• 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!

Quick question about eve and the devil and the garden of eden

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I suspect.....
the restoration of the garden will be in the spiritual form
after the last breath
Everlasting life has No last breath but means to: live forever.
Some people like those of Luke 22:28-30 have everlasting life in heaven - Revelation 20:6; 2:10; 5:9-10
However, the majority (John 3:13) can gain everlasting life on a beautiful paradisical Earth as Eden was a sample.
This is why 1 Corinthians 15:26 mentions that 'enemy death ' will be No more on Earth - Isaiah 25:8
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Everlasting life has No last breath but means to: live forever.
Some people like those of Luke 22:28-30 have everlasting life in heaven - Revelation 20:6; 2:10; 5:9-10
However, the majority (John 3:13) can gain everlasting life on a beautiful paradisical Earth as Eden was a sample.
This is why 1 Corinthians 15:26 mentions that 'enemy death ' will be No more on Earth - Isaiah 25:8

Isaiah lived almost 800 years before Jesus...the exact relationship between the Book of Isaiah and any such historical Isaiah is complicated.

Same with Daniel.. Requires a great deal of honest study.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Not everything written in Isaiah is about Jesus.
I think Revelation was written to the people of the 7 churches in the first century.

Those 7 churches were 7 Christian congregations, and used as examples for our day or time frame.
Remember: the setting for Revelation 1:10 was future, future for our time period, Not the 1st century.
Revelation was written at the close of the first century.
Each congregation had personalities with good points and some Not so good points.
Thus, we are to work on the Not so good points as Jesus pointed out.

Everything in Isaiah does Not have to be about Jesus but Isaiah 11:3-4 is, and so is Isaiah 9:7; Isaiah 16:5
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Isaiah lived almost 800 years before Jesus...the exact relationship between the Book of Isaiah and any such historical Isaiah is complicated.
Same with Daniel.. Requires a great deal of honest study.

I don't think anyone can disagree with the ^ above ^.
Daniel informs us about God's kingdom at Daniel 2:44
Jesus main focus was about God's kingdom - Luke 4:43
Jesus instructed that we too should focus on ' thy kingdom come ' - Matthew 24:14; Acts of the Apostles 1:8
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Those 7 churches were 7 Christian congregations, and used as examples for our day or time frame.
Remember: the setting for Revelation 1:10 was future, future for our time period, Not the 1st century.
Revelation was written at the close of the first century.
Each congregation had personalities with good points and some Not so good points.
Thus, we are to work on the Not so good points as Jesus pointed out.

Everything in Isaiah does Not have to be about Jesus but Isaiah 11:3-4 is, and so is Isaiah 9:7; Isaiah 16:5

NO ... its very clear who the letter is for and what the time frame is.

Isaiah's prophecies on the future glory of Israel are as eloquent and inspiring:

"Comfort ye, comfort ye My people" says your G‑d. Speak unto the heart of Jerusalem and proclaim unto her, that her time of punishment is completed, that her guilt is paid off..."
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Those 7 churches were 7 Christian congregations, and used as examples for our day or time frame.
Remember: the setting for Revelation 1:10 was future, future for our time period, Not the 1st century.
Revelation was written at the close of the first century.
Each congregation had personalities with good points and some Not so good points.
Thus, we are to work on the Not so good points as Jesus pointed out.

Everything in Isaiah does Not have to be about Jesus but Isaiah 11:3-4 is, and so is Isaiah 9:7; Isaiah 16:5


You need to start over with the prophets.. Daniel wrote history.. The author was never in Babylon.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I am wondering why you say Daniel was never in Babylon.
What Scripture do you have in mind to back that up ____________

There was no Daniel.. There were a half dozen writers over a period of hundreds of years. He's not considered a prophet. Daniel was writing about the Abomination of Desolation under Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 165 BC.. during the Maccabean revolt.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
In the garden of eden the devil told eve that she would not die when you ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.Which was a lie.But were in the bible does it say the devil made up the idea of the immortal soul?:confused:
Wasn't that the Tree of Life? I thought for the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil , the devil said she will be like them.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
For example, Deeje says “Psalm 146:4 says the same thing....the dead do not think.”

