|
Shᵊm•otꞋ 33.12-16 – Mapping the same Hebrew word to the English semi-synonyms "know" and "show" has caused a loss of information in the translation of Scripture to English. Alternating between the English "know" and "show," conceals the emphasis that the original language places on the verb éÈãÇò.
There is a significant difference between "show" and "make known." You can show a horse water but you can't make known to it why it should drink. To blur these concepts is to lose some of the meaning of Tor•âhꞋ.
Pâ•suqꞋ 12a – "You ìÉà äåÉãÇòÀúÌÇðÄé (whom you would send with me).
Pâ•suqꞋ 12b – …éÀãÇòÀúÄêÈ áÀùÑÅí
Pâ•suqꞋ 13a – äåÉãÄòÅðÄé ðÈà àÆú--ãÌÀøÈëÆêÈ. This phrase is bound together as a single clause by the cantillation. The other words in this phrase have been discussed in previous pâ•râsh•otꞋ.
Pâ•suqꞋ 13b – åÇàÅãÈòÂêÈ.
Pâ•suqꞋ 16 – And how éÄåÌÈãÇò.
The Hebrew idiom "eyes find favor in" simply means "to like" in English. Then it becomes easier to see that Mōsh•ëhꞋ wants to get some things straight, for him and é--ä to agree together about knowing, with certainty, a few basics so that Mosh•ëhꞋ can know how to work together with Him smoothly, and not at cross-purposes.
Mosh•ëhꞋ speaks to é--ä (33.12): "øÀàÅä!, You told me, 'Bring this am up,' but You didn't make known to me whom You would send with me. Then You said, 'I know you by name,' and that You liked me. Please, if You like me, let me know Your Way so that I can know You and continue to be liked by You. Then øÀàÅä! – because Your am, is this goy."
While this may seem an impertinent and impudent way to speak to the Creator, we must recall the whole tradition of Ya•a•qovꞋ Âv•iꞋnu wrestling with the mal•âkhꞋ é--ä, the origin of the name Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ.
Any working relationship requires mutual, and clear, understanding; how much more so between é--ä and a vastly inferior human. (Fools rush in where angels fear to tread… and the world is overflowing with fools.)
é--ä replied to Mosh•ëhꞋ: "ôÌÈðÇé éÅìÅëåÌ, and I will [accord] you rest."
But Mosh•ëhꞋ was not yet clear about what this meant, and so pursued the question, intimating 'If not, then I couldn't [i.e., wouldn't know how to] carry out Your mi•shᵊpât•imꞋ.' Mosh•ëhꞋ replied: "If Your ôÌÈðÄéí isn't Ho•lᵊkh•imꞋ then don't [even] bring us up from here. Then in what shall it be known wherever we are, that You like me and Your am? Isn't it in Your am, if not in Your ìÆëÀúÌÀ with us that You distinguish me and Your am from every other am on the face of the earth?"
Notice that Mosh•ëhꞋ isn't testing é--ä in any way. That is the intolerable blunder that people constantly make. When Tor•âhꞋ isn't clear on a matter, there are acceptable ways to verify if we're on the right track. Like Gid•onꞋ putting out the fleeces (Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ 6.37-40), one may only test one's own understanding of é--ä. One must never test é--ä. Mosh•ëhꞋ had no doubts about é--ä's power, he sought only to know that he (Mosh•ëhꞋ) was doing what é--ä wants, that he's not committing some human blunder of misunderstanding é--ä's Way. Herein is the key to obtain consistently positive answers to tᵊphil•otꞋ.
 |
 |
Shᵊm•otꞋ 33.16 – "And how will it be known, then, that You like me, me and Your am, if not in Your ìÆëÀúÌÀ with us; and how, then, would we be any more extraordinary – I or Your am – than any am that is on the face of the earth?"
In Hebrew we can say "I love someone" and even the slang "I love some thing." But when we wish to say "I like someone or something," in Hebrew we must use the idiom: "someone or something finds graciousness (pop. favor) in my eyes." We must avoid thinking of the phrase "found favor in (his, her, my, our, etc.) eyes" as being infinitely spiritual and far removed from daily life. Using the slang meaning of love, I could say "I love khumꞋusꞋ" in Hebrew. However, if I wanted to communicate "I like khumꞋusꞋ," in non-slang Hebrew, I would have to say "khumꞋusꞋ finds favor in my eyes."
