I am not surprised that you think you are dead and that your demiurge would destroy his perfect works.

Nothing quite like believing that a genocidal son murderer is somehow good. Only a dead mind would follow such a demonstrably immoral God.

Regards
DL

Now you see, [tag]Gnostic Bishop[/tag]? You’ve turned a perfectly civil response from Eusibius into an excuse for suggesting that Eusibius worships as “good,” this “genocidal, son-murdering” god. He clearly said that he doesn’t posit substitutional atonement and yet you see fit to throw insults his way. This is your third strike. You’re banned for one month. [tag]JasonPratt[/tag]

*** General Notice for thread participants **

Please don’t ask Gnostic Bishop any questions or talk about him/her in public until this ban expires. GB/DL is not here to answer or defend, so it would be unfair to discuss him/her during this absence.

Are you saying he is not following bible God?

Regards
DL

I am saying that you were not available to participate in conversation until your ban expired, and that it would be unfair to talk about you or to expect you to answer questions until your return.

Eleutheros, which of the following would you consider to be the better translation of 2 Maccabees 2:29 (from the Septuagint)?

For as the master builder of a new house must be concerned with the whole construction, while the one who undertakes its painting and decoration has to consider only what is suitable for its adornment, such in my judgment is the case with us.

For as the master builder of a new house must be concerned with the whole disruption, while the one who undertakes its painting and decoration has to consider only what is suitable for its adornment, such in my judgment is the case with us.

Heb 11:11 By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive(katabolen), even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised. NAS

11 By faith Sarah herself also obtained power for the disruption(katabolen) of seed, and brought forth beyond the period of her prime, since she deems the Promiser faithful. Concordant

Disruption of seed? Really?

This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
“I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH IN PARABLES;
I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.” Mt 13:35

Every occurence(10) of “katabolen” occurs in the phrase “since the foundation of the world”, except in Heb 11:11. The verse in Hebrews, for me, excludes “disruption” as a proper translation for katabolen.To me, it seems forced in the Concordant to agree with Knoch’s theology.

Also, Eaglesway, it could be correctly translated as “since the construction of the world.”

Strong’s

A laying down

Short Definition: a foundation, depositing, sowing

Helps Word Studies
2602 katabolḗ (from 2596 /katá, “exactly according to,” down from the most general to the most specific detail, “following all the way along,” and 906 /bállō, “to cast”) – properly, a foundation, cast according to a blueprint (original design); the substructure which determines the entire direction (destination) of all that follows; the foundation-plan, upon which the entire super-structure is built; (figuratively) the beginning (founding) that purposefully designs all that follows.

Yes, perhaps so, but I think “foundation” and “conception” get closer to it. Conception bearing the DNA of the thing to come. Foundation being the sub-structure, as stated in the above, which is certainly part of the construction, but is a specific element of it.

To lay a foundation, you need to dig down (in that country, in that time) to the underlying bedrock–you needed to “disrupt” the earth. I’m no linguist, and I’m just guessing here, but disruption always comes before building a house with a secure foundation. You can lay down a pile of rocks and build on that too (in warm climate on relatively solid ground), but ideally you will dig down and either create a “rock” by pouring a slab with a bell footing, or by building a basement, or in some places, by driving piers deep into the soft, swampy ground. These all involve disruption before construction can begin. Not saying Jesus had this in mind as a metaphor, but as you know, ALL language IS metaphor, and maybe this word you’re discussing is a metaphor for the process of creating a proper foundation for a building. As such, perhaps it first came from ‘disruption’ even though it eventually came to mean ‘construction’ or ‘foundation’ or ‘conception.’ What do you think?

Well yes, Cindy, in your example of constructing a house you need to “disrupt” or dig into the earth in order to lay the foundation.

But in this case, it is the earth itself that was constructed! “Before the construction of the earth.” So what was there to dig into, in order to lay the foundation of the earth?

I’m just speculating about the origin of the word, not taking it literally as it might apply to any particular passage. Once it’s come to mean whatever the contemporaneous meaning of the word was/is, that’s what it means to the writer. If Moses wrote Genesis, then he would have used the language at it’s current state to mean what it meant to him and to his readers. So while it might have started out meaning “disrupted,” by Moses’ day, it may well have come to mean constructed and/or conceived.

For example, “thrawan” means “to turn” in (if I remember right) ancient Welsh. Linguists speculate that it came to apply to throwing an object because one often puts a twist into the throw, whether intentionally or not, thus sending it spinning through the air in a more or less linear trajectory. Until you think about that “twist,” that linear path seems almost a contradiction to the word’s ancestor. On a different path, the same word describes (in the USA at least) a potter forming the body of a vessel-to-be on his wheel. In the case of the potter’s art, the same word has a meaning much more evocative of the parent word.

That said, if you want to take it absolutely literally (insomuch as it’s possible to do that using human language), I could say that the fabric of whatever was present (since in Genesis, the sun and stars were created after the earth) would have been disrupted. If it was nothing, then the nothing (such as it was–or was not) was certainly disrupted or at least, abolished/banished/or whatever happens when nothing ceases to BE (or not be) nothing. I wouldn’t actually make that argument, though. It seems to me inherently incoherent, but even if it’s not, I think this is more likely a case of using language at its current meaning to the writer, just as we do today.

Cindy, I don’t understand how Genesis is related to the discussion. The word under discussion is the Greek word “καταβολη.” It occurs 11 times in the New Testament. It doesn’t occur in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament of course, since it is not a Hebrew word. Even in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament into Greek, the word does not occur at all.

In Genesis 1:1, “God created the heavens and the earth,” the Hebrew for “created” was translated as “εποιησεν” in the Greek Septuagint. That Greek word means “made” or “produced.” It doesn’t means “disrupted,” and has never been translated as such.

I wasn’t paying close attention to your discussion, Don–sorry about that. Just commenting on my speculation on the word itself and I (obviously mistakenly) figured you were talking about the Genesis creation account. Either way, I would have said the same. Unless you know what the word’s contemporaneous meaning was, you have to make a judgment based on context and on the knowledge you do have. You may turn out to be right–or wrong. Or a little of both. If scripture were infallible and absolutely perfect in every way (including transcription and translation), we and our human interpretations would still negate that perfection by getting it wrong at least as often as we get it (sort of) right.

Heb 11:11 shines at least a little light on the question, that is why I lean towards “conception” or “foundation”. when there is little evidence, to me what evidence there is should bear some weight on the question. I dont see construction or disruption fitting the verse concernng Sarah and the conception of Isaac.

Eaglesway, as I see it, the word “construction” fits Heb 11:11 perfectly.

Here is the Greek with word-for-word English below:

πιστει__ και_ αυτη__σαρρα δυναμιν εις καταβολην σπερματος___ ελαβειν…
In faith also herself Sarah__power_into construction of offspring received

Here is a translation made as literal as I know how:

In Greek, the preposition “εις”, whose lexical meaning is usually given as “into”, frequently means “with a view to” or “for the purpose of” or “with the result of.”

Yea, I get what you are saying, I just disagree.

The context makes it clear to me that it is conception that the writer is speaking of. The preposition has no bearing on it, since “with a view to” conception or “for the purpose of” conception works equally well as with “construction”.

I see no evidence to prefer “construction”, for katabole, especially in reference to the pregnancy of a woman, over “conception” which fits both context and etymology, as well as the concept being communicated, which has to do with inception, the seed, even as the other ten verses where katabole occurs are in that same sense, i.e. “before the foundation of the world”…like saying “in the design phase” or “as was conceived by the architect”.

The best way to determine the meaning of a Greek word is to look at all the contexts in which it is used. Do you know of any other reference in any Greek manuscript within or outside the New Testαment in which it would make any sense to translate καταβολη as “conception”?

katabolēn
καταβολὴν
[the] conception
N-AFS
4690 [e]
spermatos
σπέρματος
of seed

This is the interlinear text copied from the interlinear bible on biblehub.

Like I said before, it is the only place in all the NT where the word is used as anything other than a part of the phrase “the foundation of the world.” The foundation of the world is explained in a similar sense in Hebrews 11

“By faith we know that the worlds were framed by the word of God” Heb 11:3

“In the beginning was the Logos…all things were created through Him” Jn 1

“…in these last days He has spoken to us through His Son, through whom also He created the age/worlds” Hebrews 1:2

"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"Rev 13

having been foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but having been revealed in the last times for the sake of you, 1 Pet 1:20

God spoke, the incorruptible seed is the source of all creation. The nature of the foundation is, most certainly, conception. This seed was implanted in the creation from the beginnig. It was also planted in the womb of Mary, conceived and manifested, but it is the matrix that all developing history follws to the conclusion of God being all in all and all in the glorious liberty of the children of God. It is the founding DNA of the universe and purest evidence that the gospel IS “the restoration of all things” through Jesus Christ- the Logos.

The New Creation, and all the New Creatures, become what they will be because of the implantation of the incorruptible seed.

I think “foundation” is good too, excellent even, but a study of context reveals that the nature of that foundation is new birth= “Behold I am making all things new”.

I find no contradiction in any reference material to this, and a lot of confirmation. But thats my take on it… I defintely do not see how “construction” could be seen as an “equal or better” translation in Hebrews 11:11, I mean, the idea is to speak the thought of the writer to the hearer in his/her time and language. Its taalking about childbirth. What happened in her womb was distinctly- conception.

IMO The foundation of the world is the Logos, conceived in the mind of God in the beginning as the reason for everything from Alpha to Omega. Manifest in these last days for us, and for all.

So I take it that your answer to my question is, “No, I do not know of any other reference in any Greek manuscript within or outside the New Testαment in which it would make any sense to translate καταβολη as ‘conception’.”

That has no bearing on the discussion really. It makes sense in Hebrew 11:11 itself, which is in all the manuscripts that contain Hebrews 11:11. What other manuscript bears enough weight to overrule the completely obvious implication within the verse itself? In other words, when the meaning in the thought is obscure for some reason, checking usage in other Greek manuscripts may provide some evidence or weight one way or the other. In this verse there is no obscurity.

Did Sarah have faith for the construction of seed in her womb? Or was it the conception of seed in her womb? Which would be more true to the writer’s thought?

Does some obscure particular usage outside the scripture negate the context of the sentence when there is abundant evidence within the verse itself for what the thought is?

It is clear that other respectable resources accept conception and foundation as primary meanings, but I don’t really need them to read the verse, check an interlinear and a couple of Lexicons and confirm the obvious conclusion, because the only legitimate purpose of translation is to communicate the thought of the writer, which is clear enough in Heb 11:11

Vines (2) The phrase eis katabolen, lit., “for a casting down, or in,” is used of conception in Hebrews 11:11.

Strong’s #2602: katabole (pronounced kat-ab-ol-ay’)

from 2598; a deposition, i.e. founding; figuratively, conception:–conceive, foundation.

“Sarah received power for the ‘establishment of posterity’”
(offered by Cremer’s Biblical and Theological Lexicon, p. 121; Vincent’s
Word Studies. Vol. 4, p. 520; Thayer’s Lexicon, p. 330).

NAS Lexicon:
Definition
a throwing or laying down
the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb
of the seed of plants and animals
a founding (laying down a foundation)
NAS Word Usage - Total: 11
conceive* 1, foundation 10

But really, none of these resources speak as loudly as the context of the verse itself- the thought being communicated must be inherently connected to the words spoken in it, and the ENTIRE thought is about Sarah’s faith empowering her to receive seed and conceive a child of promise in a “dead” womb.