However, this scripture says no such thing.
Psalms 146:4 When their spirit departs, they return to his earth; in that day his plans (διαλογισμοι αυτο - lxx) perish.

Since Jehovahs witness theology no longer has the theology of a “spirit” that departs the body, then this part of the scripture is left out of his quote. Conversely, he adds the concept in this quote that the dead do not think while the scripture itself simply tells us his plans perish. (fail) Both the "leaving out" and the "adding to" change the scripture.

We are given a redacted and paraphrased form of the actual scripture, that is NOT representative of scripture, but of Jehovahs Witness interpretation.

Let's see....The word rendered "thoughts" in Psalm 146:4, but claimed by you to mean "plans" is "`eshtonah" which Strongs Concordance says is "thought". So since we plan things in our minds, all ability to think and plan is gone at death. This is in harmony with Ecclesiastes 9:10...
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going." (NASB)

We are all going to "sheol" which is no more scary than resting peacefully in our graves.

In Hebrew the word "thought" is "chashab" which means...
"to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment, imagine, count".

I don't think the scriptures need your spin when the language experts seem to disagree with your interpretation.
Strongs is a widely recognized reference source that has nothing to do with JW's.

Someone without any pre-conceptions may read the phrase “When their spirit departs” as meaning “their spirit departs or leaves”, and the persons dead body returns to the earth, and thus all future plans made by the dead person will no longer be accomplished by that person.

That is your spin but it does not hold up to scrutiny.....sorry.

The Hebrew word rendered "departs" is "yatsa'" which means...
"to go out, come out, exit, go forth".

When we say a light "goes out" do we mean that it has left the room? It is extinguished....just as the breath in a dying body "goes out"...it "exits" the body. If you have ever sat with a dying person who takes their last breath....it is an exhale. The spirit (breath) leaves their body.

In Habakkuk 2:19 it says in the Tanach...
"Woe to him who says to the wood, "Awaken!"; to the dumb stone, "Arise!" Shall it teach? Behold it is overlaid with gold and silver, and no spirit is within it."

According to Strongs, the word "spirit" in Hebrew is "ruwach" which means....
"wind, breath, mind, spirit".
This scripture is saying that an idol is lifeless because it has no "breath". It is dead.

The Jewish understanding of the word "spirit" when it pertains to human beings is the air in their lungs. Adam "became a soul" when God started him breathing. It is the same "spirit" that is in all animate creatures who depend on breathing air.
Solomon lamented that we humans had no advantage over the animals in death when he said....

From the Tanach...Ecclesiastes 3:19-20...
"For there is a happening for the children of men, and there is a happening for the beasts-and they have one happening-like the death of this one is the death of that one, and all have one spirit [ruwach], and the superiority of man over beast is nought, for all is vanity.

20 All go to one place; all came from the dust, and all return to the dust."


Having demonstrated this, I must say that this principle of changing things in subtle ways such that it creates new doctrines to support a new system of religion, ALL of us tend to do this because we ALL make mistakes and we ALL have biases. To claim that we have things “right” because “we follow the bible” is naïve and self delusional. We simply make mistakes.

As you have 'clearly' demonstrated in your assertions....you have made a mistake in everything you have said. For goodness sake do some research before you continue on with this ridiculous crusade. Your ignorance of the scriptures and your bias in desperately clinging to this doctrine is blinding you to an obvious but inconvenient truth.

It’s not just that I notice “spins” placed on quotes in this thread, but I mentioned that I did not like some of the changes in the Jehovahs Witness creation of a paraphrase of the Bible and calling it a “translation’ while changing some of the text. For example, the NEW TESTAMENT TEXT he quotes as “Let everyone calling on the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.” (2 Timothy 2:15-19) The actual greek SAYS, αποστητω απο αδιδιασ πασ ο ονομαζνω το ονομα κυριου". The "name of the LORD" is the actual greek text and, I might point out that there are NO GN-4 variants of this text in existence that insert the word "jehovah" in the place of "κυριου". While the justification for changing the text is that it is a quote of an old Testament Text that the J.W. church THINKS should say "JEHOVAH" (but doesn't). This doesn't take into account the historical principle that there may have been a VERY GOOD reason for the writer to use the word "LORD" instead of JEHOVAH. IF the writer was inspired to write "Lord", then what would be the justification to change inspiration other than that it better supports a theological claim. These sorts of subtle changes to the NEW TESTAMENT text in order to support a claim are concerning.

Concerning to whom? Here we go again....

In the NWT we unashamedly write.... Jehovah knows those who belong to him,” and, “Let everyone calling on the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.” Paul was quoting OT scripture there.

The first reference is to Numbers 16:5 which in the Tanach it says..."
"He spoke to Korah and to all his company, saying, "In the morning, the Lord will make known who is His, and who is holy, and He will draw [them] near to Him, and the one He chooses, He will draw near to Him.
הוַיְדַבֵּ֨ר אֶל־קֹ֜רַח וְאֶל־כָּל־עֲדָתוֹ֘ לֵאמֹר֒ בֹּ֠קֶר וְיֹדַ֨ע יְהֹוָ֧ה אֶת־אֲשֶׁר־ל֛וֹ וְאֶת־הַקָּד֖וֹשׁ וְהִקְרִ֣יב אֵלָ֑יו וְאֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִבְחַר־בּ֖וֹ יַקְרִ֥יב אֵלָֽיו:

In the Hebrew we see the tetragrammaton יְהֹוָ֧ה (Yahweh, Jehovah) clearly in the text.

The second reference is from Joel 2:32 from the Tanach reads...
"And it shall come to pass that whoever shall call in the name of the Lord shall be delivered".
וְהָיָ֗ה כֹּ֧ל אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָ֛א בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהֹוָ֖ה יִמָּלֵ֑ט כִּ֠י


Again we see God's name in the Hebrew....so why is it that the Jews could write the divine name in their scripture, but not say it out loud?

A tradition had developed at some point, well before Jesus came to the earth of not uttering the divine name....and substituting the title "Adonai" (Lord) almost 7,000 times. There was no command from God to do this as the Bible writers freely used the divine name right throughout their scriptures. You cannot call on a name you never use.

To my understanding, it was actually a knee jerk for these overly self-righteous, law obsessed Jews because they saw that the Commandment of 'not taking God's name in vain' was being abused. It was becoming apparent that many were making frivolous oaths using God's name and then not honoring them. This in turn brought reproach on the greatest name in existence, so instead of making the people accountable for breaking this commandment, they simply removed the reason for breaking it. You can't break the Law if you do not use the name at all.

It was in this setting that Jesus and his apostles preached...but Jesus said something interesting....

John 17:6; 26...
I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. . . . I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

So Jesus knew how important God's name was and revealed it to his apostles. There is no real reason why God's name should not be returned to its rightful place in his word.
What human author would tolerate such a thing.....the removal of his name and substituted with the title "Author".

Just as Deeje added and subtracted to Psalms 146:4, in subtle changes to scripture, I have felt that subtle screwing with the text itself is NOT a good thing and it creates and supports a theology that the original text did not contain. This is the sort of systematization of errors that Ephesians referred to. The net result is the principle underlying the creation of another religious movement.

But Mormons would never "screw" with the text.....would they? They simply wrote their own scripture.....without a single bit of real evidence that Joseph Smith was not simply a man with delusional mental health issues.

Deeje responded : “We value the truth. That is why we produced the NWT. It is the most accurate translation available because of the research that went into its renderings. All you need is a good concordance to ascertain the original meanings of the words used in the Bible. Please provide examples of where we should "have left the sacred text alone instead of making changes that are inaccurate and unwarranted in scripture". Let's examine them....please....”


