Results 181 - 200 of 300
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | What about a passage not in early ms? | Mark 16:9 | Truthfinder | 79898 | ||
Hi all, One of my favorite subjects. Most certainly, in my opinion, was it only honest to let the reader know that a passage did not appear in the earliest manuscripts. I personally have considerable works on ancient manuscript studies and as Tim said makes for a most interesting study. One of the very oldest is a fragment of John's Gospel which dates back to about 125 C.E. Thru time as the trickle of newly discovered ancient Greek manuscripts turned into a virtual flood, scholars were able to compare them critically. But this textual criticism should not be confused with "higher criticism," which tends to lessen respect for the Bible as the Word of God. Textual criticism involves a careful comparison of all known manuscripts of the Bible in order to determine the true or original reading, eliminating any additions. To illustrate how this works, imagine what would happen if you asked 200 persons to make a handwritten copy of a longhand manuscript. Most of them would make errors, some minor and others more significant. But they would not all make the identical mistakes. If, then, an alert individual took all 200 copies and compared them, he could isolate the errors. An error in one or two would show up because it would not be in the other 198 having the correct reading. Thus, with effort he could come up with an exact script of the original document even if he never saw it. Truthfinder |
||||||
182 | Should we use Religious titles here? | Luke 18:18 | Truthfinder | 90971 | ||
Hi Justme, I for one agree with you. I also think if Jesus were here, he too would agree since he said in Luke 18:18, "Jesus replied: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God." Jesus here recognized that his God was "good" in the ultimate since. We know of course, that he was still "good" but in a lesser yet still perfect since. His life of humility was an example for us all. That's why I like your name, "justme". Truthfinder |
||||||
183 | Do you believe once save, always saved. | Luke 23:43 | Truthfinder | 95919 | ||
Hi Hank, On this issue, I am inclined to agree to agree with you 100 per cent. :-) Jude 5, RS: “I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Italics added.) Matt. 24:13, RS: “He who endures to the end will be saved.” (So a person’s final salvation is not determined at the moment that he begins to put faith in Jesus.) Phil. 2:12, RS: “As you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (This was addressed to “the saints,” or holy ones, at Philippi, as stated in Philippians 1:1. Paul urged them not to be overly confident but to realize that their final salvation was not yet assured.) Heb. 10:26, 27, RS: “If we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.” (Thus the Bible does not go along with the idea that no matter what sins a person may commit after he is “saved” he will not lose his salvation. It encourages faithfulness. See also Hebrews 6:4-6, where it is shown that even a person anointed with holy spirit can lose his hope of salvation.) But I still have a problem in counting to three. I get to one and stop. Have a nice week end. Truthfinder |
||||||
184 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 71478 | ||
John 1:1 What basis in the greek is there for "and the word was a god.” Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)” Gr.(kai the·os' en ho lo'gos) 1808 “and the word was a god” The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. 1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London. 1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago. 1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn. 1975 “and a god (or, of a divine Das Evangelium nach kind) was the Word” Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,Göttingen, Germany. 1978 “and godlike sort was Das Evangelium nach the Logos” Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin. 1979 “and a god was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany. Some translations render John 1:1 as saying: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Literally the Greek text reads: “In beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word.” The translator must supply capitals as needed in the language into which he translates the text. It is clearly proper to capitalize “God” in translating the phrase “the god,” since this must identify the Almighty God with whom the Word was. But the capitalizing of the word “god” in the second case does not have the same justification. The New World Translation renders this text: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” True, there is no indefinite article (corresponding to “a” or “an”) in the original Greek text. But this does not mean one should not be used in translation, for Koine, or common Greek, had no indefinite article. Hence, throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures, translators are obliged to use the indefinite article or not according to their understanding of the meaning of the text. All English translations of those Scriptures do contain the indefinite article hundreds of times; yet most do not use it at John 1:1. Nevertheless, its use in the rendering of this text has sound basis. (continued) |
||||||
185 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 71479 | ||
Part 2 First, it should be noted that the text itself shows that the Word was “with God,” hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty God. (Note also Joh 1 vs 2, which would be unnecessary if Joh 1 vs 1 actually showed the Word to be God.) Additionally, the word for “god” (Gr., the·os') in its second occurrence in the verse is significantly without the definite article “the” (Gr., ho). Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6), stated: “[the·os'] and [ho the·os'] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ ([ho the·os']; cf. Joh 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. Joh 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities.”—John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110. After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb ‘was’ ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os'] is not the same thing as [ho the·os'] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’).” (pp. 110, 111) Elaborating on this point, Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article “the,” preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that “the logos has the nature of theos.” He further stated: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite.” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase: “the Word was divine.”—AT; Sd; compare Mo --Insight on the Scriptures Truthfinder |
||||||
186 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 71481 | ||
Hi Tim Moran At John 1:1 the New World Translation reads: “The Word was a god.” Yes, in many translations this expression simply reads: “The Word was God” and I feel is used to support the Trinity doctrine. Not surprisingly, Trinitarians dislike the rendering in the New World Translation. But John 1:1 was not falsified in order to prove that Jesus is not Almighty God. Jehovah’s Witnesses, among many others, had challenged the capitalizing of “god” long before the appearance of the New World Translation, which endeavors accurately to render the original language. Five German Bible translators likewise use the term “a god” in that verse. At least 13 others have used expressions such as “of divine kind” or “godlike kind.” These renderings agree with other parts of the Bible to show that, yes, Jesus in heaven is a god in the sense of being divine. But Jehovah and Jesus are not the same being, the same God. (John 14:28) YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. (John 20:17) Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’” . Jürgen Becker, Jeremias Felbinger, Oskar Holtzmann, Friedrich Rittelmeyer, and Siegfried Schulz. Emil Bock says, “a divine being.” See also the English translations Today’s English Version, The New English Bible, Moffatt, Goodspeed. “It Is the Best Interlinear New Testament Available” THAT is how Dr. Jason BeDuhn describes The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures which translates John 1:1 "a god". He explains: “I have just completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of Indiana University, Bloomington, [U.S.A.] . . . This is primarily a course in the Gospels. Your help came in the form of copies of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures which my students used as one of the textbooks for the class. These small volumes were invaluable to the course and very popular with my students.” Why does Dr. BeDuhn use the Kingdom Interlinear translation in his college courses? He answers: “Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in use in modern biblical studies, and, by the way, not a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your ‘New World Bible Translation Committee’ has done its job well. Your interlinear English rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the Greek-speaking world and our own. Your ‘New World Translation’ is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations in use today.” The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures is published by Jehovah’s Witnesses to help lovers of God’s Word get acquainted with the original Greek text of the Bible. It contains The New Testament in the Original Greek on the left-hand side of the page (compiled by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort). A literal word-for-word English translation is found under the lines of Greek text. In the narrow right-hand column is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which allows you to compare the interlinear translation with a modern English translation of the Bible. Truthfinder |
||||||
187 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 72917 | ||
Hi Colin, You wrote: The NWT mentions Michael 5 times as 1)"one of the foremost princes..." (Dan 10.13); 2)"the prince of Daniel's people..." (Dan 10.21); 3) "the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel's] people" (Dan 12.1); 4) "the archangel who had a difference with the devil and was disputing about Moses' body" but "did not dare to bring a judgement against him in abusive terms" (Jude 9); and 5) an actor in Heaven's conflict when "Michael and his angels battled with the dragon" (Rev. 12.7) Well, Michael is the only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called “archangel” according to Jude 9. As you say the first occurrence of the name is in the tenth chapter of Daniel, where Michael is described as “one of the foremost princes”; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by “the prince of the royal realm of Persia.” Michael was called “the prince of Daniel’s people,” “the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of Daniel’s people.” (Daniel 10:13,20,21) But the prince of the royal realm of Persia was standing in opposition to me for twenty-one days, and, look! Mi'cha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I, for my part, remained there beside the kings of Persia. 20 So he went on to say: “Do you really know why I have come to you? And now I shall go back to fight with the prince of Persia. When I am going forth, look! also the prince of Greece is coming. 21 However, I shall tell you the things noted down in the writing of truth, and there is no one holding strongly with me in these [things] but Mi'cha·el, the prince of YOU people. (Daniel 12:1) “And during that time Mi'cha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book. This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness. (Ex 23:20, 21, 23; 32:34; 33:2) Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that “Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body.” (Jude 9) But when Mi'cha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.” Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be “the archangel,” meaning “chief angel,” or “principal angel.” The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.” It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Matthew 28:18) And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. (Revelation 17:14) These will battle with the Lamb, but, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those called and chosen and faithful with him [will do so].” If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God. (continued) Truthfinder |
||||||
188 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 72918 | ||
Part 2 There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to “the time of the end” (Da 11:40) and then stated: “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 12:1) Michael’s ‘standing up’ was to be associated with “a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time.” (Da 12:1) In Daniel’s prophecy, ‘standing up’ frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har–Magedon. Re 11:15; 16:14-16. The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God’s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea.’” Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the “time of distress” that is associated with Michael’s standing up. (Da 12:1) Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels. In his prehuman existence Jesus was called “the Word.” (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), “the Word” shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) “The Word of God” (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, “Who Is Like God?” points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator. Truthfinder |
||||||
189 | What is the difference between a | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90708 | ||
Hi Lady lkh, If I wanted to know, (really know) what a Baptist believed, how wise would it be for me to go and ask a Muslim? Hmmm, you're exactly right. A biased response, at least. Tell you what, if you believe all this hog wash that responded to your question, then the truth of the matter is, that is what you "wanted" to hear anyway. I read these comments that run other religions down (without legitimate reason) and just shake my head, concluding; "we must be living in the DARK AGES all over again." Sorry, but the truth is simple, logical, and straight from the Bible. I have a couple of questions for you: 1) In the first century, for the most part, what kind of people accepted Jesus' teaching? a) The highly educated people of the time, b) the proud religious leaders, or c) the unlettered, humble, ordinary people? Please read for yourself from your own Bible these short verses. . (Acts 4:13; Luke 10:21) The one thing that stands out in my mind after years of serious religious study is that through the centuries "higher education" has done nothing but corrupt, yes shipwrecked untold millions' faith into atheism by teaching evolution. Mistranslation of the Holy Scriptures by the "higher educated" likewise has mislead millions into taking the honor and glory due our heavenly Father and Creator and giving it to his "firstborn" Son. If you are serious in wanting to know what the "original" Bible said about a matter, read my posts of the past. The hard fact is that today's Bible translations have changed the "original" in thousands of places and many on this forum know it and try and make us believe totally, unforgivable "lies" as to what it truthfully said. I will tell you what Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible teaches and why. You can then decide for yourself if that is what the Bible really says. Truthfinder |
||||||
190 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90776 | ||
Hmmmmmmm, then why did Origen (185 CE - 251 CE) who is called "one of the most learned teachers and prolific authors of the early church." (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)say what he did? Though coming well after the apostolic period, it is interesting to peruse his Commentary on John, as found in volume 9 of Menzies' "Ante-Nicene Fathers." [Quote] We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences [John 1:1]. He does not write without care in this respect nor is he unfamiliar with the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some cases he omits it...He uses the article when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God...The God who is over all is God with the article, not without it. God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father. [Unquote] For Origen, John 1:1c is the logical outcome of John 1:1b, i.e., the Word is "God" or a divine being *because* he was "with" The God in the beginning, "not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father." What I found interesting was so early a recognition of the relevance of the difference between QEOS and hO QEOS in John 1:1. As Origen explains it, the meaning would be similar to modern translators who render John 1:1 as "the Word was Divine" or "the Word was a divine being" or even -- yes -- "the Word was a god." Truthfinder |
||||||
191 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90870 | ||
Hi Radioman, You wrote: No one uses the NWT except the JW's. JW's on the other hand will use nothing else! You error in these assertions. Millions, including myself, use the NWT. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society have the copy rights to, publish, and distribute the following Bible translations in numerous languages: King James Version 1611, The Bible in Living English 1972 by Steven T. Byington, Diaglott of the No. 1209 Vatican Manuscript 1942 by Benjamin Wilson, and the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures 1969 texts of Brooke Foss Westcott D. D. and Fenton John Anthony Hort D. D. 1881 edition. You also wrote: The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1 'In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." The New World Translation You are correct since this is the most accurate translation. Notice the following translations of John 1:1 The Greek Diaglott,1864 Benjamin Wilson. The three different translations by Moffatt, Schonfield and Goodspeed (An American Translation) have: "...and the Word was divine." Todays English Version reads:"...and he was the same as God." The Revised English Bible reads:"...and what God was, the Word was." Reflecting an understanding of John 1:1 with the New World Translation's: "and the Word was a god." we have: The Emphatic Diaglott (1864), Benjamin Wilson London and New York. The New Testament in an Improved Version(1808) The New Testament in Greek and English (A.Kneeland, 1822.) A Literal Translation Of The New Testament. (H.Heinfetter, 1863) Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R.Young, 1885) The Coptic Version of the N.T.(G.W.Horner, 1911) Das Evangelium nach Johannes(J.Becker, 1979) The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed(J.L.Tomanec, 1958) The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists(J.S.Thompson, 1829) Das Evangelium nach Johannes(S.Schulz, 1975) These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word (the·os´) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os´. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ho theos, that is, the·os´ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os´. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself. You also wrote: This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, These other Greek Scholars, Bible translators (of John 1:1) would most certainly take offense in this comment since they consider themselves Christians. The fact that God sent his “only-begotten” Son to the earth is not an assumption. The Holy Scriptures teach it. Justice required satisfaction. Man, though created perfect, fell from that state through sin and thus Adam and his offspring came under God’s condemnation. Justice and fidelity to principles of righteousness necessitated that God execute the sentence of his law against disobedient Adam. But love moved God to purpose a substitutional arrangement whereby justice would be satisfied, and yet without any violation of justice, repentant offspring of sinner Adam could be forgiven and could achieve peace with God. (Col 1:19-23) Therefore, Jehovah “sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.” (1Jo 4:10) Notice in verse 10 that God sent. It does not say God came. (Heb 2:17) Propitiation is that which makes propitious, or favorable. Jesus’ propitiatory sacrifice removes the reason for God to condemn a human creature and makes possible the extending to him of God’s favor and mercy. This propitiation removes the charge of sin and the resulting condemnation to death in the case of spiritual Israel and all others availing themselves of it. 1Jo 2:1, 2. Romans 6:23 reads, “For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.” Here a clear distinction is made between God and Jesus. If Jesus were the Almighty God of this verse then the ransom does not fulfill its purpose of this substitutional arrangement. Truthfinder |
||||||
192 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90871 | ||
Hi Radioman, You wrote: The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is "a god" is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). First, it should be noted that the text of John 1:1 itself shows that the Word was “with God,” hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty God. (Note also vs 2, which would be unnecessary if vs 1 actually showed the Word to be God.) Again note, the word for “god” (Gr., the·os´) in its second occurrence in the verse is significantly without the definite article “the” (Gr., ho). Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6), stated: “[the·os´] and [ho the·os´] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ ([ho the·os´]; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities.”—John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110. After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb ‘was’ ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os´] is not the same thing as [ho the·os´] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’).” (pp. 110, 111) Elaborating on this point, Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article “the,” preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that “the logos has the nature of theos.” He further stated: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os´] cannot be regarded as definite.” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase: “the Word was divine.”—AT; Sd; compare Mo; see NW appendix, p. 1579. The Hebrew Scriptures are consistently clear in showing that there is but one Almighty God, the Creator of all things and the Most High, whose name is Jehovah. (Ge 17:1; Isa 45:18; Ps 83:18) For that reason Moses could say to the nation of Israel: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. And you must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force.” (De 6:4, 5) The Christian Greek Scriptures do not contradict this teaching that had been accepted and believed by God’s servants for thousands of years, but instead they support it. (Mr 12:29; Ro 3:29, 30; 1Co 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 1Ti 2:5) Jesus Christ himself said, “The Father is greater than I am” and referred to the Father as his God, “the only true God.” (Joh 14:28; 17:3; 20:17; Mr 15:34; Re 1:1; 3:12) On numerous occasions Jesus expressed his inferiority and subordination to his Father. (Mt 4:9, 10; 20:23; Lu 22:41, 42; Joh 5:19; 8:42; 13:16) Even after Jesus’ ascension into heaven his apostles continued to present the same picture.—1Co 11:3; 15:20, 24-28; 1Pe 1:3; 1Jo 2:1; 4:9, 10. These facts give solid support to a translation such as “the Word was a god” at John 1:1. The Word’s preeminent position among God’s creatures as the Firstborn, the one through whom God created all things, and as God’s Spokesman, gives real basis for his being called “a god” or mighty one. The Messianic prophecy at Isaiah 9:6 foretold that he would be called “Mighty God,” though not the Almighty God, and that he would be the “Eternal Father” of all those privileged to live as his subjects. The zeal of his own Father, “Jehovah of armies,” would accomplish this. (Isa 9:7) Certainly if God’s Adversary, Satan the Devil, is called a “god” (2Co 4:4) because of his dominance over men and demons (1Jo 5:19; Lu 11:14-18), then with far greater reason and propriety is God’s firstborn Son called “a god,” “the only-begotten god” as the most reliable manuscripts of John 1:18 call him. Truthfinder |
||||||
193 | Where is Jesus called "...the God"? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90976 | ||
Hi Ray, You wrote: The Jehovah's Witness would not agree with us if we said as does John 1:2, "This One was in the beginning with God." Ray, Why did you say that? Quote me one Jehovah's Witness that would not agree that Jesus was in the beginning with God. I know you feel you are doing the right thing here but you are in error, as all witness believe that. That is a verse that clearly shows Jesus is not Almighty God, because he was "with" God. How can you be Almighty God if you as John 1:1 says you as Almighty God are with Almighty God? That too is the reason John 1:1 must be translated as "and the Word was a god". The "context" shows the Word was with Almighty God. Thus for two reasons, 1) the lack of the definite article and 2) the context, tells us that the translation "and the Word was a god" is better than Moffatt's, Schonfield's and Goodspeed's translations that say "and the Word was divine". 3) Another reason must be included; What does the rest of the Bible say about Jesus and Almighty God? This verse must agree with the whole Bible. Note what Vincent Taylor says: "Here, in the Prologue[of John's Gospel]the Word is said to be God, but as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not used(in the final clause). For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine'(Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the absolute sense of the name. The New English Bible neatly paraphrases the phrase in the words 'and what God was,the Word was',....In neither passage[including 1:18]is Jesus unequivocally called God...."- Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?, Expository Times, 73, No.4(Jan.1962), p.118. You also wrote: Looking at verse 8 they would not see the difference between the man called John and the Man called Jesus. John 1:8, "That one [John the baptist] was not the Light, but came that he might bear witness of the Light. There [that One, He] was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." Ray, where do you get your information? This again is not true. Of course Jehovah's Witnesses believe that. That's what the scriptures say isn't it? Well, if the Scriptures say that, then it must be true, through and through. Truthfinder |
||||||
194 | Truthfinder: Is Jesus God? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90981 | ||
Hi Hank, No. Truthfinder |
||||||
195 | Jesus | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90982 | ||
Hi Elder, I notice you wrote this back in December, nonetheless, I will simply say that Matthew 4:10 are Jesus' own words that answer your question. Note he is quoting Deut 6:13 which uses "Jehovah". But many Bibles have changed the original to say "Lord". This leads to confusion. But many other Bibles do use Jehovah and in them they say,‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service." Hope this answers your question. Truthfinder |
||||||
196 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91020 | ||
Hi Tim, We have manuscript proof that "scribes" NOT Jesus changed the originals again and again of the Hebrew yhvh of the Hebrew texts in their translation of the LXX. They even give their reasons. After Matthew (not Jesus) wrote Jesus' words of Matt. 4:10 there is abosolutely no reason for them to suddenly (still after Jesus time) stop their tradition of substituting Lord for the yhvh in their Greek LXX (of the Greek texts) written after Matthew wrote it. We have many many Hebrew manuscripts of the Greek texts though, that have the yhvh but unfortionately no originals. Remember too, that Matthew wrote his book originally in Hebrew. I contend that Jesus used the LXX before it was changed by the scribes. And since we lack the "originals", evidence points stronger toward Jesus' not following the errors of the Jewish tradition and you cannot conclusively say Tim, that Jesus did not use his Father's name on occassion, especially when he "quoted" the Hebrew texts (whether the LXX or Hebrew writtings) that used it. It's interesting that most of the LXX manuscripts, before they were changed kept the Hebrew letters for the yhvh, yet one discovery, (the 4Q LXX Lev(b) ) presented in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. IV, 1957, p 157, shows that the yhvh was translated also as IAO. Truthfinder |
||||||
197 | Jesus | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91021 | ||
Hi Radioman2, I have posted over 150 different translations of the New Testament that use Jehovah. So it is NOT "just" the NWT. Secondly, I have presented the evidence for "restoring" not "inserting" the name where it was in the original in past posts. The Kingdom Interlinear Translation is not proof that the originals did not have it in them. The KIL is based primarily on the Greek text by Westcott and Hort 1881 and in the KIL on pages 11 and 12 is the explaination for using older manuscripts when "restoring" the divine name Jehovah where it was originally. Truthfinder |
||||||
198 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91169 | ||
Hi Tim, You say I speculate? Quite the contrary. It is and I say sadly, modern scholars, in their quest for the “real” Jesus, that have hidden his true identity behind layers of baseless speculation, pointless doubts, and unfounded theorizing. Should God allow the evidence to be so dubious, equivocal and ambiguous as to make any deductions regarding his name mere speculation? I think not! First of all, unlike the thinking of many that post here, the theme of the 66 Bible books, is the vindication of Jehovah’s name and sovereignty and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose for the earth, by means of his kingdom under Christ, the promised “Seed”. Christ’s perfectly fulfilling the reason for being sent here was paramount in the success of this issue settlement. And during his 3 and a half years of preaching how did he show us what his primary purpose was? In his model prayer of Matthew 6:9 his initial words concentrated on the prime issue of vindicating Jehovah’s name and his sovereignty (right to rule), where he says, “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.” We notice the two things of utmost importance to Jesus, since it was first mentioned and it was the “model” prayer. 1) God’s “name” to be sanctified and 2) the kingdom rule. Because of his keeping sinless integrity, Jesus vindicated his heavenly Father as the rightful universal Sovereign and proved the Devil to be a base and gross liar. Proverbs 27:11 can be applied at least in principle if not wholly as Jehovah’s words to his Son Jesus, “Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, that I may make a reply to him that is taunting me.” I adamantly believe that the most wicked Adversary, Satan the Devil, caused men and angels (or demons) to join his opposition to God and man. Satan first showed his opposition in the garden of Eden, where, through cruel and underhanded action, he led Eve and then Adam into a course of rebellion that brought sin and death upon all mankind. In the courts of heaven Satan displayed his antagonism, charging Jehovah with bribing Job for his loyalty, a charge which became this issue of universal importance. Job 1:6-11; 2:1-5. The greatest indignity that modern translators render to the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures is the removal or the concealing of his peculiar personal name. Actually his name occurs in the Hebrew text 6,828 times known as the Tetragrammaton. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, Chicago (1980), p. 13, says: “To avoid the risk of taking God’s name (YHWH) in vain, devout Jews began to substitute the word ´adona(y) for the proper name itself. This was the error ridden tradition that Jesus would have no part in, Tim. Although the Masoretes left the four original consonants in the text, they added the vowels e and a to remind the reader to pronounce ´adona(y) regardless of the consonants. This feature alone occurs more than six thousand times in the Hebrew Bible. The very frequency of the appearance of the name attests its importance to the Bible’s author, whose name it is. (1st of 2 parts) Truthfinder |
||||||
199 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91170 | ||
(2nd part) Not only Matthew but all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted verses from the Hebrew text or from the Septuagint where the divine name appears. For example, in Peter’s speech in Ac 3:22 a quotation is made from De 18:15 where the Tetragrammaton appears in a papyrus fragment of the Septuagint dated to the first century B.C.E. As a follower of Christ, Peter used God’s name, Jehovah. When Peter’s speech was put on record the Tetragrammaton was here used according to the practice during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E. Most assuredly someone was trying to hide something here. As I have posted in times past, the use of the Tetra in the Christian Greek Scriptures is not speculative but sound evidence as, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: “Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God’s name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the ‘Lord God’ and the ‘Lord Christ’ which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself.” This presentation of the facts of history in the transmission of Bible manuscripts is “evidence” clearly not mere “speculation” as you assert. Paul in Romans 10:13 quoted Joel 2:32 where he say, “For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” If I were to read just the NASB or the NIV the whole point would be obscured! If I read Psalm 110:1 in the same versions, “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand.” would be obscured. And likewise Matthew quoted this Psalm at Matt 22:44. How clear can it be? Something in Matthew 22:44 is missing in many modern translations! Yes, God’s name was taken out, when Jehovah God had it initially and intentionally. In conclusion, I believe what Jesus himself told us what he had accomplished while on earth. If he had not used his father’s name, how could he have said as he did in John 17:26, “ I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”? Truthfinder |
||||||
200 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91186 | ||
Hi Tim, You have it wrong again, as I do agree with what they actually wrote and this is the whole point of my discussion. Sincerely, the problem with this whole issue is that it is the basis of the trinity doctrine and thus proves it wrong, so I understand that you must take your stand against what I present. Be as it may though, it took "changing" "adding to this scroll" to get the many to believe in it just as was prophesied would happen at 2 Thess 2:3 "the apostasy". And I suppose you support the "changing" done and brazenly admittedly so by modern translations of the Old Testament too, Tim? I notice many, no doubt to your pleasure, today have accomplished having God's personal name completely removed and yet people are still buying them. All I can say is that the powers that be, the establishments of our higher theology institutions are succeeding in fulfilling Bible prophesy, and for that I’m happy, though sad for their victims. I bid you farewell. Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [15] >> |