Oxford Languages Definition for "Embryo":
an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development, in particular a human offspring during the period from approximately the second to the eighth week after fertilization (after which it is usually termed a fetus).
Some choose to render the Hebrew word golem in Psalm 139:16 as "unformed substance" or something to that effect, but Brown-Driver and Briggs (BDB) Hebrew-English Lexicon tells
us that golem is a word at times used for the "embryo."
Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon likewise says that golem refers to
something "rolled together" or "rude and unformed matter, not yet
wrought, the parts of which are not yet unfolded and developed." It then
states that the word is used "of the embryo." The word occurs one
time in the Hebrew Bible.
Nancy Declaisse-Walford prefers the translation "unshaped form" for the Hebrew word, which she points out is a hapax legomenon (Latin for a saying that happens once). She writes: "In Babylonian Aramaic, the word is used to designate a formless mass or an incomplete vessel. The Syriac word galmā means 'uncultivated soil.' "
Declaisse-Walford is critical of the translation, "embryo" because she thinks it is too precise and potentially misleading, probably in light of what the ancients knew about embryology. However, as we have seen, two
lexicons (BDB and Gesenius) give embryo as the term's potential sense, even if
that is not the strict meaning. Some translations opt for "before I was
born" language in Psalm 139:16 (NET Bible). Yet see the entry for golem in HALOT.
Having said the foregoing, I see nothing wrong with the NWT handling of the verse: it communicates what we would understand by "unformed substance" in the womb. As you all know, when it comes to babies, there are even finer distinctions we could make, like talk about the blastocyst. But none of these tangential matters were likely David's inspired concern.
https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/139-15.htm
ReplyDelete"In the lowest parts of erertz"?
Doesn't sound anatomically correct to me.
Need I say this is poetry, not a scientific treatise? Is his concern to be anatomically correct? No, it's poetry which obeys different rules. Moreover, the ancients worked within the "scientific" framework that they knew.
ReplyDeleteThe NKJV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: Bringing to Life the Ancient World says "lowest parts of the earth" in Ps. 139:15 "is poetic language for the unseen realm of the womb, which is like the hidden recesses of the earth"
ReplyDeleteNET Bible: "The phrase depths of the earth may be metaphorical (euphemistic) or it may reflect a prescientific belief about the origins of the embryo deep beneath the earth’s surface (see H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 96-97). Job 1:21 also closely associates the mother’s womb with the earth."
ReplyDeletehttps://biblehub.com/text/job/1-21.htm
ReplyDeleteHow does that work? Can't see it yet.
If anything, the rest of the info here argues for "let us make man" in the way I understand it. But Psalm 63:9 also needs to be looked at.
ReplyDeleteI think the point of Job 1:21 is Job professes that he came from his mother's womb, but he will also return "there." How is it possible to re-enter the womb? Is womb being employed metaphorically here?
ReplyDeleteI will never be convinced that God was speaking to the earth or that he would say to the earth, "let us make man in our image"? Where is the ground ever said to be made in God's image? How does that view harmonize with other places where Jehovah said, "let us"? There is also the issue that all of this grammatically plural language could refer to YHWH alone per Speiser's analysis.
ReplyDeleteThe only earthly thing said to be made in God's image is humankind, not the ground. But we've been through this issue before.
ReplyDeleteSee page 172 of Lyle Eslinger's article, "The Enigmatic Plurals like 'One of Us' (Genesis I 26, III 22, AND XI 7) in Hyperchronic Perspective." He considers the "Earth" view of Gen. 1:26 to be a failure.
That's why they had "mother earth", the oldest recorded religion.
ReplyDeleteModern western perspectives of the apar are far removed from those cultures.
https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/neolithic-remains-help-sniff-out-earliest-human-use-dung
"Dungy Idols"?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/556529
What does the Tanakh and NT both say about venerating creation, which would include mother earth?
ReplyDeleteSee avodei ha kochavim.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that later Judaism uses this definition and yet it is claimed that angels are likened to stars.
https://www.academia.edu/2021501/_My_Beloved_Son_Come_and_Rest_in_Me_Job_s_Return_to_His_Mother_s_Womb_Job_1_21a_in_Light_of_Egyptian_Mythology_
ReplyDeleteJewish Virtual Library: Perhaps the divine cherubim described by Ezekiel (10:12) are also to be regarded as "guardians" in the sense that the term is used in apocalyptic literature. According to the Book of Jubilees, they descended from Heaven at the time of Jared (cf. Gen. 5:15–20) to teach mankind the practice of law and justice (4:15 ff.); they were seduced by the daughters of men and thus the fallen angels came into being. As a result, the guardian angels are sometimes identified with the fallen angels (see I En. 10:9; 12:4; 13:10; 14:1 ff.; and passim); other sources, however, make a clear distinction between the two (Slavic Book of II Enoch 7:8; 35:2). Apart from these angels, who were thought to resemble man, the stars were also assumed to be living entities and regarded as angels (Isa. 34:4; 40:26; 45:12; Jer. 33:22; Ps. 33:6; I En. 18:13 ff.; 21:3 ff.). However, the more widely accepted version was that certain angels rule the stars (Jub. 19).
ReplyDeleteOn the point about Job, no one is sure what serves as a backdrop for his words, but he apparently is not talking about entering into his birth mother's womb. Even Nicodemus later questioned that notion.
Gabriel the archangel: https://blog.nli.org.il/en/gabriel/
ReplyDeletehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/258540098_Crocodiles_Guardians_of_the_Gateways_in_Thebes_and_Beyond
ReplyDeleteTwice in Job, the eyes of Leviathan are compared to the eyelids of the dawn or the morning. (Job 3:8-9 and 41:18).
Nicodemus is irrelevant, as you already know. Is his language poetic in any way or have any relevance to the time of Job?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point of the speculations in the Gabriel piece?
The book of Enoch is also irrelevant, IMO, you are just muddying the waters by posting these.
ReplyDeleteI think this to and fro on angels is unproductive because you do not see the accounts for what they actually are.
ReplyDeleteActs 1:10-11 - so when is this going to happen, and they were telling those at the time would see it?
I just cited Nicodemus as a sidebar, but I believe Job knew a person could not go back into his/her birth mother's womb. I assume you know they knew that too.
ReplyDeleteI'm not espousing everything in the Gabriel pice but posted the entry because it dealt with the subject at hand.
I granted Nicodemus but don't see how Enoch is irrelevant. Scholars cite that book all the time in angelological discussions. As a reminder, I was posting those things to show what some ancient Jews apparently believed about angels, namely, that they could be connected or identified with the stars. See Rev. 12 where Satan cast a third of the stars to earth. There is surely meaning behind the imagery and literal stars seem out of the question in that account.
I don't see the accounts for what they are? Quite frankly, Duncan, if I were drinking coffee, I would have spilled it when reading your words. Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong, but have you ever thought that I might feel you're misreading the accounts and have a strong antipathy towards seeing angels as spirit creatures?
Can you tell me the relevance of Acts 1:10-11 to this discussion? And where does it say that those at the time would see his return?
Duncan, I'm happy to move on from the angels back and forth, but I do plan to post an entry on Jehovah and the angels. Please feel free to ignore it :-)
ReplyDeleteOkay, gotta have some levity here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI am sure you have read this before, but - https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/1-enoch-an-update-on-manuscripts-and-cautionary-notes-on-usage/
ReplyDelete1Corinthians ch.4:9 NASB"For I think, God has exhibited us, the apostles, last of all as men condemned to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to mankind. "
DeleteHebrews ch.2:14-16 NASB"Therefore, since the children share in [m]flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16For clearly He does not [n]give help to angels, but He gives help to the [o]descendants of Abraham."
The Bible repeatedly distinguishes between angels and men ,angels are spirit(generally speaking)men are flesh( generally speaking) ,are their exceptions to this rule? Of course there are,but don,t make yourself like the man who quarrels with the dictionary's defining a dog as a quadruped because he may have seen a three legged dog or two on the internet.
Please ignore my other comment it was published by mistake.
All the worst kinds of pre understandings, circular reasonings and appeal to authority at play here.
ReplyDeleteAnd, you are still not listening to what I am saying.
There are plenty of places in scripture that a spirit/angel is at work but there are places where myths (as per the DSS) are used as illustrations & embellishment.
Revelation again is irrelevant, unless you believe it was written before Matthew and also that the imagery is more than just contemporary to it period and politics.
It also seems ridiculous to me that miraculous proofs that exist in Matthew do not occurs in the other gospels. I read the accounts in parallel where possible and I understand why vermes wrote his book on the authentic gospel, even though his conclusions might be wrong. Just like the "seven generations" at the beginning of Luke, we do not know what he was trying to convince here. They are using stories and story telling methods to get there ideas across for a time and place and I have no problem with it. Thats the way it was done at that time, but when it is forced into literalism today, that is another matter. Incidentally, where in scripture does it say that we cannot and will not see Angels today? How about which scripture actually tells us that miracles won't be seen today?
They are not seen today because the real ones were always rare.
However I am not going to stress about it, I just keep doing my research. Don't spill your coffee on my account 😀
Okay, Struckenbruck and Hurtado urged cation regarding Ethiopic Enoch. Fine, that that doesn't mean it can't be used at all, which I assume you caught that point. As a matter of fact, Enoch is quoted extensively or cited in the scholarly literature for the Second Temple period. Even if there are questions about the text, that does not mean we can't gleam something from Enoch that pertains to usage or lexical semantics, etc.
ReplyDeleteDuncan, I think much of our disagreement is over method and authority, but I get the feeling that you think your method is better/preferable to mine. Well, excuse me for having a different take on the matter :-)
ReplyDeleteIn truth, this is not about you or me, but there are bigger concerns at play. However, allow me to spell out some differences in our worldviews/methods. Firstly, I don't privilege the DSS over the MT. Granted, I think there are times when the DSS/LXX got it right but MT is wrong, yet the DSS are not authoritative for me in the way that they seem to be for you. I take the DSS on a case-by-case basis. And if you're saying that the GNT or MT talk about angels is largely mythical, mark that up as another difference in our worldviews/methods.
The Gospels have to be more than stories or instantiations of storytelling. Maybe you need a little cleansing out from reading too much Ehrman. May I suggest some Richard Bauckham instead? And why should we expect miracle stories to b repeated across the Gospels? I personally expect each Gospel to have its own unique facets.
Let me ask you, when was the last time you saw an angel or someone raised from the dead? How about someone miraculously being healed of gout, cancer, paralysis, Lou Gehrig's disease and a host of other maladies? Please give me the phone number of the healer, so we can put all these doctors and hospitals out of business.
You said: "Revelation again is irrelevant, unless you believe it was written before Matthew and also that the imagery is more than just contemporary to it period and politics."
Another difference in our views--I don't see Revelation as irrelevant at all to this discussion and most NT scholars don't either, from what I read on a regular basis. I understand that Gospels and epistles have their unique features and dating might play some part in the discussion, but angels being portrayed as stars is something that predates Revelation and the GNT. But we've been through that before. Hence, why I don't think Revelation is not relevant but it's a continuation of what came before it. I believe Revelation is highly intertextual, so it's packed with prior texts from the Tanakh and bears similar meanings that we find in Hebrew texts.
And I do believe that the imagery is more than just tied to its period or to the politics of the day. There are tons of book on the subject, which I can recommend if you like. But why should I believe that John was only focused on contemporary politics or his time period? One can't get that view from Revelation itself.
On my way to fix a cup of coffee and hope it doesn't spill :-))
Might also go outside afterwards to do yard work since we have such a beautiful day here.
BTW, I don't believe that my way is the best way or only way, and I'm willing to adjust my views/ways of doing things if anyone can convince me of a better way. I'm just suspicious of claims that the Bible/parts of the Bible can be reduced to X, Y, or Z.
ReplyDeleteEdgar, I have said it before And I will again, Facts tend not to convince the vast majority as the world in general demonstrates.
ReplyDeleteI only post talks from Ehrman if I agree with him, and actually, most of the time I do not.
Let me demonstrate my point using the Angel destroying 185000 in one night -
2 Kings 19:35, 2 Chronicles 32:21-22, Isaiah 37:36.
No "man" only Angel and the evidence in quite solid because archaeology even records the losses. What form the Angel took, it does not say, but never a man.
But for Genesis 18 (this is where the modern practice of chapters can catch out) -
Just read chapter 17 this whole time Abraham is at the trees of Mamre (Genesis 13:18) and talking with Elohim. He as already said that Abraham will be fruitful. He tells Abraham that Sarah will have a son. And finally we go into 18 after seeing Yehovah in this place, the one he had already been talking too, then he looks up and sees 3 "men" - Lords, why not those have already offered him the hospitality of staying their.
https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/28983/thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
See page 52.
Look at this language too - https://biblehub.com/text/judges/13-6.htm
Does it tell us that this woman had seen a Angel before? She says, a "man" that looks LIKE an "Angel". Shouldn't that have been an Angel that looks like a man?
Genesis ch.17:1ASV"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, JEHOVAH appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect."
DeleteGenesis ch.17:23 ASV"And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. "
Genesis ch.18:1 ASV"And JEHOVAH appeared unto him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; "
Thus Genesis ch.18 is clearly dealing with a separate appearance from the one at Genesis ch.17 .
