A question for JWs about the use of "Jehovah" in Colossians

[ChetSinger]

Here is the Tanakh (Hebrew) version....

Then sang Mosheh and the children of Y'srael this song unto YHVH, and spoke, saying:

"I will sing unto YHVH, for He is highly exalted; the horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea. YHVH is my strength and song, and He is become my yeshuah; this is my G-d, and I will glorify Him; my father's G-d, and I will exalt Him. YHVH is a man of war, YHVH is His name."

Interesting?

Paul

Oh yeah. That passage "YHVH is a man of war, YHVH is His name", was, in the opinion of Jewish scholar Alan F. Segal, one of the key verses used by second-temple rabbis to support the idea of a godhead.

Here's his book on the subject: Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism.

And here's a related link by another scholar: Two Powers in Heaven. The bibliography is where I think the most value lies.

 

[timbo3]

When Jesus walked the earth, the language in use was Koine Greek (common Greek, as well as Hebrew being in use due to the nation being originally called "Hebrews", Ex 2:6, the language that most likely Adam spoke) due to some three centuries earlier the land of Palestine coming under the rulership of Grecian Emperor Alexander the Great. Hence, the Bible was most likely written in Greek (since the Greek Septuagint was then in common use), with the exception of Matthew's original account.(Mark's Gospel was written for non-Jews, especially the Romans)

Matthew's Gospel account was originally written in Hebrew (for the Jews in about 41 C.E.), in which Eusebius (of the third and fourth centuries C.E.) said that “the evangelist Matthew delivered his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue.” (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XXII, col. 941)

And Jerome (347 ? - 419 ? C.E.) stated in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican (Latin for tax collector) came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.” (Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series “Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur,” Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8, 9.)

But of God's name, Jehovah, it has been found in the earliest copies of the Greek Septuagint. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle (German orientalist and scholar, 1875-1964) says: “We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios (meaning "lord"), but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the (so-called) Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.” (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222)

Hence, the Bible writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures (commonly called the New Testament) would have seen that God's name of Jehovah was there and when using a quotation from the Hebrew Scriptures, would not have altered to satisfy or placate others, such as the Jews, for the apostle Paul wrote that "the word of God is not bound".(2 Tim 2:9) If God's name of Jehovah was in the original Hebrew, then it would also be in the Christian Greek Scriptures within quotations.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Jewish Encyclopedia-The Septuagint.

The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is that called "The Septuagint" ("Interpretatio septuaginta virorum" or "seniorum"). It is a monument of the Greek spoken by the large and important Jewish community of Alexandria; not of classic Greek, nor even of the Hellenistic style affected by Alexandrian writers. If the account given by Aristeas be true, some traces of Palestinian influence should be found; but a study of the Egyptian papyri, which are abundant for this particular period, is said by both Mahaffy and Deissmann to show a very close similarity between the language they represent and that of the Septuagint, not to mention the Egyptian words already recognized by both Hody and Eichhorn. These papyri have in a measure reinstated Aristeas (about 200 B.C.) in the opinion of scholars. Upon his "Letter to Philocrates" the tradition as to the origin of the Septuagint rests. It is now believed that even though he may have been mistaken in some points, his facts in general are worthy of credence (Abrahams, in "Jew. Quart. Rev." xiv. 321). According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.), which translation was encouraged by the king and welcomed by the Jews of Alexandria.​

I disagree. Whoever wrote the letter of Aristeas was mistaken in several key points - for instance the correct librarian of the king, and particulars regarding his last battle. So the letter was NOT written contemporaneously with the events as it purports to be, but was written significantly later to try to give credence to the Septuagint when it is due none. It was not a translation inspired by God IMO.

Grätz ("Gesch. der Juden," 3d ed., iii. 615) stands alone in assigning it to the reign of Philometor (181-146 B.C.). Whatever share the king may have had in the work, it [The Greek LXX] evidently satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life.

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The Jewish community of Alexandria perhaps. However, there is no reason to believe Jesus quoted the Septuagint. As a boy He went to the temple to expound upon the scriptures. What scriptures do you really think he read? The Septuagint? Forbid!!! No. He read the Jewish scriptures kept in the temple. The Septuagint on the whole is not a credible Jewish work. It was not produced by the Lord's servants in the temple and has parts that are completely spurious. It should not be relied upon .... at ALL. It continues to be promoted because that great and abominable church relies upon it, and if it were shown to be spurious, then their credibility would be greatly injured.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Then we're reading different sources, for mine say that most of the OT quotations are from the Septuagint. That happens.

I know what they say - but that doesn't mean it is right. That is one of the big arguments made to try to convince us of the authority of the Septuagint. But, it is just that - an argument. Go through the NT quotations of the OT one by one, and you will find that there are significant differences in the majority text from the Septuagint. This should more than raise an eyebrow.

