Nark,
I would be interested in your comments re: "Silver Amulets" dating to the mid to seventh century B.C. Ingraved with "hebrew texts"
Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?
by booker-t 251 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
AGuest
May you have peace!
Just one question (to either you or your Lord )
The word of my Lord is that I am his servant... and yours.
As I said in response to Earnest, the Greek LXX translation (and some of the Qumran Hebrew Biblical scrolls) sometimes reflects a Hebrew original which is probably older than the extant Hebrew masoretic text.
Indeed, the Hebrew text contain in the Masoretic is not original Hebrew at all; it's not even the Hebrew that was used during the 1st century (the latter was primarily an Aramaic/Syro-Chaldean dialect).
In such cases, pretty obviously, the Greek LXX translation is different from the extant Hebrew masoretic text.
Based on the truth of the above, my understanding is that is case entirely. My understanding also is that the Septuagint was also not a translation of the original Hebrew, but a translation of what had already begun to be mistransliterated, as prophesied by Jeremiah. For the truth of this, please see Jeremiah 8:8; please also see every reference of my Lord's to the "scribes", those who copied the Law and scriptured, as recorded in the accounts attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; you will see that in no event did he commend them, but condemned start to finish. (I must say that I find it curious that folks tend to have focus on the "Pharisees" and at times the "Sadducees" but give virtually no attention to the "scribes" - who they were... and why they were condemned. Yet, condemned they were, in some instances even more than the Pharisees. Things that make you go "hmmm....")
So how would the latter be a translation of the former?
You are correct that the masoretic text is not a direct translation of the Septuagint. Indeed, it also is the basis for some modern Bibles (those transliterated by opponents of the Septuagint based on its controversial rendition). But the claim that it is OT text that was carefully preserved by generations of Jewish scholars is false, for such "scholars"... the scribes... were condemned for their FAILURE to carefully preserve. It was prophesied that such failure would occur, such failure has occurred... time and time again... with the Septuagint... with the masoretic text... with the Latin Vulgate... with the Qumran scrolls... etc., etc., etc., because the corruption started before any of these were written. And it occurred because such ones appoint themselves... or receive their appointment from earthling men... and not by holy spirit. The word of my Lord is that last TRUE scribe apointed by God through holy spirit... was the man Ezra. Since him... the styluses of the secretaries have been false. All of them, unfortunately. I am again to refer you to that testament itself, however, regarding the "false stylus" of the scribes.
Please try to understand me: I for one am not hostile to your approach.
(Smiling) Please know that I feel no hostility from you, dear Narkissos. Indeed, I am not aware of any bad motive on your part, here. Your questions are perceived to be honest and sincere.
The similarity between "arch" and "ark" can be fully meaningful to you. Psychoanalysis, for instance, always works with such similarities between words within the subject's language (or several languages actively or passively known to him/her).
Actually, they are really not all that meaningful because, as I have shared, the TRUE word originally meant "womb." Now THAT... is meaningful to me, because as a "son" of God, indeed, as a curious human being in general, it grants me something that I know most of earthling man yearns to know: where did we come from? From where did we... and life in general... originate? And folks come with all kinds of speculations, ranging from having evolved from lower life forms, to coming from Adam and Eve. The truth is that neither is correct: we did not come from Adam and Eve; we simply came THROUGH them (Genesis 3:20). But that's another subject entirely, isn't it?
It's a synchronic approach, fully valid on its own ground.
Okay.
But this doesn't work in exegesis, which is only interested in what a text in a given language could mean to its readers at a given stage of its formation/edition/transmission.
Which is exactly the point my Lord has tried to make: that when trying to decipher things that certain ones themselves didn't understand, many decided that when something didn't make sense to them... it also wouldn't make sense to their readers... and so changed it. Because isn't that the way, to translate something based on whatever sense it makes... to YOU... and those who are inclined to agree with you? Thus, all the versions of the Bible, the commentaries on the Bible, the commentaries on the commentaries on the Bible... etc., etc., etc., have fallen to this truth: "exegesis is only interested in what a text in a given language could mean to its readers at a given stage of its formation/edition/transmission." What such text originally meant... is irrelevant. And that... is the error.
Let me ask you, dear Narkissos, and you respond: If one were to say today to someone claiming to be "christian" that life originated in the womb of a woman who was the wife of God, what would such "christian" say? More likely than not that "God doesn't have a wife."
And yet, throughout the ENTIRE Bible, this "barren woman," her "child," and her "seed," are mentioned. She is depicted at first as being barren and then giving birth, after some considerable time, time within which no one thought she ever would, ever could. Time and time again. She has "birth pangs." She goes into "labor." Her "children" are mentioned repeatedly. The question is asked, "can a nation be born in one day?" Yet, can such "christians" even perceive the miracle? They claim to be "spiritual." Yet, while most of them have NO problem conceiving a physical man coming through the womb of a physical... the concept of a SPIRITUAL man coming through a SPIRITUAL womb... is foreign. Alien. Yet, a great deal of them claim to be awaiting a "new birth," and many of them claim to be "born again." And when they read of Nicodemus' question to my Lord, whether a man can re-enter the womb of his [physical] mother so as to be "born"... again... they miss entirely... how it is that my Lord said such one's are to be "born"... of the SPIRIT.
Nothing is born... without a mother. Indeed, nothing is conceived... without a mother and a father. If God is the Father... and Christ is the "Firstborn,"... who then is the mother? The answer is simple: "Jerusalem Above. She is our mother and she is free." If then, we have a mother, would not Christ... our brother... also have a mother? If we are the "bride" of Christ, who is the "bride" of the Father? The "woman"... arrayed with the sun: the spirit realm from which all things came forth.
Some verbal links which are valid in the first approach are just impossible in the second.
Perhaps. I am not convinced, however. I believe the links are there, just as my Lord has shown them to me, but that it is easier for some to discount the truth of the error because it's really just too simple: if what I have shared is true, why haven't the "experts" caught it? Why haven't the "scholars" written about it? Ah, well, what can I say? Which one of those sent has ever been believed? Which one has ever been thought logical by those "in the know"? I heard... and hear... and I have shared... and share. On pure faith. Nothing else. I have nothing else to go on. According to my Lord, I need nothing else. To him, my Lord, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, be the might and glory, as granted him by the Most Holy One of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose name is JAH... of Armies... by whose spirit I have been granted to understand and share these truths.
I bid you the greatest of love and peace, dear Narkissos... and ears to hear, if you so wish it.
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SJ
-
Narkissos
Ellderwho:
I would be interested in your comments re: "Silver Amulets" dating to the mid to seventh century B.C. Ingraved with "hebrew texts"
I'm no archeologist, and with just that info I can't know what you're speaking about. Is it a recent finding? Have you got a link or something?
-
Narkissos
AGuest,
Hebrew and Aramaic (including Syriac which is one of its late dialects, with a specific writing) are related but completely distinct languages.
I don't see any contextual reason why Jeremiah 8:8 (which is supposed to be anterior to Ezra) should be viewed as a "prophecy".
The "scribes and Pharisees" of the Gospels most likely reflect the situation after the Jewish war, when the temple was destroyed, the priestly Sadducees and Essenes wiped out, and the Pharisees left alone in reconstructing Judaism, which did involve a lot of scribal work; as to the Bible, coming to one official (premasoretic) edition and eliminating variant traditions; as to the "tradition of the scribes," writing it down as the rabbinical Mishnah. At that stage all the scribes were Pharisees (cf. Mark 2:15f, "scribes of the Pharisees"). And of course "scribe" is not just a term for a technical job, it actually means "expert of the Law".
Exegesis cannot work without a text. And any text is secondary -- to other texts, oral tradition, etc. Absolutely speaking, there is no such thing as an original text. As I said before, exegesis is just interested in what a text means at a given stage. Not the "origin", because no origin can ever be found in a text.
End note: have you read Frannie's story of her spiritual experiences a few months ago on this board? I may be mistaken, but if I have any "ear to hear", I can perceive some echoes of yours.
-
ellderwho
Nark, there are peices of "silver amulets" kept at the Israel Antiquities Authority found in 1985 south of old city walls Jerusalem. They bear a copy of the priestly benediction similar to Num.6:22-27 in the MT.
I believe these are the oldest OT texts extant. (Hebrew)
-
Narkissos
Very interesting. I hadn't heard about it.
But these are no "OT texts" strictly speaking.
The priestly tradition, even though written down after the exile, evidently contains very old tradition, especially as far as rituals (or liturgy) are concerned.
Liturgy has a very high enduring power. Think of the Psalms. Some of them came from polytheism, survived in henotheistic Yahwism, in monotheistic Judaism, in the Catholic liturgy, then in the Protestant Psalter.
-
ellderwho
But these are no "OT texts" strictly speaking.
Correct. I believe they are considered 'extant' references.
-
Triple A
What is the diefference between an angel and an archangel as WTS teaches?
Does the WTS teach that Jesus was Michael coming to earth 2000 years ago?
If they do, does the WTS teach that Michael is the same today as he was before he was Jesus? If not how is he different?
-
Earnest
These amulets were discovered by Gabriel Barkay, professor of archaeology at Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv, while excavating a burial tomb near Jerusalem. Regarding these he said :
"It took us three years to unroll [the larger scroll]. When unrolled, it was covered with very delicately scratched characters. The first word we could decipher was the ?YHWH? ?- sometimes anglicized as ?Jehovah.? This is the name of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible."
Until this discovery no inscriptions this old had been found in Jerusalem containing the tetragrammaton.
There is an article in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, May 2004 issue entitled "The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation" by Gabriel Barkay, Marilyn J. Lundberg, Andrew G. Vaughn, and Bruce Zuckerman.
Earnest
-
AGuest
Peace to you!
Hebrew and Aramaic (including Syriac which is one of its late dialects, with a specific writing) are related but completely distinct languages.
Unfortunatlely, I cannot totally agree with you here, dear Narkissos. It is true that they are completely distinct languages but that was not always the case: the language of the early Hebrews consisted of a combination of both, just as it did for the 10-tribe kingdom of Isarel (the Samaritans) much later. You see, the Samaritans (Israel that was not part of the exile to Babylon), having been exiled earlier to Assyria but returned a short time later to Palestine, maintained much of the language they originally spoke. The Jews, due to a more extensive exile in Babylon, where Chaldean custom and culture was forced upon them, picked up a Syro-Chaldean dialect, in addition to their native Hebrew/Aramaic tongue. Because Aramaic, however, was a more sophisticated language (true Hebrew being a bit more rustic), it eventually overshadowed.I don't see any contextual reason why Jeremiah 8:8 (which is supposed to be anterior to Ezra) should be viewed as a "prophecy".
Well, if you believe that Jeremiah's statement is in reference to the first disaster upon Jerusalem, when the temple was first destroyed, I can see your point. In truth, however, it is much more far-reaching than that. If you will, please compare: Jeremiah 8:8 and Jeremiah 8:17 with Isaiah 29:13 Matthew 15:1, 9 Isaiah 59:5-8 Matthew 3:7;12:34-37 Isaiah 59:13-15 Please note where the Most Holy One of Israel said that due to falsehood of the secretaries (transcibers... scribes), He would send poisonous serpents in among Israel. Why? Because that's what the people WANTED! They WANTED to be lied to and misled... away from Him and toward Death... just as they do today! They LOVE being lied to... and enslaved. Jeremiah 5:30, 31 Indeed, they would much rather follow... listen to... and as a result be "bit" by such vipers... than to keep their gaze on the "copper" serpent which was raised up before them. Numbers 21:6-9 John 3:14 Matthew 17:5 John 10:3, 27
The "scribes and Pharisees" of the Gospels most likely reflect the situation after the Jewish war, when the temple was destroyed
And yet, Jeremiah did prophecy about them... and my Lord addressed and identified them prior to...the priestly Sadducees and Essenes wiped out, and the Pharisees left alone in reconstructing Judaism, which did involve a lot of scribal work
because he knew them to be corrupt and their styluses false, prior to, during, and after his time on earth.as to the Bible, coming to one official (premasoretic) edition and eliminating variant traditions; as to the "tradition of the scribes," writing it down as the rabbinical Mishnah. At that stage all the scribes were Pharisees (cf. Mark 2:15f, "scribes of the Pharisees").
They were always scribes "of the Pharisees." Perhaps you, like others, miss the point by seeing "Pharisees" as merely that sect of "lawyers" who existed a bit before and during my Lord's time on earth and for a time after. He, however, considered anyone who appointed themselves to "teach" the people law a "pharisee." And such ones who transcribed, for themselves, for the priests, for the Pharisees... for a price... and were lauded and considered equals by the priests and Pharisees due to their false claim of special wisdom and having God's law with them. They used each other for their own respective purposes... lordship over God's people... and continue down until this day.And of course "scribe" is not just a term for a technical job, it actually means "expert of the Law".
Which is the point my Lord has been trying to make all along: by whose authority are such ones "experts"? Whose wisdom? Their own, for they certainly have received nothing from the Most Holy One of Israel. How do we know? Several ways: 1. They could not receive it from God, if they did not receive it from Christ. For he is the one by whom God speaks, the one who dispenses the spirit that leads such writers... in truth... if indeed they are led. And such leading, if it is true, is always by holy spirit. 2. If they did receive it from Christ, they would take no credit at ALL but give ALL glory to God and His Son. Because the SPIRIT that is in them... would praise JAH! It cannot do otherwise. 3. But they do not, because they cannot, because they are not led by such Spirit, which Spirit grants them to give such glory. They claim to have God's law... and claim to know God's law... and claim to be able to interpret God's law... and the scriptures... and yet, they do not know God Himself. They do not know Him, because they do not know His Son, the One about whom it is all written. That being the case, they CANNOT have God's law... nor know God's law... or even His thoughts... for only One does. They, then, are imposters.
Exegesis cannot work without a text.
Okay.And any text is secondary -- to other texts, oral tradition, etc.
Okay.Absolutely speaking, there is no such thing as an original text.
Would not that text... okay... writing... okay... set of symbols... which was first written be considered the original?As I said before, exegesis is just interested in what a text means at a given stage. Not the "origin", because no origin can ever be found in a text.
Then, I apologize as I completely misunderstood and did not discern this to be a discussion regarding "exegesis." And I was under the impression that when a thought is first written down, that writing would be the original text. The first. Perhaps I am mistaken. If so, please forgive.
End note: have you read Frannie's story of her spiritual experiences a few months ago on this board? I may be mistaken, but if I have any "ear to hear", I can perceive some echoes of yours.
No, I have not, but I am sure it is worthwhile. If time permits, I will give it a look. As always, the greatest of peace to you, dear Narkissos. A slave of Christ, SJ