₦airaland Forum

olopan:
So far so good, neither of our installed Growatt hybrid have had issues

The ways to avoid problem is to look at the installation from a different POV,
Let's say power comes in and goes out.

The grid should say feed your inverter L-N directly for charging and bypass and the inverter output L-N feeds the loads .. Both should never at least ideally converge.

In other terms Neutral link bar is not to be shared between Grid and Inverter.

A lot of things can go wrong in the future.

Not a problem, per say if all installation guidelines are followed

Thanks alot boss.... Really appreciate you taking out of your time to answer my questions.

Thank you once again.

olopan:
Good evening,

Your definition of pocket friendly might be different from mine but for a two years warranty covered inverter with a good review and bang for money, you should consider the growatt inverter

About a standalone LVD
Victron Bp is a good choice to give a try - Victron battery protect

You don't need other Victron components to use it.... That's the good news about it.

Thanks alot for the input boss. I've been looking at reviews for growatt after your recommendation and it really seems to be a solid next step.

If you can spare a few more minutes of your time, I would still like to ask a few more questions boss.

Based on the fact that growatt is mostly transformer less, which isn't much of a problem in developed countries due to their strict compliance with electrical wiring codes, but in a place like Nigeria where wiring is mostly done poorly and good earthing is almost non existent,, is going transformer less not going to be a problem down the stretch
and how does one compensate for such issues?
Or from your experience, its really not a problem?

Thanks alot for your time.

olopan:
As said here by mctfopt

8 batteries on the minimum, with a good hybrid inverter 5KVA or a very good premium Inverter if the pocket allows because you will need to factor idle and working consumption of the inverter as that can leech away the energy stored.

And since grid isn't always as expected sometimes, a future plan for solar should be considered and if I guess from your text, its a 24/7 running scenario.

An inverter with LVD is better consider so in case grid fails and the system is working the inverter cuts off at say 50% DOD .... Just to ensure you get yourself out of trouble.

Cheers

Which inverters with LCD that are pocket friendly do you recommend boss. Also can you recommend standalone LVD's that can be connected to already installed systems.... Thanks alot boss

ceaser:
I don't have experience with Felicity lithium beyond what we have all discussed here about it. And that is majorly the false "overdeclaration" of the capacities by the manufacturer as indicated on the product label.

Someone did capacity testing and discovered the 200ah to be truly 150ah and the 150ah to be truly 120ah or thereabout.

Beyond that, I don't know of any complaints regarding it that I have come across.

I guess the tradeoff isn't so bad then... Thanks chief.

ojeysky:
I don't think one should be worried about Felicity littium doing 5 years, they have brand new cells in them just that they are over declared. The one declared as 200AH that has 120AH will certainly serve at that capacity for many years to come. I don't expect my DIY to give me less than 5 years of service even with my fairly deep daily discharges, and it's on that path of over 7 years with its current performance unless I break it myself

Thanks alot for your inputs boss.... Much appreciated

adrusa:
Now you are not seeking for my experience, you are asking me to make a prediction, to foretell the future. That is not my area of concentration/calling. However, going by what I have seen over the last one and half years in the LFP land, I will expect it to last that long or more. About one and a half years, there is no evidence of reduction in capacity, efficiency or voltage. The batteries are still performing just like the day I installed them. It may be an indication of what to expect, but who knows what surprises are lurking in the corner.

Na fingers crossed matter we dey so boss. Abi make person just settle with the well established Lithium batteries manufacturers?

ojeysky:
My cells are just 6 months old and I do 60 to 80% DOD daily (occasionally 90%). The cells have not deviated from their performance the first time I bought them. Now 6 months is a very short time for the lifetime of the cells. I know folks here have used their littium chemistry for over 2 years, we've not heard of 5 years testimonials yet, cos it seem most of us started active use in the last 3 years.

I know the well known Lithium batteries would last more than 5yrs without much issues. I'm just a bit concerned about the felicity ones. There's almost no reviews of it online and I don't think many people have really pushed it to its limit to know how good they really are and at what point it would start to breakdown.
I guess it's fingers crossed . Though adrusa and NiyiOmoIyunade 's input does give one some hope sha.

adrusa:
I think it is a good battery. The capacity may have been overstated, but I consider it a good buy. Their 200AH 48V actually has 120AH battery in it, but it cuts of at pretty high voltage around 49V which is about 3v per cell. That is too high in my opinion and that means you are probably getting about 70-80% of useable capacity out of the battery. Bypassing their BMS can help you get a little more from the battery if you like deep discharges.

Thanks for the advice boss... Would surely look into it.

Quick one boss... From your experience, can one comfortably get 5-6 yrs on the batteries without any headaches, even while going up to 90% DoD?

Really great review and breakdown.
Kinda confirmed my suspicion as in things like this, there's always a tradeoff.
But from your breakdown and it's price, I think the tradeoff is really not that bad.... As long as they don't give issues or constant headache for a good number of years, it might not be a bad buy.

Ever heard of this Nigerian company "Pelton Battery"? Saw them online when I was looking into somethings... I'm not sure they are still operating though.

Thanks alot for your review boss. Really appreciate it

NiyiOmoIyunade:
I have installed about 10 units of the so called 48v 200ah Felicity.

