Isaiah 45:6 (Hebrew Bible Scholar Please Help)
Peter Olcott
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
I want to get as much as possible a very literal word-for-word
translation of this verse. If there is any range of meanings that
could be intended, I want to know of these also.
Thanks
Peter Olcott
Peter Olcott
Shmuel Playfair
[Peter O]
[Shmuel] Why do you ask?
L'maan In order that
yedoo they (will) know
meemezraH-shemesh from the shining of the sun (the east)
umeemaravah and from the west
kee-ephes that there is no one (zero)
beeladai besides Me;
Anee YHVH I am HaShem
v'ain and there is not
ode. another.
HaShem claims that there is *not* another "besides Me" (singular),
the Creator (the Father). There is *not* a second or a third
(co-equal, co-eternal) person besides Him as so many "Christians"
falsely claim to this day. But, eventually everyone everywhere
will know that He *alone* is king.
fact-c...@hotmail.com
> [Peter O]
> > Isaiah 45:6 (kjv)
> > That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
> > that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
> >
> > I want to get as much as possible a very literal word-for-word
> > translation of this verse. If there is any range of meanings that
> > could be intended, I want to know of these also.
>
> [Shmuel] Why do you ask?
>
> L'maan In order that
> yedoo they (will) know
> meemezraH-shemesh from the shining of the sun (the east)
> umeemaravah and from the west
> kee-ephes that there is no one (zero)
> beeladai besides Me;
> Anee YHVH I am HaShem
> v'ain and there is not
> ode. another.
=========
The above is essentially correct (although some people might argue
about exact translations of various words).
=========
>
> HaShem claims that there is *not* another "besides Me" (singular),
> the Creator (the Father). There is *not* a second or a third
> (co-equal, co-eternal) person besides Him as so many "Christians"
> falsely claim to this day. But, eventually everyone everywhere
> will know that He *alone* is king.
==========
Since the Trinity *is* One, Isaiah 45:6 does not refute belief in the
Trinity.
As Genesis 1:26 points out, God said "Let us make man in our image".
Shmuel Playfair
>> [Peter O]
>> > Isaiah 45:6 (kjv)
>> > That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
>> > that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
>> >
>> > I want to get as much as possible a very literal word-for-word
>> > translation of this verse. If there is any range of meanings that
>> > could be intended, I want to know of these also.
>> [Shmuel] Why do you ask?
>>
>> L'maan In order that
>> yedoo they (will) know
>> meemezraH-shemesh from the shining of the sun (the east)
>> umeemaravah and from the west
>> kee-ephes that there is no one (zero)
>> beeladai besides Me;
>> Anee YHVH I am HaShem
>> v'ain and there is not
>> ode. another.
[Oesterly]
> The above is essentially correct (although some people might argue
> about exact translations of various words).
____
[Shmuel continued]
>> HaShem claims that there is *not* another "besides Me" (singular),
>> the Creator (the Father). There is *not* a second or a third
>> (co-equal, co-eternal) person besides Him as so many "Christians"
>> falsely claim to this day. But, eventually everyone everywhere
>> will know that He *alone* is king.
[Oesterly]
> Since the Trinity *is* One, Isaiah 45:6 does not refute belief
> in the Trinity.
>
> As Genesis 1:26 points out, God said "Let us make man in our image".
[Shmuel] Since "the Trinity" *is* a belief in one group of *three*
different identities working together beside each other, Isaiah's
claim "that there is no one (zero) besides Me (singular)" does
refute belief in "the Trinity" and in all other groups of three.
fact-c...@hotmail.com
=======
The Trinity has always been "One" that cannot be divided and will
always be "One" that cannot be divided.
Your characterizing the Trinity as a "group" is a deliberate lie about
the doctrine.
Peter Olcott
<fact-c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1129460015.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Shmuel Playfair wrote:
>> [Peter O]
>> > Isaiah 45:6 (kjv)
>> > That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
>> > that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
>> >
>> > I want to get as much as possible a very literal word-for-word
>> > translation of this verse. If there is any range of meanings that
>> > could be intended, I want to know of these also.
>>
>> [Shmuel] Why do you ask?
>>
>> L'maan In order that
>> yedoo they (will) know
>> meemezraH-shemesh from the shining of the sun (the east)
>> umeemaravah and from the west
>> kee-ephes that there is no one (zero)
>> beeladai besides Me;
>> Anee YHVH I am HaShem
>> v'ain and there is not
>> ode. another.
>
> =========
>
> The above is essentially correct (although some people might argue
> about exact translations of various words).
>
fact-c...@hotmail.com
> <fact-c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1129460015.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Shmuel Playfair wrote:
> >> [Peter O]
> >> > Isaiah 45:6 (kjv)
> >> > That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
> >> > that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
> >> >
> >> > I want to get as much as possible a very literal word-for-word
> >> > translation of this verse. If there is any range of meanings that
> >> > could be intended, I want to know of these also.
> >>
> >> [Shmuel] Why do you ask?
> >>
> >> L'maan In order that
> >> yedoo they (will) know
> >> meemezraH-shemesh from the shining of the sun (the east)
> >> umeemaravah and from the west
> >> kee-ephes that there is no one (zero)
> >> beeladai besides Me;
> >> Anee YHVH I am HaShem
> >> v'ain and there is not
> >> ode. another.
> >
> > =========
> >
> > The above is essentially correct (although some people might argue
> > about exact translations of various words).
> >
> What is the range of possible meanings for these words?
===========
The range is very limited, so the various translations all really end
up with the same meaning.
A literal translation of the above Hebrew words (which are also in my
Hebrew text) would be:
--------
Isaiah 45:6
That
they may know
from the rising of the Sun
and to the sunset
that none is
besides me.
I am YHVH
and none
any more!
----------
The words are simple and without any hidden alternate meanings.
So the "range" would really be in how one understands the context of
the verse.
For example, the previous poster pointed out that it says:
"kee-ephes -- that there is no one
"beeladai -- besides Me"
That doesn't say "no other god besides me".
