Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8950 total)
29 online now:
Diomedes, jar, xongsmith (3 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,191 Year: 22,227/19,786 Month: 790/1,834 Week: 290/500 Day: 53/65 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Y-H-W-H is God; besides him there is nothing.
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 602 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 1 of 47 (720554)
02-25-2014 2:09 AM


Bs'd

"Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that Y-H-W-H, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other."
Deut 4:39

"You were shown these things so that you might know that Y-H-W-H is God; besides him there is nothing."
Deut 4:35

Only God exists.

Besides Him there is nothing.

And when I say nothing I mean NOTHING.

Of course there are always obstructionists who will claim that there is a whole universe filled with all kind of things big and small, and that therefore there do exist things beside God.

To them I say: There is NOTHING except for God.

And what about the whole physical world? The real solid tangible material world?

Well, that's just an illusion.

We are living in a matrix. We only THINK there is a physical world. In reality that is only an illusion, a figment of our imagination. A fata morgana.

Let's take a closer look at that supposed "real world". Take matter, for instance iron. That is made up of atoms, which are made up of a nucleus of protons and neutrons, with circling around it electrons. When we enlarge the nucleus to say a diameter of 4 inches, like an orange, then the electrons are circling around it in a distance of 4 miles.
And in between is nothing. Also not air, because that is something, but totally nothing.

And that means that something like iron, with a very solid feel to it, is 99.9999999999999% nothing.

And that makes a big difference.

In one shot we are rid of 99.9999999999999% of the material world.

However, we are still stuck with the remaining 0.0000000000001%.

But it turns out, that that remnant exists only as matter, something physical, as long as it is observed. The moment it is not observed, it changes into a wave, and no longer exists as a particle.

And that not only raises questions about the essence of matter, but also questions like: "How does dead matter know it is observed?"

People much smarter and much better educated than me, concluded from this that the universe is a mental entity, and not a physical entity.

Here is a youtube which in simple language explains the basics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4

Here is the same story, but now brought to you in a more complicated way, by a professor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXvAla2y9wc

In the first video it is explained that observation decides the state of the electron; particle or wave, and that when you install a detector, that the electron will start to behave like a particle, and not anymore like a wave.
But they forgot to tell, that when the information about the electron, stored in the detector, is deleted before the electron hits the farthest screen which makes it visible, that it then again starts to behave like a wave.

In 2005 an article appeared in one of the most respected, if not THE most respected, peer reviewed scientific journal, "Nature", which speaks about the mental universe.

That can be read here, if you give them your credit card number: http://www.nature.com/...ournal/v436/n7047/full/436029a.html

Here excerpts of the article can be found: http://amnap.blogspot.com/2007/04/mental-universe.html

Here a few excerpts:

"Physicists shy from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke ‘decoherence’ — the notion that ‘the physical environment’ is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in ‘Renninger-type’ experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental."

"There is another benefit of seeing the world as quantum mechanical: someone who has learned to accept that nothing exists but observations is far ahead of peers who stumble through physics hoping to find out ‘what things are’. If we can ‘pull a Galileo,’ and get people believing the truth, they will find physics a breeze.

The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy."

So the universe is not physical, but mental.

Here is what others said about that one:

“Today there is a wide measure of agreement… that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine”
Astronomer James Jeans

“The stuff of the universe is mind-stuff”
Astronomer Arthur Eddington

More recently, described as “an intelligent universe” whose apparent concreteness is generated by cosmic data from an unknowable, organized source. The holographic theory says that: “…our brains mathematically construct hard reality by interpreting frequencies from a dimension transcending time and space. The brain is a hologram, interpreting a holographic universe.”
Cyberneticist David Foster

In his play Copenhagen, which brings quantum mechanics to a wider audience, Michael Frayn gives these word to Niels Bohr: “we discover that... the Universe exists... only through the understanding lodged inside the human head.” . . .

