Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Muffled]

Then you need to brush up on your Torah.

Now that I think about it, I believe you are right.

 

[Oeste]

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

Yes, context can add additional meaning to a word, however by the time it arrives in a dictionary it already has that meaning.

In other words, when you look up a word in a dictionary you will see multiple meanings have already been assigned. The word is by itself, without "additional context" to assign additional meaning.

But which meaning? That's where context enters the equation.

For example a word can have one specific meaning. However when someone uses this word in a novel way, by applying a different context, it can take on a nuanced or different meaning. If enough people use the nuanced or different meaning, it becomes slang or jargon. If more people use it, if it becomes part of the general language at which time it's added to our dictionary. Our base word now has two possible meanings without the need of "additional context". Which meaning will be determined by context, but the base word itself already has two different meanings.

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 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.

Just one more to add:

It can be a word for “exact representation”, “express image”, or “very impress” as used by the author of Hebrews 1:3, believed to be Paul. “…and the exact representation of the substance of Him” “…καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ…”.

You did not discuss how the word is being used by the author at Hebrews 1:3. By adding the above, readers will avoid falling into an etymological fallacy.

An etymological fallacy is a genetic or irrelevant fallacy that holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning.[1] This is a common linguistic misconception,[2] and is sometimes used as justification for a linguistic prescription as Clear is doing here.

An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology.[1]

When we look at the argument(s) you presented above, they are ALL based on the historic meaning of χαρακτὴρ without any regard whatsoever to its actual usage in Hebrews 1:3. In short, you're claiming if this is what it meant in times past, this is what it must mean at Hebrews 1:3.

Similarly, I could have shown the word “gay” from various articles in the 1920’s and claimed that’s its current usage has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Etymological fallacies can be a favorite tool of cults and "language purists”. It generally involves looking for the “true meaning” of words by delving into their etymologies,[3] or claiming that a word should be used in a particular way because it has a particular etymology.[1]

[1 ] Andrew Sihler, Language History, Series IV, p.191

[2] Kenneth G. Wilson (1993) "The Columbia Guide to Standard American English", article "Etymological Fallacy"

[3] Christopher M. Hutton, Linguistics and the Third Reich: Mother-tongue Fascism, Race, and the Science of Language, ​

As we keep the current context of Hebrews 1:3 in mind we see Jesus is the χαρακτὴρ of the substance of Him (the Father). Obviously none of the historic passages Clear refers to make any mention that the χαρακτὴρ is the substance or nature of the character it is meant to represent.

This is why I was so alarmed when Clear showed us a bag of coins.

So let's go back...

I asked Clear (several times) what difference did he see between "representation" and "exact representation". He did not respond or answer.

I then told him if he did not respond I would:

If I recall, way back when (50 or 60 posts ago?), I asked Clear to explain the perceived difference he sees between "exact representation " and "representation", "express image" and/or "very image", and "image". I've asked a few times since then. Have I received an answer?

No.

If I do not receive one I will give one

So I will do so now. The difference between representation and exact representation is perfection. It's the difference between a hoped for reality and actual reality. It's the difference between an image and an expressed image. It's not the sameness but the difference between how this author uses χαρακτὴρ and how others used χαρακτὴρ in the past.

If we look at Hebrews 1:1-4 (which actually is one long Greek sentence) I do not understand how anyone cannot be struck by what are some of the most powerful and eloquently stated scripture in our entire Bible. In one incredible sentence (four or five to us) the author introduces us to the vast scope, power and majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let's take a peek:

1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. (Hebrews 1:1-4)​

It doesn't matter whether you read this in English or Greek. The effect should be just the same. Bernard Ceslas Spicq, a French bible commenter, describes it this way:

"...the author of Hebrews uses periodic style (a crafted configuration of clauses and phrases that concludes with a majestic ending), effectiveness, compactness, contrast, poetic structure, omissions, figures, repetition (alliteration), and rhythm – all features extolled in the rhetorical handbooks of the day. His use of the Greek language ranks at the top of New Testament authors; his rich vocabulary reveals the background of one widely read.”​

But I'm limiting my scope to verse 3, and this tells us "The son is the radiance of God's glory..."

Clear showed us his bag of coins (widow's mites) and claimed the χαρακτὴρ expressed here (Hebrews) was the same as χαρακτὴρ expressed elsewhere. I would like readers to be truthful: When you looked at the widows mites, did you see the glory of the objects represented (Generally 3 ears of barley and a simpulum on the reverse)? Here, I'll show them again:

​

Suppose the coins were Roman, with a picture of Caesar. Will the coins tell you anything about the character depicted on them? Will the coin offer to guide you into being a better citizen of the Empire, just the way Caesar wanted you to be? When you asked questions of the coin, did it answer back? Perhaps the coin was able to heal the sick and raise the dead?

No?

Were you even able to tell who's image was on the coin? Did it offer purification for your sins??

This then is the difference between "Representation" and "Exact Representation", between "Image" and "Express Image" between how Paul uses χαρακτὴρ and how others used χαρακτὴρ in the past.

Let's continue with 1:3:

...and the exact representation of his being,

Let's look at another set of coins again dear readers. Perhaps we have the wrong ones. We'll look at a Roman coin

​

Would anyone here say this χαρακτὴρ represents the nature or being of Caesar? Of course not! Caesar is not made out of metal is he? Yet the author of Hebrews tells us Christ is of the Father's being!

So, if Christ were a representative of the Father in the same manner as a coin is a representative of Caesar, then Mary give birth to something like this:

​

which of course is absurd.

Let's continue:

...sustaining all things by his powerful word.


Well these coins don't speak, and even if they did, they look like they have enough difficulty sustaining themselves never mind "all things" by their "powerful" word. These coins might be good for sustaining the economy, but when the price of metals fluctuate, they have difficulty even doing that.

There's another difference. Christ is offered freely, these coins were not.
And of course, unlike these coins Christ is not literally the impress from a die.

CONCLUSION

Paul is speaking metaphorically. It is important to remember this before drawing conclusion about the use of χαρακτὴρ at Hebrews 1:3. Basing our analysis of χαρακτὴρ on Clear's examples of prior usage is an etymological fallacy. Secondly, we should not take metaphors literally, and finally there is no comparison between an inimitable Christ and a statue or literal stamp.

In short, it's bad exegesis.

 

[Oeste]

However, all of these sentences and examples have additional Context that create and add additional meaning to the base word “Character”.

Base word and base meaning are not the same Clear. The base word here is “χαρακτηρ” which we agree can often be transliterated as “charaktḗr”.

“χαρακτηρ” itself has multiple meanings which in English may have multiple words.

Context helps us assign a specific meaning when a word has multiple meanings. It’s not an “additional” meaning, it’s simply a specific “sense” or meaning that the word already has. Here’s how I would rewrite your sentence:

However, all of these sentences and examples have additional context that create and add additional assign specific meaning to the base word “Character” (charaktḗr) .

Notice my use of the transliterated word “charaktḗr" as necessary to reduce your amphiboly.

Without the context, one cannot tell what the lone, base word means, other than “Character”.

“Character”.

No, this is incorrect.

The “base word” can mean many things “…other than Character”.

First, you’re obfuscating the Greek word “χαρακτηρ” with our English derivative (“character”). The two are not the same, and combining both without syntactic distinction is simply an amphiboly that should be disambiguated.

Second, you previously stated meaning is based on context (which is correct), yet you ignore all context and assign the specific meaning of “Character” to χαρακτηρ. That’s the incorrect part! While “character” is certainly one sense of χαρακτηρ it is not its only sense.

χαρακτὴρ without context can mean any of the following (from BDAG):

① a mark or impression placed on an object

ⓐ of coinage impress, reproduction, representation

ⓑ of a distinguishing mark trademark τὸ κεφαλοδέσμιον … χαρακτῆρα ἔχει βασιλικόν the headpiece bears a royal trademark

② something produced as a representation, reproduction, representation, fig., of God ἄνθρωπον ἔπλασεν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα (God) formed a human being as reproduction of his own identity/reality (s. εἰκών 2) 1 Cl 33:4 (cp. OGI 383, 60 of a picture χ. μορφῆς ἐμῆς; 404, 25; Philo, Det. Pot. Ins. 83 calls the soul τύπον τινὰ καὶ χαρακτῆρα θείας δυνάμεως). Christ is χαρ. τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ an EXACT REPRESENTATION of (God’s) real being Hb 1:3 (ὑπόστασις 1a).

③ characteristic trait or manner, distinctive mark

④ an impression that is made, outward aspect, outward appearance, form​

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".

No, no, no Clear! You’re creating language rules that simply do not exist.

In the above example, you’ve already settled on a definition or sense for “horse”. We can properly determine by the context that by horse you likely mean a four legged animal. But if we’re going to compare apples to apples (that is, with “χαρακτὴρ”) then we cannot prematurely “assign” a given meaning or context to “horse” as a four legged animal.

By itself, the word “horse” may conjure an image of a four legged animal. However horse can also mean cocaine or a rock formation.

So “fast horse” could mean a fast running equine animal or a fast acting, illicit drug.

“Good horse” could mean a well behaved animal or a drug that gave you a pleasant high.

“Pretty” or “red” horse can refer to an equine animal or to a geological rock formation.

The word “horse”, by itself can mean any of things, or it can mean none of these things simply because it’s part of a compound noun. For example, “rocking horse” is a toy, not an animal. “Rocking” is not “additional context” it’s simply part of the compound noun. So it would be improper to separate “horse” from “rocking” the way you separated “pretty” from “horse”. A child might say she fell of her horse, but the context would determine the meaning, and we can’t assign a proper meaning without its context (that is, a real animal or a toy).

So telling us this about “χαρακτὴρ”:

Without the context, one cannot tell what the lone, base word means, other than “Character”.

Is like telling us this about “horse”:

Without the context, one cannot tell what the lone, base word means, other than “equine animal”.

Both statements are simply incorrect. However they are excellent examples of why “reading Greek” does not confer a magical ability to properly translate biblical text. If it did the book of Acts would carry very few disputes.

It might assist you to think of “exact representation” in the same manner as you do “rocking horse” or “ice cream”. It’s not the “delicious ice cream”, it’s not ”coffee ice cream” but it’s certainly not “ice cream” if it’s just “cream” with no “ice”.

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

We agree on this, but where "context is king" syntax is its parliament.

 

[Oeste]

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”.

As explained previously, a “single bare word” in Greek does NOT necessitate a “single bare word” in English or in any other language.

Using your logic, we would expect to see the “single bare word” “χαρακτὴρ” means “tool” and not “engravers tool” in English, at least not “without further context”. Such a rule is just plain wrong Clear. It’s bad Greek.

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.

No Clear. No “additional context” is necessary.

The “base word” “χαρακτὴρ” already means “engravers tool”, “express image”, “impress”, “representation” or “exact representation” WITHOUT any “additional context”. This is why a good dictionary will give various senses of a word.

And I hope I have provided enough examples to demonstrate how additional context can create this additional meaning.

What you have shown is a logical (etymological) fallacy. In addition, you have shown a propensity to take metaphors literally which is never a good idea.

Language is a social construct. That is, it requires broad based agreement within a culture. sub-culture, group or profession on sounds and terminology. Less than this is simply idiolect. Even when words are used in new and novel ways there needs to be overlap to effectively communicate a new meaning or concept to a broader audience. This is how slang and jargon become part of overall, everyday language.

Context will help us assign an appropriate meaning within the already existing, semantic range of the word.

Without context, the lone, base, word Χαρακτηρ does not mean these things.

Of course it does, and I hope I have provided enough SOURCED examples to demonstrate this. If not I will certainly provide them after I finish writing this morning. Not sure if I'll have time as it's almost 2:30 am as I write this.

ALFORD

Alford translated “χαρακτὴρ” as “express image” rather than simply “image”. Since you’ve already told us you agree with Alford and his examples, can you tell us where Alford obtained the “additional” content to faithfully render “χαρακτὴρ” as “express image”?

How did Alford translate the lone, base, word “χαρακτὴρ” as “express image” rather than simply “image” without finding “additional context”?

The answer? There was no “additional context”. “χαρακτὴρ” means “express image” just as it can mean “exact image” or simply “image”.

If you insist “additional context” is necessary you will need to point out where in the Greek we find it and why Alford is allowed to use it and others are not.

So here’s what I’m thinking, my Greek reading friend (and no, I’m NOT saying this condescendingly as I commend ANYONE who can read Koine Greek. It’s a tremendous achievement).

I am thinking that if you can find the “additional context” for “express image” you’ll find the same, “additional context” for “exact representation”. At this point you’ll find yourself agreeing with the latter (exact representation) for the same reason you agreed with the former (express image).

Since Alford gives us no “additional context” (that is, he does not translate from a variant text that has “additional context”) I think you’ll find all the context you need for “express image”, “exact image”, and even "exact representation" right in the word “χαρακτὴρ”

 

[Oeste]

And of course you can ask me whether I read Koine Greek.

Yes I could, but I could also ask if you are an astronaut.

We are conversing in an internet chat room and no one here has been credentialed. The good news is this allows you to claim to be anything, anyone, or anybody you choose. The bad news is this allows you to claim to be anything, anyone, or anybody you choose.

In fact, you can actually believe what you say or not say what you believe. The same holds true for me and everyone else on this forum.

The sharing of any personal information is not advised on this forum. It’s why we have avatars. I think avatars are a good idea and any attempt to get behind them is not.

My post speaks for itself.

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.

My goodness Clear! I had no idea you were in the business of trying to teach Koine Greek on this forum! I can understand why you would want to post your credentials…anyone signing up for your class would want to know them.

However I am pretty sure this is a debate and discussion thread and not a “Learn How To Read Greek” class. To be honest, I’m not sure classes are offered on this site. I am certainly not offering a class. You may need to check with the moderators or start another thread for that.

In the meantime feel free to discuss the OP or the meaning of “χαρακτὴρ” at Hebrews 1:3. That’s on the table right now.

Discussing Oeste is ALWAYS off the table, and as explained earlier, Oeste is not a table anyone here should feel free to pound upon.

People who cannot read Koine Greek have no business teaching or making claims about Koine Greek.

WOW! Really???

I have to admit this certainly goes hand in glove with the Greek language rules you created earlier.

Look, I understand your lament Clear, I surely do, but:

1. As you know people can be quick to give advice but slow to take it themselves.

2. I don’t recall anyone opening a Greek teaching class here. You may be at the wrong site.

3. From a linguistic perspective, I am curious how your new and interesting rule would work in actual practice:​

There are an estimated 775 million people worldwide, roughly 1 in 5 who cannot read any language whatsoever. According to the Dept of Education, there are roughly 32 million people who are illiterate in the U.S.

Some cannot read because there are no educational facilities (lack of schools, teachers, or even basic supplies). Some live in war torn areas or suffer from famine. Some live in Agrarian areas and had to drop out when a family member became ill or died, some are nomadic, and some are simply forbidden to learn because of religious, ethnic or cultural bias. Some of the world’s minority/secular/isolated populations have no form of written language at all. Lastly, some individuals suffer from dyslexia, autism, blindness, hearing loss, broken homes (parental, sexual, emotional violence, etc.) and other physical and/or social impediments.

As such we have millions of mothers, fathers, mothers and fathers, who simply cannot read. Applying your rule, should they not attempt to teach English to their kids because they cannot read, or does your new rule apply only to Greek?

PEOPLE WHO CANNOT READ GREEK SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO TEACH GREEK

I love these kind of rules Clear!

It reminds me of a story:

A man and his wife were driving lost in their car (this was prior to in vehicle navigation). As they were traveling they spied a jogger heading towards them on the side of the road.

The wife said “Pull over!” which her husband promptly did. Waiting for the jogger to approach, the wife lowered her window and hailed the jogger.

“Hello sir! Can you tell us where “Beach Road” is? It’s off of 287.”

At this the jogger says “Sure, 287 is just a mile down on your left. You’ll see it just after Harold’s General Store on the right. You can reach Beach…”

At this her husband interrupted the man and asked if he was a Cartographer.

The jogger looked puzzled by the question but answered “No”.

At this her husband angrily pulled away, leaving the jogger to quickly recede in their rear view mirror.

“What on earth was all that about?” the wife asked.

To which the husband replied:

PEOPLE WHO CANNOT READ MAPS SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO GIVE DIRECTIONS​

Your argument sounds a lot like that.

 

[Oeste]

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.

Yes, cyberbullying affects not only children but adults. In fact, a 2017 Pew study found that roughly four out of ten Americans have experienced some form of harassment online. It can take the form of repeated demands for personal information, threats of violence, estrangement, intimidation, or stalking.

You'll note "Sustained harassment" falls under "More severe behaviors".

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.

No, harassment claims aren't silly at all.

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.

Asking once or twice is okay I suppose Clear, but asking multiple times is not a public service, it's harassment.

In fact, I explained that when I asked whether you could read greek, I explained that "The question relates to your credibility."

Yes! We were debating the meaning of χαρακτηρ when you asked if I could read Greek. Sort of like debating the meaning of "Character" when someone suddenly asks if you can read English.

But now I'm really more interested about this issue regarding my personal credibility. Apparently you do not believe my posts are able to speak for me.

Were you assigned by Religious Forums to explore this for them, or is this a task you decided to undertake yourself?

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.

Really? I had no idea I was "teaching" and that everyone here was undergoing a "credibility" and/or "credentialing" process but I do have a few questions:

1. Can you tell us when Religious Forums engaged you to perform my personal “Credibility” and "Credentialing" assessment?

2. Did you yourself go through this assessment? Who conducted it? Are results available?

3. Have you administered these assessments to others or will I be the first?

4. How long have you administered “Credibility” assessments?

5. What type of credentials will I need to provide? Do I have to upload any documents like a picture ID?

6. Will my credentialing process involve a personal interview?

7. Are the results of your “Credibility” assessments privately or publicly available?

8. Where in the “Terms of Use” do we find notice of these “Credibility” and Credentialing assessments?

9. What criteria or means testing will be applied to my credibility?

10. Will I undergo a standard “Credibility” assessment or will my “Credibility” assessment differ from that given @tigger2, @Brian2, and others?

11. How long does the Credibility and Credentialing process last?

12. How long will my Credentials be good for? How about my Credibility?

13. What subjects will be included in my “Credibility” assessment?

14. Will my “Credibility” assessment be graded by a standards based, independent Organization, or solely by you? How will others be evaluated?

15. Are there any fees involved?​

It just seems to me that establishing credibility based on one’s arguments rather than one’s person is a much, much easier way to go. The former allows each individual poster to evaluate the veracity of every other poster independently. Offloading this solemn responsibility to you seems a wee bit too convenient and simply nothing I wish to abrogate or subject myself to right now. In fact, it feels like more harassment.

So while I appreciate the offer I feel I must respectfully decline. I’ll be glad to reconsider once you answer questions 1-15.

 

[Oeste]

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 thought they were quite legitimate.

As I told you, I checked every Greek primer and book I have. I just couldn't find your rules.

And with you refusing to source them...

I already knew whether you could read the Greek or not.

My goodness! You checked my credentials that quickly?
But I don't understand. If you already know, why did you keep asking time and time again?

It was apparent from your consistent mistakes in your examples.

That's fantastic Clear. I always try to learn from my mistakes. That way I won't be so consistent with them.

Do you mind posting the actual mistakes? Posting where to find those rules might help too.

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 see you're still calling these my claims!

They are not just my claims Clear. It’s the claim of Catholics. It’s the claim of Protestants. It’s the claim of the Watchtower. It’s the claim of secularists. It’s the claim of the Mormon Church. In short, it’s the claim of every responsible and reputable source I can find. The only source I can find that claims χαρακτηρας cannot mean "exact representation" unless there is "added additional context" is you.

But on top of that, you are telling us is that Alford undermined every reputable source alive during his tenure as Dean, but you can’t quite find the book, the page, the sentence or source where Alford declares this.

Instead I am to accept this hook, line and sinker based solely on your say-so.

Look, I’m not trying to bust your chops here Clear. Heck, you may even be right about everything you say. But we need more than just your say-so. A lot more.

You speak as one in authority or as if you ARE the authority. Are you inspired? Are you even credentialed?

If you believe yourself to be inspired than your source is direct from God or you yourself are God and I won’t ask you to post external sources anymore. Short of that I don’t think it unreasonable to ask where Alford undermined or refuted something I or the mainstream church ACTUALLY stated.

I just don’t see where he does nor would I understand why he would, especially if he expected to remain Dean of Canterbury for any length of time. His writings were not what I would call “controversial”.

If you really, really, really believe Alford undermines “exact representation”, then don’t simply tell us, SHOW US. You’ll turn the entire Christian church community on its ear.

I already knew whether you could read greek or not.

As do I.

I simply wanted you to admit the answer to readers.

I just wanted you to admit the answer to yourself.

So, after all of these posts, we are remain where we started.

Yes, I agree with you on this. Prior to our conversation, χαρακτὴρ meant “exact representation”, at the beginning of our conversation it meant “exact representation”, during our conversation it meant “exact representation” at the end of our conversation it meant “exact representation”, and long after we’re gone it will mean “exact representation” along with a few other definitions, just as it always has.

Your claim that the lone base word “Character” means “exact Character” without added context remains dead.

How can it be “dead” if it never existed? This sounds like the Watchtower argument that we’ll be “unconscious” yet “cease to exist” when we die.

It’s a strawman Clear. I never “claimed” the words “exact character”. It’s a construction you invented. In any event, I think we’ve aptly demonstrated that, had it ever existed, it would be alive and well and “dead” only in the mind of Clear. χαρακτὴρ can mean “exact representation” WITHOUT any “additional context”.

As I stated before there is no debate on this. There is no reputable source that disagrees with me on this. Even the Watchtower and LDS church agree.

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.

I honestly apologize as well. We all see through a glass darkly, and when all this is over we'll see things clear and fully and the best part is that we won't be so disagreeable with each other but friends.

I am up WAAAY to late :-(

Take care and stay safe.

 

[Clear]

Hi Oeste and readers



THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT IN LANGUAGE AND IN INTERPRETATION

It is universally accepted that language requires context to function most accurately and efficiently in communication.
Readers and translators use both the context within a text as well as their own background knowledge and characteristics (i.e. personal bias or personal "context") to infer the writers meaning.

Meanings that are encoded into a language itself (i.e. Semantics) will only take us part way to accurate and efficient communication.

It is the meaning in context (i.e. Pragmatics) which create even more accuracy in communication.
For example :

The sentence, “Lovely day, isn’t it?” contains simple words, but it is still dependent on context for accurate meaning.
It can be a simple greeting OR it can mean the opposite if it is an ironic statement made on a dull, rainy day.
Lack of any context creates ambiguity and confusion.

Ambiguousness of meaning is greater when referring to a foreign language. (ESPECIALLY if one cannot read the language)
Even more ambiguity is added when speaking of an ancient historical statement made in a language no longer used.

One difficulty is that relevant context is not always available or known by the translator and without specific historical context, a translation is then at the mercy of subjective opinion or personal context of the translator.


CONTEXT ADDS MEANING THAT CLARIFIES THE SITUATION
Consider the school schema below:

“John was on his way to school last Friday. –
He was really worried about the maths lesson. –
Last week he had been unable to control the class. –
It was unfair of the maths teacher to leave him in charge. –
After all, it is not a normal part of the janitor’s duties.”

From the first line alone, one may assume John is probably a school boy.
The added context of Line 2 seems to confirms this. HOWEVER
The added context of Line 3 refutes this original understanding and new meaning is suggested : He must be the teacher
The added context of Line 4 refutes this new understanding and yet another new meaning is suggested : He is a substitute
The further context of Line 5 refutes this third conclusion and the entire situation is clarified.

Knowledge of the language system and schematic knowledge are important, but context adds the most clarity and understanding to meaning of the whole.

Without ANY context at all, one cannot tell what Character means beyond the basic Semantic (i.e. encoded meaning).
With Context, the Koine Greek word "Καρακτηρ" (eng. "Character") can mean, many, many things.

This is why your claim that "χαρακτὴρ can mean “exact representation” WITHOUT any “additional context”. is incorrect. "Exactness" is not part of the encoding of the base word "representation". Without context it may mean "bad representation", "good representation", "poor representation", etc. One cannot know what it means without context. Thus, you must add some context to the single word "representation" before it means "exact representation" .



THE FALLACY OF APPLYING MODERN (OR PERSONAL) MEANING TO A HISTORICAL WORD

Oeste claimed : An etymological fallacy is a genetic or irrelevant fallacy that holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning.[1] This is a common linguistic misconception,[2] and is sometimes used as justification for a linguistic prescription as Clear is doing here #942

This is yet another mischaracterization of what I am doing. Consistent mischaracterizations of my position are also a form of "Sustained harassment" which falls under "More severe behaviors" just as you claim asking if you read Greek is a "harassment".

The truth is that I actually agree strongly with this principle of irrelevant fallacy as I alluded to it 40 posts ago. (post #904)

This is part of the reason that your admission that ”For me, it means image or "exact" reproduction. (Oeste, post #743) is an etymological fallacy. You are trying to apply your meaning to an ancient word that came from a different language in a different historical context.

In trying to avoid this same mistake is why almost all of my examples of historical meaning and useage of Χαρακτηρ came from ancient literature such as.
Papyrus Syll 226 3.495.16 of approx 320 b.c.
Papyrus Syll 3 783.23 of 27 b.c
Papyrus OGIS 383.60 of mid 1st century b.c..
Papyrus Lond 854.11 of 1 to 2 a.d.
Papyrus Leid X xxiv.11 of 2-3 a.d.
Papyrus Preisigke 5275.11 of 11 a.d.
Papyrus Oxy XIV 1680.12 of 3 to 4 a.d.
Papyrus Lond V 1658.8 of 4 a.d.
New Testament Revelations of the first century.
Old Testament Leviticus 13:28
Papyrus Ryl II 160(a)10 of 14-37 a.d
Papyrus Flor I. 61.21 of 85 a.d.
Papyrus BGU IV 1088.5 of 142.
Papyrus Oxy I 144.6 of 580 a.d.

In all of these lexiconic uses and definitions, “Character” did not mean “exact Character”.
I also used Oestes' cut and paste of Greek examples Professor Alford gave which all demonstrated that “Character” does not mean “Exact Character” without additional context.

Oeste has been unable to provide a single example from ancient literature to show the uncontexted word “Character” clearly meant “exact Character” (or “exact representation”) or “exact” anything. It must have additional context.

Oeste, I’ve already said that I was very willing to yield to your claim if you can find a single example in all of early Greek literature where your claim that uncontexted Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. You have, so far, not given a single example to support your claim.

Professor Alford and I have provided multiple examples proving your claim doesn’t work.
You have not been able to provide a single example supporting your claim.
Therefore, your claim remains dead.




#944 How did Alford translate the lone, base, word “χαρακτὴρ” as “express image” rather than simply “image” without finding “additional context”?...
The answer? There was no “additional context”.

This is another naïve claim (and it is irrelevant to your claim that it means "exact representation").
Of course Alford added context when he translated the text.

Professor Alfords personal context as a professor of history and greek is WHY he did not translate it as "exact representation" in opposition to your claim.
ALL translators bring their own context to their translation.

A Catholic translator will bring his personal context to the translation.
The Methodist will bring theirs.
The Jehovahs Witness will bring theirs, etc.
This is why there are many, many different translations which do not use "exact representation" to translate Χαρακτηρ in Hebrews 1:3.
To assume a translator has no personal context is simply naïve.

To, professor Alford, "Χαρακτηρ” did not mean “exact representation”.
And , Alford gave us multiple other examples indicating why it did not mean “exact representation”.
This is why I agreed with Alfords position and his example and not your position that lacks any examples and historical coherence.



Oeste said : “Since Alford gives us no “additional context” (that is, he does not translate from a variant text that has “additional context”) (post #944)

This is another naïve and bizarre claim (and it is also irrelevant to your claim that the uncontexted word "χαρακτηρ" means "exact representation").

Not only does Alford bring to his translation of the bible his own assumptions and personal context, he is translating from the biblical text which itself provides a great deal of “context” for him to derive a meaning.




Oeste said : “While “character” is certainly one sense of χαρακτηρ it is not its only sense.”
You are repeating concepts that we both agree on (and it is irrelevant to your claim that the uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ means "exact representation").



Clear said : “And of course you can ask me whether I read Koine Greek.”
Oeste responded : “ I could also ask if you are an astronaut.”

Ooookay....

THIS debate regards historical meaning and use of koine Greek.
You are attempting to teach Greek yet you do seem to be able to even read Koine Greek.

For example, your assumptions about this language are naïve and irrelevant to Koine Greek.
While I assume your cut and pastes were meant as a substitute for knowledge of Greek, they are themselves examples of why your claim that the base word Χαρακτηρ means “Exact’ representation is incorrect.



#947 Do you mind posting the actual mistakes?

Wow! I would have to go WAY back to when you based your claim on personal opinion, rather than on historical and linguistic principles of Koine.

For example, you Admit in post #743 that “Neither of us argues that χαρακτηρ cannot mean image or reproduction. This is good as it take a lot off the table.”

But then you tell us that your claim is based on a personal meaning (personal context) of "Χαρακτηρ" when you say :”For me, it means image or "exact" reproduction. (post #743)

In offering readers your personal definition of the Historical Greek word “χαρακτηρ”, you are simply describing your personal (modern) context to the word and in doing so, you are both adding personal context and committing the “irrelevant fallacy” you describe when a modern (personal) meaning is applied to an ancient (historical) word.

The rest of your posts in the entire debate seem to represent an inability to admit this first, basic error in personal assumption.

If you want examples of your attempt to use Greek sentences, you could start by Re-reading your cut and paste from Alford where you attempted to support your claim that the uncontexted Greek word “Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation”.

The very examples you cut and pasted from Professor Alford undermines your claim.



Oeste said “Prior to our conversation, χαρακτὴρ meant “exact representation”… (post #947)
Oeste said “χαρακτὴρ can mean “exact representation” WITHOUT any “additional context”. (post #947)

This is simply a repeat of your earliest claim which you have not been able to support nor have you been able to give us a single historical example of in any of the historical literature.
To me, simply repeating an unsupported and unsupportable historical claim simply represents an inability to admit a simple and basic mistake.

.


CAN ANYONE ON THE FORUM FIND EVEN A SINGLE EXAMPLE IN EARLY LITERATURE WHERE THE UNCONTEXTED GREEK WORD ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ MEANT "EXACT REPRESENTATION"?
ANYONE?

Oeste, since you have never been able to offer even a single example of this occurrence, and IF no other person in the forums can find a single example of this occurrence from historical literature or from the world in which most people live, then this remains a historically incoherent claim and remains a dead claim.


I hope your life is insightful and wonderful Oeste


Clear
τωσεδρνεσιω

 

[Oeste]

Knowledge of the language system and schematic knowledge are important, but context adds the most clarity and understanding to meaning of the whole.

I am glad we can agree on this Clear.

Knowledge of the language system and schematic knowledge are important, but context adds the most clarity and understanding to meaning of the whole.

We're on a roll!

Without ANY context at all, one cannot tell what Character means beyond the basic Semantic (i.e. encoded meaning).

You're obfuscating the Greek word χαρακτὴρ with it's English derivative (Character) again. As stated earlier:

The two are not the same, and combining both without syntactic distinction is simply an amphiboly that should be disambiguated.

Let's disambiguate the Greek word χαρακτὴρ from our English word "character". I like charaktḗr, Καρακτηρ, and of course χαρακτὴρ.

With Context,

the Koine Greek word "Καρακτηρ" (eng. "Character") can mean, many, many things.

Excellent! You kept the words disambiguated.

I agree that with context it can mean many things.

Without context it may mean "bad representation", "good representation", "poor representation", etc. One cannot know what it means without context. Thus, you must add some context to the single word "representation" before it means "exact representation"

No, it doesn't mean ""bad representation", "good representation", "poor representation", etc."

I cannot find a Greek dictionary with any of these meanings.

Can your source the lexicon or dictionary you're using?

This is why your claim that "χαρακτὴρ can mean “exact representation” WITHOUT any “additional context”. is incorrect.

When your premise is incorrect your conclusion is likely incorrect as well. Here it is incorrect.

Let's nip this in the bud. I'll provide some source material, then you provide the same. I'll go first:
(Continued)

 

[Oeste]

χαρακτήρ.

The following are various English meanings for the SINGLE GREEK WORD χαρακτήρ.

χαρακτήρ can be defined as any of the following, without adding “additional content”.

Thayer
1) the instrument used for engraving or carving
2) the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it
2a) a mark or figure burned in (Lev 13:28) or stamped on, an impression
2b) the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile

Part of Speech: noun masculine

Citing in TDNT: 9:418, 1308


Louw-Nida

Gloss Section

exact representation 58.62

Strong's Greek Dictionary
G5481 χαρακτήρ
Transliteration: charaktḗr

Derivation: from the same as G5482;

Definition: a graver (the tool or the person), i.e. (by implication) engraving (("character"), the figure stamped, i.e. an exact copy or (figuratively) representation)

From: Strong's Greek Dictionary by James Strong (1890)


Dodson dictionary
G5481 χαρακτήρ, ῆρος, ὁ
Transliteration: charaktḗr

Part(s) of speech: Noun, Masculine

Definition: an impression, representation, exact reproduction; a graving-tool.

From: Public Domain Greek-English lexicon by John Jeffrey Dodson (2010)


What's needed is NOT a source that doesn't have these definitions Clear, but an equally reputable source that actually REFUTES the above definitions or calls them into question.

Here are 3 different translations of Hebrews 1:3:

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, (ESV)​

He is the radiance of His glory, the exact expression of His nature, and He sustains all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. (CSB)​

This Son is the radiance of the Sh'khinah, the very expression of God's essence, upholding all that exists by his powerful word; and after he had, through himself, made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of HaG'dulah BaM'romim. (CJB)​

Please note that CJB does not "refute" CSB, CSB does not "refute" ESV, and ESV does not "refute" CJB. That would be a logical fallacy.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste


REGARDING THE ANCIENT MEANING OF THE GREEK WORD ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ (Pronounced "Character" in english. This is where we get our english word "Character")

Oeste said : "I agree with you that “early” translations did not translate χαρακτηρ as “exact representation”.
However, as you’ve already pointed out, modern translations most certainly do. (post #743)

The reason I pointed out that ancient translations did not use "exact representation" is that, anciently, the single, uncontexted word "χαρακτηρ" it did not MEAN "exact representation".
In modern greek, the single, uncontexted word "χαρακτηρ" does not mean "exact representation".
We simply don't have any literature, in any ancient or modern literature where the single, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ actually DOES mean 'exact representation".

In no case in all of ancient or modern Koine Greek literature, is the single, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ rendered "exact representation".
This is why Professor Alford did not translate the word as "exact representation".
This is the reason you have not been able to find a single example in any ancient OR modern greek literature where the single, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ actually is used for "exact representation".

The only reason that some translators placed "exact representation" was due to their personal theological bias (i.e. personal added context) and not any the encoded meaning of the word itself (semantics).
While Strongs and Thayers will tell you how a word has been used, and what it has come to mean in the context of Hebrews 1:3 in their time, they are not tools for translators and there is no other place in any literature, either sacred or profane, either ancient or modern where you can find this single, uncontexted word so rendered.

Strongs, in this case does not tell you what the word meant in Koine Greek language anciently, but instead, it indexes how the word χαρακτηρ became rendered in english. This is one reason Strongs is not a tool for translators (as it says in it's early introduction).



ATTRIBUTING A PRESENT-DAY MEANING TO A HISTORICAL MEANING IS AN ETYMOLOGICAL FALLACY

Your attempt to attribute a relatively modern usage to an ancient word in ancient literature is an example of the very etymological fallacy you warned readers against.

In post #942 above, you gave readers a definition of "etymological fallacy".
You said : An etymological fallacy is a genetic or irrelevant fallacy that holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning.[1] This is a common linguistic misconception,[2] and is sometimes used as justification for a linguistic prescription...." (Oeste, in post #942)

As you pointed out, it is an "irrelevant fallacy" to hold "that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning" (Oeste, post #942)
And, as you pointed out, insisting that the present day meaning is similar to its historical meaning is "a common linguistic misconception" and "is sometimes used as justification for a linguistic prescription".

For you to insist that what the word had come to mean inside a modern index is also what it must have meant anciently, is an Etymological fallacy.

This is why I told you many, many posts ago, that you must use an ancient lexicon or ancient dictionary or ancient usage of the word to determine what it meant anciently.
This is also why I gave so many examples from ancient literature and from the bible to show that the single, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ did not mean "exact representation".

While Professor Alford and I have given you many, many examples of Χαρακτερ from the pre, peri, and post c.e. eras to demonstrate the single, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ did not mean "exact representation", neither you nor any other poster has given readers a single example to support your claim.

IS THERE ANY READER, ANY POSTER, ANY MEMBER OF THE FORUM THAT CAN HELP OESTE OUT BY GIVING OESTE A SINGLE EXAMPLE FROM EITHER ANCIENT OR MODERN LITERATURE WHERE THE SINGLE, UNCONTEXTED WORD ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ MEANS "EXACT CHARACTER"?

ANYONE?


Given the many examples demonstrating the claim is false and since there is no data demonstrating the claim is correct then the Claim continues to remain a dead claim.


Clear
τωσενεειειω

 

[Oeste]

Exactness" is not part of the encoding of the base word "representation".

Can you source a reputable authority that agrees with you? I'm not finding anyone who says "Exactness is not part of the encoding of the base word χαρακτήρ".

I think that will go a loooooooong way towards our discussion.

One cannot know what it means without context.

Of course you can. You simply look up a word in a dictionary Clear. That is what dictionaries are for!
If I ask you for the meaning of the word "wedding" you can tell me what it means. The same goes for "aunt".

χαρακτήρ has a clear semantic range. You many not know every definition off-hand, but you can certainly look them up.

Thus, you must add some context to the single word "representation" before it means "exact representation" .

No Clear, your premise is completely unsourced. Check any good English Greek dictionary or lexicon. Look at Strong's, Thayer's or Dodson above.

Oeste claimed : An etymological fallacy is a genetic or irrelevant fallacy that holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning.[1] This is a common linguistic misconception,[2] and is sometimes used as justification for a linguistic prescription as Clear is doing here #942

This is yet another mischaracterization of what I am doing.

No it's not Clear. You continually go to the prior historical record to determine what Paul meant by χαρακτήρ. Little if no attention is paid to Hebrews 1:3.

If you actually read Hebrews 1:3 as your peers and contemporaries have done, I really don't see how you would draw literal inferences to marks, letters or coins.

Consistent mischaracterizations of my position are also a form of "Sustained harassment" which falls under "More severe behaviors" just as you claim asking if you read Greek is a "harassment".

No Clear.

Disagreeing with your position is not harassment however continuously requesting that I divulge personal information most certainly is.

This is part of the reason that your admission that ”For me, it means image or "exact" reproduction. (Oeste, post #743) is an etymological fallacy.

The whole planet has already applied the same meaning to Hebrews 1:3 as I have Clear. You can confirm this by looking at multiple translations of Hebrews 1:3.

You are trying to apply your meaning to an ancient word that came from a different language in a different historical context.

I would love to take credit for the Greek grammars, lexicons and dictionaries we have Clear. You're according me way too much credit.

In trying to avoid this same mistake is why almost all of my examples of historical meaning and useage of Χαρακτηρ came from ancient literature such as.

The historical references you cited are irrelevant to our discussion of Hebrews 1:3. As I stated before you’re engaging in an etymological fallacy and as a bonus you’re asking us to take a metaphor literally. You also misunderstood what you've cited which I'll demonstrate in a moment.

In all of these lexiconic uses and definitions, “Character” did not mean “exact Character”.

No Clear, this is just flat out wrong and it shows us you either misunderstand or misread the papyri.

First, no one uses “exact Character” so I wouldn’t expect to see it in any papyri, lexicon or dictionary.

Second, when we read the published, peer reviewed works of actual, bona fide Greek scholars who looked at many of the very same papyri quoted above we see they reached a dramatically different conclusion.

Here is how James Hope Moulton, D.D., D. Theol., a Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge; Greenwod Professor of Hellenistic Greek and Indo European Philology, Manchester University and George Milligan, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, Glasgow University saw it:

Source: The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Payri and other non-literary sources, p. 683-684

As I stated before, there is NO DEBATE on whether χαρακτὴρ means “exact representation” at Hebrews 1:3.

Your argument that χαρακτὴρ did not mean “exact representation”, “exact impress”, or “exact reproduction” without “adding additional context” has been thoroughly refuted. This includes your argument concerning "historical text".

I also used Oestes' cut and paste of Greek examples Professor Alford gave which all demonstrated that “Character” does not mean “Exact Character” without additional context.

You can also use it to show it doesn’t say “orange owls” or “plaid skies” without “additional context”. You are demonstrating extremely poor exegesis.

Oeste has been unable to provide a single example from ancient literature to show the uncontexted word “Character” clearly meant “exact Character” (or “exact representation”) or “exact” anything. It must have additional context.

All I’ve done is show χαρακτὴρ can mean “exact representation” just as I’ve stated, just as your church stated, just as everyone on the planet states except you. Your last line of defense, an appeal to historical papyri, has just been taken away.

At this point I see two avenue left open to you:

1. Introduce evidence that James Moulton or George Milligan were frauds who could not “read Koine Greek” or
2. Introduce two additional scholars of equal reputation and standing who refute Moulton and Milligan on the issue of “exact reproduction”. Please note that anonymous posters in internet chat rooms are NOT considered scholars of equal reputation and standing. In other words, we cannot refute Moulton or Milligan based solely on you say-so.

Oeste, I’ve already said that I was very willing to yield to your claim if you can find a single example in all of early Greek literature where your claim that uncontexted Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. You have, so far, not given a single example to support your claim.

1. Your premise, that we must find examples in early Greek literature where Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation” is an etymological fallacy.

2. The fact that noted Greek scholars do find “exact reproduction” or its equivalent in early Greek literature is simply icing on the cake.​

3. The fact that you cannot find ANY language scholar that supports your initial premise...that we must of necessity find “early Greek literature” that uses “Χαρακτηρ” in the exact same way as the author of Hebrews...simply refutes your argument​

I cannot open eyes that refuse to see. However I can help explain what everyone else does see. That’s all I’m doing here.

Professor Alford and I have provided multiple examples proving your claim doesn’t work.

No Clear, that is blatantly incorrect.

1. Alford has not provided “multiple examples” or even a “single example” regarding “exact representation”. This is a narrative you made up based on information that doesn’t exist.

2. When you find Alford’s claim that he “undermines” the usage of “exact representation” at Hebrews 1:3, be sure to do us all a favor and quote it.

3. χαρακτὴρ can equal “exact representation” is not “Oeste’s claim”. It’s the factually based claim of every reputable scholar on the planet.​

You have not been able to provide a single example supporting your claim.

Clear, I have provided ALL the evidence. It is you who have provided none.

 

[Oeste]

This is another naïve claim (and it is irrelevant to your claim that it means "exact representation").
Of course Alford added context when he translated the text.

No Clear, based on what you told us before that is simply not possible.

A trinitarian is not allowed to add “equal”, or “exact”, or “same” to the text.
A non-trinitarian is not allowed to add “similar” or “like” to the text.
An atheist is not allowed to add adjectives such as “imaginary” or “non existent” to the text.
An Agnostic is not allowed to add “maybe” or “could be” to the text. Clear: Post 765​

THIS IS ALL BASED ON YOUR RULE. There is absolutely NO WAY Alford could possibly add the adjective “express” to “image” without engaging in ERROR. You told Brian 2 and Tigger2 the same thing about the NIV and New World Testament in post 687:

I notice that the claim that the writer of Hebrews 1:3 meant “exact representation” for the word “Character” (gk χαρακτηρ) is an issue for @tigger2 as well since he gave examples where this error appears in other biblical texts as well (post #860)

If Alford "added context" he was not allowed to add, this introduces error into the biblical text (your words, not mine).

Since you agree with Alford then you agree with his errors, which will only beg the question as to what other errors you've agreed to and why, and why does Alford get to introduce errors into the biblical text whilst others do not?

Of course I don't see any errors that Alford has introduced. He has simply violated your rule that the single word Greek word χαρακτὴρ means a single word in English unless you've "added context".

Professor Alfords personal context as a professor of history and greek is WHY he did not translate it as "exact representation" in opposition to your claim.

I see your opposition to "exact representation" but I am hard pressed to see Alford's.

 

[Oeste]

Oeste said : “While “character” is certainly one sense of χαρακτηρ it is not its only sense.”
You are repeating concepts that we both agree on (and it is irrelevant to your claim that the uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ means "exact representation").

Then the issue is settled just as it always has been. χαρακτὴρ can mean “express image” all without “adding additional context”.

Clear said : “And of course you can ask me whether I read Koine Greek.”
Oeste responded : “ I could also ask if you are an astronaut.”

Ooookay....

THIS debate regards historical meaning and use of koine Greek.
You are attempting to teach Greek yet you do seem to be able to even read Koine Greek.

I don’t recall where Oeste was “attempting to teach Greek” but I do recall someone who was attempting to make up Greek language rules in order to lend more credibility and veracity to their arguments. It follows a pattern throughout this thread.

I’m sure this has worked well in other threads for you Clear, but this is a thread I started. I was interested when these arguments set sail but obviously I couldn’t let them fly.

I simply questioned your rules Clear. This is a debate forum so it’ll happen. It's not personal. I attacked your arguments not you.

While I assume your cut and pastes were meant as a substitute for knowledge of Greek, they are themselves examples of why your claim that the base word Χαρακτηρ means “Exact’ representation is incorrect.

Oeste does NOT claim “the base word Χαρακτηρ means “Exact’ Character”.

“Exact Character” is not in any translation that I am aware of. It is something YOU designed and constructed, the sole purpose of which was to affix my name on it so you would have something easy and convenient to knock down. That’s all “Exact Character” is and/or has been in our discussion.

You are creating a narrative about Alford that doesn’t exist, you are creating up a narrative about language rules that don’t exist, and you are creating a narrative about me that simply never existed.

It's interesting to be sure, but it's simply incorrect.

#947 Do you mind posting the actual mistakes?

Wow! I would have to go WAY back to when you based your claim on personal opinion, rather than on historical and linguistic principles of Koine.

No Clear. OESTE did not write STRONG’S CONCORDANCE. You are giving me way too much credit.

Oeste did not write THAYER’S LEXICON. That also is too much credit.

In addition, Oeste did not write MOUNCE’s dictionary, although he would love to take credit for it.

These publications are well vetted Clear. Your arguments are not. There is no evidence whatsoever for your arguments.

For example, you Admit in post #743 that “Neither of us argues that χαρακτηρ cannot mean image or reproduction. This is good as it take a lot off the table.”

Correct!

But then you tell us that your claim is based on a personal meaning (personal context) of "Χαρακτηρ" when you say :”For me, it means image or "exact" reproduction. (post #743)

No, it's not based on "personal meaning". Virtually every bible I possess has that or a similar meaning. I've researched Hebrews 1:3, and see nothing wrong with the translation. I like "exact representation", but I actually like "express image" better.

Paul was telling Jews that this was not your daddy's representation. This was something novel. This was something unique. This was something you ain't seen before. This was Christ, God in the flesh.

In offering readers your personal definition of the Historical Greek word “χαρακτηρ”, you are simply describing your personal (modern) context to the word and in doing so, you are both adding personal context and committing the “irrelevant fallacy” you describe when a modern (personal) meaning is applied to an ancient (historical) word.

Not at all. If I'm doing it then so was Paul.

The rest of your posts in the entire debate seem to represent an inability to admit this first, basic error in personal assumption.

You may want to speak with your own church about this “basic error” they are making. I’ll speak more to this at the end of my post. In any event, I’m sure they’ll see things your way. Then you can log back on with the full weight, veracity, muster and righteous power of the LDS church behind you. Be sure to check in from time to time so we can keep abreast on how this goes.

As of right now all we have in opposition to the Church’s universal agreement is “Clear the internet guy”. That doesn’t roll off the tongue with the same cachet or formidability as the LDS Church.

If you want examples of your attempt to use Greek sentences, you could start by Re-reading your cut and paste from Alford where you attempted to support your claim that the uncontexted Greek word “Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation”.

1. I didn’t post Alford to show Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation”. That’s was your thinking not mine.

2. I did post Alford to show he had translated “the single, Greek word “Χαρακτηρ” with two English words, not one.

3. You claimed this couldn’t be done because translators are not allowed to “add additional context” to the text. You called it a “contamination”

4. Now you agree it can be done, apparently without “error” or “contamination”.​

From my perspective it's tough to know which Clear I am talking with because your arguments appear to slide back and forth depending on the prevailing headwinds.

The very examples you cut and pasted from Professor Alford undermines your claim.

I see no "undermining" since Alford clearly demonstrated the "single Greek word χαρακτὴρ can mean “express image” all without “adding additional context”

To me, simply repeating an unsupported and unsupportable historical claim simply represents an inability to admit a simple and basic mistake.

I think you are looking at this incorrectly. Paul decided to use χαρακτὴρ in a way it had never been used before. Not to describe a coin, mark, or engraving but to Christ. He had to use χαρακτὴρ metaphorically, which you are still interpreting literally.

CAN ANYONE ON THE FORUM FIND EVEN A SINGLE EXAMPLE IN EARLY LITERATURE WHERE THE UNCONTEXTED GREEK WORD ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ MEANT "EXACT REPRESENTATION"?
ANYONE?

You're asking us if we can find Christ in a coin or mark. Some find him in a sandwich or potato, then they post it on Ebay and collect hundreds from the high bidder. Similarly, this was how χαρακτὴρ was used prior to Paul.

Oeste, since you have never been able to offer even a single example of this occurrence, and IF no other person in the forums can find a single example of this occurrence from historical literature or from the world in which most people live, then this remains a historically incoherent claim and remains a dead claim.

No Clear. It simply means you are engaging in an etymological fallacy and taking a metaphor literally.

Start with the Mormon church Clear. Tell them they do not have a single example from historical literature that allows them to translate Hebrews 1:3 as “exact representation” and thus they are presenting their members and the world with “a historically incoherent claim”. I’m sure they don’t want to be in “error” any more than the rest of us. Be sure to check in with us on your progress.


If you want to change Christian doctrine, you will still need to start with your own church. I would like to think this thread is regularly canvassed by the world’s religions for its thoughtful commentary and keen insights into the biblical text but to be honest, I think we all have more of a chance of having our names and numbers drawn as a grand prize winner for Publisher’s Clearing House or Powerball jackpot.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste


REGARDING YOUR CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT THAT ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ MEANS “EXACT REPRESENTATION”


Oeste said : “As I stated before, there is NO DEBATE on whether χαρακτὴρ means “exact representation” at Hebrews 1:3.” (post #952)

This is yet another bizarre and historically incoherent claim. I have already given you and readers multiple examples where translators disagreed with the use of “exact representation” and used multiple other renderings such as :

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"


You have claimed multiple times that there was universal agreement and no debate regarding the rendering of χαρακτηρ.
If there was agreement that Hebrews 1:3 meant “exact representation”, then there would not be so much disagreement regarding how this word should be translated.




MISREPRESENTING MOULTON AND MILLIGAN


Read what Moulton says.

In the EARLY (i.e. more ancient) use of Χαρακτηρ was “the tool for engraving”. This was the early, ancient meaning of the word.

Milligan explains Χαρακτηρ later “came to be used of the ‘mark’. USAGE, added additional meaning. This is the principle.

Milligan is explaining the evolution of meaning in encoded words.
That is, initial meaning changes and widens by usage

This concept of usage creating meaning explains why χαρακτηρ was ultimately rendered as “an exact reproduction” though it did not mean that anciently.


READ THE SUBSEQΕUNT ANCIENT EXAMPLES MOULTON GIVES YOU OF WHAT THE WORD MEANT ANCIENTLY BY USAGE.

For example,

You offered OGIS 383:60 of mid I b.c. : χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης.
Explain how this usage means “exact representation”.

You offered Syll 22y6 of 320 b.c..
Explain how this usage means “exact representation”.

Milligan continues with examples of ancient usage from a.d. 85, ii-iii a.d., just after 27 b.c., etc.
Explain how any of these mean “exact representation”.

Instead, ALL of Moulton and Milligans examples are meant to show what the ancient usage of words were in normal writing and conversation. THESE examples demonstrate actual meaning while Strongs indicates how words were used in the biblical text in later usage.

Read the forward in Moulton and Milligans book and their purpose in going through so much of the ancient literature.
They point out that the Septuagint and the New Testament were not written in a “special language’, but in “the language used in common conversation, learned by them, not through books but most likely in childhood from household talk, or if not, through subsequent oral instruction…”

This was the same suggestion lightfoot had made earlier and which Moulton and Milligan proved. That if we could see early letters and read from normal conversation, we could tell more about the meaning of ancient Koine used in the bible than from the later lexicons.


This is what Mouton and Milligan did by going through so much of the early Koine papyri. They demonstrated what the actual usage of words were in normal usage as compared to the later indexes such as strongs (which showed how the later translations used the words). THIS is why I demonstrated the early Greek usage of the word Χαρακτηρ was not “exact representation”. Remember, you said : “"I agree with you that “early” translations did not translate χαρακτηρ as “exact representation”. (Oeste post #743)


This is the importance of Mouton and Milligans demonstration that early translations and early literature did not render the single uncontexted word “χαρακτηρ” as “exact representation” and importantly, you will not find a single example where Moulton and Milligan do either. Instead have someone you trust who can read Greek, LOOK at and READ their examples to you and explain their meaning. The examples Moulton and Milligan give also, undermine and show your theory is incorrect.

You have been given and you have given us many examples the demonstrate your claim that the single, uncontexted word χαρακτηρ means "exact representation" is incorrect. You have been unable to give us a single example where your claim is true in any ancient literature. The claim remains dead.

READERS, IS THERE ANY READER THAT CAN FIND A SINGLE EXAMPLE WHERE THE SINGLE, UNCONTEXTED WORD "ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ", MEANS "EXACT REPRESENTATION"?

ANYONE?

Clear
τωσενεεισεω

 

[Oeste]

IMPLICATIONS:

WHAT IF CLEAR WERE ACTUALLY CORRECT? ​

Obviously if Clear is correct then the Mormon Church is incorrect. I am sure his church does not wish to be incorrect or “in error” along with the Watchtower, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others. Instead they will want to clarify to readers at fairmormon.org that they “added additional content” in order to render Hebrews 1:3 as follows:

Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).” Source​

Once other churches see the Mormon Church correcting their mistake I’m sure there will be many more soon to follow.

Simply trying to correct Oeste at a thread on ReligiousForums.com will accomplish none of this.


WAS THE HEAVENLY FATHER ONCE A MAN WITH A HUMAN BODY?

Fairmormon also states the following:

Interestingly, there is biblical scripture that can be used to some degree to support concepts conducive to the idea that God was once a man. One of these is John 5:19-20. It can be surmised the Father showed Christ a vision of his own experiences so that Christ could carry these details out.​

There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. Source​

Again, in the spirit of fairness to its readers, Fair Mormon should divulge that Hebrews 1:3 doesn’t really say Christ is the “exact representation” of the Father but was simply a representation of the Father, much like the image on our penny is a representation of Abraham Lincoln. Clear demonstrated this concept with his bag of coins in post 912 and 919.

Thus Hebrews 1:3 cannot be made to suggest that the Father once had a human body at all, at least not any more than the pennies in your pocket once held a human body like Lincoln.

This is why I suggest Clear contact Fair Mormon or his church right away. If he is correct the importance to Mormon Christology cannot be overemphasized. If he keeps his keen, astute discovery here, confined within my thread, the Mormon Church and perhaps the world will lose the vast implications of this important discovery and insight into the Greek language, all to our detriment.

Do I believe Clear to be correct?

No, but I do see these as two clear implications if he were.

 

[Oeste]

We simply don't have any literature, in any ancient or modern literature where the single, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ actually DOES mean 'exact representation".

Sure we do. Open your bible and head to Hebrews 1:3.

In no case in all of ancient or modern Koine Greek literature, is the single, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ rendered "exact representation".
This is why Professor Alford did not translate the word as "exact representation".

No, that is not possible Clear.

Your premise presupposes you were in the mind of Alford.

This is the reason you have not been able to find a single example in any ancient OR modern greek literature where the single, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ actually is used for "exact representation".

You do realize χαρακτηρ was used once in the New Testament?

And yes, you'll find it at Hebrews 1:3.

The only reason that some translators placed "exact representation" was due to their personal theological bias (i.e. personal added context) and not any the encoded meaning of the word itself (semantics).

SOURCE PLEASE???

While Strongs and Thayers will tell you how a word has been used, and what it has come to mean in the context of Hebrews 1:3 in their time, they are not tools for translators and there is no other place in any literature, either sacred or profane, either ancient or modern where you can find this single, uncontexted word so rendered.

Use Mounce then.

Strongs, in this case does not tell you what the word meant in Koine Greek language anciently, but instead, it indexes how the word χαρακτηρ became rendered in english. This is one reason Strongs is not a tool for translators (as it says in it's early introduction).

Use Dodson then.

You have claimed multiple times that there was universal agreement and no debate regarding the rendering of χαρακτηρ.

Correct! No one "refutes" or undermines χαρακτηρ.

If there was agreement that Hebrews 1:3 meant “exact representation”, then there would not be so much disagreement regarding how this word should be translated.

Preference does not mean disagreement. Some people prefer blue walls to green, but do not find green disagreeable.

Quite simply, if Alford can use "Express Image" then the NIV can use "Exact Representation".

In no case in all of ancient or modern Koine Greek literature, is the single, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ rendered "exact representation".

This other ancient or modern Koine Greek literature... They referred to Christ metaphorically as well? Will we be able to make an apples to apples comparison? Will the context and usage of χαρακτηρ be similar?

In post #942 above, you gave readers a definition of "etymological fallacy".
You said : An etymological fallacy is a genetic or irrelevant fallacy that holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning.[1] This is a common linguistic misconception,[2] and is sometimes used as justification for a linguistic prescription...." (Oeste, in post #942)

As you pointed out, it is an "irrelevant fallacy" to hold "that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning" (Oeste, post #942)

And, as you pointed out, insisting that the present day meaning is similar to its historical meaning is "a common linguistic misconception" and "is sometimes used as justification for a linguistic prescription

Correct! Language is in a constant state of flux. We cannot assign a word's meaning based solely on ancient documents. I gave an example with the word "gay". Another word, decimation comes to mind. It used to mean reduce by a tenth but now means near or total annihilation.

For you to insist that what the word had come to mean inside a modern index is also what it must have meant anciently, is an Etymological fallacy.

1. It is not Oeste who insists on this.
2. Greek scholars do insist on this.
3. No one is insisting that we usurp what the word has always meant.
4. Some words will change from their historical context and still mean the same thing. For example, we no longer talk in the language of the Puritans. I can't remember the last time I said "Prithee".
5. You are still taking a metaphor literally.
6. You appear to be taking the position of a language purist.

This is why I told you many, many posts ago, that you must use an ancient lexicon or ancient dictionary or ancient usage of the word to determine what it meant anciently.

Yes, it meant EXACT REPRESENTATION, EXPRESS IMAGE, EXACT REPRODUCTION and the like. Statues don't talk Clear, neither do coins. YOU ARE TAKING PAUL'S METAPHOR LITERALLY!

Paul explains his metaphor beautifully in Hebrews 1:1-4. The entire context is there. YOU WILL NOT FIND PAUL'S CONTEXT IN PRIOR LITERATURE. ANCIENT LITERATURE DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE SON OF GOD THIS WAY.

There is simply no reference or context where χαρακτηρ is said to hold the universe together, and certainly no place where χαρακτηρ is said to be the very being of God the Father except at Hebrews 1:3.

You're looking for "gay" (sexual orientation) in a 19th century book.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Oeste]

IS THERE ANY READER, ANY POSTER, ANY MEMBER OF THE FORUM THAT CAN HELP OESTE OUT BY GIVING OESTE A SINGLE EXAMPLE FROM EITHER ANCIENT OR MODERN LITERATURE WHERE THE SINGLE, UNCONTEXTED WORD ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ MEANS "EXACT CHARACTER"?

No one uses "Exact Character" so you won't find it anywhere Clear.

REGARDING YOUR CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT THAT ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ MEANS “EXACT REPRESENTATION”


Oeste said : “As I stated before, there is NO DEBATE on whether χαρακτὴρ means “exact representation” at Hebrews 1:3.” (post #952)

This is yet another bizarre and historically incoherent claim. I have already given you and readers multiple examples where translators disagreed with the use of “exact representation” and used multiple other renderings such as :

New International Version renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "exact representation"
New Living Translation renders "χαρακτηρ" as : "very character"

Oh C'mon clear!

Show us the margin notes where the New International Version says "exact representation but never very character", then show us where the New Living Translation says "Very character but never exact representation".

Each committee will have it's preference. What we need is to see critical commentary, an actual dispute on the usage of "exact representation" or "exact impress", or any "additional context" to your " single base word" hypothesis.

MISREPRESENTING MOULTON AND MILLIGAN


Read what Moulton says.

In the EARLY (i.e. more ancient) use of Χαρακτηρ was “the tool for engraving”. This was the early, ancient meaning of the word.

No one disputes this Clear.

If you want to use this definition at Hebrews 1:3 then I will dispute it.

Milligan explains Χαρακτηρ later “came to be used of the ‘mark’. USAGE, added additional meaning. This is the principle.

No one disputes this either. Language is always in flux. How do you think χαρακτηρ came to mean "exact representation"?

You offered OGIS 383:60 of mid I b.c. : χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης.
Explain how this usage means “exact representation”.

You offered Syll 22y6 of 320 b.c..
Explain how this usage means “exact representation”.

Milligan continues with examples of ancient usage from a.d. 85, ii-iii a.d., just after 27 b.c., etc.
Explain how any of these mean “exact representation”.

Where did I say it χαρακτηρ meant "exact representation" at Syll 22y6? Are you under the impression that χαρακτηρ means the same thing regardless of where it's used???

Or are you simply trying to build another strawman?

Read the forward in Moulton and Milligans book and their purpose in going through so much of the ancient literature.
They point out that the Septuagint and the New Testament were not written in a “special language’, but in “the language used in common conversation, learned by them, not through books but most likely in childhood from household talk, or if not, through subsequent oral instruction…”

Yes, hence "Koine" Greek.

This concept of usage creating meaning explains why χαρακτηρ was ultimately rendered as “an exact reproduction” though it did not mean that anciently.

OKAY...THIS IS IMPORTANT CLEAR. Where do you think χαρακτηρ came to mean "exact reproduction"?

Remember, you said : “"I agree with you that “early” translations did not translate χαρακτηρ as “exact representation”. (Oeste post #743)

Correct! Let's remember though, we are talking about Hebrews 1:3 and not pre-Alexandrian literature.

This is the importance of Mouton and Milligans demonstration that early translations and early literature did not render the single uncontexted word “χαρακτηρ” as “exact representation” and importantly, you will not find a single example where Moulton and Milligan do either. Instead have someone you trust who can read Greek, LOOK at and READ their examples to you and explain their meaning. The examples Moulton and Milligan give also, undermine and show your theory is incorrect.

Let's not move the goal posts.

I'm looking for "exact representation", "exact image", "express impress" or the like at Hebrews 1:3. I'm really not concerned about finding it anywhere else.

You may want to have someone you trust, a fellow MORMON who can read Greek, LOOK at and READ HEBREWS 1:3, and explain their meaning. The Mormon Church undermines your theory as incorrect. Moulton and Milligan do nothing to mine.

Stay safe and healthy Clear.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF THREE


Hi @Oeste


Oeste said : "No one uses "Exact Character" so you won't find it anywhere Clear."
This is correct. Your claim has changed so much that my comment may have referred to the posts where you were still arguing FOR "exact character".

Clear asked Oeste “DO YOU HAVE EVEN ONE EXAMPLE FROM ANY HISTORICAL LITERATURE WHERE "CHARACTER" MEANT "EXACT CHARACTER"?” (post #904)
You responded : Any good exegetical commentary should be able provide you with that: (Oeste to Clear in post #906)
This NEW claim of yours that"no one uses "exact character" is simply one of my original claims seems it's, apparently, now, a principle we agree on.

The English word “Character”, which IS the base Greek word “Χαρακτηρ” does not have “exact” associated with it in Hebrews 1:3.
The base, uncontexted, single word Χαρακτηρ” does not mean “exact” anything.
It does not mean “exact representation”, “exact reproduction”, exact copy” nor does it mean "exact character".


MOULTON AND MILLIGAN AND THEIR EXAMPLES REGARDING ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ AND IT’S MEANING

Since you do not read Koine Greek, your cuts and pastes from Greek texts have (so far) only have given readers more examples that undermine your claim.

I DO think that it is a GOOD THING to try to quote literature from the period we are referring to and it is a GOOD THING for you to attempt to use an ancient lexicon with their meanings, rather than to point out how a word has been used in the modern age.
The problem for your claim is that the more you refer to historical data, the less escape there is from the historical data and it’s conclusions.


As Milligan pointed out, “original documents recreate and revivify the past for us in a way which nothing else could do.”
It may have been Diessman who pointed out that the language of the New Testament was the ordinary vernacular of the period and not the language of contemporary literature of another age. This is why Moulton and Milligans study of Koine and it’s actual use in regular interactions led “to the re-writing of our Lexicons and Grammars of the New Testament” according to Milligan himself.

This is why your quote from Thayers lexicon of the 1880s is less relevant. Thayers assumption that there were "biblical words" was incorrect. In fact, Thayers long list of “Biblical” words which he felt were regarded as special property of the biblical writers (since no evidence from profane sources had been discovered) was quickly dismissed. The long list of Thayers "biblical words" had been reduced to 50 or less words (1%) by Deissmann alone.

Milligan reports that “in no a few instances, our new documents supply us with the true meaning of words only imperfectly understood before.”

Quoting from Milligan is GOOD, but you need to READ the literature you are attempting to cut and paste from their lexicon as support for your theory.

Moulton and Milligan give us multiple examples which undermine and debunk your theory.

As examples which originate in your own cut and paste :

1) In OGIS 383.60 (a mid 1st century b.c. document) the text reads Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης
As Moulton and Milligan show, This usage undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and meaning IN ANY WAY supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”?


2) Similarly, in Syll 226 3.495.16 (of approx. 320 b.c.) the text says : “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα” .
As Moulton and Milligan show, This usage undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and meaning IN ANY WAY supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”?


3) In P Flor I. 61.21 (of approx. 85 a.d.) the text Uses the word Character appears saying : “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι”
As Moulton and Milligan show, This usage undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and meaning IN ANY WAY supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”?


4) Similarly, P Leid X xxiv.11 (of 2-3 a.d.) has a text using the word χαραψτερ (Character) which reads : “ τελει τε μοι κυριε τον μεγαν, κυριον αφθεγτον Χαρακτηρα, ινα αυτον εχω.”
As Moulton and Milligan show, This usage undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and meaning IN ANY WAY supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”?


5) In Syll 3 783.23 (written sometime after 27 b.c.) the text uses Character and says “μεχρι των Σεβαστειων ευπλοησεν Χαρακτηρων…”
As Moulton and Milligan show, This usage undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and meaning IN ANY WAY supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”?


6) New Testament Revelations text uses it as a reference to “the mark of the beast” (13:17, 16:2, 19:20).
This usage also undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and meaning IN ANY WAY supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”?

7) On the back of CPR I.11 (a text of of a.d. 108) the text reads : Ετους ιβ Αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος Νερουα Τραιανου
As Moulton and Milligan show, This usage undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and meaning IN ANY WAY supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”?


8) The text of Preisigke 5275.11 (written in 11 a.d.) says “… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “
As Moulton and Milligan show, This usage undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and


9) In BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) the text says “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν”
As Moulton and Milligan show, This usage undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and meaning IN ANY WAY supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”?

10) In P Lond V 1658.8 (written in 4 a.d.) Ghedini provides the example of “…δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…”
As Moulton and Milligan show, This usage undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and meaning IN ANY WAY supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”?


11) P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) speaks of “χρυσου εν οβρυζω Χαραγματι” “
As Moulton and Milligan show, This usage undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and meaning IN ANY WAY supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”?




POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF THREE

(Examples from moulton and milligan - continued)

12) In P Ryl II 160(a)10, (written approx. 14-37 a.d.) says “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι”
As Moulton and Milligan show, This usage undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and meaning IN ANY WAY supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”?


13) P Lond 854.11 (written 1 to 2 a.d.) speaks of :. Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις.
As Moulton and Milligan show, This usage undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and meaning IN ANY WAY supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”?


14) In P Oxy XIV 1680.12 (written in 3 to 4 a.d.) a son writes : “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”.
As Moulton and Milligan show, This usage undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and meaning IN ANY WAY supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”?




REGARDING OESTES ATTEMPT TO USE A CUT AND PASTE FROM PROFESSOR ALFORD TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM


Earlier, when you were still arguing that “Χαρακτηρ” (Character) meant “exact Character”. I asked :

Clear asked Oeste “DO YOU HAVE EVEN ONE EXAMPLE FROM ANY HISTORICAL LITERATURE WHERE "CHARACTER" MEANT "EXACT CHARACTER"?” (post #904)
You responded : Any good exegetical commentary should be able provide you with that: (Oeste to Clear in post #906)

Then you posted a cut and paste from Professor Alford who, like Moulton and Milligan, debunked your claim with multiple examples: Lets look at Professor Alfords Examples YOU provided.

15) You quoted Delitzsch when he said : “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) “

Can you explain for readers, how in the world this observation by Delitzsch, supports EITHER your present claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation” OR the claim you were trying to support at that time that “Character meant “exact Character” or any other version of your claim?



16) You offered readers “Thus Æsch. Suppl. 279, κύπριος χαρακτήρ τʼ ἐν γυναικείοις τύποις εἰκὼς πέπληκται τεκτόνων πρὸς ἀρσένων. “Aristot. Œc. ii. p. 689,
This usage undermines and debunks your present version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.

If you disagree with this, can you explain how this quote supports either version of your claim?



17) Oeste offered : “ ἀνενεχθέντος δὲ τοῦ ἀργυρίου ἐπικόψας χαρακτῆρα: id. Pol. i. 6, where it is said, ὁ γὰρ χαρακτήρ ἐτέθη τοῦ πόσου σημεῖον. Diod. Sic. xvii. 66, τάλαντα χρυσοῦ, χαρακτῆρα δαρεικὸν ἔχοντα.
This usage undermines and debunks your present version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.

If you disagree with this, can you explain how this quote supports either version of your claim?



18) Oeste offered : “Hence the word is taken, 1. generally for any fixed and sharply marked lineaments, material or spiritual, by which a person or an object may be recognized and distinguished. Herod. i. 116, ὁ χ. τοῦ προσώπου. Diod. Sic. i. 82, τοὺς τῆς ὄψεως χαρακτῆρας, the lines of the countenance.
This usage undermines and debunks your present version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.

If you disagree with this, can you explain how this quote supports either version of your claim?



19)Oeste offered : “Lucian, de Amoribus, p. 1061, calls mirrors τῶν ἀντιμόρφων χαρακτήρων ἀγράφους εἰκόνας, and ib. p. 1056, ἧς ὁ μὲν ἀληθῶς χ. ἄμορφος. Demosth. (in Stephan.), ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἐσόπτροις ὁ τῆς ὄψεως, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὁμιλίαις ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χαρακτὴρ βλέπεται.
This usage undermines and debunks your present version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.

If you disagree with this, can you explain how this quote supports either version of your claim?



20) Oeste offered : “Philo, de Mund. Opif. § 4 (vol. i. p. 4), τοὺς χαρακτῆρας ἐνσφραγίζεσθαι, to impress on the mind the lines and forms of an intended city: id. Legg. Allegor. i. § 18 (vol. i. p. 55),
This usage undermines and debunks your present version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.

If you disagree with this, can you explain how this quote supports either version of your claim?



21) Oeste offered : “ὁ τῆς ἀρετῆς χαρακτήρ, οἰκεῖος ὢν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ: id. de Mundi Opif. § 23 (p. 15), τὴν δὲ ἐμφέρειαν (the likeness of man to God) μηδεὶς εἰκαζέτω σώματος χαρακτῆρσιν, ib. § 53 (p. 36), τῆς ἑκατέρου φύσεως (viz. of God and the creation) ἀπεμάττετο (scil. man, while he was alone) τῇ ψυχῇ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας:
This usage undermines and debunks your present version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.

If you disagree with this, can you explain how this quote supports either version of your claim?




22) Oeste offered : “So Philo, Quod Det. Potiori Ins. § 23 (vol. i. p. 217), designates the πνεῦμα imparted by God to man τύπον τινὰ καὶ χαρακτῆρα θείας δυνάμεως,
This usage undermines and debunks your present version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.

If you disagree with this, can you explain how this quote supports either version of your claim?



POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS