Difference between revisions of "Talk:Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(1:2)
(Straw-King: What is this ''English connotation of benevolence in a "king"''? English history is full of mad kings, evil kings, insane kings - but kings, nonetheless!)
Line 131: Line 131:
  
 
:::::I'm not concerned with a bicycle issue (?!), but with the English connotation of benevolence in a "king".  Nothing benevolent about "King" Herod.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:05, 27 October 2015 (EDT)
 
:::::I'm not concerned with a bicycle issue (?!), but with the English connotation of benevolence in a "king".  Nothing benevolent about "King" Herod.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:05, 27 October 2015 (EDT)
::::::What this ''English connotation of benevolence in a "king"''? English history is full of mad kings, evil kings, insane kings - but kings, nonetheless! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:13, 27 October 2015 (EDT)
+
::::::What is this ''English connotation of benevolence in a "king"''? English history is full of mad kings, evil kings, insane kings - but kings, nonetheless! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:13, 27 October 2015 (EDT)
  
 
===1:2===
 
===1:2===

Revision as of 19:29, 28 October 2015

Five chapters already done here; that's a great start!--Andy Schlafly 23:49, 3 March 2010 (EST)

13:1

I'm sure Penn was inspired by this verse, but by the original's φιλαδελφία, not the English "brotherly love." "Let brotherly love continue" is a word-for-word translation, but doesn't seem like anything a modern English speaker would say. Paul isn't just praying for some vague abstraction to continue to exist; he is exhorting the Hebrews to love in a particular way. It seems to me better to translate this with active, dynamic language. DanielPulido 21:27, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

I'm not sure William Penn read Greek. Most likely he read the KJV, liked the phrase, and then went back to the Greek. But I welcome any historical analysis about this.
As an aside, what makes you think Paul wrote this Epistle? It's nothing like Paul's style as far as I can tell, and I've worked on Paul's Epistles as well as this one.--Andy Schlafly 22:11, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
My mistake; I've done most of my translating on First Corinthians, and just a tiny bit in Hebrews. I have Paul on the brain as if everything in Greek is all Paul to me! You're quite right; they're stylistically very different, and that was silly of me.
As for Penn, he was classically educated, so he surely wouldn't have needed to rely on the KJV, would he? DanielPulido 22:48, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
He wouldn't have needed to rely on it, but that doesn't mean he didn't choose to rely on it. SamuelC 22:49, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
Right. The KJV was widely and immensely popular. I would expect that to be the volume of first choice by Penn. I'm not sure anyone read the Greek New Testament as his volume of first choice in the English world in 1680. The primary classical text then was the Latin Vulgate, I think.--Andy Schlafly 22:53, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
My point isn't what his first choice would have been for daily reading, which I will readily concede he most likely did in his native language. I'm just saying it seems wrong to give the credit for Penn's choosing the name "Philadelphia" to an English translation of that exact word, (a word he was perfectly capable of reading himself) and on that basis give a privileged status to the particular wording of that translation. Your mileage may vary, of course. DanielPulido 23:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
You make a valid point. I'm open-minded about this. But if, as I suspect, William Penn liked the KJV rendition of "brotherly love" so much that he named Philadelphia after it, then that is both worth knowing and possibly worth preserving. I'll research the origin of the name "Philadelphia" further; anti-Christian bias from internet searching may make the truth harder to find than usual.--Andy Schlafly 23:18, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
I'll look as well; I look forward to seeing what we find! DanielPulido 23:35, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
I finally found the interesting answer that anti-Christians conceal, and inserted it with the citation in Philadelphia.--Andy Schlafly 20:00, 19 April 2010 (EDT)

οὐρανός is best translated as universe

No, it isn't: it's only part of the universe. Heaven(s) and Earth together form the universe, in a physical (all the rest vs. the planet Earth) as in a metaphysical (the spiritual vs. the mundane). Crowbarring your Biblical scientific foreknowledge into it is not only bad translating, but bad theology. You won't find any scholarly source which backs up your interpretation - as you haven't found any which showed the existence of a nuance of ἰδού meaning at that moment.

I'll revert the verse to the correct translation. AugustO 02:27, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

One of the primary meanings of οὐρανός is "universe", and that's obviously its true meaning in Hebrews 1:10. Also, "universe" today typically means the "heavens" of old. Reverting the entry back now.--Andy Schlafly 10:20, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
  • If "universe" is a primary meaning of οὐρανός, you shouldn't have any problem to find it in a dictionary. But you can't.
  • Obviously Hebrews 1:10 uses the pair of opposites of heavens and earth which are disjoint, but together form the universe.
  • Universe is all what is, including our solar system and our planet. That's not heavens of old.
  • Reverting the entry back now. Please provide a source before making another reversion. Thanks.
AugustO 10:42, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
Universe in English often means the celestial cosmos, which is what οὐρανός means. The source is any good dictionary. Or search on οὐρανός and universe and see thousands of references returned. Reverting and locking now, but feel free to discuss further.--Andy Schlafly 10:58, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
Why in the world are you locking it? This isn't an English word and "universe" isn't used like this anywhere in the Bible. This is what someone at my study group taught me this morning after mass: In this context AugustO is correct. The usage Mr. Schlafly asserts doesn't appear once in the Bible and is not indicated here where the author is drawing a contrast between the earth and what is above it which is usually referred to as God's dwelling place. Also, the Conservapedia translation doesn't accurately connect God's creation of the foundation of the earth with the heavens. The letter connects them with kai (and). The KJV is awful in this regard because modern version use only a semicolon to relate the concepts and people don't always understand the grammar of how semicolons are used essentially as an "and". The Catholic Douay-Rheims gets the relationship of these concepts a lot better even though it is based on the latin Vulgate: "And: Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth: and the works of thy hands are the heavens." Nate 11:19, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

http://www.greek-dictionary.net/ouranos

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/heb1.pdf

"Heavens" is archaic - it's not used much anymore, particularly among young people. When used, people think it's referring to the spiritual heaven. English words change their meaning over time. A good Bible translation keeps up with changes in the English language, in order to convey the original meaning correctly.--Andy Schlafly 11:45, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
A slightly freer option that would preserve the earth/heavens distinction would be "and everything beyond it, too, is the work of your hands".--CPalmer 11:51, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
A good suggestion, but one that has a weaker connotation for the physical world. The meaning would be broader and less clear than what Hebrews 1:10 intended.
Archaic language and changing meanings of English words -- without properly updating biblical translations -- is a significant problem.--Andy Schlafly 12:30, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
I do not believe you have an open mind about this but suit yourself. Your translation obscures the true meaning. Nate 13:26, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
The fact remains: English words change their meaning over time, and accurate translations need to reflect that. "Heavens" is no longer commonly used to describe the cosmic galaxies. "Universe" is.--Andy Schlafly 17:17, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Yes you already said that. Heavens is fine. People who are inclined to read the Bible know that it refers to a holy place where God resides, not a technical description of "cosmic galaxies." The author isn't referring to the entire universe and your bogus translation isn't supported by any other use of uranos in the Bible. What is your experience with Koine Greek? Nate 17:52, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Your comment illustrates the ambiguity in the translation urged by AugustO: "heavens" in this verse (Hebrews 1:10) does not refer "to a holy place where God resides." To avoid that ambiguity, "universe" should be used instead.--Andy Schlafly 18:42, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Authorship by Jesus

Aschlafly, you are the first (and the only one) to propose that this Epistle "was written by Jesus, or based directly on His writing". A question: when you get an insight like this one do you ever ask yourself why no one ever had a similar thought before?

