Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Ray | 9565 | ||
Hi Nolan, Thanks for understanding me so well. I was looking at Isaiah 9:6 again and compared it with Luke 2:17. It pointed out to me the inconsistency that is still in the translators and interpreters of scripture. Again, the capitalization of pronouns is an interpretation. Luke 2:17 talks about a statement about this Child (sic). You have talked about Isa 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;" as being correct in that it shows His humanity. Do you see the inconsistency when compared to Luke, however, where it talks about the Child and how the baby will be wrapped in cloths. and the baby will be found as He lays in the manger? This is the same Child that Isaiah is talking about. In the NASB the child and son are in lower case as is "his kingdom" in Isa 9:7. "His shoulders" is capitalized in verse six along with child and son. I believe we can capitalize all these pronouns and have a better interpretation. Do you agree? Can Jesus be a child and a Child? Can God be a god and a God? Here is one that I think could possibly be answered in the affirmative; Can the Holy Spirit be a spirit and a Spirit? Any comments would be appreciated. |
||||||
2 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 9601 | ||
Hello again, Ray! You stated, "I was looking at Isaiah 9:6 again and compared it with Luke 2:17. It pointed out to me the inconsistency that is still in the translators and interpreters of scripture. Again, the capitalization of pronouns is an interpretation." And I would most definitely agree! The capitalization of pronouns most definitely rests upon the methods or guidelines that were adhered to during the process of translation. Only the NASB (both '77 and '95), NKJV and Amplified took special care (among ALL the translations!) in regards to capitalization and Deity. You also stated, "Luke 2:17 talks about a statement about this Child (sic). You have talked about Isa 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;" as being correct in that it shows His humanity. Do you see the inconsistency when compared to Luke, however, where it talks about the Child and how the baby will be wrapped in cloths. and the baby will be found as He lays in the manger? This is the same Child that Isaiah is talking about." Yes, Isaiah 9:6 and the Child in Luke 2 are the same Child! :) Looking in the NAS77 and NAS95, Luke 2:7 says, "And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger".. The NKJV here says, "And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him.." The Amplified states, "And she gave birth to her Son, her Firstborn; and she wrapped Him in swaddling clothes and laid Him.." So the question here is: Should 'Son' be capitalized in Luke 2:7? The NASB translators clearly interpreted the word 'son' here as relating to being the first 'son' born to Mary, since Mary eventually gave birth to other sons besides Jesus. The NASB is not taking away Deity from this Child in any way by rendering this word as lowercase, since the very next phrase of the sentence states, "she wrapped Him" and "laid Him in a manger". So this deflates any premonition that the NASB fails to ascribe Deity to Christ in Luke 2:7. However, the NKJV remains consistent throughout this verse by capitalizing all references to the Child (even 'Son') as referring to Deity. The Amplified does the same; so as to 'Amplify' the meaning of this verse in both ways- as Mary's Firstborn and as the Christ Child. :) In Luke 2:12, the NASB states, "you will find a baby.." The NKJV states, "Babe", and Amplified, "Baby." Again, the NASB translators clearly interpreted the word 'baby' here as being the 'direct object' of the 'sign', or something that further describes the 'sign' that the shepherds were to see. It is logical to presume here that if the NASB chose to capitalize the word 'baby' here, then they would have capitalized the word 'sign' also. And they came to the conclusion that neither 'sign' nor 'baby' is directly referring to Christ, even though both words are definitely 'indirectly' referring to Jesus Christ! :) The NKJV remains consistent here, translating 'Babe' not as the direct object of the word 'sign', but as what the 'sign' is indirectly referring to- that being the Christ Child. And, of course, the Amplified goes to the greatest degree to give every meaning possible here, which is to be expected. The same 'line of reasoning' can be followed for Luke 2:16. And the NASB once again 'proves itself' by deflating any theory that it fails to ascribe Deity to Christ by capitalizing 'He' immediately after the word 'baby', which is the 'sign' that the shepherds came to see! |
||||||
3 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Ray | 9607 | ||
Hi Nolan, I appreciate the time you have put into comparing these scriptures and translations. I have come to the same conclusions for I study NASB with an occasional reliance on NKJ. I've lost my Amplified version so I'll purchase one. I believe that God, in the scriptures, can be a savior, a rock (a refuge), and a light. But when the scriptures talk of the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the Savior of the world, the Rock, and the Light of the world I think we can know that it is speaking of Deity; the one true God. Here in Luke 2:11 it says, "for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby (sic) wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger." NASB Here is a Savior and a baby. The question remains, can He be a Savior and still be a baby? Is God a god? Is the one Man, Jesus Christ, the savior of the world? I believe that He was a Baby, that God is God, and He is the Savior of the world. The sign that the shepherds came to see was that they will find a Baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger. That is what they found when they saw the Baby in the manger and "they made known the statement which had been told them about this Child." So yes, I believe that a Child shall be born, a Son shall be given. |
||||||