"It says "there is nobody besides me".
If there is nobody besides God, then that proves wrong the followers of
Judaism who claim that the "us" in Genesis 1:26 refers to God and all
the angels standing beside God so that God could consult with them and
get their help in the decision-making process regarding the creation of
man.
In fact, that interpretation would mean that Psalm 110:1 is a lie
because it shows God saying "Sit at my right hand".
Also, the previous poster pointed out that it says:
"Anee YHVH -- I am HaShem"
"v'ain -- and there is not"
"ode -- another"
Nobody in Christianity claims that Jesus is "another YHVH".
We say that there is only one YHVH and that Jesus is an inherent part
of that one and only YHVH.
Someone here in alt.messianic in the last couple of years pointed out a
Web Bible which had many of the English words keyed to the Hebrew words
in Strong's Concordance.
It was pretty neat for those who don't have better hard-back sources at
home.
Does anybody remember where that on-line English - Hebrew - Strong's
Bible is?
I will spend the next several minutes looking for it myself.
- your brother in the Lord, moshe
Shmuel Playfair
[Oesterly]
> The Trinity has always been "One" that cannot be divided and will
> always be "One" that cannot be divided.
>
> Your characterizing the Trinity as a "group" is a deliberate lie about
> the doctrine.
[Shmuel] When you say that "Jesus claimed to be *one* *of*
the Trinity - Matthew 28:19", you yourself "divide" the three
into distinct parts.
When anyone believes that their deity has three different identities,
the father, the son, and the holy spirit working together as one,
these three distinct persons are considered to be one "group"
of three by definition.
fact-c...@hotmail.com
=========
I found the on-line Bible site ("Blue Letter Bible") about one minute
after posting the previous message.
I am not familar with how to use all of the features of that site, but
this much I was able to do:
I started out at:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
I typed in that I wanted "Isaiah" and "45" and "6" which took me to:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa045.html#top
To the left of Isaiah 45:6 are the letters "K", "C", "L", "V", and "D"
which are links to click.
I have not yet clicked all of them to see what they are, but I did take
a stab at "C" and it indeed was what I was looking for because "C"
apparently stands for "concordance" (Strongs).
If you click on the "C" to the left of Isaiah 45:6 it will take you to
the Hebrew of that verse with the Hebrew words keyed to Strongs
Concordance at:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1129475543-830.html
If you have a Strong's Concordance with the Hebrew Dictionary in the
back or any other book keyed to Strong's then you can now do your own
Hebrew word study and impress us with the results of your research next
week!
Not only will the dictionary at the back of Strong's give the different
translations for that word and what other Hebrew word it might be
derived from, but it will also list all of the different ways that
Hebrew word is translated in the King James.
Look up those English words in the front of the concordance which show
that Hebrew word # and you will theoretically have every instance in
which that word appears in the Old Testament, showing you what the word
means by showing you the contexts in which it is used.
ruth
In the Blue Letter Bible site, after clicking on "C" and getting the
Hebrew/Greek translation, if you click on the # of a specific word, you
will get the definition and also a list of verses that contain that
word.
If you click on the "V" you will get different Bible translations of
the verse.
Ruth
Shmuel Playfair
[Oesterly]
> ......the previous poster pointed out that it says:
> "kee-ephes -- that there is no one
> "beeladai -- besides Me"
>
> That doesn't say "no other god besides me".
> "It says "there is nobody besides me".
[Shmuel] ? Read the context of this verse! In the previous
verse we read, "I am HaShem and there is no other; besides
Me there is no god....". So obviously He means "there is
"no other god besides Me".
<snip>
___
[Oesterly]
> Also, the previous poster pointed out that it says:
> "Anee YHVH -- I am HaShem"
> "v'ain -- and there is not"
> "ode -- another"
>
> Nobody in Christianity claims that Jesus is "another YHVH".
> We say that there is only one YHVH and that Jesus is an inherent part
> of that one and only YHVH.
[Shmuel] If "Jesus is an inherent *part* of that one and only YHVH",
how many different *parts* are there?
When one claims that a certain human person is "part of" God,
he is dividing God into parts.
<snip>
fact-c...@hotmail.com
========
Cool!
If I can find a version keyed to Gesenius' Lexicon even cooler!.
Blue Letter Bible might be easier than hauling out my heavy reference
books for some of my casual research.
I think it was Nancy who recommended Blue Letter.
If so, THANK YOU, NANCY!
Peter Olcott
"Shmuel Playfair" <SPla...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:loA4f.8442$OM.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> <snip>
>
> [Oesterly]
>> ......the previous poster pointed out that it says:
>> "kee-ephes -- that there is no one
>> "beeladai -- besides Me"
>>
>> That doesn't say "no other god besides me".
>> "It says "there is nobody besides me".
>
> [Shmuel] ? Read the context of this verse! In the previous
> verse we read, "I am HaShem and there is no other; besides
> Me there is no god....". So obviously He means "there is
> "no other god besides Me".
Could you please provide this context verse Isaiah 45:5 literally
translated with the same degree of precision that you did for the
Isaiah 45:6? Thanks
Shmuel Playfair
>> [Oesterly]
>>> ......the previous poster pointed out that it says:
>>> "kee-ephes -- that there is no one
>>> "beeladai -- besides Me"
>>>
>>> That doesn't say "no other god besides me".
>>> "It says "there is nobody besides me".
>> [Shmuel] ? Read the context of this verse! In the previous
>> verse we read, "I am HaShem and there is no other; besides
>> Me there is no god....". So obviously He means "there is
>> no other god besides Me".
[Peter O]
> Could you please provide this context verse Isaiah 45:5 literally
> translated with the same degree of precision that you did for the
> Isaiah 45:6? Thanks
[Shmuel] Sure!
Anee YHVH I am HaShem
v'ain ode and there is no other;
zulatee except Me (besides Me)
ain eloheem there is no God;
aazerHa I will gird (strengthen) you,
v'lo y'da'tanee even though you have not known Me.
fact-c...@hotmail.com
==========
Since those who believe in the Trinity do not teach that Jesus is
"another God", the above verse does not contradict belief in the
Trinity.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and are the only God.
