Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Maurice · 01-31-2005, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

This is your only argument.

Like I said in an earlier post, look at Job 1:6

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...30-4911.html#6

And Genesis 6:2

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...22-9022.html#2

It also says Hebrew (Root form). But this time the word is elohim.

Now you have no argument at all.

Again you have it wrong. There are two words in Hebrew:

'l plural 'lym
and
'lh plural 'lhym

The blue bible should have had the singular as the root form, but it is also true that the plural is an entry in some dictionaries...

So what was your argument?

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-31-2005, 07:21 AM

For what it's worth, a check of the corresponding Septuagint translation shows the plural nioi qeou, "sons of God."

Chris Weimer · 01-31-2005, 07:37 AM

Diogenes, that's what I said earlier.

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-31-2005, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cweb255

Diogenes, that's what I said earlier.

Oops. Sorry. Missed it.

Chris Weimer · 01-31-2005, 07:54 AM

Eh, no problem, good to have that restated for support.

Jayhawker Soule · 01-31-2005, 08:27 AM

Furthermore ...

Quote:

Any descriptions of the religions of Israel must therefore take into account that most Israelites, Yahwists in the main, knew their patron to whom they called by name, knew his consort Ashera, and knew other dieties as well to whom they referred by the general idioms bny 'lym, "sons of gods" (Pss. 29:1; 87:7; Job 1:8; 2:1; 37:8), and 'lyhm 'hrym, "other gods" (Exod. 20:3; 23:13; Deut. 5:7; 6:14 and often in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic literature). Evidence for this exists in the inscriptions discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in Chapter 5, as well as in archaeological and historiographic data presented in Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 6.

- see Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches

Fortuna · 01-31-2005, 03:33 PM

Sheshbazzar ,

If you want to see the actual Hebrew go HERE . This is the Mechon-Mamre site, which is using the JPS MT and 1917 english translation. They translate the piece in question as ;

"Ascribe unto the LORD, O ye sons of might, ascribe unto the LORD glory and strength"

Concerning myself with only the first phrase, this seems somewhat innaccurate to me. (I've been reading Hebrew for many years, since I was a child, but one tends to forget <esp the nuances> if one doesnt use it regularly, which I do not anymore, since my conversion to Agnosticism / Deism). To me, "might" should to me be translated more literally as "Elohim", the T4 also literally (most use "Lord" where the T4, occurs for religious reasons) and out of purely personal preference, I dislike the words "ascribe" and "Ye", because they seemsto me to be old english, which I find difficult to understand, and really shouldnt be used in modern times. I also wouldnt use "give" (as in donnez) as you did, simply because it connotes a physical act of giving. Probably "assign" would be a better choice here,
as ;

"Assign to Yhvh [oh you] sons of [the] Elohim,..."

Certainly your translation is more correct than the opening post, but I think the OP makes a point for which you are not off the hook yet.

We call this phrase an impératif, and I must ask to whom you think the psalm writer is addressing there ?

Who were the sons of the Elohim ? What were they understood by the writer to be ?

Addendum : My understanding is that, at one time, "elohim" refered to the Canaanite pantheon of gods, as used in some of the texts found at Ugarit. It seems to also have that meaning at several places in the Tanakh. Of course, words and their meanings evolve and change over time, and I accept that. "El", who was at one time understood to be the chief god of the Elohim, eventually seems to have become a generic word for god (perhaps any god).
But here in this psalm, the writer seems to be using it in the old sense, as a pantheon or godly court. What do you think ? Also, did you know that the words "El", "Elohim", and "Baal" were used in the Cartheginian culture ?

Sheshbazzar · 01-31-2005, 07:21 PM

Thank you Fortuna,
I hope to keep my comments as brief as possible, lest the subject get derailed, and am hoping that a few more scholars will weigh in before too long.
I am in agreement with about every thing you stated, particularly the retaining of the word "Elohim" in translating, because whether we are for, or are against what the Bible teaches, we ought to at least let the text speak for itself without imposing latter religious superstitions upon it.
However, The particular circumstances of "The Assembly of Yahweh", (speaking specifically of my local assembly of believers which have been holding regular Sabbath services in rural Eaton Rapids Michigan since the establishment of "The Camp of YAH", around 1937)
As our congregation principally drew its members from disaffected Protestant believers, (and now also the many who have been born and raised in this persuasion, as was our Pastor who has never been of any other faith)
all of these were familiar with and 'versed' in the KJV, so for the sake of unity, and to avoid disputations about every single word, when we published our first translation, the "Holy Name Bible" we closely followed the wording of the KJV, mainly only restoring the original Names and titles to the text.
But now-days other translations are common, in fact at any service there might be as many as a dozen different versions of the Bible in use, with the individual believer supplying the proper Name or Titles, So much so that over the course of the last 30 years the "Holy Name Bible" has became obsolete, though I still cling to mine for sentimental reasons-and all my marginal notes.

It is my personal persuasion that the writer of Psalms 29:1 intended us to understand that they (we) who believe are the "sons of Elohim" and that we are to sing His praises, and proclaim His Glory and His Strength.

As for the word "El", it is 'time out of mind' ancient and its application and place in ancient cultures, has ranged from the crudest forms of idoltorous anthropomorphism, to the most sublime and highest conceptions of what sustains the universe. I believe that the reputation of "El" was already widespread before 2500 bce.

Sheshbazzar · 02-03-2005, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Psalm 29:2

Ascribe to Yahweh the glory of his name.

Worship Yahweh in holy attire!

http://www.bible.org/netbible/psa29.htm

Why is David asking the elohim to wear holy attire?

That’s dumb.

If Psalm 29:1 read Acknowledge Yahweh, the son of El (like Strong's Concordance says) the whole thing would make sense because it would be you and I (the reader) who should worship Yahweh wearing holy attire.

Which supports my position that the "SONS (plural) of The Elohim", are us, the believers, (and the singers of this Psalm) who are in verse 2 further instructed to be "wearing Holy attire". (not my choice of words) but yes it "would be you and I (the reader)" (should say "singers") "wearing Holy attire".

But then again this is revealing of a fundamental difference in our treatment of this text, and indeed the entire book of Psalms, (the whole Bible for that matter)
You are simply 'reading' it as a 'proof text' to support an incorrect theological argument, while we that believe and "sing" it are not arguing theology but 'doing' exactly what the book instructs us to do,
That is to "Sing His Praises among the nations".

Chris Weimer · 02-03-2005, 01:20 PM

We must keep in mind that elohim referred to not only YHWH but also judges and angels, and in general the Semitic words for god generally meant anything seeming divine, not only gods in modern sense, but also angels, celestrial objects, demons, and even to heroes of lore.

http://www.eblaforum.org/library/bcah/intbibarch05.html

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

01-31-2005, 07:21 AM	#42
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	For what it's worth, a check of the corresponding Septuagint translation shows the plural nioi qeou, "sons of God."

01-31-2005, 07:37 AM	#43
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Diogenes, that's what I said earlier.

01-31-2005, 07:54 AM	#45
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Eh, no problem, good to have that restated for support.

01-31-2005, 03:33 PM	#47
Fortuna Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 293	Sheshbazzar , If you want to see the actual Hebrew go HERE . This is the Mechon-Mamre site, which is using the JPS MT and 1917 english translation. They translate the piece in question as ; "Ascribe unto the LORD, O ye sons of might, ascribe unto the LORD glory and strength" Concerning myself with only the first phrase, this seems somewhat innaccurate to me. (I've been reading Hebrew for many years, since I was a child, but one tends to forget <esp the nuances> if one doesnt use it regularly, which I do not anymore, since my conversion to Agnosticism / Deism). To me, "might" should to me be translated more literally as "Elohim", the T4 also literally (most use "Lord" where the T4, occurs for religious reasons) and out of purely personal preference, I dislike the words "ascribe" and "Ye", because they seemsto me to be old english, which I find difficult to understand, and really shouldnt be used in modern times. I also wouldnt use "give" (as in donnez) as you did, simply because it connotes a physical act of giving. Probably "assign" would be a better choice here, as ; "Assign to Yhvh [oh you] sons of [the] Elohim,..." Certainly your translation is more correct than the opening post, but I think the OP makes a point for which you are not off the hook yet. We call this phrase an impératif, and I must ask to whom you think the psalm writer is addressing there ? Who were the sons of the Elohim ? What were they understood by the writer to be ? Addendum : My understanding is that, at one time, "elohim" refered to the Canaanite pantheon of gods, as used in some of the texts found at Ugarit. It seems to also have that meaning at several places in the Tanakh. Of course, words and their meanings evolve and change over time, and I accept that. "El", who was at one time understood to be the chief god of the Elohim, eventually seems to have become a generic word for god (perhaps any god). But here in this psalm, the writer seems to be using it in the old sense, as a pantheon or godly court. What do you think ? Also, did you know that the words "El", "Elohim", and "Baal" were used in the Cartheginian culture ?

01-31-2005, 07:21 PM	#48
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Thank you Fortuna, I hope to keep my comments as brief as possible, lest the subject get derailed, and am hoping that a few more scholars will weigh in before too long. I am in agreement with about every thing you stated, particularly the retaining of the word "Elohim" in translating, because whether we are for, or are against what the Bible teaches, we ought to at least let the text speak for itself without imposing latter religious superstitions upon it. However, The particular circumstances of "The Assembly of Yahweh", (speaking specifically of my local assembly of believers which have been holding regular Sabbath services in rural Eaton Rapids Michigan since the establishment of "The Camp of YAH", around 1937) As our congregation principally drew its members from disaffected Protestant believers, (and now also the many who have been born and raised in this persuasion, as was our Pastor who has never been of any other faith) all of these were familiar with and 'versed' in the KJV, so for the sake of unity, and to avoid disputations about every single word, when we published our first translation, the "Holy Name Bible" we closely followed the wording of the KJV, mainly only restoring the original Names and titles to the text. But now-days other translations are common, in fact at any service there might be as many as a dozen different versions of the Bible in use, with the individual believer supplying the proper Name or Titles, So much so that over the course of the last 30 years the "Holy Name Bible" has became obsolete, though I still cling to mine for sentimental reasons-and all my marginal notes. It is my personal persuasion that the writer of Psalms 29:1 intended us to understand that they (we) who believe are the "sons of Elohim" and that we are to sing His praises, and proclaim His Glory and His Strength. As for the word "El", it is 'time out of mind' ancient and its application and place in ancient cultures, has ranged from the crudest forms of idoltorous anthropomorphism, to the most sublime and highest conceptions of what sustains the universe. I believe that the reputation of "El" was already widespread before 2500 bce.

02-03-2005, 01:20 PM	#50
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	We must keep in mind that elohim referred to not only YHWH but also judges and angels, and in general the Semitic words for god generally meant anything seeming divine, not only gods in modern sense, but also angels, celestrial objects, demons, and even to heroes of lore. http://www.eblaforum.org/library/bcah/intbibarch05.html

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.