Doesn't matter. The vowels were added uninspired to the inspired letters
The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
I have faith in Jesus words when he promised to keep on making his Father ( John 17:26) name known=Jehovah. He does it through his true followers.
That begs the question. Yahweh from the Hebrew is a better alternative
Also it is his person Jesus was to make known not so much what he calls himself
All you have is an assumption
I don't know if anyone has responded to this yet (strange how things so unrelated to a thread topic take off so fast). Anyway, the word "God" in Koine Greek is "God." Greek is a highly inflected language unlike English...Greek is a strongly synthetic language whereas English is an analytical language. For example, the first time God is used in 2Cor. 4:4 it is theos and it is...now get this...nominative/singular/masculine (that is case/number/gender respectively)...and so the spelling you see is a result of this "inflection." The second time "God is used it is "theou" because this time it is genitive/singular/masculine.
In John 1:1b "God" is "theon" and is accusative/singular/masculine. In Jn. 1:1c "God" is "theos" and is nominative/singular/masculine, just as it is in its first use in 2Cor. 4:4. These are not different words for "God," they are the same word inflected differently (Greek grammar) which is what accounts for the different "spelling" if you will.
TheLayman
civic
Well-known member
Ditto
i know 100% God=Jehovah
Yes Theon= God and Theos = god when in the same paragraph. 2Cor 4:4 is proof of that.
The name Jehovah appeared in bibles centuries before the JW,s came.
Yeah, as a name made up by Tyndale. Who changed a Y to a J and with the addition of vowels which had not appeared in scripture came up with a name never seen before
Can you tell me why (the answer is in what I wrote). And then can you tell me your point because I honestly do not know what it is in light of my previous response to you.
Yes It has been pointed out the same word is used to denote Jehovah God
Well, the name isn't made up, it is what happens in the course of the process of transliteration sometimes, that's why people study the etymology of words. For example, in Hebrew you begin with "Yehovah." I'm not going to go through each letter, just the Y and the J. So a couple of things, we are going to talk about three alphabets with a different number of letters and different pronunciations. So Yehovah (Hebrew) gets translated to Latin, and in Latin the "Y" gets changed to "J" because it is pronounced as "Y." Now you get Jehovah still pronounced "Yehovah." But English comes along and simply keeps the Latin spelling with an English pronunciation...and there you have it.
TheLayman
You do know the vowels are not a part of scripture and were added to the Tetragrammaton YHWH
A vowel was taken from Elohim and from Adonai
That is a made up name
civic
Well-known member
Yes depending on whom I'm talking with I'll say YHWH, Yahweh or Jehovah.
Yes, and it is the Hebrews who took the guess at the vowels though they did not add them to the text. At any rate...Jehovah came about through the transliteration of a Hebrew name in the Bible, YHWH, that went from Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin, to English.
TheLayman
Back to the topic of Divine Simplicity. A couple of comments on what DR., WLC said here...I actually meant to put these comments in my previous response on this topic. Dr. Craig will often start with these subtle misrepresentations of the Historic Faith. God is not "a person," God is "one being" and "three persons."
Three persons and simplicity, how does that work? Obviously people write books on this stuff and philosophy geeks love it...me, not so much. Anyway, to take this back to simpler times, simplicity deals with the substance/essence/nature of God (those things are three sides of the same triangle). So when you are dealing with the substance/essence/nature of God, the "being" if you will, are there parts? No. Why? Well, the simple answer is there is a distinction in what subsistence/hypostasis/person and substance/essence/nature mean.
So, when speaking of the substance/essence/nature of God it has no parts, nor is it divided among three persons, each person possesses the substance/essence/nature entirely (and if they didn't they would be separate beings). And they do not possess it separately. But first, let me point out that in this teaching one can see that:
- There are no parts to the substance/essence/nature
- There is no difference in the substance/essence/nature that each person possesses (a person is the possessor of his nature, not the other way around)
- The persons do not possess the substance/essence/nature separately (as do humans, angels, and created things).
So, you see two things (well actually three). You see a sphere, you see the plasma, and you see the plasma contained within the sphere. So, in the abstract we will call the sphere a "person/subsistence/hypostasis" and the plasma and everything contained within "substance/essence/nature." Remember, that is in the abstract for a person/subsistence/hypostasis does not exist without a substance/essence/nature and vice-versa. We we talk about them in the abstract we are just talking about classes of things, a species if you will. So we talk about specific men that exist, like Pancho and TheLayman, we will be talking about real, actual, *concrete *(I don't want to confuse anyone with this word since we will be talking about immaterial, metaphysical existences as actualities) an actual existing sphere of plasma as you see above. As humans, Pancho and I will be separate spheres and contained within is human substance/essence/nature. Same with angels, they would be separate spheres with angel substance/essence/nature.
Now with the Trinity, imagine if you will three identical spheres in the same space and within these spheres is the one Supreme Divine Substance/Essence/Nature. Each sphere exists because it possesses the Supreme Divine Substance/Essence/Nature...unlike created creatures there are not separate spheres with separate substance/essence/nature. And if you can, imagine the sphere existing and being immaterial (spirit). With the Trinity and the Persons...if you have one you have the sum, without one you would have none.
The thing I hate about any analogy is it is based on our understanding of a created 3 dimensional universe and so one can only hope to illustrate some concepts, and crudely at that (this is in the book I've been working on forever...well, almost that long). I cannot show someone the Trinity with an illustration, I cannot even illustrate all the concepts very well with a single illustration. But with this one you can get an idea of one being/three persons. You can get an idea of perichoresis, the mutual indwelling of the persons. But people write libraries on the few things I just tried to illustrate so I'm not trying to "prove" something, just to help "explain" it.
TheLayman
You said Theos = God, but fact is not in all cases , like at 2 Cor 4:4 as i showed satan is called Theos=god when in the same paragraph with Theon. The same translating goes for John 1:1 as well.
Yes and that constitutes a made up name
Okay...I'm sorry I was unable to add any relevant information regarding this point.
TheLayman
