The original Hebrew and Greek word "now"

[we-live-now]

I am wondering out loud "Can I conclude that the word "now" in it's various formats in Biblical Hebrew and Greek means right now, the present time (that I am typing or you are reading this)?

Or does it specifically mean the when the verses were written (the situation or context)?

Some teach that it is the time of the verse, but isn't the Word supposed to be eternal and outside of all time and ages? In other words, it can never, not once (in all ages and times) be false. Thus, I seem to have to conclude that "now" means right now, the one spot in eternity where time is playing out.

Here are some verses with the word "now" in it. Please check out the original definitions of the word "now". Here is a link to one of them.

Exodus 9:18 - is it possible that the "hail" has not yet come down? Could it be a tie in to revelation?

Matthew 24:21 - Has the tribulation occurred yet? Ponder the word "now" in that verse and the implication of the two meanings. (I have to conclude that the tribulation has NOT yet occurred and thus the word "now" means right now as you are reading this)

Here is a challenging one (as it challenges common Christian teachings).

Matthew 27:42 - The word now is in this verse. If this mean's "right now, the present time", this would mean that Jesus could still be dying on the cross... Could the true cross be a spiritual (hidden) cross? (his death is the spiritual death of all flesh and this world?)

What do you understand about the true meaning of the word "now" in the scriptures? Does it mean right now or a time in the past (or future)?

What would this mean about many of the common Christian teachings if it always meant "right now"?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

More yummy spam.

Why can't people spam good stuff?

 

[we-live-now]

More yummy spam.

Why can't people spam good stuff?

I am sorry, but these kinds of posts greatly irritate me. I thought this was a safe place to have open conversations with others regardless of our beliefs.

Am I wrong?

I am challenging my own beliefs and conclusions and this person wants me to feel like an a$$ for even having them.

Why don't you just come out of the bushes and just say directly what you are thinking (and expose your inner hatred).

 

[Tumah]

I am wondering out loud "Can I conclude that the word "now" in it's various formats in Biblical Hebrew and Greek means right now, the present time (that I am typing or you are reading this)?

Or does it specifically mean the when the verses were written (the situation or context)?

Some teach that it is the time of the verse, but isn't the Word supposed to be eternal and outside of all time and ages? In other words, it can never, not once (in all ages and times) be false. Thus, I seem to have to conclude that "now" means right now, the one spot in eternity where time is playing out.

Here are some verses with the word "now" in it. Please check out the original definitions of the word "now". Here is a link to one of them.

Exodus 9:18 - is it possible that the "hail" has not yet come down? Could it be a tie in to revelation?

Matthew 24:21 - Has the tribulation occurred yet? Ponder the word "now" in that verse and the implication of the two meanings. (I have to conclude that the tribulation has NOT yet occurred and thus the word "now" means right now as you are reading this)

Here is a challenging one (as it challenges common Christian teachings).

Matthew 27:42 - The word now is in this verse. If this mean's "right now, the present time", this would mean that Jesus could still be dying on the cross... Could the true cross be a spiritual (hidden) cross? (his death is the spiritual death of all flesh and this world?)

What do you understand about the true meaning of the word "now" in the scriptures? Does it mean right now or a time in the past (or future)?

What would this mean about many of the common Christian teachings if it always meant "right now"?

I don't think there's any way to determine that, since all the verses are all contextual.

The Hebrew word, " 'aThaH" "now" comes from the word " 'eTh" meaning "time".

 

[rosends]

The Exodus quote is a quote being said at a particular time so the "now" would refer to the moment when the quote is relevant and applicable. There are other phrases that translate into the equivalent of "now" (such as "until this day") which refer to the moment of being written (or possibly beyond?).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am sorry, but these kinds of posts greatly irritate me. I thought this was a safe place to have open conversations with others regardless of our beliefs.

Am I wrong?

I am challenging my own beliefs and conclusions and this person wants me to feel like an a$$ for even having them.

Why don't you just come out of the bushes and just say directly what you are thinking (and expose your inner hatred).

I'm sorry I irritated you. Honestly, I never thought that you would see the post.

To answer your question - I can tell you that the Greek word for 'now' has absolutely no meaning when isolated from its grammatical / syntactical context, especially the principal participles and verbs. In addition to this, one would need to interpret the entire selection within its larger theological, mythological, didactic, philosophical, dialetcic -- or whatever form of speech, speaking, or literary genre.

So the word 'now' is beyond utterly meaningless on its own.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There is no Greek or Hebrew word for "now" (there are various lexemes that can be and have been translated as such). Linguists typically regard lexemes in a language as existing only in that language in the sense that any translation necessarily involves information loss/conceptual disparity. Words like "now" are the worst (short of adpositions, clitics, and other grammatical markers), as they are extremely schematized in addition to being lexical instantiations of tense-aspect. Greek tense is much more complicated than English (and has a richly developed particle system as well as a weakly developed modal system), while Hebrew tense is, for those who don't know languages outside of IE languages and haven't studied linguistics, basically alien or even absent (not to the extent modality is, but when the lexical definition of a verb is in the 3rd person masculine, you can expect that "tense" to be fundamentally distinct from that of English).

 

[rosends]

There is no Greek or Hebrew word for "now" (there are various lexemes that can be and have been translated as such). Linguists typically regard lexemes in a language as existing only in that language in the sense that any translation necessarily involves information loss/conceptual disparity. Words like "now" are the worst (short of adpositions, clitics, and other grammatical markers), as they are extremely schematized in addition to being lexical instantiations of tense-aspect. Greek tense is much more complicated than English (and has a richly developed particle system as well as a weakly developed modal system), while Hebrew tense is, for those who don't know languages outside of IE languages and haven't studied linguistics, basically alien or even absent (not to the extent modality is, but when the lexical definition of a verb is in the 3rd person masculine, you can expect that "tense" to be fundamentally distinct from that of English).

I am not an expert in linguistics but I do know that Hebrew has words for "now" (including achshav and atah - both with an ayin) and that Hebrew has tenses which are not absent. Third person masculine for the verb sh-m-r would be shomer, he guards.

 

[we-live-now]

I'm sorry I irritated you. Honestly, I never thought that you would see the post.

To answer your question - I can tell you that the Greek word for 'now' has absolutely no meaning when isolated from its grammatical / syntactical context, especially the principal participles and verbs. In addition to this, one would need to interpret the entire selection within its larger theological, mythological, didactic, philosophical, dialetcic -- or whatever form of speech, speaking, or literary genre.

So the word 'now' is beyond utterly meaningless on its own.

Thank you for your apology.

 

[we-live-now]

I am wondering out loud "Can I conclude that the word "now" in it's various formats in Biblical Hebrew and Greek means right now, the present time (that I am typing or you are reading this)?

Or does it specifically mean the when the verses were written (the situation or context)?

Some teach that it is the time of the verse, but isn't the Word supposed to be eternal and outside of all time and ages? In other words, it can never, not once (in all ages and times) be false. Thus, I seem to have to conclude that "now" means right now, the one spot in eternity where time is playing out.

Here are some verses with the word "now" in it. Please check out the original definitions of the word "now". Here is a link to one of them.

Exodus 9:18 - is it possible that the "hail" has not yet come down? Could it be a tie in to revelation?

Matthew 24:21 - Has the tribulation occurred yet? Ponder the word "now" in that verse and the implication of the two meanings. (I have to conclude that the tribulation has NOT yet occurred and thus the word "now" means right now as you are reading this)

Here is a challenging one (as it challenges common Christian teachings).

Matthew 27:42 - The word now is in this verse. If this mean's "right now, the present time", this would mean that Jesus could still be dying on the cross... Could the true cross be a spiritual (hidden) cross? (his death is the spiritual death of all flesh and this world?)

What do you understand about the true meaning of the word "now" in the scriptures? Does it mean right now or a time in the past (or future)?

What would this mean about many of the common Christian teachings if it always meant "right now"?

Maybe I am posting in the wrong area?

If you are offended by those who want to believe the Bible is somehow the truth, then this thread probably isn't for you. I am merely trying to reconcile my faith with the original words, which honestly is VERY difficult.

I am really struggling in my faith due to some personal issues and spent a couple months away from much study. But, we are told many times our faith is "tested" so it is shown to be true. If it's true, it won't fail. That's the part that really sucks.

Today, I discovered the same word "now" is in this verse and it really struck me. I have to conclude (again) that "now" is right now or the current age and present time - even today.

for He says,
“At the acceptable time I listened to you,
And on the day of salvation I helped you.”
Behold, now is “the acceptable time,” behold, now is “the day of salvation”— 2 Corinthians 6:2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

"Now" here in this verse is the same Greek word "nyn" which is "the present moment". I suspect it also means "the current age" when his body is still suffering. (He is the head)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am not an expert in linguistics but I do know that Hebrew has words for "now"

By definition, then, it has no word for "now". The fact that there are words in Hebrew "for 'now'" simply indicate that there are words with conceptual content that overlap with the English lexeme "now".

that Hebrew has tenses which are not absent

Generally, "tense" is so problematic as a part of grammar that linguists have abandoned it as distinct form aspect and modality. Hence the modern use of TAM (tense-aspect-modality) to analyze how constructions in a given language encode notions like "time" schematically (i.e. via conjugations, clitics, particles, or grammaticalized lexemes/grammatical markers).

 

[rosends]

By definition, then, it has no word for "now". The fact that there are words in Hebrew "for 'now'" simply indicate that there are words with conceptual content that overlap with the English lexeme "now".

Wait -- walk me through this -- by my stating that Hebrew has words for "now" you conclude that "By definition, it has no word for 'now'." What definition do you have in mind that turns "it has" into "it doesn't have"? If I take the Hebrew word "achshav" and the English word "now" and define them, they both point to at least one shared meaning. So unless your point is that 2 languages actually have only constructs which overlap in their refrences and that "now/achshav" is the same overlap system as ANY two words from ANY two languages, then I'm lost

Generally, "tense" is so problematic as a part of grammar that linguists have abandoned it as distinct form aspect and modality. Hence the modern use of TAM (tense-aspect-modality) to analyze how constructions in a given language encode notions like "time" schematically (i.e. via conjugations, clitics, particles, or grammaticalized lexemes/grammatical markers).

Your claim was that in Hebrew, tense is "even absent." Given that it is a part that linguists have abandoned as distinct etc, you must be saying that in Hebrew it is as abandoned as in other languages. If you are making an argument specific to Hebrew, then I'd love to hear it. If you are making one about languages in general, then say so.

 

[Tumah]

I am not an expert in linguistics but I do know that Hebrew has words for "now" (including achshav and atah - both with an ayin) and that Hebrew has tenses which are not absent. Third person masculine for the verb sh-m-r would be shomer, he guards.

I couldn't find any verses with achshav. I think it might be Mishnaic Hebrew.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Wait -- walk me through this -- by my stating that Hebrew has words for "now" you conclude that "By definition, it has no word for 'now'.

The lexeme "now" in English simply means what it means. If there exist multiple lexemes in a target language which can be translated as now, then none of them mean "now". Otherwise, one of them an ONLY one of them would mean "now".

If I take the Hebrew word "achshav" and the English word "now" and define them, they both point to at least one shared meaning.

"But one has only to consider the case of an individual word-maison, say- to see at once that there cannot possibly be a single ‘deverbalised’ concept that corresponds exactly to a single word (house? home? Haus? Heim?) in other languages. Even if one allows that in a contextualised utterance – an instance of parole, such as all real life translation is concerned with, as opposed to langue- – the reference or denotation of the word maison will usually be unambiguous, it is still not possible to say that a single concept underlies the two words maison and, as the case may be, house or home, Haus or Heim, since our knowledge of the language systems (langues) concerned tells us that the concepts of seemingly corresponding terms in different languages are never fully congruent (unless, like scientific terms, defined in advance to be so) and this must remain true even in instances of the actual use of the terms in context.

Weston, Martin (2003). “Meaning, Truth, and Morality in Translation.” In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.) Translation Today: Trends and Perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD, pp. 140-151.

And again:

"“It is difficult to find convincing examples of synonyms, because true synonyms are extremely rare, if they exist at all.”"

Atkins, B.T., & Rundell, Michael.. Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. p 148.

"Social meaning is what is conveyed about the social circumstances of the use of a word and is decoded “through our recognition of different dimensions and levels of style within the same language” (Leech 1983:14). That accounts for the observation that no true synonyms exist. But when the term “synonymy” is restricted to equivalence of conceptual meaning, then conceptual synonyms may be compared and found to be different non-conceptually from one another, e.g. stylistically, regionally, and in other aspects. "
Yong, Heming, Peng, Jing. (2007). Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective.
John Benjamins.

Your claim was that in Hebrew, tense is "even absent."

Yes. It's a bit of a simplification, because "tense" is really absent in all languages (hence the replacement of tense with TAM). To the extent tense exists in Hebrew or English, they are fundamentally distinct.

Given that it is a part that linguists have abandoned as distinct etc, you must be saying that in Hebrew it is as abandoned as in other languages.

No, I'm saying linguists have largely abandoned the notion that "tense" is an empirical, definable component of language distinct from aspect and modality.

 

[rosends]

I couldn't find any verses with achshav. I think it might be Mishnaic Hebrew.

True, actually its first use is in the gemara (brachos). So how about "kayom"?
וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב הִשָּׁבְעָה לִּי כַּיּוֹם וַיִּשָּׁבַע לוֹ וַיִּמְכֹּר אֶת־בְּכֹרָתוֹ לְיַעֲקֹב

(Aramaic כְעַן)

 

[rosends]

The lexeme "now" in English simply means what it means. If there exist multiple lexemes in a target language which can be translated as now, then none of them mean "now". Otherwise, one of them an ONLY one of them would mean "now".


"But one has only to consider the case of an individual word-maison, say- to see at once that there cannot possibly be a single ‘deverbalised’ concept that corresponds exactly to a single word (house? home? Haus? Heim?) in other languages. Even if one allows that in a contextualised utterance – an instance of parole, such as all real life translation is concerned with, as opposed to langue- – the reference or denotation of the word maison will usually be unambiguous, it is still not possible to say that a single concept underlies the two words maison and, as the case may be, house or home, Haus or Heim, since our knowledge of the language systems (langues) concerned tells us that the concepts of seemingly corresponding terms in different languages are never fully congruent (unless, like scientific terms, defined in advance to be so) and this must remain true even in instances of the actual use of the terms in context.

Weston, Martin (2003). “Meaning, Truth, and Morality in Translation.” In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.) Translation Today: Trends and Perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD, pp. 140-151.

And again:

"“It is difficult to find convincing examples of synonyms, because true synonyms are extremely rare, if they exist at all.”"

Atkins, B.T., & Rundell, Michael.. Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. p 148.

"Social meaning is what is conveyed about the social circumstances of the use of a word and is decoded “through our recognition of different dimensions and levels of style within the same language” (Leech 1983:14). That accounts for the observation that no true synonyms exist. But when the term “synonymy” is restricted to equivalence of conceptual meaning, then conceptual synonyms may be compared and found to be different non-conceptually from one another, e.g. stylistically, regionally, and in other aspects. "
Yong, Heming, Peng, Jing. (2007). Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective.
John Benjamins.


Yes. It's a bit of a simplification, because "tense" is really absent in all languages (hence the replacement of tense with TAM). To the extent tense exists in Hebrew or English, they are fundamentally distinct.


No, I'm saying linguists have largely abandoned the notion that "tense" is an empirical, definable component of language distinct from aspect and modality.

Now, I understand. There is a lack of true, intended synonyms in English and because words in each language have multiple shades of meaning, no true definitions language to language. Sure, this makes perfect sense (I use the Hebrew version of Hamlet to teach that exact point). I just didn't see how it would be unique to the "now" situation. Same with tenses -- the issue you raise is one of linguistic definition applied to languages, again, not Hebrew centric, so that's fine with me. Thanks for the clarification.

Note -- there was a school of thought that tried to make one-to-one translations of the biblical text and it was doomed to failure for exactly the reasons you cite. I forget the technical name for that type of translation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is no Greek or Hebrew word for "now" (there are various lexemes that can be and have been translated as such). Linguists typically regard lexemes in a language as existing only in that language in the sense that any translation necessarily involves information loss/conceptual disparity. Words like "now" are the worst (short of adpositions, clitics, and other grammatical markers), as they are extremely schematized in addition to being lexical instantiations of tense-aspect. Greek tense is much more complicated than English (and has a richly developed particle system as well as a weakly developed modal system), while Hebrew tense is, for those who don't know languages outside of IE languages and haven't studied linguistics, basically alien or even absent (not to the extent modality is, but when the lexical definition of a verb is in the 3rd person masculine, you can expect that "tense" to be fundamentally distinct from that of English).

I disagree about the Greek - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=nu=n1

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I disagree about the Greek

When it is not true of a lexeme like "house", you assert it is true of a grammaticalized lexeme that's basically a particle?
"But one has only to consider the case of an individual word – maison, say – to see at once that there cannot possibly be a single ‘deverbalised’ concept that corresponds exactly to a single word (house? home? Haus? Heim?) in other languages. Even if one allows that in a contextualised utterance – an instance of parole, such as all real life translation is concerned with, as opposed to langue – the reference or denotation of the word maison will usually be unambiguous, it is still not possible to say that a single concept underlies the two words maison and, as the case may be, house or home, Haus or Heim, since our knowledge of the language systems (langues) concerned tells us that the concepts of seemingly corresponding terms in different languages are never fully congruent (unless, like scientific terms, defined in advance to be so) and this must remain true even in instances of the actual use of the terms in context."
Weston, M. (2003). Meaning, truth and morality in translation. Translation Today: Trends and perspectives, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 140-51.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

When it is not true of a lexeme like "house", you assert it is true of a grammaticalized lexeme that's basically a particle?
"But one has only to consider the case of an individual word – maison, say – to see at once that there cannot possibly be a single ‘deverbalised’ concept that corresponds exactly to a single word (house? home? Haus? Heim?) in other languages. Even if one allows that in a contextualised utterance – an instance of parole, such as all real life translation is concerned with, as opposed to langue – the reference or denotation of the word maison will usually be unambiguous, it is still not possible to say that a single concept underlies the two words maison and, as the case may be, house or home, Haus or Heim, since our knowledge of the language systems (langues) concerned tells us that the concepts of seemingly corresponding terms in different languages are never fully congruent (unless, like scientific terms, defined in advance to be so) and this must remain true even in instances of the actual use of the terms in context."
Weston, M. (2003). Meaning, truth and morality in translation. Translation Today: Trends and perspectives, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 140-51.

I was disagreeing about the "no word for now" statement. There is a word for now -- but as I said previously -- it has no meaning when it's isolated from its immediate context.

There's a difference between the word not existing and not having meaning.