-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
Re: Owned again...
I must be asking some very confusing questions, my apologies. I'm talking about Genesis 48:16, Bowman...which is why I mentioned Abraham and Isaac. Nevertheless, let's try this:
So seeing as how at the LXX version of Genesis 48:16 "they have the same singular name (onoma)" does that mean that the Jewish translators believed that Abraham and Isaac were two persons in one being?
I must be asking some very confusing questions, my apologies. I'm talking about Genesis 48:16, Bowman...which is why I mentioned Abraham and Isaac. Nevertheless, let's try this:
So seeing as how at the LXX version of Genesis 48:16 "they have the same singular name (onoma)" does that mean that the Jewish translators believed that Abraham and Isaac were two persons in one being?
T
Re: Owned again...
It must be all so very confusing. Let me explain.
The singular Greek word 'onoma' is used towards more than one person at LXX Genesis 48:16 and also at Matthew 28:19. I'm trying to understand why in one verse the singular 'onoma' necessitates that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being, while that's apparently "not likely" what it means at the other. Any ideas?
It must be all so very confusing. Let me explain.
The singular Greek word 'onoma' is used towards more than one person at LXX Genesis 48:16 and also at Matthew 28:19. I'm trying to understand why in one verse the singular 'onoma' necessitates that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being, while that's apparently "not likely" what it means at the other. Any ideas?
T
Re: Owned again...
I'm sorry, I probably wasn't being clear enough. I'm very specifically speaking only of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, not the Hebrew.
I'm asking why, in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, doesn't the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being?
Please let me know if I'm not being specific enough. Thanks!
I'm sorry, I probably wasn't being clear enough. I'm very specifically speaking only of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, not the Hebrew.
I'm asking why, in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, doesn't the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being?
Please let me know if I'm not being specific enough. Thanks!
T
Re: Your'e royally stuck!!!
Again, I must not be clear enough. Let me try to explain yet further. I'm talking specifically of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16 as opposed to the Hebrew version of Genesis 48:16. So let's put the Hebrew aside entirely, ok?
And yes, you got me, this is connected to your argument for Matthew 28:19...like I've said many times already (spoiler?). I'm asking you again why, in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, doesn't the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being?
Can you please answer that question? Thanks!
Again, I must not be clear enough. Let me try to explain yet further. I'm talking specifically of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16 as opposed to the Hebrew version of Genesis 48:16. So let's put the Hebrew aside entirely, ok?
And yes, you got me, this is connected to your argument for Matthew 28:19...like I've said many times already (spoiler?). I'm asking you again why, in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, doesn't the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being?
Can you please answer that question? Thanks!
T
Re: Your'e royally stuck!!!
Oh, so it's the context?! I guess I missed that because for Matthew 28:19 you said it was, not the context, but simply that "they have the same singular name (onoma)" that proved that your three persons must be one being.
So what exactly does the context have to say so that we know for certain when the singular 'onoma' ("name") references multiple persons we should understand them as part of the same being? What in the context should indicate that they aren't the same being?
Oh, so it's the context?! I guess I missed that because for Matthew 28:19 you said it was, not the context, but simply that "they have the same singular name (onoma)" that proved that your three persons must be one being.
So what exactly does the context have to say so that we know for certain when the singular 'onoma' ("name") references multiple persons we should understand them as part of the same being? What in the context should indicate that they aren't the same being?
T
Re: Your'e royally stuck!!!
It's just mass confusion! Apologies, apologies. Please allow me to explain further. We wouldn't want distractions to get in the way of our quest for truth here, now would we?
Bowman, I'm talking about the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16 (not the Hebrew version of Genesis 48:16) and Matthew 28:19. These two Greek verses are in view. Ok? Now, how can I ask these so that you won't not understand what I'm saying? Hmmm. Let's try it this way in two easy questions numbered for your convenience:
1. In the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, why doesn't the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being? If it's the context, what specifically is it in the context?
2. In Matthew 28:19, why does the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being? If it's the context, what specifically is it in the context?
It's just mass confusion! Apologies, apologies. Please allow me to explain further. We wouldn't want distractions to get in the way of our quest for truth here, now would we?
Bowman, I'm talking about the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16 (not the Hebrew version of Genesis 48:16) and Matthew 28:19. These two Greek verses are in view. Ok? Now, how can I ask these so that you won't not understand what I'm saying? Hmmm. Let's try it this way in two easy questions numbered for your convenience:
1. In the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16, why doesn't the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being? If it's the context, what specifically is it in the context?
2. In Matthew 28:19, why does the singular 'onoma' necessitate that the persons referenced by it must be literally one being? If it's the context, what specifically is it in the context?
Re: Your'e royally stuck!!!
Observe the context…
Gen 48.16
…..of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and may they like the fishes increase into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
If the preceding ‘onoma’ meant ‘one’, then why are they referred to as ‘they’ afterward?
Mat 28.19 - 20
…of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen.
When the preceding ‘onoma’ means ‘one’, then we don’t have a subsequent separation.
Observe the context…
Gen 48.16
…..of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and may they like the fishes increase into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
If the preceding ‘onoma’ meant ‘one’, then why are they referred to as ‘they’ afterward?
Mat 28.19 - 20
…of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen.
When the preceding ‘onoma’ means ‘one’, then we don’t have a subsequent separation.
T
Re: Your'e royally stuck!!!
Oh, it's the pronouns! Ok, you haven't told me that yet.
Well I'd assume that's alright for the same reason that the Trinity God says 'Let US make man in OUR image', right? (Genesis 1:26) Aren't these plural pronouns a big argument used for the Trinity? That being the case, I don't see why this should be evidence against Abraham and Isaac still being two persons in one being. Anything else?
Oh, it's the pronouns! Ok, you haven't told me that yet.
Well I'd assume that's alright for the same reason that the Trinity God says 'Let US make man in OUR image', right? (Genesis 1:26) Aren't these plural pronouns a big argument used for the Trinity? That being the case, I don't see why this should be evidence against Abraham and Isaac still being two persons in one being. Anything else?