Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] k'ehad mimenou

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Andronic Khandjani <andronicusmy AT gmail.com>
  • To: Uzi Silber <uzisilber AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] k'ehad mimenou
  • Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 12:06:33 +0100

2011/10/28 Andronic Khandjani <andronicusmy AT gmail.com>

> There is some tendency use plural in the semitic and quite semitic world.
> In the Quran, Allah is using the "we", in Iran we use both forms Izad and
> Yezdan for the same God. Yezdan is basically a plural like Elohim.
>
>
> 2011/10/28 Uzi Silber <uzisilber AT gmail.com>
>
>> eloha singular - elohim plural.
>> why can elohim be a very early semitic conception of god as a
>> multifaceted entity or even a bundling of canaanite deities? referring
>> to them in plural seems to me a clue to such an origin. otherwise it
>> would have been be 'tzalmo' and 'kamoni', no?
>>
>> Uzi Silber
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Andronic Khandjani
>> <andronicusmy AT gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Uzi,
>> > Thanks.
>> > How you will render Elohim? Why the governing verb is singular?
>> >
>> > I think that we must consider Elohim as singular even HE speaks to
>> Angels. I
>> > would maintain the monotheism of the author.
>> > Firouz Khandjani
>> > 2011/10/28 Uzi Silber <uzisilber AT gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >> Andronic
>> >>
>> >> Elohim is a plural, so 'echad me eemanu', would make sense. much like
>> >> the earlier passgae that says that man would be made 'be tzalmeynu'
>> >>
>> >> Uzi Silber
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Andronic Khandjani
>> >> <andronicusmy AT gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > We usually renders Genesis 3:22 by "" Behold, the man is become as
>> one
>> >> > of
>> >> > us, to know good and evil", a targum translates mimenou by "by
>> himself"
>> >> > and
>> >> > the mim and the lam may suggest some motion. Mim may suggest
>> subtraction
>> >> > and
>> >> > lam adhesion. Eva is not even mentioned but only Adam.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is it possible that k'ehad refer to the unity of Genesis 2.24, if so
>> >> > Adam
>> >> > refers here to the humanity and we may render the verse like this:
>> >> > "The human became as one by their own initiative through the
>> knowledge
>> >> > of
>> >> > good and evil"?
>> >> > .
>> >> > Firouz Khandjani
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Pleven, Bulgaria
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > b-hebrew mailing list
>> >> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> >> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page