Freethought & Rationalism Archive

IBelieveInHymn · 10-01-2009, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

I had to search through the root of the word meaning for "hate" in Hebrew and Greek so you guys would understand what Jesus was actually saying to his Disciples. I have explained it thoroughly. If you can't accept it, then there is no help for you.

This remains a lame apologetic, and contradictory with the one you've tried to use on genea, which assumes that Jesus spoke Aramaic - though there is no evidence that "genea" in Matt. 14:34 had an Aramaic original any more than there is evidence that "misew" in Lk. 14:26 had a Hebrew original. In both cases, you are doing eisegesis - reading other assumptions (Jesus didn't mean "generation," Jesus couldn't have meant that you should hate your parents) into the text rather than trying to understand the text that exists (exegesis).

In the case of Lk. 14:26, you're up the creek without a paddle. Misew is Strong's word 3404, and here's another context in which it is imputed to Jesus:

"No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth ." Lk 16:13 NASB.

Here misew is used for "hate" and kataphronew is used for "despise." Neither means anything like "love less than." Jesus is not telling his disciples to love money less than God, but to despise money and love God. It's important enough that he uses two words meaning "hate" to get his point across. Christ's followers are not to love wealth less than God, they are to loathe it with all their being, opposite to how they serve God. Or consider another Lukan verse:

"Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man." Lk 6:22 NASB.

The author of Luke uses misew not once, but seven times. In every case it's a pretty visceral word - often referring to how the world will react to Jesus's followers. The contrast with love in Lk. 16:13 is a very strong one - yet in your apologetic, in the one verse that you have trouble with, misew is a mild word meaning "love X less than Y."

Now...I found all that by looking in a concordance. I explicitly stuck with the uses of misew in Luke because it's the most obviously relevant to this verse, but it's pretty clear throughout the NT that the word is not used to mean "love X less than Y." You say you're explaining the verse by researching the word, but how can that be when your explanation isn't even vaguely relevant for every other use of that word in the same gospel?

I suggest you study a littler harder. You are running around in circles when you search for the truth.

this phrase “hate your father and mother” is actually Jesus’ way of pointing to the reality that loyalty to Him must be our #1 decision. Even loyalty to a spouse comes secondary to our love for Jesus and our determination to please and obey him. The Message paraphrase renders the verse this way: “Anyone who comes to me but refuses to let go of father, mother, spouse, children, brothers, sisters—yes, even one’s own self!—can’t be my disciple." It’s telling that the first tragic fall in our planet was when Adam loved his own wife more than he trusted in God.

One commentary points out that in the culture of Judea, this word “hate” was simply a descriptive way of saying to love less. In fact, as Matthew tells this same story in chapter 10, Jesus puts it: Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. http://biblebay.org/article.php?id=160

The Bible uses the term "hate" in a comparative sense. Genesis 29:31 says that Jacob hated his wife Leah, but in v30 shows that really this means he loved Rachel, his other wife, more than he did Leah. So "hate" is used in a comparative sense to mean "loving one thing or person less that we love another." See also Genesis 25:34.

The original word for this verse is "Sin'ah."

God said he "Hates" the Angels, but "Loves" mankind.

Do you think God really hates his angels?

No! He was simply saying "He loves mankind more than his Angels."
but why did he use the word "HATE" if he meant "Love lesser than?"
Answer; Because the word used in the bible has several different word meanings.

And the Greek word you are refering to is Miseo.

Failte · 10-01-2009, 07:36 AM

Quote:

I had to search through the root of the word meaning for "hate" in Hebrew and Greek

But the whole argument is based on your erroneous and totally unsupported assertion that "Jesus spoke Hebrew". There is absolutely no evidence for this, and rather compelling evidence (provided by actual scholars) that this is not true.

You have no idea what Jesus said, just the reporting of his words by people who actually wrote in greek (from actually reading the notes and evidence provided here). The writers used the word they intended to, not some mish-mash handy-wavey construction that you have concocted.

It's just false. Yet you continue to assert this in the face of contrary evidence. Why?

IBelieveInHymn · 10-01-2009, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failte

But the whole argument is based on your erroneous and totally unsupported assertion that "Jesus spoke Hebrew". There is absolutely no evidence for this, and rather compelling evidence (provided by actual scholars) that this is not true.

Show me one 'actual' scholar that doesn't believe Jesus spoke Hebrew/Aramaic. They are a fraud if you find one.

Quote:

You have no idea what Jesus said, just the reporting of his words by people who actually wrote in greek (from actually reading the notes and evidence provided here). The writers used the word they intended to, not some mish-mash handy-wavey construction that you have concocted.

Jesus used the Hebrew word, Sin'ah in this verse. This word has a completely different meaning than the Greek translation Miseo.

Quote:

It's just false. Yet you continue to assert this in the face of contrary evidence. Why?

Evidence? What evidence? I've shown this forum over and over the language Jesus spoke, and I know it certainly wasn't Greek.

spamandham · 10-01-2009, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

But the bible says "THE LORD SAYS.."

That's the proof I need.

...and what proof did you need to decide that the Bible is absolutely trustworthy?

Failte · 10-01-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Jesus used the Hebrew word, Sin'ah in this verse. This word has a completely different meaning than the Greek translation Miseo.

And once again, you ar emissing the point entirely. You DO NOT KNOW what words Jesus spoke. You have only what is reported by later authors. And since you have no evidence that Jesus ever spoke them at all, you are relying on a collection of authors' storytelling skill."But Jesus really meant...." is completely your own wishful thinking.

The gospels in question were written in greek. It's irrelevant whether Jesus spoke hebrew (and I agree that it is likely he spoke aramaic, btw, don't try to conflate the two, they aren't equivalent) -- since the document was written in greek and the greek author used the appropriate greek word. They were smart enough to use different words if they meant different senses, I'm sure. That they didn't makes your argument even more specious. Posts upthread have pointed to the fact that nearly ALL scholars agree (graymouser posted them, I think?) on the translations from greek. There isn't any controversy except in the minds of apologists who don't want it to be so.

You have NO evidence that the "original word" was anything but the greek word, which is used consistently to mean hate. You just keep repeating it over and over and expect us to accept your assertion. It doesn't make sense and it doesn't fit. YOu'll need to do better to convince me that you're right. So far, you haven't produced anything except your own belief. Which is fine for you, but doesn't hold much water in the real world

I suppose you can make anything fit if you redefine the words you use. That's dishonest, though.

IBelieveInHymn · 10-01-2009, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

But the bible says "THE LORD SAYS.."

That's the proof I need.

...and what proof did you need to decide that the Bible is absolutely trustworthy?

Because I have yet to find an error or contradiction. There is a website called Skeptics annotated bible. Did you ever bother to visit the site called, a response to skeptics annotated bible?

My guess is probably not.

Sai · 10-01-2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...and what proof did you need to decide that the Bible is absolutely trustworthy?

Because I have yet to find an error or contradiction. There is a website called Skeptics annotated bible. Did you ever bother to visit the site called, a response to skeptics annotated bible?

My guess is probably not.

You will never find any error because you lie to yourself. And believe any lie that supports you in it.

The whole flood story is fiction, just like your "evidence" that you cited.

(which, btw, all claimed that the "flood" was world wide)

Believing in lies in order to believe other lies. What a way to get to heaven.

Failte · 10-01-2009, 08:34 AM

Your guess would be wrong. For nearly every poster on this thread, I would say.

Most of us have read the bible, too. In several translations, if we have the ability.

If you "have yet to find an error or contradiction" in the bible, you have a comprehension problem. The mental gymnastics required to resolve the many contradictions are simply dishonest word-wrangling and hand-waving without any basis.

Typical.

show_no_mercy · 10-01-2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failte

But the whole argument is based on your erroneous and totally unsupported assertion that "Jesus spoke Hebrew". There is absolutely no evidence for this, and rather compelling evidence (provided by actual scholars) that this is not true.

Show me one 'actual' scholar that doesn't believe Jesus spoke Hebrew/Aramaic. They are a fraud if you find one.

Here's a pretty simple example of Jesus speaking Greek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John 3

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

Jesus supposedly says "born again" leading to poor Nic being confused. The phrase used in the Greek text is γεννηθη ανωθεν gennethe anwthen. The reason for Nic's confusion is that the word "anwthen" is a Greek double entendre that can mean both "again (as in, from the beginning)" and "from above". Off the top of my head, the only other instance of anwthen in the New Testament meaning "all over again" is when Paul uses it to explain how circumcision has no value. The epistle of James uses anwthen explaining how all good gifts come "from above", Mark uses anwthen when he explains how the temple veil tore in two "from above" to below when Jesus died.

Nicodemus could have only been confused over the context if this conversation were happening in Greek. In Aramaic, just like in our English, we have separate words that mean "again" and "from above". Greek also has a less ambiguous word meaning "again" which is παλι pali.

Jesus subsequently explains what he means when he says gennethe anwthen. His explanation shows that he meant "born from above" (as in, the Spirit) and not "born again".

funinspace · 10-01-2009, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failte

But the whole argument is based on your erroneous and totally unsupported assertion that "Jesus spoke Hebrew". There is absolutely no evidence for this, and rather compelling evidence (provided by actual scholars) that this is not true.

Show me one 'actual' scholar that doesn't believe Jesus spoke Hebrew/Aramaic. They are a fraud if you find one.

Uhm, your argument was that he was speaking Hebrew, not Aramaic. That would be quite a different argument, and one that I think you would find little disagreement (along with Greek).

IBIH, I find it odd you continue to defend the notion of extrapolating backwards into what nobody knows, finding meanings in Hebrew that aren't even obvious. The idea that the writers (or Jesus) utilized the concept of hyperbole, provides a more rational and coherent understanding of the mix of verses. Though obviously many non-theists will still not buy into the explanation that hyperbole provides, I think they would respect the argument more. Also, I think Matthew 10:37, which parallel's Luke but without the "hate" emphasis, provides a much better argument than spinning languages backwards...

As far as languages in use, consider John 19:19-20 "Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, The King of the Jews. Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek."

The sources out in the web also seem to disagree with your assertion that Jesus spoke primarily Hebrew:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/nt-languages.html

Quote:

Dr. Ray Register: [scholars have] "convincingly demonstrated the widespread and common use of Greek throughout Palestine in the late Hasmonean and Herodian periods. Jesus himself was in all likelihood trilingual... [and he could probably] read signs in Latin posted for Roman troops."

From Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts (Bio: Mark studied at Harvard University, receiving a B.A. in Philosophy, an M.A. in the Study of Religion, and a Ph.D. in New Testament and Christian Origins. He has taught classes in New Testament for Fuller Theological Seminary and San Francisco Theological Seminary. )
http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles...uslanguage.htm

Quote:

In addition to the strong circumstantial evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic as his primary language, we find direct evidence for this theory from the New Testament gospels. Though these gospels were written originally in Greek, at several points Jesus' words are given in Aramaic, for example: "Talitha cum" (Mark 5:41, "Little girl, get up!"); "Abba" (Mark 14:36. "Father"); "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?" (Mark 15:34, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"). In these cases the actual Aramaic words of Jesus were remembered and passed on even by Greek-speaking Christians.
These passages and others from the gospels, combined with the predominance of Aramaic in Palestine in the first century A.D., make it virtually certain that Aramaic was Jesus' primary language. (There are a few scholars who believe that Hebrew was the primary language of Jesus, but they are quite in the minority.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-01-2009, 08:34 AM	#448
Failte Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,405	Your guess would be wrong. For nearly every poster on this thread, I would say. Most of us have read the bible, too. In several translations, if we have the ability. If you "have yet to find an error or contradiction" in the bible, you have a comprehension problem. The mental gymnastics required to resolve the many contradictions are simply dishonest word-wrangling and hand-waving without any basis. Typical.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.