"We know from other mistranslations that the author of Matthew wasn't all that great with translating Hebrew, for example not knowing the difference between Almah and Betulah"
Just a few comments:
We do not know the language in which the author of Matthew originally rendered his works. Subjective theories and various speculations abound [ancient quotations and writings from Papias through Jerome - e.g., 2nd through 4th century are quite consistent, for example, in their claims that the original text was rendered in Hebrew, and then later translated into other languages, including Aramaic and Greek. Jerome, for example, asserts that during his day, the text in its original Hebrew language was still available in the Library in Caesarea; a then ancient collection assembled by Pamphilus, and a collection which was used by the Nazarenes in Borea]. I suppose anyone's speculation is likely as valid as any other pure speculation. If it is correct to say that Matthew was rendered originally in Hebrew, there would be no accuracy in claiming that the author of Matthew was translating into Hebrew from some other original language. It is interesting to note, however, that in the Greek versions of Matthew there exist numerous Greek words representing transliterated Hebrew words [ hence, רבי , or rabbí, becomes transliterated into Greek as ῥαββί; ריק or the Hebrew reyq, becomes transliterated into Greek ῥακά; and so on]
The author of Matthew seemed to understand the difference between the Hebrew almah and bethula - and he correctly chose to render the then proper Greek term cognate to almah - that being parthenos, which like almah, meant simply a young woman of marriageable age, unmarried, but often betrothed, and - commonly - virgin. Virginity, however, being only one of many characteristics associated with the use of the term parthenos. Not an uncommon characteristic, but certainly not exclusive. The primary meaning of almah is young woman, a maiden, unmarried, but of age to marry - so likewise is parthenos [for example, parthenos is used in various Greek texts of unmarried women who are not virgins. The chorus portions of Aristophanes' work titled "Clouds" being one of many such uses]. The Septuagint itself uses parthenos in Genesis 34:2-4 in describing Dinah following her sexual violation by Shechem. In all reality, neither Hebrew nor Greek had a specific word as we now do to singularly express exclusively the physical condition of a woman specifically lacking penetration by the male reproductive organ. It is not until the medieval period, as best I can recall, wherein such words, including the then period Latin virgo, began to take on this exclusive meaning.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Psalms 49:15
"What is the root meaning of "soul" in this verse?"
The Hebrew written here [נפשׁי - nun, pey, shin, yud] translated as "soul" is nepheshi, indicating "my soul". The stem word being nephesh [as a substitute for a pronoun, nephesh נפשׁ is often is written with the pronominal suffix yud - as נפשׁי ].
Nephesh is the parent noun from which naphash is derived - that verb form meaning very simply "to take breath" or "to refresh oneself". The original, Hebrew concrete meaning of the word, is simply to breath. Not the breath itself, but rather the act of breathing - specifically, a creature who breathes.
Nephesh is a word which occurs quite early in the biblical texts. "God said, "Let the waters [hayamin] teem with teeming [sherets] living [chayah] creatures [nephesh] ..." - Genesis 1:20, and just following, "And God thus created the great sea-giants and every living [hachayah] being [nephesh] that creeps, with which the waters teemed after their kinds ..."
Creatures who breathe. It was later used in Genesis to describe also what man came to be - a creature who breathes.
In its paleo concrete sense it pictures the function of "reproduction or seed bearing [from the pictograph of the nun] creature or being [from the shin, the two front teeth] who breathes [from the pey, to blow]". Used first of animals and living things not "human" brought forth from the water, which then reproduced, and filled the entire earth, and the air above. Brought forth in the fifth creative-period [or yom], long before "man" enters the scene in the sixth creative-period [or yom]. Man followed animal and other living beings.
It's verb form means to refresh - just as a breathing a few deep breaths by a creature or being who breaths can refresh the life which exists in the blood. Its verb form occurs in Exodus 23:12, "You shall do your work six days, and on the seventh day you shall rest, so that your ox and your ass may rest, and the son of your slave-girl and your alien may be refreshed [naphash]. [LITV]. In its later biblical uses it indicates hunger, desire, emotions - making nephesh a being's [animal or human or creature] very life existence - the whole sum "a life".
"Is it the same as "spirit"?
No, the Hebrew word most often translated by the English word "spirit", is ruach, which is a word concretely meaning an unseen, impersonal force which enacts upon other things. Like the wind causes the leaves of trees to flutter and move about, or like how electricity makes a blender swirl and function.
The KJV version renders Amos 4:13 as "For, lo, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind [ruach], and declareth unto man [...]" The first use of the Hebrew word ruach is in Genesis 1:2, "the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind [ruach] from God sweeping over the water" [Oxford JPS TNK, Jewish Study Bible].
There is no place in any of the Hebrew or Christian Greek biblical texts wherein nephesh and ruach are used in synonymous parallel.
"Is it the same as "life-force"?"
No. Nephesh is manifested, that is, made to be living, as a result of the application of "nishmat-ruach" to flesh and blood according to the bible. All nephesh [animal, man, all cratures who breath] are said to share this same life force, and this same living spirit, which is from God and not a possession of the living being.
"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man. ALL in whose nostrils was the "breath of life" ..." - Genesis 7:22, KJV.
The "breath of life" - "nishmat-ruach chayim", is asserted to be in all of these things. It is therefore not unique to man, and man alone. Elihu says of his God Yhwh, "If that one's spirit [ruach] and breath [neshamah] he would gather to himself, ALL flesh would expire [breath-out] together, and earthling man himself would return to the dust [Job 34:14-15].
Some claim that nephesh is the soul of man which transcends or survives death - yet the bible shows that nephesh dies, and that nephesh is all "creatures who breath"; animal and beast first, humans following. So some claim that it is ruach, specifically nishmat-ruach "the breath of life" which the bible says is unique to man, and survives death as being immortal. Yet the bible itself denies this thought in its very texts - the "spirit' belongs to Yhwh, it is his, it exists in all living beings who breath, and if he should take it back from them, they perish, they die, they no longer live.
"Only, God doth ransom my soul from the hand of Sheol, For He doth receive me" - he provides a ransom, to buy back your life existence for you from the common grave of all mankind - i.e., death. A resurrection - from nonexistence to existence; from nothing to something.
"perhaps nishmat is some strange declension of nephesh. Is this so? If not, then what is the origin of the third term?"
Nishmat is actually a form [declined if you will] of neshamah. Neshamah is a noun derivative [form of] nasham [the "third term"]. Nasham means literally "to pant" [Brown Driver Briggs]. Nasham in its stem form occurs only in Isaiah 42:14, "I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry out like a travailing woman; I will gasp and pant [nesham -נשׁם] together." [ASB, but reads nearly identical in the WEB, ERV, etc].
This noun derivative [neshamah] when used in reference to man or animal generally signifies the breath of the force of life, as in Genesis 7:22 as cited. The Hebrew which transliterates as "kol asher nishmat [breath] ruach [unseen impersonal force] chayim [life] be'apav mikol asher be'charavah metu" can be read as "everything on dry land whose life was sustained by breathing died" [JPS TNK]. Everett Fox's translation "The Five Books of Moses" equally reads "all that had the breath of the rush of life in their nostrils, all that were on firm ground, died".
The only other derivative of nasham is tinshemet, meaning "an animal". Nephesh in its basic Hebrew concrete meaning indicates a creature [of procreation] who breathes [neshamah]. Neshamah, a form of nasham, is used synonomously [in virtual] with, nephesh [you might wish to compare such use in De 20:16; Jos 10:39-40; Jos 11:11; 1 Kings 15:29, and so on] as well as the parallel in Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD [Yhwh] God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath [nishmat] of life [chayim]; and man [ha'adam] became a living [chayah] soul [nephesh]". [KJV].
The record at Genesis 2:7 uses nishmat [declined neshamah] in describing God's causing of the man's body to have animated life so that he became "a living being/creature who breathes".
The TDNT offers the following "Breath may be discerned only in movement [as in the movement of the chest or expanding of the nostrils], and it is also a sign, condition and agent of life, which seems to be especially tied up with breathing". Neshamah/nishmat or "breath" is both the product of the ruach or life, or force of life, and also a principle means [as Thomas Paine in his post above so also notes] of sustaining that force [ruach] of life [chayah] in living creatures who breath [nephesh].
