thekabalist

Here's a bit more. Sorry this is taking longer than usual: 20 And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world. Strait and narrow: A straight and narrow place is an Israelite euphemism for being pressed with persecution. So when Lehi sees a straight and narrow path this means that the path ahead of them would be filled with persecution. This idiom can be seen in the Talmud when it quotes 2 Kings 6:1: “Others say: He drove the Rabbis away from him , as it is written. And the sons of the prophets said unto Elisha, Behold now, the place where we dwell with thee is too strait for us;11 proving that till then it was not too narrow.” (b. Sanhedrin 107b) Spacious field: The world would be likely be understood by a Jew to mean the world to come. But why would Lehi have to see such a path and a field in connection to the world to come? We must understand that in ancient Israelite culture the mere being in the land of Israel was considered to many as a sign that one would have a share in the world to come. This is because the Torah promises that those who are righteous will stay in the land and those who are not will be rooted out. So eventually this led people to believe that just being in the land was a good sign, as can be seen in the Talmud: “R. Jeremiah b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan, that whoever walks four cubits in the Land of Israel is assured of a place in the world to come. “ (b. Ketubot 111a) So Lehi was shown that even though he was going away from the land of Israel he was going towards his share in the world to come which was contrary to popular belief. Because Lehi ‘s exile was a calling and not truly an exile. This vision was extremely important because even with all the experience provided by G-d it’s possible that some within his family would still view their exile as a curse. The vision shows it was not. 21 And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were pressing forward, that they might obtain the path which led unto the tree by which I stood. Lehi understood that the key to the tree of life was being obedient to the commandments of G-d. The Israelites always understood the tree of life to be the Torah-law: “But desire fulfilled is a tree of life; and the tree of life is nought but the Torah, as it says, She is a tree of life to them that lay hold on her!” (b. Berachot 32b) There is an ancient Jewish tradition that says that the nations would complain to G-d because they would desire the blessings contained in the Torah-law but that they would not want to make the same commitment as Israel did. So Lehi’s vision shows that many wanted the tree of life but were unwilling to follow the path of submission unto G-d. 22 And it came to pass that they did come forth, and commence in the path which led to the tree. 23 And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceedingly great mist of darkness, insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were lost. Mist of darkness: This is most likely the Hebrew word ערפל (arafel) which is the same word found in Deuteronomy 4:11 which translates it as “thick darkness”: “And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the heart of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.” Arafel is in Jewish tradition known as the name of the first level of heaven. This thick darkness of arafel in Kabbalah is understood to be that which separates us from the infinite light of G-d and conceals his mysteries. So when the people have their ways blocked by arafel this means that they were not found worthy to have the revelation of the mysteries of G-d given unto them. They could not enter even the first heaven. 24 And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree. 25 And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed. Considering what we have already seen from the rod of iron being a semitic idiomatic expression that means “sword” and how it refers to the word of G-d then those who are clinging to it might be a reference to those who followed G-d’s commandments enough to barely make it through to the first level of heaven. 26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth. The Flying Building Dilemma: In Jewish imagery a flying tower consists of a great dilemma. Rashi tells us that in ancient times those who practiced incantations would raise houses from the air just to defy the laws of nature. These were people who believed that they had the power to reach the heavens by themselves without any help from G-d. The Torah has may laws concerning one's house. When one raised a house from ground in order to boast that they could defy G-d's commandments it would become a problem to the sages. It is considered a dilemma because our sages for many times tried to apply the laws of the Torah to the case of such houses and couldn't. The Talmud says the following about this: "R. Isaac said: What is meant by the verse, Why boastest thou thyself in mischief, O mighty man? The goodness of God endureth continually?... Where is he who enumerated all the letters of the Torah? Where is he who weighed all the light and heavy [precepts] of the Torah? Where is he that counted the towers — who counted three hundred fixed laws on a 'tower flying in the air.' R. Ammi said: Doeg and Ahitophel propounded four hundred problems with respect to a tower flying in the air, and not one was solved." (b. Sanhedrin 106b) So if the problem of the flying towers could not be resolved this could be understood as the fact that if one boasts against G-d's commandments then there is no hope for them in G-d's word.

