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

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline dajstill  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:13:14 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
I am reading back through the First Fruits chapter of Yada Yah. I got to thinking about Eden. Was Eden only supposed to last 7,000 years? Was the creation plan to create man, give him an ability to know Yahowah, and then at some point bring those new born "son's" into Yahowah's realm?

I know I have often made the comment that the plan of "salvation" was there from the beginning. However, Adam and Chawah had a free will. What if they had eaten of the tree of life and not eaten from the forbidden tree?

I guess I have 2 questions:

1. Did Adam need Yahowsha' before he ate from the tree? If Adam and Chawah had not eaten from the tree, would they had needed Yahowsha' to get to Yahowah?

2. When the garden was created, was it supposed to be a temporary place?

I will admit, my mind has been wondering to some pretty interesting ideas, none of which require an answer - just leave me curious. For instance, if there is going to be a "new heaven and a new earth" - will things start over for a new crop of "potential son's"? Does this process keep repeating itself over, and over, and over again with various potential outcomes? What would be the reason for a "new heaven and new earth". Isn't Yahowah outside of both of those realms? If we live forever with Him, what would our need of an earth be? Wouldn't we no longer be "man" with a body that could smell flowers and swim in oceans or eat fruit from beautiful trees? I guess I am contemplating the "loop" because this seems a lot of work for such a flawed creature as man. This seems such an ineffective way of doing things, unless this is a pattern Yahowah set up ages upon ages ago. It makes much more sense if this is an eternal happening. I mean, we are talking Yahowah - full of power, energy, light. Eternity is such a long time, why have such a short timeframe (7,000 years) to determine the inhabitants of eternity? I get the earth is billions of years old, but our galaxy isn't the oldest thing in the universe. And, maybe this is the first loop, thus a concept of the "new heaven and new earth". Does the loop continue until at one point, eventually some Adam gets it right?

There are millions upon millions of stars in the sky. I have seen estimates of anywhere from 100 billion to 10 to power of 21. Were Abrahams descendents going to number the stars in the sky or the number of sand? We are talking a LOT of people. If 1 in a million people will heed Yah's call, there are lots of people still unaccounted for. Again, while I am curious about my 2 Eden questions, the others are just some thoughts that have been interesting to consider.
Offline knowing1  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:09:36 AM(UTC)
knowing1
Joined: 5/28/2010(UTC)
Posts: 166
Location: New Jersey

You do a lot of thinking Daj..!!

Well, you can take what you have been contemplating regarding the number of stars and grains of sand a step further. This would not be a lot of souls, considering how many would have lived in 7000 years! So Yah saying to Abraham that his descendants would be numbered like the stars wouldn't make much sense. Perhaps Yah was alluding to the fact that we will be like the stars, having properties of light...like light itself, but only if we embrace and accept His Covenant!!

Also, is this the only Earth that exists in Yah's Universe? There may be so many other "earths" out there that have inhabitants that also have the potential to become part of Yah's Family!! So ultimately we will all be part of the same Family...related by and through Yahowah!!

Just my thinking "outside the box"!


Offline LexBrand  
#3 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:22:57 AM(UTC)
LexBrand
Joined: 2/13/2013(UTC)
Posts: 26
Woman
Location: Bay Area CA

Dajstill I love how your mind works!

I'm reminded of every time I watch a movie that involves time travel, I always come up with questions and problems with the plot and mechanics of the story.

I cannot wrap my mind around Yahowah existing outside of time so that he knows what happens before it happens. So he already knew Chawah would eat the fruit - all part of his plan - and he already knew exactly how the 7000 years would go. The end result must be worth it to Yahowah or he wouldn't have started this "project". In other words, he already knows he will achieve his goal so it is all worth it. What is his goal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he wanted a family of people who love him. In the end, he gets that. His "project" gets completed successfully - on time and on budget. BigGrin

As far as there being other "projects" in the past or future, I don't know. But I do recall Yada's conclusion that Yahowah would have been satisfied with just Adam, that he didn't need any others. So I'm not sure a large number of children is his goal. But it's kind of mind-bending to wonder! Would we be witnesses to more "projects"? Are their prior witnesses to ours?

If Adam were created to be immortal, then I don't believe he would need Yahowsha'. But I recall one of the reasons they had to leave the Garden was to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life, so he couldn't have been immortal. So wouldn't a mortal person be incinerated in Yahowah's full presence, neccesitating the dialed down Yahowsha'?

Just trying to work this puzzle out here.

I think since Yahowah knew what was going to happen before it happened, he knew the Garden would be temporary.

Honestly, there are some things I just feel like throwing up my hands and saying, "I'll just have to wait to find out the answer because my feeble brain cannot grasp these concepts"!
Offline cgb2  
#4 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:00:44 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 23 time(s) in 17 post(s)
dajstill wrote:
....What if they had eaten of the tree of life and not eaten from the forbidden tree?...


I'm not aware of scripture that says they didn't eat from the tree of life in the garden, and perhaps outside the garden there was mortality.

Yah only instructed them not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Somehow Chawah added "..don't even touch.." . I can just see her now touching it first to see if anything would happen. Nope, guess the serpent's was correct...chomp BigGrin
Offline Jason  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, April 2, 2013 4:43:35 AM(UTC)
Jason
Joined: 6/25/2012(UTC)
Posts: 53
Man
Canada
Location: Hamilton

Thanks: 1 times
Our Genesis record actually says that man was placed in the garden to "abad" (serve, cultivate, labour) and to "shamar" (observe). It's in verse 15 chapter 2. As far as Yahoah being happy with just the man I disagree based on his own words, here is the ESV translation "it is not good that the man should be alone."

Regarding the new heaven's and new earth, observe that the same word translated "new" in isaiah 65 verse 17 is the same word translated "new" in jeremiah 31 verse 31. Therefore I am not inclined to view the universe as being replaced. In fact, coming to conclusions about whether or not the torah, the covenant, the universe, or all the stuff in the past that makes us sad is temporal, based on CNT material like the based-on-a-true-story greek eyewitness texts, is in my opinion not wise, especially since we have evidence of entire stories being added to the massaYah's greek biography, like the women caught in adultry. Likewise, viewing Yahoah's current torah as existing only until all of the current torah is fulfilled/accomplished based only on the same texts and only on "until" (heos) in Matthew 5 verse 18 is not something I would recommend either.

1. Put your question in other words. Did the man need Yahoah's salvation before he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? That is an interesting question to ponder and I will not be dogmatic but only share some of my musings. What is Yahosha? What is Yahoah's salvation? I think it is clear from the evidence that prior to man eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil that he was not mortal. Therefore there was no need for him to be "saved" from death(pesach). He was naked and not ashamed, perhaps this could be interpreted to mean that there was no unrighteousness associated with him (matza). Therefore no need to be cleansed. He had Yahoah's torah teaching not to eat of the tree.... He was not separated or estranged from his creator and he spent time on the earth with Yahoah and communicated with Yoahoah (reconciliation and succot). Therefore there was no rift in the relationship to reconcile.

A better question to assist this question might be, is the covenant established with Abraham simply a restoration to the garden or is it something much more? What are the differences? I don't see first fruits in the garden or feasts of sevens at the moment and I connect the giving of the torah on mount sinai with trumpets not sevens, but I am not confident about that at the moment.

*as a side note I found it very interesting that man "adam" has the same root as ground "adam-ah".
**also it is interesting to note that although in chapter 1 it says that man was "created" on the sixth day, chapter 2 says that man was "formed" prior to vegetation being on the earth. Therefore, that puts the "formation" of man somewhere in the midst of the third day, when the dry land appeared after the gathering together of the waters under the heavens and yet before the earth sprouted vegetation. :)

2. I don't think the garden was intended to be temporal. I have to go to work. Sorry for all the english terms. My hebrew transliterations are still weak, something I hope to strengthen with practice.


Jason
Offline James  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:45:11 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,606
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Jason wrote:
Our Genesis record actually says that man was placed in the garden to "abad" (serve, cultivate, labour) and to "shamar" (observe). It's in verse 15 chapter 2. As far as Yahoah being happy with just the man I disagree based on his own words, here is the ESV translation "it is not good that the man should be alone."


“It’s not good for man to be alone was a statement about man’s need for human companionship, not Yahowah’s. Yahowah was happy with just Adam, but Adam needed a partner, a mate, Chawah. Yahowah knew that Adam needed this and because He loved Adam and wanted Adam to be happy He made a companion for him.

Relooking at Gen 2:15 I notice that Adam, and Eden are both in the masculine form, but abad and shamar are both feminine. Since both subjects are masculine and the verbs are feminine It could be that it is saying that Yahowah took and placed the man/Adam in Eden so that She could serve and She could observe, as opposed to he could serve it and observe it. Also of note is that it wouldn’t say that he could serve it, the pronoun after abad and shamar is her. So either the man is serving and observing her, what her since Eden was masculine? Or she is serving and observing in which case who is she? Perhaps this is another place where Yah shows us what His Ruwach’s role is.


Jason wrote:
Regarding the new heaven's and new earth, observe that the same word translated "new" in isaiah 65 verse 17 is the same word translated "new" in jeremiah 31 verse 31. Therefore I am not inclined to view the universe as being replaced.


Chadash can mean new or renewed with context dictating which is appropriate. In the Yashayahu verse the context would preclude renew since it is in the context of Yahowah Creating, bara, a new heavens and earth renew would not fit at all. Add to that context that it says that the first would not be remembered or recalled, so if it is not being replaced then what is the first heaven and earth that will not be remembered? As with everything in Scripture context is king, in context there is no way to see this other than a new heaven and new earth will be created.
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 Jason  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, April 2, 2013 5:59:04 PM(UTC)
Jason
Joined: 6/25/2012(UTC)
Posts: 53
Man
Canada
Location: Hamilton

Thanks: 1 times
James, thanks for the reply. You make some interesting points. BUT...I am going to respectfully counter them. I hope all who read my posts realize that I am not coming from any particular set of beliefs and that I am not arguing from a position of already having made up my mind. My questions and arguments are genuinely and sincerely to share and accelerate my understanding. Please do not spare me any exegeses that would deal a crushing blow to any of my conclusions and I in turn hope that no one in the forum will misunderstand me if I do the same.

Ok, so firstly, I would point out James that Yahoah did not say "I am happy with just the man(adam)" or anything similar to that. He did not finish the 6th day until after he had created both man and women, both of them interestingly enough, Yahoah created with sexual organs and the ability to procreate, at which time and only at that time Yahoah beheld that his creation was very good.

It is not as if Yah created everything and finished, and then afterwards realized that the man needed a partner. No no, I think not.

I do agree that the creation of women could very well be viewed as Yahoah creating her for adam's sake, but not exclusively. I think it is more consistent with the record that Yahoah was very intentional about creating women for his own purposes from the very beginning. In fact, do not forget that she was also created in Yahoah's image.

This idea that Yahoah was content with his creation halfway through the sixth day is completely unfounded and inconsistent.

Secondly, the masculine/feminine argument does not lead anywhere rational in my estimation. I agree that context is important James but I don't see it being "king" in your interpretation here. In context it seems obvious to me that the subject of the verbs is "ha-adam(the man)" and the object of the verbs is "gan(garden)", not the name of the garden "eden". It is irrelevant to me James that a professor somewhere thinks eden is a masculine noun. I think it is wise to be careful not to rely too much on study tools for shaping our understanding of the text. I don't see what is so unreasonable about saying that the man was taken and placed in the garden of eden to cultivate and carefully observe it, especially since it is reenforcing verse 5 of the same chapter which says that there was NO MAN TO "ABAD"(work,labour,cultivate) "HA-ADAM-AH"(the ground).

now, third, regarding Isaiah 65, you make some good sound arguments here James. I will say this though, I don't look at definitions in the same way as you are doing here. I don't think of Chadash as being this-english-word here and that-english-word there. Context is important but lets not forget what language the context is in. Remember that it is not the english that is defining the word but rather the word of origin, hebrew, is defining our english terms, which CAN have multiple english definitions simultaneously. In addition to our lexicon amplifications, when ignoring the niqqud, this word also means set apart. Just because we can't fit a concept into our english frame of mind doesn't necessarily mean that some of the english definitions, which DO have the same origin, conflict.

For example, as a participant in the covenant James you are set apart unto Yahoah, correct? You are made immortal, restored, rebuilt renewed from imperfect to perfect, empowered, enriched ect., are you not? Yahoah, by fulfilling his covenant promises will cause all these changes to occur to your circumstances and character and he will forget your past transgressions, correct? Now, I ask you, is he going to destroy you and make a new James for his new earth?
Offline dajstill  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, April 3, 2013 5:02:18 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Jason wrote:

For example, as a participant in the covenant James you are set apart unto Yahoah, correct? You are made immortal, restored, rebuilt renewed from imperfect to perfect, empowered, enriched ect., are you not? Yahoah, by fulfilling his covenant promises will cause all these changes to occur to your circumstances and character and he will forget your past transgressions, correct? Now, I ask you, is he going to destroy you and make a new James for his new earth?


Jason, I think the answer to this question is "yes". There is no indication that the body will be the same body we now have. Our body is intricately tied to who we are, what we think, how we feel, how we relate, how we function. Second, the Torah will be written on our heart, it will be a part of our character. So, my answer would be yes, the old "James" will be destroyed. There may be parts of the old James (like love for Yahowah), but if something is currently a part of "James" that is not aligned with Yahowah's Torah - whether it be thought, action, deed, idea, etc., it will be destroyed, gone, no longer a part of him.

Folks as flawed as myself, I can see me being nowhere near the dajstill that exists today. We don't know what kind of transformation that took place when Adam and Chawah became "uncovered". We just know that it was enough to make them hide and even try to cover themselves.

Just my thoughts.

Edited by moderator Wednesday, April 3, 2013 6:28:46 AM(UTC)  | Reason: fixes quotes

Offline James  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, April 3, 2013 6:27:55 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,606
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Jason wrote:
James, thanks for the reply. You make some interesting points. BUT...I am going to respectfully counter them. I hope all who read my posts realize that I am not coming from any particular set of beliefs and that I am not arguing from a position of already having made up my mind. My questions and arguments are genuinely and sincerely to share and accelerate my understanding. Please do not spare me any exegeses that would deal a crushing blow to any of my conclusions and I in turn hope that no one in the forum will misunderstand me if I do the same.

Ok, so firstly, I would point out James that Yahoah did not say "I am happy with just the man (adam)" or anything similar to that. He did not finish the 6th day until after he had created both man and women, both of them interestingly enough, Yahoah created with sexual organs and the ability to procreate, at which time and only at that time Yahoah beheld that his creation was very good.


True Yahowah did not say that, I never said He did. My only point was that the statement that it is not good for man to be alone was not in relation to God, but in relation to Adam. I infer, rightly or wrongly, that Yahowah would have been happy with just Adam based on the fact that He did not initially give Adam a partner. If Yahowah had wanted to have a bunch of friends he could have placed hundreds of people in Eden, but He only placed 1 there initially, then when He saw that that one was not happy, or whatever the reason being that it was not good for Adam to be alone, that is when he brought in a second.

But really rather Yahowah would have been satisfied with a relationship only with Adam is not that important. It is ancillary to the main point which is that God is interested in quality of relationships and not quantity, which I think we would both agree on.


Jason wrote:
It is not as if Yah created everything and finished, and then afterwards realized that the man needed a partner. No no, I think not.


Nor do I. Yahowah knew from the start that it would not be good for man to be alone, but he did not create them at the same time still. I think the reason is simple, it was for our benefit. It is not good for man to be alone while it would seem to many of us to be self-evident isn’t. This was an important insight that Yahowah wanted in His Towrah. Yahowah wanted us to know that man needs woman, look at the results of institutions which force celibacy on its members.


Jason wrote:
I do agree that the creation of women could very well be viewed as Yahoah creating her for adam's sake, but not exclusively. I think it is more consistent with the record that Yahoah was very intentional about creating women for his own purposes from the very beginning. In fact, do not forget that she was also created in Yahoah's image.


But the stated reason for her creation was that it was not good for man to be alone. And again my only point was to say that the verse you cited did not fit your point.

Again, rather Yahowah was content with just Adam or not is irrelevant, because even if He was that is not the situation, and He knew that would not be the situation. He knew when He created Adam that Adam would need Chawah, and He knew they would eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, He knew that they would be separated from Him and that He would have to redeem them. So it is pointless for us to argue over rather He would have been content with just Adam or not.


james wrote:
This idea that Yahoah was content with his creation halfway through the sixth day is completely unfounded and inconsistent.


I fail to see how it is inconsistent. It seems completely consistent, while not conclusive, with the evidence.


Jason wrote:
Secondly, the masculine/feminine argument does not lead anywhere rational in my estimation. I agree that context is important James but I don't see it being "king" in your interpretation here. In context it seems obvious to me that the subject of the verbs is "ha-adam(the man)" and the object of the verbs is "gan(garden)", not the name of the garden "eden". It is irrelevant to me James that a professor somewhere thinks eden is a masculine noun. I think it is wise to be careful not to rely too much on study tools for shaping our understanding of the text. I don't see what is so unreasonable about saying that the man was taken and placed in the garden of eden to cultivate and carefully observe it, especially since it is reenforcing verse 5 of the same chapter which says that there was NO MAN TO "ABAD"(work,labour,cultivate) "HA-ADAM-AH"(the ground).


I was merely pointing out something that I thought was interesting and was by no means implying that it was anything other than an observation gleamed off of a reexamination of a verse I had not looked at in some time.

The gender assignment was not added by some professor somewhere just because they thought hey why not call this masculine. Hebrew like most languages other than English has gender modifications to words. I.E. Yeled/boy Yeledah/girl, ish/man ishah/woman. We don’t have this in English we say boy and girl man and woman, but most languages have gender assignments where a root word is modified to fit the gender.

Study tools are the only way we can really know what was written since none of us speak Hebrew, let alone Scriptural Hebrew. So what would be your alternative to relying on study tools? To rely on English translations? To rely on scholars, certainly not. To rely some inherent intuition about what the text means? The text itself and the best tools you can get your hands on to study are the only things to rely upon.

And there is nothing unreasonable about saying that Adam was placed in Eden to cultivate and observe it, I never said there was. Again I was merely pointing out what I thought was an interesting observation when I reexamined the text. In my experience Yah communicates most everything on multiple levels, and if I see two ways to translate a verse and both convey truths I tend to think both were meant.


Jason wrote:
now, third, regarding Isaiah 65, you make some good sound arguments here James. I will say this though, I don't look at definitions in the same way as you are doing here. I don't think of Chadash as being this-english-word here and that-english-word there.


Chadash is a broad concept in Hebrew, our only way to understand it is by translating it into our native language English. In Hebrew like in English however words have different meanings in different context this is conveyed when translating by using different words in different places. There are 3 major concepts conveyed by the word Chadash, which is being conveyed is completely dependent upon the context. It can mean:
- To renew, rebuild, rejuvenate, repair etc. In some contexts. It’s used in this context in Yashayahu 61 to speak of the rebuilding of a city.
- Something which is new or fresh. I.E. In Shemowth 1 we are told of a chadash/new sovereign coming to power who did not know Yowseph.
- Month. Chadash is the Hebrew word for month. In Shemowth 13 they are told they are going out in the chadash of abib, the month of abib.
Translations are a way of conveying a message between one language and another. In English we have different words for renew, new and month, but in Hebrew one word is used, and context dictates its meaning when translating we examine the words use in context and determine the best way to convey the meaning of that word in English. So depending on the context we translate chadash as renewed, new or month.

In English if I say something is cool, context dictates what I mean by it, and someone translating it to another language would likely use different words to convey the different meanings. It’s just the nature of words and languages.

Jason wrote:
Context is important but lets not forget what language the context is in. Remember that it is not the english that is defining the word but rather the word of origin, hebrew, is defining our english terms, which CAN have multiple english definitions simultaneously.


Agreed, and I am using the context of the Hebrew language. And it’s not just multiple English definitions, the Hebrew definition varies depending upon the context in which the word is used. Chadash has multiple meanings dependent upon the context in Hebrew. Here the context of Chadash is Bara and lo zakar. There is no way for Chadash to convey renewed or month in this context the only thing it can convey in this context is new. There are only three concepts which can be conveyed by Chadash the concept of renewing, repairing and restoring, the concept of something new, and the concept of month. In the context of bara/creating a chadash heaven and earth and the first not being zakar/remembered/recalled

In this context month makes zero sense, I am creating a month heaven and month earth…

In this context new makes complete sense, I am creating a new heaven and new earth and the first will not be remembered or recalled.

In this context renewed makes no sense, I am creating a renewed heaven and a renewed earth and the first will not be remembered or recalled.

So every bit of the context of the verse, the context of bara/creating and the context of it being the second since the first will not be zakar/remembered all dictate that Chadash convey the concept of new. There is no other reasonable or rational way to view this.

Jason wrote:
In addition to our lexicon amplifications, when ignoring the niqqud, this word also means set apart. Just because we can't fit a concept into our english frame of mind doesn't necessarily mean that some of the english definitions, which DO have the same origin, conflict.


I’m sorry Jason, but I don’t understand at all what you are trying to say here, I have read it a dozen times now and am still clueless. Niqqud does not appear anywhere in this verse or any of the surrounding verses, that I can see. If you are using it to make a point I think I am missing it.


Jason wrote:
For example, as a participant in the covenant James you are set apart unto Yahoah, correct? You are made immortal, restored, rebuilt renewed from imperfect to perfect, empowered, enriched ect., are you not? Yahoah, by fulfilling his covenant promises will cause all these changes to occur to your circumstances and character and he will forget your past transgressions, correct? Now, I ask you, is he going to destroy you and make a new James for his new earth?


This is a complete non-sequitur. Yashayahu 65 is saying that Yahowah is going to create a new heaven and new earth, and that the former will not be remembered or recalled, this has nothing to do with how He will work with us. Rather the current universe is destroyed or not is also irrelevant because if it is still in existence and we will not remember or recall it then so be it, it’s kind of pointless to keep it here if no one will remember or recall it, but since Yahowah doesn’t specifically say I am going to destroy the heaven and earth and create a new heaven and new earth I’m not going to be dogmatic about them being destroyed, but it makes the most sense to me since keeping it when no one remembers or recalls it would be pointless.

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 dajstill  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, April 3, 2013 7:01:32 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
I guess I still don't understand why it is hard to believe the earth will be destroyed, it is well known that stars have a life cycle, we have actually witnessed the dying of stars. Our very important sun is a star, it will die at some point. I don't understand why Yahowah would create this vast and ever expanding space only to have eternity revolve around such a teeny tiny piece of it. What can be seen with the naked eye is amazing (especially with little light pollution). What can be seen with a commercially available telescope is even more so by a factor of 10. What can be seen with high powered telescopes leaves on speechless. Pictures we gotten from Hubble alone make me say "I can't believe my eyes!"

Why all that for no reason? It doesn't make sense.
Offline Jason  
#11 Posted : Thursday, April 4, 2013 5:40:59 PM(UTC)
Jason
Joined: 6/25/2012(UTC)
Posts: 53
Man
Canada
Location: Hamilton

Thanks: 1 times
.......
Ok, I will point form these because of the number of replies.

James, it is obvious that if Yahoah thought that it was not good for man to be alone than he was indeed not content with just the man. Therefore the hypothetical that “he would have been happy” is errant. Period.

James, reading through your insights into the masculine/feminine verbs and nouns two more times I see that I have misunderstood what you were getting at and I am keenly interested in learning more about how you interpret hebrew. I still think that “her” does not make much sense in the context and I am inclined to think that perhaps these tools of interpretation are not without their problems. Still I openly admit that my hebrew is not at a level where I can intelligently criticize these rules.

Dajstill and James, My example about whether or not James would be destoyed by inheriting the covenant’s promises was to point out that by being selective with english terms when the hebrew word is the same in two different contexts, you are fractionalizing your understanding and making distinctions and divisions where Yahoah has not. Yahoah uses the same word in both Yer 31: 31 and Yash 65:17. If you want to call them different that is your business. And if you can’t make sense of the passage without excluding meanings that is your problem. Yahoah could have been more specific with his terms if he thought it suitable to do so.

James, regarding the niqqud statement, Even if you could make sense of it I was completely wrong, I’m not sure how I mixed up qodesh and chadash but I did and I totally retract that from this discussion.

Ok, so...I would like to bring us back into Dajstill original post topic. I am out of time so I will have to be quick. here is my reply to your original questions Dajstill, with your last smattering of questions on your last post for last.

A1. Man did not need Yahoah’s salvation in the garden before they ate of the tree of knowledge of G&E. After they ate of it, they did.

A2. I don’t think the garden was intended to be temporary anymore than any of the other crappy stuff that has happened through history was intended.

A3. Belief has nothing to do with it. I’m not trying to agree with anyone, that is not my goal nor is it a means to understand. I have a sound reason for not concluding that the earth and/or universe will be destoyed and/or replaced.

FEWW!!
Offline James  
#12 Posted : Friday, April 5, 2013 3:18:32 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,606
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Jason wrote:
Ok, I will point form these because of the number of replies.

James, it is obvious that if Yahoah thought that it was not good for man to be alone than he was indeed not content with just the man. Therefore the hypothetical that “he would have been happy” is errant. Period.


It is not obvious at all. Just because it was not good for man to be alone does not mean He was not content with just Adam, all it means is that Yahowah understood that it was not in Adam’s best interest to be alone without a partner. Period. To assert anything beyond that is pure speculation. My speculation is that Yahowah would have been completely happy with just Adam, yours is that He wouldn’t, but both are speculation and that verse has no bearing on either speculation.


Jason wrote:
James, reading through your insights into the masculine/feminine verbs and nouns two more times I see that I have misunderstood what you were getting at and I am keenly interested in learning more about how you interpret hebrew. I still think that “her” does not make much sense in the context and I am inclined to think that perhaps these tools of interpretation are not without their problems. Still I openly admit that my hebrew is not at a level where I can intelligently criticize these rules.


The issue is not so much with the tools but with the user. I am extremely flawed, limited on time and prone to mistakes. I would say in that verse that the typical standard rendering it probably accurate, but still find it interesting the use of feminine and masculine forms in it and think perhaps there is an additional insight to be gained from it.


Jason wrote:
Dajstill and James, My example about whether or not James would be destoyed by inheriting the covenant’s promises was to point out that by being selective with english terms when the hebrew word is the same in two different contexts, you are fractionalizing your understanding and making distinctions and divisions where Yahoah has not. Yahoah uses the same word in both Yer 31: 31 and Yash 65:17. If you want to call them different that is your business. And if you can’t make sense of the passage without excluding meanings that is your problem. Yahoah could have been more specific with his terms if he thought it suitable to do so.


Again I don’t think you fully understand the nature and purpose of words. Words are a way of communicating a message, they are a tool, and any message can be conveyed in any language. Words have different meaning in different context we see this in every language, and when translating a message from one language to another you examine the context to determine what the word meant in the original language and then determine the best word in the new language to render that word.

For example in English if I were to say, “There is a hot chick across the hall.” And, “There is a baby chick pecking around in the front yard.” If you were to translate that into another language even though the word chick is used in both statements you would not translate it the same because the context dictates that two different concepts are being conveyed with that word.

Another example of this in Hebrew is the word bow’ which depending on the context can be “go” or “come” two completely opposite ideas. So it may appear in terms of bow’/go to your father, or bow’/come to me. Context dictates what the word means and what the best way to translate it is.

As I pointed out with Chadash there are three separate concepts it conveys and context dictates which and how it should be translated. If we see it being used in terms of chadash a destroyed city then rebuild or renew is what it is conveying and how it should be translated. If it is being used in terms of building a chadash city and that city never existed then renew and rebuild wouldn’t make sense, but they could very well be building a new city and in that context it makes perfect sense.


Jason wrote:
James, regarding the niqqud statement, Even if you could make sense of it I was completely wrong, I’m not sure how I mixed up qodesh and chadash but I did and I totally retract that from this discussion.


No Problem.
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
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.