- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (TrinitarianCalvinist27 @ July 03 2009,08:16) WorshippingJesus said: Quote Hi PD Wrong again!
“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
Yachid vs. Echad The most important verse Jews memorized in the Bible was Deut 6:4: “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!” There are a few words in Hebrew that the Holy Spirit could have used a word the has one exclusive meaning: the numeric, solitary oneness of God (“yachid” or “bad”).
Instead the Holy Spirit chose to use the Hebrew word, “echad” which is used most often as a unified one, and sometimes as numeric oneness. For example, when God said in Genesis 2:24 “the two shall become one [echad] flesh” it is the same word for “one” that was used in Deut 6:4.
This is most troubling for Anti-Trinitarians since the word yachid, the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, is never used in reference to God. Source
Denial of plural unity in scriptures is a denial of reality!
WJ
WJ,
AMEN!
TC27
Why is it that trinitarians spend so much of their time telling us what God should have said, like when they provide the words God left out; omo-ousian, theos 'o huios, and etc., then when God uses simple language, they pretend he should have said something else to make it say exactly what it does say.“Echad” is a word meaning singularly one. Claim is constantly made that it is a “plural one.” I say prove it. THAT has not been done.
Echad is used 538 times, and without exception, references
“one,” with uses rangeing from cardinal, Ordinal, selection (either,or) singular/plural differentian, and ALWAYS limits the thing under consideration, to being understood as singular in nature.Echad is often used in conjunction with plural nouns. This does not make “echad” a plural form. “Echad” remains singular in form, in meaning, and in application.
I may reference one pair of socks, one bunch of bananas, one herd of cows, one flock of sheep, one flesh, one cluster of grapes, one gaggle of geese, and it will always reference the number one. There are not two pairs, two herds, two fleshes, two clusters, two gaggles, two flocks, and never will be understood that way.
So when scripture tells us there is echad Elohiym, it references one God, not two. And when this one God references himself with the first-person-singular “I,” it most certainly tells us he is not a “they” or yet an “us” or “we.” The use of “they,” “we,” or “us” necessitates a first-person-plural noun or adjective at the very least, if God is a plurality of person.
The controversy heats up when Adams rib, “echad” in number, becomes “echad” flesh, which is comprised of TWO persons. But the controversy could easily be deflated by understanding the “one flesh” to be speaking of a particular circumstance; i.e. the UNION of the two into a single unit of marriage; one man and one woman make one union, to the exclusion of all others.
And much like Abraham's ONLY son Isaac (the younger of two) so also the “oneness” of flesh of the married couple DOES NOT relate to the number of persons, but the number of relationships. And that is precisely where it gets lost. Some fail to differentiate between “persons” and
“relationships.”Enter yet another source of “discovery;” When spies returned from the land of Canaan, [Num 13] carrying “echad” cluster, supported upon a pole, carried between two men, because of the enormity of the cluster; some have argued that this is representative of a “multiple personality of God.” “One cluster, many grapes” is the thinking.
Of course, it would have to be limited to one cluster of
“three” grapes to hold any validity. But that is not the case. and the argument is faulted anyway. For God has already told us he is “one” in number. so this “figurative misunderstanding” won't change that.Echad is proof that God is singular, and “one,” but for further
“proof” I would suggest going into the Greek of the Septuagint. “ego hiemi” – “I” – (first-person-singular) Am. Any “multiplicity” in the numerical value applied to God, is an interpolation from the New Testament, and extrapolated into doctrine, from a different age than that in which it was written.Look to John 16:32 for the proper understanding of the numerical singularity of Jehovah, God, the Father.
Jesus, in discoursing with his disciples, makes a very profound observation; “Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone; and yet, I am 'ouk monos (not alone), because the Father is with me.
For Jesus to make such a remarkable statement, two things become immediately requisite;
One. Jesus is NOT the Father, nay, CANNOT BE the Father; for if you are “WITH” someone, you are not the someone “with” whom you “are.”
Two. When Jesus and his Father are together, in WHATEVER CAPACITY, they are 'ouk monos, or 'ouk monon; two similar words with similar meaning, except one means only and the other means alone; one an adverb, the other an adjective.
When God says he ALONE created the world, if Jesus was with him, he would have had to express it “I 'ouk monos” have created the world; I “not alone” have created the world. Because when he and Jesus, his son, are together, they are “ouk monos,” NOT ALONE.
It certainly makes for an interesting study, don't you think?
Paladin said:
Quote “Echad” is a word meaning singularly one. Claim is constantly made that it is a “plural one.” I say prove it. THAT has not been done. Paladin,
WJ proved it yesterday. Genesis says that the man and his wife shall be ONE flesh. The word is “echad.” You're just not listening.thinker
Hi PD
Quote (Paladin @ July 03 2009,18:35) Why is it that trinitarians spend so much of their time telling us what God should have said, like when they provide the words God left out; omo-ousian, theos 'o huios, and etc., then when God uses simple language, they pretend he should have said something else to make it say exactly what it does say. “Echad” is a word meaning singularly one. Claim is constantly made that it is a “plural one.” I say prove it. THAT has not been done.
I highlighted the part I think you missed.
“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
Yachid vs. Echad The most important verse Jews memorized in the Bible was Deut 6:4: “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!” There are a few words in Hebrew that the Holy Spirit could have used a word the has one exclusive meaning: the numeric, solitary oneness of God (“yachid” or “bad”).
“Instead the Holy Spirit chose to use the Hebrew word, “echad” which is used most often as a unified one, and sometimes as numeric oneness”. For example, when God said in Genesis 2:24 “the two shall become one [echad] flesh” it is the same word for “one” that was used in Deut 6:4.
“This is most troubling for Anti-Trinitarians since the word yachid, the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, IS NEVER USED IN REFERENCE TO GOD”. Source
It is you that has to prove it. You are in denial in my opinion!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2009,17:57) Hi PD Quote (Paladin @ July 03 2009,18:35) Why is it that trinitarians spend so much of their time telling us what God should have said, like when they provide the words God left out; omo-ousian, theos 'o huios, and etc., then when God uses simple language, they pretend he should have said something else to make it say exactly what it does say. “Echad” is a word meaning singularly one. Claim is constantly made that it is a “plural one.” I say prove it. THAT has not been done.
I highlighted the part I think you missed.
“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
Yachid vs. Echad The most important verse Jews memorized in the Bible was Deut 6:4: “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!” There are a few words in Hebrew that the Holy Spirit could have used a word the has one exclusive meaning: the numeric, solitary oneness of God (“yachid” or “bad”).
“Instead the Holy Spirit chose to use the Hebrew word, “echad” which is used most often as a unified one, and sometimes as numeric oneness”. For example, when God said in Genesis 2:24 “the two shall become one [echad] flesh” it is the same word for “one” that was used in Deut 6:4.
“This is most troubling for Anti-Trinitarians since the word yachid, the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, IS NEVER USED IN REFERENCE TO GOD”. Source
It is you that has to prove it. You are in denial in my opinion!
WJ
Unified One as in ONLY ONE , He is ALL ONEThe Quran says it best:
(1) Allah. there is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #255)Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 04 2009,18:28) Hi BD,
Is that the only claim to validity you can offer?
You don't want to see the truth nor can you. Purify your heart.Hi BD,
Funny you should mention that because Jesus taught the Pharisees that it was not possible to cleanse the inside of the cup.
That cleansing is in the blood of the Lamb of God.Just as the Israelites were saved by obedience to the command to put blood around their houses now the wrath of God bypasses those washed in the blood of the Paschal lamb of God.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 04 2009,18:37) Hi BD,
Funny you should mention that because Jesus taught the Pharisees that it was not possible to cleanse the inside of the cup.
That cleansing is in the blood of the Lamb of God.Just as the Israelites were saved by obedience to the command to put blood around their houses now the wrath of God bypasses those washed in the blood of the Paschal lamb of God.
Jesus told them to purify their hearts, get it right.Hi BD,
You must repent and be born again of water and the Spirit.
Your attacks of the inSpired Word of God would be a good thing to stop soon.Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,12:03) Paladin said: Quote “Echad” is a word meaning singularly one. Claim is constantly made that it is a “plural one.” I say prove it. THAT has not been done. Paladin,
WJ proved it yesterday. Genesis says that the man and his wife shall be ONE flesh. The word is “echad.” You're just not listening.thinker
No thinker, you didn't 'PROVE” it, you SAID it, a very different standard.Why do you think that if you make a statement, it satisfries the requirements of “proof?”
Because you fail to comprehend how “one” can be applied to
nouns having plural applications in some circumstances, does not mean that the meaning of “one” changes for all circumstances in which the sometimes plural noun application is used.“Jerusalem” is a plural noun, the name of the “city of God” but no one speaks of it as “the cities of Gods.” Everyone understands that some nouns have a plural form NOT requiring a plural meaning.
The Hebrew language (for those who have a two year limited understanding of Hebrew) has some nouns which are plural, and some which are not, just as some nouns are feminine, and some nouns are masculine, none of which effects the truth of what is stated using those nouns.
For example, when a soldier wears a “coat of mail” in battle, the “Coat” is masculine, but the mail of which it is made is feminine. A helmet of brass is another example; the helmet is masculine, but the brass is feminine. Wings of angels are masculine, the feathers on the wings are feminine. A pair of ears is feminine, while two days is masculine.
Many names are “plural-form” nouns, but that in no way indicates a plurality of ANYTHING. Is is simply the Hebrew way of expressing realities of life.
And when God tells us he is singularly one solitary and alone God, and some two-year Hebrew student starts spouting about how the plural noun “PROVES” God is a “PLURAL UNITY, it only emphasizes the reasonableness of denying education to a large segment of a society who can't handle it.
“Heaven” is a plural noun, but no one denies God is in heaven (singular).
“Water” is a Hebrew plural noun.
Genesis 18:4 Let a “little water,” I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:The expression “little water,” to actually express what is in the Hebrew, would be translated “few waters.” But no one actually understands that you wash your feet in “few waters.”
Yet, these same people insist that “In the beginning Gods created.” It is inconsistant. “Fetched” is a singular verb , but so is “created.” When a plural noun is followed by a singular verb, the understanding requires a singular outcome.
It is just such inconsistant applications of ignorance that results in doctrines and creeds of men, who despite their “much learning” are never able to come to a knowledge of truth.
It is similar to the claim of having “twenty years of experience” when the reality is, one year of experience, twenty times. If “two years of College Hebrew courses” results in a trinity, that school should be closed down.
And if two years of college Greek results in understanding Jesus is God, co-equal with the father, and coeternal, that school should be shut down.
There is no excuse for denying the meaning of gennao, just to sustain a doctrine. Jesus was gennao of the spirit [Mat 1:20], which eans Jesus had a beginning, but try convincing a trinitarian with two years of college Greek.
Gennao MEANS to cause to be, to beget, to bear, give birth. Yet it is NEVER applied to mean that in the doctrines of men, who continually express belief in an “eternal son of God” as though it means he always existed in eternity with God.
The reality is, God used the language to express a message that has become totally lost in doctrines and creeds.
And the doctrines and creeds are today expressed as “proof” THAT ERROR IS TRUTH.
Paladin said:
Quote Because you fail to comprehend how “one” can be applied to
nouns having plural applications in some circumstances, does not mean that the meaning of “one” changes for all circumstances in which the sometimes plural noun application is used.The text says that the TWO shall become ONE flesh. It speaks about TWO distinct persons, one man and one woman constituting ONE flesh. Therefore, the Hebrew “echad” may refer to a unified one. You can't see the forest through the trees.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,09:36) Paladin said: Quote Because you fail to comprehend how “one” can be applied to
nouns having plural applications in some circumstances, does not mean that the meaning of “one” changes for all circumstances in which the sometimes plural noun application is used.The text says that the TWO shall become ONE flesh. It speaks about TWO distinct persons, one man and one woman constituting ONE flesh. Therefore, the Hebrew “echad” may refer to a unified one. You can't see the forest through the trees.
thinker
Hi JackYou are correct! The dinial of the evidence is to much for them so they resort to all kinds of opplogetics and distractions like “coat of mail”, “helmet of brass” etc which has nothing to do with the text being discussed!
Blessings WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,02:45) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,09:36) Paladin said: Quote Because you fail to comprehend how “one” can be applied to
nouns having plural applications in some circumstances, does not mean that the meaning of “one” changes for all circumstances in which the sometimes plural noun application is used.The text says that the TWO shall become ONE flesh. It speaks about TWO distinct persons, one man and one woman constituting ONE flesh. Therefore, the Hebrew “echad” may refer to a unified one. You can't see the forest through the trees.
thinker
Hi JackYou are correct! The dinial of the evidence is to much for them so they resort to all kinds of opplogetics and distractions like “coat of mail”, “helmet of brass” etc which has nothing to do with the text being discussed!
Blessings WJ
Actually it has EVERYTHING to do with the issue in contention.You two “scholars” are trying to treat Hebrew and Greek nouns like their English translations.
Like for example, the Hebrew word for “face” is ALWAYS in the plural form [Paw-neem]; Ez 1:6,10 has both English forms in the translation, but only one Hebrew form, the plural.
It is identical to the Hebrew word Elohim; it is ALWAYS plural in form, but is used for the singular form in the translation, and in the plural form when the Hebrew supplies the plural verb.
Yet, you both ignore that, holler “PROVE IT” as though you are going to take my word for ANYTHING. I don't have to prove truth to anybody. My only task is to publish it, and YOU will have to deal with the consequences of how you treat it.
Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,10:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,02:45) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,09:36) Paladin said: Quote Because you fail to comprehend how “one” can be applied to
nouns having plural applications in some circumstances, does not mean that the meaning of “one” changes for all circumstances in which the sometimes plural noun application is used.The text says that the TWO shall become ONE flesh. It speaks about TWO distinct persons, one man and one woman constituting ONE flesh. Therefore, the Hebrew “echad” may refer to a unified one. You can't see the forest through the trees.
thinker
Hi JackYou are correct! The dinial of the evidence is to much for them so they resort to all kinds of opplogetics and distractions like “coat of mail”, “helmet of brass” etc which has nothing to do with the text being discussed!
Blessings WJ
Actually it has EVERYTHING to do with the issue in contention.You two “scholars” are trying to treat Hebrew and Greek nouns like their English translations.
Like for example, the Hebrew word for “face” is ALWAYS in the plural form [Paw-neem]; Ez 1:6,10 has both English forms in the translation, but only one Hebrew form, the plural.
It is identical to the Hebrew word Elohim; it is ALWAYS plural in form, but is used for the singular form in the translation, and in the plural form when the Hebrew supplies the plural verb.
Yet, you both ignore that, holler “PROVE IT” as though you are going to take my word for ANYTHING. I don't have to prove truth to anybody. My only task is to publish it, and YOU will have to deal with the consequences of how you treat it.
Hi PDYou are giving examples that have nothing to do with the text!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,02:45) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,09:36) Paladin said: Quote Because you fail to comprehend how “one” can be applied to
nouns having plural applications in some circumstances, does not mean that the meaning of “one” changes for all circumstances in which the sometimes plural noun application is used.The text says that the TWO shall become ONE flesh. It speaks about TWO distinct persons, one man and one woman constituting ONE flesh. Therefore, the Hebrew “echad” may refer to a unified one. You can't see the forest through the trees.
thinker
Hi JackYou are correct! The dinial of the evidence is to much for them so they resort to all kinds of opplogetics and distractions like “coat of mail”, “helmet of brass” etc which has nothing to do with the text being discussed!
Blessings WJ
WJ,
Yes you are correct. We are talking about the Hebrew word “echad” and not about plural Hebrew nouns.thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,02:55) Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,10:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,02:45) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,09:36) Paladin said: Quote Because you fail to comprehend how “one” can be applied to
nouns having plural applications in some circumstances, does not mean that the meaning of “one” changes for all circumstances in which the sometimes plural noun application is used.The text says that the TWO shall become ONE flesh. It speaks about TWO distinct persons, one man and one woman constituting ONE flesh. Therefore, the Hebrew “echad” may refer to a unified one. You can't see the forest through the trees.
thinker
Hi JackYou are correct! The dinial of the evidence is to much for them so they resort to all kinds of opplogetics and distractions like “coat of mail”, “helmet of brass” etc which has nothing to do with the text being discussed!
Blessings WJ
Actually it has EVERYTHING to do with the issue in contention.You two “scholars” are trying to treat Hebrew and Greek nouns like their English translations.
Like for example, the Hebrew word for “face” is ALWAYS in the plural form [Paw-neem]; Ez 1:6,10 has both English forms in the translation, but only one Hebrew form, the plural.
It is identical to the Hebrew word Elohim; it is ALWAYS plural in form, but is used for the singular form in the translation, and in the plural form when the Hebrew supplies the plural verb.
Yet, you both ignore that, holler “PROVE IT” as though you are going to take my word for ANYTHING. I don't have to prove truth to anybody. My only task is to publish it, and YOU will have to deal with the consequences of how you treat it.
Hi PDYou are giving examples that have nothing to do with the text!
WJ
If I give one example dealing with the text, you will simply jump to another text and say “Prove it for this one.” If I prove it for that one, you will jump again, and again, and again.If I give you all proof for every text, you will complain my posts are too long. If I prove my position, you will complain “too wordy.” If I only prove one text, you will cry “That doesn't prove anything except one example.”
So, I give you equivalent words that are identical in treatment, so you cannot continue to squirm out of the position.
It really doesn't matter what I post, you will never accept it, so why are you even discussing it? It doesn't matter to you what is posted, you just want the perception of having actually considered something I have to say.
You still haven't dealt with the OP in any of my threads, but you behave as though you had actually given serious consideration, when the reality is you have ignored the points offered, or else you simply try to replace it with your doctrine, as though your doctrine is a reeasonable explanation of why my position is not truth.
Paladin said:
Quote If I give one example dealing with the text, you will simply jump to another text and say “Prove it for this one.” If I prove it for that one, you will jump again, and again, and again. If I give you all proof for every text, you will complain my posts are too long. If I prove my position, you will complain “too wordy.” If I only prove one text, you will cry “That doesn't prove anything except one example.”
So, I give you equivalent words that are identical in treatment, so you cannot continue to squirm out of the position.
It really doesn't matter what I post, you will never accept it, so why are you even discussing it? It doesn't matter to you what is posted, you just want the perception of having actually considered something I have to say.
You still haven't dealt with the OP in any of my threads, but you behave as though you had actually given serious consideration, when the reality is you have ignored the points offered, or else you simply try to replace it with your doctrine, as though your doctrine is a reeasonable explanation of why my position is not truth.
Paladin,
Can you keep it to the point? We are discussing the Hebrew word “echad” at this time. Do you affirm or deny that “ONE flesh” in reference to the man and the woman is a unified one?Strong's Concordance # 259 says that “echad” means “united” and is from the root “achad” (# 258) which means “to unify.” What about this?
Please note that I keep my reference to the biblical languages simple for the sake of others. So in reply please do the same. BTW, I intentionally ignore your smoke screens because I am interested in cutting to the chase. The shorter my posts the more comprehensible they are for others. You asked why I do this. It is for the sake of others that I do this.
thinker
Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,12:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,02:55) Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,10:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,02:45) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,09:36) Paladin said: Quote Because you fail to comprehend how “one” can be applied to
nouns having plural applications in some circumstances, does not mean that the meaning of “one” changes for all circumstances in which the sometimes plural noun application is used.The text says that the TWO shall become ONE flesh. It speaks about TWO distinct persons, one man and one woman constituting ONE flesh. Therefore, the Hebrew “echad” may refer to a unified one. You can't see the forest through the trees.
thinker
Hi JackYou are correct! The dinial of the evidence is to much for them so they resort to all kinds of opplogetics and distractions like “coat of mail”, “helmet of brass” etc which has nothing to do with the text being discussed!
Blessings WJ
Actually it has EVERYTHING to do with the issue in contention.You two “scholars” are trying to treat Hebrew and Greek nouns like their English translations.
Like for example, the Hebrew word for “face” is ALWAYS in the plural form [Paw-neem]; Ez 1:6,10 has both English forms in the translation, but only one Hebrew form, the plural.
It is identical to the Hebrew word Elohim; it is ALWAYS plural in form, but is used for the singular form in the translation, and in the plural form when the Hebrew supplies the plural verb.
Yet, you both ignore that, holler “PROVE IT” as though you are going to take my word for ANYTHING. I don't have to prove truth to anybody. My only task is to publish it, and YOU will have to deal with the consequences of how you treat it.
Hi PDYou are giving examples that have nothing to do with the text!
WJ
If I give one example dealing with the text, you will simply jump to another text and say “Prove it for this one.” If I prove it for that one, you will jump again, and again, and again.If I give you all proof for every text, you will complain my posts are too long. If I prove my position, you will complain “too wordy.” If I only prove one text, you will cry “That doesn't prove anything except one example.”
So, I give you equivalent words that are identical in treatment, so you cannot continue to squirm out of the position.
