Rakhel
Well-Known Member
That part I was following. I was referring to his greatest hit called "the record speaks for itself" of his broken record.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Jewish law be fulfilled?
- Thread starter fallingblood
- Start date
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
LMAO - we were talking past each other then.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Whatever you may believe Satan to be, he certainly does not act in mankinds best interests. The account of Job shows just how vicious he is and he doesnt act for God...he acts against God and against Gods interests. Thankfully we are informed that Satan will be destroyed along with the angels who follow him.
The account of Noah certainly portrays some angels as acting rebelliously
The jewish writer, Jude says that some angels did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place. (Jude 6) IOW, they left their assigned place in the heavens. He also says that they were like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, who committed fornication excessively and went out after flesh for unnatural use. Jude 7.
this is in harmony with Moses account in Genesis where the 'sons of God' being the Angels, had sexual intercourse with the women on earth.
Gen 6:1-2 Now it came about that when men started to grow in numbers on the surface of the ground and daughters were born to them, 2 then the sons of the [true] God began to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
Of course not. Prosecutors don't usually act in the best interest of defendants.
No, it doesn't. You are seeing what you wish to see, not what is there.
Satan says that Job was only faithful because life was good - he was interested in seeing how sincere Job was. That is part of Satan's job.
facepalm: Sorry about the pun.)No he doesn't.
Perhaps according to your belief system.
According to MY belief system, Satan is not permanent, as no one angel keeps a job for longer than its fulfillment. Satan, like any other angel, serves God unerringly (at least in intention - no one is perfect but God).
No. The account of Noah portrays nobles with power over other people acting rebelliously.
You know... Karl Marx was also Jewish. That doesn't mean that his writing is authentically Jewish, and has meaning for Jews of all time.
Understanding that, I'll take a look at what he said.
Eh. It was worth a shot, but ultimately not worth the effort.
Except now I understand what you believe a bit better than I did before.
No, no, no. You did NOT just say that.
The words say "Bnei Elohim." And that expression does NOT always translate to angel, or anything to do with God.
Elohim refers to a being in power, or perceived power. The people in the verse you are trying to bring are NOBLES. They are powerful human beings, nothing more, nothing less.
They are not fallen angels, no matter how much Christians may wish them to be angels, so their whole thing against the devil will be that much more "valid."
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Satan says that Job was only faithful because life was good - he was interested in seeing how sincere Job was. That is part of Satan's job.
ok well answer me this, if Satan is doing the right thing then God must approve of the things he does. If Satan turns his attention to you and did what he did to Job, will you still believe that what Satan does is approved by God and acceptable to God? All your blessings taken away, your family killed...is Satan still the good guy?
i agree with you that Satan is not permanent. The NT tells us the same thing
"Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time. Re 12:10, 12.
not always, but it does translate to 'angels' in many places such as
Job 1:6 Now it came to be the day when the sons (beneh) of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and even Satan proceeded to enter right among them
Job 38:4-7 "Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?
Tell [me], if you do know understanding....7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God (beneh elohim) began shouting in applause?
the 'sons' mentioned in both these verse can ONLY apply to spirit sons or angels because no humans were alive when God created the earth...nor can any human enter Gods presence in heaven.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
I would not think so.
But medicine that is good for us is often bitter. If life is bitter, but God decided that it was best for me... I would not honestly be able to say that it was good, but I would try hard to remember that God knows best.
If God decreed to allow the Satan to do to me what he did to Job... I would be desperately unhappy. But I would still love God, and hope one day to understand.
No - the NT doesn't say the same thing at all.
The NT, as you call it, seems to say that "the devil" will have sway, but it will end (particularly when Jesus ends the devil's reign, and like that).
According to my belief system, once the angel has fulfilled its role as a prosecutor, it will be reassigned to do something else. Who knows? Maybe it might be a healing for someone. Maybe it might be to deliver a message.
Every angel is only temporarily assigned, until it fulfills its mission. Then it goes back to get a new one.
"Sons of Elohim" - but yes, in these two circumstances, you are correct. But the same definition does not always apply to all times the expression occurs.
Moses did. Elijah does.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
I don't agree with your translation.
6. Now the day came about, and the angels of God came to stand beside the Lord, and the Adversary, too, came among them.
Now... In much the same way as Smoky's rendition of "Mot Tamut" is incorrect idiomatically, although it might be a correct line by line translation (missing the intended meaning entirely), you are doing the same thing with "Bnei Elohim."
The whole "sons of the [true] God" irks me, as that is NOT how it works.
The words Bnei Elohim literally translates to "sons of power", and it is understood that in this place it means "angels".
It does not mean "sons of God," even when God is referred to as Elohim. God is not physical, and therefore (even though it runs contrary to your belief system) God does not HAVE "sons," insofar as any "begotten" children goes.
For a different token, all humanity can be called "God's children."
But please don't use the "translation "sons of the [true] God" again.
First of all, Hebrew DOES have definite articles, and your putting "true" in parentheses but not "the" is intellectually dishonest.
Second, all this does is show what you WISH the translation to be, rather than what it is.
As angellous explained, this particular agendizing "translation" is offensive. Please don't use it again.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the problem that i see with this is that the real culprit behind your suffering would actually be God himself... and that poses a problem in terms of a God of Love and Mercy and Holy... If God is all those things, then he could never inflict such suffering on anyone. And if he were to do so, then he cannot be loving, merciful and holy.
can you direct me to the scriptures which indicate this?
the reason why we apply 'angel' to the genesis account about the Nephilim is because Jude expressly discusses that event with the Angels who came down and took wives in order to have intercourse with them. The result were hybrid offspring called nephilim. That God never intended for angels and humans to co-habit is seen in the fact that he sent a flood to destroy the wicked in those days...including those hybrid offspring who were causing a lot of stife.
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
I want to point out that the hebrew Interlinear also uses 'son' in the verse at Job. Its not an inclusion...its there. English translations are only relaying whats already there.
u·iei e·ium u·ibau bni e·aleim l·ethitzb ol ieue
and·he-was the·day and·they-are-coming sons-of to-station-themselves-of the·Elohim on Yahweh
the interlinear translation reads:
Now there was a day
when thesonsof God came
to present themselves before
the LORD,
So im not sure why you take issue with this translation. Can you explain it more for me because im a bit confused.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
Or, you just don't understand God enough to allow that God can indeed do ALL of these things, and STILL be loving, merciful, and holy.
Nothing God creates is evil. Even though God created the concept of evil... What is often evil is human choice.
Nothing God DOES is evil, even if we can't understand it.
In other threads here, I've seen people who don't believe in God ask why a loving God would give children cancer, or kill nursing mothers in tsunamis, and other such things.
I don't know why God makes some of the choices He makes. But God does not compete. He is the King of Kings, and He has no equal, no peer, no competitor. Certainly not an angel of His own devising.
The only creations that have free will are humans.
I could direct you to the angel that fought Jacob. In Genesis 32:30, it says:
30. And Jacob asked and said, "Now tell me your name," and he said, "Why is it that you ask for my name?" And he blessed him there.
Why should it refuse to answer Jacob? Jews explain that the reason he didn't answer is that it no longer HAD a name. It fought Jacob, as that was its job. Now, its job was complete, so it no longer had a name; it no longer had a task. It needed to go back to heaven to receive its new task.
The same could be said for the angel that spoke to Manoach and his wife (Samson's mother):
Judges 13:17. And Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, "What is your name, that when your word will come we may do you honor." יז. 18. And the angel of the Lord said to him, "Why do you presently ask for my name; since it is hidden."
The name was hidden because its job was to give the couple its message and tell them to offer sacrifices. They did it, and now he was waiting to get his new name. It was hidden, until he retrieved it.
But you see... I don't have much faith in Jude, or his explanation of what happened in Genesis. So that really won't help your case, whatever case you are making.
Last edited:
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
I take issue with it because it is NOT correct.
Bnei Elohim does not translate to "sons of God." It translates to "sons of Elohim."
Elohim does not translate to "God." Ever. It translates to "embodiment of power." God often uses that as a name, but that is a name, not a good translation.
Your use of the linear translation is not impressive - really, no Christian translation ever will be. Even the Jewish printed translations are not perfect. I rely on my own knowledge to learn, and those of people who actually know Hebrew.
I often use various Jewish translations for convenience, but I almost always check with the Hebrew, to make sure that it says what I think it says.
Bnei Elohim does not mean "sons of God." The idiom in Job refers to angels. The idiom in Genesis refers to nobles, people who were the embodiment of power.
The actual concept of "sons of the one true god" is not an accurate translation, nor is it an accurate or even useful interpretation. It is you (or whatever Christian is trying to press the issue) using a concept that is foreign to all things Jewish and certainly the Hebrew language and trying to work your own interpretation into a translation that never was.
Only your (or your translator's) belief in a physical god that has children could give rise to a "translation" that comes to "sons of the true god."
The Hebrew doesn't say that, except in the hearts and minds of Christians who want to believe it.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
we dont believe God to be a physical God who brings forth children... God brings forth his creations and calls them 'sons' not because they came out of his 'loins' but because he is their 'father' and they are his 'progeny'
He calls the jews his children, why would he not also call the angels his children?
In Job 1:6 the hebrew word beneh is used in reference to the angels. Was moses mistaken when he wrote it?
There are so many verses in the hebrew scriptures where Isreal is called Gods son and where God is called their father.
Malachi 1:6 "...if i am a father, where is the honor to me..."
Exodus 4:2 "Isreal is my son, my firstborn"
Deut 32:4-6 "..is he not your Father who has produced you..."
Isaiah 1:2-3 "...sons i have raised up but they have revolted against me..."
Jeremiah 3:14 "...return Oh you renegade sons..."
Jeremiah 4:22 "my people are foolish, they are unwise sons..."
God speaks of mankind as his sons, his beneh, his children....why would the angels be any less?
He calls the jews his children, why would he not also call the angels his children?
In Job 1:6 the hebrew word beneh is used in reference to the angels. Was moses mistaken when he wrote it?
There are so many verses in the hebrew scriptures where Isreal is called Gods son and where God is called their father.
Malachi 1:6 "...if i am a father, where is the honor to me..."
Exodus 4:2 "Isreal is my son, my firstborn"
Deut 32:4-6 "..is he not your Father who has produced you..."
Isaiah 1:2-3 "...sons i have raised up but they have revolted against me..."
Jeremiah 3:14 "...return Oh you renegade sons..."
Jeremiah 4:22 "my people are foolish, they are unwise sons..."
God speaks of mankind as his sons, his beneh, his children....why would the angels be any less?
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
Pegg, this is bothering me. So, I'll give you a lesson in grammar.
In Hebrew, one son is Ben. A daughter is Bat.
Many sons or many children of mixed sexes are Banim. Many daughters are Banot.
Hebrew also has a possessive form. Sort of the same way we have his or hers.
Children OF someone are Benei - whomever.
Benei Yisrael are the Children of Israel.
Benei Elohim are Children of Power.
But here's the thing... Idiomatically, the word Ben doesn't only mean son. When a family is so enamored of a person that the person becomes a quasi-permanent house guest, that person is called Ben Habayit. Literally translated, it means "son of the house." But actually, it means "member of the household."
Benei Elohim translates to "people of power." Only context would give that specific definition.
It doesn't mean that Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Malachi have it wrong. It means that the Hebrew idiom is being ignored by people who choose to mistranslate and redefine words to mean what they were never meant to mean.
You are right. Sometimes, God calls Jews His children. But in context, God calls us His children.
Angels, while holy in nature, do NOT have the same relationship with God that humans have, and certainly not the same relationship that the Jews have. Yes, God loves them. But God would not call the angels His children in that way.
It makes sense if you are trying to force the issue with a translation that completely ignores the purpose of the idiom. But if you are seriously trying to make a case for bad syntax to make it mean what you want it to mean, you are just showing ignorance for how Hebrew works.
Sometimes, Beings of Power refers to angels, as it does in Job. Sometimes, Beings of Power refers to nobles, as it does in the story of Noah. Sometimes, it refers to false gods, as people believed they were beings of power.
And part of the problem you are having is that you don't see the Hebrew, versus the English translation. While the Hebrew is very expressive and possessive in some places, particularly the verses you point out, in verses like the ones in Job, no one is referring to anyone possessively. The angels are "beings of power".
God is not claiming angels as children. He never does, and it never comes up in context anywhere.
When God refers to Israel as His sons, the word used is Banai, My sons.
Benei only means "son of".
In Hebrew, one son is Ben. A daughter is Bat.
Many sons or many children of mixed sexes are Banim. Many daughters are Banot.
Hebrew also has a possessive form. Sort of the same way we have his or hers.
Children OF someone are Benei - whomever.
Benei Yisrael are the Children of Israel.
Benei Elohim are Children of Power.
But here's the thing... Idiomatically, the word Ben doesn't only mean son. When a family is so enamored of a person that the person becomes a quasi-permanent house guest, that person is called Ben Habayit. Literally translated, it means "son of the house." But actually, it means "member of the household."
Benei Elohim translates to "people of power." Only context would give that specific definition.
It doesn't mean that Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Malachi have it wrong. It means that the Hebrew idiom is being ignored by people who choose to mistranslate and redefine words to mean what they were never meant to mean.
You are right. Sometimes, God calls Jews His children. But in context, God calls us His children.
Angels, while holy in nature, do NOT have the same relationship with God that humans have, and certainly not the same relationship that the Jews have. Yes, God loves them. But God would not call the angels His children in that way.
It makes sense if you are trying to force the issue with a translation that completely ignores the purpose of the idiom. But if you are seriously trying to make a case for bad syntax to make it mean what you want it to mean, you are just showing ignorance for how Hebrew works.
Sometimes, Beings of Power refers to angels, as it does in Job. Sometimes, Beings of Power refers to nobles, as it does in the story of Noah. Sometimes, it refers to false gods, as people believed they were beings of power.
And part of the problem you are having is that you don't see the Hebrew, versus the English translation. While the Hebrew is very expressive and possessive in some places, particularly the verses you point out, in verses like the ones in Job, no one is referring to anyone possessively. The angels are "beings of power".
God is not claiming angels as children. He never does, and it never comes up in context anywhere.
When God refers to Israel as His sons, the word used is Banai, My sons.
Benei only means "son of".
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
I dont really understand why you do not translate Elohim as God in the verses i gave. This surely cannot be the same for all hebrew speakers because I did a short course in biblical hebrew and Elohim is most definitely rendered as God in my workbook. And actually its in there as a proper noun thus it identifies a unique entity... its certainly not a verb which is what the word 'power' is
without doing any ringing around can i ask if perhaps 'power' is the root word of Elohim ??? Could that be why you feel it should be translated as Power and not God?
in the context of scripture, what is the difference between 'sons' and 'children' in your opinion?
Last edited:
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
But he said so.
Yeshayahu/Isaiah 45:7
ז יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ, עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע; אֲנִי יְהוָה, עֹשֶׂה כָל-אֵלֶּה.
7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.
It just doesnt get clearer than that.
Also Yeshayahu/Isaiah 45:5-6
ה אֲנִי יְהוָה וְאֵין עוֹד, זוּלָתִי אֵין אֱלֹהִים; אֲאַזֶּרְךָ, וְלֹא יְדַעְתָּנִי.
ו לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ, מִמִּזְרַח-שֶׁמֶשׁ וּמִמַּעֲרָבָה, כִּי-אֶפֶס, בִּלְעָדָי: אֲנִי יְהוָה, וְאֵין עוֹד.
5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, beside Me there is no God; I have girded thee, though thou hast not known Me;
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside Me; I am the LORD; and there is none else;
If there is no g'd beside g'd then there is also no evil-demi-g'd who could have created evil.
As HaShem created everything.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
im sure you dont believe that God orchestrated the holocaust?
So being correct is not the issue for you. . .the issue is transgressing your proprietary rights over translations. . .get over yourself!
See: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2323595-post696.html
Last edited:
You don't own the language. . .your personal interpretations are not the only ones with standing. . .get over yourself!
Jesus fulfilled the Law in himself, here --->http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2320006-post527.html and http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2310320-post238.html
. . .not by executing all God's conditional promises to faithless Israel.
Last edited:
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
Dont you see a difference in creating evil at the beginning of time and then leaving it up to the free will of your creation to act how they want to?
In contrary to "orchestrating the holocaust/any genocide" in person?