#3, RE: K'YANA
Posted by StephenSilver on Mar-31-2002 at 06:32 AM
In response to message #1
Sh'lama Akhi Andrew:
Thanks for the response. I would like to respond to your answer.Andrew Roth wrote:
>Actually Akhi Stephen I think the
>problem is that you are
>viewing KYANA as something concrete
>that either a human or
>God has, and that is
>not true.
Stephen Silver wrote:
No. I am defining "k'yana" as 15 passages of text define it. It is understood that "k'yana", is best defined as "nature".
Andrew Roth wrote:
You will
>not find any Scripture that
>says God IS a KYANA
>because God is an example
>of ONE KIND OF KYANA,
>as opposed to having or
>being one.
Stephen Silver wrote:
No. The fact that a "scripture verse" does not define ELOHIM as "k'yana" is because ELOHIM cannot be defined as having a "nature", for He is SPIRIT. Even "false deities" are defined as having "k'yana", because they are demons,(Galatians 4:8). I prefer to use the scriptures in such a way, as not to overlook the "Pashat", "simple, literal" understanding.
Andrew Roth wrote:
>K'YANA is an abstract concept, like
>we would talk about a
>divinity or a human spirit,
>without substantiating that divinity of
>spirit.
Stephen Silver wrote:
The 15 passages in the Peshitta, that use the word, "k'yana" together, in effect, "define the term". It is not an abstract term. It is used in such a way as to show that it has "purpose, is specific to various creatures, and is what distinguishes all living things. Nature is as concrete as "messenger-RNA". Yahshua, because He has DNA from His earthly mother Miryam, has "messenger RNA", and this is what makes Yahshua human. His only "nature" is human. However, He is ELOHIM (in every sense).
Andrew Roth wrote:
We are ASKING
>about potentiality, not grounding an
>identity in hard observation.
>It would be like me
>saying, "Can there be brown
>Grizzly Bears or Black Bears
>in South Dakota?" without my
>actually going there to see
>which one I will find
>first.
Stephen Silver wrote:
Sorry Akhi, asking about "potential" must be done , using "different language", than that which is "properly defined in scripture. If "k'yana" is used "outside of the delineation of the actual use in scripture, it can not be used accurately, either "concretely" or "abstractly". Again, where is the "pashat".
Andrew Roth wrote:
>K'YANA, I have found, stands best
>understood as a question that
>asks "CAN X have either
>a human or divine nature?"
> We cannot penetrate X
>to see what KIND is
>there, but rather are asking
>what the range of possibilities
>for that K'YANA are.
Stephen Silver wrote:
Why complicate it's use, Akhi Andrew. What's wrong with using the Bible text as is, to define the use of various words, if we want to understand things of a spiritual nature.
Andrew Roth wrote:
>A RUACH (spirit) is what God
>IS, but at a pure
>theoretical level God is an
>instance of DIVINE K'YANA, not
>K'YANA being something that God
>is.
Stephen Silver wrote:
I'm not speaking on "the theoretical level". I believe in the "absolute authority and inspiration of scripture, in the original "autograph", and the Peshitta, for the "lion's share", is "the autograph".
Andrew Roth wrote:
>Do you see the difference Akhi?
Stephen Silver wrote:
I ask you the same thing, Akhi Andrew.
Andrew Roth wrote:
>Now, continuing, when we answer this
>first question with, "X can
>have as a possibilitity either
>a divine or human K'YANA",
>then we go down the
>next level, which is to
>now identify that type, human
>or divine.
Stephen Silver wrote:
Please provide a scripture that in the "pashat" states that ELOHIM has "k'yana", otherwise it is only conjecture. I am not interested in conjecture. I am interested in what the Bible actually says.
Andrew Roth wrote:
When that
>happens we now have a
>concretization of that reality.
>We now know--of these two
>choices- that this is a
>REAL SUBSTANCE of either divine
>or human origins. In other
>words, we have a QNOMA.
Stephen Silver wrote:
It would appear Akhi Andrew, that you have defined "k'yana" as well as "q'noma" by the chart, but not by the actual written and "inspired" text.
Andrew Roth wrote:
>Going another level down, let's say
>we have identified the QNOMA
>as human, but we know
>nothing else. We don't
>know gender, race, age, ethnicity
>or anything that makes me
>different from you, Paul or
>anyone else. Then we
>see that separation, and now
>we have say, a young
>Jewish man, about 30, 6
>feet tall, 250 pounds.
>Guess what" Those characteristics in
>the human QNOMA are now
>the PARSOPA of the individual.
Stephen Silver wrote:
I would prefer to stay on topic, Akhi Andrew. We are discussing "k'yana", not "q'noma or parsopa".
Andrew Roth wrote:
>Try not to think though along
>the lines of RUACH and
>NEFESH on this exact line
>of thought because it will
>cause confusion. Although, those
>terms also relate to this
>study in another manner.
Stephen Silver wrote:
I am not confused, nor is it my intention to confuse you. I only am looking for the Biblical definition of "k'yana", by observing how the word is used in context. I have not added any of my own conjecture, and I am willing to allow the "inspired text" to "speak for itself".
Sh'lama w'Burkate,
Stephen Silver.