Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama is one of the most Israeli/Jewish friendly president in the U.S.
Jewish people should be greatful and happy that they live in freedom country, being accepted in America (& Canada) and worship their religion and faith freely, without almost any anti-semitic problems/issues anywhere.
USA supports Israel 100%, and they are the main reason Israel is a nation. America gives Israel billions of dollars every year of tax payers money, and yet they are still Anti-America and hates us Instead of feeding our poor people here, we give Israel the money, and there's no thanks for it for the Jewish people.
Worst of all, they deny the God what 80% of Americans believe in, yet they are still accepted in our society and live like kings without worrying about anything.
Please, stop with this hatred.
BTW I don't think that 1.7-2% of the votes would really help out deciding a president in America. What about the 98% that are not Jews?
The hatred is coming from you.
As to anti-semitic attacks against us, you are right there are not many. But there have been enough that we lock our buildings to keep ourselves and our children safe.
There have been enough attacks against us so we know that we are never 100% safe even in this country. If you have never lived with this you will never understand.
So 80% of Americans worship G-d, the G-d of the Bible, the G-d of the Old Testament and New Testament.
The G-d of the Old Testament Also found in the Hebrew Scripture which is where the Old Testament comes from.
So you don't worship the same G-d the Jewish people worship? Then why in the world do you care so much what your Old Testament says? You use it to prove your New Testament.
Christians are always talking about the Judeo/Christian values they have..
Worst of all, they deny the God what 80% of Americans believe in, yet they are still accepted in our society and live like kings without worrying about anything.
I was going to say that you need some attitude adjustment. But it isn't attitude adjustment that you need. First you need some education, and then whatever drugs you're taking need to be removed from your medicine cabinet.
You sound like you're coming straight out of the Middle Ages. Do you also believe that Jews have horns, or that we kill Christian babies to make matzoh for Passover?
Yeah I've heard all those points before. And I can point to each one of those scriptures and show how I see Jesus in all of those. So we will just have to agree to disagree my friend
Here's my view. Just because somebody is a brilliant physicist, that doesn't mean they know the first thing about chemistry, and visa versa.
What am I trying to say? Just because a Chrstian bible scholar is fully versed in the Chrstian bible, it doesn't mean he knows the first thing about the Jewish bible, aka the Torah. And why is this so? If I'm not mistaken, there are precious few (if any) Chrstian bible scholars in the world who study the bible in it's native language, Hebrew. The majority will learn what they call OT through Greek translations, and I'm sure we don't have to debate the fact that the Greek translations were done with a serious agenda of slandering the Jewish nation.
And the few Chrstian bible scholars who do study the Torah in it's native language, Hebrew, are VERY unlikely to be learning any Torah shi bal pe (the Oral Torah, i.e. the Talmud). And again, even if they are learning Torah shi bal pe, the likelihood that they are learning it from an accomplished Orthodox Rabbi is even smaller. While there are literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of Jews learning Torah in this manner (directly from the Torah, in it's native tongue with no translations, using Talmud and from an accomplished Rav), I'd be challenged to know if there is one single Chrstian in the world learning the bible in this manner.
So that being so, what right do Chrstians have to utter a single word, a single opinion, on the "author" of the Jewish bible, the legitimacy of it, or heaven forbid, what it means? Chrstians think they know what Isiah 53 means? Seriously?
You are really trying to take selective names and string together into some type of secret message? That's funny. And misguided. I guess that's your idea of something being "Clearly" demonstrated in the Torah? Word games, and selective name lists with secret messages? All very CLEAR, eh?
On top of that - you're using some incorrect name definitions. Even the biblical authors were quite creative with some of their name etymologies..
I'm not finding some secret message. First of all I'm not Jewish, nor do I speak Hebrew. The person that discovered this was a Jewish Scholar reading from the Torah, not the bible. The text was in Hebrew.
Quote:
Take Moab and Ammon, for instance - do their names REALLY mean what the biblical author claims they mean, from the Lot's Daughter story? No - they don't. The etymologies are fanciful, and are meant to poke cruel fun at the Moabites and Ammonites by implying that their very names are indicative of their "incestual" origin.
I believe Ammon means "People" and Moab means "seed of father". Ammon and Moab were the offspring of the daughters of Lot when they slept with him. And he was their father (Lot). And well now looky there if you take those two names...they are the decendants of the people who slept with their father.
Now ain't that a hoot!
