Results 161 - 180 of 208
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76499 | ||
No other Almighty Gods, must be the accurate understanding of Is. 43:10 due to the other usages of gods in the Scriptures. You wrote: 1) No other gods.Before I address your individual examples, allow me to say this: It is clear in Scripture that many things are called 'gods'. People who make an idol, consider it to be a god, but it is not.Having said this, Is. 43:10 is perfectly clear that there is no other god, besides Jehovah.a) Is. 9:6 - This one is simple. This is not speaking of 'another god', but of Jehovah incarnate. (I give scriptural proof that this is referring to Jesus as a Mighty God.)Tim wrote: b) Ps. 8:5 - This verse uses a different word than Is. 43:10, so it is not relevant to the question. Yes, Ps 8:5 uses ‘elo him” and Is 43:10 uses ‘El’. Yet, you say it’s not relevant? Why both Hebrew words are recognized as totally equivalent for the English translation for “god”. Psalm 8:5, (“made ?? a little less than ´elo·him´ Heb) _____________.” Paul’s quotation of Ps 8:5’s “elohim” is translated to the Greek as “aggelous” ____________, at Hebrews 2:6-8.Is 43:10 “YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God** formed, and after me there continued to be none. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” ** “God.” Heb., ´El.Please note what I wrote: Among the Hebrew words that are translated “God” is ´El, probably 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·´El´, literally, “the God”) with reference to Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods. In Ge 46:3 ´El refers to Jehovah; 2Sa 22:31 likewise. At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ´El Gib·bohr´, “Mighty God” (not ´El Shad·dai´ [God Almighty], which is only applied to Jehovah as at Genesis 17:1).Yes, Ps 8:5 uses elo·him´; Ps 8:5 “You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones,And with glory and splendor you then crowned him.”“Than godlike ones.” Heb., me· elo·him´; TLXXSyVg, “angels; messengers.”(continued) |
||||||
162 | in gen1:26 who is (us) ? | John 1:3 | Truthfinder | 76441 | ||
Sorry Hank, Good point. I liked your post and just thought you would be interested in the (pagan) comment I made. Truthfinder |
||||||
163 | in gen1:26 who is (us) ? | John 1:3 | Truthfinder | 76405 | ||
Hi Hank, Genesis 1:26 is among the earliest texts that refer to the triunity of God. But even in Genesis 1:2 we read that the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) was present at creation "hovering over the face of the waters." And John 1:3 shows that Jesus Christ was involved in creation, as do Col. 1:16,17 and Heb. 1:2. Thus, Genesis 1:26 definitely does not teach polytheism, but attests to the Trinity, the triune nature of God, being one God in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Pagans have falsely accused Christians of believing in polytheism (more than one god). But this is because many pagans do not understand the basic biblical teaching of the triunity of God. --Hank I totally agree with you that all three were involved here, and your texts prove your point very well. I understand that the Bible teaches differently as to what the Holy Spirit is than what you are saying. Can I ask you a question? If Jesus is Almighty God, then do you pray to him or to the Father? And likewise, do you pray to the Holy Spirit, and what is his name? However, you then say that because many “pagans” do not understand the basic biblical teaching of the triunity of God. Just for basic knowlege sake, notice what these three reference publications have to say about “pagan”. According to the book Babylonian Life and History (by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, 1925 edition, pp. 146, 147), in ancient Babylon, the pagans did believe in such a thing; in fact, they worshiped more than one trinity of gods. Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, in Babylonian Life and History, says: The demons and devils that made the Babylonian’s life a misery to him were many, but the forms of most of them and their evil powers were well known. Most of all he feared the Seven Evil Spirits, who were the creators of all evil. . . . As there were triads of gods, so there were triads of devils, for example, Labartu, Labasu and Akhkhazu. The first harmed little children, the second caused the quaking sickness, and the third turned the face of a man yellow and black. Another triad comprised Lîlû, Lîlîtu and Ardat Lîli. . . . The Babylonians . . . went to the priest, who often assumed the character of a god, and who exorcised the devils by reciting incantations, . . .—Pages 146, 147 (1925 edition). See also The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edition of 1955, Volume 1, page 373. According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467. Truthfinder |
||||||
164 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76384 | ||
Hi again, Here is one of my most favorite cites I get information from: http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi Although I have the LXX, numerous translations, Greek parsing guide to the Greek New Testament by Nathan E. Han, William D. Mounce's Biblical grammer literature, Biblical Hebrew by Bonnie Kittel,etc. Vine's, Strong's, a Greek Diaglot, and Greg Stafford's book to name a few. But my main study has always been the Hebrew, Jay Green's Interlinear, etc. Truthfinder |
||||||
165 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76383 | ||
Hi again Tim, Here is the part of the post I made and you said that you had read it. I did not copy that post from that cite you found. I can though see why you said what you did! If I had found that site it would have saved me some typing. I did though tell you where I got some of the information by saying this: Subject: WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD Note: 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. His book is one of several I used, that I have. I didn't know that this was even on the net. I did find a cite though that had the list of the Bible translations I listed showing some point and just copied and pasted them, but don't remember where I found it. Tim, You seem to be an honest and sincere individual and I enjoy comparing notes with you. Truthfinder |
||||||
166 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76378 | ||
Allow me to address a couple of your points! 1) Firstborn: If your position as a JW is that Jesus is a created 'god', how can you justify that position in light of Is. 43:10. First of all, Scripture is clear that there are NO OTHER GODS. Secondly, Is. 43:10 specifically says that there were no gods 'formed' or 'created' either before or after Jehovah. So, how can Jesus be another, created god, when Is. 43:10 explicitly denies this is the case? (Reply by Truthfinder) Please read and explain who the ‘el’ (god) and ‘elohim’ (gods) refer to in these few verses: a)Isaiah 9:6 (´El Gib·bohr´ Heb ) __________. b) Psalm 8:5, (“made ?? a little less than ´elo·him´ Heb) _____________.” Paul’s quotation of Ps 8:5’s “elohim” is translated to the Greek as “aggelous” ____________, at Hebrews 2:6-8. At Psalm 82:1, 6, ´elo·him´ is used of _______________. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. Since these texts say, not me Tim, but these texts say that there are indeed ‘other gods’, and someone had to ‘create them”. Is. 43:10 then must be “understood” as the Almighty God. This too must mean that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but as Is 9:6 says a “Mighty God”. Is 43:10 clearly identifies Jehovah as the only true “Almighty God”. And don’t forget the “gods” Jehovah ‘formed” or ‘created’ in Ps 8:5 and Ps 82:1,6. But again they are not “Almighty Gods” as Jehovah is for there are no ‘Almighty Gods’ ‘formed’ or ‘created’ either before or after Jehovah. Jesus is never refered to as ‘Almighty God’, but he himself clearly said at Matt. 4:10, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” , here quoting Deut 10:20, “Jehovah your God you should fear. Him you should serve, and to him you should cling, and by his name you should make sworn statements. 21 He is the One for you to praise, and he is your God.” This is yet another example of biased translation by the JW's. You complain in several of your posts that traditional translators let their bias affect their translations, yet defend the JW's for doing the same thing in Col. 1:16-17. There is no word for 'other' in this passage, and the example of Luke 13:2 does not justify it's inclusion in Col. 1:16-17. Luke 13:2 is making a comparison between some Galilians and all Galilians, thus the translators chose to bring this out with the word 'other'. However, there is no comparision being made in Col. 1:16-17. It simply says that He created all things. (Response by Truthseeker) Col. 1:16-17 says; “because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. The brackets according to the preface of the NWT says; BRACKETS: Single brackets [ ] enclose words inserted to complete the sense in the English text. Double brackets [[ ]] suggest interpolations (insertions of foreign material) in the original text.” This is the case also in the NWT for Col. 1:20, “GOD saw good for all fullness to dwell in him [Christ], and through him to reconcile again to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.” True there is no word for ‘other’ in the Greek text in Col. 1:16,17 nor vs 20. That’s why it is in brackets, to complete the sense in the English text and show it was added. The RSV says, “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.” The TEB says, “Christ is the visible likeness of the invisible God. He is the firstborn Son, superior to all created things. The translation by C.B. Williams, “Yes, He is the exact likeness of the unseen God, His first-born Son who existed before any created thing.” (continued) |
||||||
167 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76330 | ||
Does anyone ever get out of the Bible hell? Rev. 20:13, 14, KJ: "The sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell* delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire." (So the dead will be delivered from hell. Notice also that hell is not the same as the lake of fire but will be cast into the lake of fire.) (*"Hell," Dy, Kx; "the world of the dead," TEV; "Hades," NE, AS, RS, JB, NW.) Why is there confusion as to what the Bible says about hell? "Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception."-The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81. Translators have allowed their personal beliefs to color their work instead of being consistent in their rendering of the original-language words. For example: (1) The King James Version rendered she'ohl´ as "hell," "the grave," and "the pit"; hai´des is therein rendered both "hell" and "grave"; ge´en·na is also translated "hell." (2) Today's English Version transliterates hai´des as "Hades" and also renders it as "hell" and "the world of the dead." But besides rendering "hell" from hai´des it uses that same translation for ge´en·na. (3) The Jerusalem Bible transliterates hai´des six times, but in other passages it translates it as "hell" and as "the underworld." It also translates ge´en·na as "hell," as it does hai´des in two instances. Thus the exact meanings of the original-language words have been obscured.--Reasoning From the Scriptures Truthfinder |
||||||
168 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76329 | ||
Hi, Hell Definition: The word "hell" is found in many Bible translations. In the same verses other translations read "the grave," "the world of the dead," and so forth. Other Bibles simply transliterate the original-language words that are sometimes rendered "hell"; that is, they express them with the letters of our alphabet but leave the words untranslated. What are those words? The Hebrew she'ohl´ and its Greek equivalent hai´des, which refer, not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind; also the Greek ge´en·na, which is used as a symbol of eternal destruction. However, both in Christendom and in many non-Christian religions it is taught that hell is a place inhabited by demons and where the wicked, after death, are punished (and some believe that this is with torment). Does the Bible indicate whether the dead experience pain? Eccl. 9:5, 10: "The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol,* the place to which you are going." (If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.) (*"Sheol," AS, RS, NE, JB; "the grave," KJ, Kx; "hell," Dy; "the world of the dead," TEV.) Ps. 146:4: "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts* do perish." (*"Thoughts," KJ, 145:4 in Dy; "schemes," JB; "plans," RS, TEV.) Does the Bible indicate that the soul survives the death of the body? Ezek. 18:4: "The soul* that is sinning-it itself will die." (*"Soul," KJ, Dy, RS, NE, Kx; "the man," JB; "the person," TEV.) "The concept of 'soul,' meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, separate from the 'body,' . . . does not exist in the Bible."-La Parole de Dieu (Paris, 1960), Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary, France, p. 128. "Although the Hebrew word nefesh [in the Hebrew Scriptures] is frequently translated as 'soul,' it would be inaccurate to read into it a Greek meaning. Nefesh . . . is never conceived of as operating separately from the body. In the New Testament the Greek word psyche is often translated as 'soul' but again should not be readily understood to have the meaning the word had for the Greek philosophers. It usually means 'life,' or 'vitality,' or, at times, 'the self.'"-The Encyclopedia Americana (1977), Vol. 25, p. 236. What sort of people go to the Bible hell? Does the Bible say that the wicked go to hell? Ps. 9:17, KJ: "The wicked shall be turned into hell,* and all the nations that forget God." (*"Hell," 9:18 in Dy; "death," TEV; "the place of death," Kx; "Sheol," AS, RS, NE, JB, NW.) Does the Bible also say that upright people go to hell? Job 14:13, Dy: "[Job prayed:] Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell,* and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt remember me?" (God himself said that Job was "a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad."-Job 1:8.) (*"The grave," KJ; "the world of the dead," TEV; "Sheol," AS, RS, NE, JB, NW.) Acts 2:25-27, KJ: "David speaketh concerning him [Jesus Christ], . . . Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,* neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." (The fact that God did not "leave" Jesus in hell implies that Jesus was in hell, or Hades, at least for a time, does it not?) (*"Hell," Dy; "death," NE; "the place of death," Kx; "the world of the dead," TEV; "Hades," AS, RS, JB, NW.) (continued) |
||||||
169 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76328 | ||
Hi Col. 1:15, 16, RS: "He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth." In what sense is Jesus Christ "the first-born of all creation"? (1) Trinitarians say that "first-born" here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of "firstborn," it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah's family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression "the firstborn of" occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies-the firstborn is part of the group. "The firstborn of Israel" is one of the sons of Israel; "the firstborn of Pharaoh" is one of Pharaoh's family; "the firstborn of beast" are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says "in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him"? The Greek word here rendered "all things" is pan´ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this "all . . . other"; JB reads "any other"; NE says "anyone else." (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan´ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, "by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him." Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God. Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . 'And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: "The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe´] of God's creation."'" (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was 'the beginner of God's creation,' that he was its 'ultimate source.' But Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon lists "beginning" as its first meaning of ar·khe´. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God's creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be "created.") Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Dy reads: "his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity." Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying "days of eternity," RS renders the Hebrew as "ancient days"; JB, "days of old"; NW, "days of time indefinite." Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning. Truthfinder |
||||||
170 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76327 | ||
Hi “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.”—1 Timothy 2:5, 6. Paul’s words refer to the Father as the “one God” and then says that there is also “one mediator” who is Jesus, and it was this “son” that gave himself "willingly" a “corresponding” ransom for all. Jesus, no more and no less than a perfect human, became a ransom that compensated exactly for what Adam lost—the right to perfect human life on earth. So Jesus could rightly be called “the last Adam” by the apostle Paul, who said in the same context: “Just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45) The perfect human life of Jesus was the “corresponding ransom” required by divine justice—no more, no less. A basic principle even of human justice is that the price paid should fit the wrong committed. If Jesus, however, were part of a Godhead, the ransom price would have been infinitely higher than what God’s own Law required. (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-21) It was only a perfect human, Adam, who sinned in Eden, not God. So the ransom, to be truly in line with God’s justice, had to be strictly an equivalent—a perfect human, “the last Adam.” Thus, when God sent Jesus to earth as the ransom, he made Jesus to be what would satisfy justice, not an incarnation, not a god-man, but a perfect man, “lower than angels.” (Hebrews 2:9; compare Psalm 8:5, 6.) How could any part of an almighty Godhead—Father, Son, or holy spirit—ever be lower than angels? Truthfinder |
||||||
171 | 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 |
||||||
172 | 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) |
||||||
173 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76088 | ||
Hi Tim, I sent you a couple of notes in regard to Ex. 3:14 on the string for said text. Hope you find them. Truthfinder |
||||||
174 | 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 |
||||||
175 | 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) |
||||||
176 | 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) |
||||||
177 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76083 | ||
Hi Tim, You wrote: The 'hidding' of their identifies is one problem with the NWT, but the major problem is the 'translation' itself. Words are added that are not found in or supported by the text in any way. Verbs are translated in impossible ways. New verb forms are invented, as in John 8:58 where one writer called 'eimi' a 'perfect indicative', of which there is no such thing in Greek! The NWT is not really a translation at all! Other translations of John 8:58 follow. So why is it that you say this ? Do conclude that these are not translations at all! Too? They have their scholarly credentials yet translate different than you. New American Standard Bible (NASB) (margin 1960-1973 editions): Or, "I have been." The Living New Testament: "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The 20th Century New Testament: "before Abraham existed I was." The New Testament, An American Translation Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham was born." The Complete Bible, An American Translation Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham was born." New Believers Bible, New Living Translation: "I existed before Abraham was even born." The New Testament, C. B. Williams: "I solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born." The Book, New Testament: "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The Living Bible: "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The Four Gospels, Lattimore: "Truly, truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born." The New Testament, From the Peshitta Text, Lamsa: "Before Abraham was born, I was." An American Translation, In The Language of Today, Beck: "I was before Abraham." New Testament Contemporary English Version: "I tell you.that even before Abraham was, I was, and I am." The Living Scriptures (Messianic Version): "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The Unvarnished New Testament: "Before Abraham was born, I have already been." The New Testament, Klist and Lilly: "I am here-and I was before Abraham." The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams: "I existed before Abraham was born." The New Testament, Noyes: "From before Abraham was, I have been." A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: "Before Abraham was, I have been." The Syriac New Testament, Murdock: "Before Abraham existed I was." The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Burkitt: "Before Abraham came to be, I was." The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, Blake and Briere: "Before Abraham came to be, I was." Nouvum Testamentum AEthiopice, Platt, Lepzip: "Before Abraham was born, I was." The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant, Sharpe: "I was before Abraham was born." The 20th Century New Testament 1904: "Before Abraham existed I was already what I am." The New Testament, Stage: "Before Abraham came to be, I was." The Coptic Version the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Horner: "Before Abraham became, I, I am being." The Documents of the New Testament, Wade: "Before Abraham came into being, I have existed." The New Testament in Hebrew, Delitzsh: "Before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament in Hebrew, Salkinson and Ginsberg: "I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham." The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Swan: "I existed before Abraham was born." The New Testament (in German) Pfaefflin: "Before there was an Abraham, I was already there." The Authentic New Testament, Schonfield: "I existed before Abraham was born." Biblia Sagdrada, Roman Catholic: "Before Abraham existed, I was existing." The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Noli: "I existed before Abraham was born." The Concise Gospel and The acts, Christianson: "I existed even before Abraham was born." A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida: "Before Abraham existed, I existed, or.I have existed." The Simple English Bible: "I was alive before Abraham was born." The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born." The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham." Truthfinder |
||||||
178 | 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 |
||||||
179 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76071 | ||
Hi Tim, You wrote: Two quick points before I translate John 8:58. 1) What do you mean when you say that Greek is aspectual? I am not familiar with that term. Fact is, there are many linguists that deal in the finer nuances of the verbal systems of the biblical languages. Modern linguistic principles dictate considerable improvement in appreciating the original ideas of the Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I appreciate the logic, sound reasoning and considerable Bibliography, of author and university lecturer Rolf Furuli of no less than 25 years. He explains that the basic difference between the verbal systems is that in Greek, “aspect” is grammaticalized and this is also true in Hebrew, but not in English. Now, grammaticalization means that a particular grammatical characteristic is connected with the verb form and is not dependent upon the context. He goes on to say, “Most linguistic works on English say that English has aspects, but this is because aspect is used in a sense different from how it is used in this study (See J. Hewson and V. Bubenik, Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages, see also Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (Amsterdam: J. Benamins, 1997). P. 145) If “aspects” are defined as “viewpoints,” the perfective one being a focus encompassing both the beginning and the end of an event or state, and the imperfective one being a focus on a small sequence after the beginning and before the end, then English is capable of expressing aspects. But there is no English form, the purpose of which is exclusively to express aspect. Both in Hebrew and Greek, the fundamental parts of the verbal system are exclusively aspectual and their area of use are much broader than that of simple past and past continuous, which in English are used to express viewpoint. So, while both English and Hebrew/Greek are capable of expressing durative and punctual viewpoints, their fundamental role in the verbal system and their completely different areas of use, make Hebrew and Greek aspects qualitatively different from what is called “aspect” in English. 2) Why would I have to be completely time indifferent, since Greek is not time indifferent? It has past, present, perfect, and future tenses. Again, only in an in depth study of the “Excursus on Hebrew and Greek Verbs” is this made apparent to Greek and Hebrew language studies. The concept of “tense” is defined as “the grammaticalization of location in time.” (See B. Comrie, Tense; Cambridge University Press, 1985, p. 7) This means that whether the time of the verbal action is past, present or future, related to speech time or to some other time, it is seen by the verb form itself and not by the context alone. Thus, the words “went” and “taught”, in English, are past tense. Given Comrie’s definition of “tense,” neither Hebrew nor Greek have tenses, save possibly Greek future, which is viewed by most researchers as a tense. (See S. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood 1993, pp. 76-83. Porter denies that tense is grammaticalized at all in New Testament Greek.) The word “tense,” for Hebrew perfect and imperfect, or Greek present, aorist or imperfect really is a misnomer, though it still is used in most studies on the Greek verb and in some studies on the Hebrew verb. All the three recent dissertations on the Greek verb (Porter, Fanning and Olsen--A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect- differentiate between tense and time in a fine way. D. B. Wallace has a very fine discussion of this subject in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament -- Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pp. 504-510. The valuable Hebrew syntax written by Waltke and O’Connor -- An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Eisenbrauns, 1990 also distinguishes between time and tense. However, the recent comparative grammar of the Semitic languages written by E. Lipinski, Analecta 80; Leuven: Uitgiveij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, 1997, while generally having a high quality, takes for granted that verbs in Hebrew having past meaning also have past tense. It is methodologically unsound to draw such a conclusion, since the past time can be a function of the context (thus being pragmatic) just as well as being a function of the verb (thus being semantic). Therefore, serious Hebrew and Greek linguists avoid using the “tense” but instead “conjugations” and speak of Greek present and Greek imperfect without adding the word “tense.” This is all well discussed and illustrated by Furuli. Truthfinder |
||||||
180 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 75657 | ||
John 8:58 Hi Tim, What's your understanding of how this verse should be most accurately translated, in a strictly literal way, since English isn't an aspectual language and Greek is? Remember to be completely time indifferent and grammatically correct, when you translate it. I'll show you how I would translate it(in Hebrew, Spanish, and of course in English) and why. Take your time, and be as comprehensive as you like. Please provide parts of speech, as I will understand. :) Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [11] >> |