Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Oeste]

CLEAR ISSUES

At this point I see 3 main issues:

1. Clear's claims that the single Greek word χαρακτηρ cannot mean "exact character", "exact representation", "exact impression" "express image", "Very image" or any definition where an "adjective" is placed before χαρακτηρ. In other words, χαρακτηρ only means "representation", "image" or some other base word without the adjective.

2. Whether Alford supports Clear's claim or mine.

3. Whether the widow's mite illustration supports Clear's usage of χαρακτηρ.

I'll try to go through each of these tonight, one by one, refuting each in turn for Clear. How much I get to tonight really depends on how late it gets. Tomorrow is a work day for me, but I can clearly see Clear is impatient.

Lets look at the examples from the cut and paste oeste provided :

I want to clear this point up right away. The "cut and paste" I provided is from Alford’s Greek Testament, a scholarly, peered reviewed and widely accepted academic reference and exegetical commentary which strongly refutes Clear’s argument (as I will show below). The link was previously provided. Throughout Post 912 Clear will refer to Alford's commentary as "Oeste's theory" or "Oeste's offering" so he doesn't appear to be refuting Alford but Oeste.

This is an excellent debate tactic by Clear. It's misleading, it's incorrect, but it's a great debate tactic. The problem? He cannot separate my argument from Alford's, but I can certainly separate his. I just need that title I borrowed earlier:

CONCERNING OESTES EXAMPLES FROM ALFORDS COMMENTARY - WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE

Clear misunderstands the point I was making with my "cut and paste". He looked through it, didn't see the word "exact", immediately concluded it didn't support my point, and then attempted to use my source, the one I posted, Alford's commentary, against me! It fails, but I say kudo's to Clear for trying.

WHY CLEAR'S ARGUMENT FAILS

Clear's appears fixated on the word "exact". I've tried to find out if he had anything against the word "exact" but he assured me, in rather snappy fashion, that he had nothing against that particular word. In any event his search for this particular word in Alford is like missing the forest for the trees.

Alford does not use the word exact. This is true. What Alford does use is "express". In fact, Alford refers to χαρακτηρ as "express image". This is, was, and always has been a big no-no for Clear. Clear does not like adjectives in front of χαρακτηρ:

When you see the single word “CHARACTER” rendered “EXACT CHARACTER” by a translator, you are seeing a similar contamination of the original text.

​

The problem here is that Alford does exactly that, he uses and adjective in front of χαρακτηρ. We can see "express image" used by Alford right here:

This snippet was taken from Alford's Greek Testament:

Clear has already informed us that he agrees with Dean Alford and all his examples:

I actually agree with Alford’s points regarding the word Character and I agree with the examples he gave.
In 2015 I argued FOR Alfords description in this forum.

So Clear doesn't only support Alford currently, he's supported Alford, and "express image" since 2015!

The question for Clear now is, if the single word "χαρακτηρ" can mean the two words "express image" as it did for Alford, why can't it mean "exact representation" which is also two words? What allows Alford to attach an adjective but doesn't allow my bible to do the same?

I have demonstrated the following: CONCERNING OESTES EXAMPLES FROM ALFORDS COMMENTARY - WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE

Since we now know what Alford actually demonstrates, and since we know Clear supports Alford and his examples, we can go one by one through Clear's questions, just as he requested.

 

[Oeste]

1) Oeste offered : “Delitzsch remarks, Es ist kein nimbus um Gott, welchen, hier δόξα genannt wird, sondern die übersinnliche geistige Feuer und Lichtnatur Gottes selber, welche er, um sich vor sich selbst offenbar zu merden, aus sich herausfeßt) “

Though I lived in Germany and spoke German when I was younger, my German is rusty. However, Delizsch’s remarks do not speak to nor even mention the specific meaning of the word “Character” in Koine greek. His comments have to do with the aura or “glory” surrounding God and it’s relationship to Gods character of Fire and light which he reveals.

Why did you offer these irrelevant comments to try to show “Character” meant “exact Character” in early greek literature? Can you explain?

I can most certainly explain Clear, but I'm puzzled.

You support Alford, This is from Alford. Alford uses this to support his rendering of "express image" which is TWO words. Why do you refer to this as MY offer when it's actually Alford's?

Why did you state his comment were "irrelevant comments" when he uses them to show "Character" meant "Express image" in early Greek literature? Can you explain?

 

[Oeste]

REGARDING THE “EXACTNESS” OF ANCIENT “IMPRESIONS”


Oeste. YOU offered another example from Alford (which I agree with) as follows :


a) “and impress (“figura,” vulg.: “figure,” Wiclif and Rheims: “very image,” Tyndal and Cranmer: “ingraved forme,” Geneva: “express image,” E. V. The word χαρακτήρ, which by formation would be the stamp or die itself on which a device χαράσσεται, and which stamps it on other things, never appears to bear this meaning, but always to be taken for the impression itself so stamped. “

Since you agree with Alford, and you agree the SINGLE WORD χαρακτηρ can mean "very image", "ingraved forme" or "express image", can you finally, definitively, logically, and coherently tell us why "exact representation" is impossible, or are you going to continually duck and hide from my questions???

Both of these comments speak of engraved or stamped images.
But, they do not speak of “exact ingraving” or “exact images”.
You seem to assume that the “impression” of a die in 70-100 a.d. was somehow “exact”.

I gave you a picture of widows mites.

One can see with their own eyes the great variation in the Images, depth, clarity, centering, coin size, coin shape, etc. Why do you think this sort of variation and "unexactness" indicates the various Characters or coins are “exactly” like one another or that the bare word “Character” means “exact character”?

First, this is rather insulting. You're asking us to compare Jesus to a bag of coins and draw parallels. That's something Judas would do, not Paul. I can assure you that Paul was not trying to compare Jesus to a bag of coins, so I'm not quite sure why you're asking us to do the same.

Secondly, and I've asked you before, why are you taking Paul's metaphorical usage of impress (Χαρακτηρ) and making a literal comparisons? You're asking us to take a metaphor literally which makes no sense!

Third, where, exactly, did you get the idea that the coins have to be "exactly" like one another??? You certainly did not get that from Alford and we all know you didn't get it from Paul. The coins do not have to match each other. Each coin here was more than likely made from a different die.

You misunderstood what Alford was stating.

