ARK: Greek kibôtos, for both Hebrew tebah (Noah's Ark) and 'arôn (Ark of the covenant).
Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?
by booker-t 251 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Leolaia
I know "experts" wouldn't go along with your "theory" because the English word "ark" is derived from the Latin arca "box, chest" and is not related to any Greek or Hebrew words other than Greek arkein "keep off", especially not Greek arkhé "beginning" or arkh- "first, chief" (note the -kh instead of the -k). So-called "experts" tend not to confuse unrelated words in distinct languages that have nothing to do with each other. Self-professed "experts" also probably would not take a meaning that developed only in Late Latin or Old English (arca as specifically the "Ark of the Covenant") and apply it to a Greek word (arkhé) that translates a Hebrew word for "beginning" (in Genesis 1:1) and argue that the Hebrew word ought to have as its "TRUE translation" the meaning of the English word. Silly "experts" are far too restrained to their thinking and don't arbitrarily confuse words from separate languages as well as they should. After all, what do "experts" know?
-
AGuest
May you both have peace!
Dear FS... I am not mad, and I apologize to everyone here if it seemed that I was. Nothing could be further from the truth, truly! I just shared with you all what was shared with me with regard to how man's... ummmm... transliterations... may sometimes be flawed. Which brings me to Narkissos' response regarding the Hebrew words (notice, plural) for [Noah's] ark and the Ark [of the Covenant], in comparison to the Greek word (notice, singular) for both.
There were two very different, distinct, Hebrew words for these "arks". Why? Because they describe two very different and distinct objects. Yet, the Greek uses the same word for both objects, which would allow someone not knowing to ASSUME... that Noah entered the ark [of the Covenant]... or that Noah's [ark] is in the heavens. Because the Greek word means the same thing.
This is quite interesting, however, because with the exception of Luke, the books where the Greek word can be found were originally written... in Hebrew-Aramaic. Thus, somehow, in the transliteration, the same word came to be used for two different and distinct objects. Why? Because the Greek translators did not make such transliterations by means of and according to holy spirit... but by their own understanding... which was lacking.
[To those that would argue that Matthew's account, the Letter to the Hebrews, Peter's letters and the Revelation, where "Christian Greek" references to both Noah's ark and the Ark of the Covenant can be found, were written in Greek, I would humbly remind you that we know Matthew's account was originally written in Hebrew-Aramaic and later translated to Greek; that the Letter to the Hebrews... was TO THE HEBREWS... and thus, logically, would have originally been WRITTEN in Hebrew; that Peter was a Jew, writing to other Jews, who were "alien residents" in other lands to which they had been scattered after the death of my Lord's flesh, and so would have originally written to them in their NATIVE tongue, Hebrew-Aramaic; as would John, also a Jew, who although exiled on Patmos, wrote to the Jews who, as he said, were "sharer[s] with [him] in the tribulation," these also been scattered after the fall of Jerusalem. Although we KNOW Matthew was originally written in Hebrew-Aramaic, for some reason we take it as FACT that it was originally written in GREEK and so ASSUME the Greek to be a correct transliteration. Which is an error. We also ASSUME, with regard to the others, that because the original writings for these are supposedly "lost" that Greek is the original language there, too. That, too, is an error. And it is when the translation from Hebrew-Aramaic to Greek took place that a LOT of mistransliterations occurred. A LOT.]
In the same way, the "Bible" that most currently use... including the Hebrew and Aramaic portions of it... evolved from the GREEK... Septuagint... thus requiring such Hebrew-Aramaic portions to be translated BACK at some point. As a result, the TRUE meaning of "In the beginning," found at Genesis 1:1... and it's correlation with the TRUE meaning of "In the beginning," found at John 1:1... became obscured.
For in each case, they take the WRONG meaning of the word used to denote "beginning," using the word that describes a commencement, rather than a PLACE. I implore anyone who wishes to truly understand these things to look up the definition for the both the Hebrew and Greek words for "in the beginning"... and see if there are not any other choices. OR... alternatively... simply go to the One about whom all of these things are written... and ASK him. Indeed, the "water" is purest... at the source.
I bid you peace.
A slave of Christ,
SJ
-
Leolaia
Aside from the lack of linguistic evidence for the claim that various NT books were originally written in Hebrew-Aramaic (cf. the use of the LXX in quotations and allusions from the OT), I don't understand what you mean here:
In the same way, the "Bible" that most currently use... including the Hebrew and Aramaic portions of it... evolved from the GREEK... Septuagint... thus requiring such Hebrew-Aramaic portions to be translated BACK at some point. As a result, the TRUE meaning of "In the beginning," found at Genesis 1:1... and it's correlation with the TRUE meaning of "In the beginning," found at John 1:1... became obscured.
I understood your assertion as to pertains to the NT, but do you mean here that the OT as well as originally written in Greek and translated into Hebrew-Aramaic? For you to base your claim on the "TRUE meaning" of Genesis 1:1 on translation from the Greek Septuagint, it would seem that you are making this claim?!?!?! Hebrew bereshith "in beginning" in Genesis 1:1 is a mistranslation from the Greek????
-
ellderwho
LT, Do you think Jesus was triune in the flesh?
-
Midget-Sasquatch
Nark
Please, you have no need to apologize. I didn't take it as rude at all. Again I really appreciate the clear way you make important points stand out. I can't tell you how illuminating your posts are to me, as well as several other posters. Merci beaucoup.
-
LittleToe
DD / EW:
I'll answer those questions in the Tri-part thread. They have more of a bearing on that topic, and I don't like repeating myself too often -
Earnest
LittleToe : The only basis upon which I can accept it is if you take the word "angel" to merely mean messenger or herald and apply that directly to the specific office of the "Word".
ellderwho : LT, how would this ever apply to Jesus? I dont recall that in scripture.
I do not recall whether it has been mentioned earlier on this thread, but the LXX translation of Isaiah 9:6 is 'Angel of Great Counsel' (instead of 'Wonderful Counselor'). Origen refers to this in his Commentary on John (i.34) :
The Saviour accordingly became, in a diviner way than Paul, all things to all, that He might either gain all or perfect them; it is clear that to men He became a man, and to the angels an angel. As for His becoming man no believer has any doubt, but as to His becoming an angel, we shall find reason for believing it was so, if we observe carefully the appearances and the words of the angels, in some of which the powers of the angels seem to belong to Him. In several passages angels speak in such a way as to suggest this, as when "the angel of the Lord appeared in a flame of fire. And he said. I am the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob." But Isaiah also says: "His name is called Angel of Great Counsel."
This is also referred to by Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, lxxvi) and Clement of Alexandria (Excerpts of Theodotus, xliii, 2).
Earnest
-
Kenneson
Earnest,
If the angel of the Lord is the Savior as Origen states does this also make him Jehovah? "...And he said: I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
Isn't it also interesting that the name "Wonderful Counselor," you prefer "Angel of Great Counsel" is a name given to the child born and the son given; a title given to him as a human and not in his pre-existent state? Is. 9:6 The only way Jesus could be an "angel" as a man would be in his role as "messenger."
-
Earnest
Kenneson,
If the angel of the Lord is the Savior as Origen states does this also make him Jehovah? "...And he said: I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
There are many examples of angels (and even men) conveying God's message but speaking in the first person. Most early Christian writers taught that the angel that appeared to Moses, Abraham and others was "the Word" expressing the will of God.
Isn't it also interesting that the name "Wonderful Counselor," you prefer "Angel of Great Counsel" is a name given to the child born and the son given; a title given to him as a human and not in his pre-existent state?
Another name given in the same scripture is 'Mighty God' so I would suggest that this does not only apply to him as a human. I would also clarify that I do not prefer the LXX translation 'Angel of Great Counsel', but that was the translation early Christians used and it is a scripture that has some bearing on this thread.
Earnest