Skip to main content

New answers tagged

1 vote
Accepted

Psalm 22:31 - Whose children are they?

Ps 22:30 is quintessential Hebrew poetry being frustratingly terse - the Hebrew contains only five words! For what it is worth, here is my translation: [A] posterity/seed shall serve Him; it will be ...
Dottard's user avatar
  • 109k
0 votes

What’s going on with ουρανος?

The question tries to force one meaning upon all uses of the word “heaven(s)” in scripture. Strong’s Gr. 3772 “ouranos” - οὐρανός translated as “heaven” has several uses for the visible heavens of the ...
Gina's user avatar
  • 10.2k
0 votes

What’s going on with ουρανος?

There are two aspects to this: 1. The Biblical Data The very scant Biblical data on this idea is found in: 2 Peter 3 describes three “worlds”. The first was the antediluvian world which was ...
Dottard's user avatar
  • 109k
0 votes

What support is there for "nephilim" meaning "giants"?

The Bible considers Goliath a giant, so we can get an idea about giants from his height. In 1 Samuel 17:4, both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls report Goliath’s height as “four cubits and a ...
Dieter's user avatar
  • 2,216
0 votes

What support is there for "nephilim" meaning "giants"?

Not sure the age of this discussion but here's my understanding as I've researched this a bit. There were "sons of God" who were never meant to be considered angels. I'm surprised I don't ...
user70030's user avatar
1 vote

John 1:3 says that all things "were made" through Jesus and not "are made". Does this mean that Jesus is not creating any new physical things?

No one uses the tense from a single verse to demand a conclusion for the entire work. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. To illustrate, suppose "...
Revelation Lad's user avatar
1 vote

What is the literal translation of Genesis 15:6 (b)?

I like Anne's answer. I'll offer something additional by way of support. I think the LXX offers help here. The LXX translators knew Hebrew and knew Greek. So, those translators, by way of the LXX, ...
Mike Sangrey's user avatar
1 vote

John 1:3 says that all things "were made" through Jesus and not "are made". Does this mean that Jesus is not creating any new physical things?

The question seeks to explore whether Jesus is creating any new physical things, or not, based on the Greek grammar of one verse of scripture. Thoughts on the OPs view are sought. Unfortunately, the ...
Anne's user avatar
  • 25.2k
4 votes
Accepted

What is the literal translation of Genesis 15:6 (b)?

Four hundred and thirty years before the Law was given, God saw the faith of Abram, for Abram demonstrated faith in God's promise to him. In his heart, Abram believed God, but not as an intellectual ...
Anne's user avatar
  • 25.2k
1 vote

John 1:3 says that all things "were made" through Jesus and not "are made". Does this mean that Jesus is not creating any new physical things?

Is John 1 about the Genesis creation? John chapter 1 is a contrast between Jesus and John the Baptist. This contrast begins with verse 2 and 7 where both were introduced with "this one", ...
Alex Balilo's user avatar
  • 3,768
-4 votes

John 1:3 says that all things "were made" through Jesus and not "are made". Does this mean that Jesus is not creating any new physical things?

To begin, look at another text written by John. 1 John 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, Does 1 ...
ReturnOfRoamer's user avatar
3 votes

John 1:3 says that all things "were made" through Jesus and not "are made". Does this mean that Jesus is not creating any new physical things?

Here are the verbs in John 1:3 - ἐγένετο - (twice) aorist indicative middle voice, hence, "came into being" γέγονεν - perfect indicative active voice, hence, "has come into being" ...
Dottard's user avatar
  • 109k
1 vote

Romans 3:22 – ‘of’ or ‘in’? Old translations differ from modern ones. Why?

Consider the issue from the perspective of righteousness: even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference (ESV) δικαιοσύνη δὲ ...
Revelation Lad's user avatar
1 vote

Are the "elect angels" in 1 Timothy 5:21 born-again believers?

I'll stick with Guthrie's understanding of the term, as referring to those angels who are chosen or "commissioned" to watch over the affairs of men: The mention of these elect angels is ...
Dan Moore's user avatar
  • 522
7 votes
Accepted

Romans 3:22 – ‘of’ or ‘in’? Old translations differ from modern ones. Why?

Justification is a much misunderstood doctrine and, as a result, some have struggled to translate the very precise wording of, particularly, the apostle Paul who wrote some things, as Peter puts it, '...
Nigel J's user avatar
  • 31.8k
2 votes

Romans 3:22 – ‘of’ or ‘in’? Old translations differ from modern ones. Why?

This question is likely to be closed because it is a duplicate. However, the matter raised in Rom 3:22 is common to a series of other verses which I will list for completeness only. The texts listed ...
Dottard's user avatar
  • 109k
10 votes

Romans 3:22 – ‘of’ or ‘in’? Old translations differ from modern ones. Why?

Scholars word the question as: "Is διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Literally, "through faith/faithfulness of Jesus Christ") an objective or subjective genitive? So, objective versus ...
Mike Sangrey's user avatar
2 votes

Romans 3:22 – ‘of’ or ‘in’? Old translations differ from modern ones. Why?

It is a really good question. The faith "of" Christ is in reference to having faith in the righteousness of God (through Christ). We have faith in His righteousness as being our ...
Mark Vestal's user avatar
1 vote

Is the "di" in John 7:43 accusative or genitive?

