Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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 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
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.
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
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.Then we're reading different sources, for mine say that most of the OT quotations are from the Septuagint. That happens.
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.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?
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.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.
That's OK. Hebrew is where it all started.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.
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.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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 wasnt 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 cant 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.
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.
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.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
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.
Because they say Shaddai has no root. But if it is a mere conjunction then shad is not serving as root.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."
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.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?
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.
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.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!
I know you believe it to be nonsense, but the truth is always rejected at first.
Cheers.
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 sayingRevelation 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 doesnt 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 doesnt work.
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.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.
Thanks again for your input. You must be a professor????At any rate, I wish you and Der Alter both good journeys and Ill drop out of this conversation but will check to see if timbo3 elucidates on his theory.
Clear
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.
Because they say Shaddai has no root. But if it is a mere conjunction then shad is not serving as root.
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.
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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?