Quote:
First, let's look at the famous Isaiah passage. Go to your Bible, and read the entire chapter, then read the rest of the "Suffering Servant" passages in Isaiah. Then realize that not once - ever - is the word Messiah mentioned, or even hinted at. In fact - Israel is sometimes the "Suffering Servant". The non-precise identity of the "Suffering Servant" is what prevents it from being 100% applied to any individual or nation. Yet you are claiming it's a reference to Jesus, merely because a NT author thought so. Nice. And he was using the LXX as his base of operations, not the Hebrew. Stop misquoting Bible verses out of context. No reputable biblical scholar living today (or for the past couple hundred years, for that matter) would see in this passage even the slightest reference to Jesus. .
Again I can see Jesus in that entire passage. I'm not claiming it is a reference to Jesus just because someone said so. I don't drink the kool-aid because someone said so. Do you? I know how to read and reason just like the next person. It makes no sense to me unless it's talking about a specific person. Again we agree to disagree. I think people just need to read the passage for themselves and see if they think he is talking about himself, a nation, or some other person
Quote:
Second, name etymologies. Learn Hebrew - don't parrot what you find on a conspiracy site. Then broaden your horizon and learn Akkadian, or Ugaritic, so you can have an even better idea of how Hebrew roots worked, and where they originated from. Or do you believe Hebrew was the first language? I hope you don't say yes - for in that case, I will know it's hopeless to even converse with you. You will be too far gone in conservative nonsense if you cling to that folly..
Again I never claimed to speak Hewbrew. I don't speak not a word of Hewbrew. Again the person that discovered this was a Jewish Scholar reading from the Torah, not the bible. And of course he became a Christian believer, but I'm sure you will find fault with that. And yes again he is a Jew.
Quote:
1- adam = human, or humanity. NOT man, or male. It's a wordplay on the Hebrew for soil, which is adama. Get it? In the 2nd Creative Account, adam is taken from adama. This little joke is an example of "folk etymology", or an "etiology". George W. Coats, in Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature, writes that an etiology may be explained as "a narrative designed in its basic structure to support some kind of explanation for a situation or name that exists at the time of the storyteller" (1983). A "folk etiology" is one that is not based on sound data, but is a people's explanation of something - a tradition. Many folk etymologies are highly innacurate (Moab, Ammon) but make for interesting reading.
Anwyays - even in Genesis 1 (the 1st Creative Account) the word adam is used to describe the creation of both male and female adam. So clearly, it does not mean "male". A point against your strange little theory. I hope that doesn't screw it up too badly...
Further information from cognates in other Semitic languages (and older ones, at that) reveal a striking confirmation of this definition.
Ugaritic (an older relative of Hebrew, which shares many similarties) has 'adm, which means "humans". It can also mean "red soil" with a slightly different vocalization. The verb 'DM brings us "to be red" and is used to indicate how women rogued their facem in the G form. Akkadian gives us a little more information with adāmu - an older form than Ugaritic.
Of course - this might all be unintelligible to some, and for that I beg forgiveness. But it certainly helps get at a meaning, which most Bible translations have been translating correctly now for about a hundred years. Only an older, or faulty, translation will think that adam means "male", or simply" a man"
I don't care if you take that first word to mean: man, male, humanity, humans, bags of water, dust, dusty earth, red soil, "hey you over there sitting in the garden"...the context is the same. LOL Because according to the bible we were taken from dust! From dust you came, and from dust you will return.
Quote:
Need I go on? There's other names in that list, and I'm sure we could have some fun with the meanings you provide, as well. As far as it stands now - you must at least alter your "secret message" a little bit, for the beginning word, anyways."
I mean you can if you want to, I certainly cant stop you LOL
And what secret message? I'm mean if you wanted to keep it a secret message would you put it in a book that has sold millions upon millions of copies? Now that just don't make sense.
Quote:
What's interesting is the word order in your little puzzle - does it match Hebrew word order in a sentence? Or does it match English word order? Because if the latter - that certainly would be ODD! And if you don't understand why that would be a problem (a secret message intended ONLY for English Speakers?), then I don't know what to tell you. LOL
Again the guy took it from Hewbrew, in the Torah. And I don't think this message is in anyway secret. I mean if God really wanted to keep it a secret he would have given it to a politician cuz can't nobody understand not a word of what they say'n!
Jewish people should be greatful and happy that they live in freedom country, being accepted in America
The root of nearly all modern anti-semitism (Hitler, 20th century Russia, Jimmy Carter) has a similar theme to what you write, Lucy: that Jews are only allowed to live here out of the kindness and mercy of those who actually "belong" here. The Jews are just interlopers, sojourning in the land. And as soon as YOU lose your charitible feelings towards us, the Jews better watch out.
First of all I'm not Jewish, nor do I speak Hebrew.
My point exactly, gospelsaves.
Not that you don't have items to "add' to the discussion, but it's important that you understand you are arguing from a position of terrible weakness, as you can't even read the language (or understand its limitless nuances) the "debated" text is written in. And worse, i suspect you don't read Greek either. So you are reading a translation of a translation, then you are telling Walter and Whoppers that you are correct, and they are not. Sorry, but your "cred" (although I'm sure not your good intentions) is seriously lacking here.
I'm not finding some secret message. First of all I'm not Jewish, nor do I speak Hebrew. The person that discovered this was a Jewish Scholar reading from the Torah, not the bible. The text was in Hebrew.
The Torah is part of the Bible - it's the first five books, what are known in Greek as the Pentateuch. So I'm not sure what you mean above.
So you admit you aren't familiar with Hebrew, so anything you say about it will be second-hand knowledge, and it's reliability directly dependent on the reliability of the source. How do you, then, judge the reliability of the information you glean from these sources?
You claim that someone "discovered" this. But in other places you say it's very clear and plain and obvious and there's no way people couldn't see Jesus here. Contradict yourself, much? Thousands of years later, a single solitary Jewish scholar stumbles upon a discovery...one that should have been so obvious and plain to everyone in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gospelsaves
I believe Ammon means "People" and Moab means "seed of father". Ammon and Moab were the offspring of the daughters of Lot when they slept with him. And he was their father (Lot). And well now looky there if you take those two names...they are the decendants of the people who slept with their father.
Now ain't that a hoot!
The etymologies found in Genesis are not the actual etymologies of the names; only the biblical author's explanation. They are explained as meaning:
Ammon = Son of my Kinspeople
Moab = By Father
This is how Everett Fox translates the names (a Jewish Scholar who is actually reputable in his field) in his translation of the Torah. He comments that "the final section of the Sedom and Amora story recounts the origins of two of Israel's neighbors, the Moabites and Ammonites. As traditional enemies, they are not treated very kindly, any more than was the ancestor of the Canaanites in [Genesis] 9:20-27" (p. 78, "The Five Books of Moses", The Schocken Bible, Schocken). The joke about their names is well-known and fairly obvious: now ain't that a hoot! Is this the only possible meaning of the names - one taken from a story concerning their incestuous birth? No, of course not. That is why it's called a Folk Etymology - it's an incorrect explanation of 1) the people, and 2) the meaning of their names. I have actually dealth with this problem in length in several other threads, specifically citing the Lots' Daughters episode.
So - to sum up this part: just because the biblical authors give a meaning for something, does not make it the actual meaning. The Moabites and the Ammonites were enemies of the Israelites, so it's natural that they would come up with disparaging stories about each other. After all, the Israelites had to explain why the two groups (who were so closely related to them in language and culture) were not considered part of Israel. This story provides a humorous justification for their "otherness". It doesn't make it correct, just makes it Folkish propaganda.
E. A. Speiser, in his commentary and translation of Genesis, notes that he believes the daughters were performing and important duty to continue their line, since they believed the entire world had been destroyed: "All this adds up to praise rather than blame" (p. 145, AB, Doubleday, 1962). He further goes on to comment on the story and says that
the account itself, of course, was colored to a substantial degree by the popular etymology of the ethnic terms for the Moabites and Ammonites. Did the derivations here recorded originate with Israelites, or with the natives themselves whose dialects differed very little from Hebrew? Such points could be argued either way, and with equally inconclusive results. More practical is the question as to why J incorporated such a tale about outsidersin a story of his own people's past. The likeliest answer would seem to be that these neighbors were too important to be ignored. (ibid, pp. 145-146)
So, we have yet another reputable Jewish scholar weighing in on the story.
The point is that disparaging one's enemies was a common practice in the ANE, and the Israelite authors of the books of the Bible were not above engaging in the same practice.
Another point is that "your" translations of the names seem to add some elements not in the Israelite etymologies - but to be fair, you do claim that your translations stem from your "belief".
Quote:
Originally Posted by gospelsaves
Again I can see Jesus in that entire passage. I'm not claiming it is a reference to Jesus just because someone said so. I don't drink the kool-aid because someone said so. Do you? I know how to read and reason just like the next person. It makes no sense to me unless it's talking about a specific person. Again we agree to disagree. I think people just need to read the passage for themselves and see if they think he is talking about himself, a nation, or some other person
As is fairly obvious to everyone reading your words honestly - you ARE drinking the Kool Aid. NOT because EVERYONE is doing so, but because ONE Jewish Scholar has asked you to. You haven't even provided the name of this scholar so we can determine whether he is reliable or not. On one hand - the theory that you're attributing to him plainly shows that he is NOT a reliable scholar, so it really doesn't matter.
You're referring to a "passage" that was part of a genealogy - that was it's purpose. A Genealogy is a distinct genre in the Hebrew Bible, and is most notably found in Genesis and 1st Chronicles. The Genealogies in Genesis provide a framework for the narrative portions of the work, and there are several types of geneologies. Bill T. Arnold, in The New Cambridge Bible Commentary series, notes that
Genesis contains two types of genealogies: the "linear" or vertical geneaology, which traces a sinlge line of descent, and "segmented" or horizontal genealogy, which traces various descendants. The form of the genealogy depends upon its function in the text....
It is possible to trace through this system of genealogies in Genesis a line of descent for all of humanity through twenty-five generations from Adam to the children of Jacob, the ancestor of the Israelite clans and families, thus creating a literary framework or skeleton for the entire book. (Genesis, p. 9, Cambridge, 2009)
The passage you refer to comes from Genesis 5, and starts the familiar formula "these are the generations of" that the Priestly author used to provide a genealogical framework for the narratives he was working with. The term toledot is used and is a clue as to the authorship of such sections. Frank Cross, in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, notes that
the Priestly formula was secondarily derived from an ancient document, the seper toledoth adam, "the book (better, 'document') of the generations of Adam," mentioned in the heading of the so-called Sethite genealogy in Genesis 5:1-32, spanning the generations from Adam to Noah. The genealogy in question is cast in a highly distinct style...this same style is found elsewhere only in the genealogical meterials headed 'lh twldwt sm, "these are the generations of Shem" in Genesis 11:10-26, spanning the generations from Shem to Abraham (Abram). The first portion of the "Book of Generations" in Genesis 5:1-32 parallels the Epic genealogy of Cain in Genesis 4:17-26, and, indeed, goes back to an oral variant of the Cainite genealogy. Similary, the second part of the "Book of Generations" in Genesis 11:-10-26 is paralleled by the so-called "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10:2-32. There is strong reason to believe that the Priestly historian made use of an older document consisting of a continuous genealogical series from Adam to Abraham, secondarily split up by P to separate the era of creation from the era of Noah, and the era of Noah from the era of the Fathers, in short, to periodize the old times. It should be noted, however, that the characteristic seper toledot style ends with Terah, the father of Abram. There is no heading 'lh twldwt 'brm, "These are the generations of Abram," and the genealogies of Ishmael, Isaac, Esau, and Jacob belong to an entirely different set of genealogical styles despite their headings: 'lh twldwt PN [Person Name]. (p. 301, Harvard, 1973)
This rather lengthy quote - which has the actual mathematical formula removed - is helpful in showing that this "Book of Generations", or "The Scroll of Adam's Descendants" (as Arnold calls it), is continued further in Genesis 11:10-26 and terminates with Terah - the father of Abram. The Priestly writer has split the genealogy in two to help frame the narrative events. Another type of genealogy has the narrative events mixed in with the genealogical notices, but we are discussing a specific genealogical list with the peculiar toledot formula used in the "Book of Generations", and how a Jewish Scholar (un-named, for his protection and reputation, no doubt) has claimed to find a "hidden" message in just the FIRST part of the genealogy.
I wonder how the story continues, when the message is extended to include the 2nd part of the "Book of Generations"? It will most likely demonstrate that their is NO hidden message. I point this out, because genealogies are one of the most boring parts of the Bible, so most people are not familiar with them or their style, and important features of them are frequently missed. I'm not referring to this crazy claim of a "secret message", either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gospelsaves
Again I never claimed to speak Hewbrew. I don't speak not a word of Hewbrew. Again the person that discovered this was a Jewish Scholar reading from the Torah, not the bible. And of course he became a Christian believer, but I'm sure you will find fault with that. And yes again he is a Jew.
It's obvious you don't speak Hebrew - from your spelling of it as "Hewbrew", and from your blind acceptance of the "secret message" theory of this mysterious scholar.
I think it's fairly obvious that he became a Christian, by the way. The entire theory is biased towards that perspective. You did not have to tell me that he is a Christian lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gospelsaves
I don't care if you take that first word to mean: man, male, humanity, humans, bags of water, dust, dusty earth, red soil, "hey you over there sitting in the garden"...the context is the same. LOL Because according to the bible we were taken from dust! From dust you came, and from dust you will return.
If you continue investigating the remaining names, in the manner in which I did with adam, then you find that most of the other "meanings" undergo a similar transformation that completely destroys any hidden message perceived within it. I just don't feel like spending the time doing so, because it should be apparant to all from the first explanation of adam that some creative writing is going on by this Jewish Scholar, who is obviously a Christian.
So LOL away - you have missed the point, and missed an oppurtunity to honestly assess this scholar's merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gospelsaves
I mean you can if you want to, I certainly cant stop you LOL
And what secret message? I'm mean if you wanted to keep it a secret message would you put it in a book that has sold millions upon millions of copies? Now that just don't make sense.
Again the guy took it from Hewbrew, in the Torah. And I don't think this message is in anyway secret. I mean if God really wanted to keep it a secret he would have given it to a politician cuz can't nobody understand not a word of what they say'n!
It wasn't meant to be secret, yet nobody has ever noticed it, until this Christian scholar stumbled upon it with his bad grasp of Hebrew?
The bad grasp of Hebrew is evident in the fact that if you take the word order of the translated names, and put them into Hebrew - it doesn't make linguistic sense. You realize that many languages have different words orders, right? Some have a Subject Object Verb order (SOV), while others have VOS order, while others use case endings to indicate other things.
The "secret message" doesn't work in Hebrew, is what I'm saying. So logically, it's pretty unlikely that the Priestly writer would have been writing a prophecy that would only make linguistic sense to an English audience, or a few other languages. I thought this was a fairly obvious point, but maybe it's only apparant to those who actually study language and it's differences.
And "God" putting something in a book that has sold millions of copies is looking at something in hindsight. It was never the intention of the biblical authors to someday sell millions of copies of their writings, especially when they had been written to a specific people, in a specific time, and concerning specific issues only applicable to them. Most of the Biblical authors had no idea that their would be an offshoot of Judaism called Christianity, and that this religion would take the Jewish canon of Scripture and include it with their canon. Heck, the canon wasn't even finished for another hundred years in the Christian sense. What you're saying just doesn't make any sense at all.
I'm not trying to be rude, but seriously - you need a better source for your information, and I've tried to show this in my posts. There's no shame in finding a reputable source for information, especially if you do not speak or read "Hewbrew" - whatever THAT is. There are plenty of good works available for those who do not wish to take the time to dig deeper themselves. I always reccomend Michael Coogan's The Old Testament: A Very Short Introduction, for starters.
So WHO is this Jewish Scholar?
Notice how it's a good idea to cite the people you are referring to, as I have done in this post. Otherwise, it's considered bad form, and people start wondering if you're making things up. I still think it's because if the name of the "Jewish" Christian scholar was revealed - he would immediately be recognized as a bad source.
Last edited by whoppers; 12-14-2011 at 11:22 AM..
Reason: Forgot some italics instances, whoops, whoops.
Not that you don't have items to "add' to the discussion, but it's important that you understand you are arguing from a position of terrible weakness, as you can't even read the language (or understand its limitless nuances) the "debated" text is written in. And worse, i suspect you don't read Greek either. So you are reading a translation of a translation, then you are telling Walter and Whoppers that you are correct, and they are not. Sorry, but your "cred" (although I'm sure not your good intentions) is seriously lacking here.
Yes, indeed! Good post.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Yes, indeed! Good post.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
The person saying I need to be fluent in a language to participate in this is absurd. This is suppose to be a forum to talk, and exchange ideas no matter what your background is. I have an opinion I wanted to express, and I have the right to express it. I don't need to be fluent in a language to give an opinon on the ORIGINAL TOPIC of why the Jews don't believe in the Divinity of Jesus.
I would keep debating with you guys but I really don't see the point. People can look up things for themselves and decide. I did, and you obviously did. So I leave it at that. People will make up thier own mind. They will look at all sides and makeup their minds. Only time will tell who was right, so until then you have a blessed day
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
