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

Clear said:

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.

Click to expand...

The large type and the colors mess with the quote system. Since I asked you before about this and you did not answer, what was I to think? It is just plain annoying....as well as bad internet manners.

If you just highlight the text you wish to quote you will see that it gives you the option to include it in your response. Trying to quote you this way is a nightmare.

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......

Click to expand...

This is what you said....

"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."

You need to be "Clear"...pardon the pun.

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

Click to expand...

LOL....acceptable to you from apostate sources.......nope...just from the Bible...you know...God's written word.
The historically accurate comments come from other Bible writers.....like David....Solomon....Jesus.....Paul. Not good enough huh? That is entirely your problem.

Deeje said:

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?

Click to expand...

For the creator and the source of everything, I would opt for repsect. I don't call my dad by his first name. But that's me. I undersatand if you have more intimate relationship with God. It doesn't bother me.

Deeje said:

does the pronunciation really matter to one who invented language?

Click to expand...

It's an interesting point of view. I never thought about it that way. I feel like it should matter. The name Dan is different than Don and both are different than Danny. But, maybe you're right.

I want to go back to the original question I asked: Is there something wrong or bad about using the LORD instead of the 4 letter name. It sounds like perfected pronounciation isn't critical to the Almighty, in your view. So why not adjust the translation from the Hebrew into something that is meaningful? The Hebrew text remained intact. If there was a conspiracy, why wasn't the Hebrew text adjusted to remove the 4 letter name altogether?

1) REGARDING THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS USE OF PSALMS 146:4
Deeje claimed : “Psalm 146:4 says the same thing....the dead do not think. (post #148) ,
I think we have been able to dismiss this misinterpretation as per the discussion in posts # 155, #173 and #176


2) REGARDING THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS USE OF HABAKKUK 2:19
Deeje Says : “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." (Deeje post #170) 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 text of Hab 2:19 says : “What good is the carved [image] that they have carved it? He shaped it for a molten casting, a false display, for the one shaping it has relied upon the thing shaped by him in the making of mute idols. Woe [to] the one saying to the wood, “sober up” and to the stone “arise up”. And it is only a display and this [thing] is a hammered piece of gold and silver and no breath at all is in it.”

This is the same principle in almost the same words as the Christian Chronicle of 819 a.d. taught : “What use of help is there in those idols you worship? They are such a great service of senselessness and deception to the heart. They are the work of hands and there is no spirit in them......” Oops, this quote came from an "apostate source", Does that mean we have to scrap Habakkuk for teaching heresy since Habakkuk teaches the same principle as the apostate text?
.
Let me try again : The book of Jubilees is IN the eastern bible nowadays. It says : 2“What help or advantage do we have from these idols before which you worship and bow down? Because there is not any spirit in them, for they are mute, and they are the misleading of the heart. Do not worship them. Worship the God of heaven.....5 Why do you worship those who have no spirits in them? Because they are works of the hands, and you are carrying them upon your shoulders, and there is no help from them for you,...Do not worship them.” Jubilees (the book of division) 12: 2,5,6-7;
Oops gain, we definitely will have to stop reading Old Testament Habakkuk since it definitely teaches the same thing as the "apostate" literature of early Judeo-Christianity.



THE CONTRAST OF DEAD THINGS HAVING NO SPIRIT VERSUS LIVING THINGS THAT HAVE SPIRIT
The first line (v 18) reveals the text is NOT describing mankind, but instead is describing “a carved [image]”. Any attempt to use this scripture to demonstrate that MAN does not have a spirit fails right off. In fact, the complete contrasting principle here is that an idol IS lifeless BECAUSE it has no spirit inside of it in contrast to living things which DO have spirit inside of them them.

While Dejee interprets Ruacha / Pneuma as “breath” in this instance, I might as well point out that the ancients already KNEW their pieces of wood did not breathe. They had eyes and could see as well as anyone nowadays that their idols did not breathe. What they could not see with their eyes was whether the idol had a “Spirit” within it.

IF the text applies to man at all, then it lies in the contrast between a living person that HAS a spirit in them in contrast to an idol that has no SPIRIT in it. Thus, the text offered is, if anything, evidence FOR a spirit within living things rather than “evidence” that mankind has no spirit in them.


3) THE ANCIENT CONCEPT OF A SPIRIT INSIDE OF INDIVIDUALS

Deeje teaches forum members : “According to Strongs, the word "spirit" in Hebrew is "ruwach" which means.... "wind, breath, mind, spirit". (post #170)

While it is true that רוה (ruacha’) means “breath”, it does NOT ONLY mean breath and Breath is not its’ primary meaning in Hebrew usage in these texts we are discussing. In our usage, the presence of spirit indicates characteristics associated with intelligence and emotion and LIFE.

For example in Hiph. Form, it means “to smell”. With ב it is a “smell with pleasure”, thus it’s connection with the emotion of enjoyment and delight in a thing. It can be a metaphor for vanity and folly in things that breathe (e.g. mankind). In our historical application to scripture in this specific case, it means spirit (also soul). It is the “spirit” or “mind” or “heart” or “disposition” that most often characterizes the presence of a ruacha in such cases.

For examples, depending upon it’s adjective, it can mean patience (קצר רוה ruacha Kotzer), impatience (נבה רוה ruacha ne’ba), Proud of spirit(רוה קשה ruacha koshae), it can mean sorrowful of spirit, anger or wrath of spirit etc. In ALL of these cases, it is not the breath in our lungs that has emotions and intelligence. The breath in our lungs is neither patient nor impatient; our breath is neither proud or humble, neither sorrowful nor happy, angry or wrathful. Rather it is the intelligent spirit within man that is the seat of intelligence and emotions and animation of the body that is being described.

a) breath of life : An unusual meaning in our context
In a way similar to Hebrew, Koine Greek CAN use “pneuma” (gk. Πνευμα) for breath. In contextual historical usage, it refers to the spirit. For example, in P Oxy VI 904.7 (of v a.d.) A man Flavius speaks of his “breath of life is in danger” της σωτηριας πνευμα δυστυχιν με…”. But this is NOT the typical usage. Πνεω is often used in early texts to “breath” or “blow” (as opposed to πνευμο).

b) The spirit : the normal meaning in our context
In P Leid W.xxiii.2 of (2-3 a.d.) a book speaking of the creation of “spirit, fire and darkness” uses “περιεχει γεννησιν πνευματος, πυρος και σκοτο(ου)σ” He is not speaking of the breath of the lungs.

An ancient prayer for vengeance from Rheneia, Syil 816 speaks of “the Lord of spirits and all flesh” (the actual Greek sentence reads ...τον κυριον των πνευματων και πασης σαρκος...). In P Oxy VIII. 1151 (of 5 a.d.) a Christian speaks of warding off bad spirits, saying “Fly (go away!) evil spirit! Christ pursues thee; the Son of God and Holy spirit have outstripped thee” (φευγε, πν(ευμ)α μεμισυ(η)μενον...). A Christian amulet of 5-6 a.d. in P Land 6:10 speaks “προς παν ακαταρτον πν[ευ]μα” (with/before ALL unclean spirits) in language similar to the earliest Christian gospels.

In fact, It would be VERY, VERY difficult to apply πνευματικος to refer to “breathingness” instead of it’s normal usage of “spirtualness” or “spiritual”.



4) EXAMPLES OF HISTORICAL SCRIPTURAL USE OF HEBREW “RUACHA” AND GREEK “PNEUMA”

The forgoing rules of use of Greek ‘pneuma’ (πνευμα) or Hebrew ‘ruacha’ (רוח), apply to ancient biblical descriptions whether a sprit is good OR bad. It doesn't matter..

For example :

Mark 5:2 “And when he had come out of the boad, there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit”

HEBREW : The use of Ruacha (spirit) is as follows : verse 2 says a man with an evil/unclean spirit met them, in Hebrew this can be rendered “ןהנה-איש אשר-רוח טמאה “
Since Deeje, you are adept at hebrew, you will notice the words “ruacha tum’ah” (evil or bad spirit) does NOT mean the man had “Bad breath”, but rather it expresses the thought that an evil spirit was in the man that was the cause of the mans ills and NOT that he had "evil breath" or "bad breath".

GREEK : The Greek of Mark 5:2 confirms the same usage of “spirit” in the Greek version. The man met them with an “unclean spirit” “εν πνευματι ακαθαρτω”. Again, the context is not that the man had “bad breath”, but πνευματι/ רוח/spirit all refer to a spirit inside of the man in this specific case. (I might as well point out, that there are NO known significant greek manuscript variants that do not use πνευματι ακαθαρτω listed in GN-4 lists for this verse. zero, zip, nada).

HEBREW : Another example is a hebrew of Mark 9:17, which speaks of a “dumb spirit” אשר-רוח אלם (‘[which] spirit [is] dumb”) that was in a mans’ son. And then in In vs 25 Jesus says “dumb and deaf spirit…” (… רוח אלם וחרש…).

In NEITHER instances, is he referring to the Sons Breath making him unable to speak or hear, but to the spirit within him that is causing his problem.

GREEK : Similarly the Greek in Mark 9:1 and vs 25, the son “has a “dumb/speechless spirit” that renders him speechless. “Εχοντα πνευμα αλαλον”. In verse 25 Jesus “rebukes the unclean spirit” (τω πνευματι τω ακαθαρτω).

Using the same rules of use of language, Jesus is NOT rebuking “bad breath” that is in the son but instead, Jesus is rebuking an “unclean spirit” in the lad. When Jesus says “You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again!”. It makes clear that the spirit was INSIDE the boy.

In summary : HABAKKUK 2:19 DOES NOT INDICATE THERE IS NO SPIRIT IN MAN, BUT IN FACT, CONTEXTUALLY IT DEMONSTRATES THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE DEAD IDOL THAT HAS NO SPIRIT AND LIVING THINGS WHICH DO.


5) A COMMENT ON KOINE GREEK

“Koine Greek” refers to the fact that this is “common” Greek. It is what the Greek people spoke and is the language of the New Testament. The individuals who wrote and those who read scriptures would NOT be aware of the new and strange definitions the Jehovahs Witness theology of the 1800 and how the Jehovahs Witnesses apply the ancient language. The early Christians as represented by the descriptions of Mark and spirits inside of individuals would have never thought to use the new and strange rules of meaning systematically applied by Jehovahs Witnesses to their ancient language and their ancient beliefs.

Their language, their symbolism and their Christian religion would not have been compatible with the religion the Jehovahs Witnesses developed in the 1800s.

Oops, I am off work and am leaving to finish digging a hole for my new tree in my back yard....

I hope everyone has good journeys and interesting and wonderful insights in this life.

Clear
εισεδρειω

dybmh said:

For the creator and the source of everything, I would opt for repsect. I don't call my dad by his first name. But that's me. I undersatand if you have more intimate relationship with God. It doesn't bother me.

Click to expand...

God's name was given to Moses in Exodus 3:13-15.

If you read that in the Tanach you will see something interesting.

"And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:


14 God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"
ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:


15 And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation.
טווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה כֹּ֣ה תֹאמַר֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר:"

Shemot - Exodus - Chapter 3 (Parshah Shemot)

The tetragrammaton is there in the Hebrew text but not in the English translation. God's name is not "The Lord God"....that is a title, not a name.

This is shown also in Psalm 83:18...
"Let them know that You-Your name alone is the Lord, Most High over all the earth.
יטוְיֵֽדְע֗וּ כִּי־אַתָּ֬ה שִׁמְךָ֣ יְהֹוָ֣ה לְבַדֶּ֑ךָ עֶ֜לְי֗וֹן עַל־כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ:"

Do you see what God's name means?...."I Will Be What I Will Be".....not "I AM", as some translation like to put it to accommodate their trinity.

So, God not only gives us his personal name, but the all important meaning.

Names in the Bible were not just 'handles'...their meanings were important. Jesus' name means "Jehovah is salvation" and most of the "J" names in our English Bibles are names that incorporate God's name...but they are all translations of the original Hebrew names. We don't stop using them because they sound different in English, or start with a letter that does not exist in the Hebrew language.

Since God's name was given to his "children" to be used freely and reverently in all their generations, that is why there was a commandment not to "take God's name in vain" which meant not treating it with disrespect and not behaving in a way the would bring reproach on God or his reputation among his people and others.

It's an interesting point of view. I never thought about it that way. I feel like it should matter. The name Dan is different than Don and both are different than Danny. But, maybe you're right.

Click to expand...

You will notice that God said in Exodus 3:15 that this was to be used in all the generations of his people "forever". By failing to use and uphold the illustrious name of their God, Israel lost more than a pronunciation....they lost their place in his kingdom arrangement and opened the way for false religious doctrines, centered around the worship of a nameless God.

I want to go back to the original question I asked: Is there something wrong or bad about using the LORD instead of the 4 letter name. It sounds like perfected pronounciation isn't critical to the Almighty, in your view.

Click to expand...

Did you know that Baal (whom the Israelites fell to worshipping) means "Lord"? Did you know that Allah in Arabic means "Lord"? Kyrios in Greek means "Lord" Are you seeing a pattern here?

There is nothing wrong with calling Jehovah "Lord" because we see him addressed as such throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. But when you take away God's name as a way of identifying him, you confuse him with another "Lord" in the Bible......the Lord Jesus Christ. If Jehovah's name had been left in every verse where it appeared in the OT, the trinity could never have been grafted into Christian scripture. You won't find a trinity in the NT unless you misinterpret which "Lord" is being spoken about, so they made two separate "Lords" into one God. Jesus never once said he was God. He directed all worship to his Father whom he called "the only true God". (John 17:3)

So why not adjust the translation from the Hebrew into something that is meaningful? The Hebrew text remained intact. If there was a conspiracy, why wasn't the Hebrew text adjusted to remove the 4 letter name altogether?

