God created evil for his pleasure. Do you recognize the pleasure of creating and doing evil?

[ding]

So are rape and murder good or evil?

There is nothing good about them. Do you blame God for it?

You don’t have perfect knowledge so you can’t see how good can come from bad. God has perfect knowledge. God has created a creation where everything works for good. I accept this on faith.

I suggest you read Job Chapter 40.

 

[ding]

It's like calling rape and murder both "lack of good" and "personal good" in the same breath, trying to hold the stick by both ends - to rationalize immorality.

Nowhere in this discussion am I rationalizing immorality. I am defending God.

 

[ding]

First by denying there's evil, to make way for it to be further equated with personal good.
That cognitive dissonance wouldn't be needed if you didn't recognize vengeance/greed as evil in the first place.

I am not denying that bad things happen to good people. I am denying that evil is extant. I am denying that God created evil. It isn’t possible for God to create evil because evil is against God’s nature and God cannot oppose himself. God cannot oppose his nature. Which is exactly the reason God never destroys what he creates because what he creates is good. Destroying what he created would be opposing his nature.

 

[Newtonian]

Of course, in Genesis 6:6 Jehovah 'felt sorry' in a negative sense, while in Jonah 4:2 Jehovah felt sorry in a favorable sense - see Jonah 4:11 "feel sorry" (H2347/chus/lit. "cover" [cp. cover over sins]/compassion/pity.

The word should be comforted as I explained in my prior post.

There are multiple definitions as I posted - in English and in Greek also many words have multiple definitions. The context determines the definition. Genesis 6:6 also says "felt hurt at heart" (or the like) and is followed by Jehovah determining to destroy the grossly evil ones at the flood. Jonah 4:2,11 uses the Hebrew word in a postive/favorable sense - Jehovah felt sorry for the Ninevites and did not destroy them.

The word can have a negative or favorable meaning depending on the context. "Comfort" does not apply in either Biblical account. You need to study the contexts.

Btw - I quoted the 1984 edition of NW - our 2013 edition of NW has this footnote for "regretted" -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Or “was grieved.”

When studying God's word in God's language I use God's language.
Every high school student is told that that most of the subtlety is lost when reading Greek literature in English.
Same for Shakespeare.
I almost always have to listen to lectures or watch long videos to know what a Biblical Hebrew word means, let alone a verse.

The better course would be to read/study the context and cross references in the Bible itself - not man-made lectures or videos (etc.).

"read/study the context and cross references in the Bible itself"
That's exactly what we do.
We cycle through Tanach every year our entire lives.
The fact is that every time I loop through I reach much greater depths of what's going on and my desire to truly understand what a word means increases.
Take the Tower of Babel...
For years I couldn't find the meaning of the word "Language".
There are two words...
Lah Shone literally means the Same Language.
But that's not the word God uses to describe what is almost always translated as "Language".
The word is Soh-fehr...It means "Same Intention".
The Tower was not comprised of people who spoke the same words but of people show had the same intention.
Mankind was never meant to gather in one place and simply "Brick Bricks" (Be worked to death working for one person to impress everyone else.)
Sounds like Bill Gates was running the Tower project.

Why aren't you citing the verse you are referring to? Perhaps you realize that reading the whole verse and the context proves the definition meant?

Genesis 11:1 (NW 1984 reference edition)
Now all the earth continued to be of one language* and of one set of words.*

Footnote on "language"

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Lit., “of one lip,” MLXXVg.

[M= the Hebrew Masoretic text; LXX= Greek Septuagint; Vg = Latin Vulgate]

Footnote on one "set of words" -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Or, “of one vocabulary.”

Interlinear:

1961 [e] 1 way·hî 1 וַֽיְהִ֥י​ 1 And had 1 Conj‑w | V‑Qal‑ConsecImperf‑3ms 1​

3605 [e] ḵāl כָל־ all N‑msc​

776 [e] hā·’ā·reṣ הָאָ֖רֶץ the earth Art | N‑fs​

､ ​

​

8193 [e] śā·p̄āh שָׂפָ֣ה language N‑fs​

259 [e] ’e·ḥāṯ; אֶחָ֑ת one Number‑fs​

1697 [e] ū·ḏə·ḇā·rîm וּדְבָרִ֖ים and speech Conj‑w | N‑mp​

. ​

​

 

[rylah]

So are rape and murder good or evil?

There is nothing good about them. Do you blame God for it?

You don’t have perfect knowledge so you can’t see how good can come from bad. God has perfect knowledge. God has created a creation where everything works for good. I accept this on faith.

I suggest you read Job Chapter 40.

But you've just claimed that people do evil things for personal good.
Blame has nothing to do with it.

Don't sidestep the question.

 

[Newtonian]

Continuing:

So there are two Hebrew words in Gen. 11:1 involved referring to the same thing

H8193/language/lit. termination/lip(as a natural boundary)/margin
שָׂפָה
śâphâh

From Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew definitions:

H8193
שׂפת / שׂפה
śâphâh / śepheth
BDB Definition:
1) lip, language, speech, shore, bank, brink, brim, side, edge, border, binding
1a) lip (as body part)
1b) language
1c) edge, shore, bank (of cup, sea, river, etc)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: probably from H5595 or H8192 through the idea of termination (compare H5490)

The root soph/H5490/termination

Also "and" barim

H1697
דּבר
dâbâr
BDB Definition:
1) speech, word, speaking, thing
1a) speech
1b) saying, utterance
1c) word, words
1d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H1696

[H1696/dabar/speak words]

Bottom line - these two Hebrew words overlap in definition as speaking words of language. Neither word ever means "intention" as you assert. Next post - a third Hebrew word from the context:

 

[rylah]

It's like calling rape and murder both "lack of good" and "personal good" in the same breath, trying to hold the stick by both ends - to rationalize immorality.

Nowhere in this discussion am I rationalizing immorality. I am defending God.

If you claim that people can do no bad, no evil,
then you're not defending G-d, rather excusing every human immorality.

 

[rylah]

First by denying there's evil, to make way for it to be further equated with personal good.
That cognitive dissonance wouldn't be needed if you didn't recognize vengeance/greed as evil in the first place.

I am not denying that bad things happen to good people. I am denying that evil is extant. I am denying that God created evil. It isn’t possible for God to create evil because evil is against God’s nature and God cannot oppose himself. God cannot oppose his nature. Which is exactly the reason God never destroys what he creates because what he creates is good. Destroying what he created would be opposing his nature.

G-d cannot?
Now to excuse your confusion you're confining G-d?

You're only saying there's no evil, but the conclusion of every argument you make excuses human immorality and places G-d as the only source of all evil. By saying "bad things happen", you're contradicting your claim by both recognizing bad exists, and excusing that evil doings of a human are "personal good", therefore concluding all that is bad comes solely from G-d.

How do you come to terms with this self-contradiction?

 

[Newtonian]

The context of Genesis 11:1 confirms those in "Babel" spoke the same language and set of words until Jehovah caused them to speak different languages:

Genesis 11:6-9
Jehovah then said: “Look! They are one people with one language,+ and this is what they have started to do. Now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be impossible for them. 7 Come! Let us+ go down there and confuse their language in order that they may not understand one another’s language.” 8 So Jehovah scattered them from there over the entire face of the earth,+ and they gradually left off building the city. 9 That is why it was named Baʹbel,*+ because there Jehovah confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah scattered them from there over the entire face of the earth.

Genesis 11:7 interlinear:

7 hā·ḇāh 7 הָ֚בָה​ 7 Come 7 V‑Qal‑Imp‑ms | 3fs 7​

3381 [e] nê·rə·ḏāh, נֵֽרְדָ֔ה let Us go down V‑Qal‑Imperf.Cohort‑1cp​

1101 [e] wə·nā·ḇə·lāh וְנָבְלָ֥ה and confuse Conj‑w | V‑Qal‑ConjImperf.Cohort‑1cp​

8033 [e] šām שָׁ֖ם there Adv​

､ ​

​

8193 [e] śə·p̄ā·ṯām; שְׂפָתָ֑ם their language N‑fsc | 3mp​

834 [e] ’ă·šer אֲשֶׁר֙ that Pro‑r​

3808 [e] lō לֹ֣א not Adv‑NegPrt​

8085 [e] yiš·mə·‘ū, יִשְׁמְע֔וּ may understand V‑Qal‑Imperf‑3mp​

582 [e] ’îš אִ֖ישׁ one man N‑ms​

. ​

​

8193 [e] śə·p̄aṯ שְׂפַ֥ת the speech N‑fsc​

7453 [e]​

 

[Indeependent]

Of course, in Genesis 6:6 Jehovah 'felt sorry' in a negative sense, while in Jonah 4:2 Jehovah felt sorry in a favorable sense - see Jonah 4:11 "feel sorry" (H2347/chus/lit. "cover" [cp. cover over sins]/compassion/pity.

The word should be comforted as I explained in my prior post.

There are multiple definitions as I posted - in English and in Greek also many words have multiple definitions. The context determines the definition. Genesis 6:6 also says "felt hurt at heart" (or the like) and is followed by Jehovah determining to destroy the grossly evil ones at the flood. Jonah 4:2,11 uses the Hebrew word in a postive/favorable sense - Jehovah felt sorry for the Ninevites and did not destroy them.

The word can have a negative or favorable meaning depending on the context. "Comfort" does not apply in either Biblical account. You need to study the contexts.

Btw - I quoted the 1984 edition of NW - our 2013 edition of NW has this footnote for "regretted" -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Or “was grieved.”

When studying God's word in God's language I use God's language.
Every high school student is told that that most of the subtlety is lost when reading Greek literature in English.
Same for Shakespeare.
I almost always have to listen to lectures or watch long videos to know what a Biblical Hebrew word means, let alone a verse.

The better course would be to read/study the context and cross references in the Bible itself - not man-made lectures or videos (etc.).

"read/study the context and cross references in the Bible itself"
That's exactly what we do.
We cycle through Tanach every year our entire lives.
The fact is that every time I loop through I reach much greater depths of what's going on and my desire to truly understand what a word means increases.
Take the Tower of Babel...
For years I couldn't find the meaning of the word "Language".
There are two words...
Lah Shone literally means the Same Language.
But that's not the word God uses to describe what is almost always translated as "Language".
The word is Soh-fehr...It means "Same Intention".
The Tower was not comprised of people who spoke the same words but of people show had the same intention.
Mankind was never meant to gather in one place and simply "Brick Bricks" (Be worked to death working for one person to impress everyone else.)
Sounds like Bill Gates was running the Tower project.

Why aren't you citing the verse you are referring to? Perhaps you realize that reading the whole verse and the context proves the definition meant?

Genesis 11:1 (NW 1984 reference edition)
Now all the earth continued to be of one language* and of one set of words.*

Footnote on "language"

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Lit., “of one lip,” MLXXVg.

[M= the Hebrew Masoretic text; LXX= Greek Septuagint; Vg = Latin Vulgate]

Footnote on one "set of words" -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Or, “of one vocabulary.”

Interlinear:

1961 [e] 1 way·hî 1 ​ וַֽיְהִ֥י​ 1 And had 1 Conj‑w | V‑Qal‑ConsecImperf‑3ms 1​

3605 [e] ḵāl כָל־ all N‑msc​

776 [e] hā·’ā·reṣ הָאָ֖רֶץ the earth Art | N‑fs​

､ ​

​

8193 [e] śā·p̄āh שָׂפָ֣ה language N‑fs​

259 [e] ’e·ḥāṯ; אֶחָ֑ת one Number‑fs​

1697 [e] ū·ḏə·ḇā·rîm וּדְבָרִ֖ים and speech Conj‑w | N‑mp​

. ​

​

Because GOD used the word sah-fah.
This has nothing to do with you or I; no egos involved.
Tell God he made a mistake.

שפה - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

1. Language, speech: choice of words, manner of speech.

 

[rylah]

God created evil for his pleasure. Do you recognize the pleasure of creating and doing evil?

Rev 4;11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Some people have what has been termed, the problem of evil. Many cannot fathom why, if god is good, he would create evil. Yet the scriptures are clear that god created evil for his pleasure.

It may be due to my criminal mind and delinquent attitude, but I think I know why. I wondered if you ands others had also dithered out a reasonable answer to show why sin and evil are required for god’s plan and our mental and moral development.

This fact is likely why the ancient Christians determined that sin was necessary for our development. They sing that Adam furthered god’s plan by his sin.

To them, even as Christianity and I clash, and the intelligent position, is that to not sin or do evil, is to derail god’s plan.

In this, issue, I happen to agree with the scriptures and Christians who say the sin and evil is good and necessary to god’s plan.

Do you?

Regards
DL

G-d hates evil,
He only created it to give humanity freedom of choice.

G-d didn’t create evil. Everything G-d created is good. No one does evil for evil’s sake. Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good. So G-d did not create evil.

Not sure I can agree no one does evil for its own sake.
However, and who created the possibility for the "absence of good"?

People do “evil” for the sake of their own good. Whether it be for greed, pleasure, vengeance, etc. they don’t do “evil” for the sake of evil. Most rationalize their actions as good.

Yes, God does allow us to have absence of good and to rationalize our actions. That doesn’t make it his fault. We don’t have perfect knowledge. We can’t always see how everything works for good. But I have faith that it does. Suffering and hardship has a way of teaching successful behaviors that can’t be learned any other way.

But that's exactly what you're trying to rationalize.
First by denying there's evil, to make way for it to be further equated with personal good.
That cognitive dissonance wouldn't be needed if you didn't recognize vengeance/greed as evil in the first place.

It's like calling rape and murder both "lack of good" and "personal good" in the same breath, trying to hold the stick by both ends - to rationalize immorality.

So are rape and murder good or evil?

I don’t believe you quite understand the concept of rationalizing a wrong as a right if that’s how you see my belief that God did not create evil. When God asked Adam if he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam replied the woman you made gave it to me. That was Adam rationalizing that he didn’t do wrong. When God asked Eve, if she ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve replied the serpent deceived me. That was her rationalizing that she didn’t do wrong. When I state God did not create evil, I have nothing to gain from this. I certainly am not responsible for the absence of good in others. I am only responsible for the absence of good in myself. It isn’t a rationalization to say that evil or darkness or cold are not extant. That is literally a fact. They don’t exist in and of themselves. They only exist in relation to the extant phenomenon. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light and evil is the absence of good. Light, heat and good exist.

Your own religious text tells you that everything God created is good. We can know through inspection that existence is good. It is better to exist than to not exist. Nature verifies that there is a preference to exist. Living things fight to exist. We can know through inspection that man prefers good over the absence of good. We can know through inspection that nature prefers good over the absence of good. Virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to mankind. Societies that live with virtue experience peace and harmony. Societies that live without virtue experience discord and chaos. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. This is the moral law at work. You can see in almost all quarrels men arguing fairness. They argue they are being fair and good and their adversary is being unfair and not good. You never hear someone say the hell with being fair and good. Screw your goodness. No one has ever done evil for the sake of evil. They do evil for the sake of their own good. And then they rationalize that what they are doing is good.

This is just circular reasoning.

Don't weasel out by using different term for the same thing, i.e." no bad but wrong", "no evil but lack of good"...and then go around and equate that all to "personal good".
G-d says there's the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, you say can't.

You say evil is not extant, G-d cannot create bad, man at least does "personal good"....
Then the conclusion of all that is that evil exists on its own - although you won't admit, but as long as you don't choose one and stick with it, all you do is argue for two separate powers.

I'm not saying that everything G-d does isn't good, I'm saying you're confused, and this is normal,the subject has challenged the best of minds throughout the history of humanity. You just have to follow a consistent line of logic to make any sense in all that.

