James 

The reason I did not respond to your post on metaphors is that you where contradicting your self all over the place, if a person cannot understand that a LANGUAGE such as Hebrew is LITERAL and CONCRET.          Can not!    Be a metaphor!


The   METAPHOR only exists when the Hebrew language is   TRANSLATED. to  the GREEK/ENGLISH.     LANGUAGE

The  GREEK/ ENGLISH.     LANGUAGE and way of thinking is abstract or metaphor.

When people start making metaphors of metaphors you wind up with religions or misunderstood or improper translations

James 

Your contradiction comes when you agree and state that Hebrew is a literal and concrete language and then say, "it's a metaphor"

The statements I have made are not my opinion, they come from any basic language study.

Please look up what a  " literal " language is , the definition actually says, " not a metaphor "

You are also not understanding the use of the  " Figure of speech  "    The figure of speech is in our Greek /English  language translated from the literal Hebrew.

You also contradicted your self when you said Hebrew  parent root words define the understanding of the child roots and then you do not use the parent root in " YOUR badly twisted translation of metaphors"

Until you understand the difference between the two simple words
Literal
And 
Metaphor

Your reasoning  and your translations will be flawed

Hebrew language, " literal, concrete"

Greek/English  language, " metaphor, abstract "


The only reason we can use the Hebrew language today is because it is concrete and has NOT changed!

No abstract metaphor!      No circular reasoning !     In the Hebrew  """"""" LANGUAGE """""""

please understand the difference between the two languages and quit accusing me of making something up as my opinion.

Seems like what you posted is opinion  

Djstill 

With your phd could you post for us the textbook definition of

Literal

And

Metaphor

Not your opinion please

I posted my answer with the Hebrew roots but you didn't like it.

Djstill.          NO literal snake or metaphor of snake

I answered that question in post #72 in many messiahs using literal Hebrew roots

You are the one claiming to have a phd in Hebrew language.

What is the textbook definition of

Literal?
Metaphor?
 
Not your opinion please

Djstill

Its ok if you don't understand the definitions. You don't have to answer.

I gave the answers to your question that you asked of me. 

I said that Hebrew is a concrete language in that its understanding of words are derived from concrete understanding of things, yes, but that does not preclude the ability to use the words that are derived from concrete understandings being used to create metaphors. The word nachas is derived from the word for hiss because serpents hiss, nachas is a concrete word derived from a concrete understanding BUT THEN you take that word and put it with other words and form a sentence, certain combinations of words are put together in order to draw a comparison between two objects which are similar, but not the same, and sometimes (frequently in Scripture) those words are put together where one is said to be another when they are not in fact the same but share some trait, we tend to call this type of sentence a metaphor (probably because it is easier to say metaphor than to say a literary figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object.)

So it is not a contradiction at all. Hebrew words are concrete, but then those words get put into sentences and sentences can be metaphors.




I just spent the last twenty minutes on Google trying to find where any linguistic scholar states that Hebrew has no metaphors, and could not find a single one, and it appears our linguistic scholar in residence ( couldn't resist Dajstill) disagrees with you. So for something that comes from the basic language study it seems to me that you are the only person in the world that has come to that conclusion.

The very fact that, as I cited previously, so many Hebrew words have FIGURATIVE definitions listed shows that either you are wrong, or the Hebrew lexicons and dictionaries are wrong. No offense but I am going to go with them and not you.




Again you can’t seem to see the forest from the trees. The words are the tress, they are concrete, the forest is sentences, paragraphs and books, they use the concrete words in order to convey ideas, and sometimes metaphors are used to convey those ideas.




This is a ridiculous statement, a metaphor is there or it isn't, either the words used create a metaphor or they do not. If there is no metaphor in the Hebrew than you can not translate it into a metaphor without it being a mistranslation. So if you are saying that my translation is errant it is incumbent upon you to do what I have been asking you to do all along, show me how my translation is wrong. You have failed to address the translation; you have not even attempted to show that my translation is wrong using evidence. You have stated it is wrong, but not provided a single source, I on the other hand have cited as source the most well-known and respected Hebrew lexicons and dictionaries in the world.

Why do you not do as I have done and address point by point everything I have written to you? Is it because you are unable to?




I have not ignored the Hebrew root in my translation; I just did not replace the word with its root as you do. I addressed the Hebrew root of most every word and explained how it informed us as to the nature of the word. You however seem to see no need to bother with the word written on the page and instead choose to only look at the root. That is unless the word written fits your agenda.

Why do you insist that nachas is serpent literally in the Garden, but then in 49:17 you say it is the verb root that is meant even though a noun derived word is written?




I understand the difference, you just can’t seem to understand the difference between words and sentences and ideas conveyed through them.




I am still waiting for you to show me how my translation is flawed. And I mean using evidence, not just stating it because my translation differs with your understanding.





