NewStats: 3,259,758 , 8,170,850 topics. Date: Sunday, 25 May 2025 at 10:54 PM 305p3c

Do you have a 24v & 48v available?

kristien4:
Is it safe to Ac wire/ and Dc wire inside thesame pipe that leads into a building.

Generally not a good idea.

thesicilian:
As if there's a difference

Actually, Yes there is

Kingozymandias:
After watching this... I feel Will smith should respectfully , I mean as a man I am speaking to my fellow man now Will Simple Smith... As a man I am telling you ,please for the love of your late mum, for the love of all men around the world for the love of your son who is watching you and going to model his life after you ... Please divorce this woman and save whatever tiny self respect you have ...

Guy make up your own mind I mean this video left me confused ... Like what am I watching ?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MfudVmcHFA

Jada might be everything people are saying she is but this video doesn't prove anything.

The video is just basically husband & wife squabble and anybody who has been married or know people who have been married can attest to it. People are just reading back into the video what they already in their mind believe to be true.

Like I said, she might or might not be a narcissist or whatever but this video definitely doesn't proof it one way or another.
I could be wrong though.

It is well...

PastorAIO:




Why borrow it? after all it is available online. I bring this up because I'm beginning to fear that the spirit of mendacity (a speciality of yhwh's) is at play.



Please consider the word for mother, Iya. Then consider those spirits known in Yoruba as 'Our Mothers'. Iyaami Osoronga. because the ami is different does not mean that the word does not refer to the power of motherhood.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyami_Aje



I believe the problem may be that you don't understand what Etymology is. Etymology does not concern itself with the present day meaning of a word but rather with the origins of the word, allowing for the fact that meanings can change and the phonetic word of the sound can change too.
Dictionaries do not give etymology but only pronunciation and present day meaning and usage. RC Abrahams dictionary does not go into the etymology of any words.
My favourite example of how very different sounding words can have the same etymology is the case with 'James'. The name James is originally Iacov, a Hebrew name. Iacov is directly translated into English as Jacob. However it is translated into Italian as Iago, or Diego, or Tiago. In English while Jacob is use it also manifests as James which some consider to be a different word/name.

All of these are irrelevant to the main point which is that yhwh required human sacrifice of children and clearly its to this is in Ezekiel 20 25,26. However this is something that happens to be a pet interest of mine beyond this topic. It might help to consider the contexts in which the word ebo is used and how it is used, and what it refers to.

DeepSight:


And your answer is just as interesting.



Do I understand right that by asking this question, you are headed in the direction which generally says that arising from the fall of man, there was no other way to balance the scales of divine justice - the sacrifice of a "pure lamb of God" being necessary to "pay the price" on behalf of mankind?

Because if the foregoing familiar argument is where you are headed, please help me with a few questions -

1. What was the purpose of the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament
2. Does the idea that one person can "pay" for the sins of another meet the requirements of justice?
3. Why must any such "payment" be in torture, blood and death?
4. What has changed after the alleged propitiatory sacrifice of Christ - do humans not still have to live righteous lives to be acceptable to God - as always was the case anyway?
5. Why is genuine repentance of sins insufficient such that a torturous blood sacrifice is required?

These to my mind are more important questions than all the hassle about language technicalities because Christian doctrine centres on the alleged propitiatory sacrifice of Christ.

Many thanks in advance.

I totally agree with you that language technicalities is really not that important in the grand scheme of things. I just wanted to point out a misunderstanding and really didn't think it would get this long.

In any case,to your questions. I do think they're really important since they're at the core of the Christian faith.
To answer your questions is to start from the very beginning of the bible and trace a matrix of ideas with a unified theme through it.

If you don't mind, I'll like to post a few videos that I believe do a good job at this. The videos are super short (5-10mins ) and very accessible. One of the author is a solid biblical scholar and a couple of college teachers actually use their videos for their first year students

I really do hope you find these resources helpful or at least worth pondering.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy2AQlK6C5k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=takEeHtRrMw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbipxLDtY8c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTnq6I3vUbU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNOZ7ocLD74

DeepSight:
OK Jamesid29,
Away from all the technicality of language and wayizbahs and Josiahs and Jephtahs and what not.
What is your own take on the concept of a transcendental omnipotent God requiring any kind of propitiatory sacrifice for sins - be it the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament or the alleged sacrifice of Christ of the New Testament.

That's actually a very fascinating question.
For a being to be truly God from our perspective, he not only has to be omnipotent, he also has to be perfectly Just. A perfectly just being would also have to do justice to sin otherwise he is no longer perfectly Just.
Unlike gods of the ancient world, the bible makes a claim that the God of the bible is also perfectly loving.

So if I may ask you, how do you think the bible resolves the tension between the character of a God who is perfectly just and perfectly loving , and who has to deal with free moral agents who have fallen to sin?

PastorAIO:


I don't get what you mean by not sharing the same sound.
And also, where did you look into the etymology to find that they have different roots?

(these are genuine questions, not gotcha questions)

Just look at the dictionary. I believe you should know how it's structured since you also own it.

As for the sound, that has to do with the ami.. BỌ́ is a different ami ohun from BỌ

PastorAIO:


I didn’t know that. It needs to be higher up on Google’s algorithms cos it doesn’t come up when you put in Yoruba words. In fact, ridiculously, I’ve often googled a word only to be sent to Nairaland of all places. Lol.

Part of my job heavily depends on research..

In any case, I borrowed it and it clearly shows that apart from both words not even sharing the same sound, they don't share the same root or etymology.

Added the other one's that share the same sound but not the same root or meanings for further clarity.

Anyway, it's fine.

PastorAIO:


While the internet is a fine repository off much information there is much it doesn’t cover. I find this to be especially true of things involving Yoruba culture. The best source of information on these things is traditional elders. Not even our age mates.

Luckily I have a Yoruba dictionary written by RC Abraham

It clearly shows that to bö is to feed, but not only to feed but with the intention to fattened or make more robust. In other words to nurture and nourish. So you can feed a cow but if the cow is not getting fatter then that is aböti.

The same way you feed a child you also feed a Orisha shrine. The intention is the same. To nourish and to make robust. That is why Yoruba do not have a shrine for Eledumare because there is nothing that a human can give to say he wants to feed eledumare. On the contrary it is Eledumare that feeds the world. It is Orisha that are fed, not Eledumare. There is no contradiction in meaning when you use bö for children or for shrines.
Similarly my point is that there is no contradiction of meaning when you read Wayyizbah in reference to cattle and when you read it in reference to humans.

I was with a friend when I looked it up and we discovered the word Ibö mbö! What a useful word. Many men I know, including my friend, are languishing under ibömbö. That is Alimony or child in English. That gave us a laugh.

LoL... I hope you know that Abraham's Modern Yoruba dictionary is available on online libraries, right...

It is well sir

PastorAIO:
These are a lot of words. Well let me try to answer them as best I can.

When I first read this post a few days a go you said something that it seems that you have since deleted. Something to the effect that you believe the god of the bible to be 'just and good as portrayed by Jesus' and from that is based your understanding of the verses. Of course my position is diametrically contrary to that.
We all know that premises, context and framing plays a big part in interpretations. So when you start with the premise that Yhwh is 'just and good' then that will colour how you interpret the ages.
So obviously when you see Way yizbah and fail to interpret it as sacrifice that premise plays a part in your interpretation.


I must confess I still haven't read it. I've only skimmed through it though it looked very interesting. I picked up on the fact that he was presenting various contradicting opinions and also offering some of his own. This is the way with scholarship generally.
Almost anything open to interpretation can be interpreted in such a variety of ways that may even contradict each other.

So why do I insist on the interpretation that I have?

First and foremost, unlike you, I do NOT think that yhwh is just and good. Our understandings of the bible will differ to the extent that our premises differ. I don't know if the text I shared looks into the Ezekiel age that I quoted earlier. But that age is a clear as daylight ission that Yhwh did give statutes and commandments that children should be sacrificed.


Ezekiel 20
24because they had not obeyed my rules, but had rejected my statutes and profaned my Sabbaths, and their eyes were set on their fathers’ idols. 25Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, 26and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.


This establishes the fact that, for whatever reason, Yhwh intentionally gave statutes and commands. You may say it was a punitive move because they failed to heed his previous commands. Again I am not interested in the motivation. I'm interested in the fact that these statutes were actually given.

It is from this basis that I read much regarding the 'slaughter' of humans on an altar. I see the same word that is used for the slaughter of animals in ritual sacrifice and I see that word applied also to human victims.
Further more I see that the first born is to be redeemed according to commands and I ask, redeemed from what? What happens to the other 'first fruits' that yhwh similarly requests.

hmm.... it's alright sir
Enjoy the rest of your week

PastorAIO:

Au contraire sir. I am not looking at the English word 'sacrifice' to understand the ages. Even in modern English Sacrifice is not limited to a Propitiation. For example, I can make sacrifices in order to afford to buy a new car. The sacrifices here suggests hardships and self imposed deprivations.
It should be obvious that I wasn't focused on Sacrifice as used in modern English because I also said it had to be an Offering. That propitiatory aspect is what can be found whenever and wherever Way yiz bah is used.

That's really what you're doing sir.
Without attempting to understand how each language works on its own , you're making authoritative statements on one of them.. This usually leads to a lot of misunderstanding and sometimes serious errors when people make translations in this manner. E.g John 1:1 and the identity of the word.

Like in this case, you're basing your argument on the word wayyizbah and looking it up on a concordance. Two out of those concordance entries don't match your own understanding of the word so your conclusion was, the translators were being malicious in 2kings and as for 2chronicles, the answer is still up in the air.

As I stated in my last post sir, the first misunderstanding stems from your understanding of what the form wayyizibah really means.
The thing is wayyizibah is not really a word on its own. It's a combination of a narrative sequence tool called a waw/vav consecutive ( 'WA' + the doubling of the first letter of the verb it's attached to) and a conjunction of a verb in it's 3rd person masculine singular.

Unlike English, Hebrew verbs & nouns are built from a 3 consonant root word in combination with one of 7 stems(constructor/binyan) namely: "Pa'al/Qal, Niphal,Hiphil and so on".
So for example: שׁ-מ-ר (sh-m-r), in the Qal stem/constructor, we get שָׁמַר (shamar) - meaning Guard. This concept will coming handy latter

Also hebrew verbs also change forms to denote Person,Gender,Number and Tense.
For example using our verb above ( Shamar):
He will guard in hebrew would be just one word Yishmor (יִשְׁמֹר)
She will guard in hebrew would be just one word Tishmor (תִּשְׁמֹר)
As you can see, the three word sentence in English is smushed together into just one Hebrew verb. In that one word denotes the Person ( in this case, the subject in the 3rd person: he/she), Number(singular/plural), Gender(male/ female) and Tense(present, past or future tense in English: in Hebrew its Perfect or Imperfect tense).

This type of smushing of word happens across the board for 1st person, 2nd person, plural, present tense,past tense and so on. This makes a single verb be spelt differently depending on where it's used.
For an English speaker, the verbs Yishmor, Tishmor, Shamar and it's many other forms might look like they are different words, but in reality they are all the same word( in this case Shamar).
So if want to know what the word Yishmor means, you have to go look up what the word Shamar(it's root verb) means. And if you want to look up a concordance on the word Yishmor, you’ll only get the word where it’s used as a 3rd person mascular singular.

Consequently for our verb in question Way Yisbah,technically the "h" here had the ch sound but anyway the second part of the word Yisbah is actually a 3rd person singular of the verb Zabach in the imperfect tense.
Now for the first part of the word(the waw-prefix/ the WAY part), As stated above this is called a Waw consecutive or Preterite (= “past”) or a Wayyiqtol.
This concept is a narrative style used in the Hebrew bible to show a sequence of events. In other words, its used to express the main line of action in a past tense narrative.
English uses the simple past tense to achieve the same result. For example:

George walked toward the cliff, wondering what had happened to his friends. Standing on the edge,he gazed down its face, looking for some sign of them, but no one was there. He sighed, put his hands to his mouth, and shouted yet again. There was still no answer, but then something far below him moved on the face of the cliff.
The main storyline consists of five events: George walked, gazed, sighed, put, shouted, and something moved. The other verbal forms (“wondering”, “had happened”, “standing”, “looking”, and “was”), also identify events (or non-events), but do not describe the next event on the storyline. Both “wondering” and “standing” tell us that George was doing two things at the same time : wondering as he walked and standing as he gazed.
“Looking for” modifies “gazed”, narrowing its focus to tell us that George was not merely iring the scenery. Only the highlighted sequential verbs identify a sequence of actions.

Also in biblical Hebrew The waw/vav consecutive/ Preterite (= “past”)/ Wayyiqtol is also a thread—a narrative tool used to tell readers that the event that it describes is the next event in the sequence of events in the story.
For example: In Gen 24:17-18:
And ran the servant to meet her, and said, let me drink please a little water from your jar and so she said, .......
The main storyline consists of five events: The servant ran, then he said something, so she said something, and she quickly let down her jar and then gave him water.
Hebrew uses waw-consecutive to show that this actions are a sequence of events. This is done basically by adding waw(W/V) followed by a patach vowel(an "ah" vowel like f[b]a[/b]ther) and lastly a strong dagesh to the first letter of the verb(it's just a sign that generally means double the letter it's pointed on in English: Eg hamock, becomes hammock, if the dagesh is on the m letter).

So the word:
Yō·mer( 3rd person masculine singular of the verb ruts/רוּץ) becomes Way·yō·mer(וַיֹּ֕אמֶר) - And (he) said

Tō·mer( 3rd person feminine singular of the same verb ruts/רוּץ) becomes
Wat·tō·mer(וַתֹּ֖אמֶר) - And she said:

So this is the same way, Yiz·baḥ(3rd person mascular singular of the verb Zabach) becomes "Way yizbah".

If you use an interlinear and check closely under the an highlighted "Way·yiz·bah", you would see a
Conj‑w | V‑Qal‑ConsecImperf‑3ms underneath. This is there to tell you that this word is a "conjunction waw", a verb of the "Qal(stem)", Its a Consecutive imperfect( meaning it's showing a sequence of events in a story: something happened,then another thing happened and so on), and finally it's in a 3rd person masculine singular form of it's verb.

So if you're using a concordance to look up the word Wayyizbah and making a translational judgement of that without understanding what the verb is doing there, you would be looking up wrong thing.
Ofcourse because of time, there's been a lot of simplification and things are generally more complex than this, but I hope you got the general idea.
In other to do an accurate word study of the word and an interpretation of the text itself, one has to

1) Strip the word of it's conjugation and other stuff to get to the root word & stem. This is called parsing. Most good software tools like logos, olive tree etc automatically do this part.
2)Look up the parsed word in a good lexicon to see it's current semantic range. Semantic range can change depending on more discoveries & understanding of the language
3) You can use a concordance to find every instance of the word in it's root word & stem. Languages are very tricky. A word can be used one way a thousand times and used in another way with a different naunce and meaning in a few other place. That's a feature of every language, even English. E.g 9 out of 10 times, the word "to dust" connotes cleaning but in a few cases it can also be used as "to sprinkle"
4)Learn enough about the background, culture, worldview and so on of the text in question. The goal is to try and get into the world of the author and original audience. In other words to think the way they would have thought.. This is arguably harder and slower than it sounds but Cultural river plays a huge role in how we understand any text( or any piece of information/ communication actually). The way I think is different from the way someone brought up in thinks even though we share the same century and there's always a lot of miscommunications when both parties do not understand their cultural differences.
5) It's always a good idea to look up good critical commentaries and other resources on the text, regardless of the level one is( even expert scholars do this). Knowledge doesn't happen in a vacuum and seeing how others who have expertise in the field parse the text can help one see blindspots or gain perspective.

Of course doing all this is not a guarantee that one will not make mistakes( we all have blindspots) but it's a whole lot better than not doing them.

Like I said, Ebo is often translated as sacrifice in English too, but when we look at all the contexts in which the word pops up we realise that a closer translation would just be A Nourishment, a feeding. As one can feed Ogun shrine so one can also feed a child. It would be odd to say in English that you've just given your Child a sacrifice when all you did was give him fried plantains.

You're making the point we've all been trying to make to you sir. Almost every regular speaker of the Yoruba language, associates Ebo with the meaning Ritual offering. I even did a google search of it and everywhere I looked(even in sites and papers focused on yoruba tradition or spirituality), I didn't see any where ebo meant anything other than ritual sacrifice. You're actually the first person I'm hearing a different meaning from. I am not disputing you're interpretation of ebo because
a) Critical Resources on yoruba spirituality and traditions are not easily accessible, so just because I couldn't find one anywhere that matches what you said after a couple searches doesn't automatically mean I should discard it
b) I do not know enough about the Yoruba conception of certain things in other to authoritatively negate your argument.

Now let's assume you are correct: Imagine you are faced with a text that say, Iya re fun l'ebo

Where do we set the bench mark for what is a 'working level of proficiency of the language'?

Working proficiency is not an abstract concept or something hard to benchmark. It just basically means knowing enough to work with the language or subject matter.
German scholarship dominated & pushed the field of biblical studies forward a couple of centuries ago. Because of that, many critical commentaries and works are written in German. Today most biblical scholars have to have enough knowledge of German in other to engage with many of those works. They might not be able to speak German fluently but they know enough of the language to work with it.
Most physicist have to know maths to a certain degree so they can do their calculations.
Even in MMA, regardless of one's martial arts background (kick boxing, karate etc), every MMA fighter needs to know how to grapple to an extent. Israel Adesanya comes from a kick boxing background and is not an expert grappler but he won't have been successful in MMA if he didn't pick up enough grappling skills to survive in the octagon.
As I said earlier, working proficiency is not an abstract concept neither is it hard to benchmark. It doesn't necessarily mean one is an expert in the field but means one at least has enough understanding of the field to effectively engage and work with it.

Many scholars of Hebrew texts make the same points as I do. For instance Dr Kipp Davis. He is a great deal more proficient in Hebrew than either of us.

Our conversation has been about 2kings and A) whether what Josiah did was a ritual sacrifice to God and
B)whether translations were intentionally manipulated to hide this fact.
This has been the only conversation between the both of us.
The video of Dr kipp doesn't touch on any of this two points.
In what I watched, he doesn't associate Josiah's killing of the priest with a ritual sacrifice to Yahweh, neither does he even hint at it or even bring it up.
There's a reason for that...
(incase I missed it because I skipped right to section on Israel, pls provide the timestamp and I'll go back & watch it).

On the ages he raised, I believe you can engage his aurguments with the paper you provided a link to. The author already did well in providing arguments from both sides of the conversation . It's a good place to start following the rabbit trail from. Just my opinion though

However, I don't agree that because one's knowledge is not thorough then one should stop thinking at all.

That's not the point sir. The point is not about not thinking but about knowing our limitations on the things we might reasonably not be certain about.

I'll round up here by giving two examples
1) A scholar I respect alot made an aurgement connecting Hammurabi with Amraphel of Gen 14 using linguistic connections. Problem is, many other expert in the space reject this view and I don't know enough about the augment to speak confidently on it(one way or another).
Best I can do is mention it and leave it at that.( That's if I even mention it at all in the first place)
2) Recently, I was pondering on Matthew 7 and I had an interesting interpretation of one of the verses. It made sense to me based on the text but before I went out telling people about it, I checked it up against some sources to see how well my arguments stacked up. Slowly, I realized I had missed some things and my interpretation was possibly a bit skewed.

So the point isn't about not thinking but about knowing that with everything we know, there's a world of things we are yet to know especially if we haven't done due deligence.
Over the years I've learnt to live with ambiguities. There are very few things I hold on too very strongly. One of the things I can say for certain when it comes to my faith is that the God of the bible is exactly who Jesus portrayed him to be "A just & loving God". This is not an understanding that comes from emotions but from my understanding of the scripture on its own . I've seen other people who were anti christians but who allowed the bible speak on its own come to the same conclusion( some are even not still Christians but don't doubt God's justice and love ).

I know you might not see things that way but I hope some day, you will.
Have a great week ahead.

PastorAIO:

Where did I get my translation from?
I thought it was self evident. A sacrifice is an offering. And many translations already use the word offering, as can be seen in the same concordance that we have all been reading since.

This is where I believe ,the first problem stems from sir. You are using your understanding of a word in it's target language to reinterpret what it must mean in it's source language.

Pls note, a concordance is not the same thing as dictionary or lexicon


In other to accurately translate words from one language(SL) to another(TL), one has to have a working level proficiency of the language's structure, grammer, culture,worldview of the speakers,context, quantity, time period and so on.

Even to accurately do a word study without having to be highly proficient in a language, one has to atleast have a beginners level understanding of some of those things mentioned

Without the above mentioned, something might look evident, but that does not follow that it is encomes the full picture or that it's even correct. I'm glad you recognize these complexities with your example of the usage of the Yoruba word "Ebo"(although your other example of Cult does fall under a different matter).

In that vain, I believe the first step is to address how the Hebrew grammar is structured and where the word wayyizbah fits into that

But before going into that, I would like to nail down your answer to the last conversation. You sort of explained around it but did not really answer the question( Sorry if I am the one that missed your point). I can assure you that my question is not in anyway intended to be a gotcha question. I truly believe it would help us down the road in having some common understanding of translation and language nuance.

So If I may ask it again in a clearer way,
In 2chronicles 18:2, would you say that slaughter/kill is a suitable translation of the verb or do you think the translators mistranslated the verb(whether malicious or otherwise)?

Thanks

Pls note: I'm replying to the entirety of your last post, not just this quoted part. Thanks

DeepSight:




But this is the essence of a ritual sacrifice. You are going round in circles.

Not at all sir ... In light of new information, pastorAi has amended his original assertion of the verb being used purely for ritual sacrifices to a diety to also encom a more generalized sense of an offering.
This is still a bit problematic on its own, but I'm just making sure I fully understanding his new position before pushing the conversation forward.

PastorAIO:


Yes. or to reduce it to one word, an Offering.

Please where did you get your translation from or did you come up with it on your knowledge?

Secondly, In view of 2chronicles 18:2, would you agree that the best way to translate the verb in that age would be "to slaughter/kill"?
As to Sacrifice, might give a modern reader a different connotation of the text because of how we understand the word in our worldview. And to Offer could likewise mislead a modern reader into thinking he just gave him the animals.

Are we in agreement on this?
Please bear in mind biblical Hebrew does has words for offering & killing

PastorAIO:


2 Chronicles 18:2
After some years he went down to Ahab in Samaria. And Ahab killed an abundance of sheep and oxen for him and for the people who were with him, and induced him to go up against Ramoth-gilead.

I can see where the confusion is. The case actually still remains the same. Why?

Because when Way yiz Bah is translated to mean Sacrifice it refers to a ritual killings that is done as an inducement to another person.

When I kill a goat on a deity's shrine it is not just any killing but a killing that is done in order to appease, influence, induce the deity to be well disposed towards me.

A murder, or a judicial killing cannot ever be a Way yiz bah. If I kill a goat because the goat was vexing me for some reason or the other then that is NOT wayyizbah. But if I kill the goat as an offering to someone or something then that is Way yiz bah.

Ahab way-yiz-bah many sheep and oxen for his father in law in order to 'finesse' him, appease him, induce him, to want to go to war with him. This is the same way that a devotee will way-yiz-bah a sheep on the altar of a deity as an inducement to the deity to get the deity to well disposed towards him.
In other words Wayyizbah is a killing that is done for the purpose of offering inducements to someone or something else.

Josiah Wayyizbah the priests. That means that it was done with regards to a deity or some other entity.

Interesting viewpoint. Just so I'm accurately getting your point.

Are you saying wayyizbah should no longer be thought of as a word that exclusively denotes a ritual sacrifice but should be taken more generally as a term to denote a killing done in other to induce/ appease someone. That person could either be human or a deity.

I'm i correct in my understanding of your position?

DeepSight:


No, because 2 Chronicles 18:2 is not an example that helps you. The word there is different. It is zabah.

Actually it is wayyizbaḥ. The root word for wayyizbaḥ is zabah hence the "strong number".
The form wayyizbaḥ only occurs about 15times, two of which are in 2kings and 2chronicles.

You can pick up any good interlinear Bible to confirm.
Even the link he(pastorAi) posted confirms it as well

DeepSight:


Yes I did sir. And he said this -



- Which you then bolded and said -



He then asked you to please correct him, and you responded by citing 2 Chronicles 18:2.
I then picked up my concordance and saw that the word used there was zabah.

So how does your citing this verse show that he is "not really correct" in his statement above?
Unless i am missing something, glad to be corrected, thanks.

Ok sir... Basically pastorAi's assertion was that the word wayyizbaḥ in 2 Kings 23:20 was exclusively used & translated as "To sacrifice" in every other place in English translations of the Hebrew Bible except in this particular instance with the story of Josiah & the priests.
Translators chose to use "To slaughter" in an effort to deceive(his words) us.

On its own, this is a misunderstanding of how modern (non secterian/ individualistic) translations work.

But more importantly, for the purpose of our conversation, his assertion was a bit incorrect.
2 Kings 23:20 is not the only place wayyizbaḥ is not translated as "To sacrifice".

Hope that helped sir

DeepSight:


The Hebrew word used there is zabah, it is of a primitive root and I quote from the concordance - "to slaughter an animal (usually in sacrifice): kill, offer, sacrifice, do sacrifice, slay."

Can you expand on your point?

Kindly refer to pastorAi's assertion for context.

PastorAIO:


Kindly correct me please

2 Chronicles 18:2

PastorAIO:


No matter the calibre, whether ido-later or Ido-sooner, The point which seems to be flying over your head is that they were sacrificed!

Now it is possible that you are confused because of the bible translations that you are reading because the translators sanitised the text.

The Hebrew says that he Way yiz bah the priests. Way yiz bah means to sacrifice. Not to punish by death. To sacrifice.

If anyone wants to confirm they can see it in this concordance.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/vaiyizbach_2076.htm

Genesis 31:54
HEB: וַיִּזְבַּ֨ח יַעֲקֹ֥ב זֶ֙בַח֙
NAS: Then Jacob offered a sacrifice
KJV: Then Jacob offered sacrifice
INT: offered Jacob A sacrifice

Genesis 46:1
HEB: בְּאֵ֣רָה שָּׁ֑בַע וַיִּזְבַּ֣ח זְבָחִ֔ים לֵאלֹהֵ֖י
NAS: to Beersheba, and offered sacrifices
KJV: to Beersheba, and offered sacrifices
INT: came to Beersheba and offered sacrifices to the God

Numbers 22:40
HEB: וַיִּזְבַּ֥ח בָּלָ֖ק בָּקָ֣ר
NAS: Balak sacrificed oxen and sheep,
KJV: And Balak offered oxen and sheep,
INT: sacrificed Balak oxen


everywhere in the Hebrew bible where you see wayyizbah they translate it as sacrifice. Only in 2Kings when Josiah sacrifices the priests that's when your translators deceive you and say 'slaughtered'.

The point to be clear:
Josiah, Yhwh's favoured King, Sacrificed Priests on the altars.

@bolded is not really correct sir.

Powerpal Ltd - An electrical and renewable energy company has two job openings available to their team.
1) Office Assistant
2) Graduate Electrical Intern

Interested candidates can view job descriptions and apply via "www.powerpalng.com/open-job"

Workch:
it wasn't created, it started with the big bang.

Hmmm. Ok

Workch:
From big bang

If I'm getting you correctly, you're saying Space was created about at the big bang.... Yes?

Workch:
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The universe is 100% energy in different forms.
you can only convert this energy from one form to another

where does Space come into this equation?

Workch:
.

The universe cannot be created no destroyed because it's a pool of energy

What do you mean by the universe cannot be created nor destroyed?

PastorAIO:


2Kings 22
1Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jedidah the daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath. 2[b]And he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and walked in all the way of David his father, and he did not turn aside to the right or to the left.[/b]

And after all the sacrifices that yhwh 'allowed' to happen he still wasn't appeased even those Josiah did everything right in his sight. What is the reward of the righteous for this ghoul.

2Kings 23
26Still the LORD did not turn from the burning of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him. 27And the LORD said, “I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.”

Josiah’s Death in Battle

28Now the rest of the acts of Josiah and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? 29In his days Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went to meet him, and Pharaoh Neco killed him at Megiddo, as soon as he saw him. 30And his servants carried him dead in a chariot from Megiddo and brought him to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in his father’s place.

So upon all the righteousness and slaughter of priests and institution of over etc etc etc yhwh's favourite king could not find favour. Yhwh continued to suffer the Jews and ultimately led to the slaughter of his righteous king. If he can do Josiah like that that what do you thing he has in store for you?

Hmmm,you seem to be really angry at the God of the bible...

LordReed:


Listen to Sean Carroll here:

https://slate.com/technology/2016/02/sean-carroll-talks-about-the-beginning-of-the-universe.html

Starting with another article from a popular level talk.

In any case, Could you kindly articulate what you understand about Dr Carroll's position?

LordReed:


Read this to get started:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/07/06/did-the-universe-have-a-beginning/?sh=5138f1244100

Hmm first of all sir, an article on Forbes for a cosmological theorem is really not a good start.

To the main point I think you wanted to use the article for, the author stated

"So, then, where did inflation come from?
Was it eternal, or did it only last for a finite amount of time? In 2003, a theorem was published — the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem — that showed that inflating spacetimes are what we call “past-timelike incomplete,” which means that inflation cannot describe a “beginning” to the Universe. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the Universe had a non-inflationary beginning; it only implies that if inflation was not an eternal state, it must have arisen from a previous state that, perhaps, did have a beginning. (It is also uncertain whether the BGV theorem will apply to a fully quantum theory of gravity."

Again the reservation raised by the cosmologist has been addressed in actual peer-reviewed papers, some of which I've posted earlier. https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658, https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3836 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5513 etc.
It's also been dealt with in actual cosmological books with like the one the other guy was alluding to.

Also his portrayal of what the BGV theorem asserts & does not assert is incorrect and can be demonstrably shown by simply reading the articles & papers by the authors themselves.

Buliwyf:


Lol this guy. Did you read the summary on that page 331? Because it seems you posted it without reading.

Again the summary of the text wasn't excluding the origin of the universe as opposed to the the origin of inflation. Read the whole page and the preceding page I posted sir
No such demarcation is made by the theorem, hence why I pasted the whole page and it's preceding context.
Basically, In the beginning was the beginning:
https://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning.
(Kindly read it, it help explains how the on a popular level, the beginning is the beginning. There's no beginning to the universe prior to the inflation. It's an interview with Dr Vilenkin)

You can subsequently the free online peer reviewed article I posted also. Here is the link once more: Mithani, Audrey; Vilenkin, Alexander (20 April 2012). "Did the universe have a beginning?". arXiv:1204.4658". - free online.(https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658)

Also read the free article online I posted earlier from Vilenkin where he states his theory and proposes his hypothesis of how the universe could have begun through natural processes. https://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

Also do read "22.2.2 A Proof of God?" from the pictures I posted on pages 331,where Vilenkin propses his own hypothesis on the second part of the cosmological argument( I'm guessing you know what it states).

In any case, I've given you multiple sources on what the theorem states, written by one of the authors itself. if you still choose to mis-interprete a single line of a summary without interacting with any other thing, maybe you should take a step and realise, maybe you are the one holding on strongly to a philosophical bias.




PS: I made an edit to the wiki page, removing the assertion made by the previous editor which none of the source materials nowhere makes and was contradictory to assertions made in the rest of the article.

Buliwyf:


**Facepalm**
Am I the only one actually reading what you are posting? Even the evidence and paperwork you posted made it clear yet you are still on this matter.

BGV is about the beginning of the INFLATION of the universe. It has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe itself. Which is not what you stated initially when you replied LordReed. Your arguments has been about the beginning of the universe. BGV does not deal with that.

Please read the article you are posting as evidence well. Please!!! And notice it says inflation everything time.

So inflation of the universe must have definitely had a beginning according to the BGV model but it doesn't say anything about the beginning of the universe itself.

I suggest you re-read again sir. You seem to be trying to impose something else other than that which the book is stating

Buliwyf:


**Sigh** Christians and gymnastics.

You were the one that brought up the BGV theorem claiming it makes a claim about the beginning of the universe. [b]I just bursted your claim by showing you that it only has to do with the inflation of the universe and not the universe itself. [/b]Now you have shifted to unrelated questions. Maybe I should attach a picture in case you forgot.

I don't know why you christians have to resort to gymnastics when all you need if for your god to just prove he exists in a meaningful way so that everyone can see without any doubt. He has only done as much as spiderman so far

I just edited my post prior to seeing your reply to show that @ bolded is incorrect from the source itself.

I'll repost it below again Incase you missed it

Could you kindly point out where I made mention of the BVG theorem making any assertions to anything prior to the existence of the universe?

Could you also point out where I made any assertions that the theorem makes any claims about any deity?

Finally I do have a copies of the sources used in the wiki link you marked out, so I'm reasonably certain of what the theorem asserts & what it doesn't.

a)"Mithani, Audrey; Vilenkin, Alexander (20 April 2012). "Did the universe have a beginning?". arXiv:1204.4658". - free online.(https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658)

b) Delia Perlov and Alexander Vilenkin, Cosmology for the Curious p. 331

Neither of them makes any claims that the universe does not have an ultimate beginning.
And the statement "However, Vilenkin and co-author Delia Perlov have also stated that, in their view, the theorem tells us only that inflation had a beginning and not that the universe had a not that the universe had a beginning" is incorrect.
There's no where in the book(Cosmology for the Curious) such an assertion is made.
Below is page 331 and it's context.

Finally here is a free online article where Vilenkin articulates his own speculative hypothesis but ultimately comes to the conclusion that as far as the physics go, that is a mystery and We have no way to begin to address this mystery
https://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe