Wiploc

I agree. When people argue that the bible contradicts itself because a whale is not a fish, I want to say, "Stay off my side!"
crc

Sheshbazzar

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amlodhi
[B]I understand now. You're original statement, however, was a bit misleading:



INTERPOLATE = To alter or corrupt (as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition.


The relevant portion of Ex. 6:3 reads:

" . . . uSHeMi YHWH Lo NoDaTi LaHem."

(NoDaTi) = Ist person Nif'al stem (passive/reflexive) of the verb root "yada".

(NOTE: Sorry, the board would not accept Hebrew characters so I will have to settle for transliteration until such time as I can find a way to make the Hebrew work.)

The literal translation of the transliterated Hebrew words above is:

". . . and by my name YHWH not did I reveal myself (or make myself known) to them.



In what way then has the interpretation of these extant Hebrew words been altered?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

". . .and by my name YHWH not did I reveal myself (or make
myself known) to them?"

". . .AZ HU'KaL Le'Q'RuO Be'SHeM YaH'WeH "

Can you give the translation of these words?

Are these words a true statement?

Sheshbazzar, Thl'La'MeeD YaH'ShUa

Madkins007

Job 34:20 20 "In a moment they die, and at midnight People are shaken and pass away, And the mighty are taken away without a hand."

Proverbs 24:11 "Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold {them} back." (Not quite the same thing, but the basic idea)

Isaiah 57:1,2 "1 The righteous man perishes, and no man takes it to heart; And devout men are taken away, while no one understands. For the righteous man is taken away from evil, 2 He enters into peace; They rest in their beds, {Each one} who walked in his upright way.

Jeremiah 6:11 "But I am full of the wrath of the LORD; I am weary with holding {it} in. " Pour {it} out on the children in the street And on the gathering of young men together; For both husband and wife shall be taken, The aged and the very old. "

Matt 9:15 (and similar verses in Mark 2:20, Luke 5:35) "And Jesus said to them, "The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. " (Although 'taken' how is not clear cut, the poing about mourning seems to imply something tragic.)

John 10:18 "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

Throughout the Bible, 'taken' is also used to refer to being taken into slavery, being taken away (as in kidnapping), etc. Enoch is taken into heaven, and Jesus is described that way as well but both passages include more descriptive language.

In most of the references for 'taken' I could find in a quick search at bible.crosswalk.com, when someone is 'taken' it is generally not good news, and I still cannot see any reason to assume anything good is happening to the people taken in these passages.

Amlodhi

Hello Sheshbazzar, disciple of Jesus.

Sure, although you did a terrible job transliterating LiQ'Ra.

Nevertheless . . . "Then it was begun to call on the name of YHWH."

I'll do you the courtesy of answering your question as soon as you show me the same courtesy by answering mine.

" . . . uSHeMi YHWH Lo NoDaTi LaHem."

So I ask yet again, in what way has the interpretation of these words been altered?


Amlodhi

Tod

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Madkins007
Job 34:20 20 "In a moment they die, and at midnight People are shaken and pass away, And the mighty are taken away without a hand."

Proverbs 24:11 "Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold {them} back." (Not quite the same thing, but the basic idea)

Isaiah 57:1,2 "1 The righteous man perishes, and no man takes it to heart; And devout men are taken away, while no one understands. For the righteous man is taken away from evil, 2 He enters into peace; They rest in their beds, {Each one} who walked in his upright way.

Jeremiah 6:11 "But I am full of the wrath of the LORD; I am weary with holding {it} in. " Pour {it} out on the children in the street And on the gathering of young men together; For both husband and wife shall be taken, The aged and the very old."

Matt 9:15 (and similar verses in Mark 2:20, Luke 5:35) "And Jesus said to them, "The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. " (Although 'taken' how is not clear cut, the poing about mourning seems to imply something tragic.)

John 10:18 "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

Throughout the Bible, 'taken' is also used to refer to being taken into slavery, being taken away (as in kidnapping), etc. Enoch is taken into heaven, and Jesus is described that way as well but both passages include more descriptive language.

