Jump to content

The Christian Protestant Community Forums

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Community Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
porton

Serving other gods allowed in the past?

Recommended Posts

(Genesis 35:1) "And God said to Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there: and make there an altar to God, that appeared to you when you fled from the face of Esau your brother."

 

The second word "God" here is "al" not "ha-Elochim". So maybe this should be translated "a god"?

 

Is it possible that God allows (and even requires) Jacob to set an altar for a particular spiritual being (before the law "don't serve other Gods" came through Moses), not for God?

 

By the way, I think that "ha-Elochim" (in singular form) means "community of gods". That is one of the ways to represent our God is a community, community of entities called "gods". They are represented with singular grammar form what may mean to be united very tightly (being in peace and love with each other). In other words, the word God ("ha-Elochim") may represent heavenly democracy as opposed to the authority of individual creatures what is considered not good on people by the Bible. This also explains what "God is love" means: God is love between gods.

Edited by porton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, porton said:

Is it possible that God allows (and even requires) Jacob to set an altar for a particular spiritual being (before the law "don't serve other Gods" came through Moses), not for God?

 In the very next verse (Genesis 35:2) all other gods were to be "put away."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Faber said:

 In the very next verse (Genesis 35:2) all other gods were to be "put away."

If we interpret literally, not all but "foreign", whatever this may mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The "God" that appeared to him when he fled from his brother Esau (Genesis 35:1) is YHWH (Genesis 28:13).

And there is only one YHWH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Faber said:

 The "God" that appeared to him when he fled from his brother Esau (Genesis 35:1) is YHWH (Genesis 28:13).

And there is only one YHWH.

But YHWH may appear through an angel which spoke for Him. This angel may be the "El" mentioned in Genesis 35:1.
 

Hm, however it says that YHWH stood above angels (Genesis 28:13).

 

(I don't try to lead astray from monotheism, just want to be sure I understand the Bible exactly as written.)

 

Just need to analyze more Bible verses on this important topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
14 hours ago, porton said:

(Genesis 35:1) "And God said to Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there: and make there an altar to God, that appeared to you when you fled from the face of Esau your brother."

 

The second word "God" here is "al" not "ha-Elochim". So maybe this should be translated "a god"?

 

Is it possible that God allows (and even requires) Jacob to set an altar for a particular spiritual being (before the law "don't serve other Gods" came through Moses), not for God?

 

By the way, I think that "ha-Elochim" (in singular form) means "community of gods". That is one of the ways to represent our God is a community, community of entities called "gods". They are represented with singular grammar form what may mean to be united very tightly (being in peace and love with each other). In other words, the word God ("ha-Elochim") may represent heavenly democracy as opposed to the authority of individual creatures what is considered not good on people by the Bible. This also explains what "God is love" means: God is love between gods.

First, the word is not "al" but "el."

 

Second, the noun "el" has the article so "a god" is out of the question.

 

Third, the reason for the singular form of the noun is it to highlight it relationship to the name Beth-el (house of God - בֵֽית־אֵ֖ל).

 

Fourth, "ha-Elochim (in singular form)" does not mean "community of gods"  The word "el" (singular) means "god."  A quick look at any Hebrew lexicon will prove the point.

 

אֵל I 240.64.501.2 n.m. God—sf. ‏אֵלִי‎; pl. ‏אֵלִים‎ (Q ‏אילים‎); cstr. Q ‏אלי.

The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew vol. 1, p. 235

 

אֵל: god, deity

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament vol 1, p. 48

 

אֵל (ʾēl) god, God.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament p. 41

 

אֵל god

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon p. 41

 

אל n. m. God, god.

Dictionary  of Qumran Aramaic p. 10

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
2 hours ago, porton said:

Hm, however it says that YHWH stood above angels (Genesis 28:13).

I am not sure what your point is here.

 

Nevertheless the text does not state "YHWH stood above angels."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Origen said:

First, the word is not "al" but "el."

 

Second, the noun "el" has the article so "a god" is out of the question.

 

Third, the reason for the singular form of the noun is it to highlight it relationship to the name Beth-el (house of God - בֵֽית־אֵ֖ל).

 

Fourth, "ha-Elochim (in singular form)" does not mean "community of gods"  The word "el" (singular) means "god."  A quick look at any Hebrew lexicon will prove the point.

 

אֵל I 240.64.501.2 n.m. God—sf. ‏אֵלִי‎; pl. ‏אֵלִים‎ (Q ‏אילים‎); cstr. Q ‏אלי.

The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew vol. 1, p. 235

 

אֵל: god, deity

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament vol 1, p. 48

 

אֵל (ʾēl) god, God.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament p. 41

 

אֵל god

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon p. 41

 

אל n. m. God, god.

Dictionary  of Qumran Aramaic p. 10

2

The word "el" is with prefix "l-". With this prefix an article may be implied or absent. Whether it is a word with an article can be inferred only from vowel points. I do not believe that vowels in Hebrew Bible are God-inspired: 

 

So the article here is questionable.

 

Regarding "community of gods", as I said above, I assume that God is a "community of gods". There are many other ways to represent God not related to communities, however:

 

The lexicons are not as authoritative as Bible itself. We should infer meanings of words from a comparison of different Bible verses. "To highlight the relation with Bethel" is your guess, educated guess but not a sure understanding".

11 hours ago, Origen said:

I am not sure what your point is here.

 

Nevertheless the text does not state "YHWH stood above angels."

 

The text says that YHWH stood above a ladder with angels. Thus, above angels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
1 hour ago, porton said:

The word "el" is with prefix "l-". With this prefix an article may be implied or absent.

First, the pointing indicates an article is present.  There is no question about that.  Second, the LXX supports that reading in the MT.  It has also has the article.

 

Your comment cites no evidences.  The above evidence I provide shows the article is present.

1 hour ago, porton said:

The lexicons are not as authoritative as Bible itself.

So scholarly sources are not authoritative?  You believe (someone who clearly does not know Hebrew) are qualified to judge the work of trained Semitic scholars and sources?  Now that is interesting.

 

Quote

Regarding "community of gods", as I said above, I assume that God is a "community of gods".

You assume?  In other words you are unable to provide any scholarly source to support you claims.

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

We should infer meanings of words from a comparison of different Bible verses.

According to who?  Is that your rule?  Why should anyone accept that when you don't know Hebrew?

 

And please tell us what you do when a word is used only ONCE in the Hebrew text, when there no other examples to compare it?

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

To highlight the relation with Bethel" is your guess, educated guess but not a sure understanding

Sorry, not a guess.  I even provided the Hebrew (i.e. בֵֽית־אֵ֖ל).  The noun אֵ֖ל is the same in both cases.

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

The text says that YHWH stood above a ladder with angels. Thus, above angels.

Then point it out.   The verse you cited from the ESV does not say that.

 

Quote

And behold, the Lord stood above it and said, I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring.

 

Where does it say "YHWH stood above a ladder with angels"?

 

Here is the Hebrew text of the same verse.

 

וְהִנֵּה יְהוָה נִצָּב עָלָיו, וַיֹּאמַר אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אָבִיךָ וֵאלֹהֵי יִצְחָק; הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה שֹׁכֵב עָלֶיהָ--לְךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה וּלְזַרְעֶךָ

 

Please point out the Hebrew word for angel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Origen said:

First, the pointing indicates an article is present.  There is no question about that.  Second, the LXX supports that reading in the MT.  It has also has the article.

1

I don't believe that LXX is God-inspired.

30 minutes ago, Origen said:

Your comment cites no evidences.  The above evidence I provide shows the article is present.

So scholarly sources are not authoritative?  You believe (someone who clearly does not know Hebrew) are qualified to judge the work of trained Semitic scholars and sources?  Now that is interesting.

1

Reference to LXX means nothing for me.

 

Yes, I am sent by God to reveal the deep meaning of Hebrew Bible. God sends weak and uneducated to (1Cor. 1:27) to confound educated.

30 minutes ago, Origen said:

You assume?  In other words you are unable to provide any scholarly source to support you claims.

3

Yes, I can't prove it. But that the same word is a plural and singular seems to witness this with almost a great certainity.

30 minutes ago, Origen said:

According to who?  Is that your rule?  Why should anyone accept that when you don't know Hebrew?

I live in Israel. I speak (however not fluently) in modern Hebrew. I wrote a tutorial on ancient Hebrew without vowels.

30 minutes ago, Origen said:

And please tell us what you do when a word is used only ONCE in the Hebrew text, when there no other examples to compare it?

1

I didn't mean that this is a rule for all cases. If a word is used once, then this my rule obviously cannot be followed.

30 minutes ago, Origen said:

Sorry, not a guess.  I even provided the Hebrew (i.e. בֵֽית־אֵ֖ל).  The noun אֵ֖ל is the same in both cases.

 

I know the grammar of the word "Bethel". I mean that your guess is: "If the word El is used once in the verse, then the same word should be substituted in another parts of the same verse". This is definitely a guess.  You are right that usage of "El" as a part of "Bethel" is a sure thing, not a guess. You just misunderstood me.

30 minutes ago, Origen said:

Then point it out.   The verse you cited from the ESV does not say that.

 

 

Where does it say "YHWH stood above a ladder with angels"?

 

Here is the Hebrew text of the same verse.

 

וְהִנֵּה יְהוָה נִצָּב עָלָיו, וַיֹּאמַר אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אָבִיךָ וֵאלֹהֵי יִצְחָק; הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה שֹׁכֵב עָלֶיהָ--לְךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה וּלְזַרְעֶךָ

 

Please point out the Hebrew word for angel.

In ESV it is the English word translated "it" in "above it". It is clear that this word refers to the ladder with angels from the previous verse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
2 hours ago, porton said:

Yes, I am sent by God to reveal the deep meaning of Hebrew Bible. God sends weak and uneducated to (1Cor. 1:27) to confound educated

So is whoever most ignorant sent by God? If you ever become equipped for office or educated are more ignorant people sent to confound?

 

You're misapplying 1 Corinthians 1:27.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

image.png.6768d8adf78b3215ec8eaa6b5e607352.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
3 hours ago, porton said:

I don't believe that LXX is God-inspired.

First, you don't have to believe it is God-inspired to see the article.  Second, the LXX was translated from the Hebrew text by THOSE WHO KNEW HEBREW.  Third, you did not address the pointing in the MT.

 

3 hours ago, porton said:

Reference to LXX means nothing for me.

All you are really saying is you do not accept evidence you cannot explain away.  The LXX is an early translation of the Hebrew text.  You cannot explain why the translators (who knew Hebrew) would use the article.  The best explanation is they knew Hebrew while you clearly don't.

 

3 hours ago, porton said:

Yes, I am sent by God to reveal the deep meaning of Hebrew Bible. God sends weak and uneducated to (1Cor. 1:27) to confound educated.

That claim is proven wrong by your utter and complete lack of knowledge concerning the languages.

 

3 hours ago, porton said:

Yes, I can't prove it. But that the same word is a plural and singular seems to witness this with almost a great certainity.

Wrong again.  You provide zero evidence.  It is clear you have none.

 

3 hours ago, porton said:

I live in Israel. I speak (however not fluently) in modern Hebrew.

lol

 

3 hours ago, porton said:

I didn't mean that this is a rule for all cases. If a word is used once, then this my rule obviously cannot be followed.

It is so funny you did not address the other questions as well since they prove my point.

 

According to who?  Is that your rule?  Why should anyone accept that when you don't know Hebrew?

 

3 hours ago, porton said:

I know the grammar of the word "Bethel".

Doubtful!

 

3 hours ago, porton said:

I mean that your guess is: "If the word El is used once in the verse, then the same word should be substituted in another parts of the same verse".

It is a word play.  It happens all the time in Hebrew.

 

3 hours ago, porton said:

In ESV it is the English word translated "it" in "above it".

It does.

 

3 hours ago, porton said:

It is clear that this word refers to the ladder with angels from the previous verse.

That is not correct.  The pronoun "it" is singular and cannot refer "angels" which is plural.  That would require a plural pronoun.  The pronoun "it" refers back to only the "ladder."

 

3 hours ago, porton said:

It is clear that this word refers to the ladder with angels from the previous verse.

Wrong!  Verse 12 states: "And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it!"  Nowhere this verse say angels were standing with God.  The angels were ascending and descending upon the ladder.  The text NEVER states angels stood with God.  It states God stood above the ladder.

 

So tell us how does someone who claims "I am one sent God to reveal the deep meaning of Hebrew Bible" not understand Hebrew grammar?  Did God get the grammar wrong?  Did you misunderstand Him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, William said:

So is whoever most ignorant sent by God? If you ever become equipped for office or educated are more ignorant people sent to confound?

 

You're misapplying 1 Corinthians 1:27.

I just haven't said this.

 

And yes, if I become very educated in the field of theology, God may send somebody uneducated to eliminate my pride. Bible says it happens this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Now i understand why Paul was so uneducated.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
33 minutes ago, porton said:

I just haven't said this.

 

And yes, if I become very educated in the field of theology, God may send somebody uneducated to eliminate my pride. Bible says it happens this way.

I see no evidence of that. Again, you are misapplying the verse. Are you suggesting the wise and educated in the word of God are put to shame by the ignorant or uneducated? I suggest you keep rereading the verse in respect to context. 

 

Without grammar and theology what prevents you from reading anything into Scripture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Origen said:

First, you don't have to believe it is God-inspired to see the article.  Second, the LXX was translated from the Hebrew text by THOSE WHO KNEW HEBREW.  Third, you did not address the pointing in the MT.

 

Definitely, LXX can be useful to understand the meaning of Hebrew Bible. But it is not God-inspired. It is a point of inspiration not just of human grammar whether God (not a human through which it was written) means here an article or not. It is inspired meaning not just an ordinary grammar.

9 minutes ago, Origen said:

All you are really saying is you do not accept evidence you cannot explain away.  The LXX is an early translation of the Hebrew text.  You cannot explain why the translators (who knew Hebrew) would use the article.  The best explanation is they knew Hebrew while you clearly don't.

They translated human sense mostly. I put forth that we need to see through it and see the divine sense. The grammar for these two (or more) senses may be a little different. For example, a human translator may assume an implied article but God may mean that it can also be read without an article. I deem such things possible.

9 minutes ago, Origen said:

That claim is proven wrong by your utter and complete lack of knowledge concerning the languages.

 

The intent of this phrase was to insult me. Nevermind, it is not important.

9 minutes ago, Origen said:

Wrong again.  You provide zero evidence.  It is clear you have none.

 

I will not address this insult.

9 minutes ago, Origen said:

According to who?  Is that your rule?  Why should anyone accept that when you don't know Hebrew?

 

Accordingly to the well-known principle that the Bible should be interpreted by the Bible.

9 minutes ago, Origen said:

It is a word play.  It happens all the time in Hebrew.

1

My belief is that there is a hidden meaning behind the wordplay.

9 minutes ago, Origen said:

It does.

 

That is not correct.  The pronoun "it" is singular and cannot refer "angels" which is plural.  That would require a plural pronoun.  The pronoun "it" refers back to only the "ladder."

 

Wrong!  Verse 12 states: "And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it!"  Nowhere this verse say angels were standing with God.  The angels were ascending and descending upon the ladder.  The text NEVER states angels stood with God.  It states God stood above the ladder.

1

Sorry, I will not address this issue about the ladder. It is just not very important.

9 minutes ago, Origen said:

So tell us how does someone who claims "I am one sent God to reveal the deep meaning of Hebrew Bible" not understand Hebrew grammar?  Did God get the grammar wrong?  Did you misunderstand Him?

I would probably interpret it more exactly if I would have theological or linguistic education. But it seems that God wants to deliver His revelations through persons without such a formal background nevertheless. Not sure why but Corinthians says like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
4 minutes ago, porton said:

But it seems that God wants to deliver His revelations through persons without such a formal background nevertheless. Not sure why but Corinthians says like this.

You believe you're an Apostle or Prophet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
1 hour ago, porton said:

Definitely, LXX can be useful to understand the meaning of Hebrew Bible.

Then the article in the text is evidence.  Case closed.

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

But it is not God-inspired.

Again no one said it was.  Your point is irrelevant.

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

It is a point of inspiration not just of human grammar whether God (not a human through which it was written) means here an article or not. It is inspired meaning not just an ordinary grammar.

Well then anything goes.  If you or anyone can just ignore the grammar then you can twist the text to mean anything you want.  And that is just what you have done.

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

They translated human sense mostly.

You don't know Greek or Hebrew.  You have no idea what they are doing.

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

I put forth that we need to see through it and see the divine sense.

You ignore the grammar to force a text to mean what you want it to mean.

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

The grammar for these two (or more) senses may be a little different. For example, a human translator may assume an implied article but God may mean that it can also be read without an article. I deem such things possible.

You don't know the languages.  It is as simple as that.  You have zero qualification hence your opinions  are worthless.

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

The intent of this phrase was to insult me. Nevermind, it is not important.

Not an insult, simply a fact.  Your claim is proven wrong by your utter and complete lack of knowledge concerning the languages.

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

I will not address this insult.

It is hardly an insult to point out you have no evidence.  It is just the truth of the matter.

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

Accordingly to the well-known principle that the Bible should be interpreted by the Bible.

lol  Again, WHOSE?  Why should anyone accept it?

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

My belief is that there is a hidden meaning behind the wordplay.

You may believe that the text is about lollipops, carousels, and kangaroos if you like.  Your so-called hidden meaning is nothing more than your imagination.  That is why you can ignore Hebrew grammar.

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

Sorry, I will not address this issue about the ladder. It is just not very important.

I can see you would think that.  It proves you are wrong.  I add it here so no one can miss it.

 

The pronoun "it" is singular and cannot refer "angels" which is plural.  That would require a plural pronoun.  The pronoun "it" refers back to only the "ladder."

 

Wrong!  Verse 12 states: "And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it!"  Nowhere this verse say angels were standing with God.  The angels were ascending and descending upon the ladder.  The text NEVER states angels stood with God.  It states God stood above the ladder.

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

I would probably interpret it more exactly if I would have theological or linguistic education. But it seems that God wants to deliver His revelations through persons without such a formal background nevertheless.

Stop!  Stop!  You have me rolling on the floor.  That is so funny, hysterical.  I bet God knows Hebrew grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Origen said:

Then the article in the text is evidence.  Case closed.

 

But it is not a sure (100%) evidence.

4 minutes ago, Origen said:

Again no one said it was.  Your point is irrelevant.

 

So, it does not prove things with 100% probability. You seem to say that this LXX translation proves we must believe that here the article is implied.

4 minutes ago, Origen said:

Well then anything goes.  If you or anyone can just ignore the grammar then you can twist the text to mean anything you want.  And that is just what you have done.

I believe exactly the reverse of what you assume I believe on this.

 

I believe we should (among other ways of Bible study) apply the grammar more literally than most human translators assume. For example, (Gal. 3:16) "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He said not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to your seed, which is Christ."

 

A modern theologian would interpret it this way: "When the human author of the Bible wrote "seed", he definitely meant many descendants as clear from context". Modern theology and Bible are seriously incompatible with each other.

4 minutes ago, Origen said:

You don't know Greek or Hebrew.  You have no idea what they are doing.

 

I'd better say that my knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is yet rather bad. But there is no total lack of knowledge.

4 minutes ago, Origen said:

You ignore the grammar to force a text to mean what you want it to mean.

See the above. I reversely insist to follow the grammar literally ("as it is written").

4 minutes ago, Origen said:

You don't know the languages.  It is as simple as that.  You have zero qualification hence your opinions  are worthless.

Meant to insult me.

4 minutes ago, Origen said:

Not to insult simply a fact.

See above.

4 minutes ago, Origen said:

It is hardly an insult to point out you have no evidence.  It is just the truth of the matter.

 

lol  Again, WHOSE?  Why should anyone accept it?

 

You may believe that the text is about lollipops, carousels, and kangaroos if you like.  Your so-called hidden meaning is nothing more than your imagination.  That is why you can ignore Hebrew grammar.

 

Now I wonder. You don't believe into the spiritual sense of Bible at all? Even after all other things you said, it causes my wonder on you.

