Jump to content
The World News Media

Biblical Acrostics


Evacuated

Recommended Posts

  • Member
19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The entire book of Esther, for example, which was written later than the Babylonian Captivity, does not contain the name YHWH at all.

Do you discount the apparent acrostics noted at, for example, Esther 1:20; 5:4, 13; and 7:7?

Is there an LXX awareness of these?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 727
  • Replies 3
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Member
1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Do you discount the apparent acrostics noted at, for example, Esther 1:20; 5:4, 13; and 7:7?

Is there an LXX awareness of these?

They are apparently random. Hebrews used alphabetic acrostics in psalms and poetry because it provided a mnemonic. Imagine trying to remember a Psalm of 172 verses like Psalms 119 if it didn't make use of an alphabetic memory aid. But there is no evidence that the Hebrew readers who translated the Hebrew to Greek for the LXX even noticed them in Esther. Also, these are some of the most common letters in Hebrew, and they are at apparently random, non-poetic places in the book. This is also true of where they show up in at least 50 or 60 other places in the Bible but never got noticed - because those books didn't go through a canonization debate and already used God's name, sometimes right next to the so-called acrostic. First Chronicles has more than a dozen of them, in obviously random places. And, just like in the book of Esther, sometimes, to make them work, you have to use the beginning letters of four consecutive words for some, and the final letters for some, and you have to read forward on some and read backwards on some.

This gives evidence that it was just wishful thinking that forced people to look even harder at the book to try to find the divine name in it, or perhaps that the text was purposely manipulated to give Esther an edge in canonization. (But the fact that no one just went ahead and added YHWH to the text, makes Micah's point even less relevant.)

Laurence A. Turner wrote an essay for a publication in a scholarly journal in 2013 that kind of sums up the idea in the title: "Desperately Seeking Yhwh, Finding God in Esther's 'Acrostics.'" https://www.academia.edu/6370833/Desperately_Seeking_YHWH_Finding_God_in_Esthers_Acrostics_

In that work, it is mentioned that you can even find Satan in the book of Esther at least twice by using the same methods. (Of course, a real numerologist would simply say that this means that God is twice as powerful as Satan, and some would undoubtedly nod their heads without questioning whether God is actually 7 or 10 or 100,000 times more powerful.)

Edited to add: Just noticed a footnote in the work quoted by Turner. Previously I had seen someone who found about 60 instances. Turner claims to have found over 100. My guess is that there are probably even a few more. Here's his footnote:

Quote

Not including those in Esther, there are 102 examples: initial consonants read left to right (60) and right to left (27); final consonants read left to right (4) and right to left (11)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Do you discount the apparent acrostics noted at, for example, Esther 1:20; 5:4, 13; and 7:7?

I should add that I have no idea whether these so-called acrostics are purposeful or not, or if they really are random or if they were put there on purpose either in the original text or a later text. I might find them problematic if we put a lot of emphasis on them, because then it would seem that we weren't using the same measure of wisdom and discretion in comparing 100 other places if these were really so special. Also, Esther seems to have one of each type. If this is something very significant, then the odds are good that these were designed on purpose. But trying to read into the differences of each type - backwards, forwards, end letters, beginning letters, and one "I am" for good measure has resulted in the same type of thinking that goes into reading tea leaves, coffee grounds, bird entrails, and zig-zagging vents and gutters in the great pyramid. Little find-a-word puzzles seem NOT to be a true reflection of the all-powerful Almighty God, Jehovah. I wouldn't put it past a later copyist, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
    • I'm not bothered by being singled out, as you seem to be accustomed to defending and protecting yourselves, but it's a good idea to keep your dog on a leash. Speaking of which, in a different thread, TTH mentioned that it would be great if everyone here shared their life stories. As both of you are the librarians here, I kindly ask you to minimize any signs of intimidation or insincerity. It is you people who need to be "banned" here. However, it is quite evident that you hold a negative influence, which God recognizes, therefore you are banned from your own conscience in His eyes.
    • One issue with historian Flavius Josephus is that he suggests that the Royal Captain of the (Guard) can also be regarded as General Nebuzaradan. A confusion arises from Josephus' account of the captives mentioned in Jeremiah, as he claims that they were taken from Egypt instead of Babylon. Since Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in Rilah, he directed his generals to lay siege to Jerusalem. This could potentially account for the numerous dispatches that Nebuchadnezzar would have sent to the west, but the considerable distance to Borsippa still poses a challenge. As a result, the Babylonians managed to gain control of regions such as Aram (Syria), Ammon, and Moab. The only territories that remained were the coastal cities, where the Egyptians held sway. King Josiah decided to form an alliance with Babylon instead of being under Egyptian rule. So, that part of the territory was covered until King Josiah was defeated.  It's interesting how they started back then in 4129, but still end up with the same conclusion with Zedekiah's Defeat 3522 607 B.C. 3419 607 B.C. even though their AM is different.  
    • In the era of the Bible Students within the Watchtower, there were numerous beginnings. It is essential to bear in mind that each congregation functioned autonomously, granting the Elders the freedom to assert their own assertions and interpretations. Most people embraced the principles that Pastor Russell was trying to convey. You could argue that what you are experiencing now, they also experienced back then. The key difference is that unity was interpreted differently. Back then it had value where today there is none. To address your inquiry, while I cannot recall the exact details, it is believed to have been either 4129 or 4126. Some groups, however, adopted Ussher's 4004. It is worth mentioning that they have now discarded it and revised it to either 3954 or 3958, although I personally find little interest in this matter. I believe I encountered this information in the book titled "The Time is at Hand," though it may also be referenced in their convention report. Regardless, this is part of their compelling study series 3. Please take a moment to review and confirm the date. I am currently focused on Riblah. The Bible Students who firmly believe that Israel is the prophetic sign of Armageddon have made noteworthy adjustments to their chronology. They have included significant dates such as 1947/8 and 1967/8, as well as more recent dates. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that, according to their calculations, 2024 holds immense importance. The ongoing tension of Iran targeting Israel directly from its own territory amplifies the gravity of the situation. If their trajectory continues, the subsequent captivating event will occur in 2029, rather than as previously speculated, in 2034 by some.
  • Members

    • TrueTomHarley

      TrueTomHarley 9,545

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • BTK59

      BTK59 181

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • chan

      chan 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Many Miles

      Many Miles 703

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Mickelle

      Mickelle 1

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.3k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.