In most of the references for 'taken' I could find in a quick search at bible.crosswalk.com, when someone is 'taken' it is generally not good news, and I still cannot see any reason to assume anything good is happening to the people taken in these passages.

I'll include the verse in question for reference: "This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes. Then of two men in the fields, one is taken, one left; of two women grinding at the mill, one is taken, one left. (Matt 24:39-41)

Where the verse in question differs from these examples is that in each of these examples you provide there is clear indications from the surrounding words that death, or at least as you said something bad, was being spoken about. I have emphasized all the parts in each example you gave that gave clear indication that "taken" in this case meant something bad.

I'm sure since you did a search for the word "taken," you also saw a lot more examples of "taken" being used in context that didn't refer to death or destruction. I did a search at the same site, crosswalk.com. I found many examples.

For example: "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return." (Gen 3:19)

In this context, "taken" is actually used to refer to Adam's creation! That's quite the opposite of death. That was the third verse in the bible listed at crosswalk to have the word "taken" in it.

The very next verse is: "Ge 3:23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken." Again referring to his creation. The very next verse is Abraham's wife getting "taken" into pharoah's house. (Gen 12:15) As you can see, my search didn't take me past two chapters in Genesis. Context indicates what "taken" means.

The point is, there are an awful lot more uses of the word "taken" than to imply death or misfortune. You did succeed in finding the word "taken" being associated with death, but you have also found a bunch of examples of why it doesn't seem likely that the verse in question in Matthew 24 uses the word "taken" in a context that refers to death.

As pointed out above, every example has some words modifying the word "taken" that clearly indicate death or misforture. I grant you fully that when you see the word "taken" linked with words like "die," "pass away," "taken to death," "slaughter," "mourn," etc. it probably refers to death. However, the verse in Matthew 24 has no words in it that support the conclusion that "taken" refers to death.

If the verse in Matthew 24 said something like "In a moment they die, one will be taken, the other left." Then we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we? If it said "staggering to slaughter, one will be taken, and one will be left," then I'd concede completely and say you are correct. If it at least said "they mourned because one was taken while the other left," I'd say you have a fair argument and are probably right. But the verse in chapter 24 of Matthew does not include any such modify statements that imply death.

As to the last verse cited from John, the pronoun "it" is present, and that would provide a good basis for your claim if the word "it" was present in Matthew 24. If the reference in question had Jesus taking an "it" from the man, I'd say you're probably right. If Jesus was said to be taking some unknown thing represented only by the pronoun "it" from the man, I couldn't rightly interpret the verse to mean that Jesus was taking the man.

I may not know what "it" is, but "it" clearly isn't the man himself, since it is being taken from him, and while I may not know what "it" is ultimately, I would think his life might make sense. We don't have that in the verse in question, however. It doesn't say that an "it" will be taken from the person, it says that the person will be taken. No pronouns, no modifying words associated with death or doom, nothing to indicate, as in every single one of your examples, that "taken" is meant to mean that a person's life was taken or that they are suffering misfortune.

Therefore, I believe these examples all represent very well why the author of Matthew didn't mean "taken" as used in chapter 24 to indicate the people would be killed. In the few examples you did find (that span from Job to John) of the word "taken" being used in association with death was when the context clearly showed as much and modifying words explicitly or implicitly stated as much. This indicates to me that had the author meant to use the word "taken" to mean the people would be killed, he would have, like all these other, varied, authors, used clear indications to modify the word "taken" so such confusion wouldn't occur.

Not only did he not use any such means of indicating his meaning, but he in other parts of the book of Matthew give reason to think that "taken" DOES mean that his followers would be separated from those that are damned. As I pointed out in another post to a different user, the use of two people in the analogy, one that will be "taken" and another that will be left," makes complete sense in the context of the "sheep" and "goats" analogy in Chapter 25 (vs. 31 to the end of the chapter). There those going to the prepared kingdom, the "sheep," will be separated from those that are bound for eternal damnation: the goats. This makes the use of two people in the chapter 24 analogy logical. It is clearly speaking of final judgement.

First of all: this final judgement didn't happen, and you really need to address how the events described in Chapter 25 that will occur "When the Son of man comes in his glory" (31) occurred in 70 AD. That is, after all, the root problem in this debate: Whether or not all events said to occur at Jesus' second coming occurred in 70 AD.

Secondly, this reference to final judgement gives readers the indication that "taken" and the "gather[ing] of his elect" refer to a separating of the saved from those that aren't saved.

In light of this, and the fact that the author of Matthew offers no modifying words with the word "taken" in the verse in question to indicate murders are occurring when he could have and any modestly coherent author would and did throughout the Bible (as you so aptly demonstrated), it seems unlikely the author of Matthew meant readers to understand these people spoken of would be killed.

Sheshbazzar

Hello again Amlodhi, you missed my answer to your question?
Your own words, without changing one letter, is my answer;

". . .and by my name YHWH not did I reveal (or make myself known) to them?"

That you don't like this answer, or refuse to accept it as my answer, makes it no less my answer, so here is my courtesy of answering your question. ( in previous posts I elaborated upon the reasons for this answer, anyone may check the validity of those reasons.)

The intent of the above verse has been debated for millinia, but to the best of my knowledge, this is where it sets, with only two possibal interpretations, and nothing new under the sun, to each side the interpretation is an immutable sacred cow.
I and all who are of my persuasion have believed,and will continue to believe, that Gen.4:26 is a true account of WHEN mankind began , ".....to call upon (or preach) the Name YAHWEH."

This of course has not been acceptable to those of the Jewish religion, ( "ineffable") the Xian religion, ("first revealed to Moses,..now forgotten") or to Internet Infidels, (" interpolated")

Interesting that you would alter my sign off to transform me into a disciple of Gee'zeus, of course this is not the first time this has happened to me, I have had long manuscripts returned to me with the original names I wrote carefully removed and replaced by the names of blasphemy perferred by my adversaries.
Of course this to, is nothing new under the sun.
However my Xian aquaintences soon expell me from their denominations, for His NAMES sake, and if they should enter, do not choose to continue fellowship in our congregations,
for His NAMES sake, He left us a few words about this.
Those Xians that KNOW me, know I am no disciple of J.C.

I will be absent a few days now, thank you for your time.

Sheshbazzar friend of YAHshua

Amlodhi

Hello again to you also, Sheshbazzar

That is exactly the contention. YHWH is the only proper Name of "The Elohim". The "inconsistency" is analogous to imagining a group of people under the jurisdiction of king Solomon who knew that a wise king ruled Judea/Israel but, allegedly, did not know his proper name because Solomon (again allegedly) always signed his correspondences to them only with "Mighty King" or "Wise Ruler". Eventually, a young boy visits Solomon in his palace and Solomon gives the boy instructions to bring back to his people. The boy asks, "Who should I say sent me?" Solomon then replies, "I am Solomon. I was king over your fathers. I represented myself to them as 'Mighty King' and 'Wise Ruler', but by my proper name, Solomon, I did not make myself known to them. Tell them, 'Solomon their Mighty King' has sent you."

Imagine our perplexity then, when we find extant documents from the time of the boy's fathers that are clearly signed "King Solomon" and additional documents from these fathers that are clearly addressed to "King Solomon". Could it be that these people didn't know that "Solomon" (ShLoMoH) implied "peaceful" in their language until they heard the boy speak the name?


Your single "elaboration" so far has been that since the Name YHWH obviously appears prior to Ex. 6:3, then Ex. 6:3 must be interpreted to mean something other than what it appears to say. For example, it has been suggested that there is some nuance or characteristic implied by the Name that was undiscerned by Abraham, etal, and is only now being revealed to Moses.

While this has been established and understood, unfortunately, it doesn't answer the question.

Note that the question is not, "Do you think the verse has been misinterpreted" but, rather, what reasoning or supporting argument do you have to offer as to why this verse should be interpreted to mean something other than what it appears to say?

Understand, I am not categorically stating that your premise is wrong, but I am saying, if you want to discuss it then discuss it, don't just assert it. If you again have no reasoning or supporting arguments and your "non-answer" continues to be, "I say it has to be mistranslated because otherwise it would be a contradiction", then that also will tell me everything I need to know about your position.


And this is why I went to the Hebrew text even though transliterations invite error. It was not to give you a "lesson in Hebrew".

This is, again, why I dislike transliteration. Everyone seems to disagree on the phonetics. My apologies, I simply took your transliteration to be Yeshua which I then converted to Jesus, much as I would, in English, write Jacob as opposed to Ya'aqov.

Prior to the indications in this post, I knew nothing of your religious preferences. Again, I find your defensiveness curious.

As to sacred cows and egos. I have none of the former (Yes, Virginia, such people really exist) and I have had fifty-something years in which to understand the hilarity of the latter.

So, if then, as you say, you have studied the Hebrew language for 27 years. Please give me a lesson in Hebrew.

Apparently you translate your transliteration, "Thl'La'Meed" as "friend", whereas I read it as "disciple" i.e. (pupil, student).

Although transliterations can be ambiguous, I can only imagine the term you intend here is (in my transliteration) "t(h)almiyd", as it is used in I Chr. 25:8.

I Chr. 25:8 ". . . MaBiyN iM - T(h)almiyd" . . . "like the teacher with the pupil."

T(h)almiyd is understood to be an imp. passive form derived from the root, "lamad" = (prop. to goad), (by impl. to teach); ergo ( in the passive) "to be taught".

Assuming I've deciphered your transliteration correctly, please explain to me how you derive the translation of "friend" from t(h)almiyd.


As always, Namaste'

Amlodhi

Doctor X

If it is a myth?

--J.D.

Madkins007

I've heard something about this, but can't put my finger on it- what verse does this refer to?

Madkins007

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tod
As pointed out above, every example has some words modifying the word "taken" that clearly indicate death or misforture. I grant you fully that when you see the word "taken" linked with words like "die," "pass away," "taken to death," "slaughter," "mourn," etc. it probably refers to death. However, the verse in Matthew 24 has no words in it that support the conclusion that "taken" refers to death.

If the verse in Matthew 24 said something like "In a moment they die, one will be taken, the other left." Then we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we? If it said "staggering to slaughter, one will be taken, and one will be left," then I'd concede completely and say you are correct. If it at least said "they mourned because one was taken while the other left," I'd say you have a fair argument and are probably right. But the verse in chapter 24 of Matthew does not include any such modify statements that imply death.[/QOUTE]

Except that *in my opinion*, THAT is why the analogies to Noah, Lot's wife, Sodom, etc. are being used.

Matt 24:39,40 together read "and they did not understand until the flood came and TOOK them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then there will be two men in the field; one will be TAKEN and one will be left. " (emphasis mine)

I think that v.39 is a clear modifier denoting death.

I know the word 'taken' in Greek and Hebrew, as in English, have many, many different meanings and that the meaning is all-dependent on context. Where we disagree is whether the references to the flood and Sodom are direct modifiers on the word 'taken' as used in the 'two people' quotes in Matt. 24 and Luke 17. Heck, at this point, I'll even conceed that they might not have been killed but just have died, been taken prisoner or enslaved, etc.

I am a bit curious as to why you are willing to link the 'taken' to the 'gathering' several verses away (with the idea of the rapture), but not to the flood immediately preceding it- but that does indeed bring us further from the real heart of our disagreement...

Quote:

First of all: this final judgement didn't happen, and you really need to address how the events described in Chapter 25 that will occur "When the Son of man comes in his glory" (31) occurred in 70 AD. That is, after all, the root problem in this debate: Whether or not all events said to occur at Jesus' second coming occurred in 70 AD.

Within the teachings of preterism, there is 'full preterism', which teaches that Jesus DID indeed return in 70AD (and offers an interesting array of intrepretations on what the various prophecies 'meant', and 'partial preterism, which teaches that some prophecies remain unfulfilled. Like most other camps of Christian thought, there is not a lot of agreement even within a camp.

At this point in my research, I cannot offer convincing proof that I think would be of any import to this group that Jesus did return in some way that fulfills the prophecies in 70AD, but I am swayed by what I have read so far.