Peter Olcott
<fact-c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1129546414.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
such as Ice, Steam, and Water are three forms of H2O.
Peter Olcott
"Shmuel Playfair" <SPla...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:7%J4f.9521$pP1.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
with slightly different meanings?
Peter Olcott
<fact-c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1129475376....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
(1) The "they" of the phrase {That "they" may know} is a metaphorical
figure of speech.
(2) The "they" of the phrase {That "they" may know} is referring to
people that God divided himself up into, along the same lines as
what is proposed by Hinduism.
In this latter case the entire verse could be literally true without forming
any possible contradiction, inconsistency, or discrepancy.
fact-c...@hotmail.com
=========
The only one that really jumps out at me is:
zulatee -- except Me (besides Me)
ain eloheem -- there is no God
The Hebrew word "Elohim" is sometimes used in the sense of something
other than "God" or "gods" (the word has the "-im" suffix which is
masculine plural).
When "Elohim" is used in Psalm 8:5, and then quoted in Romans 2:7 based
on the Septuagint, it refers to "angels".
When "Elohim" is used in Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:7-8 it refers to
"judges".
So the word can refer to inherent identity *or* to relative authority.
If one wants to be a stickler for literal details by ignoring context,
as followers of Judaism do when they criticize the New Testament, then
Isaiah 45:5 contradicts Psalm 8:5, Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:7-8.
Shmuel Playfair
>>>> [Shmuel] ? Read the context of this verse! In the previous
>>>> verse we read, "I am HaShem and there is no other; besides
>>>> Me there is no god....". So obviously He means "there is
>>>> no other god besides Me".
>> [Peter O]
>>> Could you please provide this context verse Isaiah 45:5 literally
>>> translated with the same degree of precision that you did for the
>>> Isaiah 45:6? Thanks
>> [Shmuel] Sure!
>>
>> Anee YHVH I am HaShem
>> v'ain ode and there is no other;
>> zulatee except Me (besides Me)
>> ain eloheem there is no God;
>> aazerHa I will gird (strengthen) you,
>> v'lo y'da'tanee even though you have not known Me.
>> L'maan In order that
>> yedoo they (will) know
>> meemezraH-shemesh from the shining of the sun (the east)
>> umeemaravah and from the west
>> kee-ephes that there is no one (zero)
>> beeladai besides Me;
>> Anee YHVH I am HaShem
>> v'ain and there is not
>> ode. another.
[Peter O]
> That's great. Are there any of these words that might be translated
> with slightly different meanings?
[Shmuel] I don't think there are any significant different meanings
here. Do you have any particular word or phrase in mind?
Peter Olcott
"Shmuel Playfair" <SPla...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:H_U4f.8988$OM.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Is there any other precisely literal way to translate this
such that it does not literally say that {only God exists} ?
Peter Olcott
<fact-c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1129577841....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I try to be a stickler for details, and then see how that
nothing any where within the context of the grand scheme
of the Master Plan contradicts anything anywhere. I look
at this one verse (if it has been translated correctly) as
linking every religion in the world, all together.
МИИГ
<fact-c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129462573....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
actually, its possible by Isaiah's comments that there can be more than
dualistic make up of HASHEM.
For instance, when here it says I HASHEM ALONE am they redeemer, we see in
Genesis 48 Yacob praying to one he calls "Malak Elohim" <<"who redeemed me
from all my evil"
Other areas of Torah seem to suggest a second "person" view of HASHEM by
HASHEM.
while this proves nothing, this does not discount anything either.
Peace
fact-c...@hotmail.com
===========
I have noticed many cases in Tanach where God speaks of himself in the
2nd and 3rd person, unless that is just a poor translation job.
I had never thought about it before, but I guess Trinitarians could use
such cases to show the Father speaking about the Son or the Holy
Spirit.
Shmuel Playfair
>> >> [Oesterly]
>> >>> ......the previous poster pointed out that it says:
>> >>> "kee-ephes -- that there is no one
>> >>> "beeladai -- besides Me"
>> >>>
>> >>> That doesn't say "no other god besides me".
>> >>> "It says "there is nobody besides me".
>> >> [Shmuel] ? Read the context of this verse! In the previous
>> >> verse we read, "I am HaShem and there is no other; besides
>> >> Me there is no god....". So obviously He means "there is
>> >> no other god besides Me".
[Oesterly]
> Since those who believe in the Trinity do not teach that Jesus is
> "another God", the above verse does not contradict belief in the
> Trinity.
>
> The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and are the only God.
[Shmuel] At least you are backing tracking from your false claim
that Isaiah "doesn't say 'no other god beside me' ".
In stark contrast to the God Who is portrayed as a single person
in the Jewish scriptures, those who believe in the much later
Christian "Trinity" teach that there are three different co-eternal,
co-equal persons who function together as "one God".
When one falsely claims that the single Creator is actually three
different identities who are united "as one", there is no way
to avoid the false conclusion that "no other God except Me
(singular)" really means "no other God except We Three (plural)".
This false "one God" is actually "one Pantheon [of three]".
Also, it is evident that Yeshua, Yaakov (James) Kayfa (Peter),
Shaool (Paul) and all other Jews prayed to and worship
the one God Who is *not* a man (and Who is one identity or
person rather than three persons) as their exclusive single
invisible Creator and immortal King of the Universe.
Shmuel Playfair
[Peter O]
> It seems to be literally saying that only God exists.
> Is there any other precisely literal way to translate this
> such that it does not literally say that {only God exists} ?
[Shmuel] Rather than saying that "only God exists", these verses
mean that "no other Gods exist except HaShem" and that
"HaShem alone is the only real God". IOW, "God", the ultimate
Power or supreme Authority has a single identity, which excludes
any and *all* other co-equal, co-eternal god-persons.
Peter Olcott
"Shmuel Playfair" <SPla...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:iKf5f.10281$pP1.6...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
what is stated. If one takes the exact and precise statement
from your above translation, then this exact and precise statement
would be saying that {only God exists}. This is the aspect of
the translation that I want you to be sure of.
I already know that everyone takes this to mean that God is
saying {I am the Lord , and besides me there is no other God}.
The problem is that when one takes what is said with 100%
complete exacting precision, then this is really not what it says.
I am thinking that this verse has an esoteric meaning that
nearly everyone is missing, and that this esoteric meaning
is the key to the actual truth as opposed to and contrasted
with the apparent truth.
The problem with this meaning that everyone brings up is then
who is the {they} of the {that they will know}. If we take the
above verse as meaning exactly and precisely what it is stating,
then the {they} must also be a manifestation of God. From all
of my studies, this conclusion is the same conclusion upon
which mysticism is based.
There are only two possible ways around this:
(1) Your translation is not quite correct, and there is another
translation that is correct and does not result in these meanings.
(2) These words of the bible do not mean what they say.
fact-c...@hotmail.com
=========
"Elohim" is plural.
Genesis chapter 1 says "us" and "our".
Take "Only God is God" and substitute the second person pronoun as
allowed by Genesis chapter 1 and you get "Only We is God".
Peter Olcott
<fact-c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1129680921.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
mentioned above?
Shmuel Playfair
>> [Shmuel] Rather than saying that "only God exists", these verses
>> mean that "no other Gods exist except HaShem" and that
>> "HaShem alone is the only real God". IOW, "God", the ultimate
>> Power or supreme Authority has a single identity, which excludes
>> any and *all* other co-equal, co-eternal god-persons.
[Oesterly]
> "Elohim" is plural.
>
> Genesis chapter 1 says "us" and "our".
>
> Take "Only God is God" and substitute the second person pronoun as
> allowed by Genesis chapter 1 and you get "Only We is God".
[Shmuel] ? Do you know what "the second person pronoun" means?
Are you aware that many Hebrew words including "Eloheem"
which are plural in form often have an singular meaning?
Are you aware that an individual can say "us" or "our" without
indicating that he is more than one person himself.
Peter Olcott
"Shmuel Playfair" <SPla...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:vqg5f.10286$pP1.6...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
themselves along with their subjects. Alternatively the
mystical meaning that I have suggested might be true.
Shmuel Playfair
>>>> [Shmuel] Rather than saying that "only God exists", these verses
>>>> mean that "no other Gods exist except HaShem" and that
>>>> "HaShem alone is the only real God". IOW, "God", the ultimate
>>>> Power or supreme Authority has a single identity, which excludes
>>>> any and *all* other co-equal, co-eternal god-persons.
>>
>> [Oesterly]
>>> "Elohim" is plural.
>>>
>>> Genesis chapter 1 says "us" and "our".
>>>
>>> Take "Only God is God" and substitute the second person pronoun as
>>> allowed by Genesis chapter 1 and you get "Only We is God".
>>
>> [Shmuel] ? Do you know what "the second person pronoun" means?
>>
>> Are you aware that many Hebrew words including "Eloheem"
>> which are plural in form often have an singular meaning?
>>
>> Are you aware that an individual can say "us" or "our" without
>> indicating that he is more than one person himself.
[Peter O]
> There is the "royal we" when kings or queens include
> themselves along with their subjects. Alternatively the
> mystical meaning that I have suggested might be true.
[Shmuel] Any individual (not just kings or queens) can say
"we" without indicating that he is more than one person.
fact-c...@hotmail.com
> >> [Shmuel] Rather than saying that "only God exists", these verses
> >> mean that "no other Gods exist except HaShem" and that
> >> "HaShem alone is the only real God". IOW, "God", the ultimate
> >> Power or supreme Authority has a single identity, which excludes
> >> any and *all* other co-equal, co-eternal god-persons.
>
> [Oesterly]
> > "Elohim" is plural.
> >
> > Genesis chapter 1 says "us" and "our".
> >
> > Take "Only God is God" and substitute the second person pronoun as
> > allowed by Genesis chapter 1 and you get "Only We is God".
>
> [Shmuel] ? Do you know what "the second person pronoun" means?
========
That was a typo.
Should have been first-person pronoun.
I was still thinking of yesterday's post in which God sometimes speaks
of himself as "you" in Tanach.
===========
>
> Are you aware that many Hebrew words including "Eloheem"
> which are plural in form often have an singular meaning?
=============
Below are re-posts of 2 of my posts in which I discussed the matter at
length with Joe Slater a year ago.
People like Emma who claim that I used to run away from debates with
Slater should read the 2 posts below very carefully.
+++++++++++++++++
Re-post #1:
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: joest...@hotmail.com (moshe) - Find messages by this author
Date: 24 Oct 2004 14:29:28 -0700
Local: Sun, Oct 24 2004 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: Intrducing a noob to this NG
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
Joe Slater <joe[please don't spam me]@slater.net> wrote in message
<news:36gkn016ia5van573...@4ax.com>...
> On 22 Oct 2004 02:02:04 -0700, moshe <moshe_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >The "-im" suffix on Hebrew masculine nouns indicates plural.
> I don't have a copy handy, but as I recall the most common
> college-level English-Hebrew dictionary is the bantam-Megiddo one.
> You'll find that it differentiates between plural words and ones which
> are plural *in form*.
moshe wrote:
> >Even Hebrew words which are *now* thought of as being singular but which end in
> >"-im" originally had the meaning of being plural.
Slater wrote:
> No. There are a whole bunch of these. What is the singular form of
> water?
************
Gesenius Lexicon published by Baker lists it as "mai", spelled
mem-patach-yod, and gives a lengthy explanation regarding it.
***********
>Of life?
***********
As Gesenius Lexicon also points out, it is "hai", spelled
chet-patach-yod,
as seen in I Samuel 25:6.
*************
>Of sky?
**********
(I assume you are talking about the Hebrew word "shamayim" which is
often translated "heavens" rather than the Hebrew word "shachaq")
Gesenius Lexicon says that it is "shamai", spelled
shin-kamatz-mem-patach-yod.
Derived from shamah which is derived from sham.
**********
moshe wrote:
> >After what you claimed above, you are going to have a hard time explaining why
> >the Stone Edition Chumash translates "mayim" in Genesis 1:2 as "waters" rather
> >than "water".
Slater wrote:
> Because it sounds good and makes sense in context. Similarly I can
> say "the waters of lake Ontario" even though it's only one body of
> water (as far as I know - feel free to substitute any singular body
> you prefer).
*************
That single body of water is a collection of quadrillions of water
molecules.
**********
moshe wrote:
> >And why Stone Edition Chumash in that same verse gives "p'nei" as the actual
> >singular for "face".
Slater wrote:
> I have no idea why I bother arguing with you.
************
Because underneath it all you have a sincere desire to learn :^)
***********
> Look through your
> translated Bible. Did Jacob talk face to face, or faces to faces? Does
> Moses have a face, or faces?
*******
It depends on how one conceptualizes "face".
For example, I have one butt and 2 buttocks, because 1 butt = 2
buttocks.
So whether my bottom is 1 or 2 is entirely on how you conceptualize it
when you spend long hours staring at it.
Is the face thought of as one entire entity, or is it thought of as 2
cheeks or 2 eyes?
That is why etymology* is important, to learn how a word was
originally conceptualized.
(*Berkman will want to know what bugs has to do with it :^)
Gesenius Lexicon says that panim comes from paneh.
A form of that can be seen in Ezekiel 21:21 which says "your face".
*********
> >Back to the original point:
> >Since "Elohim" has the "-im" suffix, it originally had a plural meaning even
> >though it was used to refer to the one true God.
> When you say "originally", at what period of time do you refer?
*********
When the word was first being used.
That singular of Elohim continued to be used in the Bible.
Gesenius says that "Elohim" comes from "Eloha" which means "God",
which is seen in II Chronicles 32:15 ("any god" or "no god") and
Nehemiah 9:17 ("a god").
**********
> >In Tanach you will find that plural Hebrew words are variously translated as
> >singular or plural regardless of whether the Hebrew is grammatically singular or
> >plural.
> Or, more like, you don't have the ability to tell when something is
> singular or plural; and you project this onto your translations.
> Remember how sure you were that "waw" was archaic and incorrect? You
> were wrong about that. You're wrong about this.
*********
"waw" *is* archaic.
Just because some people *still* quote Shakespeare and quote the King
James version of the Bible does not change the fact that such language
is archaic and incorrect in modern usage.
Just because some Amish or Mennonites might still say "thee" and
"thou" does not change the fact that such language is considered
archaic and not correct grammar in most settings.
Just because you will still find some people using "waw" instead of
"vav" for various reasons does not change the fact that "vav" is the
correct transliteration for modern Israeli Hebrew.
- moshe
++++++++++++++++++++
Re-post #2
Newsgroups: alt.messianic, soc.culture.jewish
From: joest...@hotmail.com (moshe) - Find messages by this author
Date: 26 Oct 2004 02:18:46 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 26 2004 4:18 am
Subject: debating Hebrew language words
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
I am moving this out of the other thread to here because it is
off-topic there and I have trouble finding it there in this lousy
newsreader
To bring you up to date:
I argued that Hebrew words ending with "-im" are inherently plural in
their original meanings from pre-history when the words were first
developed.
Slater is arguing that Hebrew words like "mayim" and "shamayim" and
"chayim" and "elohim" are inherently singular rather than plural
because there is no such singular form for such words.
I cited parts of Gesenius' Lexicon to prove my point about singular
forms of those words:
-----------------------------
From: Joe Slater (joe[please_don't_spam_me]@slater.net)
Subject: Re: Intrducing a noob to this NG
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Date: 2004-10-25 19:52:11 PST
Joe Slater <joe[please don't spam me]@slater.net> wrote in message
<news:u2crn0lou7pv108lk...@4ax.com>...
> > On 22 Oct 2004 02:02:04 -0700, moshe <moshe_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> > Even Hebrew words which are *now* thought
>>>>> of as being singular but which end in
> >> > "-im" originally had the meaning of being plural.
> Joe Slater <joe[please don't spam me]@slater.net> wrote in message <news:36gkn016ia5van573...@4ax.com>...
> >> There are a whole bunch of these. What is the singular form of water?
> On 24 Oct 2004 14:29:28 -0700, joest...@hotmail.com (moshe) wrote:
> >Gesenius Lexicon published by Baker lists it as "mai", spelled
> >mem-patach-yod, and gives a lengthy explanation regarding it.
> And this is a word, why? Because it suits Gesenius to suppose that it
> exists as a philological construct in order to make his grammatical
> rules neater.
********
As usual, you are acting like the person of Proverbs 18:13 by jumping
to conclusions without first checking out the entire Gesenius entry.
Gesenius tells you to look at I Chronicles 4:2 which speaks of a
person named "Ahumai", whose name means "brother [of] water".
Strong's lexicon agrees:
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=267
Another article in Gesenius points to Job 9:30 which uses an old
singular form spelled mem-vav in the expression "snow water".
- http://www.breslov.com/bible/Job9.htm#30
Another article in Gesenius points to "Moab" as meaning "water [of]
father", using a singular form for water.
It also says to compare the corresponding Chaldee words "moi", spelled
mem-vav-yod,
and "mohee", spelled mem-vav-he-yod.
***************
> > >Of life?
> >As Gesenius Lexicon also points out, it is "hai", spelled
> >chet-patach-yod,
> >as seen in I Samuel 25:6.
> Not the same word. The passage is a bit obscure, but it certainly
> doesn't mean "life". I favor the interpretation which says that it's
> got a letter missing (and should be "l'achi") but there is no way to
> read it as being equivalent to the word "chayyim" - which actually
> appears in its usual meaning only twenty-three verses later.
*************
"The word CHAI means LIFE in Hebrew."
