This old "almah" controversy
moshe
Jay Siegel wrote:
[snip]
> This term, *Almah*, is found is found not only in Isaiah 7:14, but also in
> Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, and Proverbs 30:19. It is here in *Proverbs*
> *30:19* that we can see *clearly* *that* *the* *Hebrew* *word* *Almah*
> *does* /not/ *and* /cannot/ *mean* *or* *be* *translated* *as* *the* *word*
> *Virgin*!
>
> Proverbs 30:18 states: "Three were hidden from me, and four I did not know:
> The way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of
> a ship in the heart of the sea, *and* *the* *way* *of* *a* *man* *with* *a*
> *young* *woman* (B'almah - the Hebrew letters Bais ayin lamed mem heh, the
> bais is a prefix to the word Almah adding the prefix "with"). So is the
> way of an adulterous woman; she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have
> committed no sin.'".
>
> The implication is clear that these four things are undetectable
> immediately after their occurrence. This is definitely untrue in the case
> of a virgin, who is deflowered by the man having intimacy with her.
> Moreover, it cannot be compared to the adulterous woman who conceals her
> adultery.
>
> Can one say that here in Proverbs 30:18 that *Almah* is consistent with the
> Xtian view of meaning *Virgin*? If you're honest with yourself, definitely
> *not*, even though by the Xtians, *Almah* was changed to mean *Virgin* in
> Matthew 1:22-3.
[snip]
**************
Your post is one of the most dishonest I have read
in a long time.
You have dishonestly merged Proverbs 30:18-19
with the following verse 20, although verse 20
is of a completely different subject matter:
30:18 There be three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four
which I know not:
30:19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock;
the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man
with a maid.
30:20 Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth
her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.
Verse 19 refers to a maiden ("almah").
Verse 20 then totally changes the subject to
that of an adulterous woman ("ishshah").
Yet you quoted verse 20 as though it was part
of verse 18, using the sin of the adulterous
woman ("ishshah") to besmirch the reputation
of verse 19's maiden ("almah").
The truth is that a man will behave in a different
way around a young virgin than he will around
an older "experienced" woman. He starts feeling and
acting like a silly teenager again himself, reliving
his youth (or finally living the youth he wished
he had). Men are drawn to young virgins like
flies are drawn to honey (or so I am told :^)
That is fully in keeping with the meaning of
Proverbs 30:18-19. The way a fully grown
man suddenly acts when he is around a
young virgin is beyond comprehension.
Note that when verse 18 mentions the ways
of the eagle and of the serpent and of the ship,
it is not referring to sin, and so it it not
referring to sin regarding the man with a
virgin. It is explicitly remarking on the
fact that all four things are unpredictable
and unfathomable, but without passing
judgement on any of them as wrong.
- moshe
Jay Siegel
PB> The Christian virgin birth idea supposedly derives from the term
PB> "almah" as it occurs in Isaiah 7:14. (Most of you are probably sick of
PB> this tired
Oh boy. This one is sure well-discussed in many Jewish books dealing with
this question. It is *not* mere co-incidence that the Vatican is built on
the ruins of a Mithraitic Temple, the forerunner of many of today's mix of
overwhemingly pagan customs into a Mosaic heritage called Xtianity.
Mithraism was *the* most popular religion among Roman subjects before there
State-forced conversion to Xtianity, mainly for the political purposes of
Emperor Constantine. The *Virgin* *Birth* and Sunday becoming the Xtian
Sabbath (Hebrew for the number 7 - the 7th day of the week) instead of
Saturday are among the contributions of Mithraism. Actually, the *Virgin*
*Birth* is almost universal among pagan religions; Judaism has no concept
of this.
PB> chestnut by now, but we must persevere.) I do have a modern Hebrew
PB> dictionary in which the word "almah" [ayeen-lamed-mem-heh] translates
PB> simply as "damsel; miss" and so my question:
Actually, a bit incorrect. The term *Almah* refers to a woman of
particular *age* *group*; a *young* (adolescent) woman, irregardless of her
virginity. There is quite a lengthy discussion about the word *Almah* in
the book, "The Jew and the Xtian Missionary: A Jewish Response to
Misiionary Xtianity" pp. 20 - 28 by Gerald Sigal & published by Ktav (1981)
ISBN 0-87068-886-3.
This term, *Almah*, is found is found not only in Isaiah 7:14, but also in
Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, and Proverbs 30:19. It is here in *Proverbs*
*30:19* that we can see *clearly* *that* *the* *Hebrew* *word* *Almah*
*does* /not/ *and* /cannot/ *mean* *or* *be* *translated* *as* *the* *word*
*Virgin*!
Proverbs 30:18 states: "Three were hidden from me, and four I did not know:
The way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of
a ship in the heart of the sea, *and* *the* *way* *of* *a* *man* *with* *a*
*young* *woman* (B'almah - the Hebrew letters Bais ayin lamed mem heh, the
bais is a prefix to the word Almah adding the prefix "with"). So is the
way of an adulterous woman; she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have
committed no sin.'".
The implication is clear that these four things are undetectable
immediately after their occurrence. This is definitely untrue in the case
of a virgin, who is deflowered by the man having intimacy with her.
Moreover, it cannot be compared to the adulterous woman who conceals her
adultery.
Can one say that here in Proverbs 30:18 that *Almah* is consistent with the
Xtian view of meaning *Virgin*? If you're honest with yourself, definitely
*not*, even though by the Xtians, *Almah* was changed to mean *Virgin* in
Matthew 1:22-3.
What is Isaiah talking about here? It is describing events that Achaz (a
king of Judah in the time of Isaiah) was expected to witness, 700 years
before JC. see "The Nine Questions People ask about Judaism", p88 by Dennis
Prager & Joseph Telushkin, published by Touchstone (a division of Simon &
Schuster) 1975, 1981, ISBN 0-671-42593-5 or 0-671-62261-7.
PB>
PB> Are the shade meanings for that word similar if not identical between
PB> the
What do you mean by "Shade meanings"?
PB> Modern and the Classical Hebrew current when the book of Isaiah was
PB> composed? If yes, can anyone cite an authoritative, hands-down source?
The Talmud relates that the Prophets Books were redacted shortly after that
Prophet's death. In Isaiah's case, that would mean it was redacted by the
Court of Chezkiyahu HaMelech.
PB>
PB> My information on Classical ("Biblical Hebrew: A Complete Course") is
PB> limited to what appears to be a similar word, aleph-lamed-mem-noon-heh
PB> for "widow."
These are two separate words for sure! Almah & Almanah are definitely two
different words. In Hebrew, even one word can have 2 separate, totally
different meanings, such as the word in Psalms 22:17, *K'ari*. Judaism
translates this word as: *Like* *a* *lion*, in "For dogs have encompassed
me, a company of evil-doers have enclosed me, *like* *a* *lion*, they are
at my feet.", whereas Xtianity reads it as *Kari* and translates this as
*pierced*, in "For dogs have encompassed me, a company of evil-doers have
enclosed me, they *pierced* my hands and feet" to "fulfill" a so-called
prophesy. This is due to the fact that Hebrew had no written vowel system
until the 16th (?) century.
PB>
PB> Thanks.
PB>
In conclusion, I can say us Jews have no use or need of the so-called
ultimate Korban or "Sacrifice" of JC hooey. In Hosea 14:3, we say,"...turn
to the L-rd, say to Him Forgive all iniquity and receive us graciously, so
that we will offer our lips instead of calves.". That is our source for
Jews having replaced the sacrifice system with prayers now there is no Holy
Temple for sacrifices. In fact, it says in Proverbs 21:3, "To do
rightousness & justice is more acceptable to G-d than sacrifices" and by
the book of Jonah, which is read in the synagogue on Yom Kippur, the
holiest day in the Jewish faith, which recounts that when the people of
Nineveh repented, their sins were forgiven by G-d despite the fact that
they brought no sin offerings. There are numerous other Biblical passages
referring to the possibility of forgiveness and redemption without
sacrifices, e.g., Leviticus 26:40-5; Deuteronomy 4:29-31, Ezekiel 22:15.
For those Xtians that see the light, check out these web sites:
http://www.noach.com/
http://www.noachide.com/
B'ahavas Yisroel,
Yaakov
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted with Amiga NewsRog version 1.8 (Amiga USENET News client),
In a world without walls & fences, who needs Windows & Gates?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Johnson
>"PB" == "Peter Blinn" writes:
>
>PB> The Christian virgin birth idea supposedly derives from the term
>PB> "almah" as it occurs in Isaiah 7:14. (Most of you are probably sick of
>PB> this tired
>
>Oh boy. This one is sure well-discussed in many Jewish books dealing with
>this question. It is *not* mere co-incidence that the Vatican is built on
>the ruins of a Mithraitic Temple, the forerunner of many of today's mix of
>overwhemingly pagan customs into a Mosaic heritage called Xtianity.
Appreciate you explaining your statement:
" It is *not* mere co-incidence that the Vatican is built on the ruins
of a Mithraitic Temple."
What reason are you proposing? Source?
Thanks,
Your friend,
hjj
Yojimbo
"Jay Siegel" <ka2...@nospam.nowhere> wrote:
[...]
I'm going to deal solely with Mithraism, as the others are taking on
"almah."
> Oh boy. This one is sure well-discussed in many Jewish books dealing
with
> this question. It is *not* mere co-incidence that the Vatican is
built on
> the ruins of a Mithraitic Temple, the forerunner of many of today's
mix of
> overwhemingly pagan customs into a Mosaic heritage called Xtianity.
Actually, it is a coincidence, and the coven is not a full temple. It
had been abandoned in the third century.
> Mithraism was *the* most popular religion among Roman subjects before
It was a competitor, but to say it was "*the* most popular religion
among Roman subjects" before 300 AD is completely erroneous. It was
exclusively male, and usually practiced by the Roman soldiery.
>there
> State-forced conversion to Xtianity, mainly for the political
purposes of
> Emperor Constantine.
Constantine never forced conversion, and paganism continued well into
the fifth century. In fact, he continued to appoint pagans to
positions of power well into his reign.
As for political purposes, Constantine's allegiance to Christianity
after the Battle of Mulvian Bridge put him out of sorts with the Roman
gentry which was predominantly tied to traditional pagan institutions.
This was a great incentive for him to found Constantinople.
> The *Virgin* *Birth* and Sunday becoming the Xtian
> Sabbath (Hebrew for the number 7 - the 7th day of the week)
> instead of
> Saturday are among the contributions of Mithraism.
Again, Roman Mithaism had nothing to do with this decision. The NT
records Sunday (the Lord's day) as being celebrated in the first
century. Mr. Siegel is correct in the Sabbath, the day of repose,
being the 7th day, but Sunday was used as it was the 8th day. That is,
it was symbolic of liberation from the sleep of death.
Roman Mithraism didn't appear in forcible quantity until the mid-2nd
century, so it couldn't have made the difference in the selection of
the day by the early church.
> Actually, the *Virgin*
> *Birth* is almost universal among pagan religions; Judaism has no
> concept
> of this.
These involved rapes or seductions, that is bodily penetration.
Nothing in any pagan religion remotely resembles the Christian story of
the Annunciation save the Buddha conception through Maia who was
married, and not a virgin. (and this story didn't show up until 5
centuries after Buddha's death so it couldn't have made it's way over
the Himalayas, through India, across Bactria and vie hostile Parthia to
have made a difference.
Best Regards,
Derek Copold
[...]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Moshe Shulman
>> Proverbs 30:18 states: "Three were hidden from me, and four I did not know:
>> The way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of
>> a ship in the heart of the sea, *and* *the* *way* *of* *a* *man* *with* *a*
>> *young* *woman* (B'almah - the Hebrew letters Bais ayin lamed mem heh, the
>> bais is a prefix to the word Almah adding the prefix "with"). So is the
>> way of an adulterous woman; she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have
>> committed no sin.'".
>> The implication is clear that these four things are undetectable
>> immediately after their occurrence. This is definitely untrue in the case
>> of a virgin, who is deflowered by the man having intimacy with her.
>> Moreover, it cannot be compared to the adulterous woman who conceals her
>> adultery.
>> Can one say that here in Proverbs 30:18 that *Almah* is consistent with the
>> Xtian view of meaning *Virgin*? If you're honest with yourself, definitely
>> *not*, even though by the Xtians, *Almah* was changed to mean *Virgin* in
>> Matthew 1:22-3.
>**************
>Your post is one of the most dishonest I have read
>in a long time.
ROTFL
>You have dishonestly merged Proverbs 30:18-19
>with the following verse 20, although verse 20
>is of a completely different subject matter:
Dishonest? In Hebrew the word 'caan' in that type of place is a connector of
two ideas. Good try.
moshe shulman mshu...@NOSPAMix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh http://www.chassidus.net
Outreach Judaism http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
mei...@qqqerols.com
>PB>
>PB> My information on Classical ("Biblical Hebrew: A Complete Course") is
>PB> limited to what appears to be a similar word, aleph-lamed-mem-noon-heh
>PB> for "widow."
>These are two separate words for sure! Almah & Almanah are definitely two
>different words.
I'm sure you got distracted by the other material and didn't mention
the obvious, at least didn't mention it in the same line. Young woman
and young man are spelled ayin-lamed-mem, but widow above is spelled
aleph-lamed-mem.... The first letters in each of the two words may
currently be pronounced the same by some Hebrew speakers, but not all,
but they were not originally and even if they were, the difference in
the first letter means they are two different words.
Also, everywhere alma or elem appear elsewhere in the Jewish Bible,
even Christians translate it young woman or young man.
Also Dinah after she has been raped is still described as an alma.
Also, there is a word for virgin, betula.
Also, several new Christian Bibles use young girl in that verse.
mei...@QQQerols.com
Remove the QQQ
and I'll get back to you.
Jay Siegel
HJ> On 31 Jul 1999 00:58:43 GMT, in alt.religion.christian.baptist
HJ> >"PB" == "Peter Blinn" writes:
HJ> >
HJ> >PB> The Christian virgin birth idea supposedly derives from the term
HJ> >PB> "almah" as it occurs in Isaiah 7:14. (Most of you are probably
HJ> >PB> sick of this tired
HJ> >
HJ> >Oh boy. This one is sure well-discussed in many Jewish books dealing
HJ> >with this question. It is *not* mere co-incidence that the Vatican is
HJ> >built on the ruins of a Mithraitic Temple, the forerunner of many of
HJ> >today's mix of overwhemingly pagan customs into a Mosaic heritage
HJ> >called Xtianity.
HJ> <snip>
HJ>
HJ> Appreciate you explaining your statement:
HJ>
HJ> " It is *not* mere co-incidence that the Vatican is built on the ruins
HJ> of a Mithraitic Temple."
HJ>
HJ> What reason are you proposing? Source?
HJ>
HJ> Thanks,
HJ> Your friend,
HJ> hjj
The heart of the Vatican, obviously, St. John's Basilica.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted with Amiga NewsRog version 1.8 (Amiga USENET News client),
Hardware: NTSC Amiga A1200 with phase 5 1260 68060 accelerator card &
Fast SCSI-2 daughter card, SuperGen SX genlock & DCTV with
RGB converter (for video work), Jaz Drive & CD-ROM changer,
NTSC A2000 with the NewTek Video Toaster, & NTSC A4000.
Internet Software: Miami 3.2 (TCP/IP stack), YAM p2r5 (e-mail client),
AmIRC 2.2 (IRC client), strICQ (ICQ client), Termite FTP
(FTP client), Termite Telnet (Telnet client), mFinger (Finger
client), IBrowse ver 1.22 (Web Browser), & AmigaOS ver. 3.1
Jay Siegel
m> **************
m>
m> Your post is one of the most dishonest I have read in a long time.
m>
m> You have dishonestly merged Proverbs 30:18-19 with the following verse
m> 20, although verse 20 is of a completely different subject matter:
m>
m> 30:18 There be three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four
m> which I know not: 30:19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a
m> serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the
m> way of a man with a maid. 30:20 Such is the way of an adulterous woman;
m> she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.
m>
m> Verse 19 refers to a maiden ("almah"). Verse 20 then totally changes the
m> subject to that of an adulterous woman ("ishshah").
m>
m> Yet you quoted verse 20 as though it was part of verse 18, using the sin
m> of the adulterous woman ("ishshah") to besmirch the reputation of verse
m> 19's maiden ("almah").
m>
m> The truth is that a man will behave in a different way around a young
m> virgin than he will around an older "experienced" woman. He starts
m> feeling and acting like a silly teenager again himself, reliving his
m> youth (or finally living the youth he wished he had). Men are drawn to
m> young virgins like flies are drawn to honey (or so I am told :^)
m>
m> That is fully in keeping with the meaning of Proverbs 30:18-19. The way
m> a fully grown man suddenly acts when he is around a young virgin is
m> beyond comprehension. Note that when verse 18 mentions the ways of the
m> eagle and of the serpent and of the ship, it is not referring to sin,
m> and so it it not referring to sin regarding the man with a virgin. It is
m> explicitly remarking on the fact that all four things are unpredictable
m> and unfathomable, but without passing judgement on any of them as wrong.
m>
m> - moshe
Oh yeah? You know Hebrew grammer, right? See the response of the next
thread by Moshe Shulman...and by the way, why did you snip where you did?
You should have continued to read the rest of what I wrote. If you didn't,
here it is again:
The implication is clear that these four things are undetectable
immediately after their occurrence. This is definitely untrue in the case
of a virgin, who is deflowered by the man having intimacy with her.
Moreover, it cannot be compared to the adulterous woman who conceals her
adultery.
Can one say that here in Proverbs 30:18 that Almah is consistent with the
Xtian view of meaning Virgin? If you're honest with yourself, definitely
not, even though by the Xtians, Almah was changed to mean Virgin in Matthew
1:22-3.
I refer you to the Book of Isaiah (Volume one) translated by Rabbi A.J.
Rosenberg, published by Judaica Press (1982) ISBN 0-910818-50-9, is where I
quote from above.
The only word in Hebrew that I know of to mean virgin in regards to a
female is: b'tulah (Sephardic pronunciation) or b'sulah (Ashkenazic
pronunciation).
Sorry, but you're just plain wrong, grammatically speaking.
Yaakov
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted with Amiga NewsRog version 1.8 (Amiga USENET News client),
Hardware: NTSC Amiga A1200 with phase 5 1260 68060 accelerator card &
Fast SCSI-2 daughter card, SuperGen SX genlock & DCTV with
RGB converter (for video work), Jaz Drive & CD-ROM changer,
NTSC A2000 with the NewTek Video Toaster, & NTSC A4000.