Science might state it similarly as a force of life which is present in every living cell of the body's trillions of cells, and that while millions of said cells may die each minute, constant reproduction [hence the Hebrew's use of the nun in nephesh] of new living cells goes on simultaneously. The continual perpetuation of the force [ruach] of life [chayah] in a living body, be it animal or man or fish or any other living creature who breathes, is dependent upon the air/oxygen which the act of breathing brings into the body. Stop the breathing [neshamah or nasham] and the blood runs out of oxygen, and the creature who breathes [nephesh] will eventually die and cease to exist. Likewise, should God remove his ruach [as mentioned in the former cited biblical verse in Job] and his breath [neshamah or nasham] all living creatures who breath [nephesh] would die. You might find Genesis 9:4 interesting in this regard.
Even in our English vernacular, breathing is nearly inseparably connected with life, so is nephesh impossible absent of neshamah/nasham, and so is neshamah/nasham impossible without God's giving of his ruach.
The Hebrew written here [נפשׁי - nun, pey, shin, yud] translated as "soul" is nepheshi, indicating "my soul". The stem word being nephesh [as a substitute for a pronoun, nephesh נפשׁ is often is written with the pronominal suffix yud - as נפשׁי ].
Nephesh is the parent noun from which naphash is derived - that verb form meaning very simply "to take breath" or "to refresh oneself". The original, Hebrew concrete meaning of the word, is simply to breath. Not the breath itself, but rather the act of breathing - specifically, a creature who breathes.
Nephesh is a word which occurs quite early in the biblical texts. "God said, "Let the waters [hayamin] teem with teeming [sherets] living [chayah] creatures [nephesh] ..." - Genesis 1:20, and just following, "And God thus created the great sea-giants and every living [hachayah] being [nephesh] that creeps, with which the waters teemed after their kinds ..."
Creatures who breathe. It was later used in Genesis to describe also what man came to be - a creature who breathes.
In its paleo concrete sense it pictures the function of "reproduction or seed bearing [from the pictograph of the nun] creature or being [from the shin, the two front teeth] who breathes [from the pey, to blow]". Used first of animals and living things not "human" brought forth from the water, which then reproduced, and filled the entire earth, and the air above. Brought forth in the fifth creative-period [or yom], long before "man" enters the scene in the sixth creative-period [or yom]. Man followed animal and other living beings.
It's verb form means to refresh - just as a breathing a few deep breaths by a creature or being who breaths can refresh the life which exists in the blood. Its verb form occurs in Exodus 23:12, "You shall do your work six days, and on the seventh day you shall rest, so that your ox and your ass may rest, and the son of your slave-girl and your alien may be refreshed [naphash]. [LITV]. In its later biblical uses it indicates hunger, desire, emotions - making nephesh a being's [animal or human or creature] very life existence - the whole sum "a life".
"Is it the same as "spirit"?
No, the Hebrew word most often translated by the English word "spirit", is ruach, which is a word concretely meaning an unseen, impersonal force which enacts upon other things. Like the wind causes the leaves of trees to flutter and move about, or like how electricity makes a blender swirl and function.
The KJV version renders Amos 4:13 as "For, lo, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind [ruach], and declareth unto man [...]" The first use of the Hebrew word ruach is in Genesis 1:2, "the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind [ruach] from God sweeping over the water" [Oxford JPS TNK, Jewish Study Bible].
There is no place in any of the Hebrew or Christian Greek biblical texts wherein nephesh and ruach are used in synonymous parallel.
"Is it the same as "life-force"?"
No. Nephesh is manifested, that is, made to be living, as a result of the application of "nishmat-ruach" to flesh and blood according to the bible. All nephesh [animal, man, all cratures who breath] are said to share this same life force, and this same living spirit, which is from God and not a possession of the living being.
"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man. ALL in whose nostrils was the "breath of life" ..." - Genesis 7:22, KJV.
The "breath of life" - "nishmat-ruach chayim", is asserted to be in all of these things. It is therefore not unique to man, and man alone. Elihu says of his God Yhwh, "If that one's spirit [ruach] and breath [neshamah] he would gather to himself, ALL flesh would expire [breath-out] together, and earthling man himself would return to the dust [Job 34:14-15].
Some claim that nephesh is the soul of man which transcends or survives death - yet the bible shows that nephesh dies, and that nephesh is all "creatures who breath"; animal and beast first, humans following. So some claim that it is ruach, specifically nishmat-ruach "the breath of life" which the bible says is unique to man, and survives death as being immortal. Yet the bible itself denies this thought in its very texts - the "spirit' belongs to Yhwh, it is his, it exists in all living beings who breath, and if he should take it back from them, they perish, they die, they no longer live.
"Only, God doth ransom my soul from the hand of Sheol, For He doth receive me" - he provides a ransom, to buy back your life existence for you from the common grave of all mankind - i.e., death. A resurrection - from nonexistence to existence; from nothing to something.
"perhaps nishmat is some strange declension of nephesh. Is this so? If not, then what is the origin of the third term?"
Nishmat is actually a form [declined if you will] of neshamah. Neshamah is a noun derivative [form of] nasham [the "third term"]. Nasham means literally "to pant" [Brown Driver Briggs]. Nasham in its stem form occurs only in Isaiah 42:14, "I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry out like a travailing woman; I will gasp and pant [nesham -נשׁם] together." [ASB, but reads nearly identical in the WEB, ERV, etc].
This noun derivative [neshamah] when used in reference to man or animal generally signifies the breath of the force of life, as in Genesis 7:22 as cited. The Hebrew which transliterates as "kol asher nishmat [breath] ruach [unseen impersonal force] chayim [life] be'apav mikol asher be'charavah metu" can be read as "everything on dry land whose life was sustained by breathing died" [JPS TNK]. Everett Fox's translation "The Five Books of Moses" equally reads "all that had the breath of the rush of life in their nostrils, all that were on firm ground, died".
The only other derivative of nasham is tinshemet, meaning "an animal". Nephesh in its basic Hebrew concrete meaning indicates a creature [of procreation] who breathes [neshamah]. Neshamah, a form of nasham, is used synonomously [in virtual] with, nephesh [you might wish to compare such use in De 20:16; Jos 10:39-40; Jos 11:11; 1 Kings 15:29, and so on] as well as the parallel in Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD [Yhwh] God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath [nishmat] of life [chayim]; and man [ha'adam] became a living [chayah] soul [nephesh]". [KJV].
The record at Genesis 2:7 uses nishmat [declined neshamah] in describing God's causing of the man's body to have animated life so that he became "a living being/creature who breathes".
The TDNT offers the following "Breath may be discerned only in movement [as in the movement of the chest or expanding of the nostrils], and it is also a sign, condition and agent of life, which seems to be especially tied up with breathing". Neshamah/nishmat or "breath" is both the product of the ruach or life, or force of life, and also a principle means [as Thomas Paine in his post above so also notes] of sustaining that force [ruach] of life [chayah] in living creatures who breath [nephesh].
Science might state it similarly as a force of life which is present in every living cell of the body's trillions of cells, and that while millions of said cells may die each minute, constant reproduction [hence the Hebrew's use of the nun in nephesh] of new living cells goes on simultaneously. The continual perpetuation of the force [ruach] of life [chayah] in a living body, be it animal or man or fish or any other living creature who breathes, is dependent upon the air/oxygen which the act of breathing brings into the body. Stop the breathing [neshamah or nasham] and the blood runs out of oxygen, and the creature who breathes [nephesh] will eventually die and cease to exist. Likewise, should God remove his ruach [as mentioned in the former cited biblical verse in Job] and his breath [neshamah or nasham] all living creatures who breath [nephesh] would die. You might find Genesis 9:4 interesting in this regard.
Even in our English vernacular, breathing is nearly inseparably connected with life, so is nephesh impossible absent of neshamah/nasham, and so is neshamah/nasham impossible without God's giving of his ruach.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Jesus' Brothers or Cousins ?
Anepsios. Anepsios is the koine Greek word for cousin. Paul used it to describe the relationship which existed between Mark and Barnabas [Colossians 4:10], so with its use he was quite familiar.
Yet, Paul specifically does not use anepsios to describe James, the "brother' of Jesus in Galatians 1:19.
The Greek word used most commonly for "brother" is adelphos, and it specifically indicates "sons of the same mother". Cousins, of course, are not sons of the same mother
It can however, when used as an adjective, indicate brotherly, even sisterly, in describing a relationship of character. It is not, however, employed as an adjective, in Matthew 13:55-56a, for just one example, which reads "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called Mary, and his brothers [adelphoi], James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? Aren't all of his sisters [adelphai] with us?"
Apparently, according to the Bible at least, Jesus had several brothers and sisters [from the same mother by defnition]. Josephus apparently believed the same as he refers to James "the Just" as the brother [son of the same mother] of Jesus.
Yet, Paul specifically does not use anepsios to describe James, the "brother' of Jesus in Galatians 1:19.
The Greek word used most commonly for "brother" is adelphos, and it specifically indicates "sons of the same mother". Cousins, of course, are not sons of the same mother
It can however, when used as an adjective, indicate brotherly, even sisterly, in describing a relationship of character. It is not, however, employed as an adjective, in Matthew 13:55-56a, for just one example, which reads "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called Mary, and his brothers [adelphoi], James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? Aren't all of his sisters [adelphai] with us?"
Apparently, according to the Bible at least, Jesus had several brothers and sisters [from the same mother by defnition]. Josephus apparently believed the same as he refers to James "the Just" as the brother [son of the same mother] of Jesus.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Sari's Post on Elohim
Moses being qualitatively labeled "a god"; Israel's human judges being qualitatively labeled "a god"; the entire "heavenly host" of beings, angels, or malak, being qualitatively labeled "gods". Figures of wood and stone being labeled "gods". And the differences between false and true being predicated upon the almighty's appointment of those called "a god" or "gods" [true] and man's appointment of those called "a god" or "gods". A singular word was used in cases - elohim [eloah singular]. The Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word is theos.
The meaning of the original Hebrew word is preserved in its paleographic representation; the ox [aleph] for strength, the staff [lamed] for authority and leadership, the little guy with is arms raised [hey] for a wonderous sign at power works and events.
It in itself is not a name, but a title, applied by many to many others, and most importantly, applied to some appointed to a position of such strong leadership and authority, such as Moses, the Israeli human judges, and even his own son, who was to become the Christ, and ruling king by direct appointment - indeed, by the authority granted him directly by Yhwh for rulership, and a kingdom, the one appointed and authorized to make real the resurrection and bring forth Yhwh's intended purpose for the very creation itself - his only begotten son, Jesus, John was aware to qualitatively label him "a god", and further detailed and described the origins of this one selected by Yhwh.
Application of this label, this title, to Jesus no more makes Jesus equal to Yhwh than it made Moses equal to Yhwh when applied to him, nor the judges equal to Yhwh when applied to them, nor the angels, when applied to them.
For in the Hebrew biblical world - there is only one exclusive recognition and exaltation of one source of all power, all authority, and all creativity above all other sources of power, authority, and creativity which are themselves dependent upon that one single source. From that one source, all other things owe their very existence. In my opinion, that it is description of the biblically presented "monotheism".
This definition may not meet the more modern developed definitions which forbid applying a title of elohim or theos to any being other than one being. For me, that is not my concern, because this more modern definition is not reflective of the biblical texts which did apply a title of elohim or theos to many beings, other than the one being.
The ancient biblical world described in the Hebrew and Christian texts was not one where there were no other gods in existence, indeed, there were many. Sufficient enough numbers so that the first directive given by Jehovah in the wilderness was "I am Yhwh your god, who have brought you out of land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face" [or before me].
The directive issued above does not say that you will not believe it inappropriate to apply the title elohim [god] to any other being, for even Yhwh himself does so in Exodus just prior to giving such directive. No, the directive states "You must not have any other gods before me"
He then goes on to state, "because I Yhwh your god am a god exacting exclusive devotion."
No god, no person, no being, no creature, no facsimile of anything at anytime, should ever be exalted before, ahead of, or higher than Yhwh. Not Moses [a god so called by Yhwh]; not the angels/malak/messengers/heavenly host [called gods by Yhwh]; not the human judges [also called gods]; and not even Jesus, his own son [called a god by John].
These things whether titled man, plant, spirit, being, judge, angel, son of God, elohim or theos [a strong leader of authorty] should never be given the recognition and exaltation given exclusively to the only true source of life and existence possible - the only true God upon which all other gods, people, creatures, plants, beings, depend for their very existence. Not only do no gods exists apart from Yhwh, nothing exists apart from Yhwh [biblical cites provided if you are interested - but I suspect you already know of what cites I am speaking of]
In other words, the exclusive recognition and exaltation of the one source of all power, all authority, and all creativity above all other sources of power, authority, and creativity which are themselves dependent upon that one single source. From that one source, all other things owe their very existence.
And within this definition, which runs not inconsistently with the biblical depiction, John's use of theos specifically in a qualitative manner certainly does not oppose the biblical depiction of monotheism and its relationship with Yhwh.
Now, on the other hand, you apparently do have concern about John's use of theos [one of strong authoritative leader]to qualitatively describe Jesus, the Christ.
And from what I have observed, that objection manifests primarily because one's definition of "monotheism" [most likely the modern conception] does not reflect the biblical depiction of "monotheism", and most people are not aware of how the terms elohim and theos are actually used in the biblical texts.
And so they struggle, as indeed those in Nicea struggled, as what to make of Jesus, God's own son.
To avoid a problem which was their own created perception, they chose to "make Jesus God". A few years later, they even added an impersonal, unseen force, which reacts upon other things, and made it God as well. So now there were three - three manifestations of the one. Which quite frankly, places it on level ground with how the Hindu viewed Brahman and his sidekicks. Yet those in Nicea would have been the first to accuse the Hindu of being polytheistic.
And so they now give their exclusive recognition and exaltation, not to the one source of all power, all authority, and all creativity above all other sources of power, authority, and creativity - no indeed, they give recognition and devotion to Yhwh's son, rather than Yhwh, and to an inanimate force [ruach] rather than to Yhwh himself.
In my opinion, they then are in violation of his directive given, "You must not have any other gods before me ...because I Yhwh your god am a god exacting exclusive devotion."
The meaning of the original Hebrew word is preserved in its paleographic representation; the ox [aleph] for strength, the staff [lamed] for authority and leadership, the little guy with is arms raised [hey] for a wonderous sign at power works and events.
It in itself is not a name, but a title, applied by many to many others, and most importantly, applied to some appointed to a position of such strong leadership and authority, such as Moses, the Israeli human judges, and even his own son, who was to become the Christ, and ruling king by direct appointment - indeed, by the authority granted him directly by Yhwh for rulership, and a kingdom, the one appointed and authorized to make real the resurrection and bring forth Yhwh's intended purpose for the very creation itself - his only begotten son, Jesus, John was aware to qualitatively label him "a god", and further detailed and described the origins of this one selected by Yhwh.
Application of this label, this title, to Jesus no more makes Jesus equal to Yhwh than it made Moses equal to Yhwh when applied to him, nor the judges equal to Yhwh when applied to them, nor the angels, when applied to them.
For in the Hebrew biblical world - there is only one exclusive recognition and exaltation of one source of all power, all authority, and all creativity above all other sources of power, authority, and creativity which are themselves dependent upon that one single source. From that one source, all other things owe their very existence. In my opinion, that it is description of the biblically presented "monotheism".
This definition may not meet the more modern developed definitions which forbid applying a title of elohim or theos to any being other than one being. For me, that is not my concern, because this more modern definition is not reflective of the biblical texts which did apply a title of elohim or theos to many beings, other than the one being.
The ancient biblical world described in the Hebrew and Christian texts was not one where there were no other gods in existence, indeed, there were many. Sufficient enough numbers so that the first directive given by Jehovah in the wilderness was "I am Yhwh your god, who have brought you out of land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face" [or before me].
The directive issued above does not say that you will not believe it inappropriate to apply the title elohim [god] to any other being, for even Yhwh himself does so in Exodus just prior to giving such directive. No, the directive states "You must not have any other gods before me"
He then goes on to state, "because I Yhwh your god am a god exacting exclusive devotion."
No god, no person, no being, no creature, no facsimile of anything at anytime, should ever be exalted before, ahead of, or higher than Yhwh. Not Moses [a god so called by Yhwh]; not the angels/malak/messengers/heavenly host [called gods by Yhwh]; not the human judges [also called gods]; and not even Jesus, his own son [called a god by John].
These things whether titled man, plant, spirit, being, judge, angel, son of God, elohim or theos [a strong leader of authorty] should never be given the recognition and exaltation given exclusively to the only true source of life and existence possible - the only true God upon which all other gods, people, creatures, plants, beings, depend for their very existence. Not only do no gods exists apart from Yhwh, nothing exists apart from Yhwh [biblical cites provided if you are interested - but I suspect you already know of what cites I am speaking of]
In other words, the exclusive recognition and exaltation of the one source of all power, all authority, and all creativity above all other sources of power, authority, and creativity which are themselves dependent upon that one single source. From that one source, all other things owe their very existence.
And within this definition, which runs not inconsistently with the biblical depiction, John's use of theos specifically in a qualitative manner certainly does not oppose the biblical depiction of monotheism and its relationship with Yhwh.
Now, on the other hand, you apparently do have concern about John's use of theos [one of strong authoritative leader]to qualitatively describe Jesus, the Christ.
And from what I have observed, that objection manifests primarily because one's definition of "monotheism" [most likely the modern conception] does not reflect the biblical depiction of "monotheism", and most people are not aware of how the terms elohim and theos are actually used in the biblical texts.
And so they struggle, as indeed those in Nicea struggled, as what to make of Jesus, God's own son.
To avoid a problem which was their own created perception, they chose to "make Jesus God". A few years later, they even added an impersonal, unseen force, which reacts upon other things, and made it God as well. So now there were three - three manifestations of the one. Which quite frankly, places it on level ground with how the Hindu viewed Brahman and his sidekicks. Yet those in Nicea would have been the first to accuse the Hindu of being polytheistic.
And so they now give their exclusive recognition and exaltation, not to the one source of all power, all authority, and all creativity above all other sources of power, authority, and creativity - no indeed, they give recognition and devotion to Yhwh's son, rather than Yhwh, and to an inanimate force [ruach] rather than to Yhwh himself.
In my opinion, they then are in violation of his directive given, "You must not have any other gods before me ...because I Yhwh your god am a god exacting exclusive devotion."
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Authorized in "His Name"
For simplification purposes, let's just select out Abraham and Moses for the time being, and make a biblical comparison [we could accomplish the same with any of the human characters before Moses, and can if you wish, but the preference seems to be with Abraham, so let's start there]. Setting the character and personality analysis aside for a moment [as a character and personality analysis is not needed in order to spot the unique difference] in order to simply focus upon the how and what within the conversations according to the biblical text we find the following:
Abraham:
Now Moses:
In both Abraham and Moses' interaction with Yhwh, Yhwh issues commands, and they comply. And in both cases, Yhwh makes promises to them. These are not unique between the two situations, but are similar.
But in no instance did Yhwh state that Abraham should go to any third party, and declare that he came in the name of Yhwh. Additionally, there is no instance in which Yhwh empowered Abraham to perform miracles. Such is the case whether we speak of Yhwh's associations and conversations with Adam, Cain, Abel, Enoch, Noah, what have you, all those before Moses.
It is in this sense in which the relationship with Moses is unique - he was the first to be commissioned specifically to go in His memorial name Yhwh [Jehovah or Yehovah]. - Exodus 3:1-5.
No other one before him was commanded to "go in his name". Thus Yhwh specifically "appointed" Moses as his prophet and representative, and Moses could now correctly be called an "anointed one", or "messiah", or "the Christ" as at Hebrews 11:26. Yhwh, through the angel, provided credentials that Moses could present to the older men of Israel - these being in the form of three miracles as signs. Here also, for the first time in the Scriptures, we read of a human empowered to perform miracles in the name of Yhwh [Exodus 4:1-9].
He was commissioned in Yhwh's name, and authorized in Yhwh's name as both a prophet, and to perform miracles. - he was to represent to men an authorized representative of Yhwh, the only true god.
Is it here also, that the for the first time, the scriptures inform us that Yhwh applied the title of "elohim" to a human being.
Perhaps this helps address your question regarding your classification of elohim under your category 3.2.1 as distinguished between category 3.2.2 - true verses false elohim - authorized elohim, verses not authorized elohim.
The key being, coming in His name, his representative, and the credentials to prove it to others. Coming in His name - you might recall some of Jesus' own statements in this very regard.
Another post to come today from me - one which specifically responds to your posts - but must run out and get some fish to eat for the coming week - gotta eat you know J Be back in a bit
Abraham:
Yhwh commanded him to move out to a strange land, away from his relatives and friends, and so he did [Genesis 12:1-4};
Yhwh promised to him his seed to become a great nation [Genesis 12:2; 12:7; Genesis 13:14-16; Genesis 15:5-7];
Yhwh promised him an heir of his own seed [Genesis 15:4];
Yhwh commanded him to sacrifice, and so he did, securing the covenant made [Genesis 15:8-21;
Yhwh promises him not only a nation, but a crowd of nations [Genesis 17:4-5];
Yhwh commands him regarding circumcision, and he complies [Genesis 17:10-14; Genesis 17:22-27; Genesis 21:4];
Yhwh promises him a son from Sarah, to be a father of 12 tribes [Genesis 17:15-21];
Yhwh reaffirms his promise to Abraham for a son with Sarah [Genesis 18:14];
Yhwh and Abraham discuss the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah [Genesis 18:20-33];
Yhwh fulfill his promise to Abraham regarding a son from Sarah [Genesis 21:1-4];
Yhwh commands Abraham to take Isaac to Moriah and offer him as a sacrifice, and Abraham complies - Yhwh reconfirms his promise for a nation and a crowd of nations [Genesis 22:1-2; ].
Now Moses:
Yhwh commands Moses to remove the sandals from his feet [Exodus 3:5];
Yhwh informs Moses of his plan to go down to Egypt to free his people [Exodus 3:7-9];
Yhwh informs Moses that he will send him [Moses] to Pharaoh on his [Yhwh] behalf to accomplish Yhwh will to free those in Egypt [Exodus 3:10];
Yhwh promises to be with him [Exodus 3:12];
Yhwh specifically instructs Moses to go in His[Yhwh] name, and in fact, tells Moses of the name he had selected for himself, Yhwh [Exodus 3:15];
Yhwh empowers Moses to perform miracles in his [Yhwh] name as credential and proof that he has come in Yhwh's name [Exodus 4:1-9; Exodus 4:17];
Yhwh allows for Aaron at Moses request - therefore Yhwh to instruct Moses, Moses to instruct Aaron [Exodus 4:10-15];
Yhwh states therefore and promises that Moses will serve as God to Aaron [Exodus 4:16];
Moses and Aaron comply with the command to the people [Exodus 4:30-31];
Moses and Aaron speak to Pharaoh in the name of Yhwh [Exodus 5];
Yhwh continues to provide Moses commands, and tells Moses to go and proclaim such to Pharaoh in his [Yhwh's] name [Exodus 6];
Yhwh tells Moses that he has made him god to Pharaoh [Exodus 7:1].
In both Abraham and Moses' interaction with Yhwh, Yhwh issues commands, and they comply. And in both cases, Yhwh makes promises to them. These are not unique between the two situations, but are similar.
But in no instance did Yhwh state that Abraham should go to any third party, and declare that he came in the name of Yhwh. Additionally, there is no instance in which Yhwh empowered Abraham to perform miracles. Such is the case whether we speak of Yhwh's associations and conversations with Adam, Cain, Abel, Enoch, Noah, what have you, all those before Moses.
It is in this sense in which the relationship with Moses is unique - he was the first to be commissioned specifically to go in His memorial name Yhwh [Jehovah or Yehovah]. - Exodus 3:1-5.
No other one before him was commanded to "go in his name". Thus Yhwh specifically "appointed" Moses as his prophet and representative, and Moses could now correctly be called an "anointed one", or "messiah", or "the Christ" as at Hebrews 11:26. Yhwh, through the angel, provided credentials that Moses could present to the older men of Israel - these being in the form of three miracles as signs. Here also, for the first time in the Scriptures, we read of a human empowered to perform miracles in the name of Yhwh [Exodus 4:1-9].
He was commissioned in Yhwh's name, and authorized in Yhwh's name as both a prophet, and to perform miracles. - he was to represent to men an authorized representative of Yhwh, the only true god.
Is it here also, that the for the first time, the scriptures inform us that Yhwh applied the title of "elohim" to a human being.
Perhaps this helps address your question regarding your classification of elohim under your category 3.2.1 as distinguished between category 3.2.2 - true verses false elohim - authorized elohim, verses not authorized elohim.
The key being, coming in His name, his representative, and the credentials to prove it to others. Coming in His name - you might recall some of Jesus' own statements in this very regard.
Another post to come today from me - one which specifically responds to your posts - but must run out and get some fish to eat for the coming week - gotta eat you know J Be back in a bit
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
On Fire
Post from SARI:
In Bible times fire played an important role, it was used for refining, forging, casting of metals, along with the preparing of food, heating homes, as well as the offering of sacrifices and the burning of incense. However, because of the destructiveness of a fire that is uncontrolled, James compared the tongue when used wrongly to a fire.—Jas 3:5-8; compare Pr 16:27.
The Bible also uses the imagery of fire to reveal the true quality of faith, can it withstand the fiery tests which are inevitable. The apostle Paul points this out when emphasizing the importance of building on Jesus Christ with fire-resistant materials.—1Co 3:10-15.
Verse 15 is interesting and raises an important question. In order to come to the correct understanding of this verse, one must go back to what Jesus command was to his disciples after his resurrection. This command is found at Matthew 28:19,20 “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations…teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you…”
If we are doing what Jesus commanded and the person(s) we are endeavoring to help falls away from the truth, does that mean that we failed as teachers—that we must have built with inferior materials?
That may not necessarily be the case. Paul’s words certainly remind us that it is a great responsibility to share in building disciples and we would want to do everything in our power to build well. But God’s Word is not telling us to shoulder the whole responsibility and become burdened with guilt when those whom we seek to help turn away from the truth.
There are other factors that come into play besides our own role as builders. For example, notice what Paul says regarding even the teacher who has done a poor job in this building work: “He will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved.” (1 Corinthians 3:15)
The teacher may eventually gain salvation—whereas the Christian personality he endeavored to build in the student is pictured as being “burned up” in a fiery test—we must conclude that Almighty God holds the student primarily responsible for his/her own decisions as to whether he/she will follow a faithful course or not. Ezekiel 3:19 helps one get the full sense of what Paul is discussing. “But as for you, in case you have warned someone wicked and he does not actually turn back from his wickedness and from his wicked way, he himself for his error will die; but as for you, you will have delivered your own soul.”
Now, going back to the first part of the text that you quoted, we understand that Paul saw that when the building work [building of believers] in Corinth was not done properly, worldly traits, such as sectarianism and dissension, took root. This was dangerous because, as he explained, “the fire itself will prove what sort of work each one’s is.”—1 Corinthians 3:13.
What then, is the fire? It may be any test that Satan brings upon a Christian. It may be peer pressure, fleshly temptation, materialism, persecution, even the corrosive influence of doubts. We know for a certainty that these tests are sure to come. Therefore, in each case “Each one’s work will become manifest, for the day will show it up, because it will be revealed by means of fire.[testing]
1 Peter 4:17 informs us that mankind has entered into a period of judgment and that this judgment started “with the house of God”. What does this mean? Those professing to be of “the house of God,” have been under judgment during their Christian life course, beginning with the first of their number at Pentecost 33 C.E. However, during Christ’s Parousia he” would again make an inspection of those professing to be of the “house of God“, those organizations who profess Christianity and to be of the heavenly kingdom. This judgment of professed Christian organizations has been apparent since the period called “the last days“ began.
Jesus said by their fruits they will be recognized, identified. What has Jesus seen during his inspection of those who carry his name? He has seen those claiming to be of the faithful and discreet slave class actually being part of the harlot, committing spiritual prostitution with the kings of the earth, blessing war weapons, complicit in sacrificing young men and women to die on the altar to the god of war. They have actually abandoned the teachings of the Bible and reverted to pagan ideologies i.e hellfire, immortal soul, trinity, a clergy class et al.
Yes, the judgment, as Ezekiel 9:5,6 said, will start with the house of God “Pass through the city after him and strike. Let not your eye feel sorry, and do not feel any compassion.
6 Old man, young man and virgin and little child and women YOU should kill off—to a ruination. But to any man upon whom there is the mark do not go near, and from my sanctuary YOU should start.” So they started with the old men that were before the house.
Is the destruction indiscriminate? The answer is no - because just prior this judgment Ezekiel 9:3,4 states: “And as regards the glory of the God of Israel, it was taken up from over the cherubs over which it happened to be to the threshold of the house, and he began calling out to the man that was clothed with the linen, at whose hips there was the secretary’s inkhorn.
4 And JAH went on to say to him: “Pass through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and you must put a mark on the foreheads of the men that are sighing and groaning over all the detestable things that are being done in the midst of it.”
Are the clergy class of Christendom been marked for preservation? Has that man clothed in clean fine linen passed over the organizations professing Christ ? Have the organizations of Christendom been found lacking?
As for the apostle Peter’s mention of fire, this would refer to trials or sufferings as a “fire” that proves the quality of the Christian’s faith. (1Pe 1:6, 7) Then later, he likens suffering for righteousness to a burning when he tells his fellow Christians: “Do not be puzzled at the burning among you, which is happening to you for a trial, . . . you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory.” (1Pe 4:12, 13) That such suffering for righteousness has a beneficial effect is pointed out by the apostle Paul when he says: “Tribulation produces endurance.” (Ro 5:3) A person who faithfully and successfully passes through a difficult “burning” trial is stronger and more solidly established as a result of his endurance.—Ac 14:22; Ro 12:12.
The Scriptures refer to Almighty God as a consuming fire because of his cleanness, purity, and insistence on exclusive devotion, as well as the fact that he annihilates those who set themselves in opposition to him. (De 4:24; 9:3) His ardor and rage burn like fire, and his “tongue” and word are like a fire. (Ps 79:5; 89:46; Isa 30:27; Jer 23:29) Moreover, JAH makes his angelic ministers a devouring fire, and by the fire of his zeal “the earth” will be devoured.—Ps 104:1, 4; Zep 3:8; see also Da 7:9, 10.
JAH himself is referred to as a refiner. His Word is highly refined. (2Sa 22:31; Ps 18:30; 119:140; Pr 30:5) This tried and tested Word is one means by which God purifies his people in removing all sinful dross/scum of uncleanness. (Ps 17:3; 26:2; 105:19; Da 12:9, 10; Mal 3:3) Fiery trials also refine the faithful. (Isa 48:10; Da 11:35; Zec 13:9; compare 1Pe 1:6, 7.) The wicked, on the other hand, are judged as nothing more than scummy dross, fit only for the worthless slag heap.—Ps 119:119; Pr 25:4, 5; Eze 22:18-20.
What do you think of these two sections? Is the fire in both places a spiritual or physical aspect? Also, when does this judgement on the house of God start? Has it started already?
In Bible times fire played an important role, it was used for refining, forging, casting of metals, along with the preparing of food, heating homes, as well as the offering of sacrifices and the burning of incense. However, because of the destructiveness of a fire that is uncontrolled, James compared the tongue when used wrongly to a fire.—Jas 3:5-8; compare Pr 16:27.
The Bible also uses the imagery of fire to reveal the true quality of faith, can it withstand the fiery tests which are inevitable. The apostle Paul points this out when emphasizing the importance of building on Jesus Christ with fire-resistant materials.—1Co 3:10-15.
1 Cor. 3:12-15 (KJV) Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; [13] Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. [14] If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. [15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Verse 15 is interesting and raises an important question. In order to come to the correct understanding of this verse, one must go back to what Jesus command was to his disciples after his resurrection. This command is found at Matthew 28:19,20 “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations…teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you…”
If we are doing what Jesus commanded and the person(s) we are endeavoring to help falls away from the truth, does that mean that we failed as teachers—that we must have built with inferior materials?
That may not necessarily be the case. Paul’s words certainly remind us that it is a great responsibility to share in building disciples and we would want to do everything in our power to build well. But God’s Word is not telling us to shoulder the whole responsibility and become burdened with guilt when those whom we seek to help turn away from the truth.
There are other factors that come into play besides our own role as builders. For example, notice what Paul says regarding even the teacher who has done a poor job in this building work: “He will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved.” (1 Corinthians 3:15)
The teacher may eventually gain salvation—whereas the Christian personality he endeavored to build in the student is pictured as being “burned up” in a fiery test—we must conclude that Almighty God holds the student primarily responsible for his/her own decisions as to whether he/she will follow a faithful course or not. Ezekiel 3:19 helps one get the full sense of what Paul is discussing. “But as for you, in case you have warned someone wicked and he does not actually turn back from his wickedness and from his wicked way, he himself for his error will die; but as for you, you will have delivered your own soul.”
Now, going back to the first part of the text that you quoted, we understand that Paul saw that when the building work [building of believers] in Corinth was not done properly, worldly traits, such as sectarianism and dissension, took root. This was dangerous because, as he explained, “the fire itself will prove what sort of work each one’s is.”—1 Corinthians 3:13.
What then, is the fire? It may be any test that Satan brings upon a Christian. It may be peer pressure, fleshly temptation, materialism, persecution, even the corrosive influence of doubts. We know for a certainty that these tests are sure to come. Therefore, in each case “Each one’s work will become manifest, for the day will show it up, because it will be revealed by means of fire.[testing]
1 Peter 4:17 (KJV) For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
1 Peter 4:17 informs us that mankind has entered into a period of judgment and that this judgment started “with the house of God”. What does this mean? Those professing to be of “the house of God,” have been under judgment during their Christian life course, beginning with the first of their number at Pentecost 33 C.E. However, during Christ’s Parousia he” would again make an inspection of those professing to be of the “house of God“, those organizations who profess Christianity and to be of the heavenly kingdom. This judgment of professed Christian organizations has been apparent since the period called “the last days“ began.
Jesus said by their fruits they will be recognized, identified. What has Jesus seen during his inspection of those who carry his name? He has seen those claiming to be of the faithful and discreet slave class actually being part of the harlot, committing spiritual prostitution with the kings of the earth, blessing war weapons, complicit in sacrificing young men and women to die on the altar to the god of war. They have actually abandoned the teachings of the Bible and reverted to pagan ideologies i.e hellfire, immortal soul, trinity, a clergy class et al.
Yes, the judgment, as Ezekiel 9:5,6 said, will start with the house of God “Pass through the city after him and strike. Let not your eye feel sorry, and do not feel any compassion.
6 Old man, young man and virgin and little child and women YOU should kill off—to a ruination. But to any man upon whom there is the mark do not go near, and from my sanctuary YOU should start.” So they started with the old men that were before the house.
Is the destruction indiscriminate? The answer is no - because just prior this judgment Ezekiel 9:3,4 states: “And as regards the glory of the God of Israel, it was taken up from over the cherubs over which it happened to be to the threshold of the house, and he began calling out to the man that was clothed with the linen, at whose hips there was the secretary’s inkhorn.
4 And JAH went on to say to him: “Pass through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and you must put a mark on the foreheads of the men that are sighing and groaning over all the detestable things that are being done in the midst of it.”
Are the clergy class of Christendom been marked for preservation? Has that man clothed in clean fine linen passed over the organizations professing Christ ? Have the organizations of Christendom been found lacking?
As for the apostle Peter’s mention of fire, this would refer to trials or sufferings as a “fire” that proves the quality of the Christian’s faith. (1Pe 1:6, 7) Then later, he likens suffering for righteousness to a burning when he tells his fellow Christians: “Do not be puzzled at the burning among you, which is happening to you for a trial, . . . you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory.” (1Pe 4:12, 13) That such suffering for righteousness has a beneficial effect is pointed out by the apostle Paul when he says: “Tribulation produces endurance.” (Ro 5:3) A person who faithfully and successfully passes through a difficult “burning” trial is stronger and more solidly established as a result of his endurance.—Ac 14:22; Ro 12:12.
Hebrews 12:29 (KJV) For our God is a consuming fire.
The Scriptures refer to Almighty God as a consuming fire because of his cleanness, purity, and insistence on exclusive devotion, as well as the fact that he annihilates those who set themselves in opposition to him. (De 4:24; 9:3) His ardor and rage burn like fire, and his “tongue” and word are like a fire. (Ps 79:5; 89:46; Isa 30:27; Jer 23:29) Moreover, JAH makes his angelic ministers a devouring fire, and by the fire of his zeal “the earth” will be devoured.—Ps 104:1, 4; Zep 3:8; see also Da 7:9, 10.
JAH himself is referred to as a refiner. His Word is highly refined. (2Sa 22:31; Ps 18:30; 119:140; Pr 30:5) This tried and tested Word is one means by which God purifies his people in removing all sinful dross/scum of uncleanness. (Ps 17:3; 26:2; 105:19; Da 12:9, 10; Mal 3:3) Fiery trials also refine the faithful. (Isa 48:10; Da 11:35; Zec 13:9; compare 1Pe 1:6, 7.) The wicked, on the other hand, are judged as nothing more than scummy dross, fit only for the worthless slag heap.—Ps 119:119; Pr 25:4, 5; Eze 22:18-20.
Divorcing of Pagan Myths
Post from SARI:
The Bible usages of Hades/Sheol is not the imagined place that the ancient non-Christian Greeks described in their mythologies as a “dark, sunless region within the earth,” for there was no resurrection from such mythological underworld.
This is where the mistranslations of these words become a problem. One must divorce themselves from the pagan myths which the Bible never makes reference to.
It is interesting that Almighty God stated to the first pair “in the day you eat from it [the tree of good and evil] you will positively die.” To the amazement of all who believe that wicked mankind will be burned and tortured for eternity - a fiery pit was never mentioned. Adam and Eve were recipients of a precious gift, that of life. If they failed to be obedient to the law of God they were told that that gift would be removed - they would become as before they were created - non-existent - they would die.
What did the angels say to Lot when that city was slated for destruction? They certainly did not say that these people were going to burn in hell, but they did say “…we are bringing this place to ruin…Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.” Why? “…because the outcry against them has grown loud before God.” Were they threatened with everlasting fire? No, the fire and brimstone used - totally consumed both cities, the judgment was swift and complete.
During Noah’s time the Scripture tells us that “God saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time.” What did He do about this situation? He sought out the man that was righteous and chose him to preach and build an ark. For the reason that He himself said to Noah “The end of all flesh has come before me, because the earth is full of violence as a result of them; and here I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth.”
He did not wait for each individual to die and sentence them to a burning hell. God wanted the earth cleansed of wickedness so he acted completely and decisively. Just as in the illustration of the wheat and the weeds, they were all brought to their end en masse not one by one as some would have you believe.
The examples are numerous and if one so inclined can research these for themselves. If, therefore, wicked ones will not burn for eternity in a fiery pit - why the references to burning and fire? In the illustration of the wheat and weeds - the weeds were allowed to grow with the wheat for fear that by pulling up the weed one might pull up wheat. At the harvest the weeds were all identified as what they really are -poisonous imitation wheat - counterfeit Christians, these are pulled up and burned. Did they burn forever? No, they did not - there was no reason to keep the fire burning. The weeds were all done away with and by burning the weeds, the seeds from them were also consumed so that there was no danger that the true would become contaminated by the imitation ever again.
The imagery of a separating work extends also to the sheep and the goats. In this illustration all the nations are gathered before the Son of man, Jesus the Christ and he begins separating one from the other according to and on the basis of their treatment of Christ’s anointed brothers. Those put on his left hand would, as the Scripture indicates, Christ will say to them “…depart into everlasting cutting-off but the righteous ones into everlasting life.” Doesn’t say anything about fire - the word used in this text is kolasis [noun feminine] which means correction - penalty - punishment. Kolasis is from kolozo [verb] which means to lop off or prune. Thus, these on the left will be sentenced to everlasting cutting-off not burning forever in a torture chamber.
And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulphur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were.” (Revelation 20:9b-10a) Rather than being merely abyssed, this time Satan, the original serpent, will actually be crushed out of existence, pulverized, completely annihilated as if by fire.
The “lake of fire and sulphur” could not be a literal place of torment. (Revelation 19:20) If Satan were to suffer excruciating torture there for all eternity, Almighty God would have to preserve him alive. Yet, life is a gift, not a punishment. Death is the punishment for sin, and according to the Bible, dead creatures feel no pain. (Romans 6:23; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) Moreover, we read later that death itself, along with Hades, is cast into this same lake of fire and sulfur. Most surely, death and Hades cannot suffer pain!—Revelation 20:14.
What this does reinforce is that the lake of fire and sulfur is symbolic of a total blotting out a complete annihilation - just as the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. In harmony with this, the Bible itself explains the meaning of the lake of fire and sulfur: “This means the second death, the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:14) It is clearly the same as the Gehenna that Jesus spoke of, a place where the wicked remain destroyed, not tortured forever. (Matthew 10:28) It is complete, utter destruction without hope of a resurrection. Notice also that while there are keys for death, Hades, and the abyss, there is no mention of a key for opening the lake of fire and sulfur. (Revelation 1:18; 20:1)
Referring to the Devil as well as the wild beast and the false prophet, John now tells us: “And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (Revelation 20:10b) What could this mean? It is not logical to say that symbols, such as the wild beast and the false prophet, [which are representative of political entities] as well as death and Hades, could suffer torture in a literal way. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that Satan will be suffering for all eternity. He is to be annihilated. Genesis 3:15
The Greek word used here for “torment,” ba·sa·ni´zo, means primarily “to test (metals) by the touchstone.” “To question by applying torture” is a second meaning. (The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) In the context, the use of this Greek word indicates that what happens to Satan will serve, for all eternity, as a touchstone on the issue of the rightness and righteousness of God’s rule. That issue of sovereign rulership will have been settled once and for all time. Never again will a challenge to Jehovah’s sovereignty need to be tested over an extended period of time in order to be proven wrong.—Compare Psalm 92:1, 15
In addition, the Greek Septuagint, which was well known to John, the related word ba´sa·nos is used to refer to humiliation that leads to death. (Ezekiel 32:24, 30) This helps us to see that the punishment that Satan undergoes is a humiliating, everlasting death in the lake of fire and sulfur. His works die with him.—1 John 3:8.
The Bible usages of Hades/Sheol is not the imagined place that the ancient non-Christian Greeks described in their mythologies as a “dark, sunless region within the earth,” for there was no resurrection from such mythological underworld.
This is where the mistranslations of these words become a problem. One must divorce themselves from the pagan myths which the Bible never makes reference to.
It is interesting that Almighty God stated to the first pair “in the day you eat from it [the tree of good and evil] you will positively die.” To the amazement of all who believe that wicked mankind will be burned and tortured for eternity - a fiery pit was never mentioned. Adam and Eve were recipients of a precious gift, that of life. If they failed to be obedient to the law of God they were told that that gift would be removed - they would become as before they were created - non-existent - they would die.
What did the angels say to Lot when that city was slated for destruction? They certainly did not say that these people were going to burn in hell, but they did say “…we are bringing this place to ruin…Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.” Why? “…because the outcry against them has grown loud before God.” Were they threatened with everlasting fire? No, the fire and brimstone used - totally consumed both cities, the judgment was swift and complete.
During Noah’s time the Scripture tells us that “God saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time.” What did He do about this situation? He sought out the man that was righteous and chose him to preach and build an ark. For the reason that He himself said to Noah “The end of all flesh has come before me, because the earth is full of violence as a result of them; and here I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth.”
He did not wait for each individual to die and sentence them to a burning hell. God wanted the earth cleansed of wickedness so he acted completely and decisively. Just as in the illustration of the wheat and the weeds, they were all brought to their end en masse not one by one as some would have you believe.
The examples are numerous and if one so inclined can research these for themselves. If, therefore, wicked ones will not burn for eternity in a fiery pit - why the references to burning and fire? In the illustration of the wheat and weeds - the weeds were allowed to grow with the wheat for fear that by pulling up the weed one might pull up wheat. At the harvest the weeds were all identified as what they really are -poisonous imitation wheat - counterfeit Christians, these are pulled up and burned. Did they burn forever? No, they did not - there was no reason to keep the fire burning. The weeds were all done away with and by burning the weeds, the seeds from them were also consumed so that there was no danger that the true would become contaminated by the imitation ever again.
The imagery of a separating work extends also to the sheep and the goats. In this illustration all the nations are gathered before the Son of man, Jesus the Christ and he begins separating one from the other according to and on the basis of their treatment of Christ’s anointed brothers. Those put on his left hand would, as the Scripture indicates, Christ will say to them “…depart into everlasting cutting-off but the righteous ones into everlasting life.” Doesn’t say anything about fire - the word used in this text is kolasis [noun feminine] which means correction - penalty - punishment. Kolasis is from kolozo [verb] which means to lop off or prune. Thus, these on the left will be sentenced to everlasting cutting-off not burning forever in a torture chamber.
And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulphur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were.” (Revelation 20:9b-10a) Rather than being merely abyssed, this time Satan, the original serpent, will actually be crushed out of existence, pulverized, completely annihilated as if by fire.
The “lake of fire and sulphur” could not be a literal place of torment. (Revelation 19:20) If Satan were to suffer excruciating torture there for all eternity, Almighty God would have to preserve him alive. Yet, life is a gift, not a punishment. Death is the punishment for sin, and according to the Bible, dead creatures feel no pain. (Romans 6:23; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) Moreover, we read later that death itself, along with Hades, is cast into this same lake of fire and sulfur. Most surely, death and Hades cannot suffer pain!—Revelation 20:14.
What this does reinforce is that the lake of fire and sulfur is symbolic of a total blotting out a complete annihilation - just as the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. In harmony with this, the Bible itself explains the meaning of the lake of fire and sulfur: “This means the second death, the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:14) It is clearly the same as the Gehenna that Jesus spoke of, a place where the wicked remain destroyed, not tortured forever. (Matthew 10:28) It is complete, utter destruction without hope of a resurrection. Notice also that while there are keys for death, Hades, and the abyss, there is no mention of a key for opening the lake of fire and sulfur. (Revelation 1:18; 20:1)
Referring to the Devil as well as the wild beast and the false prophet, John now tells us: “And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (Revelation 20:10b) What could this mean? It is not logical to say that symbols, such as the wild beast and the false prophet, [which are representative of political entities] as well as death and Hades, could suffer torture in a literal way. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that Satan will be suffering for all eternity. He is to be annihilated. Genesis 3:15
The Greek word used here for “torment,” ba·sa·ni´zo, means primarily “to test (metals) by the touchstone.” “To question by applying torture” is a second meaning. (The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) In the context, the use of this Greek word indicates that what happens to Satan will serve, for all eternity, as a touchstone on the issue of the rightness and righteousness of God’s rule. That issue of sovereign rulership will have been settled once and for all time. Never again will a challenge to Jehovah’s sovereignty need to be tested over an extended period of time in order to be proven wrong.—Compare Psalm 92:1, 15
In addition, the Greek Septuagint, which was well known to John, the related word ba´sa·nos is used to refer to humiliation that leads to death. (Ezekiel 32:24, 30) This helps us to see that the punishment that Satan undergoes is a humiliating, everlasting death in the lake of fire and sulfur. His works die with him.—1 John 3:8.
Monday, January 07, 2008
What was the Sabbath?
Posted by SARI:
What was the Sabbath? Why was it instituted? What is its meaning?
Yes, it was given as a day set apart by God for rest from regular labors and it served as a sign between him and the sons of Israel. (Ex 31:16, 17) I believe that this has already been established. But the Law was a shadow of the reality which Christ fulfilled. If Christ is the reality, then what is it that is reality?
When confronted by the Pharisees, Jesus powerfully taught that the they were wrong about the Sabbath law—that, in fact, they had missed the whole point of that law.
Jesus explained that he [the Christ] is “Lord of the sabbath” and therefore entitled to cure people on the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:8) To stress the point, he openly performed miraculous cures on the Sabbath. (Luke 6:7-10) Why did he do this? It is because these cures were a preview of the healing that he will perform earth wide during his Thousand Year Reign. [Revelation 20:4,6]
That Millennium will itself be the ultimate Sabbath, when all faithful mankind will at last rest from centuries of laboring under the burdens of sin and death
Therefore, the literal Sabbath day, which was meant to bring the Israelites relief from their labors, was, as Paul writes: is “a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ.” (Colossians 2:16, 17)
For the fact that Christ made a point to perform some of his most outstanding miraculous works on the Sabbath shows that to be only a shadow of the kind of relief that he will bring when he raises mankind to spiritual and physical perfection during his coming Millennial Rule. This Sabbath will mirror and even exceed what the Sabbath law offered for only the Hebrew, but now because Christ, it will include every nation and tongue and people. Re 21:1-4.
Christ fulfilled the law - HE is “Lord of the Sabbath”, HIS Millennial reign. Why would you continue to go through meaningless ritual, when the reality has set you free?
It matters not whether there are 10 commandments or 15 or 30 written in stone. The fact is that the moral laws [written on the heart] were the ones that were restated in the Christian Greek Scriptures, Christ fulfilled the rest, they were taken out of the way - abolished by his tortuous death on a stake.
Why is it when confronted with the fact that Sunday was a holy day for the worshipers of Mithra, persons who believe Sunday to be the Christian’s sabbath will deny that the day was adopted from the pagans?
What was the Sabbath? Why was it instituted? What is its meaning?
Yes, it was given as a day set apart by God for rest from regular labors and it served as a sign between him and the sons of Israel. (Ex 31:16, 17) I believe that this has already been established. But the Law was a shadow of the reality which Christ fulfilled. If Christ is the reality, then what is it that is reality?
When confronted by the Pharisees, Jesus powerfully taught that the they were wrong about the Sabbath law—that, in fact, they had missed the whole point of that law.
Jesus explained that he [the Christ] is “Lord of the sabbath” and therefore entitled to cure people on the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:8) To stress the point, he openly performed miraculous cures on the Sabbath. (Luke 6:7-10) Why did he do this? It is because these cures were a preview of the healing that he will perform earth wide during his Thousand Year Reign. [Revelation 20:4,6]
That Millennium will itself be the ultimate Sabbath, when all faithful mankind will at last rest from centuries of laboring under the burdens of sin and death
Therefore, the literal Sabbath day, which was meant to bring the Israelites relief from their labors, was, as Paul writes: is “a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ.” (Colossians 2:16, 17)
For the fact that Christ made a point to perform some of his most outstanding miraculous works on the Sabbath shows that to be only a shadow of the kind of relief that he will bring when he raises mankind to spiritual and physical perfection during his coming Millennial Rule. This Sabbath will mirror and even exceed what the Sabbath law offered for only the Hebrew, but now because Christ, it will include every nation and tongue and people. Re 21:1-4.
