Bible Contradictions

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Marietta

The reason I use the Hebrew when translating the OT and the Greek when translating the NT is because I don't want to get into a debate as to weather or not the NT was written in Aramaic. Also, most people don't have access to the Aramaic text to verify my rendition of a translation. Another reason is that I only have a copy of Matthew in Aramaic.

Here are three Aramaic-English translations to compare ... you'll note that they are not all exactly the same.

http://www.peshitta.org/
http://aramaicnt.com/
http://www.v-a.com/bible

[kenod]

Marietta, I'm sure you won't just take my word for it (and why should you) so here is evidence to show that the Aramaic text of Matthew quotes from the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew Tanakh.

ARAMAIC
1. http://www.peshitta.org/
2. http://www.v-a.com/bible/matthew-1.html
3. http://aramaicnt.com/

HEBREW (TANAKH)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/jpstoc.html

GREEK (SEPTUAGINT)
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/

Matthew 1:23

Aramaic 1: “behold a virgin will conceive”
Aramaic 2: “Behold, the virgin will conceive “
Aramaic 3: “behold the virgin shall conceive”

Hebrew: behold, the young woman shall conceive (Isaiah 7:14)

Septuagint: behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb (Isaiah 7:14)


Matthew 12:21

Aramaic 1: “and in his name the peoples will hope”
Aramaic 2: "And in his name shall the nations find hope."

Hebrew: “and the isles shall wait for his teaching.” (Isaiah 42;4)

Septuagint: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust. (Isaiah 42:4)


Matthew 21:16

Aramaic 1: “that from the mouth of children and infants you have fashioned praise”
Aramaic 2: that by the mouth of children and the young you will be glorified*?" (* gain glorification)

Hebrew: Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast Thou founded strength (Psalm 8)

Septuagint: Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise (Psalm 8)

The most obvious conclusion is that Matthew was originally written in Greek, drawing on the Septuagint as its source.



The second most likely conclusion is that the Aramaic text of Matthew is a translation of the original Greek text.

[Marietta]

Greetings kenod,
The LAX is the translation made during the rain of Alexander the Great and does not correspond to the Hebrew text.
I have taken the time to give a very literal word by word translation of each along with the Peshitta, which I found in my collection of manuscripts to contain all of the NT after all. I didn't realize that I have two copies of the Peshitta and one has the entire NT. So here goes.

Greek Romans 3 :9-13
10. just as wrote that not exists righteous also not unity
11. not exist the thorough understanding, not exist the scrutiny the Theos

12. everyone turned away at the same time corruption doesn't exist and accomplishment kindness won't exist until united

13. give entrance the throat itself the tongue itself deceitful venom viper by means of the lip


Pesshitta Romans 3:10
10. how do you correspond when there is nothing here upon which to distinguish as one

Psalm 14
3. the whole ill humor together contaminated, therefore non existent -the great Bear constellation here is therefore within non existence even if united

LAX
Psalm 14
3. who not falsify within tongue nor make those close by yourself bad and reproach never grasping on those close by yourself?

In search of Divine Absolute Truth, Midge

[Marietta]

Hello kenod,
Lets start with one set of scriptures at a time. This is very time consuming on my part as I have to translate each text one at a time.

Peshitta
Matthew 12:
21. therefore to have the sweet odor of the connection upon relatives from above
Hebrew: Isaiah 42:4: non actions healing therefore don't work actions to run until possession of action of subsequent sprinter therefore unto circlet again upon working the deed of action wanting therefore

LXX Septuagent Isaiah 42:4: take fire and don't break it into pieces until denoting the possibilities placing on the earth decision and on the name Auton foreigners await.


Seeking Divine Absolute Truth, Midge

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Marietta

Hello kenod,
Lets start with one set of scriptures at a time. This is very time consuming on my part as I have to translate each text one at a time.

Peshitta
Matthew 12:
21. therefore to have the sweet odor of the connection upon relatives from above
Hebrew: Isaiah 42:4: non actions healing therefore don't work actions to run until possession of action of subsequent sprinter therefore unto circlet again upon working the deed of action wanting therefore

LXX Septuagent Isaiah 42:4: take fire and don't break it into pieces until denoting the possibilities placing on the earth decision and on the name Auton foreigners await.


Seeking Divine Absolute Truth, Midge

Unless one is a well trained scholar of ancient Aramaic and Greek, I feel that personal interpretations are of little value.

I have shown that there are at least three English translations of the gospel of Matthew, as it appears in the Peshitta, available on the internet.
Are none of them to your liking?

