Same word assigned two DIFFERENT meanings?

[we-live-now]

It is not even the Hebrew sign, because that too came later. If there is a God and there is his word, then over the millenuims, it has already been corrupted many times over.

On a lighter note: except perhaps in Vedas, because they were orally transmitted all the time. Starting with presuppositions, prejudices. That is not the best way to research.

However, we too have words with multiple meanings. For example, Atma. It means 'soul' at some places and 'self' at other places. It also means the supposed 'Supreme spirit'.

Thanks for sharing about the "signs came later".

I am sure you are right about the "presuppositions". I guess I was venting some frustration...

 

[we-live-now]

One would think that a god as bright and all-knowing as Christians claim their god to be would make sure the intended meaning of his word would never change. And in doing so would make certain all translations of his word into various languages would be the same. Yet this is not the case. Simply look at a sampling of the many English variations of the word "רַע ra`" there are as found in Isaiah 45:7.

1. New Living Translation "Bad Times"
2. New International Version "Disaster"
3. King James Version "Evil"
4. English Standard Version "Calamity:
5. Common English Bible "Doom"
6. Reina Valera 1960 "Adversity"
7. New International Readers Version "Hard Times"
​

So, even if one does know Hebrew and old Greek he's still up against those translators, assumed to be far better educated in these things, who've lent their expertise to the various translations they've penned. Think you're better able to divine the true meanings of the Hebrew and Greek sources then these people, then be my guest, but I have absolutely no interest in what you come up with.

​

From what I've seen, the differences in translations are more often a matter of conforming to the sponsoring theology than anything else. So . . . we have a scriptural diversity from which one can pick and choose whatever fits a personal need. If one translation of a Hebrew or Greek word doesn't fit one's theology there are bound to be others that will. Christianity is a true do-it-yourself religion. So it's no wonder that The World Christian Encyclopedia by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson (Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001) lists 33,000 Christian denominations.

Nice points. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[we-live-now]

Because all words are polysemous and therefore when one maps the meaning in the source language to a word or construction in the target language the meaning is always context dependent. For example, if I tried to translate into ancient Greek the English statement "give me a hand" an ancient Greek speaker couldn't understand this as "can you help" but would have to interpret it as an actual request that they were being asked to give their real hand. Likewise, there is no way I can take τοι γούνατ᾽ ἔλυσα and translate it into English a literally as possible such that you would understand it: I loosed your knees. What do you think that means?

I would imagine that few English speakers who are asked what it means "to loose the knees", would respond "oh, it means to kill."

I do see what you are saying and that makes sense.

In the realm of law (darkness) and division of space and time.

But... If God truly is "one", would there really be such a thing as "context"? With him there is no division of space and time. No "separation" between things. Wouldn't that take away all context or situational dependencies?

 

[psychoslice]

For me personally its no big deal. man wrote the scriptures, simple as that.

 

[McBell]

I am wondering if anyone knows why (or HOW) man can read the original words of scripture and assign two different meanings to the SAME word?

I don't believe this can or should happen. I am convinced God is so precise and accurate that he has an individual and specific "word" for each thing and he HAS to use the correct one each time.

For example:

This Word in Genesis 1:1 is translated as "he created".

View attachment 7630

Now the exact, same word appears in Daniel 2:3 and they tell us it means "the field". Notice the little "footnote" (A) in it? That tells me already man is not really sure.

View attachment 7631

How can this be? I don't believe it can.

Is it possible that man has taken God's original words and pretty much "assigned his own meaning" to them? Also, please recall that before Genesis 11 all the world was of the same language.

This occurs all over scripture and given the last few verses of the Bible it is very disconcerting. In my mind, the true written "Word of God" is NOT the English translation that man gave it. It's the actual (Hebrew) "sign" he gave us.

Anyone have any insight into this?

Duane (we-live-now)

Out of curiosity...
Is there a language that has a different word for every single meaning?
I mean, is there even one single language where every single word has only one single meaning?

 

[Levite]

Because all words are polysemous and therefore when one maps the meaning in the source language to a word or construction in the target language the meaning is always context dependent. For example, if I tried to translate into ancient Greek the English statement "give me a hand" an ancient Greek speaker couldn't understand this as "can you help" but would have to interpret it as an actual request that they were being asked to give their real hand. Likewise, there is no way I can take τοι γούνατ᾽ ἔλυσα and translate it into English a literally as possible such that you would understand it: I loosed your knees. What do you think that means?

I would imagine that few English speakers who are asked what it means "to loose the knees", would respond "oh, it means to kill."

So far, unsurprisingly, this is the best answer to the OPs question I've seen so far-- maybe excepting Nietzsche's.

Also worth noting, Daniel is the only book of the Tanach written in Aramaic, not Hebrew....

 

[we-live-now]

You're forgetting one crucial fact:

"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever." ~ Isaiah 40:8

So clearly, the Bible can never, ever, ever, ever change. Ever. Never. Oh yeah. Mmm-hmm.



What a relief for scholars that the Bible wasn't originally written in English.



Politely ask a Muslim and perhaps they'll politely inform you as to what language God actually speaks?

...

I don't speak or read Hebrew ... so if that's a deal-breaker, you're all invited to freely ignore the following in its entirety.

...

However (for whatever it's worth), when you feed the English "He created" into Google Translate, and ask for it back in Hebrew, you get:

הוא יצר

Do the same for "field" and you get:

השדה

Not even in the ball park, is it?

...

Hold on. I know what you're thinking. Something along the lines of "Yeah, but Google Translate ain't no scriptural thang."
In anticipation of just that sort of objection, I also utilized a scriptural thang and here is what I can report:

In the cited source's Hebrew text of Daniel, the Hebrew characters בָּרָא do indeed appear ... and the word "field" does indeed appear in each of the corresponding translations. What should be stressed is that the phrase "he created" does not appear in any of these line-item translations of Daniel.

In the cited source's Hebrew text of Genesis, the Hebrew characters בָּרָא do indeed appear ... and in the corresponding English translation, the words "he created" does indeed appear. The word "field" does not appear in any of the line-item English translations.

However, in the same source's Hebrew text of Genesis, the Hebrew characters בְּרֵא also appear (while being noticeably absent in the text of Daniel) and I can't help noticing that (aside from what appear to be differences in diacritical markings) they're casually identical. That these differences are crucial was my initial suspicion.

Note: My favorite scriptural resource translates בָּרָא ("bara'") as "create" and (predictably) supplies a whole mess of additional information. Although this resource delights in offering cross-references galore, there don't appear to be any relating to the Book of Daniel on this particular page. The same holds true for appearances of the English word "field."

However, that same favorite scriptural resource also features a page for the Hebrew word בָּרָא ("bar") and translates it as "(an open) field."

My first resource lists the Hebrew בָּרָא in both Daniel 4:9 and Daniel 4:12, so I figured it was worth a shot on using the second resource to seek a little corroboration.

When I attempted to bring up Daniel 4:9 on this second resource, and scanned the text for the Hebrew characters בָּרָא, I got nothing. The same holds true for בְּרֵא as well.

However, when you bring up Daniel 4:12 on the same resource, you find a match for both בָּרָא and בְּרֵא and it's indeed translated as "field" (although it's worth noting that not all English translations even bother to include that word).

Perhaps those diacritical marks are not all that important after all, or perhaps the software isn't bothering (or is unable) to distinguish between the two?

...

The best I can offer to the OP given my extremely limited grasp of Hebrew is that your apparent conundrum involves two similar Hebrew words (<bara'> and <bar>) that appear to be written out more or less the same, but that (obviously) have two entirely different meanings.

...

Here is yet another resource that more or less (re)hashes all this out to a certain degree. Odd to note that it appears to be translating "bar" as "The Son." File under: "Subjects for Further Study."
...

In the end, I'm reminded of one of my all-time favorite scriptures:

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." ~ 1 Corinthians 14:33

What a relief that is.

Moral of the Story: Don't blame God. Blame his amanuenses.

Hmmm, lots of info here.

You may want to check out the free and AWESOME program called "Interlinear Scripture Analyzer" at www.scripture4all.com. I am loving it. Very fast search on original Hebrew words.

I, too, found that (according to the WLC codex) that "he created" of Gen 1:1 in the original word is the exact same word translated as "the field" in Dan 4:15 and 4:23. They separate it via a footnote as it seems they didn't know what to do with it.

Do you think "he created" the "field" which is this current WORLD in Gen 1:2?

See Matt 13:38.

God bless...

 

[we-live-now]

I think you're looking at it wrong, though you might be on the right track depending on what your goal is.

Whether or not languages are "supposed" to evolve or not, they do. It's not anything anyone does deliberately; it's as natural as biological evolution.

In modern and ancient languages, a word's meaning is extended beyond its dictionary definition. There's also the cultural context to consider; figures of speech and referential phrases are as old as language itself. Whether or not "God's language" somehow exists "outside of time and ages", Hebrew, the language of the Tanakh, exists in this world, part of the Semitic family of languages. It's certainly a more conservative language than English (which means it's changed relatively little over the ages), but like any other, it will have evolved.

I understand. That makes sense.

I just believe that God's original words he gave us (in whatever form) do not ever change. I don't believe they can. I am believing they are spiritual and not natural or physical.

The words that man reads and worships do change, however.

Btw, I just "heard" this today while pondering this. His ACTUAL "words" are the ones he wrote on our HEARTS in Gen 3 when we took the law into our minds and "hearts". See Romans 2:15 One he wrote in the "Hebrew" (heart/person) and one he wrote in the "Greek" (heart/person). Both showed up in one "book" (of life?) in the "languages" of "Hebrew" and "Greek".

Ponder that... that is blowing me away.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A researcher from the University of California, Berkeley, has opined that part of the Vedas were first in prose. They were versified later, and the verses were written again as the language changed from PIE to IE to Vedic Sanskrit. These recensions are known as 'Samhitas' which we have now with us.

Thanks for sharing about the "signs came later".

About Vedas, many 'mantras' are monosyllabic. I like to think that when my ancestors danced around the fire after a satisfying meal of a reindeer or mammoth meat banging trees with their wooden clubs, they uttered these mantras in supplication to their supposed protectors and providers. That is why mantras start with utterances like Om. Hrim, Cleam, Swaha, Phat. Swastika perhaps meant game in all directions. But don't tell any Hindu of what I am saying, they will be mighty angry.

But... If God truly is "one", would there really be such a thing as "context"? With him there is no division of space and time. No "separation" between things. Wouldn't that take away all context or situational dependencies?

That is not true in 'Advaita Vedanta' philosophy of Hinduism. Because what we perceive is not the truth but conditioned by our mind, and there the context exists. At a higher level of reality (which we term as absolute, Parmarthika), no context exists.

 

[we-live-now]

Yeah. That's not how the bible works, and it's not how the Hebrew language works.

The Hebrew word is bara, and literally means "to cut" or "to divide." The Hebrew idea of creation is that something is cut, or divided, from something else. God divided the light from the darkness, and divided the waters above from the waters beneath. A child is cut from her/his parents. Languages are culturally-imbedded, and so, in order to retain the nuance of meaning as best as is possible, sometimes words have to be "substituted" for a more "literal" translation.

Very interesting!

You may want to check out the crazy, long-winded post I just wrote about "circumcision". Very relevant.

G-D's Son Is Israel- Not Jesus | Page 6 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[we-live-now]

Out of curiosity...
Is there a language that has a different word for every single meaning?
I mean, is there even one single language where every single word has only one single meaning?

Great question. I doubt it, but again, I am not a language expert at all. Just a simple, regular person.

That is why I am starting to truly believe the TRUE Word of God is the ONE HE WROTE ON OUR HEARTS in Genesis 3 (the first time) and will complete when he finishes it according to Hebrews 10:16 at the end of the ages (and now for true believers). It is also mentioned in Romans 2 around verse 15.

One was written "in" the "Hebrew" (heart) and one was written in the "Greek" (heart). The "book" man calls "God's word" is merely the "shadow" version that will burn up in the big "grass fire" with the rest of this natural realm at the end when everyone and all things are "salted with fire". Mark 9:49, 2 Peter 3:7

His true "Word" is living, breathing and active and is dividing (crucifying) our outer man of the flesh.

 

[Politesse]

Out of curiosity...
Is there a language that has a different word for every single meaning?
I mean, is there even one single language where every single word has only one single meaning?

Such a language would be next to useless... the symbolic and dynamic aspects of language are what allow us to express complex concepts and abstract thoughts. Context-dependent, recursive language was the innovation that made our species.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Such a language would be next to useless

It would be impossible, unless we're talking about using something like mathematical logic or computer code, in which case it would just be completely useless.

 

[Politesse]

It would be impossible, unless we're talking about using something like mathematical logic or computer code, in which case it would just be completely useless.

Well, it would be akin to the calls of some other animals, which are non-recursive and seemingly code for literal concepts. It strongly limits what they can communicate, though.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well, it would be akin to the calls of some other animals

Yes, but that's not language.

 

[McBell]

Great question. I doubt it, but again, I am not a language expert at all. Just a simple, regular person.

That is why I am starting to truly believe the TRUE Word of God is the ONE HE WROTE ON OUR HEARTS in Genesis 3 (the first time) and will complete when he finishes it according to Hebrews 10:16 at the end of the ages (and now for true believers). It is also mentioned in Romans 2 around verse 15.

One was written "in" the "Hebrew" (heart) and one was written in the "Greek" (heart). The "book" man calls "God's word" is merely the "shadow" version that will burn up in the big "grass fire" with the rest of this natural realm at the end when everyone and all things are "salted with fire". Mark 9:49, 2 Peter 3:7

His true "Word" is living, breathing and active and is dividing (crucifying) our outer man of the flesh.

What language did god use to write these words on our hearts?
Does this language god used to write on our hearts have only one single meaning for every word?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What language did god use to write these words on our hearts?

Well, our hearts beat, so maybe binary code?

 

[we-live-now]

What language did god use to write these words on our hearts?
Does this language god used to write on our hearts have only one single meaning for every word?

Man, that is a great question.

I guess whatever the language(s) of the Spirit is/are. It appears at least one is spiritual "Hebrew" and one is spiritual "Greek". It appears there is a 3rd one in the "place of a skull" (human mind/heart?)

They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha John 19:17

Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written Hebrew, Latin and in Greek John 19:20

 

[Politesse]

What language did god use to write these words on our hearts?
Does this language god used to write on our hearts have only one single meaning for every word?

I shouldn't think so. I'm not sure what it means exactly to write something on one's heart, but certainly the logic of the heart does not seem like the restricted logic of the mind. Love and hate are both generous in application; they certainly do not seem subject to normal arithmetic.The intuition is not confined to logic either. What about the "language of the heart" seems literal-minded? But then I can't quite wrap my mind around the heart speaking with words in the first place. It is said that the mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart, but not that the heart itself speaks.

 

[roger1440]

I am wondering if anyone knows why (or HOW) man can read the original words of scripture and assign two different meanings to the SAME word?

I don't believe this can or should happen. I am convinced God is so precise and accurate that he has an individual and specific "word" for each thing and he HAS to use the correct one each time.

For example:

This Word in Genesis 1:1 is translated as "he created".

View attachment 7630

Now the exact, same word appears in Daniel 2:3 and they tell us it means "the field". Notice the little "footnote" (A) in it? That tells me already man is not really sure.

View attachment 7631

How can this be? I don't believe it can.

Is it possible that man has taken God's original words and pretty much "assigned his own meaning" to them? Also, please recall that before Genesis 11 all the world was of the same language.

This occurs all over scripture and given the last few verses of the Bible it is very disconcerting. In my mind, the true written "Word of God" is NOT the English translation that man gave it. It's the actual (Hebrew) "sign" he gave us.

Anyone have any insight into this?

Duane (we-live-now)

What you are referring to may be a homonym. A homonym is two or more words that are spelled exactly the same, pronounced exactly the same but have different meanings. Stalk may refer to a bean stalk or it may refer to follow/ harass a person.

Homonym - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The author of the Gospel of John had used a homonym deliberately in chapter three. The Greek word anōthen can mean either again or above.

“You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'” (NIV John 3:7)

“Don't be astonished that I told you, 'All of you must be born from above.'” (ISV John 3:7)

John 3:7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

Read chapter three and you will see how the author takes advantage of a homonym.

John 3 - Jesus Teaches Nicodemus - Now there was - Bible Gateway