|
Post by Dave on Jan 21, 2022 16:11:44 GMT -5
ְ 2) רַ חֶ פֶ ת Gen1:2 mrchphth mvibrating scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm ְ רַ חֵ ף Deutronomy 32:11 irchph he-is-mvibrating R" But I note the use of the Hebrew meaning "vibrating" rather than "fluttering", The HS medium, is a simile of a bird, not vibrating but fluttering with its wings? Unless you see the HS as the matrix – medium – ether – the electromagnetic spectrum – that provides all the wavelengths necessary for sub-atomic structureBut you do not want to see the bigger picture - the deeper meaning - all you have is a world of physical biology - and word gamesAnother concern is the pronoun "he vibrates" "His young" His nest and His wings? Contrast this with Hosea 4:19 the ruach is written as "her wings". Trinity – He/She/ It = all the same God You should know – that the subject of the verb is often in the spelling of the word You should know – the verb is always in gender agreement with the subjectE = c2 m God bara the heavens and the earth. It = She and He God = female spirit - male image God = HS - Christ Gen 1:27 God created humankind in His image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. You should learn to translate instead of stumbling over your word games3) Another inconsistency In Psalms 2:11 we have BR translated as purity But in Proverbs 31:2 BR is translated as SON, which is correct. Why the inconsistent translation of the Son of GOD? Are you sure you have the right verses?Psa 2:11 Serve Adonai with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Pro 31:2 O my son, O son of my womb, O son of my vows, Even the Jews understood YHWY as the Son – or the Son is YHWY Just more evidence of the TRINITYStaring right at us from King Solomon - in the ahl - understood long ago Christ in the ahl - Praise the Lord Just a few problems in the translation of the Lengingrad Codex.Since your first post here in Sept 2019 you have yearned to return to original Hebrew Now you find fault with it because it doesn’t agree with your Roman Received text How can you possibly deny that you are a 100% Roman Christian with Roman doctrine Not sure about the actual letters of the codex, unless you give me an online Applo Codex to compare them both against.Why am I responsible for doing your research?You have a high reading comprehension – you say – you have multiple college degrees – you have been a teacher – yet you do not seem to be very serious – you say ypu have been studying scripture in depth for years - yet unable to find the Hebrew for your self You have not been a student of scripture - you have been a disciple of Ellen White www.tanachonline.org/manuscripts/Before you try to read it - you need to read this page www.jdavidstark.com/how-to-find-your-way-around-the-aleppo-codex/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2022 15:47:59 GMT -5
D" You should learn to translate instead of stumbling over your word gamesR Is that an answer, can't you help me? How come Lengingrad makes Deut 32:11 "his wings, his nest, his young" when KJV makes it "her wings, her young, her nest" ? This is a big problem, and I am asking you why the difference? RP "3) Another inconsistency In Psalms 2:11 we have BR translated as purity But in Proverbs 31:2 BR is translated as SON, which is correct. Why the inconsistent translation of the Son of GOD? D" Are you sure you have the right verses?''R" Yes did you look up the link to the codex ? See red square, Seems to me the Applox Codex is a better translation...unless you defend these two queries of mine. D"www.tanachonline.org/manuscripts/ R" takes too long to download, must be huge !! Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jan 22, 2022 17:32:15 GMT -5
D" You should learn to translate instead of stumbling over your word games R Is that an answer, can't you help me? How come Lengingrad makes Deut 32:11 "his wings, his nest, his young" when KJV makes it "her wings, her young, her nest" ? This is a big problem, and I am asking you why the difference? D" You should learn to translate instead of stumbling over your word games R Is that an answer, can't you help me? Yes I will – to the best of my ability – helping is a lot more rewarding than being called ignorantDeu 32:11 As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: How come Lengingrad makes Deut 32:11 "his wings, his nest, his young" when KJV makes it "her wings, her young, her nest" ? This is a big problem, and I am asking you why the difference? KJV = Greek Received text H5404 – נֶשֶׁר – nesher - From an unused root meaning to lacerate; the eagle (or other large bird of prey): - eagle. WLC = origional Hebrew = H1469 גּוֹזָל gowzal (go-zawl') n-m. a nestling (as being comparatively nude of feathers). [from H1497] KJV: young (pigeon). Root(s): H1497 This is a textual different between the Masoretic text and the Roman received text This is the difference between the Greek LXX base and the original HebrewDeu 32:11 ὡς ἀετὸς σκεπάσαι νοσσιὰν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς νεοσσοῖς αὐτοῦ ἐπεπόθησεν, διεὶς τὰς πτέρυγας αὐτοῦ ἐδέξατο αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀνέλαβεν αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν μεταφρένων αὐτοῦ. G105 - ἀετός - From the same as G109; an eagle (from its wind like flight): - eagle. As I understand it – there are 2000 textual differences in 6500 placesHow come Lengingrad makes Deut 32:11 "his wings, his nest, his young" when KJV makes it "her wings, her young, her nest" ? This is a big problem, and I am asking you why the difference? The WLC word = H1469 גּוֹזָל gowzal (go-zawl') n-m.Noun – subject MASCULINE = his wings = his = hisThe KJV word choice = (LXX) G105 - ἀετός – converted to H5404 in the (KJV+) In Greek the LXX should read Deu 32:11 (YLT) As an eagle waketh up its nest, Over its young ones fluttereth, Spreadeth its wings—taketh them, Beareth them on its pinions; REPEAT - your Roman Recieved Text is based upon Ptomoley's (LXX) NOT upon the origional HebrewFor all your talk of returning to the origional Hebrew - you have never met it face to face until now There are (as I remember the numbers) 2000 testual differences in 6500 places What does that mean - not sure exactly - mutliple examples of the same difference probably Your Roman Recieved text is not identical with the Hebrew TanakRP "3) Another inconsistency In Psalms 2:11 we have BR translated as purity But in Proverbs 31:2 BR is translated as SON, which is correct. Why the inconsistent translation of the Son of GOD? D" Are you sure you have the right verses?'' You actually mean Psalms 2:12 + Prov 31:2H1247 בַּר bar (bar) n-m. 1. a son. 2. a grandson, etc. [(Aramaic) corresponding to H1121] KJV: X old, son. Root(s): H1121 Psa 2:12 (KJV) Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, Pro 31:2 (KJV) What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? Same word – same translation = sonD"www.tanachonline.org/manuscripts/ R" takes too long to download, must be huge !! Seems to me the Applox Codex is a better translationYou have not even seen it – where do get your ideas from The Alepo Codex is the same as the WLC – just not complete D"www.tanachonline.org/manuscripts/ R" takes too long to download, must be huge !!Because you are downloading the original images of a precious document kept under glassIt will not have verse markings - or if they do it will not correlated with your KJV www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/rovsig/differences_in_bible_verse_numbering_between/Differences in Bible verse numbering between languages. I'm not sure how to take this, I know NBV21 is using numbering from the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic source edition texts. But so is ESV as far as I understand.
Perhaps one of you can provide some insight edit: I reached out to the publisher of the NBV translation and their response was: We follow Hebrew numbering.
The difference is whether one follows the Masoretic (Hebrew) or Septuagintal (Greek) numbering.
Continental European Bibles seem to follow the Hebrew numbering, while English language Bibles seem to favour the Greek numbering. I suspect this is on account of the KJV's influence, and the relative conservatism of Anglophone translations.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jan 23, 2022 12:00:29 GMT -5
Psalms 2:12 - BR=purity
I have spent more time with your question – it is a good one I do not translate Hebrew – but this is a good example of its difficulties
This is the entire point - what is this word? Take it out of context and it means son – so why purity? My best answer = (and I am no Jeff Brenner) the word BAR here is swallowed / connected / associated with the verb
ַשְּׁ קוּ nshqu (from the interlinear) How is this word spelled? – I cannot answer the question How the word is spelled dictates its meaning
Psa 2:12 (KJV) Kiss the Son, - the verb kiss = H5401 – נָשַׁק - nâshaq - A primitive root (identical with H5400, through the idea of fastening up; compare H2388 and H2836); to kiss, literally or figuratively (touch); also (as a mode of attachment), to equip with weapons: - armed (men), rule, kiss, that touched.
