Is Jesus God and How Not to Use Hebrew

Zsr1973 · Jul 17, 2006

I sense that instead of replying with intelligence to my above post, you'll resort to "name calling" because you cannot answer the facts I posed. I am not saying God isn't real. I'm saying know the truth of who He is instead of believing things that aren't true.

sandy whitelinger · Jul 18, 2006

Zsr1973 said:
You have thoroughly deluded yourself.

I don't have to prove that Eloheem is plural.

Well of course you won't because answering simple questions without posting more unrelated nonsense seems beyond you. It reminds me of the first tactic of avoidance, when in doubt, mumble.

Zsr1973 said:
That fact is listed in every Hebrew lexicon on the planet. You prove it isn't plural using the bible, dictionary, or anything else.

Reversing the challenge seems to be a good ploy of avoidance for you as well.

Zsr1973 said:
Regarding the tetragrammation that is falsely translated as "Jehovah", kindly check this link which leads to a Hebrew-to-English translation by an established website:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm

Go to Genesis chapter 2:8 and look at the second full Hebrew word and you will find Yod Heh Waw Heh in the Hebrew. It has been called "Yahweh" symbolizing "Good & Bad" but that is a Babylonian interpretation of the tetragrammation.

You may mock the facts as I reveal it to you, but there will be others who do the research and see that my words are true.

When Moses met God, God told him "I am that I am". "I am" in Hebrew is the same in Arabic "Anee" or "Ani" (Hebrew and Arabic are both rooted in the Accadian language). The equivalent deity in Sumerian culture is "Anu" and this is who Abraham would have known as God. (Check the Enuma Elish, one of the scriptures Abraham would have known as a Sumerian or "one of Shinar") However, it all comes from Egypt, and one of the major religious centers of that time was "Anu" in Egypt (called Heliopolis by the Greeks). It is not a coincidence.
So Moses returned saying "He who is" gave him the tablets which would translate as "Hu" which is still the hebrew word for "he". The Arabic equivalent is "Huwa". This is a singular pronoun describing one individual male deity and the name given was "Ya" meaning Oh and "Hu" (Huwa) meaning "he who is". So when you see the name "jehovah" you are seeing the name Moses brought back from the mount, "Oh he who is". The fact is that there was no J, V, O or E in the ancient hebrew language, so at the least it would have been pronounced Ya Hu Wa. Check the Wikpedia link below as to that fact.
Do the research.

The word "Hu" as a deity did not originate with the Hebrews, they learned it in Egypt as well. "Hu" represents the creative force of will in Egyptian spiritualism, the same spiritualism that Moses was raised in. Look it up.

Notice genesis 2:4 where it says "these are the generations of heaven and earth..". What are the generations that came from heaven? You don't know, and you can't possibly know in the English translation. The answer is in genesis 6:2 where "sons" of God came down to earth taking human wives. The Eloheem are beings like us, they have sex (Gen 6:2), they eat (Gen 18:1-8), they talk (Gen 3:8) yet you have no knowledge of them..

You sure have a nice way of twisting and meandering. Perhaps sticking to one simple and clear line of thought would help tremendously. For example getting back to Elohim being a plural noun used to describe a singular you may want to start here:

http://www.wcg.org/lit/God/elohimp.htm

Zsr1973 said:
You are the one who has no facts or research, and I am wasting my time and knowledge talking to you. You really don't want the truth, you want beliefs.

Your a funny guy. Third tactic of avoidance, accuse the other person of what you are guilty of.

angellous_evangellous · Jul 18, 2006

http://www.wcg.org/lit/God/elohimp.htm

Why start with a source that only makes dogmatic statements about Hebrew while offering no proof?

The mighty wiki actually has a decent article on it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

Zsr1973 · Jul 18, 2006

sandy whitelinger said:
Well of course you won't because answering simple questions without posting more unrelated nonsense seems beyond you. It reminds me of the first tactic of avoidance, when in doubt, mumble.

Reversing the challenge seems to be a good ploy of avoidance for you as well.

You sure have a nice way of twisting and meandering. Perhaps sticking to one simple and clear line of thought would help tremendously. For example getting back to Elohim being a plural noun used to describe a singular you may want to start here:

http://www.wcg.org/lit/God/elohimp.htm

Your a funny guy. Third tactic of avoidance, accuse the other person of what you are guilty of.

I ended each statement with "check it out". Obviously you didn't.

However, I will play your game. Here is a sample of a real site using facts to explain the origin of the word Eloheem.

http://www.plim.org/1Allah.html

You cannot see the truth because you are locked into a religion based on belief, not facts. Those like you formulate opinions and choose only to see what agrees with your belief. I have been there. Accepting the truth for what it is instead of trying to shape it through beliefs is much more gratifying. Jesus stood for truth and faith in true things, not beliefs.

The problem is that you have too many concepts rolled into one with the bad translation of the bible. You cannot tell the difference between when it is speaking of the Most High God (Elyon El), His beings (Eloheem), or any of His beings individually doing His will (Adonai, Eloh, Eloah) or specifically Yahuwa. Both Adonai & Eloheem are used in the bible interchangably for humans or "God".

If you were formulating any real type of debate, you would point out that the bible specifically points out the difference when God is fully capitalized (GOD), partially capitalized (God), or not capitalized (god or gods). [Also "Lord" or "lord"]. This is how they try to create a sense that there is a difference between Eloheem as a plural (used for deities or physical beings) or a singular (used for "God"). I would counter by stating the fact that there was no capitalization in ancient Aramic nor Hebrew. I can show you verse by verse if you wish.

You claim I have avoided, yet it is you who has avoided. I have stated my case and refuted yours with evidence. If you think I am avoiding, pick any of my writing, prove it wrong (with facts), and the board will see that you are right.

Zsr1973 · Jul 18, 2006

angellous_evangellous said:
Why start with a source that only makes dogmatic statements about Hebrew while offering no proof?

The mighty wiki actually has a decent article on it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

I read it, it was a good article. Consider that even in English "man" can be used to denote "a man" or "people as a whole". However, the intented use of the singular form is to denote "one man from amongst all men (people)". A like form from a group of like forms. An Eloh or Eloah or Yahuwa (Jehovah) from amongst the Eloheem doing the physical things which God the Father has assigned him to do. These are all just titles.

In my post, that is the way I was saying Eloheem was being used. The term Elyon El is the Hebrew name that specifically speaks about "the Most High" (as in God the Father) only.

This is the one true God whom Melchizedek introduced to Abraham. And we know that Melchizedek is quite poweful, because even Jesus (in the book of Hebrews) was admitted into his fraternal order, just as Abraham.

wmam · Jul 19, 2006

sandy whitelinger said:
You said this, "I agree with all that you have stated in the last two post here..." in post #64 in response to Zsr1973. In one of those posts he said that the translation in Gen 2:8 that The Lord God refers to "Yahuwa specifies a specific deity from amongst a group of angelic beings, called Eloheem 'these deities." That puts you in a distinct minority. Perhaps I assumed you we agreeing with his statements when he said that the "correct" translation was "Yahuwa of the Eloheem."

I recall stating that I didn't, however agree with his view on the name of the Most High. Maybe you should go and reread my remarks to him a little more carefully.

sandy whitelinger said:
Is that a translation?

Yes. to those of us who understand as such.

sandy whitelinger said:
Of course you did you claimed to be better than me. Not high aspirations on your part considering your opinion of my sottish statements.

No, I didn't say that I was any better than you but you seem to take that feeling when you use such sottish statements to attack others with their beliefs. In that I am innocent. You may disagree but I will sleep just fine tonight.

sandy whitelinger said:
In logic that is what is known as a Relativist Fallacy.

Logic? LOLOLOLOLOL.......Is that what we call this? LOLOLOLOLOLOL..... Live long and prosper? LOLOLOLOLOL..... Pointed ears and all. Stop it please............. your killing me................Man I haven't laughed like that in a long time.............Thanks.

sandy whitelinger · Jul 20, 2006

Zsr1973 said:
I ended each statement with "check it out". Obviously you didn't.

I'll not engage a fool in his folly but according to his folly so consider this. The Old Testament was written by Hebrews describing a Hebrew God. For the last 4,000 years it is a basic tenet of Judaism that the Lord is one God. You however have found that those who wrote about their God and have described Him in a specific way wrote about and described him incorrectly. That, sir, is utter foolishness.

Zsr1973 said:
You claim I have avoided, yet it is you who has avoided. I have stated my case and refuted yours with evidence.

