quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So in Hebrew is there any sort of distinction between one who feels the spirit of prophecy like Saul and one called to fill the prophetic station like Moses?
Not really. In some cases, prophets spend years attempting to achieve prophecy. In other cases, God makes it simple for them. Either way, the defining issue is the level of perception.
Though I should add a caveat, which is that Moses is an entirely different case. We divide these levels of divine perception into three categories. Torah, the highest, is a level that was attained by Moses, and by no other prophet in our history. Nevua (prophecy) is a lower level than that, which sometimes comes as visions, or dreams, or other metaphors. The words Moses wrote down were the exact words God used. The words the prophets wrote down were their own expression of what God told them. The third level is Ruach HaKodesh (literally holy spirit; we usually translate it as divine inspiration, but it's the same term you guys use for the third part of your deity). It's less than Nevua, but still pretty significant.
You probably know that the Jewish Bible is divided into three sections, Torah, Prophets, and Writings. These are divided according to those same levels. For example, the prophet Samuel wrote the beginning of the book of Samuel, and he also wrote the book of Ruth. But he wrote the former under the influence (so to speak) of prophecy, while he wrote the latter under the influence of divine inspiration. I understand you guys try and keep the books in chronological order. We arrange them conceptually, first and foremost.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: That explains a lot, thank you for the clarification.
I didn't mean to suggest that prophets spend all their time revealing the future. It's just the word "prophecy" is typically used as a verb for that very act. We (English speakers) would not refer to Moses revealing God's law as "prophesying."
So then are there quite a few prophets that are not named in the scriptures then? For instance the prophets that Saul was dancing and prophesying with? Shmuel's link mentioned that while non-Jews can be prophets they are not as "revered?" as the Jewish ones? Could you explain to me, is that just something that is or something that is prescribed? Conceivably could there be prophetic writings that have been lost? Or would God by force of habit only speak to prophets of whom Jews would have access to those utterances?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is only one inspiration by God. Either the prophet is given God's words to convey to others, or he is not. But there are different PURPOSES for the calling of a prophet. Many prophets mentioned in the Bible never contributed any written text to the Bible, except when they were quoted by others. Such as Elijah. Samuel was called to raise up schools for the spiritual education of the people, in addition to the messages he was given. Moses was called to lead the people from Egypt to the Promised Land.
Armoth, I already answered your objection by pointing out that it would be ridiculous for Daniel 9:24-27 to be speaking of Cyrus, since he and his conquest of Babylon, were already past history at the time when Daniel 9 was written. Of course God can annoint people for a particular purpose. But what was the purpose of the annointing in Daniel 9:24-27? This is called "Messiah the Prince" and of Him it was said he would be "cut off, but not for Himself." The Christian habit of capitalizing these pronouns is entirely justified, as any reasonable person can see.
Lisa, your repeated reference to "pagan scholarship" is offensive. Sound Bible scholarship is the province of anyone willing to submit to the discipline of studying it. Jews do not own scholarship, not of the Bible or anything else. The Bible is not your word, it is God's Word. It is what has authority, not you or the Jewish people. Sound scholarship that makes sense is what is persuasive, not close-minded assertions that do not make sense.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it common for adoni and Ha Shem to be translated into English as the same word? That seems very confusing to me, to say the least.
Is it common for Christian scholars to study Biblical Hebrew to the point where they can read and understand? So much is lost in translation, especially things that English doesn't have (like gender). I suppose a fair amount of learning could happen from the English translation, but there is certainly a level of knowledge that will be lost.
I'm also curious if Christian scholars read Jewish biblical commentators (such as Rashi).
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just want to point out that Adoni is a different word than Adonai - Adonai is commonly read as "Hashem" or God.
Adoni means my master or lord.
I know that in Medieval times there were a lot Christian Hebraists that tried to write their translations based on the best knowledge of Hebrew.
I also know that many medieval Christian scholars read Rashi. I know specifically that Nicholas of Lyra held Rashi to be incredibly important and quoted him on almost EVERY page of his commentary. What's cool is that in a dispute between Christian commentators and Rashi, he would often side with Rashi.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Is it common for Christian scholars to study Biblical Hebrew to the point where they can read and understand?
Yes. Certainly any Christian Old Testament scholar above the Master's level will be fluent in Biblical Hebrew. Someone who specializes in, for example, medieval church history, probably not so much.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Is it common for adoni and Ha Shem to be translated into English as the same word? That seems very confusing to me, to say the least.
HaShem is a euphemism, meaning "the Name". It's used in place of Ad-nai and the Tetragrammaton to avoid taking God's name in vain. In practice, this is done in pretty much all contexts except when one is actually praying, or reading the Torah in public.
Ad-nai is a name of God in its own right, generally translated as "Lord." (As Lisa pointed out upthread, the word can also be used for more mundane lords.) It's also used as a euphemism for the Tetragrammaton when one is actually praying, or reading the Torah in public.
The Tetragrammaton itself is never spoken. (And translators handle it in a number of different ways.)
[The hyphen above is standing in for an "o". I prefer not to spell it out.]
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do! But I haven't gotten anything from you... just checked the spam folder, too.
Edited to add: never mind, found it. I don't check that address often. (I should set it to forward to my main address, come to think of it.) Sorry!
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I didn't mean to suggest that prophets spend all their time revealing the future. It's just the word "prophecy" is typically used as a verb for that very act. We (English speakers) would not refer to Moses revealing God's law as "prophesying."
True. Every field of knowledge has its own jargon. Religion is no different, I guess.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So then are there quite a few prophets that are not named in the scriptures then? For instance the prophets that Saul was dancing and prophesying with? Shmuel's link mentioned that while non-Jews can be prophets they are not as "revered?" as the Jewish ones? Could you explain to me, is that just something that is or something that is prescribed? Conceivably could there be prophetic writings that have been lost? Or would God by force of habit only speak to prophets of whom Jews would have access to those utterances?
Well, Balaam (the guy with the talking donkey) is considered to have been on the same level of prophecy as Moses. That's why it says at the end of Deuteronomy that "there did not arise in Israel a prophet like Moses". God didn't want the nations of the world to be able to say, "Well, sure, if we'd had a Moses, we could have been better than we were."
As far as prophets go, it's written in the Talmud that there were many prophets in Israel. Twice as many as those who left Egypt (meaning about 1.2 million). But only those that were necessary for all generations were written down. Meaning that even most of the Jewish prophets are lost to history. They played their part in their times, but what they had to say was only for their times.
The "sons of the prophets" that Elisha hung with, the band of prophets that Saul fell in with... those were a very few of the prophets who prophesied in Israel.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Is it common for adoni and Ha Shem to be translated into English as the same word? That seems very confusing to me, to say the least.
Well, adoni does mean "my lord". But Ad-onai is a name of God. And we pronounce the Tetragrammaton as Ad-onai (except when it's preceded by Ad-onai, in which case we pronounce it El-ohim). Generally, the Tetragrammaton is translated as Lord (or LORD).
It's just as confusing in regular English. There are lords and ladies in England, but when we say, "Oh, my Lord!", we mean something entirely different.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Ad-nai is a name of God in its own right, generally translated as "Lord." (As Lisa pointed out upthread, the word can also be used for more mundane lords.)
No, sir. Adoni can be used for more mundane lords, but that's a different word.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Ad-nai is a name of God in its own right, generally translated as "Lord." (As Lisa pointed out upthread, the word can also be used for more mundane lords.)
No, sir. Adoni can be used for more mundane lords, but that's a different word.
Oops. You're right; apparently I didn't fully engage my brain before posting that. (Though, just to confuse matters, the two words are spelled the same way, with only the vowels being different...)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Minerva, every Christian theological seminary that I know of has professors with PhDs in Biblical languages, each person usually specializing in Hebrew or in Greek. The theological seminary associated with Andrews University, in Berrien Springs, Michigan (where I spent over three years in the undergraduate school), has many recognized experts in Biblical Hebrew. There is a whole department of Biblical Languages in the seminary. For a long time they also had on their faculty Dr. Leona Running, who was one of the few world-recognized experts in Biblical Aramaic (the middle portion of Daniel was written in Aramaic).
Andrews was founded in 1874 and is still operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. To this day, the SDA Church requires all its ministerial students to take Biblical Greek on the undergraduate level, and Biblical Hebrew on the graduate level. Most SDA ministers have MDiv (Master of Divinity) degrees. Those who want to go into teaching on the collegiate level usually continue further to get PhDs.
The SDA Church is said to have over 15 million members worldwide, with churches and various institutions (such as elementary and secondary schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, and clinics) in over 200 nations. Link: http://www.answers.com/topic/seventh-day-adventist-churchPosts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering then, Ron, how they could possibly mistranslate adoni as Lord. It seems like a deliberate deception. I mean, any Hebrew speaking child could tell you that is incorrect.
I'm really trying to give these translators the benefit of the doubt, but it's not terribly easy.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question for the Christians that don't agree with Ron (seems to be the majority here).
Do you believe the Hebrew Scriptures speak of Jesus?
If not, why do you believe in him as the savior?
If you accept him as a savior, but agree with the Jewish translations, why bother with the Hebrew Scriptures at all?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that Christian translators of the Bible use the same Textus Receptus that Jewish scholars do.
Here is what Thayers Bible Dictionary tells me, when I check the Strong's numbers for the phrase "The LORD said unto my Lord" in Psalms 110:1:
"The LORD"
quote:03068 Y@hovah {yeh-ho-vaw'} from 01961; TWOT - 484a; n pr dei AV - LORD 6510, GOD 4, JEHOVAH 4, variant 1; 6519 Jehovah = "the existing One" 1) the proper name of the one true God 1a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136
"Said unto My Lord"
quote:0113 'adown {aw-done'} or (shortened) 'adon {aw-done'} from an unused root (meaning to rule); TWOT - 27b; n m AV - lord 197, master(s) 105, Lord 31, owner 1, sir 1; 335 1) firm, strong, lord, master 1a) lord, master 1a1) reference to men 1a1a) superintendent of household,of affairs 1a1b) master 1a1c) king 1a2) reference to God 1a2a) the Lord God 1a2b) Lord of the whole earth 1b) lords, kings 1b1) reference to men 1b1a) proprietor of hill of Samaria 1b1b) master 1b1c) husband 1b1d) prophet 1b1e) governor 1b1f) prince 1b1g) king 1b2) reference to God 1b2a) Lord of lords (probably = "thy husband, Yahweh") 1c) my lord, my master 1c1) reference to men 1c1a) master 1c1b) husband
In Psalms 97:5 the text says: "The mountains melt like wax at the presence of the Lord" (NKJV) Please note that the "Lord" at the end of that clause is also Strong's number 0113, the same identical word as the second "Lord" in Psalms 110:1. Somehow, I don't think the mountains melt like wax at the presence of Abraham.
Also in Zechariah 4:14 is this phrase: "the Lord of the whole earth." Again, the word used for Lord is Strong's number 0113, the same as the Hebrew for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1. I don't think Abraham was ever described as the Lord of the whole earth, beside whom "the two anointed ones" stand. The two annointed ones are obviously the two covering cherubim who stand on either side of the throne of God in Heaven, represented by the two golden angels who stand on either side of the "Mercy Seat" of the Ark of the Covenant.
Would you care to explain to me how you can justify calling the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 Abraham, when the same word is applied to the Lord of the whole earth, in whose presence the mountains melt, etc.?
And as I have said before, there is no sensible reason why David would refer to Abraham as his "lord."
As Christians see it, this is God the Father speaking to God the Son.
[ March 18, 2009, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I'm wondering then, Ron, how they could possibly mistranslate adoni as Lord. It seems like a deliberate deception. I mean, any Hebrew speaking child could tell you that is incorrect.
I'm really trying to give these translators the benefit of the doubt, but it's not terribly easy.
Playing devil's advocate, the two terms are spelled the same way.
One might also note that in this particular case, either reading can have the same result: other Christian translators do take the word at issue as being "adoni," while still taking it as referring to Jesus. NETBible, for instance, translates it in the lowercase, and has this footnote:
quote:My lord. In the psalm’s original context the speaker is an unidentified prophetic voice in the royal court. In the course of time the psalm is applied to each successive king in the dynasty and ultimately to the ideal Davidic king. NT references to the psalm understand David to be speaking about his “lord,” the Messiah. (See Matt 22:43-45; Mark 12:36-37; Luke 20:42-44; Acts 2:34-35).
Obviously, this isn't the Jewish reading, but that's a matter of interpretation.
Their footnote 20 to that psalm is interesting and relevant, in that it directly addresses a similar issue regarding the word with that spelling in verse 5. They go with the Jewish vocalization there as well, but do note an alternative reading.
The Jewish and Christian traditions and translations have irreconcilable differences, no question, but I'm reluctant to put differences among contemporary scholars down to incompetence or deception. We're just starting with very different premises.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Here is what Thayers Bible Dictionary tells me, when I check the Strong's numbers for the phrase "The LORD said unto my Lord" in Psalms 110:1:
"The LORD"
quote:03068 Y@hovah {yeh-ho-vaw'} from 01961; TWOT - 484a; n pr dei AV - LORD 6510, GOD 4, JEHOVAH 4, variant 1; 6519 Jehovah = "the existing One" 1) the proper name of the one true God 1a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136
"Said unto My Lord"
quote:0113 'adown {aw-done'} or (shortened) 'adon {aw-done'} from an unused root (meaning to rule); TWOT - 27b; n m AV - lord 197, master(s) 105, Lord 31, owner 1, sir 1; 335 1) firm, strong, lord, master 1a) lord, master 1a1) reference to men 1a1a) superintendent of household,of affairs 1a1b) master 1a1c) king 1a2) reference to God 1a2a) the Lord God 1a2b) Lord of the whole earth 1b) lords, kings 1b1) reference to men 1b1a) proprietor of hill of Samaria 1b1b) master 1b1c) husband 1b1d) prophet 1b1e) governor 1b1f) prince 1b1g) king 1b2) reference to God 1b2a) Lord of lords (probably = "thy husband, Yahweh") 1c) my lord, my master 1c1) reference to men 1c1a) master 1c1b) husband
In Psalms 97:5 the text says: "The mountains melt like wax at the presence of the Lord" (NKJV) Please note that the "Lord" at the end of that clause is also Strong's number 0113, the same identical word as the second "Lord" in Psalms 110:1. Somehow, I don't think the mountains melt like wax at the presence of Abraham.
See, that's the problem with using such tools. It simply isn't as good as learning the language and dealing with the real text. The verse says "The mountains melt like wax from before the Lord; from before the lord of all the earth." The first Lord there is the Tetragrammaton. The second one is the word lord. And yes, it's calling God the lord of all the earth. It's completely different than the name Ad-onai and the Tetragrammaton, both of which are translated as Lord with a capital L.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Also in Zechariah 4:14 is this phrase: "the Lord of the whole earth."
Same thing. God's being called the lord of all the earth, but the divine name Lord is not being used. It's a descriptive, rather than a name. And yet you'll still never find a single place in the entire Bible where a simple "adoni" (with the first person singular possessive suffix) is used for God. If Psalms 110:1 did, it's the only place in the entire Bible where it was done, while a simple "adoni" was definitely used for human beings. First among them being Abraham.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Would you care to explain to me how you can justify calling the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 Abraham, when the same word is applied to the Lord of the whole earth, in whose presence the mountains melt, etc.?
Do you understand now? Calling God "lord of all the earth" is not the same thing as referring to Him as "Lord".
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And as I have said before, there is no sensible reason why David would refer to Abraham as his "lord."
Because David was familiar with the Torah, to say the least. And that's a title by which Abraham was called in Genesis.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As Christians see it, this is God the Father speaking to God the Son.
Well, that's lame. Hell, you have a problem with David calling his ancestor Abraham "my lord", but you're okay with him calling his distant descendent by the same name? Nutty.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Lisa, here it seems we come to the dividing point between Christianity and Judaism. It is a matter of what you arbitraily assert is preferable. But you cannot prove that the Christian interpretation is incorrect. I maintain that any fair-minded person would have to agree that I made valid points comparing Psalms 110:1, 97:5, and Zechariah 4:14, where the exact same Hebrew word for Lord is used, and the latter two passages are clearly talking about God. And it still sounds absurd to suppose that this one place in the Bible, King David is referring to his ancestor Abraham as "My Lord." Abraham had been dead for centuries. How could he be David's Lord?
You ask how David's Lord could be his son. Ah yes, exactly. And that is the very question Jesus Christ put to the scribes in His day. See Luke 20:42-44. The only interpretation that makes good sense of Psalms 110:1 is that the second Lord is God the Son. If you do not see it this way, it is only because you do not choose to see it this way. But do you really have good reason to see it this way? What does the real weight of evidence indicate?
The Hebrew experts, such as translate the Bible, know a whole lot more about ancient Hebrew than you or any of your teachers in Hebrew school do. Your appeal to some proprietary authority over the Hebrew text of the Bible you think you have because of your Hebrew heritage is not a valid argument.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Well, Lisa, here it seems we come to the dividing point between Christianity and Judaism. It is a matter of what you arbitraily assert is preferable. But you cannot prove that the Christian interpretation is incorrect. I maintain that any fair-minded person would have to agree that I made valid points comparing Psalms 110:1, 97:5, and Zechariah 4:14, where the exact same Hebrew word for Lord is used, and the latter two passages are clearly talking about God.
Nope. The stem is the same. But adon isn't adoni. Abraham is called adoni. God is never called adoni. He's called adon kol ha-aretz, and He's called Ad-onai. But He's never called adoni.
This isn't a matter of personal taste, Ron. It's a matter of fact.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And it still sounds absurd to suppose that this one place in the Bible, King David is referring to his ancestor Abraham as "My Lord." Abraham had been dead for centuries. How could he be David's Lord?
It sounds absurd to you because you have no feel for the language. Adoni was a title by which Abraham was called.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The only interpretation that makes good sense of Psalms 110:1 is that the second Lord is God the Son.
No, the second "lord" is not "Lord". It's not God. God is never referred to as "adoni". Ever.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you do not see it this way, it is only because you do not choose to see it this way.
Or, you know, because I can read the text without having to use concordances and dictionaries.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But do you really have good reason to see it this way? What does the real weight of evidence indicate?
posted
Know what's funny Ron? Lisa, Shmuel (I'm assuming), and I do not hold PhDs in Hebrew. This is baby-Hebrew. Jews, for some CRAZY reason find it important to learn Hebrew and make sure to be the keepers of our solid tradition. You are so baseless in this argument that it's scary how you can be so confidant.
Secondly, I studied a whole lot of Jewish-Christian relations in Medieval times. Did you know that ALL over Christian culture, Jews are portrayed as keepers of knowledge - the link to scripture and to Godly wisdom. Christians always recognized and were impressed by Jewish wisdom. They just chose to argue about the whole Jesus thing.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Hebrew in which the Psalms were written did not have any vowels. Marks to indicate some vowel sounds were added after the fact, centuries later, by uninspired scribes. Is this not true? So how can you be so dogmatic about whether the second "lord" in Psalms 110:1 is adon or adoni? Which is the Hebrew word for lord in Psalms 97:5 and Zechariah 4:14? According to dictionaries and condordances which are a lot more authoritative than any of you are (no matter what you claim), the word in the three passages is the same word. I need more proof than your say-so that the word used for the second lord in Psalms 110:1 cannot be applied to divinity. Your dogmatism is not persuasive. Your opinions are not evidence, I don't care what you were programmed to believe in Hebrew school as children. Do you understand what scholarly evidence is?
The idea that David was calling Abraham "My lord" is not reasonable. Can you get that? Or is your mind closed to reason?
OK, granted, if you admit this point then you have to admit that Christianity is true, and that Jesus Christ is your true Jewish Messiah. Maybe you are just unwilling to do this. But it is, and He is, just the same. Christianity is Judaism, grown to maturity. Because I receive His Son, God regards me as a truer Jew than you are. Hopefully, I will see you in Heaven after the Second Coming, and we can continue our debate then.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, the evidence for Jesus Christ being the Messiah is far greater than that one verse, Psalms 110:1. I consider the evidence from Daniel 9:24-27 to be the most telling.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier, my mind is open to sound scholarship. Some of you seem to be so scholarly challenged that birds could fly through your "open minds."
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, Ron. Which specific verses would you have to have disproved before you'd concede that Jesus is not the Messiah?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, for some reason your posts come across to me as evangelism, where others' come across as explanation. I'm not sure how to clearly identify the difference. Unfortunately, that means I don't have a clear way to explain how I believe your posting style needs to change. Nevertheless, I think I need to say something, and so I'd ask that you endeavor not to come across that way.
quote:Xavier, my mind is open to sound scholarship.
Bull. No amount of scholarship would ever be able to convince you that Jesus was not the Messiah / son of God. It's so central to your core personality and even concept of "self" that it's become your starting axiom in your evaluation of the world. You may as well claim that you are open to scholarship that says 1 = 2. Though if your religion said 1 = 2, I have a feeling you'd defend it tooth and nail!
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Hebrew in which the Psalms were written did not have any vowels. Marks to indicate some vowel sounds were added after the fact, centuries later, by uninspired scribes. Is this not true? So how can you be so dogmatic about whether the second "lord" in Psalms 110:1 is adon or adoni? Which is the Hebrew word for lord in Psalms 97:5 and Zechariah 4:14?
It's not true, because the knowledge of the correct pronunciation was passed down along with the text. But leave that. The second "lord" in Psalms 110:1 is spelled alef-dalet-waw-nun-yud. The Hebrew word for lord in the other two verses you mention is spelled alef-dalet-waw-nun.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: According to dictionaries and condordances which are a lot more authoritative than any of you are (no matter what you claim), the word in the three passages is the same word.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Ron. When someone like you who doesn't even know how to use those dictionaries and concordances reach conclusions from them, it isn't the books that are at fault, but you yourself.
Based on what you cited, it's clear that the dictionary you used was giving you the stem and translating it, rather than the entire word. And I'll bet that if you open up the beginning of that book and read through the front matter, you'll see that that's exactly what they say they're going to do.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I need more proof than your say-so that the word used for the second lord in Psalms 110:1 cannot be applied to divinity.
Surely you have access to these books in Hebrew, Ron. Surely you have access to someone who can show you the actual words on the actual page. This isn't something which requires you to believe anything. It's a physical fact. Go and check it out for yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Your dogmatism is not persuasive. Your opinions are not evidence, I don't care what you were programmed to believe in Hebrew school as children. Do you understand what scholarly evidence is?
I do. Do you? Casually misusing resource books isn't good scholarship.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The idea that David was calling Abraham "My lord" is not reasonable. Can you get that? Or is your mind closed to reason?
Well, maybe if you assert it again another few times, I might buy it. Then again... no, I wouldn't. If you were a member of a tribe which was a part of a greater nation which had one man at the head of it, who founded it and who inspired all of the knowledge of that nation, you might refer to him as your lord as well. Hell, the Brits don't need even that much reason to call people "my lord". All they need is a patent of nobility.
You see it as weird only because you're programmed (nice word, incidentally) to think of the word as denoting a deity. So it's tinted for you.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: OK, granted, if you admit this point then you have to admit that Christianity is true, and that Jesus Christ is your true Jewish Messiah.
Um... no. Believing one inane thing doesn't necessary lead to believing another one. There's no question whatsoever that the second "lord" in that verse is not referring to God. If you could somehow prove (how?) that it's not referring to Abraham, it'd only mean it was referring to someone else.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Maybe you are just unwilling to do this. But it is, and He is, just the same. Christianity is Judaism, grown to maturity.
posted
Armoth, you realize that there are LDS people on this board who were either born Jewish or who have family members that were. It loses some of the humor when you realize that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xavier, my mind is open to sound scholarship.
Bull. No amount of scholarship would ever be able to convince you that Jesus was not the Messiah / son of God. It's so central to your core personality and even concept of "self" that it's become your starting axiom in your evaluation of the world. You may as well claim that you are open to scholarship that says 1 = 2. Though if your religion said 1 = 2, I have a feeling you'd defend it tooth and nail!
Um. You do know what Christians say about one and three, right?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
