logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline JamesH  
#51 Posted : Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:08:55 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Wow, how did I get into chasing talking snakes from the topic " Many Messiahs  "
Offline JamesH  
#52 Posted : Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:43:55 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
James

Wait, Are you saying that the seed is a metaphor of Yahowsha  and  Satan and that Yahowsha  will stomp on the head of the snake?
Offline James  
#53 Posted : Wednesday, October 31, 2012 11:16:10 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,610
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
JamesH wrote:
The word Metaphor is a Greek word " meta - phore "

There is no Hebrew equivalent

So you would be using greek understanding to translate Hebrew. That is why you can come up with a different understanding than I have.

All snakes are cursed


Yes the English word metaphor is derived from Greek, so what. Much of our language is derived from Greek. Language is but a tool used to convey ideas. What a metaphor is what is important, not the origin of the word. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money). And there is a Hebrew equivalent, מטפורה, which while it doesn't appear in the Tanakh it does appear in other ancient Hebrew text.

And even if there weren't I would not be using a Greek understanding to translate Hebrew, I would be using an English word derived from Greek to convey an idea written in Hebrew.

But the language derived from is irrelevant, the question is do the Hebrew Scriptures use metaphors and there is absolutely no denying that, I pointed out but a handful of them. When it says that someone walked the path of Yahowah, there is not a literal path upon which they are literally walking, that is what we call in English a metaphor. So to say, " the Hebrew language does not use metaphors" is an errant statement.

JamesH wrote:
Wait, Are you saying that the seed is a metaphor of Yahowsha and Satan and that Yahowsha will stomp on the head of the snake?


No I was only pointing out:
That there are metaphors throughout the Tanakh,
That the idea that the serpent was a metaphor for the adversary existed long before the Greek text,
Why I personally hold that understanding
And that all three curses were completely literal is errant because then they would only apply to the three individuals present.

I am not trying to argue or convince you, merely pointing out facts, and stating my understanding and reasoning for what little they are worth.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline JamesH  
#54 Posted : Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:19:10 PM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
James wrote:
Gen 49:17 was Dan literally a serpent? No it was a metaphor.


Genesis 49 : 17
17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way,

The Hebrew word used here for serpent is, ( nachash, translated enchantment) Strongs 5173

Might want to check the rest of the metaphors in Genesis 49
Offline dajstill  
#55 Posted : Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:33:47 PM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
With the curses being "literal" - do snakes eat dirt? I have seen them eat rats, mice, rabbits, and lots of other critters - I haven't seen the eat dirt. When they are slithering on the ground, their mouth is generally closed. They can smell with their tongue, but I haven't see photos or videos of them choking on dirt.

I think relying on this to be so "literal" is troubling to me. When did it say snakes stopped talking? Was this a special snake or do all snakes talk? When did snakes stop talking? Do only talking snakes eat dirt?

If women don't have pain when they, are they no longer under the curse?

If a man is rich and doesn't have to "toil", is he not under the curse. Can I contract out my part of the curse by owning slaves?

I am kind of laughing that a "virgin birth" is seen as impossible but talking snakes are acceptable. Did only snakes talk, or did all the animals talk? Since the serpent was "more crafty" than the other animals, were some animals a little crafty? Did all the animals try to get Chawah to cave and eat the tree and the serpent was the only one who succeeded?

The woman's desire was to be for her husband, not "man" in general. So, "men" weren't to rule over women, but her husband did "rule over" her.

It is just interesting how some people want one part to be literal and another part impossible, when leaps of faith are needed for both. I mean, how would animals even know what instructions Adam and Chawah were under? What reason would an animal have for tricking Chawah and having man fall out of relationship with Yahowah? Wasn't the life of animals "better" in the garden? It just doesn't make logical sense that a snake would 1) Know the instructions given to man - because we have no indication that animals weren't allowed to eat from the tree, 2) Be able to communicate with man, 3) Have a desire to deceive man, 4) Have the ability to come up with a plan and do it. That just makes no sense.
Offline cgb2  
#56 Posted : Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:55:47 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
JamesH wrote:
I don't reject the history , psalms and prophets UNLESS they contradict the Torah where Yah's covenant is found.


How is this determined?
english version, amplified, lexicons, doctrinal websites?
Offline dajstill  
#57 Posted : Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:57:29 PM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
And I have more questions about this snake. Did YHWH only make one serpent? Because Adam was called "the man", Chawah was called "the woman", and the "serpent" called "the nahash". This reads as if there was one man, one woman, and one serpent. But, can we also consider that this book was written by people recounting the story. Maybe they called whatever it was the "nahash" because the punishment resembled that of a snake - like Chawah was named "life giver" because of what she did.

Do serpents crush the heels of men? Because I thought they bit people, not crush heels. And, they will bite anything - a heel, a stomach, a butt cheek, anything. However, there doesn't seem to be more "enmity" between real serpent and a person than a scorpion and a person or a lion and a person, or a bear and a person. The relationship is pretty much "stay out of my way and we are good". There is more "enmity" between mosquitoes and people than snakes and people. Sure, snakes were used to bite people in the camp, but they aren't the only animals used to harass people, so did locust.

And yes, this is related to many Messiah's because we are dealing with the other side of the same coin - needed to see what was really written and how we are to truly understand it. It still defies logic to me that serpents (or one actual true serpent) was sitting around and got the express idea to deceive the woman for no good reason. No, people don't need a reason to disobey Yahowah - but Genesis CLEARLY indicates Chawah had help, she was pushed over the edge by the serpent. The story indicates the serpent approached the woman and started this encounter. It doesn't indicate she was on her way to eat from the tree and met it along the way - it approached her and started the entire interaction. Why would an animal do that?
Offline James  
#58 Posted : Thursday, November 1, 2012 3:41:05 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,610
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
JamesH wrote:
Genesis 49 : 17
17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way,

The Hebrew word used here for serpent is, ( nachash, translated enchantment) Strongs 5173

Might want to check the rest of the metaphors in Genesis 49


JamesH you might want to look at that verse again, and look at context this time.

