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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How do you know that the parallels are being assumed? Has anyone even attempted to discuss the Hebrew word yet?
The claim was that "Love is love in any language." But in any language "love" isn't always "love" so assuming (which it appears people are trying to do by discussing an English equivalent to understand the use of the Hebrew from which it is translated) that one will get any clarity in one language which might then explicate the source language is false. You wrote "When Moshe describes HaShem's love, it is easy to understand in english. The vast majority of parents can understand, and vast majority of children can understand. The language is completely irrelevant. "
Is there something subtle or nuanced in the Hebrew where Moshe describes the Jewish people being carried like a child by their father? Is it something which does not easily translate into english or any language?
I have no doubt that wherever the text says that, there is much that is subtle and nuanced. Can you show me in what verse Moshe presents that description? As to defining any biblical text, there is inevitably a loss of meaning (this happens with every translation of anything -- in the source language words and phrases carry varied meanings and the same range might not exist in the translator's choice of word or phrase).
One can convey an image but the biblical text is conveyed through a precise choice of words. It is the words which create the difficulty.
As a story line that can be paraphrased or as a message reliant on the cultural, linguistic and theological import of each word being used?
what it does is point out that the exact word in one language is ultimately untranslatable in a precise sense and we are always just settling for an interpretation mediated by the limitations of language.
Then I fear you missed a major point of my citing the sketch. Eddie wants a particular concept of love and Joe is unclear, at least initially, what concept of love is being described (as are Tim and Gary). Just using the word does not carry enough meaning without context and explanation -- and that's between 2 native speakers.
We are given paths through which we can try to understand the range of things expressed. If you look at Rashi on Deut 6:5 you will see ways in which we are to express love for God -- do those apply to all cases where the word "love" is used?
Deut 1:31
I hear you, but is that always the case?
Is it not taking something harmful and changing it to something helpful? Sure we can discuss many aspects of this, but it all leads to the same place: nurturing.
So this doesn't fit nicely into the Hebrew word being translated as love? I'm still not getting it, and I'm trying very hard not to be stubborn. I understand that some things are very difficult to translate, umami for example. But love does not seem to be one of those things.
Sure, but how much context is needed? Not much. And we're given the context... I'm repeating.
They can apply. Especially if someone speaks about a complete love, or a total love. On the other hand, this could be a special case, where this sort of love is reserved for God. It seems to me the 6:5 communicates what is possible when it comes to love.
Yes, and I'm saying that because you included the neighbor which includes love contained in restraint and respect. And hopefully I don't need to differentiate beween sex and love when it comes to man and woman. As long as all of our middot are brought to the table, I think each of these can be applied to a person's love of God.
What's wrong with D-M-H? Klein Dictionary, דמה ᴵ 1 I mean, this is in Gen 1?
oh -- you referred to a verse about a father carrying a son. I don't see the word "father" in that verse. That is, via context a reasonable interpretation but not the only one. And it begs why that word is NOT used.
Yes -- that's exactly the point.
Help and hurt are only defined by a desired context. If you see the end as paramount then changing it is acceptable. If you don't value the end over the process then it isn't helpful.
maybe into one person's conception of love. If the word has many meanings and many more applications, the odds that the meaning one person has will be identical to another person's is remote.
says who? I think a lot of context is needed.
you are citing text and retelling one gloss of an understanding of a biblical text.
So in the same way I should die for God whom I love, I should die for a good bottle of wine, which I also love? No, the expressions don't apply.
please tell me that the little blue emoji indicates that this is a joke.
It does say "his" son, not "a" son, right? And if so, the "his" is refering back to God?
What is unclear about the wording in Hebrew of the verse we're discussing? I can understand that there's multiple interpretations, but, in this case, where is the subtle nuance that is irretrievable in english?
So, Moshe says God changed a curse to a blessing because he loved them, and this could be hurtful not helpful? And this is a result of my own misunderstanding or lack of experience of the hebrew words in the verse?
The entire video is 6 minutes long.
Would you please provide another understanding of the verses we're discussing where the Hebrew words do not match up neatly with english equivalents?
There's so much i could say about this. But I'll just say this: if a person loves wine, and they drink themself to death, in their last moments, they probably will still love wine even though it is the cause of their death.
You don't think it's OK to experience pleasure with God in the same way a person enjoys a cigar? If not, why not? I don't like cigars, btw. But I like tea, so I can kind of relate. And if we're talking about a man/woman love, that's about caring for the other person, doing what they like, and that's a wonderful reason to complete the commandments.
No. I am genuinely confused. I put a link to kleins definition. I double checked. it says "like. resemble" multiple times. Gen 1:26 is a famous verse.
The fact that the possessive can be associated with either of 2 characters begs interpretation which pure translation would not convey. Using the word "father" is similarly interpretation as the Hebrew does not read that way so even if the interpretation is reasonable, the question of word choice (not using the actual word for "father") has to be considered. If one were to study just your translation (using "father"), one would be unaware of that. This just proves that the Hebrew is not fully explored in the English version.
As stated on Deut 1:31, there are subtleties regarding the possessive and the Hebrew word choice. There are also all sorts of discussions about the meaning and connotations of the word "ish" -- because it is built out of the word for fire, combined with a letter representing God, it imports more than just a sterile "human" or "man" but if one only sees the English, one misses that,
Saying anything in English and understanding "curse," "blessing" and "change" (let alone "love") as if the human understanding applies to the divine action in any real sense is hurtful and not helpful if the goal is understanding the original words and all they bring forth. I think this is a result of your being focused on the forest when a textual discussion of Hebrew bible is equally (at least) about the trees.
And there is a lot going on in it regarding multiple understandings of what one might think of as a universal and shared word.
Do you have a specific verse in mind? I could discuss how "curse" and "blessing" are not identical with their English counterparts. It would be rare, indeed, for a word to match up neatly, unless one were to eliminate all the other potential meanings and uses of both the Hebrew and English. Imagine a venn diagram. While there might be overlap, there are areas which do not overlap. Unless we excise them, we will see uncertainty.
But if the love of God is manifested through being willing to die rather than acknowledge any other God, then you think it is reasonable to die rather than acknowledge that any other wine exists? Or is worthy of being "loved"? How we show the degree and meaning of our love is highly variable because love is highly variable.
The fact that the love of a man for a spouse and the love of a cigar both have small overlapping sections, and separate and overlapping sections with a "love" of God is nice but just shows that there are many areas that do not coincide. My pleasure with a cigar should be extremely different from my pleasure with a woman, God or Connecticut. Lighting Connecticut on fire is frowned upon.
There is no LIKE in biblical Hebrew. I made that while we were discussing the a-h-b root and the variations of meanings for "love" so my statement was in contrast with the "love" word. I then gave other biblical roots that deal with types of affection. Clearly, I was not discussing the word "like" in its appearance as an adjective or preposition relating to similarity, but in its use in English as an emotion indicating a lesser level of affection. In Hebrew, similarity is expressed in many ways (mi KA mocha). Answering a point about the wrong use of the word just shows that words have many uses and even when we speak the same language, there is much room for misinterpretation if one ignores context.
Are there 2 characters? The "his son" refers back to the "ish". The "ish" refers back to God. Isn't God the only subject?
Agreed. And I considered that. But what I'm trying to figure out is: is this specific verse communicating something complex, or is it communicating something simple?
I hear you. And yet pushing God out into nethermost regions completely distant and removed from us is not how Moshe describes the relationship God has chosen to have with us. ( I'm going to bring a few quotes. Not because I think you need them, but for others who may be reading this. )
OK. So, if in english "love" is understood in a number of ways with a number of manifestations. And in Hebrew "love" is understood in a number of ways with a number of manifestations. And in virtually any culture anywhere "love" is understood in a number of ways and a number of manifestations. Doesn't this indicate that "love" is a universal concept?
Yes, blessing and curse are complicated, but the idea of changing a curse into a blessing because of love is simple, isn't it? Regarding a specific verse, though, I was asking about Deut 1:31. Yes, I inserted the word "father" there in error. That was my mistake. But it does say "his son", and I'm kind of stuck on that. I feel like this one verse is a good example of a simple idea which is easily understood by virtually anyone regardless of the language that they're speaking. So, I'm asking if there is another interpretation of this verse, Deut 1:31, that does not neatly line up with the english translation? And yes, I think we can "excise" the connotation of "ish" as something other than a human man based on "b'noh" "his son".
If it's highly variable in virtually all languages and cultures, and in the same ways, then it's still universal and the language used becomes irrelevant.
If the overlap is the same in most languages and cultures, then it's still lanuage independent. Just because the concept is fluid, doesn't make it unique to one specific language and culture. Do we agree on this?
Ah. Thank you so much for explaining that. Clearly I was confused.
And yet, no one in the video says, "I don't know what love is".
I haven't said to throw out the Hebrew text and replace it.
And yet, no one in the video says, "I don't know what love is".