- quoted from the FAQ page for newsgroup soc.culture.jewish at
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/05-Worship/section-80.html
"the Hebrew word "chai," life""
- http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.02.08/arts.philologos.html
"The Hebrew letters for the number 18 spell the word Chai, which means
life."
- http://www.jafi.org.il/agenda/2001/english/wk35/4.asp
"The Hebrew word Chai means LIFE"
- http://www.myjewishbooks.com/chaibo.html
"Chai means 'life'"
- http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=128278
""Chai" - The Hebrew word for Life!"
- http://jewishbazaar.com/BAZAAR/ChaiJewelry2.HTM
"The Hebrew letters Het and Yud which spell the word Chai "Life"."
- http://www.israelshop1.com/pd_chai_hamsa.cfm
"Chai means "life"
-
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Other_Life_Events/InspireNe...
*************
> >>Of sky?
> >Gesenius Lexicon says that it is "shamai", spelled
> >shin-kamatz-mem-patach-yod.
> And this is a word, why?
*********
Because Gesenius says that it is from "shamah" which is from "sham" /
"there".
And it says that the singular form "shamai" existed / still exists in
the Arabic language which has a common ancestry with the Hebrew
language.
As confirmed on the Internet:
"samaa: "sky""
- www.islam.org.hk/ArabicLessons/lesson01.utf8.asp
"Here the word "samaa" (singular) is used to mean our immediate sky"
- www.submission.org/life.html
"the word Samaa (sky)"
- www.alislam.org/library/links/death_eesa.html
"God knows everything in heaven (samaa) (singular) means in all the
heavens (samawat) (plural)"
- www.submission.org/5-answering-Islam.htm
*********
> >> Because it sounds good and makes sense in context. Similarly I can
> >> say "the waters of lake Ontario" even though it's only one body of
> >> water (as far as I know - feel free to substitute any singular body
> >> you prefer).
> >That single body of water is a collection of quadrillions of water
> >molecules.
> And a single molecule is made up of nearly fifty quarks!
********
But a molecule of water is still water, by the very definition of
"molecule".
A quark is not water.
**********
> >Gesenius says that "Elohim" comes from "Eloha" which means "God",
> >which is seen in II Chronicles 32:15 ("any god" or "no god") and
> >Nehemiah 9:17 ("a god").
> That's not the proper name.
**********
The word "elohim" is translated as "gods" or "judges", depending which
translation you use, in:
Psalm 82:6
- http://www.breslov.com/bible/Psalms82.htm#6
Exodus 18:11
- http://www.breslov.com/bible/Exodus18.htm#11
Exodus 20:3
- http://www.breslov.com/bible/Exodus20.htm#3
Exodus 23:13
- http://www.breslov.com/bible/Exodus23.htm#13
God's name in Hebrew is "Elohim" / "gods" for the same reason that
Adam's name in Hebrew is "adam" / "man".
The descriptive word is used for the proper name.
**********
> I know a man called Manne, but man and
> Manne aren't the same word.
***********
"Adam" was an "adam" so he was called "Adam"
***********
> >"waw" *is* archaic.
> >Just because some people *still* quote Shakespeare and quote the King
> >James version of the Bible does not change the fact that such language
> >is archaic and incorrect in modern usage.
> What would *you* know about speaking Hebrew?
********
I had Hebrew in college many, many, many years ago.
As I have been telling you for almost 6 years.
B'seder?
*********
> You're just blustering
> here in order to avoid the calamity of "moshe" appearing wrong. For
> everybody else, here's the pointer to a page identifying different
> ways of pronouncing the letter's name:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet#.26.231493.3B
*********
Thank you.
You have just proven my point.
That page says that the vav is *only* pronounced as "waw" in Yemenite,
Tiberian,
Reconstructed Mishnaic, and Reconstructed Biblical, which is darn few
people using it in very few instances.
It says that *everyone* else, which includes Modern Israeli,
Ashkenazi, and Sephardi,
pronounce the vav as "vav".
*************
> >Just because you will still find some people using "waw" instead of
> >"vav" for various reasons does not change the fact that "vav" is the
> >correct transliteration for modern Israeli Hebrew.
> I'm not sure this is the case
***********
Then apparently you never bothered to read the very Web page you
linked to,
because it says: Modern Israeli: [ v ]
*************
>, but so what? Why should that be
> privileged over modern Teimani Hebrew, or modern Polish Yiddish, or
> modern Hungarian Aramaic?
**************
Why would yu flunk French/ German/ Spanish class if you insisted on
using non-standard pronunciations of words?
- moshe
+++++++++++++++++++++
Peter Olcott
"Shmuel Playfair" <SPla...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:EFg5f.10290$pP1.6...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
It might make sense if they had a multiple-personality disorder.
Shmuel Playfair
>> >> [Shmuel] Rather than saying that "only God exists", these verses
>> >> mean that "no other Gods exist except HaShem" and that
>> >> "HaShem alone is the only real God". IOW, "God", the ultimate
>> >> Power or supreme Authority has a single identity, which excludes
>> >> any and *all* other co-equal, co-eternal god-persons.
>> [Oesterly]
>> > "Elohim" is plural.
>> >
>> > Genesis chapter 1 says "us" and "our".
>> >
>> > Take "Only God is God" and substitute the second person pronoun as
>> > allowed by Genesis chapter 1 and you get "Only We is God".
>> [Shmuel] ? Do you know what "the second person pronoun" means?
[Oesterly]
> That was a typo.
>
> Should have been first-person pronoun.
>
> I was still thinking of yesterday's post in which God sometimes speaks
> of himself as "you" in Tanach.
[Shmuel] You were typing "us" and "our" and thinking "you".
___
>> Are you aware that many Hebrew words including "Eloheem"
>> which are plural in form often have an singular meaning?
[Oesterly]
> Below are re-posts of 2 of my posts in which I discussed the matter
> at length with Joe Slater a year ago.
<deleted your re-posts with Joe Slater a year ago>
[Shmuel] If you don't want to discuss the matter with me
directly, don't bother discussing it in this thread.
____
[Oesterly deletes my third question without any indication that
he had done so]
>> Are you aware that an individual can say "us" or "our" without
>> indicating that he is more than one person himself.
[Shmuel] Here is another question you can delete without
a response: Are you aware that saying "Only We is God" is
not grammatically correct?
Shmuel Playfair
>>>> [Shmuel] ? Do you know what "the second person pronoun" means?
>>>>
>>>> Are you aware that many Hebrew words including "Eloheem"
>>>> which are plural in form often have an singular meaning?
>>>>
>>>> Are you aware that an individual can say "us" or "our" without
>>>> indicating that he is more than one person himself.
>> [Peter O]
>>> There is the "royal we" when kings or queens include
>>> themselves along with their subjects. Alternatively the
>>> mystical meaning that I have suggested might be true.
>> [Shmuel] Any individual (not just kings or queens) can say
>> "we" without indicating that he is more than one person.
[Peter O]
> I don't think that would be correct grammar.
> It might make sense if they had a multiple-personality disorder.
[Shmuel] ? Do you mean to tell me that you individually have
never used the word "we" when speaking about yourself and
another person or yourself and a group of others? I've often
used "we" (first person plural) with correct grammar.
joes...@hotmail.com
...
> >> Are you aware that many Hebrew words including "Eloheem"
> >> which are plural in form often have an singular meaning?
>
> [Oesterly]
> > Below are re-posts of 2 of my posts in which I discussed the matter
> > at length with Joe Slater a year ago.
>
> <deleted your re-posts with Joe Slater a year ago>
>
> [Shmuel] If you don't want to discuss the matter with me
> directly, don't bother discussing it in this thread.
========
You asked if I was aware.
So I showed you 2 past posts that showed that I was indeed "aware".
Those 2 posts blew you out of the water.
Don't command me what I can and cannot say in this thread.
Especially when you are dishonestly pretending that my quoting those 2
posts was out-of-line when in truth those 2 posts were completely
pertinent.
And you are completely hypocritical when you quote old posts as
arguments then you criticize me for doing the same thing.
==========
> ____
>
> [Oesterly deletes my third question without any indication that
> he had done so]
> >> Are you aware that an individual can say "us" or "our" without
> >> indicating that he is more than one person himself.
==========
Are you aware that when God said "Let Us create" that angels cannot be
part of the "Us" because angels do not create?
==========
>
> [Shmuel] Here is another question you can delete without
> a response:
============
Mr. Hypocrite, you deleted my lengthy 2 posts about plurals in Hebrew
without responding to any of the points I made in those 2 posts.
=============
> Are you aware that saying "Only We is God" is
> not grammatically correct?
============
The principle is from Genesis 1:26, which if I remember correctly has
God using a plural subject for Himself with a singular verb.
Peter Olcott
"Shmuel Playfair" <SPla...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:eCj5f.9605$OM.7...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
about myself alone. That would seem a little strange. God could
do this, and it wouldn't be strange.
Shmuel Playfair
>>>>>> [Shmuel] ? Do you know what "the second person pronoun" means?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you aware that many Hebrew words including "Eloheem"
>>>>>> which are plural in form often have an singular meaning?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you aware that an individual can say "us" or "our" without
>>>>>> indicating that he is more than one person himself.
>>>> [Peter O]
>>>>> There is the "royal we" when kings or queens include
>>>>> themselves along with their subjects. Alternatively the
>>>>> mystical meaning that I have suggested might be true.
>>>> [Shmuel] Any individual (not just kings or queens) can say
>>>> "we" without indicating that he is more than one person.
>> [Peter O]
>>> I don't think that would be correct grammar.
>>> It might make sense if they had a multiple-personality disorder.
>> [Shmuel] ? Do you mean to tell me that you individually have
>> never used the word "we" when speaking about yourself and
>> another person or yourself and a group of others? I've often
>> used "we" (first person plural) with correct grammar.
[Peter O]
> Sure, [but] I have never used the term "we" when I was speaking
> about myself alone. That would seem a little strange. God could
> do this, and it wouldn't be strange.
[Shmuel] It would also be strange for the one and only Creator
to ever use the term "we" when speaking about His singular self alone.
And we have no reason to believe that the single God portrayed
in the Jewish scriptures ever used the term "we" when speaking
about Himself alone.
Shmuel Playfair
> Shmuel Playfair wrote:
> ...
>> >> Are you aware that many Hebrew words including "Eloheem"
>> >> which are plural in form often have an singular meaning?
>> [Oesterly]
>> > Below are re-posts of 2 of my posts in which I discussed the matter
>> > at length with Joe Slater a year ago.
[Shmuel]
>> <deleted your re-posts with Joe Slater a year ago>
>>
>> If you don't want to discuss the matter with me directly,
>> don't bother discussing it in this thread.
[Oesterly]
> You asked if I was aware.
>
> So I showed you 2 past posts that showed that I was indeed "aware".
> Those 2 posts blew you out of the water.
[Shmuel] A simple "yes" or "no" with or without a comment on
the word at hand would be enough to let me know the level
of your awareness. Those two posts were not addressed to me.
So you may falsely imagine that they blew me out of the water,
but I deleted them from our discussion without even reading them.
They were not directly addressed to me or to anything I said.
___
[Oesterly continued]
> Don't command me what I can and cannot say in this thread.
> Especially when you are dishonestly pretending that my quoting those 2
> posts was out-of-line when in truth those 2 posts were completely
> pertinent.
>
> And you are completely hypocritical when you quote old posts as
> arguments then you criticize me for doing the same thing.
[Shmuel] You can say whatever you choose in this thread. But
if you choose *not* to interact *directly* with what I say, I will
not feel the urge to read and respond to anything you said
to someone else.
When I quote old posts, I do it either as a *separate* discussion
*attached* to at the end of a post or place it in a completely
*separate* thread. I would never insert my old post to someone
else in the middle of my discussion with you. If you had quoted
your old posts (as an attachment), *after* saying what you had
to say to me I might have even read them.
____
>> [Oesterly deletes my third question without any indication that
>> he had done so]
>> >> Are you aware that an individual can say "us" or "our" without
>> >> indicating that he is more than one person himself.
[Oesterly]
> Are you aware that when God said "Let Us create" that angels
> cannot be part of the "Us" because angels do not create?
[Shmuel] Who told you that God could not use His angels
to create?
____
>> [Shmuel] Here is another question you can delete without
>> a response:
[Oesterly]
> Mr. Hypocrite, you deleted my lengthy 2 posts about plurals in Hebrew
> without responding to any of the points I made in those 2 posts.
[Shmuel] Those "points [you] made" were address to someone else.
They were not directly addressed to me or to anything I said.
____
[Shmuel continued]
>> Are you aware that saying "Only We is God" is
>> not grammatically correct?
[Oesterly]
> The principle is from Genesis 1:26, which if I remember correctly has
> God using a plural subject for Himself with a singular verb.
[Shmuel] What "plural subject for Himself with a singular verb"
are you talking about? In this Genesis 1.26 we find God saying,
"Let us (plural subject) make (plural verb) man
in Our image after Our likeness".
The plural verb with the plural subject, "Us", is one word
(Naasay). We never find the incorrect grammatical expression
that "only We is God" in the Hebrew scriptures.
joes...@hotmail.com
> > Shmuel Playfair wrote:
> > ...
> >> >> Are you aware that many Hebrew words including "Eloheem"
> >> >> which are plural in form often have an singular meaning?
>
> >> [Oesterly]
> >> > Below are re-posts of 2 of my posts in which I discussed the matter
> >> > at length with Joe Slater a year ago.
>
> [Shmuel]
> >> <deleted your re-posts with Joe Slater a year ago>
> >>
> >> If you don't want to discuss the matter with me directly,
> >> don't bother discussing it in this thread.
>
> [Oesterly]
> > You asked if I was aware.
> >
> > So I showed you 2 past posts that showed that I was indeed "aware".
> > Those 2 posts blew you out of the water.
>
> [Shmuel] A simple "yes" or "no" with or without a comment on
> the word at hand would be enough to let me know the level
> of your awareness.
=============
If I had simply said "Yes" you would have taken my word for it?
Suuuuure........
=============
> Those two posts were not addressed to me.
============
They were evidence.
They presented arguments regarding the subject at hand.
They saved me the trouble of having to re-type the whole thing.
============
> So you may falsely imagine that they blew me out of the water,
> but I deleted them from our discussion without even reading them.
============
Proving that you were either too much of a coward to see evidence from
the opposition,
or you are too much of a snotty bastard to read pertinent evidence if
you think that your debate opponent has not kissed your pinky ring
enough during the debate.
If I had quoted Jewish Encyclopedia would you have refused to read the
evidence because the Jewish Encyclopedia article failed to say, "Dear
Mr. Playfair" addressing you personally?
============
> They were not directly addressed to me or to anything I said.
============
They were evidence regarding your allegation of singular verse plural
Hebrew words.
============
> ___
>
> [Oesterly continued]
> > Don't command me what I can and cannot say in this thread.
> > Especially when you are dishonestly pretending that my quoting those 2
> > posts was out-of-line when in truth those 2 posts were completely
> > pertinent.
> >
> > And you are completely hypocritical when you quote old posts as
> > arguments then you criticize me for doing the same thing.
>
> [Shmuel] You can say whatever you choose in this thread. But
> if you choose *not* to interact *directly* with what I say, I will
> not feel the urge to read and respond to anything you said
> to someone else.
=======
You asked a question.
I presented evidence.
You didn't even bother to read the evidence.
=======
>
> When I quote old posts, I do it either as a *separate* discussion
> *attached* to at the end of a post
========
I put the evidence in the wrong part of the post?
I put the evidence immediately after the question that you asked.
========
> or place it in a completely
> *separate* thread. I would never insert my old post to someone
> else in the middle of my discussion with you. If you had quoted
> your old posts (as an attachment), *after* saying what you had
> to say to me I might have even read them.
========
You will only read evidence if your debate opponent places the evidence
in a part of the post that you deem appropriate?
========
> ____
>
> >> [Oesterly deletes my third question without any indication that
> >> he had done so]
> >> >> Are you aware that an individual can say "us" or "our" without
> >> >> indicating that he is more than one person himself.
>
> [Oesterly]
> > Are you aware that when God said "Let Us create" that angels
> > cannot be part of the "Us" because angels do not create?
>
> [Shmuel] Who told you that God could not use His angels
> to create?
============
Who told you that angels have the power to create?
============
>
> >> [Shmuel] Here is another question you can delete without
> >> a response:
>
> [Oesterly]
> > Mr. Hypocrite, you deleted my lengthy 2 posts about plurals in Hebrew
> > without responding to any of the points I made in those 2 posts.
>
> [Shmuel] Those "points [you] made" were address to someone else.
> They were not directly addressed to me or to anything I said.
=========
They were evidence which answered the question you asked.
=========
> ____
>
> [Shmuel continued]
> >> Are you aware that saying "Only We is God" is
> >> not grammatically correct?
>
> [Oesterly]
> > The principle is from Genesis 1:26, which if I remember correctly has
> > God using a plural subject for Himself with a singular verb.
>
> [Shmuel] What "plural subject for Himself with a singular verb"
> are you talking about? In this Genesis 1.26 we find God saying,
> "Let us (plural subject) make (plural verb) man
> in Our image after Our likeness".
> The plural verb with the plural subject, "Us", is one word
> (Naasay). We never find the incorrect grammatical expression
> that "only We is God" in the Hebrew scriptures.
=========
-------begin quote-----------
...
The inference that "Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26) refers
to the plurality of God is refuted by the subsequent verse, which
relates the creation of man to a singular God, "And God created man in
His image" (Genesis 1:27). In this verse the Hebrew verb "created"
appears in the singular form.
...
- quoted from
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq134.html
-------end quote-----------