|
|
Post by alon on Oct 15, 2016 1:55:23 GMT -8
I thought the Mishkan and the Tent of Meeting were two different structures. But a search turned up:
Exo 39:32 Thus all the work of the tabernacle of the tent of meeting was finished. And the children of Israel did according to all that the LORD had commanded Moses; so they did.
Exo 39:40 the hangings of the court, its pillars and its sockets, the screen for the court gate, its cords, and its pegs; all the utensils for the service of the tabernacle, for the tent of meeting;
Exo 40:2 “On the first day of the first month you shall set up the tabernacle of the tent of meeting.
Exo 40:6 “Then you shall set the altar of the burnt offering before the door of the tabernacle of the tent of meeting.
Exo 40:29 And he put the altar of burnt offering before the door of the tabernacle of the tent of meeting, and offered upon it the burnt offering and the grain offering, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Exo 33:7 Moses took his tent and pitched it outside the camp, far from the camp, and called it the tabernacle of meeting. And it came to pass that everyone who sought the LORD went out to the tabernacle of meeting which was outside the camp.
Num 3:25 The duties of the children of Gershon in the tabernacle of meeting included the tabernacle, the tent with its covering, the screen for the door of the tabernacle of meeting,
I guess I was mistaken ...
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 26, 2016 16:48:21 GMT -8
I guess I should post this here: I used to believe that the Chanukkah "Miracle of the Lamp" was factual. Certainly Elohim could have done such a miracle; easily. However my studies have shown me that neither the Books of Macabees nor the writings of Josephus record such an event. It showed up in the Talmud some 300 years afterwards. So in all likelihood, it did not happen. Such a thing would have been worth more than a casual mention. And there are much greater miracles associated with this feast. Go to "Moedim," then "Chanukkah" and there are a couple of very good discussions on this feast day; what it is about, the true miracles of the season, and even whether or not we should keep the feast.
Dan (wrong again, but workin' onit) C
Edit: wrong again! The story of the lamp showed up in the Talmud some 600 yrs after the event allegedly occurred. I said 300. Aparently half my memory is gone ... 
edit 2: Just want to add, I now believe the story to be a midrash- something told to make a point, not to be taken as literal truth. However some Jewish sects now believe the Talmud to be on par with scripture and take these things as true. And this one got a lot of traction and is believed to be true by many Christians and Messianics alike!
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 16, 2017 17:38:44 GMT -8
Dang, you need a program to keep up with all those churches and branches and splits ...
But this is good info. Now I know!
Dan C
(On a sadder note, this thread keeps rearing its' ugly head ...  )
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jun 15, 2017 12:15:49 GMT -8
Here we go again.  I had thought that tzitzyot could be tied from any fibers as long as they were not mixed and the sh'mash string was blue. But:Bamidbar 15:38 (OJB) Speak unto the Bnei Yisroel, and bid them that they make them tzitzis on the corners of their garments throughout their derot, and that they put upon the tzitzis of the corners a thread of turquoise wool;
This clearly says they should be of wool. Guess I need to do some retieing ...Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jun 15, 2017 23:13:55 GMT -8
לח. ַ ֵר אֶל- ְנֵי יִ ְרָאֵל וְאָמַרְ ָ אֲלֵהֶם וְעָ לָהֶם צִיצִת עַל- ַנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם לְדֹרֹתָם וְנָתְנ עַל-צִיצִת הַ ָנָף ְתִיל ְכֵלֶת:
38. Speak to the people of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a thread of blue;
The Hebrew word for wool is “tsemer, צִמַר, tsadek-mem-resh.” I looked it up on my transliterated Bible and I do not see this word anywhere in that verse. I also looked at several other translations, including one literal translation, and the OJB is the only one I found online which says tzitzyoth must be of wool. My JPS TNK does not say wool. However my Stone Edition does say wool. But looking at the Hebrew there I don’t see the word tsemer צִמַר. Possibly there is another Hebrew word for wool used in Biblical Hebrew. This one I may have to look further on.