I especially like this one:

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, who was the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies wrote in his book, God and the Astronomers, that “For the scientistwho has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream: The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

The strange part is that these facts are known for almost a hundred years, and almost nobody knows about it.

How did this state of afairs come about?

On that page with the excerpt of the article about the "Mental Universe" is a comment by a reader that says: " I thought based on that non-mainstream view of QM that he might be a marginal figure, but hardly. His statements lend a great deal of credibility to the idea of consciousness as central to QM and therefore reality."

The author of the article, professor Richard Conn Henry, a physicist at John Hopkins University, answers to that:
"But the truly remarkable thing is that the view of QM that I express is NOT "non-mainstream." It is totally non-controversial. What IS controversial, is talking about it. (It has been accurately called physics' skeleton in the closet). Something really has to be done about this, and I am at least trying."

So the mental universe is a fact, a non-controversial generally accepted fact.
That is: amongst scienitists.

But what is controversial, is speaking about it. It is swept under the carpet. It is the skeleton in the closet of the scientists.

And that's why this fact is virtually unknown by the guy in the street.

We can compare this to another slip up of science, namely the fact that for 150 the layman was lied to about the assumption that the fossil record would support the evolution theory, something that is absolutely wrong. The fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely stasis; non-change.

About this, a famous paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory, says:

"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."

Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44
So here it is stated flat out that the public was lied to about the fossil record for 150 years.

And even so now the fact that the universe and everything in it is not material but mental, is being swept under the carpet and hushed up.

From this we can learn that scientist not necessarilly have the good of science in mind, or the good of the masses, but mainly their own good. Sometimes they are just like humans.

And who can blame them, when rocking the boat means that you lose your job, your carriere is gonna be broken, en you'll never again find a job in your field.

Things like that don't happen anymore in our modern society you say?

Just look here what happened to a great scientist, Velikovsky, when he published facts that were not to the liking of the scientific establishment: https://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/exodus

Or watch on youtube the documantary "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed".

But one way or another; the physical universe doesn't exitst.

Please be adviced that nevertheless it is not a good idea to start banging your head agains the wall, thinking: "That wall doesn't exist anyway", because we are subjected to the laws that God has set for our matrix, and head-against-the-wall-banging will result in a nasty headache.

Anyway; Welcome to the Matrix.
(een prophetic movie)



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, Cambridge professor department of physics

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 02-25-2014 3:28 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 02-25-2014 10:09 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-25-2014 12:45 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 02-25-2014 1:28 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 02-25-2014 10:09 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1945
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 47 (720555)
02-25-2014 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eliyahu
02-25-2014 2:09 AM


I would promote this, but I don't exist. Besides Y-H-W-H there is nothing else. (Mod Humor)

Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eliyahu, posted 02-25-2014 2:09 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Eliyahu, posted 02-25-2014 8:48 AM AdminPhat has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Eliyahu, posted 02-27-2014 12:20 AM AdminPhat has not yet responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 602 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 3 of 47 (720556)
02-25-2014 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
02-25-2014 3:28 AM


how does this topic differ from any of your others?

Bs'd

If you can't see the difference, then I think you need stronger glasses.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, Cambridge professor department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 02-25-2014 3:28 AM AdminPhat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-25-2014 8:59 AM Eliyahu has responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1945
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 4 of 47 (720558)
02-25-2014 8:53 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Y-H-W-H is God; besides him there is nothing. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13382
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 47 (720559)
02-25-2014 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Eliyahu
02-25-2014 8:48 AM


Judaism and Critical Thinking
You must be a prophet! I DO need stronger glasses.

I have been reading some of what you write here at EvC and though I don't necessarily agree with your beliefs, have come to respect your intelligence. You seem to back up much of your belief with scripture---which is commendable, and although at first I feared you to be a Jehovahs Witness..now see that you are of the Jewish faith. Can I ask you within your faith are you conservative(Orthodox) or are you Reformed or are you Reconstructionist? Or....have you placed yourself in a category yet?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Eliyahu, posted 02-25-2014 8:48 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Eliyahu, posted 02-26-2014 1:35 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 6 of 47 (720594)
02-25-2014 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eliyahu
02-25-2014 2:09 AM


Solid Walls
Eliyahu writes:

Only God exists.

