Brother Paul
Active
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2012
- Messages
- 1,044
Clintos. Go to you tube and watch Paul Wilbur Jerusalem Arise. You will love it.
Hebrew study for beginners
- Thread starter clintos
- Start date
Clintos. Go to you tube and watch Paul Wilbur Jerusalem Arise. You will love it.
Will do thank you
El Nehkumah
Whenever we are in trouble we can trust that “God is Our Comfort.” We can cast our cares, our anxieties, our fears, and our suffering onto Him because He cares for us and knows how to ease our troubled hearts and minds.Also I met a gentleman which seems like a great guy and he speaks Aramaic. He has an interesting take on God.
Kadosh by paul is a great song. not much words but its the atmosphere kind of thing that I like with a mixture of english. which I like.
Last edited:
Brother Paul
Active
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2012
- Messages
- 1,044
I agree!
Rhema
Active
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 2,887
I see your "biblegateway" King James and raise you a "biblehub" Hebrew Interlinear.
along with Brenton's translation of the LXX.
(Isaiah 48:16 Brenton) Draw nigh to me, and hear ye these words; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning: when it took place, there was I, and now the Lord, even the Lord, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
As I read the text, verse 16 is the start of a new prophecy, with the declaration of the prophet "Come ye near unto me..." (that being the prophet).
(Isaiah 48:16-17 NRSV) Draw near to me, hear this! From the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there. And now the Lord GOD has sent me and his spirit. Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am the LORD your God, who teaches you for your own good, who leads you in the way you should go.
But you may be a better scholar of Hebrew than I, so please provide the basis behind your position that the "me" is not inherent within שְׁלָחַ֖נִי
136 [e]
’ă·ḏō·nāy
אֲדֹנָ֧י
the Lord
N‑proper‑ms
3069 [e]
Yah·weh
יְהוִ֛ה
GOD
N‑proper‑m
7307 [e]
wə·rū·ḥōw.
וְרוּחֽוֹ׃
and His Spirit
Conj‑w | N‑csc | 3m
7971 [e]
šə·lā·ḥa·nî
שְׁלָחַ֖נִי
have sent Me
V‑Qal‑Perf‑3ms | 1cs
6258 [e]
wə·‘at·tāh,
וְעַתָּ֗ה
now
Conj‑w | Adv
Rhema
Rhema
Active
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 2,887
See the above reference to Brenton's. translation of the LXX.
Thanks
(ah what the heck....)
(Isaiah 48:16 Brenton) Draw nigh to me, and hear ye these words; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning: when it took place, there was I, and now the Lord, even the Lord, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
Rhema
Active
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 2,887
You might find the following album to be of interest... an eclectic musician who rendered the Hebrew Psalms with instruments and instrumentation from the period. Though he tends to take a bit of liberty with the rendition of the strings. (Lyre and harp.)
Rhema
Brother Paul
Active
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2012
- Messages
- 1,044
I see your "biblegateway" King James and raise you a "biblehub" Hebrew Interlinear.
along with Brenton's translation of the LXX.
(Isaiah 48:16 Brenton) Draw nigh to me, and hear ye these words; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning: when it took place, there was I, and now the Lord, even the Lord, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
As I read the text, verse 16 is the start of a new prophecy, with the declaration of the prophet "Come ye near unto me..." (that being the prophet).
(Isaiah 48:16-17 NRSV) Draw near to me, hear this! From the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there. And now the Lord GOD has sent me and his spirit. Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am the LORD your God, who teaches you for your own good, who leads you in the way you should go.
But you may be a better scholar of Hebrew than I, so please provide the basis behind your position that the "me" is not inherent within שְׁלָחַ֖נִי
136 [e]
’ă·ḏō·nāy
אֲדֹנָ֧י
the Lord
N‑proper‑ms
3069 [e]
Yah·weh
יְהוִ֛ה
GOD
N‑proper‑m
7307 [e]
wə·rū·ḥōw.
וְרוּחֽוֹ׃
and His Spirit
Conj‑w | N‑csc | 3m
7971 [e]
šə·lā·ḥa·nî
שְׁלָחַ֖נִי
have sent Me
V‑Qal‑Perf‑3ms | 1cs
6258 [e]
wə·‘at·tāh,
וְעַתָּ֗ה
now
Conj‑w | Adv
Rhema
The basis behind my position has been given in post 16 as to why this cannot be Isaiah. I do however appreciate your position and will agree to disagree.
Same problem occurs in Zechariah 2. 10-11. According to the association of the pronouns the "me" that is sent is the YHVH who is speaking. But like many who cannot see the one Yah as Father Son, and Spirit, they must conclude the me here must be Zech but remember Jesus tells us no one has ever seen the Father's form, or heard His voice. It IS the Son who declares Him (that is, makes Him manifest)
Rhema
Active
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 2,887
No, it doesn't.
Remember, the premise was who the "me" in Isaiah was, you holding the position that the "me" was, in essence, not present in Hebrew, but imputed.
The "me" is present in Brenton.
(Zechariah 2:11 Brenton) And many nations shall flee for refuge to the Lord in that day, and they shall be for a people to him, and they shall dwell in the midst of thee: and thou shalt know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to thee.
The word "me" is explicitly written in the text...." καὶ (AND) γνώσεσθε (YOUp WILL KNOW) διότι (THAT) κύριος (the Lord) παντοκράτωρ (ALMIGHTY) ἀπέσταλκέν (G649 HAD SENT) με (ME).
Now in trying to resolve who the "me" might be, one would need to recognize that the verb G649 (to send) is Perfect Active Indicative. Identifying the object of the verb ("me") is reliant upon the action of the sending. So what is a Perfect Active Indicative verb?
The perfect indicative signifies that an action has been completed in the past and that the effects of that action are in some way relevant in the present; frequently it expresses a more or less permanent state in the present which exists as the result of a completed action in the past.
- The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek: p. 420, §33.34
So the "sending" was completed in the past. But the recognition that the sending of this "me" is relevant in the present. Seeing a thing completed the people would know that the prophet had been sent.
But this is an argument from the Greek, and who knows if those Jews knew Hebrew, eh?
(after all, they forgot the "σύ".)So once again, I'll shall refer to the Hebrew interlinear where one can plainly see the word "me".
{{{ btw, in other websites I could easily post a screen snip, or picture... if someone could be so kind as to send me a PM to clue me in?? }}}
So I think I've made my case (in both languages) that there is a "Me."
But you likely a better scholar of Hebrew than I, so please provide the basis behind your position that the "me" is not inherent within שְׁלָחַ֖נִי
Now who is the me? And right there we cross the line from translation and language into interpretation. The problem with interpretation, though, is Pronoun Hell. "He"..."Him"..." he him who? What? is the "this." Who? are the "those." And resolving pronouns are NOT easy, especially after the Contextual Scaffolding has been removed. We go back to the "then" when the statement was made or written or first spoken to someone, and the presentation provides a context that quickly gets lost when a written account starts using pronouns for persons which are then culturally or historically distant from the peoples involved in writing the text (author and indented audience).
I'll give an example about a twisted Contextual Scaffold where Pronouns can absolutely destroy intended meaning.
(Genesis 14:20 KJV) And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
That's all the text that we have.... "and he gave him tithes of all." Well who gave whom tithes? And trust me on this, the obvious answer is the wrong one. My point is that resolving PRONOUNS are pure HELL.
I await your Hebrew lesson.
Thanks,
Rhema
Brother Paul
Active
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2012
- Messages
- 1,044
No, it doesn't.
Remember, the premise was who the "me" in Isaiah was, you holding the position that the "me" was, in essence, not present in Hebrew, but imputed.
The "me" is present in Brenton.
(Zechariah 2:11 Brenton) And many nations shall flee for refuge to the Lord in that day, and they shall be for a people to him, and they shall dwell in the midst of thee: and thou shalt know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to thee.
The word "me" is explicitly written in the text...." καὶ (AND) γνώσεσθε (YOUp WILL KNOW) διότι (THAT) κύριος (the Lord) παντοκράτωρ (ALMIGHTY) ἀπέσταλκέν (G649 HAD SENT) με (ME).
Now in trying to resolve who the "me" might be, one would need to recognize that the verb G649 (to send) is Perfect Active Indicative. Identifying the object of the verb ("me") is reliant upon the action of the sending. So what is a Perfect Active Indicative verb?
The perfect indicative signifies that an action has been completed in the past and that the effects of that action are in some way relevant in the present; frequently it expresses a more or less permanent state in the present which exists as the result of a completed action in the past.- The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek: p. 420, §33.34
So the "sending" was completed in the past. But the recognition that the sending of this "me" is relevant in the present. Seeing a thing completed the people would know that the prophet had been sent.
But this is an argument from the Greek, and who knows if those Jews knew Hebrew, eh?
So once again, I'll shall refer to the Hebrew interlinear where one can plainly see the word "me".
{{{ btw, in other websites I could easily post a screen snip, or picture... if someone could be so kind as to send me a PM to clue me in?? }}}
So I think I've made my case (in both languages) that there is a "Me."
But you likely a better scholar of Hebrew than I, so please provide the basis behind your position that the "me" is not inherent within שְׁלָחַ֖נִי
Now who is the me? And right there we cross the line from translation and language into interpretation. The problem with interpretation, though, is Pronoun Hell. "He"..."Him"..." he him who? What? is the "this." Who? are the "those." And resolving pronouns are NOT easy, especially after the Contextual Scaffolding has been removed. We go back to the "then" when the statement was made or written or first spoken to someone, and the presentation provides a context that quickly gets lost when a written account starts using pronouns for persons which are then culturally or historically distant from the peoples involved in writing the text (author and indented audience).
I'll give an example about a twisted Contextual Scaffold where Pronouns can absolutely destroy intended meaning.
(Genesis 14:20 KJV) And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
That's all the text that we have.... "and he gave him tithes of all." Well who gave whom tithes? And trust me on this, the obvious answer is the wrong one. My point is that resolving PRONOUNS are pure HELL.
I await your Hebrew lesson.
Thanks,
Rhema
Now first off, I am NOT a scholar in any language (even my own) and have never claimed to be. Secondly, when the Lord first revealed Himself to me (as a true and living being) I was in my 30's and cut my previously vehemently agnostic teeth on a oure Calvinism, I then was trained and sat under a Pastor Richards (a Pentecostal) and then a couple of years later by Bishop Chamberlain of the Evengelical Free Church. All three taught me, as they were taught, the post-Masoretic view (Rashi and Manimonides) that these passages referred to the Prophet. It was after I really grasped the point of Jesus that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Prophets always talked about Him (YHVH, the Son) that I (believing the Spirit was showing me this) finally was able to reason with God (as to where the Son/Word is in the Tanakh, to make sense of some of these passages.
So first I will use the English translation offered at Chabad.org and include my analysis and the reasons why in Parentheses,
Finally the how you would see this "me" as the same was not related to the fact that in Isaiah it is implied and in Zechariah it is definitely there because I agree that this is true, but that you would support the standard interpretation (first given by the post-Masoretic Jews) that both these passages speak of the prophet coming or being sent (with which I strongly disagree now),
So in Tanakh version we read:
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | : |
| 12For so said the Lord of Hosts: (YHVH is speaking) After glory, He sent me to the nations that plunder you, for whoever touches you touches the apple of his eye. (So the word nations here is goyim and the 12 tribes NEVER identify themselves as the goy so now ask yourself and show me, when was Zechariah EVER sent to the goyim? He was NOT! But the "me" is sent to them) | | יבכִּ֣י כֹ֣ה אָמַר֘ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָאוֹת֒ אַחַ֣ר כָּב֔וֹד שְׁלָחַ֕נִי אֶל־הַגּוֹיִ֖ם הַשֹּֽׁלְלִ֣ים אֶתְכֶ֑ם כִּי הַנֹּגֵ֣עַ בָּכֶ֔ם נֹגֵ֖עַ בְּבָבַ֥ת עֵינֽוֹ: |
