Conversations with sylvius: Rashi, 666 in Genesis 1:31, etc.

[sylvius]

You might even say that if NT does mean it different it misinterprets the story of creation.

Genesis 2:23,
זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי

"zot hapa'am etsem meiatsamai uvasar mib'sari"

"This one this time bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"

Rashi:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166/showrashi/true

This one this time: This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve. — [from Yev. 63a]

(Note that chabad.org presents a wrong translation. "zot" refers to the woman. "hapaam"= this time, at last. )

Somewhere I read "ezer" in "ezer kenegdo" ( a helpmate opposite him) is a play with "zera"= sperm, written with the same letters.
Only Eve could take up Adam's sperm so that they could become one flesh (in Cain and Abel).

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rashi has:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166/showrashi/true


one flesh: The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one. — [from Sanh. 58a]
I don't think NT means it different.

It strikes a blow for all bastards.
Rashi's comment makes some sense. I saw the same thing as one possible "aspect" of that verse, but it is not what the NT says about that passage. On the contrary, the NT says the man and woman are "one flesh" in the sense of they themselves being "one flesh" -
Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
The NT is clear - the "one flesh" refers to the unity of the man and woman as such, not merely in the sense of the child as a product of the two.

I think this shows why Jewish commentators should not be taken as "authoritative" when it comes to interpreting the Bible. They were just men who had their own fallible opinions like everyone else.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You might even say that if NT does mean it different it misinterprets the story of creation.

Genesis 2:23,
זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי

"zot hapa'am etsem meiatsamai uvasar mib'sari"

"This one this time bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"

Rashi:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166/showrashi/true

This one this time: This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve. — [from Yev. 63a]

(Note that chabad.org presents a wrong translation. "zot" refers to the woman. "hapaam"= this time, at last. )

Somewhere I read "ezer" in "ezer kenegdo" ( a helpmate opposite him) is a play with "zera"= sperm, written with the same letters.
Only Eve could take up Adam's sperm so that they could become one flesh (in Cain and Abel).
Well, the NT most certainly does interpret it differently as shown in my previous post. Is there any reason we should think that the Rabbis got it right and the NT got it wrong? I don't see any logic supporting the rabbinical assertions. Why should they have more authority than the writers of the NT? Paul was educated under Gamaliel you know. So he was every bit as much a "Rabbi" as Rashi, and he lived a lot earlier so he was closer to the source. And for Christians there can be no question, since Rashi was an unbeliever, and Paul was an inspired writer of the Word of God.

I'm glad you brought up the interpretation of that comment from Yevamoth 63a. It has been the source of a lot of negative statements about the Talmud. It is often interpreted as saying that "This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve." While this interpretation is possible, I don't think it is necessarily correct. Here's the actual text (http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-2.htm) which I found on the Chabad site:


זאת הפעם: מלמד שבא אדם על כל בהמה וחיה ולא נתקררה דעתו בהם עד שבא על חוה

The question hinges on the term shabah which literally means "of whom he came to" (from the root ba, to come, prefixed with the letter shin signifying the relative pronoun "who, which"). So the literal translation would be "This teaches us that of all the beasts and animals Adam came to, none satisfied his knowledge until he came to Eve." Here's an interesting YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coVLIc2-Dbs) that interprets it this way. But there is another possibility. I read somewhere that the word "shabah" is used elsewhere in the Talmud as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. And the reference to Adam "satisfying" (literally "cooling") his knowledge has sexual overtones in both the "cooling" and the reference to "knowing" since that is a common Biblical euphemism for sex. So the evidence is pretty ambiguous. I need to research this more. Do you know of any rabbinical comments that interpret it explicitly as referring to sexual intercourse with animals?

[sylvius]

Rashi's comment makes some sense. I saw the same thing as one possible "aspect" of that verse, but it is not what the NT says about that passage. On the contrary, the NT says the man and woman are "one flesh" in the sense of they themselves being "one flesh" -
Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
The NT is clear - the "one flesh" refers to the unity of the man and woman as such, not merely in the sense of the child as a product of the two.

I think this shows why Jewish commentators should not be taken as "authoritative" when it comes to interpreting the Bible. They were just men who had their own fallible opinions like everyone else.

But why take Ephesians as authoritative? It even was not written by Paul. Ephesians 5:31 does read Genesis 1:24 out of context.

Matthew 19 continues with the statement:

whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

Statement, not moral judgement.

Like also Matthew 5:32,

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
And right before that, v.27-28:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Also statement.


Matthew 19 continues with the disciples' remark:

“If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Marry , Greek "gameo", has sexual connotation, "gamos"= cohabitation.

Like also in Matthew 22:30,

ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστάσει οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται, ἀλλ' ὡς ἄγγελοι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ εἰσιν.
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. As resurrected ones they don't have sex.

Matthew 19 continues with:

But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

Moreover,
Matthew 19:29 tells same kind of thing:

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold[c] and will inherit eternal life.

Luke 18:29-30 even inserts "wife"" :

And he said to them, “Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

[sylvius]

The question hinges on the term shabah which literally means "of whom he came to" (from the root ba, to come, prefixed with the letter shin signifying the relative pronoun "who, which"). So the literal translation would be "This teaches us that of all the beasts and animals Adam came to, none satisfied his knowledge until he came to Eve." Here's an interesting YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coVLIc2-Dbs) that interprets it this way. But there is another possibility. I read somewhere that the word "shabah" is used elsewhere in the Talmud as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. And the reference to Adam "satisfying" (literally "cooling") his knowledge has sexual overtones in both the "cooling" and the reference to "knowing" since that is a common Biblical euphemism for sex. So the evidence is pretty ambiguous. I need to research this more.


Genesis 16:5,

וַיָּבֹא אֶל הָגָר וַתַּהַר וַתֵּרֶא כִּי הָרָתָה וַתֵּקַל גְּבִרְתָּהּ בְּעֵינֶיהָ
And he came to Hagar, and she conceived, and she saw that she was pregnant, and her mistress became unimportant in her eyes.

Genesis 29:33,

וַיְהִי בָעֶרֶב וַיִּקַּח אֶת לֵאָה בִתּוֹ וַיָּבֵא אֹתָהּ אֵלָיו וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ
And it came to pass in the evening that Laban took his daughter Leah, and he brought her to him, and he came to her.

Ruth 4:13,

וַיִּקַּח בֹּעַז אֶת-רוּת וַתְּהִי-לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ; וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה לָהּ הֵרָיוֹן, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן
And Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife; and he came to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.


Do you know of any rabbinical comments that interpret it explicitly as referring to sexual intercourse with animals?

Yes Rashi's after Yevamoth 63a.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

But why take Ephesians as authoritative? It even was not written by Paul. Ephesians 5:31 does read Genesis 1:24 out of context.

If you don't take the New Testament as authoritative, why do you quote it all the time as if it were authoritative?



Matthew 19 continues with the statement:
whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.


Statement, not moral judgement.

A moral judgment is a statement.



Like also Matthew 5:32,
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And right before that, v.27-28:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Also statement.

Matthew 19 continues with the disciples' remark:
“If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”


Marry , Greek "gameo", has sexual connotation, "gamos"= cohabitation.

Like also in Matthew 22:30,
ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστάσει οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται, ἀλλ' ὡς ἄγγελοι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ εἰσιν.
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

As resurrected ones they don't have sex.

Matthew 19 continues with:
But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”


Moreover,
Matthew 19:29 tells same kind of thing:
And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold[c] and will inherit eternal life.


Luke 18:29-30 even inserts "wife"" :
And he said to them, “Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”


Why did you quote those verses? What was you point?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Genesis 16:5,
וַיָּבֹא אֶל הָגָר וַתַּהַר וַתֵּרֶא כִּי הָרָתָה וַתֵּקַל גְּבִרְתָּהּ בְּעֵינֶיהָ
And he came to Hagar, and she conceived, and she saw that she was pregnant, and her mistress became unimportant in her eyes.


Genesis 29:33,
וַיְהִי בָעֶרֶב וַיִּקַּח אֶת לֵאָה בִתּוֹ וַיָּבֵא אֹתָהּ אֵלָיו וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ
And it came to pass in the evening that Laban took his daughter Leah, and he brought her to him, and he came to her.

Ruth 4:13,
וַיִּקַּח בֹּעַז אֶת-רוּת וַתְּהִי-לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ; וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה לָהּ הֵרָיוֹן, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן
And Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife; and he came to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.


Good examples. So you believe that the Talmud really does teach that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals?



Yes Rashi's after Yevamoth 63a.
Where? Please be specific. Thanks.

[sylvius]

If you don't take the New Testament as authoritative, why do you quote it all the time as if it were authoritative?

Why then do you consider Ephesians more authoritative than Rashi?




A moral judgment is a statement.

It means the whole world is adulterous.
which is not a statement of a moralist.



Why did you quote those verses? What was you point?

The disciples said:
“If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

and then came the (obscure) saying about the eunuchs.

Matthew 19:27

Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you.
intimates that the disciples had seperated from their wives.

[sylvius]

Good examples. So you believe that the Talmud really does teach that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals?

The Talmud doesn't present unambiguous teaching.

And more: Adam having sex with animals is more like a metaphor.

He must have also have had sex with the snake, the most shrewd of all the beasts of the field, or at least have tried to find in him a helpmate.




Where? Please be specific. Thanks.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166/showrashi/true

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Why then do you consider Ephesians more authoritative than Rashi?

I don't consider either authoritative. But Christians would have good reason to think that Ephesians is more authoritative than Rashi.

It appears that you treat some verses in the NT as authoritative if they agree with your opinions, and others as not authoritative if they disagree with your opinions. That seems to be inconsistent to me. Why do you quote the NT at all? What do you believe about it? I've been wondering about this for a very long time, but I can't seem to get a straight answer from you. Are you Christian? Do you believe in Jesus? Was he the Messiah? What do you think it all means?



It means the whole world is adulterous.
which is not a statement of a moralist.

OK - it sounds like you are saying that the teaching is not about a person who actually gets a divorce, but rather it is about everyone because everyone has an adulterous heart? I can see how you might infer that from Matthew 5:28 ("whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her") but I don't see how you can get it from Matthew 19.



