure you are judged as a criminal of crimes.
Hmm?
1Pe 5:8 ¶ Be sober <nepho>, be vigilant <gregoreuo>; because <hoti> your <humon> adversary <antidikos> the devil <diabolos>, as <hos> a roaring <oruomai> lion <leon>,
As far as I can tell, Ellen White writings do not use the word "prosecutor" at all, in any context.
D" See what happens when you limit your study to scripture instead of doctrine
R" it is on some concern Dave, but 4 verses do not help much especially when I can't link these Greek words to Hebrew ones.
How does a Hebrew NT bible do it than?
As you say the LXX does not help.
SHalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Feb 15, 2021 15:27:44 GMT -5
So when these self creatures play to make the world look yummy, are they sinning to God when they do this? I suppose you would say no/ 1- I have zero proof or evidence of the commandants given to the heavens – or the archon 2 - 1Ki 22:21 until a certain spirit came forward and stood before Adonai and said, ‘I will entice him.’ So Adonai asked him, ‘How?’ 1Ki 22:22 And he said: ‘I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said: ‘You shall entice him and shall prevail also—go and do so.’ A spirit volunteers to be a deceiving spirit – and God and God said – go and do so
Evidently – being a deceiving spirit in the service of the Lord – facilitating God Will is obeying God is not only requested but granted by God = permission granted = allowed – in the service of God You refuse to answer the question – why is it a sin to obey God
OK so why was mankind placed in their kingdom? Deu 8:2 … —in order to humble you, to test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His mitzvot or not.
But if you say yes, you have GOD intentionally creating sinning creatures with self, so you cannot say yes, they sin. Cows, cockroaches, and termites do not sin – Correct They are all instinct driven biology – they cause lots of ra to man - but they are not sinning They just do what they do in the role / assignment/ function within nature God gave them
SO you would say it is OK to be a self creature because you are born to obey and do God's will. Come on Robert – seriously – self driven creature do and obey yester ra - yester ra is all they have - instinct for self-preservation
So these archons can live and do, and anything they suggest to man, is never a sin. The words they speak are never sinful? Talk is not a sin – being a deceiving spirit is not a sin – to test man is not a sin Man is the one who can choose them over God – man is the one that sins
How can this be? Mr 5:2 Jesus met a man with an unclean spirit, DUH – 10% remained and as they died on earth their spirits are trapped to earth and they are the evil spirits
Why do the archon devils speak as one voice, why have you Jesus, Son of the Most High, come to torment us? Mt 8:29 art thou come hither to torment us before the time? What time? DO the archons have a time of their end? DUH - Rev 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are too, and they shall be tortured day and night forever and ever.
Seems all archons come to end at the hand of GOD. SO why would create self creatures, allow them to possess man, and than make them come to an end? So – are cows, cockroaches, and termite promised eternal life in the new heaven and eargh? How could God create self-creatures? And they not have eternal life? Do gold fish have the promise of eternal life?
This term 'basanizo' is a negative term, Jesus was opposing these opposers. NO IT DOES NOT G928 – βασανίζω - to torture: - pain, toil, torment, toss, vex. It was not time for their torment – Rev 20
Diseases can torment man. Sure – causes ra – prove to me that disease = sin
About this word in Greek, I never studied before.
Thus Peter wrote to the believers at a time of peculiar trial to the church. Many had already become partakers of Christ's sufferings, and soon the church was to undergo a period of terrible persecution. Within a few brief years many of those who had stood as teachers and leaders in the church were to lay down their lives for the gospel. YES! – the First Christians who were mostly Messianic Jews had to be eliminated These guys preached spirit – and all you need is God
Soon grievous wolves were to enter in, not sparing the flock. But none of these things were to bring discouragement to those whose hopes were centered in Christ. Roman edit and those who preach it
With words of encouragement and good cheer Peter directed the minds of the believers from present trials and future scenes of suffering “to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away.” “The God of all grace,” he fervently prayed, “who hath called us unto His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered awhile, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. To Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” Peter did not say this – give me the verse As I google these words – all that come up is the kabbalah of Ellen White Additional non-inspired words of man – added to your Torah and tells how to think
The Apocalypse of Peter - The Nag Hammadi Library "And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals."
As far as I can tell, Ellen White writings do not use the word "prosecutor" at all, in any context. No one outside of the SDA cult cares what she says
D" See what happens when you limit your study to scripture instead of doctrine R" it is on some concern Dave, but 4 verses do not help much OH - but two words taken out of context is enough to build an entire religion
As you say the LXX does not help. You wish to transliterate the ancient Greek to Modern Hebrew – then attempt to translate it back to proto-Hebrew
This al already been accomplished by 70 of the most renowned Rabbis of their day – at least two rabbi from every tribe – 70 of them translated their own Hebrew into their own Greek
As you say the LXX does not help. ἀντίδικος - does not exist in the LXX – correct so any guess which Hebrew word to transliterate it to does not pre-exist – it would only be a guess by modern man
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2021 14:03:34 GMT -5
D: " 1Ki 22:22 And he said: ‘I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said: ‘You shall entice him and shall prevail also—go and do so.’ A spirit volunteers to be a deceiving spirit – and God and God said – go and do so
Evidently – being a deceiving spirit in the service of the Lord – facilitating God Will is obeying God is not only requested but granted by God = permission granted = allowed – in the service of God You refuse to answer the question – why is it a sin to obey God
R:" First you equate the term "medium" as a "spirit" as if the "medium" does things with it's own inherit power. Second you assume any creature can function as a medium apart from the HS as a medium? 1Ki 22:21 I will be a lying (shaqar) medium. "shaqar" has both verb and noun forms, meaning the same thing, to lie or be a liar. Ex 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. These verses seem to contradict each other? 1Ki 22:21 I will be a lying (shaqar) medium. Ex 20:16 Thou shalt not be a lying (shaqar) witness. Both commands come from GOD? Ps 52:3 Thou lovest <'ahab> evil <ra`> more than good <towb>; and lying <sheqer> rather than to speak <dabar> righteousness <tsedeq>. Selah <celah>. One is the opposite of the other. 1Ki 22:21 I will be a RA medium. Ex 20:16 Thou shalt not be a RA witness. Why does GOD allow for a RA medium ? 1Ki 22:18 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil? The context is about many RA prophets speaking to the King, and one true prophet speaking to the King, the many RA prophets speak RA, saying the battle will be a success. The true prophet speaks unto the King and says the battle will be a RA. The prophets are getting their powers via a MEDIUM from some higher power than themselves. You have assumed all mediums are administrated by GOD, which is correct. You have also assumed all higher powers which flow through these mediums, also come from GOD, is grossly incorrect. You speak of mediums as beings, or spirits. Wind does not get it's power from wind directly (it is the conduit of high pressure air moving towards low pressure air), Wind is a flow of energy inside a media of air, hence wind is a medium affect where the power of energy flows through the air, and this we feel as wind. In other meanings, a personal Being can administrate the medium, so witches for example allow the communication flow of other voices from other beings to flow via the witch, administrating this medium, to some other person listening or watching. God also has a medium, that can function both functionally or dysfunctional, depending upon the receiver's wishes. Quote "he Acts of the Apostles, p. 52.1 (Ellen Gould White) The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden."While I attempt to explain the functional role of the HS as a medium, my efforts will not help you see. Such attempts are a mystery. You have a different view, and I have a different view. Quote " Unsanctified ministers are arraying themselves against God. They are praising Christ and the god of this world in the same breath. While professedly they receive Christ, they embrace Barabbas, and by their actions say, “Not this Man, but Barabbas.” Let all who read these lines, take heed. Satan has made his boast of what he can do. He thinks to dissolve the unity which Christ prayed might exist in His church. He says, “I will go forth and be a lying spirit to deceive those that I can, to criticize, and condemn, and falsify.” Let the son of deceit and false witness be entertained by a church that has had great light, great evidence, and that church will discard the message the Lord.
Quote " Satan went forth as a deceiver, to put a lying spirit in the mouth of his prophets. He accomplished that which he purposed. Taking advantage of the disappointment of 1844, he shook the faith of the believers in Christ’s coming. He threw them off the track, blinding their understanding in regard to the sanctuary question, which, if properly understood, would have established their faith in the prophecies. Unbelief came in. Many gave up the faith. Some remained in confusion and perplexity, not knowing what to believe as truth. Had they been able to see Not sure if my Hebrew English translator comments on 1 Kings 22. The above suggest GOD allowed Satan to be the lying medium, and Dave seems to go with this idea, except you make the lying medium to be archons, and archons are creatures GOD created to be that way from the beginning. God created angels. Our difference lies in the fact you suggest GOD created one being (not technically an angel) to have self from it's birth. Thus GOD can create a SELF creature that does moral RA, and this is perfectly OK, because GOD made it so. Such a creation violates the moral LAW and definitions of SIN. You get around this idea, by saying the ten commandments are no binding upon GOD, or upon other creatures God created, only upon mankind for man. Hmm? no So your saying GOD does not obey His own laws? Let's try that idea. One of GOD's teachings, for man is to not cook using dried out human dung. God commands a prophet to use the dung as an prophetic lesson. Eze 4:12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. 13 And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.Does this prophet obey the LORD? NOEze 4:14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
The prophet argues that I follow your laws, you cannot change those laws, when it suits you. Eze 4:15 Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.
Did God really change his mind, or was GOD testing the prophet on the LAW, which is above GOD and GOD's will even? Rob asks" OK so why was mankind placed in their kingdom?Dave replies" Deu 8:2 … —in order to humble you, to test you, R" That is written after MAN SINNED. You do not have a reason why GOD placed mankind in a kingdom on earth with reigning archons? BEFORE man SINNED? D" They are all instinct driven biology – they cause lots of ra to man - but they are not sinningR Sorry Dave, technically there are sinning, anything dysfunctional is by definition missing perfection, and hence missing GOD. It's just GOD does not record the RA affects of these creatures , only of mankind, who was in God's image. D: " Talk is not a sin – being a deceiving spirit is not a sin – to test man is not a sin R I am sorry Dave, dysfunctional talking is a sin. Speaking as a RA witness is a sin. God brings to account every word you speak... as a sin... only God's words are not sins, and only if you support those words correctly, not as a cork tossed on the sea. Faith in God's words. Not your words. D" How could God create self-creatures?R " That's my question to you. God cannot create Self creatures ever, violates the LAW of Love. Love does not have Self. D" prove to me that disease = sinRo 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (KJV) Some foods eaten cause dysfunctional affects to the body, hence are causing a missing conenction to GOD. Eating too much sucrose or maltose is a good example. Mankind intentionally magnifies the food balance to be RA in sugar, so yes it is a sin to eat such foods laden with excessive chemicals of sugar. God created foods in Fruits, not some Factory that makes a RA imbalance using sugar. The OT lists clean and unclean foods based on hygiene and other medical reasons, showing that the LAW is not arbitary, but based on health and principles of health. D" Peter did not say this – give me the verse As I google these words – all that come up is the kabbalah of Ellen White Additional non-inspired words of man – added to your Torah and tells how to think
1Pe 5:10 ¶ But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. EGW “The God of all grace,” he fervently prayed, “who hath called us unto His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered awhile, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. To Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” Seems like Ellen White is quoting the torah word for word to me? Why must you mock her so? D: " OH - but two words taken out of context is enough to build an entire religionR:" Really the word "chata" is well defined. The word "cherub" is also well defined. SO the one time used of "cherub chata" tells us a story of angels who sinned. The Greek word dike, does this have an OT link ? The Greek word anti-dike, does this have an OT link? So the word meaning is not well established, is it? D: " As you say the LXX does not help. You wish to transliterate the ancient Greek to Modern Hebrew – then attempt to translate it back to proto-Hebrew
This al already been accomplished by 70 of the most renowned Rabbis of their day – at least two rabbi from every tribe – 70 of them translated their own Hebrew into their own Greek
As you say the LXX does not help. ἀντίδικος - does not exist in the LXX – correct so any guess which Hebrew word to transliterate it to does not pre-exist – it would only be a guess by modern manR correct. I try to add as much "thus saith the Lord" into my understanding of Scripture, bring the words back to OT Hebrew, even Ancient Hebrew, and than forwards to the Greek NT. Hence my focus is always mostly first in the OT Hebrew, Moses torah and the oldest Hebrew we have Job. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Feb 16, 2021 18:07:47 GMT -5
R:" First you equate the term "medium" as a "spirit" as if the "medium" does things with it's own inherit power. Second you assume any creature can function as a medium apart from the HS as a medium?1- the Holy Spirit is the 2nd Dimensional matrix /either /medium that is omnipresent This matrix/medium sustains all creation by providing the ‘e’ from the “E” – this is a subatomic phenomenon within the electromagnet spectrum 2- this has absolutely nothing to do with the individual person we know as the angel Michael The angel Michael is an independent soul/spirit – unique and different from all the other angels Angels are angels – they are not just pieces of the HS – they are independent beings The archon are individual beings – each unique and independent Man is a spirit/soul being more like angels than archon – each man is unique and independent Man spirit/soul comes to earth incarnate (in a carnal body) – souljourns – and returns to God Man is made in God’s image - in His likeness God came to earth incarnate – souljourned (witnessing) – and returned to God 1Ki 22:21 I will be a lying (shaqar) medium. "shaqar" has both verb and noun forms, meaning the same thing, to lie or be a liar. Ex 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. WAIT – I thought we were discussing mediums – and we changed directions here These verses seem to contradict each other?NO THER ARE NOT – Ones say lying Ones says being false witness against your neighbor Are you seriously confusedOne is the opposite of the other.Of course it has to lead you to an imaginary opposer You speak of mediums as beings, or spirits.Wind does not get it's power from wind directly (it is the conduit of high pressure air moving towards low pressure air), Wind is a flow of energy inside a media of air, hence wind is a medium affect where the power of energy flows through the air, and this we feel as wind. Correct the HS is the Spirit of God radiating from the Throne ubiquitously throughout creationNot sure if my Hebrew English translator comments on 1 Kings 22. The above suggest GOD allowed Satan to be the lying medium, and Dave seems to go with this idea, except you make the lying medium to be archons, and archons are creatures GOD created to be that way from the beginning.
God created angels. Our difference lies in the fact you suggest GOD created one being (not technically an angel) to have self from it's birth.Examples – cow, chickens, cockroaches, flies, caterpillars, butterflies, pigs, gold fish, slugs, worms All creature created different than angels – all self-preservation instinct – from their birth Yet each and every one of these creatures play an important role/function/nich within God glorious Nature – each playing its part in the Gen 1:31 So God saw everything that He made, and behold it was very good. Thus GOD can create a SELF creature that does moral RA, What is moral ra and give me an example of your satan doing a moral raSuch a creation violates the moral LAW and definitions of SIN.Religious talk is worthless without defining your terms You get around this idea, by saying the ten commandments are no binding upon GOD, or upon other creatures God created, only upon mankind for man. OK – so if the 10 Commandment are your moral Law – give me evidence they were written for the heavensI am the LORD thy God. - OKNo other gods before me. – you think Michael and Gabriel need to hear this?No graven images or likenesses.(in heaven) – do angels make statues and images in heaven?Not take the LORD's name in vain. – really – angels need to hear thisRemember the sabbath day. – are there days of the weeks in heaven – heaven has weekends?Honour thy father and thy mother. – who are the parents of the angelsThou shalt not kill. – well we know this doesn’t apply to GodThou shalt not commit adultery. – do they have sex in heaven? Marriages? OK – so if the 10 Commandment are your moral Law – give me evidence they were written for the heavensSo your saying GOD does not obey His own laws?NO – I AM SAYING you have failed to show me the Law that God must obeyRob asks" OK so why was mankind placed in their kingdom?Dave replies" Deu 8:2 … —in order to humble you, to test you, R" That is written after MAN SINNED. Moses was written after Adam sinned - tell me what was not written after AdamD" They are all instinct driven biology – they cause lots of ra to man - but they are not sinning R Sorry Dave, technically there are sinning, anything dysfunctional is by definition missing perfection, and hence missing GOD. It's just GOD does not record the RA affects of these creatures , only of mankind, who was in God's image. I defy your open ended I can make it mean anything I want definition Define sin – you say it only takes one word to define it - what is your definitionD: "Talk is not a sin – being a deceiving spirit is not a sin – to test man is not a sin R I am sorry Dave, dysfunctional talking is a sin. Speaking as a RA witness is a sin. So in 1 Kings 22 God sends a volunteer spirit to sin I defy you open ended I can make it mean anything I want definition Define sin – you say it only takes one word to define it - what is your definitionR:" Really the word "chata" is well defined.Then define it = and stick with your definition D" prove to me that disease = sinRo 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (KJV) Some foods eaten cause dysfunctional affects to the body, What does that have to do with a bacterial infection or a virus You understand that the average life span of the ahl was only about 45 1Pe 5:10 ¶ But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. EGW “The God of all grace,” he fervently prayed, “who hath called us unto His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered awhile, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. To Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” Seems like Ellen White is quoting the torah word for word to me? Why must you mock her so? Word for word – and you accuse me of mocking – this is not word for word – her version is packed for of SDA doctrine The Greek word dike, does this have an OT link ?No – did not find it The Greek word anti-dike, does this have an OT link?7 timesIsa 41:11 - H7379 -From H7378; a contest (personal or legal): + adversary, Jer 50:34 - H7264 – A primitive root; to quiver But Jer 50:34 does not exist in the LXX Instead KJV 50:34 = LXX 27:34 KJV Jer 27:34 does not exist Next Jer 51:36 does not exist in the LXX Instead KJV Jer 51:36 – LXX 28:36 = H7379 רִב רִיב - From H7378; a contest (personal or legal): + adversary, KJV Jer 28:36 does not exist Hos 5:11 = H4941 – From H8199; properly a verdict (favorable or unfavorable) pronounced judicially, Prob 18:11 - H2713 – A primitive root; properly to penetrate; hence to examine intimately: - find out, (make) search (out), 1Sa 2:10 - H7378 - primitive root; properly to toss, that is, grapple; mostly figuratively to wrangle, that is, hold a controversy; (by implication) to defend: - adversary, Est 8:11 - H6696 – A primitive root; to cramp, that is, confine (in many applications, literally and figuratively, formative or hostile): - adversary, As you say the LXX does not help. ἀντίδικος - does not exist in the LXX – correct so any guess which Hebrew word to transliterate it to does not pre-exist – it would only be a guess by modern manἀντίδικος - does not exist in the LXX - no help I miss spoke – I was wrong I mean to say καθίστημι does not exist in the LXX – just checked again – not there
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2021 14:00:41 GMT -5
Greetings
D: "What is moral ra and give me an example of your satan doing a moral ra R" OK fair enough
Mt 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
Clearly the NT identifies the Shedim (Devil) as an Enemy.
This has to be an enemy of GOD, because Jesus is the word. Therefore the opposer sows words that look like God's words, but lack power.
Hence deception, just as johnson's grass weed looks like Sorghum
Ps 7:14 Behold, he travaileth <chabal> with iniquity <'aven>, and hath conceived <harah> mischief <`amal>, and brought forth <yalad> falsehood <sheqer>.
This verse suggest one can inherit propensities from epigenetics that are born in us. Aven are the genetic potentials we have often seen in negative context.
So can an opposing angel father aven in us, if man should sin?
Isa 59:4 None calleth <qara'> for justice <tsedeq>, nor any pleadeth <shaphat> for truth <'emuwnah>: they trust <batach> in vanity <tohuw>, and speak <dabar> lies <shav'>; they conceive <harah> mischief <`amal>, and bring forth <yalad> iniquity <'aven>. Job 15:35; Ps 7:14; Isa 30:12 5 They hatch <baqa`> cockatrice <tsepha`>' eggs <beytsah>, and weave <'arag> the spider's <`akkabiysh> web <quwr>: he that eateth <'akal> of their eggs <beytsah> dieth <muwth>, and that which is crushed <zuwreh> breaketh out <baqa`> into a viper <'eph`eh>
The same theme is written here, added clues using viper.
Isa 59:7 Their feet <regel> run <ruwts> to evil <ra`>,
Ra is obviously a fruit of sin, of aven, caused by the guilt (avon) we experience from sin
D: “OK – so if the 10 Commandment are your moral Law – give me evidence they were written for the heavens
Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? (KJV
Ministry and doing ministry for mankind, helping mankind, requires the angels to also follow the torah, otherwise they are false ministers?
2Sa 22:11 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind.
If GOD rides upon the angels using the medium wind, all doing ministry and salvation, implies they have to be respectful of the torah that is written for ministry and salvation.
Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
In this verse the angels walk up and down the “stones of fire” what are these? How does GOD know an angel has “evel” unless angels transgress written codes of His Love?
Eze 28:16 By the multitude <rob> of thy merchandise <r@kullah> they have filled <male'> the midst <tavek> of thee with violence <chamac>, and thou hast sinned <chata'>:
Why is a cherub written as sinning, unless they are also required to follow the royal laws of GOD?
Hebrew English Translator help
But a change came over this happy state. There was one who perverted the freedom that God had granted to His creatures. Sin originated with him, who, next to Christ, had been most honored of God and was highest among the inhabitants of heaven. Lucifer, “son of the morning,” (Isaiah 14:12) was holy and undefiled. “Thus saith the Lord God: Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty... . Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so. Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.” EP 10.2
Little by little, Lucifer indulged the desire for self-exaltation. “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty; thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness” Ezekiel 28:12-15, 17. “Thou hast said in thine heart, ... I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; ... I will be like the most High.” Isaiah 14:13, 14. Though honored above the heavenly host, he ventured to covet homage due alone to the Creator. This prince of angels aspired to power that was the prerogative of Christ alone.
I am writing out more fully the volume of Great Controversy, containing the history of the fall of Satan and the introduction of sin into our world, and I can have a more vivid sense of this great controversy between Christ, the Prince of light, and Satan, the prince of darkness, than I have ever had before. As I see the various devices of Satan to compass the ruin of erring people and make them like himself, a transgressor of God's holy law, I would that angels of God could come to earth and present this matter in its great importance.
Ex 21:1 ¶ Now these are the judgments <mishpat>
You cannot judge anything unless you have LAW in order to measure the missing that person does.
Your walk through the royal law is not real good:
(1) Be humble not proud, one angel became proud (2) I am your covering, one angel desired to be like Most High and wanted His covering. (3) I am your power, one angel wanted the power to do alone using self. (4) I am your fruits to share, one angel wanted the glory for Himself. Greedy, not share.
The other laws refer to how your love responds.
(5) Respect the family members of elohiym. One angel was jealous of the Son who looked like an angel. (6) Respect living. (7) Respect relationship. But one angel desired self, rather than share the love of God with others.
D” do angels make statues and images in heaven?
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
D” are there days of the weeks in heaven – heaven has weekends?
R” Ceasing Day is about sharing GOD that has accumulated in you during 6 days with others for an entire day, doing redemption in others. Yes it involves time, all processes process over time. Does our bodies have internal clocks inside us?
D” who are the parents of the angels R” GOD is.
D: “Thou shalt not kill. – well we know this doesn’t apply to God It actually means no wounding the opportunity to seek GOD from others. Watch your words in other words.
D” Thou shalt not commit adultery. – do they have sex in heaven? Marriages? R” More broadly about relationship. DO not break relationship to GOD.
Sex is merely the exchange of provider love and responder love, the two couples of love come to share. There are other biochemical ways to express this sharing apart from physical sex.
R: So your saying GOD does not obey His own laws? D” NO – I AM SAYING you have failed to show me the Law that God must obey R” The royal law is a lamp, the light, and the teachings are light. So the royal laws are about GOD’s love, love as written principles.
R" That is written after MAN SINNED. D” Moses was written after Adam sinned - tell me what was not written after Adam R “ Than don’t speculate than before Adam sinned.
Sometimes we cannot say any more, because nothing more is written.
If GOD is absolute and perfect, than His creation will also be absolute and perfect. No ra in it.
Since darkness is ra, as you showed me, something is wrong here, but nothing wrong with GOD’s creation of things for man, before He sinned. I see GOD creating a perfect world while some angels had sinned long before this time, were looking on, while earth received a makeover.
Question to ask is, why did GOD create man, after some angels had sinned in heaven?
Answer, so man could judge the angels who sinned.
But the courts demand witnesses to the sin problem, who have overcome sinning themselves. Hence Jesus volunteered to resolve this issue of man sinning.
D” Define sin – you say it only takes one word to define it - what is your definition R” Missing.
Anything missing. Less than perfect is missing. Chaos is missing Order. Cold is missing Heat. Evil is missing GOD’s love. Friction is missing a perfect method of using energy. Darkness is missing light.
D” What does that have to do with a bacterial infection or a virus R” Maybe some virus and bacteria infection help RA-MAN to stay alive more.
Since SIN, it may be necessary to have RA to help RA-MAN live longer , sorry Dave, not explored all these issues.
The Greek word anti-dike, does this have an OT link? 7 times
Isa 41:11 - H7379 -From H7378; a contest (personal or legal): + adversary,
Jer 50:34 - H7264 – A primitive root; to quiver But Jer 50:34 does not exist in the LXX Instead KJV 50:34 = LXX 27:34 KJV Jer 27:34 does not exist
R” Reading Scripture is not so easy is it? You’re a good translator I see.
When you went to translation school, did they assume all languages have polysemy?
My SDA translator told me to buy James Barr books, and I discovered his Hebrew root word fallacy there. Jeff Benner and myself would disagree with him.
I see no polysemy in the Edenic Hebrew, such polysemy came from RA impacting language later, ie the tower of confusion. Hence when your translate you have to begin with suppositions.
My SDA scholar was the same. He believed in James Barr. I do not.
Hence we differed in translations all the time, just like I do with you.
My SDA translator saw kathestimi as perhaps you do, to establish etc. He did not like my simple child like “to rule”. So in anything we do, we always come with our suppositions. It’s a bias we all have, me included.
Hence why we see our Hebrew and Greek differently. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Feb 18, 2021 15:14:10 GMT -5
D: "What is moral ra and give me an example of your satan doing a moral ra R" OK fair enoughMt 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. Clearly the NT identifies the Shedim (Devil) as an Enemy. – of man = Gen 3:15 This has to be an enemy of GOD, - your assumption you need to make your doctrine correctPs 7:14 Behold, he travaileth <chabal> with iniquity <'aven>, and hath conceived <harah> mischief <`amal>, and brought forth <yalad> falsehood <sheqer>. 7:(14) He hath also prepared for Him the instruments of mavet; He ordaineth His flaming khitzim (arrows). 7 (15) Hinei, he [an evil person] travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived trouble, and brought forth falsehood. Psa 7:14 (TLV) He prepares His own deadly weapons. He makes His fiery arrows. Psa 7:15 Look! The one pregnant with trouble conceives mischief and brings forth deceit. This verse suggest one can inherit propensities from epigenetics that are born in us. Aven are the genetic potentials we have often seen in negative context.YEP! – yester ra – inherent to biologySo can an opposing angel father aven in us, if man should sin? Isa 59:2 Rather, your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God. Your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He does not hear. Isa 59:4 - The same theme is written here, added clues using viper. Isa 59:7 Their feet <regel> run <ruwts> to evil <ra`>, (yester ra)D: “OK – so if the 10 Commandment are your moral Law – give me evidence they were written for the heavensHeb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? (KJV Ministry and doing ministry for mankind, helping mankind, You do not believe your own words A sinless mind has no concept of breaking connection with God, by definition is fully developed and loving GOD fully. There is no ra in God's world, not sin anywhere, no choice to break off with GOD is even present. But you have GOD putting up with natural elements of ra, I say no. NO indeed. Can't GOD make all things perfect? Of course He can. So the angels He created have perfect sinless minds. There is no ra in their mind, they have no other choice but love God freely and fully. This is still a relationship based on love. So how can a angel sin? If the mind is sinless and perfect, it's not even possible, as GOD is all the angels know. The origin of sin is not explained by the torah, it just happened one day long before man even existed. I love this paragraph – I may just frame it upon my desk You just proved to yourself that your cherub chata foundational veers is impossible Then you preach Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; Hebrew English Translator helpWhat is Hebrew English Translator – I googled it and at a loss where you get this information You say you look nowhere else for inspiration other than the TorahRemember am writing out more fully the volume of Great Controversy, containing the history of the fall of Satan To say angels can fall from grace is rediculas and only adds doubt to the promise of salvation – it is you who believe that you must do things every day or you might lose your salvationand the introduction of sin into our world, Through Adam / MAN and I can have a more vivid sense of this great controversy between Christ, the Prince of light, and Satan, the prince of darkness, than I have ever had before. Is pagan crap – straight out of Zoroasterism Scripture say gen 3:15 – between man and archon – man and world R" That is written after MAN SINNED. D” Moses was written after Adam sinned - tell me what was not written after Adam R “ Than don’t speculate than before Adam sinned.Then why do you build an an entire religion around two words taken out of context?Sometimes we cannot say any more, because nothing more is written.So you rely on Ellen White to fill in your missing gaps I will stick the fondation - Judaism and the mind-set of the audience of Jesus If GOD is absolute and perfect, than His creation will also be absolute and perfect. No ra in it.Yes the Feel Good argument - yet there is ra in the world - therefore God is not perfect, doesnt care, is is very weak - or not real at all = the Roman legacy - you speak it very well KJV Jer 27:34 does not exist R” Reading Scripture is not so easy is it? You’re a good translator I see.I love playing in the Greek – it is a skill I can use where? Now that I am retired – I though od Doing a Master’s program online Is is worth $40,000 – I’ll just keep playing on my own True story – 1981? I worked at a duck farm – my job was to dry the feathers at night – it took all night long. One night the owner came checking up on me. I was not at my work station – I was not in the bath room – he found me in the break room. This long haired hat wearing hippy guy camped out in the break room. The owner walk right to me to FIRE ME or at least VENT his displeasure. – But – I had my Greek books out in the middle of 1st Corinthians. He sat with me and we spoke of the Lord until my timer went off and I had to return to the dryer. When you went to translation school, did they assume all languages have polysemy?Depends on what you meanWe watch a lot of Asian movies with sub-titles If the movie is Japanese – the actor will say – blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah The English sub title will say – OUCH My wife is Filipino – she culturally cannot answer a yes or no question Every answer come with several paragraphs of back story before she ever gets to the answer Different languages – and different culturesall languages have polysemy?Some word transliterate – a wagon = a wagon = a wagon – regardless if the name changes Can it mean – chariot – cart – buggy – cherub – yet it is still a wagon It is just impossible sometime to express all the meaning of one language straight into another Archon – always means archon – zero polysemy But to cover all aspects of it meaning in English – we get a host of other identifiers, satan, demons, serpents, dragons, beast, shedim , spooks, principlaities If we were Filipino we would call then wakwaks and keep you children in at night or the aswang with take them King Solomon called the shedim Is this polysemy - the meaning is always the same – just different ways to express the same concept over time and languages and cultures When you went to translation school, did they assume all languages have polysemy? Hence when your translate you have to begin with suppositions.Hmmmm? Sort of correctThis is how I translate Isa 59:2 ἀλλὰ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα ὑμῶν διιστῶσιν ἀνὰ μέσον ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν ἀπέστρεψεν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἀφ᾿ ὑμῶν τοῦ μὴ ἐλεῆσαι. Can you read this – have any idea – where would you start First word ἀλλὰ - what does it mean? In Greek is mean simply ἀλλὰ and anyone speaking greek of the first century would completely understand that one word In English – that word ἀλλὰ = < a funnel of meaningG235 - ἀλλά - Neuter plural of G243; properly other things, that is, (adverbially) contrariwise (in many relations): - and, but (even), howbeit, indeed, nay, nevertheless, no, notwithstanding, save, therefore, yea, yet. Does this make the word polysemy – No in Greek it always me just ἀλλὰBut to fully express the idea in English requires more than one simple wordThen you move on the to the next word ἁμαρτήματα In English – that word ἁμαρτήματα =< a funnel of meaning G265 - ἁμάρτημα - From G264; a sin (properly concrete): - sin. Which is slightly different than G266 - ἁμαρτία - From G264; sin (properly abstract): - offence, sin (-ful). Which is slightly different than G264 - ἁμαρτάνω - Perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313; properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is, (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults, offend, sin, trespass. How does English accurately express the Greek idea of ἁμάρτημαAnswer – it requires more English words to define the termI see no polysemy in the Edenic Hebrew, such polysemy came from RA impacting language later, ie the tower of confusion.BOOM – and yet you say God can do no raGen 11:6 Adonai said, “Look, the people are one and all of them have the same language. So this is what they have begun to do. Now, nothing they plan to do will be impossible. What a compliment from a father about His Children Gen 1:28 God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the land, and conquer it. Man obeying the commandments of the lord Gen 11:7 Come! Let Us go down and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand each other’s language.” Gen 11:8 So Adonai scattered them from there over the face of the entire land, and they stopped building the city. Gen 11:9 This is why it is named Babel, because Adonai confused the languages of the entire world there, and from there Adonai scattered them over the face of the entire world. God confused the languages You say it was because man was sinning or something – doing ra – that why God was forced to react I say Man was obeying God Gen 1:28 God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the land, and conquer it. Gen 11:6 Adonai said, “Look, the people are one and all of them have the same language. So this is what they have begun to do. Now, nothing they plan to do will be impossible. What a compliment from a father about His Children My SDA scholar was the same. He believed in James Barr. I do not.Cannot comment – do not know Mr BarrHence we differed in translations all the time, just like I do with you.You – do not translate – be honest I fully understand what you mean – but you are not a translator You violate grammar – and play one word-ism that have failed you more than once My SDA translator saw kathestimi as perhaps you do, to establish etc. He did not like my simple child like “to rule”. So in anything we do, we always come with our suppositions. It’s a bias we all have, me included.This is just one exampleI hope you have come to see your bias in this – and how your bias led you down an error road that was hard to get out off Hence why we see our Hebrew and Greek differently.You are correct – you had doctrine FIRST – then began to study scripture with doctrinal conclusions already in play/bias - and you have been so diligent about your SDA study with your SDA reference material = you cannot even see your own bias This happen to me when I began my OT study with a Rabbi What I thought I knew was more like Roman mythology than Jewish TheologyI hope you have come to see that – I am serious - and honest about the Greek I would love to play more – 1976 Japan I lead a group as we studied/translated John I hope it was good for them because it changed my life – our crappy translation and all Sometimes it is the journey – as much as the destination Your idea of the proto-Hebrew is Nobel But the idea of 4th Greek translated back into ancient Hebrew is not sound The idea of translating ancient hebrew just into modern English is not sound The idea of translating ancient greek only in to moderm English is not sound POINT - Jesus came and spoke the Gosple It was then disseminated throughout the known world 250 years earlier Hebrew anf Judaism was outlawed and replaced with greek At the request of Egypt 70 jewsih scholars put together the LXX It was used by many Greek speaking Jews - all around the known world The audience of Jesus was Greek on the largest scale Enoch and Nag Hammadi is Egyptic Greek (Coptic) Enoch is also Hebrew If you want to play word games - comparing the Greek meaning to the hebrew meaning Then it would seem that the LXX has already done that for you
Was the ant-dikis LXX search helpful to see the the "advisary" of the NT as an agent of a judical court type thing? as in prosceutory
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2021 16:19:46 GMT -5
James Barr "His The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961), in which he criticised the tendency of many scholars to rely on linguistically flawed arguments, such as arguments from etymology or based upon misconceptions about the relation between Hebrew thought and language was very influential. Much of the critique was built upon the work of French linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. In turn, Barr's student Moisés Silva built on Barr's work in Biblical Words and Their Meaning (1983). In another important study, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (1968), he criticised the tendency to ascribe meanings to difficult Hebrew words based on words in other Semitic languages (e.g., Ugaritic). This study has been described as having "put comparative Semitic philology on a new and firmer footing."[6] He edited Journal of Semitic Studies 1965–76, and served as editor of the Oxford Hebrew Dictionary project."
In James Barr's book "The Semantics of Biblical Language", he writes about the Hebrew root fallacy. This is SO WRONG, and his influence has coloured SDA scholars in translation schools ever since. All now believe in polysemy.
D" But to fully express the idea in English requires more than one simple word
R" Yes. sometimes this is necessary.
Take the Hebrew word H7355 meaning compassion, and the word H7358 meaning womb. This words are not different words at all. Jeff Benner showed me something about Hebrew, translators ignore. Many Hebrew words have verb and form words spelled witht he exact same letters in Hebrew, so these words are the same in meaning, only different in action.
Translators ignore this in Hebrew language.
Here is an example of such a thing in English, as well as Hebrew
The plough went out to plough all day to sow.
It's found in the Bible. So do both of these words have different meanings? NO. It's a plough that went out ploughing.
SO why is the translator ignoring basic Hebrew language structure over words, verb and noun forms of the same word?
Hence
H7355 meaning compassion, and H7358 meaning compassion-centre.
There is no Hebrew word for womb as a thing, and the KJV has one verse or so as matrix, suggests my idea. The only Hebrew word for a womb shape is "belly". So inside the womb or compassion-centre, the idea of grace and compassion is developed in the next future baby. It's a picture of function, not a picture of a thing.
Another classic mistake in translators is mixing up Hebrew words with the same English meanings.
Takes chata, meaning to miss. Sadly translated as "sin". Take chataah, a completely different Hebrew word, also translated as "sin".
This idea is SO WRONG, misleading.
You have got me thinking since discussing with you, that missing may not automatically imply moral missing. I am not sure about this in detail. Sin is defined as the transgression of the royal law.
BUt the term missing (ra) may have a broader meaning of missing, that may not include moral missing. I am not sure.
Perhaps you can help me, when I was 17 I was bothered by why the evil people in the OT before the Great Flood was only referenced as RA CONTINUALLY? Seems strange to say this? No mention they were evil, no mentions of chata, just the idea they were doing RA. Why say it like this?
So all the Sodom people were just doing RA? Is that it?
D" If you want to play word games - comparing the Greek meaning to the hebrew meaning Then it would seem that the LXX has already done that for you
R" I like what Jeff Benner is achieving, making the English fit the Hebrew, not make the Hebrew fit the English. He says it is possible for a single English word to replace a single Hebrew word, all the time. I believe this also.
But as you say it's also hard to achieve.
For instance, faith in English has 7 Hebrew words, all meaning faith or slight differences of faith.
------ I had a look over alla, in Greek, meaning many things, like "but".
It's been good to talk to you over the year, you have been good to me, despite our differences.
Happy Shabbat, Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Feb 20, 2021 3:45:26 GMT -5
James Barr Still didn’t understand from your post – Hebrew and Greek Word-Study Fallacies - McMaster University www.mcmaster.caIn Hebrew, the meaning of a Qal verb is sometimes taken as the basic meaning of that verb in every stem. ... The meaning of a word is not controlled by its root.To this a incomplete statement – I would also disagree HEBREW AND GREEK WORD-STUDY FALLACIES Benjamin J. Baxter, Oakridge Bible Chapel, Oakville, ONJames Barr’s The Semantics of Biblical Language was published in 1961. His primary argument may be summarized with his statement: “But as a whole the distinctiveness of biblical thought and language has to be settled at sentence level, that is, by the things the writers say, and not by the words they say them with.”WOW – YES AGREE - listen to the message – listen to the precept – precept upon precept DO NOT STUMBLE OVER WORDSThe widespread influence of Barr’s Semantics on biblical scholarship is undeniable. Many scholars ecognize Barr’s role in bringing linguistic principles to bear upon biblical study and have been influenced by Semantics.YES – also agree 1611 word Hell did not means what Christians picture in their heads to day The 1611 meaning has been dramatically influenced by Semantics. – by culture In 1611 Hell meant only to hide something away – out of sight – Hades Today – it is a burning pit of sulfur and brimstone A Greek example is to start with the verb a0poste/llw (apostellō) and to give it the basic meaning of “to send out.” This basic meaning would then be applied to every use of the noun a0po/stoloj (apostolos), saying that the noun means “one who is sent out,” simply because they share the same root. YES – absolutely - in Greek they are two different words – same root but two different applications You have told me many times –that a Hebrew verb can means it oppositeThis is true but not any time you wish – you must follow grammarHebrew grammars often explain the meaning of the Hebrew verbal stems in relation to the meaning of Qal verbs. Thus, if the Qal verb (bosh) means “to be ashamed,” then the Hiphil form of the verb is said to mean, “to cause to be ashamed.” It depends on the grammar – and that involves spelling – that you also overlook Google – how to conjugate Hebrew verbs – it is complicated and each spelling adds difference to the meaning For instance, the distinct biblical thought found in Eph 2:8a (ESV), “For by grace you have been saved through faith,” is not discovered primarily by examining the meaning of individual words such as “saved” and “faith,” but by recognizing the meaning conveyed in the entire sentence (and indeed the entire discourse in which the sentence is found). Barr understood that a word contributes meaning to a sentence, but he rejected the idea that the word also contains the meaning of an entire sentence or discourse in which it is foundDo not address the word saved or faith!But his point is valid – the word has meaning alone – it adds meaning to the verse – and the meaning of that verse adds to the meaning of the passage YES! – scripture at depth D" But to fully express the idea in English requires more than one simple word R" Yes. sometimes this is necessary.Take the Hebrew word H7355 meaning compassion, and the word H7358 meaning womb. This words are not different words at all. Jeff Benner showed me something about Hebrew, translators ignore. Many Hebrew words have verb and form words spelled with he exact same letters in Hebrew, so these words are the same in meaning, only different in action.DUH – didn’t you study English in elementary school? They are called participles or Gerunds – and common to all languagesHence H7355 meaning compassion, and H7358 meaning compassion-centre. There is no Hebrew word for womb as a thing, and the KJV has one verse or so as matrix, suggests my idea. The only Hebrew word for a womb shape is "belly". So inside the womb or compassion-centre, the idea of grace and compassion is developed in the next future baby. It's a picture of function, not a picture of a thing.H7355 – רָחַם - A primitive root; to fondle; by implication to love, especially to compassionate: - have compassion (on, upon), love, (find, have, obtain, shew) mercy (-iful, on, upon), (have) pity, Ruhamah, X surely. H7358 – רֶחֶם - From H7355; the womb (compare H7356): - matrix, womb. H7356 – רַחַם - From H7355; compassion (in the plural); by extension the womb (as cherishing the foetus); by implication a maiden: - bowels, compassion, damsel, tender love, (great, tender) mercy, pity, womb. All of these words are spelled different – and mean different thingsYour argument is in error – you say we should be able to switch these different words around interchangeably – you are wrong Barr’s exampleOn you was I cast from the womb [Mxerfm', mērahem], and from the womb [N+ebe@mi, mibbeten] of my mother you have been my God.
The given English translation makes it appear that Mxere (rehem) and N+ebe@, (beten) are used synonymously in Ps 22:10. Throughout the Old Testament, Mxere (rehem) is consistently used for the place where an offspring develops in its mother, both of humans and animals, so is appropriately translated as “womb” in Ps 22:10. However, N+ebe@, (beten) is used not only in contexts similar to those of Mxere (rehem), but also for the abdominal area of men and one animal (with no specific reference to the womb—Job 40:16). For example, Judg 3:21 reads: “And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his [Eglon’s] belly [wOn+;bib;@, bevitno]” (cf. Pss 31:9; 44:25 [MT 31:10; 44:26]; 132:11). It seems that N+ebe@, (beten) can be used for the abdominal region of men, women, and animals, while Mxere (rehem) is used more specifically for a female’s wombAll of these words are spelled different – and mean different things So far I agree with Barr Takes chata, meaning to miss. Sadly translated as "sin". Take chataah, a completely different Hebrew word, also translated as "sin". This idea is SO WRONG, misleading. You have got me thinking since discussing with you, that missing may not automatically imply moral missing. The problem is that you have such a flexible definition of chata The choice = mitzvah = obey GodWithout a law you cannot sin Rom 5:13 For up until the Torah, sin was in the world; but sin does not count as sin when there is no law. God said don’t eat – Eve ate – chata = disobedience Christians – Jesus said Mat 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Joh 13:34 “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, so also you must love one another. Joh 14:11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe because of the works themselves. Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, immersing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Ruach ha-Kodesh, Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all I have commanded you. And remember! I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” This is the law – if you are following this law you are always compliant with the intent of the law – Moses or not BUt the term missing (ra) may have a broader meaning of missing, that may not include moral missing. I am not sure. Ra and chata do not mean the same Chata is the choice to disobey Ra means a movement away from tovPerhaps you can help me, when I was 17 I was bothered by why the evil people in the OT before the Great Flood was only referenced as RA CONTINUALLY? Seems strange to say this? No mention they were evil, no mentions of chata, just the idea they were doing RA. Why say it like this?If God told the serpent – never deceive Eve – then the serpent sinned If God gave the serpent different instructions – then maybe he was just obeying the lord as a deceiving spirit 1 Kings 22 God never told your satan – do no harm to Job Instead – the opposite – God told him to go and do Satan being harmful to Job is not a sin 1Ch 21:1 Then satan stood up against Israel and incited David You insist this must be ra and sin2Sa 24:1 Now the anger of Adonai again flared up against Israel, so He incited David Now you say it cannot be ra or a sin because God does itSo all the Sodom people were just doing RA? Is that it?OK – now let’s talk your royal law thing If I am a pagan male age 20 and I have consensual sex – I am a normal male and there is no need for guilt If I start hanging out with folk that like to rape for fun- brutally Inside – there is a voice somewhere telling you it’s wrong - you know better Your problem is your own yester ra and a phenomena called – the crowd effect – people become swept up in riots, hockey games, soccer game, even a nation hating its enemy in war spreads Somewhere along the lines – you are lost to self – desire – greed – take what you want because you can – self-preservation – alpha male syndrome There comes a point in the contest – when the crowd effect overwhelms mankind Gen 6:7 So Adonai said, “I will wipe out humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the ground, from humankind to livestock, crawling things and the flying creatures of the sky, because I regret that I made them.” Gen 11:7 Come! Let Us go down and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand each other’s language.” Gen 11:8 So Adonai scattered them from there over the face of the entire land, and they stopped building the city. Gen 18:32 Then he said, “Please, let not my Lord be angry, so I may speak once more. Perhaps ten will be found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.” Rev 20:15 And if anyone was not found written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. ------ I had a look over alla, in Greek, meaning many things, like "but".+ grammar – alla is also use in conditional statements Alla + gar = one the one hand – while on the other had Ei + alla = if then
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Feb 20, 2021 10:21:15 GMT -5
In James Barr's book "The Semantics of Biblical Language", he writes about the Hebrew root fallacy. This is SO WRONG, and his influence has coloured SDA scholars in translation schools ever since. All now believe in polysemy. I do not think you understand what they say – you have a twisted view of their point You fail to grasp the complexities of translation – you just reduce it to a word gameThe Robert MethodHere is my process, and I would love to know how Rabbi do it, and how you do it as well. spiritualsprings.org/ss-1095.htm This technique has been used my me for many years, from 2003, when God impressed me to purchase an electronic Bible. Ac 7:10 And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house. and he made him ruler over Egypt This verse cross references "kathemstemi" to the correct Hebrew word: Ge 42:6 And Joseph was the governor <shalliyt> over the land. (KJV) Kathistemi Greek is same as shalliyt in Hebrew, see Gen Ge 42:6, and means "ruler" for all sentences, including the NT sentence contexts. Sorry for the website that explains the meaning. How many Jews read their own Hebrew this way? How many Jews read their own Hebrew this way?Answer = none - and zero Christians as well The Robert method will never work if you do not “cross reference” the words correctly I was searching to find your quote – I swore you told me Jeff Brenner said Kathistemi Greek is same as shalliyt in HebrewIf this is true – Jeff Brenner is just in error Or you did not understand him either D" If you want to play word games - comparing the Greek meaning to the hebrew meaning Then it would seem that the LXX has already done that for youR" I like what Jeff Benner is achieving, making the English fit the Hebrew, not make the Hebrew fit the English. He says it is possible for a single English word to replace a single Hebrew word, all the time. I believe this also.I have asked you to give me an example – you have notGive me a one English word that fully conveys all the meaning of Hebrew satan That one English word = satan – ZERO Polsemy But as you say it's also hard to achieve. For instance, faith in English has 7 Hebrew words, all meaning faith or slight differences of faith. This is a great example of your error 7 Hebrews words – all translated into just one English word Then you argue one English word = one Hebrew word
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2021 16:36:17 GMT -5
D" Barr understood that a word contributes meaning to a sentence, but he rejected the idea that the word also contains the meaning of an entire sentence or discourse in which it is foundR" correct. But we are racing ahead of ourselves. Lets get the words correct first, than the sentence meanings will follow. V) 1LV (1LV R-HhM) — Compassion: [freq. 47] (vf: Paal, Pual, Piel) |kjv: mercy, compassion, pity, love, merciful| {str: 7355}
Nm) 1LV (1LV R-HhM) — I. Bowels: The belly or womb. II. Compassion: As the belly being the seat of compassion. [Hebrew and Aramaic] III. Racham: An unknown bird. [freq. 73] |kjv: mercy, compassion, womb, bowels, pity, damsel, tender love, matrix, eagle| {str: 7356, 7358, 7359, 7360} D" All of these words are spelled different – and mean different things Your argument is in error – you say we should be able to switch these different words around interchangeably – you are wrong
R" Sorry Dave, bag Jeff if you must, but I agree with Jeff. See above. H 7355, H7356, H7358 and H7360 Are all spelled with the same Hebrew letters, hence must have the same basic meanings, but differences in action. D" you say we should be able to switch these different words around interchangeably – you are wrongR" I never said that. A verb form is not the same as a noun form. The sentence dictates this, But the meanings are the same: Verb form = "compassion" Noun form = "compassion-centre". Therefore to think of the H758 as a womb, is incorrect. The Hebrew for for this shape is "belly", but the functional action of this shape is "compassion-centre", not a womb. You see Hebrew is about actions, verbs, not the naming of things. Jeff explains that even nouns are really verbs, we have allowed Greek thinking to change our view of words. D" But to fully express the idea in English requires more than one simple wordR" Yes. sometimes this is necessary. Take the Hebrew word H7355 meaning compassion, and the word H7358 meaning womb. These words are not different words at all. Jeff Benner showed me something about Hebrew, translators ignore. Many Hebrew words have verb and form words spelled with he exact same letters in Hebrew, so these words are the same in meaning, only different in action. DUH – didn’t you study English in elementary school? They are called participles or Gerunds – and common to all languagesHence H7355 meaning compassion, and H7358 meaning compassion-centre. There is no Hebrew word for womb as a thing, and the KJV has one verse or so as matrix, suggests my idea. The only Hebrew word for a womb shape is "belly". So inside the womb or compassion-centre, the idea of grace and compassion is developed in the next future baby. It's a picture of function, not a picture of a thing. H7355 – רָחַם - A primitive root; to fondle; by implication to love, especially to compassionate: - have compassion (on, upon), love, (find, have, obtain, shew) mercy (-iful, on, upon), (have) pity, Ruhamah, X surely. H7358 – רֶחֶם - From H7355; the womb (compare H7356): - matrix, womb. H7356 – רַחַם - From H7355; compassion (in the plural); by extension the womb (as cherishing the foetus); by implication a maiden: - bowels, compassion, damsel, tender love, (great, tender) mercy, pity, womb.
D" All of these words are spelled different – and mean different thingsR" NO. See more examples along the same idea:- The plough went to plough all day to sow. Isa 28:24 H2790 verb and H2790 noun, not two words by Strongs Strong's not consistent. Ge 1:11 ...the herb yielding <zara`> seed <zera`>, H2232 verb and H2233 noun , are listed as two different words by Strongs Verb "sow" Noun "sown" Ge 1:20 Let the waters bring forth abundantly <sharats> the moving creature <sherets> H8317 verb and H8318, are listed as two different words by Strongs Verb "swarmers" Noun "swarm" D" The given English translation makes it appear that Mxere (rehem) and N+ebe@, (beten) are used synonymously in Ps 22:10. Throughout the Old Testament, Mxere (rehem) is consistently used for the place where an offspring develops in its mother, both of humans and animals, so is appropriately translated as “womb” in Ps 22:10. However, N+ebe@, (beten) is used not only in contexts similar to those of Mxere (rehem), but also for the abdominal area of men and one animal (with no specific reference to the womb—Job 40:16). For example, Judg 3:21 reads: “And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his [Eglon’s] belly [wOn+;bib;@, bevitno]” (cf. Pss 31:9; 44:25 [MT 31:10; 44:26]; 132:11). It seems that N+ebe@, (beten) can be used for the abdominal region of men, women, and animals, while Mxere (rehem) is used more specifically for a female’s womb
R yes, the rehem refers to a function found only under a woman's belly, but should be related in meaning to the function of "compassion", the verb meaning as well, hence I have chosen this function to mean the "compassion-centre", out of respect to the Hebrew Verb. You could have a footnote saying " the compassion-centre may be thought of as a womb, is you wish in Greek thinking, but in Hebrew thinking is a compassion centre, where a new life emerges from the compassion of GOD in the woman's belly". ---------- D" Without a law you cannot sin Rom 5:13 For up until the Torah, sin was in the world; but sin does not count as sin when there is no law.R " Hmm? Yes correct. This might explain why the humans before flood were written as RA, rather than as sinners doing evil. Paul is speaking of moral ra, defining missing according to the royal law, which we term moral RA. Hence I coined a term with you natural ra, to refer to natural examples of missing, that may not be seen as transgression of law, but are examples of missing. Anything less than perfect is missing something, but may not be a transgression of law, hence not a sin per se'. D" Ra and chata do not mean the same Chata is the choice to disobey Ra means a movement away from tov
