Hedgeship of Adam ....

Lee Magee said:
Genesis precisely places "Eden" (παράδεισος) in Babylon, or the very place of captivity, i.e. these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity (Ezra 2). In other words these that went out of captivity are the "children of Adam", the beginning point.



Fake genealogies.

1 Chronicles 6:15
Zadok > Shallum > Hilkiah > Azariah > Seraiah > Jehozadak (who went into captivity by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar)

Ezra 7:1
Zadok > Shallum > Hilkiah > Azariah > Seraiah > Ezra (who went up from Babylon during reign of Artaxerxes II)
Click to expand...
eden is still in captivity to egypt.

literally not figuratively.
 
American Gothic said:
has this even been explained ??

(ps - I meant My view is only that, one view)
Click to expand...
Hedgeship is the practice of planting and maintaining hedges, especially in the style of mazes.

The basic rule is that plants be spaced evenly so they grow together as one continuous row, hence the term hedgerow.

Hedgehogs are so-called because they like living under hedges.
 
Hedgehog is εχίνος (echínos) or ἀκανθόχοιρος (akanthókhoiros) "prickly-pig".
cf. ἀκανθώδης 'prickly' ; קיפוד (qippod), קפוד‎ (qippṓḏ), قُنْفُذ (qunfuḏ)‎.

The word hedgehogs (ἐχῗνοι) occurs in Greek version Isaiah 34:11 reading קפוד, next to קאת, which is probably κάττα "cat", قِطّ (qiṭṭ).

Bible translations can't even agree on the animals, bibles cannot be trusted.

Isaiah 34:11
the pelican and hedgehog (NASB20)
desert owl and screech ow (NIV)
hawk and the porcupine (RSV)
cormorant and the bittern (KJV)
 
Lee Magee said:
Hedgehog is εχίνος (echínos) or ἀκανθόχοιρος (akanthókhoiros) "prickly-pig".
cf. ἀκανθώδης 'prickly' ; קיפוד (qippod), קפוד‎ (qippṓḏ), قُنْفُذ (qunfuḏ)‎.

The word hedgehogs (ἐχῗνοι) occurs in Greek version Isaiah 34:11 reading קפוד, next to קאת, which is probably κάττα "cat", قِطّ (qiṭṭ).

Bible translations can't even agree on the animals, bibles cannot be trusted.

Isaiah 34:11
the pelican and hedgehog (NASB20)
desert owl and screech ow (NIV)
hawk and the porcupine (RSV)
cormorant and the bittern (KJV)
Click to expand...
Let's not entertain fallacies of composition but rather agree that "some words" but not "all words" are problematic due to translation challenges.

Isa 34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
 
Exeter said:
Let's not entertain fallacies of composition but rather agree that "some words" but not "all words" are problematic due to translation challenges.

Isa 34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
Click to expand...

It is not problematic for me. ראמים = χρήματα

χρῆμα ראם
used in periphrases to express something strange or extraordinary of its kind, ὑὸς χ. μέγα a huge monster of a boar (LSJ)

Herodotus 1.36 ‘ὦ βασιλεῦ, ὑὸς χρῆμα μέγιστον ἀνεφάνη ἡμῖν ἐν τῇ χώρῃ
“O King, a great monster of a boar has appeared in the land
 
Slyzr said:
Yup ......

IMO .....

It's a hedge or fence of adam.

Adam is the ship.
Click to expand...
this earth is the hedge of adam ( in the other world) against God
and we are the hostages

which will make sense
if one does not deny the other world …
or ignore transcendent context in prophets
… but much theology exists to deny it
(to maintain the hedge)
 
Rachel Redux said:
She couldn't have become a Jew if she was a "tribal" Moabite! They were excluded!
Click to expand...
Actually this is exactly my point -- that the book of Ruth is at odds with Deuteronomy 23:3. Deuteronomy 23: 3 states that no Moabite can become a Jew. Ruth is the story of a Moabite who became a Jew. It documents that the authors of the Tanakh had disparate outlooks.

BTW, ion response to your post on Moab becoming part of Israel, I'm curious what you think of Deuteronomy 2:9:
Then the Lord said to me, “Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any part of their land. I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.”
 
American Gothic said:
has this even been explained ??

(ps - I meant My view is only that, one view)
Click to expand...
I suspect that he meant headship, not hedgeship. His posts in general seem to have problems with English (he was not able to understand simple statements like "Boaz was her kinsman redeemer"), so I have tried to be extra patient with him, since I truly admire those who try to speak more than one language. In the end, though, I broke off the conversation because the language barrier just proved too great an obstacle, sadly.
 
Open Heart said:
Actually this is exactly my point -- that the book of Ruth is at odds with Deuteronomy 23:3. Deuteronomy 23: 3 states that no Moabite can become a Jew. Ruth is the story of a Moabite who became a Jew. It documents that the authors of the Tanakh had disparate outlooks.

BTW, ion response to your post on Moab becoming part of Israel, I'm curious what you think of Deuteronomy 2:9:
Then the Lord said to me, “Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any part of their land. I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.”
Click to expand...
The book of Ruth isn't at odds with Deut. 23:3 if Ruth was already a Jew.
I don't know what to say about Deuteronomy 2:9.
Evidently when Moses passed near Moab with the great multitude, God saw Moab in a favorable light at that time.
 
Rachel Redux said:
The book of Ruth isn't at odds with Deut. 23:3 if Ruth was already a Jew.
I don't know what to say about Deuteronomy 2:9.
Evidently when Moses passed near Moab with the great multitude, God saw Moab in a favorable light at that time.
Click to expand...
It clearly calls her a Moabite at the beginning of the story. Do you think the book is lying about her?
 
Open Heart said:
It clearly calls her a Moabite at the beginning of the story. Do you think the book is lying about her?
Click to expand...
Go back and re-read my posts in this thread. I'm not going to talk in circles with you.
This is what you do when you know you've lost the debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top