spin

Of course, you are free to pervert the text however you like. The philological evidence is blatantly clear. You can believe whatever you want, but the text will still read )LYM.

It is obviously nothing to do with pronunciation for after you said, "you are most welcome to post your 'correct' pronunciation, and I am willing to give it my most honest consideration", I did offer you a transparent rendering that anyone could pronounce and which reflects what is to be known of the pronunciation of the language and you gave no sign of any, let alone "honest", consideration. Why say things you don't mean?


spin

Sheshbazzar

Yes, the "MASORETIC text will still read****" as it will, then again the MASORETIC has a lot of other 'readings' , do you defend ALL of its 'readings' as correct and accurate?
I gave it my honest consideration, and explained my honest and heartfelt reasons for not accepting it, "honest consideration" never implies that a premise or idea is to be automatically accepted.
If I went to my foreman and asked for a raise, and he replied that he would give it his "honest consideration", I would be out of line to take that statement as meaning he was morally and ethically bound afterward to automatically accede to my request, Nor would I be in the right to accuse him of 'saying things he didn't mean', as he retained the right to weigh the matter and make the decision.

spin

And I don't like the bit about God creating man first and then woman. Let's get rid of that. And while we're here, let's get rid of all the killing and the dishonest trickery. And, hell, those lamentations are the pits. And what's the point of the Song of Solomon? What about all those conflicting bits, how Saul died, how long the rain fell during the flood and so on? And why on earth is God masculine? Who'd ever think of anything so silly? Thinking about it, we can slim it down to a ripping read pocket book and lose nothing. Right?

So it was empty rhetoric. And you won't call your foreman, despite knowing he didn't give it any consideration.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Hmmm, then this means that you DO accept ALL the "MASORETIC " texts 'readings' as correct and accurate? Well Do you? inquiring minds would like to know.
I never shorten, condense, nor eliminate any reading of the Scriptures, and as of this day the body of my Bible consists of eighty-four books, and beyond that as many of the Holy books of other religions both old and new, as The Spirit of Yah commends to my attention for the furthering of my knowledge and edification, to the express purpose of strengthening and building up the faith of all men that hold belief in a Eternal Mighty One.
No, it was not empty rhetoric, if you had offered something better, with an irrefutable explanation of why it was better, then I "may have" accepted it.
As it was made clearly obvious from all the previous posts that I do not accept all of the "MASORETIC " texts to be correct and accurate, citing the the spelling, pronunciation, reading or the 'Jewish' or 'Christian' interpretation of the MT offers me nothing superior, And by the context of this entire thread, My request to you was to provide a reading that is not only superior to the MT, but also superior to the rendering which I gave, and to provide the reasoning as to why your rendering should be considered better.
I still am willing to honestly consider any such superior rendering and attending explanation as you may offer.
The reason for this continuing discussion, was that Loomis requested an explanation of why I used "elohim' rather than 'elim', I was, and am therefore still within my rights to expound and to explain the reasons for my "transliteration..and textual interpretations" and it would be a stretch to call this thread a "neutral discussion" at any point.

My foreman and I never discussed this particular text, and, as this dispute is not with him, there is no valid reason for me to impose upon him.
As for calling and asking him to "honestly consider" giving me a raise in pay, Nope, I won't be doing that either, in that I retired from the company over six years ago. However, not requesting so much as an additional dime, I have received at least four generous pay raises plus company bonus checks in the thousands of dollars since my retirement,
Yah the great and only provider be praised. :notworthy Halleu-YAH :notworthy

Chris Weimer

Shesbazzar,

Where did he say the MT was the entirely correct reading? Not only do you perverse that reading, but also his. Where's the evidence that it was ever Elohim there and not just elim?

Sheshbazzar

I cut spin some slack when he took the opening sentence from the above paragraph, and while neglecting to address its original context, applied it to his views on the "correct procedure when attempting to deal with a text..."
What the statement "If only it were so simple" was referring to specifically was Loomis's wrong-headed conduct in pushing his own faulty private interpretation and application of the text from his initial post onwards.
My objections lay not so much with his faulty 'translation' of this single verse, as with toward what ends he was originally attempting to employ it, and in further bringing in a plethora of other verses and quotations, trying to cover his deception with a huge "snow job", when a simple "Oops! would have sufficed.
As Maurice stated earlier, "Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum"
This was why I refused to discuss any additional verses with Loomis, and appealed to the 'expertise' of this forum to judge the accuracy of Loomis's transliteration and translation. and interestingly enough, not one of you have taken it upon yourself to defend his "translation'.

As to the subject of the variant readings "elim" or "Ha Elohim" in Psalms 29:1, your friend Loomis said that I owed you an explanation, this I have supplied.
I fully understand that you may not like, nor accept my explanation, or may deem it as insufficient to satisfy your demands; So be it, even so, amen.

I am a believer, words of scripture are the inheritance of them that believe, It is my song, I will sing so as edify my brethren, and so as to please my Maker, I will leave it to YAH to decide whether He will accept my praises.
-Zerubabble-

spin

You were responding to my previous post. How else am I supposed to take "If only it were so simple Spin"?

I haven't entered into the significance of the text. I have already condemned Loomis's lack of linguistic skills and I have complained about your tendentious reading, which is more problematic.

And no-one is defending your manipulation of the text.

And I was impressed in your a priori commitment to not reading the text. You must start with the text and justify your deviation from it on as objective a means as you can use.

I don't care if you're a fishmonger (in the shakespearean sense), what interests me is good scholarship. You have happily excluded yourself.


spin

Sheshbazzar

As you will spin.