It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

After you get through the gates of heaven what is eternal heavenly bliss like

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

But it isn't a proper name.

Incorrect/false.

It is a compound word at best,...

Incorrect/false.

...made from the Tetragrammaton (God's revealed proper name) and the vowels from the Hebrew title, 'Adonai'.

Obviously false/incorrect, the vowels for "Adonai" are a, o and a. The vowels for "Jehovah" are e, o and a. Don't bother with the standard response regarding this discrepancy in that argument, it's not going to change the fact I just mentioned. It's also a convenient use of the half-truth that some Jewish scribes did use those vowel marks (the vowel marks for "Adonai") for the divine name but it's not relevant regarding the English, German and Dutch "Jehovah" (to name 3 languages that spell God's name that way, there are many more).

It was invented thousands of years after the fact and translated into English a hundred years or so, later.

False/incorrect. And sort of a half-truth (but with spin), I've given you the information about its Greek equivalent used in the 2nd century before, I know you don't want to acknowledge that the Greek equivalent is still the same name (one of the reasons wikipedia and many other sources call it "the equivalent"). Just like the Tetragrammaton is still the same name. The Masoretic text also shows "Yehowah" in Hebrew characters with vowel marks, still the same name even though it's spelled slightly differently because it's another language. So no, it wasn't invented thousands of years after the fact as you claim. That's just spin and primarily leaving out the fact that the Tetragrammaton is the same name; you don't argue that the Tetragrammaton was invented thousands of years after the fact, so it's inconsistent to spin it that way when talking about the English rendering "Jehovah" since it's still the same name, rendered in many different ways in different languages, in Italian bibles that are honest, you'll see "Géova". Nothing new invented, rendering it in another language is not a new invention. And it's done with all names mentioned in the bible, as did the bible writers themselves as the language changed, including changes to just the Hebrew language alone (different forms of writing Hebrew characters as depicted for example in App A4 at the end of this comment).
Iehova - Wiktionary

Latin
Alternative forms

Iehōua
Jehōva

Etymology

Traditional reading of the Biblical Hebrew יהוה‏,....
The Greek equivalent ΙΕΗΩΟΥΑ is found even in Late Antiquity, in the Pistis Sophia (perhaps a 2nd century text, extant in 5th or 6th century manuscripts).


Pistis Sophia...ΙΕΗΩΟΥΑ ... Charles William King... comments:

"This is in fact a very correct representation, if we give each vowel its true Greek sound, of the Hebrew pronunciation of the word Jehovah."[116] (2nd century)

Source: Jehovah - Wikipedia

Excerpts from Raymond Martin's (Lat. Raymundus Martini, appointed by the Pope to dig up the passages of the Jewish Talmud objectionable to Roman Catholics) Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos of 1270 CE (page 559). The Latin form "Jehova" of the Tetragrammaton is seen.

Source: File:JEHOVA Raymundus Pugio Fidei 1270 a.png - Wikimedia Commons

Where do they use the Tetragrammaton in the New World Translation, even once?

In the footnotes and appendixes, both in the old Hebrew characters as well as our modern-day Roman Alphabet. Where do you? Anywhere in any of your commentary (in the Hebrew characters, not the Roman Alphabet; to remain consistent with your argumentation regarding the concept of "revealed", none of the bible writers used our modern day Roman Alphabet, early fragments of the Septuagint from before they started replacing God's name with the Greek words for "lord" or "god" contain the divine name in Paleo-Hebraic form)? There is no commandment in the bible that says: 'thou shalt never quote from God's word', still having some trouble finding comments of yours that do that so I can evaluate whether you're doing it truthfully or quoting from bible translations that have replaced God's name with "the LORD", "the Lord" and "God". I must be running into the wrong comments or something. This way it appears you love the falsehoods a little bit too much over bible teachings. One after another, over and over. Just like you did in my thread here recently.

Proverbs 14:5

5 A faithful witness is one that will not lie, but a false witness launches forth mere lies.

Psalm 36:1, 2

36 Transgression speaks to the wicked one deep within his heart;

There is no fear of God before his eyes.

2 For in his own eyes he flatters himself too much

To detect and hate his error.


Exodus 23:1a

“You must not spread* [Lit., “take up.”] a report that is not true. ...

I can only hope it's because you believe them to be true and that it's not deliberate.

Genesis 2:4 (NWT)

4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah* God made earth and heaven.

*: The first occurrence of God’s distinctive personal name, יהוה (YHWH). See App. A4.
edit on 9-1-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: chr0naut

But it isn't a proper name.

Incorrect/false.

Incorrect/false.

Obviously false/incorrect, the vowels for "Adonai" are a, o and a. The vowels for "Jehovah" are e, o and a. Don't bother with the standard response regarding this discrepancy in that argument, it's not going to change the fact I just mentioned. It's also a convenient use of the half-truth that some Jewish scribes did use those vowel marks (the vowel marks for "Adonai")


So how are the vowel points in Hebrew for 'Adonai' not vowels?

You and I both know I was factually correct and your response was a twisting of the truth to compare it to languages that were explicitly NOT referenced in my response and were irrelevant at the time any of the Bible was originally written.

Similarly 'Jehovah' is still a compound word that is a mix of a proper name and a title, despite your denials. It was made-up thousands of years after the original writings were done. It isn't God's name, which was used in the originals.

The Mesha Stele, dated to 840 BC, uses the Hebrew Yod, He, Vau, He (YHWH).

The Muslims call their god Allah and suggest that it is the same God as YHWH, the God of Abraham. If popularity of usage had any real weight in determination of a name, surely there are far more Muslims than JW's , so should you really be called Allah's Witnesses?

The name, given by God, is recorded as is. Why must be modified to fit some human language rules (which also only apply to some languages)?

The whole concept of rendering God's name to something else, is an abomination, bringing an idol into the Holiest of Holies and an indicator of the spirit of antiChrist (well, you guys also deny the deity of Jesus Christ as well, so there's that).

The whole point of the tetragrammaton is that the name of God is not a human type name and that it carries meaning revealed in Christ. The letter pictograms mean "behold, nail, behold, hand" and are clearly referring to the Crucifixion. The YHWH God of the Bible is none other than Jesus Christ, as all revealed instances of revelation of God in the Old and New Testaments hint at.

Playing word scrabble with the letters hides their meaning and the truth about God, that they convey.


and that turn for the divine name but it's not relevant regarding the English, German and Dutch "Jehovah" (to name 3 languages that spell God's name that way, there are many more).

False/incorrect. And sort of a half-truth (but with spin), I've given you the information about its Greek equivalent used in the 2nd century before


The Septuagint renders YHWH as IAO (iota, alpha, omega), not Jehovah or Iehova or something similar. The word 'Jehovah' simply does not exist in any text before the year 1200 AD. Your case weakens example by example.


, I know you don't want to acknowledge that the Greek equivalent is still the same name (one of the reasons wikipedia and many other sources call it "the equivalent"). Just like the Tetragrammaton is still the same name. The Masoretic text also shows "Yehowah" in Hebrew characters with vowel marks


The Masoretic text, 700 years after Christ and antagonistic to Christianity. Does not use the name Jehovah. Your case weakens further.


, still the same name even though it's spelled slightly differently because it's another language. So no, it wasn't invented thousands of years after the fact as you claim.


It was. You have failed to support your case in every instance so far.


That's just spin and primarily leaving out the fact that the Tetragrammaton is the same name; you don't argue that the Tetragrammaton was invented thousands of years after the fact


The Tetragrammaton was revealed to Moses by God in Exodus 6:3 and written by the hand of Moses. It did not appear "thousands of years after the fact" but with the original writing of the scriptures.

The oldest Hebrew texts, the Mesha Stele, the Dead Sea Scrolls and sundry other pre-Christian era Hebrew and Paleo-Hebrew writings all use the letters: 'YHWH'. It is the original, revealed and recorded name of the one and only true God.

edit on 9/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: chr0naut

...
snip
...

it's inconsistent to spin it that way when talking about the English rendering "Jehovah" since it's still the same name, rendered in many different ways in different languages, in Italian bibles that are honest, you'll see "Géova". Nothing new invented, rendering it in another language is not a new invention. And it's done with all names mentioned in the bible, as did the bible writers themselves as the language changed, including changes to just the Hebrew language alone (different forms of writing Hebrew characters as depicted for example in App A4 at the end of this comment).
Iehova - Wiktionary

Latin
Alternative forms

Iehōua
Jehōva

Etymology

Traditional reading of the Biblical Hebrew יהוה‏,....
The Greek equivalent ΙΕΗΩΟΥΑ is found even in Late Antiquity, in the Pistis Sophia (perhaps a 2nd century text, extant in 5th or 6th century manuscripts).


Pistis Sophia...ΙΕΗΩΟΥΑ ... Charles William King... comments:

"This is in fact a very correct representation, if we give each vowel its true Greek sound, of the Hebrew pronunciation of the word Jehovah."[116] (2nd century)

Source: Jehovah - Wikipedia

Excerpts from Raymond Martin's (Lat. Raymundus Martini, appointed by the Pope to dig up the passages of the Jewish Talmud objectionable to Roman Catholics) Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos of 1270 CE (page 559). The Latin form "Jehova" of the Tetragrammaton is seen.

Source: File:JEHOVA Raymundus Pugio Fidei 1270 a.png - Wikimedia Commons

Where do they use the Tetragrammaton in the New World Translation, even once?

In the footnotes and appendixes, both in the old Hebrew characters as well as our modern-day Roman Alphabet. Where do you? Anywhere in any of your commentary (in the Hebrew characters, not the Roman Alphabet; to remain consistent with your argumentation regarding the concept of "revealed", none of the bible writers used our modern day Roman Alphabet, early fragments of the Septuagint from before they started replacing God's name with the Greek words for "lord" or "god" contain the divine name in Paleo-Hebraic form)? There is no commandment in the bible that says: 'thou shalt never quote from God's word', still having some trouble finding comments of yours that do that so I can evaluate whether you're doing it truthfully or quoting from bible translations that have replaced God's name with "the LORD", "the Lord" and "God". I must be running into the wrong comments or something. This way it appears you love the falsehoods a little bit too much over bible teachings. One after another, over and over. Just like you did in my thread here recently.

Proverbs 14:5

5 A faithful witness is one that will not lie, but a false witness launches forth mere lies.

Psalm 36:1, 2

36 Transgression speaks to the wicked one deep within his heart;

There is no fear of God before his eyes.

2 For in his own eyes he flatters himself too much

To detect and hate his error.


Exodus 23:1a

“You must not spread* [Lit., “take up.”] a report that is not true. ...

I can only hope it's because you believe them to be true and that it's not deliberate.

Genesis 2:4 (NWT)

4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah* God made earth and heaven.

*: The first occurrence of God’s distinctive personal name, יהוה (YHWH). See App. A4.


The name of God was revealed by God, to Moses.

It consists of four letters.

A most literal translation of those four letters should surely maintain, at least, a four letter structure, assuming it is a name and not another, more flexible, word.

Could God have had some meaning in those four letters, or is His name meaningless?

All your other argument is moot.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Those fragments are not originals, they are copies.

There are no originals they no longer exist.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

if it exist in multiple versions then you have a problem, which multiple English versions out of the 400 are they in?

They can't be in dead languages no one understand how they were spoken either. You have many pieces of those copies and they don't all agree.

No, they are only found, everyone of his words, as he wanted us to have them, in the AV only.

One Book in One version of his words.

To many versions cause confusion and God is not the author of confusion Satan is.

Go back take five years and study the AV cover to cover as many times as you can in that time, don't look for errors look for truths.
edit on 9-1-2018 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut

Those fragments are not originals, they are copies.

There are no originals they no longer exist.


I agree, but with reservation that we don't actually know either way.

There are many indications that the entire New Testament was completed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a remote possibility that an unattributed text or letter could have been written in the 1st Century, referencing something that someone personally witnessed earlier in their life. It is just that this is unlikely.

Consider that a 12 year old (the age of maturity Hebrew tradition) at Jesus death, and who lived to 79 years old, would have seen the new Century in.

Cheers!

edit on 9/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

preservation we do know because God's word say he will and has.

It is all by faith through Jesus Christ.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut

if it exist in multiple versions then you have a problem, which multiple English versions out of the 400 are they in?


All of them.


They can't be in dead languages no one understand how they were spoken either. You have many pieces of those copies and they don't all agree.


Dead language?

"Now when wee had discouered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand, and sailed into Syria, and landed at Tyre: for there the shippe was to vnlade her burden." Acts 21:3, - KJV 1611.

And, as for disagreement between translations (or transliterations), the differences usually have nothing to do with God's message but they can lead to pointless disagreements,

But foolish and vnlearned questions auoid, knowing that they doe gender strifes. 2 Timothy 2:23 - KJV 1611.


No, they are only found, everyone of his words, as he wanted us to have them, in the AV only.


The Holy Spirit has not revealed that to me, nor have my studies of the Word.

What am I to do?
Has God abandoned me?
Did He 'exaggerate' about seeking and finding?


One Book in One version of his words.


The scriptures (note the plural) have always been in many books, with many copies.

It is obviously the message that is preserved. We know the paper and ink will disappear in dust. It continues to happen. Language and knowledge also change.

Wisdom is to see that God preserves His message clearly, in a diversity of expressions. One must study the versions and cross reference to ascertain the specific message and not just presume upon your understanding of a particular expression. Therein lies error.


Too many versions cause confusion and God is not the author of confusion Satan is.


If they all agree, but describe things in unique idiom, how is that confusing? In a way, it shows the genius of God that so much, integrates so well!

The message is the truth, not the language, not the paper, not anything that we know is ephemeral.


Go back take five years and study the AV cover to cover as many times as you can in that time, don't look for errors look for truths.


5 But the Iewes which beleeued not, mooued with enuie, tooke vnto them certaine lewd fellowes of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the citie on an vprore, and assaulted the house of Iason, and sought to bring them out to the people.

6 And when they found them not, they drew Iason, and certaine brethren vnto the rulers of the citie, crying, These that haue turned the world vpside downe, are come hither also,

7 Whom Iason hath receiued: and these all doe contrary to the decrees of Cesar, saying, that there is another King, one Iesus.

8 And they troubled the people, and the rulers of the citie, when they heard these things.

9 And when they had taken securitie of Iason, and of the other, they let them goe.

10 ¶ And the brethren immediatly sent away Paul and Silas by night vnto Berea: who comming thither, went into the Synagogue of the Iewes.

11 These were more noble then those in Thessalonica, in that they receiued the word with all readinesse of minde, and searched the Scriptures dayly, whether those things were so.
Acts 17:10-11, - KJV 1611 (emphasis is mine).

edit on 9/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
So how are the vowel points in Hebrew for 'Adonai' not vowels?

Never said they weren't. They are the wrong vowels for "Jehovah" though in relation to your argument that the name Jehovah is a compound word derived from "Adonai". a, o and a is not e, o and a.

You and I both know I was factually correct and your response was a twisting of the truth to compare it to languages that were explicitly NOT referenced in my response and were irrelevant at the time any of the Bible was originally written.

Nope, you were spinning and leaving out inconvenient details. This is still true:

Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation [including your preferred YHWH]. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyahʹ, Isaiah would become Yeshaʽ·yaʹhu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shuʹaʽ (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sousʹ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.
...[whereislogic: and to remain consistent with your line of argumentation, you can't use vowels either in those names]
In its articles on Jehovah, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary nicely illustrates the difference between ʼElo·himʹ (God) and Jehovah. Of the name Jehovah, it says: “It is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun, denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the Supreme. . . . The Hebrew may say the Elohim, the true God, in opposition to all false gods; but he never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is the name of the true God only. He says again and again my God . . . ; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, he means Jehovah. He speaks of the God of Israel, but never of the Jehovah of Israel, for there is no other Jehovah. He speaks of the living God, but never of the living Jehovah, for he cannot conceive of Jehovah as other than living.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol. I, p. 856.

Source: see comment before

Similarly 'Jehovah' is still a compound word that is a mix of a proper name and a title, despite your denials.

The Imperial Bible-Dictionary begs to differ. It even spells it out, "It is everywhere a proper name...".

The whole concept of rendering God's name to something else, is an abomination, bringing an idol into the Holiest of Holies and an indicator of the spirit of antiChrist (well, you guys also deny the deity of Jesus Christ as well, so there's that).

More superstition and falsehoods (the standard "you guys deny the deity of Jesus Christ" even after I already explained that Jesus is a divine being, therefore I'm clearly not denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, just a false accusation that is so popular among Trinitarians, they throw it around all the time if you don't want to jump on their bandwagon of human traditions taught as doctrines and creeds).

In 1901 the American Standard Version was published. It was based on the text of the King James Version. Its preface states: “We are not insensible to the justly lauded beauty and vigor of the style of the Authorized [King James] Version.” Yet, the American Standard Version made a significant adjustment.

The preface explains this: “The American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries.”

Source: The King James Version—How It Became Popular


The Septuagint renders YHWH as IAO (iota, alpha, omega), not Jehovah or Iehova or something similar.


...If using the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in later copies, the reader, of course, found the Tetragrammaton completely replaced by Kyʹri·os and The·osʹ.—See LORD.

Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: “We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.” (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?

It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila’s Greek version, dating from the second century C.E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: “In Origen’s Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by ΠΙΠΙ; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters.” (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen’s Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself, in his comments on Psalm 2:2, stated that “in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.”—Patrologia Graeca, Paris, 1862, Vol. XII, col. 1104.

As late as the fourth century C.E., Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, says in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: “And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton [i.e., יהוה], in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters.” In a letter written at Rome, 384 C.E., Jerome states: “The ninth [name of God] is the Tetragrammaton, which they considered [a·nek·phoʹne·ton], that is, unspeakable, and it is written with these letters, Iod, He, Vau, He. Certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find it in Greek books, were accustomed to read ΠΙΠΙ [Greek letters corresponding to the Roman letters PIPI].”—Papyrus Grecs Bibliques, by F. Dunand, Cairo, 1966, p. 47, ftn. 4.

Source: Jehovah: Insight (as linked before)
edit on 10-1-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
God revealed His name directly to Moses as the Tetragrammarton.

I don't have to play Dan Brown style cross-language word games.

The truth is the truth.

edit on 10/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: dfnj2015

Hell is when you choose to hate everything and so hide from God in your self imposed isolation and darkness, brooding and agonizing over existence.

They are choices you make in your Heart.

This!



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: dfnj2015

Coupled with the idea that Hell is "separation from God" (very heavily documented in the Bible), which implies separation from all He creates and pervades. In short, such separation implies that the person would be in an existence that consisted of nothing but themselves.

So, we have an eternal state of being where we are burning forever, alone and without hope of rescue. It isn't by God's fault or God's doing. It is just a consequence of the way things are and of our personal choice. Something that God has been loudly warning us against from the earliest times.

And this!

Have you two had a glimpse of it too?



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Yes I know Hell intimately.
Not something I'm proud to say.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
And yet you have no issues regarding bible translations that replace the Tetragrammaton with "the LORD", "the Lord" or "God". Or people that argue that God has many names (like Jerome who I quoted before with his 'ninth name'), or people that argue that God's name is Jesus. But using "Jehovah" is not OK? And God revealed his name to Adam and Eve already. Abraham knew God's name as well. And they didn't use the term Tetragrammaton and used vowels in their speech when using Jehovah's name. As did all the people mentioned in the bible that knew God by name before Moses.

Genesis 15:1

After this the word of Jehovah came to Aʹbram in a vision, saying: “Do not fear, Aʹbram. I am a shield for you. Your reward will be very great.” 2 Aʹbram replied: “Sovereign Lord Jehovah, what will you give me, seeing that I continue childless and the one who will inherit my house is a man of Damascus, E·li·eʹzer?”

Genesis 4:1

Now Adam had sexual relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant. When she gave birth to Cain, she said: “I have produced* [Or “given birth to.”] a male child with the help of Jehovah.”

That's the first recorded instance in the bible with a human using God's name.
edit on 10-1-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


The Hebrew word Sheol, which referred to the “abode of the dead,” is translated “hell” in some versions of the Bible. What does this passage reveal about the condition of the dead? Do they suffer in Sheol in order to atone for their errors? No, for they “know nothing.” That is why the patriarch Job, when suffering terribly because of a severe illness, begged God: “Protect me in hell [Hebrew, Sheol].” (Job 14:13; Douay-Rheims Version) What meaning would his request have had if Sheol was a place of eternal torment? Hell, in the Biblical sense, is simply the common grave of mankind, where all activity has ceased. ... FACT: God does not punish people in hell

I don't agree with your interpretation --

KJV and the JPS Masoretic texts.

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Ecc 9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

The entire thought is that of the dead not knowing anything that is happening under the sun [upon this earth]. That is pretty well common sense is it not? We cannot communicate with the dead nor can the dead communicate with the living.

They have no more reward under this sun because the dead have already been judged and their reward is Sheol.

Your interpretation is pretty well mixed up with Hebrew thought as well as jumping through hoops with different translations and interpretations. Not well thought out at all.



edit on 10-1-2018 by Seede because: neglect separation of quote



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: chr0naut
And yet you have no issues regarding bible translations that replace the Tetragrammaton with "the LORD", "the Lord" or "God".


I actually do.

The names and titles given in the Bible are significant and have meaning. I prefer translations with the restored Hebrew or Greek personal names and the restored names of God. Sometimes this requires cross-checking because too many translations obliterate important details and there are re-translations of other translations which cloud the truth even more.

As an example, I have debated with people who argue that El, or Elohim were different Gods to YHWH. In a Bible that retains God's names as given, it is clear that Elohim is a generic word for God, as shown in the Mt Carmel confrontation where they speak of determining if YHWH or Baal is Elohim.

Similarly, 'Lucifer' is not a name and also does not appear in the original scriptures, but was introduced in early translations into Latin.

... and the Nephilim weren't originally described as giants.


Or people that argue that God has many names (like Jerome who I quoted before with his 'ninth name'), or people that argue that God's name is Jesus.


I believe that YHWH signifies Jesus, as explained in a previous post.


But using "Jehovah" is not OK? And God revealed his name to Adam and Eve already. Abraham knew God's name as well.


In the books written by Moses, such as Genesis, YHWH was used but it was not the name by which God was known to Abraham, as is explained in Exodus 6:3 which states, "I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I didn’t make myself known to them by my name, YHWH."


And they didn't use the term Tetragrammaton and used vowels in their speech when using Jehovah's name. As did all the people mentioned in the bible that knew God by name before Moses.


As identified in Exodus 6:3, they used neither the Tetragrammaton, nor Jehovah, but used more generic titles for God.

Moses when writing the Genesis accounts obviously used the name YHWH because he knew God's name and wanted to be specific and clear to the new nation who had absorbed Egyptian polytheism for about 470 years.


Genesis 15:1

After this the word of Jehovah came to Aʹbram in a vision, saying: “Do not fear, Aʹbram. I am a shield for you. Your reward will be very great.” 2 Aʹbram replied: “Sovereign Lord Jehovah, what will you give me, seeing that I continue childless and the one who will inherit my house is a man of Damascus, E·li·eʹzer?”

Genesis 4:1

Now Adam had sexual relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant. When she gave birth to Cain, she said: “I have produced* [Or “given birth to.”] a male child with the help of Jehovah.”

That's the first recorded instance in the bible with a human using God's name.


As explained, it was written by Moses (who knew God's name), as YHWH.

edit on 10/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: dfnj2015

Coupled with the idea that Hell is "separation from God" (very heavily documented in the Bible), which implies separation from all He creates and pervades. In short, such separation implies that the person would be in an existence that consisted of nothing but themselves.

So, we have an eternal state of being where we are burning forever, alone and without hope of rescue. It isn't by God's fault or God's doing. It is just a consequence of the way things are and of our personal choice. Something that God has been loudly warning us against from the earliest times.

And this!

Have you two had a glimpse of it too?


No, I haven't experienced the depths of Hell, but I have had small hints of Heaven.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


In the books written by Moses, such as Genesis, YHWH was used but it was not the name by which God was known to Abraham, as is explained in Exodus 6:3 which states, "I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I didn’t make myself known to them by my name, YHWH."

Well explained chrOnaut,

Eth Cepher - SHEMOT

Exodus 6:3
And I appeared unto El-Avraham, unto El-Yitschaq, and unto El-Ya'aqov by El-SHADDAi, but by my name YAHUAH was I not known to them.

Yah-hoo-ah -- YHWH

Love ypur posts.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I always found Genesis 19:24 to be an interesting verse, particularly after the phrasing and expression recorded between Abraham and the three visitors in chapter 18. Two of them turn aside but the LORD remains with Abraham to discuss His intentions.
Anyway, I digress....
Genesis 19:24 says, 'Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.'

Is some theophany on earth calling up to GOD in the heavens?
Pass. Maybe.
19:24 וַֽיהוָה הִמְטִיר עַל־סְדֹם וְעַל־עֲמֹרָה גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ מֵאֵת יְהוָה מִן־הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃

www.blueletterbible.org...



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucius Driftwood
I always found Genesis 19:24 to be an interesting verse, particularly after the phrasing and expression recorded between Abraham and the three visitors in chapter 18. Two of them turn aside but the LORD remains with Abraham to discuss His intentions.
Anyway, I digress....
Genesis 19:24 says, 'Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.'

Is some theophany on earth calling up to GOD in the heavens?
Pass. Maybe.
19:24 וַֽיהוָה הִמְטִיר עַל־סְדֹם וְעַל־עֲמֹרָה גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ מֵאֵת יְהוָה מִן־הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃

www.blueletterbible.org...


Please look at the wording difference between your version and the Bible that has all the bible verses in it.

Ge 19:24 ¶ Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Notice first, part of the verse is exactly the same as the Bible that has all the verses in it, and the one you have does not have all the verses, words, phrases and sections in it. Secondly, is that the reason this version Writes it in this way, is because they had no right to sell the the AV1611 it is copyright free. So they make the changes for only one reason, Money, Money, Money. Even when they copy rights a AV version it is copy righted because of their cross-references, their study notes, their maps and their comments, but not the text. In these new versions were only made so they could have copy right control over their version to make money.
Churches are now-a-days nothing but jobs to many Pastors, especially those who have multi-billion dollar a year ministry.




top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join