The misconception of «God» in rabbinical Hebrew

a reply to: Seede

Roll in already! Your reply has no substance, just opinion and svada.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Roll in already! Your reply has no substance, just opinion and svada.

Svada you say? Exactly what I believe you propagate.

originally posted by: SarMegahhikkitha
This guy's entire post history is various misunderstandings of the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 1:1. He should let us know when he finally gets to Genesis 1:2. I'm guessing by the angle quotes around "God" that he's foreign and that's why his basic English comprehension is so poor.

Can you please explain how the grammar of the structure of Hebrew names work? And talking about grammar. You can't use modern Hebrew grammar for the oldest parts of Biblical English.

a reply to: Seede

Faith is svada. Faith requires no explanation or justification. Faith makes about a billion people in the world to think it's right to draw benefits from their god's death and demise. That it is somehow right to take the words and theology of a prophet who hunted down and enslaved Christians all the days of his known life, and put them before the words of Jesus.

Revelation was most likely originally written in Hebrew. John said 666 was a number and also a name and warns us about a false prophet who acts for the Romans who is directly liked to the 666 mystery. Saulus was named Saul of Tarsos. If you write 666 in Hebrew the way they wrote numbers back then you get Heb. ת''רסו and read as a Greek word/name it becomes Gr. Ταρσῷ -- dative of Gr. Ταρσός, as in Gr. ἐν Ταρσῷ 'in Tarsus' when Saulus says he is a Jew born in Tarsus in Acts 22:3 Ἐγώ εἰμι ἀνὴρ Ἰουδαῖος, γεγεννημένος ἐν Ταρσῷ τῆς Κιλικίας [Greek Nestle text, 1904, emphasis mine]

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Faith is svada. Faith requires no explanation or justification. Faith makes about a billion people in the world to think it's right to draw benefits from their god's death and demise. That it is somehow right to take the words and theology of a prophet who hunted down and enslaved Christians all the days of his known life, and put them before the words of Jesus.

Faith does require explanation as to its intent. Without a purpose it is void and meaningless and becomes unknown to the mind. As you yourself have said " Faith makes about a billion people in the world to think ." It then served its purpose as an explanation has it not?

Saul/Paul of the NT does not compel any to draw benefits from his messiah's death nor was his message his own. The twelve Apostles and thousands of disciples of Jesus had preached the same message many years before Saul was forgiven and converted to the same faith as those who were before him.

Judgment seems to be a stumbling block in your mindset. You are neither qualified nor justified in condemnation of Saul/Paul with no credentials from the Creator to do otherwise. Did not Paul's Messiah, Jesus, teach forgiveness.

I agree that the Revelation literature was probably penned in Hebrew.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Faith is svada. Faith requires no explanation or justification. Faith makes about a billion people in the world to think it's right to draw benefits from their god's death and demise. That it is somehow right to take the words and theology of a prophet who hunted down and enslaved Christians all the days of his known life, and put them before the words of Jesus.

Faith does require explanation as to its intent. Without a purpose it is void and meaningless and becomes unknown to the mind. As you yourself have said " Faith makes about a billion people in the world to think ." It then served its purpose as an explanation has it not?

That's another stupidity Christians are experts on: Taking words out of context for their own benefit.

Saul/Paul of the NT does not compel any to draw benefits from his messiah's death nor was his message his own. The twelve Apostles and thousands of disciples of Jesus had preached the same message many years before Saul was forgiven and converted to the same faith as those who were before him.

Judgment seems to be a stumbling block in your mindset. You are neither qualified nor justified in condemnation of Saul/Paul with no credentials from the Creator to do otherwise. Did not Paul's Messiah, Jesus, teach forgiveness.

Jesus taught many things Saulus twisted and turned for his own benefit. Forcing the Christians to do the same thing. Jesus may have taught forgiveness, but what did he mean by it? He instructed the person (Peter) whom he called Satan-- to forgive 7 x 70 times, and he said to forgive those who tortured himself for not knowing what they did. Now, bring on Sauli versions of Jesu forgiveness... Judgement is my stumbling block? So Jesus is a judge now all of a sudden? Some might say that believing in an super ancient bearded man in the sky would be a true sign of bad judgement...

I agree that the Revelation literature was probably penned in Hebrew.

Indeed.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim
I have not said that Jesus came to judge people. He did show that forgiveness does not change the law but is profitable to show mercy to the guilty who transgress the law. The law never changes and is eternal but the penalties of the laws do change because they are the edicts of cultures. Paul's mission was not to establish a church but to prepare those who would establish the church.

The church is established in a different manner as to those who are heathens. To them is much more given and to them is much more required. The heathen is taught in a different manner as those who are in the church and their ways are much more harsh than their brothers who were at one time murderers and blood drinkers.

But after death is when each person is judged in the spirit as to the deeds of the flesh and the judge is the restored Jesus as He was resurrected to His formal power as God's Son.

I realize the difficulty it brings to believe with uncertainty and not everyone who hears will believe.

a reply to: Seede

If you are here to discuss theology and display your perfect faith, go to the other forum. Here we talk about conspiracies. NEEEXT!

originally posted by: Seede

You have no idea of what you are talking about. You may probably have a few books that you use to bolster your lack of knowledge but this leads you into dangerous misunderstandings. Your first and foremost error is that you use rabbinical understanding and not the source of original autographs. The reason that you cannot use the autographs is simply that they are not available to us today. In other words the autographs do not exist in your dream world. You should stop your thread now and don't further embarrass yourself.

I just want to clarify

You are telling him that

1. his argument is flawed because he doesn't use the original autographs but instead is using rabbinical wisdom
2. the reason he can't use the autographs is because they don't exist
3. these autographs don't exist in his dream world
4. he should stop his argument because he will embarrass himself for not using the autographs (that do not exist)



Maybe

a reply to: zardust

originally posted by: Seede I just want to clarify You are telling him that 1. his argument is flawed because he doesn't use the original autographs but instead is using rabbinical wisdom 2. the reason he can't use the autographs is because they don't exist 3. these autographs don't exist in his dream world 4. he should stop his argument because he will embarrass himself for not using the autographs (that do not exis----

I shall keep this within the tread even though the thread is not a conspiracy thread. Utnapisjtim made the statement that

Quote
The word/name makes no sense in its current shape, and not only since it's plural, acting as singular, but the whole word/name is corrupted. Heb. אלהים is still contracted as when the Torah was originally written, in so called scriptura continua.
Unquote

Without the autographs of Torah, there is no way on earth anyone can know that אלהים is still contracted as when the Torah was originally written. It is virtually impossible to know the autographs of Torah when they are not available or unknown. I don’t care whether it is rabbinical or not. That does not impress me in the least. I have studied under Orthodoxy and it matters not how brilliant one is, it is theology at best. Rabbinical theology should always be subservient to the Torah and prophets and not usurp their own theology.

The OP is flawed as he /she has led the readers to believe that this is factual when it is nothing of the kind. It is all theoretical and theology and nothing more.

a reply to: Seede

The implications of turning a the escalation of a regular marriage into a single almighty God magically creating things while demanding this and that, while the texts only say Yam's father El (Canaaneic) invented and observed stuff to make a land for himself and his coming family-- is conspiracy material. This dad has been used to kill millions and enslave even more. There is NO Elohim, there WAS a daddy named El once who fathered the first genuine human son, written as a poem or a song over a chapter on the first page of OT. That's whet Genesis 1 says anyway. No mumbo jumbo, just the devil dividing and subtracting words, adding spaces, omit or change a letter here and there and woosh, you have a world religion and not some ancient guy's love poem. Genesis 1 is best understood without spaces and punctuation. A whole new array of events show up.

a reply to: Seede

Ok I thought you were telling him he should be basing his argument off of the autographs, or the descendent of.

Carry on...

a reply to: zardust

The foundation of my OP is that Rabbinical Judaism has changed and reshaped the Torah (and the rest of it) to turn certain poems into tools for oppression. There is no god Elohim, the name makes no sense, but there were an El ha-Yam, the Canaanite father God of Yam, the water dragon also named Leviathan in Judahic lore.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Ye got a source for that claim?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

What was it Jesus instructed his disciples: I tell you the truth (that he was in fact Caesar in exile and hiding), but only to you since they will kill me if they knew. Jesus sent Judas away to inform the officials he was the new Caesar. Unfortunately the sitting caesar wasn't quite dead yet, so he was arrested instead. Read Jesus' parables with his royal burden in mind and everything makes sense.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Ye got a source for that claim?

How about the Ugaritic steles? El the father of Yam. Yam is sometimes named Leviathan in Hebrew. Together El and Yam destroyed Ba'al, another of El's sons.

a reply to: Akragon

See below in my explanation to Seede:

a reply to: Seede

You don't know Biblical Hebrew very well I see? Not that I am an expert, but take a look at Gesenius and the construct state of Hebrew genitive nouns, or simply read the Wikipedia explanation below in more modern terms and language:

In Hebrew grammar, the construct state is known as smikhut ([smiˈχut]) (סמיכות‬, lit. "support" (the noun), "adjacency"). Simply put, smikhut consists of combining two nouns, often with the second noun combined with the definite article, to create a third noun.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Heb אלהים read as El ha-yam (instead of Elohim) appears to be a text book example of how the genitive construct state is typically used in Biblical Hebrew, and explains how the last syllable in Elohim is actually two syllables forming a genitive, «[el (subject, «father»/«power»)] ha (def.art. used to annotate genitive) + yam (genitive, «waters»)», a typical example of a genitive construction in classical Hebrew, and one of the only intelligible and verifiable grammatical explanations of why the current «Elohim» (read: El ha-yam, father/god/power of the waters) is singular in essence and takes on singular verbs.

I was inspired by Revelation 16:5 to explain the first name of God used in OT to read god/angel/power of the waters:

And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. [KJV] Revelation 16:5

originally posted by: dashen
sorry brotha, but you obviously dont speak hebrew very well

Say again? See my post before this one here.

originally posted by: SarMegahhikkitha
This guy's entire post history is various misunderstandings of the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 1:1. He should let us know when he finally gets to Genesis 1:2. I'm guessing by the angle quotes around "God" that he's foreign and that's why his basic English comprehension is so poor.

Again, now that you have evaded making a sound reply for months and months-- Can you please enlighten me, hey, all of us-- on why it is so bleeding important to translate ancient Hebrew texts as if they were written in modern Hebrew? The whole Bible is an obvious conspiracy and lie in its present binding and translation. And can you please explain to me how my English is so terrible? Pardon me French, but how's yer Icelandic? I actually got an A+ in English in high-school which I completed in one year all exams-- and entered linguistics at a university college (one of the toughest courses to enter over here, tougher than law school) on first try. Go f*** a bleeding duck.

You DID know nobody spoke Hebrew for 2000 years until modern Hebrew was «rediscovered» less than a century ago? By Germans and Britons mostly. Modern Hebrew is to the different Hebrew, Chaldee, Canaanee, Aramaic+++ dialects and languages used in the OT as modern English is to Vulgar Latin, Cuneiform and Old Norse. I translate tracing etymology, doing comparative analysis with similar languages of the same periods, establishing morphology and syntax, defining semantics and lexical entries as new light dawns-- and about a ton of other linguistic tools you obviously have no comprehension of whatsoever. Here let me stick my middle finger up yer nose! Hey, here's its neighbour too for the proper gesture!

And you seem to have forgotten SarMegahhikkitha's post when deleting all the other off-topic and ad hominem bovine crap in this thread.