| What's in a name |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Ramona ® 01/03/2003, 01:04:53 Author Profile Mail author |
I spent part of my day yesterday, playing on a Chassidic site. I noted the importance a name holds and it caused me to question something. Isaiah 14 says that the messiah will bear the name Immanuel (God with us.) Why then in Luke 1:42 Do we find an angel telling Mary (bitter) to call her son Jesus (God will help)? Ramona a.k.a Elisabeth |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: not much Re: What's in a name -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/03/2003, 10:46:20
Author Profile Mail author
Why do we find two creation stories in Genesis? Probably a similar answer. Why do we fine inconsistencies throughout the Bible? Why is the Bible unclear?
I am not trying to be flip, Ramona. Attempting to “make sense” out of the Bible is a useless endeavor. That seems to be what you are trying to do with your two examples -- ask “why.”
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: What's in a name Re: What's in a name -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jrmh ®
01/03/2003, 22:26:57
Author Profile Mail author
Cultures change and definitions of words change. Ancient Hebrew was a descriptive language. We speak of the "bank" of a river, they defined it as the "lip." Quite often the Bible writers would make a statement and then later elaborate on it. (the ten commandments)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
umm, sorry Re: Re: What's in a name -- Jrmh Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
01/04/2003, 03:05:25
Author Profile Mail author
Ancient Hebrew was a descriptive language, and Hebrew remains so. How fluent are you in the language? Dalet and Reish, in text, still give me grief. You then go on to compare "we" with "they". That is comparing apples to oranges. How about comparing ancient Hebrew to modern Hebrew. While I would be prone to transliteration at times, someone fluent as an Israeli would not fall into such.
As far as your perceived "elaboration" of the 10 commandments, I would guess, you to often stretch the truth. There are 613 commandments (248 Positive and 365 Negative Commandments) per Maimonades. The story of Moses/Mosha is not limited to a couple of trips up the mountain, in the Jewish faith. It is with those additional trips that additional commandments were brought forth.
Jesus (God will help) Though Matthew 27:46 Would show otherwise.
Immanuel (God with us)Isaiah 7:14
Two different names, for two different people.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: umm, sorry Re: umm, sorry -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rpcman ®
01/04/2003, 05:13:02
Author Profile Mail author
"Looking at the entire seventh chapter of Isaiah, it becomes clear that the child in question is to be born as a sign to Ahaz, King of Judah, that he will not be defeated in battle by Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, son of the King of Israel. Jesus' birth was some seven centuries late to be such a sign. In Isaiah 8:3-4, a prophetess gives birth to a son--Maher-shalal-hash-baz--who is clearly described as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14."
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: umm, sorry Re: umm, sorry -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/04/2003, 05:13:55
Author Profile Mail author
Who was the “bean counter” for the “positive” and “negative” commandments?
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
lentil or kidney? And are they pareve? Re: Re: umm, sorry -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
01/04/2003, 06:21:22
Author Profile Mail author
Rabbi Simlai
This predilection to downplay the uniqueness of the Decalogue finds expression in the unprecedented declaration by Rabbi Simlai, a third-century Palestinian sage, that God gave Moses a total of 613 commandments, that is, 365 negative and 248 positive ones. Rav Hamnuna in Babylonia provided the scriptural basis: "Moses charged us with the Teaching (the Torah) as the heritage of the congregation of Jacob (Deuteronomy 33:4)." The letters of the Hebrew word "Torah" add up to the number 611 (every one of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet has a numerical value), and if we add to this the first and second commandments of the Decalogue, which is all that Israel supposedly heard directly from God, we come up with the number 613, proof positive for Rabbi Simlai's claim!
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: umm, sorry Re: umm, sorry -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jrmh ®
01/04/2003, 23:08:51
Author Profile Mail author
Yes, you are correct about the 613 commandments and I am enlightened about breaking them down to 248 Positive and 365 negative ones. No one was able to keep all of them. I would not knowingly "stretch the truth." Please be specific. Or maybe you were and I have not seen it yet.
