DU will try and claim that “Mia” may mean “First” which is completely wrong. This assertion shows a complete ignorance of NT Greek and its usage. (Not surprising since Mormons do corrupt NT Greek on a regular basis). I’m going to break this down as follows:
1. Mia/Heis/Hen is only translated first 8 times in the NT….The Greek word Protos is used to translate “First” the other times throughout the NT. In each of these 8 times it is a passage dealing with calendar time. In no other instance is Mia/Heis/Hen EVER translated first, because it means ONE.
2. Those 8 times dealing with calendar time are done because of the Hebrew idiom underlying the phrase so that the phrase would make sense in English. Biblical Hebrew does not have ordinal numbers. An ordinal number is a number we know of as first, second, third, etc. relating to calendar time. Early Hebrews did not understand this concept for Old Hebrew only recognized cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3 etc.) The phrase where ‘Mia’ is translated ‘first’ recognizes the Hebrew idiom underlying the phrase. (Note: No such idiom exists in I Tim. 3:2, since this passage does not refer in any way to calendar time).
3. The only places within the NT where ‘Mia/Heis/Hen’ is translated ‘first’ is in for example Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1; Mark 16:2; John 20:1; John 20:19; Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2 where we see the phrase first day of the week. When these phrases are taken word for word into the English languages it makes no sense to an English speaking person. The literal translation is as follows:
Τῇ δὲ μι.ᾷ τῶν σαβ.βά.των = te mia ton sabbaton. This is literally translated the one of the Sabbaths. To us (English speakers) we say: HUH? What the heck does that mean????? On the other hand were the NT Greek writers to have written ‘the first day of the week’ the early NT era saints would have said: HUH? What the heck does that mean??? (Because they did not understand the concept of an ordinal number, i.e, first in the sense of calendar time). They understood perfectly the concept of a first day of the week by the phrase: the one of the Sabbaths, but we don’t. So here the English translation of te mia ton sabbaton has been rendered in English ‘the first day of the week’ even though mia doesn’t mean first, it means ONE and the words for day and week aren’t even in the passage. The translation of ‘Mia’ as ‘first’ in this passage is idiomatic, and not literal as explained specifically in relation to calendar time. To repeat: Because of the Hebrew idiom underlying the phrase where ‘Mia’ is translated ‘first’ (not having ordinal numbers within biblical Hebrew) when one needed to say ‘the first day of the week’ it would have to say, ‘week, day one’. When this was then translated into NT Greek, they preserved the Hebrew idiom and said ‘the one of the sabbaths’ – meaning FIRST, but actually saying ONE! Mia/Heis/Hen has never meant anything other than ONE or day ONE or ONE WIFE, or anything else!! To suggest that because of the underlying Hebrew idiom within the translation of ‘first day of the week’ somehow now transposes over into I Timothy 3:2 and the requirement of one wife, so that ‘one wife’ may now mean ‘first wife’ is a complete adulteration of the text and demonstrates a woeful ignorance of NT Greek and Hebrew. In a nutshell, such a translation is a corruption. I would also add that NO reputable Greek scholars, translators, or teachers accept this as anything other than corruption. The ONLY ‘scholars’ (and I use the term loosely) who do this seek to justify polygamy.
4. Furthermore, to attempt to translate ‘Mia’ as ‘First’ in a non-calendar time passage ignores standard Greek Grammar textbooks. At the very least it shows ignorance of syntax:
“The first day of the month or week is designated in the NT as in the LXX, not by prote, but by mia….the model was Hebraic where all the days of the month are designated by cardinals.” (Blass/Debrunner/Funk, topic 247, ‘syntax of numerals’).
5. The normal NT Greek word for ‘First’ is protos, not Mia/Heis/Hen. In fact there is even one passage ‘the first day of the week’ that is translated using πρώτῃ ‘protei’ the adjective dative singular feminine of protos in Mark 16:9! There it did not even use Mia/Heis/Hen. Other examples:
Romans 1:8 - First, I thank my God….proton, adverbial form
Romans 1:16 – to the Jew first……..proton
Romans 10:19 - First, Moses saith…..protos
I Cor. 15:45 – the first man Adam…….protos
I Cor. 15:47 – the first man of the earth…protos
I Timothy 2:13 – For Adam was first formed, then Eve - protos
And these are just a few examples demonstrating that in I Timothy 3:2 Paul would not have used ‘mia’ to mean ‘first wife’ if that was his intent! He would have said this:
protas gunaikos andra (I Timothy 3:2) not mia gunaikos andra!
6. People like DU who corrupt the Greek in I Timothy 3:2 trying to find some sort of biblical support for polygamy in this passage – also take it a step further – and corrupt the Greek again in I Timothy 5:9 (ἑ.νὸς ἀν.δρὸς γυ.νή = henos (correct grammatical form of heis) andros gune or ‘ONE man woman (wife)’. Here Greek illiterates insist that heis may mean ONE here but not in I Timothy 3:2 which is absurd. Where ever Mia/Heis/Hen is found the meaning never changes! Mia is feminine, Heis is masculine, Hen is neuter = they all mean exactly the same thing = ONE! As I stated in my post Post #3503 mia/heis/hen all mean exactly the same thing! Other than spelling and pronunciation, the only difference is grammatical gender.
It is a complete adulteration of the grammar to suggest that ‘mia may mean first’ in I Tim. 3:2 and then say ‘Heis means one’ in I Tim. 5:9! NO! If you are going to insist on corrupting the meaning of ‘Mia’ in I Tim. 3:2 as ‘first’ then the grammar demands that you do the SAME in I Tim. 5:9! But they won’t do this, why? Because if you keep the grammatical construction consistent then I Tim. 5:9 becomes “first man woman” or “first husband woman” and you’ve just instituted polyandry!! There is no middle ground here. If you’re going to adulterate I Timothy 3:2 as proof of polygamy then you HAVE TO agree with polyandry as well. And I frankly don’t see that anywhere within the LDS which proves just how far these apologists will go to promote their heresies.
This is tremendously important. Mormons (LDS) claim to have the ‘restored gospel’. They claim to be the only ones who can properly translate the Bible, all others are mis-translated. Its in their articles of faith. Yet, here is a quintessential example of clear-cut mangling of the Greek text! How can you mangle the text and still claim to be the ‘only source of truth?’ Sorry, it don’t wash. So wake up people, the LDS doesn’t have the truth, they are a CULT, and this manipulation and corruption of the text prove this concisely.
I hope I have helped those of you who are seriously interested in studying NT Greek. I would recommend the following site: Greek Bible Study Aid for those of you without a Lexicon or Concordance. It can be a good tool even if you do have them. Once you know the original language, or begin to get a grasp of it, you can easily spot the twisting and corruption that the LDS do with the text and you’ll recognize them for the cult that they are.
ping-a-ling-a-ling ... for your spirit’s sake, please read the entry, 7.
BTW, you are a saint with apparently infinite patience.
"How can you mangle the text and still claim to be the ‘only source of truth?"......"truth" that is claimed to be "divinely provided" at that!
...te mia ton sabbaton. This is literally translated the one of the Sabbaths...
It's a strange concidence, but I was recently discussing this very phrase with someone in a completely different context, regarding the day of the week that Jesus rose from the dead. When I was shown that I was taking the idiomatic English translation "first" too literally, I promtly admitted my mistake. There is no question that "mia" means "one", and I do not want to base my doctrinal beliefs on shaky proof texts. I appreciate your efforts to elucidate the meaning of "mia".
Not that it changes the substance of your argument, but as an aside I think the Greek word in this instance is 'sabbatwn', the plural of 'sabbaton". The following is an analysis of the syntax of the phrase in the context of an argument for its meaning (in conjuction with 'mia', or 'one') a special, unique calendar date in a lunar calendar. I have no idea how accurate the following analysis is, or whether the thesis is correct that there was a lunar calendar in effect at the time of the Second Temple. I will leave it to the Greek experts and historians. I post it merely to show that it's analyis of 'mia' is very similar to yours, especially with regard to its emphatic contradistinction of "one" to "first"
The Greek word: 'Sabbatwn' (a plural form) is used 12 times in New Testament passages as follows:
[From AV Text (with selected Greek word substitutions):][snip]
It is noteworthy that the syntax usage ('Mia') is identical in all seven of the cited passages--where the term 'ONE' of the 'Sabbatwn' is consistently used. This peculiar agreement (in all these passages) tends to point to the existence of a unique calendar date--where the repetition of the same two words: 'Mia' and 'Sabbatwn' imply a lunar-cycle term. (For additional information, refer to Appendix A).The popular English translation of this text is: 'first day of the week', but the term 'first' in the original Greek is more properly 'proton' or 'protos'. Instead, all of the seven cited passages unilaterally use the same identical word 'Mia'. Again, this conformity of usage--in all seven instances--proves that the translation 'first' is not fully correct. Clearly and simply, the meaning of the unique date in the cited seven passages points away from the meaning of 'first day' and, instead, has a meaning akin to a singular or a 'ONE' (which would refer to either a one-stage, or a one-whole-day). Again, the consistency of this usage (in seven diverse instances) indicates that the 'ONE' of the 'Sabbatwn' refers to a formal lunar-calendar date.The King James translators translated the original Greek word 'mia' in 79 instances--where they correctly translated this word to encompass the meaning of a singular or a 'one' in 71 of the 79 instances. It then seems to be extremely significant that in 8 other instances, the translators translated the Greek word 'mia' as first (not one), and 7 of these instances are shown in scriptural references from above. (There is no compelling reason why the 7 instances--as cited above--should be translated any differently from the other 71 instances).In a lunar-based calendar, the rate of a special 'ONE' would have stood completely out from the standard weekly cycle of seven lunar stages, and would have been an altogether separate additional unit of time (as a renewal for the weeks).The important nuance in the meaning of the cited date--of being a singular or a 'ONE' and not a first--is significant in recognizing that the early definition of the lunar week depended upon the rate of a unique 'ONE', a special stage which probably appeared amid 7 + 7 lunar-stages (of the Moon waxing and waning) (or the rate of one-whole-day would have been counted each 7 weeks).In association with this very unique 'ONE' date, the 7 verses listed above consistently use the same term: 'Sabbatwn' (a plural form of 'Sabbaton').Thus, the 7 New Testament passages--which use the expression: 'Mia Sabbatwn'--seem to reflect a unique lunar-stage interval when the 'Sabbatwn' may have included an additional 'ONE' stage (but the meaning could also be relative to a seventh-week festival).This formal lunar-stage date is specifically used in all four accounts of the resurrection--where Jesus is indicated to have been crucified upon the day which preceded Passover (in the first lunar month). The resurrection (which occurred immediately after, or between, 'Sabbatwn') is unilaterally recorded to have occurred upon the special date 'Mia Sabbatwn'.Matthew 28:1 On the eve of the 'Sabbatwn', toward the dawn of the ONE of the 'Sabbatwn' came Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre [paraphrased from YLT] .Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the ONE of the 'Sabbatwn', they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the 'Sabbatwn' Day, and stood up for to read.Luke 24:1 Now upon the ONE of the 'Sabbatwn', very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.John 20:1 The ONE of the 'Sabbatwn' cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the ONE of the 'Sabbatwn', when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.Acts 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the 'Sabbatwn' Day, and sat down.Acts 16:13 And on the 'Sabbatwn' Day we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.Acts 20:7 And upon the ONE of the 'Sabbatwn', when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the ONE of the 'Sabbatwn' let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the 'Sabbatwn':This interesting usage--where the unusual Greek word 'Mia' (or one) is paired-off and exclusively used in association with the unusual word 'Sabbatwn'--rather clearly indicates the usage of a formal calendar term. (This term seems to be equivalent to the cited definition of a renewal interval in the Shabbath-Shabbathown cycle found in the Hebrew Bible).
http://www.hope-of-israel.org/crnotes.htm#apencAgain I post the above because it contains an interesting grammatical analysis of "mia" in a different context unrelated to polygamy, for what it's worth.
I think when people are presented with strong, clear lexical evidence and still persist in misusing and twist the Greek, it becomes apparent to me that the only reason they take the position they do is that the text conflicts with their preconceived doctrinal notions, not because of any lexical evidence. When that happens, I just figure they're not ready to learn anything, and not at all interested in the truth of the matter.
Cordially,
They claim to be the only ones who can properly translate the Bible, all others are mis-translated.
Yes. The Mormons are about the only who believed that you needed a "translator" to translate King James English into King James English (Joseph Smith's JST version...even though he hardly knew any Greek or Hebrew!).