Proof Jesus is God.

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Benson
Banned
Banned
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:30 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Proof Jesus is God.

Post #1

Post by Benson »

The question here to consider is this: Is Isaiah 9:6 correct?

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Jesus clearly is God.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #21

Post by tam »

Peace to you!
Difflugia wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:42 pm
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:50 amYou say that with such conviction, buy are you sure this is so?
Considering that you made your assertion with just as much conviction and the evidence I gave is as good as yours, it seems a bit cheeky to ask me for more without adding to your own. But whatever.
I am convinced that is the name of my Father in heaven, because that is the name given to me by my Lord. I recognized it as being true from the moment I heard it. I am sure that is not enough for you (or others), but that is certainly enough for me to have conviction. But the text also supports what I received. I supplied four scriptures (among the many available on this matter) where the name of God is stated directly.

In your post, you supplied implications and possible alternate translations as evidence for your claim (unless I misunderstood your post). I have no problem entertaining a possibility (unless/until I have evidence confirming or denying), but I would not be able to speak with conviction based only on that. That is why I asked about your conviction in what you said.
First, Hebrew lacks an indefinite article. If a noun has a definite article in Hebrew, it means "the whatever" in English. If it doesn't, it either means "a whatever" or someone or something named "Whatever." There are verses where el appears without a definite article, but it's clear from context that a specific individual is intended. Job 5:8-9, for example:
But as for me, I would seek El.
I would commit my cause to Elohim,
who does [singular] great things that can’t be fathomed,
marvelous things without number;
Yes, a specific individual is intended. But a specific individual can be intended by His title and/or by His name.

If I called a king, 'your majesty', well I've referred to a specific person by two titles here ('king' and 'your majesty'), but neither of these are his name. These are titles and descriptions for him. The title (which is also a description) "God of gods" does not mean that the name of the God of gods, is God. No more than King of kings means that the name of the King of kings is King.

God is not the name of God.

From Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan by John Day, p. 16:
Although no one can today maintain that the patriarchal narratives are historical accounts, there are grounds for believing that their depiction of an El religion does at least in part reflect something of pre-monarchical religion, however much it has been overlaid by later accretions. In favour of a pre-monarchic El religion amongst the Hebrews one may first of all note the very name Israel, meaning probably 'El will rule', a name already attested in the late thirteenth century BCE on the stele of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah. It is surely an indication of El's early importance that the very name of the people incorporates the name of the god El. Secondly, as various scholars have noted, prior to the rise of the monarchy theophoric personal names including the name ’ēl are very common, whereas explicitly Yahwistic personal names are very rare (apart from Joshua only five from the Judges period).
I think I responded to this in my post above. If there was something specific, perhaps you could clarify?

tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:50 amSuch as? I ask, because everything listed a couple posts above are titles describing God. God Most High. God Almighty. God of gods. Whereas God and others state His name in the following:
You're begging the question. You're just saying that whenever El appears, it means the generic term "god," even in exactly the same kind of theophoric that you're offering as evidence that Yah is a name.
I don't think that is a correct representation of what I have said.

El means God (or god), but is also used as titles: God Most High, God Almighty, etc.

JAH is specifically stated to be the name of God.

Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: cast up a highway for him that rideth through the deserts; his name is JAH; and exult ye before him. Psalm 68:4

Let them know that you, whose name is JAHVEH-- that you alone are the Most High over all the earth. Psalm 83:18


His name is stated throughout the OT, describing YHWH as God.

Some prophets bear the name of God in their names (such as Jeremiah - Hebrew: Yirmiyahu... https://www.behindthename.com/name/jeremiah ), and some prophets bear the title (such as Joel), but the interesting thing here is that many who bear 'el' in their name also bear the Jah in their name (though in at least some cases that name has been translated out, at least in English). Such as the name Jo'el. It looks in English like it only has 'el' in it, but originally it would also have had the name of God in it. We can know this because it maintains the meaning "Jah is God".



tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:50 amYes, many prophets have in them either the name of God (Jeremiah, Zechariah, Elijah) or the title God (Elisha, Joel), though even those that seem to have only the title God in them may have had the name of God in them as well at one point (but which has been lost in translation/transliteration/scribal error).
Do you have any sort of support for your "scribal error" assertion? I transliterated the names from Hebrew myself and I guarantee you that I didn't leave Yah out of any of them. If you take issue with my translations, then perhaps you could offer some justification beyond your simple assertion for why theophorics with Yah in them work differently than the ones with El.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I posted links with meaning of names (such as Jeremiah and Zechariah and Isaiah and Joel, etc) at the bottom of my last post. There is obviously something lost in how the name is translated/transliterated into English.

