| Author |
Message |
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: |
"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."
The language sustains either of the two meanings you're trying to
assign to it. Without some sort of context you can't make an informed
choice. Knowing what I know of scripture, I think it reasonably clear
that the latter meaning -- "No other God exists" -- is intended.
Otherwise God is a solipsist.
--
Bob Lieblich
Insanely literal (sometimes)
|
|
| 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:435D8A22.76F8E5A3@verizon.net...
| Quote: | 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}
| Quote: |
The language sustains either of the two meanings you're trying to
assign to it. Without some sort of context you can't make an informed
choice. Knowing what I know of scripture, I think it reasonably clear
that the latter meaning -- "No other God exists" -- is intended.
Otherwise God is a solipsist.
--
Bob Lieblich
Insanely literal (sometimes) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Robert Lieblich wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
[I wrote:]
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.
|
Peter may not intend to appear as cagey about what he wants as in
practice he does. But, to judge from an earlier message, he's hoping
to find support for an Indian idea in the Hebrew Bible; but, being
fair-minded, he didn't want to taint our testimony by planting the
idea at the outset.
There is no way, as Bob said, that any text can be read without
interpreting it. This applies the more forcibly to a text composed
during the bronze age in an obsolete version of another language.
This (and, Peter, I don't for a moment imagine I'm telling you
anything new), is why people argue about what sacred books mean.
The Bible has to be interpreted in the light of what we know and
infer about the culture it comes from. More than one of us has
suggested that the idea of all things other than God being "illusion"
(if I may use the word) would have been alien to that culture. I
don't think the Bible and Hindu scriptures can be reconciled in any
but the very broadest sense.
--
Mike.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3s6qpiFmllmeU2@individual.net...
| Quote: | Robert Lieblich wrote:
Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
[I wrote:]
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.
Peter may not intend to appear as cagey about what he wants as in
practice he does. But, to judge from an earlier message, he's hoping
to find support for an Indian idea in the Hebrew Bible; but, being
fair-minded, he didn't want to taint our testimony by planting the
idea at the outset.
There is no way, as Bob said, that any text can be read without
interpreting it. This applies the more forcibly to a text composed
during the bronze age in an obsolete version of another language.
This (and, Peter, I don't for a moment imagine I'm telling you
anything new), is why people argue about what sacred books mean.
The Bible has to be interpreted in the light of what we know and
infer about the culture it comes from. More than one of us has
suggested that the idea of all things other than God being "illusion"
(if I may use the word) would have been alien to that culture. I
don't think the Bible and Hindu scriptures can be reconciled in any
but the very broadest sense.
--
Mike.
I see no way that the sentence {I am the Lord, and there is none else} |
can not be taken to mean {Only God exists}. If it said {I am the Lord,
and there is no other God} that is a whole other meaning, that is not
precisely specified by the words of the sentence that I quoted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I see no way that the sentence {I am the Lord, and there is none else}
can not be taken to mean {Only God exists}.
|
It didn't say "and there is *nothing* else."
"There is none else" is not idiomatic English nowadays, as far as I
know. "None other" would be modern English, and it would mean "no other
lord."
--
Not that you care -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:24 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "Mike Lyle"
[...]
The Bible has to be interpreted in the light of what we know and
infer about the culture it comes from. More than one of us has
suggested that the idea of all things other than God being
"illusion"
(if I may use the word) would have been alien to that culture. I
don't think the Bible and Hindu scriptures can be reconciled in
any
but the very broadest sense.
--
Mike.
I see no way that the sentence {I am the Lord, and there is none
else}
can not be taken to mean {Only God exists}. If it said {I am the
Lord,
and there is no other God} that is a whole other meaning, that is
not
precisely specified by the words of the sentence that I quoted.
|
Peter, it really seems to me that you are being less than reasonable.
There is no evidence that people of that culture thought that way in
that place at that time. The Hebrew Bible has, on the other hand, the
competition between orthodox monotheists and the rest as a constantly
recurring theme. Those chapters of Isaiah go on about it in varying
phraseology, and it's quite clear what is meant.
As far as English usage goes, "I am the Lord and there is none else"
is _much_ more likely to mean "I am the Lord and there is no other
lord" than "I exist, and nobody else does". God was not, of course,
speaking English at the time.
I can really add no more. But "There is no peace for the wicked, says
the Lord." (NEB)
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:1h4zze3.1derygj1uigwzvN%trio@euronet.nl...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net> wrote:
I see no way that the sentence {I am the Lord, and there is none else}
can not be taken to mean {Only God exists}.
It didn't say "and there is *nothing* else."
"There is none else" is not idiomatic English nowadays, as far as I
know. "None other" would be modern English, and it would mean "no other
lord."
--
Not that you care -- Donna Richoux
|
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.
It doesn't say no other Lord. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Mike Lyle"
[...]
The Bible has to be interpreted in the light of what we know and
infer about the culture it comes from. More than one of us has
suggested that the idea of all things other than God being
"illusion"
(if I may use the word) would have been alien to that culture. I
don't think the Bible and Hindu scriptures can be reconciled in
any
but the very broadest sense.
--
Mike.
I see no way that the sentence {I am the Lord, and there is none
else}
can not be taken to mean {Only God exists}. If it said {I am the
Lord,
and there is no other God} that is a whole other meaning, that is
not
precisely specified by the words of the sentence that I quoted.
Peter, it really seems to me that you are being less than reasonable.
There is no evidence that people of that culture thought that way in
that place at that time. The Hebrew Bible has, on the other hand, the
competition between orthodox monotheists and the rest as a constantly
recurring theme. Those chapters of Isaiah go on about it in varying
phraseology, and it's quite clear what is meant.
As far as English usage goes, "I am the Lord and there is none else"
is _much_ more likely to mean "I am the Lord and there is no other
lord" than "I exist, and nobody else does". God was not, of course,
speaking English at the time.
I can really add no more. But "There is no peace for the wicked, says
the Lord." (NEB)
|
To amplify this, Peter, the "you" and "they" that you called attention
to in another post are also evidence that God is not being solipsistic
or pantheistic here.
I'll make my final summary. There's no reason to focus on the literal
meaning, since the passage is figurative and the whole book of Isaiah
is rich in figurative language like a savory stew. If you choose to
focus on the literal meaning, the English words are susceptible of two
literal interpretations: "There is no God else" and "There is no person
(or even thing) else." The casual use of "you" and "they" with no
caveat that they are illusions, the statement in the previous verse
that there's no other God, and indeed the whole remainder of the Hebrew
Bible and Judaism make it 100% clear that the intended meaning is
"There is no other God." However, if you want to uproot the sentence
from its context, you can say that the English sentence is formally
ambiguous and could in principle also have the Hindu or pantheist
meaning. Possibly the same applies to the Hebrew sentence; I don't
know.
HTH
--
Jerry Friedman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3s712hFlrt8jU2@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Mike Lyle"
[...]
The Bible has to be interpreted in the light of what we know and
infer about the culture it comes from. More than one of us has
suggested that the idea of all things other than God being
"illusion"
(if I may use the word) would have been alien to that culture. I
don't think the Bible and Hindu scriptures can be reconciled in
any
but the very broadest sense.
--
Mike.
I see no way that the sentence {I am the Lord, and there is none
else}
can not be taken to mean {Only God exists}. If it said {I am the
Lord,
and there is no other God} that is a whole other meaning, that is
not
precisely specified by the words of the sentence that I quoted.
Peter, it really seems to me that you are being less than reasonable.
There is no evidence that people of that culture thought that way in
that place at that time. The Hebrew Bible has, on the other hand, the
competition between orthodox monotheists and the rest as a constantly
recurring theme. Those chapters of Isaiah go on about it in varying
phraseology, and it's quite clear what is meant.
As far as English usage goes, "I am the Lord and there is none else"
is _much_ more likely to mean "I am the Lord and there is no other
lord" than "I exist, and nobody else does". God was not, of course,
speaking English at the time.
