...people began to call upon the name of the LORD

This same guy uses his 5 minutes of acquired Hebrew knowledge to repost the same lies over and over again. How about spending that time learning more Hebrew, or some works of mussar? If you spent another 5 minutes learning Hebrew you'd know the plural of shem is shemot and that shemayim (even if you ignore the masorah) isn't a word because

...the dual form ceased to be productive in Biblical Hebrew.

It was vestigial by then (like whom in English), mostly surviving for nouns that naturally come in pairs. Names do not naturally come in pairs. What you're saying is similar to a future product of the failed education system going online and claiming that 'the key to interpreting Modern English is to know that /n/ plurals could be added to everything, not just "oxen" and "children", so "lighten" actually means "lights" and "thicken" means "thicks" '.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Now, Hebrew is a very compact and intuitive language, like I say, a lot is assumed, and if you ask me, Hebrew is perhaps one of the most amazing languages in the world.

I think Hebrew is no different than any other language. Accuracy and completeness in expressing ideas is subject to the same limitations occurring in all languages. Ambiguity between author and reader is just as prevalent as with any other language.

What I think is profound about certain languages is when people choose consciously or unconsciously to believe their language has some magical powers avoiding the limitations found in other languages when representing ideas or reality.

One man's interpretation is another man's delusion. One man's absolute truth is another man's foolishness.

All we know about God is the word God is just a word.

Wish I could give you more than a star! You really hit on something just like the OP did. Language and pronunciation has always been key in lets say.... occult world and the religious world ...... correct pronunciation with correct worship techniques with repetition is effective.

I recommend those who do not speak Hebrew to consider purchasing the newer up to date version of the JPS Hebrew- English TANAKH 1999 version.

The father has many names . Yahweh, Jehovah, I AM I AM, EL SHADEI, each with its own unique pronunciation which explains a part of the Father ay the son has many names .... Son of God, Son of Man, The Christ, The messiah .... we can go on and on,

To compare somewhat..... If I am walking down the street and someone yells at me, "Hey you" normally I don't turn around, NOW if I am walking down the street and someone yells out my name, I will turn around and focus on who is speaking to me. I am not trying to compare me with God I am simply showing the difference between addressing someone with respect and honour.

originally posted by: SarMegahhikkitha

This same guy uses his 5 minutes of acquired Hebrew knowledge to repost the same lies over and over again. How about spending that time learning more Hebrew, or some works of mussar? If you spent another 5 minutes learning Hebrew you'd know the plural of shem is shemot and that shemayim (even if you ignore the masorah) isn't a word because

...the dual form ceased to be productive in Biblical Hebrew.

Firstly, you are wrong. I am the first to admit that my Hebrew sucks, but the Heb. noun שם /shem/ is actually masculine, not feminine as you claim or hints towards. Although it typically takes on feminine plural. I'll explain below*. This noun /shem/ is so ambiguous in terms of gender that virtually anything would work as long as it sounds right. Also, you forget that my assertion is that we are talking about a NAME, and a name gets its gender from the person(s) carrying it. The proper nouns or names /shem/ and /hashem/ are also both masculine. You are discussing the gender of a boy named Sue here. And your fancy quote about the the dual form being deprecated in modern Hebrew (or what ever the devil you are on about?), well, it is highly present in the Biblical texts, I don't get your point, sir. Try thinking for yourself instead of just tossing nonsense, claiming to be the bleeding black knight.

==> biblehub.com...



See how the word is used in Numbers 13:4, the word is שמותם /shemotam/ here you can see the seemingly plural feminine /shemot/ take on 3rd person, plural, masculine to express possessiveness, noted with adding the final mem suffix Heb. ם /m/. As in «Their names». Shem is both feminine and masculine. Like the first living things God supposedly created, his main principle supposedly was the androgynous.

==> biblehub.com...



The word for name in Hebrew reflects the intrinsic nature of names generally. Names are formed quite differently than common nouns.

Appart from that, you can bring your spam posters with you, it turns out you were the one who did that thing with the duck.

It was vestigial by then (like whom in English), mostly surviving for nouns that naturally come in pairs. Names do not naturally come in pairs. What you're saying is similar to a future product of the failed education system going online and claiming that 'the key to interpreting Modern English is to know that /n/ plurals could be added to everything, not just "oxen" and "children", so "lighten" actually means "lights" and "thicken" means "thicks" '.

