Results 81 - 100 of 300
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Introducing the English Standard Version | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 94949 | ||
Hi Hank, An oration of such eloquence deserves nothing less than much admiration and praise. I am sure that your command of the English language is most envied by not only myself but others that appreciate God’s Word. Truthfinder |
||||||
82 | Who were Cain's wife's parents? | Genesis | Truthfinder | 71022 | ||
I don't figure Adam, Eve, and Cain were the only people up till then. Evidently Cain was well over 100 years old when he took his wife. Thus he no doubt either married one of his sisters or even a niece. The Bible doesn't tell us just a whole lot during these years but that doesn't mean a whole lot didn't happen. Truthfinder |
||||||
83 | Genesis 1: light ? | Genesis | Truthfinder | 71151 | ||
Hi Maydayjohn, 1)The very first verse of the Bible states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) 1)Here is where God created the “sun”. 2)Day 1. ”Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.” Genesis 1:3, 5. 2) So, the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights. Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about Ge:3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible. 3)Day 4 “‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.” Genesis 1:14-16. Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohr', which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In verse 3 , ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma·’ohr' in Ge 1 verse 14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed. An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life. Psalm 136:7-9. Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on. Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22. Truthfinder |
||||||
84 | Genesis 1: light ? | Genesis | Truthfinder | 72910 | ||
Hi Maydayjohn, 1)The very first verse of the Bible states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) 1)Here is where God created the “sun”. 2)Day 1. ”Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.” Genesis 1:3, 5. 2) So, the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights. Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about Ge:3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible. 3)Day 4 “‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.” Genesis 1:14-16. Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohr', which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In verse 3 , ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma·’ohr' in Ge 1 verse 14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed. An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life. Psalm 136:7-9. Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on. Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22. Truthfinder |
||||||
85 | Do Eliphaz' words constitute truth? | Gen 1:1 | Truthfinder | 81381 | ||
Hi Estabon, Job’s critic Eliphaz said: “For man himself is born for trouble.” (Job 5:7) However, to his faithful followers, notice what Jesus said: “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith in God, exercise faith also in me.” (John 14:1) So a wise person will say to God: “You are my refuge and my stronghold.” He will seek protection from danger by exercising “faith in God.” Self-righteousness may also promote the view that if a Christian is undergoing many personal difficulties, he must be spiritually deficient. That is precisely what self-righteous Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar thought about faithful Job. They did not have a complete picture of the situation, so it was presumptuous for them to accuse Job of wrongdoing. So my answer would be NO to your question. Truthfinder |
||||||
86 | Genesis chapter 1 | Gen 1:16 | Truthfinder | 96554 | ||
Hi all. Just curious. On which day was the sun created? Truthfinder |
||||||
87 | Genesis chapter 1 | Gen 1:16 | Truthfinder | 96598 | ||
Shalom Tim, What was created when God said, "Bereshit bara elohim hashamaim ve et ha arets"? Gen. 1:1 Also, in verse 3, "yehoo or vahoo or" (Let be light and there was light), what was created? Shalom Truthfinder |
||||||
88 | Genesis chapter 1 | Gen 1:16 | Truthfinder | 96683 | ||
Hi Emmaus, A passage that comes to mind in this regard is, Job 38:4, "Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell [me], if you do know understanding. 5 Who set its measurements, in case you know, Or who stretched out upon it the measuring line? 6 Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?" Apparently the sons of God (angels) were created before the material universe, since they cried out in joy at the creation of the earth. And to me time would begin when the first creation happened (the invisible creatures) because we would have a beginning of events to measure. I appreciate your thought provoking thoughts. Truthfinder |
||||||
89 | Genesis chapter 1 | Gen 1:16 | Truthfinder | 96695 | ||
