Freethought & Rationalism Archive

avi · 04-08-2011, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The LXX predated Nicea.

The Jewish God was not like Zeus/Jupiter. His name was not to be uttered; adonai or YHWH were not so much titles as substitutes for saying his name.

I don't know why you persist in this confusion.

Hi Toto, sorry to appear so muddleheaded.....

Yes, I appreciate that LXX was written before Nicea.

However, we have no extant manuscripts representing that original output, from Alexandria. Most of what we have today, was derived from Origen, and recopied from his investigations/manipulations.

There were further chanages made to the original text, at various times, prior to issuance of Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, our oldest extant copies of LXX, in the fourth century, after Nicea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX postdate the Hexaplar rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century. These are indeed the oldest surviving nearly complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date some 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century.[5][14] While there are differences between these three codices, scholarly consensus today holds that one LXX — that is, the original pre-Christian translation — underlies all three. The various Jewish and later Christian revisions and recensions are largely responsible for the divergence of the codices

You may well be correct, and I may be in error, (not uncommon, unfortunately), but, when you write that Jupiter and Yahweh were treated differently in printed fashion, by authors of 2500 years ago, were you referring to a specific text?

I claim, but have no proof, that the Greeks, from the time of Alexander, at least, referred to various deities as theos.

I deny that we have reliable evidence (e.g. DSS) pointing to a Hebrew designation of Yahweh as merely adonai.

Perhaps I am in error....Won't be the first time....
My argument is not based on knowledge of anything, certainly not Hebrew, but is based on the argument that Jews held yahweh in such high esteem, that they would never consent to regard him as a mere lord, a human attribute, not a mantle fit for the supreme creator of all life.

The Christians, on the other hand, regarded yahweh and JC as equals....

avi

avi · 04-08-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Yahweh isn't Jesus' father. Jesus is Yahweh!

Thank you for clearing up my confusion, hjalti. By the way, if you are writing tongue in cheek, I should warn you that (surprise, surprise!) I am very dense.

Umm. Now, I cannot, off the top of my head, quote the passage from John, though I know a dozen forum members who could do so.

I cannot.

But, I think you are very, very knowledgeable about the bible, so perhaps you will know of the passage, here, to which I refer:

Jesus is talking to someone, I don't remember which person or group.

JC says, not his exact words, in response to a question about gaining access to Heaven, post mortem, that neither he, nor the angels, know who will go to heaven, but only his father, i.e. Yahweh.

So, please try again, for John makes clear that Jesus is not Yahweh.

avi

Toto · 04-08-2011, 04:00 PM

avi - Names of God

Quote:

Traditionally in Judaism, the name is not pronounced but read as Adonai, "my Lord" during prayer, and referred to as HaShem, "the Name" at all other times. This is done out of hesitation to pronounce the name in the absence of the Temple in Jerusalem, due to its holiness.

I know of no Greek or Roman writing that indicates that Jupiter or Zeus were sacred names that could not be pronounced. Do you?

Iskander · 04-08-2011, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

The translation of ben adam is son of Adam. Son of man is already an interpretation.

Ah, but it is not just the phrase 'ben adam' that we have to work with, and standing witness to the original intent.

'ben' of course appears in thousands (2798) of verses where it is translated as 'son', or as indicated by context or construct 'children'.
And in Genesis 5:2;

The term 'adam' is presented as the generic term for all mankind, both male and female alike are called 'Adam'. ie 'man', and so it is that 'adam' is translated as 'man' 408 times, and as 'men' 121 times, in addition to being the proper given name of the first 'man'.
Given that integral background of Scripture, there is little 'interpretation' involved.

Moreover, when these texts were translated into the LXX (way pre-Christian) the Greek equivalent of 'son of man' was employed.
And in Daniel, the Aramaic equivalent כבר אנש 'bar 'enash' = 'Son of man' (see Daniel 7:13, it certainly is not referring to 'humanity' coming with the clouds of heaven)

And as has already been pointed out the Latin Vulgate, and subsequent Bibles have consistently maintained the phrase 'son of man' in its equivalent expression in every language the Bible has been translated into.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Son of man is an idiotic translation which has created confusion among the reasonable people.

You are claiming that 3000 years of Biblical translators and scholars were idiotic, to give your support to a half-assed "versions" recently invented 'interpretation'.

If you are confused by that fact, and the fact that the original texts, and all subsequent texts actually 'translated' from them, have with very few exceptions remained consistent in translation of these recurrent phrases into every language as 'son of man', then it is obvious that the text is not what is the problem, or what is unreasonable, or is being idiotic.
Long after the last of your latest favored 'interpretation' and its proponents have rotted into the earth and became forgotten among men.
The 'Son of man' will stand the test of time, and will prevail.
This is an argument you are destined to lose.

Quote:

The 'Son of man' will stand the test of time, and will prevail

That’s fine with me, son of man it is if it is your choice.

What does it mean to be a son of man [and of woman]?

My interpretation is that Hashem reminds Ezekiel that he is but a mortal.

Son of Adam, remember what happened to Adam, remember that you are a mere mortal; a human in need of my providence, a son of men and of women.

avi · 04-08-2011, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

avi - Names of God

Quote:

Traditionally in Judaism, the name is not pronounced but read as Adonai, "my Lord" during prayer, and referred to as HaShem, "the Name" at all other times. This is done out of hesitation to pronounce the name in the absence of the Temple in Jerusalem, due to its holiness.

I know of no Greek or Roman writing that indicates that Jupiter or Zeus were sacred names that could not be pronounced. Do you?

short answer: no.

long answer:

thanks, Toto, however, I was not discussing the question of whether or not temple folks pronounced or mispronounced the name of Yahweh.

I was commenting on the OP, which is concerned with mistranslations.

My argument, which may be incorrect, if someone has some data to refute me, is this:
Ancient Koine Greek authors did not employ the word kyrios to represent their gods.

That's all I am trying to write here. Kyrios is NOT the same as theos. Yahweh is a theos, not a kyrios. I don't know what the ancient Jews believed, or practiced.

I do know that the ancient Christians changed the LXX, where the Hebrew text reads Yahweh, they wrote kyrios, instead of theos.

Any discussion of what various sects may or may not have said inside the temple a couple thousand years ago is, from my point of view, utterly irrelevant to this topic, of forgery, and false translations of the original Hebrew text.....

You can easily refute my point of view by quoting from any Greek author, referring to Jupiter as kyrios. Absent that, I will continue to believe that our extant copies of LXX are corrupt.

avi

hjalti · 04-08-2011, 04:53 PM

Quote:

But, I think you are very, very knowledgeable about the bible, so perhaps you will know of the passage, here, to which I refer:

Oh you!

Quote:

JC says, not his exact words, in response to a question about gaining access to Heaven, post mortem, that neither he, nor the angels, know who will go to heaven, but only his father, i.e. Yahweh.

You're probably thinking about this:

Quote:

"But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. - 13.32

But notice here that he only talks about the father, and doesn't say that the father is Yahweh. I agree that Jesus was thought to have a father, and that his father was the true god of the universe. But I don't think that that god was Yahweh. In the OT we can see that Yahweh had a father called El Elyon (god most high), and guess what Jesus is called?

Sheshbazzar · 04-08-2011, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The 'Son of man' will stand the test of time, and will prevail

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskader

That’s fine with me, son of man it is if it is your choice.

Not my choice; בן־אדם "ben adam", בר אנש "bar 'enash", ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου "huios tou anthrōpos" = "son of man" is what "IS WRITTEN".
It is, and it remains inviolate, irregardless of any man's attempts to violate it by replacement, or through any substituted 'interpretations'.

Quote:

What does it mean to be a son of man [and of woman]?

My interpretation is that Hashem reminds Ezekiel that he is but a mortal.

Son of Adam, remember what happened to Adam, remember that you are a mere mortal;

a human in need of my providence, a son of men and of women.

You are free to interpret the Scriptural phrase "son of man" in any way you wish.
In the context of some verses of Ezekiel, your 'interpretation' stands up to scrutiny. But that does not justify replacing an accurate and exacting translation of the phrase As It IS Written, with whatever 'interpretation' you think may be its equivalent. The original text and phrase is to be held inviolate.

Understand or interpret the phrase "son of man" as you will, just don't remove it, or replace the phrase which is actually WRITTEN, with your own chosen interpretations.

In many other verses employing the exact same phrase "son of man", your 'interpretation' does not at all agree with what is presented by the changing context.
Ergo, your 'interpretation' of the phrase "ben adam" "son of man" is inconsistent, becoming subject to whatever you desire wherever you desire.
It is NOT your personal property to handle so flippantly.

.

Iskander · 04-08-2011, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The replacement term "human" IS NOT a 'translation' of the Scriptural phrase "Son of Man".

Here is the Latin Vulgate translation of the Hebrew text for Ezekiel 2:1

Here is the translation which I find to be most literal:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douay Rheims

...And he said to me: Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak to thee.

Point is this: "Son of man", is not synonymous with "human being". "Son of" anything, indicates progeny, offspring.

If we examine an earlier passage in Ezekiel: 1:3, we can observe a similar attempt to elevate the stature of JC, referred to as "lord" by the Christians, by lowering the status of Yahweh, to the same rank, i.e. lord.

So, there has been a consistent pattern, since at least the time when LXX was doctored by the Christians, post Nicea, to try to raise JC to the same status as his "father".

By changing "son of man", to "human being", one is able to explain that JC only appeared human, but was actually divine. He was born of a woman, but son of Yahweh, not son of man. The English had to be changed, to be consistent with Christian trinitarian dogma...

avi

Quote:

If we examine an earlier passage in Ezekiel: 1:3, we can observe a similar attempt to elevate the stature of JC, referred to as "lord" by the Christians, by lowering the status of Yahweh, to the same rank, i.e. lord.

The Stone Chumash
Haftarah, Shavuot (First Day)[ or Shavuos] to accompany the reading of Ex.19:1-20:23
Ezekiel 1:1-28; 3:12
Ezekiel 1:3

Quote:

The word of Hashem had come to Yechezkel the son of buzi, the Kohen,in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Kevar; and the hand of Hashem was upon him there.

In Judaism, the translation of the tetragramon into English as ‘The name’ [Hashem] is not a downgrading of god, but indicative of a profound respect and it has nothing to do with scheming Christians.

This translation was taken from the JPS Tanakh
3 the word of the Lord came to the priest Ezekiel son of Buzi, by the Chebar Canal, in the land of the Chaldeans. And the hand of the Lord came upon him there
http://www.jtsa.edu/PreBuilt/Parasha...ot1_haft.shtml

In Judaism, Hashem, the Lord ...almost any English word is allowed for the tetragramon, but never the sacred name. It is not a Christian plot, but respectful Jewish tradition.

Iskander · 04-08-2011, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The 'Son of man' will stand the test of time, and will prevail

Not my choice; בן־אדם "ben adam", בר אנש "bar 'enash", ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου "huios tou anthrōpos" = "son of man" is what "IS WRITTEN".
It is, and it remains inviolate, irregardless of any man's attempts to violate it by repalcement, or through any substituted 'interpretations'.

Quote:

What does it mean to be a son of man [and of woman]?

My interpretation is that Hashem reminds Ezekiel that he is but a mortal.

Son of Adam, remember what happened to Adam, remember that you are a mere mortal;

a human in need of my providence, a son of men and of women.

You are free to interpret the Scriptural phrase "son of man" in any way you wish.
In the context of some verses of Ezekiel, your 'interpretation' stands up to scrutiny. But that does not justify replacing an accurate and exacting translation of the phrase As It IS Written, with whatever 'interpretation' you think may be its equivalent. The original text and phrase is to be held inviolate.

Understand or interpret the phrase "son of man" as you will, just don't remove or replace the phrase which is actually WRITTEN, with your own chosen interpretations.

In many other verses employing the exact same phrase "son of man", your 'interpretation' does not at all agree with what is presented by the changing context.
Ergo, your 'interpretation' of the phrase "ben adam" "son of man" is inconsistent, becoming subject to whatever you desire wherever you desire.
It is NOT your personal property to handle so flippantly.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...OTpdf/eze2.pdf
Here son of human and son of man are both taken to be the correct translation

Sheshbazzar · 04-08-2011, 06:58 PM

Note that in each instance it is rendered "SON of....." the translation does not drop the "SON of..." as your interpretation, and that bogus Bible 'translation' <sic> does.
The key is "SON of..." 'man' or 'human(ity)' are interchangeable. "SON of.." IS Scriptural and inviolable.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2011, 06:58 PM	#60
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Note that in each instance it is rendered "SON of....." the translation does not drop the "SON of..." as your interpretation, and that bogus Bible 'translation' <sic> does. The key is "SON of..." 'man' or 'human(ity)' are interchangeable. "SON of.." IS Scriptural and inviolable.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.