There is no getting away from the evidence that the Peshitta quotes directly from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), as the examples I have given from Romans and Matthew clearly show.

The argument that superior or more accurate spiritual knowledge and understanding is gained through studying the Aramaic text is just not sustainable given these facts.

[Marietta]

Hello kenod, Thank you for responding.

How do you define a scholar? How do you define one who is well trained in the ancient Aramaic and Greek, which are both dead languages? Anybody claiming to be an ancient dead language scholar is self made.

When your scholars do a translation of these text they go by the authorized version and make their translation line up with this version.

None of them are to my liking because they are all translations that do not line up with what the text truly says. I have a vast collection of Bibles and ancient text and I am aware of the differences as well as the likeness between the translations, however the translations are just that translations (of ancient dead languages).

You wrote:
>>There is no getting away from the evidence that the Peshitta quotes directly from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), as the examples I have given from Romans and Matthew clearly show.<<

My answer:
If I were to do a translation of an ancient text after being instructed that I must make it fit what the authorized translation says than I would find a way to make it fit, which is what your scholars have done. Those who have stepped outside of the box have in times past been tortured and executed along with their translations and in this day and age they are simply ridiculed hoping that they will shut up and go away or that nobody will pay attention.

You wrote:
>>>>The argument that superior or more accurate spiritual knowledge and understanding is gained through studying the Aramaic text is just not sustainable given these facts.<<<

My reply:
Given what facts?????

If you wish to merely talk about the perverted text we shall do so. When taking the text as they are written it is obvious from the content in the chosen text that they do not apply to the same thing, Other than the thought that both Israel and the Pagans told untruths and were not upright in there speech. So yes I will agree that these text in their mistranslated form make the statement that Israel and the pagans alike have been dishonest and are not upright in their talk. Due to the fact that the real Jushua and the disciples taught Torah not some new teaching, indeed the Torah was quoted but not the LXX version of it, which is the point I was trying to make.

Love and Light, Midge

[bananabrain]

marietta,

May I assume that what you are speaking of when you say the oral law is the Mishnah which is the first authoritative compilation of the oral law, as passed down orally from one generation to the next.

i am talking about the entire Oral Torah of which the mishnah is of course an important part and the first attempt to set down its principles. of course there is a lot that didn't make the editor's cut in the mishnah (known as a "baraita") and the discussions about these generally form the jumping-off point for discussions in the gemara. you should be aware that it is our understanding that specific cases discussed in the written Torah are to be considered unusual for some reason, whereas general rules are those which need to be understood *over and above* that which "everyone knows" from the common law which in many cases predates the Revelation at sinai.

As for me I ignore the manmade drash while clinging to any remez ((hint, allusion, which is the allegorical exegesis of the text)

on which basis do you categorise drash as "manmade" whilst putting remez on a pedestal? why can't remez be "manmade" as well?

I don't see the English translation of the Hebrew Text as peshat (plain and simple).

any translation is necessarily an interpretation. that's why there was such a fuss over the "septuagint" greek translation - we were worried that most people would just read the translation and not bother with the hebrew original. however, there is such a thing as an "authoritative" translation, such as targum onkelos, which is an aramaic translation, i forget how old, but probably about C1st-C2nd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targum_Onkelos) - at any rate it's considered "kosher" enough to put in the artscroll chumash (rolls eyes). for my money the best translation of the Torah is aryeh kaplan's "the living Torah" and the most literal i've seen so far is the "jerusalem bible", if that's what floats your boat.

I'm sorry but I simply do not agree that rules need to be applied to any text to find what the author intended as the meaning in the text

really? then to take a perfectly straightforward example, using *only* the text of the Torah, tell me what the rules are about how to get married. even to understand what i'm writing here you need rules - the rules of english grammar and syntax, together with some appreciation of the subjects we're discussing.

I do believe that rules can be used to keep the original meaning in the hearts of man while reading the mistranslated text (when reading a translation). And it helps when translating a text where the original rules to the language have been lost (to most).

eh? you mean you can just look at a verse of Torah and tell me what G!D meant? can you give me an example? that sounds distinctly peculiar. otherwise this is just a bunch of semantic fidgy-widginess.

From what I have come to understand the reason it gets further and further away from the thought is because we live in a 15 dimensional time matrix and the further down in dimensionality we fall the less energy holding capacity we have and energy is consciousness so with less consciousness we understand less. However as the information falls down dimensionally it comes into this lower dimension in a manner we can understand. Source exists outside of dimensionality, in what is called nothingness but everythingness (ayin, soph).

insofar as i follow what you've said here, it makes a certain amount of sense within the mystical frameworks i'm familiar with, except that the sefer yetzirah specifies *five* dimensions rather than 15. of course G!D may deal with the other ten, i really couldn't say, but at any rate the ones we are generally concerned with are the three physical dimensions, time as the fourth and spirituality as the fifth, or as the SY puts it, "world, year and soul".

From what I have found you can use the Torah not only for learning science but medicine as well, it contains all the science of the universe as the meaning of the word Torah states. I've also found that there is medical cures given when you translate the text backwards.

this sounds like bollocks to me. rambam (maimonides) was a pretty accomplished doctor and he never mentioned it. nor has any other authority i'm aware of - although feel free to correct me. can you give me one example of "translating the text backwards" to give a medical cure?

Fallen Messengers who fell dimensionally as well as mentally by manipulating their genes, removing the gene that causes emotions such as love and remorse. This was done so that none of them could become full of remorse and back out of their plan. This is talked about in the Book of Enoch.

the book of enoch is not part of the jewish canon. it's not a sacred text to us, so what it may or may not say about angels is not relevant to what judaism thinks. but, just so you know, there is nothing about "fallen messengers" in our tradition, except, possibly, the bit about the "nefilim" - and that's pretty esoteric stuff which i have never heard talked about, even in the mystical tradition. for a start, the "nefilim" are not identified as angels or even as messengers. certainly this stuff about gene manipulation sounds a bit like erich von daniken and his randy alien builders. it's not jewish at any rate, nor is the idea that angels can "fall". angels do as they are told, even ha-Satan. and, as for ha-Satan, i believe i've discussed him elsewhere. the only one who ever "fell" is adam - and, of course, he gained by his "fall" as well as losing by it.

If you were to follow the English translation you would still be following the laws of Judaism.

this is not true either of the NT or even of the OT. you need a lot more than the text alone to follow the laws.

Psalm 14:3. the whole ill humor together contaminated, therefore non existent -the great Bear constellation here is therefore within non existence even if united

er, marietta - this doesn't actually a) make sense or b) work as a translation, even a literal one, as far as i can see.

you can search for "divine absolute truth", but you will never be able to communicate it even if you find it.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Marietta]

Hello bananabrain, Thanks for the response.

I'm sorry but I must have written in haste when I stated that drash was manmade and at this point I have no idea where that came from. I take drash remez and peshat into consideration when studying scripture.

Well as for me, I don't take any of the translations as anything more than food for thought no matter how much they are pushed as authoritative. If a translation were my only option and I had to chose one it would be that of Aryeh Kaplan's however the Jerusalem bible is little better than any other translation I've seen.

It funny that I can make a translation without the rules and get something out of what I am translating. I haven't translated the entire Torah and therefore surely haven't studied any such translation. Therefore I can not expound upon what the text says about marriage.

I have never stated that I can just look at a verse of Torah and tell you what source meant? It takes hours of studying and translating to expound upon Genesis 1:1 alone and according to the Mishnah there are over a hundred ways in which to translate this verse alone.

What the sefer yetzirah specifies a dimensions are what I term harmonic universes. We live within a 15 dimensional time matrix (a dimension is a frequency band) divided into 5 harmonic universes. A harmonic universe is made up of three dimensions (frequency bands). We live within the first harmonic universe made up of dimensions 1, 2 and 3 the second harmonic universe is made up of dimensions 4, 5 and 6. Each dimension also holds the frequency of the dimensions below it. Each dimension is made up of a set of 12 sub harmonics and each harmonic universe is made up of 35 sub harmonics. Each dimension is separated by a 90 degree shift in angular rotation of particle spin and each harmonic universe is then separated by a 45 degree reverse shift in angular rotation of particle spin. Source exists outside of dimensionality. Dimensions 13-15 are the primal light and sound fields and are therefore not what we perceive as having dimension. Source exists outside dimensionality in nothingness which is everything ness. Why do you say that the dimensions we are generally concerned with are the first three dimensions. (you state physical, which is implied when the word dimension is stated in this dimension we live in).

You do not have to take my word for it, do the work yourself, try translating the scriptures backwards yourself and see, I believe that the text I translated was either the last text in Deuteronomy. Its been years since I found it. It stated something like this" this is the hidden cure take a variegated plant" and so on and so on. I was spending all of my day and night time translating in the other direction and at that time didn't want to break my rhythm by spending time on the backward translation which was very tedious to follow where I was in the text. I had always planed on spending some time doing a some backwards translating but never got around to it.

Again you can only speak for yourself and the branch of Judaism you take part in. I attended a lecture at the Hebrew Union College about the Dead Sea Scrolls and they spoke differently about this book. There were portions of the book of Enoch found in all (or most) of the caves excavated which indicated that it was a very important book.

Angels have free will as does all of creation and thus if they chose to come into a lower dimension they simply do so. The Hebrew word Malak simply means a messenger and can take any form human or divine and both have free will. When I refer to fallen angels I am talking about inter dimensional as well as higher dimensional beings who came into this dimension with the purpose of taking control of this planet which is a very prime piece of real estate.
The fall of man is about a portion of Tara, Earth's counter part in the second harmonic universe which fell into this density.

You wrote: regarding Psalm 14:3
>>>er, marietta - this doesn't actually a) make sense or b) work as a translation, even a literal one, as far as i can see.<<<

My reply:
It only makes since with the proceeding verses and the following verses which I did not take the time to translate or include because only verse 3 was being discussed.

Lets just agree to disagree.


In Peace, Love and Light, Midge

[bananabrain]

I don't take any of the translations as anything more than food for thought no matter how much they are pushed as authoritative.

that's fair enough - i actually agree with you. i like kaplan's because he manages to be both intelligible and compatible with the oral tradition.

the Jerusalem bible is little better than any other translation I've seen.

i agree - i find it useful for sticking to the syntax, but i often disagree with particular words.

It funny that I can make a translation without the rules and get something out of what I am translating.

well, i dare say that is possible; i expect someone who doesn't know anything about judaism can translate a verse of Torah if they knew the language; it reminds me a little of rolf harris's cover of "stairway to heaven", based on the sheet music and never having listened to led zeppelin. ok, it's a song, it's got the same tune, he gets something out of it, but it's a million miles away from what the songwriters were getting at. the thing is, by the same logic, you could apply any arbitrary set of rules (because you are surely using some kind of rules even if they are of your own invention) and get *something* which you could maybe derive meaning from, but my point would be that a) it isn't anything to do with judaism and b) it wouldn't mean anything to anyone else. so that would seem like a bit of a waste of time to me.

I haven't translated the entire Torah and therefore surely haven't studied any such translation. Therefore I can not expound upon what the text says about marriage.

that's kind of my point, midge - there is *absolutely nothing* in the Torah which tells you how to get married. yet, clearly people do so. there are rules for divorce, comparatively complicated ones too, but the rules for marriage are *assumed*, which logically indicates an additional source of law, namely the oral tradition. and as the patriarchs lived before the exodus, this oral tradition must predate the Revelation of the written Torah. unless, of course, you are a fan of the idea that some "redactor" just removed all the rules for marriage, or inserted the rules for divorce, or whatever. seems to me it's a pretty obvious mistake-a to make-a.

It takes hours of studying and translating to expound upon Genesis 1:1 alone and according to the Mishnah there are over a hundred ways in which to translate this verse alone.

the Creation account (ma'aseh bereishit) is generally agreed (as indicated by the mishnah) to be the most complicated and esoteric stuff in the Torah. i am talking about something comparatively simple here - either you know how to understand biblical hebrew or not. until you do, your own translation surely cannot make any sense - let alone backwards.

We live within a 15 dimensional time matrix (a dimension is a frequency band) divided into 5 harmonic universes...

ok, all of this bit that you wrote is stuff i don't know anything about. are you a physicist, or any kind of scientist? where are you getting this framework from? frequencies of what? the one thing i can extract and agree on is that "Source exists outside of dimensionality" and that there are quite probably other "dimensions" that we are not aware of that G!D deals with - these are the "higher worlds" the mystical tradition talks about, presumably.

You do not have to take my word for it, do the work yourself, try translating the scriptures backwards yourself and see, I believe that the text I translated was either the last text in Deuteronomy. Its been years since I found it. It stated something like this" this is the hidden cure take a variegated plant" and so on and so on.

i'm not going to take your word for it. until you actually show me some evidence that a named verse, translated backwards (!) gives you a medical cure, it's just your say-so - and a pretty bonkers theory if i may opine.

Again you can only speak for yourself and the branch of Judaism you take part in.

actually, i grew up in the reform movement and passed through conservatism on my way to a traditional and mystical outlook so i do actually have a very good "progressive" education.

I attended a lecture at the Hebrew Union College about the Dead Sea Scrolls and they spoke differently about this book. There were portions of the book of Enoch found in all (or most) of the caves excavated which indicated that it was a very important book.

yeah, they would speak differently about it i dare say. i didn't say that enoch wasn't interesting or even important. i'm just saying it isn't in the normative jewish canon - indeed, there is no evidence that i am aware of that the qumran sect was anything but the equivalent of hippie survivalists that went and lived out in the wilderness and split off from what became mainstream rabbinic judaism. that's kind of the point - and it's not just my opinion either - what may be in the dead sea scrolls or not only tells you about what the qumranis thought, not what judaism in general thought.

Angels have free will as does all of creation and thus if they chose to come into a lower dimension they simply do so.

that is quite simply not a jewish view - reform (even insofar as they've got any time for angels) or traditional or otherwise. free will means you have a choice whether or not to sin and therefore an option to repent and atone. angels cannot sin and cannot therefore repent; that is what makes them "less" than human and, of course, in other ways "more" than human.

The Hebrew word Malak simply means a messenger

a *messenger* is *sent*. that implies they are an agent of Someone. it is from the root lamed-khaf, which is also related to holekh (go) and shelakh (send), as well as melekh (king). messengers do not exist other than in the context of the message. or maybe your postman writes all your letters himself.

When I refer to fallen angels I am talking about inter dimensional as well as higher dimensional beings who came into this dimension with the purpose of taking control of this planet which is a very prime piece of real estate. The fall of man is about a portion of Tara, Earth's counter part in the second harmonic universe which fell into this density.

*woaaah*!!! i'm sorry if i sound a bit rude, but just when i thought we were having a sensible discussion, you come out with this, which sounds like gurdjieff at best, or some scientology sci-fi l. ron hoover travolta-bollocks at worst. where the arse are you getting this stuff from??

It only makes since with the proceeding verses and the following verses which I did not take the time to translate or include because only verse 3 was being discussed.

Torah verses (although of course relating to their context) can nonetheless always be understood as sentences or at least as distinct grammatical and syntactic structures - otherwise you're removing the peshat from them and that just won't do.

Lets just agree to disagree.

no, let's not. you're not providing any evidence to back up your assertions, so i'm forced to conclude thus far that you don't know what you're talking about, at least as far as Torah is concerned. of course, i am always open to being convinced otherwise.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Marietta]

Dear babababrain, Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

My translations are only intended for me, not someone else. It is up to each of us to study and find for ourselves what life is all about. As for me I love it when I find something that applies to reality from my own searching. Nothing is a waste of time if you grow spiritually from the experience, what ever it may be. I have come to understand the complex nature of reality and how creation science works from spending time translating, so how can that be considered a waste of time?

Well, I don't agree that simply because a text gives rules divorce means that marriage was intended. I myself believe that those teachings were added at a time after man had adopted the practice of marriage (if they are found in the Aramaic text at all).

Actually the text makes a lot more sense backwards than it does forward and from the little I have translated so far has to do with death and what happens after death. There isn't anything simple about the Torah.

If you merely presume that other worlds exist and are saying that this is what is taught, may I suggest you read a more of Kaplin's work.

You are surely entitled to your opinions about my theories about life and its creation. I wouldn't expect anything less of another person who has not walked a mile in my shoes, especially when dealing with this type of topic.
By all means do not take my word for it, play around with doing some translations backwards yourself. You will be utterly surprised and amazed. Are you familiar with the Maru Foundation?

Meru Foundation Research: Hebrew Alphabet, Genesis, Geometric Metaphor, and Kabbalah

If the above link does not work try this address: www.meru.org/

Stan Teten has done some amazing work with his form of translation. He has a set of video's entitled "thinking allowed." There great! This is the amazing thing about how Source composed the text, no matter what set of rules you apply you get some pretty vital information.

In one of your first responses to me you said that you were Orthodox and later you say that you are reform but don't like the title Orthodox. Can you explain this because the two are not the same. I understand that a person who attends a Reform temple holds the plural existence of all the traditions, however the Orthodox would not agree with you that you are Orthodox. They are two separate divisions of Judaism, with differing views and in addition we have both Haredi and modern Orthodox with the Haredi being the strictest in their beliefs.

When dealing with the philosophy of the truly Orthodox Haredi, they perceive the generation of other denominations to have historically been engendered by heretical intent and the 1800's widespread denigration of religion. They view Reform Judaism, Reconstructctionist Judaism and Conservative Judaism as heretical non-Jewish movements whose actions are more damaging to the continuity of the Jewish people than any physical threat. Some Haredi leaders have stated that Reform is philosophically further from authentic Judaism than Christianity and Islam. As such, Haredi authorities have strongly fought attempts by the Reform and Conservative movements to gain official recognition and denominational legitimacy in Israel. Haredi groups and authorities will not work with non-Orthodox religious movements in any way, as they view this as lending legitimacy to those movements.

Where do you get the idea that and angel (messenger) can not commit a wrongdoing? Where do you get the idea that thy do not have free will? What you are truly saying is that because you are a Jew and don't believe this that it is a what Jews believe but you do not speak for the whole of Judaism nor for your own branch of it as a whole. Please provide me with any Jewish text that states that an angel can not fall, or lose its integrity.

Humans were created as angelic beings and what makes an angel more or less, is their energy holding capacity or the amount of consciousness they are able to hold. What you are terming angels who were considered less than humans has to do with the number of DNA strands they hold. Humans were created with 12 strands of DNA while some of the angels (those called fallen) only have 9 and others have 11.5. The Angels who never fell as far as holding their integrity and are here to help have up to 48 strands. However, at present most of the population only has 2 strands of DNA plugged in and the other strands have been termed junk DNA. Once plugged in those other strands allow a person to pull in higher dimensional frequency without doing harm to the human body such as dying or going mad (in the case of someone who has plugged in almost enough strands but not quite enough for the frequency they pull in).

I don't quite understand what you point is about messengers, especially the postman? However a messenger is someone who comes with a message of some sort and I believe we are in agreement with this. The message can come from any source including the one delivering the message. Anybody who give another person a message even if it is from the person giving it, is a messenger. In this case they are the agent of their own thoughts being sent out to another.

Other dimensions, worlds, havens, sepherots, tree of life, Jacob's ladder and other titles are given to these higher realms through out Jewish literature, scripture and what is called Myth or Lore. My I suggest you read the Sefer Yetzirah by Aryeh Kaplan for starters or the Book of Enoch which I know you don't consider canonical. I can point you to many other text if you chose to pursue this path.

You wrote:
>>>Torah verses (although of course relating to their context) can nonetheless always be understood as sentences or at least as distinct grammatical and syntactic structures - otherwise you're removing the peshat from them and that just won't do.<<

I agree somewhat with this but when new rules are applied to a language that were not originally intended, this changes the overall meaning in the text. So you can say your rules are better because you like what it makes the text say and that is fine for you but I see much more in the text that is vital for my personal growth, by letting go of the manmade rules that have been applied to the Hebrew language.

You are certainly entitled to your views and I appreciate you sharing them with me. I am not out to convince anyone of anything and would not care to waste my time in the effort it would take. I find it hard enough to convince myself of anything much less anybody else. Therefore I believe we have exhausted this discussion.

You have not provided any evidence for what you are stating other than making the remark that this is what is taught in Judaism however you do not speak for all of Judaism, nor for all of the branch you are a part of, which is supposed to take all other branches into account.

Love and Light, Midge

[bananabrain]

dear midge,

My translations are only intended for me, not someone else. It is up to each of us to study and find for ourselves what life is all about.

that's fair enough of course, whatever makes you happy. the thing is, you are making assertions about what is and isn't in the Torah as well as what it is for, that i don't consider to be grounded in reality. i should perhaps qualify this. i am a great believer in the mishnaic principle "turn [Torah] over and over again, for everything is in it" and also in the idea that "Torah has seventy (ie a multitude of) faces". furthermore, it is an axiom of the mystical tradition that "G!D Looked into the Torah and Created the world". with that said, i am also a great believer in interpretation, especially the traditional type. not for nothing have some of the greatest minds in human history (by which i mean the great Torah authorities) found both Torot an inexhaustible source of wisdom. what seems, nonetheless, to be incontrovertible is the idea that Torah must be deeply mined to give up its greatest secrets. i find it ridiculous to suggest, for example, that the Creation account[s] are intended to be read literally in the simplistic manner that the "biblical inerrancy"/"evolution didn't happen"/"dinosaurs are a test of faith" crowd (which is, almost entirely made up of fundamentalist christians) maintain. that is quite simply not a point of view that judaism of whatever type supports. in other words, you cannot take the Text *by itself*, without any interpretation and expect it to even make sense. how much more so is this the case with the reconciliation of Torah with science. there have been many great scientists who were also Torah scholars. kaplan himself had a phd in nuclear physics. but at no point did any of these guys suggest that you could extract actual, actionable, clinically verifiable medical procedures, let alone herbal remedies, from a verse of Torah. certainly we have our own authorities on this (there are, for example, large parts of tractate berachot in the talmud devoted to remedies and medicine) but they certainly don't do it by "translating it backward". now, this may very well have managed to convince you, apparently after a lot of time with no sleep, you have provided *no evidence*. certainly on what you've said i couldn't even find the bit in deuteronomy you're on about. at least give me a verse!

