what is the translation of the Roman word “magrippalfcostertivmfecit” in English?

On the top of the Roman pontheon in Rome the word "magrippalfcostertivmfecit" was written. Check the link below


3 Answers

  • That's not one word. it's M.Agrippa.L.F.Cos.Tertium.Fecit

    Above the entrance, carved in stone, are the words M. AGRIPPA L. F. COS. TERTIUM FECIT which is translated, "Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, in his third consulate, made it." This basically says that "Agrippa built the Pantheon." However, as with many parts of the Pantheon, this is somewhat paradoxical, because, in fact Agrippa did not make it!

    The building we see today as the Pantheon is not actually the original building by that name. The first incarnation of the Pantheon was built by Agrippa, the son-in-law of the Roman Emperor Augustus, about 25 B.C. The first building was a traditional rectangular Roman temple made of travertine (limestone rock). Although it was on the same site, it was oriented in a different direction.

    As with many ancient cities, Rome suffered the tragedy of large fires in 60, 64, 79, 100 and 110 A.D. The first Pantheon was severely damaged during a fire and was rebuilt by Domitian. That building was destroyed in another fire, supposedly caused by a lightning strike. The Emperor Hadrian built the temple we know today as the Pantheon during the period 118 to 128 A.D. There was a tradition in Rome to rebuild temples like the previous one. Apparently in this case, the only thing to survive in the new temple was the inscription over the portico, which probably gave the new building an important social and political connection to the past.

  • In Koine Greek, there is not any indefinite article ("a"); contained in the absence of a diverse article ("the") an indefinite article is often rightly assumed, yet at the same time as there is not any convinced article in the front of "God" in John a million:a million, we shouldn't anticipate an indefinite article. The textual content reads actually: "?? ???? ?? ? ?????, ??? ? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????, ??? ???? ?? ? ?????." In starting up become the word and the word become with the God, and God become the word. John has done a sturdy pastime of creating this sentence so as that he both announces Christ to be God at the same time as also declaring that Christ and the daddy are literally not an same man or woman. Had he reported that the word become THE God, with a diverse article, he might want to have referred to as Jesus and the daddy thoroughly an same, which all of us recognize isn't the case. yet in the journey that they are not an same, why not call "the word" (Jesus) yet another god? look on the 2d clause mainly (??? ???? ?? ? ?????. - and God become the word.) word that John has positioned God, not the word, on the starting up of the clause. that is how a speaker of Koine added emphasis to a word, as if to underline it. So John is emphasizing Jesus' Godhood at the same time as nevertheless keeping apart his personhood from the daddy, not arising a polytheistic plurality of Gods. Had he switched the order and positioned "a god" on the proper of the clause, then the indefinite article assumption may were a touch extra life like. The context of the completed of scripture should be an sufficient handbook to respond to the question although, as there is in undemanding words one God, and there might want to be no valid "a god." The NWT also makes many obvious interpretive mistakes and may not be relied on ordinarily. as an get jointly, it erroneously inserts Jehovah each and every time the Greek obviously says "lord." This demonstrates the plain biases of the translators in choose of a particular theological view.

  • I totally thought you just hit random letters on your keyboard XD

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts