Genesis 1:26

[dybmh]

That is the Stone translation

( The Chabad website uses Judaica Press, fyi )

 

[IndigoChild5559]

ooops

 

[IndigoChild5559]

( The Chabad website uses Judaica Press, fyi )

Does it? My error. I found the website while googling for the Stone Tanakh.

 

[dybmh]

I see the Chabad translation of Psalm 110:1 which just is off the beam. Sorry.

Psalm 110:1 is completely off center when it comes to proper translation at chabad.org. I'm a bit taken aback at the improper translation, surprised if you will, nevertheless that's the way it is.

I just checked the JW version. Are you prepared to defend the translation choice of "in the manner of" from the words "al-divrati"? ( verse 4 ). That's not a literally correct translation. It literally means "by decree" or "by the word" of Malchi-tzedek. I know that Paul tries to do some bizarre gymnastics to make this fit Jesus, but, one really can't complain about any translation of this Psalm since the JW translation is taking liberties on the translation choice too. Ya know, that would be hypocritical, and such.

Jesus was never decreed / ordained to be a priest by malchi-tzedek. That's just the truth.

ETA: wowsers, looks like the JW translation takes liberties translating Hebrews 5:6 too...

 

[dybmh]

Does it? My error. I found the website while googling for the Stone Tanakh.

Yeah, if you scroll down it's listed in the fine print. It's not a biggie, just thought you should know.

 

[YoursTrue]

I just checked the JW version. Are you prepared to defend the translation choice of "in the manner of" from the words "al-divrati"? ( verse 4). That's not a literally correct translation. It literally means "by decree" or "by the word" of Malchi-tzedek. I know that Paul tries to do some bizarre gymnastics to make this fit Jesus, but, one really can't complain about the translation choice on the Chabad website. Jesus was never decreed / ordained to be a priest by malchi-tzedek. That's just the truth.

No, right now I'm not prepared to defend the WT translation. On the other hand, the chabad.org is shockingly off. We're (at least I am) not speaking of literally correct translations, but as I said, I checked Psalm 110:1 on chabad.org thinking it would be reasonable, unfortunately it is not. I might look into it later when I have more time. But really -- elohim is the way El (God) was derived by the Jews in reference to God as in the plural significance, as I am seeing, angels are also called elohim, as they not? According to what I am reading. However, while I have had conversations with those who believe that God is a trinity, nothing suggests to me that He is a compendium of three equal gods. I guess this is where a separation of alliance and thinking comes about.

 

[rosends]

Psalm 110:1 is completely off center when it comes to proper translation at chabad.org. I'm a bit taken aback at the improper translation, surprised if you will, nevertheless that's the way it is.

I don't recall citing that so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up to me. Though I'm not aware of your bona fides as a translator so your disapproval is not really persuasive.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yeah, if you scroll down it's listed in the fine print. It's not a biggie, just thought you should know.

thanks for the heads up

 

[YoursTrue]

I just checked the JW version. Are you prepared to defend the translation choice of "in the manner of" from the words "al-divrati"? ( verse 4 ). That's not a literally correct translation. It literally means "by decree" or "by the word" of Malchi-tzedek. I know that Paul tries to do some bizarre gymnastics to make this fit Jesus, but, one really can't complain about any translation of this Psalm since the JW translation is taking liberties on the translation choice too. Ya know, that would be hypocritical, and such.

Jesus was never decreed / ordained to be a priest by malchi-tzedek. That's just the truth.

ETA: wowsers, looks like the JW translation takes liberties translating Hebrews 5:6 too...

Definitely I was shocked at the chabad.org translation wondering about a Jewish translation. I realize the tradition of substituting words like Lord and G-d for Elohim or YHWH. Of course Maimonides was helpful in explaining about elohim. I am glad you are interested in the Bible but while Elohim refers to the majesty of the God of israel (among other things), there is no doubt in my mind that David was writing about someone over himself at Psalm 110:1. And what a wonderful promise that was.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't recall citing that so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up to me. Though I'm not aware of your bona fides as a translator so your disapproval is not really persuasive.

I can read some words in Hebrew -- not a lot, but all you have to do is look it up. What a beautiful psalm David wrote there at Psalm 110.

 

[rosends]

I can read some words in Hebrew -- not a lot, but all you have to do is look it up. What a beautiful psalm David wrote there at Psalm 110.

I have looked it up and I can read and understand a whole lot of Hebrew so I'm not sure why your take on the meaning of the words is helpful.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Definitely I was shocked at the chabad.org translation wondering about a Jewish translation. I realize the tradition of substituting words like Lord and G-d for Elohim or YHWH. Of course Maimonides was helpful in explaining about elohim. I am glad you are interested in the Bible but while Elohim refers to the majesty of the God of israel (among other things), there is no doubt in my mind that David was writing about someone over himself at Psalm 110:1. And what a wonderful promise that was.

Again, Elohim is used for many things, from pagan gods, to God, to humans judges and angels.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't recall citing that so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up to me. Though I'm not aware of your bona fides as a translator so your disapproval is not really persuasive.

We were talking about responsibility in translation and elohim. And Lord. And LORD. etc. So yes, while there is only one TRUE God, others can be referred to reasonably according to the scriptures as gods. Nothing tells me so far that God (Elohim) is a unique plurality of three gods in one, commonly called the trinity.

 

[dybmh]

No, right now I'm not prepared to defend the WT translation. On the other hand, the chabad.org is shockingly off. We're (at least I am) not speaking of literally correct translations, but as I said, I checked Psalm 110:1 on chabad.org thinking it would be reasonable, unfortunately it is not. I might look into it later when I have more time.

Well, what do you see that's unreasonable?

But really -- elohim is the way El (God) was derived by the Jews in reference to God as in the plural significance,

Most common, elohim is plural when referencing other gods ( aka idols ).

Exodus 18:11, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 32:1, Exodus 32:23 ...

as I am seeing, angels are also called elohim, as they not?

Very very rarely.

 

[dybmh]

Definitely I was shocked at the chabad.org translation wondering about a Jewish translation. I realize the tradition of substituting words like Lord and G-d for Elohim or YHWH. Of course Maimonides was helpful in explaining about elohim. I am glad you are interested in the Bible but while Elohim refers to the majesty of the God of israel (among other things), there is no doubt in my mind that David was writing about someone over himself at Psalm 110:1. And what a wonderful promise that was.

Sure, he was inspired by the story of Abraham and the miraculous defeat of the Kings immediately prior to Malchi-tzedek blessing ... Abraham. Abraham was able to defeat his enemies, King David sees this as above and beyond his own means. That's why he's praying for assistance.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We were talking about responsibility in translation and elohim. And Lord. And LORD. etc. So yes, while there is only one TRUE God, others can be referred to reasonably according to the scriptures as gods. Nothing tells me so far that God (Elohim) is a unique plurality of three gods in one, commonly called the trinity.

Elohim can be translated as lords or lord, (I gave you one example) but LORD all caps does not refer to Elohim. LORD all caps refers to the Yad hey vav hay, the divine name of God, which is usually not transliterated out of respect for its holiness.

 

[rosends]

We were talking about responsibility in translation and elohim. And Lord. And LORD. etc. So yes, while there is only one TRUE God, others can be referred to reasonably according to the scriptures as gods. Nothing tells me so far that God (Elohim) is a unique plurality of three gods in one, commonly called the trinity.

So your concern about the trinity is that the Chabad (Judaica Press) translation somehow invokes this? The text is rendered as "Of David a psalm. The word of the Lord to my master; "Wait for My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet.""

This may not lead to any conclusions you are looking for, and it certainly is only one possible reading of the verse, but it is a very popular one, based on the commentary (and sources/explanation) written down over 1000 years ago. What insight into the Hebrew words do you have that leads from the Hebrew to a translation that you think is more accurate?

 

[101G]

What does that even mean?
An ordinal number places the number in a series but does not provide a cardinal number value to the object necessarily. A horse can come in first and be one horse. Some single thing can be both first and third in different contexts. Something can also be first and last if it is the only item. Ordinal numbers are therefore not plural (the third house IS mine).

Echad, as I have stated elsewhere, is a cardinal number except when it refers to some dates. It is a singular noun when used as a noun and it refers to singular nouns when used as an adjective.

The ordinal is "rishon" in almost all cases.

is not the Lord Jesus the First and the Last in ordinal designation of TIME, ORDER, PLACE, or RANK. and is her not a plurality of ONE yes or no?

101G.

 

[rosends]

is not the Lord Jesus the First and the Last in ordinal designation of TIME, ORDER, PLACE, or RANK. and is her not a plurality of ONE yes or no?

101G.

Jesus is not a lord of anything. He might be the first and last of failed messiahs during his lifetime if he was the only one (I know that there were others after him though). He is ONE (cardinal) of a long list of false or failed messianic claimants. He might even be (according to the linked list) the FIRST of that list.

And you still haven't explained wha a "plurality of one" even means.

 

[101G]

you have highlighted "first." are you maintaining that no one is translating Deut 6:4 correctly, that it should be "The LORD is God, the LORD is first"???

correct, is not the LORD the First and "ALSO" the Last, see Isaiah 48:12.

now think, by listening, Isaiah 43:10 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

what did that just tell us? Gos who is First is also the same one who is Last. and is not JESUS the First and the Last? meaning Jesus is the LORD/First/Father, and JESUS is the Lord/Last/Son.

101G.