Eight Myths about the Bible

[BluePhantom]

This is my understanding of the term/name YWHW from what I have heard. I do not know Hebrew so I am only repeating things I have heard. In the Bible when Moses as God who he should say sent him what is written down is:

(may not be the correct original language.)

This is not actually a word and does not really have a pronunciation. It has been interpreted as the name of God although that may be completely inaccurate. It is written in the KJV Bible as I AM THAT I AM. Written in Hebrew I think it looks like two doors with a post in the middle and a little marker at the top corner of the right door. In other words, make a choice, either one, but it had better be this one.

Well kind of yes and kind of no. YHWH is how it is written in Hebrew. It's not a word no much as an anagram. In Exodus 3 God tells Moses to go to Pharaoh and demand the release of the Hebrews. Moses asks who he should say is commanding this and by who's authority he makes this command...which in a polytheistic society is a pretty good idea. Is it Marduk making this command? Osiris? Elohim? You know...what god are we talking about here? God answers "I am who I am"...it also means "I will be who I will be" and it could also mean "I blow (or will blow) what I blow (or will blow)". This is because the Hebrew words for "to be" and "blow" are the same and because Hebrew does not distinguish between present and future tenses, but it seems unlikely that God would identify himself as "he who blows" (although there is some association with winds in Genesis but that's a whole other discussion), so it's probably "I am who I am".

Ancient Hebrew is a bit tough for westerners to read because it is written from right to left instead of left to right and there are no spaces, no vowels, no punctuation, no paragraphs. It's just one long string of letters. Consider if we ran across DRP in a string of letters. Well we would have to reverse that to PRD which could mean prod, poured, pride, proud, paired...the list goes on. It can be really confusing and still today scholars find things that are commonly translated in the Bible as one thing and through modern scholarship realize that it means something else entirely.

As an interesting side note, there are some great early Greek manuscripts that misunderstood the Hebrew. Greek is read from left to right as English is and when they saw YHWH they noted that it kind of sort of looks like pi-iota-i-iota which spells PiPi (pronounced "pee-pee") which means "chicken" in ancient Egyptian and so those ancient Greeks concluded that the Hebrews were worshiping a chicken god named PiPi.

To further confuse things, the name of God was so powerful that it was not to be spoken by penalty of death and so the ancient Hebrew priests referred to God as "Adonai" (pronounced "A-doh-ni" [A as in cat as the stressed syllable and a long i at the end as in night]. It gets a little complicated because you have to now translate everything into German but when you do that and use the YHWH as it is written, and the vowels from Adonai as it was spoken, put them all together and say it in German, you get "Jehovah". Even Adonai was sometimes considered too powerful and instead God was simply referred to as "ha-Shem" or "the name".

And to confuse things even more, the name of God was also knows as Elohim in different sources and those sources were spliced together which is why in the pentateuch it sometimes refers to God as Elohim and sometimes as YHWH.

So there you go. Hope that adds clarity instead of confusion. LOL

Regardless of the name used to identify God, He is Who He is and changes not. I believe that He knows the heart and soul of man so He knows when a human sincerely seeks Him regardless of the name used. In other words, I don't believe that someone who says Jehovah instead of Yaweh will be penalized in some way, shape, or manner. I believe that when I say "Jesus Christ" He knows that I'm referring to Him and nobody else.

I would agree. RandomVariable suggests not using Elohim, for example. My guess is he says that because Elohim is more general where YHWH is quite specific. Elohim can be used to refer to any god and indeed the Old Testament uses Elohim to refer to many different gods as well as the Hebrew God. I tend to imagine, however, that if one were to use Elohim in reference to the Hebrew God that God is probably smart enough to figure that out and won't be offended.

But there are things that get lost when you fail to differentiate sometimes. Most often translators have used "God" for "elohim" regardless of whether the text suggests that what is being referred to is the Hebrew God or another god. Occasionally that has led to some problems in interpretation.

As well I think a strong argument can be made that reading an English translation can cause people to miss some really beautiful concepts and some particularly funny ones as well. The reverent language that has traditionally been used when translating the Bible has caused some great things to be lost. I'll give you a couple examples.

First (and one of my favorites) is the story of Rebekah seeing Isaac for the first time. Usually it's translated that Isaac was in the field meditating, although in reality what it actually says he was doing no one knows. The word in Hebrew has never been found anywhere else so it's a mystery. For whatever reason they decided he was meditating instead of sowing, or reaping, or taking a stroll, or whatever. And usually it's translated that Rebekah saw him and "alit from" or "got off" her camel. Well that's not quite what it says in Hebrew. In Hebrew it says "u'thphl" or literally "fell off". Some later versions say she "fell off her camel onto her ass", the pun there being obvious and would have had people rolling in the aisles over that one. But because that story would have been vulgar by later translators thousands of years later, the language was toned down. But because of that we miss the humor in the story; that whatever it was that Isaac was doing in the field it so shocked and amazed Rebekah (either in a good way or a bad way - it doesn't really say) that she flat out fell off her camel and landed with a thud. Because of that we tend to overlook that these stories sometimes had great humor in how they were written, and perhaps even that humor is a part of faith.

A second example would be in the New testament where Jesus says (paraphrasing because it depends in which version you read) "I have come, repent, and spread the good news". It's the "good news" I want to focus on because it Greek it is written "euangelion". Technically the translation is correct. It literally means "good news", but it was a specific type of good news used in Greek speaking ancient culture. An "euangelion" was the good news of victory over an enemy. So during war, for example, an army would go out to face the enemy from a town and they win the battle and a runner would be sent to race through the streets of the town screaming "EUANGELION! EUANGELION!".....you know...."GOOD NEWS! VICTORY IS OURS! WE HAVE WON!" Today when we hear someone say "oh let me tell you the good news" it sounds kind of corny. We kind of roll our eyes and murmer "yeah, yeah, whatever", but it reality it was a powerful statement Jesus was making. He was saying "because I am here the battle is already won!" WHOA! What a difference!

So I get what you are saying. I get what RandomVariable is saying. I think there is something to be said for trying to stay as true to the original spirit of the stories as possible and that means really getting into the Greek and the Hebrew, and studying history, and ancient cultures in order to understand the context of what all this meant to people in antiquity so we can put it into the proper perspective today.

 

[BluePhantom]

One of the biggest myths that screwed up a lot of people is a mistranslation in the Authorized King James Version, "thou shall not kill". The Hebrew translates to "you shall commit no murder". But the NT is based on many translation errors as well, from the Greek Septuagint. The most notable being Isaiah 7:14 (I think) where it translated young woman into virgin. Thus begot the Mary story.

Are you saying that Mary (should she have existed) was not a virgin?

I will let him speak for himself but I can chime in on this one. It does and it doesn't. In the gospels of Matthew and Luke it makes reference to a virgin conception (keeping in mind that the "virgin conception", the "virgin birth", and the "immaculate conception" are three totally different concepts - I can get into that later if anyone really cares). Matthew and Luke are both referencing Isaiah 7 where a sign is being given to King Ahaz that his nation will be safe as they were at war. The sign that was given is that (paraphrasing) "an almah will become pregnant and give birth to a son...and by the time he is old enough to know right from wrong he will be eating curds and honey...". Essentially that in a little over a decade everything will be secure (great sign, huh?). The problem comes from the word "almah" which in Hebrew means "young woman". It does not mean a young woman unknown to man; that word is "betulah". The problem comes in that later, when the Greek became a more dominant language, the Tanakh (or Hebrew Old Testament as we think of it today) was translated into Greek into what we call the Septuagint.

In the Greek language both almah and betulah translate into the same word which is "parthenos". Parthenos means both "a young woman" AND "a virgin". So centuries later the authors of Matthew and Luke reading from the Septuagint came across a word with a double meaning and while there is nothing terribly spectacular about a young woman giving birth, there sure is about a virgin giving birth, and hence the authors of Matthew and Luke accepted the virgin translation and wrote their gospels according to that translation.

So the answer is yes and no...in Matthew and Luke it does say Mary was a virgin, but the prophecy they are referring to (Isaiah 7) doesn't exactly say that. It seems the authors of Matthew and Luke misinterpreted Isaiah because of a translation problem between Hebrew and Greek.

 

[RandomVariable]

This is my understanding of the term/name YWHW from what I have heard. I do not know Hebrew so I am only repeating things I have heard. In the Bible when Moses as God who he should say sent him what is written down is:

(may not be the correct original language.)

This is not actually a word and does not really have a pronunciation. It has been interpreted as the name of God although that may be completely inaccurate. It is written in the KJV Bible as I AM THAT I AM. Written in Hebrew I think it looks like two doors with a post in the middle and a little marker at the top corner of the right door. In other words, make a choice, either one, but it had better be this one.

Well kind of yes and kind of no. YHWH is how it is written in Hebrew. It's not a word no much as an anagram. In Exodus 3 God tells Moses to go to Pharaoh and demand the release of the Hebrews. Moses asks who he should say is commanding this and by who's authority he makes this command...which in a polytheistic society is a pretty good idea. Is it Marduk making this command? Osiris? Elohim? You know...what god are we talking about here? God answers "I am who I am"...it also means "I will be who I will be" and it could also mean "I blow (or will blow) what I blow (or will blow)". This is because the Hebrew words for "to be" and "blow" are the same and because Hebrew does not distinguish between present and future tenses, but it seems unlikely that God would identify himself as "he who blows" (although there is some association with winds in Genesis but that's a whole other discussion), so it's probably "I am who I am".

Ancient Hebrew is a bit tough for westerners to read because it is written from right to left instead of left to right and there are no spaces, no vowels, no punctuation, no paragraphs. It's just one long string of letters. Consider if we ran across DRP in a string of letters. Well we would have to reverse that to PRD which could mean prod, poured, pride, proud, paired...the list goes on. It can be really confusing and still today scholars find things that are commonly translated in the Bible as one thing and through modern scholarship realize that it means something else entirely.

As an interesting side note, there are some great early Greek manuscripts that misunderstood the Hebrew. Greek is read from left to right as English is and when they saw YHWH they noted that it kind of sort of looks like pi-iota-i-iota which spells PiPi (pronounced "pee-pee") which means "chicken" in ancient Egyptian and so those ancient Greeks concluded that the Hebrews were worshiping a chicken god named PiPi.

To further confuse things, the name of God was so powerful that it was not to be spoken by penalty of death and so the ancient Hebrew priests referred to God as "Adonai" (pronounced "A-doh-ni" [A as in cat as the stressed syllable and a long i at the end as in night]. It gets a little complicated because you have to now translate everything into German but when you do that and use the YHWH as it is written, and the vowels from Adonai as it was spoken, put them all together and say it in German, you get "Jehovah". Even Adonai was sometimes considered too powerful and instead God was simply referred to as "ha-Shem" or "the name".

And to confuse things even more, the name of God was also knows as Elohim in different sources and those sources were spliced together which is why in the pentateuch it sometimes refers to God as Elohim and sometimes as YHWH.

So there you go. Hope that adds clarity instead of confusion. LOL

Regardless of the name used to identify God, He is Who He is and changes not. I believe that He knows the heart and soul of man so He knows when a human sincerely seeks Him regardless of the name used. In other words, I don't believe that someone who says Jehovah instead of Yaweh will be penalized in some way, shape, or manner. I believe that when I say "Jesus Christ" He knows that I'm referring to Him and nobody else.

I would agree. RandomVariable suggests not using Elohim, for example. My guess is he says that because Elohim is more general where YHWH is quite specific. Elohim can be used to refer to any god and indeed the Old Testament uses Elohim to refer to many different gods as well as the Hebrew God. I tend to imagine, however, that if one were to use Elohim in reference to the Hebrew God that God is probably smart enough to figure that out and won't be offended.

But there are things that get lost when you fail to differentiate sometimes. Most often translators have used "God" for "elohim" regardless of whether the text suggests that what is being referred to is the Hebrew God or another god. Occasionally that has led to some problems in interpretation.

As well I think a strong argument can be made that reading an English translation can cause people to miss some really beautiful concepts and some particularly funny ones as well. The reverent language that has traditionally been used when translating the Bible has caused some great things to be lost. I'll give you a couple examples.

First (and one of my favorites) is the story of Rebekah seeing Isaac for the first time. Usually it's translated that Isaac was in the field meditating, although in reality what it actually says he was doing no one knows. The word in Hebrew has never been found anywhere else so it's a mystery. For whatever reason they decided he was meditating instead of sowing, or reaping, or taking a stroll, or whatever. And usually it's translated that Rebekah saw him and "alit from" or "got off" her camel. Well that's not quite what it says in Hebrew. In Hebrew it says "u'thphl" or literally "fell off". Some later versions say she "fell off her camel onto her ass", the pun there being obvious and would have had people rolling in the aisles over that one. But because that story would have been vulgar by later translators thousands of years later, the language was toned down. But because of that we miss the humor in the story; that whatever it was that Isaac was doing in the field it so shocked and amazed Rebekah (either in a good way or a bad way - it doesn't really say) that she flat out fell off her camel and landed with a thud. Because of that we tend to overlook that these stories sometimes had great humor in how they were written, and perhaps even that humor is a part of faith.

A second example would be in the New testament where Jesus says (paraphrasing because it depends in which version you read) "I have come, repent, and spread the good news". It's the "good news" I want to focus on because it Greek it is written "euangelion". Technically the translation is correct. It literally means "good news", but it was a specific type of good news used in Greek speaking ancient culture. An "euangelion" was the good news of victory over an enemy. So during war, for example, an army would go out to face the enemy from a town and they win the battle and a runner would be sent to race through the streets of the town screaming "EUANGELION! EUANGELION!".....you know...."GOOD NEWS! VICTORY IS OURS! WE HAVE WON!" Today when we hear someone say "oh let me tell you the good news" it sounds kind of corny. We kind of roll our eyes and murmer "yeah, yeah, whatever", but it reality it was a powerful statement Jesus was making. He was saying "because I am here the battle is already won!" WHOA! What a difference!

So I get what you are saying. I get what RandomVariable is saying. I think there is something to be said for trying to stay as true to the original spirit of the stories as possible and that means really getting into the Greek and the Hebrew, and studying history, and ancient cultures in order to understand the context of what all this meant to people in antiquity so we can put it into the proper perspective today.

After reading your explanation I think I like it much better than mine. I did not know that about the word 'elohim'. I was just going to say because God told me so but your explanation sounds much more concrete.

 

[BluePhantom]

This is my understanding of the term/name YWHW from what I have heard. I do not know Hebrew so I am only repeating things I have heard. In the Bible when Moses as God who he should say sent him what is written down is:

(may not be the correct original language.)

This is not actually a word and does not really have a pronunciation. It has been interpreted as the name of God although that may be completely inaccurate. It is written in the KJV Bible as I AM THAT I AM. Written in Hebrew I think it looks like two doors with a post in the middle and a little marker at the top corner of the right door. In other words, make a choice, either one, but it had better be this one.

Well kind of yes and kind of no. YHWH is how it is written in Hebrew. It's not a word no much as an anagram. In Exodus 3 God tells Moses to go to Pharaoh and demand the release of the Hebrews. Moses asks who he should say is commanding this and by who's authority he makes this command...which in a polytheistic society is a pretty good idea. Is it Marduk making this command? Osiris? Elohim? You know...what god are we talking about here? God answers "I am who I am"...it also means "I will be who I will be" and it could also mean "I blow (or will blow) what I blow (or will blow)". This is because the Hebrew words for "to be" and "blow" are the same and because Hebrew does not distinguish between present and future tenses, but it seems unlikely that God would identify himself as "he who blows" (although there is some association with winds in Genesis but that's a whole other discussion), so it's probably "I am who I am".

Ancient Hebrew is a bit tough for westerners to read because it is written from right to left instead of left to right and there are no spaces, no vowels, no punctuation, no paragraphs. It's just one long string of letters. Consider if we ran across DRP in a string of letters. Well we would have to reverse that to PRD which could mean prod, poured, pride, proud, paired...the list goes on. It can be really confusing and still today scholars find things that are commonly translated in the Bible as one thing and through modern scholarship realize that it means something else entirely.

As an interesting side note, there are some great early Greek manuscripts that misunderstood the Hebrew. Greek is read from left to right as English is and when they saw YHWH they noted that it kind of sort of looks like pi-iota-i-iota which spells PiPi (pronounced "pee-pee") which means "chicken" in ancient Egyptian and so those ancient Greeks concluded that the Hebrews were worshiping a chicken god named PiPi.

To further confuse things, the name of God was so powerful that it was not to be spoken by penalty of death and so the ancient Hebrew priests referred to God as "Adonai" (pronounced "A-doh-ni" [A as in cat as the stressed syllable and a long i at the end as in night]. It gets a little complicated because you have to now translate everything into German but when you do that and use the YHWH as it is written, and the vowels from Adonai as it was spoken, put them all together and say it in German, you get "Jehovah". Even Adonai was sometimes considered too powerful and instead God was simply referred to as "ha-Shem" or "the name".