Internet Software: Miami 3.2 (TCP/IP stack), YAM p2r5 (e-mail client),
AmIRC 2.2 (IRC client), strICQ (ICQ client), Termite FTP
(FTP client), Termite Telnet (Telnet client), mFinger (Finger
client), IBrowse ver 1.22 (Web Browser), & AmigaOS ver. 3.1
In a world without walls & fences, who needs Windows & Gates?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Shoshani
On 31 Jul 1999 00:58:43 GMT in alt.messianic, Jay Siegel sneezed:
:> Can one say that here in Proverbs 30:18 that *Almah* is consistent with the
:> Xtian view of meaning *Virgin*? If you're honest with yourself, definitely
:> *not*, even though by the Xtians, *Almah* was changed to mean *Virgin* in
:> Matthew 1:22-3.
It isn't quite as simple as *that*. Do keep in mind that the translations
of the Prophets and the Writings into the Septuagint was done sporadically
many years after Ptolemy ordered the Torah translated. The Torah was
translated by scholarly Jews in a committee, but the rest of what is known
as the Septuagint was done over a long period, in a disorganized and
haphazard fashion, and in some cases by non-Jews. And of course there are
major variants.
Be that as it may, while `almah (and its male counterpart, `elem) has
always meant a young postpubescent lady, whether a virgin or not, there is
evidence to suggest that the Greek word Parthenos HAD that meaning at the
time Isaiah was translated, but over a period of time Parthenos changed in
meaning to mean a young postpubescent lady who was a virgin--different
wording having evolved for the girl of the same age who was NOT a virgin.
Semitic languages do not change the meaning of their words over the
centuries, because the structure of their words is such that the entire
meaning lies in the vowelless roots. For one word to change in meaning
the entire lexicon must change with it. Non-Semitic languages, which are
dependent upon vowels for their meanings, are much more susceptible to
having the meanings of their words change with popular usage. We see
this in English all the time; the word 'punk' came into being in the
Victorian era, and meant a prostitute. Over the decades 'punk' changed in
meaning to mean trashy or low, then a thug, then a deliberate social
misfit given to outrageous body decoration to distance himself/herself
from the societal norm. For that matter, so much of the English language
of the Elizabethan and Jacobean era has changed in meaning that neither
Shakespeare nor the King James Bible are intelligible to most modern
readers without a translation. The languages are that different.
So I don't believe Matthew was making a deliberate distortion; I have a
feeling that at the time Isaiah was translated 'parthenos' was the Greek
equivalent of the Hebrew `almah, but over the years the popular meaning of
'parthenos' gradually shifted until by the second temple era it came to
mean something entirely different from what was actually written. Old
writings become hallowed with the passage of time, however, and most
likely what had become the Septuagint had never been revised to substitute
wording that would have conformed with the spirit of the earlier writing.
Even today, many Protestants balk at the idea of a modern translation to
correct the discrepancies between KJV English and modern English, despite
the fact that what passes for the KJV today is actually a revision done in
the late 1700s to reform the spelling and syntax that had ALREADY BECOME
UNINTELLIGIBLE from the 1611 original. The English-speaking world was
much more receptive to the idea 200 years ago, it seems :)
--
shos...@ripco.com // "Life is an art, not a science;
Michael Shoshani // You make it up as you go along." -Al Hirschfeld
Chicago IL, USA // http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~shoshani/index.html
Les Brown
Having already discussed this on aus.religion, I would like to add my
bit here.
>Your post is one of the most dishonest I have read
>in a long time.
>
No, yours is.
>You have dishonestly merged Proverbs 30:18-19
>with the following verse 20, although verse 20
>is of a completely different subject matter:
>
Do you really think so?
>30:18 There be three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four
>which I know not:
>30:19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock;
>the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man
>with a maid.
>30:20 Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth
>her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.
>
>Verse 19 refers to a maiden ("almah").
>Verse 20 then totally changes the subject to
>that of an adulterous woman ("ishshah").
>
>Yet you quoted verse 20 as though it was part
>of verse 18, using the sin of the adulterous
>woman ("ishshah") to besmirch the reputation
>of verse 19's maiden ("almah").
>
>The truth is that a man will behave in a different
>way around a young virgin than he will around
>an older "experienced" woman. He starts feeling and
>acting like a silly teenager again himself, reliving
>his youth (or finally living the youth he wished
>he had). Men are drawn to young virgins like
>flies are drawn to honey (or so I am told :^)
>
This is utter dribble. I've not read much worse than this in a long
time - and he admits he doesn't know - "or so I am told". Get real,
you prawn.
Men are drawn to virgins? Christian men maybe. Christian men pride
themselves on deflowering virgins as if they are notches on a
revolver. The Jewish concept of a virgin was that they are good for
marriage, not for "hangin' around" or deflowering.
>That is fully in keeping with the meaning of
>Proverbs 30:18-19. The way a fully grown
>man suddenly acts when he is around a
>young virgin is beyond comprehension.
>Note that when verse 18 mentions the ways
>of the eagle and of the serpent and of the ship,
>it is not referring to sin, and so it it not
>referring to sin regarding the man with a
>virgin. It is explicitly remarking on the
>fact that all four things are unpredictable
>and unfathomable, but without passing
>judgement on any of them as wrong.
>
You TOTALLY misunderstand the verse.
Shall we analyse the verse properly?
18. There are three things which are too wonderful for me, indeed,
four which I know not;
Ok, the writer say there are 3 things and a fourth which he does not
know.
19.
(1) The way of a vulture in the sky;
(2) the way of a serpent on a rock;
(3) the way of a ship in the midst of the sea;
Now all the above three things are obvious and observable to all but
they leave no trace. You would never know afterwards that they had
actually occurred.
(4) and the way of a man with a young woman.
The last one neither leaves a trace nor is it observable.
20. So (Hebrew=Ken) is the way of an adulterous woman; she eats, and
wipes her mouth, and says, I have done nothing wrong.
Since the conjunctive "So" is used, verse 20 really is a continuation
of verse 19. Remember, the original Jewish Scripture had no divisions
into chapter and verse.
The immoral act of an adulterous woman is the same as a man and a
young woman in that both are neither observable, nor do they leave a
trace. But the last one is an immoral act. Could we say the same if
almah meant virgin? Would an adulterous woman try to pretend she was a
virgin? Possibly, but I would doubt it, maybe if she was
Christian.......
There is no reason why verse 20 should exist on it own. If it cannot
be attached to the next sequence starting at verse 21, then it must be
attached to verse 19, especially since the conjunctive "so" is used.
Les Brown
moshe
Jay Siegel wrote:
> "PB" == "Peter Blinn" writes:
>
> PB> The Christian virgin birth idea supposedly derives from the term
> PB> "almah" as it occurs in Isaiah 7:14.
>
>
> Actually, a bit incorrect. The term *Almah* refers to a woman of
> particular *age* *group*; a *young* (adolescent) woman, irregardless of her
> virginity.
************
Yeshua (Jesus) was the only person
to ever have an "almah mater".
- moshe
moshe
Les Brown wrote:
[snip]
> There is no reason why verse 20 should exist on it own. If it cannot
> be attached to the next sequence starting at verse 21, then it must be
> attached to verse 19, especially since the conjunctive "so" is used.
>
> Les Brown
************************
That Hebrew word "ken" can have a variety of
meanings depending on the context in which
it is used.
Gesenius devotes 2 pages to that little word.
See how the Hebrew "ken" is used in Proverbs 28:2,
just 2 chapters earlier.
My Sinai Publishers Tanach there translates "ken"
as "but", so that it conveys the meaning of "on the
other hand". In that context "ken" is not pointing
to a similarity between two subjects, but rather to
the difference between two subjects:
"Because of the transgression of a land many are
its princes;
But [Hebrew "ken", meaning "on the other hand"]
by a man of understanding and knowledge
Right will be prolonged."
See also II Chronicles 32:31, where the word is
used to contrast two quite different things.
In verse 30, "Hezekiah prospered in all his works".
In verse 31, "However, regarding the ambassadors..."
Proverbs 30:20 refers to an "ishhshah", a woman who
is adulterous.
Proverbs 30:19 refers to an "almah", a young maiden.
If the two verses are talking about the same "experienced"
woman, then why do the two verses use 2 different terms
for the women?
Why didn't verse 19 use the word "ishshah" as verse 20
did in order to establish the continuity of identity that
you claim exists?
Why didn't verse 20 use the word "almah" as verse 19
did in order to establish the continuity of identity that
you claim exists?
Since the "almah" of verse 19 is the 4th thing in the list
of verse 18, the "ishshah" of verse 20 would have to
constitute a 5th thing which is not mentioned in the
introductory list.
You acknowledged in your post that "ken" can be used
to refer to an upcoming statement, such as the upcoming
verse 21, as much as it can be used to refer to a
previous statement, such as in previous verse 19.
That is true.
However, since verse 20 consists of 2 sentences,
when verse 20a says "ken", it can be referring to
the upcoming sentence in 20b, as it is so translated
in the New King James with a colon between the
2 parts:
"This ["ken"] is the way of an adulterous woman:
She eats and wipes her mouth,
And says, 'I have done no wickedness'."
Since verse 20 has 2 parts, that is entirely in keeping
with your own insinuation that "ken" can refer to
an upcoming statement rather than a preceding statement.
The "ken" of 20a refers to the description in 20b.
- moshe
Moshe Shulman
>> There is no reason why verse 20 should exist on it own. If it cannot
>> be attached to the next sequence starting at verse 21, then it must be
>> attached to verse 19, especially since the conjunctive "so" is used.
>That Hebrew word "ken" can have a variety of
>meanings depending on the context in which
>it is used.
>Gesenius devotes 2 pages to that little word.
Since you don't know Hebrew, how can you suppose to tell those who do what the
meaning is in this case?
moshe
Les Brown wrote:
> [snip]
> Men are drawn to virgins? Christian men maybe. Christian men pride
> themselves on deflowering virgins as if they are notches on a
> revolver. The Jewish concept of a virgin was that they are good for
> marriage, not for "hangin' around" or deflowering.
> [snip]
*********************
Since you are under the impression that Jews have a better
sense of sexual morality than Gentiles, I suggest that you
review the following passages from Tanach:
In Genesis 38:15-18 Judah was under the impression that
he was haggling with a prostitute regarding her price.
Was that the price he usually paid?
In Judges 16:1 Samson also showed an affinity for prostitutes.
In Judges 19:5 some Benjamites of Gibeah sexually abused
a woman until she died.
In II Samuel 11:2-4 King David just had to have sex with
another man's wife.
In II Samuel 13:4-14 David's son Amnon just had to have
sex with his half sister so he raped her.
So stop that garbage about how Jews have a better
sense of sexual morality than Gentiles.
I Kings 8:44 and Romans 3:23 agree that all people,
Jew and Gentile, sin and fall short of what G-d requires.
- moshe
Les Brown
>> Men are drawn to virgins? Christian men maybe. Christian men pride
I never said that Jews were angels. What you sohuld have realised was
that Jews do not have this hang-up with virginity that Christians
have. Not only was Jesus was born of a virgin, but even according to
the Catholics, so was his mother.
No Jew has ever made a virtue of any of the incidences you mentioned
above. On the other hand, Christians have made a virtue of sexual
relations with a betrothed woman - Mary.
How true Proverbs 30:20 is.
Les Brown
moshe
Les Brown wrote:
***************
I am not surprised that you would make such
a bigoted statement.
******************
> Not only was Jesus was born of a virgin
******************
Belief in one virgin does not constitute a "hang-up".
*******************
> , but even according to
> the Catholics, so was his mother.
*******************
I am not Catholic.
Millions of other followers of Yeshua are not Catholic.
********************
> No Jew has ever made a virtue of any of the incidences you mentioned
> above. On the other hand, Christians have made a virtue of sexual
> relations with a betrothed woman - Mary.
>
> How true Proverbs 30:20 is.
**********************
So you are claiming that Mary was a adulterous woman
per Proverbs 30:20, and that we see that as a virtue?
Yours is the same kind of hateful, slanderous bigotry I see in the KKK.
You just refrain from wearing a sheet so as to appear "respectable".
- moshe
gap...@vcn.bc.ca
M> > Not only was Jesus was born of a virgin
M> ******************
M> Belief in one virgin does not constitute a "hang-up".
Why is there belief that she's a virgin? Isaiah merely said that Moshiach
would be born "of a 'young woman of marriageable age'" (the ignorant presume
that because it's only one word in Hebrew, there must be a single word in
English, too!)
M> Millions of other followers of Yeshua are not Catholic.
The VAST majority of them are greatly tainted by the RCC doctrines of so many
centuries.
Most followers of Y'shua would agree with at least one of the following:
-He was born of a virgin
-He is both God and man
-even though he didn't fulfill the most important prophecies, he's still the
messiah
-he had the authority to transmute parts of Torah.
-Jewish believers in Y'shua are exempt from an obligation unto Torah mitvot.
-All Jews should "believe in" Y'shua.
M> So you are claiming that Mary was a adulterous woman
Perhaps you can show that they had artificial insemination in that time/place?
Unless, Joseph shtupped her, but joined in the holy ghost-conception farce with
her!
Then she(and he) would just be a sexually immoral liar!
M> Yours is the same kind of hateful, slanderous bigotry I see in the KKK.
How intimate are you with the KKK? :(
Your friend,
<+]::-{(} ("Cyberpope")
(email: gap...@vcn.bc.ca)
homepage: http://www.canadawired.com/~gapope
ICQ me at: 32617950
(Please cc my mailbox and/or quote with "Cyberpope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
Les Brown
>That Hebrew word "ken" can have a variety of
>meanings depending on the context in which
>it is used.
>Gesenius devotes 2 pages to that little word.
>
Hopefully he knew more Hebrew than you do.
>See how the Hebrew "ken" is used in Proverbs 28:2,
>just 2 chapters earlier.
>My Sinai Publishers Tanach there translates "ken"
>as "but", so that it conveys the meaning of "on the
>other hand". In that context "ken" is not pointing
>to a similarity between two subjects, but rather to
>the difference between two subjects:
>
Well if you are right, then G-d is in trouble!
AMO 5:14 Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and "so" the
LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken.
"So" here is ken too. If you are right then according to you the text
is saying that if you do not seek good and seek evil, then G-d will be
with you as it then becomes;
AMO 5:14 Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and on the other
hand, the LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have
spoken.
Which is obviously as stupid as it is wrong.
There are many other examples in Torah to prove Gesenius wrong. I'm
hardly a Hebrew scholar, but even I can pick up stupid mistakes.
Obviously Gesenius is more a fool than I am.
>"Because of the transgression of a land many are
>its princes;
>But [Hebrew "ken", meaning "on the other hand"]
>by a man of understanding and knowledge
>Right will be prolonged."
>
Nice example, but you've got Ken in the wrong spot. Ken actually goes
before another Hebrew word "Y'arich". The correct translation is;
"....by a man of understanding and knowledge, he shall so (ken)
endure"
You guys have been fooled by your own scholars - as usual.
>See also II Chronicles 32:31, where the word is
>used to contrast two quite different things.
>In verse 30, "Hezekiah prospered in all his works".
>In verse 31, "However, regarding the ambassadors..."
>
What are you saying here in Proverbs 32?
30. (K) This same Hezekiah also plugged the upper watercourse of
Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of
David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works.
31. And so (V'Chain) in the matter of the ambassadors of the princes
of Babylon, who had been sent to him to inquire about the wonder that
was done in the land, God left him to himself to test him, that he
might know all that was in his heart.
If "so" were to mean "on the other hand", then saying "And on the
other hand, in the matter of the ambassadors......." would not make
any sense, since the ambassadors came to enquire about all the works
mentioned in the previous verse.
>Proverbs 30:20 refers to an "ishhshah", a woman who
>is adulterous.
>Proverbs 30:19 refers to an "almah", a young maiden.
>If the two verses are talking about the same "experienced"
>woman, then why do the two verses use 2 different terms
>for the women?
>Why didn't verse 19 use the word "ishshah" as verse 20
>did in order to establish the continuity of identity that
>you claim exists?
Because of the contrast with the previous verse 19.
If verse 19 used the word adulterous woman, then it would convey an
act of guilt rather than a normal occurance as in the previousl three
and it would hardly be an natural act. as all four are meant to be.
The adulterous woman in verse 20 is pretending that what she is doing
is a natural thing.
If verse 20 used "almah", then what's the point? Of course she can
wipe her mouth and say she did no wrong, because no wrong has been
done by a young woman.
>Why didn't verse 20 use the word "almah" as verse 19
>did in order to establish the continuity of identity that
>you claim exists?
>
As I said before it was to contrast the innocence and the natural act
of verse 19 with the pretence of the adulterous woman to also be
judged the same as the almah.
>Since the "almah" of verse 19 is the 4th thing in the list
>of verse 18, the "ishshah" of verse 20 would have to
>constitute a 5th thing which is not mentioned in the
>introductory list.
>
No it would not as the previous four acts are natural and leave no
trail of evidence. The adulterous woman pretends the same thing.
>You acknowledged in your post that "ken" can be used
>to refer to an upcoming statement, such as the upcoming
>verse 21, as much as it can be used to refer to a
>previous statement, such as in previous verse 19.
>That is true.
No I did not say that. You misunderstood me. Ken is a conjunctive,
since verse 21 starts off a new sequence, ken can hardly be used
there.
>However, since verse 20 consists of 2 sentences,
>when verse 20a says "ken", it can be referring to
>the upcoming sentence in 20b, as it is so translated
>in the New King James with a colon between the
>2 parts:
>
I feel sorry for you relying on the KJV for a Hebrew translation.
There is no colon or pause or anything of the sort in the original
Hebrew - even in modern day publications.
>"This ["ken"] is the way of an adulterous woman:
>She eats and wipes her mouth,
>And says, 'I have done no wickedness'."
>
>Since verse 20 has 2 parts, that is entirely in keeping
>with your own insinuation that "ken" can refer to
>an upcoming statement rather than a preceding statement.
>The "ken" of 20a refers to the description in 20b.
>
You have just contradicted yourself. If ken were to mean "on the other
hand" as you say it does, then how can the verse then say "I have done
no wickedness"? It then becomes something like; "The way of the
adulterous woman is to wipe her mouth, AND ON THE OTHER HAND, says 'I
have done no wickedness'". Doesn't make sense, does it?
I'll give you a piece of a advice, moshe? What is your real name?
Almah refers to the period in the life of a woman, betulah refers to
her state. Two different things. If you were to read Jewish scripture
with this in mind then you would have a far clearer understanding of
Torah. Good luck and ask in your heart for G-d's guidance as to where
the truth really lies.
Les Brown
Michael Shoshani
:> moshe <joes...@earthlink.com> wrote in soc.culture.jewish:
:> >However, since verse 20 consists of 2 sentences,
:> >when verse 20a says "ken", it can be referring to
:> >the upcoming sentence in 20b, as it is so translated
:> >in the New King James with a colon between the
:> >2 parts:
:> >
:> I feel sorry for you relying on the KJV for a Hebrew translation.
:> There is no colon or pause or anything of the sort in the original
:> Hebrew - even in modern day publications.
That's not exactly the case, because the ta`amim give a mark that looks
somewhat like an upward-pointing carat (^), that is sort of a soft mark
dividing the pasuk in half when read aloud. (It's called "ethnaHta" for
Torah and "athnaH" for Tehillim, Mishlei, and Iyyov.)
In this particular passage, it occurs directly under the word "piah", thus
dividing the verse into "Such is the way of the adulterous woman she eats
and wipes her mouth; and says 'I have done no wrong'".
This mark (athnaH) is significant in Sephardic communities where Tehillim
are chanted to specific melodies; the melodic structure has several
variations depending on where the word with the athnaH is in the verse.
(It's a concept I really can't translate from the abstract to the
concrete; find a Sephardi synogogue on Shabbat, either for `arvith or
shaHarith, and listen. :) )
PETER ELFVIN
gap...@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
>
> moshe <joes...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
> M> > Not only was Jesus was born of a virgin
> M> ******************
> M> Belief in one virgin does not constitute a "hang-up".
>
> Why is there belief that she's a virgin? Isaiah merely said that Moshiach
> would be born "of a 'young woman of marriageable age'" (the ignorant presume
> that because it's only one word in Hebrew, there must be a single word in
> English, too!)
>
> M> Millions of other followers of Yeshua are not Catholic.
>
> The VAST majority of them are greatly tainted by the RCC doctrines of so many
> centuries.
>
Not to be TOO dogmatic about it, but the RCC (Roman Catholic church) is
in schism from the true Catholic church that was founded in ACTS. Being
RCC has very little to do with belief in the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and
APOSTOLIC church. for a fuller explanation, see "Mystagogy of the Holy
Spirit" by Patriarch Photios
--
Visit my home page at http://members.home.net/elvish1/relig-1.htm
for links to all kinds of information on Christian Belief.
Sections are Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Heresy.
Orthodox perspective as to what constitutes Heresy.
Luis
want to prove what is right in the bible. I need info to support this. If
you have real info and that is taken out from a book or something I can
use, please do. I NEED IT! DESPERATELY! Please.
THANXS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LUIS
guess who
Luis wrote:
since the sun wasnt created till the third day we are not talking about 24
hour human days. we are talking about days to God. ie hundreds of millions of
years.
read the creation story and it parallels the theory of evolution. the creation
story in the tanakh and the theory of creation support each other.
--
********************************
How many fundamentalist Christians does
it take to change a light bulb
Three. One to change the bulb and two to
tell him he is filled with the spirit of the
Holy Ghost.
********************************
Eastern Illinois University
Luis wrote:
> People I am sorry I am doing this paper about the Creation of the Earth. I
> want to prove what is right in the bible. I need info to support this. If
> you have real info and that is taken out from a book or something I can
> use, please do. I NEED IT! DESPERATELY! Please.
>
> THANXS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LUIS
I would point you to www.icr.org which is the Institute of Creation
Research's homepage. On this site if you go into the publications section
you can read online archives of their publications. It is filled with tons
of scientific evidence for creation and against evolution. Also check out
their research section. There is some interesting stuff there as well...
Check it out...
paul 'paco'
David P. Johnson
<lui...@telcel.net.ve> wrote:
> People I am sorry I am doing this paper about the Creation of the Earth. I
> want to prove what is right in the bible. I need info to support this. If
> you have real info and that is taken out from a book or something I can
> use, please do. I NEED IT! DESPERATELY! Please.
>
> THANXS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LUIS
Read "The Science of God : The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical
Wisdom" by Gerald L. Schroeder. Extremely interesting. Schroeder is a
physicist, and a theist. Try Amazon at:
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/076790303X/o/qid=936053953/sr=8-
1/002-4546202-5340830>
--
David
->(Signature continues here)
Eastern Illinois University
guess who wrote:
since the sun wasnt created till the third day we are not talking about 24
> hour human days. we are talking about days to God. ie hundreds of millions of
> years.
>
> read the creation story and it parallels the theory of evolution. the creation
> story in the tanakh and the theory of creation support each other.
>
Excuse me? The third day? First off the literal 'sun' was created on the fourth
day, not the third (Gen 1:14-19). Day and night were created on the first day
though (Gen 1:5). It says that there was evening and morning on each of these
creation days (Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31). So, there was a period of light and dark
on each of these days during the creation. I will accept speculation that
possibly the days 1-4 were more than 24 hours (though I highly doubt it). Life
did not appear untill the fifth day. Evolutionists would have you believe that
it took millions of years for man to evolve, but man appears on the sixth
creation day. Since the sun set and rose on each of these days there would
hardly be proper conditions for evolution as it would get extremely cold during
the few million years the sun was down and extremely hot during the few million
years the sun was up. Not to mention that even if the temp was regulated all of
the plants made on the the on the third day would die during the millions of
years the sun was down as they would have no light for photosynthesis. The Bible
says six days, I find no reason to believe any different.
paul 'paco'
ajack
needed the sun for the existence of light???
Eastern Illinois University <cs...@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> wrote in message
news:37CB1BD0...@ux1.cts.eiu.edu....
.
. guess who wrote:
.
. since the sun wasnt created till the third day we are not talking about 24
.
. > hour human days. we are talking about days to God. ie hundreds of millions
of
. > years.
. >
. > read the creation story and it parallels the theory of evolution. the
creation
. > story in the tanakh and the theory of creation support each other.
. >
.
. Excuse me? The third day? First off the literal 'sun' was created on the
fourth
. day, not the third (Gen 1:14-19). Day and night were created on the first day
. though (Gen 1:5). It says that there was evening and morning on each of these
. creation days (Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31). So, there was a period of light and
dark
. on each of these days during the creation. I will accept speculation that
. possibly the days 1-4 were more than 24 hours (though I highly doubt it).
Life
. did not appear untill the fifth day. Evolutionists would have you believe
that
. it took millions of years for man to evolve, but man appears on the sixth
. creation day. Since the sun set and rose on each of these days there would
. hardly be proper conditions for evolution as it would get extremely cold
during
. the few million years the sun was down and extremely hot during the few
million
. years the sun was up. Not to mention that even if the temp was regulated all
of
. the plants made on the the on the third day would die during the millions of
. years the sun was down as they would have no light for photosynthesis. The
Bible
. says six days, I find no reason to believe any different.
.
. paul 'paco'
.
guess who
Eastern Illinois University wrote:
> guess who wrote:
>
> since the sun wasnt created till the third day we are not talking about 24
>
> > hour human days. we are talking about days to God. ie hundreds of millions of
> > years.
> >
> > read the creation story and it parallels the theory of evolution. the creation
> > story in the tanakh and the theory of creation support each other.
> >
>
> Excuse me? The third day? First off the literal 'sun' was created on the fourth
> day, not the third (Gen 1:14-19).
yes you are correct. so that makes your view even more in error. and supports my
view.------------- Genesis 1:1 ------------- 1 ś In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form,
and void; and darkness [was] upon the
face of the deep. And the Spirit of
God moved upon the face of the
waters.
3 ś And God said, Let there be
light: and there was light.
sounds like big bang to me. hope nothing about the sun.
> Day and night were created on the first day
> though (Gen 1:5). It says that there was evening and morning on each of these
> creation days (Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31). So, there was a period of light and dark
> on each of these days during the creation. I will accept speculation that
> possibly the days 1-4 were more than 24 hours (though I highly doubt it).
you can speculate all you want. the evidence is that you are wrong. we are not
talking about a human day. we are talking about a day to hashem.
------------- Psalms 90:4 -------------
4 For a thousand years in thy sight
[are but] as yesterday when it is
past, and [as] a watch in the night.
so you ignore the tanakh to support your view. to hashem a thousand years is but a
short time to man. sorry you must not only give up logic, but you must ignore the
word of hashem to support creationism.
> Life
> did not appear untill the fifth day. Evolutionists would have you believe that
> it took millions of years for man to evolve, but man appears on the sixth
> creation day.
so when cant six days to hashem be millions of years to man.
> Since the sun set and rose on each of these days there would
sorry. the sun wasnt created till the fourth day as you pointed out. so it didnt rise
of each of the first three days.
Vernon O
ajack <aj...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:7qf46i$sfm$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> Isn't it amazing that there are those that actually think that the living
God
> needed the sun for the existence of light???
Or that the earth had to rotate in twenty four hours, or that it had to have
any semblence to that of today, or that we have a clue about pre-flood days.
People who insist on 24 hour days during creation should hang it up.
We have a sequence. We have the creator. We have that there was a "VOID".
Anyone who thinks they can understand the beginnings either from the bible
or from some evolutionist is very very sad. They have not begun to
understand if they think they have an inkling.
>
>
> Eastern Illinois University <cs...@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> wrote in message
> news:37CB1BD0...@ux1.cts.eiu.edu....
> .
> . guess who wrote:
> .
> . since the sun wasnt created till the third day we are not talking about
24
> .
> . > hour human days. we are talking about days to God. ie hundreds of
millions
> of
> . > years.
> . >
> . > read the creation story and it parallels the theory of evolution. the
> creation
> . > story in the tanakh and the theory of creation support each other.
> . >
> .
> . Excuse me? The third day? First off the literal 'sun' was created on the
> fourth
> . day, not the third (Gen 1:14-19). Day and night were created on the
first day
> . though (Gen 1:5). It says that there was evening and morning on each of
these
> . creation days (Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31). So, there was a period of light
and
> dark
> . on each of these days during the creation. I will accept speculation
that
> . possibly the days 1-4 were more than 24 hours (though I highly doubt
it).
> Life
> . did not appear untill the fifth day. Evolutionists would have you
believe
> that
> . it took millions of years for man to evolve, but man appears on the
sixth
> . creation day. Since the sun set and rose on each of these days there
would
guess who
ajack wrote:
> Isn't it amazing that there are those that actually think that the living God
> needed the sun for the existence of light???
does that mean you agree with me. a first.
> . guess who wrote:
> .
> . since the sun wasnt created till the third day we are not talking about 24
> .
> . > hour human days. we are talking about days to God. ie hundreds of millions
> of
> . > years.
> . >
> . > read the creation story and it parallels the theory of evolution. the
> creation
> . > story in the tanakh and the theory of creation support each other.
> . >
>
--
Eastern Illinois University
guess who wrote:
>
>
> yes you are correct. so that makes your view even more in error. and supports my
> view.------------- Genesis 1:1 ------------- 1 ś In the beginning God created the
> heaven and the earth.
> 2 And the earth was without form,
> and void; and darkness [was] upon the
> face of the deep. And the Spirit of
> God moved upon the face of the
> waters.
> 3 ś And God said, Let there be
> light: and there was light.
>
> sounds like big bang to me. hope nothing about the sun.
>
What may sound like a big bang doesnt necesarily conotate a big bang...
>
> you can speculate all you want. the evidence is that you are wrong. we are not
> talking about a human day. we are talking about a day to hashem.
>
> ------------- Psalms 90:4 -------------
> 4 For a thousand years in thy sight
> [are but] as yesterday when it is
> past, and [as] a watch in the night.
>
allright... I was waiting for someone to use this verse before pointing it out myself...
This, if you want to stretch its interpretation would mean that on the fifth and sixth
day (remember, life other than plants did not appear untill this point) the sun would be
up for 500 years (or more) and down for 500 years (or more) can life exist under such
conditions?
>
> so you ignore the tanakh to support your view. to hashem a thousand years is but a
> short time to man. sorry you must not only give up logic, but you must ignore the
> word of hashem to support creationism.
>
Who is giving up logic? And I am hardly ignoring the words of God.
>
> > Life
> > did not appear untill the fifth day. Evolutionists would have you believe that
> > it took millions of years for man to evolve, but man appears on the sixth
> > creation day.
>
> so when cant six days to hashem be millions of years to man.
>
>
Im not saying that it couldnt be, but that the sun would have to both rise and set ONCE
on these days (five and six). Think about that logically.
> > Since the sun set and rose on each of these days there would
>
> sorry. the sun wasnt created till the fourth day as you pointed out. so it didnt rise
> of each of the first three days.
>
Yes, and if you look at the statment immediatley preceeding it you will see that I was
adressing days five and six.
paul 'paco'
guess who
Eastern Illinois University wrote:
> guess who wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > yes you are correct. so that makes your view even more in error. and supports my
> > view.------------- Genesis 1:1 ------------- 1 ś In the beginning God created the
> > heaven and the earth.
> > 2 And the earth was without form,
> > and void; and darkness [was] upon the
> > face of the deep. And the Spirit of
> > God moved upon the face of the
> > waters.
> > 3 ś And God said, Let there be
> > light: and there was light.
> >
> > sounds like big bang to me. hope nothing about the sun.
> >
>
> What may sound like a big bang doesnt necesarily conotate a big bang...
well it support the big bang concept and does not support your anti God creationism.
> >
> > you can speculate all you want. the evidence is that you are wrong. we are not
> > talking about a human day. we are talking about a day to hashem.
> >
> > ------------- Psalms 90:4 -------------
> > 4 For a thousand years in thy sight
> > [are but] as yesterday when it is
> > past, and [as] a watch in the night.
> >
>
> allright... I was waiting for someone to use this verse before pointing it out myself...
> This, if you want to stretch its interpretation would mean that on the fifth and sixth
> day (remember, life other than plants did not appear untill this point) the sun would be
> up for 500 years (or more) and down for 500 years (or more) can life exist under such
> conditions?
huh? the sun would rise and set every 24 hours. we are talking days to God no days to man.
the idea in this post is that a short period of time to man is a long period of time to
hashem. try reading the verse in context.
> > so you ignore the tanakh to support your view. to hashem a thousand years is but a
> > short time to man. sorry you must not only give up logic, but you must ignore the
> > word of hashem to support creationism.
> >
>
> Who is giving up logic? And I am hardly ignoring the words of God.
sure you are. you are twisitng the word of God to fit a theology that the text does not
support.
>
>
> >
> > > Life
> > > did not appear untill the fifth day. Evolutionists would have you believe that
> > > it took millions of years for man to evolve, but man appears on the sixth
> > > creation day.
> >
> > so when cant six days to hashem be millions of years to man.
> >
> >
>
> Im not saying that it couldnt be, but that the sun would have to both rise and set ONCE
> on these days (five and six). Think about that logically.
why. we are talking days to God not days to man. can you get it through your head that the
concept of time of time for God and the concept of time for man are not the same. try
reading psalms 90 again. does it say anything about the ***one**** sunrise ***one****. if
you want to take that verse literally it says 365,240 sunrise and 365,240 sunsets are one
day to God. actually it is not that literal it really says one day to man is small amount of
time to God and conversely a thousand years to God is but the same as a few hours to man.
Albert Reingewirtz
<joey...@uswest.net> wrote:
> Luis wrote:
>
> > People I am sorry I am doing this paper about the Creation of the Earth. I
> > want to prove what is right in the bible. I need info to support this. If
> > you have real info and that is taken out from a book or something I can
> > use, please do. I NEED IT! DESPERATELY! Please.
> >
> > THANXS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LUIS
>
> since the sun wasnt created till the third day we are not talking about 24
> hour human days. we are talking about days to God. ie hundreds of millions of
> years.
>
> read the creation story and it parallels the theory of evolution. the creation
> story in the tanakh and the theory of creation support each other.
You owe to read your idiotic Bible more carefully. If it is translated
well it will talk about there was a morning and an evening first day
and so forth for all the days. The Bible speaks of days. Days not
millions of years to justify continued worship of a non-existent God.
Face it, the Bible is wrong and you have been had.
Albert Reingewirtz
University <cs...@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> wrote:
> Luis wrote:
>
> > People I am sorry I am doing this paper about the Creation of the Earth. I
> > want to prove what is right in the bible. I need info to support this. If
> > you have real info and that is taken out from a book or something I can
> > use, please do. I NEED IT! DESPERATELY! Please.
> >
> > THANXS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LUIS
>
> I would point you to www.icr.org which is the Institute of Creation
> Research's homepage. On this site if you go into the publications section
> you can read online archives of their publications. It is filled with tons
> of scientific evidence for creation and against evolution. Also check out
> their research section. There is some interesting stuff there as well...
> Check it out...
>
> paul 'paco'
Bull Shit! I have visited the so called "institute." A sorry place that
has nothing to do with what is called an institute. They are stuck into
fighting science and to do so use Pilt down man for example, a fraud
long forgotten by science. They talk about "the missing link." another
idiocy that has nothing to do with the science of paleontology. The
evolutionary record is amazingly numerous and can't be expected to
include every single instance of evolution since it depends on an
accident of death occurring in a place that will optimize for the bones
to fossilize and then a chance encounter millions of years later with
paleontologist! Get real!
Demanding such a minutious record from such a science and yet demanding
that everyone will accept a God with the evidence generally reserved to
fairy tales is the eight of hutzpah!
Albert Reingewirtz
University <cs...@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> wrote:
> guess who wrote:
>
> since the sun wasnt created till the third day we are not talking about 24
>
> > hour human days. we are talking about days to God. ie hundreds of millions
> > of
> > years.
> >
> > read the creation story and it parallels the theory of evolution. the
> > creation
> > story in the tanakh and the theory of creation support each other.
> >
>
> Excuse me? The third day? First off the literal 'sun' was created on the
> fourth
> day, not the third (Gen 1:14-19). Day and night were created on the first day
> though (Gen 1:5). It says that there was evening and morning on each of these
> creation days (Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31). So, there was a period of light and
> dark
> on each of these days during the creation. I will accept speculation that
> possibly the days 1-4 were more than 24 hours (though I highly doubt it).
> Life
> did not appear untill the fifth day. Evolutionists would have you believe
> that
> it took millions of years for man to evolve, but man appears on the sixth
> creation day. Since the sun set and rose on each of these days there would
> hardly be proper conditions for evolution as it would get extremely cold
> during
> the few million years the sun was down and extremely hot during the few
> million
> years the sun was up. Not to mention that even if the temp was regulated all
> of
> the plants made on the the on the third day would die during the millions of
> years the sun was down as they would have no light for photosynthesis. The
> Bible
> says six days, I find no reason to believe any different.
>
> paul 'paco'
Thank you Paco for showing why we can't the Biblical account. It is an
impossibility while the evolutionary theory fits very well. In fact,
because of it biotechnology exist today and is in your vocabulary, a
canticle for the great Darwin.
Eastern Illinois University
> > Im not saying that it couldnt be, but that the sun would have to both rise and set ONCE
> > on these days (five and six). Think about that logically.
>
> why. we are talking days to God not days to man. can you get it through your head that the
> concept of time of time for God and the concept of time for man are not the same. try
> reading psalms 90 again. does it say anything about the ***one**** sunrise ***one****. if
> you want to take that verse literally it says 365,240 sunrise and 365,240 sunsets are one
> day to God. actually it is not that literal it really says one day to man is small amount of
> time to God and conversely a thousand years to God is but the same as a few hours to man.
>
>
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that
it was good: and God divided the light from darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
I will repeat the last part of verse 5, "And the evening and the morning were the first day."
So after God seperated Night and Day, the evening and the morning made up the first day... It
was dark (remember the day starts at sundown) then God created the light. He seperated it from
the darkness so that there was day... what would come next? Night and the end of the day...
darkness... That was the first day... a patern which continues throughout the Genesis
account...
paul 'paco'
guess who
Eastern Illinois University wrote:
and has anybody said other wise. do you wish to address the parts of the post where you were proven
wrong or will you just continue in your anti God anti Torah anti Tanakh rhetoric.
Dolf Boek
cosmology - the origin and structure of the universe
epistemology - theory of knowledge
"Through faith we understand that the worlds-aion (ages) were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." [Hebrews 11:3]
"Be satisfied with your wife" from "Streams of water in the streets" [Proverbs 5:16b]
"Be happy with the wife you married" from "Let your fountain be blessed." [Proverbs 5:18a]
As a covenantial and eschatological wisdom context, these notions were first introduced within Scripture before the creation of Woman: "And the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'From every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat the fruit of it you shall surely die.'" [Genesis 2:16-17]
|
Year/Day of Week (as 56 year
cycle) Remembering 6,000 years of humanity | |||||||||||
|
"And the vision of the evenings and mornings which was told is
true; Therefore seal up the vision, for it refers to many days in the
future." [Daniel 8:26] | |||||||||||
| . . . | Fri | . . . | Sun | . . . | Sun | . . . | Wed | . . . | Fri | . . . | Wed |
| 5003 BC | Sun | 4004 BC | Mon | 4 BC | Mon | 26 CE | Thu | 997 CE | Sun | 1993 CE | Fri |
| 5002 BC | Mon | 4003 BC | Wed | 3 BC | Wed | 27 CE | Fri | 998 CE | Mon | 1994 CE | Sat |
| 5001 BC | Tue | 4002 BC | Thu | 2 BC | Thu | 28 CE | Sat | 999 CE | Tue | 1995 CE | Sun |
| 5000 BC | Wed | 4001 BC | Fri | 1 BC | Fri | 29 CE | Mon | 1000 CE | Wed | 1996 CE | Mon |
| 4999 BC | Thu | 4000 BC | Sat | 0 BC | Sat | 30 CE | Tue | 1001 CE | Thu | 1997 CE | Wed |
| 4998 BC | Fri | 3999 BC | Mon | 1 CE | Mon | 31 CE | Wed | 1002 CE | Fri | 1998 CE | Thu |
| 4997 BC | Sat | 3998 BC | Tue | 2 CE | Tue | 32 CE | Thu | 1003 CE | Sat | 1999 CE | Fri |
| 4996 BC | Sun | 3997 BC | Wed | 3 CE | Wed | 33 CE | Sat | 1004 CE | Sun | 2000 CE | Sat |
| . . . | Tue | . . . | Thu | . . . | Thu | . . . | Sun | . . . | Tue | . . . | Mon |
|
The ancient wisdom/prophetic philosophy of the Hebrews, lays in
their observance of an unique 7-day based lunar/solar cycle. By which they
were able to define a concise annual chronology based on a 56 year cycle.
Where the number of elapsed years equaled: n x 49 [Jubilee of years] + n x 7 [Weeks of years] + n [Days of
years] | |||||||||||
The Dead
Sea Scrolls appear to be primarily concerned with an architectural issue--as a
matter of nomenclature, that is uniquely tied to a chronology. The documents
seek to preserve the fidelity of the sanctuary services as the foundation, for a
prophetic/wisdom priestly tradition.
- dolf
--
Dolf Boek
Winner: 1997 Rainbow Community Award - "Leadership by gay
male"
Author: 'The Sodomite Prophecy' http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek
Email:
dolf...@bigpond.com
ICQ Pager: 377...@pager.mirabilis.com
What's my religion? God described it as, 'Seek ye my
face...'
ajack
things God did was provide light:
(Gen 1:3-5 NIV) "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. {4}
God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
{5} God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there
was evening, and there was morning--the first day."
That was on the first day. How did God "separated the light from the darkness?"
By causing the light to shine upon the earth from only one direction. But even
then, light isn't the determining factor for the length of the day: The speed
of rotation of the earth is the main determining factor. Has it changed since
then? There isn't any indication that it has changed -- especially when you
consider what God said about the Sabbath:
(Exo 20:11 NIV) "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the
sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the
LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
The six days mentioned for the making of "the heavens and the earth, the sea,
and all that is in them" have to be of the same length as the seventh day of
rest. Otherwise the seventh day hasn't any real meaning.
God could have created everything in six milliseconds or any increment of time,
but He chose to do it in six of mankinds days; and He really didn't have to
rest, but He did it to establish the Sabbath -- for the sake of mankind.
The God I believe in -- the God of Israel -- didn't have to wait around for
billions of years waiting for things to evolve. To me, that's ridiculous! Most
evolutionist do not believe in God, and why should they if it could happen by
itself. BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN BY ITSELF! The odds of that happening are so great
that it's laughable to believe it.
The theory of evolution had more to do with the Holocaust than people realize.
One of its chief tenants is the "Servival of the Fittest," and who was it that
thought they were the fittest?? Anyone care to guess?
As for me.....
(Psa 121:2 NIV) "My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth."
Amen!
Jack A. Albert
guess who <joey...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:37CB0711...@uswest.net....
.
. ajack wrote:
.
. > Isn't it amazing that there are those that actually think that the living
God
. > needed the sun for the existence of light???
.
. does that mean you agree with me. a first.
.
. > . guess who wrote:
. > .
. > . since the sun wasnt created till the third day we are not talking about
24
. > .
. > . > hour human days. we are talking about days to God. ie hundreds of
millions
. > of
. > . > years.
. > . >
. > . > read the creation story and it parallels the theory of evolution. the
. > creation
. > . > story in the tanakh and the theory of creation support each other.
. > . >
. >
.
.
.
. --
. ********************************
. How many fundamentalist Christians does
. it take to change a light bulb
.
. Three. One to change the bulb and two to
. tell him he is filled with the spirit of the
. Holy Ghost.
. ********************************
.
.
Vernon O
Albert Reingewirtz <albertre...@access1.net> wrote in message
news:300819991818289594%albertre...@access1.net...
> In article <37CB1BD0...@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, Eastern Illinois
> University <cs...@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> wrote:
>
> > guess who wrote:
> >
24
> >
millions
> > > years.
> > >
> > > read the creation story and it parallels the theory of evolution. the
> > > story in the tanakh and the theory of creation support each other.
> > >
> >
You better talk to those who are experts in evolution. They don't agree
with you or each other.
Vernon O
> I hate to disappoint you Joel, but I'm not agreeing with you. One of the
first
> things God did was provide light:
>
> (Gen 1:3-5 NIV) "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
{4}
> God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the
darkness.
> {5} God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And
there
> was evening, and there was morning--the first day."
>
> That was on the first day. How did God "separated the light from the
darkness?"
> By causing the light to shine upon the earth from only one direction. But
even
> then, light isn't the determining factor for the length of the day: The
speed
> of rotation of the earth is the main determining factor. Has it changed
since
> then? There isn't any indication that it has changed -- especially when
you
> consider what God said about the Sabbath:
Nothing in the bible says the light came from one direction.
The Bible says that God stopped the sun for a day (Stopped the earth.)
There was a time when the Northern part of Canada was at the equator (The
earth rotated on a point 180 degrees from there)
The earth is on a 23 Degree tilt now. There was a time when it tilted 23
degrees the other way.
The Sabbath is a day of rest and has absolutely nothing to do with a
consistant Saturday unless you are ready to say the Biible has errors, gross
errors.
>
> (Exo 20:11 NIV) "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth,
the
> sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore
the
> LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
And to the God of heaven, a moment is a thousand years.
>
> The six days mentioned for the making of "the heavens and the earth, the
sea,
> and all that is in them" have to be of the same length as the seventh day
of
> rest. Otherwise the seventh day hasn't any real meaning.
Seventh period is all important. A day or period or time for devotion and
set aside for the Lord and for rest are all important. Why do people
completely miss the message in the bible. When is the last time you layed
up food for the seventh year? When was the last time you cellebrated the
Jubillee? When was trhe last time you forgave ALL debts and trespasses as a
result of Sabboth year?
>
> God could have created everything in six milliseconds or any increment of
time,
> but He chose to do it in six of mankinds days; and He really didn't have
to
> rest, but He did it to establish the Sabbath -- for the sake of mankind.
There is no proof, bible or otherwise that God did not create the universe
including you with a memory 2 minutes ago.
>
> The God I believe in -- the God of Israel -- didn't have to wait around
for
> billions of years waiting for things to evolve. To me, that's ridiculous!
Most
> evolutionist do not believe in God, and why should they if it could happen
by
> itself. BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN BY ITSELF! The odds of that happening are so
great
> that it's laughable to believe it.
God did it. To argue against SOME science and what is in front of us is the
same as saying "Solomon said four corners of the earth and by gum that means
the earth is flat and has for corners."
>
> The theory of evolution had more to do with the Holocaust than people
realize.
> One of its chief tenants is the "Servival of the Fittest," and who was it
that
> thought they were the fittest?? Anyone care to guess?
With all of the scientific proofs and logical proofs and bible statements,
the one and only outwardly physical proof of God's existance in man is the
Jew and Isreal.
>
> As for me.....
>
> (Psa 121:2 NIV) "My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and
earth."
>
> Amen!
>
> Jack A. Albert
>
>
> guess who <joey...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> news:37CB0711...@uswest.net....
> .
> . ajack wrote:
> .
> . > Isn't it amazing that there are those that actually think that the
living
> God
> . > needed the sun for the existence of light???
> .
> . does that mean you agree with me. a first.
> .
> . > . guess who wrote:
> . > .
> . > . since the sun wasnt created till the third day we are not talking
about
> 24
> . > .
> . > . > hour human days. we are talking about days to God. ie hundreds of
> millions
> . > of
> . > . > years.
> . > . >
> . > . > read the creation story and it parallels the theory of evolution.
the
Vernon O
your pick, there is someone as smart as you to explain these things.
Mankind and all of the institutions of the world have been waiting.
Scientists have and continue to argue these matters, but you have the
answers.
So far you have not explained one single thing.
If you can not explain verse one and two to the satisfaction of all mankind,
you are blowing methane gas into the wind.
Eastern Illinois University <cs...@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> wrote in message
news:37CB3031...@ux1.cts.eiu.edu...
>
>
> guess who wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > yes you are correct. so that makes your view even more in error. and
supports my
> > view.------------- Genesis 1:1 ------------- 1 ś In the beginning God
created the
> > heaven and the earth.
> > 2 And the earth was without form,
> > and void; and darkness [was] upon the
> > face of the deep. And the Spirit of
> > God moved upon the face of the
> > waters.
> > 3 ś And God said, Let there be
> > light: and there was light.
> >
> > sounds like big bang to me. hope nothing about the sun.
> >
>
> What may sound like a big bang doesnt necesarily conotate a big bang...
>
> >
> > you can speculate all you want. the evidence is that you are wrong. we
are not
> > talking about a human day. we are talking about a day to hashem.
> >
> > ------------- Psalms 90:4 -------------
> > 4 For a thousand years in thy sight
> > [are but] as yesterday when it is
> > past, and [as] a watch in the night.
> >
>
> allright... I was waiting for someone to use this verse before pointing it
out myself...
> This, if you want to stretch its interpretation would mean that on the
fifth and sixth
> day (remember, life other than plants did not appear untill this point)
the sun would be
> up for 500 years (or more) and down for 500 years (or more) can life exist
under such
> conditions?
>
> >
> > so you ignore the tanakh to support your view. to hashem a thousand
years is but a
> > short time to man. sorry you must not only give up logic, but you must
ignore the
> > word of hashem to support creationism.
> >
>
> Who is giving up logic? And I am hardly ignoring the words of God.
>
> >
> > > Life
> > > did not appear untill the fifth day. Evolutionists would have you
believe that
> > > it took millions of years for man to evolve, but man appears on the
sixth
> > > creation day.
> >
> > so when cant six days to hashem be millions of years to man.
> >
> >
>
> Im not saying that it couldnt be, but that the sun would have to both rise
and set ONCE
> on these days (five and six). Think about that logically.
>
> > > Since the sun set and rose on each of these days there would
> >
David P. Johnson
Johnson <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> In article <37CAED91...@telcel.net.ve>, Luis
> <lui...@telcel.net.ve> wrote:
>
> > People I am sorry I am doing this paper about the Creation of the Earth. I
> > want to prove what is right in the bible. I need info to support this. If
> > you have real info and that is taken out from a book or something I can
> > use, please do. I NEED IT! DESPERATELY! Please.
> >
> > THANXS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LUIS
>
> Read "The Science of God : The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical
> Wisdom" by Gerald L. Schroeder. Extremely interesting. Schroeder is a
> physicist, and a theist. Try Amazon at:
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/076790303X/o/qid=936053953/sr=8-
> 1/002-4546202-5340830>
If you want your mind to be opened, try the above link! Or go to the
libraty. Read "The Science of God." You may not agree with all his
conclusions. But trust me, it is very, very interesting. Especially
where he goes through the six days of creation using Einsteinian
relativity. Not perfect, but very cool.
Young earth creationism, and the Institute of Creation Research, are
not serious contenders for explaining observable fact.
Rafael Malfatto
> If you want your mind to be opened, try the above link! Or go to the
> libraty. Read "The Science of God." You may not agree with all his
> conclusions. But trust me, it is very, very interesting. Especially
> where he goes through the six days of creation using Einsteinian
> relativity. Not perfect, but very cool.
>
> Young earth creationism, and the Institute of Creation Research, are
> not serious contenders for explaining observable fact.
Schroeder's books do a disservice to both science and the Bible. He skims through
rabbinic sources looking for similarities with modern science. If he would simply
read the Rashi commentary on Genesis 1, he'd find that the Bible describes an
earth covered by a hard shell, which keeps the water above it from pouring down.
The world is also described as beginning as a watery abyss (nothing like a Big
Bang), which was divided and reshaped to create this habitable bubble. All of
this is in line with ancient Near Eastern cosmology, only with a Hebrew theology.
Works of medieval kabbalah (of which Nachmanides, who Schroeder likes to quote,
was a student), however, describe a very different origin for the universe from
Genesis, which is quite similar to Big Bang cosmology.
Rafael
Micha Berger
: If he would simply
: read the Rashi commentary on Genesis 1, he'd find that the Bible describes an
Actually, Rashi and Schroder are very similar. Both describe Genesis in terms
of the science of their day.
: Works of medieval kabbalah (of which Nachmanides, who Schroeder likes to
: quote, was a student), however, describe a very different origin for the
: universe from Genesis, which is quite similar to Big Bang cosmology.
And the Ramban's student, R' Ya'akov (?) of Akko, dates the universe at
15billion years. But this is doing exactly what you accuse Schroder of.
I would conclude that traditionally, we found it appealing to match Genesis
to science, but didn't really find the excercise religiously important.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 31-Aug-99: Shelishi, Nitzavim-Vayeilech
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 31a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Nefesh Hachaim I 16
rafael
>
> In soc.culture.jewish Rafael Malfatto <raf...@salemglobal.com> wrote:
> : If he would simply
> : read the Rashi commentary on Genesis 1, he'd find that the Bible describes an
> : earth ...
>
> Actually, Rashi and Schroder are very similar. Both describe Genesis in terms
> of the science of their day.
Except that Rashi gives peshat (plain meaning), and Schroeder twists it
to meet his book's apologetic agenda (not that Rashi was always such a
pashtan).
> : Works of medieval kabbalah (of which Nachmanides, who Schroeder likes to
> : quote, was a student), however, describe a very different origin for the
> : universe from Genesis, which is quite similar to Big Bang cosmology.
>
> And the Ramban's student, R' Ya'akov (?) of Akko, dates the universe at
> 15billion years. But this is doing exactly what you accuse Schroder of.
If R' Yaakov said that that is how the text was meant to be understood,
then I would indeed accuse him of doing the same thing (viz. raping its
integrity).
> I would conclude that traditionally, we found it appealing to match Genesis
> to science, but didn't really find the excercise religiously important.
Schroeder certainly does.
Rafael
PETER ELFVIN
Luis wrote:
> People I am sorry I am doing this paper about the Creation of the Earth. I
> want to prove what is right in the bible. I need info to support this. If
> you have real info and that is taken out from a book or something I can
> use, please do. I NEED IT! DESPERATELY! Please.
>
> THANXS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LUIS
There is no way to >prove< how the earth was formed. All you can do is state
what facts there are and what you believe about those facts. If you want an
inspirational homily on the subject of Genesis 1:1 see Homily 1 of Basil the
Greats' Hexaemeron. He goes on and on about the phrase "In the beginning, God
created". I know of no more uplifting arguments for creation than the ones he
makes, and he made them in the 300's, 1600 years before any of the creationism
institutes opened their doors. Read it, you won't be sorry.
--
Visit my home page at http://members.home.net/elvish1/relig-1.htm
for links to all kinds of information on Christian Belief.
Sections are Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Heresy.
Orthodox perspective as to what constitutes Heresy.
Stanton D Summay
evolution theory and believe it.
Let's take a look at Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. A more accurate translation of
those two scriptures using Strongs and Briggs would be.
Genesis 1:1 First, God created heaven and earth and all its inhabitants.
How long did this take? Who knows, the Bible is moot on the subject.
Genesis 1:2 Then the earth became without form and void of all its
inhabitants.
Why? Most of us that believe this way think it was the fall of Satan that
brought this massive destruction about.
Now according to evolution all happened by chance. All these species on the
current earth just happened that way. Are you trying to tell me in all this
chance it so happened with all these species that a male and female of the
higher species happened to be created at the same time so the species to
procreate? Or that the species that uses only one food that the food just
happened to evolve before the species. That is just silly.
Albert Reingewirtz <albertre...@access1.net> wrote in message
news:300819991809317273%albertre...@access1.net...
> In article <37CAE507...@uswest.net>, guess who
> <joey...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> > Luis wrote:
> >
> > > People I am sorry I am doing this paper about the Creation of the
Earth. I
> > > want to prove what is right in the bible. I need info to support this.
If
> > > you have real info and that is taken out from a book or something I
can
> > > use, please do. I NEED IT! DESPERATELY! Please.
> > >
> > > THANXS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LUIS
> >
> > since the sun wasnt created till the third day we are not talking about
24
> > hour human days. we are talking about days to God. ie hundreds of
millions of
> > years.
> >
> > read the creation story and it parallels the theory of evolution. the
creation
> > story in the tanakh and the theory of creation support each other.
>
mei...@qqqerols.com
Summay" <ssu...@mis.net> posted:
>Totally wrong as I would foresee anyone that could take hold of the
>evolution theory and believe it.
>Let's take a look at Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. A more accurate translation of
>those two scriptures using Strongs and Briggs would be.
>Genesis 1:1 First, God created heaven and earth and all its inhabitants.