 

Logically, then you should not believe into the literal sense of the Bible, too. It's because Paul explicitly tells in God's word that there is a spiritual meaning. I even don't want to search for a quote, so obvious it is.

4 minutes ago, Origen said:

I can see you would think that.  It proves you are wrong add it here so no one can miss it.

 

That is not correct.  The pronoun "it" is singular and cannot refer "angels" which is plural.  That would require a plural pronoun.  The pronoun "it" refers back to only the "ladder."

Yes, certainly, it means the ladder, I meant that. But it said that angels were on the ladder. So, I expect that it refers to angels too, when saying that God stood above the ladder, it seems to mean that He stood above angels, too.

4 minutes ago, Origen said:

Wrong!  Verse 12 states: "And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it!"  Nowhere this verse say angels were standing with God.  The angels were ascending and descending upon the ladder.  The text NEVER states angels stood with God.  It states God stood above the ladder.

 

Yes, my word "stood" was an error. It should be "ascending and descending" instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
42 minutes ago, porton said:

But it is not a sure (100%) evidence.

Let's see.  First I pointed out the pointing indicates an article is present.  There is no question about that.  Then I pointed out the LXX supports that reading in the MT.  It has also has the article.

 

Notice what you have done, NOTHING.  You cannot refute either of my points nor have you offered any evidence to support your claim.  Add to that you have cited no scholarly sources and the fact you don't know Hebrew tell every reader everything they need to know.

 

42 minutes ago, porton said:

You seem to say that this LXX translation proves we must believe that here the article is implied.

The translators knew Hebrew.  You do not know Hebrew.  That is an easy choice.

 

42 minutes ago, porton said:

I believe exactly the reverse of what you assume I believe on this.

If you did then you would not ignore the Hebrew grammar.

 

42 minutes ago, porton said:

I'd better say that my knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is yet rather bad. But there is no total lack of knowledge.

You don't seem to get it.  You claimed "I am sent by God to reveal the deep meaning of Hebrew Bible."  Yet you don't know Hebrew.  You get the grammar wrong.  That could never happen if you were truly sent by God.  You are not.

 

42 minutes ago, porton said:

I reversely insist to follow the grammar literally ("as it is written").

You don't know the grammar, period!

 

42 minutes ago, porton said:

Meant to insult me.

You cannot even tell the difference between an insult and the truth.  So again I say without any fear of contradiction You don't know the languages.  It is as simple as that.  You have zero qualification hence your opinions are worthless.

 

42 minutes ago, porton said:

Now I wonder. You don't believe into the spiritual sense of Bible at all? Even after all other things you said, it causes my wonder on you.

Don't try and turn this back onto me.  Either you know Hebrew or you don't.  It is clear you don't.

 

42 minutes ago, porton said:

Logically, then you should not believe into the literal sense of the Bible, too.

Logically?????  lol  Come on now!

 

42 minutes ago, porton said:

It's because Paul explicitly tells in God's word that there is a spiritual meaning.

Yes he did and he did so in Greek using CORRECT GREEK GRAMMAR.  He did not have to change the rules of grammar to make his point or twist the text.

 

42 minutes ago, porton said:

Yes, certainly, it means the ladder, I meant that. But it said that angels were on the ladder.

 

42 minutes ago, porton said:

Yes, my word "stood" was an error. It should be "ascending and descending" instead.

Hold up there oh one sent by God to reveal the deep meaning of Hebrew Bible!!!  You mean you got it wrong.  How could that be if you were sent by God to reveal the deep meaning of Hebrew Bible? lol

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Pro_17:28  Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Origen said:

Let's see.  First I pointed out the pointing indicates an article is present.  There is no question about that.  Then I pointed out the LXX supports that reading in the MT.  It has also has the article.

 

Notice what you have done, NOTHING.  You cannot refute either of my points nor have you offered any evidence to support your claim.  Add to that you have cited no scholarly sources and the fact you don't know Hebrew tell every reader everything they need to know.

1

You have proved with a great amount of evidence that this is an implied definite article accordinly to the Jewish tradition. You have not proved that God implied it with certainity.

 

I am not going to reply to further insults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...