Yep, the English words "most vehement flame" in Song of Solomon 8:6 is from the Hebrew word "Shalhebeth" which means "flame of Jehovah."
Hebrew Lexicon :: H7957 (KJV)
Hebrew Lexicon :: H7957 (KJV)
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Well, there were no printing presses making tons of Bibles around the time when the Latin Vulgate was being read by true believers. There are two major Latin Vulgates (i.e. manuscripts, scrolls). The believer's version and the Catholic's version.
Besides, the theory that the Song of Solomon was added recently is just not true. The Song of Solomon was found among the dead sea scrolls.
Song of Songs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Besides, the theory that the Song of Solomon was added recently is just not true. The Song of Solomon was found among the dead sea scrolls.
Song of Songs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
But again, it is ridiculous to suggest that certain books within the Bible are not a part of Scripture. It's not called the holey bible. It's called the "Holy Bible", because it is divinely inspired. You either believe all of it, or you don't believe it. Many false religions will seek to add or take away from God's Word. Hence, the warning in Revelation to not add or take away from God's Word. It's a very serious charge against God and His Word to do either one (i.e. to take away or to add to it). For if one takes away words from His book he will take away one's part in the book of life. So I would pray and ask God if you truly believe it is right and good to eliminate words in your Bible. For example: There is a cult known as the Ebionites. They do not believe any of the books written by Paul are inspired. Again, I say you either believe the Bible or you don't believe it. It's an entire package deal.
are you another one that's going to twist my words ? .... It WAS ADDED IN TO THE BIBLE SOME WHERE IN YEAR 200s ..
I don't care if you read it, as I said God is not mentioned at all, so it has no substance to me... If you get something, SO BE IT, I'm not adding or taking away, if you want to preach SoS, do so... Why don't you have anything to say about what's said of the kabbalah and this book, and why not post your bible number threads ??
I don't care if you read it, as I said God is not mentioned at all, so it has no substance to me... If you get something, SO BE IT, I'm not adding or taking away, if you want to preach SoS, do so... Why don't you have anything to say about what's said of the kabbalah and this book, and why not post your bible number threads ??
Again the story is about wisdom from above and her daughters. It is NOT just some story of sex, but how we should all love our wives. NOT the females we call "wives" according to the flesh, but our spirits as we are living souls according to the union of the covenant. God made the two, one!
Exodus 34 19-20
19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
Exodus 34 19-20
19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
The whole book is about sex, and lust of flesh, which solomon obviously had a problem with, because he had sex with them does this mean he loved them, no... I'm sorry not the case, just go ask some of today's generation if they can remember the name of the whore that was in their bed the night before...
let's take exodus... We know who wrote it, Moses, plain and simple, no one knows for sure who even wrote SoS, and if solomon did write it, why would someone want to hear this sex talk from a man that trespassed against God " with prostitutes and their gods "... It makes a lot of sense when you figure out it's esoteric nature... AND PART OF THE KABALLAH..
Kabbalist are here to deceive, their vipers ... People need to watch their methods of deception to know what to look out for and not be led astray.. Looks like nobody wants to talk about that though... Pretty sad
let's take exodus... We know who wrote it, Moses, plain and simple, no one knows for sure who even wrote SoS, and if solomon did write it, why would someone want to hear this sex talk from a man that trespassed against God " with prostitutes and their gods "... It makes a lot of sense when you figure out it's esoteric nature... AND PART OF THE KABALLAH..
Kabbalist are here to deceive, their vipers ... People need to watch their methods of deception to know what to look out for and not be led astray.. Looks like nobody wants to talk about that though... Pretty sad
Well, we have already discusssed this before. You know I don't believe in any kabbalah mumbo jumbo; And I don't post a ton of Bible number threads. I honestly have not thought of Bible numbers since the last we spoke about it. So my life is not surrouned by that. I believe the Song of Solomon to be in the Bible not because of Bible numbers but because of faith. For faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Oh, and in the original Hebrew, the word "Jehovah" is mentioned in relation to the fire in Song of Solomon 8:6.
Side Note:
Oh, and my apologies. I thought you were saying the Song of Solomon was added a few hundred years ago. My bad. However, all I ask is that you pray about the book and talk it over with God before you outright dismiss it. For it doesn't hurt to talk to God.
Side Note:
Oh, and my apologies. I thought you were saying the Song of Solomon was added a few hundred years ago. My bad. However, all I ask is that you pray about the book and talk it over with God before you outright dismiss it. For it doesn't hurt to talk to God.
Last edited:
There you are twisting words again... Wow Jason, did I say SoS is in the Bible because of Bible numbers ? Why say this stuff, are you trying to confuse ? Or did I say SoS has a esoteric nature in Kabbalah and that's where gematria " bible numbers " come from ?
And no not one time, God is mentioned... Not even the one verse you claim out of EIGHT CHAPTERS ...
The word shalhevetyah can be read as one or two words. If it is one word, then, one must translate it as "a great fire"; if it is read as two words, one must translate it as "fire of Yah [God]." In the latter case, one could argue that Yah, as a partial rendering of YHVH, is a name of God (though not explicitly listed by Maimonides or the Talmud) and God's name then does appear in Song of Songs; in the former case, shalhevetyah is a normal word and not a name of God. The Minhat Shai (ad loc ) and C.D. Ginsburg, The Massorah, [19] note that the main massoretic manuscripts of the Bible differ on how to read this word, with Ben Asher reading it as one word because the taf has a sheva and the hey does not have a mapik. This makes shalhevetyah similar to ma'felyah (Jer. 2:31), which all massoretic manuscripts read as one word.[20] The commentators, too, are divided: Ibn Ezra opts for the two-word reading and renders, "a fire of God." Metsudat Zion / Metsudat David, Radak, and Minhat Shai read it as two words and hence do not take it as a name of God; they render, "a great fire," "a fire that burns powerfully." Rashi reads, "the fire of Gehinnom."[21] There is, thus, ample precedent to regard both bi-tseva'ot and shalhevetyah as not being names of God.
And no not one time, God is mentioned... Not even the one verse you claim out of EIGHT CHAPTERS ...
The word shalhevetyah can be read as one or two words. If it is one word, then, one must translate it as "a great fire"; if it is read as two words, one must translate it as "fire of Yah [God]." In the latter case, one could argue that Yah, as a partial rendering of YHVH, is a name of God (though not explicitly listed by Maimonides or the Talmud) and God's name then does appear in Song of Songs; in the former case, shalhevetyah is a normal word and not a name of God. The Minhat Shai (ad loc ) and C.D. Ginsburg, The Massorah, [19] note that the main massoretic manuscripts of the Bible differ on how to read this word, with Ben Asher reading it as one word because the taf has a sheva and the hey does not have a mapik. This makes shalhevetyah similar to ma'felyah (Jer. 2:31), which all massoretic manuscripts read as one word.[20] The commentators, too, are divided: Ibn Ezra opts for the two-word reading and renders, "a fire of God." Metsudat Zion / Metsudat David, Radak, and Minhat Shai read it as two words and hence do not take it as a name of God; they render, "a great fire," "a fire that burns powerfully." Rashi reads, "the fire of Gehinnom."[21] There is, thus, ample precedent to regard both bi-tseva'ot and shalhevetyah as not being names of God.
There's more....
The contemporary non-orthodox Jewish approach poses even more difficult questions: [1] Insofar as it is silent, the non-orthodox approach indicates that something is being covered up. Silence is either reverent or protective. The fact that the name of God is absent from an explicitly sexual document should be enough to alert modern readers that something is amiss. The fact that the name of God is absent from a document dealing with the physical love between man and woman, a topic long taboo in modern society, should be enough to warn us that contemporary analysis is hiding something. [2] With no prior ideological commitment to concealing the sexually explicit meaning, why would many non-orthodox scholars be unaware of the fact that the name of God does not appear in Song of Songs even though they are aware that it does not appear in the Book of Esther? With no prior religious commitment to the allegorical reading, what interpretive stance accounts for blindness to a simple lexical fact? Gordis' suggestion seems lame and inadequate; invoking the Third Commandment and traditional reticence only reinforces the sense that something is being hidden.
The reference to Palti ben Layish is to I Sam. 25:44, taken together with II Sam. 3:15. The story, briefly, is that Saul had given his daughter, Michal, to David as a wife. Saul, subsequently, took her from David and gave her to Palti ben Layish. When David became king, he reclaimed Michal from Palti, whose name had been changed to Paltiel, i.e., the name of God ['El] had been added to it. The rabbis understood that Palti, although living with Michal and even sleeping in the same bed with her, did not touch her because she was the wife of David and, for this reason, Palti merited having the name of God ['El] added to his own name.
The rabbis taught: Three men swore their sexual appetites [to abstinence] and were saved from sexual sin: Joseph, as it is written, "And he refused [the advances of the wife of Potiphar]" (Gen. 39:8); Boaz, as it is written, "By the life of the Lord, sleep until the morning" (Ruth 3:13) -- this teaches that he took his sexual organ and put it at the edge of the grave [sic] and swore his sexual appetite not to do anything; and Palti ben Layish ... and when he saw [that he had a desire for Michal] he swore his appetite not to touch her and put a sword on the bed between him and her to break his appetite.
Rabbi Shim`on ben Gamliel said: Three persons fled from sin and the Holy One, blessed be He, added His Name to theirs: Joseph, Palti, and Ya`el.... And in the end, his name is Paltiel... 'El [God] testified about him that he did not touch her.... [And] the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "My Name testifies about Ya`el that Sisra did not touch her."
What we have here is the definition of the sexual hero in rabbinic Judaism. Joseph, Boaz, and Paltiel resisted their sexual impulses, even using an oath to do so. For Joseph to have spent several hours, for Boaz to have spent a whole night, and for Palti to have spent several years in situations of great sexual temptation and to have resisted is highly praiseworthy.
This, in turn, leads to the valorization of resistance to all one's appetites -- in nonsexual, as well as in sexual, contexts:
This motif of sexual heroism needs to be examined more carefully, for mastery over sexual appetite through abstinence is a form of heroism only in a thoroughly patriarchal universe. Retention of seed is an expression of individuation and personal strength only in an unremittingly masculine worldview. Furthermore, an integral part of this mastery-heroism is denial -- denial of the power of sexuality, refusal of the overwhelming desire for woman. To deny woman is to master appetite; or more properly: to reject the need for woman and to retain seed is to be one's masterly, masculine self.
From whence do we learn [that God added God's name to Ya`el because she resisted sexual temptation]? When Sisra fled to Ya`el, the wife of Hever the Kenite, she said to him, "Turn aside, my lord, turn aside" [Ju. 4:18]. He, then, said to her, "Give me a little water" and she opened a skin of milk and gave him to drink. His appetite burned within him, blazing for sexual activity. What did she do? She came to him on the sly and struck the tent-peg into his temple [so that he died] and "she covered him with a blanket" [ibid., Heb., bi-semikha ]. What does "with a blanket" mean? ... Resh Lakish said, "We have searched all of Scriptures and we have not found a device [connected with killing] called `blanket.' What, then, is semikha? It is written with a sin [the Hebrew letter for "s" which looks like the Hebrew letter for "sh"]. Hence, [the word semikha ] should be read shemi + ko, `My Name is here,' for My Name testifies about Ya`el that Sisra did not touch her."
The context speaks about men who fled from sin and had the divine appellative added to their names, easily demonstrated by Joseph (called "Jehoseph" is Ps. 81:6) and Palti (called "Paltiel"). Ya`el is a problem on two counts: First, the appellative is not added to her name but derived from the "device" connected with the killing of Sisra, the "blanket" (Hebrew, semikha, read as shemi + ko ). Second, Ya`el is a woman. She is not fleeing sexual temptation; she is avoiding rape. The murder she commits, in this midrashic version of the story, is as much an act of self-defense as it is a political-military act. The sexual roles have been reversed.
Rabbi Nahman bar Yitshak said: "A sin committed for the sake [of heaven] is greater than a mitsva performed not for the sake [of heaven], as it says, `May Ya`el, the wife of Hever the Kenite, be more blessed than women; may she be blessed more than women in the tent' [Ju. 5:24]." Who are the `women in the tent'? Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah.... Rabbi Yohanan said, "That wicked man [Sisra] had intercourse [with Ya`el] seven times at that time, as it says, `He prostrated himself between her legs, he fell, he lay down; between her legs he prostrated himself and fell; where he prostrated himself there he fell stricken' [Ju. 5:27]."[48] But did she not feel pleasure at this sin? Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shim`on bar Yohai, "Even the good deeds of the wicked are evil for the righteous."
The contemporary non-orthodox Jewish approach poses even more difficult questions: [1] Insofar as it is silent, the non-orthodox approach indicates that something is being covered up. Silence is either reverent or protective. The fact that the name of God is absent from an explicitly sexual document should be enough to alert modern readers that something is amiss. The fact that the name of God is absent from a document dealing with the physical love between man and woman, a topic long taboo in modern society, should be enough to warn us that contemporary analysis is hiding something. [2] With no prior ideological commitment to concealing the sexually explicit meaning, why would many non-orthodox scholars be unaware of the fact that the name of God does not appear in Song of Songs even though they are aware that it does not appear in the Book of Esther? With no prior religious commitment to the allegorical reading, what interpretive stance accounts for blindness to a simple lexical fact? Gordis' suggestion seems lame and inadequate; invoking the Third Commandment and traditional reticence only reinforces the sense that something is being hidden.
The reference to Palti ben Layish is to I Sam. 25:44, taken together with II Sam. 3:15. The story, briefly, is that Saul had given his daughter, Michal, to David as a wife. Saul, subsequently, took her from David and gave her to Palti ben Layish. When David became king, he reclaimed Michal from Palti, whose name had been changed to Paltiel, i.e., the name of God ['El] had been added to it. The rabbis understood that Palti, although living with Michal and even sleeping in the same bed with her, did not touch her because she was the wife of David and, for this reason, Palti merited having the name of God ['El] added to his own name.
The rabbis taught: Three men swore their sexual appetites [to abstinence] and were saved from sexual sin: Joseph, as it is written, "And he refused [the advances of the wife of Potiphar]" (Gen. 39:8); Boaz, as it is written, "By the life of the Lord, sleep until the morning" (Ruth 3:13) -- this teaches that he took his sexual organ and put it at the edge of the grave [sic] and swore his sexual appetite not to do anything; and Palti ben Layish ... and when he saw [that he had a desire for Michal] he swore his appetite not to touch her and put a sword on the bed between him and her to break his appetite.
Rabbi Shim`on ben Gamliel said: Three persons fled from sin and the Holy One, blessed be He, added His Name to theirs: Joseph, Palti, and Ya`el.... And in the end, his name is Paltiel... 'El [God] testified about him that he did not touch her.... [And] the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "My Name testifies about Ya`el that Sisra did not touch her."
What we have here is the definition of the sexual hero in rabbinic Judaism. Joseph, Boaz, and Paltiel resisted their sexual impulses, even using an oath to do so. For Joseph to have spent several hours, for Boaz to have spent a whole night, and for Palti to have spent several years in situations of great sexual temptation and to have resisted is highly praiseworthy.
This, in turn, leads to the valorization of resistance to all one's appetites -- in nonsexual, as well as in sexual, contexts:
This motif of sexual heroism needs to be examined more carefully, for mastery over sexual appetite through abstinence is a form of heroism only in a thoroughly patriarchal universe. Retention of seed is an expression of individuation and personal strength only in an unremittingly masculine worldview. Furthermore, an integral part of this mastery-heroism is denial -- denial of the power of sexuality, refusal of the overwhelming desire for woman. To deny woman is to master appetite; or more properly: to reject the need for woman and to retain seed is to be one's masterly, masculine self.
From whence do we learn [that God added God's name to Ya`el because she resisted sexual temptation]? When Sisra fled to Ya`el, the wife of Hever the Kenite, she said to him, "Turn aside, my lord, turn aside" [Ju. 4:18]. He, then, said to her, "Give me a little water" and she opened a skin of milk and gave him to drink. His appetite burned within him, blazing for sexual activity. What did she do? She came to him on the sly and struck the tent-peg into his temple [so that he died] and "she covered him with a blanket" [ibid., Heb., bi-semikha ]. What does "with a blanket" mean? ... Resh Lakish said, "We have searched all of Scriptures and we have not found a device [connected with killing] called `blanket.' What, then, is semikha? It is written with a sin [the Hebrew letter for "s" which looks like the Hebrew letter for "sh"]. Hence, [the word semikha ] should be read shemi + ko, `My Name is here,' for My Name testifies about Ya`el that Sisra did not touch her."
The context speaks about men who fled from sin and had the divine appellative added to their names, easily demonstrated by Joseph (called "Jehoseph" is Ps. 81:6) and Palti (called "Paltiel"). Ya`el is a problem on two counts: First, the appellative is not added to her name but derived from the "device" connected with the killing of Sisra, the "blanket" (Hebrew, semikha, read as shemi + ko ). Second, Ya`el is a woman. She is not fleeing sexual temptation; she is avoiding rape. The murder she commits, in this midrashic version of the story, is as much an act of self-defense as it is a political-military act. The sexual roles have been reversed.
Rabbi Nahman bar Yitshak said: "A sin committed for the sake [of heaven] is greater than a mitsva performed not for the sake [of heaven], as it says, `May Ya`el, the wife of Hever the Kenite, be more blessed than women; may she be blessed more than women in the tent' [Ju. 5:24]." Who are the `women in the tent'? Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah.... Rabbi Yohanan said, "That wicked man [Sisra] had intercourse [with Ya`el] seven times at that time, as it says, `He prostrated himself between her legs, he fell, he lay down; between her legs he prostrated himself and fell; where he prostrated himself there he fell stricken' [Ju. 5:27]."[48] But did she not feel pleasure at this sin? Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shim`on bar Yohai, "Even the good deeds of the wicked are evil for the righteous."
Just so everyone will know...
The Zohar is one of the most important texts, if not the most important in Kabbalah. The Zohar is not a single book. Instead it is allegedly a 2nd century A.D. collection of Aramaic writings from various Kabbalists that is a commentary on the Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy with some commentary on the song of songs, also known as the song of Solomon. Its interpretations of the Torah are highly mystical and subjective and often in contradiction to what the Torah reveals. It seeks to explain as well as visualize the relationship between God and man. But, the book is generally believed to have been authored by a 13th Century Jewish mystic named Moses De Leon (1250-1305) partly because it was never mentioned in the Talmud (a collection of commentaries used to explain the the oral law concerning the first five books of the Old Testament). Additions were added to the Zohar in the 14th century.
The Zohar is one of the most important texts, if not the most important in Kabbalah. The Zohar is not a single book. Instead it is allegedly a 2nd century A.D. collection of Aramaic writings from various Kabbalists that is a commentary on the Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy with some commentary on the song of songs, also known as the song of Solomon. Its interpretations of the Torah are highly mystical and subjective and often in contradiction to what the Torah reveals. It seeks to explain as well as visualize the relationship between God and man. But, the book is generally believed to have been authored by a 13th Century Jewish mystic named Moses De Leon (1250-1305) partly because it was never mentioned in the Talmud (a collection of commentaries used to explain the the oral law concerning the first five books of the Old Testament). Additions were added to the Zohar in the 14th century.
K
I have Zohar, Talmud, books on Rabbinical teachings (parables). I use them as resources to better help me understand Hebrew idioms in the Bible. From time to time there is incredible illumination and depth...and why wouldn't those who study Gods Word their entire lives in the original language have wisdom to glean.
However, I still view them only as resources.
Certainly worth consideration if the Spirit leads.
However, I still view them only as resources.
Certainly worth consideration if the Spirit leads.
Wow.... At least you admit it, I'm sorry, your not being " illuminated " though, your being deceived... Why would you recommend others to do so ? Christians are worried about the word of God as it is written in the Gospels, anything other then the Bible, is a deception ... Period, I will pray for you though Karol