Biblical Hebrew Forum

[someone angel <unkangel AT yahoo.com>]

Hello Sir!
   
  Echad (one) 
It is customary for some Binitarians and most evangelical Trinitarians 
(especially Messianics) to propose that the Hebrew word for one, the numeral 
one (echad), is really “compound one.” This is a clever device which confuses 
logical thought. Echad occurs some 960 times in the Hebrew Bible, and it is 
the numeral “one.” It is a numeral adjective when it modifies a noun. “One 
day,” “one person,” etc. Echad is the ordinary cardinal number, “one.” Eleven 
in Hebrew is ten and one. Abraham “was only one,” said Ezekiel 33:24 (NASU), 
“only one man” (NIV). 
  Just as the famous Armstrongian phrase “uniplural” does not appear in the 
Webster’s (thus it represents the DIY grammatical venture on which Worldwide 
theology was done in respect to defining God), “compound one” as a definition 
of echad is also not recognized in standard texts describing the grammar of 
the Hebrew language. It is an invented grammatical category which confuses 
and divides. 
  The Hebrew word for one operates as does the word “one” in English. You can 
have one thing, one person. And of course the noun modified by echad may be 
collective, one family, one people, one flesh, as a single unit composed of 
two — Adam and Eve, in that case. But to say that “one” carries the meaning 
of “compound one” is misleading in the extreme. The basic meaning of echad 
given by the lexicons is “one single,” even the indefinite article “a.” 
Sometimes “the only one,” or even “unique” is the proper translation of 
echad. 
  Suppose now we say that “one” implies more than one. We could prove our 
point like this: In the phrase “one tripod,” is it not obvious that one 
really implies three? Does not one dozen mean that one is really 12? Or one 
million? Is one equivalent to a million? Does this not suggest the plurality 
of “one”? What about “one quartet” or “one duplex”? To carry this madness to 
an extreme, we could argue that in the phrase “one zebra,” the word one 
really means “black and white.” 
  What is happening here? We are being asked to believe that in the phrase 
“the Lord our God is one Lord,” that “one” is “compound.” That “Lord” is more 
than one Lord, perhaps two or perhaps three. We are being lured into a 
complete falsehood that “one” implies plurality. We are asked to believe this 
on the basis of a tiny fraction of the appearances of echad when it modifies 
a compound noun (the vast majority of the occurrences of echad when it does 
not modify a compound noun are left unmentioned). Even when “one” modifies a 
compound noun — one family, one cluster — the word “one” retains its meaning 
as “one single…” There is no such thing as “compound one” as a definition of 
echad. 
  This procedure is to confuse the numeral adjective “one” with the noun it 
modifies. It is to “bleed” the meaning of a compound noun back into the 
numeral. This will take the unwary by surprise. Thus “one flesh” is supposed 
to mean that one can mean more than one. The point, obviously, is that 
“flesh” as a combination of Adam and Eve does have a collective, family 
sense. But one is still one: “one flesh and not two fleshes.” “One cluster 
(singular) of grapes” does not in any way illustrate a plural meaning for the 
word “one.” “Cluster” has indeed a collective, plural sense. But one is still 
one: “one cluster” and not “two clusters.” Just imagine if at the check-out 
the clerk announces that your one dollar purchase is really “compound one.” 
You could become bankrupt. 
  So then, Yahweh, the personal name of the One God, occurs some 6,800 times. 
In no case does it have a plural verb, or adjective. And never is a plural 
pronoun put in its place. Pronouns are most useful grammatical markers, since 
they tell us about the nouns they stand for. The very fact that the God who 
is Yahweh speaks of Himself as “I” and “Me” and is referred to as “You” 
(singular) and “He” and “Him” thousands upon thousands of times should 
convince all Bible readers of the singularity of God. The fact that God 
further speaks of Himself in every exclusive fashion known to language —“by 
myself,” “all alone” etc., — only adds to this proof. “There is none besides 
Me,” “none before Me” and “none after Me.” “I alone am Elohim, and Yahweh.” 
“I created the heavens and the earth by Myself; none was with Me.” 
  A Sample of the Use of echad (one) 
  Genesis 42:13: “Joseph’s brothers said, ‘We are 12 brothers, sons of one 
(echad) man, in the land of Canaan. The youngest is this day with our father 
and one (echad) is not.’” Verse 16: “Send one (echad) of you.” Verse 19: “Let 
one (echad) of your brothers…” Verse 27: “One (echad) of them opened his 
sack.” Verse 32: “One (echad) is not.” Verse 33: “One (echad) of your 
brothers.” There are well over 900 other examples in the OT. 
  What is illogical to the extreme is the lengths men will go to in support 
of a tradition that is not based on the apostles and the prophets. Jesus said 
many are called but few are chosen, which should give all Trinitarians reason 
to pause and rethink their position. Especially since Jesus equated eternal 
life with knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ who God sent. 
  You see Sir, you are appealing to men with your Theological Wordbook of the 
Old Testament. You are also denigrating the very people who speak a language 
you don't and that people are the Jews. What many assume is illogical to any 
thinking man who does not put his intellect on hold to defend redefining the 
rules of grammar made up by men when it is convenient to do so. And the men 
who redefined the rules of grammar are the same men who teach that Mary was 
immaculately conceived, was a perpetual virgin, that the Pope is God's 
mouthpiece, and etc. Now you can deny that Origen came up with the doctrine 
of the Trinity but to do so is to deny historical truth. 
  What no trinitarian has done is explain the plain language meaning of the 
Scriptures I posted. What they have failed to explain is why no NT author 
refers to Jesus as God or God the Son. 
  And BTW, Jesus and His apostles spoke Aramaic not Greek and to ignore this 
historical fact only shows that trinitarians have put their faith in the 
traditions of men not God's inerrent and infallible word. The foundation of 
Christianity is Judaism and its strict monotheism not the cleverly devised 
myths developed by Greeks who used Greek philosophy to interpret who God and 
Jesus are not, and they are not part of a triune Godhead.
   
  Sincerely,
James


                
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates 
starting at 1¢/min.
>From hholmyard AT ont.com  Thu Aug 24 23:10:59 2006
Return-Path: <hholmyard AT ont.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from online.OnlineToday.Com (online.OnlineToday.Com [204.181.200.2])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E468F4C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:10:58 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [204.181.205.40] (ta40.OnlineToday.Com [204.181.205.40])
        by online.OnlineToday.Com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 
k7P3ArpN006040
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:10:57 -0500 
(CDT)
Message-ID: <44EE69F1.9000405 AT ont.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:09:37 -0500
From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
References: <BAY101-F17D779022F158A5C340BBBCC4D0 AT phx.gbl>       
        <44E53227.9050601 AT ont.com>
        <bc0b0d000608241748s3b444f4fp926c2ffe891ff927 AT mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <bc0b0d000608241748s3b444f4fp926c2ffe891ff927 AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew "If-and" construction and the Book of Mormon
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:10:59 -0000

Dear Joel,

>>
> Astute observation Harold. I believe it was Mark Twain who commented
> that if "And it came to pass" were removed from the Book of Mormon it
> would be reduced to the Pamphlet of Mormon.


HH: Interesting.

>
> But I believe the argument of Skousen is that Smith as an illiterate
> farm boy could not have known these things.


HH: But Smith lived in the northeast, where there were a lot of educated 
people. He lived in Vermont, New York, and Pennsylvania. He lived near 
the town of Palmyra, New York.

> Regardless of this
> specific argument that does remain true. Smith produced a 500+ page
> book covering many important theological issues and quite a complex
> narrative when he was in his early 20's in just over 60 days of
> dictation. 


HH: No, it was two-and-a-half years of dictation. The following is worth 
reading:

http://lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml

Yours,
Harold Holmyard


>
>