I am at work, but will get out my New World Translation and give some examples of the origin of the NW Translation and it's text that is so bothersome.

I eagerly look forward to that.....:)
 
Last edited:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
NO ... its very clear who the letter is for and what the time frame is. Isaiah's prophecies on the future glory of Israel are as eloquent and inspiring:
"Comfort ye, comfort ye My people" says your G‑d. Speak unto the heart of Jerusalem and proclaim unto her, that her time of punishment is completed, that her guilt is paid off..."

As I mentioned before I have found often in Scripture there is a minor and a MAJOR fulfillment.
Since Pentecost, for Christians, Jerusalem is now ' Jerusalem above ' (Heavenly Jerusalem) - Galatians 4:26
Jesus knew the old spiritual ' House of Worship ' would be abandoned by his God - Matthew 23:38.
No longer a Jew by fleshly descent but now by spirit - see Romans 2:28-29.
Not a 'national nation', but now a 'spiritual nation' Not located on any map, and with No borders, No boundaries.
However, 'spiritual house cleaning' will begin with Christendom (so-called Christian) - 1 Peter 4:17
 

sooda

Veteran Member
As I mentioned before I have found often in Scripture there is a minor and a MAJOR fulfillment.
Since Pentecost, for Christians, Jerusalem is now ' Jerusalem above ' (Heavenly Jerusalem) - Galatians 4:26
Jesus knew the old spiritual ' House of Worship ' would be abandoned by his God - Matthew 23:38.
No longer a Jew by fleshly descent but now by spirit - see Romans 2:28-29.
Not a 'national nation', but now a 'spiritual nation' Not located on any map, and with No borders, No boundaries.
However, 'spiritual house cleaning' will begin with Christendom (so-called Christian) - 1 Peter 4:17

Good for you.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Clear said : Deeje says “Psalm 146:4 says the same thing....the dead do not think.” However, this scripture says no such thing.
Psalms 146:4 When their spirit departs, they return to his earth; in that day his plans (διαλογισμοι αυτο - lxx) perish.

Since Jehovahs witness theology no longer has the theology of a “spirit” that departs the body, then this part of the scripture is left out of his quote. Conversely, he adds the concept in this quote that the dead “do not think”while the scripture itself simply tells us “his plans perish”. (fail) Both the "leaving out" and the "adding to" change the scripture.

We are given a redacted and paraphrased form of the actual scripture, that is NOT representative of scripture, but of Jehovahs Witness interpretation.


Hi @Deeje

Deeje replied : "Let's see....The word rendered "thoughts" in Psalm 146:4, but claimed by you to mean "plans" is "`eshtonah" which Strongs Concordance says is "thought". So since we plan things in our minds, all ability to think and plan is gone at death." (post #170)


I think you mean "Eshttonot" (In this form, the first Tav has a dagesh and the final nikkud is a Cholem vav, so it is pronounced with the long “o” sound) and it’s base is עשת which means to be made smooth, polished, as a metaphor for skin that looks refreshed, etc but it also is used “to think of” and “remember” or “consider” (as it is used in Jonah 1:6 when the shipmaster wants Jonah to be woken up to pray and ask God to “consider” their plight ('תאשת is the form used). In the feminine form it applies to things brought about, formed, something wrought, something put together. It is not simply “thoughts” but rather the result of some process (though it can be an “opinion”). This is, I think, why the Jews of 300 b.c. in the LXX use διαλογισμοι in their translation.

The Jewish translation of the LXX uses διαλογιζομαι as their base word is BECAUSE it meant more than “thoughts”.

Men were to make decisions and judgments in THIS life and thus it made perfect sense to use this Judicial term. For example, In P. Ryl II.74 (133 a.d.) it is used to describe a JUDICIAL meeting. The early texts speak of a praefect (Avidius Heliodorus) who is holding a court for the purpose of administering “justice”. This is the way it is used in 150 a.d. in P. Lond 358.19 as well. In P. Oxy IV. 709.4 of 50 a.d. it is also used similarly. In Vettius Valens p. 245.26 the verb is similarly used but it is a “discussion” surrounding decisions which finds the context. Thus in the eras surrounding the New Testament uses, it is in secular texts, used to describe “inward deliberations or questions”. Thus, in this early context, the word “plans” as used in the LXX is a more correct context and even the Masoretic doesn’t indicate mere “thoughts” as I’ve demonstrated.

So, unless you have better historical or historically contexted linguistic data than you’ve offered us so far, I will stand by my statement that Psalms 146:4 would not have meant to the ancient Jews and Christian what the Jehovahs witnesses say it means to the Jehovahs Witnesses. YOU are not ancient Jews, and YOU are NOT ancient Christians. The scriptures meant something different to them than they mean to you.

Since you claimed the Jews were
apostatized and had the Devil as “their Father”, I assumed you would not want to use a bible the created in the medieval times by that sort of apostatized and "evil" people so I assumed you wanted to quote from the Greek. Also, I might remind you that the Christians generally used the LXX version from almost 1000 years earlier (300 b.c.) and the LXX also has the advantage that its’ translators were trying to represent what they thought the original language was attempting to say, thus it is a misha of sorts. In any case we can use both and I am glad that you know Hebrew so I won’t have to include nikkudim in typing.



AND, we still need to discuss that you left out the part of the scripture that did not agree with your theology.


I am going to go dig a hole for a tree I am planting. I will have to Get back to you later with other comments.

Clear
ειφισεφυω

P.S. I forgot, "Strongs" is not a good source for translators. It is a concordance, not a lexicon.
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I can't figure out how Adam knew his parents since Adam was the first human formed.
nay....

Man was formed on Day Six
male and female
no names
no garden
no law
go forth be fruitful and multiply

Adam was not the first to walk this earth
he was the first to walk with God

everyone else lacked the spirit to survive the last breath
death comes
and nothing comes forth of the flesh

the Garden event is NOT a retelling of Chapter One
it happens AFTER Day Seven
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Again we see God's name in the Hebrew....so why is it that the Jews could write the divine name in their scripture, but not say it out loud?
The pronounciation of the four letter name is not known with certainty.

How do u know that it is intended to be pronounced the way you are pronouncing it?
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
SECOND OF TWO POSTS REGARDING PSALMS 146:4 (FIRST HALF IS POST #173)

Deeje says “Psalm 146:4 says the same thing....the dead do not think.”
Clear replied : However, this scripture says no such thing. The actual scripture says: Psalms 146:4 When their spirit departs, they return to his earth; in that day his plans (διαλογισμοι αυτο - lxx) perish.


Jehovahs witness theology no longer has the theology of a “spirit” that departs the body. When the scripture is quoted, the first part of the scripture is left out of his quote. Conversely, he adds the concept in this quote that the dead “do not think” while the scripture itself simply tells us “his plans perish”. (fail) Both the "leaving out" and the "adding to" change the scripture. We are given a redacted and paraphrased form of the actual scripture, that is NOT representative of scripture, but of Jehovahs Witness interpretation. I have already dealt with the "dead do not think" misinterpretation in my post #173. The purpose of THIS post is to deal with the missing first phrase of the scripture.



1) Regarding PSALMS 146:4 :

Psalms 146:4 When their spirit departs, they return to his earth; in that day his plans (διαλογισμοι αυτο - lxx) perish.

Deeje said : "The Hebrew word rendered "departs" is "yatsa'" which means..."

Psalms 146 HEBREW reads ךוחו תצא His spirit “departs”, the base word used here for “depart” is תצה (Tatsae with a "tav" as the first letter and segols as nikkuds). It does not literally mean “depart”, but it means to “divide” into TWO or more parts. (Niph. form means "to be divided"). Since it is a division into two (though can be a greater division), a form of the same word is used to indicate the “middle” of a thing (i.e. something between the two parts). The point is that this word is used to indicate a dividing, a splitting, etc.