Click to expand...

Actually, because we accept "Jehovah" as a translation of the Hebrew name of God, like Jesus is a translation of Yeshua, we see that the English "Jehovah" retains the true meaning of God's name. A transliteration of "Yahweh" is a best guess but it is only an imitation of how the name may have been pronounced, losing the the meaning in the translation.

The divine name has been translated into many languages, so each one pronounces God's name in their own way. None of them are wrong because all are addressing the God who bears that name and he hears them. We can get bogged down in English like it's the only language in the world. People get stuck on the KJV for the same reason. It's a terrible translation! People speak many languages.

Clear said:

1) REGARDING THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS USE OF PSALMS 146:4
Deeje claimed : “Psalm 146:4 says the same thing....the dead do not think. (post #148) ,
I think we have been able to dismiss this misinterpretation as per the discussion in posts # 155, #173 and #176


2) REGARDING THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS USE OF HABAKKUK 2:19
Deeje Says : “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." (Deeje post #170) 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 text of Hab 2:19 says : “What good is the carved [image] that they have carved it? He shaped it for a molten casting, a false display, for the one shaping it has relied upon the thing shaped by him in the making of mute idols. Woe [to] the one saying to the wood, “sober up” and to the stone “arise up”. And it is only a display and this [thing] is a hammered piece of gold and silver and no breath at all is in it.”


THE CONTRAST OF DEAD THINGS HAVING NO SPIRIT VERSUS LIVING THINGS THAT HAVE SPIRIT
The first line (v 18) reveals the text is NOT describing mankind, but instead is describing “a carved [image]”. Any attempt to use this scripture to demonstrate that MAN does not have a spirit fails right off. In fact, the complete contrasting principle here is that an idol IS lifeless BECAUSE it has no spirit inside of it in contrast to living things which DO have spirit inside of them them.

While Dejee interprets Ruacha / Pneuma as “breath” in this instance, I might as well point out that the ancients already KNEW their pieces of wood did not breathe. They had eyes and could see as well as anyone nowadays that their idols did not breathe. What they could not see with their eyes was whether the idol had a “Spirit” within it.

IF the text applies to man at all, then it lies in the comparison between a person God that HAS a spirit in contrast to an idol that has no SPIRIT. Thus, the text offered is, if anything, evidence FOR a spirit within living things rather than “evidence” that mankind has no spirit in them.


3) THE ANCIENT CONCEPT OF A SPIRIT INSIDE OF INDIVIDUALS

Deeje teaches forum members : “According to Strongs, the word "spirit" in Hebrew is "ruwach" which means.... "wind, breath, mind, spirit". (post #170)

While it is true that רוה (ruacha’) means “breath”, it does NOT ONLY mean breath and Breath is not its’ primary meaning in Hebrew usage in these texts we are discussing. In our usage, the presence of spirit indicates characteristics associated with intelligence and emotion and LIFE.

For example in Hiph. Form, it means “to smell”. With ב it is a “smell with pleasure”, thus it’s connection with the emotion of enjoyment and delight in a thing. It can be a metaphor for vanity and folly in things that breathe (e.g. mankind). In our historical application to scripture in this specific case, it means spirit (also soul). It is the “spirit” or “mind” or “heart” or “disposition” that most often characterizes the presence of a ruacha in such cases.

For examples, depending upon it’s adjective, it can mean patience (קצר רוה ruacha Kotzer), impatience (נבה רוה ruacha ne’ba), Proud of spirit(רוה קשה ruacha koshae), it can mean sorrowful of spirit, anger or wrath of spirit etc. In ALL of these cases, it is not the breath in our lungs that has emotions and intelligence. The breath in our lungs is neither patient nor impatient; our breath is neither proud or humble, neither sorrowful nor happy, angry or wrathful. Rather it is the intelligent spirit within man that is the seat of intelligence and emotions and animation of the body that is being described.

a) breath of life : An unusual meaning in our context
In a way similar to Hebrew, Koine Greek CAN use “pneuma” (gk. Πνευμα) for breath. In contextual historical usage, it refers to the spirit. For example, in P Oxy VI 904.7 (of v a.d.) A man Flavius speaks of his “breath of life is in danger” της σωτηριας πνευμα δυστυχιν με…”. But this is NOT the typical usage. Πνεω is often used in early texts to “breath” or “blow” (as opposed to πνευμο).

b) The spirit : the normal meaning in our context
In P Leid W.xxiii.2 of (2-3 a.d.) a book speaking of the creation of “spirit, fire and darkness” uses “περιεχει γεννησιν πνευματος, πυρος και σκοτο(ου)σ” He is not speaking of the breath of the lungs.

An ancient prayer for vengeance from Rheneia, Syil 816 speaks of “the Lord of spirits and all flesh” (the actual Greek sentence reads ...τον κυριον των πνευματων και πασης σαρκος...). In P Oxy VIII. 1151 (of 5 a.d.) a Christian speaks of warding off bad spirits, saying “Fly (go away!) evil spirit! Christ pursues thee; the Son of God and Holy spirit have outstripped thee” (φευγε, πν(ευμ)α μεμισυ(η)μενον...). A Christian amulet of 5-6 a.d. in P Land 6:10 speaks “προς παν ακαταρτον πν[ευ]μα” (with/before ALL unclean spirits) in language similar to the earliest Christian gospels.

In fact, It would be VERY, VERY difficult to apply πνευματικος to refer to “breathingness” instead of it’s normal usage of “spirtualness” or “spiritual”.



4) EXAMPLES OF HISTORICAL SCRIPTURAL USE OF HEBREW “RUACHA” AND GREEK “PNEUMA”

The forgoing rules of use of Greek ‘pneuma’ (πνευμα) or Hebrew ‘ruacha’ (רוח), apply to ancient biblical descriptions whether a sprit is good OR bad. It doesn't matter..

For example :

Mark 5:2 “And when he had come out of the boad, there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit”

HEBREW : The use of Ruacha (spirit) is as follows : verse 2 says a man with an evil/unclean spirit met them, in Hebrew this can be rendered “ןהנה-איש אשר-רוח טמאה “
Since Deeje, you are adept at hebrew, you will notice the words “ruacha tum’ah” (evil or bad spirit) does NOT mean the man had “Bad breath”, but rather it expresses the thought that an evil spirit was in the man that was the cause of the mans ills.

GREEK : The Greek of Mark 5:2 confirms the same usage of “spirit” in the Greek version. The man met them with an “unclean spirit” “εν πνευματι ακαθαρτω”. Again, the context is not that the man had “bad breath”, but πνευματι/ רוח/spirit all refer to a spirit inside of the man in this specific case. (I might as well point out, that there are NO known significant greek manuscript variants that do not use πνευματι ακαθαρτω listed in GN-4 lists for this verse. zero, zip, nada).

HEBREW : Another example is a hebrew of Mark 9:17, which speaks of a “dumb spirit” אשר-רוח אלם (‘[which] spirit [is] dumb”) that was in a mans’ son. And then in In vs 25 Jesus says “dumb and deaf spirit…” (… רוח אלם וחרש…).

In NEITHER instances, is he referring to the Sons Breath making him unable to speak or hear, but to the spirit within him that is causing his problem.

GREEK : Similarly the Greek in Mark 9:1 and vs 25, the son “has a “dumb/speechless spirit” that renders him speechless. “Εχοντα πνευμα αλαλον”. In verse 25 Jesus “rebukes the unclean spirit” (τω πνευματι τω ακαθαρτω).

Using the same rules of use of language, Jesus is NOT rebuking “bad breath” that is in the son but instead, Jesus is rebuking an “unclean spirit” in the lad. When Jesus says “You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again!”. It makes clear that the spirit was INSIDE the boy.

HABAKKUK 2:19 DOES NOT INDICATE THERE IS NO SPIRIT IN MAN, BUT IN FACT, CONTEXTUALLY IT DEMONSTRATES THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE DEAD IDOL THAT HAS NO SPIRIT AND LIVING THINGS WHICH DO.


5) A COMMENT ON KOINE GREEK

“Koine Greek” refers to the fact that this is “common” Greek. It is what the Greek people spoke and is the language of the New Testament. The individuals who wrote and those who read scriptures would NOT be aware of the new and strange definitions the Jehovahs Witness theology of the 1800 and how the Jehovahs Witnesses apply the ancient language. The early Christians as represented by the descriptions of Mark and spirits inside of individuals would have never thought to use the new and strange rules of meaning systematically applied by Jehovahs Witnesses to their ancient language and their ancient beliefs.

Their language, their symbolism and their Christian religion would not have been compatible with the religion the Jehovahs Witnesses developed in the 1800s.

Oops, I am off work and am leaving to finish digging a hole for my new tree in my back yard....

I hope everyone has good journeys and interesting and wonderful insights in this life.

Click to expand...

You are simply rehashing all that has been discussed before....with nothing new but the same old 'unclear' justification for clinging to what has been shown to you as an erroneous doctrine, based on apostate beliefs that had no place in original first century Christianity. You are turning this into a JW bashing thread.

I am tired of it TBH and tired of this wall of huge type. I have made my case and hope that you will examine your Mormon theology with as much scrutiny as you do ours. When was Joseph Smith's encounter with the angel Moroni again? The only angel mentioned by name in the Bible who was used as a messenger of God was Gabriel. How does Mr Smith backup this encounter with the angel when his golden plates could never be produced? Why does the Book of Mormon plagiarize the KJV Bible in many places? Why can the nations mentioned in the BoM never be found to have had an historical existence? Seriously, you don't want to start an investigation into your own beliefs....do you? Would you have any credibility left at all?
You resort to what all failing debaters do....you want to shoot the messenger....but when the messenger returns fire, we find that those with the loudest voices were simply firing blanks all along.

Perhaps your tree will be a tree of knowledge for you...I can only hope so.

Clear said:

1) REGARDING THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS USE OF PSALMS 146:4
Deeje claimed : “Psalm 146:4 says the same thing....the dead do not think. (post #148) ,
I think we have been able to dismiss this misinterpretation as per the discussion in posts # 155, #173 and #176


2) REGARDING THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS USE OF HABAKKUK 2:19
Deeje Says : “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." (Deeje post #170) 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 text of Hab 2:19 says : “What good is the carved [image] that they have carved it? He shaped it for a molten casting, a false display, for the one shaping it has relied upon the thing shaped by him in the making of mute idols. Woe [to] the one saying to the wood, “sober up” and to the stone “arise up”. And it is only a display and this [thing] is a hammered piece of gold and silver and no breath at all is in it.”

This is the same principle in almost the same words as the Christian Chronicle of 819 a.d. taught : “What use of help is there in those idols you worship? They are such a great service of senselessness and deception to the heart. They are the work of hands and there is no spirit in them......” Oops, this quote came from an "apostate source", Does that mean we have to scrap Habakkuk for teaching heresy since Habakkuk teaches the same principle as the apostate text?
.
Let me try again : The book of Jubilees is IN the eastern bible nowadays. It says : 2“What help or advantage do we have from these idols before which you worship and bow down? Because there is not any spirit in them, for they are mute, and they are the misleading of the heart. Do not worship them. Worship the God of heaven.....5 Why do you worship those who have no spirits in them? Because they are works of the hands, and you are carrying them upon your shoulders, and there is no help from them for you,...Do not worship them.” Jubilees (the book of division) 12: 2,5,6-7;
Oops gain, we definitely will have to stop reading Old Testament Habakkuk since it definitely teaches the same thing as the "apostate" literature of early Judeo-Christianity.



THE CONTRAST OF DEAD THINGS HAVING NO SPIRIT VERSUS LIVING THINGS THAT HAVE SPIRIT
The first line (v 18) reveals the text is NOT describing mankind, but instead is describing “a carved [image]”. Any attempt to use this scripture to demonstrate that MAN does not have a spirit fails right off. In fact, the complete contrasting principle here is that an idol IS lifeless BECAUSE it has no spirit inside of it in contrast to living things which DO have spirit inside of them them.

While Dejee interprets Ruacha / Pneuma as “breath” in this instance, I might as well point out that the ancients already KNEW their pieces of wood did not breathe. They had eyes and could see as well as anyone nowadays that their idols did not breathe. What they could not see with their eyes was whether the idol had a “Spirit” within it.

IF the text applies to man at all, then it lies in the contrast between a living person that HAS a spirit in them in contrast to an idol that has no SPIRIT in it. Thus, the text offered is, if anything, evidence FOR a spirit within living things rather than “evidence” that mankind has no spirit in them.


3) THE ANCIENT CONCEPT OF A SPIRIT INSIDE OF INDIVIDUALS

Deeje teaches forum members : “According to Strongs, the word "spirit" in Hebrew is "ruwach" which means.... "wind, breath, mind, spirit". (post #170)

While it is true that רוה (ruacha’) means “breath”, it does NOT ONLY mean breath and Breath is not its’ primary meaning in Hebrew usage in these texts we are discussing. In our usage, the presence of spirit indicates characteristics associated with intelligence and emotion and LIFE.


a) breath of life : An unusual meaning in our context
In a way similar to Hebrew, Koine Greek CAN use “pneuma” (gk. Πνευμα) for breath. In contextual historical usage, it refers to the spirit. For example, in P Oxy VI 904.7 (of v a.d.) A man Flavius speaks of his “breath of life is in danger” της σωτηριας πνευμα δυστυχιν με…”. But this is NOT the typical usage. Πνεω is often used in early texts to “breath” or “blow” (as opposed to πνευμο).

b) The spirit : the normal meaning in our context
In P Leid W.xxiii.2 of (2-3 a.d.) a book speaking of the creation of “spirit, fire and darkness” uses “περιεχει γεννησιν πνευματος, πυρος και σκοτο(ου)σ” He is not speaking of the breath of the lungs.

An ancient prayer for vengeance from Rheneia, Syil 816 speaks of “the Lord of spirits and all flesh” (the actual Greek sentence reads ...τον κυριον των πνευματων και πασης σαρκος...). In P Oxy VIII. 1151 (of 5 a.d.) a Christian speaks of warding off bad spirits, saying “Fly (go away!) evil spirit! Christ pursues thee; the Son of God and Holy spirit have outstripped thee” (φευγε, πν(ευμ)α μεμισυ(η)μενον...). A Christian amulet of 5-6 a.d. in P Land 6:10 speaks “προς παν ακαταρτον πν[ευ]μα” (with/before ALL unclean spirits) in language similar to the earliest Christian gospels.

In fact, It would be VERY, VERY difficult to apply πνευματικος to refer to “breathingness” instead of it’s normal usage of “spirtualness” or “spiritual”.



4) EXAMPLES OF HISTORICAL SCRIPTURAL USE OF HEBREW “RUACHA” AND GREEK “PNEUMA”

The forgoing rules of use of Greek ‘pneuma’ (πνευμα) or Hebrew ‘ruacha’ (רוח), apply to ancient biblical descriptions whether a sprit is good OR bad. It doesn't matter..

For example :

Mark 5:2 “And when he had come out of the boad, there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit”

HEBREW : The use of Ruacha (spirit) is as follows : verse 2 says a man with an evil/unclean spirit met them, in Hebrew this can be rendered “ןהנה-איש אשר-רוח טמאה “
Since Deeje, you are adept at hebrew, you will notice the words “ruacha tum’ah” (evil or bad spirit) does NOT mean the man had “Bad breath”, but rather it expresses the thought that an evil spirit was in the man that was the cause of the mans ills and NOT that he had "evil breath" or "bad breath".

GREEK : The Greek of Mark 5:2 confirms the same usage of “spirit” in the Greek version. The man met them with an “unclean spirit” “εν πνευματι ακαθαρτω”. Again, the context is not that the man had “bad breath”, but πνευματι/ רוח/spirit all refer to a spirit inside of the man in this specific case. (I might as well point out, that there are NO known significant greek manuscript variants that do not use πνευματι ακαθαρτω listed in GN-4 lists for this verse. zero, zip, nada).

HEBREW : Another example is a hebrew of Mark 9:17, which speaks of a “dumb spirit” אשר-רוח אלם (‘[which] spirit [is] dumb”) that was in a mans’ son. And then in In vs 25 Jesus says “dumb and deaf spirit…” (… רוח אלם וחרש…).

In NEITHER instances, is he referring to the Sons Breath making him unable to speak or hear, but to the spirit within him that is causing his problem.

GREEK : Similarly the Greek in Mark 9:1 and vs 25, the son “has a “dumb/speechless spirit” that renders him speechless. “Εχοντα πνευμα αλαλον”. In verse 25 Jesus “rebukes the unclean spirit” (τω πνευματι τω ακαθαρτω).

Using the same rules of use of language, Jesus is NOT rebuking “bad breath” that is in the son but instead, Jesus is rebuking an “unclean spirit” in the lad. When Jesus says “You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again!”. It makes clear that the spirit was INSIDE the boy.

In summary : HABAKKUK 2:19 DOES NOT INDICATE THERE IS NO SPIRIT IN MAN, BUT IN FACT, CONTEXTUALLY IT DEMONSTRATES THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE DEAD IDOL THAT HAS NO SPIRIT AND LIVING THINGS WHICH DO.


5) A COMMENT ON KOINE GREEK

“Koine Greek” refers to the fact that this is “common” Greek. It is what the Greek people spoke and is the language of the New Testament. The individuals who wrote and those who read scriptures would NOT be aware of the new and strange definitions the Jehovahs Witness theology of the 1800 and how the Jehovahs Witnesses apply the ancient language. The early Christians as represented by the descriptions of Mark and spirits inside of individuals would have never thought to use the new and strange rules of meaning systematically applied by Jehovahs Witnesses to their ancient language and their ancient beliefs.

Their language, their symbolism and their Christian religion would not have been compatible with the religion the Jehovahs Witnesses developed in the 1800s.

Oops, I am off work and am leaving to finish digging a hole for my new tree in my back yard....

I hope everyone has good journeys and interesting and wonderful insights in this life.

Clear
εισεδρειω

Click to expand...

Your statements about Deeje RE: ‘Ruach’ and ‘Pneuma’, are inaccurate. Our (JW’s) understanding of these Hebrew and Greek words are not as narrowed as you portray. ( I.e., they're not just breath or wind.)

One of Deeje’s statements from post#20:
“The Hebrew "ruʹach" and the Greek "pneuʹma" are used with reference to (1) wind, (2) the life-force in earthly creatures, (3) the impelling force that issues from a person’s figurative heart and causes him to say and do things in a certain way, (4) inspired expressions originating from an invisible source, (5) spirit persons, and (6) God’s holy spirit.”

Please, no more strawman arguments.

@Clear , I’m afraid that you don’t really understand what the Resurrection is.
Excerpt from a non-JW source—

“....if a person believes in the resurrection, it is impossible to believe in the ancient pagan doctrine of the immortality of the human soul, because the two terms have opposite meanings… immortal means undying and resurrect implies being brought back to life. For if you can't die, you can't be resurrected. Notice that the words resurrect and resurrection are found dozens of times in the Bible. However, the term immortal soul can't be found there at all.”

The Resurrection

1) HockeyCowboy said : Your statements about Deeje RE: ‘Ruach’ and ‘Pneuma’, are inaccurate. Our (JW’s) understanding of these Hebrew and Greek words are not as narrowed as you portray. ( I.e., they're not just breath or wind.) One of Deeje’s statements from post#20: “The Hebrew "ruʹach" and the Greek "pneuʹma" are used with reference to (1) wind, (2) the life-force in earthly creatures, (3) the impelling force that issues from a person’s figurative heart and causes him to say and do things in a certain way, (4) inspired expressions originating from an invisible source, (5) spirit persons, and (6) God’s holy spirit.” (post #186)


You are confused. I AGREE with Deejes statement on the various potential meanings for ‘ruacha” and for “pneuma”. I am disagreeing with his specific claim that “spirit” meant “breath” in specific places.

Deeje claimed in post #170 : “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." ….”
Deejes’ interpretation was : “This scripture is saying that an idol is lifeless because it has no "breath". (post #170)

I made several points :
1) Firstly, the text deal with dead idols having no spirit and not living men .
2) “Spirit” does not mean “breath” in this instance. In this instance, “spirit” means “spirit”. In early Christianity, An idol was lifeless because it has “no spirit within it
3) The ancients could SEE the wood of idols did not breath but the point was that idols did not have a spirit within it.
4) The scripture contrasts a living thing (having a spirit) to a dead thing (having no spirit).

In an attempt to strengthen his interpretation, he claimed the “spirit” in Habakkuk referred to “breath”, Deeje said : “According to Strongs, the word "spirit" in Hebrew is "ruwach" which means.... "wind, breath, mind, spirit". (post #170)


THE PRIMARY MEANING OF RUACHA IS "SPIRIT" IN SUCH TEXTS AS THESE
I agree רוה (ruacha’) CAN mean “spirit” and it can mean "breath" . BUT Breath was not its’ primary meaning in these texts. Its primary meaning here is “spirit”. It is not our “breath” but our “spirit” which is associated with characteristics of intelligence and emotion and LIFE.

EXAMPLES FROM BOTH HEBREW (RUACHA) AND GREEK (PNEUMO)
I gave multiple Hebrew examples : (קצר רוה ruacha Kotzer), impatience (נבה רוה ruacha ne’ba), Proud of spirit (רוה קשה ruacha koshae), sorrow, anger, wrath. In ALL of these cases, it is not “breath” that has emotions and intelligence but an intelligent “spirit”.
I also gave examples from many ancient Koine Greek Papyri, 2 from P Oxy VI 904.7 (of v a.d), P Leid W.xxiii.2 of (2-3 a.d.), P land, Christian amulet, etc.

I GAVE EXAMPLES FROM SCRIPTURE IN BOTH HEBREW AND GREEK
One example was Mark 5:2 where a man had an “unclean spirit”, NOT unclean breath. BOTH Hebrew AND Greek of Mark 5:2 indicated “ruacha tum’ah” (heb) and πνευματι ακαθαρτω (Gk) which ONLY referred to spirits (not breath) and there are NO Greek variants of this phrase here.

I gave similar examples from BOTH Hebrew and Greek of Mark 9:17 and 25.


In summary : HABAKKUK 2:19 Does NOT indicate that there is no spirit in man, but rather it is an example of the ancient belief that Dead things do not have spirits in them while living things do have a spirit in them.



2) The second disagreement was with your and Deejes “use” of Psalms 146:4.

Deeje interpreted this scripture by saying “Psalm 146:4 says the same thing....the dead do not think.”

I simply pointed out that this scripture says no such thing.

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

Deeje made errors : 1) he LEFT OFF the first portion of the scripture and 2) he misinterprets the last phrase.

1) Jehovahs witnesses abandoned the Christian theology of man having a spirit within him that departs the body at death. Perhaps this is why Deeje removed the first phrase of the text that refers to a spirit.

2) Deeje then interprets the scripture to mean the dead “do not think”, but the actual scripture tells us the spirit departs and the deads future plans perish.

Deeje tried offer support his interpretation by replying : "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 replied : “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 the word 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 ( plans, considerations, judgments, etc.) 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.


3) THE CHANGING OF ACTUAL SCRIPTURE TEXT TO SUPPORT YOUR DOCTRINES IS IMPROPER
It is not just that you offer a modern re-interpretation of scriptures to support your doctrines that I am speaking to. We have not yet arrived at the many changes the Jehovahs Witness New Testament Text by Jehovahs Witnesses made to support their doctrines and interpretations which skews authentic writing. Often, these bogus texts are quoted to forum members without warning them that they are not accurate texts!

For example, Deeje quotes Matthew 23:39 as saying “39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’”.

However, there is NO ancient New Testament text which says this.

The authentic text phrase reads : “...Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” JESUS was the Lord.

While Jehovahs Witnesses attempt to justify creating this new text by claiming the New Testament SHOULD say something different the apostles had good reason to use the LORD if they wanted to make the connection between Jesus and the God of the Old Testament.


4) REGARDING YOUR COMMENT ON RESURRECTION IN POST #187
HockyCowboy, I am not sure why you commented on resurrection in post #187, I don’t remember saying anything about resurrection. I actually agree with you that immortal means “undying” (referring to the spirit) and “resurrect” means (in this context), the body being brought back to life and united with the spirit. I’ve never spoke of the “immortal soul”, but my issues have all related to the “spirit” within man in early Christian theology.


I have to stop here. I’m at work and reached the end of my day. I’ve been writing between appointments and will get back to you later as we continue.

I hope your journeys are good.

Clear
ειακτζνεω

Clear said:

3) THE CHANGING OF ACTUAL SCRIPTURE TEXT TO SUPPORT YOUR DOCTRINES IS IMPROPER
It is not just that you offer a modern re-interpretation of scriptures to support your doctrines that I am speaking to. We have not yet arrived at the many changes the Jehovahs Witness New Testament Text by Jehovahs Witnesses made to support their doctrines and interpretations which skews authentic writing. Often, these bogus texts are quoted to forum members without warning them that they are not accurate texts!

For example, Deeje quotes Matthew 23:39 as saying “39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’”.

However, there is NO ancient New Testament text which says this.

The authentic text phrase reads : “...Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” JESUS was the Lord.

While Jehovahs Witnesses attempt to justify creating this new text by claiming the New Testament SHOULD say something different the apostles had good reason to use the LORD if they wanted to make the connection between Jesus and the God of the Old Testament.

Click to expand...

I will ignore the rest of that rehash just to address this one point.....

Jesus was quoting Psalm 118:26 when he said "For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’”.

The Tanach renders that Psalm....
"Blessed be he who has come in the name of the Lord; we have blessed you in the name of the Lord."

כובָּר֣וּךְ הַ֖בָּא בְּשֵׁ֣ם יְהֹוָ֑ה בֵּֽ֜רַכְנוּכֶ֗ם מִבֵּ֥ית יְהֹוָֽה:

The tetragrammaton appears twice in that verse...not in the English translation, but in the Hebrew text as you can see. So Jesus isn't the "Lord" he was speaking about...it was his Father.
The Jews as a nation have never acknowledged Jesus as the one who came in Jehovah's name.

So, because Jesus was quoting the OT, we see that Jehovah's name rightfully belongs in his quote in Matthew 23:39.

The apostle Paul also makes this point...
Romans 10:13-17...
"For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” He was quoting Joel.