And I have found that your evidence is, well, full of crap. You respond to the error of your ways with, well, more crap and refuse to recognize it as crap, ergo I'll not engage you in your folly. You remain obstinately ignorant.

angellous_evangellous · Jul 20, 2006

sandy whitelinger said:
You remain obstinately ignorant.

sandy whitelinger · Jul 20, 2006

wmam said:
I recall stating that I didn't, however agree with his view on the name of the Most High. Maybe you should go and reread my remarks to him a little more carefully.

I may have assumed that you were referring to the use of the word "Yahuwa" in place of Jehovah rather than the whole term he used. My bad. Otherwise the translation he offered was pretty much the same as any.

wmam said:
Logic? LOLOLOLOLOL.......Is that what we call this? LOLOLOLOLOLOL..... Live long and prosper? LOLOLOLOLOL..... Pointed ears and all. Stop it please............. your killing me................Man I haven't laughed like that in a long time.............Thanks.

Yes, I thought your logic was laughable as well.

wmam · Jul 20, 2006

sandy whitelinger said:
I may have assumed that you were referring to the use of the word "Yahuwa" in place of Jehovah rather than the whole term he used. My bad. Otherwise the translation he offered was pretty much the same as any.

Yes, I thought your logic was laughable as well.

Well see I disagree with that of jehovah as well but what the hay? I agree that mans logic is very laughable. I do my best to stick with that of the Creators.

Zsr1973 · Jul 21, 2006

Once again sandy, you are wrong. the OT says that Yahuwa (Jehovah) is one. No where does it say that the Eloheem themselves are only one being. that is, unless you are refering to them as one group of whom one from amongst them may be spoken of at any one time. Such as the group of three who visited Abraham in the flesh, and one of them he considered "the Lord".

Let me try this in layman's terms. The "Mets" is a team of people (as the group of "Eloheem" is a team of angelic beings). However, Carlos Delgado is "a Met" (an individual Eloheem such as Gabriel). That doesn't mean the Mets over all is only one person. It means that at the time, he may be the individual Met who has presented himself. The owner, Fred Wilpon, is "the highest" in rank, but he does not go on the field (a "Most High" type). He sends his "Mets" to the field to do the work, but they all ultimately answer to him and he controls their overall destiny. As for the ones on the field (what the "earth" would be to an Eloheem), one from amongst them, the coach willie randolph, is the one Met on the field who is in the position of responsibility for the game (This is the "Yahuwa" (Jehovah) type).

the problem people are having is that there WAS an individual Eloheem (or THEHOS in Greek) who was given responsibility over us as Adamites and that was Jesus, who always defered to God in Heaven. Nowhere did he ever say He was God except in John where he says we are all Gods which is Thehos, and he refers to the verse in Psalms where it says we are all Eloheem, not merely men.

Regarding the Hebrews, there is no evidence anywhere in the world that any individual Hebrew from the entire Torah ever existed. However there is evidence that the Egyptian pharoah did exist, and he didn't talk about any Hebrews in his records. So most religious believers don't really know exactly who they are talking about.

There is only one Most High. However, he has under him a group of many who do his will. The concept is above your head it seems. And if you can't dispute "a fool" such as me with facts, then you have nothing. Even though you have been rude, I tried to show you nothing but respect as well as respect your beliefs. The truth is you are not on my level of integrity. Speak of me however you like, but truth will remain truth.

sandy whitelinger · Jul 22, 2006

Zsr1973 said:
Once again sandy, you are wrong. the OT says that Yahuwa (Jehovah) is one. No where does it say that the Eloheem themselves are only one being. that is, unless you are refering to them as one group of whom one from amongst them may be spoken of at any one time. Such as the group of three who visited Abraham in the flesh, and one of them he considered "the Lord".

Let me try this in layman's terms. The "Mets" is a team of people (as the group of "Eloheem" is a team of angelic beings). However, Carlos Delgado is "a Met" (an individual Eloheem such as Gabriel). That doesn't mean the Mets over all is only one person. It means that at the time, he may be the individual Met who has presented himself. The owner, Fred Wilpon, is "the highest" in rank, but he does not go on the field (a "Most High" type). He sends his "Mets" to the field to do the work, but they all ultimately answer to him and he controls their overall destiny. As for the ones on the field (what the "earth" would be to an Eloheem), one from amongst them, the coach willie randolph, is the one Met on the field who is in the position of responsibility for the game (This is the "Yahuwa" (Jehovah) type).

the problem you are having is that there WAS an individual Eloheem (or THEHOS in Greek) who was given responsibility over us as Adamites and that was Jesus, who always defered to God in Heaven. Nowhere did he ever say He was God except in John where he says we are all Gods which is Thehos, and he refers to the verse in Psalms where it says we are all Eloheem, not merely men.

Regarding the Hebrews, there is no evidence anywhere in the world that any individual Hebrew from the entire Torah ever existed. However there is evidence that the Egyptian pharoah did exist, and he didn't talk about any Hebrews in his records. So you don't even know who you are talking about.

There is only one Most High. However, he has under him a group of many who do his will. The concept is above your head it seems. And if you can't dispute "a fool" such as me with facts, then you have nothing. Even though you have been rude, I tried to show you nothing but respect as well as respect your beliefs. The truth is you are not on my level of integrity. Speak of me however you like, but truth will remain truth.

See, I knew there was baseball in the Bible.

Eve stole first, Adam stole second,
St. Peter umpired (empired) the game,
Rebecca went to the well with the pitcher,
Ruth in the field won fame.

Goliath was struck out by David,
And a base hit made on Abel by Cain,
The prodigal son made one home run,
Brother Noah gave out checks for the rain.

Actually thought I believe God's team would be the.....Angels.

angellous_evangellous · Jul 22, 2006

sandy whitelinger said:
See, I knew there was baseball in the Bible.

Eve stole first, Adam stole second,
St. Peter umpired (empired) the game,
Rebecca went to the well with the pitcher,
Ruth in the field won fame.

Goliath was struck out by David,
And a base hit made on Abel by Cain,
The prodigal son made one home run,
Brother Noah gave out checks for the rain.

Actually thought I believe God's team would be the.....Angels.

It may be unfair to call this a red herring.

It could have been unintentional.

Zsr1973 · Jul 23, 2006

sandy whitelinger said:
See, I knew there was baseball in the Bible.

Eve stole first, Adam stole second,
St. Peter umpired (empired) the game,
Rebecca went to the well with the pitcher,
Ruth in the field won fame.

Goliath was struck out by David,
And a base hit made on Abel by Cain,
The prodigal son made one home run,
Brother Noah gave out checks for the rain.

Actually thought I believe God's team would be the.....Angels.

Lol! Perhaps we are finally seeing eye to eye.

DTrent · Oct 25, 2006

Jay said:
Present it.

Doesn't post #47 help in ANY way??

may · Nov 1, 2006

The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord

"To my Lord (Master)." Heb., lA·dho·ni´.

is:
"Sit at my right hand

Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet." psalm 110 ;1 looking for a good translation that aims to get back to the original words of God,here it is online .
Read the Bible Online

angellous_evangellous · Nov 1, 2006

Zsr1973 said:
Once again sandy, you are wrong.

............

wmam · Nov 22, 2006

may said:
The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord

"To my Lord (Master)." Heb., lA·dho·ni´.

is:

"Sit at my right hand
Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet." psalm 110 ;1 looking for a good translation that aims to get back to the original words of God,here it is online .
Read the Bible Online

Can you explain why in ........

Psa 110:1 A Psalm4210 of David.1732 The LORD3068 said5002 unto my Lord,113 Sit3427 thou at my right hand,3225 until5704 I make7896 thine enemies341 thy footstool.1916, 7272

That "Lord" as in Strongs "113" is spelled as ........

H113
אדן אדון
'âdôn 'âdôn
aw-done', aw-done'
From an unused root (meaning to rule); sovereign, that is, controller (human or divine): - lord, master, owner. Compare also names beginning with Adoni-.

And "Lord" in ............

Psa 110:5 The Lord136 at5921 thy right hand3225 shall strike through4272 kings4428 in the day3117 of his wrath.639

As "136" is spelled as ............

H136
אדני
'ădônây
ad-o-noy'
An emphatic form of H113; the Lord (used as a proper name of God only): - (my) Lord.

But in the Hebrew OT they are as .......

לאדני113
אדני136

Which to me look the same with exception for the "Lamed" at the begining of Strongs rendering of "113".

Any insight?

Is Jesus God and How Not to Use Hebrew

Zsr1973

Member

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Zsr1973

Member

Zsr1973

Member

wmam

Active Member

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member

angellous_evangellous

Guest

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member

wmam

Active Member

Zsr1973

Member

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Zsr1973

Member

DTrent

Member

may

Well-Known Member

angellous_evangellous

Guest

wmam

Active Member