ARCHIVE: Reason to Believe: Ps. 22

C

chair

Well-known member
simcha93 said:
Mr. Chair,

So, when the TaNaKh says that HaShem is "echad" it is referring to Him being a singular one? You realise that "echad" can mean a compound unity, right?


Shalom,

brYce
Click to expand...

Simcha- It can't. that is nonsense. I thought that you knew that.
 
C

chair

Well-known member
simcha93 said:
Mr. Chair,

No, I don't know that. It is not nonsense to me at all. Please, how is it nonsense to you?


Shalom,

brYce
Click to expand...

Echad means 1. You can speak of 1 bunch of grapes, 1 herd of sheep, 1 nation - but the plurality in those cases is in the bunch, the herd and the nation, not in the numeral 1.

The term "Yachid" which is thrown around as being the "true singular one" in Hebrew isn't a number at all. It means "special" or perhaps "unique", and is rarely used.

See this thread for details:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1590517&highlight=echad#post1590517
 
simcha93

simcha93

New member
chair said:
Echad means 1. You can speak of 1 bunch of grapes, 1 herd of sheep, 1 nation - but the plurality in those cases is in the bunch, the herd and the nation, not in the numeral 1.

The term "Yachid" which is thrown around as being the "true singular one" in Hebrew isn't a number at all. It means "special" or perhaps "unique", and is rarely used.

See this thread for details:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1590517&highlight=echad#post1590517
Click to expand...

What does Deut. 6:4 mean to you?
 
simcha93

simcha93

New member
chair said:
Exactly what it says.
Do you know Hebrew?
Click to expand...

Mr. Chair,

There are different opinions on what that verse is saying. What is your opinion? Saying, "exactly what it says" does not reveal your understanding of that verse.


Shalom,

brYce
 
C

chair

Well-known member
simcha93 said:
Mr. Chair,

There are different opinions on what that verse is saying. What is your opinion? Saying, "exactly what it says" does not reveal your understanding of that verse.


Shalom,

brYce
Click to expand...

שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד

Listen Israel, YHVH is our God, YHVH is one.

What do you think it means?
And once again - do you know Hebrew?
 
simcha93

simcha93

New member
chair said:
??????, ??????????: ?????? ??????????, ?????? ?????

Listen Israel, YHVH is our God, YHVH is one.

What do you think it means?
And once again - do you know Hebrew?
Click to expand...

Mr. Chair,

First, quit asking me the same question in both private and public areas. I already answered you in your private question. I am not fluent in Hebrew yet, but I am working on it. I know quite a bit already. Most of my Hebrew knowledge is what I've learned from the Siddur and Chumash.

So, your understanding of the verse is limited to the literal interpretation above? When I pray the Shema, I think that it means:

Hear O Israel, HaShem is our God, HaShem alone​

Curiously, when I read the translation of the text in my Artscroll Siddur, it reads:

Hear, O Israel: Hashem is our God, Hashem, the One and Only.​

I then wonder, why did they say "One and Only"? Does the word echad mean the same as the word yachid? Why do you think Maimonides used yachid to express the Shema? Does he present HaShem as an indivisible unity? The English translation of the Shema I copied from my Artscroll Siddur would seem to indicate that mainstream Judaism is sold on the "fact" that Hashem is the "One and Only". I would agree if they understood that His Oneness is not that simple.

Echad can mean a "composite unity". However, you seem to disagree that it can mean that. I posit that Rabbinic Judaism, out of a reaction to the Christian claim of the "Trinity", has gone too far and has changed the meaning of the Shema from that of the original. It seems to me that Maimonides had that in mind when he subsituted yachid for echad.

My desire is not to proclaim that you must believe that HaShem is a "composite unity" from the Shema, but that you accept that it is a possibility. I hope that you can conceed the fact that there is not one verse in the TaNaKh that clearly or directly states that HaShem is an "indivisible unity".

How are we doing so far?


Shalom,

brYce
 
C

chair

Well-known member
simcha93 said:
Mr. Chair,

First, quit asking me the same question in both private and public areas. I already answered you in your private question. I am not fluent in Hebrew yet, but I am working on it. I know quite a bit already. Most of my Hebrew knowledge is what I've learned from the Siddur and Chumash.

So, your understanding of the verse is limited to the literal interpretation above? When I pray the Shema, I think that it means:

Hear O Israel, HaShem is our God, HaShem alone​

Curiously, when I read the translation of the text in my Artscroll Siddur, it reads:

Hear, O Israel: Hashem is our God, Hashem, the One and Only.​

I then wonder, why did they say "One and Only"? Does the word echad mean the same as the word yachid? Why do you think Maimonides used yachid to express the Shema? Does he present HaShem as an indivisible unity? The English translation of the Shema I copied from my Artscroll Siddur would seem to indicate that mainstream Judaism is sold on the "fact" that Hashem is the "One and Only". I would agree if they understood that His Oneness is not that simple.

Echad can mean a "composite unity". However, you seem to disagree that it can mean that. I posit that Rabbinic Judaism, out of a reaction to the Christian claim of the "Trinity", has gone too far and has changed the meaning of the Shema from that of the original. It seems to me that Maimonides had that in mind when he subsituted yachid for echad.

My desire is not to proclaim that you must believe that HaShem is a "composite unity" from the Shema, but that you accept that it is a possibility. I hope that you can conceed the fact that there is not one verse in the TaNaKh that clearly or directly states that HaShem is an "indivisible unity".

How are we doing so far?


Shalom,

brYce
Click to expand...

I have not seen your private response to my question, so I apologize for asking it again.

And to the point:

I will not debate with you why the artscroll siddur chose to translate this way or that. It is quite likely that they went in the direction that they did to counter Christian missionaries.

Now for a fact. Maimonides did not substitute "yachid" for "echad". Nobody changed the wording of the Shema, and Maimonides, in his 13 principles, did not use the word "yachid" instead of "echad". Yachid is used in the popular song "Yigdal" which Maimonides did not write.

Maimonides 13 principles were actually written in Arabic, as were all of his philosophical works.

I repeat again. "Echad" is the Hebrew word for 1. It (and the feminine equivalent Achat) is the only word for one. It is constantly used in the Hebrew Bible to mean one, as in one man, one tree, one cow, one sheep, 1.

All the languages that I have any knowledge of have names for numbers, and the names for the numbers are just that, the names for the numbers. The only place where the number "1" means "composite unity" is in the minds of Christians who are twisting the plain facts to avoid the embarrassment that the Shema is to Trinitarians.

No. There is no possibility of echad meaning meaning anything other than 1. And Yachid is not the name of the number 1. It means "only" or "unique". You can't use it in counting. Echad is what you use in counting.

You have been sorely mislead here by well-meaning people.
 
I

IAmWhatIAm

New member
False

False

i beliave that you have actually over glorified the god of angels. the bible was written by jehova through man. you can not except that is is word for word from him.
 
Supremum

Supremum

New member
From now on, whenever I join a new forum, I'm going to introduce myself by bumping the oldest thread I can find and placing my introduction there.


You, sir, win.
 
I

IAmWhatIAm

New member
im sorry if i insulted anyone. it is just that i use to be christian and even then i believed jehova was only the god of angels. one of the things that always bothered me was that the bible was letter by letter what you where suppose to do and no insult intended, it was writen by man through god. i believe god would allow "mistakes" because the rightous will find the truth. again no insult as that is not my goal.
 
A

arglebargle

BANNED
Banned
Turbo said:
Studying this Psalm was one of the final steps that convinced me that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is who He says He is. I can think of no other rational conclusion, given the content of this psalm. To anyone who is unsure whether the Bible truly is the Word of God or simply a collection of books written by men, please take a few minutes to read this study of Psalm 22.
Click to expand...

That convinced you, huh? Wow... isn't that taking gullibility to an extreme?

OK... you've got these guys, see... scam artists... near the end of the 1st century, up until the middle of the 2nd century. They've discovered that they're onto a hot scam, with this 'salvation' stuff, because with the Roman occupation going on, everybody was in the mood for a little bit of hope and salvation.

Anyway... this scam required that they create the illusion that a bunch of the mythical stuff in the Pentateuch was coming true. So... they go through the Pentateuch, looking for prophetic sounding stuff... and they make a list. Then... as they create their fictional 'gospel' fantasies', using the VERY well-known 'suffering-hero-king' archetypal pattern, they 'Judaize' it by slipping in a few miracles and some situations that create the ILLUSION of prophecies fulfilled.

The reason the Psalm matches the gospel so well is because when they made this stuff up, they had the Psalm open on the table in front of them, and made sure that they incorporated as many elements of it as they could, without screwing-up the narrative.

Hallelujah... it's a miracle!

Gimme a break.

You really ought to try to learn a little bit about critical thinking... do you know what that is? Anyway... part of that includes the ability to discern what qualifies as actual evidence from what does NOT qualify as actual evidence.

I guess you must have been absent that day.
 
Choleric

Choleric

New member
arglebargle said:
That convinced you, huh? Wow... isn't that taking gullibility to an extreme?

OK... you've got these guys, see... scam artists... near the end of the 1st century, up until the middle of the 2nd century. They've discovered that they're onto a hot scam, with this 'salvation' stuff, because with the Roman occupation going on, everybody was in the mood for a little bit of hope and salvation.

Anyway... this scam required that they create the illusion that a bunch of the mythical stuff in the Pentateuch was coming true. So... they go through the Pentateuch, looking for prophetic sounding stuff... and they make a list. Then... as they create their fictional 'gospel' fantasies', using the VERY well-known 'suffering-hero-king' archetypal pattern, they 'Judaize' it by slipping in a few miracles and some situations that create the ILLUSION of prophecies fulfilled.

The reason the Psalm matches the gospel so well is because when they made this stuff up, they had the Psalm open on the table in front of them, and made sure that they incorporated as many elements of it as they could, without screwing-up the narrative.

Hallelujah... it's a miracle!

Gimme a break.

You really ought to try to learn a little bit about critical thinking... do you know what that is? Anyway... part of that includes the ability to discern what qualifies as actual evidence from what does NOT qualify as actual evidence.

I guess you must have been absent that day.
Click to expand...

Wow, what a complete moron. Have you actually looked into the evidence for the life of Christ? You do realize that there are many non-biblical accounts of the events in the Bible concerning Christ right?

You do realize that the fact that Christ lived and died is not in question by even the most liberal historian don't you?

You better have your facts straight before you start spewing this uneducated garbage on this site. The people here are well informed and this sort of unintelligent post will only set you up for quite a bit of abuse. :dunce:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top