• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

God is love, Love is not Jealous, God is a Jealous god???

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
893
56
Texas
✟124,923.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Because the context has changed to exclusively God so whatever it is, it's not human jealously. Reverse translating it starting from English "jealous" and then superimposing this over God doesn't work because the English word jealous doesn't fit this unique context the Hebrew does. To start the word is better translated as "zealous".

Ancient Hebrew is an extremely concrete language and English an extremely abstract language so they don't really fit that well. The word in question is קנא (QNA) (vowels are formed by the addition of accents on the characters). All words have a 2 character root and the root in this word is קנ (QN). The 2 character root froms the meaning of the word. From there each character in ancient Hebrew is a pictograph that carries meaning, combining together they form concepts. The pictographs is from the characters QN. The N is a pictograph of a sun on the horizon also meaning the gathering of light. The Q is a pictograph of a seed. NOTE: modern Hebrew uses a the aramaic square script (what I've copied and pasted) where the pictographs are not clear, you need to look at a Paleo Hebrew or Phoenician script to see the pictographs

So 2 letter root of QN has the abstract meaning of zealous and has the concrete meaning of a nest. The parent bird gathers materials to raise their seeds (eggs) in. So zealous here is a passionate devotion towards its own.

The child word QNA adds the pictograph of an ox with abstract meaning of strength (so it's like adding to the meaning as a strong nest). Together the word is formed under the concept of a parent bird will guard over and protect the nest and eggs from predators. Man can guard over the family, wife, possessions in a positive way (protect, from an enemy) or in a negative way (by not trusting or a desire to have anothers possessions).

This forms the meaning of the word in Hebrew where in English there is an probably a concrete etomology to the word but in practise the word is an abstract and has no concrete connections with it and we just associate a very specific action/feeling over it. In Hebrew there is a lot of information that gives meaning to the word that we loose when we just superimpose an English word over it that only study will reveal.

The NT word is in Greek which is also an abstract language (or more abstract than Hebrew) and to get to its meaning you will have to study the Greek to see if the English covers the meaning well. I just expanded the Hebrew to show that it's more than what we associate with in the English even if the translation still is appropriate.
So on Biblehub for Exodus 20:5 32 of 39 translations use the word Jealous, 2 use Zealous but those are word for word translations not thought for thought. 1 uses "Demand all of your love" and 1 uses "tolerate no rivals". Why should I believe your analysis over all these other translators?

Why would God let it be translated Jealous and make us have to learn multiple languages and cultures to understand His word? This would lead most people astray that do not have access to this kind of education.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,189
3,447
✟1,009,579.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So on Biblehub for Exodus 20:5 32 of 39 translations use the word Jealous, 2 use Zealous but those are word for word translations not thought for thought. 1 uses "Demand all of your love" and 1 uses "tolerate no rivals". Why should I believe your analysis over all these other translators?

Why would God let it be translated Jealous and make us have to learn multiple languages and cultures to understand His word? This would lead most people astray that do not have access to this kind of education.
It's not my analysis. Paleo Hebrew and the meaning from pictographs are a part of a more comprehensive study and you're welcome to study an ancient Hebrew lexicon to find the same information.

Jealous is not a bad translation but it's not a mirror of Hebrew. The text is written to ancient Hebrew by ancient Hebrews so I would expect a meaning that has more of an ancient mindset. Surely you didn't think a comparison of a 2000 year old Greek text translated into "jealous" and a 3500 year old Hebrew text translated into "jealous" was going to be a perfect fit?

Translators have a task to try and communicate as best as possible an ancient worldview to a modern worldview. I don't find the more common translation inadequate and it just depends how you approach the text.

I just explained the word from an ancient mindset and showed how it can have a possible positive or negative slant but I did not assume these traits on God, it was just information and information outside of a specific context. You may take it and apply it to the text or choose your own paraphrase instead which by the way I think generally is consistent with the text.

Incidentally Oxford already has a definition for this when applied to God. "Jealous: 1.3 (of God) demanding faithfulness and exclusive worship".
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
893
56
Texas
✟124,923.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's not my analysis. Paleo Hebrew and the meaning from pictographs are a part of a more comprehensive study and you're welcome to study an ancient Hebrew lexicon to find the same information.

Jealous is not a bad translation but it's not a mirror of Hebrew. The text is written to ancient Hebrew by ancient Hebrews so I would expect a meaning that has more of an ancient mindset. Surely you didn't think a comparison of a 2000 year old Greek text translated into "jealous" and a 3500 year old Hebrew text translated into "jealous" was going to be a perfect fit?

Translators have a task to try and communicate as best as possible an ancient worldview to a modern worldview. I don't find the more common translation inadequate and it just depends how you approach the text.

I just explained the word from an ancient mindset and showed how it can have a possible positive or negative slant but I did not assume these traits on God, it was just information and information outside of a specific context. You may take it and apply it to the text or choose your own paraphrase instead which by the way I think generally is consistent with the text.

Incidentally Oxford already has a definition for this when applied to God. "Jealous: 1.3 (of God) demanding faithfulness and exclusive worship".
Why would God allow His word to be confusing or lead people to wrong conclusions? Assuming you are correct.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,604
16,170
72
Bondi
✟382,236.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So on Biblehub for Exodus 20:5 32 of 39 translations use the word Jealous, 2 use Zealous but those are word for word translations not thought for thought. 1 uses "Demand all of your love" and 1 uses "tolerate no rivals".

If that's a reasonable translation then I'd agree - it describes jealousy as we would know it. Just as I would be described as a jealous husaband if I demanded the same from my wife. It's a very human emotion which doesn't seem worthy of the creator of all things.

If one believed in God then it would seem to be difficult, if not impossible, to assign those words to Him. They are written by men trying to ensure that their religion was first and foremost.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,313
6,389
69
Pennsylvania
✟958,421.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
So on Biblehub for Exodus 20:5 32 of 39 translations use the word Jealous, 2 use Zealous but those are word for word translations not thought for thought. 1 uses "Demand all of your love" and 1 uses "tolerate no rivals". Why should I believe your analysis over all these other translators?

Why would God let it be translated Jealous and make us have to learn multiple languages and cultures to understand His word? This would lead most people astray that do not have access to this kind of education.
So go with Jealous, if you want to be wrong. It still works. God is not like us. When God is jealous, it isn't the same thing.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,604
16,170
72
Bondi
✟382,236.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So go with Jealous, if you want to be wrong. It still works. God is not like us. When God is jealous, it isn't the same thing.

Does He demand all our love? I thought He did. How would you describe that?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,313
6,389
69
Pennsylvania
✟958,421.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Does He demand all our love? I thought He did. How would you describe that?
That's his first of the great commandments. We fail daily. What's your point?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,313
6,389
69
Pennsylvania
✟958,421.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
It describes a jealous God.
Ok, so what is the problem? He is not us. He deserves every bit of anything we can give him, and all our love. But besides that, he owns us. We are his creation. Devotion and worship is the default state of his creatures. (Before, or apart from, sin.)
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,604
16,170
72
Bondi
✟382,236.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Ok, so what is the problem? He is not us. He deserves every bit of anything we can give him, and all our love. But besides that, he owns us. We are his creation. Devotion and worship is the default state of his creatures. (Before, or apart from, sin.)

Jealousy is a human emotion. From a random internet search: Jealousy generally refers to the thoughts or feelings of insecurity, fear, and concern over a relative lack of possessions or safety. Jealousy can consist of one or more emotions such as anger, resentment, inadequacy, helplessness or disgust.

If God is described as jealous in the usual meaning of the term, then that's the problem.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,189
3,447
✟1,009,579.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why would God allow His word to be confusing or lead people to wrong conclusions? Assuming you are correct.
I guess it's perspective because I don't get the same sense that you do. to start I don't think anyone thinks (or anyone should think) a translated ancient text is going to come out perfect and there's going to innately be a lot of challenges being interpreted into a modern abstract language. if a translation invokes some sort of doubt or question then I think that warrants a deeper study. I still haven't applied what I originally said to the text and I'm still leaving that up to you to decide how it will fit, I just defined the word in an ancient mindset.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
893
56
Texas
✟124,923.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If that's a reasonable translation then I'd agree - it describes jealousy as we would know it. Just as I would be described as a jealous husaband if I demanded the same from my wife. It's a very human emotion which doesn't seem worthy of the creator of all things.

If one believed in God then it would seem to be difficult, if not impossible, to assign those words to Him. They are written by men trying to ensure that their religion was first and foremost.
Well put. It seems like whenever a scripture seems to say something Christians don't want it to say we get into the Hebrew or Greek languages and translations all of a sudden are not accurate. I have never had a conversation like this for 1 Jn 4:16, God is love for example.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
893
56
Texas
✟124,923.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I guess it's perspective because I don't get the same sense that you do. to start I don't think anyone thinks (or anyone should think) a translated ancient text is going to come out perfect and there's going to innately be a lot of challenges being interpreted into a modern abstract language. if a translation invokes some sort of doubt or question then I think that warrants a deeper study. I still haven't applied what I originally said to the text and I'm still leaving that up to you to decide how it will fit, I just defined the word in an ancient mindset.
Then why is this a good way for God to communicate what He wants to us? Most people that have ever lived did not have access to this information to figure it out.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,313
6,389
69
Pennsylvania
✟958,421.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Jealousy is a human emotion. From a random internet search: Jealousy generally refers to the thoughts or feelings of insecurity, fear, and concern over a relative lack of possessions or safety. Jealousy can consist of one or more emotions such as anger, resentment, inadequacy, helplessness or disgust.

If God is described as jealous in the usual meaning of the term, then that's the problem.
If it is God, it is not the 'usual' human way. So not the same meaning. That 'random' internet search yield you found isn't a definition, but an assessment of motive. For example, what it says it 'consists of...' shows what jealousy 'exhibits as...'.

See, here is what a 'random internet search' yielded, when done by one who believes the Bible: "fiercely protective or vigilant of one's rights or possessions."
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,313
6,389
69
Pennsylvania
✟958,421.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
This is just special pleading.
Is it not self-evident that First Cause is not like us? You think the notion of First Cause should come with no obvious corollaries?
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,189
3,447
✟1,009,579.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Then why is this a good way for God to communicate what He wants to us? Most people that have ever lived did not have access to this information to figure it out.
The Bible shows God judging people based on the tools they are given. I don't see this any differently for those who don't have access.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
893
56
Texas
✟124,923.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Is it not self-evident that First Cause is not like us? You think the notion of First Cause should come with no obvious corollaries?
You are assuming the first cause was an intelligence. How do you know that?
 
Upvote 0