Yes the word used nun hey shin can be pointed to mean sorcery, magic or enchantment, but it also the same word that is translated as serpent. נָחָשׁ and נַחַשׁ strip away the vowel pointing and they are identical.

So the only difference between the two are how the masoretes pointed it. Also since three words latter it calls him a viper, שְׁפִיפֹן (šep̄î∙p̄ōn), and then goes on to reference biting horses, I am inclined to say that enchantment is not what was intended, the masoretes got this one right, and serpent was. And even if serpent wasn't intended, it still calls him a viper, so was he literally a viper, literally biting horses?

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#59 Posted : Thursday, November 1, 2012 3:41:31 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,610
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Dajstill, great points, I wish that I had made them.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline FredSnell  
#60 Posted : Thursday, November 1, 2012 5:32:41 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
James wrote: "The fact that the serpent crawls about on it’s belly is probably the very reason that the metaphor was used.".....or, b/c it has a forked tongue. We equate lawyers as snakes and not all snakes are poisonous.
Offline JamesH  
#61 Posted : Thursday, November 1, 2012 5:53:48 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
James wrote:
JamesH you might want to look at that verse again, and look at context this time.

Yes the word used nun hey shin can be pointed to mean sorcery, magic or enchantment, but it also the same word that is translated as serpent. נָחָשׁ and נַחַשׁ strip away the vowel pointing and they are identical.

So the only difference between the two are how the masoretes pointed it. Also since three words latter it calls him a viper, שְׁפִיפֹן (šep̄î∙p̄ōn), and then goes on to reference biting horses, I am inclined to say that enchantment is not what was intended, the masoretes got this one right, and serpent was. And even if serpent wasn't intended, it still calls him a viper, so was he literally a viper, literally biting horses?




James 

The word viper (shphiyphon, Strongs # 8207 is from an unused root which is Strongs #7779 (shuwph, overwhelm )

The word bite is  (nashak, to oppress, to strike)

The word heel is ( iqqbah, the rear of an army)

Genesis 49 : 17 should read

17 Dan shall be enchanting by the way,
Overwhelm by the path,
That will strike at the rear of an army
So that its rider shall fall backward.

Question
Was the rod of Moses a metaphor for Satan?

Also 
Numbers 22: 28

28 Then YHWH  opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”
Offline James  
#62 Posted : Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:47:22 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,610
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
JamesH wrote:
The word viper (shphiyphon, Strongs # 8207 is from an unused root which is Strongs #7779 (shuwph, overwhelm )


There is a reason it is called a root word, because a word is derived from it, but the word derived from it is not the same as it, otherwise it would just be the same word. So while understanding the root of a word is useful and important to understanding the word and what is being conveyed with the word, you can not just replace the word with it's root. You are twisting what is written to fit your agenda now. The word means Viper.

JamesH wrote:
The word bite is  (nashak, to oppress, to strike)


Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semitic domains Hebrew: נָשַׁךְ (nā∙šǎḵ): v.; ≡ Str 5391; TWOT 1430, 1430b—1. LN 19.14–19.26 (qal) bite, i.e., to seize with the teeth or jaws, intending to injure or wound

Enhanced Brownd-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: †נָשַׁךְ S5391 TWOT1430 GK5966, 5967 vb. bite (NH = BH, but also transp. נְכַשׁ Hiph.); Assyrian našâku DlHWB 486; T נְכֵית (especially of snakes);

Gesenius Hebrew Chaldean Lexicon: TO BITE, as a serpent

TWOT: נָשַׁך (nāšak) bite. Wherever the verb “to bite” occurs in its literal physical sense in biblical Heb, it has a snake or serpent as its subject.

Bite is the primary definition in every dictionary and lexicon I have checked. I do not see strike or opress in any of them.

JamesH wrote:
The word heel is ( iqqbah, the rear of an army)


עָקֵב most base meaning is heel, it is the basis for Ya'aqob's name which literally means heel grabber.

By extension it can mean activities such as moment with that being derived from footsteps. Or even foot prints. Rear guard or back of a army or military is derived understanding but a possible rendering, one listed last in most every dictionary and lexicon.

TWOT:
עָקֵב (ʿāqēb). Heel. From the literal idea of “heel” (cf. Job 18:9, a man caught by the heel), ʿāqēb extends itself to describe horses’ hoofs (Gen 49:17; Jud 5:22) or anything at the rear. ʿāqēb denotes the rear guard of a troop (KB, p. 279; attacked, literally, at their heels, Gen 49:19) or the exposed buttocks (euphemistically, “thy heels made bare,” Jer 13:22) of captive individuals (v. 19; cf. Ugaritic ʿqbt “tendon” of a bull). At Ai, the Israelitish army’s ʿāqēb (Josh 8:13) is the concealed detachment directed against the Canaanitish “heel” (cf. Ps 49:5 [H 6]), therefore not so much a Hebrew rear guard (RSV) as an ambush, “liers in wait” against Ai (KJV, ASV; KD, p. 86). ʿāqēb may also connote the motion of the heel, i.e. a step—so in Ps 56:6 [H 7]. David’s foes watch “his steps.” The actual word is “heels,” or the mark left by the heel, i.e. a footstep, whether of a man (Ps 89:51 [H 52] where enemies “reproach the footsteps” of God’s anointed. perhaps referring to King Jehoiachin as he was led captive in 597 B.C.). It can also refer to a flock (Song 1:8), or even to God (so Ps 77:19 which speaks of Yahweh’s leading Israel through the Red Sea; but after the water returned, “Your footsteps are not known”).
The metaphorical usage of ʿāqēb includes such ideas as a traitor’s “lifting up the heel” against David (Ps 41:9 [H 10]), i.e. “proving faithless and spurning” him, or, “iniquity at my heels” (49:5 ASV,’ “iniquity of my heels” KJV), i.e. dogging one’s steps (“wicked deceivers” NIV). Greatest of all references is the prophecy in Gen 3:15, that mankind is to achieve victory over Satan and reconciliation with God at the price of Calvary, where the serpent will “bruise the heel” of the seed of woman.

JamesH wrote:
Genesis 49 : 17 should read

17 Dan shall be enchanting by the way,
Overwhelm by the path,
That will strike at the rear of an army
So that its rider shall fall backward.


Your translation is wrong on several accounts.

To start with nahas is written as a noun, and not a verb. So while it is possible that the text says that Dan was a sorcery, a magic a curse or an enchantment, it can not be enchanting. Also if you were to use any of the possible rendering it is still a metaphor.

Second 'ale is upon, on, or before, not by.

Third as I pointed out above, a root is not the word. And the word means Viper, plain and simple, it is derived from a word that means overwhelm, which informs us as to the nature of vipers, but it can not replace the word that is derived. So Overwhelm is irrant on all accounts.

Fourth as I pointed out above again, the word it bite, not strike.

And last rear of an army is a tirtiary definition, and the primary definition of heel fits much better when you don't butcher the previous words to fit your agenda.

Also you ignored the presence of the word horses, suws, right after the word for heel. So is it the horses rear of the army?

Finally a viper strinking at a horses heel causing the rider to fall back fits and makes perfect sense, striking at the rear of a horses army and making a rider fall back makes no sense whatsoever.

So you have twisted and distorted the meaning of most every word in this verse to fit your agenda.

JamesH wrote:
Question
Was the rod of Moses a metaphor for Satan?

Also 
Numbers 22: 28

28 Then YHWH  opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”


I will have to address these latter I am out of time right now.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#63 Posted : Friday, November 2, 2012 3:45:50 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,610
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
JamesH wrote:
Question
Was the rod of Moses a metaphor for Satan?


If you are referring to Moshe’s staff which turned into a serpent, in a way yes. The snake was the symbol of the Egyptian goddess Wadjey, and was also symbolic of the Pharaoh’s sovereignty over the land since Wadjet was said to control and protect the land. So Yah having Moshe’s staff turn into a serpent was His way of showing Moshe and Pharaoh that He was over Pharaoh and over their God’s, and indeed of the adversary. Several of the signs that Moshe shows Pharaoh can be correlated to Egyptian religion. The signs were metaphors. So yes the staff becoming a serpent was a metaphor for Satan. Yah could have made it become anything, he choose a serpent for a reason.

If you are referring to the serpent on the staff that healed those who looked upon it. Interestingly a different word is used for serpent, not nahash. Sarap is used. Sarap at its root means to burn or burning, indicating that these were venomous snakes, supported by people dying from there bite. In the context the Sarap were sent by Yah against the Israelites. So the symbolism of the serpent here would seem to me to be their sin and transgression. The serpent was encased in Bronze, a metal forged in a crucible. I don’t really think I need to cover the symbolism there.

The fact is that so much of the Scriptures are symbolic and metaphorical. Otherwise it is all just random. Why did Yah send Serpents, and not wolves or scorpion? Because the serpent represented something. Why did God turn Moshe’s staff into a snake and not a hippo, or an elephant, or how about something that no one in Egypt had seen like a kangaroo? The serpent was chosen for a reason, it was symbolic, a metaphor. Why was a dove sent out from the ark, and not another bird? OR why not just say a bird was sent out if the type was not important? The dove was symbolic, it was a metaphor for the Set Apart Spirit.

I could go on and on, but I don’t see that it would do any good. If the amount of evidence and reason I have already present does not convince you, and you are clearly unable to disprove it, then nothing will get you to change your mind. And quite frankly if you are not willing to admit you are wrong on such a small issue as are there metaphors in Scripture then there is not chance you will ever admit you are wrong about anything, and there is no point in continuing to discuss anything with you. The fact is you are more interested in being right than in reasoned discussion.

JamesH wrote:
Numbers 22: 28

28 Then YHWH opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”


I’m assuming that you are asking this in regard to my statement that I do not believe that snakes once had the ability to talk with humans and that that has been lost over time. In which case my answer is simple this is one instance where one donkey was made to talk and it was made to talk by YAHOWAH, not on its own. SO there is no comparison what so ever. If the the Garden it said that Yah made the serpent talk you might have a case, but since it didn’t this is a non-sequitur.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline MadDog  
#64 Posted : Saturday, November 3, 2012 9:10:15 AM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 157
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

James wrote:
Yes the English word metaphor is derived from Greek, so what. Much of our language is derived from Greek. Language is but a tool used to convey ideas. What a metaphor is what is important, not the origin of the word. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money). And there is a Hebrew equivalent, מטפורה, which while it doesn't appear in the Tanakh it does appear in other ancient Hebrew text.


"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." - William Shakespeare.

The point is while the actual rose is still just a rose, the translation into different languages and cultures carries different meanings. Throughout the ages whether by innocence or malcontent our translations have become corrupted, including the "Old Testament." So it just isn't just the Greek "New Testament."

BTW, the incident in the Garden Eden would not have happened if Yahowah had not even put the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life there to begin with. To blame and curse just the serpent, Chawah, and Adam would have ended the whole storyline. The End. End of Story.

Yahowah was the one who instigated the whole thing. Why did he do it? Because we needed free will and by "making" or pushing us in that direction he in turn would pay the price through Yahoshua on the upright tree (i.e. the tree of life).

Another glaring but obvious metaphor.

dajstill wrote:
I am kind of laughing that a "virgin birth" is seen as impossible but talking snakes are acceptable. Did only snakes talk, or did all the animals talk? Since the serpent was "more crafty" than the other animals, were some animals a little crafty? Did all the animals try to get Chawah to cave and eat the tree and the serpent was the only one who succeeded?


Speaking of literal that is how christendom came up with the earth and the universe being created in literally six solar days.

At one point in my life I took creation in six literal days seriously despite all the evidence to the contrary.

So does JamesH believe the earth and universe were created in six days, literally?
Offline JamesH  
#65 Posted : Thursday, November 8, 2012 3:33:24 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
MadDog wrote:


Another glaring but obvious metaphor.



Speaking of literal that is how christendom came up with the earth and the universe being created in literally six solar days.

