Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Shema Yisra`ELYHWH ELOHEYNU YHWH | EYCHAD...
#1
Here is a post from a religious and Spirituality forum, my question here to anyone is where this ELOHEYNU can be found? I have searched Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and this is nowhere to be found, so again if anyone here can help out with the word and it's definition whether this is indeed singular or plural it would be greatly appreciated.

Shlama wBurkate

Sonero




Shema Yisra`ELYHWH ELOHEYNU YHWH | EYCHAD...

Let's get this straight for once and for all... The wannabe Aramaic/Promacists (in this case whathell (although he clings to that errant NIV like it's a mother's teat)) THINKS that echad means that YHWH spoken og above on DeBARIYM 6:4 means a unity...

His first errant assumption stems from the isdea that ELOHIYM means a plurality... His second that ELOHIYM is used in this passage just because in theYenghis says "god"...

Unfortunately for whathell, HE has never bothered to study the IBRIYT texts... otherwise HE whould have known that ELOHIYM IS NOT used... (this is what I meant by I KNOW how it is used whathell... you didn't catch the hint...) I should mention that he got this (his) theology from the back of Gabriel Roth's AENT... (people do not bother to buy this book... unless you cannot get anythiing else to start a fire...)

You will note that ELOHEYNU is used... don't worry about the "NU" part as it is just the way IBRIYT is written... HOWEVER... pay VERY close attention to ELOHEY... It is singular... it always has been and always will be... Just as "echad" will always be the primary number (number 1) in the Ibriyt counting system instead of yachid or pa'am... which refer to one as "lonely...

Now whathell... I will give you a day to research this and figure out your sin and forgive yourself (YHWH is merciful and full of forgiveness, but forgiving ourselves is the real challenge)... along with the other whathell (honest christian)... split personalities on the net, Dr. Phil was talking about that yesterday... LOL...

I will see how many posts the two of you canpost today to prove me wrong (interestingly enough, just the other day I proved whathell AND OTHERS wrong about the word "heis" used in Yahuchanan 10:30 and other passages... you would think they would have figured out by now that when I study, I REALLY study...LOL...)

RESEARCH STUDY LEARN TEACH... no other order will work... LOL...

`LChM ShLWM...
Reply
#2
Also the individual posted a link to a site that supposedly lists the definitions but I looked and did not find it:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org">http://www.mechon-mamre.org</a><!-- m --> is a good place for you to start... compare ELOHIYM found in Bereshiyth 1:1 and ELOHEYNU found in DeBariym 6:4...
Reply
#3
Shlama,


the tern ELOHEYNU simple means "our Elohim." it is an inflected form of the noun, so you won't find it in a Strong's under the term headings. it is all over Scripture whenever you see "our God / Elohim."

the suffix appears on all types of terms: Adoneynu (our lord), simchateynu (our joy), kaporateynu (our atonement), etc..

as for the rest of your email, the poster says ECHAD means "one," and not a unity, yet it should be mentioned that the man and the woman, who are distinct individuals, become "one" flesh, yet remain two people, so there is a unity involved in ECHAD. whether one desires to apply that to YHWH as Elohim lay within one's personal interpretation of His nature, but ECHAD doesn't absolutely necessitate a singularity.

but as for the "tone" of this poster, i tend to think you are probably wasting your time no matter what you discuss...


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#4
Thanks Jeremy,

I appreciate your efforts in explaining .

And yes as you can see, the tone of the poster has always been that way, fruitless.

Shlama wBurkate

Sonero
Reply
#5
But again, my focus is on this Elohey, is this correct? Or is it Elohim? And is there a difference?

Thanks in advance.

Shlama wBurkate

Sonero
Reply
#6
soneroboricua Wrote:But again, my focus is on this Elohey, is this correct? Or is it Elohim? And is there a difference?

Thanks in advance.

Shlama wBurkate

Sonero


Shlama,

ah, ELOHEY is better translated "God of," while ELOHEYNU would stem from ELOAH, specifically, which is indeed singular. in the "Shema," ELOHEYNU specifically would be referring to "our Eloah," and not "our Elohey," as it would not make much sense in Hebrew grammar. hope that helps!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#7
Shlama Jeremy,

Thank you once again, yes it did help me immensely!! <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->
Reply
#8
Burning one Wrote:Shlama,

ah, ELOHEY is better translated "God of," while ELOHEYNU would stem from ELOAH, specifically, which is indeed singular. in the "Shema," ELOHEYNU specifically would be referring to "our Eloah," and not "our Elohey," as it would not make much sense in Hebrew grammar. hope that helps!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
In reference to the following link.

