5 February 2019
Late afternoon. You are still considering the concept of a ghost-like spirit, a heartansoulanmind, with a humanitarian coat. - Amorella
1722 hours. A rainbow sheet, so to speak. I think Abraham was supposed to have had such a jacket.
** **
Coat of many colors
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the garment in the Bible.
In the Hebrew Bible, the coat of many colors (Hebrew: כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים ketonet passim) is the name for the garment that Joseph owned, which was given to him by his father, Jacob.
According to the King James Version, Genesis 37:3 reads, "Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours."[1]
The Septuagint translation of the passage uses the word ποικίλος (poikilos),[2] which indicates "many colored";[3] the Jewish Publication Society of America Version also employs the phrase "coat of many colors".[4] On the other hand, the Revised Standard Version translates ketonet passim as "a long robe with sleeves"[5] while the New International Version notes the translation difficulties in a footnote, and translates it as "a richly ornamented robe".[6]
Aryeh Kaplan in The Living Torah gives a range of possible explanations:
Kethoneth passim in Hebrew. It was a royal garment; 2 Samuel 13:18 (cf. Ralbag ad loc.). The word passim can be translated as 'colorful' (Radak; Septuagint), embroidered (Abraham ibn Ezra; Bahya ibn Paquda; Nachmanides on Exodus 28:2), striped (Jonah ibn Janah; Radak, Sherashim), or with pictures (Targum Jonathan). It can also denote a long garment, coming down to the palms of the hands (Rashbam; Ibn Ezra; Tosafot; Genesis Rabbah 84), and the feet (Lekach Tov). Alternatively, the word denotes the material out of which the coat was made, which was fine wool (Rashi) or silk (Ibn Janach). Hence, kethoneth passim, may be translated as "a full-sleeved robe", "a coat of many colors", "a coat reaching to his feet", "an ornamented tunic", "a silk robe", or "a fine woolen cloak".
James Swanson suggests that the phrase indicates a "tunic or robe unique in design for showing special favor or relationship" and that "either the robe was very long-sleeved and extending to the feet, or a richly-ornamented tunic either of special color design or gold threading, both ornamental and not suitable for working."[7]
The phrase is used one other time in the Hebrew Scriptures, to describe the garment worn by Tamar, daughter of David, in 2 Samuel 13:18-19.
Selected and edited from -- Wikipedia
** **
You dropped the quote in for vindication and because you are curious. You are also curious about Tamar, a daughter of David also wearing a similar coat. Check it out. - Amorella
** **
Tamar (daughter of David)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tamar[a] is a figure described in 2 Samuel in the Hebrew Bible. In the biblical narrative, she is the daughter of King David, and sister of Absalom. In 2 Samuel 13, she is raped by her half-brother Amnon.
Biblical narrative
Tamar was the daughter of King David and Maacah, who was the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur. Absalom was her brother and Amnon was her half-brother.
In the narrative, Amnon developed strong feelings of lust for her. Amnon's friend and cousin Jonadab advised Amnon to pretend to be sick to ask Tamar to prepare him food. He did so, and while she was there, Amnon asked her to have sex with him. She said no repeatedly, and he then raped her. After the rape, Amnon treated her disdainfully and sent her home. Tamar expressed her grief by tearing her robe and marking her forehead with ashes.[1] She went to Absalom, who attempted to comfort her and took her into his home where she remained desolate. When David heard of her rape, he was angered but did nothing.[2] Absalom had Amnon murdered two years later[3] and then fled to Geshur.[4]
Michael D. Coogan attributes the placement of the rape of Tamar narrative, coming soon after the Bathsheba narrative, as a way for the narrator to compare Amnon to David. As David wronged Bathsheba, so too will Amnon wrong Tamar, "like father like son."[5] Mark Gray, however, disagrees with this position, and argues that "the rape of Tamar is an act of such horrific defilement that it is marked off as distinct from David's encounter with Bathsheba."[6]
Adrien Bledstein says the description of Tamar as wearing a "richly ornamented robe" may have been meant to signify that she was a priestess or interpreter of dreams, like Joseph with his coat of many colors.[7]
Mary J. Evans describes Tamar as a "beautiful, good-hearted obedient, righteous daughter who is totally destroyed by her family."[8] After the rape, Amnon attempted to send Tamar away. She responded "No, my brother; for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did to me" (2 Samuel 13:15-16). This response refers to Deuteronomy 22:28 which states that a man who rapes a virgin must marry her. In Biblical law, it was unlawful for a man to have intercourse with his sister; Kyle McCarter suggests that either the laws are not in effect at this time or they will be overlooked by David, or they do not apply to the royal family.[9] Michael D. Coogan, in his section on women in 2 Samuel, describes Tamar as a "passive figure" whose story is "narrated with considerable pathos." Coogan also points out the poignancy of the image at the end of the narrative story where Tamar is left as a "desolate woman in her brother Absalom's house" (2 Samuel 13:20). This ending verse about Tamar is meant to make the reader feel compassion and pity for her.[5]
Selected and edited from Wikipedia
** **
1754 hours. The discussions above are interesting, but the more reading on the subject of the coat of many colors the more complex it turns out to be. Alas, the whole point of this is supposed to be on the humanitarian coat (sheet/jacket) I dropped over the spirit to give it a more ghost-like appearance. I give my mind too much free license.
How do you know your mind has the free license and not your heart? - Amorella
1802 hours. Touché, Amorella. I do not know. What comes to mind though is your question is as Angelic in Nature; that is, were I dead and physically gone, in my heart of consciousness, in my soul I can hear such a spiritual question directed my way. Neither heart nor mind speaks up and says, which is which to think my mind or my heart free license has free license. Perhaps it makes no difference, but to me it appears to. Why? The heart is closer to the soul. I cannot imagine my soul having any free license at all, thus, the heart would be influenced by such more than the mind which would have more of a sense of being free than heart or soul. This is my reasoning.
Then, I ask you this, young man; What is this soul than can open and shut at will; yet you suggest this soul has no free license to do so? - Amorella
1819 hours. I had not considered this. I have in mind and heart that the soul is absolute and understands all things human innately. I had not thought on the soul making a choice.
Yet many religious texts suggest that it is the soul that is either damned or saved not the heartanmind within the soul. - Amorella
1824 hours. Terrific, Amorella. I am not confronting religious texts in this blog. The contents within this blog are my own deeper thoughts on the nature of the heart and soul and mind. I have a mind to look deeper on the subject of the basics of the soul. I have as have others, sub-divided it. The subject is fascinating to me, always has.
1937 hours. It appears that from the point of view of the heart and soul and mind each has a free will within the bounds of its own notion or conceit. This is strange and full of irony when in consciousness human beings, many of them, feel they each have conscious free will also. No wonder the substance/moral/determined (desired) life of each human appears complex in terms of herorhis own conceits. There are numerous battles of will (reason/desire) within each individual that eventually have to be let go or resolved.
If nothing of spirit survives physical death then it appears to make no difference either way in terms of conscious free will. - Amorella
1950 hours. If this is so then if nothing else pride and arrogance are nipped in the bud of physical death. Finally, be quiet and be dead all you living things. Collective theatre, that's life while it's lived -- tales told by idiots, a great author once surmised. Once dead, how might I respond?
Most humbly. - Amorella
2000 hours. Let's leave it there.
Post. - Amorella
No comments:
Post a Comment
I expect a thoughtful and honest message formed in a polite manner.