Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[angellous_evangellous]

Not really. Abraham lived to be 175. He and his wife were the first people we know were discussed as "getting old," as Sarah laughed at the idea of having children when she was clearly post-menopausal. But she was probably one of the first generation to EXPERIENCE menopause.

Are you being serious here? I mean - do you believe this in an historical sense?

 

[smokydot]

You throw around legal terms just as irresponsibly as you do everything else.

People [like you] who can't read Greek and Hebrew can ASK those of us what it means and not speak about it with authority themselves.

Just because you can locate a word in a concordance [or whatever you plagiarized your translation from], that does not mean that you know what it means. You can vainly and arrogantly pretend like you know, but you will not ever fail to be wrong.

You don't know what a concordance is, do you?

 

[Harmonious]

Where is that in the Genesis account?

Or, were you referring to when I said:

and it took over 930 years for any signs of mortality to start showdyining up.

The idea is that we were told how old Adam lived. But the first people we ever HEAR about "getting old" are Abraham and Sarah.

As I said, Jews have the tradition of learning that no one else got old before that.

You can't find it in Genesis, as it is an ORAL tradition we have when learning Genesis.

But I've said that already.

 

[Harmonious]

Are you being serious here? I mean - do you believe this in an historical sense?

Yes, I do.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You don't know what a concordance is, do you?

Apparently it's something that you can plagiarize. Unlike any other work under the sun.

And you can just make up anything about how the definitions are used in syntax and grammar.

I knew it was a concordance because of how little information it provided you to exploit.

 

[Harmonious]

You don't know what a concordance is, do you?

A concordance will never take the place of actually knowing the Hebrew, and your insistence on your translation makes angellous edgy. Especially when you insist that the concordance you are using is better at translating the Hebrew than someone who actually understands the flow of the Hebrew language.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But I've said that already.

Get used to it.

 

[Harmonious]

Get used to it.

Such is life.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A concordance will never take the place of actually knowing the Hebrew, and your insistence on your translation makes angellous edgy. Especially when you insist that the concordance you are using is better at translating the Hebrew than someone who actually understands the flow of the Hebrew language.

First of all, we both know it's not his translation, because he obviously can't read Hebrew.

Secondly, I'm not edgy. It makes me foam at the mouth.

He ripped off a translation, THEN made up a lousy interpretation [unless that was stolen too], and THEN tries to defend it by justifying his dishonesty.

 

[smokydot]

Same old Christian Apologists formula. If a verse interferes with Christian theology....just reinterpret...give it a new meaning.
BigRed
Hebrews 10:26.....For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.

Same old Christ-rejecting denial. . .

But there you have it anyway:

"For if we go on sinning willfully"; i.e., reverting to Judaism; as in intentional sin of Nu 15:22-31

"after receiving the knowledge of the truth"; i.e., of Jesus' perfect atoning sacrifice for sin, while we professed faith in him

"there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins"; i.e., because you reject the only one there is, and there is no other remaining

It's as plain as the nose on your face. . .

 

[Harmonious]

First of all, we both know it's not his translation, because he obviously can't read Hebrew.

Secondly, I'm not edgy. It makes me foam at the mouth.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry. :foot:

He ripped off a translation, THEN made up a lousy interpretation [unless that was stolen too], and THEN tries to defend it by justifying his dishonesty.

You know...

Maybe he didn't mean to steal this one. Ask him where he got his interpretation - the concordance he's using might make it seem like the interpretation he gave is standard.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry. :foot:


You know...

Maybe he didn't mean to steal this one. Ask him where he got his interpretation - the concordance he's using might make it seem like the interpretation he gave is standard.

You're just too nice.

 

[smokydot]

Actually, that one wasn't too far off.

The Hebrew of Genesis 2:17 actually reads:

יז. וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת:

Umei'eitz hada'at tov vara' lo tochal mimenu ki b'yom acha'cha mimenu mot tamut.

Simply translated (by Harmonious): And from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil you will not eat from it, because on the day you eat from it you will surely die.

But the portion that is highlighted in the Hebrew could, in fact, be translated (not syntactically well in English, but none the less) "die you will die".

Now, my highlighted words reflect smoky's highlighted words.

Oh, dear! . .now his mouth has overloaded his ***. . .all those emphatically-stated certainties by angellous_evangellous. . .

(1) of my "irresponsiblity". . ."plagiarizing". . ."vain". . .'arrogant". . ."never failing to be wrong". . .here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2323485-post670.html,

(2) of my acts of "rape". . ."divorce". . .here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2323502-post674.html,

(3) of my "ripping off translations". . ."making up lousy interpretations". . ."justifying my dishonesty". . .here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2323544-post689.html,

(4) and then, if that weren't enough, in a lame effort to mitigate all those unhinged false assertions above, he goes on to further falsely claim

that I had subsequently clarified the point for him! . .here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2323505-post675.html. . .now how dishonest is that? . .

and all of which are shown here once more to be shams. . .and just more of (6) here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2318652-post514.html

Oh, dear. . .oh, dear. . .oh, dear! . .when will he ever learn?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh, dear! . .now his mouth has overloaded his ***. . .all those emphatically-stated certainties by angellous_evangellous. . .of my "irresponsiblity". . ."plagiarizing". . .[/URL]

Oh, dear. . .oh, dear. . .oh, dear. . .when will he ever learn?

But what about your crimes on this thread?

Changing the topic isn't going to divert anyone's attention.

 

[smokydot]

Actually, you are wrong.
The doubled language of the word dying, Mot tamut, doesn't work the way you suggest. The repetition is only for emphasis, not to give a secondary dying.
A homiletic case could be made that the repetition could actually mean that, but that is not the simple function of the words.

(It DOES help to actually know the Hebrew.)

Yep, it does. . .and that's where I got it.

Not really. Abraham lived to be 175. He and his wife were the first people we know were discussed as "getting old," as Sarah laughed at the idea of having children when she was clearly post-menopausal. But she was probably one of the first generation to EXPERIENCE menopause.
After all, we don't know how old Abraham or Sarah's mothers were when they were born.
Again, while a homiletic interpretation could be made, that isn't the simple meaning of the text.
More to the point, where, in the text of Genesis, does it say that the serpent IS the embodiment of evil?
I can tell you - it isn't there. The snake is simply a snake. It is a Christian assumption that the snake was Satan, or the Devil, or something like that.
It certainly isn't in the Hebrew. There, it simply says that the snake was the most crafty of animals. A thinking animal does not necessarily mean an EVIL animal...

 

[smokydot]

It's particularly offensive when someone like this makes up something about the Hebrew (or Greek, etc) and then arrogantly refuses to be corrected by someone who knows better. This same person can then have the gall to call other people ignorant.

I worked my butt off to learn Hebrew and Greek (and a handful of other languages). I hate it when people make stuff up.

(1) Working your butt off doesn't mean you own the damn language! . it doesn't give you proprietary rights over it. . .it doesn't mean your own personal translations
are the only ones with standing. . .get over yourself! . .as is seen

here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2323485-post670.html and http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2323544-post689.html

(2) "making up something; making stuff up". . .assumes facts not in evidence, per (2), (6,b) @ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2318652-post514.html

(3) And, of course, you know all there is to know, and there couldn't be anyone who knows more than you, and emphatically disagrees with you, could there? . .
nor could I have access to such, could I. . .no, there is only one explanation. . .whenever translation is involved, I have to be "making it all up". . .what an absolute nit!

Your over-inflated ego is showing. . .

 

[smokydot]

Apparently it's something that you can plagiarize. Unlike any other work under the sun.
And you can just make up anything about how the definitions are used in syntax and grammar.
I knew it was a concordance because of how little information it provided you to exploit.

Uh huh. . .and then you overloaded your *** in false accusations, as seen @ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2323578-post693.html

 

[smokydot]

A concordance will never take the place of actually knowing the Hebrew, and your insistence on your translation makes angellous edgy. Especially when you insist that the concordance you are using is better at translating the Hebrew than someone who actually understands the flow of the Hebrew language.

Neither one of you knows what a concordance is. . .

 

[smokydot]

Or, were you referring to when I said:
The idea is that we were told how old Adam lived. But the first people we ever HEAR about "getting old" are Abraham and Sarah.
As I said, Jews have the tradition of learning that no one else got old before that.
You can't find it in Genesis, as it is an ORAL tradition we have when learning Genesis.
But I've said that already.

I was asking where in Genesis does it report that God took away the speech of the snake. . .

 

[smokydot]

First of all, we both know it's not his translation, because he obviously can't read Hebrew.
Secondly, I'm not edgy. It makes me foam at the mouth.
He ripped off a translation, THEN made up a lousy interpretation [unless that was stolen too], and THEN tries to defend it by justifying his dishonesty.

Man, you're coming unhinged!