Joel 2:32 (3:5 in the Tanach)

"And it shall come to pass that whoever shall call in the name of the Lord shall be delivered, for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be a deliverance, as the Lord said, and among the survivors whom the Lord invites.
הוְהָיָ֗ה כֹּ֧ל אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָ֛א בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהֹוָ֖ה יִמָּלֵ֑ט כִּ֠י בְּהַר־צִיּ֨וֹן וּבִירֽוּשָׁלִַ֜ם תִּֽהְיֶ֣ה פְלֵיטָ֗ה כַּֽאֲשֶׁר֙ אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֔ה וּבַ֨שְּׂרִידִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה קֹרֵֽא:

Jesus is not "the Lord" here either....it is יְהֹוָ֖ה....Yahweh.....Jehovah.

Paul continues....
"14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

Quoting Isaiah 53:1 which in the Tanach reads...
"Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed?
אמִ֥י הֶֽאֱמִ֖ין לִשְׁמֻֽעָתֵ֑נוּ וּזְר֥וֹעַ יְהֹוָ֖ה עַל־מִ֥י נִגְלָֽתָה:

The "Lord" here again is Jehovah.

Because the Jews implemented their tradition of refusing to utter the divine name, we now have a confusion of "Lords". Had the divine name been retained in all the scriptures where it originally appeared, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In all your responses, its what you ignore that is more telling than what you say. I know how desperately you need this doctrine of an immortal soul to be true, and how much you need us to wrong, because your whole belief system depends on it.....but the Biblical facts are not supporting you. You have to go outside of God's word or misinterpret scripture to find your "facts". That is your choice.

@Clear , re: Habakkuk 2:19...

Habakkuk 2:19 ....has many different versions.

You can clearly see that ruach, in this instance, is breath. It represents life.

Idols have no breath...they don’t live.

And animals have spirit, i.e., breath or life. And Genesis 7:22 does not differentiate between the spirit, or life-force, in animals and the spirit in humans. “Everything....died.”

Take care.

Hello, dybmh , hope you’re having a good day!

dybmh said:

I asked: Is there something wrong or bad about using the LORD instead of the 4 letter name.

Click to expand...

Well, look at Psalms 110:1. Who’s who?

Check out Psalm 110:1 BibleHub.
Scroll down to the American Standard Version please.

1) WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OFFER INAUTHENTIC TEXT IN THE PLACE OF NEW TESTAMENT AUTHENTIC TEXT

Deeje misquoted Matt 23:39 as : "For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’”.

Deeje explained : "Jesus was quoting Psalm 118:26..."

Yes, Jesus was using OLD TESTAMENT Psalms 118:26

BUT, Deeje was quoting NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 23:39

These two texts DO NOT read the same. They do not NEED to read the same.

NONE of the literally thousands and thousands of early, authentic New Testament Greek manuscripts that exist has this phrase "....in Jehovahs Name!" in Matthew 23:39. AND, while Verse 38 has variants listed, verse 39 does not list a single variant among these thousands of manuscripts.

Unless Jehovahs Witnesses discovered a “secret” Greek manuscript that has priority over all others, they are not allowed to change the text to support their theology.


2) THERE ARE REASONS WHY CERTAIN TEXTS IN SCRIPTURE DO NOT AGREE WITH EACH OTHER

If the New Testament is inspired and correct in Matthew 23:39, Jesus did NOT say “Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!”. This phrase in Matthew doesn’t exist. Forum readers who look up Matt 23:39 in any authentic translation, will not find this bogus version of the text. While the Jehovahs’ Witnesses are certainly allowed to claim “it SHOULD read thusly”, they are not allowed to change the actual text to make the text say what they want.

IF a sect believes that the text SHOULD say, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of Elvis Presley.” They can argue for this all they want. BUT they are not allowed to change the text as they want and then pawn it off as original or accurate text.

If Jesus or the apostle were trying to teach that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, and Jesus IS Lord and is called “lord” by the early Christians, then certainly they may want to identify JESUS as Jehovah of the Old Testament and render the text to make this important point.

The juxtaposition of historical doctrinal principles and ancient language are more complicated than they appear. There are MANY instances where the scriptures differ in their quote AND some differences are major. For example, A new thread appeared from Frank Goad in the "Religions Q&A" forum and one of the quotes is Isaiah 57:2.

It quotes Isaiah 57:2, speaking of the dead :
Jewish Masoretic reads : "“2 He shall enter into peace: they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness.”

While Jewish LXX reads : “2 His Burial will be in peace. He has been raised out of their midst”

These are Two very different quotes of the very same Isaiah 57:2 text. The two versions conflict in important ways. We are allowed to comment on and attempt to explain the differences, but we cannot change a historical text itself. They are written how they are written.

It simply doesn’t matter historically, that the text in Matthew 23:39 doesn’t read the way the Jehovahs Witnesses want it to read. So, you are allowed to explain WHY you think the text SHOULD say what it does not say, but to offer a bogus text and to try to pass it off as authentic, is something an authentic translator does NOT do.


3) EVEN A NAÏVE “TRANSLATOR” IS NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE THE BIBLICAL TEXT

The Jehovahs witness Bible was, historically, composed of five Jehovah's Witnesses who claimed to be "anointed" to this task. (Nathan H. Knorr, Fredrick W. Franz, Albert D. Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel)

According to Raymond Franz, Frederick Franz was the only one with sufficient knowledge of biblical language, who felt qualified to create this translation. However, Franz’s qualifications were EXTREMELY dubious. For example, historically, he apparently took only a single 3 credit hour introductory course in biblical Greek (Koine). His other four semesters of greek were in lower level coursework in Classical (Homeric) Greek and not biblical greek. He apparently had no formal education in Hebrew at all. While self -taught Hebrew is very ADMIRABLE, and it allows one the right to venture an opinion, it is entirely insufficient to create a bible or to serve as a bible translator from Hebrew or greek manuscripts. PLEASE correct me if any of my data is incorrect.

As a comparison, many of the translators on the world-class Nestle-Aland team have doctorates (some have MULTIPLE doctorates) in the language they are translating. They have incredible qualifications for rendering opinions as to the meaning. They use a wide range of wonderfufl consultant experts from around the world to assist them. THEY have ALSO noticed that the text of Psalms quoted in Matthew 23:39 is different than the New Testament Quote. The eminent Nestle-Aland, and GN-4 teams would NEVER have considered it proper to change a text. A critical translators bible may render an opinion on the credibility of a text, but no one is allowed to actually change the text and use the bogus text as an actual quotation. In the case of dubious texts, they leave the text alone and make a marginal note that the text is dubious.

Certainly Franz, as the main creator of the Jehovahs Witness bible, with only a 3 semester course in biblical (Koine) Greek is incredibly naïve in thinking it was proper to change the text and offer up a fake text as “authentic”.

Even your justification for offering a bogus text to forum readers is not simply naïve, it reflects both ignorance and it reveals a willingness to subvert the sacred text in order to promote a doctrine. This undermines your claim to "rely on the bible" for your doctrines.

How can readers tell when you are offering more bits and pieces of bogus text in your quotes?
Do they have to look up each and every quote to check it for authenticity?
It complicates communications to have to check each and every quote you make in order to see what is correct and what is not.


5) A REPEAT CLAIM REGARDING HABAKKUK 2:19

"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." Habakkuk 2:19


HockyCowboy said : “@Clear , re: Habakkuk 2:19... Habakkuk 2:19 ....has many different versions. You can clearly see that ruach, in this instance, is breath. It represents life.

Um... no. If the text says "spirit", then it is more clear that "spirit" means "spirit".

You are simply repeating the Jehovahs Witness interpretation, rather than considering how Habbakkuk was interpreted by the earliest Jews who actually wrote the text.

If you check out my post #183, on this same page, you will notice that “Ruacha” does NOT mean the “breath” of living animals in this case of contrast. It clearly meant ‘spirit’ to the ancient writers who were trying to contrast the difference between a living thing and a dead thing.

I summarized all of these points already.

Deeje claimed in post #170 : “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." ….”
Deejes’ interpretation was : “This scripture is saying that an idol is lifeless because it has no "breath". (post #170)

I made several points :
1) Firstly, the text deal with dead idols having no spirit and not living men .
2) “Spirit” does not mean “breath” in this instance. In this instance, “spirit” means “spirit”. In early Christianity, An idol was lifeless because it has “no spirit within it
3) The ancients could SEE the wood of idols did not breathe but the point of the text was that idols did not have a spirit within it.
4) The scripture contrasts a living thing (having a spirit) to a dead thing (having no spirit).

In an attempt to strengthen his interpretation, Derje claimed the “spirit” in Habakkuk referred to “breath”, Deeje said : “According to Strongs, the word "spirit" in Hebrew is "ruwach" which means.... "wind, breath, mind, spirit". (post #170)


THE PRIMARY MEANING OF RUACHA IS "SPIRIT" IN SUCH TEXTS AS THESE
I agree רוה (ruacha’) CAN mean “spirit” and it can mean "breath" . BUT Breath was not its’ primary meaning in these texts. Its primary meaning here is “spirit”. It is not our “breath” but our “spirit” which is associated with characteristics of intelligence and emotion and LIFE.

EXAMPLES FROM BOTH HEBREW (RUACHA) AND GREEK (PNEUMO)
I gave multiple Hebrew examples : (קצר רוה ruacha Kotzer), impatience (נבה רוה ruacha ne’ba), Proud of spirit (רוה קשה ruacha koshae), sorrow, anger, wrath. In ALL of these cases, it is not “breath” that has emotions and intelligence but an intelligent “spirit”.
I also gave examples from many ancient Koine Greek Papyri, 2 from P Oxy VI 904.7 (of v a.d), P Leid W.xxiii.2 of (2-3 a.d.), P land, Christian amulet, etc.

I GAVE EXAMPLES FROM SCRIPTURE IN BOTH HEBREW AND GREEK
One example was Mark 5:2 where a man had an “unclean spirit”, NOT unclean breath. BOTH Hebrew AND Greek of Mark 5:2 indicated “ruacha tum’ah” (heb) and πνευματι ακαθαρτω (Gk) which ONLY referred to spirits (not breath) and there are NO Greek variants of this phrase here.

I gave similar examples from BOTH Hebrew and Greek of Mark 9:17 and 25.

In summary : HABAKKUK 2:19 Does NOT indicate that there is no spirit in man, but rather it is an example of the ancient belief that Dead idols do not have spirits in them while living things do have a spirit in them.


HockeyCowboy, IF, you have DIFFERENT or BETTER or OTHER historically accurate points to make, THEN I think it is worth discussing NEW data. Else, we are simply going to be repeating ourselves. IF we are simply going to repeat ourselves, then I will not want to do anything more than cut and paste from prior points. Do you have anything NEW to say about Habakkuk 2:19?

I am certainly very satisfied to have the forum readers look at the data you have offered and the data I have offered and make their own judgments as to what they think is most logical, rational, and most historically coherent.

IN any case HockeyCowboy, I hope your journey in this life is full of joy and insights and happiness.

Clear
ειακφυσεω

Clear said:

These two texts DO NOT read the same. They do not NEED to read the same.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Psalm 118:26 when literally translated describes a blessing that occurs in the "house" ( Bais in biblical hebrew ) of the Almighty. Which, in my opinion, makes it a less global statement.

However, there is probably a reason for the common non-literal translation that I am not aware of.

I am just pointing this out; because, it supports what you are saying.

What is said in Matthew does not need to be identical to Psalm 118:26.

Thief said:

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

Click to expand...

Since Day Seven was still on going in the 1st century - Hebrews 4:4-11, then the only Garden Event will be the coming global Garden Event as found at the time of Revelation 22:2 when Jesus, as Prince of Peace establishes Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill when there will be ' healing ' for earth's nations at this millennium time frame.

URAVIP2ME said:

Since Day Seven was still on going in the 1st century - Hebrews 4:4-11, then the only Garden Event will be the coming global Garden Event as found at the time of Revelation 22:2 when Jesus, as Prince of Peace establishes Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill when there will be ' healing ' for earth's nations at this millennium time frame.

Click to expand...

• The Prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, the Original Jewish Version
• The Book of Revelation, Apocalyptic Literature, and Millennial Movements
• The Revelation to John and the Spirit of Prophecy

The Book of Revelation

dybmh said:

Agreed.
Psalms 118:26 when literally translated describes a blessing that occurs in the "house" ( Bais in biblical hebrew ) of the Almighty. Which, in my opinion, makes it a less global statement.
However, there is probably a reason for the common non-literal translation that I am not aware of.
I am just pointing this out; because, it supports what you are saying.
What is said in Matthew does not need to be identical to Psalms 118:26.

Click to expand...

As far as part B 'out of the house of Jehovah' (YHWH Tetragrammaton) Psalms 118:26 corresponds to Psalms 134:3
Seems to me, Matthew 21:9 B; Matthew 23:39 B; Mark 11:9 B; Luke 19:38 does correspond to Psalms 118:26 the A part.

dybmh said:

I want to go back to the original question I asked: Is there something wrong or bad about using the LORD instead of the 4 letter name.............................

Click to expand...

I suppose that could depend on which LORD/ Lord (KJV Psalms 110) you are referring.
I notice at Psalms 110 (KJV) there are Not one (1) but two (2) LORD/Lord's mentioned.
Where KJV used LORD in all Upper-Case letters is where the 4-letter (Tetragrammaton) name stands.
Where KJV used Lord in some lower-case letters stands for Lord Jesus ( No Tetragrammaton there )

Jesus never prayed that his name (Lord Jesus) be hallowed but his Father's name be hallowed.....
Who was Jesus referring to at John 17:6 and John 17:26 ___________________