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

Sorry, but you appear to be dead wrong. BlueLetterBible seems quite ready, willing, and able, to use plurals when they see fit.

Here’s a link to Job 1:6

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

And here’s a link to Genesis 6:2

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

I’ll be damned look at that! BlueLetterBible's side bar word on word rendering certainly DOES distinguish between singulars and plurals.

They could have used Strong’s 0430, but they chose Strong’s 0410 instead.

How come?

I think it’s time that we stop pretending that this is my own little distorted translation, and ask ourselves why the good folks over at BlueLetterBible are so screwed up.

Lookie lookie here: Can you spot the translation that does not belong?

Genesis 11:31
Lowt ben Haran
Lot the son of Haran

Genesis 23:8
`Ephrown ben Tsochar
Ephron the son of Zohar

Genesis 24:24
Bethuw'el ben Milkah
Bethuel the son of Milcah

Genesis 29:5
Laban ben Nachowr
Laban the son of Nahor

Genesis 34:2
Shekem ben Chamowr
Shechem the son of Hamor

Genesis 36:10
'Eliyphaz ben `Adah
Eliphaz the son of Adah

Genesis 36:10
Re`uw'el ben Bosmath
Reuel the son of Bashemath

Genesis 36:32
Bela` ben Be`owr
Bela the son of Beor

Psalm 72:20
David ben Yishay
David the son of Jesse

Proverbs 1:1
Shelomoh ben David
Solomon the son of David

Psalm 29:1
Yahweh ben El
LORD, O ye mighty

Loomis

Thanks Dharma. I’m familiar with that site.

I understand why you say “there is no Yahab ben El.�

Do you understand why I say there is?

I think you may be hoodwinked into believing that since the text is in Hebrew and Jewish, that it is somehow without fault.

Please tell us a little bit about how you arrived at your conclusion that “The Hypertext Bible� site reflects the original Hebrew.

Here’s what Steve Gross has to say about his own translation:

Dharma, please tell us about Steve Gross’s diverse manuscripts. Apparently you know a little bit about them.

What are they?

Where did they come from?

Would any of the authors of those “diverse texts� admit that Yahweh was a son of El if the texts said so?

Loomis

Mikraot Gedolot is confident that Deuteronomy 32:8 reads as follows:

behanchêl`elyon goyim behaphriydho benêy 'âdhâm yatsêbh gebhuloth `ammiymlemispar benêy yisrâ'êl.

Ditto Richard Elliot Friedman.

Nevertheless, a quick google of ["Deuteronomy 32" El Yahweh "Sons of God"] reveals that they are unequivocally wrong.

Now what do we do?

And there is still the issue of that alternate evil El who has 70 sons and dates a goddess named Asherah.

Where oh where did that El go?

Sure, maybe I’m wrong about Psalm 29:1. But in that case so is BlueLetterBible.com. And in that case how did Strong’s Concordance manage to arrive at a mistranslation that agrees so closely with Deut 32 and the texts at Ugarit?

Just a coincidence?

The “Yahweh as a son of El� paradigm stands with Yahab Yahweh ben El or with Ha'bu ben'ey elohim because you’ve still got an author who is asking us to believe that the elohim have sons – just like that evil El – the god who just happens to have the same name as the god of Israel.

I say we move forward and examine this little Deuteronomy 32:7-9 problem.

Unless, of course, you’ld like to discuss the epic of Baal and his victory over the Sea god Yamm. (Also Psalm 29)

Sheshbazzar

All right all of you Atheist Bible scholars who claim proficiency in the transliteration and translation of the Hebrew writings, lets reveal to everyone how real your integrity which you boast of is,
You have here one of your own, What say you?

Is his transliteration and translation of Psalm 29:1 correct?

-Zerubabble-

Loomis

Still waiting ….

Sheshbazzar

I am going to take this opportunity to correct my above rendering, as I just observed that I had ommited a single prefex letter 'heh',

"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:"

Sheshbazzar

And I am still standing fast, I will not discuss any other verse or misconception you may have untill your peers teach you how to read.

Loomis

I think you owe it to my peers to address the issue of why so many translations render it as elim.

After all, you want to be right.

Right?

Sheshbazzar

I think I am going to wait to see your peers replys.

Chris Weimer

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.