snippets from 185... "If the rendering of this word as “one” in the numerical sense were truly the cardinal meaning of “mia” (miva) I would be forced then to concede that the Holy Bible is in gross error in manifest ways and full of contradictions. Fortunately, most translators are not of this persuasion, but they still stumble upon the meaning of “mia” as translated into the numerical “one”. There is no substantiation for this spurious translation of miva to literally mean “only one” and it is never translated this way directly, in the Holy Bible. Followers of the NIV need to appoint a day for a church bon fire to celebrate their freedom from the necromancers who provided spurious manuscripts for the NIV abomination. Within these first few pages, I have already illustrated how the word “one” can be used of one without literally meaning “one” in the numerical sense of the word. Now GOD is one in every way, and yet, He is so much more than one! However, GOD is not three, four, or six, inasmuch as He is limited to any particular number, but inasmuch as GOD is Universal, He is one in every way. For those with knowledge it is here were we would broach upon that awesome and Marvellous Mystery by which the woman came out of the man and by this we can safely determine the Holy Spirit is not female. This is that same mystery mentioned in the Book of Ephesians, Chapter 5, which thing cannot be held apart from that same mystery expounded upon in the First Epistle of Timothy, Chapter 3. Yet, to be fair, it must also be stated that those references to the “oneness” of the Almighty GOD are not represented by the Classical Greek “mia” (miva) but are the domain of the more numerical “heis” (ei|ß). Prudence requires that this fact alone should provide even further indication that a definite difference and distinction exists between mia and heis. Therefore, the English representation of these two distinctly different words by the word “one” must likewise exist; for different words, no matter how closely they might resemble one another in meaning, are not at all identical. The difference here is that one of them is not a reference to the numerical usage of “one”, but rather refers to “someone”. Additionally, both of these words can (and do) to some degree, substantiate the English terms for “first” or “initial” and the etymological relationship between “heis” and “mia” is sometimes so close that some would fall into the grievous error of thinking they are identical. They are not identical. Whereas, the word “heis” is rendered as “some”, in some cases, “mia” (miva) means “someone” in others. Whereas “heis” is used to mean “first” in the sense that one is “first” in a race, “mia” is “first” in the sense of “initial”, as in “the first day of the week”. Admittedly, the difference is subtle, but nonetheless it is present. There are differences in these nuances, however subtle. Again, in this example of “mia”, the reader finds the words “initial” and “union” both tend to overlap one another in definition, these remotely suggesting a “universal” sense or some “common universe”. The conundrum that one faces with this sort of translation is an age-old problem involving nuances in gender-based grammar. "
Posted on: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 02:01:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015