The comments should make it clear that the idea of Jesu authorship is an insight of a single person - and isn't shared by any Biblical scholar. --AugustO 11:27, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

If Andrew says it, then it's as if it came from God himself, and you should never question it. Andrew's words are God's words. Andrew is never wrong. If you claim that anything he says is wrong, then you are a Kafir, and shall smother in the bottom-most pits of Hell. Even worse, you will earn yourself the label, "Liberal". FamilyJewels (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2015 (EDT)

A better translation of "δύναμις" is "perfection" rather than "power": hence "narration of his perfection"

This seems to be not true insofar as the translation of δύναμις as perfection is just made up: I couldn't find it neither in George's and Liddel's "Greek-English Lexicon" nor in Lampe's "Patristic Greek Lexicon" (and obviously not in Strong's). It is therefore more than doubtful to think that anyone who knows a little bit of Greek (including the original readers of the Epistle) would understand this word in this way. Andy, please stop making things up! --AugustO 09:19, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

Avoid monarchy-centric jargon that has long been overused in England

Unfortunately for you, Andy, this monarchy-centric jargon is used in the epistle! You omit the whole phrase θρόνος τῆς Μεγαλωσύνης (the Throne of the Majesty). If you really believe that this epistle was written by Jesus Christ Himself, who are you to accuse Him of using jargon and suppress His words? --AugustO (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2015 (EDT)

Andy: Strong's likes to translate Μεγαλωσύνης as "Majesty" as Anglophiles prefer, but its root μέγας means "great". Yes, the root means great, but no one besides you understands the word Μεγαλωσύνης (especially when written with a capital M) other than as "Majesty". To stay in the English realm: a Highness isn't just a tall chap, though the root of Highness means high... --AugustO (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2015 (EDT)

BTW: there is a difference between "sitting at the right hand of a lord" and "sitting at the right hand of a lord's throne": the first is a position of honor, the second implies power (at least in the absence of the lord...) --AugustO (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2015 (EDT)

For the record: I think one can make a case for a translation of μεγαλωσύνη as greatness instead of majesty, but there are better reasons than latent anglophobia! And the use of something equivalent to majesty in this context seems to be common in the whole Christian world. For me personally, "majestic" evokes fewer connotations to kings and queens than "royal". --AugustO (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2015 (EDT)

"Majesty" is monarchical term. There were no monarchies at the time of Christ, and the tendency by Anglophiles to see everything in terms of a silly monarchy should be resisted. God is not a "king"; he is far better than that.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
"There were no monarchies at the time of Christ" What an amusing counter-factual claim - and certainly news to the High Priests of Jerusalem who stated to Pontius Pilatus: "Οὐκ ἔχομεν βασιλέα εἰ μὴ Καίσαρα" (for you, Andy: "We have no king but Caesar") --AugustO (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
"Augustus established a constitutional monarchy rather than a true republic, because the Senate's role became only advisory." You taught that to your pupils in World History Lecture Four#Birth of the Roman Empire! So, which statement is true, which is the lie? --AugustO (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
Strong's always translates βασιλεύς as "king", more than 100 times, but that is not what the word really means. Greeks had no "king". The English had kings and queens (and still do).--Andy Schlafly (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
Strawman (and not a good one). You claim:
  • There were no monarchies at the time of Christ
  • Augustus established a constitutional monarchy
So, which is it? --AugustO (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
I said the Greeks had no "king". Augustus (hey, no wonder you cite him, "AugustO"!) was certainly not a "king" (and he wasn't Greek either). The divine right of kings did not arise until the 1500s or so.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
And before you introduced the strawman "king" (of which I haven't spoken), you spoke about monarchies. In fact, you said above:
«There were no monarchies at the time of Christ» (Andy Schlafly, above, 00:47, 21 October 2015 (EDT))
This is a direct contradiction to your lecture, in which you say:
«Augustus established a constitutional monarchy rather than a true republic, because the Senate's role became only advisory.» (Andy Schlafly, WHL4: Birth of the Roman Empire)
So, there you weren't talking about kings, but monarchs in general. Please, address this matter. Thanks --AugustO (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
Andy, at first, this is just a little problem of logic:
A Augustus established the Roman Empire as a constitutional monarchy
B The Roman Empire existed during the time of Christ. Ergo:
C There were monarchies at the time of Christ. And not:
C′ There were no monarchies at the time of Christ
For C′ to be possibly true, A or B (or both) have to be false. B is obviously correct, so one of your statements is wrong. Which one? --AugustO (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2015 (EDT)

Andy, any comment? --AugustO (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2015 (EDT)

Straw-King

The contradiction in the section above is about monarchies and monarchs in general. Andy tried to detract from his false statement by making a couple of statements about kings. On the one hand, this is a strawman, as it misstated my position, on the other hand, his statements are generally incorrect.

Strong's always translates βασιλεύς as "king", more than 100 times, but that is not what the word really means. Greeks had no "king". The English had kings and queens (and still do).--Andy Schlafly (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2015 (EDT

  1. So, what does the word βᾰσῐλεύς really mean? King! In very various forms, from a simple chieftain to the head of stated of a sophisticated empire.
  2. The Greeks had dozens, hundreds of kings - just no king of Greece (until the 19th century). But you had the King of Crete, the mythological kings like Odysseus or Agamemnon, all the kings in magna Graecia, like the famous Pyrrhus of Epirus. Philip of Macedonia was a king, as was his son Alexander, etc., pp.
  3. Yes, there is a great variety of English kings (and queens): Aescwine of Essex hasn't much in common with George III.

I said the Greeks had no "king". Augustus (hey, no wonder you cite him, "AugustO"!) was certainly not a "king" (and he wasn't Greek either). The divine right of kings did not arise until the 1500s or so.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2015 (EDT)

  1. Yes, you were wrong the first time. There was no king of Greece, but kings in Greece.
  2. Augustus very carefully avoided the term "rex" for political reasons: The Romans didn't like kings, so, he became king in everything but name! His genius was worshipped as a god and therefore, the High Priests rightfully identified him as (their only earthly) βασιλεύς --AugustO (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2015 (EDT)
  3. Before the 1500s, there was no problem with a divine legitimization of a monarchy: in ancients time, you (or your genius) were already a god, or some gods had established your blood-line. In the middle-ages, the Catholic Church stepped in and provided a reason for your kingship. Only the protestant kings had a problem: they were no gods and they couldn't get a blessing from the church. That's when the "divine rights" were invented. But the principle had been unchanged over millenia! --AugustO (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2015 (EDT)

Andy, any comment? --AugustO (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2015 (EDT)

Andy? --AugustO (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
...? ..AugustO (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2015 (EDT)
"King" really has no place in the Bible, because the modern meaning of a "king" did not exist (and would not have been taken seriously) then. "Dictator" or "czar" or "leader" would be closer to the biblical meaning.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2015 (EDT)
King David, King Nebuchadnezzar and King Herod have no place in the Bible, because they didn't own a bicycle like a proper Scandinavian King? Please, don't be absurd! As I said above, king encompasses a great variety of potentates: Aescwine of Essex's reign was perhaps quite similar to that of an ancient Jewish king. "Dictator" or "leader" doesn't include the aspects of succession and of Divine blessing the same way king does. --AugustO (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2015 (EDT)
I'm not concerned with a bicycle issue (?!), but with the English connotation of benevolence in a "king". Nothing benevolent about "King" Herod.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2015 (EDT)
What is this English connotation of benevolence in a "king"? English history is full of mad kings, evil kings, insane kings - but kings, nonetheless! --AugustO (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2015 (EDT)

1:2

The Image of God.

Dr. Walter Martin noted that a king's "Word" sometimes meant representative, a good example of which is his seal-keeper. So the act of sealing and the commands in the documents it seals are representative of the king.

Now man is said to be made in the "image" of God. And the author of Hebrews says the Son of God is the image of God.

This is easier to understand with the seal imagery. The carving of the king engraved in the seal is able to represent the king and is thus the king's image. The seal is then impressed in wax, and the wax retains the image of the king and the authority of the seal. Likewise the Son of God is the Father's image and was impressed upon Christ's human nature, which retained the image, like the wax. And when we become disciples of Christ, through faith we see, through a glass, darkly, God's image in Christ and seek to become impressed with the image, after Christ. By grace, we become adopted sons and daughters of God as Christ is the natural Son of God.

VargasMilan (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2015 (EDT)

So if it is Christ speaking it could be "He [the Son of God] has spoken to us [to my human nature while present in me and to your human nature through me]." VargasMilan (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2015 (EDT)

That is a little to convoluted for my taste. But at least - I think - we can agree that "[t]his verse poses a difficulty for those who claim that this epistle was written by Jesus Christ Himself." --AugustO (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2015 (EDT)