| 13For, behold! I raise My hand over them, and they shall be prey for those who serve them. And you shall know that the Lord of Hosts sent me. (When did Zechariah EVER raise his hand over these goyim? NEVER! And does anything imply Zechariah has such a power? But the "me" does) | | יגכִּ֠י הִֽנְנִ֨י מֵנִ֚יף אֶת־יָדִי֙ עֲלֵיהֶ֔ם וְהָ֥יוּ שָׁלָ֖ל לְעַבְדֵיהֶ֑ם וִֽידַעְתֶּ֕ם כִּֽי־יְהֹוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת שְׁלָחָֽנִי: |
| 14Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for, behold! I will come and dwell in your midst, says the Lord. (It is YHVH who will come and who will dwell when this "Me" is sent. He will do this...NOT Zechariah) | | ידרָנִּ֥י וְשִׂמְחִ֖י בַּת־צִיּ֑וֹן כִּ֧י הִֽנְנִי־בָ֛א וְשָֽׁכַנְתִּ֥י בְתוֹכֵ֖ךְ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָֽה: |
| 15And many nations shall join the Lord on that day, and they shall be My people; and I will dwell in your midst and you shall know that the Lord of Hosts sent me to you. (When did the many Goy EVER join themselves to Zechariah? When did they become Zechariah's people? But...when "me" who is sent shall come, many GOYIM will join themselves to the Lord and they shall be the me's people, NOT Zechariah's AND neither do they join themselves to or because of Zechariah) and this is when HE comes and dwells in our midst, as John 1 describes the Word as doing is when the many GOY are joined to the Lord and those who were not His people become His people) | | טווְנִלְווּ֩ גוֹיִ֨ם רַבִּ֚ים אֶל־יְהֹוָה֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא וְהָ֥יוּ לִ֖י לְעָ֑ם וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֣י בְתוֹכֵ֔ךְ וְיָדַ֕עַתְּ כִּי־יְהֹוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֵלָֽיִךְ: |
Now I was led to this revelation by a few things. First the Lord showed me the truth in Micah 5:2 that this human baby being born in Bethlehem was in fact the Eternal One who had been coming forth many times before (hence all the appearances to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, AND Moses and others) was this one, and that this meant this one IS YHVH Himself sent by YHVH like the Angel of His presence in Exodus 3 (the perfect image, the brightness of His substance, the Tabernacle of God, or God "with" us). Second when I grasped that, I saw this as the essence of the concept of how one Ousia (YHVH) can reveal Himself to us through three Hypostases (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
Thus when YHVH appears to Abraham and sits with him and breaks bread with him and He (YHVH) sends the two angels to rain fire and brimstone down on the cities from YHVH in heaven, the one sent or appearing on earth IS still YHVH, only as a being sent forth to dwell among us, who can be among us, for if we experienced the true essence of the Eternal, the temporal could not continue to exist in its/His presence as the temporal (it would immediately be consumed) and this is why only those glorified (like Jesus the man) can dwell in YHVHs pure presence. The old passes away and we become new. Christ in us IS the hope of glory. and this Biblical hope is not a wishful desire, but rather an eager expectation of what we KNOW will be. So please read my analysis carefully and prayerfully and then respond after which I will move on so not to hog the post with our debate (which is fine so that Clintos can get as much info as possible) and thanks to you as well Rhema for your scholarship is appreciated even when I feel compelled by the Spirit to stand in a different place. Be blessed....
So the SON or Word (as the Shekinah or even as a man) is the way YHVH can communicate to us His true self-revelation. He (the Son or Word) IS the visble image of the invisible God. The YHVH who is ever YHVH sends this one to dwell among us, in the midst of us, to communicate Himself to us (which is one of the roles of the Son/Word) and this is why we read in Hebrews 1 how the Son IS YHVH, the creator, the King of angels, etc., and hoiw Jesus (in Hebrews 2) is MADE a little lower than the angels.
Last edited:
I would offer even when a translation was used Greek or Hebrew men still errored not rightfully dividing the living word of God .Much of the meaning was as a mystery of faith hid in parables which without the Holy Spirit spoke not.
