Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cege · 10-25-2007, 06:13 PM

2 cherubim on the ark, as directed by God, according to scripture.

Clouseau · 10-26-2007, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

2 cherubim on the ark, as directed by God, according to scripture.

The hosts can't be the cherubim on the ark, then.

Cege · 10-26-2007, 06:28 AM

Why not, Clouseau?

Magdlyn · 10-26-2007, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

I was quoting the NIV, which uses God Almighty, but I see that Young's Literal Translation uses "Jehovah of Hosts", like the RSV does.

Why does the NIV use Almighty instead of Hosts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

It's taken as dynamic equivalence, the hosts being powerful angels.

"Taken" by you, perhaps. It's just incorrect.

Host, in this context:

1. a multitude or great number of persons or things: a host of details.
2. an army.

"Almighty" is the traditional translation of Shaddai, not of Hosts. The above mistranslation was a mistake or purposely misleading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Whatever "it's taken as", why does the NIV use Almighty rather than Hosts, if the Hebrew is Hosts?

How is the reader to know whether the cherubim on the ark are the "hosts" or if some other hosts are intended?

Two cherubim is not enough to be a host, ie: army. In this context, it obviously must refer to the armies of Israel. That is the matter at hand.

Clouseau · 10-26-2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

I was quoting the NIV, which uses God Almighty, but I see that Young's Literal Translation uses "Jehovah of Hosts", like the RSV does.

Why does the NIV use Almighty instead of Hosts?

Quote:

"Taken" by you, perhaps.

Ok, I wrote the NIV. But not all by myself, y'know.

Quote:

Host, in this context:

1. a multitude or great number of persons

Who can be angels.

Cege · 10-26-2007, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

YHWH of Armies is what Lord of hosts means, and that would be appropriate for bringing into battle riding on the cherubim, winged 4 footed beasts that they were.

--->>

Two cherubim is not enough to be a host, ie: army. In this context, it obviously must refer to the armies of Israel. That is the matter at hand.

The Israelites believed, then, that Lord of Hosts was one title for their God, and that by bringing the ark of the covenant into battle, they were literally bringing that God (enthroned as he was atop the golden cherubim on the ark/chest) into the battle. It was expected that the Lord of Hosts ("hosts" to indicate the number of Israelite soldiers) would supernaturally enable their army to prevail over the Phillistine army.

Is that close enough to what the authors of Samuel intended future readers to understand?

Magdlyn · 10-26-2007, 07:35 AM

That seems plain enough. And please remember "the LORD" is merely a euphemism for a specific god, Yahweh. Later pious transcribers felt it was unwise to write the actual name of their god, so they substituted Adonai, lord. To this day, Jews still call him Adonai, or else HaShem, which means, "the name!"

IMO, hosts is kind of a euphemism too. People tend to gloss over the original meaning: YHWH as a leader of the armies of the Hebrews. A tribal war god, in other words. With his "mighty outstretched arm" etc.

Clouseau · 10-26-2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

YHWH of Armies is what Lord of hosts means, and that would be appropriate for bringing into battle riding on the cherubim, winged 4 footed beasts that they were.

--->>

Two cherubim is not enough to be a host, ie: army. In this context, it obviously must refer to the armies of Israel. That is the matter at hand.

Quote:

The Israelites believed, then, that Lord of Hosts was one title for their God, and that by bringing the ark of the covenant into battle, they were literally bringing that God (enthroned as he was atop the golden cherubim on the ark/chest) into the battle.

So do you suppose that the Israelites thought that God in his entirety was literally over the ark?

-Jay- · 10-26-2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

The Israelites believed, then, that Lord of Hosts was one title for their God, and that by bringing the ark of the covenant into battle, they were literally bringing that God (enthroned as he was atop the golden cherubim on the ark/chest) into the battle. It was expected that the Lord of Hosts ("hosts" to indicate the number of Israelite soldiers) would supernaturally enable their army to prevail over the Phillistine army.

Is that close enough to what the authors of Samuel intended future readers to understand?

That's also my understanding. By carrying God into battle before them, the Israelite army would be invincible.

regards,

NinJay

Magdlyn · 10-26-2007, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

So do you suppose that the Israelites thought that God in his entirety was literally over the ark?

That evolved with time. At first, yes. Later, not so much. See Jeremiah 3:16.

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

10-25-2007, 06:13 PM	#41
Cege Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 36078 Posts: 849	2 cherubim on the ark, as directed by God, according to scripture.

10-26-2007, 06:28 AM	#43
Cege Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 36078 Posts: 849	Why not, Clouseau?

10-26-2007, 07:35 AM	#47
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	That seems plain enough. And please remember "the LORD" is merely a euphemism for a specific god, Yahweh. Later pious transcribers felt it was unwise to write the actual name of their god, so they substituted Adonai, lord. To this day, Jews still call him Adonai, or else HaShem, which means, "the name!" IMO, hosts is kind of a euphemism too. People tend to gloss over the original meaning: YHWH as a leader of the armies of the Hebrews. A tribal war god, in other words. With his "mighty outstretched arm" etc.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.