Dan C
Further digging (actually I asked my ex-Orthodox friend) reveals that the term wool is inferred. Based on common usage, when the term techelet (tekhelet) is used and no material is specified, then it is understood to mean wool dyed a turquoise blue. So aparently the OJB and Stone's edition are correct. And I have to find a turquoise wool yarn that matches my white and start retieing ... 
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 27, 2018 8:22:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 28, 2018 17:04:34 GMT -8
This one speaks to just allowing the mind to be lazy and make assumptions. I confused Mt. Moriah in Yerushalayim and Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia. I know where each is, because Rav S has done teachings on them both. But, well ... I got slack and the confusion almost got posted in a par'shah. Oh well, jimmie would have caught it, I'm sure ... 
Dan (slackin') C
 3799 posts, and this thread is still alive and well ... *sheesh* 
|
|
|
|
Post by garrett on Jan 3, 2019 14:59:07 GMT -8
לח. ַ ֵר אֶל- ְנֵי יִ ְרָאֵל וְאָמַרְ ָ אֲלֵהֶם וְעָ לָהֶם צִיצִת עַל- ַנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם לְדֹרֹתָם וְנָתְנ עַל-צִיצִת הַ ָנָף ְתִיל ְכֵלֶת: 38. Speak to the people of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a thread of blue; The Hebrew word for wool is “tsemer, צִמַר, tsadek-mem-resh.” I looked it up on my transliterated Bible and I do not see this word anywhere in that verse. I also looked at several other translations, including one literal translation, and the OJB is the only one I found online which says tzitzyoth must be of wool. My JPS TNK does not say wool. However my Stone Edition does say wool. But looking at the Hebrew there I don’t see the word tsemer צִמַר. Possibly there is another Hebrew word for wool used in Biblical Hebrew. This one I may have to look further on. Dan C Further digging (actually I asked my ex-Orthodox friend) reveals that the term wool is inferred. Based on common usage, when the term techelet (tekhelet) is used and no material is specified, then it is understood to mean wool dyed a turquoise blue. So aparently the OJB and Stone's edition are correct. And I have to find a turquoise wool yarn that matches my white and start retieing ... I know this post is a bit dated but it caught my attention. I've never seen any orthodox men in my city wearing fringes that had the blue thread in them. There might have been one or two times but I can't be sure. A long time ago I read that the blue dye was gathered from some form of sea life (?) but the specific name of the creature has been lost to time. None of my talliyot (with tzitzyot) have the blue thread and I purchased them from "kosher" certified stores, etc. In fact, I think all of mine were made in Israel as well. So, maybe don't feel too bad about the blue thread.... |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 4, 2019 0:07:37 GMT -8
I've never seen any orthodox men in my city wearing fringes that had the blue thread in them. There might have been one or two times but I can't be sure. A long time ago I read that the blue dye was gathered from some form of sea life (?) but the specific name of the creature has been lost to time. None of my talliyot (with tzitzyot) have the blue thread and I purchased them from "kosher" certified stores, etc. In fact, I think all of mine were made in Israel as well. So, maybe don't feel too bad about the blue thread....
Most Messianics, at least around here prefer tzitzit to have a blue chord as their shamash chord. Jews here tend to look at anyone with blue in their tzitzyot with disdain or even outright dislike. But we try to follow as closely as possible to the commandment. That and we have no problem with the blue chord marking us as Messianc rather than mainstream-Judaic. That is who and what we are.
Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 26, 2019 21:59:50 GMT -8
Well, crud! I hate it when this happens. Not only must I revive this, the thread that will never go away; but I seem to remember arguing with jimmie about this at one time.
I have said many times here that any time you see the word faith, it is better translated as "trust." Apparently (on sober reflection and inspection and ...) I found out was wrong. Here's an excerpt from one of Rav S's teachings:Dr David Stern, who translated the Complete Jewish Bible translates faith as trust quite often. It's not a good translation of that word even though it's common. I hear this word faith being thrown around, and every time it has a Christian slant. It's not a Christian term, and it's used incorrectly. The more I hear people use it, the further I hear it being used from its original meaning.
You'd think we would know what faith is. What does this picture tell you about faith. “I’m going to step out in faith, I don’t know if I’ll make it, but here I go.” That’s actually the opposite of faith. Aren't we a people of faith, and yet few actually know what it is. In Hebrew the word is “emunah.”
The Hebrew root aman means firm, something that is supported or secure. This word is used in Isaiah 22:23 for a nail that is fastened to a "secure" place. The feminine form of emun is the word emunah, meaning firmness, something or someone that is firm in their actions.
Jeff Benner, an expert in Biblical Hebrew writes "When the Hebrew word emunah is translated as "faith," as it often is, misconceptions of its meaning occur. Faith is usually perceived as knowing while the Hebrew emunah is a firm action. To have faith in Elohiym is not knowing that Elohiym exists or knowing that he will act, rather it is that the one with emunah will act with firmness toward Elohiym's will." www.ancient-hebrew.org
He's absolutely correct about that. That is Hebraic thinking at its finest. It's about action, not just a feeling in your heart. This is exactly what James is talking about when he wrote "faith without works is dead."Chabad puts it "Emunah is an innate conviction that demands response. It includes a perception of truth that transcends, rather than evades, reason. Wisdom, understanding and knowledge can further enhance true emunah. But emunah is not based on reason. Emunah transcends reason. Reason can never attain the certainty of emunah, since reasonably speaking a greater reasoning might come along and prove your reasons wrong. In this way, emunah is similar to seeing first hand. Reason can help you better understand what you see, but it will have a hard time convincing you that you never saw it. So too, emunah endures even when reason can't catch up."
Some think faith is the same as belief, they're not the same thing. Faith is a surety that demands action. I would put it to you that if you're not keeping his mitzvoth, you don't actually have any faith in God, because if you did have faith in His word; you'd have emunah in his  . So wherever you see me say "translate faith as trust," instead back-translate it emunah.
Dan (just enough emunah to admit I'm wrong) C
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on May 29, 2019 8:16:54 GMT -8
Jeff Benner, an expert in Biblical Hebrew writes [/font] "When the Hebrew word emunah is translated as "faith," as it often is, misconceptions of its meaning occur. Faith is usually perceived as knowing while the Hebrew emunah is a firm action. To have faith in Elohiym is not knowing that Elohiym exists or knowing that he will act, rather it is that the one with emunah will act with firmness toward Elohiym's will." www.ancient-hebrew.org
He's absolutely correct about that. That is Hebraic thinking at its finest. It's about action, not just a feeling in your heart. This is exactly what James is talking about when he wrote "faith without works is dead."[/quote] Faith like nearly all words has more than one meaning. As Jeff points out most think first of knowing as in, "I know God Exists." Another meaning of "faith" is "Loyalty." Loyalty requires action. If you are faithful/loyal to God you will carry out his commands. |
|
|
|
Post by Questor on Jun 2, 2019 13:29:06 GMT -8
Put this one in the "now I'm not sure" column. The Rabbi talked about this on Shabbat. He doesn't think that Adam was created androgynous; that is with both male and female characteristics. I believe he was.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
If both were created in the Immagio Dio, then we can infer God has the characteristics of both. And indeed, the role of the Ruach HaChodesh is essentially the same as the role of women; supporter, comforter, helper, etc. This leads me to conclude that Adam had these characteristics until God took them from him and made woman.
Rabbi thinks Adam was always completely masculine because:
Gen 2:7 And the Lord God formed ("atzer") man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
This passage uses the masculine tense.
There is also a difference in how they were created; in the above vs. it says Adam was formed.
Gen 2:22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
The term here is "binah":
H1129 בּנה bânâh baw-naw' A primitive root; to build (literally and figuratively): - (begin to) build (-er), obtain children, make, repair, set (up), X surely.
Men still have their focus on "atzer"; we are purpose driven. Women's focus is on "binah"; works of art, the home, family, relationships. The term "help meet" from Gen 2:18 also implies power, aid and support, potent interventions. Together man and wife can be a force to be reckoned with.
I guess neither argument is definitive, and in the grand scheme of things, it isn't the most important doctrinal difference. So if I have to disagree with the Rabbi, I suppose this is a benign type of difference in opinion.
Dan C
But in Adam was Eve...DNA switches are all that is necessary to make a change from Y to X, and they are implanted in the egg at conception...and if you look at those letters, it seems that ABBA added something to the sperm at creation...an either/or situation...to make future Eves so very different little Adams when any Eve is merely a reflection of any Adam caused by the hormone differences triggered in that extra leg to the Y Chromosome.
Granted, Eve was made from Adam, and adult at that so that Rib (Marrow stem cells) was very useful for just one little change to be made for Eve...stems cells are mutable to anything. Adam always carried the opportunity within him, as men carry X or Y, and women only X.
I'd get into specifics medically, but it makes people sick to think of just how the inside parts of a woman are merely the outside parts of a man...turned inside out, so to speak, but all due to that extra leg on the Y. |
|
|
|
Post by Questor on Jun 2, 2019 13:57:35 GMT -8
Am about to go over to the AoG with my wife, and was thinking about how my view of God has changed. I used to be a strong Trinitarian: Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three distinct persons forming a Godhead. Now, I don't claim to know all there is about God, or even to fully understand about what He's told us. But when I recite the Sh'ma, I believe it to be true; God is One:
Devarim 6:4 Shema Yisroel Adonoi Eloheinu Adonoi Echad.
He has at different times chose to manifest Himself to man in different ways: a burning bush, a column of fire and smoke, a brazier passing between split carcasses; and in human form as with the messenger who visited Avram; He focused His essence on the Mercy seat in the Mishkan and in the Tabernacle; and finally inhabiting a human form from conception to death and beyond as Yeshua HaMoshiach. I believe He is an infinite God who can concentrate His essence anywhere and however He wishes, yet still the universe cannot contain Him.
Just my understanding.
Dan C
The problem was those Romans with their ideas about three equal gods...at least the Greek Orthodox were arguing until the 6th century between One and Two! How I wish that the KJV was not translated by former Catholic Priests! |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jun 2, 2019 14:27:41 GMT -8
Considering that Yeshua has all three manifestations in him at the same time...the part of G-d that is from 'everlasting' the Creator's neshema, the body of a man, and the Ruach, you have a triunity in him as soon as he was mikvahed...thus fulfilling ALL Righteousness...literally.
The problem was those Romans with their ideas about three equal gods...at least the Greek Orthodox were arguing until the 6th century between One and Two! How I wish that the KJV was not translated by former Catholic Priests!
I think if we were made in the immagio dio, the image of God, Yeshua would have been the "spittin' image" of God (so to speak). We all have those elements in us. But the moment you state them as a Godhead composed of beings distinct, apart from each other (parts, persons, etc.) you are into polytheism. God is One infinite, all powerful being, able to manifest Himself as He pleases, fully invested as God but still reigning from the heavens, filling the universe and holding all things together with Hid mind.
That's my understanding and belief.
Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jun 2, 2019 16:11:49 GMT -8
Put this one in the "now I'm not sure" column. The Rabbi talked about this on Shabbat. He doesn't think that Adam was created androgynous; that is with both male and female characteristics. I believe he was.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
If both were created in the Immagio Dio, then we can infer God has the characteristics of both. And indeed, the role of the Ruach HaChodesh is essentially the same as the role of women; supporter, comforter, helper, etc. This leads me to conclude that Adam had these characteristics until God took them from him and made woman.
Rabbi thinks Adam was always completely masculine because:
Gen 2:7 And the Lord God formed ("atzer") man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
This passage uses the masculine tense.
There is also a difference in how they were created; in the above vs. it says Adam was formed.
Gen 2:22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
The term here is "binah":
H1129 בּנה bânâh baw-naw' A primitive root; to build (literally and figuratively): - (begin to) build (-er), obtain children, make, repair, set (up), X surely.
Men still have their focus on "atzer"; we are purpose driven. Women's focus is on "binah"; works of art, the home, family, relationships. The term "help meet" from Gen 2:18 also implies power, aid and support, potent interventions. Together man and wife can be a force to be reckoned with.
I guess neither argument is definitive, and in the grand scheme of things, it isn't the most important doctrinal difference. So if I have to disagree with the Rabbi, I suppose this is a benign type of difference in opinion.
Dan C
But in Adam was Eve...DNA switches are all that is necessary to make a change from Y to X, and they are implanted in the egg at conception...and if you look at those letters, it seems that ABBA added something to the sperm at creation...an either/or situation...to make future Eves so very different little Adams when any Eve is merely a reflection of any Adam caused by the hormone differences triggered in that extra leg to the Y Chromosome.
Granted, Eve was made from Adam, and adult at that so that Rib (Marrow stem cells) was very useful for just one little change to be made for Eve...stems cells are mutable to anything. Adam always carried the opportunity within him, as men carry X or Y, and women only X.
I'd get into specifics medically, but it makes people sick to think of just how the inside parts of a woman are merely the outside parts of a man...turned inside out, so to speak, but all due to that extra leg on the Y.
English translations usually read something like “The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up flesh in its place. And the rib that the Lord God took from the man he built into a woman.” צלע (tsela) does not just mean “rib,” it means “side.”
H6763 צֵלָע tsêlâʻ; a rib (as curved), literally (of the body) or figuratively (of a door, i.e. leaf); hence, a side, literally (of a person) or figuratively (of an object or the sky, i.e. quarter); architecturally, a (especially floor or ceiling) timber or plank (single or collective, i.e. a flooring):—beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).
Biblical usage usually renders this word "side," as in Exod. 25:12 speaking of the sides of the Ark of the Covenant, and numerous times for sides of man-made and natural structures, sides of people and armies, and literally pages of other references where the term means a whole side. Despite Strong's pronounced leaning towards the catholic interpretation, it is more likely Chava was taken from an entire side of Adam, not just a rib. This fits with what we know of DNA as it could equate to one side of the chromosome pair.
And just to confuse things further, the word "sleep" is translated from תַּרְדֵּמָה tardêmâh, which typically means a trance, such as when a prophet receives a vision.
H8639 תַּרְדֵּמָה tardêmâh; a lethargy or (by implication) trance:—deep sleep.
The Septuagint translates it as ἔκστασις ekstasis, literally “outside oneself.” The translator, a Greek speaking Jew, understood this as Adam "stepping outside himself" as in a trance. He would have had a vision of his body divided into two equal parts. It is from this difference in understanding the creation account we get the divergent views of women in Christianity and Judaism. Christianity tends to see women as something less, inferior to men. Judaism sees women as different but equal.
So what did God actually do to Adam to get Chava? If I understood that I'd probably understand women and all the other mysteries of the universe! But I don't believe He just yanked out a rib. Since Adam was in a trance, it could have been anything from taking a single DNA strand from his body to cleaving him in half and reforming both into an אִישׁ ish/man and אִשָּׁה isha/woman. And of course this confuses us further, because although those two terms sound similar, they are actually from different roots. אִישׁ (ish) comes from the root אִוֵּשׁ eish, connoting strength. w אִשָּׁה isha comes from the root אֲנָשׁ anash, fragile. How they got that is a puzzlement to anyone who knows a type A Jewish woman (my wife). They may be the "weaker vessel," but they have strengths we men do not posses. Different, but equal.
Aren't you glad you brough up the subject?
Dan  C
|
|
- there are 70 faces to 
)
) C
C
