tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 31 12:01:23 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: God's Name
- From: Thad Vick <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: God's Name
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:01:08 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Jul 23, 96 09:13:16 am
ghitlh vay'
> >I agree with this. In my opinion though why not put Jesus Christ in Klingon
> >and disregard "God" it is an apparent general term. But the next question is
> >how would you write "Jesus Christ"?
jang ~mark
> That's an awfully Christian-centric view. What about all through the
> Hebrew Bible, which is as much (if not more) a Jewish text as a Christian
> one? Not everyone calls God "Jesus" (or Jesus "God"), and not even
> everyone who considers the Bible a holy text does so.
This is a silly argument. Either that or its on the wrong mailing list. Don't
get me wrong, I am a staunch evangelical by doctrine, but on this list, the
issue is not theological, but linguistic. "God" may possibly be considered a
general term in the New Testament (theos was used for other gods than Yahweh)
but with the exception of the tetragrammaton, the word "God" in the Old
Testament is generally more of a title than a name, which can be directly
translated from the Hebrew. I realize that this cuts a lot of casual Klingon
speakers out of the KBTP, but Bible translation is really not a game for
beginners. As for the "next question", Jesus is a proper name, and we know what
to do with those. "Christ" is a title, which means "chosen one". (Yes, I am
aware that the literal meaning is "to anoint (as with oil)", but if you're
going to jump me with that, you should be aware of the distinction between the
meanings and usages of *christao* and *aleipho*. I have studied this particular
point very thoroughly.) QED (the latin, not the Klingon).
taDI'oS vIq, Linguist to the Masses