For Jews or Christians: Why Shema means what a Jew says

[metis]

Sir, he said “It predates the Septuagint by centuries”.

Nothing other than the original ancient Hebrew text predates the LXX/OG Septuagint. The LXX/OG Septuagint was based on the original ancient Hebrew text.

Actually I did post in error as rabbinic Judaism does mainly use that text. However:

The Masoretic[1] Text (MT, , or

) is the authoritative Hebrew text of theTanakh for Rabbinic Judaism. However, contemporary scholars seeking to understand the history of the Hebrew Bible’s text use a range of other sources. These include Greek and Syriac translations, quotations from rabbinic manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch and others. Many of these are older than the Masoretic text and often contradict it. While the Masoretic Text defines the books of the Jewish canon, it also defines the precise letter-text of these biblical books, with their vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah... -- Masoretic Text - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [underline is mine]

 

[Levite]

Sir, he said “It predates the Septuagint by centuries”.

Nothing other than the original ancient Hebrew text predates the LXX/OG Septuagint. The LXX/OG Septuagint was based on the original ancient Hebrew text.

There is no credible evidence to suggest that the Hebrew original text-- at least as far back as Ezra's redaction-- differed significantly from the Masoretic text (which does not differ significantly from the DSS Tanach texts, or most other large fragments from Second Temple times that have been found). We do not include the Samaritan Pentateuch in such comparisons, because of suspicions that changes to their text may have been deliberate alteration.

There is, however, ample evidence to suggest consistent interpolation into the Septuagint, as "translation" in those days was often more what we would today call a paraphrase, much like the Targumim of the early Common Era, Syriac translations, or some early Latin translations.

The Septuagint is interesting and often useful, but we do not use it as a primary text, or trust its translation over the Hebrew. Never.

 

[JM2C]

Actually, first God says to take the specific and unique son (yachid), but recognizing that he was "one of two", God then added the name.

God is very specific to His wordings. He used “yachid” to identify Isaac as the only son of Abraham.

Yes, God specified one of the mountains as a unique and specific mountain, much like a unique and specific son. And yet it does not say "yachid".

Why it did not say “yachid/only”?

 

[metis]

I need more coffee. When reading "Masoretic", my semi-awake mind read "Septuagint". Please pass me a cup of Joe but make darn sure it's got plenty of caffeine!

 

[rosends]

God is very specific to His wordings. He used “yachid” to identify Isaac as the only son of Abraham.
Why it did not say “yachid/only”?

Because it reads "one mountain" not "only mountain."

 

[JM2C]

There is, however, ample evidence to suggest consistent interpolation into the Septuagint, as "translation" in those days was often more what we would today call a paraphrase, much like the Targumim of the early Common Era, Syriac translations, or some early Latin translations.

The Septuagint is interesting and often useful, but we do not use it as a primary text, or trust its translation over the Hebrew. Never.

This Septuagint that you are talking about, was it from the Ancient Hebrew text, or after the 1St and 2nd century AD translation of Aquila and Theodotion, and in the early fifth century CE by the Latin Vulgate of the Christian Jerome?

 

[JM2C]

Because it reads "one mountain" not "only mountain."

One/Echad group of mountains like “Take one/echad of your sons –see Gen 42:11”

 

[rosends]

One/Echad group of mountains like “Take one/echad of your sons –see Gen 42:11”

No, one is echad. the mem prefix is "from". If I say "am echad" that means "one nation." If I say "etz echad" that is "one tree" and if I say "
noun
אָטוֹם אֶחָד
that would be one atom. "יְקוּם אֶחָד" is "one universe."

 

[nothead]

"JM2C, post: 4142338, member: 53604"You cannot disqualify the meaning of the Son of God as God’s Son, like the one in Hebrews 1:8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God”, because you can’t find the words “God the Son” in the NT, can you?

That comes from Psalm 45, most likely to Solomon first, foreshadowing Jesus second. But definitely to a KING of Israel or Judah first. That KING was not God was he, so why is the author calling him, "elohim?" [OH] GOD?

Because "elohim" in context here is one anointed or APPOINTED of God, sir. The original Psalm is not addressed to God, and the following verses prove it:

7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

8 All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.

9 Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

The second reference, "aleim ale*k" God, THY God, is a more emphatic reference to "elohim" and in the genitive construction YOUR ELOHIM, which is of course, God Almighty.

Without Elohim Theology known, of course you cannot KNOW that two elohims are here, the first one a man and the second one, God.

You are looking for something that is not in the NT and argue that if it’s not in the NT then it should not be valid.

Silences are significant when you base your paradigms ON silence. Especially when they contradict the known Jewish Default, two elohims equal in Heaven are not kosher, or valid, or accurate.

The word “Trinity” is not in the bible so as the “Shekinah Glory of God” but I for one believe in both, the “Trinity” and the “Shekinah Glory of God”, and so as many non-Trinitarians also believe in the “Shekinah Glory of God”.

Reasonably speaking, Trinity is a forced overlay upon the pristine. Yes it is not scriptural and yes it is not in the Bible.
The Shekinah glory is not a term per se in the Bible, but "light" in the spiritual sense, "glory," the "ruach of God," "the gleaming on Moses' face" are all parallel terms, and the VERB to "shakan" or "dwell upon" or "tabernacle" is there consistently for the invisible presence of God. This allows the term to be developed in the Mishnah. The noun, in other words comes naturally in Hebrew thought from the verb. As many nouns do. You cannot say however the trinity OR divinity in absolute sense comes from any verb in OT.

 

[nothead]

There is no credible evidence to suggest that the Hebrew original text-- at least as far back as Ezra's redaction-- differed significantly from the Masoretic text (which does not differ significantly from the DSS Tanach texts, or most other large fragments from Second Temple times that have been found). We do not include the Samaritan Pentateuch in such comparisons, because of suspicions that changes to their text may have been deliberate alteration.

There is, however, ample evidence to suggest consistent interpolation into the Septuagint, as "translation" in those days was often more what we would today call a paraphrase, much like the Targumim of the early Common Era, Syriac translations, or some early Latin translations.

The Septuagint is interesting and often useful, but we do not use it as a primary text, or trust its translation over the Hebrew. Never.

Quite, the Hebrew mother tongue of the Jewish religion came back to the Temple via Esra's reformation and was extant during the time of Jesus. All translations remove and add meaning to the original meaning, mostly a condition of all translations in language.

 

[nothead]

One/Echad group of mountains like “Take one/echad of your sons –see Gen 42:11”

You are continually avoiding the meaning of "echad," here, ONE out of others...ONE Elohim out of all other elohim is a specific and singular elohim.

 

[JM2C]

No, one is echad. the mem prefix is "from". If I say "am echad" that means "one nation."

You mean “one people”. I thought nation is “goy/singular” and “goyim/plural” and the people of that nation are called “am” although “am” and “goy” and “goyim” can be interchangeable like the word in Greek “heis”, “hen” and “mian”.

In the OT God was referring to “another nation or another people” as the Gentile/Heathen nation except for a few of course. If you could find in the OT “am echad” and "etz echad" that is "one tree" kindly post it please. Thanks

If I say "etz echad" that is "one tree" and if I say "nounאָטוֹם אֶחָד that would be one atom. "יְקוּם אֶחָד" is "one universe."

is there such a thing as “one atom”?

 

[rosends]

You mean “one people”. I thought nation is “goy/singular” and “goyim/plural” and the people of that nation are called “am” although “am” and “goy” and “goyim” can be interchangeable like the word in Greek “heis”, “hen” and “mian”.

In the OT God was referring to “another nation or another people” as the Gentile/Heathen nation except for a few of course. If you could find in the OT “am echad” and "etz echad" that is "one tree" kindly post it please. Thanks
is there such a thing as “one atom”?

Both am and goy can be translated as the English word "nation" or "people." Both have a plural (amim and goyim). There is also the Hebrew word Amah (umot) for "nation."

Though I was not making a textual point, just a linguistic one by creating random examples, here are a couple of verses for you: Gen 11:6 and Esther 3:8 (am) Ezek. 36:16 for etz.

And yes, there is such a thing as "one atom". Here's a picture:

http://www.me.utexas.edu/news/_images2012/ferreira_stem_image_500x350.jpg

 

[JM2C]

You are continually avoiding the meaning of "echad," here, ONE out of others...ONE Elohim out of all other elohim is a specific and singular elohim.

”You are continually avoiding the meaning of "echad," with your oneness theology. ”It did not explicitly say in Dt 6:4 “ONE Elohim out of all other elohim” if that is the meaning of “echad” according to your oneness doctrine. The oneness’ understanding of the word “echad” is “an only one or an absolute one”.

In Deuteronomy 6:4 it explicitly say "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God/Elohim the Lord/Jehovah, is more than one, yet is "ONE/Echad Jehovah". Echad: a united ONE, and not Yachid: an only one.

So, to justify oneness’ argument about the word “echad” in Dt 6:4, instead of changing it to “yachid” like Maimonides, they deliberately interpreted “echad” as “yachid” “an only one or an absolute one”, but the scriptures have proven them wrong and a good example of these scriptures is in Genesis 22:2 where the words “Yachid” and “Echad” were explicitly and exegetically explained the words “yachid” as “an only one or an absolute one” and “echad” as “unified one” like the one in Dt 6:4.

My question again, why in Dt 6:4 it did not say “only/yachid” LORD as in the “only/yachid” son of Abraham?

 

[JM2C]

Both am and goy can be translated as the English word "nation" or "people." Both have a plural (amim and goyim). There is also the Hebrew word Amah (umot) for "nation."

Though I was not making a textual point, just a linguistic one by creating random examples, here are a couple of verses for you: Gen 11:6 and Esther 3:8 (am) Ezek. 36:16 for etz.

Ge 11:6 And Jehovah said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is what they begin to do: and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do.

“they are one/echad people” or they are one/united/unified/echad people. Compare this to “only/yachid” son of Abraham.

Est 3:8 And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king's laws: therefore it is not for the king's profit to suffer them.

“Certain/echad/united/unified people”

 

[rosends]

“they are one/echad people” or they are one/united/unified/echad people. Compare this to “only/yachid” son of Abraham.

They are one people. That's what it says. Just because you want to see it as meaning something else doesn't change that the text says "am echad" one people.

Est 3:8 “Certain/echad/united/unified people”

Why did you take the language of the text and add in "united/unified"? Because you want to see that. But it simply isn't there.

If the text had said "me'uchad" then that would mean "unified/united (made as one)". The text doesn't say that.

 

[nothead]

”You are continually avoiding the meaning of "echad," with your oneness theology. ”It did not explicitly say in Dt 6:4 “ONE Elohim out of all other elohim” if that is the meaning of “echad” according to your oneness doctrine. The oneness’ understanding of the word “echad” is “an only one or an absolute one”.

In Deuteronomy 6:4 it explicitly say "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God/Elohim the Lord/Jehovah, is more than one, yet is "ONE/Echad Jehovah". Echad: a united ONE, and not Yachid: an only one.

So, to justify oneness’ argument about the word “echad” in Dt 6:4, instead of changing it to “yachid” like Maimonides, they deliberately interpreted “echad” as “yachid” “an only one or an absolute one”, but the scriptures have proven them wrong and a good example of these scriptures is in Genesis 22:2 where the words “Yachid” and “Echad” were explicitly and exegetically explained the words “yachid” as “an only one or an absolute one” and “echad” as “unified one” like the one in Dt 6:4.

My question again, why in Dt 6:4 it did not say “only/yachid” LORD as in the “only/yachid” son of Abraham?

Pattern 1 — The Only or True Elohim
Biblical usage suggests that Elohim reflects a "plural of honor" or "plural of fulness." The plural ending gives greater honor to God. It's like capitalizing the word, instead of printing "god." Or it's analogous to printing GOD or GOD, though Hebrew has no capital and small letters.

The Hebrews believed theirs was the only deity who embodied all definitions of the title God, Deity, Supreme Power. So they amplified the noun. Elohim doesn't mean "Gods" but something like "the Greatest God of all."

http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/monotheism/context-elohim.html

The second problem you have is again the NAME is said specifically to be alone, singular, by itself, first and unique. Two identities are verboten then, for the "YHWH" which is first said to be SINGULAR, or "echad."

 

[JM2C]

That comes from Psalm 45, most likely to Solomon first,

Solomon? God will address Solomon “Your throne, Oh God”? Solomon got more gods that any pagans during his time – 1King 11:1-6. “One greater than Solomon is here -Matthew 12:42”, that is, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of David, according to the flesh –Romans 1:3

foreshadowing Jesus second. But definitely to a KING of Israel or Judah first.

Psalm 45 is the one the description of the Davidic covenant [Isa 55:3, 2Samuel 7:12-16, Gen 49:10 “the scepter shall not depart from Judah”, Luke 1:31-33] that God made with king David in 2Samuel 7:11-16.

That KING was not God was he, so why is the author calling him, "elohim?" [OH] GOD? Because "elohim" in context here is one anointed or APPOINTED of God, sir.

1) Instead of dealing with the scripture as written, you are second guessing the author

Mt 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
Mt 22:42 “What do you think about the Christ ? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied.

The Lord Jesus is the Son of David according to the flesh [Romans 1:3] from the line of Judah, from the Davidic covenant, the Messiah. See John 1:14 “And the WORD became flesh”. IOW, “And the WORD was God –v1” “became flesh –v14” according to the Davidic covenant and that’s how he became the “Son of David” that was prophesied all the way back from Genesis 3:15, Gen 49:10 to Luke 1:31-33 to Paul’s Romans 1:3-4.

As you can read king Solomon is nowhere in the picture because “One greater than Solomon is here -Matthew 12:42”, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Mt 22:43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
Mt 22:44 “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” ’

Who is this “Lord” in Psalm 110:1? According to your own interpretation, a “master”, or “adonee”, means: just an ordinary mortal human being like us.

Now, the question is this

Mt 22:45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”

How can He, the Lord Jesus, be David’s Son according to the Davidic covenant, and at the same time be his “Lord” according to Psalm 110:1?

What king David saw or have foreseen with the help of the Holy Spirit or “speaking by the Spirit” in Psalm 110:1 was the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ at the right hand of God the Father in heaven.

Stephen was an eyewitness of the ascended LORD/ADNY Christ in,

Ac 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

This is what the Lord Jesus was telling to the Jews in

Mt 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
Mt 26:64 “Yes, it is as you say,”Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Now, according to your own interpretation an “adonee/master” cannot be God.

Isaiah 21:16 Dead Sea Scroll VERSION: For thus has the Lord(ADNY/Hebrew/DSS Version) said to me, Within a year, according to the years of a hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail;

Here Isaiah was talking about the “LORD” God and not just a “master” or just a mortal man.

In the DSS we read the word “LORD” as “ADNY” no vowel points. IOW, if we want to correct the Masoretic –with vowel points- text we would compare it to DSS, meaning: the older the text the better.

IOW, there is no VOWEL POINTS in the ancient Hebrew text and the dead sea scroll of Isaiah’ 21:16 where it says “Lord” as “ADNY” as “God” is the same as the one in Psalm 110:1 where the “Lord/ADNY” REFERRING TO THE Lord Jesus Christ was change BY THE MASORITES to “adoni” which translate to “master” and therefore became your own interpretation as well.

IOW again, your own interpretation of “adonee/master” in Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:44, on which you refer it ALSO to the Lord Jesus Christ as a mortal human being, IF compared to Isaiah 21:16 –DSS where the word “ADNY/LORD” –NO VOWEL POINTS- where it was referred to God Himself, IS NOT EXEGITICALLY VALID or YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION IS NOT EXEGITACALLY VALID AT ALL BASED ON THE SCRIPTURES.

IOW, there was no “adoni/master” in the original Hebrew text base on the Dead Sea Scroll, but “ADNY” WHICH MEANS THE “LORD” OR Jehovah.

ALL THIS JUST PROVED THAT THE LORD JESUS IS GOD.

So, when the God the Father says to His Son, “Thy Throne, Oh God” in Hebrews 1:8 you have to go all the way back to Genesis, to the Davidic Covenant in 2Sa 7:12-16, the Covenant that God made with king David about the Messiah from the tribe of Judah, to Isaiah, all the way to Paul’s epistles, and to Hebrews where it says “Thy Throne, Oh God” to prove your case.[/QUOTE]

 

[JM2C]

They are one people. That's what it says. Just because you want to see it as meaning something else doesn't change that the text says "am echad" one people.

”they are one people” as one group of people.

I think you are the only/yachid person, or you belong to one/echad/unified/undivided group of people who are avoiding the differences between the words “yachid” as an only one, and “Echad” as a united/unified one.

 

[rosends]

”they are one people” as one group of people.

I think you are the only/yachid person, or you belong to one/echad/unified/undivided group of people who are avoiding the differences between the words “yachid” as an only one, and “Echad” as a united/unified one.

And if I give you a quote that says "one man" so it isn't a group (Samuel I:1:1) you would find another reason why that says "echad". In Hebrew, as in English, "only" and "one" are two very different words.