That's the best post I have ever seen from you -
That's the best post I have ever seen from you -
it's all beameup's posts are worth
Thank you.
Still haven't figured out that the same Hebrew word can be either a NOUN or a VERB?
I know Hebrew. You don't. Its grammar is very different from European languages. What noun or verb are you going on about?
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer גָּאַל
What word are you referring to? If it is גאלי , my redeemer, then it is a noun, not a verb. It uses teh same root as a verb, which is very common in Hebrew. But it is a noun.
And the "Redeemer" must be, by ancient Oriental tradition, a KinsmanThere is actually a nice parallel in the English here. "To redeem" is a verb. "Redeemer" is a noun. Same root word, but one is a noun, the other a verb.
You have claimed this before, and it is simply not true. The kinsman-redeemer is one type of redeemer. You have ignored the other definitions of the term in Strong's lexicon. I have pointed this out in another thread, yet you insist on repeating the same claim again.And the "Redeemer" must be, by ancient Oriental tradition, a Kinsman
And the kinsman גָּאַל said, I cannot redeem גָּאַל it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem גָּאַל thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem גָּאַל it. Ruth 4:6
You have claimed this before, and it is simply not true. The kinsman-redeemer is one type of redeemer. You have ignored the other definitions of the term in Strong's lexicon. I have pointed this out in another thread, yet you insist on repeating the same claim again.
I've looked in the Lexicons. It is clear from the passages I presented that the word specifically chosen for that application by ruach 'Elohim conveys kinsman-redeemer.
I've encountered such denial in orthodoxy before, where the information doesn't fit the "preconceived paradigm". I suppose that those who consider themselves "righteous" don't need "redemption".
Lexicons are plentiful. The # assigned to ga'al is H1350. Used 84 times in Tanakh.
Definition
1. to redeem, act as kinsman-redeemer, avenge, revenge, ransom, do the part of a kinsman
a. (Qal) 1. to act as kinsman, do the part of next of kin, act as kinsman-redeemer 1a
b. by marrying brother's widow to beget a child for him, to redeem from slavery, to redeem land, to exact vengeance
1. to redeem (by payment)
2. to redeem (with God as subject) 1a
c. individuals from death 1a
d. Israel from Egyptian bondage 1a
e. Israel from exile
f. (Niphal)
1. to redeem oneself
2. to be redeemed
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/gaal.html
You see that there are multiple uses of the word. Redemption by a kinsman is only one of them. On what basis do you choose that over the other uses?
Context-Context-Context
Do you deny that Boaz was the Kinsman-Redeemer of Ruth?
How about Abraham, when he went to rescue Lot?
The word is used 84 times in the Tanakh...
PS: It might be helpful to the conversation, if you gave a precise description of G-d from your perspective.
This is a textual discussion. The description of God is not relevant. However, I will point out that dealing with "descriptions of God" may be a Christian pastime, but is of little interest to Jews (with the possible exception of Kabbalists).
Perhaps there really are no "characteristics" or "attributes" for God in Judaism?
I've heard discussions (one was next to the Wailing Wall) where God was thus described as "unknowable".
If such is the case, then study of the Torah or Tanakh really is "pointless", right?
Why "pointless"? You, as a Christian, are thinking that the whole "point" of studying the Torah is to be able to describe God. We don't view it that way at all.