I'm a little surprised to hear someone arguing that the gospels (aside from Matthew) were written in anything other than Greek. There are no non-Greek manuscripts, nor any testimony that they (aside from Matthew) were ever translated from anything else. Is there a reason you think that Greek wasn't the original language?

I'm not really arguing the NT gospels were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. I am more just wishing they were, and am pointing to the possibility that they were, and then got destroyed with Jerusalem. But since YHWH knew Jerusalem was going to be destroyed as prophesied in Daniel 9, perhaps they were all written in Greek. I am just expressing my frustrations with the Greek.....oh well. I seem to see God through Hebrew eyes.

 

[ChetSinger]

I know what they say - but that doesn't mean it is right. That is one of the big arguments made to try to convince us of the authority of the Septuagint. But, it is just that - an argument. Go through the NT quotations of the OT one by one, and you will find that there are significant differences in the majority text from the Septuagint. This should more than raise an eyebrow.

Well, unless someone is Orthodox with a capital O, I think the Masoretic text is believed to be generally superior. There are known problems with the Septuagint. Nevertheless, it was popular and the NT contains numerous quotations from it.

Should that surprise us? Jewish writers had at least three texts available (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) and would've quoted what they were familiar with, I suppose.

I'm not really arguing the NT gospels were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. I am more just wishing they were, and am pointing to the possibility that they were, and then got destroyed with Jerusalem. But since YHWH knew Jerusalem was going to be destroyed as prophesied in Daniel 9, perhaps they were all written in Greek. I am just expressing my frustrations with the Greek.....oh well. I seem to see God through Hebrew eyes.

That's OK. Hebrew is where it all started.

I think God knew from the start of Jesus' ministry that his message would go out to all the nations, and published his words in the most commonly-used language available. Imo, of course.

 

[ChetSinger]

But of God's name, Jehovah, it has been found in the earliest copies of the Greek Septuagint. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle (German orientalist and scholar, 1875-1964) says: “We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios (meaning "lord"), but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the (so-called) Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.” (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222)

Hence, the Bible writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures (commonly called the New Testament) would have seen that God's name of Jehovah was there and when using a quotation from the Hebrew Scriptures, would not have altered to satisfy or placate others, such as the Jews, for the apostle Paul wrote that "the word of God is not bound".(2 Tim 2:9) If God's name of Jehovah was in the original Hebrew, then it would also be in the Christian Greek Scriptures within quotations.

I'll consider this viewpoint if and when we find ancient testimony that claims such substitutions were made. Or when we find early Greek NT manuscripts with God's name in them, located in particular verses that support WTS theology at the expense of Christian theology. Until then, no.

 

[Der Alte]

I disagree. Whoever wrote the letter of Aristeas was mistaken in several key points - for instance the correct librarian of the king, and particulars regarding his last battle. So the letter was NOT written contemporaneously with the events as it purports to be, but was written significantly later to try to give credence to the Septuagint when it is due none. It was not a translation inspired by God IMO.

You can disagree all you like. You apparently failed to notice I quoted and linked to a credible source. You are trying to dismiss that source with nothing but unsupported opinion.

The Jewish community of Alexandria perhaps. However, there is no reason to believe Jesus quoted the Septuagint. As a boy He went to the temple to expound upon the scriptures. What scriptures do you really think he read? The Septuagint? Forbid!!! No. He read the Jewish scriptures kept in the temple. The Septuagint on the whole is not a credible Jewish work. It was not produced by the Lord's servants in the temple and has parts that are completely spurious. It should not be relied upon .... at ALL. It continues to be promoted because that great and abominable church relies upon it, and if it were shown to be spurious, then their credibility would be greatly injured.

Where did Jesus spend some of His childhhood? Wasn't it Egypt? Once again you are trying to argue against the source I quoted based on nothing but your unsupported opinion. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Well, unless someone is Orthodox with a capital O, I think the Masoretic text is believed to be generally superior. There are known problems with the Septuagint. Nevertheless, it was popular and the NT contains numerous quotations from it.

Well, I think you get my point. This is not necessarily so. I agree that it appears that some quotations of the OT in the majority text are from the Septuagint, rather than the "masoretic" source, but we do not have the masoretic source anymore apparently, so we really can't say, and there are sufficient differences between the majority quotations and the Septuagint to give an honest appraiser doubts as to the claims that Jesus quoted the Septuagint. I do not believe He did. Why would He when He surely knew the scriptures from the temple? I believe He would have been upset with the Septuagint, and I have no reason to believe He would try to correct the rabbis with Greek - in fact the thought is preposterous - but obviously I cannot stop others from believing it.
Cheers

 

[RevelationTestament]

You can disagree all you like. You apparently failed to notice I quoted and linked to a credible source. You are trying to dismiss that source with nothing but unsupported opinion.

Where did Jesus spend some of His childhhood? Wasn't it Egypt? Once again you are trying to argue against the source I quoted based on nothing but your unsupported opinion. Thanks but no thanks.

It is not just unsupported opinion friend. I have researched the matter. Have you researched the historical inaccuracies in the letter of Aristeas? I don't really care that you quote a "credible" source on the issue. There are "credible" sources that conclude like me that the letter of Aristeas is a fraud. And I don't really care that some Jews wanted a Greek version of their scriptures. That doesn't make such translation inspired nor accurate. You regularly defend the Septuagint despite problems with it your own research admits/shows, such as the translation of El Shaddai into Almighty God, and its supposed derivation from shadad or to destroy. That's ok. I have shown the problems with it, and it's supposed claim to fame. For all we know the thing was translated by a gnostic sect in Egypt. Anyway, it wasn't by the Lord's servants. I have the masoretic text which is shown to be mostly accurate by the dead sea scrolls, and I have the majority text for the NT, and don't care for claims by the Catholic Church (including the Greek Othodox) that the Septuagint is reliable. My own studies have revealed otherwise.

 

[Clearly]

Why can't those verses that render God and Lord with the article "the" before it be rendered as "the Elohiym/God" and and simply "YAHWEH" for the Lord. post #203 LittlelLambofJesus

It doesn't work that way in the Greek. I have found that the plural form of Theos is used for Elohim in the Greek NT. But the stickier matter of when YHWH is used, I have struggled with. It seems the singular form of Theos is sometimes used for YHWH. The difference between usage of Kyrios and Theos is unclear to me. Who can help me here? I have found myself wishing for a Hebrew NT. post # 204 RevelationTestament

Hi Revelation Testament : Thank you for your example in 208. Prior to your example, It wasn’t clear to me how you were using θεοι. Your usage is correct in the verse you gave me which refers, not to the “Lord God” (EL, Elohim, etc) but to other Gods (plural).

Your point that The New Testament was written in Koine (“common” greek ) is also correct.

Your point on translational “rules” is also, interestingly, quite correct. Some translators have argued that koine should be translated, not according to rules of Attic or other types of Greek used in athenic literature by well educated Athenians, but rather they should be translated according to common usage of koine. Anyone growing up in southern states (in the US) with a “common” Spanish will see the difference between the Spanish of Spain and their rules and uses of language with the common Spanish one heard on the streets from those types of Spanish speakers. Same with "Hoch Deutsch" (“high” german) and “farmers” german.

Moulton and Milligans revolutionary idea of scouring papyri for Koine and actual usages from the peri-c.e. era did just this. They looked at how certain words were actually used, rather than accept prior lexical assumptions. It resulted in the rewriting of dictionaries and lexicons on koine.

However, I might remind you that the same problem you have with Greek, hebraists have with Masoretic texts. They are not dealing with original Hebrew texts, but versions of them. We simply have no autographs of either Hebrew OR Greek manuscripts of NT/OT greek OR OT Hebrew (we do have “proto-masoretic) bits, but like greek, they show variance.

My Historical interest is not particularly in early translations themselves but I think many of your comments make wonderful sense.


For example, you said : “Anyway, based on how I read the NT, Λόγος or Logos should probably be translated back to YHWH. But Kyrios also seems to largely refer to Lord or YHWH, and Theou to El or Eloah or "God."

This is an interesting generalization since it has good correlation to early Judeo-Christian texts that describe their traditions.

I can’t think of an instance when λογος refers to the Lord God as an individual (thought someone might think of one) but frequently (very frequently) in the early Diaries, mishrashes, Hellenistic synagogal prayers, other sacred Christian texts, the word λογοσ is used to distinguish the Lord God/Father from the son/lord since the Lord God / Father does not have that appellation (that I can remember).

I have often thought that John, in his first chapter is not trying to tell us how Jesus as λογος is similar to his Father, but how he is different from his father.



Der Alter :
I also like your thought regarding spending a childhood in Egypt might have affected Jesus and his context of scriptures. Since the Septuagint existed several hundred years before the Masoretic, (though a “proto-masoretic existed), then it would also explain why he would have heard and was comfortable with the LXX, since many of the quotes from NT come from the LXX. This is a thought a historian would have kept in mind in considering these points.


HI TIMBO,
Now that you have re-engaged this thread, could you answer my question that I asked a few pages back regarding the motives for Pharisees to change the tetragram :

REGARDING TIMBO3s THEORY THAT THE TETRAGRAM IN THE MASORETIC WAS INAPPROPRIATELY REPLACED BY THE GREEK "ΚΥΡΙΟΣ" IN THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT

Clearly asked Timbo in post # 104 : ” If the Jews created the septuagint for greek speaking jews, does your theory account for their motive in removing the tetragram and inserting"κυριοσ" into the text instead? Why not leave the tetragram in these verses as in the masoretic? On the other hand, if one views the septuagint partly as a mishna (since the translators had to interpret for meaning of the text before translating the text), does your theory account for their motive to insert κυριοσ into the septuagint text in these instances? I also asked if anyone knew of a source list for instances where the LXX has κυριοςwhere the Masoretic has the tetragram.

Timbo3 replied in post # 170 “Simply put, with the formation of the Pharisees (and Sadducees possibly) in about 3rd century B.C.E., these sought to redirect glory from Jehovah God to themselves, becoming haughty, as well as taking out of context (or misapplying) Exodus 20:7, which states: "You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah will not leave the one unpunished who takes up his name in a worthless way." […] These had no love for God, but wanted glory for themselves (John 5:44), and over time the personal name of God - Jehovah - was put aside, and gradually replaced with just "God" or "Lord" in their conversations as well as writings.



Hi Timbo3, Thank you for clarifying your theory somewhat.

However, If “the Pharisees (and possibly the Sadducees)” wanted Jehovahs Glory, how does the replacement of the tetragram with κυριος by the translators of the LXX give the Pharisees (and possibly the Sadducees) the glory you say they wanted? By what mechanism do these specific groups obtain “glory” by the replacement of the tetragram with κυριος?

Again Timbo3, I very much appreciate your time and information regarding this theory in advance. Thanks

Clearly

twtztzdrlr

Thanks in advance for clarification on this theory TIMBO3.

Clear

 

[RevelationTestament]

Why can't those verses that render God and Lord with the article "the" before it be rendered as "the Elohiym/God" and and simply "YAHWEH" for the Lord. post #203 LittlelLambofJesus

It doesn't work that way in the Greek. I have found that the plural form of Theos is used for Elohim in the Greek NT. But the stickier matter of when YHWH is used, I have struggled with. It seems the singular form of Theos is sometimes used for YHWH. The difference between usage of Kyrios and Theos is unclear to me. Who can help me here? I have found myself wishing for a Hebrew NT. post # 204 RevelationTestament

Hi Revelation Testament : Thank you for your example in 208. Prior to your example, It wasn’t clear to me how you were using θεοι. Your usage is correct in the verse you gave me which refers, not to the “Lord God” (EL, Elohim, etc) but to other Gods (plural).

Your point that The New Testament was written in Koine (“common” greek ) is also correct.

Your point on translational “rules” is also, interestingly, quite correct. Some translators have argued that koine should be translated, not according to rules of Attic or other types of Greek used in athenic literature by well educated Athenians, but rather they should be translated according to common usage of koine. Anyone growing up in southern states (in the US) with a “common” Spanish will see the difference between the Spanish of Spain and their rules and uses of language with the common Spanish one heard on the streets from those types of Spanish speakers. Same with "Hoch Deutsch" (“high” german) and “farmers” german.

Moulton and Milligans revolutionary idea of scouring papyri for Koine and actual usages from the peri-c.e. era did just this. They looked at how certain words were actually used, rather than accept prior lexical assumptions. It resulted in the rewriting of dictionaries and lexicons on koine.

However, I might remind you that the same problem you have with Greek, hebraists have with Masoretic texts. They are not dealing with original Hebrew texts, but versions of them. We simply have no autographs of either Hebrew OR Greek manuscripts of NT/OT greek OR OT Hebrew (we do have “proto-masoretic) bits, but like greek, they show variance.

My Historical interest is not particularly in early translations themselves but I think many of your comments make wonderful sense.


For example, you said : “Anyway, based on how I read the NT, Λόγος or Logos should probably be translated back to YHWH. But Kyrios also seems to largely refer to Lord or YHWH, and Theou to El or Eloah or "God."

This is an interesting generalization since it has good correlation to early Judeo-Christian texts that describe their traditions.

I can’t think of an instance when λογος refers to the Lord God as an individual (thought someone might think of one) but frequently (very frequently) in the early Diaries, mishrashes, Hellenistic synagogal prayers, other sacred Christian texts, the word λογοσ is used to distinguish the Lord God/Father from the son/lord since the Lord God / Father does not have that appellation (that I can remember).

I have often thought that John, in his first chapter is not trying to tell us how Jesus as λογος is similar to his Father, but how he is different from his father.

Hi again Clearly.
Thank you for trying to help, but it seems you are just confirming that it is virtually impossible to try to translate the majority text back into Hebrew at least for the purpose of confirming the names/titles of God with any surety, LOL. So it looks like my quest to do so will have to be set aside for now. But I have learned some things in my studies, and maybe this is the best I can hope for.

Let me say tho that I now read the OT differently than I once did. You seem to attach the appellation of Lord God or YHWH Elohim only to the Father. I now believe that it can refer to either the Son or the Father. The Son is also Elohim. In fact He is the chief cornerstone Elohim. He is also YHWH. So they are literally one in the word. Although the Son is not El Elyon, the Most High El, which is the Father only. The Father is also El Gibbor, the Mighty God, which title the Son inherits per Isa. 9:6.

As for λογος I now believe that John is teaching an aspect of being YHWH. The Father is also the Word. He is teaching that Jesus is also this word, and the Word is God. If we hear it from the Son, we are also hearing it from the Father. So the name YHWH is saying I am the Word/law/etc/. It has multiple connotations. Letter by letter, excluding vowels sometimes added later, it means Behold the nail, behold the hand. Jesus said that the time is come that I will show you plainly of the Father. He also said that He did nothing of Himself but that He seeth the Father do, and whatsoever the Father doeth, He doeth likewise.... This should have clear implications for any Christian. As LDS we learn that the Father wrote the law, and Christ brought it to us.
Anyways, just wanted to say thanks.
Rev

 

[Der Alte]

It is not just unsupported opinion friend. I have researched the matter. Have you researched the historical inaccuracies in the letter of Aristeas? I don't really care that you quote a "credible" source on the issue. There are "credible" sources that conclude like me that the letter of Aristeas is a fraud. And I don't really care that some Jews wanted a Greek version of their scriptures. That doesn't make such translation inspired nor accurate. You regularly defend the Septuagint despite problems with it your own research admits/shows, such as the translation of El Shaddai into Almighty God, and its supposed derivation from shadad or to destroy. [Absolutely false! DA] That's ok. I have shown the problems with it, and it's supposed claim to fame. For all we know the thing was translated by a gnostic sect in Egypt. Anyway, it wasn't by the Lord's servants. I have the masoretic text which is shown to be mostly accurate by the dead sea scrolls, and I have the majority text for the NT, and don't care for claims by the Catholic Church (including the Greek Othodox) that the Septuagint is reliable. My own studies have revealed otherwise.

And I don't really care what you don't really care about. I quoted a credible source you only claim that you have seen some. See the difference? You are making a false accusation. I never quoted anything, nor did I say I supported, translating "El Shaddai into Almighty God, and its supposed derivation from shadad or to destroy" You continue to make this false accusation after I have corrected you more than once. That says loads about your argument here.

Perhaps you should do some more study.

The biblical manuscripts include what are probably the earliest copies of these texts to have come down to us. Most of the books of the Bible are represented in the collection. Some books are extant in large number of copies; others are represented only fragmentarily on mere scraps of parchment. The biblical texts display considerable similarity to the standard Masoretic (received) text. This, however, is not always the rule, and many texts diverge from the Masoretic. For example, some of the texts of Samuel from Cave 4 follow the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Bible translated in the third to second centuries B.C.E. Indeed. Qumran has yielded copies of the Septuagint in Greek.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html​

Your own studies? What might your qualifications in Greek be? Since you reject the LXX because you claim the translation is not inspired can you share with us how the NWT or JST is inspired?

 

[RevelationTestament]

And I don't really care what you don't really care about. I quoted a credible source you only claim that you have seen some. See the difference? You are making a false accusation. I never quoted anything, nor did I say I supported, translating "El Shaddai into Almighty God, and its supposed derivation from shadad or to destroy" You continue to make this false accusation after I have corrected you more than once. That says loads about your argument here.

You have continued to defend the translation of El Shaddai to Almighty God. You also claim to have "corrected" me several times when all you do is quote Jewish sources which tell you things like Shaddai has no root. If you accept the Jewish sources you are quoting then shadad CANNOT be its root and Shaddai CANNOT be derived from it. Yet you continue to defend the Septuagint's interpretation of "Almighty God." You have also quoted sources which have said things like "Destroyer God" can hardly be right. But you don't choose to believe those portions and highlight only the things you want.
You cannot "correct" me. Shad means breast and dai means enough. Look them up in any Hebrew to English dictionary.

That's fine Der Alter. I'm not here to save you from your misconceptions.
Cheers

 

[Clearly]

Revelation testament said : Thank you for trying to help, but it seems you are just confirming that it is virtually impossible to try to translate the majority text back into Hebrew at least for the purpose of confirming the names/titles of God with any surety, LOL.

You are correct. It would be silly to try to translate “backwards” to come to any correct translation of the
original in Hebrew. It doesn’t work that way. For example, While LXX makes clear it is a single man who is created in the image of God, the same word in Hebrew may mean a name “Adam”, or a “man”, or a “human” or “humankind”. Since the early Christians used the LXX, their tradition was that adam was created in the image of God, but since early Masorets used “mankind” (including woman) as being created, this resulted in the ungainly early Jewish tradition of a hermaphrodite Adam being created in order to reconcile the text with their interpretation.

Also, Erasmus, in his creation of the first printed greek bible, did not have a Greek manuscript and used another language to “back translate” and was immediately found out since other scholars could see through the ruse immediately. Translation works, “back translation” doesn’t work.

This also is partly why when you tell Der Alter that “Shad means breast and dai means enough. Look them up in any Hebrew to English dictionary.” You must remember that cobbling these two separate words together to create Shaddai, will not necessarily mean “enough breast”.

At any rate, I wish you and Der Alter both good journeys and I’ll drop out of this conversation but will check to see if timbo3 elucidates on his theory.

Clear

 

[The Gregorian]

There is no "i" in "team." But "slaughter" is almost entirely comprised of "laughter."

Words in any language aren't always related to similarly spelled words.

 

[Der Alte]

You have continued to defend the translation of El Shaddai to Almighty God. You also claim to have "corrected" me several times when all you do is quote Jewish sources which tell you things like Shaddai has no root.

You evidently are not paying attention! The source I quoted which showed that Shaddai has no root is the Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon none of whom are Jewish. They were what is known as accredited Hebrew scholars.

If you accept the Jewish sources you are quoting then shadad CANNOT be its root and Shaddai CANNOT be derived from it.

BDB is not a "Jewish" source! Here is Gen 17:1 from the 1917 Jewish Publication Society OT.

JPS Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him: 'I am God Almighty; [אל שׁדי /el shaddai] walk before Me, and be thou wholehearted.​

Yet you continue to defend the Septuagint's interpretation of "Almighty God." You have also quoted sources which have said things like "Destroyer God" can hardly be right. But you don't choose to believe those portions and highlight only the things you want.

The Jewish Encyclopedia was written by Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars. What did you say your qualification in Hebrew were? The article I quoted rejected your unsupported supposition that Shaddai is derived from the Hebrew word 'breast."

You cannot "correct" me. Shad means breast and dai means enough. Look them up in any Hebrew to English dictionary.

Irrelevant nonsense! Nothing credible says that Shaddai is a combinaton of those two words! What is this overwhelming need you have to have Shaddai mean enough breast?

That's fine Der Alter. I'm not here to save you from your misconceptions.
Cheers

You cannot save anyone from anything with false assumptions/presuppositions. Please note that neither of these sources shows that Shaddai was derived from any other word! That it was supposedly derived from "enough breast" is a figment of someone's overactive imagination!

שַׁדַּי m. in pause [Hb.] sdy, the Almighty, the Omnipotent, an epithet or name of Jehovah; sometimes in the Pentateuch preceded by [Hb.] El, as Ex. 6, 3 I appeared unto Abraham . . . [Hb.] bel shdy as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah (יהוה Jahweh) was I not known unto them. Gen. 17, 1. 28, 3. 35, 11. 43, 14. 48, 3 ; prob. also Gen. 49, 25 [Hb.] eth shdy should be [Hb.] el shdy, as in the Sam. And several Heb.Mss. Elsewhere only once, Ez. 10, 5. In all other examples it is without [Hb.] el, as Num. 24, 4. 16. Ruth 1, 20. 21. Ps. 68, 15. 91, 1. Joel 1, 15. Is.13, 7. Ez. 1, 24. Job 5, 17. 6, 4. 14. 8, 3. 5, and often in this book.— שַׁדַּי is strictly a pluralis majestaticus, from a sing, שד powerful, from r. שדד; but plurals in י__ are quite doubtful ; see Heb. Gr. ed. 16. § 86. 1. c. More probable is it, therefore, that שַׁדַּי, which never takes the article, is to be regarded as a plural (of 11a) with the suffix of the first person, after the analogy of the form [Hb.] elny, and used at first in direct invocation to God Heb. Gr. § 119. n. 4. 'Hence, pr. Mei potentes, my God ; but afterwards a name of God as Almighty ; comp. [Hb.] elny —Other etymologies see in Thesaur. p. 1366 sq.

A Hebrew And English Lexicon Of The Old Testament, Including The Biblical Chaldee.
From The Latin Of William Gesenius, By Edward Robinson, 18th edition, Boston, 1865​