Ref. Link: Deuteronomy 6:1-25

At Duet 6:4 in the WLC Interlinear we find - hear-you! Israel Yahweh Elohim-of?us Yahweh one. In research this, I have NOT found any "Eloah-of.us" (or "Our Eloah") counter part in any publications, just as in this example case by the Scripture4all Foundation, so if this wrong ...why (...and where are the Interlinears with "our.Eloah/Eloah-of.us" for Eloaheynu)?

I ask this is to any reader, what do you think of this software? Do you know of any school(s) or people who use it?

Ref. Link: Interlinear Scripture Analyzer


Thanks in advance!
Peace in knowing Y'shu(Yeshu)/Jesus
Reply
#9
For what its worth, I use ISA 2 Basic regularly. It is a free download and very useful for studying the Hebrew Masorete text, and also the NT Greek if that is one's pursuit. Its ability to do a full concordance on any Hebrew word is quite impressive.

But like any interlinear translation, in this case something called CHES, it is only as good as the people making it. For the most part, it is a useful translation, but a bit wooden and mechanical in its approach, as it does not read fluently.
Reply
#10
ROTFLMLBO... I DO sincerely make teshubah to the CREATOR YHWH that you indeed got your answer... although STUDYING would have given YOU the same answer it gave the other gentleman... you may also want to research ELOHEYKhA while you're asking... smh...

Oh, and I suppose I should ask... Do I need to copyright my posts on the other site to keep you and your shadow from copying and posting them over here??? ROTFLOL... smh... Oh and sonero... backbiting... tsk, tsk... shameless...

in this case I suppose my name should have been... just(ask)alex... but remember, I don't hand out fish... ;-}

justalex
Reply
#11
soneroboricua Wrote:Also the individual posted a link to a site that supposedly lists the definitions but I looked and did not find it:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org">http://www.mechon-mamre.org</a><!-- m --> is a good place for you to start... compare ELOHIYM found in Bereshiyth 1:1 and ELOHEYNU found in DeBariym 6:4...


Does that say there is a definition listed on that site or does it say that it is a good place to start? Definitely not the same thing is it? smh. It appears that it uses two passages of scripture to show a difference in ELOHIYM and ELOHEYNU however you apparently drew your own conclusion albeit an errant one.

Mechonmamre is a site that contains the TNK from all appearances correct? So it most assuredly is a good place to start when looking at Ibriyt katub.

justalex
Reply
#12
Burning one Wrote:Shlama,


the tern ELOHEYNU simple means "our Elohim." it is an inflected form of the noun, so you won't find it in a Strong's under the term headings. it is all over Scripture whenever you see "our God / Elohim."

the suffix appears on all types of terms: Adoneynu (our lord), simchateynu (our joy), kaporateynu (our atonement), etc..

as for the rest of your email, the poster says ECHAD means "one," and not a unity, yet it should be mentioned that the man and the woman, who are distinct individuals, become "one" flesh, yet remain two people, so there is a unity involved in ECHAD. whether one desires to apply that to YHWH as Elohim lay within one's personal interpretation of His nature, but ECHAD doesn't absolutely necessitate a singularity.

but as for the "tone" of this poster, i tend to think you are probably wasting your time no matter what you discuss...


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Jeremy,

The "tone" of the poster remains the same with all. There is no preferential treatment because I agree or disagree on any particular subject as I tend to lean toward trusting the DBR YHWH above any of man's "opinions" of it, or me. I may very well agree with something you say today and disagree with you on tomorrow, yet, I will not lace my words with sugar in either case. Unfortunately this is not true of "everyone" that seeks the Panayim YHWH. As they would lift themselves (or others) to elevated status because of a preconceived notion based on "man's" supposed knowledge.

Now if that sounds hard or harsh, so be it, however perhaps you should know the beginning BEFORE you make an errant judgement based on a biased and one-sided statement.

justalex
Reply
#13
Burning one Wrote:Shlama,


the tern ELOHEYNU simple means "our Elohim." it is an inflected form of the noun, so you won't find it in a Strong's under the term headings. it is all over Scripture whenever you see "our God / Elohim."

the suffix appears on all types of terms: Adoneynu (our lord), simchateynu (our joy), kaporateynu (our atonement), etc..

as for the rest of your email, the poster says ECHAD means "one," and not a unity, yet it should be mentioned that the man and the woman, who are distinct individuals, become "one" flesh, yet remain two people, so there is a unity involved in ECHAD. whether one desires to apply that to YHWH as Elohim lay within one's personal interpretation of His nature, but ECHAD doesn't absolutely necessitate a singularity.

but as for the "tone" of this poster, i tend to think you are probably wasting your time no matter what you discuss...


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Jeremy,

The "tone" of the poster remains the same with all. There is no preferential treatment because I agree or disagree on any particular subject as I tend to lean toward trusting the DBR YHWH above any of man's "opinions" of it, or me. I may very well agree with something you say today and disagree with you on tomorrow, yet, I will not lace my words with sugar in either case. Unfortunately this is not true of "everyone" that seeks the Panayim YHWH. As they would lift themselves (or others) to elevated status because of a preconceived notion based on "man's" supposed knowledge.

Now if that sounds hard or harsh, so be it, however perhaps you should know the beginning BEFORE you make an errant judgement based on a biased and one-sided statement.

justalex
Reply
#14
Alex,

Perhaps if you would have read correctly what Jeremy wrote you would have seen that you were only partially correct, that does not add up to completely correct, but then again you are consistent, but yes I received my answer however it may have been researched, that it doesn't "cut the grade" with you is of no significance to me, just opening up a book does not conclude to researching, another part is reaching out and asking questions, perhaps if you would have went to an actual school you would have known that also, but you're just a simple minded individual behind a keyboard attempting to be "macho", anyone can can speak boldly behind one of those,lol

This is my last discourse with you as anything else you may attempt to contribute to this thread will most likely be irrelevant.

Shlama wBurkate,

Sonero
Reply
#15
justalex Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:Shlama,


the tern ELOHEYNU simple means "our Elohim." it is an inflected form of the noun, so you won't find it in a Strong's under the term headings. it is all over Scripture whenever you see "our God / Elohim."

the suffix appears on all types of terms: Adoneynu (our lord), simchateynu (our joy), kaporateynu (our atonement), etc..

as for the rest of your email, the poster says ECHAD means "one," and not a unity, yet it should be mentioned that the man and the woman, who are distinct individuals, become "one" flesh, yet remain two people, so there is a unity involved in ECHAD. whether one desires to apply that to YHWH as Elohim lay within one's personal interpretation of His nature, but ECHAD doesn't absolutely necessitate a singularity.

but as for the "tone" of this poster, i tend to think you are probably wasting your time no matter what you discuss...


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Jeremy,

The "tone" of the poster remains the same with all. There is no preferential treatment because I agree or disagree on any particular subject as I tend to lean toward trusting the DBR YHWH above any of man's "opinions" of it, or me. I may very well agree with something you say today and disagree with you on tomorrow, yet, I will not lace my words with sugar in either case. Unfortunately this is not true of "everyone" that seeks the Panayim YHWH. As they would lift themselves (or others) to elevated status because of a preconceived notion based on "man's" supposed knowledge.

Now if that sounds hard or harsh, so be it, however perhaps you should know the beginning BEFORE you make an errant judgement based on a biased and one-sided statement.

justalex


Shlama Alex,


if you use the same tone with all, then it is even more troubling than were it a single instance of vitriol. as followers of Messiah our words are commanded to be seasoned with salt, are they not? we're supposed to show love even in the midst of disagreement, and to be honest, Alex, your post which i was originally responding to lacks that. i'm totally fine with strongly disagreeing on any number of points, but the tone of a poster makes all the difference. even on here i recently strongly disagreed with a conclusion another brother reached, and yet the tone of our posts remained amicable even though we never reached agreement on the matter.

so behave like Messiah commanded of His students and all will be well. it is to your benefit and benefit of us all, even those with whom you might disagree. seriously, no matter how much you might disagree with a translator, is it in the best interest of truth to really suggest their contribution to the world of NT studies be useful only to start a fire? it is things like that which yield insightful glimpses into where the poster is coming from: the spirit or the flesh. it is easy to operate in the flesh when we disagree, but the true test of maturity is to refrain from the vitriol and make the points necessary for the continuation of the discussion. i hope you can see that at least and make some changes to the tone which you admit is the same to all.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)