Besides Him there is nothing.

You may be right, but I don't believe you. You don't provide any reason to think that this is true.
There is, however, a reason to believe that God does not exist -> the fact that nothing seems to require God.

To them I say: There is NOTHING except for God.

Repeating yourself with capitalization doesn't add any value to your words.

And what about the whole physical world? The real solid tangible material world?

Well, that's just an illusion.

Yes, very much so. How does this point to God?

In one shot we are rid of 99.9999999999999% of the material world.

However, we are still stuck with the remaining 0.0000000000001%.

True (...enough, anyway).
But, again, how does this point to God?
Even you just said (twice, even... sometimes with CAPTIALS) that there is nothing except for God.
But now you're saying the world is mostly nothing... and not showing any God. You're arguing against yourself.
So, what is it? Is there mostly nothing in this universe, or is there mostly God? What you've said here, is that there's mostly nothing.

But, apart from your own confusion... all this means is that our original concept of the physical world was incorrect.
Things are not solid, they simply feel solid because of the fields they produce... not because they are continuous.

But just because fields exist doesn't mean God exists. It means fields exist.
How does any of this point to God?

People much smarter and much better educated than me, concluded from this that the universe is a mental entity, and not a physical entity.

You have a false dichotomy here.
I agree that the world is not physical in the sense that objects are solid, impermeable matter.
But that knowledge doesn't create a mental entity in any way.
It creates a way that physical objects exist to us such that they feel solid even though they are not. This is explained by all the interacting fields (gravity, electric, energy...).

In 2005 an article appeared in one of the most respected, if not THE most respected, peer reviewed scientific journal, "Nature", which speaks about the mental universe.

That can be read here, if you give them your credit card number...

Or, viewed in it's entirety for free here: The mental Universe by Richard Conn Henry

A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke ‘decoherence’ — the notion that ‘the physical environment’ is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind.

That's not what decoherence is.

Decoherence is this: the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary

All that means is, basically: "when things get big enough that we no longer require the specific equations of quantum mechanics to describe the physical motions... the equations of Newtonian mechanics work just fine."

Or, again: "when things are large enough that they act in the way we're used to experience things acting in our everyday lives."

The term has nothing to do with the human mind. I promise. Someone's trying to make a fool of you, and you're letting them.

The strange part is that these facts are known for almost a hundred years, and almost nobody knows about it.

I know about it.
It's taught rather normally in university physics courses. Maybe electricity and magnetism courses? Maybe quantum mechanics courses... I can't remember. It's not a secret, though.

So the mental universe is a fact, a non-controversial generally accepted fact.

No, I don't think you understand.
Quantum mechanics are a fact, yes. But jumping to a "mental universe" just because things are not solid as you previously thought... with no other reason to use the term "mental" in any way... with no evidence to suggest any sort of consciousness within the universe apart from known humans and animals... that's silly. And that's what's "not talked about."

But it's not laughed away because it's not desired.
It's ridiculed because there's no evidence pointing towards that conclusion in any way.

Find some evidence, and people will listen. Just like they listened to Galileo... because he showed them the evidence.

Please be advised that nevertheless it is not a good idea to start banging your head against the wall, thinking: "That wall doesn't exist anyway", because we are subjected to the laws that God has set for our matrix, and head-against-the-wall-banging will result in a nasty headache.

Again, no.
The wall doesn't feel solid because of God.
The wall feels solid because of the fields it creates as described by quantum mechanics.

We have a wall that feels solid.
No God is necessary.
We used to think the wall felt solid because of solid physics.
The wall still feels solid.
No God is necessary.
We now think the wall feels solid because of the interactions of the fields created by all the components of matter as described by quantum physics.
The wall still feels solid.
No God is necessary.

Maybe one day we'll find some evidence pointing towards God.
Maybe not.
Maybe one day we'll find some evidence pointing towards another God-not-required explanation that replaces quantum physics.
Maybe not.

Either way... currently, there is no evidence pointing towards a "mental universe" in the context that God is required for it's existence.
And the wall still feels solid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eliyahu, posted 02-25-2014 2:09 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-25-2014 10:36 AM Stile has responded
 Message 19 by Eliyahu, posted 02-26-2014 7:22 AM Stile has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13382
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 47 (720599)
02-25-2014 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Stile
02-25-2014 10:09 AM


Re: Solid Walls
Stile writes:

There is, however, a reason to believe that God does not exist -> the fact that nothing seems to require God.

If you built a robot, a radio, or just about anything that you could assemble, "it" would not require you around either. It would operate quite well on its own for a time.

Imagine now that you were a Creator like God and, hypothetically, you created(either directly or indirectly) humanity. It is true that at the present time they do not need you. It may well be, however, that they may find a point in the future where they do need you.

Stile writes:

Quantum mechanics are a fact, yes. But jumping to a "mental universe" just because things are not solid as you previously thought... with no other reason to use the term "mental" in any way... with no evidence to suggest any sort of consciousness within the universe apart from known humans and animals... that's silly. And that's what's "not talked about."

But it's not laughed away because it's not desired.
It's ridiculed because there's no evidence pointing towards that conclusion in any way.

This reminds me of a scripture in Hebrews...

NIV writes:

Heb 11:3-- By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Sounds a bit like atoms to me. They are invisible. Just a thought....carry on


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 02-25-2014 10:09 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Stile, posted 02-25-2014 10:57 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 8 of 47 (720608)
02-25-2014 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Thugpreacha
02-25-2014 10:36 AM


Re: Solid Walls
Phat writes:

Imagine now that you were a Creator like God and, hypothetically, you created(either directly or indirectly) humanity. It is true that at the present time they do not need you. It may well be, however, that they may find a point in the future where they do need you.

Sure. Quite possible. What about probable, though?
Also quite possible -> The universe is created from the egg of a turtle. Probable? So far... not so much.

We can think of all sorts of ideas that do not contradict what we see. That makes them possible. What makes them probable?

Currently, the best technique we have for determining if any particular idea is probable or not is to find evidence that points towards that idea.

So far, there's no evidence for a Creator God.
So far, there's no evidence for a turtle egg universe.
So far... there's lots and lots of evidence that God is not required.
So far... there's lots and lots of evidence that turtle eggs are not required.

So far... there's lots and lots of evidence that God does not exist.
So far... there's lots and lots of evidence that turtle egg universes do not exist.

It's the same evidence. The more we discover, the more we learn:
...we discover and learn non-God techniques for why things are the way they are.
...we discover and learn non-turtle-egg techniques for why things are the way they are.

If we want to follow the evidence... then the evidence currently says that God does not exist.
If we want to follow the evidence... then the evidence currently says that turtle egg universes do not exist.

Is it possible to discover God in the future? Of course it is. But how likely? As likely as it is to discover turtle-egg universes, it seems.

Sounds a bit like atoms to me. They are invisible. Just a thought....carry on

Sure does.
Who wrote the Bible? Right... people. No God required, again. We already know that people are capable of talking about things that sound a bit like invisible atoms... it happens every day. Remember... thinking of ideas that do not contradict what we see are meaningless. In order to support an idea as probable you need to give a unique reason why it should be considered. Otherwise, the possibility remains as unlikely as turtle eggs creating universes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-25-2014 10:36 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Eliyahu, posted 02-27-2014 12:32 AM Stile has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 47 (720621)
02-25-2014 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eliyahu
02-25-2014 2:09 AM


If the table stops existing after everyone leaves the room, the how do you explain that, when we come back in 10 years, the table is covered in dust?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eliyahu, posted 02-25-2014 2:09 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 02-25-2014 1:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 448 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 10 of 47 (720622)
02-25-2014 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
02-25-2014 12:45 PM


Nonsense!
If the table stops existing after everyone leaves the room, the how do you explain that, when we come back in 10 years, the table is covered in dust?

Pixies, of course!

Seriously, it is amazing the nonsense folks will believe based on religion.

Heinlein had it right:

quote:
The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H. sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-25-2014 12:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33903
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


(3)
Message 11 of 47 (720623)
02-25-2014 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eliyahu
02-25-2014 2:09 AM


"Nothing" or "No other gods?"
There are other places in the Hebrew scripture where that same word translated "nothing" is used in the same way, and the usual understanding I'm aware of is not "nothing" in the sense you seem to be using it but in the sense of "no other gods" and I think the context bears out that reading. "I am the LORD thy God and thou shalt have no other gods before Me" [Ex 20:3] is the idea. That theme occurs through out the Old Testament.

Deut 4:35-39 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.

Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he shewed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire.

And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt;

To drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, as it is this day.

Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

"There is none else" implies "There are no other gods."

ABE: And this makes particular sense in the context of the Bible where God has chosen Himself a people among many peoples who all have their own gods. His miracles were all done to prove that He isn't just another "god" but THE God, the Creator God. There is testimony given by foreigners in the scripture too, to the effect that they recognized that the God of Israel is THE God and not a god lilke all the other nations had.

Also, God wouldn't promote such a message as you are claiming, which can only confuse people. He speaks to ordinary minds, but the idea of "nothing" is beyond our ordinary minds. /ABE

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eliyahu, posted 02-25-2014 2:09 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 02-25-2014 10:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 320 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 12 of 47 (720644)
02-25-2014 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
02-25-2014 1:28 PM


Re: "Nothing" or "No other gods?"
Faith writes:

There are other places in the Hebrew scripture where that same word translated "nothing" is used in the same way, and the usual understanding I'm aware of is not "nothing" in the sense you seem to be using it

indeed, the metaphysical concept of ain as complete nothingness is a concept that wasn't really around until the middle ages. it's just a word that means something like "none".


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 02-25-2014 1:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 320 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 47 (720645)
02-25-2014 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eliyahu
02-25-2014 2:09 AM


translation problems?
Eliyahu writes:

"You were shown these things so that you might know that Y-H-W-H is God; besides him there is nothing."
Deut 4:35

not sure what translation you're using. my copy says,

quote:
אַתָּה הָרְאֵתָ לָדַעַת, כִּי יְהוָה הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים: אֵין עוֹד, מִלְּבַדּוֹ

note the words that come after אֵין. in that context, it's not appropriate to translate אֵין as "nothing" particularly because you're leaving out two words: עוֹד "other", and מִלְּבַדּוֹ "apart from/beside him". most notably עוֹד because you could conceivably read אין מלבדו as "nothing apart from him". but עוֹד tells us that it's talking about אלהים, because, "יְהוָה הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים".

make sense?

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eliyahu, posted 02-25-2014 2:09 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 02-25-2014 10:53 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 47 (720648)
02-25-2014 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by arachnophilia
02-25-2014 10:09 PM


Re: translation problems?
make sense?

No. How about a bone for the rest of us to gnaw on?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 02-25-2014 10:09 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 02-25-2014 11:09 PM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 16 by arachnophilia, posted 02-26-2014 12:43 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 448 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 15 of 47 (720650)
02-25-2014 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NoNukes
02-25-2014 10:53 PM


Re: translation problems? No. That's not the problem.
How about a bone for the rest of us to gnaw on?

This should be in a forum devoted to literary criticism.

I did a lot of that when I was an English major.

As with this thread, it is all opinion based on opinion based on somebody's writing.

Relationship to reality? None.

But at least Hamlet was better written and more interesting.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 02-25-2014 10:53 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 02-26-2014 12:53 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019