Refugee

[NormF]

Dear jasd,

Hippocrates' clarity is obtained by (a) avoiding the extraneous, the impertinent, and jargon; and ( choosing a goal, laying out a course, and marching directly to it.

Stream-of-consciousness as a writing tool can be an effective way communicating an insight, but when it is, it's almost never actually a true stream of consciousness. It's merely constructed to look as if it were, with the higher level goal working silently behind the curtain to achieve the writer's end. The resulting product, if skillfully executed, can be a nice piece of work, with a pretty powerful delivery. In general however, the mind is, to a greater or lesser degree, a messy, cluttered, highly disorganized place. Dump that out before the world, and what they see is what you've got. It shows too much and says too little.

So are striving for clarity and avoiding unbridled stream-of-consciouness mutually exclusive? Quite the contrary, in good writing, they fit hand in glove.

For me, this thread misses the mark on both counts. Nico, not to knock it if it works for you. Have at it. But it feels like jousting with windmills here to me. I think I'll back out.

Peace.

Regards to all,

Norm

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

So are striving for clarity and avoiding unbridled stream-of-consciouness mutually exclusive? Quite the contrary, in good writing, they fit hand in glove.

For me, this thread misses the mark on both counts. Nico, not to knock it if it works for you. Have at it. But it feels like jousting with windmills here to me. I think I'll back out.

---

I would wish for more clarity and simplicity in our brother's communication as well, but I hate being caught in the middle of such a thing. Far be it from me to deny another his flavorful word salad. I know how much pleasure I get from my own.

However you will note my attempt to pin down the 1982-83 thing. It is a little frustrating when I'm asking for solid information I can use, and instead of that, I get an erudite dance. Not that dancing isn't fun, and not that erudition is objectionable, but sometimes it's simply not what I'm in the mood for, not what I'm after. Just like sometimes I don't want sex, I only want cuddles. And sometimes I just want conversation, not riddles, not instruction.

*shrug* - that's just me. I'm not laying a trip on "jasd" over it. I, too, can choose to engage or choose to go elsewhere. Right now I'm engaging. That may or may not continue depending on where my head "is at." I've been feeling a little braindead lately, not up for intense parsing. I do know when I fence, joust, dance with words like that it is because I wish to be hidden in plain sight, noticed without calling attention to myself (or is that the other way around?) -- but I cannot speak for the motives of another, only myself.

I do agree word play is fun. But there's a time to be artistic and a time to converse. To everything there is a time and a season ...

Nico

[jasd]

“I see you NormF!”

I’m disappointed, NormF. You have appended scurrility to the salient points of your post. Were you peeved at something or the other?

Quote:

---

Hippocrates' clarity is obtained by (a) avoiding the extraneous, the impertinent, and jargon; and (

choosing a goal, laying out a course, and marching directly to it.

---

Impertinent!? One might have thought I’d wounded a sacred cow rather than to have stepped on an aphorism.

“The chief virtue that language can have is clearness,…” —Hippocrates

The above presumes; first, that one attains-to ‘chief virtue anything’; second, that one is the adept; third, that linguistic clarity is a universal quotient; fourth, the nature of a forum thread is synonymy the academe, that is, posts should uniformly be --papers, essays, treatise-thesis-otherwise, etc;…

I don’t think so. I have yet to see the thread, these boards, that best describes the dissertation rather than dissert.

I haven’t a thing against Hippocrates. It is the pejorative use of Hippocrates that I have ought against, where a toss-off by an ancient is thought to be axiomatic and where current fetish is mistook for affectation.

“…to help, or at least to do no harm.” —Hippocrates

The above quote is found in Epidemics, Bk. I, Sect. XI. Can it be utilized as a principle? or is it contextually constrained? I believe it can be used outside of its context --where there is a metaphoric construct, such as, --I perceive that a bad-mouth contagion exists within certain endemic vectors potentiating epidemic transmission. Could not ‘do no harm’ be used situationally? There it is, I’ve presumed upon Hippocrates.

Actually, there exists very little that we might think, or otherwise wish for, which is absolutely rigid, for example: the geometric principle ‘the shortest distance between two points is a straight line’ does not always obtain. That is where non-Euclidean geometry is employed.

I believe neither you nor I hold that a principle must be bound by its context.

“The ability to produce and understand utterances never heard before is called linguistic competence. Lies, prevarications, metaphors and other unpredictable language are politics unique to human communications systems."

