Mark 1:3
”the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare the way of the Lord (κυριου kyriou), make His paths straight." (LITV)
The name YHWH is translated into words kyrios (κυριος) in the LXX (Septuagint) and because of the LXX became a reference point for the writers and the early Christian church, so kyrios words in the books of the New Testament, so many which are intended to declare the name of YHWH. From the example in Mark 1:3 mentioned above, can be compared that Mark was referring to the books of the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 40:3 because the exact same sentence structure. While the Septuagint kyriou is a translation of the name YHWH in the Old Testament texts in Hebrew. From this it will be easy to conclude that the author of the Gospel of Mark since the first paragraph of his book have informed his readers that John the Baptist (because of this verse speaks of John the Baptist) has prepared the way for kyriou (that is YHWH) and in this case is Jesus (which is incarnation of the Word of YHWH himself).
If we want to see again in the text of the Septuagint, in Isaiah 43:10 (LITV) YHWH said, "that you may know (Greek: γνωτε gnote) and believe (πιστευσητε pisteusēte) Me, and understand that I am He (εγω ειμι ego eimi). ", as a form of Self declaration of YHWH to his people and we align with Self declarations of Jesus as follows:" Therefore, I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe (πιστευσητε pisteusēte) that I AM (εγω ειμι ego eimi), you will die in your sins. "(John 8:24, LITV), and" When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know (γνωσεσθε gnōsesthe) that I AM (εγω ειμι ego eimi); "(John 8:28, LITV). We can easily see the parallel of 3 words from YHWH Self declaration with Self declaration of Jesus in the Gospel of John: gnosesthe, pisteusete and ego eimi. John took the same attitude with Mark that Jesus equates HimSelf with YHWH (because He is the incarnation of the Word of YHWH HimSelf).
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Word of God or (a) god?
"In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God"
(John 1:1)
The above verse is the Greek reads, εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος (en arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos), invites controversy interpretation. For the Unitarians (in Indonesia call themselves a Christian Tawheed) and stuff, this verse is used to show that Jesus was not God but only a god or divine nature alone. The above verse is explained by Tjahjadi Nugroho, one of the Christian character of Tawheed, as follows:
The word "Word", ho logos, referred to as the name or other name of Jesus Christ (Revelation 19:13). While the basic understanding of the Abrahamic faith of the unity of God, (Deuteronomy 6:4) Yahweh - God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - are one and single. So, tons of theos in John 1:1 above clearly refers to Yahweh, while the second theos without the definite word as an adjective function (properties).
The same thing held by Jehovah's Witnesses who have a teaching that, when preceded by the definite (definite article, dhi 'ho / ton' in Greek) the word was translated without the word 'something or someone' and show the identity or personality, but if not preceded by the article 'ho / ton' will be translated with the addition of 'something or someone' so with the same example is 'theos' without the article 'ho' in John 1:1 should be translated as 'a god'. (Mk 6:49; 11:32; Jn 4:19; 6:70; 8:44,48; 9:17; 10:1,13,33; 12:6; 18:37)
The question raised is whether all nouns are not given a definite word (definite article) always have to be translated with the addition of 'a' or a '?
Another question is whether a given noun definite word 'ho / ton' is always addressed to YHWH?
Answering the first question above by using John 1:1-18 only if we follow the logic of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Tawheed then at least we find the six words 'theos' the other addressed to YHWH is also not preceded by the word definite (definite article ) that is verse 2, 6, 12, 13 and twice in verse 18.
Verse 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was (a) God.
Verse 2 This Person was with (a) God in the beginning.
Verse 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.
Verse 12, however, how many people who receive it, to them he gave the right to become children of (a) God, because they show faith in his name;
Verses 13 and they were born not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but from (a) God.
Verse 18 No one has ever seen (a) God only begotten god who is the father's chest position, he was explaining about her. (Scripture - the New World Translation / S-NWT)
This is a consequence of the argument of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Tauhid in paragraph 1, "the Word was (a) God" is Yahweh was also supposed to be just 'a' God because there is no definite word (definite article) that is not personal and a clear identity. Yahweh is (a) God! Moreover, paragraph 18, the word theos monogenes μονογενης θεος by KS-TDB translated "only begotten god" who is not consistent with the argument definite word of their own, also to manipulate the meaning monogenes theos which means the only Son of God becomes "the only god begotten ". Was a consequence of argumentation the definite article Jehovah's Witnesses the word theos monogenes should be interpreted "the only begotten (a) God" theos where there is also addressed to YHWH, but does not use definite words ( 'ho / ton') so that Yahweh nor only (a) God!.
Trinitarians explain the sentence και θεος ην ο λογος (kai theos en ho logos) as the right thinking and cautious in terms of language from John to deny the heresy that emerged later Sabellianisme without saying και ο θεος ην ο λογος kai ho theos en ho logos, because it would mean that all things of God expressed in ho logos and the terms are interchangeable, because each has the article. The idea that Yahweh (the Father) is ho logos (the Son) and ho logos (the Son) is Yahweh (the Father) is a clear case can not be justified. No definite article used in precisely these terms to emphasize that there is only one Divine Being (The Substance) is YHWH, in which dwells in His eternal Word (the Divine Word of God) and His Spirit (the Spirit of God) .
Answering the second question we can see that a given noun definite word 'ho / ton' is not always directed to YHWH as stated in 2 Corinthians 4:4, ο θεος 'ho theos' in paragraph 1 is not addressed to YHWH, but to ο θεος του αιωνος τουτου "the god of this age" "god of this world" or "the god of this world" "the god of this world".
(John 1:1)
The above verse is the Greek reads, εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος (en arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos), invites controversy interpretation. For the Unitarians (in Indonesia call themselves a Christian Tawheed) and stuff, this verse is used to show that Jesus was not God but only a god or divine nature alone. The above verse is explained by Tjahjadi Nugroho, one of the Christian character of Tawheed, as follows:
The word "Word", ho logos, referred to as the name or other name of Jesus Christ (Revelation 19:13). While the basic understanding of the Abrahamic faith of the unity of God, (Deuteronomy 6:4) Yahweh - God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - are one and single. So, tons of theos in John 1:1 above clearly refers to Yahweh, while the second theos without the definite word as an adjective function (properties).
The same thing held by Jehovah's Witnesses who have a teaching that, when preceded by the definite (definite article, dhi 'ho / ton' in Greek) the word was translated without the word 'something or someone' and show the identity or personality, but if not preceded by the article 'ho / ton' will be translated with the addition of 'something or someone' so with the same example is 'theos' without the article 'ho' in John 1:1 should be translated as 'a god'. (Mk 6:49; 11:32; Jn 4:19; 6:70; 8:44,48; 9:17; 10:1,13,33; 12:6; 18:37)
The question raised is whether all nouns are not given a definite word (definite article) always have to be translated with the addition of 'a' or a '?
Another question is whether a given noun definite word 'ho / ton' is always addressed to YHWH?
Answering the first question above by using John 1:1-18 only if we follow the logic of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Tawheed then at least we find the six words 'theos' the other addressed to YHWH is also not preceded by the word definite (definite article ) that is verse 2, 6, 12, 13 and twice in verse 18.
Verse 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was (a) God.
Verse 2 This Person was with (a) God in the beginning.
Verse 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.
Verse 12, however, how many people who receive it, to them he gave the right to become children of (a) God, because they show faith in his name;
Verses 13 and they were born not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but from (a) God.
Verse 18 No one has ever seen (a) God only begotten god who is the father's chest position, he was explaining about her. (Scripture - the New World Translation / S-NWT)
This is a consequence of the argument of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Tauhid in paragraph 1, "the Word was (a) God" is Yahweh was also supposed to be just 'a' God because there is no definite word (definite article) that is not personal and a clear identity. Yahweh is (a) God! Moreover, paragraph 18, the word theos monogenes μονογενης θεος by KS-TDB translated "only begotten god" who is not consistent with the argument definite word of their own, also to manipulate the meaning monogenes theos which means the only Son of God becomes "the only god begotten ". Was a consequence of argumentation the definite article Jehovah's Witnesses the word theos monogenes should be interpreted "the only begotten (a) God" theos where there is also addressed to YHWH, but does not use definite words ( 'ho / ton') so that Yahweh nor only (a) God!.
Trinitarians explain the sentence και θεος ην ο λογος (kai theos en ho logos) as the right thinking and cautious in terms of language from John to deny the heresy that emerged later Sabellianisme without saying και ο θεος ην ο λογος kai ho theos en ho logos, because it would mean that all things of God expressed in ho logos and the terms are interchangeable, because each has the article. The idea that Yahweh (the Father) is ho logos (the Son) and ho logos (the Son) is Yahweh (the Father) is a clear case can not be justified. No definite article used in precisely these terms to emphasize that there is only one Divine Being (The Substance) is YHWH, in which dwells in His eternal Word (the Divine Word of God) and His Spirit (the Spirit of God) .
Answering the second question we can see that a given noun definite word 'ho / ton' is not always directed to YHWH as stated in 2 Corinthians 4:4, ο θεος 'ho theos' in paragraph 1 is not addressed to YHWH, but to ο θεος του αιωνος τουτου "the god of this age" "god of this world" or "the god of this world" "the god of this world".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)