I can really add no more. But "There is no peace for the wicked, says
the Lord." (NEB)
--
Mike.
If we begin the premise that the bible is literally infallible, |
(The Pentecostal premise) , then the bible would be required
to say exactly and precisely what it means, and mean exactly
and precisely what it says. The slightest nuance of a difference
and infallibility is violated.
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 utterly eliminate the slightest nuance of subjective interpretation
then we are limited in the meanings that we can derive from this verse.
We can change the words without changing the meaning.
One of the literal meanings from this
{I am the Lord and there is none else}
would be that {God is saying that Only God exists}.
Another set of words that has exactly and precisely the same
meaning is {God is saying that nothing besides God exists}.
There are very few sets of words that have exactly and precisely
the same meaning, and yet one CAN change the words, AND
derive exactly and precisely the same meaning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
<jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1130254711.936502.158680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Mike Lyle wrote:
Peter Olcott wrote:
"Mike Lyle"
[...]
The Bible has to be interpreted in the light of what we know and
infer about the culture it comes from. More than one of us has
suggested that the idea of all things other than God being
"illusion"
(if I may use the word) would have been alien to that culture. I
don't think the Bible and Hindu scriptures can be reconciled in
any
but the very broadest sense.
--
Mike.
I see no way that the sentence {I am the Lord, and there is none
else}
can not be taken to mean {Only God exists}. If it said {I am the
Lord,
and there is no other God} that is a whole other meaning, that is
not
precisely specified by the words of the sentence that I quoted.
Peter, it really seems to me that you are being less than reasonable.
There is no evidence that people of that culture thought that way in
that place at that time. The Hebrew Bible has, on the other hand, the
competition between orthodox monotheists and the rest as a constantly
recurring theme. Those chapters of Isaiah go on about it in varying
phraseology, and it's quite clear what is meant.
As far as English usage goes, "I am the Lord and there is none else"
is _much_ more likely to mean "I am the Lord and there is no other
lord" than "I exist, and nobody else does". God was not, of course,
speaking English at the time.
I can really add no more. But "There is no peace for the wicked, says
the Lord." (NEB)
To amplify this, Peter, the "you" and "they" that you called attention
to in another post are also evidence that God is not being solipsistic
or pantheistic here.
I am not talking about evidence, I am talking about analytical proof. |
I am not really talking about the semantics from linguistics, I am talking
about the pure semantics from logic.
To call 4.999531 FIVE would be an error, a very slight error but an
error just the same.
| Quote: | I'll make my final summary. There's no reason to focus on the literal
meaning, since the passage is figurative and the whole book of Isaiah
is rich in figurative language like a savory stew. If you choose to
focus on the literal meaning, the English words are susceptible of two
literal interpretations: "There is no God else" and "There is no person
(or even thing) else." The casual use of "you" and "they" with no
caveat that they are illusions, the statement in the previous verse
that there's no other God, and indeed the whole remainder of the Hebrew
Bible and Judaism make it 100% clear that the intended meaning is
"There is no other God." However, if you want to uproot the sentence
from its context, you can say that the English sentence is formally
ambiguous and could in principle also have the Hindu or pantheist
meaning. Possibly the same applies to the Hebrew sentence; I don't
know.
HTH
--
Jerry Friedman
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | If we begin the premise that the bible is literally infallible,
(The Pentecostal premise) , then the bible would be required
to say exactly and precisely what it means, and mean exactly
and precisely what it says. The slightest nuance of a difference
and infallibility is violated.
[...] |
Yes. You've got it.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:19 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3s73kdFmmsqmU2@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
If we begin the premise that the bible is literally infallible,
(The Pentecostal premise) , then the bible would be required
to say exactly and precisely what it means, and mean exactly
and precisely what it says. The slightest nuance of a difference
and infallibility is violated.
[...]
Yes. You've got it.
--
Mike.
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.
So then the above verse taken literally, and in isolation can only
mean that everything is a manifestation of God. I am asking for
English, not theology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CDB
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3s712hFlrt8jU2@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Mike Lyle"
[...]
The Bible has to be interpreted in the light of what we know and
infer about the culture it comes from. More than one of us has
suggested that the idea of all things other than God being
"illusion"
(if I may use the word) would have been alien to that culture. I
don't think the Bible and Hindu scriptures can be reconciled in
any
but the very broadest sense.
--
Mike.
I see no way that the sentence {I am the Lord, and there is none
else}
can not be taken to mean {Only God exists}. If it said {I am the
Lord,
and there is no other God} that is a whole other meaning, that is
not
precisely specified by the words of the sentence that I quoted.
Peter, it really seems to me that you are being less than
reasonable.
There is no evidence that people of that culture thought that way in
that place at that time. The Hebrew Bible has, on the other hand,
the
competition between orthodox monotheists and the rest as a
constantly
recurring theme. Those chapters of Isaiah go on about it in varying
phraseology, and it's quite clear what is meant.
As far as English usage goes, "I am the Lord and there is none else"
is _much_ more likely to mean "I am the Lord and there is no other
lord" than "I exist, and nobody else does". God was not, of course,
speaking English at the time.
I can really add no more. But "There is no peace for the wicked,
says
the Lord." (NEB)
|
But, as we have seen, the original does not say "the Lord", but the
name of God. This word, not to be spoken by Jews, is replaced in
reading aloud, and here in translation, by "the Lord". I am [Name]
and there is none else.
There is a kind of mental experience, not so uncommon from what I have
heard, called "the mystic vision". It consists of a sudden compelling
understanding (the scales fall from your eyes) that all things are one
thing and that that is God. I had the experience myself, as a young
man. The one thing was exactly what was in front of me, but at the
same time it was like a fire burning, like a singing, like a dancing,
like an overwhelming joy, and like a voice/voices speaking a word,
once and, at the same time, again and again forever. The word was
"All things are one thing."
The experience carried a great deal of conviction, although I try to
remain open to suggestions that it was a temporal-lobe phenomenon.
The point here, I think, is not its authenticity but its compelling
nature and its relative frequency (I have an aunt, not related by
blood, who tells me she has seen it too). A bronze-age Hebrew who saw
a bush that burned and was not consumed, and heard a voice saying, "I
am that I am", a Hindu from the same age who saw Krishna dancing, an
iron-age Jew who heard the Word that was in the the beginning, and an
early industrial-age Englishman who lived (sometimes) in eternity's
sunrise might well come to some of the same conclusions about the
nature of God, whatever the social and political considerations of the
time then made of their message.
I think that may be what the OP was thinking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CDB
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:29 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:UVs7f.13899$vk1.6054@dukeread04...
| Quote: |
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3s73kdFmmsqmU2@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
If we begin the premise that the bible is literally infallible,
(The Pentecostal premise) , then the bible would be required
to say exactly and precisely what it means, and mean exactly
and precisely what it says. The slightest nuance of a difference
and infallibility is violated.
[...]
Yes. You've got it.
--
Mike.
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
So then the above verse taken literally, and in isolation can only
mean that everything is a manifestation of God. I am asking for
English, not theology.
Oh. That's completely different, then .... Never mind. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick Wotnaz
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in
news:UVs7f.13899$vk1.6054@dukeread04:
| Quote: |
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:3s73kdFmmsqmU2@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
If we begin the premise that the bible is literally
infallible, (The Pentecostal premise) , then the bible would
be required to say exactly and precisely what it means, and
mean exactly and precisely what it says. The slightest nuance
of a difference and infallibility is violated.
[...]
Yes. You've got it.
--
Mike.
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.
So then the above verse taken literally, and in isolation can
only mean that everything is a manifestation of God. I am asking
for English, not theology.
|
So in English, who would "they" be in that sentence. Presuming that
only God exists, who is he trying to convince? Even taking the
sentence in isolation, I don't see how one can pass over the
implications of one word choice ("they") while insisting on a
seemingly-contradictory interpretation of the phrase "none else."
What am I failing to understand here?
--
rzed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in