Results 1 - 20 of 61
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Tara1 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why don't we address God as Yahweh? | Bible general Archive 2 | Tara1 | 112304 | ||
Hello Tim, Please answer why we have in our Bible according to Revelation 1:1 a revelation from God himself that he gave to Jesus while in heaven, where it tells us to praise "Jah" which is a transliteration of the Hebrew expression haleluYah´, appearing 24 times in the Hebrew Scriptures but now in the Greek Scriptures with the Greek form of it appearing four times at Revelation 19:1-6? So if the Bible uses it shouldn't we? Tara1 |
||||||
2 | Why don't we address God as Yahweh? | Bible general Archive 2 | Tara1 | 112306 | ||
Hello Kalos, Execellent post. I might add that the oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint of the Hebrew Scriptures used the YHWH in their Greek and some even translated it into Greek as "AOI". But then the later manuscripts of the Septuagint changed it to "Kurios" or "LORD". Thanks again for your post but the answer to your question is that Jehovah is the Latinized form or "translation" into English just as the Latin form of the Gr. Iesous, corresponds to the Heb. Yeshua or Yehohshua for the English name for Jesus and means “Jehovah Is Salvation”. Tara1 |
||||||
3 | source references | OT general | Tara1 | 107238 | ||
Hi Colin, I really don't know, bottom line. JW's say yes and you have probably read their reasoning for saying so. It seems logical according to their reasoning but since so little is said in the Bible about Michael the arch arngel, I don't know. I realize you asked if "Gabriel" was Jesus but I know you meant to ask me if Michael was Jesus. For a certainty though Colin Jesus is not Jehovah, never was never will be. He is Jehovah's Son, Second in all the universe. Praise and glory to whom Jesus said to give it, the Father, our Almighty God, God of Jesus, Jehovah. Sorry to disappoint you but truth is truth. Tara1 |
||||||
4 | source references | OT general | Tara1 | 110227 | ||
Dear Kalos, Justme wrote "well written"! This piece of the watchman.org site may have been well written but certainly is not accurate. Here is a list of the misleading inaccuracies: 1). "Watchtower Bible" is not the accurate name of the "New World Translation" nor of the "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's" name. 2). Jehovah was not inserted but restored in the proper places. 3) It also states; Of course, it is appropriate for a translator to choose to use the divine name JEHOVAH or YAHWEH in the Old Testament where the Tetragrammator YHWH actually appears in the Hebrew text. However, the Watchtower has gone beyond this by inserting the name JEHOVAH in the New Testament, where it does not appear in Greek manuscripts. One need only examine the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew (originally written in Hebrew) and notice the Divine Name some 26 times. 4) The Kingdom Interlinear has the New Translation in the right hand colomn and does contain the Divine Name. The interlinear portion is the work of Westcott and Hort and used manuscripts that had changed the Divine Name from Jehovah to Lord. Jesus used either the LXX or Hebrew texts and both contained the Divine Name thousands of times! What a shame that several translations today have done the dishonour of changing what the original Bible had! Just read for yourself Matthew 4:10 Jesus' own words where he calls his Father by his name Jehovah and also even calls him God. He quotes Deut. 10:20 which used the Divine name Jehovah, so he likewise used Jehovah, otherwise he would have misquoted Deut 10:20 |
||||||
5 | What's Hebrew for soulWhere in Scripture | Gen 2:7 | Tara1 | 97762 | ||
Hello Nathaniel, What is the Hebrew word for spirit? In regards to spirit and animals, could you please explain these verses for me? Gen 6:17; 7:15, 22 and Ecclesiastes 3:18-22. Thanx Yours Tara1 |
||||||
6 | What's Hebrew for soulWhere in Scripture | Gen 2:7 | Tara1 | 97763 | ||
Hello Asis, is what I meant. Sorry. |
||||||
7 | why put the tree in middle of garden | Gen 3:3 | Tara1 | 114055 | ||
Makarios, Yea, yea, Makarios, you are probably right. This whole scenario probably had to have happened to settle an issue that needed settled once and for all time for all mankind and all the heavernly creatures; "God's right to rule", better known as God's universal soverignty. Tara1 |
||||||
8 | Is Satan Jesus' brother? Gen 3:15 | Gen 3:15 | Tara1 | 114458 | ||
Hi Colin, If Satan were created by God then would he be a Son of God? Are the angels called sons of God. Is Jesus called The Son of God, only-begotten Son of God? I am merely trying to see what you believe the Bible says. Yes, too, I know what the definition of heretic is and if I disagree with someone I personally choose to display some of the nine fruits of God's spirit, love,kindness, mildness, self-control.-Gal 5:22 Then a meaningful Bible discussion can be enjoyed and the truth of the matter can be learned. Tara1 |
||||||
9 | Is Satan Jesus' brother? Gen 3:15 | Gen 3:15 | Tara1 | 114459 | ||
Hi Thecurtman, You wrote Satan is not Jesus' brother. Gen. 3:15 is a reference between Jesus and satan, but nothing within this verse is relating them two as brothers. I'm writing: You offer well thought out comments in the following. I have to differ on your comment of Elohim being a “name” per se because it not only as you yourself show refers to different ones but Ps 83:18 tells what God’s one name is. So “elohim” is the Hebrew plural title of things or beings that are worshipped. A synonym would be “a mighty one” because of the way it is used in the Bible. You wrote: Elohim, which is one of God's many names, is also used for Idols-Exodus 34:17-"You shall make no molden gods for yourselves."(NKJV) It is used of Men-Psalms 82:6-I said, "You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High". It is also used of Angels-Psalms 8:5- For You have made him a little lower than the angels. (FYI: The word angels in this verse was translated from the Heb. word Elohim) Is Satan an Angel?? Yes, he started out as one of God's Mightest Angels high on the Chain-of-Command. He became fat headded, egotistical, prideful. Lost his position, I guess you could say he was 'terminated'. Took a third of the angels of heaven with him. Check out Isa. 12:9-15 and Rev. 12:7-17. I’m writing now, notice you say that Satan was ‘terminated’. If you mean what the word means (killed) then no, he is still very much alive today. Also if you do a little research you will find for accuracy sake that Lucifer is not in the Bible referring to Satan so that he has two names. You see, Satan filled the king of Babylon with the ambition to have complete domination over the earth, even over “Jehovah’s throne” (1Ch 29:23) and “the stars of God,” the kings of the line of David sitting on the throne at Mount Moriah. This “king,” that is, the dynasty of Babylon, ‘lifted himself up’ in his own heart and was in his own eyes and in the eyes of his admirers a “shining one,” a “son of the dawn.” (In some translations the Latin Vulgate term “Lucifer” is retained. It is, however, merely the translation of the Hebrew word heh·lel´, “shining one.” Heh·lel´ is not a name or a title but, rather, a term describing the boastful position taken by Babylon’s dynasty of kings of the line of Nebuchadnezzar.) (Isa 14:4-21) Since Babylon was a tool of Satan, its “king” did though reflect Satan’s own ambitious desire. You wrote. And as far as Lucifer's orgin, check out Col. 1:15-18. Yes, Col 1:15-18 does describe the origin of Satan before he made himself Satan. You are right on in many of your comments here, thanks. Tara1 |
||||||
10 | Is Satan Jesus' brother? Gen 3:15 | Gen 3:15 | Tara1 | 114460 | ||
Hi again, Here’s how I would put it. Jesus’ brother was Satan. For untold aeons of time Jehovah’s will was being done in the heavens before one of his spirit sons rebelled and became Satan. The book of Proverbs portrays God’s firstborn Son as wisdom personified and was “happy to do his Father’s will.” He became Jehovah “master worker” in the creation of all things. Pr 8:22-31; Col. 1:15-17. Fittingly, Jehovah later invited his firstborn Son Jesus, to share in the creation of humankind. “Let us make man in our image,” he declared, “according to our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26) The expression “sons of the true God” first occurs at Genesis 6:2 but then again it occurs at Job 1:6, and here the reference is obviously to spirit sons of God assembled in God’s presence, among whom Satan, who had been “roving about in the earth,” also appeared. (Job 1:7; see also 2:1, 2.) Again at Job 38:4-7 “the sons of God” who ‘shouted in applause’ when God ‘laid the cornerstone’ of the earth clearly were angelic sons and not humans descended from Adam (as yet not even created). So, too, at Psalm 89:6 “the sons of God” are definitely heavenly creatures, not earthlings Satan is never referred to as God’s firstborn nor only-begotten Son of God. The Scriptures also indicate that the creature known as Satan did not always have that name. Rather, this descriptive name was given to him because of his taking a course of opposition and resistance to God. The name he had before this is not given. God is the only Creator, and ‘his activity is perfect,’ with no injustice or unrighteousness. (De 32:4) Therefore, the one becoming Satan was, when created, a perfect, righteous creature of God. He is a spirit person, for he appeared in heaven in the presence of God. (Job chaps 1, 2; Re 12:9) Jesus Christ said of him: “That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him.” (Joh 8:44; 1Jo 3:8) Jesus here shows that Satan was once in the truth, but forsook it. Beginning with his first overt act in turning Adam and Eve away from God, he was a manslayer, for he thereby brought about the death of Adam and Eve, which, in turn, brought sin and death to their offspring. (Ro 5:12) The Bible reveals that Satan later as a rival god appeared before Jehovah in heaven, challenging Jehovah to His face, saying that he could turn God’s servant Job, and by implication any servant of God, away from Him. He charged God, in effect, with unrighteously giving Job everything, along with full protection, so that he, Satan, could not test Job and show what was really in his heart, which, Satan intimated, was bad. He implied that Job served God primarily for selfish considerations. Satan made this point of his argument clear when he said: “Skin in behalf of skin, and everything that a man has he will give in behalf of his soul. For a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch as far as his bone and his flesh and see whether he will not curse you to your very face.”—Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7 So, from a righteous, perfect start, this spirit son of God deviated into sin and degradation and lost his privileged status to continue being an approved “brother of Jesus” but became his arch enemy. Genesis 3:15 Tara1 |
||||||
11 | Is Satan Jesus' brother? Gen 3:15 | Gen 3:15 | Tara1 | 114493 | ||
Hello Searcher, I don't understand you guys. I show you what the Bible says and I'm told I'm "ignorant of Scripture....." Just show me where I'm wrong in my understanding of Scripture. Fact is, discussing deeper Scriptural thoughts are really far more interesting, such as current events fulling Bible prophesy. I don't want to push something on you that you don't want to discuss. Regardless, have a nice day, you and Colin. Tara1 |
||||||
12 | God refers to himself as "The great I Am | Ex 3:14 | Tara1 | 114048 | ||
Hello to you Emmaus, Kenneth L. McKay, who graduated with honors in Classics from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge, taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria, New Zealand, and England, who taught at the Australian National University for 26 years, has written numerous articles on ancient Greek syntax, as well as authored a book on Classical Attic, Greek Grammar for Students, and A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: an aspectual approach, provides the following in relation to the alleged "true parallel between Exodus 3:14 (LXX) and John 8:58": John's Gospel," Expository Times (1996): 302-303) 'I am' in John's Gospel BY K. L. MCKAY, MA, FORMERLY OF THE AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY It has become fashionable among some preachers and writers to relate Jesus's use of the words 'I am' in the Gospel according to John, in all, or most, of their contexts, to God's declaration to MOSES in Exodus 3:14, and to expound the passages concerned as if the words themselves have some kind of magic in them. Some who have no more than a smattering of Greek attribute the 'magic' to the Greek words ego eimi.1 I wish briefly to draw attention to the normality of the Greek in all such passages, and the unlikelihood of the words ego eimi being intended to suggest any special significance of this kind. It is, of course, perfectly reasonable to draw attention to Jesus's claims about himself by noting the 'I am' element common to them: 'I am the bread of life' (6:35), 'I am the light of the world' (8:12), 'I am the gate/door' (10:7), 'I am the good shepherd' (10:11), 'I am the resurrection and the life' (11:25), 'I am the way, the truth and the life' (14:6), 'I am the true vine' (15:1). These statements give important insights into the identity and work of Jesus, and we can be challenged to decide whether the words 'I am' in them convey truth, delusion, deceit, or something else. In each case the Greek words used are ego eimi, the pronoun being emphatic (as is usually appropriate in beginning a startling fresh statement, answering a question of identity or personal activity, and in some other circumstances), and the verb, also slightly emphatic,2 being the normal use of the verb 'to be' as a copula, the means of linking the subject with the significant words, 'bread', 'light', etc., which occur as noun complements.The same principle applies when the complement is an adjective or an adverb or adverbial phrase used adjectivally. With variations of context the degree of emphasis may vary, and either the pronoun or the verb may be omitted. In the parallelism