Pâ•suqꞋ 16b – if not áÌÀìÆëÀúÌÀêÈ with Your am on the face of the earth….
The Hebrew term popularly rendered here as separated or differentiated is åÀðÄôÀìÄéðåÌ. The other instantiations in Scripture of ôìä corroborate this view: Shᵊm•otꞋ 8.18; 9.4; 11.7 and Tᵊhil•imꞋ 4.4; 17.7 and 139.14.
Perhaps related, in bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 6.4, äÇðÀÌôÄìÄéí is often considered to derive from ðÈôÇì. Consequently, the ðÀÌôÄìÄéí are sometimes rendered "fallen ones." Yet, they may, instead, be related to ôìà & ôìä (above) and, therefore, would mean, instead, wonderful or extraordinary ones. This is bolstered in this same Pâ•suqꞋ in that Tor•âhꞋ clarifies that these were áÌÀðÅé-äÈàÁìÉäÄéí – a euphemism for malâkh•imꞋ or Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ (see Shᵊm•otꞋ 21.6, 13; 22.7-8, et al., mating with human women (6.4).
The shrewdest animal in Gan EiꞋdën was the reptile (whether dragon [Nile crocodile] or snake; 3.1), which, some hold, apparently understood and spoke Hebrew. This reptile is often referred to as ùÒÈèÈï. Some traditions hold that ùÒÈèÈï is a heavenly being who was once stationed higher among the beings of the heavens than even Mi•khâ•eiIꞋ and Ga•vᵊr•i•eiIꞋ. More likely, ùÒÈèÈï was an epitomization of—more accurately a passing of the buck and avoidance of personal responsibility for—the evil inclination inherent in human free will and freedom of choice. In the words of American comic Flip Wilson, "The devil made me do it." I suggest an analogy. When a police officer uses a bomb-sniffing dog to locate and identify an explosive device and someone ventures to ask, "How did you know?" Would the police officer imply that his dog knows English when replying, "My dog told me"? Well, to literalists and other superstitious types, yes! The reptile ate the fruit unharmed, similarly "telling" Kha•vâhꞋ [corrupted to "Eve"] that no harm would come to her from also eating the fruit. Learn to look for the reality in Scripture and shed the ignorant fables that make educated people think that one has to become an ignorant medieval-oriented, superstitious jackass to believe the Bible.
Another alternate is that this could have been a beautiful reptile, though having a conversation with an upright reptile conflicts with medieval artist renderings of a snake in a tree and brings to mind, instead, the image of a small dinosaur. Interestingly, geneticists maintain that birds are ancestors of the dinosaurs—and an African gray parrot answering simple questions. Just as elephants, tigers and birds have mastodons, saber-tooths and dinosaurs as ancestors, it doesn't seem at all far-fetched that an ancient ancestor of the African gray parrot could have been smarter and better at conversation than today's African gray parrot. Even an African gray parrot could probably be taught to answer whether something is edible.
Exponents of marvelous colossal giants as ðÀÌôÄìÄéí apparently classify them with the dinosaurs (and the giant frog of Egypt they claim produced the frog plague) and assume that they died out at about the same time as the dinosaur. (How that squares with their belief that the earth is less than 6k years old is yet another intellectual sinkhole.) However, while there is physical evidence of dinosaurs, mastodons and saber-toothed tigers, no evidence of ðÀÌôÄìÄéí (or giant frog) has ever been found.
Or, perhaps a dinosaur ancestor of the African gray parrot simply repeated something that Ä•dâmꞋ or Khaw•âhꞋ had repeatedly uttered about the forbidden tree. This might then also be the basis explaining why Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ dismisses any "voice out of the heavens" that is contradictory to Tor•âhꞋ. (In addition to the fact that a Perfect Creator couldn't contradict His perfect Instruction, whether by a voice out of the heavens or any other way.)
Descendance from ðÀÌôÄìÄéí may also have emerged later (well before the time the Oral Biblical account was codified) from exaggerated stories that fable-ized malâkh•imꞋ, Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ and stories of ancestral heros and rulers (6:4). This is the likely origin of images of sphinxes—kᵊruv•imꞋ—and "angels." Surmising that the ðÀÌôÄìÄéí were a kind of dinosaur may have led to the idea that the malâkh•imꞋ, including ùÒÈèÈï, have characteristics of dinosaur bones they may have discovered: horns and tail. Conjectures about characteristics such fabled beings would have inherited from human mothers may have inspired mammalian, and even human, characteristics.