(WLC) = H5400 נָשַׂק nasaq (naw-sak') v. to catch fire.
KJV: burn, kindle.
The WORD Bibe software with the Westminster Morphological codes also include “1836 Treasure of Scriptural Knowledge word chain reference – it adds
Kiss. Gen 41:40; Gen 41:43; Gen 41:44; 1Sam 10:1; 1Kgs 19:18; Hos 13:2; John 5:23 Son. and, etc.Or, "and ye lose the way," or, "and ye perish in the way." The LXX., and Vulgate have, "and ye perish from the righteous way:" and the Syriac, "and ye perish from his way." ye perish. Ps 1:6; John 14:6 when. Ps 2:5; 2Thess 1:8; 2Thess 1:9; Rev 6:16; Rev 6:17; Rev 14:9-11
My best answer = (and I am no Jeff Brenner) the word BAR here is swallowed / connected / associated with the verb
In English – Kiss the son – is very straight forward and simple The Hebrew of the (WLC) expresses the idea of – catching the son on fire – kindling the son – letting the son burn within you
It is more expressive – more flamboyant – more poetic - than just “kiss son” which in English can be a peck on the cheek
Psa 2:12 (LXX) δραξασθε παιδείας,
G1405 - Perhaps akin to the base of G1404 (through the idea of capturing); to grasp, that is, (figuratively) entrap: - take G3809 From G3811; tutorage, that is, education or training; by implication disciplinary correction: - chastening, chastisement, instruction, nurture.
In Greek = (Kiss the son) = grasp/entrap - education /training/chastisement
No matter how you look at it – there is a deeper expression – a deeper meaning than just KISS SON How do they get the word PURITY? - I don't know, must be how they read the poetry - is it any less bizar than - grasp/entrap - education /training/chastisement - or letting the son burn within you?
P.S. - Ponder this
Psa 2:12 (KJV) Kiss the Son, - the verb kiss = H5401 – נָשַׁק - nâshaq - A primitive root (identical with H5400, through the idea of fastening up; compare H2388 and H2836); to kiss, literally or figuratively (touch); also (as a mode of attachment), to equip with weapons: - armed (men), rule, kiss, that touched.
Kiss the son = arm yourself with the son - equip yourself with the son - fastening yourself to the son
Robert - you are the translator - how do you express the depth of this ancient expression in simple English - does just 'kiss the son' do it justice?
I enjoyed this - educational - a glimpse of what scripture really looks like - and the hiddend depth often just over looked
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2022 16:38:37 GMT -5
D" I enjoyed this - educational - a glimpse of what scripture really looks like - and the hiddend depth often just over lookedR" I enjoyed you teaching me, you did an excellent job too. When I confront people from Eastern cultures, they embrace you and kiss your neck, with a hug of welcome, not a Western handshake will do, so yes I admire the way you underwent this study. As for the pronoun "he" hmm? Interesting. Using the masculine form, rather than the feminine form? Eagles have both father and mother eagles, but the Hebrew write the masculine. I do not mind this, because in a community where both He and She exist, the masculine is always recorded, never the feminine, unless it is alone. Thanks for the studies. I will look over the Lengingrad COdex some more, it's a great resource tool. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jan 23, 2022 18:03:03 GMT -5
As for the pronoun "he" hmm? Interesting. Using the masculine form, rather than the feminine form? Eagles have both father and mother eagles, but the Hebrew write the masculine.