The technical literature actually rates the battery at 48v 7.5kwh so I dont know how how sellers managed to call it 48v 200Ah.

I also ran a discharge test at one customer location and I was able to pull out about 5kwh measured at the inverter AC out - this equates to about 5.5kwh of DC energy before the battery started to scream low battery.

If you take this point as 90% DoD then the battery is truly rated at 6kwh at 100% capacity and you can safely take out about 4.5kwh if the desire is to stay above 20% DoD for longevity - at the point point of screaming battery pack was at 49.4v or so so 3.08v per cell.

To help put all the numbers in perspective, I do not charge a Lithium battery to 100% full - our max voltage is 56.8 vs Felicity's recommended 57.6v

In summary the battery rated 48v 200ah or better yet 7.5kwh has about 4.5kwh of useable energy in it. So really a 48v 94ah battery for effective capacity. If you buy it with these facts in mind, you won't be dissappointed. If you run the battery at the discharge rates suitable for lead acid, you should have no trouble in the near term. You really must look into a LVD mechanism at around 50v so you don't overdrain the battery

For the savvy individuals, I do not believe that there is another 1kwh+ of useable energy hiding behind that extra 0.8v of charge - it would be great to interrogate the BMS of which Adrusa who has ripped one out of the battery case has refused to volunteer any details to help us know what BMS it is and crack it open.

ojeysky:
I think either ceasar or adrusa has experience, I do not have one

Aight... Thanks boss

mctfopt:
Nah, I don't use the brand. So I've got no firsthand experience on how their battery perform.

Aight bro...Thanks for ur time

Good morning folks.

Does anyone have any experience using felicity Lithium batteries; either for clients or personally?
Just trying to know if its a dependable buy.
Thanks


CC ojeysky ,Ceasar, Olopan, Valto, NiyiOmoIyunade, earthrealm, Eleojo23, Trippledots, Mctfopt, IYGEAL

ojeysky:
Got the prime from justemmanuel you can't miss that moniker within this thread. As to monitoring search for solpiplog in the thread. At the moment I use a combination of solpiplog, node-red, mqtt and emoncms

Thank you very much

ojeysky:
I just saw this, looks like it's going to be a sunny week, but men prime is a good panel. It did 8w during the night

Good evening boss. Abeg no vex for the unusual question.
Pls where did u get it prime panels from and what web application and hardware are using for your system monitoring.

Thanks for ur time boss.

Fastlinkpro:
Any invert dealer here?
Please what inverter
And how many 200 amps battery can serve these
Laptops.. phones.. fans.. bulbs and fridge

Thankd

Without knowing the actual type and rating of the appliances you listed up there, it would be hard for anyone to give you an accurate figure, but I'll try and give you an idea of what you need.

Laptop: Laptops like dell are rated around 65w

Fan: If your fan is the regular type that has its control(where you change the speed) on the body, those are usually rated between 50w- 60w... The ones with their speed control on the head are usually around 130w-150w.... If it's the regular ceiling fan, then it's around 85w.

Bulb: The regular full spiral energy saving bulb (like Akt) is around 40w and the small one is around 18w.

Fridge: Let's put your fridge around 350w. I believe yours should be less than that because most new fridges are energy efficient.

So with this info: Let's say 1laptop, 2 regular energy saving bulbs on per time,1 regular standing fan(control on the body) and 1 fridge.... Your total load per time is around 555w.

A 1.5kva inverter would be ideal for your system(a 1kva can work but it's better to go for a 1.5).

As for batteries: 4 (200ah) would give you roughly 10hours(that's if I want ur batteries to last for 2-3 yrs if not more without issues). Around 14hrs if you want to kill ur batteries in a yr plus.... Pls go for good affordable batteries and not those cheap Alaba ones, if not na every 6months u go dey change batteries.

If you go for[b] 2 (200ah)[/b] batteries, just divide the backup time by half.... (But with good energy efficiency, u can increase the hours).


Hope that helps.
It would be great if you can snap the back where the model and other info are written.

.

Eviana:
Ok, I thought I was clear with my comment sir, but I will gladly & kindly clarify a few things.
Let me see if I can sum up what you're asking and stating.
I agree that I should change the word "absolutely" to "may".
Ultimately if the person belongs to Jesus, then he/she would ultimately pray for practical wisdom.
I cannot make a decision nor force anyone to do anything.
What I know is that to people "born-again", there is given a mighty important help in the form of the Holy Spirit which speaks to one's spirit through the Word of God.
I would think that this question has been on the mind of many people the world over in the exact same position.
Salvation to a born-again believer is not dependant upon offering restitution.
I hope folks didn't interpret that from my post.
Spiritually, as long as a person has confessed to God, is repentant and strives to leave a holy life pleasing to God, then his/her salvation is sealed. He/she has accepted the gift of salvation....
That was what I tried to convey.