IF the first phrase of psalms 146:4 says of the dying or dead person, “His spirit splits (or "divides")” from one thing and another thing returns to the earth, it doesn’t take any significant logic to see it is the body that returns to the earth or dust and it is the spirit that splits or divides from it. It is not rocket science.


The LXX Greek of Psalms 146:4 confirms this very same concept.
The first phrase (having to do with the spirit inside the body) , the Greek reads “Εξελευσεται το πνευμα αυτου…” Literally means “The spirit of him comes out…. Εξ-ελευσεται is a compound word. Ek or Ex means “out of” and the base for ελευσεται is “to come” ηλθεν (though is can also mean “to go"...).

Exactly as with the Hebrew example, in the Greek, the spirit of him “comes out” ("goes out" – it doesn’t matter) of the person. If you cut and paste the sentence “meaning of ηλθεν” into a google search, it will show 90 examples of this form in the New Testament, and if you google other forms, there are perhaps hundreds of examples of it’s use as “to come” or “to go”.


Again, for the early Christians, this was not rocket science and there was NO NEED to try to make this scripture say anything other than what it says. The spirit leaves. The body goes to the earth. And, for that person, other plans, deliberations, intentions, etc cease.

However, the Jehovahs’ Witness theology, having abandoned the concept of a spirit placed within man, cannot use this phrase “as it stands” in it’s early, historical context. I assume this was the reason this first phrase was left out of the quote given to readers and I explained in post #173, why “
the dead do not think.” Was a completely inaccurate translation or meaning of the scripture..

I will have to return later with more comment about the other texts and get to why the New World Translation is so bothersome concerning it's translations and how it contributes to textual apostasy. However, if you already read the last two posts I made, you have some introduction to my concerns.

I hope your journeys are good regardless of your beliefs and regardless of what sort of models you come to hold about God and what he is doing with us in this life.

Clear
ειφυτζσεω
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
So, unless you have better historical or historically contexted linguistic data than you’ve offered us so far, I will stand by my statement that Psalms 146:4 would not have meant to the ancient Jews and Christian what the Jehovahs witnesses say it means to the Jehovahs Witnesses. YOU are not ancient Jews, and YOU are NOT ancient Christians. The scriptures meant something different to them than they mean to you.

Your "historical or historically contexted linguistic data" offered no more than I did. The ancient Jews did not support the notion of an immortal soul, although I'm sure it has to be true to prop up your belief system. You will make its true. That is your prerogative.

Since we take the whole Bible into account, we find nowhere in all of scripture that mentions an immortal soul...much less one that exists before birth as well as after death. Your idea of ancient Jews and ancient Christians are not the same as mine. Mine refer to both before their apostasy....not after.

Since you claimed the Jews were apostatized and had the Devil as “their Father”, I assumed you would not want to use a bible the created in the medieval times by that sort of apostatized and "evil" people so I assumed you wanted to quote from the Greek.

Actually, it wasn't me who claimed that the Pharisees were "from their father the devil"...it was Jesus. (John 8:44) Please take that up with him.

As for the Bible canon, we do not see that as the product of any human effort....it was "inspired of God and beneficial for teaching and setting things straight" (2 Timothy 3:16-17)....which we believe it does without the spin that allows its message to be distorted. It explains itself if you allow it to. Nothing needs to be added.

Also, I might remind you that the Christians generally used the LXX version from almost 1000 years earlier (300 b.c.) and the LXX also has the advantage that its’ translators were trying to represent what they thought the original language was attempting to say, thus it is a misha of sorts. In any case we can use both and I am glad that you know Hebrew so I won’t have to include nikkudim in typing.

Nice try. There were no Christians before about 36 C.E. Greek speaking Jews used the Septuagint prior to that.
The Septuagint is the first Bible translation from Hebrew to Greek. I have a copy downloaded on my computer. It is no mishna.....it is a translation from one language to another, just as the KJV is a translation from one language to another.....it is very handy when identifying the meaning of words like "hades" in Greek because that corresponds to "sheol" in Hebrew. Instead of taking the original Hebrew meaning of the word for the grave, "hades" was adopted as some awful place of punishment for the dead.....that is how false doctrines get started.

But translation is a huge responsibility because it has to be accurate and unbiased in its renderings. The KJV is not, despite being treated as if it came down from an angel in heaven by some people who believe in such things.

AND, we still need to discuss that you left out the part of the scripture that did not agree with your theology.

What did I leave out?

P.S. I forgot, "Strongs" is not a good source for translators. It is a concordance, not a lexicon.

Of course it would have to be dismissed by those who don't not agree with its renderings.
It is a good source of information on the original meanings of words used in the Bible, both Hebrew and Greek, giving other scriptures that contain the same words to see how their meanings apply in other parts of the Bible. Comparison is then a good indicator of accuracy.

Since you cannot seem to work out the quote system here, I am assuming that your are technologically challenged in some way. May I ask how old you are? Just curious.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
SECOND OF TWO POSTS REGARDING PSALMS 146:4 (FIRST HALF IS POST #173)

Deeje says “Psalm 146:4 says the same thing....the dead do not think.”
Clear replied : However, this scripture says no such thing. The actual scripture says: Psalms 146:4 When their spirit departs, they return to his earth; in that day his plans (διαλογισμοι αυτο - lxx) perish.


Jehovahs witness theology no longer has the theology of a “spirit” that departs the body. When the scripture is quoted, the first part of the scripture is left out of his quote. Conversely, he adds the concept in this quote that the dead “do not think” while the scripture itself simply tells us “his plans perish”. (fail) Both the "leaving out" and the "adding to" change the scripture. We are given a redacted and paraphrased form of the actual scripture, that is NOT representative of scripture, but of Jehovahs Witness interpretation. I have already dealt with the "dead do not think" misinterpretation in my post #173. The purpose of THIS post is to deal with the missing first phrase of the scripture.



1) Regarding PSALMS 146:4 :


Psalms 146:4 When their spirit departs, they return to his earth; in that day his plans (διαλογισμοι αυτο - lxx) perish.

Psalms 146 HEBREW reads ךוחו תצא His spirit “departs”, the base word used here for “depart” is חצה (chatsa) which does not literally mean “depart”, but it means to “divide” into TWO or more parts. (Niph. form means "to be divided"). Since it is a division into two (though can be a greater division), a form of the same word is used to indicate the “middle” of a thing (i.e. something between the two parts). The point is that this word is used to indicate a dividing, a splitting, etc.

IF the first phrase of psalms 146:4 says of the dying or dead person, “His spirit splits (or "divides")” from one thing and another thing returns to the earth, it doesn’t take any significant logic to see it is the body that returns to the earth or dust and it is the spirit that splits or divides from it. It is not rocket science.


The LXX Greek of Psalms 146:4 confirms this very same concept.
The first phrase (having to do with the spirit inside the body) , the Greek reads “Εξελευσεται το πνευμα αυτου…” Literally means “The spirit of him comes out…. Εξ-ελευσεται is a compound word. Ek or Ex means “out of” and the base for ελευσεται is “to come” ηλθεν (though is can also mean “to go"...).

Exactly as with the Hebrew example, the spirit of him “comes out” ("goes out" – it doesn’t matter) of the person. If you cut and paste the sentence “meaning of ηλθεν” into a google search, it will show 90 examples of this form in the New Testament, and if you google other forms, there are perhaps hundreds of examples of it’s use as “to come” or “to go”.


Again, for the early Christians, this was not rocket science and there was NO NEED to try to make this scripture say anything other than what it says. The spirit leaves. The body goes to the earth. And, for that person, other plans, deliberations, intentions, etc cease.

However, the Jehovahs’ Witness theology, having abandoned the concept of a spirit placed within man, cannot use this phrase “as it stands” in it’s early, historical context. I assume this was the reason this first phrase was left out of the quote given to readers and I explained in post #173, why “
the dead do not think.” Was a completely inaccurate translation or meaning of the scripture..

I will have to return later with more comment about the other texts and get to why the New World Translation is so bothersome concerning it's translations. However, if you already read the last two posts I made, you have some introduction to my concerns.

I hope your journeys are good regardless of your beliefs and regardless of what sort of models you come to hold about God and what he is doing with us in this life.

Clear
ειφυτζσεω

You're shouting again.....tone it down or don't bother. I find that offensive.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi Deeje;

Please do not be offended at the size of the text. There are others on the forum that have asked me to write larger. The size of the text is not meant as an offense. Please, Be at peace in your heart about the size of the text.


Clear explained ; Also, I might remind you that the Christians generally used the LXX version from almost 1000 years earlier (300 b.c.) and the LXX also has the advantage that its’ translators were trying to represent what they thought the original language was attempting to say, thus it is a misha of sorts. In any case we can use both and I am glad that you know Hebrew so I won’t have to include nikkudim in typing.
Deeje responded : Nice try. There were no Christians before about 36 C.E. Greek speaking Jews used the Septuagint prior to that.

You misunderstand. Though the LXX is a jewish creation, most of Pauls quotes and early Christians came from the LXX (i.e. the greek) that was still around at the time of Christ. The fact that the LXX was produced in 300 b.c. does not mean to indicate Christians were present in 300 b.c......


Did you have any relevant, historically accurate, comments regarding Psalms 146:4 and that text?

Clear
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The pronounciation of the four letter name is not known with certainty.

How do u know that it is intended to be pronounced the way you are pronouncing it?

We have to ask a very simple question here.....does the pronunciation really matter to one who invented language?

You see, we don't seem to have a problem with any of the names of those mentioned in the Bible. None of them are the same as those pronounced in Hebrew...not even the names of the Bible books.

One name particularly is "Jesus"....do you use the Hebrew pronunciation of his name.....Yeshua? There is no "J" in the Hebrew alphabet....yet every "J" name in the Bible is a translation of a Hebrew or Greek name in the Bible, most of which incorporate the divine name. Jesus' name in Greek is " I·e·sousʹ. " Spanish Bible readers encounter Jesús (pronounced Hes·soosʹ). Italians spell it Gesù (pronounced Djay·zooʹ). And Germans spell it Jesus (pronounced Yayʹsoos).

We say “Jeremiah,” not Yir·meyaʹhu......we say Isaiah, although in his own day this prophet likely was known as Yeshaʽ·yaʹhu. Even scholars who are aware of the original pronunciation of these names use the modern pronunciation, not the ancient, when speaking about them. And the same is true with the name Jehovah. Even though the modern pronunciation Jehovah might not be exactly the way it was pronounced originally, this in no way detracts from the importance of the name. It identifies the Creator, the living God, the Most High. (Psalm 83:18)
If you believe that Jesus is part of the trinity God as many people do, should it matter what the other equal part of this God is called in your language, if that is the case? There are many more languages than English.

You see, translation means that names in the Bible are rendered in a different way in each language.
"Peter" for example is "Petri" in Latin, "Pierre" in French, "Pedro" in Spanish, "Petros" in Greek, etc.....in each language we are speaking about the same name, but translated into a more familiar form for that specific language.

Because no one knows exactly how to pronounce the divine name in Hebrew, does that mean that we can't translate it into other languages? Is it more important to use a translation or to drop the name altogether? Does God want his name known and used? Jesus seemed to think so.....didn't his model prayer open with the words...."Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name"?

If you had a choice between a translation and a transliteration, which one do you think would be more appropriate? One that might sound like the original, or one that retains the meaning of the original, which is what a translation is for?
 
Top