Christ fulfilled the law - HE is “Lord of the Sabbath”, HIS Millennial reign. Why would you continue to go through meaningless ritual, when the reality has set you free?
Mark 2:28 " ... hence the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath.”
Luke 6:5 "And he went on to say to them: 'Lord of the sabbath is what the Son of man is.'”
Matthew 12:8 "For Lord of the sabbath is what the Son of man is"
It matters not whether there are 10 commandments or 15 or 30 written in stone. The fact is that the moral laws [written on the heart] were the ones that were restated in the Christian Greek Scriptures, Christ fulfilled the rest, they were taken out of the way - abolished by his tortuous death on a stake.
Why is it when confronted with the fact that Sunday was a holy day for the worshipers of Mithra, persons who believe Sunday to be the Christian’s sabbath will deny that the day was adopted from the pagans?
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
anthrôpos tês anomias
There is nothing wrong with a translation of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians. It is stating what is originally written -
ανθρωπος της ανομιας
Transliterated - "anthrôpos tês anomias".
anomia = lawlessness [lawlessness, lawless conduct, the negation of law; BDAG 3rd Edition; LSL, Middle Liddell, Strong, et al]
"Don't be fooled by what they say. For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - NLT
"Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - NIV
"Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - ESV
"Let no one in any way deceive you, for {it will not come} unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - NASB
"Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - RSV
The Douay Rheims, however, reflects an outdated version of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 which relies upon a known manuscript variant in which hamartia is written rather than anomia.
Hamartia = "sin"
Anomia = "lawlessness" - just as SARI has posted.
Are they similar?
John compares the two terms in 1 John 3:4, "Pas ho poiôn tên hamartian kai tên anomian poiei, kai hê hamartia estin hê anomia".
"Everyone who sins also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness"
So whether you believe the manuscript variant hamartia, or the oldest evidence in support of anomian, according to the various texts [John is only one example above] the understanding is the same.
ανθρωπος της ανομιας
Transliterated - "anthrôpos tês anomias".
anomia = lawlessness [lawlessness, lawless conduct, the negation of law; BDAG 3rd Edition; LSL, Middle Liddell, Strong, et al]
"Don't be fooled by what they say. For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - NLT
"Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - NIV
"Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - ESV
"Let no one in any way deceive you, for {it will not come} unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - NASB
"Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - RSV
The Douay Rheims, however, reflects an outdated version of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 which relies upon a known manuscript variant in which hamartia is written rather than anomia.
Hamartia = "sin"
Anomia = "lawlessness" - just as SARI has posted.
Are they similar?
John compares the two terms in 1 John 3:4, "Pas ho poiôn tên hamartian kai tên anomian poiei, kai hê hamartia estin hê anomia".
"Everyone who sins also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness"
So whether you believe the manuscript variant hamartia, or the oldest evidence in support of anomian, according to the various texts [John is only one example above] the understanding is the same.
Friday, December 14, 2007
This is Qadash
This is qadash קדשׁ
Quph: The horizon.
The quph represents a concrete sense of a cyclical process, or revolutionary process – as in a scattering to a collecting; a separating to a gathering. All of the Hebrew words derived from this parent root share a collective theme; that of a circle or revolution. The concept itself is embedded in the pictograph – that of a circle with a horizontal line intersecting. Quite similar to a linear depiction of the sun as it met the horizon in either rising or setting – another completed revolution or cyclical process come full about. It is from this depiction that its often employed sense of condensing is also derived – as the scattered light during the day condenses or gathers towards the sun as it approaches the horizontal divide. If such divide is approached during its rise, the light first appears condensed around the circle of the sun, then it scatters as the day grows in length until it again approaches the opposite horizontal divide in setting, at which time, the scattered light is recollected or condensed towards the center of the circle as the remaining sky becomes dark as it gives up its light..
Dal, or dalet: The tent door.
The very meaning of the word dalet is door and it is derived from the parent root letter dal, which also means door – things enter and exit through an opening. It is the opening in the family tent through which things came [gathered] and went [separated], the flap itself being swung back and forth. Accordingly, one finds the meaning of dalet to be a back and forth movement, as well as a dangling, as the tent door dangled down from a Hebrew roof pole of the tent, and so it is often also used to mean weak, or poor, as one might be seen as dangling the head downward when they are in a weakened state. Centrally, it was the
Shin: The two front teeth.
The ancient pictograph here is one of the two front teeth, and in fact, the Hebrew word shin means tooth. Teeth are sharp. In the eating process, they are used to select and separate off a smaller piece from a larger whole. Then, they are used to separate the bite taken into even smaller portions before swallowing. It also represents the concept of again, and second, which can be seen in the process of separating a small from a larger, then making the smaller, even small, through a repetitive process we call chewing.
Combined: A collection, gathering, or condensing [quph] through [dalet] separation from a larger whole [shin] – generally for a specific purpose presented contextually in the biblical texts.
The concept is not one of exclusion like might be compared to obtaining salt from sea water by eliminating or excluding the water from the mixture so that only salt remains. Rather, the concept is one of collecting or gathering through separating from a greater whole like might be compared to obtaining cream from raw milk. Cream is not obtained from raw milk by identifying then excluding all non-cream elements from the raw mixture until only cream is left, but rather, by allowing the cream to collect or gather, then removing the cream from the raw milk – e.g., the use of centrifuge (or separator). In more ancient times, the separating process was done manually from the top of a pouring pan.
A central biblical theme – the Shabbat is brought about, or collected, through separation from the days of the week – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Noah and his family are collected through separation from the world which was to come to an end – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Abraham is collected through separation from the Sumerian – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Moshe and the Hebrew collected through separation from the Egyptian – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; and so on. In none of these examples, was the greater whole eliminated through process to a core left remaining, but rather a process of separating from a greater whole.
Quph: The horizon.
The quph represents a concrete sense of a cyclical process, or revolutionary process – as in a scattering to a collecting; a separating to a gathering. All of the Hebrew words derived from this parent root share a collective theme; that of a circle or revolution. The concept itself is embedded in the pictograph – that of a circle with a horizontal line intersecting. Quite similar to a linear depiction of the sun as it met the horizon in either rising or setting – another completed revolution or cyclical process come full about. It is from this depiction that its often employed sense of condensing is also derived – as the scattered light during the day condenses or gathers towards the sun as it approaches the horizontal divide. If such divide is approached during its rise, the light first appears condensed around the circle of the sun, then it scatters as the day grows in length until it again approaches the opposite horizontal divide in setting, at which time, the scattered light is recollected or condensed towards the center of the circle as the remaining sky becomes dark as it gives up its light..
Dal, or dalet: The tent door.
The very meaning of the word dalet is door and it is derived from the parent root letter dal, which also means door – things enter and exit through an opening. It is the opening in the family tent through which things came [gathered] and went [separated], the flap itself being swung back and forth. Accordingly, one finds the meaning of dalet to be a back and forth movement, as well as a dangling, as the tent door dangled down from a Hebrew roof pole of the tent, and so it is often also used to mean weak, or poor, as one might be seen as dangling the head downward when they are in a weakened state. Centrally, it was the
Shin: The two front teeth.
The ancient pictograph here is one of the two front teeth, and in fact, the Hebrew word shin means tooth. Teeth are sharp. In the eating process, they are used to select and separate off a smaller piece from a larger whole. Then, they are used to separate the bite taken into even smaller portions before swallowing. It also represents the concept of again, and second, which can be seen in the process of separating a small from a larger, then making the smaller, even small, through a repetitive process we call chewing.
Combined: A collection, gathering, or condensing [quph] through [dalet] separation from a larger whole [shin] – generally for a specific purpose presented contextually in the biblical texts.
The concept is not one of exclusion like might be compared to obtaining salt from sea water by eliminating or excluding the water from the mixture so that only salt remains. Rather, the concept is one of collecting or gathering through separating from a greater whole like might be compared to obtaining cream from raw milk. Cream is not obtained from raw milk by identifying then excluding all non-cream elements from the raw mixture until only cream is left, but rather, by allowing the cream to collect or gather, then removing the cream from the raw milk – e.g., the use of centrifuge (or separator). In more ancient times, the separating process was done manually from the top of a pouring pan.
A central biblical theme – the Shabbat is brought about, or collected, through separation from the days of the week – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Noah and his family are collected through separation from the world which was to come to an end – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Abraham is collected through separation from the Sumerian – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Moshe and the Hebrew collected through separation from the Egyptian – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; and so on. In none of these examples, was the greater whole eliminated through process to a core left remaining, but rather a process of separating from a greater whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
