Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[TiggerII]

One must take the whole bible--Jesus is Gods son-not God--Gods power goes through Jesus,( acts 2:22) making him--a god. or has godlike qualities.

In the 2nd line at John 1:1--The true God is called HO Theos( in trinity translation of the greek) The word is NOT called Ho Theos in the last line--Plain Theos= a god. The trinities use plain Theos in the 2nd line in their bible translating= Error. Billions being mislead because of that error.

Here are all the constructions in John's writings that are actually parallel to the construction of John 1:1c.

H.....1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew") - all translations
H,W...2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all
H,W...3. John 6:70 - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer") - all
H,W...4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite ("a mankiller/murderer") - al
H,W...5. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all
H,W...6. John 9:24 - indefinite ("a sinner") - all
H,W...7. John 10:1 - indefinite ("a thief and a plunderer") - all
H,W...8. John 10:33 - indefinite ("a man") - all
H,W...9. John 18:35 - indefinite ("a Jew") - all
H,W...10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite ("a king") - all
[H,W..11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite ("a king") - Received Text and 1991 Byzantine text]

These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not "qualitative"). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite and with the indefinite article ("a/an")! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn't strongly resist the use of the "no subject" examples which clearly intend the subject as being a pronoun included with the verb, e.g., "[he] is," which would then bring our total of ALL proper examples to nearly 20.)

These would include:

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”) - all

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”) - all

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”) - all

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”) - all

18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”) - all

H: Also found in Harner's list of "Colwell Constructions"
W: Also found in Wallace's list of "Colwell Constructions"

Why, then, if John really meant that Jesus is the One True God, didn’t he use the definite article at John 1:1c ? Because, as he did with other terms sometimes used for Jesus (“prophet,” “king”), he intended for them to be taken as indefinite nouns (“a prophet,” “a king,” and “a god”) when the article was not used.

It should also be pointed out that 3 Kings 18:27 in the ancient Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (1 Kings 18:27 in English Bibles) has a very similar construction to John 1:1c. It has theos as a predicate noun without a definite article and coming before the verb: “for God [or ‘a god’] he is.” But the Septuagint translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton (Zondervan Publishing) says “for he is a god.”!! Compare other translations of 1 Kings 18:27: “a god” is obviously intended here! This is a clear (and very significant) “violation” of “Colwell’s Rule”! - Cf. Judges 6:31 (and Ezek. 28:2 in many Bibles.)

Using the above trinitarian grammarian-approved examples should allow the average objective person To find the truth of John's use of the Greek in John 1:1c - "And the Word was a god."

from my study on my blog: Examining the Trinity: DEFinite John 1:1c

As for the use of "a god" by John,
This is a fact acknowledged by even most trinitarian experts:

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, faithful Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods (or a god) include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

(John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

(also John 10:34, 35 - NEB; CEV; TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

They saw nothing wrong with calling certain men “gods” if they were trying to follow God and be his representatives or ambassadors. Just because it sounds strange to our ears today in modern English is no reason to ignore the facts!

Not only does the literal grammar of John 1:1c translate into English as "a god", but all proper examples of parallel constructions by John are translated as indefinite nouns ("a prophet," "a king," etc.)

 

[Oeste]

Hi Oeste, I hope your time spent with relatives was pleasant.

Thanks for asking Clear…it was great!

My daughter and I visited her grandma (my mother in law) who is 91. She is two States away.

Things were going great until we decided to take her shopping at Trader Joe’s. I pulled into the parking lot, parked the car then ran to the other side to open the door for her. That was okay, but then I tried to assist her while she was getting out of my car. That was a big no-no, lol! She made sure I knew she was perfectly capable of getting out the car herself and yes, once we were inside that included pushing her own shopping cart....very, very slowly. We spent over two hours in there.

I was terrified she might fall on my watch. You have no idea how much relief I felt when we got her back home.

Back to your claim that the lone, uncontexted word "Χαρακτηρ" in ancient Koine greek meant "exact representation"

Yes, more fun and I see @tigger2 has posted too! I couldn't ask for better.
I've been pretty busy but I'll get back to this either tomorrow or the weekend.

 

[Oeste]

1) EVEN THE WORD “HORSE” IN YOUR EXAMPLE MUST HAVE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT TO HAVE ADDITIONAL MEANING

NO ADDITIONAL CONTEXT IS NECESSARY. As stated previously:

" The word horse does not have one meaning but several. It can refer to a four legged equine mammal, cocaine, or a certain type of rock formation. “

1. Horse by definition means a four legged equine mammal

2. Horse by definition means a white powdery substance called cocaine

3. Horse by definition means an obstruction in a rock formation.​

You appear to believe that words have a single solo meaning and everything else is "additional context". This is incorrect.

Your point is bad grammar and horrible vocabulary. Any dictionary will explain the multiple meanings of the word "horse" to you. No "additional context" is necessary as the word horse IS DEFINED BY ALL 3 DEFINITIONS.

The word “Horse” CAN have multiple meanings, BUT, the single, uncontexted word “horse” must have context in order to clearly mean MORE than “horse”.

No Clear, your statement is incorrect. We are not asking for “MORE than horse”. When you look up the word “horse” in a dictionary, the dictionary does not give you definitions that are “MORE than horse”. It only gives you the meaning of the single word “horse” all by itself. There is NO ADDITIONAL CONTEXT attached to the meaning. The meaning or definition in our English dictionaries is given immediately to the right of the word, generally after pronunciation, part of speech and source. I illustrated this for you way back in post 970:

The word show here is harlequin. The meanings shown are not for “MORE than harlequin” but for the single, uncontexted word by its lonesome, which in this image is shown by the pointer under “spelling”.

I understand we cannot assume that everyone on the forum grew up with dictionaries in their house hold or school system, however this is extremely basic and I strongly suggest you speak with your Church or school regarding this.

Without any "additional context" whatsoever (as shown by the lone word) “harlequin” can refer to one, any or all of the meanings listed. It is only with sufficient context that a specific meaning can be obtained. It has one or any of these definitions without it.

Can any reader offer even one single example in english where the lone, uncontexted word “horse” clearly conveys the meaning of “cocaine” or “a certain type of rock formation” to them WITHOUT adding additional context?

Sure, anyone can do that rather easily. I am rather dismayed that no one has done this for you already. This is why I stated you landed on the right thread. No one else would take this much time to explain this to you. However we are way off thread theme and I think our time on this subject must come to a close. Follow up for you is only a church away.

EXAMPLES

You have just reached the summit of a hill to join your fellow Frenchman who is also an advance scout for Bonaparte’s army. He is surveying a potential battlefield when he spies an opposing force that has suddenly appeared on a ridge just beyond the meadow below. The question “Horse?” you posed to him means only one thing…”Is there opposing cavalry?”… without any “additional context” whatsoever.

If you’re peering under the hood of a new car the question “Horse?” to the salesman will mean how many horsepower without any “additional context” whatsoever.

If you’re on a basketball court the question “Horse?” asks your friends if they are up to the challenge of matching your shots.

If you’re a miner looking at a fractured drill bit the question “Horse?” to your fellow worker is asking if you perhaps hit an obstruction. No additional context necessary.

Likewise, you smile and declare “Horse!” to the customs official as he picks up the four legged figurine you brought for your daughter. This is just before the customs officer smiles and moves the cleverly hidden lever which reveals the fine white powder inside. The same “single, uncontexted, word ‘horse’” which meant “toy” a moment ago means about 20 years in prison to you now…with no “additional context” whatsoever.

Lastly, since I do not wish to revisit this again, if you’re sitting in Mrs. Murphy’s fifth grade class and she calls on you to give 3 definitions for the word “horse” you can tell her “a rock formation”, “an illegal drug”, or “a four legged mammal” without any “additional context” at all.

Similarly, the lone, uncontexted word “Character” does not mean “exact representation” unless you add context to the lone, uncontexted word “Character”. This is another point against your claim.

See above.

I have just demonstrated you have this whole thing entirely backwards Clear. The base “uncontexted” word “Horse” by itself, means any and all these things without “additional context”, It is only WITH SUFFICIENT CONTEXT that words with multiple definitions take on a singular meaning.

Please refer to the illustration above. Please note the base uncontexted word for harlequin. You will find it under spelling, and not under definition (meaning). That is, the dictionary does not tell us "harlequin" means "harlequin" as you attempted to tell us with " Χαρακτηρ (character) means character". If our dictionaries told us that the base word "horse" means "horse" and that we will need to provide "additional context" in order to provide additional meaning ("MORE than horse") our dictionaries would be pretty useless as a language tool.

Your point is refuted.

 

[Oeste]

Clear said : “You refer to modern english translations (medieval ages at best) to attempt to tell readers what an ancient word, in another language meant. This will not do. It is a classic example of an etymological fallacy.
Oeste replied : “This statement makes no sense. OF COURSE we are going to use MODERN ENGLISH to translate ancient words.”

You are confused.

No, I am correct and you are confused.

This point doesn’t help you since An Entymological fallacy does not refer to the LANGUAGE used (i.e. modern English) but instead the fallacy is assuming a relatively modern MEANING of a word is the same as the ancient MEANING.

You are still confused.

You just told us that the Church “refer to modern English translations” to tell their audiences “what an ancient word in another language meant”. You then tell us “This will not do”.

Why on earth would that “not do”??? The Church is translating the ancient text and doing exactly what it should be doing!!!

Then you tell us doing so is “a classic example of an etymological fallacy” when it is NOT an “etymological fallacy” to translate ancient words into modern English. That is the job of the Church and a good English translator!

Your statement in blue above makes no sense. It WILL DO for the Church to tell readers what an ancient word, in another language meant. There is no prohibition against this regardless of whether it was a "modern" English translation or any other translation to another language. It is certainly not an "etymological fallacy" to do so.

This point doesn’t help you since An Entymological fallacy does not refer to the LANGUAGE used (i.e. modern English) but instead the fallacy is assuming a relatively modern MEANING of a word is the same as the ancient MEANING.

1. You did not make this point in your comments (blue) above. The comment you made above is still confusing.
2. Our translators are perfectly capable of translating ancient text into modern English words without engaging in etymological fallacies.
3. I'm not sure what this has to do with Hebrews 1:3. If you believe your Church has an etymological fallacy at Hebrews 1:3 it might be better to contact them directly rather than argue with them vicariously through me.

I am not refuting your point Clear. I am stating it needs additional clarity. If the additional clarity is just to tell us the definition of an etymological fallacy then your assertion will will need a lot more workup. Once you have it I strongly recommend you present it to your church and allow their theologians to pour over it. I certainly do not see the advantage at presenting it here as I doubt this is the thread for recruiting acolytes. In other words, I don't see anyone disagreeing with their church just to agree with you.

We will know you have been successful when the Mormon Church changes its web site regarding Hebrews 1:3.

As it is now, virtually everyone who has posted here (with the possible exception of Soapy) is affiliated with a religious denomination that disagrees with you. You will sound a lot more convincing if you are backed by a reputable church with bona-fide theologians than solely offering your personal opinion and calling everyone's religious doctrine "Oeste's claim".

 

[Oeste]

3) LINGUISTIC DISCOVERIES IN ANCIENT IMPROVE LINGUISTIC ACCURACY AND AFFECT TRANSLATIONS OF ANCIENT KOINE

Well that sound good!

Oeste said : “He does not claim his illustrations should be used as a basis to interpret New Testament text. What he does hope for is that these illustrations would lead to a more robust understanding of how koine Greek was used in everyday life.”

This claim doesn’t help your theory since Milligan offers multiple examples where this specific increasing linguistic knowledge of Koine changed prior translations and tools of translation.

Once again, it’s not “Oeste’ theory”. Oeste does not have a theory regarding “χαρακτηρ”. I am simply explaining the linguistic findings and facts of the historic Church…a finding and fact your Church happens to agree with.

As stated previously your claim has been refuted. Stating Milligan doesn’t help a theory I don’t have does nothing to help the personal hypostasis you’ve presented.

Also, one of the multiple examples Milligan offered for “χαρακτηρ” was “’exact’ reproduction”. I circled and underlined this point multiple times. You attempted to invent a false, convoluted narrative where Milligan is somehow denying his own stated translation:

Milligans’ lexicon demonstrated that uncontexted Χαρακτηρ did NOT mean “exact reproduction” or “exact Character” or “exact” anything. (Clear, post 963)

When all we have to do is look at Milligan’s exact words and find it DOES mean “exact reproduction”:

After that, it was post after post where you tried to convince readers they could not believe their own eyes and that Milligan was somehow using the word “hence” to actually exclude “an exact reproduction” from the meaning of Χαρακτηρ.

If you can honestly read the above excerpt from Milligan’s Vocabulary and can still tell everyone “Milligans’ lexicon demonstrated that uncontexted Χαρακτηρ did NOT mean “exact reproduction…” then there is little more I can add, say or explain. Your mind is made up and Milligan will always say exactly what you thought he should be saying.

The problem is that he is not saying that to anyone else. Not to your church, not to me, not to readers on the forum, not to secular academia, not to the Catholic Church, not to Jehovah Witnesses, not to Protestants, not even to Messianic Jews or Scientologists.

The burden of proof is not with me or the Church Clear, it remains on you. Please consult with your church. Perhaps they can explain why everyone, including Alford, Milligan, Delitzsh and other are in agreement on this issue. I’ve already shown that your own prophet, Joseph Smith, did not see fit to change the translation at Hebrews 1:3 in his Restored Version of the bible. If you do not care what he, the Mormon Church, or any other church says on the issue, I find little reason why you would be concerned (much less believe) anything I say on the same issue.

CLEAR NEEDS TO CONVINCE SOMEONE OTHER THAN HIMSELF

I have suggested he start with his own Church. He claims he doesn’t know or care what his own Church has to say about χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3 (post 1004) a statement I find incredulous given the amount of time he has spent on this matter with me. I find it perplexing and incongruous that Clear is more concerned about what Oeste thinks about “χαρακτηρ” and how it can be translated at Hebrews 1:3 but not at all how his own Church translates the very same verse...especially when our two translations agree.

In any event, he has no evidence of “inaccurate meaning” at Hebrews 1:3 and certainly has yet to produce any credible scholar willing to support him on his claim.

Hopefully you understand this is why I am not debating but simply explaining the historic Church’s position here.

 

[Oeste]

Regarding newly discovered knowledge obtained by ancient Koine papyri Milligan said : “It is leading to the re-writing of our Lexicons and Grammars of the New Testament, and no modern commentary on any of its books fails to avail itself of the help afforded by these new treasures from Egypt.

Well there you have it!

You stated you agreed with Milligan and his examples. Milligan specifically tells us are modern translations…the very same translations you railed against previously…are correct.

Increasing Knowledge both plays a role in creating lexicons and grammars and translation as well as in improving lexicons and improving grammar and improving translation.

Excellent Clear! So you no longer believe that Milligan was chiding “modern translators” for using “exact representation” but was actually supportive of them. That’s quite a change!!

Milligan give us examples of how such discoveries led to new exegisis and to corrections of prior interpretations of New Testament text. One of multiple examples from Milligan is how such illumination changes translations of Matt vi.27

Let's stick with Hebrews 1:3. As for Matthew 6:27, Milligan makes a specific charge regarding “ηλικια” (hēlikía) as “stature”:

“Lk 19:3 is the only NT passage where the word must mean “stature”…”​

I just don't see M&M making similar remarks regarding “Χαρακτηρ” at Hebrews 1:3.

Perhaps that is one more reason why Joseph Smith and the Church of Latter Day Saints decided to leave it alone. I really do not know so you will have to ask them.

Of course, if you don’t know or care what they or anyone else thinks about the issue, then most likely you do not care what I or anyone else on this forum thinks about it either, which makes the last 400 or so posts rather puzzling.

MILLIGANS EXAMPLE FROM MATTHEW 6:27 AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW IMPROVING KNOWLEDGE OF KOINE CHANGES TRANSLATIONS

No one doubts the importance of M&M's work. I am glad we can agree on this. The problem of course is how this relates to Hebrews 1:3 and your charge (not Milligan's) that Χαρακτηρ does not mean "exact" anything. I would like to find the specific charge. Obviously Milligan can make them as he did at Matthew 6:27. I still don't see it in his Vocabulary for Χαρακτηρ and Hebrews 1:3.

Such discoveries that correct our concepts trickle down from the discoverers, to the translators and finally to the translations and end up changing our translations.

I applaud you for this Clear. It makes my job so much easier.

You have just confirmed our modern translations are correct. If as you say “Such discoveries that correct our concept trickle down from the discoverers, to the translators and finally to the translation and end up changing our translations” then this may be exactly why we’re seeing more and more translations with “very image”, “express image”, “exact imprint” , “exact reproduction” and the like. Can you explain why you believe corrective concepts trickled down to translators for “ηλικια” and “stature”, but not to the same translators for “χαρακτηρ”?

These are all points against your claim.

I don't have a claim. I am merely supportive of the historic Church’s claim. Even your own Church supports this claim which makes your personal opinion and hypostasis interesting but largely irrelevant to the Church as a whole.

My goal here is not to change your mind Clear. That is something you have to do on your own with the assistance of the Spirit. I’ve taken a long diversion from thread theme merely to explain the Church’s position on this matter, and only because I knew no one else on this forum would take time from their schedule to do it. Your argument that “‘χαρακτηρ’ cannot mean ‘exact’ anything” is not supported by literature and is refuted by your own Church. If you still believe your argument has veracity it would be best to pose it to your church or enlist the aid of an accomplished secular scholar to champion your cause.

As for the Church’s claim its success is already here. No one argues “‘χαρακτηρ’ cannot be validly translated as “exact reproduction” or “exact representation”. Not only is there no dispute amongst the historic Churches there appears to be no dispute among Restoration Churches like the Church of Latter Days Saints and Jehovah Witnesses.

It's still you against the Church here Clear.

Oeste said : "Now please show us exactly where Milligan refers to "modern translators". I want to see Milligan speaking this, not you.”

The most original Koine source greek came from the peri c.e. era and not much beyond while the first English translations were approximately 1500 years later. Compared to original Greek, the English only existed in a much later era.

I'm not seeing how this answers my query which pretty much settles the fact there is no reference to "modern translators" in M&M's Vocabulary regarding the various definitions of "Χαρακτηρ".

