Hast Thou ENTERED INTO the treasures of the snow?

Psalm 135:& whilst wonderful scripture it is no comparison to"Hast thou ENTERED INTO the treasures of the snow? You are ignoring ENTERED INTO, may I bring that to your attention please and thank you? Can you address these particular two words please, these two words that require no interpretation or enoch's willing assistance, go away enoch, didnt you freaken vanish? Or other versions or scriptures from other books, or other languages. Please in the name of peace love and tranquility to all creatures including inanimate objects, to all stay on topic?Kind regardsJAF PTL

So ... what are you saying? The "plain surface reading" of "entered into" ( הֲבָאתָ ) is "observed"? And the "plain surface reading" of "treasury" ( אֹצְרוֹת ) is "pattern"?And what do you understand by the words "plain" and "surface"? Only there again you seem to have your own idiosyncratic definition. No. Especially not about the mescalin, that may be where you're going wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Certainly. They mean "entered into". They do not mean "observed". This is appropriate to the context, since one may indeed enter into a storehouse ( אֹצְרוֹת ). They do not imply that the author of Job knew anything about the microscopic structure of snow, because of not saying anything remotely like that.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Where is the reference to 'small' or 'microscopic'? Where is the reference to crystals? Or invisible patterns? What does this have to do with preparations for war? What scientific insights can we find in the discussion on lightning in the same passage? It was my way of asking you if you were explicitly saying that the plain reading of a rhetorical question about entering into treasures of snow is that snow has a microscopic beauty that can be treasured.Now that it's laid out explicitly, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. As far as I can tell, the plain text reading is that there are treasures of snow set aside by YHWH for certain eventualities.Maybe you are right, and I'm 'slow on the uptake'. So talk me through how your reading is the 'plain' reading. Yes, Enoch. A book written by a group more culturally connected to the authors of Job than you or I. I think that makes it a useful resource.And yes, canon. You know... That canon. Are you suggesting that referring to other canonical books of the 66 or however many one believes there are (and Enoch is canon to some) such as Psalms or the rest of passage in Job is somehow off limits for attempting to understand this single verse you seem to like?

nope. i believe i said as much here, and earlier in the thread. the idea that "treasures" means "treasuries" is contextual (the word is used both ways in hebrew) based on the verb. uh... no. the KJV isn't even close to the best translation in english. did you know that the KJV tends to translate the qere ("spoken") instead of the kethiv ("written")? that is, in places where various jewish scribes thought the original hebrew text was in error and wrote their own interpretations in the margins, the KJV translates their suggested readings instead of what's in the source text.but i would be interested in discussing this argument, if you'd like to start another thread. i really want to know what translations you're reading that are so obviously "down write [sic] satanic", and why you think that. trust me when i say that you cannot begin to approach a text written in a foreign language through the use of root-usage concordances. the language matters; it is far to easy to get lunacy like time traveling CD-ROMs if you're just looking at the concordance and selecting meanings that fit what you want. i wish that thread was a joke. i dunno.you're reporting what someone told you about an english translation in church. i'm talking about what's actually on the page. why do you think faith makes you qualified to discuss an academic subject like translation, or exegesis, or theology? going to church and actually studying the bible are two very different things.it's sort of like thinking that because you're pretty good at call of duty, that you're more qualified to comment on the state of our various wars in the middle east than a combat veteran who says that war is hell and we should avoid it. do you see the problem here? your point is arrogance, in the extreme. the people who are familiar with the language and contents of the bible in an academic setting, regardless of their belief or disbelief, are far more qualified to comment on its contents than your average bible-believing church-goer.Edited by arachnophilia, : reddit's got me using the wrong quote codes.

modulus was establishing a linguistic context for the idiom. it doesn't actually actually matter if all the sources are canon or not; it's just evidence for how the phrase was used.and it's not reversing what the bible says. at all. in fact, it's clear to see how they all use the idiom in the same manner.as for what you're reading, i don't know. because even in english, even in your preferred KJV, it doesn't seem to say what you think it says.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

Observed goes without saying as it clearly does mean that.

Still, it's unacceptable and off topic nevertheless.It says what it says and it means what it means. Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.

My dear whats your name again? Yes that is precisely what I am saying, did I not clearly convey this position in my OP? Phew, are you a little slow on the uptake or is this your way of being petulant and pedantic within forum guidelines? I'm just seeking the truth.

Mr Speaker this man is inciting and flaming....To enter into the treasuries of the show clearly means "observing the unseen microscopic wonders of the snow unseen until microscopes because clearly for Job to do so with out being the all seeing God, he would have to be microscopically small and or possess a microscope and God clearly knew Job did not possess a microscope. I suppose you could say God bragging about the wonders of the snow to Job wouldn't mean diddley to Job, but to us it has immense importance 5000 years later. Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.Edited by Jaf, : spelling

You are not seeking the truth. You are seeking validation.Learn the difference.

The microscopic beauty is the treasure. If snow wasn't so microscopically beautiful you guys would have an argument but laugh out loud, it is.

Sincerely my friend I need no validation save the very words God breathed, they will never pass away, you can huff and you can puff etc.

... except when the Bible uses the same word for hail. And the wind. And the sea. The boot is on the other foot. What has happened is that because you happen to know that snow looks pretty under a microscope, you've decided that in this particular half-sentence (but not in the other half of the same sentence, or anywhere else in the Bible, or anywhere else in the entire corpus of Hebrew literature) the word אֹצְרוֹת should mean "microscopic beauty".This is entirely ad hoc. You don't point to the other half of the sentence and say: "Look, the Bible is wrong, it says that hail has microscopic beauty!" do you? No, it means "microscopic beauty" when you want it to and doesn't when you don't.Except that, y'know, you do not have powers to change the meaning of Hebrew words. The Bible says what it says.

Then mocking you further seems unnecessary. It was just very hard to believe that anyone, even a creationist, could say something so absurd.So, just to make it quite clear to everyone else reading this thread. According to Jaf:* The plain surface reading of "entered into" is "observed", and not "entered into".
* The plain surface reading of "treasury" is "pattern", and not "treasury".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.