ELOHIM NOT PLURAL

Shoshanna Walker rosewalk at concentric.net
Tue Jan 29 15:42:11 EST 2002


I think this is getting too heated up. 

It is my opinion, from what I have seen here, that the more recent finders in the field did not add anything to our understanding of  Torah that Ibn Ezra and the other great Torah scholars didn't already tell us.  

The Torah is a religious document, and I don't understand how you can take religion out of it, and think you are understanding - like taking the soul out of the body.

I will shut up now

Shoshanna






    Of all the "explanations" of the word Elohim that were cited on this list, 
    Ibn Ezra's is the clearest and most correct, that I have seen. 

    He is no less an authority and expert on Biblical Hebrew than your sources. 



  ibn Ezra was born c. 1089 A.D.  Not only is this considerably later than the time in which the TANAK was written, it is about 900 yrs ago.  Therefore he cannot be cited as an authority on contemporary usage.  Neither can he be cited as one who is aquainted with recent findings in the field.  I have little confidence in the linguistic pronouncements of scholars who lived only 200 yrs ago.  There has been much progress in the field since that time.  If you wish to maintain that something is so because some long-dead and respected rabbi said so, I think you should do so in a different forum.  Similarly, I have a great deal of respect for John Calvin.  If, however, someone were to say that something is to be understood in a particular way because Calvin did so, I would frankly be irritated.  I will not allow my thinking to be restricted to what someone once said years ago. 

  gfsomsel 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20020129/88f7596e/attachment.html 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list