Hi Emmaus, I don't know if you were asking to tell you what the first song was or check out what you posted as the first song. At any rate, here is the first song recorded in the Bible: Exodus 15:1 Sung by Moses and the men of Israel, to which Miriam and the women responded, upon their deliverance at the Red Sea. 15 At that time Moses and the sons of Israel proceeded to sing this song to Jehovah and to say the following: “Let me sing to Jehovah, for he has become highly exalted. The horse and its rider he has pitched into the sea. 2 My strength and [my] might is Jah, since he serves for my salvation. This is my God, and I shall laud him; my father’s God, and I shall raise him on high. 3 Jehovah is a manly person of war. Jehovah is his name. 4 Phar´aoh’s chariots and his military forces he has cast into the sea, And the choice of his warriors have been sunk in the Red Sea. 5 The surging waters proceeded to cover them; down they went into the depths like a stone. 6 Your right hand, O Jehovah, is proving itself powerful in ability, Your right hand, O Jehovah, can shatter an enemy. 7 And in the abundance of your superiority you can throw down those who rise up against you; You send out your burning anger, it eats them up like stubble. 8 And by a breath from your nostrils waters were heaped up; They stood still like a dam of floods; The surging waters were congealed in the heart of the sea. 9 The enemy said, ‘I shall pursue! I shall overtake! I shall divide spoil! My soul will be filled with them! I shall draw my sword! My hand will drive them away!’ 10 You blew with your breath, the sea covered them; They sank like lead in majestic waters. 11 Who among the gods is like you, O Jehovah? Who is like you, proving yourself mighty in holiness? The One to be feared with songs of praise, the One doing marvels. 12 You stretched out your right hand, the earth proceeded to swallow them up. 13 You in your loving-kindness have led the people whom you have recovered; You in your strength will certainly conduct them to your holy abiding place. 14 Peoples must hear, they will be agitated; Birth pangs must take hold on the inhabitants of Phi·lis´ti·a. 15 At that time the sheiks of E´dom will indeed be disturbed; As for the despots of Mo´ab, trembling will take hold on them. All the inhabitants of Ca´naan will indeed be disheartened. 16 Fright and dread will fall upon them. Because of the greatness of your arm they will be motionless like a stone, Until your people pass by, O Jehovah, Until the people whom you have produced pass by. 17 You will bring them and plant them in the mountain of your inheritance, An established place that you have made ready for you to inhabit, O Jehovah, A sanctuary, O Jehovah, that your hands have established. 18 Jehovah will rule as king to time indefinite, even forever. 19 When Phar´aoh’s horses with his war chariots and his cavalrymen went into the sea, Then Jehovah brought back the waters of the sea upon them, While the sons of Israel walked on dry land through the midst of the sea.” Does it agree with yours? Truthfinder |
||||||
90 | sons of god as in early gen | Gen 6:2 | Truthfinder | 80178 | ||
Hi Phil, The first mention of "sons of the true God" is at Genesis 6:2-4. There such sons are spoken of as 'beginning to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose,' this prior to the global Flood. Many commentators hold that these 'sons of God' were themselves human, being in reality men of the line of Seth. They base their argument on the fact that Seth's line was that through which godly Noah came, whereas the other lines from Adam, that of Cain and those of any other sons born to Adam (Ge 5:3, 4), were destroyed at the Flood. So, they say that the taking as wives "the daughters of men" by "the sons of the true God" means that Sethites began to marry into the line of wicked Cain. There is, however, nothing to show that God made any such distinction between family lines at this point. Corroborating Scriptural evidence is lacking to support the view that intermarriage between the lines of Seth and Cain is what is here meant, or that such marriages were responsible for the birth of "mighty ones" as mentioned in verse 4. It is true that the expression "sons of men [or "of mankind"]" (which those favoring the earlier mentioned view would contrast with the expression 'sons of God') is frequently used in an unfavorable sense, but this is not consistently so.-Compare Ps 4:2; 57:4; Pr 8:22, 30, 31; Jer 32:18, 19; Da 10:16. Angelic sons of God. On the other hand, there is an explanation that finds corroborating evidence in the Scriptures. The expression "sons of the true God" next occurs at Job 1:6, and here the reference is obviously to spirit sons of God assembled in God's presence, among whom Satan, who had been "roving about in the earth," also appeared. (Job 1:7; see also 2:1, 2.) Again at Job 38:4-7 "the sons of God" who 'shouted in applause' when God 'laid the cornerstone' of the earth clearly were angelic sons and not humans descended from Adam (as yet not even created). So, too, at Psalm 89:6 "the sons of God" are definitely heavenly creatures, not earthlings.-See GOD (Hebrew Terms). The identification of "the sons of the true God" at Genesis 6:2-4 with angelic creatures is objected to by those holding the previously mentioned view because they say the context relates entirely to human wickedness. This objection is not valid, however, since the wrongful interjection of spirit creatures in human affairs most certainly could contribute to or accelerate the growth of human wickedness. Wicked spirit creatures during Jesus' time on earth, though not then materializing in visible form, were responsible for wrong human conduct of an extreme nature. The mention of a mixing into human affairs by angelic sons of God could reasonably appear in the Genesis account precisely because of its explaining to a considerable degree the gravity of the situation that had developed on earth prior to the Flood. Truthfinder |
||||||
91 | sons of god as in early gen | Gen 6:2 | Truthfinder | 80867 | ||
Hi Radioman2, Only after carefull study have I come to understand that angels definitely did materialize human bodies on occasion, even eating and drinking with men. (Ge 18:1-22; 19:1-3) Jesus' statement concerning resurrected men and women not marrying or being given in marriage but being like the "angels in heaven", as you argue, actually shows that marriages between such heavenly creatures do not exist, no male and female distinction being indicated among them. (Mt 22:30) But this does not say that such angelic creatures could not materialize human forms and enter marriage relations with human women. It should be noted that Jude's reference to angels as not keeping their original position and to them as forsaking their "proper dwelling place" (certainly here referring to an abandoning of the spirit realm) is immediately followed by the statement: "So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example." (Jude 6, 7) Thus, the combined weight of the Scriptural evidence points to angelic deviation, the performance of acts contrary to their spirit nature, occurring in the days of Noah. There seems to me to be no valid reason, then, for doubting that the 'sons of God' of Genesis 6:2-4 were angelic sons. Truthfinder |
||||||
92 | sons of god as in early gen | Gen 6:2 | Truthfinder | 80869 | ||
Hi again Phil, In further support of what I already noted and in reply to Radioman2 I write: Only after carefull study have I come to understand that angels definitely did materialize human bodies on occasion, even eating and drinking with men. (Ge 18:1-22; 19:1-3) Jesus' statement concerning resurrected men and women not marrying or being given in marriage but being like the "angels in heaven", as you argue, actually shows that marriages between such heavenly creatures do not exist, no male and female distinction being indicated among them. (Mt 22:30) But this does not say that such angelic creatures could not materialize human forms and enter marriage relations with human women. It should be noted that Jude's reference to angels as not keeping their original position and to them as forsaking their "proper dwelling place" (certainly here referring to an abandoning of the spirit realm) is immediately followed by the statement: "So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example." (Jude 6, 7) Thus, the combined weight of the Scriptural evidence points to angelic deviation, the performance of acts contrary to their spirit nature, occurring in the days of Noah. There seems to me to be no valid reason, then, for doubting that the 'sons of God' of Genesis 6:2-4 were angelic sons. Truthfinder |
||||||
93 | What is Nephilim? | Gen 6:4 | Truthfinder | 94803 | ||
Hi BradK, Your answer differs from the three most likely scholarly conclusions. From what did you derive your sub position? Truthfinder |
||||||
94 | Radioman - What did God say in Exo 6:3? | Gen 17:1 | Truthfinder | 78914 | ||
God's only unique name. Hi all, Here's my take on you discussion: Professor of Hebrew D. H. says that those who claim Exodus 6:2, 3 marks the first time the name Jehovah was revealed, "have not studied [these verses] in the light of other scriptures; otherwise they would have perceived that by name must be meant here not the two syllables which make up the word Jehovah, but the idea which it expresses. When we read in Isaiah, ch. lii. 6, 'Therefore my people shall know my name;' or in Jeremiah, ch. xvi. 21, 'They shall know that my name is Jehovah;' or in the Psalms, Ps. ix. [10, 16], 'They that know thy name shall put their trust in thee;' we see at once that to know Jehovah's name is something very different from knowing the four letters of which it is composed. It is to know by experience that Jehovah really is what his name declares him to be. (Compare also Is. xix. 20, 21; Eze. xx. 5, 9; xxxix. 6, 7; Ps. lxxxiii. [18]; lxxxix. [16]; 2 Ch. vi. 33.)"-The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, Vol. I, pp. 856, 857. The name Jehovah was not first revealed to Moses, for it was certainly known by the first man. The name initially appears in the divine Record at Genesis 2:4 after the account of God's creative works, and there it identifies the Creator of the heavens and earth as "Jehovah God." It is reasonable to believe that Jehovah God informed Adam of this account of creation. The Genesis record does not mention his doing so, but then neither does it explicitly say Jehovah revealed Eve's origin to the awakened Adam. Yet Adam's words upon receiving Eve show he had been informed of the way God had produced her from Adam's own body. (Ge 2:21-23) Much communication undoubtedly took place between Jehovah and his earthly son that is not included in the brief account of Genesis. Eve is the first human specifically reported to have used the divine name. (Ge 4:1) She obviously learned that name from her husband and head, Adam, from whom she had also learned God's command concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and bad (although, again, the record does not directly relate Adam's passing this information on to her).-Ge 2:16, 17; 3:2, 3. Truthfinder |
