Why was «کریسمس» (*kerismas*) loaned from English? Wasn't there an indigenous Christian presence which could of given a word of a differing etymology?

**[Exodus 20:3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20:3&version=NIV)** (NIV) reads, "You shall have no other gods before Me." According to the Tanakh (Old Testament), YHWH / Yahweh / (God) is an individual divine being, and the only God. Some sections of the Scriptures seem to state that He is the universe’s only (truly existing) God; however, others portray him as a supreme god among other gods (that actually exist). [Deuteronomy 4:35](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+4:35&version=NIV) , “YHWH is God; there is **none else beside him**.” [Isaiah 44:6–8](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+44:6-8&version=NIV) , it says, “Thus says YHWH…: I am the first, and I am the last; and **beside me there is no God**… Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any.” Thus, Yahweh is the *only* God that exists. ---------- But in [Exodus 15:11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+15:11&version=NIV) , after the Israelites escape slavery in Egypt, they sing, “Who is like you, O YHWH, **among the gods** [Elohim]?” [Deuteronomy 6:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+6:14&version=NIV) : "Do not follow other gods, **the gods of the peoples around you**" In [Deuteronomy 10:17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+10:17&version=NIV) , it says, “For YHWH your God is the **God of gods**, and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and terrible, who does not regard people or take bribes.” In [Psalm 95:3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+95:3&version=NIV) , it says, “YHWH is a great God, and **a great king above all gods**.” And in [Exodus 12:12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+12:12&version=NIV) , it says, “On that night I will pass through the land of Egypt and smite every firstborn, both man and beast, and **I will execute judgment against all the gods of Egypt. I am YHWH**.” ---------- What are we to make of this, then? Are there lesser/other gods? Do the words used for god, perhaps, have other implied contextual meanings in some passages?

Claim: The phrase “call on/upon the name” seems to be a pointer to the true God, and if that phrase bears such significance throughout all of the Bible, then Jesus has to be God. From searching "call on/upon the name" throughout the Bible via biblegateway.com, all instances of the phrase in the Old Testament are found in twenty-four passages listed here . As part of this list, the following passages show how the phrase was used (from hereon, any emphasis in quoted Scripture is added): >"To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to **call upon the name of the LORD**." (Gen 4:26) >"Oh *give thanks to the LORD*; **call upon his name**; *make known his deeds* among the peoples!" (1 Chr 16:8) >"Then I **called on the name of the LORD**: “O LORD, I *pray, deliver* my soul!”" (Ps 116:4) >"Correct me, O LORD, but in justice; not in your anger, lest you bring me to nothing. *Pour out your wrath on the nations that know you not, and* on the peoples that **call not on your name**, for they have devoured Jacob; they have devoured him and consumed him, and have laid waste his habitation." (Jer 10:24-25) >"“I **called on your name, O LORD**, from the depths of the pit; you heard my *plea*, ‘Do not close your ear to my *cry for help*!’" (Lam 3:55-56) >"And it shall come to pass that everyone who **calls on the name of the LORD** shall be *saved*" (Joel 2:32a) >"And I [the LORD] will put this third [of sheep] into the fire, and *refine them* as one refines silver, and *test them* as gold is tested. They will **call upon my name**, and I will answer them. I will say, ‘They are my people’; and they will say, ‘*The LORD is my God*.’”" (Zech 13:9) These seven passages represent the overall use of the phrase as a variety of actions given the writers’ intents and/or situation at hand. Nevertheless, all instances of the phrase in these passages and the rest of the twenty-four have one thing in common: their reference to the LORD, with the exception of one passage in which the phrase sometimes refers to Baal. This exception in regards to Baal, however, brings to light another meaning to "call on/upon the name," as is found in 1 Kings 18:24-28,36-39: > [Elijah said to the Israelites who have all wandered away from the LORD and to the prophets of Baal and of Asherah, "] 24 And you **call upon the name of your god**, and I will **call upon the name of the LORD**, and *the God who answers by fire, he is God*.” And all the people answered, “It is well spoken.” 25 Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many, and **call upon the name of your god,** but put no fire to it.” 26 And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and **called upon the name of Baal** *from morning until noon, saying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no one answered.* And they limped around the altar that they had made. 27 And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” 28 And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. 36 *And at the time of the offering of the oblation, Elijah the prophet came near and said, “O LORD*, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, and that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your word. 37 *Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.” 38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.* 39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, “*The LORD, he is God; the LORD, he is God.*” Here, we see both parties call upon the name of who they each believed in, and it is no surprise that calling on the name of Baal proves Baal to be a false god, while the LORD proves to everyone that He is God in response to the calling upon His name. From this pivotal moment on, the Israelites as a group return to believing in the proven God that is the LORD. This challenge to determine the real God from the fake, then, brings about a significant meaning to the phrase in question — an invocation specifically intended for the true God of all creation, an invocation that has been tried and proven to mean as such. Therefore, this passage agrees with the rest of the twenty-four passages in that "call on/upon the name" is a phrase exclusively pointing to the true God being the LORD throughout all of the Old Testament. (**NOTE**: after double checking the search, I found a second apparent exception to the phrase in Isaiah 44:5; added to the list above. The ESV translation of the passage reads, "This one will say, ‘I am the LORD’s,’ another will **call on the name** of Jacob, and another will write on his hand, ‘The LORD’s,’ and *name himself by the name* of Israel.”" Here, the phrase points to Jacob, but other translations vary in the section in question — "others will call themselves by the name of Jacob" (NIV), "another shall [/will] call himself by the name of Jacob" (JKV, NKJV, ASV, HCSB), "another will use the name of Jacob" (CSB), etc. — which can be seen here . With this, coupled with the remaining context in verse 5, one can understand the section to mean that the subject takes on the name Jacob as its own. Due to this and the varying word choice resulting from the process of translation, this exception can be ignored, and the claim made in the previous paragraph remains true.) If that is the case, then surely all instances of "call on the name" in the New Testament should point only to God, yet this doesn't appear to be so. All instances of "call on the name" can be found in six passages: Acts 2:21; Acts 22:14-16; Rom 10:13; Acts 9:13-17; Acts 9:20-22; 1 Cor 1:1-3. Of the six passages, the first three direct the phrase arguably to either God or Jesus, while the remaining three, either explicitly or by context and without challenge like that of 1 Kings 18, direct the phrase only to Jesus. Let's look at the remaining three passages: >"*But Ananias answered, “Lord,* I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he [Saul] has done to your saints at Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who **call on your name.**” But *the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name* before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For *I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.*” So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, *the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me* so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”" (Acts 9:13-17) >"And immediately *he [Saul] proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.”* And all who heard him were amazed and said, “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of **those who called upon this name**? And has he not come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests?” But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by *proving that Jesus was the Christ.*" (Acts 9:20-22) >"Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To *the church of God* that is in Corinth, to *those sanctified in Christ Jesus*, called to be *saints* together with all those who in every place **call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,** both their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor 1:1-3) If "call upon the name" points solely to God, then — given the presupposition that Jesus is not God — the disciple Ananias, the saints persecuted by Paul, eventually Paul himself and the saints to come should be heretics for calling on the name of Jesus, especially Paul who was thoroughly trained in the Law as a Pharisee by one honored-by-all Sanhedrin leader Gamaliel (Acts 5:34, 22:3; Phili 3:5 ). The phrase already meant a lot of things in the Old Testament, and if the phrase bore a significance as initially claimed and Paul knew that, then Paul is the greatest heretic for espousing in public and in New Testament writings, the very message he once persecuted, that God's people call on the name of Jesus and that doing so is tantamount to calling on the name of the LORD as defined in the Old Testament — a plea, an exaltation, a proclamation, an appeal to judge wrongdoers, a prayer, a cry in times of help and in times of testing, an act in alignment with worship, thanksgiving and the pursuit of salvation; all of which directed to the true God and Creator of the universe. If "call on/upon the name" is to maintain such meaning throughout the entirety of the Bible, then Jesus has to be God.

I recently learned that in the Bible, the word "sin" comes from Hebrew and Greek words that mean "missing the mark". In the Faith section of my local newspaper, [a minister recently said](https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/community/faith-faith-in-christ-transforms-1.24041879) : >The word “sin” is an archery term in the ancient Greek. It means, “you missed”. It’s what a slave boy might have said to his master during target practise. “Sin” means we have missed the mark when it comes to making right moral choices in life. I mildly enjoy word studies, and that one seemed cool, so I dug in a bit to find out more about that. After digging through some of the mountain of blog posts written by Christians and Christian archers on the saying, I learned about the Greek word "hamartia" (means "to miss the mark"). However, although every blogger said something similar to what the pastor in my newspaper said, and there were a lot of cool stories, in all of the blogs I read I couldn't find any link or reference to the phrase ever having *actually been used in archery anciently or modernly*. It was just stated as if it was true. So I took a look at the [Wikipedia article for Hamartia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartia) . After reviewing that and a couple other sources, it seems that sin is not actually an archery term. But I can't get through the mountain of blog posts to confirm if I'm on track. There's too much information - I don't want to spend days on only a mildly interesting word study. So I thought I'd ask here if anyone happens to know more or might happen to ask Google a better question. Is there actually a connection between the word "sin" and the sport of archery? Or did some excited Christian or Christian archers just connect these dots between the definition of the word and their sport, decide it was true, share it, and it caught on? If this question is more appropriate for another site, I'm happy to move it there. The Sports SE just didn't seem like the right place, [there is no Etymology SE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/297523/is-there-an-etymology-stack-exchange) , and beyond that the question's topic seems it might be at home in Christianity SE, History SE, and Linguistics SE fairly equally. I thought I'd ask here first since Christians are the ones that actually use the comment.

I've been looking through the Septuagint and NT Greek manuscripts online and seen these different forms of the name for both Joshua and Jesus. Can someone please explain to me the differences?

According to [*Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma*](https://ia800507.us.archive.org/3/items/fundamentals-of-catholic-dogma-pdfdrive/Fundamentals%20of%20Catholic%20Dogma%20%28%20PDFDrive%20%29.pdf) (in reference to John 21:15-17): > "Feed" in ancient and biblical language means, in its application to human beings, rule or govern (cf. Acts 20:28). And Acts 20:28: > Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (*Douay-Rheims*) QUESTION: What are some ancient (or Old Testament) references which demonstrate the linguistic equivalence of the terms "to feed" and "to govern (or rule)"?

I understand that sanctification is used as a post-reformational theological term to refer to the ongoing process of Christian growth. But, biblically speaking, is this always what is meant? I know that the word literally means "to make holy," which does not necessitate an ongoing process (and neither a one-time event). I am a bit nervous about limiting the semantic range when something broader may be intended in scripture. So what is the semantic range of the word as used in scripture?

Can you tell me what the letters **JHS** mean? You can see them on the picture below. I am from Slovakia (East Europe) and we speak Slovak and these letters are from Catholic church. I saw these letters on many pantings in Slovak churches. But I do not know their meaning. Thanks for explanation.

Arguing against the teaching that Jesus is a created being, some point out that calling him the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) does not mean the first created. The trinitarian will often say that had the scripture intended to say Jesus is the first created thing the word Protoktistos would have been used rather than prototokos. Then they state that the word Protoktistos is never used in connection with Jesus. My question is: Can you cite examples in the scriptures where the word Protoktistos is used? I would like to compare the places it is used with the places where prototokos is used.

I want to begin to understand my new identity in Christ (how he sees me; how I should see myself) and understand what it means to be free from sin. I have lived my whole life as a slave to sin, I want to learn to think and act like the free man that I have become because of Christ. Where should I start? Any recommendations on passages of scripture that discuss this? I have done small word studies before but I have no idea how to even start this study. Any advice will be appreciated. I am a 25 year old male.

I want to check the conclusion I arrived at answering this related question. The English translation of the CCC lists the fruits of the Holy Spirit as (1832 ) > "charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, **generosity**, > gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity." It cites only the Vulgate translation of Galatians 5:22-23. Yet the Vulgate does not list generosity at Gal. 5:22-23 . > "Fructus autem Spiritus est caritas, gaudium, pax, patientia, > benignitas, bonitas, **longanimitas**, mansuetudo, fides, modestia, > continentia, castitas." Instead, it lists 'longanimitas' where 'generosity' is listed in the CCC. Similarly, the Douay-Rheims translation, based on the Vulgate, does not list 'generosity' at Galatians 5:22-23 but instead, if correlates are taken as ordered, 'longanimity'. > "But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, > benignity, goodness, longanimity, Mildness, faith, modesty, > continency, chastity." It seems the Catechism translators mistakenly put 'generosity' where it should be 'longanimity'. The Catechism was originally written in French. The French version does not include a correlate to 'generosity' but does include one for 'longanimity'. Similarly, the Latin translation , which is now the standard translation, is identical to the Vulgate list above. Does the English translation of the Catholic Catechism incorrectly list 'generosity' as a fruit of the Holy Spirit where it should be 'longanimity'?

In the Vulgate, one of the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit is "longanimitas" (Gal 5:22-23), which is often translated into English as "longanimity" or "long-suffering." In the English version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, however, neither longanimity nor long-suffering are among the twelve fruits. According to the CCC (1832), the twelve fruits are charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, and chastity. Which of these corresponds to "longanimitas" and why the non-standard translation?

For Strong's Hebrew number 7854 (Satan) the Brown-Driver-Briggs' notes give these meanings: > (1) adversary, one who withstands > > (1a) adversary (in general — personal or national) > > (2) superhuman adversary > > (2a) Satan (as noun proper) And Strong gives us: > From H7853; an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed) Satan, > the arch enemy of good: - adversary, Satan, withstand. Whereas SH7834 has: > A primitive root; to attack, (figuratively) accuse: - (be an) > adversary, resist. The first meaning of SH7835 seems to agree with the root form. The second sticks out as quite a bit different. Can anyone explain where this second meaning (superhuman adversary & proper noun) comes from (ideally with sources I can go and look at) and from what point in time this second meaning might have been contemporarily understood?

This question is probably more directed an Old Testament pattern of a description of our attitude towards the Lord. I equate "fear" more closely with "hate". For example today there was local news that a mountain lion "may have attacked a pet dog". That fear factor would lead to efforts to have the mountain lion _killed_. That's pretty far from love. Let's go an assumption (that I made up) that "fear" were intended more closely to "respect". That may be the case but one can just as easily respect someone you love as someone you fear. Are there multiple words/nuances of _fear_ in the Biblical languages (Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic) ? Similarly are there some aspects of the Biblical Hebrew culture - or even more generally Semitic/Middle Eastern culture - that explains why "fear" is chosen as the way to instruct/describe the attitude/disposition to the Lord?

What is the word and pronunciation for God in Aramaic? I saw 'AaLaH' is the pronunciation for God from this link: [Aramaic Lexicon and Concordance ](http://www.peshitta.org/lexicon/) . Did Jesus uses the word 'AaLaH' for God during his speeches? And also in Aramaic Bible, is this word is used for God? If this is true then the Arabic word 'Allahu' and this word 'AaLaH' are same or different? Also I want to know on which language did Jesus cry this expression - "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani"

*This question is pretty much a spinoff of https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/694/what-does-the-bible-say-about-sex-before-marriage-premarital-sex because its current answer depends on the assumption that premarital sex is πορνεία (commonly translated "fornication"). Not all agree, so I think this assumption is better explicitly questioned.* I've heard some liberal Christians dispute the definition of the Greek word *πορνεία* (porneia), **claiming it doesn't mean premarital sex at all**. (An example of such an argument ) ### **What's is the case for premarital sex being an instance of πορνεία (porneia)?** --- One of the major difficulties here is that just a dictionary definition doesn't cut it, because it's difficult to really know what the Greek word really meant 2000 years ago. The answer probably needs to either be a broad look at the Bible passages using the word, or an academic study on the word's meaning. **Additional information 2011-09-21:** The following articles seem interesting, but I can't access the fulltexts. It seems from the publicly-available bits that Dr. Malina might actually have been the first to dispute the meaning of *porneia*. - Malina, B. *Does porneia mean fornication?* Novum Testamentum, 1972. - Jensen, J. *Does porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina.* Novum Testamentum, 1978.

The word ***"Sheol"*** is a fairly modern word used in modern translations of the Old Testament to represent hell, Hades or The Grave or 'The Place of the Dead'. It's the Hebrew's conception of the underworld. For an example look up Deuteronomy 32.22 where "Sheol" is used in modern translations starting with Young's Literal Translation in 1862, and Darby's Translation in 1890. Since then ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB and the Catholic NJB and many others have continued it's use. In 1844 Brenton made his famous personal translation of Greek Septuagint, and he uses the word "Hell" (not Sheol) but perhaps that was because the transliteration of the word Sheol had not yet been popularly coined. Before that, the King James Version and the Catholic's Douay-Rheims Version had used "hell", as had the Geneva Bible. The Latin Vulgate uses the word "inferni" (inferno). My question is simple: Was "Sheol" coined by the Greek Septuagint? Is the word "Sheol" in the "Hebrew's Messoretic Texts and "Hades" in the Greek Septuagint? Right now I'm guessing that "Sheol" was in the Greek Septuagint and the word the Greek Jews used for The Graveland below, as opposed to the non-Jews use of "Hades".

The name Yeshua is the name of the true figure most commonly referred to as Jesus. Why was his named changed? If it was strictly a change of language than his name would be Joshua as it is the most fitting translation.

Some people attack the concept of Christ’s death being a sacrifice, since they define the word “sacrifice” to mean *giving something up that you will never get back*. (I suppose that is how I would define it as well.) Because the death of Christ resulted in only temporary loss and, in fact, ultimately greater glory, it cannot rightfully be called a sacrifice. I recently heard N.T. Wright briefly respond to this argument by saying that sacrifice doesn’t mean this in the Bible, and that this argument imposes a modern understanding of the word on the ancient texts of the Bible. However, he didn’t elaborate on what “sacrifice” means in the Bible. (Or, I didn’t understand what he said.) So my question is, if sacrifice doesn’t mean *giving something up that you will never get back*, what does it mean?

I very frequently hear repeated that there are three Greek words (or word-groups, more precisely) that are translated into the same English word "love"; the words being _ἀγάπη_, _φιλíα_, and _ἔρως_. _ἔρως_ is said to refer to sexual love, _φιλíα_ to a non-sexual "brotherly love" that is not specific to Christians and _ἀγάπη_ to the highest form of love that only a Christian can know. However, I've never heard any backing for this claim and have a sneaking suspicion that this is one of those things that gets passed around pastoral circles without getting checked out. The problem lies, of course, when one imports the distinction into his/her exegesis and extracts a meaning that may not be present. For example, if _φιλíα_ is used rather than _ἀγάπη_ in a particular passage, one might conclude that less is being required. So, my question is, are the semantic ranges of these words as rigid as is claimed, and are the definitions consistent with what is intended in scripture?