It really doesn't matter what I post, you will never accept it, so why are you even discussing it? It doesn't matter to you what is posted, you just want the perception of having actually considered something I have to say.
You still haven't dealt with the OP in any of my threads, but you behave as though you had actually given serious consideration, when the reality is you have ignored the points offered, or else you simply try to replace it with your doctrine, as though your doctrine is a reeasonable explanation of why my position is not truth.
Hi PDYada, yada, yada.
You are trying to make the case that “echad” must unambiguously show the numeric, solitary oneness of God!
But as we have shown you the word “echad” is not always translated as a numeric oneness.
The Holy Spirit did not use the words “yachid” or “bad”. Yachid is the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness and is never once used in reference to YHWH.
Here is the evidence again which you have not addressed.
“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
Yachid vs. Echad The most important verse Jews memorized in the Bible was Deut 6:4: “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!” There are a few words in Hebrew that the Holy Spirit could have used a word the has one exclusive meaning: the numeric, solitary oneness of God (“yachid” or “bad”).
“Instead the Holy Spirit chose to use the Hebrew word, “echad” which is used most often as a unified one, and sometimes as numeric oneness”. For example, when God said in Genesis 2:24 “the two shall become one [echad] flesh” it is the same word for “one” that was used in Deut 6:4.
“This is most troubling for Anti-Trinitarians since the word yachid, the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, IS NEVER USED IN REFERENCE TO GOD”. Source
Your argument is ambiguous and a straw mans attempt to change the meaning of the text!
WJ
Quote (thethinker @ July 05 2009,04:23) Paladin said: Quote If I give one example dealing with the text, you will simply jump to another text and say “Prove it for this one.” If I prove it for that one, you will jump again, and again, and again. If I give you all proof for every text, you will complain my posts are too long. If I prove my position, you will complain “too wordy.” If I only prove one text, you will cry “That doesn't prove anything except one example.”
So, I give you equivalent words that are identical in treatment, so you cannot continue to squirm out of the position.
It really doesn't matter what I post, you will never accept it, so why are you even discussing it? It doesn't matter to you what is posted, you just want the perception of having actually considered something I have to say.
You still haven't dealt with the OP in any of my threads, but you behave as though you had actually given serious consideration, when the reality is you have ignored the points offered, or else you simply try to replace it with your doctrine, as though your doctrine is a reeasonable explanation of why my position is not truth.
Paladin,
Can you keep it to the point? We are discussing the Hebrew word “echad” at this time. Do you affirm or deny that “ONE flesh” in reference to the man and the woman is a unified one?Strong's Concordance # 259 says that “echad” means “united” and is from the root “achad” (# 258) which means “to unify.” What about this?
Please note that I keep my reference to the biblical languages simple for the sake of others. So in reply please do the same. BTW, I intentionally ignore your smoke screens because I am interested in cutting to the chase. The shorter my posts the more comprehensible they are for others. You asked why I do this. It is for the sake of others that I do this.
thinker
(thinker)Quote Paladin,
Can you keep it to the point? We are discussing the Hebrew word “echad” at this time. Do you affirm or deny that “ONE flesh” in reference to the man and the woman is a unified one?(P) Deny! Scripture says the man and the woman is “one flesh” not “a unified one.”
I will stick with scripture.
Do you deny that the one flesh is ONE flesh? One to the exclusion of all others?
(thinker)
Quote
Strong's Concordance # 259 says that “echad” means “united” and is from the root “achad” (# 258) which means “to unify.” What about this?Strong is following the theory, not the fact.
The fact is, echad is found in 1695 verses; 1967 times it is translated one, or some form meaning the same thing.
'echad {ekh-awd'}
Meaning: 1) one (number) 1a) one (number) 1b) each, every 1c) a certain 1d) an (indefinite article) 1e) only, once, once for allIf you do a word search on “united” you get only one entry,
Gen 49:6 1 time – yachad {yaw-khad'}
Meaning: 1) to join, unite, be joined, be united 1a) (Qal) to be united 1b) (Piel) to uniteSo if echad means “unite” how come the translators never saw it in scripture? Yaw-khad is not ekh-awd.
Should be easy to spot.
(thinker)
Quote The shorter my posts the more comprehensible they are for others. You asked why I do this. It is for the sake of others that I do this. I don't remember caring enough about it to ask any such nonsense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
