Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

Duchifas wrote: Now that we are on the subject of translations, here is a little demonstration. This was the weekly reading a few weeks ago Numbers 1:2.

Hebrew:

שְׂאוּ, אֶת-רֹאשׁ כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם, לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם--בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת, כָּל-זָכָר לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם.

http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/i/t/t0401.htm

NASB:

Quote: Take a [a]census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' households, according to the number of names, every male, head by head

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=1&version=31

New International Version:

Quote: "Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every man by name, one by one.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%201:2;&version=31;

These are two versions of CHRISTIAN translated bibles from the same website. And without knowing hebrew, how does one figure out which one is right? I'll tell ya -- by placing faith in either one "team of experts" or in another "team of experts."

I am not saying that in this instance the verse is mistranslated by Christians, both versions DO give pretty much the same idea. I am only showing here that without knowing hebrew, all you are reading is a "team of experts" VERSION of what they think the bible says. Not your own.

So when anyone in the future suggests something along the lines of:

Quote: Then why don't you read for yourself, instead of trusting what Maimonides has to say.

Before you say that, stop and think for a moment whether it applies to you.

Now, yes, yes, I know you will come and tell me that NASB is better. Yes, apparently NASB is better than NIV, at least in this case. My point is not that. My point is that you are placing your trust NOT in your own reading of G-d's word, but in another MAN's promise that he translated everything accurately.


Duchifas, I have to say. I think one by one and head by head mean the same thing.

What's the difference in the meaning of the sentence?


Now I know mystic can discern insights from the shape of the letters in the Hebrew and things of that sort, but when you are talking about information that God meant for us to have, an English translation and a Hebrew translation that mean the same thing mean the same thing.

I don't think that is a very good example. I'm not convinced, anyway.

As far as I can see, those two version of that particular scripture mean the same thing.

That God told them to take a census, and make sure it is accurate. Count everyone carefully.

Really, what's your point, what's the difference. Slightly different wording?

There's no subtle diffence in meaning in that example. I am sure there are probably some better examples and if you find them, I would sure like to know because I am concerned with finding out what God wants from me and doing it.

Especially a scripture that is key such as Psalm 2.

[cap'n queasy]

uzi4ufriend wrote: Duchifas wrote: Uzi, it depends on the version. NASB and NIV use murder, KJV uses kill.

I really wanted them to say it, but o.k. I guess we all know the problem.

Now John and cap'n have to ask themselves whether such discrepancies might not be found in less obvious cases. I mean if translators could get the ten commandments wrong, what else might they miss...

I argue that if you're going to read Shakespeare you should read it in English, and if you read Heine, Goethe, or Schiller you should read it in German.
Especially if you're going to tell someone what was 'meant' in the text, or try to prove a point about this or that.

Same with the bible. I'm not saying the translations aren't good, but if you're going to argue about this and that, maybe you should learn Hebrew. (btw I found the notion that we should all learn Greek very funny, I don't recall Moses speaking Greek...)

The Septuagint was translated by Rabbis in about 300 BC, The Masoretic text is from the medieval period and it deviates from the scripturs subtly to make it less apparent that Jesus is the Messiah. When the Septuagint was written Jesus hadn't come yet and this version of the scriptures is much more accurate.

Also the copies of the Masoretic text that were made for the Catholic Church are changed to fit Christian sensibilities, I don't think messing around with the scriptures for marketing reasons shows much sincerity.

Also, I have the opportinuity to examine a copy of the Jews' College (London) translation of the Babylonian Talmud published by Soncino Press between 1935 and 1948, which is considered the the gold standard of English translations of the Talmud and I have to say, it doesn't make Rabbinical Judaism look that good to me.

There is some passages in that missive that can only be described as very messed up. IMHO.

I certainly hope that you don't think that Gentiles are animals fit only for slavery and that certain sexual activities that are allowed by the Talmud are OK as long as it is done to a Gentile or that it is OK to rob Gentiles.

Because if you do, you are probably going to be in some "hot water" at some time with the Man upstairs.

If you think that is what God told Moses, I have to say, I think you are wrong.

I'll stick with the Holy Word of God Himself as given us (mercifully) by God. The Bible.

[cap'n queasy]

John wrote: Quote: Doesn't it look like the "team of experts" is reading something INTO the Holy Bible? The word in Hebrew is absolutely the same. How come two English words are used, and one of them is strangely capitalized to imply you know what.

But whatever, that's not my main point. My main point, as before, is that by relying on the "team of experts at NASB," one wouldn't get a clue as to the discrepancy.

Here's the problem. When you use the NASB, there a part in the front that gives directions on how to use it. If you have read these instructions, you would know that LORD (all cap's) is always used for YHVH. Are you saying that it doesn't say YHVH (LORD) and Adonai (Lord)???

Besides...you're missing the point. David is talking about his descendant. A father doesn't call his mere human son his “Adonai" (Lord).

This is interesting.
Quote: Mark 12:35-40 - 35 And Jesus began to say, as He taught in the temple, "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 "David himself said in the Holy Spirit, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET.'" 37 "David himself calls Him 'Lord'; so in what sense is He his son?" And the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him. 38 In His teaching He was saying: "Beware of the scribes who like to walk around in long robes, and like respectful greetings in the market places, 39 and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, 40 who devour widows' houses, and for appearance's sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation."

So you see, Jesus enlightens us as to the meanings of the scriptures in a way that shows He is the Anointed One. There is no doubt.

That puts your masoretic text and oral tradition in a hard spot, if you ask me.

[cap'n queasy]

psholtz wrote: uzi4ufriend wrote: psholtz wrote: uzi4ufriend wrote: Same with the bible. I'm not saying the translations aren't good, but if you're going to argue about this and that, maybe you should learn Hebrew. (btw I found the notion that we should all learn Greek very funny, I don't recall Moses speaking Greek...)
I think the implication was that the Greek Septuagint is the most "authentic" copy of the OT that's in existence today.. it's certainly more authentic than the Masoretic Text in widespread use today, which is known to take some pretty wide liberties in a few places..

Hey, psholtz.

http://www.aish.com/holidays/Shavuot/Accuracy_of_Torah_Text.asp

Quote: .. it's certainly more authentic than the Masoretic Text...

I think you would have a hard time proving that it is better than the original Hebrew text. It is certainly considered the best translation of the Hebrew bible.
So what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
You realize that the reason there are 200,000 variations of the NT around is b/c it's been translated numerous, numerous times into nearly every single language spoken by man, over a course of time when some of those languages (say English) have themselves changed substantially (i.e., compare the King's English in the King James to the modern American venacular in the NASB or NIV)..

The "Hebrew" Bible on the other hand, has never been translated out of Hebrew since if it would have been, it would no longer be in Hebrew(!).. If you want to play the game you're trying to play, then ask a question like "How many different 'original' copies are there of Ovid's Metamorphosis in the original Latin?" I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm willing to bet it's fewer than 9..

Secondly, yes I am concerned about the Masoretic Text because it does introduce a number of variations that were not present in earlier copies. In the first place, if you were familiar w/ the NT, you would know there are numerous places in the NT where the authors quote the OT .. if you try to look up those quotes in the Masoretic Text, you find the references are in the Masoretic are greatly different, and in many cases absent altogether..

I posted this a while back and I asked the Hebrew scholars around here to confirm or deny if its true. I'm not sure if it's true or not (I'm not Hebrew scholar), but .... per my understanding, here are a sampling of some of the changes introduced by the Masoretic Text:

Genesis 10:11-12 (speaking of Nimrod)

Masoretic Version:

"And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city of Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen, between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city."

Ancient Version:

"Now the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and he extended, and fortified, and established it, in the land of Shinar. From this land he went out into Assyria, and built Nineveh, and the public places of the city, and (its) wealth: this was a great city."

Joshua 24:19

Masoretic Version:

"Ye cannot serve the Lord; for He is an holy God, He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgressions, nor your sins."

Ancient Version:

"Then Joshua said unto the people, Cease not to serve the Creator; for an holy God is He; a jealous God is He (He would be) that will not (would not) forgive your transgressions and your sins."

Job 2:9 (wrt the advice that Job's wife gives him)

Masoretic Version:

"Curse God and die"

Ancient Version:

"Humble thyself before God, for thou art dying"

I also understand that in the Masoretic version of Genesis, Jacob wrestles w/ an angel, and gets his hip broken. According to the ancient Hebrew, Jacob is caught in a storm, hurts himself trying to save his property, in his flight he makes all kinds of promises to God of living a better life if only God will spare him. Since he was so spared, he is henceforth converted, from whence his new name is derived.

Perhaps your "check-summing" works for the Hebrew consonants, but does it work for the vowel marks? That is after all the change that Masoretic Text introduced, is it not?

That's an excellent point.

[uzi]

Two things:

1) No matter what convoluted explanation you bring here, if you can't see the difference between to murder and to kill, then no wonder you think your translations are so good. (the root RAZACH means murder, period.) But I think even you can see that translation is not always exact, and that it involves interpretations. Plus it forces you to go making all sorts of excuses why murder and kill mean the same when even a 4 year old can see that those are TWO DIFFERENT WORDS WITH DIFFERENT MEANINGS. And that's only the Ten Commandments, god only knows what other less obvious mistakes there might be...

2)i) Are you still going on about that Greek translation??? Look the best scientific test you could do, is take a random selection of passages from an older text and compare it with what we have today. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved just that. Given a random sample of passages from different parts of the Hebrew bible, every passage from the bible was exactly the same, to the letter! (And I really don't care about texts that don't belong in the bible so you can save yourself some time arguing that some poem that doesn't belong in the bible doesn't appear in the bible.)

2)ii) Now I wonder why certain quotes from the NT don't show up in the OT??? Could it be that the guys who wrote the NT didn't copy it accurately?

Or does it automatically prove that the original isn't o.k.???

I don't follow your reasoning. And stop talking about the Talmud, I bet you haven't studied it, even if you do claim to have read A TRANSLATION!!!

Let's make a deal, you can criticize the Talmud all you want, after you've read and understood all of it. Fair enough? Otherwise I'll stick to what Ovadia Yoseph says. I think he may have read it a few times more than you...

I can't believe you guys can hold a tome of the Talmud in your hands and not be amazed by the genius not only of the things said in it, but how it is all connected. No wonder Christians could burn books throughout history.
It's not worth anything if you don't immediately understand it, right?

It's all "messed up" after one short look at a translation, right?

Quote: It doesn't make Rabbinical Judaism look that good to me.

So why don't we start a bonfire?

Stick to the NT your arrogance and your pride are running away with you now.

[Duchifas]

cap'n I think you missed the point of the last discussion in this thread by about 17 miles.

Before dissing the Talmud, your competence in which is severely limited due to the simple fact that you don't read hebrew and aramaic, please re-read again my exchange with John about double standards and literal translations.

I think that (in not so many words) John got the idea. Now it's your turn:

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: So actually I would have to agree with you that “lord” (lower case) would be a more literal translation. Because Lord (Capitalized) is the word used for Adonai, which is a word that represents the Trinity as seen in the word adon in its plural form. But I can understand why the English translation chooses to capitalize the word because your average reader couldn’t understand that point without first having an insight into Hebrew.

Ah, and here we have it. Thank you.

So basically, the wonderful NASB is not that literal after all. Rather, in some cases, it needs to......guide the average reader to....get the proper....insight, ahem, ahem, ahem, AHEM!

I rest my case, and I would like to repeat what I said above, and it is for cap'n's benefit too. In the future, it would really be....intellectually honest....if you guys refrained from telling Jews to avoid looking at Jewish commentators of the Torah.

Because if the Christians are fine and dandy with translations that, in addition to translating, also guide the average reader to gain a proper insight (what a cute word), then please don't have a problem when we also gain proper insights from our commentators.


Now, compare your statements:

cap'n wrote: Why say that? The NASB is not mistranslated.
...

I see what you mean, but as far as I have been able to discover, the NASB is a very solid translation.

[***apparently discovery tools are not so good when you don't know hebrew, eh?]

with John's statement:

John wrote: So actually I would have to agree with you that “lord” (lower case) would be a more literal translation. Because Lord (Capitalized) is the word used for Adonai, which is a word that represents the Trinity as seen in the word adon in its plural form. But I can understand why the English translation chooses to capitalize the word because your average reader couldn’t understand that point without first having an insight into Hebrew.

In case you missed it, cap'n, John is agreeing with me that the NASB is, at least in this important case, not as literal as it could be. Apparently, the team of experts at NASB adds their own "insight" into hebrew.

At which point I only feel it to be proper to take your statement and urge you to take your own advice:

cap'n wrote: Then why don't you read for yourself,

You'd have to learn hebrew first, but at least then you would be reading G-d's "insight," not the team of experts at NASB's "insight."



Therefore, in light of the not-so-literal translation that the NASB happens to be, and in the interests of mutual respect, honesty, intellectual integrity, and not having double standards, I would expect comments such as these from the two of you to stop:

John wrote: I just wanted you to read it for what it plainly says...as in just READ it.

Did you? Put Rambam down and read it for yourself.

cap'n wrote:

Then why don't you read for yourself, instead of trusting what Maimonides has to say.

Apparently what he is saying and what the scripture says diverge considerably.


Lastly,

cap'n wrote: For an experiment why don't we compare the NASB translation to your tranlation from the Hebrew?

cap'n, just in case you didn't know, I don't have a translation. I read it in Hebrew. When I do paste a Jewish translation here, it is for your (and others) benefit, not mine. As for me, I would be perfectly happy to discuss the hebrew original, except the discussion would be limited to......Oak, uzi and me.

[John]

Duchifas wrote: In case you missed it, cap'n, John is agreeing with me that the NASB is, at least in this important case, not as literal as it could be. Apparently, the team of experts at NASB adds their own "insight" into hebrew.

At which point I only feel it to be proper to take your statement and urge you to take your own advice

Duchifas Duchifas Duchifas…………

Being half right doesn’t make your point a valid point.

And cutting certain parts out of what I said and not presenting that actual MEAT of the point just shows that you are willing to be dishonest or that you didn’t get my point to begin with.

Here, go over what I said again…


The name Adonai, translated "Lord" (only the "L" capitalized), occurs approximately 300 times in the Old Testament. It's interesting to note that it is almost always used in the plural possessive form meaning "My Lords". This, once again, confirms the concept of The Trinity as found in the name "Elohim". Also consider the fact that this same word is used of men approximately 215 times in the Old Testament and is predominantly translated as "master". Note, however, that, when used of men, it is always used in the singular form.

Now let’s really think about what’s going on here. David is talking about the Father God (YHVH) telling the Son ('adown’) to “sit at My right hand. Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet”. As we have seen Adonai is always in the plural form when referring to GOD as a whole…..but in this case we have one person of the Trinity speaking to another. Therefore IF the word Adonai was used in its plural form, it would incorrectly mean that there are two Gods (Two Trinities). This is NOT the case. There is only ONE God, so when YHVH address the Son, the proper word to use would be “adown”.

So actually I would have to agree with you that “lord” (lower case) would be a more literal translation. Because Lord (Capitalized) is the word used for Adonai, which is a word that represents the Trinity as seen in the word adon in its plural form. But I can understand why the English translation chooses to capitalize the word because your average reader couldn’t understand that point without first having an insight into Hebrew.

Sometimes being TOO literal can cause the translation to be incorrect when transferring to another language....as in this case. It would be like translating Adonai as Lords, or Elohim as Gods, it wouldn't be quite correct in English.


I don't see you complaining that Elohim should be literally translated as "Gods". Why is that? BECAUSE the context of the text would render that translation INCORRECT, even though it's LITERAL.

[John]

Duchifas,

Can't you see that IF it was actually "The LORD said the my Lords(Adonai)", then it would be the BEST aurgument in the Bible AGAINST the Trinity that you could ask for. It would literally mean that YHVH is OUTSIDE of the Trinity...which He is not, He is PART of the Trinity. Therefore when one member of the Trinity speaks to another, the word Adonai (Lords) would be logically incorrect.

But here is the question that you have be dodging this whole time.

How is it possible for King David's son to be his lord? Please answer this, I would really like to hear your answer.

[Duchifas]

Quote: And cutting certain parts out of what I said and not presenting that actual MEAT of the point just shows that you are willing to be dishonest or that you didn’t get my point to begin with.

Dishonest? Your post was right there for all to see. I am quoting from a page back.

The discussion was about your constant implications that we somehow are missing on the literal word of G-d. Well, I showed you that what you are reading, in some very IMPORTANT places is not too literal either. What you are reading is the insight of the team of experts at NASB.

Unfortunately, you have tried to pass it off to everyone here some sort of the true word of G-d. Well, next time you cite the NASB, perhaps put a disclaimer as in "True word of G-d, with some insights from the team of experts at NASB."

And you agreed with me that in this important case, NASB added some insight. That's what I quoted and that's absolutely honest.

What is intellectually dishonest, however, is castigating others for reading insights of other people, when you (general you) yourself are guilty of doing just that. Now, you haven't done it since then, and I appreciate and applaud that. I hope cap'n follows suit, that is all I am expecting. No more. But so far, after the entire discussion, we got this pearl from him:

cap'n wrote: I'll stick with the Holy Word of God Himself as given us (mercifully) by God. The Bible.

Which really should read as:

edited by Duchifas wrote: I'll stick with the Holy Word of God Himself as given us (mercifully) by God, supplemented with additional "insights" by the team of experts at NASB. The Bible.


As to the other part of your post:

Quote: Now let’s really think about what’s going on here. David is talking about the Father God (YHVH) telling the Son ('adown’) to “sit at My right hand. Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet”. As we have seen Adonai is always in the plural form when referring to GOD as a whole…..but in this case we have one person of the Trinity speaking to another. Therefore IF the word Adonai was used in its plural form, it would incorrectly mean that there are two Gods (Two Trinities). This is NOT the case. There is only ONE God, so when YHVH address the Son, the proper word to use would be “adown”.

You are coming at it from the premise of trinity being true already. Doh!

I have news for you. Adown does not mean son, much less Son. Now, go and read the psalm again with that little "insight" and tell me if it has anything to do with trinity.

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Duchifas,

Can't you see that IF it was actually "The LORD said the my Lords(Adonai)", then it would be the BEST aurgument in the Bible AGAINST the Trinity that you could ask for.

When did I ever say that it should be Adonai? I am perfectly fine with the way it is - adoni. All I am pointing out here is the "insight" of NASB. I have no problem with the original hebrew. When did I say that?

Quote: It would literally mean that YHVH is OUTSIDE of the Trinity...which He is not, He is PART of the Trinity. Therefore when one member of the Trinity speaks to another, the word Adonai (Lords) would be logically incorrect.

Doh.

Quote: But here is the question that you have be dodging this whole time.

How is it possible for King David's son to be his lord? Please answer this, I would really like to hear your answer.

First, let's substantiate your premise that we are talking about David's son here. Go. Hint -- what is Malchizedek doing here?

[John]

1 The LORD says to my Lord:
" Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."
2The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying,
" Rule in the midst of Your enemies."
3Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power;
In holy array, from the womb of the dawn,
Your youth are to You as the dew.
4 The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
"You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek."




Micah 5
2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity."




Notice some about these verses????


By the way Duchifas. Why do you keep dodging the question?

How can David's son be his lord?

Since you're avoiding answering it, I'll answer it for you.

He can't if the Messiah is but a mere man, ONLY if the Messiah is God Himself would this be a true statement.

[uzi]

John wrote: Duchifas wrote: In case you missed it, cap'n, John is agreeing with me that the NASB is, at least in this important case, not as literal as it could be. Apparently, the team of experts at NASB adds their own "insight" into hebrew.

At which point I only feel it to be proper to take your statement and urge you to take your own advice

Duchifas Duchifas Duchifas…………

Being half right doesn’t make your point a valid point.

And cutting certain parts out of what I said and not presenting that actual MEAT of the point just shows that you are willing to be dishonest or that you didn’t get my point to begin with.

Here, go over what I said again…


The name Adonai, translated "Lord" (only the "L" capitalized), occurs approximately 300 times in the Old Testament. It's interesting to note that it is almost always used in the plural possessive form meaning "My Lords". This, once again, confirms the concept of The Trinity as found in the name "Elohim". Also consider the fact that this same word is used of men approximately 215 times in the Old Testament and is predominantly translated as "master". Note, however, that, when used of men, it is always used in the singular form.

Now let’s really think about what’s going on here. David is talking about the Father God (YHVH) telling the Son ('adown’) to “sit at My right hand. Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet”. As we have seen Adonai is always in the plural form when referring to GOD as a whole…..but in this case we have one person of the Trinity speaking to another. Therefore IF the word Adonai was used in its plural form, it would incorrectly mean that there are two Gods (Two Trinities). This is NOT the case. There is only ONE God, so when YHVH address the Son, the proper word to use would be “adown”.

So actually I would have to agree with you that “lord” (lower case) would be a more literal translation. Because Lord (Capitalized) is the word used for Adonai, which is a word that represents the Trinity as seen in the word adon in its plural form. But I can understand why the English translation chooses to capitalize the word because your average reader couldn’t understand that point without first having an insight into Hebrew.

Sometimes being TOO literal can cause the translation to be incorrect when transferring to another language....as in this case. It would be like translating Adonai as Lords, or Elohim as Gods, it wouldn't be quite correct in English.


I don't see you complaining that Elohim should be literally translated as "Gods". Why is that? BECAUSE the context of the text would render that translation INCORRECT, even though it's LITERAL.



Elokim is just the plural of majesty. I wouldn't start basing my whole belief structure on this. It certainly doesn't hint at a duality, or a trinity or however many parts you ascribe to god. Though I'm sure there are other interpretations for this. (plus the verbs are singular) Are you basing your whole faith on conjecture???

I still think if the whole point of the bible was that god is a trinity, god would be referred to as 'the trinity'. The bible is very specific, it doesn't beat around the bush, even if sometimes it is not easy to understand.

cap'n wrote something about murder and kill being the same. I can give you a clear answer as to which one is mentioned, it says Razach (murder) period. Read the ten commandments again, it's very clear and very specific. Why couldn't it say 'the trinity'?

If you say that we were suppose to look for the meaning and finally reach the conclusion that god is made up of a spirit a man and a father, why the hell do you stop there. I can name a half dozen other names and titles that god goes by. Why don't we count all of them and get a polygon god and just go and call it polytheism, since the main point is how many parts god is made up of.

BTW neither of you has told me whether you have an image of Jesus in your mind. I for one can't imagine how you could think about that guy without getting an image in your mind. (a man made image)
Now even if you believe that Jesus makes up 1/3 of god it is still a false image you pray to. Isn't it? You're giving god an image, and most likely a false one. How do you rationalize that?

jewishencyclopedia.com

[Duchifas]

John wrote:

Notice some about these verses????


Yeah, I notice. You bolded what is capitalized in English.

Newsflash: Hebrew has no capitalizations. :shock: :lol:

So I really have no clue what all your bolding work is for.....

Do you?

Quote: By the way Duchifas. Why do you keep dodging the question?

How can David's son be his lord?

I am not dodging it. I am disputing its validity. The question as asked is absolutely invalid.

Your question starts with the premise that master refers to David's son. Well, the word is adon (means master), does not mean son (the word for which is ben.

You are taking it for truth the premise that master MUST refer to David's son, to the exclusion of all other possibilities, without first establishing that premise as true.

So before you ask the question, please establish the premise at true. Until then your question is useless. It's like asking "based on the premise that gravity no longer applies, how come things are falling down?" Well, before you ask that, please explain why gravity does not apply.

Quote: Since you're avoiding answering it, I'll answer it for you.

He can't if the Messiah is but a mere man, ONLY if the Messiah is God Himself would this be a true statement.

Yeah, let's not jump ahead of ourselves, shall we? First things first please, read above.

[John]

Uzi wrote: BTW neither of you has told me whether you have an image of Jesus in your mind. I for one can't imagine how you could think about that guy without getting an image in your mind. (a man made image)
Now even if you believe that Jesus makes up 1/3 of god it is still a false image you pray to. Isn't it? You're giving god an image, and most likely a false one. How do you rationalize that?

1 Chronicles 16

11 Seek the LORD and His strength;
Seek His face continually.




Psalm 27

8 When You said, "Seek My face," my heart said to You,
"Your face, O LORD, I shall seek."



Hosea 5

15 I will go away and return to My place
Until they acknowledge their guilt and seek My face;
In their affliction they will earnestly seek Me.




By the way…check out all that mistranslated capitalization. :lol:

[Duchifas]

Funny. That's the problem with taking the bible literally. You start imagining faces.

The difference, John, is this - when the prophet says seeks G-d's face, the only picture of G-d's face that I, as a Jew who understand that the bible is fully of allegories, can muster up is:






[blank.....]




Which is radically different from people who read the bible literally. Their imagination of the "face" is much richer than mine:

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/grunewald/crucifixion/crucifixion.jpg

Or in our days:

http://www.sacticket.com/static/movies/news/images/0227passion1.jpg

[John]

Quote: Funny. That's the problem with taking the bible literally. You start imagining faces.

Not imagine....SEEK!


Seek and you shall find, and the truth will set you free. :wink:

[uzi]

So?

Are you telling me that according to your interpretation, that means I should go out and look for a face for god???

Please explain.

Does this mean I should go and find an image of god that suits me?

Isn't it kind of dangerous. I mean, someone might decide that a certain image of Jesus is the only true image of Jesus and start worshiping a statue. Kind of like Catholicism. (not that there's anything wrong with that, it just wouldn't follow the Jewish interpretation) I may as well build a golden calf and get it over with.

[John]

uzi4ufriend wrote: So?

Are you telling me that according to your interpretation, that means I should go out and look for a face for god???

Please explain.

Does this mean I should go and find an image of god that suits me?

Isn't it kind of dangerous. I mean, someone might decide that a certain image of Jesus is the only true image of Jesus and start worshiping a statue. Kind of like Catholicism. (not that there's anything wrong with that, it just wouldn't follow the Jewish interpretation) I may as well build a golden calf and get it over with.

It means you should personally, through prayer, seek out the face of God. What is so hard to understand about that? It doesn't say Seek out Rashi. :lol:

[John]

Quote: Your question starts with the premise that master refers to David's son. Well, the word is adon (means master), does not mean son (the word for which is ben.

You are taking it for truth the premise that master MUST refer to David's son, to the exclusion of all other possibilities, without first establishing that premise as true.

Are you saying that this text isn't speaking of Messiah?

[Duchifas]

Quote: It means you should personally, through prayer, seek out the face of God. What is so hard to understand about that? It doesn't say Seek out Rashi.

Hey, do you have a verse for me which says seek out the team of experts at NASB? Is that in Isaiah or Deuteronomy, I forget....

Quote: Are you saying that this text isn't speaking of Messiah?

I am not saying anything, one way or the other.

You asked a question based on an unsubstantiated premise, so why don't you show the premise to be true first, then we can move to your question, perhaps.

Don't shift the burden of persuasion, that's too easy, I can shift it right back to you. Don't make this into tennis.