R" Nice Dave, not sure I agree though, but I see your view indeed. Ra and chata are different spellings and do not mean the same correct. RA "Head twisted". dysfunctional TOV " covering secured at home" functional CHAY "Outside active" stomach D" Chata is the choice to disobeyJg 20:16 Among all this people there were seven hundred chosen men lefthanded; every one could sling stones at an hair breadth, and not miss. CHATA "outside covering strong" I find it hard reading the Hebrew letter meanings (as I assume them to be) to make singular sense of the letter combinations (I assume these are assumed as word meanings) Were the slingers slinging their slings not to miss? Yes indeed. They were intentionally hitting a target with 100% accuracy. The verb is really about missing, or to miss. Not really about a choice not to miss, though I do see your view, the slinger has chosen not to miss the target. So if GOD creates something God is NOT going to create something where part of his natural world is going to allow things to miss. So if sin is only about choice, than only my cognitive mind of choice defines whether I sin or not. But Hebrew defines missing much more deeply than just a cognitive choice. Missing my ignorance, there is a Hebrew word for this idea. Ps 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Verses like this link missing and ra together, one if the fruit of the other. Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Here the idea of cognitive choice is not valid, something corrupted cannot become uncorrupted simply by being born. Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Same idea, the baby developed from the compassion-centre goes astray from the belly speaking lies, as soon as it's born. So again cognitive choice is NOT a good definition of CHATA. The term simply means to miss. The reason why the baby goes astray is because the DNA is missing Divine words that cause a sinless state of thinking. Something is missing inside the compassion-centre. ---------------- D" If God told the serpent – never deceive Eve – then the serpent sinned If God gave the serpent different instructions – then maybe he was just obeying the lord as a deceiving spirit 1 Kings 22R" Who know both function and dysfunction? Only GOD knew. How did the serpent know both function and dysfunction, like GOD does? By sinning. Ezekiel cherub chata. Is is a sin to learn something you should not learn? Yes. Was the commanding angel allowed to sin? Yes, part of free choice Was this knowing dysfunction a functional thing to know? No SO why did the angel choose to know dysfunction than? Something GOD told him, you must not learn to know. Now the angel thinks to get Eve to learn something GOD said not to learn and know. Ge 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. This is a lie, Dave, any way you twist it .... first we do not need our eyes opened to things dysfunctional, nor do we need to the elohiym power, nor is it necessary to have your head twisted. (the Ancient Hebrew meaning of RA). The angel implies living in a functional world is living blind with our eyes closed. This alone is a lie. Isa 29:18 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. We live in a world where we are BLIND, and DEAF, according to the Bible our world of RA, makes us blind and deaf, NOT as the Angel said eyes open. No, our eyes are now closed. ------- D" God never told your satan – do no harm to Job Instead – the opposite – God told him to go and do Satan being harmful to Job is not a sin
"G OD never told the angel do no harm to Job", because that is what the angel character is already, that angel only ever does harm. " Instead GOD told the angel to go and do", because all relationships of power stem from GOD, but the angel did what the angel wanted to do, God is not to be blamed for this. " Satan being harmful to Job is not a sin" are you kidding? Doing RA is a sin, doing bad things to people is a sin. The angel did those RA things to get Job to curse GOD, nothing to do with testing Job to love God more. Job's wife confirms the result the angel wanted from JOb, "curse God and die" but Job refused to do this. --------------- D" Give me a one English word that fully conveys all the meaning of Hebrew satanR" Why do you ask this again? "oppose, opposing, opposed, opposer" Here is your single English word for all Hebrew sentences using both satan-verb and satan-noun words. Specifically satan-verb "oppose,opposed, opposing" and satan-noun "opposer". V) 2Y\ (2Y\ S-ThN) — Oppose: [df: NjV] [freq. 6] (vf: Paal) |kjv: adversary, resist| {str: 7853} Nm) 2Y\ (2Y\ S-ThN) — Opponent: [df: NjV] [freq. 27] |kjv: satan, adversary, withstand| {str: 7854} Also same idea as Jeff, oppose and opponent. Notice some verses: Nu 22:22 And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an "opposer" against Baalim. So GOD was an opposer to Baalim. The word does not imply that an opposer is some wicked angel who sins, the word simply mean "ONE who opposes ANOTHER". Now over the years using idiom, a thing language does, the Opposer who is a angel that sinned long ago, is given the name "SATAN", as a Name. This is OK, I guess, but changes the Hebrew meaning of "opposer" adding a Name to it. I would add this as a footnote. SHalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Feb 20, 2021 17:23:27 GMT -5
D"Barr understood that a word contributes meaning to a sentence, but he rejected the idea that the word also contains the meaning of an entire sentence or discourse in which it is found R" correct. D" All of these words are spelled different – and mean different things Your argument is in error – you say we should be able to switch these different words around interchangeably – you are wrongR" Sorry Dave, bag Jeff if you must, but I agree with Jeff. See above. H 7355, H7356, H7358 and H7360 Are all spelled with the same Hebrew letters, hence must have the same basic meanings, but differences in action.Run, ran, running, will have run, might have rub, maybe I will run – are all the same root Yet each form has different inflections of person, time, and intentH7355 – רָחַם - A primitive root; to fondle; by implication to love, especially to compassionate: - have compassion (on, upon), love, (find, have, obtain, shew) mercy (-iful, on, upon), (have) pity, Ruhamah, X surely. H7358 – רֶחֶם - From H7355; the womb (compare H7356): - matrix, womb. H7356 – רַחַם - From H7355; compassion (in the plural); by extension the womb (as cherishing the foetus); by implication a maiden: - bowels, compassion, damsel, tender love, (great, tender) mercy, pity, womb. D" All of these words are spelled different – and mean different thingsR" NO. Look at them Robert – you violate grammar – they are not spelled the same and each spelling yield a different face to the meaning(I might have run) and (I wil surely run) do not mean the same thing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2021 18:29:03 GMT -5
D" (I might have run) and (I will surely run) do not mean the same thing
R" Dave I am no expert in grammar, but arn't these little bits a part of the sentence meaning, not the word meaning?
For example take the word "love",
In Hebrew it has two meanings "providing-love" and "responding-love"
Now you can place these meanings in a sentence, with little bits, add nuisances to the basic meaning.
He love (ed) his love (er).
He was lov(ing) to his love (er)
Sure the sentence might change the overall meaning of the basic word (love), but this change is just a little about the actions over time, with this word, not a brand new different meaning.
For example isyhah is a word meaning woman, but sometimes the sentence says "She is my woman, the man said" clearly refers to the added meaning of "partner or wife".
Another example
John read book.
In Hebrew, we have three actions here, not your two nouns and one verb.
John means "a person who loves doing things"
read is the action of the eyes following word meanings
book is the action of words that have stopped flowing, and are placed completely on a scroll.
"John read a book" is a sentence that has not really changed the meanings of the words. "John read the book" is a sentence that has not really changed the meanings of the words. "the" refers to a special book of word meanings that flowed and are complete on a scroll.
"John was reading the book" is a sentence of time present tense , telling us time for the action. "John has not yet read the book" is a sentence of future action for reading.
You have yet to convince me that the basic meaning of words radically change in the sentences they are placed in.
G4561. sarx sarx, sarx Search for 4561 in KJV probably from the base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specially), a human being (as such):--carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh(-ly).
Can G4561 have so many radically different meanings?
Mr 14:38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. Lu 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, Ac 2:17 I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: 1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 2Co 12:7 there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me,
(I love the KJV sometimes, they translate sarx as 'flesh' and this is very good).
I have chosen these sentences for a reason, they summarize our discussions for the year.
The spirit comes from the HS from the compassion-centre of GOD. The flesh is spoiled by Satan, it says here. God wishes to pour His Spirit unto our flesh. Why is Satan a simile of a thorn in our flesh? What's wrong with our flesh?
SHalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Feb 21, 2021 6:32:04 GMT -5
R" Dave I am no expert in grammar, but arn't these little bits a part of the sentence meaning, not the word meaning? For example take the word "love", In Hebrew it has two meanings "providing-love" and "responding-love" Now you can place these meanings in a sentence, with little bits, add nuisances to the basic meaning.
Sure the sentence might change the overall meaning of the basic word (love), but this change is just a little about the actions over time, with this word, not a brand new different meaning.
You speak as if translation was so simple – as for your - this change is just a little about the actions over time
(wiki) Ancient Greek verbs have four moods (indicative, imperative, subjunctive and optative), three voices (active, middle and passive), as well as three persons (first, second and third) and three numbers (singular, dual and plural).
4 moods x 3 voices x 3 persons x 2 numbers = 72 potential different spellings of one verb
In Biblical Hebrew a Perfect verb is normally used to describe actions that have occurred in the past or actions that are seen as completed (even in present or future time). ... Thus, a Perfect verb has the potential to have 7 finite verb forms: Perfect, Imperfect, Sequential Perfect, Sequential Imperfect, Imperative, Jussive, and Cohortative.
VERBS are inflected to show 1. number-singular, plural, dual 2. gender-masculine and feminine (no neuter) 3. mood-indicative, subjunctive, imperative (by analogy to modern western languages, the relation of the action to reality) 4. tense (aspect)
B. The seven major inflected forms and their basic meaning. In reality these forms work in conjunction with each other in a context and must not be isolated.
1. Qal (Kal), the most common and basic of all the forms. It denotes simple action or a state of being. There is no causation or specification implied.
2. Niphal, the second most common form. It is usually PASSIVE, but this form also functions as reciprocal and reflexive. It also has no causation or specification implied.
3. Piel, this form is active and expresses the bringing about of an action into a state of being. The basic meaning of the Qal stem is developed or extended into a state of being.
4. Pual, this is the PASSIVE counterpart to the Piel. It is often expressed by a PARTICIPLE.
5. Hithpael, which is the reflexive or reciprocal stem. It expresses iterative or durative action to the Piel stem. The rare PASSIVE form is called Hothpael.
6. Hiphil, the active form of the causative stem in contrast to Piel. It can have a permissive aspect, but usually refers to the cause of an event. Ernst Jenni, a German Hebrew grammarian, believed that the Piel denoted something coming into a state of being, while Hiphil showed how it happened.
7. Hophal, the PASSIVE counterpart to the Hiphil. These last two stems are the least used of the seven stems.
4 x 7 =28 different inflections of a single verb
Sure the sentence might change the overall meaning of the basic word (love), but this change is just a little about the actions over time To a depth and scale you overlook in your race to simplify
The KJV translates Strong's G4561 in the following manner: flesh (147x), carnal (2x), carnally minded (with G5427) (1x), fleshly (1x).
Can G4561 have so many radically different meanings?
Mr 14:38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. YES – yester tov wants to – but yester ra enjoys world Lu 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some consider slowness. Rather, He is being patient toward you—not wanting anyone to perish, but for all to come to repentance. Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, YES – God came to earth as a man – Gon incarnate = (God/Christ + (Mind/Body)) Ac 2:17 I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: YES! – The promise of the Comforter – to be awakened – Born Again BUT to use the Ellen White eternal life argument If we are all just HS driven animals – why does God have to pour out more spirit if the spirit is already within us
1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. YES! – the world destroys the flesh – decay 1Co 15:50 Now I say this, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and what decays cannot inherit what does not decay. Joh 3:6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Save the sprit? – whose spirit? - man has no spirit you say The only spirit you acknowledge is the HS that empowers us But then you just said God gives us that same spirit again – that we already have according to you
2Co 12:7 there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, YES – it is called yester ra – biology – the nature of the beast
I have chosen these sentences for a reason, they summarize our discussions for the year.
The spirit comes from the HS from the compassion-centre of GOD. 1- cannot comment on your religious talk ‘compassion center’ - words without definition 2- YES – from God we came – our spirits came from God – agree 3- but you say man has no spirit – we are just biology sustained/empowered by the HS
The flesh is spoiled by Satan, it says here. YES! – yester ra is inherent to biology – instinct – SELF-preservation
God wishes to pour His Spirit unto our flesh. You say He wants to – but already has at birth How can you speak of the spiritual without spirit?
Why is Satan a simile of a thorn in our flesh? What's wrong with our flesh? It is biology (of the world) and all biology comes with a SELF-preservation instinct 100% biology says – SELF – feed self – protect self – alpha self – long live self Spirit says – deny self – focus on the spiritual – let Caesar kill you – go ahead and die for your fellow man – in fact step up and volunteer to die for your fellow man – Jesus Christ did Mat 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
The call of Gnosticism is not to be a Christian – but to become a Christ We are all Sons of God – we all come into this world to witness – only to return to God
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2021 17:06:30 GMT -5
D" You speak as if translation was so simple .....72 potential different spellings of one verb
Can these 72 different spellings of the ROOT verb, be isolated to the ROOT verb?
Can this be done Dave?
Genesis 1 be'rey'shit ba'ra e'lo'him eyt ha'sha'ma'yim we'eyt ha'a'rets 2 we'ha'a'rets hai'tah to'hu wa'vo'hu we'hho'shekh al pe'ney te'hom we'ru'ahh e'lo'him me'ra'hhe'phet al pe'ney ha'ma'yim.
Here is Jeff Benner showing the Hebrew letters of Genesis 1 verses 1 and 2.
Underlined I isolate letters not part of ROOT spellings, these are what humans call prefix and suffix bits.
Notice bara is here in complete spelling. meaning "engineer"
Notice elohim is here in complete spelling. meaning "family-power"
What would be better for me, is to show the Hebrew in its original Ancient Hebrew letters.
SO if you isolate the sentences down to ROOT words, the meanings of those ROOTS come with basic SINGLE meanings.
For example Genesis 1:1 is:
Beginning engineered family-power the skys the earth.
For example Genesis 1:2 is:
Ge 1:2 the earth existed wasteland formless, darkness face deep. the Medium family-power fluttering upon face water
Is you make all the ROOTS have single basic meanings, in English, the translation can begin consistently.
This is what Jeff Benner does consistently in his mechanical translation of Genesis. It is possible to do.
So
1 The Home-Head Beginning engineered (using) family-power the skys (and) the earth. 2 the earth existed wasteland (and) formless. Darkness faced (the) deep. The Medium family-power (was) fluttering upon (the) face (of) water.
My bias from reading ANcient Hebrew, is the prefix "home head" are two letters which describe one of the members of the family power, the home head, being Yashah (spelling is a worry). (we have spoiled the original spelling of ancient Hebrew too)
The Home Head is identified in Ps 2:12, the BR, where we kiss the home head, the seed, or the Son; or the SOWN. remember the verb and noun forms, sow and sown.
D"4 x 7 =28 different inflections of a single verb R " Hmm? I am not sure we fully understand the grammar of ancient Hebrew, we assume it follows the grammar of modern Hebrew, the precepts of man.
I get the use of the tent peg letter meaning "And" or "fullstop", as this letter is the "heavenly father letter" means secure.
I don't get the use of "hey letter", which is really a Being-Behold! In the Genesis 1:2 Jeff Benner suggests "hey" is here? Checked with Hub online, not sure?
D" 2Co 12:7 there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, YES – it is called yester ra – biology – the nature of the beast R" You do not get what "flesh" means Dave. You simply say biology.
Inside the biology is DNA, this is the only biology.
Inside the DNA, is divine information.
Divine information is NOT biology.
Where does this divine code come from? From GOD.
They are divine words embedded inside the DNA.
So we are not talking about biology, biology is merely the machine that does this divine code.
Consider the angel who lives with also this divine code within him. Hang on, do Angels have this divine code within them, doing the process of living for them?
Eze 1:10 As for the likeness <d@muwth> of their faces <paniym>, they four <'arba`> had the face <paniym> of a man <'adam>, and the face <paniym> of a lion <'ariy>, on the right side <yamiyn>: and they four <'arba`> had the face <paniym> of an ox <showr> on the left side <s@mo'wl>; they four <'arba`> also had the face <paniym> of an eagle <nesher>.
The cherub have four functional descriptors, the functions of adam (man) the functions of lion( cunning) the functions of ox (first hebrew letter strong powers) and the functions of the eagle (medium functions of the HS).
So from Ezekiel's prophetic visions, we can say the angels do have divine code inside them similar to human code inside us. If one angel decides to disobey, how is this possible inside the divine coding? Does the divine coding allow for this change in relationship? It must, hence free will to obey or disobey? What changes to the divine code does the act of disobedience do?
The act of disobedience unleashes the aven (genetic propensities within us).
For humans, after the angels sinned, we have an additional source of spoiling the divine code, apart from ourselves disobeying. Sinning angels can now help mankind also sin, spoiling the divine code even faster than the one angel who sinned first all alone.
You do not agree with this idea, saying the archons are not sinning, nor helping mankind to sin even more, these archons are simply self creatures under the will of GOD. And all biology comes with inherit yester ra in it, not from the free will choice to choose disobedience.
I would disagree with this idea. To me yester ra comes from humans choosing to disobey. That the original human Adam had no inherit yester ra inside him, this came in only after Adam sinned.
Not that humans can blame an opposing angel to excuse our own sinning. Humans sin because they choose to. What I am talking about the the origin of sinning came from the father of lies, who was the first angel to have sinned, and has been sinning ever since that time. But you say this angel never sinned telling things to Eve in the garden.
I say the angel did sin in getting Eve to sin in the garden.
He said two basic sins, thus opposing GOD directly:
Ge 3:5 (1) your eyes are currently closed, (2) your living is less than GOD.
Now the lies
(1) your eyes can be opened to see more (2) you can live like GOD , knowing the functional and dysfunctional And to achieve this we miss GOD in our lives, but becoming disobedient.
What else is there beyond GOD? The angel says there is more beyond GOD?
The angel also said something about the result of eating the fruit?
Ge 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
THis is a lie too.
We will not dying die.
OK we argue over the pre fix and suffix of muwth muwth, the fact is the angel opposed the words of GOD.
And opposing the words of GOD makes one an OPPOSER does it not, of GOD?
I see that as soon as Adam ate of the fruit, the DNA divine words inside them, changed immediately. Some words got lost, spoiled, corrupted, maybe even changed by the angel himself?
You do acknowledge this idea?
This change of divine code, caused our covering of GOD to vanish, we become naked. The loss of divine words, changes lots of things, becomes a curse even.
You do acknowledge this idea?
-----
In fact RA means the loss of divine words, originally designed by our Designer. R God wishes to pour His Spirit unto our flesh. D" You say He wants to – but already has at birth How can you speak of the spiritual without spirit?
R" God wants to restore the lost divine words. Is this so simple an idea?
The spiritual changes we receive is the restoration of the divine words we have lost, this is why we must daily support GOD by speaking those divine words we have lost. THis is what faith means, support GOD using His divine words.
D" It is biology (of the world) and all biology comes with a SELF-preservation instinct R NO the Self came from divine words being lost when Adam sinned. His sin also caused the loss of divine words in all of Creation too. Is this unfair?
Ge 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Man was the ruler over all creation, it says here. So Adam's sin would affect all creation.
D" Mat 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. To kill and torture the biology is nothing, as it's just biology.
To kill and destroy the divine code inside the DNA is different. Such code allows for the presence of GOD to be married to you for eternity, and make your biology a living energy.
One is about newspaper, ink and print, merely biochemical mortal stuff. The other is the words on the newspaper are divine, holy and immortal. Words that describe a relationship tot he great uncaused cause, and how this power empowers you.
Shalom
|
|