Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe phase in question from Exodus 3:14—aleph-hay-yod-hay aleph-shin-reish aleph-hay-yod-hay. In conventional English transliteration AHYH AShR AHYH.
I did some digging around. The vocalisation I quoted is a common English rendering, but it seems the issue more complicated than I realised (and I didn't think it was simple):
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2001-May/010804.html
Original Hebrew text has no vowel points; they were developed much later by the Masoretes to try to standardize pronunciation (and meaning)—Torah scrolls today remain unpointed. Although perhaps archaic Hebrew, it is not gibberish. Scholar and translator Martin Buber asserted that the phrase should be taken in the future tense. My Orthodox (Stone Edition) Tanach translates it as “I Shall Be As I Shall Be.”
The Jewish Publication Society (JPS) version leaves it untranslated, and transliterated as Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, with the following footnote: “Meaning of Hebr. Uncertain; variously translated: ‘I Am That I Am’; ‘I Am Who I Am’; ‘I Will Be What I Will Be’; etc.”
Originally posted by vistesdYou are correct...
The phase in question from Exodus 3:14—aleph-hay-yod-hay aleph-shin-reish aleph-hay-yod-hay. In conventional English transliteration AHYH AShR AHYH.
Original Hebrew text has no vowel points; they were developed much later by the Masoretes to try to standardize pronunciation (and meaning)—Torah scrolls today remain unpointed. Although perhaps ...[text shortened]... n; variously translated: ‘I Am That I Am’; ‘I Am Who I Am’; ‘I Will Be What I Will Be’; etc.”
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMaybe he didn't have a relationship of his own with God, but at the
Because it enables me to believe in God, without having to believe in God.
In the context of this thread -- why do you think Einstein said he believed in Spinoza's God?
same time felt God could be real and others had a better handle
on the subject?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, he didn't believe in the God you are thinking of. Your misunderstanding of the word as Bosse de Nage used it only serves to highlight my argument that such usage is destined to cause unnecessary confusion. I strongly suspect that that is the intention of those who so use it.
Maybe he didn't have a relationship of his own with God, but at the
same time felt God could be real and others had a better handle
on the subject?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow else am I supposed to refer to Spinoza's God than by the words 'Spinoza's God'?
No, he didn't believe in the God you are thinking of. Your misunderstanding of the word as Bosse de Nage used it only serves to highlight my argument that such usage is destined to cause unnecessary confusion. I strongly suspect that that is the intention of those who so use it.
KJ only has to read Einstein's quotes and the links on Spinoza et al provided in this thread to understand that Spinoza's God differs from the traditional patriarchal God. You might as well accuse Einstein of attempting to sow confusion. I object to your playing thought policeman!
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI suppose the fault partly lies with Spinoza. If he called his concept an 'Elephant' it would have caused endless confusion with other Elephants for the rest of history whenever someone wanted to refer to Spinozas concept.
How else am I supposed to refer to Spinoza's God than by the words 'Spinoza's God'?
KJ only has to read Einstein's quotes and the links on Spinoza et al provided in this thread to understand that Spinoza's God differs from the traditional patriarchal God.
What I do object to though is when you or others with similar beliefs use the word 'God' simply to refer to the concept even when you are not specifically trying to reference Spinoza.
Yesterday I was rereading the God Delusion and I notice that Dawkins agrees with me when it comes to this issue. I must try and bring the book to work so I can give the exact quote.
I also realized that I had misunderstood the meaning of 'personal God'. According to Dawkins a personal God is an entity with a personality and consciousness, I thought it meant a God that gets personally involved with people. With that in mind it is quite clear that both Spinoza and Einstein were atheists.
You might as well accuse Einstein of attempting to sow confusion. I object to your playing thought policeman!
I do not know whether Einstein intended to sow confusion, but he most definitely did.
I don't know what you mean by 'playing thought policeman'. I am not telling you how to think, merely pointing out that your use of certain words inappropriately is bound to lead to confusion and I suspect that in this instance it is intentional - so far I don't think you have even denied that.
Originally posted by twhitehead'However, in 1929 - during a rare interview with a journalist - Einstein was directly asked if he believed in the God of Spinoza. "I can't answer with a simple yes or no," he replied. "I am not an atheist [and] I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist." '
Yesterday I was rereading the God Delusion and I notice that Dawkins agrees with me when it comes to this issue. I must try and bring the book to work so I can give the exact quote.
I also realized that I had misunderstood the meaning of 'personal God'. According to Dawkins a personal God is an entity with a personality and consciousness, I thought it ...[text shortened]... with people. With that in mind it is quite clear that both Spinoza and Einstein were atheists.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/23008
Just for kicks: 'Milton Friedman wrote: "I am an agnostic. I do not ‘believe in’ God, but I am not an atheist, because I believe the statement, ‘There is a god’ does not admit of being either confirmed or rejected."'
Incidentally, from what I can tell, the God of Islam is also an impersonal God. Does that make Muslims atheists too?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadGabriel dictated the Koran, if I remember correctly.
I don't understand how that is possible. I am clearly missing something. Surely to be able to talk to Muhammad required him to be personal?
Parallels have often been drawn between Spinozan and Islamic thought. On the off chance that you're interested ... http://www.pitt.edu/~frit/ancrage/ancrage2/fagley.html
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes the do belive a god now if its the same as the jews or the christians I dont know.
'However, in 1929 - during a rare interview with a journalist - Einstein was directly asked if he believed in the God of Spinoza. "I can't answer with a simple yes or no," he replied. "I am not an atheist [and] I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist." '
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/23008
Just for kicks: 'Milton Friedman ell, the God of Islam is also an impersonal God. Does that make Muslims atheists too?
But I do question if they belive in anything right now of the simple reson. They think blow people of a diffrent faith then their own is the right thing to do.
Witch I personaly think is REALLY wrong...
But now how did we get here?
______________________________________________________
I know I said that Einstien where born a jew. But their is deffenet proof of that when he left his rather religous paraents he lived as an athiest.
If I remember correctly.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't know much about Islam. I'll try and remember to ask next time I meet one of my Muslim friend whether they believe in a personal God.
Gabriel dictated the Koran, if I remember correctly.
Parallels have often been drawn between Spinozan and Islamic thought. On the off chance that you're interested ... http://www.pitt.edu/~frit/ancrage/ancrage2/fagley.html
Originally posted by twhiteheadDid he?!?!?
I don't know much about Islam. I'll try and remember to ask next time I meet one of my Muslim friend whether they believe in a personal God.
Remeber one thing mate the muslim faith is only 1500 years old and Gabriel was well born years befor that. So I think it is the other way around. But nice try though...
Originally posted by theprotectorsI cant figure out what you are saying. Are you able to write it more clearly?
Did he?!?!?
Remeber one thing mate the muslim faith is only 1500 years old and Gabriel was well born years befor that. So I think it is the other way around. But nice try though...
I though Gabriel was an Angel and thus not born - and according to knightmeister probably independent of time anyway.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe bi-cameral mind theory puts an interesting slant on divine communication.
I cant figure out what you are saying. Are you able to write it more clearly?
I though Gabriel was an Angel and thus not born - and according to knightmeister probably independent of time anyway.