What is 'The Word'?

[doppelganger]

When you say we have no objective reference point on what exactly the word god means, that doesn't make sense to me. We can as easily do so with the word god as any other. Evil, cross, gay, hell ... any word.

Some of those I imagine would present the same problem as "God" - "evil" and "hell," like "God" are not probably "things" you and I can verify the external nature of by comparing notes of our experience because they are subjective judgments. Though they could be - I don't know for certain what you associate these words with. For example, if you named your dog "Evil" we could probably share a common experience of your dog as an external thing. "Cross," like "dog", is a "thing" we might communicate a shared experience of by comparison of our respective experiences of an identifiable external object or series of external, identifiable objects. And because of that, we could agree on a common meaning to associate with "cross."

Does cross have a meaning outside the experiences I associate with it? Can the meaning of any symbol be truly conveyed between two people who don't associate a similar experience with the symbol? Can I verify the common meaning is being received by you without reference to some common external object as a base of reference?

Here are my thoughts. God is a word. We can investigate and study it either from a linguistic or a traditional perspective. Our own experiences may differ, but I don't think that is important to what the word god itself means.

All there is to what a word means is the meaning we give it. Words don't have objective meanings in the absence of a self to perceive those meanings. And words don't communicate meanings in the absense of an other self to receive the symbol by associating it with the experience(s) of the receiving self. If there is no common experience associated with the symbol, there is no communication.

If I tell you I'd like you pick up an "igglnevichibbitz" for me, and you don't associate that with any thing, we will not have communicated. Through a process of dialogue, we might be able to find another set of words or symbols to express the meaning of "igglnevichibbbitz" that you can associate with. Or we might, by physically interacting with an external thing I consider an "igglnevichibbitz," jointly through our simultaneous physical, sensual experience of the thing convey from me to you an association between a particular thing and my use of our symbol to denote that thing, i.e. I could point to it in your line of site and say "That's an igglnevichibbitz." And we might have a brief dialogue about the characteristics of our experience of it that define it as such a thing for me, so that you will be able to spot other things and decide whether you think I would consider them an "igglnevichibbitz."

How would you propose to communicate between us a common experience of "God"? If there is no way for me to have a common experience of an external object you are calling "God," then all I have are my own subjective associations of experience with that symbol and no means by which you could redirect that symbol to align with experiences like yours.

In short, when I say I have no idea what someone means when they talk about an external "God" because I have no experiences to associate with such an external thing (what I've called an "objectification of 'God'" in my posts above), then your repeatedly insisting that you think there is an external thing called "God" isn't going to get us any closer to a communication.

the doppleganger

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You what?

Not much of a case then is it? That the orthodox didn't choose any books that disagreed with their view of Christianity for their canon is a given.

And that later Gnostic texts used contemporary Christian texts when writing their own, what does that prove? Bearing in mind that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, and John that could have used any or all of those three as his source, i can't see where you're going with this.

Well we aren't carrying out an academic discussion where I publish an article, you review it, and then publish a counter-view.

It's a collection of broad generalizations that I think make perfectly good sense.

The cosmology of full-blown Gnosticism is a late development that is not found in any texts that date into the first or even the mid second century. I did not say that there are no specifically Gnostic texts in the NT because of the lack in cosmology. What I said was there are no specifically Gnostic qualities in the NT because of the lack of cosmology, so your protest that Irenaeus or anyone else would not accept Gnostic documents does not address my point.

There are proto-Gnostic qualities in the NT - certain qualities (1-6) that later Christian Gnostics shared with dozens of other groups, but because these qualities do not have Gnostic cosmology, we cannot say that the NT has Gnostic influence or is written in response to specific problems raised by Gnostic groups.

 

[!Fluffy!]

What's that? hehehehe

I'm not Malaysian, i just live there currently for studying purpose.

I can't speak Malay but anyway, thanks.

So sorry Truth, I saw that english was your 2nd language and the "KL"... what's your first language?

--mw

 

[!Fluffy!]

Okay, I'm just saying it's not fair to say that Eh-eh literally means I Am, yet translate it as I Will Be.

No axe to grind, take your time.

Thank you Deut. This whole tenses problem is worthy of further exploration but not here of course, another thread I think. Yup, I can see your point, and we are as usual not the first to be confounded by the problem. From a source in your excellent wiki link:

"Yahweh has already explained to Moses, in a passage by E (Exodus 3: 14), that his name means "I am that I am" -- ehyeh asher ehyeh, an obscure statement that might also be rendered "I will be what I will be" or "I cause that which is to be." (Yahweh probably means both that he is a completely self-sufficient being, and that he is the ultimate source of all other beings.) Transposed into the third person -- "he is who is" or "he who causes what is to be" -- God's statement would read Yahweh asher yihweh, Q.E.D. The form YHWH itself is the standard Hebrew spelling, which only renders consonants." - http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/brush_excerpts/brush_20040218.shtml

As to the original challenge:

Now, on what basis does your unanimous translators choose to translate the same word differently? Do they guess? Do they have a randomizer? Come on now, be serious. It's kind of embarassing that less then 2 verses later, the same word, same vowels, is translated so differently.

.. like I said before, the first order of business would be to allow scripture to explain itself. (This is the part where I say a complete study of the Names of God would be fun). Personally I'm at a loss trying to understand a language void of tenses without the years of study required to learn the language myself (not bloody likely). So my duty is to rely on reputable / trustworthy scholars, hopefully with a consensus, my own feeble observations, and the practice of allowing scripture to explain scripture via concordance.

Otherwise I would wind up at every turn undoing then redoing the work, which at critical points of understanding is okay - but there's a limit.

That being said I'm going to agree with my original post while understanding there would be more work to be done if one is bothered by the translators' POV. I'd have to see the idea of a "becoming" God supported with much more than the juxtaposition of two linguistically abstruse verses.

When viewed side by side, translation 'difficulties' like this are usually fairly easy to comprehend and in most cases dismiss. What I see is an overwhelming consensus there. Also, the Bible translates itself referentially. For example the verse in question might be considered with the following:

John 8:58: "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

Is 44:6: "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God."

Rev 1:17 "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:"

Rev 1:8 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

BTW a note of apology to the OP for chasing that rabbit trail, didn't mean to hijack you.

I don't mean to be a big whiny baby, but didn't anyone want to comment on my #23 post?

 

[Deut 13:1]

I'm not proficient in Hebrew (to say the least), but I found this from the Wiki article interesting as it may shed some light on a linguistic problem that may have faced both the Septuagint translators and modern English translators (both Greek and English are understood to have a past, present and future tense, though as the "boys will be boys" example illustrates, it's not always that clear):

I'm glad you read it, it should help explain a lot of translation errors w/ tenses from my POV.

So would a more accurate English translation be "I am becoming what I am becoming"? And what would that do to 3:12?

the doppleganger

No.

This is also from wiki

The name Ehyeh (Hebrew: אֶהְיֶ&#1492 denotes God's potency in the immediate future, and is part of YHWH. The phrase "ehyeh-asher-ehyeh" (Exodus 3:14) is interpreted by some authorities as "I will be because I will be," using the second part as a gloss and referring to God's promise, "Certainly I will be [ehyeh] with thee" (Exodus 3:12). Other authorities claim that the whole phrase forms one name. The Targum Onkelos leaves the phrase untranslated and is so quoted in the Talmud (B. B. 73a).

The "I am that I am" of the Authorized Version is based on this view.
I am that I am (Hebrew: אהיה אשר אהיה, pronounced ''Ehyeh asher ehyeh') is the sole response used in (Exodus 3:14) when Moses asked for God's name. It is one of the most famous verses in the Hebrew Bible. Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew; ehyeh is the first-person singular imperfect form. Ehyeh asher ehyeh is generally interpreted to mean "I will be what I will be", I shall be what I shall be or I am that I am (King James Bible and others). The Tetragrammaton itself may derive from the same verbal root.

Your translation doesn't make sense. Where did you get "becomming" from?

Edit: It's a reflection of 3:12

 

[Deut 13:1]

Thank you Deut. This whole tenses problem is worthy of further exploration but not here of course, another thread I think.

Make it.

 

[doppelganger]

Your translation doesn't make sense. Where did you get "becomming" from?

It's based on the "imperfective" tense of Ehyeh, which really does not translate clearly to English as "I will be" or "I am" for the reasons discussed ad nauseum above and for the reasons your Wiki article indicated: there is no real "past, present or future tense" in Hebrew.

This is likely the problem the LXX had and could be the reason why Ehyeh was translated into Greek as ego eimi in verse 14, but as esomai in verse 12. "Will be" is likely to be misuderstood as being in the future tense (a mistake you yourself made above in this thread). Since Hebrew doesn't have a future tense according to your Wiki article, "I am becomming" would more accurately and unambiguously capture the meaning of imperfective tense of Ehyeh compared to either "I will be" or "I am."

the doppleganger

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Since Hebrew doesn't have a future tense according to your Wiki article, "I am becomming" would more accurately and unambiguously capture the meaning of imperfective tense of Ehyeh compared to either "I will be" or "I am."

the doppleganger

Damn I was taught that the Hebrew imperfect is translated into English as future. That made no sense to me, because in every other langauge that I know the imperfect is some kind of past action.

 

[doppelganger]

Damn I was taught that the Hebrew imperfect is translated into English as future. That made no sense to me, because in every other langauge that I know the imperfect is some kind of past action.

I don't claim to be an authority of any sort on Hebrew. I received some learnin' in Greek and Latin. As I've tried to make clear, this is based on the article in Wikipedia on the Tetragrammaton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_that_I_am

Which says:

The ancient Hebrew language does not have a past, present, or future tense. Instead, it has an imperfective aspect and perfective aspect as indicators of time, with no actual determined time. Perfective aspect is something that is completed, or will be definitely completed. Imperfect is something that has not been completed, might be completed or might be completed in the future (there is no definite). Ehyeh is in the imperfective aspect, and can be understood as God saying that he is "in the process of being", a reference saying that his work is not yet complete, and may never be complete.

This is Wiki, of course, so it could be wrong. Any Hebrew grammar experts out there are welcome to sign in to Wiki and correct it (and should, if this isn't accurate).

the doppleganger

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that the wiki article adequately confirms what I have been taught...

might be completed in the future (there is no definite).

I'm going to be translating quite a bit of Hebrew this fall! This scared me for a sec LOL.

 

[doppelganger]

And why it is I put an extra "m" in becoming is beyond me.

the doppleganger

 

[Halcyon]

The cosmology of full-blown Gnosticism is a late development that is not found in any texts that date into the first or even the mid second century. I did not say that there are no specifically Gnostic texts in the NT because of the lack in cosmology.

Hmmm, well the first point is debatable - the Sophia of Jesus Christ has its earliest dating at 50CE, more likely nearer 100CE, it requires an understanding of Gnostic cosmology to make any sense at all, as does the Secret Book of James (circa 100-120CE), this suggests that the cosmology was also in circulation at that time. Remember that we only have a couple of Gnostic stashes to go by for dating purposes, all the rest were destroyed.
I disagree with your second point on the simple basis that there is more to Gnosticism than the cosmology.

What I said was there are no specifically Gnostic qualities in the NT because of the lack of cosmology, so your protest that Irenaeus or anyone else would not accept Gnostic documents does not address my point.

Again, there is more to Christian Gnosticism than the cosmology, and i think certain Gnostic teachings/concepts shine through in some statements attributed to Jesus, and the works of Paul.

There are proto-Gnostic qualities in the NT - certain qualities (1-6) that later Christian Gnostics shared with dozens of other groups, but because these qualities do not have Gnostic cosmology, we cannot say that the NT has Gnostic influence or is written in response to specific problems raised by Gnostic groups.

Again, just like with orthodox Christianity, there is more to variation in Gnostic textual form than the cosmology. The Gospels of Thomas, Philip and Mary have little to no cosmology in them, but they are still Gnostic.

I think the evidence that John was written in response to proto-Christian Gnostics is clear, you don't, i don't think we can agree on this point.
I think we also have to disagree on the message of Paul, as i think its all a matter of interpretation and neither of us will back down.

I guess what i took issue with was your idea that Gnostic Christianity was some later warped version of the orthodox.
I think anyone can see that this isn't the case when they review the evidence. That Gnosticism, orthodox and Ebionite Christianity developed alongside one another and, at least in part, in response to one another is fairly obvious from my perspective.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I disagree with your second point on the simple basis that there is more to Gnosticism than the cosmology.

Again, there is more to Christian Gnosticism than the cosmology, and i think certain Gnostic teachings/concepts shine through in some statements attributed to Jesus, and the works of Paul.

Possibly so, but the cosmology is all that is specifically Gnostic.

I think we also have to disagree on the message of Paul, as i think its all a matter of interpretation and neither of us will back down.

Yes, scholarship is currently changing drastically in how it identifies Gnsoticism in the NT. The verdict is: there is much less than previously thought. Older commentaries think that Paul attacked Gnosticism, and identifies Gnostic tendacies in Paul. However, these characteristics could be directed toward a smorgabord of other Christian groups - including *gasp* the proto-orthodox.

I guess what i took issue with was your idea that Gnostic Christianity was some later warped version of the orthodox.

I am basing my view strictly off of the dating of texts, etc, and not the traditional view of the early church (that the orthodox were earlier than everyone else and the majority).

I think anyone can see that this isn't the case when they review the evidence. That Gnosticism, orthodox and Ebionite Christianity developed alongside one another and, at least in part, in response to one another is fairly obvious from my perspective.

Yes, I agree that Gnosticism developed alongside Christianity, but where their nonspecific qualities intersect with several other groups, I am skeptical as to how "Gnostic" these earliest groups really were.

 

[Halcyon]

Possibly so, but the cosmology is all that is specifically Gnostic.

I agree, pretty much, with your post except for this part.

I think that the ideas about the way to know God being within the individual, self-enlightenment (gnosis) and favour of the spirit over matter as being specifically Gnostic within the early Christian spectrum (although they may have been fused into the orthodox over the next 20 centuries), and i find these concepts alluded to within some NT texts.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree, pretty much, with your post except for this part.

I think that the ideas about the way to know God being within the individual, self-enlightenment (gnosis) and favour of the spirit over matter as being specifically Gnostic within the early Christian spectrum (although they may have been fused into the orthodox over the next 20 centuries), and i find these concepts alluded to within some NT texts.

The Stoics also believed this, but with a radically different cosmology.

 

[Deut 13:1]

It's based on the "imperfective" tense of Ehyeh, which really does not translate clearly to English as "I will be" or "I am" for the reasons discussed ad nauseum above and for the reasons your Wiki article indicated: there is no real "past, present or future tense" in Hebrew.

In anceint hebrew, yes. Modern hebrew has 4 tenses, past, present, future, and command form. In Latin and in English there are a billion different tenses. Which is the problem. Imperfective tense is translated in the future english tense. As proof you can look up the other times that it shows up in the Torah. I think the KJV translates it as english future in EVERY instance except 3:14. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? Again, I'm not positive on the KJV or the other versions, nor do I have the inclination to go through and look up dozens upon dozens of verses to verify it, but just look them up on that site you gave me.

 

[Halcyon]

The Stoics also believed this, but with a radically different cosmology.

I'm not sure they did, i don't think stoics believed in God or divinity did they? I thought it was more a philosophy...

Well, it is fairly similar to Gnosticism, as is Buddhism, but i think the style of Gnosticism, the interpretation and use/context of words like logos, Sophia etc are pretty unique and easily spotted when used by different groups.

To be honest, i've forgetten what we were originally debating...

I guess the use of logos in the bible could of come from the stoics, but from the context i would suggest a Gnostic origin, but that's just me, i don't expect you to agree.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm not sure they did, i don't think stoics believed in God or divinity did they? I thought it was more a philosophy...

The Stoics talked about God all the time, as did most of the Greek philosophers. Philosophy (whether Socratic, Cynic, or Stoic) was the way to be closest to God and of best service to fellow human beings. Sound familiar (= love God/love others)?

If you're interested, see Seneca and Paul, an appendix in Lightfoot's commentary on Philippians and especially:

Sevenster, Jan Nicolaas, 1900- Paul and Seneca. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1961.

For an overview of philosophers and God see their biographies in Diogenes Laertius. http://www.brainfly.net/html/diogenes.htm

You can search "God" in Aristotle, Plato, Xenophon, and Epictetus (a Roman Stoic during the time of Paul) at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cache/perscoll_Greco-Roman.html.

In short, you will find that Socratic, Platonic, Aristotle, Cynic, and Stoic philosophies all had theologies.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I guess the use of logos in the bible could of come from the stoics, but from the context i would suggest a Gnostic origin, but that's just me, i don't expect you to agree.

It's great to have different points of view, different arguments and that sort of thing.

I'm not dissenting because I don't like Gnostics. I have a different opinion because I don't think that there is sufficient evidence.

 

[Halcyon]

In short, you will find that Socratic, Platonic, Aristotle, Cynic, and Stoic philosophies all had theologies.

Huh, well there you go, i always thought they were naturalistic, i'll do some more research.

It's great to have different points of view, different arguments and that sort of thing.

I agree

I'm not dissenting because I don't like Gnostics. I have a different opinion because I don't think that there is sufficient evidence.

Fair enough.