IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
That makes absolutely no sense.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why was God's name removed from most bibles?
- Thread starter seekandfind
- Start date
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I have come across this situation a number of times while studying Torah with those who are fluent in Hebrew. Offhand, what do I remember? Psalm 119 is an acrostic poem, meaning that the lines begin with the letters of the aleph bet in order. That is completely and totally lost in any translation.
seekandfind
Member
Thats cool!
How would one know?
seekandfind
Member
Some claim Hebrew is the only way to read scripture and believe tanslations arent good so i wanted to see what they are talking about.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It's not that they aren't okay. If a person like me is not fluent in Hebrew, we depend on the translations. They are helpful. What they are NOT is as good as the original Hebrew -- something is always lost in the translation. IOW my argument is that they are inferior to the Hebrew text.
seekandfind
Member
Yes extra deep details are great to get a better sense of a situation, but as long as translations are accurate with the message that is the main thing.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Again, you cannot translate exactly. Something is always lost. You do not get the message 100% accurately in any translation.
Brian2
Veteran Member
No, He's not declaring to Himself. The Father and Son are distinct persons.
In the New Testament however the Son is shown to be YHWH in many ways. One God true, but more than one person in that God.
It is showing us that Deut 6:4 means that YHWH is a compound one.
Brian2
Veteran Member
It says "And YHWH spoke from the bush".
Was YHWH really in the bush? The passage tells me yes.
The ground was Holy because YHWH was present there.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Of course it doesn't. You're a Jew who believes there can only be one person in YHWH and that the "one" of Deut 6:4 cannot be a compound one.
So Jesus claiming to be the Son of God, making Himself equal to God, making Himself God, is blasphemy.
Brian2
Veteran Member
It does not say that any angel approached Moses. It says that a messenger appeared to Moses in a burning bush and it says that God spoke from the bush and that the ground on which Moses stood was holy.
I see it as the messenger being YHWH and that this and other passages about The Angel of the Lord appeared to people and was identified as YHWH and identified Himself as YHWH, as showing that YHWH could actually sent YHWH and iow the Father could send His Son and they both could be YHWH.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I'm saying that it makes no sense to say that the messenger of X is X. It is an irrational statement. It has nothing to do with the fact that I believe in only one God. I'm pointing out your lack of logic.
Brian2
Veteran Member
And that is fair enough and Trinitarians need to be told and realise that what they are saying does sound illogical to people who are not trinitarians, and probably even to trinitarians.
Maybe it sounds less illogical if it is put as "the messenger of the Father is the Son" and that both the Father and the Son have the same nature (which sounds like one reason Jesus was not liked by the Jewish leaders and the reason they tried to kill Him on occasion).
Some people say all manner of things.
Do you mean like relying on the LXX and, thereby, foolishly translating almah as virgin? Yes.
Thanks for the response.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But we only have translations because we don't have any originals and all languages evolve over time and Hebrew is obviously one of them.
Sometimes this discussion too much reminds me of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Jews historically and biblically are called "sons of God", but the "the" does add another element, no doubt.
However, it is possible that Jesus may have been using the concept of "essence" when referring to himself in that manner, and there's reason to believe that this is possible. So, it maybe could be looked at as Jesus saying that he is of the essence of God but not technically God.
rosends
Well-Known Member
why do you capitalize the word lord? Hebrew has no capital letters and the word there is "ladoni" ('to my master'). Genesis 24:36 has the same word in Hebrew. In your English version is the word lord capitalized there?
seekandfind
Member
The amazing thing is that throughout that God preserved the message.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Sure. Let's start with the first word of Genesis. It appears in Hebrew as בראשית (b'reisheet)
In understanding that word one needs to consider its root and all the connections that root has to other words. The center/root here is "rosh" meaning head. The word in English gives no indication of any connection to other words related to "head" because "beginning" has no etymological connection to those other words. On a deeper level, we look at the fact that the first word begins with the second letter (the "Bet") but in English "In the" starts the phrase so no understanding on that deeper level is possible. [mystically, we also find meanings in the shape of the letters and the text begins with a "bet" which has a particular shape that a "B" lacks, so that would be lost in translation].
We can then move to the second word "bara". The English for that is "created" but Hebrew has a number of words that could be translated as "created". If I can't look at the precise Hebrew word chosen (to the exclusion of others) then how can I really understand the intent of the text?
The third word is "Elo-him" which is one of many titles for God. Why was this one chosen? If I read a translation I would not understand that there are different terms for God and that they refer to different aspects. Take a look here and see the variety of terms used for "God" -- which is "right" and which clues you in to any intertextuality in the Hebrew?
Those are just some off the cuff concerns about the first 3 words.