Conversations with sylvius: Rashi, 666 in Genesis 1:31, etc.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

First, the number 666 is not in Genesis 1:31. You just plucked out the hey to get the result you wanted. That makes you a "wood gatherer" by your own definition. And second, you have not shown that the parable of the sower would have anything to do with Genesis 1:31 even if the number 666 were in that verse.

The first story of creation has "yom echad", day one, cardinal, and next second day, third day, fourth day, fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day, all ordinal.

"yom echad" to be seen as all encompassing.

There is just one day, day of light.

Broken since Adam took away the "hey" from "hashishi", hinted at in Genesis 2:4 in the word "b'hibaram", which can be read as "with the letter 'hey' they were created. "B'hibaram" is the 474th word from the beginning, 474 being gematria of "da'at", knowledge,

With "hey" added to "shishi" there is new oneness, a oneness that always existed, only obscured, hidden.

At this hints Mark 4:21-23, right after the parable of the sower:

Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Μήτι ἔρχεται ὁ λύχνος ἵνα ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον τεθῇ ἢ ὑπὸ τὴν κλίνην; οὐχ ἵνα ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν τεθῇ; οὐ γάρ ἐστιν κρυπτὸν ἐὰν μὴ ἵνα φανερωθῇ, οὐδὲ ἐγένετο ἀπόκρυφον ἀλλ' ἵνα ἔλθῃ εἰς φανερόν. εἴ τις ἔχει ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω .

"modion" = grainmeausure, like chomer = 100 omer.

Adam did not "take away the hey from hashishi." You just made that up. You are the one who took away the hey to fit your pattern. You have said that such behavior is "wood gathering" and yet you and the rabbis do it all the time. You did it with the hey in hashishi and you did it again when you removed the vav from v'ed.

And worse, you have not admitted this even though I have shown your inconsistency many times. How is it that you expect anyone to agree with you when you don't even agree with yourself?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

εὐθύς

as adverbium:

immediately, at once.

Correct. But this does not have the implication you said it did.

[sylvius]

Correct. But this does not have the implication you said it did.

Mark hints at this with "εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ ", which translates Isaiah 40:3, יַשְּׁרוּ בָּעֲרָבָה מְסִלָּה לֵאלֹהֵינוּ, aplay with double meanings.

"m'sillah" seems to be a winding road or mountainpath, cognate to "sulam" = ladder.

[sylvius]

Adam did not "take away the hey from hashishi." You just made that up. You are the one who took away the hey to fit your pattern.

ok, I admit, I did so. It is my sin. I am a sinner.

You have said that such behavior is "wood gathering" and yet you and the rabbis do it all the time. You did it with the hey in hashishi and you did it again when you removed the vav from v'ed.

"ed" is principle of time, and also of speech.

Genesis 2:5,
. וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ

"siach" = bush, shrub, but also speech, meditation, thought. Gematria 318, coninciding the 318 trained servants of
Abraham (Genesis 14:14)

"terem"

Rashi:

Every טֶרֶם in Scripture has the meaning of “not yet,” and it does not mean“before,” and it cannot be made into a verb form, to say הִטְרִים, as one says הִקְדִּים

Exodus 12:34,
וַיִּשָּׂא הָעָם אֶת בְּצֵקוֹ טֶרֶם יֶחְמָץ The people picked up their dough when it was not yet leavened,

No time involved.

[sylvius]

By the way, why do you think Jesus needed an ass?

If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The master needs it and will send it back here shortly

(Greek:
ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ, Τί ποιεῖτε τοῦτο; εἴπατε, Ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχει, καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτὸν ἀποστέλλει πάλιν ὧδε.

That's strange, I see now.)

Was it for the show?
See me, Jesus, humble and mounted on a donkey entering Jerusalem?

Or was it to fulfill the prophecy?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Adam did not "take away the hey from hashishi." You just made that up. You are the one who took away the hey to fit your pattern.

ok, I admit, I did so. It is my sin. I am a sinner.

Thank you. Does this mean you will quit calling me a "wood gatherer" when I do the same thing that you do?

But I wouldn't call you a "sinner" - you were merely wrong because you were inconsistent in your judgments. Your "scale" was unbalanced.

Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

You have said that such behavior is "wood gathering" and yet you and the rabbis do it all the time. You did it with the hey in hashishi and you did it again when you removed the vav from v'ed.

"ed" is principle of time, and also of speech.

How do you know that? You can't use "ed" because that would be "wood gathering" since it is not written as such in the Bible.

Genesis 2:5,
. וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ

"siach" = bush, shrub, but also speech, meditation, thought. Gematria 318, coninciding the 318 trained servants of
Abraham (Genesis 14:14)

More wood gathering. You could find many words that sum to 318. It proves nothing by itself.

"terem"

Rashi:


Exodus 12:34,
וַיִּשָּׂא הָעָם אֶת בְּצֵקוֹ טֶרֶם יֶחְמָץ The people picked up their dough when it was not yet leavened,

No time involved.

False. There was time involved. It may have been a little time, but time nonetheless. It makes no sense at all to say that there was "no time involved."

[sylvius]

How do you know that?

Nothing had yet grown.
Growth is a process in time.

More wood gathering. You could find many words that sum to 318. It proves nothing by itself.

It intimates that language is structured according the 1-4 principle = "ed"

False. There was time involved. It may have been a little time, but time nonetheless. It makes no sense at all to say that there was "no time involved."

It is the same as Paul's mystery:
in an indivisible moment of time we will all be changed .

[Richard Amiel McGough]

More wood gathering. You could find many words that sum to 318. It proves nothing by itself.

It intimates that language is structured according the 1-4 principle = "ed"

But it's not what is written. You have repeatedly said that picking things out of the text that are not written is just "wood gathering."

So why should anyone be interested in your wood gathering? And why do you believe in your wood gathering?

It is the same as Paul's mystery:
in an indivisible moment of time we will all be changed .

Once again, you just make up a random association that has no meaning.

[sylvius]

But it's not what is written. You have repeatedly said that picking things out of the text that are not written is just "wood gathering."

The word is "ed", written "alef-dalet", the "vav" is there to bind it to the beforegoing verse.

"ed" is the eternal source of water/time.

In LXX translated with "pègè":

πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπότιζεν πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς

(Note that δὲ stands for the Hebrew letter "vav" in "v'ed". )

Also John means Hebrew "ed" where he writes, John 4:14,
ὃς δ' ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

Why?

Because "ed" is also principle of the resurrection.

Genesis 2:7,
And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.

Rashi:

formed: [וַיִּיצֶר, with two “yuds,” hints at] two creations, a creation for this world and a creation for the [time of the] resurrection of the dead, but in connection with the animals, which do not stand in judgment, two“yuds” are not written in [the word וַיִּצֶר describing their creation. — [from Tan. Tazria 1]

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The word is "ed", written "alef-dalet", the "vav" is there to bind it to the beforegoing verse.

So now you are trying to justify your wood gathering?

"ed" is the eternal source of water/time.

How is it that you feel confident to invent a dogma like that from a single word in Scripture?

The word "ed" occurs only twice in the whole Bible. Why would you want to make up a doctrine from something so obscure?

In LXX translated with "pègè":

πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπότιζεν πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς

(Note that δὲ stands for the Hebrew letter "vav" in "v'ed". )

Also John means Hebrew "ed" where he writes, John 4:14,
ὃς δ' ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

Why?

Because "ed" is also principle of the resurrection.

Genesis 2:7,
And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.

Rashi:

John most certainly was not talking about the obscure word "ed" when he spoke of the pege (fountain) of water.