Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Ray | 4264 | ||
Hi retxar, I praise God with you for His glorious word. You can praise Him whether you find anyone to agree with you or not. You can even praise Him for the possibility of the truth of your thoughts. I have often thought that many people must be studying the Trinity and I appreciate your courage in expressing a rather "far fetched" idea. Perhaps the idea arose from the fact that your study bible said at Gen 18:3 in the margin, or Lord. That is indeed what made me consider all the pronouns of the angels to see if they were speaking of Deity. Let me tell you why I decided against it. We may be able to think of these passages as a "type" of the Trinity or an example of a trinity, but thats as far as I would go. Why I wouldn't say that these angels are God: 1) Verse two states that Abraham met them and bowed himself to the earth. This may be a common practice in those times, I do not know. But the thing is that this was not an act of worship on his part. 2)Verse 16-21 has the men walking with Abraham and the Lord is talking to them as well as Abraham possibly. Verse 17, And the Lord said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do,..." I will go down now..Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the Lord." 3)Chapter 19 and the situation with the two angels and Abraham and the men of Sodom is not one that I can see God getting into. The consideration that you put into thought is important. Keep studying with an open mind. Later, Ray |
||||||
2 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 4377 | ||
Thanks Ray for the encouraging words, even tho I was a little off base. Maybe even on the wrong base! I see now, after looking at Gen 19, the two “men” who went to Sodom were definitely angels, and the one left talking to Abraham, was the Lord. The two angels, were not the “Angel of the Lord” as with Moses and the burning bush in Ex 3. With that, I see Gen 18 in a different light, but it still intrigues me. The Hebrew word for “Lord” in Gen 18:3 is “Adonay” (strongs 136). It occurs 434 times in the KJV and is translated Lord 431, God 1, and lord only 2 times, so this most likely would indicate deity. However, “lords”, as Lot addressed the two angels in Gen 19:2, is “adown” (strongs 113). It occurs 335 times and is translated lord 197, master 105, owner 1, sir 1, and Lord only 31 times, so this most likely would NOT indicate deity. In Gen 18:3 Abraham seems to be speaking to the three “men” indicated in verse 2 because of what in said in verses 4 and 5. In verse 5 Abraham repeats what he said in verse 3 by calling himself “your servant”, which I see as referring to the “men’s” servant. It is really hard for me to see Gen 18:1-5 any different than this. However, In light of the direction you pointed me in, I now believe the three “men” were God and 2 angels, rather than God manifested as three men, as I originally said. The only way the “Trinity manifested in the flesh” theory could be true is if two angels in Gen 19 were somehow not the same as the men in Gen 18. I cannot believe they are not the same. My only answer to Gen 18:1-5 is that the way Abraham perceived it was a manifestation of the Trinity, not that it actually was. The next time I think I have got a “revelation” at 3 am, I promise you I will wait until daylight to let the world know! Thank you for pointing out my error, and please forgive me Jesus. I do not wish to lead anyone astray. God bless you brother, and thank you again |
||||||
3 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Ray | 4393 | ||
Hi retxar, I'm glad if I helped. It's 11:00 P.M. now for me so keep that in mind as I talk (I did have a nap today, though). Isn't it great that while bible studying we can have a personal talk with God as we try to determine all that is involved in the scriptures! And it's great that we can change our minds as we study for there is always more to discover. Our God is alive and active. I say that it is a personal study for in the reference to Ex 3 and the angel or Angel we have to decide for ourselves. And don't worry about leading anyone astray for it isn't something that is major enough to affect salvation. Another similar situation of angel or Angel is a passage later in Genesis about Jacob wrestling with God and men and that He had seen God face to face. It looks like you're going to cause me to reread Genesis since the new copyright of my NASB. One of the things I will be considering again is whether to capitalize the breath of Life in Genesis 2:7;6:17; or Rev 11:11. But not now. What do you personally think? Later, Ray |
||||||
4 | Do the italicized words clarify? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 4588 | ||
Hi Ray, OK. My thoughts on the capitalization issue you brought up?? I don’t know, never really thought about it, but I can certainly see how a word capitalized or not capitalized can make us look at scripture in a different light (example Gen. 18:3 we talked about). If breath of life/Life in these verses mean breath of God, then it would certainly be capitalized. If it means physical life, it would not be capitalized. Yea, I know you already knew that! Since I’m not answering your question and only bringing up more questions, here’s some more food for thought. This is along the same lines of capitalization. This is about the liberal use of italicized words in certain places in the NASB, KJV, and NKJV. Here is what I would like for you to do. Read John 8:24, 8:28, 13:19, 18:5-8. Now read Exodus 3:13-14. Now go back and read the verses in John again, but this time don’t read the italicized words. Now answer this question. Do the italicized words clarify who Jesus is, or do they it take away from what Jesus was actually saying? So, good luck in your pursuit of correcting the capitalization errors. I think I might start scratching out a fee italicized words myself! God Bless!! |
||||||
5 | Do the italicized words clarify? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 4613 | ||
Actually, both the italicized words and the capitalized words result from the translation. Capitalized words in the New Testament mean that the words are a quote or aparaphrase from the Old Testament. Italicized words are words that do not exist in the Greek or Hebrew text, but were added to help the text make more sense in English. Neither is used for emphaisis. In Christ, Koinekid Upholding Scriptural Integrity, Accuracy, and Immutability. |
||||||
6 | Do the italicized words clarify? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 4623 | ||
Hi Koinekid. Did you read the scripture reference? Did you understand the question? The capitalized words we were talking about were the ones that represent deity "(example Gen. 18:3 we talked about)". You answered, "Italicized words are words that do not exist in the Greek or Hebrew text, but were added to help the text make more sense in English." Thank you, that is correct. Now get out your bible, look up the scripture, and tell me what you think about the question I asked... "Do the italicized words clarify who Jesus is, or do they take away from the very words that Jesus spoke Himself, concerning who He is?" Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
7 | Do the italicized words clarify? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 4726 | ||
rexar, Sorry, I'm still getting used to the layout of the forum and did not see the posts that had come before. A little insight into the history of the discussion would have helped me answer more accurately. Basically, no, I do not believe that the italicized "He" takes away from Jesus' words. Take John 8:24 for example. Jesus said, "...unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." In Greek the phrase I am is Ego eimi. It is basically what we would call a transitive verb in English, that is, it has to have a direct object or a predicate nominative, or something like that. In essence, the verb cannot exist without there being a noun to complete the thought. This noun can be in the text or spelled out. In this case, the translators went witht the safe interpretation, "He." They could have inserted "God", or "Messiah", but this would have required more interpretation that translation. Is this, however, an occasion where Jesus is expressing his deity once more? Maybe. Is is an important question? Sure. But I'm just glas that the deity of Christ is expressed outright in other passages, so we do not have to rely on the interpretation of these solely. Forgive me if this information has been written before, but I haven't been able to read the other posts. Also, I'd try to go into more detail, but I'm a little tired, and I've got a toothache. God bless. In Christ, koinekid "Upholding Scriptural Integrity, Accuracy, and Immutability" |
||||||
8 | Do the italicized words clarify? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 4737 | ||
Thanks Koinekid, for you input. Jesus be with you, and give you some relief with that tooth. Amen I realize the few verses I mentioned are not required to prove the deity of Jesus. However, if the added italicized words are taking anything away from the words Jesus actually said, this is not a small thing. Compare John 8:24 as you mentioned, with verse 58 in the same chapter. Both verses say "I AM" ("ego eimi" right??). If "the verb cannot exist without there being a noun to complete the thought", what happened to the noun to complete the thought in verse 58? If there actually does NOT have to be a noun added, which seems to be the case here, then verse 24 seems to be an interpretation decision, rather than a clarity decision. You seem to up on your Greek. I am not. The only Greek I know is "Greek salad" and "baklava", so don't think I know enough Greek to ask an intelligent question about it. If I knew Greek, I could probably appreciate a Greek to English bible translator more, so I realize there could be something I am missing here. I use the NKJV instead of the NASB (sorry, not a critical text fan). The NKJV (and KJV) also add an italicized “he” in the places I mentioned, so I am not trying to pick on any particular translation. The LITV and the MKJV are the only translations I know of that do not add “he”, so I suppose a Greek to English translation without adding “he” is possible, if not even correct. I can not help but think that these words were added to what Jesus said as a carry over from years past, not something to add clarity, as was the real intent of italicized words. Let me put it this way. If the KJV had translated these scriptures I AM, instead of I am (he), would the later translations have intentionally ADDED words to produce a WEAKER reading? I don’t think so. Jesus is Lord! |
||||||