03 Feb 10
Originally posted by tomtom2324 TEH LULZ 😕
Since God is omnipotent and has no beginning then he knew for eternity which of his creations would get into heaven and those who wouldn't. If he always knew this and he loves us as much as the bible says, why would he condemn so many to an existence of eternal suffering?
03 Feb 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMy old frustration with translating a word from Hebrew to English (or Greek or whatever), and then saying that’s what the Hebrew word “means”—and then basing a theological argument on that. Single-word translations—even the best—simply cannot capture the range of meanings that a Hebrew speaker would recognize fairly naturally.
Heidegger's epitaph? 😛
Yirah doesn’t “mean” fear (or “elemental fear” ); it also doesn’t “mean” awe. It can be used to refer to “fear”, at least in the sense of anxiety; and it can be used to refer to “awe”—perhaps, in places like Psalm 111 and Proverbs 1:7, as something like “tremulous awe”, or even “mind-shattering awe”. (Also I am frustrated by the fact that I don’t have the proper tools to search out a Hebrew word for all its occurrences in the Tanach, and the range of usages therein; those two I have been able to identify without much effort.)
There is another Hebrew word, pakhad, which seems to come closer to simple fright or terror. The English word “fear” can carry all these meanings (for both yirah and pakhad; although the “awe” usage might now be archaic).
I personally would go with Robbie on Psalm 111. But I cannot base that opinion just on what the word yirah “means”. Frankly, I don’t think the best scholars can either. Of course, on here we argue, and we bring our best arguments to bear; I understand that. So maybe my frustration is misplaced. Hence my erasure of the post (now in favor of this much shorter one).
03 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdgreat post, yup, the connotations may be all but lost on us speakers of the ancient language of the Angles and the Saxons, we may however get a little glimpse when considering its usage from the context and the events which they describe. i would only add to the illustrious Vistesds post that there are even one or two more words from the Hebrew portion of scripture, namely
My old frustration with translating a word from Hebrew to English (or Greek or whatever), and then saying that’s what the Hebrew word “means”—and then basing a theological argument on that. Single-word translations—even the best—simply cannot capture the range of meanings that a Hebrew speaker would recognize fairly naturally.
Yirah does ...[text shortened]... frustration is misplaced. Hence my erasure of the post (now in favor of this much shorter one).
The Hebrew verbs 'yare' as mentioned by Vistesd (Le 19:30; 26:2) and 'arats' (Ps 89:7; Isa 29:23; 47:12) may convey the sense of awe, or reverential fear. The verb 'arats' often signifies trembling in terror, fear, or awe, or causing such trembling.—Isa 8:12; Ps 10:18;
also Hebrew term 'ayom' denotes 'awesome' or 'fear-inspiring' as when the nation of the Chaldeans went forth to battle, it was fear-inspiring. (Hab 1:6, 7) and because of the manner in which Jehovah used Moses and dealt with him, Moses exercised great awesomeness (Hebrew 'mohra' ) before the eyes of God’s people. (De 34:10, 12; Ex 19:9) Those with faith had a wholesome fear of Moses authority.
i am unaware of the Greek term at present, but it seems to me that based on the context and at least some understanding of the Hebrew words, we may indeed hazard a guess as to what the writes of the ancient text meant. Clearly a one dimensional approach is insufficient and may even lead to error.
03 Feb 10
2 edits
mmm, i dunno, i have Hebrew and English Lexicon of the old testament, Francis Brown, S R Driver and C A Briggs, Oxford 1979. its pretty useless to me as i dont read Hebrew, but i am sure for the serious scholar it would be useful. The best thing i have is a Hebrew English Interlinear, by Jay P Green Sr, Baker House books, Grand Rapids, Michigan. its really useful. Perhaps Visted knows other sources. For Greek i think Vines Expository is awesome, despite the fact that hes a trinitarian.
03 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiefinally something we agree on. Not all Trinitarians buy into the "hell" myth
there is no way a God of love and justice would allow persons, in an imperfect state, to be tortured eternally for misdemeanours covering seventy years. Does that strike you as just? no me neither. It is out of character with his scripturally revealed attributes. the whole idea of eternal torment hinges upon a few misunderstood and mistranslated v ...[text shortened]... ent of the biblical revelation in order to accommodate it, but hey, its not stopped them before.
03 Feb 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHi would like to call your attention to psalm 83:18 in the aforementioned interlinear, one of the most profound yet beautiful verses in the entire Bible.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
Not exactly what you requested, but it is helpful.
03 Feb 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitBreak it down.
Thought experiment.
"A compassionate police officer would not beat Rodney King with a nightstick while he lies motionless on the ground."
Unqualified statement?
"A compassionate police officer" Human, conflicted and subjective.
"would not beat Rodney King" Situational, totally dependent upon variables.
"with a nightstick" As opposed to, say, a tire iron?
"while he lies motionless on the ground." Or, apparently so.
In your thought experiment, you place the police officer in the position of God, but fail to see the huge disparities between the two. While one is subjective, capable of irrational and/or ill-advised behavior on the basis of situations in which one finds one's self, the other isn't capable of such erratic reactions... regardless of the the scenario.
Would God have played the King situation different? Hard to say, since it is highly improbable that King would have even thought of making an aggressive move toward God. In light of his options, it is a reasonable assumption to conclude that a nightstick was the most compassionate option for the police officer.
03 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe first verse quoted by epi uses the term irath, which is itself used but 18 times in the Scriptures. Transliterated "fear-of," in every instance of use, the application refers to man-in-response-to-God. While there is much effort put toward watering the term down, this is a fear based on God's "is," meaning when faced with an unrelenting, immovable force, man's response is always a fear-based respect.
great post, yup, the connotations may be all but lost on us speakers of the ancient language of the Angles and the Saxons, we may however get a little glimpse when considering its usage from the context and the events which they describe. i would only add to the illustrious Vistesds post that there are even one or two more words from the Hebrew port ...[text shortened]... t. Clearly a one dimensional approach is insufficient and may even lead to error.
Like the idiotic so-called Grizzly Man of recent passing, there exist some on this plane who think they can scratch God's belly and call Him 'Big Guy' and the like in their foolish attempts at fraternity, woefully unaware of the fact that He holds their very existence in His hand.
If this fear-based respect wasn't first, the banishment from the Garden would be an example of God's rudeness, the promise to the woman patronizing, the Gospel unnecessary, the death of the Lord Jesus Christ a tragedy without redemption.
03 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHi think the words you are looking for is a healthy reverence, something quite different from terror, unless of course you would like to add terrorist to the now growing portrayal of God as a sadistic torturer as espoused by those who profess hell fire.
The first verse quoted by epi uses the term irath, which is itself used but 18 times in the Scriptures. Transliterated "fear-of," in every instance of use, the application refers to man-in-response-to-God. While there is much effort put toward watering the term down, this is a fear based on God's "is," meaning when faced with an unrelenting, immov Gospel unnecessary, the death of the Lord Jesus Christ a tragedy without redemption.
and just a little point of accuracy, can one safely assume that when you state scripture, you are referring the the Christian Greek scriptures and not the bible in its entirety, for as has been established, there are different Hebrew words with different connotations which are also part of the inspired record and which need to be accounted for if we are to view scripture in the context of the Bible as a whole, not simply in the latter part of it, after all, would you examine a tadpole and then classify it according to its tail?
03 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, terror is more akin to the proper sentiment than anything else you're stabbing around. I understand that the PC view these days is to eliminate anything which might strike fear in the hearts of us poor timid ones, but there is something which cannot be denied or washed away to which only fear fits.
i think the words you are looking for is a healthy reverence, something quite different from terror, unless of course you would like to add terrorist to the now growing portrayal of God as a sadistic torturer as espoused by those who profess hell fire.
Namely, our very existence is God-dependent. We have nothing to stand on without His good pleasure making it possible for us to do so. Our desire to remain in existence is the most basic human need, and, as such, inexorably ties us to Him in a manner so desperate, so needful that truly there is nothing before it. Certainly, much comes after it, but definitely nothing before it.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." That fits the bill perfectly.