SeekGod.ca Discussion Forum

Is this the right forum? PLase shift it if not. This is a question, not a sermon of mine

I do not know Hebrew, I am the first to admit this. Ezekiel 20:25 has been a key to my thought

I gave them statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by (KJV )


I take this to be part of a paradox: what the Law commands is good but what the Law produces is not, no one can live BY the law of God as it is the impossible thing of the Law (Romans 8) [but now i suspect that even this reading is out of context, that the not good commandments God gave here were not his law but something else. but what?]

BUT

some translate this as

I gave them over TO statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by. (NIV which many think is untrustworthy)

THis implies that the statutes that were not good were human traditions, and God let them fall into this error to teach them their error, and though they could be lived by in terms of being possible, there was no life to be had in them

So myquestion is:

How does the Hebrew answer which translation is valid. you see

"I' is subject "gave" is verb "them" is indirect object "statutes" is object (unless my knowledge of grammar has declined that much - they do not teach grammar in English classes any mpore. I learned my grammar in French and Greek class

BUT

"I" is subject "gave" is verb "them" is object "over to statutes" is indirect object.

Were this greek the cases would make this perfectly clear which is which.

How does Hebrew determine grammatical function of a word. English uses word order and particles like to etc, Greek uses word endings. Wnat about Hebrew?

I dont want a translation that is in fact an agenda driven interpretation,. In this i want what the words actually say. Is this possible?

Eze 20:25 Wherefore I gaveH5414 [H8804] them also statutesH2706 that were not goodH2896, and judgmentsH4941 whereby they should not liveH2421 [H8799];


Ve(and) gam(also) ani(I) natati(gave,first person singular) lahem(to them) chukim(statutes) lo(not) tovim(good)


u'mishpatim(and commandments) lo(not) yihyu (will live,plural)b'hem.(in them/or by them)

I must say its an interesting verse that you bring up.
It says like I put up there literally.The word chukim is plural of H2076 chok
khoke
From H2710; an enactment; hence an appointment (of time, space, quantity, labor or usage): - appointed, bound, commandment, convenient, custom, decree (-d), due, law, measure, X necessary, ordinance (-nary), portion, set time, statute, task.

Hope this helps

(12-30-2008 09:54 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: [ -> ]Eze 20:25 Wherefore I gaveH5414 [H8804] them also statutesH2706 that were not goodH2896, and judgmentsH4941 whereby they should not liveH2421 [H8799];


Ve(and) gam(also) ani(I) natati(gave,first person singular) lahem(to them) chukim(statutes) lo(not) tovim(good)


u'mishpatim(and commandments) lo(not) yihyu (will live,plural)b'hem.(in them/or by them)

I must say its an interesting verse that you bring up.
It says like I put up there literally.The word chukim is plural of H2076 chok
khoke
From H2710; an enactment; hence an appointment (of time, space, quantity, labor or usage): - appointed, bound, commandment, convenient, custom, decree (-d), due, law, measure, X necessary, ordinance (-nary), portion, set time, statute, task.

Hope this helps

So God "gave to them" , he did not "give them over to". It is as I thought, the NIV is agenda driven.

All that remains is for me to consider the context of the passage, which i only noticed today as i was preparing the first post, but at least you show me the Hebrew grammar does not of itself refute my own contention as regards this matter, namely that this passage is part of a mighty paradox: the law good/the law not good.

That most things come to paradox is now to me proof of truth, even while self contradiction is manifest disproof of a truth claim. Such paradoxes, yet which are resolvable, even in principle if not by attainment in this life, seem to me to indicate that the Bible is logically self authenticating and could not have been dreamed up by men.

How terrible (ie awesome, old sense of the word) is the logic of the thing!! It does often drive me to my knees before the Autocrat Himself.

I have always been wary of trying to research this passage and others myself, for I know enough about how languages work to be aware that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and i have seen rank heresy done by ignorant hotheads armed with an interlinear and a concordance.

Thank you.

(12-31-2008 12:54 AM)strefanash Wrote: [ -> ]So God "gave to them" , he did not "give them over to". It is as I thought, the NIV is agenda driven.

All that remains is for me to consider the context of the passage, which i only noticed today as i was preparing the first post, but at least you show me the Hebrew grammar does not of itself refute my own contention as regards this matter, namely that this passage is part of a mighty paradox: the law good/the law not good.

That most things come to paradox is now to me proof of truth, even while self contradiction is manifest disproof of a truth claim. Such paradoxes, yet which are resolvable, even in principle if not by attainment in this life, seem to me to indicate that the Bible is logically self authenticating and could not have been dreamed up by men.

How terrible (ie awesome, old sense of the word) is the logic of the thing!! It does often drive me to my knees before the Autocrat Himself.

I have always been wary of trying to research this passage and others myself, for I know enough about how languages work to be aware that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and i have seen rank heresy done by ignorant hotheads armed with an interlinear and a concordance.

Thank you.

For your consideration: God gave statutes and judgments that were not good in the Law as part of the covenant. Perhaps Ezekiel was referring to these:

Deu 29:21 And the LORD shall separate him to evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law:

Deu 29:27 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against this land, to bring on it all the curses that are written in this book:

Deu 30:1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come on you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you shall call them to mind among all the nations, where the LORD your God has driven you,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eze 20:23 I lifted up my hand to them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries;
Eze 20:24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols.
Eze 20:25 Why I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;
Eze 20:26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that opens the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.

(01-30-2010 10:41 AM)Scotchman Wrote: [ -> ]I think Galatians answers this appearance of seeming contradiction.
At least for me it does. The Law produces Sin so that one will humble himself to God for Mercy. The Law does not save but produces repentance which DOES lead to Salvation.

It is more of an in between which is necessary due to Sin.

Galatians 3:19-21 * Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. * Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. * Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

What do you mean by "it is more of an in between which is necessary due to sin"?