A complete answer has been given by @dottard for the precise question asked. However, I think I can add an additional response that is more directly related to the science of Hermeneutics. The OP has ...
Mike Sangrey's user avatar
4 votes
Accepted

Is the "di" in John 7:43 accusative or genitive?

διά is a preposition and so does not have any grammatical case. The meaning of the word is defined by the noun or pronoun which follows it. When the word is accusative, dia means "because of&...
Dottard's user avatar
  • 109k
0 votes

Why does the apostle Peter misquote Isaiah 28:16 in [1 Peter 2:6]?

Isaiah - Hebrew Isaiah 28:16 Therefore, thus said the Lord Jehovah: `Lo, I am laying a foundation in Zion, A stone -- a tried stone, a corner stone precious, a settled foundation, He who is believing ...
Revelation Lad's user avatar
0 votes

Why does the apostle Peter misquote Isaiah 28:16 in [1 Peter 2:6]?

Isaiah did not have the full revelation of the Church at that time. He prophesied of the coming of the Lord and the price He would pay for the salvation of mankind.That does not mean he understood. ...
Pat Bostick's user avatar
0 votes

Why are "ha-adam" and "adam" often translated inconsistently in Genesis?

As I learned,in growing up in a Roman catholic Church and School wich also later in life I was also married for a short time / not too short 5 years to a very nice youngman who was Israeliy. I learned ...
Marie's user avatar
  • 1
0 votes

A translation question about Colossians 1:27

The word δόξα (doxa) occurs three times in Col 1 as follows: V11: the might of the glory of Him V27a: the riches of the glory V27b: the hope of the glory This genitive form of the word glory is very ...
Dottard's user avatar
  • 109k
2 votes
Accepted

A translation question about Colossians 1:27

I think, "The glorious hope" is close to the meaning, but I would suggest a translation of “the hope for this glory” is more accurate. "The glorious hope" focuses the topic on '...
Mike Sangrey's user avatar
1 vote

Should "διά" (dia) be translated as "through" or "because of" in the five NT verses pertaining to God creating the world for Jesus?

My Thoughts “For the Law was given because of Moses, but grace and truth came because of Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). “Because of” doesn’t make good sense here because the Law was given not because of ...
Nephesh Roi's user avatar
  • 1,515
1 vote

In Proverbs 8:30, does "Amon" mean "Beloved Child" or "Master Craftsman"?

The Hebrew word אָמֹון in this form, when it is not the proper name of a person, אָמֹון only occurs twice in the Old Testament Masoretic text (MT), in Prov. 8:30 and Jer. 52:15. I searched אמון in ...
Perry Webb's user avatar
  • 20.8k
-3 votes

Should "διά" (dia) be translated as "through" or "because of" in the five NT verses pertaining to God creating the world for Jesus?

John 1:3 Literal Standard Version all things happened through Him, and without Him not even one thing happened that has happened. John 1:3 NLT God created everything through him, and nothing was ...
Alex Balilo's user avatar
  • 3,768
1 vote

In Proverbs 8:30, does "Amon" mean "Beloved Child" or "Master Craftsman"?

וָאֶהְיֶה אֶצְלוֹ אָמוֹן וָאֶהְיֶה שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים יוֹם  יוֹם מְשַׂחֶקֶת לְפָנָיו בְּכׇל־עֵת The word you’re asking about is “אמון” which has the shoresh א-מ-נ which means to rear, bring up, nurse, ...
Avi Avraham's user avatar
  • 1,084
7 votes
Accepted

Should "διά" (dia) be translated as "through" or "because of" in the five NT verses pertaining to God creating the world for Jesus?

The situation is not so simplistic as the OP suggests. There are grammatical clues about the semantics of this word διά (dia). There are two cases to consider: A: With the Genitive case B: with the ...
Dottard's user avatar
  • 109k
6 votes

Should "διά" (dia) be translated as "through" or "because of" in the five NT verses pertaining to God creating the world for Jesus?

παντα δι αυτου εγενετο John 1:3 (TR, undisputed). Autou is the genitive. Therefore the accusative prepositional meanings do not apply. Daniel B Wallace in his grammar 'Beyond the Basics' gives the ...
Nigel J's user avatar
  • 31.8k
1 vote

In Proverbs 8:30, does "Amon" mean "Beloved Child" or "Master Craftsman"?

This is another of the inexplicable quirks of the Strong's list of Hebrew words. we have three words, 525, 527, 528, all designating the same masculine noun, אָמוֹן (amon) with the same meaning. [526 ...
Dottard's user avatar
  • 109k
1 vote
Accepted

Why do some translations render "ἰδοὺ" as "suddenly" and "look" instead of the original rendering of "behold"?

The most helpful way to show this is the definition of the word as supplied by BDAG for ἰδού (idou): prompter of attention, behold, look, see, it serves to enliven a narrative (a) by arrousing ...
Dottard's user avatar
  • 109k
1 vote

Why do some translations render "ἰδοὺ" as "suddenly" and "look" instead of the original rendering of "behold"?

Do you think that this Greek word should only always remain translated as "behold" in English translations? No. Varieties of translation are appropriate to render the archaic usages into ...
Dan Fefferman's user avatar
1 vote

Why do some translations render "ἰδοὺ" as "suddenly" and "look" instead of the original rendering of "behold"?

I hesitate to attempt an answer to the OP question since it, pardon me, drips with translation philosophy presuppositions. Whoever tagged with ‘translation-philosophy’ nailed it. So, I’ll offer one ...
Mike Sangrey's user avatar

Top 50 recent answers are included