tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36474591990371183612024-02-18T23:00:19.246-08:00Biblical Languages ResearchGrammatical, Lexical, and Historical studies of the Hebrew text, Septuagint, and Greek text of scripture, especially as they relate to correctly explaining and translating the sacred writings.R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-26582464847870370642015-02-25T07:10:00.000-08:002015-02-25T07:49:26.375-08:00"Curse God and Die"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Yahweh allowed the adversary, Satan, to afflict Job with severe boils or skin<br />
inflammation from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head. It was so severe<br />
that Job "took a piece of pottery to scrape himself, and he sat in the ashes."<br />
(Job 2:7-8) Job's suffering was great!<br />
<br />
In response to Job's suffering, his wife said, "Do you still maintain your<br />
integrity? Curse God and die." (Job 2:9) The Hebrew word translated "curse" or<br />
"renounce" (ASV) is <strong><em>barak </em></strong> used in the Old Testament in the sense of "bless."<br />
"Bless" and "curse/renounce" are opposite in meaning, so why is it translated "bless"<br />
in the KJV, ASV, RSV, NIV, NRSV, and the ESV?<br />
<br />
First, it is obvious that Job's wife was not "literally" saying "Bless God and die."<br />
Job's response to her clearly indicates this. He said, "You speak as one of the foolish<br />
women speaks. What? Shall we receive good from the hand of God, and shall we<br />
not receive evil?" (Job 2:10) The word "foolish" translates <strong><em>nabal. </em></strong>It is the strongest<br />
Hebrew word for folly. It means more than merely the lack of discretion or wisdom. <br />
It also means contemptible or impious. His wife's advice is <em>utter</em> foolishness! Her<br />
suggestion was morally and religiously irresponsible!<br />
<br />
Second, based on Job's response to her, and the fact that his response was deemed<br />
appropriate by Yahweh, shows that she was <em>not </em>using <strong><em>barak </em></strong>in the sense of bless.<br />
After Job rebuked his wife, the text says, "In all this Job did not sin with his lips."<br />
(Job 2:10, ASV)<br />
<br />
Job's wife uses <strong><em>barak </em></strong>euphemistically, therefore, it means to "curse or renounce"<br />
in this context. It is important to think through the text, and to always pay careful<br />
attention to the context in order to determine <em>how </em>words are <em>used</em>. Merely looking<br />
in a Hebrew or Greek lexicon and assigning a definition to a word does not always<br />
lead to accurate interpretation. Most words have a range of meaning. The best <br />
lexicons define words on the basis of how the words are used in the ancient literature. <br />
Glossing is not necessarily defining. <br />
<br />
<br />
R. Daly<br />
Copyright 2015<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>
R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-62060002525202168642014-01-31T20:17:00.000-08:002014-02-01T06:04:12.422-08:00"Euthus" in Mark<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The adverb <i>Euthus </i>means "immediately, at once." It is translated "straightway"<br />
in many of the older versions. It<i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i>occurs 42 undisputed times in Mark's record of the<br />
life of Jesus the Messiah. There is a textual variant in Mark 7:35. Most manuscripts<br />
omit <i>eutheos </i>in 7:35, but due to Mark's fondness of the adverb it is highly probable<br />
that it is original, and if it is the count becomes 43 occurrences of <i>euthus</i>. It is also<br />
found in <b>p45 </b>( a 3rd century manuscript ), codex Alexandrinus<br />
(a 5th century manuscript), and codex Washingtonianus (a 5th century manuscript).<br />
The New Revised Standard Version translates <i>euthus</i> in Mark 7:35).<br />
<br />
The frequency of <i>euthus</i> in Mark's account is apparently designed to "energize"<br />
or add "verve" to the narrative. The following examples are notable: (1) When<br />
Jesus is immersed by John he immediately comes up out of the water. (1:10)<br />
(2) Immediately the Spirit drives Jesus out into the wilderness. (1:12)<br />
(3) Jesus calls Simon and Andrew to become fishers of people,<br />
"and immediately they left their nets and followed him." (1:18)<br />
(4) A leper begs Jesus to make him clean. Jesus touched him, and said " 'I will,<br />
be clean,' and immediately the leprosy left him." (1:40-43)<br />
(5) Jesus said to the man who was paralyzed, " 'Get up, take up your mat and<br />
go home.' And he got up, and immediately took up his<br />
mat and walked out in full view of them all." (2:11-12)<br />
(6) When Jesus entered the region of the Gerasenes and<br />
got out of the boat, "immediately a man with an impure<br />
spirit came from the tombs to meet him." (5:1-2)<br />
<br />
<i>Euthus </i> in used inferentially by Mark in a few contexts to indicate an <br />
immediately following event in a sequence; something that comes <i>next</i>. (1:21)<br />
It can mean <i>right after that</i>, <i>then, so then</i>. (1:23, 30)<br />
<br />
Mark's account of the life and times of Jesus the Messiah is exciting, vivid,<br />
and keeps the readers on a fast track. <i>Euthus </i>is one of the key words employed<br />
by the Holy Spirit through Mark to accomplish this literary feat.<br />
R. Daly<br />
<br />
Copyright, 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-24705754435413931602014-01-05T17:37:00.000-08:002014-01-05T17:37:43.762-08:00Diakatelenchomai<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In the book of Acts Luke introduces "a certain Jew named Apollos."<br />
<div>
(Acts 18:24) The way that he "bursts" onto the scene virtually sets the stage for </div>
<div>
something spectacular. He was endowed with terrific qualities that would </div>
<div>
distinguish him from other men who were not apostles. He was an "erudite"<br />
man (<i>logios</i>), (18:24) "mighty in the scriptures" (18:24) i.e. competent or </div>
<div>
well-versed (<i>dunatos on </i><i>en tais </i><i>graphais</i>). He was speaking with <br />
"burning enthusiasm" (18:25) (<i>zeon to </i><i>pneumati</i>). He was "teaching <br />
accurately the things concerning Jesus" (18:25) (<i>edidasken akribos ta peri </i><br />
<i>tou </i><i>Iesou</i>), but he was "acquainted only with the immersion of John "<br />
(18:25) (<i>epistamenos monon </i><i>ta baptisma Ioannou </i>). Aquila and </div>
<div>
Priscilla taught him the way of God more accurately, and he became an<br />
unstoppable force in the defense of the gospel. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Luke tells us that after he was taught the way of God more accurately, </div>
<div>
the disciples encouraged him to go to Achaia. When he arrived he "greatly<br />
helped those who had believed through the grace." (18:27) But how did he help<br />
the believers in Achaia? Luke answers the question. "For he was <i>diakatelencheto</i><br />
the Jews in public, showing through the scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah."<br />
(18:28) What does <i>diakatelencheto </i>(grammatical form) of <i>diakatelenchomai </i><br />
(lexical-dictionary form)<i> </i> tell us about the work of Apollos in Achaia?</div>
<div>
<br />
The word only appears once in the New Testament. A less intense form<br />
<i>dielencho</i> is found in classical Greek, particularly in Plato, Aristotle, Lucianus.<br />
The meaning in classical Greek was to refute or expose. <i>Dielencho </i>appears<br />
in the Septuagint in Job 9:33; Isaiah 1:18 and Micah 6:2. In those texts it means<br />
to discuss, to argue a case. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The preposition <i>dia-</i>(<i>katelenchomai</i>) serves to intensify the word. Luke<br />
paints a picture of Apollos' work that is memorable and encouraging. Apollos<br />
<b>thoroughly </b>refuted his Jewish opponents. He <b>overwhelmed </b>them in argument.<br />
He <b>demolished </b>their arguments. He <b>completely refuted </b>the Jews in public<br />
debate. He used a mighty spiritual jackhammer to <b>crush </b>pebbles! Luke tells us<br />
what the jackhammer was: he "showed <b>from the </b><b>scriptures</b> that Jesus is the<br />
Messiah." Nothing works better, lasts longer, or is more formidable than the<br />
word of the living God! (Jeremiah 23:29; Hebrews 4:12) </div>
<div>
R. Daly</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Copyright 2013 </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-40597871889558624252014-01-01T09:48:00.000-08:002014-01-01T09:48:36.912-08:00Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Joseph Henry Thayer, born 1828 and died 1901, was professor of New<br />
Testament criticism and interpretation at Harvard Divinity School from 1884-1901.<br />
His main interest was in the Greek language of the New Testament. His most widely<br />
known work was <i>A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament</i>. He was a<br />
member of the revision committee, and appointed Secretary of the New Testament<br />
committee that issued the American Standard Version in 1901. A person, therefore,<br />
should not be amazed to discover that the vocabulary of the ASV, generally concurs<br />
with the definitions assigned to the words in the Wescott-Hort Greek New<br />
Testament.<br />
<br />
What is commonly known as <i>Thayer's Lexicon </i>is not <i>Thayer's </i> lexicon.<br />
It is <i>Grimm's Wilke's Clovis Novi Testamenti. </i> Thayer translated, revised, and<br />
enlarged the work. Grimm's work was completed in 1879. Thayer acknowledges in<br />
the preface of the lexicon that "Both Professor Grimm and the publisher courteously<br />
gave me permission to make such changes in his work as might in my judgment the<br />
better adapt it to the needs of English speaking students." (Preface, page 6) So, it<br />
should be kept in mind that by referring to this work as <i>Thayer's Lexicon, </i>it is his<br />
role in translating, revising, and enlarging Grimm's lexicon that is primarily<br />
in view.<br />
<br />
Even though <i>Thayer's Lexicon </i>is dated, it is still a valuable resource if it is used<br />
with discretion, and if the user distinguishes Thayer's definitions from his comments.<br />
There are instances when the definitions he assigns to words are unsubstantiated.<br />
<br />
For example, on page 94 the first definition given to the word <i style="font-weight: bold;">baptizo </i>by<br />
the lexicon in the classic period of the language is, "prop. to dip <i>repeatedly</i>..." No<br />
literature is cited to support this definition, and the reason is the evidence does not<br />
exist. In classic Greek when a ship sank it was immersed. (Polybius 1,51,6;<br />
8,8,4) Did the ship sink repeatedly? On page 555 the word <i style="font-weight: bold;">prototokos</i> is defined<br />
as "firstborn." Then he says "Christ is called <i style="font-weight: bold;">prototokos pases ktiseos</i>...who came<br />
into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things..." This comment<br />
reflects his Unitarian theology.<br />
<br />
On page 618 of the lexicon <i style="font-weight: bold;">teleios</i> is correctly defined as "brought to its end,<br />
finished; wanting nothing necessary to completeness; perfect...<i style="font-weight: bold;">to teleion</i>,<br />
substantively, <i>that which is perfect</i>...the perfect state of all things, to be ushered in<br />
by the return of Christ from heaven, 1 Cor. xiii. 10." The latter reflects a misuse of the<br />
context of 1 Cor. 13:10. <i style="font-weight: bold;">To teleion</i> refers to the state preceding the second coming<br />
of the Messiah. It refers to the completion of God's revelation through those men who<br />
were God's agents in revealing his written will.<br />
<br />
<i>Thayer's Lexicon </i>retains its usefulness, but it like all other religious works of<br />
human origin must be used with caution. Study the definitions, evaluate the comments.<br />
Use such works like you eat fish; eat the meat and throw the bones away. It is wise<br />
not to make the older pre-papyri lexicons your first court of appeal. A lot has been<br />
learned about <i>koine Greek </i>grammar and lexicography since the 18th and 19th<br />
centuries. If you are going to use the older lexicons, use them in conjunction with the<br />
more modern scholarly lexicons.<br />
R. Daly<br />
<br />
Copyright 2014 <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>
R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-56840293670925858912013-12-18T15:39:00.000-08:002013-12-19T11:31:47.515-08:00Gleukos: "Sweet Wine"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
According to Luke, on the day of Pentecost when the Jews heard the apostles<br />
speaking in the various dialects of the Jews from every nation under heaven<br />
(Acts 2:5), they mocked them saying, "They are filled with sweet wine."<br />
(Acts 2:13)<br />
<br />
The phrase "sweet wine" translates <i>gleukos</i>. The question is, was <i>gleukos </i>only<br />
used for unfermented wine, or can it also indicate fermented wine? If it is <br />
correct that <i>gleukos </i>is only unfermented wine, it is strange that they used<br />
an idiom for drunkenness, "They are <i>filled</i> with <i>gleukos</i>." (Acts 2:13) So, it<br />
seems that <i>gleukos </i>could have some degree of fermenting properties, at least in<br />
this context. It was sweet immature wine, or partially fermented wine that had not<br />
reached full strength. The context makes this clear. Otherwise how could they have<br />
judged the apostles as acting like men who were intoxicated? Unless of course, one<br />
can become intoxicated on unfermented grape juice. The NIV-2011 translates the<br />
idiom in this way, "They have had too much wine." The <b>Exegetical Dictionary Of </b><br />
<b>The New Testament</b>, volume 1, page 251, interprets the phrase "full of sweet<br />
wine" in this way; "incompletely fermented new wine." In view of the context I believe<br />
this is correct. <br />
<br />
If anyone is disposed to argue by saying, "Filled with sweet wine does not mean<br />
drunkenness," then look at Peter's response, "For these are not <b>drunk </b>as you<br />
suppose; seeing it is the third hour of the day." (verse 15) <br />
<br />
The apostles were filled with something; they were "filled by the Holy Spirit."<br />
(Acts 2:4)<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span dir="ltr"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span dir="ltr"> R. Daly</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span dir="ltr">Copyright 2013 </span></span></span></div>
R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-84290155292690251852013-12-13T19:27:00.000-08:002013-12-13T19:27:31.539-08:00Categorizing Biblical Languages' Grammars<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Biblical languages' grammars, like biblical languages' lexicons are<br />
indispensable research tools for correctly interpreting the word of truth.<br />
(cf. 2 Timothy 2:15) Accurately teaching the truth is one of the most important<br />
responsibilities of the biblical exegete. Therefore, the student of the text should<br />
use the best available resources that assist with an indepth analysis of the text.<br />
<br />
As noted in a previous post titled <i>Categorizing Biblical Languages'</i><br />
<i>Lexicons</i>, sacred scripture was originally written in three languages. The Old<br />
Testament was primarily written in Hebrew with relatively small portions in<i> </i><br />
Aramaic, and the New Testament was written in Greek. <i> </i><br />
<br />
<i> </i>The grammars of biblical Hebrew and Aramaic fall into three general<br />
categories and they are elementary, intermediate, and advanced. The elementary<br />
Hebrew grammars introduce the student to the alphabet and vowels, and they<br />
delineate some of the basic "rules" of the language. A person must be extremely<br />
careful not to build doctrinal theories on the "rules" listed in the elementary<br />
grammars because there are notable exceptions to some of their "rules."<br />
<br />
Examples of elementary Hebrew and Aramaic grammars are: <b>A Practical </b><br />
<b>Grammar For Classical Hebrew</b> by J. Weingreen; <b>Biblical Hebrew A Text</b><br />
<b>and Workbook</b> by Bonnie Pedrotti Kittel, Vicki Hoffer, and Rebecca Abts<br />
Wright; <b>A Modern Hebrew Grammar For Classical Hebrew</b> by Duane A.<br />
Garrett; <b>Basics of Biblical Aramaic</b> by Miles V. Van Pelt; <b>and An Introduction</b><br />
<b>To Aramaic, Second Edition, </b>by Frederick E. Greenspahn.<b> </b>Examples of<br />
Intermediate Hebrew grammars are: <b>Linguistics And Biblical Hebrew</b> edited<br />
by Walter R. Bodine; <b>A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar </b>by Christo<br />
H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naude and Jan H. Kroeze; and<b> Introduction</b><br />
<b>To Biblical Hebrew Syntax</b> by Bruce Waltke and Michael Patrick O'Connor.<b> </b><br />
An example of an Advanced Hebrew grammar is: <b>Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar,</b><br />
Second English Edition, edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch<b> </b>and A. E. Cowley <br />
<br />
The grammars of biblical Greek are also categorized as elementary, intermediate,<br />
and advanced. Th elementary Greek grammars introduce the student to the<br />
alphabet, vowels, and some of the basic "rules" of the language. The student must<br />
be be careful not to build a doctrinal system on the basic "rules" found in elementary<br />
grammars because there are exceptions to the rules that are not explained in these<br />
grammars. They are introductory and sometimes misguided in their approach to<br />
the language. <br />
<br />
Examples of elementary Greek grammars are: <b>Beginner's Grammar of the</b><br />
<b>Greek New Testament </b>by William Davis; <b>An Introduction To The Study</b><br />
<b>Of New testament Greek</b> by J. H. Moulton; <b>Essentials Of New Testament</b><br />
<b>Greek </b>by Ray Summers; <b>New Testament Greek, </b>and <b>A Beginning and </b><br />
<b>Intermediate Grammar</b> by James Allen Hewett.<b> </b> Hewett's grammar is probably<br />
the most practical of those I have listed. Examples of intermediate Greek grammars<br />
are: <b>A Manual Grammar Of The Greek New Testament </b>by H. E. Dana and<br />
Julius R. Mantey; <b>Basics Of Biblical Greek</b> by William D. Mounce; and <b> </b><br />
<b>Handbook To The Grammar Of The Greek Testament</b> by Samuel G. Green.<b> </b><br />
Examples of advanced grammars of New Testament Greek are: <b>A Treatise On </b><br />
<b>The Grammar Of New Testament Greek</b> by G. B. Winer; <b>Greek Grammar </b><br />
<b>Beyond The Basics</b> by Daniel B. Wallace; <b>A Grammar Of The Greek New </b><br />
<b>Testament In The Light Of Historical Research</b> by A. T. Robertson; <b>A </b><br />
<b>Grammar Of The New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature</b>,<br />
by F. Blass and A. Debrunner, translated and edited by Robert Funk; and <b> </b><br />
<b>Grammar Of New Testament Greek, </b>4 vols., by James Moulton and Nigel<br />
Turner.<b> </b>Though it is not strictly a grammar of New Testament Greek, <b>Greek </b><br />
<b>Grammar </b>by Hebert Weir Smyth, revised by Gordon M. Messing must be<br />
mentioned because of its detail and it contains information that is relevant to the<br />
study of New Testament Greek. It is an important reference grammar of ancient<br />
Greek.<br />
<br />
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek grammars are generally well researched,<br />
but they like lexicons were written by human beings and must be used with caution.<br />
The "rules" they postulate are sometimes formulated by theological prejudices<br />
instead of being substantiated by the facts. The truth-seeker will follow the road<br />
where the facts lead because he doesn't have to hope for light at the end of the<br />
tunnel. There is light in the path all along the way!<br />
R. Daly<br />
<br />
Copyright 2013 <br />
<br />
<br /></div>
R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-73872010179945590002013-12-10T23:10:00.000-08:002013-12-10T23:10:13.555-08:00Paradise<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The word <b>paradise </b>occurs 3 times in most English translations of the<br />
New Testament. (Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7) <i>Paradeisos</i><br />
is a Persian (Iranian) loanword. The Old Persian word <i>pairidaeza</i> originally<br />
meant "enclosure," then "park" or "garden." It occurs in Biblical Hebrew as<br />
<i>pardes</i>. (Nehemiah 2:8; Song of Solomon 4:13, and Ecclesiastes 2:5) In<br />
Jewish Aramaic the word is<i> pardes(a)</i> meaning "garden." In the Septuagint<br />
(<i>LXX</i>) <i>paradeisos </i>denotes God's garden. (Genesis 2:8-10,16) In the New<br />
Covenant the word <i>paradeisos </i>is used to describe the realm of the blessed.<br />
The word appeared in French as <i>paradis</i>, and eventually into English<br />
as <i>paradise</i>.<br />
<br />
Each of the three occurrences of the word <i>paradeisos</i> in the New<br />
Testament sheds important light about paradise, its nature, and inhabitants. <br />
Let us briefly examine the contexts and resultantly overflow with exuberance<br />
as we anticipate life beyond the grave.<br />
<br />
<b>Luke 23:43</b>. This passage is set in the context of Jesus' conversation<br />
with the repentant criminal while they hang on their crosses. Two criminals<br />
were crucified with Jesus. One of them railed at the Lord," 'but the other<br />
rebuked him saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same<br />
sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the<br />
due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.' And he said,<br />
'Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom.' And he said to him,<br />
'Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.' "<br />
(Luke 23:39-43; ESV) Interestingly, the Greek phrase is <i>en to paradeiso</i><br />
("in <b>the </b>paradise"). This is likely the par excellence use of the article. This<br />
paradise is incomparable. It is the ultimate "paradise" unlike any other place<br />
of happiness, pleasure, and blessedness. That very day the man would be<br />
"with Jesus" in <i>the </i>Paradise. He would enjoy fellowship with Jesus! While the<br />
criminal was crucified on the cross, he crucified his old self and took up his<br />
cross to follow Jesus from death to life eternal! The suffering the criminal<br />
would endure on his cross would pale in comparison to what awaited him<br />
immediately after death!<br />
<br />
<b>2 Corinthians 12:3. </b>In this context, Paul writes about "visions and<br />
revelations of the Lord." (v. 1) Then he speaks of himself as a "man in Christ<br />
who fourteen years ago was caught up into the third heaven...caught up into<br />
<b>the </b>paradise." The phrase "third heaven" (<i>tritou ouranou</i>) refers to the very<br />
home of God. The highest of the heavens. "The paradise" (<i>ton paradeison)</i><br />
is used to identify the "third heaven" as a place of blessedness and release<br />
from earthly struggles. (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:23-27) Paul needed the<br />
encouragement that resulted from this transcendent experience. He also<br />
learned two great lessons: (1) A "thorn in the flesh" can be used as a positive<br />
inducement to humility. (2) Divine grace is sufficient to give power to endure<br />
weaknesses. Paul said, "For <b>when </b>I am <b>weak</b>, <b>then </b>am I <b>strong</b>."<br />
(2 Corinthians 12:10)<br />
<br />
<b>Revelation 2:7. </b>The congregation of Christ in Ephesus was told, " 'To<br />
the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the<br />
paradise of God.' " The tree of life was in the garden of Eden. (Genesis 2:8-9)<br />
Yahweh planted the garden in Eden. (Genesis 2:8) The tree of life is in the<br />
paradise of God <i>(to paradeiso tou theou)</i>. This is God's "garden" and the<br />
most important "tree" (source of life) ever known is there. Those who conquer<br />
are granted permission to eat from the tree of life. They have conquered sin<br />
through Jesus the Messiah . The "paradise of God" in this context is the<br />
place <b>for </b>conquerors and the place <b>of </b>life. It is the place where the righteous<br />
will experience full communion with God, the author of life, the giver<br />
of blessedness, and the guarantor of immortality. It is in God himself that<br />
these things become reality. (cf. Isaiah 51:3) The congregation had<br />
abandoned the love it had at first. She had fallen and needed to undergo a<br />
radical change. By doing so her fellowship with God would be restored.<br />
Then she would be at home with God and have a place in his courts to rest!<br />
<br />
R. Daly<br />
Copyright 2013 <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>
R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-66638802534694957672013-12-04T14:06:00.000-08:002013-12-13T17:19:43.264-08:00Categorizing Biblical Languages' Lexicons<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Old Testament was primarily written in Hebrew with small sections of<br />
Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. It is called <i>koine </i>Greek.<br />
<i>Koine </i>was<i> </i>the common dialect as it was spoken when the Mediterranean<br />
world was Hellenized. <br />
<br />
Most mature students of the sacred writings know the value of biblical<br />
languages' lexicons. They are indispensable tools for an in-depth study of God's<br />
word. But not all Hebrew and Greek lexicons are of equal value in their<br />
approach to word usage and meaning. Which factors are worthy of<br />
consideration in determining the most useful lexicons? <br />
<br />
There are three main kinds of lexicons; <i>elementary</i>, <i>intermediate</i>,<br />
and <i>advanced</i>. The elementary lexicons generally list the Hebrew, Aramaic, or<br />
Greek words in alphabetical order with brief meanings or more often "glosses."<br />
A gloss is a word that requires explanation. <i>Elementary</i> lexicons are generally<br />
limited in usefulness and can lead to misleading interpretation. Examples of<br />
<i>elementary</i> Hebrew and Aramaic lexicons are: <b>The Analytical Hebrew and </b><br />
<b>Chaldee Lexicon </b>by Benjamin Davidson, and the <b>Hebrew and Aramaic </b><br />
<b>Dictionary of the Old Testament </b>edited by George Fohrer. Examples of<br />
<i>intermediate</i> Hebrew and Aramaic lexicons are: <b>Theological Wordbook </b><br />
<b>of the Old Testament</b>, edited by Harris, Archer, and Waltke; <b>Student's </b><br />
<b>Hebrew Lexicon </b>by Davies-Mitchell; <b>Theological Lexicon of the Old</b><br />
<b>Testament </b>by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann; and <b>Student's Hebrew </b><br />
<b>and Chaldee Dictionary </b>by Alexander Harkavy. <b> </b>Examples of <i>advanced</i><br />
Hebrew and Aramaic lexicons are: <b>Hebrew-English Lexicon </b>by William<br />
Gesenuis;<b> Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament</b>,<br />
by Brown-Driver and Briggs; <b>The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the </b><br />
<b>Old Testament</b> by Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner; <b>The Dictionary </b><br />
<b>of Classical Hebrew </b>edited by David J. A. Clines; and the <b>Theological </b><br />
<b>Dictionary of The Old Testament</b>, edited by Botterweck, Ringgren, and Fabry.<b> </b><br />
<br />
Examples of <i>elementary</i> Greek-English lexicons or wordbooks are: <b>Vine's </b><br />
<b>Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words</b>; <b>A Pocket Lexicon to </b><br />
<b>the Greek New Testament</b> by Alexander Souter; <b>A Greek-English Lexicon </b><br />
<b>to the New Testament </b>by Thomas Sheldon Green; and <b>A Concise Dictionary </b><br />
<b>of New Testament Greek </b>by Warren C. Trenchard. Examples of <i>intermediate</i><br />
lexicons are: <b>An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon </b>based on the seventh<br />
edition of Liddell and Scott's work; <b>Manual Greek Lexicon of the New</b><br />
<b>Testament </b>by G. Abbott-Smith; <b>Greek-English Lexicon of the New</b><br />
<b>Testament </b>by J.H. Thayer; <b>Theological Lexicon of the New Testament</b>,<br />
by Ceslas Spicq; and most of the <b>Analytical Greek-English </b><br />
<b>Lexicons of the New Testament</b>. Examples of <i>advanced</i> Greek-English lexicons<br />
are: <b>Greek-Lexicon, ninth edition with revised supplement, </b>by Liddell-Scott,<br />
Jones and McKenzie; <b>A Patristic Greek Lexicon</b> by G.W.H. Lampe; <b>Greek</b><br />
<b>Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods </b> by E. A. Sophocles; <b> </b><br />
and <b>A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian</b><br />
<b>Literature</b>, by Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich.<b> </b> <b> </b><br />
<br />
What qualities should a person look for in lexicons of the biblical languages? <br />
(1) <i><b>Objectivity</b></i>. The purpose of a lexicon is to cite the facts without an axe to <br />
grind or a heretical theological slant to promote. (2) <i><b>Thoroughness</b></i>. A lexicon<br />
should cite the full range of meanings for its entries. Conjecture should be avoided.<br />
(3) <i><b>Voluminous original source material</b></i>. A lexicon should cite as many of<br />
the original sources as possible to illustrate word usage within ancient literature.<br />
(4) <i><b>Modernity</b></i>. Some of the older lexicons are still useful, but they must be studied<br />
with caution. A lot has been learned about the biblical languages within the last<br />
200 years. The Dead Sea Scrolls, comparative literature, and languages (such as<br />
Ugaritic, Hittite, Akkadian, Sanskrit, and Sumerian) have added immensely to our<br />
understanding of linguistics and the vocabulary of biblical Hebrew. The discovery<br />
of ancient Greek papyri has increased our knowledge of biblical Greek.<br />
(5) <i><b>Accurate scholarship</b></i>. The mere fact that a lexicon cites source material and<br />
appears to be objective, thorough, and modern should not necessarily lead<br />
one to conclude that it accurately accesses the data, and thereby posits unflawed<br />
information. We appreciate the massive amount of research that undergirds<br />
lexicographical work, but we must remember that the scholars who compile<br />
lexicons are human beings. They are not guided into all the truth by the Holy<br />
Spirit of God, as the apostles were (John 16:13), therefore though we admire their<br />
toil, we want to be sure the things said are true (Acts 17:11). It is incumbent on us<br />
to <i>think through the text</i>. Safeguards must be in place to ensure accuracy.<br />
<br />
R. Daly<br />
Copyright 2013 <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-44508873612883076442013-12-03T16:46:00.000-08:002013-12-08T12:25:25.553-08:00Does Baptizo mean to Baptize??<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The verb "baptize" in its various forms (baptized, baptizes, and baptizing) occurs<br />
more than 70 times in English translations of the New Testament. Those words are<br />
placed in the text as "translations" of the grammatical forms of the Greek verb <i>baptizo</i><br />
which is used 77 times in the Greek New Testament. It is appropriate to ask,<br />
"Does <i>baptizo </i>mean to baptize?" This may surprise you, but the answer is no.<br />
Baptize <i>is </i>the Greek word itself with a slightly different spelling. Look at the word <i> </i><br />
<i>baptizo</i>. Now look at the word<i> baptize</i>. Notice that they are almost identical except<br />
the "o" (omega) in <i>baptizo</i> has been dropped and an "e" replaces it so we have the<br />
word "baptize." What we have is almost a transliteration, that is, the writing or<br />
spelling of a word in corresponding characters of another language. The receptor<br />
language in this case is English. So, when Greek-English lexicons say <i>baptizo </i><br />
means to baptize, they are not only inaccurate, but they are perpetuating a<br />
grave linguistic inconsistency, and are partly responsible for the confusion that exists<br />
as to the New Testament use of the Greek word. When they list baptize as one of the<br />
meanings of <i>baptizo</i>, they are saying, "<i>baptizo </i>means <i>baptizo</i>," or that the word itself<br />
is the meaning of the word. This kind of lexical methodology would be laughable if it<br />
were applied to other words in the Greek New Testament, but it is tragic!<br />
How would the scholarly community react if lexicons were to say, <i>theos</i> means <i>theos</i>,<br />
<i>pascha</i> means <i>pascha</i>, <i>ekklesia </i>means <i>ekklesia</i>, <i>parthenos </i>means <i>parthenos</i>, etc.?<br />
In that case we would have no need for lexicons. The words in the Greek New<br />
Testament would be their own lexicographers.<br />
<br />
Is something else at play in this scenario? Actually there is. There is a theological<br />
and polemical value to be gained by saying <i>baptizo </i>means to baptize. (Cf. <b>Louw&</b><br />
<b>Nida's </b>Greek-English lexicon, vol. 1, pages 537-538 as proof of this fact.)<b> </b>The word<br />
"baptize" is defined by English dictionaries to mean, "to dip a person into, or sprinkle<br />
with, water as a symbol of admission into Christianity or a specific Christian church."<br />
(<b>Webster's New World Dictionary</b>, second college edition, page 111) So some<br />
Greek lexicographers and translators who choose the word baptize to represent <i> </i><br />
<i>baptizo</i> contradict its own use and meaning. To "dip...or sprinkle?" The fact<br />
is, the verb baptize is used to "translate" <i>baptizo</i> because it is <b>not </b>a specifically<br />
exclusive word, and it allows a person or religious group to choose the <i>"mode" </i><br />
of "baptizing" that harmonizes with their practice, whether right or wrong. The use<br />
of "baptize," in English translations is based on ecumenical grounds, not accurate<br />
lexical grounds. The translators want to give a person or religious community the<br />
right to decide the "kind" of "baptism" they prefer to practice. The New Covenant<br />
gives no such right of choice.<br />
<br />
The <i>use </i>of the word <i>baptizo</i> in the New Testament in texts that relate to<br />
salvation from sin, and entering into a state in which one partakes of the<br />
blessings in Christ shows that it means to immerse, plunge, sink, and submerge.<br />
(cf. Acts 8:38-39; Philip and the eunuch "went down <b>into</b> the water" and when<br />
the act was performed, "they came <b>up out of </b>the water;" Romans 6:4; "We were<br />
<b>buried </b>therefore with him <b>through</b> the <i>baptismatos</i>;" Colossians 2:12; "having<br />
been <b>buried </b>with him in the <i>baptismo.</i>" In passages where it is used metaphorically<br />
the connotation is to overwhelm, drench, cover, etc. (Mark 10:38-39)<br />
<br />
See the following resources for further research about <i>baptizo</i>: <b>BAGD</b>, pages<br />
131-132; <b>BDAG</b>, pages 164-165; <b>Liddell and Scott</b>, pages 305-306; <b>Sophocles</b>,<br />
vol. 1, page 297; <b>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament</b>, vol. 1, pages<br />
529-546;<b> Dictionary of New Testament Theology</b>, vol. 1, pages 144-153; <b> </b><br />
<b>Thayer</b>, pages 94-95; <b>Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament</b>, page 102; <b> </b><br />
<b>Abbott-Smith</b>, pages 74-75<br />
R. Daly<br />
Copyright 2013<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-50287815837579202132012-07-24T18:43:00.000-07:002012-07-29T21:02:03.590-07:00(KATAKAIO) "Burned Up" or (HEURISKO) "Discovered" ?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
One of the most intriguing questions facing students of the sacred writings is<br />
whether<i><b> katakaio </b></i>("burned up/down") or <i><b>heurisko </b></i> ("discovered/laid bare") is<br />
the correct reading in 2 Peter 3:10?<br />
<br />
English translations generally fall into two categories as to which reading they<br />
accept as the original reading. The KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, and the NKJV accept<br />
<i><b>katakaesetai </b></i>(will be burned up") as the more probable reading, while the<br />
NIV-84, NRSV, ESV, TNIV, and the NIV-2011 accept <i><b>heurethesetai</b></i><br />
(will be discovered/laid bare) as the correct reading. It is noteworthy that the <br />
the ASV has "will be burned up" in the text, yet the translators have a footnote<br />
that says, "The most ancient manuscripts read <i>discovered</i>." The footnotes of<br />
the ASV are often a treasure-trove of exegetical information.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Manuscript Testimony</b><br />
<br />
<b> </b>Codices <b>Sinaiticus</b> ( dated about 350-375 A.D.) and <b>Vaticanus </b>(dated about<br />
350 A.D.) have "<i><b>heurethesetai</b></i><b>.</b>" Codex <b>Alexandrinus</b> (dated about the early fifth<br />
century; 425-450 A.D.) reads <i><b>katakaesetai</b></i>. <b>Papyrus 72</b>, a small but important<br />
codex that dates from the early fourth century (about 300 A.D.) has the reading <i><b> </b></i><br />
<i><b>heurethesetai</b></i>, but adds the participle<i><b> luomena</b></i> "will be found dissolved." At this<br />
point in the manuscript tradition, the reading<i><b> heurethesetai </b></i>is the oldest of the<br />
existing readings. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Reading of Various Greek Text Editions</b><br />
<br />
Desiderius Erasmus' Greek New Testament, <b>Novum Instrumentu Omne</b>,<br />
has <i><b>katakaesetai</b></i>. The <b>Textus Receptus</b>, the Greek text underlying the King James<br />
Version of 1611 has <i><b>katakaesetai</b></i>. Hermann Freiherr Von Soden's edition of the<br />
Greek Testament,<b> Die Schriften Des Neuen Testaments, </b>contains the reading <i><b> </b></i><br />
<i><b>heurethesetai</b></i>. The Greek New Testament compiled by Constantinus Tischendorf,<br />
<b>Novum Testamentum Graece</b>, reads <i><b>katakaesetai</b></i>. B. F. Wescott and F. J. A.<br />
Hort's edition of the Greek New Testament contains the reading <i><b>heurethesetai</b></i>. <b> </b><br />
<b>The Greek New Testament According To The Majority Text </b>has <i><b>katakaesetai</b></i>.<br />
The <b>Nestle-Aland/UBS Greek Testaments </b>have<i><b> heurethesetai</b></i> in the text. In some<br />
editions the editors give this reading a "D" rating, meaning there was/is a very<br />
high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text.<br />
<br />
There are a variety of readings among the existing witnesses to this portion of<br />
the Greek New Testament among the manuscripts and ancient writers. As stated<br />
earlier,<i><b> heurethesetai </b></i>is the oldest reading, and probably explains the origin of the<br />
others, and especially why some scribes, ancient versions and writers "expanded"<br />
or modified the reading.<br />
<br />
So, in context, Peter affirms the coming day of judgment, and that the wicked<br />
will have no place to hide from the wrath of God. Human wickedness will be <i>laid </i><br />
<i>bare</i> or <i>exposed </i>to God's "all-seeing eyes." <i> </i> <br />
<br />
The NIV, NRSV, ESV, and NIV-2011 seem to have it right. The New Living <br />
Translation paraphrases in this way, "exposed to judgment." The Message says,<br />
"exposed to the scrutiny of Judgment."<br />
<br />
Based on the evidence currently available I believe the correct reading is <br />
<i><b>heurethesetai</b></i>. Contrary to what some Bible students have said, accepting <i><b> </b></i><br />
<i><b>heurethesetai</b></i> does <i>not </i>lend support to the advocates of the false theory that says<br />
the earth will exist forever. The context of 2 Peter 3:10 is decisive. The heavens<br />
including the earth will be destroyed and cease to exist. The text explicitly says,<br />
"the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire...the heavens will pass<br />
away with a roar... all these things will be dissolved...the heavenly bodies will melt<br />
as they burn!" (2 Peter 3:7,10-12; ESV) <br />
<br />
R. Daly<br />
<br />
Copyright 2012<br />
</div>R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-60054976562371261302012-05-10T10:52:00.000-07:002012-05-10T10:52:38.063-07:00Life In Abundance<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Jesus affirms "I have come that they may have life and have it in abundance."<br />
(Jno. 10:10, <b>Daly's New Testament Translation</b>) Contextually, Jesus draws a<br />
contrast between himself and "thieves, robbers, and hired hands" who do not<br />
have the best interests of the sheep in their hearts. (verses 7-13) Jesus does. He<br />
laid down his life for the sheep. (v. 15) The "hired hand" abandons the sheep and<br />
runs away when the wolf attacks because he cares nothing for the sheep. (v. 13)<br />
<br />
Jesus did not merely come that the sheep may have life, but that they may<br />
"have it in <b>abundance</b>." The English phrase "have it in abundance" translates the<br />
Greek phrase "<i>perisson echosin</i>." Grammatically, <i>perisson</i> is an accusative<br />
neuter adjective form of <i>perissos</i>. It is used in such passages as (Mat. 5:47) <br />
with the connotation of "extraordinary, in surplus;" (2 Cor. 9:1) where it means<br />
"superfluous, not necessary;" (Mk. 6:51) with the meaning "extremely,<br />
exceedingly." <br />
<br />
<i>Perissos</i> is used in (Jno. 10:10) with the meaning "extraordinary, in surplus,<br />
in abundance." Jesus did not come to bring gold, silver, houses and precious<br />
jewels to his followers. In a sense he himself did not have those things on the<br />
earth. (Lk. 9:58) He came to provide something that transcends all this<br />
world has to offer. He came that humanity might have <b>life</b> (<i>zoe</i>), that is, an<br />
experience transcending normal physical life. This sublime quality of "life"<br />
that the Master came to provide exceeds earthly necessity! The NIV-2011<br />
translates the sentence in (Jno. 10:10) in this way, "I have come that they may<br />
have life, and have it to the full." <br />
<br />
As the grand old song says, "Earthly wealth and fame may never come to me<br />
and a palace fair here mine may never be, but let come what may, if Christ my<br />
Lord does care, anywhere is home if he is only there!"<br />
<br />
Let us seek "life in abundance." It is in Christ and in order to have it we must<br />
<b>be</b> in Christ. We get into him by faith (Gal. 3:26-27), repentance (Acts 3:19),<br />
confession (1 Tim. 6:12), and immersion (Rom. 6:3-4). Our sins will be forgiven<br />
and we will "rise to walk in <i>newness of life</i>" on earth and have life "to the full."<br />
<br />
R. Daly<br />
<br />
Copyright 2012 <br />
<br /></div>R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-16543636033642180982011-12-29T18:33:00.000-08:002011-12-30T12:36:40.512-08:00"Yom" in Genesis Chapter 1<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> <i><b>Yom</b></i> occurs about 2302 times in <i>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia</i>, the scholarly<br />
critical text of the Hebrew scriptures. It is used 11 times by Moses in Genesis chapter 1<br />
as he was guided to write under the influence of the Holy Spirit of God. (2 Pet. 1:20-21)<br />
<br />
<i><b>Yom</b></i> has a range of meaning in various contexts throughout the holy scriptures. It<br />
can mean day or daylight (Gen. 8:22; Jer. 33:25); a day of twenty-four hours (Josh.<br />
10:13; 1 Sam. 18:10); special days (Prov. 25:20; Ezek. 1:18); the day of Yahweh,<br />
that is, a time of judgment (Isa. 2:12; Mal. 3:2); lifetime (Gen. 47:8; Job 38:12); a<br />
period of time (Gen. 24:55; Judges. 19:2), etc.<br />
<br />
There is divergence of judgment among Hebrew scholars, exegetes, and<br />
commentators as to the meaning of <i><b>yom </b></i>in Genesis 1. Some scholars conclude that the<br />
word indicates epochs, or long periods of time that includes millions or billions of years.<br />
It is my studied conviction that <i><b>yom </b></i>means a day of 24 hours in Genesis 1. I believe<br />
the contextual and lexical evidence decisively proves that Moses used the term to<br />
indicate a day of 24 hours.<br />
<br />
The latter part of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:5 reads, "<i>wayahi ereb wayahi </i><br />
<i>boker yom ehad." </i>(and there was evening and there was morning day one.) The <b> </b><br />
<b>Septuaginta</b> edited by Alfred Rahlfs reads, "<i>kai egeneto hespera kai egeneto proi </i><br />
<i>hemera mia</i>." (and there came evening and there came morning day one.) With the<br />
exception of the numeral the phrase is repeated in verses 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31. <br />
<br />
First, the phrase "evening and morning" not only precedes the days of creation,<br />
but the expression shows that in the mind of Moses parameters are set for the<br />
days of the creation week. In other words, the days were constituted of a<br />
period identified as "evening and morning." (...<i>ereb...boker</i>) Moses uses the same<br />
order of terms elsewhere in the Pentateuch. In Exodus 27:21 we read, "In the tent<br />
of meeting, outside the veil that is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall<br />
tend it from <i>evening to morning</i> before Yahweh. It shall be a statute forever<br />
throughout your generations by the people of Israel." In Leviticus 24:3 Moses wrote,<br />
"Outside the veil of the testimony, in the tent of meeting, Aaron shall arrange it from<br />
<i>evening to morning</i> before Yahweh regularly. It shall be a statute forever throughout<br />
your generations." The phrase is used in the text to indicate the daily tasks of the<br />
priests. In Numbers 9:21, "from evening until morning" refers to the time of Yahweh's<br />
presence covering the tabernacle all night. The phrase is not used merely as a poetic<br />
device to describe an indefinite period of time, but it is descriptive of a definite<br />
period of time.<br />
<br />
Second, elsewhere in the Pentateuch Moses compares the days of the creation<br />
week to the days of the Jewish work week. By doing so, he indicates that since<br />
God ceased labor on the seventh day, the Israelites are to do the same. He says,<br />
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do<br />
all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yahweh your God...For in six days<br />
Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the<br />
seventh day. Therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."<br />
(Exodus 20:8-11) The same information is repeated in Exodus 31:15-17.<br />
Notice the points of comparison: Yahweh worked six days, the Israelites are to work<br />
six days; Yahweh "rested" (ceased labor) on the seventh day, the people are to cease<br />
labor on the seventh day. If the days of the creation week were aeons, periods<br />
consisting of thousands, millions, or billions of years, it would be a non sequitur<br />
when compared to the days of the Israelite work week! None of the Israelites would<br />
have lived through the first "day" of their work week! The Israelites days of work<br />
were the same as God's days of creation, otherwise the comparison that Moses made<br />
would make no sense, and it would set the Israelites into a state of confusion.<br />
<br />
Third, Moses makes a clear distinction between "days and years" (<i>uleyomim </i><br />
<i>weshonim</i>)in Genesis 1:14. If, as some allege, the days in verses 5,8,13,19, 23, 31<br />
and 2:1 are aeons consisting of billions of years, please tell us the length of the "years"<br />
found within the same chapter! If the term "years" is to be understood in the literal<br />
sense, why isn't the word "day" to be understood the same way?<br />
<br />
Fourth, the scholarly Hebrew and Aramaic lexicons that are sensitive to word<br />
usage, acknowledge that <i><b>yom</b></i> is used in Genesis 1 to refer to a day of 24 hours. (Cf.<br />
<b>Lexicon In Veteris Testimenti Libros, A Dictionary of The Hebrew Old </b><br />
<b>Testament in English and German</b>, page 372; <b>A Concise Hebrew and </b><br />
<b>Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament</b>, page 130; <b>Theological Lexicon of </b><br />
<b>the Old Testament</b>, volume 2, page 528; <b>The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of </b><br />
<b>the Old Testament, The New Koehler-Baumgartner in English</b>, Volume 2, page<br />
399; <b>The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew</b>, volume 4, page 166. Brown-Driver-Briggs<br />
Hebrew English Lexicon makes the following observation about <i><b>yom</b></i>, "day as defined<br />
by evening and morning Gen. 1:5,8,13,19,23,31."<b> Hebrew and English Lexicon of </b><br />
<b>the Old Testament</b>, page 398).<br />
<br />
It seems that some professors, preachers, and commentators are trying to adapt<br />
the Bible's account of creation to pseudo-science and the theories of theistic and<br />
atheistic evolution. We must remember that God is the author of all true science, and<br />
all efforts to make God fit a human mold are futile!<br />
R. Daly<br />
<br />
Copyright 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-91077731248358547672011-11-22T17:40:00.000-08:002013-12-02T17:01:13.792-08:00Not All Greek-English Lexicons Are Equal<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Greek lexicons are indispensable for New Testament research. Nevertheless the<br />
student must use lexicons with the same discretion as he would use commentaries,<br />
grammars and other uninspired resources. Some lexicons contain doctrinal and<br />
technical errors. These errors are often due to sectarian prejudices and lack of<br />
thoroughness in examining and reporting the facts contained in the source materials<br />
that are cited. A person must be very cautious in citing definitions from a lexicon in<br />
an effort to determine word meaning.<br />