And on the side line, Adam and Eve didn't deny they did wrong, all they did was explained what caused them to chose the way they did, that isn't denial that is admitting. The reason why you need to add things to their words is only because of the confusion explained above.

The correct and consistent line of thought is this:
G-d created Adam, and gave him freedom of choice, and for that freedom to exist also created the possibility for him to do bad/evil/wrong/not good - choose any term you prefer.

 

[Indeependent]

Continuing:

So there are two Hebrew words in Gen. 11:1 involved referring to the same thing

H8193/language/lit. termination/lip(as a natural boundary)/margin
שָׂפָה
śâphâh

From Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew definitions:

H8193
שׂפת / שׂפה
śâphâh / śepheth
BDB Definition:
1) lip, language, speech, shore, bank, brink, brim, side, edge, border, binding
1a) lip (as body part)
1b) language
1c) edge, shore, bank (of cup, sea, river, etc)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: probably from H5595 or H8192 through the idea of termination (compare H5490)

The root soph/H5490/termination

Also "and" barim

H1697
דּבר
dâbâr
BDB Definition:
1) speech, word, speaking, thing
1a) speech
1b) saying, utterance
1c) word, words
1d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H1696

[H1696/dabar/speak words]

Bottom line - these two Hebrew words overlap in definition as speaking words of language. Neither word ever means "intention" as you assert. Next post - a third Hebrew word from the context:

Wow!
God created the universe using Hebrew.
No two Hebrew words words the same thing.
Hebrew is too small of a language for that.

Dibar
Amar

There are entire volumes written on these words and what they mean...
I can only point out what I know and it ain't much.

Dibar means..
- A Thing that exists
- A Bee
- a terse Commanding statement

Amar...
- Speech explaining according to how the listener needs to hear, whether emotionally or intellectually.

When the 2 are used together, it does not necessarily indicate back to back chronologically.

Sah-fah...hardly ever appears anywhere.

 

[Newtonian]

So indeependent - where is your definition "intention" coming from? Clearly same language means the same set of words as the rest of Genesis 11:1 (which you did not quote) reads.. And what Bible translation can you point to as evidence scholarly Bible translators agree with your assertion?

The Jewish Greek Septuagint translation for Gen. 11:1 reads Greek G5491/cheilos/lip[Thayer: of the speaking mouth] and G5456/phone/speech[of a language]/voice[Thayer: sound of uttered words].

Genesis 11:1 from the Jewish Publication Society reads:

(JPS) And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.

(TS2009) And all the earth had one language(a) and one speech. Footnote: (a)Heb. lip.

JPS Tanakh 1917
And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.

The older Jewish Leeser translation of Genesis 11:1

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one kind of words.

 

[Indeependent]

Of course, in Genesis 6:6 Jehovah 'felt sorry' in a negative sense, while in Jonah 4:2 Jehovah felt sorry in a favorable sense - see Jonah 4:11 "feel sorry" (H2347/chus/lit. "cover" [cp. cover over sins]/compassion/pity.

The word should be comforted as I explained in my prior post.

There are multiple definitions as I posted - in English and in Greek also many words have multiple definitions. The context determines the definition. Genesis 6:6 also says "felt hurt at heart" (or the like) and is followed by Jehovah determining to destroy the grossly evil ones at the flood. Jonah 4:2,11 uses the Hebrew word in a postive/favorable sense - Jehovah felt sorry for the Ninevites and did not destroy them.

The word can have a negative or favorable meaning depending on the context. "Comfort" does not apply in either Biblical account. You need to study the contexts.

Btw - I quoted the 1984 edition of NW - our 2013 edition of NW has this footnote for "regretted" -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Or “was grieved.”

When studying God's word in God's language I use God's language.
Every high school student is told that that most of the subtlety is lost when reading Greek literature in English.
Same for Shakespeare.
I almost always have to listen to lectures or watch long videos to know what a Biblical Hebrew word means, let alone a verse.

The better course would be to read/study the context and cross references in the Bible itself - not man-made lectures or videos (etc.).

"read/study the context and cross references in the Bible itself"
That's exactly what we do.
We cycle through Tanach every year our entire lives.
The fact is that every time I loop through I reach much greater depths of what's going on and my desire to truly understand what a word means increases.
Take the Tower of Babel...
For years I couldn't find the meaning of the word "Language".
There are two words...
Lah Shone literally means the Same Language.
But that's not the word God uses to describe what is almost always translated as "Language".
The word is Soh-fehr...It means "Same Intention".
The Tower was not comprised of people who spoke the same words but of people show had the same intention.
Mankind was never meant to gather in one place and simply "Brick Bricks" (Be worked to death working for one person to impress everyone else.)
Sounds like Bill Gates was running the Tower project.

Why aren't you citing the verse you are referring to? Perhaps you realize that reading the whole verse and the context proves the definition meant?

Genesis 11:1 (NW 1984 reference edition)
Now all the earth continued to be of one language* and of one set of words.*

Footnote on "language"

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Lit., “of one lip,” MLXXVg.

[M= the Hebrew Masoretic text; LXX= Greek Septuagint; Vg = Latin Vulgate]

Footnote on one "set of words" -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Or, “of one vocabulary.”

Interlinear:

1961 [e] 1 way·hî 1 ​ וַֽיְהִ֥י​ 1 And had 1 Conj‑w | V‑Qal‑ConsecImperf‑3ms 1​

3605 [e] ḵāl כָל־ all N‑msc​

776 [e] hā·’ā·reṣ הָאָ֖רֶץ the earth Art | N‑fs​

､ ​

​

8193 [e] śā·p̄āh שָׂפָ֣ה language N‑fs​

259 [e] ’e·ḥāṯ; אֶחָ֑ת one Number‑fs​

1697 [e] ū·ḏə·ḇā·rîm וּדְבָרִ֖ים and speech Conj‑w | N‑mp​

. ​

​

"Why aren't you citing the verse you are referring to? Perhaps you realize that reading the whole verse and the context proves the definition meant? "

I mean this in a nice way...
This is ironic coming from someone who doesn't fall on the floor laughing when they study the NT.

 

[Newtonian]

Continuing:

So there are two Hebrew words in Gen. 11:1 involved referring to the same thing

H8193/language/lit. termination/lip(as a natural boundary)/margin
שָׂפָה
śâphâh

From Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew definitions:

H8193
שׂפת / שׂפה
śâphâh / śepheth
BDB Definition:
1) lip, language, speech, shore, bank, brink, brim, side, edge, border, binding
1a) lip (as body part)
1b) language
1c) edge, shore, bank (of cup, sea, river, etc)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: probably from H5595 or H8192 through the idea of termination (compare H5490)

The root soph/H5490/termination

Also "and" barim

H1697
דּבר
dâbâr
BDB Definition:
1) speech, word, speaking, thing
1a) speech
1b) saying, utterance
1c) word, words
1d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H1696

[H1696/dabar/speak words]

Bottom line - these two Hebrew words overlap in definition as speaking words of language. Neither word ever means "intention" as you assert. Next post - a third Hebrew word from the context:

Wow!
God created the universe using Hebrew.
No two Hebrew words words the same thing.
Hebrew is too small of a language for that.

Dibar
Amar

There are entire volumes written on these words and what they mean...
I can only point out what I know and it ain't much.

Dibar means..
- A Thing that exists
- A Bee
- a terse Commanding statement

Amar...
- Speech explaining according to how the listener needs to hear, whether emotionally or intellectually.

When the 2 are used together, it does not necessarily indicate back to back chronologically.

Sah-fah...hardly ever appears anywhere.

So, if there is a source that exists for your assertions - why aren't you giving references?

I gave you my sources. Did you need links?

Here is one:

Genesis 11:7 Interlinear: Give help, let us go down, and mingle there their pronunciation, so that a man doth not understand the pronunciation of his companion.'

biblehub.com

The forum format removes the actual letters of the link - they are:
biblehub
.com/
interlinear/
genesis/11-7
.htm

 

[Indeependent]

So indeependent - where is your definition "intention" coming from? Clearly same language means the same set of words as the rest of Genesis 11:1 (which you did not quote) reads.. And what Bible translation can you point to as evidence scholarly Bible translators agree with your assertion?

The Jewish Greek Septuagint translation for Gen. 11:1 reads Greek G5491/cheilos/lip[Thayer: of the speaking mouth] and G5456/phone/speech[of a language]/voice[Thayer: sound of uttered words].

Genesis 11:1 from the Jewish Publication Society reads:

(JPS) And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.

(TS2009) And all the earth had one language(a) and one speech. Footnote: (a)Heb. lip.

JPS Tanakh 1917
And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.

The older Jewish Leeser translation of Genesis 11:1

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one kind of words.

Because I looked it up and asked some Rabbis on TorahAnytime.
And do yourself the same favor I did for myself...
Stop using the supposedly Jewish sources that used the KJV because almost all of current Jewish literature prior to WWII was in Hebrew, Polish, German and Russian.
WWII left world Jewry with a decimated religion and all the Holy texts had been destroyed.
The Rabbis back then used the KJV to get Americans and refugees on back on board to Judaism.

The ironic thing is that The Torah can't be translated.
I probably have about 50 Books on Genesis and I can barely get past the first verse because it can be read in some many ways in Hebrew.
English is a horrible language for Torah.

 

[Indeependent]

Continuing:

So there are two Hebrew words in Gen. 11:1 involved referring to the same thing

H8193/language/lit. termination/lip(as a natural boundary)/margin
שָׂפָה
śâphâh

From Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew definitions:

H8193
שׂפת / שׂפה
śâphâh / śepheth
BDB Definition:
1) lip, language, speech, shore, bank, brink, brim, side, edge, border, binding
1a) lip (as body part)
1b) language
1c) edge, shore, bank (of cup, sea, river, etc)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: probably from H5595 or H8192 through the idea of termination (compare H5490)

The root soph/H5490/termination

Also "and" barim

H1697
דּבר
dâbâr
BDB Definition:
1) speech, word, speaking, thing
1a) speech
1b) saying, utterance
1c) word, words
1d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H1696

[H1696/dabar/speak words]

Bottom line - these two Hebrew words overlap in definition as speaking words of language. Neither word ever means "intention" as you assert. Next post - a third Hebrew word from the context:

Wow!
God created the universe using Hebrew.
No two Hebrew words words the same thing.
Hebrew is too small of a language for that.

Dibar
Amar

There are entire volumes written on these words and what they mean...
I can only point out what I know and it ain't much.

Dibar means..
- A Thing that exists
- A Bee
- a terse Commanding statement

Amar...
- Speech explaining according to how the listener needs to hear, whether emotionally or intellectually.

When the 2 are used together, it does not necessarily indicate back to back chronologically.

Sah-fah...hardly ever appears anywhere.

So, if there is a source that exists for your assertions - why aren't you giving references?

I gave you my sources. Did you need links?

Here is one:

Genesis 11:7 Interlinear: Give help, let us go down, and mingle there their pronunciation, so that a man doth not understand the pronunciation of his companion.'

biblehub.com

There's no way I'm using a Christian site to translate God's word.
No references?
Because your example already has a contradiction in itself...
From the right to the left of the Hebrew, words 5 and 10 are the same word in Hebrew but translated differently in English.

How can I trust web sites to spend the enormous amount of time to get it right when almost all of the English comes from a Christian source and Christians don't consider each and every letter and space to be essential?

 

[Newtonian]

Another source/link to the Hebrew text of Genesis 11:1

Genesis 11 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

www.mechon-mamre.org

וַיְהִי כָל-הָאָרֶץ, שָׂפָה אֶחָת, וּדְבָרִים, אֲחָדִים.

1 And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.

 

[Newtonian]

So indeependent - where is your definition "intention" coming from? Clearly same language means the same set of words as the rest of Genesis 11:1 (which you did not quote) reads.. And what Bible translation can you point to as evidence scholarly Bible translators agree with your assertion?

The Jewish Greek Septuagint translation for Gen. 11:1 reads Greek G5491/cheilos/lip[Thayer: of the speaking mouth] and G5456/phone/speech[of a language]/voice[Thayer: sound of uttered words].

Genesis 11:1 from the Jewish Publication Society reads:

(JPS) And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.

(TS2009) And all the earth had one language(a) and one speech. Footnote: (a)Heb. lip.

JPS Tanakh 1917
And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.

The older Jewish Leeser translation of Genesis 11:1

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one kind of words.

Because I looked it up and asked some Rabbis on TorahAnytime.
And do yourself the same favor I did for myself...
Stop using the supposedly Jewish sources that used the KJV because almost all of current Jewish literature prior to WWII was in Hebrew, Polish, German and Russian.
WWII left world Jewry with a decimated religion and all the Holy texts had been destroyed.
The Rabbis back then used the KJV to get Americans and refugees on back on board to Judaism.

The ironic thing is that The Torah can't be translated.
I probably have about 50 Books on Genesis and I can barely get past the first verse because it can be read in some many ways in Hebrew.
English is a horrible language for Torah.

Why are you posting false information? Giving us an object lesson for what is bad as per thread title?

Both the Jewish Leeser translation and Tanakh 1917 are before World War II and are in English - and certainly they are not based on KJV.

Again - post links or sources that those reading this thread can reference for accuracy and context.

 

[Newtonian]

Continuing:

So there are two Hebrew words in Gen. 11:1 involved referring to the same thing

H8193/language/lit. termination/lip(as a natural boundary)/margin
שָׂפָה
śâphâh

From Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew definitions:

H8193
שׂפת / שׂפה
śâphâh / śepheth
BDB Definition:
1) lip, language, speech, shore, bank, brink, brim, side, edge, border, binding
1a) lip (as body part)
1b) language
1c) edge, shore, bank (of cup, sea, river, etc)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: probably from H5595 or H8192 through the idea of termination (compare H5490)

The root soph/H5490/termination

Also "and" barim

H1697
דּבר
dâbâr
BDB Definition:
1) speech, word, speaking, thing
1a) speech
1b) saying, utterance
1c) word, words
1d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H1696

[H1696/dabar/speak words]

Bottom line - these two Hebrew words overlap in definition as speaking words of language. Neither word ever means "intention" as you assert. Next post - a third Hebrew word from the context:

Wow!
God created the universe using Hebrew.
No two Hebrew words words the same thing.
Hebrew is too small of a language for that.

Dibar
Amar

There are entire volumes written on these words and what they mean...
I can only point out what I know and it ain't much.

Dibar means..
- A Thing that exists
- A Bee
- a terse Commanding statement

Amar...
- Speech explaining according to how the listener needs to hear, whether emotionally or intellectually.

When the 2 are used together, it does not necessarily indicate back to back chronologically.

Sah-fah...hardly ever appears anywhere.

So, if there is a source that exists for your assertions - why aren't you giving references?

I gave you my sources. Did you need links?

Here is one:

Genesis 11:7 Interlinear: Give help, let us go down, and mingle there their pronunciation, so that a man doth not understand the pronunciation of his companion.'

biblehub.com

There's no way I'm using a Christian site to translate God's word.
No references?
Because your example already has a contradiction in itself...
From the right to the left of the Hebrew, words 5 and 10 are the same word in Hebrew but translated differently in English.

How can I trust web sites to spend the enormous amount of time to get it right when almost all of the English comes from a Christian source and Christians don't consider each and every letter and space to be essential?

True, there is more than one definition of the two Hebrew words in Genesis 11:1 - your asserted definition "intention" is not one of the definitions - and you persist in failing to quote your sources.

There is no contradiction in translating a Hebrew word with similar English words.

So is Mechon-Mamre a 'Christian' source?