On the Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-05-2014, 12:52 PM
RE: On the Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible
(26-05-2014 12:24 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  ...and likely doesn't literally mean they went all Hulk Hogan.

I couldnt stop lol'ing when i read this.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djkamilo's post
26-05-2014, 12:59 PM
RE: On the Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible
(26-05-2014 12:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  They are looking at the source language.
You cannot validly pick apart word usage from a translation. It makes no sense to do so.
Yeah, except that I never said that you can "validly pick apart word usage from a translation." If that was my view, I wouldn't have bothered to read a 30 pages long paper in which the author examines these passages in their original language to determine their meaning.

You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension, old man.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
26-05-2014, 01:13 PM
RE: On the Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible
Get 'im, Vosur. That crotchety ol' fuck. Wink

Anyhoo... without reading alla that stuff, it was polytheistic like everything else back in the day until the prophets went all "ethnic cleansing" on the godhood. Then again, as a prophet I can tell you there ain't really no difference between a single god and a multitude. Tongue

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
26-05-2014, 01:13 PM
RE: On the Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible
If I was you I would ditch the NIV.
One of the reasons the NIV has such a bad rep among some evangelical scholarly circles is the poorly chosen manuscripts it uses and its preference of modern english phrases (and even paraphrasing) over a purely literal translation of the text. The NASB or the ESV are superior for pastoral exegetes and skeptic critics alike for its intentioned adherence to word by word translation (as much as possible even in case where the translation sounds weird in english). It also has better manuscripts sourcing its composition.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 02:21 PM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2014 02:24 PM by Chas.)
RE: On the Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible
(26-05-2014 12:59 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 12:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  They are looking at the source language.
You cannot validly pick apart word usage from a translation. It makes no sense to do so.
Yeah, except that I never said that you can "validly pick apart word usage from a translation." If that was my view, I wouldn't have bothered to read a 30 pages long paper in which the author examines these passages in their original language to determine their meaning.

You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension, old man.

Maybe you should work on your writing ability.

"As many of you already know, I started reading the entire Bible a couple of days ago. One of the most prevalent questions in my mind so far concerns the numerous passages in which Yahweh refers to himself in the plural form"

If you are reading a translation, that statement is the problem. You will be picking apart the words in a translation, not the words written.

You later go on to say you will use a translation that you know is not literal.
You can't parse the words to analyze the intent if they aren't the original words.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: On the Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible
(26-05-2014 02:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Maybe you should work on your writing ability.

"As many of you already know, I started reading the entire Bible a couple of days ago. One of the most prevalent questions in my mind so far concerns the numerous passages in which Yahweh refers to himself in the plural form"

If you are reading a translation, that statement is the problem. You will be picking apart the words in a translation, not the words written.

You later go on to say you will use a translation that you know is not literal.
You can't parse the words to analyze the intent if they aren't the original words.
At no point did I claim that you can "parse the words to analyze the intent if they aren't the original words." Again, if it was my view that a translation is adequate for making an informed assessment about authorial intent, I would not have researched the meaning of the original Hebrew text.

In other words, I rest my case.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 08:19 AM
RE: On the Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible
I studied the KJV. That was bad enough.

Vozur have you read Julian's Against the Galileans? He makes numerous mention of Yahweh speaking of other gods.

As for translations. I did enjoy Tolstoy even though I don't speak Russian. I am sure he is great in Russian, but I got the gist. Prince Andre saw a spinning cannon ball that then went BOOM!

Smile

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
27-05-2014, 08:29 AM
RE: On the Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible
(26-05-2014 02:43 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 02:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Maybe you should work on your writing ability.

"As many of you already know, I started reading the entire Bible a couple of days ago. One of the most prevalent questions in my mind so far concerns the numerous passages in which Yahweh refers to himself in the plural form"

If you are reading a translation, that statement is the problem. You will be picking apart the words in a translation, not the words written.

You later go on to say you will use a translation that you know is not literal.
You can't parse the words to analyze the intent if they aren't the original words.
At no point did I claim that you can "parse the words to analyze the intent if they aren't the original words." Again, if it was my view that a translation is adequate for making an informed assessment about authorial intent, I would not have researched the meaning of the original Hebrew text.

In other words, I rest my case.

Yeah, making an observation in the translation - inconsistent numbering - and following up by consulting academic literature on the original form is kind of the very example of legitimate inquiry.

A lot of modern Christian translations kinda fudge it, but the single/plural distinction is very carefully maintained in the KJV, which gets it mostly from the vulgate...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
27-05-2014, 09:21 AM
RE: On the Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible
(27-05-2014 08:19 AM)Banjo Wrote:  ...
Prince Andre saw a spinning cannon ball that then went BOOM!

Smile


Personally, I think that this is a mistranslation and it is a much more powerful passage in the original language.

Furthermore, and more problematic... the majority of scholars now agree that André did not actually exist.

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 06:46 AM
RE: On the Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible
Well let me join in. I'll give my not so technical side of the possible explanation of the plurality. Before I became a sceptic and atheist, I was big on conspiracy theories. So before I started questioning things I found out about the writings of Zacharia Sitchin. He dealt with the cuneiform tablets of the ancient Babylonians.

In these writings the Babylonians speak of beings that came from the sky. They are the ones that created humans. They were here to mine and didn't like doing the work themselves. So the story goes that one of their leaders Enki (I think) said to the lot of them, "Let us create the Adamu in our image". According to Sitchin's take on the Babylonian writings, we were created by them to be their slaves. The anunaki leader Enki was speaking to the others and that's why you've got the plurality. Abraham was from a city called Ur that was right next to or in Babylon. So I thought it was no wonder that there were parallels in the Babylonian mythology and the bible.

Sitchin (a Jew) also said he was having Sunday school one time when they got to the part about the sons of god coming down to earth to sleep with the daughters of man. He raised his hand to ask why the teacher read the text in singular form. It is the sons of gods! He was reprimanded for questioning the word of god. This is also dealt with in the Sumerian/Babylonian tablets by Sitchin.

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: