- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi PD
Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,13:15) Strong is following the theory, not the fact.
So now you know more than Strong?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,05:34) Hi PD Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,13:15) Strong is following the theory, not the fact.
So now you know more than Strong? WJ
THE lEXICOGRAPHERS ARE DRIVEN BY DOCTRINES AND CREEDS JUST LIKE THE TRANSLATORS ARE.I follow the scriptures, not commentaries about the scriptures.
Give it a try. You might grow to like it.
Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,19:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,05:34) Hi PD Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,13:15) Strong is following the theory, not the fact.
So now you know more than Strong? WJ
THE lEXICOGRAPHERS ARE DRIVEN BY DOCTRINES AND CREEDS JUST LIKE THE TRANSLATORS ARE.
I follow the scriptures, not commentaries about the scriptures.
Give it a try. You might grow to like it.
Hi PDAnd you are not driven by doctrines and creeds like the “Unitarian creed”?
Concordances and Interlinears are not commentaries!
The Hebrew and Greek experts give us the translations that you use!
So why don't you write your own Bible PD?
Why try and change the translations that we have?
You seriously think that you are above the 100s of translators and lEXICOGRAPHERS of the current translations we have?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,20:27) Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,19:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,05:34) Hi PD Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,13:15) Strong is following the theory, not the fact.
So now you know more than Strong? WJ
THE lEXICOGRAPHERS ARE DRIVEN BY DOCTRINES AND CREEDS JUST LIKE THE TRANSLATORS ARE.
I follow the scriptures, not commentaries about the scriptures.
Give it a try. You might grow to like it.
Hi PDAnd you are not driven by doctrines and creeds like the “Unitarian creed”?
Concordances and Interlinears are not commentaries!
The Hebrew and Greek experts give us the translations that you use!
So why don't you write your own Bible PD?
Why try and change the translations that we have?
You seriously think that you are above the 100s of translators and lEXICOGRAPHERS of the current translations we have?
WJ
No. I think the scriptures are. It is the scriptures that tell a different story than the translators, commentaries, dictionaries and Lexicons tell.One example;
Dictionaries now express “Baptism” as “dipping, pouring, or immersion.”Scripture tells a different story.
In Lev 14:15-16 is given instruction to the priest about immersion, pouring, and sprinkling, showing that God already knew about all three words, and chose the one HE wanted us to understand, “authorities” to the contrary.
Lev 14:15 And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour [epixeei] it into the palm of his own left hand:
16 And the priest shall dip [bapsei (baptw)] his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle [ranei] of the oil with his finger seven times before the LORD:So you have baptizing, AND pouring, AND sprinkling, all in the same verses, so there really should be no controversy about “modes of Baptism,” right?
Wrong. As long as we have men with egos, and authority granted by men afraid to search the truth for themselves, we will continue to have thousands of denominations based on “expert opinions” and “Scholarship.”
As far as me thinking I know more than Strong….
The inspired Holy Spirit does. And I claim him as I read scripture and consider what it is he is saying, in relation to what else he has already said.
When God used plural nouns in the Hebrew Old testament, do you relaly think he did not know some might not comprehend his truth that was expressed with plural nouns?
So what did he do?
He published anotehr account that removes all doubt, called Septuagint; an account of many of the same events, only in Greek, having a different base of grammar and syntax.
And when you read the same circumstances in a different language, you really CANNOT continue to understand one in contradiction to the other. The must compliment understanding, not contradict it.
When God says Elohim (plural noun) created (singular verb)the world, in one language, then tells you in another language theos (singular noun) created the world, you either consider the second account to be a contradiction or a clarification of the first account. And God declares that he is NOT the authorr of confusion, so if there is a difference provided in the terminology, it MUST be understood in the way it clarifies, not in the way it contradicts.
And in THAT, I know more than Strong, or Any of the commentators, or any of the Lexicographers, who are doctrine driven.
And no, I am not doctrine driven, because I am still learning, and still able to convict the gainsayer.
Try to Prove my explanation wrong, and you will see that what I am saying is true.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,05:34) Hi PD Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,13:15) Strong is following the theory, not the fact.
So now you know more than Strong? WJ
WJ,
Paladin not only contradicts James Strong. He contradicts Moses himself. It was Moses who used “echad” in the unified sense of the term. He said that the TWO shall be ONE flesh.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 06 2009,01:04) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,05:34) Hi PD Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,13:15) Strong is following the theory, not the fact.
So now you know more than Strong? WJ
WJ,
Paladin not only contradicts James Strong. He contradicts Moses himself. It was Moses who used “echad” in the unified sense of the term. He said that the TWO shall be ONE flesh.thinker
Sorry thinker, I don't see where Moses says anything about
“in the unified sense of the term.” I think that is your own commentary, which seems to prove my point about commentaries.I already covered this issue in a previous post.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,04:59) 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
Did you know that the Hebrew word for “triune” is never applied to God, in scripture or out?What's your point?
Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2009,10:02) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,04:59) 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
Did you know that the Hebrew word for “triune” is never applied to God, in scripture or out?What's your point?
Hi PDDo you see the word “Triune” in my post?
Did you know that Yachid is the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness and is never once used in reference to YHWH?
So what is your point?
WJ
Quote (Paladin @ July 06 2009,02:02) Quote
Hi PDYada, yada, yada.
I think his name is “YOda!”
Quote But as we have shown you the word “echad” is not always translated as a numeric oneness. “Showed?” Or “CLAIMED?” I musta missed something. Show me from scripture, not from commentaries.
To Paladin's remark; “Did you know that the Hebrew word for “triune” is never applied to God, in scripture or out?
What's your point? “
WJ responded “Hi PD
Do you see the word “Triune” in my post?
Did you know that Yachid is the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness and is never once used in reference to YHWH?
So what is your point?
Hey, YOU introduced that type of silly argument to the thread not me.
WJ
Quote
“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”.It doesn't matter to me what other words are not used. It was YOUR argument, I just applied it to show how silly it looks coming back at you.
Paladin said to WJ:
Quote “Showed?” Or “CLAIMED?” I musta missed something. Show me from scripture, not from commentaries. Paladin,
You were given examples from the Scriptures. Lexographers and commentaries were used as secondary support. So why won't you answer the examples? Moses said, “The TWO shall become ONE flesh.” And Elohim said, “They are ONE people.” Is it asking too much for you to answer these?thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 07 2009,08:17) Paladin said to WJ: Quote “Showed?” Or “CLAIMED?” I musta missed something. Show me from scripture, not from commentaries. Paladin,
You were given examples from the Scriptures. Lexographers and commentaries were used as secondary support. So why won't you answer the examples? Moses said, “The TWO shall become ONE flesh.” And Elohim said, “They are ONE people.” Is it asking too much for you to answer these?thinker
Because I do not see a question in Moses' statements “Two shall be one flesh” and “they are one people.”Do YOU see a question in there?
Moses speaks of one flesh and one people. Where's the question?
Do you disagree with the “one flesh?” Why?
Do you disgree with the “one people?” Why?
How would YOU have said it? In your own words? Or in the words God supplied?
Paladin said:
Quote Because I do not see a question in Moses' statements “Two shall be one flesh” and “they are one people.” Do YOU see a question in there?
Moses speaks of one flesh and one people. Where's the question?
Do you disagree with the “one flesh?” Why?
Do you disgree with the “one people?” Why?
How would YOU have said it? In your own words? Or in the words God supplied?
In other words the Hebrew “echad” may refer to a unified one and you cannot refute it.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 07 2009,11:22) Paladin said: Quote Because I do not see a question in Moses' statements “Two shall be one flesh” and “they are one people.” Do YOU see a question in there?
Moses speaks of one flesh and one people. Where's the question?
Do you disagree with the “one flesh?” Why?
Do you disgree with the “one people?” Why?
How would YOU have said it? In your own words? Or in the words God supplied?
In other words the Hebrew “echad” may refer to a unified one and you cannot refute it.
thinker
I can find a reference to “one” many places in scripture. I have yet to find a reference to “unified one.” It is a trinitarian definition, not recognized by God, inspiration, or inspired authors; nor by this humble servant.If the only way you can explain a triune deity, is to redefine the words of scripture, you lose at the beginning. Inspired Moses says “God is one.” Trinitarian WJ and thinker say “not so fast Moses, you have to admit that should be understood as “unified one.” Moses says “Hey Lord, your voice has changed.”
There are many things not found in scripture I do not refute, but that does not mean I “cannot” refute them. I just do not wish to encourage the imaginations of theological zealots.
If God intended for us to take all the Hebrew and Chaldee words, and understand them in all their translated possibilities of meaning, the world would not contain the book that would become in order to accomodate the pure volume of work.
Instead of searching for mysteries, and finding new possibilities in theory and theology, I think one should look for the simplest explanation, one that is in agreement throughout all of Holy Writ.
Instead, you look for things “the finite mind of man cannot understand” – which leads me to ask, how did the first trinitarian understand it? Is his mind infinite, when other men's minds are not?
Paladin said:
Quote I have yet to find a reference to “unified one.” Then your head is buried in the sand. Let the record show that you could not (or did not as you say) refute the two examples you were given.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 08 2009,03:22) Paladin said: Quote I have yet to find a reference to “unified one.” Then your head is buried in the sand. Let the record show that you could not (or did not as you say) refute the two examples you were given.
thinker
Not interested.Not interested in refuting tooth fairy either.
Or easter bunny.
Or Santa Claus.
Or hinduism.
Quote (Paladin @ July 08 2009,05:05) Quote (thethinker @ July 08 2009,03:22) Paladin said: Quote I have yet to find a reference to “unified one.” Then your head is buried in the sand. Let the record show that you could not (or did not as you say) refute the two examples you were given.
thinker
Not interested.Not interested in refuting tooth fairy either.
Or easter bunny.
Or Santa Claus.
Or hinduism.
I marvel that you think that you are discoursing with people who were born yesterday. You have revealed your MO here. If you could reply to the examples we have given you you certainly would.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 08 2009,09:03) Quote (Paladin @ July 08 2009,05:05) Quote (thethinker @ July 08 2009,03:22) Paladin said: Quote I have yet to find a reference to “unified one.” Then your head is buried in the sand. Let the record show that you could not (or did not as you say) refute the two examples you were given.
thinker
Not interested.Not interested in refuting tooth fairy either.
Or easter bunny.
Or Santa Claus.
Or hinduism.
I marvel that you think that you are discoursing with people who were born yesterday. You have revealed your MO here. If you could reply to the examples we have given you you certainly would.thinker
Live in your dream if that is what you wish. YOU have not responded to everything I posted.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
