THREES <---> ESTHER
Isn't that great about this year 5783. May it be a year of "83", the gimel גימל, the 3:
"ג' באין בהיסח הדעת אלו הן משיח מציאה ועקרב"
Third time's the charm!
😉
Posted on 06/14/2023 2:45:40 AM PDT by spirited irish
The God of Genesis is not someone whom Christians share with Islam, modern-day non-Messianic Judaism,1 Hinduism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, or any other belief system which rejects the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Rather, unlike those systems, Genesis portrays the God of Christianity (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) to be the God who is not only one, but is also more than one.
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotandliberty.com ...
Yeah, it’s a little early to get the popcorn out.
Rather than basically being cryptic, you should state your specific objection that one may target it.
And it should give one pause....If my translation is patently incorrect/imprecise here.... where else have I been (unintentionally) misled?
Actually since you seem you claim to have found one discrepancy in an obscure verse and which changes no essential salvific doctrine, which would be one of a list of alleged errors which is due to the Bible being scrutinized with a fine-tooth comb in seeking to find such in order to impugn what it unquestionably teaches (which objectors usually ignore commentaries which explain such), then the question is, what is the likelihood of any errors not having been found, esp. any that would change any essential salvific doctrine?
God promised to preserve His word, but man is a steward of the transmission of it, and spelling and transnational errors do not negate the promise of God.
Why, sure we do, even if they do not agree.
And Genesis 6:1 throws in some extra stuff.
Ridiculous. Genesis is not a chrstian book. It wasn't written by chrstians. No one mentioned in it was ever a chrstian. The only way you can believe this is to assume from the outset that a religion that didn't even exist until 2000 years ago has the authority to claim Genesis for its own.
G-d didn't give Israel a 66 book Thomas Nelson chrstian Bible. He gave them the Five Books of Moses. But how do you argue with people who insist that one is obligated to believe without actually being sure?
"Suggest?" In other words, the "old testament" doesn't actually teach it but the "new testament" says it does. So you have to already believe it to see it there!
The word has nothing to do with the chrstian "trinity," which is only found in the "new testament" (and not really there either, as the whole concept was hammered out in church councils after Constantine had already inaugurated "baptized heathenism").
That pretty much ends the debate, that leaves whether God is two or three and in that the Bible again clearly states there are three entities that make the whole.
Hebrew has a dual form. But why should the plural be limited to three? Maybe there are twenty of 'em!
Sophistry is getting into a triune-tizzy every time a multiple of three pops up in scripture.
Why so? I have provided scripture that supports the plurality of God, I am not seeing scripture that refutes.
It was stated here no such Old Testament references existed and I provided some, yet you say I am using a disingenuous argument? How so?
It’s the little discrepancies isn’t it? You are quick to point out the natural plural of Elohim (is that a natural triple?) and you miss the discrepancy in the very first word of scripture.
Bereishit bara Elohim et hashamayim v’et haaretz. Literaly means:
In the beginning of __________ G-d created the heavens and earth.
You’ll find no Christian source for the “of...” but there are oceans of meaning and commentary in the Jewish sources that predate Christianity.
Little discrepancies— like “virgin” or “young woman” or “will be pregnant” vs “is pregnant.”
Salvation from the Paschal Lamb? (the Paschal lamb was not brought for forgiveness or repentance....)
So grammatically, contextually, and in accuracy of comprehension Christianity needs to hit the books (the first 24) find their local Orthodox Jewish rabbi, and worship the One G-d of the universe.
Interesting. I totally support the literal translation as you would have it, the problem is you did not literally translate the text, for starters it would be “In beginning” “the” should not be their either.
And that matters as well. it makes the difference between an event at the beginning verses the very instance of beginning all. A Rabbi would be quick to point that out.
THREES <---> ESTHER
Isn't that great about this year 5783. May it be a year of "83", the gimel גימל, the 3:
"ג' באין בהיסח הדעת אלו הן משיח מציאה ועקרב"
Third time's the charm!
😉
I also left out the translation of “et” “et hashamayim” and “et haaretz”
But we’re splitting hairs.
Your “interesting” is interesting because the usual response is push-back.
There are thousands of grammatical, contextual, and spelling “mistakes” in the codex (or plain old Septuagint that all agree on-— the Five Books of Moses) and one can either chalk it up to G-d’s failure to master the Holy Tongue (G-d forbid) OR.... a deeper message. And Judaism has oceans of commentary on them. We have our own answers to “let us make”
(how about “let us descend?????” G-d has an altimeter?
Did you know that in Jewish tradition the rabbis who translated the Hebrew into “the Septuagint” miraculously came up with the exact text though they were physically separated. And they changed the exact translation in precise ways to prevent heretical understanding by the Greeks—
They all translated “Bara Elohim breishit.... et hashamayim”
G-d created firstly.... the heavens...
Lest the Greeks understand that Bereishit bara... meant an entity called Bereishit (bara) created G-d...
So the little details matter greatly.
Salvation from the Paschal Lamb? (the Paschal lamb was not brought for forgiveness or repentance....)
Maybe it's one of those wacky "out of left field" kinds of things.
Exo 13
13. And every firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb [בשה]; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break his neck; and all the firstborn of man among your children shall you redeem:
14. And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying, What is this? that you shall say to him, By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the house of slavery:
15. And it came to pass, when Pharaoh [פרעה 355] would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast; therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all that opens the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem:
😊
Right on!
The translation of the LXX, 70:
"Ἑβδομήκοντα" = 570
"Targum of Seventy"
תרגום השבעים
= 1076
"Observe my statues!"
Author: Michelangelo Buonarroti
Date: 1501 - 1504
Collection: SCULPTURE
Technique: Marble
Dimensions: h. 517 cm
Inventory: Inv. Scult. n. 1076
A "Gentile" David = 50 [דייוויד], and King David [דוד 14] lived to be 70.
Naturally. In "beis" 14, 50 is 70 in base 10.
Makes sense -- base 14 is a stone. (5 stone = 70 lbs.)
570, it's all in there, the total round up:
570 = "it shall be a jubilee to you" יובל הוא תהיה לכם (Lev 25.10)
50th gate (שער 570), !'שער ה-נ
Remember the place named the "Bell in Hand"? It's located next to The Point across from the stone pair at the head of the corner. Address 45 Union, so it's a stone's throw from the Union "Esther" House as well.
It really takes 'street view' to see how it all merges together.
You see, Jimmy was Boston’s town crier for fifty years. Good news or bad, Bostonians heard it all from Jimmy. He reported on everything from the Boston Tea Party to the birth of the nation.
Bell in Hand:
Little discrepancies? The only discrepancy in the one you are quick to allege is btwn what the Hebrew actually states versus your uninspired tradition. While there is no word in the Hebrew here for "of," it can be added as is usually done when together with the Hebrew fdr beginning, but then the question is the beginning of what? Time? Creation?
In short, the absence of "of" is not an error nor would supply it necessarily contradict what is expressed without it. And there is no discrepancy.
As for the natural plural of Elohim, seeing as God choose to use a plural word (rather than YACHID= one and ONE ALONE) and refers to Himself as "US" and "OUR" about 6 times, and in Deut 6:4: "Yahweh is one," the word "Echad" is used for one, which is also sometimes used in the composite sense, as in Genesis 2:24, "the two shall become one [echad] flesh," then the definition of one is the issue.
Little discrepancies— like “virgin” or “young woman”
You mean that you think "almah" cannot describe a virgin, and in fact most likely always does in the Hebrew - versus fornicators? (Gen. 24:43; Exo. 2:8; Ps. 68:25; Prov. 30:19, SoS 1:3; SoS 6:8) Then you have "Lament like a virgin [bethûlâh] girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth." (Joel 1:8)
Salvation from the Paschal Lamb? (the Paschal lamb was not brought for forgiveness or repentance....)
That represents protection from judgment, and the yearly feast was to which commemorates that deliverance, which was provided in recognition of the mandated future day of blood atonement that would come. (Lev. 16) Thanks be to God! The feast of the Paschal Lamb is corespondent to the Lord's supper in the NT., which is not a sacrifice for sin.
So grammatically, contextually, and in accuracy of comprehension Christianity needs to hit the books (the first 24) find their local Orthodox Jewish rabbi, and worship the One G-d of the universe.
Rather, why would we want to go back into propaganda? If we wanted claims of Tradition, Catholicism has plenty of that!
It reads that way to me:
Genesis 1:26 NKJV
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Without having any physical aspects due to being a spirit I do wonder how it could be described as either male or female. I know that wisdom is described as a she. Maybe that was referring to the Holy Spirit but I don’t remember the context of those verses.
Yes and yes. I am of the school of thought that one should take the bible as literal and as written originally as is possible.
Where “scholars” would say it was a grammatical error by the human author I operate under the belief it was by God’s design and not an error. Taking into account obvious missing / destroyed and unreadable fragments we are forced to extrapolate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.