| Re: |
Give me a second...
| 2012/7/13 15:19||Profile|
| Re: |
No problem Friend. I believe you're thinking of the name "Lucifer" and that word is from "shining".
No problem - just being careful over His words.
| 2012/7/13 15:25|
| Re: Nachash |
Кощей קושצ'אי * נָחַשׁ (nâchash) * नाग (nāgá)
Hebrew Nachash (נָחַשׁ nâchash) IS A COMBINATION OF TWO WORDS NA-GA & NA-CHASH - THE FIRST PART OF THE WORD NAGA - NA and THE SECOND PART OF THE WORD NACHASH - CHASH. The neuro-lingual container of word nâchash is CHSH or SHCH. Together it will fuse or morph two neuro-lingual containers together NA and CHASH as NA-CHASH. Both words NAGA (नाग) and NACHASH (נָחַשׁ) are describing absolutely completely the same SEED or ANCESTRAL BLOODLINE AND THE ORIGIN OF THE FIRST CROSSBREEDS CALLED HEBREWS, except the neuro-lingual container of NAGAS as it is in Sanskrit (NAGI) is older approximately 110,000 years than NACHASH (נָחַשׁ).
The origin of word nâchash is Old Slavic HAryan. The original word and neuro-lingual container was COSCHEI (Кощей קושצ'אי) with neuro-lingual root CHSH or SHCH. After transliteration in/into Hebrew it became the word NHSH (נָחַשׁ) with the same neuro-lingual container as in Old Slavic and before that in H'Aryan. Word COSCHEI in Old Slavic is almost (with slight diviation) means exactly the same as neuro-lingual container of Sanskrit NAGI. Simply put two words abbreviate the entity whis is Saurian in nature. As in Hebrew Torah the same entities are called NHSH (נָחַשׁ nâchash) or Shining Ones, including Shining One in Torah behing the Tetragrammaton called YHWH (Jehovah).
| 2012/7/13 15:30||Profile|
| Re: |
"Christ" is "The WORD" and He chooses His Words - not interpreters.
We must be careful to not go beyond 'what is written'.
We must interpret His Word 'with' His Word.
As posted on the previous page - the word nachash is only interpreted "serpent" though-out the Old Testament and GOD uses "serpent" in the New Testament as well.
נחשׁ Total KJV Occurrences: 31
Gen_3:1-2 (2), Gen_3:4, Gen_3:13-14 (2), Gen_49:17, Exo_4:3, Exo_7:15, Num_21:9 (3), 2Ki_18:4, Job_26:13, Psa_58:4, Psa_140:3, Pro_23:32, Pro_30:19, Ecc_10:8, Ecc_10:11, Isa_27:1 (2), Jer_46:22, Amo_5:19, Amo_9:3, Mic_7:17
Num_21:6-7 (2), Deu_8:15, Jer_8:17
| 2012/7/13 15:39|
| Re: |
Yes, and I can see the references to Satan as a "dragon" can correlate with mythical reptilian derivatives.
YET, This is an issue with me for the following reasons:
(1) This is the very first appearance of Satan and encounter with man and woman - Hence, his identity in form and matter in this particular instance is especially important. It has to reflect an eternal Form which comprehensively captures the full nature of the tempter - "Shining" is an essential almost indispensible feature of a Tempter's premiere and nature.
(2) His identity as a shining one contextually matches the circumstances involved in the deception. The temptation was visually stimulating in its initial manifestation:
"And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes," (Gen. 3: 6)
(3) Consider the result of mankind's Fall...the birth of sin and death via the vehicle of "self-consciousness" -
(Please stay with me, here, I'm about to get a little allegorical)
(4) Self-consciousness was the matter of the Form of sin and death which ensued:
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked;"
Self-realization. Eyes opened. Self-Image. Consciousness of a "self". They saw themselves for the first time. What's the easiest most immediate way to see oneself? Through a mirror. The "shining one" was this mirror into the human soul without God. "Look at me, I'm naked!" The immediate effect is shame and guilt.
Bad Move. Why? Because at this very moment of self-perception, man stops seeing the world as only God sees it and starts to have a competing perceptual experience of the world. His own. Afterall, what is knowledge of Good? Simply, knowledge of God alone. The world as only He sees it. Things as they REALLY are. Truth. Christ.
What is knowledge of Evil? Knowledge of things other than God. Primarily the "self". God did not make us to be primarily "self-conscious" but rather "other aware" - the latter of which is the essential element of true sacrifice. Sacrifice is a necessary element in man's
salvation. Self-consciousness impedes sacrifice. This is why we must "die to self" as exemplified by Christ's Death on the Cross before we can experience the Glory of Christ's Resurrection.
Self-consciousness is evil. Why? Truth is no longer rooted solely upon the consciousness of God alone, but instead God's perfect and good reality becomes subject (instead of object) to a 4-billion headed relativistic monster constantly distorting truth into the form of man's image and imagination:
"The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually" (Gen. 6: 5).
Why? Because they were rooted in "self-consciousness" not God's. Just read up on moral relativism.
Christ redeems us by turning our eyes from self to "Him". This is why Christ should replace our indwelling consciousness as illustrated by the new covenant truth expounded upon via Paul's letters: "Christ in me, me in Thee". Christ's self is the sufficient indwelling consciousness I need to replace my own.
Hence, the tempter first presented himself as a "shining one" essentially because he was a mirror. Mirrors reflect and shine. The mirror that this shining one reflected revealed the self to Adam and Eve for the first time and they've never looked back since.
What do you think?
I know...I know...EVERYbody's got a theory.
| 2012/7/13 16:15||Profile|
| You Are Right!|
Yes, thank you for reminding me of this.
It is just fascinating to get a glimpse into the eternal pattern of things, in that it's all about Christ and not us.
| 2012/7/13 16:18||Profile|
| Re: You Are Right!|
I have no problems with what you've written except for the redefining "serpent" - a symbolism that's used in both the Old and New Testaments.
Here's the New Testament's use listed out -
Total KJV Occurrences: 14
Luk_11:9-11 (3), Joh_3:14, 2Co_11:3, Rev_12:9, Rev_12:14-15 (2), Rev_20:2
Mat_10:16, Mat_23:33, Luk_10:18-19 (2), 1Co_10:9, Rev_9:19
Calling Satan the "shining one" is fine, as long as we're using that as a translation for Lucifer and not removing the word "serpent" by re-translating it - as we see it used in both Testaments.
The LORD had a reason to Also describe Satan as "the serpent" and it ties in with John 3:14,15 as Jesus witnessed Himself to a good Pharisee/Jew, Nicodemus.
Again, it's fine to call Satan 'the shining one' but not at the expense of changing His use of that term "serpent" that's used in both Testaments for a reason.
I do understand who Michael Heiser is and you must wonder - How dare she -- but we needn't agree with every man with tens of degrees after their name. I can respect them - but there are just some times when changing His use of certain words or terms should be thought twice about ... because then 'we' could then begin to question more of the words that we see in both Testaments and then question more of His Book.
Not all of us have the time to sit under all of Heiser's classes and read all of his writings nor have the time to explain "which" words/terms found in both Testaments that we can change the Definition of that are found in all Lexicons and Hebrew Dictionaries.
Can we afford to open that door just for one man's interpretation when the majority have translated that same word "serpent" for all the years that we've had both languages?
I have no problem with what you've written on "self" being the root of All sin and no problem with calling this self consciousness or self centeredness.
Thanks for the forebearance in writing out your own beliefs.
| 2012/7/13 17:15|
| Re: |
Brother KP, something just crossed my mind, that I haven't explained why I've posted where the word "serpent" is used in both the Old & New Testaments.
We not only define words by Dictionaries, Lexicons or through ancient liguistics, when interpreting The Word - but where and how that same word is used, everywhere else in either Testament.
We see the same word 'nachash' used in 28 verses in the O.T., the list having been given in earlier post and we look at all 28 verses to see how nachash is used in all of the other books of the O.T..
With Moses with his rod that budded that The LORD asked him to throw down for a practice run and it scared him when it turned into a snake - not a mirror or a shining one and with Pharoah's magicians - the snakes were just snakes/serpents.
I think that's enough to convince us. The 'same' word and how it's used in every verse - whether OT or NT Greek - He had a Divine reason for using it.
Thanks again for your forebearance.
| 2012/7/13 18:33|
| Re: |
Exactly right. Also Satan is referred to as a snake/serpent in the New Testament as well. We always interpret the Old in light of what the New has shown us.
It's really rather simple.
| 2012/7/13 19:14||Profile|
| We are in agreement|
I will continue to accept the "serpent" translation / interpretation.
Yet, where "nachash" is used in Exodus in the turning the rod/staff to a snake especially in the battle with Pharaoh's gods, another translation of the word "nachash" includes words that connote "one who practices divination" which matches the context of Exodus 7: 10-13...
Exodus 7: 11:
"Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts:"
...whereby Pharoah's "serpents" represent this particular translation of the "nachash"
NASB Exhaustive Concordance:
results of divination (1), divined (1), enchantments (1), indeed practice divination (1), indeed uses (1), interprets omens (1), practice divination (1), took as an omen (1), used divination (2).
Hence, I find that all of these translations of the Hebrew "nachash" have equal contextual and lexical relation to the identity of the Tempter as revealed in both the OT and NT.
Thanks to your insight, however, I will continue to interpret the "nachash" of old as a "serpent" as well as all other related translations.
| 2012/7/14 14:08||Profile|