Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well reason being, is because after transliterating the Hebrew name into Greek And Latin, i could not come up with the same spelling, as Iesous, but instead Iosua, Iaosua, or Ieosua and also found this as proof that the translators were not consistent, this very same transliteration i came up with i found with in the 1611 KJV {Iosua} in the footnotes of the book of Hebrews 4:8 for the Hebrew name Yahoshua, so if it was used there why not throughout the whole book, for that person they call Yahoshua.
If you take a peek at the wiki link you will also notice that the originals are not very consistent. There are several variants of Yeshua (Yahoshua being one of them) used interchangably in the Hebrew, there are further variants in the Aramaic, and then variants in Greek. Also, please keep in mind that Yeshua is not hebrew, but an english transliteration.
I don't know your background, but I would point out that transliteration is dicey at best. There are sounds in the ancient Hebrew that have no equivalents in Koine Greek, so there is not always a one for one correspondence. Furthermore, I would point out that the words you are using, Iosua, etc.. are not greek, but themselves transliterations of Koine Greek to English. I am not a Greek scholar, but it seems to me that to try to perform such a transliteration yourself, or to evaluate the correctness of these transliterations you at least need to be fluent in Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. If you are not working from the actual Hebrew to the actual Greek ( not tranliteration to transliteration) it stands to reason that it may not make sense.
I am not fluent in either of these, but I can clearly see int the link that I provided as well as an online Greek New Testament that the Greek word used to refer to Joshua son of Nun by Jewish translators was the same word used in the Greek translations (from the aramaic, I believe) of Matthew to refer to Jesus. This points very strongly to the idea that the greek speakers of the day would have and in fact did transliterate Yeshua ( and Yehoshua, and possible other variants of that name ) into variants of the name Ἰησοῦ.
In short, these seems to be no reason to think that Ἰησοῦ (Jesus) and Ζεύς (Zeus) are related linguistically.
The inability to prove a negative statement is wrong, does not equate to proof it is correct.
Think that over carefully.
I can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Greek Name Iesous and Abraham Lincoln are not affiliated.
That does not prove Iesous is Abraham Lincoln.
Actually, that's my point, so why call on a name that does not even fit his culture. Better yet, if we love and give the up most respect, why not call that person by their original name, as we treat our legal documents, it is not possible for a person nick name or translated name be on their birth cert.
If you take a peek at the wiki link you will also notice that the originals are not very consistent. There are several variants of Yeshua (Yahoshua being one of them) used interchangably in the Hebrew, there are further variants in the Aramaic, and then variants in Greek. Also, please keep in mind that Yeshua is not hebrew, but an english transliteration.
I don't know your background, but I would point out that transliteration is dicey at best. There are sounds in the ancient Hebrew that have no equivalents in Koine Greek, so there is not always a one for one correspondence. Furthermore, I would point out that the words you are using, Iosua, etc.. are not greek, but themselves transliterations of Koine Greek to English. I am not a Greek scholar, but it seems to me that to try to perform such a transliteration yourself, or to evaluate the correctness of these transliterations you at least need to be fluent in Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. If you are not working from the actual Hebrew to the actual Greek ( not tranliteration to transliteration) it stands to reason that it may not make sense.
I am not fluent in either of these, but I can clearly see int the link that I provided as well as an online Greek New Testament that the Greek word used to refer to Joshua son of Nun by Jewish translators was the same word used in the Greek translations (from the aramaic, I believe) of Matthew to refer to Jesus. This points very strongly to the idea that the greek speakers of the day would have and in fact did transliterate Yeshua ( and Yehoshua, and possible other variants of that name ) into variants of the name Ἰησοῦ.
In short, these seems to be no reason to think that Ἰησοῦ (Jesus) and Ζεύς (Zeus) are related linguistically.
If you take a peek at the wiki link you will also notice that the originals are not very consistent. There are several variants of Yeshua (Yahoshua being one of them) used interchangably in the Hebrew, there are further variants in the Aramaic, and then variants in Greek. Also, please keep in mind that Yeshua is not hebrew, but an english transliteration.
I don't know your background, but I would point out that transliteration is dicey at best. There are sounds in the ancient Hebrew that have no equivalents in Koine Greek, so there is not always a one for one correspondence. Furthermore, I would point out that the words you are using, Iosua, etc.. are not greek, but themselves transliterations of Koine Greek to English. I am not a Greek scholar, but it seems to me that to try to perform such a transliteration yourself, or to evaluate the correctness of these transliterations you at least need to be fluent in Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. If you are not working from the actual Hebrew to the actual Greek ( not tranliteration to transliteration) it stands to reason that it may not make sense.
I am not fluent in either of these, but I can clearly see int the link that I provided as well as an online Greek New Testament that the Greek word used to refer to Joshua son of Nun by Jewish translators was the same word used in the Greek translations (from the aramaic, I believe) of Matthew to refer to Jesus. This points very strongly to the idea that the greek speakers of the day would have and in fact did transliterate Yeshua ( and Yehoshua, and possible other variants of that name ) into variants of the name Ἰησοῦ.
In short, these seems to be no reason to think that Ἰησοῦ (Jesus) and Ζεύς (Zeus) are related linguistically.
-NoCapo
Ok, after viewing all of that was within that link, does not make it correct or even ok, but only what actually according to the terms of transliteration from the Hebrew into what ever language is to be transliterated into, that makes it correct. I take it that you do not really know what transliteration really means. You do not have to be fluent in either language to be able to transliterate.
Ok, after viewing all of that was within that link, does not make it correct or even ok, but only what actually according to the terms of transliteration from the Hebrew into what ever language is to be transliterated into, that makes it correct. I take it that you do not really know what transliteration really means. You do not have to be fluent in either language to be able to transliterate.
First off, regardless of your opinion of transliterations, it is apparent that if the same name is used in the Greek for both Joshua and Jesus, it clearly is not being derived from Zeus.
Secondly, your idea that transliteration requires no knowledge of either language is kind of odd. I mean, how do you go from ישוע to Ἰησοῦ without knowledge of these two languages? You have to form a mapping of letters or sounds between the two languages, which seems essentially impossible without knowledge of the languages you are working with.
Thirdly, the issue you appear to have is that the transliteration mapping you are using doesn't match what other transliterations ( for example, the Septuagint) show. This is easily explained by the fact that there is no single universally correct mapping between two given languages, and certainly not one that has held constant for thousands of years. One example I will borrow from the wiki page on transliteration:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Transliteration of single words is often an informal non-systematic process; many variants of the same word are often used. For example the Hebrew word מַצָּה is rendered in English, according to the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, as matzo, matzah, matso, motsa, motso, maẓẓo, matza, matzho, matzoh, mazzah, motza, and mozza.
So again, bottom line, there appears to be no connection between Jesus and Zeus (especially since they bear almost no relation to each other in the actual Greek). The only similarities appear to be in their english transliterations, which is clearly not an influence on the Greek and Aramaic speaking writers of the new Testament.
First off, regardless of your opinion of transliterations, it is apparent that if the same name is used in the Greek for both Joshua and Jesus, it clearly is not being derived from Zeus.
Secondly, your idea that transliteration requires no knowledge of either language is kind of odd. I mean, how do you go from ישוע to Ἰησοῦ without knowledge of these two languages? You have to form a mapping of letters or sounds between the two languages, which seems essentially impossible without knowledge of the languages you are working with.
Thirdly, the issue you appear to have is that the transliteration mapping you are using doesn't match what other transliterations ( for example, the Septuagint) show. This is easily explained by the fact that there is no single universally correct mapping between two given languages, and certainly not one that has held constant for thousands of years. One example I will borrow from the wiki page on transliteration:
So again, bottom line, there appears to be no connection between Jesus and Zeus (especially since they bear almost no relation to each other in the actual Greek). The only similarities appear to be in their english transliterations, which is clearly not an influence on the Greek and Aramaic speaking writers of the new Testament.
-NoCapo
Very good example, can you not see within your own example that you have provided that they are very close according to what alphabets are available. And beside the point you still are not providing proof that Jesus and Zeus is not affiliated.
Very good example, can you not see within your own example that you have provided that they are very close according to what alphabets are available. And beside the point you still are not providing proof that Jesus and Zeus is not affiliated.
So let me try one more time to point out the problem with your Jesus/Zeus conflation.
If the Greek word for Jesus is derived from Zeus, then the pre-Christian Hebrews (approximately 300 years before Jesus) were injecting Zeus into their own mythology in the form of Joshua, son of Nun. This makes no sense, since Joshua is not divine at all, and is really sort of a secondary figure beside Moses. There seems to be no link here.
Since we have precedent for a specific Hebrew name being transliterated into Greek prior to the formation of the Christian New Testament, we have a similar word to "Yeshua" in the Aramic, and we can see that the writes of the New Testament used the existing transliteration not only for Jesus but also for the original referent, Joshua.
If we look at the words for Zeus and Jesus in the Greek, there is very little similarity. It certainly is not taken directly.
Ultimately, the evidence just doesn't point that way. Early greek translations of the Hebrew bible translated the name "Yeshua" and several of its variants in to "Iesous" and its variants. That tradition appears to have been carried on several hundred years later when the Christian New Testament was formed.
To show some sort of linguistic connection, you would need to show some evidence that the Hellenistic pantheon was integrated into Judaism in the 3rd century BC, or that there is some external evidence that the Christians arrived at the same word independently through some theological connection with the Greek gods, instead of simply retaining the Hebrew Scriptures that they already believe.
I understand that you have some specific theological viewpoint that you already believe and want to support, but making this kind of a hash of translation and linguistics is not the way to do it.
So let me try one more time to point out the problem with your Jesus/Zeus conflation.
If the Greek word for Jesus is derived from Zeus, then the pre-Christian Hebrews (approximately 300 years before Jesus) were injecting Zeus into their own mythology in the form of Joshua, son of Nun. This makes no sense, since Joshua is not divine at all, and is really sort of a secondary figure beside Moses. There seems to be no link here.
Since we have precedent for a specific Hebrew name being transliterated into Greek prior to the formation of the Christian New Testament, we have a similar word to "Yeshua" in the Aramic, and we can see that the writes of the New Testament used the existing transliteration not only for Jesus but also for the original referent, Joshua.
If we look at the words for Zeus and Jesus in the Greek, there is very little similarity. It certainly is not taken directly.
Ultimately, the evidence just doesn't point that way. Early greek translations of the Hebrew bible translated the name "Yeshua" and several of its variants in to "Iesous" and its variants. That tradition appears to have been carried on several hundred years later when the Christian New Testament was formed.
To show some sort of linguistic connection, you would need to show some evidence that the Hellenistic pantheon was integrated into Judaism in the 3rd century BC, or that there is some external evidence that the Christians arrived at the same word independently through some theological connection with the Greek gods, instead of simply retaining the Hebrew Scriptures that they already believe.
I understand that you have some specific theological viewpoint that you already believe and want to support, but making this kind of a hash of translation and linguistics is not the way to do it.
-NoCapo
First, i would like to thank you for all of your reply, cause if this info does not help me or you, it may help someone to develop their understanding. So i would take it that you do not consider that the bible speaks of pagan priests in the holy temple of God, you have not consider that the God chosen people was exile into a pagan society, you have not consider the whole history of of all the original writings had been burned and destroyed and had been re-written by contaminated priests and pharisees and by the time frame of whom we are talking about there was even more pagan worshipers. You have not consider on how can the whole world be deceived according to the job of the adversary {Isaiah 14:11-14, Rev. 12:9, second Cor. 11:14} Cautious!!! better safe than sorry. And i see that you still do not understand the term transliteration. all you have to do is get the ancient Greek alphabet and the Hebrew alphabets and spell the Hebrew name according the the alphabets that you have and see what you come up with.
First, i would like to thank you for all of your reply, cause if this info does not help me or you, it may help someone to develop their understanding. So i would take it that you do not consider that the bible speaks of pagan priests in the holy temple of God, you have not consider that the God chosen people was exile into a pagan society, you have not consider the whole history of of all the original writings had been burned and destroyed and had been re-written by contaminated priests and pharisees and by the time frame of whom we are talking about there was even more pagan worshipers. You have not consider on how can the whole world be deceived according to the job of the adversary {Isaiah 14:11-14, Rev. 12:9, second Cor. 11:14} Cautious!!! better safe than sorry.
You are quite right. I am approaching this as a translation problem of a historical document. If you want to try to explain translation problems with mystical conspiracy theories, then I am afraid you have lot me. I put a great amount of stock in evidence, and the idea that a malevolent entity has rewritten history in a conspiracy spanning nations, cultures, and hundreds of years is much more farfetched to me than the idea that a group of Greek and Jewish scholars transliterated something between two now dead languages in a particular way, and that transliteration stuck and influenced later writers.
As an after thought, If you believe scripture to be corrupted, why are you using it to try to prove your point? How can you be sure that the verses you reference were not also altered in order to decieve you? It seems to me that you either need to follow the evidence as it is, or recognize that this has nothing to do with evidence, believe what you want to believe, simply because you believe it. It seems more honest to me than trying to invoke the idea that it is unreliable except when you want it to be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaaman2000
And i see that you still do not understand the term transliteration. all you have to do is get the ancient Greek alphabet and the Hebrew alphabets and spell the Hebrew name according the the alphabets that you have and see what you come up with.
No, I understand it very well. But which Greek letters correspond to what Hebrew letters? What Greek vowels should be used when the Hebrew has none? These are all subjective choices of the person doing the translation and vary over cultures, time, and even person to person. How in the world can you claim that because the translators of the Septuagint, who understood both languages they were working with, don't agree with you, a person who does not appear to have any formal training in either Biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek, that they are wrong? In fact, how can you even have such a thing as an invalid or incorrect transliteration? It is the representation that the translator chose, and is a subjective choice.
I also understand that you have decided to believe your mystical conspiracy theory first, and are looking for thing to back that up, but the Zeus-Jesus connection is tenuous at best, and really doesn't make your case well. If you want to argue that modern Christianity is a corrupted version of the "True Faith" then you probably will have better luck using different arguments. There are probably more convincing ways to make your point, and I would focus on them. This one just doesn't seem to have much oomph behind it.
-NoCapo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
