| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"tony" |
| Date: |
29 Aug 2003 11:29:24 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
--EXCITEBOUNDARY_000__f6a3c032a35b294d545ed92853fa63d3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Socode, “Day” as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of seasons. (Zechariah 14:8) “The day of harvest” involves many days. (Compare Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14.) A thousand years are likened to a day. (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10) “Judgment Day” covers many years. (Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24) It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time—millenniums. What, then, took place during those creative eras? Is the Bible’s account of them scientific?. Let examine the first day, since you made mention of it, First “Day” “‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”—Genesis 1:3, 5. Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights. Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.—See footnote b for verse 14.
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
--EXCITEBOUNDARY_000__f6a3c032a35b294d545ed92853fa63d3
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<table cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 border=0 width=100% bgcolor=white><tr valign=top><td width=100%><font size=2 color=black><BR><BR>Hi Socode,<br><BR> “Day” as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of seasons. (Zechariah 14:8) “The day of harvest” involves many days. (Compare Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14.) A thousand years are likened to a day. (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10) “Judgment Day” covers many years. (Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24) It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time—millenniums. What, then, took place during those creative eras? Is the Bible’s account of them scientific?.<br> <br>Let examine the first day, since you made mention of it, First “Day”<br> <br>“‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”—Genesis 1:3, 5.<br> <br> Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.<br> <br> Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.—See footnote b for verse 14.<br> <br> <br><BR><BR><BR> <br></font></td></tr></table><p><hr><font size=2 face=geneva><b>Join Excite! - <a href=http://www.excite.com target=_blank>http://www.excite.com</a></b><br>The most personalized portal on the Web!</font>
--EXCITEBOUNDARY_000__f6a3c032a35b294d545ed92853fa63d3--
.
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
29 Aug 2003 11:44:35 AM |
|
|
"tony" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20030829162924.2C14E3E5C@xmxpita.excite.com...
Hi Socode,
"Day" as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of
seasons. (Zechariah 14:8) "The day of harvest" involves many days. (Compare
Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14.) A thousand years are likened to a day.
(Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10) "Judgment Day" covers many years. (Matthew
10:15; 11:22-24) It would seem reasonable that the "days" of Genesis could
likewise have embraced long periods of time-millenniums. What, then, took
place during those creative eras? Is the Bible's account of them
scientific?.
Let examine the first day, since you made mention of it, First "Day"
"'Let light come to be.' Then there came to be light. And God began calling
the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be
evening and there came to be morning, a first day."-Genesis 1:3, 5.
Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first "day,"
but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly
observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this
first "day," and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and
nights.
Why were they in space long before this first day? Was there an earlier
creation? When did the rotation start?
Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long
period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light
bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it
says: "And gradually light came into existence." (A Distinctive Translation
of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be
seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was "light
diffused," as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham's Emphasised
Bible.-See footnote b for verse 14.
When was the overcast created? What are these translations, and why do you
trust them? Have you looked at the Hebrew, which is definitive?
BTW, you should post in plain text rather than rich text.
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
30 Aug 2003 11:20:57 PM |
|
|
"Joseph Malik" <jmalik@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:72Q3b.933$Om1.793@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Tony, Catcus:
Who knows exactly what happened that first day? It could be that when the
earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the
deep that it was not even in orbit around our sun at this time. The point
made is time (something other than 24 hours) was involved.
And time must have been created before this creation, because it is
obviously involved even though its creation was not mentioned.
And large amounts
of time are implied in this process. Now each day did not have to be of
equal time. The first day was as long as required to fulfill this one
specific task identified. Other days had their own specific requirements
and
allotments of time.
Agreed. I've been saying that right along.
This is a simple contextual application of words that have multiple use.
It
is also true of the word WORLD as it applies to mankind and not the
planet.
Such use in regard to the flood does not mean the entire planet was
flooded,
just the bad or sinful WORLD under discussion in the area involved.
I would agree with this, but the fundamentalists here might not.
We also
have similar contextual use in the word GOD. It does not identify the
Supreme Being directly. The context in which it is used does that. But
this
word God (capital G and all) also applied to other beings, human and
non-human and understanding who exactly is being discussed is not always a
simple matter or cut and dried as many think.
I do not understand this. G-d is G-d, and Torah recognizes this. In fact,
assigning G-d as a reference to anything other than G-d is pagan, at least
for Judaism.
Joseph
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/
.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Malik" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
31 Aug 2003 03:49:24 PM |
|
|
I do not understand this. G-d is G-d, and Torah recognizes this. In
fact,
assigning G-d as a reference to anything other than G-d is pagan, at least
for Judaism.
Catcus,
No, not even for Judaism although many of them did not and still do not
understand such use. The kings or Israel were called God in scripture along
with Moses and the Judges as it stands for the authority they had over the
people. The word in itself identifies no one specifically. Some of the many
definitions for God are found in Stongs's like this: Notice the different
ways it is translated and used for those other than the Supreme Being.
0430 Myhla 'elohiym el-o-heem'
plural of 0433; TWOT-93c; n m p
AV-God 2346, god 244, judge 5, GOD 1, goddess 2, great 2, mighty 2, angels
1, exceeding 1, God-ward + 04136 1, godly 1; 2606
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
1b) divine ones
1c) angels
1d) gods
2) (plural intensive-singular meaning)
2a) god, goddess
2b) godlike one
2c) works or special possessions of God
2d) the (true) God
Now which meaning should we use? 1 or 1a or 1b or 2d? Context not the word
God determines which one we should pick. And this is not always easy to
discern. This is why there is so much misunderstanding and endless
discussion since so many put the emphasis in the wrong place.
Joseph
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
31 Aug 2003 03:59:51 PM |
|
|
Interesting. I don't have Strong's. Can you provide biblical references?
That may help, especially because I can't imagine evern royalty being
referred to by any name for G-d.
"Joseph Malik" <jmalik@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:obt4b.11596$Om1.9818@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I do not understand this. G-d is G-d, and Torah recognizes this. In
fact,
assigning G-d as a reference to anything other than G-d is pagan, at
least
for Judaism.
Catcus,
No, not even for Judaism although many of them did not and still do not
understand such use. The kings or Israel were called God in scripture
along
with Moses and the Judges as it stands for the authority they had over the
people. The word in itself identifies no one specifically. Some of the
many
definitions for God are found in Stongs's like this: Notice the different
ways it is translated and used for those other than the Supreme Being.
0430 Myhla 'elohiym el-o-heem'
plural of 0433; TWOT-93c; n m p
AV-God 2346, god 244, judge 5, GOD 1, goddess 2, great 2, mighty 2, angels
1, exceeding 1, God-ward + 04136 1, godly 1; 2606
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
1b) divine ones
1c) angels
1d) gods
2) (plural intensive-singular meaning)
2a) god, goddess
2b) godlike one
2c) works or special possessions of God
2d) the (true) God
Now which meaning should we use? 1 or 1a or 1b or 2d? Context not the word
God determines which one we should pick. And this is not always easy to
discern. This is why there is so much misunderstanding and endless
discussion since so many put the emphasis in the wrong place.
Joseph
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Malik" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
31 Aug 2003 09:02:48 PM |
|
|
Catcus,
You would appreciate a work like Greens Hebrew Interlinear where you can see
such use for yourself, but a few verses may be enough if you accept NT texts
written by Jews where such use is demonstrated and applied. This is turning
this thread into something new so I will keep it short.
Ex 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even
he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of
God <0430>.
Ex 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god <0430> to
Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Ps 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods <0430>; and all of you are children of the
most High.