NO - it has nothing to do with being a boy or girl eagle - the word eagle is masculin
All language have gender specific words - Greek, Latin, English, Tagalog, Hebrew
Ship is a female word - we allways call ships - as She or Her
Isa 5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, In Hebrew - hell is a bitch
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2022 13:23:39 GMT -5
I see. Than how come Jesus quotes the verse using specifically in reference to the feminine?
Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a "bird" gathereth her "birdlings" under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord
The only reference to this quoting of Scripture, ie faith process is:-
De 32:11 As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: De 32:16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods,
De 32:23 I will heap "RA" upon them;
Question: Does Jesus heap "RA" upon because He wants to, ie creates the RA because Jesus can, or is the RA coming upon Israel because they choose to miss Jesus powers?
What is RA? According to me, RA is caused by the missing of powers from GOD, just as the absence of light creates darkness. Isa 45:7
De 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, De 33:29 Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the LORD, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency!
I find Jesus is quoting briefly these chapters before.
Mt 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Another reference here, to wisdom as a feminine case.
D" Isa 5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, In Hebrew - hell is a bitch
R" Yes, a functional aspect of the Medium, when you walk really far from God, the powers of God are absent, you become lost in your own darkness.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jan 25, 2022 14:44:10 GMT -5
Mt 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Another reference here, to wisdom as a feminine case.
G4678 – σοφία – Sophia – is a female word no matter where it is used
I have no idea of your point – did you make one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2022 13:29:01 GMT -5
Well our SDA church says the Holy Spirit is a "He", using the Lengingrad Codex, for Det 32:11 with "his nest, his wings and his young" one concludes the HS is a "He".
But Jesus quoted this verse using
Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a "bird" gathereth her "birdlings" under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord
So Jesus is stating the feminine side of this nest, and her birdlings and her young. The conclusion now is the HS is a "her".
I wonder what the Applo COdex says for Deu 32:11 ?
SHalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jan 26, 2022 21:47:34 GMT -5
The only reason you are confused is that you deny the Trinity He/She/It there is only one True God
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2022 14:13:42 GMT -5
Mr 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? 37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (KJV)This passage speaks of two errors of Dave. It does not say man will lose his spirit, only lose his soul. In other words man has no spirit that is eternal, that man can call as our own. We can only enter in heaven, if we develop the Spirit of Jesus in our soul. Our old spirit must daily die and remain in the grave, dead. All we have is a soul. The soul requires the relationship of God to it's body, before we become living souls. What if we gain the world but lose our soul? When a Rabbi spoke the spirit lives, he immediately ignores relationship to God. Relationships to God can be eternal, but not all wish to have such a relationship. Because of sin, no relationships can be considered eternal, only probationary, until you choose to be renewed by Jesus, saving you, you enter into His spirit. It is the spirit of Jesus developed in you, that allows you to enter into heaven, not your old spirit in communion with the Spirit of Jesus, as you claim, the old spirit must die in the grave when you also die the death of baptism. You rise in the spirit of Jesus. Second error here is the notion that the Son is an expression of the Father, that both beings are the same being. "when Jesus cometh in the glory of his Father " Notice NOT the Father cometh. Jeff Benner explains elohiym as "elohiym power", nothing more and dares not describe something we should be careful to describe. Does Scripture define elohiym? Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him. 13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory. 14 ¶ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; Elohiym is described here as a Father, and a Son and a HS, as a FAMILY. Why do you also ignore this passage? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My friends on TXTXT, also known as yarn, wrote this German piece "det er lidt kedeligt at være den eneste dansker i denne garnverden, men håber på en dag af få spedt denne trolddom til mange andre her til lands og i resten af verden og ude i rummet en dag måske."' Now I cannot speak German nor translate. But I notice some things "dag" is repeated twice, and mus the the same meaning repeated twice. I wonder if den and denne are related word meanings? og is also repeated twice and should therefore have a single basic meaning, ie repeated twice. Wow it's not German, but Danish "it is a little boring to be the only Dane in this yarn world, but hope one day to get this sorcery sped to many others here on land and in the rest of the world and in space one day perhaps." My humble attempt I discovered "dag" means "day" and "og " means "and". I wonder it this is correct? Not bad for the Robert method, even if I am a child at such things. My point is, words have single basic meanings (common idea, some polyesemy exists), otherwise nobody could translate. Notice my method is not a method of translation, but a method of ensuring the words in Danish are consistent and correct. And I am correct, "dag" means "day" and "og" means "and" , these word have single basic meanings. I suspect garnverden means "world", and while I am clasping at straws here, because the word is only used once. So why does the KJV translate words in Hebrew with more than one different English word? It spoils the consistency of the translation. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jan 29, 2022 4:11:30 GMT -5
Mr 8:36-38 This passage speaks of two errors of Dave. It does not say man will lose his spirit, only lose his soul.
G5590 – ψυχή - From G5594; breath, that is, (by implication) spirit, Soul = Spirit within the physical body Spirit = Soul out of the physical body
In other words man has no spirit that is eternal, that man can call as our own. If you are not you – who are you?
When a Rabbi spoke the spirit lives, he immediately ignores relationship to God. When the Rabbi speaks – he understands your agl/NT better than you do
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
G166 - αἰώνιος - aiōnios - From G165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well): - eternal, for ever, everlasting,
God created the angels as individual beings – they are not human God created the Beast as an individual being – it/they are not human God created man as an independent being – we are called human beings Life lives
What is eternal, ever lasting, perpetual forever about – you are only a product of biological procreation – then you must die – body and spirt -/ soul – only to be resurrected later to die again
Why do you argue against the promise of John 3:16? Why do you argue against the very words of God Himself?
We can only enter in heaven, if we develop the Spirit of Jesus in our soul. We will all enter heaven for judgment – stop pretending you can evad punishment for your own anti-Christian blastophy
2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Messiah, so that each one may receive what is due for the things he did while in the body—whether good or bad.
What if we gain the world but lose our soul? Agree - Scripture – our treasure / reward is in heaven – world will all pass away
Second error here is the notion that the Son is an expression of the Father, that both beings are the same being.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Col 1:17 And he is before all things,
God is the Creator Christ is the Creator Christ is the First Born – and yet was before Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God,
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The Word = God the Creator The Word = Christ the Creator The Word = the Holy Spirit the Creator
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one. Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Even Jesus Christ Himself decaled the same The Jews of His day didn’t get – neither do you
"when Jesus cometh in the glory of his Father " Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Exo 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. No man can see the Father and live – beyond our reality – incomprehensible E = mc2 E is on the other side of the equation than our reality of mc2 Man can experience the GLORY of God = Holy Spirit Man can see the image of the back of God
Jeff Benner explains elohiym as "elohiym power", nothing more and dares not describe something we should be careful to describe.
AND THE ANSWER = elohiym powers can mean anything – many more things than the Godhead
(Jdg 2:3) Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.
Some elohiym powers are OTHER GODS of the Levant – archon – the serpent race – that deceive the whole world
Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him. 13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory. 14 ¶ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
Elohiym is described here as a Father, and a Son and a HS, as a FAMILY. Why do you also ignore this passage?
Your Family idea is a nice sermon – but your sermon does not replace scripture E=mc2 E – the Father is the parent of all the mc2 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, God is the Father of all the angels God is the father of all the archon God is the Father of all the cows God is the father of all the people God is the father of all the cockroaches God is the father of all the trees and rocks God is the father of all the stars and planets
Where do you draw your line – sooner or later you realize you are just teaching pantheism
Is there a level of pantheism in Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth YES (E) FATTENS – enlarges – explodes into c2 and m Spirit – invisible – shaddy – medium – matrix – ether that sustains the ALL – tov and ra – is first in scripture – and is first in cosmology
The 1st Dimension – is a singularity that cannot be located – but contains all data The 2nd Dimension – the planar reality that forms the ether / medium/ matrix / EM Spectrum Soup The 3rd Dimension – the 1st D ((E) – God the Father – expressed through the 2nd D matrix = our 3D Reality
Does God empower all things – YES – at the sub-atomic level AND this is the absolute end to pantheism
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth Every Jewish Rabbi will tell you time is not counted equally for Day 1 Jews and Gnostics (NHL) have a GAP in time – an entire age of spiritual heavens only – before physical creation
The Gnostic First Age – the age of spirit before physical creation The Jews says somethings happened there – Lilith + Adam = shedim Gnostic – Age of Adamus – the perfect race of man
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
During this First Age – the Age of Spirit God created the angels – they are not fragments of God – they are not pieces of the HS (beyond the mathematical sub-atomic level) – they are each created as a unique and individual being God created man – we are not fragments of God – we are not pieces of the HS (beyond the mathematical sub-atomic level) – they are each created as a unique and individual being
THEN THE NEXT STEP
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created … and the earth Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
What is the chaos – the DANCE of SYMMETRY – the interaction of positive and negative forces at the sub-atomic level – The very first step in creation = expansion – fattening – enlarging = distance = time = cooling = waning = Entropy – a by-product or is inherent to physical creation
And from the Left hand – the first sentient was created with some matter – and its only thought was of self (matter / world)
This could be a single individual – or a metaphor Adam and Eve could be two individuals – or a metaphor on mankind (Adam) God created – the cockroaches – and they thought only of self God created the cows – and they only though of themselves And from the Left hand – the first sentient was created with some matter – and its only thought was of self (matter / world)
P.S. Addition Gen 1 God created man - your post - your guy - Gerald Shroder 'this is not the man of Gen 2:7 - that came a 1/2 day later' Gen 1 God created man - of the dust of the ground - animal man - cave man? Factoid - before the flood - could have been as many as 6-8 different homind types Gen 2:7 - animal man + the spirit of man (our spirit) = human beings
We are 100% biology / animal living in a corporeal world Deep inside - we are also (children of God - spirit beings) having a physical souljourn Deep inside - we know (gnosis) heaven and God Deep inside - we know (gnosis) the Torah One day the animal / biology will perish away - leaving only what is Deep inside - the real you - the only part of you that will stand judgment - the only part of you that will feel the shame and embarrasment of not doing better - the only part of you that is eternal / perpetual / everlasting
Unless - you end up in the Lake of Fire = the Seconfd Death - the Death of spirit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I cannot speak German nor translate. But I notice some things Notice my method is not a method of translation, but a method of ensuring the words in Danish are consistent and correct.
So why does the KJV translate words in Hebrew with more than one different English word? It spoils the consistency of the translation. Easy Answer – translation tries to capture the meaning of the text You just want to play a word game – that reveals none of the depth of translation
This was just another large example of how your word games fails to help you grasp the meaning of the text
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2022 15:07:43 GMT -5
D"This was just another large example of how your word games fails to help you grasp the meaning of the text
""R" I play no word game, only alert the reader that every word he/she reads is the same English word. The meaning of each sentence I leave to the reader.
Ps 2:12 Kiss the SEED *,
* BR also 'word pun' on word BN, SON. Poetry image of how we are trees, we begin in Jesus by implanting His SEEDS (words of promised power) in our minds, by faith.
Our translation, could have footnotes every now and than.
As a translator our first priority is to mechanically be true to the Hebrew, it's grammar and word meanings, both verb and noun forms. Than add footnotes, to alert reader to English applications of the Hebrew.
It's also important we translate the Greek in the NT back into Hebrew, so the former and latter rains is the same flavor and meaning. The LXX gives us major clues how to achieve this.
Shalom, be healed.
|
|