In this earthly realm that we, humans, live our lives in come with free-will.
Meaning we make choices.
There are laws or at least should be that govern our lives.
If a crime is committed, and a person is found guilty (assuming that it's based on untampered, unbiased evidence etc.--which much could be said about that), then the laws says that restitution should be made...be it imprisonment, house arrest, community service or even the death penalty.
Having to deal with consequences of one's actions (if genuinely born-again) has "0" to do with the pardon, forgiveness and eternal life that God has bestowed to the person.
Even if crimes committed, happened before being born-again, there should be a desire to make restitution...even at the sacrifice of one's own comfort and security. Even at the risk of death...which although may mean a born- again is no longer alive, he/she has gained eternity.
Again I stress that anyone in this predicament would need to prayerfully go to the Lord for wisdom on what to "do" or "not" do.
Christianity should be a religion of relationship......relationship with God and relationship with fellow human beings.
Relationship that causes born-agains to have empathy, love, joy that is practically expressed.
There is a hope that we, Christians have through genuine faith in the Lord, that is worth risking our lives for others to experience it...even if death is the result.
I have a thread coming soon enough on that...which will address that.
I hope that cleared up a few things.

Really well put ma'am. God bless you

Application is closed. Thank you

Kobojunkie:
1. There is no such thing as good biblical reasoning. There is simply the Word of God...evrrything else is lies snd nothing else.

2. I did not bring up anything. If you need help understanding what is written, ask. I presented a scenario based on a comment made by a particular poster. Note how this particular response is directed at the one whose comment I responded to and not meant as a general call to derail from the topic in anyway?

3. As I already made it clear, Jesus Christ never gave instructions regarding a dress code of any sort, neither did He suggest that Holiness/Perfection according to the New Covenant(which has more to do with Loving your enemies and praying for them , according to Him) has anything to do with the way a person chooses to dress or not to dress.

Okay. Thanks for your time

Kobojunkie:
1. I have told you times before that I am not here to proffer that which you believe will meet your standards. Your doctrines and rules of men mean absolutely nothing to me as Jesus Christ Himself declared them to be nothing but lies made up in the minds of men do the purpose of men. I am simply here to teach what Jesus Christ Himself taught.

Hence the classification "good biblical reasonings" after the word proffer....

2. Don't assume your delusions are mine. Lust, rape, taking advantage of the weak?
Are you high or something? The discussion is on dress code and what God's Law TRULY says or does not about such rules of men.

Again you were the one that brought it up with the other poster...

Kobojunkie:
I mean with a statement such as the one you present above, you should never be allowed to care for a sick female, am I right then?
Not because the patient is the problem but your mind there remains so caved in that the chances are high you will commit evil acts against such persons then?

Note how...clearly you are the enemy, not a child of God, in that scenario?

So based on the context of the conversation you were having with the poster, what other type of evil act against a sick female patient were you insinuating?



Lastly:

If a crime is committed then let the one who is guilty of committing such a crime be punished. Stop pretending you can off load blame in the name of God as God is against such.

To be clear, which crime are you referring to here?

Kobojunkie:
According to Jesus Christ, the fault lies with the one who is tempted and not the object of the temptation here. So I suggest you focus your energy instead on working on your mind....so it is not so easily tempted even by naked figures.

I mean with a statement such as the one you present above, you should never be allowed to care for a sick female, am I right then?
Not because the patient is the problem but your mind there remains so caved in that the chances are high you will commit evil acts against such persons then?

Note how...clearly you are the enemy, not a child of God, in that scenario?

It's quite interesting that rather than profer good biblical reasonings for why you disagree with the posters point, you would rather go the ad hominem route by bringing his integrity into question.

You are also working of the assumption that lust directly leads to rape and specially taking advantage of the weak. That's very incorrect for many reasons, one of which is that the primary drive for rape is not the sex itself but feeling of power, sadism etc.

ndbest650:
Please I'm battling with a rare genetic disorder and it's life threatening. It appears to be called familial dysautonomia. I have been seeking the face of God for his intervention. I need you and all to please assist me in prayers.

It is well with you in Jesus name...

MuttleyLaff:
[img]https://media1./images/0231ce01bd7fce51b82d143924cb3cfd/tenor.gif[/img]
The solution, other than to be doomed to live and die alone, is to faithfully, loyally, affectionately, kindly, warmly love another until death do part them

My good sir, that would not be the right way to look at it.
We all have sins(anger, sex and sexual orientation, attitude problems etc) and things(depression, sickness etc) that we are all struggling with.
Some can seem like a lifetime battle(and some actually are), but as Christians, the solution is not to give in or give into our weaknesses. We have to remember that we are never alone and we do not have a high priest that is incapable of sympathising with our weaknesses because He himself was tempted in every way just as we are and He perfectly understands what any of us is going through.
The right solution is not to focus on our weakness, but to focus our eyes on Christ, the author and perfecter of our faith. As the author of Hebrew said
" For the joy set out for him he endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God. Think of him who endured such opposition against himself by sinners, so that you may not grow weary in your souls and give up."

We are to lean on His strength, on His grace, on His love. And as a community also, we are to continually encourage one another, be there for one another and spur one another on in love.

Yes, sometimes we will slip and fall. But grace and mercy is always available, so we pick ourselves up and keep moving.
In the end, on this side of eternity and in the next, It's only together in Christ we find true joy, true love and true family.

I do believe, that's the right way to look at it.

Firstly it is important to emphasize that Judaism has always viewed human sacrifices as an abomination and the Bible even during a period where human sacrifice was commonplace expressly denounced the practice (Lev 20:2-5; Deut 12:31; Jer 7:31etc) and made it a capital offence

To your question sir :The story of Japhet and his daughter is one of those seemingly ambiguous and hard passages in the scriptures. it's interpretation generally falls into one of two camps
1) Japhet did sacrifice his daughter (in the history of interpretation, this used to be the majority view especially amongst early commentators)
2) Japhet didn't sacrifice his daughter but consecrated her into a life of perpetual virginity( This used to be a minority view but has increasingly become more accepted by Hebrew scholars by looking at the language of the text)

Both views can be argued for coherently and below is a brief summary of both arguments ,so you can have a general idea and work through the text.

In support of the human sacrifice theory e.g Kaiser in Hard Sayings of the Bible says:

1) People, even servants of God, do horribly things. The era of the Judges(that is, the period between the relatively faithful generation of Joshua and the period of the unified monarchy) was on of the bloodiest and corrupt period in Israel's history and there is no reason to see Jephthah as substantially different than his contemporaries. This was the period where "everyone was doing whatever is right in their eyes".

2)The sacrifice of his daughter is the most natural way to interpret the text. Burnt offering" is and always elsewhere used to denote sacrifice wholly consumed on the altar by fire.

3) The history of interpretation from early commentators support the human sacrifice view. The idea of perpetual virginity is generally not found until the Middle Ages. So for alot of early Jewish interpretation from even the times of the apostles, the human sacrifice view was the dorminant one.

4)The grammar in verses 31 beginning( " the one coming out, who comes out from". Literal translation) allows for humans coming from the house as well as animals. It's possible that Japhet wasn't too concerned about doing human sacrifice but he was only devastated that it was his daughter that came out.


Supporters of a non-death sacrifice(perpetual virginity) are Gleason Archer in A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Keil & Delitzsch in Commentary on the Old Testament, etc and they make their arguments using

1)Human sacrifice was always understood from the days of Abraham onward to be a capital offense and an abomination. It had been denounced and forbidden in Lev 18:21; 20:2-5; Deut 12:31; 18:10 and there is no evidence of Israelites offering human sacrifice until the time of the kings

2)The passages places emphasis on virginity instead death. His daughter went for two months to the mountains to bewail her virginity, not the coming loss of life.
She said to her father: ‘Do this for me, release me for two months and I will go and ‘go down’ upon the mountains and weep for my virginity, I and my women companions. - Judges 11:37

It is stated in verse 39 after Jephthah had performed his "burnt offering" that "she knew not a man." Such wording would be strange and unusual if she had died but would be appropriate if she was devoted to service at the tabernacle. There are precedences for this in the Old testament (e.g Samuel) ,although there is non(atleast that I can think of) which entails perpetual virginity and celibacy.
In the instance of perpetual virginity, the tragedy of the vow would be:
a) The bloodline of Japhet is wiped out since she is his only child and daughter.
In the ancient world, continuity of bloodlines was very important. We get many glimpse of this also in the Bible (e.g: the lenght in which the other tribes went into making sure that the tribe of Benjamin were not wiped out in Judges 21).
Secondly as an outsider, Japhet bargains with the elders to not only to become commander but to also become chief of his tribe. Despite his victory, any dynastic intentions he might have had, is essentially caught off and his vow has robbed him of any future.
b) From his daughter's perspective, she has given up one of the most important thing for a woman in the ancient world. That is: The necessity of having children.
This is an extremely important part of being a woman in the ancient world and We can see how important this is even in stories in the Bible ,e.g the extreme length lot's daughters go to to get pregnant, Hannah's story, Rachel and Leah's story etc.
From an Ancient perspective, an only child consecrated to a life of perpetual virginity would have really been a tragedy.

Other arguments for non -human sacrifice
3)There is no explicit condemnation of Jephthah's act in the Bible. This would be a bit unusual for a crime of this magnitude (if it was actual human sacrifice).Jephthah continues to judge Israel for 6 more years without any condemnation within the narrative or by other Israelites after committing a capital offence is quite unusual.

4) Japhet knows Israel's history well enough to give the ammonites a rundown of how Israel came to posses the land (Judges 11:12 - 22) so it would be unsual(although not impossible) for him not to know the laws against human sacrifice in the Torah.

5) In verses 31, the Hebrew word "vav" can be translated as "or" instead of "and".
then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord ’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” - Judges 11:31
.. Basically the idea is that, if we translate "vav" as "or" , the verse changes to "shall be the Lord ’s, or I will offer it up for a burnt offering” , meaning whoever came out would be dedicated to God, and, only should it prove appropriate(e.g an animal), would be sacrificed.
This actually allow for some ambiguity but it might not be very convincing based on the Hebrew construct of this particular passage. As NET puts it:

Some translate “or,” suggesting that Jephthah makes a distinction between humans and animals. According to this view, if a human comes through the door, then Jephthah will commit him/her to the Lord’s service, but if an animal comes through the doors, he will offer it up as a sacrifice. However, it is far more likely that the Hebrew construction (vav [ו] + perfect) specifies how the subject will become the Lord’s, that is, by being offered up as a sacrifice. For similar constructions, where the apodosis of a conditional sentence has at least two perfects (each with vav) in sequence, see Gen 34:15–16; Exod 18:16.4


6) Japhet's daughter was considered a heroine and the women of Israel celebrated her. It is unlikely they would have done so had she volunteered for a pagan ceremony. However, most translations take lthannoth as "lament" or variations thereof. Archer says it can be taken along the lines of celebration. Brown, Driver, Briggs Lexicon points out that this is modern and older versions (including the Septuagint) take the 11:40 as mourn. They [BDB] also point out that the word is used positively in Judges 5:11, "let them recount the victories of YHWH." Jud 5:11 and 11:40 are the only two occurrences of the word in the Hebrew Bible.

As mentioned earlier, both views(human sacrifice and non human sacrifice) can be argued for coherently but it's also likely that we are missing something. The language in the passage and this type of vow is unusual and unique so it's possible that there was a practice in that time period we are missing that would shed more light on the passage.

Either way, the theological messaging doesn't change much. Don't be rash to make vows, let your Yes be simply Yes and let your No be simply No. The spirit of God already rested on Japhet, he didn't need to make any vows, just the same way we as Christians are already sons and daughters of God, so we need not any vows or great offerings to incur God's grace and favor. He would not give us stones when we ask for bread or snake when we ask for fish.

PS: A bulk of my summary of the two views comes from hermeneutics.stackexchange but expanded and edited by me. You can check on the resources above for a fuller understanding on the arguments of both views

Hope this helps

MuttleyLaff:
Brother with all due respect, I make no apology for making that comment. I clearly said what you quoted me saying and even said quite a lot more than that sir.

It's all good bro

I clearly see you making your focus on much ado about nothing. My point remains that the Hebrew phrase "muth tamuth" means "to die" where "to" in the "to die" phrase is expressing a direction of death and/or to draw ones last breath (e.g. as like Shimei's case in 1 Kings 2:36-37)

You seem to agree with Petra1 that Genesis 2:17 is emphatically and exclusively speaking of spiritual death and no more death after it. Tut-tut-tut.

1 Kings 2:36-37, to a certain degree, is a mirror image of Genesis 2:17, but notice my context is king cautionary "watch it" plea. Tbh, I think you're better off commenting on "Where Lies The Serpents Deception? Genesis 3" and shedding illuminating light on the question for us all learn from you instead of focusing on my lowly humble submission and saying I have an incorrect understanding of the Hebrew grammar.

I sincerely really did mean it

It's all good bro...
Wishing you a wonderful New year also

petra1:
This is excellent

Thank you sir. Happy New year to you boss

MuttleyLaff:

---

---

---

Brother I do get your point, but what you dont want to realise is that you are labouring a moot point.

Where did you read or see me, not agreeing to a spiritual death bro, hmm? Did I not type from the onset that, they died a spiritual death with physical death catching up, like 930 years in Adam's case, hmm? Its you reading more into me saying ""You need to become familiar with Hebrew infinitive absolute construct" and revved up to make a meal out of it. You dont know what my understanding of infinitive absolute is because I never gave explanations about it. All I did was give advice to become familiar with it, lmso.

You clearly said, "muth tamuth" indicates the sense and understanding of beginning of dying or sense of gradual or slow death starting). That is an incorrect understanding of the hebrew grammar.

Here, lets cut to the chase. I would love to see your sincere, honest and truthful responses to the below easy peasy lemon squeezy innocent, harmless, straightforward simple three questions:
1/ What kind of death did A&E die in Genesis 2:16-17 and what kind of death, referencing 1 Kings 2:36-37, did Shimei die off?.
2/ What kind of death did Shimei die of, for leaving Jerusalem, huh? Did Shimei die a spiritual death?
3/ If Petra1 says Genesis 2:16-17 denotes a spiritual death because of the "You will not surely die." phrase why because of 1 Kings 2:36-37, isnt spiritual death too applicable to Shimei then.

It seems you don't still get the point being made if you're still asking these questions .. But It is well bro.

Happy New year to you bro, your family and all things that's generally yours. May you excel, go above and beyond the limits of your God given grace, power, gift(s), strength and potential(s)

we be here again in good health and joyous peace by this time next year.

Thanks bro..

MuttleyLaff:
"So you see, just as death came into the world through a man,
now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man."
- 1 Corinthians 15:21

I defo did get what your post was about, lmso. KMFT. You need to, in thorough manner slowly re-read Dr. Terry Mortenson's article instead of jumping on thread, feet first and throwing wild crazy punches.

You must be feigning shortsightedness, so that you wouldnt have to acknowledge how Dr. Terry Mortenson brought his article to an end with the below excerpt

"So, from all this we conclude that, the construction “dying you shall die” and beyôm in Genesis 2:17 do not require us, to conclude that God was warning that, “the very day you eat from the tree is the exact same day that you will die physically.” "

Like I said earlier, the article you are pointing to doesn't agree with your understanding of infinitive absolute when used as an adverb to make emphasis(repetition of words twice).
Here are the statements I'm interacting with:

MuttleyLaff:
Yes, in the original text, when God said, "thou shall surely die", the remark has the meaning translated as, you will die a slow death, you definitely will begin the process of deterioration.

MuttleyLaff:
The Hebrew words "muth, muth", used in Genesis 2:17 above, often as equally seen above, is usually translated as "surely die" or literally, as "you will certainly die" when actually, in a Hebraic manner of speaking, it correctly, indicates the sense and understanding of beginning of dying.

"Muth, muth," in fact, conveys a meaning of and gives, an awareness of entered death (i.e. have a sense of gradual or slow death starting), hence why and how, it is, we die by the second, we are in fact, slowly dying.

MuttleyLaff:
The Hebrew words "muth, muth", used in Genesis 2:17 above, when translated from meaning "to die", says "for in the day that you eat of it, you will begin to die" and that is exactly what happened, in that A&E surely did begin to die.

There's nothing in the verse nor chapter that put forward a consideration of spiritual death.

All this are incorrect statements because that is not what the Hebrew grammar is conveying and that's definitely not what the article you are linking to is saying.
Like I said in my previous post, I am not interacting with your theological conversation. If you don't agree with the fact that they died spiritually that day, that's fine; You just have to come up with the type of death that happened that day(cos obviously they didn't drop dead physically). Or you can alternatively try to exegete that "beyôm" doesn't necessarily mean " in that day" literally and that it could be taken as anyday in the future in which God decides. That's another way of going about it(And that's the way your article went, even though I do not find his arguments convincing as there were a few unexplained positions taken e.g;He takes "beyôm" literally for the spiritual death but not literally for the physical death, but does not give any real reason why the switch up.... But again that's a different conversation & not the one we are having).

What you cannot do though is use the Hebrew grammar in the text to say they entered into a "state of dying", or a state of slow/gradual death, or that it means they will die a slow death(begin the process of deterioration).
That's not what "muth tamuth" means and that's not how infinitive absolutes in that form functions boss.
"Muth tamuth" just means,the certainty of their death is assured but as I pointed out above, you can play around with the "in that day(beyôm)" part and make the claim that it's not meant to be taking literally and God even though He has already decreed the certainty of their death, would in his sovereignty decide which day He would take their life.
But as I also said earlier though, personally I don't buy that line of argument and I believe there are better arguments that are more faithful to the text and explain better how physical death entered into the world. But in all fairness,its also not a bad argument.

MuttleyLaff:
"You need to become familiar with Hebrew infinitive absolute construct" is what I typed. There is no plural there because all I was doing was advising Petra1 to become familiar with "Hebrew infinitive absolute" grammar. That's all. Now how you managed to split this up into "conflating different concepts" is pitiably laughable.

And that's what I was bringing to your attention. Not that you were totally wrong with your understanding but that You were conflating the different functions of infinitive absolute. A) Infinitive Absolute used to express certainty of a verbal action ,when paired with a finite verb of the same root(i.e same word repetition but one functioning as an adverb as a way of laying emphasis on the certainty of an action/word)
B) Infinitive absolute used to express progression or continuance of verbal action, when used with the specific root "halowk (הלךְ/going)".

MuttleyLaff:
Seeing that you tried commenting on Genesis 2:16-17 and 1 Kings 2:36-37 why dont you tell:
1/ What kind of death did A&E die in Genesis 2:16-17 and what kind of death, referencing 1 Kings 2:36-37, did Shimei die off?.
2/ What kind of death did Shimei die of, for leaving Jerusalem, huh? Did Shimei die a spiritual death?
3/ If Petra1 says Genesis 2:16-17 denotes a spiritual death because of the "You will not surely die." phrase why because of 1 Kings 2:36-37, isnt spiritual death too applicable to Shimei then. Smh sigh.

I believe you are not still getting my point,but It's fine bro.
I think I also need to work on my art of rhetoric(part of vision 2021 lol).

Happy New year bro. And may we be here again in good health and joyous peace by this time next year.

MuttleyLaff:
[img]https://media./images/f879ac0258098623c7d587d6cd057b4f/tenor.gif[/img]
Some just have eyes but don't see

When was the intensity, certainty or completeness of the main verb then? Did it end with spiritual death alone, hmm?

Did death stop with spiritual death or physical death, in Adam's case, did some 930 years catching up, in order to make Genesis 2:17's prophecy be fulfilled and complete?

"¹⁶And the LORD God commanded him,
“You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,
¹⁷but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;
for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die."
- Genesis 2:16-17

"³⁶Then the king sent and called for Shimei, and said to him,
“Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and dwell there, and do not go out from there anywhere.
³⁷For it shall be, on the day you go out and cross the Brook Kidron,
know for certain you shall surely die; your blood shall be on your own head.”
- 1 Kings 2:36-37,

Instead of you unashamedly proof texting with Genesis 37:33, why didnt you attempt making a point with using 1 Kings 2:36-37, lmso?. After all 1 Kings 2:36-37 is a mirror of Genesis 2:17, but of course, you would have dug yourself into a hole if you did because as you ought to know, context is king, lmso. Smh sigh.

Probably you didn't get what my post was about.
My post was about how the Hebrew grammar works because you were conflating different concepts,which inevitable skewed your interpretation of the text. I wasn't actually wading much into the theological conversation.

Infinitive absolute is a very flexible non-finite verbal form and it can function as many different things (an adverb, a finite verb, a verbal complement, a noun etc) and all this different forms convey different meanings in the text it is used.
When it is paired with a finite verb of the same root(repetition), it functions as an adverb to lay emphasis on a word or express certainty of verbal action. This is a common usage in the OT and my usage of Gen 37:33 was to show one example of its usage and not to make a theological connection.
As you noted, 1kings 2:37 is another example:
For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die. Your blood shall be on your own head.”
Basically during Solomon's consolidation of power, Shimei's life was spared because of the oath David made to him but there was one condition; He is confined to Jerusalem. If he dares go out of Jerusalem and crosses the brook Kidron, without a doubt, he would be killed and his blood would be on his own hands not on Solomon's. That was what eventually happened. He left Jerusalem, he was caught and was executed.
Here again, dying you would die was making emphasis to express the certainty of an action. If he was caught outside of Jerusalem, he would be executed without a doubt.

Another example would be Gen 2:16: "from-every tree-of the garden eating you may eat". Translated as And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden - ESV; Other modern translations use "freely" here for stylistic reasons and the way English works, but the concept and rendering is the same.
There are many more examples of this way of laying emphasis or expressing certainty in the Hebrew Bible.
You can easily


As for the link you posted. I think you should read it fully to understand the point the man was trying to make. He was expressing two connected thoughts..
His first point is that the "dying you shall die" is used to convey the certainty of their death because thats how the
Hebrew construct work. First he posit that the certainty occured as a spiritual death(separation from God) immediately they eat the fruit as petra1 posited and physical death came later as a result of this.
His point was that we shouldn't take " beyôm (in that very day)" to mean a literal 24hrs day because " beyôm (בְּיוֹם)" can mean an extended period of time. he sighted other passages where the phrase "beyôm " didn't mean a 24hr period. So he is using two concepts to make his point.

Like almost all theologians or scholars, he agrees that the certainty of spiritual death happened the day they earth the fruit. He is definitely not arguing that an infinitive absolute verb form functioning as an emphasis means any other thing than laying emphasis.
This is thean extract from the beginning of the article

The phrase “you shall surely die” can be literally translated from the Hebrew biblical text as “dying you shall die.” In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of “you shall surely die”). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action. [/b]The scholarly reference work by Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), gives many Biblical examples of this,1 and they say that “the precise nuance of intensification [of the verbal meaning] must be discovered from the broader context.”2 [b]Clearly in the context of Genesis 3, Adam and Eve died spiritually instantly—they were separated from God and hid themselves. Their relationship with God was broken.

Then he goes on to argue that physical death came as a result of Adam's sin also but he tries to make the argument that the certainty of the physical death was not time bound and he uses the phrase beyôm to tie it together.
In this part, He is interacting with the Young earth , old earth debate of whether there was already physical death before humanity's sin. If you are an old earth creationist, you have to agree that there was already physical death on earth before Adam's sin but if you are an young earth creationist, physical death on earth was as a result of Adam's sin.
Maybe you should try reading the article fully to try understanding what arguments are really being made.

Personally, I don't really buy his arguments, as I believe other people have been able to tie together this tension of where the origin of physical death starts alot better and that is more faithful to the text.
But like I said, I am not really interacting with the theological conversation but just bringing your attention to your misunderstanding of the Hebrew grammar.

In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). [b]This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of “you shall surely die”). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action. --- This is a direct quotation from the link you posted and how the article author himself defines how an infinitive absolute verb form paired with a finite verb form of the same root function.

Again pls read the article in full so you don't misrepresent what the author is conveying.

MuttleyLaff:
"Sin came into the world through one man, and his sin brought death with it.
As a result, death has spread to the whole human race because everyone has sinned."
- Romans 5:12

"So you see, just as death came into the world through a man,
now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man."
- 1 Corinthians 15:21

Maybe you missed that I crossed out "very suddenly" in your post. You are parking in ordinarily "muth" when the verse focused on "muth muth" Besides, "very suddenly. . ." in that Strong's Concordance excerpt, has a prepended "X" to it. The "X" means, "very suddenly. . ." when used or taken into consideration, multiples the original meaning of the word, it now is trying to associate with.



You need to become familiar with Hebrew infinitive absolute construct

The scripture clearly states that through one man death came into the world. From reading Romans 5:12 & 1 Corinthians 15:21, what death do you think Genesis 2:17 is talking of and that true to form, did so happen to man?

I believe you are conflating two different concepts:
1) An Infinitive absolute verb form paired together with the finite verb of the same root word as a way of expressing the certainty of an action (That is: repeating the same root word twice with one of them being an infinitive absolute inorder to lay emphasis).

2) Infinitive construct used with certain prepositions like "ke(כְּ/as)" to denote the commencement of an action or use the infinitive absolute of the specific root "halowk (הלךְ/going)" to convey a sense of continuance of the action of the main verb.

This two concepts are different and convey different meanings.

Basically when a word is repeated twice with one being in an infinitive absolute verb form and the other,a finite verb form, the infinitive absolute acts as an adverb in expressing intensity, certainty or completeness of the main verb. Hence in most cases, translation would use words like "surely", "definitely", "certainly", "without doubt" etc to try an convey what the text is saying.