And regarding the King of Israel at the time later also applied to Christ in
Heb. 1:8 we have:
Ps45:6 Thy throne, O God <0430>, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy
kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest
wickedness: therefore God<0430>, thy God<0430>, hath anointed thee with the
oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Therefore the scriptures demonstrate such other uses of the term God and
teach that Jesus is not true God as some think but like Moses and the Judges
that came before him, functions with the authority of God to mankind and
entitled by God to be called God in much the same way as they were. This is
the real meaning of John 1:1 where it says: In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It is not that the Word was
God like the God this Word was with. But they introduce this Word to man as
God to man having God given authority over this creation that this Word
personally made under God's direct orders. For this reason this Word became
the only begotten Son of God (as the human being) since he was the only true
human begotten by the God he was with and not by himself as was Adam and all
other men of all type, the all things of mankind under discussion in this
introduction to the Gospel.
Hope this helps.
Joseph
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Use of "god" in Bible (was Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day") |
01 Sep 2003 12:17:13 AM |
|
|
"Joseph Malik" <jmalik@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cNx4b.13725$Om1.9412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Catcus,
You would appreciate a work like Greens Hebrew Interlinear where you can
see
such use for yourself, but a few verses may be enough if you accept NT
texts
written by Jews where such use is demonstrated and applied. This is
turning
this thread into something new so I will keep it short.
So now it's a new thread.
Ex 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be,
even
he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead
of
God <0430>.
My translation (Judaica Press, from the Davka Tanach CD) reads
"And he will speak for you to the people, and it will be that he will be
your speaker, and you will be his leader."
This is referring to Moses' precedence of Aaron. My Soncino Chumash renders
it
"And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass,
that he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him in G-d's stead."
This rather cumbersome translation does express the intent of the Hebrew,
that Moses serve as an intermediary between G-d and Aaron, who speaks to the
people.
Ex 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god <0430> to
Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
My translation has:
"The Lord said to Moses, "See! I have made you a lord over Pharaoh, and
Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker. "
Ps 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods <0430>; and all of you are children of
the
most High.
Where your translation says "gods," mine has "angels"
And regarding the King of Israel at the time later also applied to Christ
in
Heb. 1:8 we have:
Ps45:6 Thy throne, O God <0430>, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy
kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest
wickedness: therefore God<0430>, thy God<0430>, hath anointed thee with
the
oil of gladness above thy fellows.
The double reference to G-d is rhetorical.
I can't speak to your interpretation of this, not being Christian. For the
same reason I cannot comment on the paragraph that followed this text.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Malik" |
|
| Title: Re: Use of "god" in Bible (was Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day") |
01 Sep 2003 09:26:25 AM |
|
|
Catcus said:
My translation (Judaica Press, from the Davka Tanach CD) reads
"And he will speak for you to the people, and it will be that he will be
your speaker, and you will be his leader."
This is referring to Moses' precedence of Aaron. My Soncino Chumash renders
it
"And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass,
that he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him in G-d's stead."
This rather cumbersome translation does express the intent of the Hebrew,
that Moses serve as an intermediary between G-d and Aaron, who speaks to the
people.
Catcus,
We are not discussing intent but proper use of the word God and you have
proved my point. Some translations paraphrase as you have shown and this is
not a problem unless they also attempt to conceal such use or teach
something to that effect.
Ex 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god <0430> to
Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Catcus said: My translation has:
"The Lord said to Moses, "See! I have made you a lord over Pharaoh, and
Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker. "
But the original did not say Lord so this is not proof for anything other
than bias on the part of such translators.
Ps 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods <0430>; and all of you are children of
the most High.
Catcus said: Where your translation says "gods," mine has "angels"
But the original text did not. Once again we are discussing proper use not
translations. Such use is not visible in translations that do not footnote
or otherwise qualify their choice of such words.
And regarding the King of Israel at the time later also applied to Christ
in Heb. 1:8 we have:
Ps45:6 Thy throne, O God <0430>, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy
kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest
wickedness: therefore God<0430>, thy God<0430>, hath anointed thee with
the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Catcus said: The double reference to G-d is rhetorical.
But the God and throne under discussion belongs to the human King of Israel
who was anointed to be such God by the true God. This proves my point
clearly regarding such use.
