adj4u,

Do you really think you are being logical? The text is Hebrew. The Hebrew difinition is the only correct one to go by. Can you explain to me the reasoning that makes you think you can take a Hebrew definition and add in some English definitions and assume you are right? I really don't see any logic there, just confusion and misdirection.

qanna' (jealous, applies to God only) Not bearing any rival.
==============================================================
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07067&Version=kjv
==============================================================

chamad: To desire
==============================================================
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H02530&Version=kjv
==============================================================

qin'ah: ardour, zeal, jealousy
==============================================================
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07068&Version=kjv
==============================================================

that is what you did

chamad (covet): To desire
qanna' (jealous): Not bearing any rival.

look familiar

sorry but i am not going to learn hebrew

which may have come from translations of egyptian

which may be derived from latin

who knows

using the logic of only hebrew is correct

might as well have a big fire and burn everything

that is not in hebrew

Transliteration

qin'ah


Pronunciation

kin·ä' (Key)

Part of Speech

feminine noun


Root Word (Etymology)

from H7065

TWOT Reference

2038a
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) ardour, zeal, jealousy

a) ardour, jealousy, jealous disposition (of husband)

1) sexual passion

b) ardour of zeal (of religious zeal)

1) of men for God

2) of men for the house of God

3) of God for his people

c) ardour of anger

1) of men against adversaries

2) of God against men

d) envy (of man)

e) jealousy (resulting in the wrath of God)

2 d envy interesting

your site

chamad


Pronunciation

khä·mad' (Key)

Part of Speech

feminine noun
verb


Root Word (Etymology)

a primitive root

TWOT Reference

673
Outline of Biblical Usage

v

1) to desire, covet, take pleasure in, delight in

a) (Qal) to desire

b) (Niphal) to be desirable

c) (Piel) to delight greatly, desire greatly

n f

2) desirableness, preciousness

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 21
AV — desire 11, covet 4, delight 2, pleasant 1, beauty 1, lust 1, delectable things 1

covet interesting

your site

adj4u,

I need you to calm down and listen to reason.

The Old Testament is written in Hebrew. The oldest copies we have are all in Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls copies of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew. We don't have any reason to believe that they were written in Eqytian or Latin. They are in Hebrew. Therefore, when translating the words, you go by a Hebrew dictionary. You don't have to learn Hebrew, they make Hebrew to English dictionaries. You can use this site: http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.html to see the original text, Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT. They give the defintions and show a lot of information about how the word is used.

qanna'


Pronunciation

kan·nä' (Key)

Part of Speech

adjective


Root Word (Etymology)

from H7065

TWOT Reference

2038b
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) jealous (only of God)

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 6
AV — jealous 6

---

only of God

insert head scratching emoticon here

yep and they have the same definitions listed

adj4u,

When the Bible says "is a jealous God", it says "qanna' 'el". Like you quoted, "qanna'" is only used to describe God and it's only used six times in the Bible. If you look at the English definition for Jealous, you will find many different possible meanings. Some with good conotations, some with bad. "qanna'" only has one connotation and it is listed below the definition on the page I listed earlier. I will reprint it below, but feel free to look it up for yourself.

==============================================================
used of God as not bearing any rival; the severe avenger of departure from himself
==============================================================

So the connotations, the specific meanings of the words, which you are trying to apply don't fit. Once you have dedicated yourself to God, He will not accept any rival for your worship. That's what "qanna'" means and it is what jealous means in the scriptures you quoted. It's similar to saying that a husband will be jealous if his wife has an affair. That's not abnormal or evil behavior and it is NOT condemned in the Bible. A Husband and wife have the right to be jealous if their spouse has sex outside of marriage.

I can see spider's point here, really... which has educated me, by dismissing a common misinterpretation that I had...

I have used a definition that was inaccurate... the ancient Hebrew texts are as close as you can possibly come to the "real" meaning or intentions....

Jealous, I now have come to believe, in the original context, most probably meant "requiring exclusive loyalty" as Webster's still says to this day when it refers to God's jealousy.

I would agree with that definition... Thank you spider...truly


But I am still having great difficulty with the punishment aspect of this "jealous" God... can you help me here?


The second commandment...false idols

Deuteronomy-5:9

You shall not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God(requiring exclusive loyalty),punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.



Are we to believe that WE are responsible and actually held accountable to receive punishment for things that happened BEFORE we were even born? None-the-less by someone else. Because my grandfather was a person who hated the Lord, am I to believe that the Lord will punish me for the behaviours displayed by my relatives; things that very well happened before I was ever conceived?

Is that just? Can that be fair...in any sense, whatsoever?

That type of judgement needs re-thinking. As a result of it's placement in the context, I believe that section was an afterthought for emphasis...placed there by someone who very well may have defined the word jealous differently also...

I suppose that notion would require a self-hijacking or a different thread though, huh?


Thank you all for responding...

creativesoul,

==============================================================
You shall not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God(requiring exclusive loyalty),punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.
==============================================================

Sure, let me explain. It really helps to read the entire OT, so that you get the full context. When all of Israel rebelled against God, God allowed them to be taken as slaves (notice, that God didn't cause it to happen, He ALLOWED it to happen) by Babylon. The children weren't punished directly, but the parents were punished and the children received the consequences of that punishment. God's punishment for the parents not worshipping him (as they had promised to do) was to remove his protection from Israel and His strength from their armies, so that they were taken into slavery by their enemies. God never directly punishes someone for the sins of another, but when the punishment effects the parents, the punishment will also unavoidably effect the children. This verse is a warning to parents, that their actions will effect their children.

exclusive loyalty. If a spouse is having an affair, I am not jealeous of the person with whom the offese is being commited. I am angry at because a vow, a promise to me has been broken.

If it is as Spider says, then God can only be jealous if there has been a vow, or promise by a human to be loyal.

Millions have made no such promise, therefore, how they worship, who they worship or if they worship no higher power, can not affect the jealeous nature of God.

It would appear that it is better NOT to give a promise of loyaltiy to God, becasue the nature of a being that includes jealeousy, wrath and eternal punishment, can not be trusted, just as the same volitile and unpridictable nature in humans can not be trusted.

Redykeulous,

I think you are still trying to rationalize rather than reason. Yes, there are billions of people who haven't devoted themselves to God, so they don't have to fear God's jealousy. But they do have to fear judgement. Six one way, half a dozen the other as I see it. But the reward for serving God is eternal and fullfilling life and the only reward for not serving God is getting to live by your own rules for 70 years or so. It doesn't seem like a great trade-off to me.

I do agree with you that humans are often unpredictable and cannot be trusted, but God doesn't have any feelings. God's character doesn't change. God is consistant in how he treats us. So we are not at the mercy of a temperamental being, we are at the mercy of a righteous judge who has offered a pardon to all who are guilty.

If one were to make a list of pro's and con's,

"reasons to belive and reasons not" there would be only one pro and only one con, the slight chance that at the end of a life, filled with worry and stress over the possible offenses in or our of our control, one 'might' be considered worthy of a continued existence under God's rule.

Philisophically, I reason that I am here now, that I can choose what stresses in my life can be contained or eliminated and in that choice do I make my life easier? And if my life includes a greater inner peace can I effectively be a better human being? And in being the best human I can be will I find fulfillment and joy in this existence?

So if the will, that is mine, is worth no more, in this life, than to choose to worship a God with only a possibility of peace after this life, then I will choose the surer bet, and seek purpose, peace, joy and knowledge by using the will that was mine in the first place. At least, if there are consequesnces at the end, I will have used my will to it's fullest potential and I will have lost less than others who spent their life trying to please a God, only to be judged unworthy anyway.

Efficiency - waste not, want not. My free will is a resource, meant to be exercised, I choose to use it efficiently.

Creativesoul wrote:
“Jealous, I now have come to believe, in the original context, most probably meant "requiring exclusive loyalty" as Webster's still says to this day when it refers to God's jealousy.

But I am still having great difficulty with the punishment aspect of this "jealous" God... can you help me here?”

I think it is really naïve to believe that “jealousy” in the Bible doesn’t mean precisely what it means today. And the biblical quotes that Robin was kind enough to post clearly show that the “jealousy” associated with God is almost always equated with an angry God who is throwing tempter tantrums and threaten to wipe people from the face of the earth.

It should be perfectly clear to anyone who reads the Bible that we have only two choices.

We can either take everything in it literally, in which case we’ll have a total basket case on our hands.

Or, we can recognize that the text had been tainted with ideas of men.

I choose the latter of these two options as the most realistic and responsible approach.

Spider posted to Robin:
“Okay, I'm out. If you aren't going to be serious or reasonable, then I have no desire to discuss this with you.”

With all due respect, if you are going to suggest that we be serious and reasonable then we must treat all text in the Bible equally. We can’t be focusing on just those things that back up our interpretations and reject other parts as being irrelevant.

I think Robin was being perfectly reasonable and responsible in showing that a vengeful anger almost always accompanies Biblical passages that refer to God’s jealousy. It’s pretty clear that this is the same kind of jealousy that we speak of today.

It matters not what the object of jealousy is, if it causes God to take temper tantrums and go on a frenzy threatening to punish people, then it’s the same kind of jealousy exhibited by immature spoiled brats.

There can be no other conclusion if we take the book in its entirety. There’s no need to go running off to any Hebrew dictionary. As you have stated before in another thread CONTEXT is EVERYTHING. The meaning of the word is revealed in the context of the passages that Robin posted.

Spider wrote:
“I do agree with you that humans are often unpredictable and cannot be trusted, but God doesn't have any feelings. God's character doesn't change. God is consistant in how he treats us. So we are not at the mercy of a temperamental being, we are at the mercy of a righteous judge who has offered a pardon to all who are guilty.”

Wow! You must be reading a different Bible than I have!

God is portrayed as getting angry all through the Bible, as Robin has just posted. He most certainly does become angry and temperamental all throughout the book.

The Great Flood was a direct result of God’s anger and loss of temper! In fact, God felt so bad about what he had done that he created a rainbow as a covenant to man that he would never allow himself to lose his temper like that again.

The biblical picture of God is clearly one of an emotional being. If we wish to remove the parts of the Bible that reveal this behavior then we’d need to reject quite a bit of the book.

I’m convinced that this isn’t a bad idea. I think it’s pretty obvious that men have contaminated this doctrine over the millennium and now it’s up to us to try to make sense of these contaminated stories.

We need to use our intuition and allow God to inspire us from within. After all, if this is the basis of our believe (that God can inspire the thinking of men) then we should also believe that he can inspire out very own thinking. This is the essence of TRUE FAITH.

So if you want to believe that God is consistent and not temperamental then you are going to necessarily need to reject some of the writings in the Bible as being incorrect interpretations or simply not having been inspired by God in the first place.

It makes no sense to try to accept the entire cannon of stories verbatim. The resulting picture is a very confused and self-inconsistent God. A verbatim approach simply isn't workable.

Abracadabra,

Commiting yourself to God is a spiritual commitment that is stronger than marriage. God's anger at someone who leaves Him to worship other gods is righteous for that reason. The spiritual world is more real than what we consider the real world, therefore our spiritual actions have consequences. If you spiritually marry God, He will always be faithful to you, but He expects absolute faithfulness from you.

God has emotions, not feelings. There is a difference. I said God doesn't have feelings and that is true, but God does have emotions. Feelings are sensations which are experianced for unknown reasons. You might just feel blue one day. Emotions are sensations which are created by a particular experiance. You see a long time friend and become happy or you catch your wife cheating and get angry. Emotions have a source, they are caused by an identifiable something, but feelings have no know source and generally effect overall mood and thought processes.

Noah's flood was just punishment, not a loss of temper. You are rationalizing again. What does the Bible say? That's what you should focus on, instead of stating your conclusion and looking for evidence to support your claim. Noah's flood was the result of God's anger. The people of the world only wanted to do evil, they rejected good. The only exception were eight people who were saved in Noah's ark. This wasn't God loosing His temper, it was God saving the human race.

spider line

You are rationalizing again.

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

are you saying that god is irrational?

Spider wrote:
“God's anger at someone who leaves Him to worship other gods is righteous for that reason.”

I never suggested that God’s anger wasn’t righteous. I merely pointed out that God does show emotion which you seemed to be denying.

Spider wrote:
“God has emotions, not feelings. There is a difference. I said God doesn't have feelings and that is true, but God does have emotions. Feelings are sensations which are experianced for unknown reasons. You might just feel blue one day. Emotions are sensations which are created by a particular experiance. You see a long time friend and become happy or you catch your wife cheating and get angry. Emotions have a source, they are caused by an identifiable something, but feelings have no know source and generally effect overall mood and thought processes.”

This just sounds like semantic mumbo jumbo to me.

As far as I’m concerned feelings and emotions are just two different words that can be used to convey the same concept. Obviously you have different definitions for these words. Ontologically speaking I would disagree with your notion that feelings don’t have a source. You may not be aware of what the source is, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Feelings and emotions are just two different words, but only a single concept as far as I’m concerned.

In fact, this very obvious difference between the way the people use words explains very clearly why everyone interprets the Bible differently. God should have known better than to try to convey his message in works knowing full well that they would be open to gross misinterpretation. This just gives the Bible even less credence.

Spider wrote:
“Noah's flood was just punishment, not a loss of temper. You are rationalizing again. What does the Bible say? That's what you should focus on, instead of stating your conclusion and looking for evidence to support your claim. Noah's flood was the result of God's anger. The people of the world only wanted to do evil, they rejected good. The only exception were eight people who were saved in Noah's ark. This wasn't God loosing His temper, it was God saving the human race.”

Yes, that was very convenient wasn’t it? Only 8 people worth saving and they just coincidentally happened to all be in the same family. Talk about luck!

I think it’s pretty clear that the allegory of the flood was just that; an allegory. It is perfectly clear that the Bible is full of allegories and parables, there can be no doubt about this. Jesus was well-known for telling allegories and parables. Therefore there is absolutely no reason on God’s green earth why we should take the story of Noah’s flood literally. In fact, we know that rainbows had to have always existed prior to the flood. They are a result of the laws of nature. Isaac Newton was kind enough to discover this for us.

Therefore the story of the flood is clearly a parable and was never a real event. It would be silly to believe otherwise.

The author of that story was simply trying to convey to us that even when it seems like the whole world is evil there is always hope. Hope that God can be our lifeboat and save us from the ignorance of the masses.

That’s my interpretation of that parable. Looking for geological evidence for an actual flood would be to miss the point of the story.

qin'ah --

2) of God against men

d) envy (of man)

e) jealousy (resulting in the wrath of God)