Even though the member is not part of the site anymore I'd like to answer anyway as the poster may still be lurking as a non-member or even for the sake of the other users. To make it more simple I'll write addressing the poster. Your logic is flawed. What you are saying basically is: If you don't consider the Trinity to be absolute monotheism then you don't understand it. This is wrong. I do understand the idea of 3 persons which are one in substance (and thus one being). I just don't agree this is absolute monotheism. To me this is still a form of triteism that is made to fit into a monotheistic formula. How's cogito ergo sum for starters? A rock doesn't "cogito" ;-) I'm sorry but to me this is sheer terminology and as such sounds rather hypocritical. As I said before: Just because you call those "3" by a different name. Be it substance, person, whatever, it doesn't make it less than three. You still have 3 in 1. And Trinitarianism doe say that the Father is not the Son. So still you are not absolute monotheists to those outside Christianity. In other words you are only an absolute monotheist by your own standards. And so when you criticize the LDS by claiming to be monotheist by their own standards you are using double standards. Not really. It's different. I said what I said because it's very often in Evangelical apologetics that other faiths get misrepresented by those opposing it. So what I said is that you not being an LDS are not qualified to say I misunderstand LDS doctrine. Especially when everyone around is LDS. I said that I would humbly be willing to accept it from them not from you. Now of course if they said that I was wrong about their view then I would expect them to explain it to me. As for the Trinity for starters it is a much more public domain knowledge that anyone can easily have access to. Second of all you simply saying I don't understand it because I don't believe in it doesn't count. If I am wrong about it then you should be able to demonstrate how. And you haven't. You just take issue with my not accepting it as monotheistic. I do understand the Trinity. I just think that calling the 3 characters (for lack of better words) "persons" doesn't diminish from the fact that I see 3 distinct entities there. To me as an outsider this formula is only a word-game to conceal the fact that you have 3 entities within 1. I never said we must understand everything. But it seems to me that G-d wanted us to understand the revelation He's given us. I think He would have made us capable of understanding Him. When He says He's infinite I can't conceive it but I can have a good understanding of what it means. The Trinity is just irrational. It's funny because Modalism is condemned as a terrible heresy and yet you correctly acknowledge that most Christians are practical modalists. Actually, no it isn't. Multiple Personality Disorder is the closest thing to the Trinity that we can find in the natural world. One being with 3 different personas. Modalism is the belief that G-d can take different forms when manifesting Himself. This would be closer to John being a CEO, a father, a brother, a son depending on the context. No. What I'm saying is that G-d would have made me capable of understanding that of Him which He wishes to reveal. Especially if I'm made in His likeness. And yet you acknowledged that many Christians are practical modalists. Yes it is Greek philosophy. None of the passages above state that G-d is composed of 3 persons and yet one being. Yes they do claim Jesus is divine but nothing more than that. The idea of G-d being composed of 3 different persons is totally alien to Judaism. What I mean is that no serious scholar will say that the Trinity is a Jewish concept. It is alien to Judaism. It's common knowledge actually. I guess this sums up my points. b'shalom!

There are some biblical names in the list you provided, such as Ahaz and Akish. Here are a few translations: * = (remember that in Hebrew the letter ב can be b/v and is usually anglicized as "b" Example: Abraham = Avraham in Hebrew) Abinadom* אבינו - Avinu (our father) אדום - Adom (red) Avinu-adom = our father is red-haired Abish* אב - Av (father) איש - Ish (man) Av-ish = father of man Ablom** אב - Av (father) עלום - Elum (concealed - notice that the letter ו can have the sounds of "o" or "u") Av-Elum = the concealed father Agosh חג - Hag (feast/festival) אש - esh (fire/light) Ag-esh = feast/festival of fire/light Ahah - אחא - this is the Aramaic word for "brother" Aiath - חיט - Haiyat (tailor) We could assemble a "Dictionary of BoM Semitic Names" :-)

Rayhale, I have already explained the relevance of the expression "and it came to pass": And it came to pass: Why does Nephi repeat these words so much in the narrative? Some critics say that if Nephi was running short in space it wouldn’t make sense to use this expression so much. However in Hebrew this expression is rather short: ויהי (vayehi – and it was/happened). And this expression is rather meaningful because it’s the same expression that G-d used to indicate that the world was created. For example to say “and there was light” the Bible says ויהי אור (vayehi or). Our sages therefore believe that such an expression indicate that G-d’s power was behind the cause of such events. As for giving dates all the time I believe this is a matter of personal style. Some books in the Bible are like that others are not. Jeremiah for example if I recall correctly gives dates 12 times all through his book of prophecy. b'shalom!

About this topic: The process is simple and transparent: I look at the English name and try to identify possible Hebrew word (or words) that would read similarly to the names in question. It is demonstrated and explained name per name. If you have a different opinion about the etymology please do feel free to present it like others have such as Egyptian or any other language. Or if you think any etymological solution is incorrect and want to show us why then by all means do so. But if you just dislike the whole process then please just leave us alone. b'shalom!

I do want to discuss issues surrounding the topic but that's not what you have presented. You simply insist without anything other than your opinion that you think the whole process of transliteration is weird. Fine you've made your point.

The Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 91b) states that the soul enters a child at the moment of conception. This is why Judaism is against abortion. b'shalom!

Certainly. Judaism believes there are five levels to the soul. I am actually using the word soul rather loosely here because in the Bible a soul is a combination of a spirit with a body. There are not enough or even accurate enough words in the English language to describe the Israelite concept of soul and spirit so the translations are rather loose. Anyway here it is Nefesh ("soul") - This is the level of our instincts. This is what connects the soul to the body. Ruach ("wind") - This refers to our emotions. Neshamah ("breath") - This refers to our mind Chayah ("life") - This refers roughly to our spirituality and is concealed in the Neshamah. This is what makes us perceive that there is a spiritual reality that transcends our mind and emotions. Yehidah ("uniqueness") - This refers to the spark of G-d that lives within you. It is associated with the Shechinah and is the part that is responsible for making you become one with G-d if you choose to unite with Him. This is a basic summary of the five leves of the soul. So you see when we refer to the first three leves we are talking about the non-spiritual reality of the human being. And this is exactly where G-d's laws make themselves manifest. The upper levels of the soul would be capable of directly perceiving that which emanates from G-d. But because the lower levels are not capable of that then the commandments of G-d have to take a more tangible form. The lower levels need something more concrete like "do this" or "don't do that" because without such a form they cannot grasp G-d. b'shalom!

I'm still unsure about Kishkumen though. The first part meaning ring seems to be accurate. But the second part could be several things actually.

And when I thought it couldn't get any tougher Pam throws in "Kishkumen" LOL OK here's what I have for this one: קיש – kish - ring, signet (this is Aramaic actually), or a symbol of royalty כאמן – k'aman - that is like a master And here's Pahoran פה - Peh - Mouth חורין - Horin - Free My guess is that "Pahoran" originally meant something like "I speak freely" or "I speak on behalf of freedom". b'shalom!

Just to complement what I said in the previous post: Usually both the letters ז and צ are transliterated as "z" into English but the latter actually has a sound of "tz".

That's a tough one. What's the context? All I can think of at the moment is גצ–לעם (gatz-l'am) or possibly גצ–להם (gatz-lahem) which could mean "that which sparkles unto the people" or "that which sparkles unto them". b'shalom!

Jenda, First I recommend you check the definition of "phonetical word" because you are using it incorrectly. If you have anything constructive to add or if you would like to differ on the etymology of the names then please be welcome to participate. So far all we have is your personal opinion that transliteration is something "strange". OK you've made your point. Others disagree. And I honestly have no wish to convince you on the reason why such language analysis is important. b'shalom!

Guys, On the word gnolaum it sounds very much to me like גן עולם (gan olam) which literally means "the eternal garden" and could be a reference to the garden of Eden. b'shalom!

This chapter is most fascinating. Here's some additional work: 13 And as I cast my eyes round about, that perhaps I might discover my family also, I beheld a river of water; and it ran along, and it was near the tree of which I was partaking the fruit. In ancient Jewish imagery a river represents three things: - A path in which life flows abundantly as the water is the source of life - An unstoppable cleansing force as the running water is considered by the Torah to be the most purifying element in nature - A spiritual obstacle as it is something to be crossed. The Jewish Midrash has a tradition which says that Satan turned into a river to prevent Abraham from travelling per order of G-d. Therefore when Lehi sees a river it means that G-d would provide for him and that through Lehi he would provide cleansing to others but it also indicates that Lehi would have to overcome a spiritual obstacle in the process. The idea of it being near the fruit indicates there would be a spiritual journey ahead of him until he could reach the sweet fruit he would savor. Why did Lehi say that he beheld a river of water? At first it may sound a bit redundant but it’s definetly not. Lehi was given a vision of Paradise. It is pretty evident that he didn’t give a description of everything he saw as there probably wouldn’t be enough room for Nephi to write about it. One of the elements of Paradise according to Jewish tradition is a river of fire which is associated with judgement: “A river of fire was flowing and emerging from before Him; a thousand thousands served Him, and ten thousand ten thousands arose before Him. Justice was established, and the books were opened.” (Daniel 7:10) 14 And I looked to behold from whence it came; and I saw the head thereof a little way off; and at the head thereof I beheld your mother Sariah, and Sam, and Nephi; and they stood as if they knew not whither they should go. The reason why they could be unwilling to go is described above: This would represent an obstacle and even though they certainly would welcome the blessings they might not be willing to pay the price that was coming with them. Head of the river: This is an Israelite expression of wickedness. In ancient times in the land of Israel the districts would be separated by rivers. The governors of such regions are literally called in the Talmud ראש נהרה (resh nahara) which in Aramaic means “head of the river”. These people were seen as extremely greedy as they would only visit the villagers to obtain money. Thus the Talmud describes it: “R. Zera's father acted as tax collector for thirteen years. When the Resh Nahara [head of the river] used to come to a town, if he [R. Zera's father] saw the scholars [of the city] he would advise them, Come my people, enter thou into thy chambers. And when he saw the other inhabitants of the town he would say to them: The Resh Nahara [head of the river] is coming to the city, and now he will slaughter the father in the presence of the son, and the son in the presence of the father;” (b. Sanhedrin 25b) So when Lehi describes that they were at the head of the river this is an idiomatic expression meaning that they were only in it for their own greediness. They were not really concerned with the spiritual journey at all. 15 And it came to pass that I beckoned unto them; and I also did say unto them with a loud voice that they should come unto me, and partake of the fruit, which was desirable above all other fruit. 16 And it came to pass that they did come unto me and partake of the fruit also. Why would Lehi call unto them with a loud voice? In Judaism the expression קול רם (kol ram – loud voice) is associated with rebuking. A loud voice would indicate a strong rebuke against rebellion much like we see in the book of Deuteronomy 27:14 and onwards: “And the Levites shall speak, and say unto all the men of Israel with a loud voice, Cursed [be] the man that maketh [any] graven or molten image…” So Lehi was rebuking them for not wanting to partake in a spiritual journey that would pose challenges because they were afraid to lose their possessions. This rebuking apparently works well as we see from them responding by coming and partaking of the fruit as well. 17 And it came to pass that I was desirous that Laman and Lemuel should come and partake of the fruit also; wherefore, I cast mine eyes towards the head of the river, that perhaps I might see them. It is very interesting that Lehi uses the expression “cast the eyes towards the head of the river” because in Hebrew the word עין (ayin – eye) is an indication of one’s generosity (good eye) or greediness (bad eye). This can be seen from the Talmud: “What about piercing a cask with a spit on the Shabbat? Does he intend [making] an opening, so it is forbidden, or perhaps his intention is to be a good eye [ie to be generous] and it is permitted?” (b. Shabbat 146b) We have already seen from before that “head of the river” is an expression that indicates someone that is greedy. So when Lehi “casts his eye to the head of the river” to see if he could find Laman and Lemuel it idiomatically would be understood by an Israelite to mean that Lehi challenged their reasons for not taking part in the spiritual journey. Were they refusing because they were greedily looking at the material possessions they could possibly lose if they chose to take the journey? 18 And it came to pass that I saw them, but they would not come unto me and partake of the fruit. 19 And I beheld a rod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood. According to Rashi in his commentary of Psalm 2:9 an iron rod is a poetic euphemism for a sword. The sword in ancient Jewish mysticism is represented by the letter ז (zayin) which in Kabbalah is associated with understanding. So the sword represents the word of G-d which brings understanding to some and judgement to others.

Yes it is a valid question. And this is why it was answered in anticipation in the first post. But when you say you are confused about it when you asked the same question at the other forum and received an explanation then I have good reason to question your motives. If you did get an answer before why come here and make it look like you didn't know anything about the process? Or if the answer before wasn't satisfactory why not mention it in this post? I may be wrong but it seems to me that there is a hidden agenda here. Still, back to the subject I have no reason to transliterate your name into Hebrew and try to apply meaning to it when your name is not of Hebrew origin. In fact I doubt that I could find any meaning at all. But in the case of the BoM there are certain transliterations which even match the context of the book. Still I acknowledge that it is speculative. I said so in the very first post and in boldface! But scholars do this all the time. I've never seen anyone question those who transliterate Jesus into Yehoshua or Yeshua or Yeshu and yet the truth is that nobody knows what the real name of Jesus was in Hebrew. Same goes for the other characters of the NT. And while it is speculative it is still appreciated by scholars so are you not using double standards because of your belief that the BoM is not of Hebrew origin? b'shalom!

Jenda, Weren't you the same person who asked me this in the other forum? I don't see a reason to be confused when at the very first post I disclaimed that this can at many times be highly speculative. Anyway, I am assuming that the origin of the word is Hebrew and that the word has been transliterated into English. Then I am transliterating it back to Hebrew to see what the possible roots could be in Hebrew. The idea is to show the possible meaning of such names and to prove that they could easily have come from Hebrew root-words. Does this mean that all the names mean precisely what I suppose? Of course not. b' shalom!

Vanhin, Yes by all means yes. This is exactly what would happen around Jerusalem during the feast of tabernacles. Not only that but the feast of tabernacles is also known as the feast of dedication of the Temple. See 1st Kings 8. b'shalom!

Maya, I wouldn't call this the Melchizedek priesthood as this is a concept that is not very present in Judaism. But if you look at the Torah you will see that the firstborns were destined to be priests even before Levi. We believe that this was the case of the Patriarchs. I can see a scenario in which you would return to status quo in that situation if needed. b'shalom!

I can only congratulate you. No sarcasm intended. In Judaism we believe that G-d will only allow us to go through trials if you have a faith that is strong enough to resist. Yes you will fall at times but are you counting how often you have suceeded? I don't have as much faith as you. If I were given this big a trial I would probably fail miserably and yet you seem to have a good chance of overcoming it. Don't see this as a burden. See this as an opportunity. Think of how blessful every conquest is instead of how awful every fall is. Judaism also considers that the core of a mitzvah (commandment of G-d) lies in your heart. Your wanting to succeed counts as much to G-d as your success even if you fail. Love yourself, for G-d already loves you. And be conscious of your faith for G-d has already given you a great one. Big trials always await those with big faith. But so do big rewards.

Yes. To Jews "Adamic" is Hebrew. This is how we have always believed it. And if I'm not mistaken somebody showed me evidence that the Nephites also believed this. To be honest I don't see the Nephites as believing anything different from that this belief in Judaism is nearly as old as Judaism itself.

Yes this is precisely the Jewish way of looking into Scripture. It can even get much deeper than that. Judaism has always maintained that Scripture has a lot of layers of meaning and each of them are true and can add to the understanding of the text. :)

Yes. Hybridism (mixing seeds) is strictly forbidden by the Torah-Law. Some Jewish rabbis believe that mankind is bringing great evil into the world by attempting to create hybrids. They are not the way G-d created things.

A priest could be married but he would have no portion of land assigned to him. Even if he did acquire some land it would eventually return to one of the other tribes. At least so it was with the tribe of Levi. It could be that they wouldn't want the same to happen to them.

Fixed it. At least I fixed the instances I noticed. LOL. Thanks Pam! :)