tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19177230514419081242024-03-14T00:22:09.616-04:00KNGDV. Or kngdu? Explore earliest carved, written forms behind our "beliefs." Whose interests?Tainted founts. Search for original meanings despite ages of added vowels, words, punctuation and scrivener's error. Can you discern the agenda of Empire. Clues are there. Vox dei, vox charlatan, vox what? Patriarchy emerges, each colony sustained by the universal flaw of males in musth. Is that so?Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-43948069164926165402021-08-14T10:55:00.002-04:002021-08-14T10:55:29.065-04:00Latin surrexit does not mean Resurrection. The young man need not be an angel. Creeds vs. what was known.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHapF3hw1iPjVAc4eLVKKxS5mYsNmuzpechZ5gPwJoj60j7cIMpSGbDjjZZOVN63yfynzmISb7qDpXsP8EBZecdVTPgbj1hO5v3j6pndFT0r09kKypr29yU1xW_Q_8ENMm8o1XsYSAIASu/s1764/FastFoto_0130_a.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1193" data-original-width="1764" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHapF3hw1iPjVAc4eLVKKxS5mYsNmuzpechZ5gPwJoj60j7cIMpSGbDjjZZOVN63yfynzmISb7qDpXsP8EBZecdVTPgbj1hO5v3j6pndFT0r09kKypr29yU1xW_Q_8ENMm8o1XsYSAIASu/s320/FastFoto_0130_a.jpg" width="320" />Fortresses of faith groups: what relation to original texts? Here, Gniew, Poland, Templars.</a></div><br /><p>Is theology fake news. What of theology and creeds are founded on original texts. Does it matter.</p><p>Consider: And dare we question what happened on the morning we call Easter. Women go to the tomb at sunrise. Stone rolled away. They go in, and see a young man in a white robe sitting to the right. Read the account from the Greek at https://greeknewtestament.com/B41C016.htm. That site lists as the first source after the Greek, as Latin. Latin says this, fair use quote of small portion of the entire opus:</p><p></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Symbol, Symbol, serif; font-size: 24pt; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0.15in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: SYMBOL; font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: SYMBOL; font-size: x-large;"></span></span></p><p></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Symbol, Symbol, serif; font-size: 24pt; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0.15in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: SYMBOL; font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: SYMBOL; font-size: x-large;"><b><span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: x-small;">Latin Vulgate</span></b><br /><span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">16:6 qui dicit illis nolite expavescere Iesum quaeritis Nazarenum crucifixum surrexit non est hic ecce locus ubi posuerunt eum</span></span></span></p><p>1. School Latin. Focuse on "surrexit".</p><p>"Surrexit" means simply to rise, to get up. See https://glosbe.com/la/en/surrexit. Examples are given. See https://glosbe.com/. Mark 6. See rranslations from the Greek moving directly to the Latin Vulgate, and then to various English versions. See https://greeknewtestament.com/B41C016.htm</p><p>The idea is ideologically later expressed as a Resurrection. "He is risen." A passive tense. </p><p>2. The word, "surrexit", however is simple and active -- the person gets up. </p><p>There is nothing passive there. The person acts. Surrexit. A getting up.</p><p>Omnes surreximus. We all stood. See site. Surrexit. He (or she) rose from the bed, from the chair, go his way, a new king "surrexit" or rose to that position. And so on.</p><p>3. Adding ideology clogs the message of love of God and neighbor. Do we really need to believe in cloudy risings, embroidery that later tan be manipulated so that if it is bot specifically believed, the person is not Christian. Instead keep the ambiguity, room for thought.</p><p> There is no divine intervention in surrexit. There is a young man in the tomb, in white, but no word for angel is used. Yet we add it all the time, is that so? Maybe the young man had superhuman strength or not. Who cares. If he had been perceived or presented as an angel, it would have said so. Skip it.</p><p>Sites that use the term to justify inclusion of Mark 16 ignore that "young man" is not necessarily an angel. The Latin Vulgate says no such thing. See https://www.compellingtruth.org/Mark-16-9-20.html. </p><p>4. Who dares question the taliban, the far right anywhere, the proud ones. The Intransigent in their commitment to later constructs that serve their power interests, but not the origins. b</p><p>Meet Lale Gul. See the New York Times August 14, 2021, at A9. She is a novelist of conservative Islamic background whose family migrated to the Netherlands, asserts secular ideas, "I Will Live", equal rights man-woman to living, grounds for an independent female life in the Netherlands a secular side. She is isolated, rejected. Fine article, Thomas Erdbrink of the Times, as her experience is relevant -- to those of us reared (in the hearing waters until authorities got us hard boiled. Or we struggled out. Or hid it. </p><p>He is risen. </p><p>Are we schnockered. </p><p>Did "resurrection" begin with Paul.</p><p>Was old Mark added onto,</p><p>And an angel added so we'd stay in thrall.</p>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-70772893788203697092021-07-25T08:16:00.006-04:002021-08-09T11:29:58.956-04:00How do institutions corrupt the teachings of original speakers.Critical Race. Teach original documentation, not later theories.<p>Critical Race Theory. There is a point -- to objecting to "teachings" and ideology, but ppoapply it to everyone, even opponents of critical race, who approach the issue </p><p>with their counter-theory. Whether race theories, gender prohibitions, theological theories, leave that conclusions out of the header. Instead, start with demonstrable evidence, facts as close as we can get to original, teach from the laws and other original documents to see what has influenced, directed our thinking.<br /></p><p>1. What did each say, provide for, allow, prohibit.</p><p>2. Then, with that list of provisions governing human beings in an era, in a time, in a place, only then begin to conclude whether the culture sets up one race, or gender, or view of a god, intended to be supreme and others closely controlled as to dissent. </p><p>3. Teach children to think, not to memorize on pain of exclusion and ostracism. Let them figure out anta t conclusion not based on evidence is not conclusion at all, but dogma. Provide even conflicting evidence.<br /></p><p>Rewind. Begin with specific questions, not framed to produce one conclusion. Example: "Do institutions corrupt the teachings of Jesus and Paul." </p><p>1. What did Jesus say. How and through whom do we know or think that is so.</p><p>2. What did Paul say. <br /></p><p>Study Garry Wills. From his view, this is not a "whether" issue, but a "how" and when and why. See the book, "What Paul Meant, "by Garry Wills, reviewed in the New York Times on December 31, 2006. Try i tas a Google book at <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/What_Paul_Meant.html?id=NrPqV9f2OEgC">https://books.google.com/books/about/What_Paul_Meant.html?id=NrPqV9f2OEgC</a></p><p>Radical egalitarianism of original positions, later subverted. The review, by Damon Linker, lays out the case: that the earliest accounts of Jesus and Paul both, demonstrate that each opposed formal religion, with external rites in special places, or hierarchies, or special roles. It was only in the middle ages that the institutional church decided that women could not be apostles. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFvKF-IwTZtt3BzZ_hs3eYbJhXpDtDTVUEkcJRQvoA0btDvoaOO-2SrnsLOVEf3aqVhbVYHXMyKUGhi_bv_oLIzowxtiyCkauCUqRh4_AM6AsoYZ-vsroRWPVelloHS08YdsSmxll-4aTc/s1280/100_0891.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="1280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFvKF-IwTZtt3BzZ_hs3eYbJhXpDtDTVUEkcJRQvoA0btDvoaOO-2SrnsLOVEf3aqVhbVYHXMyKUGhi_bv_oLIzowxtiyCkauCUqRh4_AM6AsoYZ-vsroRWPVelloHS08YdsSmxll-4aTc/s320/100_0891.JPG" width="320" />Looking under the institutional hood. What original teachings survive? Car show. </a></div> The review states that this was done by a "Soviet-style rewriting of history," See review, quotation to be found (with time) in the google book. Essential elements of faith today represent corruptions of the original intent sof both Jesus and Paul.<p>Archeology supports, or not. Pros and cons. See the film, ""The Lost Tomb of Jesus, see <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974593/reviews">https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974593/reviews</a>. And the detractors, organizational ministries it appears. Find arguments and capitals and outrage. Perhaps truth.</p><p>Point: Respect the believer. Where original facts cannot be determined with modern certainty, say so. </p><p>And where institutions fill in gaps to suit their own agendas, say so, -- or someone say so. A later ideology is not necessarily "inspired" except as the institution wishes.<br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNL8wPI_O0FUsMFMM4tEg_clb12MkrxWWdBH-iq5swC61D1sJrqo_8PKviXZOTqP6tgOedJ6JpCLrn7F6bdblFc1Vn6eVXi-9gLyUSmCE9xxb6tLuLFXwllG8yLfBkLj-gbReOMJt7XL2m/s1729/Palermo_0001+%25283%2529.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1729" data-original-width="1194" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNL8wPI_O0FUsMFMM4tEg_clb12MkrxWWdBH-iq5swC61D1sJrqo_8PKviXZOTqP6tgOedJ6JpCLrn7F6bdblFc1Vn6eVXi-9gLyUSmCE9xxb6tLuLFXwllG8yLfBkLj-gbReOMJt7XL2m/s320/Palermo_0001+%25283%2529.jpg" />Dressing up the dead. Palermo, Sicily. Does the era of their lives matter. Old postcard, Capuchin Catacombs</a></div><br /><p><br /></p>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-7387195530140664452020-07-01T10:45:00.000-04:002020-07-01T10:45:02.553-04:00Rights of Nature. Genesis roots. Movements to rebalance uses with natural rights.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Untrammel all that breathes? That includes the plant world. How to get to coexistence, with plants and animals, being reluctant and respectful in taking of any life. for food We have a long way ahead. Translation and cultural application of terms even in religious sources suit the institution, not the definition requirements of the word itself. "Dominion." Guide the flock, like a shepherd, like a god. Not dominate, take charge and take at will, controlling, polluting, stripping and destroying for profit. Caring and sustaining. Explore the languageauthorizing us. Do we obey? Do we poison ourselves instead. See<a href="https://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-do-you-do-i-create-tumors.html"> https://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-do-you-do-i-create-tumors.html</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjh67W7TtC398ZduKs_MtH7MuM68vtaX6vZoU7HOMTPdDYxHP7N2wHyr3iMzOEalIaM6LVckN_60xqFSkQ_ILtmMHe-17cKHfiwlIy72dmGtSVCKzZY2M-eDajaBBcQ9gLUlfv4yLtj2IhI/s1600/20200426_073436.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1321" data-original-width="875" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjh67W7TtC398ZduKs_MtH7MuM68vtaX6vZoU7HOMTPdDYxHP7N2wHyr3iMzOEalIaM6LVckN_60xqFSkQ_ILtmMHe-17cKHfiwlIy72dmGtSVCKzZY2M-eDajaBBcQ9gLUlfv4yLtj2IhI/s320/20200426_073436.jpg" width="211" />Backyard bear shepherding cubs up tree</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Can we manage a "natural" drive to dominate, if there is such. The idea of shepherding creation was promptly subsumed into the right to do as one will, and ownership of all lives who could not defend, whether gender based, or insect, or animal, or fish. Take and pocket. Exploit. Is there recourse? Only if we have reached the limits of our own tolerance for domination, that we do not take it for granted. <br />
<br />
1. There is movement to that higher plane. Site: <a href="https://therightsofnature.org/frequently-asked-questions/">https://therightsofnature.org/frequently-asked-questions/</a> See <i>Common Dreams.</i><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/10/10/rights-nature"> https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/10/10/rights-nature </a></div>
<br />
States have addressed their own issues. Pennsylvania: start with basic research on rights of nature. Example. Pittsburgh, PA. See<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/rights-for-nature-preventing-fracking-pittsburgh-pennsylvania-2017-7?op=1"> https://www.businessinsider.com/rights-for-nature-preventing-fracking-pittsburgh-pennsylvania-2017-7?op=1 </a><br />
<br />
Move on to the <i>Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund</i>: Rights get legal backup, <a href="https://celdf.org/advancing-community-rights/rights-of-nature/">https://celdf.org/advancing-community-rights/rights-of-nature/</a>. Broader sources at<a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Community_Environmental_Legal_Defense_Fund"> https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Community_Environmental_Legal_Defense_Fund</a>. Fine <i>Sourcewatch</i> at <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch">https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch. </a><br />
<br />
2. Self-motivation. Explore independently what the natural has to offer. Silently. With camera. Try <a href="https://www/edu/wplp/course/f98stud/bw/fmfloopl.htm">https://www/edu/wplp/course/f98stud/bw/fmfloopl.htm</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_TJkNjz8hF2y2xkLSH4EpdfdYEv5XyBe-VU76nJrtLTHIjuicFlQVyuDFyBAOEEgV3GeHg1fLxvMYCFobyfY8_XNdoBr73W7NPASXDVqwNfi3aFxy7MTpTeu08UTGgWAVeO8-oTr_3MNW/s1600/100_0282.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1024" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_TJkNjz8hF2y2xkLSH4EpdfdYEv5XyBe-VU76nJrtLTHIjuicFlQVyuDFyBAOEEgV3GeHg1fLxvMYCFobyfY8_XNdoBr73W7NPASXDVqwNfi3aFxy7MTpTeu08UTGgWAVeO8-oTr_3MNW/s320/100_0282.JPG" width="320" />[Ribbit]...</a><a href="http://soundbible.com/1336-Frog-Croaking.html">Ribbit</a>]<br />
<br />
3. Read. Book: Your local library offers <a href="http://www.richardpowers.net/the-overstory/">The Overstory</a>. Author: Richard Powers.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><i>The Overstory</i>, a novel here as reviewed in the <i><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/04/richard-powers-pulitzer-the-overstory/587245/">Atlantic Monthly,</a></i> is a 2019 Pulitzer Prize winner focusing on the rightful environmental place of </li>
<ul>
<li>single trees, </li>
<li>a <a href="https://www.reference.com/world-view/group-trees-called-1adb8f77df7ffc4f">stand or grove</a> of trees, </li>
<li>communities or biospheres , or biomes of trees,</li>
<li>forests or rainforests, boreas, or <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/taiga">taigas</a> or snowforests of trees,</li>
</ul>
</ul>
in the lives of a different person each chapter. Take it two
ways. First, a skim so you see where it heads. Then slowly, each day a
chapter.<br />
<br />
Each chapter hones in on a different
idividual's or group's experience with a tree, some trees, many trees. Each day's read feeds the soul.<br />
<br />
Another. book: <i> The Secret Life of Trees</i> by Colin Tudge, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/nov/26/featuresreviews.guardianreview3">https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/nov/26/featuresreviews.guardianreview3</a><br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>And a similar title, but different book: <i>The Hidden Life of Trees</i> by Peter Wohleben, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/48295241-das-geheime-leben-der-b-ume-was-sie-f-hlen-wie-sie-kommunizieren---die">https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/48295241-das-geheime-leben-der-b-ume-was-sie-f-hlen-wie-sie-kommunizieren---die</a> You do not need to know German. </li>
</ul>
<br />
4. Think globally. Search Ecuador, Australia, <a class="result__url js-result-extras-url" href="https://matadornetwork.com/read/countries-legally-recognized-rights-nature/" rel="noopener"><span class="result__url__domain">https://matadornetwork.com</span><span class="result__url__full">/read/countries-legally-recognized-rights-nature/</span></a> Global news, the <i>Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature</i> offers Earth Law, a group in the Australia region. The <i>Gaia Foundation</i>, here through Tom Brennan, <i>Gaia Foundation of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous
Issues</i> , <a href="https://therightsofnature.org/earth-law-updates-may11-16/">https://therightsofnature.org/earth-law-updates-may11-16/.</a><br />
<div>
<br />
5. Applaud individuals. And model after them. <i>Stephen Cleghorn,</i> Ph.D., one who took action, see <a href="https://therightsofnature.org/rights-of-nature-through-conservation-easement/">https://therightsofnature.org/rights-of-nature-through-conservation-easement/</a>, and an organic farmer, used the tool of a conservation easement to foster rights of water, forest,
and natural ecosystems. Bans issues current in his area of Pennsylvania, hale gas
hydro-fracking, which would violate those rights, and elevates the rights
of nature above the power claimed by extractive energy corporations to
despoil the environment, to the Tamaqua, Pennsylvania ordinance<br />
<br />
Support art. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4coeyXTfUPO6fcj-_8vGsyYvlnRcVV9ozzp5xn523oZg2tCbzteLstSZSHflmcA2ZvO8eyQERNAORlyKvc0BEAfbnVYFUtPWlS822yGEeDQNuythOIL9RsvoDC75DcooT3xgjJnDg7b1q/s1600/scan0077-4.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1051" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4coeyXTfUPO6fcj-_8vGsyYvlnRcVV9ozzp5xn523oZg2tCbzteLstSZSHflmcA2ZvO8eyQERNAORlyKvc0BEAfbnVYFUtPWlS822yGEeDQNuythOIL9RsvoDC75DcooT3xgjJnDg7b1q/s320/scan0077-4.jpg" width="210" />Maine, Artist Ruth Walsh, Boothbay Harbor</a></div>
<br />
<br />
6. Then work on these same issues at your local zoning board, and hear, "An owner can do as he likes with his land." And weep. When developers lobby for "AHOZ" or "affordable housing zones" on the state statute books, local control is gone. The scam is, that for 2 "affordable houses" (meaning a median of a wealthy area here, and hardly affordable to Walmart clerks) a builder can put up 8 and more at market. And more means all without monitoring to see that the end product conforms to regulations as to equal access to street and so on.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li> AHOZ. Affordable housing can be provided with existing structures plenty of housing stock is available but not at such profit to builders. Allow in-law apartments. There can be focused new construction without the floodgates of acreage going instead to market value homes, with no local recourse for natural areas, entire hills removed. <a href="https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/connecticut/ct-laws/connecticut_statutes_8-30g">https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/connecticut/ct-laws/connecticut_statutes_8-30g</a></li>
</ul>
Will focusing on nature
allow us to focus also on rights of human beings to a sustainable life.
To animals to a dignified end. Those are both connected to the
"barbaric forest that is fear"* we foster, in order to dominate, the
ultimate
goal. Seek out the channels with spooky music without information on
accountability for origins of problems, and facts for support.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-55328870277783585872020-04-12T16:55:00.002-04:002020-04-12T19:46:13.187-04:00Never happened. Tall Tale Paul. Set a disfavored concept to music. Does it then inspire? Role of sound and spectacle. <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The arts in religion. How do they persuade. drive solidarity. Listen and watch: <a href="https://youtu.be/U2867Ng9W0w">He is Risen </a> The spectacle of the visible, the voice and culture lift up, inspire, provided that is your culture. They are repellent if not. Tall Tale Paul. Does the idea send you to research, or leave the field, Is there a small litmus of tolerance. Controller of the media now is YouTube. How to find a version not geared to pious-looking white folk.. Would, could this choir sing other words: Should we, in tolerance for the sake of a nation.<br />
<br />
Never happened. Never happened.<br />
Paul added sand to make a wall.<br />
Early texts, with room to vary.<br />
Fell to creeds, thanks to tall-tale Paul.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic9bRORbYSU9465JFcCqRY0QWDG1fLIyYFmJldv8iGzS8MyRG03XAkVxfXb137ev9X0yh4vJxxtic-AF-WawmRnX8FTUOE8VdIMKmwRtmNa14IkvcsNH8r9DBxrHR9c17ePUYSvtYcQF-b/s1600/dance.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="453" data-original-width="627" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic9bRORbYSU9465JFcCqRY0QWDG1fLIyYFmJldv8iGzS8MyRG03XAkVxfXb137ev9X0yh4vJxxtic-AF-WawmRnX8FTUOE8VdIMKmwRtmNa14IkvcsNH8r9DBxrHR9c17ePUYSvtYcQF-b/s320/dance.jpg" width="320" />The mesmerizing dangerous dance of religious text and music, where allowed</a><br />
<br />
<br />
A counter musical number like that from the beginning of Paul's letters and on, without the singer getting killed for heresy, may have produced a religious way of life more like the founder intended.<br />
<br />
Is that why institutions clamp down on contact, music, words, and force their own versions first. Empire. East and West, their own interpretations of the same events remain polarized because of the empire tactics of each.<br />
<br />
That is insoluble here, so enjoy instead a look at the history of "He is Risen." <br />
<br />
1. The original hymn melody -- the brilliant part -- is by:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Joachim Neander of Bremen! </li>
<li>Is this so: He had ups and downs in his life, of course. He composed a melody in 1680, the year he died. His life had been a gradual academic move from secular to clergy, with his father changing the family name to a Greek form of the original Germanic Newman or Niemann. He also had moved from acceptance of teaching to an insistent forging of his own way without consultation with superiors in the German Reformed Church. </li>
<li>This resulted in his humiliating demotion from rector to assistant. His solace apparently became nature, and writing hymns, especially at a particular cave in a valley, the Neanderthal, with the little river there, the Dussel. Lutherans adopted many of his works. <a href="https://hymnary.org/person/Neander_Joachim">https://hymnary.org/person/Neander_Joachim</a>. </li>
</ul>
2. The words. In 1846, a poem was substituted for whatever the original words were (did he write any for this?) by.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Cecil Frances Alexander! </li>
<li>C.F.Alexander wrote and wrote. See <a href="https://hymnary.org/person/Alexander_CF">https://hymnary.org/person/Alexander_CF.</a> If music moves the church, poet C.F.Alexander should be a saint. Prolificity thy name is Cecil Frances. See <a href="https://hymnary.org/person/Alexander_CF">https://hymnary.org/person/Alexander_C</a></li>
</ul>
But C.F.Alexander is a woman. Is that why first names are not in the hymnals I see? That the only way a patriarchal system can accommodate that is by hoping that none will know. All will assume the person is male. Whew. Here, even her first name is, to us, gender-neutral, except for the "e" in Frances. She alone is recorded as the author at <a href="https://hymnary.org/text/he_is_risen_he_is_risen_tell_it_out_with">https://hymnary.org/text/he_is_risen_he_is_risen_tell_it_out_with</a><br />
<br />
3. In perpetuating an ideology, she is more important to history than her husband, however, he of the clerical bent, the Anglican Primate of Ireland. <br />
<br />
4. And it is the tune by J. Neander that carries the inspiration. More important than C.F.Alexander,'s dated words, and he a middling-to unsuccessful cleric. New hymns are replacing the old, of course. Are the melodies better? Many, sure. <br />
<br />
5. Why does YouTube refuse to identify its snippets by performer? Look up that hymn and it all just says youtube. Now, that's empire. Nuts. https://youtu.be/U2867Ng9W0w</div>
Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-77073922818664921862015-09-21T12:17:00.000-04:002015-09-21T17:20:17.927-04:00Date of Eden and The Snake. Does literalism pan out? When Did the NCHSH Lose Its Legs<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Dancing With Eden.</b><br />
<b>Change partners.</b><br />
<b>The snake taps us on our shoulders. </b><br />
<b>.</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-i66BDwX7hyw/Tv4-zzyffBI/AAAAAAAAM8E/TLVI38P-ZIw/s1600/Card050510147.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" rea="true" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-i66BDwX7hyw/Tv4-zzyffBI/AAAAAAAAM8E/TLVI38P-ZIw/s400/Card050510147.jpg" width="400" />How old is Eden? Count the snake's legs.</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
The snake. Eden. Powers. Conundrums, or conundra. To the existing named issues of meaning of the old Hebrew sound-form NShCh, that moderns usually translate as the Snake, add this newly discovered attribute: the ability of the snake, the NCHSH to auto-reproduce itself, female without male, becomes a Mom. See <a href="http://www.babwnews.com/2015/09/scientists-astonished-after-snake-has-virgin-birth/">http://www.babwnews.com/2015/09/scientists-astonished-after-snake-has-virgin-birth/</a><br />
<br />
Virgin births are always of theological interest, suggesting, of course, that the female indeed came first and that the male was an afterthought, so this post, from several years ago, is being updated. Parthenogenesis, see <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/48995742/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/wild-snake-study-suggests-virgin-births-may-be-common/#.VgBwoPDDDRY">http://www.nbcnews.com/id/48995742/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/wild-snake-study-suggests-virgin-births-may-be-common/#.VgBwoPDDDRY</a> The idea has been around a long time, and in some cases, the means to do it, see <a href="http://sassafrasthicket.blogspot.com/2010/12/parthenos-parthenogenesis-genesis-north.html">http://sassafrasthicket.blogspot.com/2010/12/parthenos-parthenogenesis-genesis-north.html </a><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
Q. How old is Eden? This site says Adam was created in about 4004 BC - see <a href="http://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/timelineot.html">http://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/timelineot.html</a>. This renders any thinking person speechless, is that so? Keep that date in mind here.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
.<br />
PROCESS HERE. An aid to scrolling.<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
A. Multiple sources, approaches, research of original text meanings, where possible.<br />
<br />
B. Vet each appoach against other evidence accumulated. Do evolutionary arguments stem from the Biblical reference to the <a href="http://www.themystica.org/mystica/articles/n/nachash.html">NCHSH</a> (Nacash?) losing its legs as punishment for the tempting. Does the loss of legs date, also date Eden, if we can determine vestigial legs in snake anatomy, figure when the legs receded.<br />
.<br />
C. Separating culture from theology. Does the character and role of the NCHSH, suggest cultural intrusion establishing hierarchies and punishment patterns that might not have been part of original inspiration.<br />
<br />
Culture and literalism: handy patterns for maximizing survival at the time, even if later distorted by literalism; or theology: direct inspiration. If the dates of loss of legs do not match when people were at the talking, sexually differentiated stage.<br />
.<br />
<br />
D. Eden and Politics. Do thought patterns of candidates as to a literal Eden inform as to their future international and inter-cultural approaches. What serves a common good, and does that matter where conviction stands above all else. <br />
.<br />
E. Religious Truth -- Taken literally, it assumes events and intentions that establish a partilarly demonstrable connection between this deity-these deities and this group of people. Ask when the "literal" presentation then became cultural -- used to perpetuate and spin for human status and survival interests, setting bounds on acceptable needs and desires of a culture in facing life, good, evil, place in the world. If the literal or the figurative allegory furthers survival and cohesion, the story itself survives. But somewhere there was a choice made.<br />
.........................................................................<br />
<br />
<b>A. Dating Eden</b><br />
<br />
1. For literalists, a creature lost its legs while in Eden, and slithered thereafter. The creature was the NCHSH. The date would be some 7 days, calculated literally with a sun (don't askl) after Creation (a spontaneous combustion plus stages) plus some time: for the events of the Eden story to take place. Literal. It means what it says. If something doesn't fit, say what it must mean and say that it also is literal; or if not literal, then infallible or dogma, to be believed as "inspired" interpretation.<br />
<br />
2. Figuratives. The story signifies -- what? original sin as the sabotage of one created entity by another; if so, was there a sabotage before the NChSh? Temptation? but the temptation was to think, gain knowledge with the brain one had. Or was it fraud. Did the deity really forbid thinking? How did fraud get into the created entitites? Did Woman caused man to, gasp, think and is that Sin. Oris Eden a simple, gauzy, some things work out, some don't. Hang in there, expect sabotage, fraud, betrayal, self-serving, and the good inflicted with evil.<br />
.<br />
Eden as myth. Best efforts at putting elements of experience together in a meaningful, explanatory, predictive way.<br />
.<br />
a. Eden as Allegory. Figurative, descriptive, "one thing under the image of another," see <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=allegory&allowed_in_frame=0">http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=allegory&allowed_in_frame=0</a>. <br />
.<br />
b. Eden as <a href="http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+metaphor&form=QB">Metaphor</a>. She <i>is</i> a monster. One thing is so similar to another that skip the mid-terms and say she is it. See<a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=metaphor&allowed_in_frame=0"> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=metaphor&allowed_in_frame=0</a>. <br />
. <br />
c. Eden as <a href="http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+analogy&qpvt=analogy&FORM=DTPDIA">Analogy</a>, one thing is likened to something else. My love is <i>like </i>a red, red rose. <br />
,<br />
d. Blend. Expedience and common sense to bridge gaps.<br />
.<br />
<b>B. How and why did the West Shift to the Literal. </b><br />
.<br />
Nomads we can understand. Myths and laws of the Old Testament developed in their context. In the New Testament, however, a more settled era, Jesus spoke no by those literal laws and hierarchies of authority; but persuaded obliquely, by example, parables, general love-God-love-your-neighbor, cheeks, give to the poor, etc. So why go from nomad literal to modern literal in the western institution, even after Jesus' non-force, persuade by example approach? As the Western form of Christianity Christian or Jesusians. Institutions hardly look Jesusian, except for the maligned liberal ones.<br />
.<br />
Is this the chronology:<br />
.<br />
The Western Christian Church veered to the literal when it wanted to organize and spread by force or spin to a group, not just one on one influence. See the course of thinking in the institutional religion, with the spur of Gregorian Reforms in the 11th Century, at <a href="http://individual.utoronto.ca/hayes/survey2/03_gregorian.htm">http://individual.utoronto.ca/hayes/survey2/03_gregorian.htm</a>. Lateran II in 1139 laid out the rules, see <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran2.asp">http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran2.asp</a>.<br />
.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>The Roman branch split with the rest of Christianity, the Orthodox, in the Great Schism of 1054, and rules abounded anew after that. The Roman branch needed converts, money, identity on its own. There had been foundations set for creeds, who is to rule whose head, but after the Schism came the deluge.</li>
<li>This Schism and its effect on the Roman branch was a profound marking point. It has relevance to the dichotomy between literal and figurative. The Roman branch is highly literal, defining and excluding. Is the east more tolerant of the figurative. We think so. Compare the branches of this east Christian west Christian historical tree at <a href="http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/2426/2484749/chap_assets/studyguide/ste_sg_ch14.pdf">http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/2426/2484749/chap_assets/studyguide/ste_sg_ch14.pdf</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
Why did this happen so fiercely, leading to crusades and inquisitions and warfare between religious views? <br />
.<br />
The reason appears to be organizational rather than inspirational. The Roman Churh rejected the figurative because the figurative leaves latitude in interpretation, and does not forge immediate cohesion, enforceability. Paul took over from, would it have been James the Brother of who more followed Jesus' approach. Love your neighbor, give your goods to the poor, give some examples, but let the ones who disagree walk away.<br />
.<br />
The Figurative is not a complex idea. <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=figurative&allowed_in_frame=0">http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=figurative&allowed_in_frame=0</a>; it is easily grasped. But for an institution establishing itself as Supreme, Superior to the Eastern Christians or any other religion, Supreme in the early days against "heresy". It is too flexible to serve clout and power. Myth as myth allows various meanings. And the figurative myth allows independence of thought and analysis, ranges of interpretation. That range of permissible interpretation undermines automatic, entitled authority.<br />
.<br />
That flexibility became, in terms of religious history and ongoing<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Anathema. Anathema, cursed, <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=anathema&allowed_in_frame=0">http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=anathema&allowed_in_frame=0</a>; damned by those historically who see forced conformity as the way to a religion's eternal power, and those who challenge live in infamy, is that so. Old terms, living on. </li>
<li>Infamous. Stigmatize with the mark of infamy. Apply to simonizers, taking money for their positions, or usurers, or incest people, and on it went to include married clergy and etc. See again the Lateran II site, <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran2.asp">http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran2.asp</a> and do a search for matters to be stigmatized with the mark of infamy. </li>
<li>Apostasy. Is it apostasy to think? To weigh and choose when the institution has declared that black is white, for possible example. Yes. Obey the laws against the Jews 300-800 Ad - roots go deep. See <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/300-800-laws-jews.asp">http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/300-800-laws-jews.asp</a>. See the chronicler Bede (673-735 AD) applying apostasy as forsaking the Christian dogma and its application to control Kings and non-believers (Saxons) as early as <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/bede-book3.asp">http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/bede-book3.asp</a>. </li>
<li>What if the excommunicated Kings' and slaughtered Saxons' views had merit after all? What if the Church formulae were wrong, as unconnected to the founder, who led by example, not force. Never hoarded riches. Apostasy! Kill. Punish. Charlemagne,<a href="http://germanyroadways.blogspot.com/2011/02/sachsenhain-saxons-grove-charlemagnes.html"> slaughter 4500 Saxon prisoners</a>.</li>
<li>Western result: Popes, after the Great Schism, engage <a href="http://polandroadways.blogspot.com/2007/06/grunewald-1410-polish-10-teutonic.html">crusades against even Christians of the north</a>, many already converted by the Orthodox, such as Cyril and Methodius. Orthodox or not, God demands the Roman. See the <a href="http://denmarkroadways.blogspot.com/2011/07/korsor-and-wends-highways-bypass.html">Wends</a>, now largely forgotten, is that so; and the Wendish Crusade in particular, 1147, at <a href="http://timelines.com/1147/wendish-crusade">http://timelines.com/1147/wendish-crusade</a><br />
.</li>
</ul>
3. Pragmatic blenders. The ultimate appliance. Mix just enough rules so people don't have to reinvent the wheel, but base it all on principle, open to interpretation.<br />
.<br />
<b>C. Vet Each Approach. When did the lizard lose its legs?</b><br />
<br />
<b>1. Problems for literalists.</b> Figuratives look instead to allegory, myth, metaphor, etc.<br />
<br />
Eden by this literal text religion's eye view was start-to-finish in six rotations of the earth, and only God knows when, see <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c014.html">http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c014.html</a> Evolution 0, Spontaneous Combustion 10. But:<br />
.<br />
a. Traditional translations do not fit. <br />
<br />
We cannot use traditional translations that call this creature a "serpent" <a href="http://www.themystica.org/mystica/articles/n/nachash.html">http://www.themystica.org/mystica/articles/n/nachash.html</a> because a serpent has no legs and that leg-loss happened after the creation of the creature. Pre-serpent. Lizard? Reptile? And if the Creator did not create the Creature in its full form all at once, where did it come from? Did it cross the open border at Eden and shift shape? What does that mean for a perfect Eden? Another discussion.<br />
<br />
b. People could not have been there at the same time as the creature. <br />
<br />
People were not have been upright at the time that the NCHSH lost its legs, and talking and tending gardens? How could the people then be simultaneously in Eden with the NCHSH, and a literal person has to pick one for the date and ignore the other: or skip the whole thing and apply "faith" that against all evidence, it happened together.1) date of upright humans talking, with concept of a one God, and tending gardens; or 2) date of the NCHSH losing its legs.<br />
<br />
Both and allegorists, or figuratives, and literalists are indeed "thinking" people. They just stop thinking at different points. When do we want our children to stop thinking? <br />
.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTNQr-z4hKFaoHA1tKFKeB_O407KebiJUlee2OLTl-QCmSGOl-fJiRmOlaWxRg_i6pwbWPMm0RR6CVh6z7yZF0N2mDmnKn2MlPzwjlTAJ7tOBL7WLcgcbUNVJZEZulR3AJ5g35Z-GEN_Yx/s1600/100_0114.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTNQr-z4hKFaoHA1tKFKeB_O407KebiJUlee2OLTl-QCmSGOl-fJiRmOlaWxRg_i6pwbWPMm0RR6CVh6z7yZF0N2mDmnKn2MlPzwjlTAJ7tOBL7WLcgcbUNVJZEZulR3AJ5g35Z-GEN_Yx/s320/100_0114.JPG" width="320" />NCHSH shadows Adam and Eve; </a>here, Budapest.</div>
.<br />
Reptile loses legs? We can figure that out.<br />
<br />
Physical Fossil Science places Eden at 112 to 94 million years ago. The earliest snake fossil that is not a reptile with legs dates from that period. See <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/02/08/3132755.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/02/08/3132755.htm</a>. The New York Times sets the date of the creature with legs, a reptilian thing becoming a snake without legs, at 47,000,0000 years ago. See <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/science/24obsnake.html?ref=todayspaper">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/science/24obsnake.html?ref=todayspaper</a><br />
.<br />
<b>Common ancestor to reptile or lizard to snake. Cryptolacerta Hassiaca. </b>The year is 47 million years ago. Meet the lizard-dragon-serpent before and as it became the Snake: The common ancestor. Lizards lost their legs and became Cruptolacerta Hassiaca.<br />
.<br />
So, if Eden is the time when the snake lost its legs, we have Eden at perhaps 47-90 million years ago, giving some latitude from the articles, with a focus on other research. Evolution 10, spontaneous combustion 0. <br />
.<br />
<b>Were Humans there then?</b><br />
.<br />
Depending on the fossil, Fossil Science as to humans or human prototypes-progenitors also places Eden at a far later time: Humans or human prototypes, on off the tree, date variously from some 7 million to 1.2 million years ago, depending on which remains have significance for whom, see <br />
<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-african-hominin-fossil&page=3">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-african-hominin-fossil&page=3</a>. Now we may have another, Australopithecus sediba. <br />
.<br />
<b>Modern human ancestor. Australopithecus Sediba.</b> Modern Humans (emerging about 1.9 million years ago), are now to be updated with Australopithecus Sediba, see <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/science/09fossils.html?scp=1&sq=discovery%20human%20fossil&st=cse">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/science/09fossils.html?scp=1&sq=discovery%20human%20fossil&st=cse</a>; and keep in mind always the earlier findings, example Israel's contribution at <br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/science/10neanderthal.html?scp=1&sq=first%20humans&st=cse">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/science/10neanderthal.html?scp=1&sq=first%20humans&st=cse</a>, say, some 100,000 years ago; and later dates are bandied for entry of different branches into Europe and contact with Neanderthals.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Refine the "human" further, to conform to the texts: The humans in issue must be a talking, linguistically sophisticated, gardening people. When were the first talking people, with language skills, naming skills, also suitable as gardeners. Those were in Eden at the same time as the now-legless wonder. We need a bridge between the earliest ancestor possibles, and us; and that had been Homo habilis, a toolmaker, thanks to the Leakeys. </li>
</ul>
Evolution 10, spontaneous combustion 0. <br />
.<br />
However, this evolutionary date does not coincide with the serpent's eye view, the herpetological evolutionary date, so Eden's date is still out of reach.<br />
.<br />
<b>C. Vet Texts</b><br />
.<br />
What words were used to describe the events. What text do we choose to believe. The new, the blue, or the one we wore last?<br />
<div>
.</div>
<div>
<b>Theology. Old Hebrew. Literal Nacash. Figurative Nacash.</b><br />
<b>.</b><br />
Issues with the NChSh. Hebrew appears to say that it was <i>"NChSh"</i> that was in Eden doing the bad things that resulted in more bad things. See whether or not this is the same as snake (not) at <a href="http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2011/09/vet-serpent-literalism-leads-nowhere.html">http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2011/09/vet-serpent-literalism-leads-nowhere.html</a>. <br />
<br />
Who gave the NChSh its marching orders, or is it independent and equal in power to the deity, who could not control it? Was the NChSh the "wise one", as some of our own translations provide; and if so, does that help us date Eden? If other cultures have the NChSh, or its equivalent, does that dilute the absolute authority of one account, ours? </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div>
.<br />
<b>Theology. Other cultures. Literal Nacash. Figurative Nacash.</b><br />
<br />
Other cultures refer to an actor with the function of an NChSh or a Nacash. One of the definitions from the literalism site <a href="http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2011/09/vet-serpent-literalism-leads-nowhere.html">http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2011/09/vet-serpent-literalism-leads-nowhere.html</a>, is "the wise one" for the NChSh. <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>The Aborigines also have a spiritual story and relationship with a rainbow serpent, that means the idea is broadly based, see <i>The Rainbow Serpent,</i> at <a href="http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-3-2005-78077.asp">http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-3-2005-78077.asp</a>. That culture, as all cultures, may have keys to our own better understanding of the world. See them at <a href="http://bogomilia.blogspot.com/2011/06/aborigines-ongoing-defeat-of-indigenous.html">http://bogomilia.blogspot.com/2011/06/aborigines-ongoing-defeat-of-indigenous.html</a></li>
<li>Aztecs, see <a href="http://www.crystalinks.com/azteccreation.html">http://www.crystalinks.com/azteccreation.html</a></li>
<li>Native American, see <a href="http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/loreindx.html">http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/loreindx.html</a>; especially the Snake with the Big Feet, at <a href="http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/lore16.html">http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/lore16.html</a>; the MicMac, at <a href="http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/lore21.html">http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/lore21.html</a>.</li>
</ul>
Do we believe highly variable and much translated, retranslated-revised, augmented-subtracted texts over time (count the Bibles out there), each selected interpretation as direct inspiration of an identifiable deity who just happens to support present culture as it is, thus it must be right. Once used for that purpose, is force and manipulation then used to exploit the now dependent people and stay in power?</div>
<br />
.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>D. Thought Patterns and Politicians and Eden</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>and other Religious Beliefs.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Spill-Over?</b></div>
.<br />
Politics: Does a candidate's beliefs about literalism and Eden; or literalism superimposed on any human act and whether it is good or evil, other "religious truths", predict how they approach issues in governing. Should we be concerned, as voters, about non-analytical behavior, generally. When did the candidate stop thinking; and does that serve the common good.<br />
<br />
Update 20120. Among the literalists appears to be Governor Rick Perry who has no idea how old the earth is; or if there was an evolution of anything, and cares not a tumbleweed whit. <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/perry-responds-to-question-about-creationism-earth-is-pretty-old-video.php">http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/perry-responds-to-question-about-creationism-earth-is-pretty-old-video.php</a>. Rick Santorum has strong, narrow views about his evangelical-based idea of religious truth: <a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39523_Santorum_Calls_For_Public_Schools_To_Teach_Creationism">public schools should teach Creationism.</a> Romney <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/05/does_mitt_romne/">shape-shifts</a>, depending on expedience. Gingrich (this by way of update) also shapeshifts, see <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/08/evolution_gop_candidates.html">http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/08/evolution_gop_candidates.html</a>, and claims he is reformed from earlier baggage-ways, Huntsman appears moderate and sensible and qualified for a multi-faceted society.<br />
.<br />
So how could humans at 1.9 million years ago, converge with the lizard-dragon-serpent losing its legs some 47 million years ago. Presidential elections are so interesting. Do their positions reveal more about their analytical thought process, intellectual curiosity, analytical ability, by their views on Eden.<br />
.<br />
How we get information counts in elected officials, and what we do with what we get. Look back to when the serpent separated from the legged lizard, Eden itself, not just Israel where the stories got told last before being <i>Incorporated</i> into The Book, a term favored by Rick Perry (corporations, ).<br />
.<br />
Quoth Rick: We must choose between one date (the serpent's) and the other (the humans') because all is black or white, and if that does not work, declare victory and leave the field. All is black or white. So blacks get more capital punishment, is that so. <br />
.<br />
We have an ideal opportunity, in a season of debatius borius, who will ask the Governor (in between executions) when, if ever, thinking counts. Was it a religious kind of belief that said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Of course. Faith.<br />
<div>
.</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
Conclusion: How to date Eden, assess the meaning of oldest religious texts, match
them to common experience. Cultures look to origins to justify themselves, and their ways. In order to do this, did stories begin and expand as myth, to be received figuratively; or as a
disinterested reporting meticulously and without great change from teller to teller from the start, to be received literally.<br />
<br />
For literalists, is the story of the snake a mechanism for culturally demonizing others,
an ongoing theme of institutional religions. How else to explain good,
evil, life, fruitful relationships. Did we stop with the nomadic view. And now, with a snake shown capable of reproducing itself as a female without a male, do the old myths of <br />
.......................................<br />
* Photo: yet another Eden, here, Switzerland</div>
</div>
Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-63821477239774239272015-09-04T12:00:00.001-04:002015-09-04T18:39:58.036-04:00KNGDV: Symbol of a process. Vet old texts for understanding, not certainty. A challenge to systems.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1441357932975_3550">
KNGDV or KNGDU. This odd combination represents a way of vetting religious systems. Take an early word form, here the k-n-g-d-v rough phonetic from <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf">Genesis 2-18</a>, as one of many from a literal translation the paleo Hebrew. The shapes used there are not our letters at all, so narrative-builders enter fill-ins and interpretations. Follow the translations down the rabbit hole of meaning. Does KNGDV somehow mean help-meet or is she to be a guide, in front of him. <br />
<br />
A. Since so many old texts did survive, ask why.<br />
<br />
What human need is at work in the preserving, copying, puzzling, making up narratives, and ascribing inspiration to be taken on others' faith.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge7ErPglHevhEUpjkJqEp_uD-eDKhRv9hSjVbCSxdSkoTPOIAnJ2dz6dCp4lK5Qe42dF3VHXdk9kmYq-uDluqax8DbJ7LHHZS1eRPsjf3Kud5qcC6Vz7PIjPoQEn689cAuBquUY8Ymg3qm/s1600/DSCN1418.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge7ErPglHevhEUpjkJqEp_uD-eDKhRv9hSjVbCSxdSkoTPOIAnJ2dz6dCp4lK5Qe42dF3VHXdk9kmYq-uDluqax8DbJ7LHHZS1eRPsjf3Kud5qcC6Vz7PIjPoQEn689cAuBquUY8Ymg3qm/s320/DSCN1418.JPG" width="320" />Religious meaning. What is this? When in doubt, sound certain rather than question, say some. </a><br />
<br />
1. Seeking meaning.<br />
<br />
Look for a cogent, respectful discussion of how absolute interpretations do a disservice to faith by faking security. Do systems fill in to make a narrative that suits the institution, and fibs that the individual's fears and anxieties can be relieved by dogma absorption and supremacism, and denying others rights of decision-making on their own moral ground. This is the way.<br />
<br />
No, it may well not be. The other view: Does <i>more </i>security arise from questioning tradition, interpretations and mores in culture? There may well not be more security, but the state of not knowing at least is normalized, freeing the person from the drive to force others to follow one cultural-religious ideology.<br />
<br />
2. Found.<br />
<br />
This non-traditional religious-oriented group describes itself as progressive, but that is difficult to define, see <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/01/what-is-progressivism/">http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/01/what-is-progressivism/</a>And there are aspects of anyone's religious life that are firmly within the traditional circle, retaining designations of the institution, for example, regardless of other movings outside it.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><a href="http://johnshelbyspong.com/about-bishop-spong/">John Shelby Spong</a>, retired Bishop of the Episcopal Church of Newark NJ (retired 2001), lays out an inclusive and accessible approach to theology, for anyone. An interest is in the parts of texts misused to foster prejudice and violence. the facts that can shed light on all this human ongoing insecurity. Live with it, positively, and as a bridge and helping hand to others regardless, perhaps.</li>
</ul>
4. Premises of Bishop Spong, if I understand them reasonably accurately: Please correct if wrong.<br />
<br />
All humans seek security, but concretized faith positions cannot provide it, and should not distort old texts in order to try. There is a basic flaw in ideological systems, in that they aim to convince people that they can find identity and security in this life, a very human drive, by adopting a system. And that deprives everyone of the full panoply of human relationship and inquiry needed to help each other, and live broadly moral lives. Is that so?<br />
<br />
5. Current spur in the news for this issue. See <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0</a><br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li> A county clerk's spiritual life was shaped by a conversion experience with the result that she, in her own conscience, will not allow others to live their lives according to the secular law. Her ideological system says that allowing same gender marriage is morally wrong, that the Deity requires her and others like her not only to live their own lives accordingly but also to aggressively enforce the institution's interpretation (from the Deity) against anyone outside the group. Her own conscience, newly awakened, says to deny others their own path. Her security is in her membership ad her adamance based on her sincerely held religious belief. </li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1441357932975_3550">
5.1 What overall might be the John Spong Response to the Kentucky clerk's conscience dilemma, and our own path: </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1441357932975_3550">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Source: a monthly email Q&A accessible through Questions and Answers email about 9/2/2015, <a href="http://johnshelbyspong.com/">johnshelbyspong.com</a>/. Mailing address: ProgressiveChristianity.org, 4810 Pt. Fosdick Dr. NW, #80Gig Harbor, WA 98335</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1441357932975_3550">
5.2. As beings conscious of our selves, danger, the future, and death, humans seek security, to reduce anxiety. Humans seek meaning. Religion is part of the anxiety-reducing and meaning system. People also turn to other substances, addictions, and other sources of even temporary comforts. <br />
<br />
5.3. The human condition itself remains chronically insecure and , and no ideological system can bring security without distorting, suppressing, reducing the thought process to controlled level of ongoing dependence. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1441357932975_3550">
5.3. In order for religion to work effectively as a security avenue, it must be "ultimately true with no doubts allowed." Steps are taken to ensure that. For example, enter the (suddenly) infallible Pope (1870, declaration, but made retroactive) (I would add that censorship of other ideas so the belief community is insulated, also serves to remove doubts).</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1441357932975_3550">
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1441357932975_3550">
5.4. That requirement of ultimate truth for the chose system also fosters the drive to compel others to comply. (It follows that, rather than encouraging inquiry and interacting, the system seeks to add to its own membership, even if other paths emerge through text or events). Rather than needing to be "born again", goes the idea, we need to "grow up."</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1441357932975_3550">
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1441357932975_3550">
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1441357932975_3550">
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1441357932975_3550">
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1441357932975_3550">
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1441357932975_3550">
5.5. What is it, then, to identify as a member of a religious group (if that is what is desired) if there is no dogma. As to Christians (Bishop Spong is one), he says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"To live with integrity in a radically insecure world is, I believe, the meaning of the Christian life." John Shelby Spong, see site </blockquote>
So, he continues, truth is not possessed, but is a goal for walking toward. Forcing conversions repels more than attracts, a sign of decline. Spong, above. "Whether a new stage of religious maturity is being born to take its place is not quite as clear. That, however, is where the future of Christianity lies."<br />
<br />
6. KNGDV finds a kindred spirit in Bishop Spong. There is pleasure in looking things up, finding Aha moments, but those will never change others' minds -- ever. That is not the goal. Rather, KNGDV here is dedicated to the walk forward, the larger understanding of why we distort as we do.<br />
<br />
B. Broader secular epiphany.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://theliterarylink.com/joyce.html">James Joyce </a>and Epiphany. How awareness unfolds. See <a href="http://www.mrbauld.com/epiphany.html">http://www.mrbauld.com/epiphany.html</a>. Considerations, and with warmth extended to the Kentucky clerk, a fellow<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Consider the risks of vetting. Rather than add to the security offered by fixed systems, this vetting
instead suggests that anxiety about meaning is to be lived with, as a
normal, there are no absolute answers. Texts that religious systems
include-omit-interpret may well not match, even nearly, the old roots.</li>
</ul>
To balance the risks of vetting, ask about the risks of dogma adoption. Do the certain institutions instead serve the survival needs of the institution,
or the individual to attain some sense of security in this life. Does it matter, so long as enough other individuals seek understanding and perspective on their own. So, down the rabbit hole. Membership, adamance, dogma: do those bring security or merely delay.<br />
<br />
7. Start: Take
any verse, portion of any scriptural text, and vet. Prepare for surprises, and resistance by
firm system believers to the possibility of taint, cultural
self-serving, in the interpretations. <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Kentucky clerk, I think you would find the process of vetting your belief about same-gender deity approval or not to be safe, if you have like-minded friends interested in arguments counter-arguments. Certainty: No one verse will establish that. </li>
<li>Skip labels like progressive. Think Progress. A constructive way of
looking at tradition, and moving forward with and from it, using thinking, texts and
ideology as a vetting opportunity.</li>
</ul>
And perhaps look up approachable Bishop Spong. His ideas may be a war alternate place to consider our common walk, if your system allows. Conscience may be religious culture, the result of persuasion, not deity attention. Perhaps. How to know. Uncertainty.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge7ErPglHevhEUpjkJqEp_uD-eDKhRv9hSjVbCSxdSkoTPOIAnJ2dz6dCp4lK5Qe42dF3VHXdk9kmYq-uDluqax8DbJ7LHHZS1eRPsjf3Kud5qcC6Vz7PIjPoQEn689cAuBquUY8Ymg3qm/s1600/DSCN1418.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Copyright © 2015 ProgressiveChristianity.org, All rights reserved. <br />
You are receiving this email because you signed up for our weekly, free Questions & Answers email on johnshelbyspong.com <br />
Our mailing address is: ProgressiveChristianity.org<br />
4810 Pt. Fosdick Dr. NW<br />
#80Gig Harbor, WA 98335<br />
<br />
<br />
http://progressivechristianity.org/resources/bishop-spong-the-cross-as-the-moment-of-glory-he-did-not-die-for-your-sins-sermon/</div>
Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-29097196252320269402012-09-24T17:25:00.001-04:002015-09-05T06:19:35.587-04:00No Genesis Marriage. Jerome added Wife - Uxoris <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Jerome, Dogma made "marriage" and "wife" a Genesis concept, </b><br />
<b>which, compared to texts, it was not. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Aishe, Aisha. Woman. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Genesis relationship with a man "often unexpressed in English." Strong's.</b><br />
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHw2WwyUC220EjJNVkyMJY15GA-RM8zXbYwbwgLBg9IX-4jq38-yG43nOicNOFwZyNQw2v3I906dPQIHAeGUA6EvFvv7kvGxWrgcpmrtX_GXLvT8XZpA_qHzoB-xpecAHXrNY7JbeQIf0l/s1600/P1070381.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHw2WwyUC220EjJNVkyMJY15GA-RM8zXbYwbwgLBg9IX-4jq38-yG43nOicNOFwZyNQw2v3I906dPQIHAeGUA6EvFvv7kvGxWrgcpmrtX_GXLvT8XZpA_qHzoB-xpecAHXrNY7JbeQIf0l/s320/P1070381.JPG" width="320" />Marriage Merry-Go-Round. Who gets a ticket to ride? Here, Dan Widing at Aigues Mortes, France </a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>2015 history of marriage update. An examination of the purposes and forms of marriage is now provided at Huffington Post. It unfortunately characterizes those who support with zeal traditional marriage as they understand it, disagreeing with same-gender marriage, as bigots. </li>
<li>Not so. Often people's views on marriage are the result of information they have been given and persuaded to belief. </li>
<li>Ignore the headline here, and read <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/here-is-all-you-need-to-prove-bigots-wrong-about-traditional-marriage_55e83d69e4b0c818f61ab9e6">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/here-is-all-you-need-to-prove-bigots-wrong-about-traditional-marriage_55e83d69e4b0c818f61ab9e6</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
Consider the translation merry-go-round. Thinks Jerome, Saint Jerome born 240 AD, died, say 314 AD. Long ago. He translated into Latin for the purposes of the emerging Catholic Christianity (as opposed to the Christians who migrated East, rather than allying with Rome). He was conversant with the various texts of scripture from many languages at the time<br />
<br />
So, thinks Jerome, as he approaches the issue of woman as human being or the cultural role of Wife, identity related to the male, I see (says Jerome), I see no no ambiguity in the text that the word "woman" is used, but because I work for the Boss in the Emerging Roman Version (read patriarchy) I will use a more culturally shaping and useful word, Wife.<br />
<br />
Where I see Woman in the text, I will substitute Wife. Done.<br />
<br />
<i></i>
Yea, I will affix Uxoris, pipes up Jerome. We cannot have a mere "woman of him" or "man of her" in our texts, depicting sexual relationship. We must have hierarchical marriage, with wife, and husband as in patriarchy and property interests, interposed. </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> I will make her a wife, the way the Church wants it. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>I will pretend a ceremony! </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>I will deem him a husband, and her a wife, and so he did, </b><br />
<b>with conceptual entanglements through the centuries resulting.</b></div>
<br />
Marriage this, marriage that. Define, describe. Who was married. Who not. Who knows. Who should be. Who wants to be. Who can stop whom from it. Who means what by it.<br />
<br />
Marriage is cultural; not "divine" at all from the old texts. Is that so? Explore. Vet. See <i>Jewish Marriage in Antiquity</i>, by M.L.Satlow, <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7075.html">http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7075.html</a><br />
My preference is to go directly to Genesis and see what I can figure out first. Will then go read the tomes. We know from this site, that details are few -- great opportunity for translators and institutions to fill in blanks and pretend: see <i>Women and the Law in Ancient Israel</i>, at <a href="http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20and%20the%20law%20in%20ancient%20israel.htm">http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20and%20the%20law%20in%20ancient%20israel.htme </a><br />
<br />
Current issue: Tradition flees from the idea of Jesus being married, although would it not have been more unusual if he had not been married? Were the disciples married? Do we care? Marriage, if cultural, as it seems to be, should be no-one's theological interest.<br />
<br />
Jerome: Translator into Latin, and inserter of the textual Uxoris. Do our translators alter or ignore evidence to show what the culture wants. What we have, is material on the woman-acquisition process in patriarchal Hebrew history. Not "wives" with vows and sanctity afloat. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Historical purpose of Marriage: to "concentrate property and personnel within narrowly delimited descent groupings (reflecting) a social order marked by considerable political and economic inequalities." Marriage patterns: transactions and exchanges interfamilial as well. See <a href="http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/case_studies/hebrews/marriage.html">http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/case_studies/hebrews/marriage.html</a><br />
<br />
Is that anything like the current and recent-past ceremonies to love, honor, even obey? Is there a commitment or just an economic bind that may or may not include "love." Partnership ideas? Was there any ceremony at all, or just that purchase and sale, swap. I use the Mechanical Translation of Genesis, Blue Letter Bible, Eliyah.com for Strong's concordance, mostly. See sites below.<br />
<br />
<br />
A. Evolution of Marriage <br />
<br />
1. Ask: What was the relationship between early men and women in the Old Testament. The concept of a "wife" and "husband" permeate culture and religious practice, even most all our Old Testaments; but are expressed in different terms in the ancient texts themselves.<br />
<br />
1.1. Start at the beginning. Seek out transliterations and find ambiguity, if not outright contrary terms used, other than the marriage, husband and wife so dear to our ritual hearts. According to this transliteration of Genesis, for example, there is no marriage existing with a separate term like that in Genesis. See <i>A Mechanical Translation of the Book of Genesis</i>, <a href="http://mechanical-translation.org/">http://mechanical-translation.org/</a>.<br />
<br />
1.2 There were, however, pairings, the acquiring of women, with events that preceded and occurred at marriage as a bonding with some obligations, as a practical matter of a formal pairing. The man took power over her (Strong's 1111, 1167, see below). This was not part of Creation, however; look at the time passing from the Expulsion to the rest of Genesis.<br />
<br />
1.3 With all that power to the man, however, the woman was not powerless.<br />
<br />
It appears from Gen. 24:39 that the woman had to agree, she was to "walk after" the man, if she so chose. Gen.24:51. The man also is to "take and walk." Gen.24:58. They inquire of the woman what she will do.<br />
<br />
Woman is to be respected. See Sarai and Abram. Abraham (renamed as Father Lifted, not Abram) is told by Elohim, Powers,
as to her status: "I will respect her and also from her I will give to
you a son and I will respect her and she will exist for nations, kings
of peoples will exist from her." Gen.17:16 [My RSV says only that God
will bless her]. "Respect" is also a term used for men, Gen.48:3, 9. So, respect women, respect men, both functional. <br />
<br />
Woman has value. There is a bride price and gift, see Gen.34:12.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Purchase, sale, control. Great Creeping Patriarchy. All that is a far cry from Genesis' Creation -- and evolved only in the long male powerplays thereafter. After all, she was periodically vulnerable. And once the men started wanting lineage, she was caught. Is that so? See <i>Mechanical Translation</i> at Appendixes p.418, Gen. 9:21 (the site offers a free download that is great fun to have on the drive -- look up anything anytime). </li>
</ul>
There were some rules. To have sex with a woman without permission is to afflict her, defile her, see Dinah at Gen. 34:2,5, 13.<br />
<br />
An expression of love seems to be "attached to" Gen.34:8, love (same word), to adhere to, or speak to her heart, Gen.34:3. She is "gotten" to serve as a woman. See Gen.34:12. Women are product, swapped for other women. Gen.34:21. She can be Whore. Gen.34-21 -- So that arrangement also existed, of course. Could she keep her own income? It was an exchange of act for value. A whore or prostitute does not operate in secret. f A whore covers her face. See Gen.38:15. But an "honorable" woman taking that path can be "cremated" (a prostitute using deceit to get what she wants, Gen. 38:24).<br />
<br />
To take another's woman is a crime, Gen. 39:7ff (Paroh's woman)<br />
<br />
Taking her and coming to her may be enough (if she does not object?) see Gen. 38:2-4. As to signifying consent on that and other issues, walking to it can signify consent to whatever is on the table. See Gen. 38:11<br />
<br />
She owned property. For example, any instance of "his" tent should be translated instead as "her" tent, because in ancient Hebrew culture, the family tent belonged to the woman. It is so described at Gen.12:8. Is that the beginning of, give the woman the house?<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>And Rahhel and Le'ah ask for a
portion of their inheritance from their father, Gen. 31:14-16: "[W]ere
we not thought of as foreigners to him given that he sold us and he also
greatly ate our silver, given that all the riches which Elohiym
(Powers) delivered from our father, to us he and to our sons and now all
which Elohiym (Powers) said to you, do." [At v.19, after they all
went back, Rahhel went in and took Lavan her father's idols and Ya'aqov
(Jacob, He Restrains) took Lavan's heart (what?) and there was a pursuit
ff.</li>
</ul>
The woman controlled when she has children, at the outset, until she herself came to be controlled. Conception. At Creation, the woman took the first step -- she was not a passive recipient of what Adm had -- instead, she "acquired" or "purchased" a child -- it was her act <i>with Yahweh</i>, nothing put upon her against her will. Gen.4:1. Acquired: That is the meaning of the word Cain. Acquired. He is the one who served the ground, while his later brother, Able (meaning "empty") fed the flocks. Look at the trouble from the beginning: There was Cain doing what he was supposed to, till the fields (Adm's job) but Able who fiddled with sheep got the preference. No justice from early on.<br />
<br />
<i>Jahweh</i> visited Sarai and she conceived? It wasn't Abraham?? See Gen.21:1-2. Like Eve who bargained with Jahweh?<br />
<br />
1.4 It is a long time, however, before she starts to be seen as an individual. Women on occasion had individualized names, but these are the exception. All men's names, however, were descriptive (Hairy, He Who Laughs, etc.)<br />
<br />
That woman's naming occurs in early chapters, as with Adah, Ornament; Tsilah, Shadow (look up in chapters and verses in
Glossary at MT) [and for fun, note that men are also individually described
as to an attribute in their naming, and Seth means Buttocks].<br />
Women's naming then peters out until much later with Abram. By then, the cultural patriarchy had taken root. See FN 1 for many, many names of women. But these are a small portion of the total naming of all those men and places in Genesis. <br />
<br />
1.5 Is Creation foolproof, Good? Is all that was made, made Good? Not necessarily. Creation was made to be "functional" -- a different concept from "good". See MT.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Elohim, meaning Powers, also made mistakes, one being the heart of the human: " [T]he thoughts of the heart of the human are dysfunctional from his young age and I will not continue to hit all the living ones which I made." (the promise to Noah, meaning Rest). See FN 1 for naming of women after Abraham.</li>
</ul>
......................................................................<br />
<br />
B. Marriage, the Ceremony and Vows, Roles<br />
<br />
Check out whether marriage occurs in Genesis. Marriage. Husband. Wife. Ceremony. Rights. Children. Home. Divorce. What? Starting Transliteration. Download the Mechanical Translation, scroll to Genesis 1, then do a search or "find" of the entire book for each term.<br />
<br />
1. Marriage. <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>The word appears only in Gen. 38:8, as a phrase for these ideas -- 'come to the woman of your brother and do the marriage duty to her and make a seed rise for your brother.' </li>
<li> "Marriage duty" appears nowhere else and is undefined. What were the duties, if any, other than to beget. And with the begetting, who got what rights to the product? Was she free to go, live an autonomous life, who controlled her, how.</li>
<li>Marriage appears as a term in itself not in Genesis except as to the one duty; only appears as a self-defining unrooted concept in the Dictionary appended to the translation itself. </li>
</ul>
2. Husband.<br />
<br />
Husband. If there is a marriage, there must be a Husband. Find find. No occurrence at all for the word Husband in Genesis. It also only appears as a self-defining but undefined unrooted concept in the Dictionary appended.<br />
<br />
3. Wife. If there is a marriage, there must be a Wife. Try Wife. There is a "midwife" in Gen. 35:17; and Gen. 38:28. The word "wife" only appears as a self-defining but undefined unrooted concept in the Dictionary appended.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Mechanical Translation. An example of a phrase we commonly see translated as Wife -- Because you listened to your wife, etc. But there, Genesis 3:17 shows no "wife", only woman, woman of you, your woman. Do a search in the Mechanical Translation for woman, and it all is references to the men taking their woman, or taking a woman. Try it. </li>
</ul>
Taking a woman or getting a woman is not the same as a marriage, or a wife. Those require ceremony, vows, all that. What words did the ancient Hebrews use?<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Go to the Blue Letter Bible, as another reasonable source, and note this is conservative. <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm">http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm </a>.