As such your point is refuted.

 

[Oeste]

N POSTS #1025 AND 1026 YOU HAD MADE YET ANOTHER CLAIM REGARDING THE GREEK OF SYLL 226 3.495 AND THERE WERE QUESTIONS REGARDING MILLIGANS MANY GREEK EXAMPLES AGAINST YOUR CLAIM THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO ANSWER.

I don't have a claim. Your church has a specific claim that refutes your claim. This seems like an internal matter between you and the Mormon Church.

You say you read greek with comprehension and you are now, finally, discussing the examples from greek that demonstrate your claim is incorrect.

Again, I do not have a claim but I do support the claims of the historic Church regarding Χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3. As far as I can tell no one support your claim that "exact representation" or the like is in error.

I do not think your habit of claiming everything is a "strawman" will help against Milligans examples. He is well respected in his data.

Milligan is not in the habit of making strawman arguments, so I won't have to.

Oeste said : "No one claimed there was "exactness" at Syll 226 3.495.16

YOU claimed the lone word Χαρακτηρ meant "exact representation" rather than merely "representation".

No, that is a strawman.

Here’s what I stated (from post 943):

While “character” is certainly one sense of χαρακτηρ it is not its only sense.

χαρακτὴρ without context can mean any of the following (from BDAG):


① a mark or impression placed on an object

ⓐ of coinage impress, reproduction, representation

ⓑ of a distinguishing mark trademark τὸ κεφαλοδέσμιον … χαρακτῆρα ἔχει βασιλικόν the headpiece bears a royal trademark

② something produced as a representation, reproduction, representation, fig., of God ἄνθρωπον ἔπλασεν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα (God) formed a human being as reproduction of his own identity/reality (s. εἰκών 2) 1 Cl 33:4 (cp. OGI 383, 60 of a picture χ. μορφῆς ἐμῆς; 404, 25; Philo, Det. Pot. Ins. 83 calls the soul τύπον τινὰ καὶ χαρακτῆρα θείας δυνάμεως). Christ is χαρ. τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ an EXACT REPRESENTATION of (God’s) real being Hb 1:3 (ὑπόστασις 1a).

③ characteristic trait or manner, distinctive mark

④ an impression that is made, outward aspect, outward appearance, form​

And here are a few other posts:

O1. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against representation or impress, but this goes back to something @Brian2 alluded to earlier. Post 740

O2. I have no problem with “character”, “very image”, “reproduction” or “exact reproduction”. Post 757

O3. “Very image” or “exact reproduction” is the evidence based conclusion of the vast majority of Christian scholars.

O4. It simply means the Greek charaktēr means exact reproduction, impress, mark and other definitions shown above. (post 884)

O5. There is no controversy surrounding the text. No debate between “very image” or “exact reproduction”. Both are fine and dandy for translators to use.

06. There is no debate amongst the Church as to whether Χαρακτηρ can be rendered “exact representation” at Hebrews 1:3 Post 1007

I think this makes it abundantly clear that I never stated Χαρακτηρ meant "exact representation" rather than merely "representation". My point has consistently been that it can mean one, the other or both.​

Your point is refuted.

 

[Oeste]

However, the illustration tells us what the word meant the the ancients who used the word and in the time period the word was used.

It tells us there is NO exactness implied in Χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek.

No Clear. It tells us no such grandiose thing. It simply tells us there was no "exactness" implied when the word “Χαρακτηρ” was used in Syll 226 3.495.16. It certainly does NOT tell us there is no exactness implied in “Χαρακτηρ” in ancient koine Greek. That is something you are reading into Milligan's work. You are making grandiose claims that you cannot extract from his work, which I demonstrated as recently as post 1066.

Let’s go back to the word “Horse”:

Mary saddled her horse and rode across the meadow.​

Obviously Mary did not saddle a white powdery substance. So there is no reference to the word “cocaine” in the sentence, but that doesn’t mean the word “horse” cannot be equated with cocaine.

The same holds true for “Χαρακτηρ”. It still means “exact representation”. It just doesn’t mean “exact representation” in Syll 226.3.495.16 anymore than horse means "cocaine" in the above sentence.

If you are admitting that no “exactness” is implied in the word Χαρακτηρ, this is good.

I am not “admitting” that at all. I am simply explaining why “exact representation” is a valid translation of Χαρακτηρ as agreed and/or not contested by every Greek language professor on the planet. Nobody of any linguistic repute disagrees with this Clear, No one.

Oeste said : "We do not base definitions of Hebrews 1:3 on Syll 226 3.495.16.

Syll 226 is simply a single illustration among hundreds, and we DO base definitions of ancient meaning of ancient words and their usage on the larger data pools of hundreds of examples from ancient language as a whole.

I have no problem with large data pools or lakes. However, we do not base our definition of Hebrews 1:3 on Syll 226 3.495.16 as it is not the "lake" but only a fractional part of it. Also, any existing language lake will constantly be fed by new rivers and streams as long as the underlying culture remains vibrant, engaged (that is, not isolated) and strong. This allows new words to feed into the lake.

A pattern of what something meant to the ancients becomes clear only after diligently looking at how the ancients used words and what those words meant TO THEM in THEIR language and in THEIR time period.

It is important to differentiate general usage and meaning from specific usage and meaning. If I ask what “flag” means to the average citizen I will get one answer, another from a war vet and still another from an anti-war protestor, ALL IN THE SAME LANGUAGE AND ERA. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Lexicons and grammars of ancient languages are supposed to tell us what a word meant IN THE LANGUAGE AND IN THE ERA the lexicon refers to.

You’ve used a modern definition and modern usage in English in an attempt to support religious bias and Milligan is simply providing illustrations that demonstrate ancient definition and usage in the original ancient language.

No Clear, I am simply supportive of your Church’s translation of Χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3. This does not mean I am biased towards Mormons.

I also support the Catholics Church’s translation of Χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3. This does not mean I am biased towards Catholics.

I also support the various Protestant Church’s and their translation of Χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3. This does not mean I am biased towards Protestants.

I also support the Jehovah Witnesses and their translation of Χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3. This does not mean I am biased towards the Watchtower.

I also support our academic institutions and their translation of Χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3. This does not mean I am biased toward academia.

However one thing I do not support is your insistence that “Χαρακτηρ” does not mean “exact anything”, that it can’t mean “exact representation” unless you “add additional context”, and that “exact representation” reflects an error in translation. This is not based on religious bias. It’s based on linguistics.

Your claim is refuted.

It is 2:23 in the morning where I am. I will continue my post much later in the day after I get some much needed rest.

 

[Clear]

Hi Oeste

You continue to forget to answer the questions regarding your strange claims regarding Milligans and Delitschs actual greek examples. So I included them in the end of these posts.


:
Oeste said : “You stated you agreed with Milligan and his examples. Milligan specifically tells us are modern translations…the very same translations you railed against previously…are correct.”

1) CLEAR AGREES WITH MILLIGAN AND DELITSCHS' ANCIENT GREEK EXAMPLES
I very much agree with Milligans illustrations that demonstrate what the word Character and other words actually meant and how they were actually used in ancient Koine literature.

Readers will notice that in none of Milligans illustrations does the single word “Charaacter” mean “exact character”.
Instead, Milligan illustrates the correct ancient meaning and usage of "Character" in examples from actual ancient greek literature.

I simply agree with Milligans illustrations as to how ancient Greek was used against your theory as to what Character meant in ancient Koine.


2) ILLUSTRATIONS FROM ANCIENT LITERATURE DEMONSTRATE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MODERN TRANSLATION AND ANCIENT MEANING AND USAGE.
Milligans text frequently indicates how modern translators rendered words and he then contrasts this usage with his illustrations where ancient meaning and usage was different.

In post 1053 I related Milligans own example where modern translators rendered Matthew 6:27 as “Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?” while his illustrations demonstrate the correct meaning and ancient usage of ηλικια was NOT stature, but instead, it referred to age or life span.

Multiple modern bibles are correcting this error in their texts. For example, the NIV reads : “Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?”

You say that “Milligan specifically tells us are modern translations….are correct”. This is a distinct over-generalization. We we have just given an example where Milligan demonstrates a specific error in modern translations.

So, while Milligan sometimes applauds corrections in text that bring them more in line with ancient meaning (e.g. ηλικια), his illustrations demonstrate erroneous rernderings as well as confirm correct renderings





3) Clear offered a challenge to any and all readers on the forum :

Clear asked : “Can any reader offer even one single example in english where the lone, uncontexted word “horse” clearly conveys the meaning of “cocaine” or “a certain type of rock formation” to them WITHOUT adding additional context?
Oeste replied : “Sure, anyone can do that rather easily. I am rather dismayed that no one has done this for you already.” (post #1063)


The reason no reader was able to accomplish this was the same reason Oeste was unable to accomplish this.
Oeste examples were required to add context in order for the word “Horse” to clearly differentiate between the four legged animal, the drug, or a rock formation.
Without context, readers simply cannot tell which of the meanings the single, lone, uncontexted word “horse” is referring to.


4) THE ROLE AND NECESSITY OF CONTEXT IN LANGUAGE

Clear said : “1) EVEN THE WORD “HORSE” IN YOUR EXAMPLE MUST HAVE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT TO HAVE ADDITIONAL MEANING”
Oeste replied : “NO ADDITIONAL CONTEXT IS NECESSARY. As stated previously:”j (post #1063)

And then Oeste goes on to demonstrate additional context IS necessary.


5) OESTES EXAMPLE AND IT’S USE OF ADDITIONAL CONTEXT
Oestes example in post #1063 does NOT show the single, uncontexted word “Horse” has any specific, additional meaning. Below is Oestes example and the word “Horse” is in BLUE and the additional context Oeste uses to add meaning is in RED.

“You have just reached the summit of a hill to join your fellow Frenchman who is also an advance scout for Bonaparte’s army. He is surveying a potential battlefield when he spies an opposing force that has suddenly appeared on a ridge just beyond the meadow below. The question “Horse?” you posed to him means only one thing…”Is there opposing cavalry?”… without any “additional context” whatsoever.”

Any reader can see that a great deal of specific context (in red letters) has been added.


In post #1068 Oeste gives another example demonstrating the importance of context.

Oeste says : Mary saddled her horse and rode across the meadow.

Obviously Mary did not saddle a white powdery substance. So there is no reference to the word “cocaine” in the sentence, but that doesn’t mean the word “horse” cannot be equated with cocaine. (post #1068)

It is the added context of "Mary" "saddling" and "riding across a meadow" which makes clear which definition of “Horse” is being used. One cannot saddle and ride either cocaine or a rock formation across a meadow.

Ironically, Oestes examples demonstrated my point regarding the necessity of context in providing additional clarity and meaning and specificity to words such as "horse"..
The word “horse” in all of Oestes examples required additional context in order to tell if the word “horse” referred to an animal, a rock, or a drug.


Context creates and clarifies and specifies additional meaning to words.
That is simply the nature of language.
Similarly, without additional context “Character” does not mean “exact Character”.

THIS is why no reader could offer even one single example in english where the lone, uncontexted word “horse” clearly conveys the meaning of “cocaine” or “a certain type of rock formation” to them WITHOUT adding additional context.
This is why Oestes attempt failed as well.



6) ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF AN UNCONTEXTED USE OF THE WORD “HORSE”

While Oeste offered wonderful examples that demonstrate that additional context was NECESSARY for the single, uncontexted word “Horse” to have specific meaning, I can offer another demonstration for readers why context is necessary.

The question is : “Horse?”

Can ANY reader tell specifically and clearly and accurately what this question is asking (given the multiple possible meanings of “horse”?)
Can you do it Oeste?

This is another example as to why context is NECESSARY for clear and correct understanding and meaning in language.
This is why the word “Character” MUST have context added to it before it can mean “exact Character”.



7) REGARDING THE MANY ANCIENT GREEK EXAMPLES WHICH ILLUSTRATE THE MEANING AND USE OF THE WORD “CHARACTER” IN ANCIENT GREEK.

Oeste admits “It simply tells us there was no "exactness" implied when the word “Χαρακτηρ” was used in Syll 226 3.495.16.” It certainly does NOT tell us there is no exactness implied in “Χαρακτηρ” in ancient koine Greek.”...
It just doesn’t mean “exact representation” in Syll 226.3.495.16 anymore than horse means "cocaine" in the above sentence. (post #1068)


I very much agree with you that “Character” in P. Syll 226.495.16 shows “Character” did not imply “exactness”.

And in fact, both Milligan and Delitsch and old Testament Leviticus provide almost 30 examples of the use and meaning of “Character” in ancient Greek usage and NONE of them imply “exactness”.
In fact, there is NOT a single example in all of early Greek literature that has been found where the lone word “Character” implies “exactness”.



8) IF UNCONTEXTED "CHARACTER" MEANT "EXACT CHARACTER" IN ANCIENT GREEK, THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST ONE EXAMPLE WHERE IT DID SO IN EARLY LITERATURE IN CONTRAST TO THE HUNDREDS OF POTENTIAL EXAMPLES WHERE IT DOES NOT MEAN "EXACT CHARACTER"

That is the problem with your theory that uncontexted "Character" meant "exact character".
It has a LOT of data demonstrating it is a false theory and no data to demonstrate it is correct.

While there might be hundreds or thousands of examples where ancient Greek literature demonstrates the lone word “Character” does NOT imply “exactness”, there are none, zero, zip, nada examples where the lone word “Character” DOES imply “exactness”.

So, while Milligan and Delitsch and Leviticus have given us examples where your theory is incorrect, you have never given readers a single example from ancient literature where your theory is correct.

Why should readers give any credibility to your theory that has many examples that show it is incorrect and neither Oeste or any other reader has been able to provide even a single example from ancient Greek where Oestes theory is correct?

POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF THREE

9) OESTES UNFINISHED COMMENTS ON THE ACTUAL GREEK


IN POSTS #1025 AND 1026 YOU HAD MADE YET ANOTHER CLAIM REGARDING THE GREEK OF SYLL 226 3.495 AND THERE WERE QUESTIONS REGARDING MILLIGANS MANY GREEK EXAMPLES AGAINST YOUR CLAIM THAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO ANSWER.


You say you read greek with comprehension and you are now, finally, discussing the examples from greek that demonstrate your claim is incorrect.
I do not think your habit of claiming everything is a "strawman" will help against Milligans examples. He is well respected in his data.

Oeste said : "No one claimed there was "exactness" at Syll 226 3.495.16
YOU claimed the lone word Χαρακτηρ meant "exact representation" rather than merely "representation".
However, the illustration tells us what the word meant the the ancients who used the word and in the time period the word was used.
It tells us there is NO exactness implied in Χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek.
If you are admitting that no “exactness” is implied in the word Χαρακτηρ, this is good.


Oeste said : "We do not base definitions of Hebrews 1:3 on Syll 226 3.495.16.
Syll 226 is simply a single illustration among hundreds, and we DO base definitions of ancient meaning of ancient words and their usage on the larger data pools of hundreds of examples from ancient language as a whole.

That is the advantage of allowing readers to examine MULTIPLE examples.
A pattern of what something meant to the ancients becomes clear only after diligently looking at how the ancients used words and what those words meant TO THEM in THEIR language and in THEIR time period.

Lexicons and grammars of ancient languages are supposed to tell us what a word meant IN THE LANGUAGE AND IN THE ERA the lexicon refers to.
You’ve used a modern definition and modern usage in English in an attempt to support religious bias and Milligan is simply providing illustrations that demonstrate ancient definition and usage in the original ancient language.
This accumulation of data DOES tell us what New Testament words meant in the original language and useage.

Milligan tells as much in his preface of these illustrations regarding the discoveries of these texts : “It is leading to the re-writing of our Lexicons and Grammars of the New Testament, and no modern commentary on any of its books fails to avail itself of the help afforded by these new treasures from Egypt.

Meanwhile, it may be helpful to those who have made no special study of the subject if I attempt to indicate some of the ways in which the new evidence can be applied to the elucidation of the words of the New Testament. “


Clear gave an example from Milligan : "In Syll 226 3.495.16 (of approx. 320 b.c.) the text says: “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα”.
There is no implication of “exactness” but merely a χαρακτηρ.
Oeste said : "We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in Syll 226 3.495.16.
Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think Syll 226 3.495.16 is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between Syll and Hebrews?


Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Flor I. 61.21 (of approx. 85 a.d.) the text says: “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι”
No exactness is implied
Oeste said : "No one claimed there was "exactness" at P Flor I. 61.21.
However, the illustration tells us what the word meant the the ancients who used the word and in the time period the word was used.
It tells us there is NO exactness implied in Χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek.
If you are admitting that no “exactness” is implied in the word Χαρακτηρ, this is good.


Oeste claimed : "We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in P Flor I. 61.21, a concept that appears to have been lost with Clear despite mentioning this numerous times.
Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think P Flor I. 61.21 is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between P Flor I and Hebrews?



Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Leid X xxiv.11 (of 2-3 a.d.) the text reads : “ τελει τε μοι κυριε τον μεγαν, κυριον αφθεγτον Χαρακτηρα, ινα αυτον εχω.”
The text could have read “χαρακτηρας ακριβης” but it did not and thus, it does not mean “exact representation”.
Oeste claimed : "No one claimed χαρακτηρα should be translated as "exact representation" in P. Leid X xxiv.11.
However, the illustration tells us what the word meant the the ancients who used the word and in the time period the word was used.
It tells us there is NO exactness implied in Χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek.
If you are admitting that no “exactness” is implied in the word Χαρακτηρ, this is good.


Oeste said : "We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in P. Leid X xxiv.11
Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think P Leid X is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between P. Leid X and Hebrews?


Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In Syll 3 783.23 (written sometime after 27 b.c.) the text says “μεχρι των Σεβαστειων ευπλοησεν Χαρακτηρων…”
There is no “exact representation” here in the word.
Oeste said : "No one claimed χαρακτηρα should be translated as "exact representation" in Syll 3 783.23.
However, the illustration tells us what the word meant the the ancients who used the word and in the time period the word was used.
It tells us there is NO exactness implied in Χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek.

If you are admitting that no “exactness” is implied in the word Χαρακτηρ, this is good.


Oeste said : "7. We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in Syll 3 783.23
Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think Syll 3 is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between P. Syll and Hebrews?


Clear gave another example from Milligan : "The New Testament Revelations text uses a form of the word saying :
ο εχων το χαραγμα η το ονομα του θηριου
τους εχοντας το χαραγμα του ξηριου
τους λαβοντας το χαραγμα του ξηριου

Here again, no exactness is implied. In fact Milligan remarks that “The exact meaning of the figure has been much discussed.”

Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In CPR I.11 (a text of of a.d. 108) the text reads : Ετους ιβ Αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος Νερουα Τραιανου “
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?


POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF THREE


Clear gave another example from Milligan : "The text of Preisigke 5275.11 (written in 11 a.d.) says “… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) the text refers to a “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Lond V 1658.8 (written in 4 a.d.) Ghedini provides the example of “…δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) the text speaks of “χρυσου εν βρυζω Χαραγματι” ,
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Ryl II 160(a)10, (written approx. 14-37 a.d.) the text says “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Lond 854.11 (written 1 to 2 a.d.) the text says Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Oxy XIV 1680.12 (written in 3 to 4 a.d.) the son says “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?


If we look at the dates of the examples, we can see that from 300 b.c. to peri c.e. era, the word did not mean “exact representation”.
In the texts from 1 a.d. to the Christian era, the word did not mean “exact representation”.
Texts from early Christian eras to the early centuries, the word did not mean “exact representation”.



EXAMPLES FROM DELITZSCH DEMONSTRATE YOUR CLAIM IS INCORRECT

YOU offered Delizsch’s remarks and his first comments in German do not support your claim (they were simply irrelevant)


Clear gave an example from Delitzsch : "Delitzsch says : “and impress (“figura,” vulg.: “figure,” Wiclif and Rheims: “very image,” Tyndal and Cranmer: “ingraved forme,” Geneva: “express image,” E. V. The word χαρακτήρ, which by formation would be the stamp or die itself on which a device χαράσσεται, and which stamps it on other things, never appears to bear this meaning, but always to be taken for the impression itself so stamped. “ and “... of the objects themselves, on which the features of another are expressed,—which bear its peculiar image, so that they appear as if taken off from it by impression of a die.
Both comments speak of engraved or stamped images. They do not speak of “exact ingraving” or “exact images”.

Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :" Delitzsch offers the example from “Thus Æsch. Suppl. 279, κύπριος χαρακτήρ τʼ ἐν γυναικείοις τύποις εἰκὼς πέπληκται τεκτόνων πρὸς ἀρσένων. “Aristot. Œc. ii. p. 689,
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"Delitzsch offers “ ἀνενεχθέντος δὲ τοῦ ἀργυρίου ἐπικόψας χαρακτῆρα: id. Pol. i. 6, where χαρακτῆρα ἐπιβάλλειν is to stamp coin, and it is said, ὁ γὰρ χαρακτήρ ἐτέθη τοῦ πόσου σημεῖον. Diod. Sic. xvii. 66, τάλαντα χρυσοῦ, χαρακτῆρα δαρεικὸν ἔχοντα.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"Delitzsch says regarding Χαρακτηρασ “Hence the word is taken, 1. generally for any fixed and sharply marked lineaments, material or spiritual, by which a person or an object may be recognized and distinguished.
His example is Herod. i. 116, ὁ χ. τοῦ προσώπου. Diod. Sic. i. 82, τοὺς τῆς ὄψεως χαρακτῆρας,
This demonstrates your claim is incorrect.

While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, in the same language in a similar time period to the same word in Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Delitzsch : “τῶν ἀντιμόρφων χαρακτήρων ἀγράφους εἰκόνας, and ib. p. 1056, ἧς ὁ μὲν ἀληθῶς χ. ἄμορφος. Demosth. (in Stephan.), ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἐσόπτροις ὁ τῆς ὄψεως, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὁμιλίαις ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χαρακτὴρ βλέπεται.
Lucians point regarding αντιμορφων rather than a true μορφων is another example that demonstrates your claim is incorrect.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?


Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"from “Philo, de Mund. Opif. § 4 (vol. i. p. 4), τοὺς χαρακτῆρας ἐνσφραγίζεσθαι, id. Legg. Allegor. i. § 18 (vol. i. p. 55),
As with his other examples, this demonstrates your claim is incorrect. While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?


Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"Delitzsch offers yet another example “ὁ τῆς ἀρετῆς χαρακτήρ, οἰκεῖος ὢν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ: id. de Mundi Opif. § 23 (p. 15), τὴν δὲ ἐμφέρειαν μηδεὶς εἰκαζέτω σώματος χαρακτῆρσιν, ib. § 53 (p. 36), τῆς ἑκατέρου φύσεως ἀπεμάττετο τῇ ψυχῇ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας:
As with his other examples, this demonstrates your claim is incorrect. While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?


Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"Delitzsch offers yet another example “So Philo, Quod Det. Potiori Ins. § 23 (vol. i. p. 217), designates the πνεῦμα as τύπον τινὰ καὶ χαρακτῆρα θείας δυνάμεως,
As with his other examples, this demonstrates your claim is incorrect.

While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?


Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"Delitzsch offers yet another example “Moses naming the same εἰκών, to shew ὅτι ἀρχέτυπον μὲν φύσεως λογικῆς ὁ θεός ἐστι, μίμημα δὲ καὶ ἀπεικόνισμα ἄνθρωπος: De Plant. Noë, § 5 (p. 332), he says, Moses named the rational soul τοῦ θείου καὶ ἀοράτου εἰκόνα, δόκιμον εἶναι νομίσας οὐσιωθεῖσαν κ. τυπωθεῖσαν σφραγῖδι θεοῦ, ἧς ὁ χαρακτήρ ἐστιν ὁ ἀΐδιος λόγος. H

While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?


Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"Delitzsch offers yet another example, this time from the colleague of the apostle Peter (Clem.-rom. ad Cor. c. 33). The text reads : “ αὐτὸς ὁ δημιουργὸς κ. δεσπότης ἁπάντων … τὸν … ἄνθρωπον ταῖς ἰδίαις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀμώμοις χερσὶν ἔπλασεν, τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα.
Not only does Delitzsch give us this example that demonstrates your claim is incorrect, but Delitzsch goes on to say : “Hence the usage of χαρακτήρ here will be easily understood.” Bleek: see also the word in Palm and Rost’s Lex…”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Milligan and others have given us almost 30 examples to show you are incorrect and you still have not been able to provide a single example in all of ancient greek literature where your claim is true. Not once so far. I still do not see how your greek claim that has no greek data to support it can ever work in the real world.

Examples from O.T. Leviticus, from Clement, from Delitzsch, and from Milligan = 30 examples in their favor showing the lone, uncontexted word "character" did not mean "exact character" without some sort of context adding "exactness" to the uncontexted word.

Examples from Oeste from ancient Greek where uncontexted "character" meant "exact character" = 0


Clear
δρακτζφιφυω

 

[Oeste]

You continue to forget to answer the questions regarding your strange claims regarding Milligans and Delitschs actual greek examples. So I included them in the end of these posts.

1. I do not have "strange claims". Milligan and Delitzsch are staunch Trinitarians and their claims are supported by the historic, traditional church. It may sound strange to your ears, it's just that in terms of Hebrews 1:3 it does n2ot sound strange to anyone else.

2. Your questions were answered in post 1023. Here they are again:

Clear said: n P Flor I. 61.21 (of approx. 85 a.d.) the text says: “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι”
No exactness is implied.

Oeste said:
1.

STRAWMAN.

No one claimed there was "exactness" at Syll 226 3.495.16
2. I do not see the value in refuting points no one has ever made. I will make an example of a few of these comments but to refute them all is a repetitive waste of time.
3. Milligan uses this as an illustration of the word χαρακτηρα. It's a gloss, not a definition.
4. We do not base definitions of Hebrews 1:3 on Syll 226 3.495.16. Any suggestion we should is absurd. Milligan does not do this. Nobody does this.
5. Scripture interprets scripture, not Greek artifacts.
6. This is a regurgitation of a previously refuted point.
7. We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in Syll 226 3.495.16, a concept that appears to have been lost with Clear despite mentioning this numerous times.​

I rinsed and repeated this several times. I did not do this for all your examples because I would simply need to present the same seven here.
These are not all the objections I have Clear. As stated previously there are more. If you had actually talked with your Church beforehand you would probably already know what they are.

I do intend to go through a few more of these in detail though so I can get a few more of my objections out. However I see you have made several more questionable posts, and since these points have already been answered I am going to answer your more current posts now.

Oeste said : “You stated you agreed with Milligan and his examples. Milligan specifically tells us are modern translations…the very same translations you railed against previously…are correct.”

1) CLEAR AGREES WITH MILLIGAN AND DELITSCHS' ANCIENT GREEK EXAMPLES
I very much agree with Milligans illustrations that demonstrate what the word Character and other words actually meant and how they were actually used in ancient Koine literature.

This is fantastic Clear! Did you know the Catholic & Protestant churches agree also? You may have missed my prior posts on the very same subject. I take it since you claim to agree with Milligan you now agree with the historic Church. This is good news because it now brings your personal beliefs in alignment with your own church. You need not undermine Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Witnesses and the like by claiming their bibles are "erroneous".

Don't get me wrong...I do not agree with the Mormon Church on a lot of issues, but on their translation of Hebrews 1:3 they appear to be spot on. Ditto for the Watchtower, which is like icing on the cake.

Readers will notice that in none of Milligans illustrations does the single word “Charaacter” mean “exact character”.

Absolutely, which may be a reason no one claims χαρακτηρ means "exact character". However Milligan does say χαρακτηρ means "exact reproduction" and as I've already shown, you claimed χαρακτηρ doesn't mean exact anything.

I simply agree with Milligans illustrations as to how ancient Greek was used....

No you do not. I've already demonstrated this countless times already Clear. Milligan states χαρακτηρ means "exact reproduction". If you doubt this you can take a look once again at the image I posted in #1065. You disagree with Milligan on the use of the word "exact". You disagree with your church on the very same word. You disagree with secular scholars, Scientologists, Christian Scientists and what have you. As far as I am aware you are the only person on the planet with this heretical belief, so the onus is on you to change everyone's mind.

Your claim that you agree with Milligan and his translation of χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3 has been refuted (answered). Your attempt to supply us with a revisionist model of Milligan's work was previously refuted as well.

 

[Oeste]

In post 1053 I related Milligans own example where modern translators rendered Matthew 6:27 as “Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?” while his illustrations demonstrate the correct meaning and ancient usage of ηλικια was NOT stature, but instead, it referred to age or life span.

Multiple modern bibles are correcting this error in their texts. For example, the NIV reads : “Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?”

Oh my goodness!

They are not "correcting" Clear. Where do you find this need to add extra context and content into Milligan's work???

Let's look at what Milligan ACTUALLY stated:

"The Twentieth Century translators boldly render, “Which of you, by being anxious, can prolong his life a moment?”—and we cannot but applaud them."
(Moulton, J. H., & Milligan, G. (1930). The vocabulary of the Greek Testament (p. 279)​

Milton is applauding the 20th CENTURY translators for their rendering of Matthew 6:27. WHAT CENTURY ARE WE IN NOW?

M&M's Vocabulary and any needed changes are ALREADY baked into modern translations. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY WE FIND "Exact Representation" and the like at Hebrews 1:3! You really, really need to talk with your Church on this Clear. I am sure they have competent scholars who can walk you through a proper exegesis of Milligan's work.

2) ILLUSTRATIONS FROM ANCIENT LITERATURE DEMONSTRATE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MODERN TRANSLATION AND ANCIENT MEANING AND USAGE.
Milligans text frequently indicates how modern translators rendered words and he then contrasts this usage with his illustrations where ancient meaning and usage was different.

In post 1053 I related Milligans own example where modern translators rendered Matthew 6:27 as “Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?” while his illustrations demonstrate the correct meaning and ancient usage of ηλικια was NOT stature, but instead, it referred to age or life span.

And if you notice, many of our modern translations made after the publication of Milligan's work have made any needed corrections.

You say that “Milligan specifically tells us are modern translations….are correct”.

Yes Clear, Milligan APPLAUDS his fellow scholars for making corrections. So our 20th century translations are better, and our 21st are the best possible translations ever.

We've had errors in translation before Clear. This is nothing new. Your job is to show we have an error in Hebrews 1:3 now. You are the one who has a problem with the Church's translation. This problem is not shared by any reputable scholar.

If you have further questions regarding Matthew 6:27 I suggest bringing them up at your church. We are already on a great diversion from thread theme and I really have no interest in debating the excellent work our translators have done at Matthew 6:27.

You claim to agree with Milligan but once again we see you disagreeing with him. Instead of knocking our translators, why not join Milligan and applaud them?

Clear's latest attempt to undermine faith in our translations has failed and his point is once again refuted.

 

[Oeste]

Clear asked : “Can any reader offer even one single example in english where the lone, uncontexted word “horse” clearly conveys the meaning of “cocaine” or “a certain type of rock formation” to them WITHOUT adding additional context?
Oeste replied : “Sure, anyone can do that rather easily. I am rather dismayed that no one has done this for you already.” (post #1063)

The reason no reader was able to accomplish this was the same reason Oeste was unable to accomplish this.

Clear I just gave you several examples. Mission accomplished.

Oeste examples were required to add context in order for the word “Horse” to clearly differentiate between the four legged animal, the drug, or a rock formation.

Did you not read the example I gave for harlequin? Did I really need to use the word "horse"??

As I stated previously, in post

Without any "additional context" whatsoever (as shown by the lone word) “harlequin” can refer to one, any or all of the meanings listed. It is only with sufficient context that a specific meaning can be obtained. It has one or any of these definitions without it.

Let me do this for you with the word "horse":

Without any "additional context" whatsoever (as shown by the lone word) “horse” can refer to one, any or all of the meanings listed. It is only with sufficient context that a specific meaning can be obtained. It has one or any of these definitions without it.

Without context, readers simply cannot tell which of the meanings the single, lone, uncontexted word “horse” is referring to.

I am glad you reached this epiphany, but I already stated this previously. Sufficient context gives us a specific meaning for the word "horse". That's what context does. HOWEVER, the word "horse", all by itself, all by its lonesome, means quite a few things, including "a four legged animal", "cocaine", or a "rock formation". THAT IS WHY YOU COULD NOT TELL WHICH MEANING, OF THE MANY MEANINGS OF HORSE, WAS MEANT.

This is an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT concept for you to understand and grasp. In fact, I don't see how we move beyond it because it is extremely basic and fundamental. and may even go a long way towards explaining how you came up with so many heretical understandings after reading Milligan's work.

4) THE ROLE AND NECESSITY OF CONTEXT IN LANGUAGE

Clear said : “1) EVEN THE WORD “HORSE” IN YOUR EXAMPLE MUST HAVE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT TO HAVE ADDITIONAL MEANING”
Oeste replied : “NO ADDITIONAL CONTEXT IS NECESSARY. As stated previously:”j (post #1063)

And then Oeste goes on to demonstrate additional context IS necessary.

You definitely landed the right thread Clear. Let's walk through this together.

Remember, no one else would have taken the time to do this with you.

 

[Oeste]

5) OESTES EXAMPLE AND IT’S USE OF ADDITIONAL CONTEXT
Oestes example in post #1063 does NOT show the single, uncontexted word “Horse” has any specific, additional meaning

As previously stated, the word "Horse", all by it's lonesome, means a four legged equine animal, cocaine, or a rock formation. This can be confirmed with virtually any dictionary.

Below is Oestes example and the word “Horse” is in BLUE and the additional context Oeste uses to add meaning is in RED.

“You have just reached the summit of a hill to join your fellow Frenchman who is also an advance scout for Bonaparte’s army. He is surveying a potential battlefield when he spies an opposing force that has suddenly appeared on a ridge just beyond the meadow below. The question “Horse?” you posed to him means only one thing…”Is there opposing cavalry?”… without any “additional context” whatsoever.”

Any reader can see that a great deal of specific context (in red letters) has been added.... [/quote]

I don't blame you for this Clear. If there's any fault it's with our teachers. Someone should have gone over this with your previously. I believe someone would have had you taken the opportunities afforded by the Church.


You are confusing MEANING with CONTEXT. The two are not the same. Any elementary grammar will distinguish and demonstrate this for you.


MEANING VS. CONTEXT

The difference between meaning and context is that meaning is the symbolic value of something while context is the surroundings, circumstances, environment, background or settings that determine, specify, or clarify the meaning of an event or other occurrence. You have already admitted that you cannot tell which meaning of horse is implied. That is because the word "horse" ALREADY HAS SEVERAL MEANINGS. It is not the CONTEXT that gives the word horse these multiple meanings, it is the word "horse" by itself.

So the lone word "horse" shown in blue above, if you ever look it up in a dictionary, is going to mean a four legged animal, cocaine, or rock formation because that's its MEANING. When we add the words in red, it does NOT inject additional context or additional meaning into the word "horse", it simply defines WHICH MEANING of the MANY MEANINGS the word "horse" ALREADY HAS. So the context helps us to CLARIFY meaning, but it doesn't add any ADDITIONAL meaning to the word "horse".



Oeste says : Mary saddled her horse and rode across the meadow.

Obviously Mary did not saddle a white powdery substance. So there is no reference to the word “cocaine” in the sentence, but that doesn’t mean the word “horse” cannot be equated with cocaine. (post #1068)

The reason no reader was able to accomplish this was the same reason Oeste was unable to accomplish this.

It's best not to assume a fact not in evidence.

Oeste examples were required to add context in order for the word “Horse” to clearly differentiate between the four legged animal, the drug, or a rock formation.

Clear, you just admitted that the word "Horse" means, all by its lone, "uncontexted" self, a "four legged animal", "drug", or "rock formation". In other words "horse" doesn't need context to obtain meaning because it already has several. Context allows us to determine WHICH meaning, but it doesn't add additional meaning the word doesn't have.

Without context, readers simply cannot tell which of the meanings the single, lone, uncontexted word “horse” is referring to.

EXACTLY RIGHT! I am glad you're catching on and confirming what I've been stating all along. Now that you understand the difference between MEANING and CONTEXT, please compare what you have just told us with your PRIOR statement about "Horse":

THE WORD “HORSE” IN YOUR EXAMPLE MUST HAVE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT TO HAVE ADDITIONAL MEANING

This claim is once again refuted. NO additional context is needed because context does not provide "ADDITIONAL MEANING", it simply narrows the SPECIFIC MEANING the word HORSE already had.

The single, uncontexted word “horse” must have context in order to clearly mean MORE than “horse”

CONTEXT DOES NOT ADD "MORE" HORSE MEANING TO HORSE. The word HORSE is already equipped with all the meaning it needs. Context helps us CLARIFY a word's already existing meaning.

Ironically, Oestes examples demonstrated my point regarding the necessity of context in providing additional clarity and meaning and specificity to words such as "horse"..

DEFINITION provides MEANING to a word Clear. CONTEXT simply helps to CLARIFY "WHICH" definition from a list of definitions a word may already possess.

The word “horse” in all of Oestes examples required additional context in order to tell if the word “horse” referred to an animal, a rock, or a drug.

No Clear. I gave the specific example where you can look up the word "horse" in a dictionary and get its meaning. Some dictionaries have no illustrations at all, so you won't run into any "additional context". All you'll see is the base word and its various meanings.

Have you tried using a dictionary?

3) Clear offered a challenge to any and all readers on the forum :

Clear asked : “Can any reader offer even one single example in english where the lone, uncontexted word “horse” clearly conveys the meaning of “cocaine” or “a certain type of rock formation” to them WITHOUT adding additional context?
Oeste replied : “Sure, anyone can do that rather easily. I am rather dismayed that no one has done this for you already.” (post #1063)

The Challenge was met and your claim was refuted.

Similarly, without additional context “Character” does not mean “exact Character”.

Character has several definitions. These definition exist without any "additional context". You are confusing meaning with context. In fact, you often use the term "meaning and context" as if they were interchangeable.


CLEAR CONFUSES MEANING AND CONTEXT

While Oeste offered wonderful examples that demonstrate that additional context was NECESSARY for the single, uncontexted word “Horse” to have specific meaning, I can offer another demonstration for readers why context is necessary.

Ironically, Clear now offers to demonstrate what I've been stating all along. Context is necessary for the word horse to have a specific meaning. He simply runs into trouble when he claims context confers "additional" rather than "specific" meaning. The inconsistency has made explanation more difficult.

The question is : “Horse?”

Can ANY reader tell specifically and clearly and accurately what this question is asking (given the multiple possible meanings of “horse”?)
Can you do it Oeste?

Clear, It doesn't matter what question you are asking. We are not discussing questions. We are discussing the word "horse", so yes, as soon as ask it, exclaim it, say it, write it, draw it, sign it or whatever I can look it up and tell you EXACTLY WHAT THE WORD "HORSE" MEANS!!! THAT IS WHAT DICTONARIES ARE FOR...TO GIVE WORD MEANINGS WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF CONTEXT!!!

This is NOT rocket science here and I have no idea why this continues to confound you. This is BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL. I gave several examples. Please review them and then open your dictionary, then review and learn its component parts. I started you off with the image of a harlequin. I am sure you can do this yourself and I no longer need to be involved.

It is 3:25 am but I invested the time. This is child's play and you are not making any sense. I will not be investing this much time answering an ever increasing litany of nonsensical points that you believe, for some reason, will defeat sound reason and the Church. PLEASE CONSULT YOUR CHURCH IF YOU CONTINUE TO EXPERIENCE DIFFICULTY. If the Mormon Church cannot help you then you may want to consider contacting the Baptist Church you left. I suspect your difficulty lies more with one of them than me.

I intend to move back to thread theme. I appreciate the conversation and sidebar but your points are still refuted.

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING BASE MEANING OF A WORD AND ADDING ADDITIONAL MEANING
Clear said : “Readers will notice that in none of Milligans illustrations does the single word “Character” mean “exact character”.
Oeste replied : “Absolutely, which may be a reason no one claims χαρακτηρ means "exact character". Milligan does say χαρακτηρ means "exact reproduction" and as I've already shown, you claimed χαρακτηρ doesn't mean exact anything.”

Does your statement represent an Admission that "Character" does not mean "Exact Character" unless context is added?

Because the word "Character" in greek IS the word you claim means "exact representation".
Englilsh "Character" comes from the Greek work Χαρακτηρ, they sound the same, they are the same.

If you are admitting that "Character" does NOT mean "exact Character", then neither does the greek word Χαρακτηρ mean exact Χαρακτηρ.

χαρακτηρ (the Greek word rendered “representation” in this case) is different than and does not mean χαρακτηρα ακριβης (“exact representation” in greek).

Just as in English the word “representation” does not mean “exact representation”, the Greek word for “representation” does not mean “exact representation” without adding the additional word “exact’ or some other modification (such as additional context).

You, yourself demonstrated this with your example using the word “horse” that showed you were unable specify the uncontexted lone word “horse” without adding additional words as context.
Your own example is a wonderful refutation of your claim.

Milligans statement in English does point out how translators came to render Χαρακτηρ as “exact representation” in contrast to his illustrations meant to show the actual use of the word in ancient Greek usage which demonstrate the error in translation just as he pointed out in his example with ηλικια and other words.

Clements and Delitschs and Milligans and Alfords examples ALL demonstrate καρακτηρ (Character or representation) remains ONLY Χαρακτηρ (“Character or representation’) unless you add some context that adds the concept of "exactness" to the base work.

Unless you have a single ancient Greek example to counter their many examples, your claim remains a refuted and dead claim.



2) A SINGLE EXAMPLE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM WILL DO
If you can find a single example from ancient Greek literature where greek “Character” actually meant “exact reproduction”, I will withdraw my claim and will then support your claim.

So far, you have unable to provided a single example from Greek literature in any of the ancient Greek literature in contrast to the many examples that demonstrate your claim is incorrect. Perhaps you can try to find an example from modern Greek literature?




3) DISCUSSING ACTUAL GREEK
Oeste claimed : “We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in Syll 226 3.495.16, a concept that appears to have been lost with Clear despite mentioning this numerous times.”

You admit to repeating this unfounded claim multiple times, yet EACH time you avoid answering WHY you claim Χαρακτηρ in Heb 1:3 is “a metaphoric Χαρακτηρ” and why you claim Χαρακτηρ in P Syll is “a literal Χαρακτηρ” (thus avoiding Milligans illustration of actual meaning and use of the word Χαρακτηρ at P Syll.)

Why you claim Milligans example of “Character” in P Syll is more literal and why “Character” in Hebrews 1:3 is a more metaphorical use of Greek “Character”.

Can you explain your claim and why the many, many examples from Delitsch, from Clement, from alford and from Milligan which refute your claim, somehow, do not apply to your claim?



4) OESTES SELF REFUTATION BY HIS EXAMPLE OF THE USAGE OF THE WORD "HORSE"

Your attempt, in post 1063 to show that the word "horse" has clear meaning without additional context was a wonderful example of how even you had to add context in order to convey specific meaning to the single word "horse".


Clear offered a challenge to any and all readers on the forum :
Clear asked : “Can any reader offer even one single example in english where the lone, uncontexted word “horse” clearly conveys the meaning of “cocaine” or “a certain type of rock formation” to them WITHOUT adding additional context?
Oeste replied : “Sure, anyone can do that rather easily. I am rather dismayed that no one has done this for you already.” (post #1063)

NOTE : Oestes example in post #1063 does NOT show the single, uncontexted word “Horse” has any specific, additional meaning. Below is Oestes example and the word “Horse” is in BLUE and the additional context Oeste uses to add meaning is in RED.

Oestes example of uncontexted use of the word horse is : “You have just reached the summit of a hill to join your fellow Frenchman who is also an advance scout for Bonaparte’s army. He is surveying a potential battlefield when he spies an opposing force that has suddenly appeared on a ridge just beyond the meadow below. The question “Horse?” you posed to him means only one thing…”Is there opposing cavalry?”… without any “additional context” whatsoever.”

Clear responsed : “Any reader can see that a great deal of specific context (in red letters) has been added.” This refutes the claim that Horse has clear and specific meaning without having additional context

Yet, Oeste claimed : “The Challenge was met and your claim was refuted.”

Umm, no.
Your example was a wonderful example of how context is required in order for the specific word “horse” to mean the four legged animal and not a rock formation or cocaine.

The fact that you were unable to use the lone, uncontexted word horse to specify from a variety of meanings neatly refutes your own claim that the word "horse" had specific and clear meaning without context.

Thank you Oeste.



Another failure to the claim that a simple, uncontexted word has specific meaning in normal communication

Your inability to answer my simple question also refutes your claim that a simple, lone and uncontexted word "horse" conveys specific, understandable meaning.

I asked Oeste to answer my question : “Horse?”

Oeste responded : "We are not discussing questions. We are discussing the word "horse", so yes, as soon as ask it, exclaim it, say it, write it, draw it, sign it or whatever I can look it up and tell you EXACTLY WHAT THE WORD "HORSE" MEANS!!! THAT IS WHAT DICTONARIES ARE FOR...TO GIVE WORD MEANINGS WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF CONTEXT!!

O.K. you say you can answer my question.
Now, answer my question.

The reason you are unable and will be unable to answer my question "Horse?" is that language requires some degree of context to convey clear meaning. You can not even use the dictionary to answer this simple question without having more context.

This is another example why the lone, uncontexted word "Χαρακτηρ" (eng Character) does not clearly nor specifically convey the meaning of "χαρακτηρα ακριβης" (eng "Exact representation") without additional context.

This example is another simple refutation of your claim that the single, uncontexted lone word "horse" needs no context to convey specific meaning.
The same is true of the greek word "Χαρακτηρ". It requires addition context to convey the additional meaning of "Exactness".




Clear
δρακτωφιφυω

 

[kjw47]

Here are all the constructions in John's writings that are actually parallel to the construction of John 1:1c.

H.....1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew") - all translations
H,W...2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all
H,W...3. John 6:70 - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer") - all
H,W...4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite ("a mankiller/murderer") - al
H,W...5. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all
H,W...6. John 9:24 - indefinite ("a sinner") - all
H,W...7. John 10:1 - indefinite ("a thief and a plunderer") - all
H,W...8. John 10:33 - indefinite ("a man") - all
H,W...9. John 18:35 - indefinite ("a Jew") - all
H,W...10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite ("a king") - all
[H,W..11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite ("a king") - Received Text and 1991 Byzantine text]

These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not "qualitative"). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite and with the indefinite article ("a/an")! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn't strongly resist the use of the "no subject" examples which clearly intend the subject as being a pronoun included with the verb, e.g., "[he] is," which would then bring our total of ALL proper examples to nearly 20.)

These would include:

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”) - all

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”) - all

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”) - all

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”) - all

18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”) - all

H: Also found in Harner's list of "Colwell Constructions"
W: Also found in Wallace's list of "Colwell Constructions"

Why, then, if John really meant that Jesus is the One True God, didn’t he use the definite article at John 1:1c ? Because, as he did with other terms sometimes used for Jesus (“prophet,” “king”), he intended for them to be taken as indefinite nouns (“a prophet,” “a king,” and “a god”) when the article was not used.

It should also be pointed out that 3 Kings 18:27 in the ancient Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (1 Kings 18:27 in English Bibles) has a very similar construction to John 1:1c. It has theos as a predicate noun without a definite article and coming before the verb: “for God [or ‘a god’] he is.” But the Septuagint translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton (Zondervan Publishing) says “for he is a god.”!! Compare other translations of 1 Kings 18:27: “a god” is obviously intended here! This is a clear (and very significant) “violation” of “Colwell’s Rule”! - Cf. Judges 6:31 (and Ezek. 28:2 in many Bibles.)

Using the above trinitarian grammarian-approved examples should allow the average objective person To find the truth of John's use of the Greek in John 1:1c - "And the Word was a god."

from my study on my blog: Examining the Trinity: DEFinite John 1:1c

As for the use of "a god" by John,
This is a fact acknowledged by even most trinitarian experts:

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, faithful Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods (or a god) include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

(John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

(also John 10:34, 35 - NEB; CEV; TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

They saw nothing wrong with calling certain men “gods” if they were trying to follow God and be his representatives or ambassadors. Just because it sounds strange to our ears today in modern English is no reason to ignore the facts!

Not only does the literal grammar of John 1:1c translate into English as "a god", but all proper examples of parallel constructions by John are translated as indefinite nouns ("a prophet," "a king," etc.)

The real reasoning behind why Jesus teaches all-He has a god like we do, his Father. John 20:17, Rev 3:12)-- They will not believe Jesus.
So if one is mislead into serving a non existent god( false god), they are breaking Gods #1 commandment daily. That would make one a worker of iniquity( practice of sin) And It doesnt sound good for those who have chosen that path-Matthew 7:21-23). Or are mislead down that path.
Imagine that centuries ago, satan twisted christianity. and beat many living now from inheriting a place in Gods kingdom. It just takes believing Jesus.

 

[metis]

Imagine that centuries ago, satan twisted christianity. and beat many living now from inheriting a place in Gods kingdom.

Such as maybe with the JW's?

It just takes believing Jesus.

Such as "judge ye not..." that all too many JW's virtually ignore?

 

[Clear]

WHAT A DICTIONARY IS AND DOES

Oeste said : THAT IS WHAT DICTONARIES ARE FOR...TO GIVE WORD MEANINGS WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF CONTEXT!!!

This is incorrect.
Dictionaries record and illustrate some meanings and usage that words came to have by common usage, but they do not “give words meanings without the necessity of context”.


This may be your problem with understanding Milligan.

Milligan is not telling individuals in English that Character means “exact reproduction” and then offering his Greek examples, which disprove this point.
It is illogical to claim that milligan is making a point and then disproving it by his own examples.


Milligan describes the evolving use of the word Χαρακτηρ
“from the tool for engraving” –
“came to be used of”
With special reference to any distinguishing peculiarity
And hence (δια) “ad exact reproduction”.

Milligan never says the ancient greeks used Χαρακτηρ for “an exact reproduction” since his examples refute this.
Instead he is explaining how the word came to be translated as “exact reproduction”.

IF YOU INSIST ON SPINNING MILLIGANS COMMENT IN ENGLISH AS SUPPORT FOR YOUR CLAIM THEN LETS SIMPLY LOOK AT MILLIGANS EXAMPLE TO SEE WHAT MILLIGAN IS TRYING TO PROVE.

While Milligan admits χαρακτηρ has been translated as "exact reproduction" If you can find anywhere where Milligan claims Χαρακτηρ actually meant “an exact reproduction” to the ancient greeks, OR if you can find a single example where ancient greeks used Χαρακτηρ to mean “an exact reproduction” in ANY ancient Greek literature, I will be happy to concede that Milligan did not believe his own examples were accurate.

So far, you have been unable to find a single example in ancient Greek literature where your claim is true.

However, we have many examples from Milligan, Delitsch and others that show your claim is incorrect.



EXAMPLES FROM MILLIGAN WHICH DEMONSTRATE YOUR CLAIM TO EXACTNESS IN ANCIENT USAGE IS INCORRECT

there is no exactness implied in this usage and in fact, Milligan specifically remarks that the "exact meaning" of the stamp/mark/ representation has been "much discussed". There is disagreement, not agreement. Inexactness, not exactness.

Milligans example from CPR I.11 (a text of of a.d. 108): Ετους ιβ Αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος Νερουα Τραιανου “(Year one, Emperor Caesar Neura of Trajan”). Refutes the idea of “exactness” in image or representation but if exactness can be forced into the statement, it lies in the surrounding context not in the generic word Χαρακτηρ.

The servants are "marked" in this case, but no exactness in the nature of the representation or mark is implied.

Milligans example from Preisigke 5275.11 (written in 11 a.d.) which is the closest example that comes to possible support of “exactness” :“… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “ refutes the idea of exactness in the specific word "Χαρακτηρ" and if exactness is forced into the phrase, it comes from the surrounding context, not from the generic word "Χαρακτηρ".


POST TWO CONTINUES

 

[Clear]

MORE EXAMPLES FROM MILLIGAN WHICH REFUTE THE CLAIM TO EXACTNESS IN REPRESENTATION

Milligans example from P Lond V 1658.8 (written in 4 a.d.) Ghedini “δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…” refutes the inherent idea of exactness in Χαρτακτηρ as "exact representation". If there is exactness implied, it will be found in the context, but not in the lone, uncontexted word "Χαρακτηρ".

Milligans example from P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) “χρυσου εν οβρυζω Χαραγματι” “Gold with a stamp) refutes the idea of inherent “exactness” in the Χαρακτηρ (χαραγματι) (especially if it is Hebrew which prohibited graven images). If there is exactness implied, it will be found in the context, but not in the lone, uncontexted word "Χαρακτηρ".

Milligans example from P Ryl II 160(a)10, (written approx. 14-37 a.d.) says “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι” Is another refutation of the idea of inherent exactness in Χαρακτηρ as "exact representation"..

Milligans example from P Oxy XIV 1680.12 (written in 3 to 4 a.d.) “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”. Is still another refutation of “exactness” as "exact representation".

Milligans example from BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν” is another refutation of the idea of exactness in a representation and in fact implies generic rather than exact.

We haven't even discussed Delitschs examples yet.
Unless Oeste has an example to counter Milligan and Clement and Delitsch and Leviticus, then examples like these represent what the word Χαρακτηρ meant and how it was used in ancient literature.


DICTIONARIES RECORD MEANING AND USE BUT DO NOT CREATE MEANING AND USE

If readers simply google "How is a dictionary created" they will see that dictionaries do not "create" meaning, but rather multiple citations using a word are collected and the actual usage of the word is studied and this data is used to create the entry that describes both the meaning and usage of a word.

Similarly, if you want to know what a word meant and how it was used anciently in Koine Greek, one can collect multiple citations of a word and study it's ancient usage and that data will tell us what the word meaning was and it's usage anciently.

Oeste has been unable to find a SINGLE citation where Χαρακτηρ meant "exact representation" in ancient Greek.

Milligan, Delitsch and others have found and offered us MANY examples of this word where it did not mean and was not used for "exact representation" without other context.

It is as simple as that.

Oeste, if you can find a single example from ALL and ANY of ancient Koine literature where the uncontexted, lone word Χαρακτηρ actually means "exact representation" then I am happy to support your claim.

Otherwise, your claim remains a dead claim.


Clear
δρακδρσιτζω