The disciples said:
“If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

and then came the (obscure) saying about the eunuchs.

Matthew 19:27
Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you.

intimates that the disciples had seperated from their wives.
As far as I can tell, you have said that these teachings are figurative because you applied the literal teaching about divorce as symbolic of everyone. Now is seem you are taking them literally. This confuses me.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So you believe that the Talmud really does teach that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals?
The Talmud doesn't present unambiguous teaching.

Say what? The Talmud is the most ambiguous text I have ever read.



And more: Adam having sex with animals is more like a metaphor.

It is not presented as a metaphor. And whether literal or metaphoric, it is still quite perverse to say that Adam had sex with all the animals.



He must have also have had sex with the snake, the most shrewd of all the beasts of the field, or at least have tried to find in him a helpmate.

That seems pretty absurd to me.



http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166/showrashi/true
That was the page I cited in my previous post. It's where I got this quote from Yevamoth 63a:

This time: This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve. — [from Yev. 63a]

I was wondering if you knew of any other rabbinic comments that would confirm the interpretation that Adam had sex with the animals. I asked because some Jews argue that the comment has been misinterpreted and that it doesn't say anything about Adam having sex with the animals.

[sylvius]

I don't consider either authoritative. But Christians would have good reason to think that Ephesians is more authoritative than Rashi.

There seemes to be (still) such a Christian in you


It appears that you treat some verses in the NT as authoritative if they agree with your opinions, and others as not authoritative if they disagree with your opinions.
That's right, I am the one to recognize authority. I must hear it sing somewhere.


That seems to be inconsistent to me. Why do you quote the NT at all?
That's what I "worked" with the past 35 years.


What do you believe about it? I've been wondering about this for a very long time, but I can't seem to get a straight answer from you.
There is some high intelligence in it.



Are you Christian?
Maybe not. I am not member of any church.


Do you believe in Jesus? Was he the Messiah? What do you think it all means?
What do you understand under "Messiah"? And why must there be a Messiah?


OK - it sounds like you are saying that the teaching is not about a person who actually gets a divorce, but rather it is about everyone because everyone has an adulterous heart? I can see how you might infer that from Matthew 5:28 ("whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her") but I don't see how you can get it from Matthew 19.

Jesus is called "the bridegroom", the bridegroom the adulterous world is lacking? Or maybe the bridegroom in everyone of us?


As far as I can tell, you have said that these teachings are figurative because you applied the literal teaching about divorce as symbolic of everyone. Now is seem you are taking them literally. This confuses me.

It affects your own life.

[sylvius]

It is not presented as a metaphor. And whether literal or metaphoric, it is still quite perverse to say that Adam had sex with all the animals.

It is derived from what is written "zot hapaam" , Genesis 2:23,

And man said, "This one this time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."

"paam" = time, step, pace, tread, beat, stroke, base.

From this derived "paamon", bell, gong.

"hapaam" , at last, implies many experiences before.






That was the page I cited in my previous post. It's where I got this quote from Yevamoth 63a:

This time: This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve. — [from Yev. 63a]

I was wondering if you knew of any other rabbinic comments that would confirm the interpretation that Adam had sex with the animals. I asked because some Jews argue that the comment has been misinterpreted and that it doesn't say anything about Adam having sex with the animals.

Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 63a, as indicated.
It is not in my possession, maybe you can find on the internet.

Midrash Rabbah doesn't have it.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I don't consider either authoritative. But Christians would have good reason to think that Ephesians is more authoritative than Rashi.
There seemes to be (still) such a Christian in you

Why would you say that? Am I a Muslim if I say that Muslims have good reason to accept the Koran over Rashi?




It appears that you treat some verses in the NT as authoritative if they agree with your opinions, and others as not authoritative if they disagree with your opinions.
That's right, I am the one to recognize authority. I must hear it sing somewhere.

Well, then you are the only "authority" - the books are just grist for your mill with no real authority at all. And that's fine, except the way you write makes it seem like you are appealing to the authority of those books as if they gave credence to your opinions. So it's rather confusing.




That seems to be inconsistent to me. Why do you quote the NT at all?
That's what I "worked" with the past 35 years.

What is the purpose of your work on the NT? What are you hoping to accomplish? Have you come to any conclusions after 35 years of research? You answers are seems ambiguous for someone who has been working on the NT for so long.




What do you believe about it? I've been wondering about this for a very long time, but I can't seem to get a straight answer from you.
There is some high intelligence in it.

That's true.




Are you Christian?
Maybe not. I am not member of any church.

Why are your answers so evasive?




Do you believe in Jesus? Was he the Messiah? What do you think it all means?
What do you understand under "Messiah"? And why must there be a Messiah?

The concept of Messiah was developed in post-biblical Hebrew tradition. The Tanakh says almost nothing about any "Messiah" (capital M). It doesn't matter what I believe about Messiah. You know what the NT teaches about him. That's what I was asking about. Why are you so evasive?




OK - it sounds like you are saying that the teaching is not about a person who actually gets a divorce, but rather it is about everyone because everyone has an adulterous heart? I can see how you might infer that from Matthew 5:28 ("whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her") but I don't see how you can get it from Matthew 19.
Jesus is called "the bridegroom", the bridegroom the adulterous world is lacking? Or maybe the bridegroom in everyone of us?

Now you are talking about John 3. But I had asked about John 19 because that is what you were talking about earlier. Why are you hopping around from verse to verse? Anyone can weave their own story by plucking threads from the Bible.




As far as I can tell, you have said that these teachings are figurative because you applied the literal teaching about divorce as symbolic of everyone. Now is seem you are taking them literally. This confuses me.
It affects your own life.
That's not an answer.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It is derived from what is written "zot hapaam" , Genesis 2:23,
And man said, "This one this time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."


"paam" = time, step, pace, tread, beat, stroke, base.

From this derived "paamon", bell, gong.

"hapaam" , at last, implies many experiences before.

I understand the Hebrew. It does not imply "many [sexual] experiences before" - that's just your assertion. The text could just as well be speaking of the "many experiences" when he only LOOKED at the animals to see if they would be suitable mates. It says nothing about Adam having sex with the animals, either metaphorically or literally.



Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 63a, as indicated.
It is not in my possession, maybe you can find on the internet.

Midrash Rabbah doesn't have it.
Yes, it's on the internet.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_63.html

But it does not say anything about zot hapaam except in the footnote which says "Gen. II, 23, emphasis on This is now." So maybe the tradition is recorded elsewhere?

[sylvius]

Why would you say that?

Because of:

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Rashi's comment makes some sense. I saw the same thing as one possible "aspect" of that verse, but it is not what the NT says about that passage. On the contrary, the NT says the man and woman are "one flesh" in the sense of they themselves being "one flesh" -
Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
The NT is clear - the "one flesh" refers to the unity of the man and woman as such, not merely in the sense of the child as a product of the two.

I think this shows why Jewish commentators should not be taken as "authoritative" when it comes to interpreting the Bible. They were just men who had their own fallible opinions like everyone else.


Well, then you are the only "authority"
sure


the books are just grist for your mill with no real authority at all.
I wouldn't underline that.


And that's fine, except the way you write makes it seem like you are appealing to the authority of those books as if they gave credence to your opinions. So it's rather confusing.

I once found the number 666 of Revelation 13:18 to be hidden in Genesis 1:31,
and later I found the number 153 of John 21:11 to be hidden in Genesis 1:12.
I just keep hold to that.



What is the purpose of your work on the NT? What are you hoping to accomplish?
To beat my teachers.


Have you come to any conclusions after 35 years of research?
It is every day new.


You answers are seems ambiguous for someone who has been working on the NT for so long.

The fundament is mystery.



The concept of Messiah was developed in post-biblical Hebrew tradition. The Tanakh says almost nothing about any "Messiah" (capital M). It doesn't matter what I believe about Messiah. You know what the NT teaches about him. That's what I was asking about. Why are you so evasive?

As resurrected one the Messiah is present on the first day of creation, actually being God.




Now you are talking about John 3. Was I?

[sylvius]

I understand the Hebrew. It does not imply "many [sexual] experiences before" - that's just your assertion. The text could just as well be speaking of the "many experiences" when he only LOOKED at the animals to see if they would be suitable mates. It says nothing about Adam having sex with the animals, either metaphorically or literally.

"the bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" says something about having sex.



Yes, it's on the internet.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_63.html

But it does not say anything about zot hapaam except in the footnote which says "Gen. II, 23, emphasis on This is now." So maybe the tradition is recorded elsewhere?

You got to be a little more shrewd:

It is in :
This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Because of:


Rashi's comment makes some sense. I saw the same thing as one possible "aspect" of that verse, but it is not what the NT says about that passage. On the contrary, the NT says the man and woman are "one flesh" in the sense of they themselves being "one flesh" -
Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

The NT is clear - the "one flesh" refers to the unity of the man and woman as such, not merely in the sense of the child as a product of the two.

I think this shows why Jewish commentators should not be taken as "authoritative" when it comes to interpreting the Bible. They were just men who had their own fallible opinions like everyone else.

How does that comment make me a "Christian"? I was merely explaining what the NT states. I already told you that I don't think Rashi or the NT is authoritative.



I once found the number 666 of Revelation 13:18 to be hidden in Genesis 1:31,
and later I found the number 153 of John 21:11 to be hidden in Genesis 1:12.
I just keep hold to that.

I've noticed! :lol:



To beat my teachers.

To beat your teachers at what?



It is every day new.

So every day you forget everything you previously concluded? After 35 years you've come to no firm conclusion about anything?




You answers are seems ambiguous for someone who has been working on the NT for so long.
The fundament is mystery.

Your answer is mystery.



As resurrected one the Messiah is present on the first day of creation, actually being God.

That contradicts everything I've read about traditional Judaism. Specifically, it contradicts the 13 principles of faith put forth by Rambam:

http://www.ou.org/torah/rambam.htm




Now you are talking about John 3.
Was I?
That's what I thought because that's the main passage about Jesus as Bridegroom. But you could have been thinking of Matthew 25 or a few of the other verses that mention it.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"the bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" says something about having sex.

No it doesn't. That phrase was referring to Eve being made from Adam's rib. It says nothing about sex.



You got to be a little more shrewd:

It is in :
This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.
[/quote]
Ha! Now you changed our story.

The text does not say "had intercourse with" - it says "went unto" or "into" and that's where you might get the implication of sexual intercourse, but it is not a necessary implication.

Hope that's not to "shrewd" for you! :winking0071:

[sylvius]

How does that comment make me a "Christian"? I was merely explaining what the NT states. I already told you that I don't think Rashi or the NT is authoritative.

ok, i just smelled christian antismetism I got accustomed with on other discussion-forums.
Rashi is great scholar, you can learn a lot of him. He is more Christian (in the true sense) than Christianity.




To beat your teachers at what?
I once studied at a Roman Catholic university.




So every day you forget everything you previously concluded? After 35 years you've come to no firm conclusion about anything? Right



Your answer is mystery it is a wordplay "sod" mystery, "yesod" foundation.



That contradicts everything I've read about traditional Judaism. Specifically, it contradicts the 13 principles of faith put forth by Rambam

That's the way I do interpret/ understand the NT Messiah, who is present already in Tanach, present, but hidden.


That's what I thought because that's the main passage about Jesus as Bridegroom. But you could have been thinking of Matthew 25 or a few of the other verses that mention it.
I indeed was thinking of Matthew 25.

[sylvius]

No it doesn't. That phrase was referring to Eve being made from Adam's rib. It says nothing about sex.

The text actually doesn't say "rib", at least not rib as a bone.

But "side", אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו , "achat mitsal'otav", one of his sides.

LXX has πλευρά "pleura", ἔλαβεν μίαν τῶν πλευρῶν αὐτοῦ

You'll find also in John 19:34
ἀλλ' εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ.




Ha! Now you changed our story.

The text does not say "had intercourse with" - it says "went unto" or "into"

The commentary says so, not the Bible text.


and that's where you might get the implication of sexual intercourse, but it is not a necessary implication.

Adam wasn't satisfied, so it was sex of nothing.

How could he with an ant?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

ok, i just smelled christian antismetism I got accustomed with on other discussion-forums.
Rashi is great scholar, you can learn a lot of him. He is more Christian (in the true sense) than Christianity.

Understood.

I know Rashi is well-respected, but I don't know if he was a "great scholar" or not. It seems like he was just transmitting a lot of tradition he learned along with his own opinions. He seems to be your primary source. Why is that? There are many rabbis you could choose to quote.



I once studied at a Roman Catholic university.

Oh - so you are trying to prove them wrong about their religion?




So every day you forget everything you previously concluded? After 35 years you've come to no firm conclusion about anything?
Right

So you don't even have a thesis after 35 years?

Your comments are always in bits and pieces. They don't make much sense without knowing the larger context that determines your interpretations.



it is a wordplay "sod" mystery, "yesod" foundation.

I should have noticed that. But still, it was just another evasive answer. You seem very interested in sharing your insights since you have been posting on internet forums for many years. And I've read a lot of your posts, but I still have no idea what you are really trying to get at. I don't know your thesis. I don't know the "Big Picture" of what you think it's all about.




That contradicts everything I've read about traditional Judaism. Specifically, it contradicts the 13 principles of faith put forth by Rambam
That's the way I do interpret/ understand the NT Messiah, who is present already in Tanach, present, but hidden.

So you believe that Jesus is Messiah?



I indeed was thinking of Matthew 25.
OK.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The text actually doesn't say "rib", at least not rib as a bone.

But "side", אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו , "achat mitsal'otav", one of his sides.

LXX has πλευρά "pleura", ἔλαβεν μίαν τῶν πλευρῶν αὐτοῦ

You'll find also in John 19:34
ἀλλ' εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ.


What do you think "one of his sides" means? He cut Adam in half?

The text does say rib (Gen 2:22):

וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם.

The word hatzela is a noun prefixed with the definite article ha. It means "the rib." The word can mean side, but it also can mean rib. And what's your point anyway? The text states that God took something from his side, and formed a women.




Ha! Now you changed our story.

The text does not say "had intercourse with" - it says "went unto" or "into"
The commentary says so, not the Bible text.

Which commentary? I looked at Yebamoth 63a and it doesn't say anything about sex, unless you choose to interpret it that way.




and that's where you might get the implication of sexual intercourse, but it is not a necessary implication.
Adam wasn't satisfied, so it was sex of nothing.

That's not correct. Adam wasn't satisfied because he didn't find a mate. Not because he had sex and didn't find a mate.



How could he with an ant?
Why would he do it with a cow?

[sylvius]

I know Rashi is well-respected "well-respected" is not what makes him great.




but I don't know if he was a "great scholar" or not. he was far more intellignet scholar than the so called church -fathers and the like




It seems like he was just transmitting a lot of tradition he learned along with his own opinions. He seems to be your primary source. Why is that? There are many rabbis you could choose to quote.

Rashi stresses the importance of the letter "hey" of "hashishi":

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165/showrashi/true

the sixth day: Scripture added a “hey” on the sixth [day], at the completion of the Creation, to tell us that He stipulated with them, [“you were created] on the condition that Israel accept the Five Books of the Torah.” [The numerical value of the “hey” is five.] (Tanchuma Bereishith 1). Another explanation for “the sixth day” : They [the works of creation] were all suspended until the “sixth day,” referring to the sixth day of Sivan, which was prepared for the giving of the Torah (Shab. 88a). [The“hey” is the definite article, alluding to the well-known sixth day, the sixth day of Sivan, when the Torah was given (ad loc.).]

"Scripture added a “hey” " -- הוסיף ה'

In all my career of inventor of the number 666 in Genesis 1:31 there has been no one to support me except for Rashi.

Although Rashi doesn't say that the Name of God is hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" he lets you know that he knows it.

F.e. by his comment on Genesis 1:1, (translation is from chabad.org)

ברא א-להים: ולא אמר ברא ה'
God’s creation of the heavens and the earth: But it does not say “of the Lord’s creation of” (i.e., it should say “of the Lord God’s creation of” as below 2:4 “on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven”) for in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice, and that is the reason it is written:“on the day the Lord God made earth and heaven.”





Oh - so you are trying to prove them wrong about their religion?
No.
In fact my teacher of exegesis of the Old Testament and of biblical Hebrew, a priest, showed me "the other way" of reading the Bible, which is indicated by the number of 318 trained servants of Abraham with whom he gained victory over the four kings in favor of the five. (Genesis 14:14).
He wasn't allowed to go that way. He mentioned the book of Weinreb "Torah as blueprint of the universe".
By then I did find the number 666 as hidden in Genesis 1:31.
Which in fact is the stone rejected by the builders, the stone rolled upon the entrance (door) of Jesus' tomb, right at the end of the sixth day = beginning of Sabbat.
My teacher exegesis New Testament, with whom we did read Mark, didn't want to know nothing about those things.
And also not the other teachers. They just have no room for it, pre-occupied wiht their own scholarship.
Beat them?
Most of them did pass away.



So you don't even have a thesis after 35 years?
If I wouldn't have been a sinner I could have been Messiah.




Your comments are always in bits and pieces. They don't make much sense without knowing the larger context that determines your interpretations.



You rejected from the start (many years ago already) my great finding.

[sylvius]

What do you think "one of his sides" means? He cut Adam in half?

The text does say rib (Gen 2:22):

וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם.

The word hatzela is a noun prefixed with the definite article ha. It means "the rib." The word can mean side, but it also can mean rib.
because it usually is translated that way.
But the word "tsela" doens't occur in another place with the meanig of rib as a bone.

Exodus 25:12

And you shall cast four golden rings for it, and you shall place them upon its four corners, two rings on its one side, and two rings on its other side.


And what's your point anyway? The text states that God took something from his side, and formed a women.
No, text says:
and He took one of his sides, and He closed flesh in its place


Which commentary? I looked at Yebamoth 63a and it doesn't say anything about sex, unless you choose to interpret it that way.

????
http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_63.html

R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh?13 This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve


Why would he do it with a cow?

He didn't eat yet from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, like all puritan Christians do all the time.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"well-respected" is not what makes him great.

In all my career of inventor of the number 666 in Genesis 1:31 there has been no one to support me except for Rashi.

I agree that mere respect does not make him a "great scholar." But neither does the fact that he is the only one to support your thesis. And indeed, that seems to be a biased reason for accepting him as a "great scholar." Bias leads to errors in logic.



he was far more intelligent scholar than the so called church -fathers and the like

I agree that the church fathers sometimes wrote crap that does not show a deep understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. But Jewish commentators also wrote their fair share of crap. They made up ridiculous stories that directly contradict both the text of Scripture and common sense. For example, the Zohar makes up a bunch of reasons that David did not "really" sin in the affair with Bathsheba. How absurd is that?

It is interesting that the Jewish Virtual Library says (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/rashi.html) that Rashi didn't even write most of the explanations in his commentary:
Most of his explanations were not written by him. Apparently, students would ask him questions about the text, or he would rhetorically ask questions about specific words, and a student would write his short, lucid answers in the margin of the parchment text. These answers comprise Rashi's commentary. We now have the answers, but the trick to studying Rashi is to figure out what the problem was with the text or the grammar of a given word.

It makes no sense to think that Rashi is authoritative. His opinions were fallible, and he collected the opinions of other fallible men. It is fine to use him as a witness to those opinions, but I can't see any reason to think that his opinions are correct. Every opinion must be tested in light of logic and facts. If he doesn't give good reasons for his opinions, then we have no reason to believe them any more than any other opinion.



Rashi stresses the importance of the letter "hey" of "hashishi":

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165/showrashi/true

the sixth day: Scripture added a “hey” on the sixth [day], at the completion of the Creation, to tell us that He stipulated with them, [“you were created] on the condition that Israel accept the Five Books of the Torah.” [The numerical value of the “hey” is five.] (Tanchuma Bereishith 1). Another explanation for “the sixth day” : They [the works of creation] were all suspended until the “sixth day,” referring to the sixth day of Sivan, which was prepared for the giving of the Torah (Shab. 88a). [The“hey” is the definite article, alluding to the well-known sixth day, the sixth day of Sivan, when the Torah was given (ad loc.).]

"Scripture added a “hey” " -- הוסיף ה'

In all my career of inventor of the number 666 in Genesis 1:31 there has been no one to support me except for Rashi.

That's an excellent example of the fundamental fallacy of eisegesis, which is the sin qua non of rabbinic interpretation (which is anything but exegesis). Here's what the wiki says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis) about it:
Eisegesis (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) εἰς "into" and ending from exegesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis) from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases into and onto the text. The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis). While exegesis draws out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discover-able meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests either of the two reasons Rashi has given for the addition of the letter hey. Those interpreters just made up stuff that fit their biases.



Although Rashi doesn't say that the Name of God is hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" he lets you know that he knows it.

F.e. by his comment on Genesis 1:1, (translation is from chabad.org)

ברא א-להים: ולא אמר ברא ה'
God’s creation of the heavens and the earth: But it does not say “of the Lord’s creation of” (i.e., it should say “of the Lord God’s creation of” as below 2:4 “on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven”) for in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice, and that is the reason it is written:“on the day the Lord God made earth and heaven.”

How does Rashi's comment indicate he know about the acrostic?




Oh - so you are trying to prove them wrong about their religion?
No.
In fact my teacher of exegesis of the Old Testament and of biblical Hebrew, a priest, showed me "the other way" of reading the Bible, which is indicated by the number of 318 trained servants of Abraham with whom he gained victory over the four kings in favor of the five. (Genesis 14:14).
He wasn't allowed to go that way. He mentioned the book of Weinreb "Torah as blueprint of the universe".
By then I did find the number 666 as hidden in Genesis 1:31.
Which in fact is the stone rejected by the builders, the stone rolled upon the entrance (door) of Jesus' tomb, right at the end of the sixth day = beginning of Sabbat.
My teacher exegesis New Testament, with whom we did read Mark, didn't want to know nothing about those things.
And also not the other teachers. They just have no room for it, pre-occupied wiht their own scholarship.
Beat them?
Most of them did pass away.

Why then did you say "To beat my teachers" in answer to my question "What is the purpose of your work on the NT? What are you hoping to accomplish?". It is very difficult to make sense of your answers some times because you give ambiguous one liners that you later seem to contradict.

The rabbinic tradition about the number 318 doesn't make any sense. All Rashi does is report the tradition that it secretly implies that only Abram and Eleazar went to battle. There is no reason whatsoever to think that is true, and it doesn't even make sense.

It is good that you are beginning to state your thesis. But still, it is not clear to me. What does the 666 in Genesis 1:31 have to do with the stone that the builders rejected, other than the obvious fact that they share the same numerical value (l'rosh pinnah = 666)?

And it makes no sense to say that this is "the stone rolled upon the entrance (door) of Jesus' tomb" since Jesus himself is the "corner stone."



If I wouldn't have been a sinner I could have been Messiah.

Oh really? So you fit all the prophecies of Messiah, except you are a sinner? That doesn't make any sense to me.



You rejected from the start (many years ago already) my great finding.
[/quote]
What makes you think I "rejected" your "great finding?" I don't even know what is "great" about it yet because you have not yet stated yoru thesis! What specifically did I "reject" and why? It must be very frustrating to be posting things for years and years without anyone understanding what you are trying to get at. Why don't you just state your thesis with clarity? Then you will know if I reject it or not and I will be able to give you reasons for my response and you can correct me if I have misunderstood something.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

because it usually is translated that way.
But the word "tsela" doens't occur in another place with the meanig of rib as a bone.

Exodus 25:12
And you shall cast four golden rings for it, and you shall place them upon its four corners, two rings on its one side, and two rings on its other side.


No, text says:
and He took one of his sides, and He closed flesh in its place

I don't understand what that could mean. What does it mean to "take one of his sides"?

Klein's Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language says it means "rib" and shows how it relates to other Semitic languages that have cognate words with the same meaning.

So what is your point anyway? What do you think "side" is supposed to mean?




That was the page I cited in my previous post. It's where I got this quote from Yevamoth 63a:
This time: This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve. — [from Yev. 63a]

I was wondering if you knew of any other rabbinic comments that would confirm the interpretation that Adam had sex with the animals. I asked because some Jews argue that the comment has been misinterpreted and that it doesn't say anything about Adam having sex with the animals.
????
http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_63.html

You did not understand my question. I have been repeatedly asking if there are any OTHER rabbinic comments that would confirm the interpretation given in Yebamoth 63a that Adam had sex with the animals. I have repeatedly quoted Yebamoth 63a, so you should have understood I already knew about that text.

[sylvius]

It makes no sense to think that Rashi is authoritative.

Grant me my dreams. I have been in Worms, and I like the river Rhine.




There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests either of the two reasons Rashi has given for the addition of the letter hey. Those interpreters just made up stuff that fit their biases.


On the sixth day of Sivan Hashem made/makes known his Name that is hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim"



How does Rashi's comment indicate he know about the acrostic?

It says that the Name is hidden in the first story of creation.


in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice


In the beginning = בתחלה, "bat'chillah"
He preceded = הקדים "hikdim"




Why then did you say "To beat my teachers" in answer to my question "What is the purpose of your work on the NT? What are you hoping to accomplish?".
I want my right.





The rabbinic tradition about the number 318 doesn't make any sense.
That doesn't matter at all.
Genesis 14:14 is the only place where gematria comes to the surface.
It is the gematria of the name Eliezer.
Genesis 15:2,
And Abram said, "O Lord God, what will You give me, since I am going childless, and the steward of my household is Eliezer of Damascus?"
NT Lazarus for sure is the same, Jesus' beloved disciple, who was at the bossom of Jesus like Jesus was at the bossom of the father. The father, the most high God, of whom Malki Tzedek was priest.




It is good that you are beginning to state your thesis. But still, it is not clear to me. What does the 666 in Genesis 1:31 have to do with the stone that the builders rejected
If the letter "hey"was missing there would not have been the Name of God hidden in the initial letters of the last two words of Genesis 1:31 and the first tow words of Genesis 2:1, there would be no entrance to the Sabbat nor to the kingdom of God, the door would be closed. (the first chapter of Genesis being written with 434 words, 434 = "delet",door)



other than the obvious fact that they share the same numerical value (l'rosh pinnah = 666)?
That's new to me.
I noticed already long time ago (my teacher said nonsense) tha Mark plays with the root "panah" -- "panu derech" = prepare the way. Etc.




And it makes no sense to say that this is "the stone rolled upon the entrance (door) of Jesus' tomb" since Jesus himself is the "corner stone."
ok there, at the entrance of sabbat.




Oh really? So you fit all the prophecies of Messiah, except you are a sinner? That doesn't make any sense to me.

What prophecies?





What makes you think I "rejected" your "great finding?" I don't even know what is "great" about it yet because you have not yet stated yoru thesis! What specifically did I "reject" and why? It must be very frustrating to be posting things for years and years without anyone understanding what you are trying to get at. Why don't you just state your thesis with clarity? Then you will know if I reject it or not and I will be able to give you reasons for my response and you can correct me if I have misunderstood something.

Nobody understood.

[sylvius]

I don't understand what that could mean. What does it mean to "take one of his sides"?

Klein's Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language says it means "rib" and shows how it relates to other Semitic languages that have cognate words with the same meaning.

So what is your point anyway? What do you think "side" is supposed to mean?

The point was that "bone from my bones" doesn't refer to one of his ribs.

"etsem" does also mean essence.

Jewish tradition knows the Luz-bone, that cannot decay and from which man is resurrected.

Animals do not have such a bone.

What exactly is meant with side, I think has to do with the original Adam being an hermaphrodite, both male and female. God took away the female-side and fabriqued the woman out of it.




You did not understand my question. I have been repeatedly asking if there are any OTHER rabbinic comments that would confirm the interpretation given in Yebamoth 63a that Adam had sex with the animals. I have repeatedly quoted Yebamoth 63a, so you should have understood I already knew about that text. ok, I don't know, I said already.
It is not in the Midrash Rabbah.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Grant me my dreams. I have been in Worms, and I like the river Rhine.

Certainly! May all your dreams come true. :thumb:







Rashi stresses the importance of the letter "hey" of "hashishi":

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi/true (http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165/showrashi/true)
the sixth day: Scripture added a “hey” on the sixth [day], at the completion of the Creation, to tell us that He stipulated with them, [“you were created] on the condition that Israel accept the Five Books of the Torah.” [The numerical value of the “hey” is five.] (Tanchuma Bereishith 1). Another explanation for “the sixth day” : They [the works of creation] were all suspended until the “sixth day,” referring to the sixth day of Sivan, which was prepared for the giving of the Torah (Shab. 88a). [The“hey” is the definite article, alluding to the well-known sixth day, the sixth day of Sivan, when the Torah was given (ad loc.).]

"Scripture added a “hey” " -- הוסיף ה'

In all my career of inventor of the number 666 in Genesis 1:31 there has been no one to support me except for Rashi.

There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests either of the two reasons Rashi has given for the addition of the letter hey. Those interpreters just made up stuff that fit their biases.

On the sixth day of Sivan Hashem made/makes known his Name that is hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim"

First, you didn't answer my point.

Second, the name was already well known long before that date. Why would you say that he made it known on the sixth of Sivan?

Third, there are problems with the date of Shavuot. Yes, the dominant tradition says that it was the sixth day of Sivan. But not everyone agrees. Here's what the wiki article says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavuot):


The Torah states that the Omer offering (i.e., the first day of counting the Omer) is the first day of the barley harvest (Deut. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Deut.) 16:9 (http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Deut.&verse=16:9&src=HE)). It should begin "on the morrow after the Shabbat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat)", and continue to be counted for seven Sabbaths. (Lev. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Lev.) 23:11 (http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Lev.&verse=23:11&src=HE)). The Talmudic Sages determined that "Shabbat" here means a day of rest and refers to the first day of Passover. Thus, the counting of the Omer begins on the second day of Passover and continues for the next 49 days, or seven complete weeks, ending on the day before Shavuot.

According to this calculation, Shavuot will fall on the day of the week after that of the first day of Passover (e.g., if Passover starts on a Thursday, Shavuot will begin on a Friday).

Most secular scholarship, and the Karaites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaites), as well as Catholics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholics)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavuot#cite_note-jewishencyclopedia.com-31) and the historical Sadducees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees) and Boethusians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boethusians), dispute this interpretation. They infer the "Shabbat" referenced is the weekly Shabbat. Accordingly, Shavuot falls on the day after the weekly shabbat, counting from seven weeks since the day after the first shabbat during Pesach.

This interpretation was shared by the 2nd-century BCE author of the Book of Jubilees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jubilees) who was motivated by the priestly sabbatical solar calendar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_calendar) of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE, which was designed to have festivals and Sabbaths fall on the same day of the week every year. On this calendar (best known from the Book of Luminaries in 1 Enoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Enoch)), Shavuot fell on the 15th of Sivan, a Sunday. The date was reckoned fifty days from the first Sabbath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat) after Passover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover) (i.e. from the 25th of Nisan). Thus, Jub. 1:1 claims that Moses ascended Mount Sinai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai) to receive the Torah "on the sixteenth day of the third month in the first year of the Exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt".

If you had a Christian bias you would probably prefer these other interpretations since they say Shavuot (Pentecost) is 50 days after the first sabbath after the Passover which means that the Holy Spirit was given on a Sunday. This was my preferred interpretation when I was a Christian.

As you can see, there are enough variations in tradition to allow folks to make up whatever they want according to their own biases. Why should we believe any of it?





Although Rashi doesn't say that the Name of God is hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" he lets you know that he knows it.

F.e. by his comment on Genesis 1:1, (translation is from chabad.org)

ברא א-להים: ולא אמר ברא ה'
God’s creation of the heavens and the earth: But it does not say “of the Lord’s creation of” (i.e., it should say “of the Lord God’s creation of” as below 2:4 “on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven”) for in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice, and that is the reason it is written:“on the day the Lord God made earth and heaven.”

How does Rashi's comment indicate he knew about the acrostic?

It says that the Name is hidden in the first story of creation.

Where does it say that the Name is hidden in the first story of creation? And again, you have not given any evidence for your claim that Rashi knew about the acrostic.



It says that the Name is hidden in the first story of creation.


in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice
In the beginning = בתחלה, "bat'chillah"
He preceded = הקדים "hikdim"


OK - now I think I know what you are getting at. The name YHVH = 26 = 2 x 13 is associated with love (ahavah = 13) and the 13 attributes of mercy as opposed to the name Elohim = 86 which is associated with law and judgment. So you think that his comment implies a knowledge of the acrostic merely because he mentions mercy? I don't see how that implication follows.




Why then did you say "To beat my teachers" in answer to my question "What is the purpose of your work on the NT? What are you hoping to accomplish?".
I want my right.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you really want to be understood, you should try writing sentences with more than three words.




The rabbinic tradition about the number 318 doesn't make any sense.
That doesn't matter at all.
Genesis 14:14 is the only place where gematria comes to the surface.
It is the gematria of the name Eliezer.
Genesis 15:2,
And Abram said, "O Lord God, what will You give me, since I am going childless, and the steward of my household is Eliezer of Damascus?"
NT Lazarus for sure is the same, Jesus' beloved disciple, who was at the bossom of Jesus like Jesus was at the bossom of the father. The father, the most high God, of whom Malki Tzedek was priest.

Yes, of course 318 is the value of Eleazar. But that does not imply that they were the only two in the battle! That's what I'm talking about - the rabbis just make up crazy things for no good reason.



If the letter "hey"was missing there would not have been the Name of God hidden in the initial letters of the last two words of Genesis 1:31 and the first tow words of Genesis 2:1, there would be no entrance to the Sabbat nor to the kingdom of God, the door would be closed. (the first chapter of Genesis being written with 434 words, 434 = "delet",door)

How is it possible that you believe that? You know nothing of what would or would not be possible if the letter hey was missing from that word.



That's new to me.
I noticed already long time ago (my teacher said nonsense) tha Mark plays with the root "panah" -- "panu derech" = prepare the way. Etc.

Please give examples of other places he "plays with the root panah." It is interesting that that word plays an important role in Malachi on Spoke 17, corresponding to Pey (as in panah).




And it makes no sense to say that this is "the stone rolled upon the entrance (door) of Jesus' tomb" since Jesus himself is the "corner stone."
ok there, at the entrance of sabbat.

Are you agreeing that your previous statement makes no sense? That's the impression I get when you say "ok" and change to something else.



What prophecies?

If there are none, what are you talking about when you speak of the messiah?



Nobody understood.
Have you considered this may be because you are not trying to make yourself clear? You have been studying this for 35 years and you can't even state what your thesis is. That's the source of much confusion.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The point was that "bone from my bones" doesn't refer to one of his ribs.

No one knows what it means. The text doesn't explain itself, so everyone can make up their own interpretations.



"etsem" does also mean essence.

Yes, but it also means "bone." So you are free to choose which you like. There is no meaning in the text itself because different presuppositions lead to different conclusions and there is no way to know who is right or wrong.



Jewish tradition knows the Luz-bone, that cannot decay and from which man is resurrected.

Animals do not have such a bone.

There you go! Another absurd Jewish tradition that is demonstrably false. There is no such bone. Indeed, this is very easy to prove since you said that it "cannot decay" which means we should find them in any grave where the rest of the body decayed. But they don't exist any more than Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. I don't know how anyone could take rabbinical teachings seriously if they make up this kind of false crap all the time. I wonder if they even take themselves seriously.




What exactly is meant with side, I think has to do with the original Adam being an hermaphrodite, both male and female. God took away the female-side and fabriqued the woman out of it.

That's a fine metaphorical interpretation. I've been know to think along the same lines.

[sylvius]

Second, the name was already well known long before that date. Why would you say that he made it known on the sixth of Sivan?

Revelation at Sinai.
It reveals something that before was only hidden.



Third, there are problems with the date of Shavuot. Yes, the dominant tradition says that it was the sixth day of Sivan. But not everyone agrees. Here's what the wiki article says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavuot):

Now you show your misunderstanding.

Rashi was telling that he knows about the name hidden in "yom hashishi" by saying that it refers to the sixth day of Sivan, no martter what others may say/think about the date of Pentecost.




Where does it say that the Name is hidden in the first story of creation?

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165/showrashi/true


ברא א-להים: ולא אמר ברא ה', "bara elohim: v'lo bara hashem"

"elohim" is God as judge, while "hashem" is God as mercifull one.




Yes, of course 318 is the value of Eleazar. But that does not imply that they were the only two in the battle!
It is not history, but scripture.




Please give examples of other places he "plays with the root panah." It is interesting that that word plays an important role in Malachi on Spoke 17, corresponding to Pey (as in panah).

It is in the quotations from Isaiah and Malachi Mark begins with.
"Panah" is also root of "panim" = face, "lifnei", before,





Are you agreeing that your previous statement makes no sense? That's the impression I get when you say "ok" and change to something else.

No.

His (dwelling)place is the entrance of sabbat.




Have you considered this may be because you are not trying to make yourself clear? You have been studying this for 35 years and you can't even state what your thesis is. That's the source of much confusion.
Clear

[sylvius]

There you go! Another absurd Jewish tradition that is demonstrably false. There is no such bone. Indeed, this is very easy to prove since you said that it "cannot decay" which means we should find them in any grave where the rest of the body decayed. But they don't exist any more than Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. I don't know how anyone could take rabbinical teachings seriously if they make up this kind of false crap all the time. I wonder if they even take themselves seriously.

Luz is the name of the place where Jacob dreamt of the ladder with its top in heaven.
God made himself known there as
(Genesis 28:13): "I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac"

On which Rashi comments:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8223/showrashi/true


and the God of Isaac: Although we do not find in Scripture that the Holy One, blessed be He, associates His name with that of the righteous during their lifetimes by writing “the God of so-and-so,” for it is said (Job 15:15):“Lo! He does not believe in His holy ones,” [i.e., God does not consider even His holy ones as righteous until after their deaths, when they are no longer subject to the evil inclination,] nevertheless, here He associated His name with Isaac because his eyes had become dim, and he was confined in the house, and he was like a dead person, the evil inclination having ceased from him (Tanchuma Toledoth 7).

To this, I want to contend, refers also Mark 12:26-27,
And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You greatly err.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Second, the name was already well known long before that date. Why would you say that he made it known on the sixth of Sivan?
Revelation at Sinai.
It reveals something that before was only hidden.

"Something" could be anything. Why do you say it was the divine name that was already well-known?




Third, there are problems with the date of Shavuot. Yes, the dominant tradition says that it was the sixth day of Sivan. But not everyone agrees. Here's what the wiki article says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavuot):
Now you show your misunderstanding.

Rashi was telling that he knows about the name hidden in "yom hashishi" by saying that it refers to the sixth day of Sivan, no martter what others may say/think about the date of Pentecost.

Actually, you are the one with the misunderstanding. Pentecost is just another name for Shavuot which was used by the Jews in the first century:

Acts 2:1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

The Complete Jewish Bible tries to "fix' the Bible by changing the text to fit their preconceptions:

CJB Acts 2:1 The festival of Shavu'ot arrived, and the believers all gathered together in one place.

This shows that they don't understand that the Jews themselves used the word "Pentecost" to mean "Shavuot."



Rashi was telling that he knows about the name hidden in "yom hashishi" by saying that it refers to the sixth day of Sivan.
You just made that up. The real reason Rashi mentioned the sixth of Sivan is because that was the day the Torah was given, and he connected the letter hey = 5 with the 5 books of the Torah. He neither said nor implied anything about the acrostic.




Where does it say that the Name is hidden in the first story of creation?
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165/showrashi/true

ברא א-להים: ולא אמר ברא ה', "bara elohim: v'lo bara hashem"

Yes, I already knew it said that. But it doesn't say that "the Name is hidden in the first story of creation."




OK - now I think I know what you are getting at. The name YHVH = 26 = 2 x 13 is associated with love (ahavah = 13) and the 13 attributes of mercy as opposed to the name Elohim = 86 which is associated with law and judgment. So you think that his comment implies a knowledge of the acrostic merely because he mentions mercy? I don't see how that implication follows.
"elohim" is God as judge, while "hashem" is God as mercifull one.

Yes, I already knew that, as you should know since I wrote it in a previous post.




Yes, of course 318 is the value of Eleazar. But that does not imply that they were the only two in the battle!
It is not history, but scripture.

What's that supposed to mean?




Please give examples of other places he "plays with the root panah." It is interesting that that word plays an important role in Malachi on Spoke 17, corresponding to Pey (as in panah).
It is in the quotations from Isaiah and Malachi Mark begins with.
"Panah" is also root of "panim" = face, "lifnei", before,

Duh! I already knew that. But you said that >>>MARK<<< was the one "playing with panu" whereas the other Gospels mention it too. So I was asking if there was anything beyond the obvious quote from Isaiah. It would help if you tried a little harder to understand what I write.



No.

His (dwelling)place is the entrance of sabbat.

His "dwelling place" is not the stone that was rolled over Christ's tomb.




Have you considered this may be because you are not trying to make yourself clear? You have been studying this for 35 years and you can't even state what your thesis is. That's the source of much confusion.
Clear
What's that supposed to mean? Like I said, it seems you are not even trying to make yourself clear. How then can you expect anyone to understand what you write?

[sylvius]

What's that supposed to mean? Like I said, it seems you are not even trying to make yourself clear. How then can you expect anyone to understand what you write?

It is clear you don't understand.
We differ in thinking, we don't share the same presumptions.
The bible is not a historybook, not even meant to be.
I (think to) see certain things for which you seem to be blind.

About Mark and "rosh pinnah":

Mark begins with "archè" ἀρχή.
which can have two meanings, maybe best expressed in Latin, "initium" and "principium", or better in Hebrew: "t'chillah" and "reishit".
("Beginning" having also double meaning).

I think Mark intends a same kind of wordplay Rashi presented with:

for in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice

Mark ends in Mark 16:8.
Last two words: ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.
These words meant to be connected with the first words: Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου.
Now Ἀρχὴ for sure carries the meaning of "reishit", after "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom".
But this was all the time already the case, only that it was "rejected by the builders", to say it that way.

Mark 8:31,
Καὶ ἤρξατο διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι:

ἀποδοκιμάζω,v \{ap-od-ok-ee-mad'-zo}
1) to disapprove, reject, repudiate

Same in Mark 12:10,
οὐδὲ τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην ἀνέγνωτε, Λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας:
"

κεφαλὴ γωνίας = "rosh pinnah" - head of the corner.

What corner?

Where two different roads meet?

Verb "panah" means to turn.

I always thought it as a circle that turns into a spiral.

Which I saw expressed in Mark 11:4,
καὶ ἀπῆλθον καὶ εὗρον πῶλον δεδεμένον πρὸς θύραν ἔξω ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀμφόδου, καὶ λύουσιν αὐτόν.

ἄμφοδον = circular route, way around anything.

Also here mentioned θύρα = Hebrew "delet" gematria 434.

[sylvius]

Mark 11:4 is after Zachariah 9:9,
the colt being the colt of a donkey.

Be exceedingly happy, O daughter of Zion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Behold! Your king shall come to you. He is just and victorious; humble, and riding a donkey and a foal, the offspring of [one of] she-donkeys.

LXX,
χαῖρε σφόδρα θύγατερ *σιων κήρυςε θύγατερ Iερουσαλημ ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι δίκαιος καὶ σῴζων αὐτός πραὺς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὑποζύγιον καὶ πῶλον νέον

cf Mark 11:2,
καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ὑπάγετε εἰς τὴν κώμην τὴν κατέναντι ὑμῶν, καὶ εὐθὺς εἰσπορευόμενοι εἰς αὐτὴν εὑρήσετε πῶλον δεδεμένον ἐφ' ὃν οὐδεὶς οὔπω ἀνθρώπων ἐκάθισεν: λύσατε αὐτὸν καὶ φέρετε

Donkey = "chamor".

The clue of it, I thought, is the donkey-burden, "chomer".

1 chomer = 100 omer.

Coinciding the hundredfold produce of the seed that fell in the good earth.

Hundredfold = Hebrew "meah sh'arim" , gematria 666, to be found in Genesis 26:12.



( And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.
Ain't Satan the one characterized by the same number?)


What is strange is that the story tells that Jesus went to sit upon the colt, but not that he went off again, so that you might think that he was crucified and laid in the grave and resurrected with colt and all ...

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It is clear you don't understand.
We differ in thinking, we don't share the same presumptions.
The bible is not a historybook, not even meant to be.
I (think to) see certain things for which you seem to be blind.

How is anyone supposed to understand if you choose not to clearly explain what you mean? The issue is not "different presuppositions" about the Bible - I don't even know what your presuppositions are.



About Mark and "rosh pinnah":

Mark begins with "archè" ἀρχή.
which can have two meanings, maybe best expressed in Latin, "initium" and "principium", or better in Hebrew: "t'chillah" and "reishit".
("Beginning" having also double meaning).

I think Mark intends a same kind of wordplay Rashi presented with:

for in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice

Why are you focusing on Mark? Matthew, Luke, Acts, and 1 Peter speak of the "head of the corner" (cornerstone).

And why should we think that Mark was intending the same wordplay as a medieval French Jewish rabbi?



Mark ends in Mark 16:8.
Last two words: ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.
These words meant to be connected with the first words: Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου.
Now Ἀρχὴ for sure carries the meaning of "reishit", after "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom".
But this was all the time already the case, only that it was "rejected by the builders", to say it that way.

Mark 8:31,
Καὶ ἤρξατο διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι:

ἀποδοκιμάζω,v \{ap-od-ok-ee-mad'-zo}
1) to disapprove, reject, repudiate

Same in Mark 12:10,
οὐδὲ τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην ἀνέγνωτε, Λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας:
"

κεφαλὴ γωνίας = "rosh pinnah" - head of the corner.

What corner?

Where two different roads meet?

Verb "panah" means to turn.

I always thought it as a circle that turns into a spiral.

Which I saw expressed in Mark 11:4,
καὶ ἀπῆλθον καὶ εὗρον πῶλον δεδεμένον πρὸς θύραν ἔξω ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀμφόδου, καὶ λύουσιν αὐτόν.

ἄμφοδον = circular route, way around anything.

Also here mentioned θύρα = Hebrew "delet" gematria 434.
I don't know what you are tying to get at. What is your overall thesis? It seems that all you do is present bits and pieces as if their meaning were supposed to be self-evident, but you don't provide any explanation of what it's all supposed to mean.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

( And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.
Ain't Satan the one characterized by the same number?)

The number 666 is the value of good things too. For example, The Holy Ark (arun haqadosh) = 666.

And the Bible says shemesh Yahweh = the Lord is a sun = 666 (Psalm 84:11).



What is strange is that the story tells that Jesus went to sit upon the colt, but not that he went off again, so that you might think that he was crucified and laid in the grave and resurrected with colt and all ...
No body in their right mind would ever think such a thing. The fact that something is not specifically mentioned does not imply it did not happen. On the contrary, we have very good reason to think that Jesus did indeed get off the ass he was riding since he "went into the Temple" after riding into Jerusalem on the ass:
Matthew 21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. 8 And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way. 9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. 10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? 11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee. 12 ¶ And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

Your comments are becoming ludicrous.

[sylvius]

T
No body in their right mind would ever think such a thing. The fact that something is not specifically mentioned does not imply it did not happen. On the contrary, we have very good reason to think that Jesus did indeed get off the ass he was riding since he "went into the Temple" after riding into Jerusalem on the ass

Of course he went into the temple riding on the ass.

(On Carm.org you are not allowed to write "ass"...)

Mark has this more clear:

Mark 11:11,
Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα εἰς τὸ ἱερόν -- "he went into Jerusalem into the temple" - one movement.

It teaches you that you must not take these stories as meant to be journalistic accounts of historical events.

[sylvius]

The number 666 is the value of good things too. For example, The Holy Ark (arun haqadosh) = 666.

And the Bible says shemesh Yahweh = the Lord is a sun = 666 (Psalm 84:11).




You look like a wood gatherer ...

Psalms 84:11,
כִּי שֶׁמֶשׁ וּמָגֵן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים


And I cannot find in the Tenach an instance of "aron hakadosh" ("aron hakodesh") It 's mostly "aron" or "aron hab'rit" or "aron b'rit-hashem"

But I don't have computer-programm to find it ...

And why shouldn't "meah sh'arim" be a good thing?

I think it is very good.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You look like a wood gatherer ...

Psalms 84:11,
כִּי שֶׁמֶשׁ וּמָגֵן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים

Wood gatherer? What's that supposed to mean?

Psalm 84:11 says shemesh v'magen yahweh elohim. The phrase shemesh yahweh (the lord is a sun) is perfectly good Hebrew. And it was used by the rabbis so are you saying that the rabbis are "wood gatherers"?



And I cannot find in the Tenach an instance of "aron hakadosh" ("aron hakodesh") It 's mostly "aron" or "aron hab'rit" or "aron b'rit-hashem"

But I don't have computer-programm to find it ...


The phrase arun haqadosh is found in 2 Chronicles 35:3.

And there are plenty of Bible databases online. You could use mine (it gives the gematria too):

http://biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.asp?bnum=14&cnum=35&vnum=3



And why shouldn't "meah sh'arim" be a good thing?

I think it is very good.
I wasn't talking about meah sh'arim. I was responding to your comment "Ain't Satan the one characterized by the same number?" So are you saying that Satan is a good thing?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Of course he went into the temple riding on the ass.

I can't tell if you are joking or serious. You might want to think about what that implies about your comments.



(On Carm.org you are not allowed to write "ass"...)

Carm is a very tight-assed site that can't deal with any opinions but their own. They can't deal with reality ... or even the words used in the King James Bible! :hysterical:



Mark has this more clear:

Mark 11:11,
Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα εἰς τὸ ἱερόν -- "he went into Jerusalem into the temple" - one movement.

It teaches you that you must not take these stories as meant to be journalistic accounts of historical events.
Where is the implication of "one movement"? And what does that even mean?

Your comments just wander all over the landscape.

[sylvius]

Wood gatherer? What's that supposed to mean?

That you seemingly lack the "nous" that after Revelation 13:18 is required to calculate the number of the beast.


The phrase shemesh yahweh (the lord is a sun) is perfectly good Hebrew.
You just plucked that out of the larger phrase because it adds up to 666.


And it was used by the rabbis Never heard of. What rabbis?



The phrase arun haqadosh is found in 2 Chronicles 35:3. --
It reads "aron hakodesh" , תְּנוּ אֶת-אֲרוֹן-הַקֹּדֶשׁ בַּבַּיִת


And there are plenty of Bible databases online. You could use mine (it gives the gematria too):

http://biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.asp?bnum=14&cnum=35&vnum=3
ok thanks. Is there a search-function?



I wasn't talking about meah sh'arim. I was responding to your comment "Ain't Satan the one characterized by the same number?" So are you saying that Satan is a good thing?
I am not sure about that.
Ain't Satan the enemy?
Without Satan no Gospel of enemy-love.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That you seemingly lack the "nous" that after Revelation 13:18 is required to calculate the number of the beast.

Oh ... right, the "nous" that leads each individual to make up their own baseless fantasy about what it means?

I'm glad I don't have that "noose" around the neck of my mind.



You just plucked that out of the larger phrase because it adds up to 666.

Ha! What a joke. You are the one who has "plucked out" the letter hey from the Scripture so you can get yom shishei = 666.

How is it possible you cannot see your inconsistency?



Never heard of. What rabbis?

I'll see if I can find it. It was in a kabbalistic book I read years ago.



It reads "aron hakodesh" , תְּנוּ אֶת-אֲרוֹן-הַקֹּדֶשׁ בַּבַּיִת

Exactly correct. 666 = אֲרוֹן-הַקֹּדֶשׁ




ok thanks. Is there a search-function?

Yep. You can search by gematria, verse number, stong's numbers, and words.




I wasn't talking about meah sh'arim. I was responding to your comment "Ain't Satan the one characterized by the same number?" So are you saying that Satan is a good thing?
I am not sure about that.
Ain't Satan the enemy?
Without Satan no Gospel of enemy-love.
So why did you make that comment if you don't know what you meant?

[sylvius]

I can't tell if you are joking or serious.
Serious.
Without ass he couldn't even enter the temple, the holy.
As pascal lamb he had to be perfect, like Abraham after Genesis 17:1,
And Abram was ninety-nine years old, and God appeared to Abram, and He said to him, "I am the Almighty God; walk before Me and be perfect
Rashi:

“and be perfect” -Now you are missing [control over] five organs: two eyes, two ears, and the male organ. I will add a letter to your name, and the numerical value of your letters [of your name] will be 248, corresponding to the number of your organs (Tan. Lech Lecha 16, Ned. 32b).
248 is also gematria of "chomer" -- donkey-burden, but also clay, the material God formed Adam from (dust of the ground + water from the "mist" or "fountain", the "ed", the "1-4 principle of the universe" of Genesis 2:6)


You might want to think about what that implies about your comments.
I am afraid you won't follow.



Where is the implication of "one movement"? Mark didn't even use a copulative "kai"
Mark is also the one who uses very often "euthus" = immediate = no time involved.
Stating already in v.3: εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ = make straight, direct, his pathways.


And what does that even mean?
He being the perfect pascal lamb.
Exodus 12:5,
You shall have a perfect male lamb in its [first] year; you may take it either from the sheep or from the goats



Your comments just wander all over the landscape.
Me too, I was out in the swamps tonight.

[sylvius]

So why did you make that comment if you don't know what you meant?

To show that the parable of the sower is about the number 666 in Genesis 1:31.
Satan does want to prevent you from entering the sabbat = entering the kingdom of God.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Serious.
Without ass he couldn't even enter the temple, the holy.
As pascal lamb he had to be perfect, like Abraham after Genesis 17:1,
And Abram was ninety-nine years old, and God appeared to Abram, and He said to him, "I am the Almighty God; walk before Me and be perfect
Rashi:

“and be perfect” -Now you are missing [control over] five organs: two eyes, two ears, and the male organ. I will add a letter to your name, and the numerical value of your letters [of your name] will be 248, corresponding to the number of your organs (Tan. Lech Lecha 16, Ned. 32b).
248 is also gematria of "chomer" -- donkey-burden, but also clay, the material God formed Adam from (dust of the ground + water from the "mist" or "fountain", the "ed", the "1-4 principle of the universe" of Genesis 2:6)

Your comments are confused because you are using the word "ass" in two entirely different senses. First, you are talking about the literal donkey he rode, then you are talking about the donkey as a symbol of his own physical body. That's why your comments make no sense. He did not "mount his physical body" when he got on the donkey.

And your gematria is just "wood gathering" because the word "ed" = 1 + 4 is not found in the Bible. The actual word written is v'ed. So you fall by your own sword.




You might want to think about what that implies about your comments.
I am afraid you won't follow.

I know. That's the problem. I've explained it a dozen times but you still don't understand.




Where is the implication of "one movement"?
Mark didn't even use a copulative "kai"
Mark is also the one who uses very often "euthus" = immediate = no time involved.
Stating already in v.3: εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ = make straight, direct, his pathways.

I know Mark uses the euthus a lot. That is one of the more impressive correlations with the Wheel and the 19th Spoke corresponding to the letter Quf and the Quph KeyWord qal = swift. I talk about this in my article Spoke 19: Mark - The Gospel of Action (http://biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Quph_Mark.asp).

But your assertion that "no time was involved" is false. The work euthus means quick, not instant with no time at all. Your interpretations make no sense.




Where is the implication of "one movement"? And what does that even mean?
He being the perfect pascal lamb.
Exodus 12:5,
You shall have a perfect male lamb in its [first] year; you may take it either from the sheep or from the goats

He being the perfect pascal lamb has absolutely nothing to do with "one movement." Your comments are incoherent and meaningless.




Your comments just wander all over the landscape.
Me too, I was out in the swamps tonight.
You don't have much interest in being understood, do you?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

To show that the parable of the sower is about the number 666 in Genesis 1:31.
Satan does want to prevent you from entering the sabbat = entering the kingdom of God.
First, the number 666 is not in Genesis 1:31. You just plucked out the hey to get the result you wanted. That makes you a "wood gatherer" by your own definition. And second, you have not shown that the parable of the sower would have anything to do with Genesis 1:31 even if the number 666 were in that verse.

[sylvius]

First, the number 666 is not in Genesis 1:31. You just plucked out the hey to get the result you wanted. That makes you a "wood gatherer" by your own definition. And second, you have not shown that the parable of the sower would have anything to do with Genesis 1:31 even if the number 666 were in that verse.

The first story of creation has "yom echad", day one, cardinal, and next second day, third day, fourth day, fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day, all ordinal.

"yom echad" to be seen as all encompassing.

There is just one day, day of light.

Broken since Adam took away the "hey" from "hashishi", hinted at in Genesis 2:4 in the word "b'hibaram", which can be read as "with the letter 'hey' they were created. "B'hibaram" is the 474th word from the beginning, 474 being gematria of "da'at", knowledge,

With "hey" added to "shishi" there is new oneness, a oneness that always existed, only obscured, hidden.

At this hints Mark 4:21-23, right after the parable of the sower:

Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Μήτι ἔρχεται ὁ λύχνος ἵνα ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον τεθῇ ἢ ὑπὸ τὴν κλίνην; οὐχ ἵνα ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν τεθῇ; οὐ γάρ ἐστιν κρυπτὸν ἐὰν μὴ ἵνα φανερωθῇ, οὐδὲ ἐγένετο ἀπόκρυφον ἀλλ' ἵνα ἔλθῃ εἰς φανερόν. εἴ τις ἔχει ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω .

μόδιος = grainmeausure, like to measure a chomer = 100 omer.

[sylvius]

But your assertion that "no time was involved" is false. The work euthus means quick, not instant with no time at all.

εὐθύς

as adverbium:

immediately, at once.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

First, the number 666 is not in Genesis 1:31. You just plucked out the hey to get the result you wanted. That makes you a "wood gatherer" by your own definition. And second, you have not shown that the parable of the sower would have anything to do with Genesis 1:31 even if the number 666 were in that verse.
The first story of creation has "yom echad", day one, cardinal, and next second day, third day, fourth day, fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day, all ordinal.

"yom echad" to be seen as all encompassing.

There is just one day, day of light.

Broken since Adam took away the "hey" from "hashishi", hinted at in Genesis 2:4 in the word "b'hibaram", which can be read as "with the letter 'hey' they were created. "B'hibaram" is the 474th word from the beginning, 474 being gematria of "da'at", knowledge,

With "hey" added to "shishi" there is new oneness, a oneness that always existed, only obscured, hidden.

At this hints Mark 4:21-23, right after the parable of the sower:

Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Μήτι ἔρχεται ὁ λύχνος ἵνα ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον τεθῇ ἢ ὑπὸ τὴν κλίνην; οὐχ ἵνα ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν τεθῇ; οὐ γάρ ἐστιν κρυπτὸν ἐὰν μὴ ἵνα φανερωθῇ, οὐδὲ ἐγένετο ἀπόκρυφον ἀλλ' ἵνα ἔλθῃ εἰς φανερόν. εἴ τις ἔχει ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω .

"modion" = grainmeausure, like chomer = 100 omer.
Adam did not "take away the hey from hashishi." You just made that up. You are the one who took away the hey to fit your pattern. You have said that such behavior is "wood gathering" and yet you and the rabbis do it all the time. You did it with the hey in hashishi and you did it again when you removed the vav from v'ed.

And worse, you have not admitted this even though I have shown your inconsistency many times. How is it that you expect anyone to agree with you when you don't even agree with yourself?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

εὐθύς

as adverbium:

immediately, at once.
Correct. But this does not have the implication you said it did.

[sylvius]

Correct. But this does not have the implication you said it did.

Mark hints at this with "εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ ", which translates Isaiah 40:3, יַשְּׁרוּ בָּעֲרָבָה מְסִלָּה לֵאלֹהֵינוּ, aplay with double meanings.

"m'sillah" seems to be a winding road or mountainpath, cognate to "sulam" = ladder.

[sylvius]

Adam did not "take away the hey from hashishi." You just made that up. You are the one who took away the hey to fit your pattern.

ok, I admit, I did so. It is my sin. I am a sinner.



You have said that such behavior is "wood gathering" and yet you and the rabbis do it all the time. You did it with the hey in hashishi and you did it again when you removed the vav from v'ed.

"ed" is principle of time, and also of speech.

Genesis 2:5,
. וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ

"siach" = bush, shrub, but also speech, meditation, thought. Gematria 318, coninciding the 318 trained servants of
Abraham (Genesis 14:14)

"terem"

Rashi:


Every טֶרֶם in Scripture has the meaning of “not yet,” and it does not mean“before,” and it cannot be made into a verb form, to say הִטְרִים, as one says הִקְדִּים

Exodus 12:34,
וַיִּשָּׂא הָעָם אֶת בְּצֵקוֹ טֶרֶם יֶחְמָץ The people picked up their dough when it was not yet leavened,

No time involved.

[sylvius]

By the way, why do you think Jesus needed an ass?

If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The master needs it and will send it back here shortly

(Greek:
ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ, Τί ποιεῖτε τοῦτο; εἴπατε, Ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχει, καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτὸν ἀποστέλλει πάλιν ὧδε.

That's strange, I see now.)

Was it for the show?
See me, Jesus, humble and mounted on a donkey entering Jerusalem?

Or was it to fulfill the prophecy?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Adam did not "take away the hey from hashishi." You just made that up. You are the one who took away the hey to fit your pattern.
ok, I admit, I did so. It is my sin. I am a sinner.

Thank you. Does this mean you will quit calling me a "wood gatherer" when I do the same thing that you do?

But I wouldn't call you a "sinner" - you were merely wrong because you were inconsistent in your judgments. Your "scale" was unbalanced.

Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.




You have said that such behavior is "wood gathering" and yet you and the rabbis do it all the time. You did it with the hey in hashishi and you did it again when you removed the vav from v'ed.
"ed" is principle of time, and also of speech.

How do you know that? You can't use "ed" because that would be "wood gathering" since it is not written as such in the Bible.



Genesis 2:5,
. וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ

"siach" = bush, shrub, but also speech, meditation, thought. Gematria 318, coninciding the 318 trained servants of
Abraham (Genesis 14:14)

More wood gathering. You could find many words that sum to 318. It proves nothing by itself.



"terem"

Rashi:


Exodus 12:34,
וַיִּשָּׂא הָעָם אֶת בְּצֵקוֹ טֶרֶם יֶחְמָץ The people picked up their dough when it was not yet leavened,

No time involved.
False. There was time involved. It may have been a little time, but time nonetheless. It makes no sense at all to say that there was "no time involved."

[sylvius]

How do you know that?
Nothing had yet grown.
Growth is a process in time.




More wood gathering. You could find many words that sum to 318. It proves nothing by itself.
It intimates that language is structured according the 1-4 principle = "ed"




False. There was time involved. It may have been a little time, but time nonetheless. It makes no sense at all to say that there was "no time involved."
It is the same as Paul's mystery:
in an indivisible moment of time we will all be changed .

[Richard Amiel McGough]

More wood gathering. You could find many words that sum to 318. It proves nothing by itself.
It intimates that language is structured according the 1-4 principle = "ed"

But it's not what is written. You have repeatedly said that picking things out of the text that are not written is just "wood gathering."

So why should anyone be interested in your wood gathering? And why do you believe in your wood gathering?



It is the same as Paul's mystery:
in an indivisible moment of time we will all be changed .
Once again, you just make up a random association that has no meaning.

[sylvius]

But it's not what is written. You have repeatedly said that picking things out of the text that are not written is just "wood gathering."


The word is "ed", written "alef-dalet", the "vav" is there to bind it to the beforegoing verse.

"ed" is the eternal source of water/time.

In LXX translated with "pègè":

πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπότιζεν πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς

(Note that δὲ stands for the Hebrew letter "vav" in "v'ed". )

Also John means Hebrew "ed" where he writes, John 4:14,
ὃς δ' ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

Why?

Because "ed" is also principle of the resurrection.

Genesis 2:7,
And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.

Rashi:

formed: [וַיִּיצֶר, with two “yuds,” hints at] two creations, a creation for this world and a creation for the [time of the] resurrection of the dead, but in connection with the animals, which do not stand in judgment, two“yuds” are not written in [the word וַיִּצֶר describing their creation. — [from Tan. Tazria 1]

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The word is "ed", written "alef-dalet", the "vav" is there to bind it to the beforegoing verse.

So now you are trying to justify your wood gathering?



"ed" is the eternal source of water/time.

How is it that you feel confident to invent a dogma like that from a single word in Scripture?

The word "ed" occurs only twice in the whole Bible. Why would you want to make up a doctrine from something so obscure?



In LXX translated with "pègè":

πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπότιζεν πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς

(Note that δὲ stands for the Hebrew letter "vav" in "v'ed". )

Also John means Hebrew "ed" where he writes, John 4:14,
ὃς δ' ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

Why?

Because "ed" is also principle of the resurrection.

Genesis 2:7,
And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.

Rashi:

John most certainly was not talking about the obscure word "ed" when he spoke of the pege (fountain) of water.

[sylvius]

John most certainly was not talking about the obscure word "ed" when he spoke of the pege (fountain) of water.

That he was talking about "ed" is clear, even chrystal clear, from his mentioning of the number of 153 large fish.

The number 153 to be found in the account of the third day, in Genesis 1:12.

Where Genesis 2:5 says "nothing had yet grown", it refers to the third day of the first story of creation.

Rashi:

When the creation of the world was completed on the sixth day, before man was created, no herb of the field had yet grown. And on the third [day], where it is written:“Let the earth bring forth,” they [the plants] had not yet emerged, but they stood at the entrance of the ground until the sixth day. And why? Because He had not caused it to rain, because there was no man to work the soil, and no one recognized the benefit of rain, but when man came and understood that they were essential to the world, he prayed for them, and they fell, and the trees and the herbs sprouted. — [from Chul. 60b]

The same is to be found in Ezekiel 47:10

And it will be [a place] beside which fishermen will stand, from Ein-gedi to Ein-eglaim; a place for spreading nets they will be; their fish will be of many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea, very many.


Ein-gedi , עֵין גֶּדִי, " well 17"
Ein-eglaim, עֵין עֶגְלַיִם , "well 153".

Even it is now also chrystal clear why resurrection took place on the third day ...


I do want to contend also that the saying "I am the Alpha and the Omega" refers to this too

"ayin" , eye, well, name of the 16th letter, coinciding Greek "omikron"

Ein-gedi = Omikron
Ein- eglaim = Omega.

[sylvius]

The templebrook also showing the 1-4 principle:

Ezekiel 47:2,
וְהִנֵּה-מַיִם מְפַכִּים מִן-הַכָּתֵף הַיְמָנִית
and behold, water was trickling from the right side
"m'fakim" -from "pachah"= to flow, bubble, gush, drip.
From this: "pach" (80-20) = flask, bottle, jar.

(Jacob said to have returned after having brought his wives and children over the river Jabbok because he had forgotten some little jars "pachim k'tanim", Genesis 32:25,
And Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn
Rashi:
And Jacob was left: He had forgotten small bottles and returned for them. — [from Gen. Rabbah 77:2, Chullin 91a]. )


Ezekiel 47:3-5
When the man went out eastward with a cord in his hand, he measured one thousand cubits, and he led me through the water, water reaching the ankles And he measured one thousand and led me through the water, water reaching the knees, and he measured one thousand and he led me though water that reached the loins.
And he measured one thousand [cubits], a stream that I could not cross, for the water was so high that it was water for swimming, a stream that could not be crossed.

[sylvius]

By the way, why do you think Jesus needed an ass?

If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The master needs it and will send it back here shortly

(Greek:
ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ, Τί ποιεῖτε τοῦτο; εἴπατε, Ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχει, καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτὸν ἀποστέλλει πάλιν ὧδε.

That's strange, I see now.)

Was it for the show?
See me, Jesus, humble and mounted on a donkey entering Jerusalem?

Or was it to fulfill the prophecy?

In fact it supports my thesis, I think.

"shortly" is wrong translation.

It must be "immediately"

Which means that the colt is always there tied at the door, always there for you to untie.

It is the same colt that was tied at the vine, Genesis 49:11, Judah's colt.
Binding his foal to the vine and his donkey's colt to the choice vine, he has washed his garments in wine and his vesture in the blood of grapes.

Name Judah, "y'hudah", means, Genesis 29:35
הַפַּעַם אוֹדֶה אֶת יְ־הֹוָ־ה
"hapa'am odeh et hashem"

(Same "hapa'am" as in Genesis 2:23).

“This time I will praise Hashem” or: "This time I will thank Hashem" or: "This time I will confess Hashem" - confess my sin.

[sylvius]

Mark knows this meaning:

Mark 1:5

καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες, καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ὑπ' αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν.

It is "eschatological history".

[sylvius]

"Eschatological history" = Judah making himself guarantee for Benjamin.

Genesis 43:9,
I will guarantee him; from my hand you can demand him. If I do not bring him to you and stand him up before you, I will have sinned against you forever.

Benjamin being "son of the end of the days",

Rashi on Genesis 35:18,

Benjamin means“the son of days” (בֶּן יָמִים) , because he was born in his (Jacob’s) old age, and it is spelled with a “nun” like“at the end of the days (לְקֵץ הַיָּמִין)” (Dan. 12:13).

Which has to be understood in connection with Genesis 4:3,
Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord
"At the end of days" written here: מִקֵּץ יָמִים

At the end of days Cain kills Abel.

Cain being the scientist, Abel the dreamer.

Cain's last descendant being Tubal-Cain:
Rashi:

Tubal-cain: He refined the craft of Cain. Tubal is related to the word תַּבְלִין (spices). He “spiced” and“refined” Cain’s craft to make weapons for murderers- [from Gen. Rabbah 23:3].


"keits yamim" ending with "mem-s'tumah" = closed "mem".
"keits hayamin" ending with "nun p'shutah" = outstretched "nun".

Which I think has to do with revelation, revelation being something else than scientific explanation.