• 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!

All 3 Abrahamic Religions Have It Wrong Based on the Tanakh

rosends

Well-Known Member
Used the word 'this' as to be item specific with את־עון as it points at the entity being referenced; thus the stone is being referenced as having the iniquity upon it.

The whole World is cleansed of the iniquity in a Day Isaiah 24, Isaiah 34, etc.

In my opinion.
:innocent:
OK. If the text wanted to say that, it would have included the word "hazeh" (this). The way you stated your translation it presented itself a loyal to the precise wording to the text so I was just clarifying that a precise translation would not include "this" when the text didn't.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
If the text wanted to say that, it would have included the word "hazeh" (this).
It is identifying the entity being defined in the contexts of the passage, thus the correct word could've been את־ depending on how we understand the context; we just don't have a clear way to translate it, so it is just missed out.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
It is identifying the entity being defined in the contexts of the passage, thus the correct word could've been את־ depending on how we understand the context; we just don't have a clear way to translate it, so it is just missed out.

In my opinion. :innocent:
So you are saying that the Hebrew word את means "this"?
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
So you are saying that the Hebrew word את means "this"?
It is identifying the entity being defined in the contexts of the passage
Therefore to be item specific, we should translate a sentence to include that item is being specified, if that is what was implied...

If in this context, 'this' is the easiest word to declare that contexts; personally would see that in the translation as I'm reading it...

Can you think of a better word to tie the context of the iniquity, and the entity previously used in the passage? o_O

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Therefore to be item specific, we should translate a sentence to include that item is being specified, if that is what was implied...

If in this context, 'this' is the easiest word to declare that contexts; personally would see that in the translation as I'm reading it...

Can you think of a better word to tie the context of the iniquity, and the entity previously used in the passage? o_O

In my opinion. :innocent:
Because there is a lack of both a prefix definite article in front of the noun, and a lack of a pronoun ("this") I would shy away from the choice of "iniquity" as the translation of Avon. When you start with a desired translation, you find things that aren't there and claim context to justify the insertion of what is missing. If you start with a word's translation which is called forth by the other words, then you might end up with a different word but with one that needs less interpolation and insertion.

So if I look at the phrase "et avon ha'aretz hahi" I see nothing demanding "avon" be an iniquity in specific, so I look for other definitions of avon that justify the precise wording and end up with the idea of a larger and general guilt. Hence the translation "and I will remove that country’s guilt in a single day." as per the NJPS on sefaria.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
The point is Yeshua is the Lord (YHVH), and the Lord is the Son of the God Most High (Psalms 89:6, Psalms 29:1).

Yeshua said the Jews two thousand years ago did not know his father (Matthew 11:27), and most people don't today; Yeshua's father is El Elyon (Luke 1:32).

The Gospel of John has a different theological structure, and thus muddies the water in terms of what was stated.

Multiple things:
  • Christians think Yeshua is the son of YHVH.
  • Muslims think Yeshua is not the son of Allah (God Most High).
  • Jews think Yeshua isn't throughout the Tanakh.

In my opinion. :innocent:

Confused! Christians think Yeshua is the son of YHVH = Yeshua is the Lord (YHVH), and the Lord is the Son of the God Most High
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Confused! Christians
That is why Revelation reiterated the First temple period's theological structure; as Judaism since the Babylonian Exile no longer accepts what exists:
  1. God Almighty = El Shaddai, El Elyon (God Most High)... a.k.a Allah.
  2. Lamb = spirit of prophecy, and Lord of Lords, King of Kings = YHVH/Yeshua Elohim.
  3. 24 Elders = Divine Council of Elohim (Arch Angels).
It is understandable everyone is confused, they've translated the words H433 Eloh and H410 El to be the same thing; when El is the Source of Reality (CPU), and Eloh is a Divine Being, Elohim (H430) is plural, thus generally it is referring to the Arch-Angels who created reality.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 
Top