We also know that scribes wrote something else in place of the name of God (they inserted the LORD each time YHWH should be written in the scriptures), following the tradition of Israel in not speaking the name of God. (that is kind of a clue as well is it not, the fact that Israel did not have a problem speaking and using the word God/El, but exercises much more fear of misusing the name of God, to the point of not using His name at all).

Some people have been led to believe (in error) that the name of God actually is "the LORD". Because "YHWH"has been overwritten with "the LORD" in most translations, and "the LORD" is how it gets read from the podium.

*
quick question: what names were you referring to that you said you transliterated from Hebrew? I did not see you transliterate any names from Hebrew in your post.
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:50 amJah'eshua also has the name of His Father in His own name, though you wouldn't know that from "Jesus" (which is not His name).
Yes, because of the transliteration from Hebrew to Greek. I'm not picking the names out of Greek, but Hebrew. David named one of his sons Elishua ("El is my salvation") (2 Sam 5:15), which is in exactly the same formula as Jesus' Hebrew name ("Yah is salvation"). Incidentally, the following verse includes three other sons named with El theophorics, as well.
If you can see that transliteration can remove the name of God (JAH) from a name, you can see my point.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in comparing "El is my salvation" with the meaning of the name of Christ (Jah'eshua = JAH saves/salvation of JAH)?




Peace again to you.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #22

Post by Difflugia »

tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:21 pmI am convinced that is the name of my Father in heaven, because that is the name given to me by my Lord.
OK.
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:21 pmBut the text also supports what I received. I supplied four scriptures (among the many available on this matter) where the name of God is stated directly.
Sure, but there are also scriptures in which God's name is directly stated to be El (as well as Elohim).
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:21 pmYes, a specific individual is intended. But a specific individual can be intended by His title and/or by His name.

If I called a king, 'your majesty', well I've referred to a specific person by two titles here ('king' and 'your majesty'), but neither of these are his name.
To be blunt, that's not how biblical Hebrew works. Outside of certain prepositional phrases, titles get definite articles. "King David" in Hebrew is "The King David" (הַמֶּ֤לֶךְ דָּוִד֙, hamelek david). If you were to refer to someone as "king" in Hebrew (rather "the king"), you are referring to an indefinite king (one among many, "a king") or a person with the name (rather than title) of "King."

When an el epithet unambiguously refers to a definite individual, that person's name (again, not title) is "El." El Shaddai means "Highest El." When English Bibles translate that as "God Most High," they're translating God's name, not his title.
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:21 pmEl means God (or god), but is also used as titles: God Most High, God Almighty, etc.
No. By itself, el either means "a god" or the proper name "El." There are verses where el or elohim are used as titles, but they get definite articles (or some other modifier, like eloi, "my god").
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #23

Post by tam »

Peace again to you,
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:21 pmBut the text also supports what I received. I supplied four scriptures (among the many available on this matter) where the name of God is stated directly.
Sure, but there are also scriptures in which God's name is directly stated to be El (as well as Elohim).
Can you list some so I see what you are referring to? A specific verse which states God's name is El/God?

Because the scriptures I referred to are numerous, and direct, in stating that the name of God is [YHWH].

tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:21 pmYes, a specific individual is intended. But a specific individual can be intended by His title and/or by His name.

If I called a king, 'your majesty', well I've referred to a specific person by two titles here ('king' and 'your majesty'), but neither of these are his name.
To be blunt, that's not how biblical Hebrew works. Outside of certain prepositional phrases, titles get definite articles. "King David" in Hebrew is "The King David" (הַמֶּ֤לֶךְ דָּוִד֙, hamelek david). If you were to refer to someone as "king" in Hebrew (rather "the king"), you are referring to an indefinite king (one among many, "a king") or a person with the name (rather than title) of "King."
Again, I could be misunderstanding you, but I'm not sure how that is an issue?

In your example with the word 'king', would either of those "the King" or "king" be the name of the King?

Because it seems to me that your own example lists the name of "the King" as David. If you were an Israelite, and you spoke of the King (during David's reign), you should not need to add his name for people to understand that you are referring to King David. You could just say 'the King" sent me, and your fellow Israelites should know that you are referring to King David.

But "the King" would still not be a name; the name of the King would be David.

And since God (JAH) is described as God of gods, it is clear that there are indeed multiple gods. But only one God Most High. Only one Almighty God. The One whose name is JAH.

When an el epithet unambiguously refers to a definite individual, that person's name (again, not title) is "El." El Shaddai means "Mightiest El." When English Bibles translate that as "Almighty God," they're translating God's name, not his title.
Are you using a different formula/reasoning here for El/God than for King (from the previous example about King David)?

And why must it be that El is a name and not a title/description? Almighty God is referring to the God whose name is JAH.


More is discussed in my previous post.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #24

Post by Difflugia »

tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:46 pmCan you list some so I see what you are referring to? A specific verse which states God's name is El/God?

Because the scriptures I referred to are numerous, and direct, in stating that the name of God is [YHWH].
One problem is that you've apparently defined "direct" to mean that it's impossible for you to read it incorrectly. I'm not sure I can meet that challenge, but I'll try.

Every verse in which el (or any other noun) is not definite for some other reason (usually, but not always a definite article), but is demanded by context to be definite is a proper noun. Those aren't titles, because Hebrew doesn't treat titles as proper nouns, so they're names.

Psalms 44 and 45 include many examples. 44:1 reads:
Elohim, we have heard in our ears. Our fathers recounted to us the works you have worked in their days, in early days.
Elohim doesn't have a definite article and isn't part of a phrase that otherwise makes it definite (like saying "our god" as verse 20 does, for example). The "you have worked" is second-person singular, meaning that the psalmist is talking (singing?) to a single individual. There is no other way to read Elohim but as a name.

An interesting verse is Psalm 50:1, where the psalmist begins the verse with three names of God in a row:
El, Elohim, Yahweh has spoken [third person singular]...
Again, those aren't titles like "the god" or "our god," but are referred to in context as a definite individual. They're names.
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:46 pm
Difflugia wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:05 pmTo be blunt, that's not how biblical Hebrew works. Outside of certain prepositional phrases, titles get definite articles. "King David" in Hebrew is "The King David" (הַמֶּ֤לֶךְ דָּוִד֙, hamelek david). If you were to refer to someone as "king" in Hebrew (rather "the king"), you are referring to an indefinite king (one among many, "a king") or a person with the name (rather than title) of "King."
Again, I could be misunderstanding you, but I'm not sure how that is an issue?

In your example with the word 'king', would either of those "the King" or "king" be the name of the King?
Yes. That's what I'm trying to tell you. If you wrote "King David" without a definite article on "King," then "King" would have to be one of his names, like that his mother gave him.
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:46 pmBecause it seems to me that your own example lists the name of "the King" as David. If you were an Israelite, and you spoke of the King (during David's reign), you should not need to add his name for people to understand that you are referring to King David. You could just say 'the King" sent me, and your fellow Israelites should know that you are referring to King David.
"The king" would mean that, but "King" wouldn't. Likewise, an Israelite saying "the god" would mean the title of the one and only god, but "God" would be His name.
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:46 pmBut "the King" would still not be a name; the name of the King would be David.
Yes. Because of "the."
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:46 pmAnd since God (JAH) is described as God of gods, it is clear that there are indeed multiple gods. But only one God Most High. Only one Almighty God. The One whose name is JAH.
And El and Elohim. Exactly.
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:46 pm
Difflugia wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:05 pmWhen an el epithet unambiguously refers to a definite individual, that person's name (again, not title) is "El." El Shaddai means "Mightiest El." When English Bibles translate that as "Almighty God," they're translating God's name, not his title.
Are you using a different formula/reasoning here for El/God than for King (from the previous example about King David)?
No. If there's a "the," it's a title. If there's no "the," it's a name. "King David" means someone whose first two names are "King" and "David." "The king David" means someone named "David" that is king.
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:46 pmAnd why must it be that El is a name and not a title/description?
Because there's no "the."
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:46 pmAlmighty God is referring to the God whose name is JAH.
If context requires a specific individual, El Shaddai is referring to someone named El Shaddai. Whether He is also named Yahweh or JAH or anything else is immaterial.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #25

Post by onewithhim »

Difflugia wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 3:56 pm
onewithhim wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:58 pmYou are missing the point that "El Shaddai" is never used to identify the Messiah/Christ in the Scriptures. That term is applied ONLY to YHWH (Jehovah). Jehovah may be referred to as "El Gibbohr" at times, but he is always the mightiest, above everyone else. That is understood. (See Psalm 83:18, KJV). Again---Jehovah might be called "El Gibbohr" at times, but Jesus is never referred to as "El Shaddai."

Jehovah = Almighty God

Jesus = mighty god
I'm not "missing" your point, but disagree with you that it's necessarily meaningful. Very few of the many, many El epithets used for Yahweh appear in texts that are interpreted as messianic and your only argument is that the one in Isaiah 9:6 isn't your favorite. That argument is meaningless if the messianic interpretration is correct and the Messiah is being referred to by the name El rather than merely one el among several (or many). Neither Hebrew nor logic prevents you from reading it as "a mighty god," but you've offered no valid reason that "Mighty El" is at all an inferior reading, let alone an impossible one.

There may be valid reasons for thinking that Jesus and Mighty El aren't the same person, but Hebrew grammar and your outraged insistence aren't among them.
No, you are really missing the point, whether you agree or not. "El," meaning "god," is applied to the Messiah, but it doesn't mean that he is THE Almighty God. "El," "god," simply means an important, powerful, revered individual. The Messiah is this. He is not THE Almighty God, which is "El Shaddai." ONLY YHWH is referred to as El Shaddai.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #26

Post by Difflugia »

onewithhim wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:04 pmNo, you are really missing the point, whether you agree or not.
<sigh>
onewithhim wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:04 pm"El," meaning "god," is applied to the Messiah, but it doesn't mean that he is THE Almighty God.
Which I granted as possible, so that's not an argument against what I've said. Unfortunately, you haven't successfully defended your implied corollary that it means the Messiah is not THE Almighty God.

I know what your point is. It's not missing your point to recognize your inability to defend it.
onewithhim wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:04 pm"El," "god," simply means an important, powerful, revered individual. The Messiah is this. He is not THE Almighty God, which is "El Shaddai." ONLY YHWH is referred to as El Shaddai.
Which you've repeated ad nauseum and as I've said (with support!), it is one valid interpretation among many. Repeating it yet again won't make the other interpretations less valid, though. If you're going to continue insisting that they are, you'll have to find a valid reason that El Gibbor cannot have been intended by the Holy Spirit as a trinitarian use of the proper name El. The only evidence you've given is the claim that Hebrew grammar supports your position. As the evidence I've supplied to both you and tam should make abundantly clear to you, it doesn't. Do you have anything else?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #27

Post by onewithhim »

Difflugia wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:01 pm
onewithhim wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:04 pmNo, you are really missing the point, whether you agree or not.
<sigh>
onewithhim wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:04 pm"El," meaning "god," is applied to the Messiah, but it doesn't mean that he is THE Almighty God.
Which I granted as possible, so that's not an argument against what I've said. Unfortunately, you haven't successfully defended your implied corollary that it means the Messiah is not THE Almighty God.

I know what your point is. It's not missing your point to recognize your inability to defend it.
onewithhim wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:04 pm"El," "god," simply means an important, powerful, revered individual. The Messiah is this. He is not THE Almighty God, which is "El Shaddai." ONLY YHWH is referred to as El Shaddai.
Which you've repeated ad nauseum and as I've said (with support!), it is one valid interpretation among many. Repeating it yet again won't make the other interpretations less valid, though. If you're going to continue insisting that they are, you'll have to find a valid reason that El Gibbor cannot have been intended by the Holy Spirit as a trinitarian use of the proper name El. The only evidence you've given is the claim that Hebrew grammar supports your position. As the evidence I've supplied to both you and tam should make abundantly clear to you, it doesn't. Do you have anything else?
I have defended my position effectively. You just do not want to agree. You can believe what you want....we will just have to agree to disagree. I stand by what I've said. If it's not enough for you, let's just dust off our feet and go on to something else on this forum.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #28

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Difflugia wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:32 am
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:46 pmCan you list some so I see what you are referring to? A specific verse which states God's name is El/God?

Because the scriptures I referred to are numerous, and direct, in stating that the name of God is [YHWH].
One problem is that you've apparently defined "direct" to mean that it's impossible for you to read it incorrectly.
I'm not sure what you mean. What I mean by direct is something like this: "My name is..." Whenever God says His name in the scriptures, He says His name is [YHWH]. Israel recognized this as well...again in numerous verses, and also in the fact that [YHWH] was no longer said (to the point that the exact pronunciation was forgotten). Some feared the misuse of the name of God. The same cannot be said of "El", because they did not fear or believe that "El" was the name of God.

From what I have understood from your argument, you are depending on a grammatical point. Of course, that would require a correct understanding of grammar (from the scribes and translators and copyists as well as from modern scholars). And, from what I have understood of your discussion with onewithhim, you admit that her presentation of the Hebrew El being translated to God could be the legitimate translation (where El is a description or title, instead of a name). In which case, it would seem that your argument is also dependent upon one of two possible translations being correct.


I'm not sure I can meet that challenge, but I'll try.

Every verse in which el (or any other noun) is not definite for some other reason (usually, but not always a definite article), but is demanded by context to be definite is a proper noun. Those aren't titles, because Hebrew doesn't treat titles as proper nouns, so they're names.
See above re: grammar. Though perhaps some used it 'like' a name on some occasions (in the same way that people say "God" in referring to a single individual, even knowing that "God" is not the name of God). That might explain the grammar you have presented, even though EL is not the name of God. Take Hashem for instance. Some Jewish people call God, Hashem, which means "the Name". Obviously that is not the name of God, but it is being used like a name:
Hashem is a Hebrew term for God. Literally, it means “the name.” In the Bible the Hebrew word for God is made up of four vowels, and according to tradition it was only pronounced on Yom Kippur by the High Priest. Saying God’s name was considered a very serious and powerful thing, so much so that one of the Ten Commandments prohibits us from saying God’s name in vain. As a result, people have come up with various substitutions.
When reading Torah, we generally substitute the word Adonai for the four letter un-pronounceable name of God. Outside of reading and praying, God is often referred to as Hashem, a creative way of not saying God’s name.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/hashem/

Psalms 44 and 45 include many examples. 44:1 reads:
Elohim, we have heard in our ears. Our fathers recounted to us the works you have worked in their days, in early days.
Elohim doesn't have a definite article and isn't part of a phrase that otherwise makes it definite (like saying "our god" as verse 20 does, for example). The "you have worked" is second-person singular, meaning that the psalmist is talking (singing?) to a single individual. There is no other way to read Elohim but as a name.
In English, some might say (including me), "God, we have heard in our ears..." I would certainly be referring to a single individual, but I would also know that "God" is not the actual name of God.
tam wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:46 pm
Difflugia wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:05 pmTo be blunt, that's not how biblical Hebrew works. Outside of certain prepositional phrases, titles get definite articles. "King David" in Hebrew is "The King David" (הַמֶּ֤לֶךְ דָּוִד֙, hamelek david). If you were to refer to someone as "king" in Hebrew (rather "the king"), you are referring to an indefinite king (one among many, "a king") or a person with the name (rather than title) of "King."
Again, I could be misunderstanding you, but I'm not sure how that is an issue?

In your example with the word 'king', would either of those "the King" or "king" be the name of the King?
Yes. That's what I'm trying to tell you. If you wrote "King David" without a definite article on "King," then "King" would have to be one of his names, like that his mother gave him.
Except we know that would not be true. So there would be an error in the grammar, or an error in the understanding/usage of the grammar, or an error in how people are using the title in place of a name.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #29

Post by Difflugia »

tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:21 pm
Difflugia wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:32 amOne problem is that you've apparently defined "direct" to mean that it's impossible for you to read it incorrectly.
I'm not sure what you mean. What I mean by direct is something like this: "My name is..." Whenever God says His name in the scriptures, He says His name is [YHWH]. Israel recognized this as well...again in numerous verses, and also in the fact that [YHWH] was no longer said (to the point that the exact pronunciation was forgotten). Some feared the misuse of the name of God. The same cannot be said of "El", because they did not fear or believe that "El" was the name of God.
And that is exactly what I mean. If the Israelites didn't believe that El was a name of God, they wouldn't have written passages in which El could only be read as a proper name. That you don't see that and need a verse that says "my name is El" isn't a fault of the text.
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:21 pmFrom what I have understood from your argument, you are depending on a grammatical point. Of course, that would require a correct understanding of grammar (from the scribes and translators and copyists as well as from modern scholars).
Yes. On the other hand, the Old Testament is pretty big and gives us a lot of context with which to understand Hebrew grammar.
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:21 pmAnd, from what I have understood of your discussion with onewithhim, you admit that her presentation of the Hebrew El being translated to God could be the legitimate translation (where El is a description or title, instead of a name).
For the single verse that she and I were discussing, yes. She was trying to claim that El Gibbor must be understood in some way that doesn't apply to Yahweh. While there are ways that it could be read that don't apply to Yahweh and, as you note, I acknowledge that, she is wrong because it doesn't have to be read in one of those ways.
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:21 pmIn which case, it would seem that your argument is also dependent upon one of two possible translations being correct.
Your claim, however, is wrong for essentially the opposite reason as onewithhim's claim is. Your claim requires that every use of el must be able to be read as "a god" rather than as the name "El" and that's not true, either.
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:21 pmSee above re: grammar. Though perhaps some used it 'like' a name on some occasions (in the same way that people say "God" in referring to a single individual, even knowing that "God" is not the name of God).
That works in English, but not Hebrew. That's what the discussion about the difference between "the king" and "King" was all about.
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:21 pmThat might explain the grammar you have presented, even though EL is not the name of God. Take Hashem for instance. Some Jewish people call God, Hashem, which means "the Name". Obviously that is not the name of God, but it is being used like a name:
No, it's being used as a title because there's a "the." The "ha" in "hashem" means "the." "Hashem" means "the name," but "shem" would be "a name" or the proper name "Shem." "Hael" means "the god," but "el" means "a god" or the proper name "El." If "shem" or "el" is used in a context where "a god" or "a name" is ruled out, then it would have to be a proper name. There are such contexts for both "shem," which you might remember is the name of one of Noah's sons, and "el."
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:21 pmIn English, some might say (including me), "God, we have heard in our ears..." I would certainly be referring to a single individual, but I would also know that "God" is not the actual name of God.
Once again, that's grammatically fine in English, but not Hebrew. If the writer knew that "El" wasn't the actual name of God, a speaker of biblical Hebrew would say, "our God, we have heard in our ears...."
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:21 pmExcept we know that would not be true. So there would be an error in the grammar, or an error in the understanding/usage of the grammar, or an error in how people are using the title in place of a name.
I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but the Bible doesn't mistakenly use "king" that way for David or any other king. The corollary, that the Bible mistakenly and ungrammatically uses el when it means a title instead of a name, would mean that it does so many, many times, but doesn't make the same mistake with other nouns in other contexts. It would be a mistake that the Bible makes in exactly the situations that you need it to for your argument, but nowhere else. That's the very definition of special pleading.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #30

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Difflugia wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 6:16 pm
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:21 pm
Difflugia wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:32 amOne problem is that you've apparently defined "direct" to mean that it's impossible for you to read it incorrectly.
I'm not sure what you mean. What I mean by direct is something like this: "My name is..." Whenever God says His name in the scriptures, He says His name is [YHWH]. Israel recognized this as well...again in numerous verses, and also in the fact that [YHWH] was no longer said (to the point that the exact pronunciation was forgotten). Some feared the misuse of the name of God. The same cannot be said of "El", because they did not fear or believe that "El" was the name of God.
And that is exactly what I mean. If the Israelites didn't believe that El was a name of God, they wouldn't have written passages in which El could only be read as a proper name. That you don't see that and need a verse that says "my name is El" isn't a fault of the text.
I think you're missing the point. They would not pronounce the name of God (going so far as to create substitutions and use them like names). But they had no problem pronouncing and using the word El. Therefore, that can not be the name of God. Though it may have been used like a name, and perhaps that accounts for the grammar you are seeing. Same as we - in English - use God (capital G) when referring to the Creator, the God of Abraham, the God and Father of Christ. We don't say 'the God'. We simply state 'God'. EVEN THOUGH that is not His name. And we use god (little g) when referring to any other being that is a god or can be called a god (angels/immortals, including Satan, even people who will be called gods).

We make a distinction (capital G or lower case g), but neither is the name of God.

Can you see that people could have used a word like a name, even though that word is NOT the name of God?

tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:21 pmFrom what I have understood from your argument, you are depending on a grammatical point. Of course, that would require a correct understanding of grammar (from the scribes and translators and copyists as well as from modern scholars).
Yes. On the other hand, the Old Testament is pretty big and gives us a lot of context with which to understand Hebrew grammar.
The link that I provided made it clear that Israel used substitutions for the name of God (YHWH) <-again clearly acknowledging [YHWH] as the name of God. But there are no substitutions required or used for EL. Does that not tell you something?
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:21 pmAnd, from what I have understood of your discussion with onewithhim, you admit that her presentation of the Hebrew El being translated to God could be the legitimate translation (where El is a description or title, instead of a name).
For the single verse that she and I were discussing, yes. She was trying to claim that El Gibbor must be understood in some way that doesn't apply to Yahweh. While there are ways that it could be read that don't apply to Yahweh and, as you note, I acknowledge that, she is wrong because it doesn't have to be read in one of those ways.
I don't think this matters at this point, but just in case, are you suggesting that the same reasoning does not apply to any of the other translations regarding El? Only just this one?



Peace again to you!

Post Reply