• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured Does porneia (usually translated as sexual immorality or fornication) go too far or not far enough

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Marc Perry, Oct 5, 2020.

Tags:
  1. Leaf473

    Leaf473 Member

    226
    +66
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi Der Alte, nice to meet you and thanks for the information!

    In the lxx, El shaddai is sometimes rendered "the Almighty", and sometimes "my God" or "your God".

    In the article from the Jewish encyclopedia, I see they use the words
    Supposed
    Possible
    Suggestion
    Conjectured
    as they talk about possible meanings. My sense is, then, that the meaning is uncertain.
     
  2. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +3,497
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    You might wish to reread my post.
    Names of God - Shaddai and 'Elyon.
    The word Shaddai (שׁדי) which occurs along with El, is also used independently as a name of God, chiefly in the Book of Job. It is commonly rendered "the Almighty" (in LXX., sometimes παντοκράτωρ).
    1. The Hebrew root "shadad," from which it has been supposed [not presently] to be derived, means, however, "to overpower," "to treat with violence," "to lay waste." This would give Shaddai the meaning "devastator," or "destroyer," which can hardly be right.
    It is possible, however, that the original significance was that of "overmastering" or "overpowering strength," and that this meaning persists in the divine name. [overpowering strength. Isn't that something like "almighty?"]
    2. Another interesting suggestion is that it may be connected with the Assyrian "shadu" (mountain), an epithet sometimes attached to the names of Assyrian deities. [Really the name of God copied from an Assyrian deity?]
    3. It is conjectured also that the pointing of שׁדי may be due to an improbable rabbinical explanation of the word as שׁידי ("He who is sufficient"), and that the word originally may have been without the doubling of the middle letter. According to Ex. vi. 2, 3, this is the name by which God was known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
    NAMES OF GOD - JewishEncyclopedia.com
     
  3. Leaf473

    Leaf473 Member

    226
    +66
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    So... We agree that the meaning of El shaddai is uncertain?
     
  4. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +3,497
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2020
  5. Leaf473

    Leaf473 Member

    226
    +66
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I believe I have read all of your posts to me very carefully. It was unclear to me why you basically posted the same article again with emphasis added. I couldn't tell if you were agreeing with me or disagreeing :)

    I don't doubt that the JPS of 1917 translates the word consistently. That can simply mean that the scholars were consistently going with their best guess.

    As the article mentions, the lxx *sometimes* renders it as παντοκράτωρ. Why only sometimes?
     
  6. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +3,497
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Rather than assuming that the native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars who translated the JPS were only guessing why don't you do YOUR homework and prove it?
    As for pantokrator in the LXX another homework task for you, look it up and see what they also translated it as. Until you do I am the only one providing evidence vs speculation.
     
  7. Leaf473

    Leaf473 Member

    226
    +66
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Prior to making my first post on this strand, I had already researched El shadai. I started with this page
    Strong's Hebrew: 7706. שַׁדָּי (Shadday) -- Almighty

    I noticed that the definition Strong's gave for it was field, land.

    Then I moved on to the Brown-Driver-Briggs section. They start by saying the etymology is dubious, and then move on to show different meanings that have been attached over time.

    I saw that they talked about the LXX translating it as "your God" or "my God".

    I thought that was strange so I looked up Genesis 17 here
    Γένεσις - Κεφάλαιο 17 - Septuagint Text of Genesis - The Septuagint: LXX

    I found it was just as they said,
    ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Θεός σου.

    The above research led me to the conclusion that the meaning seems to be uncertain.
     
  8. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +3,497
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    You still have not done your homework. Strong's has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions. Here is the complete definition from BDB.
    שַׁדַּי S7706 TWOT2333 GK872448 n.m. dei (etym. dub. (1) Aq Sym Theod ἱκανός; Rabb שֶׁ־ + דַּי (self-)sufficient, no moderns. (2)= almighty, √ שׁדד + י = Thes De Di Sta, or √ שׁדה = שׁדד, n. intens. Ew 155 c, but שׁדד (q.v.) is deal violently not simply mightily; cf. παντοκράτωρ 14 (15) times (but in Pent. אל שׁ׳ is ὁ Θεός μου, σου, etc.), mostly omnipotens. (3) < conject. for orig. שֵׁדַי (v. שֵׁד) my sovereign lord, || אֲדֹנָי, בעלי Nö 1880, 775; xlii (1888), 481; Hoffm 53; used of foreign deities (Dt 32:17), and so discredited (cf. בַּעַל).—> other conj., e.g. RS, 424 √ שׁדה pour forth (God as rain-giver); Dl 96 Assyrian šadûʾ, high, ilu šadûʾa, Che Is ii. 148, or šadû, mountain, also in n.pr.; v. further Dr Gn 404 ff.);—1. שַׁדַּי Nu 24:4, 16 (JE, poem), and so as archaism Ru 1:20, 21 ψ 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 שׁ׳ for שׁדין). 2. אֵל שַׁדַּי Gn 49:25 (poem; so read for אֵת שׁ׳, v. Sam. Saad, Heb. Codd.), and so, as archaism, divine name of patriarchs in P, Gn 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 48:3; Ex 6:3; Gn 43:14 (R); so Ez 10:5 (del. Co; but Σαδδαι).
    Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1977). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (pp. 994–995). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     
  9. Leaf473

    Leaf473 Member

    226
    +66
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Thank you for the expanded definition from BDB.

    Looking at the first part of the definition, it appears that "ἱκανός" is a possible rendering. As you probably already know, that's a very different word from "παντοκράτωρ".
    Right off, then, we have two wildly different meanings from ancient sources.
     
  10. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +3,497
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Still pushing that agenda. One problem with this speculation no examples given in the OT where it is supposedly translated "ἱκανός." Check the vowel pointing between the head word and the first occurrence in the text.
    שַׁדַּי S7706 TWOT2333 GK872448 n.m. dei (etym. dub. (1) Aq Sym Theod ἱκανός; Rabb שֶׁ־ + דַּי (self-)sufficient, no moderns. (2)= almighty, √ שׁדד + י = Thes De Di Sta, or √ שׁדה = שׁדד, n. intens. Ew 155 c, but שׁדד (q.v.) is deal violently not simply mightily; cf. παντοκράτωρ 14 (15) times (but in Pent. אל שׁ׳ is ὁ Θεός μου, σου, etc.), mostly omnipotens. (3)
     
  11. Leaf473

    Leaf473 Member

    226
    +66
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I disagree with the characterization of "agenda" and "speculation".

    I think at this point it would be good to go through the situation one small step at a time.

    But I don't think this is the proper thread to do it in.

    Please join me at the new thread:
    Possible renderings of "El shaddai"
     
  12. Freedm

    Freedm New Member

    62
    +14
    United States
    Christian
    Widowed
    This is interesting because in your example Paul says : "But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." but what is marriage?

    When Jesus spoke to the woman at the well (John 4:17-18), telling her that she has no husband, he seemed to indicate that simply living together, and presumably having sex, does not a marriage make. However, what this passage does not make clear was whether Jesus was judging her according to the Jewish definition of marriage or that of God himself, which very well may differ.

    In fact, in Genesis 2:24 we see: That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh which seems to imply that sex alone makes a woman his wife. Genesis 24:67 also seems to support this position when Isaac brought Rebekah into the tent and "married her".

    Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.

    Clearly marriage was a thing, long before Jewish tradition.

    In my opinion, not only does the idea of Jesus enforcing a Jewish custom with a Jewish woman at the well make sense but it also makes sense to see sex alone sufficient to form a committed union in God's eyes, making one out of two. See, it's important to remember that Jesus was one with God, and that we too will become one with God in the same way. That union with God will be spiritual, while our earthly unions are physical, but both unions are the consummation of a commitment and isn't that the entire point of what we call "marriage"? In that sense, I believe physical sex, and the earthly pleasure it brings, is a shadow of what's to come when we join with God and the spiritual pleasure that will bring, and that is likely the very reason God gave us sex in the first place. It is a type for our ultimate union with God. It's all very edifying and prophetic at the same time.


    Point being, was Paul saying that it's better for them to make the commitment by sex, or was he saying they should make the commitment by a ceremony? I would argue that the Bible does not make this clear, but even if he was referring to the Jewish custom, is not any marriage custom in any society around the world and throughout history sufficient in the eyes of God? And if so, isn't the only thing all these customs really have in common, including Isaac and Rebekah in the tent with no public to witness their verbal commitment, the consummation of a commitment by sex?
     
  13. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +7,216
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I don't think the issue in this discussion is whether we need an official certificate from the country clerk. It's about a commit to monogamy. I think Paul assumed that this was the only legitimate context for sex. (Of course in the OT it wasn't necessarily monogamous, but by the 1st Cent that was the standard.)

    It's true that Paul never explicitly said this, but he tended to deal mostly with situations that actually occurred. There's no reason to think that there were unmarried boy and girlfriends having sex, so it's not an issue he'd necessarily talk about. No decent girl would have been allowed in a situation where that was possible. The only context would be a widow, where there may have been flexibility. My reading of Paul, however, is that he tended to be very conservative on sexual issues.
     
  14. Freedm

    Freedm New Member

    62
    +14
    United States
    Christian
    Widowed
    I do think we agree that Paul's words need to be taken in the context of the culture he was living in. My take from that is that perhaps we shouldn't get too hung up on what is "culturallly acceptable" in regards to either marriage or sex before marriage because cultures change.

    And so if on this matter we're concerned primarily with not angering God, then to be frank I don't think God even has a concept of pre-marital sex except in the context of those same cultures. In fact he instructed us to populate the earth, without ever giving us strict rules around how to do so. Only man created rules around it, and so if the issue in this thread is primarily to live by the rules of the Jews, then that's a different matter altogether and I will bow out.

    However, I do think it's important to see that God's joining with us spiritually is of paramount importance, and in that light seeing physical sex between two people as a type of that joining lends a seriousness to the matter that should not be flippantly ignored.
     
  15. Saint Steven

    Saint Steven You can call me Steve Supporter

    +5,734
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    But if the requirement for an Elder is to be the husband of one wife, what does that say about the norm?

    Someone mentioned earlier that they thought that "husband of one wife" meant never divorced. I don't think that's what it means.
     
Loading...