Explicit name
In the SD
Hello Rabbi,
- The Rabbi knows whether they always conceived the name of the Being as Lordship? Or was there a period when they actually conceived it? (Like in the Temple). Because in the Bible we sometimes see a conjunction of Lordship with Being, such as “ And King David came and sat before the Lord and said, “Who am I, O Lord God, and whose is my house, that you have brought me thus far?” So it is a bit strange that he repeated the same word twice in a row.
- If not, why does the name of Lordship replace His being and not another name? Let’s say God.
I don’t know. I will just say that the writing in the Bible can be a consideration of the writer and not necessarily an authentic quote.
I didn’t understand the connection between the questions. Even if it has always been formulated this way, the question arises. Why specifically Eminence?
Mr. Point.
In the verse you cited, the name of the Lord did not act as lordship. When the name of the Lord is next to the name of the Lord, then it acts as ‘God’ (therefore the name of the Lord is a point, and z’p). In addition, it is unlikely that the biblical writer is quoting the words of David literally, and do’k.
Ah, see above, the time of the times when God was called God. And the Kabbalists say that they are not justified among them, and whoever breaks through the fence will be killed with a sword (according to the sublime ruling of our Rabbeinu Shalit’a).
With blessings of soft salvations –
Greetings, Avraham Zuchair, son of Terah Orchsdimtzweig.
I know for sure that he did not act as Lord but as God.
But it is clear that it fits well according to my words, that at first he said Lord and then He was,
as in Parashat Et-e-chanan, “And I will beg…. Lord Jehovah, you have begun to show your servant your greatness and “.
And because it is strange to say “Lord” and then He was, he should say as Lord (and as compared to 13 qualities). Change it to God….
In fact, these combinations are not uncommon in your Bible, would you also say the same in the Book of Deuteronomy, which Moses wrote and quotes his own words?
—
The Rabbi is right in his answer to 2 that there is no connection because even if it is ancient, it can be excused, and your second answer can of course explain this. But if it is not ancient, then the question of course becomes stronger because it is not clear whether your answer is excusable or an ad hoc excuse…
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
