"Let us make man..." [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

View Full Version : "Let us make man..."

David M

05-25-2014, 12:59 AM

I would like to call upon all the Hebrew scholars on this forum, please to explain how from Genesis 1:26 we get the translation; "Let us....."

Every translation uses more or less the exact same words. However, when I look up the references in Strong for the words used, this is what we are given for the word "make";

H6213. 'asah, aw-saw'; a prim. root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application (as follows):--accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight-] ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use

The Septuagint has this;

1:26 Και είπεν ο θεός, Ας κάμωμεν άνθρωπον κατ' εικόνα ημών, καθ' ομοίωσιν ημών· και ας εξουσιάζη επί των ιχθύων της θαλάσσης και επί των πετεινών του ουρανού και επί των κτηνών και επί πάσης της γης και επί παντός ερπετού, έρποντος επί της γης.

and the Hebrew text I have found is this;

בראשית 1:26 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְעֹ֣וף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ
עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

1:26 בראשיתHebrew OT: WLC (Consonants Only)
ויאמר אלהים נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו וירדו בדגת הים ובעוף השמים ובבהמה ובכל־הארץ ובכל־הרמש הרמש
על־הארץ׃

May be it is in the construct of the verb "make" whereby the "Let us" comes from. This is where the Hebrew language experts are required.

The verses following clearly tell us that God made man. The text does not say "they". Singularly, God (The sole Creator) has made man after his image (and design).

I look forward to some enlightenment over what appears to be a very confusing verse that Genesis 1:26 is (in its present form).

David

Timmy

05-25-2014, 01:42 AM

Hi David,

As previously stated, Elohim is the plural form of the singular (where El + Eloah = Elohim)...
(...and this never meant angels, who have never been given the privilege or capacity to even participate in making anythingthing from nothing)

Only God can make a living soul capable of breathing out His breath because of formatting Adamah according to His own image.

Shalom,

Timmy

Richard Amiel McGough

05-25-2014, 02:33 PM

I would like to call upon all the Hebrew scholars on this forum, please to explain how from Genesis 1:26 we get the translation; "Let us....."

Every translation uses more or less the exact same words. However, when I look up the references in Strong for the words used, this is what we are given for the word "make";

The Septuagint has this;

1:26 Και είπεν ο θεός, Ας κάμωμεν άνθρωπον κατ' εικόνα ημών, καθ' ομοίωσιν ημών· και ας εξουσιάζη επί των ιχθύων της θαλάσσης και επί των πετεινών του ουρανού και επί των κτηνών και επί πάσης της γης και επί παντός ερπετού, έρποντος επί της γης.

and the Hebrew text I have found is this;

בראשית 1:26 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְעֹ֣וף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ
עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

1:26 בראשיתHebrew OT: WLC (Consonants Only)
ויאמר אלהים נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו וירדו בדגת הים ובעוף השמים ובבהמה ובכל־הארץ ובכל־הרמש הרמש
על־הארץ׃

May be it is in the construct of the verb "make" whereby the "Let us" comes from. This is where the Hebrew language experts are required.

The verses following clearly tell us that God made man. The text does not say "they". Singularly, God (The sole Creator) has made man after his image (and design).

I look forward to some enlightenment over what appears to be a very confusing verse that Genesis 1:26 is (in its present form).

David
Good afternoon David,

You are correct that the construct of the verb carries the idea of "Let us." The Hebrew word translated as "Let us make" is na'aseh, which is the "verb qal imperfect 1st person common plural" form of the root verb asah (to do, to make). It is commonly translated as "we will do" in contexts referring to the Israelites saying that they will do the commands of the Lord. The fact that there is no separate word "they" like in English is irrelevant because the meaning is carried in the verb, as well as the noun "our image" which also is plural. And the same meaning is communicated in the Greek LXX, which has eikon hemon which means "our image." These facts are undisputed by Hebrew scholars.

But is this a good argument for the Trinity? I have never thought so. The Jews have never interpreted it that way, so it is not necessitated by the grammar. It could just be the "plural of majesty." It is consistent with the Trinity, but not sufficient to prove it.

Richard

Rose

05-25-2014, 04:23 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

05-25-2014, 04:27 PM

Gen.1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Another reason for the plural "our" and "us" could be that El in the Canaanite religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29) was the father of humanity, and part of a council of gods "elohim", and the husband of the goddess Asherah. Many words and concepts the Hebrew's wrote about were taken from the Canaanite religion, which preceded and is foundational to Judaism.
Yes indeed, the most likely reason for the "let US make man" in Genesis is because Genesis and its god were imported from the pagan Canaanite pantheon of gods, over which "El Elyon" was chief. There is a remnant of this in Psalm 82:1 -

KJV Psalm 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty [gods]; he judgeth among the gods.

Rose

05-25-2014, 04:54 PM

Yes indeed, the most likely reason for the "let US make man" in Genesis is because Genesis and its god were imported from the pagan Canaanite pantheon of gods, over which "El Elyon" was chief. There is a remnant of this in Psalm 82:1 -

KJV Psalm 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty [gods]; he judgeth among the gods.

Another place is in the "Song of Moses".

Exo. 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD (Yahweh), among the gods (elohim)? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?

toxon

05-25-2014, 06:27 PM

Hi David,
Glad I do not claim to be a "Hebrew scholar"! :)

Hi Timmy,
Yada, yada, yada . . . :)

Hi Richard,
Nice forum! :)

Another place is in the "Song of Moses".

Exo. 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD (Yahweh), among the gods (elohim)? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?

Hi Rose,
Do you suppose your quote could be quite possibly one of the first references to Miyka'el, (Who is like God!?!)? Miyka'el could also be quite possibly the "Spirit" which was upon Moses, (yet not given "without measure" unto Moses but rather "reserved" and likewise later placed upon the seventy[two] elders). Also in Psalm 113:5, in the midst of praise we read, "Miy ka-YHWH 'Eloheynuw!?" (Who is like YHWH our God!?!). It seems possible that the Arche-Messenger Miyka'el is the leader or worship and praise, (Judah). :)

Richard Amiel McGough

05-25-2014, 06:54 PM

Hi Richard,
Nice forum! :)

Hey there toxon,

Glad you like it. I've been meaning to comment on a few of your posts. The thing that interests me most is your appeal to the Septuagint to justify the rejection of the verses in the Masoretic text that don't cohere well with your understanding of Scripture. I'll get to that as time permits. In the meanwhile, here is a belated "welcome" to our forum:

:welcome:

Talk more soon,

Richard

Rose

05-25-2014, 07:46 PM

Hi David,
Glad I do not claim to be a "Hebrew scholar"! :)

Hi Timmy,
Yada, yada, yada . . . :)

Hi Richard,
Nice forum! :)

Hi Rose,
Do you suppose your quote could be quite possibly one of the first references to Miyka'el, (Who is like God!?!)? Miyka'el could also be quite possibly the "Spirit" which was upon Moses, (yet not given "without measure" unto Moses but rather "reserved" and likewise later placed upon the seventy[two] elders). Also in Psalm 113:5, in the midst of praise we read, "Miy ka-YHWH 'Eloheynuw!?" (Who is like YHWH our God!?!). It seems possible that the Arche-Messenger Miyka'el is the leader or worship and praise, (Judah). :)

Hello Toxon :yo:

Given the fact that the Abrahamic god Yahweh was drawn from the already established Canaanite religion, whose council of gods included El, the most likely meaning of that reference would be of the Canaanite council of gods.

Best regards,
Rose

Mystykal

05-26-2014, 12:27 AM

David M

05-26-2014, 02:55 AM

Good afternoon David,

You are correct that the construct of the verb carries the idea of "Let us." The Hebrew word translated as "Let us make" is na'aseh, which is the "verb qal imperfect 1st person common plural" form of the root verb asah (to do, to make). It is commonly translated as "we will do" in contexts referring to the Israelites saying that they will do the commands of the Lord. The fact that there is no separate word "they" like in English is irrelevant because the meaning is carried in the verb, as well as the noun "our image" which also is plural. And the same meaning is communicated in the Greek LXX, which has eikon hemon which means "our image." These facts are undisputed by Hebrew scholars.

But is this a good argument for the Trinity? I have never thought so. The Jews have never interpreted it that way, so it is not necessitated by the grammar. It could just be the "plural of majesty." It is consistent with the Trinity, but not sufficient to prove it.

Richard

Thank you Richard for your explanation. The plural form of the verb should be agreed by all Hebrew scholars. I do not expect Sylvius or anyone else to disagree.

Hi David,
Glad I do not claim to be a "Hebrew scholar"! :)

Hi Timmy,
Yada, yada, yada . . . :)

Hi Richard,
Nice forum! :)

Hi Rose,
Do you suppose your quote could be quite possibly one of the first references to Miyka'el, (Who is like God!?!)? Miyka'el could also be quite possibly the "Spirit" which was upon Moses, (yet not given "without measure" unto Moses but rather "reserved" and likewise later placed upon the seventy[two] elders). Also in Psalm 113:5, in the midst of praise we read, "Miy ka-YHWH 'Eloheynuw!?" (Who is like YHWH our God!?!). It seems possible that the Arche-Messenger Miyka'el is the leader or worship and praise, (Judah). :)

Thank you Toxon for your contribution. Speaking of God's Angels, we are in the realm of the unknown, because we are not told of how Angels came into existence. I do not mind speculating and sharing thoughts, because it is only speculation. If we come to an understanding that resolves some of the difficulties and gives us peace of mind, then that is good.

In thinking about what you have said, I can see how Yeshua is mistaken for Miyka'el and how that leads to the mistaken view that Yeshua is thought to pre-exist and exist with YHVH from the beginning. If we accept Miyka'el was with God in the early beginning, we can go on to think about what what form Miyka'el took.

Was Miyka'el totally spirit, or in some physical form? YHVH's Angels did appear in the form of men, and they did not appear to be different. In that case, were they of the same physical material (dust) made up of atoms and molecules as we understand physical material to be made from? It appears man is made from the same stuff as the whole universe is made of. It begs the question, was Miyka'el created/made after the same stuff as the Universe? If that was the case, we could conclude that Miyka'el was created the same physical size of man (whether small or giant).

Given that we have YHVH as the sole Creator and Miyka'el (and the Angels) was created as YHVH's agent before man was created, we can now think that the plan of YHVH is to create man in the image of his Angel(s) Miyka'el. Whereas Miyka'el was created an immortal being and would have been perfect and always does the will of YHVH, man was going to be a different creation. The question arises, was Miyka'el created before, or after man (as a reproducing creation in which the perfect man, YHVH's only begotten Son), was first thought of? It is with this idea of God's only begotten Son in mind that we can think was the whole purpose behind why the Universe was created. That goes to explain how Yeshua was in the mind of YHVH from the beginning. It was not that Yeshua existed before his birth (genesis), but he was in the mind of YHVH from the very beginning, even before the Universe was created.

Man was going to be a creation which reproduces itself. YHVH was going to create man in his own image which he could have a relationship with. Either he could create man as he did his Angels, being obedient and without freedom to choose, or YHVH could create a multitude of self images by means of a reproduction process. For this to happen, YHVH has to create the environment for man to live in. Hence, YHVH takes this planet earth and forms it to be a suitable environment. In the process, we have all the other creatures and wonderful things YHVH created. To be reproducing, YHVH has to create male and female. YHVH created all animals male and female at the same time. However, the creation of man and woman is not done in the same instance and is done differently.

Now we have the scenario, whereby man is able to reproduce and multiply and with the freedom to do so. YHVH knows this new creation is capable of being like his Angel(s), but also knows with the freedom given to man, man has the capability of choosing to do what he wants to do. Hence, YHVH has to put man to the test knowing at some time, some of his new creation will fail. YHVH has to have some way of redeeming the man/woman who fails to reach the standard YHVH requires; i.e. perfect.

Now we are into the scenario of YHVH having the plan from the beginning (prior to man's creation) for YHVH to have a means of man's redemption. The redemption is going to follow the pattern laid down at the beginning in which there is no redemption without the shedding of blood. Hence, we have the covering of animal skins in the Garden following the fall of Adam and Eve. This leads ultimately to the covering which YHVH would provide in the person of his own Son (the perfect man).

The perfect man can only come about by YHVH's intervention and so we have the Son of YHVH, born of a virgin, born a man of flesh and blood. Yeshua lived the perfect life and became the perfect and necessary sacrifice for sin by the shedding of his own blood. This process does not require YHVH to become man (which he cannot). All it took was for a perfect man to exist. Yeshua was the perfect man. When we think of this and how similar man is an Angel (Miyka'el), so we begin to see the sense of man, being made lower than the Angels. Angels are immortal and perfectly do the will of YHVH. Man, as a reproducing creature and his lack of response to follow YHVH's instruction, meant that he was foreknown of God to be imperfect. YHVH could not allow the imperfect man to have immortality. It was the fall of Adam and Eve that was responsible for the curse of sin and death and all that we might see wrong with the present this present creation, which YHVH will put right, eventually.

Yeshua, vindicates YHVH, and proves a man could be completely responsive to YHVH's instruction and be perfect. Hence, YHVH has given his Son (the only perfect man) immortality, because his Son has gone through this process of being tested (which Miyka'el did not have to do) and Yeshua he has earned the position, which is above that of Miyka'el and the Angels. From this reproducing creation that man is, made in the image of YHVH (and Miyka'el), YHVH is selecting those who are acceptable to be made immortal to be in the kingdom that YHVH will be established through his Son. When Yeshua returns as the Christ to rule on earth, that is the beginning of the restoration of the kingdom of YHVH which will eventually lead to God's glory filling the whole earth.

Thanks for the seed you sowed, which prompted those thoughts; I look forward to reading the different explanations that will be put before us.

Shalom

David

toxon

05-26-2014, 03:28 AM

David M

05-26-2014, 03:31 AM

David is in the weeds when it comes to Mono-theism and concepts NOT found in the earliest OT passages...
Hello Mystykal

To continue with your analogy, I think you are in the bulrushes as I am, but we are separated. That is why, with the bulrushes so high, we cannot not see eye to eye.

YHVH has given his inspired word, which takes back to before the time of the people Richard and you talk about. From around the time of the Tower of Babel, people have had time to create their own gods and myths. Incorporated into those myths are the same stories relating to a Great Flood. Also knowledge of the astronomical/astrological constellations have gone with people divided by language, who formed into separate communities/nations. The time of the Tower of Babel also accounts for why we have so many languages without a common root.

Shalom
David

Charisma

05-26-2014, 03:44 AM

Rose said,

Another reason for the plural "our" and "us" could be that El in the Canaanite religion was the father of humanity, and part of a council of gods "elohim", and the husband of the goddess Asherah. Many words and concepts the Hebrew's wrote about were taken from the Canaanite religion, which preceded and is foundational to Judaism.

This doesn't really fit with scripture's narrative. The children of Jacob had been away from Canaan for four hundred and seventy years before they re-entered Canaan, and Yahweh understood better than they did what were the spiritual dangers to their relationship with Him.

So, while they were still in the wilderness, knowing that the 'synagogue' (mixed multitude) which had departed from Egypt contained both other nationalities and all their idols He very clearly stated:

(ESV) Leviticus 18:3
You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and syou shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you.

His counsel to obey Him in order to inherit the land never wavered, and He told them that the other gods would be a snare to them.

While there may be similarities in language for referring to deities, the Israelites were in no doubt that their God was above all the rest, and the way the people dwelling in Canaan viewed Him after the opening of the Red Sea confirmed His status totally.

Joshua 2;8 Before the men lay down, she came up to them on the roof 9 and said to the men, “I know that the Lord has given you the land, band that the fear of you has fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you. 10 For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you devoted to destruction. 11 And as soon as we heard it, our hearts melted, and there was no spirit left in any man because of you, for the Lord your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath.

There is no scriptural support for the notion that Yahweh was named after some other deity, and I think you know that.

I think you also know that when the children of Israel were ensnared by idolatry, it was because they had not obeyed Yahweh's commands to 'be holy'.

Holy = set apart solely to Him, for His name to rest upon them.

David M

05-26-2014, 03:51 AM

Hi David,
Can't speak for anyone else but Miyka'el is the Sar-Head of my people:
Ha Sar HaGadol, the Great Prince, and Sar-sariym "Prince of princes".
For instance when Stephanos was stoned Miyka'el stood up.
Who is your "head" and whose mind are you putting on? :D
:winking0071:
Thank you Toxon. That is the role I see Miyka'el taking throughout the Bible. We can see these things as literal or spiritual. Either way, they have something to teach us.

It appears to me that arch Angels have specific roles. This forum is a platform to explore ideas where the Bible does not give us enough information.

A question which can be asked is this; why does YHVH use Angels, when YHVH is capable of doing everything himself?

Are Angels a means whereby YHVH communicates with man through his Angels, because of the sinful nature of man that separates man from YHVH? Or, is this because God is Spirit and has no other way of being seen? Hence if we have the image of Miyka'el as an Angel made to reveal the image of YHVH, we have Yeshua made as a man, also in the image of YHVH to reveal YHVH. That is why Yeshua and Miyka'el have the same image.

Whereas Miyka'el, YHVH's agent, stands up in times of need to defend Israel, we have Yeshua, as YHVH's agent, taking the leading role in the restoration of the kingdom of YHVH.

So then, do you have any thoughts about these things which the Bible does not explain?

David

Timmy

05-26-2014, 04:16 AM

…Hi Timmy,
Yada, yada, yada . . . :)Hi toxon,

Yur' right. It makes no sense to move on to the meaning of the action until the doer of the action is clearly defined...iregardless of whether having Elyon, nothing, Roi, or whatever else as it's adjective--posessing the known understood meaning of this title, the learner can then have a more unadulterated knowledge concerning character aspects of said subject, the title Elohim.

David, re: messengers/angels, see Heb. 1.14 to begin with.

Early on in the game, when David started showing forth what is stopping him from further revelation by God's Word, it was found his kultic affiliation with Crystal Infidelphians is largely at fault.

It seems all that you and David have in common is that both of you pick to accept what pseudo-manuscripts and Biblical misinterpretation resources you choose to use.

Now reflecting upon certain specific characteristics to your misinterpretations of the Greek, now related with your more overt interest in Myka'el says much. Could you possibly as well think this is of whom the renoun phrase to the Thessalonican through Paulos states,"...with the voice of the ARCHANGEL..." refers?
(Know this: FYI, angelos is the greek impersonal noun used for any entity bearing a message/assignment, and not specific to only beings from/of the heavens.)

Your first mention of Myka'el had the Timmy first thinking the lues of Matthew Henry's commentary on Dani'el could be to blame. Yet now we recognize you are more strongly influenced in the ways of misinterpreting scripture that is all too common among the Russelites.

So, might you be an active JovialHa Witless, perhaps even an elder at your local Kindom Hell?
If not, you appear to be strongly influenced by their ilk.

Both you and David should keep your eyes peeled about what shall soon be related in the Jesus is God thread, as this evidence is going to put both of your false religiosities into tailspin mode.

That'$all for now.

Cha-ching,

Timotheos

Mystykal

05-26-2014, 04:44 AM

Hello Mystykal

To continue with your analogy, I think you are in the bulrushes as I am, but we are separated. That is why, with the bulrushes so high, we cannot not see eye to eye.

YHVH has given his inspired word, which takes back to before the time of the people Richard and you talk about. From around the time of the Tower of Babel, people have had time to create their own gods and myths. Incorporated into those myths are the same stories relating to a Great Flood. Also knowledge of the astronomical/astrological constellations have gone with people divided by language, who formed into separate communities/nations. The time of the Tower of Babel also accounts for why we have so many languages without a common root.

Shalom
David

Hi David:
I guess I could be in the thicket too!:pop2: :yo: But if you look at the facts that "do not exist" you will see that it is very hard to accept the notions which you believe without any support from the Bible or from history.... The Tower of Babel is ONLY found in the Bible story as such. To say that languages have no origin is to ignore large amounts of data to the contrary. That aside, there are many stories in the Bible that cannot be verified in any way. I still think the stories could be true IF the Bible had no errors or if the Bible was inspired in that way! All the evidence we have says otherwise. There are two schools of thought as to how inspiration works. One idea is that GOD writes the words down word for word or gives his messengers the words to write beforehand. That would mean NO translations from the "original" languages could be made!!!!! Since that would change the GOD spoken words,.. The orther idea about inspiration is that GOD gives ideas like pictures to people who are led by His Spirit and they write what they "see" down in words.

These TWO ideas about inspiration CANNOT both be correct. So whichever one you choose to use you cannot arrive at the same conclusions in both cases. So the whole problem I have with your ideas are that they are rooted in a sort of mixed-up idea about how GOD speaks to people. Then you go in circles stating and re stating your positions which can never be corrected since you think they have no need of correction.

The dates in the Bible for the flood and the the Tower of Babel do not match anything we have in archeological diggs or the like. That's why most people say that the Bible is a book of myths. I am not saying that. I am suggesting that the Bible is a sort of esoteric manual on how to obtain immortality. Everything it talks about is to explain that process whereby you can obtain eternal life. The power of Spirit is in the Word - rightly divided and understood of course! And it is there where you go off the deep end. I cannot change your mind! Only the Holy Spirit can do that!
The oldest stone carving we have for the GOD named IHVH is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton

The oldest known inscription of the tetragrammaton dates to 840 BCE, on the Mesha Stele (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Mesha_Stele). It bears the earliest certain extra-biblical reference to the Israelite God Yahweh (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Yahweh).[9] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-9) The most recent discovery of a tetragrammaton inscription, dating to the 6th century BCE, was found written in Hebrew on two silver scrolls (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Ketef_Hinnom) recovered from Jerusalem (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Jerusalem).[1] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-Knight.2C2011-1)
In the Hebrew Bible (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Hebrew_Bible), the tetragrammaton occurs 6,828 times,[1] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-Knight.2C2011-1) as can be seen in the Biblia Hebraica (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Biblia_Hebraica_(Kittel)) and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Biblia_Hebraica_Stuttgartensia).[10] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-insight-10) According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Brown-Driver-Briggs) Lexicon, יְהֹוָה (Qr אֲדֹנָי) occurs 6,518 times, and יֱהֹוִה (Qr אֱלֹהִים) occurs 305 times in the Masoretic (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Masoretic) Text. It first appears in Hebrew in Genesis (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Book_of_Genesis) 2:4.[10] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-insight-10)[11] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-11) The only books it does not appear in are Ecclesiastes (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Ecclesiastes), the Book of Esther (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Book_of_Esther), and Song of Songs (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Song_of_Songs).[1] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-Knight.2C2011-1)
The Septuagint (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Septuagint) typically translates YHWH as kyrios (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Kyrios_(biblical_term)) or "Lord".[1] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-Knight.2C2011-1)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Tetragrammaton_scripts.svg/137px-Tetragrammaton_scripts.svg.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/File:Tetragrammaton_scripts.svg) The Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet) (10th century BCE to 135 CE), old Aramaic (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Aramaic_alphabet) (10th century BCE to 4th century CE) and square Hebrew (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet) (3rd century BCE to present) scripts.

The tetragrammaton (from Greek (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Greek_language) τετραγράμματον, meaning "four letters")[1] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-Knight.2C2011-1)[2] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-2) is the Hebrew theonym (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Theonym) יהוה, commonly transliterated (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Transliteration) into Latin letters as YHWH. It is one of the names of the God of Israel (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism) used in the Hebrew Bible (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Hebrew_Bible).
While YHWH is the most common transliteration of the tetragrammaton in English academic studies, the alternatives YHVH, JHVH and JHWH are also used.[3] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-3)[4] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-4)
Although Yahweh (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Yahweh) is favored by most Hebrew scholars and is widely accepted as the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, Jehovah (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Jehovah) is still used in some translations of the Bible. The Samaritans (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Samaritan) understood the pronunciation to be iabe. Some patristic (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Church_Fathers) sources give evidence for a Greek pronunciation iaō.[5] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-Parke-Taylor.2C79-5)
As religiously observant Jews (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Jew) are forbidden to say the Tetragrammaton in full, when reading the Torah they use the word Adonai (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Adonai).[5] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-Parke-Taylor.2C79-5) And although most Christians have no prohibition on pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, in most Christian translations of the Bible, "LORD" is used in place of the Tetragrammaton, after the Hebrew Adonai, and is often written with small capitals (http://www.biblewheel.com/wiki/Small_caps) (or in all caps) to distinguish it from other words translated as "Lord".
The name may be derived from a verb that means "to be, to exist".[1] (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#cite_note-Knight.2C2011-1)

Contents [hide (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#)]

1 Origins (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Origins)

1.1 Etymology (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Etymology)
1.2 Occurrences (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Occurrences)

2 Pronunciation (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Pronunciation)

2.1 Tiberian vocalization (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Tiberian_vocalization)

2.1.1 Vowel points (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Vowel_points)
2.1.2 Consonantal semi-vowels (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Consonantal_semi-vowels)

2.2 Adonai (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Adonai)
2.3 Jehovah (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Jehovah)
2.4 Yahweh (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Yahweh)
2.5 Leningrad Codex (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Leningrad_Codex)
2.6 Theophoric names (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Theophoric_names)

3 Usages and translations (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Usages_and_translations)

3.1 Judaism (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Judaism)

3.1.1 Verbal prohibitions (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Verbal_prohibitions)
3.1.2 Written prohibitions (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Written_prohibitions)

3.2 Samaritans (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Samaritans)
3.3 Septuagint (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Septuagint)
3.4 Dead Sea Scrolls (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Dead_Sea_Scrolls)
3.5 Patristic writings (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Patristic_writings)
3.6 Christianity (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Christianity)

3.6.1 Christian translations (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Christian_translations)
3.6.2 New Testament (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#New_Testament)
3.6.3 Catholicism (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Catholicism)

3.7 Jewish mysticism (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Jewish_mysticism)

3.7.1 Magical papyri (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Magical_papyri)
3.7.2 Kabbalah (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#Kabbalah)

Notice that the Tetragrammaton is a GREEK rendition for a Hebrew word derived from a Pheonician script which is Paleo-inscription which is pre-dating the Hebrew script by more than 500 years.
So to suggest that there is no known connection of the IHVH word written down to pre-neolithic man is to be ignorant of the hard data we have now in front of us. Then we also have to look at the facts behind the Chinese written letters on oracle bone... which predate all known written languages! They also have a story which is identical to the Noah flood story where 8 people are on a "boat".

So if you really believed the Bible to be the Word of GOD you would start at the beginning and build on that info first instead of going to your Greek nonsense and acting like that is the inspired Word for Word of GOD! And to think that you believe the rapture of the Christian church and Jesus ruling for a thousand years on earth is also laughable as the Bible teaches no such thing! :eek:

Namaste,

Mystykal

toxon

05-26-2014, 06:12 AM

Thank you Toxon. That is the role I see Miyka'el taking throughout the Bible. We can see these things as literal or spiritual. Either way, they have something to teach us.

It appears to me that arch Angels have specific roles. This forum is a platform to explore ideas where the Bible does not give us enough information.

A question which can be asked is this; why does YHVH use Angels, when YHVH is capable of doing everything himself?

Are Angels a means whereby YHVH communicates with man through his Angels, because of the sinful nature of man that separates man from YHVH? Or, is this because God is Spirit and has no other way of being seen? Hence if we have the image of Miyka'el as an Angel made to reveal the image of YHVH, we have Yeshua made as a man, also in the image of YHVH to reveal YHVH. That is why Yeshua and Miyka'el have the same image.

Whereas Miyka'el, YHVH's agent, stands up in times of need to defend Israel, we have Yeshua, as YHVH's agent, taking the leading role in the restoration of the kingdom of YHVH.

So then, do you have any thoughts about these things which the Bible does not explain?

David

Hi David, there is plenty that could be shared concerning such things and there is much more to be found in the Scripture than what most have been led to believe, (mainly because of the modern misconceptions concerning angels-angelos-aggelos/malakim/messengers). Even Timmy who thinks he knows it all doesn't have a clue or he would not be worshiping the Lamb of YHWH, which is spiritual food, which he is rather supposed to be consuming and leaving nothing till the morning comes when the Anatole Daystar arises in his heart so that he may live, (what kind of heathen must one be to worship his food? :lol: ) neither would he be worshiping the head of the body of the great congregation if he truly believed and understood the Scripture, knowing that the Father is the Head over and above Messiah according as even Paul states, and as Paul likewise clearly warns in another place; we do not worship the messengers or even the Arche-Messenger. Also there is only one "Archangel" mentioned in the Scripture and there can be only one Chief Head-Corner Stone under the Father, (Yeshua is the foundation Stone which is the Lion of Judah portrayed in my avatar). The foundation Stone which the builders rejected is now become both Kohen Gadol and is HaSar HaGadol under the Supreme Authority and command of the Father who is the GREAT SHEPHERD over all. However I was not intending to derail your thread topic but rather simply responding to what Rose had posted as a way to say hello to others whom I have not yet met including Richard. I was actually surprise by how much attention you gave to angels, messengers, (men) Miyka'el, etc., in your previous post, (which was again why my response to you was limited). Rather than take your topic down a completely different path you might take a look at the following in your own time and at your own leisure if you are truly interested. I'm in no big hurry to discuss anything in particular despite the vile accusations of the Timmy: I have no axe to grind, I have not come here to convince anyone of anything they do not wish to believe, and I do not have a diabolical plan from Satan to take over the boards and control the minds of Timmy and Charisma through toxins, potions, or poisonous doctrines, so we can go into these things another time, another place, or not at all. I'm secure in whom and what I know. It matters not to me whether the food worshipers accept me into their riot club or not, in fact, I'm not interested after watching them rip you to shreds for the last seven months like the wolverines that they are. Miyka'el Tzemach Tzedek (http://www.sheshbazzardaq.com/miykael-tsemach-tzedek.html) :)

sylvius

05-26-2014, 06:16 AM

I would like to call upon all the Hebrew scholars on this forum, please to explain how from Genesis 1:26 we get the translation; "Let us....."

v. 25 ends with "and God saw that it was good". You should have expected that next it would have read: "and it was evening and it was morning (a) sixth day".

Instead of that it reads "and God said "Let us make man" ".

Rashi:

From here we learn the humility of the Holy One, blessed be He. Since man was created in the likeness of the angels, and they would envy him, He consulted them.

My suggestion is that they were thinking that God wanted to discuss the creation of man as project for the next day. While they were debating God did create man, so that they (among them Satan) couldn't prevent it, and that's why it reads:v.31, "And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day" which might also be the clue of the last word of Genesis 2:3, "la'asot" = to make ( form from the same verb "asah" as "na'aseh" = let us make.

"And God blessed the seventh day and He hallowed it, for thereon He abstained from all His work that God created to make."

Rashi:

The work that was fit to be done on the Sabbath, He doubled up and did it on the sixth [day], as is explained in Genesis Rabbah (11:9).

Rose

05-26-2014, 08:20 AM

Rose said,

Another reason for the plural "our" and "us" could be that El in the Canaanite religion was the father of humanity, and part of a council of gods "elohim", and the husband of the goddess Asherah. Many words and concepts the Hebrew's wrote about were taken from the Canaanite religion, which preceded and is foundational to Judaism.

This doesn't really fit with scripture's narrative. The children of Jacob had been away from Canaan for four hundred and seventy years before they re-entered Canaan, and Yahweh understood better than they did what were the spiritual dangers to their relationship with Him.

So, while they were still in the wilderness, knowing that the 'synagogue' (mixed multitude) which had departed from Egypt contained both other nationalities and all their idols He very clearly stated:

(ESV) Leviticus 18:3
You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and syou shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you.

His counsel to obey Him in order to inherit the land never wavered, and He told them that the other gods would be a snare to them.

While there may be similarities in language for referring to deities, the Israelites were in no doubt that their God was above all the rest, and the way the people dwelling in Canaan viewed Him after the opening of the Red Sea confirmed His status totally.

Hello Charisma :yo:

Of course the Israelites thought that their god was above the rest, but the fact is that Abraham came out of a society that practiced the Canaanite religion, so his ideas were founded upon his religious background, which is why the same word El was used to refer to god.

There is no scriptural support for the notion that Yahweh was named after some other deity, and I think you know that.

I think you also know that when the children of Israel were ensnared by idolatry, it was because they had not obeyed Yahweh's commands to 'be holy'.

Holy = set apart solely to Him, for His name to rest upon them.

Yahweh wasn't named after some other deity, he was the one chosen by Abraham out of the council of gods of the Canaanite religion to follow. Like I said in my other post, El was worshiped as the father of humanity, and considered the supreme deity. The origins of Yahweh is that he was one among many deities as found in the writings of Ugarit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29)... it just so happens that he was chosen to be the one supreme god by the tribe that became the Hebrews.

Take care,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

05-26-2014, 11:07 AM

Hi Richard:

Thank you for this!

David is in the weeds when it comes to Mono-theism and concepts NOT found in the earliest OT passages... It seems like no matter who says what there are always those who will never consider the most basic facts of language construction and its influence on theological misadventures! :thumb:

Namaste,

Mystykal
You're welcome Mystykal. Of course, as mentioned in my previous post, even when I was a Christian I didn't think that the plural gave any support to the idea of the Trinity because God does not, in general, refer to himself in the plural. So I took it as an odd anomaly from which we could draw no certain conclusions. And now that I'm not restricting my thoughts to Christian dogmas, it seems most likely that the plural originated from a pagan Canaanite tradition in which "El Elyon" (the chief god in the council of gods, cf Psalm 82:1) was speaking to other gods in their joint project to create humans "in their image."

Timmy

05-26-2014, 12:28 PM

toxon

05-26-2014, 04:03 PM

Hey there toxon,

Glad you like it. I've been meaning to comment on a few of your posts. The thing that interests me most is your appeal to the Septuagint to justify the rejection of the verses in the Masoretic text that don't cohere well with your understanding of Scripture. I'll get to that as time permits. In the meanwhile, here is a belated "welcome" to our forum:

:welcome:

Talk more soon,

Richard

Hi Richard, thank you for the warm welcome. There are a few reasons why I take the Septuagint as critical. The main reason being that I believe the apostles and disciples of Yeshua quoted from it in their writings, (either that or texts from where it was derived, or possibly sometimes writings similar to or from the DSS). If that is the case then the Septuagint cannot be ignored. I gave several examples in the other main thread where I have posted since arriving here but there are quite a few more where a passage is quoted and matches the Septuagint but not the Masoretic Text. Another reason I check the Septuagint is because it helps to "triangulate" my position with another witness. Another reason is because we know that at least the Torah portion was indeed translated some 250-300 years before Yeshua walked the earth and this gives one the opportunity to see what the Hebrew texts which were available at the time actually meant in the minds of those who translated the Hebrew into Greek. This is invaluable in my opinion because it offers a "translation" from the Hebrew which often times does not support the modern translations. In short those who rendered the Septuagint into Greek have way more authority than any of the more modern translations because those scribes and elders were there, living in that time, speaking both languages and knowing what the words meant to them and all. We are here two thousand years removed and even some of the modern scholars of today have admitted that they really do not fully understand what is written in the languages that it is written in. Likewise the rules that are forced upon the scholarly world of today often times do not apply in the ancient texts showing that the moderns have forced certain criteria upon the underlings to maintain the dogma. Since you seem to suggest you would prefer to bring it up elsewhere, (and I agree this probably is not the proper thread) I will simply provide one more instance where the Masoretic does not match with a New Testament quote but the Septuagint does:

Habakkuk 2:2-5 KJV
2. And the Lord answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.
3. For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.
4. Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
5. Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, he is a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and is as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people:

Hebrews 10:36-38 KJV
36. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
37. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
38. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

AMBACUM 2:2-5 Septuagint Brenton Translation
2. And the Lord answered me and said, Write the vision, and [that] plainly on a tablet, that he that reads it may run.
3. For the vision yet for a time, and it shall shoot forth at the end, and not in vain: though he should tarry, wait for him; for he will surely come, and will not tarry.
4. [I]If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him: but the just shall live by my faith.
5. But the arrogant man and the scorner, the boastful man, shall not finish anything; who has enlarged his desire as the grave, and like death he is never satisfied, and he will gather to himself all the nations, and will receive to himself all the peoples.
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=38&page=2

You're welcome Mystykal. Of course, as mentioned in my previous post, even when I was a Christian I didn't think that the plural gave any support to the idea of the Trinity because God does not, in general, refer to himself in the plural. So I took it as an odd anomaly from which we could draw no certain conclusions. And now that I'm not restricting my thoughts to Christian dogmas, it seems most likely that the plural originated from a pagan Canaanite tradition in which "El Elyon" (the chief god in the council of gods, cf Psalm 82:1) was speaking to other gods in their joint project to create humans "in their image."

I noticed Timmy ignored this comment. He claimed in the other thread that he and his "Israeli brothers" have discovered some sort of grand conspiracy early on where the Jews attempted to hide the "fact" that YHWH is a plural God by changing the meaning of 'echad. Somehow they tried to hide it from him that Jesus is also YHWH and therefore, (in the dogma of the Timmy and his "Israeli brethren") Jesus is God too! They couldn't pull the wool over his eyes! Perhaps, Richard, that odd anomaly is simply one among thousands of statements designed to weed out thorns. The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, (`ophel-emerods to the Philistines of heart). :lol:

Mystykal

05-26-2014, 10:56 PM

Hello Charisma :yo:

Of course the Israelites thought that their god was above the rest, but the fact is that Abraham came out of a society that practiced the Canaanite religion, so his ideas were founded upon his religious background, which is why the same word El was used to refer to god.

Yahweh wasn't named after some other deity, he was the one chosen by Abraham out of the council of gods of the Canaanite religion to follow. Like I said in my other post, El was worshiped as the father of humanity, and considered the supreme deity. The origins of Yahweh is that he was one among many deities as found in the writings of Ugarit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29)... it just so happens that he was chosen to be the one supreme god by the tribe that became the Hebrews.

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:
I see the Abraham choosing IHVH a little like when Paul said, "Acts 17:16-34
New International Version (NIV)

In Athens
16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you."

Abraham believed IHVH to be the real true GOD.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Nothing

05-26-2014, 11:43 PM

I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

David M

05-26-2014, 11:57 PM

The teaching of the Bible is that God made man. There is no other God (YHVH) responsible for making man. I have taken the advice of my critics and I put myself in the place of God and see things from his point of view. It must be very vexing to know that you have created man and for that creation to dismiss you in favor of some figment of their imagination.

The gods which the people in general believed in and worshiped were figments of man's imagination. Men like Abraham, who were seen as having faith in the one true God, we note were called out by God. Abraham was called out from Ur of the Chaldees to go to a land that God would show him. That was an act of faith on the part of Abraham not knowing where God was going to lead him. Abraham knew he had to get out from among those heathen worshiping their fictitious gods. It is no different today. God through his word is calling us to come out of this Babylonian system (the world) and be separate from it. At least in spirit we can do this and we can have our minds set of Heavenly things and heed the instruction of God.

It is evident that all peoples at the time of the Tower of Babel, after they were dispersed, created their fictitious gods. The Children of Israel in Egypt had been exposed to the gods of Egypt and the nations in and around the promised land all had their own fictitious gods. It was God who chose Abraham and his descendants by which to be known and he will be known eventually in that Great Day, also known as the Day of the Lord as he was in times past when he acted for his people.

Ezek 38:23 Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the LORD.

As in times past, like the deliverance from Egypt, God was recognized, but it seems like the memory fades fast. There was more than one occasion when God's chosen people said they would have no other gods and only serve the one true God, and we see how fickle those people were.

Joshua 24
22 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.
23 Now therefore put away, said he, the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the LORD God of Israel.
24 And the people said unto Joshua, The LORD our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey.

They failed to keep their promise and they were easily snared by the beliefs of the nations around them and so worshiped other gods and failed to given praise and honor to the one true God. God knows best, and what he said would happen to his people, if they did not obey him and get rid of all those people out of the land he was going to give them, those people and their gods would remain a snare to them and a thorn in their side.

Exod 23
31 And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.
32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
33 They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.

The failure of the people to obey God's instruction is clear to see and so they brought the consequences upon themselves. The lessons are there in print, yet the world wants to continue to believe in it gods and fail to recognize the one true God. Why is that? Why the many people so easily led by the few people with their own agenda who do not have the best interest of the people at heart? Is it because people prefer to believe in their own imaginations and create their fictitious gods?

Psalm 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

David

David M

05-27-2014, 12:14 AM

Timmy

05-27-2014, 12:49 AM

Hello Nothing
I looked up the references in which we find this title 'synagogue of Satan'. There are two verses. The second verse appears to contradict what you say. There might be some Jewish conspiracy going on today, but that is not in the context of the following verse.

(Rev 3:9) Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not,

DavidHi David,

Who is the True Jew but the one circumcised in their heart? The flesh counts for nothing.

Yet if one will not accept these words evidenced from Scripture, please consider the fact that the majority of these "Jews" that Nothing has so kindly forewarded for perusal, a huge majority of them are not even of/from our tribes. They are recognized as Ashkenazi and FTMP, many are not Hebrew neither by bloodline nor tradition. So, they are not actually physical Hebrews, as are we who are of the Mizrahim or the Shepharad.

Timmy

toxon

05-27-2014, 02:05 AM

Hi toxon,

I wouldn't be so quick to mock this as it is entirely a possibility. The main enemy of Jesus well he lived on this earth always seemed to be the scribes and pharisees. And we know that there is a Jewish conspiracy happening in the world today, the bible even calls them the synagogue of Satan:

http://puu.sh/935jh.jpg (http://puu.sh/935jh.jpg)

Hi Nothing,
Ah yes, another "Jewish conspiracy", otherwise you would have everything written in clear black and white bold perfection and there would be no debating anything right? Sounds no different from the similar minded who claim that all the original Gospel accounts, epistles, and various N/T manuscripts were originally written in Aramaic with all the original holy names but someone burned them all! And if it was not for that conspiracy your theories would be plain as day for everyone else eh? Meanwhile the doctrines, parables, and teachings of the Master reveal that the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, and Herod are all used for allegorical purposes. Yeshua does not condemn any one individual, (and he tells you so more than once) or group of individuals, or sect, but rather uses them to make supernal points revealing his doctrine. Everyone has some Pharisee, Sadducee, or Herod in them, (beware the leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herod). The pulpits of Amerika are full of Herodians and Pharisees who think they are now righteous not because of what they do and how they act but because of what they believe and because they themselves chose the one single moment, hour, and day in which they would bend the knee at the pulpit of another man to pray that highly emotional tear-jerking "sinners prayer" with heavenly organ muzick ticking away the time allotted to be saved in the back ground so as to save themselves from this untoward generation by their one and only "good work" for all time because after that the "Law is done away with!" (until they get to a forum and need to start quoting the Law against all the "false prophets" and "workers of Satan" who disagree with their pet theories). :lol:

Beware the anthropon-man-faced countenances: for they will deliver you up to the sanhedrins, and they will scourge you in their synagogues, and you shall be brought before governors and kings for the sake of the name of Yeshua for a testimony against them and the heathen. But first understand that the kingdom of God is within you! (and unfortunately so are the heathen without exception because God is no respecter of persons and has concluded all under disobedience). :D

---------------------------------------

Red bold italics emphasis mine:

Joshua 24
22 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.
23 Now therefore put away, said he, the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the LORD God of Israel.
24 And the people said unto Joshua, The LORD our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey.

They failed to keep their promise and they were easily snared by the beliefs of the nations around them and so worshiped other gods and failed to given praise and honor to the one true God. God knows best, and what he said would happen to his people, if they did not obey him and get rid of all those people out of the land he was going to give them, those people and their gods would remain a snare to them and a thorn in their side.

Exod 23
31 And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.
32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
33 They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.

The failure of the people to obey God's instruction is clear to see and so they brought the consequences upon themselves. The lessons are there in print, yet the world wants to continue to believe in it gods and fail to recognize the one true God. Why is that? Why the many people so easily led by the few people with their own agenda who do not have the best interest of the people at heart? Is it because people prefer to believe in their own imaginations and create their fictitious gods?

Psalm 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

David

Hi David,
The man is the Land: both the 'adamah-soil of the heart, (Parable of the Sower) and the 'erets outer bounds "temple commons" or profane, ("the flesh" with all its attributes like as Paul speaks concerning the "outer bounds" of the body temple in Romans 7:14-25). The Testimony of Yeshua in combination with Torah will indeed "sever" the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians from your midst over the long run if you continue in his doctrine as he says, (for the kingdom of God is within you exactly as he says). These things are allegories and analogies just as sin is always personified as evil entity: the same it is with Esau, the same it is with the serpent allegory from the beginning who walks upon or according to his belly, the same is the carnal minded man walking according to his own mind of the flesh. Everyone has his or her own "carnal man" or the "old man" which must eventually be completely removed, (he comes back from the dry-arid-desert places with seven other spirits and their doctrines more wicked than himself if you are not carefully watching as commanded since you are made the porter of the doors of your house while the Master of the house is away). Yeshua says the same: in the consummation of your age the messengers will come forth and sever the wicked from among the just, (as the tares from your midst). The wicked are severed from the midst of each and every man individually in his own appointed times, ("and none shall be alone in his appointed times"). The natural man will never understand because he sees all things literal and physical according to the eyes, mind, and belly of the flesh by which he walks. The Joshua passage which you quoted speaks of exactly the same things in the same terminology. The children of Israel came up out Egypt with a "mixed multitude" in their midst which needed to be dealt with along the Way. Joshua says: "Put away the strange elohim in your midst" and the Father has said that each and every one of us are elohim but shall die as men and fall as one of the princes. Thus anyone who puts his own will, (especially when it comes to the Scripture) before the Word of Elohim is worshiping his own image of himself in his heart and mind because the Creator has said the we are all like little elohim, (but we are to have no elohim before The Elohim which includes not placing even ourselves before him). :)

Timmy

05-27-2014, 03:00 AM

Hi toxon,

You defame trinitarianism, a dogma invoked by Roman Catholocism through the convolutions of Tertullian and the heretic Origen and fail yet fail to admit that it was Origen who is primarily responsible for the LXX as it is today, gathered together as a single edition from the Alexandrian libraries (containing not a few differing renditions of the Hebrew Tanakh.

As for the DSS, Timmy has copy of them all, and having read through them, from what is written as their holy texts, the reason the Essenes were a community seprate from the populus of Y'israel could have been not only because of their stance of seperationism--as is common among all factious sects and Kults. No, they were probably seperating themselves not only because of thinking themselves so high and mifhtily sanctified, but because right along side their own accepted kult version of Biblical text, are scores of astrological and divinitory records, with mysticism conflicting against the full body of the Tanakh.

So, why do you think a certain date in time lends more credibility to anything edited by a heretic, or anything that a religous kult/sect writes?
Why do you think such ¿proof¿ holds more credibility thanbthe originating text used by the Temple and Synagogues?

As well, you have stated a very questionable unprovable, to even suggest the Apostles used Greek or quoted from it...even if the written record "appears to" confirm this or something similar.

Though a list of things appearing to show your reasons(?) you give more authority to the LXX so that you might somehow avoid submitting to Jesus, one day you will kneel before Him and confess Jesus is LORD to the glory of the Father.

All in all, your misinterpretings of Scripture are more than apparent. Of course this is to be expected, considering the LXx is confirmed by a divinatory mystical sect of off the wall Judaism, and edited by a heretic whose purpose was to integrate paganism under the auspices of the Holey Roman Cathilic Church.

Why should anyone trust the language and interpolations of the goyim as of above and beyond superiority to a parabolic book of Hebraic time/space orientation written by Hebrews in the picture language of the Hebrews?
The closest any word for word translations might come is that it could give synonymous confirmation, and fragmented at that.

…even when I was a Christian I didn't think that the plural gave any support to the idea of the Trinity because God does not, in general, refer to himself in the plural. So I took it as an odd anomaly from which we could draw no certain conclusions. And now that I'm not restricting my thoughts to Christian dogmas, it seems most likely that the plural originated from a pagan Canaanite tradition in which "El Elyon" (the chief god in the council of gods, cf Psalm 82:1) was speaking to other gods in their joint project to create humans "in their image."

I noticed Timmy ignored this comment.You may not notice very well.
First, the fact is that Timmy is not trinitarian.
Second, click here to see comment concerning the God concepts being covered in this thread. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5765-quot-Let-us-make-man-quot&p=63528#post63528).

He claimed in the other thread that he and his "Israeli brothers" have discovered some sort of grand conspiracy early on where the Jews attempted to hide the "fact" that YHWH is a plural God by changing the meaning of 'echad.You needto work on getting your "noticer" to at least notice the noticable better.

Timmy claimed no such thing, however your convolutions are to be expected considering your claim God does not say what He does.
Yaweh is two entities indistingiushale from one another in purpose and power.
There was no claim of conspiracy, but rather this fact is on record and anyone who researches this issue can find it.

Furthermore, your misinterpretation of the word "echad" is laughable.
When speaking of "one" as something solitary being a seperate single unit, the word "yachid" is used, not "echad".

Somehow they tried to hide it from him that Jesus is also YHWH and therefore, (in the dogma of the Timmy and his "Israeli brethren") Jesus is God too! They couldn't pull the wool over his eyes! Perhaps, Richard, that odd anomaly is simply one among thousands of statements designed to weed out thorns. The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, (`ophel-emerods to the Philistines of heart). :lol:So now you seek emerods...or do you think yourself to be some golden rodent?

You shall learn quick enough not to speak what you can't cash.

Have an "interesting" day,

Timmy

toxon

05-27-2014, 04:11 AM

Hi toxon,

You defame trinitarianism, a dogma invoked by Roman Catholocism through the convolutions of Tertullian and the heretic Origen and fail yet fail to admit that it was Origen who is primarily responsible for the LXX as it is today, gathered together as a single edition from the Alexandrian libraries (containing not a few differing renditions of the Hebrew Tanakh.

As for the DSS, Timmy has copy of them all, and having read through them, from what is written as their holy texts, the reason the Essenes were a community seprate from the populus of Y'israel could have been not only because of their stance of seperationism--as is common among all factious sects and Kults. No, they were probably seperating themselves not only because of thinking themselves so high and mifhtily sanctified, but because right along side their own accepted kult version of Biblical text, are scores of astrological and divinitory records, with mysticism conflicting against the full body of the Tanakh.

So, why do you think a certain date in time lends more credibility to anything edited by a heretic, or anything that a religous kult/sect writes?
Why do you think such ¿proof¿ holds more credibility thanbthe originating text used by the Temple and Synagogues?

As well, you have stated a very questionable unprovable, to even suggest the Apostles used Greek or quoted from it...even if the written record "appears to" confirm this or something similar.

Though a list of things appearing to show your reasons(?) you give more authority to the LXX so that you might somehow avoid submitting to Jesus, one day you will kneel before Him and confess Jesus is LORD to the glory of the Father.

All in all, your misinterpretings of Scripture are more than apparent. Of course this is to be expected, considering the LXx is confirmed by a divinatory mystical sect of off the wall Judaism, and edited by a heretic whose purpose was to integrate paganism under the auspices of the Holey Roman Cathilic Church.

Why should anyone trust the language and interpolations of the goyim as of above and beyond superiority to a parabolic book of Hebraic time/space orientation written by Hebrews in the picture language of the Hebrews?
The closest any word for word translations might come is that it could give synonymous confirmation, and fragmented at that.

You may not notice very well.
First, the fact is that Timmy is not trinitarian.
Second, click here to see comment concerning the God concepts being covered in this thread. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5765-quot-Let-us-make-man-quot&p=63528#post63528).

You needto work on getting your "noticer" to at least notice the noticable better.

Timmy claimed no such thing, however your convolutions are to be expected considering your claim God does not say what He does.
Yaweh is two entities indistingiushale from one another in purpose and power.
There was no claim of conspiracy, but rather this fact is on record and anyone who researches this issue can find it.

Furthermore, your misinterpretation of the word "echad" is laughable.
When speaking of "one" as something solitary being a seperate single unit, the word "yachid" is used, not "echad".

So now you seek emerods...or do you think yourself to be some golden rodent?

You shall learn quick enough not to speak what you can't cash.

Have an "interesting" day,

Timmy

Listen to your own self Timmy. Everything you accuse me of doing you practice twofold taking the translation of the Masorites, which came a thousand years later, and who essentially created the new Hebrew alphabet and added the vowel pointing so that people like you would not have to do your own homework. Never mind that they they didn't even accept Yeshua as Messiah for why should that matter to one such as yourself right? You only use the name you call god as a front for your own Kultus Bar-Timaeus brand anyways. So you take their TRANSLATION, (which is what they did when they pointed the vowels for you) over and above the Testimony of Yeshua who is the block letters of the Word himself through whom the vowels of YHWH flow! Your judgment of others is meaningless except to prove as already stated that most of your genos eventually make themselves out to be their own gods in their own minds which little god always bears a striking similarity to themselves: and of course anyone they and their gods disagree with is therefore the devil. When it is evening, you say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and overcast. Hypocrite, you can watch clouds to divine against the Law so as to discern the face of the sky; but can you not discern the signs of the kairos-appointments? And when you see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway you say, There comes a shower! and so it is. And when you see the south wind blow, you say, There will be heat! and it comes to pass. Hypocrite, you can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that you do not discern this kairos-appointed time? MOREOVER: WHY EVEN FROM OF YOUR OWN SELF JUDGE YOU NOT WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS EVIL IN YOUR MIDST?

"When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite." :yes: :lol:

toxon

05-27-2014, 04:25 AM

David M

05-27-2014, 05:11 AM

When speaking of "one" as something solitary being a seperate single unit, the word "yachid" is used, not "echad".

That is why when Abraham offered Isaac, his only son, it was a type pointing forward to the time when YHVH would (Gen 22:8) "provide himself a lamb" in the form of his only begotten Son. That verse btw is not suggesting as Charisma has suggested that YHVH is himself the lamb, but that YHVH is providing the lamb himself. That is to say, YHVH will not accept anyone else's lamb; no other lamb is acceptable, but the one provided by YHVH.

Genesis 22:2
HEB: בִּנְךָ֨ אֶת־ יְחִֽידְךָ֤ אֲשֶׁר־ אָהַ֙בְתָּ֙
NAS: your son, your only son, whom
KJV: thy son, thine only [son] Isaac,
INT: now your son your only whom love

We might not have the Hebrew text in the New Testament for "only begotten Son", but in the Old Testament which is based on the original Hebrew (even through the LXX) we have Messianic prophecies foretelling of an "only" son.

Zechariah 12:10
HEB: כְּמִסְפֵּד֙ עַל־ הַיָּחִ֔יד וְהָמֵ֥ר עָלָ֖יו
NAS: for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep
KJV: for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness

(Zechariah 12:10) And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

I think there is a case for saying that Yeshua, as the only begotten Son of God, stands alone and is separate from YHVH and is not YHVH, but is one (united) in purpose and intent, and as such, Yeshua is in the bosom of his Heavenly Father (YHVH).

PeterRabbit

05-27-2014, 07:38 AM

hey there, toxon, old thing, :highfive:

been grazing some of your ideas thoughtfully, and a question arises from this

'taking the translation of the Masorites, which came a thousand years later, and who essentially created the new Hebrew alphabet and added the vowel pointing so that ... [no-one] ... would not have to do ... homework. Never mind that they they didn't even accept Yeshua as Messiah for why should that matter ... right?'

you won't mind that i've taken the accusations out of your words, i hope?

tsk, it may be more than one question

are you saying there was not one single vowel point in the text from which the septuagint was translated?

if so, in what way would that translation be any less embued with the current thinking of the translators?

how would you or anyone else know it was, anyway?

isn't this a bit like eating Swiss cheese and leaving the holes at the side of the platter?

you seem to be implying that as time has gone on, Israelites have become less in tune with their own texts.

are you?

or, let me put that last line into a tiny bit of context, seeing you quoted the start of matt 16, earlier

'O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken'

the next thing in matt 16 is

And he left them, and departed. 5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.

'6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.'

didn't seem to be the first time they had forgotten 'bread', either

'They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them' chap 25

so now, would it be an idea to ditch all the vowel pointing and read the whole text without it?

might it now be crystal clear to those who have received the Holy Ghost?

might all come to the same understanding, devoid of any other 'wind of doctrine'?

Till we all come in the unity of the faith,
and of the knowledge of the Son of God,
unto a perfect man,
unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Timmy

05-27-2014, 07:53 AM

Also Timmy where did I ever say that *you* personally were a trinitarian? I asked you for evidence for your claim that "Jesus is YHWH" but you had no evidence to back up your claim. If you wanted my opinion you could have just asked and I would have said that you sound more like one of those oneness kookoos who believes that his god died. If your god died and raised himself back up then you are completely ignorant of the true meaning of *dead*.Hi toxin,

It shall come in the Jesus is God thread, some of which has already been alluded to there.

Now, reconsider the credibility of your linear lingo LXX, quit sidewinding, and answer to the following Qs in a direct fashion...instead of trying to divert attention directing focus on any other subject (though Timmy does get a laugh or three from your hollering as if something is supposed to be wrong with the Timmy).

You defame trinitarianism, a dogma invoked by Roman Catholocism through the convolutions of Tertullian and the heretic Origen and fail yet fail to admit that it was Origen who is primarily responsible for the LXX as it is today, gathered together as a single edition from the Alexandrian libraries (containing not a few differing renditions of the Hebrew Tanakh.

As for the DSS, Timmy has copy of them all, and having read through them, from what is written as their holy texts, the reason the Essenes were a community seprate from the populus of Y'israel could have been not only because of their stance of seperationism--as is common among all factious sects and Kults. No, they were probably seperating themselves not only because of thinking themselves so high and mifhtily sanctified, but because right along side their own accepted kult version of Biblical text, are scores of astrological and divinitory records, with mysticism conflicting against the full body of the Tanakh.

So, why do you think a certain date in time lends more credibility to anything edited by a heretic, or anything that a religous kult/sect writes?
Why do you think such ¿proof¿ holds more credibility thanbthe originating text used by the Temple and Synagogues?

As well, you have stated a very questionable unprovable, to even suggest the Apostles used Greek or quoted from it...even if the written record "appears to" confirm this or something similar.

Though a list of things appearing to show your reasons(?) you give more authority to the LXX so that you might somehow avoid submitting to Jesus, one day you will kneel before Him and confess Jesus is LORD to the glory of the Father.

All in all, your misinterpretings of Scripture are more than apparent. Of course this is to be expected, considering the LXx is confirmed by a divinatory mystical sect of off the wall Judaism, and edited by a heretic whose purpose was to integrate paganism under the auspices of the Holey Roman Cathilic Church.

Why should anyone trust the language and interpolations of the goyim as of above and beyond superiority to a parabolic book of Hebraic time/space orientation written by Hebrews in the picture language of the Hebrews?
The closest any word for word translations might come is that it could give synonymous confirmation, and fragmented at that.

Rose

05-27-2014, 07:59 AM

Hi Rose:
I see the Abraham choosing IHVH a little like when Paul said, "Acts 17:16-34
New International Version (NIV)

In Athens
16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you."

Abraham believed IHVH to be the real true GOD.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hi Mystykal,

Yes, the Bible says that Abraham believed in Yahweh as the one true god, but that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not that belief was valid. Throughout the history of the human race people have, and still do believe in all sorts of gods ... belief is not evidence. Muslims believe in Allah, and Hindus believe in Krishna that in no way makes those god true. Evidence is the key to knowing whether or not something is true.

Take care,
Rose

Timmy

05-27-2014, 08:39 AM

That is why when Abraham offered Isaac, his only son, it was a type pointing forward to the time when YHVH would (Gen 22:8) "provide himself a lamb" in the form of his only begotten Son. That verse btw is not suggesting as Charisma has suggested that YHVH is himself the lamb, but that YHVH is providing the lamb himself. That is to say, YHVH will not accept anyone else's lamb; no other lamb is acceptable, but the one provided by YHVH.

Genesis 22:2
HEB: בִּנְךָ֨ אֶת־ יְחִֽידְךָ֤ אֲשֶׁר־ אָהַ֙בְתָּ֙
NAS: your son, your only son, whom
KJV: thy son, thine only [son] Isaac,
INT: now your son your only whom love

We might not have the Hebrew text in the New Testament for "only begotten Son", but in the Old Testament which is based on the original Hebrew (even through the LXX) we have Messianic prophecies foretelling of an "only" son.

Zechariah 12:10
HEB: כְּמִסְפֵּד֙ עַל־ הַיָּחִ֔יד וְהָמֵ֥ר עָלָ֖יו
NAS: for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep
KJV: for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness

(Zechariah 12:10) And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

I think there is a case for saying that Yeshua, as the only begotten Son of God, stands alone and is separate from YHVH and is not YHVH, but is one (united) in purpose and intent, and as such, Yeshua is in the bosom of his Heavenly Father (YHVH).Hi David,

Being one in purpose and intent is what the "echad" of the Sh'ma is saying actually, and Elohim is the plurai form of either El and/or Eloah.

It seems you choose to remain remiss concerning the life-for-life blood beriyth. There is no finality of established covenant on Earth without a representative from each of the parties covenanting. Since you claim Jesus is only man, when he proxlaimed "telestai"/it is finished/paid in full/agreement accomplished, Yeshua would have had to been lying, as (according to your reasoning, Elohim is not keeping His end of the deal dor not physically representing Himself to complete beryth/"the severing from your own to bind another together as one with".

You said before that animals completed the Covenant in prior instances but this is not what Scriptures clarifies. Animalsnare only valid as a proxy symbolism in cutting blood covenant. This is just one reason why there had to be the continual sacrafices until YHShVH came from heaven in the form of a man and stood as representative of both God and man: YHShVH himself being the fulfilment and completing of all blood agreements (once incomplete) and ONLY in Him completed between God and man:

YeshaYahu 63:
3
“I have trodden the wine trough alone,
And from the peoples there was no man with Me.
I also trod them in My anger
And trampled them in My wrath;
And their lifeblood is sprinkled on My garments,
And I stained all My raiment.
4
“For the day of vengeance was in My heart,
And My year of redemption has come.
5
“I looked, and there was no one to help,
And I was astonished and there was no one to uphold;
So My own arm brought salvation to Me,
And My wrath upheld Me.

...and BTW, concerning the intended sacrafice of Yit'zach by Avraham Avunu, it was El Shaddai who is referred to as God in this instance, not YHVH...and your quote of Zech. has not yet transpired physically, has it?

Timmy

Charisma

05-27-2014, 11:22 AM

and your quote of Zech. has not yet transpired physically, has it?

Hi Timmy,

(You probably weren't expecting what follows, from your passing comment to David which I've quoted, but please bear with me, and know that I am not the only believer who is sceptical about that interpretation of the verses in Zechariah. I certainly don't feel bound to a linear interpretation of his prophecy. And if you think about it for a moment, you would probably say that two earlier portions are widely accepted as having come to pass, namely, Zech 13:6 and the first few verses of Zech 3 (which is a riveting chapter from start to finish) - unless the high priest represents someone/thing other than Messiah.)

I can't remember if you know I don't agree with you on this? That is one of the reasons I posted the links to the account recorded by Ron Wyatt's wife. She eventually gets to sharing about the fissure in the rock of Olivet, (caused by the earthquake recorded by Matthew?), which allowed the real blood of Messiah to trickle down on to the real mercy seat. No kidding.

But lest such truth should become widely accepted, the media machine went into overdrive, greatly assisted by the political difficulties of making a public acceptation of (such) a scientific finding as 'fact', that who would believe it now? And, I do realise 'scholars' have done their best to confuse those who have never been to Jerusalem, with the thought that 'we don't really know exactly where Golgotha' is. But from photos, the 'place of the skull' is unmistakable!

Not only that, but the Holy Spirit has been given, at that particular Pentecost ten days after Messiah's Ascension. Is not 'the water' of life which flowed from His side 'mingled with blood' (which I believe is the real of a symbolic pouring of blood and water out of a certain opening in the Temple at a certain time) symbolic of the real living water which springs up from Him by His Spirit in the believer who has been grafted into Him by the covenant you've been describing to David here... Is not this living water flowing out to 'the east' and to 'the west' as it did then, still to this day?

In other discussions - with Roman Catholics, who were taught that Peter went to Rome at a certain time and lived there for years - I have learned from the ex-Roman Catholics who have studied in detail - that there is literally no evidence for Peter having been in Rome. Peter went east, to the circumcised descendants of the ten tribes who had been taken to Assyria from what became Samaria, while Paul went west (roughly speaking). And, the Roman roads which extended to 'great' Britain (probably because it is physically larger than Brittany - I'm guessing -) also facilitated the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ far and wide. Which, in that roads work two ways, you find a Welshman, in Rome, mentioned at the end of one of Paul's epistles.

I have a little book written by an academic (many years ago) in which he justifies Paul's claim (using extra-biblical texts), that the gospel had been preached in the whole world during Paul's lifetime; the living water flowing out in rivers to east and west. Not only that, but there is reason to believe that the stone Ezel, is the stone Azal, where David hid while waiting to hear his fate from Jonathan, then (not now) just outside Jerusalem. There is more, but I will look for the thread to let you read the argument put forth by the proponent of this explanation (which does also include Abraham). It would take someone with as much Hebrew and Greek as yourself, to go over the reasoning in detail, and justify coming to a different conclusion, or to agree.

Lastly, after the resurrection, how many times did Jesus stand on the Mount of Olives (which had been nicknamed the 'mount of corruption', because of Solomon's idolatrous exploits)? Doesn't this speak to you - the MOUNTAIN OF OlL olives (beaten for light? for healing) - of an anointing on a head?

Think of all the times there is a picture in scripture of oil on the head, or fire on the head (top), or fire over a place, signifying God's presence there, frequently including a cloud, or what looks like smoke, to conceal something of His identity - a cloak, a covering, a making acceptably modest - nevertheless being of glory. At the first, it was Horeb, that place of thorns, which speaks of the pricks of conscience provoked by Torah. Then it was a crown of thorns on His head, by which, if through His faith our hearts/minds are sprinkled by His blood, we can receive a pure conscience, a new heart.

Look at the 'pricking' Acts 2:37 which occurred when Peter preached on the day of Pentecost. Does not every person who has truly repented, go through a period of bitter misery as they meditate upon the perfect, spotless, innocent Lamb of God dying for their salvation, bearing way their sin? As such, Jesus picks up a familiar picture from the prophets associated with mourning - which is exactly what God always wants from us in respect of sin. It is not that they will mourn because He died - although they may, as they consider their own effective death in Him - but they will mourn over their sin.

Maybe if you think this needs more detailed discussion, another thread should be started?

:focus:

Nothing

05-27-2014, 01:22 PM

I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

Charisma

05-27-2014, 04:41 PM

Hi David,

This is not a proper reply, but I wanted to acknowledge the posts you've made, to which I may, or may not reply.

I am deeply encouraged to see that you are asking deeper questions of the scriptures, and I still recommend that talk from the series called 'The Jewish Trinity', (posted in Mesiras Nephesh) because he shows from the text, how it is that this conclusion was ever drawn out of God's word. (You can google the speaker's church to find the first and the last two talks. I'll let you know whether I think the other three are worth listening to.)

In fact, I was reading Hebrews a couple of days ago, and found another one, where it is almost as if a deliberate confusion is stated plain as day. But it is only confusing if one rejects some of the meaning. Elohyim is plural, but by how many? There is a revelation in scripture, which makes it impossible not to notice Father, Son and Holy Spirit - especially at the baptism of Jesus; but how these relate to one another is more subtly understood. One, 'God' is 'echad', and that is non-negotiable. It's vital not to drift into separating the facets of Elohyim in such a way as to separate the Son from the Father, because as Nothing has pointed out - and this is true in human families too. There is no Father without offspring. Childless couples are not referred to by parental appellations, but they are 'one flesh'. I am hoping when Timmy posts in Jesus is God, that he will get round to saying something about the difference between 'children', and 'sons', as this is a necessary distinction consistently present in the Book.

I'm sure you'll be following my conversation with toxon, and I'm hoping it will give us a mutual opportunity to examine his/her doctrine in greater detail.

Mystykal has pointed out that 'theology' is 'crap'. (Not a word I would choose.) But I agree totally that as a construct of men, it can never contain the full revelation of God that He speaks through His word. There is always something left out to make the theory neat and tidy, to satisfy the carnal mind.

toxon

05-27-2014, 05:05 PM

Hi PeterRabbit, :tea:

are you saying there was not one single vowel point in the text from which the septuagint was translated?

No. Please understand that in my conversations with the Timmy extreme mentalities with extreme statements warrant extreme responses. I'm neither "anti-Masoretic" nor "anti-LXX/Septuagint" but rather unlike the Timmy accept both of them as slightly flawed in my journey into the Truth. On the other hand those who demand that one of them alone be "perfectly inspired", (so that the burden of what heresies they believe not fall upon their own heads) the same will always need to depose any opposition to their dogma. The same is true with this situation where the Timmy necessarily needs for the Septuagint to be rendered untrustworthy because otherwise his work load would be doubled and his so called "truth" up to this point lies in jeopardy. Thus all of his accusations leveled against others to this point would be shown for what they truly are which is that they are lies just like his belief system founded on half truths. Picture it like Hal Lindsey or one of the other famous fathers of dispensationalism who now cannot change his doctrine because he has made so much money selling books to millions it is too late to turn back and admit he might have been wrong. What would he say to all those people demanding their money back? :)

if so, in what way would that translation be any less embued with the current thinking of the translators?

It is embued with the current thinking of the translators of that time and that is why it is critical because the current translators of that time do not agree with the modern translators in many ways and situations. Therefore who is more authoritative? Those who lived 250 to 300 years before Yeshua and had no axe to grind because Messiah had not yet come or those who came 500 to 700 years after the advent of Messiah?

how would you or anyone else know it was, anyway?

isn't this a bit like eating Swiss cheese and leaving the holes at the side of the platter?

All of us are in the same boat, we have what we have before us to examine, yet not many can agree: Why is that?

you seem to be implying that as time has gone on, Israelites have become less in tune with their own texts.

are you?

Certain things have transpired to bring about the rejection of Christianity and Trinitarian dogma. The chief of those things was all the killing of Jews committed by the so-called Christians in the name of God. Can you blame them for wanting to keep the community separate from the heretical doctrines of Christianity? (if indeed that is what happened)?

or, let me put that last line into a tiny bit of context, seeing you quoted the start of matt 16, earlier

'O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken'

the next thing in matt 16 is

And he left them, and departed. 5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.

'6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.'

didn't seem to be the first time they had forgotten 'bread', either

'They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them' chap 25

so now, would it be an idea to ditch all the vowel pointing and read the whole text without it?

might it now be crystal clear to those who have received the Holy Ghost?

The Spirit Holy is not only the Father, (as entity) but is the Name of the Father which is all of TaNaK, and the Name of the Son which is all of the Brit Chadashah N/C writings. According to Matthew 28:19, (if you believe that statement remains in its original form) one must be immersed into both of those "names" to have and hold Spirit Holy in uprightness. This came up quite much in the other thread where Charisma was implying that others like David and myself cannot see the truth because we do not have "the Holy Spirit" which Charisma apparently believes is a second or third entity in this case. While it is true that the Father is The Spirit, (The Entity) spirit is also wind or breath therefore implying testimony and doctrine. Anyone who claims to have the "Holy Spirit" yet does not have and hold the Testimony of Yeshua in uprightness is fooling themselves with highly emotional *spiritual* feelings to confirm their own concocted heresies.

might all come to the same understanding, devoid of any other 'wind of doctrine'?

Till we all come in the unity of the faith,
and of the knowledge of the Son of God,
unto a perfect man,
unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

If my heart and mind make up a temple then my body is like a great city with outlying towns and even unwalled villages wherein there be all manner of beasts and beastly genos-kinds. Thus I seek to maintain unity in my own great city and put the heathen out of my midst using Torah and the Testimony of Yeshua which expounds Torah. I have my own little "congregation" or household to maintain, (Sha'ul immersed the entire "household" of Stephanos in a fiery hail of sharp stones and his name was changed to Stephanas). If my right eye becomes like a nomad wanderer always looking toward the profane; or if my right hand begins to offend me putting drink to my mouth which will turn into me a drunken fool; or if my foot is always running quickly into mischief: I am admonished to cut them off in the doctrine of Yeshua, (all three shepherds in one month if need be). However, it is not my place to tell anyone else how to run his own great city. If each disciple of Yeshua would hear and adhere to the same doctrines of Yeshua we would indeed be in unity without one worrying about the other or trying to force his or her opinionated doctrines upon one another. When a person constantly judges others, as the Timmy clearly loves to do, he reveals that he has never truly attempted to maintain his own dominion, (and there are four dominions to the first age of the man) for if he had ever even tried he would know how difficult it becomes to root out evil from ones own system and he would not be judging others along the Way. I cannot tell my neighbor to circumcise his sons or stop eating pork but apparently some here think they have that right given to them from above because they have an entity which they call the "Holy Spirit" who tells them what to believe without the necessity of understanding the Scripture and Testimony of Yeshua which interprets the whole of Torah and Prophets. :)

toxon

05-27-2014, 05:39 PM

Hi Nothing;

Hi toxon,

Isn't the way the world heading in direct opposition to Gods law? Who control the banks and positions of power? Who influences our education system? There is most certainly a Jewish conspiracy happening.

Sorry but when I read things like this in your opening statements I stop reading. :)

Nothing

05-27-2014, 06:12 PM

I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

PeterRabbit

05-27-2014, 09:12 PM

hey there, toxon, old thing :yo:

thanks for your extensive reply to the questions you answered

food for thought in several places

No. Please understand that in my conversations with the Timmy extreme mentalities with extreme statements warrant extreme responses. I'm neither "anti-Masoretic" nor "anti-LXX/Septuagint" but rather unlike the Timmy accept both of them as slightly flawed in my journey into the Truth. On the other hand those who demand that one of them alone be "perfectly inspired", (so that the burden of what heresies they believe not fall upon their own heads) the same will always need to depose any opposition to their dogma. The same is true with this situation where the Timmy necessarily needs for the Septuagint to be rendered untrustworthy because otherwise his work load would be doubled and his so called "truth" up to this point lies in jeopardy. Thus all of his accusations leveled against others to this point would be shown for what they truly are which is that they are lies just like his belief system founded on half truths. Picture it like Hal Lindsey or one of the other famous fathers of dispensationalism who now cannot change his doctrine because he has made so much money selling books to millions it is too late to turn back and admit he might have been wrong. What would he say to all those people demanding their money back?

so, how do you work out what is a flaw you are free to disregard, compared with an uncomfortable truth?

does your note in parenthesis mean that you accept that -

'the burden of what heresies [you] believe will fall upon [your] own head' with-out any muck-shoveling?

It is embued with the current thinking of the translators of that time and that is why it is critical because the current translators of that time do not agree with the modern translators in many ways and situations. Therefore who is more authoritative? Those who lived 250 to 300 years before Yeshua and had no axe to grind because Messiah had not yet come or those who came 500 to 700 years after the advent of Messiah?

I kinda hate to say this, because you seem so sincere in your view, but aren't you being more than slightly naive?

at what time since Eden has there not been a traitor in the camp? or a legalist? or an unbeliever? or an idolater?

All of us are in the same boat, we have what we have before us to examine, yet not many can agree: Why is that?

a multitude of causes present, not least that a newly born-again believer has a lot of changes ahead in the way they reason and think generally - and the challenge of discerning who has truly been adopted faces all - and the fact that only God can see and know all that is in any heart, puts even believing people at an extreme disadvantage - apart from having learned to hear from the Holy Ghost.

Certain things have transpired to bring about the rejection of Christianity and Trinitarian dogma. The chief of those things was all the killing of Jews committed by the so-called Christians in the name of God. Can you blame them for wanting to keep the community separate from the heretical doctrines of Christianity? (if indeed that is what happened)?

this really is not the answer to the question, old thing. care to give it a second go?

The Spirit Holy is not only the Father, (as entity) but is the Name of the Father which is all of TaNaK, and the Name of the Son which is all of the Brit Chadashah N/C writings. According to Matthew 28:19, (if you believe that statement remains in its original form) one must be immersed into both of those "names" to have and hold Spirit Holy in uprightness. This came up quite much in the other thread where Charisma was implying that others like David and myself cannot see the truth because we do not have "the Holy Spirit" which Charisma apparently believes is a second or third entity in this case. While it is true that the Father is The Spirit, (The Entity) spirit is also wind or breath therefore implying testimony and doctrine. Anyone who claims to have the "Holy Spirit" yet does not have and hold the Testimony of Yeshua in uprightness is fooling themselves with highly emotional *spiritual* feelings to confirm their own concocted heresies.

in reference to matt 28 and 19 there is conflict with acts 19 and 5, where 'the Lord Jesus' is named without reference to 'the Father'. and because Jesus said so many other things linking Himself and the Father, including 'we' and 'our' in john 14 and 23, your fuss about being 'immersed into both of those' comes over as at least slightly disingenuous.

about the sentence in bold there, how do you explain or expound what you mean by 'have and hold the Testimony of Yeshua in uprightness'?

regardless your answer to that last q, your reference to 'highly emotional' is intriguing, when you connect it straight away with 'fooling themselves'. are you saying a real Christian does not weep, laugh, rejoice, run and jump with excitement and that if they do, it is because they are inspired by another spirit than the Holy Ghost? do you assume that the experiences I listed, cannot be healthy responses to God's dealings with a soul?

If my heart and mind make up a temple then my body is like a great city with outlying towns and even unwalled villages wherein there be all manner of beasts and beastly genos-kinds. Thus I seek to maintain unity in my own great city and put the heathen out of my midst using Torah and the Testimony of Yeshua which expounds Torah. I have my own little "congregation" or household to maintain, (Sha'ul immersed the entire "household" of Stephanos in a fiery hail of sharp stones and his name was changed to Stephanas). If my right eye becomes like a nomad wanderer always looking toward the profane; or if my right hand begins to offend me putting drink to my mouth which will turn into me a drunken fool; or if my foot is always running quickly into mischief: I am admonished to cut them off in the doctrine of Yeshua, (all three shepherds in one month if need be). *However, it is not my place to tell anyone else how to run his own great city.* If each disciple of Yeshua would hear and adhere to the same doctrines of Yeshua we would indeed be in unity without one worrying about the other or trying to force his or her opinionated doctrines upon one another. When a person constantly judges others, as the Timmy clearly loves to do, he reveals that he has never truly attempted to maintain his own dominion, (and there are four dominions to the first age of the man) for if he had ever even tried he would know how difficult it becomes to root out evil from ones own system and he would not be judging others along the Way. I cannot tell my neighbor to circumcise his sons or stop eating pork but apparently some here think they have that right given to them from above because they have an entity which they call the "Holy Spirit" who tells them what to believe without the necessity of understanding the Scripture and Testimony of Yeshua which interprets the whole of Torah and Prophets.

you might write that** in one minute, and next minute be writing that you have enough knowledge of Timmy's 'dominion' to make the rather sweeping generalisation that 'he has never truly attempted to maintain his own'.

isn't that judging by another name? or, would you care to supply a more accurate analysis of your statement?

how is it okay for you to say anything about anyone, especially if you 'know how difficult it becomes to root out evil from ones own system' unless it is a gentle attempt to draw a person back into fellowship?

' I cannot tell my neighbor to circumcise his sons or stop eating pork but apparently some here think they have that right given to them from above ...' so, what are you actually doing, here, if not that which you eschew?

just trying to make sense of what I read here.

thank you ever so much for the answers so far.

David M

05-28-2014, 12:17 AM

Hi Nothing;

Quote Originally Posted by Nothing View Post
Hi toxon,

Isn't the way the world heading in direct opposition to Gods law? Who control the banks and positions of power? Who influences our education system? There is most certainly a Jewish conspiracy happening.

Sorry but when I read things like this in your opening statements I stop reading. :)

I would not have said a Jewish conspiracy had been going on in the way mentioned.

I find it fascinating to see how God is keeping his promise to Abraham and Israel. God said (Gen 12:3); I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee. It is interesting to watch the fortunes of the nations that favor Israel and the fortunes of those nations which are hostile toward Israel.

On the other hand, I have watched a 2-hour documentary on Youtube which highlights shocking facts about what Jews are responsible for.

It has amazed me just what prominent positions the Jews have occupied in the Babylonian system. They are the wealth owners of major empires and media businesses and are amongst the wealthy elite bankers of this world. Couple this with the fact that as Daniels says (Dan 4:17); the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men.

I listened to Benjamin Freedman's 1961 speech. He mentions how Zionists in Germany, representing Zionists in Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet in October 1916 said how Britain could win the war (without accepting a German peace agreement) and promised to get America (Britain's ally) to participate in the war, if Britain promised the Zionists Palestine, after Britain wins the war against Germany, Austria, Hungary and Turkey. To me, that appears to have been a conspiracy involving the Jews.

toxon

05-28-2014, 03:43 AM

you might write that** in one minute, and next minute be writing that you have enough knowledge of Timmy's 'dominion' to make the rather sweeping generalisation that 'he has never truly attempted to maintain his own'.

isn't that judging by another name? or, would you care to supply a more accurate analysis of your statement?

how is it okay for you to say anything about anyone, especially if you 'know how difficult it becomes to root out evil from ones own system' unless it is a gentle attempt to draw a person back into fellowship?

' I cannot tell my neighbor to circumcise his sons or stop eating pork but apparently some here think they have that right given to them from above ...' so, what are you actually doing, here, if not that which you eschew?

just trying to make sense of what I read here.

thank you ever so much for the answers so far.

Yes it is a certain judgment of Timmy now after the fact but the question in that case is whose judgment was or is true? Were you there to read the whole thread or at least every word exchanged between he and I? How can you make a judgment of me whether or not I am judging him rightly or in error if you do not know all of the facts and what things were said? As for the dominion of man every man has been given his own dominion just as Adam in the beginning. Your "land" with it fields is your own responsibility and my "land" is my own responsibility, (for the man is the land both the 'adamah and the 'erets) likewise your "house" is your own responsibility and my "house" is my own responsibility, (for every man is a house and when we enter Yeshua faithfulness we are no more our own but rather given the keys to the dominion and designated as "the porter" of the doors of the house while the HouseMaster is away in a far journey).

It is very simple: do not judge me and I will not judge you. Does that sound fair to you or would you prefer to be able to judge me without any consequences like the Timmy seems to think he has the right to do? For the time I might be here I will let you know now that is not going to happen. This is an electronic internet forum where we exchange words, thoughts, ideas, and concepts, but if you suddenly decide at some future date that you feel compelled to begin slinging mud at me because you do not agree with something I believe to be true then you can expect your own mud to come right back at you with Scripture to back it up. Lets be honest here: person to person I would turn the other cheek and go my way but this here is basically a free for all talk show with limited rules of engagement. It is amazing what people will say in places like this thinking that they have no accountability for their words. Once again it shows that they do not truly believe what they claim because if they did they would know that the Creator sees, hears, and knows every machination of the heart. It is not necessarily judgment to state the truth and that is the truth as I said to Timmy. A tree is known by his fruits and those fruits are revealed from what comes out of the mouth because what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart. If murders come out of your mouth or through your fingers to your keyboard onto your computer screen or iphone then you are a murderer according to the Scripture; yes, that's right, a murderer, (your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees). Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer and has no life in him. Is that judging someone to repeat such a thing? Yes but not my judgment because that is what the Scripture clearly states whether one believes it or not. By our own words we shall all be judged, some today, some tomorrow; don't judge me openly and I will not judge you openly. And if like the Timmy you have no facts from Scripture to back up what you say then it would be wise not to start calling someone a kultist if you happen to be a cultist. :)

PeterRabbit

06-05-2014, 06:59 PM

hey there, toxon, old thing :yo:

again thank you for your reply and such that it covered

please could we go back to this, which you said at the top of this page?

On the other hand those who demand that one of them alone be "perfectly inspired", (so that the burden of what heresies they believe not fall upon their own heads) the same will always need to depose any opposition to their dogma.

here is my question about this, again -

'so, how do you work out what is a flaw you are free to disregard, compared with an uncomfortable truth?'

(that is, an uncomfortable truth that you are not free to disregard)(?)

Once again it shows that they do not truly believe what they claim because if they did they would know that the Creator sees, hears, and knows every machination of the heart

I'd said [that] already in answer to something else - 'only God can see and know all that is in any heart'

on the previous page of this thread, in p 32, you said

If your god died and raised himself back up then you are completely ignorant of the true meaning of *dead*.

do you have any scripture for 'raised himself back up'?

and after you've shared all the scripture you have, please could you explain what you find wrong with Paul's explanation at the end of Ephesians 1, followed by your understanding of Messiah's own explanation in John 10?

that would all be very helpful and welcome

toodloo for now old chap :)

toxon

06-05-2014, 10:43 PM

Hi PeterRabbit, :)

hey there, toxon, old thing :yo:

again thank you for your reply and such that it covered

please could we go back to this, which you said at the top of this page?

here is my question about this, again -

'so, how do you work out what is a flaw you are free to disregard, compared with an uncomfortable truth?'

(that is, an uncomfortable truth that you are not free to disregard)(?)

Who said I disregard anything? Everything is profitable whether Masoretic, LXX-Septuagint, or N/T Greek, and I use all of them to "triangulate" my understanding. I stated this in my reply to Richard in Post#23 on Pg.3 of this thread. The truth used to be very uncomfortable but not anymore once I was finally forced to surrender my confounded knowledge and self will. :)

I'd said [that] already in answer to something else - 'only God can see and know all that is in any heart'

on the previous page of this thread, in p 32, you said

do you have any scripture for 'raised himself back up'?

and after you've shared all the scripture you have, please could you explain what you find wrong with Paul's explanation at the end of Ephesians 1, followed by your understanding of Messiah's own explanation in John 10?

that would all be very helpful and welcome

toodloo for now old chap :)

As for God dying and raising himself back to life it is not me who says such preposterous things. If you desire an answer for that kind of thinking you will need to ask the one to whom I spoke those words because it is his/her belief system. Why should I be expected to give proof texts for the theology of someone I do not agree with? There are no such proof texts when properly understood.

Ephesians 1:17-23 KJV
17. That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18. The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19. And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20. Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21. Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23. Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

The Father of Glory, the God of our Master Yeshua, is the only One having the name that no one knows. Paul writes that Messiah has been set at the right hand of God, (The Father of Glory) far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name THAT IS NAMED. The true name of the Father is not named openly because there is no man alive who knows the true pronunciation no matter what special insight or private spiritual knowledge or "word" some may claim to have been given. Neither does Yeshua name the name of the Father as far as any particular spelling in any of the Gospel accounts. Yeshua always refers to the Father as the Father and never by a personal name. I believe, agree with, and adhere to everything Paul states here, (and everywhere else). As for John 10 could you please be more specific as to what portions you are referring to? There is way too much there to guess but as for this topic we see that Yeshua states he received that commandment of/from the Father, (if that is what you are referring to). In case that is what you are speaking of here is two of my forty two sense:

John 10:17-18 TUA (Transliterated Unaccented Bible)
17. Dia touto me ho Pater agapa hoti ego tithemi ten psuchen mou, hina palin labo auten.
18. Oudeis airei auten ap emou, all ego tithemi auten ap emautou. Exousian echo theinai auten, kai exousian echo palin labein auten. Tauten ten entolen elabon para tou Patros mou."^

Lambano, ("labo", "labein", and past-tense form "elabon" in the above) can be either to take or to receive depending on the context and the amount of dogmatism in the eye of the beholder:

John 10:17-18
17. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my soul, that again I might receive her.
18. No man takes her from me, contrariwise I lay her down of my own self. I have authority to lay her down, and I have authority to receive her again. This commandment I did receive of my Father.

Now that I think about it you actually did get me to post some of those passages for Timmy! :mad: :D
But somehow I do not think he is going to be in agreement with what I have posted once again. :lol:

:tea:

PeterRabbit

06-07-2014, 05:51 PM

hey there, toxon old thing, :yo:

you did pretty well with the end of Ephesians 1 and John 10, neither of which suggest that Messiah raised Himself. I have not seen the post where it is suggested that He 'raised Himself'.

Who said I disregard anything?

my word. but referring to 'flaws' conveys the impression that there is a distinction to be made between what is edible and what is not. the fact that you identify flaws strongly implies that you would not include them in your diet. no?

The Father of Glory, the God of our Master Yeshua, is the only One having the name that no one knows. Paul writes that Messiah has been set at the right hand of God, (The Father of Glory) far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name THAT IS NAMED. The true name of the Father is not named openly because there is no man alive who knows the true pronunciation no matter what special insight or private spiritual knowledge or "word" some may claim to have been given. Neither does Yeshua name the name of the Father as far as any particular spelling in any of the Gospel accounts. Yeshua always refers to the Father as the Father and never by a personal name.

who refers to their father by his personal name? is this not a latter invention to help kick down the traces of honoring one's parents?

God has been revealing His names for centuries, including His personal name, long, long, ago. 'names that are named', are about princes, demons and deities - entities under whose power unbelievers languish until the power and authority of the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth breaks their yokes.

forgive me if I am suspicious about any secret squirrel claims for Paul implying there is a name we don't know - although there may be. rather, 'every name that is named' is not an oblique reference to a name that is not named. where on earth do you get that idea? :pray:

toxon

06-07-2014, 07:20 PM

Hi PeterRabbit, :)

hey there, toxon old thing, :yo:

you did pretty well with the end of Ephesians 1 and John 10, neither of which suggest that Messiah raised Himself. I have not seen the post where it is suggested that He 'raised Himself'.

my word. but referring to 'flaws' conveys the impression that there is a distinction to be made between what is edible and what is not. the fact that you identify flaws strongly implies that you would not include them in your diet. no?

It is primarily the English language Translations where the poisonous tares need to be identified and avoided.

who refers to their father by his personal name? is this not a latter invention to help kick down the traces of honoring one's parents?

God has been revealing His names for centuries, including His personal name, long, long, ago. 'names that are named', are about princes, demons and deities - entities under whose power unbelievers languish until the power and authority of the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth breaks their yokes.

forgive me if I am suspicious about any secret squirrel claims for Paul implying there is a name we don't know - although there may be. rather, 'every name that is named' is not an oblique reference to a name that is not named. where on earth do you get that idea? :pray:

John 14:24 TUA (Transliterated Unaccented Bible)
24. Ho me agapon me tous logous mou ou terei. Kai ho logos hon akouete ouk estin emos alla tou pempsantos me Patros.

John 14:24
24. Him not loving me, the logous-words of me not he keeps. And the LOGOS which you hear, not it is of me, contrariwise [it is] of the one sending me, the Father.

Revelation 19:11-16 KJV
11. And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man [oudeis - no one] knew, but he himself.
13. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Isaiah 63:1-8
1. Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.
2. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat?
3. I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.
4. For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come.
5. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.
6. And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth.
7. I make mention [see YLT] of the lovingkindnesses of YHWH, and the praises of YHWH, according to all that YHWH hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses.
8. For he said, Surely they are my people, sons that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.

Psalms 22:14-26
14. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
15. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
16. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
19. But be not thou far from me, O YHWH: O my strength, haste thee to help me.
20. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
21. Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
22. I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
23. Ye that reverence YHWH, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.
24. For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.
25. My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that reverence him.
26. The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise YHWH that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.

When the Father rescued his only begotten Son at Golgotha he likewise saved the world. :)

PeterRabbit

06-14-2014, 07:27 PM

hey there, toxon, young or old thing :yo:

going back to post 44 above, first could you answer these two questions, please?

about the sentence in bold there, how do you explain or expound what you mean by 'have and hold the Testimony of Yeshua in uprightness'?

regardless your answer to that last q, your reference to 'highly emotional' is intriguing, when you connect it straight away with 'fooling themselves'. are you saying a real Christian does not weep, laugh, rejoice, run and jump with excitement and that if they do, it is because they are inspired by another spirit than the Holy Ghost? do you assume that the experiences I listed, cannot be healthy responses to God's dealings with a soul?

thanks old thing

find the more recent answer in the next post :yo:

PeterRabbit

06-14-2014, 07:34 PM

It is primarily the English language Translations where the poisonous tares need to be identified and avoided.

really? we were not talking about English translations :o we were comparing the Septuagint with the Masoretic. remember? at that point you introduced the idea that there are flaws in both which is why I asked how you identify the flaws; and so far you have not given any explanation at all

my question remains - please say by what means do you make the distinction in those older texts, as to what you will accept or reject? put another way... how do you determine what to believe or disbelieve?

'triangulation' I understand, but I would not limit it to forms of the written word.

triangulation has to have three disparate points of reference. in other words, triangulation occurs when the word received has led to obedience which by its effectiveness has produced a testimony. only then can a truly three-dimensional 'triangle' exist.

Psalm 22:24 For he hath not despised
nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
neither hath he hid his face from him;
but when he cried unto him, he heard.

is your quotation of the above verse your way of saying that you don't believe Psalm 22 verse 1?

in reference to the name of God that no-one knows (save Himself, perhaps) you quoted from Revelation 19 to give verse 12 - 'and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.'

surely there is a simpler explanation for this, since all those who overcome experience the same thing? Revelation 2 verse 17 - To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Hebrews 2 - maybe it's a 'son' thing? that He is making us like Himself - did that ever cross your mind?

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. 13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

see?

tah-rah for now, old thing :)

toxon

06-15-2014, 12:15 AM

hey there, toxon, young or old thing :yo:

going back to post 44 above, first could you answer these two questions, please?

thanks old thing

find the more recent answer in the next post :yo:

Hi PeterRabbit,
If one does not have and hold the Testimony of Yeshua in uprightness the same has not Spirit Holy. :yo:

really? we were not talking about English translations :o we were comparing the Septuagint with the Masoretic. remember? at that point you introduced the idea that there are flaws in both which is why I asked how you identify the flaws; and so far you have not given any explanation at all

my question remains - please say by what means do you make the distinction in those older texts, as to what you will accept or reject? put another way... how do you determine what to believe or disbelieve?

'triangulation' I understand, but I would not limit it to forms of the written word.

triangulation has to have three disparate points of reference. in other words, triangulation occurs when the word received has led to obedience which by its effectiveness has produced a testimony. only then can a truly three-dimensional 'triangle' exist.

Psalm 22:24 For he hath not despised
nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
neither hath he hid his face from him;
but when he cried unto him, he heard.

is your quotation of the above verse your way of saying that you don't believe Psalm 22 verse 1?

in reference to the name of God that no-one knows (save Himself, perhaps) you quoted from Revelation 19 to give verse 12 - 'and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.'

surely there is a simpler explanation for this, since all those who overcome experience the same thing? Revelation 2 verse 17 - To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Hebrews 2 - maybe it's a 'son' thing? that He is making us like Himself - did that ever cross your mind?

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. 13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

see?

tah-rah for now, old thing :)

As for Psalm 22:1 the answer to the question is found in the passage I quoted which you have requoted.
The Father never turned his face away from the Son: not even for a split second, it's right there in the text.
As for Revelation 19 you think the One with a name written which no one knows could be overcomers?
I must say that is one angle I have never heard before, (and will never accept for obvious reasons). :)
As for the statement "slightly flawed" here is what I said:

Hi PeterRabbit, :tea:

No. Please understand that in my conversations with the Timmy extreme mentalities with extreme statements warrant extreme responses. I'm neither "anti-Masoretic" nor "anti-LXX/Septuagint" but rather unlike the Timmy accept both of them as slightly flawed in my journey into the Truth.

As for my understanding of "slightly flawed" and what I mean by "triangulate", (Masoretic, Septuagint, N/T Greek) perhaps rather than post another answer to this it might be acceptable to use a perfect example of these things which was just posted elsewhere less than 24 hours ago? Hope you do not mind, and this is not to bring these points into this topic, but rather simply to help explain the method in an attempt to answer your questions put to myself:

So how can I be sure of my understanding of Hebrews 1:6 as posted above? How do I know for a fact that what I posted is the truth? Did I have the Holy Spirit whisper it in my ear and give me tingly feelings all over my body and psyche like Charisma and Timmy say they get when something is revealed to them? That may be the case sometimes but it is only after the Truth has been discovered in the written Word.

Perhaps you should follow the discussion about "angels" a little closer then? Did you know that 'Elohim is rendered as "angels" or "messengers" in Hebrews 2:7 from Psalms 8:5? What do you or the Timmy have to say about that or how do you explain it? Are there lesser classes of 'elohim that are messenger-angels or is it a mistake or an alteration in the Masoretic Text while the author is quoting from the Septuagint? If you or the Timmy do not even know about this then how is it that you think you are justified in judging one who has already investigated these things? And if you have no answer for why what I just stated is in fact the case, with 'elohim being rendered as "angelous" in Hebrews 2:7, then do you not think it would be wise to go find out how this might impact your doctrine before you start labeling someone else a heretic just because he does not believe what you believe? Perhaps you do not have the grasp on the first two chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews that you imagine? And what of the Prototokos-Firstborn found in Hebrews 1:6? Does it refer to Yisrael or Yeshua or both? And should "oikoumene" be understood as the "world" as widely translated or does it rather refer to the Land, (of Yisrael)? Or do you even think these things matter? Or have you ever even thought to ask such questions?

Hebrews 1:1-6
1. Elohim, having spoken to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways of old time;
2. hath in these last days spoken to us in his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, through whom also he acted out the aionas-ages,
3. who being the radiant off-flash of the glory and character of the essence of him, bearing both all of the remati-spoken-words and the dunameos-power of him, a cleansing of sins having made, was seated at the right of the Majesty on high:
4. having become so much better than the messengers; for as much as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they.
5. For unto which of the messengers said he ever, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee"? And again, "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son"?
6. Moreover when he leads the prototokos-firstborn, (Yisrael ~ Shemot-Exodus 4:22) anew-again into the land, (of Yisrael) he says: "And let all the messengers of Elohim do obeisance unto him."

And every messenger sent to Yisrael after Moshe indeed writes and speaks of Messiah.
And what then if every English translation of the above is found to be in error?

In fact EVERY English translation of Hebrews 1:6 is indeed full of error. Neither are there any commentaries which adequately understand the passage. Some translations even go so far as to translate "oikoumenen" as "the universe", (saying when God brought his first begotten "into the universe"). Most so-called scholars and their fancy commentaries cannot even agree on why the word "palin" (anew-again) is employed in the text with some of them even suggesting that this passage speaks of the second advent of Messiah instead of the first. Please pay close attention here David as this is not a "yada, yada, yada" post. Don't know if there is a word count limit on replies but I suppose I will find out here and now. :)

Exodus 4:22 Restored Name KJV (Masoretic Text)
4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith YHWH, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
http://yahushua.net/scriptures/ex4.htm

Exodus 4:22 Brenton Septuagint Translation
22. And thou shalt say to Pharao, These things saith the Lord, Israel is my first-born.
http://biblehub.com/sep/exodus/4.htm

Exodus 4:22 Septuagint
4:22 συ δε ερεις τω φαραω ταδε λεγει κυριος υιος πρωτοτοκος μου ισραηλ
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/02_004.htm

Exodus 4:22 Septuagint Literal Rendering
22. Moreover you shall say unto Pharaoh: Thus says [YHWH] Kurios, [the] υιος-huios-son πρωτοτοκος-prototokos-firstborn μου-of me [is] ισραηλ-Yisrael.

Hebrews 1:6 Westcott-Hort 1881
1:6 ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, λέγει Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.
http://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/1-6.htm

Hebrews 1:6 TUA (Transliterated Unaccented Bible)
6. Hotan de palin eisagage ton prototokon eis ten oikoumenen, legei, "Kai proskunesatosan auto pantes angeloi Theou."

Hebrews 1:6 Vertical Strong's Numbers with Short Definitions
6.
|3752| hotan - when
|1161| de - and/but/moreover
|3825| palin - anew, (by repetition) - again
|1521| eisago - to lead - [eisagage] - he brings
|3588| ho - definite article - [ton] - the
|4416| prototokos - firstborn - [prototokon] - firstborn
|1519| eis - to/for/in/into
|3588| ho - definite article - [ten] - the
|3625| oikoumene - habitable land -or- habitable world - [oikoumenen] - land
|3004| lego - to say - [legei] - He says,
|2532| kai - and
|4352| proskuneo - to bow - do obeisance - [proskunesatosan] - let bow unto
|0846| autos - he/she/they/them - [auto] - him
|3956| pas - all - [pantes] - all of the
|0032| aggelos - messenger/angel/prophet/preacher - [angeloi] - messengers
|2316| Theos - [Theou] - 'Elohim - God

The translators have basically two choices when it comes to the meaning of oikoumene. I only quote the Original Strong's Definition here because it is short and there is no need to post all of the inflections and tenses just to understand the meaning of the word, (which I often do and "the Timmy" likes to use to misrepresent me because he misunderstands or ignores this fact). In fact the first implied meaning is not "world", (as in kosmos) but rather LAND as an habitable land, territory, or empire.

Original Strong's Ref. #3625
Romanized oikoumene
Pronounced oy-kou-men'-ay
feminine participle present passive of GSN3611 (as noun, by implication of GSN1093); land, i.e. the (terrene part of the) globe; specifically, the Roman empire:
KJV--earth, world.

So how do I know my understanding of Hebrews 1:6 is the correct one? Do not let all of the fancy Greek and definitions take away from the fact that these things, just as most everything Scripture, come directly from the text and its surrounding context. The quote from Hebrews 1:6 just so happens to have been left out of the Masoretic Text but is plain as day in the Septuagint. It is found in the same passage that I quoted three or four times in the other thread, Mesiras Nephesh, which passage was quoted to the various nonbelievers in that thread, (if they are going to call me a nonbeliever and a liar then do I not have the right to prove them wrong? and if they are wrong then who is in fact the nonbeliever?). So we read it from the English translation of the Septuagint and hopefully from this simple straightforward reading the true meaning of what Hebrews 1:6 states will become clear as daylight.

YESHUA IS THE RIGHT HAND OF ELOHIM:

Deuteronomy 32 Brenton Septuagint
1. Attend, O heaven, and I will speak; and let the earth hear the words out of my mouth.
2. Let my speech be looked for as the rain, and my words come down as dew, as the shower upon the herbage, and as snow upon the grass.
3. For I have called on the name of the Lord: assign ye greatness to our God.
4. As for God, his works are true, and all his ways are judgment: God is faithful, and there is no unrighteousness in him; just and holy is the Lord.
5. They have sinned, not pleasing him; spotted children, a froward and perverse generation.
6. Do ye thus recompense the Lord? is the people thus foolish and unwise? did not he himself thy father purchase thee, and make thee, and form thee?
7. Remember the days of old, consider the years for past ages: ask thy father, and he shall relate to thee, thine elders, and they shall tell thee.
8. When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.
9. And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance.
10. He maintained him in the wilderness, in burning thirst and a dry land: he led him about and instructed him, and kept him as the apple of an eye.
11. As an eagle would watch over his brood, and yearns over his young, receives them having spread his wings, and takes them up on his back:
12. the Lord alone led them, there was no strange god with them.
13. He brought them up on the strength of the land; he fed them with the fruits of the fields; they sucked honey out of the rock, and oil out of the solid rock.
14. Butter of cows, and milk of sheep, with the fat of lambs and rams, of calves and kids, with fat of kidneys of wheat; and he drank wine, the blood of the grape.
15. So Jacob ate and was filled, and the beloved one kicked; he grew fat, he became thick and broad: then he forsook the God that made him, and departed from God his Saviour.
16. They provoked me to anger with strange gods; with their abominations they bitterly angered me.
17. They sacrificed to devils, and not to God; to gods whom they knew not: new and fresh gods came in, whom their fathers knew not.
18. Thou hast forsaken God that begot thee, and forgotten God who feeds thee.
19. And the Lord saw, and was jealous; and was provoked by the anger of his sons and daughters,
20. and said, I will turn away my face from them, and will show what shall happen to them in the last days; for it is a perverse generation, sons in whom is no faith.
21. They have provoked me to jealousy with that which is not God, they have exasperated me with their idols; and I will provoke them to jealousy with them that are no nation, I will anger them with a nation void of understanding.
22. For a fire has been kindled out of my wrath, it shall burn to hell below; it shall devour the land, and the fruits of it; it shall set on fire the foundations of the mountains.
23. I will gather evils upon them, and will fight with my weapons against them.
24. They shall be consumed with hunger and the devouring of birds, and there shall be irremediable destruction: I will send forth against them the teeth of wild beasts, with the rage of serpents creeping on the ground.
25. Without, the sword shall bereave them of children, and terror shall issue out of the secret chambers; the young man shall perish with the virgin, the suckling with him who has grown old.
26. I said, I will scatter them, and I will cause their memorial to cease from among men.
27. Were it not for the wrath of the enemy, lest they should live long, lest their enemies should combine against them; lest they should say, Our own high arm, and not the Lord, has done all these things.
28. It is a nation that has lost counsel, neither is there understanding in them.
29. They had not sense to understand: let them reserve these things against the time to come.
30. How should one pursue a thousand, and two rout tens of thousands, if God had not sold them, and the Lord delivered them up?
31. For their gods are not as our God, but our enemies are void of understanding.
32. For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and their vine-branch of Gomorrha: their grape is a grape of gall, their cluster is one of bitterness.
33. Their wine is the rage of serpents, and the incurable rage of asps.
34. Lo! are not these things stored up by me, and sealed among my treasures?
35. In the day of vengeance I will recompense, whensoever their foot shall be tripped up; for the day of their destruction is near to them, and the judgments at hand are close upon you.
36. For the Lord shall judge his people, and shall be comforted over his servants; for he saw that they were utterly weakened, and failed in the hostile invasion, and were become feeble:
37. and the Lord said, Where are their gods on whom they trusted?
38. the fat of whose sacrifices ye ate, and ye drank the wine of their drink-offerings? let them arise and help you, and be your protectors.
39. Behold, behold that I am he, and there is no god beside me: I kill, and I will make to live: I will smite, and I will heal; and there is none who shall deliver out of my hands.
40. For I will lift up my hand to heaven, and swear by my right hand, and I will say, I live for ever.
41. For I will sharpen my sword like lightning, and my hand shall take hold of judgment; and I will render judgment to my enemies, and will recompense them that hate me.
42. I will make my weapons drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh, it shall glut itself with the blood of the wounded, and from the captivity of the heads of their enemies that rule over them.
43. Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge [atone] the land of his people.
43. εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ· εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ Θεοῦ· ὅτι τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικᾶται, καὶ ἐκδικήσει καὶ ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῖς ἐχθροῖς καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἀνταποδώσει, καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖ Κύριος τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ.
44. And Moses wrote this song in that day, and taught it to the children of Israel; and Moses went in and spoke all the words of this law in the ears of the people, he and Joshua the son of Naue.
45. And Moses finished speaking to all Israel.
46. And he said to them, Take heed with your heart to all these words, which I testify to you this day, which ye shall command your sons, to observe and do all the words of this law.
47. For this is no vain word to you; for it is your life, and because of this word ye shall live long upon the land, into which ye go over Jordan to inherit it.
48. And the Lord spoke to Moses in this day, saying,
49. Go up to the mount Abarim, this mountain Nabau which is in the land of Moab over against Jericho, and behold the land of Chanaan, which I give to the sons of Israel:
50. and die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be added to thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Or, and was added to his people.
51. Because ye disobeyed my word among the children of Israel, at the waters of strife of Cades in the wilderness of Sin; because ye sanctified me not among the sons of Israel.
52. Thou shalt see the land before thee, but thou shalt not enter into it.
http://biblehub.com/sep/deuteronomy/32.htm

This is the day wherein YHWH begins to reveal that his Son is his right hand, his right arm, his suffering servant who is to come: whom he will lift up and exalt at Golgotha, and swear that He, YHWH the Father, lives forever. Yeshua is likewise the Sword of YHWH; he is the right arm or "shoulder", (which is the best portion of the sacrificial offerings) he is the right hand, (which is why he sat down at the right hand of Elohim after he was resurrected) and he is all the supernal and spiritual "weapons of war" of YHWH the Father, (nothing conquers love). This is also the day wherein Moshe was commanded to go up into mount Nebo of the Abarim-crossings and die. Therefore it is the fortieth year of the wilderness sojourn of the children of Yisrael. After mourning the death of Moshe they would indeed be lead-brought back-anew-again into the LAND. That is why "palin" is found in Hebrews 1:6 because Yisrael is the prototokos-firstborn and it was at this time that the sojourn in Egypt and then the forty years in the desert were over. They we about to be brought anew-again into the home-Land of Yisrael.

Hebrews 1:6b
Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ

Deuteronomy 32:43b
καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ

Hebrews 1:6 ~ Moreover when he leads the prototokos-firstborn, (Yisrael) anew-again into the land, (of Yisrael) he says: "And let all the messengers of Elohim do obeisance unto him."

Every single English translation is corrupted with the doctrines of carnal men. If they had a fifty-fifty chance and still guessed wrong despite the known quote coming word for word directly from the Septuagint, (which most already outright reject simply because of their dogma) then certainly none of them were/are lead by the Holy Spirit of our heavenly Father. Likewise for the Timmy, who proudly boasts once again that he "owns our base", he owns nothing and even what little he has is being taken from him as we speak, (but not by me or because of me).

Enjoy, David M, and Shalom-Peace in Yeshua the Kohen Gadol and right hand of the Father YHWH!

:winking0071:

Yes, at least for myself and what I meant, that is a perfect example of what things I meant with my statements herein PeterRabbit. Please note how three different source texts are employed: the Masoretic, the LXX-Septuagint, and the New Testament Greek from the Epistle to the Hebrews: yet all of this was simply to hopefully discover what the original intent of the author might have been when Hebrews 1:6 was penned, (and thus come closer to understanding the context of the wider passage). Yet, as you may clearly see, I nullified zero: nothing, nada, nada, nada concerning the texts in their original languages. What is null and void is exactly what I said here: the false sense of supremacy which has been unduly placed upon the so-called "inspired" English translations including King Jimmy James and his court of court jesters. :D

PeterRabbit

06-23-2014, 08:45 AM

hey there, toxon, old thing,

now that I understand what you mean about 'triangulate', perhaps we could get back to your original statement about which I asked a question?

I'm neither "anti-Masoretic" nor "anti-LXX/Septuagint" but rather unlike the Timmy accept both of them as slightly flawed in my journey into the Truth.

are you going to tell me, now, how you determine - or discern - a 'flaw'?

what is a 'flaw'?

can you give an example of a 'flaw'? or more than one example?

what is the standard by which a 'flaw' is judged?

where did that standard come from? God? men? you, personally?

by whose reckoning is it a standard at all?

catch my drift?

perhaps you have never analysed the process by which you conclude that there is any flaw in scripture in any language, but please, if you are going to suggest such, explain yourself!

till the next time, old chap,

all the blessings of God's goodness to you... :pray:

toxon

06-23-2014, 04:56 PM

hey there, toxon, old thing,

now that I understand what you mean about 'triangulate', perhaps we could get back to your original statement about which I asked a question?

are you going to tell me, now, how you determine - or discern - a 'flaw'?

what is a 'flaw'?

can you give an example of a 'flaw'? or more than one example?

what is the standard by which a 'flaw' is judged?

where did that standard come from? God? men? you, personally?

by whose reckoning is it a standard at all?

catch my drift?

perhaps you have never analysed the process by which you conclude that there is any flaw in scripture in any language, but please, if you are going to suggest such, explain yourself!

till the next time, old chap,

all the blessings of God's goodness to you... :pray:

I just posted what I deemed to be a perfect example of what I mean by slightly flawed. If by chance you might be assuming that I meant anything more than what I have posted then perhaps you have read more into my comments than what was intended. Here it is simplified:

The following Hebrews passage is full of quotes from the O/T-Tanach. I will post the ISR with links because it puts the quotes from the Tanach in quotation marks in the Hebrews passage. Below the Hebrews text I will list all of the other passages from the Masoretic Tanach using the same ISR translation simply for continuity in this post. As you may see from the Samuel quote the context from where the quote has been derived is of critical importance to our understanding of the what, where, when, why, and how, because the context from where the quote was derived underpins the mindset and thinking which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is relating to the reader:

Hebrews 1:5-7 The Scriptures (ISR 1998)
5. For to which of the messengers did He ever say, "You are My Son, today I have brought You forth"?(a) And again, "I shall be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son"?(b)
6. And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, "Let all the messengers of Elohim do reverence to Him."
7. And of the messengers indeed He says, "... who is making His messengers spirits and His servants a flame of fire."
http://biblehub.com/isr/hebrews/1.htm

Psalm 2:7 The Scriptures (ISR 1998) [Hebrews 1:5(a)]
7. "I inscribe for a law: יהוה has said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have brought You forth.
http://biblehub.com/isr/psalms/2.htm

2 Samuel 7:8-17 The Scriptures (ISR 1998) [Hebrews 1:5(b)]
8. "And now, say to My servant Dawiḏ, 'Thus said יהוה of hosts, "I took you from the pasture, from following the flock, to be ruler over My people, over Yisra'ĕl.
9. "And I have been with you wherever you have gone, and have cut off all your enemies from before you, and have made you a great name, like the name of the great ones who are on the earth.
10. "And I shall appoint a place for My people Yisra'ĕl, and shall plant them, and they shall dwell in a place of their own and no longer be afraid, neither shall the children of wickedness oppress them again, as at the first,
11. even from the day I appointed rulers over My people Yisra'ĕl, and have caused you to rest from all your enemies. And יהוה has declared to you that He would make you a house.
12. "When your days are filled and you rest with your fathers, I shall raise up your seed after you, who comes from your inward parts, and shall establish his reign.
13. "He does build a house for My Name, and I shall establish the throne of his reign forever.
14. "I am to be his Father, and he is My son. If he does perversely, I shall reprove him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men.
15. "But My kindness does not turn aside from him, as I turned it aside from Sha'ul, whom I removed from before you.
16. "And your house and your reign are to be steadfast forever before you – your throne is established forever." ' "
17. According to all these words and according to all this vision, so Nathan spoke to Dawiḏ.
http://biblehub.com/isr/2_samuel/7.htm

Psalm 104:4 The Scriptures (ISR 1998) [Hebrews 1:7b]
4. Making His messengers the winds, His servants a flame of fire.
http://biblehub.com/isr/psalms/104.htm

We need not concern ourselves whether or not the ISR quotations from the Tanach match what was rendered in the Hebrews passage or which English translations happen to be my preferred renderings, as compared to which translations might happen to be your preferred renderings, but rather the thrust of the point is this:

Please post your favorite English rendering of the Masoretic Text containing the quote from Hebrews 1:6b. Here is the quote once more which the author of Hebrews has quoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews from the Tanach:

Hebrews 1:6b ISR ~ "Let all the messengers of Elohim do reverence to Him."

Again it matters not which English translation you prefer but quote one from the Masoretic Text:

Hebrews 1:6b KJV ~ And let all the angels of God worship him.
Hebrews 1:6b RSV ~ "Let all God's angels worship him."

Happy Hunting!

:yo: :)