In this Pâ•suqꞋ, Tor•âhꞋ teaches that what distinguishes the followers of é--ä as ðÄôÀìÈä is their adherence to His Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ. Those who develop the ears to Shᵊm•aꞋ to Tor•âhꞋ will recognize that this same adherence to Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ is what defines the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ in the same group with all other halakhic Yᵊhud•imꞋ and geir•imꞋ; ðÄôÀìÈä above and unlike every min of the Christian goy•imꞋ, who follow a 4th-century Zeus knock-off idol that the Church calls Jesus.
|
|
Depends on which day of Khag ha-Suk•otꞋ that Shab•âtꞋ Falls
| Khol ha-Mō•eidꞋ | Ma•phᵊtirꞋ |
|---|---|
| 1 | bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 29.12-16; not the Ash•kᵊnazꞋi (29.17-19) |
| 2 | bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 29.17-19; not the Ash•kᵊnazꞋi (29.20-22) |
| 3 | bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 29.20-22 |
| 4 | bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 29.23-25; not the Ash•kᵊnazꞋi (29.23-25) |
| 5 | bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 29.26-28 |
| 6 | bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 29.29-31 |
|
|
Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 38 was chosen as the Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ selection for the intermediate Shab•âtꞋ of Khag ha-Suk•otꞋ because it elucidates Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 13.9 – 14.21, the Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ for the first day of Khag ha-Suk•otꞋ.
Pâ•suqꞋ 2 introduces âÌåÉâ àÆøÆõ äÇîÌÈâåÉâ.
As the editors of the Artscroll "Yechezkel" [sic] note, Josephus identifies the descendants of îÌÈâåÉâ as the ancient Iranians (viz., Scythians, Antiquities 1.6) and that this agrees with Yᵊrushal•miꞋ MᵊgilꞋâh 3.9, which renders îÌÈâåÉâ as âåèéà. Tar•gumꞋ Yo•nâ•tânꞋ similarly renders îÌÈâåÉâ in bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 10.2 as âøîîéà, which is also âéøîðéà.
These all cluster around the central theme (pâ•suqꞋ 6) of éÇøÀëÌÀúÅé öÈôåÉï. The place-name âÌÉîÆø (pâ•suqꞋ 6) may well be a metathesis of âÌøí (perhaps pronounced GorꞋëm) and, thereby, more closely related to úÌåÉâÇøÀîÈä. Congratulations if you recognized Germany. (However, that would mean that this war was the Sho•âhꞋ, in our past, and that we're much further along in the "end times" than anyone dreamed, with almost everyone being clueless (except those who have read my commentary on prophecy, see The 1993 Covenant Live-LinkT 
for more detailed analyses).
However, this cannot be seen as Germany in a narrow sense. Rather, this is referring to Germanic people in places as distant as Iran (Josephus' identification, above) or Europe generally—from Rome to Mosk•vaꞋ (Moscow) and To•boilskꞋ in central Russia (widely identified as îÆùÑÆêÀ åÀúËáÈì, whose leaders were prophesied to be subjugated by âÌåÉâ (pâ•suqꞋ 3), which, for a time, they pretty much were during WW-II.
Most commentators place these identities and events in some far-future time of fabulous (fable-ous) supernatural cosmological cataclysm; because, that way, they can boast all manner of knowledge and, because no one can contradict them about a future event, they are never required to confront reality or deal with the real universe of é--ä—until it's too late.
However, this is a different conflict than the final war popularly known as "Armageddon." Pâ•suqꞋ 8 anchors the timeline of this prophecy: 1948, when the nation of Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ was restored to the world's stage. Pâ•suqꞋ 9 describes the 6-Day War. 10-13 describe the Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ War. Today, we are at the intersection of Pâ•suqꞋ 13 and 14. All those bragging about others being "Left Behind" are the ones who are being "Left Behind"!!! Read more in The 1993 Covenant Live-LinkT Καινη (NT) prophecies in "Revelation", an analysis of its possible Hellenist-Judaic sources is found in The Unveiling (Ἀποκάλυψις – before it became "Revelation") Live-LinkT Technology .
| Tor•âhꞋ | Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
|
 |
|