<br />
Alexander Souter's <b>Pocket Lexicon To The Greek New Testament </b>was<br />
published in 1916. It was republished by Hendrickson Publishers, and revised and<br />
edited by Mark A. House in 2008, under the title <b>Compact Greek-English Lexicon </b><br />
<b>of The New Testament</b>. It contains some inexcusable errors that affect the<br />
interpretation of the New Testament. It remains a useful reference work <i>if </i>it is used<br />
in conjunction with more recent scholarly lexicons. Let us note a couple of fundamental<br />
examples where the lexicon misses<b> the mark.</b><br />
<br />
<b> </b>On page 46 of the original lexicon and page 37 of the revision, <i><b>baptizo</b></i> is defined<br />
as,<b> "</b>lit.<i> I dip, submerge</i>, but specifically of ceremonial dipping (whether immersion<br />
or affusion)..." The revision says parenthetically (whether immersion or pouring). First,<br />
no original source material is cited that indicates <i><b>baptizo</b></i> is used of a ceremonial<br />
dipping (whether by immersion or pouring). Second, no biblical text is cited that<br />
illustrates such meaning. Third, his explanation of <i><b>baptizo</b></i> (whether immersion or<br />
pouring) is self contradictory. <i><b>Baptizo </b></i>cannot be by immersion <i>or </i>pouring! As he<br />
stated, the verb<b><i> baptizo </i></b>means "I dip, submerge." Actually, it is more than a mere<br />
contradiction; he is wrong. (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12)<br />
<br />
On page 286 of his original lexicon and 189 of the revision, <b><i>psallo </i></b>is defined as,<br />
"<i>I play on the harp </i>(or other stringed instrument). The problem is the same. No<br />
original source material is cited to sustain the definition, and no biblical evidence is<br />
cited that illustrates the alleged meaning. He is relying on the connotation of <i><b>psallo </b></i><br />
as it is sometimes used in the Septuagint. But, his work is titled <b>A Pocket Lexicon </b><br />
<b>To The <i>New Testament.</i></b> Therefore, he should have given evidence from the literature<br />
contemporary with the New Testament. He failed to do this and renders his lexicon<br />
unsatisfactory at this place.<br />
<br />
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek lexicons are are not inerrant. Their authors and<br />
compilers are not guided by the Holy Spirit, therefore they must be used with caution.<br />
The student of the sacred scriptures should always use more than one lexicon, and<br />
he should be as familiar as possible with original sources. Most of all he should be<br />
intimately familiar with the word of God! Study God's word lexically and contextually.<br />
<br />
R. Daly<br />
<br />
Copyright 2011<br />
<br />
</div>
R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-32744581450382266482011-08-30T17:02:00.000-07:002011-08-30T17:04:45.109-07:00"Into The Name"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> The phrase "into the name" (<i><b>eis to onoma</b></i>) occurs several times in the<br />
New Testament. It occurs at least four times in connection with immersion.<br />
Jesus told his apostles to immerse believers "<i>into</i> the name of the Father<br />
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19)<br />
Luke tells us the people of Samaria "had been immersed<i> into</i> the name of<br />
the Lord Jesus." (Acts 8:16) The same writer says about twelve men in<br />
Ephesus "were immersed<i> into</i> the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:5)<br />
A variation is found in 1 Cor. 1:15. Paul asked the Corinthians if they had <br />
been immersed <i>into </i>his name? (<i><b>eis to emon onoma</b></i>). The American Standard<br />
Version-1901 consistently translates the phrase as "into the name" in all of its<br />
occurrences in 1 Corinthians and the book of Acts. Other English versions<br />
translate the phrase literally sometimes, and at other times they translate it with<br />
the words "in the name." In the texts where they do not translate it literally, they<br />
generally place the literal rendering in the margin or the footnotes. (RSV; NASB;<br />
NIV; NRSV; NET; ESV; TNIV; NIV-2011) <br />
<br />
What does it mean to be immersed "into the name" of someone? Adolf<br />
Deissmann, in his book <b>Bible Studies</b>, in which he notes the contributions of<br />
the papyri and inscriptions to the study of the New Testament, says, "Just as,<br />
in the Inscription, <i>to buy into the name of God </i>means <i>to buy so that the</i><br />
<i>article bought belongs to God</i>, so also the idea underlying, e.g., the<br />
expressions to <i>baptise into the name of the Lord</i>, or <i>to believe into the</i><br />
<i>name of the Son of God</i>, is that baptism or faith constitutes the <i>belonging</i><br />
to God or to the Son of God ." (page 146)<br />
<br />
J.H. Moulton and George Milligan state in their <b>Vocabulary of the Greek </b><br />
<b>Testament</b>, page 451, that "The phrase <i><b>eis to onoma tinos</b></i> is frequent in<i> </i>the<br />
papyri with reference to payments made "to the account of any one...The usage<br />
is of interest in connexion with Mt. 28:19, where the meaning would seem to<br />
be "baptized into the possession of the Father, etc." Bauer-Danker-Arndt-<br />
Gingrich's <b>Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament and Other</b><br />
<b>Early Christian Literature</b> concurs. The lexicon says on page 713, "Through<br />
baptism <i>eis to onoma tinos</i> those who are baptized become the possession<br />
of and come under the dedicated protection of the one whose name they bear."<br />
<br />
This is certainly true when we consider Paul's use of a similar phrase in the<br />
Corinthian letter. The Corinthians were claiming to be "of Paul; of Apollos;<br />
of Cephas; and of Christ." Paul asks them, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul<br />
crucified for you? Or were you immersed<i> into </i>the name of Paul? I thank God<br />
that I immersed none of you, except Crispus and Gaius; lest any one should<br />
say that you were immersed<i> into</i> my name." (1 Cor. 1:13-14) Paul's point<br />
is this: you cannot rightly claim to be "of" Paul because you were not immersed<br />
"<i>into</i>" my name. And since you were not immersed "<i>into</i>" my name, you do<br />
not owe your allegiance to me, for I do not possess you. You do not belong<br />
to me, you belong to Christ! Therefore, to be immersed "into the name of<br />
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is to become their "property,"<br />
having entered into relationship with them. Christians belong to the Father,<br />
Son, and the Holy Spirit.<br />
RD<br />
<br />
Copyright 2011<br />
<br />
</div>R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-86271517340685680692011-08-25T14:35:00.000-07:002011-08-25T14:35:44.993-07:00Did Yahweh Remove Their Chariot Wheels?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> The story of the children of Israel going into the midst of the Red Sea is one<br />
of the great narratives in the Old Testament. It demonstrates God's love for and<br />
protection of his people. It also demonstrates God's utter hatred of sin and the<br />
destruction that awaits those who oppose God.<br />
<br />
There is a key difference among English versions within the context of<br />
Exodus chapter 14. We learn that the Egyptians pursued the Israelites and<br />
went in after them into the midst of the sea. "And in the morning watch Yahweh<br />
in the pillar of cloud looked down on the Egyptian forces and threw them into<br />
confusion." (Ex. 14:24)<br />
<br />
In verse 25, some translations say Yahweh "jammed the wheels of their<br />
chariots. " (NET; TNIV; NIV-2011) Others read similarly by saying he<br />
"clogged their chariot wheels." (RSV; ESV) The TANAKH (Jewish Publication's<br />
Society's translation, 1985) says Yahweh "locked the wheels of their chariots."<br />
Those translations follow the reading of the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch,<br />
and the Syriac instead of the Hebrew text. The translators believe the Hebrew<br />
root is <i><b>'asar</b></i>, meaning to bind, and could contextually carry the connotative<br />
meaning, "to clog," perhaps by sinking into the wet sand of the Red Sea.<br />
<br />
The ASV reads, "And he took off their chariot wheels," followed by the<br />
NIV which says, "He made the wheels of their chariots come off." The KJV<br />
like the ASV says "And took off their chariot wheels." The KJV, ASV, and<br />
NIV translate the Hebrew text as it stands. The Hebrew word in the traditional<br />
text is <b><i>wayyasar</i></b>, meaning "to turn aside," (The NASB-71 and NASB-95<br />
say "He caused their chariot wheels to swerve.") <i><b>Wayyasar</b></i><b> </b>is likely used in<br />
the sense of removing the wheels. The question is, which rendering is to be<br />
preferred---<b>'<i>asar</i></b>, <i>jammed</i> in the sense of clogging or locking their chariot<br />
wheels, or <i><b>wayyasar</b></i>, <i>removed</i> their chariot wheels?<br />
<br />
Many of the translators and commentators who work with this portion of the<br />
Hebrew text reason, "Would a wheelless chariot drive 'with heaviness,' or would<br />
it just grind to a halt?' " (Exodus 1-18, page 500, W.H.C. Propp, <b>Anchor Bible </b><br />
<b>Commentary</b>) Others see the phrase "removed their chariot wheels" as an<br />
"interpretive translation of the Hebrew." (Exodus, page 343, Douglas K. Stuart,<br />
<b>The New American Commentary</b>)<br />
<br />
In response to the first statement, "Would a wheelless chariot drive 'with<br />
heaviness?', the answer is a definite yes. A horse can pull a "wheelless" chariot<br />
just as surely as he can pull a sled, wagon, and cart without wheels. And they<br />
are driven with "heaviness." As to whether translating <i><b>wayyasar</b></i> as "removed"<br />
or "took off" is an interpretive translation of the Hebrew. The Hebrew word<br />
has a range of meanings, one of which is "to remove." (<b>The Hebrew and</b><br />
<b>Aramaic Lexicon of the old Testament<i>, </i></b>volume 2, page 748)<br />
<b> </b><br />
<b> </b>Translators need compelling reasons before they depart from the traditional <br />
Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Amending the Hebrew text may be necessary<br />
when there are legitimate grounds to do so, but in my judgment, such is not<br />
necessary in Ex. 14:25. No insurmountable difficulties arise when <i><b>wayyasar</b></i><br />
remains in the text and is translated as "removed" or "took off."<br />
RD<br />
<br />
Copyright 2011<br />
<b> </b></div>R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-69440379740459193562011-07-07T11:14:00.000-07:002011-07-07T11:14:13.704-07:00Orthotomeo One of the key texts in which the Greek verb <i>orthotomeo</i> appears is<br />
2 Tim. 2:15. The KJV translates <i>orthotomeo</i> with the phrase "rightly dividing."<br />
The ASV says "handling aright." The RSV says "rightly handling."<br />
<br />
Many expositors of the scriptures have assumed that Paul is informing<br />
Timothy to make a proper division of the Old and New Testaments. We can be<br />
certain that such is not what the apostle is telling Timothy to do in this text.<br />
<br />
In ancient Greek <i>orthotomeo</i> literally meant to "cut a path in a straight<br />
direction, or to cut a road across country in a straight direction." (<b>BDAG</b>, p.722)<br />
Paul is using <i>orthotomeo </i>figuratively. This figurative use means, to guide along a<br />
straight path, that is, do not deviate to the left or right by quarreling about words;<br />
it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. The context of 2 Tim. 2, especially<br />
verses 14 and 16, seems to lead to this conclusion. Many of the modern translations<br />
make this clear. The NRSV says, "rightly explaining." The NIV 2011 says, "correctly<br />
handles." The HCSB says, "correctly teaching." Each of the aforementioned<br />
translations recognize the figurative use Paul is making of the Greek verb.<br />
<br />
Timothy, the "man of God" (1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 3:17) has the responsibility to<br />
be certain that he deals honestly with the sacred writings. (2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2) He<br />
must be careful not to believe, teach, or practice anything that is not in harmony<br />
with God's will. He must boldly and unashamedly present God's message, handling<br />
it accurately and explaining it correctly.<br />
<br />
We live at a time, as was true in Timothy's day, when many spurious doctrines<br />
and practices abound among the Lord's people and in the religious world at large.<br />
The issues should be addressed, but we must be careful not to be led into a<br />
discussion of foolish and insignificant matters. We should also avoid endless<br />
controversies that are not substantive in nature.<br />
<br />
We must do as Paul instructed Timothy, <i>orthotomounta ton logon tes aletheias</i>;<br />
hold a straight course (as you correctly explain) the word of truth, and do not be<br />
detoured by unfounded opinions that result from godless chatter.<br />
RD<br />
<br />
Copyright 2011<br />
R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-28978896347771324212011-06-03T20:12:00.000-07:002011-06-03T20:12:14.621-07:00Monogenes<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> The adjective <i>monogenes</i> is used in the Septuagint (Judges 11:34; Psa. 21:21;<br />
24:16; 34:17), and in the Greek N.T. (Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Jno. 1:14, 18; 3:16,<br />
18; Heb. 11:17; 1 Jno. 4:9)<br />
<br />
The older English versions of the N.T. translate <i>monogenes</i> with the phrase<br />
"only begotten," though that is not what the word means. <i>Monogenes </i>means<br />
that which is the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only,<br />
only, unique; single of its kind. The comprehensive Greek lexicons and word<br />
books of N.T. Greek indicate that such is the case. (cf. <b>BDAG</b>, p. 658; <b>Thayer</b>,<br />
pages 417-418; <b>Moulton-Milligan</b>, pages 416-417, etc.)<br />
<br />
In Lk. 7:12 <i>monogenes </i>is used of "an only son of his mother." In Lk. 8:42 it<br />
is used of Jairus' "only daughter." In Lk. 9:38 it is used of a man's "only child."<br />
There is a sense of strong personal attachment in each of these passages. The<br />
"only son," "only daughter," and "only child" were obviously beloved, or dearly<br />
loved.<br />
<br />
In Jno. 1:14 <i>monogenes </i>is used to describe Jesus as "the only Son from<br />
the Father." (ESV) The NIV 2011 uses the phrase "one and only Son" in order<br />
to convey both the Son's uniqueness and the Father's personal attachment to<br />
him. In Jno. 1:18 <i>monogenes </i>conveys the Son's uniqueness in that he is in<br />
closest relationship with the Father and he makes the Father known in a way<br />
that no one else does. In Jno. 3:16 <i>monogenes</i> implies that the Son is unique<br />
and precious to the Father, and as a demonstration of his love for humanity,<br />
God gave him to be sacrificed for the whole sinful world. The distinctiveness<br />
and uniqueness of God's Son are also seen in Jno. 3:18, for it is through him<br />
and in his name that salvation is granted.<br />
<br />
In Heb. 11:17 Isaac is called the <i>monogenes </i>son of Abraham. He was <br />
Abraham's unique son in that he was the one through whom Yahweh promised<br />
descendants too numerous to count. "It is through Isaac that descendants shall<br />
be named for you." (Heb. 11:18; NRSV)<br />
<br />
In 1 Jno. 4:9 <i>monogenes</i> is used of Jesus as the unique Son of God who<br />
was sent into the world, "so that we might live through him." (ESV) God sent<br />
his beloved, one of a kind Son to be the means through which those who believe<br />
in and obey him might have life!<br />
<br />
<i>Monogenes </i>is used in the N.T. to convey the idea of uniqueness, one and<br />
only, the only one of its kind, and by extension it includes a strong personal<br />
attachment to that which is "one and only."<br />
Ron Daly<br />
<br />
Copyright 2011<br />
<br />
</div>R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-39635532588933091612011-04-12T19:57:00.000-07:002011-04-14T12:17:10.378-07:00Adelphoi<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> The noun <i>Adelphos </i>in its various forms occurs approximately 343 <br />
times in the Greek N.T. It is sometimes used in its literal sense to mean a<br />
"brother;" one from the same womb. (John 1:41) It can also mean "one who<br />
shares a common ethnic heritage. (Acts 22:13). It sometimes means<br />
"neighbor." (Mat. 7:3-5) It can also refer to "one who shares the same faith<br />
in Christ; a fellow-believer." (Col. 4:7)<br />
<br />
<i>Adelphoi</i>,<i> </i>the plural form of <i>adelphos</i> is used frequently in the<br />
Greek N.T. of spiritual siblings in the family of God. Males and females<br />
who have believed, repented, confessed, and were immersed into Christ<br />
(Gal. 3:26-29) They were "born again," (Jno. 3:3-5; Tit. 3:5-7), and are<br />
therefore adopted into the family of God. (Eph. 1:5; 1 Tim. 3:15) <i>Adelphoi </i><br />
identifies those who are in this spiritual relationship as "brothers and sisters."<br />
<br />
The older English versions (KJV, RV, ASV) and some relatively recent<br />
versions (NASB, RSV, NKJV) translate <i>adelphoi </i>with the word "brethren."<br />
This word is generally used only in religious circles. Other versions such as<br />
the original NIV, ESV, and HCSB use the word "brothers." One of the<br />
problems with using "brethren" is the fact that it is a somewhat archaic<br />
word. Many times "brothers" is too gender specific. The modern reader<br />
may be misled into thinking only males are being addressed in certain<br />
contexts, when in reality they are not. So, modern English versions, in an<br />
effort to be accurate, especially when a congregation is addressed translate<i> </i><br />
<i>adelphoi </i>with the phrase "brothers and sisters." (cf. New Living Translation;<br />
New Revised Standard Version; NET; Today's New International<br />
Version; and the NIV 2011)<br />
<br />
Some people object to translating <i>adelphoi</i> with the phrase "brothers<br />
and sisters," because in their view it is an effort to be "gender inclusive,"<br />
and to give women equal roles and authority with men in religion. This is<br />
an unfair judgment. The N.T. itself teaches that God does not give a woman<br />
the right to "have authority over the man." (1 Cor. 14:34-35;1 Tim. 2:11-15)<br />
The phrase "brothers and sisters" (<i>adelphoi</i>) is not designed to blur the<br />
distinctive roles that God has assigned to men and women, but it seeks to<br />
accurately convey the meaning of <i>adelphoi</i> by indicating the familial<br />
relationship shared by those of the same faith.<br />
<br />
It has long been proven by Greek lexicons that <i>adelphos/adelphoi</i> are<br />
used in this manner in secular Greek literature and in the N.T. (<b>Thayer's </b><br />
<b>Greek-English Lexicon</b>, pages 10-11; <b>Alexander Souter's Pocket </b><br />
<b>Lexicon</b>, p. 6;<b> A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament And </b><br />
<b>Other Early Christian Literature</b>, Introduction, p. 24 and pages 15-16<br />
of the lexicon,1952 edition.)<br />
<br />
It is accurate to translate <i>adelphoi</i> with the phrase "brothers and sisters" <br />
when a congregation is addressed, when the universal group of Jesus'<br />
followers is under discussion, and when it can be shown from the context<br />
that a religious group consisting of both males and females is under<br />
consideration. Translators have not accurately translated God's word, until<br />
they have selected the word or phrase in the target language,<br />
that means the same as the word or phrase in the source language. They <br />
must also convey the meaning in an understandable manner. "Brothers and<br />
sisters" for <i>adelphoi</i> in English translations is both accurate and<br />
understandable. A gentleman who objected to the rendering "brothers and<br />
sisters" was asked which translation of <i>adelphoi </i>he believed to be the<br />
correct one, and he responded, "Brethren." He was then asked "What does<br />
'brethren' mean, and he replied, "Brothers and sisters."<br />
<br />
R. Daly<br />
<br />
Copyright 2011<br />
<b></b><br />
<b> </b><br />
</div>R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-60271478074423076962011-03-22T15:28:00.000-07:002011-03-22T15:36:53.627-07:00Do Not Rebuke an Elder<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div align="CENTER"><br />
</div> The American Standard Version translates the first part of<br />
1 Timothy 5:1 in this way, "Rebuke not an elder." This reflects<br />
the policy of the ASV translators to be as literal as possible, and<br />
to use one English word for one Hebrew word in the O.T., and<br />
one English word for one Greek word in the N.T. when possible.<br />
This policy has inherent problems of its own, though one scholar<br />
wrote the following about the ASV, "So far as English versions<br />
are concerned, the reader who wants an accurate word for word<br />
translation has in the Revised Version or American Standard<br />
Version the best of its kind that is ever likely to be provided."<br />
(Bruce, F.F., <b>The Books and the Parchments</b>, page 235) I<br />
wholeheartedly concur with Bruce's assessment of the ASV. The<br />
ASV has no equal as far as the modified literal approach to<br />
translation is concerned.<br />
<br />
What does the word "elder" mean in 1 Tim. 5:1? It translates<br />
the Greek <i>presbutero</i>, dative masculine singular of <i>presbuteros</i>.<br />
<i>Presbutero</i>s is used in a number of ways in the New Testament.<br />
It may refer to members of the Sanhedrin (<i>presbuterous ton </i><br />
<i>Ioudaion</i>, elders of the Jews) Luke 7:3; the 24 members of the<br />
heavenly court <i>(hoi eikosi tessares presbuteroi</i>) Revelation 5:8;<br />
men who were appointed to preside over and shepherd local<br />
assemblies of Christians (<i>tous presbuterous tes ekklesias</i>, the<br />
elders of the congregation) Acts 20:17 ;1 Timothy 5:17-19; and<br />
those who are advanced in life (<i>hoi presbuteroi</i>, old men) <br />
Acts 2:17.<br />
<br />
The meaning of "elder" in verse 1 is "old man." We can be<br />
certain that this is correct because of the "contextual indicators."<br />
There is an antithesis which exists between "an elder" who is to be<br />
exhorted "as a father," and "younger men" who are to be exhorted<br />
"as brothers" (<i>neoteras hos adelphous</i>). So, "elder" (<i>presbuteros</i>)<br />
is used in contrast to "younger" (<i>neos</i>). Whatever "elder" means,<br />
"younger" is the opposite, and whatever "younger" means, "elder"<br />
is the opposite. Furthermore, Paul continues by contrasting "elder<br />
women as mothers" (<i>presbuteras hos meteras</i>), and exhorting<br />
"younger women as sisters" (<i>neoteras hos adelphas</i>). The "elder"<br />
of verse 1 denotes the same thing as "elder women" of verse 2,<br />
except for the distinction in gender. "Younger men" likewise<br />
denotes the same thing as "younger women" excepting the gender<br />
distinction. Also, there is a parallelism which exists between "elder"<br />
of 1 Timothy 5:1, and the language of the same apostle elsewhere.<br />
In Titus 2:2, Paul exhorts Titus that he, in speaking sound teaching,<br />
inform "aged men" (<i>presbutas</i>) of their duties, and "aged women"<br />
(<i>presbutidas</i>) of their duty to teach the "young women"<br />
(<i>tas neas</i>, vv. 3,4).<br />
<br />
We find the same use of "elder" by the apostle Peter. "Likewise,<br />
you who are younger (<i>neoteroi</i>), be subject to older ones<br />
(<i>presbuterois</i>)" (1 Pet. 5:5). Note again the antithesis between<br />
"younger" and "elder."<br />
<br />
What is the significance of the injunction "do not rebuke an<br />
elder" expressed by the negative imperative (<i>me epiplexes</i>)?<br />
May we not "rebuke" all who are in error, and who persist in sin<br />
or rebellion against God, whether young or old? According to<br />
other texts we may (Matt. 18:15-18; Lk. 17:3-4; 1 Tim. 5:20;<br />
2 Tim. 4:2). So, why does the Holy Spirit through Paul, so<br />
emphatically say to Timothy "do not to rebuke an elder"?<br />
The key is in the word "rebuke." It is not the same word used in<br />
2 Timothy 4:2.<br />
<br />
The word used in 2 Timothy is <i>epitimao</i>. Contextually, <i>epitimao </i><br />
means "to censure and render a sharp rebuke" by the teaching of<br />
the word. "Rebuke" in 1 Timothy 5 is from the Greek <i>epiplesso</i><br />
which means to reprimand, to strike (verbally), to assault with<br />
abusive speech, to chastise with words, to reproach or denounce.<br />
In the context, Paul informed Timothy about proper conduct<br />
among believers, which he as an evangelist must practice. One<br />
of the orders given to Timothy was, "Don't let anyone look down<br />
on you because you are young..." (1 Tim. 4:12; NIV2011). This<br />
entailed treating old men and old women with respect. An Old<br />
Testament text contains the concept, "You shall stand up in the<br />
presence of the elderly, and show respect for the elderly and<br />
revere your God; I am Yahweh." (Lev. 19:32) Timothy was to<br />
show respect for the elderly, and not lash out with harsh words,<br />
but have a tongue tempered by love and gentleness.<br />
<br />
Instead of the phrase "Rebuke not an elder," as in the ASV,<br />
the recent versions say, "Don't criticize an older man" (Simple<br />
English Bible), "Never be harsh with an elder" (New English Bible),<br />
"Never censure an older man harshly" (James Moffatt Translation),<br />
"Do not sharply rebuke an older man" (NASV), "Do not speak<br />
harshly to an older man" (NRSV), "Do not reprimand an older<br />
man" (McCord's New Testament Translation), "Do not rebuke<br />
an older man harshly" NIV. This shows why it is important to<br />
study from more than one translation. Comparative translation<br />
study opens up vast opportunities for spiritual growth!<br />
<br />
The expression "Do not rebuke an elder" does not restrict or<br />
forbid the younger from correcting the older brothers in the Lord<br />
who err, but it does teach that there is a proper way to do it. And,<br />
the way is not by ridicule and harshness, but "as fathers and<br />
mothers," that is, with genuine concern and kindness, attempting to<br />
win them by snatching them out of the devil's grasp!<br />
RD<br />
<br />
Copyright 2011 </div>R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-44701540127198118982011-03-01T18:22:00.000-08:002011-03-02T04:06:14.019-08:00Son of Man<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> The phrase "son of man" (<i>ben adam</i>) is an idiom. It is used approximately<br />
107 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is found 93 times in Ezekiel 2:1-47:6. In<br />
each instance <i>ben adam </i>is literally translated in the Septuagint with the Greek<br />
phrase <i>huios anthropou</i>.<br />
<br />
Yahweh called the prophet Ezekiel "son of man" in order to focus on the<br />
prophet's humanity. It is equivalent to saying "O man," or "mortal" (NRSV)<br />
Ezekiel is a human being in contrast to the Sovereign, eternal God, the creator<br />
of all. Yahweh is not "a son of man" (<i>ben adam</i>) that he should change his<br />
mind." (Num. 23:19) God is not a mortal or a human being. Yahweh spoke to<br />
the nation of Israel, the people of God, through Ezekiel, a human being, a man<br />
of the same class as those to whom he prophesied.<br />
<br />
In one of the Aramaic portions of the Old Testament, the prophet Daniel<br />
spoke of one<i> like</i> "a son of man" (<i>kebar enas</i>) who came "with the clouds<br />
of heaven...to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him <br />
was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and<br />
languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which<br />
shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." <br />
(Dan. 7:13-14; ESV) <i>Bar enas</i> emphasizes the humanity of the person<br />
described by Daniel. He is like a "son of man", that is, a member of the<br />
genus human being.<br />
<br />
The idiom "Son of Man" (<i>huios anthropou</i>) occurs more than 80 times<br />
in the Greek N.T. It is found 14 times in Mark, 30 in Matthew, 25 in Luke,<br />
12 in John, 1 in Acts, and it is used with <i>homois </i>in Rev. 1:13 and 14:14.<br />
Jesus is the "Son of Man" in that he was "made like his brothers in every<br />
respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the<br />
service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." (Heb. 2:17;<br />
ESV) But, there is more.<br />
<br />
As the "Son of Man" the Father has given him authority to execute judgment.<br />
(Jno. 5:27) The Son of Man is identified with Yahweh. He is the "I Am." (Jno.<br />
8:58; Ex. 3:14; Isa. 43:25) The Son of Man came down from heaven to be the<br />
atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. (Jno. 3:13; 6:62) He is "the Lamb<br />
of God;" the perfect sacrifice for the sins of humanity. (Jno. 1:29) The suffering<br />
of the Son of Man is connected with the figure of the righteous servant of Yahweh<br />
in Isa. 52:13-53:12. "He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth."<br />
(1 Pet. 2:22) He was conceived in and born of a virgin (Mat. 1:23; Lk. 1:27,34)<br />
Acknowledging the Son of Man will lead to being acknowledged in the presence<br />
of the Father. (Mat. 10:32) "The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost."<br />
(Lk. 19:10) The angel reminded the disciples at the empty tomb, "that the Son of<br />
Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and rise on<br />
the third day." (Lk. 24:7) He who was the Word in eternity "became flesh" and<br />
died for the sins of the human race. (Jno. 1:14) He has received his kingdom,<br />
glory, and honor, and he sits at the right hand of God. (Dan. 7:13-14; Heb. 1:3;<br />
1 Pet. 3:22)<br />
<br />
Jesus is the "Son of Man" in that he was the perfect human being, truly human,<br />
the ideal human being, the par excellent human being; a descendant of David<br />
according to the flesh. (Mat. 22:42; Rom. 1:3) The "Son of Man" is the Messiah!<br />
RD<br />
<br />
Copyright 2011</div>R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-91336674479417200872011-02-22T11:03:00.000-08:002011-02-22T14:47:54.416-08:00Baptisma<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> The word <i>baptisma</i> is a noun and it occurs 19 times in the Greek N.T.<br />
The English translations represent it as "baptism" in the various passages<br />
where it is found. The word "baptism" is actually a gloss, that is, a misleading<br />
interpretation and not a true translation of <i>baptisma</i>. The translators drop<br />
the "alpha" from the end of the word and bring it over as "baptism." The<br />
problem is, <i>baptisma </i>does not mean "baptism." That is like saying, "<i>theos</i>"<br />
means "theos" or "<i>ekklesia</i>" means "ekklesia."<br />
<br />
<i>Baptisma</i> means "immersion, submersion, plunging, or dipping." Most of <br />
the older and modern Greek lexicons define it as such and most of them cite<br />
evidence from the ancient Greek writings as proof. We will examine a notable<br />
exception at the end of this study.<br />
<br />
Among the older lexicons are <b>A Greek and English Lexicon Of The </b><br />
<b>New Testament</b> by Edward Robinson, 1879 edition, page<b> </b>119; <b>A Greek-</b><br />
<b>English Lexicon Of The New Testament</b> (Clavis Novi Testamenti<br />
Philologica of C.G. Wilke/C.L. Grimm), translated, revised, and enlarged by<br />
Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889 edition, page 94; <b>Greek-English Lexicon To </b><br />
<b>The New Testament</b>, a new edition with additions and alterations, revised by<br />
Thomas Sheldon Green, page 29. <br />
<br />
The more recent lexicons are <b>Greek-English Lexicon With a Revised</b><br />
<b>Supplement</b>, compiled by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, revised<br />
and augmented by Henry Stuart Jones, Roderick McKenzie and many scholars,<br />
1996 edition, pages 305-306; <b>Theological Dictionary Of The New </b><br />
<b>Testament</b>, volume 1, page 945; <b>A Patristic Greek Lexicon</b>, edited by<br />
G.W.H. Lampe, page 284; and <b>A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New </b><br />
<b>Testament And Other Early Christian Literature</b>, Walter Bauer-Frederick<br />
Danker-W.F. Arndt-F.W. Gingrich, third edition (2000), page 165.<br />
<br />
<i>Baptisma </i>is used literally in the N.T. regarding salvation in Christ when <br />
water is the element. (1 Peter 3:20-21; cf. Acts 10:47 where the verb form <i> </i><br />
<i>baptizo</i> is used.) It is also used figuratively in the N.T. Jesus speaks of being<br />
"immersed with the immersion with which I am immersed." (Mark 10:38) This<br />
refers to Jesus' sufferings and death. Jesus says, "I have an immersion to be<br />
immersed with..." (Luke 12:50) The meaning is to be inundated, overwhelmed,<br />
or immersed in suffering or persecution.<br />
<br />
The lexicons are correct in their definitions of <i>baptisma</i>. This is clear from<br />
the complimentary metaphors that Paul uses in his letter to the Romans. He<br />
speaks of being "buried with him through immersion." (<i>sunetaphemen oun </i><br />
<i>auto dia tou baptismatos</i>). There is <b>no </b>burial signified by sprinkling and pouring.<i> </i><br />
A burial <b>is</b> pictured in immersion. As Christ was raised from the dead through the<br />
glory of the Father, so we rise from the act of immersion in water to walk in<br />
newness of life. Paul says the same thing to the brothers and sisters in Colossae.<br />
(Col. 2:12)<br />
<br />
The N.T. also records complimentary literal phrases that prove the action<br />
is immersion. Acts 8:38-39 Luke says, "And they both <b>went down into the </b><br />
<b>water</b> (<i>kai katebesan amphoteroi eis to hudor</i>), Philip and the eunuch, and<br />
he immersed him. And when they <b>came up out of the water</b> (<i>hote de anebesan </i><br />
<i>ek tou hudatos</i>), the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away..." Notice that the text<br />
says they "went <b>down into</b> the water and came <b>up out of </b>the water. Neither<br />
sprinkling nor pouring necessitates these actions; immersion does.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that the<b> Greek-English Lexicon Of The New </b><br />
<b>Testament Based On Semantic Domains</b>, by Johannes P. Louw and Eugene<br />
A. Nida, volume 1, page 537, defines <i>baptizo</i>,<i> baptisma</i>, and <i>baptismos</i> as "to<br />
employ water in a religious ceremony designed to symbolize purification and<br />
initiation on the basis of repentance..." It is not without theological prejudice that<br />
they use the generic phrase "to <b>employ</b> water in a religious ceremony." This allows<br />
a broad range of interpretation that includes sprinkling, pouring, and/or immersion.<br />
The N.T. use of <i>baptizo, baptisma, or baptismos </i>does not allow such a broad<br />
range of interpretation. Their definition of those words is incorrect. Other lexical<br />
evidence and more importantly N.T. contextual evidence shows the wisdom<br />
of "not risking the family farm" on the testimony of prejudicial sources. Lexicons<br />
are important tools for studying the original languages of sacred scripture, but<br />
they must be used with discretion.<br />
RD<br />
<br />
Copyright 2011<br />
<br />
</div>R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-58920590956124283462011-02-10T13:10:00.000-08:002011-02-10T13:10:24.488-08:00Doulos<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> <i>Doulos </i>is found in several documents of Greek antiquity<i>. </i>It appears<br />
in Herodotus (5th century B.C.), the inscriptions, the papyri, Philo,<br />
Josephus, etc.<br />
<br />
<i> Doulos</i> occurs more than 300 times in the Septuagint. It occurs<br />
124 times in the Greek New Testament. <i> Doulos</i> is a theologically<br />
significant word. The Hebrew word <i>'ebed</i> is a close correspondent to<br />
<i></i><i>doulos</i>. <i>'Ebed</i> carries a range of meaning such as servant, official,<br />
slave. The Greek <i>doulos</i> literally means slave, one who is "owned<br />
property totally and unquestionably at the behest of the owner." <br />
(<b>Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, </b><br />
F. W. Danker, page 101<b>)</b> <br />
<br />
In ancient society slaves were sometimes captives of war.<br />
(Deut. 20:10-18); sometimes foreigners who were bought and sold.<br />
(Lev. 25:44-46); others were sold into slavery because they<br />
defaulted on debts they owed. (Ex. 21:2-4; Deut. 15:12;<br />
1 Sam. 22:3); others were acquired as a gift. (Gen. 29:24).<br />
Non-Hebrew slaves could be passed on from one generation to<br />
the next. (Lev. 25:44-46). Others could become slaves by birth.<br />
(Ex. 21:4; Lev. 25:54)<br />
<br />
In the N.T. <i>doulos </i>is sometimes used literally. (Eph. 6:5; Col. 4:1;<br />
Philemon 16) The term is also used metaphorically to describe a<br />
person who is under total obligation to surrender his will to the Lord<br />
Christ. The person becomes the property of the deity. He has been<br />
"immersed into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the<br />
Holy Spirit." (Mat. 28:19)<br />
<br />
On this basis, "Paul is a slave of Jesus Christ." (Rom. 1:1)<br />
Believers generally are slaves "of obedience that leads to righteousness."<br />
(Rom. 6:16) The apostles were slaves of Christians for the sake of<br />
Jesus. (2 Cor. 4:5) Paul's helpers were slaves of Christ Jesus. (Phil. 1:1)<br />
James identifies himself as "a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ."<br />
(Jas. 1:1) Peter was "a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ." (2 Pet. 1:1)<br />
Jude was "a slave of Jesus Christ." (Jude 1). John the apostle was the<br />
Lord's slave. (Rev. 1:1) The apostles and all believers in the apostolic<br />
age were not averse to being known as slaves. They considered servility<br />
to be a privilege!<br />
<br />
Most English translations of the scriptures have been reluctant to use<br />
the word slave in such contexts. They have opted for the more palatable<br />
word "servant." The <b>Holman Christian Standard Bible </b>has broken<br />
away from tradition in this regard. It correctly interprets <i>doulos </i>to mean<br />
"slave."<br />
RD<br />
<br />
Copyright 2011</div>R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-22030358499205611242011-02-01T22:33:00.000-08:002011-02-01T22:33:59.597-08:00Tartarus<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> 2 Peter 2:4 in Greek says, "<i>ei gar ho theos aggelon hamartesanton </i><br />
<i>ouk epheisato alla seirais zophou tartarosas paredoken eis krisin</i><br />
<i>teroumenous</i>." The translation is, "For if God did not spare angels when<br />
they sinned, but cast them into Tartarus, and committed them to chains of<br />
deepest darkness to be kept for judgment." What is "<i>Tartarus</i>?"<br />
<br />
Historically, in the ancient Greek writings, <i>Tartarus</i> is found in Acusilaus<br />
Historicus in the 5th century B.C. ; Lydus, Joannes Laurentius Historicus<br />
Mensibus 4.158 in the 6th century A.D. and other sources. (cf. <b>Greek-</b><br />
<b>English Lexicon,</b> 9th Edition, page 1759, H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, Henry<br />
Jones, and Roderick McKenzie) According to them it means to cast into<br />
Tartarus or hell.<br />
<br />
<i>Tartarus </i>is also used in the patristic writings and covers a wide range<br />
of meanings such as Hades, the nether world, , hell; as a place of torment<br />
and abode of the Devil; metaphorically of this world, opposite heaven;<br />
synonymously with the Devil. (cf. <b>A Patristic Greek Lexicon</b>, pages<br />
1375, 1376, G. W. H. Lampe, editor)<br />
<br />
E. A. Sophocles informs us in his <b>Greek-English Lexicon of the</b><br />
<b>Roman and Byzantine Periods</b>, volume 2, page 1070, that <i>tartaros</i><br />
was one of the compartments of hell and that the verb <i>tartaroo</i> means<br />
to cast into Tartarus.<br />
<br />
In Greek mythology <i>Tartarus</i> is the place of the Titans and of<br />
disobedient gods and is conceived as a gloomy place deep under the<br />
earth. Hesiod Theogonia 720ff ; Homer Illiad 14.279f.<br />
<br />
In the N.T. the word occurs only once and is used in the participle<br />
form in 2 Pet. 2:4. It means to "hold captive in Tartarus ." (<b>A Greek-</b><br />
<b>English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian</b><br />
<b>Literature</b>, Walter Bauer and Frederick William Danker, page 991)<br />
<br />
It is sometimes stated that, according to the N.T. Tartarus is the place<br />
where the incorrigibly wicked go between death and the resurrection.<br />
That is not quite right and the reason is, the N.T. says<i> Tartarus</i> is the<br />
place where God cast the<b> angels</b> who sinned. It is not viewed as the<br />
place where all the wicked dead go.<br />
<br />
There is no doubt that the wicked are in a place of punishment<br />
between death and the resurrection. Luke 16:23 teaches they are in<br />
Hades, where they are being tormented in a flame. (Also see 2 Peter 2:9)<br />
But, the only time that <i>Tartarus</i> is mentioned in scripture, it is said to<br />
be the place where God cast the angels who sinned. Therefore, we may<br />
conclude by saying, in the N.T. <i>Tartarus </i>is the place of punishment<br />
where angels who sinned are being held till the day of judgment. <br />
RD<br />
<br />
Copyright 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-10248837619012637532011-01-26T14:18:00.000-08:002011-01-26T14:18:52.324-08:00Deuteronomy 24:1 "Erwat Dabar"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> Moses wrote, "If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him<br />
because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate<br />
of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves<br />
his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes<br />
her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his<br />
house, or if he dies, then her first husband , who divorced her, is not allowed to<br />
marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes<br />
of Yahweh. Do not bring this sin upon the land Yahweh your God is giving you<br />
as an inheritance." (Deut. 24:1-4; TNIV)<br />
<br />
What is the meaning of the phrase "something indecent" (<i>erwat dabar</i>) in<br />
verse1? This has been a point of discussion for many centuries, and we have no<br />
reason to believe it will cease any time soon. Even in the days of Jesus' earthly<br />
service there were at least two dominant rabbinic schools of thought; the Hillelites<br />
and the Shammaites. The school of Hillel allowed divorce for virtually any reason<br />
whatever, and the school of Shammai interpreted Deut. 24 more narrowly, only<br />
on the grounds of sexual immorality, that is, as unchastity on the part of the woman<br />
within marriage. (Cf. <i>m. Git. </i>9:10;<i> b. Git. </i>90a; Josephus,<i> Ant.</i> 4.8.23 ...244-59, <i> </i><br />
<i>Vit.</i> 76; Philo, <i>Spec. Leg</i>. 5)<br />
<br />
A sampling of English translations of the Hebrew text interpret <i>erwat dabar</i><br />
in the following manner: "some indecency" (RSV, ESV<i>); </i>"something indecent"<br />
(NIV); "something objectionable" (NRSV); "something improper" (HCSB);<br />
"some uncleanness" (KJV); "some unseemly thing" (ASV); "something obnoxious"<br />
(TANAKH). This gives us quite a range of interpretations. The Septuagint (LXX)<br />
reads "<i>aschemon pragma</i>," literally "nakedness of a thing" i.e., a matter of <br />
uncleanness. The Latin Vulgate reads, "<i>aliquam foeditatem</i>" i.e., any filth.<br />
<br />
Hebrew lexicons show a wide range of definitions for <i>erwah</i>. <i>Hebrew and </i><br />
<i>Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament</i>, George Fohrer, page 213, "indecency."<br />
<i>Student's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary</i>, Alexander Harkavy, page 547, "any<br />
filthy thing."<i> Student's Hebrew Lexicon</i>, Benjamin Davies-Edward C. Mitchell,<br />
page 491, " a blemish." <i>Hebrew-English Lexicon To The Old Testament</i>, William<br />
Gesenius, page 653, "shame, filthiness...any defect found in a woman." <i>A Concise </i><br />
<i>Hebrew And Aramaic Lexicon Of The Old Testament</i>, page 283, "something<br />
indecent." <i>The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament</i>, Koehler-<br />
Baumgartner, volume 2, page 883, "bareness, nakedness." <i>The Brown-Driver-</i><br />
<i>Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon</i>, page 789, "nakedness of a thing, i.e. probably<br />
indecency, improper behavior."<i> </i> <br />
<i> </i><br />
<i> </i>The lexicographical data makes clear that <i>erwah</i> is something indecent, filthy or<br />
shameful or possibly some sort of defect. The question is, what was the "indecency?"<br />
One thing is certain, it was not adultery. Adultery was punishable by execution!<br />
(Deut. 22:22; et.al) If adultery were meant by <i>erwah</i> rather than being allowed to<br />
leave and become the wife of another man, the offending woman would have been<br />
put to death. <br />
<br />
<i>Erwat dabar</i> refers to something the husband found offensive or distasteful in<br />
his wife other than adultery. The phrase is found in the context of purity ordinances<br />
and in this text must refer to something repulsive. It seems to refer to sexually<br />
indecent behavior. It could have been that she was caught with her genitals exposed.<br />
<i>Erwah</i> was commonly used with the meaning "nakedness or genitals" particularly<br />
of a woman. (Cf. Lam. 1:8 where Jerusalem is personified as a lewd woman) One<br />
thing is for certain, it refers to some unspecified form of unacceptable behavior. <br />
The exact details of what the indecent thing was are yet elusive. <br />
RD<br />
<br />
Copyright 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647459199037118361.post-78588101536065655072011-01-15T17:53:00.000-08:002011-01-15T19:15:16.748-08:00Who Were The Nephilim? Genesis 6:4 says, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also<br />
afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they<br />
gave birth to children by them. These were heroes of old, the men of renown."<br />
<br />
Nephilim is the "translation" or rather transliteration (bringing over the letters<br />
of one language to another ; in this instance from Hebrew in to English) that we<br />
find in the ASV, RSV, NIV, TANAKH, NRSV, NET, ESV, and TNIV. The<br />
reason they transliterate is, there is some uncertainty as to the meaning of the<br />
Hebrew word. Efforts to interpret the Hebrew word<i> Ne'pilim</i> go back at least<br />
as far as the Septuagint (LXX). The LXX translator(s) uses the Greek words <i></i><br />
<i>hoi gigantes</i> twice in the text. According to the <b>Greek-English Lexicon Of </b><br />
<b>The Septuagint, </b>Revised Edition, complied by J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K.<br />
Hauspie, page 120, <i>gigantes</i> means "giant, mighty one." <br />
<br />
The likely reason that both the LXX and the KJV translate <i>Ne' pelim </i>as<br />
"giants" is the fact that Num. 13:33 indicates the <i>Ne'pelim</i> , associated with<br />
the sons of Anak were men of imposing stature. The context makes that clear.<br />
The spies said, "...all the people that we saw in it are men of great stature. And<br />
there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim),<br />
and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them."<br />
There is no certainty that the description of the <i>Ne'pilim</i> in Num. 13:33 applies<br />
to Gen. 6:4.<br />
<br />
Actually, there is a growing scholarly consensus that <i>Ne'pelim</i> means "fallen<br />
ones." The<b> Dictionary Of Classical Hebrew</b>, edited by David J.A. Clines,<br />
published by Sheffield Academic Press, volume 5, page 723, "giant" is given as<br />
a meaning, but he adds, "perhaps fallen ones, i.e. dead." Some have assumed<br />
they were fallen angels who cohabited with women and produced sort of a<br />
superhuman race. The evidence for this view is as strong as the evidence that<br />
there are snowflakes on the sun. First, the expression "sons of God" probably<br />
refers to the righteous people who "walked with God" (Gen. 4:26; 5:22,24; 6:9)<br />
The "daughters of men" seem to have been worldly, ungodly women driven by<br />
materialism, lust, and greed. (Isa. 3:16-4:1) Based on the context, since Gen. 6:1-4<br />
immediately follows the genealogical lists of Cain and Seth, it is most likely<br />
that "the sons of God" are the righteous descendants of Seth (Gen. 4:25-5:32),<br />
and "the daughters of men" are the descendants of Cain. (Gen. 4:17-24) Second,<br />
we can be sure that Gen. 6 is not describing sexual relations between fallen angels<br />
and humans because Jesus taught that angels have no such inclination or capability.<br />
(Matt. 22:30) Furthermore, the descendants of the union of the "sons of God" and<br />
"the daughters of men" are called "<i>men</i> of renown" (<i>'anse hassem</i>). They were<br />
human beings, mortals, not part angel and part human. They were mere men. <br />
<br />
It seems therefore, that the Nephilim were men who had fallen into moral<br />
corruption. They were notorious for their wickedness. They were oppressors and<br />
as the result of their incorrigibly wicked state, Yahweh would bring catastrophic<br />
global destruction upon the human race, except for righteous Noah and his family.<br />
<br />
RD<br />
<br />
Copyright 2011R. Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311813791464947447noreply@blogger.com1