Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I started reading through that and recognized that it operates by replacing a religious agenda in interpretation with the inferences and presumptions made by the author based on his understanding of the text as a whole. Statements like "The laws presuppose that the involved parties are already before the judges. Look at Exod 21:22. There is no specific penalty prescribed, so the determination is left up to the judges. Notice the judges are not called elohim." expose the writer's preconceived notion about context and meaning and then close with a conclusion which, actually, should be the object of proof, not the proof for his argument. He even says, "The presupposition is that the parties are already before the judges." In truth, they are HIS presuppositions so they lead to HIS conclusion. Dealing with an issue by discounting the religious interpretive context simply means it will be a closed issue for those who subscribe to that method and thinking. So thanks for that, but I won't discount the religio-historical understandings of the words because a separate interpretive schema, when applied, draws different conclusions.
Jesus cannot nor could have been the (I'am) as that distinction is set asside ONLY for God aka Yahweh ! Jesus cannot be Lord unless God in the flesh. He cannot be the Alpha Omega the BEGINNING AND THE END. What? Unless He is God in the flesh. Blasphemy! eh let's crucify him!!! ( high priests ) hmmmm.....knuckleheads.
I started reading through that and recognized that it operates by replacing a religious agenda in interpretation with the inferences and presumptions made by the author based on his understanding of the text as a whole. Statements like "The laws presuppose that the involved parties are already before the judges. Look at Exod 21:22. There is no specific penalty prescribed, so the determination is left up to the judges. Notice the judges are not called elohim." expose the writer's preconceived notion about context and meaning and then close with a conclusion which, actually, should be the object of proof, not the proof for his argument. He even says, "The presupposition is that the parties are already before the judges." In truth, they are HIS presuppositions so they lead to HIS conclusion. Dealing with an issue by discounting the religious interpretive context simply means it will be a closed issue for those who subscribe to that method and thinking. So thanks for that, but I won't discount the religio-historical understandings of the words because a separate interpretive schema, when applied, draws different conclusions.
Welp, that's part of reading other people's writing. You must have a very small library.
Anyways, good luck here. You will fool some ignorant people that you have a good grasp of Biblical Hebrew by consulting ****-poor translations and outdated lexicons and concordances (thank you, internet), but those of us who have studied it for most of our lives, some in rigorous academic settings and holding actual degrees in the subject, will know the truth. I mean, what did it take? 4 or 5 posts to show a basic misunderstanding of a very common BH word before you began to brag to posters about your "skill"?
Welp, that's part of reading other people's writing. You must have a very small library.
Anyways, good luck here. You will fool some ignorant people that you have a good grasp of Biblical Hebrew by consulting ****-poor translations and outdated lexicons and concordances (thank you, internet), but those of us who have studied it for most of our lives, some in rigorous academic settings and holding actual degrees in the subject, will know the truth. I mean, what did it take? 4 or 5 posts to show a basic misunderstanding of a very common BH word before you began to brag to posters about your "skill"?
Welcome to the forums!
Thanks for the welcome and the assessment of my library (and by the way, Klein and Even Shoshan are online? Please pass along the urls). You and the presumptions of your ilk will help people understand one particular view of the development of language in history. And that's great. However, it is not persuasive when language is seen as existing in a separate context of religion, one which you happily and blithely dismiss.You can make your claims about what words used to mean, or I can read from people who were a touch closer to the event and used the words and rely on their scholarship.. So you can be smug and decide that it takes a few basic posts to show a "misunderstanding", or you can accept that there are different understandings, each with a basis and a set of rules and each working within a construct which has to deny the other. I guess it is easier to decide that you must be right, no matter what anyone else can show. You can take all your degrees and decide that a course of study designed to show X, that taught you X makes you an expert on anything more than X. You'd be wrong, but hey...there you go.
I have my advanced degrees in certain areas which lead me to conclusions different from yours, and in line with the scholars and experts who are part of the discipline in which I have the degrees. You would most likely dismiss them because they aren't from within your version of the academic tradition. That doesn't bother me. I'm in fine company with my learning. And, if you recall, I didn't brag about a skill. I made a claim about my knowledge, one which I backed up by citing evidence. Evidence which you don't like, so you then decry my knowledge, but evidence none the less. Deal with it.
So the son of God is God? Is that what you're suggesting?
In the ancient pantheon of ancient Sumerian-Babylonian belief God most high was known as El 'Elyon.
Wikipedia
Elyon
Hebrew Bible
The compound name 'Ēl ʿElyōn 'God Most High' occurs in Genesis 14.18–20 as the God whose priest was Melchizedek king of Salem. The form appears again almost immediately in verse 22, used by Abraham in an oath to the King of Sodom. In this verse the name of God also occurs in apposition to Ēl ʿElyōn in the Masoretic text but is absent in the Samaritan version, in the Septuagint translation, and in Symmachus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elyon
El the bull was the creator God of Melchizedek and Abraham.
Wikipedia
El
Ugarit and the Levant
Ēl is called again and again Tôru ‘Ēl ("Bull Ēl" or "the bull god"). He is bātnyu binwāti ("Creator of creatures"), ’abū banī ’ili ("father of the gods"), and ‘abū ‘adami ("father of man"). He is qāniyunu ‘ôlam ("creator eternal"), the epithet ‘ôlam appearing in Hebrew form in the Hebrew name of God ’ēl ‘ôlam "God Eternal" in Genesis 21.33. He is ḥātikuka ("your patriarch"). Ēl is the grey-bearded ancient one, full of wisdom, malku ("King"), ’abū Å¡amīma ("Father of years"), ’El gibbōr ("Ēl the warrior"). He is also named lṭpn of unknown meaning, variously rendered as Latpan, Latipan, or Lutpani ("shroud-face" by Strong's Hebrew Concordance). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)
YEHUAH
Like the Canaanites (Phoenicians), the ancient Hebrews regarded the PERSONAL Name of their tribal Deity, YHWH, as too sacred for common use, and they usually called him simply 'Adonai (My Deity), or sometimes, Baal (Master) or Baali (My Master).
The parallels between Baal and YHWH are quite detailed. For instance, both the Canaanites (Phoenicians) and the ancient Hebrews referred to Him, in His role as the Deity of Storms and War by the euphemism ..."The Rider On The Clouds"... -KTU 1.3 II 40; -PSALM 68: 5.
Both are portrayed as overcoming the YaM (Sea) and their enemies within it -PSALM 74: 13; -JOB 7: 12; -JOB 26: 12; -JOB 38: 8, and His henchman Litan called the Fleeing Serpent, the Twisty Serpent, Potentate with Seven Heads and, in Hebrew, Leviathan -ISAIAH 27:1 and -PSALM 74:13-14; -JOB 3:8; -JOB 40: 25 or -JOB 41: 1.
The origin of the name of the Deity of the ancient Hebrews is Canaanite (Phoenician). YHWH took over the history of Baal in ancient Hebrew folklore and is best understood as the ancient Hebrew equivalent of that Canaanite (Phoenician) Deity.
That YHWH was originally a son of 'AL is attested by a Canaanite (Phoenician) document -KTU 1.1 IV 14 from Ugarit. It reads:
..."SM . BNY . YW . ILT"... Which translates as:
..."The name of the son of 'AL, YaW"...
The ancient Hebrew Deity YHWH (pronounced as: YaWu; of which the shorten form YH pronounced as: YaW) was simply part of the Canaanite (Phoenician) pantheon.
He was Baal a Son of 'AL who took on the names YaW or YaWu which were the Personal names of YaM, who took on the guise of a Storm or Wind-Deity.
Later, as the National Deity of the ancient kingdom of Israel, YHWH was equated with the Canaanite (Phoenician) Supreme Deity 'AL. Please consider the following:
..."And 'ALHaYaM spoke to Moses and said to him, I YHWH, Who appeared to'AbraHam, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of 'AL Shaddai; but My name YHWH I did not make known to them"... -EXODUS 6: 2-3
And 'Asherah (Athiratu-yammi) which means: "She who walks on the Sea"; became His wife. Please consider the following:
..."And he set up even image the Asherah (Athiratu-yammi) that he made in the house of which had said YHWH to David and to Solomon his son, in this house and in Jerusalem, that I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put My name forever"... -2 KINGS 21: 7
Asherah (Athiratu-yammi) was the mother of 70 deities, including Baal.
[11] And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim:
[13] And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.
This seems to be an ongoing problem. People forget and forsake the "true God," and consistently turn to a false God.
In Genesis 32 the children of Israel are seriously chastised for worshiping a golden calf. In other words, for worshiping the son of God. According to the ancient beliefs, there is a higher God than YHWH. So you may find yourself with some serious 'splaining to do on Judgement Day concerning why you worshiped the wrong God your entire life. As for me, if there really does turn out to be a Judgement Day (to my, umm, everlasting surprise) and I actually have to face judgement from an Almighty God, I plan to just curl up into a fetal position and plead that at least I didn't worship the WRONG God.
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?
(John 10:34)
It's about the desire for people to recreate others into their own image. They tried to do it with Jesus when he was younger like they did with all "obedient" young men in their community.
Jesus was the son of these so-called "gods" (men) because he grew up in that environment, and he was even tempted to become that himself. But he overcame that when he became a child of the Most High.
I think the Elohim refers to the "gods" that Jesus referred to the Jewish people as, from quoting the Psalms (forget which one). But he was defending himself against them, saying that it was not blasphemy to call himself a "son" of God, when they were gods themselves. (Powerful men of the Jewish community).
The Elohim represented the cultural traditions and values of Israelites and their ancestors, and their apparent "wisdom". There is a lot of humor in the Bible that goes over the heads of most religious people.
The problem here is that Elohim is taken out of its context. In Hebrew, its context is singular. sentence wise it would be: Its gods way of doing X and not the gods have done X. Understand the difference?
People need to actually read Hebrew and not follow these false translations and transliterations that some scribe in the past has made into something else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