One might pound wool to obtain felt. Another might spin wool to obtain a strand...

As is seen from what I’ve already posted, I’m not much for the formulaic. One reads slowly with an expectation of the serendipitous. Even the Lord ponders…

One might also have perceived by now that I have taken pains to present a bio that encourages a very, very gimlet eye be used --when reading a post of mine. I have avoided giving the impression that I am anything other than moi, sharing the Bible.

“I'm nobody! Who are you?

Are you nobody, too?

Then there's a pair of us -- don't tell!” --Emily D

I require that I be simply thought of as --hoi polloi jasd; not a choo-choo pulling a train of alphabets after my name, not Albert Schweitzer reincarnated, not possessed of a mantle of gravitas, not having a glorious aura that needs to be veiled, or any other such, --which might lend authority to my Biblical observations. It is I, jasd, sharing what I read in the KJV Holy Writ; if it is not refuted or dialoged, it stands.

My person, or comments thereupon, be dinked. If that has been missed by the ‘critic’ --from reading my posts, there is a serious matter of discernment haunting this list. (that is not to withstand an approbation or two from those I admire) [/grinnin’ like a fool] ;-)

"A special kind of beauty exists which is born in language, of language, and for language." --Gaston Bachelard

Between pick and pan …from the morphemic unit to the syntactical constellations. --jasd

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

“I see you NormF!”

---

Up there in yo' tower, with yo' Y-rays, no doubt!

[jasd]

“I see you NormF”

Have I mentioned I get whizzed-off by the petty?

Quote:

---

Stream-of-consciousness as a writing tool

can be

an effective way communicating an insight, but when it is, it's

almost never

actually

a true stream of consciousness. It's merely constructed

to look

as if

it were, with the higher level goal working silently behind the curtain to achieve the writer's end. The resulting product,

if

skillfully executed,

can be

a nice piece of work, with a pretty powerful delivery. In general

however

, the mind is,… _edit_

---

The above is quite the dogleg! Did you mean to equivocate so? Am I as subliminal? Should I be so, I admit to error. I thought I had already made it clear that I lacked adeptness with things linguistic and grammatical.

I have always assumed that ‘paste to the Google’, ‘pick up the dictionary’, or ‘ask a question’… {getting there ladies ;-) } was the easiest and most obvious three-step maneuver in the world. I see now where one who is disinclined to use any of these three steps would remain perplexed; otherwise, it is all --so much duck soup.

Quote:

---

…to a greater or lesser degree, a messy, cluttered, highly disorganized place. Dump that out before the world, and what they see

is what

you've

got

.

Does this mean we won’t be dating? or are you simply trying to be precocious? (Sorry, unwarranted pettiness brings out the worst in me)

Quote:

---

It shows too much and says too little.

---

I don’t suppose you Googled ‘MacArthur Park’? Jimmy Webb’s a very gifted lyricist and songwriter, probably the most prominent of his generation, considered by many to possess that evanescent quality of genius. The lyrics to MacArthur Park

‘showed so much and said so little’ and ‘showed so little and said so much’. MacArthur Park was/is his opus magnum, his posterity --in my most humble opinion. His writing has been described as ornate. I think there are more people who’ve appreciated his fashioning of the ornate than have ever given thought to Hippocrates.

Thanks, but no thanks! When I begin to pass myself off as the Grand Oompah, then, I will concern myself with the extraneous, the jargon, the streams, the coulda, the woulda, the shouldas...

[quote

Quote:

---

So are striving for clarity and avoiding unbridled stream-of-consciouness mutually exclusive?

---

“Stream of consciousness, left to its own devices, has its problems…” _edit_

---

And you have a problem with what I write!? Again, exactly, what don’t you understand of that, which I have put forward?

Quote:

---

Quite the contrary, in good writing, they fit hand in glove.

---

VaaRooooom! Rrrrrrrrr-ummmm! Screeeeeech! Crash-Bang, KrrrKaboomm! Pht, pht, pht, -- Everyone ran out into the blast of road-asphalt smells and chromatic Texas heat, exceptin’ Old Sorrows who walked down the bar suckin’ up everyone’s drink. Putting the bottle of Bud in his pocket and shuffin’ past the battered aluminum door still crazily ajar, he lent a “What’s up?” to a surreal montage. --Wolfean

If the syllabi of fourth genre writing have found acceptance in the world of academia, can my geist be so elusive? (my friend, 10th grade, although not understanding every word --read my posts in context without lack of comprehension, no problema --for shame! undirected, of course)

Gloves, OJ?