E.g .
Gen 37:33 "Joseph has surely(or without doubt) been torn to pieces" ( here we have the word taraph(to tear) repeated twice "taroph toraph". The infinitive absolute verb form followed by the finite verb form to convey the conviction in Jacobs mind that without a doubt, Joseph has been torn to pieces.

Same concept is conveyed in Gen 2:17 the word "die" is repeated twice in the form of "dying" and die "moth tamuth" and is translated as "surely die" to convey the certainty that in the very day they eat of the fruit, they will surely die(not that they would be in a state of dying).

The link you posted from answersingenesis also agrees with petra1 that in that very day, Adam and Eve died( spiritually).


A popular example of the other usage(2) in my write-up is Judges 14:9, where you have the infinitive absolute "halowk(going)" used with the verb "akal(to eat) to express a continuing action of eating.
"He took some of it in his hands and went going and-eating".
Translated as: "He scraped it out into his hands and went on, eating as he went".

femi4:
The account of Luke and prov 31 are different

Prov 31 refers to a MARRIED woman with husband and kids

Luke stated emphatically that Mary was HIGHLY FAVOURED.

It's there in black and White. The first statement of angel Gabriel reads YOU ARE HIGHLY FAVOURED.

I don't know why we love to link scriptures together without understanding

My bad sir. My question was to Acehart and not you boss.

I just used your post as a reply to his question since i also found it a sufficient answer. So rather than saying the same thing you've already said, I just used yours as a reply

My follow up question was to him

Acehart: Revelation 2:17 To him who overcomes (conquers), I will give to eat of the manna that is hidden, and I will give him a white stone with a new name engraved on the stone.

I was caught between pasting the text above and the parable of The Workers in the Vineyard; but I had to stick with the verse above because of its length. However, I hope to delve into the parable as I go along (maybe it wouldn’t be necessary).

Our race was set forth by our faith in Christ, as the scriptures says, ”For it is by grace [God’s remarkable compassion and favor drawing you to Christ] that you have been saved [actually delivered from judgment and given eternal life] through faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [not through your own effort], but it is the [undeserved, gracious] gift of God” ; our race was sustained by the power of the Spirit as the scripture says: we are “protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time”. So, at what point does our input count when the scriptures says: run [your race] that you may lay hold [of the prize] and make it yours? If we saved by favor unlabored for, is the prize by favor and effort induced?

Maybe you should read the rest of my post in its entirety sir:

jamesid29:
The point I was trying to make is this:
Were the people God specifically partnered with sinless or better than the rest of humanity and that's why he chose them? No. As the scriptures say
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
-Romans 3:23‭-‬24 NASB
Did these people also get some things right and record great acts of faith in the one who is faithful? Yes they did and the book Hebrews even has a hall of fame for them.
Today, we are all equally called to be part of this long list of God's partners as we put our trust in God just as those who have gone ahead of us did. It's not because we are inherently better than anyone else, but out of God's immense love for humanity, He has chosen to be faithful to humans that are usually not faithful to him in return "in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". And by His grace we have made a response of faith in return by putting our trust in the promise of the cross.

jamesid29:
Personally, I don't really use the word "unmerited favour" as It's one of those words that have been over Christianised over the years and can give modern readers a different mental picture. A better way of understanding the motif is to think of it as "God is always way more generous than people deserve".

Acehart: Proverbs 31:1 The words of King Lemuel, the oracle which his mother taught him.

I think a previous poster has given a good answer to what I think you are trying to drive at

femi4:
:
Proverbs 31 referred to a Family woman with husband and kids

So we are both on the same line of thought, here's Proverbs 31 in it's entirety.

31: The words of King Lemuel. An oracle that his mother taught him:

2 What are you doing, my son?
What are you doing, son of my womb?
What are you doing, son of my vows?
3 Do not give your strength to women,
your ways to those who destroy kings.
4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel,
it is not for kings to drink wine,
or for rulers to take strong drink,
5 lest they drink and forget what has been decreed
and pervert the rights of all the afflicted.
6 Give strong drink to the one who is perishing,
and wine to those in bitter distress;
7 let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.
8 Open your mouth for the mute,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Open your mouth, judge righteously,
defend the rights of the poor and needy.

10 An excellent wife who can find?
She is far more precious than jewels.
11 The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will have no lack of gain.
12 She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She seeks wool and flax,
and works with willing hands.
14 She is like the ships of the merchant;
she brings her food from afar.
15 She rises while it is yet night
and provides food for her household
and portions for her maidens.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
17 She dresses herself[e] with strength
and makes her arms strong.
18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.
20 She opens her hand to the poor
and reaches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of snow for her household,
for all her household are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes bed coverings for herself;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates
when he sits among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them;
she delivers sashes to the merchant.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
and she laughs at the time to come.
26 She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looks well to the ways of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women have done excellently,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the gates.

The part we are most interested in starts from verse 10 so I put a break to show the shift in the poem

My question is this sir
On what basis are you making the intertextuality (hyperlink) between this poem and Luke's account of the gospel?