"the Law" and "the law"

[Khalid Salem]

Dear brothers,

Assalaamu Alaikum,

In some translations of the Bible we can find the terms "the Law" and "the law". What is the difference between the one that contain capital "L" (i.e. the Law) and the one contain small "l" (i.e. the law), when they are used in the translations of the Bible?

Thanks.

Khalid Salem.

Edited by - Khalid Salem on 06/16/2003 15:54:50

Edited by - Khalid Salem on 06/16/2003 16:22:31

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Khalid Salem,

thank you for the post.

as you've noted, there are two types of "law" that are referred to within the context of the Bible and they correspond directly to the orthodox Christian teachings.

the Law is what was before the time of Christ. Theologically, it is referred to as the Time of the Law and it denotes a time wherein God's will was made known through the Ten Commandments and various other promulgations of Rabbinic Law. When Jesus (pbuh) came, this represented the fulfilling of the Time of Law and an entry into the Time of the Spirit, dramatically changing the nature of worship of God.

when "the law" is referred to, the reference is to the municipal laws of the various kingdoms, countries and so forth that were hosts to the various religious communities of the area.



~compassionately~

[Khalid Salem]

Assalaam Alaikum,

Vajradhara, thank you very much for your reply and explanation.

Regards,

Khalid Salem.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Khalid Salem,

my pleasure :)

i try to help when and where i can.



~compassionately~

[imported_muslim]

I read an article from the following website: http://www.islam101.com/religions/deedat/christ_in_islam0.htm

It is about Christianity, Jesus (AS) and Islam. One of the points I learned from it is that the Bible, when being translated to English, was not translated correctly. An example in the article is the terms "The God" and "a god". To read that part here is the link:
http://www.islam101.com/religions/deedat/christ_in_islam7.htm

I think this provides the answer to Khail Salem's question. The people who translated the Bible were not consistent in their translation (i.e. they had a set of rules but did not follow those rules consistently because they purposely wanted to change meanings). Todays priest and fathers and reverends give excuses such as the one Vajradhara gave (Vajradhara, I'm not attacking you or saying your trying to cover up) because they themselves either don't want to admit errors in the Bible, or because they seriously do believe what is written.




Edited by - muslim on 06/18/2003 22:52:40

[Vajradhara]

Namaste muslim,

thank you for the post.

i'm certain that you are aware that there are schools of Christianity that do not believe that the Bible is inerrant nor for that matter, do they claim that copyist mistakes and outright fabrications are in the Bible. for those Christians the Bible functions more as a guide book rather than as the revealed word of God. it would be as unwise to characterize all of Christanity as believing the same thing as it would to say that all Muslims believe the same things, even though both of these traditions typcially share the same core beliefs amongst their sects.

nevertheless, the terms Law and law are two distinct terms used through the Testaments to describe two different things and two different ways of behaving.

in regards to the article posted, here are several translations of the original greek and the latin vulgate (greek letters are not supported on this site) as well:

1 John:

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV

Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV

Byzantine Majority
en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV

Alexandrian
en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV

Latin Vulgate
1:1 in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

King James Version
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

American Standard Version
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Bible in Basic English
1:1 From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.

Darby's English Translation
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Douay Rheims
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Noah Webster Bible
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Weymouth New Testament
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

World English Bible
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Young's Literal Translation
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

given the above information, it should be clear to the reader that, allowing for liguistic differences, the translation is accurate.


~compassionately~

[salman327]

I remember reading (I believe it was a post from a Unitarian Christian) that the the last phrase of that passage was actually rendered "and the word was god's" and not "and the word was god". I'll try to find out where I read that, so as to have a reference for anyone interested. There are certainly sects of Christianity that do believe as Vajradhara has stated. There are also sects out there that totally reject what they term to be "Pauline Theology" that they say has been interjected into mainstream Christianity and the Bible.

[nr]

The Jehovah witness have their own translation of the bible where they translate "God" to "a God". I do not believe it is valid.

[nr]

I do not agree with everything on carm of course but here is their explanation http://www.carm.org/jw/john1_1.htm

[Vajradhara]

Namaste salman327,

you are absolutely correct when you say that some sects reject the Pauline Theology as not being consistent with the existant teachings. in fact, quite an interesting argument can be made against the inclusion of the Pauline texts into the Canon.



~compassionately~

[salman327]

Assalamu Alaikum all

I just wanted to post a link to a site that has translated it as "and the word was god's". I'm sure there are pretty big debates on how the translation should be read, and I'm sure (as with all things) there is some sort of refutation for this view. Seems to hard to find the truth huh?

http://www.onceforall.com/repent.htm

I believe about 1/3rd down the page you will find John 1:1

[nr]

I disagree. One of the main themes of John's gospel is that we can have the Word of God or Logos of God in our hearts. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm

Another problem is that Revelation 19:12 says
His eyes were like a fiery flame, and on his head were many diadems. He had a name inscribed that no one knows except himself. He wore a cloak that had been dipped in blood, and his name was called the Word of God. The armies of heaven followed him, mounted on white horses and wearing clean white linen. Out of his mouth cam a sharp sword to strike the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod, and he himself will tread out in the wine press the wine of fury and wrath of God the almightly. He has a name written on his cloak and on his thigh, "King of kings and Lord of lords."
Of course King of kings is a title only refering to God.
John 6:69 says We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God. Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil" The Holy One refers to Isaiah, which says that our only savior is God.

[Someone]

salam to all.
i was just wondering if its allowed for muslims to study other religions. is their any Hadith that prohibits/allows it?

[salman327]

I don't know about Hadiths, but it's part of human curiosity to study other religions. Didn't people of other religions study about Islam before they converted (referring to those who do convert). Thank you NR for the post, my comment on it being "and the word was god's" was certainly not authorative, and I guess there are many ways to interpret/translate things (especially from Semitic languages or Greek)

[Khalid Salem]

Assalaam Alaykum,

I have posted my question in a more accurate style in a Christian discussion forum. Here below is my question and the answers I received. The best of them was the answer of one called "Van".:



Subject: DIfference between "Law" and "law"

Khalid Salem wrote:
---------------------------
Hi members,

I came here to ask a question. Please, I hope that you will not consider my question to be a trivial one.

I'm readin the NIV translation of the Bible. Could you please tell me why in the NIV, when talking about the law of Moses, it use the word 'Law' (i.e. with capital "L") in some places while using the word 'law' (i.e. with small "l") in other places?

What is the equivalent Hebrew and Greek words for "Law" (capital "L") ?

What is the equivalent Hebrew and Greek words for "law" (small "l") ?


Regards,

Khalid Salem.
---------------------------




gswisher wrote:
---------------------------
Hi Khalid.

I do not have an NIV. Can you give examples? What passage uses law, and what one uses Law?

GS
---------------------------



Zathrus wrote:
---------------------------
Welcome Khalid,

I'm not sure about delineations that the NIV may be making. I don't think they correspond to different Hebrew words, but I may be wrong. Try looking up the passages in a KJV Bible and then looking up the words in a Strong concordance.

I do wanna say this: The thing to keep in mind is that all law results in trying to attain or maintain one's righteousness through good works. Good works are great, and living a moral life is a good thing. But we are not under any law requiring anything of us to be right with God.

I have seen some fancy theological gymnastics done to try to get us to think we are still under some set of rules and regulations that we must keep to be right with God.

Some split the law of Moses into a ceremonial, moral and civil law, and say that not all of those have been abolished. Jesus and Paul made it very plain that the law was a whole entity, not to be divided in parts.

Others differentiate between the law of Moses and a "law of God". I don't think such a distinction is to be found in the Bible. When the apostles wrote of a "law of liberty", they were writing of being justified by faith in Christ. They were not substituting one set of do's and don'ts for another.

Jesus died and rose again to end all reward and punishment based ways of relating to God. The message of the gospel is that we are God's chosen people, and righteous before Him, as a free gift. That means there is no requirement on our part.
---------------------------



Van wrote:
---------------------------
I looked for an explantion and found none. The same Hebrew word is sometimes lower case and sometimes upper case. More than one Hebrew word is translated law or Law.

The primary reason appears just to be capitalization of a Title. When the text refers to the law, a body of ideas I did not see it capitalized, but when it refers to "the Book of the Law" or the "Law of Moses" it appears to be the title of a written work.

The first time in scripture I see the word capitalized is in Deut. 28:61 refering to the Book of the Law. The Hebrew word (transliterated) is torah. Another Hebrew word translated as Law and capitalized is "dat"

In the Greek, the story is the same, the same word (tranliterated nomos) is sometimes capitalized when it appears to be a reference to the written work of Moses and not capitalized if just a general statement about law.

And finally, it appears that the NAS and the NIV are inconsistent in the application of the capitalization, indicating translator judgement rather than something actually written in the text. Both the NIV and NAS capitalize Law when Jesus says "the Law and the Prophets" indicating parts of scripture.
---------------------------



Finally, Khalid Salem wrote:
---------------------------
Thanks to you all.

Gswisher, thank you for your reply.

Zathrus, thank you for your good suggestion to use Strong's concordance.

Van, thank you very much. You have pinpointed and fulfilled all the requirements of my question.

Regards,

Khalid Salem.
---------------------------


Khalid Salem.