🥳JESUS' PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE🥳

[BigJohn]

And when everything has been said, I suspect one of the largest, and possibly one of first, metaphysical books was .............. the Bible.

[RabbiO]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

The name Melchizedek, in of itself, posses some interesting questions. The Hebrew expression צֶ֙דֶק֙ gets translated as "of Melchizedek" and "and Melchizedek" and it sounds something like how it was pronounced in Hebrew which is ṣe·ḏeq. How this word became Melchizedek appears to be very interesting in of itself.

This what happens when someone who doesn’t know Hebrew tries to be helpful. You sound so authoritative someone might mistakenly believe you know what you’re talking about.

Spoiler Alert: You don’t.

[BigJohn]




There are numerous 'sources' that say virtually what I wrote.

[RabbiO]

Originally Posted by BigJohn




There are numerous 'sources' that say virtually what I wrote.

Let's start, shall we, with how Melchizedek is spelled in the Hebrew scripture -

מלכי צדק

It's actually two words. The words are not run together, they are not connected with a hyphen.

When you wrote "The Hebrew expression צֶ֙דֶק֙ gets translated as 'of Melchizedek' and 'and Melchizedek'", you were wrong.

There are certain things in life that are matters of opinion, things subject to differing perspectives. This is not one of them.

[BigJohn]

Okay, so I was "wrong. Plain and simple."

I was using Genesis 14:18 and there, it uses the word צֶ֙דֶק֙ that most, if not all English translations translates as "then Melchizedek".

If you re-read my #4 post, I questioned the validity of that translation when I wrote "How this word became Melchizedek appears to be very interesting in of itself."

Even Strong's Concordance seems to be frayed concerning this Hebrew word.




                                नमस्ते

[BigJohn]

Now there is the possibility that there are versions of that scripture that write Melchizedek's name differently in Hebrew. It might be interesting to see if that is true.

[BigJohn]

The following source re-affirms what I wrote.

https://www.studylight.org/interline...sis/14-18.html

[BigJohn]

This 'source' brings more clarity if you 'dig' further in to it:

https://www.studylight.org/interline...sis/14-18.html

Where you see 04442 on the left, open it up by clicking on the down arrow key.


This makes a lot of sense. If you notice in my post #4, I claimed something was wrong. This 'source' helped me out a lot on the matter.

[RabbiO]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

This 'source' brings more clarity if you 'dig' further in to it:

https://www.studylight.org/interline...sis/14-18.html

Where you see 04442 on the left, open it up by clicking on the down arrow key.


This makes a lot of sense. If you notice in my post #4, I claimed something was wrong. This 'source' helped me out a lot on the matter.

You know where it says:
"ū·mal·kî-
וּמַלְכִּי־
And"

That is not a translation of the Hebrew. The Hebrew reads "And my king"

How Malchi Tzedek should be interpreted is an interesting question. Some believe that Tzedek is a Hebraization of the name of a Canaanite deity. Some believe that Tzedek is another name for Jerusalem. The most common understanding, at least within Judaism, is that Tzedek is simply the same good ol' Hebrew word for righteous.

None of that, however, has anything to do with my original point. The fact that the folks doing these word for word charts could not figure how to deal with Melchizedek is not my problem.

[BigJohn]

I brought up the word charts as a defence in what I had previously wrote.

If you look at post #4, I could not believe how translation after translation seemed to mistranslate that scripture. I even stated there was a problem with the translation. I did not translate that way. Put the blame where blame should be put.

I can not emphasize enough, I realized right at the beginning, there was a problem in translation of that verse.

As for your original point, as addressed in post #52 and #54, ......... I can say much about it, but I think at this point a handshake would be appropiate.