Now when we get to texts that say: Exodus 20:3 "Thou shalt have no other
gods before me." We have no conflict because this text uses the term God in
a context of the Supreme Being that we may worship as true God, not in the
context of someone with God given authority over man such as Moses or the
Kings or Judges of Israel. The term God may sound the same, be spelled the
same but the context of the text is not the same.
Joseph
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Malik" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
31 Aug 2003 09:25:45 PM |
|
|
Catcus,
As a P.S. to my last post the term God is not really used as the name for
God in scripture. Another word often translated LORD does that but is
another subject entirely. LORD and Lord are different words often confused
with God of GOD adding to the confusion over them. Once again words with
multiple use merge with a name that can also be delegated and used by
others. This is why there is so much difficulty with this subject.
Joseph
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
31 Aug 2003 11:24:39 PM |
|
|
FYI, any references to G-d in Tanach are pronounced "adonoi" when read aloud
in Hebrew, regardless of how written..
"Joseph Malik" <jmalik@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:J6y4b.13871$Om1.4903@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Catcus,
As a P.S. to my last post the term God is not really used as the name for
God in scripture. Another word often translated LORD does that but is
another subject entirely. LORD and Lord are different words often confused
with God of GOD adding to the confusion over them. Once again words with
multiple use merge with a name that can also be delegated and used by
others. This is why there is so much difficulty with this subject.
Joseph
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Malik" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
01 Sep 2003 08:47:05 AM |
|
|
"cactus said"
FYI, any references to G-d in Tanach are pronounced "adonoi" when read
aloud
in Hebrew, regardless of how written.
Catcus,
Then you would never know when or where this "adonoi" was altered from the
name YHWH or something else or where it was actually written as "adonoi" in
the original." I can understand your problems but the discussion is over
proper use of words such as "Day" or "God" not over such translation or use
by the Tanach. Your reference is not proof of anything other than a
visible bias which conceals proper use as in the original texts which use is
what we are discussing here.
Joseph
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
01 Sep 2003 12:20:05 PM |
|
|
"Joseph Malik" <jmalik@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:t5I4b.17324$Om1.4326@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"cactus said"
FYI, any references to G-d in Tanach are pronounced "adonoi" when read
aloud
in Hebrew, regardless of how written.
Catcus,
Then you would never know when or where this "adonoi" was altered from the
name YHWH or something else or where it was actually written as "adonoi"
in
the original."
No, not true. It's written different ways in the original. Regardless of
how written, it's pronounced "adonoi."
I can understand your problems but the discussion is over
proper use of words such as "Day" or "God" not over such translation or
use
by the Tanach.
My point is, and has been, that the Hebrew "yom," in its normal usage, can
mean several different time periods.
Your reference is not proof of anything other than a
visible bias which conceals proper use as in the original texts which use
is
what we are discussing here.
What do you mean by this?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BearMan" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
01 Sep 2003 12:42:02 AM |
|
|
"cactus" wrote:=20
FYI, any references to G-d in Tanach are pronounced "adonoi" when read =
aloud
in Hebrew, regardless of how written..
Why???
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
01 Sep 2003 01:24:05 AM |
|
|
Basically it's forbidden to pronounce any actual name of G-d.
"BearMan" <Al@PraiseTheDay.net> wrote in message
news:K_A4b.138$vj4.22104@nnrp1.ptd.net...
"cactus" wrote:
FYI, any references to G-d in Tanach are pronounced "adonoi" when read
aloud
in Hebrew, regardless of how written..
Why???
.
|
|
|
| User: "BearMan" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
01 Sep 2003 10:21:38 PM |
|
|
"cactus" wrote:=20
Basically it's forbidden to pronounce any actual name of G-d.
Forbidden by who? Why? Where?
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
01 Sep 2003 10:36:07 PM |
|
|
"BearMan" <Al@PraiseTheDay.net> wrote in message
news:61U4b.264$vj4.42635@nnrp1.ptd.net...
"cactus" wrote:
Basically it's forbidden to pronounce any actual name of G-d.
Forbidden by who? Why? Where?
Jewish tradition prohibits pronouncing at least the 4-letter name (YHVH). I
am perhaps over-generalizing. I'm asking rabbis about the others. More as
I learn.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BearMan" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
02 Sep 2003 11:48:16 PM |
|
|
"cactus" wrote:
Jewish tradition prohibits pronouncing at least the 4-letter name =
(YHVH).=20
Tradition is hardly an authoritive basis from which to establish a law.
Why would Jewish tradition forbid the speaking of Gods name?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
03 Sep 2003 01:52:51 AM |
|
|
"BearMan" <Al@PraiseTheDay.net> wrote
Why would Jewish tradition forbid the speaking
of Gods name?
Vowels.
Specifically: Nobody in Canaan even imagined such a thing
as vowels until well after the stories & prayers that would
become the bible had begun to form.
With no vowels to tell them how to pronounce the name of
their God, they dare not speak it for fear of offending the
all-mighty with a mispronunciation.
A more modern example is the "Dome of the Rock," the
Islamic Mosque located over the site of the temple mound.
A sign warns people (or "Jews") not to enter the Mosque
because nobody alive today knows where the Holy of Holies,
the resting place of the Ark, was located, and to tread there
would be a sin (or worse).
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
03 Sep 2003 04:50:23 AM |
|
|
Oops...
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote
"BearMan" <Al@PraiseTheDay.net> wrote
Why would Jewish tradition forbid the speaking
of Gods name?
Vowels.
I'm speaking of the WRITTEN word here.
The way it was explained to me is that those early written
Semitic languages, not unlike ancient Egyptian (which is
closely related to Semitic), are all based on (mostly based on...
partly based on...) word roots. The same roots might be used
over & over again for different words, with vowel
vocalizations distinguishing one word from the next. When it
came time to start writing things down, what the ancients
did was recorded what was standardized (the consonants),
leaving out the ever changing and oh so confusing bits (the
vowels).
Many centuries later, as the Hebrew identity and its new
religion was forming, they could not say with absolute
certainty how "yhwh" should be pronounced.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
03 Sep 2003 01:22:00 AM |
|
|
"BearMan" <Al@PraiseTheDay.net> wrote in message
news:koe5b.421$vj4.64943@nnrp1.ptd.net...
"cactus" wrote:
Jewish tradition prohibits pronouncing at least the 4-letter name (YHVH).
Tradition is hardly an authoritive basis from which to establish a law.
I think that tradition can become a basis for law. English common law for
example.
Why would Jewish tradition forbid the speaking of Gods name?
I don't know the source of the rule, but it may arise out of Judaisms pagan
roots, where saying the name of a deity could invoke its power. Judaism did
its best to reject all pagan practices.
There's also the Third Commandment, which prohibits false oaths. The sages
discourage any oaths, even true ones, except in a court of law. In Jewish
canon courts (beit din), oaths are strongly discouraged, and only used on
demand by a litigant (per Hirsch Chumash).
I'm trying to find out why it isn't pronounced when reading Torah. It's a
very deep tradition; When reading the Hebrew, I just use "adonai"
automatically when I see the Name spelled out.. I just discovered that I
actually read it that way.
I'll let you know when I find out the basis. This is interesting.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
03 Sep 2003 01:46:39 AM |
|
|
"BearMan" <Al@PraiseTheDay.net> wrote in message
news:koe5b.421$vj4.64943@nnrp1.ptd.net...
"cactus" wrote:
Jewish tradition prohibits pronouncing at least the 4-letter name (YHVH).
Tradition is hardly an authoritive basis from which to establish a law.
Why would Jewish tradition forbid the speaking of Gods name?
This just in; it seems that the prohibition dates from Talmudic times, so
the prophets may well have pronounced it.
This site says it better than I could. http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm
So I guess my answer now is "We used to pronounce the 4-letter name, but
don't any more."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nori Otaku" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
03 Sep 2003 04:29:18 PM |
|
|
BearMan wrote on Wed, 03 Sep 2003 04:48:16 +0000:
"cactus" wrote:
Jewish tradition prohibits pronouncing at least the 4-letter name (YHVH).
Tradition is hardly an authoritive basis from which to establish a law.
Agreed.
Why would Jewish tradition forbid the speaking of Gods name?
They believed, in the QBLH tradition, that speaking a name was a
summoning, and that it was dangerous and sacreligious to summon God.
--
NoriOtaku :: Change 'spam' to 'com' to send mail
.
|
|
|
| User: "BearMan" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
03 Sep 2003 04:44:47 PM |
|
|
Nori,
But does God not incline his people to use his name?
Does he not reference frequently the importance of making his name =
known?
I will have to dig it up but I remember a really interesting article =
that breaks down the actual hebrew words used in the commandments =
specifically in reference to the one not to use God's name in vain. The =
word translated as vain actually included in it's definitions blotting =
out our making into nothing. The point made then was that by NOT using =
God's name a person was violating the command as much as one who threw =
it around disrespectfully. I'll see if I can locate that article if you =
are interested.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
03 Sep 2003 05:13:35 PM |
|
|
"BearMan" <Al@PraiseTheDay.net> wrote in message
news:jht5b.517$vj4.77150@nnrp1.ptd.net...
Nori,
But does God not incline his people to use his name?
Does he not reference frequently the importance of making his name known?
Not in Tanach that I can think of. The New Testament might include
something, but I don't know much about that it all.
I will have to dig it up but I remember a really interesting article that
breaks down the actual hebrew words used in the commandments specifically in
reference to the one not to use God's name in
vain. The word translated as vain actually included in it's definitions
blotting out our making into nothing. The point made then was that by NOT
using God's name a person was violating the command
as much as one who threw it around disrespectfully. I'll see if I can
locate that article if you are interested.
Definitely interested.
I posted a related reply on this thread yesterday at 11:56 PM Pacific Time.
I found an article also, which is listed there.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry/Anti" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Biblical use of the term "Day" |
04 Sep 2003 02:44:48 AM |
|
|
"BearMan" <Al@PraiseTheDay.net> wrote in message
news:jht5b.517$vj4.77150@nnrp1.ptd.net...
Nori,
But does God not incline his people to use his name?
Does he not reference frequently the importance of making his name known?
I will have to dig it up but I remember a really interesting article that
breaks down the actual hebrew words used in the commandments specifically in
reference to the one not to use God's name in vain. The word translated as
vain actually included in it's definitions blotting out our making into
nothing. The point made then was that by NOT using God's name a person was
violating the command as much as one who threw it around disrespectfully.
I'll see if I can locate that article if you are interested.
From Strong's
07723 shav' {shawv} or shav {shav}
from the same as 07722 in the sense of desolating; TWOT - 2338a; n m
AV - vain 22, vanity 22, false 5, lying 2, falsely 1, lies 1; 53
1) emptiness, vanity, falsehood 1a) emptiness, nothingness, vanity 1b)
emptiness of speech, lying 1c) worthlessness (of conduct)
I see nothing about blotting out, but vanity would seem to fit the JWs use
of the false name Jehovah for the name of God.
Gramps
Move the @ ahead of hot to email me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BearMan" |
|
| Title: God's name |
04 Sep 2003 10:03:38 AM |
|
|
"Terry/Anti" wrote:
From Strong's
07723 shav' {shawv} or shav {shav}
from the same as 07722 in the sense of desolating; TWOT - 2338a; n m
AV - vain 22, vanity 22, false 5, lying 2, falsely 1, lies 1; 53
1) emptiness, vanity, falsehood 1a) emptiness, nothingness, vanity =
1b)
emptiness of speech, lying 1c) worthlessness (of conduct)
I'll find the article. It used Strong's wordings as you quoted above.
Desolate - Emptiness - Nothingness - Falsehood - Lying - Worthless
I see nothing about blotting out, but vanity would seem to fit the JWs =
use
of the false name Jehovah for the name of God.
More unsubstantiated claims. Again my reply is PROVE IT!
Oh and don't waste your time with the "Jehovah is not the correct =
representation of God's name" arguement. I have spent years in Israel =
and work with Israelis every day. I know how they pronounce the name in =
modern hebrew and it is a lot closer to Jehovah then Yahweh - more like =
ee-ah-vah. Additionally the translation of Jehovah is not from =
witnesses, it is from the KJV.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: God's name |
04 Sep 2003 11:31:55 AM |
|
|
"BearMan" <Al@PraiseTheDay.net> wrote in message
news:evI5b.599$vj4.89254@nnrp1.ptd.net...
"Terry/Anti" wrote:
From Strong's
07723 shav' {shawv} or shav {shav}
from the same as 07722 in the sense of desolating; TWOT - 2338a; n m
AV - vain 22, vanity 22, false 5, lying 2, falsely 1, lies 1; 53
1) emptiness, vanity, falsehood 1a) emptiness, nothingness, vanity 1b)
emptiness of speech, lying 1c) worthlessness (of conduct)
I'll find the article. It used Strong's wordings as you quoted above.
Desolate - Emptiness - Nothingness - Falsehood - Lying - Worthless
I see nothing about blotting out, but vanity would seem to fit the JWs use
of the false name Jehovah for the name of God.
More unsubstantiated claims. Again my reply is PROVE IT!
Oh and don't waste your time with the "Jehovah is not the correct
representation of God's name" arguement. I have spent years in Israel and
work with Israelis every day. I know how they pronounce
the name in modern hebrew and it is a lot closer to Jehovah then Yahweh -
more like ee-ah-vah. Additionally the translation of Jehovah is not from
witnesses, it is from the KJV.
They pronounce it? What Israelis do you work with?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BearMan" |
|
| Title: Re: God's name |
04 Sep 2003 04:18:52 PM |
|
|
"cactus" wrote:
They pronounce it?
A few will, most will not. All are apprehensive however.
What Israelis do you work with?
Definitely not Hassidic.=20
We are more like family than workmates and there is a great deal
of mutual respect between us, not just religiously but culturally as =
well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: God's name |
04 Sep 2003 06:05:54 PM |
|
|
"BearMan" <Al@PraiseTheDay.net> wrote in message
news:0%N5b.639$vj4.93137@nnrp1.ptd.net...
"cactus" wrote:
They pronounce it?
A few will, most will not. All are apprehensive however.
What Israelis do you work with?
Definitely not Hassidic.
We are more like family than workmates and there is a great deal
of mutual respect between us, not just religiously but culturally as well.
Great; the human family. Are they Jewish, or secular Jewish?
Or one of the large number of other religious groups?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BearMan" |
|
| Title: Re: God's name |
04 Sep 2003 09:06:17 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C3732F.B8F1FE30
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I guess you would call them secular or common Jews.
They are typical of the majority of Jews in modern Israel today.
They keep pretty much all the celebrations and holy days. Some more than =
others. They are a proud people, aware of their heritage and the long =
history it represents. They are confident in their beliefs in regards to =
God, the prophets, etc. They are not fanatical about their traditions, =
nor do they place full confidence in the so-called spiritual leaders of =
the many splinter groups. They do obey many of the traditions like not =
mixing meat and milk when it is convenient to do so but will not abstain =
from going to a restaurant that is not kosher. They won't eat pork but =
do not mind sitting at a table with others who do. For the most part =
they seem to follow the commandments as they are written and not as they =
are interpreted by others.=20
My main point was not so much how religious they are or are not but the =
fact that as native Israelites and fluent speakers of modern Hebrew, =
they have provided me with the phonetic methodology by which they would =
read the tetragrammaton today. Since no one knows the exact way the =
ancient Hebrew was pronounced all we are left with is modern =
translations and then interpretations of that translation into other =
languages.=20
I am still searching the internet for that article BTW. I really wish I =
had saved it when I had it but I was late for school and inadvertantly =
shut down my computer without thinking. By the time I remembered to go =
back to it my history file was long cleaned out. It was by a rabbinical =
professor (???) but I can not remember his name. I will find it though.
------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C3732F.B8F1FE30
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I guess you would call them secular or=20
common Jews.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>They are typical of the majority of =
Jews in modern=20
Israel today.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>They keep pretty much all the =
celebrations and holy=20
days. Some more than others. They are a proud people, aware of their =
heritage=20
and the long history it represents. They are confident in their=20
beliefs</FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> in regards to God, the =
prophets,=20
etc. They are not fanatical about their traditions, nor do they place =
full=20
confidence in the so-called spiritual leaders of the many splinter =
groups. They=20
do obey many of the traditions like not mixing meat and milk when it is=20
convenient to do so but will not abstain from going to a restaurant that =
is not=20
kosher. They won't eat pork but do not mind sitting at a table with =
others who=20
do. For the most part they seem to follow the commandments as they are =
written=20
and not as they are interpreted by others. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>My main point was not so much how =
religious they=20
are or are not but the fact that as native Israelites and fluent =
speakers of=20
modern Hebrew, they have provided me with the phonetic methodology =
by which=20
they would read the tetragrammaton today. Since no one knows the exact =
way the=20
ancient Hebrew was pronounced all we are left with is modern =
translations and=20
then interpretations of that translation into other languages. =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I am still searching the internet for =
that article=20
BTW. I really wish I had saved it when I had it but I was late for =
school and=20
inadvertantly shut down my computer without thinking. By the time I =
remembered=20
to go back to it my history file was long cleaned out. It was by a =
rabbinical=20
professor (???) but I can not remember his name. I will find it=20
though.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C3732F.B8F1FE30--
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: God's name |
05 Sep 2003 01:55:12 AM |
|
|
"BearMan" <Al@PraiseTheDay.net> wrote in message
news:tcS5b.661$vj4.96842@nnrp1.ptd.net...
I guess you would call them secular or common Jews.
They are typical of the majority of Jews in modern Israel today.
They keep pretty much all the celebrations and holy days. Some more than
others. They are a proud people, aware of their heritage and the long
history it represents. They are confident in their
beliefs in regards to God, the prophets, etc. They are not fanatical about
their traditions, nor do they place full confidence in the so-called
spiritual leaders of the many splinter groups. They do obey
many of the traditions like not mixing meat and milk when it is convenient
to do so but will not abstain from going to a restaurant that is not kosher.
They won't eat pork but do not mind sitting at a
table with others who do. For the most part they seem to follow the
commandments as they are written and not as they are interpreted by others.
My main point was not so much how religious they are or are not but the
fact that as native Israelites and fluent speakers of modern Hebrew, they
have provided me with the phonetic methodology
by which they would read the tetragrammaton today. Since no one knows the
exact way the ancient Hebrew was pronounced all we are left with is modern
translations and then interpretations of that
translation into other languages.
One consideration is that the pronunciation has changed over the millennia.
Similar to Chaucer's English vs Modern.
I am still searching the internet for that article BTW. I really wish I
had saved it when I had it but I was late for school and inadvertantly shut
down my computer without thinking. By the time I
remembered to go back to it my history file was long cleaned out. It was
by a rabbinical professor (???) but I can not remember his name. I will find
it though.
Interesting. Sounds like typical Israelis. I think some so-called
"messianic Jews" might pronounce the name, but they don't count because they
aren't Jews. That's why I was asking.
Next question - were they just pronouncing it for you, or were you
participating in a service?
BTW, does any of the information in
http://gertoux.online.fr/divinename/faq/question.htm look like the article
you found?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
