1. 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!

Featured Jews only: Psalms 110:4

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by TrueBeliever37, Sep 25, 2018.

  1. TrueBeliever37

    TrueBeliever37 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    726
    Ratings:
    +79
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    Come on, so are we supposed to believe that just in this particular Psalm it means someone wrote the Psalm for David, but in the others it meant he wrote them. Or are you going to take the stand that he didn't write any of them that have this expression at the start.
     
  2. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,644
    Ratings:
    +2,090
    Religion:
    Jewish
    So if Malkitzedek was a priest before the priesthood, then someone who supposedly will be in the order of Malkitzedek (if you use your translation) will not be a priest at all under Mosaic law -- the term will not be used as it is used when referring to the biblical and post biblical-Mosaic priests. So the subject would then NOT be both a king and a priest in the Judaic sense.

    For Yitro, start in Ex 2:16 and 3:1. Clearly, the word "kohen" means something different so any assumption that Psalms 110 is referring to a Levitical priest is premature.
     
  3. Tumah

    Tumah Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    10,840
    Ratings:
    +7,176
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    No, that's what I tried to clarify before. Zech 6:11 has an unspecified amount of crowns made. One of those crown are placed on the head of Joshuah the High Priest. I know that it's only one crown placed on his head, because the word "crowns" are in plural, but the word "place it" is in singular, indicating only one of the crowns was to be placed on Joshua the High Priest's head. Later in verse 14, it returns back to plural indicating that both crowns were then put in the Sanctuary.

    No, my position is that the literal meaning of the words is "For/To David, a Psalm" and then you need to look at each individual psalm to see whether a different wrote the Pslam for David, or David wrote it for himself about someone else. Look for instance at Psalm 63:
    "A Psalm for David when he was in the desert of Judah,
    El-him, You are my G-d!..."

    The first verse is in third person and the second verse is in first person. So was this a Psalm written by David about himself in the Judean desert but referring to himself in the third person during the intro, or was this written by a different psalmist about David, describing his time there in the first person?
     
  4. TrueBeliever37

    TrueBeliever37 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    726
    Ratings:
    +79
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    I was looking for the examples where the expression was rendered "and there will be"

    Genesis 48:21 behold I am going to die, and/but God will be with you. (this should be accurate) Why would you try to say "and there will be God among you"?
     
  5. TrueBeliever37

    TrueBeliever37 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    726
    Ratings:
    +79
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    There was supposed to be a NEW covenant coming, even for the Jews, as per Jeremiah 31:31-32. It lets us know it would not be like the covenant he made with them when he lead them out of Egypt. With a new covenant would come some changes to the law.
     
  6. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,644
    Ratings:
    +2,090
    Religion:
    Jewish
    because logically, the two phrases are parallel translations. If the subject had not have been God, but a man, would you have a problem with "and there will be a man with you"?
     
  7. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,644
    Ratings:
    +2,090
    Religion:
    Jewish
    That's a theologically driven claim. The Jewish understanding is that the difference is in the nature, not content, of the covenant. The covenant will again be the Torah (as stated explicitly in verse 33) but the difference will be that this new version will be put "into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts." It will not need to be taught. So, no changes in the law, but changes in the people who will not be like their ancestors.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. TrueBeliever37

    TrueBeliever37 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    726
    Ratings:
    +79
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    Please clarify what Hebrew word you are using that means "place it" in singular.

    Do any of the priests including the high priest have a throne?

    If so, please show me somewhere in the scriptures, where the priest has a throne, other than here in Zechariah 6:13 (or scriptures referring to the same person Zechariah is talking about).
     
  9. Shaul

    Shaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2016
    Messages:
    2,313
    Ratings:
    +815
    Religion:
    Judaism
  10. TrueBeliever37

    TrueBeliever37 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    726
    Ratings:
    +79
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    Maybe not, since that would not be referring to a specific man, but God is specific, as there is only one God.

    If it was a specific man such as John, would you say "and there will be John with you"? or would you say "and John will be with you"?
     
  11. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,644
    Ratings:
    +2,090
    Religion:
    Jewish
    I would say either one as they mean the same thing. I would say the former if I were translating the text in the order of the words in Hebrew. I would say the latter if I were translating the idea. The difference you invoke between God and a man does not create any linguistic/grammatical change, just a change in the English convention into which something is translated. The Hebrew would be identical and the meaning, the same.

    Incidentally, the text in Ps 110 is in the general (a priest) so you should prefer the latter formulation (and there will be a priest) as opposed to "and a priest will be on".
     
  12. TrueBeliever37

    TrueBeliever37 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    726
    Ratings:
    +79
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    I was already aware that it is YHWH speaking here.

    Question - Does adonai refer to God? You know it does, it is all over in the scriptures. All it takes is a vowel point difference and you have adoni. And as we know the vowel points weren't in the original Hebrew scrolls.
     
