Intelligitimate

Not that I claim to be a Bible scholar or anything, but it is qutie clear Loomis is wrong <deleted>. He certainly does not understand what the blueletterbible is doing when they give the root of the word, and if he would simply look at the Hebrew alphabet (or rather, Alefbet), he would see just how clearly wrong he is <deleted>.

Please do not think Loomis reflects on the rest of us on this forum.

ohwilleke

The Hebrew Bible and the version of it received by Christianity as orthodox, have multiple significant discrepencies. This verse may very well be one of them. And, in this case, both parties had strong incentives to make subtle adjustments to the text to reflect their own views. In one reading, it appears to support the view of God the Father and God the Son, and a non-Jew translating it for a Christian Bible might have had a strong incentive to adapt it and a weak grasp of Hebrew grammar.

Likewise, the Hebrew reading has a strong incentive to tweak the text to avoid the suggestion of polytheism as the tradition is carried down with handwritten copies at a later period in Jewish history where monotheism has taken a more firm hold than it had in the early Jewish period.

I can fully imagine there being an "original" version drawing on pre-Jewish writings that is polytheistic, an authoritative Jewish version that is modified to be firmly monotheistic, and a subsequent Christian version that took while when the possibility of a twist in the Jewish version might have been seen, and perhaps even modified into a Christian worldview that happened to have the same wording, but a different meaning, than the "original".

Keep in mind that the printing press didn't come into being for more than a thousand years after the most recent "Christian version" would have been received into the little o orthodox version of what the Hebrew Bible said which would be reflected in the blue letter version.

Sheshbazzar

While Chemosh and Dagon and others were referred to under the common Semitic appellations of "el", "elim", "eloha", and "elohim",
The Scriptures are also careful to point out the differences between The only Elohim that is named Yah Yahweh, and all of those others called "elohim".
(The Scriptures do after all, consist of more than just half a dozen verses)

It would hardly be likely that the intent of the Psalm was to instruct the foreign idols (made of wood, stone and metal) such as Chemosh or Dagon to give praise to Yahweh, likewise if the "sons of elohim" were considered to be those "who had left their first estate", and fathered a race of degenerates that had led mankind into evil and to destruction.
Now if the "sons of Elohim" spoken of here are judges, kings, and angels who are to "Ascribe to Yahweh, Glory and Strength", there is no problem. Although I do believe the instruction to ascribe to Him glory and strength is not limited to only these, but as is indicated by a multitude of other Psalms and Scriptures, is a universal imperative to "all that have breath".
Halell-u-Hu! [Praise you Him!] Halell-u-YAH! [Praise you YAH!]

spin

I have just worked out what Loomis did at BlueLetterBible.org: he consulted Strong's for each word he was interested in, and Strong's happily provided the root word for each of them:

Where the Psalm has HBW, Strong's provided yahab.
Where the Psalm has BNY, Strong's provided ben.
Where the Psalm has )LYM, Strong's provided el.

Instead of HBW LYHWH BNY )LYM, which you can find at BlueLetterBible.org, Loomis strings this Strong's success together and gets "yahab y@hovah ben el". This not to be how you to analyse language Loomis. You need to know something about grammar and morphology of the language you are analysing otherwise you unwittingly put yourself up for derision.


spin

Sheshbazzar

"Habu la'YAHWEH, ben'ey Ha Elohim, Habu la'YAHWEH kabod v'oz"

"Give-you to YAHWEH, sons (of) THE Elohim, Give-you to YAHWEH glory and strength:"

As you can see, I endeavor to transliterate fully, that the text may be easily vocalized, and by repetition, committed to memory, as I have found this the most efficient way to build up vocabulary, and to develop a comprehension of how the language is structured and vocalized, that will aid any sincere student in correctly interpreting additional texts.
A couple of points that still need clearing up here, Loomis also drew attention to the fact that I had used "Elohim" in my transliteration, where the Masoretic text uses "elim", and to this I willingly confess, as I am not "Jewish" nor "Christian".
I am not bound to agree to or employ every peculiar 'Masoretic' reading or 'device' ( If I were, you certainly wouldn't be seeing "Yahweh" above)
Now, about the transliteration above, I deliberately set forth "HA ELOHIM" ("THE ELOHIM") as against the Masoretic "elim", And this choice is supported by the evidence of earlier manuscripts.
Beyond this, the alternate spellings "elohim" and "elim" do not in the least alter the interpretation of the text, as the form "elim" where it does (infrequently) appear in the MT has no other or different interpretation or sense than that of the much more employed form "elohim".
Thank you.

Lugubert

To be absolutely sure that spin and Sheshbazzar give the correct version and that Loomis is wrong, I checked with my BHS (1984), a very Jewish TaNaK printed in Vienna in 1877 and a lovely parallel Hebrew-Latin edition, by van der Hooght, 1740. The agreed to the jot and tittle, except for some minor differences in the cantillation marks. Of course s & S are right.

spin

Fine, but you should remember that the original text was not written with vowels and your transliteration is modern. For the least conflict, you should keep such considerations and your textual interpretations [such as you have done with )LYM] out of neutral discussion.

The few times that )LYM is used in the Hebrew bible it is never used with direct reference to YHWH, so I think it is wisest to leave it as is

There is a copy of Ps.29:1-2 from Nahal Hever, so that is the earliest form of the psalm.


spin

Sheshbazzar

If only it were so simple Spin,
Loomis besides his crude and faulty attempt at translation, also continued the endeavor of pushing HIS OWN faulty private interpretation and application of the text from his initial post onwards.
My initial protest was centered on his corrupt "textual interpretation" foremost, with my transliteration only a secondary consideration to indicate how far he had deviated from any actual reading supported by the text.

Now to the matter of the practical, When I stand in the asssembly and read these texts aloud, such a pronunciation as you have written, " )LYM ", is a practical impossibility, (if you feel otherwise, you are most welcome to post your 'correct' pronunciation, and I am willing to give it my most honest consideration)
My brethren who love YAH Yahweh never object to my readings, why should I be at all troubled by the complaints of men who do not love the Name of YAH YAHshua ?
Moreover, as a practicing Yahwhist, I feel no call to conform to ANY the teachings of Orthodox Judaism, or of Christianity, or of Atheism,
but to maintain a clear conscience before YAH, which I must refuse to subvert for the pleasure of men of other persuasions.
As for the text of 'Masoretic' scriptures, I have no desire to alter as much as a single ' , no, it is so much the better as a witness, as it is.
Thank you , Zerubabble

spin

It is not a matter of simplicity, but of correct procedure when attempting to deal with a text. You cut out as much as the questionable preprocessing as possible and there can be less trouble finding common ground for discussion.

If you must say the word, why not say "el-eem" (stress on 1st syllable) - or IPA: /'elim/?

The Dead Sea Scrolls display that there were several forms of the Hebrew texts, from one of which, the MT descends. There are Hebrew fragments which reflect what would be the LXX and others which show early Samaritan tradition.


spin

Sheshbazzar

As you here evidence, there are differing textual 'traditions', and for the sake of having ready an honest answer to every man that inquires concerning the faith that is within me, I employ the reading that is consistent with that faith,
In the case of Psalm 29:1, it requires of me to read "Ha Elohim" specifically because any 'lesser' reading gives the perverse and unbelieving ample occasion to build their sand castles. (as Loomis has here so well demonstrated)
Yes, and you are welcome to employ whatever reading serves your purposes,(as Loomis is also 'entitled' to keep his little perversion)
but understand, my reading stands for the very purpose of counteracting those variant readings that I must for conscience sake, esteem as inferior.
The big difference though, is I BELIEVE that I will have to account for every word, while obviously, Loomis, you, and the atheist's on this board DO NOT BELIEVE that you will have answer to YAHWEH for anything that you might write or say, or do.