0
Theo's vegetable garden has an area of 40 square ft what is the area in square feet of a part time do with carrots?
Wiki User
∙ 7y agoWant this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why did the Jews write Jehovah instead of Elohim in the Bible?
Jewish AnswerThe word 'Jehovah' is Christian in origin and has never been used by Jews (there is no letter that's the equivalent to 'J' in the Hebrew language). There are actually 72 'names' used for HaShem in the Tanach (Jewish Bible). Each 'name' represents a different aspect of HaShem depending on the context of the situation He's being mentioned. HaShem does have one true name that is represented by the tetragrammaton (yud, hei, vav, hei) which is written in English as YHVH. HaShem's true name was only used in the Temple and with the Temple's destruction, the correct pronunciation was lost.Alternate AnswerBecause originally, God's name was in the Bible. His name, represented by the Tetragrammaton, "YHWH", was used throughout the Hebrew scriptures over 7000 times. It was then translated into 'Yahweh', or 'Jehovah', in English. So the name of God belongs in the Bible. It was there from the beginning and God wants his name known(Exodus 9:16; 1Chronicles 16:23, 24; Psalm 113:3; Malachi 1:11, 14).Over time, Jewish tradition and superstition held that the name was 'too holy to pronounce', so it was replaced with 'Adhonai′ (Lord) or 'Elohim′ (Creator and Judge) rather than pronounce the divine name, and then eventually replaced entirely with Theos Kyrios (God is the Lord, or The Lord is God).
Did Jehovahs Witnesses change words that are in the King James Version of the Bible?
It is possible that there may be some errors in translation of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures(NWT), but assuredly none of them are intentional.The main differences in translation between the NWT and others is based on a better understanding of the original languages of the Bible, and findings of more ancient copies of the original manuscripts, and the fact the majority of other translations are trinity-biased. The NWT of the above and other passages is the most accurate available, and while no other single Bible reads the same as the NWT, there are many others which render the passages in a manner similar to the NWT.This response will concentrate as examples on those passages listed by the previous respondent: Genesis chapter 1; John 1:1; John 17:3; Romans 10:9-10; Hebrews 13:15.To decide the accuracy or inaccuracy of ANY translation, we cannot compare them to one another, although we can use other translations evidence either for or against. We must rather compare the translation with the original, which in the case of the Bible is impossible, or with the most ancient copies available of the original. I frequently check out renderings in an interlinear version, or use other research tools such as Strong's Concordance or Vines Dictionary of Old Testament and New Testament Words.Since the question in concerning the KJV and the NWT, we will concentrate on these more so than on the NIV or any other version. Here are some facts concerning the above cited passages:è Genesis chapter 1-Not sure what the problem is here since the entire chapter is listed. Some have expressed concern in the past because the NWT uses the words "active force" in verse 2, whereas the KJV says "the Spirit of God." First thing, check a Hebrew dictionary and one finds the Hebrew word translated "spirit" is ruach, and is also translated as air, wind, blast, etc.o The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) says "a wind from God."o The footnote of the NRSV says "the spirit of God or a mighty wind."o The footnote to the NET Bible says: "The traditional rendering "Spirit of God" is preserved here, as opposed to a translation like "wind from/breath of God" (cf. NRSV) or "mighty wind" (cf. NEB), …."o Compare the rendering of this same Hebrew word ruach in other passages of the various Bibles; KJV quoted here:§ Genesis 3:8-"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden."§ Genesis 6:3-"And the LORD said, My spiritshall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.§ Genesis 8:1-"And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged."è John 1:1-This is the most common and controversial one of all.o "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."-KJV.o "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."-NWT.§ Both translations say "the Word was WITH God." Therefore, he cannot be THE God."§ First "God" is ho theos or The God; Second has no definite article.§ Greek language had no definite article.§ Sahidic Coptic first language to use indefinite article said the Word was "a god."§ Other similar passages, such as Acts 28:4 & 28:6 insert the indefinite article in the KJV.§ WHY? Because of their trinitarian bias they refuse to translate John 1:1 correctly.§ Compare:Goodspeed's An American Translation, Mofatt, the interlinear rendering of the Emphatic Diaglott, and others.§ "A god" in more in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures than is "God."· No one has ever seen God. (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12)è John 17:3-The disputed words are "taking in knowledge of" vs. "know." The way we come to know God is by forming a personal relationship with him by taking in knowledge of his ways, requirements, likes, and dislikes as recorded in the pages of his Word the Bible. There is no problem here, especially if one realizes that the original Greek words used actually means "to learn to know."è Romans 10:9-10- The NWT, KJV, & NIVall read similarly, that we must believe and declare Jesus as Lord in order to be saved. I fail to any issues with this passage.è Hebrews 13:15-The NWT, KJV, & NIV all read similarly, that by means of Jesus we "offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name." I fail to any issues with this passage.Perhaps detractors should do a little more research before declaring half-truths as facts.
What is the most accurate Bible translation?
A tetragrammaton - four letters that translate as YHWH - is used to represent God's name and appears nearly 7000 times in the original Hebrew scriptures (otherwise known as the Old Testament). All modern translations omit God's name, replacing His name with Lord, Most High or The Eternal, except for Jehovah's Witnesses Translation.Compare various translations of the Bible for yourself. See Psalms 83:18.The only persons who consider the New World Translation to be accurate are the Jehovah's Witnesses. No scholar of Greek considers it so because it is not at all accurate but is in fact full of renderings which fit Jehovah's Witness theology but not the Greek. Some words and phrases are even rendered differently in different places so they fit the theology rather than accuracy.The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. is the most accurate translation of the Bible. Rendered from the original languages this Bible does not omit God's name, which in English is pronounced Jehovah.The accuracy of Bible translation is that the facts are not rendered to mean other things or symbols, for example the Torture Stake, (Most bibles render this as the Cross).The New World Translation was not written solely for Jehovah's Witnesses. That Translation is taken from the original KoineGreek that was used in the time of Jesus Christ and his Disciples. That Translation translates from the Koine Greek---word for word. An interesting fact is that if you read other Translations such as The Emphatic Diaglott, you will see the name "Jehovah" 18 times. Versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures, in at least 38 other languages, also use a vernacular form of the divine name. Another interesting fact is that hundreds of thousands, from many various religions, became Jehovah's Witnesses, using either the King James Version, or the Catholic Douey version. One of the best books you could buy, to discern the accuracy of the New World Translation, is a book called "TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" The Author of this book is Jason David BeDuhn. He is the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. In his book, he compares the New World Translation with others including The King James, the Living Bible, The Amplified Bible, The New American Bible, The New American Standard Bible, The New International Version, The New Revised Standard Version, and Today's English Version. In reading the book, the Author made it perfectly clear that The New World Translation was the Most Accurate of all the Translations.Regarding other translations, the way you will answer the question ultimately depends upon the Greek text used as the basis. For comparisons sake the old faithful KJV (King James Version) can be compared with the NIV (New International Version). The latter is based on the Nestle-Aland Greek text and accurately reflects that in modern language. The KJV uses what is called the Majority or Received Text and renders that in what some regard as outdated English, but it is, if gotten used to in my opinion superior. The question regarding which is the correct Greek text to base a translation on is difficult and complicated but nevertheless important. Many important differences arise from the different text used as the NIV basis. For this reason alone the KJV is best, despite somewhat dated English, as it better reflects the original revelation and does not omit some very important truths, either omitted or altered by the Nestle-Aland Greek text underlying the NIV, and most others which follow this textual type.I agree that the New World Translation is only considered to be accurate by Jehovah's Witnesses. The translation was produced by a number of JW translators who had a very elementary understanding of koine Greek and who approached their work of translation with JW presuppositions. Thus, the Greek New Testament was translated through JW lens, and was not allowed to speak for itself. However, I would disagree that the KJV is the most accurate English translation. The KJV translators used the Greek New Testament known as the Textus Receptus (the Received Text) which was produced originally by Erasmus in 1516. Unfortunately, because he was under pressure from his publisher John Froben to produce a Greek New Testament, Erasmus used only 6 Byzantine-type Greek manuscripts to develop his New Testament. None of these manuscripts had the last 6 verses of Revelation, so Erasmus had to back-translate these verses from the Latin Vulgate, resulting in the fact that discrepancies that had crept into the Vulgate were now included in the Textus Receptus.Most notably, the Vulgate used the phrase "the book of life" when the majority of Greek manuscripts have "the tree of life" in Revelation 22:19. Erasmus also added the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7b-8a) to a later edition of his Greek New Testament from the Vulgate, even though none of the 6 Greek manuscripts that he used included this later Latin addition. It is also very interesting to note that the Textus Receptus (and hence the KJV) differs with the Majority Text in 1,838 places. The Majority Text is the Greek New Testament derived from agreement amongst the majority of Greek manuscripts, which means that the KJV differs with most of the Greek manuscripts of the NT at all of these places in the text. This is because the KJV is based on a Greek New Testament that was derived from only a small number (6) of late Greek manuscripts which Erasmus had available when he was compiling his Greek New Testament. The reality is that there is no perfect English translation of the Bible. There are a number of translations that aim to be accurate and which are classed as "essentially literal" translations, including the KJV, RSV, NKJV, NRSV, NASB and ESV. For serious Bible study, these translations allow the reader to come the closest to the original language of the NT writers. However, it is important to recognize that perfection can only be found in God Himself, and it is only the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete of John 16:13-15, who can reveal the Word of God to us personally. This is the promise of the New Covenant that is described in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.I agree that the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures published by Jehovah's Witnesses is the most accurate translation of the Holy Bible. As a basis for translating the Old Testament, (the Hebrew Scriptures,) the text of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955 was used. The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the New testament, (the Christian Greek Scriptures,) the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages. When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation committee requested that its members remain anonymous. That request has been honored. The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves. Their only goal was to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures. Note that, over the years, other translation committees have taken a similar. (ie: the jacket of the Reference Edition, 1971, of the New American Standard Bible states: "We have not used any scholar"s name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God's Word should stand on its merits." Because the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the translation must be appraised on its own merits. As an aid to students, a number of editions provide extensive footnotes showing variant readings where expressions can legitimately be rendered in more than one way, also a listing of the specific ancient manuscripts on which certain renderings are based. In the New Testament, (the Greek Scriptures,) the divine name of God appears. The New World Translation is not the only Bible that does this. The divine name appears in translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew, in passages where quotations are made directly from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. The Emphatic Diaglott (1864) contains the name Jehovah 18 times. Versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures in at least 38 other languages also use a vernacular form of the divine name.There are hundreds of English translations of the Bible. There are no known translations of the Old Testament that approach 100 percent accuracy. However, one can compare the Masoretic Hebrew text to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint and generally have an approximation of what was in the original autographs. There are no known autographs of the Old or New Testament available in today's world. However, the Concordant New Testament has an accuracy that approaches the status of being practically flawless. A close second is the Aland 27, having the Greek on one page and English on the other. A distant third is the excellent NASB, the New American Standard Bible.So, is the NWT the most accurate "translation" of the Bible? In a word, no. Why? Very simple. It is not true to the words in the original text. You see, I'd have much less discomfort with Witnesses and their bible if they simply translated the text true to the words and then took their own meaning from it. This however, is not what they do, they translate a meaning into the text when that is not the role of translation. Here's an example: John 8:58. Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am." Look at the "I am" part. That's the key. You see, that is a direct allusion to Exodus 3:14 where Moses asks God what his name is and he says "I am." The NWT changes both of these, John to "I have been" and Exodus to "I shall prove to be." The problem is that the very same I am that Jesus uses in this case is the very same I am that he uses when he says I am the way, I am the truth, I am the life, and I am the good Shepherd among others, even in the same chapter. You see, the pharisees and such knew that Jesus was claiming to be God when he said that, that's why they tried to kill him. And that single verse represents everything that I dislike about the NWT. It's not simple prejudice or some misguided religious fanaticism, the NWT is simply not true to the words of the text, forget what the text means, it's not true to the words of the text. There are 237 examples specifically. The divine name never appears in any manuscript of the New Testament, but it appears in the NWT 237 times. It's not in the originals, therefore it should not be there. It's as simple as that. So what is a good version of the Bible to read? Just about any one that suits you except the NWT. I myself prefer the English Standard Version, because it tries to follow the subtle nuances of the original text even following some grammatical errors. There are a few places where I disagree with the translation because of the use of specific words or phrases which I think are significant, but even in those places, it still has the notes at the bottom that says what the word for word translation or alternate translations are. Otherwise, if you'd like to get a good idea of the original text, or just a good read, get a parallel edition that has two to four versions side by side. But honestly, any version that does not confuse the reader with ancient language (KJV) or obscure the truth (NWT) is a good version. It used to be that people complained about the KJV because you couldn't understand it, but that is no longer an excuse.The New World Translation is very accurate and it explains why very well.The truth about "I Am" is explained as follows; Exodus 3:14 "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be." Heb.,('Ehyeh' 'Asher' 'Ehyeh'), God's own self-designation; Leeser, "I will be that I will be"; Rotherham, "I Will become whatsoeveer I please." Gr., Ego' eimihoon, "I am The Being" or, "I am the Existing One"; Lat., ego sum qui su, "I am Who I am." 'ehyeh' comes from the Heb. verb hayah' "become; prove to be." Here 'ehyey' is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning "I shall become"; or, "I shall prove to be." The referene here is not the God's self-existene but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Compare Ge 2:4 ftn, "Jehovah," where the kindred, but different, Heb. verb hawah' appears in the divine name.The explanation of John 8:58 is as follows by NWT: Jesus - In existence Before Abraham "before Abraham come into existence, I have been" (prin Abraam' gene'sthai ego' eimi') The action expressed in john 8:58 started "before Abraham came into existence" and is still in progress. In such situation (eimi'), which is the first-person singular present indicatie, is properly translated by the perfect idicative. Examples of the same syntax are found in Luke 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; John 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; act 15:21; 2 Co 12:19; 1 john 3:8. Concerning this construction, A grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G.B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: "Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz, when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration; as, [prin abraam' gene'sthai ego' eimi]." Likewise, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J.H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being tat the action is conceived as still in progress... It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Luke 2:48; 13:7...15:29...John 5:6; 8:58." Attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some say that (ego' eimi') is the equivalent of the Hebrew expression 'ani'hu', "I am he," whih is used by God. However, it is to be noted that this Hebrew expression is also used by man. - 1Ch 21:17 ftn. Further attempting to identif Jesus with Jehovah, some try to use Ex 3:14 (LXX) which reads; (Ego' eimi ho on), which means "I am The Being," or, "I am The Existing One." This attempt cannot be sustained because the expression is Ex 3:14 is different from the expression in Joh 8:58. (See Ex 3:14 ftn above) Throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures it is not possible to make an idenfification of Jesus with Jehovah as being the same person.You can find truth in all Bibles.As a street preacher I dislike to use any of the modern Bible translations for the simple reason that they take away from the deity of Jesus Christ, ie Romans 3:23 in KJV says "God was manifest in the flesh," in the NIV NAS RSV, every single one take the word God out and substitute "He" instead. Overall if you can get past the antique vernacular KJV is better. But even NKJV is better than NIV NAS or RSV. At least NKJV acknowledges that Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh. Also.. Side note.. If you don't believe that Jesus is God manifested in the flesh then you aren't a Christian anyway..[Romans 3:23 actually says; "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"] 1 Timothy 3:16 Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: 'He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in [the] world, was received up in glory.'Street Preacher is saying that Jesus is God in the about statement, and of course he has his right to his opinion. Let me share with you some bible facts that will guide you to a better understanding.John 14:28 I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.Mark 10:18 Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except one, God2 Corinthians 1:1-3 & 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus ChristJohn 20:17 I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and YOUR GodMark 13:32 & Mat 24:36 is talking about the end, Armageddon, and as Mark & Matthew stated, Nobody knows when it is coming but God the Father, the angels do not know and the Son Jesus does not know, so if God and Jesus was the same as in a trinity, they both would know wouldn't they.Mark 13:32 & Matt 24:36 the hour nobody knowsthe angels nor the Son, but the FatherGod taught Jesus everything before he came to earth as a man.John 5:19-30 & 8:28-30 Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, Father taughtMatthew 10:32-33 I will confess union with my Father who is in the heavensHebrews 5:5-10 Christ did not glorify himself, godly fear, he learned obedienceJohn 17:1-26 Father, glorify me alongside yourself, that I had before the world wasJesus was Gods first creation and a master worker as Prov. 8:22-31 states.Prov 8:22-31 & 1 Col 1:15 & Rev 3:14 & Heb 1:6 Jah produced me as the beginning of his wayNow there is only one Armageddon, but the Bible talkes about the same thing here in these scriptures but uses different names "Lord Jesus, Michael the arch angle, son of man"2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8 & 1 Peter 3:22 the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angelsRevelation 12:7 Mi´cha·el and his angels battled with the dragonMatthew 13:41 The Son of man will send forth his angels,Jesus has many names, some are teacher, rabbi, son of man, lord, and of course Michael the archangel. Jesus angle name was Michael before he came to earth as a man. In Jude 9, it talks about Moses body when he died, Satan wanted to do something with Moses body and Michael told him that he did not dare to bring judgment against him, "he could have or he would'NT have said that". Now why do you thing Michael an angle could bring judgment against Satan another angel. Well, if you remember in John 5:22 "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the son, "or Jesus" God gave Jesus the power to do the judging, so with this power he could have judged Satan for this act, but Jesus "Michael knew that it was not time for judging" This scripture shows that Michael and Jesus are the same person because God gave Jesus "Michael" the power to judge.Jude 9 & John 5:22 Mi´cha·el the archangel, he did not dare to bring a judgment against himThe following scriptures are when Jesus was on the torture stake. Jesus was a perfect man and he did not inherit death from Adam because he was God's direct son, a perfect man. So in order for him to die, God had to allow it to happen. When God took his protection away Jesus felt his spirit leave him and he yelled out "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me"Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 & Psalms 22:1 "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"Some people may say that Jesus said that he is God as stated in John 10:30 by saying "I and the Father are one" but as you can see in Gen 2:23 & Matt 19:5, 6 & Ephesians 5:31 that when you get married you and your wife are not becoming one person but one in mind, or in thinking, one in spirit, "one the same page" so to speak. John 10:38 and John 17:21 explain it better by using the word union. As I have shown you below, using and comparing the scriptures will help you come to a better understanding of the true meaning or what God is trying to convey to us in the Bible. Use the Bible to interoperate itself, it does not contradict itself as2 Timothy 3:16 states "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness."John 10:30 I and the Father are one."Genesis 2:24 & Matt 19:5, 6 & Ephesians 5:31 man must stick to his wife, they must become one flesh.John 10:38 believe the works, the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father."John 17:11 in order that they may be one just as we are.John 17:21 in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am inunion with you, that they also may be in union with us,The work that the New World Translating Committee put into this translation is astonishing. This Bible does not fit any agenda of the Jehovah's Witness Church, but is just an amazingly clear and accurate work. As a Bible enthusiast myself, I find many contradictions in versions and translations of the Bible on a regular basis, but have yet to find any in the NWT. I thought that perhaps John 1:1 was a misinterpretation at first, but after an unbiased second look, I found it to be in line with the original Greek theos'(a god) and not ton-theon' (the god). If this verse had meant to say that Jesus Christ WAS GOD, or THE GOD, then this would still contradict with many other verses and would require thought. Don't deprive yourself of a great translation because of some dislike of Jehovah's Witnesses. But if you just can't bring yourself to read this Bible, then I would have to say the NIV is pretty accurate, aside from a few things of course.There is no single most-accurate translation of the Bible as they all have their strengths and weaknesses, and the English language is constantly changing. One of the most accuratetranslations of the Bible is, surprisingly, still the King James, as it follows the hebraic sense, tenses, pronouns, and transliterates titles rather than translates them, but it is not the most readable today - after all, it is nearly 400 years old - , so the most accurate modern translation is the NASB (New American Standard Bible).Either the Revised Standard Version (RSV) or the New International Version (NIV) are the most accurate. This is because they take into account the latest manuscript discoveries and use English that is currant and not archaic. (Some English words have a different meaning now than they had in the time of King James when the KJV - King James Version - was translated.
What does theos mean?
Theos is greek for God. as in theology
When was Theos Casimir Bernard born?
Theos Casimir Bernard was born in 1908.
When did Theos Casimir Bernard die?
Theos Casimir Bernard died in 1947.
Who is Greek god Theos?
Theos means 'god' - not the name of a particular god.
What does theos mou mean?
it means ''my god'' Θεός μου (theos mou)
When was Dimos Theos born?
Dimos Theos was born on March 10, 1935, in Karditsa, Greece.
What does the word theos mean?
The Greek word "theos" translates to "God" in English. It is often used in religious and theological contexts to refer to a deity or supreme being.
What is God in Greek?
Theos
What is the Greek name for Of God?
Theos
What is the greek name for jah?
Theos.
What is the Greek word for of God?
Theos
What has the author Walter C Stagner written?
Walter C. Stagner has written: 'THEOS user's handbook' -- subject(s): THEOS
