El Shaddai

[firedragon]

Ok, I see the screenshot, I don't have that version. I have the artscroll JT. I'd like to see if they associate E-l with Chesed. And I need the folio for that.

But if possible, can we step back and agree that Chesed is kindness. If so, then I'm sure I can find sources that back E-l is Chesed (kindness) and E-lohim is Gevurah (might).

To be honest, I think this confusion all stems from the similarity in pronunciation of the divine name E-l. The divine names E-l S-haddai and E-lohim do not start with the same name. It's a common misconception. The vowels are different. But people who don't study the Hebrew in these names look at them in english and think the E-l in E-l S-haddai and the E-l in E-lohim are the same. But they're not.

Nope. The confusion is in not doing the research prior to making confident statements and negating what others say.

 

[dybmh]

Nope. The confusion is in not doing the research prior to making confident statements and negating what others say.

Wow.

Ok.

For anyone else interested, here's a source showing El as Kindness and E-lohim as Might. They are functional opposites.

NAMES AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE SEPHIROT

"

1. Chesed (Primary meaning: Mercy. Also known as: Grace, Love of God, right arm of God, white, EL, associated with Abraham)
2. Gevurah (Also called "Din" - Primary meaning: Judgment. Also known as: Strength, Severity, Fear of God, left arm of God, red, ELOHIM, YAH, associated with Isaac)

"

@firedragon , I brought a source, please be a gentleman and provide the folio of the JT and BT references so I can review them. Thank you.

 

[firedragon]

Bro, come on. That's a rude assumption. I have read a lot on this subject matter.

Okay. If that is rude, I apologise. But mate, you are saying no to some basic things. I am not a Hebrew speaking person and neither have I studied the language. But the meaning of El is pretty basic stuff in my opinion because it is repeatedly mentioned even in New Testament studies which has nothing to do with Hebrew and even in Arabic, Islamic studies. Its pretty common.

I suggest that if you are well read on the subject or not that you dont simply say no and when proven wrong just accept with humility.

You show me scholarship and prove me wrong mate and of course I will humbly accept my error. The thing is I didnt make any scholarly assessment about Hebrew because I dont have that expertise. All I did was read a book and cite you sources.

Thats that. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon , I brought a source, please be a gentleman and provide the folio of the JT and BT references so I can review them. Thank you.

Sure. Sanhedrin.

1. Folio 66a, in the English translation its comment 28
2. Folio 56b. Comment 12

Also the image I gave you is a snapshot of the Jerusalem talmud Neziqin the Sanhedrin chapter 7 by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer Page 254.

 

[dybmh]

Jerusalem talmud Neziqin the Sanhedrin chapter 7 by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer Page 254.

Apologies for the repeated question, does this have a folio?

the meaning of El is pretty basic stuff

It may seem basic... But it's not.

it is repeatedly mentioned even in New Testament studies which has nothing to do with Hebrew and even in Arabic, Islamic studies. Its pretty common.

... nothing to do with Hebrew? Well it would be Aramaic, technically... But besides that, seeing the original word choice is super important in this subject matter. As an example, did you know that depending on the point of view (where a person is at on the ladder) Chesed becomes Gedolah? Chesed is Kindness, Gedolah is "Greatness" feminine. This would explain the confusion why your soucre chose the english word "might" instead of kindness. Might is an OK translation of Gedolah, but I personally think that Greatness-feminine is better, more descriptive and then it doesn't get confused with E-lohim (might). This is why i want to see the entire passages myself.

If you don't mind, why is it so important in Christianity or Islam that E-l is singular of E-lohim and is "mighty". Is there something important in the Theology that hinges on this one point?

You show me scholarship and prove me wrong mate and of course I will humbly accept my error. The thing is I didnt make any scholarly assessment about Hebrew because I dont have that expertise. All I did was read a book and cite you sources.

I have at least one book that discusses it. At this point, though, it sounds like these notions of E-l and of E-lohim are deeply entrenched in Islam and Christianity. And I'm not sure that my books would rise to the level of scholarship for you. However, I may be able to search the Talmud for Chesed and E-l and see what results.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Also the image I gave you is a snapshot of the Jerusalem talmud Neziqin the Sanhedrin chapter 7 by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer Page 254.

Gently, mate, I'm not carrying weapons.
You're communicating just fine, but--from my perspective--your attempt to communicate is with folks who don't describe the toys in their sandbox the same way that those of us who might play with the same toys in different sandboxes do.
If you give me some time, I think I may be able to translate your description for the other kids.

 

[firedragon]

Apologies for the repeated question, does this have a folio?