But here is the thing ,you are asking the wrong questions Duncan.
Exodus ch.33:20 ASV"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for man shall not see me and live."
Why was Abraham not obliterated by any of these appearances JEHOVAH? Obviously because the phenomenon that Abraham saw with is physical eyes was merely a representation of the invisible reality. So the word "men" is a metaphor in these passages or any other that speaks JEHOVAH or his angel APPEARING to any servant of his.
Ezekiel ch.40:3"He took me there, and I saw a MAN whose appearance was like bronze; he was standing in the gateway with a linen cord and a measuring rod in his hand."
Daniel ch.10:5"I looked up and there before me was a MAN dressed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. 6His body was like topaz, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude."
So even though these aforementioned manifestations were humanoid they clearly represented superhuman servants of JEHOVAH
If angel was merely understood to mean a human servant of JEHOVAH would it not be trite to say that any man of God looks like a man of God, what else would a man of God look like?
So all I am asking for is corroboration of some sort in the Bible for particular accounts where a "man" or "prince" is supposed to be an Angel, you may find some, but not many. Using the same name like Michael does not count in my book, why should it when we have others are also call Michael. As for Gabriel - I am sure you know the translation as apposed to the transliteration.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/uncovered/uncovered01.htm#5.%20The%20Words%20Of%20Michael
Duncan, my time is limited today, and I've got lots on my plate including grading a quiz and prepping for lectures tomorrow. You and Servant were having the Gen. 18 conversation, so I will let him reply to that part but I get what you're saying there. About Judges 13:6, I'm not sure the language requires us to believe that the woman had seen an angel before. According to the ESV, "A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome."
ReplyDeleteSo, not just a man, but "A man of God" and his countenance/appearance is akin to "the angel of God."
While Manoah's wife dwelled on the fact that the man of God looked like the angel of God, that does not obviate the inference that the angel appeared in human form. Both statements could be simultaneously true without contradiction.
1) I think her language is phenomenological: she is describing what appeared to her line of sight. Therefore, she dwells on the appearance of the "man of God" rather than the (possible) materialization of a spirit being.
2) A person doesn't have to see angels to say that some "man" looks like an angel. Compare Acts 6:15. I'm not making a tight connection between Judges and Acts but merely using Acts for illustrative purposes. I highly doubt that the council in Acts had seen angels in toto, yet Stephen reportedly had the look of an angel.
3) Judges qualifies what it means by the man of God having the face of God's angel. He had an "awesome" face.
4) Tell me how a man who's not a spirit ascends into a fire?
I'll briefly say, Duncan, that you know we have only two names in the Bible used for angels, Michael and Gabriel. No other angelic names are revealed in canonical scripture. We talked about Gabriel the other day and the first chapter of Luke. As for Michael, the NT explicitly calls him "archangel" and speaks about Michael and his angels battling the dragon and his/its angels. Hence, is there any doubt that Michael and Gabriel are depicted as angels in canonical writings? But as history shows us, as Hannah has so well documented and Hurtado, non-canonical writings portray Michael as an archangel too. See also the book by Saul Olyan about the naming of angels: that might be helpful.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you can explain why I should not have this view of Michael and Gabriel.
The name, Michael (he is called a prince) as used in Daniel is debatable in terms of him being an angel, but I think reading Dan. 12:1 without thinking of Michael as a spirit lessens the force of the verse. Besides, taking historical factors into account, I think the evidence tips in favor of Michael being a spirit creature. The context is important here along with other terms that describe Michael or Gabriel.
The link you appended, which is helpful also identifies Gabriel and Michael as angels. But I get your point as well about translation.
Saul Olyan-https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/uploads/tx_sgpublisher/produkte/leseproben/9783161587788.pdf
ReplyDeleteThis book is still way too expensive. I used it back in Glasgow and liked the work, but can't afford it now.
https://www.academia.edu/48859402/_Fighting_with_Angels_On_How_to_Build_Up_a_Celestial_Army_
ReplyDeleteJust remember that Moses also had an awesome appearance.
ReplyDeleteServant, the reason Abraham did not see Yehovah, is that he just did not see him as he was already talking to him through chapter 17. All I can do is direct you back to the description of Moses when he came down the mountain as an elohim.
ReplyDeleteThis we hole idea of not seeing god's face is perhaps not what you think it is, as apparently it is ok to see his back.
For Judges the Hebrew can be translated "man with god".