At one point in my life I took creation in six literal days seriously despite all the evidence to the contrary.

So does JamesH believe the earth and universe were created in six days, literally?



Yes

6 days. From the vantage point of a witness to creation, existing at the point of inception, the whole process from start to finish took a length of time that equates to six, twenty-four hour, earth days.
“And thus the heavens and earth were finished...and on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made...” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 2:1-2)

Yada Yah
Volume 1: In the Beginning
...Why Are We Here?

‘Owr – Light


http://yadayah.com/pdf/Yada_Yahweh_Genesis_Owr.pdf
Offline JamesH  
#66 Posted : Thursday, November 8, 2012 8:21:19 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
James wrote:


I could go on and on, but I don’t see that it would do any good. If the amount of evidence and reason I have already present does not convince you, and you are clearly unable to disprove it,



In the world, past and present, there are two major types of cultures; the Hebrew (or eastern) culture and the Greek (or western) culture. Both of these cultures view their surroundings, lives, and purpose in ways which would seem foreign to the other. With the exception of a few Bedouin nomadic tribes living in the Near East today, the ancient Hebrew culture has disappeared.

What happened to this ancient Hebrew thought and culture? Around 800 BCE, a new culture arose to the north. This new culture began to view the world very much differently than the Hebrews. This culture was the Greeks. Around 200 BCE the Greeks began to move south causing a coming together of the Greek and Hebrew culture. This was a very tumultuous time as the two vastly different cultures collided. Over the following 400 years the battle raged until finally the Greek culture won and virtually eliminated all trace of the ancient Hebrew culture. The Greek culture then in turn influenced all following cultures including the Roman and European cultures, our own American culture and even the modern Hebrew culture in Israel today.

As 20th Century Americans with a strong Greek thought influence, we read the Hebrew Bible as if a 20th Century American had written it. In order to understand the ancient Hebrew culture in which the Tenack was written in, we must examine some of the differences between Hebrew and Greek thought.

Abstract vs. concrete thought
Greek thought views the world through the mind (abstract thought). Ancient Hebrew thought views the world through the senses (concrete thought).

Concrete thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted and/or heard. All five of the senses are used when speaking and hearing and writing and reading the Hebrew language. An example of this can be found in Psalms 1:3; “He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season, and whose leaf does not wither". In this passage we have concrete words expressing abstract thoughts, such as a tree (one who is upright, righteous), streams of water (grace), fruit (good character) and a unwithered leaf (prosperity).

Abstract thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that can not be seen, touched, smelled, tasted or heard. Hebrew never uses abstract thought as English does. Examples of Abstract thought can be found in Psalms 103:8; “The LORD is compassionate and gracious, Slow to anger, abounding in love”. As you noticed I said that Hebrew uses concrete and not abstract thoughts, but here we have such abstract concepts as compassionate, gracious, anger, and love in a Hebrew passage. Actually these are abstract English words translating the original Hebrew concrete words. The translators often translate this way because the original Hebrew makes no sense when literally translated into English.

Let us take one of the abstract words above to demonstrate how this works. Anger, an abstract word, is actually the Hebrew word אף (awph) which literally means “nose”, a concrete word. When one is very angry, he begins to breath hard and the nostrils begin to flare. A Hebrew sees anger as “the flaring of the nose (nostrils)”. If the translator literally translated the above passage “slow to nose”, it would make no sense to the English reader, so אף, a nose, is translated to “anger” in this passage.

Appearance vs. Functional Description
Greek thought describes objects in relation to its appearance. Hebrew thought describes objects in relation to its function.

A deer and an oak are two very different objects and we would never describe them in the same way with our Greek form of descriptions. The Hebrew word for both of these objects is איל (ayil) because the functional description of these two objects are identical to the ancient Hebrews, therefore, the same Hebrew word is used for both. The Hebraic definition of איל is "a strong leader".

A deer stag is one of the most powerful animals of the forest and is seen as "a strong leader" among the other animals of the forest. Also the oak tree's wood is very hard compared to other trees such as the pine which is soft and is seen as a "strong leader" among the trees of the forest.

Notice the two different translations of the Hebrew word איל in Psalms 29.9. The NASB and KJV translates it as "The voice of the LORD makes the deer to calve" while the NIV translates it as "The voice of the LORD twists the oaks". The literal translation of this verse in Hebrew thought would be; "The voice of the LORD makes the strong leaders turn".

When translating the Hebrew into English, the translator must give a Greek description to this word which is why we have two different ways of translating this verse. This same word is also translated as a "ruler" in 2 Kings 24.15, who is a man who is a strong leader.

Another example of Greek thought would be the following description of a common pencil: "it is yellow and about 8 inches long". A Hebrew description of the pencil would be related to its function such as "I write words with it". Notice that the Hebrew description uses the verb "write" while the Greek description uses the adjectives "yellow" and "long". Because of Hebrew's form of functional descriptions, verbs are used much more frequently then adjectives.

Impersonal vs. Personal Description
The Greek culture describes objects in relation to the object itself. The Hebrew culture describes objects in relation to the Hebrew himself.

As in the example above of the pencil, the Greek description portrays the pencil's relationship to itself by using the word "is". The Hebrew describes the pencil in relation to himself by saying "I write". Because Hebrew does not describe objects in relation to itself, the Hebrew vocabulary does not have the word "is".

A Greek description of God would be "God is love" which describes God in relation to God. A Hebrew description would be "God loves me" describing God in relationship to myself.

Passive vs. Active Nouns
Greek nouns are words which refer to a person, place or thing. Hebrew nouns refer to the action of a person place or thing.

The Hebrews are active people and their vocabulary reflects this lifestyle. The Greek culture recognizes the words such as a knee and a gift as nouns which by themselves impart no action. But in the Hebrew vocabulary the nouns come from the same root word ברך (BRK) because they are related, not in appearance, but in action. The Hebrew word for knee is ברך (berak) and literally means "the part of the body that bends". The Hebrew word for a gift is ברכה (berakah), meaning "what is brought with a bent knee". The verb from the root word is ברך (barak), meaning "to bend the knee". As you can see, both Hebrew verbs and nouns have action associated with them where the Greek nouns do not.

Even the Hebrew nouns for father and mother are descriptive of action. The Hebrew word for father is אב (av) and literally means "the one who gives strength to the family" and mother אם (em) means "the one that binds the family together".
Offline James  
#67 Posted : Thursday, November 8, 2012 9:28:26 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,610
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
JamesH,

That is all very interesting, and I happen to agree with much of your assessment of Hebrew. That said it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and does not justify your twisted translation. Not one thing you wrote evidences there being no metaphors in Hebrew, in fact the Psalm you quoted is a metaphor. Furthermore your understanding of the Hebrew language does not justify your horribly twisted translation of the Ba'reshiyth verse above.

You speak of Hebrew as a concrete language and I agree. Facts are concrete, and the concrete fact is that Hebrew uses metaphors. If you are unable to refute the evidence and reason presented, or admit that your statement was wrong then there is not point in us continuing this discussion.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline JamesH  
#68 Posted : Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:47:58 PM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
James wrote:
JamesH,

That is all very interesting, and I happen to agree with much of your assessment of Hebrew. That said it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and does not justify your twisted translation. Not one thing you wrote evidences there being no metaphors in Hebrew, in fact the Psalm you quoted is a metaphor. Furthermore your understanding of the Hebrew language does not justify your horribly twisted translation of the Ba'reshiyth verse above.

You speak of Hebrew as a concrete language and I agree. Facts are concrete, and the concrete fact is that Hebrew uses metaphors. If you are unable to refute the evidence and reason presented, or admit that your statement was wrong then there is not point in us continuing this discussion.


James

Why would you insist that I must admit I am wrong when you might be the very one that is wrong!

The post above definitely  has to do with the topic at hand, Hebrew vs Greek or 
Concrete vs abstract or Concrete vs metaphor.

You admit that the Hebrew language is concrete so by definition it cannot be both concrete and (metaphor or abstract.)

Look up the English definition of concrete and metaphor 

In all your claims of metaphors you are using the Greek or English language translation to make your metaphor.

The only thing I admit I did wrong was not spending more time on the Hebrew root words in my translation I did it very quickly on an iPad 

I guess I thought you would look up the Hebrew roots more accurately in Gen 49: 17 about Dan  " Snake " ,and Gen 49:4 Reuben "Unstable as Water", and Gen 49:9 Judah " is a lion's Whelp" etc

James I would challenge you to come up with a good translation "not butchered " of Dan, Reuben and Judah using good Hebrew translations and roots.
Offline cgb2  
#69 Posted : Sunday, November 11, 2012 3:51:30 AM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
^ Ah-Oh James you've been challenged. Should you accept the challenge you just might find that these examples are not metaphors, and that LITERALLY and CONCRETELY Dan was a snake, Rueben was unstable as water, and Judah is a lions whelp...and from there, you too can make the quantum leap of no Yahowsha in 33CE.

Watch out James, you might very well be dealing with the worlds first surviving brain donor.
Offline JamesH  
#70 Posted : Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:10:14 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
cgb2 wrote:
^ Ah-Oh James you've been challenged. Should you accept the challenge you just might find that these examples are not metaphors, and that LITERALLY and CONCRETELY Dan was a snake, Rueben was unstable as water, and Judah is a lions whelp...and from there, you too can make the quantum leap of no Yahowsha in 33CE.

Watch out James, you might very well be dealing with the worlds first surviving brain donor.


Cgb2

Someone told me recently that you are a nice guy. I'm finding that hard to believe seems like you can't get past name calling.

You may think you know me but you have no idea. All I have done is take a different view of scripture and debating that point against some of YY views

Their are many Jews that have the point of view that I have been debating  

All I have been doing is trying to seek Yah and the truth

What I have noticed about you cgb2 is that you attack a subject like a christian with circular reasoning and not Yah's word or you get angry and I dont have any idea who you are except by what you have posted.

Cgb2 I'm sorry if I have offended you

James H
Offline James  
#71 Posted : Monday, November 12, 2012 4:54:12 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,610
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
JamesH wrote:
James

Why would you insist that I must admit I am wrong when you might be the very one that is wrong!


I insist that you either admit you were wrong, or refute the evidence I have presented. I insist that you stop going off on tangents. A debate, and I mean that in the positive sense, is only productive when done in the following manner:

Party A presents there points and evidence and reason to support it.
Party B then address party A’s points, evidence and reason, and then presents their Point and supports it with evidence and reason.
The Party A then refutes Party Bs evidence and reason, and presents more evidence and reason to his point.

This continues until one party is unable to refute the evidence and reason presented by the other.

I have pointed out several examples of metaphors used in Scripture, you have completely ignored all but one, and the one you did attempt to refute you did so by butchering the Hebrew to fit your agenda. I refuted your refutation by using evidence and reasoning to show that your translation was wrong. Then rather than admit that it was wrong and the verse was a metaphor, or address using evidence and reason why my conclusion was wrong you simply ignored it and moved on, attempting to change the subject.


JamesH wrote:
The post above definitely has to do with the topic at hand, Hebrew vs Greek or
Concrete vs abstract or Concrete vs metaphor.

You admit that the Hebrew language is concrete so by definition it cannot be both concrete and (metaphor or abstract.)

Look up the English definition of concrete and metaphor


Just because the nature of the Hebrew language is concrete does not imply or mean that the language is incapable of metaphors. This is flawed reasoning.

In your previous post you have three paragraphs about how in Hebrew concrete words expressing abstract thoughts. We have a word for that in the English language, it’s called a metaphor.


JamesH wrote:
In all your claims of metaphors you are using the Greek or English language translation to make your metaphor.


Well since no one on earth natively speaks Scriptural Hebrew everyone who reads it has to translate it into their native language. So all we can do is translate it as best as possible into our language and then study it. And even in Hebrew saying EHayah Dan Nahash is a metaphor unless Dan literally exists as a snake and a viper.


JamesH wrote:
The only thing I admit I did wrong was not spending more time on the Hebrew root words in my translation I did it very quickly on an iPad

I guess I thought you would look up the Hebrew roots more accurately in Gen 49: 17 about Dan " Snake " ,and Gen 49:4 Reuben "Unstable as Water", and Gen 49:9 Judah " is a lion's Whelp" etc

James I would challenge you to come up with a good translation "not butchered " of Dan, Reuben and Judah using good Hebrew translations and roots.


I have a better idea. Rather than examining three verses, let’s focus like a laser beam and stick to the verse we have already been discussing.

Dan will consistently exist as (hayah – scribed in the jussive, imperfect form) a snake (nahas – serpent, snake or viper, a poisonous reptile 1) upon (‘ale – on and before) the path (derek – the way, the route, the thoroughfare to get from one place to another), a viper (shphphon – a venomous snake, usually identified in the family Viperidae) upon (‘ale) the way (orach - thoroughfare 2) who bites (nasak – to seize with the teeth or jaws, intending to injure or wound) horse’s (suws – stallion or male horse) heels (aqeb – formally heel, but by extension hoofs on animals) so that his mount (rakkab – rider, driver and horseman) falls (napal - have an object go from a higher position to a lower position, often with the implication of being out of control in relation to the situation) backwards (achor – pertaining to a position which is behind relative to another position).

1 Nahas has the extended meaning of omen, sorcery, divination and sorcery. Most believe this to be because both sorcery and serpents were associated with false Gods.
2 Orach also conveys the manner, conduct or way of life.


So unless you want to argue that Ya’aqob literally turned Dan into a viper on a literal path, that then literally bit horses hoofs causing the riders to literally fall backwards then this is a metaphor using the a viper biting the heels of horses to describe the nature of Dan.

In fact looking it over most all of the 49th chapter is metaphors:
Re’uḇĕn… my power and the beginning of my strength
Yehuḏah… your hand is on the neck of your enemies
Yehuḏah is a lion’s cub;
Yissasḵar is a strong donkey
Naphtali is a deer let loose
Yosĕph is an offshoot of a fruit-bearing tree

Most all prophecy consists of metaphors. Metaphors are the best way to give a visual picture of something.
But ignoring the no less than half a dozen other metaphors in this chapter alone. Address Ba’reshityh 49:17 and show me how it is not a metaphor.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline JamesH  
#72 Posted : Monday, November 12, 2012 7:33:35 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Thanks James

I understand the rules now

The first word we can look at is " snake" the Interlinear I am using, uses Strongs #5175 (snake) and then says that the word snake comes from the root, Strongs #5172 ( to prognosticate )

English definition of prognosticate
1.  To forecast or predict ( something future) from present indications or signs;  prophecy.
2. To make a forecast; prophecy.


Next word " horned snake" Strongs #8207  which comes from the root, Strongs #7779 (to overwhelm )

English definition of overwhelm 
1. To overpower or overcome, especially with superior forces; destroy; crush.


Next word " that bites" Strongs#5391 which is a root ( to strike, to oppress)

English definition of strike
1. To deal a blow or stroke, to (a person or thing) , as with the fist, a weapon, or a hammer; hit

English definition of oppress
1.  To put down; subdue or suppress. 


Next word " heels" Strongs#6119 which  comes from the root, Strongs #6117 ( to circumvent )

English definition of circumvent 
1.  To avoid ( defeat, failure, unpleasantness, etc.) by artfulness or deception; avoid by anticipating or outwitting. 

This is concrete Hebrew words not metaphor

James could you explain your metaphor of Dan?

Dan the snake, is Dan an egg eater, Satan, crawl on his belly, have fangs, deceive eve, ? A metaphor means something different to each person, ABSTRACT 

The Hebrew language exists today only because of CONCRETE WORDS
Offline pilgrimhere  
#73 Posted : Monday, November 12, 2012 8:43:51 AM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Near as I can tell, words are words and statements are statements. Your current approach asserts that words are presented without a statement being made. The individual words are certainly not metaphorical ... the statement has to be in order to make sense.
Offline James  
#74 Posted : Monday, November 12, 2012 9:37:00 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,610
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
JamesH wrote:
The first word we can look at is " snake" the Interlinear I am using, uses Strongs #5175 (snake) and then says that the word snake comes from the root, Strongs #5172 ( to prognosticate )

English definition of prognosticate
1. To forecast or predict ( something future) from present indications or signs; prophecy.
2. To make a forecast; prophecy.


Again when a word is derived from another word, the root word informs the understanding of the word, but you cannot simply replace the word with its root.

Here the root literally means “hiss” and by extension to whisper, and by extension to practice divination, interpret omens and signs. Because of its literal meaning of “hiss” the derived meaning of serpent arose. The word used here is the exact same word used for serpent in the Garden. So by studying the root we see why nahas means serpent.

Also the word is used in this verse as a noun, not a verb. So as I pointed out already it could be saying that he is a prognostication, and enchantment, a sorcery a magic, but it cannot be saying that he is prognosticating, enchanting practicing magic or sorcery.

But in the context, considering Ya’aqob is describing the dominate traits of his sons, and in more than one instance has compared them to animals, it is pretty obvious that snake or serpent is what was intended.



JamesH wrote:
Next word " horned snake" Strongs #8207 which comes from the root, Strongs #7779 (to overwhelm )

English definition of overwhelm
1. To overpower or overcome, especially with superior forces; destroy; crush.


Actually Strong’s 7779 literally means gape or snap at, and figuratively means to overwhelm. The very fact that it has a figurative meaning evidences against your point. Look up examples of figurative language, which is what a figurative meaning is, and you will see that a metaphor is a type of figurative language. So if you were to take a literal approach as you are suggesting then your defining the derived word as the root and saying that overwhelm is what was intended, even though the word used means viper, you would have to say that the word is snap at, but that doesn’t fit either because once again the word used is in the noun form not the verb form.

In Hebrew most nouns are derived from a verb which informs us to the nature of the noun. So the noun viper, siphphion, is derived from the verb snap at, siph. Just like the noun snake, nahas, is derived from the verb hiss, nahas. But those roots are not the words being used. So they inform us as to what the word means, the word still has its own meaning. Snap at and overwhelm informs as to the nature of vipers, hissing informs us as to the nature of serpents.


JamesH wrote:
Next word " that bites" Strongs#5391 which is a root ( to strike, to oppress)

English definition of strike
1. To deal a blow or stroke, to (a person or thing) , as with the fist, a weapon, or a hammer; hit

English definition of oppress
1. To put down; subdue or suppress.


It’s seems to me that you are relying solely on Strong’s, something I would advise against as it is one of the worst sources. But even then it appears that you are ignoring the Strong’s definitions that don’t fit your interpretation. Strong’s definition of 5391 is, “A primitive root; to strike with a sting (as a serpent);” so you left off the parenthetical because it didn’t fit your agenda.

Further even Strong’s goes on to say, “figuratively, to oppress with interest on a loan: - bite, lend upon usury.” So the literal word for bite carried the figurative meaning to oppress. And even then the oppress definition is only in terms of interest on a loan, so unless Dan is a banker it would appear that this definition is not applicable here.

Further Strong’s seems to be the only dictionary that uses the strike definition, with all others having the definition as bite, to grasp with the teeth or jaw, as a serpent.

DBL: נָשַׁךְ (nā∙šǎḵ): v.; ≡ Str 5391; (qal) bite, i.e., to seize with the teeth or jaws, intending to injure or wound

BDB: bite, especially of snakes

GHCLOT: to bite, as a serpent

CHALOT: bite

TWOT: Wherever the verb “to bite” occurs in its literal physical sense in biblical Heb, it has a snake or serpent as its subject. Interestingly, the modern Amharic cognate is used not only of snakes but of dogs and other mammals, and even of the bee. (While classical Ethiopic has nasaka, the Amharic verb has a consonantal metathesis to nakkassa.) One is led to suspect that the broader usage of this verb is the more primitive, since the noun “interest” preserves a sense of "biting off’ a portion, whereas this is not the impression given by a snake’s bite.
Synonyms for “bite” in Hebrew are such verbs as qāraṣ “pinch, snip, tear” (the Ethiopic cognate of which has a noun derivative “tariff, customs”), bālaʿ “swallow, eat greedily, devour” (with a beast as subject in Ex 7:12), and the common term for “eat,” ʾākal, also “consume.” Samson calls the lion “the eater” (Jud 14:14). Arabic writers employ the same epithet for lion.


I would also point out that your practice of getting a one or two word translation and then looking at the definition of the English word is not the best way to go about understanding what was written. If you truly want to examine the Hebrew you need to look at Hebrew dictionaries and lexicons, not English ones, and see how the word was defined and understood in Hebrew, not how English defines the words that the translators choose to translate it as.



JamesH wrote:
Next word " heels" Strongs#6119 which comes from the root, Strongs #6117 ( to circumvent )

English definition of circumvent
1. To avoid ( defeat, failure, unpleasantness, etc.) by artfulness or deception; avoid by anticipating or outwitting.


Your twisting of the language and cherry picking of definitions is getting a bit tiresome. Once again, I will say this as many times as I have to, a root word cannot replace the derived word. So while 6117 can inform us as to what is meant by 6119, it cannot replace it.

That said let’s examine why your translation is once again wrong. Let’s look at 6117 and 6119.
6117 according to Strong’s:
A primitive root; properly to swell out or up; used only as denominative from H6119, to seize by the heel; figuratively to circumvent (as if tripping up the heels); also to restrain (as if holding by the heel): - take by the heel, stay, supplant, X utterly.

So the circumvent is a figurative definition derived from the idea of tripping up the heels, with heels being the most literal definition of the word.

6119 according to Strong’s:
From H6117; a heel (as protuberant); hence a track; figuratively the rear (of an army). (lier in wait is by mistake for H6120.): - heel, [horse-] hoof, last, lier in wait [by mistake for H6120], (foot-) step.

According to DBL:
עָקֵב (ʿā∙qēḇ): n.masc.; ≡ Str 6119; TWOT 1676a—1. LN 8.9–8.69 heel, i.e., the back of the foot below the ankle on a mammal (Ge 3:15; 25:26; 49:17; Job 18:9; Ps 41:10[EB 9]+); 2. LN 8.9–8.69 hoof, i.e., the curved covering of horn on the bottom of a horse’s foot, corresponding to a nail or claw (Jdg 5:22+); 3. LN 41.1–41.24 movements, formally, footstep, i.e., the places one moves about in a daily routine as a figurative extension of a footstep (Ps 56:7[EB 6]; 89:52[EB 51]+); 4. LN 15.224–15.229 track, footprint, i.e., the imprint of a foot in dirt, as a by-product of walking or stepping (Ps 77:20[EB 19]; SS 1:8+); 5. LN 8.9–8.69 private body parts, formally, heel, i.e., the personal parts of the body not normally exposed such as the genitals or buttocks (Jer 13:22+); 6. LN 55.7–55.13 rear guard, i.e., back part of an army or military band (Ge 49:19; Jos 8:13+)

According to BDB:
heel, footprint, hinderpart

GHCLOT even lists rear of an army, which you tried to argue was what was intended last time, as a metaphorical definition:
עָקֵב constr. עֲקֵב, plur. constr. עִקְבֵי (in some printed copies עִקְּבֵי with Dag. euphon.) m.
(1) the heel—(a) of men, Gen. 3:15; Psa. 56:7; Job 18:9; Jer. 13:22; Cant. 1:8.—(b) of horses, the hoof, Gen. 49:17; Jud. 5:22.
(2) metaph. the extreme rear of an army, Josh. 8:13; Gen. 49:19.
(3) plur. עִקְּבֹות prints (of the heel or foot), Psa. 77:20; 89:52 (compare Cant. 1:8).
(4) verbal adj. of the root No. 3, a lier in wait, Ps. 49:6.

עָקֹב m.—(1) a hill, acclivity, i.q. Arab. عَقَبَةُ Æth. ዑቀብ፡ Isa. 40:4. (A hill is said to be so called from its retarding and keeping back those who go up, but see the remarks on the root No. 1).
(2) adj. fraudulent, deceitful, Jer. 17:9.
(3) adj. denom. from עָקֵב No. 3. Hos. 6:8, עֲקֻבָּה מִדָּם “trodden (trampled) in blood,” i.e. full of bloody footprints.


TWOT gives several metaphorical usages of ‘aqeb:
עָקֵב (ʿāqēb). Heel. From the literal idea of “heel” (cf. Job 18:9, a man caught by the heel), ʿāqēb extends itself to describe horses’ hoofs (Gen 49:17; Jud 5:22) or anything at the rear. ʿāqēb denotes the rear guard of a troop (KB, p. 279; attacked, literally, at their heels, Gen 49:19) or the exposed buttocks (euphemistically, “thy heels made bare,” Jer 13:22) of captive individuals (v. 19; cf. Ugaritic ʿqbt “tendon” of a bull). At Ai, the Israelitish army’s ʿāqēb (Josh 8:13) is the concealed detachment directed against the Canaanitish “heel” (cf. Ps 49:5 [H 6]), therefore not so much a Hebrew rear guard (RSV) as an ambush, “liers in wait” against Ai (KJV, ASV; KD, p. 86). ʿāqēb may also connote the motion of the heel, i.e. a step—so in Ps 56:6 [H 7]. David’s foes watch “his steps.” The actual word is “heels,” or the mark left by the heel, i.e. a footstep, whether of a man (Ps 89:51 [H 52] where enemies “reproach the footsteps” of God’s anointed. perhaps referring to King Jehoiachin as he was led captive in 597 B.C.). It can also refer to a flock (Song 1:8), or even to God (so Ps 77:19 which speaks of Yahweh’s leading Israel through the Red Sea; but after the water returned, “Your footsteps are not known”).
The metaphorical usage of ʿāqēb includes such ideas as a traitor’s “lifting up the heel” against David (Ps 41:9 [H 10]), i.e. “proving faithless and spurning” him, or, “iniquity at my heels” (49:5 ASV,’ “iniquity of my heels” KJV), i.e. dogging one’s steps (“wicked deceivers” NIV). Greatest of all references is the prophecy in Gen 3:15, that mankind is to achieve victory over Satan and reconciliation with God at the price of Calvary, where the serpent will “bruise the heel” of the seed of woman.

And once again you have forgotten to acknowledge the word for Horse here. And again you do not address the final portion of the verse which refers to everything spoken of as resulting in the rider of the horse falling backwards.

So since that is all of the Hebrew you choose to address I will assume that you were okay with the rest of my translation. So let’s put your definitions in to see what would get if you were correct.

Dan will consistently exist as a prognosticate upon the path, an overwhelm upon the way who strikes horses circumvent so that his mount falls backwards.

That makes no sense. Let’s see what happens if we allow the two nouns to be verbs.

Dan will consistently exist prognosticating upon the path, overwhelming upon the way, who strikes horses circumvent so that his mount falls backwards.

Well that’s a little better, but still not quite to making sense, and we had to ignore that two words were written as nouns and not as verbs.

JamesH, your definitions are twisted extrapolations at best, and do not fit the context at all. Your attempt to twist the written text to support your thesis turns Scripture into a jumbled mess of words with no meaning. Furthermore the very fact that several of the best lexicons and dictionaries list metaphorical meanings to words, and those metaphorical meanings of the words are the ones you cited, destroys your case and your credibility.

Metaphor - An image which suggests similarities between two different ideas, without implying that they are identical. I.e. Isaiah 64:7 we are clay and you are the potter. We are not literally clay but share similar traits to clay everyone understands the metaphor of like a potter shaping clay Yahowah shapes us. Dowd is called the Lion of Yahuwdah he was not physically a lion, but had many of the same traits as a lion.


JamesH wrote:
This is concrete Hebrew words not metaphor


Words are concrete, with each word having its own meaning. But then those words get put into sentences with other words to convey ideas, those ideas are conveyed using a variety of different methods, among them being figurative language, and among figurative language we have similes, metaphors, personifications, hyperbole, idioms, allusions, etc. There is an entire book of the tanakh called Proverbs, Mashal (Word Pictures). Word pictures are often drawn using metaphors, similes and other forms of figurative language.


JamesH wrote:
James could you explain your metaphor of Dan?

Dan the snake, is Dan an egg eater, Satan, crawl on his belly, have fangs, deceive eve, ? A metaphor means something different to each person, ABSTRACT

The Hebrew language exists today only because of CONCRETE WORDS


Metaphors are usually simple to determine by examining the words used, and what they are refereeing to. In this case Ya’aqob went on to explain the metaphor. He said that Dan would be a snake, and then explained what he meant by saying that he would be viper on the path biting the horses heels causing the riders to fall off.
When examining serpent in Scripture we find that the characteristics first associated with it are in the Garden where we learn that they are sly, cunning and deceitful. For verification of this examine the Scriptures. In Judges 18 we learn that the tribe of Dan introduced idolatry to Israel. In 1Kings 12 Jeroboam set up on of his idolatrous golden calves in Dan, and in Amos 8:14 Dan became the center of Idol worship. Dan is closely associated with religion, and religion is sly, cunning and deceitful.

Like almost the entire 49th chapter of Ba’reshiyth this is a prophecy as to the prevailing nature of the tribes descended from Ya’aqob. This is where we learn that Benjamin would be a wolf, the Yahudah is a lion’s cub, Yissaskar is a strong donkey, and Naphtali is a deer. Ya’aqob used metaphors for all of them comparing them to specific animals, and then explained what he meant.

Metaphors can mean different things to different people sometimes, but most of the time the meaning of the metaphor is clear to all who read it in context. Furthermore Scripture most often explains its metaphors. Anyone reading Scripture beginning to end that comes to this verse would understand exactly what Ya’aqob meant when he called Dan a serpent, even if he didn’t go one to explain it.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Users browsing this topic
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.