hjalti

pfff....Vivaldi totally pwns Bach, enjoy!

Iskander

I will. Thank you

Toto

No, we cannot all agree on what orthodox Christians can accept. Christians can't agree among themselve on the meaning of the trinity. Jesus was fully human, as well as being fully god, of the same substance of god. Don't try to get logical here. It's church doctrine.

So your perception of nefarious motives behind any translation is just you trying to find some consistency where there is none.

This is not how it works. Both Christians and Jews (and other religions) used terms like "Lord" to refer to God. The name of the god Baal means "Lord." The idea that this is disrespectful or illogical has no support in the actual practice of these religions.

Why do you think this is logical, or that you can find any meaning by looking for logic, while you ignore the actual practice?

If you want logical doctrine, this is the wrong field.

In the meantime, please stop this baseless speculation. There's enough nonsense on the internet as it is.

hjalti

Ah.... another possible addition to our list of bad translations:

An awful lot of verses.
bad: LORD
good: Yahweh

Substituting the name provided with a title isn't a translation but a theologically motivated reverence for the name of the god Yahweh.

Any comments on this, spin?

spin

Naaa, "Beth-" strongly suggests a town.

I guess if you want it to mean "family", but the text says "thousand".

It's not literal, but definitely not bad. If you put an X instead of "thousand", ie turning the original word into an unknown variable, how would you resolve X from the context of Micah?

There is strong debate over text traditions. Probably a translation should supply a footnote to supply an alternative.

avi

The OP concerns a new translation.

The question I am asking is this:

Did the writers of antiquity, two thousand years ago, writing in Koine Greek, indicate that Jupiter, Zeus, and Hercules were kurios, or theos?

My answer: theos.

Then, logically, it follows, that the Hebrew god, Yahweh, who, in the minds of the Jews, at least, was certainly no less important than Jupiter et al, should also be called theos, not kyrios.

I maintain that god is described, post nicea, as kyrios in both LXX and new testament, in order to elevate the status of JC to be equivalent to that of yahweh, his father. For whatever reason, unknown to me, JC cannot be described as theos, therefore, the new testament authors designated yahweh as kyrios to be equal to JC...

avi

hjalti

Sure. But what do you say about this:

I was looking around and found an article by a jewish apologist. He points out that the "you"-adress to Betlehem Ephratah is in feminine, while towns and villages (and he lists the occasions of Bethlehem as a town) are always masculine. So it probably isn't a town. Right?

And I could swear that I once read something about a guy called Bethlehem or something like that. Am I simply remembering wrong?

Right, "my thousand is poor in Manasseh". Isn't it clear that the tribe of Manasseh is seen as divided into thousands from this text?

Well, from the context it seems to be about the Davidic origin of the messiah, his bloodline. So the X has something to do with that. Right?

Toto

The LXX predated Nicea.

The Jewish God was not like Zeus/Jupiter. His name was not to be uttered; adonai or YHWH were not so much titles as substitutes for saying his name.

I don't know why you persist in this confusion.

Sheshbazzar

Ah, but it is not just the phrase 'ben adam' that we have to work with, and standing witness to the original intent.

'ben' of course appears in thousands (2798) of verses where it is translated as 'son', or as indicated by context or construct 'children'.
And in Genesis 5:2;
The term 'adam' is presented as the generic term for all mankind, both male and female alike are called 'Adam'. ie 'man', and so it is that 'adam' is translated as 'man' 408 times, and as 'men' 121 times, in addition to being the proper given name of the first 'man'.
Given that integral background of Scripture, there is little 'interpretation' involved.

Moreover, when these texts were translated into the LXX (way pre-Christian) the Greek equivalent of 'son of man' was employed.
And in Daniel, the Aramaic equivalent כבר אנש 'bar 'enash' = 'Son of man' (see Daniel 7:13, it certainly is not referring to 'humanity' coming with the clouds of heaven)

And as has already been pointed out the Latin Vulgate, and subsequent Bibles have consistently maintained the phrase 'son of man' in its equivalent expression in every language the Bible has been translated into.
You are claiming that 3000 years of Biblical translators and scholars were idiotic, to give your support to a half-assed "versions" recently invented 'interpretation'.

If you are confused by that fact, and the fact that the original texts, and all subsequent texts actually 'translated' from them, have with very few exceptions remained consistent in translation of these recurrent phrases into every language as 'son of man', then it is obvious that the text is not what is the problem, or what is unreasonable, or is being idiotic.
Long after the last of your latest favored 'interpretation' and its proponents have rotted into the earth and became forgotten among men.
The 'Son of man' will stand the test of time, and will prevail.
This is an argument you are destined to lose.

hjalti

Yahweh isn't Jesus' father. Jesus is Yahweh!