The Two Names of God

a reply to: RudeCherub

Eretz doesn't mean Earth. It means lit. Land or Nation. Ha-Eretz means «The Land» and refers to «The Land of the Jews». There is no world wide flood event, only a local flood that destroyed [king] Noah's Land.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: RudeCherub

Eretz doesn't mean Earth. It means lit. Land or Nation. Ha-Eretz means «The Land» and refers to «The Land of the Jews». There is no world wide flood event, only a local flood that destroyed [king] Noah's Land.

True the flood was relatively local, but that idea is derived from the use of 'ădâmâh usually ground and translated as Earth.

4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the [earth]. lit ground.

This being the ground that Adam was made from, poetically of the soil ie place as we use it today in a national context.
Whereas the land/Earth of Genesis one is used in the same way we use earth/land ie Earth. IMO
Plainly so because the Earth - that is distinct from the heavens, is also the waters over which the Spirit moved.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Syntactically the different kinds of classical Hebrew found in the OT is generally considered to be VSO languages; Verb, then Subject, then Object-- while English and Norwegian are SVO languages, Subject, Verb and Object (Biblical or Koine Greek is SOV). Are you saying there is evidence of a different syntax regime in Hebrew from around 260 BC? In a time where the Jews would speak and write a kind of post-Exile Aramaic? You are aware that the Ptolemy dynasty were Graeco-Egyptian, yes?

No that is not what I am referencing. What I am saying is that there is no certainty in any translation of the Greek MSS or Hebrew MSS without first having a autograph to represent the master language. We have neither. What you have been taught is nothing more than assumptions of rules of past literature but without the master autograph to support certainty.

In other words there is nothing certain in the very first accepted words of any bible we have today or for that matter any MSS of Hebrew or Greek. They all are copies of unknown copies without an autograph to build from. It is impossible to know the master autograph without the master autograph.

Even if Ptolmey did cause the translation of Hebrew to Greek Torah, his Hebrew source is lost and without that source then the tradition is not provable. Then to add to this uncertainty the first Greek Torah Septuagint which was translated from the lost Hebrew is also lost. What is needed now is to start translations all over again from the original autographs which we do not have.

There are some scholars who believe, with some evidence, that the Apostles autographs were Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek and to Latin to English etc. But nothing is certain because all we have are copies of copies with out autographs. We can assume much, with some evidence, but as with all tradition it is simply guessing at best.

a reply to: Seede

The LXX was written from memory of trad. 70 or 72 Hebrew scribes, but I see your point.

a reply to: Seede

Like I said earlier the OT records several languages, different stages of classical Hebrew, and also Chaldean, Aramaic and even a bit of Canaanean here and there. The scribes would memorize parts of the books and knew the whereabouts of every letter.