Pilate

I went to the bookstore to check Liddell and Scott Intemediate Greek English Dictionary. I was dissapointed not to find in it what I was looking for: citations of the words used by various writers (mentioning the book and chapter, or paragraph). Liddell contains more words than Thayer's. But Thayer's contains all the words of the New Testament, and that is what I am working with. Thayer's has citations of use by other writers, and often it gives the book and chapter (this is what I want). But I am looking for a more comprehensive citation list. Like the one on the internet (the one you recommended to me). The page on the internet shows Greek words with English letters, and this is confusing to me. It is also cumbersome to use (transliterating).
Are you, or anyone else reading this, familiar with the Big Liddell? Does it have an extensive list of words used by authors?
I searched for the "Big Liddell" at Amazon. I could not find it.

Pilate

[QUOTE=Chili]Chili
thanks for the explanation. Now I realize I have two religions to analyze: Christianity and yours. :notworthy

Chili

[QUOTE=Pilate]Yes well with no temples in the New Jerusalem Christian-ity should be easy.

Sheshbazzar

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
Neither being the translator of, nor compositor of the Hebrew NT that I use and quote from, I do note that in that edition the second clause does prefix the verb, as "v'ha'dabar ha'yah..." agreeing with my convictions, I detect no reasonable reason to cross out that "ha'yah".

And;
Having now taken some time, I am ready to again take up this discussion and deal with your problem concerning the usage of the verb "ha'yah" (and its variant forms) within the texts of the TaNaKa, and the subsequent knowledge and employment of these Scriptural terms in the development of the doctrines contained within the text of the NT. (though now concealed under an blanket of terms derived from alien paganistic Greek sources)
You objected to the phrase "v'ha'debar ha'yah...." ("and the word WAS....") given in a direct quotation from my Hebrew NT.
You then presented three examples of verbless clauses to lead the readers of this thread whom are mainly Hebrew illiterate, to conclude that the Hebrew text always omits the verb "was", as it does in these instances, however, your omitting to admit to those many instances where the verb "ha'yah" DOES occur throughout the entire TaNaKa writings is at the very least misleading to our readers here, especially when your 'omission' is coupled with this statement;
I am certain that in your searching for verses that omitted the verb "was", that you also encountered many that prominently supplied the verb "was". As you did not see fit to edify our readers of this fact, but rather to conceal it from them, you leave me little choice but to uncover your little deceit, and as you drew your three examples from Genesis, from that same source I'll provide our readers with twice as many examples employing the verb "ha'yah" ("was")

In Genesis 6:9, it says, "....Noah WAS ("ha'yah") a righteous man and blameless in his generation, and Noah walked with Elohim."

In Genesis 7:6, "And Noah (was) six hundred years old when the flood waters WAS ("ha'yah") upon the earth".

In Genesis 15:17, "And when the sun set, and the darkness WAS("ha'yah"), Behold, a fire-pot smoking, and a torch afire which passed between those pieces".

In Genesis 26:1, "And there was a famine in the land, besides the earlier famine that WAS ("ha'yah") in the days of Abraham."

In Genesis 41:13, "And it was, just as he interpreted to us, so it WAS; ("ha'yah") Me, he restored to my office, and him, he hanged."

In Genesis 41:54 "And the seven years of famine began to come, just as Joseph had said; and the famine was in all lands; but in the land of Egypt there WAS ("ha'yah") bread."

Do these also not "seem to reflect Hebrew usage" ?
Of course I was careful to select only those verses where the verb "ha'yah" was not in construct, or joined by a - hyphen to another word, but stood independently as it did in my example from my Hebrew NT rendering of John 1:1, and also only those verses where 'proper' English requires the verb form "was".
Now if I were to extend this to include the other verb forms arising out of the "ha'yah" root, and those occurring in construct, and those hyphenated to other words, then this list could be extended into hundreds of additional examples from just the book of Genesis alone, thousands more if the entire TaNaKa were examined.
Why do I set such great store in the importance and prominence of this "old" word over and against all the later and presently more popular theological terms borrowed from the Greek and other diverse sources?
Principally because it is the Scripturally 'given' word, ancient before there was even any such language as "Greek", And because of its employment in the ancient promise spoken unto the Fathers, to Moses, and to Joshua, and to which every devout person who hears it, grasps it, even this ancient saying, well known to the Prophets and Apostles;

"a'ha'yah eem'aka" "I WILL BE WITH YOU";

Of what value would any 'walk of faith' or pursuit of a 'holy life' be if the believer did not believe that Him in whom we have placed our trust WILL indeed "BE WITH", and indeed "IS WITH" us?
Certainly I and others would have no reason to speak up in favor of a walk of faith if we did not hold the confidence that that old promise applies to us, and that the word was perfectly chosen, spoken, and written in the volume of the Book to remain steadfast forever; that which is perfect cannot be 'improved' upon.
I have no doubt that the NTs many references to the Name are integral with the wording of this promise, and that the Name and the Promise are inseparable being based upon and derived from the same word.

spin

Shesh,

I didn't say that the verb was never used, but that it was relatively infrequent and even more so before prepositions, which was the reason for the examples I gave, prepositions (and an adjective).

What is just as problematical is finding more than one example in a row -- and examples of wyhy don't count as they function as complete clauses in themselves to indicate "and it came to pass (that)", so some of the translation in the HB can give you the wrong impression, when wyhy is used as part of a following verbless clause.


spin

ichabod crane

Hi again guys. Long time, no see.

Can I just add my two cents worth. Sorry but I'm not computer literate enough to include Greek font in my email, so you'll have to put up with transliteration.

I'm extremely interested in the John 1:1 issue and am interested in the option of "the Word was divine". I've had a look at the link posted by Chris Weimer on the definite article, abstracted from Wallace. It seems to me, however, that this summary is simply incomplete; there should be a sub-category to E22. That is, there is a standard reason that the article is omitted from a noun which is in fact definite in Greek: namely, in order to distinguish subject from complement. With verbs like "to be", where there is no object, both subject and complement have to both be in the nominative case. This could lead to confusion as to which was which, since word order in Greek is variable. So in order to distinguish subject from complement, the article is usually dropped from the complement. Hence, the phrase theos en ho logos translates as "the Word was God". If it was "ho theos en logos" (or "logos en ho theos", or other permutations), then it would be "God was the Word". However, I agree that the other two translations "the Word was divine" and "the Word was a god" are, strictly speaking, not impossible (although "the Word was a god" seems exceedingly unlikely).

In fact, the example cited as an example of E21, seems to me to be more likely an example of what I am talking about. In 1 John 4:8 the noun agape is probably not qualitative; it is the complement of the verb estin. Hence the translation should be "God is love", as stated, not "God is loving" or something like that.

I haven't got a reference for all this but it's what I learnt when I studied Greek grammar. I am happy to be proved wrong though!

Having said all of that, it seems clear that "John" did not intend for a simple identity of "the Word = God", otherwise his statement that the Word was with God becomes nonsensical. But taking it in a qualitative sense is too easy. I suspect that he is just being deliberately paradoxical ("He is God, but he isn't God - go figure that out, suckers").

As for the idea that it is used qualitatively with the sense of an adjective, the problem is that there is a perfectly good adjective meaning precisely this - theios. So if "John" wanted to say "the Word was divine", why not just use theios? Although this argument is weaker than it might at first seem since "John" doesn't use theios anywhere else.

As for the guys arguing about angels being or not being gods, can I highly recommend the following article:

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32COOVER.pdf

Disclaimer: Obviously I'm not saying I agree with the above author on every jot and tittle, but this article is very good.

Loomis

If the author of John 1:1 held the view that Yahweh was a son of El (Deut 32:8-9), and that “Jesus� was Yahweh incarnate (John 1:14), then the translation the word was a god would be coherent.

This is just a shot in the dark, but maybe the author was trying to say something like this:

In the beginning was the messenger Yahweh, and Yahweh delivered messages from El, and Yahweh was a son of El.

Loomis

The only place where Psalm 82 says anything about angels is in your imagination.

It looks to me like the Greek “angels� are synonymous with the Hebrew “messengers.� Like Ugar, Qodesh, and Gapen, were to Baal.

But it also looks like superstitious monotheists have raked over the bible and re-cast some on the “elohim� characters and “sons of El� characters as “angels� in order to conceal the underlying polytheism.

Loomis

Yea, it’s informative, but it’s got some serious problems:

The correct translation appears to be “sons of El.�

But regarding Heiser’s first assertion:

How does the assertion that ‘the Masoretic Texts were tweaked unnecessarily because the Israelites were not polytheistic’ defend the view that ‘the Israelites were not polytheistic?’

Regarding Heiser’s second assertion:

How does showing that ‘the MT reading is not preferred because the concept of the ancient Semitic divine council constitutes the theological backdrop for Deuteronomy 32:8-9’ support the conclusion that ’the Israelites were not polytheistic?’

Think about it.

Sheshbazzar

Where did you say that? I must have missed that post where you said that its use was "relatively infrequent"
Was it perhaps this line that you are refering to?
"Hebrew almost always, perhaps always, has a verbless clause." To me that reads considerably different than, "I didn't say that the verb was never used, but that it was relatively infrequent.... "
Contrary to your insulting assertion, I am "coming back with stuff" that IS directly based on the HB, which is the abiding Scriptural proof of the signicance of the "ha'yah" verb form and of its relavance to the development of "the faith that was once delivered unto the saints."
Which is why "I am ready to again take up this discussion and deal with your problem concerning the usage of the verb "ha'yah" (and its variant forms) within the texts of the TaNaKa...."
Now that you have admitted to the (as you termed it, "relatively infrequent") occurance of "ha'yah" within the text of the HB, pehaps we can begin to discuss those "infrequent" occurances, and of what significance they hold in the larger context of the teachings of The Scriptures.
Kind of playing 'fast and loose' with the word of Scripture here are you not spin? but that aside, as an unbeliever you are in no position to decide, or to declare what "counts" or "don't count" in the interpretation of any of the words of Holy writ, written by believers for interpretation by believers.
What does count here is that the wyhy derives from the yh root and it is from that root that it takes its meaning; that is there would be no wyhy without the sense thereof being revealed by the contexts employing the forms yh and hyh.
I posted six examples from Genesis where the "ha'yah" verb clearly and unmistakedly occurs within the Hebrew text, and I believe it likely that you know also of those others that I did not choose, such as;
"v'ha'na'kash ha'yah aw'room.."
The fact that the hyh "ha'yah"- occurs "infrequently" but consistently throughout the entire TaNaKa ought to of itself indicate that it is a 'special' word, dare I say, "Holy" word? And how "Holy" it IS when it is the basis of the expression "AHYH"....... "a'ha'YAH -asher- a'ha'YAH" !