They really say "and all its inhabitants"? This is an interpretation
rather than a translation. I'm not objecting to interpretation per se
but one should know that it is interpretation. Don't those words
appear in square brackets? By interpretation I don't mean alternate
translation. The sentence in the original stops at 'earth' and there
are no words that correspond to "and all its inhabitants".
>How long did this take? Who knows, the Bible is moot on the subject.
>Genesis 1:2 Then the earth became without form and void of all its
>inhabitants.
I don't see the word 'became' in the text at all. The word is
"hoy'so", "was".
Again with "of all its inhabitants"? Not present in the text. Same as
above. Are those words and 'become' both in square brackets? I
wouldn't want to get from this the notion that the earth had had
inhabitants before, when it hadn't even existed before.
"Then" is subject to discussion too (It is present as the prefex vov
in the original).
>Why? Most of us that believe this way think it was the fall of Satan that
>brought this massive destruction about.
Most of the people I know don't think there was any destruction or
that Satan had anything to do with it!
>Now according to evolution all happened by chance.
Perhaps this is just shorthand by you, but this is incomplete.
In terms of theories, there is evolution by inheritance of acquired
characteristics.
There is evolution by natural selection.
There is evolution by divine guidance.
There are probably other guiding forces or combinations of them
theorized for evolution.
mei...@QQQerols.com
Remove the QQQ
and I'll get back to you.
Libertarius
> In article <37CAED91...@telcel.net.ve>,
> Luis <lui...@telcel.net.ve> wrote:
> > People I am sorry I am doing this paper about the Creation of the
> Earth. I
> > want to prove what is right in the bible. I need info to support
> this. If
> > you have real info and that is taken out from a book or something I
> can
> > use, please do. I NEED IT! DESPERATELY! Please.
> >
> > THANXS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LUIS
> >
> >
> Luis,
>
> Go to this website http://www.icr.org for help.
>
> Judith
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
===>Actually, some of the BEST translations of Genesis 1:1 (e.g. the JPS
Tanakh
from the original Hebrew text) indicate that the author
believed that the Earth already existed as a formless, chaotic watery
mass,
before the ELOHIM began the act of creation. Out of it were created the
(flat) land and sea,
as well as the dome-shaped sky ("Heaven"), upon which were affixed the
Sun, the Moon
and the stars (Genesis 1:6-18)
Judith
Miriam
R. M. Wolfe, M.D.
When the issue of the creation of the Universe comes up, many
people assume that the theories offered by science and
orthodox religion will be at odds with each other. This is not
always the case. I will try to show here that a simultaneous
belief in God and the Big Bang is consistent with Jewish beliefs,
basing part of my proof on Kabbalistic (mystical) writings. Since
Christianity and Islam are in part based on the Hebrew
scriptures, this may have some relevance to their beliefs as well.
Big Bang theory, which asserts that the Universe originated
between 10 and 20 billion years ago from nothingness, starting
from an infinitely small point, could conflict with the Jewish
religion at these points:
1. It might imply that the Universe never needed a Creator. 2. It
might imply that the Universe can maintain itself without God. 3.
The age of the Universe given of 10-20 billion years conflicts with the
traditional age of the world of 5758 years given by the Sages.
Regarding the first point, there is no conflict with our faith,
because Big Bang theory does not say that the Universe
created itself. Creation from nothingness, in Hebrew "yesh
m'ayin" (literally, "something from nothing", or in Latin, ex nihilo),
is actually a foundational pillar of the Jewish faith, derived from
the first words of the Bible, "In the beginning God created...."
(Gen 1:1). In Hebrew the word for "created", bara , implies a
completely new creation of something unique which did not exist
before[1]. This point is so essential, that the twelfth century
Rabbinical scholar Maimonides, in his Guide of the Perplexed,
specifically asserts creation ex nihilo in contradistinction to the
Aristotelians who believed that the Universe always existed[2].
On this point the Jewish faith agrees closely with the Big Bang
model; on the other hand physicists admit that they can say
nothing about what occurred before the Big Bang, so they
cannot deny the possibility of a Creator[3].
The second point, that the Universe might not need God to
maintain its existence, is something probably outside of the
realm of science to assert or deny. It is, in fact, a foundational
belief of Judaism, and discussed at length in Kabbalistic
literature, that the Universe requires constant creative energy
from God to exist, or else it would instantly revert back to
nothingness[4]. We base this partly on the verse from the
prayer book which tells us that "In His goodness He renews each
day, continuously, the work of Creation[5]." Unless physics could
prove this to be untrue, it could not create a conflict between
our faith and Big Bang theory[6].
As to the third possible conflict, regarding the age of the
Universe, this issue creates the most trouble for those who
adhere to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account.
However, there are a variety of approaches to this difficult topic
that will satisfy many (if not all) persons of faith.
One approach is based on the idea that God's concept of time is
different than ours. From the verse: "Even a thousand years in
Your eyes are like a day that has passed...," (Psalms 90:4) the
Kabbalists deduced that a seven day creation week in divine time
equals 7000 of our years, what they call a "Sabbatical cycle."
One of the laws given in the Bible was that every seventh year
the land had to be left unplowed: a year of rest for the land.
And in the 50th year, after seven cycles of seven years, there
was a Jubilee, when all slaves were freed and all debts
cancelled[7]. The Kabbalists have told us that there are seven
Sabbatical cycles of 7000 years in our Universe, and after the
end of the seventh cycle comes the Cosmic Jubilee and the
inauguration of the Messianic era. According to one view, we are
now in the last of the seven cycles.
In the twelfth century the Kabbalist Rabbi Yitzchok D'min Akko,
in his manuscriptOzar ha-Hayyim, wrote that since the 42,000
years prior to the creation of Adam (7000 years x six prior
cycles) can not be calculated according to human chronology,
they must be divine time. Thus, "Since one of our years is 365¨
days, a year on high is 365,250 of our years." By this
calculation, prior to Adam, the Universe would have existed for
42,000 divine years x 365,250 = 15,340,500,000 (15.3 billion)
earth years, a remarkable correlation with the current estimate
of 10 to 20 billion years since the Big Bang[8].
Another approach is given by Gerald Schroeder, a Biblical scholar
and physicist. He explains that according to Einstein's theory of
relativity, the passage of time slows as gravity or velocity
increases. For example, time at the surface of the sun runs 2.12
parts per million slower than on Earth (i.e. 67 seconds slower
per year) due to the higher gravitational force, correlating
exactly with the 2.12 parts per million that the wavelength of
light from the sun is stretched compared to the wavelength of
comparable light generated on Earth. We know that the
wavelength of cosmic background radiation (CBR) left over from
the Big Bang, at minus 270¯ C, is a million million times longer
than the original super-high energy of the Big Bang, partly due
to the stretching of the wavelength from the expansion of the
Universe. So, although looking backwards in time we measure 15
billion years, looking forward in time from the Big Bang "...the
division of 15 billion years by a million million reduces those fifteen
billion years to six days!"[9]
Although this may not satisfy those taking a purely literal view of
the Bible, I have tried to show that there are religious points of
view that support an age of the Universe that is in agreement
with modern cosmology.
In summary then, Big Bang theory is certainly consistent with
belief in God according to Jewish religious faith. In fact, it has
also been endorsed by the Catholic Church[10]. It should be
emphasized, however, that not every cosmological theory can
be made to conform to Jewish belief. For example, a different
hypothesis explored by the physicist Stephen Hawking[11], which
considers the possibility of a finite Universe that expands and
contracts, but has no specific beginning (i.e. a variation of the
Aristotelian idea), would definitely be in conflict with the Jewish
faith, which unequivocally asserts the Creation of time and space
ex nihilo.
FOOTNOTES
1 In the thirteenth century, the Kabbalist Nachmanides
(1195-1270) wrote: "The Holy One, blessed by He, created all
things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression
in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing
other than the word bara (created)." Commentary on the
Torah, Genesis 1:1. English translation by Rabbi Dr.Charles
B.Chavel (Shilo Publishing House, New York, 1971) p.23.
2 "I have already made it known to you that the foundation of
the whole Law is the view that God has brought the world into
being out of nothing...... For time is created, being consequent
upon the motion of the sphere, which is created." - Maimonides,
The Guide of the Perplexed, Part II, chap.30, 67a, English
translation by Shlomo Pines (University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 1963).
3 "As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can
have no consequences, so they should not form part of a
scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them
out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big
bang. Many people do not like the idea that time has a
beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention."
Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Bantam Books,
New York, 1988), p.46.
4 "..there is to be only an absolute belief...that the creation of
being ex nihilo (yesh m'ayin)...occurs constantly and every
moment, by all creatures coming into being [ex nihilo] from His
blessed wisdom which animates everything." Rabbi Shneur
Zalman of Liadi (the Alter Rebbe), Likutei Amarim ("Tanya"),
Igeret Hakodesh, Chap.11, Bilingual Edition (Kehot Publication
Society, Brooklyn, NY, 1984). 5 See discussion in The Philosophy
of Chabad Vol.2, by Rabbi Nissan Mindel (Kehot, Brooklyn, 1973)
p.86f.
6 A modern cosmological theory known as "Digital Physics",
proposed by Edward Fredkin of Boston University, correlates
remarkably well with this Kabbalistic principle of constant
recreation from nothingness. It postulates that space consists
of finite points at which matter and energy are recreated
moment to moment as behavior patterns, analogous to a
three-dimensional television set. For more information on this,
see the internet website: < http://cvm.msu.edu/~dobrzele/dp/>.
7 Lev.25:1-34. The inscription that the founding fathers of the
United States placed on the Liberty Bell: "Proclaim Liberty
Throughout All the Land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof," comes
from Lev.25:10, where it refers to the freeing of slaves in the
Jubilee year.
8 For further discussion on this topic, see:Immortality,
Resurrection and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View, by
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (Ktav Publishing House in association with
the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, Hoboken, N.J.) pp.5-15.
9 G.Schroeder, The Science of God, (The Free Press, N.Y., 1997)
pp.41-59. Using the argument of exponential changes in the
wavelength of this "cosmic clock" and insights into the Bible from
the Kabbalist Nachmanides, the author makes some astounding
correlations between the Biblical six day timescale and modern
geology/paleontology.
10 Hawking, ibid, pp.46-47,115-116.
11 Hawking, ibid, pp.136-41.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
--
Your faithful correspondent,
Miriam Wolfe
Libertarius
> Can One Believe Simultaneously in God and the Big Bang?
> R. M. Wolfe, M.D.
>
> When the issue of the creation of the Universe comes up, many
> people assume that the theories offered by science and
> orthodox religion will be at odds with each other. This is not
> always the case. I will try to show here that a simultaneous
> belief in God and the Big Bang is consistent with Jewish beliefs,
> basing part of my proof on Kabbalistic (mystical) writings. Since
> Christianity and Islam are in part based on the Hebrew
> scriptures, this may have some relevance to their beliefs as well.
>
> Big Bang theory, which asserts that the Universe originated
> between 10 and 20 billion years ago from nothingness, starting
> from an infinitely small point,
===>This is your first mistake. "A small point" is NOT "nothingness".
Also, there isn't ONE current cosmological theory that claims that
this "universe" is not part of a universe of universes, a Cosmos that
existed before our local cluster of galactic cluster was formed.
> could conflict with the Jewish
> religion at these points:
>
> 1. It might imply that the Universe never needed a Creator. 2. It
> might imply that the Universe can maintain itself without God. 3.
> The age of the Universe given of 10-20 billion years conflicts with the
> traditional age of the world of 5758 years given by the Sages.
>
> Regarding the first point, there is no conflict with our faith,
> because Big Bang theory does not say that the Universe
> created itself. Creation from nothingness, in Hebrew "yesh
> m'ayin" (literally, "something from nothing", or in Latin, ex nihilo),
> is actually a foundational pillar of the Jewish faith, derived from
> the first words of the Bible, "In the beginning God created...."
> (Gen 1:1). In Hebrew the word for "created", bara , implies a
> completely new creation of something unique which did not exist
> before[1]. This point is so essential, that the twelfth century
> Rabbinical scholar Maimonides, in his Guide of the Perplexed,
> specifically asserts creation ex nihilo in contradistinction to the
> Aristotelians who believed that the Universe always existed[2].
===>It is most curious that the JPS Tanakh contradicts your "foundational
pillar", as it says absolutely NOTHING about any "yesh m'ayin" or "ex
nihilo". On the contrary, Genesis 1 states that the "ELOHIM" created
everything
out of the pre-existing watery mass, unformed and void, of earth itself :
"When God [ELOHIM] began to create heaven and earth--the earth
being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep
and a wind from God [ELOHIM] sweeping over the water--God
[ELOHIM] said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light." Later
"God [ELOHIM] said, 'Let there be an expanse in the midst of the
water,
that it may separate water from water.' God [ELOHIM] made the
expanse,
and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the
water
which was above the expanse. And it was so. God [ELOHIM] called
the expanse Sky [HEAVEN]." Later still (on the fourth day) "God
made
the two great lights, the greater light to dominate the day and the
lesser
light to dominate the night, and the stars. And God [ELOHIM] set
them
in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth."
So, according to this story:
(1) There was already a watery mass, called "Earth", from which all
things
were made.
(2) The dome or "expanse" of the Heaven (sky) was made to separate
the
waters of the sky from the waters of earth.
(3) The Sun, Moon and all the stars were made out of the same
material and
were affixed to that dome "to shine upon the earth".
No wonder that some of the Bible literature talks about the Sun
stopping in
the sky, and elsewhere that the stars that "God" had affixed to the sky
will be
falling on earth.
The entire story reflects a pre-scientific cosmology that no amount
of effort
can reconcile with our current knowledge of astronomy. If the Moon was
indeed
just a light affixed to the sky, the Apollo astronauts would have had a
much easier
time to get to it. And we would not need the Hubble telescopes to examine
the
stars if they were just shiny objects that "God" had "set in the expanse of
the sky
to shine upon the earth", would we? The "Big Bang" theory, invented by a
Roman Catholic priest, was a good effort to "prove" that our universe was
created at some point in time, but modern cosmology has already surpassed
that narrow thinking, as much as astronomy surpassed the ancient thinking
that
the entire universe consisted of a flat earth, covered by the dome of
heaven,
with the Sun, the Moon, and the stars affixed to it, and with "God" sitting
on
top of that dome, as described by Isaiah.
On this point the Jewish faith agrees closely with the Big Bang
model;
on the other hand physicists admit that they can say
> nothing about what occurred before the Big Bang, so they
> cannot deny the possibility of a Creator[3].
===>Of course they can. There is absolutely no indication that some
extra-cosmic
creator entity had anything to do with any of the processes of the eternal,
eternally
unfolding Cosmic Totality, of which our tiny earth, with its "God" sitting
on top,
would be just an ephemeral spec in Space-Time.
>
> The second point, that the Universe might not need God to
> maintain its existence, is something probably outside of the
> realm of science to assert or deny. It is, in fact, a foundational
> belief of Judaism, and discussed at length in Kabbalistic
> literature, that the Universe requires constant creative energy
> from God to exist, or else it would instantly revert back to
> nothingness[4]. We base this partly on the verse from the
> prayer book which tells us that "In His goodness He renews each
> day, continuously, the work of Creation[5]." Unless physics could
> prove this to be untrue, it could not create a conflict between
> our faith and Big Bang theory[6].
===>Come on, Miriam! Unless biology can prove that there are no pink
unicorns, there must be some?
===>And if you multiplied the seven days of Genesis 1 by 365 times
the universal information number 555-1212, you get 14,183,346,660,
which is the EXACT age of our universe.
>
> Another approach is given by Gerald Schroeder, a Biblical scholar
> and physicist. He explains that according to Einstein's theory of
> relativity, the passage of time slows as gravity or velocity
> increases. For example, time at the surface of the sun runs 2.12
> parts per million slower than on Earth (i.e. 67 seconds slower
> per year) due to the higher gravitational force, correlating
> exactly with the 2.12 parts per million that the wavelength of
> light from the sun is stretched compared to the wavelength of
> comparable light generated on Earth. We know that the
> wavelength of cosmic background radiation (CBR) left over from
> the Big Bang, at minus 270Ż C, is a million million times longer
> than the original super-high energy of the Big Bang, partly due
> to the stretching of the wavelength from the expansion of the
> Universe. So, although looking backwards in time we measure 15
> billion years, looking forward in time from the Big Bang "...the
> division of 15 billion years by a million million reduces those fifteen
> billion years to six days!"[9]
===>Now THAT is REALLY cute. All you have to do now is identify where the
evenings and mornings fit into those billion years.
> Although this may not satisfy those taking a purely literal view of
> the Bible, I have tried to show that there are religious points of
> view that support an age of the Universe that is in agreement
> with modern cosmology.
===>All you have shown is that there are various ways to read
Genesis 1:1, and that there are some semi-biblicist theists who
can play with numbers to equate the supposed age of this "universe",
i.e. our local cluster of galactic clusters, with the 6 or 7 days of
the fable in Genesis 1.
Shalom,
mei...@qqqerols.com
<wak...@reality.org> posted:
>Miriam wrote:
>> The second point, that the Universe might not need God to
>> maintain its existence, is something probably outside of the
>> realm of science to assert or deny. It is, in fact, a foundational
>> belief of Judaism, and discussed at length in Kabbalistic
>> literature, that the Universe requires constant creative energy
>> from God to exist, or else it would instantly revert back to
>> nothingness[4]. We base this partly on the verse from the
>> prayer book which tells us that "In His goodness He renews each
>> day, continuously, the work of Creation[5]." Unless physics could
>> prove this to be untrue, it could not create a conflict between
>> our faith and Big Bang theory[6].
>===>Come on, Miriam! Unless biology can prove that there are no pink
>unicorns, there must be some?
Although I know she thinks so, she didn't say here that any Jewish
belief was true. The point of the whole post was to show the lack of
conflict between (at least one Jewish view of) Judaism and the Big
Bang. No one bases his belief in Judaism on lack of conflict, either
before or since the Big Bang was theorized. There are loads of things
that don't conflict with things that might be true. Lack of conflict
is not enough to cause someone to believe in something.
Unless 'biology' can prove there are no pink unicorns, there is no
conflict between belief in biology and belief in pink unicorns.
Is that statement acceptable to you?
>Shalom,
Libertarius
the
literature contained in the Bible, yet people still keep trying to prove
that
there is no conflict between astronomy and the Bible.
mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
> In soc.culture.jewish on Sun, 05 Sep 1999 10:36:03 -0600 Libertarius
> <wak...@reality.org> posted:
>
> >Miriam wrote:
>
> >> The second point, that the Universe might not need God to
> >> maintain its existence, is something probably outside of the
> >> realm of science to assert or deny. It is, in fact, a foundational
> >> belief of Judaism, and discussed at length in Kabbalistic
> >> literature, that the Universe requires constant creative energy
> >> from God to exist, or else it would instantly revert back to
> >> nothingness[4]. We base this partly on the verse from the
> >> prayer book which tells us that "In His goodness He renews each
> >> day, continuously, the work of Creation[5]." Unless physics could
> >> prove this to be untrue, it could not create a conflict between
> >> our faith and Big Bang theory[6].
>
> >===>Come on, Miriam! Unless biology can prove that there are no pink
> >unicorns, there must be some?
>
Stanton D Summay
earth model in the Bible. They take an idiomatic sentence and try to assert
it as a factual statement, even though they themselves use the same phrase
today.
Libertarius <wher...@seekandlearn.com> wrote in message
news:37D3FF44...@seekandlearn.com...
> ===>No. Astronomy has contradicted the flat earth model found throughout
> the
> literature contained in the Bible, yet people still keep trying to prove
> that
> there is no conflict between astronomy and the Bible.
>
> mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>
> > In soc.culture.jewish on Sun, 05 Sep 1999 10:36:03 -0600 Libertarius
> > <wak...@reality.org> posted:
> >
> > >Miriam wrote:
> >
> > >> The second point, that the Universe might not need God to
> > >> maintain its existence, is something probably outside of the
> > >> realm of science to assert or deny. It is, in fact, a foundational
> > >> belief of Judaism, and discussed at length in Kabbalistic
> > >> literature, that the Universe requires constant creative energy
> > >> from God to exist, or else it would instantly revert back to
> > >> nothingness[4]. We base this partly on the verse from the
> > >> prayer book which tells us that "In His goodness He renews each
> > >> day, continuously, the work of Creation[5]." Unless physics could
> > >> prove this to be untrue, it could not create a conflict between
> > >> our faith and Big Bang theory[6].
> >
> > >===>Come on, Miriam! Unless biology can prove that there are no pink
> > >unicorns, there must be some?
> >
Dolf Boek
cosmology - the origin and structure of the universe
epistemology - theory of knowledge
The Book of Jubilees records the fourth day of creation as: "And on the fourth day He created the sun and the moon and the stars, and set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon all the earth, and to rule over the day and the night, and divide the light from the darkness. And God appointed the sun to be a great sign on the earth for days and for sabbaths and for months and for feasts and for years and for sabbaths of years and for jubilees and for all seasons of the years. And it divideth the light from the darkness [and] for prosperity, that all things may prosper which shoot and grow on the earth. These three kinds He made on the fourth day." [Jubliee 2:8-10]
The Jubilee based chronology as: n x 49 [Jubilee of years] + n x 7 [Weeks of years] + n [Days of years] serves as the underpinnings of an Hebraic prophetic/wisdom based metaphysical (cosmology, ontology, epistemology) architecture. It suggests that the Dead Sea Scrolls collectively represent a substantial philosophical investiture:--"In many of the scrolls, jubilee periods are not only times of liberation as described in the Bible, but also ways of keeping track of time. The text 11Q13 - The Coming of Melchizedek' envisions a scheme in which the coming of the Last Days is calculated by means of these jubilee periods." [Wise, Abegg & Cook, p 455]
|
The Sign-'ot for Israel
| |||||||||||
|
1st Day of
Year (as 56 year cycle) | |||||||||||
|
"Observe ye everything that takes place in the heaven, how they do not change their orbits, and the luminaries which are in the heaven, how they all rise and set in order each in its season, and transgress not against their appointed order. Behold ye the earth, and give heed to the things which take place upon it from first to last, how steadfast they are, how none of the things upon earth change, but all the works of God appear to you." [Enoch 2:1-3] |
The scrolls 4Q280, 4Q286-289 - 'A Liturgy of Blessing and Cursing' eulogises the Sabbath based Jubilee chronology after this manner: '. . .wondrous mysteries [...] and holy weeks in their plan and signs of the months [...] [...] in their seasons, and time of glory in [their] fixed times [...] [...] and the Sabbaths of the earth in [their] divis[ions and ti]mes of liber[ty...] [...] perpetual [li]berties and [eternal] ju[bilees...] [...] and darkne[ss...]" [4Q286 Frag. 1 Col. 2]
The picture which is emerging from reading these prophetic testimonies, is one where a Sabbath based, jubilee chronology which underpins Israel's religious practices. As a prophetic timetable concerning the Battle between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, it is one in which they were to be daily participants--The 144,000 are those who follow-akoloutheo (meaning: follow as soldiers, as stars on daily rotation) the Lamb wherever he goes:--"Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having his Father's name written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps.
And they sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures, and the elders; and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth.
These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These were redeemed from among men, being first-fruits to God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile, for they are without fault before the throne of God." [Revelation 14:1-5]]
Since God calls his people according to Divine election, by name as Lot and not by chance, the names of individuals participating in these portentious events and their sequence appears to be most important as evidence of wisdom/prophetic nomenclature. For example the sequence of events recorded by Zadok in Nehemiah's Temple dedication appears analogous to Jesus of Nazareth's calling forth disciples as Apostles--a preliminary proceeding for the 'Sermon on the Mount' recorded in [Luke 6:1-51; cf 20-26]. [See also 'Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin - The Finger of God']
The wisdom/prophetic tradition appears to be associated with the 'high priesthood' and 'kingly' testimony and blessing given prophetically by Judah prior to his death--"The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him shall be the obedience of the people." [Genesis 49:10] The meaning of the names is given as follows:
- Gershom - "My descendants shall be homeless in the land where they are born; and indeed we are considered homeless in the land today. And concerning this child I saw in my vision that both he and his descendants would be removed from the high-priesthood." [Mt Althos MS]
- Kohath [born portentously on the 1st day of the year] - "I saw that all [the people would] gather to him, and that the high-priesthood [over all Isra]el would be his." [Mt Althos MS]
- Merari - "I called his name Merari, because his birth was painful (mar), for when he was born, he was dying, and it was very bitter (merir) to me indeed that he should die, so I appealed and prayed for him, and it was a bitter (merar) experience." [Mt Althos MS]
"And David divided them into courses among the sons of Levi, namely, Gershon [9 houses], Kohath [11 houses], and Merari [4 houses]." [1 Chronicles 23:6] Making a total of 24 houses:
|
Divisions of the Son
of Levi "These were the sons of Levi by their father's houses as they were counted individually by the number of their names, who did the work for the service of the Lord, from the age of twenty years and above. For David said, 'The Lord God of Israel has given rest to his people that they may dwell in Jerusalem for ever' and also to the Levites, 'They shall no longer carry the tabernacle, or any of the articles for its service." [1 Chronicles 23:24-25] | |||||
|
LOTS
|
24 Divisions (38,000) House Workers (24,000) Officers/Judges (6,000) Gate-Keepers (4,000) Singers/Musicians (4,000) |
24
Divisions
| |||
|
1 Zadok - Righteous [Priest's Portion] |
Gershon - 'Exile' (9 Houses) "He and his descendants would be removed from the high-priesthood" |
Laadan 'Put in order'
{Libni Ex 6:17} |
Jehiel 'God lives' [1] | ||
| Zetham 'Olive' [2] | |||||
| Joel 'Jehovah is God' [3] | |||||
|
Shimei -
'Renowned' |
[Heads of House Laadan] |
Shelomith 'Peaceful' [4]
|
Jahath 'He will snatch up' [7] | ||
|
Haziel 'Vision of God' [5] |
Zina 'Well-fed' {V/LXX, - Zizah} [8] | ||||
|
2 |
Haran 'Mountaineer' [6] |
Jeush 'He hurries to aid' [9] + Beriah 'With a friend' [10] | |||
|
3 |
Konath - 'Assembly' (11 Houses) "All the people would gather to him, and that the high-priesthood over all Israel would be his" |
Amram - 'exalted
people'
|
Aaron 'Light bringer' [Most
Holy Things] [11] Moses 'Drawn' [Amongst Levi] [12] | ||
|
4 Ahimelech - My brother is King [Levite's Portion] |
Izhar - 'Shining oil' | Shelomith 'Peaceful' [13] | |||
|
5 |
Hebron - 'Association' | Jeriah
'Taught by Jehovah' [14]
Amariah 'Jehovah speaks or Yah(u) has promised' [15] Jahaziel 'Beheld of God' [16] Jekameam 'Let the people rise' [17] | |||
|
6 Eleazar - God has helped [Israel's Portion] |
Uzziel - 'My strength is God' | Michah
- 'Who is like God' [18] Jesshiah 'Jehovah will lend' [19] | |||
|
7 Ithamar - Coast of palms [Proselyte's Portion] |
Merari - 'Bitter' (4 Houses) "He should die, so I appealed and prayed for him, and it was a bitter experience" |
Mahli - 'Sick' | Eleazer 'God has helped'+ [Sons of Kish] [20]
Kish 'Bent' [21] | ||
|
E |
Mushi - 'Yielding' | Mahli 'Sick'
[22] Eder 'A flock' [23] Jeremoth 'He is Most High' [24] | |||
There is a remarkable interpretation of the spiritual battle as priestly service given within the Dead Sea Scrolls concerning events for the seventh Covenant Age. Commencing the first year. The first line of this fragmentary work lists the priestly families, or courses that begins each quarter of the year:--"[At the beginning of the first year, the course of Gamul is serving; in the second is Jedaiah, in the third is Mijamin, in the fourth is Shecaniah, in the fifth is Jeshebe]ab, and in the sixth is Happizzez. These are the heads of the years: [In] the first [year,] Gamul, Eliash[ib,] Maaziah, [and Huppah. In the] second year, Jedaiah, Bilgah, Se[o]rim, and He[zir.] [In the third year, Mijam]in, Pethahiah, Abi[jah, and Jachin] [In the fourth year, Shecaniah, De]laiah, Jakim, and Jehoia[rib. In the fifth year, [Jeshebeab, Harim, Immer,] and Malchijah. In the si[xth year, Happizzez, Hakkoz, Jehezkel, and Jeshua.]" [Priestly Service as the Seasons (Ages) Change (4Q328-4Q329 Mishmerot F)]
|
The Prophetic Priestly Service for the Last Age
(Gamul) "Casting of Lots - According to Divine
Election" | ||||||||||
|
LOTS/COVENANT
AGES |
Qtr 1 Zadok - Righteous [Priest's Portion] |
Qtr 2 |
Qtr 3 |
Qtr 4 Ahimelech - My brother is King [Levite's Portion] |
5 |
6 Eleazar - God has helped [Israel's Portion] |
7 Ithamar - Coast of palms [Proselyte's Portion] | |||
|
WAY OF THE RIGHTEOUS |
Gamul - Ripen/Rewarded [Psalm 22] |
Jedaiah -
Jehovah has
known [Psalm 2] |
Mijamin - From the right hand [Psalm 6] |
Shecaniah - Dweller with Jehovah [Psalm 10] |
Jeshebeab -
The people will return [Psalm 14] |
Happizzez
{Vulgate as Aphses} - Dispersive, disserver, the shattered one [Psalm 18] |
"...How shall we sing the Lord's song in a foreign land? If I forget you O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her skill! If I do not remember you, let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth--If I do not exalt Jerusalem above my chief joy. Remember, O LORD, against the sons of Edom the day of Jerusalem, who said, 'Raze it, raze, to its very foundation!' O daughter of Babylon, who to be destroyed, happy shall he be who repays you as you have served us! Happy shall he be who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock." [Psalm 137:4-9] | |||
|
TORAH |
To Battle - Cry Out (Sha'al) To allow oneself to be enquired of, consulted (only of God) Truth of
God [Nehemiah 9:4] |
Eliashib - God restores [Psalm 11] |
Bilgah - Cheerfulness |
Pethahiah - Freed by Jehovah [Psalm 19] |
Delaiah - Jehovah has drawn [Psalm 23] |
Harim - Dedicated |
Hakkoz - Thorn | |||
|
Near Battle - Direction (Yadah) To be sought, be sought out Right Hand of
God [Nehemiah 9:6] |
Maaziah - Consolation of Jehovah [Psalm 24] |
Seorim - Barley [Psalm 4] |
Abijah - Jehovah is (my) father [Psalm 8] |
Jakim - He
will raise [Psalm 12] |
Immer - He
hath said |
Jehezkel - God strengthens | ||||
|
From Battle - Honor (Shachah) To be required (of blood) Exaltation of
God [Nehemiah 9:5] |
Huppah - Canopy [Psalm 13] |
Hezir - Swine [Psalm 17] |
Jachin - He will
establish [Psalm 21] |
Jehoiarib - Jehovah contends [Psalm 1]
|
Malchijah - My king is Jehovah [Psalm 5] |
Jeshua - He is saved [Psalm 9] | ||||
It appears that the Yahad Community's primary wisdom/prophetic concern was for the children of Israel to anticipate the Lord's portion as the manifest of the Shekinah glory amongst the proselytes. Moses' wisdom/prophetic depiction of the blessings upon the twelve tribes convey this as a unified principle: "And of Gad he said: 'Blessed is he who enlarges Gad; He dwells as a lion, and tears the arm and the crown of his head. He provided the first part for himself, because a law-giver's portion was reserved there. He came with the heads of the people; He administered the justice of the Lord, and his judgments with Israel.'" [Deuteronomy 33:20-21]
Libertarius
===>That is a totally anachronistic statement. Of course today's useage is only
idiomatic. But the idioms have been INHERITED from people who in THOSE DAYS
actually PERCEIVED that cosmological picture and BELIEVED that that was the way
it was. Besides, there is nothing
"Idiomatic" about the Genesis 1 description of the dome over the earth and the
sun, moon and stars being affixed to that dome. Throughout biblical times
writers believed that picture, that is why they predict the falling to earth of
stars, and that is why modern astronomy was resisted so strongly by the
Christian Church.
Stanton D Summay wrote:
> No the problem is that I have yet to have someone actually show me this flat
> earth model in the Bible. They take an idiomatic sentence and try to assert
> it as a factual statement, even though they themselves use the same phrase
> today.
>
> Libertarius <wher...@seekandlearn.com> wrote in message
> news:37D3FF44...@seekandlearn.com...
> > ===>No. Astronomy has contradicted the flat earth model found throughout
> > the
> > literature contained in the Bible, yet people still keep trying to prove
> > that
> > there is no conflict between astronomy and the Bible.
> >
> > mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
> >
> > > In soc.culture.jewish on Sun, 05 Sep 1999 10:36:03 -0600 Libertarius
> > > <wak...@reality.org> posted:
> > >
> > > >Miriam wrote:
> > >
> > > >> The second point, that the Universe might not need God to
> > > >> maintain its existence, is something probably outside of the
> > > >> realm of science to assert or deny. It is, in fact, a foundational
> > > >> belief of Judaism, and discussed at length in Kabbalistic
> > > >> literature, that the Universe requires constant creative energy
> > > >> from God to exist, or else it would instantly revert back to
> > > >> nothingness[4]. We base this partly on the verse from the
> > > >> prayer book which tells us that "In His goodness He renews each
> > > >> day, continuously, the work of Creation[5]." Unless physics could
> > > >> prove this to be untrue, it could not create a conflict between
> > > >> our faith and Big Bang theory[6].
> > >
> > > >===>Come on, Miriam! Unless biology can prove that there are no pink
> > > >unicorns, there must be some?
> > >
Libertarius
> Once again Libertarius you put the horse before the cart.
>
> The reason the Catholic Church held to these beliefs is because they were
> utilising a neo-platonic (pythagoran) model on which they placed
> Christianised sematics. Its called schalisticism and is not unlike the
> sophistry you readily promote through disinformation.
===>What is "schalisticism"? Never heard of it, so how could I be promoting it?
Anyway, you have never yet been able to prove that the information I post
is "disinformation" in ANY sense of that word.
> I've heard it said that we don't have to worry too much about end times. It
> will follow it's own course. That our relationship with god will be our only
> sanctuary. That the reality of a 6000 year week concludes on Saturday, 1
> January, 2000 is only just the beginning of troubles. It is evidence that a
> Hebrew/Christian cosmology, ontology and epistemology, as a metaphysical
> architecture, has been misrepresented by the placement of
> hebraic/christianised semantics over the top of a known pagan metaphysical
> architecture.
===>You are attempting to bedazzle your audience by compounding of multisyllabic
vocabulary, but if anyone endeavored to analyze their semantic validity, it
would be apodictic
that it is just an agglomeration of rodomontade.
> Your well is dry!
>
> --
>
> Dolf Boek
>
> Winner: 1997 Rainbow Community Award - "Leadership by gay male"
> Author: 'The Sodomite Prophecy' http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek
> Email: dolf...@bigpond.com
> ICQ Pager: 377...@pager.mirabilis.com
>
> What's my religion? God described it as, 'Seek ye my face...'
>
vernon o
Stanton D Summay <ssu...@mis.net> wrote in message
news:7r1sak$785$1...@nd.eastky.net...
> No the problem is that I have yet to have someone actually show me this
flat
> earth model in the Bible. They take an idiomatic sentence and try to
assert
> it as a factual statement, even though they themselves use the same phrase
> today.
You are way over the intellectuall's heads when you speak of idiomatics or
symbolism. They will stand and argue for hours when someone says they went
to the four corners of the earth. They go balistic when NASA speaks of the
four corners of the universe.
They just lurk around the Christian N.Gs to troll.
>
> Libertarius <wher...@seekandlearn.com> wrote in message
> news:37D3FF44...@seekandlearn.com...
> > ===>No. Astronomy has contradicted the flat earth model found throughout
> > the
> > literature contained in the Bible, yet people still keep trying to prove
> > that
> > there is no conflict between astronomy and the Bible.
> >
> > mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
> >
> > > In soc.culture.jewish on Sun, 05 Sep 1999 10:36:03 -0600 Libertarius
> > > <wak...@reality.org> posted:
> > >
> > > >Miriam wrote:
> > >
> > > >> The second point, that the Universe might not need God to
> > > >> maintain its existence, is something probably outside of the
> > > >> realm of science to assert or deny. It is, in fact, a foundational
> > > >> belief of Judaism, and discussed at length in Kabbalistic
> > > >> literature, that the Universe requires constant creative energy
> > > >> from God to exist, or else it would instantly revert back to
> > > >> nothingness[4]. We base this partly on the verse from the
> > > >> prayer book which tells us that "In His goodness He renews each
> > > >> day, continuously, the work of Creation[5]." Unless physics could
> > > >> prove this to be untrue, it could not create a conflict between
> > > >> our faith and Big Bang theory[6].
> > >
> > > >===>Come on, Miriam! Unless biology can prove that there are no pink
> > > >unicorns, there must be some?
> > >
Libertarius
> In soc.culture.jewish on Mon, 06 Sep 1999 11:52:06 -0600 Libertarius
> <wher...@seekandlearn.com> posted:
>
> >===>No. Astronomy has contradicted the flat earth model found throughout
> >the
> >literature contained in the Bible, yet people still keep trying to prove
> >that
> >there is no conflict between astronomy and the Bible.
>
> Why are you bringing up astronomy. She was talking about creation of
> the world vs. the Big Bang.
===>I know that. My point was directed at the continued effort at biblicists,
Jews as well as Christians, to reconcile the biblical view of the world with
what we know from scientific observation. The biblical view is no more
related to the "Big Bang" theory than the flat earth cosmology with its
geocentric world views to what we know of the solar system.
> Any conflict between astronomy and the bible which didn't involve the
> big bang, as flat earth doesn't, would be irrelevant to her topic.
===>The relevance is pointed out above.
> BTW, there is nothing in the Jewish Bible that says the Earth is flat.
> I don't know about other Bibles or holy books.
===>The flat-earth cosmology is found throughout what you call the
"Jewish Bible", i.e. the Tanakh. E.g. Genesis 1, Isaiah 40:22,23, etc.
>
>
> >mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>
> >> In soc.culture.jewish on Sun, 05 Sep 1999 10:36:03 -0600 Libertarius
> >> <wak...@reality.org> posted:
> >>
> >> >Miriam wrote:
> >>
> >> >> The second point, that the Universe might not need God to
> >> >> maintain its existence, is something probably outside of the
> >> >> realm of science to assert or deny. It is, in fact, a foundational
> >> >> belief of Judaism, and discussed at length in Kabbalistic
> >> >> literature, that the Universe requires constant creative energy
> >> >> from God to exist, or else it would instantly revert back to
> >> >> nothingness[4]. We base this partly on the verse from the
> >> >> prayer book which tells us that "In His goodness He renews each
> >> >> day, continuously, the work of Creation[5]." Unless physics could
> >> >> prove this to be untrue, it could not create a conflict between
> >> >> our faith and Big Bang theory[6].
> >>
> >> >===>Come on, Miriam! Unless biology can prove that there are no pink
> >> >unicorns, there must be some?
> >>
Libertarius
> In soc.culture.jewish on Tue, 07 Sep 1999 12:47:21 -0600 Libertarius
> <wher...@seekandlearn.com> posted:
>
> >===>That is a totally anachronistic statement. Of course today's useage is only
> >idiomatic. But the idioms have been INHERITED from people who in THOSE DAYS
> >actually PERCEIVED that cosmological picture and BELIEVED that that was the way
> >it was. Besides, there is nothing
> >"Idiomatic" about the Genesis 1 description of the dome
>
> Why do you say that? Because a lot of people in medieval days thought
> there was a physical dome. That's not the word in the KJV, and I've
> never seen a Jewish translation that uses that word. The original is
> rokiya, which Langenscheidt, a gentile, translates vault of heaven,
> firmament, sky.
===>Langenscheidt notwithstanding, the New English Bible translates it
as "a vault", the KJV as "a firmament", the GNB as "a dome", and others
as "an expanse". Any way you call it, it is something found above the
flat disk (Isaiah) of the earth, upon which were affixed ("set", "put", "placed",
etc.) the Sun, the Moon and the stars.
>
> The current Hebrew word is kippah but I doubt there was a word at that
> time since IIUC the Greeks invented the arch and the Romans invented
> the dome more than a thousand years after G-d gave the Torah.
>
> >over the earth and the
> >sun, moon and stars being affixed to that dome. Throughout biblical times
> >writers believed that picture, that is why they predict the falling to earth of
> >stars,
>
> How do you know the first
===>From the Joshua story, the Isaiah reference, and from the second.
> and what exactly is written which is the second.
===>The "signs of the times"--stars falling from the sky.
>
> >and that is why modern astronomy was resisted so strongly by the
> >Christian Church.
>
> I don't know and can't account for the Church's behaviour. But you
> yourself are saying some of them misunderstood the physical truth.
===>They did have not "misunderstood". They went by the teaching of the
literature in the Bible, which had been proclaimed to have come from "God".
> So
> maybe the same people misunderstood what the Bible says too.
===>What is there to "misunderstand"?
> >Stanton D Summay wrote:
>
> >> No the problem is that I have yet to have someone actually show me this flat
> >> earth model in the Bible. They take an idiomatic sentence and try to assert
> >> it as a factual statement, even though they themselves use the same phrase
> >> today.
[SNIPALOT]
Dolf Boek
The reason the Catholic Church held to these beliefs is because they were
utilising a neo-platonic (pythagoran) model on which they placed
Christianised sematics. Its called schalisticism and is not unlike the
sophistry you readily promote through disinformation.
I've heard it said that we don't have to worry too much about end times. It
will follow it's own course. That our relationship with god will be our only
sanctuary. That the reality of a 6000 year week concludes on Saturday, 1
January, 2000 is only just the beginning of troubles. It is evidence that a
Hebrew/Christian cosmology, ontology and epistemology, as a metaphysical
architecture, has been misrepresented by the placement of
hebraic/christianised semantics over the top of a known pagan metaphysical
architecture.
In such circumstances, and with great ingenuity, it is possible to give the
Your well is dry!
--
Dolf Boek
Libertarius <wher...@seekandlearn.com> wrote:
That is a totally anachronistic statement. Of course today's useage is only
idiomatic. But the idioms have been INHERITED from people who in THOSE DAYS
actually PERCEIVED that cosmological picture and BELIEVED that that was the
way it was. Besides, there is nothing "Idiomatic" about the Genesis 1
description of the dome over the earth and the sun, moon and stars being
affixed to that dome. Throughout biblical times writers believed that
picture, that is why they predict the falling to earth of stars, and that is
mei...@qqqerols.com
<wher...@seekandlearn.com> posted:
>===>No. Astronomy has contradicted the flat earth model found throughout
>the
>literature contained in the Bible, yet people still keep trying to prove
>that
>there is no conflict between astronomy and the Bible.
Why are you bringing up astronomy. She was talking about creation of
the world vs. the Big Bang.
Any conflict between astronomy and the bible which didn't involve the
big bang, as flat earth doesn't, would be irrelevant to her topic.
BTW, there is nothing in the Jewish Bible that says the Earth is flat.
I don't know about other Bibles or holy books.
>mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>> In soc.culture.jewish on Sun, 05 Sep 1999 10:36:03 -0600 Libertarius
>> <wak...@reality.org> posted:
>>
>> >Miriam wrote:
>>
>> >> The second point, that the Universe might not need God to
>> >> maintain its existence, is something probably outside of the
>> >> realm of science to assert or deny. It is, in fact, a foundational
>> >> belief of Judaism, and discussed at length in Kabbalistic
>> >> literature, that the Universe requires constant creative energy
>> >> from God to exist, or else it would instantly revert back to
>> >> nothingness[4]. We base this partly on the verse from the
>> >> prayer book which tells us that "In His goodness He renews each
>> >> day, continuously, the work of Creation[5]." Unless physics could
>> >> prove this to be untrue, it could not create a conflict between
>> >> our faith and Big Bang theory[6].
>>
>> >===>Come on, Miriam! Unless biology can prove that there are no pink
>> >unicorns, there must be some?
>>
mei...@qqqerols.com
<wher...@seekandlearn.com> posted:
>===>That is a totally anachronistic statement. Of course today's useage is only
>idiomatic. But the idioms have been INHERITED from people who in THOSE DAYS
>actually PERCEIVED that cosmological picture and BELIEVED that that was the way
>it was. Besides, there is nothing
>"Idiomatic" about the Genesis 1 description of the dome
Why do you say that? Because a lot of people in medieval days thought
there was a physical dome. That's not the word in the KJV, and I've
never seen a Jewish translation that uses that word. The original is
rokiya, which Langenscheidt, a gentile, translates vault of heaven,
firmament, sky.
The current Hebrew word is kippah but I doubt there was a word at that
time since IIUC the Greeks invented the arch and the Romans invented
the dome more than a thousand years after G-d gave the Torah.
>over the earth and the
>sun, moon and stars being affixed to that dome. Throughout biblical times
>writers believed that picture, that is why they predict the falling to earth of
>stars,
How do you know the first and what exactly is written which is the
second.
>and that is why modern astronomy was resisted so strongly by the
>Christian Church.
I don't know and can't account for the Church's behaviour. But you
yourself are saying some of them misunderstood the physical truth. So
maybe the same people misunderstood what the Bible says too.
>Stanton D Summay wrote:
>> No the problem is that I have yet to have someone actually show me this flat
>> earth model in the Bible. They take an idiomatic sentence and try to assert
>> it as a factual statement, even though they themselves use the same phrase
>> today.
>>
>> Libertarius <wher...@seekandlearn.com> wrote in message
>> news:37D3FF44...@seekandlearn.com...
>> > ===>No. Astronomy has contradicted the flat earth model found throughout
>> > the
>> > literature contained in the Bible, yet people still keep trying to prove
>> > that
>> > there is no conflict between astronomy and the Bible.
>> >
>> > mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > In soc.culture.jewish on Sun, 05 Sep 1999 10:36:03 -0600 Libertarius
>> > > <wak...@reality.org> posted:
>> > >
>> > > >Miriam wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >> The second point, that the Universe might not need God to
>> > > >> maintain its existence, is something probably outside of the
>> > > >> realm of science to assert or deny. It is, in fact, a foundational
>> > > >> belief of Judaism, and discussed at length in Kabbalistic
>> > > >> literature, that the Universe requires constant creative energy
>> > > >> from God to exist, or else it would instantly revert back to
>> > > >> nothingness[4]. We base this partly on the verse from the
>> > > >> prayer book which tells us that "In His goodness He renews each
>> > > >> day, continuously, the work of Creation[5]." Unless physics could
>> > > >> prove this to be untrue, it could not create a conflict between
>> > > >> our faith and Big Bang theory[6].
>> > >
>> > > >===>Come on, Miriam! Unless biology can prove that there are no pink
>> > > >unicorns, there must be some?
>> > >
Dolf Boek
What is "schalisticism"? Never heard of it, so how could I be promoting it?
Anyway, you have never yet been able to prove that the information I post is
"disinformation" in ANY sense of that word.
DOLF BOEK RESPOND:
Truly, ignorant are those who being ignorant, beget ignorance and think it
is anything but ignorance.
mei...@qqqerols.com
<wak...@reality.org> posted:
>mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>> In soc.culture.jewish on Tue, 07 Sep 1999 12:47:21 -0600 Libertarius
>> <wher...@seekandlearn.com> posted:
>>
>> >===>That is a totally anachronistic statement. Of course today's useage is only
>> >idiomatic. But the idioms have been INHERITED from people who in THOSE DAYS
>> >actually PERCEIVED that cosmological picture and BELIEVED that that was the way
>> >it was. Besides, there is nothing
>> >"Idiomatic" about the Genesis 1 description of the dome
>>
>> Why do you say that? Because a lot of people in medieval days thought
>> there was a physical dome. That's not the word in the KJV, and I've
>> never seen a Jewish translation that uses that word. The original is
>> rokiya, which Langenscheidt, a gentile, translates vault of heaven,
>> firmament, sky.
>===>Langenscheidt notwithstanding, the New English Bible translates it
>as "a vault", the KJV as "a firmament", the GNB as "a dome", and others
>as "an expanse". Any way you call it, it is something found above the
None of these except dome have any connotation of hardness to me.
Even dome only has that connotation because I have seen many hard
domes, but if the translator was only trying to capture the shape of a
dome, as there is both the arch made of stone over a doorway and the
arch of an arrow in flight, one that is hard and one that is only a
shape, I can see the translation 'dome'. Expanse certainly no
connotation of hard; and vault is defined in one of my dictionaries as
the sky as a vault like canopy. I believe you that people didn't
always see it that way, and I though Dolf used a lot of big words too,
but his point was valid, that the meanings we hear about weren't
necessarily the meaning that God conveyed at Sinai. I don't think
they were.
>flat disk (Isaiah) of the earth, upon which were affixed ("set", "put", "placed",
>etc.) the Sun, the Moon and the stars.
"Affixed" sounds a lot more "fixed" than the other three. I have no
problem with the other three. There there aren't they. God set them
them there and started them spinning and moving at the same time.
The Hebrew is vayitain. Strong says the root in the Hebrew Bible is
translated give 1078 times, put 191, deliver 174, made 107, set 99, up
26, lay 22, grant 21, suffer 18, etc. total 2008 occurrences. I would
much prefer a Jewish count but it would probably be similar (although
I can't figure out how or know where it is translated 'up' or if a
Jewish translation would use that word.) I don't have a Jewish summary
available. The essence of the word seems to be the transfer, the
delivery, and it has no connotation of being fixed after delivery.
>>
>> The current Hebrew word is kippah but I doubt there was a word at that
>> time since IIUC the Greeks invented the arch and the Romans invented
>> the dome more than a thousand years after G-d gave the Torah.
>>
>> >over the earth and the
>> >sun, moon and stars being affixed to that dome. Throughout biblical times
>> >writers believed that picture, that is why they predict the falling to earth of
>> >stars,
>>
>> How do you know the first
>===>From the Joshua story, the Isaiah reference, and from the second.
I don't deny that people at the time may have read these words in
terms of the scientific (or unscientific) beliefs at the time. But
the meanings aren't in the text. Rokiya doesn't mean a solid dome, it
means what is actually there. Vayitain doesn't mean affix so that
that it is not moving (I mean the moon and the stars were obviously
moving. From the point of view of the earth, so is the sun.)
>> and what exactly is written which is the second.
>===>The "signs of the times"--stars falling from the sky.
Can't find this one.
>>
>> >and that is why modern astronomy was resisted so strongly by the
>> >Christian Church.
>>
>> I don't know and can't account for the Church's behaviour. But you
>> yourself are saying some of them misunderstood the physical truth.
>===>They did have not "misunderstood". They went by the teaching of the
>literature in the Bible, which had been proclaimed to have come from "God".
The words do come from G-d, but not everyone always understands them.
>> So
>> maybe the same people misunderstood what the Bible says too.
>===>What is there to "misunderstand"?
You and I have different views on what the words mean.
>> >Stanton D Summay wrote:
>>
>> >> No the problem is that I have yet to have someone actually show me this flat
>> >> earth model in the Bible. They take an idiomatic sentence and try to assert
>> >> it as a factual statement, even though they themselves use the same phrase
>> >> today.
> [SNIPALOT]
mei...@qqqerols.com
<wak...@reality.org> posted:
>mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>> In soc.culture.jewish on Mon, 06 Sep 1999 11:52:06 -0600 Libertarius
>> <wher...@seekandlearn.com> posted:
>>
>> >===>No. Astronomy has contradicted the flat earth model found throughout
>> >the
>> >literature contained in the Bible, yet people still keep trying to prove
>> >that
>> >there is no conflict between astronomy and the Bible.
>>
>> Why are you bringing up astronomy. She was talking about creation of
>> the world vs. the Big Bang.
>===>I know that. My point was directed at the continued effort at biblicists,
OK but I would have settled for an answer to:
"Unless 'biology' can prove there are no pink unicorns, there is no
conflict between belief in biology and belief in pink unicorns.
Is that statement acceptable to you?"
We're off that topic now without having resolved it.
>Jews as well as Christians, to reconcile the biblical view of the world with
>what we know from scientific observation. The biblical view is no more
>related to the "Big Bang" theory than the flat earth cosmology with its
>geocentric world views to what we know of the solar system.
Miriam's point was only that Big Bang and Biblical Creation were not
imcompatible. If they're not related, that would be consistent with
"not incompatible". You really wanted to talk about this other stuff
I think.
>> Any conflict between astronomy and the bible which didn't involve the
>> big bang, as flat earth doesn't, would be irrelevant to her topic.
>===>The relevance is pointed out above.
You lost me. Relevant to her topic? the compatibility of the Big
Bang with Biblical Creation? She made a modest claim. I'm not going
to try to make a greater one.
>> BTW, there is nothing in the Jewish Bible that says the Earth is flat.
>> I don't know about other Bibles or holy books.
>===>The flat-earth cosmology is found throughout what you call the
>"Jewish Bible", i.e. the Tanakh. E.g. Genesis 1, Isaiah 40:22,23, etc.
I was avoiding Hebrew for those who may not know it. In English the
term is Jewish Bible. I've seen various examples reviewed before, and
I repeat that nothing in the Jewish Bible says the earth is flat.
Genesis 1 we're talking about in the other thread, and afaicr that
only refers to the vault of heaven, not flatness of earth.
There is sometimes a discrepancy of a verse or two and I don't have an
Xian version handy, but Isaiah 40:22 looks like one you might mean.
It refers to the circle of earth. It also says next 'the inhabitants
thereof are as grasshoppers, that stretch out the heavens as a
curtain, and spread them out as a tent to dwell in." It's poetry.
I can't find anything in 23 or 24 that looks like what you mean
>>
>>
>> >mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>>
>> >> In soc.culture.jewish on Sun, 05 Sep 1999 10:36:03 -0600 Libertarius
>> >> <wak...@reality.org> posted:
>> >>
>> >> >Miriam wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> The second point, that the Universe might not need God to
>> >> >> maintain its existence, is something probably outside of the
>> >> >> realm of science to assert or deny. It is, in fact, a foundational
>> >> >> belief of Judaism, and discussed at length in Kabbalistic
>> >> >> literature, that the Universe requires constant creative energy
>> >> >> from God to exist, or else it would instantly revert back to
>> >> >> nothingness[4]. We base this partly on the verse from the
>> >> >> prayer book which tells us that "In His goodness He renews each
>> >> >> day, continuously, the work of Creation[5]." Unless physics could
>> >> >> prove this to be untrue, it could not create a conflict between
>> >> >> our faith and Big Bang theory[6].
>> >>
>> >> >===>Come on, Miriam! Unless biology can prove that there are no pink
>> >> >unicorns, there must be some?
>> >>
>> >> Although I know she thinks so, she didn't say here that any Jewish
>> >> belief was true. The point of the whole post was to show the lack of
>> >> conflict between (at least one Jewish view of) Judaism and the Big
>> >> Bang. No one bases his belief in Judaism on lack of conflict, either
>> >> before or since the Big Bang was theorized. There are loads of things
>> >> that don't conflict with things that might be true. Lack of conflict
>> >> is not enough to cause someone to believe in something.
>> >>
>> >> Unless 'biology' can prove there are no pink unicorns, there is no
>> >> conflict between belief in biology and belief in pink unicorns.
>> >> Is that statement acceptable to you?
>> >>
Libertarius
> In soc.culture.jewish on Tue, 07 Sep 1999 21:28:01 -0600 Libertarius
> <wak...@reality.org> posted:
>
> >mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>
> >> In soc.culture.jewish on Tue, 07 Sep 1999 12:47:21 -0600 Libertarius
> >> <wher...@seekandlearn.com> posted:
> >>
===>No one said anything about the "dome", etc.
being "hard". Anyway,
the image had nothing to do with Sinai.
>
>
> >flat disk (Isaiah) of the earth, upon which were affixed ("set", "put", "placed",
> >etc.) the Sun, the Moon and the stars.
>
> "Affixed" sounds a lot more "fixed" than the other three. I have no
> problem with the other three. There there aren't they. God set them
> them there and started them spinning and moving at the same time.
===>There is nothing there about any "spinning".
As for "moving", that is
at least implied by the Joshua story.
> The Hebrew is vayitain. Strong says the root in the Hebrew Bible is
> translated give 1078 times, put 191, deliver 174, made 107, set 99, up
> 26, lay 22, grant 21, suffer 18, etc. total 2008 occurrences. I would
> much prefer a Jewish count but it would probably be similar (although
> I can't figure out how or know where it is translated 'up' or if a
> Jewish translation would use that word.) I don't have a Jewish summary
> available. The essence of the word seems to be the transfer, the
> delivery, and it has no connotation of being fixed after delivery.
>
> >>
> >> The current Hebrew word is kippah but I doubt there was a word at that
> >> time since IIUC the Greeks invented the arch and the Romans invented
> >> the dome more than a thousand years after G-d gave the Torah.
> >>
> >> >over the earth and the
> >> >sun, moon and stars being affixed to that dome. Throughout biblical times
> >> >writers believed that picture, that is why they predict the falling to earth of
> >> >stars,
> >>
> >> How do you know the first
>
> >===>From the Joshua story, the Isaiah reference, and from the second.
>
> I don't deny that people at the time may have read these words in
> terms of the scientific (or unscientific) beliefs at the time. But
> the meanings aren't in the text. Rokiya doesn't mean a solid dome, it
> means what is actually there.
===>It had to be pretty solid if its primary
function was to retain the waters
of the sky and separate it from the waters below,
as Genesis one describes.
> Vayitain doesn't mean affix so that
> that it is not moving (I mean the moon and the stars were obviously
> moving. From the point of view of the earth, so is the sun.)
>
> >> and what exactly is written which is the second.
>
> >===>The "signs of the times"--stars falling from the sky.
>
> Can't find this one.
===>It is in the "New Testament" (Christian
emendation).
>
> >>
> >> >and that is why modern astronomy was resisted so strongly by the
> >> >Christian Church.
> >>
> >> I don't know and can't account for the Church's behaviour. But you
> >> yourself are saying some of them misunderstood the physical truth.
>
> >===>They did have not "misunderstood". They went by the teaching of the
> >literature in the Bible, which had been proclaimed to have come from "God".
>
> The words do come from G-d, but not everyone always understands them.
===>That is the mistaken assertion. In fact the
words came from some writers compiled
in the Bible collection.
> >> So
> >> maybe the same people misunderstood what the Bible says too.
>
> >===>What is there to "misunderstand"?
>
> You and I have different views on what the words mean.
===>You guys are deliberately reading into those
words something that isn't there:
i.e. the modern heliocentric cosmology. You are
motivated by the mistaken belief
that those words came from "God", so they mustn't
be inaccurate, but in fact they
came from MEN and ARE inaccurate from the modern
cosmological point of view.
Libertarius
> In soc.culture.jewish on Wed, 08 Sep 1999 08:10:23 -0600 Libertarius
> Below you say it is solid. See how easy it is to misunderstand shades
> of meanings in words.
> >>
> >>
> >> >flat disk (Isaiah) of the earth, upon which were affixed ("set", "put", "placed",
> >> >etc.) the Sun, the Moon and the stars.
> >>
> >> "Affixed" sounds a lot more "fixed" than the other three. I have no
> >> problem with the other three. There there aren't they. God set them
> >> them there and started them spinning and moving at the same time.
>
> >===>There is nothing there about any "spinning".
> >As for "moving", that is
> >at least implied by the Joshua story.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that 'spinning' was in the text. What I meant
> was that nothing in the text said that they were fixed in their
> position and that when they were set there, God then started them
> spinning and moving. The text would be 1000's of times longer if it
> included everything.
> I guess now we could discuss what mayim means. :)
>
> >> Vayitain doesn't mean affix so that
> >> that it is not moving (I mean the moon and the stars were obviously
> >> moving. From the point of view of the earth, so is the sun.)
> >>
> >> >> and what exactly is written which is the second.
> >>
> >> >===>The "signs of the times"--stars falling from the sky.
> >>
> >> Can't find this one.
>
> >===>It is in the "New Testament" (Christian
> >emendation).
>
> Right.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> >and that is why modern astronomy was resisted so strongly by the
> >> >> >Christian Church.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't know and can't account for the Church's behaviour. But you
> >> >> yourself are saying some of them misunderstood the physical truth.
> >>
> >> >===>They did have not "misunderstood". They went by the teaching of the
> >> >literature in the Bible, which had been proclaimed to have come from "God".
> >>
> >> The words do come from G-d, but not everyone always understands them.
>
> >===>That is the mistaken assertion. In fact the
> >words came from some writers compiled
> >in the Bible collection.
>
> That is the mistaken assertion. In fact the words came from G-d.
>
> >> >> So
> >> >> maybe the same people misunderstood what the Bible says too.
> >>
> >> >===>What is there to "misunderstand"?
> >>
> >> You and I have different views on what the words mean.
>
> >===>You guys are deliberately reading into those
> >words something that isn't there:
> >i.e. the modern heliocentric cosmology. You are
>
> I didn't say anything about heliocentric. In fact I said from earth
> the sun appears to be moving, and nothing about what it looks like
> from a distance.
>
> >motivated by the mistaken belief
> >that those words came from "God", so they mustn't
> >be inaccurate, but in fact they
> >came from MEN and ARE inaccurate from the modern
> >cosmological point of view.
>
> You are motivated by the mistaken belief that those words come from
> "Man", so they could easily be wrong, but in fact they came from GOD
> and ARE accurate when read with the meaning intended.
===>And, of course, you know who or what "God" is, and how that "God" happened
to write those words, and, naturally, you know what "the meaning intended" was.
Libertarius
> Libertarius <wak...@reality.org> wrote:
> And, of course, you know who or what "God" is, and how that "God" happened
> to write those words, and, naturally, you know what "the meaning intended"
> was.
>
> DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
> That generally is what is implied by the term: God's Elect.
>
===>Which, in turn, throughout history, has always implied a huge dose of
arrogance,
often expressed in intolerance, hatred and cruelty toward those who are
"non-elect",
i.e. in some ways "different". Another word for it is "godliness".
The truth is, people create their own "God(s)", and declare themselves
his/her
"elect" in order to justify their actions.
Oh, well....
ed
mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
> >flat disk (Isaiah) of the earth, upon which were affixed ("set", "put", "placed",
> >etc.) the Sun, the Moon and the stars.
>
> "Affixed" sounds a lot more "fixed" than the other three. I have no
> problem with the other three. There there aren't they. God set them
> them there and started them spinning and moving at the same time.
>
> The Hebrew is vayitain. Strong says the root in the Hebrew Bible is
> translated give 1078 times, put 191, deliver 174, made 107, set 99, up
> 26, lay 22, grant 21, suffer 18, etc. total 2008 occurrences. I would
> much prefer a Jewish count but it would probably be similar (although
> I can't figure out how or know where it is translated 'up' or if a
> Jewish translation would use that word.) I don't have a Jewish summary
> available. The essence of the word seems to be the transfer, the
> delivery, and it has no connotation of being fixed after delivery.
>
> >>
> >> The current Hebrew word is kippah but I doubt there was a word at that
> >> time since IIUC the Greeks invented the arch and the Romans invented
> >> the dome more than a thousand years after G-d gave the Torah.
> >>
> >> >over the earth and the
> >> >sun, moon and stars being affixed to that dome. Throughout biblical times
> >> >writers believed that picture, that is why they predict the falling to earth of
> >> >stars,
> >>
> >> How do you know the first
>
> >===>From the Joshua story, the Isaiah reference, and from the second.
>
> I don't deny that people at the time may have read these words in
> terms of the scientific (or unscientific) beliefs at the time. But
> the meanings aren't in the text. Rokiya doesn't mean a solid dome, it
> means what is actually there. Vayitain doesn't mean affix so that
> that it is not moving (I mean the moon and the stars were obviously
> moving. From the point of view of the earth, so is the sun.)
>
> >> and what exactly is written which is the second.
>
> >===>The "signs of the times"--stars falling from the sky.
>
> Can't find this one.
>
> >>
> >> >and that is why modern astronomy was resisted so strongly by the
> >> >Christian Church.
> >>
> >> I don't know and can't account for the Church's behaviour. But you
> >> yourself are saying some of them misunderstood the physical truth.
>
> >===>They did have not "misunderstood". They went by the teaching of the
> >literature in the Bible, which had been proclaimed to have come from "God".
>
> The words do come from G-d, but not everyone always understands them.
>
> >> So
> >> maybe the same people misunderstood what the Bible says too.
>
> >===>What is there to "misunderstand"?
>
> You and I have different views on what the words mean.
>
> >> >Stanton D Summay wrote:
> >>
> >> >> No the problem is that I have yet to have someone actually show me this flat
> >> >> earth model in the Bible. They take an idiomatic sentence and try to assert
> >> >> it as a factual statement, even though they themselves use the same phrase
> >> >> today.
>
> > [SNIPALOT]
>
Dolf Boek
You guys are deliberately reading into those words something that isn't
there: i.e. the modern heliocentric cosmology. You are motivated by the
mistaken belief that those words came from "God", so they mustn't be
inaccurate, but in fact they came from MEN and ARE inaccurate from the
modern cosmological point of view.
DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
The Apostle Paul appears to follow the Hebraic Wisdom/Prophetic tradition of
conveying a prophetic testimony within his benediction given in the 'Epistle
to the Romans'. Two individuals conveyed in the proclamation of blessing are
coincidentially named: 'Tryphena-luxurious' and 'Tryphosa-luxuriating'. That
being, they have their names derived from the word 'truphe'. Within the
Chapter: 'Good News to the Destitute - A Word Study on Malakos' the term
'malakos' is associated by Jesus with 'truphe' meaning: "To break, up or
figuratively enfeeble, especially the mind and body by indulgence;
effeminacy, ie. luxury or debauchery: delicately, riot."
If the Hebrew equivalent for 'malakos/truphe' is 'ng - 'oneg/'anag in
[Isaiah 58:13-14] and 'anog in [Deuteronomy 28:49-58 cf 54;56], the Apostle
Paul can be considered to have uttered a remarkable testimony against Greek
Gnosticism. And which is expressed in terms entirely consistent with Hebraic
Wisdom/Prophetic nomenclature: "Greet Tryphena-'luxurious' and
Tryphosa-'luxuriating', who have labored in the Lord. Greet the beloved
Persis-'a Persian woman', who labored much in the Lord. Greet Rufus-'red',
chosen-eklektos in the Lord, and his mother and mine. Greet
Asyncritus-'incomparable' [From 'sugkrino' meaning: 1) to joint together
fitly, compound, combine 2) to interpret 3) to compare], Phlegon-'burning
(flash/flame)', Hermas-'Mercury', Patrobas-'paternal', Hermes-'herald of the
gods', and the brethren who are with them. Greet Philologus-'lover of the
Word' and Julia-'soft haired', Nereus-'lump' [From 'naus' meaning 1) a ship,
vessel of considerable size] and his sister, and Olympas-'heavenly'
[probably a contraction from 'Olumpiodoros' (Olympian-bestowed, i.e.
heaven-descended)], and all the saints who are with them. Greet one another
with a holy kiss. The churches-ekklesia of Christ greet you." [Romans
16:12-16]
mei...@qqqerols.com
<wak...@reality.org> posted:
>mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
Below you say it is solid. See how easy it is to misunderstand shades
of meanings in words.
>>
>>
>> >flat disk (Isaiah) of the earth, upon which were affixed ("set", "put", "placed",
>> >etc.) the Sun, the Moon and the stars.
>>
>> "Affixed" sounds a lot more "fixed" than the other three. I have no
>> problem with the other three. There there aren't they. God set them
>> them there and started them spinning and moving at the same time.
>===>There is nothing there about any "spinning".
>As for "moving", that is
>at least implied by the Joshua story.
I didn't mean to imply that 'spinning' was in the text. What I meant
was that nothing in the text said that they were fixed in their
position and that when they were set there, God then started them
spinning and moving. The text would be 1000's of times longer if it
included everything.
>> The Hebrew is vayitain. Strong says the root in the Hebrew Bible is
I guess now we could discuss what mayim means. :)
>> Vayitain doesn't mean affix so that
>> that it is not moving (I mean the moon and the stars were obviously
>> moving. From the point of view of the earth, so is the sun.)
>>
>> >> and what exactly is written which is the second.
>>
>> >===>The "signs of the times"--stars falling from the sky.
>>
>> Can't find this one.
>===>It is in the "New Testament" (Christian
>emendation).
Right.
>> >>
>> >> >and that is why modern astronomy was resisted so strongly by the
>> >> >Christian Church.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know and can't account for the Church's behaviour. But you
>> >> yourself are saying some of them misunderstood the physical truth.
>>
>> >===>They did have not "misunderstood". They went by the teaching of the
>> >literature in the Bible, which had been proclaimed to have come from "God".
>>
>> The words do come from G-d, but not everyone always understands them.
>===>That is the mistaken assertion. In fact the
>words came from some writers compiled
>in the Bible collection.
That is the mistaken assertion. In fact the words came from G-d.
>> >> So
>> >> maybe the same people misunderstood what the Bible says too.
>>
>> >===>What is there to "misunderstand"?
>>
>> You and I have different views on what the words mean.
>===>You guys are deliberately reading into those
>words something that isn't there:
>i.e. the modern heliocentric cosmology. You are
I didn't say anything about heliocentric. In fact I said from earth
the sun appears to be moving, and nothing about what it looks like
from a distance.
>motivated by the mistaken belief
>that those words came from "God", so they mustn't
>be inaccurate, but in fact they
>came from MEN and ARE inaccurate from the modern
>cosmological point of view.
You are motivated by the mistaken belief that those words come from
"Man", so they could easily be wrong, but in fact they came from GOD
and ARE accurate when read with the meaning intended.
You can have the last word if you want.
Dolf Boek
And, of course, you know who or what "God" is, and how that "God" happened
to write those words, and, naturally, you know what "the meaning intended"
was.
DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
That generally is what is implied by the term: God's Elect.
The Secret Place - Key of David
[http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/keyofdavid.html]
Dolf Boek
Which, in turn, throughout history, has always implied a huge dose of
arrogance, often expressed in intolerance, hatred and cruelty toward those
who are "non-elect", i.e. in some ways "different". Another word for it is
"godliness". The truth is, people create their own "God(s)", and declare
themselves his/her "elect" in order to justify their actions.
DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
Certainly you speak the truth, but you fail to draw an obvious conclusion
from what Jesus of Nazareth spoke: 'For the ruler of this world is coming,
and he has nothing in Me.' [John 14:30]
Libertarius
> Libertarius <wak...@reality.org> wrote
> Which, in turn, throughout history, has always implied a huge dose of
> arrogance, often expressed in intolerance, hatred and cruelty toward those
> who are "non-elect", i.e. in some ways "different". Another word for it is
> "godliness". The truth is, people create their own "God(s)", and declare
> themselves his/her "elect" in order to justify their actions.
>
> DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
> Certainly you speak the truth, but you fail to draw an obvious conclusion
> from what Jesus of Nazareth spoke: 'For the ruler of this world is coming,
> and he has nothing in Me.' [John 14:30]
>
===>Jesus probably never said that, since that book was written some 6-7
decades after the crucifixion. Anyway, what would be the "obvious conclusion"
from that? Either the "God" of the Bible did exist and direct many of those
atrocities,
or the authors were lying or at least didn't know what they were talking
about.
Dolf Boek
Jesus probably never said that, since that book was written some 6-7 decades
after the crucifixion. Anyway, what would be the "obvious conclusion" from
that? Either the "God" of the Bible did exist and direct many of those
talking about.
DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
Let me state concisely what the problem is with your perspective and indeed
the same can be said for most world religions which are astrologically
based.
By observation you have learned to read signs and wonders, but you forget
one thing: The chronology which we speak of came into existance on the 4th
day of creation. Any systems of belief which depend on such projections
will shortly be regarded as idol worship.
When one calls oneself a Christian, one lays claim to the experience as the
Chosen-eklektos of God:--"Greet Rufus-'red', chosen-eklektos in the Lord,
and his mother and mine." [Romans 16:13]
Chosen-eklektos
1) picked out, chosen
1a) chosen by God,
1a1) to obtain salvation through Christ
1a1a) Christians are called "chosen or elect" of God
1a2) the Messiah in called "elect", as appointed by God to the most exalted
office conceivable
1a3) choice, select, i.e. the best of its kind or class, excellence
preeminent: applied to certain individual Christians
Example of Use:
"'Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the
same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own
things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?' So the last will be first,
and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen-eklektos." [Matthew
20:14-16]
Beginning-re'shiyth
1) first, beginning, best, chief
1b) first
1c) chief
1d) choice part
Example of Use:
"In the beginning-re'shiyth God created the heavens and the earth. The earth
was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And
the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said,
'Let there be light'; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it
was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light
Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were
the first day." [Genesis 1:1-5] 1a) beginning
Sadly, in the day when the Son of Man is revealed there will be many found
who have simply borrowed the name Christian, as the self proclaimed elect of
God:--"Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of
heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me
in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, cast out
demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?' And then, I will
declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice
lawlessness.'" [Matthew 7:21-23]
There is an expection within Hebraic wisdom/prophetic literature of a
predestined judgment, which as:--"...destruction shall come against all who
rebel against the proper way and who despise the law, until they are without
remnant or survivor." [The Damascus Document, Geniza A2:6-7]
Walter Bushell
> Libertarius <wak...@reality.org> wrote
> Which, in turn, throughout history, has always implied a huge dose of
> arrogance, often expressed in intolerance, hatred and cruelty toward those
> who are "non-elect", i.e. in some ways "different". Another word for it is
> "godliness". The truth is, people create their own "God(s)", and declare
> themselves his/her "elect" in order to justify their actions.
>
> DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
> Certainly you speak the truth, but you fail to draw an obvious conclusion
> from what Jesus of Nazareth spoke: 'For the ruler of this world is coming,
> and he has nothing in Me.' [John 14:30]
The *obvious* conclusion, since God is supream ruler over everything, is
Jesus is coping to being the anti-Christ. Hmm, he was a crowned king.
Dolf Boek
anticipated a falling away by humanity, until the Son of Perdition was
revealed.
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have
been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: 'Behold,
the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the
house of Israel and with the house of Judah--not according to the covenant
that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to
lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My
covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. For this is the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I
will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be
their God, and they shall be My people.
None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know
the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of
them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and
their lawless deeds I will remember no more.
In that He says, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what
is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." [Hebrews
8:7-13]
--
Dolf Boek
Winner: 1997 Rainbow Community Award - "Leadership by gay male"
Author: 'The Sodomite Prophecy' http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek
Email: dolf...@bigpond.com
ICQ Pager: 377...@pager.mirabilis.com
What's my religion? God described it as, 'Seek ye my face...'
DOLF BOEK INTIALLY WROTE::
Certainly you speak the truth, but you fail to draw an obvious conclusion
from what Jesus of Nazareth spoke: 'For the ruler of this world is coming,
and he has nothing in Me.' [John 14:30]
WALTER BUSHELL RESPONDED: