Posted on 06/25/2007 4:12:23 PM PDT by wagglebee
Never mind. I read the rest of the thread.
"I fear we are heading to one heck of a crash. God have mercy."
Not until we have fulfilled The Mission!
I think THE MISSION
of Believers within the USA is going to be . . . sieved out of . . .
wellll, the tares and wheat have different destinies and . . . different routes to their destinies, at least a lot of the time.
But not all the time. Believers will suffer with the ungodly in many situations. In many others, God’s supernatural protection will prepare a banquet in the presence of their helpless, starving enemies.
Now that trucks from Mexico are permitted to cross the border with little or no inspections, it’s just a matter of time.
Can anyone confirm this? Very interesting.
BTW, according to the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism -
The similarity is intriguing, at least.
Is "im" a suffix? If so, what does it mean?
Something isn't right with that guy. I can't put my finger on it. But his method is very hypnotic ("Now do you see?" repeated frequently). He began his career as a hypnotist.
He also seems to me like a cult leader. He breaks people down ("can't you see that everything you've done in life is a failure, and that it had to be this way?") before building them up with ("good, good, now you are understanding"), but what exactly the subject is understanding is not clear. He talks, and talks, ...and talks, in a strange monotone. You find yourself nodding, but you can't remember what he just said.
I read that the phrase is "sons of God," an ambiguous phrase that could either refer to angels or the descendants of Seth. The latter was Augustine's view.
Very interesting. Thanks. Placed into the Scriptures, it reads:
Genesis 6This is intelligible. In fact, it's the most coherent interpretation of this passage that I've read, except for "They were the heroes of old, men of renown."When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God [descendents of Seth?] saw that the daughters of men [the godless] were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with a man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
The Nephilim [miscarriages] were on the earth in those days —and also afterward— when the sons of God [descendents of Seth] went to the daughters of men [godless] and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become...
But this passage in Numbers doesn't make sense.
Numbers 13:32-33They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim [miscarried] there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim [miscarried]). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."
My first reaction on seeing this was to think that Rabbi Lapin (much as I admire him) was letting contemporary politics get in the way of traditional interpretation, and to fear that he was giving the impression that Jewish Tradition doesn't believe in actual, literal giants (it does). But then I got my Bible down to look at the verse (Genesis 6:4):
HaNefilim hayu va'aretz bayamim hahem vegam acharei-khen 'asher yavo'u Benei-Ha'Eloqim 'el-benot Ha'Adam veyaledu lahem; hemmah hagibborim 'asher me`olam, 'anshei hashem.
"The Nefilim [giants/aborted fetuses?] were in the earth in those days and also after this when the Sons of G-d [or "sons of the mighty"] would come unto the daughters of man and they bore to them; these were the gibborim [mighty men/heroes] which were of old, men of renown."
So it appears that by simply reading this verse without commentary (peshat) that first there were nefilim (abortions?) and after this there were gibborim, so it could be that nefilim refers here to aborted fetuses and gibborim to giants, since the verse says the "Sons of G-d" came unto the daughters of men "after this" (after the nefilim). However, nefilim ("fallen ones") is definitely also used as a word for "giants" (of whom `Og Melekh HaBashan was the last).
This is very complex, but it must be understood that Fundamentalism (ie, the belief in the facticity of religious truth and therefore the literal truth of the Torah) does not mean that "scripture hath only one sense and that is the plain sense." Those are two different concepts. There are many levels of Truth in the Torah (which in no way denies the facticity of the events and persons in the narrative). However, there are a multitude of interpretations that have been handed down since Sinai and sometimes seeming "disagreements" or multiple interpretations. For example, "Benei Ha'Eloqim could refer to the two angels who came to earth in those days or to the sons of the "mighty" who "took" the daughters of the "weak" for themselves with no one else having any say in the matter. There are also Qabbalistic teachings about demons (created in the twighlight before the first Shabbat) who "cohabited" with Adam and Eve during the 130 years they were apart, causing them to bring even more such beings into existence. There is undoubtedly layer upon layer of truth here, but it is just that--truth--and not mythology.
RaSH"I mentions "sons of the princes" before "princely angels" in his commentary and doesn't mention whether either is peshat or derash (he merely says "but some say" before the latter). Interestingly, on Genesis 6:2, when it says the Benei-Ha'Eloqim saw the Benot Ha'Adam that they were "good" [fair] and "they took themselves wives from all whom they chose" RaSH"I says that this means they even took married women and animals (and this is two verses before the verses about the nefilim, which means that such unions could have led to stillborn "monsters;" though the end result of all this is still a race of gibborim).
You know, that does sound like exactly where we are headed!
I hope this helps.
It is really interesting to read them (the ECF’s) and see that most of what we fight about was being fought about then.
Thanks! ;-)
It's the masculine plural suffix for nouns and adjectives. The feminine plural is -ot.
Of course, there are plenty of irregular nouns in which the masculine uses the feminine form and vice versa.
I would suggest to you that a romp around Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the King James Bible might help.
You can dissect all of the words and their translated meanings from the Greek and even from the Hebrew.
As an example, go check out the words “afar off” just for kicks.
You might pick up on the definition that “afar off” can refer to (in certain instances) different times!
It is a bit of an exercise that requires some acquired appreciation I think.
Whatever, it certainly might make for more interesting posts by you than what I am responding to here.
(Not neccesarily in that order.)
"Phobos" indeed refers to "Fear".
That was always what I understood as well.
Okay, you let us know you aren't afraid of them (phobic means fear), but are you Homocontemptus? Homodisgusted? I certainly am.
It will come down because God has abandoned us for a time. He can’t put up with our collective sin: abortion, homosexuality, perversions of every imaginable kind. He, who has given American so much, has become disgusted with our sin. We are in for a rough ride folks. Our nation needs to repent and soon. Will it? I’m not so sure it will until enough attacks, floods, earthquakes, shortages of every kind, economic crises bring us to our senses.
I’m on that list too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.