Nothing is a waste of time if you grow spiritually from the experience, what ever it may be.

you don't find that a teensy bit relativistic and new-agey? i might grow spiritually from picking my nose by that logic.

Well, I don't agree that simply because a text gives rules divorce means that marriage was intended. I myself believe that those teachings were added at a time after man had adopted the practice of marriage (if they are found in the Aramaic text at all).

the Torah is in hebrew, not aramaic. i actually don't understand how you can consider that this Text contains all this mystical and scientific stuff of cosmic significance if you at the same time think it's been a cobbled-together patchwork of different cultures, times and belief systems. absolutely fundamental and axiomatic to the jewish mystical system is the idea that the Text is a unity, Revealed at sinai, in one go, which has not changed over time. if you don't believe that then the whole cosmic superstructure built on the Text is a bit on the suspect side. basically, that is how classical, traditional, rabbinic judaism has always understood the text working - what would be the point of including divorce procedures if there wasn't already something to get divorced from? of course the interpolation argument is always a "get out of jail free" card, but that position is surely a bit incompatible with the idea that you can translate something backward and get scientific fact? wouldn't that be a bit difficult to do and maintain the other senses of the text if you were chopping bits of it around, adding and taking bits away all the time? one might almost say it would be almost supernaturally difficult.

Actually the text makes a lot more sense backwards than it does forward

not if you have the Oral Torah! seriously, midge - we've built an entire civilisation and culture on just the bits that make sense forward. our people have been working on this for *millennia*. isn't it a bit more likely that you don't understand it?

If you merely presume that other worlds exist and are saying that this is what is taught, may I suggest you read a more of Kaplin's work.

the idea of the "higher worlds" is widespread in the mystical tradition. please explain what you mean by this - i have read plenty of kaplan and i have no idea what you are alluding to.

By all means do not take my word for it, play around with doing some translations backwards yourself. You will be utterly surprised and amazed.

come on, that's not an argument. i might as well say to you: "don't take my word for it, convert to judaism, spend 20 years studying in yeshiva and then you'll be utterly surprised and amazed." it suggests that you've got the answer and i'm just too lazy and ignorant to read it for myself. this is the same circular logic that all evangelists and, dare i say it, cult members use.

Are you familiar with the Maru Foundation?

i'm not, but i'm familiar with this kind of way of approaching the text. it's fairly reputable (mary douglas has done some very interesting anthropological work on leviticus which reveals similar patterns) - but i've never heard of this particular chap.

This is the amazing thing about how Source composed the text, no matter what set of rules you apply you get some pretty vital information.

umph. i thought you said that you believed the text had been redacted by humans - which is it? also, by that logic you ought to be able to prove that the Torah is qualitively different from other texts and that to my knowledge hasn't been done.

In one of your first responses to me you said that you were Orthodox and later you say that you are reform but don't like the title Orthodox. Can you explain this because the two are not the same.

sorry if i was confusing. i grew up in the reform movement but have since left it and become, for argument's sake, what you would probably call modern orthodox. i don't like the classification, it's inaccurate as a description and implies things about me that aren't the case. that's basically what i mean. i am a halachic traditionalist, but extremely lenient in terms of many of the rulings and interpretations i follow and liberal in my practice and opinions, although my theological outlook is extremely conservative. i am, however, an inclusivist and to a certain extent i consider that the non-orthodox denominations exist for a very good reason and that there is much about them to admire and emulate. that makes me rather unusual by most people's standards.

Where do you get the idea that and angel (messenger) can not commit a wrongdoing?

before we start, in judaism (or orthodox judaism if you prefer) all angelology counts as "aggadah" and therefore there is no one hard and fast theological view that is required. consequently you get anything from the mystical stuff about metatron and sandalphon and suchlike, where they have personalities and you see them acting, to the rationalist viewpoints such as rambam which sees them as aspects of higher intelligence, or laws of nature or what have you (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel#Jewish_views ) my position is based on a) what i have been taught and b) what can be deduced not from what is said about angels, but what is said about human beings and the jewish view of free-will:

rabbi shimon said: "when the Holy Blessed One decided to Create adam, the ministering angels divided into parties, some of them saying, 'let him be created,' whilst others urged,
'let him not be created.' therefore it is written, love and truth fought together, righteousness and peace fought each other (psalms 85:11).

love said, 'let him be Created, because he will carry out loving acts.'

truth said, 'let him not be Created, because he is made of lies.'

righteousness said, 'let him be Created, because he will perform righteous deeds.'

peace said, 'let him not be Created, because he is violent and aggressive.'

what did G!D Do? G!D Took truth and cast it to the ground. the ministering angels cried
before the Holy Blessed One: 'Sovereign of the universe! why do You despise your seal? Let truth arise from the earth!' hence it is written, 'let truth spring up from the earth" (psalms 85:12)"

midrash rabbah genesis 8:5

in other words, the angels are defining what humans are in terms of things that are non-angelic qualities (good and bad) - plus, evidently, for humans to exist, truth has to take a bit of a hammering. it is therefore concluded that human beings are different from angels in that we have free will and can therefore choose to do wrong or to do right. without the possibility of sin, there is no possibility of repentance. adam, before the "fall", was an angelic being, who had no free-will. that's what the "knowledge of good and evil" is; it's the ability to make free decisions, the concomitant of which is the possibility of sin and the consequent necessity for repentance.

basically, there are *no* jewish sources which speak of angels sinning. there are *no* jewish sources which speak of angels disobeying. there are likewise *no* jewish sources which speak of the need for angels to repent. anything an angel does is because G!D Wills it. angels likewise are said to have no thumbs (interesting, that) no knees and no genitals. they are spiritual beings with no need for digital manipulation or procreation. they are simply action-oriented beings who do as they are told, with a greater or lesser degree of autonomy. ha-satan, or the yetzer ha-ra, or the angel of death, are all acting precisely within their job description; if they have been given the ability to deceive or act autonomously for the purposes of fulfilling the Divine Will, that is what they do. but there is never, for even a moment, the possibility of their refusing to carry it out.

Please provide me with any Jewish text that states that an angel can not fall, or lose its integrity.

on the contrary - please provide me with any jewish texts that says that an angel *can* fall or lose its integrity. please - if you can find a jewish text that says otherwise i will be happy to reconsider. incidentally, i believe judaism differs considerably from, say, catholicism in this.

What you are truly saying is that because you are a Jew and don't believe this that it is a what Jews believe but you do not speak for the whole of Judaism nor for your own branch of it as a whole.

as i think i said above, this is aggadah, so i can follow whatever jewish view i like. nonetheless, there are certain views of angels that are *not* held in judaism and i think it is reasonable of me to state that this is the case, regardless of my own point of view.

Humans were created as angelic beings and what makes an angel more or less, is their energy holding capacity or the amount of consciousness they are able to hold. What you are terming angels who were considered less than humans has to do with the number of DNA strands they hold. Humans were created with 12 strands of DNA while some of the angels (those called fallen) only have 9 and others have 11.5. The Angels who never fell as far as holding their integrity and are here to help have up to 48 strands. However, at present most of the population only has 2 strands of DNA plugged in and the other strands have been termed junk DNA. Once plugged in those other strands allow a person to pull in higher dimensional frequency without doing harm to the human body such as dying or going mad (in the case of someone who has plugged in almost enough strands but not quite enough for the frequency they pull in).

is this based on stanley tenen, or if not, what is it based on?

I don't quite understand what you point is about messengers, especially the postman?

the postman is an agent of the person who is sending you the message. there is no point in their being a postman without someone to send messages. that's the point.

Other dimensions, worlds, havens, sepherots, tree of life, Jacob's ladder and other titles are given to these higher realms through out Jewish literature, scripture and what is called Myth or Lore.

myth and lore are not jewish categories i recognise. i am perfectly aware of the various theories as to the higher realms, though.

My I suggest you read the Sefer Yetzirah by Aryeh Kaplan for starters or the Book of Enoch which I know you don't consider canonical. I can point you to many other text if you chose to pursue this path.

now you're being patronising. i know the SY reasonably well. i'm not interested in what the book of enoch says any more than i'm interested in what the gospel of matthew may or may not say about judaism. i'm interested in what judaism says about judaism. but by all means, point me to the pages or verses in your aryeh kaplan SY which support what you say and i'll go look 'em up.

I agree somewhat with this but when new rules are applied to a language that were not originally intended, this changes the overall meaning in the text.

yes, it makes it nonsensical unless the rules actually have a relationship with the text. for example, there's no point using the rules of classical music to analyse chinese ideograms. that's what i mean. rules you have simply made up do not apply to biblical hebrew merely because you happen to find meaning in them.

So you can say your rules are better because you like what it makes the text say and that is fine for you but I see much more in the text that is vital for my personal growth, by letting go of the manmade rules that have been applied to the Hebrew language.

*rolls eyes* can't you see how inherently ridiculous that is? i mean, the word for fish in hebrew is "DuG" - which sounds like two different words in english, but that doesn't mean there's a real relationship between them. it's simply arbitrary.

b'shalom

bananabrain