Same word assigned two DIFFERENT meanings?

[we-live-now]

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".

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.

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)

 

[Nietzsche]

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)

One question;

Do you actually know how to read Hebrew?

 

[Kolibri]

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)

Then the king said to them: "I have a dream, and I am (Lit., "my spirit is.") agitated because I want to know what I dreamed." - Daniel 2:3

I am not finding the word 'to create/form' or 'field' in this verse. Are you certain it is Daniel 2:3?

 

[Riverwolf]

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?

Kind of a nitpick, but meanings to words aren't typically artificially assigned. They shift and evolve over generations.

I don't know if it's the case in Hebrew, but English has many polysemic words (that is, words that have multiple meanings). For the most part, it's still understandable, because the meaning is derived from the context the word appears in rather than in the word itself.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then it's far more likely that this Word was given in natural languages (remember it has Hebrew and Greek texts) that people already spoke, rather than a language that is itself from God.

 

[we-live-now]

One question;

Do you actually know how to read Hebrew?

No, I don't. But, I am just thinking logically here. I am just starting to "dig" into these things and what I am finding is kind of alarming to me. (As one who believes scripture is God's word)

Let's assume the original words of scripture did come from God. Wouldn't one think that he would "assign" one "word" to each, individual "thing" that exists and that one word can only mean that one thing?

Why would a "God" who created ALL things have to take the same word and have it "sometimes mean this" and "sometimes mean that"?

Isn't "he" OUTSIDE of time and unchangeable? (according to commonly taught Christian doctrine)

Otherwise, aren't we at the mercy of man to tell us what God is saying?

 

[we-live-now]

Kind of a nitpick, but meanings to words aren't typically artificially assigned. They shift and evolve over generations.

I don't know if it's the case in Hebrew, but English has many polysemic words (that is, words that have multiple meanings). For the most part, it's still understandable, because the meaning is derived from the context the word appears in rather than in the word itself.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then it's far more likely that this Word was given in natural languages (remember it has Hebrew and Greek texts) that people already spoke, rather than a language that is itself from God.

What if they are not supposed to "shift and evolve"? What it is man who does the "shifting and evolving"?

What if God meant ONE thing with EACH word and since he is outside of all time and ages, he and his words, never change?

How does man even know what "God is or was saying"? If we listen to him and his "translations of what God was saying", won't we get 50 different answers?

Could it be as simple as comparing the original words for differences?

If there is any difference, God is not talking about the same thing. Maybe we could learn a LOT without knowing the exact, precise meaning of each word? Could it be that easy or is my heart speaking lies to me...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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)

Im sorry that i dont have much insight as of yet. I just know some people put too much heart value into the bible. If you have a strong belief in God no written word, interpretation, contradictions, et should deter ones experience and living in The Word (Christ Himself)

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's the actual (Hebrew) "sign" he gave us.

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.

As one who believes scripture is God's word.

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'.

 

[Nietzsche]

No, I don't. But, I am just thinking logically here. I am just starting to "dig" into these things and what I am finding is kind of alarming to me. (As one who believes scripture is God's word)

Then let me educate you on a little something. This is a little oversimplified, but I think you'll get the gist of it.

Hebrew grammar is an interesting thing. Their words change their meaning in context to words preceding or following them, sometimes to the point that you must take in the sentence as a whole to discern the meaning. German is similar in that regard which is why there is a very old, and surprisingly well-known, German-Hebrew fusion language known as Yiddish.

Let's assume the original words of scripture did come from God. Wouldn't one think that he would "assign" one "word" to each, individual "thing" that exists and that one word can only mean that one thing?

Why would a "God" who created ALL things have to take the same word and have it "sometimes mean this" and "sometimes mean that"?

Isn't "he" OUTSIDE of time and unchangeable? (according to commonly taught Christian doctrine)

Otherwise, aren't we at the mercy of man to tell us what God is saying?

What if they are not supposed to "shift and evolve"? What it is man who does the "shifting and evolving"?

What if God meant ONE thing with EACH word and since he is outside of all time and ages, he and his words, never change?

How does man even know what "God is or was saying"? If we listen to him and his "translations of what God was saying", won't we get 50 different answers?

Could it be as simple as comparing the original words for differences?

If there is any difference, God is not talking about the same thing. Maybe we could learn a LOT without knowing the exact, precise meaning of each word? Could it be that easy or is my heart speaking lies to me...

If God did that, it's his own damn fault for not even trying to understand the complexities of the language of his followers.

 

[Skwim]

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.

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.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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?

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."

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Kind of a nitpick, but meanings to words aren't typically artificially assigned. They shift and evolve over generations.

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.

I don't know if it's the case in Hebrew, but English has many polysemic words (that is, words that have multiple meanings).

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

If the Bible is the Word of God, then it's far more likely that this Word was given in natural languages (remember it has Hebrew and Greek texts) that people already spoke, rather than a language that is itself from God.

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.

 

[Riverwolf]

What if they are not supposed to "shift and evolve"? What it is man who does the "shifting and evolving"?

What if God meant ONE thing with EACH word and since he is outside of all time and ages, he and his words, never change?

How does man even know what "God is or was saying"? If we listen to him and his "translations of what God was saying", won't we get 50 different answers?

Could it be as simple as comparing the original words for differences?

If there is any difference, God is not talking about the same thing. Maybe we could learn a LOT without knowing the exact, precise meaning of each word? Could it be that easy or is my heart speaking lies to me...

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.

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

I would advise against premature urban victory dances in debates like this. You don't know what my reaction will be.

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?

Many Muslims have already informed me that it's supposed to be Arabic.

I don't see the relevance of any of your responses here. I'm not even sure if they're really directed at what I said; perhaps they're meant for a misunderstanding of what I said?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I would advise against premature urban victory dances in debates like this. You don't know what my reaction will be.

If you've anticipated any manner of premature victory dance, you've erred most heinously.

Many Muslims have already informed me that it's supposed to be Arabic.

There you go. See? And all this fuss over Hebrew? Harrumph!

I don't see the relevance of any of your responses here. I'm not even sure if they're really directed at what I said; perhaps they're meant for a misunderstanding of what I said?

Your reading comprehension hasn't improved. You indicated that languages change. This assertion simply isn't supported by the scriptures. So of course, you must be wrong. You cannot both be correct.

And please note that the second portion of my reply started with an indication that it was addressed to the entire population of the forum and concluded with remarks addressed to the OP. If I've caused you any measure of confusion by piling all my comments on the subject into a response that had your name on the envelope, I sincerely apologize.

Thanks so much for your time.

 

[Riverwolf]

If you've anticipated any manner of premature victory dance, you've erred most heinously.

I didn't anticipate anything. I interpreted the "Oh yeah. Mmm-hmm." as being reminiscent of the sort of thing I'd sometimes see when people would say something and be so proud of what they said that they'd start saying that sort of thing.

Clearly my interpretation was mistaken. However, perhaps this can be a fantastic example that even nowadays, written language can be misinterpreted because of differing cultural lenses.

Your reading comprehension hasn't improved.

You might want to consider exploring alternative possibilities to poor reading comprehension when someone doesn't fully understand what you wrote.

You indicated that languages change. This assertion simply isn't supported by the scriptures. So of course, you must be wrong. You cannot both be correct.

The verse you quoted says nothing about languages changing; it's talking about the Torah itself, which has, indeed, not changed since its earliest forms we know about according to the consensus last time I checked.

However, even though the Torah hasn't changed, we have. Communication is a two-way process; even if one side stays static for all time, if the other side changes, then so does the meaning. Monty Python did a fantastic skit that illustrated this.

And please note that the second portion of my reply started with an indication that it was addressed to the entire population of the forum and concluded with remarks addressed to the OP. If I've caused you any measure of confusion by piling all my comments on the subject into a response that had your name on the envelope, I sincerely apologize.

Thanks so much for your time.

I know the rest was directed at the OP. No apologies necessary, though still appreciated.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I didn't anticipate anything. I interpreted the "Oh yeah. Mmm-hmm." as being reminiscent of the sort of thing I'd sometimes see when people would say something and be so proud of what they said that they'd start saying that sort of thing.

No. That'd be "Oh yeah! Uh-huh!"

You'll note the celebratory nature of the exclamation points and the less reserved, guttural roar implied by the actual specimen.

Clearly my interpretation was mistaken.

Let's not dwell on it for another moment.

 

[Riverwolf]

No. That'd be "Oh yeah! Uh-huh!"

You'll note the celebratory nature of the exclamation points and the less reserved, guttural roar implied by the actual specimen.

Indeed. I shall remember that.

Written English really is insufficient for communicating all the animations of our pan-culture's interactions...

Let's not dwell on it for another moment.

Very well. ^_^

 

[sojourner]

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)

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.

 

[Kolibri]

I do recall this now. The Hebrew is a very terse language with figurative means hedged in physical words. For instance the word for nose or nostril ('aph) is often used figuratively for anger (because of the violent breathing or snorting of an enraged person.)

Because of their language (Hebrew) certain parallels were always drawn. For instance they constantly talked about the 'seed' of Abraham or the 'seed' of this or that as something produced. Today we would called this seed 'offspring', as the farming reference is no longer commonly applied to non-vegetation reproduction. At least it is no longer a common understanding to those that pick up the Bible for the first time.