"Wife" appears, says Blue Letter, in the King James Version (my
favorite), 16 times in Genesis as an exact match. It appears in 370
other verses in the entire KJV, it says.</li>
</ul>
The "word
number" for Wife is 802 in Hebrew and it appears as each of those 16
references to "Wife." Must mean wife, right? Look that up. 802 is
Ish-shah, and it uses "wife" to define "wife" -- one, married, female,
misc. What? No help.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li> Go to Eliyah.com, which is more overtly academic, for its concordance. <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html">http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html</a>. Blue Letter just repeats itself.</li>
</ul>
802
in Strong's is the feminine of 376.<br />
<br />
376 is "a man as an individual or a
male person." And it includes husband.<br />
<br />
802 includes wife. Both, then
add a status to the designation as male or female. What did they mean
by it? Is there a difference between that and "woman"? Strong's 802 is also the feminine of 582, and 582 is a mortal, a
man in general, and husband and wife are stuck in there with no clue as
to what is the origin of that relationship, just stuck there. "Often
unexpressed in English" we are told.<br />
<br />
So, the relationship, the woman thing, is "often unexpressed in English." English wants Wife, dammit, Wife! The Church requires that she be a wife!<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Go to the Parallel Hebrew Old Testament. Jerome's translation, and many others are given there for comparison. See <a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C003.htm#V17">http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C003.htm#V17</a></li>
</ul>
Pick an example of "wife" in one of our translations. Again, we pick at random Genesis 3:17, "because you have listened to the voice of your wife...."<br />
Hebrew for the word we are looking for is, I think from deduction,<span style="font-size: x-large;"> תאכל</span><br />
Scripture4all - AshthK -- <i>woman</i> of you.<br />
Hebrew Old Testament - 'aShThK -- Jerome translates it into the Latin as Uxoris<br />
And so does everybody else thereafter. Uxoris! Wife!<br />
<br />
Check translation of Uxoris. It should show Wife. Yes.<br />
<br />
But check translation of the Hebrew "woman" that Jerome translates as "wife" -- and that word for woman is not not Uxoris at all. <br />
<br />
Look at all the references to wife -- each one instead refers to the 802 or woman or woman of you, or women of him, or take a woman. And everybody falls in line after Jerome the Wrong and says, wife, wife, wife. Woman of you is different.<br />
<br />
The word for woman in Latin is Mulieri. Jerome uses mulieri when God speaks to the woman, that she will give birth in pain. Gen. 3:16. What is the Hebrew there? Woman e-ashe. No reference to who she is connected to. Fine. E-adm, man, e-ashe, woman. Being in a relationship, he's my man, etc., does not create a marriage.<br />
<br />
Conclusion so far: no reference to any ceremony, any exchange, any obligation, just the taking of a woman. And several, as with Abraham. Yet Jerome, good old Jerome, he needs to find wives here and so he does, arbitrarily. Dogma, dogma. <br />
<br />
4. So what is marriage in Genesis?<br />
<br />
In Gen. 2:24, we have the man leaving his father and mother [but who were they when Adm and Aishe were created by the Creator -- was Elohiym multiple (yes, by its terms) and so there was a heavenly pairing? and adhering to his woman. Genesis 2:24 requires no contracts, no property exchanges, no controlling, nothing but adhering. No sacrament, no blessing. So much for our cultural to-do about marriage.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>So: 'aShThK. Gen.3:17. Go further. Lot's wife is Lot's woman instead. Abraham's wife is Abraham's woman instead. At Gen.20:3, a woman is "married of a master" -- sounds like no wife there, just a bonded person. People buy women. Jacob works seven years for what he hopes will be Rachel for woman of him. No "wife." Leah speaks of aishi, man of me. </li>
</ul>
Etc. Woman of him, man of her, but no ceremony, no "marriage", a bonded system, a purchase. This will take more detail, but where in Genesis does anyone undergo a ceremony or words other than to do the buying thing?<br />
<br />
802 is aisha. 802 is not "wife." Jerome, go back and rewrite. No uxor. Mulier. Woman. <br />
...................................................<br />
<br />
FN 1. Women's individualized names do not resume after that initial flurry, until Abraham, whose name means Father Raised.<br />
<br />
His woman (the word "wife" is not used) is named Sarai, or Princess, thus a status as well as an individual in gender. Gen.11:29. More: continue to read that Abraham let her be taken by Pharaoh, saying she was his sister, in order to save his own skin). For these, if not specified, go to glossary at the Mechanical Translation for chapter and verse locations.<br />
<br />
Listing in part:<br />
<br />
Sarai. Princess. Sarai is also known as Noblewoman [bought for a thousand silver? see
Gen.20:16. Is a man's woman different from his bondwomen? same verse].<br />
Milkah. Queen.<br />
Hagar. Stranger; maid of Sarai who owned her and controlled her <br />
Re'umah. meaning Lifted Up, Abraham's concubine Gen.22:24<br />
Rivqah, Ensnarer.<br />
Qethurah, Incense (concubine of Abraham)<br />
Rahhel. Ewe<br />
Le'ah. Weary<br />
Dinah. Judgement [Dinhavah is also a city meaning Give Judgement]<br />
Devorah. Bee (nurse of Rivqah)<br />
<br />
A place is named Shaddai, meaning My Breasts. Gen.35:11 and elsewhere, just noting it here because it is repeating.<br />
<br />
Bilhah. Wear Out.<br />
Zilpah. Trickling (is this a man or a woman? not clear, see Gen.46:18, a later reference).<br />
Basmah. Spice.<br />
Timnah. Withhold.<br />
Meheythavael. Favored of El.<br />
Asnat. Belonging to Nat (not quite certain of that one), daughter of Pothee-Phera (he whom Ra gave)<br />
Serahh. Excess.<br />
<br /></div>
Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-58270642410884546542012-05-16T10:56:00.000-04:002012-05-17T07:38:31.612-04:00Who invited a deity to the marriage?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Does declaring an institution sacred make it so? </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>What did the deity say and do about marriage.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>What did later people say and do.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>For whose benefit? </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Are we bound by others' views?</b></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqXrNSf7WKeAmIqlJZDTYuDg_h7Tx2msHxLvJEianZehr2gCgCDDPXD6GaIFYz7IJH_Q8FQfo0GoRqJ7M-VzbqZTvcTurf4lFBNVukXAd91SmFLfekzVxD1hLMEsSLK6gOmrPXrJbr1kp_/s1600/anything!.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqXrNSf7WKeAmIqlJZDTYuDg_h7Tx2msHxLvJEianZehr2gCgCDDPXD6GaIFYz7IJH_Q8FQfo0GoRqJ7M-VzbqZTvcTurf4lFBNVukXAd91SmFLfekzVxD1hLMEsSLK6gOmrPXrJbr1kp_/s320/anything!.jpg" width="203" />Marriage. History. Is a deity involved?</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
A. What God hath joined together, let no man (no one?) put asunder.</div>
<br />
So goes a familiar part of a religious marriage ceremony for some. How dare anyone challenge the institution of marriage, so venerable for 3000 years of recorded history. So we are admonished.<br />
<br />
Look again. What did the deity do as to ordaining "marriage" -- was there a contract, and exchange of matters of value, witnesses, and then a change of habitation and consummation? In later Biblical references, is a "wedding" the same as a "marriage"? What is law governing human-human relationships in the old texts. What prohibits or says anything at all about what it is, who can be in it. The Torah is silent. The Talmud, or teachings, instead is the source of custom. Vet the terms, see process at <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2012/03/vetting-lexicons-thayers-joseph-henry.html">Vetting Roots, Vetting Lexicons. </a>Add another mechanical translation, or transliteration site, at <a href="http://www.mechanical-translation.org/">http://www.mechanical-translation.org</a>/. The point is that there is no one answer, no one approach. Check them all before adopting any authority.<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>It looks like weddings are a cultural, a non-religious matter, late in blooming, a product of later teaching (hello, Paul) by others, and the Christian soldiers marched in and extrapolated that their "God ordains it". Ideology derivatives. </li>
<li>With Jerome and other early translators in the Common Era, find the word "wife" interposed where "woman" appears in the transliteration (we are checking for other transliterations to compare); and find "marriage" and betrothal language where no "betrothal arises from the context -- instead, you may find master and servant, for example. A purchase. </li>
<li>Is there "marriage" at all as we know it, or is the woman "acquired" at the wedding. Or acquired by purchase. Look back at the language of Eve in considering Cain: I have acquired a son from JHWH. See <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen4.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen4.pdf </a>. Gaining something, acquiring. Adam not even in the picture, literalist view. Eve on a par with the deity, and bargaining for something on her own. Research old texts. Find ambiguity.</li>
<li>Research method: multiple open windows. Show the research path by fair use of URL's and linking (if anyone objects tell me and I'll do something else as may be required. How else to research unless these footnote-equivalents are given?) (Lexicon at <a href="http://eliyah.com/lexicon.html">http://eliyah.com/lexicon.html</a>; and Scripture4all at <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm">http://www.scripture4all.org/</a> for hebrewoldtestament and Greek online for starters). </li>
<li>Early times. Transliterations. This site,<a href="http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1.htm"> http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1.htm</a>, is useless for our purposes because it it ideologically institutionally Christian, not Jesus' words, using its interpretation to lay out the same interpretation again, and does not correlate the Hebrew word with the specific English, just gives the traditional ideological narrative. How does simply going to a wedding bless it?</li>
</ul>
...................................................................................... <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
B. Findings so far, and subject to change with new information. </div>
<br />
1. The word marriage.<br />
<br />
In English Biblical translation, marriage is found 19 times in my King James version, and in 18 verses. Type in the word marriage at the Lexicon, and search, <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html">http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html</a><br />
The word "wedding" is used in the original texts, suggesting just a specific social event; but English translators often substitute "marriage" -- with other overtones and a long time frame. Does that make any difference.<br />
<br />
2. Multiple contexts.<br />
<br />
That one word marriage, in English translation, is used, however, in six different ways, with six different meanings or contexts, even though connected in the New Testament by the wedding idea of celebration. The six ways are shown by separate word numbers for each usage, see the Eliyah lexicon. I have looked each up below.<br />
<br />
3. Old Testament.<br />
<br />
Looking at all the uses of "marriage", the word marriage occurs in the Old Testament only twice. But there is no specifying in either of those references how something we call a marriage takes place. There is no reference or law about it in the entire Torah, or the rest of the Old Testament. All that has emerged about the ins and outs of marriage is a matter of custom, oral tradition, teaching, the Talmud. Not Torah. The Good Lord sayeth nothing. Good Lord!<br />
<br />
4. Sacred or secular.<br />
<br />
Marriage so far appears to be mere custom, not religion; but with a religious overlay to suit institutional needs. One man one woman: not so. Many wives, and marriages to little girls, all part of Western heritage. Mormon included. Is that so? Section 5 addresses the specific meanings but I omit a definition that uses the word to define itself.<br />
<br />
Marriage: the pesky idea. Asking for a blessing is nice, but fulfills or proves no religious deity-originating law about who can enter into that relationship.<br />
<br />
5. Process. What makes a marriage? Old Jewish custom:<br />
<br />
A marriage process did evolve from early recorded times, but not as part of the Torah. It is from the Talmud, that developed and evolved through the society, we learn that a marriage is the taking of a <i>wife</i>, and that wifiness results from three steps, once she has given her consent -- Talmud says a woman cannot be acquired without her consent, <i>Judaism 101</i> at <a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm">http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm</a> That site lays out what is needed--<br />
<br />
a. exchange of money, (at least the ring, perhaps, and where its value is known)<br />
<br />
b. a contract, with the husband's obligations to the wife, her conditions of inheritance, child support obligations, the wife's support in case of divorce, and more if they wanted; and the status that is deeper than mere betrothal begins, the kiddushin<br />
<br />
c. the husband brings her to his home [I thought in Creation he was to leave his and move in with hers?? -- another disobedience?] moving in and actual conjoining; the nisuin; and this in the old days could be as much as a year after the kiddushin, the commitment. What if either had buyer's remorse during the long kiddushin? If he jumped ship, she would be left married but without a husband? These days the two events are celebrated at once, I think. See Judaism 101.<br />
<br />
6. The contract. This part of acquiring a wife is also laid out.<br />
<br />
6.1 It is a contract, so no rabbi is needed at all. It is merely custom to have a rabbi officiate. Wanting a religious officiant is more a Christian overlay to this private contract, and reflects our laws that a civil or religious officiate. See Judaism 101.<br />
<br />
6.2 Wedding ceremony: exuberant. And the patriarchal interpretation rises up and calls itself blessed, as The Man (not as humankind, but as though "Adm" were male even without the woman) glories in His image (what??) and the controls ensue, bless its heart.<br />
<br />
7. The significance of marriage as a social stabilizer. It is unnatural not to be married.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>So, Jesus probably was indeed married, if he was a good Jew. Is that so? </li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Marriage is not primarily for procreation, however. Look to "companionship, love and intimacy." The <i>Judaism 101 </i>refers as justification to the verse Gen.2:18 that the deity determined that it is not good for the man to be alone.</li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<ul>
<li>At that stage, however, there was only humankind, the Adm, who only got a gender when there was the other gender; and </li>
<li>It is debatable if the word referred to means "good" - it could well mean "functional." A single humankind entity is not functional? That makes more sense, and fits with the overall plan for the adm to till the ground and tend the garden and name things, period. See <a href="http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2012/04/good-functional-and-false.html">http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2012/04/good-functional-and-false.html</a>. Nothing sacred or holy about the creation of the adm or the evolution of genders, if not created that way in a single puff.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<div>
Again, see <i>Judaism 101</i> at <a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm">http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm</a>. If that site is wrong, please let me know. This is not my tradition.<br />
<br />
8. Without affirming that any such marriage-producing-wifehood process occurred, the word wife nonetheless is hammered into the translations twice in the Old Testament, and time and again in the New.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Although marriage appears only 19 times in 18 verses, the word <i>wife</i> appears 407 times in 370 verses in the King James. See again the Eliyah lexicon. How can there be a wife if there was no "marriage"? What was meant by marriage? At the least, there is ambiguity about how the idea of marriage evolved, and what is ordained by whom. Look up all the words that English translates as <i>wife,</i> and find, instead, woman. Not husband or wife, man of her, or woman of him. </li>
<li>And with no exchange of money, and contract, the conjoining is just that: and not a marriage at all. Meet Adam and Eve. Or their progeny and wherever they got themselves "wives." There were pairings, no obligations </li>
<li>So far, marriage is a matter of societal custom, convenience, and designating who is to control whom. The deity could care less.</li>
<li>This is an odd liberty that English translation takes with the word "marriage" - to spread it around willy-nilly, where, to the contrary, there is no definition of marriage at all in the Torah or Old Testament, or New. It is only in the Talmud, oral tradition, teachings, that ideology and custom are spelled out, but that is not Torah, direct word of the power(s) above around everywhere, etc.</li>
</ul>
9. Explore, with those old traditions and the fact of no Torah guidance at all, the many meanings where the English translation says only <i>marriage.</i><br />
<br />
9.1 Old Testament usage -<br />
<br />
"Marriage" appears twice in the English translation of two separate Hebrew words in theTorah (Pentateuch, first five books). In each, the text supports only a cohabitation idea, if even that (as to a master-servant relationship that clearly is not "wife"); it is the Talmud that adds ritual, status, ceremony. <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Strong's number 5772, H5772 is Ownah, <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=marriage&t=KJV"> http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=marriage&t=KJV</a></li>
<ul>
<li>Genesius, 18th C scholar, (<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/lexica/gesenius/">http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/lexica/gesenius/</a>) commentary: <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5772&t=KJV">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5772&t=KJV </a>. "Conjugal cohabitation",cohabitation, conjugal rights, but that from the Talmud, not the Torah</li>
<li>Ex.21:10, "duty of<i> marriage</i>" -- Torah. </li>
<ul>
<li>This Exodus reference is the first time "marriage" is used in English translation. But there is no mention of a contract, ceremony, significance</li>
<li>Lexicon: Dwell together, sexual cohabitation <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5772">http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5772</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>"Wife" in translation where a servant is the context, not a wife-- Exodus elsewhere: Ex.21:3. It is suddenly here that "wife appears, when the context clearly is not marriage, see Jerome in the Vulgate putting in "uxor" or wife at <a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B02C021.htm">http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B02C021.htm</a>. The text is woman, not wife. And everybody just falls in line, wife, wife, wife. Thanks, Jerome. Your agenda worked.</li>
<ul>
<li>As to a male servant, he shall serve 6 years, then go free. And if the master gives him a woman (the translator at this site says "wife" but that is not supported in the transliteration at<a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo21.pdf"> http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo21.pdf </a>-- the verb is <i>possess a woman</i>, not be married -- she is merely property) then she goes out with him; but if she has had children, she and the children remain the master's. </li>
<li>But if the servant says he loves her and wants to stay, the master shall take him to the judges, and then the master shall bore a hole in his ear and the servant shall be bound to him forever [pierce your ears origin?] Same Online Interlinear site.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<ul><ul>
<li><i>"Betrothal"</i> as English translation when the text says nothing of the kind. Ex.21:7-9. It is Jerome again who does it -- see the betrothal language where buying or taking the woman is meant by the text, and in most of the translations at <a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B02C021.htm">http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B02C021.htm</a></li>
<li>If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go "out" as the male servants (they get free and can go out after 6 years) and she does not please the master to whom she is appointed, then she shall be "redeemed" and the master shall have no power to sell her to a foreigner (this gets hard to follow, at <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo21.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo21.pdf </a></li>
<li>And if the master had appointed her to his son (no betrothal language), he shall deal with her in the manner of daughters (what?) (are we to assume she did something bad?)</li>
</ul>
<li>"Wife" used where multiple servants instead are the context. As to the master, if he has that first maidservant (translated as "wife" when it looks like sexual partner is intended only, not wife) and takes another (woman) (also translated as "wife"), then his duty to the first is not diminished. He must provide her meat and clothing and habitation. Ex.21:10-11, at <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo21.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo21.pdf</a>. </li>
<ul>
<li> So that is the duty when a servant is sold to the master: feed, raiment, shelter. That is not the same as the marriage obligations of the Jew as the culture changed, see Judaism 101, with rights of inheritance, giving her property, etc.</li>
<li>Still -- all that marriage language out of nowhere in this master-servant relationship. </li>
<ul>
<li>The English translation adds out of nowhere that her "duty of marriage" remains -- but this is no marriage. </li>
<li>Duty to be his sexual partner? That would be plausible, but that i snot being a wife. Master with privileges is something else. If cohabitation or sexual privilege is meant, the English changes it.</li>
<li>Trust not thy translated scriptures, for they are pretzeled beyond all recognition for the glory of those who seek to salt words for their benefit.</li>
</ul>
<li>And if he does not those three things, she shall go free but without any cash.</li>
<li>Keep reading: the master does not have power of death over the servant; and on for many other laws of the time as to killing, injuring. It takes a great deal of adding words and omitting things to get to a clear narrative. There is no airtight single narrative.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
Old Testament non-Torah <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Strong's number 1984 -- H1984 is "hallal"<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=marriage&t=KJV"> http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=marriage&t=KJV</a></li>
<ul>
<li>Gesenius (see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/lexica/gesenius">http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/lexica/gesenius</a>/) commentary (Thayer is New Testament?). This refers to vocalizing, we think of ululation, repetition of syllable el as rejoicing, see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1984&t=KJV">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1984&t=KJV</a>. Praise, celebrate, be foolish, let light shine, reference to nuptial song?</li>
<li>1984 -- a true portent of a number) </li>
<li>Ps.78:63, "given to<i> marriage</i>"</li>
<ul>
<li>This Psalms reference, said to be marriage, looks like "merriment" instead, or the event where people were given to merriment</li>
<li>Lexicon: The meanings include make a show, boast, clamorously foolish, "be (feign, make self mad (against)", glory (no mention of a contract, ceremony). </li>
<li>Transliteration: </li>
<ul>
<li>The original text here does not even use the term "marriage." </li>
<li> Instead, the context-circumstance is a lament, that "choice (young men) of him she-devoured fire and virgins-of-him not they were praised", fair use from <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/psa78.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/psa78.pdf</a></li>
</ul>
<li>Even Jerome here in the Latin Vulgate translates the Hebrew to<i> virgines eius nemo luxit,</i> or "virgins were not lamented" [meaning of virgins is another topic]. </li>
<li>Yet, further translators substitute "marriage", a unilateral removal of ambiguity and reference to cultural practices, see <a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B19C078.htm#V63">http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B19C078.htm#V63</a>. There are ideological arguments for doing that short-hand, but at least we can be aware of the choices.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
9.2 New Testament - Marriage<br />
.<br />
a. Still no laws, rules about marriage, so look to <i>Judaism 101</i>, <a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm">http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm</a>.<br />
.<br />
As a Jew, the process for marriage as outlined at Judaism 101 seems consistent here, but someone else would have to find out the specifics of <i>First </i>Century Talmud, or later centuries when the Gospels were written by those persons unknown. What is added in that time, that is not in the texts of what Jesus himself said.<br />
.<br />
b. Enter the New Testament, Greek now, translations from that, and Paul and Paulian theology and Rome, superseding plain meaning of what are ambiguous and partial texts, with much excluded in the name of unification, forging in stone an emerging ideology. Thayer, commentary, is 19th century, and a good start. Later findings <br />
<br />
c. All the New Testament references, like the Old, are to a status, not a process, and there is no establishing any religious role for a deity in it.<br />
<br />
No ordaining. No blessing. Just going to a wedding does not bless it. Not setting up "sacraments" makes them necessarily "sacred". The texts provide for none such. Oh, my. On the other hand, other references to adultery and fornication suggest that the deity cares about the marriage, and that stems from Commandments, or does it? Perhaps the deity wants people to stand by their <i>contracts</i> -- and it means nothing more than that kind of honor in one's word. Marriage isn't blessed: it is another contract. Is that consistent? You in the back with your hand up. Go ahead.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Strong's 1062 - G1062, Greek word 1062, is gamos, wedding, <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1062&t=KJV">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1062&t=KJV. </a>Comes from G1061, give a <i>daughter</i> in marriage. <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1061">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1061</a> (not the emphasis here on the man acquiring a wife?? vestige of an earlier time?)</li>
<ul>
<li>Thayer: Thayer is not a doctrinal scholar-translator, so does not shape his interpretation and word choice to fit any dogma necessarily. Click on the "help" and see the caution that is given to doctrinal persons, that Thayer may not reflect their particular dogma. </li>
<li> In these New Testament references, the emerging "Christian" dogma is outlined as used in later teachings, see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1062&t=KJV">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1062&t=KJV</a>. Find union of Christ and Church, symbol of future blessings of Messiah's kingdom, etc. Not part of the text, but later applied topically. The text references are as follows (note that the text itself gives no grounds for doctrine)</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;"><ul>
<li>Mt.22:2, "made a <i>marriage</i> for his son"</li>
<ul>
<li>Lexicon: Comes from the feminine of primogeniture. Feminine of #1060. That #1060 means firstborn. Found him a firstborn woman? Or made a "feminine" for his son? By this time, we can conclude that custom and oral tradition had established a process for marriage, but what was exchanged, what was the contract of such marriage? </li>
<li>Wedding festivities, see <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat22.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat22.pdf</a></li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;"><ul>
<li>Jn.2:1, "there was a marriage" - Greek word is wedding, see<a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh2.pdf"> http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh2.pdf</a></li>
</ul>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;"><ul>
<li>Jn.2:2, "called...to the marriage"- ditto. Wedding - no reference to a deity's view of a wedding</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;"><ul>
<li>Hb.13:4, "marriage...honorable in all" [eliyah site adds "is" in the ellipsis] - ditto. Matrimony fine, but watch out you paramours and adulterers. You need the contract before you indulge? The dogma enters. This says God will judge.Jesus said not to cast first stones. You pick. I am looking for references to man-man or woman-woman relationship and find nothing; Ditto as to contraception. Merely saying no to spilling seed outside is not enough -- that could be matter of courtesy and tidiness. Bring a towel.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;"><ul>
<li>Rv.19:9, "called unto the marriage supper of the lamb" -ditto but here a celebration is specified, an occasion</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Strong's 1547, G1547 is ekgamizo. Give a daughter away in marriage, the "ek" meaning out of the house, <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1547">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1547</a></li>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Mt.22:4, "come unto the marriage" -- wedding</li>
<li>Mt.22:9, "bid to the marriage"</li>
<li>Mt.22:30, "given in marriage" </li>
<li>Mt.22:39, "giving in marriage"</li>
<li>Lk.17:27, "given in marriage"</li>
<li> I Cor.7:38, "he that giveth...in marriage doeth well, but he that giveth...not in marriage doeth better" [eliyah lexicon site adds a "her" in the ellipsis]</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Strong's 1548, G1548 is ekgamisko</li>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Lk.20:34, 35, "given in marriage", <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1548&t=KJV">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1548&t=KJV</a>,from Strong's 1061,</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li> Strong's 1061 - G1061 - is gamizo, relates to give a daughter in marriage, <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1061&t=KJV">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1061&t=KJV</a></li>
<ul>
<li> Mk.12:25, "given in marriage"</li>
<li>Thayer: give a daughter in marriage, see<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1061"> http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1061 </a></li>
</ul>
</ul>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
C. Conclusion so far</div>
<br />
Marriage is an evolving cultural idea, not full-blown from the Beginning, see <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2008/08/additional-transliteration-site.html">http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2008/08/additional-transliteration-site.html</a>; and with later justifications added about the deity requiring it, blessing it, all that.<br />
<br />
Instead, from the texts, marriage is the acquiring of a wife, primarily a contract for keeping company, and ordering sensibly the passions of the people. As such, the deity really did not join anybody to anybody else, Adam and Eve could not have made the causal connection between a conjoining and a baby nine months later, and the meaning of the relationship can be expanded or not, as the culture itself desires.<br />
<br />
If you make the contract, however, stick with it or bear consequences not of damnation but other damages including divorce (permitted among the Jews). No casting first stones, is that so? Persuade if you like, but no forcing. There is no 3,000 years of consistent marriage.</div>
</div>
</div>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-62912456787519457872012-04-04T07:42:00.002-04:002013-05-02T19:04:24.825-04:00Creation: Good means merely Functional, in Working Order. Not "good" morally superior.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
.<br />
<b>Creation. </b><br />
<b>Go back to the Old Hebrew mechanical translations of actual word forms.</b><br />
<b>And the Powers Saw That It Was "Functional."</b><br />
<b>Not good as a moral preference. If it worked, it was functional.</b><br />
<b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Shall we take that idea to church?</b><br />
<b> If so, we note that there is in texts no moral aspect; merely keeping the thing going.</b><br />
<b>.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Is this so?</b><br />
<b>Our creation as Adm Human was not "good" either.</b><br />
<b>Merely functional: Tend the place. And Adm messed that up. It was not functional to leave him in charge.</b><br />
<b>.</b><br />
<b>We are functionaries, if anything. </b><br />
<b>.</b><br />
<b>Function of the earth? Not "good", not human-directed, just to be kept "in working order".</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>אלהים את־חית</b> <br />
.</div>
A. Overview:<br />
.<br />
What are we good for? Christian Century magazine, article Eating in Ignorance, by Norman Wirzba 5/30/2012 at p.27 states that Creation is to be good for us; not what we are good for. "Creation exists for our health and nurture, but it is not made for our exclusive enjoyment." Fine as to part 2; we are not exclusive beneficiaries. Wrong as to part 1, what Creation is for. To mix dogma with old texts is one reason why some of us tend to the spiritual, but not to the institutional, see same issue, at<a href="http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-05/seeker-next-door"> http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-05/seeker-next-door</a><br />
<br />
Creation exists why? For reasons unknown and unknowable, but by design, to be at least "functional" -- to keep itself going. Humankind: tend it. Till it. Eat its seeds. See Mechanical Translation at <a href="http://www.mechanical-translation.org/ebook.html">http://www.mechanical-translation.org/ebook.html</a>. Download and search Genesis 1-4. There are always multiple possibilities in any translation-transliteration, but this one carves out a clearer, nondogmatic meaning than others such as Scripture4all, enthralled by traditional narratives. See <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf</a>. <br />
<br />
If we use Scripture4all's "good", what is the meaning of "good" in creation's "saw that it was good"? Mechanical Translation has an answer: Good means "functional", so that it might follow that any interference with the functionality of creation is the ultimate evil? Does that prohibition include climate change, pollution, species decimation. Look at old wording and reconsider Adm's place in the world.<br />
.<br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;">1. God saw that it was good? </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"> .</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;">What is good? a moral determination, or a usefulness, effectiveness measure, a distance measure, etc. Skip the usual sites first, research sites listed at <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#%21/2012/03/vetting-lexicons-thayers-joseph-henry.html">Vetting Lexicons</a>; and go directly to <a href="http://mechanical-translation.org/">http://mechanical-translation.org/</a>. Find that that mechanical translation from Hebrew shows that "good" not used to comment upon Creation: "functional" is. At the very least, there is ambiguity about what "good" meant then, and how English and dogma treat it now.</span></span><br />
.<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"></span></span><br />
2. Creation of human Adm has no following trope that that was good. So making the Adm was not even functional. That turned out to be true. Adm couldn't even do the job he was given.<br />
.<br />
3. Checking uses of "good" as Strong's H 2896 in the King James Genesis, other sites. <br />
............................................................<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC1d2gasQhhXs-dKzGAk8dLDdEfASeoogYNwd9YnwmsnuMjOhiesLSeh07j8LFwj95lJkIgJkN8FKQw1oa1vajGbZdo3ZP1XlB4SK6i6vM6FZthVT8BvS1IlrJ-o1QF5pPK3KmxCLvznud/s1600/prgoldtclocktr2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC1d2gasQhhXs-dKzGAk8dLDdEfASeoogYNwd9YnwmsnuMjOhiesLSeh07j8LFwj95lJkIgJkN8FKQw1oa1vajGbZdo3ZP1XlB4SK6i6vM6FZthVT8BvS1IlrJ-o1QF5pPK3KmxCLvznud/s320/prgoldtclocktr2.jpg" width="214" />Creation: Functional. Clockworks. Here, St. Mary's Church clock, Prague</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
.</div>
B. Discussion<br />
.<br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;">1. Uses of "good": </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;">.</span></span><br />
Traditionally, God, at creation, saw that it was good. That is not necessarily so. See <span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><a href="http://mechanical-translation.org/">http://mechanical-translation.org/</a></span></span><br />
.<br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;">A modern word-for-word mechanical translation shows that there is no "good" in moral terms involved; only that the Powers saw that the thing worked.Get the fast, free download for a word-for-word transliteration. <span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"> </span></span></span></span><br />
.<br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;">Instead of "he (always a masculine singular in Western religious translation) saw that it was good", find the plural "Elohim" or "Powers" and "given that functional" or "saw that it was functional. </span></span></span></span><br />
.<br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;">2. We delude ourselves if we think our own "creation" as Adm (the human) was "good" in a moral sense. Not so. For all of us who think humankind is special, note the absence of the trope that the deity saw, after making Adm, that it was good. Without the word, Adm is not even functional! <span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;">Dead silence. Is this so: The Powers knew they blew it from the start, from Adm. It is only before Adm that the Powers see that it was good.</span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;">.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;">Test the theory: This theme of creator's regret recurs with Noah: the deity says there will not be another deity-inspired destruction like the flood again, but that does not stop his evil-doing humans from doing it themselves: </span></span><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;">See Genesis 8:21 -- Deity Straight Talk.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"> "*** The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth....***" </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C008.htm">http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C008.htm</a></span></span><br />
.<br />
3. Now check the usual old sources. How did we get to the one meaning, the moral "good" from the Hebrew. Even, our idea that we get dominion in the sense of control for our own use and benefit, from it, see <a href="http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2010/11/dominion-worst-concept-in-world-wolf.html#%21/2010/11/dominion-worst-concept-in-world-wolf.html">Dominion: Worst Concept in the World;</a> or worse yet, that we are "sanctified" and more worthy than other creatures (the same nphsh in all of us) because of an image. See <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/search/label/sanctity%20of%20human%20life#%21/2008/09/where-in-world-did-we-get-sanctity-for.html">Sancity for Human Life? Because of an image?</a> <br />
.<br />
a. Old words<br />
<br />
'aLHYM KY-TVB<br />
Elohim, or aleim, ki tub, perhaps, phonetically at, for example, <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf</a><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
b. The customary translation appears in the Parallel Old Testament: at <a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V10">http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V10</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The word for "good" has these Strong's designations as appearances in the King James Bible: see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=good&t=KJV&sf=5">http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=good&t=KJV&sf=5</a><br />
.<br />
c. The word appears hundreds of times in the King James. I am focusing on Creation and Genesis, because origins are enchanting. What did the original written words say, and how or if people later spun or omitted in order to further cultural identity, survival, and interest groups' power structures.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
d. Lexicons<br />
<br />
Strong's H 2896: Descriptive Good. Adjective. </div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><div style="text-align: left;">
Gen.1:4, the light was good, phonetic KY-TVB; and the KY - TVB repeats in all these -- </div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: left;">
Gen.1:10, separating earth from seas, saw it was good; </div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: left;">
Gen.1:18, plants yielding seeds and fruits, saw it was good; </div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: left;">
Gen.1:21, making whales and birds and fish, saw it was good; </div>
</li>
<li>Gen.1:25, making beasts and cattle and creepies saw it was good. See the old Paleo Hebrew at <a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V25">http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V25</a>. Only the modern Hebrew there is transliterated, however, and we can find there the portion of Elohim "saw that it was good" -- not sure what portion of the Paleo Hebrew stands for that. What word for "good"--</li>
<li>Gen.1:31, seeing everything that was made, saw it was good. </li>
<li>Gen.2:9, everything that came from the ground and was pleasing to the eye was for food, saw it was good; </li>
<li>Gen.2:9, gold is good; </li>
<li>Gen.3:5, not good for the man to be alone (adm, human); </li>
<li>Gen.3:6, woman saw that the tree of knowledge of good TVB(noun) and evil VUr'y was good (adjective) for food, as well as pleasing to the eye, and desired to make one wise; then the concept jumps a full dozen chapters, to </li>
<li>Gen.15:15, die in a good old age, same word, but with an H, what is that? TVBH</li>
<li>Gen.18:7, a calf tender and good </li>
<li>Gen.19:8, here are my daughters who have not known men, do unto them as is good in your eyes <i>[is that a putting of accountability on the men out there, setting a moral limit to what they can do, was there a limit on what to do with women of another household, or is good merely what feels good? this is not mere permission to rapine],</i> and to these men do nothing because they came under the shadow of my roof <i>[hospitality cannot be violated?]</i></li>
<li>Gen.21:16, a good way off, a bowshot </li>
<li>Gen:24:12, send me good speed this day </li>
<li>Gen,24:40, the thing proceedeth from the Lord, we cannot speak unto thee bad or good </li>
<li>Gen.26:29, thou wilt do us no hurt as we have not touched thee <i>[now, that is a good standard for intervention in others' lives: leave me alone if I have not touched you],</i> and as we have done nothing but good to thee, and sent thee away in peace </li>
<li>Gen.27:9, fetch me two good kids from the flock </li>
<li>Gen.30:20, Leah had a good dowry. <br /><br />Other translations disagree on the number of times "good" is used as Strong's H 2896. </li>
</ul>
Strong's H 2896. Noun. <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Gen.2:9, tree of knowledge of good and evil; </li>
<li>Gen. 2:17, don't eat of the tree of good and evil or you die; Gen.3:5, gods know good and evil;</li>
<li>Gen.3:22, the gods see that the man (not worried about the woman eating) ate of the good and evil tree, and is now like one of the gods knowing good and evil; and fearing that the man now will reach out and eat of the tree of the lives also, and so live forever (as do the gods<i>)(again, the deity had no worry about the woman doing this - as kngdv, she was not even banned from the garden, all she had done was get deceived. Adm could have informed her about that tree and he was there and stood by and didn't. He and the NShCh got the book thrown at them, not the woman)</i></li>
</ul>
.<br />
e. 4100, at Gen.27:46, if this thing happens, what good shall my life do me. That is another use of good.<br />
.<br />
f. Cross check: <br />
.<br />
Some other translations must have used other than the H 2896 in their translations of "good" -- Find dozens of uses of "good" in the alternate search at Strong's Hebrew Lexicon, the big dictionary, at <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=good">http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=good</a><br />
.<br />
See all these other words that mean "good" in Hebrew: 36, 258, 239, 376, 393, 434, 457, 553, 829, 1309, 1319, 1576, 1580, 2388, 2447, 2451, 2492, 2617, 2623, 2869, 2895, 2896, 2897, 2898, and on through the 3000's numbers.<br />
.<br />
Where to check the Strong's H 2896? Strong's is not enough in itself.<br />
.<br />
Go to another site, Mechanical Translation: free download of Mechanical Translation of Genesis at <a href="http://mechanical-translation.org/">http://mechanical-translation.org/</a><br />
Find this meaning for "he saw that it was good" <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
Elohim (powers) </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"given that functional", or </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"saw that it was functional".</div>
.<br />
Creation not good but functional? Makes sense. Functional. Works in the system already created. No morality, no good-evil, just in working order. And no pronouncement of "good." No wonder. The Adm had evil in his heart from his youth. <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/search/label/disobediences%20of%20Adam#%21/2008/06/third-disobedience-patriarchy-and.html">Disobediences</a> Vet your translations. Vet your tutors tho teach that the earth is to be tamed, exploited, used by you for your benefit because you are sanctified and God will make certain the sun comes up again. Who taught the tutor to toot?<br />
<br />
Plug them in, side margin at Now see the possible translations that can be plugged in. We used the KJV, good shows up 720 times in 655 verses OT. The word "good" is used in a range of settings, some not appearing in the KJV, others in the KJV but not elsewhere, etc. There is no agreed definition and what is 2896 in one translation may well be something else in another.<br />
.<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
And more at <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=good&t=KJV&sf=5">http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=good&t=KJV&sf=5</a> </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
</ul>
</div>
Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-21167371753187747372012-03-26T12:43:00.001-04:002013-05-02T19:12:10.738-04:00Behold thy Son means Greek Huios. Woman, Behold thy Huios. Mere kinship: remote or immediate; including animals<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Meanings of Huios.</b><br />
<b>That is the word in the familiar, Woman, behold thy "Son".</b><br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The focus is on relationship, however, not gender.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Figurative, not Literal<br />
.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Explore: Is "son" a relationship; or a set of physical gender apparati. This John 19:26 example of the use of the words tilts strongly to the figurative, to the relational aspect of "son"'; not a gender. Christianity as an institutional religion molds an ideology that is not necessarily related to the actual texts, but evolves from culturally desired interpretations. That is a cultural practice only: the Records of Christianity are the texts, however; whether or not those get reflected in the self-interest of an institutional canon.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Vet the reasons for inclusion or exclusion of any particular translation tilt. Is the worshipping population responding to social pressure, or actual foundations.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Moi? J'aime les Textes. </div>
<b>.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglJSwO8dThvpNPvykCfO6c2fq3qjCuW4_fzu4rHA0tSXTqtwv8a2tUw4p49Ec0cg1GLdt-CW_j0gexnXFWWX-u6zhuU9GSlI3_rk5onXsLMY3C533E-FmF0QmC7dO-C4x7EpdHJXCabQhf/s1600/100_2245.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglJSwO8dThvpNPvykCfO6c2fq3qjCuW4_fzu4rHA0tSXTqtwv8a2tUw4p49Ec0cg1GLdt-CW_j0gexnXFWWX-u6zhuU9GSlI3_rk5onXsLMY3C533E-FmF0QmC7dO-C4x7EpdHJXCabQhf/s400/100_2245.JPG" width="300" />Burden of Interpretation. A human process, for human ends. St. Anastasia, Verona, Italy.</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
.</div>
</div>
I. Overview - Scene, Issue, Discussion, Conclusion<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><u>Scene:</u> Crucifixion. Gospel of John. Present, at the cross: Jesus' mother, Mary; Mary Magdalene; another <a href="http://www.freebase.com/view/en/mary_the_wife_of_cleopas">Mary, the wife of Cleopas</a> (that at Freebase.com) or Clopas. <a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C019.htm#V25">http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C019.htm#V25</a>. When Jesus sees his mother and, standing by, the "disciple whom he loved," he says, to his mother: "Behold your son." <a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C019.htm#V26">http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C019.htm#V26</a>. Your "huios" in the greek. Who is that? Other disciples had fled. Noone else was there or that person would have been named. Or was there some mystery "man" to correspond to the "son." Those who want the disciple whom Jesus loved to be a man, say that this witness must have come in later. The Gospel of John, however, limits the people there to the three Mary's.</li>
<li><u>Issue:</u> Greek "huios." Who was the disciple whom Jesus loved.the one that his mother Mary was to regard as her "huios." Does use of "huios" mean that the person so indicated was male? Or is it the relationship of parent to child, parent to son in particular in that culture, that is important: relationship, not gender. It is the relationship. See Strong's #5207, <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=son">http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=son</a>. That is also true of "mother" Strong's #3384 -- can be immediate, remote, or figurative, see <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=mother">http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=mother</a></li>
<li> <u>Discussion</u>. Research on your own until someone convinces you otherwise. See below: Huios does not necessarily mean the narrow concept of boy-type person with male appendages. Not in the Greek. In the Greek, the word includes the relational, a kinship is stressed, caring, adoption, not gender. It only became absolute and decided (arbitrarily) as male with St. Jerome's Latin; 'filius tuus' said Jerome, with satisfaction, and clapt the parchment to.</li>
<ul>
<li>What about Matthew, Mark and Luke? Matthew has two Marys but not Jesus mother Mary: Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Joseph, and a third woman, mother of the sons of Zebedee. Matt.27:55. Mark has "women" including Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of James the Younger and of Joses, and <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/?view=flipcard#!/2009/05/salome-zebel-disciple-sources.html">Salome</a>. And many other women. Mark 15:40. Luke has no named women at all, just "all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Gallee stood at a distance and saw these things." Luke 23:47. Nobody at the cross at all for Luke. </li>
<li>Nobody agrees on anything.</li>
<li>If someone is a literalist, which of the four "literals" does that person choose to be infallible?</li>
<li>Add to the enjoyment with Secret Mark, where there is reference to the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved -- not even a disciple! -- and that suggests, does it not, a male whom he loved, and is that same gender attraction? See <a href="http://www.gnosis.org/library/secm.htm">http://www.gnosis.org/library/secm.htm</a>. Literalists may need to choose between a woman or a same-gender. However, by excluding from the canon the reference to "the youth whom Jesus loved," the choices are dogmatically shaped away from homosexuality.</li>
<li>YOUTH. Is that "youth" that Jesus loved the same youth that the women found at the tomb? See the oddly titled (nonprofit research site) <a href="http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Salome:disciple.html">http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Salome:disciple.html</a>. What other youth would it be? Scriptural conundrums can never be solved by dogma. The loose ends always wriggle out. See further "youth" tracking at <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#!/2012/03/vetting-lexicons-thayers-joseph-henry.html">http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#!/2012/03/vetting-lexicons-thayers-joseph-henry.html</a>. Now for the Aramaic.</li>
</ul>
<li><u>Conclusion</u> will be, unless and until more turns up: The disciple whom Jesus loved, and the only one who remained after all the other disciples fled, was one of the three named people left there, according to the immediately preceding verse. Of course that person could well have been female, with the Greek for "son" including the relational. One was to take the place of the other. Keep any ambiguity. This Gospeler told his story. Life is ambiguous. Language is ambiguous. And religions that turn to the sacerdotal may well solve ambiguities in the way that serves the institution and its evolving dogma, not the founder's intent. </li>
</ul>
Western sacerdotal tradition: This way of approaching religion holds that what the authority, a priest or pastor, says, is what you will believe.<br />
.<br />
When it comes to meanings of texts, Western Christians obsess about gender -- Jesus did not. Ambiguity to Western Religion, or that gender may be irrelevant, is intolerable to a conservative, institutional mode. Fits ensue. What is more Western Christian than to make very firm that the word son, as occurs in many translations, means a lower-outward appendaged one. Is it necessarily so? Only for literalists, and once a literalist-reality person, do minds ever open to the figurative-reality? <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">..........................................................................</ul>
II. Meanings for "Huios" or "Son"<br />
..<br />
A. The word for son, in Greek, is huios<br />
.<br />
1. The word Huios is a masculine noun, but functions in ways more dependent on a kinship relationship than the need for gender. In usage it, huios, is ambiguous as to any gender at all, and can even mean animal species, on occasion: see <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=5207">http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=5207</a>. Strong's lexicon, the system developed to number the words, has #5207 appended to the Greek huios, and means "used widely of immediately, remote, or figuratively, kinship" and it includes foal.<br />
.<br />
2. The word appears to signify a relationship, not a sex. <br />
.<br />
And if we have "foal" in there and "animals" (probably not a common usage), that is a relationship of caring in that relationship. Is that so? Child, foal, son. Remote or immediate. See also <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=son&s=References&rc=LEX&rc2=LEX+GRK">http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=son&s=References&rc=LEX&rc2=LEX+GRK</a>.<br />
.<br />
"Son" could well convey the importance of the relationship, not the gender; since daughters were not so valued, is that so? If huios means offspring, pupil, <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5207&t=KJV">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5207&t=KJV</a>, then again the stress is on the new relationship of the mother of Jesus to the disciple, not the gender -- Woman, here is your son, your new kin -- take this person in your life as though this person were me, your son, Jesus. <br />
.<br />
That is an Everyman's analysis using tools readily available and subject to revision with more research. I am using Eliyah dot com, at its lexicon, Strong's Concordance at <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html">http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html</a>. Search words put in Eliyah will show results in the Blue Letter Bible, and from there all versions listed there can be similarly searched. Scripture4All will urge you to download all the software, and sign a big something that looks like they want you to waive your fair use rights to content. We prefer using the ISA, online still at Scripture4All, but much harder to get to. Scripture4All also has huios and Strong's G5207, Greek #5207.<br />
.<br />
3. Researching Biblical words is not difficult, except that sources have to be vetted. Check Thayer's lexicon, for example, since there was a work about a decade after Thayer that came to some other conclusions in specific cases, against that work that came after, such as <i>Bible Studies</i> by Alexander Grieve in 1909, see <a href="http://archive.org/stream/biblestudiescont00deisrich#page/n5/mode/2up">http://archive.org/stream/biblestudiescont00deisrich#page/n5/mode/2up</a>. I see no references there, in Grieve's work, to John 19 and "son", do a search. So, Thayer still looks good. He has been called a heretic by dogmatists, so he must have good ideas.<br />
.<br />
If one route gets blocked by efforts to get you to give up fair use of content, go elsewhere. How else do information, ideas, spread? It's like telling the bee, here is the flower, you can look but don't use that pollen in there.<br />
.<br />
a. We use the site we call "Eliyah." Other sites come up all the time. Keep searching for the good guys.<br />
.<br />
Method: At Eliyah, look up the many times that the word "son" is used, say, in the King James. Pick your own version. Type in "son" at <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html">http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html</a>. That takes you to a page asking for clarification that you really meant "son" and not "song." Yes. Click. Find that son is used thousands of times. If you are checking Hebrew, the Hebrew word for son is #1121. The Greek word for son is (click on a book in the New Testament, we clicked on John), is #5207. Our interest is in specifically at the crucifixion, John 19:26, where Jesus says, according to John 19:26 --<br />
.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/asbeo.htm">Hwaet!</a> Scripture is just as in Saxon Beowulf, there at Sacred Texts. Whose translation do you trust? </li>
<li>What is wrong with Blue Letter. They stop at John 5:25 for the last usage of "son" in the Book of John. <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=%22son%22&t=KJV&cscs=Jhn">http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=%22son%22&t=KJV&cscs=Jhn</a>. </li>
<li>Child, adoption, all are included, but the coverage stops. Blue Letter? Where is the "son" in John 19:26?</li>
<li>That still is not resolved. So: Where is the usage of "son" we see in John 19:26? Even if Blue Letter does not have it? Look elsewhere. </li>
</ul>
b. Greek Parallel New Testament, at <a href="http://greeknewtestament.com/">http://greeknewtestament.com/</a> <br />
.<br />
There, it seems clear that everybody just got in line behind <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2010/01/jeromes-ezer-kenegdo-kngdv-latin.html#!/2010/01/jeromes-ezer-kenegdo-kngdv-latin.html">St. Jerome's Latin</a>. And it is not infallible. It has agenda, fits the interpretation to the dogma. Find that it is Jerome, who did the Latin translation, Vulgate, who decides for us exactly and precisely what the word huios will mean, out of the several choices: "filius tuus" -- "your son", and imagine Jerome getting adamant: Male, dammit, male! Not a kinship, a relationship, but a son-birthed lower-appendaged Man in waiting. Jerome has decided the course of dogma at one stroke. Ye gods and little fishes. <a href="http://greeknewtestament.com/B43C019.htm#V2">http://greeknewtestament.com/B43C019.htm#V2</a><br />
.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>The impact of Jerome, or anyone who translates old texts to a new religion, the effect on dogma that later develops thanks to that translation.</li>
<li>See what a translator can do to shape an entire religion. </li>
<li>Recall that by St. Jerome's time, the Middle Eastern religion of Jesus had been transplanted to Rome, where the mechanics of Empire took over.</li>
<li>The "sacerdotalist", sacerdote meaning priest; or other authoritarian, priest-focused approach to religion, took over. </li>
<li>See how sacerdotalism works: Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome in 382 to translate the older Greek into Latin for Church use in its ideology; accordingly the Church through Jerome chose what meanings it wanted from the Greek choices, and left no room for debate. </li>
</ul>
.<br />
c. Countercheck.<br />
.<br />
Go back to the <i>Eliyah site </i>with the #5207 that we learned from Blue Letter Bible. Click for Greek, type in the 5207, at <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html">http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html</a>. Search. <br />
.<br />
Find the Greek word for 5207, huios. <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=5207">http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=5207</a>.<br />
.<br />
There we are, back at the definition of kinship. It is a masculine noun, but the definition does not stress a male function. It is used Biblically as a relational description. <br />
.<br />
4. Interest: <br />
.<br />
Why this sudden interest in John 19:26? <br />
.<br />
It arose from an old issue of Biblical Archeology Review. See <i>Biblical Archeology Review</i> homesite at <a href="http://www.bib-arch.org/bar">http://www.bib-arch.org/bar</a>. <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Ben Witherington III at that site, is our example of too-quick conclusions. We would expect an analysis of huios in his analysis, it is not there. Ben starts and stops with dogma: "son" as literal, as was in Jerome's Latin. </li>
<li>Then again, Witherington is an evangelical scholar, see <a href="http://benwitherington.com/">http://benwitherington.com/</a>, so we cannot expect interpretations that conflict with the evangelical dogma.</li>
<li>Back in March-April 2006, that Ben Witherington III at Biblical Archeology Review at page 24 there, was figuring out who was last at the Cross. The disciples were all gone but one, according to Gospeler John, and that was "the disciple whom Jesus loved." John named the women who were there. So who was that disciple whom Jesus loved? The unnamed one? Is that an additional person to the Mary's, or one of them?</li>
<li>Witherington decides it cannot be a woman, it cannot possibly be Mary Magdalene, for example, because of Jesus' words, directed at his mother, "Behold your son." Son? Son?? </li>
<li>Huios? Ben, look it up. </li>
<li>He shows an illustration, 1343 AD Crucifixion painting by Bernardo Daddi, see it with its three witnesses at the foot of the cross, at <a href="http://www.magnoliabox.com/art/140695/Crucifixion_1343">http://www.magnoliabox.com/art/140695/Crucifixion_1343</a>; sure look like women! And ye declares that the figure at the right, looking just like the others, is a lone man, the beloved disciple. Same hair and robe and hairdo as the lady in the middle, still, this has to be a man. </li>
<li>Ben!</li>
</ul>
.<br />
Son? Huios. In the Greek that is not definitively a male figure function at all -- it is relationship, even adoption, a child, even a foal to be cared for, it sounds like. It can be remote or immediate as kinship, but it does not mean "birth-boy." Son foal child. Fine. Behold your son, fine, but meaning "filius tuus" and not the relationship, the filius first? Not so clear. And there are variations even in the Greek, but all seem to use vios (a roughly phonetic huios) <a href="http://greeknewtestament.com/B43C019.htm#V26">http://greeknewtestament.com/B43C019.htm#V26</a><br />
.<br />
5. Thayer's lexicon: Accessible through Strong's. Scroll down every time to read Thayer. Much of his work was superseded after certain papyri were discovered, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Henry_Thayer">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Henry_Thayer</a>, but check that when there is a topic that is of interest. See the papyri issue at <a href="http://archive.org/details/biblestudiescont00deisrich">http://archive.org/details/biblestudiescont00deisrich</a>. I do not reject all of Thayer at once, but try to vet it. <br />
.<br />
Huios in other translations: offspring, in the wider sense, a descendant, <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5207&t=KJV">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5207&t=KJV</a>.<br />
.<br />
In the Greek, it looks like "vios" see Thayer's commentary that actually gives the greek words being addressed, scroll down at <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5207&t=KJV">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5207&t=KJV</a>. <br />
<br />
Thayer's is trustworthy as closer to original sources and not dogma-driven in interpretation, so those thoughts are freer of the need to conform than others, is that so? Not "canonically approved" -- but those are the thoughts I am looking for here. Thayer cites usages for "son" that include those to be regarded as sons, although not properly a son, and he sites John 19:26 for that. The plural of "vios" is "vioi" as in children of Israel! Not sons of Israel. "Akin" to as by faith in Christ. Go down the Thayer listing. The word is not consistent. Vioi as those akin by faith in Jesus is likened to sons of Abraham. Also one who is connected to because of close relationship. The vios is used in all the translations at <a href="http://greeknewtestament.com/B43C019.htm#V26">http://greeknewtestament.com/B43C019.htm#V26</a><br />
<br />
6. Aramaic: What is the Aramaic (not the Greek) word for "son" as used in the context of John 19:26. Don't know yet. Transliteration and translation are always complex, see <a href="http://www.crivoice.org/terms/transliteration.html">http://www.crivoice.org/terms/transliteration.html</a><br />
<br />
Understood by many to have been the language of Jesus, even first recording as to his words, acts, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament</a>. Here, Peshitta is Old Testament, see <a href="http://pshitta.org/english/">http://pshitta.org/english/</a>. Here, includes New Testament, at <a href="http://www.peshitta.org/">http://www.peshitta.org/ </a><br />
Aramaic will have to be another investigation, for John 19:26, at <a href="http://www.suduva.com/text1/aramaic_john_transliterated.htm">http://www.suduva.com/text1/aramaic_john_transliterated.htm</a>. No easy access to the transliteration. This site also may be helpful, but a discussion of Aramaic has to be for another post, see <a href="http://www.v-a.com/bible/john.html">http://www.v-a.com/bible/john.html</a>. I am not interested in support for something I haven't read, or buying a book I have not seen. <br />
.<br />
7. Vet your sites. Ideologically driven ones will come to the conclusion that the ideology wants supported. It may or may not be accurate in terms of an original meaning. <br />
<br />
Clearly, the gender of the disciple whom Jesus loved has been traditionally documented as male from the first recordings used in the modern church, see <a href="http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm">http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm</a>; but that is a Baptist site, supporting the ideology of that denomination. We give it little weight in the gender issue. Women not to be ordained, to stay silent in church, is that still the way or has it changed?<br />
<br />
CONCLUSION <br />
<br />
So far: Greek weighs in as ambivalent as to gender, but not ambivalent as to the relationship conveyed. Why do we focus on what sex people are? Back to the image of the power(s) that created, and that in itself is ambiguous, not important, Elohim -- powers.<br />
<br />
.............................................................<br />
<br />
FN 1 <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>I have a concern for any site asking a reader to contract away the right to fair use of its material, sight unseen. Suddenly that is happening.</li>
<li>Scripture4all dot org used to allow access to their transliterations in Hebrew and Greek, word for word, but now apparently they will not permit it even to look at unless one agrees to long gobbledygook, more than can be comprehended -- is the gist that they want you to give up your right to fair use of material? If so, I am going elsewhere.</li>
<li>There is a long "agreement" to agree to -- everything but the kitchen sink. Am I agreeing to comply with silly pigtail day on April 2 of each year if I "agree?" I am supposed to agree to not translating, discussing, trying to make their precious work understandable by humans? Wonderful. We now go elsewhere. </li>
<li>This is like the old church forbidding the Bible to be read in the people's language -- Bishop Gregory of Nin in Croatia 926 AD opposed the Pope in doing that, and he soon disappeared down the ladder or completely? <a href="http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Europe/Croatia/Dalmatia_Split_Region/Split-384998/Things_To_Do-Split-Grgur_Ninski_Statue-BR-1.html">http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Europe/Croatia/Dalmatia_Split_Region/Split-384998/Things_To_Do-Split-Grgur_Ninski_Statue-BR-1.html</a></li>
</ul>
So, we go elsewhere. Scripture4All is now Scripture4Some. Did the site get sold or is this Adobe's new structure at the top cutting off normal access through fair use? Don't they want us to see something? Or worse, think?</div>
Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-11869537952787568862012-03-23T20:32:00.000-04:002012-03-23T20:32:14.775-04:00Christian Era on Abortion - Biblically Speaking: Common Era, Anno Domini<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>Abortion, Biblically Speaking.</strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>Appearance: appears in 2 translations out of 17. </strong><br />
<strong>Abortion is descriptive, abortion is not prohibitive.</strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>No culpability</strong>.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">Sacerdotalism. Where the people believe because a priest said so. </div><div style="text-align: center;">Vet the sacerdotes.</div><br />
I. Usage of "abortion" in the Bible. <br />
<br />
Did anyone care about abortion, and the decisions being made and by whom (herbs were part of Eden), or was the issue left alone, to be decided not by outsiders. We will also check to see "abort" tomorrow, but so far, we have looked up abortion.<br />
<br />
II. The Canon<br />
<br />
III. Doctrine - see its evolution at <a href="http://italyroadways.blogspot.com/#!/2012/02/salvation-or-marketing-religions.html">http://italyroadways.blogspot.com/#!/2012/02/salvation-or-marketing-religions.html</a>. The issue arises where the Biblical references are not there, as to culpability; and sacerdotalism later puts it in<br />
<br />
IV. Conclusion -- The wisdom of the ages is to leave the issue alone.<br />
...........................................................................<br />
<br />
I. Usage of "abortion" in the Bible<br />
<br />
A. The word "abortion" is found nowhere in the King James Version. <br />
.<br />
B. Follow the research<br />
.<br />
We clicked on the word "abortion", see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=abortion&t=KJV">http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=abortion&t=KJV</a>. Nothing. This is a site that offers, at a click, reference to another version of the Bible.<br />
.<br />
Maybe the translation is wrong. Try another. Click on the translations home page, and search another translation in the drop-down list. The abbreviations may be unfamiliar, so just start at the top:<br />
.<br />
After the King James: where the word 'abortion' does not appear, we try others: Tomorrow we check each abbreviation. This is the list from the site, as they give it:<br />
.<br />
NKJV Abortion does not appear. Next?<br />
NLT Nothing<br />
NIV Nothing<br />
ESV Nothing<br />
RVR Nothing<br />
NASB Ditto<br />
RSV Not there, either<br />
ASV Some of these we don't know, but it is not here, either<br />
.<br />
YLT We do know that: Young's Literal Translation, see also Hebrewoldestament.com. It appears once: Job 3:16 -- "Or as a hidden abortion I am not, -- As infants, they have not seen light. See <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=abortion&t=YLT&sf=5">http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=abortion&t=YLT&sf=5</a><br />
.<br />
DBY Appears once, but this is a different one, not Job 3:16 (what is the Hebrew word in Job?). This one is in the New Testament DBY translation, I Corinthians 15:8: "and last of all, as to an abortion, he appeared to me" -- what?? Are those two words, Job's from Hebrew, and Corinthians, from Greek, the same? Have to check. Still, both uses are descriptive, not prohibitive.<br />
.<br />
WEB No occurrence.<br />
HNV No occurrence<br />
VUL That would be Jerome's Latin Vulgate. No occurrence. What? Yes. No occurrence in Jerome's Latin.<br />
WLC Hebrew. This doesn't even compute. It puts us back to the original search we did, the KJV. Not even a word for "abortion" in Hebrew?<br />
LXX Greek Also no results here, they put us back to the KJV. Not a word for it in LXX Greek? <br />
mGNT Greek Ditto<br />
TR Greek. Ditto<br />
<br />
C. Tentative Conclusion<br />
<br />
No Biblical interest at all in the process or circumstances of abortion. Hands and theology off. <br />
<br />
So: Two translations, theYoung's Literal and the DBY, each have <em>one</em> reference to abortion, out of (count them) 17 versions of the Bible. Two out of 17 = you do the math. And none of them prohibitive, only descriptive of the sight of one - hidden, have not seen light, no account. Then Jesus appears to Paul -- is Paul the abortion, the what? Paul, the incomplete, is that it? Who knows. Theologians, start your engines.<br />
<br />
<span class="deck">II. Canon.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="deck">Early writers after the death of Jesus did address it. Romans had (someone get details) engaged in infanticide, on occasion, we understand; Christian religionists had transplanted themselves from Israel over to Rome somehow, through Paul's networking (Gospel of Thomas notwithstanding) and an issue was whether Roman infanticide look the other way, get a free pass in Christianity, or would Christianity define itself otherwise? </span><br />
<span class="deck">.</span><br />
<span class="deck">The Canon considered all this and closed. It considered writings regarding it among early Christians, see <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2009/05/early-christian-writings-on-abortion.html">Early Christian Writings on Abortion</a>, and rejected all of them. </span><br />
.<br />
<span class="deck">Known but rejected as to the Canon were the opinions of Clement I, and a writing called the Apocalypse of Peter, see <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2009/05/clement-i-and-apocalypse-of-peter.html">Abortion: Writings by Clement, and the Apocalypse of Peter</a>. </span><br />
<span class="deck"></span><br />
<br />
<span class="deck">III. Doctrines.</span><br />
.<br />
<span class="deck">These are the human elements that continue after the human element of deciding what is in the canon and what is not. Doctrine decided what would be in, what would be out. </span><span class="deck">Even after the canon, human doctrine continued to evolve. See, again, <a href="http://italyroadways.blogspot.com/#!/2012/02/salvation-or-marketing-religions.html ">http://italyroadways.blogspot.com/#!/2012/02/salvation-or-marketing-religions.html </a></span><span class="deck"> </span><br />
<span class="deck">.</span><br />
<span class="deck">Doctrine .is based in many cases on claims to divine guidance, but for many thinkers at the time and later, "divine inspiration" is the last persuasive recourse of the factless. </span><br />
<br />
Look how "doctrine" uses abortion to enforce sexual hierarchies -- Paul himself was appeared to, he says, as an "abortion"-- yet look what Irenaeus says:<br />
<span class="deck">1. Woman as being as incomplete as an abortion. </span><br />
<span class="deck"></span><br />
<span class="deck">Irenaeus, see </span><a href="http://www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml/">http://www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml/</a><br />
<br />
<span class="deck">1. Ensoulment. </span><span class="deck"> This is when the soul enters the foetus (or zygote, etc.);</span><span class="deck"> some found it relevant when the foetus "quickened" or moved in the womb and could be felt doing it. The problem here is that the same word, npsh, or nephesh, is used for the soul of all living creatures, the breathing who fly, swim, walk. </span><br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span class="deck">Yet see St. Augustine. Roman Catholicism and Abortion Access, see <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm">http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm</a>. Ambivalence and political motivations abound.</span></li>
<li><span class="deck">Yet see Pope Gregory XIV, see <a href="http://embryo.asu.edu/view/embryo:127770">http://embryo.asu.edu/view/embryo:127770</a> --Popes reversing each other, etc.</span></li>
</ul><br />
<span class="deck">2. Sanctity of human life, as opposed to other life forms, see <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2008/09/where-in-world-did-we-get-sanctity-for.html">How We Got Sanctity for Human Life</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="deck">Jerome was fine with it. Not that anyone wants it, but when the decision by the decider is to be made, even Jerome steps aside. Suddenly, the church comes up with insights into the ones allegedly with divine guidance: </span><br />
<br />
In a letter to Aglasia from St Jerome, Jerome wrote, "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs."<br />
<br />
For the next few centuries, the Aristotelian ensoulment theory moved in and out of papal fashion. <br />
In the 13th century Pope Innocent III wrote a letter that ruled on the case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the foetus was not 'animated'.<br />
<br />
Also that century, St Thomas Aquinas considered only the abortion of an 'animated' foetus as murder.<br />
<br />
Then, in the 16th century, along came Pope Sixtus V who issued a papal bull in 1588 that threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.<br />
<br />
Just three years later Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull and reinstated the 'quickening' test -- he said 'quickening' happened 116 days into pregnancy.<br />
<br />
From the 17th century abortion became murder again. In 1869 Pope Pius IX reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more.<br />
<br />
He dropped the distinction between the 'foetus animatus' and 'foetus inanimatus' in 1869.<br />
<br />
Canon law was revised to refer simply to the 'foetus' and the largely tolerant approach that had prevailed in the Catholic church for centuries ended.<br />
<br />
Papal decrees in 1884 prohibited caraniotomies, an operation that killed the foetus by dismembering its skull in order to save the life of the pregnant woman.<br />
<br />
In 1886, a second decree extended the prohibition on all operations that directly killed the foetus, even if done to save the woman's life.<br />
<br />
All of the above is relevant to the current abortion referendum.<br />
<br />
The Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Bill is what we will be asked to give constitutional protection to, and that bill determines -- in effect -- that human life begins after conception, that is, when the fertilised egg is implanted in the womb and not before.<br />
<br />
The fertilised egg can be legally destroyed before that, a position that is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.<br />
<br />
The most recent statement on this from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith makes this absolutely clear.<br />
<br />
In a document outlining the Church's position on procreation issues, the congregation states: "From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way because man is the only creature on earth that God has wished for himself and the spiritual soul is immediately created by God; his whole being bears the image of the Creator.<br />
<br />
"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end.<br />
<br />
"God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstances, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being... the human being must be respected -- as a person -- from the very instant of his existence."<br />
<br />
It could hardly be more explicit. As I write, the Pro-Life Campaign appears to have decided to live with what amounts to a fundamental shift from its core belief, even though the implantation clause serves only to legalise the morning-after pill and IUDs, rather than heralding in an abortion regime.<br />
<br />
However, other anti-abortion groups, fearing that once the slide from 'conception' begins, it might not stop there, might just decide to oppose the referendum.<br />
<br />
IV. Conclusion. <br />
<br />
Say the word "abortion" and the room polarizes. The New Testament is silent as to any moral issue related to abortion. The entity subject to the abort process is incomplete to begin with. Paul himself, in describing his state of inferiority, that he cannot be called an apostle because he did not know Jesus, uses the metaphor of being no better than an abortion, dead in the womb. Does it matter if a third force intentionally dislodged that occupant of the womb? The Bible makes no differentiation. <br />
<br />
<br />
Old Testament. The Old Testament is silent as to any moral issue related to abortion. There are only references in the Old Testament to abortion as a description: of decay, of something worth nothing. There are no admonitions, no moral judgments as to any behavior regarding inducing it.<br />
.<br />
Leave the issue alone. You made it to birth; was that a good idea? If you think so, then incentivize in positive societal ways so that the mother will want to give birth to others but no force, no approbation. Her decision. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-7856844499201666282012-03-11T20:33:00.001-04:002012-12-22T18:46:04.173-05:00First Marriage: Not Adam and Not Eve.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Marriage or Mere Mating</b><br />
<b>in Creation</b><br />
<br />
<b>No Wife In Eden</b><br />
<b>What is the essence of the human creature? Gender-defined or not? </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
.</div>
I. Relationship; or Function. Ambiguity in original sources.<br />
II. The translator chooses, for the translator's purposes.<br />
III. Are we, millennia later, allowed to Vet? Many institutions say, no. We have tradition, we imposed infallibility, we don't care what the original error might have been. Wife, dammit, Wife!<br />
.<br />
I. Wife. There are ambiguities about the nature of the relationship of the man and the woman in Creation are resolved by Translators for their own purposes. The essence of the human creature may well not be the relation of property-ownership, wife to the owner man. Is that so?<br />
.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXxES_kruZ64cPEQ00KBdSJTkRB77e97WjJLKGY6WPUukUoCrzevGJvqd9HS303KnIA9WM5TM_xj_3makUIWednhAteWDzyVizKynoBsbSqGBACJBXSryx3wrUqRPCDT3fIuINyeSY-j10/s1600/scan0025.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXxES_kruZ64cPEQ00KBdSJTkRB77e97WjJLKGY6WPUukUoCrzevGJvqd9HS303KnIA9WM5TM_xj_3makUIWednhAteWDzyVizKynoBsbSqGBACJBXSryx3wrUqRPCDT3fIuINyeSY-j10/s400/scan0025.jpg" width="400" />The Scot Takes a Wife. Stirling Castle.</a></div>
.<br />
Background. See transliteration sites and analysis of many elements of the old Creation Story, at <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#!/2008/08/creation-by-transliteration-roots-old.html">http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#!/2008/08/creation-by-transliteration-roots-old.html</a>. For us, the best remains <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm</a> for word-for-word identification; and <a href="http://www.mechanical-translation.org/">http://www.mechanical-translation.org/</a> for overall narrative (loses on ease of seeing exactly which word form is translated as what, I think)<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Tools for exploring old texts, as an amateur. Words can be translated by a translator who is interested in pushing an emerging institutional dogma, and not the original meaning. This roots much of modern religion's errata. But it is understandable.</li>
<li> Early translators from early texts, like Jerome, cannot be faulted for their mindset. They are Men of their Times. They had a mission: forge a unified dogma so this version of the ambiguities will prevail, over others, regardless of merit. They do what their Times require. To an institutional need, they <i>respond with what the institution wanted. </i></li>
</ul>
<i>.</i><br />
II. Wife. Genesis suddenly refers to the woman, in translation as Wife. <br />
.<br />
What? See details at <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#!/2008/08/creation-by-transliteration-roots-old.html">http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#!/2008/08/creation-by-transliteration-roots-old.html</a>. Why suddenly insert "wife" -- that culturally loaded term. It carries with it contracts, property allocations, rights, inheritance, domination, children of the Wife as the Husband's property. If there is an ambiguity in the word translated early on as "Wife", the Translator decides. That is that. That is the Vulgate. Words are put into Latin that may not express at all the ambiguity of the original language(s). But argue that the Translator is Inspired, Divinely Ordained, and all discussion is supposed to stop.<br />
.<br />
Wife. Why put that in, as a hypothetical, where the original word is merely "woman." <br />
.<br />
Woman, man, each is an autonomous, separate being. It takes "wife" to make her property and dependent. Reproduction? As a moral obligation, or merely information in Creation as to what activities are functional, to produce; and which are dysfunctional, do not produce but otherwise not a problem. ut only by the variation in genitalia in order to reproduce, if they choose to do so (herbal abortifacients are natural, and clearly part of Creation -- Eve did obvious family planning). <br />
.<br />
There were indeed many choices of meanings among many alternatives, where a language as written (say, Paleo-Hebrew) had no vowels, for example, and the translator chooses. <br />
.<br />
Why do churches not tell us that, that their translations and dogma are based on a human choice among unknowns in an ambiguous set of original sources.<br />
.<br />
II. Wife. Test the theory. <br />
.<br />
Is the word is the choice of the Translator for the Translator's own agenda, mindset, cultural bias, not what the word may have meant.<br />
.<br />
But if the Translator is to be controlling in a later era with access to far more than he had, in text criticism, history, even "neutrality," is the fact there is a long tradition of acceptance enough to keep people from vetting? Tradition can be based on jello. Religious texts are old, obviously, original tablets or stones are in archaic forms, who knows, really, what was meant. Paleo-Hebrew? What? Tell us.<br />
.<br />
Was there no husband or wife in or after Eden, just a man and a woman; horrors having extramarital sex; until, perhaps, culture imposed a system and provided, through religion, that it was ordained by the deity. That, because the woman is vulnerable when lumbering pregnant, that the one not so vulnerable had to be superior. Nuts. <br />
.<br />
III. This requires analysis of when patriarchy took over. Will we ever know, except by reference back to beloved Eden, where the command was clearly matriarchal: man leaves and moves in with the woman. Disobedience and patriarchy instead ensued. <br />
.<br />
Is that possible? Or was patriarchy ordained by the deity/deities in retrospect because that's the way it eventually happened, given the vulnerabilities of pregnant ladies. How could they fight back?<br />
.<br />
Also, nuts. See kngdv, the handy phrase-word ommitted and mistranslated through the ages, and deriving directly from texts we have of the words from Creation. That's a stretch in itself. If you are a Bible-devotee, interested in sources and not cultual overlay., even the Paleo-Hebrew is eons away from original events. Inspriation? Some believe that, some not.<br />
.<br />
If the validity of patriarchy, in religions terms, cannot be proven at least by texts, why resolve the issue in favor of it. Ask not. There is clearly no marriage in Eden, however. How does a ancient patriarchical-fostering property exchange, needed for "marriage," compare with our view of the Institution today: the emotional lifetime commitment we "expect. When was there an actual ceremony or property exchange to cement in place in the new patriarchy as it evolved. <br />
.<br />
Jerome, bless his ideological heart in putting in the Latin "uxor" root, for man or woman left to themselves, was wrong, wrong, wrong. There are several sites that, used in tandem, produce the same result. See Fn 1 for that list. This one, however, puts it all in one place: <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/gen003.htm">http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/gen003.htm</a>. Find for yourself in one place, a click away from going deeper, these concepts:<br />
.<br />
A. Gender, Individuality and Role in the Old Testament. <br />
.<br />
Gender implications impact on the mainstream Christian institutional views of a) the nature of God, b) doctrines including the Trinity, and c) is there revelation outside, before and after, the canon, the established "Bible." <br />
.<br />
Questioning those basics arise whenever there is vetting of old texts, against later dogma. Even radio talk show people, Rush and the Machonots, fear the idea of women weaseling out of the inferior role. <br />
.<br />
Questioning arises when new religious branches emerge with differing viewpoints -- including Mormonism. The vetting and those newer branches may come to different conclusions as to gender and its place, the relationship of deity to human. Any opposition to established creeds becomes intense, however, where authority is taught as infallible, even if demonstrably flawed at its root. <br />
.<br />
See a discussion of some of those other branch views at <a href="http://www.christiancentury.org/search/apachesolr_search/romney%20effect">http://www.christiancentury.org/search/apachesolr_search/romney%20effect</a> . With exclusive gender roles well established, any second look is seen as almost heretical, see discussions of whether it makes a difference what gender J was -- <a href="http://motherfather.digress.it/5-3-the-nature-of-christ-as-a-man/">http://motherfather.digress.it/5-3-the-nature-of-christ-as-a-man/</a><br />
.<br />
A.1 The Deity. Comment, then move on to the Humans.<br />
.<br />
Many sites address the theological problems with ascribing a gender to the singular deity of western tradition, see, for example, <a href="http://motherfather.digress.it/5-2-the-%E2%80%9Cgender%E2%80%9D-of-yahweh/">http://motherfather.digress.it/5-2-the-%E2%80%9Cgender%E2%80%9D-of-yahweh/</a>. The focus of "one god" appears to be on the deith's indivisibility, the covenant (not parental) relationship, not one or other sex or doing this act or that one, as a parent with a gender would do. "Father" -- emerges much later, with the patriarchy. Even in Hosea, says the motherfather site, the "father" element of the deity relates to the act of saving the people, not "begetting." Or "redemption". <br />
.<br />
And, there remain elements of multiples -- both, and. Creating remains essentially female. Is that so? For a Mormon view of the deity-human relationship, see the Christian Century article, beyond the scope here. Read the site at <a href="http://motherfather.digress.it/">http://motherfather.digress.it/</a> for further ideas on how we got to the male tilt.<br />
.<br />
Names of the deity, and the roles, are presented differently in Genesis - leading many to conclude that there were several sources then combined to make up the Old Testament, see J, E, D, and P sources, here using Wikipedia because the other form criticism sites seem to be fostering a particular Evangelical, or Catholic, or Christian, view, and we are more interested in history and archeology, not supporting any ideology, so see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis</a><br />
as a start. Can we trust non-sectarians to weed out dogma? Not sure. The other sites, however, are clearly labeled as to interest.<br />
.<br />
A.2 Jerome.<br />
.<br />
Did Jerome sort it out? No. Again, just go to Wikipedia for grounding if this is new to you, at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate</a>, We do not want a Roman Catholic or Evangelical or other sectarian encyclopedia for our purposes. <br />
.<br />
Jerome was not charged with a neutral translation, with all his knowledge and scholarship; instead he was forging an ideology, and that he did. See his view of the woman, for example, at <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/view/sidebar#!/2010/01/jeromes-ezer-kenegdo-kngdv-latin.html">http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/view/sidebar#!/2010/01/jeromes-ezer-kenegdo-kngdv-latin.html</a>. That kngdv bit is distorted or omitted.<br />
.<br />
A.3 The deity: watch the transformation with ideology and writer<br />
.<br />
Hebrew. <i> Elohim</i>. As to the deity, the Hebrew itself is clear that the "Creator" Deity is pronounced Elohim, <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf</a>. <br />
.<br />
English does not permit an "it" to be a god or goddess and we only permit one or the other, so this Elohim is given a male pronoun, "he". Earth is feminine, the sun is masculine, etc. Jerome uses "God" for Creator Elohim all the way through all the creating, to Genesis 2:4. Just the one word, "God", for Elohim. <a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm">http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm</a>.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Hebrew <i>Jahweh Elohim</i>. Then, suddenly, in Genesis 2:4, the Hebrew backtracks from one creator, Elohim, and there are two words designating the deity and combining funcitons. There, two words are suddenly used, JHWH, Jahweh, as well as Elohim. Jahweh Elohim. </li>
<ul>
<li>Jerome calls that <i>Dominus Deus</i>. A double masculine. </li>
<li>Who was the Hebrew who changed the name to a double to begin with.</li>
<li>Regardless of the identity of the first amender, Jerome jump-starts the masculination by translating Jahweh Elohim as Lord God. See in Genesis 2:4, it is now the "Lord God" -- the Dominus Deus -- who created the heavens and the earth, not the "Elohim" who really did all that creating.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
.<br />
The morph of the deity from above-gender, to male: Jerome suddenly takes JHWH Elohim and translates it at Lord God, Dominus Deus. Can you imagine "Lady Goddess" from Jerome's pen for Lord God? Of course not. The gender is etched in stone. See Jerome's Dominus Deus at <a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C002.htm#V22">http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C002.htm#V22</a>. <br />
<br />
And, etched in the Sistine Chapel: God dividing night from day.<br />
.<br />
And the human created becomes the hominem, the "man" -- as opposed, supposedly -- to a woman who was not even thought of yet. But<br />
.<br />
A.4 The woman. Enter, Chewy. Check the sources, the original texts, written forms.<br />
.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNNqBhqZ1v13AsLQF2gwtgn0-QPrSqELSSio37O-gflQE09kC2xfhrMA4o9WxR2PtduYngHjPgDc6zJnhcqi9PDto-k_XXc1hyL0xs67ZfQB9hAJXiPEPP9rm85BDPJpM9-THbdKeO1gyl/s1600/100_3136-1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNNqBhqZ1v13AsLQF2gwtgn0-QPrSqELSSio37O-gflQE09kC2xfhrMA4o9WxR2PtduYngHjPgDc6zJnhcqi9PDto-k_XXc1hyL0xs67ZfQB9hAJXiPEPP9rm85BDPJpM9-THbdKeO1gyl/s320/100_3136-1.JPG" width="320" />The Deity; The Human and Woman, who are both pregnant, Creation, Sonderborg Castle, Denmark</a></div>
<br />
(1) ChVH -- Eve - Chue Chewy! Genesis 3:20<br />
<a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/tan/gen003.htm">http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/tan/gen003.htm</a><br />
ḥaûâ<br />
חַוָּ֑ה<br />
<br />
חוה<br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL; font-size: xx-small;"></span></span><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/phe.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pvav.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pcheyth.gif" /><br />
<a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C003.htm#V20">http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C003.htm#V20</a><br />
.<br />
See also<br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen3.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen3.pdf</a></span></span><br />
<br />
.<br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL; font-size: xx-small;"></span></span>(2) Strong's 2332 - EVE - lifegiver <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=Eve">http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=Eve</a><br />
Chavvah khav-vah<br />
Causatively from Chavvah, Eve<br />
2331<br />
<br />
Strong's has its limitations, see <a href="http://www.mechanical-translation.org/1-strongs.html">http://www.mechanical-translation.org/1-strongs.html</a><br />
.<br />
<b>(3) Result of search for "Eve":</b> <br />
.<br />
<b>2332</b> Chavvah khav-vaw' causatively from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2331">2331</a>; life-giver; Chavvah (or Eve), the first woman:--Eve.<br />
.<br />
<b>Result of search for "2331":</b> <br />
<b>262</b> 'achvah akh-vaw' from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2331">2331</a> (in the sense of <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2324">2324</a>); an utterance:-- declaration. <br />
<hr />
<b>2324</b> chava' khav-aw' (Aramaic) corresponding to <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2331">2331</a>; to show:--shew. <br />
<hr />
<b>2331</b> chavah khaw-vah' a primitive root; (Compare <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2324">2324</a>, <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2421">2421</a>); properly, to live; by implication (intensively) to declare or show:--show. <br />
<hr />
<b>2332</b> Chavvah khav-vaw' causatively from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2331">2331</a>; life-giver; Chavvah (or Eve), the first woman:--Eve. <br />
<hr />
<b>2421</b> chayah khaw-yaw' a primitive root (Compare <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2331">2331</a>, <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2421">2421</a>); to live, whether literally or figuratively; causatively, to revive:--keep (leave, make) alive, X certainly, give (promise) life, (let, suffer to) live, nourish up, preserve (alive), quicken, recover, repair, restore (to life), revive, (X God) save (alive, life, lives), X surely, be whole. 20 wayyiqərā’ hā’āḏām šēm ’išətwō ḥaûâ kî hiw’ hāyəṯâ ’ēm kāl-ḥāy: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" name="020">20</a> וַיִּקְרָ֧א הָֽאָדָ֛ם שֵׁ֥ם אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ חַוָּ֑ה כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כָּל־חָֽי׃ <br />
So, set the gender of the deity aside for now, and look at ambiguities.<br />
.<br />
(3) See what we mean about ambiguities, choices?<br />
.<br />
Suddenly all becomes clear. Or does it? Our "theologians" are in Oz, making up narratives from behind the curtains. <br />
.<br />
Genesis, 2:22 ff, <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf</a> go. Characters 1,2,3,4. 1. Yahweh Elohim. The Deity. 2. e Adm. The human. From the human was made 3. e Ashe, the Woman, leaving 4. m Aish, the Man. <br />
.<br />
A.5. What was the first "marriage" with wife and husband? <br />
.<br />
What was the first mating, woman and man. What is the difference, and what is the evidence that a first "mating" was a "marriage."<br />
<br />
We use the same basic sites, see FN 1, here starting with Strong's lexicon, the one where Hebrew words are actually numbered, and each use in the Old Testament tracked with its meaning; or the Greek in the New Testament, and it tracked as well.<br />
<br />
A. 6/ These words seem to be important: Go back to original languages. <br />
.<br />
First, the spellings cannot accurately lead to accurate pronunciations, because nobody knows how the most ancient Hebrew (Paleo) was pronounced. <br />
.<br />
There were no vowels -- those have to be supplied by scholars and can we trust them to choose a,e,i,o,u,y, in the right places, or do they supply a,e,i,o,u,y, for a meaning that fits their ideologies?). We are not looking at the Greek and the and New Testaments here. <br />
.<br />
Tracking word meanings leads the joy of finding there was no marriage in Eden at all -- Jerome's pet use of "uxor" root words notwithstanding. Having checked out his use of "wife" and finding only free-standing woman, a concept alien to English, see <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#!/2012/01/ambiguity-hymnal-in-praise-of-oldest.html%C2%A0">http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#!/2012/01/ambiguity-hymnal-in-praise-of-oldest.html </a> <br />
.<br />
Here we check out Jerome's use of "husband" in translation to the Latin. What is the Hebrew fore Husband and does it appear in the Hebrew text? If he is a husband, does he as husband have "dominion"? What if he is not husband? What is that, dominion over, as in rulers like King Tut; or dominion in, in the sense of a preoccupation, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxMeKrkJ6ig">can't help lovin' that man of mine</a>, see discussion of who has jurisdiction to decide moral issues within oneself, <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#!/2012/02/contraception-dissing-women-she-is-as.html">http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#!/2012/02/contraception-dissing-women-she-is-as.html</a>.<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>As background, note clues as to the role of the female in creation, the literal translations of creation; and various built-in ambiguities: </li>
<li> "These are the births of the heavens and of the earth," Genesis 2:4, Young's Literal. Enter the gents: the word for birthing becomes merely "generations" instead of generating. But in scripture4all, it is merely geneological annals. Round we go. <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf">Genesis 2:4.</a> Ale thulduth. </li>
<li>The garden of Eden itself is female, Genesis 2:15, </li>
<li>Rivers are male,</li>
<li>As to trees, the tree of the lives is sited at the center of the garden, but the tree of knowledge is not sited anywhere at all, so who is to know how to avoid it? Genesis 2:9. And that is the one that the lady indeed ate of, after being beguiled, <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf</a>, </li>
<li>And the angel with the flaming sword is to guard the Tree of the Lives after the Fall. But there was never a prohibition as to that, and that angel, the guardian, is female. 3:24. Interesting. Female as guarding life. See <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2010/01/gender-of-angels-and-what-they-do.html#!/2010/01/gender-of-angels-and-what-they-do.html">gender of angels</a>. End of discussion on abortion and contraception? But what is the significance of any gender-pronoun, see FN 6, at <a href="http://motherfather.digress.it/5-2-the-%E2%80%9Cgender%E2%80%9D-of-yahweh/">http://motherfather.digress.it/5-2-the-%E2%80%9Cgender%E2%80%9D-of-yahweh/</a></li>
<li>But Eve ate of the tree of knowledge, not the tree of the lives. This thing makes no sense.</li>
<li>Watch the genders, the characters. Yahweh Elohim, the eadm, the human; then after division we have Ashe the woman and Aish the man. Eadm had no clear gender at all. </li>
<ul>
<li>Yahweh Elohim - deity, no gender</li>
<li>The human eadm. "and he is building Yahweh Elohim the angular organ he took from</li>
<li>the human (eadm) </li>
<li>The woman (eashe) and </li>
<li>he (ostensibly Yahweh has been given a gender?) is bringing her to the human (eadm) and he is saying (who is saying: Eadm or Yahweh?)</li>
<li>Anomalies. Use of one gender's pronoun with a noun of a different gender is not unusual, and may show reverence toward a significant object or event, see FN 6 at <a href="http://motherfather.digress.it/5-2-the-%E2%80%9Cgender%E2%80%9D-of-yahweh/">http://motherfather.digress.it/5-2-the-%E2%80%9Cgender%E2%80%9D-of-yahweh/</a></li>
<li>the human (eadm) this one the once bone from bones of me and flesh from flesh of me to this one (still could be either one)</li>
<li>he shall be called woman ( e ashe)</li>
<li>He shall be called woman ashe? What then is left of the eadm, the human</li>
<li>and here is the new one: the "man" for the first time, not just the human eadm, </li>
<li>m Aish. <b>that from man (m aish)</b> she was taken this one </li>
</ul>
</ul>
.So how did Eve get her name? It is easy to see the blurring of the gender-both-Eadm to Adam. Ashe as woman is not really like Eve, and the Aish, the man, does not name her "Ashe." What does Aish the man name her? <br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;">.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;">Onwards, through the fog. Our religions and "inspirations" are built on jello. FN 1</span></span><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"><span style="font-family: EzraSIL;"></span></span>Roles in creation. There was either<br />
a) XX-Xy bound in one, a hermaphrodite; later divided into XX and Xy, the y still being a diminutive element, far smaller, and even diminishing with time; or <br />
b) XX, from which, after she was put asleep, Xy was formed ; and the genders really didn't matter; or<br />
c)Xy as the first being, which is ridiculous because the y is so distorted and tiny, it couldn't be divided and produce an XX<br />
<br />
Conclusion: XXXY divided into XX and Xy , with the y still incomplete, inadequate, searching, and the XX, stronger, prevailing, but vulnerable in pregnancy that gave the inconsequential y an in. Theologians, geneticists, start your engines.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>In either case, what is the <i>event</i> that happens between references to woman who becomes wife; instead of woman and mate; and man who becomes husband, instead of man and mate. Is there a ceremony, an act, a significance to the use of "husband" instead of mate, or do we really just have Mate 1 and Mate 2, that somebody later just couldn't <i>stand</i>. Is there any text evidence that marriage is ordained, blessed, sacred, etc. So far, we find nothing of the kind. It is all institutional and cultural, adding a god idea to make it stick.</li>
</ul>
<br />
A commitment of mate or husband to protect the one in vulnerability, pregnant mate or wife, and our idea that he "rules over" her -- does that fail, given the transliteration of the words to "rule in" in the sense of being a focal point in mind and body See . <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li> The drill on where and how to look up old texts remains the same basics: transliteration, word for word at <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm">scripture4all</a>; then the specific word and how often and how it is used, at <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html">Strong's Lexicon</a>, and scroll down to the commentary including Thayer's; and further discussion at translation comparisons at <a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/">hebrewoldtestament;</a> and <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/">Blue Letter Bible</a>. </li>
</ul>
1. When do Adam and Eve become, and what are the original words:<br />
<br />
Gen.2.7 Adm is created; the human; eAdm; <br />
2:15, still the human, but add a "he" that defines gender, u inch eu, he is leaving him; suddenly in <br />
2:20, adm becomes the proper name Adam in the transliteration, but the adm is the same word, for human. Why the proper name? also at <br />
2:20, adm needs a helper as in front of him, the ozr kngdv; <br />
2:22-- the angular organ of him the adm, is taken to the woman; <br />
2:24 he is leaving father of him and mother of him -- that has to be part of a much later event, other people, because eadm has no father and mother, etc. and clings in woman of him (still no "wife"), <br />
3:1 -- e ashe for woman, <br />
<br />
1.1 Adam and his wife; <br />
3:17 - why the proper name Adam for adm, human? goes on at <br />
3:21 -- the word is adm, human, but is given as Adam.<br />
<br />
1.2 Eve and her <i>husband </i>-- at <br />
3:20, adm names the woman "chue"; she is referred to by name at <br />
4:1, as having "acquired" Cain by God (by bargaining with, a transaction, a deal with God). Adm hadn't a clue how that came about? Nobody put the Act together with the later baby until far later, in human understanding, isn't that so?<br />
<br />
1.3 The man and his wife. Hunh. No basis.No points.<br />
<br />
1.4 The woman and her husband. No basis. No points. So far, man and woman, no dominance, no hierarchy.<br />
<br />
1.5 Human and woman - 2:25, eadm and u ashth u, and at 3:8, e ashe on in chapter 3, still a draw.<br />
<br />
1.6 Adam and woman of you - ashth k, 3:20 also woman of him, ashth u, Still a draw.<br />
..............................................................................<br />
FN 1 Text analysis, form criticism. Apply and massage.<br />
<br />
If there remains a feminine emphasis in texts, we would expect to find reference to a) the woman <i>and her husband</i> -- he in the adjunct role -- more than to b) the man and his wife, that would put her in the adjunct role. Is that so? Check.</div>
Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-92029377704853918322012-01-07T13:05:00.000-05:002012-01-14T20:15:19.887-05:00Jesusian Alternative to Christian. Morality Without Dogma?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>Jesusian Alternative to Christian</strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>For the Common Good</strong><br />
<strong>.</strong><br />
A Moral, A Just Life, without dogma or supremacism. Imagine. <br />
.</div><div style="text-align: center;">With Illustrations of accepted cultural Christian Prejudice from Godey's Ladies Book Annual 1865.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSXK3Xk7mfwmnnwmThAHUfchRAw9wXgTQx3F_5XR3QCZ1eyMkp23Lz_AP6MO3MuiEyonYXhnJ7cG1Efm-7LOy9J-5PN0jS_5egqBzjYDK8ze2arYFRQ4GfVbtHyauFhKRLIBOKsQ3i59au/s1600/godeysmay1865charade431mangoat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="235" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSXK3Xk7mfwmnnwmThAHUfchRAw9wXgTQx3F_5XR3QCZ1eyMkp23Lz_AP6MO3MuiEyonYXhnJ7cG1Efm-7LOy9J-5PN0jS_5egqBzjYDK8ze2arYFRQ4GfVbtHyauFhKRLIBOKsQ3i59au/s400/godeysmay1865charade431mangoat.jpg" width="400" />The Christian bucks the horned Jew, Godey's Ladies' Book 1865</a></div>.<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">Are we past it? Imaginative legislators may try to restore balance, see effots at a <a href="http://www.posejuxta.blogspot.com/#!http://posejuxta.blogspot.com/2012/01/universal-worshipness-act-or-non.html">neutral Lord's Prayer</a>, violently opposed . </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> But the lobbies oppose. And corporations? See <a href="http://www.hellofodderhellobuyer.blogspot.com/#!http://hellofodderhellobuyer.blogspot.com/2012/01/big-bain-trolls-at-play-auld.html">Big Bain</a> </div>.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmnao_BuOcN5vuA-u_HJuB1Dt1Mf-_1stnUOJnB6HrLRnnRsGfFnaLMfAk2uy_uIHfYVE9dZfTMLQmM_ZLzAEAxHZ-ChUH3S3ydlpKuIMYKtf8_ANVs9jMdaTLeWaLQSSpP5eS8Vq94t28/s1600/godeysmay1865charade430judge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="117" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmnao_BuOcN5vuA-u_HJuB1Dt1Mf-_1stnUOJnB6HrLRnnRsGfFnaLMfAk2uy_uIHfYVE9dZfTMLQmM_ZLzAEAxHZ-ChUH3S3ydlpKuIMYKtf8_ANVs9jMdaTLeWaLQSSpP5eS8Vq94t28/s400/godeysmay1865charade430judge.jpg" width="400" />Justice: For Jews in court, law goes the other way. Godey's Ladies' Book 1865</a><br />
.</div><em><a href="http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~beowulf/main.html">Hwaet</a></em>. <br />
<br />
How to know what Christianity really means. A moral life? A just life? A selected ideology in the midst of many choices? Yet, all bow. Or, many. <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/asbeo.htm">Hwaet</a>. Old English for "What??" or "Lo" or keep quiet and listen. Opening word in <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=what&searchmode=none">Beowulf</a>. , So Hwaet.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvqaJFRNefQSVa5nGVkta69FQa-BvtM4I_tFTYmf8Z-QxPvA5A55TY4VCuJnvW_x_7O2WDj1EFLPJNN_4R14JgEBmiII8J9tMTSp948KF3dKM3FxRk-qFO2rbJPA8jMLrqjAAf47oXC26k/s1600/godeysmay1865charade431goatattack.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="103" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvqaJFRNefQSVa5nGVkta69FQa-BvtM4I_tFTYmf8Z-QxPvA5A55TY4VCuJnvW_x_7O2WDj1EFLPJNN_4R14JgEBmiII8J9tMTSp948KF3dKM3FxRk-qFO2rbJPA8jMLrqjAAf47oXC26k/s400/godeysmay1865charade431goatattack.jpg" width="400" />Attack by Jews! Defend! Godey's Ladies' Book 1865</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">.</div>Hwaet. Is it time to take the Christ out of "Christian" every time that concept of Christian or Christianity holds someone's group above another group. What is less "Christlike" than supremacism. Hwaet again. <br />
.<br />
For all the illustrations here, mainly from an article largely demonizing Jews in Godey's Ladies' Book 1865, substitute other ethnic, racial and religious groups, orientations, women, etc. One size in discriminatory dogma and practice fits all.<br />
..............................................................<br />
<br />
Christ as a who? Not.<br />
.<br />
1. A "Christ" is a term, a role; not a person. It is a theological conclusion with the attendant dogma of institutions growing around it. And "Christian" without reference to the particular sect of Christianity thus touting itself, is almost meaningless. Christianity: a tent at war with itself. Is responsible morality in a plural society, plural globe, possible without the dogma? Of course.<br />
.<br />
2. The history of <a href="http://worldwar1worldwar2.blogspot.com/2010/11/westerm-ethnic-violence-timeline-put.html#!/2010/11/westerm-ethnic-violence-timeline-put.html">Christian-driven antagonism</a> and force extends for millenia: from early heresy finger-pointing, from Rome winning out; to persecutions of Jews and others, to crusades to inquisitions to social exclusions and gender supremacism and injustice of all kinds.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLnzkApwFy6jOtnsRtriuH_UGkv6CRA_MiO2InJKWfMznMFdIv-VkrX5z5ON1Y1l5lnfMqefFTgiJ-Th3g3KA9YTsmqyAWx0D3ZgBQU6pmGKFKhaJ3KGRNJVEjll83gvW-fNOz9ndTYphY/s1600/godeysmay1865charade430nojustice.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLnzkApwFy6jOtnsRtriuH_UGkv6CRA_MiO2InJKWfMznMFdIv-VkrX5z5ON1Y1l5lnfMqefFTgiJ-Th3g3KA9YTsmqyAWx0D3ZgBQU6pmGKFKhaJ3KGRNJVEjll83gvW-fNOz9ndTYphY/s400/godeysmay1865charade430nojustice.jpg" width="336" />Force over justice for minorities (Jews). Godey's Ladies' Book May 1865. Reference: Christians against Jews.</a></div>.<br />
Is this so: Culture slid into religious ideas early, taking over whatever the person said or did, so that the "religion" really supports a cultural system with its power and injustices perpetuating, but supposedly unassailable because it is "religion." Laws follow the dots.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcZlOg-KLs59TNBFM35zPt0iXKnXiKZPFMuAKRrzWzN0pndU4hQi4pVxiggGwjOPP2Fg2ZJqJzKQTnoI8gyJSb7Ic1t5wN4DAtR29zAu3FrgxycVR-o-yAn2lwZdQjcSTTWHpAUbGxpjAh/s1600/scan0078.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="185" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcZlOg-KLs59TNBFM35zPt0iXKnXiKZPFMuAKRrzWzN0pndU4hQi4pVxiggGwjOPP2Fg2ZJqJzKQTnoI8gyJSb7Ic1t5wN4DAtR29zAu3FrgxycVR-o-yAn2lwZdQjcSTTWHpAUbGxpjAh/s400/scan0078.jpg" width="400" />"Christian" Justice, expelling the Jew with his many hats, Godey's Ladies Book May 1865.</a></div>.<br />
3. An alternative. In a plural society, leave "Christian" to those enamored of theological relationships to prophecy, deity, and the tweaking of texts to fit. Add in all references what sect they have in mind, because sacraments did not come in the beginning: it took an institution who needed them. There are many. <br />
.<br />
4. Instead of "Christian", with its baggage of dogma different for different groups, for us deluded who seek to follow the words and acts and mindset of Jesus (we flunk every time -- who of us or you will give two coats when somebody says one is needed?) without reference to dogma of anointedness, son of Godship, all that. Why not be Jesusians. Largely ritual-free, like Buddhists. See <a href="http://www.chopra.com/buddha">http://www.chopra.com/buddha</a><br />
.<br />
This approach refers to how beliefs works in real life, not theory and theology. Follow the thinking: read fast, all changes.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZoqS6649B8GKodtUFh-sXmZwTD1141XVS1hBRaNyRPdx-EwwB717-k1P451wjWrQALceP8kw-q7lSI7ab255uSKhiVxHiVfb-Vna9YKp6tyhGyQ_xB6FUjr8y4cdjvjZOU52igyibpFA9/s1600/godeysmay1865charade430nochristianblood.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="148" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZoqS6649B8GKodtUFh-sXmZwTD1141XVS1hBRaNyRPdx-EwwB717-k1P451wjWrQALceP8kw-q7lSI7ab255uSKhiVxHiVfb-Vna9YKp6tyhGyQ_xB6FUjr8y4cdjvjZOU52igyibpFA9/s400/godeysmay1865charade430nochristianblood.jpg" width="400" />No Christian blood? No justice. Godey's Ladies' Book annual 1865.</a></div><br />
5. What is Christian. Whether something is Christian is in the eye of the beholder. Is Santorum's variety the one that speaks to you? Culture and dogma, or real text. Vet everyone. Many people call themselves "Christian." <br />
.<br />
What is a Christ? Technically, a Christ is a messiah, a son of God, clearly a theological term; but we do not see it as a generic term: it is given as particular, the messiah, the son of God, see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5547&t=KJV">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5547&t=KJV</a>. <br />
.<br />
6. Christ. A limiting concept because it is a role, not a person. Who or what is this person behind the later box: apart from theological interpretations. In the Greek New Testament, there are about 21 different uses or contexts for the word "Christ", each with its own number for reference. See Strong's lexicon, <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=Christ">http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=Christ</a>. Look up each one. Christos, the Christ #5547, Divine expression, logos #3065, for example: light-giving, . Messiah, from Messias #3323 (that Messiah idea is in the Old Testament as well as the New), the Eternal #3801. <br />
.<br />
7. Nobody will ever all agree on what to do in all moral situations, because contexts vary and that changes assessments. What means what, dogma, and the time has passed to force the issue down throats as the Church traditionally tried, so let it be. Even Eden had its varied advocates. Even regular (non-theology people) ask how dogma took control, and the changing of texts to meet dogma's needs. See <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061016014820AAYH8H9">http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061016014820AAYH8H9</a><br />
.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtEQbtrJ-3qtfgMjtcP2qjyCx9bXspvVu3IZQCy8hEdvz_4NMNNh0IiSg5sIx5tTeMSuZRfd_1e4yT_CRUdmqoL8d5XqPkz9yTDHfiKlnRqbzwfFOk8CD9oW9mHXHd27uawfGapc38L_2w/s1600/Godeysmay1865charadeplay2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="130" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtEQbtrJ-3qtfgMjtcP2qjyCx9bXspvVu3IZQCy8hEdvz_4NMNNh0IiSg5sIx5tTeMSuZRfd_1e4yT_CRUdmqoL8d5XqPkz9yTDHfiKlnRqbzwfFOk8CD9oW9mHXHd27uawfGapc38L_2w/s400/Godeysmay1865charadeplay2.jpg" width="400" />Inheritances. Sometimes, not merited. The child never measures up. Or is this unworthy Jews entering acepted social halls piggyback, unnoticed. Godey's Ladies Book illustration m 1865</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">.</div> History has shown that it has been and likely will be impossible to get everyone with diverse brains to agree on it all. Conversion in the past seems to be 1% emulation and modeling; and 99% coercion. See how readily people gravitate to self-defense, and offense against perceived Others, at the Christian NRA at <a href="http://sassafrastree.blogspot.com/2011/01/guns-nra-growth-timeline-summary.html#!/2011/01/guns-nra-growth-timeline-summary.html">http://sassafrastree.blogspot.com/2011/01/guns-nra-growth-timeline-summary.html#!/2011/01/guns-nra-growth-timeline-summary.html</a><br />
.<br />
8. Ambiguity is a condition of life. Nothing in the realm of one's person's belief is clear to everybody else anyway. Meanings and application of theology -- dogma -- derives from ambiguity, and despite the efforts, ambiguity will remain. Think of all the texts that were changed in order to get conformity of ideas. What "prophecies" were tweaked, what parts of the Jesus story were changed so as to fit some prophecy? Do a search. <br />
.<br />
In no way can Christians blame Jews for the world's problems, as they did, and in no way can they blame any body else for evils anywhere. Look inside, is that so, and if individuals do that, would it make a difference.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqhhFLDeAq4_xibv0_lWnvUwBDYVX4BfNld0F-QWYmuCQfCfdK8gT0XWP9v3GfOhhBuxnMM4bZNqe_fPFosJvu8pBbbCzDqrYIgxwTU0NfCUJA-t3IDltHtRzuNND81biQJevFqeSVgWII/s1600/godeysmay1965charadeplay431bonfire.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="123" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqhhFLDeAq4_xibv0_lWnvUwBDYVX4BfNld0F-QWYmuCQfCfdK8gT0XWP9v3GfOhhBuxnMM4bZNqe_fPFosJvu8pBbbCzDqrYIgxwTU0NfCUJA-t3IDltHtRzuNND81biQJevFqeSVgWII/s400/godeysmay1965charadeplay431bonfire.jpg" width="400" />Censorship. Christian bookburning. Restricting access to information never works for long Godey's Ladies' Book 1865. </a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">.</div>Is it time to quit coercing and demonizing each other. Is that so? In the Jewish tradition, there is also disagreement. Even the source is divided. Groups had to adopt firm beliefs in order to self-identify, survive; but is it time to separate those cultural needs from requiring a mental mindset, a belief.<br />
.<br />
5. Jesusians.<br />
.<br />
Next questionnaire, if I get one, maybe I will write in <em>Jesusian</em>, one who follows (or tries) the words and acts and life concepts of someone who appears to be inspired somehow. <br />
.<br />
The term Jerusian is not new. So far, however, use of Jesusian is mongrelized to refer, regardless of other options, back to a Jesus "Christ" -- <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Jesusian">http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Jesusian</a>; or simplified just to identify who said something, a teaching as Jesusian, for example, see <a href="http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6127">http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6127</a>. The term so far excludes followership, support of a group of people for an admired, person, suspicions of that person's advanced perception, admiration, emulation. That policy review article, however, does point out the need to follow teachings, such as mercy, but it does not go so far as to suggest a secular followership. Would the grouping be Jesusism, or Jesusists? <br />
<br />
It would be difficult to be a Jesusian and still press one's own superiority, be exclusive, supremacist, gender-centric, all sorts of culture-status serving ideas. Jesusians may recognize that failing to follow the call of the rich or the government, were the Jesusian disagrees; dump on one's enemies, and disagree with tradition indeed turns father against son, etc; and brings its own sword to established interests. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, Jesusians would let others be. No warring against non-Jesusians, causes wars, intermeddling in others' lives, crusades, inquisitions, nepotism, and trumped up dogma where no clear connection existed before. <br />
<br />
Ask again: Is it possible to live life without also believing in a family relationship with a deity, and by following the acts and words of a person without the dogma? Can conservatives or evangelicals of any religion possibly see that as a light. Have a community, supports, since isolated coals soon go out, but not a Dogmatic one.<br />
<br />
Jesusians, set up your SuperPacs. Support common sense and flexibility, and fact investigating. <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html">Research</a> has found out much about the person Jesus, and there does appear to be enough historical evidence for that life. We know something of that person's acts and words as reported or recounted by several of the many who did so, see Bible. FN 1<br />
<br />
..................................................<br />
<br />
FN 1 Everyman's Christ.<br />
<br />
1. one who <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Christ">fulfills prophecies</a> regarding the coming of a Messiah<br />
<br />
2. an <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christ">anointed </a>one<br />
<br />
Theological Christ, meanings and contexts, from uses of the word in the Greek New Testament. There is no use of "Christ" in the Old Testament. <br />
<br />
Try Jesusian as an accepted alternative. Being Christian is a misnomer. Nobody agrees on the all the values and all the precepts, that were forced anyway (ask the heretics). <br />
<br />
Add Jesusian to the religious questionnaires. The next generation of Protestant. If you are Jesusian, you need not tie in with any of the dogma. Love God, however you define a power beyond what is known, and love your neighbor as yourself. Figure out how to do that. Add, perhaps, give your goods to the poor, all the other behavioral advocations, but let those who disagree walk away. Nomads were nomads, medieval incursionists and conformity buffs were medieval incursionists and conformity buffs, now what? God's bus left some time ago, is that so? Hwaet. </div>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-57945065093031145212011-09-06T20:49:00.000-04:002011-09-14T20:30:27.658-04:00Vet the Serpent. NChSh. What is Evil? Literalism Leads Nowhere<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<b>I. NChSh.</b><br />
<b>The Hebrew "Serpent"</b><br />
<b>What was it, really?</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b> The Sound and Nature of Evil</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>NChSh. Not a warning hiss, but a soothing sound.</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbnRmrHCqNj8RYQukZw35rH4euoeAeZcYVfDnWSRu8KpM_44fvs5M8GYB6CJ9AuYbOD_2SXsS4xUFVP-hkA_FiL3eTWQzzdI5rr0qcW5CLZ69hkj0tFvR9hXaB-cTbz8Nw8riv48SOTf2f/s1600/newt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="261" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbnRmrHCqNj8RYQukZw35rH4euoeAeZcYVfDnWSRu8KpM_44fvs5M8GYB6CJ9AuYbOD_2SXsS4xUFVP-hkA_FiL3eTWQzzdI5rr0qcW5CLZ69hkj0tFvR9hXaB-cTbz8Nw8riv48SOTf2f/s320/newt.jpg" width="320" />Serpent with legs: A Newt</a></div><br />
<br />
<b>II. Was the Serpent Evil?</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Is Evil at work in 9/11? </b><br />
<b>Not according to our own religious traditions.</b><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">And not according to our own operatives: Does this agent agree? He says there was advance actionable knowledge, that our persons in charge should have seen. It was not hidden. See <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/us/12agent.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=high%20level%20dysfunction&st=cse">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/us/12agent.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=high%20level%20dysfunction&st=cse</a> What was hidden was the course of our own incompetence leading up, and after.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Compare Eden's evil: no defense. No warning. A set-up, and a fraud against the one led. </div><br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjULnzp94yNOX7Z5lddy-Mg5fvt9sLQcTaUqgkzARFE0YlALsOW_eLKWQ1jT7EdfEzOhXT_Sdafh4HDjeFkZVsu2uRD05WHHxlF8Ei4a2sHghIUAMjaQ4-s5pdMywPyIEAp57veva1oj6Ug/s1600/9.11outline.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjULnzp94yNOX7Z5lddy-Mg5fvt9sLQcTaUqgkzARFE0YlALsOW_eLKWQ1jT7EdfEzOhXT_Sdafh4HDjeFkZVsu2uRD05WHHxlF8Ei4a2sHghIUAMjaQ4-s5pdMywPyIEAp57veva1oj6Ug/s320/9.11outline.jpg" width="218" />9/11. Predictable and predicted Political and Religious Retribution; not "Evil"</a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsYDrq9j4Gsbsg16VH0RQDfL06ZueXiFw1QLimdpSyi6G30nqduaXVuLBuDkMQeAFxy_likBibDJbiFFry0WSwqtgvjCoej0rmkbiGF-BRRP6v8AeAYDNTSspk7c-xh7iBEvzbN4hR4wET/s1600/9.11street.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a></div><br />
I. Vet evil in the form of the serpent.<br />
II. Tthe word itself, in the Hebrew, for the serpent. "Subtil". What would have been understood by those at the time. It is a complex, many-faceted concept. Was Jerome's Latin ignored by those later?<br />
III. Linguistics as to serpent: NChSh <br />
<br />
........................................................................................<br />
I. Vet the serpent. What is "evil."<br />
<br />
Evil is subtle, insinuating, deceiving, practised. Hiding from the light. Persuasion unawares. Manipulation that the object does not even realize until too late. Nine-eleven was overt, blatant, with reason in the view of the actors - get out of our lands. We refused, and still refuse. Are they evil? Are we? What does "evil" mean. <br />
<br />
Perhaps the Serpent was just better at getting an agenda accomplished, than the Deity. Was the Deity perfect? Was Creation perfect ? Check it out. How does any person arrive at a "word of deity" without using form criticism, text resources. Are we to swallow what is parroted to us? Is the real evil the exploitation of the ignorant, including all who must respond without the facts, see this issue updated at <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/140998/paul-krugman-is-right-about-911s-other-symbolic-hijacking/">http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/140998/paul-krugman-is-right-about-911s-other-symbolic-hijacking/</a><br />
<br />
What do original words mean; what is the complex of ideas surrounding similar sounding words. Does that affect whether we decide whether modern events are "evil" -- with no legal punishment, but a great deal of emotional surging and fear; or criminal -- with procedures and consequences<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjFTGZ0bXSFPlysF5plxZ0LYmAyBQsON4VHLD57gJMW8BXbSr4VLYbfZ599J3_-D6A8VmUH_dfcOXwjLnzMwGxeLqgFf9NUfvFMWINNKalNTecDzVwJyPaM7qTBVjJZSGydpxP0N43UKsv/s1600/snakeclose.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a></div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>If we say that 9/11 was evil, and we also say that the serpent in paradise-garden was evil, then 9/11 was not. Nine-eleven was obvious, a clarion response to invasion of lands, nothing subtil about it. Check out Eden and decide. What better might describe 9/11 than "evil". </li>
<li>Evil is a moral term, religiously referenced, excluding any outside the belief system. NIne-eleven was overt, planned, clear agenda to get us out of their lands, nothing subtil about it. Why do we call it evil, as a political-religious act of retribution; when our own "biblical" evil, stemming as we think from Eden's tale, also was not "evil."</li>
<li>Check the sources. </li>
<li>What was the penalty for deceiving innocent Eve? Not much. Lose legs, but do fine. Even better than the Newt.</li>
</ul><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrDUcU7HD1Ai2Tkl2FM-pIS5cSCzeCaCFckOPGARPoGAzSW9F4_C818zO4ajgAQQp3146qoT2mMMTGPFLtx7-J6PbQT3-uIIg4EmtsOlIKRRfYofKhcesbhVWSnKDPhvAT4X-3dYei7oj5/s1600/snakecoil.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrDUcU7HD1Ai2Tkl2FM-pIS5cSCzeCaCFckOPGARPoGAzSW9F4_C818zO4ajgAQQp3146qoT2mMMTGPFLtx7-J6PbQT3-uIIg4EmtsOlIKRRfYofKhcesbhVWSnKDPhvAT4X-3dYei7oj5/s1600/snakecoil.jpg" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjFTGZ0bXSFPlysF5plxZ0LYmAyBQsON4VHLD57gJMW8BXbSr4VLYbfZ599J3_-D6A8VmUH_dfcOXwjLnzMwGxeLqgFf9NUfvFMWINNKalNTecDzVwJyPaM7qTBVjJZSGydpxP0N43UKsv/s1600/snakeclose.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">Serpent without legs - wound in the tree</a><br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"></ul><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcZ8Gz0rDtw">There will be an answer</a>.</div><b> </b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
A. Setting.<br />
<br />
This entity we call "serpent" in Paradise-the Garden. Who-what-why-how, and from where? Could the deity not control the borders? Why wasn't Eve informed of the interloper? Was the deity inept and did not know what came in? Everything was supposed to be "good." Who made the "evil" serpent? Who gave Eve a GPS to tell her where the relevant tree was: the Adm, the androgyne generic "human" before the separating out, was the one who was clearly told.<br />
<br />
But Adam the separated male apparently stood by while she, the curious one, had not been told by the deity anything; so why not have a bite and share (with the one who stood by to see what might happen first). Eden. Wonderful. Who was this serpent? Literalists say it was a snake and she disobeyed and did what the snake said, and bad on her.<br />
<br />
B. Find out.<br />
<br />
What was the serpent? Was it a "snake?" Is there meaning in the tale far beyond any attempt to craft a literal linear story time frame. Do literalists have a leg to stand on when it comes to the serpenteries of life.<br />
<br />
..........................................................<br />
<br />
II. The meaning of the Hebrew word for serpent: NChSh.<br />
<br />
A. Resources for vetting any scripture<br />
<br />
Translations, transliterations, expositions. Look up any term in old Biblical texts. Start with existing translations and find the variations in interpretations in narrative. As a start:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="http://www.etymonline.com/">http://www.etymonline.com/</a> -- word meanings, sources in languages</li>
<li><a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C003.htm">http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C003.htm. </a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html">http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html</a> </li>
<li> <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen3.pdf">Scripture4all</a>- a transliteration word by word, not a narrative. Try it. Do eyes open? Note the difference between translations, that put a meaning in a narrative that makes some sort of sense, regardless of accuracy; and transliteration, that leaves meanings of terms as they fall: ambiguous? Fine. Each one figures it out.</li>
</ul><br />
B. Do <i>translation</i>s vary as to the "serpent."<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrDUcU7HD1Ai2Tkl2FM-pIS5cSCzeCaCFckOPGARPoGAzSW9F4_C818zO4ajgAQQp3146qoT2mMMTGPFLtx7-J6PbQT3-uIIg4EmtsOlIKRRfYofKhcesbhVWSnKDPhvAT4X-3dYei7oj5/s1600/snakecoil.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVc3zTfDpTbTOMFFIM-Y4C0fKcBM3BABc-8AMX9gBk-YUFpzKXwsE1tfX2zS3IeQ6nY4Xr13qCqNDbtNho7Wb1b5OlehkJ98wAhY3cJKLPevWz8YrTOFTYa1VuuNpMGncOD_ffXCWjylZH/s1600/snakewaits.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVc3zTfDpTbTOMFFIM-Y4C0fKcBM3BABc-8AMX9gBk-YUFpzKXwsE1tfX2zS3IeQ6nY4Xr13qCqNDbtNho7Wb1b5OlehkJ98wAhY3cJKLPevWz8YrTOFTYa1VuuNpMGncOD_ffXCWjylZH/s320/snakewaits.jpg" width="320" />NChSh in Eden, after</a></div><br />
If so, how? Is the serpent necessarily evil, or was that chosen out of many. Go to hebrewoldtestament.com at <a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C003.htm">http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C003.htm</a> That will give many different parallel translations. For Genesis 3:1, find words for "serpent".<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li> Initial issues.</li>
</ul>The initial Hebrew and Paleo-Hebrew are difficult, as unfamiliar as they are. For non-scholars, as we are, start with a configuration that makes some sense visually and follow it through. If that does not work, go back and try another configuration. Hebrew goes from right to left, down to up. <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><ul><li>First off, notice that even basic concepts vary. </li>
<li>Translators make subjective choices. </li>
<li>Some versions (the Latin Vulgate and later Roman Catholic) describe the place as paradise; the others describe it as the garden. If "paradise" is a theological term, is Genesis the place for it?</li>
</ul><ul><li>Difference? If the same, why not keep it as garden? </li>
</ul><ul><li>Translations always involve a subjective choice by the translator, an agenda, a change in emphasis that somebody adds or subtly subtracts. </li>
</ul><ul><li>Also, there are no vowels in Hebrew. </li>
<li>We have no idea directly how words sounded, and the sound changes the meaning. NChSh. Nachush? What? Nichash? Etc. Keep those sounds in mind.</li>
</ul></ul><br />
D. Do translations vary as to the nature of the serpent as " Subtil."<br />
<br />
Most of us may remember that the serpent was "subtil." What is that. Go to a good site for linguistics: Online Etymology Dictionary at <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=subtil&searchmode=none">http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=subtil&searchmode=none</a><br />
<br />
a. Subtil -- using old linguistic references<br />
<br />
Here is a fair use reference, not a quote because we have changed the abbreviations to full words. See the linguistic roots -- humans have dealt with the subtil for millenia.<br />
<br />
Go to the site referenced by the little book symbols for more detail.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=subtile&allowed_in_frame=0">subtile</a> <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subtile"><img src="http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif" /></a>late 14c., "clever, dexterous," from Old French (14c.), from Latin subtilis "fine, thin, delicate" (see <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=subtle&allowed_in_frame=0">subtle</a>). </li>
</ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>A Latinized refashioning of the French source of subtle. </li>
</ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sly&allowed_in_frame=0"> sly</a> <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sly"><img src="http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif" /></a>c.1200,from Old Norse "sloegr "cunning, crafty, sly," from Proto-Germanic. *slogis (cf. Low German slu "cunning, sly"), probably from base *slog- "hit" (see <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=slay&allowed_in_frame=0">slay</a>), with an original notion of "able to hit." </li>
</ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Compare to the German verschlagen "cunning, crafty, sly," schlagfertig "quick-witted," lit. "ready to strike," from schlagen "to strike." </li>
</ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>A non-pejorative use of the word lingered in northern English dialect until the 20th Century. </li>
</ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>On the sly "in secret" is recorded from 1812. Sly-boots "a seeming Silly, but subtil Fellow" is in the 1700 "Dictionary of the Canting Crew."</li>
</ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"> So, subtle is many things, but not overt, not obvious. Evil, if we think of "evil" in the paradise, the garden, is nothing overt. It sneaks.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsYDrq9j4Gsbsg16VH0RQDfL06ZueXiFw1QLimdpSyi6G30nqduaXVuLBuDkMQeAFxy_likBibDJbiFFry0WSwqtgvjCoej0rmkbiGF-BRRP6v8AeAYDNTSspk7c-xh7iBEvzbN4hR4wET/s1600/9.11street.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsYDrq9j4Gsbsg16VH0RQDfL06ZueXiFw1QLimdpSyi6G30nqduaXVuLBuDkMQeAFxy_likBibDJbiFFry0WSwqtgvjCoej0rmkbiGF-BRRP6v8AeAYDNTSspk7c-xh7iBEvzbN4hR4wET/s320/9.11street.jpg" width="213" />9/11. Overt, Planned, Executed agenda. Not "subtil"</a><br />
<br />
b. Subtil - why did Jerome use "callidior" instead of subtilia? Because he meant what he said -- erat callidior, and not "subtle"<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li> "Subtle" in English translates to "subtilia" in Latin - see <a href="http://translate.google.com/#en%7Cla%7Csubtle">http://translate.google.com/#en|la|subtle</a>,so what is Latin "subtilia" and why did Jerome not translate "subtil" from subtilia. No, he used something else: callidior.</li>
<li>We have to ask St. Jerome who translated the description as serpent "erat callidior." </li>
</ul>Jerome used the Latin "callidior" and we get from there, somehow, "subtle". But what is "callidior"? Why not use its meaning?<br />
<br />
Callidior-- the term used by St. Jerome. See #4 below. Erat callidior. Serpent was -- erat -- callidior. Look it up. No result found at all at <a href="http://www.wikiled.com/latin-english-callidior-Default.aspx">http://www.wikiled.com/latin-english-callidior-Default.aspx</a>. There is no result for "callidior" at <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=begin&lookup=callidior&lang=la">http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=begin&lookup=callidior&lang=la</a><br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><ul><li>Now we have something: the root is "callidus".</li>
</ul></ul>Go deeper into the perseus site and find this: <i>callidus means practised, shrewd, expert, experienced, adroit, skilful, ingenious, prudent, dexterous </i><br />
<blockquote>(Show lexicon entry in <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=callidior&la=la#lexicon">Lewis & Short</a> <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=callidior&la=la#lexicon">Elem. Lewis</a>) (<a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?q=callidior&target=la">search</a>) </blockquote>c. Significance<br />
<br />
Translators who did not translate callidior are inserting their own theology into Jerome's word. The word is not "subtle." The word means experienced, adroit, skilful, ingenious, prudent, dexterous. In other words, superior in getting a job done. What chance did Eve have? <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>II. Is this so: That in Eden, there was nothing "evil" there</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div>The serpent was just "practised, shrewd, expert, experienced, adroit, skilful, ingenious, prudent, dexterous." Snuck his agenda by. Got through the borders. The deity was negligent, Eve was never warned, and Adam kept his mouth shut and watched.<br />
<br />
Our own politicians are that, controlling our media and our views.<br />
<br />
No wonder Eve fell for it. Doesn't she always? And isn't she always blamed for falling for the one with the practise, the shrewdness, the expertise, the experience, etc. <br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCI0Y5bd5vYj6j_H1TG8iuzU97xmy8ID51AwFf9WK85mJVt__EgxBjH8JU1TcoEvxlsKfhPO-jOEmDU-auoEIWn77-UiswDHaoF_lVjND8Kc5x8gocyENxCwtxpMSoNVbxbEnbVJkSPLss/s1600/cranecloser.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="299" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCI0Y5bd5vYj6j_H1TG8iuzU97xmy8ID51AwFf9WK85mJVt__EgxBjH8JU1TcoEvxlsKfhPO-jOEmDU-auoEIWn77-UiswDHaoF_lVjND8Kc5x8gocyENxCwtxpMSoNVbxbEnbVJkSPLss/s320/cranecloser.jpg" width="320" />9/11. Get out of our lands. Have we? Political force as last resort, or "evil" against righteous us?</a><br />
<br />
Literalists: So far we have no basis for "evil" as to the serpent.<br />
<br />
The serpent represents the usual exploitation, pressing for agenda. Whoever falls for it, great. There, however, the serpent got punished by losing legs. Now, not so much. Propaganda wins.<br />
<br />
So "callidior" means more than sneaky, "subtle." It is a barrage of tactics. How to defend against sneaks with expertoise? That takes, for the Eve's of the world, clear information, practise, transparency, warning, education. Otherwise the sneak wins. The sly wins. The adroit against her.<br />
..........................................................<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>III. Genesis 3:1 Linguistic researching for Serpent: and "subtil"</b></div><br />
A. Serpent. Subtle. <br />
<br />
The noun and the adjective appear that way everywhere except in the Basic English Bible, where the serpent becomes more limited: a snake. How could that be, when the snake only emerged after it lost its legs? And how is it described in the old texts? Find variations on the Latin "erat callidior" or subtle, in most.<br />
<br />
1.Hebrew: תאכלו <br />
2. Paleo Hebrew: <img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pvav.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/plamed.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pkaph.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/paleph.gif" /><br />
<img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pthav.gif" /><br />
3. Hebrew Transliterated: VHNChSh. What is the VH? [not sure here yet] as to the subtil part: perhaps <span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">HYH 'yUrVM MKL </span><br />
<br />
4. Latin Vulgate: serpens [St. Jerome] "<u>erat callidior</u>" for "was more subtil"<br />
<br />
5. King James: serpent [Protestant] was more <u>subtil </u><br />
<br />
6. American Standard: serpent was more <u>subtle</u><br />
<br />
7. Basic English: snake (a change!) was <i><u>wiser</u></i> (<i>what? wiser??)</i><br />
<br />
8. Darby's English: serpent (back we go) was more <u><i>crafty </i></u><br />
<br />
9. Douay Rheims: serpent [Roman Catholic] was more subtle<br />
<br />
10. Noah Webster Bible: serpent was more subtil<br />
<br />
11. World English Bible: serpent was more subtle<br />
<br />
12. Young's Literal Translation: serpent hath been subtile<br />
<br />
<br />
B. Check later verses where serpent appears to see if we ever find "snake". No, we don't, except for "snake" continuing in the Basic English version. Do serpent and snake mean the same thing.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqePzunJHfR86vzYkZej_Bn_F8QD5sjDrHnhp1LquIx5DA-jDk_JN3jQANEHd4EwQYUbJtQlySaFnUadyjO3yB5wqoiL369pFU0z5h0eiX6KfxJbjgSLOHgz8ymTa5IAvHBNkcR4yTHR7h/s1600/longviewcranecenter.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="129" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqePzunJHfR86vzYkZej_Bn_F8QD5sjDrHnhp1LquIx5DA-jDk_JN3jQANEHd4EwQYUbJtQlySaFnUadyjO3yB5wqoiL369pFU0z5h0eiX6KfxJbjgSLOHgz8ymTa5IAvHBNkcR4yTHR7h/s320/longviewcranecenter.jpg" width="320" />9/11. We were warned. </a> <br />
<br />
No. Anyone who substitutes "snake" for "serpent" is expressing an agenda.<br />
<br />
Go to eliyah.com's lexicon, the word list for each usage, at <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html">http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html. </a>Serpent and snake are not the same. <br />
<br />
1. At the Lexicon, type in "snake" (we like the King James so stick with that for now). No, no matches. No "snake" in the King James.<br />
<br />
2. Type in "serpent" in the Strong's Concordance line. That finds all the serpents there are. Find 40 uses of "serpent" in 36 different verses in the King James. And each is laid out.<br />
<br />
3. Go back to the search page, and this time, type in "serpent" in the Strong's Lexicon space.<br />
<br />
That finds all the<i> meanings</i> for serpent, for all those 40 uses from the Concordance. Find some 19 different ways that serpent is used - each one given its own number, so you can look up the numbers to find which is meant for the verse you want. <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=serpent">http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=serpent</a><br />
<br />
C. Listed: Find words for snake. See fair use.<br />
<br />
We think we want something like the <i>VHNChSh or NChSh</i>, from IA3 above. That is the Hebrew for the serpent in the paradise-garden. So: check the list in the Lexicon. Two come closest: referring to the word identification numbers in the Strong's system,<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>660 'eph`eh ef-eh' from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=659">659</a> (in the sense of hissing); an asp or other venomous serpent:--viper.</li>
</ul>Now, how does anybody get hissing from <i>eph eh ef eh.</i> It could well have been a dragon, not a legged snake. We are obsessed with proving it to be a snake, is that so?<br />
<br />
<br />
5. The words for serpent.<br />
<br />
See their numbers for researching further: take your time here. There are many of them. Sound out each one, to see the difficulty in pronouncing an alphabet without vowels. These are the Strong's identification numbers. Each can be easily researched for each time they are used.<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>1281 bariyach baw-ree'-akh or (shortened) bariach {baw-ree'-akh}; from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=1272">1272</a>; a fugitive, i.e. the serpent (as fleeing), and the constellation by that name:--crooked, noble, piercing.</li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>2119 zachal zaw-khal' a primitive root; to crawl; by implication, to fear:--be afraid, serpent, worm.</li>
</ul>We know that fear of snakes ensued. See <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1004_snakefears_2.html">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1004_snakefears_2.html</a>. Enmity. The Prequel.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>2120 Zocheleth zo-kheh'-leth feminine active participle of <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2119">2119</a>; crawling (i.e. serpent); Zocheleth, a boundary stone in. Palestine:--Zoheleth.</li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>2352 chuwr khoor or (shortened) chur {khoor}; from an unused root probably meaning to bore; the crevice of a serpent; the cell of a prison:--hole. 3882 livyathan liv-yaw-thawn' from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=3867">3867</a>; a wreathed animal, i.e. a serpent (especially the crocodile or some other large sea- monster); figuratively, the constellation of the dragon; also as a symbol of Bab.:--leviathan, mourning.</li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>3975 muwrah meh-oo-raw' feminine passive participle of <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=215">215</a>; something lighted, i.e. an aperture; by implication, a crevice or hole (of a serpent):--den. 4846 mrorah mer-o-raw' or mrowrah {mer-o-raw'}; from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=4843">4843</a>; properly, bitterness; concretely, a bitter thing; specifically bile; also venom (of a serpent):--bitter (thing), gall.</li>
</ul>These are looking very close to the NChSh. See how the context gets fleshed out with all these concepts --<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>5153 nachuwsh naw-khoosh' </b>(emphasis and asterisk added) apparently passive participle of <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5172">5172</a> * FN 1 (perhaps in the sense of ringing, i.e. bell-metal; or from the red color of the throat of a serpent (<a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5175">5175</a>, as denominative) when hissing); coppery, i.e. (figuratively) hard:--of brass.</li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>5175 nachash naw-khawsh' </b>(emphasis and asterisk added) from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5172">5172 *</a>; a snake (from its hiss):--serpent</li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>5180 Nchushtan nekh-oosh-tawn' from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5178">5178</a>; something made of copper, i.e. the copper serpent of the Desert:--Nehushtan. 5391 nashak naw-shak' a primitive root; to strike with a sting (as a serpent); figuratively, to oppress with interest on a loan:--bite, lend upon usury.</li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>5904 `Iyr Nachash eer naw-khawsh' from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5892">5892</a> and <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5175">5175</a>; city of a serpent; Ir-Nachash, a place in Palestine:--Ir-nahash.</li>
</ul>As to #5904, more questions. Research the places referenced: where was the serpent from, where did it go, or is there the place itself that is serpentine?<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><ul><li> Place in Palestine: does that mean the serpent is an alien, an immigrant, a foreigner? Was it from Ir-Nachash, that so far we find only as a street in Israel, see <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl">http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl</a></li>
<li> Israel's fair city Where girls are so ---<a href="http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Ir-nahash.html">Abarim discussed Judah</a> Need a new argument.Keep going. Keep going. Lod it is, or was? Serpentine?</li>
</ul></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>6372 Piynchac pee-nekh-aws' apparently from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6310">6310</a> and a variation of <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5175">5175</a>; mouth of a serpent; Pinechas, the name of three Israelites:--Phinehas.</li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>8197 Shphuwpham shef-oo-fawm' or Shphuwphan {shef-oo-fawn'}; from the same as <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=8207">8207</a>; serpent-like; Shephupham or Shephuphan, an Israelite:-- Shephuphan, Shupham.</li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>8207 shphiyphon shef-ee-fone' from an unused root meaning the same as <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=7779">7779</a>; a kind of serpent (as snapping), probably the cerastes or horned adder:--adder.</li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>8314 saraph saw-rawf' from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=8313">8313</a>; burning, i.e. (figuratively) poisonous (serpent); specifically, a saraph or symbolical creature (from their copper color):--fiery (serpent), seraph.</li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><ul><li>Is this the <i>seraphim?</i> Was the serpent a seraph? Is this the origin of the fallen angel idea, Satan?? Or did we add "evil" where there was none, in order to have someone to blame.</li>
</ul></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>8565 tan tan from an unused root probably meaning to elongate; a monster (as preternaturally formed), i.e. a sea-serpent (or other huge marine animal); also a jackal (or other hideous land animal):--dragon, whale. Compare <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=8577">8577</a>.</li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>8577 tanniyn tan-neen' or tanniym (Ezek. 29:3) {tan-neem'}; intensive from the same as <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=8565">8565</a>; a marine or land monster, i.e. sea-serpent or jackal:--dragon, sea-monster, serpent, whale. </li>
</ul><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">.............................................................................</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">Go back to the original "evil" and see how this plays out. Evil by old texts is not either-or, as a Manichean view of evil as easily identifiable as this or that, as the blanket concept "evildoer" suggests. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>IV. What is Evil About Eden, the Serpent? Anything?</b></div><br />
A. Evil, the real evil if we look at the texts, and at humana's experience when it is not being manipulated, is not a belief system, but an ambiguous, deniable methodology of the sly, the deceitful, the soothing of the other into doing what the soother wants.<br />
<br />
B. 9/11 is not, as Slate would have it, <i>Simply Evil: A decade after 9/11 it remains the best description best description and most essential fact about Al Quada, </i><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2303013">http://www.slate.com/id/2303013</a>.<br />
.Not.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">Set the Serpent against 9/11. Which was evil, if either. Set criteria. Analyze the actions. Vet the Response.<i> Who uses the idea of "evil" to escape accountability. Analyze the doer and the act, and the facts known to the target; against the Gate-Keeper's dysfunction:</i> Who had what facts. Governmental, Colonial Entitlement Mindset, Policy</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">9/11 not "Evil" because it was so overt? </div><div style="text-align: left;">Evil of 9/11 is in the negligence of the gate-keepers, who then hid their role.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Update: Agent Agrees. There was Knowledge. Why not acted upon?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">See <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/us/12agent.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=high%20level%20dysfunction&st=cse">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/us/12agent.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=high%20level%20dysfunction&st=cse</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">C. Look up language. See the history. Go to<a href="http://www.etymonline.com/abbr.php"> http://www.etymonline.com/abbr.php</a></div></div></div><div id="dictionary"><div style="text-align: left;"><blockquote>Here is "evil" -- <br />
<dl><dd class="highlight">Old English yfel, or the Kentish <span class="foreign">evel</span>) It means "bad, vicious, ill, wicked," from Proto Germanic <span class="foreign">*ubilaz</span> (is the asterisk for a variable prefix?). </dd></dl></blockquote><br />
<blockquote><br />
<dl><dd class="highlight">Compare that to the Old Saxon <span class="foreign">ubil</span>, or the Old Frisian or Middle Dutch <span class="foreign">evel</span>, or the Dutch <span class="foreign">euvel</span>, or the Old High German <span class="foreign">ubil</span>, or the German <span class="foreign">übel</span>, or the Gothic (faded by the 16th C). <span class="foreign">ubils. </span></dd></dl></blockquote><br />
<blockquote><br />
<dl><dd class="highlight"><span class="foreign">It stems from the Proto Indo European</span> (5500 years ago, see the Definitions) <span class="foreign">*upelo-</span>, from the base <span class="foreign">*wap-</span> (compare to the Hittite <span class="foreign">huwapp-</span> "evil"). </dd></dl></blockquote><br />
<blockquote><br />
<dl><dd class="highlight">The noun in Old English is <span class="foreign">yfel</span>. In Old English, as in all the other early Teutonic languages except Scandinavian, this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement" [OED]. <span class="foreign"></span></dd></dl></blockquote><br />
<blockquote><br />
<dl><dd class="highlight"><span class="foreign">Evil</span> was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we would use <span class="foreign">bad, cruel, unskillful, defective</span> (adj.), or <span class="foreign">harm, crime, misfortune, disease</span>. </dd></dl></blockquote><br />
<blockquote><br />
<dl><dd class="highlight">The meaning "extreme moral wickedness" was in O.E., but did not become the main sense until 18c. Related: <span class="foreign">Evilly</span>. <span class="foreign">Evil eye</span> (L. <span class="foreign">oculus malus</span>) was O.E. <span class="foreign">eage yfel</span>. <span class="foreign">Evilchild</span> is attested as an English surname from 13c.14c.</dd></dl></blockquote></div></div><div style="text-align: left;">Find this at <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evil">http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evil</a> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
D. So the concept of evil goes back thousands of years, of course. <br />
<br />
But it remained descriptive of unfortunate turns of events, and does not become a moral matter until religious speakers interpose it.<br />
<br />
See Popes Clement and Urban in urging the Crusades and promising no consequence for killing evildoers, non-believers, who were keeping good Christians from their rightful place in the Holy Land. Dualism has always been effective in rallying emotions. Go, Bush and progeny.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">E. Legality or illegality of murder, does not venture to ascribe moral culpability. It finds, after evidence, legality or illegality according to defined elements </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">1. of a crime, where the perpetrator is to be identified and, if found, punished based upon evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; or </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">2. of a civil negligence event where the actor who fails to meet a legal duty is identified, and if so found, money damages are ascribed to the victim to make the victim "whole" again. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>The soother malefactor. Nchshshshshshsh</i>. Hear it? Been around ever since. Dear jhwh, as "men" the gender type have indeed made you, couldn't you have done better with your own borders? A little homework, perhaps?</div><br />
CONCLUSION:<br />
<br />
Ascribing "evil" to 9/11 is and always has been dysfunctional, prompting emotional and religious- subjective responses to the perceived moral breach. "Evil" has a limited place in assessing international, inter-religious, and otherwise multi-faceted cultural and power issues. Evil ascribes moral culpability, a localized theological issue dependent on a belief system, with no objective court available for its proof or disproof. It means "bad." Instead, use "legal" or illegal, negligent in breach of duty of some sort, to some degree, or not.<br />
<br />
Evil? No. That was not even in Eden. Eden's event was one of seduction, subtle manipulation by an expert who was enabled to sneak in. Eve had no warning that in this Eden, there was evil as we now call it. We still blame the victim. The deity clearly could not control the borders then, just as we cannot now. Follow that thought as we seek perfection in leaders. <br />
<br />
Next steps:<br />
<br />
Skip moralizing in international and in-nation relations with ourselves. So the Deity was negligent; the Serpent exploitive in the gap left by the Deity, and the woman unawares in the land that was supposed to be worthy of her trust. <br />
<br />
Use the rule of law.<br />
<br />
With existing national and international bodies of law determining legality or illegality, breach of duty (negligence) or none such, interposing one group's religious view instead, or distracting from the legal, prevents addressing the problem in a timely, effective way.<br />
<br />
We live not in a local, but a global reality. Snake or serpent? Matters of cultural definition, so stay with the actions, not the labels.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">Bush? Bush was ignorant; or Bush made a mistake: internationally and nationally. Either way, we may never recover. George Bush had the choice: </div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Make this a <i>moral </i>issue against his favorite disfavored group, evildoers, in which case (in religious terms) we can kill evildoers at will, as Clement said of the Crusades; you can kill non-believers; and once unleashed, the emotions take over; or </li>
<li>Make and contain this as a secular political issue even where the perpetrators had religious motives, perhaps. But the issue is a legal one, not locally morally referenced.</li>
</ul></div><div style="text-align: left;">.....................................................<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen3.pdf">Scripture4all</a><br />
<br />
Read scripture in transliteration. That is what we have. All else is added. FN 1</div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">.........................................................................................</div><div style="text-align: left;">FN 1 <br />
FN 1 Further on meaning of NChSh and its close word-sounds<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">THE ASTERISKS -<br />
<br />
There are allusions in the meaning of NChSh to a spell, a ringing (warning?), a magic, a prognostication, enchanter, divine, learn by experience, augury, the "snake" as determined by a hiss? But NChSh is not a hiss, but a soothing beginning, and a shushing. There is the enchanter Nachshon (Israelite)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
* Both Strong Numbers 5153 and 5175 refer to another number Strong's 5172. What is that about a ringing? A serpent ringing?<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Number 5172</b> - Click back on the Lexicon to the search page, and type in the number 5172 at the Lexicon part, not the word "serpent" as before. Arrive at <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5172">http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5172</a></li>
</ul>Find these meanings: put them together in your mind for a picture of what happened as to meaning, if not linear events<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>This one appears above. 5153 nachuwsh naw-khoosh' </b>apparently passive participle of <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5172">5172</a> (perhaps in the sense of ringing, i.e. bell-metal; or from the red color of the throat of a serpent (<a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5175">5175</a>, as denominative) when hissing); coppery, i.e. (figuratively) hard:--of brass.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>5172 nachash naw-khash'</b> a primitive root; properly, to hiss, i.e. whisper a (magic) spell; generally, to prognosticate:--X certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) X enchantment, learn by experience, X indeed, diligently observe. Casting spells - Eve said something like that. At least, she was deceived.<br />
<br />
The whisper, the spell.<br />
<br />
The prognostication - see gnostic in there - the first gnostic was in Paradise itself? is gnosis the wisdom, the knowledge? Word roots are wonderful. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>5173 nachash nakh'-ash</b> from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5172">5172</a>; an incantation or augury:--enchantment. Was Eve right: she was enchanted. How was she to defend against that? <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>5175 nachash naw-khawsh'</b> from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5172">5172</a>; a snake (from its hiss):--serpent. How do they get hiss out of nachash nawkhawsh?? Sounds soothing instead. NnnnnnnnnChShshshshshshshshhsh. It's all right dear. Everything will be fine. Now if you would just .... Oh, yes, NnnnnnnnnChShhhhshshshsh....<br />
<br />
Sly, subtle, and fraudulent. So blame the victim. And did anyone tell Eve which tree? Only the androgyne Adm was told by the deity - after Adam and Eve were separated out from the Adm, did anyone at all show Eve where the tree was? Middle of the garden? What? With what GPS? Maybe Adam set her up - nose out of joint because she was to be the guide kngdv....<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>5177 Nachshown nakh-shone'</b> from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5172">5172</a>; enchanter; Nachshon, an Israelite:--Naashon, Nahshon. Looks like a homebody.</div><div style="text-align: left;">........................................................................</div><div style="text-align: left;">** And 5153 refers not only to 5172, the ringing or red throat, but also to 5175. Coppery, of brass. Just a color? What is that?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Back to the Lexicon search. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Number 5175 - Click back on the Lexicon to the search page and type in the number 5175 this time. </li>
</ul>Find these meanings: it's starting to repeat so we're on a good track. We seem to find allusions not only to the ringing and color brassy, hissy, but to Nachash, now the name of two persons non-Israelite. Is that saying that the deceiver is non-Israelite, a stranger? Ye gods, an immigrant? An alien? It also mentions a place in Palestine - non Israeli. Ir-Nachash. Then Phineas comes back as the name of an Israelite. any significance to all these places? <br />
<br />
<b>5153 nachuwsh naw-khoosh'</b> apparently passive participle of <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5172">5172</a> (perhaps in the sense of ringing, i.e. bell-metal; or from the red color of the throat of a serpent (<a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5175">5175</a>, as denominative) when hissing); coppery, i.e. (figuratively) hard:--of brass.<br />
<br />
<b>5175 nachash naw-khawsh' </b>from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5172">5172</a>; a snake (from its hiss):--serpent. [see 6372 here: It says that 5172 is the mouth of a serpent)<br />
<br />
<b>5176 Nachash naw-khawsh'</b> the same as <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5175">5175</a>; Nachash, the name of two persons apparently non-Israelite:--Nahash.<br />
<br />
<b>5904 `Iyr Nachash eer naw-khawsh'</b> from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5892">5892</a> and <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5175">5175</a>; city of a serpent; Ir-Nachash, a place in Palestine:--Ir-nahash. I find HaNahash looks like a street in Israel, at <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl">http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl</a><br />
<br />
<b>6372 Piynchac pee-nekh-aws' </b>apparently from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6310">6310</a> and a variation of <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5175">5175</a>; mouth of a serpent; Pinechas, the name of three Israelites:--Phinehas. <br />
......................................................................................<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Mystery additional numbers showing up: 6310 shows these: <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6310">http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6310</a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">We seem to have allusions again to mouth, and to <i>places</i>, as mouth of the gorges in Egypt, or mouth of all, Philistine, mouth of a serpent, name of three Israelites. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
6310 peh peh from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6284">6284</a>; the mouth (as the means of blowing), whether literal or figurative (particularly speech); specifically edge, portion or side; adverbially (with preposition) according to:--accord(-ing as, -ing to), after, appointment, assent, collar, command(-ment), X eat, edge, end, entry, + file, hole, X in, mind, mouth, part, portion, X (should) say(-ing), sentence, skirt, sound, speech, X spoken, talk, tenor, X to, + two-edged, wish, word.<br />
. </div><div style="text-align: left;">6366 peyah pay-aw' or piyah {pee-yaw'}; feminine of <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6310">6310</a>; an edge:-- (two-)edge(-d).<br />
. </div><div style="text-align: left;">6367 Pi ha-Chiyroth pee hah-khee-roth' from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6310">6310</a> and the feminine plural of a noun (from the same root as <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2356">2356</a>), with the article interpolated; mouth of the gorges; Pi-ha-Chiroth, a place in Egypt: --Pi-hahiroth. (In Numbers 14:19 without Pi-.)<br />
. </div><div style="text-align: left;">6369 Piykol pee-kole' apparently from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6310">6310</a> and <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=3605">3605</a>; mouth of all; Picol, a Philistine:--Phichol.<br />
. </div><div style="text-align: left;">6372 Piynchac pee-nekh-aws' apparently from <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6310">6310</a> and a variation of <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5175">5175</a>; mouth of a serpent; Pinechas, the name of three Israelites:--Phinehas.<br />
. </div>6433 pum poom (Aramaic) probably for <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6310">6310</a>; the mouth (literally or figuratively):--mouth. <br />
<br />
</div></div>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-77935826224675562562011-06-04T14:25:00.000-04:002011-06-12T06:34:45.624-04:00Heresy Schmeresy. How Choice of Sect (neutral) became Perdition (Not neutral)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>A STUDY OF HERESY.</b><br />
<b>Biblical heresy defined, explored.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Heresy word before - private choice; and after the doctrinal morph into damnation.</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>Related, a Study of <i>Perdition.</i></b><br />
<br />
What hath Western Culture Wrought? All on its own.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">What is Heresy;<br />
Then, what is <i>destructive</i> heresy; and then, what is <i>damned </i>heresy.<br />
Translation progressions through the Institutions. <br />
................................................................................................. <br />
<br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<div style="text-align: left;"> I. Context of Topic: The Role of "Heresy" in Western Culture</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">II. Heresy: From Greek Hairisin, Haireseis, "preference" in choice of sect, to English <i>Heresy - Damnation</i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">III. Heresy: From <i>Destructive</i> Preference, or Hairesis <i>opOleias</i>, to Jerome's <i>sectas perditionis. Damnation.</i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>...................................................................</b></div><br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><br />
Heresy as private choice. It began that way, and is rooted in the Greek. Eastern and Western culture frameworks and their religions see the right of individual choice versus the obligation to the group differently. Treatment of heresy, beliefs that veer from the mainstream where the mainstream is "required" by the mainstream, reflect that. Overview: see an Orthodox Christian commentary (Orthodox Jonathan asks, for example, a) can religion really be a salad bar; and b) is the essence of heresy the willingness of the dissenter to split the institution over it rather than deny his conscience) at <a href="http://jonathanscorner.com/search.cgi?page_mode=search_result&file_section=section_20&query=heresy&match_partial_words=0&relative_filename=orthodoxy/orthodoxy5.html">http://jonathanscorner.com/search.cgi?page_mode=search_result&file_section=section_20&query=heresy&match_partial_words=0&relative_filename=orthodoxy/orthodoxy5.html</a><br />
<br />
The issue looms largest where an institution takes for itself the right to force conversions: believe this way or die; or at least lose your funding from the Party and get primaried out. Politics becomes the new religion. See issues of forcing conversion in our day at <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1535671,00.html">http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1535671,00.html</a><br />
<br />
The Western church took that flawed path early on, and killing religious refuseniks became easy, see Charlemagne's campaign against the Saxons, Sachsenhain especially; <a href="http://germanyroadways.blogspot.com/2011/02/sachsenhain-saxons-grove-charlemagnes.html">http://germanyroadways.blogspot.com/2011/02/sachsenhain-saxons-grove-charlemagnes.html</a>, and the pope's Crusade against the Cathars, see <a href="http://worldwar1worldwar2.blogspot.com/2011/06/heresy-wars-timeline-cathars-religion.html">http://worldwar1worldwar2.blogspot.com/2011/06/heresy-wars-timeline-cathars-religion.html</a>, destroying a branch of Christian life that fostered ways to live together without murder and demonizing, see <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1535671,00.html">http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1535671,00.html.</a><br />
Heresy evolved as a Western weapon for efficiency, in the forced institutionalization of the otherwise non-institutionable. The Founder led by example and invitation, not by force. That did not last long.<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Here we look at Acts, as Paul defined his mission first, his acts were in line with the hereditary faith. He followed a mere sect, like others accepted at the time: Pharisees, Sadducees, and Nazarenes. There was no "heresy" involved as we know it, with the concept of perdition included. The word "heresy" could be a sect, a position within the faith, as Paul described himself. In the Greek,"haireseis" was a matter of taking a position. Only after, when Paul and others decided that a "new religion" was needed (and somehow intended), did damnation and damned sects enter. Perdition as heresy: Dogma's weapon of mass destruction. Heresy as the Way" to religious ethnic cleansing From Hairesis, G139, chosen preference, to Jerome: a doctrinal force, translating as a church advocate centuries later. Any sect disagreeing with the dogma of the Church became sectas perditionis. </li>
</ul></div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2qrpNWCwWT6N-5Ll9_jYDwFBpbtWCzofrFi2cQPqbGMh5BFzz4JRVrv8-z4IdWm1NOyhPitNzUmalegwRDL7Sh9CwK7JYHaZlCdpI4S-43gDOyUagvv5EoLkAmznGAO0_lZYEEcwJXRU/s1600/Irelandmonasruingolfgravetree.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2qrpNWCwWT6N-5Ll9_jYDwFBpbtWCzofrFi2cQPqbGMh5BFzz4JRVrv8-z4IdWm1NOyhPitNzUmalegwRDL7Sh9CwK7JYHaZlCdpI4S-43gDOyUagvv5EoLkAmznGAO0_lZYEEcwJXRU/s320/Irelandmonasruingolfgravetree.jpg" width="320" />Dogma supersedes the Founder's Intent</a></div><br />
............................................<br />
<br />
I. Overview<br />
<br />
II Heresy as the Greek Hairisin, Hairisim, Hairisis: Acts 21:14, G139<br />
A. In Transliteration: Means preference, choice, taking of position, sect. <br />
B. In Strong's Lexicon: Also means sect, preference, with the additional uses identified; <br />
C. In Strong's Lexicon, check II Peter. Note change from "sect" to "secta perditionis" in II Peter<br />
<br />
III Secta Perditionis - II Peter 2:1. G684.<br />
A. Transliteration check - an additional word is used, for sects <i>of destruction</i><br />
B. Translation check - "Destruction" becomes perdition, and thus damned and damnable sects lead to perdition. As developed, perdition comes through erroneous opinions, not just acts; and the destruction of the bad position is not just the loss itself, but Hell. Perdition. For thoughts.<br />
C. Translations misused<br />
<br />
IV. Translators narrow meanings for doctrinal purposes.<br />
A. The Church translation from Greek to Latin, once set on an institution course (not just taking Paul as he was in early Acts) emphasizes that A. if points of view are erroneous, that is enough to get you to perdition, not just your acts. And, B. as the institution developed, the church decided it had the authority to act for the deity -- to enforce by death those it decided were sectas perditionis. <br />
B. Review,<br />
<br />
V. Sources for ordinary people<br />
<br />
........................................................................................................<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>I. OVERVIEW </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div>A. "Heresy" does not appear in the Old Testament.<br />
<br />
The word "heresy" appears in the KJV New Testament nine times, beginning with the meaning as preference, or "sect" -- a sect like the Sadducees, Pharisees, Nazarenes (Christians), Accepted differences.<br />
<br />
The meaning then moved, as the Christian Institution developed according to Roman influence, excluding gnostics and other viewpoints, into a different, and virulent form. Heresy appeared not just as another sect, but "sectas perditionis" -- heresy as violation of "true" dogma, sect of perdition; ultimately, synonymous with damnation. The word heresy is listed as the Greek "hairesis" or, in Strong's Lexicon, as Strong's G139. See<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=heresy*+G139&t=KJV">.http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=heresy*+G139&t=KJV</a>.<br />
<br />
And in the purgings of dissenters later, the church took on itself the authority to name heretics, the new sectas perditionis people, and kill in the name of God. <br />
<br />
B. The Greek hairesis appears mildly at first, in Acts 24:14 as part of the testimony of Paul who is describing himself as "hairiesin", <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act24.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act24.pdf</a>; as he is questioned after his arrest on charge of acting against the religious laws - stirring people up.<br />
<br />
C. Paul (writer using the name of Paul? search issue of attributed authorship, forgery or an era of accepted writing in the name of another, ex. Bart Ehrman's books) says, no, he is acting as hairesin, and that means according to a sect, a chosen preference, but still in the line of inheritance, in line with the inherited ways of the past, following the laws. Fast forward to writers under the names of Peter and others: Perdition, they hiss; and extermination, followed also in the Roman tradition of killing off threats to the Empire, first civil, then military, then religious. Roman Christianity and the perfection of "cleansing." See the process of cleansing cultures of religiously "bad" people, whether in the context of jihad or inquisition, the misinterpretations of text that targeting requires, and the hope at <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/the-meaning-of-the-koran/?scp=4&sq=new%20testament&st=Search">http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/the-meaning-of-the-koran/?scp=4&sq=new%20testament&st=Search</a><br />
<br />
D. Reference here: the traditional King James version for its cadence and simplicity, and other parallel translations more recent and also more ancient. King James? Yes. See <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/opinion/09sun3.html?scp=2&sq=wrote%20the%20bible&st=cse">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/opinion/09sun3.html?scp=2&sq=wrote%20the%20bible&st=cse</a><br />
<br />
Other main sites: open all the windows at once.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html">Strong's Lexicon. http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html</a>, </li>
<li><a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.cfm">Strong's Lexicon alt. http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.cfm; </a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/">Translations, Parallel Greek New Testament, http://www.greeknewtestament.com</a>/; </li>
<li><a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm">Transliteration, Greek New Testament, http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm</a></li>
</ul><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>II. Hairesin. Heresim. Haireseis.</b><br />
<b>Acts 24:14</b><br />
<b> </b></div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>A. In Transliteration: Hairesias as Preference.</b><br />
<b><a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/2pe2.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/2pe2.pdf</a> </b><br />
<br />
<b> Choice. Sect.</b><br />
<b>In itself, neutral. </b></div><br />
Look up "hairesin" in transliteration. Transliteration is a mechanical, literal, word-by-word approach from the originating language given, rather than a translator's narrative gestalt interpretation into the target language. See it at <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act24.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act24.pdf</a>. Acts 24:14. The "hairesin" number G139 given there, is transliterated as "preference" -- not "heresy."<br />
<br />
Preference is neutral, not a value judgment. You prefer this, I prefer that.<br />
<br />
Transliteration again:<br />
<br />
Paul's statement in transliteration Acts 24:14 as fair use quote retyped -- see the "preference"<br />
<blockquote>"I-AM-avowING YET this to-YOU that according-to THE WAY WHICH they-are-sayING preference (they are terming sect) thus I-AM-DIVINE-SERVICE according to-THE hereditary God BELIEVING to-ALL THE according to THE LAW AND THE BEFORE-AVERers (prophets) HAVING <i>been</i> WRITTEN" </blockquote><a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act24.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act24.pdf </a><br />
<br />
Look now at the inheritance aspect of Paul's faith: <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"The Hereditary God". Legitimization of faith through inheritance. </li>
<li>Note that the inheritance concept in Paul's statement is word G3971, and that stresses the "inherit" not the gender -- inheritance was indeed from father to son, or ancestors to posterity, but the emphasis is on the legitimacy by inheritance, not the gender of the one inherited from, see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3971">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3971</a>. </li>
<li>Legitimacy through inheritance, not through gender. Look askance at the emphasis not on an inherited, continuous faith, and find sex: "God of our Fathers" -- or God of my fathers, or I serve my fathers' God, I serve the Father and my God, God of our forefathers, God of the fathers, etc. </li>
<li>The original transliteration is merely "hereditary" and that happened to be through the male line. G3971 for "patrOO" - if the inheritance custom had been through the mother, maybe we would have matrOO. Same inheritance idea as legitimizing, not so much the gender.</li>
</ul><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>B. Confirmation: Haireseis or Hairesis In Strong's Lexicon,</b><br />
<b> Strong's Concordance: </b><br />
<b>Sect, Additional Uses</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div>Read about Strong's for Everyman at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance</a>. Strong is Victorian and so can be doctrinally tilted; people claim errors here and there, and resources available change. Use as part of other look-ups. We like the Blue Letter Bible presentation of Strong's because it includes Thayer, another Victorian, but who is far less doctrinal. Thayer is not as apt to shape the definition to meet current dogma requirements.<br />
<br />
<b>Haireseis in Strong's shows that G139 haireseis means "act of choosing" or sect.</b><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div>Haireseis or hairesis appears as "sect" that way <i>five </i>times. See <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=sect*+G139&t=KJV">http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=sect*+G139&t=KJV</a> Sect of the Sadducees, Sect of the Pharisees, Sect of the Nazarenes, Sect of our religion, this Sect. Click on the number 139 there, to get to the full definition section, at <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G139">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G139</a>. See also <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/lexiconc.cfm?Criteria=heresy&st=whole">http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/lexiconc.cfm?Criteria=heresy&st=whole</a>.<br />
<br />
There are many definitions of haireseis G139, see the uses specified at <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G139">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G139</a> :<br />
<br />
Meanings range widely:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>the active even violent "capture" (the act of taking or storming)(what is the origin of that since there is no perdition involved yet?), and</li>
<li> the quiet "choosing". </li>
<li>a body of men following their own beliefs as in a sect, and examples of sects are Sadducees, Pharisees, Christians. </li>
<li>the neutral dissensions resulting from differing views and goals, or </li>
<li>the doctrinal value judgment, "an opinion varying from the true exposition of the Christian faith (see the Thayer exposition there)".</li>
</ul><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>III. Enter, Perdition</b><br />
<b> New Idea Later. Not just destructive sect, but damnable</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b> THE CHURCH</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>Haireseias narrowed to "Sects", but sects of apOleias, "Destruction."</b><br />
<b> In translation, that apOleias becomes Perdition.</b><br />
<br />
<b>And Damned and Damnable By Bad Thoughts, Opinion: </b><br />
<b>Not Just Actions</b><br />
<br />
A. How did we get there?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">1. Jerome translating to Latin, so far so good: </div><div style="text-align: left;">acknowledge "haireseis" - G139 - as merely "sect"</div><div style="text-align: left;">Translate it into Latin that way. <a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B61C002.htm">http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B61C002.htm</a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Sectas </div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="text-align: left;">2.. But, to the "sect" idea, add Peter's idea that that following some sects is <i>destructive</i>, a ruin, loss - "apOleias" - G684<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G684"> http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G684 </a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">But be sure that the particular meaning chosen for G684 is not just "destruction" in Latin, but hell.</div><div style="text-align: left;">Perditionis</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">3. The root of G684 remains G622, however, simply destroy, render useless, abolish. Only metaphorical, as coming later, as to give over to eternal misery,"hell" <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G622">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G622.</a></div><div style="text-align: left;">Thayer: by one's conduct, action, the sheep straying, no longer able to sub<i>serve</i></div><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">4. And enter the most dangerous element: perdition for wrong thoughts, opinions </div><br />
<br />
<b> Sectas <i>Perditionis</i></b><br />
<b><br />
</b></div>Suddenly the Roman sect is setting itself apart as the sole authority, the sole inheritor, and monitor of thoughts, not just acts. Here is where Thayer is useful. Thayer gives comparative sites that appear to disagree with the "true faith" idea, so we know there is disagreement, so go to Peter first.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>A. II Peter 2:1 on perditionis: Transliteration check</b><br />
<b>Hairesis apOleias - no "perdition"</b><br />
<b>Words for Preferences of destruction</b></div><br />
Look up II Peter 2:1. at <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/2pe2.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/2pe2.pdf.</a> Find a phrase now, two words -- "haireseis (sic) apOleias" and the phrase reads, "preferences (sects) OF-destruction"<br />
The apOleias is G684.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>B. II Peter 2:1 on perditionis: Parallel translation check</b><br />
<b>Hairesi apOleias - Now find "perdition" </b><br />
<b>Words now for Sects of Perdition</b></div><br />
See <a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_60505147">http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B61C002.htm.</a> <br />
<br />
II Peter 2:1 Enter the world of perdition. To Thayer, an interpretation including destructive<i> opinion</i><br />
was erroneous, and he corrected it in his section.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Greek given there is "aireseiV apwleiaV" or heresy (meaning sect or choice) followed by apwleiaV or "destruction". Sect of destruction. Heresy in the old sense of choice, followed by destruction. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B61C002.htm"></a><br />
<br />
Greek Stephens 1550 ------------------------ aireseiV apwleiaV<br />
Greek Scrivener 1894 ------------------------aireseiV apwleiaV<br />
Greek Byzantine Majority ----------------- aireseiV apwleiaV<br />
Greek Alexandrian --------------------------- aireseiV apwleiaV<br />
Greek Hort and Wescott --------------------- aireseiV apwleiaV<br />
<br />
Transliteration ----------------------------------aireseiV--------------------------preferences (haireseis)<br />
Transliteration ----------------------------------apleiaV --------------------------of destruction (apOleias)<br />
<a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/2pe2.pdf">http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/2pe2.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Latin.<br />
<br />
Watch the change. See Jerome's Latin not translating the words as they are, but translating doctrinally, to be dogma-correct. Jerome does not leave a choice of belief as choice of belief; and destructive as destructive. It introduces <i>sect with doctrinal damnation.</i><br />
<br />
Latin (Jerome) Vulgate ----------------------- aireseiV apwleiaV -----------sectas perditionis <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Not even the "aireseiV" and not even the "apleiaV" are translated as they are.</li>
</ul><br />
Instead, Jerome sua sponte introduces a new idea: SECTAS PERDITIONIS<br />
<br />
Doctrinal hell. Not a mere wreck of a choice. <a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B61C002.htm">http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B61C002.htm</a> <br />
<br />
The Greek is still the "airesei" or hairesei we are used to. Why does Jerome change it? For doctrine: to establish a new church regardless of what the Greek said.<br />
<br />
<br />
Why do we trust our scriptural translations to those who are arguing doctrine every step of the way? Is it because the purpose of this supposedly authorized new church is not to present fact, but to ensure everybody agrees with its view, or dies.<br />
<br />
This is a far cry from Acts, where Paul sees himself as in the line of inherited faith as any other Jew. Just another sect. Now, go to hell.<br />
<br />
When did Paul and his followers decide there had to be a new religion? It was not in Acts at first. <br />
Those who believe these "heresies" so characterized (no longer the mere sect designation "heresim") will be destroyed and deserve it. So, the quiet idea of "sect" in line with the past, but in its own way, as Paul used it in trying to show his innocence, has become dogmatic damnation - sectas perditionis - of anybody who disagrees.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Peter, Peter. Commentary. A fourth betrayal? The lure of power, and the institution of Paul, who was already on the way to usurping Peter as the rock, is too much for poor reactive Peter to think through. Cockadoodle.</li>
</ul>Peter, the rockhead. At Paul, we are appalled. Paul's legacy is the original heresy, taking ways of peace, moving away from preaching to those who will hear, and sadness but not blame for those who will not or cannot, and away from example and healing and welcome, and tolerance; to warfare and perdition. So western culture's path was set in the usurped rock.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>C. Translations misused - perditionis</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div>Watch the progression: from heresias, or sect; not to heresias perditionis, or damned sect; but to sectas perditionis so that the word heresy itself becomes synonymous with perdition. There is no pretense at grammatical correctness, but the idea remains.<br />
<br />
Heresias becomes perdition, and that is not what heresias means. Who brought the perdition to the party so that all who disagree are damned, and worse yet, that anybody on the street is authorized to<i> enforce </i>that damnation, not leave consequences to the deity; but impose it yourself, as indeed occurred.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>IV. Translators themselves add to the text - </b><br />
<b>Perdition becomes synonymous with heresy</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div>Jerome in the Latin Vulgate in Acts translates Paul's word as "heresim". See <a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B44C024.htm#V14">http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B44C024.htm#V14</a>. Look up "heresim" in a Latin to English dictionary, and find nothing. See <a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_60505130">http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php</a><br />
<br />
Look further. <br />
<br />
"Heresim" can be seen as a root word, heres, with an ending, im: not a total word in itself in a dictionary. "Heres" in Latin means heir, heiress, successor, owner, see <a href="http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=heres&ending=im">http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=heres&ending=im</a>/.<br />
<br />
That also fits with Paul's idea of his being an inheritor, a successor in the line. Even Jerome is not calling heresim the "heresy" of deviation from an inherited set. The "im" in heresim can be something to do with seeing, I see, you and I see, we are seeing, etc. Same site. So, Paul is saying he is a successor, an heir. Paul uses the word to mean connected to the past, not breaking from it.<br />
<br />
But Jerome's translation of the same word, heresias, in Peter II is not a word not the expected heresim perditionis, which would suggest some group within the hereditary faith going astray; but it is "sectas" -- not suggesting an inherited faith line at all. A damned sect; he says "sectas perditionis". That is jarring, and sounds criminalizing. Not even within the bounds of the faith. Whose faith? The Roman sect's faith?<br />
<br />
<i>Heresim</i> perditionis or whatever it would be, would be expected. Why the sudden sectas. And the people coming after just used "heresy" as a shortcut for damned sects. But heresy retains the meaning of mere choice, and was used by Paul in that way. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>A. Back to roots -- course adjustment</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Check Strong's again. Go to G138 this time.</b></div><br />
Jerome goes so strongly into the perdition bit, that we go back to Strong's. Find an identified root there for G139 at <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G139">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G139</a> . Click there and see reference to Strong's G138.<br />
<br />
Often words surrounding a Strong's word, are useful. This one, G138, (it looks like aipew, somewhat different from the aipicin but maybe not much. It means "to choose". The root at Strong's 138 means to take for oneself, to choose, to prefer (no violence seen in any of those), see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G138&t=KJV">http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G138&t=KJV</a><br />
Back again to simple choice. A sect as a choice.<br />
<br />
What happened to that bland, informative idea of coexistence of choices?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>B. Review and watch the parroting</b></div><br />
Keep your windows open at the bottom of the screen and hop back and forth. Look again at the evolution of meaning of hairesin away from the original.<br />
<br />
We found the "hairesin" as the numbered word G139. See <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/lexiconc.cfm?Criteria=heresy&st=whole">http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/lexiconc.cfm?Criteria=heresy&st=whole</a> Strong's system, either G for Greek or H for Hebrew, is from the Victorian scholar who with his minions took each word in Hebrew and Greek and catalogued it from the Old and New Testaments.<br />
<br />
We saw that "heresy" number G139 becomes either <i>sect</i>, or - suddenly a new concept same word to define itself - <i>heresy.</i> Heresy? Use of the word to define the word? Sect is not a value judgment. Heresy is. Heresy came to mean perdition, damned sect. Go back to the parallel Greek New Testament. Take Jerome's "heresim" -- many the lackeys after simply make that into a new concept -- "heresy" --<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>5. Brave Translators Translate Heresim as Sect.</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Four brave souls.</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Only 4.</b></div><br />
There are four brave souls who translate "heresim" as "sect" -- <a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B44C024.htm#V14">http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B44C024.htm#V14</a><br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The American Standard, </li>
<li>Darby's English, </li>
<li> the World English, and </li>
<li>Young's Literal. </li>
</ul>Skip the Bible in Basic English as ridiculously doctrinal -- "that Way which to them is not the true religion," using up 10 dogma-teaching words instead of the one given, and reflects the later dogma wars, not the period in question. Suddenly, BBE puts us in the black-white true-religion angle that is not part of the verse at all.<br />
<br />
And by the time the writer comes along going under the nom de church Peter,all the concepts are mixed up with perdition, see <a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B61C002.htm">http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B61C002.htm</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>IV. What is Perdition?</b><br />
<b>Other sources, ordinary people </b></div><br />
Suddenly, mere heresim, or choice of sect; becomes sectas perditionis. Damned sect. Then the perdition part becomes synonymous with the choice of sect. How doctrine grows. This is not a new idea, but there are authors who seek to lay out more choices in analysis. For example, who really wrote the gospels, the letters. Was it customary at that time for others to write in the name of authority, and not be that authority at all, or writing at the authority's direction. Search for "forged" for example, a term that may not have been used then, but is useful now. Vet the process of selecting the canon. Assess the role of Roman military and organizational prowess, and ruthlessness, in moving from a civil and military empire to a religious and military one. <br />
<br />
Do your own research on perdition. Perdition is used eight times in the King James New Testament, see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=perdition&t=KJV">http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=perdition&t=KJV</a> -- beginning with John 17, and going on down some of the letters. How is it used, once it is in the vocabularu? People go to perdition, there is the perdition of the ungodly, destruction and perdition go hand in hand, there is a son of perdition, there is a token of perdition, <br />
<br />
All doctrine. And looking very gnostic -- gnostic elements in perdition, a dualism between good and evil. Check it out. Yet the gnostics were seen later as heretic in the sense of burnable. This process makes no sense, except as power plays. On through the Inquisitions, the Cathars, the forced conversions and on to today's self-designated right. <br />
<br />
Day of judgment language, who will burn, etc., all very institutional. Not part of original teaching where the deity may well choose a consequence, but the individual is to mind his own business --motes.<br />
<br />
Is that why Jerome suddenly uses "sectas perditionis" instead of mere heresim perditionis? Have to make it worse? That's the point, is that so. Did the Founder walk around threatening people, beating on their doors, casting them out if they disagreed? No, but as soon as he was gone, out the dogmers go. Heresy later equated with perdition. Perdition and sending other people to it became more important than living one's own life. Who is the heretic. Paul the heretic. He said that. It meant what it meant.<br />
<br />
Who let the dogma out?<br />
<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
<br />
1. Translation context.<br />
<br />
Translation efforts carry choices. Which wording achieves the desired meaning, whether or not original. So with the Bible. No surprise. Translations also acquire weight of time. This one must be "divinely inspired" because of its pedigree. That one is a colloquial self-serving agenda.<br />
<br />
2. Focus.<br />
<br />
Here, we look to intent of the Greek in the New Testament as to "heresy." With no assumptions of divine inspiration for either the Latin or English, and without reaching back yet to Aramaic (not so much online), what meaning for "heresy" emerges. How did words change so that merely "destructive preferences", for example, became the sinister and damning "sectas perditionis." Perdition? Hell? That kind of destruction threatened in a "Christ" church?<br />
<br />
Did the Founder ever model that? Threat and killing for failure to believe a certain way? If not, then is it the<i> Institution</i> that has been highjacked and is out of the real "inherited" line, and is the real "heresy." Interesting.<br />
<br />
3. Why bother?<br />
<br />
Bother because, In western history, heresy led to burning of heretics and other acts of extermination over centuries: for those disagreeing with orthodox dogma.<br />
<br />
The idea of heresy seeped into politics. For example, political party is a new orthodoxy. There is a penalty for not following the party line, for not mouthing certain words. You must be a Believer This Way. Your funding will be cut off and you will be cast into Sheol if you challenge the political gospel du jour. Is that so?<br />
<br />
4. Where next?<br />
<br />
Ask: What ideas are so toxic to our "destiny" (what is that destiny? what is exceptionalism? do we delude?) that we will, nay, must guide the toxic believers that we ourselves identify, to damnation.<br />
<br />
Then ask about this assumption of enforcement. How did others get authorized to kill in the name of a deity, as though the deity had not moxie to impose consequences. How did justification for killing people for ideas even get into the language.</div>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-72222243749967974992011-05-26T14:20:00.000-04:002011-09-12T11:11:39.307-04:00Capital Punishment: Put Someone To Death. If You Think You Have Cause. What?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
Capital Punishment.<br />
Go Ahead.<br />
Rewrite Commandments for the Gullible.<br />
<br />
Text authorization?<br />
No. But the gullible will not know the difference.<br />
<br />
And the result puts people at risk.<br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>The age-old Biblical prohibition against Murder,</b><b> </b><br />
<b>has been flipped to justify capital punishment. </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<b>Meet the Bible in Basic English and its permission slip.</b><br />
<b> You shall not kill, Exodus 20:13,</b><b> </b><b>becomes </b><b>"Do Not Put Anyone to Death Without Cause<i>"</i></b><br />
<br />
<b><i>Second Amendment Remedies Now In the Pew.</i></b><br />
<b><i> </i></b><b> </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRT41DMy1baT9XxVMZw-6keYsisn4lBPZO5b0estFAFUhT5ZEg_eU_HD2fr5RIHMQwDKuTYO309AR_2Cj-sGWxPNM0UJIhhtICMIsqjZX4pMAGet28GtBG96U9Rv1qOlW5ejwYkfRV174/s1600/stephenaxe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRT41DMy1baT9XxVMZw-6keYsisn4lBPZO5b0estFAFUhT5ZEg_eU_HD2fr5RIHMQwDKuTYO309AR_2Cj-sGWxPNM0UJIhhtICMIsqjZX4pMAGet28GtBG96U9Rv1qOlW5ejwYkfRV174/s320/stephenaxe.jpg" width="245" />Thou shalt not kill. Is that the same as Thou shalt not put anyone to death without cause?</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<b>Is that the same as Do Not Murder?</b><br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;">The Basic English Bible makes two pivotal changes to the traditional Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill, or Thou Shalt Not Murder.<br />
<br />
The Basic English Bible says only, "Do Not Put Anyone To Death Without Cause." See its version of Exodus 20:13 at <a href="http://www.o-bible.com/cgibin/ob.cgi?version=bbe&book=exo&chapter=20">http://www.o-bible.com/cgibin/ob.cgi?version=bbe&book=exo&chapter=20</a><br />
<br />
The new prohibition uses wording applicable to an <i>execution</i>: Even everyday definitions are clear. Using the same straightforward site for the elements of an execution, start with definitions and context.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>I. Object to it.</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div>Here, we object to the wording in three ways. First, by examining the risk of imprecise wording taken literally by persons choosing to take the law into their own hands; second, by deconstructing the wording to show how the meaning changes; and, third, by text criticism. The wording is not in reasonable parameters for translating or transliterating, "Thou shalt not murder." The "execution" idea in the Bible in Basic English does not follow anything like it in the Bible Commandments. The Bible in Basic English goes on a frolic of its own, an unauthorized deviation. <br />
<br />
How did this happen? Understandable. The Bible in Basic English intentionally limits itself to 850 words, plus some other "Bible" words. The function of this "Bible" is to simplify so that non-English speaker can more easily understand as they learn English at the same time. See <a href="http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Basic-English-BBE.html">What is the Bible in Basic English</a>.<br />
<br />
With so few words, little nuance is possible; so the words chosen must convey the religious message intended, or else the message is distorted.<br />
<br />
Using this text as a "Bible" distorts the Bible. What will "Christianity" mean to those in other lands; or even modern societies' religions who are given this as their main resource? Christianity will mean what their translator or priest says it means, with the text even more distorted than we are used to.<br />
<br />
Second amendment remedies in the pew. Make room.<br />
<br />
This is an era where that wording, "Do not put anyone to death without cause," puts others at risk. The Second Amendment hops on board and becomes code for the seemingly-justified killing of others, by persons convinced that they have "cause" and therefore it is their acceptable duty to put others to death. Ayn Rand's self-interest uber alles. All these who may have occasion to read or study this version, can find justification that is not otherwise there.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>vigilantes, </li>
<li>war criminals, </li>
<li>the unbalanced, </li>
<li>lone wolves, </li>
<li>militias, </li>
<li>wild conspiracy theorists, conclusions not rooted in logic or evidence, feeding fear of loss of "one's own" in charge, fear of loss of social and economic status and other loss, assassins taking the law into their own hands,</li>
<li>religious self-help followers, convinced their interpretation of abortion or other issues entitled them to impose that view on others who may be also of faith, but with a different implementation,</li>
<li>gunworshippers, more self-help ultimata, disregard of others,<br />
</li>
<li>politicians exploiting all of the above <br />
</li>
</ul>The permissive version would allow such a vigilante-oriented person to think along these lines: "I have cause, in my mind. The Bible only prohibits putting someone to death without cause. Therefore, I can put this person to death because I have cause." Even of no specific example of that is found, as may be, change it anyway. The risk is there.<br />
<br />
Murder has specific meanings, against interpersonal killing, lying in wait sometimes, taking law into your own hands, killing other than as the State or Religion requires in its laws or warfare. Here: go ahead. Put homosexuals, for example, feminists, women who get out of role, people who conduct abortions, people who have abortions, undesirables, other ethnic groups, undocumented immigrants in your face, all in the removable category. Without the individual responsibility of a legally authorized cause, you can do what you like. The Bible tells you so.<br />
<br />
Substituting a phrase of art -- official putting to death -- for interpersonal murder and kill, is confusing, misleading, and false. This "translation" or, more accurately, this "paraphrase", has been in the public domain since 1965. How to measure its impact? It is included up there with the major works, see the <a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B02C020.htm#V13">Parallel Hebrew Old Testament, here at Exodus 20:13. </a>And nobody else agrees with it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>II. Deconstruct the wording.</b></div><br />
"Do not put anyone to death without cause".<br />
<br />
So just pick your cause.<br />
<br />
This results in a prohibition against official persons, acting pursuant to lawful authority to kill, to do so if there is not legal cause. That wording technically, and at its worst, leaves wide open any Biblical prohibition against an individual killing for his or her own reasons. At the least, that wording can mislead people who read it as authority to take the law into their own hands. An execution by me because I have my own cause? Looks fine. <br />
<br />
<br />
A. Who has authority to Put To Death. An institutional, official concept.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Putting someone to death is an execution. To <i>put to death</i> is an idiom for "to execute." See <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/put+to+death">http://www.thefreedictionary.com/put+to+death</a> </li>
<li>Putting someone to death is a killing pursuant to formal proceedings: state criminal or religious law in effect officially in the place, and carried out by officially authorized persons or means, within that authority, after an official proceeding establishing guilt according to the law of that place, requiring death. See <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/execution">http://www.thefreedictionary.com/execution</a> </li>
<li> Accordingly, so far, the new Commandment language reads, in effect, Do Not <i>Execute </i>Anyone Without Cause </li>
</ul>B. What Cause is sufficient. Legally authorized cause.<br />
<br />
The adequacy of Cause gets ambiguous, because of its various meanings depending on the context. Bt when but the issue is a death penalty, the cause must be legally authorized in order to justify a putting to death. Cause out of context can mean a range:<br />
<br />
a) the producer of some consequence,<br />
b) a reason for the action,<br />
c) a goal or principle zealously pursued, or adopted by people in the context of a struggle, or<br />
d) <i>legal </i>Cause: ground for <i>legal </i>action, such as sentencing, enforcement, execution.<br />
<br />
Legal cause justifying a putting to death is thus a formal, adjudicated or authorized Cause; not a personally determined cause. See<br />
<a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cause">http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cause</a><br />
<br />
That new wording, Do not execute without cause, changes the subject matter, the action, and the object. It downplays the legal nature of the cause required before someone can be executed.<br />
<br />
C. Who is addressed? <br />
<br />
Who is the "you," as in "you do not," don't do that. Who is that understood to be? What actor is addressed in the Biblical Commandment now?<br />
<br />
1. Not ordinary people. Ordinary people are left out here. If "putting to death" is an authorized function, then the authority is being addressed. If you are not an authority, this Biblical section does not speak to you. <br />
<br />
So if you, an ordinary person, or part of ordinary group without official state permission to kill, want to wipe somebody else out, go ahead, is the strictly Biblical implication of this re-write. Only officialdom's "putting to death" requires cause. If you just want to kill, your cause is your cause. <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The Bible in Basic English version omits any reference to "you" as an individual, acting completely on your own, or with others, and all without legal authority. The individual acting on his own is not addressed at all. </li>
<li>There is no longer a prohibition about murder, or interpersonal killing out of pique or anger or resentment, etc. Common sense would suggest that that is not meant; but that is what is said. </li>
</ul>2. Authorized people. Authorized people are addressed, because only authorized people can "put to death." Who, then, is authorized? Only those acting within that authorization, and when the authorization it itself legally authorized.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Authorized people acting outside their authority are not authorized. </li>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEija-x9I0FABlh-k_yTP0pmte0PMJOYKvJgIFonKzr1-BqdSLg7eBOZLR4CCcUvVmOJiCsdR-MAA8SgaFIDEiJ0TMg5awuxU6CSAvQK-l-KhDxqFFrDp0SOqTqsVNPP8ZeQW9FqqxRfWUy2/s1600/bosnia2warcrimsupportposterdoor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEija-x9I0FABlh-k_yTP0pmte0PMJOYKvJgIFonKzr1-BqdSLg7eBOZLR4CCcUvVmOJiCsdR-MAA8SgaFIDEiJ0TMg5awuxU6CSAvQK-l-KhDxqFFrDp0SOqTqsVNPP8ZeQW9FqqxRfWUy2/s320/bosnia2warcrimsupportposterdoor.jpg" width="320" />Ratko Mladic? Karadzic? Bosnia posters. National heroes or war criminals?</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijfvsFugS6r6kUdI1LlK-gNnX75OMN8JtVtoBqe9zubYGRLMA7Xee1pyGBVjByDkwARqK_ZcL-uPFKs2LrGJ1LT07BtjAwQW3EsVOwAtTBB4snjusde0ZEK-YYx4v4nVrngy2534gTc9YH/s1600/bosniawarcrimesupportposter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijfvsFugS6r6kUdI1LlK-gNnX75OMN8JtVtoBqe9zubYGRLMA7Xee1pyGBVjByDkwARqK_ZcL-uPFKs2LrGJ1LT07BtjAwQW3EsVOwAtTBB4snjusde0ZEK-YYx4v4nVrngy2534gTc9YH/s320/bosniawarcrimesupportposter.jpg" width="214" />Ratko Mladic, Bosnia poster. Or Karadzic? We believe this is Mladic.</a></div><ul><li>Soldiers and others acting outside their authority are not protected -- Soldiers are held to the standard of their particular role at the time. A soldier can be accused of murder if he or she acts outside the immediate authority to kill pursuant to a war directive. See <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/my_lai.html">My Lai, here at PBS</a>. </li>
<li> In a trial pipeline for alleged war crimes is Ratko Mladic, fair use thumbnail of him here from cba.ca: <a href="http://www.dogpile.com/clickserver/_iceUrlFlag=1?rawURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fgfx%2Fpix%2Fmladic_ratko_cp_2494414.jpg&0=&1=0&4=24.61.65.164&5=24.61.65.164&9=b8c20f18306d489ba9487987721bcc01&10=1&11=info.dogpl&13=search&14=372380&15=main-title&17=18&18=18&19=0&20=0&21=18&22=rCxQvgQKu2E%3D&23=0&40=D2ZySzEuqXDpLgWlwhtv%2Bg%3D%3D&_IceUrl=true" id="icePage_SearchResults_ResultsRepeaterByRelevance_ResultRepeaterOther_ctl17_ImageResult_ImageThumb" target="_blank"><img class="imageResultPane" id="icePage_SearchResults_ResultsRepeaterByRelevance_ResultRepeaterOther_ctl17_ImageResult_ThumbInnerImage" src="http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=959390227093&id=0a56dc970963a27e1900e8fa0508d43a" style="border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; height: 140px; width: 91px;" /></a> </li>
<li>Based on current news coverage, we believe that our poster photos are Mladic, the officer we saw on posters in Bosnia. The resemblance is stronger than for Karadzic, we now think. For either, the issues would be the same: what is the line between warfare according to warfare's "rules," and genocide, murder. Do not "execute" without "cause" -- and the cause must be a legally authorized one. See the setting for the posters at <a href="http://bosniaroadways.blogspot.com/2008/08/war-crimes-captures-posters.html">Bosnia posters, fugitive or recently apprehended war leaders</a></li>
</ul></ul>3. Authorized people but the authorization is illegal, are not authorized. See the Nuremberg trials. People just following orders are not protected where those orders are criminal, and where the force over them was not absolute, and they could have chosen to leave or refuse somehow, difficult and risky as that choice might have been. See <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/nuremberg/">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/nuremberg/</a></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
The different wording (Do not put anyone to death without cause) spreads hunting season wide open. Anybody can now be hunted. The wording suggests that<br />
<br />
a) a person<br />
b) may indeed be the executioner of another (put another to death),<br />
c) without state criminal authorization, and<br />
d) without state civil authorization permitting religious criminal trials that can result in execution (Fatwa, for example),<br />
e) <i>so long as the acting person believes in his own mind that he has cause.</i><br />
<br />
On what ground does the Bible in Basic English do that? Single-handedly change a previously unquestioned Biblical wording?<br />
<br />
4. The Ruthless Individualist, the Rational Selfish are Well Served</div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://joyofequivocating.blogspot.com/2009/08/ayn-rand-what-antidote-to-kool-aid-of.html">Ayn Rand </a>. Ayn rand would be proud of this translation because it does not impinge on the individual. Individual uber alles, even uber law. Some cultures do permit an individual to follow the personal directive of a religious leader and enforce an official fatwa, to kill. Some (most?) cultures permit an individual to kill on the directive of its military, to defend, etc. But what lands permit an individual to kill based on the individual's "belief" that killing is the recourse. Religious and secular law taken in their own hands, Bible in hand, the <a href="http://www.biblekeeper.com/bible-in-english/index.php">Bible in Basic English, BBE</a>. </div><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">This unjustified alteration puts Second Amendment Remedies in the Pew. If offers tools for "Christians" here and in foreign lands to enforce their own view of who should live, what lifestyle shall exist, what beliefs, even if sincerely held. Look at the breadth of the permission. If you think you have "cause," go ahead. Put the person to death. The Morality Procrustean Be. Thou shalt fit my personal-mold view, or I will hack you short or stretch you long until you do. <a href="http://www.goines.net/Writing/procrustean_bed.html">Procrustean Bed. </a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>III. What translation or transliteration reasoning supports the "put to death" and "cause" idea. Nothing. </b></div></div><div></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div>1. KILL<br />
<br />
What was the original, or close to it:<br />
<br />
1.1 Thou shalt not kill, murder. See old Paleo-Hebrew --<br />
<img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pcheyth.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/ptsadey.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/preysh.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pthav.gif" /> <img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/paleph.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/plamed.gif" /><br />
<a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B02C020.htm#V13">http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B02C020.htm#V13</a> .<br />
<br />
1.2 Go to plain, recognizable Hebrew, and find<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> לא תרצח׃ </b></span>Remember to go left to right. At least we can see two groupings.<br />
<br />
<br />
1.3 Transliteration: the Hebrew as it could be spoken, the phonetic: There were no vowels in Hebrew, so any vowels are inserted according to likely sound, by scholars<br />
<span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;"> <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">L'a ThUrTShCh.</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
1.4 St. Jerome's Latin: non occides. Literally, "You do not kill" or "You do not murder." Not even a "shall" is really there, in Young's transliteration at that site. It is present tense, now.<br />
<br />
<br />
You. Second person singular. You. You. And You. Pointing finger arcs around.<br />
<br />
This is a handy site for starting on translations. <a href="http://hebrewoldtestament.com/"> Parallel Hebrew Old Testament</a> Do not stop there. Go to another transliteration, to check Young's Literal, the last one given at Parallel Hebrew Old Testament.<br />
<br />
<br />
1.5 Not you shall murder.<br />
<br />
See Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament at <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo20.pdf">Scripture4all, Exodus 20:13</a> The Hebrew looks the same, a little hard to tell, but the phonetic is very close to 1.3 above, how it would sound if spoken<br />
<br />
la thrtzch<br />
<br />
<br />
2. MURDER<br />
<br />
What does murder mean? There are many resources<br />
<br />
2.1 <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/lexiconc.cfm?Criteria=murder&x=6&y=13&st=any">Blue Letter Bible, Murder</a><br />
Slayer, manslayer, death, kill, destroy, "out of hand",<br />
<br />
2.2 Find all the places that "murder" is used<br />
<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=murder&t=KJV">Blue Letter Bible, Murder Uses</a><br />
Find numbers corresponding to each use of "murder" -- These are Strong's Lexicon numbers.<br />
For murder:<br />
<br />
Some of this is addressed in abortion topic sites, as the ideas of killing, murder, are used there.<a href="http://www.biblekeeper.com/bible-in-english/exodus_20.php"> BBE. Doctrinally Improved Ten Commandments</a>. This wording becomes a Second Amendment permission slip to kill those who ideologically conclude differently from you.<br />
<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
<br />
Studying the impact of this translation on other countries who then espouse Christianity will be difficult. What other kind of "Christianity" were they exposed to? Perhaps none. So, if this is the Commandment, that you do not execute people without cause, is the one in hearts and minds, can we be surprised at genocide? hate acts? not really. Without damage to the good translation areas of the Bible in Basic English, that may comport with Biblical intent through language and scholarship, this is to request that the current purveyors re-look at the Commandments. Put to death means an execution. That leaves other behaviors open. Distortion translation.<br />
<br />
Do not kill would be good.<br />
<br />
Or, Do not murder.</div>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-76006383626972304172011-05-02T17:25:00.000-04:002011-05-10T18:47:28.405-04:00Old Testament Abortion. Culpable Killing or Not: Western Christian Context<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">The Old Testament Texts on Abortion</div><div style="text-align: center;">Kill, Murder, When or if Soul arrives, or None of the Above </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Abortion Decision Tree:</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Premature birth of a non-breathing entity. </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>What does the Old Testament say about how that can happen, and what happens next.</b></div><br />
<br />
We find no Old Testament Biblical text culpability for any intentional act to dislodge an In Utero. It must have been the woman's business, and she was left to her choices. Here, we look up translation sites; transliteration sites; comparison sites; on the topics of abortion, kill, murder, and soul, and life. Not a word other than description of the result of a dead entity in the womb. Read the texts here for yourself, see the words, their usage.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA0W7eY1bMv_1COEQI5OsVV99jnCgyAVOlNkRhYuw95YD1wJVSiIW9jXRmGQ9c7wY23ZAkIMUgDZmnldiErZZ60xqOR5Cj653sGUpkD5MkMHFPtgR_UqpVpuoUbZHVvQ8mbb_Qkkl8kI1r/s1600/newgatecopperdorm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="219" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA0W7eY1bMv_1COEQI5OsVV99jnCgyAVOlNkRhYuw95YD1wJVSiIW9jXRmGQ9c7wY23ZAkIMUgDZmnldiErZZ60xqOR5Cj653sGUpkD5MkMHFPtgR_UqpVpuoUbZHVvQ8mbb_Qkkl8kI1r/s320/newgatecopperdorm.jpg" width="320" />Biblical Text research. Results may not suit doctrine.</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div>Start the process of looking up for yourself how words in the OT are or are not related to kill, or murder, or soul, or life, in their original settings, to abortion issues; before later ideology. Clue: Nephesh, breath, as in breath of life. Important to personhood, see <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm">://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/">Blue Letter Bible, Strong's Lexicon</a>. What applies to in utero? Start your own research.<br />
<br />
Type in "kill" at the Blue Letter Bible site, to start. Find all the places "kill" is used.<br />
<br />
See the numbers that appear at each given example of a variation on "kill" like 5221 or 5315 or 5309, for example. Is there any usage in the Old Testament that applies that word to an in utero situation, so as to produce a crime, or anything at all; even if intentional. Is the only usage a descriptive one, but not moral.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Check other ancient cultures. Some systems may not address a topic at all, and another may refer to it as property, not morals. In our day, see how views of abortion as turf or morals change with the politics of the day. </li>
<li>And if the religious belief says that the <i>individual</i> has the right to enforce the religious law, as may be the case in Islam, perhaps not (find out), then religion and government become even more closely intertwined, see ranges of the concept at <a href="http://www.ishim.net/ishimj/910/JISHIM%20NO.9%20PDF/05.pdf">Ishim.net, Abortion in the Islamic-Ottoman Legal Systems. </a></li>
<li>If there is no Biblical firm basis for intervening in abortion at all, then legislators are deprived of justifying their prohibition on moral grounds if they cited the Bible. It isn't there. </li>
<li> That means any law must have a "rational basis" -- <a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm">Rational basis, scrutiny of legislation</a>. That is a reach. Are we so depleted in population because some women get abortions, that the government has to step in, rationally? Really? Or do we leave individual moral decisions, agonizing as they are,made by deeply moral people (women are as moral as men, or the opposite), to those people to burn later or not, as conservatives seek to protect them from. </li>
<li>A cultural issue, to be sure, deciding who decides (power) in the guise of religion. </li>
</ul><br />
Steps to analysis.<br />
<br />
Looking at parallel translation sites, start spotting who has an agenda that affects the meaning of the translation. Who did original translating; who piggy-backs on translations of others, and then picks and chooses how to phrase it themselves. Our "Bible" is a hydra.<br />
. <br />
Then ask: If ideology derives from a collection of opinions over time combined with a sense of politics and power enabling one group to take charge, and those opinions derive from a set of recurrent facts, should not the ideology change if the facts change? Does that happen.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRd4zHAx2Uc2Vps7ti4wrul8DJ_DbHibk6-3EpcE55qpUe6QfZRJz8qC-LBnrSSyYMvcQXBrGG8dCANxcfEgvoVHJnrc__fQGwYwJfNQTtpCw-t47VydvQP7b_cGydIz1HKjg51SrFNaf3/s1600/swedenup0006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRd4zHAx2Uc2Vps7ti4wrul8DJ_DbHibk6-3EpcE55qpUe6QfZRJz8qC-LBnrSSyYMvcQXBrGG8dCANxcfEgvoVHJnrc__fQGwYwJfNQTtpCw-t47VydvQP7b_cGydIz1HKjg51SrFNaf3/s320/swedenup0006.jpg" width="200" />What is going on? Who decides?</a></div><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">Culpable killing or not?<br />
<br />
When original religious texts are silent, then the issue is not originally religious, but was, and probably should be, culturally defined and dealt with as the culture saw fit, including to ignore completely. Because something is legal does not mean it will be abused.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b> Conclusion so far --</b></div><br />
Abortion is descriptive but not an Old Testament (or New Testament) moral Biblical issue.<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Whatever the women were doing was not a problem. Some other cultures inflicted punishment for interference with the man's property right, but no moral issue was imposed. See FN 1. </li>
<li>It was later ideology that superimposed an otherwise "moral" component on the happenings that had the predictable result of reinforcing the man's right to intervene in ways the Transliterations do not support. Follow? The colonization process, apparently. How better to ensure that the woman would be subjugated, especially after an egalitarian attitude of the founder, than to invade this arena.</li>
<li>Doctrinal "translations" further the doctrines of the institution. To us, that need to reinforce an institution's dogma makes it an untrustworthy translation, not a trustworthy one, because of the driving agenda on word choice, addition and omission. Bertrand Russell would not buy that process. should we? Vet beliefs. <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2011/05/bertrand-russell-service-of-atheist.html">The Trustworthy Belief; the Untrustworthy Belief. Bertrand Russell</a></li>
</ul><br />
See also <a href="http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-testament-abortion-simple-paul.html">New Testament Abortion;</a> and how the doctrine went its own way after, at <a href="http://www.thepost.ie/archives/2001/1007/early-church-permitted-abortion-in-some-cases-828025828.html">Early Church Permitted Abortion in Some Cases, Irish Examiner 10/7/2001</a> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: center;"><b>I. Overview - </b></div><br />
A. Human intervention into what some see as original "inspiration".<br />
<br />
Do meanings and usage of original texts become so changed over time for doctrinal purposes, that they no longer reflect "The Bible" as written.<br />
<br />
B. How does a topic unimportant to The Bible become a rallying cry later for culture? Because culture supersedes original text. And culture is politics, not theology.<br />
<br />
As to abortion in particular, what grounds the idea of Biblical prohibition. On what ground does <i>doctrine </i>claim a Biblical ground for prohibition, where 1) there is no reference to a moral component to the causes of premature birth of a then-dead entity; and 2) where soul NPHSH originates with breath-incoming; and 3) soul and life are associated definitively with breath and and breath with "life", and 4) no word for "kill" is used in reference to the entity not breathing. Governments can enact their own policy, but not claim it is Biblical, is that so?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>II. Research tools - </b></div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Transliteration sites</li>
<ul><li>we suggest <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm">Scripture4all -Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament</a> and <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm">Scripture4all, Greek Online Interlinear New Testament</a><br />
</li>
</ul><li>Parallel translation sites </li>
<ul><li>we suggest <a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/">Parallel Hebrew Old Testament</a>and <a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/">Parallel Greek New Testame</a> </li>
<li>"Thou shalt not kill/murder" - <a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B02C020.htm#V13">Parallel Hebrew Old Testament Exodus 20:13.</a></li>
</ul><li>Lexicons and word-numbering (Strong's), </li>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html">Strong's Lexicon at Eliyah.com</a> and then Thayer's version there, that offers an additional perspective that is less doctrinaire than Strong's </li>
<li> <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/">Blue Letter Bible</a> - write in the word you want to research, click, and see its Strong's lexicon number, and all the time it appears (and how) in the Bible</li>
</ul><li>Note and vet editors whose work paraphrases and changes others' work: <a href="http://www.biblekeeper.com/bible-in-english/index.php">Biblekeeper, Index, Bible in Basic English</a> (reduces Bible to its "sense" by using less than 1000 different words, to make reading easier for illiterate populations; a tool for teaching English, not conveying meaning)</li>
<li>Note and vet linquistic linguistic scholars who translate or transliterate; and relationship of objective meaning (as far as can be determined) from later additions, omissions, </li>
<li>Note specific changes in stated editions related to imposed doctrine requirements</li>
</ul><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">III. Texts and Usage</div>Overview <br />
A. Words for "Abortion;" "Premature Birth"<br />
B. Words for "Kill" -- are there any that related to in utero (no) <br />
1. Murder <br />
2. Execute - an execution, death pursuant to a judgment, governmental function<br />
3. Sacrifice, animal, human<br />
4. Animal slaughter for food<br />
5. Battle and people slaughter, smite<br />
<br />
C. Role and meaning of "Soul" (is there any concept other than soul with life and breath? no)<br />
1. When soul enters</div><div style="text-align: left;">2. Concomitant meaning with breath, the breathing entity, life as breathing<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">IV. Vetting and Discussion</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">V. Conclusion</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">.............................................................................................. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">III Texts and Usage Expanded</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>A. Words for abortion; </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>for more on the ancient world, see FN 1 on topic. </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div>1. Usage: Find premature birth, miscarriage, untimely birth. Strong's numbered words:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>5307 = Naphal, fall. This has multiple uses, for falling away, fall down, etc, see site <a href="http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/5307.htm">Biblos, Strong's Numbers Hebrew 5307</a></li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>5308 = Nephal, Aramaic root, corresponding to nephel. Short meaning: "down" -- leave out the middle box, and see just the three forms in the Aramaic rootנָ֫פֶל </li>
<li>5309 = Nephel, miscarriage,<span style="font-size: x-large;"> נָ֫פֶל</span></li>
</ul>2. Meanings: From "something fallen" , abortion, Hebrew "naphal" So: Hebrew usage seems consistent, absence of value judgments, descriptive, no identification with "kill".<br />
<br />
3. Do go to the Blue Letter Bible for a fast look at all the times a word is used, and how, and the Strong's number, see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=murder&t=KJV">Blue Letter Bible, key in any word, get Strong's Number, examples</a><br />
Strong's H5308<br />
4. Nephel.<span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span>Parallel Hebrew Old Testament<i> nphl </i><br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> כנפל</span></div>is this the older Paleo Hebrew? <img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/plamed.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pphe.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pnuwn.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pkaph.gif" />Not sure.<br />
<br />
5. There is no specific other word for "abortion" - try a search at <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=abortion&t=KJV&sf=5">Blue Letter Bible, search for "abortion" KJV.</a><br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>However, there is a description of leprosy producing an appearance as one born who was dead in the womb, in Numbers: </li>
</ul>Setting: The Wilderness with Moses. Miriam has been struck with leprosy for rousing people along with Aaron, who was not punished, against Moses for marrying an Ethiopian wife; she and Aaron are also jealous of God's favoring Moses. Aaron pleads with God to lift the punishment of leprosy on Miriam:<br />
<br />
The transliteration: <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/num12.pdf">Scripture4all, Numbers 12:12, one being dead from the womb</a><br />
<br />
<u>Aaron's pleading: In the phonetic:</u><br />
must-not be .................................. al<br />
please .......................................... -na<br />
she-shall-be .................................. thei<br />
as-the-one-being-dead .................... k-mth<br />
which .......................................... ashr<br />
in-to-come-forth-of-him ................ b-tzath-u<br />
from-womb-of ............................. m-urchm<br />
mother-of-him .............................. am-u<br />
and-he-is-being-devoured .............. u-iakl<br />
half-of ......................................... chtzi<br />
flesh-of-him ................................. bshr-u<br />
<br />
Aaron pleads with God to lift the punishment of leprosy on Miriam:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="">"must-not be please she-shall-be as-the-one-being-dead which in-to-come-forth-of-him from-womb-of mother-of-him and-he-is-being-devoured half-of flesh-of-him" </blockquote><a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/num12.pdf">Scripture4all, Hebrew Interlinear, Numbers 12:12</a><br />
<br />
Moses also pleads, and the Lord agrees and banishes Miriam for 7 days, and then she can come back. Leprosy gone. How about Aaron? Nothing happened to him. Is it possible to see Moses and Miriam and Aaron and the Lady in<a href="http://sassafrasthicket.blogspot.com/2011/05/moses-takes-wife-lady-of-cush-miriam.html"> texts with a drop of humor</a> as we look at ourselves and the ancients? If not, don't click.<br />
<br />
6. Keep this description in mind in reading Paul's description of himself as an abortion in the New Testament: <a href="http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-testament-abortion-simple-paul.html">New Testament on Abortion: Paul</a> He says that Jesus appeared to him as an abortion (not Jesus, Paul) in the time when Paul as Saul was chasing (his word) Christians; in that Paul as Saul was so incomplete, so unworthy, so undeserving of the name of apostle, because he was an abortion, inferior to the other real apostles, who had been there, were completed. He was as an abortion is undeserving of the name of child. An abortion is not a child. FN 3<br />
<br />
7. Is this so?<br />
<br />
Abortion in the Old Testament is a premature birth, an abortion, is an event without judgment, the product of it not a person not even deserving of a name, just something that happens, no issue of causation found to be an issue, not in anybody's jurisdiction at all. No issue is raised as to culpability in intentionally bringing it about, if and when that happened.<br />
<br />
8. Check other occurrences: <br />
<br />
"Untimely birth"<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=untimely+birth&t=KJV"> "Untimely birth" Blue Letter Bible concordance, OT Hebrew</a><br />
There find 3 uses<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Job 3:16, "Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants never saw light." At Parallel Hebrew Old Testament, find also Job 3:16 - The Latin Vulgate says "abortium absconditum" (that would be Jerome using "abortium"); and then the others follow suit with "untimely birth" and infants who have not seen the light<br />
</li>
<ul><li>a. Job 3:16 at Scripture4all<br />
au.......................or<br />
k-<b>nphl..</b>...............as-abortion <i>NPHL --</i><br />
tmun...................being buried<br />
la........................not <br />
aeie.....................I-was<br />
k-ollim................as-unweaned<br />
la-rau..................not they-saw<br />
aur......................light<br />
<br />
"Or as an hidden, untimely birth I had not been: as infants never saw light."<a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/job3.pdf"> Scripture4all Hebrew transliteration Job 3:16</a> "nphl" So, there is the idea of an abortion as never seeing light, not a matter of breathing. But still no issue of how that came about. Check other sites, <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm">Scripture4all, Index, Hebrew Online Interlinear Bible</a> <br />
</li>
</ul></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Psalm 58:8, "As a snail melteth let pass away the untimely birth of a woman, they may not see the sun."</li>
<ul><li>Psalm 58-8 -- also uses the nphl in the transliteration, in the narrative it also becomes 'untimely birth'nphl....................abortion<a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/psa58.pdf"> Scripture4all Hebrew Transliteration Psalm 58-8</a> <br />
<br />
</li>
</ul><li>Ecclesiastes 6:3. "If a man beget an hundred and live many years so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also he have no burial, I say an untimely birth is better than he.</li>
<ul><li>Ecclesiastes 6:3 - also nphl<a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/qoh6.pdf"> Scripture4all:// Hebrew Transliteration Ecclesiastes 6:3</a> </li>
</ul></ul> Still no value judgments, no rules, just a neutral description of an event. Check at 5308, 5309, 53 at <a href="http://bible.cc/searchstrongs.php?q=untimely+birth">Biblos, Bible and Library Search, Strongs, 'Untimely birth"</a><br />
<br />
Abortion so far in the Old Testament is a descriptive vehicle, nonjudgmental, some see the sun, some don't, better not to be born than than the soul not be filled with good, routine passings away. This is a state of mind or being that is once done, over and done with. Not a big deal. Nobody differentiates on how this came about, this untimely birth. Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for <i>'"untimely" AND "birth"'</i> in the HNV". Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2011. 29 Apr 2011. <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=untimely+birth&t=HNV">Blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=untimely+birth</a> <br />
..............................................................................<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>B. Words for "Kill": Murder</b></div><br />
<br />
<br />
1. Murder<br />
<a href="http://hebrewoldtestament.com/B02C020.htm#V13">Parallel Hebrew Old Testament Bible in Basic English Ex.20:13</a><br />
Thou shalt not kill.<br />
<br />
a. Paleo Hebrew. <br />
<br />
<br />
.<img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pcheyth.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/ptsadey.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/preysh.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pthav.gif" /> <img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/paleph.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/plamed.gif" /><br />
<br />
<br />
b. Hebrew<br />
Strong's 7523 <br />
<br />
Premeditated,<i> or </i>accidental (both in same meaning?), avenger, assassin, intentional slayer. murder,<br />
Thou shalt not murder, Thou shalt not kill:<br />
<br />
murder not<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="5"><tbody>
<tr><td valign="TOP"><br />
</td><td valign="TOP"><br />
</td><td valign="TOP"><br />
</td><td valign="TOP"></td><td valign="TOP"><br />
</td><td><table><tbody>
<tr><td align="RIGHT"><br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">לא תרצח׃</span></div></td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />
The general term: murder for kill, assassination, foul play . Do we have the letters right?<br />
<br />
Strong's H7523<br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><span class="lexTitleHb" style="font-size: 250%; font-weight: normal;">רָצַח</span> </div><br />
.......................................<br />
<br />
See also listed, roughly, as variations on the circumstances of "kill" these Strong's numbered words<br />
<br />
2026 (smite, slay),<br />
<br />
2873 (sacrifice, or kill after stealing),<br />
<br />
4191 (an execution), "Do not put anyone to death without cause."<i> </i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>This is the version of "kill" apparently given in the Bible in Basic English, instead of "Do not kill" or "Do not murder", this being the 9th of the English versions in the Parallel Hebrew Old Testament site. See FN 2</li>
</ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
5221 (kill as punishment, smiting, casting judgment) - or this could be the sense of the Bible in Basic English. The point is that the change in wording in Bible in Basic English makes meaning murkier. <br />
<br />
5315 (refers to nephesh, killing breath, breath of life), Nephesh, NPHSH, Soul (breath of life brings the soul, <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/num12.pdf">Gen 2:7</a> - no other Biblical reference to an "ensoulment" that we can findl)(note all creatures that breathe have a soul, <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf">Gen 1:21 ff</a>)<br />
<div style="text-align: left;"> <span class="lexTitleHb" style="font-size: 250%; font-weight: normal;">נֶפֶשׁ</span> </div><br />
<br />
7819 (animal or human sacrifice)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><table border="0" cellpadding="5"><tbody>
<tr><td valign="TOP"><br />
</td><td valign="TOP"><br />
</td><td valign="TOP"><br />
</td><td valign="TOP"><br />
</td><td valign="TOP"><br />
</td><td><table><tbody>
<tr><td align="RIGHT"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
....................................................................................................... <br />
<br />
c. Latin<br />
<br />
Non occidere (Thou shalt not murder)<br />
<br />
.................................................................................. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>C. Role and meaning of "Soul"</b></div><br />
1. When soul enters</div>2. Concomitant with breath, the breathing entity<br />
<br />
IV. Conclusion </div><br />
You don't have to know Hebrew -- just get familiar with what the forms look like so you can recognize them elsewhere. </div><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;"><table border="0" cellpadding="5"><tbody>
<tr><td valign="TOP"><br />
</td><td><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div></div>...................................................</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<br />
<br />
=================================================================<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>IV. Discussion: </b><br />
<b>Vetting "Kill" </b><br />
<b>Vetting "Murder"</b><br />
<b>Strong's 7523 (premeditated or accidental, </b></div><br />
These meanings all relate to a breathing entity at the time of the death. We see no reference to acts of one who brought that about intentionally. There were obviously abortifacients at Creation - they are with us now, see some at Duke's Handbook of Medicinal Plants, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=UcLYLpwdcm8C&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=abortifacient+vegetation&source=bl&ots=MBddRkbof3&sig=OC3xTiNsPzrBWiuYpC89YpsEr5w&hl=en&ei=jW29TbuYNI-4tgeA0ZjSBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=abortifacient%20vegetation&f=false">Abortificients and other Biblical Vegetation</a> Abortifacient vegetation was created, and so is good? That is logical, and not refuted anywhere.<br />
<br />
Ask, as part of logic, how did Even manage to have two children, then let them grow to adulthood; and only when one was killed, just have another, Seth. She knew what to do. Is that so? In India, for example, knowledge of abortifacients is used: see <a href="http://journal-phytology.com/article/viewFile/3024/1562">Journal of Phytology, Tribes, India</a><br />
<br />
Women were killed in the Christian West rather than let them assist in aborting, or causing their own abortions, see <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn1.htm">The Burning Times</a>.<br />
<br />
Back to the Bible, there were miscellaneous laws, affecting pregnancy: Not a moral issue, but a property one, Exodus 21:22-25 or so; and look up the <a href="http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/Hammurabi%27sCode.htm">Code of Hammurabi, </a>-- we see nothing about abortion at all.<br />
<br />
"If man who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;"> Exodus 21:22-25</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<br />
1. Strong's numbers for kill- Index site<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>5723 in Strong's. H5723. There are many, many subheadings and uses of "kill"</li>
</ul>See <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7523&t=KJV">Blue Letter Bible Lexicon Strong's 5723, "Kill"</a><br />
<span class="lexTitleHb" style="font-size: 250%; font-weight: normal;">רָצַח</span> <br />
<br />
Scroll down to the listed examples from the books of the OT.<br />
<br />
Find "Kill" in 47 entries, and we will just list each once: as manslayer; slayer; murderer; whether accidental or intentional (each with its own consequence for the slayer), each relates to the kill of one already born and out there. There is no example, nothing about the unborn.<br />
<br />
No "kill" applies so as to give rise to a consequence. Thayer there: adds "act the homicide". Still no reference to killing a life form in the womb. Look up the specific words for "kill" using the Strong's numbering system to keep them straight<br />
<br />
See <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=kill&t=KJV&sf=5">BLB (Blue Letter Bible) "Kill"</a><br />
....................................................................<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>2026 - as in God will kill you if you do thus and such. </li>
</ul>Kill, smite out of hand, and includes "niphal" to be killed; not just private homicide, but also killing in war and any slaying<br />
<span class="lexTitleHb" style="font-size: 250%; font-weight: normal;">הָרַג</span> <br />
<br />
..........................................................<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>2873 -- kill a sheep after stealing it</b></li>
</ul>Slaughter or butcher, kill ruthlessly </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span class="lexTitleHb" style="font-size: 250%; font-weight: normal;">טָבַח</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span class="lexTitleHb" style="font-size: 250%; font-weight: normal;">................. </span><br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>4191 -- <b>There is the "kill" as an "execution" --</b></li>
</ul>To kill, dispatch, have one executed; but also, the dead, die as penalty, die prematurely, perish as a nation. This is the execution term erroneously used, it appears, in the Bible in Basic English where putting someone to death is referred to, see FN 2<br />
<br />
Gen 2:17, 3:3, 3:4--eat of Tree of Knowledge, you will surely die #4191; eat fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden (how is anyone to know where that is?) you will surely die #4191; serpent says you will not die #4191; many reference to the years people lived and then they died #4191, Genesis 18:25, slay #4191 the righteous with the wicked, and on to "dead man" #4191, and bury the dead #4191<br />
<br />
<span class="lexTitleHb" style="font-size: 250%; font-weight: normal;">מוּת</span><br />
<br />
<br />
................................................. <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>5221 -- lest anyone fine Cain and kill him. Also, Reuben said not to kill 5221 Joseph. The sense of smite, punish, send judgment upon. There is a second meaning for "kill" and that is given in the Strong's as 5315, below. This is "nakah" -- words meaning destroy<br />
<br />
</li>
</ul>Smite, cast judgment upon, has element of hurting, beat, capture, wound, take a blow <br />
<br />
<span class="lexTitleHb" style="font-size: 250%; font-weight: normal;">נָכָה</span></div> ...........................................................<br />
<br />
<b>Now see this usage: a killing using "nephesh" breath of life</b><br />
<br />
It appears that killing is only killing when it kills breath, breath of life, life is breath, etc. That makes sense in the context of Old Testament abortion. Even an intentional dislodging is not a killing because there was no breath. Is that so? <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>5315 - Reuben also said not to kill 5315 Joseph and this second Strong's number is given. This is the "nephesh" word -- breath of life -- do not kill the breath of life -- fair use sampling from definitions . Need to learn more about nephesh. The idea seems to be that relevant life is life with breath.</li>
</ul><blockquote class=""><div class="lex1"><b>1)</b> soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion</div><div class="lex2"><b>a)</b> that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man</div><div class="lex2"><b>b)</b> living being</div><div class="lex2"><b>c)</b> living being (with life in the blood)</div><div class="lex2"><b>d)</b> the man himself, self, person or individual</div><div class="lex2"><b>e)</b> seat of the appetites</div><div class="lex2"><b>f)</b> seat of emotions and passions</div><div class="lex2"><b>g)</b> activity of mind</div><div class="lex3"><b>1)</b> dubious</div><div class="lex2"><b>h)</b> activity of the will</div><div class="lex3"><b>1)</b> dubious</div><div class="lex2"><b>i)</b> activity of the character</div><div class="lex3"><b>1)</b> dubious</div></blockquote> <span class="lexTitleHb" style="font-size: 250%; font-weight: normal;">נֶפֶשׁ</span><br />
<br />
<br />
.....................................................................<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>7819 -- kill the bullock before the Lord, kill the sacrificial animal, beast for food, human sacrifice</li>
</ul><span class="lexTitleHb" style="font-size: 250%; font-weight: normal;"> שָׁחַט</span> <br />
<br />
..............................................................<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Go back to another source; "Not you shall murder" <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo20.pdf">Scripture4all Online Hebrew Interlinear Transliteration Exodus 20:13</a></li>
</ul> "la thrtzch"<br />
<br />
Check that word: goes back to all the Strong's numbers that include murder, and all relate to living breathing beings. No reference to anything in utero. There is a new Strong's number given in the murders, number 5408, see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5408&t=KJV">Blue Letter Bible Lexicon G5408 murder</a>. Its examples also are living breathing beings already out there.<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Go to Parallel Hebrew Old Testament Exodus 20:13 at <a href="http://hebrewoldtestament.com/B02C020.htm#V13">Parallel Hebrew Old Testament Exodus 20:13</a></li>
</ul>Non occides. Fall, fall down, perish, die, be slain, be ruined, done for, decline, end, occido, occidered, kill, murder slaughter, slay, <br />
<span style="font-size: large;">לא תרצח׃</span> <br />
<span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;"> <span style="font-family: inherit;">L'a ThUrTShCh.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
<a href="http://www.stars21.com/translator/latin_to_english.html">Stars 21 Latin to English translation, non occides</a><br />
<br />
...............................................................<br />
<br />
Other laws later: homicide depended on if the child had breathed, see Charles V, Germanic emperor in 1555; in 1667 Schwammerdamm in Germany -- see if the lungs float. If they do, it breathed and the death is a homicide. Research at two volumes by someone named Beck, have to find the site - may be JSTOR. These were long after dogma and doctrine took over original texts and fitted the fittings to the culture of who decides what and why and where. A search for the history of abortion laws has a great deal, but we see nothing to change the view of the original texts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>V. CONCLUSION SO FAR</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">Research never ends.<br />
Research never persuades anyone, but may stimulate thinking.</div><br />
Prohibitions on intentionally terminating a pregnancy appear to be, if they appear at all in law, to be property oriented, clinching the man's right to his property, and later laws seem focused more on preventing the woman from deciding, rather than the life in utero as equal to or of more value than the hostess. The property issue makes abortion not a moral idea of killing a qualified "life" against a religious code. You cause the abortion, you pay the man a fine.<br />
<br />
For a religious group today to say that the Bible in its texts prohibits intentional abortion, is simply not supported by texts. The rest is extrapolation that some may believe is inspired, and many others do not and do not have to.<br />
<br />
So, Let a government do as it likes, for its own reasons. But the argument that this is founded in religion, in "Christianity" -- except as later institutional people, that some see as authoritative, say so-- does not root it in text.<br />
What is Kill, Murder, Does it apply to abortion-- Old Testament. Special reference, 10 Commandments Exodus 20:13, Deut.5:17. That takes examination of actual texts, not paraphrasing and repeating earlier errors.<br />
<br />
<br />
What next?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>In any research, which sites have an agenda; or paraphrase existing selected "translations" for their own purpose. Paraphrase is not translation, mere subjective editing. </li>
<li>We propose the <i>Bible in Basic English</i> is such a paraphrase, in effect. Its purported simplification, reduction to use of something less than a thousand words, to make it more readable for the illiterate. Like a missionary tool. This simplification becomes simplistic and misleading, and even plain wrong in distorting the Hebrew. What accountability is there in Bibles. </li>
<li>Perhaps we could require truth in labeling -- Paraphrase and editorializing from selected English sources to support a doctrine; Transliteration from original Hebrew, Translation from original Hebrew, Translation from Latin, etc. See discussion.</li>
</ul></div><div style="text-align: left;">Related issue: sacredness of human life, or is it? Look at the din. In utero: Is there Life or Existence there. "Biblical" life; or existence. Incipience. Does breath make the difference. Or mere movement. Soul. Nphsh. Who thinks what is sacred? Do texts really support that, or is it ideology later? Kill. Murder. Dislodge. Intent. Culpable or no impact. Property of the man; or right of the woman; or the entity. Does <i>life</i> of one supersede the mere existence of another, so that choosing <i>life </i>is to choose the one with "life" - the breathing one; over the one with "existence" and "movement" -- but timing -- it should count, should it not? Don't delay, girl, is that Roe?<b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Moral differences, or semantics. What is life, o guru. What is existence. If it is a continuum, does it matter. Does that give unfair advantage to the one in continuo, over the fully formed one. Why? See the discussion continue at <a href="http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-testament-abortion-simple-paul.html">New Testament Abortion</a><b> </b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">What Does Your Bible Say? This is not a religious site; this is text exploration. If you choose to adopt someone's interpretation or inspiration as authority, your choice. But mere belief in something inculcated or chosen is not enough. Are we obligated as fully human beings to weigh our choices: Is this belief trustworthy; or is it not trustworthy. See <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2011/05/bertrand-russell-service-of-atheist.html">The Trustworthy Belief; the Untrustworthy Belief. Bertrand Russell</a></div><div style="text-align: left;"> For Western Christian culture-religion, what applies where, especially in the area of abortion. See overview of some interpretations at <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm">Texts, Pentateuch</a></div><span style="font-size: medium;">..............................................................</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><br />
<br />
FN 1. Abortion in the ancient world.<br />
<br />
Here is a fast BBC overview: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/history_1.shtml">BBC, Ethics, Abortion, Legal History</a>.<br />
<br />
Overall, property matter, not moral or supposed sanctity of life. Assyria seems to have been most specific, google book Wilfred G. Lambert's <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=dRqbe67ChgAC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=assyria+ancient+abortion+laws&source=bl&ots=CBFsCjemL_&sig=-psQtJD0mkgBWV34v8jDhtamcXg&hl=en&ei=pB_BTb-9HIH40gHV19S3Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=assyria%20ancient%20abortion%20laws&f=false">Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies in Assyriology at 12</a>.<br />
<br />
For some, timing is important, "quickening" - but we fine nothing as to "soul" as a reason against abortion. The old Hippocratic oath prohibited a physician from providing a pessary for abortion purposes, see Arizona (!) put together its history showing abortion historically is bad at <a href="http://www.azrtl.org/factsheets/History%20-%20Abortion_and_the_Law_1.pdf">Abortion and the Law: Arizona compilation</a>.<br />
<br />
However, there were many, many means of abortion: simple ergot from grain worked. Hebrews had lots of grain.<br />
<br />
Women aren't stupid.<br />
<br />
See a global look by Autumn Stanley at google book <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=uRJt7QqA7GEC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=ancient+medical+pessary&source=bl&ots=l4seJcdqfe&sig=YHlFL09R3W-gVdervY7qJ-hSLro&hl=en&ei=hRzBTaPjLs2ugQeT5ZD4BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ancient%20medical%20pessary&f=false">Mothers and Daughters of Invention at 258, ex.</a> Was "soul" a smokescreen doctrine, allowing a moral argument about sacred human life, and not any abuse of abortion knowledge by women (nobody cared in the OT so the issue was clearly hers) that finally enabled institutions to take over the disposition of the issue from the woman and her circumstances.<br />
<br />
With doctrines of "ensoulment" and "sacred", the institution could force continuations of pregnancies among Christians to produce more Christians for the institution, the new Father. That picked up right where the other patriarchal cultures left off, a lateral pirhouette into religion, as the woman was to produce more children for the newly ordained fathers there. That has to be another topic -- The Christian Era. Do texts from the OT and the NT support what later grew like Topsy in the followers of Paul.<br />
<br />
......................................................................... <br />
<br />
FN 2. <br />
<br />
<b>Bible in Basic English: </b>This source, if used for anything more than a way to teach English, has great potential for abuse; editors today should relook at the wording. The Orthological Institute, cited as part of this version's credentials, is only a group organized to teach basic English - the method, limit the vocabulary and present works in that vocabulary, a system geared to teaching English but not reliable for theology or meanings of religious works. See <a href="http://www.basic-english.org/">Basic English dot org.</a><br />
<br />
See the version of the Commandment not to murder, even suggesting you <i>as an individual </i>can execute people, put people to death (the phrase used for governmental judgment actions) as long as you think you have cause. This is the Second Amendment Remedies heaven. Go ahead. Get 'em in the crosshairs if you disagree politically.<br />
<br />
This "authority" saying putting to death is fine if you have a cause, contains none of the parameters of a prohibition on "murder". <br />
<br />
We are not suggesting that was S.H. Hooke's intent back in the day. But if people believe what they read, as we believe they do when told this is "authority", this says "Bible" so it must be what the "Bible" says. A powerful propaganda tool. Tilt the text and teach that.<br />
<br />
Putting someone to death does not convey the same criminal intent and circumstance as "murder". Kill means many things in Hebrew, occurs in many contexts; this usage, putting someone to death, refers to the idea to an execution. Justified. Putting someone to death. A Dr. Tiller. A legislator with differing views. Okay as long as there is "cause". Does the<i> killer</i> decide if there is cause? <br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Go to current events. How can or has this idea, this playing fast and loose with meaning, contributed to the vigilante mindset, the lone wolf setting things right. The Bible in Basic English is old, uses a limited number of words, say a thousand words -- a beginner vocabulary in learning English -- and was intended only to make reading Bible ideas easier for the illiterate, see <a href="http://www.bible-researcher.com/basic.html">1965 Intro, Bible in Basic English</a> . It was "made from" the Hebrew and Greek, and does not even purport to be a translation from those. It sounds like this cake has 1/4 tsp cinnamon and so is "made from" cinnamon. Did the editor, <a href="http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/article_hooke_bruce.html">S. H. Hooke</a> 1874-1968 (biography) do any more than paraphrase from his chosen ideology-culture supporting English sources of like mindsets. We see no evidence of researching back to meaning. Yet, with its missionary purpose, how much has this version shaped the doctrinal slants fostered by it. When do editions stop being "The Bible". <br />
</li>
</ul>Can a Dr. Tiller be killed, executed, because someone believed there was "cause?" See <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2009/06/trial-of-abortion-vigilante-anticipate.html">Trial of an Abortion Vigilante</a> This is dangerous, is that so? See <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2241426/">Slate, Defining Murder Down</a>. Who is behind the Bible in Basic English anyway? Can any of us put out a "translation" and hope somebody will buy it? Who qualifies the Bible on their own. Find <a href="http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Basic-English-BBE.html">Bible in Basic English sales site</a>. This says the version is to enable anybody to 'understand' the Bible. But what if the site ignores meanings and adds to text at will, to serve its own ends, and let people decide their own "cause"? Is that propaganda and spin and dogma, or information? Go to philosopher, analyst, social critic Bertrand Russell: it is not enough to have a belief. It must be a trustworthy belief, not an untrustworthy one. <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2011/05/bertrand-russell-service-of-atheist.html">Bertrand Russell. The Service of Atheists, Agnostics</a><br />
<br />
............................................................</div><br />
FN 3 <br />
<b>Preview: Vetting Abortion in the New Testament - Greek -- </b><br />
<b>ektrOma</b><br />
<b>Strong's 1626 </b><br />
<b>See <a href="http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-testament-abortion-simple-paul.html">New Testament Abortion - Paul</a></b><br />
<br />
By way of summary, what word corresponds to the Hebrew "nphl" for abortion or untimely birth, but in the Greek (Jerome was the first to translate the New Testament canon into Greek, we understand). Find at Biblos concordance (Strong's set out easier to find the English and go from there) at <a href="http://bible.cc/searchstrongs.php?q=untimely+birth">Biblos Search Strongs "untimely birth"</a><br />
<br />
Find Strong's number 1626 Ektroma, strictly "a lifeless abortion" Where used? Once. <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Corinthians 15:8. "and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also" <a href="http://concordance.biblos.com/ektro_mati.htm">Biblos, NT Greek, Strong's 1626, "born at the wrong time"</a></li>
</ul>Look fast at Scripture4all (keep your windows open) for the context. That is the site where the entire chapter will be given, with the traditional translation down the right side. This is where Paul is laying out all the evidence, verse after verse, for appearances of Jesus after rising, and says he appeared to him, Paul, also (what??) (If all that had happened, wouldn't it be in MatthewMarkLukeJohn? Is it just his word??)<br />
<br />
"LAST YET OF-ALL AS-EVEN-IF to-THE abortion He WAS-VIEWED AND-to-ME.<br />
Abortion as the ektrOmati, premature birth.<br />
<br />
We are not focusing on the merits of Paul's claims, however, just looking at the usage. Abortion is again a neutral, descriptive concept. An abortion is a worthless entity. And that 's the way it is used. <br />
<br />
Now to Blue Letter Bible on Strong's 1626: <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1626&t=KJV">Blue Letter Bible Strong's Lexicon 1626</a><br />
<br />
THAYER: His definitions and exegesis focus on meanings, not ideology. Paul likens himself to an abortion in the sense that he is inferior to the other apostles in the same way that an immature birth falls short compared to a mature one and "is no more worthy of the name of an apostle as an abortion is of the name of a child." <br />
<br />
Thayer's refers to some of the the abortion sites above, and adds Numbers 12:12 (Go to Scripture4all for the context at <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/num12.pdf">Scripture4all, Numbers 12:12</a>.</div>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-7326674112141160192011-05-02T16:16:00.000-04:002012-01-15T10:35:18.058-05:00New Testament Abortion. Simple. Paul. ἔκτρωμα. There.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: center;"><b>New Testament Abortion. What do Biblical Texts say.</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Not extrapolation, not opinion, not ideology, not dogma: </b><br />
<b>The texts, as best we find them</b></div><div style="text-align: center;">.</div><div style="text-align: center;">See also <a href="http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2011/05/old-testament-abortion-culpable-killing.html">Old Testament Abortion</a></div><div style="text-align: center;">Meaning of Paul as an abortion (this was his literal reference to himself, his idea)</div>.<br />
<b>1. Backdrop on any exegesis. Which authority on any NT issue comes first.</b><br />
.<br />
A. New Testament:<br />
.<br />
That would be Jesus. Jesus, as the speaker himself, the one there. Obviously, what he said is the primary source for Christianity in any form - Western, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, all the rest. Jesus' words would be dispositive on any issue. Did those who remembered or tried to, and then wrote them down - in Aramaic or another language get it right? Were they all included? Cross-text references try to sort that out. We just take the traditional translations for now, in the canon.<br />
.<br />
B. But Jesus said nothing about abortion, nothing about premature expelling of a dead entity, what its nature was or is, or whether intentional steps to bring that about are culpable in any way. Whatever the status quo was on abortion, he let it be. No comment, no suggestions, no judgments.<br />
<br />
C. Early theologians also avoided the issue completely, and properly. Life and breath -- the duality of the human. All that hath life and breath, come now, etc. Nphsh. Wise, leave the moral decision to the one with location, location, location, as intended by that location, location, location. Is that so, and can it bridge ideologies?<br />
<br />
<b>2. Is there other authority, secondary authorities, on any NT issue?</b><br />
<br />
<b>a. For earliest days, just Paul. </b><br />
<br />
Bottom line as to Paulian Christianity: There are more words in the New Testament said to be Paul's, than there are words in the New Testament said to be Jesus'. Paulianity, if you will.<br />
<br />
What Paul says adds to the admonitions to preach and exemplify in order to spread the word. Paul picks up from there and runs with it: embellishes, extrapolates, reduces, reemphasizes, spins and boxes Jesus' words so it fits an institutional evangelical box, suitable for spreading.<br />
<br />
<b>b. So what does this second-in-command authority Paul say? </b><br />
<br />
<b>That Jesus appeared to him as though Paul were an abortion.</b><br />
<br />
With Paul, there is one entry. I the entire New Testament canon, there is only Paul's one reference to abortion. Paul lists all people to whom Jesus appeared after the time in the tomb, and then Paul says that Jesus also appeared to him<br />
<br />
Earliest source we can find: Go to a transliteration site, from the Greek, with the Greek in Greek font as well as the phonetic for us to read easier. Each word or set in English corresponds to a Greek word, as shown.<a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1co15.pdf">Scripture4all,org, Online Interlinear Greek NT 1st Cor.1:8</a><br />
<br />
<br />
I Corinthians 15:8<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">"LAST YET OF-ALL AS-EVEN-IF to-THE abortion He WAS-VIEWED AND-to-ME"</div><br />
In the Greek phonetically at that site (you can see it at the site):<br />
<blockquote>"eschaton de pantOn hOsperei tO ektrOmati * Ophthe kamoi."</blockquote><br />
I Corinthians 15:9 -- he continues<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"I for AM THE INFERIOR-most OF THE commissioners WHO NOT AM enough TO BE be-ING CALLED commissioner THRU-that I-CHASE THE OUT-CALLED OF-THE God"</blockquote>He was imperfect, the one not perfected yet, because he persecuted the Christians, so he is unworthy. Is that the sense? The analogy used so suggests.<br />
<br />
.....................................................................<br />
* The "ektrOmati," or "abortion," or "abortive birth," in Greek is <span style="font-size: large;"><span class="lexTitleGk" style="font-weight: normal;">ἔκτρωμα</span></span> How do ordinary people know that? You and your neighbor can find each Greek word (and each Hebrew word) numbered by a man named Strong. Strong looked up each time it was used, and compares usage in a Lexicon. And the number itself is given here for "ektrOmati" at the Scripture4all interlinear site: right there, below the "ektrOmati" is the number G1626, or the Greek word number 1626. So, <span style="font-size: large;"><span class="lexTitleGk" style="font-weight: normal;">ἔκτρωμα </span></span>or "abortion" is Strong's number G1626, G for Greek. That is your key.<br />
<br />
Then key that into Blue Letter Bible, or Biblos, at click to <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1626&t=KJV">Blue Letter Bible, Strong's Abortion G1626; and Thayer </a>FN 1<br />
....................................... <br />
<br />
FN 1 Joseph Henry Thayer: he is a researcher and also lexicographer who built on an earlier work by Grimm (both he and Strong's work date from the late 1800's but their scholarship is still The Thing -- but note for <i>Thayer </i>that there is a "help" to click on. That will tell you that his lexicon definitions are not <i>governed</i> by doctrine. There may be "doctrinal error" because the institution prefers its view. He gives the meaning without regard to whether it fits the institution's ideology on the topic.<br />
<br />
<br />
............................................<br />
<br />
<b>c. What did Paul mean, that Jesus appeared to Paul as if Paul were an abortion.</b><br />
<br />
<b>(1) The literal is accurate, but it takes thinking about.</b><br />
<br />
Saint Jerome, doing the first translation of the New Testament into Latin, uses "abortivo." Fine. Abortion. See a site with multiple parallel translations at greeknewtestament.com. Click on the book and the verse you want, and end up at<a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B46C015.htm#V8"> Greek New Testament I Corinth.15:8</a><br />
<br />
Corresponding to "extrOmati" and find <span style="font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-family: SYMBOL; font-size: large;">ektrwmati</span> and find the Latin "abortivo."<br />
<br />
A not-pretty idea. <br />
<br />
<b>(2) Scholarship about the literal "abortion" image</b><br />
<br />
Scholarship. How does that enlighten what Paul meant.<br />
<br />
<br />
a. Go back to Blue Letter Bible, Strong's and Thayer: <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1626&t=KJV">Blue Letter Bible Lexicon, Strong's G1626, abortion, Paulian reference</a> Thayer: Gives the words with variations that mean to cause or suffer abortion, an abortion, an abortive birth, an untimely birth, and then gets to verses 8 and 9 as well. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>" *** that he is as inferior to the rest of the apostles as an immature birth comes short of a mature one, and is no more worthy of the name of an apostle than an abortion is of the name of a child."</blockquote>And he goes on to list the other places in the Old Testament and among ancient Greeks where the concept of abortion is used. You can list them all out, and look them up at Scripture4all and Hebrew Old Testament dot com -- Hebrew as the language from which the Latin was translated by Jerome as to the Old Testament, and Greek as the language from which the Latin was translated by Jerome as to the New Testament. See FN 1 where we have looked them all up.<br />
<br />
So: Paul. An abortion, a non-breathing one, is not worthy of the name of "child" -- and there the Bible lets it go. There may well be social and other reasons for regulation of human behavior, but it cannot be called originally religious as in textual support.<br />
<br />
(2) But then see the fog take over. Fiddle around with euphemisms, anything but what Paul said. Use "untimely birth." Spin is better than truth for institutions, is that so?<br />
<br />
There are nine (9) other translations, all in English, and all use the euphemism of being born untimely, except for Darby's English Translation that says "abortion."<br />
<br />
Is this true also at Scripture4all? Check back at <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1co15.pdf">Scripture4all, I Cor.15</a>, find this wording for the <span style="font-size: large;"><span class="lexTitleGk" style="font-weight: normal;">ἔκτρωμα</span></span><br />
<blockquote>"And last of all he was seen of me also as of <i>one born out of due time</i>."</blockquote>Again? Even at the site with the transliteration as "abortion?" Born? Out of due time?<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Born is used for breathing entities, alive. </li>
<li>Out of due time can mean merely premature. </li>
<li>That is not "abortion."</li>
</ul>Just premature, not quite fully developed, but doing fine, thank you, just be careful. Please, just one lump, not two. Such a lovely day. Thank you so much.<br />
<br />
<b>(3) The Secondary Authority of Institutional Leaders, Tradition</b><br />
<br />
After Jesus came more secondary authorities than Paul.<br />
<br />
Some believers put those secondary authorities on a par with primary Jesus, perhaps, as themselves directly "inspired" or having received "divine intervention" messages. Those may be saints, popes, others. Is what they say about what we have written as Jesus' own words -- even by those removed from Jesus, and some expunged -- still, something to go on? <br />
<br />
Here, we stay with what was written about what Jesus actually said, if that is so; and leave extrapolations, explanations, applications, all that, to taking its own leap of faith. Here, stay with what was original, if it was. <br />
<br />
So: all these other voices. Institutional officials and saints, canonical processes weeding out those who disagreed with the dogma and the canon finally emerged with the parts that were wanted. See what hinges on whether the words as written by Paul were so. That takes believing in his inspiration, divine revelation, all that. So the disputes continue. Should the "rejects" be re-vetted to see if merit was excluded for human reasons? Ask. See <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2008/12/vetting-biblical-rejects-time-for.html">Vetting Biblical Rejects. Time for a Recount</a><br />
<br />
Regardless, after Jesus, however, we only have people: people who claim their own divine intervention, revelation, visions, ecstasies, fits, something through centuries of carrying on the same rituals.<br />
<br />
Of those, the biggest authority for the <i>Western </i>Christian overlay on what Jesus said, and also did not say, is Paul.<br />
<br />
For later days, followers of the institution added saints, popes, etc. to the list of weighty view makers. Popes finally became infallible in 1870, and the doctrine was made <i>retroactive</i> at that time, to include everybody in that category back from and up to that point as well, see <a href="http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm">EWTN.com, Faith, Papal Infallibility</a> <br />
<br />
All doctinally extrapolative, claiming from "inspiration," filling in blanks, deciding for cultural reasons who shall decide, and by all means, let no woman decide.<br />
............................................................<br />
<br />
FN 2. Researching abortion and intentional dislodging. What, if any, culpability that is originally textual and not cultural. And as to texts, what changes occurred over time between telling, and somebody centuries later writing. Do agendas change?<br />
<br />
In summary: check this against our research below: Abortion is used as a descriptive term for something worth nothing. It just happens.<br />
<br />
If we go to outside structures and legal systems for what happens if there is an intentional dislodging of a pregnancy (there is nothing about that in the Old Testament) or to opinions excluded from the canon, <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2009/05/early-christian-writings-on-abortion.html">Early Christian Writings on Abortion</a>, note that nobody saw fit to include any of that at all in the religious aspects of the day. The foetus may be property -- a woman who dislodges the foetus disturbs the property right of the man to it -- child, but note this is not a moral "life" issue. The man may well remain authorized to expose or dispose of the child after the birth if he likes -- no moral issue of "life" or "soul", just who gets to decide this property matter.<br />
<br />
Soul? All creatures are created with a soul, as was the first Human - see <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf">Scripture4all: Breathe - Get Soul. Nphsh. Scripture4all Gen.1:19-21</a>; Human also has hphsh upon breathing, same word as the flyers in the heavens and the beasts and the fish, see <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf">Scripture4all, Nphsh, soul, in human, Gen 2:7.</a><br />
<br />
Hierarchy in life forms: the one not breathing, appears to have a lesser value than the breathing one. Even Paul differentiates.<br />
<br />
Review old laws, in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, at <a href="http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/2/245">The History of Legal Medicine, by Cyril H. Wecht, MD, JD</a> . If an in-utero child could be saved, there were requirements for the woman who died in confinement, for example, to be opened. There was not disregard. <br />
<br />
Humana<br />
<br />
1. For reverent persons of inspecific dogma. Subjective. Weigh your principles, including consideration of a common good, against your known facts. <br />
<br />
2. For irreverent persons. You will follow your own course without regard to any overarching principles. Ok.<br />
<br />
3. For reverent persons of specific dogma. Objective. What does your chosen authority say. Follow. <br />
<br />
4. For irreverent persons of specific dogma. Subjective. What does your chosen authority say, with the added permission to take those chosen laws in your own hands.<br />
<br />
So: Jesus said nothing about abortion, or its other terminologies, including and by that, untimely birth, meaning dead. On arrival. Jesus says nothing about intentionality in abortion: whose business is it if the woman Usually, the primary or direct source is considered more credible than a secondary or indirect source of information. secondary source Paul is more an authority than primary source Jesus. Paul gets the airtime (more words in the Bible), and it was his ability to garner the media of the day and organize and focus people on how to be an institutionand the words of Jesus or views of him that did not fit the emerging ideology were expunged and discredited (heresy), <br />
<br />
Ideology -- needed for larger group cohesion and survival, differentiation. It is a group-forging and group-forcing of a political or religious belief system, to entrench the chosen opinion about the fact on a culture. Ideology shapes that culture, secures the position of some in power, some not. Those with this belief are in, those with that belief are out. Politics in religion and culture. But ideology may or may not relate to original facts and truths, is that so?<br />
<br />
Why does ideology get such a hole? Perhaps people were vulnerable to an authority takeover takeover because they were kept illiterate for a thousand years, had no power, and had to rely on a party line about what was going on. Perhaps the information was kept out of their language. More forced reliance on a few who had access to texts, and could shape it at will. <br />
<br />
This forcing of opinion by expanding it into an ideology system ort is directed at people who may well have been barred from reviewing original sources, by being kept illiterate, and reliant on "authority," or by being refused information in their own language in a reliable full way, look up the original fact, as best it can be found.</div>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-49866385985832702902011-04-26T15:16:00.000-04:002012-01-14T20:06:24.353-05:00Text Analysis: Roused? Not Resurrected? A Difference There Is<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: center;" trbidi="on">Roused, or Is Risen: </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: center;" trbidi="on">From a sleep, a psychic state, or death? </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: center;" trbidi="on"><i>Text analysis is a start for ambiguities.</i><br />
<i>It expands as articles, relevant, arise as though to spin the inquiry itself. </i><br />
UPDATE ASTERISK, SEE *<br />
.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtOhHGISixL7JDylyzHuAG0xOjXwAnfpHQWtAiAgU_d-MWBOgd7ZfrK5aNS1JP68PSWYBf5wwPgXAjprVXcajOEF7_gh8ysb-Vlk4PbOd6XVB3bDWeH_DRPl9Ify3loYbn02b6TgKDtFq1/s1600/100_2887.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtOhHGISixL7JDylyzHuAG0xOjXwAnfpHQWtAiAgU_d-MWBOgd7ZfrK5aNS1JP68PSWYBf5wwPgXAjprVXcajOEF7_gh8ysb-Vlk4PbOd6XVB3bDWeH_DRPl9Ify3loYbn02b6TgKDtFq1/s320/100_2887.JPG" width="320" />Crucifixion. Roskilde Cathedral, DK. What came next?</a></div><br />
Resurrection Doctrine Interpretation, Sources, Questions </div><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Facts, and creeds. </b><br />
<b>.</b> </div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Can Fact Shape Creed, After the Creed Has Sprouted; </b><br />
<br />
<b>or does Creed-Shaping Shape Fact Ever After</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b> .</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>A. Easter Post-Easter Question. </b></div>.<br />
Was Jesus really <i>quickened</i> from the dead; from which he ultimately ascended up physically into heaven, as creeds say; or was he roused from some other state in the sense of being awakened from something, but not death -- and so just rose up from his <i>place</i> in the memorial vault/tomb. Most agree there was a laying down in a tomb. Even William Temple 1881-1944, the 98th Archbishop of Canterbury, nearly was barred from ordination in 1906 because he "admitted that his belief in the Virgin Birth and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus was shaky." See <a href="http://satucket.com/lectionary/william_temple.htm">http://satucket.com/lectionary/william_temple.htm.</a> This topic goes beyond bodily resurrection, to whether death occurred on the cross. By 1913, however, once in the institution, he came back into line. Come back from that line, William Temple. We have a question.<br />
.<br />
Skip for now issues of the crufixion significance itself, the crucifix not shown in art until the 5th Century, so the death and form of death were obviously not central to early Christianity at all, see Richard Harris, The Passion in Art, at <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_passion_in_art.html?id=BKM_M7iu4KUC">http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_passion_in_art.html?id=BKM_M7iu4KUC</a>. We are also passing over here issues related to the veracity of the gospel accounts as to other technicalities: stones blocking entrances to tombs were rarely round, and only then for the wealthiest, see Biblical Archeology Review Sept-Oct 1999, article "Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb" by Amos Kloner, including subsection "Fit for a Queen" as to archeological findings, Queen Helena of Adiabene north of Jerusalem, at p. 27.<br />
.<br />
Finding one set of inaccuracies in accounts leads to concern for others, so the inquiry is worth it. So was a stone "rolled back" as to Jesus? The Greek word "kulio", says the article, als means simply to move, or dislodge. And one could not sit handily on a round stone or disk. Are we square now? And there was not likely any burial niche in there, so the tomb was probably just a burial cave, even borrowed, as was often the case where the intent was for it to be temporary. And so on<br />
.<br />
.<br />
After the crucifixion, into the tomb.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5nJucqW1JW1yoZdTgctoYxH2W1mvcWYnaunl2JdaVDA69jf28QPweAR1_bYvJ-DENiCUzcnDnurFsmjXy9EJgKNj-M8iFBBKnbPsJscVUqIxR4gT68_XRHHn8rBcKuG3OOgXJMfA6FoqN/s1600/100_2888.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5nJucqW1JW1yoZdTgctoYxH2W1mvcWYnaunl2JdaVDA69jf28QPweAR1_bYvJ-DENiCUzcnDnurFsmjXy9EJgKNj-M8iFBBKnbPsJscVUqIxR4gT68_XRHHn8rBcKuG3OOgXJMfA6FoqN/s400/100_2888.JPG" width="400" />Entombment, Roskilde Cathedral, DK</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">.</div>Even folklore contains the concept that Jesus was not "dead" but in some other state-- see <a href="http://www.tjresearch.info/mary.htm">http://www.tjresearch.info/mary.htm</a> (and "I Saw Three Ships Come Sailing In, including (on board) Jesus Christ and his Ladye")<br />
.<br />
And the great Caravaggio laid out the issue in a painting, now lost by earthquake:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Even the great painter of light source intensity and reality, Caravaggio, troubled as he was, voted with the roused, not resurrected. </li>
<li>Fair use quote from the New York Times Book Review 10/2/2011, review of book by Andres Graham-Dixon, WW. Norton: Hard copy has as title, <i>"In His Own Image."</i></li>
</ul><blockquote> "In one of the last picture he ever painted, a grim and startling 'Resurrection' altarpiece, Caravaggio showed a scrawney, bedraggled Jesus Christ slipping out of the tomb and maing off alone by night, 'like a criminal escaping from his guards,' in the words of an 18th Century Frenchman. **** "</blockquote>"In His Own Image."<br />
.<br />
We want to include the direct link to the article entitled "In His Own Image." We expected an online header for "In His Own Image," as our home delivered paper titles the article. And did not find it. See Asterisk update at end, the *. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/books/review/caravaggio-a-life-sacred-and-profane-by-andrew-graham-dixon-book-review.html?scp=1&sq=In%20His%20Own%20Image&st=cse">In His Own Image, title changed to suggest "criminality' by NYT later</a><br />
.......................................................................<br />
.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>RISEN -- FROM WHAT?</b></div>.<br />
At the time, what J was roused from, or rose himself from, was not considered at all clear. Early theology showed the ambiguities.<br />
.<br />
Texts were (and many are, where they have not been amended) ambiguous. There had long been a place for spiritual journeys, visions, in the Near East as elsewhere. In those scenarios, there is often a guide as to the process. What happened with Jesus was a matter of argument, disagreement, and gnostics had little interest in the idea, see <a href="http://www.share-international.org/archives/religion/rl_bsgnostic.htm/">http://www.share-international.org/archives/religion/rl_bsgnostic.htm/</a> <br />
.<br />
Look at the art, used to teach the masses -- these from Roskilde Cathedral, Roskilde, Denmark. The established Church had taken over (thanks to Northern Crusades and persistence) so this would be the established view:<br />
.<br />
After a time, Jesus is getting out. Here, with help and a disgruntled force of evil behind, with the horns.<br />
<div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_t0ydQDUavRpjoK45bWFwJJrkn9pOPYTGODvGpqZ4dnp-b_1cBQfaIifPBn34qQ2IShOKdIcvi-WGxuBpdCx9eQQMDYrBttc0DGVxlzkDU-ppYxuaARpRrkn1tq6iT5w9qIRvOSH1JpbX/s1600/100_2889.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_t0ydQDUavRpjoK45bWFwJJrkn9pOPYTGODvGpqZ4dnp-b_1cBQfaIifPBn34qQ2IShOKdIcvi-WGxuBpdCx9eQQMDYrBttc0DGVxlzkDU-ppYxuaARpRrkn1tq6iT5w9qIRvOSH1JpbX/s400/100_2889.JPG" width="400" />Jesus helped by mystery figure, out of the tomb, a little devil defeated? Roskilde Cathedral, DK</a></div><div></div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>.Then, Jesus is animated while the soldiers at the tomb still sleep. He gives a blessing (forefinger and middle finger together, others down) and holds a staff with a is that a crusader's cross?? See the same cross formee at <a href="http://denmarkroadways.blogspot.com/view/magazine#%21/2011/07/bjernede-inside-round-church-rundkirke.html">http://denmarkroadways.blogspot.com/view/magazine#!/2011/07/bjernede-inside-round-church-rundkirke.html</a>. It is not a crucifixion cross. </li>
</ul><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3h1FYmUTi1h_xRxUyS9wdTm8t2DKPSGr3YGaqAFbPYQFb_RFXVy4h2W0lB82jLDmmZmgUZuEhiWu-WlgM7nCyFjEnImawksLtZWkGLXqyEK6R4PabgbxI9YDMabUt4FkP-6Wgx86teEI9/s1600/100_2890.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3h1FYmUTi1h_xRxUyS9wdTm8t2DKPSGr3YGaqAFbPYQFb_RFXVy4h2W0lB82jLDmmZmgUZuEhiWu-WlgM7nCyFjEnImawksLtZWkGLXqyEK6R4PabgbxI9YDMabUt4FkP-6Wgx86teEI9/s400/100_2890.JPG" width="400" />Jesus animate, tomb soldiers asleep, Roskilde Cathedral, DK</a> <br />
<br />
Then Jesus appears to and blesses a woman. A woman? Weck up to thees! She is chosen, not a he. Weck up to thees is expressive, not meant to diminish the gravity of the occasion. Weck up, world. See <a href="http://www.epinions.com/review/Gates_of_Fire_by_Steven_Pressfield/content_36435103364">http://www.epinions.com/review/Gates_of_Fire_by_Steven_Pressfield/content_36435103364</a><br />
.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrxHvXvIin_8cW9AeAls3meWihvGNJU7l5Ud7Z_v9ogdrLGUiTN0V2anykTtG6i9GSFcpyw42DWllpSIjNSpjYQQF_kUA6DPNzmMaI1pr6lPjfiSNI3qGjKBVWphxX6Y5f6Y-TNKHsC1GW/s1600/100_2891.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrxHvXvIin_8cW9AeAls3meWihvGNJU7l5Ud7Z_v9ogdrLGUiTN0V2anykTtG6i9GSFcpyw42DWllpSIjNSpjYQQF_kUA6DPNzmMaI1pr6lPjfiSNI3qGjKBVWphxX6Y5f6Y-TNKHsC1GW/s640/100_2891.JPG" width="640" />The risen or roused Jesus blesses a woman. Roskilde Cathedral, DK</a></div>.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Then Jesus, after having appeared to the woman, appears to Thomas who tests and finds, yes, this is real. The flesh. See the right far side of the photo of the blessing of the woman. There is Thomas.</li>
</ul>And everybody rejoices. At what? That the plan worked? At what? <br />
<div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGO51jhDHwsPGmIPHrCy4SFMfZMbYOtwZkUuwWUmVI1vV3qAHiNipwbGWsVSQQmeJeHPNen1fOL07ahMpflKT7nn2k7IIIjsxpEHYHL1gGlnNuTMVkX0RXLbkhE25iWtWvyLwojb9Hzmk2/s1600/100_2893.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGO51jhDHwsPGmIPHrCy4SFMfZMbYOtwZkUuwWUmVI1vV3qAHiNipwbGWsVSQQmeJeHPNen1fOL07ahMpflKT7nn2k7IIIjsxpEHYHL1gGlnNuTMVkX0RXLbkhE25iWtWvyLwojb9Hzmk2/s400/100_2893.JPG" width="400" />After the rising, the rejoicing</a></div>.<br />
Dogma would like us to think it is clear, but it is not. Dogma always puts a definitive interpretation on what is really ambiguous, and should remain so. Go back to the gnostic site:<br />
.<br />
Scroll down there to the section entitled, "Resurrection." Even the Gospels disagreed, and other writings ultimately omitted from the emerging canon, particularly the Gnostic Gospels, some older than later writings included. See <a href="http://www.gnosis.org/library/GMary-King-Intro.html">http://www.gnosis.org/library/GMary-King-Intro.html</a>.<br />
.<br />
.............................................................<br />
.<br />
I. Beginning Delving<br />
.<br />
A. The process is not difficult, in researching texts. Just open several windows.<br />
/<br />
Online are translation and transliteration sites; and sites for seeing every single use of a word, and its context and meaning at that instancae.. <br />
.<br />
A start in vetting is to check language for yourself, as best you can. Looking at transliterationsand , <a href="http://www.scripture4all/">http://www.scripture4all</a>; translations sites, Strong's Lexicon, <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html">http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html</a> in two sites, and comparing Jerome's and other translations available online (Old Testament at <a href="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/">http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com</a>; and <a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/">http://www.greeknewtestament.com</a>: our conclusion tentatively is that he "was roused" from some other state, but not death.<br />
.<br />
1. If it had been "death" that occurred, Mark and earlier writers would have so specified.<br />
.<br />
The word for roused, or even rise, is used in conjunction with further words to specify "from the dead" when that is meant. It is only in much later John, the last Gospel writer (none of the Gospel names are real ones, all are noms de plume) that we get the "resurrection" idea. <br />
.<br />
Did that come at Paul's urging, with his need to institutionalize, and gain Roman converts where that concept would have been familiar to them, from pagan sources? and then somebody, to buttress the point, tacks on to Mark those extra verses after his original text ended: with awkward details to conform to the new idea, added after the Marys and Salome at the tomb's first ending.<br />
.<br />
2. It is in the later Church-motivated Latin Vulgate, Jerome's translation from the Greek and other sources, that brings us "surrexit" -- but even that is not "resurrection". <br />
<br />
And surrexit is an active verb -- he "went up" from. The Greek at <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar16.pdf">Transliteration, Scripture4all online interlinear Greek, Mark 16:6</a> is passive -- he was roused. See FN 1 for Jerome and other uses of "rouse".<br />
.<br />
3. Does this draw to the idea that dogma inform what shall be translated. See <a href="http://greeknewtestament.com/B41C016.htm">Parallel Greek New Testament, Latin Vulgate, Mark 16:6</a> . Find the Greek at <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar16.pdf">Scripture4all, Greek Interlinear Transliteration, Mark 16:6</a>.<br />
.<br />
Was there no resurrection, except as the concept was needed to proselytize for a new religion? Jesus was not "quickened" from the dead at all, but merely roused from another state? If quickened from the dead were meant, "from the dead" would have been specified. Does it make a difference? Or can faith shrug and move on.<br />
.<br />
What are the various messages. They conflict.<br />
.<br />
a. One basic religious-philosophical idea is that the worst that can happen is not the end of it. The message is to stay around, it will get better. Eternal hope.<br />
.<br />
b. Another is the idea is that one's specific adopted and swallowed doctrine is more important than fact - and ambiguity, as the most intolerable fact in the world, must not be tolerated. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcXz_9oZ6y8aYIfKn2PZO6hqJInXHwVXtcnC_vd14d-mJytR33uZOG8iY5Ac1oYLPA5_IpJV9QCKHW_ugxeButg25iiZdserRgmhNQFs8yRj4lgMBJkjEX8jk9QPzrO1Dx_IR0VQGsVfjN/s1600/100_3135.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcXz_9oZ6y8aYIfKn2PZO6hqJInXHwVXtcnC_vd14d-mJytR33uZOG8iY5Ac1oYLPA5_IpJV9QCKHW_ugxeButg25iiZdserRgmhNQFs8yRj4lgMBJkjEX8jk9QPzrO1Dx_IR0VQGsVfjN/s320/100_3135.JPG" width="320" />Adam and Eve. Ambiguity at Creation. Can we stand it? Sonderborg Castle Chapel, Denmark</a></div>.<br />
Christians, atheists, interested scholars, the secular interested, other religion devotees, to your keyboards. What to do with ambiguity in any aspect of religion. Can conservative religions live with ambiguity. Probably not. Definitions must be forced.<br />
.<br />
II. Vetting Roots<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>A. The Process of Vetting Text Meanings</b></div>.<br />
<b>1. Greek transliteration: Easter story section, the Marys, Salome, the missing Jesus.</b><br />
<b>.</b><br />
This is from <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar16.pdf">Scripture4all, Online Interlinear Greek New Testament, at Mark 16:6.</a><br />
..<br />
English: THE YET he-is-sayING to-them NO YE-BE-BeING-OUT-AWED JESUS YE-ARE-SEEKING THE NAZAREAN THE one-HAVING-been-impalED He-WAS-ROUSED NOT he IS here BE-PERCEIVING THE PLACE THE-?-where THEY Place Him. <br />
.<br />
Greek: The whole verse:<i> </i>in Greek in the phonetic so we can read it better -- "ho de legei autais mE ekthambeisthe iEsoun zEteite tar nazarEnon ton estaurOmenon <b>EgerthE</b> ouk estin hOde ide Ho topos hopou ethEkan auton"<i> </i><br />
.<br />
<b><i>He was roused</i>?</b> Not "he is risen?" How can that be! <br />
.<br />
a. EgerthE<br />
<br />
Only people who are still alive get "roused" -- the word there for "was roused" is <b>"EgerthE".</b><br />
<br />
.Note at the site that there are little numbers beneath each Greek word -- that is for a Greek Lexicon so you can look each up. For EgerthE is the little number G1453, for Strong's . <i>Thayer's</i> Lexicon appears to use the same numbering system. To find word usages, click on the Hebrew or Greek at <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html">http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html</a>.<br />
.<br />
First, clear away for now some other distractions. There are terms that appear in the Crucifixion story that are ambiguous in their own way, but we are not going to focus on them here. At issue is the likelihood of necrotic death, who the witnesses were, if any, to a "rouse up" and why all the differences in account: <br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Method of torture. Given as "estaurOmenon". </li>
<ul><li>We are not concerned here about the ambiguity between impaled/crucified </li>
<li>Impaled is the first, or closest definition, with the more customary "crucified" beneath it. Both are given as meanings for "estaurOmenon.' Is 'crucified', listed underneath the 'impaled', a dogmatic nod to what was eventually adopted as more aesthetic for conversion purposes? Why not stay with impalement. </li>
<li>Impalement. Would there be huge blood loss or less in an impalement, hastening death (impalements could be horizontal or vertical) and not so much blood in a crucifixion so as to prolong the torture? But blood loss was not a factor for the infamousVlad's impaled people who lived for days, we are told. </li>
<li>The traditional crucifixion idea may well be a matter of institutional choice, not firm proof. Who knows. Amateurs wallow about. See discussion at <a href="http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2010/11/religions-ambiguities-execution-method.html">Religion's Ambiguities: Execution Method</a> </li>
</ul><li>Salome. And we are not concerned here with specifics about Salome, who accompanied the two Marys according to Mark. But do read thoughts at <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2008/12/transformative-use-of-translation.html">Salome: in James' Infancy Gospel</a>; see also <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2009/05/salome-zebel-disciple-sources.html">Salome, Zebel, Sources.</a> The point is how cultural overlays shape what "facts" are allowed.</li>
<li>Or why the women, written as being "out-awed" by what they saw, a youth in a white robe, and the stone rolled away, and Jesus gone.</li>
<ul><li>This suddenly becomes in later versions that they, like the silly geese women they are, are frightened, afrighted, scared out of their wits. </li>
<li> Not at all. The text reads as though they are simply awed that it all is coming about as it was supposed to. </li>
<li> Hey! It worked! Could they have been in on what was really happening.</li>
<li>Can that be so? Out-awed is not terrified. </li>
</ul></ul>Back to "rouse". Only the living can be roused. Wake up! And there was an extensive pharmacopeia available through the secret keepers, and especially perhaps Egypt. Why <i>not</i> a potion. <br />
.<br />
b. Before suggesting conspiracy theories, stay rational.<br />
.<br />
What is the evidence in the words themselves. Review other translations of "EgerthE." Find many other versions of the Bible that are translations, not transliterations, and many show a Greek version, then the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, and other versions. <br />
.<br />
<b>2. Frequency of definition</b><br />
<br />
<b>"He was roused" as seen in multiple translation comparison. EgerthE. G1453.</b><br />
<br />
a. To start, find it used in the sense of waking people up, in a non-controversial passage, the same word G1453, used when Jesus "roused" the disciples after his time praying in Gethsamane and they were fast asleep, and it was time to go -- egeiresthe word listed as 1453 at <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar14.pdf">Scripture4all Online Interlinear Greek NT Mark 14:43</a><br />
.<br />
Then go to this traditional <i>translation</i> comparison site: <a href="http://greeknewtestament.com/">Parallel Greek New Testament, online comparative translations, (linked to John Hunt HTML Bible)</a>. I have never studied Greek, but it is not difficult to trace words without knowing a language. Online offers the routes.<br />
.<br />
Remember the Greek from the Scripture4all: it reads for the entire verse, and note particularly the EgerthE root, word root also seen in Mark 14:43, <br />
.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">"ho de legei autais mE ekthambeisthe iEsoun zEteite</div><div style="text-align: center;">tar nazarEnon </div><div style="text-align: center;">ton estaurOmenon <i> </i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>EgerthE</i> </div><div style="text-align: center;">ouk estin hOde ide Ho topos hopou ethEkan auton"</div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Greek given at this site shows versions without given dates, and some after 1500. </li>
<li>What were the ones Jerome used? Have to get dates for the ones that are there. Alexandrian? Note to check. </li>
<li>Jerome used his own knowledge of Greek as well as other sources. Is he infallible? No. He is human, later made a saint. He is a product of his institution, and probably not free or interested in exploring beyond orthodoxy. </li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>There are problems with Jerome's acts and omissions in translating, an earlier one see from the Old Testament where he translated from his own knowledge of Hebrew into Latin, at <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2010/01/jeromes-ezer-kenegdo-kngdv-latin.html">Jerome and the Role of Eve</a> </li>
<li>But of course he was fluent in many languages, and there appears to be noone else who was asked to do the job of making the Bible into Latin. What he did, stuck. Others are more reverential than we are. Ok. Check even the reverend ones.</li>
</ul> That said, At Greek New Testament <a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/">http://www.greeknewtestament.com/</a> , click on Mark 16 (note it stops at the 16th Verse) and scroll to the 6th verse. <br />
.<br />
<b>3. Vet the "roused". EgerthE, as in "estaurOmenon <i>EgerthE</i> ouk estin hOde"</b><br />
.<br />
a. Greek transliteration site, <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm">Scripture4all, Index, Online Interlinear Greek NT</a>, and click on Mark 16.<br />
.<br />
The Greek letters shown are (we don't have the font) HTOPE with the T missing the upper left side of the crosspart. Like an upside down L facing right.<br />
.<br />
Go directly at <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar16.pdf">Scripture4all, Mark 16:6.</a> Find<br />
.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">"estaurOmenon EgerthE"</div><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">b. Parallel Greek translation site, at <a href="http://greeknewtestament.com/B41C016.htm">Parallel Greek New Testament Mark 16:6</a><br />
.<br />
Find these translations: Stephens 1550, and Scrivener 1894, and Byzantine Majority, and Alexandrian, and Hort and Westcott (who?): </div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="text-align: left;">All say </div><div style="text-align: center;">"estarwmenon hgerqh" (great for scrabble) </div><br />
Maybe hgerqh is the same as EgerthE but the site does not give the Strong's Lexicon numbers.<br />
<br />
<b>4. Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon G1453 number for "roused"</b><br />
.<br />
a. There are two sites with the lexicon:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Eliyah.com; see <a href="http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html">Strong's Concordance at Eliyah.com</a>; and a Strong's Search also at </li>
<li>Blue Letter Bible.org, see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.cfm">Blue Letter Bible, Search</a></li>
<li>Blue Letter also has Thayer's Lexicon that seems to use the same number for words. Click on Thayer's and find this warning, that Thayers is not doctrinally sound -- that is, it translates and transliterates regardless of the dogma other people want. </li>
<li>See <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1453&t=KJV&cscs=Mar">Thayer's Lexicon at Blue Letter Bible, click on Thayer's Lexicon "Help"</a></li>
</ul><i>If you click on the "help" you will find that Thayer's Lexicon self-identifies as doctrinally incorrect. It is not merely an outgrowth of dogma, "doctrinally correct". We are looking for original meanings regardless of how later institutions shaped them for their own dogma purposes, so this is fine with us.</i><br />
.<br />
Then, 1453 as in Scripture4all would also be doctrinally<i> incorrect </i>(excellent!), since they stay true to the meaning in the body of the text, the transliterations, and only let doctrine in in the margin to the right where they put a traditional translation column. Is that so? Good. <br />
.<br />
b. So: Look up G1453 at Eliyah's Strong's Lexicon: Nothing there! Why won't they let us see?<br />
.<br />
Now do we know?<br />
.<br />
Is that why Strong's at Eliyah (Greekoldtestament.com) does not show 1453? And Thayer's - also a venerable old site -- that we found through Blue Letter Bible, is free to be academic and not ideological. Thayer's shows 1453 freely.<br />
.<br />
c. See the site listed just below at Eliyah -- ah, that is the Blue Letter Bible one, and it has it. <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1453&t=KJV">Blue Letter Bible Lexicon Strong's G1453</a><br />
.<br />
To arouse is given as from <span class="lexTitleGk" style="font-size: 250%; font-weight: normal;">ἐγείρω </span><br />
That does not look like the EgerthE, or is it? The phonetic at Blue Letter is given as 'egeiro'.<br />
<br />
Another ambiguity: the EYEIPW is not the same as the Scripture4all HTOPE (See 3 above). Looking that up. Were there multiple sources in the old Greek? Putting a blank in here to show me later where to put an answer, if we find one:<br />
<br />
_______________________________________________<br />
_______________________________________________<br />
<br />
Arouse Arisen He was aroused He is risen He got up Somebody got him up <br />
<br />
Are you still with us?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5C96CedM1E1A5TVkiPZqoxcruq0zMw12ui-rtGFVw4sk688BxXWKG95nWPDOfM5iMEVWswJzTyUZHOqZun4Hrdrj-s-T-ozFebWTa3ppG95Ge450erglb7YzacSu24zHQQxe6y2pj0eDa/s1600/100_2888.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5C96CedM1E1A5TVkiPZqoxcruq0zMw12ui-rtGFVw4sk688BxXWKG95nWPDOfM5iMEVWswJzTyUZHOqZun4Hrdrj-s-T-ozFebWTa3ppG95Ge450erglb7YzacSu24zHQQxe6y2pj0eDa/s400/100_2888.JPG" width="400" />"He was roused" - EgerthE? Roskilde Cathedral, Denmark</a></div>.<br />
We welcome ambiguities because we want information, not support for this creed or that. My state of mind would favor a Non-Church of the Creedal-Inspecific Seeker. It also appears as HGERQH at <a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B41C016.htm#V16">Greek New Testament Mark 16:6</a><br />
.<br />
On to meanings: This person in a seminary, see <a href="http://cep.calvinseminary.edu/seasonalResources/lent/2008/documents/egerthe.pdf">Calvin Seminary writer on "egeiro"</a> says that egerthe is the "aorist passive" for the verb egeiro, to raise. <br />
.<br />
Raise instead of rouse, ok. <br />
.<br />
Still, the old hurdle. There is no reference to what the person is being raised from, as would be needed to mean "from the dead." Nothing about raised "from the dead" for example. Raised from his bed. He rose. Still fine. He rose from his bed. Why does the omission of what he rose from or was roused from, sound so dodgy? See <a href="http://www.latinphrasetranslation.com/forum/showthread.php/49-Roman-Catholic-Creed">Latin Phrase Translation dot com. (Creed)</a> <br />
.<br />
d. Back to Blue Letter Bible on Strong's for usage of the word in the Bible itself, the Greek. Find all these definitions, then look to the right for each gospel or other book that supports it. There is no other way to see if the one we are most interested in, "to arouse from the sleep of death" ever occurs without adding the separate words "from the dead" or some such.<br />
.<br />
<div class="lex1"><b>1)</b> to arouse, cause to rise</div><div class="lex2"><b>a)</b> to arouse from sleep, to awake</div><div class="lex2"><b>b)</b> to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life *</div><div class="lex2"><b>c)</b> to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.</div><div class="lex2"><b>d)</b> to raise up, produce, cause to appear</div><div class="lex3"><b>1)</b> to cause to appear, bring before the public</div><div class="lex3"><b>2)</b> to raise up, stir up, against one</div><div class="lex3"><b>3)</b> to raise up i.e. cause to be born</div><div class="lex3"><b>4)</b> of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect</div>.<br />
<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1453&t=KJV">Blue Letter Bible Strong's Lexicon G1453, definitions</a><br />
..<br />
* Support for recall the dead to life.<br />
.<br />
Ah. Little b) up there -- rouse from the sleep of death. <br />
.<br />
Recall the dead to life. Check that out. Where does that usage come up? Scroll down to the examples at <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1453&t=KJV&cscs=Mar">BLB Strong's 1453 usage examples</a>. Spot the Mark 1453's for rouse or rise. Some of us really enjoy this stuff.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Mark 2:9, 11, 12. 1453 as "arise" or "arose"; </li>
<li>Mark 3:3, stand; </li>
<li>Mark 5:41, arise (Talitha)(see <a href="http://www.talithakoum.org/">Talitha Koum, Aramaic, Talitha, Get Up (and she was already dead)</a>; Jesus was not describing her state, however. He simply commanded. </li>
<li>Mark 4:27, arise. </li>
<li>Now: Mark 6:14, the part about it being spread about that John the Baptist had risen <i>from the dead</i> -- #1453 "is risen," and it takes additional separate words to specify "from the dead" -- "from" is 1537; and "the dead" is 3498. It takes <i>three words</i> to mean risen from the dead. On its own as a word, 1453 does not mean anything about dead. </li>
</ul>Carry on:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Mark 10:49, 12:26 -- The dead that they rise -- takes words 3498 and 1453</li>
<li>Mark 13:8, 13:22, - shall rise. </li>
<li>Mark 14:28 -- am risen. 14:42 - rise up (and then it goes on, to "let us go"), </li>
<li>16:14 - he was risen. </li>
</ul>Conclusion: If rising from the dead is intended, the words have to be there. Even the rise up for Talitha means only get up (as in from the bed). There is no definite finding here by anybody, including Jesus, that he rose from the dead. Not a peep.<br />
.<br />
III. More delving<br />
.<br />
A. Track the transliteration of the "rouse" and "rise" for each gospel:</div><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat28.pdf">Matthew, Scripture4all, Matthew 28.</a> then to </li>
<li><a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar16.pdf%20">Mark, Scripture4all Mark 16 </a></li>
<li><div style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar16.pdf%20">Luke, Scripture4all, Luke 24</a><br />
.<br />
Hold John for a moment -- because there, at the last Gospel to be written, when the doctrine (was it Paul who made it the central idea? he wasn't around at the time. What were his sources?) was off and running that required Jesus to be raised from the dead, you will find it -- only in John.<br />
<div>.<br />
Then for narrative translations, but unfortunately not anchored to the Greek or the Aramaic or whatever, go to another site for comparative versions of the New Testament, See <a href="http://greeknewtestament.com/">http://greeknewtestament.com</a><br />
.<br />
Then for a bit of a linguistic jolt. Everything in our translations is "he is risen" and not "he was roused." The doctrinally correct version prevails, of course. Doctrine over truth.</div>.<br />
<a href="http://greeknewtestament.com/B41C016.htm#V16">Parallel Greek New Testament Mark 16 </a></div></li>
<li><div style="font-family: inherit;"></div></li>
</ul></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;" trbidi="on"></div><div style="text-align: left;">B. Move on to John.</div><br />
.<br />
When we get to John, it still is ambiguous. See <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh20.pdf">Scripture4all, John 20:9, transliteration</a>. But look at the usage -- "I have upstepped toward the father" - not "ascended"<br />
.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>anababEka -- I-HAVE-UPSTEPPED toward the father, see <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh20.pdf">Scripture4all, John 20:17</a> (but the margin traditional translation says "ascended" and that indeed is given as a secondary meaning, beneath the "upstepped" But ascending, going up, is still going up as from a tomb with a lower entry, etc. Not as clear as we think. </li>
</ul><ul style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;"><li>nekRon anastEni -- of dead ones to rise (as in fulfilling the prophecy)</li>
<li>And John always adds the phrase "from the dead" to the "raise" [Strong's wording number 1453, Greek]when he means that, see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1453&t=KJV&cscs=Jhn">Blue Letter Bible Lexicon, Strong's G1453 (Strong's "raise")</a> </li>
<li> Matthew, Mark and Luke make no reference to "the dead" -- leaving the plain meaning of to rouse, to get up, to awaken. J was not dead, but what? Experts, to your lexicons. </li>
<li>We have liftoff. We have ambiguity at the very least. </li>
</ul><div style="font-family: inherit;">John at <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1453&t=KJV">Blue Letter Bible, usage of Strong's 1453,</a> <br />
<br />
How did John use the word, since we have looked up Mark already. <br />
<br />
Click on John, in that little menu box, and see 13 usages.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Raise up the temple, rear up the temple, and when we get to </li>
<li>John 2:22 -- when he was risen (word 1453) from (word 1537) the dead (word 3498)</li>
<li>John 5:8 -- rise (1453) take up thy bed and walk (other words, check at <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1453&t=KJV&cscs=Jhn">Blue Letter Bible Strong's 1453, John</a> </li>
<li>John 5:21 -- the father raiseth up (1453) the dead (1498) and <i>quickeneth (2227) them -</i>- There we are. It takes a concept like "quickeneth" to mean raising from the dead, and nowhere do we find that Jesus was "quickened". So, he never was dead. Can that be so, after all this doctrine? Methinks the doctriners doth indoctrinate too much. It simply is not clear. <i>They would have used "quickened" or earlier versions would have been specific about raised from the dead, and they are not. </i></li>
</ul>So. To us, the word for "rise" is not used alone when "from the dead" is intended. Even in John. <br />
<br />
CONCLUSION:<br />
.<br />
Q. What was the state of Jesus of Nazareth between the laying in the tomb on Friday; and the arrival of the followers on Sunday.<br />
.<br />
Was he<br />
a) clinically and in all ways dead, no brain waves, nothing;<br />
b) alive but imperceptibly so on Friday, as in deeply comatose, rendered in an unconscious state by a substance ingested, or the trauma, or in a deep shock; or<br />
c) not Jesus. There was a decoy, a sacrificial substitution of person, so that someone gave himself to be beaten and crowned with thorns and crucified (all that would change appearance) as though he were Jesus, and that person died and was buried; but the real Jesus was elsewhere, or<br />
d) none of the above.<br />
.<br />
A. The noncredal believer chooses ..... (reveal!) b). Comatose.<br />
.<br />
The knowledge of potions was extensive. Egypt had a vast pharmacopeia at the time, and secret knowledge was around and about. Think of ancient uses of the poppy, opium, deep sleep potion and other uses. Ancient roots, and one of its alkaloids is morphine, see <a href="http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Papaver/">Economic Botany, The Pernicious Poppy</a><br />
.<br />
This way blood was kept off Pilate's hands after all, etc. Rome was happy, Jews were happy, etc.<br />
.<br />
Comatose. <br />
.<br />
Boom. FN 2</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">..............................................<br />
<br />
.<br />
FN 1. How is "roused" used elsewhere by Jerome, who also translated the Old Testament into the Latin Vulgate, and from the Hebrew. <br />
<br />
That would help us figure out the usage of "surrexit" in Mark, where that has no specification "from the dead." <br />
<br />
Then we have to look at Paul's role in making a "resurrection" central to his new religion. It does not seem to have been much to the earliest Christians. As for Jews, it would not be that unusual, see FN 2. It would only be an unusual event for Romans and other non-Jews who did not have resurrection in their vocabulary. Or was it already familiar through pagan sources, in the cutural state-religion tradition? <br />
.<br />
In the Old Testament, Jerome uses "surrexit" in the form of "consurrexit" in Zachariah 2:13: "sileat omnis caro a facie Domini quia consurrexit de habitaculo sancto suo," or in the Douay Rheims (Roman Catholic), "Let all flesh be silent at the presence of the Lord: for he is risen up out of his holy habitation."<br />
.<br />
Other translations given there use waked up, is awake, is raised up, and here is the Hebrew: <span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">HS KL-BShUr MPhNY YHVH KY N'yVUr MM'yVN QDShV. </span></div>.<br />
And the "Paleo Hebrew" said to be before 582 BC: <img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/preysh.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pshiyn.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pbeth.gif" />-<img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/plamed.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pkaph.gif" /> <img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/psamek.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/phe.gif" /><br />
<img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/phe.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pvav.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/phe.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pyowd.gif" /> <img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pyowd.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pnuwn.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pphe.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pmem.gif" /><br />
<img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/preysh.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pvav.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/payin.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pnuwn.gif" /> <img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pyowd.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pkaph.gif" /><br />
.<img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pvav.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pshiyn.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pdaleth.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pqowph.gif" /> <img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pnuwn.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pvav.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/payin.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pmem.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pmem.gif" /><br />
<br />
Ok: What is the "roused" part -- Start another window.<br />
<br />
Have to look at a transliteration word for word, try <a href="http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/zec2.pdf">Scripture4all online linear Hebrew Zachariah 2:13</a><br />
Find "be-quelled all-of flesh from-faces-of Yahweh that he-is-roused from-habitation-of holiness-of-him"<br />
<br />
And the "he-is-roused" is the word "nour" with hebrew letters נעור<br />
<br />
Now to Strong's Lexicon with that word<br />
We find the first three letters (not the backwards C there) at <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H5782">Strong's lexicon H5782</a><br />
making it עור <br />
And look it up at <a href="http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/5782.html">Hebrew Lexicon Concordance 5782</a><br />
And find that the root of the עור<br />
is a very early form meaning roughly opening the eyes, awaken, arouse, incite, lift up the self, stir up self, and scroll down to all the places where the word is used.<br />
<br />
That is "oor" or "make bare" see how close the forms are -- you don't have to know Hebrew to look things up and appreciate the difficulty scribes had in copying, or translators had in getting it down clearly<br />
<pre></pre><pre><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><a class="u" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1917723051441908124&postID=4986638598583270290">עוּר</a></b></span></pre>So, this is "oor" number 5783, to make bare, expose, and that is different from "nur" or wake up. <br />
<br />
Scripture4all does not give the Strong's numbers in Zachariah, but you can do it yourself.<br />
<br />
Conclusion: Jerome's use of "surrexit" for raised up means he just got up, which would not mean "from the dead" unless that were specified, as it is not. Even for Jahwah, it is specified what he would be raised from if people make a racket -- from his holy habitation. Have to add the words "from the dead" -- or use a word that means that, as "quicken" if something is made quick from the dead.<br />
<br />
...................................................................<br />
<br />
<br />
Go to the next word, Hebrew 5783: click on the arrow <br />
<br />
<br />
.........................................................<br />
<br />
FN 2. Doctrinally incorrect searches. Search in Google for "there was no resurrection". Google will not let you search that. All you get on the first pages is another issuse, what "if" there had been no resurrection, and the like.<br />
<br />
So we search on our own. What to early texts available to amateurs say about a resurrection. This is Easter night, Sunday, and we want this in time for next year.<br />
<br />
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. What do they say, that we rely upon? No resurrection.<br />
<br />
It is true that raisings from the dead had been part of the Jewish tradition occasionally, see <a href="http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Resurrection.htm">Resurrection essay, NT Wright 2000.</a> But those events were described with the added "from the dead" -- and that is not in Matthew, Mark, Luke (another topic is the embellishment to Mark's account after him). Was there a raising from the dead here? We think not.<br />
<br />
...................................................................<br />
<br />
<i>* UPDATE ASTERISK.</i><br />
.<br />
<i>Hwaet</i>. A new issue interposes in this Biblical-textual-dogma interest. Please consider before delving into the substance of roused or resurrected. Suddenly the NYT is taking an ideological spin on its own article, changing its title as to how a Renaissance artist, Caravaggio, known for his treatment of light, presented the issue of roused or resurrected. This is the great Caravaggio. Of Art Course fame. See what the NYT does to its own article about Caravaggio's subject matter. Is the NYT caving to advertising or conservative pressure?<br />
.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>First, the Hwaet. </li>
<li>This is the old word in Anglo-Saxon tradition, for getting attention from the rowdy group, for what is to come next. Beowulf's teller, hushing the hearers. </li>
<li> NYT's change of its own header, an opinion manipulation, is worthy of Beowulfian attention like this. </li>
<li>NYT online changes the header. </li>
<li>See <a href="http://www.nvcc.edu/home/vpoulakis/translation/beowulf1.htm">http://www.nvcc.edu/home/vpoulakis/translation/beowulf1.htm</a> Instead of "In His Own Image" we get the fearsome, fear-inducing, "The Criminal Genius of Caravaggio." </li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><ul><li> Instead of the neutral, "In His Own Image," for the Caravaggio article, we find the new and tilted, "The Criminal Genius of Caravaggio." </li>
<li>Who is tampering with headlines here on issues of doctrinal interest, even for (us) the nondogmatic. It makes spin where the title had been neutral. The NYT is losing its credibility as a source for information, without agenda. Has it already lost it? </li>
</ul><li>See <a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_197709866">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/books/review/caravaggio-a-life-sacred-and-profane-by-andrew-graham-dixon-book-review.html?scp=1&sq=In%20His%20Own%20Image&st=cse</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_197709866"><br />
</a> </li>
</ul></div>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-44163744915835245562011-02-26T14:48:00.000-05:002011-07-18T01:01:53.622-04:00Shape as the Grail. Round Churches, Roundtables, Labyrinths, Egalite: Is the Grail a Shape; Not an Object . Traces of Templars, or Fantasy?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: center;"><b>The Shape may be The Grail</b><br />
<b>What does the round shape communicate. </b><br />
<b>What did it communicate centuries ago?</b><br />
<b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>The Roundtable, the Round Church; or the High-Low Table, the Sharp Unclimbable Spire </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Do we limit what we see because of cultural preference and shaped mentality</b></div><br />
Q. What if meaning lies in shape, not in its particular manifestation. What if something <i>is</i> its <i>shape</i>, that it is not what "it" is.<br />
<ul><li>If there is a round church, for example, from medieval times, is that just a round church, or does the shape itself communicate. If so, what. </li>
<li>To get started, see Bjernede Rundkirke, one of the round churches, this one from 1170 in Denmark where there are a number of round churches surviving. See <a href="http://denmarkroadways.blogspot.com/2011/07/bjernede-round-church-bjernede-kirke.html">http://denmarkroadways.blogspot.com/2011/07/bjernede-round-church-bjernede-kirke.html</a></li>
</ul><br />
Q. To find out, challenge old concepts of identification.<br />
<ul><li>Move to another old, old idea that none of us can make concrete: that airy-fairy concept of the Holy Grail. </li>
<li>We assume, because we like the concrete, that it is the <i>chalice</i>, and all that; see <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/the-big-question-what-was-the-holy-grail-and-why-our-centuriesold-fascination-with-it-968557.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/the-big-question-what-was-the-holy-grail-and-why-our-centuriesold-fascination-with-it-968557.html</a></li>
</ul> A. What if the Holy Grail is not an object at all.<br />
<br />
What if it has never been found because it is a shape, a concept. A way to truths, that cultures globally have tapped into -- example: sacred circles. <br />
<ul><li>The "container" is not what is conveyed. </li>
<li> It is not the Cup but the function. </li>
<li>The message is the round, Living in the round, the web, </li>
<li>The Circle; the Roundtable</li>
<li>Not in the hierarchy, the pyramid, the Line. </li>
</ul>What supports that weird idea?<br />
<br />
Look at early Celtic Christian monks in their individual hut-beehives. The dome, the round.<br />
<br />
Later changes: away from contemplation, unity, to power, profit and hierarchy. Does that show in the architecture of places of worship, the shape of activities. Support and choices come in movable circles, allow, webs. Safe to fall. Something to catch. Domination comes in slashing lines, rigid pyramids. Hold on because if you fall you are gone. Off the line.<br />
........................................................ <br />
<br />
A. Architecture.<br />
<br />
Round Churches. Miscellany we have found in addition to those listed -- in Bulgaria, Church of Saint John at Preslav, or the Golden Church, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Church,_Preslav">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Church,_Preslav</a>/ Wikipedia is a start for somebody's deeper analysis.<br />
<br />
Note that this round church at Preslav also has appendages, an atrium and apse, but it nos not clear if those were built at the beginning? If so, that would disprove ideas that the later theology led to changes in church shape and worship. The "Rotunda" idea:<br />
<br />
See also the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, a Galeria in Thessalonike, and Charlemagne's Aachen Chapel. Not a new idea; but interesting to speculate why the Roman Church had to do away with it. And, in Orkney, St. Nicholas' Church, see ruin and foundation at <a href="http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/or-chrch.htm">http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/or-chrch.htm</a><br />
<br />
1. KNIGHTS TEMPLAR ROUND CHURCHES, ENGLAND<br />
<br />
See this site, at <a href="http://www.templarhistory.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=118">http://www.templarhistory.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=118</a>/ Some other round churches are thought to be modeled after the round Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Is this Cambridge England round church a Templar church? See <a href="http://www.hwtnz.wordtravels.com/Attractions/?attraction=3211">http://www.hwtnz.wordtravels.com/Attractions/?attraction=3211</a>/ But what does the round shape have to do with a Resurrection? That's stretching it - see <a href="http://au.totaltravel.yahoo.com/listing/621326/united-kingdom/east-anglia/cambridge/cambridge/church-of-the-hol">http://au.totaltravel.yahoo.com/listing/621326/united-kingdom/east-anglia/cambridge/cambridge/church-of-the-hol</a>y/<br />
<br />
The earliest churches we found above ground as separate architectures, not in catacombs, for example; or hidden away; were round. Worshipers were equal, rituals took place in the center; or, in a more orthodox tradition, in a single transept, where a beginning iconostasis could have been set up.<br />
<br />
2. LIENZ, AUSTRIA <br />
<br />
. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaCnTt7TUv_yY7JM9OcWQUwLkLLZlXZ1P56x4rf94GThWaJcSHg7NlpfKXbGGuHWT51D46dOIoxUTv1ZTsG1JzlEuUBJSgmDDzbuJuso0M9LTIdGXgWGS2suEnDvvYpJtxJGUNgMkVNHc/s1600-h/100_2199.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaCnTt7TUv_yY7JM9OcWQUwLkLLZlXZ1P56x4rf94GThWaJcSHg7NlpfKXbGGuHWT51D46dOIoxUTv1ZTsG1JzlEuUBJSgmDDzbuJuso0M9LTIdGXgWGS2suEnDvvYpJtxJGUNgMkVNHc/s320/100_2199.JPG" width="320" />Round church? It was closed. Lienz, Austria</a></div><br />
<br />
3. LINZ, AUSTRIA (DIFFERENT FROM LIENZ)<br />
<br />
In Linz, there is another. In Linz, the old round foundation still shows -- all worshipers equal, a center alter. The church itself was later when the Roman Catholics took over as <i>the</i> Christian orientation and reduced it in size and made a rectangle so the altar could be placed where it should be with the authority figure up front, and the rabble back and away in a mob.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMuWHdukr77wriGAy83jUvKYkmrsUtxLQju3rr1kVQ65WVXrW5oqyms6QOZRCdfelL6Qr0weewCALMCz56QmDRsfEkqjNOy3Q5LCrZq-1wKNamy95gi3si_B0Tgq8f1FjoZqyVjckagPw/s1600/100_2055.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMuWHdukr77wriGAy83jUvKYkmrsUtxLQju3rr1kVQ65WVXrW5oqyms6QOZRCdfelL6Qr0weewCALMCz56QmDRsfEkqjNOy3Q5LCrZq-1wKNamy95gi3si_B0Tgq8f1FjoZqyVjckagPw/s320/100_2055.JPG" width="320" />Round foundations, St. Martin's Church, Linz, Austria</a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW93cstw5ANXK04FTeKGVriLqpp3nlB2zs3IWBP248ARwYdDVZJvx-yah3bZw-sIEiqK99HX9V0YN-F60EHFz6V9YDiY6McJD-QVUhCKBzM0eePF5wU8YLwK9G1tWpbnvBJ5kgQzTOgcM/s1600/100_2054.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW93cstw5ANXK04FTeKGVriLqpp3nlB2zs3IWBP248ARwYdDVZJvx-yah3bZw-sIEiqK99HX9V0YN-F60EHFz6V9YDiY6McJD-QVUhCKBzM0eePF5wU8YLwK9G1tWpbnvBJ5kgQzTOgcM/s320/100_2054.JPG" width="320" />Later rectangular St. Martin's Church, Linz, Austria. Dan Widing learning the history</a></div><br />
The round foundation goes all the way around St. Martin's, showing how small the little rectangular one is that fit within its old bounds.<br />
<br />
<br />
4. BORNHOLM DENMARK<br />
(NOT SEEN)<br />
<br />
In Denmark, find several round churches. The overall conversion to Christianity took place 1050-1150 or so, the time of these buildings.<br />
<br />
The island of Bornholm (the word "holm" meant island) apparently has four, walls of granite, originally flat roofs with cone-shaped added centuries later -- all of these are off the modern beaten paths. Each has a single center supporting pillar, see <a href="http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/f52_thorsager.html">http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/f52_thorsager.html</a>/ There is Osterlars, Nylars, Olsker, and Nyker.<br />
<br />
This site, about the Templars' Church of Osterlars on Bornholm, see <a href="http://sacredsites.com/europe/denmark/bornholm.html">http://sacredsites.com/europe/denmark/bornholm.html</a>; notes Templar connections.-- and we found one at Bjernede Rundkirche, near Soro, on Zealand. Its walls are stone and brick. The site notes a book called <i>The Templars' Secret Island</i>. There is claimed to be landscape geometry connecting them, and with a castle in France, connections between Cistercians (monastic order) and Templars, pagan symbols in carving and fresco, alignments of windows with solstice etc. Someone else go check. Also something called the Poulsker Church on Bornholm. Bornholm is an easy stop by ferry from Germany or Sweden or Denmark, but it takes more time than we had available.<br />
<br />
The Bornholm site says these on Bornholm are the only ones in Denmark. That is wrong. See <a href="http://denmarkroadways.blogspot.com/2011/07/bjernede-round-church-bjernede-kirke.html">Bjernede</a>, on Zealand. <br />
<br />
Of interest: comparison of Templars and Hospitallers. Bjernede shows Hospitaller connection?<br />
<br />
5. THORSAGER, JUTLAND<br />
(NOT SEEN)<br />
<br />
That can't be so, because there is also a round church, an "Absolon" church for an early bishop we believe, at Thorsager on Jutland, that we did not see. See://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/f52_thorsager.html/ Is the other Absolon church the Cathedral at Roskilde (not round at all).<br />
<br />
<br />
6. BJERNEDE RUNDKIRCHE, SORO, ZEALAND.<br />
(SEEN)<br />
<br />
We found this round church Bjernede Rundkirche, near Soro, on Zealand. Our guidebook says it is the only round church other than those on Borhnholm. <br />
<br />
The Bjernede Round Church has appendages - stuck on apses and entryways that to us don't fit at all. To us it looked like somebody didn't like the round idea, and simply added on parts of a cross to make it the acceptable cross shape. Awkward. See <br />
<a href="http://denmarkroadways.blogspot.com/2011/07/bjernede-round-church-bjernede-kirke.html">http://denmarkroadways.blogspot.com/2011/07/bjernede-round-church-bjernede-kirke.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8nOLG2GC1wW6Yd9H7vxrH0j9sHWV7MQTDtwg8qmpRPF-E92b_eDRvKah4BajHgSt_8AW9pxRPmrfTLyY7A0od35gmMUWvJQ7XXRWWqg07Fslq1-wMvjMhTSOaFKxB5xcVkOUMVQ2hQMwQ/s1600/100_3989.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8nOLG2GC1wW6Yd9H7vxrH0j9sHWV7MQTDtwg8qmpRPF-E92b_eDRvKah4BajHgSt_8AW9pxRPmrfTLyY7A0od35gmMUWvJQ7XXRWWqg07Fslq1-wMvjMhTSOaFKxB5xcVkOUMVQ2hQMwQ/s320/100_3989.JPG" width="240" />Bjernede Rundkirche, Bjernede, Zealand, Denmark</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSixW2E8OwEZpFERAwA8IGtHMM0mpR70x7XRdo1NwWkJE3GRpVGoR27Odh-k6dapDFpvvqZ3SGvFQSqYcTIV__LWrf-t9K-eBJRohg8m-pZc_IWJPT3rIWIflYlKCnJREo8dBbWUM0X0vS/s1600/100_3990.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSixW2E8OwEZpFERAwA8IGtHMM0mpR70x7XRdo1NwWkJE3GRpVGoR27Odh-k6dapDFpvvqZ3SGvFQSqYcTIV__LWrf-t9K-eBJRohg8m-pZc_IWJPT3rIWIflYlKCnJREo8dBbWUM0X0vS/s320/100_3990.JPG" width="320" />Round Church, Bjernede near Soro, Zealand DK</a></div><br />
<br />
Figuring out original shapes, changes and reasons.<br />
<br />
Is this really a change that came about later, or was this in Bjernede the original construct with the peculiar appendages? The granite multicolored stone transept looks original, amateur assessment from the outside, but not the brick one with stair-step facade.<br />
<br />
These are too small to have met the fate of the church at Linz, where the larger circle church simply was deconstructed, and a rectangle put inside to house a smaller but dogma-coordinated priest-in-front view.<br />
<br />
B. Other explanations. Keep thinking:<br />
<br />
Or was the foundation round in Linz a circular wall out there? That is not what the guide said, and the Orkney foundation looks the same. Scholars, start your engines. Information on site: The original church was round, to suit the equality among worshipers in the theology they espoused (sounds a lot like Jesus, does it not) -- in Denmark in particular, early Christianity was fostered with a prevalence of female saints, as at Old Uppsala, shown in the church itself. But in Uppsala, when the cathedral (where the bishop would be) went to new Uppsala, suddenly it is all male saints.<br />
<br />
Bjernede. Please take off the dreadful additions, if they are additions. Nothing fits. It is just as awkward inside, apses added here and there and it just doesn't work. It is even painful to be in there. Please. Research this further and whatever the result, take off the rectangles and hierarchy-fostering apses that look so forbidding. Back to the circular.<br />
<br />
<br />
C. What if the round shape, the inclusive Round Way, had prevailed over the sharp point, the pyramid.<br />
<br />
The Unforgiving Line, the excluder. <br />
<br />
Would the shape of our religious and political orientation in the West have been different if the concept of the Round had prevailed against the concept of the Hierarchy as in the Roman Church approach to life and love. What if the hierarchical, pyramidal Rome had lost its quest and invasions and conquests and inquisitions, so pushed throughout our religious history. It prevailed, and became the dominant "Christian" church in Western Europe; and in any other area where it could beat out the competition. Think of old religions, Celtic circles, vinings.<br />
<br />
And with Rome's control, out went equality ideas, cooperation, the old Cathar paratge, and in came its ancient militarism, the cohorts and formations, right-angled hard hierarchy and threats of punishment for dissenters and distinctions and emperors. The old emperors merely changing titles to become a church when Rome's secular empire fell apart. Soon, even those Christians Rome first set in motion, the Knights Templar, were destroyed by it; or at least, shoved to a periphery leaving mysteries behind. See ://www.templarhistory.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=118<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Is one of those mysteries the identity of the Holy Grail. Of course. Great preoccupation of fantasy and history combined, media, movies, books and etc. So what did they find out in their nine years digging under Jerusalem, how did they get so rich, so powerful. Secret knowledge, think of all the theories out there. Find a painting on a tryptych in Bjernede focusing on a great golden Chalice, with a disciple-type figure pointing at it for even more emphasis, at <a href="http://denmarkroadways.blogspot.com/2011/07/bjernede-inside-round-church-rundkirke.html">Bjernede, Interior</a><br />
</li>
</ul>Here we look at connections suggested with changes in dogma dominance, overlaid and taking over earlier less power-oriented group practices and understandings. Out with the quiet round, in with the fierce gothic spires.<br />
<br />
D. The Templars<br />
<br />
The Templars were not the only ones with angles on Christianity or powers that Rome did not share. In early centuries, long before Templars, there were many groups of Christians following their faith in the Christ they believed in, even without the glamor of a Templar. Look at the Nestorians and other Christians following their traditions with the same roots as the Roman, moving East as Paul's militant Rome's view gained in power, see <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2008/05/revisit-ur-of-chaldees-chaldean.html">Vetting Roots: Ur of the Chaldees; Chaldeans, Nestorians</a>; and the fate of James the Just, <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2008/11/james-just-unjustly-usurped-secret.html">James the Just, Usurped by Peter and Paul</a>; his epistle that so irked Martin Luther, see <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2007/10/real-jimmy-what-did-he-do-to-deserve.html">The Real Jimmy: What Did He Do To Deserve This</a>and ultimately in Iraq, Iran, and points farther East. Even Kublai Khan's mother was a Nestorian Christian. See ://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b3khankublai.htm/<br />
<br />
All persons are certainly not equal in that Roman Church. There are the elect, the heretics, the sinners, the saints, the roles, the rituals, the women (pah!).<br />
<br />
How did that play out as Rome took over other Christian orientations.<br />
<br />
Groups and Roles: Crusades era <br />
<ul><li>Hospitallers: The Order of St. John of Jerusalem founded before the Templars, in 1048, and operated a hospice for pilgrims in Jerusalem, see <a href="http://www.thefleece.org/archive/osj.html">http://www.thefleece.org/archive/osj.html. </a>The Templars came later, with the need to combine roles of monk and knight, in 1126. Bernard of Clairvaux apparently wrote the governing Rule for the Templars, a new military order. When that succeeded, the Hospitallers also were reorganized, to become Knights as well. Knights Hospitaller. Two military orders.</li>
<li>Teutonic Knights formed (or remained?) after the Crusades in the Holy Land to conduct the pope's new Northern Crusades, against Christians in Slavic and Germanic countries converted by the orthodox, not Rome; or who resisted conversion entirely.</li>
</ul><br />
E. King Arthur<br />
<br />
Does that concept of the Round also show in Arthur's Roundtable (part of the Grail story); and in how early churches, formed in the round, and even later Templar Round Churches, were taken over and the dogma shape of the Cross, the hierarchy with the Priest Capital P at the front above everybody, even with his (yes, His) back to everybody else as was the custom for so long. Here's trouble: And what if the reason women have been so maligned by the Roman Church, is that the power of women in many cultures is associated with the round, and things that happen there. Birth, Embrace. Can't use a gun in the round, nosiree. Hello, NRA.<br />
<br />
Did the Templars meet their virtual destruction because they had some association with or came to learn how to tap into powers that challenged the Church. Will the experts please stand up. And will the Vatican please put its entire library online. Thanks. Is the deity genderless if there is only one? Sure. You only need the equipment if there are two.<br />
<br />
<br />
How much of this is so. Constantly a kaleidescope. Shape of the Grail. Not "the" Grail. Power in the round. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOPjLQwL5ly31E4lgCncBAfrfDbDGQsVAslMRTlYZrsrmvj09MuMUdbbBR8b8H0W-8R0rCjYsxAysnNnVEejaRF6fMIc_h7oBY9Dq2cF4bz8b9W-FnogxYTN2xRWdwCJ2vrvenMyTsrSFa/s1600/100_3974.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="287" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOPjLQwL5ly31E4lgCncBAfrfDbDGQsVAslMRTlYZrsrmvj09MuMUdbbBR8b8H0W-8R0rCjYsxAysnNnVEejaRF6fMIc_h7oBY9Dq2cF4bz8b9W-FnogxYTN2xRWdwCJ2vrvenMyTsrSFa/s400/100_3974.JPG" width="400" />Chalice (Holy Grail allusion?), Tryptych, Bjernede Rundkirke, Denmark</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div>But how even to talk about if, without a concrete representation of the idea. See again the golden Chalice from the Tryptych in Bjernede. And the table itself does look round, not a long rectangle as Leonardo represented.<br />
<br />
Look closer. Is that Mary, the figure with the head-covering, just to the right of J? One of the twelve? There is John, asleep to the lower left. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh35Pq-EssNgtLLCu-hJt_2HnmN3MnnTTPP14TT_9KwT9IDBjlBXM-mgGh4QLspLP_Kypd34UC235z9uUSV9qPj9vK8vGy1JyzfmzmLCCzEahumSQvmAFPqD2Z7tPaPqq3Bw6iAWkk6tng8/s1600/100_3974.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh35Pq-EssNgtLLCu-hJt_2HnmN3MnnTTPP14TT_9KwT9IDBjlBXM-mgGh4QLspLP_Kypd34UC235z9uUSV9qPj9vK8vGy1JyzfmzmLCCzEahumSQvmAFPqD2Z7tPaPqq3Bw6iAWkk6tng8/s400/100_3974.JPG" width="378" />Mary, to the right of J at the Last Supper? Tryptych, Bjernede Round Church, Denmark</a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-20740089984878255522010-12-22T20:37:00.000-05:002011-04-19T12:09:43.162-04:00Why Lie. The Role of Lies in Theology, Culture. Artful Dodges, Faking Certainty, Half Truths, Misleading Emphases. Expedience.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: left;">Updates: Lying as artful dodge is a recurrent current media topic.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The New York Times addresses a similar issue, in why people cheat. Discussed are expedience, resentment against a rule or authority, and remedying a perceived unfairness. See <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/weekinreview/17chump.html?ref=weekinreview">New York Times, Our Cheating Psyches, 4.17.2011, Week in Review at 7, by Benedict Careythttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/weekinreview/17chump.html?ref=weekinreview</a> </li>
</ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>See also <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2011/04/17/america-s-top-liars.html">Newsweek 4/17/2011 00 America's Top Liars.</a> </li>
</ul><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>.........................................................................................</b><br />
<b> </b><br />
<b>Make Your Bed and Lie in It</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>The Art of the Artful Dodge</b><br />
<b>Forms of Lying and Why </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHMc1b9N7s0O1WKm8ZmdTRVEUAMh68yEw_h5WvaHyvOfJ0D4brT73nwYn3YHPpme4q5O903WvCbu9kUmGUXlkX5-EwXDBsZrRba5qDLGCf7ckSQH38HFmD-bZKDGgLBt37qWk-1G4KL2gI/s1600/evildoer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHMc1b9N7s0O1WKm8ZmdTRVEUAMh68yEw_h5WvaHyvOfJ0D4brT73nwYn3YHPpme4q5O903WvCbu9kUmGUXlkX5-EwXDBsZrRba5qDLGCf7ckSQH38HFmD-bZKDGgLBt37qWk-1G4KL2gI/s320/evildoer.jpg" width="254" />Truths twisting in the wind of expedience</a></div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Don't ask, don't tell</b><br />
<b>A good fare-thee-well </b><br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">Why We Cheat, Even in our Questions</div><br />
The artful dodge. As lawyers, we are taught to ask when a witness is caught in an inconsistency: Were you lying then, or are you lying now? There can be no answer. Each response is damning because the question was phrased in terms of the ultimate shock and awe: a LIE. You can just hear your parent catching you in a whopper. Thee is a liar. The asker knows the ploy -- that there is no answer. Is the asker ethical?<br />
<br />
But does that simplistic analysis lead to a truth that is helpful to resolving the issue of responsibility. No. Pursuing a lie can be a false exploitation tool. An easy fix. Prove the lie and you win. No. <br />
<br />
So: examine the reasons for the lie. The mere fact of it tells us nothing.<br />
<br />
Some justifications, or excuses, as you decide: <br />
<br />
1. You just don't want to be there, and want to get out of being in the spotlight as fast as you can.<br />
<br />
Is that lie not really culpable, in terms of affect on others, because you just want out. Just leave me alone. That is a no-account question anyway. Nobody else will be held responsible because of the ducking answer. Did you make that shrimp dip? Yeah. Ok. Leave it alone. Don't follow it up. Raise an eyebrow maybe, when it comes in a plastic case that just fits; and ask about it later, in private, on your own.<br />
<br />
Maybe recourse to small talk at some points in time is just so obnoxious, at the time, that the person regrets even coming. There is a point there. I came all this way, and that is what we are supposed to talk about that? Start the discussion there, not about shrimp dip. Point there.<br />
<br />
2. You have something serious to hide, that affects whether others are held responsible for what you are really responsible for.<br />
<br />
Culpable. Different from #1. The fate and perception of a third party is at stake.<br />
<br />
But, did you make the shrimp dip that sickened everybody to death? Then the answer makes a difference in terms of a lie. If you say, not me. I got it at the supermarket, and it was your stale stuff, bad idea. Obligation to come clean. Others' health is at stake in the future.<br />
<br />
3. Lie because there is no certainty either way, and lie becomes the assertion of certainty.<br />
<br />
There is no way of proving what did happen, and the sources are tainted with age, unless you believe "inspiration" and God's hand at the umpteenth translator's typewriter. So the lie becomes: we are indeed certain, and don the little red shoes. No. We are not. Some may believe because of the inspiration business, others take a more pragmatic, enjoy the myth and follow the good precepts in life approach. Not creedy.<br />
<br />
4. Lies don't last. Intention do.<br />
<br />
What does church say. If I lie, I can repent. Gain the current benefit, and hope for no payback later. Everyone still remembers Peter. Lied because otherwise he would have been caught and .... Flaw! But being sorry mitigates, especially if the lie stops. <br />
<br />
5. Lie for power's sake.<br />
<br />
Saul-Paul. No proof whatever of a "vision". More like epilepsy. But the vision idea set the stage for an entire religion takeover by those of Roman lockstep militarisma -- continuation of the Empire, re-employment down the road of all those left unemployed when the old pagan Empire fell. <br />
<br />
Then go on with Paul and poor hapless Peter. The politically minded <i>Paul </i>eclipsed poor simple <i>Peter i</i>n the power plays. Most people who think of themselves as "Christian" are really "Paulian." There are more alleged words of Paul in the commonly accepted Bible than words of either Jesus (the Vatican Library has the rest and they aren't letting them out for us to see, is that so?); or the brother of Jesus, James. James, the one who Knew, because he was there, got discredited early by the Interloper Paul, and the Jewish-Roman problem took over his efforts; and Peter got dumped on after all.<br />
<br />
The term "Christian' is a lie if it is to mean dominated by actual words and philosophy of J, as close as we can find -- with most records and fragments carefully hidden away, mystically concealed, secret knowledge idea conveniently shunted to history's dustbin. Modern conservative evangelical Christian? No dots to follow back on that one.<br />
<br />
So, we are Paulians. Because poor, simple Peter lied, to save his skin, and then someone with political skills took over.<br />
<br />
6. Cultural lies. Don't ask don't tell. Can't be done.<br />
<br />
If it is asked, go beyond the answer, to what the context is. If the purpose of the question is to exclude someone from any activity without further inquiry, it is wrong to ask. You are ruled by Category. If the purpose of the question is to understand, and find ways to accept regardless of an initial shield-answer, is that human?<br />
<br />
The lie. Not simple. Not worth dismissing someone over. Native Americans. Put yourself in someone else's moccasins. Who knows.<br />
<br />
Leave the Institutional Church? Your choice. Do you go because you are continuing a lie? Do you leave because you are unwilling to continue a lie? If you leave, where do you go when you are also devout, but not as to dogma.<br />
<br />
Lie. Let sleeping dogs lie. But do not let sleeping dogma lie. Is that so? Now back to the real world.<br />
<br />
Paulian not Christian. James. Martin Luther had issues with a James. <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2007/10/real-jimmy-what-did-he-do-to-deserve.html">Martin Luther and Jimmy</a><br />
<br />
James? Brother of. The idea of James will not die. Even Charlemagne had a vision (so he said) of James. Shrine of St. James. St. James -- pilgrimage to Compostela, see ://www.rps.psu.edu/may99/compostela.html/ Perhaps a truer path lies (lies? Lies??) through James. <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2008/11/james-just-unjustly-usurped-secret.html">James the Just</a>. Rewind! Rewind!<br />
<br />
Bring him back. His ideas went East, didn't they? Find the Orthodox Liturgy of St. James, the most ancient of Christian liturgies - see ://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem/lit-james.htm/ Eastern Orthodoxy. Need to know more. Why was it beaten out? Who is so certain? Who thought to "improve" and why? Did it? Who lied about James? Anybody?<br />
<br />
7. Never lie. Never never never. Zarathustra. Zoroastrianism. Basic precepts -- as pragmatic as we can find -- <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">Good Reflection</div><div style="text-align: center;">Good Word</div><div style="text-align: center;">Good Deed</div><br />
Herodotus is quoted discussing the Zoroastrians, at section 138 (which text?) -- need to look up the original -- "They do not utter dirty words and they believe “lying” is the worst in the world, next to lying, the put ‘borrowing,” because they believe debtors may be sometimes made to tell a lie."<br />
<br />
More on Zarathustra, Zoroaster, at FN 1. The section on the lie was most relevant here; and somewhat different from the Judaeo-Christian not bearing false witness -- that sounds like the only prohibition is only when one is a witness, saw something. Is that so, or too narrow? <br />
<br />
Zoroastrianism was the "main religious system of ancient Iranians," and for several centuries, central to the culture. The system was not a formal religion, Zarathustra never claimed to be a prophet and no miracles were ascribed to him, but he urged the following of a Path: Fair use quote --<br />
<blockquote>"<span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">Zarathustra, never ordered his followers to perform certain activities, but he recommended them to try to know the creator of the earth and heaven and adopt good manner, on the basis of their wisdom. Therefore, Zarathustra was neither a prophet, nor we can call his spiritual path a “religion,” rather he was a thoughtful benevolent who recognized his God on the basis of his wisdom and never said he had been missioned to bring any message from God to human beings." </span></blockquote>See ://www.zoroaster.net/indexe.htm/ Zoroastrians are known as Parsis in India. The philosophy originated in the Iran area, but was moved aside and became persecuted as pagan, unbelievers, with the conquests by Arab Muslims and supporting scripture, says the site.<br />
<br />
One set of texts remain after the book-burnings and persecutions, this text known as the Gathas. divine songs so to speak, quoted at the site and available online. Lifetime: birthdate and even the era are unknown because of the destruction, varying from 600-1000 BC to farther back -- an eye-popping 6000 BC. See discussion at site. Where? Something like the Khorasan cities, and some are named that are unfamiliar so far. One thrust: no support for Mithraism, a prominent religion of the time: In Mithra, there was no "oneness" of God, and other practices were disapproved. See site, and <a href="http://bogomilia.blogspot.com/2007/12/mithraism-religion-of-rome-and-paul.html">Mithraism, Religion</a><br />
<br />
Primary ideas for life. Noone is to be made dependent, noone is to be dependent. What about leveling a playing field for past abuses? Not clear. Zarathustra on lying. Could any of us go one day without a single lie in act or omission? Criteria? Come back, Zoroaster.<br />
<br />
No wonder his ideas were so distorted, the path he advocated so destroyed. He advocated no church, no building. </div>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-33839974125841539942010-11-19T11:06:00.000-05:002011-06-27T18:29:11.846-04:00Dominion. The Worst Concept in the World. The Wolf Totem Mindset in Control. When the Mindset is Tainted, So Is the Action<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY8Q9AmQ2c1gK6GiLb-g6t-EtvPben5I1gplwukcG9PchQQDGwVv47bj0usE46mboLFZZxsZNN6mupzx3bv0VqX_hHPjNiQEXJ4jE6opbJpWd2UvY8OFDSq3jOhOOncVHi3RHaB_przpdV/s1600/scan0004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Construing "Dominion." Etymology.</b><br />
<b>Some say it means we are in charge.</b><br />
<b>Are there limits? What to expect?</b><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">Update 6/2011. The idea of value and autonomy to animal lives except as needed and humane for food, has legs, and fins, and feathers, and ... see <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-goldfish-20110627,0,6881137.story">http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-goldfish-20110627,0,6881137.story</a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><b>What if one group asserts such <i>dominion</i> that the others diminish.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Think of spiritual guides. Our culture, others, have that idea. </b><br />
<b> In other terms: What animal <i>totem</i> inspires the human to do that.</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCtEojB1yiGSSh8XuW3iyGms7fu55QMNUEtMW0yDNTfiywGLZOXTc-nkgxDc7uCrJGBNdLv2Wy1AilkxPhOeCJ3MA2fuGVBWyMKY5b0d0ljZ42Lz9aRq-Nfc0Icifaf3Iz9dkvS7DAs068/s1600/100_3007.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCtEojB1yiGSSh8XuW3iyGms7fu55QMNUEtMW0yDNTfiywGLZOXTc-nkgxDc7uCrJGBNdLv2Wy1AilkxPhOeCJ3MA2fuGVBWyMKY5b0d0ljZ42Lz9aRq-Nfc0Icifaf3Iz9dkvS7DAs068/s320/100_3007.JPG" width="240" />Fenrir, the Wolf. Trickster, Shapechanger. Norse: Denmark</a></div><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>Perhaps "dominion" means something else. </b><br />
<b>Domine. And "subdue"- sub Dieu; or the quiet seduce. </b><br />
<b>In fact, it does. </b><br />
<br />
<b>A transliteration indeed says, u-kbsh-e, </b><span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">VKBShH</span><b> or </b> וכבשה<b>"seduce"; tame;</b><br />
<b>and then u-rdu, </b><span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">VUrDV or </span>ורבו<b>"sway" or lead towards, gently; or mentor FN 1</b><br />
<b>Genesis 1:28</b><br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><br />
Contents:</div><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">I. Overview - "Dominion",and its place in human - animal interaction </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">II. "Dominion" means asserting control in the West's popular religious thought pattern.Take over. Exploitation is fine. But take another look: Dominion stems from Domine --God. Take dominion is to act as the deity toward. If your deity protects, helps, sustains, then so do you as to those over whom you exercise dominion. Subdue: again, not overcome. Sub-dieu. Under God. Same concept. From domine. Or subdue in the calming sense, seduce, lead away, tame, reduce intensity of.<br />
<br />
Example of the West's "dominion" from the news: The killing of a hero dog, see ://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/us/19dog.html?src=me/ That is sad but fine in the first form of "dominion.". Its owner was temporarily absent, no-one knew who he was. So he died ("euthanized" we say wrongly, kidding ourselves. This excess-dog death was not for the good of this dog) in the control of the dogcatchers. As unclaimed, no-count animals do die. Who cares. An unacceptable attitude in the second form of dominion: act to protect, foster.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;">III. Alternate Mindsets. "Dominion" is <i>not</i> the Right to Exploit. See the Native American belief system, and our own Bible. Job 12:7-10 as a fast example. Earthcare idea. A taming. A horse whisperer.<br />
<br />
Does the Native American belief system overview provide some insight into this other direction. Dominion as an overcoming by force is a modern idea in changed definitions, but old in implementation. That is what the West does. Explore the older roots: "domine" as the meaning of dominion. Be as the deity to the animals and plants, as the deity is to you -- help, foster, nourish. Not exploit. Regard, listen; not disregard if no profit to you. Subdue, again not as force and conquer, but quiet, seduce, lead away, see ://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=subdue/ Or as one feeling "subdued" - calm, intensity reduced. <br />
. </div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">IV. Either way, "totems", mythical belief anchors, spiritual guide ideas still play a role in both. Look at Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts. Wolf pack. What animal governs the drive du jour. Reverse the thought: look at the behavior first. What totem leads that person. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Profits, for example. Put an <i>animal</i> in that. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Then ask: what Totem based on the behaviors we emulate now governs each of us, and the Majority in Washington DC Control. Look at behaviors. The Wolf. Look at Native American lore for insight. The Wolf Pack has come to town. Again. No other animal is as relentless, as efficient in achieving its own goals, as the wolf. And its own kind suffer. The Omegas of the pack are shut out, period. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">V. So, the Wolf Pack goes to Washington. The Wolf Totem guides behavior. What now? Omegas, and other prey, run.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">VI. Boredom Alert. Explore further; and expand from Genesis 1:28 to Genesis 1:26. Here we lay out the steps to find and compare translations, transliterations, back to the Paleo-Hebrew on an amateur basis. If you think you know the Bible, think again if you have not gone into the changes, comparisons, and seen the shaping that goes on. See also later sites found on this topic, and some closing thoughts. No-one has "dominion" as it has been spun. Please tell Ben at the Vat. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>................................................................................................................................................... </b></div><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>I. Overview. </b> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Explore "Dominion" in Western Thought, including Genesis and its "mandate". What did it mean. Does it lead, for example, to obligation to no worry on climate change, ecology, the natural world. Or does it mean "be as the deity is to you" -- Domine, dominion. If the deity is your help, your guide, your sustainer in trouble, is that the way to construe our dominion over the animal and plant world.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Explore Dominion in the alternative Native American view of life. Mutuality. Human and animal worlds serve and respect each other, in their ways. Look at subdue: lead away, seduce. When you feel subdued, you are calm, in a state of reduced intensity. See the force of Rome over Gaul as one approach to subdue, but then the others: the calming. See://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subduehttp://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=s&p=66</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;">What if one population goes overboard, takes over "dominion" at the expense of another, to exploit. Have humans in the western cultures done that already. What if, of all the animals, bird groups out there, the <i>humans follow the Wolf Pack Totem</i> Goes <i>Overboard. </i><br />
<i>. </i></div><div style="text-align: left;">If any Totem or group Takes Charge to Exploit, are we are in trouble.</div><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>II. If we explore the idea of animal models, guide, </b><br />
<b>is the Wolf the totem of the majority in Washington, again.</b><br />
<br />
<b>If so, what to expect.</b><br />
<b>Ask the Native Americans as a start.</b></div><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgj8NEsmsxy5rl4qJytfPPEz0x9YfD0xAO__Q2dJOkX4W84UJ-9osoGERHBptTTwkESyaGROcajDGzZ5YBhutag-Yb1r-vfh49-mKa-Q9BjyYe1djMGpWmoK04ieRmGRgcG5yxZr-TiL7Ir/s1600/100_4247.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgj8NEsmsxy5rl4qJytfPPEz0x9YfD0xAO__Q2dJOkX4W84UJ-9osoGERHBptTTwkESyaGROcajDGzZ5YBhutag-Yb1r-vfh49-mKa-Q9BjyYe1djMGpWmoK04ieRmGRgcG5yxZr-TiL7Ir/s320/100_4247.JPG" width="320" />Native American perspectives on responsibility, coexistence; our impact with "dominion"; and <i>their</i> demise</a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>II. Dominion Mindset: Dominion as Right to Exploit --</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b> A basic Western mindset error</b><br />
<b>. </b></div>If "Dominion" means asserting control, does the Native American belief system overview provide some insight into that. There would be variations among the different groups, but our understanding is that basic tenets cross from the coasts to the plains to the dry areas. Look up earthcare at ://www.earthcare.org/cms/index.php/ and the explicitly religious angle for those who need specific "authorization" at ://www.earthcareonline.org/ or the more scientific at ://www.esa.int/esaLP/LPearthcare.html/<br />
<br />
Then move from "caring for" to "learning from". <br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Follow along: If animals speak and guide, even in Western theology (see Job 12:7-10 again), and as other systems develop the idea, an animal or bird is found to be the totem for a person; that person will emulate the characteristics of that totem, according to the belief system. We still do it in Scouting. Go to politics: do groups adopt a totem, in their way, as a motivator, example.<br />
<br />
And a step further: From observed behavior, can we surmise that the Wolf in particular is the Totem of the Majority in Washington again; and takes "Dominion" in an extreme direction. Go to Manataka * and find Wolf. Find what to expect.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJWcrDHndldti91MHENNaIZS42ntHujQa-hWAFTl71GUH9ziK3qMqXmRR5prpr1evyfwIR9tpy3yLvjICfs8blJ5jaHJuiA6kjPm7XkFJQQ28XT2fOnQLG93_FYzWW4lPZj92FAAO0nX2O/s1600/100_2936.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJWcrDHndldti91MHENNaIZS42ntHujQa-hWAFTl71GUH9ziK3qMqXmRR5prpr1evyfwIR9tpy3yLvjICfs8blJ5jaHJuiA6kjPm7XkFJQQ28XT2fOnQLG93_FYzWW4lPZj92FAAO0nX2O/s320/100_2936.JPG" width="320" />Open doors. Walk through. Viking reconstructed house, Trelleborg, Denmark</a></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>A. Story. Hero Dog Killed by Mistake. NYT 11/19/2010 at A1.</b><br />
<b>That is not mistake; but flawed Western mindset as to the role of animals. </b></div><br />
No, New York Times. The hero dog was not killed by mistake. He was killed intentionally. Correct your story.<br />
<br />
There was indeed a tawny guard dog who bravely confronted a suicide bomber at American military barracks near the Pakistani border, causing the detonation near the entrance but not inside.<br />
<br />
He was given the canine equivalent of a ticker tape parade, adopted by nice people. He got out of his yard, was caught by people who are supposed to do that, then was intentionally killed. That was that.<br />
<br />
But not killed by mistake. Euthanized intentionally. No mistake. Jam him in there. Boors watch as he goes. Another worthless breather of oxygen not profiting or loved by anyone in sight. And that is all that counts. With no specific champion to save this one, around in time, just another lump of damp fur, still nose.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>B. Hero Dog was killed because that is what we do to animals that </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>1) no-one successfully champions or </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>2) profits from at the time.</b></div><br />
The hero dog was killed by intent. Intentionally.<br />
<br />
We kill animals we do not want, or who do not produce profit to us. They are ours. We have dominion. Genesis says so, supposedly. They have no attributes that qualify them in our hierarchy that puts those without a) furry ears or b) finny rib areas or c) feathers on rumps; on top. For all purposes. Any animal has no intrinsic right, no intrinsic value. Only a <i>human</i> can be a champion and must take specific steps each time to save this one or that. Galling. No mistake.<br />
<br />
Shall we consider this: If only the Indians had won. Pardon, the Native Americans, the Indigenous Peoples, here when we arrived.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS0cV2VPUI4yFsOHMFrvjog95Y2mVxB80C3u9zSQFjdXdahAwiFCs102kT6frhYL1XZM-bcWSsDYgNrsWzrJ-sy8XLWt4AxpRVGJjyveRmeulg9uy5sVtf_tvUXnmsVoT0OY0VABs9HvG_/s1600/100_4048.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS0cV2VPUI4yFsOHMFrvjog95Y2mVxB80C3u9zSQFjdXdahAwiFCs102kT6frhYL1XZM-bcWSsDYgNrsWzrJ-sy8XLWt4AxpRVGJjyveRmeulg9uy5sVtf_tvUXnmsVoT0OY0VABs9HvG_/s320/100_4048.JPG" width="240" />Whitey surveys the wondrous crosses he inflicts on others. Is that so? Or just man meets the sea, in Esbjerg Denmark. Which makes you think? </a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Ignore Job, and the passage about talking to animals, learning from them. Ignore "dominion" as "domine" in its root meaning, act as God does toward you (we like to think)-- a help, a guide, an inspiration. Genesis and Job on humans and animals. Not for profit.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b>III. Alternate Mindsets. "Dominion" is not the Right to Exploit</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">A. Native American value systems, religious orientation. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Pre-Christian, Non-Christian. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">These are of great value as we look back at our own system of systemic harm to any who dare to disagree. See <a href="http://worldwar1worldwar2.blogspot.com/2010/11/westerm-ethnic-violence-timeline-put.html">Western Ethnic Violence Timeline</a> How do other groups coexist with their world, do they seek to decimate, eradicate, wipe off the earth, others as evildoers; or do they have traditional enemies for turf, ongoing self-sustaining competitions, uses of resources that enable revitalization, not irrecoverable depletion for profit. Rant, rant.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Native American cultures contain elements for a sustainable, and mutual-accommodation future. The untrammeled capitalist would say, what I want matters and if I can get it for me, nuts to you.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">See these sites for a sampling of what we Westerners lose by adopting that resource-exploitation view. Overcoming and Killing Off? Really?.</div><ul><li> Other living things are as valuable as ourselves, and needed to sustain the world</li>
</ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">See this idea at Manataka American Indian Council at ://www.manataka.org/page291.html/ Quoted at the outset is Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself". He lived from 1819-1892. And lives, is that so? Look at Job 12:7-10, best in the old transliteration at ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/job12.pdf</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">With the Job words about learning from the animals in mind, scroll down the Manataka site sound-bites in the contents, and first go <i>past</i> the contents to the longer narrative.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This nature-centeredness may seem foreign, but it is part of our own heritage. Look up Earthcare, for similar concepts. Animals, plants, we need them as they need us.Old ideas full circle. But too late? Animals? On a par with humans, with differences so each needs the other? Literalists take comfort here and vet on your own. The significance of the Manataka site is not the idea of animals as on a par with humans, but its compelling and measured narrative about ways of seeing and experiencing the world. Vet what you are taught, is that so?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The site incorporates ideas totally alien to us if we believe the Genesis as interpreted traditionally, that we are to have dominion, and that that is to be defined as take-over, use as desired, it's OURS. God said so. Nuts. Think of your interactions with the animal world in another way: not as resources to be used and wasted as we whim this way or that; but an opportunity to learn, for guidance, for input as we consider next steps in our lives. </div><ul><li>Our obligation even under our own "Christian" heritage, broadly put, is to foster the natural productivity of all living things, and on the earth - no exploitation or factory farms, is the next corrolary.</li>
</ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This is indeed what Genesis says, but later -- in Genesis 8:17. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Purpose of the Ark: The whole purpose of Buddy Noah bringing out the <i>animals </i>from the ark after the flood, was this: so that they can a) breed abundantly in the earth, and b) be fruitful and multiply upon the earth. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Go look. Go to the transliteration site that lets you see original meanings, as close as we can get. Same thing this time as in the later variations and narratives. See ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen8.pdf/ That means other life is for our stewardship, enabling, opening the way for animals to prosper. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b>B. Can we absorb the Native American religious orientation:</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b>sustainable, mutually beneficial relationships in animal-human interaction; </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b>and beyond the Boy Scout, Cub Scout level.</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Let's get literal. Many like that. This is not my orientation, but it seems to be widespread.</div><ul><li>Breed abundantly<i> in the earth</i>. Follow those dots: No artificial insemination on the factory farms, breeding mares as soon as one is stopped, start another. No puppy farms. Ownership? A limited license that excludes exploitation. Indians would (go to the Manatee site) take what they need in killing an animal for food, use the rest of its body all up for other needs like clothing, sewing, all that. No waste; and gratitude to the animal for giving its life. New idea there. No sport killing. </li>
</ul><ul><li>Multiply upon the earth -- not in the cage? Hah! Literalism is indeed worth it. No exploitation for profit there. Fowl, cattle, all creepies, rights to live and breed in the earth.</li>
</ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">C. No! And again, NO!</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Counterarguments in our Government Policy makers. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The Shimkus Fallacy</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Is it an insurance policy in Genesis 8:22, that folks recovered from the flood with a promise, as some -- was it in the House of Representatives, or a Senator? believe. The obvious question is, how about fire next time; but for now, focus on those in our government saying that there is no global warming going on as caused by man because the deity said he would not ever again stop the presses and that as long as the earth is here, there will be seedtime and harvest, and so rape the hills because god won't care. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Who was it who cites Genesis on climate change? Yes, that was Illinois Republican Representative John Shimkus, see http://upcoming.current.com; or paste in our search, try /search?q=John+Shimkus+cites+Genesis+on+climate+change. Or go directly to http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44958.html/ See and hear the video at ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E&feature=player_embedded/ Infallible, unchanging; but he is referring to his interpretation, not wha' hoppen, is that so? Apply basic rules of evidence, even basic reason. Sigh.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b>D. Yes. Our own culture echoes different thinking.</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b>Look Again at The Wisdom of Dr. Doolittle, Peter Pan</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Go further with another idea of animals and their role not only on earth, but in our lives. Skip the patronizing, even, and see our own beloved Dr. Doolittle in another light, see Hugh Lofting's books online at http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Hugh_Lofting/The_Story_of_Doctor_Dolittle/. See this Native American animals as spiritual guides site, at ://www.suite101.com/content/animal-guides-a25375/ Get familiar with the animals at the manataka.org site. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Then, have a dream about a goldfish so grateful that it leaped about after you added water to its <i>puddle on the road </i>(?), or see a black squirrel, where there had always been gray? Or a shadowy coyote materialize and trot across the road, or a bear at your birdhouse? Stop just a while, and consider where your thoughts go. Was there, might there be, an intervention kind of idea going on, or do you squash the ant without thinking just because it was there.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Peter Pan. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY8Q9AmQ2c1gK6GiLb-g6t-EtvPben5I1gplwukcG9PchQQDGwVv47bj0usE46mboLFZZxsZNN6mupzx3bv0VqX_hHPjNiQEXJ4jE6opbJpWd2UvY8OFDSq3jOhOOncVHi3RHaB_przpdV/s1600/scan0004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY8Q9AmQ2c1gK6GiLb-g6t-EtvPben5I1gplwukcG9PchQQDGwVv47bj0usE46mboLFZZxsZNN6mupzx3bv0VqX_hHPjNiQEXJ4jE6opbJpWd2UvY8OFDSq3jOhOOncVHi3RHaB_przpdV/s320/scan0004.jpg" width="182" />Peter Pan, Kensington Gardens, London</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Children know things we don't any more, can communicate with animals as we can't any more. Do you have children? If not, think back to your own childhood. A kind of racial memory of a better time? No, says the Wolf: force little John into the <i>Bank!</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b>IV. Totem Now in DC Control -- The Wolf. </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b>The Wolf Pack has come to town. Again.</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The Native American approach to sustainability, mutual respect for living creatures, was the Good News. Now the Bad News. The Dominion idea has taken over yet again, and perhaps the disaster of this as a human model is best understood (irony) by referring to the Native American general lore.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Ask, what animal -- if we apply the totem idea -- governs our country at this point. Again. What totem is in charge in Washington.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">We suggest the Wolf, and with great sadness. Go to ://www.manataka.org/page236.html#WOLF/</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b>V The pattern of the Wolf</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b>In politics, in religion.</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b> </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b>Wolf Totem Pack Goes to Washington</b></div><ul><li>Strong rules of behavior. </li>
<li>Keeps out of the spotlight, doing its thing in the shadows where it is not seen. </li>
<li>Alpha wolves are fixed at the top, and they are the ones who have the babies. </li>
<li>Beta wolves beneath, and I guess they don't breed (or shouldn't, as human Betas are also treated), but are there to help with the Alpha pups. </li>
</ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Then comes the kicker: </div><ul><li>There is an Omega wolf at the bottom. Down there, last on this rigid hierarchical ladder of worth. That Omega wolf stays there. Identified, not getting food when food is scarce. The others, Alphas and Betas, will force the Omega wolf away. Get back, Loretta. The Omega wolf is the scapegoat. Doomed to that role for life. Better to die quick?</li>
</ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The system is unrelenting, unflexible, and works so long as you are a wolf and not the Omega,</div><ul><li>Each wolf knows its place and stays there. </li>
<li>They unite to accomplish a common goal, and once focused and on the hunt, any prey will weary before the wolf tag-team does. That is, once you are targeted, you lose. Period. </li>
<li>A lone wolf means independence and freedom; but beware thed wolf in a pack is community and that community is etched in stone. </li>
<li>Stand your ground. </li>
<li>Defend your boundaries. </li>
<li>Use ritual to bind its members in the pack. Regular lunar howling ceremonies, says the site, as an example. </li>
</ul>So, what are the regular lunar howling ceremonies the Washington Wolf Pack engages in? Give them a lame-duck session and they won't let anything good happen for the rest of the species that is not promoting the Wolf Pack itself. <br />
<br />
Wolf in sheep's clothing: the negotiator who knew all along he would never agree to that, but waits for the concession. Werewolf. Navajo idea of wolf as a witch who shape-changes. See ://www.wolfsongalaska.org/wolves_in_american_culture.html/<br />
<br />
The wolfsongalaska site also notes that the wolf's culling of others keeps the others strong, which is a benefit in the long run. The culling of others may weed out the sick so they do not breed their weakness, but culling also occurs as the identification of the Omega as the expendable Wolf at the bottom. Dispose of it as well.<br />
<br />
The Wolf is its own death panel. Do read that Wolf Song of Alaska site, Wolves in American Culture. Love-hate relationship. Fine if you are a wolf, not so good if you are not. Cooperating to achieve a goal is fine, but only <i>if</i> the goal helps sustainability.<br />
<br />
Do the nots have rights? <br />
<br />
No. The Omega wolf has no chance. Unyielding Order. The Wolf. Dominion in traditional but erroneous Western thought. The ultimate asserter of Dominion as right to exploit. Ranchers and Wyomingers perhaps in theory, who are also Wolves (I get what I want when I want it) in mindset, get so incensed that an <i>animal</i> does what they do, that they poison and shoot them. Dominion as "domine" or "of the god." The helper, the sustainer, the user only of what is needed. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Foreign, non-wolves. The virtues of the focused hunt are fine to other wolves. The rest of the world is prey.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The Wolf Way. Order. Firm, unyielding Order. That is how to avert Chaos. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Wolf Pack totem in Washington. Duck. Politics and totems. Fenrir. Wolf. Son of Loki. See ://www.pantheon.org/articles/f/fenrir.html/ Note that there is no elephant and no donkey in the spiritual guide, totem department, see ://www.manataka.org/page291.html#_ANIMAL_TOTEMS/ </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Now: for Memes: similar ideas popping up in many places, no connection between but a spontaneous whack-a-mole. See FN 2 for a site addressing many of these issues, and in more scholarly detail. A meme running is before you. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">..............................</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">FN 1</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> BOREDOM ALERT</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This section is about issues in translating and transliterating in getting at meanings that led us to look at Dominion as a cultural anchor for the West, and why is is flawed. Will that matter? Probably not.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This section is not for the faint. It analyzes Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 1:28, where "dominion" has been used as the translation.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It is a step by step record of analyzing unfamiliar languages -- Hebrew, Paleo-Hebrew, Latin, using the tools we can find on the internet so far. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I am an amateur. But I dig. I studied Latin and French, however, and like learning other cultures' symbols. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The next step as to Hebrew is to get into Strong's Concordance, and look up each of these. That source applies a number to each Hebrew word, so that each variation has its own number, and defines and tells you where it appears. Next step, Strong's Concordance. We stayed with the more simplistic Hebrew Old Testament selections for translating here, and the transliteration at Scripture4all. There may be more choices.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><ul><li>Genesis 1:26. Where the deity is thinking of what the deity will do and make, and what the job description will be. This is the original statement of intent of the deity about making the human to do that certain job description, customarily translated as having "dominion". </li>
<li>Does it really mean that; and compare it to the actual instructions given after the humans were made, at Genesis 1:28. Also translated as "have dominion" -- does it really mean that, and compare it to Genesis 1:26. Conclusion: nobody gets "dominion" in the sense we have been taught, right to exploit. The words mean lead towards and gently, tame, subdue as in being subdued, quietened. </li>
</ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It is important to remember that Genesis 1:26 is not the only place where there is reference to the human job description. Look at Genesis 1:28 where the two actual humans are made, both simultaneously, to do it. Same instruction to both. So if anybody gets our twisted sense of "dominion", it is both equally, and the male certainly has no "dominion" over the female. This is Genesis talking.</div><br />
............................................................<br />
<br />
<b> 1. Analyzing Genesis 1:26</b><br />
<br />
The Word that is usually translated as "have dominion" is<br />
<br />
Modern Hebrew<span style="font-size: x-large;"> בדגת</span><span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: x-large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;"> </span><span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">Phonetic VYUrDV</span><br />
<span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">or UIRDU (no vowels in Hebrew, so the u and the v and even y go many places) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;"> </span><span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">Paleo Hebrew </span><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pvav.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pdaleth.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/preysh.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pvav.gif" /><br />
<br />
Latin Praesit (nothing to do with a dominion word)<br />
<br />
Meaning of Praesit = prophecy? <br />
<br />
Transliteration of VYUrDV from Scripture4all Sway see ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V26<br />
<br />
Translations of VYUrDV from Hebrew Old Testament Dominion, dominion, rule, dominion, dominion, dominion, dominion, dominion, rule. See see ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V26<br />
<br />
Now: Let your cursor hover or click it on the modern Hebrew at the hebrewoldtestament site ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V26 that. Google says that entire thing means "rule the fish". Terrific. Go fish.<br />
<br />
Does then, by majority copying each other, does the word mean "Rule". Could be. At least the word "rule" as shown in the Google translation is not the same as the transliterated "sway", but not as forceful as "dominion" anything. Jury's still out. Go back to the transliteration: How on earth does the margin narrative, the traditional Biblical, get from "sway" to "have dominion"? The translation has no relationship to the meaning the site itself gives to the word. <br />
<br />
Note again that there is only one word, UIRDU in Genesis 1:26. Sway, in transliteration. Rule and dominion in the "translations" from Jerome. Did Jerome blow it? <br />
<br />
<ul><li>Look at the Latin again. And, sure enough, Jerome<i> even in the Latin</i> does not use dominion here where the intention is stated, but only "praesit" </li>
<li>Research praseit: We come up with "<i>prophesy</i>" -- </li>
<li>If praesit indeed means prophesy, how to get from there to "dominion?" Does that mean that the animals will lead us? We are to pay attention to what they say? Do we read the entrails? We know they know more than we do in many areas, including tsunamis; and their mental telepathy and noses beat ours. </li>
</ul>Good. Prophesy. That beats slaughterfarms.<br />
<br />
Scripture4all makes it clearest in the mechanical transliteration. There is not a second concept there in the intent. Just the "sway." Put that with "praesit" and you have a mutuality. This one word idea is important because there are two concepts in the later Genesis 1:28, just two verses away. There see <i>subdue</i> and sway. Not just "sway". And "praesit" does not appear.<br />
<br />
So: Genesis 1:26. There is only "A" Prime, no B afterthought. And A Prime means "sway". Praesit, Jerome's Latin translation, may mean something like prophesy -- no dominion there. Beat the dead horse.<br />
<br />
...............................................................................................<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>2. Analyzing Genesis 1:28. </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The human job description. The Genesis job description(s). Issue words. Sites: Parallel Hebrew Old Testament at http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V28; and Scripture4All, at ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf/ </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Gen. 1:28 -- the instruction to the human about the job description. There are two words, two phrases involved</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">First phrase </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Hebrew A. <span style="font-size: x-large;">וכבשה</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">or phonetic <span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">VKBShH</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">or Paleo Hebrew <img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/phe.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pshiyn.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pbeth.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pkaph.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pvav.gif" /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Latin: subicite eam. Literally, place them under.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Transliteration = subdue. Scripture4all. But the word VKBShH has also been translated to mean <i>subdue</i>, see Hebrew Old Testament in several of the examples;and we know the coax, seduce, tame idea for that, see analysis at outset here. At issue is force exerted on an unwilling forcee. Or make them willing for it.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Then comes the second part:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> ................................................................................</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Second phrase B </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">B. <span style="font-size: x-large;"> ורבו</span> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">or phonetic <span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">VUrDV</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">or Paleo </span><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pthav.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pgimel.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pdaleth.gif" /><img src="http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/pbeth.gif" />(is that the correct Paleo Hebrew? The Google Translator does not cope with that so we had to work backwards by phonetics and forms).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Latin: dominamini and then comes the words for the fishes and etc.<span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;"> </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Transliteration = sway. Scripture4all. Other meanings for VUrDV include mentor, or lead towards gently, see below. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Translations: "take dominion" or "have dominion", or "rule" , see Genesis 1:28 at either the right-margin narrative at Scripture4all, or at Hebrewoldtestament where there are parallel translations. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">So: </div><ul><li>Genesis 1:28. The human job description instruction as given in two concepts to the humans from the deity. VKBShH and VUrDV: Subdue xomes first, and then the Sway from Genesis 1:26.</li>
<li>Who put the <i>original intent</i> as the <i>second in importance</i>? How to reconcile the two? Whose macho hand is at work here, and can it be adjusted despite itself.</li>
<li> Is the new A, the "subdue" put in to give permission for more force than the original B "sway" would have given?</li>
<li>Is B suddenly put in second place here, not to be the primary role at all, even though it was the only role in Genesis 1:26?</li>
<li>Or is the B the controlling concept for the subdue in A? </li>
<li>Did somebody clarify "subdue" by putting "sway" in the transliteration for the second part to be sure that the "subdue" in the first part is appropriately understood as a taming, and not exploitation? Phonetic B gives the manner in which A is to be implemented, it looks like.</li>
<li>And with "sway" as the only meaning for the original intent in Genesis 1:26</li>
</ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Most helpful is seeing a mechanical transliteration and then seeing how the nice narratives tell that, or a different, story.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">At to the scripture4all site, there is added detail on the transliteration of A and B. There they put the Hebrew right with the transliterated word in English, not a nice smooth narrative</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">GO DEEPER INTO THE IDEAS BEHIND THE HEBREW SWAY</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Genesis 1:28, contains directives for both subdue and sway. There still is no dominion idea at all in force as we know it either way. Juxtapose sway with subdue, and you qualify the "subdue." Juxtapose subdue with sway, and you qualify the sway. Limit how it is to be done. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Look at the meanings of subdue at the outset of this. Tame, make quiet. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And see the "sway" concept, a very mild form of persuasion. No "dominion" in the force sense of Exploit we may, Exploit we must, Even if earth, Shrinks to dust. </div><br />
If that is supported by people who know, then the Native American sites and other religious systems that partner with the animals, birds, fish and bugs, and listen to them, help them everpresently, in trouble, then they are right and our religious self-serving Latinate system of control in order to kill at will is wrong.<br />
<br />
Get out of those helicopters, you shallow, cowardly wolf-hunters. That is not following the Wolf Totem at all.<br />
<br />
They say, "But God said I could do it!" No. God didn't.<br />
<br />
Is that it?<br />
<br />
<b>3. Other languages. VERDOUX. </b> There are additional angles, still pointing in the partnership and not exploitation direction:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b>VURDV AND VERDOUX AND MENTOR</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">More meanings of "Sway" -- and consistent with the taming idea</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Back to phonetic B -- the second part of the directive to both humans in Genesis 1:28</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">ורדו again. The phonetic B, VURDV, meaning "sway" in transliteration, but somehow doggedly translated as "dominion"</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And here is a puzzle. Google has a cursor for translating. Let the cursor hover over a foreign word, and a translation comes up. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Hover over the modern <i>Hebrew,</i> and find that this word does not mean dominion, it means "mentor". The word we are told in our churches that means "rule" or dominion, really means mentor the animals? Not slaughter? Not do as we like? </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The puzzle is that when I went back to that later, it did not show as mentor. It came up with another word "verdoux". Is that an inconsistency, or another meaning for the same thing?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Verdoux. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">That looks French, so I looked it up as a whole, a compound. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">No good. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Try ver or vers and then doux as a second word. If verdoux is some French translation,from someone's earlier Google search, it parlays roughly into toward (vers) and soft, or softly (doux). So, same idea as mentor. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Go near them gently. Love that.</div><ul><li>Look at the Latin now. Where is the verdoux? Nosiree. Not there. <i>Dominamini </i>over the fishes etc. Take That! and That! Hah! Domina- mini. I am in charge, you little minnows.</li>
</ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">But is that Domina God, as pointed out at the Beginning of this tome. Not dominate, but act as God would toward you? What else for dominamini. See FN 2 here.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">........................................</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>4. Chart needed</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In Genesis 1:26</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">U-rdu, u-irdu </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">VYUrDV</span> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Note the "u-irdu" because that becomes "urdu" in Genesis 1:28. Is that a clue to something, you experts? </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Latin: <b>Praesit</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Sway </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Prophecy</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And "sway" in translation with the google hover brings up verdoux, or lead toward, gently. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Now, go from that Genesis 1:26 to how sway is used in Genesis 1:28</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Another word is added to the whole idea; and the old idea turns from "sway" and praesit, to "dominion" and "dominamini"</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkOZ616a6X72PnWM3LYQ6v8kA4d039XCjNfgbMhTIItApVRnjmJiPbHWHI0YgAj-eQPLdA_A0m96in6Bk2MyUrqZhRyTECd7SRTPJ-jLGUwGY_uHdAM-nO74lPOGRaogp7NXrJJr8tzYTx/s1600/TomPinchcarriage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkOZ616a6X72PnWM3LYQ6v8kA4d039XCjNfgbMhTIItApVRnjmJiPbHWHI0YgAj-eQPLdA_A0m96in6Bk2MyUrqZhRyTECd7SRTPJ-jLGUwGY_uHdAM-nO74lPOGRaogp7NXrJJr8tzYTx/s320/TomPinchcarriage.jpg" width="320" />Theological Stagecoach. No stopping this Holy Dominion bandwagon once it's rolling. Tom Pinch's here. </a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In Genesis 1:28</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i><b>U-kbsh-e </b></i>and <b>u-rdu </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">VUrDV but note there is no "Y" as in Genesis 1:26 where it is shown as </span><span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">VYUrDV</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">Is that mere grammar or a different meaning? **</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;"> </span><b> </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>Then note the entirely new word u-kbsh-e </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>Added before the older concept u-rdu</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b> </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Expanded meaning</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Subdue</i> and sway</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">No, not only subdue, because that here becomes the Latin subicite;</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And there was no subicite at all before. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And there is a new idea for the u-rdu or sway -- it becomes dominamini</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Double whammy in the Latin, thank you Jerome.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Latin: <i>Subicite; </i> and dominamini</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Dominamini is the <b>new translation for u-rdu is, and </b>where praesit was used before for the u-rdu</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><i></i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Subicite - subdue, with all the variations of that </i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And added is <i>dominamini</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">New word. But only in the Latinate and those that copy from it afterwards. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It is not from the Hebrew.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Now will a Hebrew expert who is not bent on ideology do an objective translation only. We give up on the Jeromers.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">.......................................................</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> Done yet? </div><br />
<b>No. More to consider.</b><br />
<br />
** Back to the parallel forms at Hebrewoldtestament.<br />
<br />
<ul><li>The word phonetically in Genesis 1:26 <span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">VYUrDV </span>there is different from the <span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">VUrDV </span>that is used for the actual instruction in the later Genesis 1:28. </li>
</ul><br />
Did the deity intend one thing, in Genesis 1:26, and end up doing another in Genesis 1:28? Or did somebody later not like the only "A" form as given in Genesis 1:26 to be the last word. Typo, intentional to change the course, and if so, by whom. We don't think so. We think the Y and the U are the same thing. There are no vowels, we understand, in Hebrew, so it is somebody's carelessness in not being consistent in how to represent the Y -- it appears a "U" also in Scripture4all. <br />
<br />
Look at the big Y in there. Big Y is also a supermarket chain here in the East. American Owned. A star in the East!<br />
<br />
And the meaning of the <span style="font-family: ARIAL; font-size: medium;">VYUrDV </span> as the instruction is given in Latin as "praesit", not the "dominion" translation into Latin that Jerome puts in at Genesis 1:28. Praesit translates out as "presage" or prophesy, Free Online Latin site, and Stars. This is beyond me. Same Hebrew, two different translations into Latin, same translator. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div>................................................<br />
<ul><li>NO DOMINION IN ANY FORM IS GIVEN at all in the second creation story. Compare that grant of "mentoring" or "dominion" if that is in your head, to the second creation story, at Genesis 2:4 ff, where the poor gent is only to till the ground. No dominion there, you lackey. </li>
</ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">That is the second creation story, where the Human (mankind, and questions about sexuality just burst forth both as to the deity and the created being) first, then somehow the woman is separated out, again translations and transliterations go in different directions, but the story told our kids and us is that there was this rib, and a nap, and etc. And then trees, where is this, what was it, who told whom, and lots of moralizing. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">There is no giving dominion here at all, in Genesis 2, either to the man once separated out or to the human, or to her. He is sent out only to till the ground.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Conclusion so far: In particular man as a gender has no dominion at all. Not even over the female. Especially not over the female. And the female has no dominion over the man, here using the traditional force sense. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">First Creation story: There is mentoring-type activity (lead towards gently), subdue as in calming and taming; and leading animals gently in the story where both man and woman were created simultaneously and are equal. At the most, it is that idea of "dominion" to them both. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">There is no grant of either mentoring or dominion in the story where there is the sequential creation of human and the separating out. And certainly not to one gender to have dominion over animals and not the other having any such comparable power.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div>Our whole idea of creation from our own culture is so tainted and ingrained that way, that none of this will make any difference to the incurious anyway. Wolf Pack wins, at least the rest of us may go in hiding for a while.<br />
<br />
=====================================================<br />
<br />
FN 2 We began looking up "dominamini" because Latin was fun in school, it really was, and look what came up-- <br />
<ul><li><i>This issue has become political in research ways and details that are beyond us here -- I am here updating my several-days old post, and was looking up the word Jerome translates as "dominamini" and see this: A site by Lawrence M. Ludlow about the same passage, about how we are to act, a) in concert with or b) mashing the earth. It is offered by a Libertarian, it appears, against traditional literalist Christians who take traditional and self-serving meaning without vetting. </i></li>
</ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>See ://strike-the-root.com/libertarians-and-environment-part-3-of-3-christian-interpretations/ </i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>The site goes back to Jerome's choices of words etc. And how current is this Ludlow article? Yesterday. This is Sunday, my updating the post up for a few days here. That, the other person's, new post was posted Saturday, yesterday. Memes, memes. Excellent. The more research, whether amateur (here) or more formally qualified (there) the better.</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>................................................................</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">* <b> Manataka site. Says Native American Indian Council or something like that.</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Is "Manataka" legit as far as Native Americans are concerned? Some say not. Beyond our vetting further. We suggest, however, that if there is a concept of value put forth anywhere, it can be explored on its own merit, without also putting an imprimatur of approval on the group that stated it that way. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">.....................................................................</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> BOREDOM ALERT 2</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Yet another Addendum: Food. We get to eat plants, not meat.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Plants are our<i> food</i>. Plants are the animals' <i>food</i>. Not meat. Anywhere. See Genesis 1:29. Now, we know that animals eat animals anyway; but does that authorize us? To eat the animals? This is a carnivore speaking, not a heavy one, but one who does enjoy, so this is no mission. ,Meat is not part of the original mandate here. Who stuck the meat in there? Who translated "food" as "meat". Jerome again? Please get Ben at the Vat on the phone again.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div></div>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-4944104636485407892010-11-03T18:59:00.000-04:002010-11-04T13:36:50.026-04:00Religion's Ambiguities: Execution Method. STAURWQHTW. Why Waffle?<div style="text-align: center;"> STAURWQHTW</div><div style="text-align: center;">"staurOthEto" </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">The Meanings of Words.</div><div style="text-align: center;">Do They Change with the Translation.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">What Message, if any, is lost in a given Change.</div><div style="text-align: center;">Harmless Error, or Believer Manipulation?</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">If certainty is substituted for ambiguity here, where else? </div><div style="text-align: center;">Iesu, Iesu<br />
Crucified or Impaled?<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
Some topics are addressed by scholars, then politely left out to dry. Why? Can "believers" have any confidence in what is transmitted to them as Truth, when details right and left get waffled. <br />
<br />
Example. The method of The Execution. Iesu, Jew, Jerusalem, years ago.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSBPuBu24D8bXooL0Ba7GbwSN-JggPo1tC1UnDZrD1EEewIaGVj4nl002860l4hzcp3TXN4E_INPDeK17j9ihjOfkh1_het61GEUEMh2b1zqQZ4iVaY2ftt2hnH9Ub7f9pXHNU4dtdswg1/s1600/fallsass0006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSBPuBu24D8bXooL0Ba7GbwSN-JggPo1tC1UnDZrD1EEewIaGVj4nl002860l4hzcp3TXN4E_INPDeK17j9ihjOfkh1_het61GEUEMh2b1zqQZ4iVaY2ftt2hnH9Ub7f9pXHNU4dtdswg1/s320/fallsass0006.jpg" width="320" />Autumn sassafras. Eating away at old ideas.</a></div><br />
Matthew Mark Luke and John Bless the Bed that I Lie On. Lie? Lie? Is somebody lie-ing here by sounding so certain about how The Execution take place. We are talking Iesu, Jew, killed on Golgotha many years ago. We look at the gospel accounts. You can, too. If there is ambiguity, why do we fear it. Why not accept the ambiguity and move on.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">1. Alternatives: </div><div style="text-align: center;">Romans did both, as did many in power to get rid of "criminals" or "enemies" before and aft. </div><div style="text-align: center;">See the scope at Impalement at ://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/149126/</div><br />
a. Crucifixion, hammer nails in outstretched hands, arms out on a cross beam whether or not in a T or an upright beam with a crossbeam some feet below, the traditional Roman Cross. Comparatively dignified. Fits all the stories passed down to us, carrying the "cross" etc.<br />
<br />
b. Impalement, stake through from between and below, missing major organs on the way (experts know how), so death is prolonged. No dignity. Does not fit the stories passed down to us. Is that the end of it?<br />
<br />
If there is a question, why not live with it, lay it out, acknowledge that all is not <a href="http://joyofequivocating.blogspot.com/2010/10/study-in-certainty-fox-meets-sea-of.html">Certain</a> in this world or our interpretation of the next, in anything. Take somebody's word for it? "Inspiration" as the reason? Go ahead. We are looking further.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">2. Look at the earliest Greek words, </div><div style="text-align: center;">since the New Testament stories were originally oral </div><div style="text-align: center;">and not recorded in Aramaic, Hebrew or anything else but Greek. </div><div style="text-align: center;">We believe that to be so. </div><br />
Site: parallel translations from the Greek, there using the phonetic instead of the Greek fonts that most of us do not have. See Greek New Testament dot com, at ://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C027.htm/. Start at Matthew 27:22. That to do with Iesu.<br />
<br />
STAURWQHTW !<br />
<br />
The exclamation point is ours. But STAURWQHTW ???<br />
<br />
a. Look that up. STAURWQHTW<br />
<br />
b. Comparative translations. Go at the Greek New Testament site for the translation of the word. There is nothing about a cross, "crucifigatur" until Jerome translated the Greek into his <i>Latin, and came up with cruficigatur for STAURWQHTW. </i><br />
<br />
Everybody follows suit. Crucified, says Jerome. Crucified it is.<br />
<br />
But was Jerome's version authorized,and what did he <i>mean</i> by the meaning of STAURWQHTW? You will learn nothing at that site. Go back further. To a transliteration, a word-for-word mechanical rendering of each word. So, was his translation correct? Or did it serve dogma of hundred of years later after the Event.<br />
<br />
Jerome has done this before: taken liberties with meanings of words. See the frolic of his own in "translating" kngdv, ezer kenedgo, at <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2010/01/jeromes-ezer-kenegdo-kngdv-latin.html">Jerome's Ezer Kenegdo, kngdv, latin</a>. <br />
<br />
c. Transliteration, the only one we find online so far. Scripture4all. Same verse, Matthew 27:22. At ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat27.pdf/<br />
<br />
Find "staurOthEto" -- knowing the difficulty of phonetic renderings of other languages into ours so we can pronounce the words, this sounds like STAURWQHTW.<br />
<br />
Fair enough for now.<br />
<br />
d. And the meaning of staurOthEto?<br />
<ul><li>"let him be being impaled"</li>
</ul>But how does that change when given to us in a narrative form?<br />
<ul><li>"let him be being crucified"</li>
</ul><br />
What do we learn, about how religion changes what it wants to, in order to control?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">3. The moral: Sanitize! Change whatever.</div><div style="text-align: center;">To suit the agenda of those seeking power through it.</div><br />
Control and change the message! How would art represent impaling, as opposed to the highly sympathetic nails in gentle hands. An Institution can't have that, so change it. And, we must be absolutely certain about it so nobody thinks other than we want.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">4. Why not simply say: there are various interpretations,</div><div style="text-align: center;">written accounts took place generations after the fact.</div><div style="text-align: center;">Romans executed both ways and the evidence is not conclusive what was used here: </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">but the first accounts in Greek say "impaled."</div><br />
Why not be transparent, O Religios. If your message is a sound one, it can take it. The acknowledgment of ambiguity. If not, let the people go.<br />
<br />
Shut the door when you leave. Thanks.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">5. So, where is the discussion these days, fur and agin? </div><br />
See Yahoo. Question deleted. What?<nobr> Search results:</nobr><br />
<h3 class="r"><a class="l noline" href="http://www.google.com/url?url=http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index%3Fqid%3D20080201100830AAEzgM8&rct=j&sa=U&ei=befRTJDCNMOB8gbMl5zUDQ&ved=0CBIQFjAA&q=crucified+or+impaled&usg=AFQjCNGmZbxWa4UY6DqZseR1bwGKVMRBNA">Was Jesus <i>impaled</i> on a stake or <i>crucified</i> on a cross? - Yahoo! Answers</a></h3><button class="ws" title=""></button>Feb 1, 2008 <b>...</b><br />
<br />
<b>Gonzo. </b><br />
<b> </b> <br />
<br />
Try again: this one somehow has no responses at all -- http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/27862<br />
<br />
<br />
Are we left with Wikipedia because authorities elsewhere will not respond? See ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion. See CNN at ://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/01/bible-doesnt-say-jesus-was-crucified-scholar-claims/<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">6. The point is not which occurred. </div><div style="text-align: center;">It is why we insist on putting an overlay on what did happen, </div><div style="text-align: center;">to exclude other information, to show Absolute Certainty, </div><div style="text-align: center;">to keep people from thinking on their own.</div><br />
Carry on. Check for yourself at Scripture4all, transliteration of the death story in each gospel. Find a version of STAURWQHTW, or the transliterated staurOthEtO. Impaled. Each time.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">7. Number G4717. Strong's Concordance, Strong's Lexicon:<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">The code for the word, and its reference</div><div style="text-align: center;">://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4717 </div><br />
This "Blue letter Bible" turns out to be circular and ideologically bootstrapping, giving the "authorized" version, and referring to other Biblical uses of "crucified" in the New Testament. But never going back to the Greek itself.<br />
<br />
Look up Strong elsewhere: here is the reference to "impale" -- and, as we know, with alternatives. Look at ://studybible.info/strongs/G4717/ And that is the point: that we do not know. There are indeed alternate meanings.<br />
<br />
Look closer: This site keeps taking us back to <i>G4716</i>, to identify the word; which apparently means "crucify." But the Greek word we are pursuing is not the G4746 at all -- it is the G4717. That is the point. Points points. Impale. Look up G4746, the smoke and mirrors one they want us to look at -- find ://studybible.info/strongs/G4716/ There is the crucify idea.<br />
<br />
So, is our conclusion that Jerome mistook the G4717 word for the G4716, or was the G4716 just tidier. Neater. Nicer. By all means, change it to suit the agenda.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxDlCkfO5nJPe8sVdVZSt65IADO23aZmQRuneLGArXAykIUM78urd7dG_G9LlMqEV51af4GJKvFhd8IzE0TXq5nk-OFv46PCF4yCOuXByrzpl1nVQqQ0OqER_x5DbdFqtrEbZSBYsXkuGC/s1600/100_0749.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxDlCkfO5nJPe8sVdVZSt65IADO23aZmQRuneLGArXAykIUM78urd7dG_G9LlMqEV51af4GJKvFhd8IzE0TXq5nk-OFv46PCF4yCOuXByrzpl1nVQqQ0OqER_x5DbdFqtrEbZSBYsXkuGC/s200/100_0749.JPG" width="200" />Presto Theology. Out of a hat.</a></div>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-52761344354397199932010-10-11T11:25:00.000-04:002010-10-11T11:25:01.461-04:00Theology's Gender Blending: Intentionality. The Inner Woman, the Outer Man. What the Early Church Taught<div style="text-align: center;"><strong>Tales Wag the Dogma</strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>Truth in Early Teaching: We Are Both-And. </strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>Reject the Later Institutional Fabrications.</strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div> Why the aversion to gender-blending? Mix is Us. See the Creation tales.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT81FmMjp57PtHAkmRuZM8f7zk-T__K9UxR_u-4N9mLDdtzyMd_kbQblcN755ghAP-eRmATcOKlbM1fTBVl4wkHL0YS_VkggZlsDmfofYXUW4IWAehSkGQJO4kIKMc0m2QGogNNqU_D68r/s1600/100_3135.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ex="true" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT81FmMjp57PtHAkmRuZM8f7zk-T__K9UxR_u-4N9mLDdtzyMd_kbQblcN755ghAP-eRmATcOKlbM1fTBVl4wkHL0YS_VkggZlsDmfofYXUW4IWAehSkGQJO4kIKMc0m2QGogNNqU_D68r/s400/100_3135.JPG" width="400" /> The Woman Offering Fruit; and the Leaf-covered Man Accepting, Sonderborg Castle Chapel, Sonderborg, Denmark</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div>I. Follow Creation's Tales<br />
<br />
A. One Tale, first in Lay-out<br />
If not in Time -- ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf/<br />
<br />
It happened on the Fifth Day <br />
Two at once<br />
<br />
Adm the Human<br />
Single word for both<br />
Male and Female created as two separate simultaneous,<br />
In the Image of the Deity.<br />
<br />
Who also, then, is Two separate simultaneous ("us"). <br />
Join the General Blessing.<br />
Be fruitful you, and increase you.<br />
Said the Two-Fold Deity to They.<br />
And so they did.<br />
<br />
<br />
B. Another Tale, second in lay-out<br />
If not in Time -- ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf/<br />
<br />
It happened on the Eighth Day<br />
As an afterthought; and after the general blessing.<br />
Days after the Eighth were on their own.<br />
<br />
Creation of One as both-and/ androgyne/ or <br />
Both one contained within/ oh this gets complicated think Russian dolls.<br />
The pregnant "he"<br />
Because we have no "it" for "human."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf4Bb6INNiaqlBPlyPevhcVXUPoKkQUnj7xbuL90GzHRHwO8Nvq5b9AmqUqoBfOOeSenSLm_Lq6ksjDDETHMEkZfCqDLR2YPQpZYuSN6PWYwIlrLkef-Le4XPU9qA6ogAC4PJC0FjzOPya/s1600/100_3136.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ex="true" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf4Bb6INNiaqlBPlyPevhcVXUPoKkQUnj7xbuL90GzHRHwO8Nvq5b9AmqUqoBfOOeSenSLm_Lq6ksjDDETHMEkZfCqDLR2YPQpZYuSN6PWYwIlrLkef-Le4XPU9qA6ogAC4PJC0FjzOPya/s400/100_3136.JPG" width="400" />Everybody enceinte. All-In-One Both-And Adm, Eve's side separated out fully-formed, Sonderborg Castle Chapel, Sonderborg, DK</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div>The man's inner woman.<br />
The woman's outer man,<br />
This also in the image of the Deity the both/and the Two in One<br />
But here, the both-One and the Severed Two too late <br />
For the blessing the other Createes got.<br />
<br />
That happened on Day Seven.<br />
The part created until Day Seven got blessed; <br />
Nothing after.<br />
Nothing after declared "good" at all.<br />
<br />
No wonder.<br />
Seventh Day.<br />
When the Deity <i>Quit.</i><br />
<br />
That should have ended it, say ESTJ types. *<br />
Then the Deity was politically incorrect<br />
Like an INFP *<br />
And flipflopped and changed mind<br />
And reversed his position<br />
To receive new information:<br />
Because the deity needed a Gardener for all this stuff.<br />
<br />
Go back and look.<br />
Each tale: <br />
Make one - the "human".<br />
Same word as before. <br />
Adm Human.<br />
Not Me Tarzan.<br />
You Each Human.<br />
That doesn't get made into a <i>male </i>name until later - Adam.<br />
Creative theology there.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwFK9XU2R9OHYv30ijyZVB8SNh17Qa6E3wQTMmrqNs50m3yzR05tjiKpu4IfHdUKGV3BDzIRw0qyUSs2OHSEx4vd-jVLOAV4eEeZW0vosQkSTp6cUWW5ffsmD06l90dGYQV7VO_MEKtCFo/s1600/100_3133.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ex="true" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwFK9XU2R9OHYv30ijyZVB8SNh17Qa6E3wQTMmrqNs50m3yzR05tjiKpu4IfHdUKGV3BDzIRw0qyUSs2OHSEx4vd-jVLOAV4eEeZW0vosQkSTp6cUWW5ffsmD06l90dGYQV7VO_MEKtCFo/s320/100_3133.JPG" width="240" />Here's Lookin' at You Kid. Sonderborg Castle Chapel, Sonderborg, Denmark</a></div><br />
...........................................<br />
* Alphabet soup. Look back at the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the MBTI, a venerable and much-built-upon tool for understanding personality groupings, all on sliding scales, see Myers&Briggs at ://www.myersbriggs.org/<br />
<br />
Why do some of us make up our minds fast and once, based on whatever happened to be lying around at the time, never to look back; and others keep seeking and weighing new information. Myers-Briggs can help. See its updates at other sites.Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917723051441908124.post-21279033971014078492010-07-16T20:00:00.000-04:002010-11-21T13:06:18.404-05:00Woman as guide in front. Can, or Does, the Religious Establishment Re-Read Texts<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<b>Religion and Politics. Institutions Prune Ideas. </b><br />
Rankism First. Texts Second.<br />
<br />
Roots of Misogyny - the hatred of her.<br />
Roots of Gynophobia - the fear of her.<br />
Mistranslations, skewed translations.<br />
<br />
<i>We only control what we fear, or want to use. </i><br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<b>Balance Once Destroyed, Destroys</b>.<br />
<br />
Mantra: Read In What You Want.<br />
Say it Loud. <br />
Repeat.<br />
Win. </div><div style="text-align: center;">Is that so?<br />
. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHb3LWQedElV-8nYSm4Z9R3aY1sMl7ErQct6qe6GsHIhM0lntshPOzU_HsxSFWGSdbrlc3Ggg38aX2CsuTA7uz1qjKZoIAUTki1huO_Xj4OEJP3OOaCEbWpn0eKxrHGsoBUJX5kN5NRqEI/s1600/100_2757.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHb3LWQedElV-8nYSm4Z9R3aY1sMl7ErQct6qe6GsHIhM0lntshPOzU_HsxSFWGSdbrlc3Ggg38aX2CsuTA7uz1qjKZoIAUTki1huO_Xj4OEJP3OOaCEbWpn0eKxrHGsoBUJX5kN5NRqEI/s320/100_2757.JPG" width="320" />Teach that this is a trillium; or symbol of a Trinity. some people will believe. </a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">. </div>We are interested in the Pope and the processes that lead to mindsets, like his and others in religion and politics: irrefutable certainty in their own belief systems. How was that absolute, unbending self-correctness idea implanted? Theology as a power structure. Institutions that come to embody gynophobia in particular. Consider.<br />
<br />
As the head of a long-term religious institution, Pope Benedict is writing and saying that women as priests is an issue on a par with grave crime, the sin of molestation of little boys (how about the little girls?). Ordain a woman and you are on a par with pedophiles. See, for example among many accounts, ://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1295012/Vatican-labels-ordination-women-grave-crime-par-sex-abuse.html?ito=feeds-newsxmlKNGDV. Women are only children, after all. Do as you will. Gentlemen, start your Viagra. <br />
. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>1. Start with trees and theology. Pruning goes on in both. And selling.</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Bad pruning wrecks, whether in cultural ideas blooming, or religious ideology forming. In theology and culture, arborially speaking, there is a simple lesson. Cut off what turns out to be most important, and the branches beneath go all galley-west. Start an interpretation going, buttress it, and the interpretation becomes a cornerstone of a culture. Does anyone recheck. See another view of who sinned when and how. <a href="http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/search/label/exonerate%20the%20woman">Exonerate Eve</a>. As to the badly or intentionally decapitated tree, you may want or even profit from the squatty, irregular or dense plant you end up with, but it didn't have to be that way. If the pruner here denies that the cut-off top was a mistake, the tree proves itself. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Look at the neighbor's yard. A birch loses its leader in a storm. Breaks right off. The rest grows into something else, but the stump still tells. Think of pruning religious and cultural ideas. Same effect. Stumps talk.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Pruning and religion. What gets pruned out, and with what result. This is not just our culture. See the influence of the father of Hind bint Rabia - she wanted to become a warrior, she had talent, her father encouraged her, she did, and she - go read for yourself at <a href="http://sassafrastree.blogspot.com/2009/04/father-of-warrior-hind-bint-rabia-named.html">Father of Warrior Hind bint Rabia</a>. Encourage, discourage. It counts. Watch the denial of her now.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Pruning and faking out the customer. Thinks the nursery person about the botched tree: I'll just sell it to this ditzy customer anyway, and she won't notice until it is in the ground, and does not respond to straightening. Then she sees. Aha. The leader branch was chopped! Too late. Too late. Like the puppy with hip dysplasia, by the time the flaw is noticed, the thing is already loved and will not be uprooted, taken back.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihtNv-AKlP_yLgRbEK-7QCFSATO0MnKGbvjN6l6PdKaOOM2MlVxzDRqwFM67vlgQC3qNHIWQnh9NuzuJ7QhYEu-oq4nmSJ_f27dDEw8X4PLZiuwp02fWCnkt4jDmxJwja938G1k3rV1fU3/s1600/100_2773.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihtNv-AKlP_yLgRbEK-7QCFSATO0MnKGbvjN6l6PdKaOOM2MlVxzDRqwFM67vlgQC3qNHIWQnh9NuzuJ7QhYEu-oq4nmSJ_f27dDEw8X4PLZiuwp02fWCnkt4jDmxJwja938G1k3rV1fU3/s320/100_2773.JPG" width="240" />Pruning errors. Trunk was straight; but lop off the leader and watch the branches left below, skew.</a><br />
<br />
<b>2. The Pruner in Chief in the news:</b><br />
<br />
Papal pruning. Institutions destroying balances not because they are made that way, but because the skew benefits the institution, so think the nurserymen of our theologies. Lop off leaders and let the remaining branches go hither and yon like an unregulated Wall Street. Institutions prune belief systems. Prune away the natural guidelines.<br />
<br />
<b>3. The process behind the news:</b><br />
<br />
Pronouncements said often, loud, and with threats of what happens if you think for yourself, will be believed, in politics and religion. Propaganda technique. Or, less subtly, force.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxsdXu4-X5RRPln_8QSG19Xxb0icMpkOv_FFWeUA353OUDtf2L1Vb98PdhE2aUgqy6e1RP8esK0ov3bht54RtdACwEFolBTvzFhGWrB9atM0C0vlZSIdSjUqODTJ8X8TW0oSCovVplPcV3/s1600/100_2816.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxsdXu4-X5RRPln_8QSG19Xxb0icMpkOv_FFWeUA353OUDtf2L1Vb98PdhE2aUgqy6e1RP8esK0ov3bht54RtdACwEFolBTvzFhGWrB9atM0C0vlZSIdSjUqODTJ8X8TW0oSCovVplPcV3/s320/100_2816.JPG" width="240" />Get back in your pot, Petunia</a></div><br />
Petunia responds in time: I belong in that pot. I belong in that pot. I belong in that pot. It is wrong to escape. I belong ....<br />
<br />
<b>4. What does a stronger, unboxed mental tower receive in signals. </b><br />
<br />
Put issues above your own radar.<br />
<br />
Make yourself go back and see the difference between the role of the woman, according to transliteration of earliest text, vs. the role of woman according to all the popes and patriarchs who couldn't stand what the texts actually said. It is not comfortable. The point here is not just fact of the transliteration, see it at ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm. The point here is the fact of the <i>delusion</i> of a <i>teaching</i> about something superseding the text. Power perpetuating itself at the highest and lowest reaches of culture and religion. Propagandize, frame often enough, add force (pat that little holster at your side), and people <i>will</i> believe what you say. Harsh? Try being on the receiving end of it. <br />
<br />
Again and again, fact or at least a reasonable alternative in interpretation of pivotal texts, to be acknowledged as such, instead ignored and shoved under patriarchal rugs. If not patriarchal, then the hierarchy du jour. The man's first sin was thinking he should have privileges, was superior.<br />
<br />
People can't think for themselves? So they have to be given artificial absolutes? Speak for yourself.<br />
<br />
<b>5. The text in transliteration:</b><br />
<br />
Woman is the guide <i>as in front of the man because it was not good to leave him on his own.</i> Go to Scripture4all, a transliteration source, and plug in Genesis 2:18, 20. Look at what is not translated at all - KNGDV - "as in front of" because it does not fit the filters for later institutional, cultural, and property-acquisition dogma. In front of does not mean superior. The position as guide is only that. See another transliteration, same result, ozr kndgv, there jzr kngdv, left out in translation. See ://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/hetran.txt<br />
<br />
This is like beating a dead horse. The institutional religions keep touting dogma, but is their dogma supported by their own original texts.<br />
<br />
So: according to the horse's mouth, ordaining women is on a par with sin, sinnis horribilis, a grave crime like priestly molestation of little boys. See ://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2954/vatican_to_equate_women%E2%80%99s_ordination_with_priest_pedophilia/ Gynophobia is the grave crime instead. It lays, no pun, the groundwork for the burning times, then and now. See ://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn.htm<br />
<br />
This is not my tradition, but I am appalled nonetheless. I do not respect authority that is not, in turn, supported by its own resource texts, and this, dear Benedictimissimus the Scripturally Blind, is not so supported, except by Time Passing.<br />
<br />
<b>6. Back to the radar.</b><br />
<br />
Put up a stronger and higher mental tower and see what other signals come in. This is work because there is a great deal of baseless chatter. Which is which.<br />
<br />
Go to Scripture4all. The woman. Created to be a guide as in front of the man because it was not good to leave him on his own. This is not superiority. It is both-on-par, one doing this, other doing that, swapping as needed. Many roles needed.<br />
<br />
Go vet. Give us your sources for transliteration, not interpretation. Where are original (as close as we can get) other scriptural text specific transliteration. Woman as guide as in front of the man because it was not good to leave him alone. <br />
<br />
So: Racism, gynophobia, free markets, Cut off the leader of the tree, the balance, and watch the branches skew below. Make a group or person powerless beneath you and then watch the justifications of it, and denials that it is artificial and manipulative, emerge. Look at Disney's oaf of a giant here - the skin is not dark at the face, but the hands - what do you see? Do you see what I see? Look at the choice of features. Caricature.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiijL6nw6H7rtG1NTztxynqAKRyewEt0uJRHaf6GtL1R3SBRzLnSezwUzPoEQHvHIHtpNjd5TyIS_VZ3HICLlfl0wkjFU4eUSBg_Jcm83zinOz_2JxTOv8dlJMnSvUmRP1wXcftU9oYHrof/s1600/scan0045.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiijL6nw6H7rtG1NTztxynqAKRyewEt0uJRHaf6GtL1R3SBRzLnSezwUzPoEQHvHIHtpNjd5TyIS_VZ3HICLlfl0wkjFU4eUSBg_Jcm83zinOz_2JxTOv8dlJMnSvUmRP1wXcftU9oYHrof/s320/scan0045.jpg" width="266" />Optics perpetuating culture: <i>Le Geant</i>, not as in Northern European medieval folktales, but as interpreted for us by Disney)</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Is the spin process like <a href="http://uncleremustales.blogspot.com/2007/10/social-context-reconstruction-south.html"><i>Brer B'ar</i></a>, where the character is presented by Disney not as in Remus, a dignified head of a community; but an oaf, worthy of ridicule, as interpreted for us by Disney, caricatures so little children will <i>Learn. </i>And Genesis. Let the little children learn what we teach.</div><br />
Repetition, framing, mantras in the media to be absorbed by radio or TV on all day while somebody is barely paying attention. It works.<br />
<br />
<ul><li>To say then, as has been done for millennia, that the man's judgment is superior, he has entitlements because of his equipment outside and his ongoing muscling while the ladies may be pregnant and vulnerable part of the time, is ridiculous. </li>
<li>Now, look at how other imagery arises: by absorption. Sacrifice and trees. The rally point for the opponents of Charlemagne's conquests, the sacrificial tree of the early Scandinavians, gets appropriated into the Christian Wave and made central, when perhaps it was not, even for Christians at the time. Odin? Oh, dear. More Ruby slippers. Click heels enough and wishes for supremacism in ideology come true. <i><br />
</i></li>
</ul><i><br />
</i><br />
Oz, you are us. Original earliest texts. Will the Roman heirs read. Heirs to worship of hierarchy and militaristic force. Benedict., are you awake? Woman as guide in front. Chop that idea off. Is that why the Church is immolating itself. It cannot or will not read.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih-hPNJKivrrRyDiGGrTZfCuwLzQi3FBRuprPMe7g9XB7jHbh4EsCxwkE3FgqifI7uCb0Y_-y9PaVX7XzZA5ZZWiE_kXfEkLoizRB9XOKIwPyW2d3xV3ga0fDd4x2a2nPBWTdnh6y1m2vQ/s1600/102_2800.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih-hPNJKivrrRyDiGGrTZfCuwLzQi3FBRuprPMe7g9XB7jHbh4EsCxwkE3FgqifI7uCb0Y_-y9PaVX7XzZA5ZZWiE_kXfEkLoizRB9XOKIwPyW2d3xV3ga0fDd4x2a2nPBWTdnh6y1m2vQ/s320/102_2800.JPG" width="320" />Theological systems, hanging by a thread (see the spider there?)</a></div>Carol Widinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11331887976767892283noreply@blogger.com0