    #32 TrueBeliever37, Sep 28, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2018
  13. TrueBeliever37

    TrueBeliever37 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    726
    Ratings:
    +79
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    Right, I realize the Hebrew word order is different.

    Actually I prefer "and he will be a priest". (meaning, this king will also be a priest)
     
  14. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,644
    Ratings:
    +2,090
    Religion:
    Jewish
    But that construction doesn't really lend itself to that meaning. cf Judges 17:12 -- the introductory L changes it to your meaning. Similarly (though not identical) is Sam 1 2:28 an there are 2 more in Ezekiel and one in Chronicles. The only other instance of "v'hayah kohen" is in Chron 2 and there it does mean "and he will become a priest" but it is not followed by a reference to 2 people whereas the Zecharia verse requires that there be two people. So I don't see how you can reconcile the lack of an introductory L and an explicit identifying of 2 separate people with your understanding of "and he will be a priest" here.
     
  15. TrueBeliever37

    TrueBeliever37 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    726
    Ratings:
    +79
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    Let me state the first part of Zechariah 6:13 a little more the way the Hebrew word order would be. (I put dashes between words)

    and he - he will build - temple of - YHWH - and he - he will be clothed - majesty - and he will sit - and he will rule - on throne of him - and he will be - a priest - on throne of him

    I just don't see a reference to 2 separate people there.

    Also I haven't heard back from Tumah yet, so maybe you can answer for him. Does the priest or high priest have a throne? Because whoever this priest is in Zechariah, he will be sitting on a throne. If the answer is yes, please provide me some scriptures where this is proven.
     
  16. TrueBeliever37

    TrueBeliever37 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    726
    Ratings:
    +79
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    He said it would not be like the covenant he made with their fathers. Yes he would put his law in their hearts and minds.

    It doesn't say the law won't need to be taught. It says they will not need to be taught to know YHWH, for they will all know him, from the least to the greatest. One of the changes that would be made is that he would forgive their iniquity, and remember their sins no more. There would no longer be an annual remembrance of sins.
     
  17. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,644
    Ratings:
    +2,090
    Religion:
    Jewish
    I think your translation is ok but needs tweaking -- for example, when the text says "v'hu yivneh" that is simply "and he will build." Putting "he" twice because it is in the pronoun and in the construction of the verb to agree with that pronoun is unnecessary.
    וְ֠הוּא יִבְנֶ֞ה אֶת־הֵיכַ֤ל יְהוָה֙ וְהֽוּא־יִשָּׂ֣א ה֔וֹד וְיָשַׁ֥ב וּמָשַׁ֖ל עַל־כִּסְא֑וֹ וְהָיָ֤ה כֹהֵן֙ עַל־כִּסְא֔וֹ וַעֲצַ֣ת שָׁל֔וֹם תִּהְיֶ֖ה בֵּ֥ין שְׁנֵיהֶֽם
    and he-will build the sanctuary [of] God, and he will carry majesty and will sit and rule on his chair. There will be a priest on his chair, and a counsel of peace will be between the two of them.

    The last word is "shneihem" which is pretty clearly pointing to 2 people.

    I know very little of thrones but I do know that the word kiseh doesn't always mean throne -- it also points to a position or a symbolic place (like Psalms 94:20, Sam 1 2:8) so I would not feel bound to see this as pointing to a physical thing. It is Shabbat in Israel already so Tumah won't answer and I don't know how available he will be before Shmini Atzeret (Monday night).
     
  18. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,644
    Ratings:
    +2,090
    Religion:
    Jewish
    Again, this is your theologically driven understanding. I can point you to a variety of commentaries who understand the mention of the Torah as evidence that what will be inscribed ARE the laws so no man will have to teach the other to understand and do what God wants. Therefore, the sins will be forgiven and forgotten. There are many other places where the text indicates that the laws and the covenants are eternal so to say that they are to be, in content, abrogated, doesn't seem to fit in.
     
  19. TrueBeliever37

    TrueBeliever37 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    726
    Ratings:
    +79
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    I could have tweaked my translation, but I was trying to show a word for word literal meaning. Which to me clearly shows it is not two people involved.

    I think it is pointing to 2 positions, that of king, and that of priest, not to 2 people.

    You know I have made a strong point. Are you really going to try to word this, so that the king is just going to sit and rule on a chair, in order to avoid having to admit that the priest will be on a throne?
     
    #39 TrueBeliever37, Sep 28, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2018
  20. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,644
    Ratings:
    +2,090
    Religion:
    Jewish
    The text explicitly refers to two people so I'm not sure why you choose to ignore it to justify a single person. Do you really think that a word with multiple meanings has to mean what you want it to at every turn? You know that I have shown that the word means a variety of things. You know that I have shown that the verse clearly mentions two people who get along with each other. Why would you ignore these things?
     
Loading...