&#1513;&#1473;&#1463;&#1491;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497; S7706 TWOT2333 GK872448 n.m. dei (etym. dub. (1) Aq Sym Theod &#7985;&#954;&#945;&#957;&#972;&#962;; Rabb &#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1470; + &#1491;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497; (self-) sufficient, no moderns. (2)= almighty, &#8730; &#1513;&#1473;&#1491;&#1491; + &#1497; = Thes De Di Sta, or &#8730; &#1513;&#1473;&#1491;&#1492; = &#1513;&#1473;&#1491;&#1491;, n. intens. Ew§ 155 c, but &#1513;&#1473;&#1491;&#1491; (q.v.) is deal violently not simply mightily; cf. G &#960;&#945;&#957;&#964;&#959;&#954;&#961;&#940;&#964;&#969;&#961; 14 (15) times (but in Pent. &#1488;&#1500; &#1513;&#1473;&#1523; is &#8001; &#920;&#949;&#972;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965;, &#963;&#959;&#965;, etc.), B mostly omnipotens. (3) < conject. for orig. &#1513;&#1473;&#1461;&#1491;&#1463;&#1497; (v. &#1513;&#1473;&#1461;&#1491;) my sovereign lord, || &#1488;&#1458;&#1491;&#1465;&#1504;&#1464;&#1497;, &#1489;&#1506;&#1500;&#1497; NöSBA 1880, 775; ZMG xlii (1888), 481; HoffmPh. Inscr. 53; used of foreign deities (Dt 32:17), and so discredited (cf. &#1489;&#1468;&#1463;&#1506;&#1463;&#1500;).—> other conj., e.g. RSOTJC, 424 &#8730; &#1513;&#1473;&#1491;&#1492; pour forth (God as rain-giver); DlPr 96 sq. Assyrian šadû&#722;, high, ilu šadû&#722;a, CheComm. Is ii. 148, or šadû, mountain, also in n.pr.; v. further Dr Gn 404 ff.);— 1. &#1513;&#1473;&#1463;&#1491;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497; Nu 24:4, 16 (JE, poem), and so as archaism Ru 1:20, 21 &#968; 68:15; 91:1 Jo 1:15 = Is 13:6 Ez 1:24 (del. Co), especially Jb 5:17 + 30 times Jb ( + 19:29 Ew Di reading &#1513;&#1473;&#1523; for &#1513;&#1473;&#1491;&#1497;&#1503;). 2. &#1488;&#1461;&#1500; &#1513;&#1473;&#1463;&#1491;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497; Gn 49:25 (poem; so read for &#1488;&#1461;&#1514; &#1513;&#1473;&#1523;, v. Sam. G S Saad, Heb. Codd.), and so, as archaism, divine name of patriarches in P, Gn 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 48:3 Ex 6:3, Gn 43:14 (RP); so Ez 10:5 (del. Co; but G &#931;&#945;&#948;&#948;&#945;&#953;).

Brown, Francis ; Driver, Samuel Rolles ; Briggs, Charles Augustus: Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. electronic ed. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, 2000, S. 994​

 

[RevelationTestament]

JPS Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him: 'I am God Almighty; [&#1488;&#1500; &#1513;&#1473;&#1491;&#1497; /el shaddai] walk before Me, and be thou wholehearted.​

The Jewish Encyclopedia was written by Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars. What did you say your qualification in Hebrew were? The article I quoted rejected your unsupported supposition that Shaddai is derived from the Hebrew word 'breast."

Because they say Shaddai has no root. But if it is a mere conjunction then shad is not serving as root.

Irrelevant nonsense! Nothing credible says that Shaddai is a combinaton of those two words! What is this overwhelming need you have to have Shaddai mean enough breast?

It is hardly irrelevant, and it is not nonsense. I was shown these things while I was in the spirit. I have been shown many things this same way. And the conjunction actually makes more grammatical and textual sense than trying to say this name is derived from a verb to destroy. It explains the extra "d" in the name. And it makes sense if this is Christ appearing to Abram ("before Abraham was, I am" per John.) The Jews realized Jesus was saying He is El Shaddai, and they picked up stones to throw at Him. We learn from the NT that it is Jesus who showed the way to the holiest of all. It is Jesus who holds the oracles of God, and it is Jesus who gives us meat instead of just milk. See Hebrews. We see from the OT that God talked in just these terms of giving the blessings of the breast and the womb.

Genesis 49:25
25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty(Shaddai), who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:

So it is Jesus who weans us from the breast. I prayed about this particular point several times in fact. I know that means nothing to others now, but it is how I have confirmed a great many things.

You cannot save anyone from anything with false assumptions/presuppositions. Please note that neither of these sources shows that Shaddai was derived from any other word! That it was supposedly derived from "enough breast" is a figment of someone's overactive imagination!

Well, when I say that about it being interpreted as the Almighty, you jump to defend this "overactive imagination" at work!!! How that got derived from "destroyer" El is quite the stretch both grammatically, and textually. The names of El have always reflected what El is being for the people - and "destroyer" God just doesn't fit. But if Christ is appearing to Abram, as He implied, then it makes sense as He is telling Abram to be perfect in heart - to grow up - to be drawn from the breast.

I know you believe it to be nonsense, but the truth is always rejected at first.
Cheers.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Revelation testament said : Thank you for trying to help, but it seems you are just confirming that it is virtually impossible to try to translate the majority text back into Hebrew at least for the purpose of confirming the names/titles of God with any surety, LOL.

You are correct. It would be silly to try to translate “backwards” to come to any correct translation of the
original in Hebrew. It doesn’t work that way. For example, While LXX makes clear it is a single man who is created in the image of God, the same word in Hebrew may mean a name “Adam”, or a “man”, or a “human” or “humankind”. Since the early Christians used the LXX, their tradition was that adam was created in the image of God, but since early Masorets used “mankind” (including woman) as being created, this resulted in the ungainly early Jewish tradition of a hermaphrodite Adam being created in order to reconcile the text with their interpretation.

Also, Erasmus, in his creation of the first printed greek bible, did not have a Greek manuscript and used another language to “back translate” and was immediately found out since other scholars could see through the ruse immediately. Translation works, “back translation” doesn’t work.

Well, let me give you a specific example to illustrate my interest in it. In John we have Jesus saying some interesting things. He tells the Jews "is it not written in your law, ye are elohim?" while stressing the law cannot be broken. We also have Him saying
John 8:47
47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Here the word &#920;&#949;&#959;&#8166; in singular form is being used for "God." But I believe Jesus may have said JHWH ie ye are not of JHWH. But frustratingly, I cannot prove that from our existing texts....

While I doubt from what you have said that you can help me here, any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

This also is partly why when you tell Der Alter that “Shad means breast and dai means enough. Look them up in any Hebrew to English dictionary.” You must remember that cobbling these two separate words together to create Shaddai, will not necessarily mean “enough breast”.

Well, I realize this. But nevertheless I believe that is its essential meaning - the El who weans from the breast. I know I cannot prove that grammatically, but it does make some sense.

At any rate, I wish you and Der Alter both good journeys and I’ll drop out of this conversation but will check to see if timbo3 elucidates on his theory.

Clear

Thanks again for your input. You must be a professor????

 

[Der Alte]

JPS Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him: 'I am God Almighty; [&#1488;&#1500; &#1513;&#1473;&#1491;&#1497; /el shaddai] walk before Me, and be thou wholehearted.​

Because they say Shaddai has no root. But if it is a mere conjunction then shad is not serving as root.

What do you mean by conjunction? The only conjuction in Hebrew I am aware of is &#1493;, the letter waw, which is equivalent to the English "and."

It is hardly irrelevant, and it is not nonsense. I was shown these things while I was in the spirit. I have been shown many things this same way. And the conjunction actually makes more grammatical and textual sense than trying to say this name is derived from a verb to destroy.

That Shaddai is derived from "destroy" was a minority opinion, not supported by any scholarly work that I know of such as the concordances of Gesenius and BDB or the Jewish Encyclopedia. Private revelation will not contradict the revealed word of God.

It explains the extra "d" in the name. And it makes sense if this is Christ appearing to Abram ("before Abraham was, I am" per John.)

Here is the word Shaddai in Hebrew &#1513;&#1473;&#1491;&#1497; it is comprised of three letters, shin, daleth, yod. Daleth corresponds to our letter "D." In Hebrew there is only one "daleth."

The Jews realized Jesus was saying He is El Shaddai, and they picked up stones to throw at Him. We learn from the NT that it is Jesus who showed the way to the holiest of all. It is Jesus who holds the oracles of God, and it is Jesus who gives us meat instead of just milk. See Hebrews. We see from the OT that God talked in just these terms of giving the blessings of the breast and the womb.

Genesis 49:25
25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty(Shaddai), who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:

The occurrence of the words &#1513;&#1473;&#1491;&#1497;/Shaddai and &#1513;&#1473;&#1491;&#1497;&#1501;/Shadim in one verse in the entire Bible does not mean that Shaddai was derived from Shadim. That is a Hebraism called Annominatio, two things are emphasized and the emphasis is drawn to our attention by the similarity in sound. For example,

Ecc 7:1 A good name [&#1513;&#1473;&#1501;/shem] is better than precious ointment;[&#1513;&#1473;&#1502;&#1503;/shemin] and the day of death than the day of one's birth.

Ecc 7:6 For as the crackling of thorns [&#1492;&#1505;&#1497;&#1512;&#1497;&#1501;/hasirim] under a pot, &#1492;&#1505;&#1497;&#1512;/hasir] so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.​

So it is Jesus who weans us from the breast. I prayed about this particular point several times in fact. I know that means nothing to others now, but it is how I have confirmed a great many things.

A lot of people here say they have prayed about certain things and say that their belief has been confirmed. For example, the LDS pray and get a burning in their bosom confirming that the BOM is true.

Well, when I say that about it being interpreted as the Almighty, you jump to defend this "overactive imagination" at work!!! How that got derived from "destroyer" El is quite the stretch both grammatically, and textually. The names of El have always reflected what El is being for the people - and "destroyer" God just doesn't fit.

I agree with this point because none of the sources I have quoted claim that Shaddai was derived from the Hebrew word for Destroy.

But if Christ is appearing to Abram, as He implied, then it makes sense as He is telling Abram to be perfect in heart - to grow up - to be drawn from the breast.

I know you believe it to be nonsense, but the truth is always rejected at first.
Cheers.

The truth does not necessarily reside in one person who claims to know this "truth" via private revelation and that revelation is contradicted by virtually all Hebrew sources.

 

[RevelationTestament]

The truth does not necessarily reside in one person who claims to know this "truth" via private revelation and that revelation is contradicted by virtually all Hebrew sources.

At least you seem to be listening considerately. Yeah. I agree that there are dozens of voices out there claiming revelation etc. Right now, I am just one more, so I typically don't do it. But when it happens to me, it is very real. Others are certainly welcome to pray about it themselves. Anyway it seems we at least agree that Shaddai was not derived from shadad, and therefore the translation in the Septuagint to the Almighty is highly suspect.
Cheers