ReplyDeletehttps://biblehub.com/hebrew/haelohim_430.htm
We also have the people of god-
https://biblehub.com/text/judges/20-2.htm
Another man of god - https://biblehub.com/text/1_samuel/9-8.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/2_samuel/19-27.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/1_kings/12-22.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/1_kings/20-28.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/2_kings/5-8.htm
Should I continue?
Duncan, "a man with God came"? Hmmmm . . .
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget 1 Kings 17:18 (Elijah); 2 Kings 1:9-13 (Elijah), 2 Kings 4:9, 16, 22, 25 (Elisha). See also 1 Kings 13:1ff.
I obviously don't believe all men of God are angels but something about the "man" in Judges was different. Not just his appearance but what he did when leaving and the fear he struck in Manoah afterwards.
Granted, Moses glowed and caused a reaction in the Israelites, but where does anyone say about Moses, he looked like an angel? Where in the Bible do we read any such thing?
ReplyDeleteBenson Commentary states that Manoah's wife had never seen an angel but there was a prevailing opinion at the time about how angels looked.
ReplyDeleteFrom K-D: The woman told her husband of this appearance: "A man of God," she said (lit., the man of God, viz., the one just referred to), "came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very terrible; and I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name," etc. "Man of God" was the expression used to denote a prophet, or a man who stood in immediate intercourse with God, such as Moses and others (see at Deuteronomy 33:1). "Angel of God" is equivalent to "angel of the Lord" (Judges 2:1; Judges 6:11), the angel in whom the invisible God reveals himself to men. The woman therefore imagined the person who appeared to her to have been a prophet, whose majestic appearance, however, had produced the impression that he was a superior being; consequently she had not ventured to ask him either his name or where he came from.
Do you know how emissaries dressed in those days? Just like the white linen and gold in Daniel, do you know the garb of magi?
ReplyDeleteI assume you mean how certain emissaries dressed since we can't assume all dressed a certain way. But I think I get your point although that hardly means Daniel is not talking about angels/spirits when he mentions persons dressed that way. We would expect a writer to make familiar references even when discussing spirits or God. See Revelation where angels are dressed in linen, which has priestly significance as well. The book of Revelation contains an abundance of material from Daniel as G.K. Beale documents.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi#/media/File%3AGold_statuettes_from_the_Oxus_Treasure_by_Nickmard_Khoey.jpg
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi#/media/File%3AChopped_gold_pieces_from_the_Oxus_Treasure_by_Nickmard_Khoey213.jpg
ReplyDeleteOk Duncan. Here's my question as always. How does this information impinge on the Bible text? What am I supposed to take from the links you posted? I'm sure don't believe that faithful servants of God were to be grouped with the magi. So, what's the takeaway in your estimation?
ReplyDeleteThe emissary of YHWH: https://www.academia.edu/12054979/The_identity_of_the_emissary_of_YHWH
ReplyDeleteAn emissary appearing in a bush (burning? - if that is what the Hebrew is driving at) and many other instances are seeing the effects of something. The speaking is another matter - is it in words, not sure, could they be recorded as words. Such as https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2024%3A16-17&version=NIV
ReplyDeleteBut then we get to Daniel and get all this description of garb. Same with Ezekiel.
https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=Daniel+10%3A5
White linen was associated with Babylonian priests.
I don't know what it means. All I know is when it starts.
Levitical priests also wore white linen. That doesn't mean they borrowed the idea from Babylonian priests or some other culture. It's hard to infer that one thing is dependent upon another.
ReplyDeleteFor biblical references to line or white linen, see https://www.openbible.info/topics/fine_white_linen
That should be "linen," not line.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Linen
ReplyDeleteSe 1 Chronicles 4:21, referenced in the article above.
Did the Levitical priests have golden belts?
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_sash
I find it odd that Daniel describes where the gold is from for a visionary man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uphaz
In fact it sound more like a description of a statue than a man.
https://www.afashionblog.com/why-is-indian-gold-so-yellow/
ReplyDeleteDuncan, for starters, see pages 202-203 of the Daniel's Prophecy book. Also, compare Leviticus 8:7, 13; Revelation 15:6.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Daniel is describing a statue when one takes the whole description into consideration. As you say, it's a vision, but why mention Uphaz? I will see what the scholars think but IMO, it makes sense to state names/places with which people are familiar. This happens a lot in the Bible.
Daniel refers to a "man" plus Dan. 10:7 (ESV) reads: "His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude."
ReplyDeleteDoesn't sound like a statue to me.
Compare Rev. 1:15: "his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters."
Said of the Risen Christ.
From bible.org:
ReplyDeleteThe description of Daniel attributes to the man in the vision a glorious appearance. The linen was probably the fine white linen which characterized garments of the priests (cf. Ex 28:39-43). In other instances, linen forms the clothing of heavenly visitors (cf. Eze 9:2-3, 11; 10:2, 6-7). The angels at the tomb of Christ are described as having long white garments of brilliant character without specifying that they are linen (Mk 16:5; Lk 24:4; Jn 20:12; cf. Ac 1:10). The girdle was probably also linen embroidered with fine gold. The reference to the “fine gold of Uphaz,” has only one other similar reference in the Bible (Jer 10:9), and it is not clear whether Uphaz is geographic or poetic. No clear identification has ever been made, although some have equated Uphaz with Ophir (Is 13:12) on the basis that this word is substituted for Uphaz in a Syriac version of Jeremiah 10:9.558 It is sufficient to consider the girdle as being embroidered with fine gold of unusual quality.
Uphaz might possibly be the same place as Ophir. Baldwin remarks: “The location of Ophir is uncertain, but the region of Somaliland extending to S. Arabia is most likely” (Daniel, 180). A slight emendation of the text (אוּפָז to וּפַז) would yield the meaning of the phrase “with pure [refined] gold.” Hartman and many other scholars accept this reading (Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 255; also Montgomery, Daniel, 408).
ReplyDeleteMiller, Stephen B.. Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture: 18 (The New American Commentary) (Kindle Locations 8754-8758). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
NWTs rendering of psalms 119:60 is also quite odd..
ReplyDelete"essense" for arkhe?
The belt was gold, not like gold.
ReplyDelete"In other instances, linen forms the clothing of heavenly visitors (cf. Eze 9:2-3, 11; 10:2, 6-7)."
As I already pointed out, nothing older.
Was the one like a son of man the same one as the initial description?
The wording regarding the voice also seems independent.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44398525?read-now=1&seq=13#page_scan_tab_contents
ReplyDeleteDuncan, did I say the belt waa like gold? Sorry if I did.
ReplyDeleteMy whole point about citing references to linen was to show it was cross cultural and for the Israelites, it would remind them of the Levitical priests. Besides, it should not surprise us that one nation or more would use materials from another nation. Some scriptures were copied on papyrus, but others on goatskin. So what?
I don't believe the image in Daniel is necessarily meant to evoke a Babylonian priest. In any event, that would be hard to prove.
Not sure what you mean by your son of man question.
Duncan, in harmony with the link you posted, the ancient Torah is reknowned for its aniconism. That was supposed to distinguish them from other iconic cultures.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, do you mean Psalm 119:160?
ReplyDeleteNET Bible: Your instructions are totally reliable;
all your just regulations endure.[a]
Footnote: tn Heb “the head of your word is truth, and forever [is] all your just regulation.” The term “head” is used here of the “sum total” of God’s instructions.
Psalm 119:160 ESV-The sum of your word is truth,
ReplyDeleteand every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
sorry, yes, My error
ReplyDeleteNWTs footnote on that scripture is weird as neither the Hebrew word nor the LXX equivalent have that meaning..
however Im probably being an idoit as NWT is generally pretty good
Not a big issue with me: to err is human, and that includes me.
ReplyDeleteThe Hebrew translated "essence" is rosh. BDB, number 7 meaning for rosh has Ps. 119:160. It says "sum" for that verse and some others. Or in full, the totality.
Berean Study Bible: Your word is the essence of truth, and all Your righteous judgments endure.
LSJ has "sum, total" for ἀρχὴ. See Numbers 1:2 LXX.
That's my reconstruction but you'd have to ask HQ to know for sure.
Psalm 119:160 NLT-The very essence of your words is truth; all your just regulations will stand forever.
JPS 1985: Truth is the essence of Your word; Your just rules are eternal.
I notice this weeks Watchtower happens to be on the psalms verse I quoted and on bible preservation (Which we have spoken about regarding the divine name)
ReplyDeleteSide point, can anyone recommend a good translation of the Book of Enoch? Thanks
ReplyDeleteI've got this translation: https://www.amazon.com/Enoch-Hermeneia-Translation-George-Nickelsburg/dp/0800699106
ReplyDeleteLoren Stuckenbruck has done good work on 1 Enoch, but his stuff is very expensive, for the most part.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linen
ReplyDelete