Drawing the line on the "Éden Garden" story?

[mitzi]

Let's start a new thread on this subject:

Tanakhkeeper, I don't believe (and in all honesty) and also from reading a few correction posts to you from Mordochai’s that you personally were not well informed about half the amount of information regarding the story of Gad Eden. Although I do not agree with Mordochai’s position regarding Satan verses what was not meant to be a Christian position but a view point in general. You then assumed a negative positions which lead to making several unnecessary remarks which by the way had no substance into the topic of your personal opinion-either, I yet to read a post from you that could be considered as a conversation.

When I asked Mordochai to explain further regarding the passage I was hoping to understand why his understanding (symbolically) of the serpent was not considered as “HaSatan” considering the fact that many articles, and commentaries list the creature within away that “leads” one to believe that it was…HaSatan as some have listed (especially from the articles listed)

Hebrew "haSatan" seems originally to have been the accuser, a title given to the prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court. He still has this character in the Book of Job. It is argued that the larger role of Satan and his identification with Lucifer, later associated with the snake in the garden of Eden, occurred during the period of the Babylonian captivity and subsequent exposure to Iranian beliefs.[3] Orthodox Jews still hold to the traditional view of haSatan being an accusing angel in the heavenly court.

Now reading from the above info, I had recalled within the “The King-Mashiyah” thread and especially the same info was given from the author Mordochai. It’s rather silly, isn’t Tanakh how you harp on the members for an answer, and yet two people gave it—

There was another thread listed on the board about the subject of Gad Eden.

[Mordochai]

"...the story of Gad Eden..."

The Hebrew word for a garden is גַּן gan, not "gad" - the first time you wrote "Gad Eden" I dismissed it as a typo, but I see you wrote the same again at the end of your post.


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


When I asked Mordochai to explain further regarding the passage I was hoping to understand why his understanding (symbolically) of the serpent was not considered as “HaSatan”.....

The snake in the Gan is definitely not any angel because it was going to have babies -

"So I am going to foster enmity between you and the woman, and between your descendants and her descendants; they will stomp on your head, but you will only be able to bite their feet." (B'réshit 3:15,)Angels don't have "descendants".


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


Hebrew "haSatan" seems originally to have been the accuser, a title given to the prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court. He still has this character in the Book of Job.

The "satan angel" is only mentioned in two places in the T'nach, one of which is the Parable of Iyov and the other is this brief passage in Z'charyah---


Then He showed me [a vision of] the Chief Kohen, Y'hoshua, standing in front of one of Adonai's angels, with the satan standing to his right waiting to prosecute him, and Adonai said to the satan, "Adonai is reprimanding you, the satan - Adonai who choses Y'rushalayim is reprimanding you - isn't this [man] like a glowing ember that has been salvaged from a fire?" (Z'charyah 3:1-2)
Thus here, too, the satan angel is the "prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court". This prophecy can even be dated, because Z'charyah wrote his book in Darius I's 2nd year (Z'charyah 1:1), i.e. 520BCE, which begs the question if the satan angel really rebelled against God and got itself thrown out of heaven as christians claim, what is it doing functioning as the prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court in 520BCE? When was it forgiven and reinstated?


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


It is argued that the larger role of Satan and his identification with Lucifer, later associated with the snake in the garden of Eden, occurred during the period of the Babylonian captivity and subsequent exposure to Iranian beliefs. Orthodox Jews still hold to the traditional view of haSatan being an accusing angel in the heavenly court.

Talk about mixing cultures - satan is a Hebrew word and the satan angel is a Hebrew concept (even if christianity turned it into something pagan and alien to Hebrew culture) and Lucifer (a Latin name), the "bringer of light", was a Roman demigod, i.e. the offspring of one of the gods (I don't recall which one) and a human female. The two are completely unconnected.

[sylvius]

The snake in the Gan is definitely not any angel because it was going to have babies

"So I am going to foster enmity between you and the woman, and between your descendants and her descendants; they will stomp on your head, but you will only be able to bite their feet." (B'réshit 3:15,)

Angels don't have "descendants".

you present a colored translation.

and that for a professor of Hebrew language and Tanach?


Hebrew:
וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב


first:
it talks about "seed", singular.

second:
same verb is used for to describe what the seed of the woman will do and
what the snake will do, "shuf", $WP.

third:
it says YOU will threaten (his heel), and not: your seed (or: your descendants) will threaten.

fourth:
it talks about heel, "akev", (QB, not about feet.

"akev" is a meaningful word, root of the name Ya'akov.

numerical value 172 -- like the number of words in the first version of the "Ten Utterances" in Exodus 20, words written on the tablets of stone "with the finger Gods".

[sylvius]

I made a terrible mistake
I must correct.


יְשׁוּפְךָ , "y'shufcha"-- he will crush you (the head)

is not from the same root as

תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ , "t'shufennu", you will bite his (heel)

first is from "shuf" = to crush, bruise, strike

second from "nashaf" = to blow, exhale; to hiss, sting.

Rashi: ;"since they constitute "a play on words" by sounding similar, they are both used here.'

[Mordochai]

you present a colored translation.
and that for a professor of Hebrew language and Tanach?
Hebrew:
וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב
first:
it talks about "seed", singular.

Not so. I chose my words very carefully and deliberately when I wrote that translation. In fact, זֶרַע zera can be found in five distinct senses in the T'nach, namely---


the 'seed' of a plant from which a new specimen can be cultivated - 27 cases
the time of year when crops can be sown - 2 cases
agricultural crops and grain - 11 cases
offspring or "progeny" - 182 cases
semen - 8 cases

The 182 instances out of the total of 230 in which זֶרַע zera means "offspring" or "progeny" can be further subdivided into two groups - one group of cases where the word refers to all of a person's descendants considered in total, and another group of cases where it refers to a specific individual who is identified absolutely in the same passage where the word זֶרַע zera occurs. No specific individual is identified in the passage that includes B'réshit 3:15, so it must be considered as belonging to the other group - which is why I translated the verse as I did, because זֶרַע zera is implicitly plural in that verse.



second:
same verb is used for to describe what the seed of the woman will do and
what the snake will do, "shuf", $WP.

Sorry but you are wrong there: they are similar roots, but not the same - the root of יְשׁוּפְךָ is שוף while the root of תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ is נשף..



third:
it says YOU will threaten (his heel), and not: your seed (or: your descendants) will threaten.

The words זַרְעֲךָ zar'acha and זַרְעָהּ zar'aH in this verse includes both "the snake" and "the snake's descendants", and both "the woman" and "the woman's descendants"; respectively; thus it is valid (albeit clumsy) to translate "she and her descendants will strike you and your descendants on the head, and you and your descendants will strike her and her descendants on the heel".



fourth:
it talks about heel, "akev", (QB, not about feet.

Is there really that much difference between foot and heel? Sure akev is literally "heel", but the heel is not part of the hand, it's a part of the foot. And I think you know enough Hebrew to be able to detect that I wasn't translating 100% literally. Anyway, Ya'akov was not given his name in connection with B'réshit 3:15, but rather because he was born clutching Ésav's heel.

[sylvius]

Not so. I chose my words very carefully and deliberately when I wrote that translation. In fact, זֶרַע zera can be found in five distinct senses in the T'nach, namely---


the 'seed' of a plant from which a new specimen can be cultivated - 27 cases
the time of year when crops can be sown - 2 cases
agricultural crops and grain - 11 cases
offspring or "progeny" - 182 cases
semen - 8 cases

The 182 instances out of the total of 230 in which זֶרַע zera means "offspring" or "progeny" can be further subdivided into two groups - one group of cases where the word refers to all of a person's descendants considered in total, and another group of cases where it refers to a specific individual who is identified absolutely in the same passage where the word זֶרַע zera occurs. No specific individual is identified in the passage that includes B'réshit 3:15, so it must be considered as belonging to the other group - which is why I translated the verse as I did, because זֶרַע zera is implicitly plural in that verse.

yet it is better to translate "seed" --
"descendants" is an interpretation.

more:

also "he will crush you (the head)" is singular.








Sorry but you are wrong there: they are similar roots, but not the same - the root of יְשׁוּפְךָ is שוף while the root of תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ is נשף..

I saw it already, thanks to Rashi.

It is a meaningful difference.

Dr. Strong didn't notice.

and also not Alcalay (I first did look in my Alcalay ).

The snake can only bite the heel.

so your translation here did hit the nail on the head.





Is there really that much difference between foot and heel? Sure akev is literally "heel", but the heel is not part of the hand, it's a part of the foot. And I think you know enough Hebrew to be able to detect that I wasn't translating 100% literally. Anyway, Ya'akov was not given his name in connection with B'réshit 3:15, but rather because he was born clutching Ésav's heel.


as said already:
numerical value of "akev" is 172.

and the first version of "theTen Words" is written with 172 words.

interesting in this is that Rashi sees Satan as initiator of the sin with the Golden Calf:

Rashi on Exodus 32:1,
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/9893/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-32.htm


(...)On the sixteenth [of Tammuz], Satan came and brought confusion into the world and showed a semblance of darkness, [even] pitch darkness, and confusion, [as if] indicating [that] Moses had surely died and therefore, confusion had come upon the world. He [Satan] said to them, “Moses has died, for six [additional] hours have already passed, and he has not come, etc.,” as is found in tractate Shabbath (89a). (...)

sin resulting in the smashing of the stone tablets with the 172 words on it.

The second version of "the Ten Words", written on the second set of stone tablets,
is written with 189 words, 17 words more.

17 gematria of "tov".

Mosheh came down with them 2 x 40 days later, on the tenth of Tishri -- the day-off of Mr. Sayten ...

[Tladatsi]

Lucifer (a Latin name), the "bringer of light", was a Roman demigod, i.e. the offspring of one of the gods (I don't recall which one) and a human female. The two are completely unconnected.

Actually, Lucifer is the Latin the word for the "morning star", i.e. the planet Venus. As such, it is the exact translation for the Hebrew word "heylel" (HYLL) from Isa 14:12.

[Mordochai]

Actually, Lucifer is the Latin the word for the "morning star", i.e. the planet Venus. As such, it is the exact translation for the Hebrew word "heylel" (HYLL) from Isa 14:12.

But Lucifer was also a demigod, as I stated; and while It may be a linguistically accurate translation but, as few laymen are aware that "Lucifer" is a precise translation of הֵילֵל, it is somewhat misleading and likely to be identified with "Satan", or "Beelzebub", or "the Devil", or any of "his" many other names (for a guy who doesn't even exist he sure has a LOT of names!!!).

Incidentally, Y'shayahu 14:12 is an extremely sarcastic attack on the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar II. Together with the following three verses, it reads:

Oh, how you have fallen from the heights [of your splendour], Venus, "Morning Star"! Oh, how you have been cut down to the ground, "Conqueror of Nations"! You said to yourself, "I will ascend into Heaven, I will set my throne even higher than God's stars - I will sit at the northern end* of the Temple Mountain - I will rise above the highest clouds, I will become like the Most High!" But instead you have been brought down to the nether world, to the depths of despair... (Y'shayahu 14:12-15)
* the holiest part of the Temple courtyard where the kodshei kodashim (most holy sacrifices) were slaughtered - see Vayikra 1:11
The prophet Y'shayahu is sarcastically anticipating the story in Daniyel 4:28-37 about how Nebuchadnezzar lost his sanity and was driven from his kingdom, living like a wild animal for seven years until he submitted to God's sovereignty.

[Tladatsi]

But Lucifer was also a demigod, as I stated; and while It may be a linguistically accurate translation but, as few laymen are aware that "Lucifer" is a precise translation of הֵילֵל, it is somewhat misleading and likely to be identified with "Satan", or "Beelzebub", or "the Devil", or any of "his" many other names (for a guy who doesn't even exist he sure has a LOT of names!!!).

I agree, there is not diabolical about the Latin word "Lucifer". While the planet Venus / Morning Star/ Lucifer was identified with the Goddess Venus / Aphrodite, the word lucifer can mean just the physical, astronomical object without any mythological overtones. So it is accurate to translate "heylel" as lucifer in Latin, it is NOT accurate to do so in English as it creates the impression it is someone's name. Lucifer is NOT an individual's name nor is it a synonym of The Satan.

[Mordochai]

"The Bible says what it means and means what it says"

Might I suggest a minor alteration to your signature line...

The Hebrew text of the Bible says what it means and means what it says"

[Tladatsi]

Might I suggest a minor alteration to your signature line...

The Hebrew text of the Bible says what it means and means what it says"

OK, I will consider that.

[Mordochai]

OK, I will consider that.

But it's really only meaningful if you speak the language.

[Tladatsi]

But it's really only meaningful if you speak the language.

Well I think if you read the language it is a good start. However, I agree with your thought up to a point, which is why I learned to read Hebrew. I would add however, it is quite possible to understand a great deal of the Tanakh, even in translation, if you want (and you have a reasonable translation). For example I was able to figure out that Paul's theory "Original Sin" of Adam has nothing to do with the Tanakh even in translation. It is just as possible to completely mis-understand the Tanakh even if you are fluent in Biblical Hebrew.

[mitzi]

[QUOTE=Mordochai;2247402]The Hebrew word for a garden is גַּן gan, not "gad" - the first time you wrote "Gad Eden" I dismissed it as a typo, but I see you wrote the same again at the end of your post.


Yes, sorry! Rushing through the post.


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



The snake in the Gan is definitely not any angel because it was going to have babies -Angels don't have "descendants".

Again, correct. However, in Genesis (Bereishit 3) lines 1 and 15 seem apart from one another. While Genesis (Bereishit 3): 15 lists between “you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed” (which seems like Lillith seed and Eve’s seed) while Bereishit 3:1 lists the verse “more than all the beasts”…so how could separation between the two be human considering the verse lists “more than all the beast” in Genesis 3 (Bereishit3) “1. Now the serpent was cunning, more than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made”

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



The "satan angel" is only mentioned in two places in the T'nach, one of which is the Parable of Iyov and the other is this brief passage in Z'charyah---

Thus here, too, the satan angel is the "prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court". This prophecy can even be dated, because Z'charyah wrote his book in Darius I's 2nd year (Z'charyah 1:1), i.e. 520BCE, which begs the question if the satan angel really rebelled against God and got itself thrown out of heaven as christians claim, what is it doing functioning as the prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court in 520BCE? When was it forgiven and reinstated?

Then did Gd give this (or these) Angel/or Angels interplay into judging man or to represent the law? You say “the satan angel is the “prosecuting attorney” at the heavenly court”
-------------------------------------------------



Talk about mixing cultures - satan is a Hebrew word and the satan angel is a Hebrew concept (even if christianity turned it into something pagan and alien to Hebrew culture) and Lucifer (a Latin name), the "bringer of light", was a Roman demigod, i.e. the offspring of one of the gods (I don't recall which one) and a human female. The two are completely unconnected.............................................

[footwasher]

Hi fellas,

Since great importance is being given to the original Hebrew Text of the Bible, how original is it really?

I'd ONLY like to know whether that this claim is tenable, ie the principle of the matter, so don't flood me with linguistic nuances.

IOW, isn't the whole claim shaky, given that Ezra TRANSLATED the ketav Ivri to the ketav ashurit in order to separate the Jewish returnees from the Samaritan encroachers in Jerausalem?

[Mordochai]

Again, correct. However, in Genesis (Bereishit 3) lines 1 and 15 seem apart from one another. While Genesis (Bereishit 3): 15 lists between “you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed” (which seems like Lillith seed and Eve’s seed) while Bereishit 3:1 lists the verse “more than all the beasts”…so how could separation between the two be human considering the verse lists “more than all the beast” in Genesis 3 (Bereishit3) “1. Now the serpent was cunning, more than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made”

The legend about the Lilit is Babylonian and non-scriptural, and actually in Hebrew lilit is a species of owl.

Your final statement (it's more of a question really, although there is no questionmark) makes no sense; what is the relevance of the statement ".......but the snake was more arum (sly, sneaky) than all of the [other] wild animals that Adonai God had made" and what do you mean by "how could separation... be human"?


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


Then did Gd give this (or these) Angel/or Angels interplay into judging man or to represent the law? You say “the satan angel is the “prosecuting attorney” at the heavenly court”

No, you said that when you quoted this (without giving any indication of where you got it)---[QUOTE=mitzi;2245993]Hebrew "haSatan" seems originally to have been the accuser, a title given to the prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court. He still has this character in the Book of Job. It is argued that the larger role of Satan and his identification with Lucifer, later associated with the snake in the garden of Eden, occurred during the period of the Babylonian captivity and subsequent exposure to Iranian beliefs.[3] Orthodox Jews still hold to the traditional view of haSatan being an accusing angel in the heavenly court.
And I see you have ignored my question about when the satan angel was forgiven and reinstated?


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

Talk about mixing cultures - satan is a Hebrew word and the satan angel is a Hebrew concept (even if christianity turned it into something pagan and alien to Hebrew culture) and Lucifer (a Latin name), the "bringer of light", was a Roman demigod, i.e. the offspring of one of the gods (I don't recall which one) and a human female. The two are completely unconnected

[Mordochai]

Well I think if you read the language it is a good start. However, I agree with your thought up to a point, which is why I learned to read Hebrew. I would add however, it is quite possible to understand a great deal of the Tanakh, even in translation, if you want (and you have a reasonable translation)....

Ah, but there is the problem: there aren't any "reasonable translations" (other than perhaps ArtScroll's "Stone Edition" (which is just about acceptable) and the Koren translation (which is slightly less reliable). The point, as I have said many times, is that unlike christians who make translations to be used as substitutes for reading the T'nach in Hebrew, we only make translations intending them to be used to get a general idea of what the Hebrew text says.



It is just as possible to completely mis-understand the Tanakh even if you are fluent in Biblical Hebrew.

But far less likely.

[Mordochai]

Since great importance is being given to the original Hebrew Text of the Bible, how original is it really?

First of all, it is only logical that the earliest existing version of any text will be more reliable than any translation.

Secondly, the scribal regulations that govern how the books are to be copied make it amost impossible for errors to occur. And there is no "central copying house" where the books are copied - it's done locally in each community as needed.

And thirdly, the astonishing thing is that if two copies of any book are compared (and it has been done), they are found to be identical, word for word and with only very few discrepancies in the letters (all minor spelling variations that have no effect on the meaning). Even the column layout is the same in every case. This being the case, we can have absolute confidence that the integrity of the text has been preserved with 100% accuracy and reliability.

Doesn't even your Greek testament say that "God preserves His scriptures"? The only difference is that you misinterpret what that means!


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


IOW, isn't the whole claim shaky, given that Ezra TRANSLATED the ketav Ivri to the ketav ashurit...

The terms k'tav ivri (Hebrew script) and k'tav ashuri (Assyrian script) only refer to the style of letters used (the ivri script is very angular and similar to Phœnician script while ashuri script is the square one we use today. It's just like having two different fonts and the change from one to the other involved no "translation" - they are not different languages.


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


...in order to separate the Jewish returnees from the Samaritan encroachers in Jerausalem?

I don't know where you got that idea - the change of script had nothing to do with the "Samaritans", but was a purely practical measure because after living for 70 years in Babylon the people had become used to reading ashuri script and couldn't read the old ivri script any more.

We see from the book of Ezra-N'hemyah that N'hemyah went berserk when he found that many of the Hebrews had married Ashdodit, Ammonit and Mo'avit women and their children couldn't even speak Hebrew
At the same time I also saw that some of the Y'hudim had married Ashdodi, Ammoni, and Mo'avi women and half their children were speaking Ashdodit and didn't even know how to speak Hebrew, and it was the same with the languages of all the other peoples. So I argued with them, and abused them, and physically attacked some of them, and pulled their hair out, and I made them swear by God "you must not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters either for your sons or for yourselves" (N'hemyah 13:23-25)- but he was mostly angry at the fact that they had intermarried (see verses 26-28), rather than the children not speaking Hebrew (which was but a symptom).

Early in the 20th century, a jasper seal (see picture below) was found by archæologists at M'giddo (made famous by the Greek testament as "Armageddon", from the Hebrew har m'giddo or "Mount M'giddo" in the mistaken belief that M'giddo is a hill) - the inscription reads לְשֵׁמַע (" to Shéma") above the image of a lion couchant and עֶבֶד יָרָבְעָם ("a servant of Yarov'am") below it (the vowel points were added by me) - the seal dates from the reign of King Yarov'am II of Yisrael who reigned for 41 years from 812 until 772BCE (M'lachim Beit 13:13, 14:16, 14:23-29). However it is not known who "Shéma" was, nor has it ever been satisfactorily explained why Yarov'am - a king of the [B]northern kingdom - would have been using the symbol of a lion couchant, which was an emblem of the kingdom of Y'hudah to the south.

[footwasher]

I don't know where you got that idea - the change of script had nothing to do with the "Samaritans", but was a purely practical measure because after living for 70 years in Babylon the people had become used to reading ashuri script and couldn't read the old ivri script any more.

Maybe from here (?):

Quote
Mar Zutra or, as some say, Mar 'Ukba said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language; later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashshurith script and Aramaic language. [Finally], they selected for Israel the Ashshurith script and Hebrew language, leaving the Hebrew characters and Aramaic language for the hedyototh. Who are meant by the 'hedyototh'? — R. Hisda answers: The Cutheans (i.e., Samaritans). And what is meant by Hebrew characters? — R. Hisda said: The libuna'ah script. Talmud (Sanhedrin 21b)

[TomSki]

But far less likely.

Mordochai, I think you are a good example that, not only is it likely, it runs rampant. The Pharisees in Jesus' time, with all their knowledge of the Scriptures, could not lay a charge against Him except blasphemy - and they heard Him teach in person. You have so many objections to Jesus based on your scholarly interpretation of the Bible it appears that all your education has done for you is to create your own flavor of Anti-Jesus Judaism that did not exist in the time of Messiah.

[Tladatsi]

Ah, but there is the problem: there aren't any "reasonable translations" (other than perhaps ArtScroll's "Stone Edition" (which is just about acceptable) and the Koren translation (which is slightly less reliable). The point, as I have said many times, is that unlike christians who make translations to be used as substitutes for reading the T'nach in Hebrew, we only make translations intending them to be used to get a general idea of what the Hebrew text says.

I would have to disagree. For myself, I like the NIV and NLT. I do not always agree with their translations but at least they are clear what they think the Hebrew text says. My biggest problem with English language translations is that they are not clear what they think the Hebrew text says. I don't know how many times I have read some English translation and thought "What does that mean?" Too many translators slavishly follow the Tinsdale-Cloverdale-Geneva-KJV lead and produce a translation that is opaque to the modern reader.

This serves numerous interests. If some asks "This passage says 'Pallid grimalkins are flagitious', what does that mean?" almost any answer can be provided - except "White cats are evil" - which is what it says. Many times I have heard a reading that is the exact opposite of what the text says - "Well, it says 'Pallid grimalkins are flagitious' and that can mean 'White cats are evil' but what it really means is 'Black dogs are good'". It turns the Bible into a set of hieroglyphics.

After having learned some Hebrew, once I started reading the Tanakh in Hebrew, I was surprised at how clear it was (with some glaring exceptions). Rather than the muddy, vague, and evasive language of the English translations, it was ever so refreshing to see that the original text was a complete contrast, clear, straightforward, and honest - if unsettling to the modern reader.

(I could say something similar about Greek and the Christian Scriptures).


But far less likely.

No, I disagree. Anyone who wants to read the text they want to read it, is going to read it that way.

[John Goddard]

Satan is the Serpent and yetzer hara, evil inclination. God's will is yetzer hatov, the good inclination. Whatever is apart from God's will is Satan.

Lucifer is the light of the Gentiles, without God it is Satan, the evil inclination. With God it is Messiah who embodies the good inclination.

Additionally the Seed of the Serpent is the Seed of Beast, which is Gentile Kingdoms without God, which we see in Daniel and Revelation.

Alternately, the Seed of Man is Jews with God. Such as:

Jeremiah 31:27 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.

[Mordochai]

Maybe from here (?):

Quote
Mar Zutra or, as some say, Mar 'Ukba said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language; later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashshurith script and Aramaic language. [Finally], they selected for Israel the Ashshurith script and Hebrew language, leaving the Hebrew characters and Aramaic language for the hedyototh. Who are meant by the 'hedyototh'? — R. Hisda answers: The Cutheans (i.e., Samaritans). And what is meant by Hebrew characters? — R. Hisda said: The libuna'ah script. Talmud (Sanhedrin 21b)

The word הֶדְיוֹט hedyot literally means a layman, a commoner, or an ordinary person as distinct from one who is an expert in a particular field (it's even possible that hedyot is the origin of the English word idiot). Thus an "ordinary" kohen may be distinguished from a כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל kohen gadol ("Chief Kohen") by calling him a כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, while in the Mishnah, on the subject of the procedure that was adopted in the Calendar Court's hearings, there is this---

דְּמוּת צוּרוֹת לְבָנוֹת הָיוּ לוֹ לְרַבָּן גַּמֲלִיאֵל בַּטַּבְלָה וּבַכֹּתֶל בַּעֲלִיָּתוּ שֶׁבָּהֶן מַרְאֶה אֶת הַהֶדְיוֹטוֹת וְאוֹמֵר לָהֶם, הֲכָזֶה רָאִיתָ אוֹ כָזֶהRabban Gamaliel had pictures of the moon on tablets and on the wall of his upstairs chamber which he would show to laymen and ask them, "Did it look like this or like that?" (Mishnah, Treatise Rosh Hashanah, chapter 8, paragraph 2)
I have examined the passage you cite very carefully and have come to the conclusion that it is meant as a homily rather than being intended to be taken literally; consider the way the section ends and the weakness of the Biblical "proof" that is advanced:

...even though the Torah was not given through him [Ezra], the script was changed by him, as it is written

וּכְתָב הַנִּשְׁתְּוָן כָּתוּב אֲרָמִית וּמְתֻרְגָּם אֲרָמִית...the text of the letter was written in Aramaic script and in the Aramaic language... (Ezra 4:7)and it is written

וְלָא כָהֲלִין כְּתָבָא לְמִקְרֵא וּפִשְׁרֵהּ לְהוֹדָעָה לְמַלְכָּא...but none of them could read the script or explain the meaning to the king... (Daniyel 5:8)and it is written

וְכָתַב לוֹ אֶת מִשְׁנֵה הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת...he should write out for himself a copy of this Torah... (D'varim 17:17)
- this means that the script may be changed.

[sylvius]

the change of script (...) was a purely practical measure because after living for 70 years in Babylon the people had become used to reading ashuri script and couldn't read the old ivri script any more.

Rabbi Munk in "The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet" contends otherwise.


The original script was Ashuri script, it was the holy script with which the first Tablets were inscribed and also the Torah-scroll that was kept in the Holy of Holies, but never used for mundane purposes. Torahs written for mass study and synagoge use were written in Ivri script, out of reverence for the holy. Only a few sages passed on the tradition of the Ashuri script. The people didn't even know of its existence.
That's why when the "handwriting on the wall" appeared not even the king's Jewish advisors could read it because it was written in Ashuri, only Daniel could.
Then it became known that there was an ancient truly Jewish script that had become forgotten.
The people were anxious to renew this link with the giving of Torah. And that's why Ezra
taught it to them and they choose to use it in all their sacred writings from that time on.

you can read the book online.

it is on page 235

http://books.google.nl/books?id=2jdXCGxQOysC&dq=munk+the+wisdom+in+hebrew+alphabet&pg=PP1&ots=GKnho31dc0&sig=Jb0uzy-F6q1ndnKfd4mAHDMg6rE&hl=nl&prev=http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&rlz=1T4GZEZ_nlNL254NL254&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=munk+the+wisdom+in+hebrew+alphabet&spell=1&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP1,M1

http://books.google.nl/books?id=2jdXCGxQOysC&dq=munk+the+wisdom+in+hebrew+alphabet&pg=PP1&ots=GKnho31dc0&sig=Jb0uzy-F6q1ndnKfd4mAHDMg6rE&hl=nl&prev=http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&rlz=1T4GZEZ_nlNL254NL254&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=munk+the+wisdom+in+hebrew+alphabet&spell=1&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA235,M1

[Mordochai]

Rabbi Munk in "The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet" contends otherwise.

I have my own copy of Y'hiyel Munk's book, and I happen to disagree profoundly with his statement on this point. The point is that the Talmud in Sanhedrin 21a associates the Hebrew language with k'tav ivri and the Aramaic language with k'tav ashuri. Moreover there is no indication in T'nach that Bel-Shatzar had any "Jewish advisors" (certainly none were summoned in Daniyel, ch.5) - the text just says

קָרֵא מַלְכָּא בְּחַיִל לְהֶעָלָה לְאָשְׁפַיָּא כַּשְׂדָּאֵי וְגָזְרַיָּא עָנֵה מַלְכָּא וְאָמַר לְחַכִּימֵי בָבֶל דִּי כָל אֱנָשׁ דִּי יִקְרֵה כְּתָבָה דְנָה וּפִשְׁרֵהּ יְחַוִּנַּנִי אַרְגְּוָנָא יִלְבַּשׁ וְהַמְנִיכָא דִי דַהֲבָא עַל צַוְּארֵהּ וְתַלְתִּי בְמַלְכוּתָא יִשְׁלַט...then the king called out loudly to summon the sorcerers, the Chaldæans and the preachers; the king then shouted at Babylon's wise men that anyone who can read this script and explain its meaning will be dressed in royal purple with a gold chain around his neck, and will rule as third regent of the kingdom! (Daniyel 3:8)It is far more logical that the "writing on the wall" was written in k'tav ivri, and that is why none of Bel-Shatzar's "sorcerers, Chaldæans and preachers" could read it.

[sylvius]

I have my own copy of Y'hiyel Munk's book, and I happen to disagree profoundly with his statement on this point. The point is that the Talmud in Sanhedrin 21a associates the Hebrew language with k'tav ivri and the Aramaic language with k'tav ashuri. Moreover there is no indication in T'nach that Bel-Shatzar had any "Jewish advisors" (certainly none were summoned in Daniyel, ch.5) - the text just says

קָרֵא מַלְכָּא בְּחַיִל לְהֶעָלָה לְאָשְׁפַיָּא כַּשְׂדָּאֵי וְגָזְרַיָּא עָנֵה מַלְכָּא וְאָמַר לְחַכִּימֵי בָבֶל דִּי כָל אֱנָשׁ דִּי יִקְרֵה כְּתָבָה דְנָה וּפִשְׁרֵהּ יְחַוִּנַּנִי אַרְגְּוָנָא יִלְבַּשׁ וְהַמְנִיכָא דִי דַהֲבָא עַל צַוְּארֵהּ וְתַלְתִּי בְמַלְכוּתָא יִשְׁלַט...then the king called out loudly to summon the sorcerers, the Chaldæans and the preachers; the king then shouted at Babylon's wise men that anyone who can read this script and explain its meaning will be dressed in royal purple with a gold chain around his neck, and will rule as third regent of the kingdom! (Daniyel 3:8)It is far more logical that the "writing on the wall" was written in k'tav ivri, and that is why none of Bel-Shatzar's "sorcerers, Chaldæans and preachers" could read it.

Genesis 10:11,

From that land emerged Asshur, and he built Nineveh and Rehoboth ir and Calah.
Rashi:


From that land Since Asshur saw his sons obeying Nimrod and rebelling against the Omnipresent by building the tower, he departed from their midst. — [from Gen. Rabbah 37:4]

Shem preserved the holy tongue,
Asshur the holy script?

[Mordochai]

Shem preserved the holy tongue

Actually עֵבֶר Éver did that - and the holy traditions - which is why Avram and the Hebrew (עִבְרִי) nation were named after him.

[sylvius]

Actually עֵבֶר Éver did that - and the holy traditions - which is why Avram and the Hebrew (עִבְרִי) nation were named after him.
I thought it was "the school of Shem and Ever" ,

or even just "the school of Shem".

Rashi on Genesis 25:22



And she went to inquire to the academy of Shem. — [Aggadath Bereishith, ch. 73, Targum Jonathan and Yerushalmi]

and I thought Avram was called so because of coming from the other side of the river,
"mei'ever hanahar". Rashi on Genesis 14:


the Hebrew Heb. הָעִבְרִי [So called] because he came from the other side (מֵעֵבֶר) of the [Euphrates] river (Gen. Rabbah 42:8).

numerical value of the name Shem is 340.
like the 340 years from 1656 to 1996;
1656 being the last year before the flood,
1996 being the year of the "haflagah"= confusion of languages. .

which is about five generations from Shem to Peleg,
Five generations matching the first letter "hey" of the Name (Torah being about 26 generations from Adam to Mosheh.)

Ever being the fourth generation, father of Peleg and Yoktan.

(and I think Paul is named so after Yoktan (name Paulus is Latin -"little one" -- and name Yoktan from "katan" = to be small, insignificant, unworthy of.)
numerical value of Yoktan being 169 = 13x13
and Yoktan fathered 13 sons (Genesis 10:26-28)
Paul being the thirteenth of the Apostles.)

[mitzi]

Quote Mordochai; The snake in the Gan is definitely not any angel because it was going to have babies -Angels don't have "descendants".

From Mitzi: Again, correct/ or true *if* you're speaking about line 15 in Genesis 3:15 (or Bereishit 3:15). However , in Genesis 3:1 (or Bereishit 3:1) the verses lists “more than all the beasts”,. It seems as though verse 1 and 15 are two separate verses set apart from one another.

While Genesis (Bereishit 3): 15 lists in the verse” 15. And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel." (giving the impression that the separation is between Lilith seed and Eve’s seed) then take into account Genesis 3 (Bereishit 3) 1 which lists the verse “more than all the beasts”....these verses are not the same.

***Your answer above had summarized to both (or the entire) that the snake in the Gan is definitely not any angel* Correct, but it’s not human either.***

and listing my ><<<<<??????

it's not that "I" avoided your last question Mordochai I was at work and didn't have the time to answer back to all... as a matter of fact I didn't know that you where looking to me for the answers?????
and p.s. I'm still at work. It's rather late and I need to return back. thanks

[sylvius]

(Daniyel 3:8)It is far more logical that the "writing on the wall" was written in k'tav ivri, and that is why none of Bel-Shatzar's "sorcerers, Chaldæans and preachers" could read it.


There is another reason why it is likely that it was written in Ashuri, and also why it is likely that Ashuri script is the original script of the Torah.


The Ashuri script knows for five letters an extra form, for when the letter appears at the end of a word.

viz. for "kaf' ,"mem", "nun", "pé", "tsadeh", K - M - N - P -C

four of these five letters appear at the end of the word with a straight, stretched out, form.

the final "mem" is different, it takes the form of a square.

Name for it: "mem-s'tumah" = closed "mem".

The miracle of the divine script on the Tablets was said to be that while the script went right through the stone, that it could be read "mizeh umizeh" , on both sides (Exodus 32:15) the middle parts of "samech" (written round, like a circle) and "mem- s'tumah" stayed in their places.
(which would not have been the case if it had been Ivri script - although Ivri script has for the "ayin" a round form, like our "O").

These five final letters you might see as expressing the secret of the Torah.

viz., the numerical value of "ets hada'at tov vara" , tree of knowledge of good and evil, 932, being exactly four times the numerical value of "ets hachayim", tree of life, 233.

see: http://www.inner.org/string/string3.htm, "Four Forces from One"

Now the writing on the wall:

see also http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=97738

it is ending with a "nun' --
in Ashuri -script it would have been a final, stretched out, "nun".
"nun - "p'shutah".

I bet it is about the simple meaning of Torah that Rashi said to have come for.


book Daniel as a whole is also ending with "nun-p'shutah" -- a little strange, because it reads:

לְקֵץ הַיָּמִין , "l'keits hayamin", instead of
"l'keits hayomim" --
so instead of witn "mem-s'tumah" written with "nun-p'shutah"

remarkable:

"satam", root of "s'tumah", appears three times in book Daniel;

last time Daniel 12:9,

וַיֹּאמֶר לֵךְ דָּנִיֵּאל כִּי-סְתֻמִים וַחֲתֻמִים הַדְּבָרִים עַד-עֵת קֵץ

[footwasher]

So was Ezra's Torah a translation or not? I read the following and got a headache:

Quote
However, Ktav Ashurit was still studied by the priests and scribes, of which Ezra was both. When he saw that Ktav Ashurit was so forgotten that, when it was written on the wall of King Belshatzar of Babylonia, only Daniel could read it (Daniel 5) he realized that it must be reintroduced to the people. Yet, he still had the dilemma that people would then be writing Hebrew in the holy Ktav Ashurit for improper purposes. His solution was to translate the Torah into Aramaic and introduce the Aramaic Torah in Ktav Ashurit into common usage. That way people would become familiar with Ktav Ashurit without using it in their daily Hebrew writing. This is what is meant in Nehemiah 8:8, "So they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation." It was interpreted by translation into Aramaic (Megillah 3a). (This translation was later recreated by Onkelos). However, the people had lived their whole lives with a Hebrew Torah and were not ready to change the language of their holiest of books. Therefore, they decided to retain a Hebrew Torah in Ktav Ashurit but conduct their daily business in Aramaic. This would produce the results that Ezra desired because Ktav Ashurit in Hebrew would not be a part of the daily routine.

http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet9.html

Can anyone untangle it for me?

[Mordochai]

From Mitzi: Again, correct/ or true *if* you're speaking about line 15 in Genesis 3:15 (or Bereishit 3:15). However , in Genesis 3:1 (or Bereishit 3:1) the verses lists “more than all the beasts”,. It seems as though verse 1 and 15 are two separate verses set apart from one another.[/quote]

You do ramble on, and also talk some real שְׁטוּיּוֹת sometimes. Verse 15 has nothing to do with verse 1 (which actually starts part-way through the sentence because 2:25 and 3:1 are one sentence in fact). Verse 15 clearly refers to the "children", "grandchildren", "great-grandchildren" etc that the snake was going to have - זֶרַע zera being a collective term meaning all an individuals descendants considered as a group - while 2:25-3:1 is completely unconnected to this topic. Why do you seek to obfuscate by attempting to connect two verses that are not connected? That's a very dishonest way of arguing.



While Genesis (Bereishit 3): 15 lists in the verse.....

There is no "list" in B'réshit 3:15.



(giving the impression that the separation is between Lilith seed and Eve’s seed)

Again with that pagan, Babylonian legend :frown:



then take into account Genesis 3 (Bereishit 3)

What about it????????



***Your answer above had summarized to both (or the entire) that the snake in the Gan is definitely not any angel* Correct, but it’s not human either.***

You must stop writing nonsense language and stat writing English that I can understand - "to both (or the entire)" is incomprehensible to me.

What makes you SO SURE that the nahash is NOT HUMAN? What do you base that on?



and listing my ><<<<<??????

ANOTHER "list"?



it's not that "I" avoided your last question Mordochai I was at work and didn't have the time to answer back to all... as a matter of fact I didn't know that you where looking to me for the answers?????

That is typical christian dishonesty - I have already written this question twice - once in post #2 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2247402&postcount=2).....


Thus here, too, the satan angel is the "prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court". This prophecy can even be dated, because Z'charyah wrote his book in Darius I's 2nd year (Z'charyah 1:1), i.e. 520BCE, which begs the question if the satan angel really rebelled against God and got itself thrown out of heaven as christians claim, what is it doing functioning as the prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court in 520BCE? When was it forgiven and reinstated?
and again in post #16 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2248346&postcount=16).....

And I see you have ignored my question about when the satan angel was forgiven and reinstated?
If I could take the trouble to scroll back and find those two references, why were you too lazy to do it? I have now asked you this same question THREE TIMES and we will now see if you are honest enough to ANSWER it..... :frown:

[Mordochai]

So was Ezra's Torah a translation or not? I read the following and got a headache........

I answered this question in post #18 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2248448&postcount=18).

[footwasher]

Okay, okay, I deserved that (sometimes a punch in the head works better than a spoon in the mouth! ;) ). So although the reasoning seems to differ, the situation seems to be that Ezra gave the people a Hebrew Torah in a different script (or font as a comparison), ie. NOT a translation

That's just the form aspect of the query wheter the Torah is really unchanged. What about content? This involves provenance or Textual Criticism and I'm sure you know the problems involved in this matter.

Since the Torah existed in the form of codices and vulgata before the exile, and the Torah had to be re-collated after the Exilic Period, what is the guarantee that the fresh Torah did not contain vulgatic materiel?

[Mordochai]

Since the Torah existed in the form of codices and vulgata before the exile, and the Torah had to be re-collated after the Exilic Period, what is the guarantee that the fresh Torah did not contain vulgatic materiel?

Are you under the impression that the whole nation possessed just one single copy of the Torah?

[footwasher]

I'm highlighting the problem depicted here:

What happened to this Torah of Moshe is unclear, although there are rumors of it resurfacing later in history. However, the history of the text continued. Crucial to this development of the text of the Torah was the Babylonian exile which was really much more than the word exile connotes. It was the total devastation of a civilization. Scholars and leaders were killed; homes and cities were destroyed. The survivors of this long and brutal struggle were forced to leave their homes with what they could carry and move to a foreign land. It was at this point, Radak in his introduction to Yehoshua tells us, that "the books were lost and dispersed and the sages who were skilled in Bible were dead." All the people had was what little they had brought with them and what they remembered. Many of the texts were damaged due to the battle and travel conditions. Of the texts available, some were actual Torah scrolls while others were vulgata which, as we discussed, were never intended to be exact replicas of the Torah. However, each community had to make do with what they had and they courageously tried to fix their Torahs based on the best information available. As Radak suggested, it was at this point that multiple spellings and even word differences were introduced into the biblical texts. The nation was roiling in shock from its terrifying losses and was not able to recreate the centralized Torah leadership it once had. But complete Torah scrolls were an immediate need and could not wait for a new generation of leaders to organize a unified text. Therefore, each community acted on their own to fix their scrolls of missing words and portions.

http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_text.html

If you scroll down, you'll find the comment that parts of the Septuagint may be more faithful in its content than the Masoretic. I find that it introduces an element of doubt in the claim that the Hebrew Torah is more authentic than its TRANSLATION.

[mitzi]

From Mordochai: You do ramble on, and also talk some real שְׁטוּיּוֹת sometimes. Verse 15 has nothing to do with verse 1 (which actually starts part-way through the sentence because 2:25 and 3:1 are one sentence in fact). Verse 15 clearly refers to the "children", "grandchildren", "great-grandchildren" etc that the snake was going to have - זֶרַע zera being a collective term meaning all an individuals descendants considered as a group - while 2:25-3:1 is completely unconnected to this topic. Why do you seek to obfuscate by attempting to connect two verses that are not connected? That's a very dishonest way of arguing.


From Mitzi: Mo, first of all, I didn't really ask for your personal critique about my ramblings/or my post-now did I? Your personal opinions---are yours. שְׁטוּיּוֹת, and....in which direct are you pointing that comment, please. Thanks. and yes, some people are dishonest on their approach of starting a argument or getting into a "nonsense" argument over a very simple question and answer post-agreed to that statement.


Quoted from Mordochai: There is no "list" in B'réshit 3:15.


]From Mitzi: Excuse me. I'll have to re-type (and waste time) that part of the sentence:

While Genesis (Bereishit 3) line (:) 15 states in the verse................


Quote from Mordochai: Again with that pagan, Babylonian legend



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Quote from Mordochai: What about it????????



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Next

Quote from Mordochai: You must stop writing nonsense language and stat writing English that I can understand - "to both (or the entire)" is incomprehensible to me.



From Mitzi: Stat?

and Yes, dido Mordochai

What makes you SO SURE that the nahash is NOT HUMAN? What do you base that on?


From Mitzi: ok. a snake is human in your book.


Quote from Mordochai: ANOTHER "list"?


From Mitzi: ...................................................You mentioned, in a previoius post, that I needed a question mark at the end of my sentence. I'm now supplying you with "lots" of question marks. To quote: Your final statement (it's more of a question really, although there is no questionmark) Post #`16


Originally posted by mitzi
it's not that "I" avoided your last question Mordochai I was at work and didn't have the time to answer back to all... as a matter of fact I didn't know that you where looking to me for the answers?????

Quote from Mordochai: That is typical christian dishonesty - I have already written this question twice - once in post #2.....


From Mitzi: Ah! Typical Christian dishonesty. You find that alot? or are you just looking for it? Thanks, I got home around 2:30am and also (if memory serves me correctly) there was another member on the Jewish board (Yonah) who (at one time) was on his way too work during one discussion. Should I have taken *his* remark as dishonest, too? Take people at their word--or are you playing the Prosecuting Attorney' in a court case, today? :mob: I see you brought your friends, to help.




Originally posted by Mordochai
Thus here, too, the satan angel is the "prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court". This prophecy can even be dated, because Z'charyah wrote his book in (Persian) Darius I's 2nd year (Z'charyah 1:1), i.e. 520BCE, which begs the question if the satan angel really rebelled against God and got itself thrown out of heaven as christians claim, what is it doing functioning as the prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court in 520BCE? When was it forgiven and reinstated?

and again in post #16.....

From Mitzi:
>>>Which also begs the question about Gan Eden and if Satan (who, by my understanding of your question, wasn't thrown out of heaven) had any influence (since "The satan" was the one responsible for trying to convict the defendant (Meaning he's the Prosecuting Attorney' toward "everyonel" and not the some...) on the serpent and Eve's being disobedient toward Gd and his first commandment; Gd asked out of Adam Genesis 2: 16. And the Lord God commanded man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.17. But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."

Hmmmm....Why would the serpent point out the question in 3:1 to Eve when the command was given to Adam?



Originally posted by Mordochai
And I see you have ignored my question about when the satan angel was forgiven and reinstated?

If I could take the trouble to scroll back and find those two references, why were you too lazy to do it? I have now asked you this same question THREE TIMES and we will now see if you are honest enough to ANSWER it.....


From Mitzi: Too lazy? You're too much. And to be (again) totally honest, I didn't know you where (again) pointing the question directly to me. Where did the question of "Forgiving" or being "Reinstated" relate to in any of my previous posts? Forgiven for what? after stated " 14. And the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed be you more than all the cattle and more than all the beasts of the field; you shall walk on your belly, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life.15. And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel." and Reinstated in what regards? Where does that question even apply to even warrant either one of those two questions? Must have been a left field question/ or questions that came out of no where. (no question mark--just a assumption)

My Quote and your Reply:


Originally posted by mitzi
Hebrew "haSatan" seems originally to have been the accuser, a title given to the prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court. He still has this character in the Book of Job.

From Mordochai : The "satan angel" is only mentioned in two places in the T'nach, one of which is the Parable of Iyov and the other is this brief passage in Z'charyah---

Then He showed me [a vision of] the Chief Kohen, Y'hoshua, standing in front of one of Adonai's angels, with the satan standing to his right waiting to prosecute him, and Adonai said to the satan, "Adonai is reprimanding you, the satan - Adonai who choses Y'rushalayim is reprimanding you - isn't this [man] like a glowing ember that has been salvaged from a fire?" (Z'charyah 3:1-2)

Thus here, too, the satan angel is the "prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court". This prophecy can even be dated, because Z'charyah wrote his book in Darius I's 2nd year (Z'charyah 1:1), i.e. 520BCE, which begs the question if the satan angel really rebelled against God and got itself thrown out of heaven as christians claim, what is it doing functioning as the prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court in 520BCE? When was it forgiven and reinstated?

[Mordochai]

Okay Mitzi - last chance. You christians claim that "Mister Sayten" was "thrown out" of Heaven for "rebelling" against God, and yet in Z'charyah 3:1 (a prophecy with an actual calendar date - 520BCE), we find "him" as large as life and playing "his" rôle in the Heavenly Court of Justice. So will you please tell me, in plain, simple language, and without any more procrastination or evasion, just when "he" was forgiven and reinstated, and where this is recorded in the T'nach?

[John Goddard]

Okay Mitzi - last chance. You christians claim that "Mister Sayten" was "thrown out" of Heaven for "rebelling" against God, and yet in Z'charyah 3:1 (a prophecy with an actual calendar date - 520BCE), we find "him" as large as life and playing "his" rôle in the Heavenly Court of Justice. So will you please tell me, in plain, simple language, and without any more procrastination or evasion, just when "he" was forgiven and reinstated, and where this is recorded in the T'nach?

Satan isn't thrown out of the Garden until sometime after Jesus ascended.

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation 12:10-11 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Revelation 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

So when Satan is cast out there is only a little time left until Jesus returns.

[Mordochai]

Satan isn't thrown out of the Garden until sometime after Jesus ascended.
So when Satan is cast out there is only a little time left until Jesus returns.

Are you saying it hasn't happened yet??? All those pagan quotes tell me absolutely nothing - they don't even make sense. And I want Mitzi to answer anyway - I have already asked her this question at least three times.

[Tladatsi]

Okay Mitzi - last chance. You christians claim that "Mister Sayten" was "thrown out" of Heaven for "rebelling" against God, and yet in Z'charyah 3:1 (a prophecy with an actual calendar date - 520BCE), we find "him" as large as life and playing "his" rôle in the Heavenly Court of Justice. So will you please tell me, in plain, simple language, and without any more procrastination or evasion, just when "he" was forgiven and reinstated, and where this is recorded in the T'nach?

You are quite correct, the only time the satan is mentioned in the Tanakh he is in the presence of G_d and speaking with Him. Even Paul speaks of G_d using the "messangers of Satan" (2 Corinthians 12:7) to perform G_d's work. Jesus sees the satan come from heaven to earth (Luke 10:18) as he had in Job.

[Mordochai]

J**** sees the satan come from heaven to earth (Luke 10:18) as he had in Job.

But that was on "The Day" (Iyov 1:6, 2:1 - וַיְהִי הַיּוֹם vay'hi hayom, "and The Day came"), a Hebrew euphemism for Yom Kippur (the Atonement Day), which is why the satan Angel "also was among them" (i.e. among all the other Angels) - it was there to accuse or "prosecute".

But the question still stands: if "Mister Sayten" was again playing his part in the Heavenly Court in 520BCE, when was he forgiven and reinstated?

[John Goddard]

Are you saying it hasn't happened yet??? All those pagan quotes tell me absolutely nothing - they don't even make sense. And I want Mitzi to answer anyway - I have already asked her this question at least three times.

Satan wasn't thrown out with Adam, we know that from Job and elsewhere.

[Mordochai]

Satan wasn't thrown out with Adam, we know that from Job and elsewhere.

Now we're getting somewhere. But "Mister Sayten" can't have been thrown out of the garden with the adam because he was never even in it! We're talking about when "he" was thrown out of Heaven, and I still can't get a straight answer about when that is supposed to have happened.

[John Goddard]

Now we're getting somewhere. But "Mister Sayten" can't have been thrown out of the garden with the adam because he was never even in it! We're talking about when "he" was thrown out of Heaven, and I still can't get a straight answer about when that is supposed to have happened.

Satan is the yetzer hara that entered into Adam and swallowed him like a serpent, as Jonah was swallowed into the belly of hell. Thus Adam returns to dust in death, the serpent goes on its belly of hell and eats dust. So you live in your sins after death until you repent then you are vomited out.

Thus the Garden is cleared of evil when Satan is cast out to prepare it for humans to return and eat from the Tree of Life again.

[Mordochai]

Thus the Garden is cleared of evil when Satan is cast out to prepare it for humans to return and eat from the Tree of Life again.

Don't talk rot. You obviously have no clue what the עֵץ הַחַיִּים really was. Try reading Mishlei 3:18 and see if you can figure it out.

[John Goddard]

Don't talk rot. You obviously have no clue what the עֵץ הַחַיִּים really was. Try reading Mishlei 3:18 and see if you can figure it out.

It's the absence of evil, God's Law. That's how God's Law is written on your heart in the New Covenant, there is no more Satan, only yetzer hatov. Thus no more sour grape from Adam to his children which is death and the penalty for sin.

[Mordochai]

It's the absence of evil, God's Law. That's how God's Law is written on your heart in the New Covenant, there is no more Satan, only yetzer hatov. Thus no more sour grape from Adam to his children which is death and the penalty for sin.

There is no "new covenant". Nothing of the kind is ever mentioned in T'nach. It's a false doctrine that christians made up to give them an excuse for adding their Greek garbage to our Holy Books.

[John Goddard]

There is no "new covenant". Nothing of the kind is ever mentioned in T'nach. It's a false doctrine that christians made up to give them an excuse for adding their Greek garbage to our Holy Books.

Of course it's there.

Jeremiah 31:30 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah;

[Mordochai]

Of course it's there.

Jeremiah 31:30 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah;

You obviously don't speak Hebrew. Go learn the language and then read it in the original.

[John Goddard]

You obviously don't speak Hebrew. Go learn the language and then read it in the original.

What do you think it says, if it is something different? Mechon-Mamre has the Hebrew right next to it, you can show everyone word for word how the English translation is wrong, then you can email them and let them know and report back to us with their response.

Jeremiah 31:30 (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1131.htm)

ל הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים, נְאֻם-יְהוָה; וְכָרַתִּי, אֶת-בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת-בֵּית יְהוּדָה--בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה. 30 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah;

This will be a good project for you to help correct lies about the Hebrew Bible, and a mitzvah.

[Mordochai]

What do you think it says, if it is something different? Mechon-Mamre has the Hebrew right next to it....

The M'chon Mamré site uses that dreadful "JPSA1917" translation, about which the Messiah Truth (http://messiahtruth.com/response.html) website has this to say:

Even the earliest English translation of the JPS Tanach (Jewish Publication Society) was a slightly modified version of the Old Testament found in the King James Bible, instead of a direct translation of the original Hebrew which accompanied it. Christian Missionaries will almost always use the English translation of the JPS Tanach as a "proof text." Far more accurate English translations of the Masoretic text are found in Koren's The Jerusalem Bible and Artscroll's Stone Edition Tanach.The problem with the translation you posted is that חָדָשׁ actually means renewed rather than "new". God says He is going to renew His agreement with Yisrael, and the "renewed" agreement will differ from the earlier one only in that we "broke" that one - but we will not break the renewed one. Other than that, the "renewed" agreement will have the same terms as the old one - it will be the same "Torah"...

"See, days are coming," says Adonai, "when I will make an agreement with Beit Yisrael and Beit Y'hudah, a renewed agreement - it won't be like the agreement that I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they broke that agreement, although I was a Master over them," says Adonai; "because this is the agreement that I will make with Beit Yisrael after those days," says Adonai: "I will put My Torah among them and write it onto their hearts - I will be their God and they will be My people." (Yirm'yahu 31:30-32)

[John Goddard]

The M'chon Mamré site uses that dreadful "JPSA1917" translation, about which the Messiah Truth (http://messiahtruth.com/response.html) website has this to say:The problem with the translation you posted is that חָדָשׁ actually means renewed rather than "new". God says He is going to renew His agreement with Yisrael, and the "renewed" agreement will differ from the earlier one only in that we "broke" that one - but we will not break the renewed one. Other than that, the "renewed" agreement will have the same terms as the old one - it will be the same "Torah"...

I think:

JEREMIAH 31:30 NEW = חָדָשׁ

while

RENEW = חַדֵּשׁ

Example Psalms 51:12

יב לֵב טָהוֹר, בְּרָא-לִי אֱלֹהִים; וְרוּחַ נָכוֹן, חַדֵּשׁ בְּקִרְבִּי. 12 Create me a clean heart, O God; and renew a stedfast spirit within me.

[sylvius]

I think:

JEREMIAH 31:30 NEW = חָדָשׁ

while

RENEW = חַדֵּשׁ

Example Psalms 51:12

יב לֵב טָהוֹר, בְּרָא-לִי אֱלֹהִים; וְרוּחַ נָכוֹן, חַדֵּשׁ בְּקִרְבִּי. 12 Create me a clean heart, O God; and renew a stedfast spirit within me.

Ecclesiastes 1:9,

מַה-שֶּׁהָיָה הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה וּמַה-שֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה הוּא שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה וְאֵין כָּל-חָדָשׁ תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ.


What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.


Rashi:



In whatever he learns, in a matter that is an exchange for the sun, there is nothing new. He will see only that which already was, which was created in the six days of Creation. But one who meditates on the Torah constantly finds new insights therein, as it is stated (Prov. 5:19): “her breasts will satisfy you at all times.” Just as this breast, whenever the infant feels it, he finds a taste in it, so are the words of Torah (Er. 54b), and so we find in Tractate Hagigah, that Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus said things that the ear had never heard, concerning the account of the Celestial Chariot.

[Mordochai]

I think:
JEREMIAH 31:30 NEW = חָדָשׁ
while
RENEW = חַדֵּשׁ
Example Psalms 51:12

יב לֵב טָהוֹר, בְּרָא-לִי אֱלֹהִים; וְרוּחַ נָכוֹן, חַדֵּשׁ בְּקִרְבִּי. 12 Create me a clean heart, O God; and renew a stedfast spirit within me.

חָדָשׁ hadash is the adjective "renewed", while חַדֵּשׁ haddesh is the verb "to renew". The root חדש is always associated with "renewal" or "making new". You have already quoted one example yourself from T'hillim, while another obvious example is the "renewal" of the moon at the beginning of every (lunar) month (חוֹדֶשׁ hodesh). This is why a month is called חוֹדֶשׁ hodesh is Hebrew - there is also another word for a month - יֶרַח yerah - which is related to יָרֵחַ yaré'ah, the moon.

[Mordochai]

Ecclesiastes 1:9,

מַה-שֶּׁהָיָה הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה וּמַה-שֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה הוּא שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה וְאֵין כָּל-חָדָשׁ תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ.
What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.
Rashi:


What was that Rashi quote supposed to prove - or was it just an excuse to talk about שָׁדַיִם?

[sylvius]

חָדָשׁ hadash is the adjective "renewed", while חַדֵּשׁ haddesh is the verb "to renew". The root חדש is always associated with "renewal" or "making new". You have already quoted one example yourself from T'hillim, while another obvious example is the "renewal" of the moon at the beginning of every month (חוֹדֶשׁ hodesh).

remarkable in the context of the present discussion of course is Exodus 12:2-3,


This month shall be to you the head of the months; to you it shall be the first of the months of the year.
. Speak to the entire community of Israel, saying, "On the tenth of this month, let each one take a lamb for each parental home, a lamb for each household.

"head of months"
רֹאשׁ חֳדָשִׁים, "rosh chadashim" - literal : "head
of renewals".
LXX has: αρχη μηνων

to which Mark 1:1 might allude:

arch tou euaggeliou

"the head (principle) of the good news"

[Mordochai]

remarkable in the context of the present discussion of course is Exodus 12:2-3,

This month shall be to you the head of the months; to you it shall be the first of the months of the year.
. Speak to the entire community of Israel, saying, "On the tenth of this month, let each one take a lamb for each parental home, a lamb for each household.
"head of months"
רֹאשׁ חֳדָשִׁים, "rosh chadashim" - literal : "head
of renewals".
LXX has: αρχη μηνων
to which Mark 1:1 might allude:
arch tou euaggeliou
"the head (principle) of the good news"


Wrong, what it says is simply that the month now called Nisan is to be counted as "month one" (even though it comes half-way through the calendar year) - and seh doesn't mean a "lamb":
Adonai spoke to Mosheh and to Aharon in Egypt and said, "This month is going to be first of the months for you - it will be the first month of your year. Speak to the whole community of Yisrael and say, 'Everyone is to take a young animal corresponding to every parental group, one young animal for each household... you can take them from among the young sheep or among the young goats....'."It has no connection with that pagan garbage you quoted.

[sylvius]

What was that Rashi quote supposed to prove - or was it just an excuse to talk about שָׁדַיִם?


that all news is contained in the Torah, also "the good news" = "b'sorah".


שָׁדַיִם

is dualis-form.

Weinreb said:

it sounds like "shamayim" -- $mYM

we (sucklings) suck it from heaven.

but "shedim" - written the same, $DYM

is plural of "shed" = demon.

demons have no idea of "chayim" - XYYM , life, that it is a dualis-form.

life is here and there , beyond death.

that's why "Shadai" $DY = "who says: Enough! to the demons " --
they stay on this side; and never come across (the river).

[sylvius]

Wrong, what it says is simply that the month now called Nisan is to be counted as "month one" (even though it comes half-way through the calendar year) - and seh doesn't mean a "lamb":
Adonai spoke to Mosheh and to Aharon in Egypt and said, "This month is going to be first of the months for you - it will be the first month of your year. Speak to the whole community of Yisrael and say, 'Everyone is to take a young animal corresponding to every parental group, one young animal for each household... you can take them from among the young sheep or among the young goats....'."It has no connection with that pagan garbage you quoted.


I think you are wrong --
see Rashi

he acknowledges two meanings:

1) the state of renewal
2) the first of months

the taking into the house of a lamb (chabad translates it that way) on the tenth is related to the first meaning.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/9873/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-12.htm

[Mordochai]

that all news is contained in the Torah, also "the good news" = "b'sorah".
שָׁדַיִם
is dualis-form.
Weinreb said:
it sounds like "shamayim" -- $mYM
we (sucklings) suck it from heaven.
but "shedim" - written the same, $DYM
is plural of "shed" = demon.
demons have no idea of "chayim" - XYYM , life, that it is a dualis-form.
life is here and there , beyond death.
that's why "Shadai" $DY = "who says: Enough! to the demons " --
they stay on this side; and never come across (the river).

You do talk a lot of tommy-rot. The Talmud gives us two alternative derivations for the word shamayim:


מַאי שָׁמַיִם? אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִנָּא "שֶׁשָּׁם מֶיִם" - בְּמַתְנִתָּא תְּנָא "אֵשׁ וּמַיִם" - מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֶבִיאָן הַקָּדֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְטָרפָן זֶה בָּזֶּה וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶן רָקִיעַ׃No connection what so ever with "breasts". Are you a pervert?

[sylvius]

You do talk a lot of tommy-rot. The Talmud gives us two alternative derivations for the word shamayim:No connection what so ever with "breasts". Are you a pervert?

pervert? who is not?

"We all have gone astray like sheep, each turning to his own way"




some more " pagan garbage" :


Luke 11:27-28,



While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed." He replied, "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it."


but note also this:
http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/sichos-in-english/19/21.htm



“From the mouths of babes and sucklings You have founded strength.” On the one hand, the Torah study of “babes and sucklings” is only the beginning of service; on the other hand, it is the foundation of Torah and Judaism of all Jews (“You have founded strength” and “there is no strength except Torah”).

It is for this reason that Mordochai jeopardized his life to study Torah with Jewish children specifically; for he knew that their Torah study is the foundation of the existence of all Jewry, including himself, Mordochai, the Moshe Rabbeinu of his generation.

[Mordochai]

"We all have gone astray like sheep, each turning to his own way"

That statement will be made by the gentile "kings" of the world, when they acknowledge the wrongs they have done to Yisrael - it specifically excludes us.



some more "pagan garbage" :

You can keep it, I'm not interested.

[sylvius]

That statement will be made by the gentile "kings" of the world, when they acknowledge the wrongs they have done to Yisrael - it specifically excludes us.




You can keep it, I'm not interested.


and this?
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:fRqanou0oAwJ:www.prose-n-poetry.com/display_work/4968/+Shaddai+provides+a+name+of+God&hl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=nl


Shaddai provides a name of God that
celebrates the feminine attributes in God:
God Shaddai with shadayim—breasts.
Therefore, making perfect sense, to me,
GOD IS A WOMAN.

[TomSki]

That statement will be made by the gentile "kings" of the world, when they acknowledge the wrongs they have done to Yisrael - it specifically excludes us.

I suppose you are free from sin?

[John Goddard]

חָדָשׁ hadash is the adjective "renewed", while חַדֵּשׁ haddesh is the verb "to renew". The root חדש is always associated with "renewal" or "making new". You have already quoted one example yourself from T'hillim, while another obvious example is the "renewal" of the moon at the beginning of every (lunar) month (חוֹדֶשׁ hodesh). This is why a month is called חוֹדֶשׁ hodesh is Hebrew - there is also another word for a month - יֶרַח yerah - which is related to יָרֵחַ yaré'ah, the moon.

Ok, it is a New Covenant restored/refreshed from the Old Covenant, making all things new again. I don't see the need to nitpick there.

Is there anything preventing it from being made better in this restoration? In it, if Torah is written in everyone's hearts and minds, isn't that one better condition than what was previously had?

[John Goddard]

That statement will be made by the gentile "kings" of the world, when they acknowledge the wrongs they have done to Yisrael - it specifically excludes us.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all.

I don't think Gentile kings were ever considered God's flock, Israelites were. Example:

Ezekiel 34:2 'Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, even to the shepherds: Thus saith the Lord GOD: Woe unto the shepherds of Israel that have fed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the sheep?

Ezekiel 34:5 So were they scattered, because there was no shepherd; and they became food to all the beasts of the field, and were scattered.

[Mordochai]

I don't think Gentile kings were ever considered God's flock, Israelites were.

Who ever said they were "God's flock"?

[John Goddard]

Who ever said they were "God's flock"?

All we like sheep did go astray. When were Gentiles ever like sheep that went astray from God, they didn't even know God. Israelites had God and were supposed to teach Gentiles about Him, instead they got in bed with Gentiles to share in their sins. So this is clearly Israel talking as God's flock and people gone astray, not Gentiles.

[Mordochai]

All we like sheep did go astray. When were Gentiles ever like sheep that went astray from God, they didn't even know God. Israelites had God and were supposed to teach Gentiles about Him, instead they got in bed with Gentiles to share in their sins. So this is clearly Israel talking as God's flock and people gone astray, not Gentiles.

You are committing the age-old error of ignoring the context. The whole chapter is about the gentile kings coming to terms with their guilt for the sufffering that through the ages they have inflicted on God's servant - Yisrael:

52:13. My "servant" (Yisrael) will succeed in becoming uplifted, and will become exalted and very powerful.
52:14. Just as many used to marvel about you and say "Their appearance is too hideous to be human",
52:15. so will he scatter many nations - their kings will be speechless because [suddenly] they will see things that were never talked about and will realise things that were never heard of [before]!
53:1. Who would have believed our report [they will say,] about the ones that the LORD's Arm was revealed to?

[John Goddard]

You are committing the age-old error of ignoring the context. The whole chapter is about the gentile kings coming to terms with their guilt for the sufffering that through the ages they have inflicted on God's servant - Yisrael:


No it's about Jews coming to terms with the guilt of rejecting Jesus who suffered for their sins, as did other prophets rejected by Israel. God only ever used Gentiles to punish Israel for its own sins, Israel never suffered for the sins of others.

See here is Israel the sheep gone astray:

Isaiah 59:3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue muttereth wickedness.

But here is Jesus, like a good lamb led to slaughter to suffer for sins of Jews:

Isaiah 53:9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.'

[Mordochai]

No it's about Jews coming to terms with the guilt of rejecting Jesus who suffered for their sins, as did other prophets rejected by Israel. God only ever used Gentiles to punish Israel for its own sins, Israel never suffered for the sins of others.

Not "for" - because of. Yisrael has been suffering for thousands of years because of the sins of others. Do you have the unmitigated gall to deny that statement?

[John Goddard]

Not "for" - because of. Yisrael has been suffering for thousands of years because of the sins of others. Do you have the unmitigated gall to deny that statement?

Israel lost its Temple and sent to hell for baseless hatred of Jew against Jew according to the sages, the kind displayed against Jesus by Jews in the NT, and also today. Before that when was Israel ever punished by Gentiles unless it had done something wrong? When Israel was faithful God gave it power against enemies, when it wasn't He took it away.

If you are an Israelite you should know the routine by now.

[Mordochai]

Israel lost its Temple and sent to hell for baseless hatred of Jew against Jew according to the sages, the kind displayed against Jesus by Jews in the NT, and also today. Before that when was Israel ever punished by Gentiles unless it had done something wrong? When Israel was faithful God gave it power against enemies, when it wasn't He took it away.
If you are an Israelite you should know the routine by now.

I pity you for your blindness. The text is crystal clear but you still refuse to acknowledge your own guilt.

[John Goddard]

I pity you for your blindness. The text is crystal clear but you still refuse to acknowledge your own guilt.

What guilt, I believe in God.

On the other hand there is rampant atheism among Jews aside from other things, so you guys better get cracking to clean it up before God's wrath comes down again, but good. He might tolerate honest doubt of Jesus due to Trinity, but not atheism.

[Mordochai]

What guilt, I believe in God.

On the other hand there is rampant atheism among Jews aside from other things, so you guys better get cracking to clean it up before God's wrath comes down again, but good. He might tolerate honest doubt of J**** due to Trinity, but not atheism.

Are you trying to employ racist attacks on all Hebrews collectively in an attempt to distract attention away from your own blindness? As the Psalter says: עֵינַיִם לָהֶם וְלֹא יִרְאוּ.

