Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88306 | ||
2nd part. ........John 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.......... This translation is with the English capitalization is misleading and bias toward trinitarian thinking. It is grammatically correct but not correct because of the context. Many many other translations have it differently and have it agreeing with the context and also the Greek grammar. The very first English translation (William Tyndale) accurately translated it. Have you read it? I have listed in other posts numerous older translations that translate it differently and in full agreement with both the context and the Bible as a whole. ........14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. " Certainly the Word Jesus was in heaven before coming to earth and reflected the his Father's glory for he said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. Jesus perfectly reflected his Father's divine qualities through and through. ...........Jesus Christ is not just a "junior partner" to God. A junior partner could not be allowed to stand in for salvation of all men for all time......... .........Truthfinder, throw that NWT away and read Hebrews 11-12 again. Read John chapter 1 again and Hebrews chapter 1 again. A junior partner would have had to say "and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto the father". But instead He said: Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me......... John 12:32, Titus 2:11, and 1 Timother 2:3,4 all refer to “the salvation of all men,” according to the rendering of RS, RS, KJ, NE, TEV, etc. The Greek expressions rendered “all” and “everyone” in these verses are inflected forms of the word pas. As shown in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962, Vol. I, p. 46), pas can also mean “every kind or variety.” So, in the above verses, instead of “all,” the expression “every kind of” could be used; or “all sorts of,” as is done in NW. Which is correct—“all” or the thought conveyed by “all sorts of”? Well, which rendering is also harmonious with the rest of the Bible? The latter one is. Consider Acts 10:34, 35; Revelation 7:9, 10; 2 Thessalonians 1:9. (Note: Other translators also recognize this sense of the Greek word, as is shown by their renderings of it at Matthew 5:11—“all kinds of,” RS, TEV; “every kind of,” NE; “all manner of,” KJ.) No greater dishonor can be done to our heavenly Father than to take his beloved name out of his Holy Book as most "modern" translations have done so as to mislead its readers to believing that He and His Son are one and the same. Don't you get it? That was the reason Jehovah was originally in his Holy Word. If he didn't want it in there why did he put it there 7,000 times. No one on this forum has answered that question since I periodically ask it over the past 6 months. Why do so many people who call themselves "Christian" even dispise God's name Jehovah? Many even say that Jehovah isn't his name because we don't know how it was pronounced in Hebrew! What a copout. They readily use all the other names in their English for, including Jesus! So, you see Pastor Glenn, I believe the Word of God and I believe it when it says Jehovah is the Almighty God and his Son is not Almighty God but indeed his Son. Truthfinder |
||||||
2 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Pastor Glenn | 88404 | ||
Truthfinder, Part 2... You and I both agree that the only true God is Jehovah. I believe the term ‘Jehovah’ refers to the very divine being, the eternal God, who created all things. You would agree with me that the Father is Jehovah, would you not? Where we disagree is this: I believe the Bible says that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and the Spirit is also Jehovah. Each of the three persons shares the one divine name, Jehovah. May I show you one of the places where the Bible teaches us that Jesus IS “Jehovah“? I note some of the important verses in passing, such as Hebrews 1:3, which speaks of Christ as the "exact representation of his nature." Heb 1 (NKJV) 3who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? [Psalm 2:7] And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"? [Psalm 2:7] 6But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." [Deuteronomy 32:43 (Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls); Psalm 97:7 ] 7And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire." [Psalm 104:4] 8But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. Truthfinder, I now ask, who is being discussed all through this passage? The answer is plainly the Son. 9You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions." [Psalm 45:6, 7] The citation that begins in verse 8 finishes in verse 9, following which says, "And: ‘You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands.’" 10And: "You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. 11They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; 12Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail." [Psalm 102:25-27] 13But to which of the angels has He ever said: "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool"? [Psalm 110:1] Now, who is being described here? The only possible answer is "the Son." Say whatever you wish, as long as we agree on the fact that Hebrews 1:10-12 is still making reference to the Son. The passage being cited, according to the cross references is Psalm 102:25-27. Begin at verse 1 of Psalm 102 and identify the individual being addressed in the passage. The scripture begins, "O Jehovah, do hear my prayer." Skip down to verse 12 and notice that Jehovah remains the subject of the psalm. Point out that Jehovah continues to appear in verses 19 and 20 . This is important because once you get to verse 25 the significance of the words will be manifest. Jehovah is addressed in the very same words that the writer to the Hebrews uses of the Son, Jesus Christ! I want to make it clear that there is no reason to think that anyone other than Jehovah is being addressed by the psalmist in Psalm 102:25-27. The New Testament writers took an Old Testament passage originally about Jehovah Himself and applied it to the Lord Jesus Christ. This passage is exceptionally strong, for the psalmist is speaking of the immutability, eternal nature, and creative power of Jehovah God, yet the writer to the Hebrews is willing to predicate all these things of Jesus Christ. Pastor Glenn |
||||||
3 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88414 | ||
Hi Pastor Glenn, I have several other Bible translations of which I am reading the verses you quote, in particular Hebrews 1:8. And you know what? Different thoughts are expressed, depending on the Bible version. And you are correct in all that you say in your post concerning Hebrews 1:8 being a quotation of Psalm 45:6 and I certainly see why you conclude that Jesus would be one and the same as Jehovah. Again, I say this because of the way the translations, versions render these passages. Due to the fact that there are at least two renderings and two ideas conveyed, one at least, is wrong. Both could be wrong but at least one is wrong. If you have a leaning toward accepting the trinity doctrine which rendering will you support? Likewise, if you feel the Bible does not teach the trinity then which rendering would you support? The answer is obvious. Perhaps you were not aware of this. This is the key that I mention again and again. In posts past, I have shown and explained many verses that had been mis-translated and some that have been changed, and some that have been added to support the trinity. This is all unacceptable. This is totally heretical. I am sure you are disagreeing with me now because you feel the trinity is "holy" and indeed taught by God through his Word the Bible. Besides the fact that God's personal name had been taken from the Holy Scriptures which in itself should make one question the trinity, I will give you one more example of many and then show that Hebrews 1:8 is yet another. Notice 1 John 5:8 according to the Authorized Version or King James and before it, Wycliffe (1380), and even Tyndale and Cranmer, and also the Geneva version of 1557. "For there are three witness bearers, the spirit and the water and the blood, and three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness (in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one)." The final part in parenthesis was the added portion. Were you aware of these heretical actions? 1( Removing texts, changing texts,(the yhvh issue) 2) additions made to promote the trinity idea. I feel they are heretical because that do not teach the truth, but you have to agree that they are heretical because they are what Rev 22:18 “I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life. Again please answer for me this question; How do you feel about all this? Do you feel it wrong to remove say just one word from the Bible or to just change a word to something else? An in depth study of Hebrews 1:8, shows first that it is addressed to the Son of God, but can be rendered either, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” or, “God is thy throne for ever and ever,” since there is no verb “is” in either the Greek or in the Hebrew at Psalm 45:6, from which this is a quotation. In keeping with its principles to honor God and remain consistent with the rest of the Scriptures, the New World Translation here reads: “God is your throne forever.” (continued) |
||||||
4 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88415 | ||
2nd part RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, the AT, Mo, TC convery the same idea as the New World Translation which reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. And yes, Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him. Concerning Hebrews 1:8, 9 quoting Psalm 45:6, 7, note what the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os´] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os´ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·him´] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os´] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26. You can believe me on this or ignore it and believe what you want but truth is truth and truth is found in this respect. Truthfinder |
||||||