"In the year 317, a new contention arose in Egypt with consequences of a pernicious nature. The subject of this fatal controversy which kindled such deplorable divisions throughout the Christian world, was the doctrine of three Persons in the Godhead, a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches." - J. Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History [New York: Harper, 1839], 1:399.
"When we look back through the long ages of the reign of the Trinity ... we shall perceive that few dctrines have produced more unmixed evil." - Andrews, Norton, A Statement of Reason for Not Believing the Doctrine of the Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ [Hilliard, Gray & Co., 1833], 287 [page 374 in the 14th Edition].
"Christological doctrine has never in practice been derived simply by way of logical inference from the statements of Scripture [...] The Church has not usually in practice [whatever it may have claimed to be doing in theory] based its Christology exclusively on the witness of the New Testament." - Maurice Wiles, The Remaking of Christian Doctrine [London; SCM Press, 1974, pages 54-55].
"The Greeks distorted the concept of Jesus' legal agency to ontological identity, creating an illogical set of creeds and doctrines to cause confusion and terror for later generations of Christians." - Professor Buchanan, from correspondence, 1994.
"Nowhere does the New testament identify Jesus with God." - William Barclay, A Spiritual Autobiography [Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1975, page 782]
"The adoption of a non-biblical phrase at Nicea constituted a landmark in the growth of dogma: the Trinity is true, since the Church - the universal Church speaking by its Bishops - says so, though the Bible does not! [...] We have a formula, but what does that formula contain? No child of the Church dare seek to answer." - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th Edition [1936], 7:501, 502; "Dogma, Dogmatics Theology".
What it is all about is the primitive Christian [and Hebrew and Jewish] doctrine that simply states, "God is one" Spend some time and sweep away the Nicene encrustations.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
This is Ra
Ra
רע
Ra, the adjective form, comes from the primitive root verb, ra’a, meaning to be bad, or be evil. This is the same root which occurs in the Ugartic as well. In Akkadian, as well as Phoenician, it is raggu. The essential meaning of the word can be seen in its frequent juxtaposition with the Hebrew word, tov, or good.
The first use of tov is in Genesis chapter one where Jehovah calls his handiwork "good". But in Hebrew, word constructs represent function as viewed from the five senses. The word tov would best be translated with the word "functional". When Jehovah looked at his handiwork he did not see that it was "good", he saw that it was functional; perfect for its intended purpose. In contrast, the Hebrew word "ra", while often translated as evil or bad, is probably best translated as dysfunctional; imperfect for its intended purpose. But why?
The word righteous is an abstract word so an understanding of the concrete is needed. One of the best ways to do this, is locate the original concrete meaning of a word in direct context, in a sentence where its concrete meaning can be seen, if possible. For example the word yashar is usually translated as upright or righteous (abstracts) is also translated as "straight". From this we can conclude that a "yashar" is one who walks a straight line. With tsadiyq however, and its verb form tsadaq, there are no direct usage of this word in its concrete meaning. But there are then parallels with synonyms and comparisons with antonyms. When we look at the word tsadiyq we find that it is commonly paralleled with the word "rasha". Rasha is usually translated as "wicked" but has a concrete meaning of "to depart from the path and become lost". From this we can conclude that a tsadiyq is one who remains on the path. The path is the course through life which God has outlined for us in his word. Jehovah provides the outline, and the instruction, the knowledge, and the wisdom, and the insight, which leads to life, which is functional for the intended purpose of man – whereas as departure from this, leads ultimately to dysfunction – death.
How then, does one find them self coming to be departed from the path and thus lost? By choice. The choice is made to personally depart, just as the choice is made personally to remain on Jehovah’s path. Here is Eve, for example:
As in all Hebrew word constructs, the paleo supports the concrete meaning. One who is following the path established by Jehovah, is called tsadiyq; whereas one who departs from the path established by Jehovah, is called rasha. And ra, as indicated in the paleo, is the cause for departing from the path established by Jehovah. So what is the foundational paleo behind the concrete cause for departing from the path established and becoming lost, dysfunctional?
