Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 01-31-2005, 02:56 AM

Also, if you look above the Hebrew, in the header row, it gives "Hebrew (Root form)" as the title, thus indicating that the entire Hebrew is in :banghead: root form.

Loomis · 01-31-2005, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cweb255

Sorry, Loomis, but you are wrong about that not only according to the Tanak but also the LXX, which has "Bring to the Lord you sons of God" which means that not only the MT but also the version that the LXX was used to translate into Greek both agree against you and with Shesbazzar. However, I have not researched the other points well enough to make a comment about them.

Now tell us why the correct rendering isn’t elim.

Loomis · 01-31-2005, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cweb255

Sorry, Loomis, but you are wrong about that not only according to the Tanak but also the LXX, which has "Bring to the Lord you sons of God" which means that not only the MT but also the version that the LXX was used to translate into Greek both agree against you and with Shesbazzar. However, I have not researched the other points well enough to make a comment about them.

And how does repeating the traditional translation refute the argument that the traditional translation is wrong?

Loomis · 01-31-2005, 03:20 AM

Further, what is it about Psalm 29:1 that caused the folks at BlueLetterBible to suspend their own rules and use the word el instead if the word elohim?

Loomis · 01-31-2005, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cweb255

Also, if you look above the Hebrew, in the header row, it gives "Hebrew (Root form)" as the title, thus indicating that the entire Hebrew is in :banghead: root form.

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.

Sheshbazzar · 01-31-2005, 03:32 AM

You know cweb, I would be rolling on the floor with mirth, if this wasn't so pathetic.

Loomis · 01-31-2005, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

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

The guys over at NetBible disagree with you.

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

Look at the footnotes and restore Yahweh’s name:

Acknowledge Yahweh, you sons of God,

acknowledge Yahweh’s majesty and power!

Quote:

Heb “sons of gods,�? or “sons of God.�? Though <yla is vocalized as a plural form (“gods�?) in the MT, it is likely that the final mem is actually enclitic, rather than a plural marker. In this case one may read “God.�?

The "God" in question is El.

The “sons�? had names like Chemosh, Dagon, Baal, Milcom, Hadad, and Qos.

Loomis · 01-31-2005, 04:24 AM

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.

Chris Weimer · 01-31-2005, 05:10 AM

Loomis, I was responding to the original question, not the elim part...My knowledge of Hebrew is too limited to answer that correctly...

Maurice · 01-31-2005, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Sure it does. It absolutely does. I just looked. Why are you saying this? Are you quibbling over y@hovah vs Yahweh? Are you crazy?

Look:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...02-7792.html#1

I feel very sorry to say that you seem to be very stubborn. It is good when one is right, but obviously you have no knowledge of the Hebrew language, for you can't even read it in the text, let understand it. If you could read Psalm 29:1 in Hebrew you would understand how wrong you are.

The correct transliteration of Psalm 29:1 is:

29:1 mzmvr ldvd hbv lyhvh bny `lym hbv lyhvh kbvd vjz

http://bibledbdata.org/onlinebibles/...lit/19_029.htm

There is bny = sons... and not bn (= son).

In the column Hebrew root form it is just that: root form, the entry you will find in any Hebrew dictionary.

Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum.

Shalom.

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

01-31-2005, 02:56 AM	#31
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Also, if you look above the Hebrew, in the header row, it gives "Hebrew (Root form)" as the title, thus indicating that the entire Hebrew is in :banghead: root form.

01-31-2005, 03:20 AM	#34
Loomis Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The recesses of Zaphon Posts: 969	Further, what is it about Psalm 29:1 that caused the folks at BlueLetterBible to suspend their own rules and use the word el instead if the word elohim?

01-31-2005, 03:32 AM	#36
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	You know cweb, I would be rolling on the floor with mirth, if this wasn't so pathetic.

01-31-2005, 04:24 AM	#38
Loomis Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The recesses of Zaphon Posts: 969	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.

01-31-2005, 05:10 AM	#39
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Loomis, I was responding to the original question, not the elim part...My knowledge of Hebrew is too limited to answer that correctly...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.