of 8:23 pronoun and verb are separated: humeis ek ton kato este, ego ek ton ano eimi, but in the immediately following parallel statement the introduction of a negative brings the verb forward (thus also giving extra emphasis to toutou): ego ouk eimi ek tou kosmou toutou. In 14:10 the verb is omitted, because it is understood from the rest of the sentence: ego en to (i) patri kai ho pater en emoi estin.3 In 14:20 a development from the same statement, also in a hoti clause, omits the copula entirely: ego en to(i) patri mou kai humeis en emoi kago en humin In 10:36 the personal pronoun is not needed for emphasis, and is omitted: huios tou theou eimi. In 7:34 and 7:36 the clause structure demands the postposition of the subject: hopou eimi ego humeis ou dunasthe elthein. |
||||||
13 | God refers to himself as "The great I Am | Ex 3:14 | Tara1 | 114050 | ||
Part 2 Although the natural English translations differ, there are two contexts of this kind in which Jesus uses the words eg eimi alone to identify himself: in 6:20, where the disciples are afraid of the apparition they see walking on the water, and Jesus reassures them by identifying himself, quite naturally, with these words, which translate into English as 'It is 1'; and in 18:5, whale Jesus acknowledges that he is Jesus of Nazareth by speaking the same words, which are naturally translated into English as 'I am he'. The syntactic difference between them is that in the former ego is the complement, the unexpressed subject being something equivalent to 'what you see', and in the latter ego is the subject, the unexpressed complement being 'Jesus of Nazareth'. In both these passages ego eimi is the natural Greek response in the circumstances, as may be seen in 9:9, where the man cured of blindness uses exactly the same words to acknowledge his identity. The dramatic reaction of the arresting party in 18:6 is readily explained if we note that the confident authority of Jesus's presence was such that he defeated the merchants in the temple (2:15), and he simply walked away when the crowd was intent on throwing him over the brow of the hill near Nazareth (Luke 4:28-30). The verb 'to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its basic meaning of 'be in existence', in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi,5 which would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was bom',6 if it were not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am'. If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction. For the emphasis on the words 'I am' we need to look back to God's words to Moses in Exodus 3:14, 'I am who I am. This is what you arc to say to the Israelites: "I am has sent me to you".' The passage in its Hebrew form has been discussed by many commentators as something of a problem, with possibilities that the verb could mean 'I am', 'I will be', 'I become', or 'I will become', and the pronoun 'that', 'who', 'what', or even 'because'. Some see a need to emend the text, and some stress various critical principles as basic to its interpretation. A few refer to the Septuagint translation of the passage as relevant for understanding it.7 Now the Septuagint was the translation done for the benefit of the increasing number of Greek-speaking Jews a couple of centuries earlier, so naturally it is the version of the Old Testament that is normally referred to in the New Testament, and certainly the one most likely to be known to the early readers of John's Gospel. Its translation of Exodus 3:14 follows the sense (as understood by the Jewish translators) rather than the exact form of the Hebrew: ego eimi ho an ... Ho an apestalke me, which translates into English literally as 'I am the being one',' and 'the being one has sent me'. Now the words ego eimi here are the emphatic pronoun and the copula as in most of the passages cited above; and ho an represents a relative clause which in its first occurrence would be hos eimi and in its second occurrence would be hos esti,9 but the most natural translation into English of both would be 'the one who is (who really exists)',' the verb having its basic |
||||||
14 | God refers to himself as "The great I Am | Ex 3:14 | Tara1 | 114051 | ||
Part 3 meaning (and being so accented), and not being a mere copula In neither is there any possibility of inserting an emphatic ego. So the emphatic ords used by Jesus in the passages referred to above are perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greek version. Thus they are quite unlikely to have been used in the New Testament to convey that significance, however much the modern English versions of the relevant passages, following the form of the Hebrew words, may suggest it. 1 I have seen one such speaker try to impress his audience by writing the words on a blackboard, only to demonstrate that he was ignorant of even the simplest details of Greek. 2 Its position is unemphatic, but the degree of emphasis could be reduced by its omission, which would make no difference to the meaning. The omission of the copula is quite common in Greek, especially, but not exclusively, in the third person. 3 The fact that this is a reported statement, in a hoti clause, does not affect the grammar, but only the degree of emphasis. 4 In translation, if as is likely, the original reply was the equivalent in Aramaic. 5 Note that with this meaning the verb is differently accented in Greek E)GW\ E)MI/ instead of E)GW E)IMI ). 6 For the construction see K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An aspectual approach (Peter Lang, 1994), 4.2.4. 7 For extensive modern discussion of the problems of interpretation see Brevard S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL, SCM, 1974) and John 1. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3, Word, 1987). See also Martin Noth, Exodus (OTL, SCM, 2nd ed. 1966); U. Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Magnes Press), 1. P. Hyatt, Exodus (NCB, Oliphants, 1971); Alan Cole, Exodus (TC, IVP, 1973); J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (Scholars Press, 1990). 8 As Noth mentions in a footnote. 9 Cf. the Vulgate translation of 14b: Qui est misit me ad vos. 10 English has lost the full range of inflections, and the relative pronoun is now treated as if it were always third person. Tara1 |
||||||
15 | God refers to himself as "The great I Am | Ex 3:14 | Tara1 | 114066 | ||
Hi Colin, Presumably you desire me to commit myself to a response that defies your definition of Christ's divinity. I hope I'm mistaken. I understand what the divinity of Christ is and unquestionably believe it since the Bible unequivocally teaches it. If indeed your understanding of Christ’s divinity is distorted that’s not my problem now is it? Likewise, if my understanding of Christ’s divinity is distorted, that’s not your problem. 1 Pet 3:8 tells you and me “Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous [person] for unrighteous ones, that he might lead YOU to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.” Therefore Jesus Christ is now a divine spirit who resides in the heavenly realm and died so as to lead you and me to God. I think that is simple to understand, don’t make it difficult. John 3:16 is one of the most well known verses of the entire Bible and plainly states that God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. This I believe with all my heart mind and soul and hope to God you do too. Tara1 |
||||||
16 | scripture supporting Trinity doctrine? | Ps 83:18 | Tara1 | 106496 | ||
Hi Colin, You said, "the JW "bible" is unique in this regard. In regards to what specifically? The John 1:1 translation? Tara1 |
||||||
17 | scripture supporting Trinity doctrine? | Ps 83:18 | Tara1 | 106523 | ||
Hi again Colin, That site did not answer my question, especially since it was a personal question to you. Thanks anyway. Tara1 |
||||||
18 | scripture supporting Trinity doctrine? | Ps 83:18 | Tara1 | 106577 | ||
Hello again, When you say the NWT is unique in this regard of translation, what did you have in mind and why? I assumed a verse or two but wanted to know for sure and too why? Tara1 |
||||||
19 | Prophetic perfect tense in other verses? | Ps 102:16 | Tara1 | 99812 | ||
Hi Mr. Arnold, We obviously have some very opinionated contributors who evidently "attack" based on ignorance. Please don't be afraid of a translation of the Holy Scriptures that both praises the Almighty God Jehovah and Jesus Christ as his Son. A comparison of many translations agree with the NWT and we easily see a theological bias as the basis for the many mistranslated verses of those deferring from the NWT. Sincerely Tara1 |
||||||
20 | Prophetic perfect tense in other verses? | Ps 102:16 | Tara1 | 99813 | ||
Hi Johonadab, It is most refreshing to see the NWT being quoted as it most accurately and honestly translates the Hebrew. I'm not saying it's perfect but I've yet to come across a better Bible version and I have about 40 translations I use. Some of the versions prefer to use Yahweh instead of Jehovah for Jesus' God's name and that is probably closer to reflecting the most accurate English rendition/transliteration. But as far as an "English" translation "Jehovah" still portrays accurately the Almighty's personal name. Of course, if religions want to make Jehovah's Son, Jesus one and the same Almighty God of the universe, by their mistranslation, that's their choice. But that's simply not what the Bible teaches. Sincerely Tara1 |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |