讯息： 29
语言: English
Alkanadi (显示个人资料) 2015年12月10日上午7:44:44
1:1 En la komenco estis la Vorto, kaj la Vorto estis kun Dio, kaj la Vorto estis Dio.
http://sacred-texts.com/bib/wb/esp/joh.htm
Kirilo81 (显示个人资料) 2015年12月10日上午8:29:24
opalo (显示个人资料) 2015年12月10日上午9:34:52
The Old Testament accepts the existence of other gods, it just thinks that they are weaker and mortal and didn't create the world.
richardhall (显示个人资料) 2015年12月10日下午2:10:33
Kirilo81:Dio en the abrahamitic religions is a personal name (as there are no other gods), which of course goes without article.The Esperanto text here echoes the Greek of the New Testament, which omits the definite article before God. (A point on which the Jehovah's Winesses base their entire Christology) So there's no mistake in the Esperanto as a translation of the Greek. The Greek of the New Testament is full of stuff that would be considered mistakes in classical Greek because it is written in the rough lingua franka of the age, not the refined language of the scholar.
Miland (显示个人资料) 2015年12月10日下午2:25:47
If I understand correctly, though, in the Greek, the absence of the definite article could make the word adjectival, so that Moffatt has "the Logos was divine" and the NEB/REB has "what God was, the Word was." Perhaps we could have la Vorto estis Dia.
richardhall (显示个人资料) 2015年12月10日下午2:26:14
opalo:The Hebrew noun here is actually a plural: Elohim, or in Esperanto Dioj. The usual explanation is that this is a "plural of excellence", as the associated verbs mostly take the singular, but some suspicion exists! It is conventional in European languages to use "God" as a proper noun, and Zamenhof does the same. However, later on you will find la Sinjoro, la Eternulo etc.This quote comes from the New Testament, the Gospel of John, so it was written in Greek, not in Hebrew:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
Zamenhof only translated the Hebrew Bible into Esperanto - the New Testament was done by Christian Esperantists
opalo:The Old Testament accepts the existence of other gods, it just thinks that they are weaker and mortal and didn't create the world.That's true of some parts of the Hebrew Bible: it's a big collection of books, written over many centuries in lots of different contexts. It isn't (or shouldn't be) surprising that it offers a range of perspectives. I think we can say that by the time of the exile, the religion of Israel was fully monotheistic.
erinja (显示个人资料) 2015年12月10日下午3:22:01
opalo:The Hebrew noun here is actually a plural: Elohim, or in Esperanto Dioj. The usual explanation is that this is a "plural of excellence", as the associated verbs mostly take the singular, but some suspicion exists!It's not a totally ridiculous example, considering that such a plural exists in English (the royal "we", for example), and also plurals that are really singulars - a pair of trousers is really just one item.
devilyoudont (显示个人资料) 2015年12月10日下午6:47:20
richardhall:That's true of some parts of the Hebrew Bible: it's a big collection of books, written over many centuries in lots of different contexts. It isn't (or shouldn't be) surprising that it offers a range of perspectives. I think we can say that by the time of the exile, the religion of Israel was fully monotheistic.I have heard a theory that the experience of the exile created a monotheistic religion out of a henotheistic one. At the very least, I believe there is evidence of worship of Asherah as Consort to Yahweh up to the exile. It is interesting to think of at least
Vestitor (显示个人资料) 2015年12月10日下午7:17:12
erinja:Plurale tantum. They not really singulars though. A pair of glasses (for the eyes) really are two lenses, the frame that joins them is a mere convenience. The same can be said for trousers or scissors, which are two units with a join.opalo:The Hebrew noun here is actually a plural: Elohim, or in Esperanto Dioj. The usual explanation is that this is a "plural of excellence", as the associated verbs mostly take the singular, but some suspicion exists!It's not a totally ridiculous example, considering that such a plural exists in English (the royal "we", for example), and also plurals that are really singulars - a pair of trousers is really just one item.
When you consider other languages, say Dutch for my ease, where trousers, scissors and glasses are all singular (broek, schaar, bril) it may seem that English is the exception, but French 'ciseaux' and Spanish 'pantalones' show that it isn't.
I've strayed from the point I think.