Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The name of god

Expand Messages
  • Andrew
    The name of god 1. The witnesses of the ancient versions and their translations of the word jehovah : It is worthy of notice that this name is never used in
    Message 1 of 10 , May 17, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      The name of god
       
      1. The witnesses of the ancient versions and their translations of the word "jehovah":
      It is worthy of notice that this name is never used in any serious work of the LXX., the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Apocrypha, or in the New Testament. These scriptures are written before Jesus the anointed, and some of them are contemporary to the last prophets of the Old Testament.
       
      2. The lord Jesus himself came to reveal the name of god, not to hide it. When he and his disciples read and quote the passages of the scriptures, they give the right and true translation of the Hebrew word "jehovah". They all without exception translate "jehovah" - "kurios" and nothing else. Kurios means "lord" used for men and for god. And "kurios" does not mean something different when is applied towards god or people. So by these two great witnesses: Ancient translations, and teachings of Jesus and his disciples "jehovah" means only lord.
       
      I may conclude that the translators of the Septuagint have done their job perfectly well translating the word "jehovah" as "kurios" (lord, master), and this is the true meaning of this word.
       
      3. In Exodus 6:2,3 god said, that with the name "jehovah" he was not known to the fathers Abraam, Isaac and Jacob. Nevertheless this word "jehovah" is used many times even by the fathers Abraam, Isaac and Jacob before this particular passage in the scriptures, concluding: this word is not the name of god, but commonly used word to call god with.
      God applied this word as a knowledge of his identity later in Exodus to express himself to Moses.
       
      4. The descriptive way of revealing god by names:
      a) God in the Old Testament applied many words as his name. This is a descriptive way of revealing god with many names: (Sabaoth or Lord of hosts, "Almighty God is his name," "Holy in the holies is his name," Lord Almighty, ...etc.) "Kurios" is one of them. In Isaiah 47:4 is written "the Holy One of Israel is his name.", not "Jehovah" following the same passage.
      b) The scripture way of revealing to Moses:
      When god revealed himself to Moses in the bush he did not say "jehovah", but first described  himself as an existing before and forever, and said that his name is: "The God of Abraam, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, has sent me to you: this is my name for ever, and my memorial to generations of generations."
       
      That's how we can see the descriptive way of revealing god in the scriptures.  Through many words used like names, god partly reveals the different aspects of his nature in the Old Testament. By such descriptive way god reveals himself in the New Testament, but not partly anymore. The fullness of the revealing of god is expressed in everything that Jesus was, because everything what Jesus did and said in his submission to the father, was the father himself working in his son. That's why Jesus may say: /John 17:6-10/ "I have manifested thy name unto the men ....." and, /John 17:24-26/ "O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them." This was said when the disciples believed that Jesus came from the father.
       
      Conclusion: Everything what Jesus did and was and said is the full and true name of god. Amen.
       
      God bless you.
      Andrew
    • Tyler Williams
      Not to be snarky, but is there a question or a point to this posting? BTW: Jehovah is a bad transliteration from the German of an impossible construction in
      Message 2 of 10 , May 17, 2002
      • 0 Attachment

        Not to be snarky, but is there a question or a point to this posting?

         

        BTW: “Jehovah” is a bad transliteration from the German of an impossible construction in Hebrew. Most scholars would argue that the name YHWH would have been vocalized as YaHWeH (though there is some debate about this). Also, I would not agree that kurios means the same when applied to humans and to divinity (any more than “Lord” in English means the same when applied to “lords a leaping”  or as a title for God).

        -Tyler
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Tyler F. Williams
        Chair, Religion & Theology Program
        Assistant Professor of Old Testament/Hebrew Bible
        Taylor University College & Seminary
        11525 - 23 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, Canada   T6J 4T3
        Phone: (780) 431-5217 / Fax: (780) 436-9416
        Email: tyler.williams@...
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Andrew [mailto:andrew@...]
        Sent: May 17, 2002 3:51 PM
        To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [lxx] The name of god

         

        The name of god

         

        1. The witnesses of the ancient versions and their translations of the word "jehovah":
        It is worthy of notice that this name is never used in any serious work of the LXX., the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Apocrypha, or in the New Testament. These scriptures are written before Jesus the anointed, and some of them are contemporary to the last prophets of the Old Testament.

         

        2. The lord Jesus himself came to reveal the name of god, not to hide it. When he and his disciples read and quote the passages of the scriptures, they give the right and true translation of the Hebrew word "jehovah". They all without exception translate "jehovah" - "kurios" and nothing else. Kurios means "lord" used for men and for god. And "kurios" does not mean something different when is applied towards god or people. So by these two great witnesses: Ancient translations, and teachings of Jesus and his disciples "jehovah" means only lord.

         

        I may conclude that the translators of the Septuagint have done their job perfectly well translating the word "jehovah" as "kurios" (lord, master), and this is the true meaning of this word.

         

        3. In Exodus 6:2,3 god said, that with the name "jehovah" he was not known to the fathers Abraam, Isaac and Jacob. Nevertheless this word "jehovah" is used many times even by the fathers Abraam, Isaac and Jacob before this particular passage in the scriptures, concluding: this word is not the name of god, but commonly used word to call god with.
        God applied this word as a knowledge of his identity later in Exodus to express himself to Moses.

         

        4. The descriptive way of revealing god by names:
        a) God in the Old Testament applied many words as his name. This is a descriptive way of revealing god with many names: (Sabaoth or Lord of hosts, "Almighty God is his name," "Holy in the holies is his name," Lord Almighty, ...etc.) "Kurios" is one of them. In Isaiah 47:4 is written "the Holy One of Israel is his name.", not "Jehovah" following the same passage.
        b) The scripture way of revealing to Moses:
        When god revealed himself to Moses in the bush he did not say "jehovah", but first described  himself as an existing before and forever, and said that his name is: "The God of Abraam, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, has sent me to you: this is my name for ever, and my memorial to generations of generations."

         

        That's how we can see the descriptive way of revealing god in the scriptures.  Through many words used like names, god partly reveals the different aspects of his nature in the Old Testament. By such descriptive way god reveals himself in the New Testament, but not partly anymore. The fullness of the revealing of god is expressed in everything that Jesus was, because everything what Jesus did and said in his submission to the father, was the father himself working in his son. That's why Jesus may say: /John 17:6-10/ "I have manifested thy name unto the men ....." and, /John 17:24-26/ "O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them." This was said when the disciples believed that Jesus came from the father.

         

        Conclusion: Everything what Jesus did and was and said is the full and true name of god. Amen.

         

        God bless you.
        Andrew



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      • jultm777
        I think that your attitude toward this material is bad. The topic is completely clear. Concerning kurios you are absolutely wrong. It is absurdity to claim,
        Message 3 of 10 , May 29, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I think that your attitude toward this material is bad. The topic is
          completely clear.

          Concerning kurios you are absolutely wrong. It is absurdity to claim,
          that kurios has different meaning in Greek when it is used for human
          or god. It is clear that in LXX, NT and the Old Greek writings the
          word kurios has the same meaning without difference concerning men,
          women or god and has the same meaning - master, lord.

          In the anointed Jesus.
          Julian

          --- In lxx@y..., "Tyler Williams" <tyler.williams@t...> wrote:
          > Not to be snarky, but is there a question or a point to this
          posting?
          >
          > BTW: "Jehovah" is a bad transliteration from the German of an
          impossible
          > construction in Hebrew. Most scholars would argue that the name YHWH
          > would have been vocalized as YaHWeH (though there is some debate
          about
          > this). Also, I would not agree that kurios means the same when
          applied
          > to humans and to divinity (any more than "Lord" in English means the
          > same when applied to "lords a leaping" or as a title for God).
          > -Tyler
          > --------------------------------------------------------------------
          --
          > Tyler F. Williams
          > Chair, Religion & Theology Program
          > Assistant Professor of Old Testament/Hebrew Bible
          > Taylor University College & Seminary
          > 11525 - 23 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6J 4T3
          > Phone: (780) 431-5217 / Fax: (780) 436-9416
          > Email: tyler.williams@t...
          > --------------------------------------------------------------------
          --
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Andrew [mailto:andrew@o...]
          > Sent: May 17, 2002 3:51 PM
          > To: lxx@y...
          > Subject: [lxx] The name of god
          >
          > The name of god
          >
          > 1. The witnesses of the ancient versions and their translations of
          the
          > word "jehovah":
          > It is worthy of notice that this name is never used in any serious
          work
          > of the LXX., the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Apocrypha, or in the New
          > Testament. These scriptures are written before Jesus the anointed,
          and
          > some of them are contemporary to the last prophets of the Old
          Testament.
          >
          > 2. The lord Jesus himself came to reveal the name of god, not to
          hide
          > it. When he and his disciples read and quote the passages of the
          > scriptures, they give the right and true translation of the Hebrew
          word
          > "jehovah". They all without exception translate "jehovah" -
          "kurios" and
          > nothing else. Kurios means "lord" used for men and for god.
          And "kurios"
          > does not mean something different when is applied towards god or
          people.
          > So by these two great witnesses: Ancient translations, and
          teachings of
          > Jesus and his disciples "jehovah" means only lord.
          >
          > I may conclude that the translators of the Septuagint have done
          their
          > job perfectly well translating the word "jehovah" as "kurios" (lord,
          > master), and this is the true meaning of this word.
          >
          > 3. In Exodus 6:2,3 god said, that with the name "jehovah" he was not
          > known to the fathers Abraam, Isaac and Jacob. Nevertheless this word
          > "jehovah" is used many times even by the fathers Abraam, Isaac and
          Jacob
          > before this particular passage in the scriptures, concluding: this
          word
          > is not the name of god, but commonly used word to call god with.
          > God applied this word as a knowledge of his identity later in
          Exodus to
          > express himself to Moses.
          >
          > 4. The descriptive way of revealing god by names:
          > a) God in the Old Testament applied many words as his name. This is
          a
          > descriptive way of revealing god with many names: (Sabaoth or Lord
          of
          > hosts, "Almighty God is his name," "Holy in the holies is his name,"
          > Lord Almighty, ...etc.) "Kurios" is one of them. In Isaiah 47:4 is
          > written "the Holy One of Israel is his name.", not "Jehovah"
          following
          > the same passage.
          > b) The scripture way of revealing to Moses:
          > When god revealed himself to Moses in the bush he did not
          say "jehovah",
          > but first described himself as an existing before and forever, and
          said
          > that his name is: "The God of Abraam, and God of Isaac, and God of
          > Jacob, has sent me to you: this is my name for ever, and my
          memorial to
          > generations of generations."
          >
          > That's how we can see the descriptive way of revealing god in the
          > scriptures. Through many words used like names, god partly reveals
          the
          > different aspects of his nature in the Old Testament. By such
          > descriptive way god reveals himself in the New Testament, but not
          partly
          > anymore. The fullness of the revealing of god is expressed in
          everything
          > that Jesus was, because everything what Jesus did and said in his
          > submission to the father, was the father himself working in his son.
          > That's why Jesus may say: /John 17:6-10/ "I have manifested thy name
          > unto the men ....." and, /John 17:24-26/ "O righteous Father, the
          world
          > hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known
          that
          > thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will
          > declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in
          them,
          > and I in them." This was said when the disciples believed that Jesus
          > came from the father.
          >
          > Conclusion: Everything what Jesus did and was and said is the full
          and
          > true name of god. Amen.
          >
          > God bless you.
          > Andrew
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          >
          >
          > ADVERTISEMENT
          >
          >
          <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=17
          07
          > 208862:HM/A=1000239/R=0/*http:/ads.x10.com/?
          bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1021673354
          > %
          3eM=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1707208862:HM/A=10002
          3
          > 9/R=1>
          >
          >
          > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
          M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egrou
          > pmail/S=1707208862:HM/A=1000239/rand=485150506>
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.
        • St. Tikhon's Sem Libr
          ... Isn t Kurie (the vocative case of Kurios ) used by St. Mary Magdalene to address Jesus when she thinks he is the gardener (hence meaning sir or
          Message 4 of 10 , May 29, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, 29 May 2002 17:32:28 -0000, jultm777 wrote:

            >Concerning kurios you are absolutely wrong. It is absurdity to claim,
            >that kurios has different meaning in Greek when it is used for human
            >or god. It is clear that in LXX, NT and the Old Greek writings the
            >word kurios has the same meaning without difference concerning men,
            >women or god and has the same meaning - master, lord.

            Isn't "Kurie" (the vocative case of "Kurios") used by St. Mary
            Magdalene to address Jesus when she thinks he is the gardener (hence
            meaning "sir" or "Mr.")?


            Juvenaly, Asst. Librarian
            St. Patriarch Tikhon Library
            St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Seminary
            Box 130 / St Tikhon's Road / So Canaan PA 18459-0130 USA
            570-937-3209, "-3103, or "-4411 ext 21
            fax 570-937-3209; if no answer 570-937-3100
            http://www.stots.edu/library.html
            library@...
          • jultm777
            No, it is not. Sir is not a good translation. If you understand the usage of Sir only as an word to address with or as a title, you are wrong to translate
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 9, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              No, it is not. "Sir" is not a good translation. If you understand the
              usage of "Sir" only as an word to address with or as a title, you
              are wrong to translate kurios with sir. In the Bible's
              context "kurios" does not have such an usage. The times of the Bible,
              as you know, have been different than ours. In the modern world the
              meaning of "master", is not so actual like in the Bible times.

              In this particular case with Mary Magdalene, she is asking
              the "master of the situation" in her own view; the one who, she
              things moved the body of the lord Jesus. She does not just addresses
              herself to any gardener, but have and shows respect as to the ruler
              of the situation. So "Sir" is a poor choice to translate with in this
              passage. In the ancient times "kurios" is having stronger meaning
              than merely "Sir".

              If we look for the usage of the word in the life of the lord Jesus,
              he never uses it to address politely someone, for example: kurios
              Petros, but calls him directly Simon the Rock. This word "kurios"
              with no difference for god or men bears the meaning of lord and
              master.

              If you claim that the usage of "kurios" is different when used for
              god or man, could you please explain why this word is never used from
              god or from the lord Jesus towards men only as to address with,
              explain also such an expressions as "king of kings and lord of lords
              (kurios kurown) where the meaning must be exactly the same.

              With respect,
              Julian


              --- In lxx@y..., "St. Tikhon's Sem Libr" <library@s...> wrote:
              > On Wed, 29 May 2002 17:32:28 -0000, jultm777 wrote:
              >
              > >Concerning kurios you are absolutely wrong. It is absurdity to
              claim,
              > >that kurios has different meaning in Greek when it is used for
              human
              > >or god. It is clear that in LXX, NT and the Old Greek writings the
              > >word kurios has the same meaning without difference concerning
              men,
              > >women or god and has the same meaning - master, lord.
              >
              > Isn't "Kurie" (the vocative case of "Kurios") used by St. Mary
              > Magdalene to address Jesus when she thinks he is the gardener (hence
              > meaning "sir" or "Mr.")?
              >
              >
              > Juvenaly, Asst. Librarian
              > St. Patriarch Tikhon Library
              > St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Seminary
              > Box 130 / St Tikhon's Road / So Canaan PA 18459-0130 USA
              > 570-937-3209, "-3103, or "-4411 ext 21
              > fax 570-937-3209; if no answer 570-937-3100
              > http://www.stots.edu/library.html
              > library@s...
            • St. Tikhon's Sem Libr
              ... Dear Julian, Like many if not most words, this word has different meaning depending on the context. Many times it means Lord. Other times, it means owner.
              Message 6 of 10 , Jun 11, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sun, 09 Jun 2002 21:40:23 -0000, jultm777 wrote:

                >No, it is not. "Sir" is not a good translation. If you understand the
                >usage of "Sir" only as an word to address with or as a title, you
                >are wrong to translate kurios with sir. In the Bible's
                >context "kurios" does not have such an usage. The times of the Bible,
                >as you know, have been different than ours. In the modern world the
                >meaning of "master", is not so actual like in the Bible times.

                >In this particular case with Mary Magdalene, she is asking
                >the "master of the situation" in her own view; the one who, she
                >things moved the body of the lord Jesus. She does not just addresses
                >herself to any gardener, but have and shows respect as to the ruler
                >of the situation. So "Sir" is a poor choice to translate with in this
                >passage. In the ancient times "kurios" is having stronger meaning
                >than merely "Sir".

                > If we look for the usage of the word in the life of the lord Jesus,
                >he never uses it to address politely someone, for example: kurios
                >Petros, but calls him directly Simon the Rock. This word "kurios"
                >with no difference for god or men bears the meaning of lord and
                >master.

                >If you claim that the usage of "kurios" is different when used for
                >god or man, could you please explain why this word is never used from
                >god or from the lord Jesus towards men only as to address with,
                >explain also such an expressions as "king of kings and lord of lords
                >(kurios kurown) where the meaning must be exactly the same.
                >
                >With respect,
                >Julian

                Dear Julian,
                Like many if not most words, this word has different meaning depending
                on the context. Many times it means Lord. Other times, it means owner.
                (For example Luke 19.33.) Other times, it is a title of respect (For
                example, Matt. 13:27, where it is translated "sir.") I also believe
                that is the meaning in the passage where St. Mary Magdalene meets the
                Lord and supposes him to be the gardener.
                Sincerely
                Hieromonk Juvenaly
                Senior lecturer in Greek
                St Tikhon's Seminary
              • St. Tikhon's Sem Libr
                ... It s very often true that a word in one language does not have a precise equivalent in another language; and, furthermore, I m willing to allow that
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 11, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  To what I wrote a few minutes ago, I want to add this the following:

                  >. . . .The times of the Bible,
                  >as you know, have been different than ours. In the modern world the
                  >meaning of "master", is not so actual like in the Bible times.

                  >. . . . . So "Sir" is a poor choice to translate with in this
                  >passage. In the ancient times "kurios" is having stronger meaning
                  >than merely "Sir".

                  It's very often true that a word in one language does not have a
                  precise equivalent in another language; and, furthermore, I'm willing
                  to allow that "kurios" in the NT is, or may be, slightly stronger than
                  "sir" in modern English. It often has overtones of high status and
                  respect. And therefore "sir" is not a perfect translation in the
                  context under discussion (namely, when St. Mary Magdalene addresses
                  Jesus while supposing him to be the gardener). OTOH, the meaning of
                  "kurios" here (and often in other places) is not as strong as when it
                  is used to address God. Therefore, I think that in this context "Lord"
                  would be an inappropriate translation, and "sir" is the better one, or
                  at any rate the least bad one.

                  >If you claim that the usage of "kurios" is different when used for
                  >god or man, could you please explain why this word is never used from
                  >god or from the lord Jesus towards men only as to address with,

                  For the same reason that a parent does not address his or her own child
                  as "sir."

                  >explain also such an expressions as "king of kings and lord of lords
                  >(kurios kurown) where the meaning must be exactly the same.

                  Here the word "kurios" has a stronger meaning than when used to address
                  human beings.
                  Juvenaly
                • andrew_lxx
                  ... the ... willing ... than ... it ... context Lord ... or ... from ... child ... lords ... address ... Dear Juvenaly, As I can understand, you hold that
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jun 18, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In lxx@y..., "St. Tikhon's Sem Libr" <library@s...> wrote:
                    > To what I wrote a few minutes ago, I want to add this the following:
                    >
                    > >. . . .The times of the Bible,
                    > >as you know, have been different than ours. In the modern world
                    the
                    > >meaning of "master", is not so actual like in the Bible times.
                    >
                    > >. . . . . So "Sir" is a poor choice to translate with in this
                    > >passage. In the ancient times "kurios" is having stronger meaning
                    > >than merely "Sir".
                    >
                    > It's very often true that a word in one language does not have a
                    > precise equivalent in another language; and, furthermore, I'm
                    willing
                    > to allow that "kurios" in the NT is, or may be, slightly stronger
                    than
                    > "sir" in modern English. It often has overtones of high status and
                    > respect. And therefore "sir" is not a perfect translation in the
                    > context under discussion (namely, when St. Mary Magdalene addresses
                    > Jesus while supposing him to be the gardener). OTOH, the meaning of
                    > "kurios" here (and often in other places) is not as strong as when
                    it
                    > is used to address God. Therefore, I think that in this
                    context "Lord"
                    > would be an inappropriate translation, and "sir" is the better one,
                    or
                    > at any rate the least bad one.
                    >
                    > >If you claim that the usage of "kurios" is different when used for
                    > >god or man, could you please explain why this word is never used
                    from
                    > >god or from the lord Jesus towards men only as to address with,
                    >
                    > For the same reason that a parent does not address his or her own
                    child
                    > as "sir."
                    >
                    > >explain also such an expressions as "king of kings and lord of
                    lords
                    > >(kurios kurown) where the meaning must be exactly the same.
                    >
                    > Here the word "kurios" has a stronger meaning than when used to
                    address
                    > human beings.
                    > Juvenaly

                    Dear Juvenaly,
                    As I can understand, you hold that kurios have variations in its
                    meaning when used in Old Greek language in Bible's contexts, and thus
                    the tetragrammaton YHWH cannot be considered to have its meaning
                    master. And you support your view with some examples which you
                    believe are exceptional and have a slightly different nuance.

                    If someone disregards thousands of places with contexts where god is
                    named with the word which means master, and such word is translated
                    from other language in Greek as master and is used thousands of times
                    in such reach language totally predominantly, also not understanding
                    that such word is not considered as the name of god by he who is the
                    word of god; Then for such man the name of god always will be mystery
                    and he will absurdly call the name of his god tetragrammaton, and it
                    will be very difficult for him to fulfill the scripture where it is
                    written: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
                    saved."

                    p.s.
                    Your interpretation of the passage with "kurios kuriwn" is very
                    wrong, because "kuriwn" refers human beings and kurios in such
                    expression means that Jesus is the most great kurios between others
                    of the same kind.
                  • andrew_lxx
                    ... the ... willing ... than ... it ... context Lord ... or ... from ... child ... lords ... address
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jun 18, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In lxx@y..., "St. Tikhon's Sem Libr" <library@s...> wrote:
                      > To what I wrote a few minutes ago, I want to add this the following:
                      >
                      > >. . . .The times of the Bible,
                      > >as you know, have been different than ours. In the modern world
                      the
                      > >meaning of "master", is not so actual like in the Bible times.
                      >
                      > >. . . . . So "Sir" is a poor choice to translate with in this
                      > >passage. In the ancient times "kurios" is having stronger meaning
                      > >than merely "Sir".
                      >
                      > It's very often true that a word in one language does not have a
                      > precise equivalent in another language; and, furthermore, I'm
                      willing
                      > to allow that "kurios" in the NT is, or may be, slightly stronger
                      than
                      > "sir" in modern English. It often has overtones of high status and
                      > respect. And therefore "sir" is not a perfect translation in the
                      > context under discussion (namely, when St. Mary Magdalene addresses
                      > Jesus while supposing him to be the gardener). OTOH, the meaning of
                      > "kurios" here (and often in other places) is not as strong as when
                      it
                      > is used to address God. Therefore, I think that in this
                      context "Lord"
                      > would be an inappropriate translation, and "sir" is the better one,
                      or
                      > at any rate the least bad one.
                      >
                      > >If you claim that the usage of "kurios" is different when used for
                      > >god or man, could you please explain why this word is never used
                      from
                      > >god or from the lord Jesus towards men only as to address with,
                      >
                      > For the same reason that a parent does not address his or her own
                      child
                      > as "sir."
                      >
                      > >explain also such an expressions as "king of kings and lord of
                      lords
                      > >(kurios kurown) where the meaning must be exactly the same.
                      >
                      > Here the word "kurios" has a stronger meaning than when used to
                      address
                      > human beings.
                      > Juvenaly
                    • canicus
                      ... thus ... is ... times ... understanding ... the ... mystery ... it ... be ... Perhaps it would be better to look at degrees of ownership or being master.
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jun 19, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > Dear Juvenaly,
                        > As I can understand, you hold that kurios have variations in its
                        > meaning when used in Old Greek language in Bible's contexts, and
                        thus
                        > the tetragrammaton YHWH cannot be considered to have its meaning
                        > master. And you support your view with some examples which you
                        > believe are exceptional and have a slightly different nuance.
                        >
                        > If someone disregards thousands of places with contexts where god
                        is
                        > named with the word which means master, and such word is translated
                        > from other language in Greek as master and is used thousands of
                        times
                        > in such reach language totally predominantly, also not
                        understanding
                        > that such word is not considered as the name of god by he who is
                        the
                        > word of god; Then for such man the name of god always will be
                        mystery
                        > and he will absurdly call the name of his god tetragrammaton, and
                        it
                        > will be very difficult for him to fulfill the scripture where it is
                        > written: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall
                        be
                        > saved."
                        >
                        > p.s.
                        > Your interpretation of the passage with "kurios kuriwn" is very
                        > wrong, because "kuriwn" refers human beings and kurios in such
                        > expression means that Jesus is the most great kurios between others
                        > of the same kind.

                        Perhaps it would be better to look at degrees of ownership or
                        being "master." Calling God "King of kings and Lord of lords" isn't
                        an argument against it, but for it. In the ancient near-east, kings
                        were considered divine. Kurios can be used with divine
                        implications. It is, therefore, reasonable to think that it can be
                        used in a way that exclussively connotes God and not men.

                        Secondly, whether you think that kurios is appropriate for the
                        tetragrammaton or not is irrelevant. The translators of the LXX,
                        which took place at a wide variety of times, seemed to think that
                        kurios was. Perhaps we should be discussing why they thought that.
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.