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.
22And Zillah she too bore Tubal-cain, who sharpened all tools that cut copper and iron, and Tubal-cain's sister was Na'amah.
Tools that cut iron? And, can be actually sharpened? That sounds like hacksaw blade, file, chisel AND something that can, actually sharpen those tools. We are talking tools that are 60-70 Rockwell hardness scale, to cut iron. A grinder then?
So
1. iron was there (say it's meteorite iron. But it is VERY hard)
2. tools were there
3. sharpening tools were there.
What am I missing?
Rashi explains that passage to mean that Tubal-cain "sharpened the tools for working with copper and iron."
I am not worthy to interpret the god's word and it clearly says "cut". Hence, a tool has to be harder than copper (that's easy) and iron (not so easy. Has to be much harder than iron and preserve its hardness, to be of any use. Also, has to be sharpened with something, much harder than the tool itself, to stay functional. )
I worked as tool and die maker for years. I know quite a bit about cutting metals and heat treating/forging.
That is god's word. Please, do not tell me god's word needs to be taken allegorically, that's profanation and heresy.
Passage clearly describes advanced technology in metal working. Not even to mention that Arc had to be made with advanced tools, to hold together and survive raging flood.
What only makes sense that one of Noah's direct descendants had access to such tools and, apparently, they were in common use as, otherwise, why would man make living out of it?
I am not worthy to interpret the god's word and it clearly says "cut". Hence, a tool has to be harder than copper (that's easy) and iron (not so easy. Has to be much harder than iron and preserve its hardness, to be of any use. Also, has to be sharpened with something, much harder than the tool itself, to stay functional. )
I worked as tool and die maker for years. I know quite a bit about cutting metals and heat treating/forging.
That is god's word. Please, do not tell me god's word needs to be taken allegorically, that's profanation and heresy.
Passage clearly describes advanced technology in metal working. Not even to mention that Arc had to be made with advanced tools, to hold together and survive raging flood.
What only makes sense that one of Noah's direct descendants had access to such tools and, apparently, they were in common use as, otherwise, why would man make living out of it?
I gave you Rashi's explanation of that passage – not mine. There was nothing allegorical in Rashi's explanation. If you don't know who Rabbi Shlomo Itzhaki (a.k.a. Ra.Sh.I., 1040-1105) was, then Google it.
I am not worthy to interpret the god's word and it clearly says "cut". Hence, a tool has to be harder than copper (that's easy) and iron (not so easy. Has to be much harder than iron and preserve its hardness, to be of any use. Also, has to be sharpened with something, much harder than the tool itself, to stay functional. )
I worked as tool and die maker for years. I know quite a bit about cutting metals and heat treating/forging.
That is god's word. Please, do not tell me god's word needs to be taken allegorically, that's profanation and heresy.
Passage clearly describes advanced technology in metal working. Not even to mention that Arc had to be made with advanced tools, to hold together and survive raging flood.
What only makes sense that one of Noah's direct descendants had access to such tools and, apparently, they were in common use as, otherwise, why would man make living out of it?
Things are not always black and white. I suppose most people believe the flood account was to be taken as literal, but I say it was purposely told as a spiritual story just as the creation story. Both stories told by Moses but you wouldn't try to insinuate that Moses meant for you to take the creation story literally would you? Moses went way out of his way to make sure nobody could take it literally.
Still, I never understood what you meant by your question,'' What am I missing?'' you asked.
I find that if I quote the words of the Lord concerning the Jews such as Ezekiel 5: 1-6; where it is written; The LORD said, “Mortal man, take a sharp sword and use it to shave off your beard and all your hair. Then weigh the hair on scales and divide it into three parts. Burn a third of it in the city when the siege is over. Take another third and chop it up with your sword as you move about outside the city. Scatter the remaining third to the winds, and I will pursue it with my sword. Keep back a few hairs and wrap them in the hem of your clothes. Then take a few of them out again, throw them in the fire, and let them burn up. From them fire will spread to the whole nation of Israel.”
The Sovereign LORD said, “Look at Jerusalem. I put her at the centre of the world, with other countries all round her. But Jerusalem rebelled against my commands and showed that she was more wicked than the other nations, more disobedient than the countries around her. Jerusalem rejected my commands and refused to keep my laws.
I am accused by Jews as being antisemetic. when they are not my words but the words of the Lord. Surely, to accuse me of being antisemetic for quoting the words of their God, they are accusing him and not me, of being antisemetic.
I am accused by Jews as being antisemetic. when they are not my words but the words of the Lord. Surely, to accuse me of being antisemetic for quoting the words of their God, they are accusing him and not me, of being antisemetic.
If your intention is to preach to the Jewish people that the book of Yechezkel predicts the coming of Jesus and serves as a justification for the replacement of Judaism with Christianity then, yes, you are being antisemitic. It is no different from those Christians who justified their pogroms in Europe because of their interpretation of the New Testament, saying that "the Jews killed Jesus."
Your religion's interpretation of the Bible differs from ours. Your religion places a Christian spin and perspective on our Tanakh. Your own personal interpretations of the Bible also leave much to be desired, and you are not the arbiter of what the Bible says. Try to grasp that understanding, as difficult as it may be for you.
I find that if I quote the words of the Lord concerning the Jews such as Ezekiel 5: 1-6; where it is written; The LORD said, “Mortal man, take a sharp sword and use it to shave off your beard and all your hair. Then weigh the hair on scales and divide it into three parts. Burn a third of it in the city when the siege is over. Take another third and chop it up with your sword as you move about outside the city. Scatter the remaining third to the winds, and I will pursue it with my sword. Keep back a few hairs and wrap them in the hem of your clothes. Then take a few of them out again, throw them in the fire, and let them burn up. From them fire will spread to the whole nation of Israel.”
The Sovereign LORD said, “Look at Jerusalem. I put her at the centre of the world, with other countries all round her. But Jerusalem rebelled against my commands and showed that she was more wicked than the other nations, more disobedient than the countries around her. Jerusalem rejected my commands and refused to keep my laws.
I am accused by Jews as being antisemetic. when they are not my words but the words of the Lord. Surely, to accuse me of being antisemetic for quoting the words of their God, they are accusing him and not me, of being antisemetic.
A Jew said you was anti Semitic? Wonder why?
You are like white man who rode a train into an Apache camp to then explain why their ways are so evil, then you load them up on a train, declare yourself to be the only Apache, and then steal all their land and when somebody points out how you are against the Apaches, you say,'' I am not against the Apaches, I am the true Apache, lol...Which Jew called you anti Semitic?
Things are not always black and white. I suppose most people believe the flood account was to be taken as literal, but I say it was purposely told as a spiritual story just as the creation story. Both stories told by Moses but you wouldn't try to insinuate that Moses meant for you to take the creation story literally would you? Moses went way out of his way to make sure nobody could take it literally.
Still, I never understood what you meant by your question,'' What am I missing?'' you asked.
I am only asking - as it is written in the holy book, direct word of god - if there were apparently quite advanced tools for metal work.
That's it. That statement was quite a surprise to me but, it does make sense.
Was there flood? Sure. Somewhere around 65-70 000 years ago. It's easy look up online and, pretty much is accepted fact. That is, also, confirmed by genetic research, pointing towards as little, as 40 breeding capable human pairs left after the catastrophe. What was BEFORE it, no one really knows.
If your intention is to preach to the Jewish people that the book of Yechezkel predicts the coming of Jesus and serves as a justification for the replacement of Judaism with Christianity then, yes, you are being antisemitic. It is no different from those Christians who justified their pogroms in Europe because of their interpretation of the New Testament, saying that "the Jews killed Jesus."
Your religion's interpretation of the Bible differs from ours. Your religion places a Christian spin and perspective on our Tanakh. Your own personal interpretations of the Bible also leave much to be desired, and you are not the arbiter of what the Bible says. Try to grasp that understanding, as difficult as it may be for you.
With all due respect, Rachel, I don't think what you explain is true or correct...
I am not here to "preach" or express my opinion about which book is more true or correct either, but to have opinion about such things, even including who killed Jesus, is not antisemitic. To be antisemitic by definition is to "be hostile to or prejudiced against Jews." Discussing or evaluating the worthiness of any book or history is not by definition a hostile or prejudiced act.
This is an important distinction, because all too often the opportunity to consider such important books, issues and history in a fair objective intelligent manner is "cut off at the knees" with claims of antisemitism before the discussion can even begin. That isn't right anymore than to be antisemitic is right, but I think it's easy to see how antisemitism can be fueled by suppressing open, fair and honest evaluation of such books and issues, even if people disagree about them.
With all due respect, Rachel, I don't think what you explain is true or correct...
I am not here to "preach" or express my opinion about which book is more true or correct either, but to have opinion about such things, even including who killed Jesus, is not antisemitic. To be antisemitic by definition is to "be hostile to or prejudiced against Jews." Discussing or evaluating the worthiness of any book or history is not by definition a hostile or prejudiced act.
This is an important distinction, because all too often the opportunity to consider such important books, issues and history in a fair objective intelligent manner is "cut off at the knees" with claims of antisemitism before the discussion can even begin. That isn't right anymore than to be antisemitic is right, but I think it's easy to see how antisemitism can be fueled by suppressing open, fair and honest evaluation of such books and issues, even if people disagree about them.
First of all, those comments of mine that you quoted weren't directed at you, and were intended for someone else who has a problem observing forum rules regarding proselytizing here.
Secondly, assertions that "the Jews killed Jesus" have historically been used to justify antisemitic acts of violence against Jews. Fyi, assertions that the Holocaust never happened are also viewed as being antisemitic by many -- both Jews and Gentiles alike. It's less a case of honest inquiry and, more often than not, used to incite hostility against Jews.
Thirdly, this is the "Ask a Jew" thread – not the "Tell a Jew what's wrong with the Jewish interpretation of the Tanakh and why the Christian interpretation is so much more accurate" thread. I'm not accusing you of doing that, LearnMe. I am putting my comments that you quoted back into context.
Questions about Judaism are welcome in the "Ask a Jew" thread, and I'm sure that someone from this forum will always be available to answer them.
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.
