Comments on: Hebrew Syntax and the Second Yahweh http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2009/05/hebrew-syntax-and-the-second-yahweh/ Understanding the ancient Israelite context for first century Judaism's binitarian monotheism and the Christian Godhead Mon, 21 May 2012 13:19:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: blop2008 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2009/05/hebrew-syntax-and-the-second-yahweh/#comment-87 blop2008 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:29:14 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=85#comment-87 Oops...Correction from my previous post: ESH = Fire, ISH = Man I reversed them :-) Oops…Correction from my previous post: ESH = Fire, ISH = Man

I reversed them :-)

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2009/05/hebrew-syntax-and-the-second-yahweh/#comment-86 MSH Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:09:38 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=85#comment-86 @blop2008: an interesting note! @blop2008: an interesting note!

]]> By: blop2008 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/2009/05/hebrew-syntax-and-the-second-yahweh/#comment-83 blop2008 Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:24:29 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven/?p=85#comment-83 Having not commented on this post yet, I've been thinking that this is indeed a good detail to emphasize in the scholarly community. Although the letter BETH usually means "in", many translators have not paid much attention at how to properly carry the meaning of BETH in some passages. Even in modern Hebrew in Israel (which I am currently learning at the same time as biblical hebrew - Im 22, Im still young to do this :-), the BETH must be properly carried over in translation as it doesnt always signify "in" when the subject isn't a location. Take for instance: "Be-Simcha" which means "With pleasure" and obviously not "In pleasure". Maybe not the best example, but get the idea. Anyhow, its very interesting... that the angel of the LORD appeared as a flame of fire makes for sense and is reminiscent to other passages where angels (book of Daniel) and Jesus (Revelation) are seen as glowing light/fire in the OT and NT. Notice for example Ezekiel 8:2: " As I watched, I noticed a form that appeared to be a man. From his waist downward was something like fire, and from his waist upward something like a brightness, like an amber glow." Some translations like the KJV of the above verse have "...appearance of fire". This is because ESH (man) was confused with ISH (Fire) in Hebrew. Who is this man Mike? :-) Having not commented on this post yet, I’ve been thinking that this is indeed a good detail to emphasize in the scholarly community. Although the letter BETH usually means “in”, many translators have not paid much attention at how to properly carry the meaning of BETH in some passages. Even in modern Hebrew in Israel (which I am currently learning at the same time as biblical hebrew - Im 22, Im still young to do this :-), the BETH must be properly carried over in translation as it doesnt always signify “in” when the subject isn’t a location. Take for instance: “Be-Simcha” which means “With pleasure” and obviously not “In pleasure”. Maybe not the best example, but get the idea.

Anyhow, its very interesting… that the angel of the LORD appeared as a flame of fire makes for sense and is reminiscent to other passages where angels (book of Daniel) and Jesus (Revelation) are seen as glowing light/fire in the OT and NT.

Notice for example Ezekiel 8:2: ” As I watched, I noticed a form that appeared to be a man. From his waist downward was something like fire, and from his waist upward something like a brightness, like an amber glow.”

Some translations like the KJV of the above verse have “…appearance of fire”. This is because ESH (man) was confused with ISH (Fire) in Hebrew.

Who is this man Mike? :-)

]]>