Haha. Lighten is a verb, Sherlock! The -en suffixes in Eng. Lighten and Thicken have nothing to do with numerus at all. What are you on, man? Your insight throws sparks! Your last ramblings above here are beyond your first. Instead of posting supportive evidence to your claims, you go ahead and demonstrate the diametrical oposite-- that you have no idea about the ambiguity of stuff like morphology and orthography and how it changes over time. Bring the word /shem/ to your rabbi, and if his hair hasn't turned grey before the Sabbath, at least make sure he eats properly.

*) The feminine noun /ayin/ means eye or spring in singular. Now as dual /ayin/ will take on the supposed masculine dual form /-ayim/ (which isn't really masculine, but general) and become /enayim/ while the general plural of /ayin/ in the meaning springs, or if you somehow had a bucket of eyes /ayin/ would reflect the feminine /ayanoth/. This is an example that shows how the dual suffix /-ayim/ is also used for feminine nouns. There.

==> biblehub.com...
==> biblehub.com...

I always forbid the name of the god I worship.

Total logical sense.. Anyone using the name of Yahweh must be the synagogue of Satan, huh?

It's not like the entire plot finally makes sense when you allow these roles to define thenselves, or anything.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

um, where to start. Oh first the book of Genesis was inspired to Moses, more specifically all the chapters before the flood would have been lost if it were not for God preserving his words (Ps12:6,7) and mans history to Moses during the time he led Israel out of Egypt and died before they were led by Joshua into the land promised to Abraham, Issac and Jacob who is also called Israel by whom his twelve sons descendants are called Israel.

OK so Moses by inspiration wrote the first five books of the Bible about a thousand years after the flood.

Those before Moses and his leading Israel out of Egypt did not know God by the name LORD/JHVH/Jehovah. Pay close attention to verse 3 in the following quote

Ex 6:1 ¶ Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land.
2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them

In short no body before Moses called on him by that name for God was not known to them by that name. But God inspired it to Moses for us to know but those before Moses did not know the name of the LORD to call him by it, they called on him by the address or name "God Almighty".

a reply to: ChesterJohn

That has already been discussed.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
If you get this right you might earn the tip of the rabbi's hat. I am not expecting you all to learn or know Hebrew, or even that you'd be able to follow me here, but what the heck, I'll try anyway, and will try to be as pragmatic as possible. First, there are a few things you should know about the Hebrew language and the way it is constructed before we start.

Now Hebrew is a so called Abjad (from the first few letters of the alef-bet, ABGD) language. A language made up from syllables made up from consonants where the vowels were originally merely assumed, not written.

Now, Hebrew is a very compact and intuitive language, like I say, a lot is assumed, and if you ask me, Hebrew is perhaps one of the most amazing languages in the world. Ever. By changing a single letter (like I will demonstrate below) you will add new meaning to the word or concept discussed, perhaps even turning it into a completely unrelated word or a simple word in Hebrew can translate into a whole sentence in English, but especially prefixes and suffixes are juggled to add pronouns and things like prepositions, articles etc. and bake them into the words themselves, typically by changing a single letter or voicing the word slightly differently.

So what you would do when seeing a Hebrew word, you would try to isolate the stems and roots involved, and all (or just about all) Hebrew words can ultimately be traced down to one of a great number of three letter root words. There are shorter or longer words, but if you break them apart, you will typically end up with a bunch of three letter words.

Soooo. Enough of the nitty gritty, let's have some proper nitty gritty. And this is where the fun starts:

######## ##### ### ## # : # ## ### ##### ########

At the end of Genesis chapter 4 is quite a peculiar sentence:

To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD. [ESV] Genesis 4:26

That people began calling upon [i.e. worshipping] the name of JHVH, the /hashem/, aka the Name of Jahveh, is actually considered a sin by most rabbis and naggars, and it has been so probably since the sentence was first written down, for the Name of God cannot be uttered or called upon, or so the story goes. In other words it's rather futile to add vowels between the four letters of the Tetragrammaton like JW do or others, like /jahveh/ or /jehovah/ etc. for the /hashem/ cannot be uttered, it is not a normal name, in all essence it is everything but a name. But. That didn't stop the people in the days of Enosh or Catholic monks and JW to do so. Like I said, it's no use, for the concepts involved with JHVH, the name or /hashem/ of God, is not linguistic at all. It's astronomical and geographical, JHVH has more to do with navigation and astronomy than being the name of some divinity, and there's a lot more to it, like I said, Hebrew is fascinating.

Now, let's travel back in Genesis to its very first sentence, look at the word typically translated Heaven there, Heb. השמים /hashemayim/ and compare it to the word used for the name of the LORD in Gen. 4:26, Heb. בשם /bashem/. Translated, Heb. בשם is "upon the name", if you remove the preposition "upon" the Bet turns into a Heh, and instead of /bashem/ you have /hashem/. Again, remove the definite article and you are left with /shem/. "Name".

Now the syllables to look for in all these words is Heb. שמ or rather שם, /shem/ מ becomes ם whenever it is in the end of a word. The word /shem/ means "Name". Now adding a ה in front of it, it becomes Heb. השם /hashem/ and the ה or /ha/ adds the definite article to the word, if you want to add the preposition "upon" to it, "upon the name"-- you'd change the ה prefix into a ב. If you have two names, you would add the dualty suffix -ayim to ha-shem and get ha-shem-ayim. And what do you know, that is the word translated "Heaven" in Genesis 1:1 /ha-shem-ayim/. The Name of God is dual, since there are two celestial hemispheres, and you can only see one of the hemispheres at a time.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. [ESV] Genesis 1:1

What Genesis 4:26 says in all essence is that in the days of Enosh, people started worshipping the host of heaven and started with religious astrology.

Got it?

Ok....totally a freaked out here,

Not just 2 days ago, there bouts, I think I had just got done praying and got this chapter spoken to me... seriously. When I say spoken, it's not like a voice in my head, but the entire chapter seemed to fill my head..as I am accustomed to short after prayer when being giving direction.


I was like "hmmmm, that's interesting, and read it and that verse 'jumped' out at me and when it did I paused because I thought I was odd that this actually marked the first time people started calling up in the name of the Lord...

Out of the entire chapter it was the only thing that to stick my attention completely!

I have zero understanding of Hebrew or Greek other than the concordance but something that I do know of about Hebrew is the numbering system that comes with it. Which for about 2 years now, numbers have been playing a fairly if part in my life and the #17 on a daily basis all day long.

I guess I'm trying to put 2+2 together and get something out of it...

Need to post this for now but will be back. Need to check on something on that chapter

I'm back...Ok, so after Enosh was born, was the starting point when 'men' began to call upon the name of the Lord. I find it interesting that Holy Spirit thought it necessary to insert this into the text!

My question is: Why?!

OBecausef this i do know.... God chooses His words extremely carefully and he speaks in duality! LORD is a dual word! You are correct!

Brb...need to Google 'Enosh'...woah!!!!

-Hmmmmmm...according to Wiki....he's ascribe to writing the first alphabet (?) Still being used this day in some countries....

-in Matthew, Jesus is a direct descendant of Enosh...................yeah.



Wikipedia-Enosh

a reply to: Komodo

Here's a typical Jewish approach to Genesis 4:26:
==> www.jewishanswers.org...

....and here are a few classical Christian approaches:
==> biblehub.com...

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Then it shows you are not a Bible believer. So why waste yours and everyone else time with it?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Then it shows you are not a Bible believer. So why waste yours and everyone else time with it?

Well, actually, it doesn't, see. What it does mean, is that you haven't read through the previous discussion before you jumped in. Sahabi posted your concerns a few posts ago. Here: www.abovetopsecret.com... and I replied to him here: www.abovetopsecret.com... 'aigt?

You are quite right in one thing though, I don't believe in anything much. However, I discuss the Bible on its own premises, and it is my sincere opinion that the deeper truths of this Book of Books can only be obtained through neutrality. I seek this neutrality. Among other things this neutrality demands the same one love must be shared by all. Among other things one must love ones' enemies. I can't love sheep and hate goats. But single out 100 Christians and I bet that at least 30 of them will say goats are evil while sheep are good. The truth of the matter is that they are equals, they just have slightly differing nature. But God saw that it was All Good in Genesis 1, so who am I to see it differently?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I read enough of it believe me, I wouldn't read any more of the nonsense because it is in error.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I read enough of it believe me, I wouldn't read any more of the nonsense because it is in error.

Thank heavens. Literally. Haha!

Here, don't forget your devils' brothers' metre!

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I'm not writing for your benefit, I'm writing for the benefit of others who don't know better, since I know you have no intention of actually reading what I write. If you think the example with "lighten" and "brighten" is absurd, then congratulations, you've just called your own claim absurd. Both claims are: a plural ending that had ceased to be productive in the author's time can be applied randomly. In my case, it's the /n/ plural being applied to "light", in your case, it's the dual plural being applied to "shem" (after THE DUAL CEASED TO BE PRODUCTIVE BY THE TIME OF BIBLICAL HEBREW). That means Moses couldn't just add "-ayim" to words randomly; only a limited number of words retained their ancient dual forms in his time. "Shem" is not one of them. Showing me other words that retained dual forms does not address my claim. Showing me that "shem" is masculine does not address my claim; so are avot, shulhanot, yeraqot, and halonot, yet do they all have dual forms? Gender had nothing to do with the reason "oxen" and "children" retained their /n/ plurals.

The only thing you can do to counter my claim is prove the usage of the dual form of "shem" in Biblical/Mishnaic Hebrew or prove that the dual form continued to be a productive category in Biblical Hebrew.

If your post is worth anything. I will ask you,.. what is the name of the Lord? You "posted" in English. Don't give me Greek, Hebrew or a bunch of Latin nonsense. What's your version of God's name? Jesus never said, "I'm Jesus". But he did say, "I am, that I am." and "I'm the truth" (The Word)...(Gen 1:1- Mat 1:1 ..it can get real "legal" and fuzzy after that. Even though it is very elementary and simple...

You will have no excuse. Regardless of what "language" you "understand". Only "Lawyers" deal with language and twisting of words... The Lord said, "STOP, to you/the lawyers".

originally posted by: SarMegahhikkitha
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I'm not writing for your benefit, I'm writing for the benefit of others who don't know better, since I know you have no intention of actually reading what I write. If you think the example with "lighten" and "brighten" is absurd, then congratulations, you've just called your own claim absurd. Both claims are: a plural ending that had ceased to be productive in the author's time can be applied randomly. In my case, it's the /n/ plural being applied to "light", in your case, it's the dual plural being applied to "shem" (after THE DUAL CEASED TO BE PRODUCTIVE BY THE TIME OF BIBLICAL HEBREW). That means Moses couldn't just add "-ayim" to words randomly; only a limited number of words retained their ancient dual forms in his time. "Shem" is not one of them. Showing me other words that retained dual forms does not address my claim. Showing me that "shem" is masculine does not address my claim; so are avot, shulhanot, yeraqot, and halonot, yet do they all have dual forms? Gender had nothing to do with the reason "oxen" and "children" retained their /n/ plurals.

The only thing you can do to counter my claim is prove the usage of the dual form of "shem" in Biblical/Mishnaic Hebrew or prove that the dual form continued to be a productive category in Biblical Hebrew.

Oh dear. You keep rambling on claiming verbs can be plural in English, there never were, there sure aren't such a thing now, and I honestly doubt there will ever be plural verbs in any language. Read what you write for heaven's sake. It's like saying the genitive -s suffix in English is or once was (historical anachronism) the plural -s suffix. You are WRONG. And as for there not being any dual nouns in Biblical Hebrew. Hah bloody hah. Like I have shown there is one in the first verse of Genesis.

There are several nouns in Biblical Hebrew that takes the dual form. The nouns /mayim/ (waters/floods) and /shemayim/ (heavens, skies, alt. names) are two such. And here you have 28 occurences of /enayim/ dual of /ayin/ means (pair of) eye(s):

==> biblehub.com...

I could list a bunch of others, but I don't like to feed trolls, so shu! Your opinion may have been made popular, but there should be no doubt that hehe, the Hebrew biblical texts contain quite a few examples of the dual form.

Strong's Hebrew:
H3767 /kera/ «legs», has dual
H3610 /kilayim/ «kinds», is dual (of H3608 /kele/ «seperation»)
H7620 /shabua/ «weeks», has dual
H3608 /kele/ «prison», has dual

These are four more nouns taking the dual form. So again: You are utterly dead wrong! Your assertion may be popular at the moment, but the fallacy is so obvious. There are plenty examples of dual forms of nouns in the bible.

a reply to: SarMegahhikkitha

Here, looks like you need to redo grammar school:

www.becomingjewish.org...

...

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. [ESV] Genesis 1:1

1611 KJV
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The Genesis 1:1 as you have shown in the ESV rendition is translated wrong in that particular bible. The first heaven of this earth was not created till the second day [era] of creation.

The first and only heaven which was created in Genesis 1:1 was the heaven of which we now know as the universe. The earth at this time was a mud pack engulfed in water floating in a pitch black universe [heaven]. When God then showed His primeval light upon this universe was the end of that era.

It was the second day that this earth's first heaven was created --

Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
Gen 1:7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

It is very plain that there are two heavens in the second day [era] of creation and only one heaven in the first day [era] of creation. The KJV bible is correct and the ESV bible is proven wrong.

Chapter two is the proof of this matter as it then says --

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

a reply to: Seede

KJV is an archaic and extremely terrible translation. You are aware of that?