The sound of God's name

[Yohanan ben Yaaqov]

Then would you explain this;
Thus, in v. 13, he is asking God a very specific and pointed question: "What is your name?" God’s answer, however, is anything but straightforward:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה. 3:14

אֶהְיֶה.
And God said to Moses, "I am what I am."

God's answer to Moses was very straightforward and simple: "I shall be that which I shall be." This means that if Yis'rael needed a Judge, He would be their Judge; If they needed rescue from physical danger He would be their rescuer; He would be whatever they needed Him to be at the time they needed Him to be.

Much of the Gospels are a translation using the Septuagint, not the Hebrew.

Could you please provide tangible evidence to prove that?

 

[pearl]

The Hebrew phrase – אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה – ʾeh’yeh ʾăsher ʾeh’yeh as found in Sh’mot 3:14 is I shall be that which I shall be. Just for the record there is no way to say “I am” in Hebrew, therefore “I am who I am” or “I am that I am” are deceitful translations.

Then would you explain this;
Thus, in v. 13, he is asking God a very specific and pointed question: "What is your name?" God’s answer, however, is anything but straightforward:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה. 3:14

אֶהְיֶה.
And God said to Moses, "I am what I am."

They are purposefully mistranslating it "I am" in order to connect it with John 8:58. That is deceptive.

Much of the Gospels are a translation using the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. The Septuagint has egō eimi ho ōn, “I am the One who is” (ōn being the participle of the verb “to be”). Which is not precisely the meaning of the Hebrew.
What do you understand to be the significance of the difference as it pertains to God's relationship with man?


.

 

[Yohanan ben Yaaqov]

Then would you explain this;
Thus, in v. 13, he is asking God a very specific and pointed question: "What is your name?" God’s answer, however, is anything but straightforward:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה. 3:14

אֶהְיֶה.
And God said to Moses, "I am what I am."



Much of the Gospels are a translation using the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. The Septuagint has egō eimi ho ōn, “I am the One who is” (ōn being the participle of the verb “to be”). Which is not precisely the meaning of the Hebrew.
What do you understand to be the significance of the difference as it pertains to God's relationship with man?

Here is specifically the point that I am trying to make: The word – אֶהְיֶה – ʾeh’yeh is used 54 times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, and in every single translation I have checked 51 out of 54 times it is translated either “I shall be” or “I will be.” It is only the three instances found in Sh’mot 3:14 that it is ever translated “I am.”

So you want to make the claim that they used the LXX. B’réshiyt/Genesis 26:3 Hebrew – וְאֶהְיֶה עִמְּךָ – v’eh’yeh ʿim’ḵa – “and I will be with you;” Greek – και εσομαι μετα σου – kai esomai meta sou – “and I will be with you;” KJpV – “and I will be with thee.” B’réshiyt/Genesis 31:3 Hebrew – וְאֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ – v’eh’yeh ʿimmaḵ’ – “and I will be with you;” Greek – και εσομαι μετα σου – kai esomai meta sou – “and I will be with you;” KJpV – “and I will be with thee.” Sh’mot/Exodus 3:12 Hebrew – כִּי־אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ – kiy-ʾeh’yeh ʿimmaḵ’ – “therefore I will be with you;” Greek – ότι εσομαι μετα σου – hoti esomai meta sou – “because I will be with you;” KJpV – “Certainly I will be with thee.” Do I really need to continue down the entire list, or is my point starting to get across?

Even the so-called Septuagint translated the word ʾeh’yeh correctly in every instance other than Sh’mot/Exodus 3:14, so even in Greek whoever translated it were being deceptive.

My question to you to provide evidence is simply because in twenty years as a Papyrologist I have never seen one single shred of physical evidence that the legendary Septuagint ever existed, so in my opinion it is nothing more than a convenient cop out. But in the case of your argument it doesn’t even work because they translate it correctly everywhere else too.

 

[pearl]

Could you please provide tangible evidence to prove that?

it is not possible for me to list the numerous texts which employ the Septuagint translation, but a little background may help. The Septuagint was not only a translation is was the first interpretation of the Hebrew. It enjoyed authority among the Jews of the Diaspora into the 1st cent AD. It was the Greek Bible and adopted by Christians in evangelizing the Hellenistic world. Of the 350 citations from the Hebrew Scriptures, 300 are quoted from the Septuagint.

 

[pearl]

My question to you to provide evidence is simply because in twenty years as a Papyrologist I have never seen one single shred of physical evidence that the legendary Septuagint ever existed, so in my opinion it is nothing more than a convenient cop out. But in the case of your argument it doesn’t even work because they translate it correctly everywhere else too.

The Problem: How Many Descendants – 70 or 75?

Genesis 46:8-27, in Parashat Vayigash, lists Jacob’s descendants who came to Egypt; in the Masoretic Text (MT) they total 70, whereas in the Septuagint (LXX), they total 75. In other words, the MT is missing five names found in the LXX. This variation correlates with other references in the Torah:

• According to the MT of Exodus 1:5, Jacob’s descendants number 70, whereas in two scrolls from Qumran and in the LXX, they number 75.[1] The tradition of 75 is also found in the New Testament (Acts 7:14), and in Philo (De Migratione Abrahami, 199–201). Both of these sources reflect the LXX.

• Deut 10:22 – most of the witnesses testify to 70.[2]

To complicate matters further, these five names are found in both the Hebrew and Greek text of Numbers 26. Which is the earlier tradition—70 or 75? And how did the one change to the other?

Jacob's Descendants who Go to Egypt: The MT Versus the LXX - TheTorah.com

 

[Yohanan ben Yaaqov]

it is not possible for me to list the numerous texts which employ the Septuagint translation, but a little background may help. The Septuagint was not only a translation is was the first interpretation of the Hebrew. It enjoyed authority among the Jews of the Diaspora into the 1st cent AD. It was the Greek Bible and adopted by Christians in evangelizing the Hellenistic world. Of the 350 citations from the Hebrew Scriptures, 300 are quoted from the Septuagint.

According to you. But where is your proof? Hearsay from centuries after the fact is not proof, nor is it even evidence. Where is the solid, tangible evidence from the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the mid-Third Century BCE that this event ever took place? It's on you, prove it, show me.

 

[David T]

Is the sound of God's name just as powerful as God's name?

The logos is Common Ashley. The numinous is not a something play make believe with. All saints of any mystical quality are all extremely grounded in nature including especially jesus. I would suggest spending a lot of time in nature and away from church, I don't think church is very healthy for certain types. Read john Muir.

 

[Yohanan ben Yaaqov]

The Problem: How Many Descendants – 70 or 75?

Genesis 46:8-27, in Parashat Vayigash, lists Jacob’s descendants who came to Egypt; in the Masoretic Text (MT) they total 70, whereas in the Septuagint (LXX), they total 75. In other words, the MT is missing five names found in the LXX. This variation correlates with other references in the Torah:

• According to the MT of Exodus 1:5, Jacob’s descendants number 70, whereas in two scrolls from Qumran and in the LXX, they number 75.[1] The tradition of 75 is also found in the New Testament (Acts 7:14), and in Philo (De Migratione Abrahami, 199–201). Both of these sources reflect the LXX.

• Deut 10:22 – most of the witnesses testify to 70.[2]

To complicate matters further, these five names are found in both the Hebrew and Greek text of Numbers 26. Which is the earlier tradition—70 or 75? And how did the one change to the other?

Jacob's Descendants who Go to Egypt: The MT Versus the LXX - TheTorah.com

Obviously you are not getting it. I am not asking for more speculation; I am not asking for more hearsay, which is not admissible in any court on earth; I am asking for solid tangible evidence that I can touch with my hands and read with my eyes dating to approximately 250 BCE that proves that such a document exists.

But it doesn't really matter anyway, because the document which chrt-stians call the Septuagint already proves my point anyway.

 

[pearl]

Obviously you are not getting it. I am not asking for more speculation; I am not asking for more hearsay, which is not admissible in any court on earth; I am asking for solid tangible evidence that I can touch with my hands and read with my eyes dating to approximately 250 BCE that proves that such a document exists.

Papyrus Rylands 458

I agree one us 'isn't getting it'.

 

[Yohanan ben Yaaqov]

Handwriting analysis from over 100 years ago is not any manner shape or form of dating. And on top of that, that collection of tiny fragments doesn't prove which document it came from, or even if they all came from the same document. I am asking for scientifically dated evidence. Not more hearsay.

 

[Yohanan ben Yaaqov]

Just a side note, I worked on stuff like that for twenty years of my life, and you are not going to baffle me with things you can google. I want to see tried and tested proof.

 

[Yohanan ben Yaaqov]

This is not a matter of whether or not any such thing as the Septuagint existed. It is a matter of why the Septuagint translated it correctly every other time, but translated it "I am" three times in Exodus 3:14? Why is that? If it is not flat out lying, what is it? Answer this.

 

[pearl]

This is not a matter of whether or not any such thing as the Septuagint existed. It is a matter of why the Septuagint translated it correctly every other time, but translated it "I am" three times in Exodus 3:14? Why is that? If it is not flat out lying, what is it? Answer this.

You do realize the Septuagint is a Jewish translation. There were as of yet no Christians. Why would be deceitful?