Let's look at his comments again:

The word χαρακτήρ, which by formation would be the stamp or die itself on which a device χαράσσεται, and which stamps it on other things, never appears to bear this meaning, but always to be taken for the impression itself so stamped. “

b) “... of the objects themselves, on which the features of another are expressed,—which bear its peculiar image, so that they appear as if taken off from it by impression of a die. (Oeste, post 906)​

Alford is NOT saying all the coins should look alike. What he IS saying is that the coin will EXACTLY match what is on the die...whatever that impression so stamped is.

You seem to assume that the “impression” of a die in 70-100 a.d. must be consistent or uniform across all coins in order to be precise or “exact”. That is incorrect and I suspect fueled by images of modern day mass production. You must look at this from the eyes of an ancient.

The coins do not have to match one another. However they will bear the “very image” and precisely match whatever impression was made from the original die from which it was cast.

The coin matches the impression. Where there is no impress there is no mark or engraving. There is nothing else a coin could possibly match except the exact impression so made from the force of the strike and the die. So if I strike hard and flush, the image will likely match all of what is on the die. If I tap or strike at an angle or with insufficient force, I may not get every detail from the die but under either scenario I will have the exact impression the die actually made, which will always be particular, or peculiar to that coin and die.

Remember, the coins are BLANK when they enter the impress. Thus ANY impression struck will result in exactly what was impressed on the die. It cannot be anything else, and it need not be all the features of the die.

This is vastly different from the impress Paul is talking about. There are no features missing, no character not radiated. Jesus is perfect, fully God and fully man. There is no comparison between the coins in your illustration to Jesus. The impression is metaphor only.

It's late again. I did not get to post everything I wanted to post nor respond to everything I wanted to respond to. I'll continue later when I get an opportunity.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste


1) Oeste said : "Clear will refer to Alford's commentary as "Oeste's theory" or "Oeste's offering" so he doesn't appear to be refuting Alford but Oeste."

This is another mischaracterization.
Alford does NOT support your theory.
In these comments, Alford himself neither agrees with nor supports Oestes Claim (i.e. "Oestes Theory") theory that “character” means “exact Character” without adding the adjective “exact”. Can ANY reader find Alford supporting Oestes claim?


2) Oeste admits : “Alford does not use the word exact. This is true.
Alford does not use the word “exact” because the word “exact” is not present.
Cut and pastes from Alford undermine, instead of support the claim that “Character” means “exact Character”.



3) Oeste claims : "Alford does not use the word exact. This is true. What Alford does use is "express". In fact, Alford refers to χαρακτηρ as "express image". This is, was, and always has been a big no-no for Clear."

This is another mischaracterization.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "Character" referring to an expressed image; or a painted image; or an impressed image; or an amorphous image; or a drawn image; or a carved image, etc. It refers to some sort of image.

Luther uses “ebenbild”, which can be rendered the “very image”. It is a visual reference to two things that look alike.

One can say “spitting image” if one wants, as in “The son is the spitting image of his father.”
However, the word “image” does not mean “exact image” unless one adds the adjective “exact” to the noun “image”.

Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?



4) Oeste claims : "Clear does not like adjectives in front of χαρακτηρ:"

This is another mischaracterization.
I LIKE ADJECTIVES A LOT because they increase accuracy and add flavor and meaning and liveliness and interest to language.

“The tall youthful boy ran very fast.” is more accurate and descriptive and lively than, “The boy ran.”
Adjectives are very, very good for accurate communication.
Similarly, I would like it if “Character” had at least one adjective in front of it, then it would be more descriptive and a reader could more accurately tell what is meant by the lone word.

Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?



5) REGARDING THE "GREEK" SNIPPET THAT HAPPENS TO BE IN ENGLISH

Oeste claims : "This snippet was taken from Alford's Greek Testament:"

Actually, readers should note that this snippet is not in Greek, but it is obviously in English. It is not “Alfords Greek Testament” but instead, the text is an English revision of the Authorized version (as it clearly says on the title page...)

However, readers will note that Alford does not render the image as a "painted" image, or a "drawn" image, or as a "carved" image, but as an “express image”.
Also, note that Alford does NOT render it as an “exact image”.
I think Alford was correct NOT to render “Character” as “exact Character” because “Character” does not mean “exact Character” in this case.



6) Regarding the picture of coins and their “inexactness” rather than their “exactness”.

Oeste claimed : "First, this is rather insulting. You're asking us to compare Jesus to a bag of coins and draw parallels."

This is yet another bizarre and silly mischaracterization.

I simply asked why you thought a stamp or die in the years 70-100 a.d. indicated “exactness” when the picture shows the dies used to stamp coins were not at all exact but displayed tremendous variation.
Nothing about a die in that age was “exact”.

Alford points out that he thinks that this specific Character to refers to an image made by an impression or a die, as opposed to a painted image or a carved statue, etc.
Thus Alford tells us in your example : “The word χαρακτήρ, which by formation would be the stamp or die itself on which a device χαράσσεται, and which stamps it on other things, never appears to bear this meaning, but always to be taken for the impression itself so stamped. “.

Alford is simply pointing out that “Character” here, refers to the image itself and does not refer to the die which formed the image.

Alford, says nothing about “exactness” merely that the object impressed or expressed bears a peculiar image.
Thus Alford says : “b) “... of the objects themselves, on which the features of another are expressed,—which bear its peculiar image, so that they appear as if taken off from it by impression of a die. (Oeste, post 906)
Again, Alford does not express the concept that “character” in this instance, meant “exact Character”.
I am at a loss as to why you would offer 10 more examples from Alford that do not support your theory.
Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?



7) Oeste offered readers another example from Alford, saying : “Thus Æsch. Suppl. 279, κύπριος χαρακτήρ τʼ ἐν γυναικείοις τύποις εἰκὼς πέπληκται τεκτόνων πρὸς ἀρσένων. “Aristot. Œc. ii. p. 689,

Oeste, I asked you to explain why you think the Cypriot type of “character” referred to used here is relevant to your attempt to demonstrate “Character” meant “exact character” in ancient Koine Greek?
Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?



8) Oeste offered readers another example, saying : “ ἀνενεχθέντος δὲ τοῦ ἀργυρίου ἐπικόψας χαρακτῆρα: id. Pol. i. 6, where χαρακτῆρα ἐπιβάλλειν is to stamp coin, and it is said, ὁ γὰρ χαρακτήρ ἐτέθη τοῦ πόσου σημεῖον. Diod. Sic. xvii. 66, τάλαντα χρυσοῦ, χαρακτῆρα δαρεικὸν ἔχοντα.

Oeste, I asked to to explain why you think the silver and Gold mentioned here shows the bare ancient koine word “Character” meant “exact Character”?
Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?




΅When you are finished answering these questions regarding your examples that you, somehow, thought were going to support your theory, we have to go over the questions on the other examples you provided but did not answer.

WHY did you think they would support your claim? Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?


Oeste : We have seen multiple, (almost 2 dozen) examples in greek literature and in Alfords examples where the lone word "Character" did not mean "exact Character".
I am still willing to yield to your theory that "Character" can mean "exact Character" if you can find a single instance in early greek literature where it actually does so.


Clear
τωτζφυσεακω

 

[Samael_Khan]

the first thing i see is your tiring to make the bible fit to your beliefs and not the other way around

So you prefer ad hominem over addressing the actual scriptures he quoted?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Tigger2,

I’m not promoting trinitarian ideas. I was once led to believe that the Trinity was false by a JW and the Trinity booklet. I’m not making up accusations of misquoting and deception. I’m just pointing out what I have found in some of the WTS publications. I can back up what I said and let the reader decide if there is something with my intentions or with the quotes and representations:

In the Watchtower's booklet, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" p. 5-6 in quotes,

• A PROTESTANT publication states: “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.” (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary)

The full quote from, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, part 3, p. 1597 :

• “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century. …Though it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the OT and explicit in the NT.”

The keywords are formulation, implicit, and explicit. While one cannot find a formula for the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly stated in the Bible, the concepts which provide the basis for the doctrine are clearly manifest. "...it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the OT and explicit in the NT.”



In the Watchtower's booklet, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" p. 6 they misrepresent Fortman. They say, "Similarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits:

• “The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the “Old Testament”] suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.”

The quote left out from, Jesuit Edmund Fortman's The Triune God, pp. xv-xvi

• “If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe.…They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word, Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly.…They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas….They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated."

So while they frequently state the title of the books being quoted, one will search this brochure in vain to find the volumes and page numbers from which these quotes are derived. But when you go outside and do find the full quotes, you see a different representation.





In the WTS bible Col 1: 16-17 states,

• "because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. and by means of him all other things were made to exist,"

Why would the WT add the word "other" to their bible when it's not in the original?

The JW's stopped printing the Trinity brochure because of the outcry by people whom they quoted claiming that the brochure misquotes them. Always be wary when articles contain elipses in between sentences that are quoted because it might mean that those writing the article are trying to hide something from the reader.

 

[paarsurrey]

From my conversation and studies with Jehovah Witnesses they sincerely believe Jesus claims to be “a god” at John 10:33, but they would be wrong…not only from majority Christian standards but by Watchtower standards as well. I believe this is because the WT recognizes the dilemma of proclaiming Jesus “a god” at John 10:33 even if many Witnesses do not.

Let’s take a look at a traditional (NIV) and the Watchtower’s New World Translation (NWT) paying special attention to verse 33:

30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”​

33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” NIV​

OR:

33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” NWT​

We’ll proceed with the “a god” translation as if it were correct, just to see how much mileage we get. Unfortunately this crashes us head first into our first dilemma.

Dilemma #1: Blasphemy

As soon as Jesus said “The Father and I are one” the Jews picked up stones. When Jesus asked why, the Jews explained it was for making himself “a god” according to the Watchtower’s translation.

This presents us with our first dilemma. According to the NWT, the blasphemy was for abusing Jehovah’s name, not some “gods’” name:

View attachment 41469

Source: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/nwt/books/john/10/#v43010033

In effect, both JW.ORG and the NWT are giving backhand support for the Trinitarian translation that the crowd was about to stone Jesus for calling himself Jehovah, and not for simply referring to himself as “a god”.


Dilemma #2: Biblical/Historical record

Jehovah Witnesses and other Arians are quick to tell us that judges, magistrates, and other powerful people were routinely considered or called “gods”. The problem here is that the NWT tells us the Jews were about to stone Jesus for calling himself “a god”. It doesn’t matter if the Jews were wrong or correct in their interpretation, what matters is their explanation that Jesus should be stoned simply for calling himself “a god”.


Let’s think about this…If Jews are stoning Jesus for being “a god” then all the other “gods”…their judges, magistrates, and other “powerful people”…were equally subject to being stoned by the Jews!

Yet the biblical and historical record is absolutely silent in this regard. There is no record of Jews stoning their judges, magistrates, or other “powerful people” simply for considering themselves “gods”.

So where’s the evidence?


Dilemma #3: Watchtower claims Jesus is “a god” (John 1:1) but not “a god” (John 10:33)

This is perhaps the most bizarre dilemma of all. Witnesses believe that the WT teaches Jesus is “a god”. Perhaps the Watchtower does, but as I am about to illustrate they just don’t teach it all the time. In fact, the WT claims that at John 10:33, Jesus specifically denies he’s “a god” at all! The reason for this will become clear.

Let go back to the Watchtower’s biblical scenario:

The mob is about to stone Jesus for blasphemy…calling himself “a god” according to the WT translation. They have rocks in hand, and they're itching to fly. But Jesus, having grabbed the crowd’s undivided attention does something curious. He quotes Psalm 82:6:

I have said, “You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High. But like mortals you will die, and like rulers you will fail.” Psalm 82:6-7.​

The last thing you want to do with a stone wielding crowd is compare yourself to Israel’s judges of old. Why? Because the judges of old were condemned by Jehovah God! In other words, Jesus is saying “The judges of old were “sons of God”, I am the son of God, the judges of old were “gods” and I just told you I was “a god”, the judges of old were condemned by God…so what on earth is taking you so long to condemn me?”

If that doesn’t get a rock hurtling by your ear, I don’t know what would, and therein lays the Watchtower’s dilemma. They simply can’t have Jesus comparing himself to the corrupt judges of Israel by declaring he’s “a god” at John 10:33, and they certainly can’t have the crowd thinking that Jesus had just declared himself “God”.

But our clever “truth finding” friends at the Watchtower have a solution. A “twofer” they gleaned straight out of the text. Not only does Jesus deny he’s God at John 10:33, he also denies he’s “a god”! :

· 66 Jesus told those who wanted to stone him that he had not claimed to be God or a god, even though Psalm 82:6 had called some men, some Israelite judges, “gods.”

- The Watchtower—9/15/1962 pp. 560-567​

source: Prehuman Existence — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (see paragraph 66)

How the WT got Jesus to deny being God and/or “a god” at John 10:33 is baffling, but I suppose if you’re a Jehovah Witness it’s all there right there, embedded somewhere in the text.

Unfortunately that still leaves us with a huge problem. Let’s not forget that Jehovah Witnesses tell us Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1 so it’s really disconcerting to see them claiming Jesus denies ever being “a god” by the time John 10:33 rolls around. But as the quote and link above shows, this is “current truth” even to this day.

It’s a confusing, contradictory Christology.

Please read my post #168 in the thread:
The JW's claim Jesus was not son of Adam.
It is very relevant here also :

If Jesus was not Son of Adam then he could not be Son of Man as well, as he had no seed of a man and he had only seed of a woman and with the same reason he was not Son of God also ,as he had no seed of G-d also. Right friends, please?

Regards

 

[Muffled]

You are sooooo right.

I agree also a sacrifice in the Bible is made as God requests but is not made to Him. sacrifices to gods are what one does with idols.

 

[Muffled]

Please read my post #168 in the thread:
The JW's claim Jesus was not son of Adam.
It is very relevant here also :

If Jesus was not Son of Adam then he could not be Son of Man as well, as he had no seed of a man and he had only seed of a woman and with the same reason he was not Son of God also ,as he had no seed of G-d also. Right friends, please?

Regards

Well technically they would be right. Adam's sons were Seth, Cain & Abel. Other wise the bible lists a pedigree going back to Adam although chances are it is flawed. God knows the truth and Jesus is God in the flesh, so it is no surprise that He accepts the title son of David.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I agree also a sacrifice in the Bible is made as God requests but is not made to Him. sacrifices to gods are what one does with idols.

Then you need to brush up on your Torah.

 

[Oeste]

Hello Clear,

Sorry I've been very busy and did not have a chance to get back to this thread.

1) Oeste said : "Clear will refer to Alford's commentary as "Oeste's theory" or "Oeste's offering" so he doesn't appear to be refuting Alford but Oeste."

This is another mischaracterization.

We’ve been through this before remember? PROPER characterization is NOT MISCHARACTERIZATION.

Alford does NOT support your theory.

Why do you constantly mischaracterize virtually every bible, commentary, lexicon, and dictionary on the entire planet as “Oeste’s theory”?

There is no "Oeste's theory". This is something you made up to give an illusion of parity as explained in red above. You have no evidence to support your contention.

As such, “Oeste’s theory” is no different from your “exact character” phrase that no one uses. They are merely inventions and convenient strawmen you attempt to slap upon my avatar.

Look, I would LOVE to take credit for what you consistently mislabel as “Oeste’s theory”. I really, really, really appreciate the apparent praise you’ve heaped upon me. But we must be clear…it’s not MY theory. I’m not trying to steal Alford’s points and assign them to myself. That’s something you assigned to me...I did not take it upon myself.

So Alford’s comments do not become “Oeste’s theory” simply because I posted his commentary. They are still Alford's.

I agree with a lot of Alford’s comments, that’s why I posted them, but that does not mean it becomes “Oeste’s theory”.

What I am presenting (affirming) is not a "theory" but a sound exegesis that is universally accepted by every reputable scholar, (secular and/or religious) on the planet (including Alford) as valid translation. This includes the Catholic and Protestant churches, the Watchtower, and it includes hermeneutics from your church.

This is why you were unable to post any evidence WHATSOEVER to refute Strong’s Concordance, Thayer’s Lexicons or Mounce's Dictionary, or as you mislabeled it, “Oeste’s theory”. Such evidence simply doesn’t exist.

I think the real problem here is not that I have “mischaracterized” your argument, The real problem, at least from my perspective, is that you misunderstood our discussion.

You appear to believe there is still some debate as to whether χαρακτήρ (character) can mean “exact impress”, “very impress”, or “exact representation” when there is none. χαρακτήρ when properly translated IN CONTEXT can mean any of those things, with the adjective, just as it can mean any of those translations without the adjective. It's the context that rules, and as I've explained time and time again, Paul uses χαρακτήρ differently, and where you have different context you will have different meaning. There is simply no way to hop, skip, jump, go around, circumvent, navigate or get under or over this.

In other words, any "debate" regarding "χαρακτήρ" sailed when you were unable to offer any credible evidence to counter what is a universally accepted and valid translation.

Here are just a few of the many and varied bible translations:

the very image of his substance, /American Standard Version


the true image of his substance, /Bible in Basic English


the very expression of God’s essence, /Complete Jewish Bible


the exact expression of His nature, /Holman Christian Standard


the exact likeness of God's own being, /Good News Translation


the express image of his person, /King James Version


the exact imprint of his nature, /English Standard Version​

At this point, I don’t see how the ship can be turned around. It’s you against the world here Clear.

In these comments, Alford himself neither agrees with nor supports Oestes Claim (i.e. "Oestes Theory") theory that “character” means “exact Character” without adding the adjective “exact”.

I've patiently watched you create your very own Greek language rules on this thread for a while,…rules you won’t find in any Greek primer or textbook…and now you want to dip into Alford and do the same??

So "Alford himself" says all this, right in his comments eh? The comments you didn't bother to quote?

Can you show us where "Alfred himself" does not support "Oeste's” claim”?

Can you show us, exactly, where "Alford himself" says this?

Can you show us, exactly; where "Alford himself" says he disagrees?

This is a classic example of eisegesis, where one inserts their own meaning into a text or writing so that they can “extract” it out again. You did this before and now you’re doing it again.

Here's what I see:

When I read the Alford’s comments I see he doesn’t like the word “effulgence” at Hebrew 1:3:

“Even then He could say of Himself, "The Son of Man which is in heaven" being (see Phil. ii. 6, which is also said of His pre-existent and essential being) the brightness ("reflexion," not "effulgence.") This latter would be legitimate, but does not seem to have been the ordinary usage.”​

Do you see the same? When Alford has a preference for a word, like “effulgence” he makes it clear. There’s absolutely no need to put words he doesn’t say into his mouth.

Can you show us where “Alford himself” does as you claim, with the word “exact”?

Can you show us where Alford even considers the use or non use of adjectives at Hebrews 1:3?

Can ANY reader find Alford supporting Oestes claim?

If they're searching Alford’s comments for a strawman called “Oeste’s claim” the answer to that is “No”.

 

[Oeste]

2) Oeste admits : “Alford does not use the word exact. This is true.
Alford does not use the word “exact” because the word “exact” is not present.

Absolutely Clear! I am glad we can agree on this.

As I explained previously I used Alford specifically because he didn't use the word "exact":

This is where you erred Clear, and this is exactly why I chose this particular commentary. I chose it EXACTLY because it DID NOT have the word "exact", hoping that, by reading it, Alford's commentary might be more believable or credible to you and why the single Greek word "Charaktēr ". Unfortunately you were so locked, loaded, and focused on the word "exact" that you totally missed what Alford was saying.

Once I explained why I used Alford you flipped your argument in one of the greatest about faces in Religious Forum history. We'll discuss that later.

Cut and pastes from Alford undermine, instead of support the claim that “Character” means “exact Character”.

Uhmmm, no one translates χαρακτήρ as "exact Character" Clear. No one. I'm not aware of anyone who translates χαρακτήρ as "exact character" and you haven't offered anyone who has.

"EXACT CHARACTER" is a STRAWMAN Clear. It's something you made up. It's something you created so you could argue against it. That's the entire purpose of a strawman. You create it, you introduce it, you slap somebody's name on it (Oeste in this case), and then you knock it down.

Rather than build these logical fallacies can we kindly get back to Hebrews 1:3 and "χαρακτήρ" (charaktér) which is what we were actually discussing?

There is absolutely no basis for your claim that Alford "undermines" the word "exact" or any other word you believe is an "added" adjective to "χαρακτήρ". Your argument's lack of basis is its only basis.

We need more than just your unsubstantiated say-so Clear.

 

[Oeste]

Oeste said : “No one uses the words "exact character", however by the first century it is Paul, speaking by way of the Spirit, that tells us Christ exactly represents the Father at Hebrews 1:3.”

I very much agree that “no one uses the words ‘exact character”.
This has always been my point.
The greek base text does not use the words "exact Character", or "exact anything"

Since you agree no one translates "Χαρακτηρ" as “exact character” why do you keep arguing against a translation of “exact character”? Will you next argue against translating "Χαρακτηρ" as “orange owls” because no one uses it in Hebrews 1:3? Will that be your next point?

Neither your response to my question nor the point you were making makes any sense. It's a strawman Clear.

One thing we can be sure of...it's not the word "exact". You told us you had nothing against the word "exact" remember?

Why not come out and explain why you don't like "exact"?

This is a strange question. It's like asking why one doesn't like the word "green".
I neither "like" nor dislike the word "exact".
Similarly, I do not "like" nor "dislike" the adjectives "ragged" or "quick" or "shaking". They are merely words.
However none of them are in Hebrews 1:3.

In fact you told us it was a "strange question" as indicated in bold above.

So what did Clear have a problem with?

ADJECTIVES!

According to Clear's "RULES OF KOINE Greek" there simply is no "adjective" with "Χαρακτηρ" (charaktér). As explained to @Brian2 and me, the single Greek word Charaktér means charaktér, nothing more nothing less:

I like the point that the translations do not say "exact impress" or "exact image", but renders the word as merely impress (impression) or image.

When you see the single word “CHARACTER” rendered “EXACT CHARACTER” by a translator, you are seeing a similar contamination of the original text.

the objective data undermines your claim that the lone word “Character” means “exact Character” and instead, points to the original base Greek where “Character” meant “Character”.

The only reason to change the word “Character” into “Exact Character” is a theological contamination. This happens fairly frequently and, interestingly, Hebrews 1:3 is a good example.

ADDING “EXACTNESS” TO THE BASE WORD “CHARACTER” DOESN’T WORK

According to Clear's Rule, it's all about the "base Greek" text:

The greek base text does not use the words "exact Character", or "exact anything"

According to Clear's Rule, NO ADJECTIVES WHATSOEVER ARE ALLOWED with "Χαρακτηρ":

The writer of Hebrews 1:3 did not add any adjective at all to the word CHARACTER. He wrote what he intended.

That's the problem when you make up your own Greek "rules". You tend to forget them as time rolls along. Why? Because no one uses or adheres to imaginary rules for long, not even ones self.

Clear forgot all about his rules when it came to Alford. But Oeste, who is by now a very interested student, did not.

Clear was giddy when I "cut and pasted" Alford. He didn't see the word "exact". Clear was so giddy he started a series of ad hominem attacks, asking relentlessly, time and time again, if I "could even read Koine" Greek.

But I hadn't quoted Alford because he used the word "EXACT". As I explained to Clear, I specifically quoted him because he didn't use the word "exact" but used another ADJECTIVE instead. That apparently proved a big problem for Clear because he had already stated that he agreed with Alford and his examples. The only avenue left for Clear was a huge flip flop.

Suddenly adjectives, which were a big no-no according to Clear's very own rule, are now fine and dandy with the single word "Χαρακτηρ". (Continued...)

 

[Oeste]

Continued...

This was Clear's Rule before:

The writer of Hebrews 1:3 did not add any adjective at all to the word CHARACTER. He wrote what he intended.

While readers may take away from the text additional meaning not found in the bare text, the translator of actual, authentic, written Greek is not allowed to add any adjective at all to the translation.

​

This is Clear's Rule now:

This is another mischaracterization.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "Character" referring to an expressed image; or a painted image; or an impressed image; or an amorphous image; or a drawn image; or a carved image, etc. It refers to some sort of image.

I have no idea which Clear I am debating. Is it the Clear that makes up Greek "Rules" where no adjectives are allowed, or is it the new Clear where adjectives like "expressed" or "painted" are fine and dandy?

Is it the Clear where the single Greek word "χαρακτήρ" (charaktér) meant "charaktér", or is it the new Clear where charaktér can mean adjective + character???

It's 2:30 am. I stay up late to engage in interesting, vigorous, honest debate. Instead I come back and find an avalanche of ad hominem attacks meant not to attack my arguments but to attack me. It's extremely disappointing but I did enjoy the "Rules", at least while they lasted.

Have a good night everyone!

~Oeste

 

[Clear]

Oeste said : "Clear was so giddy he started a series of ad hominem attacks, asking relentlessly, time and time again, if I "could even read Koine" Greek."

Hi @Oeste

It is strange to label a simple question as an "ad hominem" attack.
The question relates to your credibility. You are trying to teach individuals about a language you are unfamiliar with.

For example, you cut and pasted the very examples from alford which undermine your claim. Also, so far, you been unable to answer a single question about the greek examples you offered to readers from Alford (whom I agree with), but which undermine your claims.

Thus, I think Alfords position is correct and yours is incorrect. .

Being asked if you understand the basic language you are trying to teach others about is not a personal attack and to label it as such is silly.

Can you read Koine Greek?

Clear

 

[Clear]

BIAS OR “CONTEXT” CAN BE ADDED TO NOUNS TO ADD MEANING. IF CONTEXT IS ADDED TO THE WORD “CHARACTER” IT CAN MEAN ALMOST ANYTHING.


1) Oeste said : “You appear to believe there is still some debate as to whether χαρακτήρ (character) can mean “exact impress”, “very impress”, or “exact representation” when there is none.”

You are confused.
"Character can mean ALL of these things IF the literary context supports it.
It can mean “sweet” or “bow legged” or “planet”, or almost anything IF there is additional context that adds meaning to the base word.
This has always been my position.

For example, this was my original point to @Brian2 in post #662, page 37 (almost 275 posts ago) when the conversation had to do with John 1:1c.

1) Theological context determines meaning
and
2) differences in Theological context (i.e. personal bias) often underlies disagreements.


In fact, I said : "Brian2 seemed to understand this principle that translators have bias which affects their translation. He said “Translators come from diverse opinions and are individuals or small groups. I cannot justify all translations from "Christendom". I also cannot justify the New World Translation.” (Post #859)
Seventy Six posts ago.

I always agreed with this point. All translators have a personal bias or a personal “context” from which they translate.
The base word χαρακτηρ means χαρακτηρ but with ADDITIONAL context context such as adjectives or situational context such as a theological bias, it can mean many things such as "Exact Character". Context is King.



2) Oeste said : "χαρακτήρ when properly translated IN CONTEXT can mean any of those things, with the adjective, just as it can mean any of those translations without the adjective."

You and I have always been in agreement on this point.
The operative principle has to do with the phrase “IN CONTEXT”.

In the case of the lone word “Character”, one must add an external bias or external additional context to Χαρακτηρ before the lone word can mean anything other than Χαρακτηρ.

Just as "Horse" can mean “A fast horse” with additional context (which does not have to be an adjective), “Character” can become “Exact Character” with the addition of additional context.
In the case of a word, the additional context must come from a source outside the word itself but which is applied to the word.
The the additional context can be textual or situational, or theological, etc.
Still, there must be additional context.



3) Oeste said : "It's the context that rules, and as I've explained time and time again,"

This is good, I have explained and argued for this critically important point as well.

We are in agreement that Context changes meaning.

Context is King and can add meaning to basic, non-contexted, lone, base words.
Character can become “Good Character” by the addition of the context of a single word “good”.
Character can become “Bad Character” by the addition of the context of a single word “bad”.
Character can become “Exact Character” by the addition of context, either by addition of an adjective or by some other context such as a theological bias or opinion.

WITHOUT additional context, then “Character”, simply means “Character” and not “exact Character”.

I will get to your other points later.

Clear
τωφιεισεακω

 

[Clear]

1) GRAMMAR versus CONTEXT

I am glad that Oeste and I agree that context is one main determinant of intended meaning.
Vocabulary, Grammar, and context are three different types of basic tools of communication.

If I’m talking to a car mechanic on the phone and say “That thing on the motor is making a noise.”
He has been given vocabulary and grammar, but He may still not know what I am talking about.

If I’m talking to a car mechanic in person and point to the thing under the hood and say the same, exact words, which he did not understand before, the simple act of pointing adds context and he then may understand what I mean.

Context is important.



2) REFERENCE TO TEXT

Clear said : The writer of Hebrews 1:3 did not add any adjective at all to the word CHARACTER. He wrote what he intended.

Clear said : While readers may take away from the text additional meaning not found in the bare text, the translator of actual, authentic, written Greek is not allowed to add any adjective at all to the translation.

Such statements point to the Greek text (which is objective and stable) and not to contextual translation (which is subjective and unstable).

A translator is not to add words to a text that are not there if it can be avoided.






3) REFENCE TO HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Clear said : There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "Character" referring to an expressed image; or a painted image; or an impressed image; or an amorphous image; or a drawn image; or a carved image, etc. It refers to some sort of image.

As I mentioned, IF there is sufficient context, χαρακτηρ (Character) can refer to a taste (i.e. That food has a sweet Character.), or to a personality (i.e. He’s a mean Character.) or multiple things. BUT, without any context, we cannot add additional meaning to a bare, lone word.

Without context, "Character" means "Character". Additional context must be added before it can mean “exact Character”.



4) IS “EXACT CHARACTER” A UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED TRANSLATION OF HEB 1:3???

Oeste said : “What I am presenting (affirming) is not a "theory" but a sound exegesis that is universally accepted by every reputable scholar, (secular and/or religious) on the planet (including Alford) as valid translation.”

These are bizarre claims.
1) Alford does NOT prefer “exact Character” but instead, he prefers to use "express image" in his translation (as the actual picture of his own translation in post #924 clearly shows)
2) Every reputable scholar on the planet does NOT prefe to use "exact Character" universally, but instead, there is a great deal of variation in translation for Character in Hebrews 1:3.

For multiple examples of this point, readers can simply look up Hebrews 1:3 on bible hub for comparisons of various versions of translations and it is immediately apparent that there are significant variations and not one "universally accepted" translation.

For examples :

New International Version renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "exact representation"
New Living Translation renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "very character"
English Standard Version renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "exact imprint"
Berean Literal Bible renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "exact expression"
King James Bible renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "express image"
Amplified Bible renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "only expression"
American Standard Version renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "very image"
Contemporary English Version renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "is like"
Douay-Rheims Bible renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "figure of"
Good News Translation renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "exact likeness"
Literal Standard Version renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "impress of"
NET Bible renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "representation of"
New Living Translation renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "expresses the very character"
GOD'S WORD® Translation renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "exact likeness"
NET Bible renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "representation of"
New Heart English Bible renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "very image"
A Faithful Version renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "exact image"
Geneva Bible of 1587 renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "ingraved forme"
Literal Standard Version renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "impress of"
Smith's Literal Translation renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "figure of"
Aramaic Bible in Plain English renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "Image of"
Lamsa Bible renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "express image"
Godbey New Testament renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "character of"
Haweis New Testament renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "very impress of"
Mace New Testament renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "imprest image"

These are simply from a cut and paste from bible hub and none of these translations use "exact character".

These examples could be added to many other translators as well as Alfords example, to demonstrate the blatant error of the claim that that “exact Character” “is exegesis that is universally accepted by every reputable scholar, (secular and/or religious) on the planet (including Alford)…”.



5) AN OBJECTIVE DEMONSTRATION OF NON-CONTEXTED MEANING OF “CHARACTER”

Any reader may demonstrate that “Character” does not mean “exact Character” (without additional context) by simply asking Google to translate “Character” in to Greek. (A computer translator has no religious bias)

English Character becomes Greek χαρακτηρας

If you have google translate Greek χαακτηρας into English, it becomes English “Character”.

It does not become “exact Character” or “good Character” or “bad Character”.

This computerized translation has no religious bias.

Without bias, then "Character", remains translated as "Character".


After all of these posts, we are still left with the uncontexted, base word of Character, meaning "Character" and not "exact Character".


Clear
τωφιφυτωνεω

 

[Oeste]

Oeste said : "Clear was so giddy he started a series of ad hominem attacks, asking relentlessly, time and time again, if I "could even read Koine" Greek."

It is strange to label a simple question as an "ad hominem" attack.

Yes, it was an ad hominem attack.

Did you forget? You told me I made an "admission" I never made:

This is simply an admission that you don’t know koine Greek.

That one got a few chuckles especially since we were discussing John 1:1c at the time.

Nevertheless it was an ad hominem. Instead of attacking arguments you decided it was better to attack me personally. That's not a good idea especially on a moderated forum.

But of course that didn't stop you, did it?

More ad hominems followed.

Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?

Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?

Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?

este, can you read Koine Greek?

Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?

Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?

Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?

Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?

Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?

Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?

Oeste, can you read Koine Greek?

All those quotes are from a single post (934), all designed to attack me personally.

You started peppering me with this pointless question (yes, it's the wrong question) because you tried to make me rather than “Χαρακτηρ" the topic of discussion. You had to find out how much Koine I knew and fast, because Oeste was disagreeing with these fallacious Greek rules. Oeste was challenging and asking questions about Clear' rules...rules Oeste recognized as spun from whole cloth, and presented to the audience here in the hopes they would somehow sail past unnoticed.

I really enjoyed those rules Clear. That "single word character = character" and “Χαρακτηρ = Χαρακτηρ" were priceless!!

IMPORTANT NOTICE: There is no such rule but I really had to see where Clear was going with all this.

In short, there is nothing in Koine that demands a single Greek word like “Χαρακτηρ" be translated as a single English word. There couldn't possibly be when English hadn't been "invented" yet.

In fact, there is no such rule in all of language. Any single word in one language never necessitates a single word in another. One word in one language may at times have a single word in another, and at other times it may be pregnant with a volley.

The question relates to your credibility.

Oh, I'm VERY SORRY about this Clear, but you do not get to question my credibility. You can challenge the credibility of my answers if you like but you don't get to question me personally.

You are trying to teach individuals about a language you are unfamiliar with.

I'm VERY SORRY again Clear but you don't know me from Adam. You are trying to teach individuals about someone you are unfamiliar with.

Unlike some posters on this forum, Oeste has no need to exalt or separate himself by talking about his Greek, English or any other language skills. I have no need or desire to talk about my educational experience, what schools I have attended, or any post graduate work I may have done. I am very comfortable here and having plenty of fun on this thread. I really have no need to talk about myself at all.

That does not mean I won't defend myself Clear.

Besides, even if I told you these things you would not believe me. You didn't believe Strong's Concordance when it said you were wrong. You didn't believe Thayer's or Mounce either. So why on earth should anyone, especially me, expect you to take any response I give you seriously unless that response is one that favors Clear? That's what you were looking for from the audience isn't it? Perhaps a "ooooooh, aaaahhh, look at the Greek"?

Here's something you might believe Clear...I dropped out of fourth grade and was just released from prison for identity theft after impersonating a Greek language professor at the University. It's not true of course, but from my perspective I think tit's close to what you're looking for.

Even though you did not know Χαρακτηρ could mean "exact impress", "exact representation", "express image" or some other definition that might include an adjective, I never asked if you could read Koine Greek. I didn't even ask if you could read English. Heck, I didn't even ask if you could read. Why? Because you would have considered it an ad hominem as would everyone else.

Instead I've responded thoughtfully to your posts including this waste of time responding to your silly ad hominem.

In any event it's late in the morning as usual. From my perspective you've dug yourself quite a hole here but I'm not going to tolerate any more personal attacks. You'll have to dig yourself out without them. I think I counted another 10 or so "Do you read Koine" from you.

As to that, my posts speak for themselves. I understand what is obvious to some may be difficult for others. We are talking about the Greek word Χαρακτηρ and it's English equivalent at Hebrews 1:3. What we are not talking about is Oeste.

There is an old adage in the legal profession:

“When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you don’t have either, pound the table.”​

Oeste is nobody's table.

 

[Oeste]

I am glad that Oeste and I agree that context is one main determinant of intended meaning.
Vocabulary, Grammar, and context are three different types of basic tools of communication.

Since any further conversation has a likelihood of bringing more heat than light, I think this is a fair enough observation and a point where we can both leave the discussion in agreement.

Take care and stay safe,

Oeste

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste


1) THE BASE GREEK WORD “ΚΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ” (ENGLISH WORD FOR “CHARACTER”) VERSUS ADDING ADDITIONAL MEANING TO THIS WORD


Oeste said : In short, there is nothing in Koine that demands a single Greek word like “Χαρακτηρ" be translated as a single English word.” (post #938)


I very much agree with this.

ADDING ADDITIONAL CONTEXT CAN ADD ADDITIONAL MEANING TO A BASE WORD

Χαρακτηρ can mean multiple things depending upon the context as I pointed out and gave many example of in posts (688 & 689 about 250 posts ago)

For examples that I have already given of how context creates and adds additional meaning to the word Χαρακτηρ

It can mean Statue : in OGIS 383.60 (a mid 1st century b.c. document) a group is speaking of a statue and they remark Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης meaning that it is a “Representation of us”.

It can refer to the Heir of property : In P Flor I. 61.21 (of approx. 85 a.d.) the text Uses the word Character to identify the heir to property saying : “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι” meaning “Of the characters only heir seen is…” .

It can refer to a painting or a simple bust : In P Leid X xxiv.11 (of 2-3 a.d.) Character refers to a painting or a bust : “ τελει τε μοι κυριε τον μεγαν, κυριον αφθεγτον Χαρακτηρα, ινα αυτον εχω.” Meaning “I have finished the Character of my great Lord, Lord Afthegton (or uncorruptible Lord?). I have it.”

It can mean specific persons : in Syll 3 783.23 (written sometime after 27 b.c.) the text speaks of Χαρακτηρ use as a reference to persons. “μεχρι των Σεβαστειων ευπλοησεν Χαρακτηρων…” which Deissman (LAE.2 p.341 n.1) translates as “He made a successful voyage to the August Persons …(referring to Augustus and Livia).

It can mean almost any sort of identifying mark : New Testament Revelations text uses it as a reference to “the mark of the beast” (13:17, 16:2, 19:20).

It can be a mark of authority : on the back of CPR I.11 (a text of of a.d. 108) it refers to letter on a seal on a title : Ετους ιβ Αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος Νερουα Τραιανου “(Year one, Emperor Caesar Neura of Trajan”).

It can refer to a copy of an original : Preisigke 5275.11 (written in 11 a.d.) says “… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “ which says “Copy from copy of engraving and inscription Greek letters”.

It can be a simple ikon. In BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) an engraved icon was made of a camel “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν” to demonstrate what an Arabian camel looked like.

It can mean “a letter” written to a person. In P Lond V 1658.8 (written in 4 a.d.) Ghedini provides the example of “…δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…” which he translates from a larger sentence as “I pray for your health “in this letter”.

It can be an identifying mark that distinguishes one coin from another. In P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) it speaks of “χρυσου εν οβρυζω Χαραγματι” “Gold with a stamp)

The word χαρακτηρ could mean an endorsement., in P Ryl II 160(a)10, (written approx. 14-37 a.d.) says “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι” in a sentence where the text says “ to pay the clerk of the record office when the has endorsed the deed.”

It can refer to the “tagging” a spray painter does, or when someone carves their names in a tree. P Lond 854.11 (written 1 to 2 a.d.) speaks of a traveler who writes that he engraved (Εγχαρασσω ) the names of friends on temples he visited. Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις.

It can be a word for the bright “t-shirts” I put on my kids when we went to Disneyland to “mark” them so that I could identify them from a distance. in P Oxy XIV 1680.12 (written in 3 to 4 a.d.) a son said “I wanted to stamp a mark on you” “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”. He also was in a similar situation and had concern for his fathers’ safety.


However, all of these sentences and examples have additional Context that create and add additional meaning to the base word “Character”.
Without the context, one cannot tell what the lone, base word means, other than “Character”.
Similarly, the word "horse" is a "horse". It is not a "fast horse" or a "red horse" or a "good horse" until you add additional context such as "fast", or "red" or "good" to the word "horse".

Context is king. Remember that we both agreed that Context is important in adding meaning in posts #936 and 937 above.




2) Oeste said : “I really enjoyed those rules Clear. That "single word character = character" and “Χαρακτηρ = Χαρακτηρ" were priceless!!

The principle is similar in English. If I say the word “horse”. Without further context, the single bare word simply means “horse”. Without adding further context, it doesn’t mean “fast horse” or “red horse” or “smart horse”.



3) Oeste said : Even though you did not know Χαρακτηρ could mean "exact impress", "exact representation", "express image" or some other definition that might include an adjective, I never asked if you could read Koine Greek. (post #938)

Of course it can mean “exact impress”, “exact representation”, “express image”, etc. as I have already demonstrated.
It simply must have additional context in order to do so.
And I hope I have provided enough examples to demonstrate how additional context can create this additional meaning.
Without context, the lone, base, word Χαρακτηρ does not mean these things.

And of course you can ask me whether I read Koine Greek.
In fact, I think it would be important to know, since, if I cannot read Koine Greek, then I would have no business trying to teach Koine Greek meaning.
People who cannot read Koine Greek have no business teaching or making claims about Koine Greek.





PEOPLE WHO CANNOT READ GREEK SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO TEACH GREEK

Regarding Clears’ question to Oeste as to whether Oeste can read Greek. Clear asked Oeste many, many times whether Oeste could read Greek. Oeste refused to tell readers the answer.

4) Oeste responded : “All those quotes are from a single post (934), all designed to attack me personally.” (post #938)

This is another silly claim.
Asking you if you know something about the subject you are trying to teach was not an “attack” but it goes to your credibility of your attempt to teach Greek.

In fact, I explained that when I asked whether you could read greek, I explained that "The question relates to your credibility."
You reponded : "Oh, I'm VERY SORRY about this Clear, but you do not get to question my credibility. " (Oeste, in post #938)
Of course I get to question your credentials regarding what you know about the subject you are trying to teach readers about. ALL readers are allowed to do this.

Whether consciously or unconsciously, when we are offered information, we are trying to determine the validity and credibility of data we are offered. If you offer a quote, any of us are allowed to ask for a reference, a "credential" as it relates to credibility and trustability of the information we are being offered.

If one is a professor of Greek, then this ADDS to their credibility. If they know nothing about Greek, then their credibility is LESS.

Alford, for example, reads Greek.
HIS opinion regarding Greek is therefore, more credible than your opinion.
Alfords added credibility due to his familiarity with Greek is part of why agreed with his position instead of yours.
Alford provided MULTIPLE valid examples for his opinion.
You have been unable to offer a single example from ancient literature to support your claim.

IF you could read Greek, then your credibility improves and your opinion regarding Greek is worth more to readers than if you can't.
In this case, you are trying to teach readers about Greek. Do you even read Greek?



5) Oeste said : “You had to find out how much Koine I knew and fast, because Oeste was disagreeing with these fallacious Greek rules. “ (post #938)

This is another silly claim.

I already knew whether you could read the Greek or not.
It was apparent from your consistent mistakes in your examples.
For example, It made no sense for you to cut and paste almost a dozen of Alford greek examples which undermined your claims if you had had even a basic ability to read Greek.

I already knew whether you could read greek or not.
I simply wanted you to admit the answer to readers.





So, after all of these posts, we are remain where we started. Your claim that the lone base word “Character” means “exact Character” without added context remains dead.


In any case Oeste, I honestly hope your life and it’s journey is insightful and educational and wonderful and happy.
I apologize if this discussion has been bothersome.



Clear
τωφυτωσεακω