The offical random thoughts about Spirituality and Religion thread

[Spiritual Stratocaster]

I believe GOD STILL approves of plural marriage or polygamy when HE gives the revelation to certain people.

 

[Fresh]

I don't hold anyone to being God or equal to God, not even Jesus

 

[MMS]

I am not comfortable discussing this topic because it touches on matters dealt with in the סֵפֶר הַזּוֹהַר, the סֵפֶר דִּי רָזִיאֵל הַמַּלְאָךְ and the סֵפֶר יְצִירָה and these are not suitable topics for general public discussion.


The Torah's words are:

The phrase כָּתְנוֹת עוֹר koth'noth ʿor in B'reshıth 3:21 does not mean 'coats [made] of skin', but 'coverings for the [i.e., their] skin'. The only other place in the Tanach apart from B'reshıth 3:21 where the word כָּתְנוֹת־ koth'noth- ('clothes of...') is found is in N'hamyoh 7:69 where, instead of עוֹר ʿor ('skin'), it is followed by כֹּהֲנִים kohanim. But does anyone understand the phrase כׇּתְנוֹת כֹּהֲנִים koth'noth kohanim ('clothes of kohanim') in N'hamyoh 7:69 as meaning 'clothes made of kohanim'? No, the phrase is translated 'kohanim's garments', 'robes for the kohanim' or something similar; likewise, in B'reshıth 3:21, כָּתְנוֹת עוֹר kothnoth ʿor means 'coverings for the skin', not 'coverings made of skin'. In fact, there is a relevant disagreement in the Oral Sources between Rav and Sh'muʾel Yarhinoʾoh regarding B'reshıth 3:21.

The following passage (recorded at daf yod-dalat, ʿammud ʾalaf of b. Soṭoh) is a disagreement between Rav (a moniker, affectionately referred to simply as 'Rav', an Aramaic title meaning 'great [one]') and Sh'muʾel Yarhinoʾoh ('Sh'muʾel the Lunar Expert'), who presided over the great rival academies located at N'hardʿo and Suroʾ respectively in the third century CE:

Note that neither explanation would have required any animal to have died in order to provide material for the 'koth'noth' made by Hashem for the primordial man and his wife.

I understand your anxiety as it has heavy implications

that said, you don't have to utterly believe the notion of "The Golem". Ideas as I've alluded to can take on a life of their own (satan, devil, demons, magic divination stones etc)

language can imply everything and nothing at the same time IMO similar to the idea that duality exists because someone says it does...doesnt mean it actually does



So would you agree when I say that Abrahams "Ram Caught in a thicket" is similar enough to Gen 3:21?

why is it assumed that Gen 1 and Gen 2 describe the same beings and creations? Given the Golem narrative....it could be argued that God (or in my belief reality itself) has allowed people to do this with their minds to show the folly in it...and the ultimately self-devouring understanding of one's self...

I get the feeling that the creations coming out of Judah were not pretty in the time of the Second Temple if they also had this Golem understanding of stories and ideas:
Typhon - Wikipedia

It occurred to me that the stories like Prose Edda and Journey to the West seemingly manifest themselves in people's lives and are ultimately reinforced via media...Golem-like ideas wouldn't you say?

 

[MMS]

I believe GOD STILL approves of plural marriage or polygamy when HE gives the revelation to certain people.

seems people in high places really believed in it

Menkaure - Wikipedia
"Established is the Life of Ra"

or Mn is the Vital Essence of Light

 

[OnlyOneBoss]

Say brehs the more I read up and learn about Hinduism….I’m starting to feel like they have the closest ideals to the core of human spirituality

 

[Koichos]

So would you agree when I say that Abrahams "Ram Caught in a thicket" is similar enough to Gen 3:21?

Without getting into the thicket (pun intended!) of details here: No.

why is it assumed that Gen 1 and Gen 2 describe the same beings and creations?

