Bible Study what are you looking at?

[for_his_glory]

Oh, OK. Well I am sorry about that, because I know that I still owe you an answer!



I just thought that was sad.

OK, we are good. Just think if Cain would have repented then he would have had God's respect for humbling himself. All need to humble their hearts so they to will be in the glorious presence of the Lord when He returns.

 

[stovebolts]

Hi there Jeff, I can already see that you are genuinely trying to help, so that's all I need in order to recognise that you are doing well. There is no need for us to point back at it, AFAIC.

But it still would be helpful to me, since you mentioned it (and I have already known it), that if you do know of a lexicon resource of the same nature as the Strongs (ideal if it uses the Strong's numbering system - but not necessarily), then it would be useful to me as I would implement it in my database of Hebrew words that I search for when I am reading into their meanings.



Thank you for this clarification, and for patience. Now I can see what has happened. When I clicked on that link you gave, firstly it shows only the scripture without the Rashi's commentary. That is why I have subsequently complained that you didn't provide the link that you were drawing reference from. Today when it is apparent that you are drawing reference from that link, I looked closer and discovered a bug that caused the commentary to be hidden when the button was showing it was available. So by clicking off and on again, the commentary does load as you have intended. Shame that I didn't find that sooner, it might have prevented some escalation.. but, now here we are!

As for judging the content, I accept now that I have seen the context in which you wrote (by copy/pasting even the part you did not particularly intend to say), you aren't suggesting that I should believe fire came down from heaven and consumed the animals. It is ok with me if you do not expect me to believe such a thing, so that also is a thing we can leave behind and not point back to.

Now I can comment on the value I see in the word שע' - that means "turn the eye" - specifically as it talks about moving the direction of looking (the verb).

Whenever I read the Hebrew language, I look to the pictograms as descriptors of the meaning in the word, according to it's given context (the language is divine). In this case, we can see already the context is given in that Abel's offering caught God's attention, and we know that God was pleased by it.

So when we consider this word "Yesha", I see that the [yod (hand)], [shin (teeth)] and [ayin (eye)] in context of the concept to "turn", "look toward", the word shows yod-shin-ayin (I work - I eat - I see) - the word means "The thing that I am doing, is for feeding the eye", and just as you have said that the Hebrew words think as actions, the emphasis is placed upon the yod - saying that "God directed/turned his eye" (that is the element "ye" of "yesha" that says "I do") and the purpose for moving his eye is so that He would see the thing that is fulfilling to Him through the eye (ie: food for the soul - "shin").

That is where your translation "Adonai turned to Abel and to his offering" is a bit more relevant than merely saying that He admired, and as I said, I wouldn't mind using that expression if it weren't for the strong culture of the fallen that is inclined to always think in terms of favourites. I know the way they think, that they would be inclined to read that God turned away from Cain and toward Abel, which actually isn't what the scripture says. The scripture says that God saw a thing in Abel's offering that attracted God's eye - He admired it.

I do think that by saying "Adonai admired Abel and his offering" is sufficient to convey the meaning in the text, (as well as, and to my knowledge as best as, one word can do), wherein it literally means in English grammar that Adonai looked toward Abel with interest/favour - and some translations have used the two words together to convey that meaning "looked favourably" - which I think "admired" does as well.

.. so I don't know whether you still think there is any value in the word "turned" that isn't conveyed by the word "admired", and maybe you do - or maybe you see something conveyed by the word "admired" that makes it a misleading word to use.

All that I was able to see in your complaint, because of what I see in the words, is that you had your favourite in Rashi and you wanted to tell me that I should be like him. So because of that, in order to put things right, you would need to see whether after my explanation here you still think that I should use the word turned rather than admired, then help me to understand why - or maybe you would agree that my use of the word "admired" contains the essence of turning.

Good morning and thank you for your reply. I would like to give you a well thought out reply, which is why i haven't replied yet. I had intended to do so Friday, but other plans came up. Yesterday was spent with family and my wife and i will be away again today. That being said, i expect to give a reply tomorrow.

I look forward to replying, and thanks for your patience.

 

[stovebolts]

Serving Zion
As a first order of business, is a reliable greek lexicon from Perseus Tufts.
Henry George Liddell Lexicon

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Α α,

www.perseus.tufts.edu

The entire NT is searchable and links to three lexicon's that you can use.

