As we are all aware, it most certainly depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Can we talk more about meanings of individual words used in the bible?
by Judas I. 11 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
moggy lover
A good working knowledge of the original languages will be a help in gaining an insight into the thoughts of the writers of the Bible text. They used language as a tool to convey sacred as well as secular thoughts. None of them wrote in a vacuum, but used words that were as familiar to their readers as a newspaper would be to us.
But there are several words of caution we could dwell on. Words have never remained static, but have changed with cultural nuances having an influence. One such word is the NT greek word "Stauro'o" Originally in the 5thC BC, when used by men such as Homer, and Thucidides, it meant "to build a fence with stakes" however as the centuries rolled on, and Greek culture fell victim to the encraochments of Roman influence, the Greeks were obliged to alter this meaning. During the 1stC AD the Greeks ran headlong into certain words which were perfectly legitimate in Latin, but which had no Greek equivalent. The Romans for instance "crucified" their malefactors. This foxed the Greeks because they had no such word. Convention, however, obliged them to substitute the word "Stauro'o" to convey this meaning. So by the 1stC the word, originally meaning "to fence" came to mean "crucify" When translating the words of Thucidides, one would need to translate the word as "To build a fence with stakes" because that is what the word meant to his generation, but if translating the words of such men as Diodorus Siculus or Josephus, or Paul, for that matter, you would need to translate it as "crucify" because that is what it meant at that time. The word came to be the Greek equivalent of the Latin "crucificare"
Stubbornly refusing to see this distinction, the WTS insists on quoting a 5thC BC writer, Aeschylus, who used the word in the meaning that was natural to him, but they apply it to the meaning in the days of Paul and the other NT writers. [Kit, ' 69 ed pg 1155]
Another example I can cite is probably the most noble of all words in the NT Greek Leicon: "Agape"
In the 3rdC BC when the Greek Septuagint was being translated the word had the base meaning of "sexual lust" [see Jer 2:2] but by the time of the NT, the writers, especially Paul, invested this word with a nobility and sense of victory that sums up in a way no other word can, the relationship that the Creator has with his human children. The great paean to "Agape" at I Cor 13: 7-10 is one of the most sublime pieces of literature ever conceived by the human mind, Greek, or otherwise.
Several words both in the Hebrew and the Greek have a range of meaning, enabling us to explore the concepts contained in it to the full. But the range can be stretched only so far. There comes a point when one can stretch it so far that it crosses the breaking point and becomes meaningless, or more dangerously, supports a devious viewpoint.
Take the Greek word "Parousia" It can mean a physical visible coming , or it can mean a physical visible arrival, or it can mean a physical visible presence. What it cannot mean is an invisible coming, arrival or presence. The very idea of an "Invisible" presence has an element of the comical, or absurd about it. It is as absurd as attempting to describe a '"visible" absence.Try convincing your boss that you were present at work, only invisible. No writer of the Bible ever used the word to define the being of God, either in the OT or the NT, because they knew that God, being spirit was invisible. I have seen extrodinary examples of WTS literature where they quote even various writers of antiquity, [Josephus, for example] to convey their ignorant viewpoint.
So, yes, words are important, their meanigs being apparent within the contextual grid they are found, and the satisfaction that comes from exploring them to the full can provide an intellectual satisfaction that goes beyond the meaning of any verbal expression.
Cheers