The division of the Tanach into 'chapters' (פְּרָקִים p'roqim) and 'verses' (פְּסוּקִים p'suqim) is of no inherent significance and, in any case, not Jewish. The Hebrew divisions of the Torah are divided into 54 פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת poroshiyyoth (the Babylonian annual cycle whereby a section of the Torah is read publicly each week, forming a cycle of readings that completes the five books every year) and also into 154 סְדָרִין s'dhorin (the Judæan triennial cycle, although in fact the whole Torah was actually completed once every three and a half years or twice in every שְׁמִטָּה sh'miṭṭoh). For the N'viʾim and K'thuvim books, however, there are no פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת poroshiyyoth divisions; instead, these books are divided into סְדָרִין s'dhorin only: the eight N'viʾim have a total of 204 and the eleven K'thuvim have a total of 89 (so that the entire Tanach is divided into 447 סְדָרִין s'dhorin). The arrangement of the Tanach's books in three distinct divisions (Torah, N'viʾim, K'thuvim) is indicative of the differing status and authorships of the books of the Torah, N'viʾim and K'thuvim and the regard in which each is held.

Now, perhaps you never noticed it before, but there are actually three accounts of Man's creation in the first several chapters of B'reshιth:

(i) 1:1 through 2:3
(ii) 2:4 through 4:26
(iii) 5:1 through 5:2

—that said, the three are not 'different', they are just told from differing points of view.

The first four סְדָרִין s'dhorin of the book B'reshıth, with regard to the chapter-verse referencing system, are 1:1 through 2:3, 2:4 through 3:21, 3:22 through 4:26, and 5:1 through 6:8—account (i) of Man's creation is the first סִדְרָא sidhroʾ, account (ii) is the second and third סְדָרִין s'dhorin, and account (iii) is just the first two verses of the fourth סִדְרָא sidhroʾ; the first account (B'reshıth 1:1-2:3) deals with the creation of the physical universe, the second (2:4-4:26) focuses on the creation of Mankind, and the third (5:1ff) zooms in on the origins of the family of the one man whom the subsequent narrative concentrates on: ʾAvrohom ʾOvinu. The individual described throughout the second account (2:4-4:26 i.e., אָדָם) is never actually named until B'reshıth 4:25—up to that point he is simply called הָאָדָם, 'the man'.

(i) is a generalized account of the Creation of the Universe – which includes Earth – which includes Humankind;
(ii) is a more centralized account of the origins of Humankind, dealing with such complex issues as to why Man, alone of all the species of animal life on Earth, acquired the power of rational thought and hence freedom of choice, and also why it is that Man has an innate aversion to snakes;
(iii) zooms in on one specific character, named אָדָם, who is eventually to become the ancestor of the central family that the whole narrative is about (this is the only one of the three accounts in which there is a named subject).

A bit of an aside, but did you notice that the Four-Lettered Divine Name does not occur until the second Hebrew division? In particular, there are two main titles that the Tanach employs to refer to the Deity: אֱלֹקִים (which denotes 'rulership' and 'sovereignty' and is used in a number of different contexts, of which the usage as a title of the Deity is only one) signifies Hashem when He is exercising His attribute of strict 'justice', while the Four-Lettered Divine Title signifies His attribute of 'mercy'. He is therefore called אֱלֹקִים throughout the first account of creation (1:1-2:3), but as soon as Man appears (in 2:4), this changes to ה׳ אֱלֹקִים ('justice' tempered by 'mercy', with 'mercy' taking precedence); because Man, having been intentionally created imperfect, cannot exist in an environment based on justice alone.

Given the Golem narrative....

I think you might have been attempting humor when you wrote that but, if you were not, I refer you to Marcus Jastrow's Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (page 222, column 1) where the word גּוֹלֶם is defined as:

rolled up, shapeless mass, whence

1) lump, a shapeless or lifeless substance.
2) unfinished matter, wanting finishing, opp. פשוט plain surface, forming no receptacle.
3) body.

 

[MMS]

Say brehs the more I read up and learn about Hinduism….I’m starting to feel like they have the closest ideals to the core of human spirituality

peep the relationship of Chitragupta to Yama in light of Abrahamic dialogues. I love reading about it

that said there are lots of "chthonic" dialogues IE ideas speaking to each other praying to each other and whatnot. It makes you consider the nature of each worldly force as it relates to heavenly forces (from Hindu perception)

That said, the God of the Word is also the God of all words, not just the word in the Bible... big-time implications with how you view various prophetic testimonies and the nature of God

Without getting into the thicket (pun intended!) of details here: No.


The division of the Tanach into 'chapters' (פְּרָקִים p'roqim) and 'verses' (פְּסוּקִים p'suqim) is of no inherent significance and, in any case, not Jewish. The Hebrew divisions of the Torah are divided into 54 פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת poroshiyyoth (the Babylonian annual cycle whereby a section of the Torah is read publicly each week, forming a cycle of readings that completes the five books every year) and also into 154 סְדָרִין s'dhorin (the Judæan triennial cycle, although in fact the whole Torah was actually completed once every three and a half years or twice in every שְׁמִטָּה sh'miṭṭoh). For the N'viʾim and K'thuvim books, however, there are no פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת poroshiyyoth divisions; instead, these books are divided into סְדָרִין s'dhorin only: the eight N'viʾim have a total of 204 and the eleven K'thuvim have a total of 89 (so that the entire Tanach is divided into 447 סְדָרִין s'dhorin). The arrangement of the Tanach's books in three distinct divisions (Torah, N'viʾim, K'thuvim) is indicative of the differing status and authorships of the books of the Torah, N'viʾim and K'thuvim and the regard in which each is held.

Now, perhaps you never noticed it before, but there are actually three accounts of Man's creation in the first several chapters of B'reshιth:

—that said, the three are not 'different', they are just told from differing points of view.

The first four סְדָרִין s'dhorin of the book B'reshıth, with regard to the chapter-verse referencing system, are 1:1 through 2:3, 2:4 through 3:21, 3:22 through 4:26, and 5:1 through 6:8—account (i) of Man's creation is the first סִדְרָא sidhroʾ, account (ii) is the second and third סְדָרִין s'dhorin, and account (iii) is just the first two verses of the fourth סִדְרָא sidhroʾ; the first account (B'reshıth 1:1-2:3) deals with the creation of the physical universe, the second (2:4-4:26) focuses on the creation of Mankind, and the third (5:1ff) zooms in on the origins of the family of the one man whom the subsequent narrative concentrates on: ʾAvrohom ʾOvinu. The individual described throughout the second account (2:4-4:26 i.e., אָדָם) is never actually named until B'reshıth 4:25—up to that point he is simply called הָאָדָם, 'the man'.


A bit of an aside, but did you notice that the Four-Lettered Divine Name does not occur until the second Hebrew division? In particular, there are two main titles that the Tanach employs to refer to the Deity: אֱלֹקִים (which denotes 'rulership' and 'sovereignty' and is used in a number of different contexts, of which the usage as a title of the Deity is only one) signifies Hashem when He is exercising His attribute of strict 'justice', while the Four-Lettered Divine Title signifies His attribute of 'mercy'. He is therefore called אֱלֹקִים throughout the first account of creation (1:1-2:3), but as soon as Man appears (in 2:4), this changes to ה׳ אֱלֹקִים ('justice' tempered by 'mercy', with 'mercy' taking precedence); because Man, having been intentionally created imperfect, cannot exist in an environment based on justice alone.


I think you might have been attempting humor when you wrote that but, if you were not, I refer you to Marcus Jastrow's Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (page 222, column 1) where the word גּוֹלֶם is defined as:

very enlightening, I have always kept in mind the symbolic nature of Hebrew in that it can be read in other ways than how we usually expect....that said

"(ii) is a more centralized account of the origins of Humankind, dealing with such complex issues as to why Man, alone of all the species of animal life on Earth, acquired the power of rational thought and hence freedom of choice, and also why it is that Man has an innate aversion to snakes"

from my perspective, the serpent is the tongue (on your belly you shall go etc), which explains the allegory to Jacob and Esau's birth as well as why the curse on "the man" and his wife (chvh?) involves husbandry. Meaning the seed of words vs seed of the woman (or natural instinct)

Basically, it indicates that Jacobs' claim of Rebecca preferring him over Esau isn't truly founded. history says Jacob is fooling somebody

IE the stability of the marriage between "the man and his wife" is dependent on the prior laws (not eating the fruit of knowledge which from my perspective is simply eating things not covered by Gen 1:28)...it also is implied that a nondisclosed amount of time occurs between the time of first eating of the fruit and God appearing in the cool of the garden (Where art thou!). This would make it analogous to Zeus and Prometheus' story of him stealing holy fire to give to mankind and being punished by having his insides eaten by an eagle (the flaming sword and cherubims in the form of allegorical plot devices) it is a long-standing assumption that fire is our friend. Another allegory to this is in China surprisingly with one of their eldest deities:
Yan Emperor - Wikipedia

I've always found the garden story a little peculiar because of the "serpent", I am operating from the understanding of Moses throwing down his rod and it became a serpent (malicious pen and writing)

i know its just an opinion but i wonder

 

[Thsnnor]