Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 83
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    But there is nothing that would suggest the two different versions relate in any way to the New Covenant. You are starting with an arbitrary assumption without any reason that I can see. And there is nothing in those 86 letters that have anything to do with the New Covenant except the fact that for the appearance of the word "tov." But that is not sufficient reason for anyone to come to your conclusions. Your theories seem very idiosyncratic.
    As said, I am "blinded" by my own discovery of the NT-number 666 in Genesis 1:31 and of the NT-number 153 in Genesis 1:12.

    The tabernacle is said to be rectification of the sin of the golden calf.

    http://www.breslov.com/world/parsha/terumah_5756.html
    The sin of worshipping the Golden Calf incorporated every sin in the entire Torah. Moshe was commanded to construct the Mishkan as a rectification for it
    So without the smashing of the tablets there even would't have been an ark of the covenant and a holy of holies named "d'vir" with gematria 216.\ and no rending of the curtain at the moment Jesus died at the cross.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    That's what I thought. I trust you have the wisdom not to criticize things you don't understand.
    It was a bit sarcastic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    That's right. The idea of the "Word" is one of the concepts subsumed by the numerical category defined by the Number 2 and the Letter Bet. There is no confusion.
    "Bet" is the second letter after "alef". "Alef" is silent, the "bet" explosive.
    "Bara", translated as to create, has tot do with what is called "big bang", I think.
    "In the beginning God bigbanged the heaven and the earth"
    while "ïn the beginning"is also not a very good translation, "b'reishit" (with large written"letter "bet") - How you would translate?
    Strange: "yirah", fear, also has gematria 216.
    Psalms 111:10, רֵאשִׁית חָכְמָה יִרְאַת יְ-ה-וָ-ה
    LXX has ἐν ἀρχῇ, "en archei", clearly taken over by John, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. How you would translate that?
    I think it is also in Mark 1:1, Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ].
    So I think Mark's ἀρχή has to be understood as רֵאשִׁית, especially since Mark as a whole can be read in a circular way. (The original Mark ending with Mark 16:8, καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, and they said nothing to no one, for they feared
    (circular way -- "amphodon" --in Mark 11:4 καὶ ἀπῆλθον καὶ εὗρον πῶλον δεδεμένον πρὸς θύραν ἔξω ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀμφόδου
    θύρα = door, Herew "delet", gematria 434, coinciding the 434 words in the first chapter of Hebrew Genesis.
    πῶλον, after Zechariah 9:9, the colt of a donkey, donkey = chamor, חֲמוֹר, carrying "donkey-burden", "chomer" = 100 "omer", the secret of the parable of the sower -- they found hundredfold = "meah sh'arim" מֵאָה שְׁעָרִים(Geneis 26:12 ), gematria 666.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And when reading the rabbinical writings, how do you discern between something "revealed" vs. something made up?
    There is some discerner, even after Hebrews 4:12.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And I'm still unclear about your position on the Bible. Do you accept the Tanakh as totally inspired? Do you rejection some OT books? How much the NT do you think is authoritative? I know you reject the book of Hebrews. Do you reject other NT books? Is any of it inspired in the same way as the OT?
    I don't reject books. I just said Hebrews is not written by Paul, that it misinterprets Pslams 110 and that it had a very bad influence on Christianity.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Maybe the rabbi made up the story about the Samael riding a big camel because of the gematria. That's very common in the rabbinical writings. They start with the gematria and make up stories to fit. For example, they say that Eliezer was the only one to accompany Abram to retrieve Lot:
    That Eliezer took part in that battle, or was, perhaps, the only combatant at Abraham's side, the Rabbis find indicated in the number (318) of the soldiers (Gen. xiv. 14), the numerical value of the letters in being 1 + 30 + 10 + 70 + 7 + 200 = 318 (Gen. R. xliii., xliv.; Pesiḳ. 70a, b; Ned. 32a; Shoḥer Ṭob to Ps. cx.; compare Ep. Barnabas ix.; it is the classical illustration of Gemaṭria under the twenty-ninth Exegetical Rule of Eliezer, the son of Jose the Galilean)
    This kind of gematria is meaningless because nothing can be established with any certainty. And it makes a mockery of serious Bible study when folks feel free to make up interpretations that directly contradict what the text plainly states (Abram took 318 trained servants).
    Eliezer returns als Lazarus in NT, Lazarus the disciple whom Jesus loved, and Jesus being crucified because of the bringing back to life of Lazarus.
    Gematria 318 is also gematria of "siach" in Genesis 2:5,
    וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ
    "siach", bush, shrub, but also: speech, meditation, thought.
    Note what Rashi says about "terem":
    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 This verse proves this, as well as another verse (Exod. 9:30):“ כִּי טֶרֶם תִּירְאוּן, You will not yet fear.” This verse too should be explained to mean that [no tree] was yet on the earth (Targum Onkelos). When the creation of the world was completed on the sixth day, before man was created, no herb of the field had yet grown. And on the third [day], where it is written:“Let the earth bring forth,” they [the plants] had not yet emerged, but they stood at the entrance of the ground until the sixth day. And why? Because He had not caused it to rain, because there was no man to work the soil, and no one recognized the benefit of rain, but when man came and understood that they were essential to the world, he prayed for them, and they fell, and the trees and the herbs sprouted. — [from Chul. 60b]
    which means the "ed" אֵד, "1-4", in Genesis 2:6 is principle of time, but also principle of speech (language), even principle of the resurrection.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And besides, Samael is not even in the Bible. That's Jewish demonology. Why would you believe any of it? Do you really think there is a demon names Samael who "rode upon the serpent as big as a camel when he tempted Eve." The Bible says nothing about that!
    Someone who is imposing his own right, his own dogma, is like Samael.






    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And you didn't address the answer I gave. You didn't understand the connection between Gimel and the Holy Spirit so I explained it to you but you have not responded.
    My discerner said it is nonsense, your connection between gimel and the holy spirit.
    The spirit connects holy and profane.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius
    As said, I am "blinded" by my own discovery of the NT-number 666 in Genesis 1:31 and of the NT-number 153 in Genesis 1:12.
    But yom shishi is not what is written. You methods seem very inconsistent because when I noted that d'vir kadesh = 620 you answered by saying:
    It is written:
    "b'nasi yadav el-d'vir kadshècha"

    דְּבִיר קָדְשֶׁךָ = 640
    So what's going on? Do you feel free to make conclusions from things not written in the Bible when it suits your purpose, but you reject them otherwise?

    But as for the number 666 appearing in Genesis 1:31 - it appears a lot earlier than that. It appears in the first verse:



    See my article on 666.

    The tabernacle is said to be rectification of the sin of the golden calf.

    http://www.breslov.com/world/parsha/terumah_5756.html

    So without the smashing of the tablets there even would't have been an ark of the covenant and a holy of holies named "d'vir" with gematria 216.\ and no rending of the curtain at the moment Jesus died at the cross.
    You don't know that. How do you know the tradition is true? Why do you believe it? Why should I believe it?

    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    That's what I thought. I trust you have the wisdom not to criticize things you don't understand.
    It was a bit sarcastic.
    I think it was truer than you intended, given your response to the evidence I've shown.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    "Bet" is the second letter after "alef". "Alef" is silent, the "bet" explosive.
    "Bara", translated as to create, has tot do with what is called "big bang", I think.
    "In the beginning God bigbanged the heaven and the earth"
    while "ïn the beginning"is also not a very good translation, "b'reishit" (with large written"letter "bet") - How you would translate?
    Strange: "yirah", fear, also has gematria 216.
    Psalms 111:10, רֵאשִׁית חָכְמָה יִרְאַת יְ-ה-וָ-ה
    LXX has ἐν ἀρχῇ, "en archei", clearly taken over by John, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. How you would translate that?
    I think it is also in Mark 1:1, Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ].
    So I think Mark's ἀρχή has to be understood as רֵאשִׁית, especially since Mark as a whole can be read in a circular way. (The original Mark ending with Mark 16:8, καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, and they said nothing to no one, for they feared
    (circular way -- "amphodon" --in Mark 11:4 καὶ ἀπῆλθον καὶ εὗρον πῶλον δεδεμένον πρὸς θύραν ἔξω ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀμφόδου
    θύρα = door, Herew "delet", gematria 434, coinciding the 434 words in the first chapter of Hebrew Genesis.
    πῶλον, after Zechariah 9:9, the colt of a donkey, donkey = chamor, חֲמוֹר, carrying "donkey-burden", "chomer" = 100 "omer", the secret of the parable of the sower -- they found hundredfold = "meah sh'arim" מֵאָה שְׁעָרִים(Geneis 26:12 ), gematria 666.
    I think "in the beginning" is the best translation for both Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. If folks want to study the deeper meaning, they need to go beyond translation and deal with the original text.

    It is interesting that the construct form yirat = 611 = Torah. And b'yirat = 613 = b'torah.

    How does the omer relate to the parable of the sower?

    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    And I'm still unclear about your position on the Bible. Do you accept the Tanakh as totally inspired? Do you rejection some OT books? How much the NT do you think is authoritative? I know you reject the book of Hebrews. Do you reject other NT books? Is any of it inspired in the same way as the OT?
    I don't reject books. I just said Hebrews is not written by Paul, that it misinterprets Pslams 110 and that it had a very bad influence on Christianity.
    It would help if you could be a little more clear. Are you saying that you accept the NT as "inspired" in the same way as the OT?

    And it sounds like you reject Hebrews as authoritative like the Tanakh.

    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius
    And you didn't address the answer I gave. You didn't understand the connection between Gimel and the Holy Spirit so I explained it to you but you have not responded.
    My discerner said it is nonsense, your connection between gimel and the holy spirit.
    The spirit connects holy and profane.
    Your answer is nonsense.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    But yom shishi is not what is written.
    it is written יוֹם אֶחָד, יוֹם שֵׁנִי, יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי, יוֹם רְבִיעִי, יוֹם חֲמִישִׁי, יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי:

    So only to "shishi" the letter "hey" was added.






    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It is written:
    "b'nasi yadav el-d'vir kadshècha"

    דְּבִיר קָדְשֶׁךָ = 640
    So what's going on? Do you feel free to make conclusions from things not written in the Bible when it suits your purpose, but you reject them otherwise?
    In the case of "yom hashishi" the name of God, the Tetragrammaton, appears to be hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi", יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי, the last two words of Genesis 1:31 ( "hashishi" being the 434th and last word of the first chapter of Genesis) and of "vay'chulu hashamayim", וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם , the first two words of Genesis 2:1, thus binding together the sixth and the seventh day (sabbath) , the profane and the holy.

    Otherwise the name of God doesn't occur in the first story of creation. there is just mentioning of "elohim".

    This being something most Jews forbid me to say, me being a non-Jew.
    Some times you'll find something:
    http://tophqbooks.com/books/81161
    we introduce our Shabbat Kiddush with "yom hashishi [the sixth day], two words which are entirely out of place since they constitute the conclusion of a previous verse (we may even say a previous chapter) with no grammatical connection with what follows. Why do we do this? In order that the first four words uttered aloud bear the initials that spell Hashem [Yom Hashishi Vaychulu Hashamayim].
    And more: Jesus was crucified on the sixth day and laid in the tomb exactly at te entrance of sabbath, Mark using the word θύρα, door.
    Mark 15:46, καὶ προσεκύλισεν λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου

    λίθος, stone, also occuring in Mark 12:10,
    Λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας.

    ἀποδοκιμάζω, to disapprove, reject, repudiate, also occuring in Mark 8:31,
    Καὶ ἤρξατο διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι.

    And more: after Deuteronomy 8:8 the olive is fruit of the sixth day, olive that has to be pressed to obtain the oil "shemen".

    And more: The letter "hey" that was added to "shishi'has the numerical value of 5, gematria of "ed" in Genesis 2:6, where LXX has πηγὴ, fountain, spring.

    And more: Genesis 2:4 has "b'hibaram", to be read as "with the letter "hey" they were created", same letter that was added to the name Abra(ha)m, the 474th word from the beginning, 474 being gematria of "da'at", knowledge.

    And more : Joktan ("the little one") forms together with his brother Peleg the 15 th of the 26 generations form Adam to the revelation at Siani, where God revealed his name on the sixth day of Sivan

    Rashi:
    the sixth day: Scripture added a “hey” on the sixth [day], at the completion of the Creation, to tell us that He stipulated with them, [“you were created] on the condition that Israel accept the Five Books of the Torah.” [The numerical value of the “hey” is five.] (Tanchuma Bereishith 1). Another explanation for “the sixth day” : They [the works of creation] were all suspended until the “sixth day,” referring to the sixth day of Sivan, which was prepared for the giving of the Torah (Shab. 88a). [The“hey” is the definite article, alluding to the well-known sixth day, the sixth day of Sivan, when the Torah was given (ad loc.).]
    And there is still much more .


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You don't know that. How do you know the tradition is true? Why do you believe it? Why should I believe it?
    golden calf = "egel hazahav".

    "egel" from same root as "igul" , circle, and "agalah", wagon.

    Worshipping the golden calf being like worshipping a closed system, sticking to a circular reasoning.

    Hinted at in Geneis 45:27,
    And they told him all of Joseph's words that he had said to them, and he saw the wagons that Joseph had sent to carry him, and the spirit of their father Jacob was revived.
    Rashi:
    He (Joseph) gave them a sign, viz., in what topic he was engaged when he (Joseph) separated from him (Jacob). [That was] the section dealing with the heifer that was to be beheaded (עֶגְלָה עִרוּפָה) (Deut. 21), and this is what [Scripture] says, “and he saw the wagons that Joseph had sent,” and it (Scripture) does not say, “that Pharaoh had sent.” [from Gen. Rabbah 94:3]
    Strange thing is that in the first chapter of Genesis no letter "samech" occurs.
    First time "samech" appears is in Genesis 2:11, הוּא הַסֹּבֵב אֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה , "hu hasoveiv et kol erets hachavilah", the one that encircles all teh land of Chavilah . From which you might conclude that the Ashuri script, in which "samech" is written round, like a circle, is the original script with which the tablets of stone were inscribed.

    But also that indeed the letter "hey" in "hashishi" is extra, being the (roof)window/opening in every self-sufficient system.
    Last edited by sylvius; 06-03-2012 at 11:52 PM.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I think "in the beginning" is the best translation for both Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. If folks want to study the deeper meaning, they need to go beyond translation and deal with the original text.
    Why then it was not written: "bat'chillah"?

    Vulgata has:
    in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram

    Obviously knowing the difference between "reishit" and "t'chillah".

    Vulgata John 1:1,
    in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

    Vulgata Mark 1:1,
    initium evangelii Iesu Christi Filii Dei

    (which is a capital blunder)

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    How does the omer relate to the parable of the sower?
    The "omer" is the amount of manna gathered each day, Exodus 16:16.
    Exodus 16:28, It came to pass on the sixth day that they gathered a double portion of bread, two omers for [each] one
    Rashi on Genesis 2:3,
    And…blessed…and hallowed: He blessed it with manna, for on all the days of the week, it descended for them [in the amount of] an omer per person, whereas on the sixth day,[each one received] a double portion. And He hallowed it with manna, that it did not descend at all on the Sabbath.
    "omer" is a grain-measure.
    1 "chomer" (donkey-burden) = 100 "omer" -- the ones sown on the good earth found "meah sh'arim" = 666.
    Mark 4:21,
    And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel
    (the sixth and the seventh day bound together forming a new day one, day one = day of the light)

    Why also mentioned thirtyfold and sixtyfold?

    Might be because of 10+20+30+40=100 (a triangle)

    But that's just a guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It would help if you could be a little more clear. Are you saying that you accept the NT as "inspired" in the same way as the OT?
    I wouldn't say so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And it sounds like you reject Hebrews as authoritative like the Tanakh.
    I would subscribe to 1 Corinthians 13:12, For now we see as through a mirror in riddles

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    it is written יוֹם אֶחָד, יוֹם שֵׁנִי, יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי, יוֹם רְבִיעִי, יוֹם חֲמִישִׁי, יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי:

    So only to "shishi" the letter "hey" was added.
    It's not what was written. That's what you told me when I presented an identity that was not written in Scripture. It seems you hold others to a different standard than yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    In the case of "yom hashishi" the name of God, the Tetragrammaton, appears to be hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi", יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי, the last two words of Genesis 1:31 ( "hashishi" being the 434th and last word of the first chapter of Genesis) and of "vay'chulu hashamayim", וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם , the first two words of Genesis 2:1, thus binding together the sixth and the seventh day (sabbath) , the profane and the holy.

    Otherwise the name of God doesn't occur in the first story of creation. there is just mentioning of "elohim".
    You can find little patterns scattered everywhere in Scripture. Why is this one so important? What do you think it means? It's been your "hobby horse" for years. Why is it significant? What information does it give us?

    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    This being something most Jews forbid me to say, me being a non-Jew.
    Some times you'll find something:
    http://tophqbooks.com/books/81161
    What was the "something" you found?

    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    And more: Jesus was crucified on the sixth day and laid in the tomb exactly at te entrance of sabbath, Mark using the word θύρα, door.
    Mark 15:46, καὶ προσεκύλισεν λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου

    λίθος, stone, also occuring in Mark 12:10,
    Λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας.

    ἀποδοκιμάζω, to disapprove, reject, repudiate, also occuring in Mark 8:31,
    Καὶ ἤρξατο διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι.

    And more: after Deuteronomy 8:8 the olive is fruit of the sixth day, olive that has to be pressed to obtain the oil "shemen".

    And more: The letter "hey" that was added to "shishi'has the numerical value of 5, gematria of "ed" in Genesis 2:6, where LXX has πηγὴ, fountain, spring.

    And more: Genesis 2:4 has "b'hibaram", to be read as "with the letter "hey" they were created", same letter that was added to the name Abra(ha)m, the 474th word from the beginning, 474 being gematria of "da'at", knowledge.

    And more : Joktan ("the little one") forms together with his brother Peleg the 15 th of the 26 generations form Adam to the revelation at Siani, where God revealed his name on the sixth day of Sivan
    Long lists of uninterpreted facts don't really help much. What's the point of all those facts? What do you think it all means?

    You talk a lot about the NT. Do you consider yourself a Christian? A Nazarene? A Messianic Jew? ???
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It's not what was written. That's what you told me when I presented an identity that was not written in Scripture. It seems you hold others to a different standard than yourself.
    "yom shishi" is a valid, existing, combination of words, whereas "d'vir kodesh" is not; it should have been "d'vir kadosh", which is a pleonasm.
    the leaving out of the letterr "hey"from "hashishi" doesn't hurt the plain meaning of the text. Most translations don't respect the extra letter,
    LXX doesn't
    http://www.septuagint.org/LXX/Genesis/1
    ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί ἡμέρα ἕκτη

    KJV doesn't, although it has
    And the evening and the morning were the sixth day,
    it has also:
    And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    And the evening and the morning were the second day.etc.
    "The first day" being double blunder -- it translates Hebrew "yom echad" - day one.
    Not for nothing KJV is sarcastically called KJPV .. King James Perversion.

    But USCCB is also wrong, perverse:
    http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/1



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You can find little patterns scattered everywhere in Scripture. Why is this one so important?
    This is the place of God's Name.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    What was the "something" you found?
    "we introduce our Shabbat Kiddush with "yom hashishi [the sixth day], two words which are entirely out of place since they constitute the conclusion of a previous verse (we may even say a previous chapter) with no grammatical connection with what follows. Why do we do this? In order that the first four words uttered aloud bear the initials that spell Hashem [Yom Hashishi Vaychulu Hashamayim]."

    I am not Jewish and not allowed to partake.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Long lists of uninterpreted facts don't really help much. What's the point of all those facts? What do you think it all means?
    It means crisis.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    "yom shishi" is a valid, existing, combination of words, whereas "d'vir kodesh" is not; it should have been "d'vir kadosh", which is a pleonasm.
    D'vir kodesh is perfectly valid. Many nouns are modified by kadosh and kadosheka. We have examples that prove it is a valid form:

    עַם-קָדְשֶׁךָ .
    Am Kadosheka (Isaiah 63:18)
    עַם-קָדֹשׁ .
    Am Kadosh (Deut 26:19)
    דְּבִיר קָדְשֶׁךָ .
    D'vir Kadosheka (Psalm 28:2)
    דְּבִיר קָדֹשׁ .
    D'vir Kadosh (Not written)

    You just don't want to admit you are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    the leaving out of the letterr "hey"from "hashishi" doesn't hurt the plain meaning of the text. Most translations don't respect the extra letter,
    LXX doesn't
    Now you are making up excuses for changing the text of the Bible to fit your hobby horse?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    D'vir kodesh is perfectly valid. Many nouns are modified by kadosh and kadosheka. We have examples that prove it is a valid form:


    You just don't want to admit you are wrong.
    You wrote "d'vir kodesh", but meant "d'vir kadosh", which is a pleonasm, because "d'vir" is already the name of the holy of holies.

    and "kadosh" is ususally written with "vav".

    Dt. 14:2,

    כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה

    Dt. 26:19 being an exception, you computerd up for to get your own right.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    You wrote "d'vir kodesh", but meant "d'vir kadosh", which is a pleonasm, because "d'vir" is already the name of the holy of holies.

    and "kadosh" is ususally written with "vav".

    Dt. 14:2,

    כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה

    Dt. 26:19 being an exception, you computerd up for to get your own right.
    I wrote kadosheka and kadosh in the four examples I gave:

    עַם-קָדְשֶׁךָ .
    Am Kadosheka (Isaiah 63:18)
    עַם-קָדֹשׁ .
    Am Kadosh (Deut 26:19)
    דְּבִיר קָדְשֶׁךָ .
    D'vir Kadosheka (Psalm 28:2)
    דְּבִיר קָדֹשׁ .
    D'vir Kadosh (Not written)

    It was a simple typo when I wrote "d'vir kodesh." You can't make a case out of a typo - your posts are filled with many typos.

    And it wouldn't matter if kadosh is "usually" written with a vav. You said it is wrong to write it the way it is written in the Bible. You have been proven wrong. But you won't admit it. It's sad that you don't you realize what this does to your credibility.

    It is absurd for you to say that I "computered up for to get your own right." I used the computer to find the facts that prove you are wrong. But you still won't admit it. This makes all your posts suspect. If you refuse to admit an incontrovertible fact when it is staring you in the face, why should anyone believe anything you say?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •