Emanation vs. Insemination.

John D. Brey said:

Truth is often said to be so simple it evades all but the simpleton. The Masoretes, in their attempt to codify the fact that their interpretation of the Torah text is more authoritative than the Christian interpretation of the Torah text, not only contaminate their interpretation, figuratively lobbing off their own head with the sword as they draw back to strike the Christians, but they do so in a manner that's scientifically verifiable as erroneous.

The Masoretic interpretation of the Torah text derives from the knowledge that there's another, perhaps *******, interpretation of the Torah text. The Masoretes set out to make their worldview, ideology, their Torah text generated cultural reality, the singular, canonical, or authoritative interpretation of the Torah text. But to perform this task they clearly and undeniably use their interpretation of the text as the feedback mechanism that has seminal authority over the root consonants, the uninterpreted Hebrew text. Which is an inversion of natural asymmetry whereby the tree grows out of the root, rather than the root taking its marching orders (it's seminal nature) from the tree it produces in natural asymmetry.

In the malfeasant sense of the Masoretic text, the interpretation, which should grow out of the Hebrew text, the root words, is instead used as the authoritative source feeding back into, like a male into a female, the very text which should itself have the seminal authority to determine the nature of the interpretation.

Now although the dynamics of the Masoretic approach to the text is indeed backwards, so far as a scientific approach to natural asymmetry is concerned (the root doesn't grow out of the tree), the Masoretic worldview is probably the most fundamental, and authoritative, revealer of the fact that there's a genuine flaw in the natural asymmetrical order of things (there's a genuine flaw in the belief that the tree can only grow out of the root, and not vice versa). And to the degree that it's true that the Masoretes are caught between hyper-biblical cross-currents, or even cross-members, we're handed a paradox of genuinely biblical proportions, to the degree we're willing to try to untangle the Gordian knot that's the paradoxical nature of the Masoretes' bizarre syzygy.

Click to expand...

The text above was built upon arguments in the thread, Freewill and Culture: The Prism for Perception. Nevertheless, the statements above appear to segue into a topic as important, or likely more so, than anything yours truly has ever posted in the forum. If I'm not mistaken the statements in the quotation above, lend themselves to an understanding of Judaism that cuts deeper than anything I've encountered in my study of Judaism and the religious texts that make up Judaism. For that reason I've started this thread to focus wholly on the points being made in the quotation above.

Since the statements in the quotation, particularly the last paragraph, are somewhat obscure, or esoteric, I'll first try to re-phrase them in layman's terms.




John

How, in your estimation, would this affect, say, Bible in English, for instance?

John D. Brey said:

The text above was built upon arguments in the thread, Freewill and Culture: The Prism for Perception. Nevertheless, the statements above appear to segue into a topic as important, or likely more so, than anything yours truly has ever posted in the forum. If I'm not mistaken the statements in the quotation above, lend themselves to an understanding of Judaism that cuts deeper than anything I've encountered in my study of Judaism and the religious texts that make up Judaism. For that reason I've started this thread to focus wholly on the points being made in the quotation above.

Since the statements in the quotation, particularly the last paragraph, are somewhat obscure, or esoteric, I'll first try to re-phrase them in layman's terms.

Click to expand...

In the thread noted above there was a discussion concerning how even the greatest Jewish exegetes find themselves skewered on the horns of a serious dilemma since the Masoretic text of the Torah must be based on the Masoretes already knowing how to read the string of consonants that are the original Torah text before they can legitimately determine where one word ends and another starts, and where one idea stops (with a full-stop, or period) and another begins. For example, the first sentence in the Hebrew Torah text looks like just one long word.

בראשיתבראאלהימאתהשמימואתהארצ

The first letter in the text, ב, is deciphered as a preposition ("in," as in "In the beginning") in the manner by which the Masoretes interpret the text. Which leaves the letters ראשית to be interpreted as the word, "beginning," thereby rendering the phrase: "In ב the beginning ראשית."

And yet anyone with even a cursory understanding of Hebrew language can see that there’s more than one legitimate way to decipher and interpret the first six consonants. For example, the first three consonants, ברא, are the word “created,” leaving the next three consonants, שית, meaning “foundation,” such that rather than speaking merely of the heavens and the earth being created by God "in the beginning," without noting the agency of the creation (which agency is noted throughout the Tanakh, the Gospels and the Apostolic writings), the Masoretic text merely says that in the beginning God created, without mentioning the agency or mediation through which he created the heavens and the earth.

On the other hand, the second legitimate dissection and interpretation of the text (noted above) speaks of “The created ברא foundation שית” (Colossians 1:15) as the agency through which God created ברא or made, the world. Proverbs 8, with Colossians 1:15, imply that there’s an agency through which God created the heavens and the earth. Elsewhere (Isaiah 45:18), Yawheh יהוה is treated as the foundational agency through which God אלהים created the heavens and earth.

And yet in the way the Masoretes dissect the consonants in the first statement of scripture, the "agency" of creation (if there is one, and all the scripture implies there is) is hidden by means of the way the text is deciphered and interpreted by the Masoretes.



John

Desert Snake said:

How, in your estimation, would this affect, say, Bible in English, for instance?

Click to expand...

Fwiw, the English "old testament," is based completely on the Masoretic interpretation of the Hebrew Torah text. Which is to say that whatever issue there may or may not be with the Masoretic text, is part and parcel of the English interpretation come down to us as the "old testament."

In this sense, if there is in fact a problem with the Masoretic interpretation of the text, we could go so far as to say Jerusalem and Rome are just as complicit in the crucifixion of the living meaning of the written word (the original Hebrew Torah text) as they are in silencing its flesh and blood manifestation, since the Tanakh and the "old testament" testify to the same thing, since one is based on the other.

The "old testament" is based on the same interpretation of the Hebrew consonants as the interpretation of those consonants, i.e., the Jewish massorah (become the Masoretic text), which led to the crucifixion of a Jewish male in the first century.

What many Sunday only Jews don't know, and even fewer Christians know, is that the original Hebrew text of the Torah isn't readable as delivered to Moses. It requires interpretation based on what key is used to de-cipher meaning out of a seminally meaning-less text (one long string of consonants). The original string of consonants (no word-breaks or punctuation) given to Moses can be read multiple ways as pointed out in a message (#3) in this particular thread.



John

from what I have gathered it seems that the scribes who composed major "sacred" works [biblical lore]
were not archivists, but rather, "interested authors", who could compose in multiple genres with relative familiarity [ease/fluency] (poetry, narrative, etc).
The poetry constructed to support, to serve the interests of the narrative.

These interested authors included material
only to the degree that it advanced their literary and ideological interests [agenda],
and to the extent that older sources were incorporated, they were qualified and re-shaped to suit....
other material was written de novo [made up on the spot, so to speak].

Such literary professionals [artists] should be assumed to have the ability to mimic the style and adopt aspects
[syntax, typology, tropes, meter, terminology, etc] of the older poetry already known to them.

Granting that the biblical theophany texts are a product of the interests of later authors,
they must undoubtably be built on the foundations of earlier traditions, both oral and otherwise.

Later scribes of the same feather worked at harmonizing the texts so as to depict something new under the sun,
for a purpose, to re-brand an old deity so as to instill feelings of national pride in movements of conquest
to motivate people in specific directions.
Yet the whole fabric is a deliberate re-branding of the same old mythology which had run its course of usefulness,
and so needed refreshing, to keep people motivated, inspired, passionate, to work, to act, to desire,
to run anew with passions rekindled, motivated by a higher purpose.....
which all serves to create from the sea of nations a new people from the old with identity and a cultic program
distinctly separate from the beliefs and practices of the established social order
[yet all the while being mysteriously the same in essence
...a meet the new boss, the same as the old boss kind of thing].
So it serves the purpose of societal engineering, through upheaval.
The plow.
The scribes, over the ensuing millenia have continued to refine the story
by always biasing the new as being utterly differentiated from the pre-existing native deities and cultic traditions...
and when they could not just rewrite it, they would destroy it
[Alexandria, the Gnostic material, the Mayan and other cultures of the Americas, etc]
.....which shows that this bunch really plays dirty in this concealing of knowledge.

MNoBody said:

from what I have gathered it seems that the scribes who composed major "sacred" works [biblical lore]
were not archivists, but rather, "interested authors", who could compose in multiple genres with relative familiarity [ease/fluency] (poetry, narrative, etc).
The poetry constructed to support, to serve the interests of the narrative.

These interested authors included material
only to the degree that it advanced their literary and ideological interests [agenda],
and to the extent that older sources were incorporated, they were qualified and re-shaped to suit....
other material was written de novo [made up on the spot, so to speak].

Such literary professionals [artists] should be assumed to have the ability to mimic the style and adopt aspects
[syntax, typology, tropes, meter, terminology, etc] of the older poetry already known to them.

Granting that the biblical theophany texts are a product of the interests of later authors,
they must undoubtably be built on the foundations of earlier traditions, both oral and otherwise.

Later scribes of the same feather worked at harmonizing the texts so as to depict something new under the sun,
for a purpose, to re-brand an old deity so as to instill feelings of national pride in movements of conquest
to motivate people in specific directions.
Yet the whole fabric is a deliberate re-branding of the same old mythology which had run its course of usefulness,
and so needed refreshing, to keep people motivated, inspired, passionate, to work, to act, to desire,
to run anew with passions rekindled, motivated by a higher purpose.....
which all serves to create from the sea of nations a new people from the old with identity and a cultic program
distinctly separate from the beliefs and practices of the established social order
[yet all the while being mysteriously the same in essence
...a meet the new boss, the same as the old boss kind of thing].
So it serves the purpose of societal engineering, through upheaval.
The plow.
The scribes, over the ensuing millenia have continued to refine the story
by always biasing the new as being utterly differentiated from the pre-existing native deities and cultic traditions...
and when they could not just rewrite it, they would destroy it
[Alexandria, the Gnostic material, the Mayan and other cultures of the Americas, etc]
.....which shows that this bunch really plays dirty in this concealing of knowledge.

Click to expand...

How about we start with the concept 'differentiation' you presented at the latter part of your commentary.

Not noting that, at the base level, same names, [Biblically], etc.

Same texts, same Bible, without a clear 'differentiation' contextually.

Further back is/if possible pre-biblical belief, we note same names, etc etc.

That's a way of saying your commentary is vague.

Desert Snake said:

How about we start with the concept 'differentiation' you presented at the latter part of your commentary.

Not noting that, at the base level, same names, [Biblically], etc.

Same texts, same Bible, without a clear 'differentiation' contextually.

Further back is/if possible pre-biblical belief, we note same names, etc etc.

That's a way of saying your commentary is vague.

Click to expand...

and your point?

MNoBody said:

and your point?

Click to expand...

Huh?


It's called religious debates discussion.


Anyways, ITS VAGUE.


have a nice day.

MNoBody said:

from what I have gathered it seems that the scribes who composed major "sacred" works [biblical lore]
were not archivists, but rather, "interested authors", who could compose in multiple genres with relative familiarity [ease/fluency] (poetry, narrative, etc).
The poetry constructed to support, to serve the interests of the narrative.

These interested authors included material
only to the degree that it advanced their literary and ideological interests [agenda],
and to the extent that older sources were incorporated, they were qualified and re-shaped to suit....
other material was written de novo [made up on the spot, so to speak].

Such literary professionals [artists] should be assumed to have the ability to mimic the style and adopt aspects
[syntax, typology, tropes, meter, terminology, etc] of the older poetry already known to them.

Granting that the biblical theophany texts are a product of the interests of later authors,
they must undoubtably be built on the foundations of earlier traditions, both oral and otherwise.

Later scribes of the same feather worked at harmonizing the texts so as to depict something new under the sun,
for a purpose, to re-brand an old deity so as to instill feelings of national pride in movements of conquest
to motivate people in specific directions.
Yet the whole fabric is a deliberate re-branding of the same old mythology which had run its course of usefulness,
and so needed refreshing, to keep people motivated, inspired, passionate, to work, to act, to desire,
to run anew with passions rekindled, motivated by a higher purpose.....
which all serves to create from the sea of nations a new people from the old with identity and a cultic program
distinctly separate from the beliefs and practices of the established social order
[yet all the while being mysteriously the same in essence
...a meet the new boss, the same as the old boss kind of thing].
So it serves the purpose of societal engineering, through upheaval.
The plow.
The scribes, over the ensuing millenia have continued to refine the story
by always biasing the new as being utterly differentiated from the pre-existing native deities and cultic traditions...
and when they could not just rewrite it, they would destroy it
[Alexandria, the Gnostic material, the Mayan and other cultures of the Americas, etc]
.....which shows that this bunch really plays dirty in this concealing of knowledge.

Click to expand...

. . . What you've gathered is one legitimate way of looking at the history of the text.

And yet I've gathered, from my own studies, that what you've gathered, is not the genuine history of the text. That doesn't mean I'm right about that. But it's the case that I've delved deep enough into an examination of the text to satisfy myself that I need no longer approach my studies with what you've gathered as part and parcel of my studies.

Which is merely to say that debating the source and legitimacy of the text is no longer in my purview. It's in my rear-view mirror.



John

John D. Brey said:

. . . What you've gathered is one legitimate way of looking at the history of the text.

And yet I've gathered, from my own studies, that what you've gathered, is not the genuine history of the text. That doesn't mean I'm right about that. But it's the case that I've delved deep enough into an examination of the text to satisfy myself that I need no longer approach my studies with what you've gathered as part and parcel of my studies.

Which is merely to say that debating the source and legitimacy of the text is no longer in my purview. It's in my rear-view mirror.



John

Click to expand...

well this is a kind of cafe, and I was just sitting in on your discussion since it is of interest to me as to what you are digging at..... I had hoped for a warmer welcome but that's fine....I will just read your threads and not comment

MNoBody said:

well this is a kind of cafe, and I was just sitting in on your discussion since it is of interest to me as to what you are digging at..... I had hoped for a warmer welcome but that's fine....I will just read your threads and not comment

Click to expand...

. . . I genuinely apologize if my statements came across as cross, or demeaning. I didn't intend them to be interpreted that way. I merely meant to say that I appreciate that many well-meaning examiners question the underpinnings of the text, but that I do not. I don't know how much time and effort they've put into evaluating such things. And I doubt anyone would even believe how much time I have put into that endeavor.


John