Resh: The ancient picture for this Hebrew letter is the head of a man, having the meaning of the head, or man, as well as chief, top, beginning, or first.
Ayin: The ancient picture is one an eye, representing the concrete ideas of seeing, and watching, as well as knowledge, as the eye is the window of knowledge.
Combined you have the knowledge, or insight, of man [or man’s sight or knowledge]. In fact, from the above verse, one can readily see that Eve relied upon her own knowledge, her own personal sight, her own personal decision to determine for herself a path different from that presented to her and her husband – in direct opposition to the insight and instruction provided by Jehovah. Soon after her self-reliant choice was made, she departed, and became lost. She committed ra, and thus became rasha.
Jehovah has provided a path to life/functionality. Departure from this path leads to death/dysfunctionality. Always in the bible – two paths – one laid by Jehovah in all his sovereign insight, knowledge, wisdom, justice, and love – and the other – well, it comes from man – and yet we are told, “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step”, and conversely about the righteous, one reads “The law of God is in his heart, his steps will not wobble”.
Ra - Man’s own determination of his own steps on his own path based on what man himself, independent of Jehovah, determines to be knowledge and insight regarding that path and its direction. Following oneself, or man, versus following Jehovah..
רע
Ra, the adjective form, comes from the primitive root verb, ra’a, meaning to be bad, or be evil. This is the same root which occurs in the Ugartic as well. In Akkadian, as well as Phoenician, it is raggu. The essential meaning of the word can be seen in its frequent juxtaposition with the Hebrew word, tov, or good.
The first use of tov is in Genesis chapter one where Jehovah calls his handiwork "good". But in Hebrew, word constructs represent function as viewed from the five senses. The word tov would best be translated with the word "functional". When Jehovah looked at his handiwork he did not see that it was "good", he saw that it was functional; perfect for its intended purpose. In contrast, the Hebrew word "ra", while often translated as evil or bad, is probably best translated as dysfunctional; imperfect for its intended purpose. But why?
The word righteous is an abstract word so an understanding of the concrete is needed. One of the best ways to do this, is locate the original concrete meaning of a word in direct context, in a sentence where its concrete meaning can be seen, if possible. For example the word yashar is usually translated as upright or righteous (abstracts) is also translated as "straight". From this we can conclude that a "yashar" is one who walks a straight line. With tsadiyq however, and its verb form tsadaq, there are no direct usage of this word in its concrete meaning. But there are then parallels with synonyms and comparisons with antonyms. When we look at the word tsadiyq we find that it is commonly paralleled with the word "rasha". Rasha is usually translated as "wicked" but has a concrete meaning of "to depart from the path and become lost". From this we can conclude that a tsadiyq is one who remains on the path. The path is the course through life which God has outlined for us in his word. Jehovah provides the outline, and the instruction, the knowledge, and the wisdom, and the insight, which leads to life, which is functional for the intended purpose of man – whereas as departure from this, leads ultimately to dysfunction – death.
How then, does one find them self coming to be departed from the path and thus lost? By choice. The choice is made to personally depart, just as the choice is made personally to remain on Jehovah’s path. Here is Eve, for example:
Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon.
Genesis 3:5
As in all Hebrew word constructs, the paleo supports the concrete meaning. One who is following the path established by Jehovah, is called tsadiyq; whereas one who departs from the path established by Jehovah, is called rasha. And ra, as indicated in the paleo, is the cause for departing from the path established by Jehovah. So what is the foundational paleo behind the concrete cause for departing from the path established and becoming lost, dysfunctional?
Resh: The ancient picture for this Hebrew letter is the head of a man, having the meaning of the head, or man, as well as chief, top, beginning, or first.
Ayin: The ancient picture is one an eye, representing the concrete ideas of seeing, and watching, as well as knowledge, as the eye is the window of knowledge.
Combined you have the knowledge, or insight, of man [or man’s sight or knowledge]. In fact, from the above verse, one can readily see that Eve relied upon her own knowledge, her own personal sight, her own personal decision to determine for herself a path different from that presented to her and her husband – in direct opposition to the insight and instruction provided by Jehovah. Soon after her self-reliant choice was made, she departed, and became lost. She committed ra, and thus became rasha.
Jehovah has provided a path to life/functionality. Departure from this path leads to death/dysfunctionality. Always in the bible – two paths – one laid by Jehovah in all his sovereign insight, knowledge, wisdom, justice, and love – and the other – well, it comes from man – and yet we are told, “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step”, and conversely about the righteous, one reads “The law of God is in his heart, his steps will not wobble”.
Ra - Man’s own determination of his own steps on his own path based on what man himself, independent of Jehovah, determines to be knowledge and insight regarding that path and its direction. Following oneself, or man, versus following Jehovah..
And it came about that, as soon as Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab immediately said to him: “Id this you, the bringer of ostracism upon Israel?”
To this he said: “I have not brought ostracism upon Israel, but you and the house of your father have, because you men left the commandments of Jehovah, and you went following Ba’als”
1 Kings 18:17-18
“Then Elijah approached all the people and said: “How long will you be limping upon two different opinions?
If Jehovah is the true God, go following him, but if Ba’al is, go following him. And the people did not say a word in answer to him.”
1 Kings 18:21
“Know that Jehovah is God
It is he that has made us, and not we ourselves. We are his people and the sheep of his pasturage”
Psalms 100:3
“Therefore Jesus spoke again to them, saying: “I am the light of the world. He that follows me will by no means walk in darkness, but will possess the light of life”
John 8:12
Now if it is bad in your eyes to serve Jehovah, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve, whether the gods that your forefathers who were on the other side of the river served or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are dwelling. But as for me and my household, we shall serve Jehovah.
Joshua 24:15
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Tom [taw-mem] - A Word of Integrity
The Hebrew word for integrity [tom] is depicted quite simply in ancient Hebrew pictographs actually – but before getting to that description there is a relevant biblical concept which serves as a foundation – that being, the Hebrew word for heart, or lev [or some transliterate “leb”].
Lev is represented by the combination of the lamed and the beyt. The lamed is represented by the ancient pictograph of the staff--standing for authority, as it was used to direct the flocks and it was the motivator serving to move the flock in the desired direction. It is combined then with the beyt--the picture of the tent floor plan, meaning inside, as the family lives inside the tent.
Combined, you have the “authority within”, or heart – a person’s true authority within themselves. A similar English phrase, “the heart of the matter” still reflects this understanding [also reflected in Matthew 12:40, Exodus 15:8, Jonah 2:3, 2 Samuel 18:14]. It is the lev which proves the inner most core motivator of the human being – the authority within.
Indeed, the FDS correctly states in this matter, when it quotes from the Journal of the society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1882, page 67, in the Insight Volume 1, page 1057, 4th paragraph “It is said to stand for ‘the central part in general, the inside, and so for the interior man as manifesting himself in all his various activities, in his desires, affections, emotions, passions, purposes, his thoughts, perceptions, imaginations, his wisdom, knowledge, skill, his beliefs, his reasonings, his memory, and his consciousness”, and they go on to state, “not mere outward appearances but what a person really is inside is what counts with God, who is an examiner of hearts.”
In this same regard, the FDS also notes accurately that the literal heart must be whole in order to function properly, and it must be full with blood, in order to pump properly, the life giving blood through the body. Just as a literal heart must be full and complete in order to function [tov] properly, so also must the figurative heart [see Volume 1, page 1058]. As they state, “One seeking to please God must be neither halfhearted nor double hearted, but must serve him with a complete heart.”
In further substantiating this concept, the subtitle “What is meant by being in want of heart”?” they go on to describe that such a person is lacking, void or empty, of certain traits in their lev, or authority within - such as void of understanding, lacking good judgment or discernment, lacking experience, lacking wisdom, et al – showing that the “positive qualities of the inner person” are deficient. And so the heart or lev is not full, it is lacking, deficient, dysfunctional, and perhaps even corrupted.
It is upon this foundation that the concrete meaning of the Hebrew “integrity”, or tom, relates. The Hebrew word tom is the combination of the taw, and the mem [taw-mem].
The taw is depicted by the picture of two crossed sticks, as in “x” marks the spot, which is indeed, its concrete meaning, a mark. The mem is depicted by the waves of the water, like an upside down English “m” or an upright English “w” depicting the waves of water, meaning liquid, water, or sea – and in certain primary usages, it can mean mighty and massive [from the size of the sea] and chaos from the storms; being an often feared, and unknown place to the Hebrew. For this reason, mem is letter used as a question word, such as who, what, when, where, how and why, but its primary meaning is water--from mayim, meaning water.
In tom, the taw is the first character or picture, and as such, it is hold the predominate place in understanding the meaning. The taw combined with the mem, means simply a mark of water, such as is left on the shores of a lake or river which can be seen should the water level drop below that of “full” or if the lake or river is not “completely full”.
In some Hebrew containers, a mark was often placed a line around the top edge of the container, on the inside, so that when water was poured into the container, and the water reached the established mark, it was known to be “completely full” and could be carried without risk of spillage. Additionally, one could easily measure the emptiness or deficiency of the container, be it a lake or that of a water vessel, by simply comparing the liquid level relative to the mark. In this way, being completely “full” was determinable and measurable, as was being deficient, or lacking in fullness.
Additionally, a rock, tree or tree stump, located in, and surrounded by water, often served as a permanent positioning mark for areas around lakes, or bodies of water – as they were firmly grounded in the underlying dirt bed below. Regardless of how turbulent the water in which they stood became, these marks remained in place – they did not sway, they did not wash away. In this sense, these marks could be repeatedly relied upon in navigating the lakes, or navigating the shores surrounding the bodies of water.
Note also the meaning of the English word “integrity” - when it is applied to objects, integrity refers to the wholeness, intactness or purity of a thing—meanings that are sometimes carried over when it is applied to people. A wilderness region has integrity when it has not been corrupted by development or by the side-effects of development, when it remains intact as wilderness, as the solid tree stump or protruding rock in a lake remains intact regardless of the turbulent water. A database maintains its integrity as long as it remains uncorrupted by error; a defense system as long as it is not breached. A musical work might be said to have integrity when its musical structure has a certain completeness or fullness that is not intruded upon by uncoordinated, unrelated musical ideas; that is, when it possesses a kind of musical wholeness, intactness and purity, a complete fullness - it is therefore not deficient, uncorrupted, not in want.
Just as tom [taw-mem] is the mark of water, or waterline, used to assess fullness, completeness, intactness – a way to measure the fullness of a lake, a water vessel, or even the human vessel [by the fullness, or “integrity” of heart], or conversely, a way of assessing whether something is not completely full, and therefore in want, or lacking something, in need of something, deficient, divided, or corrupted.
In Psalm 7:8, David states, “Jehovah himself will pass judgment on the peoples. Judge me, O Jehovah, according to my righteousness [tsedeq] and according to my integrity [tom, a full and complete heart by biblical measure] in me.”
In Psalm 26:1, David writes, “Judge me, O Jehovah, for I myself have walked in my own integrity [tom, a full and complete heart by biblical measure]”
As an aside interest, which I have not yet looked into, the plural form of tom, or tummin, “perfections”, describes the Thummin, the precious stones of Aaron’s breastplate.
I hope that is of some assistance in understanding integrity – the line of measurement of a full and complete heart, as is a lake, or any contained body of water [mem], measured against its own line, or mark [taw].
Lev is represented by the combination of the lamed and the beyt. The lamed is represented by the ancient pictograph of the staff--standing for authority, as it was used to direct the flocks and it was the motivator serving to move the flock in the desired direction. It is combined then with the beyt--the picture of the tent floor plan, meaning inside, as the family lives inside the tent.
Combined, you have the “authority within”, or heart – a person’s true authority within themselves. A similar English phrase, “the heart of the matter” still reflects this understanding [also reflected in Matthew 12:40, Exodus 15:8, Jonah 2:3, 2 Samuel 18:14]. It is the lev which proves the inner most core motivator of the human being – the authority within.
Indeed, the FDS correctly states in this matter, when it quotes from the Journal of the society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1882, page 67, in the Insight Volume 1, page 1057, 4th paragraph “It is said to stand for ‘the central part in general, the inside, and so for the interior man as manifesting himself in all his various activities, in his desires, affections, emotions, passions, purposes, his thoughts, perceptions, imaginations, his wisdom, knowledge, skill, his beliefs, his reasonings, his memory, and his consciousness”, and they go on to state, “not mere outward appearances but what a person really is inside is what counts with God, who is an examiner of hearts.”
In this same regard, the FDS also notes accurately that the literal heart must be whole in order to function properly, and it must be full with blood, in order to pump properly, the life giving blood through the body. Just as a literal heart must be full and complete in order to function [tov] properly, so also must the figurative heart [see Volume 1, page 1058]. As they state, “One seeking to please God must be neither halfhearted nor double hearted, but must serve him with a complete heart.”
In further substantiating this concept, the subtitle “What is meant by being in want of heart”?” they go on to describe that such a person is lacking, void or empty, of certain traits in their lev, or authority within - such as void of understanding, lacking good judgment or discernment, lacking experience, lacking wisdom, et al – showing that the “positive qualities of the inner person” are deficient. And so the heart or lev is not full, it is lacking, deficient, dysfunctional, and perhaps even corrupted.
It is upon this foundation that the concrete meaning of the Hebrew “integrity”, or tom, relates. The Hebrew word tom is the combination of the taw, and the mem [taw-mem].
The taw is depicted by the picture of two crossed sticks, as in “x” marks the spot, which is indeed, its concrete meaning, a mark. The mem is depicted by the waves of the water, like an upside down English “m” or an upright English “w” depicting the waves of water, meaning liquid, water, or sea – and in certain primary usages, it can mean mighty and massive [from the size of the sea] and chaos from the storms; being an often feared, and unknown place to the Hebrew. For this reason, mem is letter used as a question word, such as who, what, when, where, how and why, but its primary meaning is water--from mayim, meaning water.
In tom, the taw is the first character or picture, and as such, it is hold the predominate place in understanding the meaning. The taw combined with the mem, means simply a mark of water, such as is left on the shores of a lake or river which can be seen should the water level drop below that of “full” or if the lake or river is not “completely full”.
In some Hebrew containers, a mark was often placed a line around the top edge of the container, on the inside, so that when water was poured into the container, and the water reached the established mark, it was known to be “completely full” and could be carried without risk of spillage. Additionally, one could easily measure the emptiness or deficiency of the container, be it a lake or that of a water vessel, by simply comparing the liquid level relative to the mark. In this way, being completely “full” was determinable and measurable, as was being deficient, or lacking in fullness.
Additionally, a rock, tree or tree stump, located in, and surrounded by water, often served as a permanent positioning mark for areas around lakes, or bodies of water – as they were firmly grounded in the underlying dirt bed below. Regardless of how turbulent the water in which they stood became, these marks remained in place – they did not sway, they did not wash away. In this sense, these marks could be repeatedly relied upon in navigating the lakes, or navigating the shores surrounding the bodies of water.
Note also the meaning of the English word “integrity” - when it is applied to objects, integrity refers to the wholeness, intactness or purity of a thing—meanings that are sometimes carried over when it is applied to people. A wilderness region has integrity when it has not been corrupted by development or by the side-effects of development, when it remains intact as wilderness, as the solid tree stump or protruding rock in a lake remains intact regardless of the turbulent water. A database maintains its integrity as long as it remains uncorrupted by error; a defense system as long as it is not breached. A musical work might be said to have integrity when its musical structure has a certain completeness or fullness that is not intruded upon by uncoordinated, unrelated musical ideas; that is, when it possesses a kind of musical wholeness, intactness and purity, a complete fullness - it is therefore not deficient, uncorrupted, not in want.
Just as tom [taw-mem] is the mark of water, or waterline, used to assess fullness, completeness, intactness – a way to measure the fullness of a lake, a water vessel, or even the human vessel [by the fullness, or “integrity” of heart], or conversely, a way of assessing whether something is not completely full, and therefore in want, or lacking something, in need of something, deficient, divided, or corrupted.
In Psalm 7:8, David states, “Jehovah himself will pass judgment on the peoples. Judge me, O Jehovah, according to my righteousness [tsedeq] and according to my integrity [tom, a full and complete heart by biblical measure] in me.”
In Psalm 26:1, David writes, “Judge me, O Jehovah, for I myself have walked in my own integrity [tom, a full and complete heart by biblical measure]”
As an aside interest, which I have not yet looked into, the plural form of tom, or tummin, “perfections”, describes the Thummin, the precious stones of Aaron’s breastplate.
I hope that is of some assistance in understanding integrity – the line of measurement of a full and complete heart, as is a lake, or any contained body of water [mem], measured against its own line, or mark [taw].
Thursday, September 27, 2007
070927 - SARI "On Dying"
The scripture emphatically states, “Ume'ets hada'at tov vara lo tochal mimenu ki beyom acholcha mimenu mot tamut.” Bereshit 2:17
Mot [or muwth] is a state (no longer breathing) while tamut [ata-mut] is how you (ata') will get there (i.e., a process), as is contextually indicated in Genesis 3:17 “ … all the days of your life”, and in 19 - "by the sweat of your brow you will eat bread. Finally [or until] you will return to the ground, for it was from [the ground] that you were taken. You are dust, and to dust you shall return " – a process of death which humans inherited from the first pair. Everyone born begins this process of dying from the day he or she is “born.
Mankind was made of the dust of the ground, there was no existence before that time. They were nephesh chayah - a living soul. They were made exactly as the animals who are also called nephesh chayah - living souls. Genesis 1:20,21.
It is just as Solomon states: “For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity.”
If, as pagan Christendom teaches - that all personality, disposition, thinking ability, emotion, and reasoning come from something esoteric that dwells within [immortal soul] and that said immortal soul lives on after death - then it is you who believes that what Satan told Eve is the truth and God is the liar.
Mot [or muwth] is a state (no longer breathing) while tamut [ata-mut] is how you (ata') will get there (i.e., a process), as is contextually indicated in Genesis 3:17 “ … all the days of your life”, and in 19 - "by the sweat of your brow you will eat bread. Finally [or until] you will return to the ground, for it was from [the ground] that you were taken. You are dust, and to dust you shall return " – a process of death which humans inherited from the first pair. Everyone born begins this process of dying from the day he or she is “born.
Mankind was made of the dust of the ground, there was no existence before that time. They were nephesh chayah - a living soul. They were made exactly as the animals who are also called nephesh chayah - living souls. Genesis 1:20,21.
It is just as Solomon states: “For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity.”
If, as pagan Christendom teaches - that all personality, disposition, thinking ability, emotion, and reasoning come from something esoteric that dwells within [immortal soul] and that said immortal soul lives on after death - then it is you who believes that what Satan told Eve is the truth and God is the liar.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
SARI 070925 Lake of Fire
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)
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, 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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