[John Goddard]

Are you trying to employ racist attacks on all Hebrews collectively in an attempt to distract attention away from your own blindness? As the Psalter says: עֵינַיִם לָהֶם וְלֹא יִרְאוּ.

We're talking about belief in God among a group of people, so race is not an issue at all especially when it applies to converts.

So when you guys clean up all that atheism from among Jews, then if you get punished by Gentiles again I will agree it is the sin of Gentiles. But not so far yet in history, Israel was always punished for its own sins. Israelites were supposed to bring God to Gentiles, not partake of their sins, so blaming Gentiles for that is like a teacher blaming her student if she has sex with him.

[Mordochai]

JG, it seems you're too much of a wuss to accept private messages so I'll have to do this publicly - YOU ARE NOW ON MY IGNORE LIST.

[John Goddard]

JG, it seems you're too much of a wuss to accept private messages so I'll have to do this publicly - YOU ARE NOW ON MY IGNORE LIST.

Ok.

[mitzi]

Okay Mitzi - last chance. You christians claim that "Mister Sayten" was "thrown out" of Heaven for "rebelling" against God, and yet in Z'charyah 3:1 (a prophecy with an actual calendar date - 520BCE), we find "him" as large as life and playing "his" rôle in the Heavenly Court of Justice. So will you please tell me, in plain, simple language, and without any more procrastination or evasion, just when "he" was forgiven and reinstated, and where this is recorded in the T'nach?

Ok. Mordochai:

Let's bring the Christian text out for us to discuss:

For most Christians, he is believed to be an angel who rebelled against God— and also the one who spoke through the serpent and seduced Eve into disobeying God's command. His ultimate goal is to lead people away from the love of God — to lead them to fallacies which God opposes. Satan is also identified as the accuser of Job, the tempter in the Gospels, the secret power of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, and the dragon in the Book of Revelation. Before his alleged insurrection, Satan was among the highest of all angels and the "brightest in the sky." His pride is considered a reason why he would not bow to God as all other angels did, but sought to rule heaven himself. The popularly held beliefs that Satan was once a prideful angel who eventually rebels against God, however, are barely portrayed explicitly in the Bible and are mostly based on inference. Moreover, in mainstream Christianity he is called "the ruler of the demons" (Matt. 12:24), "the ruler of the world" and even "the god of this world." (2 Cor. 4:4). The Book of Revelation describes how Satan will be cast out of Heaven, down to the earth, having "great anger" and waging war against "those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus". Ultimately, Satan is thrown into the "lake of fire" (Revelation 20:10), not as ruler, but as one among many, being tormented day and night for all eternity. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan)


Your question to me was: "When was Satan forgiven or Reinstated? Because you had show him in the heavenly court, correct? In Zechariah - Chapter 3 which states: " 1. And He showed me Joshua, the High Priest, standing before the angel of the Lord. And Satan was standing on his right, to accuse him." which keeping with verse along side it "And G-d said to the Satan, 'May the L-rd rebuke you. O Satan, and may the L-rd Who chooses Jerusalem rebuke you; is this not a firebrand plucked from the fire?" (Zechariah 3:1-2) Now in (Job) Iyov the passage states that Satan is a "wanderer " 7 And the LORD said unto Satan: 'Whence comest thou?' Then Satan answered the LORD, and said: 'From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.'

Good Passage by the way. Satan was never forgiven nor was he ever reinstated according to the same passage you used. Gd rebuked him.

The question that I have (though) is this? In Genesis when Gd commanded Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge which is considered the first command (or mitzvah " 16. And the Lord God commanded man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.) When Eve ate from the tree she then gave the fruit over to Adam to eat--. The next question is this: When Gd called out to Adam in the Garden, Adam became afraid and hid from Gd. Why? How would Gd know what Adam did? Could Satan have been the accuser, like in Iyov. Remember, Satan does appear in the Bible as a member of God's court, he plays the role of the Accuser...who by the way with the evil purpose of searching out men's sins by watching over all human activity.

Satan was never forgiven and never reinstated within the courts.....i believe he was thrown out. Zechariah 3:2

[mitzi]

Genesis 3: 15 between judging the off-springs? Professor you said in Post #2 that Angels couldn't have descendants/ produced children? and so then who were the Nephilim? (Genesis (Bereishit) 6:1-4)

The nephilim come from a union between “sons of God” (בני האלהים “b’nei ha-'elohim” Lit. "Sons of the powers" [7]) and “daughters of man”

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim)

[mitzi]

Genesis 3: 15 between judging the off-springs? Professor you said in Post #2 that Angels couldn't have descendants/ produced children? and so then who were the Nephilim? (Genesis (Bereishit) 6:1-4)

The nephilim come from a union between “sons of God” (בני האלהים “b’nei ha-'elohim” Lit. "Sons of the powers" [7]) and “daughters of man”

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim)

"The story of the Nephilim is chronicled more fully in the Book of Enoch (part of Ethiopian biblical canon). Enoch, as well as Jubilees, connects the origin of the Nephilim with the fallen angels, and in particular with the Grigori (watchers). Samyaza, an angel of high rank, is described as leading a rebel sect of angels in a descent to earth to instruct humans in righteousness"

same link

[Mordochai]

Professor you said in Post #2 that Angels couldn't have descendants/ produced children? and so then who were the Nephilim? (Genesis (Bereishit) 6:1-4)
The nephilim come from a union between “sons of God” (בני האלהים “b’nei ha-'elohim” Lit. "Sons of the powers" [7]) and “daughters of man”


Mitzi, you are being misled (as usual) by a flawed and inaccurate translation. The word אֱלֹהִים elohim is grammatically the plural form of אֱלוֹהַּ elo'ah, a "god". It is also used in the sense of "gods", frequently qualified by the adjective אֲחֵרִים ahérim ("other"), i.e. אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים elohim ahérim, "other gods" - that is to say, other false gods, or idols (and note that an "idol" does not have to be a sculpture or a statue: the English word "idol" is derived from the Latin idolum, itself borrowed from the Greek ειδολον eidolon, a "phantom"). It is almost always immediately obvious from the context whether a specific instance of אֲחֵרִים elohim is being used as a "Name" for God (treated grammatically as a singular "proper noun"), or as denoting "idols" (an ordinary plural "common noun").

But the word אֲחֵרִים elohim is also used in the Scriptures in a third sense: there are many examples of this, but I shall present just one here. Shmot 22:6-7 deals with the situation that arises if A gives money, or goods, to B for safe-keeping, and they are stolen while still in B's possession. The Torah prescribes that, if the thief is not caught, B must appear before the judges in a Court of Law, and must swear an Oath that he has not misappropriated B's money or goods, as the case may be:

כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים לִשְׁמֹר, וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ... אִם לֹא יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב, וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ׃"If A gives money or goods to B for safe-keeping, and they are stolen from B's house... if the thief is not caught, then B shall appear before the judges [and swear an Oath] that he has not laid his hand on A's property..."

The usage of אֱלֹהִים elohim is B'réshit 6:1-4 is exactly the same, although the intention is probably rather wider - "leaders" or "rulers", rather than merely "judges":

וַיְהִי כִּי הֵחֵל הָאָדָם לָרֹב עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה וּבָנוֹת יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ - וַיֹּאמֶר ה', "לֹא יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם בְּשַׁגַּם הוּא בָשָׂר וְהָיוּ יָמָיו מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה"... (הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וְגַם אַחֲרֵי כֵן)... אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם - הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם׃Then Mankind began to increase in numbers and spread throughout the World and daughters were born to them, and when the sons of the rulers saw that the daughters of the common people were real cute, they took [by force] whichever of them they wanted as their wives.
So Adonai said, "I will not allow My Nature to struggle within Me indefinitely because of Mankind - after all, he is mortal - I will allow him another 120 years"...
(There were n'filim in the world at that time, and also afterwards)
...so the sons of the rulers slept with with the daughters of the common people and they gave birth to their children - these were the famous mighty men of old.The נְפִילִים n'filim were certainly an oddity - for example, we are told explicitly in B'réshit 6:4 that they existed both before and after the Flood (and in B'midbar 13:22 the "twelve explorers" encounter the עֲנָק Anak and his three sons אֲחִימַן Ahiman, שֵׁשַׁי Shéshai and תַּלְמַי Ptolemy, who are said to have been נְפִילִים n'filim in 13:33, still alive and living at חֶבְרוֹן hevron - eight hundred years after the Flood!), but they were not angels or even the "sons" of angels.

[Mordochai]

"The story of the Nephilim is chronicled more fully in the Book of Enoch (part of Ethiopian biblical canon). Enoch, as well as Jubilees, connects the origin of the Nephilim with the fallen angels.....

There is no "book of Enoch" or "book of Jubilees" in any bible I have ever seen - even a christian one.

[Mordochai]

Your question to me was: "When was Satan forgiven or Reinstated? Because you had show him in the heavenly court, correct? In Zechariah - Chapter 3 which states: " 1. And He showed me Joshua, the High Priest, standing before the angel of the Lord. And Satan was standing on his right, to accuse him." which keeping with verse along side it "And G-d said to the Satan, 'May the L-rd rebuke you. O Satan, and may the L-rd Who chooses Jerusalem rebuke you; is this not a firebrand plucked from the fire?" (Zechariah 3:1-2) Now in (Job) Iyov the passage states that Satan is a "wanderer " 7 And the LORD said unto Satan: 'Whence comest thou?' Then Satan answered the LORD, and said: 'From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.'

What a typical christian kludge!

Firstly, Z'charyah never says anything about the satan angel being "thrown out" - God just reprimands... i.e "scolds" it... because it has done something it shouldn't have done (namely taking Y'hoshua before his time):


וַיַּרְאֵנִי אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל עֹמֵד לִפְנֵי מַלְאַךְ ה' וְהַשָּׂטָן עֹמֵד עַל-יְמִינוֹ לְשִׂטְנוֹ׃ וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל הַשָּׂטָן "יִגְעַר ה' בְּךָ הַשָּׂטָן וְיִגְעַר ה' בְּךָ הַבֹּחֵר בִּירוּשָׁלִָם - הֲלוֹא זֶה אוּד מֻצָּל מֵאֵשׁ"׃Then He showed me [a vision of] the Chief Kohen, Y'hoshua, standing in front of one of Adonai's angels, with the satan standing to his right waiting to prosecute him; and Adonai said to the satan, "Adonai is reprimanding you, the satan - Adonai who choses Y'rushalayim is reprimanding you - isn't this [man] like a glowing ember that has been salvaged from a fire?" (Z'charyah 3:1-2)יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Y'hoshua (also known by his Babylonian nickname יֵשׁוּעַ Yéshua) was destined to serve as כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל Chief Kohen in the rebuilt Second Temple, and Z'charyah even calls him הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל - "the Chief Kohen". But this prophecy is dated בִּשְׁנַת שְׁתַּיִם לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ "in the second year of Darius [the First]", i.e. 520BCE - and in that year the Second Temple had not even been built (the date of its completion is given in Ezra 6:15 as שְׁנַת שֵׁת לְמַלְכוּת דָּרְיָוֶשׁ מַלְכָּא the sixth year of the reign of King Darius [the First]", i.e. 516BCE). So it was not yet time for יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Y'hoshua (or יֵשׁוּעַ Yéshua) to die and this is why God "reprimands" or "scolds" the satan angel; certainly, this was an error of judgement on its part, but hardly serious enough to justify it being banished from Heaven for ever (and anyway Z'charyah doesn't say anything about it being "thrown out" of Heaven).

Secondly, the passage you cite from Iyov is a complete red herring that you introduce only to obfuscate the issue, and you don't even do so honestly because it never says the satan angel is a "wanderer"; God just asks it where it has been and it answers מִשּׁוּט בָּאָרֶץ וּמֵהִתְהַלֵּךְ בָּהּ - "Roaming about in the World and walking up and down".



The question that I have (though) is this? In Genesis when Gd commanded Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge which is considered the first command (or mitzvah " 16. And the Lord God commanded man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.) When Eve ate from the tree she then gave the fruit over to Adam to eat--. The next question is this: When Gd called out to Adam in the Garden, Adam became afraid and hid from Gd. Why? How would Gd know what Adam did? Could Satan have been the accuser, like in Iyov. Remember, Satan does appear in the Bible as a member of God's court, he plays the role of the Accuser...who by the way with the evil purpose of searching out men's sins by watching over all human activity.

Satan was never forgiven and never reinstated within the courts.....i believe he was thrown out. Zechariah 3:2

Nice try - after deliberately dodging and evading the issue, misquoting and misrepresenting what Z'charyah says, and introducing a complete red herring to distract attention from the central issue, you just repeat your incorrect statement and throw out a reference - "Zechariah 3:2" - as though it proves something. But it doesn't, you are just translating it wrongly. I don't think you people ever give any thought to when your Mister Sayten was actually "thrown out" of Heaven and how that ties in with Z'charyah 3:1, or if you ever think what that passage means (or even if you ever think at all) - wow, it says God "rebukes Satan"! Why God "rebuked" the satan angel, or what "Satan" was even doing there at the time (having supposedly been banished from Heaven), you couldn't care less about because it "isn't important".

Do you even know when "Satan" was "thrown out of Heaven"?

[sylvius]

Do you even know when "Satan" was "thrown out of Heaven"?[/SIZE][/FONT]


http://www.yhol.org.il/features/poem.htm


(G-d) cast truth down to the earth… Bereishit Rabbah 8:5

Why, then, is truth so scarce?
Because none stoops to raise it up.
R. Mendel of Kotsk


Truth had said, "Let him (Adam) not be created , because he is compounded of falsehood "

[Mordochai]

Truth had said, "Let him (Adam) not be created , because he is compounded of falsehood "

Typical - another christian wades in with even more obfuscation.

[sylvius]

Typical - another christian wades in with even more obfuscation.

you'll have to think it out ...

you asked:

do you even know when "Satan" was "thrown out of Heaven"?

now you know when:

on THE sixth day.

which still seems to be future ...

[Mordochai]

now you know when: on THE sixth day.
which still seems to be future ...

Actually, if you bother to read B'réshit you will learn that the "sixth era of Creation" did end... וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם הַשִּׁשּׁי. So we are in fact living in the "seventh age".

But it seems that according to both of you two, "Mister Sayten" hasn't even been "thrown out of Heaven" yet??? :huh:

[sylvius]

Actually, if you bother to read B'réshit you will learn that the "sixth era of Creation" did end... וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם הַשִּׁשּׁי. So we are in fact living in the "seventh age".

But it seems that according to both of you two, "Mister Sayten" hasn't even been "thrown out of Heaven" yet??? :huh:

Rashi on Genesis 1:31,

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/8165/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-1.htm



They [the works of creation] were all suspended until the “sixth day,” referring to the sixth day of Sivan, which was prepared for the giving of the Torah (Shab. 88a).

"suspended" , TLWYM W(WmDYM, "t'luyim v''omdim" = suspended, doubtful, undecided, sub judice.





that's why Revelation 2:17 (Hallucinations 2:17):

tw nikwnti dwsw autw tou manna tou kekrummenou, kai dwsw autw yhfon leukhn kai epi thn yhfon onoma kainon gegrammenon o oudeiV oiden ei mh o lambanwn.


yhfoV,n {psay'-fos}
1) a small worn smooth stone, a pebble 1a) in the ancient courts of justice the accused were condemned by black pebbles and the acquitted by white 2) a vote (on account of the use of pebbles in voting)

root of :
yhfizw,v {psay-fid'-zo}
1) to count with pebbles, to compute, calculate, reckon 2) to give one's vote by casting a pebble into the urn 3) to decide by voting

which occurs in Revelation 13:18,

wde h sofia estin: o ecwn noun yhfisatw ton ariqmon tou qhriou, ariqmoV gar anqrwpou estin: kai o ariqmoV autou exakosioi exhkonta ex.



and also why Paul is ever still hurrying to reach Jerusalem before the sixth day:


Acts 20:16,

kekrikei gar o pauloV parapleusai thn efeson, opwV mh genhtai autw cronotribhsai en th asia, espeuden gar ei dunaton eih autw thn hmeran thV penthkosthV genesqai eiV ierosoluma

he never reached there, at least not at the right time ...

[Mordochai]

More irrelevant pagan garbage, more obfuscation... do you even know what "obfuscation" means, Sylvius?

[sylvius]

More irrelevant pagan garbage, more obfuscation... do you even know what "obfuscation" means, Sylvius?

I got a dictionary

isn't Mr. Sayten responsible for all obfuscation?

[Mordochai]

I got a dictionary

Pity you don't "got" a grammar book.



isn't Mr. Sayten responsible for all obfuscation?

No, Mr. Sylvius takes care of that, together with his Second-in-Command, Ms. Mitzi.

[sylvius]

Pity you don't "got" a grammar book.




No, Mr. Sylvius takes care of that, together with his Second-in-Command, Ms. Mitzi.

who is worse then,
Mr. Sylvius or Mr. John?

[Tanakh Keeper]

But it seems that according to both of you two, "Mister Sayten" hasn't even been "thrown out of Heaven" yet??? :huh:

Most other xians say that Satan lives in Hell. Maybe they are agreeing with Judaism, that HaSatan is just another one of G-d's angels living in Heaven.

[John Goddard]

Most other xians say that Satan lives in Hell. Maybe they are agreeing with Judaism, that HaSatan is just another one of G-d's angels living in Heaven.

Satan is hell and purgatory, the fish that swallowed Jonah and Serpent cursed to eat dust that Adam is after death, and to move on its belly of hell revealing sin in the world.

[Mordochai]

who is worse then, Mr. Sylvius or Mr. John?

I never mentioned any "Mr. John" - only a Mr. Sylvius and a Ms. Mitzi.

[Mordochai]

Most other xians say that Satan lives in Hell. Maybe they are agreeing with Judaism, that HaSatan is just another one of G-d's angels living in Heaven.

Hardly, TK.

[mitzi]

Pity you don't "got" a grammar book.




No, Mr. Sylvius takes care of that, together with his Second-in-Command, Ms. Mitzi.

Second in Command? Mordochai! only Second, I'll have to work harder...work, work,work :nails:

[Mordochai]

Second in Command? Mordochai! only Second, I'll have to work harder...work, work,work :nails:

Only a christian would consider being accused of obfuscation a compliment. Do you even know what the word means?

[sylvius]

Only a christian would consider being accused of obfuscation a compliment. Do you even know what the word means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation


Obfuscation is the concealment of meaning in communication, making it confusing and harder to interpret.



which makes think of to drive out Mr. Sayten by means of the Ba'al Z'vuv (the Lord of confusion)
(of which J**** was accused)

[mitzi]

Only a christian would consider being accused of obfuscation a compliment. Do you even know what the word means?

Mordochai, I responded to the term second in command not to the word obfuscation--as you couldn't see the wording (again of being evasive). I'll ignore the rest. and yes, let me give the board a full explanation of the word "obfuscation"...to be evasive, unclear, or confusing. Again, I didn't respond to it....You spend too much time deliberating on the persons instead of the conversations. The amount of time wasted instead of getting to the point...

[Mordochai]

Mordochai, I responded to the term second in command not to the word obfuscation--as you couldn't see the wording (again of being evasive). I'll ignore the rest. and yes, let me give the board a full explanation of the word "obfuscation"...to be evasive, unclear, or confusing. Again, I didn't respond to it....You spend too much time deliberating on the persons instead of the conversations. The amount of time wasted instead of getting to the point...

And you, mitzi, are the one who wastes it; I asked you when in time "Mr Sayten" is supposed to have been (note: past tense) "thrown out of Heaven" and you still have not given a clear and unequivocal answer - you have repeatedly fudged the issue and from your convoluted replies it sounds as if it hasn't even happened yet, implying that right now "Mr Sayten" is still in Heaven.

[mitzi]

What a typical christian kludge!

Firstly, Z'charyah never says anything about the satan angel being "thrown out" - God just reprimands... i.e "scolds" it... because it has done something it shouldn't have done (namely taking Y'hoshua before his time):יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Y'hoshua (also known by his Babylonian nickname יֵשׁוּעַ Yéshua) was destined to serve as כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל Chief Kohen in the rebuilt Second Temple, and Z'charyah even calls him הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל - "the Chief Kohen". But this prophecy is dated בִּשְׁנַת שְׁתַּיִם לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ "in the second year of Darius [the First]", i.e. 520BCE - and in that year the Second Temple had not even been built (the date of its completion is given in Ezra 6:15 as שְׁנַת שֵׁת לְמַלְכוּת דָּרְיָוֶשׁ מַלְכָּא the sixth year of the reign of King Darius [the First]", i.e. 516BCE). So it was not yet time for יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Y'hoshua (or יֵשׁוּעַ Yéshua) to die and this is why God "reprimands" or "scolds" the satan angel; certainly, this was an error of judgement on its part, but hardly serious enough to justify it being banished from Heaven for ever (and anyway Z'charyah doesn't say anything about it being "thrown out" of Heaven).

Secondly, the passage you cite from Iyov is a complete red herring that you introduce only to obfuscate the issue, and you don't even do so honestly because it never says the satan angel is a "wanderer"; God just asks it where it has been and it answers מִשּׁוּט בָּאָרֶץ וּמֵהִתְהַלֵּךְ בָּהּ - "Roaming about in the World and walking up and down".




Nice try - after deliberately dodging and evading the issue, misquoting and misrepresenting what Z'charyah says, and introducing a complete red herring to distract attention from the central issue, you just repeat your incorrect statement and throw out a reference - "Zechariah 3:2" - as though it proves something. But it doesn't, you are just translating it wrongly. I don't think you people ever give any thought to when your Mister Sayten was actually "thrown out" of Heaven and how that ties in with Z'charyah 3:1, or if you ever think what that passage means (or even if you ever think at all) - wow, it says God "rebukes Satan"! Why God "rebuked" the satan angel, or what "Satan" was even doing there at the time (having supposedly been banished from Heaven), you couldn't care less about because it "isn't important".

Do you even know when "Satan" was "thrown out of Heaven"?

Then do you know when "man" was allowed back in to the Heavenly Court while in the same breath? Then asking right back to you the same question: When had man been forgiven? or Reinstated? The passage (you've listed or tried to insert *to make a point*) indicates that Joshua was High Priest (as Kohen Gadol (High Priest)) and standing before the angel of the Lord but as the passage continues Satan was standing on his right, to accuse him. Gd at that point "rebukes" Satan. So if I want to find the meaning of the word "rebuke" according to Hebrew text then G-d is "distancing" Himself from us. Then the meaning of rebuke would come across as The Rabbis of the ancient Midrash Sifre Devarim note that every place the Bible uses the verb 'daber' indicates harshness or rebuke, whereas the Hebrew word 'amar' conveys a sense of praise.The form of words which God used to rebuke Job from the whirlwind ‘Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?’ ‘Who has laid the measure thereof?’ Wasn't this question which God threw at Job when he accused him of lack of understanding. Then how much more with Satan when he lacks understanding and much more? Especially when he knows the law and uses it. Just an add thought "why" does Gd need an accusing angel when Gd is aware of all our actions before Satan stands before the court. Wasn't there a passage that states "What is man that you are mindful of him? the son of man that you care for him? "

You've pointed out that Satan was not in the Garden, but actually he must have been "if" Satan is the chief prosecutor--wouldn't that place him back in the heavenly court, again? Using your own passage in Zechariah 3:1, doesn't the passage puts Joshua in the same position with Adam. Who outranks who, in this case? You have also asked me to give a passage regarding the "fall" of Satan-and when he was forgiven in order to stand in the Heavenly Courts. My question back to you: "So when was man excused?" *Yeshua* is standing within the same court. How could I possibly answer your question if the Tanakh doesn't give the details about the pre-heavens? There is very little information about what happened within the heavens prior to creation. And we (also) know that Nepillim were listed in Genesis (Bereishit) chapter 6.

Not to be evasive. There are passages that *may not* give specific info/or names however-it's assumed that within the Garden-Satan "did" played not only the accusing angel but also had much to do with the evil temptations that had affect both Adam and Eve's judgement....as in Iyov.

LINK (http://www.ajula.edu/Content/ContentUnit.asp?CID=940&u=1466&t=0)

[Mordochai]

which makes think of to drive out Mr. Sayten by means of the Ba'al Z'vuv (the Lord of confusion)...

Sylvius, are you really so ignorant that you don't know the meaning of the word זְבוּב z'vuv? It means a "fly" or an "insect" (not "confusion") and the בַּעַל זְבוּב ba'al z'vuv or "fly master" was an idol that the P'lishtians who lived at Ekron (one of the five P'lishtian cities) worshipped. The name בַּעַל זְבוּב ba'al z'vuv occurs only in chapter 23 of M'lachim (or the first chapter of "part two"), where King אֲחַזְיָהוּ Ahazyahu of Yisrael sends to enquire of it whether he was going to recover from the injuries he sustained when accidentally falling from the balcony of his bedroom at his palace in Shomron (an act for which he is severely reprimanded by the prophet אֵלִיָּהוּ Éliyyahu). The Babylonian Talmud (Treatise Shabbat, folio 83b) says that the בַּעַל זְבוּב ba'al z'vuv was identical with the בַּעַל בְּרִית ba'al b'rit of Shoftim 8:33 and got its name because it was made in the shape of a fly, was as small as a fly, and was carried in a pocket by its worshippers who would bring it out whenever it was needed.

[sylvius]

Sylvius, are you really so ignorant that you don't know the meaning of the word זְבוּב z'vuv? It means a "fly" or an "insect" and בַּעַל זְבוּב ba'al z'vuv or the "fly master" was an idol worshipped by the P'lishtians who lived at Ekron. The name בַּעַל זְבוּב ba'al z'vuv only occurs in chapter 23 of M'lachim (or the first chapter of "part two") where King Ahazyahu of Yisrael sends to enquire of it whether he was going to recover from the injuries he sustained when accidentally falling from the balcony of his bedroom at his palace in Shomron (for which he gets severely reprimanded by the prophet Éliyyahu). The Babylonian Talmud (Treatise Shabbat, folio 83b) says that the בַּעַל זְבוּב ba'al z'vuv was identical with the בַּעַל בְּרִית ba'al b'rit of Shoftim 8:33 and got its name because it was made in the shape of a fly, was as small as a fly, and was carried in a pocket by its worshippers who would bring it out whenever it was needed.
the flies bring confusion.
they are many.
you cannot do nothing against.
there is also a story about the flies , that they set the Temple on fire with their burning wings.

[mitzi]

And you, mitzi, are the one who wastes it; I asked you when in time "Mr Sayten" is supposed to have been (note: past tense) "thrown out of Heaven" and you still have not given a clear and unequivocal answer - you have repeatedly fudged the issue and from your convoluted replies it sounds as if it hasn't even happened yet, implying that right now "Mr Sayten" is still in Heaven.

.....Mordochai, I haven't been evasive. Why would I? For What? What do I gain in learning? Nothing. If I'm in the wrong or I'm not sure about your question, then I'll ask for more clarification. Which I've tried many times to do? Or didn't you read that in my post? You've taught for so many years...can't you understand when you read the posts. I'm not evasive, your hard of hearing--

[Mordochai]

there is also a story about the flies , that they set the Temple on fire with their burning wings.

Sylvius, the difference between you and me is that I always quote my source whenever I cite "stories" - you never do, because you just make your stories up. There is no such story and you know it.

[sylvius]

Sylvius, the difference between you and me is that I always quote my source whenever I cite "stories" - you never do, because you just make your stories up. There is no such story and you know it.

i've heard (read) it once
i'll try to find it back.

[Mordochai]

i've heard (read) it once
i'll try to find it back.

Yeah, right

[sylvius]

Yeah, right

I found this:


Genesis 40:1,

And it came to pass after these things, that the butler of the king of Egypt and his baker had sinned against their lord the king of Egypt.

Rashi:


had sinned
in the case of the one a fly was found in the goblet of aromatic wine


Genesis 40:21,

And he restored teh officer of the butlers unto his butlership again

Weinreb (I have no other source):


The flies/multitude put the Temple on fire. That's why Pharao accepts the fly in the wine.


which again makes think of Sparko's strong drink ...

[Mordochai]

The legend cited by Rashi from Midrash B'réshit Rabba (chapter 88, section 2) has nothing to do with the Temple's destruction, and I have no clue who "Weinreb" might be - and as usual you are totally inverting your own quotation because the Pharaoh did not "accept the fly in his wine", but threw the butler into gaol for it.

[sylvius]

The legend cited by Rashi from Midrash B'réshit Rabba (chapter 88, section 2) has nothing to do with the Temple's destruction, and I have no clue who "Weinreb" might be - and as usual you are totally inverting your own quotation because the Pharaoh did not "accept the fly in his wine", but threw the butler into gaol for it.
but later on he did restore him into his office.

[sylvius]

The legend cited by Rashi from Midrash B'réshit Rabba (chapter 88, section 2) has nothing to do with the Temple's destruction, .

ha , but the Midrash Rabbah brings in a further interpretation;



R. Abiathar said: They wished to seduce the king's daughter. For here it says, SINNED AGAINST THEIR LORD, while above it syas, And sin agaisbnt God (Genesis 39:9)

suggesting that the butler intentionally did put a fly into the wine, to make him drunk.

and when Pharao later on restored him into his office, he by that did let him know: Yes, I want to get drunk.

[Mordochai]

suggesting that the butler intentionally did put a fly into the wine, to make him drunk

You're talking more and more nonsense; since when does a fly in your wine make you more drunk than wine without a fly? duhhh :duh:

[sylvius]

You're talking more and more nonsense; since when does a fly in your wine make you more drunk than wine without a fly? duhhh :duh:

seems to be the mystery of the wine:

"when wine goes in, secrets go out"

http://www.neveh.org/winston/parsha64/tetzaveh.html


For, anyone who becomes settled through wine has the knowledge (da'as) of his Creator . . . has the knowledge (da'as) of the Seventy Elders; wine was given with seventy letters (Rashi: the gematria of yai'in - wine - is 70), and the mystery (of Torah) was given with seventy letters (sod - mystery- also equals 70). When wine goes in, secrets go out. (Eiruvin 65a)

[Mordochai]

"when wine goes in, secrets go out"

Wow, how appropriate, with Purim almost here - but I repeat, since when does a fly in your wine make you more drunk than wine without a fly?

[sylvius]

Wow, how appropriate, with Purim almost here - but I repeat, since when does a fly in your wine make you more drunk than wine without a fly?

it is methaphorical.


http://www.neveh.org/winston/parsha64/tetzaveh.html


Remember What?

Remember what Amalek did to you on your way out of Egypt, when he chanced upon you on the way . . . (Devarim 25:17)
(...)

G-d told Moshe, "Write this as a memorial in the Book, and repeat it carefully (literally, b'aznei -- in the ears) to Yehoshua. I will completely eradicate the memory of Amalek from under heaven." (Shemos 17:14)
The gematria of b'aznei is that of Sod, because the way of war against Amalek begins in the way of Sod. No wonder that, of all the four mitzvos of Purim - Megillah, Matanos L'Evyonim, Mishloach Manos, and Mishteh - it is the latter, at which we drink until we no longer know the difference between Mordechai and Amalek (well, actually Haman who descended from Amalek), that corresponds to the letter Yud of Hashem's Name (Pri Tzaddik), which corresponds to the level of Sodof Pardes.




Genesis 40:14

But remember me when things go well with you, and please do me a favor and mention me to Pharaoh, and you will get me out of this house

Genesis 40:23,

But the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, and he forgot him

[Mordochai]

it is methaphorical.

Metaphorical, my eye. No metaphor was implied in your orignal statement, which was

suggesting that the butler intentionally did put a fly into the wine, to make him drunkHow many times must I tell you to stop making things up???

[sylvius]

Metaphorical, my eye. No metaphor was implied in your orignal statement, which wasHow many times must I tell you to stop making things up???

what then you think might Mark have meant with:


The scribes who had come down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "By the prince of demons he drives out demons."
?

(Mark 3:22)

[Mordochai]

what then you think might Mark have meant with:

Who cares what that pagan might have thought he meant?

One day, silvius, you may start to understand that I am just not interested in what nonsense your books of pagan garbage say.

[sylvius]

Who cares what that pagan might have thought he meant?

I do.

I think he meant to say that the scribes (aren't you one too?) thought that J**** was under influence of something; alcohol or hashish or cocaine or what else.

the verse before, Mark 3:21,
has:

When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

"he is out of his mind" = he is crazy, nuts.

then the scribes do their say to that.

.


One day, silvius, you may start to understand that I am just not interested in what nonsense your books of pagan garbage say.

I do understand.

but I am not Jewish,
and I (think to) know that these books are not just "pagan garbage",
but largely misunderstood and misused.

[Mordochai]

but I am not Jewish,
and I (think to) know that these books are not just "pagan garbage",
but largely misunderstood and misused.

It's because you are not a Hebrew that you can't see what garbage they are.
Just stop spewing their nonsense at me.
I AM NOT INTERESTED.

[sylvius]

It's because you are not a Hebrew that you can't see what garbage they are.
Just stop spewing their nonsense at me.
I AM NOT INTERESTED.


garbage,

Hebrew "zevel" - dung , manure, excrement, faeces , trash, rubbish.

ZBL

beelzeboul = Beelzebul = Lord of garbage ?

[Mordochai]

garbage,
Hebrew "zevel" - dung , manure, excrement, faeces , trash, rubbish.
ZBL
beelzeboul = Beelzebul = Lord of garbage ?

In fact the pseudo-LXX translates בַּעַל זְבוּב אֱלֹהֵי עֶקְרוֹן as Βααλ μυιαν θεον Ακκαρων on all four occasions that it occurs (see http://septuagint.org/LXX/2Kings/2Kings1.html verses 2, 3, 6 and 16) - it has no connection with זֶבֶל zevel (which is post-Biblical Hebrew anyway); in Scripture, זְבֻל z'vul means a palace (M'lachim Alef 8:13, Divrei Hayamim Beit 6:2).

[sylvius]

In fact the pseudo-LXX translates בַּעַל זְבוּב אֱלֹהֵי עֶקְרוֹן as Βααλ μυιαν θεον Ακκαρων on all four occasions that it occurs - it has no connection with זֶבֶל zevel (which is post-Biblical Hebrew anyway).
In Scripture, זְבוּל z'vul means a palace.





maybe that's why Mark 3:27,

But no one can enter a strong man's house to plunder his property unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can plunder his house.

[Mordochai]

but "z'vul" occurs in Tanach
= habitation
fe. in Isaiah 63:15.

Look down from heaven, and see, even from Thy holy and glorious habitation

What did I just write? - "In Scripture, זְבוּל z'vul means a palace."

[sylvius]

What did I just write? - "In Scripture, זְבוּל z'vul means a palace."

i was too quick in answer.

sorry.

"tie up the strong man"

on his bed?

[Mordochai]

i was too quick in answer.
sorry.
"tie up the strong man"
on his bed?

If you had been correct about "zevel" just think what Lé'ah would have named her youngest son.....

Do you have any idea what μυιαν means???

[sylvius]

If you had been correct about "zevel" just think what Lé'ah would have named her youngest son.....

Do you have any idea what μυιαν means???


Genesis 30:20,
הַפַּעַם יִזְבְּלֵנִי אִישִׁי
"This time my man will dwell with me"

hey again "hapa'am",

same as in Genesis 29:35

הַפַּעַם אוֹדֶה אֶת-ה
'This time will I praise the LORD"

but also in Genesis 29:34,

הַפַּעַם יִלָּוֶה אִישִׁי אֵלַי
"This time my man will be joined unto me"

strange here:
עַל-כֵּן קָרָא-שְׁמוֹ לֵוִי
"therefore, He called his name Levi."

while Genesis 30:20 has,
וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ זְבֻלוּן
And she called his name Zebulun.


I have no explanation for these things.


Genesis 30:20,
וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת-רָחֵל וַיִּשְׁמַע אֵלֶיהָ אֱלֹהִים וַיִּפְתַּח אֶת-רַחְמָהּ.
And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and He opened her womb.

Rachel is the mother of the lamb.



muia = fly.

[Mordochai]

I have no explanation for these things.

What "things"???



Genesis 30:20,
And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and He opened her womb.
Rachel is the mother of the lamb.

And what "lamb"? Don't be disgusting - Rahel never gave birth to any "lamb" :eww:



muia = fly.

Hmm... I couldn't find μυια in my dictionary. So pseudo-LXX is translating בַּעַל זְבוּב literally as "the ba'al of the fly"? I wonder why the English versions have "Baalzebub" then?

[sylvius]

What "things"???

why in these three cases "hapa'am" , which seems to denote something eventual, like in Genesis 2:23.

Remarkable:

in NT John and James (Ionannes and Iakobos) are called sons of Zebedee (Zebedaios) which seems to be an alternative name of Zevulun. ("God has given me a good portion, "zeved" ,ZBD ).

( probaV oligon eiden iakwbon ton tou zebedaiou kai iwannhn )



And what "lamb"? Don't be disgusting - Rahel never gave birth to any "lamb" :eww:

metaphorically.







Hmm... I couldn't find μυια in my dictionary. So pseudo-LXX is translating בַּעַל זְבוּב literally as "the ba'al of the fly"? I wonder why the English versions have "Baalzebub" then?[/QUOTE]

it is all part of the obfuscation ...

[Mordochai]

why in these three cases "hapa'am"

הַפַּעַם hapa'am occurs only twice in connection with the birth of Ya'akov's sons - in B'réshit 29:35 and 30:20 - where it has the force of עַתָּה = "now".

Rashi notes the anomalous use of the masculine gender in 29:34 and comments


בְּכֻלָּם כְּתִיב "וַתִּקְרָא" וְזֶה כָתַב בּוֹ "קָרָא" וְיֵשׁ מִדְרַשׁ אֲגָדָה בְּאֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים רַבָּה שֶׁשָּׁלַח הַקָּדֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת גַּבְרִיאֵל וֶהֱבִיאוֹ לְפָנָיו וְקָרָא לוֹ שֵׁם זֶה, וְנָתַן לוֹ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מַתְּנוֹת כְּהֻנָּה, וְעַל שֵׁם שֶׁלִּוָּהוּ בְמַתָּנוֹת קְרָאוֹ לֵוִי׃

...which seems to denote something eventual, like in Genesis 2:23.

B'réshit 2:23 uses the emphatic זֹאת הַפַּעַם, i.e. this time (in contrast to all the other times).



in NT John and James (Ionannes and Iakobos) are called sons of Zebedee (Zebedaios) which seems to be an alternative name of Zevulun. ("God has given me a good portion, "zeved" ,ZBD ).

זְבֻלוּן z'vulun and זַבְדִּי zavdi are completely unrelated names; זְבֻלוּן z'vulun is spelt Ζαβουλων in the pseudo-LXX, and זַבְדִּי zavdi is found three times in Y'hoshua, ch.7 as the grandfather of עָכָן בֶּן כַּרְמִי achan ben karmi who trespassed in the חֵרֶם of the Ai - the pseudo-LXX spells it Ζαμβρι in Y'hoshua 7:1 and 7:18. The form Ζεβεδαιος is not found in pseudo-LXX at all.

Anyway you totally missed the point I was trying to make. If you had been right, Z'vulun would have had a name that would be roughly equivalent to "fæces-head" - not a nice thing to call someone.



(probaV oligon eiden iakwbon ton tou zebedaiou kai iwannhn)

If you really must post that Greek garbage - in spite of being told time and again that it does not interest me - at least use the Stephanus 1550 Textus Receptus. That was taken from the Westcott-Hort edition of 1881 and it took me ages to identify it; my 1550 Textus Receptus reads in Marcus 1:19
και προβας εκειθεν ολιγον ειδεν ιακωβον τον του ζεβεδαιου και ιωαννην....which is sufficiently different to make it hard to identify.




And what "lamb"? Don't be disgusting - Rahel never gave birth to any "lamb" :eww:
metaphorically.

Not even metaphorically.



it is all part of the obfuscation ...

Ha-di-ha-ha-ha.

[sylvius]

הַפַּעַם hapa'am occurs only twice in connection with the birth of Ya'akov's sons - in B'réshit 29:35 and 30:20 - where it has the force of עַתָּה = "now".

No trice.

only Genesis 29:34 has "now" to it, עַתָּה הַפַּעַם




זְבֻלוּן z'vulun and זַבְדִּי zavdi are completely unrelated names; זְבֻלוּן z'vulun is spelt Ζαβουλων in the pseudo-LXX, and זַבְדִּי zavdi is found three times in Y'hoshua, ch.7 as the grandfather of עָכָן בֶּן כַּרְמִי achan ben karmi who trespassed in the חֵרֶם of the Ai - the pseudo-LXX spells it Ζαμβρι in Y'hoshua 7:1 and 7:18. The form Ζεβεδαιος is not found in pseudo-LXX at all.

Genesis 30:20 mentions "zeved" as first reason for naming him Z'vulun:


וַתֹּאמֶר לֵאָה זְבָדַנִי אֱלֹהִים אֹתִי זֵבֶד טוֹב
vatomar leah z'vadani elohim oti zeved tov
and Leah said: "God hath endowed me with a good dowry"





Anyway you totally missed the point I was trying to make. If you had been right, Z'vulun would have had a name that would be roughly equivalent to "fæces-head" - not a nice thing to call someone.

no, I didn't.

ain't John the son of Zebedee one of the authors of "NT-garbage"?




Not even metaphorically.
Jeremiah 31:14,

So says the Lord: A voice is heard on high, lamentation, bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, she refuses to be comforted for her children for they are not.



sorry ,. i skipped something;


B'réshit 2:23 uses the emphatic זֹאת הַפַּעַם, i.e. this time (in contrast to all the other times).

correct translation : "This is this time, etc."

"zot" denoting the woman.

you can this also because it is repeated:

"'l'zot yikarei ishah"

"this shall be called woman"

Rashi;:


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

[Mordochai]

no, thrice.
only Genesis 29:34 has "now" to it, עַתָּה הַפַּעַם

הַפַּעַם and עַתָּה הַפַּעַם are synonymns, but nonetheless different expressions. I was counting only instances of הַפַּעַם.


[QUOTE=sylvius;2254348]Genesis 30:20 mentions "zeved" as first reason for naming him Z'vulun...

The name זְבֻלוּן z'vulun is derived from הַפַּעַם יִזְבְּלֵנִי אִישִׁי yizb'léni ishi "this time my husband will reside with me", not from זְבָדַנִי z'vadani or זֵבֶד zeved. They are completely different and unrelated words and the apparent similarity between them is a coincidence.




and Leah said: "God hath endowed me with a good dowry"

By the way, זֵבֶד zeved means a gift or a prize - a dowry is מֹהַר mohar.



ain't John the son of Zebedee one of the authors of "NT-garbage"?

I neither know nor care, although I thought the gospel-writer's father was supposedly called Z'charyah.



Jeremiah 31:14,

So says the Lord: A voice is heard on high, lamentation, bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, she refuses to be comforted for her children for they are not.

That's a terrible and completely inaccurate translation, and has no connection at all with lambs.



correct translation : "This is this time, etc."

The correct translation of זֹאת הַפַּעַם is this time.



"zot" denoting the woman.

זֹאת denoting פַּעַם which is feminine.



"'l'zot yikarei ishah"
"this shall be called woman"

In that sentence זֹאת refers to the woman - זֹאת is the feminine demonstrative pronoun "this".

You are always trying to read into the text things that just aren't there.

[sylvius]

The name זְבֻלוּן z'vulun is derived from הַפַּעַם יִזְבְּלֵנִי אִישִׁי yizb'léni ishi "this time my husband will reside with me", not from זְבָדַנִי z'vadani or זֵבֶד zeved. They are completely different and unrelated words and the apparent similarity between them is a coincidence.

"apparent similarity" was not an argument of mine.

Zevulun is Leah's sixth son, Yissachar the fifth.

Both born after the finding of the "dudaim" with which she "hired" the right to sleep with Jacob.

Yissachar's name derived from "sachar" = hire; also: reward.

Zevulun's name , 'this time my husband will reside with me", is "zeved", related to the same , the finding of the "dudaim" with which she hired the right to sleep with Jacob.

ok I translated wrong with "dowrey" (but i copied that form a translation) --

Alcalay:
"zeved" = present, gift, choice gift, bestowal, endowment, bounty.




I neither know nor care, although I thought the gospel-writer's father was supposedly called Z'charyah.
Z'charyah is said to be the father of John the Baptist.





That's a terrible and completely inaccurate translation, and has no connection at all with lambs.

she is mother of "the suffering servant" of Isaiah 53.





The correct translation of זֹאת הַפַּעַם is this time.

זֹאת denoting פַּעַם which is feminine.


In that sentence זֹאת refers to the woman - זֹאת is the feminine demonstrative pronoun "this".

You are always trying to read into the text things that just aren't there.


next verse, Genesis 2:24,

Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
is picked up in NT, Mark 10:7-8 = Matthew 19:5

giving a certain interpretation to it; other than yours.



Matthew 19:11

"Not all can have room for this word, but only those to whom that is granted".


only granted to real Hebrews?

[Mordochai]

I get tired of your constant attempts to deceive by introducing irrelevancies. You tried to suggest that the names זְבֻלוּן z'vulun and זַבְדִּי zavdi were related when they are not, and now you are rambling ever further from the point in a vain attempt to cause me to lose sight of the central issue. Shame on you for being so dishonest.

[sylvius]

I get tired of your constant attempts to deceive by introducing irrelevancies. You tried to suggest that the names זְבֻלוּן z'vulun and זַבְדִּי zavdi were related when they are not, and now you are rambling ever further from the point in a vain attempt to cause me to lose sight of the central issue. Shame on you for being so dishonest.


it was not about the name זַבְדִּי

but about the name ζεβεδαιος

I say, named after the first part of Genesis 30:20,

Hebrew:
זְבָדַנִי אֱלֹהִים אֹתִי זֵבֶד טוֹב

[Mordochai]

it was not about the name זַבְדִּי
but about the name ζεβεδαιος
I say, named after the first part of Genesis 30:20,
Hebrew:
זְבָדַנִי אֱלֹהִים אֹתִי זֵבֶד טוֹב

Prove it. There is no name Ζεβεδαιος in the pseudo-LXX.

[sylvius]

Prove it. There is no name Ζεβεδαιος in the pseudo-LXX.

I tried to prove it already..
But then you reacted :

you are rambling ever further from the point in a vain attempt to cause me to lose sight of the central issue. Shame on you for being so dishonest.

but you're right. -

after all it was an attempt to give a meaning to the name Z'vulun as if it was derived form "zevel" = shit, garbage.

Profanity not allowed.

[Mordochai]

I tried to prove it already..
But then you reacted :
but you're right. -
after all it was an attempt to give a meaning to the name Z'vulun as if it was derived form "zevel" = sh*t, garbage.

זְבֻלוּן z'vulun is not derived from זֶבֶל zevel but from the verb זָבַל zaval to live, to reside. Z'vulun does not mean "fæces-head" or a "defæcator".

[sylvius]

זְבֻלוּן z'vulun is not derived from זֶבֶל zevel but from the verb זָבַל zaval to live, to reside. Z'vulun does not mean "fæces-head" or a "defæcator".

yet the name Z'vulun occurs in Matthew:

Matthew 4:15-17,

He left Nazareth and went to live in Capernaum by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali, that what had been said through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled: "Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the way to the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles,
the people who sit in darkness have seen a great light, on those dwelling in a land overshadowed by death light has arisen."
From that time on, Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Naphtali is the sixth son of Jacob, the second that Bilhah, Rachel's maidservant, bore to him.
Z'vulun is the tenth son of Jacob, the sixth that Leah bore to him, or the eighth if you count also Gad and Asher as sons of Leah.


gematria of Z'vulun is 95 (7+2+30+6+50)
gematria of Naphtali is 570 (50+80+400+30+10)

570 = 6 x 95.


So I think it is about the joining together of the sixth and the seventh day.

[Mordochai]

yet the name Z'vulun occurs in Matthew:

Of course it does, it was one of the tribal territories (which were like "states" in the USA). The "other" בֵּית לֶחֶם was in זְבֻלוּן (Y'hoshua 19:15).



Naphtali is the sixth son of Jacob, the second that Bilhah, Rachel's maidservant, bore to him.
Z'vulun is the tenth son of Jacob, the sixth that Leah bore to him, or the eighth if you count also Gad and Asher as sons of Leah.

So what? Also, the children's births were as follows:
8th year - רְאוּבֵן
9th year - שִׁמְעוֹן
10th year - לֵוִי and דָּן
11th year - יְהוּדָה and נַפְתָּלִי
12th year - יִשָּׂשכָר and גָּד
13th year - זְבֻלוּן and אָשֵׁר
14th year - דִּינָה and יוֹסֵףbut it is impossible to determine from B'réshit which of Lévi & Dan, Y'hudah & Naftali, Yissachar & Gad, Z'vulun & Asher, and Dinah & Yosef were born first. Thus, Naftali was either Ya'akov's fifth son or his sixth, and Z'vulun was either Ya'akov's ninth son or his tenth - and Gad and Asher are not "counted" as sons of Lé'ah.



gematria of Z'vulun is 95 (7+2+30+6+50)
gematria of Naphtali is 570 (50+80+400+30+10)
570 = 6 x 95.

Big deal.



So I think it is about the joining together of the sixth and the seventh day.

Except that the sixth and seventh "Ages" never were "joined together".

[sylvius]

Of course it does, it was one of the tribal territories (which were like "states" in the USA). The "other" בֵּית לֶחֶם was in זְבֻלוּן (Y'hoshua 19:15).

but Matthew relates this for another reason:

that what had been said through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled



So what? Also, the children's births were as follows:
8th year - רְאוּבֵן
9th year - שִׁמְעוֹן
10th year - לֵוִי and דָּן
11th year - יְהוּדָה and נַפְתָּלִי
12th year - יִשָּׂשכָר and גָּד
13th year - זְבֻלוּן and אָשֵׁר
14th year - דִּינָה and יוֹסֵףbut it is impossible to determine from B'réshit which of Lévi & Dan, Y'hudah & Naftali, Yissachar & Gad, Z'vulun & Asher, and Dinah & Yosef were born first. Thus, Naftali was either Ya'akov's fifth son or his sixth, and Z'vulun was either Ya'akov's ninth son or his tenth - and Gad and Asher are not "counted" as sons of Lé'ah.

from where you know that?

following scripture (Genesis 30:1, "and Rachel saw, etc") you would say Dan and Naftali were conceived after Yehudah's birth.





Big deal.

yeah great !





Except that the sixth and seventh "Ages" never were "joined together".

WYHY-(RB WYHY-BQR YWM H$$Y WYkLW H$mYM WH)RC WkL-cB)M

[Mordochai]

תפסיק כבר - למה אתה מְשַׁגֵּעַ אותי

[sylvius]

תפסיק כבר - למה אתה מְשַׁגֵּעַ אותי

At once I saw that this must be what "conceptio immaculata" is all about.

the sixth day and seventh joined together, i.e. the profane, Hebrew "chol", XWL, and the holy, "kodesh", QD$.

"through the Holy Ghost"

they are already "one" from the very beginning

note what Rashi said on Genesis 2:24,


one flesh The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one. — [from Sanh. 58a]

flesh, "basar", being the root of "b'sorah" = good tidings, Gospel.

Matthew 19:6,

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together man must not separate..

[Mordochai]

אינך יכול לקרוא? אמרתי תפסיק כבר - למה אתה מְשַׁגֵּעַ אותי

[sylvius]

אינך יכול לקרוא? אמרתי תפסיק כבר - למה אתה מְשַׁגֵּעַ אותי


Can't you read?



you as a Hebrew must be able to get it.

[Mordochai]

תלך להשתין

[sylvius]

תלך להשתין

not so nice ...

[abu njoroge]

"The story of the Nephilim is chronicled more fully in the Book of Enoch (part of Ethiopian biblical canon). Enoch, as well as Jubilees, connects the origin of the Nephilim with the fallen angels, and in particular with the Grigori (watchers). Samyaza, an angel of high rank, is described as leading a rebel sect of angels in a descent to earth to instruct humans in righteousness"

same link
To me it seams that angels are suppose to be spiritual beings, not physical.This leads me to believe that the sons of God portrayed in these scriptures,are actually are nearest cousins from a distant planet. Most traces of them disappeared below the waves during the time of Noah. Some probably returned to their true home.

[mitzi]

To me it seams that angels are suppose to be spiritual beings, not physical.This leads me to believe that the sons of God portrayed in these scriptures,are actually are nearest cousins from a distant planet. Most traces of them disappeared below the waves during the time of Noah. Some probably returned to their true home.

A couple of interesting points:

1st is Jacob’s dream at Bethel (Genesis 28:10-15) as read that the angel's were ascending and descending from heaven. To quote from the passage Bereishit (Genesis) 28: "12. And he dreamed, and behold! a ladder set up on the ground and its top reached to heaven; and behold, angels of God were ascending and descending upon it." but the passage continues to read "17. And he was frightened, and he said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven." (where earth and heaven meet)

I have to add this next verse in about the tower of Babel Bereishit (in Genesis) when the passage (again,reads) 4. And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make ourselves a name, lest we be scattered upon the face of the entire earth." 5. And the Lord descended to see the city and the tower that the sons of man had built. 6. And the Lord said, "Lo! [they are] one people, and they all have one language, and this is what they have commenced to do. Now, will it not be withheld from them, all that they have planned to do? 7. Come, let us descend and confuse their language, so that one will not understand the language of his companion."

Reading both of these two passages, the first passage being the angels were allowed to ascend back to heaven and descend down to earth but in the other man tries to build himself a tower (to reach to the heavens) unsuccessfully. With this passage in mind: "Come, let us descend and confuse their language" Who was the "us" that descended? The Angels?


From Abu: Some probably returned to their true home

When I read your comment I thought about Jacob wrestling with the Angel, Bereishit (Genesis) 32: "27. And he (the angel) said, "Let me go, for dawn is breaking," did the angel need to return back home? to the heavens? I know we're returning back to the topic of angels but it would be interesting to know how long angels are allowed to dwell here on earth...

[mitzi]

Hi Abu:

see foundation stone thread. The thread will give add'tl info to the last two posts.

[abu njoroge]

Let's start a new thread on this subject:



Hebrew "haSatan" seems originally to have been the accuser, a title given to the prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court. He still has this character in the Book of Job. It is argued that the larger role of Satan and his identification with Lucifer, later associated with the snake in the garden of Eden, occurred during the period of the Babylonian captivity and subsequent exposure to Iranian beliefs.[3] Orthodox Jews still hold to the traditional view of haSatan being an accusing angel in the heavenly court.

Now reading from the above info, I had recalled within the “The King-Mashiyah” thread and especially the same info was given from the author Mordochai. It’s rather silly, isn’t Tanakh how you harp on the members for an answer, and yet two people gave it—

There was another thread listed on the board about the subject of Gad Eden.
This makes sense to me. To me it also seams to imply that this accusser is not outside of Gods will,He is actually part of the divine plan.I also think he is in charge of keeping the balance here on Earth.What most orthadox religions call the devil is a label for the negative side of mankind itself.

[mitzi]

This makes sense to me. To me it also seams to imply that this accusser is not outside of Gods will,He is actually part of the divine plan.I also think he is in charge of keeping the balance here on Earth.What most orthadox religions call the devil is a label for the negative side of mankind itself.

And Yes, I would have to agree that nothing is outside of Gd’s will Deuteronomy 10: “14. Behold, to the Lord, your God, belong the heavens and the heavens of the heavens, the earth, and all that is on it.” and “17. For the Lord, your God, is God of gods and the Lord of the lords, the great mighty and awesome God, Who will show no favor, nor will He take a bribe.”

(John 14: 1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith in God; have faith also in me. & parts of John 14: 16 ,17 & 26, to quote: "16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, 17 the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. and line 26 "The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you., and we (also) touched on part of #2 (cross reference to the subject of Kabbalah), and #30. John 17:26 I made known to them your name and I will make it known, that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them.")


However, where does free will come into play? We all know that “if” we trust in Gd’s Plan (like Yosef who had trusted in Gd‘s plan to the very end) then it's to Gd's glory that shows others not to give up trusting in Him-.

But if "sin" has a beginning within our own lives then when does He consider the “ending“? When the people of Sodom and Gomorrah had reached their level of sin and Gd stepped into play-then when does Gd step into our own life and intervene--and warn us, what are the signs? At what point? (repetitive question, but) Just like ourselves when does G-d decide to deal with us on a personal level, so we can put things back into perspective ( Iyov - Chapter 42:3. Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge? Therefore, I told but I did not understand; they are hidden from me and I did not know). There are "two" very exceptional passages when G-d comes to the righteous and tells of H-S intent, that being, Noah (Noach) and Abraham (Avraham). Not to mention Isaiah (Yeshayahu)" 10. Hear the word of the Lord, O rulers of Sodom; give ear to the law of our God, O people of Gomorrah!"

Is there a limit to Free Will? Do we reach a level that can be “sort of speak” kicked out of Gad Eden?

Doesn’t Man chooses his own path with every trial outside of the womb--and Yes, G-d 'does' know ahead of time what path/or even choice that will be. However, we have a certain amount of influences (family members, friends, husbands, wives...etc) in our lives that God provides us with (see Shema (in the same stroke of the hand) and to quote "Just as at the end of days we will come to understood how even the "bad" was actually for the "good," so too while saying the Shema we strive for that level of belief and understanding. Link). These types of support methods are to help us to develop a right path. We pray to Gd in Y'Shua's name that He will guide us & to help provide the necessary "means" to overcome any trial.

To shed some light on the Shema (again) "And if you will obey my commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, he will give the rain for your land in its season, the early rain and the later rain, that you may gather in your grain and your wine and your oil. And he will give grass in your fields for your cattle, and you shall eat and be full."

So Gd does provide the *essential necessities* for us to survive *Just* as He provides a spiritual necessity *as well* Even though the Shema may state "He will give the rain for your land in its season"... Gd provides for all.

So the next question could be *can* someone change the direction of that path? Sure. Choosing to do good and not evil, is an act of Free Will!! 30:1 "...the blessing and the curse that I have set before you, and you take them (va-ha-shevota) to heart."


As I’ve mentioned “Free Will” is something that the angels do not have.


You mentioned Abu: I also believe true angels are not physical. They are beings of pure light.

If the angels are not physical, and as you've stated; but beings of pure light then the angels,would be considered the radiate/ or the light of Gd's glory, "wherever the angel appears the shechina (the divine Presence) appears (Exodus Rabbah 32:9)." Once a angel has lost their statue then doesn't that pure light become full of darkness-the fallen ones no longer have the light of Gd in them and their spiritual appearance (or make up) than would have to change/and or form, wouldn't this be correct? What make humans so unique is that we have the opportunity to repent (Teshuvah (Return, or Repentance)) which then G-d allows us to erase our sins and also to return back to him, a very generous gift that Gd has given to us. It's the ability to correct our actions and regain our relationship to him.
and that is the act of Repentance.. So this means that it is within our own power to do either type of act either to return or to refuse that relationship. In Judaism it‘s said and I hope I have this straight, Gd can‘t force us to love him. When we give ourselves emotionally and spiritually to Gd it‘s unconditional.

I guess we couldn't be able to comprehend (understand) the feeling of love that G-d sends to us/or should I say reveals to us along with His Anochi-intimate nearness, and Bitachon (Trust). Without the help of G-d's Spirit (Spirituality of G-d), we would be too over whelmed by His presents in our lives & the love He feels for us. The Spirit of G-d knows this and helps us to understand that love. You know there's a Psalm passage in the Torah that goes something like this "Psalm (Tehillim) 119: 18. Uncover my eyes and I shall look at hidden things from Your Torah" and "105. Your words are a lamp for my foot, and light for my path." G-d guides us to an understanding, He opens our hearts & minds...and their "He" reveals Himself to us! And Yes, G-d's Spirit works through "all" of us and we do become His vessel.

"Baruch atah adonai eloheinu melech ha'olam asher kid'shanu" So we really don't have any distance between us and G-d. The only distance that we have with G-d is the one we create....

***************************************************
Bereishit - Chapter 6: “5. And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.6. And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He became grieved in His heart. 7. And the Lord said, "I will blot out man, whom I created, from upon the face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl of the heavens, for I regret that I made them." 8. But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Bereishit - Chapter 19 "20. And the Lord said, "Since the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and since their sin has become very grave, 21. I will descend now and see, whether according to her cry, which has come to Me, they have done; [I will wreak] destruction [upon them]; and if not, I will know."

*********************

Did G-d already Pre-determine judgment before hand even when informing Noach and Avraham about the destruction? see Bereishit - Chapter 6 13. And God said to Noah, I believe this passage should connect, at least in some way, to your post "The end of all flesh has come before Me" and in the verse again when referring to the Tower of Babel Bereishit 11: 5. And the Lord descended to see the city and the tower that the sons of man had built. and again with Avraham Bereishit 18 “17. And the Lord said, "Shall I conceal from Abraham what I am doing? Bereishit 18 21. I will descend now and see, whether according to her cry, which has come to Me.


When the city of Ninveh was to be punished Hashem granted them a 40 day reprieve, giving them one last chance to repent and change their evil ways (Yonah 3:4)and another This is the way of Hashem; even after He decides to eradicate a city or nation as punishment for its sinful ways, He still allows them an extra 40-day opportunity to repent. When the Jewish People sinned by serving the Golden Calf (Shemot 32), Hashem did not wipe them out immediately, as had been decreed. Rather, He gave them 40 days to repent during which Moshe prayed to Hashem, Who accepted his prayers and forgave the Jewish People (Rashi, Devarim 9:10). Before bringing the Great Flood as well, Hashem gave the world 40 days to repent. But 40 days after 1 Tishrei only brings us to 10 Cheshvan -- why did the Flood begin only seven days later, on 17 Cheshvan? Rashi provides us with the last piece of this puzzle: "In another *seven days* I will bring rain upon the earth..." (Bereishit 7:4) -- the seven days mentioned here were the days of mourning that followed the passing of the righteous Metushelach (Methuselah). In order to allow people to pay their respects to Metushelach, Hashem delayed the Flood for seven days. (Rashi Bereishit 7:4, from Sanhedrin 108a) On 17 Cheshvan, exactly seven days after 10 Cheshvan, the Great Flood began!

LINK (http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/timeless-patterns/06.htm)

Mitzi

[abu njoroge]

And Yes, I would have to agree that nothing is outside of Gd’s will Deuteronomy 10: “14. Behold, to the Lord, your God, belong the heavens and the heavens of the heavens, the earth, and all that is on it.” and “17. For the Lord, your God, is God of gods and the Lord of the lords, the great mighty and awesome God, Who will show no favor, nor will He take a bribe.”


I guess we couldn't be able to comprehend (understand) the feeling of love that G-d sends to us/or should I say reveals to us along with His Anochi-intimate nearness, and Bitachon (Trust). Without the help of G-d's Spirit (Spirituality of G-d), we would be too over whelmed by His presents in our lives & the love He feels for us. The Spirit of G-d knows this and helps us to understand that love. You know there's a Psalm passage in the Torah that goes something like this "Psalm (Tehillim) 119: 18. Uncover my eyes and I shall look at hidden things from Your Torah" and "105. Your words are a lamp for my foot, and light for my path." G-d guides us to an understanding, He opens our hearts & minds...and their "He" reveals Himself to us! And Yes, G-d's Spirit works through "all" of us and we do become His vessel.

"Baruch atah adonai eloheinu melech ha'olam asher kid'shanu" So we really don't have any distance between us and G-d. The only distance that we have with G-d is the one we create....

***************************************************
Bereishit - Chapter 6: “5. And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.6. And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He became grieved in His heart. 7. And the Lord said, "I will blot out man, whom I created, from upon the face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl of the heavens, for I regret that I made them." 8. But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Bereishit - Chapter 19 "20. And the Lord said, "Since the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and since their sin has become very grave, 21. I will descend now and see, whether according to her cry, which has come to Me, they have done; [I will wreak] destruction [upon them]; and if not, I will know."

*********************

Did G-d already Pre-determine judgment before hand even when informing Noach and Avraham about the destruction? see Bereishit - Chapter 6 13. And God said to Noah, I believe this passage should connect, at least in some way, to your post "The end of all flesh has come before Me" and in the verse again when referring to the Tower of Babel Bereishit 11: 5. And the Lord descended to see the city and the tower that the sons of man had built. and again with Avraham Bereishit 18 “17. And the Lord said, "Shall I conceal from Abraham what I am doing? Bereishit 18 21. I will descend now and see, whether according to her cry, which has come to Me.


When the city of Ninveh was to be punished Hashem granted them a 40 day reprieve, giving them one last chance to repent and change their evil ways (Yonah 3:4)and another This is the way of Hashem; even after He decides to eradicate a city or nation as punishment for its sinful ways, He still allows them an extra 40-day opportunity to repent. When the Jewish People sinned by serving the Golden Calf (Shemot 32), Hashem did not wipe them out immediately, as had been decreed. Rather, He gave them 40 days to repent during which Moshe prayed to Hashem, Who accepted his prayers and forgave the Jewish People (Rashi, Devarim 9:10). Before bringing the Great Flood as well, Hashem gave the world 40 days to repent. But 40 days after 1 Tishrei only brings us to 10 Cheshvan -- why did the Flood begin only seven days later, on 17 Cheshvan? Rashi provides us with the last piece of this puzzle: "In another *seven days* I will bring rain upon the earth..." (Bereishit 7:4) -- the seven days mentioned here were the days of mourning that followed the passing of the righteous Metushelach (Methuselah). In order to allow people to pay their respects to Metushelach, Hashem delayed the Flood for seven days. (Rashi Bereishit 7:4, from Sanhedrin 108a) On 17 Cheshvan, exactly seven days after 10 Cheshvan, the Great Flood began!

LINK (http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/timeless-patterns/06.htm)

Mitzi
There is no place that he is not present.

[mitzi]

There is no place that he is not present.

Hi Abu:


This weekend I had watched a film documentary on Huston Smith "The Wisdom of Faith With Huston Smith". Bill Moyers had devoted (I believe) a five-part PBS special to both his life and work-also talked about mysticism, very interesting. Huston Smith on mysticism, touches on the passage in Genesis: "In the Creation story, we read of God blowing a "breath of life" into the man of earth and dust (Genesis 2:7)" Where man can *spiritually* transcend to that part of himself that reaches toward the divine spark, in other word the breath of Gd:


'SMITH: Well, I think they've got a point. I mean, if someone comes along and says, "I am God," it's perfectly reasonable to ask, "Well, your behavior doesn't exactly exemplify that fact." God by definition is perfect, and what human being can make that claim? So I think the ministers that you refer to have a good point, but it doesn't annul the concept of the divine within, which remains valid. The distinction can come, even if we think of the divine within, as Hinduism puts it, and they have been perhaps the most explicit of all the great traditions in saying that ultimately, in the final analysis, in their terminology, Atman is Brahman. Atman is the God within, and Brahman is the God without. But then they deal with the point you're raising by saying, well, a lantern may have a functioning light within it, but it may be coated not only with dust and soot, but in egregious cases with mud, to the point where that light does not shine through at all. So both things are true, but both need to be said in the same breath. Namely, I believe that it is true that in the final analysis we are divine and are God, but we should immediately acknowledge how caked and coated we are with dross that conceals that divinity, and it's, one's tempted to say, an endless quest to clean the surface, to let the light shine through"

Continue to read the article. http://www.thinkingallowed.com/smith.html

As Professor Smith points out, each of these levels of reality can be studied separately:
"The marvels of the terrestrial plane are being unveiled at an astonishing rate by the physical sciences. The intermediate realm adds life and consciousness: biology helps to understand the former, and for light on the latter we turn to the durable findings of phenomenology, depth psychology, and parapsychology, as well as aspects of shamanism and folk religion. The theologies of the great traditions describe God's knowable nature (the celestial plane) from a variety of cultural angles, and the literature of mysticism carries the mind as far as it can journey into God's absolute and infinite depths"

LINK: http://www.kheper.net/topics/greatchainofbeing/Primordial_Tradition.html


Just touching on some of the points that Huston made...I agree that we do have (spiritually) a coating (soot, or perhaps-sin) that needs to be removed in order for the divine light (from within us) to shine through (as he's pointed out). However, that divine spark (that breath of Gd) in the mystical sense where we can ascend or descend spiritually to a higher level(through prayer)-can be very dangerous, he adds " that the literature of mysticism carries the mind as far as it can journey into God's absolute and infinite depths"..but again-as far as (I believe) that we can travel..what is allowed.

. Also, I believe that there are sins that can weigh our souls down (and) prevent one self from reaching toward Gd-and also I believe that all of us are aware of these sins and which ones are considered both major or minor sin (depending). Some are harder to heal then others. But today, I heard a sermon, that Gd can penetrate even through the darkness of our souls-and there isn’t a place that Gd can not reach us-to redeem us.

Take Care
Mitzi