- This topic is empty.
- Posts
If an angel stood in or near a bush, his glory might appear as a fire. Jesus himself is said to have eyes like a blazing fire and his feet like glowing bronze.
God himself is spirit and no man can see him or has ever seen him.
t8 said:
Quote God himself is spirit and no man can see him or has ever seen him. t8,
But Jesus saw Him,Quote No man has seen God at any time except the only begotten of God (John 1:18) There was one exception.
thinker
JOHN 1:18
“No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.”No “man” has seen God.
The only-begotten “god” explained him.Of course, those who exist in heaven, with God, are not men. They are not made of flesh. They can see God. I tend to think that for a man to try to see God would be like a man trying to look at the sun from a foot away. Saying that it would hurt, would be an understatement.
Quote t8,
But Jesus saw Him,
The Bible says Jesus “became flesh.” Jesus saw him before becoming a man, and of course again when returning to heaven, as a spirit.The scripture simply says no “man” has ever seen him.
David said:
Quote No “man” has seen God.
The only-begotten “god” explained him.David,
I am glad you mentioned “only begotten god” though I would have capitalized “god” indicating that Jesus was God. One who is “begotten” is kindred to the one that begat him and is therefore the same as the one who begat him. Your father who begat you is man. Therefore, you are man. You and your father are the same.So Jesus is God like the One who begat Him.
thinker
Thinker has said that YHWH means He will become. The driving force behind this interpretation is not proper interpretive skills, it is a need to prove his doctrine.
Now I do not give a hoot about thinkers posturing or his need to prove that he is right and get the accolades of the forum. I do not care if it is driven by insecurity, pride, stubbornness or simple ignorance. I will thank him for making such entertaining posts. I let some of my friends read his posts and we all get a good laugh out of them.
The reason I agreed that YHWH can mean
He became is because of our Western thinking. I attempted as the translators did to bring a Eastern concept into a Western cultures understanding. As I posted previously the story of Adam. It is easier for us of a Western thinking culture to understand that Adam became a living being when God breathed in him. However, from a Eastern mindset, They would have simply said “and Adam existed a living being.”
In order to make this clear, I offer this ——-
The original language of the ancient Hebrews was in pictographs. The Arabic letters we are all are used to did not appear until after the Babylonian Captivity. It is from these pictographs that the original understanding must be gathered.
For those unfamiliar with pictographs, they resemble hieroglyphics although they predate them. They are most likely the oldest form of writing known. Great strides have been taken to unearth these symbols in recent decades. Discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have added to the knowledge. For more understanding on these letters you can google “Hebrew Pictographs” and you will find a great deal about them. Unfortunately many “so-called” scholars completely ignore the original language of the Hebrews and only go back as far as writings after the Babylonian captivity. Only in the past 30 to 50 years has enough archeological evidence been uncovered that honest researchers have reconstructed this language.One thing to always bear in mind is the effect that culture has on writing. One of the concepts is that the Hebrews believed nothing existed outside of God’s breath. Adam did not exist until God Breathed the breath of life into the clay.
Unfortunately, I cannot transfer the pictograph letters onto this site. I will try to describe them.
The primary letters of YHWH are HWH. The Y is added as a prefix indicating the word “He”
Allow me to include these descriptions from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center.H
The original pictograph for this letter is , a man standing with his arms raised out. The Modern Hebrew and original name for this letter is “hey”. The Hebrew word “hey” means “behold”, as when looking at a great sight. This word can also mean “breath” or “sigh” as one does when looking at a great sight. The meaning of the letter is behold, look, breath, sigh and reveal or revelation from the idea of revealing a great sight by pointing it out. ??The Modern Hebrew sound for this letter is “h”. Originally this letter doubled as a consonant, with an “h” sound, or as the vowel sound “eh”. When the Greeks adopted this letter it became the “epsilon” with an “eh” sound.??This letter is commonly used as a prefix to words to mean “the” as in “ha'arets” meaning “the land”. The use of this prefix is to reveal something of importance within the sentence.??The Early Semitic evolved into the Middle Semitic by rotating the letter 90 degrees to the left. This letter then evolved into in the late Semitic script that developed into the Modern Hebrew ?. The Middle Semitic was adopted by the Greeks and the Romans to become the E (reversed due to the direction of writing). This Middle Semitic letter also became the number 5.W
The original pictograph used in the Early Semitic script is a , a picture of a tent peg. The tent pegs were made of wood and may have been Y-shaped to prevent the rope from slipping off.??The Modern Hebrew name for this letter is “vav”, a word meaning “peg” or “hook”. This letter is used in Modern Hebrew as a consonant with a “v” sound and as a vowel. If the Modern Hebrew letter appears as , it is the vowel sound “ow” and if it appears as , it is the vowel sound “uw”. When used as a vowel the ancient pronunciation was also an “ow” or “uw”. In each of the consonant/vowel letters of the Ancient Hebrew language the pronunciation of the consonant is closely related to the pronunciation of the vowel such as the letter “hey” (See above) is “h” and “eh” and the pronunciation of the letter “yud” (See below) is “y” and “iy”. For this reason, it is probable that the original pronunciation of the letter was with a “w”. In Modern Arabic language, this letter is also pronounced with a “w”. Therefore, the original name of this letter would have been “waw” instead of “vav”.??As the pictograph indicates, this letter represents a peg or hook, which are used for securing something. The meaning of this letter is to add or secure.??This letter is frequently used as a prefix to words to mean “and” in the sense of adding things together. ??The Early Semitic evolved into the in the Middle Semitic script. This letter then became the of the Late Semitic script and evolved into the Modern Hebrew ?. The Middle Semitic letter was adopted by the Greeks and the Romans to be the letter F but was dropped from the Greek alphabet later. The Late Semitic form of the letter became the number 9.There is no indication in the original language of the concept of God becoming anything. God simply is. The whole idea of YHWH meaning become is simply taken from an attempt by translators to bring a Eastern concept into Western thinking. Of course the vast majority of translators since the third century have been Trinitarian and God becoming a man seemed appropriate to their doctrine. For hundreds of years very few have had the guts to step away from the traditional teachings of the Catholics. Probably because they would have been killed. Even today, with the freedom to believe what honest research reveals, many cannot get away from filtering their interpretations through their preconceived ideas of doctrine.
The resulting honest interpretation comes out like this –
Y = He
H= Magnificent sight/breath meaning exist.
W = A connecting letter binding together the letters on either side.
H = Magnificent sight/breath meaning exist.The end result is He Exists. With overtones of the magnificence of that sight.
Martian said:
Quote I let some of my friends read his [thinker's] posts and we all get a good laugh out of them. The Jews laughed at Jesus too. Jesus promised those who stood for His name that they would be hated as well.
Martian said:
Quote THE REASON I AGREED that YHWH can mean “He became” IS BECAUSE of our Western thinking. In other words, Martian really has no convictions. He will agree to something he does not believe in just “because”…. May Martian let his friends read this too. Let them read that he agrees to principles he really denounces! Martian–let your friends read that you agree to principles that in your heart you denounce because it may be convenient or whatever. See who your friends will laugh at then.
LET ALL WHO READ THIS PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT MARTIAN SAID! HE SAID THAT HE “AGREES” TO SOMETHING MERELY “BECAUSE”… AND NOT BECAUSE IT IS HIS CONVICTION! LET HIS FRIENDS READ THIS!
A MAN WHO AGREES TO SOMETHING JUST “BECAUSE” IS IN NO WAY A SCHOLAR !
Martian said:
Quote
Y = He
H= Magnificent sight/breath meaning exist.
W = A connecting letter binding together the letters on either side.
H = Magnificent sight/breath meaning exist.Therefore, the rod of Moses was “YHWH” too.
Martian said:
Quote The end result is He Exists. With overtones of the magnificence of that sight. But on Jan 26 2009 at 05:16 Martian said this:
Quote While it is true that YHWH can AT TIMES mean to become this is a matter of function not appearance. Martian is contradicting himself. In January he said that YHWH can at times mean “to become”. But in February he says that the expression ALWAYS means “to exist”. What will Martian come up with in the month of March?
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 18 2009,04:13) Martian said: Quote I let some of my friends read his [thinker's] posts and we all get a good laugh out of them. The Jews laughed at Jesus too. Jesus promised those who stood for His name that they would be hated as well.
Martian said:
Quote THE REASON I AGREED that YHWH can mean “He became” IS BECAUSE of our Western thinking. In other words, Martian really has no convictions. He will agree to something he does not believe in just “because”…. May Martian let his friends read this too. Let them read that he agrees to principles he really denounces! Martian–let your friends read that you agree to principles that in your heart you denounce because it may be convenient or whatever. See who your friends will laugh at then.
LET ALL WHO READ THIS PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT MARTIAN SAID! HE SAID THAT HE “AGREES” TO SOMETHING MERELY “BECAUSE”… AND NOT BECAUSE IT IS HIS CONVICTION! LET HIS FRIENDS READ THIS!
A MAN WHO AGREES TO SOMETHING JUST “BECAUSE” IS IN NO WAY A SCHOLAR !
Martian said:
Quote
Y = He
H= Magnificent sight/breath meaning exist.
W = A connecting letter binding together the letters on either side.
H = Magnificent sight/breath meaning exist.Therefore, the rod of Moses was “YHWH” too.
Martian said:
Quote The end result is He Exists. With overtones of the magnificence of that sight. But on Jan 26 2009 at 05:16 Martian said this:
Quote While it is true that YHWH can AT TIMES mean to become this is a matter of function not appearance. Martian is contradicting himself. In January he said that YHWH can at times mean “to become”. But in February he says that the expression ALWAYS means “to exist”. What will Martian come up with in the month of March?
thinker
So personal attacks is all you can come up with? What a joke. Where is your discussion on the etomology of the word. Where is your proof.I want all to know that thinker fails to win the argument becaue allhe can do is counter with personal attacks.
He has no proof that YHWH means I will become, other then a desire to prove his false doctrine.
I have showwn conclussive proof which he ignores.BTW to prove that thinker has no proof. He has said that all men are wicked and cannot be trusted and that all sources ae false. So all he has is his opinion. When he brings his pastors opinion you should outright reject it because of thinkers own stand.
BTW thinker, The reason my friends do not laugh at my posts is they do not take my comments out of context as you so often do.
Too bad they did not teach you any honesty in those Bible Colleges you went to.Again the subject of the thread is th meaning of YHWH and you have shown no proof at all.
To show you how out of context thinkers words are, He makes a point to conclude that I must think Mosses rod was YHWH.
The word in Exodus 7:11 is HWH which means exist. And Mosses rod existed as a serpent. Exactly right. Only when the “Y” is added on front does it mean He Exist, the name of God.YHWH is derived from the root word HWH which means exist.
Martian said:
Quote So personal attacks is all you can come up with? What a joke. Where is your discussion on the etomology of the word. Where is your proof. I want all to know that thinker fails to win the argument becaue allhe can do is counter with personal attacks. You started with the personal attacks.
He has no proof that YHWH means I will become, other then a desire to prove his false doctrine.
I have showwn conclussive proof which he ignores.Martian,
First, your statement that you and your friends read my posts and laughed at them is a personal attack. Second, how can you say “Where is your proof?” Please go back to the first post on this thread. I provided the online Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible. I provided it also on the Trinity 2 thread. The text reads thus,Quote I shall BECOME what I am becoming The word is also used in chapter 4 where it says that the rod became a serpent and then became a rod again. I shouldn't have to keep providing the same proof over and over again. You have discredited yourself today in two ways. First, on the Trinity 2 thread you said that YHWH can at times mean “to become”,
Quote While it is true that YHWH can at times mean to become this is a matter of function not appearance. (Jan 26 2009 at 05:16) But today you say that it always means “exist”. You invoked your sources on both occasions. So you are discrediting your sources along with yourself.
The second way you have discredited yourself is by saying that you agreed to it meaning “to become” when you really don't believe it.
Quote THE REASON I AGREED that YHWH can mean “He became” IS BECAUSE of our Western thinking. (Today at 2:00) You agreed that YHWH can mean “will become” when you don't really believe it. You shot yourself in the foot. You have discredited yourself.
Martian said:
Quote Where is your discussion on the etomology of the word. You keep forgetting that this thread is about the use of “hayah” in Exodus 3:14. Therefore, I am discussing the use of the word in its earliest known form. You are talking about the development of the word afterwards. One must always start with the use of a word in its earliest form. I am starting at the beginning while you are invoking sources that are discussing the use of “hayah” in its later development.
Martian said:
Quote The reason my friends do not laugh at my posts is they do not take my comments out of context as you so often do. I seriously doubt that you have given your friends my comments in their context. If you did they would know about the Hebrew-English Interlinear source I provided and also the example from the rod of Moses.
Again, you must go all the way back to the beginning when discussing the etymology of a word. You can't super impose the meaning of a word in its later development on its use in Exodus 3:14. So don't talk to me about “etymology” until you have first for yourself observed the first basic principles.
thinker
Hi TT,
God is not a chameleon.
God is not just a tool of His servant Moses.God is in Heaven where Jesus told us to pray to him.
He is the God of JesusTo All,
Please note the word “Hayah” as defined by the Strong's Concordance #1961Quote hayah, haw-yaw; a prim. root [comp. 1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become…. Martian wants us to believe that the children of Israel were in bondage for 400 years and God merely says “I exist”. This would have been meaningless. But for God to say “I shall become” would mean something to them. And don't forget, the messenger of YHWH became in the form of a “burning bush”. The Messenger of YHWH identified Himself as YHWH. Therefore, YHWH became a burning bush.
But trying to get Martian to comment on Scripture in context is like pulling teeth.
thinker
Hi TT,
Relying on inference and logic shows your foundations here are weak.
God neither became an angel or a bush.
Nor did He become His son.Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 18 2009,08:34) Martian said: Quote So personal attacks is all you can come up with? What a joke. Where is your discussion on the etomology of the word. Where is your proof. I want all to know that thinker fails to win the argument becaue allhe can do is counter with personal attacks. You started with the personal attacks.
He has no proof that YHWH means I will become, other then a desire to prove his false doctrine.
I have showwn conclussive proof which he ignores.Martian,
First, your statement that you and your friends read my posts and laughed at them is a personal attack. Second, how can you say “Where is your proof?” Please go back to the first post on this thread. I provided the online Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible. I provided it also on the Trinity 2 thread. The text reads thus,Quote I shall BECOME what I am becoming The word is also used in chapter 4 where it says that the rod became a serpent and then became a rod again. I shouldn't have to keep providing the same proof over and over again. You have discredited yourself today in two ways. First, on the Trinity 2 thread you said that YHWH can at times mean “to become”,
Quote While it is true that YHWH can at times mean to become this is a matter of function not appearance. (Jan 26 2009 at 05:16) But today you say that it always means “exist”. You invoked your sources on both occasions. So you are discrediting your sources along with yourself.
The second way you have discredited yourself is by saying that you agreed to it meaning “to become” when you really don't believe it.
Quote THE REASON I AGREED that YHWH can mean “He became” IS BECAUSE of our Western thinking. (Today at 2:00) You agreed that YHWH can mean “will become” when you don't really believe it. You shot yourself in the foot. You have discredited yourself.
Martian said:
Quote Where is your discussion on the etomology of the word. You keep forgetting that this thread is about the use of “hayah” in Exodus 3:14. Therefore, I am discussing the use of the word in its earliest known form. You are talking about the development of the word afterwards. One must always start with the use of a word in its earliest form. I am starting at the beginning while you are invoking sources that are discussing the use of “hayah” in its later development.
Martian said:
Quote The reason my friends do not laugh at my posts is they do not take my comments out of context as you so often do. I seriously doubt that you have given your friends my comments in their context. If you did they would know about the Hebrew-English Interlinear source I provided and also the example from the rod of Moses.
Again, you must go all the way back to the beginning when discussing the etymology of a word. You can't super impose the meaning of a word in its later development on its use in Exodus 3:14. So don't talk to me about “etymology” until you have first for yourself observed the first basic principles.
thinker
You have posted on interlinear and i is false. I have posted at least 5 and in addition your premiss that it means I will become cannot be true because that is a future tense wording which does not exist in Hebrew.
Many claim that EHYEH and its replacement I AM should be interpreted in a future tense as: “I will be that I will be (J. H. Hertz, The Pentateuch And Haftorahs, p 215); I will be what tomorrow demands (W. Gunther Plaut, The Haftartah Commentary, p. 405); I will be what I want to be (S.R. Hirsh from Plaut, p. 405).
All efforts to make EHYEH mean: “I will be,” “He will be,” “He who causes to be” or “He shall cause it to come to pass,” are all future tense which does not exist in the Hebrew language (see Robert Young's Bible Lexicon, p. 38; Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Volume, p. 626; and Canon S.R. Driver, Westminister Commentary, Genesis, p. 408).Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 18 2009,09:11) To All,
Please note the word “Hayah” as defined by the Strong's Concordance #1961Quote hayah, haw-yaw; a prim. root [comp. 1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become…. Martian wants us to believe that the children of Israel were in bondage for 400 years and God merely says “I exist”. This would have been meaningless. But for God to say “I shall become” would mean something to them. And don't forget, the messenger of YHWH became in the form of a “burning bush”. The Messenger of YHWH identified Himself as YHWH. Therefore, YHWH became a burning bush.
But trying to get Martian to comment on Scripture in context is like pulling teeth.
thinker
The fact that the Angel said I am YHWH has no bearing whatsoever. thousands of times prophest spoke first person from God. Are they God too.
Psalms 82 YHWH calls the leaders of Israel Gods are they Gods too? How about when Jesus said to the leaders of his time Ye are Gods. Were they Gods too?Maybe you should try commenting in context of the proper tense for YHWH in Hebrew and within the context of the Hebrew culture.
Thinker claims to discuss the word in it's earliest known form yet completely ignores the pictograph evidence of the original language.
He claims to know Hebrew but denies even discussing the original Hebrew language.To settle this argument about my shooting myself in the foot.
Let me admit that I may have not made myself clear in my previous posts. I have tried to explain the difference between how Hebrews think and the way we think. To the Hebrews saying “Moses rod existed a serpent” is completely understandable. To us it seems strange.
Let me try to explain again.
The Hebrews believed that everything in existence was acted upon to bring about what we see today by the breath/Spirit of God. It is the breath of God that acts upon the molecules to make them living organic matter or simply dust on the ground. This is why when they viewed an object or person they named it by it’s function and not it’s appearance. A point to consider is that the Hebrews have no word for “is” in their language. The closest one might come would be “it functions as” or “it relates to me as “. The rod of Moses functioned as a piece of wood until God’s breath/wind/power acted upon it and the molecules of that piece of wood changed to function as a snake. I made the mistake of trying to put the Hebrew perspective of existence into western terms. From a western perspective it is easier to see the rod become a serpent then to say it existed as a rod and then existed as a serpent. That type of thinking is strange to us of Western cultures. That is what I was trying to explain when I said I agree with the I will Become. What I should have said is that the breath of God does act upon his creation to make each particle function as he wills. NOW BEFORE THINKER JUMPS ON THIS STATEMENT, LET ME CLEARIFY THAT IN THE CASE OF MAN GOD CHOOSE TO GIVE THEM FREE WILL. THEY HAVE THE CHOICE TO DEVELOP AND MATURE WITHIN THE FUNCTION GOD DESIGNED FOR THEM OR THEY CAN BE DYSFUNCTIONAL.
The words for good and evil as in the knowledge of good and evil would be better translated from the ancient scripts as function and dysfunction.The Hebrews have no word for creating something out of nothing. That is an abstract idea and the Hebrews thought in concrete terms. The words we read in Genesis about God creating the world is a bad translation. It leads us to the conclusion that He made something out of nothing. The word “bara” (create) means to fatten. To fill up or bring to completion and To bring order. I cannot speculate where matter came from but there is no scripture that says God brought forth matter from nothing. The chaos was acted upon by God’s presence/wind/breath. He spoke (with His breath) to the molecules and they transformed to function as He directed.
The same is true of man’s body, trees. mountains and Angels/messengers. The fact that God speaks through His messengers (as in the burning bush) is not proof that God became a messenger. If that were true then God became Ballaams Ass and every prophet was God.
It makes much more sense to see that men throughout have functioned as God in the way they treated other people and related to them. This was true of David, the Prophets and good kings, Jesus and even us if we walk with him. This is exactly what God told the leaders of Israel in psalms 82 and what Jesus was trying to tell the leaders in John 10.Now I am certain that thinker will take some of this out of context and make some response, but I am done for the evening.
Martian said:
Quote All efforts to make EHYEH mean: “I will be,” “He will be,” “He who causes to be” or “He shall cause it to come to pass,” are all future tense which does not exist in the Hebrew language (see Robert Young's Bible Lexicon, p. 38; Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Volume, p. 626; and Canon S.R. Driver, Westminister Commentary, Genesis, p. 408). To All,
Martian has flip-flopped while I have remained consistent. He originally that “hayah” can at times mean “to become.” Then he admits that he agreed to this when he in fact did not believe it. Now he throws us a change up saying that it never means this. Martian is now saying that “hayah” cannot mean “He will be” or “He causes to be”.What Bible is Martian and his sources reading? Exodus 4:3 literally reads thus,
Quote So the Lord said to him, “What is in thy hand?” He said, “a rod”. And he said , “Cast it on the ground.” So he cast it on the ground , and HE became a serpent Martian said that hayah is never translated “he will be.” Yet it says of the rod of Moses that “he became a serpent.” I am not saying that YHWH became a serpent. The masculine gender is only grammatical. And it disproves Martian's biased sources that say that hayah is never translated “he shall become”.
thinker
Martian said:
Quote To show you how out of context thinkers words are, He makes a point to conclude that I must think Mosses rod was YHWH.
The word in Exodus 7:11 is HWH which means exist. And Mosses rod existed as a serpent. Exactly right. Only when the “Y” is added on front does it mean He Exist, the name of God.I have no idea what Martian is talking about from Exodus 7:11. I was referring to Exodus 4:3 where it says about the rod of Moses that “he became a serpent”.
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
