- This topic is empty.
- Posts
To All,
I told Martian that I did not want to pit source against source but that I would rather comment on Scripture in context. It seems that Martian does not consider Scripture to be a “source” in its own right. From here on end I am going to comment on Scripture in context. I am done with going head to head with Martian about sources. Martian thinks his scholars are better experts than the translators who compiled the Hebrew-English Interlinear.In Exodus 3 we read that YHWH appeared to Moses in the form of a fire in the midst of a bush,
Quote Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian….And the messenger of YHWH appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.” So when YHWH saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “here I am.” Then he said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover, He said, “I AM THE GOD OF YOUR FATHER, THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon GOD (Exodus 3:1-6).
There it is friends. The Messenger of YHWH appeared to Moses in the form of a fire in the midst of a bush (v. 2). He then identified Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look upon GOD (v. 6).
Yet Martian explicitly denies what the narrative clearly says. Martian wrote,
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) Note that Martian said that YHWH can at times mean “to become”. But he says it is not a matter of “appearance”. Yet the narrative explicitly says that the Messenger of YHWH, also called “God” appeared to Moses in a flame of fire in the midst of a bush.
Then in 4:1 we read this:
Quote Then Moses answered and said, “But suppose they will not believe me or listen to my voice; suppose they say, 'YHWH has not appeared to you.' “ Why would the children of Israel question that YHWH had appeared to Moses if he would not claim that YHWH appeared to him? Yet Martian says “it's not a matter of appearance.”
Martian is not willing to go head to head with me from the context of Scripture. I would like to know why.
your friend,
thinkerTo all,
I would like to public ally apologies to thinker for what I can now see were personal attacks on him. I offer no excuses but will state that I have been under tremendous pressure because of physical problems, hospitalizations, pain and medications. This is also the reason why some of my posts seemed a bit disjointed. It was not really matter of inconsistency but more of a problem with expressing myself fully. Whether the board or thinker wish to grant me the benefit of the doubt, consideration or even a bit of mercy is up him and you. My conscience is now clear in the matter.
I am drafting a post that I hope will make my position clear.Martian said:
Quote To all,
I would like to public ally apologies to thinker for what I can now see were personal attacks on him. I offer no excuses but will state that I have been under tremendous pressure because of physical problems, hospitalizations, pain and medications. This is also the reason why some of my posts seemed a bit disjointed. It was not really matter of inconsistency but more of a problem with expressing myself fully. Whether the board or thinker wish to grant me the benefit of the doubt, consideration or even a bit of mercy is up him and you. My conscience is now clear in the matter.
I am drafting a post that I hope will make my position clear.Martian,
I accept your apology “without reservation” (your own words). You have forgiven me more than I have forgiven you.I love you in Christ,
thinker
Thinker has made a stand that God became a man (Jesus) One of the primary proofs he has used is his belief that God’s name YHWH means ”He will become”. In other words He can become a man.
Let me begin by stating that thinker has continually eluded to ONE source (an online Hebrew interlinear) that states that YHWH means I will become. I have in turn posted many sources that stated that YHWH means He exists. I quoted several books from experts in the Hebrew language. I have also included the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon and this one —
From The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Browse Lexicon
Original WordWord Origin
hwhyfrom (01961)
Transliterated WordTDNT Entry
Y@hovahTWOT – 484a
Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech
yeh-ho-vaw' Proper Name
Definition
Jehovah = “the existing One”
0.the proper name of the one true God
unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136I also posted a clear etymology of the words from their root words and letters progressing to the understanding of He Exists.
In this process of posting sources, thinker has made statements that no man can be trusted and all sources are false. Now He has modified that stand to be that all of my sources are false and his ONE SOURCE is superior. At the same time, I am the one accused of being inconsistent.
One principle of interpretation is to give consideration to the preponderance of the evidence.
1 source = I will become
7 sources = He ExistsYou do the math.
Second –
In the beginning of our discourse, I pointed out that in order for God to become a man His character would have to be changed from a being (YHWH) for whom sin is an impossibility to a being capable of sin. (Jesus) The possibility of defaming the character of God did not seem to be of importance to thinker. Had I not continued to press the point, I doubt he would have dealt with it.In order to justify his stand that God can become/change, he made statements that Christ was not aware that he had the capability to sin. In my forty plus years of walking with God, I have never heard such a statement lacking reason or logic. If Jesus was unaware of his ability to sin, he could never have been tempted. This contradicts very clear scripture and eliminates Christ as our example of how to overcome temptation.
When asked then how Christ can be an example of overcoming temptation, thinker responded by saying Christ overcame His hunger. That type of overcoming would be like placing a man in a dungeon without food and saying he overcame his hunger. Christ had to be aware of the ability to feed himself. In fact Satan told him to turn the stones to bread. Most of us would have opened a bakery. Christ temptation was to obey the will of His father or use the authority given him as a son to meet His own needs. Christ had a choice, was aware of that choice and his ability to take either choice. Even thinker’s stand that Christ was unaware of his capability to sin makes Christ different then other men and again denies His example for us. To whatever degree you make Christ different then other men, to that same degree we cannot use Him as our example.The entire point of having Christ as our example is to show what it means to have perfected humanity. To have all of the character of God possible within a human WITH AND INCLUDING AND IN SPITE OF all of the our human frailties and weaknesses. God cannot change His character to have those weaknesses. Only a human, born of a woman, according to the flesh, after the law, and made like His brethren in every way can have those things.
I have made the point that it was possible for Christ to have failed. Thinker has countered that if Christ could have failed then the promises of God could fail and that would change God’s character. This is a rabbit trail of circular reasoning.
God’s promises are made on the basis of foreknowledge of what Christ would do. Foreknowledge does not interfere with Christ’s choices. God sees the beginning from the end. God had already seen the choices Christ would make and made the promises based on that knowledge. Had Christ failed, the promises would have been different then we now have. God did not predestine or force Christ to succeed.
Thinker can speculate and make commentary on scripture all day but the end result remains the same.
As long as thinker insists that God’s immutable sinless character can change or that Christ can be tempted without an awareness of His capability to sin, he has no foundation to stand upon.
Perhaps this is an indicator of the failure of forums such as these. Most people seem intent on proving their points of doctrine. Few think their doctrines through to the end conclusions and the results of their interpretations.
Two of the most important tests of any conclusion or interpretation of scripture are —
1.If it draws into question the character of the perfect God then it must be wrong.
2.If it lessens the degree to which Christ is our example, then it must be wrong. (In this case His example of how to overcome temptation)There are two absolute truths to remember in this discussion.
God’s perfect character does not change AND that in order to be tempted one must be given a choice and be aware of the capability to make that choice.There is no intrinsic spirituality in making commentary on scripture if the end conclusions are unreasonable or deny the absolutes I have mentioned.
I am not interested in a supposed higher way of commentary when the end results lead to such outlandish conclusions. I am not interested in thinker’s commentary on scripture when he insists on hanging onto such unreasonable conclusions.As far as I am concerned this discussion is over untill thinker is willing to see the error of his conclussions.
Martian said:
Quote Let me begin by stating that thinker has continually eluded to ONE source (an online Hebrew interlinear) that states that YHWH means I will become. I have in turn posted many sources that stated that YHWH means He exists. I quoted several books from experts in the Hebrew language. Martian,
You erred in thinking that The Hebrew-English Interlinear is merely one source. Do you think I would have invoked it if it was the work of one lone man? It is a compilation of MANY sources which all conferred and decided that Exodus 3:14 should be translated “I shall become what I am becoming“. Below I have copied and pasted the VARIOUS sources that contributed to the translation of the Interlinear. You can find this for yourself without my help:Reference Bibliography (maintained by Samuel Arnet)
Last revised on May 12th, 2007.
Lexicons
Benjamin Davidson: The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. Samuel Bagster & Sons,
London, 2nd edition 1850 (reprint Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody MA 1981).
Francis Brown, Samuel R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs: Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament (Oxford 1906). (cited as BDB)
Wilhelm Gesenius: Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 16th
edition 1915 (reprint 17th edition 1921 and Berlin/Göttingen/Heidelberg 1962). (cited as Ges17)
Wilhelm Gesenius: Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament.
Berlin et al., 18th edition (cited as Ges18)
Volume I: 1987 ) ג – א )
Volume II: 1995 ) י – ד )
Volume III: 2005 ) מ – כ )
Volume IV: 2007 ) פ – נ )
Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, Johann Jakob Stamm: Hebräisches und Aramäisches
Lexikon zum Alten Testament (Brill, Leiden et al. 3rd edition).
Volume I: טֶבַח – א , W. Baumgartner (1967)
Volume II: נבט – טַבָּח , W. Baumgartner (1974)
Volume III: ראה – נבט , W. Baumgartner, J.J. Stamm (1983)
Volume IV: תשׁע – ראה , J.J. Stamm (1990)
Volume V: Aramäisches Lexikon, J.J. Stamm, B. Hartmann (1995)
This was also published in 2 volumes by Brill (Leiden) in 1995 (cited as HALAT, sometimes also
as KBS). It was translated by Mervyn E.J. Richardson as The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament. Brill, Leiden (2001) (cited as HALOT, sometimes also as KBS).
William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Brill, Leiden
13th impression 1988; first published in 1971). – This is based upon HALAT (3rd edition, up to the
letter ס; for ע and beyond the German 2nd edition was used).
David J.A. Clines (ed.): The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
(cited as DCH)
Volume I: 1993 ) א )
Volume II: 1995 ) ו – ב )
Volume III: 1996 ) ט – ז )
Volume IV: 1998 ) ל – י )
Volume V: 2001 ) נ – מ )
Ernest Klein: A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of
English. Macmillan Publishing company, New York 1987.
2
Grammars
Hebrew
Wilhelm Gesenius, Emil Kautzsch: Hebräische Grammatik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
Darmstadt (28th edition, 1909). (cited as G-K)
Gotthelf Bergsträsser: Hebräische Grammatik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt
(1918).
Hans Bauer, Pontus Leander: Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten
Testamentes. Max Niemeyer / Georg Olms Verlag, Halle / Hildesheim, Zürich, New York. (1922 /
1991). (cited as B-L)
Carl Brockelmann: Hebräische Syntax. Neukirchen (1956).
Rudolf Meyer: Hebräische Grammatik. 4 volumes. Berlin / New York (3rd edition 1969, 1972,
1982; reprint de Gruyter 1992).
Bruce K. Waltke, Michael O’Connor: An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Eisenbrauns,
Winona Lake, IN (1990). (cited as IBHS)
Paul Joüon: A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, Subsidia Biblica
27, Rome (3rd edition 2006). [A translation and revision by Takamitsu Muraoka of the French
original: Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, 1923.] (cited as J-M)
Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naude, Jan Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference
Grammar. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press (1999, 2nd edition 2002).
Aramaic
Karl Marti: Kurzgefasste Grammatik der biblisch-aramäischen Sprache. Porta Linguarum
Orientalium 18. Verlag Reuther & Reichard, Berlin 3rd edition 1925.
Hans Bauer, Pontus Leander: Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen. Georg Olms
Verlagsbuchhandlung, Halle 1927 (reprint Hildesheim 1962).
Stanislav Segert: Altaramäische Grammatik. VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie Leipzig. Leipzig 1975.
Franz Rosenthal: A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Porta Linguarum Orientalium (Neue Serie) 5.
Harrassowitz Verlag. Wiesbaden, 6th edition 1995.
3
Textbooks
Hebrew
Ernst Jenni: Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments. Helbing & Lichtenhahn,
Basel / Frankfurt am Main (1981) [Neubearbeitung des “Hebräischen Schulbuchs” von Hollenberg-
Budde.]
Heinz-Dieter Neef: Arbeitsbuch Hebräisch. UTB 2429, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen (2003, 2nd edition
2006).
Aramaic
Frederick E. Greenspahn: An Introduction to Aramaic. Resources for Biblical Study 46, Society of
Biblical Literature. Atlanta, Georgia, 2nd edition 2003.
Concordances
Gerhard Lisowsky (Leonhard Rost, Hans Peter Rüger), Konkordanz zum hebräischen Alten
Testament. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart (1958, 3rd edition 1993).
Abraham Even-Shoshan: A New Concordance of the Bible. Kiryat Sefer Publishing House Ltd.,
Jerusalem (1990/1997).
John R. Kohlenberger III, James A. Swanson: The Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old
Testament. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (1998).
Specific Studies
Vocabulary:
Ernst Jenni, Claus Westermann: Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament.
Gütersloher Verlagshaus (1971/1975) / Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt (6th edition
2004). (cited as THAT)
Francis I. Andersen, A. Dean Forbes: The Vocabulary of the Old Testament. Editrice Pontificio
Istituto Biblico, Rome (1989). (cited as VOT)
Gender:
Karl Albrecht: Das Geschlecht der hebräischen Hauptwörter I. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 15 (1895) 313–325.
Karl Albrecht: Das Geschlecht der hebräischen Hauptwörter II. Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 16 (1896) 41–121.
4
H. Rosenberg: Zum Geschlecht der hebräischen Hauptwörter. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 25 (1905) 325–339.
Diethelm Michel, Grundlegung einer hebräischen Syntax. Teil 1: Sprachwissenschaftliche
Methodik. Genus und Numerus des Nomens. Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977 (reprint
2004).
Energic nun:
Tamar Zewi: A Syntactical Study of Verbal Forms Affixed by -n(n) Endings in Classical Arabic,
Biblical Hebrew, El-Amarna Akkadian and Ugaritic. Ugarit-Verlag, Münster (1999). Alter Orient
und Altes Testament 260.