I would ofer learn how to rightly divide the parables it can help in understanding the unseen things of eternal God
Brother Paul
Active
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2012
- Messages
- 1,044
As an ordained Christian Apologist for 2 decades for an International Ministry we all can only prayerfully try our best to let the Spirit lead and guide divorcing as possible from denominational theologies
So let me ask you? What is your assessment of the reasoning provided? Zechariah or the YHVH the Son or perhaps a third insight?
Rhema
Active
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 2,887
There is no phrase "YHVH, the Son."
Do you really think we should be making things up and then back-reading them into scripture? I guess we hit the exegesis eisegesis tumbleweed, but not before the "adding things in" maelstrom.
Then one should stop putting forth doctrinal claims that are based upon language... here's an example of what I mean:
If you had wanted to say "God told me" this, then say "God told me."
Okay, so you embraced an interpretation told to you by men. That wasn't the issue I broached, and it would be ridiculous of me to try and have a discussion with Calvin, Richards, Chamberlain, Rashi and Manimonides. From such a perspective, one can make an extremely compelling case that the reference in Isaiah was to himself and the reference in Zechariah was to the Messiah, meaning that all five of these people were wrong.
That's why we discuss theological viewpoints.
But in our discussion, you resorted to a linguistic proof that you've been unable to support... but I see you're about to try(?)
Again, that's a linguistic statement. If you are unable to read Hebrew, or provide a source reference from someone who can read Hebrew, then your claim ( "the me in Isaiah is implied") came out of the bowels of your imagination, a claim that no other Hebrew scholar would agree with by the mere fact that all of the translations provided by biblegateway and biblehub, including their interlinear, show otherwise.
Now could they all be wrong? YES. But one would need to provide an extraordinary linguistic proof to show this. I have found a number of passages in the New Testament where every English translation IS wrong, but my extraordinary claims can, and have been, supported by extraordinary linguistic proof, to the extent that ... (how to say this) ... I've not lost yet in any discussion with professors of Greek. But again, this is with regards to translation and claims based upon language, not interpretations.
It is NOT a fact that "in Isaiah it (this "me") is implied." If it is, show this AS a fact.
I haven't made ANY statement of interpretation, except perhaps that verse sixteen in Isaiah 48 starts a new prophetic utterance.
Look, let's track this back to our initial starting point. I had stated that I'm fairly sure the prophet Isaiah was speaking of himself. Here... let me provide you with the quote...
You then claimed the "me" did not even exist in the initial Hebrew text, but still have not provided proof for this claim.
Well, it would be appreciated next time if you actually provide a link to that which you are quoting.
But drilling into the text of Zechariah is rather useless to resolve your claim that the "me is implied" in Isaiah. As a matter of FACT, your OWN source (chabad.org) provides the following as an English translation for the text of Isaiah -
( Isaiah 46:18 Chabad.org) Draw near to Me, hearken to this; in the beginning I did not speak in secret, from the time it was, there was I, and now, the Lord God has sent me, and His spirit.
LINK (please scroll down).
When you are willing to admit that you cannot support your claim of the "me" being "implied" in Isaiah, and accept the text as translated because you can provide no other reason to translate it differently, then perhaps you and I can move on to discussing (and in another thread) the interpretation of these verses and whom the "me" might be. But one cannot claim revelation as a basis to change the text that was written, no matter how euphoric you felt when ...
When did the Lord show you the "me in Isaiah is implied"?
Rhema
btw...
According to a number of translations, your "Eternal One" had an origin.
(Micah 5:2 NRSV) But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.
(Micah 5:2 Chabad.org LINK) And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore.
There are twenty (20) versions here that say "origin"...
Micah 5:2 - Bible Gateway
(And that would be an interesting conversation.... the Eternal One having an origin.)
Rhema
Active
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 2,887
Seriously? You're going to appeal to "self" authority?
Argument from authority - Wikipedia
(oh dear me)
Rhema
Active
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 2,887
Brother Paul
Active
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2012
- Messages
- 1,044
Seriously? You're going to appeal to "self" authority?
Argument from authority - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
(oh dear me)
Thanks for misrepresenting the meaning of all l I said. The reasoning I tried to appeal to in my response to you ( not the other) apparently went right over your head. I showed you why it could not be Zechariah but you avoided that completely ( which was the point). Those who translate Isaiah 48:16 implicate the "me" and I agree the who it refers to is my point there. The same problem occurs for many in Zechariah 12:10 but this conversation was for Clintos not to challenge the argumentum ad populum.
So for Zechariah (like Isaiah) to be the me sent then we have him all wrong and we gentiles are in debt to him. So peace be unto you brother.
Brother Paul
Active
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2012
- Messages
- 1,044
Seriously? You're going to appeal to "self" authority?
Argument from authority - Wikipedia
(oh dear me)
This was a part of a response to what garee said and had nothing to do with our conversation. Putting this self authority accusation in is known as deflection. I have no authority only Jesus. I was simply assuring him that I was not ignorant in my posts. When I teach I present all views from the various schools of thought. This forum is a "talk" forum and we can present our opinions so long ás we can support it. So I am going to give Clintos another Hebrew word to think on and would value your input should you care to chime in.
Brother Paul
Active
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2012
- Messages
- 1,044
Dear Clintos...here is a word often misunderstood by many here in the West. It is the Hebrew word Yom which generally is translated to mean “day. However, ancient Hebrew only used a little more than 8500 words as compared to the nearly 500,000 words of the English language, so Hebrew words (especially the Old Testament words being used before the return from Babylon) had many meanings or shades of usage, some of which depended on context and others expressing a concepts depended on cultural norms.
Now not to side track but here is an example (and I will immediately return), remember how we are taught that when Abraham called Sarah his sister and not his wife that he lied to Pharaoh? Well in reality this is not entirely true. We have learned in recent times from a number of Ugaritic Documents and the Mari Tablets that people in ancient Mesopotamia made consensus decisions so that a man could ADOPT his wife as his sister (which legally made her so) so she could inherit became they had such a Patriarchal system that wihtout this option should a husband die, all his wealth and property would return to whatever male was the head of the family for sidtribution between the brothers and sisters. The wife was cast out and if SHE did not have family would be ofrced into begging or else prostitution. Do odd as this may seem, Abraham being wealthy by that cultures standards, loved Sarah and wanted her to be cared for (as well as her children if any) should he have passed first. Just an example of a cultural norm being misunderstood!
So now, for many, a similar thing happens with the Hebrew word Yom. So as a starter let us look at what Strong's Exhaustive Concordance tells us.
It describes Yom as “from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (...live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remain, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), younger”
In other words, Yom not only means a 24 hour day, but it can also mean a 12 hour period of light, a season, a lifetime, or even an epoch as in an indiscriminate length of time. It is so flexible, in fact, that be generalized by context to mean “time” (see Genesis 4:3). Thus this same word is being used to describe an entire growing Season (3 to 6 months) and Moses uses this word in a number of ways thoughout the Torah (many ways including indiscriminate epochs).
An Interesting video to watch (again available on You Tube) is the Age of the Universe by Gerald Shroeder (an MIT mathematician AND Orhodox Rabbi). In his papers he even draws on pre-Masoretic Texts (more in line with the original thoughts). Here is a link:
Different people have different spins but think about this. When the Lord is bara/creating (Genesis 1) versus yatzar/making (Genesis 2) a Yom is from the Lord's perspective, and we know that figuratively the Psalmist and Peter both use a comparative reference to that being 1000 years, but for the pre-Captivity Hebrew, 1000 was the highest countable number in their language so we never read or hear Millions or Billions but only things like 10 1000s times 10 1000s and so on. Therefore it is entirely reasonable to see that before there was an earth and a Sun to revolve around, Yom or “day” has an entirely different associated CONCEPTUAL that can be considered and it is still questionable until the appearance of a human to count these cycles.
Now we here in the West do have one example of alternate use like for instance if I say, “Remember the day we went to the ball game?” Obviously we were not there for 24 hours and so it is when we say. “back in the day when the Civil Rights riots were going on...” whereby here, our “day” is actually a decade. So think about Yom and see what you can find. It will bless you and enhance your understanding (though some will still differ in their perspectives, which is fine). Shalom in His Shem!
Brother Paul
Active
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2012
- Messages
- 1,044
YHVH the Son is not "made", He is the Eternal YHVH as revealed to humanity. AND I never said that! It is written that Jesus (the human man born of Mary of the seed of David, in whom the fulness of the deity dwelt) was MADE a little lower than the angels (your dispute is not with me but the words of Scripture).
I would think we cannot divorce our own private interpretation as personal commentaries called heresises from His written interpretation. As it is writen or called sola scriptura. It is the full measure of the faith of our invisible God . It is called the book of law. . not the book of private interpretations as heresies, the philosophies of men .
In that way because we can understand Christ who works in those yoked with him and not comparing each other to one's own self ....again exclusively by his Spirit of faith as two walking together empowered by one. The Lord our God .
There must be heresies as oral traditions of men amongst us or differences as matters of opinion. God makes men different .What we do have as anything that could profit to His good pleasure is not of us. If we have received it from Him why would we boast we have not?
That kind of false boast would rise above all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura.) Called the abomination of desolation . . . making desolate the whole living word of God . Turning things called inspiration upside down as if the Potter had no understanding to offer. Isaiah 29:16
The faithless atheistic Jew were known for putting their trust in a earthly inspiration after a government of men and not the doctrines of God that fall like rain from above.
Deuteronomy 32:2King James Version My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass
There must be differences as oral traditions of men.
1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Approved of God not seen not mankind seen. the first will be last
This is of course unless those differences as oral traditions does not do despite the fullness of the mercy mixed with grace of Christ ( the full payment for our sin ). many do do despite .
2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
As far as the abbreviation YHVH. Some teach is a personal secret name of God names like we have George, Betsy Bob, Carol, Frank etc to understand our differences.
In the Psalms we are informed that Christ magnifies the power of his word (let there be and the testimony was good above all his attributes and he himself is subject to. He cannot violate his own words as thoughts . That should give us comfort
Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name......( or power)
The name Jehovah which means; Our Almighty God has become the Savior of the nations was not know .He was known as Almighty God to Abraham but not as the savior of the nations or families . . .As in whenever two or three gather together under the hearing of his written word now that we have the perfect or complete
Two or thre the smalesd sect or denomnation
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Every name God who is not a man as us has represents a multiple of attributes to include Jehovah .Like His name Jealous . In that way he owns all things and will not share his unseen glory with a dying creation (us) Fortunately for us His labor of love that works in us is not jealous .
Three things that make the essence of God not seen . God is light and not that he can only create it temporally under the Sun and Moon. God is Love and the same not only can he labor . God is Spirit and not a man as us as a son . he is referred to as our adopting father.
Previously we were all fatherless as widows not married to Christ called the church or bride .it helps us understand the kind of religion God sets his unseen glorious approval of
James 1: 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows (believers) in their affliction, and to keep himself .
The only kind of religion God sets his approval on. The care of one another in our new family of God
Galatians 6:9-10King James Version9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
Day. . . 12 hours of light 12 hours of darkness . 12 representing the authority of God. Our day remains 24 hours .
Multiples of tens, hundreds, thousands, ten thousand or ten thousands thousands are simply metaphors used in parables to represent a unknown >.We must walk by faith the signified understanding and not by sight the literal understanding . we are not of the number those number days and people. . we walk by faith the unseen eternal things of God
Not only is the word thousand years used in time as a metaphor the signified understanding but anything .
The lord owns the cattle on a thousand hills (all the cattle on all the hills) . Cattle can represent mankind .
Psalm 90:4For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
The word as denotes a parable in in veiw . A literal thousand year is not yesterday (24 hours)
Ecclesiastes 6:6 Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?
Same with twice told
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Again as one day. A day is not literal thousand years it is 24 hours.
Thousand years simply God does not live in time restraints .All of the work of creating Let there be and it was good. was fished 6 24 hours days it began on the first 24 hour day . Nothing was created before then
.Not one rudiment, element molecule, or atom .
We rest in his eternal rest sabbath
