Biblical Translation—Eden, 4

Actually, the definite article prefix in 2nd Kings 2:1 does in fact provide a “Specific Description of ”The Heavens’,” according to Hebrew grammar. In Hebrew there is no indefinite article”as “a heaven””and the Hebrew term for “heavens” is always dual whether denoting the “sky”, the “universe”, or “God’s abode”, because the Hebrew dual masculine noun for “heavens” denotes “the sky and the universe” and these constitute “God’s abode.”

Luke 16: 19 thru 31 is indeed a parable. The “rich man” died and was buried in a grave in the earth, i.e. he was sent to “hell” The beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom; i.e. God’s abode.The “grave” is ade, the nether world, the realm of the dead: Orcus, Hades. “Abraham gave up the ghost” and his body was then put into the cave of Machpelah. Abraham’s spirit went to God & the heavens; Abraham’s body was put into a cave. The rich man’s spirit went with his body to the grave, the ade. The beggar’s spirit was taken to the “bosom of Abraham: to partake the same blessedness as Abraham in paradise; to be borne away to the enjoyment of the same happiness with Abraham.” The Greek term “paradise” {used in the definition of “bosom of Abraham”, as well as in Luke 23:43} does in fact refer to “the abode of God” or “God’s heavenly abode” (Rev. 2.7 “...To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” See also Gen. 2:9; 3:24 & Ez. 28:13; 31:8). This “paradise” does not denote a purgatory, for the tree of life would not be a part of such a low spiritual realm. The River of Life flows from Eden into the paradise that is in Eden, and here the paradise of Eden refers to God’s heavenly abode.

That is not what 2nd Kings 2:1 states, and as yet your attempt to depict “paradise” as “purgatory” does not have a Scriptural basis to stand on. The LORD took Elijah up into the heavens {a.k.a. paradise, where the angels carried the beggar into Abraham’s bosom; where stands the Tree of Life, and into which flows the singular River of Life). The beggar was not buried or his body put into a cave; angels carried him into Abraham’s bosom. Elijah was not buried or his body put into a cave; the LORD took Elijah up into the heavens.

Yes! The contradiction between 2nd Kings 2:1 and John 3:13 remains a Textual Inconsistence even when compared to Luke 16:22, 23 as well as Luke 23:43.

Of course my assertions are just not cutting it. You are thinking and writing in accord with your religious doctrine and subsequent superstition. I am reading, translating and interpreting these ancient literary documents according to what they actually say. I really don’t care what you personally believe. Whatever fires your rocket! But until you transcend your nonsensical mystical view of the literary documents at hand and your distorted view of God’s reality all of my assertions will never cut it for you.

Jesus commended his spirit into God’s hands. Jesus, like Abraham, gave up the ghost, died and went to heaven {a.k.a. into God’s hands; in paradise), according to the Gospel of Luke.

To me John’s version doesn’t even make sense from a spiritual or superstitious point of view.

Perhaps this is why the Hebrew author of 2nd Kings 2:1 did think it necessary to clarify the exact place in the heavens {wrongly construed as 'the spirit realm'} where the LORD took Elijah. The Hebrew author of 2nd Kings 2:1 did not abide by Greek Mythology.

Where did Old Testament believers go when they died?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Question: "Where did Old Testament believers go when they died?"Answer: The Old Testament teaches life after death, and that all people went to a place of conscious existence called Sheol. The wicked were there (Psalm 9:17; 31:17; 49:14; Isaiah 5:14), and so were the righteous (Genesis 37:35; Job 14:13; Psalm 6:5; 16:10; 88:3; Isaiah 38:10).The New Testament equivalent of Sheol is Hades. Prior to Christ’s resurrection, Luke 16:19-31 shows Hades to be divided into two realms: a place of comfort where Lazarus was, and a place of torment where the rich man was. The word hell in verse 23 is not “Gehenna” (place of eternal torment) but “Hades” (place of the dead). Lazarus’s place of comfort is elsewhere called Paradise (Luke 23:43). Between these two districts of Hades is “a great gulf fixed” (Luke 16:26).Jesus is described as having descended into Hades after His death (Acts 2:27, 31; cf. Ephesians 4:9). At the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it seems that the believers in Hades (i.e., the occupants of Paradise) were moved to another location. Now, Paradise is above rather than below (2 Corinthians 12:2-4).Today, when a believer dies, he is “present with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:6-9). When an unbeliever dies, he follows the Old Testament unbelievers to Hades. At the final judgment, Hades will be emptied before the Great White Throne, where its occupants will be judged prior to entering the lake of fire (Revelation 20:13-15).Recommended Resource: What the Bible Says about Heaven & Eternity by Ice & Demy.

Apparently some the Hellenic Jews in the last half of the first century BC began incorporating Greek Mythology into their understanding of Septuagint’s rendering of “paradise”. This Hellenic fusion into the Septuagint Scriptures is described in the Thayer Gk.-Eng. Lexicon of the NT in this fashion:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
paradise (Gk.) That part of Hades which was thought by Hellenic Jews to be the abode of the souls of the pious until the resurrection {Luke 23:43 cf. 16:23). But most understand that passage of the heavenly paradise. Thayer Gk.-Eng. Lexicon; NT

Perhaps this is why the Hebrew author of 2nd Kings 2:1 did think it necessary to clarify the exact place in the heavens {wrongly construed as 'the spirit realm'} where the LORD took Elijah. The Hebrew author of 2nd Kings 2:1 did not abide by Greek Mythology.

Strong's Hebrew Lexicon Search Results--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Result of search for "hades":
9 'abedah ab-ay-daw' from 6; concrete, something lost; abstract, destruction, i.e. Hades:--lost. Compare 10.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 'abaddown ab-ad-done' intensive from 6; abstract, a perishing; concrete, Hades:--destruction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4194 maveth maw'-veth from 4191; death (natural or violent); concretely, the dead, their place or state (hades); figuratively, pestilence, ruin:--(be) dead((-ly)), death, die(-d).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7585 sh'owl sheh-ole' or shol {sheh-ole'}; from 7592; Hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates:--grave, hell, pit.

Gen. 37:35 “I will go down into the grave.” Jacob was very much alive, saying, “I will go down into the grave.” The Hebrew term for “grave” is — she>olah used literally and figuratively. Don’t get the applications confused.Nowhere in any of these passages does the Hebrew term — she>ol ever denote Hades or Hell or any other supernatural location. In the above passages the Hebrew term — she>ol is only referring to the grave.I have nothing to gain by trying to deceive you. I don’t even know you. It is my opinion, however, that someone (or many such individuals) are not giving you all the literary insights you need to make an informed decision.

Strong's Hebrew Lexicon Search ResultsResult of search for "grave":
1164 b`iy beh-ee' from 1158; a prayer:--grave.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2672 chatsab khaw-tsab' or chatseb {khaw-tsabe'}; a primitive root ; to cut or carve (wood), stone or other material); by implication, to hew, split, square, quarry, engrave:--cut, dig, divide, grave, hew (out, -er), made, mason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2710 chaqaq khaw-kak' a primitive root; properly, to hack, i.e. engrave (Judges 5:14, to be a scribe simply); by implication, to enact (laws being cut in stone or metal tablets in primitive times) or (gen.) prescribe:--appoint, decree, governor, grave, lawgiver, note, pourtray, print, set.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3789 kathab kaw-thab' a primitive root; to grave, by implication, to write (describe, inscribe, prescribe, subscribe):--describe, record, prescribe, subscribe, write(-ing, -ten).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4908 mishkan mish-kawn' from 7931; a residence (including a shepherd's hut, the lair of animals, figuratively, the grave; also the Temple); specifically, the Tabernacle (properly, its wooden walls):--dwelleth, dwelling (place), habitation, tabernacle, tent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6458 pacal paw-sal' a primitive root; to carve, whether wood or stone:--grave, hew.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6603 pittuwach pit-too'-akh or pittuach {pit-too'-akh; passive participle of 6605; sculpture (in low or high relief or even intaglio):--carved (work) (are, en-)grave(-ing, -n).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6605 pathach paw-thakh' a primitive root; to open wide (literally or figuratively); specifically, to loosen, begin, plough, carve:--appear, break forth, draw (out), let go free, (en-)grave(-n), loose (self), (be, be set) open(-ing), put off, ungird, unstop, have vent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6757 tsalmaveth tsal-maw'-veth from 6738 and 4194; shade of death, i.e. the grave (figuratively, calamity):--shadow of death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6900 qbuwrah keb-oo-raw' or qburah {keb-oo-raw'}; feminine passive participle of 6912; sepulture; (concretely) a sepulchre:--burial, burying place, grave, sepulchre.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6913 qeber, keh'-ber or (feminine) qibrah {kib-raw'}; from 6912; a sepulchre:--burying place, grave, sepulchre.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7585 sh'owl sheh-ole' or shol {sheh-ole'}; from 7592; Hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates:--grave, hell, pit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7845 shachath shakh'-ath from 7743; a pit (especially as a trap); figuratively, destruction:--corruption, destruction, ditch, grave, pit.

Definition
sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit
the underworld Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead
place of no return without praise of God wicked sent there for punishment righteous not abandoned to it of the place of exile (fig) of extreme degradation in sinKing James Word Usage - Total: 65
grave 31, hell 31, pit 3KJV Verse Count
Genesis 4
Numbers 2
Deuteronomy 1
1 Samuel 1
2 Samuel 1
1 Kings 2
Job 8
Psalms 15
Proverbs 9
Ecclesiastes 1
Solomon 1
Isaiah 9
Ezekiel 5
Hosea 1
Amos 1
Jonah 1
Habakkuk 1----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total 63The Hebrew lexicon is Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon; this is keyed to the "Theological Word Book of the Old Testament." These files are considered public domain.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Previous Entry: sha'avah | Next Entry: Sha'uwl

You have got to be kidding. I went through all of those verses provided in you previous post for nothing?You can have your superstition: Hell, the devil, demons, walking on water, raising the dead, whatever. Just don’t try to claim it as fact or truth.This is all way too much work for way too little reward.
Again, I don’t care what you believe in.

Now then, you can make up any stories out of the Bible or Strong’s dictionary that you wish. Christians should be really good at making up stories by now; they’ve had two thousand years to practice their Hellenic-Roman Faith.

bertot:
In my personal opinion you are a very fine person. I do not agree with your Christian belief system, but I would fight and die for your right to believe as you see fit. The only thing that causes me considerable concern is when someone expects me to “believe” as they do because they claim that their “belief” happens to be “The Truth.”

I base my research on lexicographic and grammatical foundations. And I employ objective reality to my interpretations of the ancient texts I study. I do not claim to be correct and am open to other ideas that are also based on lexicographic, grammatical, and realistic foundations. I cannot discuss superstitious ideas, or beliefs that I know to be unrealistic and fanciful regardless of how old the text may be or how many years that religious doctrine has been influencing human minds.

If you do not believe that there is a Textual Inconsistency existing between 2nd Kings 2:1 and John 3:13 that is fine with me. I, on the other hand, do perceive a Textual Inconsistency existing between 2nd Kings 2:1 and John 3:13. That is as far as I can take our discussion.

That has never been my contention. The “grave” is a fact. “Hell” and the “Devil” are not. According to your Christian superstition “Hell” is below, and “heaven” is above. One does not ascend to that which is below. If that makes me “correct” then so be it. If you can’t handle the facts then just stay with your superstition and be happy. But don’t try to claim that it is “Truth”.

Honest studies, personal beliefs, personal opinions and ideologies are absolutely correct as long as they are conveyed as “personal.” No one has to fall in line with my position. If someone wants to proclaim “dust” as being wet, I could care less. Dust is dry. That is how reality works. After the whole surface of the ground is irrigated one would not go out and say, “Boy is it dusty today.” My position is that “dust” is dry, the “grave” is real, and noone ascends into the “grave.” The definite article prefixed form of “the heavens” does not describe Hades, and “paradise” does not describe a lower level of the spiritual realm.

Someone who knew that “dust was dry.” That’s a plus insofar as I’m concerned.

Absolutely none. Dull witted superstition has won the day. When Jesus comes back everything will be better.

bertot:
We have 36 posts left. It will more than likely take all thirty-six posts to arrive at a collective comprehension of the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Alexandrian-Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.I am up to it if you are.

Quote:
"But even beyond these points, from a purely objective, scientific point-of-view, when we apply the science of Textual Criticism to this controversy, we must again decide in favor of the Greek Septuagint. We remember that the fundamental rule of Textual Criticism is usually that the older the text, the better, and the complete Septuagint version of the Old Testament outdates the complete Masoretic Text version by 650-700 years.The second rule that we must implement is that not all manuscripts are of the same value. Again, this value issue is clear for these two witnesses: the Septuagint is representative of a 3rd century BC Hebrew text; the Masoretic is representative of a 7th-9th century AD revision of the Hebrew." V.S Herrell

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The biblical texts display considerable similarity to the standard Masoretic (received) text. This, however, is not always the rule, and many texts diverge from the Masoretic. For example, some of the texts of Samuel from Cave 4 follow the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Bible translated in the third to second centuries B.C.E. Indeed. Qumran has yielded copies of the Septuagint in Greek.

In my opinion you are trying way too hard to make a point that does not have to be made.The Scriptures we have today are what they are and say what they say. Not everyone agrees as to what the Scriptures convey or imply. Much of the Old Testament Laws are no longer applicable in the twenty-first century CE. Not everyone accepts Jesus as “God in the flesh” or even as the Jewish Messiah. The Hebrew Tanakh is a canon of ancient writing. The Greek New Testament is a canon of ancient writings. Whether any of these ancient writing were directly inspired by a Supreme supernatural being or consciousness cannot be proven one way or the other. If you and others wish to believe that they were; that is your right. Others of us do not wish to believe in that fashion.

The one fact that can be proven is that the Hebrew Tanakh forms the foundation of three major religions that exist and influence the existence of many millions of people on planet earth. For this reason alone, the Hebrew Tanakh is an extremely powerful canon of ancient writings.

The foundation of the Hebrew Tanakh happens to be the Hebrew Eden Narrative, and to this day human beings do not absolutely agree upon what that ancient Hebrew Narrative is actually conveying. How the rest of the Hebrew Old Testament {as well as the New Testament} are construed depends upon the manner in which the Hebrew Eden Narrative is translated and interpreted. It is natural that the Orthodox Jewish and Christian communities insist that the Orthodox rendition of the Hebrew Eden Text is accurate, but that does not make that Traditional expositor rendition of the Hebrew Eden Text accurate, it only makes it “Traditional.”

Whether any of these ancient writing were directly inspired by a Supreme supernatural being or consciousness cannot be proven one way or the other. If you and others wish to believe that they were; that is your right. Others of us do not wish to believe in that fashion.

The Masoretic Hebrew Text is a copy of the oldest Hebrew Torah known to Man. The Septuagint Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah, Prophesies, and Scriptures is an Alexandrian-Greek translation of the oldest Hebrew Texts known to Man. The Masoretic Hebrew Text is a copy, whereas the Septuagint is a copy of a translation. There is a vast difference between the two.

Adam Clark's Commentary
Adam Clarke, an 18th Century Anglican Scholar, makes it clear that the work of the Masoretes is, in reality, a commentary which has been integrated into the body of Scripture. However, Clarke points out that the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text (Masoretic Hebrew) is quite different from the Hebrew of the Patriarchs, (Ancient Hebrew) in which Old Covenant Scripture was originally written.In the General Preface of his commentary on the Scripture, published in 1810, Clarke writes:"The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence. This school is supposed to have commenced about 450 years before our Lord, and to have extended down to AD1030. Some think it did not commence before the 5th century A.D."Even without adding to, deleting from, or changing a single letter of the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture, pointing gave the Masorete power to dramatically change the meaning of almost any given passage of Scripture, for the prerogative of selecting vowels, is, to a large extent, the prerogative of selecting words! As a crude example, consider how the meaning of an English sentence might be changed by substitution of the word "poor" for the word "pure" - a substitution which may be effected by a simple change of vowels.Clarke appears to be one of the few commentators who have seen fully the significance of the Masoretic Text - namely, that it is a new "version" of the Scripture, written in a new language. Obviously, Hebrew Scholars have been aware of this fact. They should have called attention to the difference between Ancient Hebrew and the language of the Masoretes, and should have differentiated the two, by use of names such as Ancient Hebrew and Masoretic Hebrew. However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.
L
ouis Cappel, Hebrew Scholar:
One of the first scholars to investigate the matter was Louis Cappel, a French Huguenot divine and scholar who lived from 1585 to 1658. Consider the following excerpt from the article, "CAPPEL, LOUIS," found in the 1948 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica."As a Hebrew scholar, he concluded that the vowel points and accents were not an original part of Hebrew, but were inserted by the Masorete Jews of Tiberias, not earlier then the 5th Century AD, and that the primitive Hebrew characters are Aramaic and were substituted for the more ancient at the time of the captivity. . . The various readings in the Old Testament Text and the differences between the ancient versions and the Masoretic Text convinced him that the integrity of the Hebrew text as held by Protestants, was untenable. This amounted to an attack upon the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Bitter, however, as was the opposition, it was not long before his results were accepted by scholars."Further study: On this Rock I Stand; The 'Lost' Books of the Old Testament and The Book of Esther. Changing LINKS masorete.htm--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Second Coming of Christ

Neither of these Hebrew source texts agree with the Alexandrian-Greek Septuagint translation. In the “Forward” of The Septuagint that I possess the author of that “Forward” explains the reason for that discrepancy. If you are interested I would be more than happy to share excerpts of that “Forward” with you.

You must remember, the Alexandrian-Greek dialect did not even exist until the late 4th and early 3rd centuries BC - after Alexander the Great conquered Persia and Egypt. It is a much younger linguistic dialect that the Aramaic-New Hebrew dialect that developed after the Jewish Exile in Babylon beginning in the late 6th century BC.

At no time listed above did the Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures become the “accepted Jewish version” of the Torah, Prophesies, and Scriptures. Although the copies of the Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures were present in the Holy Land during this time, the Alexandrian-Greek koine was not the spoken or literary dialect of the region. Western Aramaic was the spoken and literary medium from the Hasmonean era to the end of the Herodian period: Not New-Hebrew and not Alexandrian-Greek