Brother. This is commentary. There is no folio for commentary and I am sure you know this. Anyway this chapter seven, Halakah 10 commentary.

nothing to do with Hebrew? Well it would be Aramaic, technically

Nope. New Testament studies are on Koine Greek. Not Aramaic, nor is it Hebrew.

If you don't mind, why is it so important in Christianity or Islam that E-l is singular of E-lohim and is "mighty". Is there something important in the Theology that hinges on this one point?

Who said "its so important"? I didnt say "its that important". I just said its discussed and is nothing new.

This is going nowhere brother so I respectfully withdraw from this discussion. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Gently, mate, I'm not carrying weapons.
You're communicating just fine, but--from my perspective--your attempt to communicate is with folks who don't describe the toys in their sandbox the same way that those of us who might play with the same toys in different sandboxes do.
If you give me some time, I think I may be able to translate your description for the other kids.

Terry. What could one do when asked for sources? I dont give internet links to some apologetic website. Like you, I also like to provide primary sources and scholarly sources to what I claim even if it's a very sophomore matter.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Terry. What could one do when asked for sources?

Believe me, I really do understand. As a "Source" afficionado, I appreciate their value and usefulness in discussions and I like them a lot.
Like I said, give me a chance (20-30 minutes, maybe) and I'll see what I can do to facilitate communication.

 

[firedragon]

Believe me, I really do understand. As a "Source" afficionado, I appreciate their value and usefulness in discussions and I like them a lot.
Like I said, give me a chance (20-30 minutes, maybe) and I'll see what I can do to facilitate communication. [Just be glad, the other kids aren't demanding that you use Masoretic Text Hebrew to talk with them.]

Mate. Im telling you that your humour sometimes is too sophisticated to understand. I have always noticed it. One has to ponder over your sentences for some time before thinking "I understand". There are some people who think so fast that others take time to catchup.

 

[dybmh]

Brother. This is commentary. There is no folio for commentary and I am sure you know this. Anyway this chapter seven, Halakah 10 commentary.

OK. Chapter seven... hopefully I can find it using that.

Nope. New Testament studies are on Koine Greek. Not Aramaic, nor is it Hebrew.

I'm talking about the Talmud references. Maybe just forget about that for now. BTW, if the NT disagrees, that's fine with me.

This is going nowhere brother so I respectfully withdraw from this discussion. Cheers.

To the contrary, it's going great. I've demonstrated knowledge of this subject matter, hopefully gained some credibilty.

And...

Here's another more scholarly source showing that E-l is compassion/kindness and E-lohim is might/strict justice.

From the English translation of Sha'are Orah (Gates of Light) by Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla written in the late 1200s. Page 209:

"E-l, which is the attribute of compassion... there is much mercy there"
"E-lohim is called Judgement ... there are many kinds of punishment within it, there is mercy in it also."

Please recall that I said these were functional opposites; that E-l was kindness, and E-lohim was might.

This is important because it answers the question in the OP. Why is E-l S-haddai translated as All-mighty? Because having both divine kindness and divine might is... **ALL-Mighty**. Having Might without Mercy is not all mighty, it's just a closed fist that never opens. Having both attributes is much much mightier than might alone. Forget about the commentary, forget about the sources, just think about it. We're talking about G-d. Doesn't it make sense in a simple way: Might+Mercy=All Mighty, and Might+Might != All-Mighty?

 

[firedragon]

OK. Chapter seven... hopefully I can find it using that.

I'm talking about the Talmud references. Maybe just forget about that for now. BTW, if the NT disagrees, that's fine with me.

To the contrary, it's going great. I've demonstrated knowledge of this subject matter, hopefully gained some credibilty.

And...

Here's another more scholarly source showing that E-l is compassion/kindness and E-lohim is might/strict justice.

From the English translation of Sha'are Orah (Gates of Light) by Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla written in the late 1200s. Page 209:

View attachment 42768

"E-l, which is the attribute of compassion... there is much mercy there"
"E-lohim is called Judgement ... there are many kinds of punishment within it, there is mercy in it also."

Please recall that I said these were functional opposites; that E-l was kindness, and E-lohim was might.

This is important because it answers the question in the OP. Why is E-l S-haddai translated as All-mighty? Because having both divine kindness and divine might is... **ALL-Mighty**. Having Might without Mercy is not all mighty, it's just a closed fist that never opens. Having both attributes is much much mightier than might alone. Forget about the commentary, forget about the sources, just think about it. We're talking about G-d. Doesn't it make sense in a simple way: Might+Mercy=All Mighty, and Might+Might != All-Mighty?

You are quoting representation as root meanings. I am quoting root meaning from Jewish sources. So its two different paths.

Ciao.

 

[dybmh]

You are quoting representation as root meanings. I am quoting root meaning from Jewish sources. So its two different paths.

Ciao.

Come on, what happened to the apology If I brought a scholarly source?

 

[firedragon]

Come on, what happened to the apology If I brought a scholarly source?

Yes yes. Please apologise.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Mate. Im telling you that your humour sometimes is too sophisticated

Actually, ... it's cheap humor (at least in this case), but disguised well enough to avoid getting a warning from the gods.

Here ya' go: more Yerushalmi than some folks need. And as your previous images clearly show, Footnote 213 says just what you said it says. The problem is that you're quoting a footnote, and one written in English, no less. It's good enough for me, ... but the other kids in the sandbox are probably going to kick sand all over it.

 

[firedragon]

Actually, ... it's cheap humor (at least in this case), but disguised well enough to avoid getting a warning from the gods.

Here ya' go: more Yerushalmi than some folks need. And as your previous images clearly show, Footnote 213 says just what you said it says. The problem is that you're quoting a footnote, and one written in English, no less. It's good enough for me, ... but the other kids in the sandbox are probably going to kick sand all over it.
View attachment 42769 View attachment 42770 View attachment 42771

Hey. this is the exact page and book I quoted earlier.

Where in the world do you find these digital copies brother? I find it really a reason for jealousy. Anyway, you found the source. This is the same page Ive been quoting over and over and over and over again like a prayer some people repeat for divine benefit.

El means power or might. Elohim is its plural. Said very clearly on page 254 of the same book you have now given above.

Well, I must say good work and that I am kind of jealous that you find all of these scholarly sources and some digital copies as well.

 

[dybmh]

Folio 66a, in the English translation its comment 28

Correction, it's in your english translation, not the English translation. The Koren Talmud says nothing of the sort. If you read the entire discussion, they are discussing circumstances when "elohim" is not considered a sacred name. So 66a is irrelevant to your claim.

Folio 56b. Comment 12

Same thing here, it's irrelevant. They are giving another example of when "elohim", lower-case, refers to judges.

You are quoting representation as root meanings. I am quoting root meaning from Jewish sources.

Nope. We are discussing divine names of G-d from Tanach. I brought a relevant source that precisely defines both E-l and E-lohim as Mercy and Strict Justice. You brought a foot note, someone's commentary, of the Talmud where the text in question diminishes the name "elohim" into something non-divine. ( Which refutes your claim, btw )

My sources are on message, yours are a stretch... at best.

 

[firedragon]

Correction, it's in your english translation. The Koren Talmud says nothing of the sort. If you read the entire discussion, they are discussing circumstances when "elohim" is not considered a sacred name. So 66a is irrelevant.

Same thing here, it's irrelevant. They are giving another example of when "elohim" lower-case refers to judges.

Nope. We are discussing divine names of G-d from Tanach. I brought a relevant source that precisely defines both E-l and E-lohim as Mercy and Strict Justice. You brought a foot note, someone's commentary of the Talmud. My sources are on message, yours are a stretch.

Nope. I am only discussing the meaning of the word El. Maybe you wish to discuss something else and I am not interested. This whole discussion arose because you said "NO. EL DOES NOT MEAN POWER OR MIGHT".

You were wrong. So that's that brother. Now you are trying to split a few hairs and build a straw man argument about what the Talmud says when I have clearly given you the reference and said very clearly its the "commentary". What ever the topic of discussion in the references I gave, its directly saying what EL and ELOHIM means. Thats the whole point.

Ciao.

 

[dybmh]

Nope. I am only discussing the meaning of the word El.

Your sources are not discussing that name, they are discussing "elohim" as "judges" not the name of G-d. Your sources are irrelevant. The footnote is weak evidence because, as I pointed out, it could be several different words in the original text.

Maybe you wish to discuss something else and I am not interested.

I am reading your sources, and I am telling you they do not support your claims about E-l. E-l is not mentioned in The Babylonian Talmud 66a or 56b. They are talking about the word "elohim".

You were wrong. So that's that brother. Now you are trying to split a few hairs and build a straw man argument about what the Talmud says when I have clearly given you the reference and said very clearly its the "commentary". What ever the topic of discussion in the references I gave, its directly saying what EL and ELOHIM means. Thats the whole point.

Fine, whatevs

 

[firedragon]

Your sources are not discussing that name, they are discussing "elohim" as "judges" not the name of G-d. Your sources are irrelevant. The footnote is weak evidence because, as I pointed out, it could be several different words in the original text.

I am reading your sources, and I am telling you they do not support your claims about E-l. E-l is not mentioned in The Babylonian Talmud 66a or 56b. They are talking about the word "elohim".

Fine, whatevs

Nice. Cheers.