By Dr Michael Brown
http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/no-el-sha...-with-breasts/
By Dr Michael Brown
http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/no-el-sha...-with-breasts/
Ezekiel 33 (02-12-2018)
Even if Shaddai meant "many breasted one" it would merely amount to a picture of a God who sustains his subjects like an animal sustains her offspring. The Bible ascribes feathers and wings to God, it doesn't mean that God is an animal. Likewise, just because God the Father is in masculine form it doesn't mean that he has male genitalia. God is a deity and isn't human (nor an animal), apart from his incarnation in Jesus Christ.
The people who translated the OT into Greek in 200 BC seem to have been confused about the meaning. Sometimes they skip the word and it says just "God", sometimes they transliterate it as Shaddai in Greek, some times they render it as "God Almighty".
Given that the 70 Jewish translators of 200 BC couldn't figure out what the term meant anymore, the term "El Shaddai" seems very obscure. Insisting on a feminine deity based on a literalistic interpretation of one possible speculation about that term is about as crazy as when they claim that Naomi and Ruth had a lesbian relationship. It's need-driven, they need to insert something like that somewhere and that seems to be their best shot at it.
I agree with Colonel in what he said. I don't have any problem with it if that's what it really means. I originally heard this from Copeland way back in the day. And he explained it just as Colonel said, and I have no problem with that. Again, no problem if it really does translate as 'all mighty breasty one'.
But I also agree with you TT. That error of meaning then feeds into those that would hijack it for their own unbiblical agenda an lead others astray. So in that case, we need to get the meaning correct. And Brown offered his credentials to comment accurately on this. With this language background, I have no reason to not believe what he said. I will no longer use that meaning myself if I discuss that.
Sometimes the liberal agenda is met with a counter agenda. I have no idea what is correct and what is not in this case but in other cases it would be like "we know it means many breasted one but since the liberals will take that ball and run with it we will simply deny that it does and claim that it means something else". Then they figure it out and the counter agendaists are left with being portrayed as "lying for Jesus". Which is what people do some times. And that certainly brings reproach to Christ. Better to tell the truth even if that truth is less than convenient.
But there's not a stitch of scholarly evidence to support this, and I can state that with authority. Not only is my Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University, but I specialized in comparative Semitic lexicography (meaning, understanding dictionary definitions of words in light of the comparative ancient languages).
My doctoral dissertation focused on one Hebrew word (in light of its ancient Near Eastern background), and I own every major Hebrew lexicon and theological encyclopedia. Every single one of them rejects the idea that El Shaddai means "God of (many) breasts." (I even did a short Facebook video, with a large pile of these books in hand, to demonstrate the point.)
It's possible that the name Shaddai is related to an ancient Akkadian word for "mountain," hence depicting God as a Rock, a common scriptural image speaking of power. (Akkadian refers to the language of the Babylonians and Assyrians.) But this is far from certain.
Now you know.
Fuego, I did read that. It may be 100% correct in this particular case but I've seen so many examples down the years where people emphasize things according to what they want to believe and not according to what is most probably the actual truth.