Overview Semitic languages
Gotthelf Bergsträsser: Introduction to the Semitic Languages. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake IN
1983/1995. [A translation and revision by Peter T. Daniels of the German original: Einführung in
die Semitischen Sprachen, München 1928.]
Edward Lipiński: Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 80. Leuven, Peters, 2nd edition 2001.
Burkhart Kienast: Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden
2001.
John Kaltner, Steven L. McKenzie (e
ds.): Beyond Babel. A Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and
Related Languages,Resources for Biblical Study 42, Society of Biblical Literature. Atlanta, Georgia
2002. This includes various essays, among them:
Frederick E. Greenspahn, Aramaic (93–108)Martian,
I will reply to the rest of your post later. I want you to first take special notice of my post immediately above inwhich I have provided the various sources that compiled the Heb-Eng Interlinear.Btw, I am sorry to read that you are having physical problems and I have offered sincere prayers to God in your behalf. I trust that you believe that my concern for your well being is genuine.
thinker
Martian said:
Quote In this process of posting sources, thinker has made statements that no man can be trusted and all sources are false. Now He has modified that stand to be that all of my sources are false and his ONE SOURCE is superior. To All,
First, I never said that my source is “superior.” Second, I have shown in my post earlier today that the Heb-English Interlinear is a compilation of many sources. Therefore, Martian errs when he speaks of the Interlinear as merely one source. Has Martian's sources procduced an Interlinear translation?Martian said:
Quote At the same time, I am the one accused of being inconsistent. I have remained consistent in my commentary while Martian has not. He has even admitted that his posts have been “disjointed” due to medications he takes.
Martian said:
Quote In the beginning of our discourse, I pointed out that in order for God to become a man His character would have to be changed from a being (YHWH) for whom sin is an impossibility to a being capable of sin. (Jesus) The possibility of defaming the character of God did not seem to be of importance to thinker. Had I not continued to press the point, I doubt he would have dealt with it. Martian's memory is failing him and I do not mean to disrespectful in saying this. He is continuing to press his point of Jesus' alleged ability to sin and I am continuing to reply to his postulations. I refer all to the discourse between Martian and I for the last couple of days on the “What God cannot do” thread.
Martian said:
Quote If Jesus was unaware of his ability to sin, he could never have been tempted. This contradicts very clear scripture and eliminates Christ as our example of how to overcome temptation. Let Martian produce the “clear scripture” that indicates that Jesus had the ability to sin. Martian's idea that jesus had the ability to sin is his own theory. Jesus Himself said that He could not do anything on His own accord,
Quote The Son can do nothing of His own accord but what he sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner (John 5:19) .
Jesus use the words “ou” (not) and “dunamis” (power). Literally He said that He was without the power to act on His own accord but what he sees His Father doing. Yet we know that Jesus was tempted and that the temptation was real.
Quote For since He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted (Heb. 2:18). Note that the verse I cited above indicates that it was His suffering in temptation that enables Him to aid those that are tempted. It does not say that He had to have the ability to sin. He is my aid in temptation because He suffered in temptation. Martian's view put the promises of God at risk for two reasons,
1. If Jesus could have sinned then His union with His Father could have been broken and the promises of God would have failed. This means that God's character could have changed.
2. Hebrews said that God deemed it fitting that our High Priest be without weaknessQuote For such a High priest was fitting for us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners…. For the law appoints high priests men who have weakness, but the word of oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been PERFECTED FOREVER (Heb.7:26-28) LAW: appointed men with weakness as high priests
OATH: appointed a man who was perfect as High priestIf Christ had any weakness then the oath could have failed which means that God's character could have changed.
Reminder to all: Please view the great host of Hebrew scholarship that contributed to the Heb-Eng Interlinear which I provided in my post earlier today.
thinker
Hi tt,
Of course the perfection as a priest was not required of Jesus till he entered the Holy place as priest.Heb10
19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21And having an high priest over the house of God;
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 20 2009,09:04) Hi tt,
Of course the perfection as a priest was not required of Jesus till he entered the Holy place as priest.Heb10
19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21And having an high priest over the house of God;
But it all refers back to Jesus' being appointed by oath
Quote Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise, the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an OATH, that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lies, we might have strong consolation…. (Heb. 6:17-18)….For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever (7:28) The law appointed men as high priests that had weakness. But Jesus was appointed High Priest by oath according to the immutability of God's counsel. Therefore, Jesus had no weakness and His sinless life proved it.
It says that it was fitting for us to have a High Priest who was separate from us and who was without weakness (7:26-28).
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
