| Author |
Message |
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:04 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:iYa7f.7092$bt2.1526@okepread05...
| Quote: | That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
Is it literally saying {Only God exists} or is it literally saying
{No other God exists} Note I am not asking you to tell me
what you think that it means, only what it literally says.
|
This passage seems not to say what exists or does not
exist. Sentence 2 says the speaker is "Lord" and there
is only one Lord. Sentence 1 says the speaker is
unequalled everywhere. There may be theological
implications about what exists, but I see no equivalent
grammatical implications.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:16 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
nancy13g wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
How about if we don't add or subtract the slightest nuance of
meaning other than what is explicitly specified.
OK. What is explicitly specified is "I am the Lord and there is none
else". The word "none" means "not one". So what is literally being said
is "I am the Lord and there is not one else".
Does that answer your literal question explicitly enough? Or did I add
or subtract a nuance or two there?
|
But "none" can also mean "no one" ("None shall pass!"), which gives the
other possible meaning.
--
Jerry Friedman knows you're right--it's saying there's no other god. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:55 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"nancy13g" <nancy13g@verizon.net> wrote in message news:1130185916.792595.316650@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Peter Olcott wrote:
How about if we don't add or subtract the slightest nuance of
meaning other than what is explicitly specified.
OK. What is explicitly specified is "I am the Lord and there is none
else". The word "none" means "not one". So what is literally being said
is "I am the Lord and there is not one else".
Does that answer your literal question explicitly enough? Or did I add
or subtract a nuance or two there?
So is that equivalent to {Only God exists} or {No other God exists} |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:04 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Bob G" <bobjames27@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:1130187056.324544.158280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
Is it literally saying {Only God exists} or is it literally saying
{No other God exists} Note I am not asking you to tell me
what you think that it means, only what it literally says.
It literally says that it may be known from the rising of the sun and
from the west that there is none beside the entity that speaks. It
further states that this same entity is the Lord and that there is none
else.
It is pure nonsense if you interpret it literally. For instance, the
ancients knew from the rising of the sun that the sun goes 'round the
Earth. Later it was learned from the same source that it's the other
way around. Likewise, many things may be known from the west, exactly
what I'm not sure. Many other things could be learned from the east or
even the north northeast.
On the other hand, if you interpret it figuratively. as it is intended,
you will learn from the rising of the sun in the west, a daily affair,
repeated eternally, that there is a God, although I fail to see how it
may follow that there is no other. The second sentence repeats both
assertions but offers no further proof.
Yes it would seem that you would be right about that part. |
What about the other part {there is none else}? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:05 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3s51a7Fmhie3U2@individual.net...
| Quote: | nancy13g wrote:
Peter Olcott wrote:
How about if we don't add or subtract the slightest nuance of
meaning other than what is explicitly specified.
OK. What is explicitly specified is "I am the Lord and there is
none
else". The word "none" means "not one". So what is literally being
said is "I am the Lord and there is not one else".
Does that answer your literal question explicitly enough? Or did I
add
or subtract a nuance or two there?
Well said! I feel as though I'm being asked to jump through hoops
which aren't even there. No further meaning can be extracted from the
expression used. If the enquirer now wants to go back to the original
Hebrew, I have to bow out.
--
Mike.
I already have another carefully constructed traslation from the |
original Hebrew, and since it says the same thing the same way,
I just left it as the KJV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:16 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
<jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1130189764.094429.270930@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3s4t0tFm5h74U2@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"Don Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> wrote in message
news:Zba7f.30$XR4.226@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:v977f.7068$bt2.3239@okepread05...
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none
else.
The English literary tradition has several standard phrases that
indicate everywhere (from east to west) or always (from sunrise to
sunset:) but the standard phrases usually match in diction: they
do not say "from the rising of the sun to the west" etc.
"There is none beside me. I am the Lord" is a phrase found
several times in the Old Testament.
This is the KJV of Isaiah 45:6. Thanks to the search service at
http://bible.gospelcom.net/>.
Some King James Version Bible sentences may deliberately
begin "That . . . " but they usually include a main clause,
missing
here. (The second "that . . ." clause does not furnish one.) I
would guess the quoted phrase is something faultily remembered
from Anglican English.
...
Is it literally saying {Only God exists} or is it literally saying
{No other God exists} Note I am not asking you to tell me
what you think that it means, only what it literally says.
Ah, I twig! I reason that if we think of God as addressing himself to
an existent audience, then it's got to be "no other god". Further, I
don't think the Hebrew Bible dabbles much in the doctrine that all
but God himself is mere illusion: transient, yes, but not illusory.
Somebody may know better, of course.
I'll be surprised if you can find that anywhere explicitly in the
Hebrew Bible or in mainstream Judeo-Christiano-Islamic interpretive
tradition (though maybe in an outlier or two, and I'm decreasingly sure
about the three traditions).
How about if we don't add or subtract the slightest nuance of
meaning other than what is explicitly specified.
Why would we do that? The passage contains an implicit but clear clue
that it's figurative: the juxtaposition of "the rising of the sun" with
"the west".
Also, it's in King James English, which means that we'd have to know
the nuances of "none" and "else" in the English of that time.
From the little I remember of Hebrew, a literalist could ask the same
question about this sentence. Of course, in context we know it means,
"There is no other God." (The previous verse has "There is no god
beside me", which is explicit and literal in the Hebrew. Thanks to
http://www.blueletterbible.org/>.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Anee YHVH I am HaShem |
v'ain ode and there is no other;
zulatee except Me (besides Me)
ain eloheem there is no God;
aazerHa I will gird (strengthen) you,
v'lo y'da'tanee even though you have not known Me.
L'maan In order that
yedoo they (will) know
meemezraH-shemesh from the shining of the sun (the east)
umeemaravah and from the west
kee-ephes that there is no one (zero)
beeladai besides Me;
Anee YHVH I am HaShem
v'ain and there is not
ode. another.
If we take this literally, not adding or subtracting the slightest nuance of
meaning it would seem to me that the {you} of the fifth and sixth lines
and the {they} of the eighth line must also be God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CDB
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:49 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:OLd7f.7107$bt2.365@okepread05...
| Quote: |
"Bob G" <bobjames27@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1130187056.324544.158280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the
west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none
else.
Is it literally saying {Only God exists} or is it literally saying
{No other God exists} Note I am not asking you to tell me
what you think that it means, only what it literally says.
It literally says that it may be known from the rising of the sun
and
from the west that there is none beside the entity that speaks. It
further states that this same entity is the Lord and that there is
none
else.
It is pure nonsense if you interpret it literally. For instance,
the
ancients knew from the rising of the sun that the sun goes 'round
the
Earth. Later it was learned from the same source that it's the
other
way around. Likewise, many things may be known from the west,
exactly
what I'm not sure. Many other things could be learned from the east
or
even the north northeast.
On the other hand, if you interpret it figuratively. as it is
intended,
you will learn from the rising of the sun in the west, a daily
affair,
repeated eternally, that there is a God, although I fail to see how
it
may follow that there is no other. The second sentence repeats both
assertions but offers no further proof.
Yes it would seem that you would be right about that part.
What about the other part {there is none else}?
I don't know if this will help or make things worse, but in the last |
sentence, the words "the Lord" stand, as usual, for the name of God in
the original. So what it says, literally, is "I [Name] and _'eyn_
(there is not; not, no) _"od_ (still, yet, more, again). The copula
is routinely left out, so "I" can be taken to mean "I am"; the words
in parentheses are the equivalents of the Hebrew words as given by my
_Ben-Yehuda's Pocket English-Hebrew/Hebrew-English Dictionary_. So,
maybe, "I am [Name] and there is not more": that's about as literal as
I can get it. If you had wanted to know what it meant, on the other
hand, I would have suggested considering some of the excellent
suggestions already offered, and/or consulting an expert in the
religious philosophy that you hold to be most relevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:01 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: |
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:435D8A22.76F8E5A3@verizon.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"Don Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> wrote in message news:Zba7f.30$XR4.226@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:v977f.7068$bt2.3239@okepread05...
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
The English literary tradition has several standard phrases that
indicate everywhere (from east to west) or always (from sunrise to
sunset:) but the standard phrases usually match in diction: they
do not say "from the rising of the sun to the west" etc.
"There is none beside me. I am the Lord" is a phrase found
several times in the Old Testament.
Some King James Version Bible sentences may deliberately
begin "That . . . " but they usually include a main clause, missing
here. (The second "that . . ." clause does not furnish one.) I would
guess the quoted phrase is something faultily remembered
from Anglican English.
Is it literally saying {Only God exists} or is it literally saying
{No other God exists} Note I am not asking you to tell me
what you think that it means, only what it literally says.
Have we forgotten the meanings of "most" and "literally"? What it is
most literally saying is, of course, "That they may know from the
rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else."
Anything else implicates figurative speech. For example, "there is
none beside me" literally means just that: look at my two sides and
see if there is anything on either one. Any meaning such as "I am the
only God" is a metaphorical extension of the meaning of "beside."
You did not include this sentence in your analysis
{I am the Lord and there is none else}
|
Very true. I should have quoted both sentences before adding my
snotty comment. But the sentence really doesn't change anything.
Tune your mind's ear to this reading of that sentence: "I am *the*
Lord and there is none else." I would have no trouble as inferring
that the speaker is announcing himself as the sole deity, with the
second clause serving as added emphasis. If it helps, substitute
"other" for "else." (Why not? the original's in Hebrew.)
You can take a couple of sentences like the ones you're quoting,
analyze them in isolation, and squeeze all sorts of meanings out of
them. There is no one "most literal" interpretation other than a
verbatim quotation. This whol exercise is, I regret, a waste of time
-- more entertaining than most of the things we waste time on around
here, but still a waste of time.
But then, this is AUE (and AEU, I notice), where wasting time is an
art form.
--
Bob Lieblich
Artist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:01 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:435D90C3.A05BC1E7@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:435D8A22.76F8E5A3@verizon.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"Don Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> wrote in message news:Zba7f.30$XR4.226@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:v977f.7068$bt2.3239@okepread05...
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
The English literary tradition has several standard phrases that
indicate everywhere (from east to west) or always (from sunrise to
sunset:) but the standard phrases usually match in diction: they
do not say "from the rising of the sun to the west" etc.
"There is none beside me. I am the Lord" is a phrase found
several times in the Old Testament.
Some King James Version Bible sentences may deliberately
begin "That . . . " but they usually include a main clause, missing
here. (The second "that . . ." clause does not furnish one.) I would
guess the quoted phrase is something faultily remembered
from Anglican English.
Is it literally saying {Only God exists} or is it literally saying
{No other God exists} Note I am not asking you to tell me
what you think that it means, only what it literally says.
Have we forgotten the meanings of "most" and "literally"? What it is
most literally saying is, of course, "That they may know from the
rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else."
Anything else implicates figurative speech. For example, "there is
none beside me" literally means just that: look at my two sides and
see if there is anything on either one. Any meaning such as "I am the
only God" is a metaphorical extension of the meaning of "beside."
You did not include this sentence in your analysis
{I am the Lord and there is none else}
Very true. I should have quoted both sentences before adding my
snotty comment. But the sentence really doesn't change anything.
Tune your mind's ear to this reading of that sentence: "I am *the*
Lord and there is none else." I would have no trouble as inferring
|
Whoops just missed literal by adding interpretation.
| Quote: | that the speaker is announcing himself as the sole deity, with the
second clause serving as added emphasis. If it helps, substitute
"other" for "else." (Why not? the original's in Hebrew.)
You can take a couple of sentences like the ones you're quoting,
analyze them in isolation, and squeeze all sorts of meanings out of
them. There is no one "most literal" interpretation other than a
verbatim quotation. This whol exercise is, I regret, a waste of time
-- more entertaining than most of the things we waste time on around
here, but still a waste of time.
But then, this is AUE (and AEU, I notice), where wasting time is an
art form.
--
Bob Lieblich
Artist |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:01 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Don Phillipson wrote:
| Quote: | "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:v977f.7068$bt2.3239@okepread05...
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
The English literary tradition has several standard phrases that
indicate everywhere (from east to west) or always (from sunrise to
sunset:) but the standard phrases usually match in diction: they
do not say "from the rising of the sun to the west" etc.
"There is none beside me. I am the Lord" is a phrase found
several times in the Old Testament.
Some King James Version Bible sentences may deliberately
begin "That . . . " but they usually include a main clause, missing
here. (The second "that . . ." clause does not furnish one.) I would
guess the quoted phrase is something faultily remembered
from Anglican English.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
|
This is a case where the King James (Authorized) Version is being quite
literal. The quote is from Isaiah 45:6. The Hebrew word of which "west"
is a translation is "ma'arab," meaning "setting place, west, westward,"
according to the *KJV with Strong's Numbers* at
<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=04628&version=kjv>
or
<http://tinyurl.com/dbrfv>
I looked at a couple of translations of this verse into French, both of
which translated the phrase by the equivalent of "from the rising sun
to the setting sun," and a translation into Esperanto, which had the
equivalent of "in the east and in the west."
See also *Young's Literal Translation* at <http://bible.crosswalk.com>
..
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:01 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: |
"Robert Lieblich" wrote
Peter Olcott wrote:
|
[ ... ]
| Quote: | You did not include this sentence in your analysis
{I am the Lord and there is none else}
Very true. I should have quoted both sentences before adding my
snotty comment. But the sentence really doesn't change anything.
Tune your mind's ear to this reading of that sentence: "I am *the*
Lord and there is none else." I would have no trouble as inferring
Whoops just missed literal by adding interpretation.
|
And what's wrong with interpretation? I thought that's what you
wanted. So the only way to advance the discussion was to go beyond
the "most literal" meaning. I infer from your "whoops" (even without
the punctuation that should have followed) that you were criticizing
me for "adding interpretation." But, to repeat, if we are to get
beyond simply quoting the same thing over and over, we have to do some
interpreting. My point was that the sentence I initially omitted can
be interpreted either way, just like the basic language. As if it
matters.
What are you actually trying to accomplish? One of the best ways to
get directions is to tell people where you want to go. I don't expect
it to work in this case, but it will at least focus the irrelevancies.
--
Bob Lieblich
Getting very tired of this |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:01 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:435DA0E7.DADB6FDD@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Robert Lieblich" wrote
Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
You did not include this sentence in your analysis
{I am the Lord and there is none else}
Very true. I should have quoted both sentences before adding my
snotty comment. But the sentence really doesn't change anything.
Tune your mind's ear to this reading of that sentence: "I am *the*
Lord and there is none else." I would have no trouble as inferring
Whoops just missed literal by adding interpretation.
And what's wrong with interpretation? I thought that's what you
wanted. So the only way to advance the discussion was to go beyond
the "most literal" meaning. I infer from your "whoops" (even without
|
No, and that's not what I asked for.
| Quote: | the punctuation that should have followed) that you were criticizing
me for "adding interpretation." But, to repeat, if we are to get
beyond simply quoting the same thing over and over, we have to do some
interpreting. My point was that the sentence I initially omitted can
be interpreted either way, just like the basic language. As if it
matters.
What are you actually trying to accomplish? One of the best ways to
get directions is to tell people where you want to go. I don't expect
it to work in this case, but it will at least focus the irrelevancies.
--
Bob Lieblich
Getting very tired of this |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:01 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
[I wrote:]
| Quote: | And what's wrong with interpretation? I thought that's what you
wanted. So the only way to advance the discussion was to go beyond
the "most literal" meaning. I infer from your "whoops" (even without
No, and that's not what I asked for.
|
Sorry, but I'm not in the mood to re-enact "The Argument Clinic."
Feel free to continue without me.
--
Bob Lieblich
No one escapes the Spanish Inquisition |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John O'Flaherty
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:01 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
|
Angels are so disinclined to dance that it's hard to pin down an exact
number.
--
john |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:01 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"CDB" <unbellecd@sprint.ca> wrote in message news:4if7f.49$XR4.283@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
| Quote: |
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message news:OLd7f.7107$bt2.365@okepread05...
"Bob G" <bobjames27@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:1130187056.324544.158280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
Is it literally saying {Only God exists} or is it literally saying
{No other God exists} Note I am not asking you to tell me
what you think that it means, only what it literally says.
It literally says that it may be known from the rising of the sun and
from the west that there is none beside the entity that speaks. It
further states that this same entity is the Lord and that there is none
else.
It is pure nonsense if you interpret it literally. For instance, the
ancients knew from the rising of the sun that the sun goes 'round the
Earth. Later it was learned from the same source that it's the other
way around. Likewise, many things may be known from the west, exactly
what I'm not sure. Many other things could be learned from the east or
even the north northeast.
On the other hand, if you interpret it figuratively. as it is intended,
you will learn from the rising of the sun in the west, a daily affair,
repeated eternally, that there is a God, although I fail to see how it
may follow that there is no other. The second sentence repeats both
assertions but offers no further proof.
Yes it would seem that you would be right about that part.
What about the other part {there is none else}?
I don't know if this will help or make things worse, but in the last sentence, the words "the Lord" stand, as usual, for the name
of God in the original. So what it says, literally, is "I [Name] and _'eyn_ (there is not; not, no) _"od_ (still, yet, more,
again). The copula is routinely left out, so "I" can be taken to mean "I am"; the words in parentheses are the equivalents of the
Hebrew words as given by my _Ben-Yehuda's Pocket English-Hebrew/Hebrew-English Dictionary_. So, maybe, "I am [Name] and there is
not more": that's about as literal as I can get it. If you had wanted to know what it meant, on the other hand, I would have
suggested considering some of the excellent suggestions already offered, and/or consulting an expert in the religious philosophy
that you hold to be most relevant.
I am thinking that it confirms the basic premise of Hinduism |
if taken literally, not adding or subtracting the slightest nuance
of meaning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in