For Jews or Christians: Why Shema means what a Jew says

[JM2C]

so you are saying that the statement "there is no other besides him" does not mean "only"?


So noted.

Base on the bible? Yes! I cannot argue with you from my own opinion only, but I could if I base my arguments from the bible.

 

[JM2C]

Not using a particular word doesn't mean that the concept doesn't apply, especially when the concept IS applied explicitly via other words. For the 28th time, echad means one. God is echad. God is one. You only need more when you start by mistranslating echad.

I'm mistranslating the word of God? How about this “there is no other besides him” mistranslated by you as “only” so you could justify using the word “yachid” in referring to God. That is mistranslating.

 

[rosends]

I'm mistranslating the word of God? How about this “there is no other besides him” mistranslated by you as “only” so you could justify using the word “yachid” in referring to God. That is mistranslating.

No, the word in Hebrew is "milvado" and the root is "l-b-d". The word means "alone"
מילון מורפיקס Morfix Dictionary | לבד באנגלית

so "there is no other besides him" actually means "there is no other other due to his alone-ness". That's text.

 

[rosends]

I'm mistranslating the word of God? How about this “there is no other besides him” mistranslated by you as “only” so you could justify using the word “yachid” in referring to God. That is mistranslating.

Yes, you are, by saying that "echad" is a particular type of "one" and not just "one." That is a mistranslation of the word, pure and simple. If you think that "there is no other besides him" using "milvado" is a mistranslation, maybe that's because you don't speak Hebrew. I never then claim that "yachid" refers to God, I claim that "only" refers to God, just using other words.

 

[JM2C]

Yes, you are, by saying that "echad" is a particular type of "one" and not just "one." That is a mistranslation of the word, pure and simple. If you think that "there is no other besides him" using "milvado" is a mistranslation, maybe that's because you don't speak Hebrew. I never then claim that "yachid" refers to God, I claim that "only" refers to God, just using other words.

Exegetically, using the word "only", as per our debate, can only mean “yachid”. Therefore, you and I cannot use the word “only” other than what it means or meant in the Hebrew language, on which you are very familiar, and that is, the word “yachid”.

So, if you and I translate it in another word or words other than what it meant, then we can accuse each other of mistranslating the very word of God.

 

[rosends]

Exegetically, using the word "only", as per our debate, can only mean “yachid”. Therefore, you and I cannot use the word “only” other than what it means or meant in the Hebrew language, on which you are very familiar, and that is, the word “yachid”.

So, if you and I translate it in another word or words other than what it meant, then we can accuse each other of mistranslating the very word of God.

What? Echad "can only mean" yachid? No, echad can mean echad and yachid can mean yachid. So I can use the word "only" when yachid is used, and "one" when echad is. I can also use "only" when l-b-d" is used because that's what it means.

 

[nothead]

Are you confused? Anthony Buzzard? So, you, a oneness, is in cahoots now with JW.

Mt 12:25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.
Mt 12:26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?

You saying mainline Christianity has it right, by virtue of being mainline? Whoo hoo. Impressive.

You saying Anthony Buzzard is JW? Whoo hoo, impressive. I give you two WHOO HOO'S for being not so right, but trying hard to be not so right, sir.

 

[nothead]

Exegetically, using the word "only", as per our debate, can only mean “yachid”. Therefore, you and I cannot use the word “only” other than what it means or meant in the Hebrew language, on which you are very familiar, and that is, the word “yachid”.

So, if you and I translate it in another word or words other than what it meant, then we can accuse each other of mistranslating the very word of God.

Your YACHID arguments put an aphid in my thyrid. Bonkers. Get off it, nobody used this word in Shema until Maimonides...and saying it SHOULD have been used simply ignores the word "echad" as it means and was meant by God to the Jews, sir.

 

[JM2C]

Your YACHID arguments put an aphid in my thyrid. Bonkers. Get off it, nobody used this word in Shema until Maimonides...and saying it SHOULD have been used simply ignores the word "echad" as it means and was meant by God to the Jews, sir.

Exactly! The reason why people changed the wordings in the bible is because they are hiding something.

No matter how idiomatic Dt 6:4 to the Hebrews or to the Jews, that only they could understand the meaning of the word order written in this specific verse, changing from one meaning to another meaning is not really a word for word translations. For example: In Hebrews translated in English word for word in natural word order, the “person/noun lucky/adj” can be translated in English to “lucky/adj person/noun” just to smooth in out for better understanding or for the right grammar, but changing the meaning of the word or words just to avoid certain group of people is really beyond comprehension. Why changed the Word of God because Christians interpreted the word “echad” as a “unified one” and not as an “only one”?

 

[nothead]

Exactly! The reason why people changed the wordings in the bible is because they are hiding something.

No matter how idiomatic Dt 6:4 to the Hebrews or to the Jews, that only they could understand the meaning of the word order written in this specific verse, changing from one meaning to another meaning is not really a word for word translations. For example: In Hebrews translated in English word for word in natural word order, the “person/noun lucky/adj” can be translated in English to “lucky/adj person/noun” just to smooth in out for better understanding or for the right grammar, but changing the meaning of the word or words just to avoid certain group of people is really beyond comprehension. Why changed the Word of God because Christians interpreted the word “echad” as a “unified one” and not as an “only one”?

Because "echad" means possibly a "unified one" only 7 out of 952 times according to Strong's and these times are quite possibly because that "singular one" is also dividable into parts, just as all singular "ones" are...say like a singular dog, divided up into fur and teeth, and dog-breath and dog-bark. ATTRIBUTING a compoundness BY the meaning of "echad," which is an adjective is simply hardly ever done by even trinitarians, which Strong was.

Even Strong does not say "echad" has either majority meaning OR minority meaning as a "compound one." The numerical "one" is what echad is. Numerical, alone, unique, first, a single unit.

Your continual denial of word meanings in the Hebrew is exemplified by your continual denial of what Rosends, a Hebrew speaker apparently is trying to tell you.

 

[JM2C]

Because "echad" means possibly a "unified one" only 7 out of 952 times according to Strong's and these times are quite possibly because that "singular one" is also dividable into parts, just as all singular "ones" are...say like a singular dog, divided up into fur and teeth, and dog-breath and dog-bark. ATTRIBUTING a compoundness BY the meaning of "echad," which is an adjective is simply hardly ever done by even trinitarians, which Strong was.


Even Strong does not say "echad" has either majority meaning OR minority meaning as a "compound one." The numerical "one" is what echad is. Numerical, alone, unique, first, a single unit.


Your continual denial of word meanings in the Hebrew is exemplified by your continual denial of what Rosends, a Hebrew speaker apparently is trying to tell you.

A Hebrew speaker of modern Hebrew?

I’m the one denying the right meaning of echad? The meaning of denying is: state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.
The truth is Echad is in Dt 6:4. If I change the word echad to yachid in Dt 6:4 then that’s denying the existence of the word echad as the truth.

The denial of the existence of the word echad in Dt 6:4 as the truth. That’s what we are debating here, are we not?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because the original Hebrew form is this: YHWH Elohim, YHWH one.

The "one" is "echad" meaning in Strong's always singular or a numerical one, or first, cardinal, unique and alone as a unit. Only 7 times out of 952 is "echad" meaning a unity of some kind. See the English "one" which has a minority "compound one:"

1one
adjective\ˈwən\
: having the value of 1

—used to refer to a single person or thing

—used before a noun to indicate that someone or something is part of a group of similar people or things

See the alternate defn of "one" in Strongs, echad:

1. one (number)
   1. one (number)
      
      
   2. each, every
      
      
   3. a certain
      
      
   4. an (indefinite article)
      
      
   5. only, once, once for all
      
      
   6. one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one
      
      
   7. first
      
      
   8. eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal)

Because this "echad" qualifies the IDENTITY of God, his name predominantly, with the first two words secondarily. Meaning the NAME of God is unique, alone and the NAME also being the first meaning of the first two words also..."YHWH Elohim." Being an ADJECTIVE the word modified is first, "YHWH."

Pretty simple, eh? Theodore Jones et all state your case.
1) you cannot make the "echad" of the Adonai a compound one as Jews for Jesus did.
2) you cannot say a singular one is for the BEING of God since his identity or NAME is one.
3) you cannot get around Jesus' own emphasis of Shema in Mk 12 as the FIRST COMMAND OR the traditional interpretation that all knew, NO OTHER BUT HE, said by the scribe. Why? Why since this would be a good time to give a NEW INTERPRETATION of Shema, and the Christ did not here or anywhere else.

I'm late to this party but:

1. Echad is an implied compound as it used for Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman, One.

2. You are making His identity or name One when He makes it plural--in majesty and in persons, in Tanach, in Jewish liturgy, and more. It was Rambam and others who helped Ha Shem explain His One-ness.

3. Y'shua certainly did give a new interpretation of Shema by adding "love God with all your MIND."

 

[metis]

3. Y'shua certainly did give a new interpretation of Shema by adding "love God with all your MIND."

What do you think we do as Jews that relates to this?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What do you think we do as Jews that relates to this?

Everything! But "mind" is not in the Tanach but is an insertion by Y'shua in the NT.

 

[metis]

Everything! But "mind" is not in the Tanach but is an insertion by Y'shua in the NT.

One does not have to say the word "mind" in order to state or imply as such. As Nachman of Braslav taught, one can approach God better through emotion [immersion into God] than through intellect.

 

[BilliardsBall]

One does not have to say the word "mind" in order to state or imply as such. As Nachman of Braslav taught, one can approach God better through emotion [immersion into God] than through intellect.

Respectfully, there is more room for God in our minds when we are less emotional. Emotions bring us close and give us zeal for Judaism, Jews, Israel and Messiah, but after we come, the Master would teach us.

 

[metis]

Respectfully, there is more room for God in our minds when we are less emotional. Emotions bring us close and give us zeal for Judaism, Jews, Israel and Messiah, but after we come, the Master would teach us.

I don't think you understand what he meant by "emotion". Essentially, it's an immersion into God and God's creation, which no one can appreciate by using intellect alone. I guess maybe a parallel would be liking someone versus really loving someone. With the latter, you want to merge into that person, and I don't mean that in a sexual way. You feel so attached that you don't want to leave them.

In Judaism, we have Shabbat. Before I became Jewish, I thought it was sorta interesting but was not that big a deal. Was I wrong. On Shabbat, our world changes, we draw far closer to God through more intense prayer and meditation and eliminating most of what we do the other six days of the week. We don't shop, go to work, and do a lot of things we do on the other days of the week.

In Judaism, Shabbat is viewed as preview of heaven, and I certainly understand that now. We don't even talk work, every one is equal on that day so titles are dropped, we meet at the "oneg" (snack-meal after services), and just enjoy, etc. Celebrating Shabbat in Jerusalem is something that cannot be explained but only experienced.

So, that's very much "God in our minds", and no religion, including ours and yours, has a monopoly on that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't think you understand what he meant by "emotion". Essentially, it's an immersion into God and God's creation, which no one can appreciate by using intellect alone. I guess maybe a parallel would be liking someone versus really loving someone. With the latter, you want to merge into that person, and I don't mean that in a sexual way. You feel so attached that you don't want to leave them.

In Judaism, we have Shabbat. Before I became Jewish, I thought it was sorta interesting but was not that big a deal. Was I wrong. On Shabbat, our world changes, we draw far closer to God through more intense prayer and meditation and eliminating most of what we do the other six days of the week. We don't shop, go to work, and do a lot of things we do on the other days of the week.

In Judaism, Shabbat is viewed as preview of heaven, and I certainly understand that now. We don't even talk work, every one is equal on that day so titles are dropped, we meet at the "oneg" (snack-meal after services), and just enjoy, etc. Celebrating Shabbat in Jerusalem is something that cannot be explained but only experienced.

So, that's very much "God in our minds", and no religion, including ours and yours, has a monopoly on that.

I've experienced Shabbat and still do. Ours and yours is the same or nearly so.

 

[metis]

I've experienced Shabbat and still do. Ours and yours is the same or nearly so.

OK, how have you experienced Shabbat, and on which day have you experienced it? Just a reminder, Shabbat is a day of the week that is bound to us by Torah.

If you are a typical Christian, I believe I can safely say that you really haven't experienced Shabbat at all since there are various do's and don't's that are found in Torah about what we can and cannot do on that day. Do you cook on the Sabbath? travel from town to town? turn on electrical equipment? buy things? talk about work? etc.?

Unless you're Jewish, you are not bound by the Sabbath Laws, so I'm laying a guilt trip on you or anyone else here.

 

[BilliardsBall]

OK, how have you experienced Shabbat, and on which day have you experienced it? Just a reminder, Shabbat is a day of the week that is bound to us by Torah.

If you are a typical Christian, I believe I can safely say that you really haven't experienced Shabbat at all since there are various do's and don't's that are found in Torah about what we can and cannot do on that day. Do you cook on the Sabbath? travel from town to town? turn on electrical equipment? buy things? talk about work? etc.?

Unless you're Jewish, you are not bound by the Sabbath Laws, so I'm laying a guilt trip on you or anyone else here.

What a lucky thing then that I was circumcised on the 8th day following my birth at my home, not in a hospital.

"Be careful to enter Y'shua's rest, a rest from working for salvation via mitzvoth, before we are judged."