Quote:

---

For me, this thread misses the mark on both counts.

---

Well, I suppose there’s that to be said for “clarity and unbridled streams-“, though I might rather have wished for savoir-faire.

Quote:

---

Nico, not to knock it if it works for you. Have at it.

---

Ahhh, more graceful should the bow be taken without the sibilance… altogether too much the très gauche. Gauche is more to be desired than affable!? Vah!

However, inadvertently, you’ve done me service, …obliged. I’ve been concerned for the two ladies (who are the only two to have shown the practicality and the courtesy of engaging me directly by asking the pertinent questions and contributing their observations; additionally, they manifest a greater core than others…) that they might be standing too close-by me. I’ve not come to lend my fine baritone to a choir; I prefer to solo, --being an offense for the word. I didn’t wish that they, being too close, came to harm.

Quote:

---

But it feels like jousting with windmills here to me.

---

NormF! don’t try to kid me. If the petard is your lance, you have done judiciously well deciding not to tilt at windmills.

Quote:

---

I think I'll back out.

---

Actually, I thought of your two posts as lobs, rather than engagements. It is my thinking that you, should you choose, have much to contribute, if you could desist from the pejorative admixtures.

Why won't you address issues, instead?

Thanking you,

jasd

[jasd]

Nicodema

I haven’t ignored you. I wanted to address three things but hesitated for not knowing how to finesse the language..., that is, how best to proceed with the Tertium Organum [/grinnin’], or, the third thought.

First, I wanted to thank you for your welcoming manner. The second, constitutes a matter that I was approaching haltingly, which unexpected received facilitation by an unashamedly manipulative devise --that suggestion of diminishment by association. Naturally, I took advantage of that devise, as segue…

I anticipated its manifestation somewhere along the threadline, …just didn’t know when, exactly. I have seen it too-very-overly-consistently-extensively-often --on other forums, to expect that it would not happen --upon these boards, as well. I have for humor’s sake, given a nomer, of sorts, to its collective psyche, following:

“…we against Grendel and the night”,

…lacking sanctity perhaps, but ensuring I don’t tear my hair out for the frustration of the affect of ‘narrowness’.

I hesitated to approach it more directly in my last post to LynnDel, opting instead to couch the relevant phrases. It is my thinking that neither you nor LynnDel should face negative inflections on my account; therefor, it may behoove you both to exercise a bit of care…

The third, is a matter of unease to me, and it may be that you have some life experiences paralleling what I have characterized as --“unease”.

You chanced upon on a few disparate aspects of my posts that were only very briefly touched upon. As for dwelling upon or revisiting the matter, I can’t touch it (to quote MC Hammer), except superficially and obliquely…

There is a power of the air/the breath. Power enough to even change ‘times’ and ‘laws’, as it were,

to form and/or to suspend some of what we take for natural law, that is, the laws of physics, as we understand them to obtain; --not, ...to manipulate that, which are the accepted equations of physics, as presently understood.

I have seen it. I have been taught it. I have shared in portion, experiencing that, which caused me to cease the practice. I suspect you may have had other realities substantiated.

It’s almost Biblical, “If ye had the faith…”

It is employing the mind as catalyst, upon the function of breathing, torso and limb positioning, and directing the course of energy before --exhalation and the manner by which it is exhaled, --together with dietarily supplementing the body with certain minerals. Of course, there is much more, such as, --associating an object or event --and its place in time and/or local.

Aside: where did the myths of the white, red-headed, blue-blooded ancestors originate? Although, the mythos is universal, the most noteworthy and readily accessible records emerged via the Sumer and the Indus (populated by the first Brahmin, of caste). Note: some say (idiomatic ‘Aryans’, for example) the myth of blue blood arises from the bluish threads of the dermal vascular system. More precisely: blue blood flows blue from certain carbon units, that is, people [oy vay!]. How? if that blood has a high copper content --it flows blue upon exposure to air (high levels of copper is toxic to you and me --usually).

The above being cursory, I hit ‘pause control’. It is probable that it would be inadvisable for me to go into details on this forum; besides, I don’t care to revisit those events. They may or may not have, I don’t know, --come from places I shouldn’t have visited.

That consideration aside, I quit, mostly because I had become more than spectator, and was beginning to experience shared --excruciating pain and fear --that, which is associated with the silver cord. I’m kinda wimpy where certain kinds of pain is the issue. In other words,

I was scared blep, blep, blepless…

I quit. Walked away. I also quit that form of karate, as it was for developing its technique that I became involved in acquiring another ‘unknown’ kind of power. It exists.

The dangers of messin’ round cannot be overstated! My mother, a righteous woman and a mighty prayer warrior, prayed for me constantly. I am certain I am here at this keyboard because of her intercession.

Speaking of intercession, it is a subject I should dwell upon, mebbe soon… hmmm

(The 1982-3 thing? Don’t place too much on it. It is probably dissimilar to your own insights. I have to secure a few moorings to the 2300 day/year aspect first, before putting forward my observations upon 1982-3)

Addendum: do you know how I might proceed --to emend or edit a post for typos and such?

[jasd]

Quote:

---

Up there in yo' tower, with yo' Y-rays, no doubt!

---

Prismatic :-)

Some years ago, not that many, in fact, the following won a $25,000 literary prize in Los Angeles...

ligght

I've often wondered how best one might describe that 'g'. I'm still wondering... I probably don't want to know, as I've since been told that it is a legitimate alternate spelling. [/sigh]

[cricket]

I'd describe the 'g' as silent. As is the "3" in Hen3ry.

[Nicodema]

One thing I've never understood: how/why on earth the gospel of John ever came to be abbreviated as "Jno.", and who the heck was responsible for starting such a pointless, ridiculous practice.

Jasd, I'll answer your longer points after I've had some rest. I did want to address one thing immediately, though:

Quote:

---

It is my thinking that neither you nor LynnDel should face negative inflections on my account; therefor, it may behoove you both to exercise a bit of care…

---

Oh pishtosh, folderol, and tommyrot. It is I who am "the one you warned me of," who carries taint by mere association, and I'm not about to let you usurp my cultivated niche -- is that clear? [/grins]

I am well aware of the other things of which you spoke, by the way -- forms of 'travel,' sympathetic reality hacking, prana and Kundalini, power to change 'times' and 'laws', and all other sorts of psychospiritual technology. I was beyond scared; I was owned, operated, and on the increase till my destruction came upon me. At the very least I have an unique testimony, for I can say with all honesty that I have known what it is to be destroyed by God in His mercy. I do remember at some point before it happened that I'd prayed and begged Him to release me from it all, but I don't remember why. I just remember, like you said, excruciating pain. Then everything went haywire. People betrayed me, my own followers turned against me, the world went off course, history was wrenched from its track, it was a regular massive cataclysmic devastation of the Thunder Perfect Mind, the World Soul in the agonizing throes of a foul and treacherous deicide. I wandered for another 4 or 5 years seeking a resurrection that wasn't coming, before the Prodigal awoke to her senses and decided to just Go Home.

It would be interesting to exchange stories privately (off the forum) someday, if you ever felt safe or comfortable to do so. I don't believe it's really over until both the fear and the fascination are gone, and only then is it really safe to share where we've been. Don't be afraid; your former life is passed away in Him and it cannot hurt you. Behold the old is gone, the new is come!

[jasd]

;-)

I’m letting it stand without riposte, as …Xtian geste.

It is too precious to touch. You go girl. [/brava]

[jasd]

Quote:

---

It would be interesting to exchange stories privately (off the forum) someday,...

---

Perhaps, someday. Except for the occasional, it's

pretty much in its own folder and filed under 'extreme compartmentalized'.

I keep a wide berth except for the infrequent reading of a few verses of one, Patience... when the day is warm, an elderberry drink stands nearby --and I'm again, young.

I'm attempting to revisit the 2300 days --tomorrow, hopefully.

[Guest]

Is there any hope for a nefarious old reprobate to be forgiven for past errors and other wanderings and allowed back in if only to post some of my 400+ smilie icons soon to grow to about 800 ??

<font color=blue>--Ðøug[]http://home.earthlink.net/~sierradoug/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/smilieonandoff.gif[/]</font><font size=1> 2005.2.25.0.12.44 PT

[Guest]

That sign off shoulda bean:

[:blue]--Ðøug[]http://home.earthlink.net/~sierradoug/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/smilieonandoff.gif[/] 2005.2.25.0.14.56 PT

-----------------------

There is no reality - the universe is a Hologram.

[jasd]

Howdy D'Meister

Am always interested to see what precedes the typicon (didja lose it?).

Jes' lettin' you know, I'm tryin' to put a lasso and my brand on 'cussed'.

So, will be reading all yer posts tah spot the wily ornt.

[Guest]

Jasd, I think that eventually this free for all side will wear thin with me because here I feel like I'm in jail []http://home.earthlink.net/~sierradoug/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/jail.gif[/] or in some sort of lower (rather than upper) purgatory.

[:blue]--Ðøug[]http://home.earthlink.net/~sierradoug/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/rolleyes3.gif[/] 2005.2.25.22.56.51 PT

-----------------

There is no reality - the universe is a Hologram.

[jasd]

D'Meister

I think if you register, you get a pass for a month. After that, who knows? these boards are as good a place as any to paste your buggers... :-)

As long as I've got California's weather system up here while ours -- Oregon's, is visiting So Cal, heh! ain't me who's gonna be complainin'? Besides,

there aren't many of the list comin' over here --and,

That makes this 'Free for all' anybody's li'l ol' site! Like, how cool can that be? [/pizza?]

[jasd]

Re: cleansed #6663

Quote:

---

"All lexicons agree in giving the meaning of the word as ‘to be just,’ ‘to be righteous.’ In 8:14 the word occurs in the Niphal form (the reflexive or passive), and would ordinarily be translated ‘be justified,’ or ‘be made righteous’” ” (Problems in Bible Translation, p. 175).

Hmmm, ‘justified’, ‘made righteous’…, is the ‘sanctuary’ --whether earthly or heavenly, that is, of stones, of cedar, gold, weave, etc,

--a personification?

---

Dan 8:11 …and the place of his sanctuary{4720} was cast down. …

v13 …to give both the sanctuary{6944] and the host to be trodden under foot?

v14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary{6944} be cleansed.{6663}

Why does Daniel transition from #4720 -- miqdash; verse 11? to…#6944 -- qodesh; verses 13,14? That noted,

let’s, rather, look instead at ‘cleansed’ #6663 -- tsadaq; verse 14, again. Remember, in that

"All lexicons agree in giving the meaning of the word as ‘to be just,’ ‘to be righteous.’ In 8:14 the word occurs in the Niphal form (the reflexive or passive), and would ordinarily be translated ‘be justified,’ or ‘be made righteous’” ” [ed.]

the question was asked, “…is the ‘sanctuary’ --whether earthly or heavenly, that is, stones, cedar, gold, weave, etc, --a personification?”

Don’t think so. In fact, “…a review of, say, Young’s Analytical Concordance, and a careful reading of every form of the word sadaq listed there:

Gen 38:26, 44:16, Ex 23:7, Deu 25:1, 2 Sa 15:4, 1 Ki 8:32, 2 Ch 6:23, Job 4:17, 9:2, 9:15, 9:20, 10:15, 11:2, 13:18, 15:14, 22:3, 25:4, 27:5, 32:2, 33:12, 33:32, 34:5, 35:7, 40:8, Ps 19:9, 51:4, 82:3, 143:2, Prov 17:15, Isa 5:23, 43:9, 43:26, 45:25, 50:8, 53:11, Jer 3:11, Ezk 16:51, 16:52 (twice), Da 12:3.” [ed. Ps 19:9] --(Problems in Bible Translation, p. 175

with Ps 19:9 The fear of the LORD [is] clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD [are] true [and] righteous{6663} altogether.

being an arguable exception(?), one rightfully, arrives at the conclusion that --Given the above texts, one can hardly put forward that the ’cleansing’ of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 is anything other than a reference to the 'cleansing' of 'peoples' --by whatever denotation (in this instance, tribal units/kingdoms). The exegetical purport that the ‘cleansing’ is that of --a material or a ‘spiritual’ object, of sorts, --is a very thin reed, thin…, very…

The ‘sanctuary’ of Daniel 8:14 is the House of Judah _qodesh_, and by extension (by implication, a synecdochic extension of the COI, which in turn, the crown/sceptre is a synecdoche of Judah), is --the whole House of Israel, the twelve tribes.

“Notice that every form of the word {6663} applies to persons only; never to things. We therefore have a mystery. How can a sanctuary be justified or made righteous? The Interpreter’s Bible and other Bible commentaries are rightfully puzzled over the word meaning here. Many ignore the problem by giving nisdaq a meaning based on what they think Daniel 8:14 says. Many Hebrew dictionaries do the same. This is not honest. Words such as "restored" and "cleansed" are interpretive read-ins and do not belong in the text. The facts are clear. "The Hebrew word sadaq is used here, for which no variant reading is given in any Hebrew Bible” ” [ed. #6663 curly brackets] (Problems in Bible Translation, p. 175). --courtesy, Eugene Shubert

[jasd]

So, the mountain comes to Mohammed…

Thanks, administration, --an ‘EDITdelete’ function appeared on my screen format yesterday.

It is welcomed.

[jasd]

The 2300 days/years scenario as presently envisioned by the majority of those who have interested themselves with it, still has much that needs to be developed on both sides of the issue; however, I’m presently, taking a detour to address an aspect of it that is totally ignored. Maybe it has been rightfully ignored,

A journey is often full of uncertainty, ambiguity and paradox. It is the way of the unknown:

‘in order to arrive at what you do not know... you must go by a way of ignorance’ --T. S. Eliot

then again…

That being said, I’m temporarily postponing addressing that particular aspect which is used to arrive at a ‘conceived’ date certain that, in turn, is relied upon to substantiate an IJ, --a brief respite.

For the purpose of clarification, I’m not trying to deconstruct an IJ. I don’t presently, have a brief with the concept of an IJ. I don’t know that I ever shall. All I’ve done so far is to point out that there might, ought, be another way, another route, as it were, to arrive at the doctrine of an IJ --without relying upon that, which exhibits much tenuity.

I’m putting forward a few observations that lead to ca. the year AD 1982-3 as possibly having inherent import, --to see what develops.

[jasd]

I thought I would take a nothing jib jab, clean it up, and see if I might use it as a bridge…

Quote:

---

Re: ‘seven times more’ in the two texts above…

Is that a quantitative use of

more

? or is it an adverbial

more

? --meaning a

temporal

inflected continuance of ‘seven times’, rather than, a quantitative

addition

of that, which precedes? I believe the third and fourth utilization by Gd of ‘seven times’ in this chapter, --clarifies it.

---

Of course, the above quote is referring to texts found in Leviticus 26.

Sigh, how was the opaqueness of _that_ let stand by the list? I think most suspect that “an adverbial more” is, in fact, an adjectival “more” modifying the ordinal noun “seven times”.

It is generally argued that the seven times is a sevenfold (Revised Standard, etc) increase in punishments, plagues, and chastisements. There are five additional punishments specified between the “I will punish…” of verse 18 and the seven times plagues of verse 21; again, five more specified ‘plagues’ between verses 21 and 24; herein, between verse 21 and verse 29 there are seven punishments --before the next reiterated seven times of verse 29; verse 29 forward, lists more than a score of chastisements. What’s up? Is the 'sevenfold', which supposedly represents an intensification really so haphazard? ...Haphazard. Loose? mebbe… How is the text validated? I propose that the “seven times” are duofold, one being --parenthetical accents with a parabolic function.

Prov 25:2 [it is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter

Gen 14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained [servants] , born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued [them] unto Dan.

Eliezer, servant of Abraham: "The numerical value of the word Eliezer is 318, that is, aleph=1 + lamed=30 + yod=10 + ayin=70 + zayin=7 + resh=200."

“Eli--ezer: My Gd -- Helps” (remember Christ’s last words on the cross, Eli! Eli!…?)

Notice, servants in the Genesis 14 text is supplied. A more exact reading might be “…he armed his trained three hundred and eighteen (that is, Eliezer), born in his own house. (by reading the text without the supplied, it seems Abraham and Eliezer were the only two to have pursued and overcome the four Kings -- THAT’s FAITH!)

Gen 14:15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants {5650},…

#5650 `ebed eh'-bed

from 5647; a servant:--X bondage, bondman, (bond-)servant, (man-)servant.

Note: the singular aspect of Strong’s #5650... it's allowable.

(Actually, the Midrash permits both readings; Abraham and Eliezer-- and 318 servants)

Inasmuch, as Ephraim inherited all the promises and unconditional covenants of his forebears (the only inheritance withheld from him were the ‘lawgiver and the sceptre’), being made by Gd’s choosing the Firstborn of Israel, --the allusion inherent in the meaning of his name, that is: double fruitfulness is parabolic, as it wasn’t until the death of Israel that Ephraim did, indeed, inherit the double portion; it being the birthright of the Firstborn of the COI.

The above, does not exhaust Biblical examples provided for --THAT, which is the glory of God to conceal...:

1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

St Paul may have spoken truthfully here in referencing the corporate community.

(But, how assuredly can we rely upon St Paul?)

2 Co 12:16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

...or deceit: That, however, is a story for another day.

(D'Meister, I don't know how the Re:D/'Meister above came to be. I had replied to my own

Re: potpourri [Re: Anonymous]

#156354 - Wed Feb 16 2005 12:40 AM -- page 2

oops...)

[Nicodema]

Hm. I feel summarily dismissed. Oh well -- if others do not wish my company or conversation the loss is entirely theirs.

[jasd]

Nicodema

Quote:

---

Hm. I feel summarily dismissed.

---

Bite your tongue! Non, non, not by me, summarily or otherwise, --you’ve sufficient presence to be difficult to dismiss. If it seems that you’re dismissed, it is only neglect; I’ve got a valve that pht-phts instead of Kchunck-kchunks, --and am really, really, tired and worn-out for it.

Quote:

---

Oh well -- if others do not wish my company or conversation the loss is entirely theirs.

---

I’m hoping that the above is no more than a pursed and charming moue, --or you must explain yourself. [/clueless] I think both your company and your conversation are stimulating and insightful. Kinetic (don’t let it go to your head but, --done well, also). And yes, the loss would be entirely that of the party of the other, --moi. By the way,

I dropped by the “Resurrection” thread yesterday AM. Those were excellent posits of yours; and, I think many wonder alike,

YLT Rev 20:10 and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night--to the ages of the ages.

I mean…, the beast and the false prophet had been in the lake of ‘fire and brimstone’ for a millennia already, --and the Devil joins them in fire of sorts, which consumes or doesn’t consume. Which is it? If it consumes, how entirely and exactly what? does it consume, as to allow the ‘permanency’ of ages unto ages… ad infinitum? Is it semantics? And,

how is ‘torment’ best defined? pain? vex? if vex, how much further up the spectrum might we bleed an inference? to melancholy, regret, contemplation, eternal shame? …etc?

I’ve stated upon the now defunct forum that my mother would trade Gd her eternity for mine --should the gathering angels leave me for the gleaners. What is the point of that kind of love, if Gd just sloughs it, “Waaalll…, Mary, y’know, jasd just didn’t get it. So, y’know the wheel turns…, but don’t you no-nevermind, your memories of that unfortunate son will be deleted and…,”

“But I don’t want my memories of jasd deleted…!”

Bless my sainted mother, shy as she was that little hen would intercede, argue, and raise an absolute fuss…, unless spiritually lobotomized. [/hyperbole]

Does the ‘character of love’, Gd Himself, do less? Is it blasphemy to suggest otherwise? There really aren’t provisions?

I think many will be surprised by the numbers of them who will be sharing the heavens --and possibly the earth; or, the LORD’s hand is indeed, --very much shortened.

[jasd]

There are those who date the downfall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel --from the incursion of Pul the Assyrian in 745 BC; I tend towards the date 733 BC with its more easily substantiated extensive deportations by Tiglath-pileser III (Pul and Tiglath-pileser being one and the same, --Schrader). Easton puts forth its position with the statement, --That was the beginning of the ‘Captivity’, that is, 733 BC. I opt for the use of the term --‘captivities’.

Both dates are significant. The king Menahem procured an understanding with Pul only upon giving him a thousand talents of silver, at which point, ‘…the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land’ (2 Kings 15:20).

So, let’s begin to narrow the stage with its actors…

Pekah, king of the NKOI confederated with Rezin, king of Syria to come against Jerusalem and its king Ahaz --to lay siege against Jerusalem, and by extension, the Southern Kingdom of Judah. (incidentally, it is during this account that the word Jews is first encountered in the Bible {2 Kings 16:6}, the characterization of which, might be likened to the epithet Jap, a derogatory derivation of Japanese, likewise, Jew, appears to have been an epithet by its enemies --for Judah)

Ahaz sent messengers (against the advice of Isaiah) to Tiglath-pileser seeking a counter alliance against Pekah and Rezin. Tiglath-pileser complied by killing Rezin, invading the NKOI in 733 BC, --deporting great numbers of Israelites;

Included were “…Ijon, and Abelbethmaachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali,.. (2 kings 15:29): also, the Reubenites, the Gadites, and a portion of Manasseh were deported at this time. --Easton

I have condensed the above to arrive at a synopsis, that being…

assuming, my predicate of seven times represents a prophetic parabol of 2520 years; and given that the dates surrounding the events ca. 745-732 BC are still a matter of some slight flux; and notwithstanding the arguments whether to add, or not to add a year when transitioning BC to AD; and accepting that I am not the one qualified to assert unequivocally any date(s) as certifiable, let’s surmise...:

There is a span of 2520 years from the purported ‘downfall’ of the NKOI, that is, from 745 BC to AD 1775-6; and, there is a span of 2520 years from the ‘captivities’ beginning in 733 BC to AD 1787-8.

The terminus ad quem, or finishing point of AD 1775-6 is noteworthy in that it coincides the Declaration of Independence (of America).

The terminus ad quem, or finishing point of AD 1787-8 is likewise, noteworthy in that it coincides the US Congress approving the Constitution (’87) and its subsequent ratification (‘88).

[jasd]

I mentioned previously, the actors of the terminus a quo, or starting point ca. 745-33 BC. It might prove interesting for some --to see them as matrix:

Pekah -- open eye

Rezin -- firm

Tiglath-pileser III as Pul -- strong

Tiglath-pileser III -- destruction, bind, captives

Ahaz -- possessor (of the first sun-dial, or timer/clock --known to history: notwithstanding scratchings upon monoliths and ziggurats, etc)

or…,

Open eye

Firm

Strong

Destruction, bind, captives,

Possessor --of the timer

Is the above important? You tell me…

Gd, speaking to Nathan the prophet:

2 Sa 7:8 Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, … v10 Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more;

The above declaration by Gd, the LORD of hosts, addressed the entirety of the COI before the separation of kingdoms; meaning, all the tribes, then dwelling in old Canaanland would yet move to a place appointed --from whence they would move no more.

The American Sephardim believe that _place appointed_ is America. The Ashkenazi Jew believes otherwise. --L.A. Times, Religion Section. One is quite put to mind the doggerel…

One Scot is a Theologian

Two Scots is a church

Three Scots is a schism…

...almost follows, doesn't it?

What does the Bible say? Who have parsed Writ more astutely? the Sephardim? or the Ashkenazis? mebbe, the Evangelicals...?

[jasd]

Let me remind --that Gd placed emphasis upon the signal conveyance of a name. Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, come to mind with St Paul bearing witness to a NT aspect...

When I use the term ‘matrix’, as pertains to those severally of history named, there should no inference be drawn --that I am appealing to so-called Bible Codes, which require software programs to extract --whatever. So,

we’ve done Pekah, Rezin, Pul/Tilgath-pileser, and Ahaz, which brings us to the servant of Gd, that is, --

Nebuchadnezzar or Nebo-chadnezzar

Nebo means ‘proclaimer or prophet’

Chadnezzar means ‘protect the crown!’

Jer. 25:9 …saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant,…

Jer 29:19 …my servants the prophets,…

Jer. 43:10 …Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant,…

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

What secret did Gd reveal to His servant Nebuchadnezzar? that we were not privy-to because the book of Daniel has been, hitherto, sealed?

I hear demurs; Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan… Umm, who gave him the dream of Empires arising -- one following the other ‘til the end of days…? Who gave him the dream of the overspreading tree? Both qualify as prophecy, as much as anything prophesied by the prophets of Israel and/or Judah. Perhaps, even more so, --than most. However, perhaps the more relevant comparison must be made vis-à-vis Ezekiel, Moses, day/year time prophecies. Moreover,

how many of us have, recently, raised our own voice heavenward with such as the following…?

Dan 4:37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works [are] truth, and his ways judgment:

The fruits tell…

So, Nebo, of the first part [/grinnin’], was a proclaimer and prophet. Let’s look at Chadnezzar of the second part, that is, ‘protect the crown!’, which crown would Gd have him protect? his own? or was there another that Gd desired, --that Nebu-Chadnezzar should protect?