Question on the Word in John

[YoursTrue]

Greetings,

Translations, that ignore the language and culture behind what they are translating are to be quite honest not worth the paper they are written on. Most compentant translations will place notes to explain concepts that are important for their readers to know IF their goal is that the reader undrestands them, as close as possible to someone who knows the language and culture behind the language. If their goal is to just give someone something to quickly read w/o and understanding of its correct meaning, then yes they will settle for words that may be or are foreign to the text and never explain the origin of the original.

This is why for thousands of years within in Jewish communities making sure that kids can read and understand ancient Hebrew has been a high priority.

Again, Elohim on its own in Hebrew history and culture does not mean what God means in English. Thus, Moses was not being equated to the Creator of all things. He was being equated to someone was"strong and powerful" something that was understand in all of the ancient languages in this part of the world. (Middle East and Africa) This concept can be easily misunderstand or not understand by someone reading a translation that either a) does not translate with the proper context or b) doesn't supply the context at all.

Certainly few translations can be relied upon to give proper understanding, I agree. Let me amend. I mean especially when it comes to such words as Elohim and making proper application.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have to be careful with the Talmud. Learning Talmud requires one to know Tanakh in Hebrew and also Aramaic. It also requires that one learns it from someone who themselves have been through it thorougly. W/o understanding the termology and what the statements in the Talmud are getting at one who can get confused. For example, there are some situations where Tanakh is quoted not to prove a point about the Tanakh but instead to seek the source of a particular halakha. Also, when one gets into aggada one needs to really know what is being discussed.

I am simply saying that according to Talmud, not tanach, there are various and sundry explanations of what something means. I don't have time, strength, stamina or desire to read the Talmud right now, but I did check it when we lived near boro park Brooklyn, in a library. Meantime I agree that basic premise of different and misleading translations abound.

 

[YoursTrue]

The text though does not make the words that Moses was being sent to say, through Aaron, to be anything more than words. Again, as a Jew I go by what the text says in its pure written form. The text doesn't imply anything about the words. I.e. the words were not being called Elohim.

That's as far as you're concerned. The text says that Moses would be like Elohim to pharaoh. Want to go over it again? Leelohim. Moses would be like God or in God's place before pharaoh. Now wasn't he? Did you look at the text in the tanach? Exodus 4:16. Instead of explaining it, you're just telling I can't understand it.

 

[YoursTrue]

The text though does not make the words that Moses was being sent to say, through Aaron, to be anything more than words. Again, as a Jew I go by what the text says in its pure written form. The text doesn't imply anything about the words. I.e. the words were not being called Elohim.

Sorry if we got a little caught up in this although it is very interesting. Just to check, the context was about what the true God told Moses to say to Pharaoh. And the Lord told Moses that he would be as Elohim to Pharaoh, doesn't it say that? In English or not. So the words Moses were to speak were told to him by God, Moses did not make up his own words. And the true God assured Moses that he--Moses-- would be as God (Elohim) to Pharaoh. Here is one translation: If you don't like it, please do say what you think (in English) is better. Thank you.
Exodus 4:16 "Aaron will speak to the people for you. He will be your spokesman, and you will be like God."
So what do you make of that in context? Here's what I make of it: God appointed Aaron to speak for Moses because Moses said he was not a fluent speaker. Aaron would be Moses' spokesman, and Moses will be like God. So the question is: How is Moses like God in this situation? Any idea?
Exodus 7:1 raises a similar question. Which English translation do you prefer, since you are so well versed in the original language. One translation says: "The LORD answered Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet."

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I am simply saying that according to Talmud, not tanach, there are various and sundry explanations of what something means. I don't have time, strength, stamina or desire to read the Talmud right now, but I did check it when we lived near boro park Brooklyn, in a library. Meantime I agree that basic premise of different and misleading translations abound.

Again, when it comes to the Talmud one has to understand "if the part of the text is trying to explain what something means" or "if they are simply making a statement about something else entirely" and simply quoting a part of the Tanakh to "loosely" support and assumption. For example, there is no part of the Talmud that claims that liternally the words that Moses were told to have Aaron say to Pharaoh were a deity. Again, knowing how to accurately understand the Talmud is not something one "checks" it requires a knowledge of background information that helps one determine what they are even reading.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, when it comes to the Talmud one has to understand "if the part of the text is trying to explain what something means" or "if they are simply making a statement about something else entirely" and simply quoting a part of the Tanakh to "loosely" support and assumption. For example, there is no part of the Talmud that claims that liternally the words that Moses were told to have Aaron say to Pharaoh were a deity. Again, knowing how to accurately understand the Talmud is not something one "checks" it requires a knowledge of background information that helps one determine what they are even reading.

OK, so you are saying you cannot explain what happened at Exodus 4 when God spoke to Moses and told him what to do and told Moses he would be like God, or a God, or in the place of God to Pharaoh. And how and why. Got it. (Shaking my head here in sadness that you can't/won't even try as if it's verboten. So much for that to expect a reasonable answer.)
Besides I really wasn't talking about the Talmud, I was speaking about Exodus chapter 4. And Exodus 7:1 - "The LORD answered Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet." It's really not that complicated, but I see you just don't want to answer. (Have a good night.)
The LORD (HaShem) told Moses that He made him LIKE GOD to Pharaoh. And -- Aaron would be his prophet. Amazing, and thank you for the discussion. Again, have a good night. From Exodus chapters 4 and 7.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, when it comes to the Talmud one has to understand "if the part of the text is trying to explain what something means" or "if they are simply making a statement about something else entirely" and simply quoting a part of the Tanakh to "loosely" support and assumption. For example, there is no part of the Talmud that claims that liternally the words that Moses were told to have Aaron say to Pharaoh were a deity. Again, knowing how to accurately understand the Talmud is not something one "checks" it requires a knowledge of background information that helps one determine what they are even reading.

I apologize to you because until now I didn't read your rather extensive post about elohim. I hope to go over it later and ask you a couple of questions about it. Thanks and have a good night.

 

[YoursTrue]

Mislead an audience? If anything misleads anybody, I think it's this:

• If there is no such thing as a Noachide viewpoint, does that mean Noachides are clueless or that, as far as they are concerned, they should be considered Orthodox Jews, with all rights, privileges, responsibilities, and obligations that Orthodox Jews have?
• If Noachides are, by and large, associated with and believe the exact same things as Orthodox Jews, how does "by and large" equal "the exact same things"?
• If Noachides are, by and large, associated with and believe the exact same things as Orthodox Jews, which of the seven laws addresses remembering and observing the Sabbath?
• If all Jews do not believe the same thing, how do you propose to explain how Noachides and Jews believe the same thing?

By the by, allow me to point out that, in the sentence containing the phrase which offended you, I wrote: "That said, I'm not interested in a HJ or RJ viewpoint, ..." By HJ, I meant "Humanist Jews"; and by RJ, I meant Reform and Reconstructionist Jews. Having expressed my lack of interest in HJ and RJ views, I decided--wisely or unwisely--to include Noachides, although Noachides don't even get "honorable mention" in RF's list of sub-Judaism categories.

Now, if, in spite of all that, you still think you've got a right to share your opinion on a topic that I want to address in a private conversation with Ehav, fine; have at it:
Does Judaism subscribe to Einstein's nonsense special theory of relativity and to the ridiculous Big Bang theory?

My question is:how many branches (if that's the right word) of Judaism are there? And if one compares it with branches and sects of other religions, I have two questions. Can all of them be right? Does God (if one accepts that there is God) accept all forms of worship and ideas?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Sorry if we got a little caught up in this although it is very interesting.

Not a problem. I have no problem with the questions. Be aware though that the hangup here is going to be in the difference between ancient Hebrew and English. There is a divide in the languages that is important to respect because the word God/god/gods is often only used by English speaking Jews out of convience and not because it an accurate way of translating (אל אלהים אלוה)

Just to check, the context was about what the true God told Moses to say to Pharaoh. And the Lord told Moses that he would be as Elohim to Pharaoh, doesn't it say that? In English or not.

I will take your words above and rephrase, in English, to make them more clear.

“Hashem [the Creator of all things] told Moses to say to Pharaoh. And Hashem told Moses that he [Moses] would be to Pharaoh a elohim/judge/lawgiver/rabbi”

I lower cased elohim to make it more clear that the way it is used and make it clear that the term is not being used in this case to denote that Moses would be like Hashem, the Creator of all things.

The statement “as Elohim” is not correct since the Hebrew letter that would denote “as” is not used. Instead, (ל) is used meaning “elohim to/for Pharaoh.”

So the words Moses were to speak were told to him by God, Moses did not make up his own words. And the true God assured Moses that he--Moses-- would be as God (Elohim) to Pharaoh.

I will rephrase your words above:

“So the demands/statements/words Moses were to speak/tell to were told to him by Hashem, Moses did not make up his own words/demands. And Hashem told Moses that he--Moses-- would be as mighty/strong/judge/lawgiver/person in charge (elohim) to Pharaoh.”

If you look in the Aramaic translation of the Torah (אלהים) is translated as (רב) pronounced in English “rav” meaning “great, master” – please note that the same word in Hebrew is where we get the title rabbi from. At the same time, the same Aramaic translation translates that Aaron would Moses’ prophet (נְבִיאֶךָ) “your prophet” by the Aramaic statement (מְתֻרְגְּמָנָךְ) meaning “spokesman” or even translator. This context is support by virtually all ancient Jewish commentaries on this section of the Torah.

Here is one translation: If you don't like it, please do say what you think (in English) is better. Thank you.

Exodus 4:16 "Aaron will speak to the people for you. He will be your spokesman, and you will be like God."

Again, the problem with the above is with the word “God.” This is not what the Hebrew text is claiming and it is also not what the Hebrew word (אלהים) means. Jewish sources are united on this issue and none of them claim that Moses was going to be like Hashem to Pharaoh.

So what do you make of that in context? Here's what I make of it: God appointed Aaron to speak for Moses because Moses said he was not a fluent speaker. Aaron would be Moses' spokesman, and Moses will be like God. So the question is: How is Moses like God in this situation? Any idea?

Actually, again same problem. Hashem never told Moses he be “like” Hashem. Again, the Hebrew never claims that Moses would be a “God” as the word means in English. That is the disconnect. The word “God” in English does mean what the word elohim means in ancient Hebrew. It ancient Semitic language calling people, things, planets, judges, rulers, strong people, athletes etc. elohim was not a problem. In English, calling the same things “Gods” has a very specific meaning that deals with them having some type of divine power or all out calling them a deity. The word elohim in Hebrew, on its own, does not denote something “divine” or deity like.

Exodus 7:1 raises a similar question. Which English translation do you prefer, since you are so well versed in the original language. One translation says: "The LORD answered Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet."

In Hebrew it doesn’t present any question. I actually am not a fan of any English translation that doesn’t break down the words used to explain what they would mean to someone who knows the language, context, and culture. I understand that often translation is a quick way of getting some of the “basic” ideas the “translator” wants to get across. Yet, be aware that Christian translations are not considered reliable to Jews and even Jewish English translations are of no use to Jews who know Hebrew. The only translations that have high level of use to Jews are ones in Aramaic and Judeo-Arabic that were done from about 1,500 years ago and before.

Concerning the translation you listed above, a better attempt at putting it in way that you can understand what is actually written in Hebrew would be the following.

"Hashem said to Moses, "See, I have given you [to be] mighty/strong/judge/lawgiver/person in charge to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother, will be your prophet."

If you look in the Aramaic translation of the Torah (אלהים) is translated as (רב) pronounced in English “rav” meaning “great, master” – please note that the same word in Hebrew is where we get the title rabbi from. At the same time, the same Aramaic translation translates that Aaron would Moses’ prophet (נְבִיאֶךָ) “your prophet” by the Aramaic statement (מְתֻרְגְּמָנָךְ) meaning “spokesman” or even translator. This context is supported by virtually all ancient Jewish commentaries on this section of the Torah.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

My question is:how many branches (if that's the right word) of Judaism are there? And if one compares it with branches and sects of other religions, I have two questions. Can all of them be right? Does God (if one accepts that there is God) accept all forms of worship and ideas?

You are in luck. I have two videos that can explain this, I think very well.

 

[Terry Sampson]

My question is:how many branches (if that's the right word) of Judaism are there? And if one compares it with branches and sects of other religions, I have two questions. Can all of them be right? Does God (if one accepts that there is God) accept all forms of worship and ideas?

I'm the wrong person to ask. I'm Christian.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

My question is:how many branches (if that's the right word) of Judaism are there? And if one compares it with branches and sects of other religions, I have two questions. Can all of them be right? Does God (if one accepts that there is God) accept all forms of worship and ideas?

Once you have watched the videos I posted above then consider the below.

The word "religion" doesn't exist in ancient Hebrew and in many of the Semitic languages. What the Torah and Torah based thought details is the following.

1. Hashem is the source of all creation.
2. Hashem gave the Torah at Mount Sinai to the people of Israel in a mass revelation.
3. There has not been a break in the existance of the people of Israel since the Torah was given at Mount Sinai.
4. The Torah position deals not with what people beleive but instead what is the truth in reality.

So, what the important really is, instead of a question of religion, is what is the Truth; with a capital T? For example, let's say that a meteor hits one of the moons of Jupiter and no human being knew/knows/or ever will know about it. Is the event, true because it happened or true only if humans/or some human somewhere knows about it or beleives in it? The event is true because it happened as an event in universal history even it is unknown to humans, who are only a small part of universal history.

That being said, religions are based on what people choose or are forced to believe. Yet, that doesn't make any of them true. A person can be very religious and sincere to something that is completely false. So, it would stand to reason that if the Creator of all things wanted to get a certain "truth" across it would need to be done in a way where it be seen/experienced in a relatively simply and empirical; from an objective truth.

So in various Torah concerned discussions/philosophical overviews their a set of standards that are placed on how humans can work to determine the truth of reality.

Thus, getting to your question - does the Source of creation forms of worship and ideas?

The short Torath Mosheh answer to this is,

"The Creator of all things gave to the people who stood at Mount Sinai an understanding that the Creator accepts all people. The Creator of all things has put in place logical realities in the universe to help humans concern themselves and guide themselves to the Truth. The Creator of all things does not accept false ideas which in turn leads to useless practices and also incorrect methodologies such as methods of worship that are not based on truth. Worship is a human response to the reality around us/humans and the Creator has given certain methods to express this humas aspect of ourselves; yet there are some concepts that humans developed that have led people away from the truth that the Creator put in place. In the Jewish language this is called Avodah Zara. At some point the Creator has designated a time when all humans will know things, the way the earliest modern generations did, concerning the reality of the source of Creation."
​

Be aware that there are longer explainations to everything I mentioend above.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I'm the wrong person to ask. I'm Christian.

I think that question was directed to me.

 

[Harel13]

Does God (if one accepts that there is God) accept all forms of worship and ideas?

If you're asking for the traditional Jewish view, then clearly not. After all, there are many prohibitions in the Torah. For example, one form of worship may be to make an image of God, perhaps to help you concentrate in prayer. But it's clearly written in the Torah that that's not allowed.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you're asking for the traditional Jewish view, then clearly not. After all, there are many prohibitions in the Torah. For example, one form of worship may be to make an image of God, perhaps to help you concentrate in prayer. But it's clearly written in the Torah that that's not allowed.

Very interesting.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think that question was directed to me.

That is correct. And thank you for responding.

 

[YoursTrue]

Once you have watched the videos I posted above then consider the below.

The word "religion" doesn't exist in ancient Hebrew and in many of the Semitic languages. What the Torah and Torah based thought details is the following.

1. Hashem is the source of all creation.
2. Hashem gave the Torah at Mount Sinai to the people of Israel in a mass revelation.
3. There has not been a break in the existance of the people of Israel since the Torah was given at Mount Sinai.
4. The Torah position deals not with what people beleive but instead what is the truth in reality.

So, what the important really is, instead of a question of religion, is what is the Truth; with a capital T? For example, let's say that a meteor hits one of the moons of Jupiter and no human being knew/knows/or ever will know about it. Is the event, true because it happened or true only if humans/or some human somewhere knows about it or beleives in it? The event is true because it happened as an event in universal history even it is unknown to humans, who are only a small part of universal history.

That being said, religions are based on what people choose or are forced to believe. Yet, that doesn't make any of them true. A person can be very religious and sincere to something that is completely false. So, it would stand to reason that if the Creator of all things wanted to get a certain "truth" across it would need to be done in a way where it be seen/experienced in a relatively simply and empirical; from an objective truth.

So in various Torah concerned discussions/philosophical overviews their a set of standards that are placed on how humans can work to determine the truth of reality.

Thus, getting to your question - does the Source of creation forms of worship and ideas?

The short Torath Mosheh answer to this is,

"The Creator of all things gave to the people who stood at Mount Sinai an understanding that the Creator accepts all people. The Creator of all things has put in place logical realities in the universe to help humans concern themselves and guide themselves to the Truth. The Creator of all things does not accept false ideas which in turn leads to useless practices and also incorrect methodologies such as methods of worship that are not based on truth. Worship is a human response to the reality around us/humans and the Creator has given certain methods to express this humas aspect of ourselves; yet there are some concepts that humans developed that have led people away from the truth that the Creator put in place. In the Jewish language this is called Avodah Zara. At some point the Creator has designated a time when all humans will know things, the way the earliest modern generations did, concerning the reality of the source of Creation."
​

Be aware that there are longer explainations to everything I mentioend above.

Interesting that the Creator made realities such as the universe for humans to believe in Him. That is my way of saying it. So thanks again

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Interesting that the Creator made realities such as the universe for humans to believe in Him. That is my way of saying it. So thanks again

Just to change your wording a bit. Not to "beleive" to "know." The first of the 613 mitzvah of the Torah is to "know" there is a source of creation. The Torah never commands or requires "beleif." Knowing something, as much as a person can, is what it details.

It is like saying, on a basic human level, every human being can at least come to the logical conclusion that something caused the universe/reality to exist and caused that there are principles that the universe/works on - whether we know or understand those principles or not. A part of our existance is to work through the reality and to know it, and the truth, to understand it as much as we can.

As a side note, according to Jewish sources, what set things apart is when the Creator set up a situation where the people of Israel received a mass revelation from the Creator detailing what had been known to the previous first generation of modern humans and been lost in the shuffle of what is termed Avodah Zara. Also, during that mass revelation at Mount Sinai the nation of Israel was established with the the Torah that the nation was take forward - partially as a way to redirect things away from Avodah Zara.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Interesting that the Creator made realities such as the universe for humans to believe in Him. That is my way of saying it. So thanks again

One more note. A rabbi by the name of Rabbi Mosheh ben-Maimon once wrote that the way that one can "love" the Source of creation is when a person looks around them and sees the reality that they live in and how expansive it is and they look into the night sky and see, as much as they can, a universe that has an order to it and how small we humans are in it that it causes them to be in awe and that is what starts a love for the source of Creation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just to change your wording a bit. Not to "beleive" to "know." The first of the 613 mitzvah of the Torah is to "know" there is a source of creation. The Torah never commands or requires "beleif." Knowing something, as much as a person can, is what it details.

Thank you. Yes, very good. That makes sense, since God gave commandments to Israel (through Moses, of course), and He outlined how they were to worship Him.

It is like saying, on a basic human level, every human being can at least come to the logical conclusion that something caused the universe/reality to exist and caused that there are principles that the universe/works on - whether we know or understand those principles or not. A part of our existance is to work through the reality and to know it, and the truth, to understand it as much as we can.

As a side note, according to Jewish sources, what set things apart is when the Creator set up a situation where the people of Israel received a mass revelation from the Creator detailing what had been known to the previous first generation of modern humans and been lost in the shuffle of what is termed Avodah Zara. Also, during that mass revelation at Mount Sinai the nation of Israel was established with the the Torah that the nation was take forward - partially as a way to redirect things away from Avodah Zara.

OK, it's all very interesting. Thank you very much for your input. (What's Avodah Zara?)