In our Hebrew class we called it a"Resh." The spelling is insignificant. Ancient Hebrew, as you probably know had no vowel points, those were added later. Modern Hebrew as spoken today is certainly different from ancient Hebrew in most cases.
This statement about an "unchanging God" is also an interesting statement. The Bible tells us God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, so I would agree with you that He is unchanging. However, the Bible also tells us that God "repented," meaning that He allowed certain people to commit certain sins because of their other talents and to do His will.
You, and others here are certainly better versed on some topics than I am. I am not here to argue or throw mud, I am here to share the knowledge I may have and to learn new truths. I appreciate anyone who would keep the bar at the highest level. I now go to my corner or to the mountain to confir with my guru. God bless, J
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: umm, sorry Re: Re: umm, sorry -- Jrmh Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
01/04/2003, 23:59:38
Author Profile Mail author
As for Satan, I don't believe there exists such a thing, unless of course God created it. Then God would be the creator of evil, which is contrary to simple logic. Please don't give me the bunk about Satan being a fallen angel. If God knowingly created a creature that God (all-knowing) knew would fall, it would be God creating evil. The creation of that creature would most assuredly place the burden of the creatures actions (evil) upon the creator, if the creature is all-knowing. Do you believe the creator to be all-knowing?
As far as the commandments go, the Hebrew God doesn't expect the perfection that the Christian god does. The Hebrew God knows the imperfect creatures created. So you are only required to strive toward obedience to those commandments, sans obvious temple requirements.
Actually "reish" "resh" are the English pronounciations of Hebrew. To be more correct of sound, I would pronounce it "raysch," but that is jmo. And, I was not speaking of spoken Hebrew, but written Hebrew. Yes, I realize that for the benefit of some, modern dots and lines are added to text. This is not however universal.
God also repented of the mankind He created in the story of Noah. Not only is God unchanging, but also is subject to error. Do you believe God to be perfect?
I desire no mud, we have plenty here with the rain. I beg, do not inquire of a guru, but study with your own eyes, mind, and heart.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: umm, sorry Re: Re: umm, sorry -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jrmh ®
01/07/2003, 00:28:53
Author Profile Mail author
1. How in Heavens name...
I'm putting this aside for now. I believe the OT speaks of Jesus on most pages. Some, such as PSal 22 and Isaiah 53 very clearly.
2. As for Satan...
I believe the fallen angel as stated in the Bible. God does not create evil, He allows it. He knew Lucifer would fall and He allowed him to fall, much as He allows us to fall (sin.)
3. As far as the commandments go, the Hebrew God...
I believe the Hebrew God is the same God as the NT God. Abraham "believed." That is called "trust." or "faith," in the NT.
4. Actually "reish" "resh"...
We pretty much agree here. Nolo Contendre, as Spiro Agnew said.
5. God also REPENTED...
The interpretation I believe in rephrases this as "allowed."
6. I desire no mud...
I study from no guru. It was an off-the-cuff attempt at humor.
God bless, Ramona. Jrmh
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Why premature???? Re: Re: umm, sorry -- Jrmh Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
01/07/2003, 07:51:15
Author Profile Mail author
Question: Why do the respective Jewish and Christian renderings of Psalms 22:17 (16 in some versions) differ in the translation of the Hebrew word ka-'ari?
Answer: Christians see in this verse an opportunity to make the claim that the psalmist foretold the piercing of Jesus' hands and feet as part of the crucifixion process. They maintain that the Hebrew word ka-'ari in verse 17 (16 in some versions) should be translated as "pierce." They render this verse as: "They pierced my hands and my feet." This follows the Septuagint version, used by the early Christians, whose error is repeated by the Vulgate and the Syriac. However, it should be noted that the Septuagint underwent textual revisions by Christian copyists in the early centuries of the Common Era; it is not known if the rendering "pierced" is one of those revisions. In any case, this rendering contains two fallacies. First, assuming that the root of this Hebrew word is krh, "to dig," then the function of the 'aleph in the word ka-'ari is inexplicable since it is not part of the root. Karah consists only of the Hebrew letters kaph, resh, and he, whereas the word in the Hebrew text, ka-'ari, consists of kaph, 'aleph, resh, and yod. Second, the verb krh, "to dig," does not have the meaning "to pierce." Karah generally refers to the digging of the soil, and is never applied in the Scriptures to the piercing of the flesh (cf. Genesis 26:25; Exodus 21:33; Numbers 21:18; Jeremiah 18:20, 22; Psalms 7:16, 57:7). There are a number of words that are used in Hebrew for piercing the body: rats'a, "to pierce," "to bore with an awl" (Exodus 21:6); dakar, "to pierce" (Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 13:15); nakar, "to pierce," "to bore," "to perforate" (2 Kings 18:21). This last word is used in a very significant sense in the last verse cited: "It [the reed] will go into his hand and pierce it." Any of these words would be far better suited for use in this passage than one that is generally used to denote digging the soil. The correct interpretation of the verse must be based on the elliptical style of this particular psalm. The text should read, in effect: "Like a lion [they are gnawing at] my hands and my feet." Ellipsis (the omission of words) is an apt rhetorical device for a composition in which suffering and agony is described. A person in agony does not usually express his feelings in complete round sentences. Such a person is capable of exclaiming only the most critical words of his thoughts and feelings. In this case: "Like a lion . . . my hands and my feet!" Similarly, in verse 1 we find broken phrases rather than whole sentences: "Far from helping me . . . the words of my roaring." Examining Psalm 22, we find that verses 17, 21, and 22 express parallel thoughts. In verse 17, the psalmist speaks of "dogs" and "a lion," which are metaphoric representations of his enemies, and in verses 21 and 22 respectively, he beseeches the Almighty to save him "from a dog's paw" and "from a lion's mouth." Thus, in verse 17, where he complains of the lion, the missing words are understood, and it is to be read: "Like a lion [they are gnawing at] my hands and my feet." This is the most plausible interpretation of the text. Rashi's interpretation of the verse--"As if crushed by the mouth of a lion are my hands and my feet"--is similar in thought to the one we have offered though differently stated. While these interpretations fit with the diction of the entire psalm, the Christian translation--"They pierced my hands and my feet"--does not. Grammatical proof of the correctness of the Masoretic text is seen by the use of the qamatz under the kaph in ka-'ari, which is the result of an assimilated definite article. Thus, the literal translation would be "Like the lion. . . ." While in English, a noun used in a general sense is recognized by having no article, either definite or indefinite, in Hebrew, as well as in many other languages, such nouns take the definite article. For example, "Work is good for man" in Hebrew would be "The work is good for man." (Cf. Amos 5:19 with the English translation.) The metaphorical terminology used by the psalmist to express in physical terms his mental anguish is comparable to similar usage found in Jeremiah 23:9. There the prophet exclaims: "My heart within me is broken, all my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine has overcome." As a result of a careful study of this verse, we see that the Christian claim that Psalms 22:17 (16 in some versions) foretells that Jesus' hands and feet would be pierced has no truth to it.
Content copyright © 1999 Gerald SigalChristians claim that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus.
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The people of Israel are one people that is the reason for the singular.
From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."
Here is what I read of Jesus God-man "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).
2. There was no evil until Satan arrived. God created Satan and in doing so created evil.
3. Ickity ack!! The Hebrew God is not the Christian God(s.) The belief system is vastly different. The Jewish faith is unquestionably monotheistic and redemption is barely looked upon. The current life is what is worked upon and the goal is to be the best one can be. The Christian God(s) require belief in manGod for eternal life, whatever that even means.
4.
5. God repented for making man, again, read the Noah story.
6. I was referring, not to a guru, but a pastor.
Best regards,
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
