When is the definite article important?

[Jerome]

When we read "baptize" what we should be reading is "immerse." That is how the term -- for the most part -- was used during the 1st century. We would not be having as many of these doctrinal discussions over the issue it the word was translated instead of translitterated.

At the time of the translation of the KJB, the Book of Common Prayer used the word dip to decribe baptizing (baptize was not a "translitteration" innovation by Bible translators, it had been an English word meaning dip for centuries).

You can thank the Westminster 'divines' for muddying the water by dumping dip and replacing it with sprinkle in their baptism liturgy.

 

[DaChaser1]

At the time of the translation of the KJB, the Book of Common Prayer used the word dip to decribe baptizing (baptize was not a "translitteration" innovation by Bible translators, it had been an English word meaning dip for centuries).

You can thank the Westminster 'divines' for muddying the water by dumping dip and replacing it with sprinkle in their baptism liturgy.

So we baptists can 'blame" the reformed for this happening?
(JUST kidding!)"

 

[glfredrick]

At the time of the translation of the KJB, the Book of Common Prayer used the word dip to decribe baptizing (baptize was not a "translitteration" innovation by Bible translators, it had been an English word meaning dip for centuries).

You can thank the Westminster 'divines' for muddying the water by dumping dip and replacing it with sprinkle in their baptism liturgy.

But they did so because they inherited the Latin version from RCC.

 

[DaChaser1]

But they did so because they inherited the Latin version from RCC.

They used the Vulgate?

 

[Jerome]

When we read "Jesus" we should be reading "Joshua" ("Jesus" is the English translitteration of the translitterated Latin version of the translitterated Greek version of the Hebrew "Yeshua" or as correctly spoken in English, "Joshua"). It would be ironic if the object of our love and devotion -- to whom we worship and adore by name, "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, there is something about that name..." -- made as His first act among men the realization that we have had His name wrong for centuries.

Quite reminiscent of LDS founder Joseph Smith's 'insight' on Jacob/James from his King Follet sermon:

Some learned doctors might take a notion to say the scriptures say thus and so; and we must believe the scriptures; they are not to be altered. But I am going to show you an error in them.

I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. . . .It tells about Jacobus, the son of Zebedee. It means Jacob. In the English New Testament it is translated James. Now, if Jacob had the keys, you might talk about James through all eternity and never get the keys. . . .The Latin says Jacobus, which means Jacob; the Hebrew says Jacob, the Greek says Jacob and the German says Jacob, here we have the testimony of four against one. . . .I have all the four Testaments. Come here, ye learned men, and read, if you can. I should not have introduced this testimony, were it not to back up the word rosh—the head, the Father of the Gods. I should not have brought it up, only to show that I am right.

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/kingfolletsermon.htm

 

[glfredrick]

Just curious as to how Immanuel became Joshus/yeshua unto jesus?

The Greek is not "Immanuel." It is Iesous. Immanuel would be more properly translated "God with us" and is in essence (but not in etymology) contained in Meshiach -- Messiah, "Annointed One -- Christ.

The English name Jesus derives from the Late Latin name Iesus, which transliterates the Koine Greek name Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs.

In the Septuagint and other Greek-language Jewish texts, such as the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs is the standard Koine Greek form used to translate both of the Hebrew names: Yehoshua and Yeshua. Greek Ἰησοῦς or Iēsoûs is also used to represent the name of Joshua

 

[glfredrick]

They used the Vulgate?

Not quite. There was an earlier version of "old Latin" that predates the Vulgate and extends right down to the patristic period. Jerome used the old Latin "versions" (there were many) as the foundation for the Vulgate, which the Reformers also used.

But the Reformers also "used" the original Hebrew and Greek, which by the time of the Reformers had been restored. It was "missing" for generations in the west (still present in the east). The Reformers were also very interested in translations into the language of the people. Luther translating into German (from Erasmus' Greek version), Tyndale into English (from Greek and Hebrew), Coverdale also into English (but instead of from the Greek and Hebrew, he worked with the German and "new" Latin). Other languages published at roughly the same time were French, Spanish, Italian, and Swedish, Hungarian, etc. Of course, all this predated King James by around 100 years.

 

[DaChaser1]

Not quite. There was an earlier version of "old Latin" that predates the Vulgate and extends right down to the patristic period. Jerome used the old Latin "versions" (there were many) as the foundation for the Vulgate, which the Reformers also used.

But the Reformers also "used" the original Hebrew and Greek, which by the time of the Reformers had been restored. It was "missing" for generations in the west (still present in the east). The Reformers were also very interested in translations into the language of the people. Luther translating into German (from Erasmus' Greek version), Tyndale into English (from Greek and Hebrew), Coverdale also into English (but instead of from the Greek and Hebrew, he worked with the German and "new" Latin). Other languages published at roughly the same time were French, Spanish, Italian, and Swedish, Hungarian, etc. Of course, all this predated King James by around 100 years.

So one could say with reasonable truth that the KJV was built upon primarily prior English versions like the Tynsdale/Geneva, not dropped out of heaven like manna, and those 2 versions could claim to be just as "inspired?"

 

[glfredrick]

So one could say with reasonable truth that the KJV was built upon primarily prior English versions like the Tynsdale/Geneva, not dropped out of heaven like manna, and those 2 versions could claim to be just as "inspired?"

Yup... That is indeed the case. Something like 70+ % of the KJV is plagurized from earlier English versions where the persons who did the work were persecuted -- sometimes to death -- for their efforts.

 

[robycop3]

You know something not quite right if your own english bible goes against the Greek text!

Yes, such as the example of "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Now, while the Greek "pascha" now means either Easter or passover, DEPENDING UPON THE CONTEXT, it meant only "passover" in Luke's day,when he wrote what would become the Book of Acts. EASTER DID NOT EXIST at that time, and even if it would've existed then,no orthodox Jew would've observed it.

We must remember that ALL translations of Scripture in any language, old or modern, are the products of God's perfect word being manipulated by imperfect men, no matter how well-intentioned those translators are.

 

[DaChaser1]

The Greek is not "Immanuel." It is Iesous. Immanuel would be more properly translated "God with us" and is in essence (but not in etymology) contained in Meshiach -- Messiah, "Annointed One -- Christ.

I thought that in NT greek was called ÅEmmanouhvl/Emmanuel!

Agree with you that the meaning of that name/title would be incorporated inthe name Messiah, as Jesus is indeed annoited one, chosen one of God!

 

[glfredrick]

Matt 1:1 Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαβὶδ, υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ


Jesus = "Jehovah is salvation"

1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate

2) Jesus Barabbas was the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ

3) Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses' successor (Ac. 7:45, Heb. 4:8)

4) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Lu. 3:29)

5) Jesus, surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associate with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Col. 4:11)


Used as:
Jesus 972, Jesus (Joshua) 2, Jesus (Justus) 1


Hebrew:

יְהוֹשׁוּעַ

Joshua or Jehoshua = "Jehovah is salvation"

1) son of Nun of the tribe of Ephraim and successor to Moses as the leader of the children of Israel; led the conquest of Canaan

2) a resident of Beth-shemesh on whose land the Ark of the Covenant came to a stop after the Philistines returned it

3) son of Jehozadak and high priest after the restoration

4) governor of Jerusalem under king Josiah who gave his name to a gate of the city of Jerusalem

Vines:

Jesus:

is a transliteration of the Heb. "Joshua," meaning "Jehovah is salvation," i.e., "is the Savior," "a common name among the Jews, e.g., Exd 17:9; Luk 3:29 (RV); Col 4:11. It was given to the Son of God in Incarnation as His personal name, in obedience to the command of an angel to Joseph, the husband of His Mother, Mary, shortly before He was born, Mat 1:21. By it He is spoken of throughout the Gospel narratives generally, but not without exception, as in Mar 16:19, 20; Luk 7:13, and a dozen other places in that Gospel, and a few in John.

"'Jesus Christ' occurs only in Mat 1:1, 18; 16:21, marg.; Mar 1:1; Jhn 1:17; 17:3. In Acts the name 'Jesus' is found frequently. 'Lord Jesus' is the normal usage, as in Act 8:16; 19:5, 17; see also the reports of the words of Stephen, Act 7:59, of Ananias, Act 9:17, and of Paul, Act 16:31; though both Peter, Act 10:36, and Paul, Act 16:18, also used 'Jesus Christ.'

"In the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude, the personal name is not once found alone, but in Rev. eight times (RV), Rev 1:9; 12:17; 14:12; 17:6; 19:10 (twice); 20:4; 22:16.

"In the Epistles of Paul 'Jesus' appears alone just thirteen times, and in the Hebrews eight times; in the latter the title 'Lord' is added once only, at Hbr 13:20. In the Epistles of James, Peter John, and Jude, men who had companied with the Lord in the days of His flesh, 'Jesus Christ' is the invariable order (in the RV) of the Name and Title, for this was the order of their experience; as 'Jesus' they knew Him first, that He was Messiah they learnt finally in His resurrection. But Paul came to know Him first in the glory of heaven, Act 9:1-6, and his experience being thus the reverse of theirs, the reverse order, 'Christ Jesus,' is of frequent occurrence in his letters, but, with the exception of Act 24:24, does not occur elsewhere in the RV.

"In Paul's letter the order is always in harmony with the context. Thus 'Christ Jesus' describes the Exalted One who emptied Himself, Phl 2:5, and testifies to His pre-existence; 'Jesus Christ' describes the despised and rejected One Who was afterwards glorified, Phl 2:11, and testifies to His resurrection. 'Christ Jesus' suggests His grace, 'Jesus Christ' suggests His glory." *
[* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 26, 29.]

 

[DaChaser1]

Matt 1:1 Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαβὶδ, υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ


Jesus = "Jehovah is salvation"

1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate

2) Jesus Barabbas was the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ

3) Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses' successor (Ac. 7:45, Heb. 4:8)

4) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Lu. 3:29)

5) Jesus, surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associate with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Col. 4:11)


Used as:
Jesus 972, Jesus (Joshua) 2, Jesus (Justus) 1


Hebrew:


Vines:

was there any significance to Paul addressing Jesus as either Jesus Christ, or as Christ Jesus inn Epistles?

 

[glfredrick]

was there any significance to Paul addressing Jesus as either Jesus Christ, or as Christ Jesus inn Epistles?

"Jesus Christ" is not a name in the way we use names, i.e., first and last name.

Christ means "annointed one." When one says the name of Jesus and also says "Christ" what they are in fact saying is "Jesus, the annointed one" or "The annointed one, Jesus." Same difference once you know what is actually being said and why.

 

[DaChaser1]

"Jesus Christ" is not a name in the way we use names, i.e., first and last name.

Christ means "annointed one." When one says the name of Jesus and also says "Christ" what they are in fact saying is "Jesus, the annointed one" or "The annointed one, Jesus." Same difference once you know what is actually being said and why.

Understand that Christ is a 'title" placed upon yeshua , as evidenced of his position/role of being the Messiah of prophency, the "servant of God"...

So Paul would have had no real reason to switch around those two "names?"
Would it be based upon IF he was addressing and using name of Jesus to different situations that he was answering?

 

[glfredrick]

Understand that Christ is a 'title" placed upon yeshua , as evidenced of his position/role of being the Messiah of prophency, the "servant of God"...

So Paul would have had no real reason to switch around those two "names?"
Would it be based upon IF he was addressing and using name of Jesus to different situations that he was answering?

Paul "seems to" place emphasis on the Godhood of Jesus when he turns the words the other way around into Christ Jesus or just Christ.

Some out there (that I do not agree with) have actually stated that using the name of Jesus Christ backwards was a satanic insertion into the text. That is just a tad left of the planet Pluto in my opinion...

 

[DaChaser1]

Paul "seems to" place emphasis on the Godhood of Jesus when he turns the words the other way around into Christ Jesus or just Christ.

Some out there (that I do not agree with) have actually stated that using the name of Jesus Christ backwards was a satanic insertion into the text. That is just a tad left of the planet Pluto in my opinion...

So much for God being to preserve his word to us for today, Eh?

just curious as to why we could not reverse this. and say its modern versions only for today?