- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 29 2013,12:14) 2besee, about your godandsciencequote, it is irritating when someone tells me the forms differ but do not tell me how. How can I discern the truth of what they say if what they say is not complete.
Kerwin, what is it that you would like to know?
Quote (2besee @ Nov. 29 2013,11:04) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 29 2013,12:14) 2besee, about your godandsciencequote, it is irritating when someone tells me the forms differ but do not tell me how. How can I discern the truth of what they say if what they say is not complete.
Kerwin, what is it that you would like to know?
2beesee,Quote There are two forms of the word. Strong's H7451a most often refers to moral evil, whereas Strong's H7451b (the form used here) most often refers to calamity or distress. The difference in form details.
They gave me the address where to look it up except I can find no a or b. Strong's only gives a number. I have no idea how to decrypt their clue and no one else uses that pattern.
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 29 2013,13:28) 2Besee. There is no one here calling God evil,so be fair and dont twist
words,being a christian.
The scriptures did not say that God is evil,please understand. But he did create evil.
He created satan did he not?
Is satan not evil?wakeup.
Wakeup,
Free will.
God gave man (and angels) free will.Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 29 2013,18:26) Quote (2besee @ Nov. 29 2013,11:04) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 29 2013,12:14) 2besee, about your godandsciencequote, it is irritating when someone tells me the forms differ but do not tell me how. How can I discern the truth of what they say if what they say is not complete.
Kerwin, what is it that you would like to know?
2beesee,Quote There are two forms of the word. Strong's H7451a most often refers to moral evil, whereas Strong's H7451b (the form used here) most often refers to calamity or distress. The difference in form details.
They gave me the address where to look it up except I can find no a or b. Strong's only gives a number. I have no idea how to decrypt their clue and no one else uses that pattern.
Kerwin, I'm not sure. I only did a quick google and ended up at that site. But, is there anything I can help you with?
What are your wanting to find out?Quote (2besee @ Nov. 29 2013,18:49) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 29 2013,13:28) 2Besee. There is no one here calling God evil,so be fair and dont twist
words,being a christian.
The scriptures did not say that God is evil,please understand. But he did create evil.
He created satan did he not?
Is satan not evil?wakeup.
Wakeup,
Free will.
God gave man (and angels) free will.
2Besee.So God did not know.
wakeup.
Quote (2besee @ Nov. 28 2013,15:20) Isaiah 45:7 contrasts opposites. Darkness is the opposite of light. However, evil is not the opposite of peace.
Very good point, 2B!I wonder if Wakeup and journey will see it.
Quote (2besee @ Nov. 28 2013,16:24) Mike, you said:
“Your source says the Creator is the only one with the answers, and we must learn from Him. Hmmmm………… how is that done? Do you just ask God in your prayers or something, and then believe anything you hear – because you assume it must have been God who answered you?”More or less, Yes. If you have a close enough relationship with God, you will know it is him speaking to your inner being (spirit).
But how do you KNOW it's God who's speaking, 2B? What do we TEST it against?Don't you know that Satan and his demons masquerade as angels of light? (2 Corinthians 11:13-14) Don't you know that Jesus said he would try to deceive even the elect? (Matt 24:24)
Are you, in all your “holiness”, immune to Satan and his ploys? If you think you are, you'd better think again.
God gave us the scriptures to TEST what the spirits tell us. So don't believe anything “God” tells you in your dreams or prayers – unless it aligns with the scriptures. If it doesn't, chances are that it wasn't really “God” telling you those things.
To All ….> Life “itself” consists of both Good and Evil, God created it all, because he is the Author and giver of Life itself. The tree of the knowledge of Good and Eve was place there by God himself, taking from it gives us the first hand understanding and knowledge of what is a Good life and what is a Evil life or as some say what is a functional and what is dysfunctional way to live. Just as Eve said it was when she saw the the fruit of it was good to make one Wise, and when they ate (took to themselves) of it.
There eye were opened and even God said Look they have become as “AS WE ARE” to know good and evil , so the understanding of both makes us more like God even if it does give us pain and suffering as well as good and pleasure. Both give us a Balance in life and are part of life and always will be. God would have never placed it in the Garden if it were not necessary in the first place. IMO
peace and love to you and your………………………………….gene
Quote (2besee @ Nov. 28 2013,23:00) Mike yes I agree with what your wrote here except for this. Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 29 2013,05:06) there exist good Greek mss that have “only begotten son”, and good Greek mss that have “only begotten god”. I don't believe it. Show me proof!
(please).
From NETNotes:The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs.
Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc.
The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).
But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.
A lot of that is very deep, and very hard to follow – but I copied the whole note in case you wanted to really look into it.
I've bolded the parts that stick out to me.
1. Only one letter would have distinguished between “son” and “god”. It would be the difference between someone in English dotting the “i”, or leaving it undotted.
2. The OLDER mss have “god” – not “son”.
3. It would make sense for a later scribe to alter “god” to “son” – since “only begotten son” is a “uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).” Understand? John uses the phrase “only begotten SON” a number of other times in his writing, so a scribe, seeing “only begotten GOD” in 1:18, might be tempted to EMEND it to “only begotten SON”, in light of the other times John used that phrase in his writings.
On the other hand, it would be hard to see why an ancient scribe would see “only begotten SON”, and just up and alter it to “only begotten GOD” for no apparent reason.
4. “only begotten god” is the HARDER reading – which usually signifies the ORIGINAL reading. This happens all throughout scripture – where a hard reading is EMENDED by a later scribe who tries to make the reading EASIER – or tries to make that reading “make more sense” or whatever.Knowing this is the case, learned scholars almost always prefer the harder and older reading – knowing that the easier reading is often the result of the emendation of a well-meaning scribe who came later.
At any rate, the various mss that have “only begotten god” in that verse are listed in the info above. They are the older of the mss listed.
So we have good reason to assume “only begotten son” in that verse. But we have even better reason to assume “only begotten god”.
The choice is yours. I prefer “only begotten god” for the reasons I listed above, and because Jesus is called “god” in at least 2 other places in the writings of John.
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 29 2013,05:32) Quote (2besee @ Nov. 29 2013,18:49) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 29 2013,13:28) 2Besee. He created satan did he not?
Is satan not evil?wakeup.
Wakeup,
Free will.
God gave man (and angels) free will.
2Besee.So God did not know.
wakeup.
Wakeup,Was Satan “evil” when God created him? Did God actually create him AS an “evil being”? YES or NO?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 29 2013,22:34) To All ….> Life “itself” consists of both Good and Evil, God created it all, because he is the Author and giver of Life itself. The tree of the knowledge of Good and Eve was place there by God himself, taking from it gives us the first hand understanding and knowledge of what is a Good life and what is a Evil life or as some say what is a functional and what is dysfunctional way to live. Just as Eve said it was when she saw the the fruit of it was good to make one Wise, and when they ate (took to themselves) if it. There eye were opened and even God said Look they have become as “AS WE ARE” to know good and evil , so the understanding of both makes us more like God even if it does give us pain and suffering as well as good and pleasure. Both give us a Balance in life and are part of life and always will be. God would have never placed it in the Garden if it were not necessary in the first place. IMO
peace and love to you and your………………………………….gene
Gene,The passage does not state Yawheh of the Powers created both good and evil nor did God create moral good as he has always been good and the source of good.
You understand that when it is said “that is a good deed” that the word “good” means a righteous deed while when is said that “that cake is good” the word “good” does not mean that the cake righteous. The word “evil” is the same.
The clause from the passage states “I make peace, and create evil”, Isaiah 45:7, and the two are meant to be opposite in meaning according to the whole passages context. Assuming the AKJV translators are correct then the correct meaning of both the words “peace” and “evil” must be in conflict.
Is peace “1. a state without war”?
No, as it is not a general enough definition.
Is peace “2. freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions”?
No, as it does not seem to be speaking about the mind.
Is peace “3. a state of freedom from storm or disturbance”?
Yes, That is a general statement that would actually cover the other definitions and therefore a broader interpretation.
Is peace “4. peaceful coexistence”?
No, That is more to do with human choice and it is the desire of God though Satan can twist the idea and mimic it.
Those are the four possible definitions for peace in the Merriam-Webster's dictionary of which the first three are possibles though I favor the third one due to other passages of Scripture.
Here is what the Merriam-Wenster's online thesaurus states about the antonyms and synonyms of the third definition.
Quote a state of freedom from storm or disturbance Synonyms calmness, hush, peace, peacefulness, placidity, quiet, quietness, quietude, repose, restfulness, sereneness, serenity, still, stillness, tranquillity (or tranquility)
Related Words lull, pause, respite; silence; mildness, soothingness; comity, concord, harmony; casualness, easygoingness, informality, laid-backness, relaxedness
Near Antonyms clamor, din, noise, racket
Antonyms bustle, commotion, hubbub, hurly-burly, pandemonium, tumult, turmoil, unquietness, unrest, uproar
Wickedness, or a synonym of wickedness, is not one.
Evil also has multiple definitions of which you are cherry picking one without realizing it.
Is evil “1. causing or capable of causing harm”?
Yes, as God creates disasters that cause harm.
Is evil “not conforming to a high moral standard”?
No, As God not only conforms to a high moral standard but is the source of the highest moral standard.
Is evil “causing intense displeasure, disgust, or resentment”?
No, As these are reactions.
That is all the definitions that there are in Merriam-Webster's
Satan made a choice to rebel against the eternal good that Yawheh has always been and the been the source of. Satan is the first to do evil and God cannot be tempted by evil and so Satan can be said to have 'created” evil. Before Satan performed evil to Jon he had to get permission from God and God allowed him to make evil, as it wicked actions, and that “evil” resulted in evil, as in harm, being done to Job.
Now let us test of the third definition of peace has a synonym that is the same as a antonym of the first definition of evil or vice verso.
Here are the synonyms and antonyms for the first definition of evil at Merriam-Websters online thesaurus.
Quote Synonyms adverse, bad, baleful, baneful, damaging, dangerous, deleterious, detrimental, evil, hurtful, ill, injurious, mischievous, nocuous, noxious, pernicious, prejudicial, wicked Related Words hostile, inimical, unfriendly; contagious, deadly, infectious, infective, pestiferous, pestilent, pestilential, poisonous, venomous; insidious, menacing, ominous, sinister, threatening; hazardous, imperiling (or imperilling), jeopardizing, parlous, perilous, risky, unsafe, unsound; nasty, noisome, unhealthful, unhealthy, unwholesome; destructive, fatal, killer, lethal, malignant, ruinous
Near Antonyms advantageous, beneficial, useful; favorable, good, propitious; curative, healthful, healthy, helpful, palliative, remedial, salubrious, salutary, wholesome; secure, sound; benignant; noncorrosive, nondestructive, nonfatal, noninfectious, nonlethal, nonpoisonous, nonpolluting, nontoxic, nonvenomous
Antonyms anodyne, benign, harmless, hurtless, innocent, innocuous, inoffensive, safe
There is none though there is a relationship of some. A harmful natural disaster causes an uproar but that is an understatement.
The second definition that you favor does not even have that relationship to peace.
Quote not conforming to a high moral standard; morally unacceptable
Synonyms black, dark, evil, immoral, iniquitous, nefarious, rotten, sinful, unethical, unlawful, unrighteous, unsavory, vicious, vile, villainous, wicked, wrongRelated Words base, contemptible, despicable, dirty, disreputable, evil-minded, ignoble, ill, infernal, low, mean, snide, sordid; atrocious, cruel, infamous, nasty; blamable, blameworthy, censurable, objectionable, obscene, offensive, reprehensible; corrupt, debased, debauched, degenerate, depraved, dissolute, libertine, loose, low-minded, perverted, reprobate, scrofulous, sick, unhealthy; cursed (also curst), cussed, defiling, noxious, pernicious, pestilential, ugly, ungodly, unwholesome; banned, barred, condemned, discouraged, forbidden, illegal, interdicted, outlawed, prohibited, proscribed, unauthorized, unclean; disallowed; execrable, lousy, miserable, wretched; errant, erring, fallen, unprincipled, unscrupulous; improper, incorrect, indecent, indecorous, naughty, unbecoming, unseemly, vulgar; dishonest, dishonorable
Near Antonyms elevated, high, high-minded, law-abiding, legitimate, lofty, noble, principled, reputable, scrupulous; allowed, authorized, legal, licensed, permissible, permitted; approved, endorsed (also indorsed), sanctioned; abetted, encouraged, promoted, supported; clean, correct, decent, decorous, exemplary,
proper, seemly; blameless, commendable, creditable, guiltless, legitimate; chaste, immaculate, incorruptible, innocent, inoffensive, irreproachable, lily-white, perfect, pure, spotless, squeaky-clean, uncorrupted, unerring, unfallen, unobjectionable, venerable, white, wholesome; esteemed, respected, upstanding, worthyAntonyms decent, ethical, good, honest, honorable, just, moral, right, righteous, sublime, upright, virtuous
The definitions that are opposite are the one I deem do not apply and basically would mean that God is saying I make amends and I give offense. That is the fourth definition of peace and the third definition of evil. Look them up as that is the only opposites that fit the Authorized King James Version words according to today's definitions of those words. Otherwise you will have to conclude either or the both Merriam-Webster or/and AV translators got it wrong or the meaning of the applicable words have changed over time.
Quote (2besee @ Nov. 29 2013,13:54) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 29 2013,18:26) Quote (2besee @ Nov. 29 2013,11:04) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 29 2013,12:14) 2besee, about your godandsciencequote, it is irritating when someone tells me the forms differ but do not tell me how. How can I discern the truth of what they say if what they say is not complete.
Kerwin, what is it that you would like to know?
2beesee,Quote There are two forms of the word. Strong's H7451a most often refers to moral evil, whereas Strong's H7451b (the form used here) most often refers to calamity or distress. The difference in form details.
They gave me the address where to look it up except I can find no a or b. Strong's only gives a number. I have no idea how to decrypt their clue and no one else uses that pattern.
Kerwin, I'm not sure. I only did a quick google and ended up at that site. But, is there anything I can help you with?
What are your wanting to find out?
2besee,The situation is I do not know what they are talking about as they did not say it explicitly at there addresses to find where it is simply do not work as no one of the web seems to use that pattern. There claim is there is two forms of the word but I have no idea what the mean by the word “form”. Unless the pattern is something they use on there website that gives more detailed information I do not see where you can resolve the mystery that they have left in what they meant by their seemingly poor communication skills.
Kerwin, I also checked briefly in the GK numbering system, as that system is more accurate, and more detailed than the Strong numbering system. I thought they might have two different numbers for these two different “forms” of the word “ra” that 2B's source mentioned. I found no such thing as of yet.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 30 2013,01:09) Kerwin, I also checked briefly in the GK numbering system, as that system is more accurate, and more detailed than the Strong numbering system. I thought they might have two different numbers for these two different “forms” of the word “ra” that 2B's source mentioned. I found no such thing as of yet.
Mike,The authors of the article cited by 2besees may well know what they are speaking of but they did not share it with us as far as I can see and neither of us have been able to decipher it.
Mike,
While it is fresh in my mind. If I understand correctly then El Shaddai is translated God Almighty in both the Greek Septuagint and the Authorized King James Version. From that I would say that at the least the translators were influenced but the Greek Septuagint in that particular translation.
The claim by Jack in the other thread is that neither the Hebrew word “shaddai” nor the Greek word “pantokratwr” actually mean “Almighty” – although Jerome translated as such in the Vulgate.
But it is known that parts of the KJV are back-translated from the Vulgate, so that may have something to do with the “Almighty” translation of the KJV.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 30 2013,06:09) Kerwin, I also checked briefly in the GK numbering system, as that system is more accurate, and more detailed than the Strong numbering system. I thought they might have two different numbers for these two different “forms” of the word “ra” that 2B's source mentioned. I found no such thing as of yet.
Hi MikeI found the word “ra” as H7451 in the strongs,
and numbered as 7451b in the NASB Lexicon.
Maybe that's what 2Besse saw.mikeboll64,Nov. wrote:[/quote]
Quote The claim by Jack in the other thread is that neither the Hebrew word “shaddai” nor the Greek word “pantokratwr” actually mean “Almighty” – although Jerome translated as such in the Vulgate. But it is known that parts of the KJV are back-translated from the Vulgate, so that may have something to do with the “Almighty” translation of the KJV.
Hi Mike
I came across this the other day;
“Please remember: the Vaudois' Old Latin Vulgate is not the same as the later Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. The Vaudois' Vulgate is God's preserved words of God in Old Latin which brought the gospel to all Europe. The Roman Catholic Vulgate is completely different. It wrongly mixed God's words with the perverted Alexandrian Greek Old Testament, Apocrypha and New Testament. Modern “scholars” falsely declare there's only one Latin Vulgate. But there are two: the preserved (Vaudois) and the perverted (Roman Catholic).”
Chickpublications.
Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 29 2013,16:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 30 2013,06:09) Kerwin, I also checked briefly in the GK numbering system, as that system is more accurate, and more detailed than the Strong numbering system. I thought they might have two different numbers for these two different “forms” of the word “ra” that 2B's source mentioned. I found no such thing as of yet.
Hi MikeI found the word “ra” as H7451 in the strongs,
and numbered as 7451b in the NASB Lexicon.
Maybe that's what 2Besse saw.
Look at you, journey!The brand new student is already teaching us!
That will give us something to look into. Good work.
Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 30 2013,04:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 30 2013,06:09) Kerwin, I also checked briefly in the GK numbering system, as that system is more accurate, and more detailed than the Strong numbering system. I thought they might have two different numbers for these two different “forms” of the word “ra” that 2B's source mentioned. I found no such thing as of yet.
Hi MikeI found the word “ra” as H7451 in the strongs,
and numbered as 7451b in the NASB Lexicon.
Maybe that's what 2Besse saw.
Journey,This page looks like the correct numbering system. Thank you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