||||||
95 | Radioman - What did God say in Exo 6:3? | Gen 17:1 | Truthfinder | 78977 | ||
Hi Tim, It has been awhile since you have responded to my notes addressed to you but I will go ahead regardless. Perhaps you recognized what I have said as true and thus choose not to respond. Whatever. But now you are saying that the Hebrew scriptures (I prefer this as opposed to "Old Testament" since it is a misnomer, as I am sure you are aware)is filled with names of God. Which God are you referring to Tim? Satan, the god of this system of things?-2 Cor. 4:4. Or maybe even Moses son of Amram and Jochebed?--Ex. 4:16 Or perhaps the androgyne Baal?--Rom. 11:4 (note the “he”(feminine) definite article in the Greek)(but “hab” (masculine) definite article in the Hebrew). Or a particular angel?-- Psalm 8:5 As you know only two of these gods has had their names revealed to us, and one of them you worship.--John 1:1 I worship him too, in the way I have expounded in detail to you previously. I worship Jehovah as the only “el” though, since Jesus told me to do that. “It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” Or Tim, are you referring to one of the gods of Psalm 82:1, 6, human judges in Israel. Please read your Hebrew and Greek, especially where Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. Wow, Tim this is certainly a fait accompli; the OT IS FILLED WITH NAMES OF GOD as you said. But in all accuracy, please tell me which one YOU are referring to? Truthfinder |
||||||
96 | Radioman - What did God say in Exo 6:3? | Gen 17:1 | Truthfinder | 79029 | ||
Hi Tim :) Yes, for a certainty I agree with Is. 43:10. I also agree with the other texts I have quoted that tell us not interpretation but tell us there are indeed other gods. You cannot ignor other scriptures to make a point in your theology You merely conclude that these other gods are false gods thus not in actuality real gods at all. In all seriousnes is this sound reasoning? I also agree that ‘there is only One True God” as John 7:18,28 and John 17:3 tells us. And the NWT renders ha·´El´ as “the [true] God” in all 32 places where it occurs in Masoretic Hebrew text found in Codex Leningrad B 19A as presented in BHK and BHS in the singular, namely, in Ge 31:13; 35:1, 3; 46:3; De 7:9; 10:17; 33:26; 2Sa 22:31, 33, 48; Ne 1:5; 9:32; Job 13:8; 21:14; 22:17; 31:28; 33:6; 34:10, 37; 40:9; Ps 18:30, 32, 47; 57:2; 68:19, 20; 77:14; 85:8; Isa 5:16; 42:5; Jer 32:18; Da 9:4. The plural of ´el is ´e·lim´. In M ´e·lim´ occurs once preceded by the definite article, namely, in Ex 15:11, where it refers to other gods. It is a given that idols are false gods but nonetheless are gods to some people. In researching the Greek word for “true” (alethinos) on page of 158 of Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words we find that it says it can have one of several meanings, depending on the context and usage of the author or speaker. It can mean:"genuine, ideal, real. A) Of God in contrast to other gods, b) of Christ, c) God’s words, d) His ways, e) His judgments, f) His riches g) His worshippers, h) their hearts, I) the witness of the Apostle John j) the spiritural antitypical Tabernacle. Likewise with Baur-Arndt-Gingrich Greek English-Lexicon (BAGD), alethinos can mean:"genuine, real . . . Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real . . . true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its copies." Allow me to illustrate "reality possessed only by the original or as the BAGD puts it; archetype, not by its copies," consider John 1:9, where John says concerning Jesus, "The true light [to phos to alethinon] that gives light to every sort of man was about to come into the world" (compare 1Jo 2:8). Does this mean that Jesus' disciples (Mt 5:14) are "false" lights? No. It means they are not the original light, but copies of it, giving forth the light they received from Jesus. Similarly, when Jesus contrasted himself, "the true bread from heaven [ton arton ek tou ouranou ton alethinon]," with the manna that God gave the Israelites, did this mean the manna was not really food? (Joh 6:32-33) Surely he meant the manna was not food in the far more excellent sense that his life-saving sacrifice (his flesh-Joh 6:51, 54-56) would prove to be. The manna, and other earthly foods, give only temporary sustenance; they are but a copy of the reality possessed by the real food God gives. Notice the contrast made in Hebrews 8 between the "true tent" (tes skenes tes alethines) in verse 2 and the typical tent God commanded Moses to make. (verse 5; 9:9) In all these texts alethinos is contrasted, not with something "false," but is used to describe that which is the archetype as opposed to that which is a copy of the original. So being reasonable and reasoning on a matter we can come to accurate conclusions as I have shown. |
||||||
97 | Exodus 3:14 connected to John 8:58? | Ex 3:14 | Truthfinder | 76077 | ||
Hi Tim You wrote: There isn't any doubt as to what Jesus was doing in this verse. He uses the exact phrase that Jehovah used of Himself in Ex. 3:14, as translated by the LXX. The LXX says in Ex 3:14: (transliterated) Kai apen ha theos prahs Monsan, legon, eigo emi ha On, (And spoke the God toward Moses, saying, I am the Being. Translation provided in the LXX: And God spoke to Moses, sayking, I am THE BEING. Kenneth L. McKay, who graduated with honors in Classics from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge, taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria, New Zealand, and England, who taught at the Australian National University for 26 years, has written numerous articles on ancient Greek syntax, as well as authored a book on Classical Attic, Greek Grammar for Students, and A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: an aspectual approach, provides the following in relation to the alleged "true parallel between Exodus 3:14 (LXX) and John 8:58" . And further recommends an author of whom I make mention of by saying, “ I recommend Rolf Furuli's chapter concerning John 8:58 for a through explanation of this point.” ------------------------------------------------------ 'I am' in John's Gospel The Expository Times, 1996, page 302 BY K. L. MCKAY, MA, FORMERLY OF THE AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY ------------------------------------------------------- It has become fashionable among some preachers and writers to relate Jesus's use of the words 'I am' in the Gospel according to John, in all, or most, of their contexts, to God's declaration to Moses in Exodus 3:14, and to expound the passages concerned as if the words themselves have some kind of magic in them. Some who have no more than a smattering of Greek attribute the 'magic' to the Greek words egw eimi. [1] I wish briefly to draw attention to the normality of the Greek in all such passages, and the unlikelihood of the words egw eimi being intended to suggest any special significance of this kind. It is, of course, perfectly reasonable to draw attention to Jesus's claims about himself by noting the 'I am' element common to them: 'I am the bread of life' (6:35), 'I am the light of the world' (8:12), 'I am the gate/door' (10:7), 'I am the good shepherd' (10:11), 'I am the resurrection and the life' (11:25), 'I am the way, the truth and the life' (14:6), 'I am the true vine' (15:1). These statements give important insights into the identity and work of Jesus, and we can be challenged to decide whether the words 'I am' in them convey truth, delusion, deceit, or something else. In each case the Greek words used are egw eimi, the pronoun being emphatic (as is usually appropriate in beginning a startling fresh statement, answering a question of identity or personal activity, and in some other circumstances), and the verb, also slightly emphatic, [2] being the normal use of the verb 'to be' as a copula, the means of linking the subject with the significant words, 'bread', 'light', etc., which occur as noun complements. The same principle applies when the complement is an adjective or an adverb or adverbial phrase used adjectivally. With variations of context the degree of emphasis may vary, and either the pronoun or the verb may be omitted. In the parallelism of 8:23 pronoun and verb are separated: humeis ek ton kato este, egw ek ton ano eimi, but in the immediately following parallel statement the introduction of a negative brings the verb forward (thus also giving extra emphasis to toutou): egw ouk eimi ek tou kosmou toutou. In 14:10 the verb is omitted, because it is understood from the rest of the sentence: egw en tw patri kai ho pater en emoi estin. [3] In 14:20 a development from the same statement, also in a hoti clause, omits the copula entirely: egw en tw patri mou kai humeis en emoi kagw en humin. In 10:36 the personal pronoun is not needed for emphasis, and is omitted: huios tou theou eimi. In 7:34 and 7:36 the clause structure demands the postposition of the subject: hopou eimi egw humeis ou dunasthe elthein. (Continued) |
||||||
98 | Exodus 3:14 connected to John 8:58? | Ex 3:14 | Truthfinder | 76078 | ||
Part 2 Although the natural English translations differ, there are two contexts of this kind in which Jesus uses the words egw eimi alone to identify himself: in 6:20, where the disciples are afraid of the apparition they see walking on the water, and Jesus reassures them by identifying himself, quite naturally, with these words, which translate into English as 'It is I'; and in 18:5, while Jesus acknowledges that he is Jesus of Nazareth by speaking the same words, which are naturally translated into English as 'I am he'. The syntactic difference between them is that in the former egw is the complement, the unexpressed subject being something equivalent to 'what you see', and in the latter egw is the subject, the unexpressed complement being 'Jesus of Nazareth'. In both these passages egw eimi is the natural Greek response [4] in the circumstances, as may be seen in 9:9, where the man cured of blindness uses exactly the same words to acknowledge his identity. The dramatic reaction of the arresting party in 18:6 is readily explained if we note that the confident authority of Jesus's presence was such that he defeated the merchants in the temple (2:15), and he simply walked away when the crowd was intent on throwing him over the brow of the hill near Nazareth (Luke 4:28-30). The verb 'to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its basic meaning of 'be in existence', in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai egw eimi, [5] which would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was born', [6] if it were not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am'. If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction. For the emphasis on the words 'I am' we need to look back to God's words to Moses in Exodus 3:14, 'I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: "I am has sent me to you".' The passage in its Hebrew form has been discussed by many commentators as something of a problem, with possibilities that the verb could mean 'I am', 'I will be', 'I become', or 'I will become', and the pronoun 'that', 'who', 'what', or even 'because'. Some see a need to emend the text, and some stress various critical principles as basic to its interpretation. A few refer to the Septuagint translation of the passage as relevant for understanding it. [7] (continued) Truthfinder |
||||||
99 | Exodus 3:14 connected to John 8:58? | Ex 3:14 | Truthfinder | 76079 | ||
(part 3)Now the Septuagint was the translation done for the benefit of the increasing number of Greek-speaking Jews a couple of centuries earlier, so naturally it is the version of the Old Testament that is normally referred to in the New Testament, and certainly the one most likely to be known to the early readers of John's Gospel. Its translation of Exodus 3:14 follows the sense (as understood by the Jewish translators) rather than the exact form of the Hebrew: egw eimi ho wn ... Ho wn apestalke me, which translates into English literally as 'I am the being one',' [8] and 'the being one has sent me'. Now the words egw eimi here are the emphatic pronoun and the copula as in most of the passages cited above; and ho an represents a relative clause which in its first occurrence would be hos eimi and in its second occurrence would be hos esti, [9] but the most natural translation into English of both would be 'the one who is (who really exists)',' [10] the verb having its basic meaning (and being so accented), and not being a mere copula In neither is there any possibility of inserting an emphatic egw. So the emphatic words used by Jesus in the passages referred to above are perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greek version. Thus they are quite unlikely to have been used in the New Testament to convey that significance, however much the modern English versions of the relevant passages, following the form of the Hebrew words, may suggest it. ------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes: [1] I have seen one such speaker try to impress his audience by writing the words on a blackboard, only to demonstrate that he was ignorant of even the simplest details of Greek. [2] Its position is unemphatic, but the degree of emphasis could be reduced by its omission, which would make no difference to the meaning. The omission of the copula is quite common in Greek, especially, but not exclusively, in the third person. [3] The fact that this is a reported statement, in a hoti clause, does not affect the grammar, but only the degree of emphasis. [4] In translation, if as is likely, the original reply was the equivalent in Aramaic. [5] Note that with this meaning the verb is differently accented in Greek ( E)GW\ E)MI/ instead of E)GW E)IMI ). [6] For the construction see K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An aspectual approach (Peter Lang, 1994), 4.2.4. [7] For extensive modern discussion of the problems of interpretation see Brevard S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL, SCM, 1974) and John 1. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3, Word, 1987). See also Martin Noth, Exodus (OTL, SCM, 2nd ed. 1966); U. Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Magnes Press), 1. P. Hyatt, Exodus (NCB, Oliphants, 1971); Alan Cole, Exodus (TC, IVP, 1973); J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (Scholars Press, 1990). [8] As Noth mentions in a footnote. [9] Cf. the Vulgate translation of 14b: Qui est misit me ad vos. [10] English has lost the full range of inflections, and the relative pronoun is now treated as if it were always third person. Truthfinder |
||||||
100 | Exodus 3:14 connected to John 8:58? | Ex 3:14 | Truthfinder | 77001 | ||
Hi Tim, I agree with you here as there are no "originals" of any scripture, OT, nor NT, Greek nor Hebrew. There are only hand copies of copies of copies, etc. Even though you didn't address this note to me, thought I would say hi,:). Have a nice day. Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |