David Davidovich
Well-Known Member
Oh, I know all about that. Actually, to Jehovah's Witnesses, I'm known as a heretic, therefore, no explanation needed.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For Torath Mosheh Jews Only: Who is Hashem?
- Thread starter David Davidovich
- Start date
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
That is why I provided both the English that may be familiar and the Hebrew with which Oral Torah which explains what they mean is derived from. Thus, you could shop all that information around to people who know Hebrew and see if what I stated is used as the source for the concept.Oh, I see. Well, many of those verses I am already familiar with in English. And in the English that I am already familiar with, it doesn't say anything about an eternal soul. Therefore, I don't know why you didn't translate what those verses are expressing in English as close as possible from what is being said in Hebrew as you usually do in either your videos or on the forum.
Again, how something written and understood in a several thousand year old language is going to be different than what someone interprets a translation which is not culturally conneced to the original. If every Torath Mosheh Jew agrees that those passages are describing what I mentioned for some of the same reasons there isn't anywhere else you can go with that. Now, reading a translation w/o having an Oral Torah to explain what the original Hebrew meant - of course under those conditions you not see something there. It is like someone in reading Hebrew the statement "break a leg" and stating "I don't see how break a leg means good luck."
Lastly, my translation of the text is meaningless in this circumstance since there is no seperation between the Written Tanakh and the Oral Torah any translation I do is going to be based on both of them. You can't have one w/o the other for Torath Mosheh Jews so simply put those verses are where the written element of it is derived from it and the Oral Torah, received from Hashem, Mosheh ben-Amram, and the Nevi'im of Hashem.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
No, it doesn't' mean what it means to them. There is a different basis of what it takes to be one. There are also divisions of what a heretic is, based on what they do, what they hold by, and whether they do so publically. I.e. there are various categories. I was asking that he go into detail for you on this concept and why it is the case. It is not a "beleif" or "faith" issue.Oh, I know all about that. Actually, to Jehovah's Witnesses, I'm known as a heretic, therefore, no explanation needed.
Last edited:
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
There is a reason I stated them. It is connected to the meaning, and etymology, of the word diety.
Last edited:
David Davidovich
Well-Known Member
Well, let's not be too judgmental. Because I think that was the angry skeptic that came out in me because sometimes when you have religious discussions or debates with other people, sometimes they can become a bit polarizing, and I will admit that what I said was one of the talking points that skeptics use against believers. Because I'm sorry to say, but sometimes (and I'm not saying this is intentional) @Ehav4Ever may come off as if non-Jewish and English translations get it all wrong and have no idea what they are talking about. However, I know that I may have read something before in what we call the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament and therefore, I have a hard time believing that the translators and scholars have no idea what they are doing, which is sometimes the impression that I get, even though no one has actually said that.
Therefore, even though I do find these discussions interesting, and I do find the TMJ (sorry, but I got tired of writing out all three words) culture interesting, sometimes, some of the answers can be a bit off-putting and as I said before, sometimes I seem to perceive that @Ehav4Ever is being evasive in answering some of my questions. (And I'm not saying that he is, because I cannot read his mind.)
But anyway, getting back to Genesis, I will admit that Genesis 19:31 did say:
Therefore, the gals were worried about not having children at least for the time being.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
This is true, WHEN, they either ignore or don't know about the Oral Torah OR they have no ability to show you what the Hebrew text states because there doesn't exist a one word translation of said word of conept. This is a concept translators know and can attest to like I showed in the past where I quoted professional translators stating exactly what I stated. For example, the below which I showed you earlier. Find a one word translation of what I marked below.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
I will propose a different idea. It is possible I don't have the ability to answer your questions the way you want them answered. Therefore it may be better that someone who can answer them the way you want provide those answers. Maybe dybmh is better qualified.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Agreed. Heretic without qualification was imprecise and incorrect.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
"this"
rosends
Well-Known Member
I don't think that that is accurate. In the verse shown, especially in light of the use of the definite article, "this" doesn't wok.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
This, the heavens... this, the earth...
Chagiga 12:20
Since it states “et hashamayim ve’et ha’aretz,” shamayim, actual heaven. aretz, actual earth.
Et = "this one", the actual heaven, the one we can point to with our finger. And the actual earth, "this one", the one I can point to.
How doesn't "this" work?
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Do you know of any translations that place "this" into Genesis 1:1? For example, in the following translation "this" is not added there.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
No, but that doesn't matter unless you reverse your opinion that the english translations are correct.
As you know, "this, the heavens" in english is a bit redundant. None the less, that's what it says in Hebrew.
Can you show me a verse in Hebrew where "this" doesn't work? It works here in Gen 1:1. Until I hear back from Rosends, or some other reason why it doesn't work, I have yet to find a single place where "this" doesn't fit.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
But that is exactly the opposite of a one word translation. You had to give commentary to explain the "this" and also "this" is not placed in any translations I know of. Thus, if you were trying to translate it your translation would have to include your commentary of "(את) = "this one", the actual heaven, the one we can point to with our finger. And the actual earth, "this one", the one I can point to." Even then, you would have to explain the difference between (את) with a tzere and (את) with a seghol. Also, (את) with a tzere has a bigger difinition.
Ibn Ezra
Ramban
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
What I am saying is that if one translation has "this" and most don't have this, the first question is why. Then you have to give a commentary. Thus, any person who doesn't know Hebrew doesn't even know that (את) is even there or what Hazal mean when they talk about things derived from (את). Also, someone can disagree that "this" is really a translation of (את) because Hagiga doesn't express the definition in English. Thus, now you have to provide a commentary on why you chose only that explaination and how you came up with "this" in English when no one else adds it.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
You have to make sure that is what I actually wrote. Hint: David is not fully explaining what I wrote to him about translations.
Besides, is the KJV a good source of translation compariable to knowing Hebrew?
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
I have been thinking about your two comments here, and another one you made earlier, and I have been going back and going over the responses I have made to your questions in the past. I think this is the point where I will back out of this discussion and any others so that you can the type of answers you want from others who are not evasive and provide to many details.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
No, the one word translation "this" is a one word translation.
I only needed to do that when challeneged that it doesnt work. if I say "this, the heavens", "this, the shoe", "this, the lima bean", any english speaker knows what I am saying without a single additional word of commentary.
That doesn't matter unless you are claimng that english translations are correct.
No, actually, if someone is challenging my translation to the word "this" they need to show that it is incorrect. I have already shown that it fits here, and I challenge you to find a verse where it doesn't work. it only took 4 or five words to prove it, and I brought Talmud to verify that my translation to "this" is valid. Now it's up to you or others to show that I am wrong and the Talmud is wrong. Or that I am minsunderstanding the Talmud, or misunderstanding Gen 1:1.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
What you are saying is "I don't know of any examples where 'this' doesn't work."
I already told you why the english leaves out the word "this", it's because in english it's a bit redundant. But I personally think it should be included.
I don't have to provide any commentary to an english speaker, because "this, the earth" is a perfectly clear statement with zero ambiguity.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Maybe not the KJV, but some translations do a good job. For example, some translations literally translate the word "ya-ahmohd" properly in Exodus 21 which defeats the erroneous claim that the Torah permits a slave to be beaten within an inch of their lives. Which BTW is a common anti-Torah claim that gets tossed around.