Greek and Roman Materials

www.perseus.tufts.edu

Scroll down to

New Testament. Brooke Foss Westcott, Fenton John Anthony Hort. (Greek)

Select your book (Matthew)
Select your Chapter and Verse (Matthew 1:1)

Matthew, chapter 1, verse 1

www.perseus.tufts.edu

Click on the greek work you want to look at (γενέσεως )
Select the Lexicon you want to view that word in (LSJ Middle Liddell Autenrieth )
I'll pick Middle Liddell
γένεσις γίγνομαι
I. [select] an origin, source, productive cause, Il.:— a beginning, in dual, τοῖν γενεσίοιν, Plat.
II. [select] manner of birth, Hdt.: race, descent, id=Hdt.; γένεσιν by descent, Soph.
III. [select] production, generation, opp. to φθορά, Plat., etc.
IV. [select] creation, created things, id=Plat.
V. [select] a race, kind, family, id=Plat.
VI. [select] a generation, age, id=Plat.

Of course, there are other ways to use and search the lexicon's. However, due to my very limited understanding of the Greek, this way of working with the tool works for me, although you may find a better method.

Thank you for further expressing your view on why you prefer to use the word Admire instead of turning and know that personally, either works for me. However, I still prefer turned as the picture of God turning his face toward me causes me to feel that the LORD is near as to where the word Admire conjures a picture of God up high, just out of reach who looks down on me, though I cannot see him and admires me without my knowledge. When I read this account between Cain and God, God is present with Cain, just like when God was walking in the Garden with his parents. When we are in the presence of another, we can sense when they are proud of us by the way the look at us.

I understand your view on Able's offering, but very few understand the Hebrew understanding of sacrifice. (Genesis 8:20, Leviticus 1:4-9 )Through my Hebrew studies on sacrifice, it is not connected with loss, but rather is expressed in terms of drawing near to YHVH. In terms of burnt offering, Ramban has this to say on Leviticus 1:9

Ramban on Leviticus 1:9:1

A BURNT-OFFERING. “[He shall burn it] with the intention that it should be a burnt-offering [and not an offering of another category]. ‘ISHEIH’ (A...

www.sefaria.org

Since the deeds of people are determined by thought, speech and action, God, may He be blessed, commanded that when he sins, he brings a sacrifice and place his hands upon him corresponding to the deed, and confess with his mouth corresponding to the speech, and burn the innards and the kidneys, as they are the instruments of thought and desire. And the limbs [of the sacrifice] correspond to the hands and feet of a person that does all of his work. And he sprinkles the blood on the altar corresponding to the blood of his soul, so that a person think in doing all of this that he sinned to God with his body and his soul, and it is fit for him that his blood be spilled and his body burnt; were it not for the kindness of the Creator, who took an exchange and ransom from him [in] the sacrifice - that its blood be instead of his blood and its soul be instead of his soul. And the central limbs correspond to his central limbs. And the portions with which to sustain the teachers of Torah [are so] that they will pray for him. And the daily sacrifice is because there is no saving the community from always sinning. And these words are tenable [and] grab the heart, like the words of classic homiletic teachings.

When we look at sacrifice in this terms, then we begin to understand Genesis 8:20-21 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

We understand Noah was a righteous man, yet like Cain, he understood that only God could save him (Genesis 4:13-16).

 

[Serving Zion]

As a first order of business, is a reliable greek lexicon from Perseus Tufts.

Can you trace the steps to see how you have come up with this idea that a Greek lexicon is relevant? It is the Hebrew that I am studying, and it has been the origin of this discourse. You are "shifting the goalposts" by doing that, which is only showing the something has gone awry. It is probably the best area of focus for how we might attain unity of spirit again.

When I read this account between Cain and God, God is present with Cain, just like when God was walking in the Garden with his parents. When we are in the presence of another, we can sense when they are proud of us by the way the look at us.

That's ok, and for God to look with favour upon Abel, is to admire Abel. But to not look with favour upon Cain is to not admire Cain. You said that the word "Admire" is not so good because it conjures up an image of God being high and removed - not nearby. I can see what you mean by that, and it is probably similar to my reason for not liking to use the word "turned". Such is the problem of translation, and another spanner in the works - why it is that churches are collapsing in the English-speaking world: they just are unable to see what the scriptures are really saying.

A bigger problem I have found though, is in the translation of the Hebrew word itself:

"Turn" does not translate as Shaya (https://www.morfix.co.il/en/turn), though "Watch" does (https://www.morfix.co.il/en/watch). That means that there is natural value in saying that God watched Abel and his offering but did not watch Cain and his offering. To add then that God turned in order to watch, implies that He was not already looking - just as you have said, that He was high and removed. But to say that He admired is to say that He was pleased to watch - whereas saying that He didn't admire says that He was not pleased to watch.

that he sinned to God with his body and his soul, and it is fit for him that his blood be spilled and his body burnt; were it not for the kindness of the Creator, who took an exchange and ransom from him [in] the sacrifice - that its blood be instead of his blood and its soul be instead of his soul.

Now, if you will follow a teacher who says such things as that, then you and I will be following a different spirit and worshipping a different God. God of the scriptures is one who says "Acquitting the wicked and condemning the righteous: both are an abomination to Adonai." It is those who twist everything that is upright, to justify their sin, that spills innocent blood and makes the blood ineffective. That is why the blood of bulls and rams could never take away sins - they had an endless supply. Even after the blood of Jesus has been spilled, there are Christians who cannot turn away from their sins, which is more to show that actually, justice cannot be achieved by ransom sacrifice, only by repentance. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" - and how is mercy justified? Only by repentance.

It is the mind who thinks in the way of wrath rather than love, that brings forth the spirit that says God cannot forgive without bloodshed - because that is who they are, the children of wrath (Ephesians 2:2 - the same who were of the spirit that crucified Christ Jesus - the sons of disobedience).

We understand Noah was a righteous man, yet like Cain, he understood that only God could save him (Genesis 4:13-16).

He was righteous until he did the slaughter, and then when God smelled that the aroma of the burning flesh was soothing, He swore that never again would He curse the ground or destroy all flesh as He had done - and why? Because He saw that Noah had got the wrong idea of who He was through doing so.

 

[stovebolts]

Can you trace the steps to see how you have come up with this idea that a Greek lexicon is relevant? It is the Hebrew that I am studying, and it has been the origin of this discourse. You are "shifting the goalposts" by doing that, which is only showing the something has gone awry. It is probably the best area of focus for how we might attain unity of spirit again.

Sorry, my intent was not to move any goal post. If the Greek lexicon does not add any value to your studies, either in the NT or the Septuagint, then please dismiss my reference. It was offered in good conscience as an addition to Strongs.

That means that there is natural value in saying that God watched Abel and his offering but did not watch Cain and his offering. To add then that God turned in order to watch, implies that He was not already looking - just as you have said, that He was high and removed. But to say that He admired is to say that He was pleased to watch - whereas saying that He didn't admire says that He was not pleased to watch

Again, if Admired works for you, then may God bless your studies, I have no problem with that. I understand your concerns with turned, but they are not my concerns not my views. Are you ok with that, or must I adopt your view and reasoning as my own to be in unity with you on the matter?

Now, if you will follow a teacher who says such things as that, then you and I will be following a different spirit and worshipping a different God. God of the scriptures is one who says "Acquitting the wicked and condemning the righteous: both are an abomination to Adonai." It is those who twist everything that is upright, to justify their sin, that spills innocent blood and makes the blood ineffective.

Ramban is talking about Temple Sacrifices, which I believe gives a good outline for the sacrificial system. Please, don't go throwing out condemnation without entering into further conversation.

Let's take a step back to ANE covenants that predate the Temple, but flow into the Temple sacrificial system. I'm going to assume you have a very basic understanding of covenants, but I'll give an outline so we're on the same page.

Two people make an agreement. The one with ranking authority outlines the condition and the lesser party decides if agrees and is willing to enter into covenant.

An animal is brought out, slaughtered and cut in half. One half is on the left, the other half on the right. In between, the ground is depressed and the blood of the animal runs to the middle.

Both parties enter the middle signifying they are going into covenant. They stamp their bare feet in the pool of blood signifying if the other breaks covenant, what has been done to this animal will be done to him. The focus is not fear, but rather commitment and unity.

When the entering of the covenant is complete, the animal is eaten in unity and celebration.

We see Abram and YHVH enter into covenant, but before Abram can walk through, God takes his place. Why? Because God knew that Abrams descendants could not keep this covenant.

For God so loved the world... It is finished... What happened to Jesus on the cross is what should have happened to Israel. Why? Because God kept his promise to Abraham and took Abrams place in the covenant he made with Abram.

The sacrificial system wasn't about Gods wrath, nor do the Jews understand it as satisfying Gods wrath. To think this way comes from a protestant mindset void of Jewish understanding of Torah. Protestants see wrath, but Jews see grace. Sacrifice isn't about loss, it's about relationship, and drawing near to YHVH.


.

He was righteous until he did the slaughter, and then when God smelled that the aroma of the burning flesh was soothing, He swore that never again would He curse the ground or destroy all flesh as He had done - and why? Because He saw that Noah had got the wrong idea of who He was through doing so.

I don't see it that way. First, what was the purpose of a burnt offering? Why did God command Israel to offer a burnt offering? And why was Noahs offering pleasing to YHVH?

I would contend that YHVH was pleased with Noahs heart, and this is what pleased YHVH. As you started, God desires mercy, not sacrifice. Sacrifice not only caused Noah to recognise Gods mercy on Noah and his family, but It teaches Noah that he is to be merciful to others. Gods righteousness is not on display through His wrath, but rather, Gods righteousness is displayed through His mercy and Grace. Thus, scripture states that, Noah was a righteous man. The burnt offering does not exhibit Gods wrath, but rather points to Gods righteousness through mercy and Grace. In truth, it points to Jesus on the cross.

And to repeat, like Cain, Noah understood that only God could save him, because like Cain, God also saved Noah and his family.

That's how I understand it.

 

[Serving Zion]

Sorry, my intent was not to move any goal post. If the Greek lexicon does not add any value to your studies, either in the NT or the Septuagint, then please dismiss my reference. It was offered in good conscience as an addition to Strongs.

Easy come, easy go. Let it be so.

Again, if Admired works for you, then may God bless your studies, I have no problem with that. I understand your concerns with turned, but they are not my concerns not my views. Are you ok with that, or must I adopt your view and reasoning as my own to be in unity with you on the matter?

We must be viewing things the same way in order to be in unity on matters. It has become clear through study that there is no justification for using the word "turned", and that my view of the word introduces meaning that misleads a reader. It isn't clear through what we have said together whether we are not seeing it in the same way, only that you and I are seeing a different meaning in the word "turned". If we pressed on in discussion we would force a finding of agreement or disagreement.

Let's take a step back to ANE covenants that predate the Temple, but flow into the Temple sacrificial system. I'm going to assume you have a very basic understanding of covenants, but I'll give an outline so we're on the same page.

Two people make an agreement. The one with ranking authority outlines the condition and the lesser party decides if agrees and is willing to enter into covenant.

An animal is brought out, slaughtered and cut in half. One half is on the left, the other half on the right. In between, the ground is depressed and the blood of the animal runs to the middle.

Both parties enter the middle signifying they are going into covenant. They stamp their bare feet in the pool of blood signifying if the other breaks covenant, what has been done to this animal will be done to him. The focus is not fear, but rather commitment and unity.

When the entering of the covenant is complete, the animal is eaten in unity and celebration.

Could you provide the reference for that?

We see Abram and YHVH enter into covenant, but before Abram can walk through, God takes his place. Why? Because God knew that Abrams descendants could not keep this covenant.

I also would like to check the scripture you seem to be referencing here. Where is that written?

For God so loved the world... It is finished... What happened to Jesus on the cross is what should have happened to Israel. Why? Because God kept his promise to Abraham and took Abrams place in the covenant he made with Abram.

I don't agree with that doctrine, but there is a chance to change that by supplying your references. I presently hold other explanations for why what happened to Jesus on the cross did not happen to Israel instead (and indeed, Jesus' friends John 15:13, John 15:15).

The sacrificial system wasn't about Gods wrath, nor do the Jews understand it as satisfying Gods wrath. To think this way comes from a protestant mindset void of Jewish understanding of Torah. Protestants see wrath, but Jews see grace. Sacrifice isn't about loss, it's about relationship, and drawing near to YHVH.

The God of death and blood, right? Please don't forget how polluted they have become through all their subjections to the nations. It is sickening, and they were sick. They were lost, and Jesus came to save them, but they did not receive Him - why? Because they would rather have had a temple as a den of thieves and a factory of bloodshed. That is who you are following when you subscribe to their spirit.

I don't see it that way. First, what was the purpose of a burnt offering? Why did God command Israel to offer a burnt offering? And why was Noahs offering pleasing to YHVH?

Noah's offering was not pleasing to Adonai. The text shows that when Adonai smelled how sweet and soothing the burnt flesh was, He swore to never curse the land or to destroy all flesh again. It appears to be regret, repentance on God's part - because Noah was not commanded to slaughter and burn the animals, and being the first ever occurrence of such a ritual, must have been heartbreaking for God. Noah is the one whom God had hoped would repopulate the earth with his good seed - and what had he become?

Of course it is because of God's mercy that Noah was blessed after that.. because that is who God is. God is love. He is righteous - even though Noah thought he was doing good. God did not condemn him because he had been deceived.

I would contend that YHVH was pleased with Noahs heart, and this is what pleased YHVH.

Ok, then you say it that way, that's a good way to say it!

As you started, God desires mercy, not sacrifice. Sacrifice not only caused Noah to recognise Gods mercy on Noah and his family, but It teaches Noah that he is to be merciful to others. Gods righteousness is not on display through His wrath, but rather, Gods righteousness is displayed through His mercy and Grace.

Hence Genesis 8:21.

Thus,

Not thus. He was called righteous before he entered the ark.

scripture states that, Noah was a righteous man. The burnt offering does not exhibit Gods wrath, but rather points to Gods righteousness through mercy and Grace.

But not because God was pleased by it, only that His mercy and grace was manifested in light of it. God did not ask Noah to do such a thing. Nor did He ever ask anyone prior to that.

In truth, it points to Jesus on the cross.

I don't see that, and again, the references you may supply for the above claims have an opportunity to impact that.