How is death thrown into "the lake of fire?" Revelation 21:4 tells us that "death will be no more." It will be done away with completely. Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:27 explains that death will be "abolished." It will no longer exist. As this is an explicit statement of what will happen to one thing that is throne there outside of figurative language, we can conclusively see how the symbolism is to be interpreted. Compare Isaiah 25:8
Some have pointed to Revelation 14 where we do read of the wicked being tormented with fire and brimstone. These ones are not described as being in the lake of fire and we find that the torment spoken of actually takes place while they are alive on Earth. Revelation 14:9 tells us that those who will receive the torment are those that worship the beast and have his mark. Their punishment will be to drink the wine of the wrath of God.
It is in drinking this cup that they are tormented with fire and brimstone. When would this take place? Apparently it is well before the final judgment, as we find that the thousand year reign of Christ takes place between the time when the beast is thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20) and when the final judgment occurs. (Rev. 20:5, 12-15)
The ones who experience torment are said to do so in that they "will drink the wine of the anger of God." (Rev. 14:10) Chapter 15 introduces us to seven angels that will pour out seven bowls, which has completed in them "the anger of God" (Rev. 15:1), as the bowls that they pour out are "filled with the anger of God." Therefore, it must be through these seven angels that they experience this anger and thus through them that these people are tormented.
Examining the plagues in chapter 16 of Revelation we find that they can be classified as nothing less than torment. When these ones experience the plagues undoubtedly they "have no rest night and day" (Rev. 14:11), though we are never told that this is for eternity.
It is only the smoke of their torment, not the torment itself, which goes up forever. This text takes us back to Isaiah 34:10, where Edom is symbolically said to have smoke go up forever and also forward to when Babylon the Great "will be found no more at all" (Rev. 18:21) and yet "her smoke rises up forever and ever." (Rev. 19:3) How so?
Smoke can be seen from afar. When a person looks into the distance they can see smoke without actually seeing whatever is causing the smoke. In the same way, we can look back in time at Edom and it serves as a warning example of God's judgment. It is in this same way that the smoke of those who turn against God will go up forever. They will be judged and then punished by plagues that lead up to their deaths. We will forever remember the judgment that they were given and so the smoke is described as ascending for eternity.
It can further be confirmed that Revelation 14 is not reference to the final judgment by comparing it to other Scriptures that speak on the matter. In Revelation chapter 14 and verse 9 we read that the torment experienced here is done "before [or, in the presence of] the holy angels and before the Lamb." That this is done in the presence of Jesus himself is key, for the execution of the final judgment is done apart from his presence. These ones, we are told, will experience "everlasting destruction from the face of the Lord." (2Thes. 1:9) While those who experience the torment of Revelation 14 are before the Lord, the ones who experience everlasting destruction are "from the face" of him. This "has simply the sense of separation,"[12] as Vincent explains. In the final judgment those executed will find themselves apart from Jesus' presence, in contrast to these ones that are experiencing the torment of Revelation 14 while in it.
Having examined these texts, let us now reference back to Jesus' words where he speaks of a "fiery furnace" where individuals experience "weeping and gnashing of teeth." This expression of anguish is used seven times within scripture both in Jesus' discussions and his parables, where ones are also said to be thrown into the “outer darkness.” (Mat. 8:12)
Examining the meaning of the expression in relation to the fiery furnace, we will consider Matthew 13:24-42. We here learn of a sower who sewed good seed but had his enemy come and sew bad seed amongst what he had sewn. The sower then waits until the harvest time to separate the good seed from the bad. The harvest occurs at the end of the age. The harvest is described in Revelation 14:14-20, where the vine of the earth is said to be ripe and the angels went out and harvested the wicked and executed them. This harvest of the wicked takes place through the seven cups of God’s judgment and the final execution of the beast’s army. (Rev. 16:1-21; 19:21)
During the time of these plagues, is the weeping and gnashing of teeth. This is seen in both their anger against God and in the pain they suffer. Yet this is never described by Jesus as an eternal state.
That this is not the final judgment can be seen in that this takes place at the harvest and not after the thousand years. This is not "the second death", it is the first death, a physical execution that might be compared to God’s execution of Sodom or to the many other nations that he has destroyed. It is during this time that they experience a weeping and gnashing of teeth. The final judgment of the lake of fire does not take place until after the 1,000 year reign and the final judgment. This is a judgment, but it is not the final judgment that comes out of what is written in the scroll of life.
In Matthew 25 we find another case of weeping and gnashing of teeth in “the outer darkness”, which apparently occurs at the final judgment, where the righteous go to everlasting life, but the wicked to the lake of fire. (Mat. 25:41) Looking to verses 30-45 we see that those condemned are not sent off to their punishment until after the righteous are given their reward.
Here they do not understand why they are not being given life, asking Jesus how they were expected to do the things he demanded, which was to feed and cloth him when they never saw him. The weeping and gnashing of teeth is found in what they experience while watching the others go off to their reward while not understanding their condemnation. This concludes in their destruction.
Can it then be said that mankind really experiences the eternal punishment that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 25:46 if they are not tormented? Indeed many do experience torment through the bowls of God’s anger and all of the wicked will experience punishment, but there is nothing to indicate that the punishment is eternal. The Apostle Paul tells us that the wages sin pays is death (Rom. 6:23), not any type of torment. Just as flesh is destroyed by fire, so will the soul be destroyed in Gehenna, the lake of fire. (Matt. 10:28)
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
T'ien Ming or Pontifex Maximus
There is a very old Chinese belief that a valid government needs a mandate from "heaven" [e.g., t'ien ming], and that any corruption experienced within the ruling classes or infrastructure, would remove that mandate. This ancient belief is most commonly attributed to the Chou kings who overthrew of the Shang. The Chou were largely regarded as barbarians by the Shang, but it was in fact the Chou who brought a political life to the t'ien ming concept.
The original t'ien ming involved the Chou defining the kingship as being an intermediary position between heaven and earth [you should by now, see where this is leading].
The handwritten Chinese character for lord or emperor [in essence - divine], "ti," demonstrates this in its own ideograph as it consists of three separate horizontal lines being joined together by a vertical line - thus representing the believed connection between heaven (the top line) and that of the earth (the bottom line). The relationship between heaven and the earth is mediated over by the emporer or lord or emperor; himself or herself being in fact, the center horizontal line. Hence the common suffix also added to so many Chinese emperors - Huang Ti; Wu-ti, Weng-ti; and so on.
Under the ancient belief, "heaven" wants that all humans be provided for in all their immediate and long-term needs - and it is the emperor, lord, or divine being, who is appointed by "heaven" to see that the welfare of the people is enacted upon in accordance with the divine will. This is the mandate, this t'ien ming.
The only way, according to the belief system, that one can know that this mandate has "passed", is the overthrow of an existing kingship or system of government, by another - if usurpation succeeds, then the mandate is "known" to have passed to the challenging victor; if it fails, then the mandate remains with the existing king or system of government. And the one defeated, is assigned the label of corruption, as it was this perhaps seen, or unseen corruption, which changed the favoring of the "heavenly" mandate.
Although a very old tradition, it remains a very important political and social concept in a great majority of Chinese culture. It not only provides a platform for understanding much of the political history in China, but it also has historical served as a "moral" political and ideological theory [a re-creation of sorts of Shang-Ti], which is supposed to prompt selfish acts and dedication of the government to the general populace, and imposes a moral universe.
This concept, is not at all unlike that which certainly occured to Constantine, as he declared himself, Pontifex Maximus, meaning that he was the self-proclaimed titular head of the Roman Pagan-Christian religion later to be referred to as Catholic, or universal, religion. It meant that he, Constantine, as the first in a long line of Roman emperors, and later simply called Popes - who believed themselves to be the mediator, between the heavenly will, and mankind on earth.
The Roman mediator is not Chinese, so perhaps one can see how the Chinese government might see any organized belief system as a threat to their monopoly on power - for if they are removed, the mandate they lose, and they will be assigned as "corrupt".
In both cases, it is and always has been politics - driven by religion - religion has historically held the reigns over government - each one, in its own way and culture, proclaiming the same thing - whether it be a "mandate from heaven" or "In God We Trust" - that they are the "kingdom from the heavens".
Or as the book of Revelation [Revelation Chapter 17] unravels the same mystery - who is this woman, this harlot, which the beast is carrying? False religion straddles the back of this political beast, attempting to influence its decisions and to control its direction - whether from Rome, from China, from London, or the Grand 'Ole US of A.
The original t'ien ming involved the Chou defining the kingship as being an intermediary position between heaven and earth [you should by now, see where this is leading].
The handwritten Chinese character for lord or emperor [in essence - divine], "ti," demonstrates this in its own ideograph as it consists of three separate horizontal lines being joined together by a vertical line - thus representing the believed connection between heaven (the top line) and that of the earth (the bottom line). The relationship between heaven and the earth is mediated over by the emporer or lord or emperor; himself or herself being in fact, the center horizontal line. Hence the common suffix also added to so many Chinese emperors - Huang Ti; Wu-ti, Weng-ti; and so on.
Under the ancient belief, "heaven" wants that all humans be provided for in all their immediate and long-term needs - and it is the emperor, lord, or divine being, who is appointed by "heaven" to see that the welfare of the people is enacted upon in accordance with the divine will. This is the mandate, this t'ien ming.
The only way, according to the belief system, that one can know that this mandate has "passed", is the overthrow of an existing kingship or system of government, by another - if usurpation succeeds, then the mandate is "known" to have passed to the challenging victor; if it fails, then the mandate remains with the existing king or system of government. And the one defeated, is assigned the label of corruption, as it was this perhaps seen, or unseen corruption, which changed the favoring of the "heavenly" mandate.
Although a very old tradition, it remains a very important political and social concept in a great majority of Chinese culture. It not only provides a platform for understanding much of the political history in China, but it also has historical served as a "moral" political and ideological theory [a re-creation of sorts of Shang-Ti], which is supposed to prompt selfish acts and dedication of the government to the general populace, and imposes a moral universe.
This concept, is not at all unlike that which certainly occured to Constantine, as he declared himself, Pontifex Maximus, meaning that he was the self-proclaimed titular head of the Roman Pagan-Christian religion later to be referred to as Catholic, or universal, religion. It meant that he, Constantine, as the first in a long line of Roman emperors, and later simply called Popes - who believed themselves to be the mediator, between the heavenly will, and mankind on earth.
The Roman mediator is not Chinese, so perhaps one can see how the Chinese government might see any organized belief system as a threat to their monopoly on power - for if they are removed, the mandate they lose, and they will be assigned as "corrupt".
In both cases, it is and always has been politics - driven by religion - religion has historically held the reigns over government - each one, in its own way and culture, proclaiming the same thing - whether it be a "mandate from heaven" or "In God We Trust" - that they are the "kingdom from the heavens".
Or as the book of Revelation [Revelation Chapter 17] unravels the same mystery - who is this woman, this harlot, which the beast is carrying? False religion straddles the back of this political beast, attempting to influence its decisions and to control its direction - whether from Rome, from China, from London, or the Grand 'Ole US of A.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
This is Olam
This עלם - is olam
One of the unique things about language is its dependence upon its own beneficiary’s view of the world – not only to the immediately observable physical world in which they exist, but to the beneficiary’s greater concepts of time, space, and events in which their world’s journey is ultimately conceptualized. Language verbal systems (tense and aspect) are most sensitive to, and often directly reflect, the beneficiary’s concepts of time, space, and events. In fact, lingustical studies of current modern languages often speak in terms of “deictic center”, “event time”, and “reference time” in models developed for academic application.
Specifically for English, nearly the entirety of its verbal system can be explained as a function of tense and aspect relative to our current abstract view of linear and geometrical time, space, and event, according to many if not most of these models. And to a greater extent, extrapolation of these models to the English ancestral verbal systems – e.g., Latin, Indo-European, and Greek, such models are quite sufficient in establishing tense and aspect which are clearly defined; just as in English. The primary reason for this is that our English ancestral languages held very similar views of time, space, and events; that is – in the abstract sense. Without going into too much boring detail, suffice to say that our current modern views of time, space, and events are abstract based (that is to say, we presume space to be the primary dimension, and so time is described in terms of an abstract special phenomenon), allowing for metaphors such as “time line” and “point in time” as related to geometry - thus facilitating abstraction wherein time is now a construct independent upon its contents.
This primarily Greek way of conceptualizing time was quite alien to the ancient Hebrew way of thinking in regards to the world around them. Semitic languages are much older than Greek (based on the best information which we currently have in order to make such estimates), and the further back in time one goes, the further language departs from abstract views, and centers on the concrete. The Hebrew language of old, is very attached to the concrete – i.e., that which one can see, feel, hear, touch, or smell – the five basic human senses. In this sense, the phrase “concrete language” is often invoked. Hebrews did not say "I think, therefore I am," they said, "I am, therefore I think”. Nor did they see events stemming from cause, but rather cause, which stemmed from events.
To the concrete thinking Hebrew, there was no separation between an event, and the “time” in which it occurred – the distinguishing characteristic of the Hebrew verb forms is in fact the expression of continuity, rather than past, present, and future.
And to often, the above discussed linguistic models, which operate so well against the abstract based languages, fail miserably when extrapolated to the concrete languages. It possible to extrapolate from English to Greek, and even Latin, but quite difficult to do so to Hebrew. Case in point, because it concrete concept of time, space, and events, Hebrew verbs can refer to past, present, and future (tense) as well as events which are incomplete as well as complete. For all practical purposes, Hebrew lacks tense (a grammaticalized location in time) and aspect (in the English sense of the word) – yet aspectual qualities are indeed found. To further your confusion, the same words used to describe time, are also used to describe direction.
For example, the exact same Hebrew word, qedem, means both the ancient past, as well as the direction east – case in point, Genesis 3:24, “He drove out the man; and at the east [qedem] of the garden he placed the cherubim” as compared to say, Psalms 77:5, “I consider the days of old, I remember the years of long ago [qedem].”
And so we finally get to subject of this post – which is to consider one of my favorite Hebrew words – olam. Olam has a unique characteristic which so eloquently describes, in my opinion, how the Hebrew language works. While olam is most frequently translated into English as eternal, everlasting, or forever (abstract based concepts which were foreign to the Hebrew understanding of time, space, and event) – it means literally, a “distant time”, equally in the past, as well as the future. For example –
Psalms 77:5, “I consider the days of old [olam], I remember the years of long ago [qedem].” As compared to –
Genesis 9:12, “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you ad every living creature that is with you, for all future [olam] generations.”
The Hebrew word olam is most likely descendant from the Hebrew root alam (Laird Harris/Gleason Archer – TWOT, page 671-672) meaning specifically “to be hidden” and is most frequently used in the very literal sense of hiding to a place where one cannot be seen (one of the five senses in that details are not often clearly detected when looking off at the far distance – that to which is beyond the immediate horizon cannot be seen – or as relates to time, and olam, the distant past or distant future, like that which lies beyond the horizon, cannot be seen – hence, olams relationship to its parent root, alam. In this sense, the word if often conceptualize in the western, Greek based mind, as meaning a continual span of unending time. But the Hebrew did not see it that way, for as all nomads knew, as you walked towards the horizon, what was once hidden and unseen, becomes clearer, more focused, until you are upon it.
A common phrase in Hebrew is "l'olam-va'ed" and is sometimes translated as "forever and ever" but to the Hebrew it simply meant "to the distant horizon and again" - meaning "a very distant time and even further then" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.
One of the unique things about language is its dependence upon its own beneficiary’s view of the world – not only to the immediately observable physical world in which they exist, but to the beneficiary’s greater concepts of time, space, and events in which their world’s journey is ultimately conceptualized. Language verbal systems (tense and aspect) are most sensitive to, and often directly reflect, the beneficiary’s concepts of time, space, and events. In fact, lingustical studies of current modern languages often speak in terms of “deictic center”, “event time”, and “reference time” in models developed for academic application.
Specifically for English, nearly the entirety of its verbal system can be explained as a function of tense and aspect relative to our current abstract view of linear and geometrical time, space, and event, according to many if not most of these models. And to a greater extent, extrapolation of these models to the English ancestral verbal systems – e.g., Latin, Indo-European, and Greek, such models are quite sufficient in establishing tense and aspect which are clearly defined; just as in English. The primary reason for this is that our English ancestral languages held very similar views of time, space, and events; that is – in the abstract sense. Without going into too much boring detail, suffice to say that our current modern views of time, space, and events are abstract based (that is to say, we presume space to be the primary dimension, and so time is described in terms of an abstract special phenomenon), allowing for metaphors such as “time line” and “point in time” as related to geometry - thus facilitating abstraction wherein time is now a construct independent upon its contents.
This primarily Greek way of conceptualizing time was quite alien to the ancient Hebrew way of thinking in regards to the world around them. Semitic languages are much older than Greek (based on the best information which we currently have in order to make such estimates), and the further back in time one goes, the further language departs from abstract views, and centers on the concrete. The Hebrew language of old, is very attached to the concrete – i.e., that which one can see, feel, hear, touch, or smell – the five basic human senses. In this sense, the phrase “concrete language” is often invoked. Hebrews did not say "I think, therefore I am," they said, "I am, therefore I think”. Nor did they see events stemming from cause, but rather cause, which stemmed from events.
To the concrete thinking Hebrew, there was no separation between an event, and the “time” in which it occurred – the distinguishing characteristic of the Hebrew verb forms is in fact the expression of continuity, rather than past, present, and future.
And to often, the above discussed linguistic models, which operate so well against the abstract based languages, fail miserably when extrapolated to the concrete languages. It possible to extrapolate from English to Greek, and even Latin, but quite difficult to do so to Hebrew. Case in point, because it concrete concept of time, space, and events, Hebrew verbs can refer to past, present, and future (tense) as well as events which are incomplete as well as complete. For all practical purposes, Hebrew lacks tense (a grammaticalized location in time) and aspect (in the English sense of the word) – yet aspectual qualities are indeed found. To further your confusion, the same words used to describe time, are also used to describe direction.
For example, the exact same Hebrew word, qedem, means both the ancient past, as well as the direction east – case in point, Genesis 3:24, “He drove out the man; and at the east [qedem] of the garden he placed the cherubim” as compared to say, Psalms 77:5, “I consider the days of old, I remember the years of long ago [qedem].”
And so we finally get to subject of this post – which is to consider one of my favorite Hebrew words – olam. Olam has a unique characteristic which so eloquently describes, in my opinion, how the Hebrew language works. While olam is most frequently translated into English as eternal, everlasting, or forever (abstract based concepts which were foreign to the Hebrew understanding of time, space, and event) – it means literally, a “distant time”, equally in the past, as well as the future. For example –
Psalms 77:5, “I consider the days of old [olam], I remember the years of long ago [qedem].” As compared to –
Genesis 9:12, “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you ad every living creature that is with you, for all future [olam] generations.”
The Hebrew word olam is most likely descendant from the Hebrew root alam (Laird Harris/Gleason Archer – TWOT, page 671-672) meaning specifically “to be hidden” and is most frequently used in the very literal sense of hiding to a place where one cannot be seen (one of the five senses in that details are not often clearly detected when looking off at the far distance – that to which is beyond the immediate horizon cannot be seen – or as relates to time, and olam, the distant past or distant future, like that which lies beyond the horizon, cannot be seen – hence, olams relationship to its parent root, alam. In this sense, the word if often conceptualize in the western, Greek based mind, as meaning a continual span of unending time. But the Hebrew did not see it that way, for as all nomads knew, as you walked towards the horizon, what was once hidden and unseen, becomes clearer, more focused, until you are upon it.
A common phrase in Hebrew is "l'olam-va'ed" and is sometimes translated as "forever and ever" but to the Hebrew it simply meant "to the distant horizon and again" - meaning "a very distant time and even further then" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Departure from Base Text
In Judges 7, verse 5, the NRSV renders, "All those who lap the water with their tongues, as a dog laps, you shall put to one side; all those who kneel down to drink, putting their hands to their mouths, you shall put to the other side.'
A comparison of the NRSV rendering to the various Hebrew base text, does not show the phrase "putting their hands to their mouths" occurring in verse 5, but rather, verse 6 (where the NRSV leaves it out - yet the Hebrew places the words 'putting their hands to their mouths' after the word 'lapped' in verse 6).
It would also appear that the phrase "you shall put to the other side" does not find support in the Hebrew in verse 5, nor in any verse prior or subsequent (likely a dynamic license in place of "likewise" or "also") The NRSV has apparently inserted the phrase "putting their hands to their mouths" into verse 5 from 6, and has added as a bolt from the blue "you shall put to the other side".Most other translations remain loyal to the underlying Hebrew and render "All those who lap the water with their tongues, as a dog laps, you shall put to one side; likewise (or also) all those who kneel down to drink"
In verse 5, the Hebrew (BHS and WLC base text) reads, "Yarad'am mayim Yhwh 'amar Gid`own laqaq mayim lashown keleb laqaq yatsag kara` berek shathah" It is not until verse 6 in which the phrase "yad peh" (hand to the mouth) appears in the Hebrew base text.The NRSV is not known for its bolts from the blue as is the NIV and a few other dynamic translations – so their removal from verse 6 and placement to verse 5 was likely based on a textual variant, or some other indicator, which the committee was convinced adequately justified a departure from the base text.
Unfortunately, the NRSV (at least that I can find) does not notate or otherwise explain the departure.As far as the indications of why the lappers from their hands were chosen over those who got down to the water level to drink? Take your pick – Rabbinical tradition holds that the lappers were chosen because they refused to bow down to an idol (see Tanhuma – Buber; Toledot 19; Yalqut Shim'oni, Judges 62:1 and 1 Kings 29. On the other hand – Josephus (Antiquities V.vi.3, 216-217) claims that the lappers were the cowards, scared to turn their backs kneel and drink, supposedly highlighting an even more important victory miracle by choosing cowards.
A comparison of the NRSV rendering to the various Hebrew base text, does not show the phrase "putting their hands to their mouths" occurring in verse 5, but rather, verse 6 (where the NRSV leaves it out - yet the Hebrew places the words 'putting their hands to their mouths' after the word 'lapped' in verse 6).
It would also appear that the phrase "you shall put to the other side" does not find support in the Hebrew in verse 5, nor in any verse prior or subsequent (likely a dynamic license in place of "likewise" or "also") The NRSV has apparently inserted the phrase "putting their hands to their mouths" into verse 5 from 6, and has added as a bolt from the blue "you shall put to the other side".Most other translations remain loyal to the underlying Hebrew and render "All those who lap the water with their tongues, as a dog laps, you shall put to one side; likewise (or also) all those who kneel down to drink"
In verse 5, the Hebrew (BHS and WLC base text) reads, "Yarad'am mayim Yhwh 'amar Gid`own laqaq mayim lashown keleb laqaq yatsag kara` berek shathah" It is not until verse 6 in which the phrase "yad peh" (hand to the mouth) appears in the Hebrew base text.The NRSV is not known for its bolts from the blue as is the NIV and a few other dynamic translations – so their removal from verse 6 and placement to verse 5 was likely based on a textual variant, or some other indicator, which the committee was convinced adequately justified a departure from the base text.
Unfortunately, the NRSV (at least that I can find) does not notate or otherwise explain the departure.As far as the indications of why the lappers from their hands were chosen over those who got down to the water level to drink? Take your pick – Rabbinical tradition holds that the lappers were chosen because they refused to bow down to an idol (see Tanhuma – Buber; Toledot 19; Yalqut Shim'oni, Judges 62:1 and 1 Kings 29. On the other hand – Josephus (Antiquities V.vi.3, 216-217) claims that the lappers were the cowards, scared to turn their backs kneel and drink, supposedly highlighting an even more important victory miracle by choosing cowards.
Anarchy or Monarchy
"Really, can you blame them for wanting a monarch? We just finished a book, Judges, which is all about what happens when there is no leader—mass murder, gang rape, anarchy, and so forth." ~ Unknown
That was the whole point of the book of Judges - there was a leader – a leader who forewarned them that their failure to drive out the inhabitants of the land, as divinely commanded by said leader, would lead to their adopting the debased religious beliefs and practices of the Canaanites – which would result in Jehovah's disfavor and his abandoning them to their enemies (as noted earlier in Exodus 23:32-33; Ex 34:11-17; again at Numbers 33:55; and De 7:2-5). The historical record found in the book of Judges shows how the warning became a reality.The books of Judges was not all about what "happens when there is no leader" – indeed, it is all about what "what happens when one rejects the leader" – especially when said leader is the creator (Judges 8:23, Genesis 1:2).
It is not that Samuel desires anarchy over monarchy – no – it is not ideological preference which gives him internal grief and causes him to pray – rather it is his recognition that the sovereign leader, God, has been rejected yet again by this people – for why "appoint for us a King" when the King already exists (1 Samuel 10:19, 1 Samuel 12:12, Psalm 74:12, Isaiah 33:22).
There is coming a time, and it is here already, when not all will prove their desire to reject, but to voluntarily accept, by their own free will and choice – the creator as their King (Isaiah 33:22-24). Skin in behalf of skin, and everything a man has he will give in behalf of his life and existence (ne'phesh – Job 2:4). Really? Is mankind that selfish? The creator holds that he can be loved, respected, and obeyed unselfishly – and for no other reason that the desire of one's "lev" - so just as the people who approached Samuel made an authoritative choice from the lev - all will eventually choose from the same source.
That was the whole point of the book of Judges - there was a leader – a leader who forewarned them that their failure to drive out the inhabitants of the land, as divinely commanded by said leader, would lead to their adopting the debased religious beliefs and practices of the Canaanites – which would result in Jehovah's disfavor and his abandoning them to their enemies (as noted earlier in Exodus 23:32-33; Ex 34:11-17; again at Numbers 33:55; and De 7:2-5). The historical record found in the book of Judges shows how the warning became a reality.The books of Judges was not all about what "happens when there is no leader" – indeed, it is all about what "what happens when one rejects the leader" – especially when said leader is the creator (Judges 8:23, Genesis 1:2).
It is not that Samuel desires anarchy over monarchy – no – it is not ideological preference which gives him internal grief and causes him to pray – rather it is his recognition that the sovereign leader, God, has been rejected yet again by this people – for why "appoint for us a King" when the King already exists (1 Samuel 10:19, 1 Samuel 12:12, Psalm 74:12, Isaiah 33:22).
"for it is not you whom they have rejected, but it is I whom they have rejected from being king over them. In accord with all their doings that they have done from the day of my bringing them up out of Egypt until this day in that they kept leaving me and serving other gods, that is the way they are doing also to you."
There is coming a time, and it is here already, when not all will prove their desire to reject, but to voluntarily accept, by their own free will and choice – the creator as their King (Isaiah 33:22-24). Skin in behalf of skin, and everything a man has he will give in behalf of his life and existence (ne'phesh – Job 2:4). Really? Is mankind that selfish? The creator holds that he can be loved, respected, and obeyed unselfishly – and for no other reason that the desire of one's "lev" - so just as the people who approached Samuel made an authoritative choice from the lev - all will eventually choose from the same source.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Shib'im (70) Versus Hamishshim (50) and Daniel's 70 Weeks
Shib’im is literally 70 (ten sevens), as the numbering system in Hebrew is base 10, as is said, “Shib'im Panim la-Torah" (Seventy Methods of the Explanations of the Torah)” – The Jubilee, the 50th year (not 49th year which you would get by multiplying 7 x 7 under your method), is not referred to as shib’im, as that would mean 70, not 50 – you are confusing hamishshim (means 50) with shib’im, two completely different words, as is evidence in a comparison to Leviticus 25:10 (which defines the Jubilee in terms of hamishshim) to Daniel 9:24 (which speaks not of hamishshim, but rather shib'im) – they are separate cardinal numbers.
Hamishshim (50) comes from the root hamash (fifth), whereas shib’im (70) comes from the root sheba (seven).
Hamishshim (50) comes from the root hamash (fifth), whereas shib’im (70) comes from the root sheba (seven).
Misquoting Babylon the Great Has Fallen
"Since Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years until 562 BC"
This statement is based solely upon the Parker and Dubberstein (P&D) 1956 Babylonian Chronology - unfortunately, P&D (as did Sollberger subsequent to them) erroneously excluded over 7,000 Babylonian business cuniform tablets, of which 1,450 cuneiform tablets dated during the reign of the Kings in question (Nabopolassar through Nabonidus) reveals reigning years for most of the kings which contradict the P&D established timeline (P&D based their timeline on only two tablets - the first and the last tablets dated to each King).
On this evidence, current academic and scholarly opinion is nearly in agreement - P&D err'd, and the 50 year old chronology is in dire need of radical revision - and in fact, is already underway.
In regards to your claimed "quotes" - the 581 BCE date as the year in which Amel-Marduk succeeded Nebuchadnezzar II is based upon the biblical record at 2 Kings 25:27-30 - they then assign a 2 year period to Amel, 4 years to Neriglissar, and nine months to Labashi.
The remaining period they assign to Nabonidus ... "till Babylon fell in 539 B.C" - not 17 years (i.e., your mathematical computations are taken out of context - now you may not agree with the biblical chronology, but you should at least present your "quotes" correctly - it is Josephus, who is identified on page 230 in a footnote who makes a statement that Belshazzar was in his 17 year of rule when Babylon was taken, there is no mention as you have fabricated, that Nabonidus "ruled for 17 years" according to the cited WT publication)
You might also take note, that Nabonidus did not rule from Babylon the entire time, as he set up his ruling capital later in Tema, leaving control of the capital city of Babylon to his son, Belshazzar.
This statement is based solely upon the Parker and Dubberstein (P&D) 1956 Babylonian Chronology - unfortunately, P&D (as did Sollberger subsequent to them) erroneously excluded over 7,000 Babylonian business cuniform tablets, of which 1,450 cuneiform tablets dated during the reign of the Kings in question (Nabopolassar through Nabonidus) reveals reigning years for most of the kings which contradict the P&D established timeline (P&D based their timeline on only two tablets - the first and the last tablets dated to each King).
On this evidence, current academic and scholarly opinion is nearly in agreement - P&D err'd, and the 50 year old chronology is in dire need of radical revision - and in fact, is already underway.
In regards to your claimed "quotes" - the 581 BCE date as the year in which Amel-Marduk succeeded Nebuchadnezzar II is based upon the biblical record at 2 Kings 25:27-30 - they then assign a 2 year period to Amel, 4 years to Neriglissar, and nine months to Labashi.
The remaining period they assign to Nabonidus ... "till Babylon fell in 539 B.C" - not 17 years (i.e., your mathematical computations are taken out of context - now you may not agree with the biblical chronology, but you should at least present your "quotes" correctly - it is Josephus, who is identified on page 230 in a footnote who makes a statement that Belshazzar was in his 17 year of rule when Babylon was taken, there is no mention as you have fabricated, that Nabonidus "ruled for 17 years" according to the cited WT publication)
You might also take note, that Nabonidus did not rule from Babylon the entire time, as he set up his ruling capital later in Tema, leaving control of the capital city of Babylon to his son, Belshazzar.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Yom - Creative Days
The creative work was accomplished in six time periods called days, each beginning with an evening, when the creative work for that period is undefined, and ending in the brightness of a morning, as the glory of the creative work becomes clearly manifest.
The fact is that the Hebrew word yowm translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4)
In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.
Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts, combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or “days,” help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so?
A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.
On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.
The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” However, the Bible indicates that during the sixth “day,” God was still in the process of “forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.”—Genesis 2:19.
Clearly, the Bible’s language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each “day,” or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative “days.”
When light from the Andromeda nebula takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, this is indicative of the fact that the universe must be at least millions of years old. Also the end products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.
Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.” However, the word yowm has meanings, which include ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length.
The "Lexical Aids for the Old Testament" edited by Spiros Zodhiates for yowm expands on Strong's comments and repeatedly emphasizes that yowm can be a period of time.
As early as Genesis 2:4 we see yowm in the singular with an attached infinitive used to indicate an extended period of time. Strong's does not show this since the King James Versions retain the translation of day, but other translations recognize that in this case yowm refers to the time of the entire creation of the heavens and earth as recognized by the The Bible: An American Translation and others, "At the time when God made the earth and the heavens."
Studies are out there which show that the period called days does not mean a literal 24 hour period, but epoch’s of time. Couple that with geological studies, we can be sure that a creative day is thousands of years in length and the creation of the universe covers a time period of millions or more years.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Congregator's Words Christians Hate the Most
Dabar qoheleth - The words of the congregator, the assembler – the Tanakh rightly footnotes its transliterated "koheleth" with "probably the assembler; i.e., the hearer of sayings".
It is a title, not a name.
Qohelet is a Qal participle from the verb qahal, which in the Niphal means, "to come together" and in the Hiphil, "to bring together", and in its noun form, relates to an "assembly" – as the word is preceded by the definite article "ha" in Eccl 12:8, give credence to the claim that word is intended as a title and a description, but not a personal name.
The words of the congregator.
Tradition holds that the congregator mentioned, the ha'qoheleth, was Solomon. This is based in part no doubt that there was only one "son of David", namely Solomon, who was the "king over Israel in Jerusalem", for kings after Solomon did not rule over all Israel – Eccl 1:12
It is also likely the most sobering written words to nearly all subscribers of the Hebrew and Christian Greek scriptures who hold fast to a belief that man (or woman) is inherently immortality (e.g., that something of man transcends death, and continues on following the death of the body).
If the congregator is clear on one thing, he is clear on death.
It is the final point in each one's ma'aseh (deed, work, action that which comprises one's life) and is the one immutable event that each and every human, animal and other organism must succumb to, and it cuts cleanly across all categories of morality and class. And it is keenly in agreement with other portions of the Bible that treat the same subjects.
For example, it agrees with Genesis on man being made up of a body composed of dust of the ground and being animated by the very life-force of Yhwh and the breath that sustains it (Eccl 3:20-21, Eccl 12:7; Genesis 2:7; Genesis 7:22; Isaiah 42:5).
It affirms the biblical teaching that man was created upright, but willfully chose a path away from his creator, to disobey the life instructions given to him by his creator (Eccl 7:29; Genesis 1:31; Genesis 3:17; De 32:4-5), and it acknowledges Yhwh as the creator (Eccl 12:1; Genesis 1:1).
And it concurs with the rest of the Bible as to the state of the dead.
"For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten." Eccl 9:5 [NKJV]
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom." - Eccl 9:10 [NIV]
"His [God's] spirit goes out, he [man] goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish." - Psalms 146:4
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return" - Genesis 3:19 [KJV]
"The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence" – Psalms 115:17 [KJV]
"He said these things, and after this he said to them: "Laz´a•rus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep." Therefore the disciples said to him: "Lord, if he has gone to rest, he will get well." Jesus had spoken, however, about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. At that time, therefore, Jesus said to them outspokenly: "Laz´a•rus has died" - John 11:11-14
In the Bereshit (Genesis), where was Adam before Jehovah created him from the dust? He was nowhere - he simply did not exist – God formed him from the dust of the ground. So when Jehovah said that Adam would "return to the ground," he meant exactly that - that Adam would die and return to the elements in the ground. There was never any mention Adam would mystically cross over to the spirit realm. At death Adam would once again be nonexistent. His punishment after all was death—absence of life—not a transfer to another realm to continue living .— Romans 6:23.
If you have been following Plotz' bible blog of the Hebrew Scriptures, and you are a Christian, you might do well to note that you are now 85 percent of the way through – and there is no mention of an immortal soul, or immortal spirit, for mankind – as the Qoheleth so correctly notes –
"For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the, and they have the same eventuality. As one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so there is no superiority of the man over the beast … all are going to one place - they have all come to be from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust." – Eccl 3:19-20.
And of course, without an immortal spirit, the falsehood of a place for eternal torment for people who have died as "unbelievers" or anyone else - becomes impotent and exposed. You would think it would give cause to a small spark of thought to the average believer in the biblical texts that those two such important doctrines in Christianity (and to a lesser degree modern Rabbincal Judaism) as the immortal soul of man and eternal punishment in hell – are never spoken of in the Hebrew words of Yhwh.
It is a title, not a name.
Qohelet is a Qal participle from the verb qahal, which in the Niphal means, "to come together" and in the Hiphil, "to bring together", and in its noun form, relates to an "assembly" – as the word is preceded by the definite article "ha" in Eccl 12:8, give credence to the claim that word is intended as a title and a description, but not a personal name.
The words of the congregator.
Tradition holds that the congregator mentioned, the ha'qoheleth, was Solomon. This is based in part no doubt that there was only one "son of David", namely Solomon, who was the "king over Israel in Jerusalem", for kings after Solomon did not rule over all Israel – Eccl 1:12
It is also likely the most sobering written words to nearly all subscribers of the Hebrew and Christian Greek scriptures who hold fast to a belief that man (or woman) is inherently immortality (e.g., that something of man transcends death, and continues on following the death of the body).
If the congregator is clear on one thing, he is clear on death.
It is the final point in each one's ma'aseh (deed, work, action that which comprises one's life) and is the one immutable event that each and every human, animal and other organism must succumb to, and it cuts cleanly across all categories of morality and class. And it is keenly in agreement with other portions of the Bible that treat the same subjects.
For example, it agrees with Genesis on man being made up of a body composed of dust of the ground and being animated by the very life-force of Yhwh and the breath that sustains it (Eccl 3:20-21, Eccl 12:7; Genesis 2:7; Genesis 7:22; Isaiah 42:5).
It affirms the biblical teaching that man was created upright, but willfully chose a path away from his creator, to disobey the life instructions given to him by his creator (Eccl 7:29; Genesis 1:31; Genesis 3:17; De 32:4-5), and it acknowledges Yhwh as the creator (Eccl 12:1; Genesis 1:1).
And it concurs with the rest of the Bible as to the state of the dead.
"For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten." Eccl 9:5 [NKJV]
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom." - Eccl 9:10 [NIV]
"His [God's] spirit goes out, he [man] goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish." - Psalms 146:4
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return" - Genesis 3:19 [KJV]
"The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence" – Psalms 115:17 [KJV]
"He said these things, and after this he said to them: "Laz´a•rus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep." Therefore the disciples said to him: "Lord, if he has gone to rest, he will get well." Jesus had spoken, however, about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. At that time, therefore, Jesus said to them outspokenly: "Laz´a•rus has died" - John 11:11-14
In the Bereshit (Genesis), where was Adam before Jehovah created him from the dust? He was nowhere - he simply did not exist – God formed him from the dust of the ground. So when Jehovah said that Adam would "return to the ground," he meant exactly that - that Adam would die and return to the elements in the ground. There was never any mention Adam would mystically cross over to the spirit realm. At death Adam would once again be nonexistent. His punishment after all was death—absence of life—not a transfer to another realm to continue living .— Romans 6:23.
If you have been following Plotz' bible blog of the Hebrew Scriptures, and you are a Christian, you might do well to note that you are now 85 percent of the way through – and there is no mention of an immortal soul, or immortal spirit, for mankind – as the Qoheleth so correctly notes –
"For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the, and they have the same eventuality. As one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so there is no superiority of the man over the beast … all are going to one place - they have all come to be from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust." – Eccl 3:19-20.
And of course, without an immortal spirit, the falsehood of a place for eternal torment for people who have died as "unbelievers" or anyone else - becomes impotent and exposed. You would think it would give cause to a small spark of thought to the average believer in the biblical texts that those two such important doctrines in Christianity (and to a lesser degree modern Rabbincal Judaism) as the immortal soul of man and eternal punishment in hell – are never spoken of in the Hebrew words of Yhwh.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Mystery Religions and Death by Immortality
The great mystery religions believe that all religious text is allegory, and all reality illusion, and mere shadow of unseen truth - all "layers", if you will, which are a representation of what is unseen in this world of illusion that we live. And these stories, or allegories, can not be understood or "peeled back" except by the those initiated through ritual into the mystery - such religious initiation is not available to the common public person.
This premise is often adopted by modern Pagan-Christianity, as indeed that is its roots, that unless one is taken over by the holy "ghost", and aparition, or mysterious spirit, no truth will be revealed and comprehension never reached. The Bible teaches quite the opposite.
Here is a post from June of last year (I think) - it is rather long - but that's because I could not sleep that night anyway. I see an obvious irony in what the Bibile teaches as compared to modren day religions, and to that effect, I refer to it as "Death by Immortality".
This premise is often adopted by modern Pagan-Christianity, as indeed that is its roots, that unless one is taken over by the holy "ghost", and aparition, or mysterious spirit, no truth will be revealed and comprehension never reached. The Bible teaches quite the opposite.
Here is a post from June of last year (I think) - it is rather long - but that's because I could not sleep that night anyway. I see an obvious irony in what the Bibile teaches as compared to modren day religions, and to that effect, I refer to it as "Death by Immortality".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
