Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

11

This argument is incorrect. Participles have a wide range of interpretive possibilities and sometimes choosing the correct one is difficult. Here is a resource that may help as I go along. The argument that since βαπτίζοντες follows μαθητεύσατε it must mean that it is a later action is a grammar myth along the lines of the abused aorist. So, it is true ...


10

This is just to add to Mike's answer, not to replace it. Joshua does not transliterate into Greek exactly. There are letters in Hebrew that are simply not there in Greek. The Greek of Luke 3:29, Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 all have Ἰησοῦ/s for Joshua. Translators render it as Joshua instead of Jesus because that is the name readers will be familiar with. ...


10

In Hebrew the name Joshua is: יְהוֹשׁוּעַ Yehoshua or יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Yehoshua “the LORD is salvation.” In Greek it is the transliteration of the Hebrew: Ιησους (Iēsous, sounds like ee-ay-soos). Therefore in the Greek New Testament Jesus and Joshua are both Iēsous. Up until now the names are the same and even in the Latin Vulgate they remained the same. In ...


7

The NET Bible textual criticism note is helpful here: The MT has simply “and Cain said to Abel his brother,” omitting Cain’s words to Abel. It is possible that the elliptical text is original. Perhaps the author uses the technique of aposiopesis, “a sudden silence” to create tension. In the midst of the story the narrator suddenly rushes ahead to what ...


7

Gesenius in his Hebrew Grammar (Kautzsch/Cowley edition, commonly GKC) spends several pages on "Agreement between Members of a Sentence, especially between Subject and Predicate in respect of Gender and Number." He gives many examples of when the number of the verb and the noun disagree. This is section 145 of the book. In my edition, this is page ...


6

I think you may be trying to read far too much into this verse that the grammar won't support. The first translation of each verse in its simplest form is really the best translation and says pretty much everything the grammar allows. The rest is reading more into the text than the grammar would support. I also think you are misunderstanding some of the ...


6

I believe the simplest explanation is that God sent Moses to be His mouthpiece, but Moses complained he couldn't do it, so God added his older brother Aaron to the equation. The two were joined into one mouthpiece: He shall speak for you to the people, and he shall be your mouth, and you shall be as God to him. Using the singular verb forms, then, is ...


6

Wikipedia has a nice summary of the aorist and more details can be found om the the article on the ancient Greek aorist in particular. This is from the first link. In the Ancient Greek, the indicative aorist is one of the two main forms used in telling a story; it is used for undivided events, such as the individual steps in a continuous process ...


6

There are a couple of different ways to answer your first question. I will attempt an answer from a linguistics perspective, specifically with regards to the lexical aspect of the verb in question. The dominant perspective on lexical aspect of verb tenses for the last few decades has been Actionsart. This deals with how the verb interacts with time. ...


5

The ESV offers a good essentially literal translation, rendering the verse this way: But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. Acts 13:50 Looking at the following items I found, I think that we can conclude ...


5

Simple answer, building on Ron’s longer one: The words “every man” at the end of the verse is not gender-specific, but can also be translated as “everyone”. Try this translation on for size: They came, both men & women; all the generous of heart brought clasp, nosering, ring, and vulva-cover, all gold implements—everyone that brought an offering of ...


5

According to Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon1, the spelling difference is inconsequential. The spelling difference does not change the meaning and has more to do with transliteration (from Greek) than translation. The only way of distinguishing grammatical number is through diacritics, which were not added to the language until a couple centuries after the writing ...


5

It's a great question, and the truth is that the sentence is fairly ambiguous despite attempts to translate it otherwise (as in the ChaBaD translation brought in @crownjewel82's answer). Here's the verse - note that the closest we get to punctuation are the cantillation marks, which have a zaqef qaton (a minor disjunctive, like a comma or semicolon) at the ...


5

The aorist tense "presents an occurrence in summary, viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence."1 Wallace explains, This contrasts with the present and imperfect, which portray the action as an ongoing process. It may be helpful to think of the aorist as taking a snapshot of the action while the ...


4

This is the same phrase that appears in Ex 34:6, the interaction between God and Moshe after the golden calf. In both places אֶ֖רֶךְ אַפַּ֣יִם is sometimes translated "slow to anger" (though there is no infinitive verb there) and sometimes "long-suffering". אֶ֖רֶךְ is Strong's H750, "prolong, lengthen, draw out" (etc). אַפַּ֣יִם is H639. The lexicon ...


4

"asher" is used with past-tense hence making it past-tensive "ahavti" with "kametz" alef and hey properly means past-tense as well however it can be used as ongoing past-tense which applies in the present which as you pointed out its the easiest understandable meaning now "וְאֶשְׁתַּֽעֲשַׁ֥ע" is past and present tense (ongoing past-tense almost like ...


4

John 14:15 reads in the NA27 (and NA28): Ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτέ με, τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμὰς τηρήσετε However, there is a manuscript discrepancy that would render the last word as τηρήσατε. According to Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.), A majority of the Committee preferred the future tense τηρήσετε, read by B L Ψ 1010 1071 ...


4

Hard Question, Soldarnal Peter O'Brien says of this verse in his Colossians commentary: This verse has been described as one of the most contested passages in the NT, presenting great difficulties in language and content. And Douglas Moo, in his: This verse furnishes the most important evidence about the false teaching, but it is also arguably the ...


4

Excellent question. Strong has good references: אני ,אנכי. Gesenius discusses this here at the beginning and in the footnotes. It appears that אנכי is the more "original", and אני is a derived, localised form, based both on comparison to other languages, and the fact that אנכי is more common in earlier texts, and becomes less so in later texts. ...


4

I know that the other answers explain this in more depth, but the simple answer is really that the early Christians read the Greek Septuagint (LXX), and this translation of the Hebrew Tanakh and apocryphal works rendered יֵשׁוּעַ / יְהוֹשֻׁעַ as Ἰησοῦς. From there it was transliterated into Latin (Iesus) and became the name associated with the Christian ...


4

Here's the problem concerning the singular/plural distinction: I found an online Peshitta forum post by Paul Younan (who prepared a scholarly Peshitta text) that mentions that there was no way to distinguish between the singular and plural in Aramaic until at least the 6th century. He states: Notice the only difference between the two is the Syame ...


4

וְשֶׂ֣רֶט לָנֶ֗פֶשׁ לֹ֤א תִתְּנוּ֙ בִּבְשַׂרְכֶ֔ם וּכְתֹ֣בֶת קַֽעֲקַ֔ע לֹ֥א תִתְּנ֖וּ בָּכֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֽה Grammatically speaking, "the dead" isn't even mentioned in the original Hebrew text. It was simply "the soul." In Hebraic thought, the soul is the unified body and spirit. The soul can be dead, or the soul can be alive. The text doesn't say one ...


4

Those are adjectives, not pronouns. They are plural neuter nominatives. "And all those who are mine are yours, and all of yours are mine..." BibleHub is right. It does jive with the KJV: because they are adjectives and not pronouns, the plural they carry is the plural of the things they are modifying. In other words, they act like other plural adjectives. ...


3

To the grammarian it may seem like beating a dead horse to protest that the aorist does not necessarily reflect the nature of the action or event it covers. But the horse is not dead; he is very much alive and cavorting rather freely in exegetical and theological pastures. The fallacy of "theology in the aorist tense" stubbornly persists, even in the ...


3

The translation from chabad.org makes things a bit clearer. The Hebrew text is available there as is a commentary on the text. You shall not make cuts in your flesh for a person [who died]. You shall not etch a tattoo on yourselves. I am the Lord. It's easy to see that there are two separate sentences containing two distinct commands. The first is ...


3

Biblical Hebrew doesn't have tense, it has aspect. English doesn't have aspect, it has tense. So, translators are in a pickle. The 'perfect' aspect (exemplified by אָהָֽבְתִּי) is about completion, not point-in-time. However, this is poetry. In poetic BH poetry, just about every rule gets bent sooner or later in favor 'what it sounds like'. So translators ...


3

Short Answer: Yes, all of the verbs are aorist. In fact, they are all identical in all of the following ways: Part of Speech: Verb Tense: Aorist Mood: Indicative Voice: Active Person: 3rd Person Number: Singular Here they are, for reference: προέγνω (he foreknew) προώρισεν (he predestined) προώρισεν (he predestined #2) ἐκάλεσεν (he called) ...


3

We need to explore the word אף more closely. It has two general meanings: nose, face, nostril (Genesis 2:7, Proverbs 30:33, Genesis 28:12, Samuel I 25:23, Chronicles II 7:3) and anger (Deuteronomy 29:27, Proverbs 30:33, Daniel 11:20, Zephaniah 2:2, Genesis 30:2). Why this is the case is left to your interpretation. On this point I agree with this answer - ...


3

This verse has a parallel in Matt. 26:46, in which the same verb ἄγωμεν occurs. The particular conjugation ἄγωμεν also occurs in the following verses. It is the equivalent of the English phrase, "Let's go..." Mark 1:38 John 11:7 John 11:15 John 14:31 Thayer describes this usage sense as intransitive (lacking a direct object).1 However, it can be followed ...


3

The preposition ב can be translated in many different ways (in, with, through, against, while, when, for, by etc.) depending on how it functions in its context. In num 12:1 it makes good sense to translate it as "against" but the case could be made for translating it as simply "to" or "with." In v2, the case could be made for translating it as simply "to ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible