Is "pope" Scriptural?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Leopard said:
Please don’t wag your finger at me, it’s rude.

You are correct, biblia is plural, but that word derives from byblos (papyrus or book) which, to my knowledge, does not indicate a plurality.
Click to expand...
The finger is not being waved “at” you, but from side to side meaning “no”.

And, as far as I see, Byblos is a place.

The word “bible” is derived not from the Greek word for books (plural), but from the greek word for collection of books. There’s a difference between several books comprising one book an several books that are seperate.

Books on a table will be more than one book where as a “bible” on a table is one book comprised of several books.

bible

Origin: 1300–50; ME bible, bibel

< OF bible

< ML biblia (fem. sing.)

< Gk, in tà biblía tà hagía (Septuagint) the holy books;

biblíon,

byblíon papyrus roll,

strip of papyrus,

equiv. to býbl(os) papyrus

(after Býblos, a Phoenician port where papyrus was prepared and exported)
  • -ion n. suffix]
See? I get that that bible is derived from biblia

Byblos is a place where paper was created but it isn’t the origen of the word bible. It is the origin of the word biblia.

Neither Byblos nor biblia were ever used to mean a single “book” so when the word “collection of books” or biblia or bible is never founed in The Bible.
 
2ndGen said:
…And, as far as I see, Byblos is a place…
Click to expand...
Correct. It was a Phoenician city known for the manufacture and sale of papyrus, which was used as writing material in that part of the world before the invention of paper. The name of the city came to mean papyrus and books, but not necessarily in the plural. Byblos was the etymological root of biblion, the plural of which is biblia, from which the word Bible in the sense of the Christian and Jewish religious texts arises.

It is correct that the Holy Bible is a collection of books, but that doesn’t change the fact that the linguistic roots of the word as used by the original human authors of the scriptures could be either singular or plural. To reject singular references of byblos or biblion in the original Scriptural texts or other contemporary writings as being unrelated to the modern word bible because it does not match the exact modern definition would be equivalent to rejecting early scriptural references to fathers as being related to the word pope because those early references to fathers were used in different senses than the word pope is primarily used today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top