egyptianmuslim
New member
Knowledge of God isnt knowing His name , but to know and to feel how He is more Great.
Stoning of the Devil
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
Knowledge of God isnt knowing His name , but to know and to feel how He is more Great.
egyptianmuslim
New member
I 'm not care of origin of the word Allah but it composed of two words 1st Al or El it means the , great is not God but the Great is God likewise merciful and the Merciful, 2nd word is Elah it mean worshipful. Now Allah or Ellah means the Worshipful ie God.
egyptianmuslim
New member
Not true because Both told peoples to worship The One.
CherubRam
New member
I think we have a communication problem. Have a nice day, bye.
lukecash12
New member
1. You are quibbling over a vowel. A vowel! You do realize that there weren't any prevailing vowel symbols until the Tiberian Masoretic system was formed in the 5th to 6th centuries, right?
"Very few manuscripts are said to have survived the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Soon after that disaster, therefore, the Jewish religious leaders set about defining the canon and finally standardizing the text. This last process went on for many centuries and resulted in the production of an eclectic text based on arbitrary rather than scientific principles. This was the Massoretic (so called from the Hebrew massorah, 'tradition') or traditional text found in all Hebrew Bibles.
This text was written in a purely consonantal alphabet, although the scribes at Qumran had already attempted to indicate the vowels by using certain letters for them (for example w for o and u, and y for e and i). This system, however, was soon found inadequate when, except in very restricted circles, the use of the old Hebrew language was dying out. Accordingly, in order to preserve the correct pronunciation in school and synagogue, the Massoretes inserted signs above or below or within the consonantal symbols to indicate this. Several systems are known, but that devised by the Rabbis of Tiberias (hence known as 'Tiberian') in the fifth to sixth centuries A.D. eventually prevailed. What they preserved, however, was not so much the original pronunciation as that current amongst themselves; further, however helpful these vowel-signs may have been, they are demonstrably not always correct. The present translators have therefore held themselves free to disregard the vowels and to re-vocalize the consonantal text wherever that seems desirable."
2. The idea that Aramaic was used before Hebrew, is incredibly ignorant.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/driver1.html
"The whole Old Testament is written in classical Hebrew, except some brief portions which are in the Aramaic language (Ezra 4.8–6.18 and 7.12–26, Jeremiah 10.11, Daniel 2.4–7.28), a sister language which became the lingua franca of the Semitic world."
Can you tell me the names of these alphabet symbols from right to left? What is a dalet? What is a dagesh lene? Can you tell me about the final forms of any of these letters when used at the end of a sentence?
Right... because clearly you're sitting with a concordance, two lexicons, and the Biblia Hebraica on the bookshelf next to your head, like myself?
If not, let's visit the Hebrew text here: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
Exodus 3:14
14 And God said unto Moses: 'I AM THAT I AM'; and He said: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.'
יד וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה; וַיֹּאמֶר, כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶהְיֶה, שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם.
Now let's visit one of the simpler concordances, this time Strong's Concordance, and read the note on the word in question:
H1961 hayah haw-yaw
a primitive root (compare H1933)
to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)
KJV: beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.
Hmmm... now that we're beginning to see straight through your silliness, let's try applying your definition of the word, "the living", to all of the different renderings given in the concordance. Beacon=living? Quit-one-self=living? Accomplished=living?
You see, when we come up with our own uneducated definitions, every other usage of the same word for a different meaning elsewhere comes toppling down. It's a good thing you weren't there doing the translating, huh? We'd be really mixed up today if that were the case.
And now, for our final bit of real education, in the genuine disciplined knowledge of the Scriptures, which is the nourishment of our souls:
In your own reference, and outside of Wikipedia if we've the carefulness when making authoritative statements about Scripture to learn from critical sources, we can see that in 1169 King Henry II assumed the "divine right of kings" during the Investiture Controversy. When pressed by his barons on the controversy, King Henry II responded using "we" as a personal pronoun as if to say that God was in his presence, and complicit in his judgments.
So how is it that we get a European concept propagated by monarchs, into the minds of ancient Hebrew people well before there was even such a thing as a king, coming later in 1st Samuel; with no royal "we" language used by a Hebrew king anywhere in the Tanakh/OT? The concept gets inserted with willful ignorance, that's how.
Denying the plurality of Elohim is denying significant theological material in the Tanakh. It is important in proving there was already the concept of God having plurality, of God not being "individual" in the same sense that we understand it, before Christ came in the NT. It compliments Christ's own message. What's more, it compliments the Davidic Psalms wherein more than one different Yahweh is spoken of: "The Lord said to my Lord"
Mark 12:35-37
35 And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared,
“‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet.”’
37 David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly.
Modalists have been trying to use the idea of a royal "we" as part of their arguments discrediting the Trinity, for some time now. A great example of a group that does this would be the UPC denomination.
Last edited:
egyptianmuslim
New member
Bye.
Wrong. Read up on these languages- you have what to learn.
CherubRam
New member
It is fine with me if you want to believe that Hebrew came before Aramaic.
lukecash12
New member
Oh, he doesn't just believe it. He's in agreement with a fact known by anyone who has ever actually studied textual criticism of the OT.
Still can't read any of the symbols, eh? What are the first five letters of the Hebrew alphabet? Can you tell the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic?
ב
Which of these two is Aramaic? Which one is Hebrew? Can you even name either letter?
Or better yet: can you cite a real source, aside from your own genius I guess, that corroborates your claim? I've already provided a reputable source, but for good measure let's take another look at Sir Godfrey Driver's introduction to the OT of the New English Bible:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/driver1.html
"Truth is made known by reason of the facts", huh?
CherubRam
New member
Oh, he doesn't just believe it. He's in agreement with a fact known by anyone who has ever actually studied textual criticism of the OT.
Still can't read any of the symbols, eh? What are the first five letters of the Hebrew alphabet? Can you tell the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic?
ב
Which of these two is Aramaic? Which one is Hebrew? Can you even name either letter?
Or better yet: can you cite a real source, aside from your own genius I guess, that corroborates your claim? I've already provided a reputable source, but for good measure let's take another look at Sir Godfrey Driver's introduction to the OT of the New English Bible:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/driver1.html
"Truth is made known by reason of the facts", huh?
1700 BC. The patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the first recorded Hebrews, who lived in Canaan.
1600 BC: West Semitic (Canaanite) 1200 BC. Moses and Israelites leave Egypt.
950 BC. Mesha Stele:
Also called the Moabite stone, is inscribed using the middle Semitic script by Arabs.
From Biblical Archaeology Society
Earliest Aramaic Inscription Uncovered in Syria.
Statue of newly discovered king bears 10th century B.C. bilingual inscription.
Aramaic and Hebrew co-existed within Israel as a spoken and written language.
CherubRam
New member
Correct. There seems to be a lot of misleading info on the subject. At best some people will agree the two languages developed at the same time. The truth is, the Canaanites and Arabs were already living in the area when Moses left Egypt.