Actually modern Hebrew and Scriptural Hebrew are very different languages. The Hebrew language has changed a lot over time.




It is your opinion because you have not been able to back it up with any evidence. And the circular reasoning is on your part, I have cited evidence for everything I have stated, you have not offered a shred of evidence for you position.

If you are saying that my translation of 49:17 is errant I challenge you to do what we said we would do earlier and as I have consistently done, and address point by point using EVIDENCE what I wrote.

Djstill 

I gave you the answer in post 7

With a phd in language you should understand that the word  " literal " means everything when translating a literal Language such as Hebrew.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literal

http://en.wikipedia.org/..._and_figurative_language

Excuse me for stepping in at this late date, but I hope I can be of some help. JH, I believe you are confusing ‘literal language’ with ‘A literal language. ‘A literal language’ does not exist. If you can find evidence of ‘A literal language’, please post it. It is not incumbent on others to prove your statements.

The definitions you posted talk of ‘literal language’ or using a language (any language) with an intended use of the literal meaning of the words. There is nothing there that implies that A language can only be used literally.

If anything Scriptural Hebrew is as close as any language could be to a figurative (or metaphorical) language. It’s words gain their literal meaning from the figurative extrapolation of their roots. You have used this fact to your own advantage in attempting to make the Text say what you want. But if the author, let us not forget it was Yah who chose what word was used, wanted to use the root instead of the word, I think he would have.

Edited by moderator Wednesday, November 21, 2012 3:06:58 PM(UTC)  | Reason: fixes quotes

JamesH,

I will repeat myself one more time. What the word literal and what the word metaphor mean are as Dajstill has pointed out, irrelevant. You are the only one arguing that the whole of the Hebrew language is literal. I am rejecting your premise that the whole language is literal, as is everyone else. We all agree on the definitions of literal and metaphorical, and figurative, it is the application of these words which are disagreeing over.

Words are concrete and literal. The word snake in English has but one literal definition, it is concrete as you would say. But then I take that word and put it into a sentence, James is a snake, and it becomes a part of a metaphor. The same is true in Hebrew, the Hebrew word nachas has a concrete literal definition, but then I put it into the sentence Dan hayah nachas, and it becomes a part of a metaphor.

Like I said earlier, trees and forest. Words are like trees solid, concrete if you will, but those words exist within a forest which is not solid. The forest is sentences, paragraphs, and books all to convey ideas.

So again I ask you to focus like a laser beam and address the points made in regard to 49:17, please show us how this is not a metaphor.

If you are unable or unwilling to do this, then based on that and the numerous complaints I have received from forum members I would ask that you please just leave this forum. You have become a distraction no longer worth tolerating.

Thank you all here at YY forum, I am sorry if I have offended any of you here.

I had some very important questions I needed to resolve and you have helped me do that.

Although many here just called me names, most of you did address the issues and I thank you for that.

The name that got me the best was satan because King David was called satan in 1 Samuel  29 :4

But the part I'm confused with is, " am I a snake , deceive eve, bite horses on the heels, or am I really the anti Christ "

It's quite obvious my views are not welcome here so I won't bother you any more.

But I would like to leave one last question.

Exodus chapter12

 26 And it shall be, when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’

27 that you shall say, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice of YHWH, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households.’” So the people bowed their heads and worshiped. 28 Then the children of Israel went away and did so; just as YHWH had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.


Are these verses literal or metaphor?


Thanks again
Jim Haar

I was out of line, I should know better, there are no "orthodox" views here. Nor was that even the issue. Sorry folks.

He was as lame as a duck. Not the metaphorical lame duck, either, but a real duck that was actually lame, maybe from stepping on a land mine or something.

Yeah ES, so glad we won't be tortured anymore.

I shudder to think of where he was going with the cosmic-guru 1st Sam parting statement "David is satan" thing. Imagine the tortuous threads begging to be specific, satan simply means "adversary", questioning Dowd/army as a reliable ally, and Yahowah didn't say this anyway...only to be ignored, subject changed, zooming back out Yahowsha/NT=haBAAL, Wake up etc!. Only after many tangents to find out the point was probably: David is Satan > Psalms were wrote by satan > this discounts any messianic references (Psalms 2, 22,etc) > Yahowsha/NT = ha BAAL. Per the usual giant leaps.

Then the Exodus verse as standalone - nevermind the pointless details ignored during ritual "doing and obeying"; blood on upright pillar, by fire, no bones broken, consumed by morning, etc. No point to the symbolism, metaphors, etc. And man, If he actually does a lamb on an altar in his back yard, I hope he does better with the typical poor english translations that seem to say roast the lamb with the guts in (instead of nearby)...else we might be reading about multiple food poisonings in CA. Yuck.