And to confuse things even more, the name of God was also knows as Elohim in different sources and those sources were spliced together which is why in the pentateuch it sometimes refers to God as Elohim and sometimes as YHWH.

So there you go. Hope that adds clarity instead of confusion. LOL

Regardless of the name used to identify God, He is Who He is and changes not. I believe that He knows the heart and soul of man so He knows when a human sincerely seeks Him regardless of the name used. In other words, I don't believe that someone who says Jehovah instead of Yaweh will be penalized in some way, shape, or manner. I believe that when I say "Jesus Christ" He knows that I'm referring to Him and nobody else.

I would agree. RandomVariable suggests not using Elohim, for example. My guess is he says that because Elohim is more general where YHWH is quite specific. Elohim can be used to refer to any god and indeed the Old Testament uses Elohim to refer to many different gods as well as the Hebrew God. I tend to imagine, however, that if one were to use Elohim in reference to the Hebrew God that God is probably smart enough to figure that out and won't be offended.

But there are things that get lost when you fail to differentiate sometimes. Most often translators have used "God" for "elohim" regardless of whether the text suggests that what is being referred to is the Hebrew God or another god. Occasionally that has led to some problems in interpretation.

As well I think a strong argument can be made that reading an English translation can cause people to miss some really beautiful concepts and some particularly funny ones as well. The reverent language that has traditionally been used when translating the Bible has caused some great things to be lost. I'll give you a couple examples.

First (and one of my favorites) is the story of Rebekah seeing Isaac for the first time. Usually it's translated that Isaac was in the field meditating, although in reality what it actually says he was doing no one knows. The word in Hebrew has never been found anywhere else so it's a mystery. For whatever reason they decided he was meditating instead of sowing, or reaping, or taking a stroll, or whatever. And usually it's translated that Rebekah saw him and "alit from" or "got off" her camel. Well that's not quite what it says in Hebrew. In Hebrew it says "u'thphl" or literally "fell off". Some later versions say she "fell off her camel onto her ass", the pun there being obvious and would have had people rolling in the aisles over that one. But because that story would have been vulgar by later translators thousands of years later, the language was toned down. But because of that we miss the humor in the story; that whatever it was that Isaac was doing in the field it so shocked and amazed Rebekah (either in a good way or a bad way - it doesn't really say) that she flat out fell off her camel and landed with a thud. Because of that we tend to overlook that these stories sometimes had great humor in how they were written, and perhaps even that humor is a part of faith.

A second example would be in the New testament where Jesus says (paraphrasing because it depends in which version you read) "I have come, repent, and spread the good news". It's the "good news" I want to focus on because it Greek it is written "euangelion". Technically the translation is correct. It literally means "good news", but it was a specific type of good news used in Greek speaking ancient culture. An "euangelion" was the good news of victory over an enemy. So during war, for example, an army would go out to face the enemy from a town and they win the battle and a runner would be sent to race through the streets of the town screaming "EUANGELION! EUANGELION!".....you know...."GOOD NEWS! VICTORY IS OURS! WE HAVE WON!" Today when we hear someone say "oh let me tell you the good news" it sounds kind of corny. We kind of roll our eyes and murmer "yeah, yeah, whatever", but it reality it was a powerful statement Jesus was making. He was saying "because I am here the battle is already won!" WHOA! What a difference!

So I get what you are saying. I get what RandomVariable is saying. I think there is something to be said for trying to stay as true to the original spirit of the stories as possible and that means really getting into the Greek and the Hebrew, and studying history, and ancient cultures in order to understand the context of what all this meant to people in antiquity so we can put it into the proper perspective today.

After reading your explanation I think I like it much better than mine. I did not know that about the word 'elohim'. I was just going to say because God told me so but your explanation sounds much more concrete.

Well I think whatever is good for the individual in that sense is probably good with God. I agree with DriftingSand that God knows our hearts and our intentions. I don't use elohim myself except when I am studying from a scholarly perspective. What I mean is there is great value in identifying between YHWH and Elohim when trying to identify sources. I won't write a really long thing as I usually do but I encourage you to do some research (if you haven't already) about Genesis (the entire Torah really) on the JPED...that being the "J source" (or YHWH source....J being equivalent to Y in German pronunciation...that's where the "J" comes from instead of "Y"), the "E source" (or elohim source), the "P source" (or priestly source), and the "D source" (or the Deuteronomical source). It's a discussion far too great and lengthy for this thread but it's intensely interesting and really creates a new and far deeper appreciation of Genesis and Torah as a whole.

 

[RandomVariable]

This is my understanding of the term/name YWHW from what I have heard. I do not know Hebrew so I am only repeating things I have heard. In the Bible when Moses as God who he should say sent him what is written down is:

(may not be the correct original language.)

This is not actually a word and does not really have a pronunciation. It has been interpreted as the name of God although that may be completely inaccurate. It is written in the KJV Bible as I AM THAT I AM. Written in Hebrew I think it looks like two doors with a post in the middle and a little marker at the top corner of the right door. In other words, make a choice, either one, but it had better be this one.

Well kind of yes and kind of no. YHWH is how it is written in Hebrew. It's not a word no much as an anagram. In Exodus 3 God tells Moses to go to Pharaoh and demand the release of the Hebrews. Moses asks who he should say is commanding this and by who's authority he makes this command...which in a polytheistic society is a pretty good idea. Is it Marduk making this command? Osiris? Elohim? You know...what god are we talking about here? God answers "I am who I am"...it also means "I will be who I will be" and it could also mean "I blow (or will blow) what I blow (or will blow)". This is because the Hebrew words for "to be" and "blow" are the same and because Hebrew does not distinguish between present and future tenses, but it seems unlikely that God would identify himself as "he who blows" (although there is some association with winds in Genesis but that's a whole other discussion), so it's probably "I am who I am".

Ancient Hebrew is a bit tough for westerners to read because it is written from right to left instead of left to right and there are no spaces, no vowels, no punctuation, no paragraphs. It's just one long string of letters. Consider if we ran across DRP in a string of letters. Well we would have to reverse that to PRD which could mean prod, poured, pride, proud, paired...the list goes on. It can be really confusing and still today scholars find things that are commonly translated in the Bible as one thing and through modern scholarship realize that it means something else entirely.

As an interesting side note, there are some great early Greek manuscripts that misunderstood the Hebrew. Greek is read from left to right as English is and when they saw YHWH they noted that it kind of sort of looks like pi-iota-i-iota which spells PiPi (pronounced "pee-pee") which means "chicken" in ancient Egyptian and so those ancient Greeks concluded that the Hebrews were worshiping a chicken god named PiPi.

To further confuse things, the name of God was so powerful that it was not to be spoken by penalty of death and so the ancient Hebrew priests referred to God as "Adonai" (pronounced "A-doh-ni" [A as in cat as the stressed syllable and a long i at the end as in night]. It gets a little complicated because you have to now translate everything into German but when you do that and use the YHWH as it is written, and the vowels from Adonai as it was spoken, put them all together and say it in German, you get "Jehovah". Even Adonai was sometimes considered too powerful and instead God was simply referred to as "ha-Shem" or "the name".

And to confuse things even more, the name of God was also knows as Elohim in different sources and those sources were spliced together which is why in the pentateuch it sometimes refers to God as Elohim and sometimes as YHWH.

So there you go. Hope that adds clarity instead of confusion. LOL

Regardless of the name used to identify God, He is Who He is and changes not. I believe that He knows the heart and soul of man so He knows when a human sincerely seeks Him regardless of the name used. In other words, I don't believe that someone who says Jehovah instead of Yaweh will be penalized in some way, shape, or manner. I believe that when I say "Jesus Christ" He knows that I'm referring to Him and nobody else.

I would agree. RandomVariable suggests not using Elohim, for example. My guess is he says that because Elohim is more general where YHWH is quite specific. Elohim can be used to refer to any god and indeed the Old Testament uses Elohim to refer to many different gods as well as the Hebrew God. I tend to imagine, however, that if one were to use Elohim in reference to the Hebrew God that God is probably smart enough to figure that out and won't be offended.

But there are things that get lost when you fail to differentiate sometimes. Most often translators have used "God" for "elohim" regardless of whether the text suggests that what is being referred to is the Hebrew God or another god. Occasionally that has led to some problems in interpretation.

As well I think a strong argument can be made that reading an English translation can cause people to miss some really beautiful concepts and some particularly funny ones as well. The reverent language that has traditionally been used when translating the Bible has caused some great things to be lost. I'll give you a couple examples.

First (and one of my favorites) is the story of Rebekah seeing Isaac for the first time. Usually it's translated that Isaac was in the field meditating, although in reality what it actually says he was doing no one knows. The word in Hebrew has never been found anywhere else so it's a mystery. For whatever reason they decided he was meditating instead of sowing, or reaping, or taking a stroll, or whatever. And usually it's translated that Rebekah saw him and "alit from" or "got off" her camel. Well that's not quite what it says in Hebrew. In Hebrew it says "u'thphl" or literally "fell off". Some later versions say she "fell off her camel onto her ass", the pun there being obvious and would have had people rolling in the aisles over that one. But because that story would have been vulgar by later translators thousands of years later, the language was toned down. But because of that we miss the humor in the story; that whatever it was that Isaac was doing in the field it so shocked and amazed Rebekah (either in a good way or a bad way - it doesn't really say) that she flat out fell off her camel and landed with a thud. Because of that we tend to overlook that these stories sometimes had great humor in how they were written, and perhaps even that humor is a part of faith.

A second example would be in the New testament where Jesus says (paraphrasing because it depends in which version you read) "I have come, repent, and spread the good news". It's the "good news" I want to focus on because it Greek it is written "euangelion". Technically the translation is correct. It literally means "good news", but it was a specific type of good news used in Greek speaking ancient culture. An "euangelion" was the good news of victory over an enemy. So during war, for example, an army would go out to face the enemy from a town and they win the battle and a runner would be sent to race through the streets of the town screaming "EUANGELION! EUANGELION!".....you know...."GOOD NEWS! VICTORY IS OURS! WE HAVE WON!" Today when we hear someone say "oh let me tell you the good news" it sounds kind of corny. We kind of roll our eyes and murmer "yeah, yeah, whatever", but it reality it was a powerful statement Jesus was making. He was saying "because I am here the battle is already won!" WHOA! What a difference!

So I get what you are saying. I get what RandomVariable is saying. I think there is something to be said for trying to stay as true to the original spirit of the stories as possible and that means really getting into the Greek and the Hebrew, and studying history, and ancient cultures in order to understand the context of what all this meant to people in antiquity so we can put it into the proper perspective today.

After reading your explanation I think I like it much better than mine. I did not know that about the word 'elohim'. I was just going to say because God told me so but your explanation sounds much more concrete.

Well I think whatever is good for the individual in that sense is probably good with God. I agree with DriftingSand that God knows our hearts and our intentions. I don't use elohim myself except when I am studying from a scholarly perspective. What I mean is there is great value in identifying between YHWH and Elohim when trying to identify sources. I won't write a really long thing as I usually do but I encourage you to do some research (if you haven't already) about Genesis (the entire Torah really) on the JPED...that being the "J source" (or YHWH source....J being equivalent to Y in German pronunciation...that's where the "J" comes from instead of "Y"), the "E source" (or elohim source), the "P source" (or priestly source), and the "D source" (or the Deuteronomical source). It's a discussion far too great and lengthy for this thread but it's intensely interesting and really creates a new and far deeper appreciation of Genesis and Torah as a whole.

I know God will give me answers on things I think about so I do not have to talk out loud all the time. Talking out loud can be inconvenient at times but then again it is hard it enough to watch what you say, try watching what you think. It's like, "Can I have a moment to myself here?" "No." "Well,.... OK then."

I would really love to have the opportunity to get some scholarly background on all this but at the moment I just have God, the KJV, and kickin' around some laughs on the ole USMB. It's all good.

 

[BluePhantom]

Well kind of yes and kind of no. YHWH is how it is written in Hebrew. It's not a word no much as an anagram. In Exodus 3 God tells Moses to go to Pharaoh and demand the release of the Hebrews. Moses asks who he should say is commanding this and by who's authority he makes this command...which in a polytheistic society is a pretty good idea. Is it Marduk making this command? Osiris? Elohim? You know...what god are we talking about here? God answers "I am who I am"...it also means "I will be who I will be" and it could also mean "I blow (or will blow) what I blow (or will blow)". This is because the Hebrew words for "to be" and "blow" are the same and because Hebrew does not distinguish between present and future tenses, but it seems unlikely that God would identify himself as "he who blows" (although there is some association with winds in Genesis but that's a whole other discussion), so it's probably "I am who I am".

Ancient Hebrew is a bit tough for westerners to read because it is written from right to left instead of left to right and there are no spaces, no vowels, no punctuation, no paragraphs. It's just one long string of letters. Consider if we ran across DRP in a string of letters. Well we would have to reverse that to PRD which could mean prod, poured, pride, proud, paired...the list goes on. It can be really confusing and still today scholars find things that are commonly translated in the Bible as one thing and through modern scholarship realize that it means something else entirely.

As an interesting side note, there are some great early Greek manuscripts that misunderstood the Hebrew. Greek is read from left to right as English is and when they saw YHWH they noted that it kind of sort of looks like pi-iota-i-iota which spells PiPi (pronounced "pee-pee") which means "chicken" in ancient Egyptian and so those ancient Greeks concluded that the Hebrews were worshiping a chicken god named PiPi.

To further confuse things, the name of God was so powerful that it was not to be spoken by penalty of death and so the ancient Hebrew priests referred to God as "Adonai" (pronounced "A-doh-ni" [A as in cat as the stressed syllable and a long i at the end as in night]. It gets a little complicated because you have to now translate everything into German but when you do that and use the YHWH as it is written, and the vowels from Adonai as it was spoken, put them all together and say it in German, you get "Jehovah". Even Adonai was sometimes considered too powerful and instead God was simply referred to as "ha-Shem" or "the name".

And to confuse things even more, the name of God was also knows as Elohim in different sources and those sources were spliced together which is why in the pentateuch it sometimes refers to God as Elohim and sometimes as YHWH.

So there you go. Hope that adds clarity instead of confusion. LOL

Regardless of the name used to identify God, He is Who He is and changes not. I believe that He knows the heart and soul of man so He knows when a human sincerely seeks Him regardless of the name used. In other words, I don't believe that someone who says Jehovah instead of Yaweh will be penalized in some way, shape, or manner. I believe that when I say "Jesus Christ" He knows that I'm referring to Him and nobody else.

I would agree. RandomVariable suggests not using Elohim, for example. My guess is he says that because Elohim is more general where YHWH is quite specific. Elohim can be used to refer to any god and indeed the Old Testament uses Elohim to refer to many different gods as well as the Hebrew God. I tend to imagine, however, that if one were to use Elohim in reference to the Hebrew God that God is probably smart enough to figure that out and won't be offended.

But there are things that get lost when you fail to differentiate sometimes. Most often translators have used "God" for "elohim" regardless of whether the text suggests that what is being referred to is the Hebrew God or another god. Occasionally that has led to some problems in interpretation.

As well I think a strong argument can be made that reading an English translation can cause people to miss some really beautiful concepts and some particularly funny ones as well. The reverent language that has traditionally been used when translating the Bible has caused some great things to be lost. I'll give you a couple examples.

First (and one of my favorites) is the story of Rebekah seeing Isaac for the first time. Usually it's translated that Isaac was in the field meditating, although in reality what it actually says he was doing no one knows. The word in Hebrew has never been found anywhere else so it's a mystery. For whatever reason they decided he was meditating instead of sowing, or reaping, or taking a stroll, or whatever. And usually it's translated that Rebekah saw him and "alit from" or "got off" her camel. Well that's not quite what it says in Hebrew. In Hebrew it says "u'thphl" or literally "fell off". Some later versions say she "fell off her camel onto her ass", the pun there being obvious and would have had people rolling in the aisles over that one. But because that story would have been vulgar by later translators thousands of years later, the language was toned down. But because of that we miss the humor in the story; that whatever it was that Isaac was doing in the field it so shocked and amazed Rebekah (either in a good way or a bad way - it doesn't really say) that she flat out fell off her camel and landed with a thud. Because of that we tend to overlook that these stories sometimes had great humor in how they were written, and perhaps even that humor is a part of faith.

A second example would be in the New testament where Jesus says (paraphrasing because it depends in which version you read) "I have come, repent, and spread the good news". It's the "good news" I want to focus on because it Greek it is written "euangelion". Technically the translation is correct. It literally means "good news", but it was a specific type of good news used in Greek speaking ancient culture. An "euangelion" was the good news of victory over an enemy. So during war, for example, an army would go out to face the enemy from a town and they win the battle and a runner would be sent to race through the streets of the town screaming "EUANGELION! EUANGELION!".....you know...."GOOD NEWS! VICTORY IS OURS! WE HAVE WON!" Today when we hear someone say "oh let me tell you the good news" it sounds kind of corny. We kind of roll our eyes and murmer "yeah, yeah, whatever", but it reality it was a powerful statement Jesus was making. He was saying "because I am here the battle is already won!" WHOA! What a difference!

So I get what you are saying. I get what RandomVariable is saying. I think there is something to be said for trying to stay as true to the original spirit of the stories as possible and that means really getting into the Greek and the Hebrew, and studying history, and ancient cultures in order to understand the context of what all this meant to people in antiquity so we can put it into the proper perspective today.

After reading your explanation I think I like it much better than mine. I did not know that about the word 'elohim'. I was just going to say because God told me so but your explanation sounds much more concrete.

Well I think whatever is good for the individual in that sense is probably good with God. I agree with DriftingSand that God knows our hearts and our intentions. I don't use elohim myself except when I am studying from a scholarly perspective. What I mean is there is great value in identifying between YHWH and Elohim when trying to identify sources. I won't write a really long thing as I usually do but I encourage you to do some research (if you haven't already) about Genesis (the entire Torah really) on the JPED...that being the "J source" (or YHWH source....J being equivalent to Y in German pronunciation...that's where the "J" comes from instead of "Y"), the "E source" (or elohim source), the "P source" (or priestly source), and the "D source" (or the Deuteronomical source). It's a discussion far too great and lengthy for this thread but it's intensely interesting and really creates a new and far deeper appreciation of Genesis and Torah as a whole.

I know God will give me answers on things I think about so I do not have to talk out loud all the time. Talking out loud can be inconvenient at times but then again it is hard it enough to watch what you say, try watching what you think. It's like, "Can I have a moment to myself here?" "No." "Well,.... OK then."

I would really love to have the opportunity to get some scholarly background on all this but at the moment I just have God, the KJV, and kickin' around some laughs on the ole USMB. It's all good.

Jab taken. I do love to talk. God also brings those people into our lives at the perfect time for them to contribute what we need. Sometimes God gives us answers by offering us someone who already knows them..or at least has an interpretation of them that we can learn from.

I have enjoyed our discussions. Peace be upon you and I am happy to chat any time you call upon me.

 

[DriftingSand]

This is my understanding of the term/name YWHW from what I have heard. I do not know Hebrew so I am only repeating things I have heard. In the Bible when Moses as God who he should say sent him what is written down is:

(may not be the correct original language.)

This is not actually a word and does not really have a pronunciation. It has been interpreted as the name of God although that may be completely inaccurate. It is written in the KJV Bible as I AM THAT I AM. Written in Hebrew I think it looks like two doors with a post in the middle and a little marker at the top corner of the right door. In other words, make a choice, either one, but it had better be this one.

Well kind of yes and kind of no. YHWH is how it is written in Hebrew. It's not a word no much as an anagram. In Exodus 3 God tells Moses to go to Pharaoh and demand the release of the Hebrews. Moses asks who he should say is commanding this and by who's authority he makes this command...which in a polytheistic society is a pretty good idea. Is it Marduk making this command? Osiris? Elohim? You know...what god are we talking about here? God answers "I am who I am"...it also means "I will be who I will be" and it could also mean "I blow (or will blow) what I blow (or will blow)". This is because the Hebrew words for "to be" and "blow" are the same and because Hebrew does not distinguish between present and future tenses, but it seems unlikely that God would identify himself as "he who blows" (although there is some association with winds in Genesis but that's a whole other discussion), so it's probably "I am who I am".

Ancient Hebrew is a bit tough for westerners to read because it is written from right to left instead of left to right and there are no spaces, no vowels, no punctuation, no paragraphs. It's just one long string of letters. Consider if we ran across DRP in a string of letters. Well we would have to reverse that to PRD which could mean prod, poured, pride, proud, paired...the list goes on. It can be really confusing and still today scholars find things that are commonly translated in the Bible as one thing and through modern scholarship realize that it means something else entirely.

As an interesting side note, there are some great early Greek manuscripts that misunderstood the Hebrew. Greek is read from left to right as English is and when they saw YHWH they noted that it kind of sort of looks like pi-iota-i-iota which spells PiPi (pronounced "pee-pee") which means "chicken" in ancient Egyptian and so those ancient Greeks concluded that the Hebrews were worshiping a chicken god named PiPi.

To further confuse things, the name of God was so powerful that it was not to be spoken by penalty of death and so the ancient Hebrew priests referred to God as "Adonai" (pronounced "A-doh-ni" [A as in cat as the stressed syllable and a long i at the end as in night]. It gets a little complicated because you have to now translate everything into German but when you do that and use the YHWH as it is written, and the vowels from Adonai as it was spoken, put them all together and say it in German, you get "Jehovah". Even Adonai was sometimes considered too powerful and instead God was simply referred to as "ha-Shem" or "the name".

And to confuse things even more, the name of God was also knows as Elohim in different sources and those sources were spliced together which is why in the pentateuch it sometimes refers to God as Elohim and sometimes as YHWH.

So there you go. Hope that adds clarity instead of confusion. LOL

Regardless of the name used to identify God, He is Who He is and changes not. I believe that He knows the heart and soul of man so He knows when a human sincerely seeks Him regardless of the name used. In other words, I don't believe that someone who says Jehovah instead of Yaweh will be penalized in some way, shape, or manner. I believe that when I say "Jesus Christ" He knows that I'm referring to Him and nobody else.

I would agree. RandomVariable suggests not using Elohim, for example. My guess is he says that because Elohim is more general where YHWH is quite specific. Elohim can be used to refer to any god and indeed the Old Testament uses Elohim to refer to many different gods as well as the Hebrew God. I tend to imagine, however, that if one were to use Elohim in reference to the Hebrew God that God is probably smart enough to figure that out and won't be offended.

But there are things that get lost when you fail to differentiate sometimes. Most often translators have used "God" for "elohim" regardless of whether the text suggests that what is being referred to is the Hebrew God or another god. Occasionally that has led to some problems in interpretation.

As well I think a strong argument can be made that reading an English translation can cause people to miss some really beautiful concepts and some particularly funny ones as well. The reverent language that has traditionally been used when translating the Bible has caused some great things to be lost. I'll give you a couple examples.

First (and one of my favorites) is the story of Rebekah seeing Isaac for the first time. Usually it's translated that Isaac was in the field meditating, although in reality what it actually says he was doing no one knows. The word in Hebrew has never been found anywhere else so it's a mystery. For whatever reason they decided he was meditating instead of sowing, or reaping, or taking a stroll, or whatever. And usually it's translated that Rebekah saw him and "alit from" or "got off" her camel. Well that's not quite what it says in Hebrew. In Hebrew it says "u'thphl" or literally "fell off". Some later versions say she "fell off her camel onto her ass", the pun there being obvious and would have had people rolling in the aisles over that one. But because that story would have been vulgar by later translators thousands of years later, the language was toned down. But because of that we miss the humor in the story; that whatever it was that Isaac was doing in the field it so shocked and amazed Rebekah (either in a good way or a bad way - it doesn't really say) that she flat out fell off her camel and landed with a thud. Because of that we tend to overlook that these stories sometimes had great humor in how they were written, and perhaps even that humor is a part of faith.

A second example would be in the New testament where Jesus says (paraphrasing because it depends in which version you read) "I have come, repent, and spread the good news". It's the "good news" I want to focus on because it Greek it is written "euangelion". Technically the translation is correct. It literally means "good news", but it was a specific type of good news used in Greek speaking ancient culture. An "euangelion" was the good news of victory over an enemy. So during war, for example, an army would go out to face the enemy from a town and they win the battle and a runner would be sent to race through the streets of the town screaming "EUANGELION! EUANGELION!".....you know...."GOOD NEWS! VICTORY IS OURS! WE HAVE WON!" Today when we hear someone say "oh let me tell you the good news" it sounds kind of corny. We kind of roll our eyes and murmer "yeah, yeah, whatever", but it reality it was a powerful statement Jesus was making. He was saying "because I am here the battle is already won!" WHOA! What a difference!

So I get what you are saying. I get what RandomVariable is saying. I think there is something to be said for trying to stay as true to the original spirit of the stories as possible and that means really getting into the Greek and the Hebrew, and studying history, and ancient cultures in order to understand the context of what all this meant to people in antiquity so we can put it into the proper perspective today.

I can only speak for myself when I say that I try to keep it simple. I see Christ as the Creator and man as the creation, in a fallen state. I see life on earth as a testing ground where man is challenged to overcome numerous stumbling-blocks (both external and internal). It's a literal struggle to make good and right choices but the good news is that we have the freedom to make those choices (whether right or wrong). The most important choice of all boils down to our acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ. I personally believe that when our focus is on the correct pronunciation of words or whether or not we should blow a trumpet at the new moon (among numerous other trivial concerns) then we can quickly get lost in the minute details of legalism and lose sight of the big picture which is Christ's blood which paid for the sins of the world. We did nothing to earn that redemptive benefit nor is there anything we can ever do to earn it. The best we can do is accept it and be grateful for it.

After years of alcoholism and drug abuse I accepted Christ in 1985. I've had many ups and downs as a Christian and my faith has faltered on more than one occasion but it has never died. I've visited numerous and varied denominational, Christian churches but have only witnessed one constant among them: Jesus Christ. I spent most of the 1990s studying every jot and tittle of God's Word and believed for a long time that man was required to keep the laws of Moses (the Mosaic Covenant). That included observance of all the Feast Days; abstinence from pork and shell fish; keeping a very literal Saturday (7th Day) Sabbath [no cooking, working, gathering sticks, seeking personal pleasure in any of its forms, buying, or selling]; and all avoidance of usury [including the use of credit cards]. I got so caught up in all of that legalism that I became extremely judgmental of folks who didn't do as the Mosaic Laws and Ordinances required. It took years for me to realize that judging others (from that somewhat snobby perspective) was just as sinful as someone who went to Denny's Restaurant on Saturday. Then, one day, as I read the Book of Hebrews from a motel's Gideon Bible (while on a business trip), it dawned on me that we were no longer bound by that Old Covenant. I finally recognized that "good news" you spoke of earlier. It became clear to me that we were now under the freeing grace of the New Covenant paid for by the blood of Christ and that I had been trying to earn His favor for the past 10 years or so. I came to understand that Christ had become my rest and my daily Sabbath and that the Mosaic ordinances had been nailed to the cross. So ... 15 years after becoming a Christian I became a Christian.

 

[DriftingSand]

Well kind of yes and kind of no. YHWH is how it is written in Hebrew. It's not a word no much as an anagram. In Exodus 3 God tells Moses to go to Pharaoh and demand the release of the Hebrews. Moses asks who he should say is commanding this and by who's authority he makes this command...which in a polytheistic society is a pretty good idea. Is it Marduk making this command? Osiris? Elohim? You know...what god are we talking about here? God answers "I am who I am"...it also means "I will be who I will be" and it could also mean "I blow (or will blow) what I blow (or will blow)". This is because the Hebrew words for "to be" and "blow" are the same and because Hebrew does not distinguish between present and future tenses, but it seems unlikely that God would identify himself as "he who blows" (although there is some association with winds in Genesis but that's a whole other discussion), so it's probably "I am who I am".

Ancient Hebrew is a bit tough for westerners to read because it is written from right to left instead of left to right and there are no spaces, no vowels, no punctuation, no paragraphs. It's just one long string of letters. Consider if we ran across DRP in a string of letters. Well we would have to reverse that to PRD which could mean prod, poured, pride, proud, paired...the list goes on. It can be really confusing and still today scholars find things that are commonly translated in the Bible as one thing and through modern scholarship realize that it means something else entirely.

As an interesting side note, there are some great early Greek manuscripts that misunderstood the Hebrew. Greek is read from left to right as English is and when they saw YHWH they noted that it kind of sort of looks like pi-iota-i-iota which spells PiPi (pronounced "pee-pee") which means "chicken" in ancient Egyptian and so those ancient Greeks concluded that the Hebrews were worshiping a chicken god named PiPi.

To further confuse things, the name of God was so powerful that it was not to be spoken by penalty of death and so the ancient Hebrew priests referred to God as "Adonai" (pronounced "A-doh-ni" [A as in cat as the stressed syllable and a long i at the end as in night]. It gets a little complicated because you have to now translate everything into German but when you do that and use the YHWH as it is written, and the vowels from Adonai as it was spoken, put them all together and say it in German, you get "Jehovah". Even Adonai was sometimes considered too powerful and instead God was simply referred to as "ha-Shem" or "the name".

And to confuse things even more, the name of God was also knows as Elohim in different sources and those sources were spliced together which is why in the pentateuch it sometimes refers to God as Elohim and sometimes as YHWH.

So there you go. Hope that adds clarity instead of confusion. LOL

Regardless of the name used to identify God, He is Who He is and changes not. I believe that He knows the heart and soul of man so He knows when a human sincerely seeks Him regardless of the name used. In other words, I don't believe that someone who says Jehovah instead of Yaweh will be penalized in some way, shape, or manner. I believe that when I say "Jesus Christ" He knows that I'm referring to Him and nobody else.

I would agree. RandomVariable suggests not using Elohim, for example. My guess is he says that because Elohim is more general where YHWH is quite specific. Elohim can be used to refer to any god and indeed the Old Testament uses Elohim to refer to many different gods as well as the Hebrew God. I tend to imagine, however, that if one were to use Elohim in reference to the Hebrew God that God is probably smart enough to figure that out and won't be offended.

But there are things that get lost when you fail to differentiate sometimes. Most often translators have used "God" for "elohim" regardless of whether the text suggests that what is being referred to is the Hebrew God or another god. Occasionally that has led to some problems in interpretation.

As well I think a strong argument can be made that reading an English translation can cause people to miss some really beautiful concepts and some particularly funny ones as well. The reverent language that has traditionally been used when translating the Bible has caused some great things to be lost. I'll give you a couple examples.

First (and one of my favorites) is the story of Rebekah seeing Isaac for the first time. Usually it's translated that Isaac was in the field meditating, although in reality what it actually says he was doing no one knows. The word in Hebrew has never been found anywhere else so it's a mystery. For whatever reason they decided he was meditating instead of sowing, or reaping, or taking a stroll, or whatever. And usually it's translated that Rebekah saw him and "alit from" or "got off" her camel. Well that's not quite what it says in Hebrew. In Hebrew it says "u'thphl" or literally "fell off". Some later versions say she "fell off her camel onto her ass", the pun there being obvious and would have had people rolling in the aisles over that one. But because that story would have been vulgar by later translators thousands of years later, the language was toned down. But because of that we miss the humor in the story; that whatever it was that Isaac was doing in the field it so shocked and amazed Rebekah (either in a good way or a bad way - it doesn't really say) that she flat out fell off her camel and landed with a thud. Because of that we tend to overlook that these stories sometimes had great humor in how they were written, and perhaps even that humor is a part of faith.

A second example would be in the New testament where Jesus says (paraphrasing because it depends in which version you read) "I have come, repent, and spread the good news". It's the "good news" I want to focus on because it Greek it is written "euangelion". Technically the translation is correct. It literally means "good news", but it was a specific type of good news used in Greek speaking ancient culture. An "euangelion" was the good news of victory over an enemy. So during war, for example, an army would go out to face the enemy from a town and they win the battle and a runner would be sent to race through the streets of the town screaming "EUANGELION! EUANGELION!".....you know...."GOOD NEWS! VICTORY IS OURS! WE HAVE WON!" Today when we hear someone say "oh let me tell you the good news" it sounds kind of corny. We kind of roll our eyes and murmer "yeah, yeah, whatever", but it reality it was a powerful statement Jesus was making. He was saying "because I am here the battle is already won!" WHOA! What a difference!

So I get what you are saying. I get what RandomVariable is saying. I think there is something to be said for trying to stay as true to the original spirit of the stories as possible and that means really getting into the Greek and the Hebrew, and studying history, and ancient cultures in order to understand the context of what all this meant to people in antiquity so we can put it into the proper perspective today.

After reading your explanation I think I like it much better than mine. I did not know that about the word 'elohim'. I was just going to say because God told me so but your explanation sounds much more concrete.

Well I think whatever is good for the individual in that sense is probably good with God. I agree with DriftingSand that God knows our hearts and our intentions. I don't use elohim myself except when I am studying from a scholarly perspective. What I mean is there is great value in identifying between YHWH and Elohim when trying to identify sources. I won't write a really long thing as I usually do but I encourage you to do some research (if you haven't already) about Genesis (the entire Torah really) on the JPED...that being the "J source" (or YHWH source....J being equivalent to Y in German pronunciation...that's where the "J" comes from instead of "Y"), the "E source" (or elohim source), the "P source" (or priestly source), and the "D source" (or the Deuteronomical source). It's a discussion far too great and lengthy for this thread but it's intensely interesting and really creates a new and far deeper appreciation of Genesis and Torah as a whole.

I know God will give me answers on things I think about so I do not have to talk out loud all the time. Talking out loud can be inconvenient at times but then again it is hard it enough to watch what you say, try watching what you think. It's like, "Can I have a moment to myself here?" "No." "Well,.... OK then."

I would really love to have the opportunity to get some scholarly background on all this but at the moment I just have God, the KJV, and kickin' around some laughs on the ole USMB. It's all good.

As a side note: I own around 25 different versions of the Bible and have read a little or a lot from each of them in my search for the truth but have come to accept only one as a personal favorite: The KJV.

 

[BluePhantom]

This is my understanding of the term/name YWHW from what I have heard. I do not know Hebrew so I am only repeating things I have heard. In the Bible when Moses as God who he should say sent him what is written down is:

(may not be the correct original language.)

This is not actually a word and does not really have a pronunciation. It has been interpreted as the name of God although that may be completely inaccurate. It is written in the KJV Bible as I AM THAT I AM. Written in Hebrew I think it looks like two doors with a post in the middle and a little marker at the top corner of the right door. In other words, make a choice, either one, but it had better be this one.

Well kind of yes and kind of no. YHWH is how it is written in Hebrew. It's not a word no much as an anagram. In Exodus 3 God tells Moses to go to Pharaoh and demand the release of the Hebrews. Moses asks who he should say is commanding this and by who's authority he makes this command...which in a polytheistic society is a pretty good idea. Is it Marduk making this command? Osiris? Elohim? You know...what god are we talking about here? God answers "I am who I am"...it also means "I will be who I will be" and it could also mean "I blow (or will blow) what I blow (or will blow)". This is because the Hebrew words for "to be" and "blow" are the same and because Hebrew does not distinguish between present and future tenses, but it seems unlikely that God would identify himself as "he who blows" (although there is some association with winds in Genesis but that's a whole other discussion), so it's probably "I am who I am".

Ancient Hebrew is a bit tough for westerners to read because it is written from right to left instead of left to right and there are no spaces, no vowels, no punctuation, no paragraphs. It's just one long string of letters. Consider if we ran across DRP in a string of letters. Well we would have to reverse that to PRD which could mean prod, poured, pride, proud, paired...the list goes on. It can be really confusing and still today scholars find things that are commonly translated in the Bible as one thing and through modern scholarship realize that it means something else entirely.

As an interesting side note, there are some great early Greek manuscripts that misunderstood the Hebrew. Greek is read from left to right as English is and when they saw YHWH they noted that it kind of sort of looks like pi-iota-i-iota which spells PiPi (pronounced "pee-pee") which means "chicken" in ancient Egyptian and so those ancient Greeks concluded that the Hebrews were worshiping a chicken god named PiPi.

To further confuse things, the name of God was so powerful that it was not to be spoken by penalty of death and so the ancient Hebrew priests referred to God as "Adonai" (pronounced "A-doh-ni" [A as in cat as the stressed syllable and a long i at the end as in night]. It gets a little complicated because you have to now translate everything into German but when you do that and use the YHWH as it is written, and the vowels from Adonai as it was spoken, put them all together and say it in German, you get "Jehovah". Even Adonai was sometimes considered too powerful and instead God was simply referred to as "ha-Shem" or "the name".

And to confuse things even more, the name of God was also knows as Elohim in different sources and those sources were spliced together which is why in the pentateuch it sometimes refers to God as Elohim and sometimes as YHWH.

So there you go. Hope that adds clarity instead of confusion. LOL

Regardless of the name used to identify God, He is Who He is and changes not. I believe that He knows the heart and soul of man so He knows when a human sincerely seeks Him regardless of the name used. In other words, I don't believe that someone who says Jehovah instead of Yaweh will be penalized in some way, shape, or manner. I believe that when I say "Jesus Christ" He knows that I'm referring to Him and nobody else.

I would agree. RandomVariable suggests not using Elohim, for example. My guess is he says that because Elohim is more general where YHWH is quite specific. Elohim can be used to refer to any god and indeed the Old Testament uses Elohim to refer to many different gods as well as the Hebrew God. I tend to imagine, however, that if one were to use Elohim in reference to the Hebrew God that God is probably smart enough to figure that out and won't be offended.

But there are things that get lost when you fail to differentiate sometimes. Most often translators have used "God" for "elohim" regardless of whether the text suggests that what is being referred to is the Hebrew God or another god. Occasionally that has led to some problems in interpretation.

As well I think a strong argument can be made that reading an English translation can cause people to miss some really beautiful concepts and some particularly funny ones as well. The reverent language that has traditionally been used when translating the Bible has caused some great things to be lost. I'll give you a couple examples.

First (and one of my favorites) is the story of Rebekah seeing Isaac for the first time. Usually it's translated that Isaac was in the field meditating, although in reality what it actually says he was doing no one knows. The word in Hebrew has never been found anywhere else so it's a mystery. For whatever reason they decided he was meditating instead of sowing, or reaping, or taking a stroll, or whatever. And usually it's translated that Rebekah saw him and "alit from" or "got off" her camel. Well that's not quite what it says in Hebrew. In Hebrew it says "u'thphl" or literally "fell off". Some later versions say she "fell off her camel onto her ass", the pun there being obvious and would have had people rolling in the aisles over that one. But because that story would have been vulgar by later translators thousands of years later, the language was toned down. But because of that we miss the humor in the story; that whatever it was that Isaac was doing in the field it so shocked and amazed Rebekah (either in a good way or a bad way - it doesn't really say) that she flat out fell off her camel and landed with a thud. Because of that we tend to overlook that these stories sometimes had great humor in how they were written, and perhaps even that humor is a part of faith.

A second example would be in the New testament where Jesus says (paraphrasing because it depends in which version you read) "I have come, repent, and spread the good news". It's the "good news" I want to focus on because it Greek it is written "euangelion". Technically the translation is correct. It literally means "good news", but it was a specific type of good news used in Greek speaking ancient culture. An "euangelion" was the good news of victory over an enemy. So during war, for example, an army would go out to face the enemy from a town and they win the battle and a runner would be sent to race through the streets of the town screaming "EUANGELION! EUANGELION!".....you know...."GOOD NEWS! VICTORY IS OURS! WE HAVE WON!" Today when we hear someone say "oh let me tell you the good news" it sounds kind of corny. We kind of roll our eyes and murmer "yeah, yeah, whatever", but it reality it was a powerful statement Jesus was making. He was saying "because I am here the battle is already won!" WHOA! What a difference!

So I get what you are saying. I get what RandomVariable is saying. I think there is something to be said for trying to stay as true to the original spirit of the stories as possible and that means really getting into the Greek and the Hebrew, and studying history, and ancient cultures in order to understand the context of what all this meant to people in antiquity so we can put it into the proper perspective today.

I can only speak for myself when I say that I try to keep it simple. I see Christ as the Creator and man as the creation, in a fallen state. I see life on earth as a testing ground where man is challenged to overcome numerous stumbling-blocks (both external and internal). It's a literal struggle to make good and right choices but the good news is that we have the freedom to make those choices (whether right or wrong). The most important choice of all boils down to our acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ. I personally believe that when our focus is on the correct pronunciation of words or whether or not we should blow a trumpet at the new moon (among numerous other trivial concerns) then we can quickly get lost in the minute details of legalism and lose sight of the big picture which is Christ's blood which paid for the sins of the world. We did nothing to earn that redemptive benefit nor is there anything we can ever do to earn it. The best we can do is accept it and be grateful for it.

After years of alcoholism and drug abuse I accepted Christ in 1985. I've had many ups and downs as a Christian and my faith has faltered on more than one occasion but it has never died. I've visited numerous and varied denominational, Christian churches but have only witnessed one constant among them: Jesus Christ. I spent most of the 1990s studying every jot and tittle of God's Word and believed for a long time that man was required to keep the laws of Moses (the Mosaic Covenant). That included observance of all the Feast Days; abstinence from pork and shell fish; keeping a very literal Saturday (7th Day) Sabbath [no cooking, working, gathering sticks, seeking personal pleasure in any of its forms, buying, or selling]; and all avoidance of usury [including the use of credit cards]. I got so caught up in all of that legalism that I became extremely judgmental of folks who didn't do as the Mosaic Laws and Ordinances required. It took years for me to realize that judging others (from that somewhat snobby perspective) was just as sinful as someone who went to Denny's Restaurant on Saturday. Then, one day, as I read the Book of Hebrews from a motel's Gideon Bible (while on a business trip), it dawned on me that we were no longer bound by that Old Covenant. I finally recognized that "good news" you spoke of earlier. It became clear to me that we were now under the freeing grace of the New Covenant paid for by the blood of Christ and that I had been trying to earn His favor for the past 10 years or so. I came to understand that Christ had become my rest and my daily Sabbath and that the Mosaic ordinances had been nailed to the cross. So ... 15 years after becoming a Christian I became a Christian.

I understand.

 

[MaxGrit]

 

[BluePhantom]

This clip reminds me of Ninja

 

[Agit8r]

That it is even A good book:

 

[Debunker]

The Bible preceded doctrine

Since the Bible didn't exist in its current form in the time of the Bible, how did it then form the basis for the doctrines taught by Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other apostles? "The book was created by the church, not the church by the book." (McConkie, 40) An example of doctrine preceding the Bible would be the Nicene Creed, which was devised by a council in 325 A.D. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged from this council, which took place after the church had declared that revelation had ceased, but before the time that the canon of the Bible was agreed upon. (McConkie, 41)

 

[DriftingSand]

The Bible preceded doctrine

Since the Bible didn't exist in its current form in the time of the Bible, how did it then form the basis for the doctrines taught by Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other apostles? "The book was created by the church, not the church by the book." (McConkie, 40) An example of doctrine preceding the Bible would be the Nicene Creed, which was devised by a council in 325 A.D. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged from this council, which took place after the church had declared that revelation had ceased, but before the time that the canon of the Bible was agreed upon. (McConkie, 41)

The writings of the Old Testament have been preserved over time. They did exist and were studied by Jesus.

The MT is widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent years (since 1943) also for some Catholic Bibles, although the Eastern Orthodox churches continue to use the Septuagint, as they hold it to be divinely inspired. In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 BCE but different from others.[4]

Masoretic Text - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Iceweasel]

The Bible preceded doctrine

Since the Bible didn't exist in its current form in the time of the Bible, how did it then form the basis for the doctrines taught by Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other apostles? "The book was created by the church, not the church by the book." (McConkie, 40) An example of doctrine preceding the Bible would be the Nicene Creed, which was devised by a council in 325 A.D. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged from this council, which took place after the church had declared that revelation had ceased, but before the time that the canon of the Bible was agreed upon. (McConkie, 41)

The writings of the Old Testament have been preserved over time. They did exist and were studied by Jesus.

The MT is widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent years (since 1943) also for some Catholic Bibles, although the Eastern Orthodox churches continue to use the Septuagint, as they hold it to be divinely inspired. In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 BCE but different from others.[4]

Masoretic Text - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That doesn't really answer his challenge. The OT doesn't have a triune doctrine, otherwise it's what Jews would follow. Christians interpret OT passages that way based on a belief.

 

[MaxGrit]

The Bible preceded doctrine

Since the Bible didn't exist in its current form in the time of the Bible, how did it then form the basis for the doctrines taught by Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other apostles? "The book was created by the church, not the church by the book." (McConkie, 40) An example of doctrine preceding the Bible would be the Nicene Creed, which was devised by a council in 325 A.D. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged from this council, which took place after the church had declared that revelation had ceased, but before the time that the canon of the Bible was agreed upon. (McConkie, 41)

The writings of the Old Testament have been preserved over time. They did exist and were studied by Jesus.

The MT is widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent years (since 1943) also for some Catholic Bibles, although the Eastern Orthodox churches continue to use the Septuagint, as they hold it to be divinely inspired. In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 BCE but different from others.[4]

Masoretic Text - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That doesn't really answer his challenge. The OT doesn't have a triune doctrine, otherwise it's what Jews would follow. Christians interpret OT passages that way based on a belief.

Question: "What occurred at the Council of Nicea?"

Answer: The Council of Nicea took place in AD 325 by order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicea was located in Asia Minor, east of Constantinople. At the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine presided over a group of church bishops and other leaders with the purpose of defining the nature of God for all of Christianity and eliminating confusion, controversy, and contention within the church. The Council of Nicea overwhelmingly affirmed the deity and eternality of Jesus Christ and defined the relationship between the Father and the Son as “of one substance.” It also affirmed the Trinity—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were listed as three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.

A priest named Arius presented his argument that Jesus Christ was not an eternal being, that He was created at a certain point in time by the Father. Bishops such as Alexander and the deacon Athanasius argued the opposite position: that Jesus Christ is eternal, just like the Father is. It was an argument pitting trinitarianism against monarchianism.

Constantine prodded the 300 bishops in the council make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. The statement of doctrine they produced was one that all of Christianity would follow and obey, called the “Nicene Creed.” This creed was upheld by the church and enforced by the Emperor. The bishops at Nicea voted to make the full deity of Christ the accepted position of the church. The Council of Nicea upheld the doctrine of Christ’s true divinity, rejecting Arius’s heresy. The council did not invent this doctrine. Rather, it only recognized what the Bible already taught.

The New Testament teaches that Jesus the Messiah should be worshipped, which is to say He is co-equal with God. The New Testament forbids the worship of angels (Colossians 2:18; Revelation 22:8, 9) but commands worship of Jesus. The apostle Paul tells us that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9; 1:19). Paul declares Jesus as Lord and the One to whom a person must pray for salvation (Romans 10:9-13; cf. Joel 2:32). “Jesus is God overall” (Romans 9:5) and our God and Savior (Titus 2:13). Faith in Jesus’ deity is basic to Paul’s theology.

John’s Gospel declares Jesus to be the divine, eternal Logos, the agent of creation and source of life and light (John 1:1-5,9); the "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6); our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1-2); the Sovereign (Revelation 1:5); and the Son of God from the beginning to the end (Revelation 22:13). The author of Hebrews reveals the deity of Jesus through His perfection as the most high priest (Hebrews 1; Hebrews 7:1-3). The divine-human Savior is the Christian’s object of faith, hope, and love.

The Council of Nicea did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea affirmed the apostles’ teaching of who Christ is—the one true God and the Second Person of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Read more: What occurred at the Council of Nicea

 

[MaxGrit]

Or further:
The Council of Nicea

 

[Iceweasel]

The Council of Nicea did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea affirmed the apostles’ teaching of who Christ is—the one true God and the Second Person of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I'm familiar with the vote. Odd that they would have to vote if it was taught in the Bible. As you mention, Arius saw it differently and regarded Jesus as the first creation. And so did many others. Many were gnostics as well. Constantine didn't get baptized until his death bed so it isn't like it was a pressing issue for him. what was pressing was all the various viewpoints and to establish his state religion he needed them to sing in tune.

So they came up with the best compromise most could live with and went from there. Success wasn't determined by divine intervention but for the fact that naysayers were killed and their books burned.

 

[MaxGrit]

The Council of Nicea did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea affirmed the apostles’ teaching of who Christ is—the one true God and the Second Person of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I'm familiar with the vote. Odd that they would have to vote if it was taught in the Bible. As you mention, Arius saw it differently and regarded Jesus as the first creation. And so did many others. Many were gnostics as well. Constantine didn't get baptized until his death bed so it isn't like it was a pressing issue for him. what was pressing was all the various viewpoints and to establish his state religion he needed them to sing in tune.

So they came up with the best compromise most could live with and went from there. Success wasn't determined by divine intervention but for the fact that naysayers were killed and their books burned.

The Apostles taught that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, God Incarnate.

The near unanimous vote confirmed the teachings. There was no compromise.

Gnostics are pagan heretics; they aren't real Christians.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Council of Nicea did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea affirmed the apostles’ teaching of who Christ is—the one true God and the Second Person of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I'm familiar with the vote. Odd that they would have to vote if it was taught in the Bible. As you mention, Arius saw it differently and regarded Jesus as the first creation. And so did many others. Many were gnostics as well. Constantine didn't get baptized until his death bed so it isn't like it was a pressing issue for him. what was pressing was all the various viewpoints and to establish his state religion he needed them to sing in tune.

So they came up with the best compromise most could live with and went from there. Success wasn't determined by divine intervention but for the fact that naysayers were killed and their books burned.

The Apostles taught that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, God Incarnate.

The near unanimous vote confirmed the teachings.There was no compromise.

Gnostics are pagan heretics; they aren't real Christians.

Point me to the verse you speak of. I may have missed it. Where do they say he's god incarnate? Near unanimous means there was a compromise, think about it. There were many different kinds of gnostics, some so ascetic it's believed that was the beginning of monasteries. Others so worldly they put pagans to shame. They all believed in Jesus though, just not the physical presence.