Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76085 | ||
Hi Tim, I am so sorry you feel the way you do about the NWT but I can understand how you feel because I feel as you do with so many other translations. One of the biggest problems I have is the theology bias the translators brazenly display. I will get into that some day, I’m sure. I have already mentioned Rolf Furuli and his thoughts are elucidated herein by me to defend just this one text you brought up, John 8:58. The NWT says, “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” Many others read, “Before Abraham was born ‘I am.’” Greek ego eimi. Here we have the personal pronoun “I” together with the present of the auxiliary “to be”. It seems to me that other translations translate this in a mystical sense, allowing their theology of the Trinity to affect them. Since originally Jesus spoke either the Hebrew or Aramaic when he uttered this text in question then it was translated into Greek, and now into English, we have three different verbal systems to deal with. Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic don’t have tenses, but have aspects. Greek has two conjugations that only code for aspect, one that codes for the tense, and the other that codes for both aspect and time and yet another for stative conjugation (as opposed to tenses). It’s a misnomer to use tenses for the Greek verbs. Anyway, English has only tenses and no grammaticalized aspects. Most translations, speaking schematically, translate ego eimi in the present tense. Present tense is a time line diagram representing the present moment or the intersection between past time and future time. But think about it, isn’t it rare for actions to coincide exactly with the present moment? So, in English, present may occupy a part of the past as well as of the future but always including the present moment. It can be used for the distant future but hardly including a definite reference point in the distant past. The Greek present is different because it is an aspect and not a tense. It conveys a part of the action, not including the end, and is evidently timeless, except in resultative situations, that is, when an action ends with a resulting state following. The resultant state is unbounded. This conclusion is derived from the book, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research pp. 881, 882; by A. T. Robertson and the book Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament p. 78 by S. Porter. Greek future is about the same as English so it’s a grammaticalized tense, and the imperfect normally makes visible a sequence of a continuous action in the past. I’m sure you know all this. Some feel the NWT renders ego eimi as “I have been” in an attempt to harmonize the text in question with antitrinitarian doctrine. Some feel too that even the context dictates it’s wrong. Care must be take to be literal in translation and actually any translation of ego eimi is literal. So now let’s look at both Jesus’ original words and context. Jesus lived in the period between Classical Hebrew and Mischnaic Hebrew, but there is no evidence that tense-system of Mishnaic Hebrew was at work. A participle of the Hebrew verb haya (to be) is used only twice in the Hebrew text of the Bible. Ex. 9:3 and Pr 13:19. And of the 50 occurrences of the first person singular of the verb in Hebrew imperfect, all cases, except possibly 5 (Job 3:16; 10:19; 12:4; 17:6 and Ruth 2:13) have future meaning. So Jesus’ use of the Hebrew participle or imperfect is unlikely. The perfect of the first person singular occurs 63 times, but a search reveals only two instances where the Septuagint translated them eimi (Job 11:4 and Ex. 2:22) and one instance by ego eimi (Job 30:9). There are 18 instances that are assessed as having future meaning, 28 as having past meaning and 17 as having present meaning. Of the last mentioned 3 are viewed as imperfects of eimi and 1 as active or passive aorists of ginomai (to come into existence). Jesus could have used the Hebrew perfect, ani hayiti (or just hayiti) as one Hebrew New Testament (published by The Bible Society in Israel and translated by Norman Henry Snaith) translates John 8:58. But it is more likely that he used the words found in another Hebrew New Testament, namely, ani hu,(The New Testament in Hebrew and English published by The Society for Distributing the Holy Scriptures to the Jews, Edgware, Middlesex, England), or that he simply used the single pronoun ani.( which means “I” and hu means “he”. In Hebrew the pronoun hu could be used a copula (with the meaning is, or more rarely was or will be) in clauses without any verb. The pronoun hu as also used for emphasis (ani hu, “it is I’ or “I am the one”). In the Septuagint all 9 occurrences of ani hu are translated by ego eimi. However, in 160 other instances the words ego eimi in the Septuagint translate the lone Hebrew pronoun ani. There are two examples ehye rendered by ego eimi in the LXX (Ex 3:14 and Hosea 1:9) (continued) |
||||||
2 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76086 | ||
(part 2) Jesus therefore could have used the perfect hayiti, the nominal clause ani hu or the lone pronoun ani. But regardless of what he actually used, two important points should be kept in mind: 1) All three expressions were normal Hebrew without any element of mysticism. 2) None of the three expressions contain any element of tense. So, we must conclude that both the original words of Jesus and Greek rendering made by John did not contain any grammatical element pinpointing time. So, let’s consider the context to find a rendering of “to be” which is consistent with the context of Jesus’ statement. First from the context of the text itself and then the greater context. The time element is: “Before Abraham came into existence.” The Greek word translated “before” is prin, and both the Hebrew New Testament I just referred to have beterem where the Greek text has prin. Both the Hebrew and the Greek words mean “before” and semantically speaking the phrase “before Abraham” must refer to a time when Abraham was not yet born. How long this “time” was cannot be determined from the grammar or the syntax; it may or may not involve an eternal reference. Now, the Greek verb eimi is both stative (A stative describes a state rather an action. The Hebrew haya is a stative and ani hu also represents a state) and is imperfective; a combination which would signify a situation having duration. (According to the book Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, p. 137) Fanning says, “the present aspect with STATES denotes the continuing existence of the subject in the condition indicated by the verb. The subject of the verb is “I” that is, Jesus, and it is too modest to say it is “something new” to claim that eimi refers to the continuing existence of Jesus backwards from the birth of Abraham in the distant past. Grammatically speaking it would have been completely new, and it were truthfully shown that the continuing existence of states could be reversed, it would really revolutionize the study of aspects. I don’t know of any examples?? But there are examples of continuing existence in a forward sense, also in clauses with the Greek prin or the Hebrew beterem (before). Interestingly, in the aprocryphal book of Susanna, which late manuscripts of the Septuagint add to the book of Daniel, we find the following Greek parallel to our text in question: “O Lord God, the eternal, the who knows (eidos)(the active participle of oida) all things before (prin) they spring forth; you know (oidas) (perfect indicative with present meaning) that I did not do (epoiesa) (aorist indicative with past meaning) this. The Greek verb ioda is stative and is formally a perfect, but the verb is generally used as a present. The first occurrence of it in the sentence is as an active participle. It is obvious that the knowledge God has about these things, before they spring forth(how the author of Suzzana views it) is not directed backwards nor does it cease at some point before they spring forth. Therefore, Susanna uses the same stative verb when she says, “You know” (at present). What God knew before things took place he also continued to know afterwards, so prin in this case does not exclude “duration up to the present.” In the two Hebrew New Testaments I referred to before the word beterem is used the LXX has prin. In Jer. 1:5 we find this word used twice in a construction quite similar to John 8:58. The LXX in both places has pro tou, a phrase with basically the same meaning as prin. “Before (pro tou) I formed you (plasai) (aorist infinitive; Hebrew has the imperfect). In the belly I know you (epistamai) (present indicative; Hebrew has perfect) and before(pro tou) you came forth (ekselthein) (aorist infinitive; Heb has imperfect.) from the womb I sanctified you (hegaika)(perfect indicative; Hebrew also has imperfect).(continued) |
||||||
3 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76087 | ||
(Part 3) To “know” is a state of the mind, and the Greek present must indicate a continuing state. The Hebrew perfect has exactly the same meaning. (According to H.W.F. Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trasn. A.E. Cowley, 2d Eng. Ed.) And both in Hebrew and in Greek we find the preposition “before,” referring to a time in the past prior to the birth of Jeremiah. From this time to the time when God uttered the words, he know Jeremiah. It is similar with the parallel clause. To “sanctify” is an act leading into a state. Here a Greek perfect is used, indicating even more definitely that a clause beginning with “before” can signify a state with duration into the present. As I already mentioned, Greek has a verbal conjugation called “perfect,” which may be defined as “ a state or condition resulting from a completed action.” (Fanning, Verbal Aspect, p. 103) It is often translated with English perfect, but the two may not match exactly. As a matter of fact, the Greek eimi, being stative, has no perfect form, so John could not have chosen a perfect for eimi, but he did choose the imperfective aspect of Greek present to portray a state lasting from the past and continuing into the present. (Fanning, Verbal Aspect, p. 21 call this the “Present of Past Action Still in Progress). English has no grammaticalized imperfective aspect which may portray an action or state that began before a certain point in the past, and which continues into the present. But it does have a present tense which covers situations including the present moment. The English present tense, however, cannot be extended to include a time before a particular point in the past, so English and Greek present may be mutually exclusive in situations where both past and present are combined. Which is correct, in the light of the following parameters: “grammaticality,” “intelligibility,” “faithful conveyance of the message,” and “addition of elements.” 1) “Before Abraham came into being, I was”. This rendition is grammatically correct, it is intelligible and it does not add any elements that are not found in the text itself. But because the state is confined to the past, before Abraham came into being and Jesus still lived when he expressed his preexistence, the message is distorted. English preterite cannot include a state which is still in effect. 2) “Before Abraham came into being, I am.” This is the least attractive one, for several reasons. It is ungrammatical because English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past. It is unintelligible and does not convey the message, because an element of mysticicism must be added to defend its place in an English translation. Since there are no mystical connotations in the Greek text, it adds foreign elements. 3) “Before Abraham came into being, I have been.” This is the rendition in the NWT and some other translations, including the early marginal reading offered by the NASB. It is ungrammatical because English perfect cannot be used to portray a state which is anchored to a particular point in the past. It is however, intelligible and therefore it conveys the message. It also does not add any mystical or foreign elements. Truthfinder |
||||||
4 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Morant61 | 76099 | ||
Greetings Truthfinder! All of this explaining away seems like an awfully lot of work to simply deny what is very clear in the text. Jesus is using the title 'I AM', and identifying Himself as Jehovah God. This explains why the Jews tried to stone Him. By the way, I have asked several times how the JW's position on Jesus being a god can be correct in light of Is. 43:10, where Jehovah Himself says that there are no other gods before Him, nor after Him! How would you respond to this? p.s. - You really should cite the sources for this material. I read the exact same presentation on one of the JW sites I visited. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76240 | ||
Hi Tim, You wrote: By the way, I have asked several times how the JW's position on Jesus being a god can be correct in light of Is. 43:10, where Jehovah Himself says that there are no other gods before Him, nor after Him! How would you respond to this? p.s. - You really should cite the sources for this material. I read the exact same presentation on one of the JW sites I visited. Tim, Requiring days of research, I gathered this presentation on my own, using the materials cited, authors noted, and my 36 years of acquired Biblical knowledge. If you find something in particular you want me to cite the source for, that I may have inadvertently missed, I will try. I try to avoid plagiarism and apologize if guilty. I enjoy research and quite frankly don’t expect you to accept what I present, as your whole theology would likewise have to change. I do this as I enjoy researching. The following is two days work, not just cut and paste other’s presentation or to just prove JW’s viewpoint but what I’ve learned as most accurate. My next project, might be an answer to the question; “why most modern translations fail in conveying the truth”. Not necessarily the specifics but the root cause for your and my theology difference. Here’s my presentation in light of Is. 43:10. We see that the Scriptures refer to God as Savior several times. At Isaiah 43:11 God says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not necessarily, using this as proof in itself. Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. And Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Acts 13:23 ”From the offspring of this [man] according to his promise God has brought to Israel a savior, Jesus” At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shi´a', rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.--Reasoning from the Scriptures p. 413 Getting back to a question I answered some weeks back about my theology of Jesus Christ which I think initiated your question, I would like to discuss the words “theos” and “elohim” “Even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father.” (1Co 8:5, 6) Jehovah is the Almighty God, the only true God, and he rightfully exacts exclusive devotion, as Jesus so eloquently tells us. He quotes Ex 20:5 and undoubtedly used God’s name here since he “quoted”: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” Mat. 4:10, Luke 4:8. In what since then is Jesus, God, since he is the son of God, and 1 Co 8:5,6 says, “to us one (Heb. e-hahd) God the Father,” (with emphasis on “Father” ). Understanding how the word “god” is used in the scriptures gives insight to this question. Taking the Bible as a whole, we come to appreciate that god references anything that is worshiped inasmuch as the worshiper attributes to it might greater than his own and venerates it. A person can even let his belly be a god. (Ro 16:18; Php 3:18, 19) It mentions many gods (Ps 86:8; 1Co 8:5, 6), but it shows that the gods of the nations are valueless gods.—Ps 96: For the Greek word theos, W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrick and F. W. Danker, Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. (BAGD) defines theos as “God, god,” and then shows that the word is used “of divine beings generally,” “with reference to Christ,” “of the true God,” “ of that which is worthy of reverence or respect,” and “of the devil”. The usual Greek equivalent of ´El and ´Elo·him´ in the Septuagint translation and the word for “God” or “god” in the Christian Greek Scriptures is the·os´. One of the Hebrew words that is translated “God” is ´El, meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” (Ge 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the makeup of proper names, such as Elisha (meaning “God Is Salvation”) and Michael (“Who Is Like God?”). In some places ´El appears with the definite article ha (ha·´El´, literally, “the God”) with reference to Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods.—Ge 46:3; 2Sa 22:31; see NW appendix, p. 1567. At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ´El Gib·bohr´, “Mighty God” (not ´El Shad·dai´ (( which is God Almighty)), applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1).(continued) |
||||||
6 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76241 | ||
(Part 2) The plural form, ´e·lim´, is used when referring to other gods, such as at Exodus 15:11 (“gods”). It is also used as the plural of majesty and excellence, as in Psalm 89:6: “Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·beneh´ ´E·lim´]?” That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ´E·lim´ by the singular form The·os´ in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate. The Hebrew word ´elo·him´ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ´Elo·him´ is the plural of ´eloh´ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ´Elo·him´ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men. So the scriptures clearly tell us that there are many Gods but “to us one God the Father.” Could it be then in the since of “to us one (Almighty, Omnipotent, having always existed) God the Father”? Well let’s see. If applying to Jehovah, ´Elo·him´ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [´Elo·him´] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [´Elo·him´] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208. The title ´Elo·him´ draws attention to Jehovah’s strength as the Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number, even though ´Elo·him´ is the Hebrew plural. (Ge 1:1–2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces. At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ´elo·him´, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called beneh´ ha·´Elo·him´, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ´elo·him´ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW). The word ´elo·him´ is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply “gods.” (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.—1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 (“goddess” Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk). At Psalm 82:1, 6, ´elo·him´ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Ex 4:16 In many places in the Scriptures ´Elo·him´ is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·´Elo·him´, F. Zorell says: “In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . ‘Jahve is the [one true] God’ De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc.”—Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54. The 1956 edition of The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. XII, p. 743) commented under the heading “God”: “In the Christian, Mohammedan, and Jewish sense, the Supreme Being, the First Cause, and in a general sense, as considered nowadays throughout the civilized world, a spiritual being, self-existent, eternal and absolutely free and all-powerful, distinct from the matter which he has created in many forms, and which he conserves and controls. There does not seem to have been a period of history where mankind was without belief in a supernatural author and governor of the universe.” Conclusion: Substituting the Greek “theos” for what it’s meaning is, then we will not misunderstand texts referencing Jesus as God. John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with “The Supreme Being” and the Word was the “Mighty God”. See Is. 9:6 (even though this is an anarthrous noun). Griffiths, “A Note on the Anarthrous Predicate in Hellenistic Greek, “ p. 315, argues that the rendition “a god” might catch the adjectival force of the anarthrous theos: “Taken by itself, the sentence (kai theos ain ha logos) could admittedly bear either of two meanings: 1) ‘And the Word was (the) God” or 2) ‘and the Word was (a) God. “ It is possible to argue that translation 2) brings the predicative noun nearer to the position of an adjective.” End quote. Truthfinder |
||||||
7 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Morant61 | 76263 | ||
Greetings Truthfinder! Yet again my friend, you go to extreme lengths to redefine terms and confuse the issue. However, you did not actually deal with the words of Jehovah in Is. 43:10, and other verses. Your theology demands that Jesus cannot be Jehovah, but you cannot do away with John 1:1. So, you make Jesus 'a god' instead of God. However, Jehovah is very clear in Is. 43:10. He said, not me, that there is not other god besides Him. It doesn't matter if you call angels 'gods'. It doesn't matter if you call men 'gods'. Jehovah said that there 'are no other gods'. Therefore, Jesus in John 1:1 cannot be 'another god'. It is really quite simple my friend. But, Is. 43:10 isn't the only place where Jehovah states this fact. Is. 44:6 - "??This is what the LORD says? Israel?s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." Is. 45:21 - " Declare what is to be, present it? let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me." There is quite simply no way around these verses. They do not, as one JW site I visted claimed, say that there is only true Gods as opposed to false gods. These verses do not qualify the word 'God' in any way, except to say that there are not any except for Jehovah. May I be blunt my friend? If you are sincerely seeking the truth of God's Word, then you must accept what Jehovah Himself said. There cannot be a 'lesser' god, created by Jehovah, name Jesus, because Jehovah Himself said that there are no other gods. No amount of word twisting or verbiage will change this simple fact. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||