Results 141 - 160 of 208
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Does the Bible say protect Israel | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 79960 | ||
Hi Searcher You asked: Were all genealogical records kept in the Temple? Didn't people keep their own? Didn't people memorize their own genealogical records? Nonetheless, there are prophecies unfulfilled by Israel ... Romans 9-11 is one example. Evidently, all the nations genealogical records were kept in the Temple. Regarding the destruction of the temple and the archives, the book History of the Jewish People by Max Margolis and Alexander Marx says on pages 202, 203: “Titus hastened to inspect the Temple. But soon the sacred edifice was the prey of the flames which the Romans kept alive. Titus had the quarter occupied by his soldiers burned down: the council house, the hall of archives, the whole of the lower city down to the Pool of Siloam.” The Bible Cyclopædia by M’Clintock and Strong states: “But there can be little doubt that the registers of the Jewish tribes and families perished at the destruction of Jerusalem, and not before.” Concerning Romans 9:11, “for when they had not yet been born nor had practiced anything good or vile, in order that the purpose of God respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not upon works, but upon the One who calls,” Jehovah’s selection of Jacob over Esau shows that God’s choosing does not depend on man’s dictates. The apostle Paul uses this incident as an illustration of the fact that the true children of Abraham are not necessarily those of fleshly descent, nor those who depend on their own works, but those of the faith of Abraham. Ro 9:6-12 says, “However, it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who [spring] from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither because they are Abraham’s seed are they all children, but: “What will be called ‘your seed’ will be through Isaac.” 8 That is, the children in the flesh are not really the children of God, but the children by the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For the word of promise was as follows: “At this time I will come and Sarah will have a son.” 10 Yet not that case alone, but also when Re·bek´ah conceived twins from the one [man], Isaac our forefather: 11 for when they had not yet been born nor had practiced anything good or vile, in order that the purpose of God respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not upon works, but upon the One who calls, 12 it was said to her: “The older will be the slave of the younger.” Esau is set forth as a warning example to Christians so that they will not be guilty, as was Esau the materialist, of lack of appreciation for sacred or spiritual things. Heb 12:16 helps us to appreciate this where it says, “16 that there may be no fornicator nor anyone not appreciating sacred things, like E´sau, who in exchange for one meal gave away his rights as firstborn”. Truthfinder |
||||||
142 | Does the Bible say protect Israel | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 79899 | ||
Hi Searcher, I believe it's common knowledge that when the temple and genealogical records were lost or destroyed in 70 C. E. by the Romans under General Titus, that all the Jewish claims of ancestory remain unproven. And too, over the millenniums, the ancient Jewish religion has developed and changed. Today Judaism is practiced by millions of Jews in the Republic of Israel and the Diaspora (dispersion around the world) Truthfinder |
||||||
143 | Originals? | Rev 22:18 | Truthfinder | 79343 | ||
Originals, As you know Tim, of course there are no "originals" of either the Hebrew nor Greek texts. The following is what I said in a previous post: The text located in the U.S.S.R.,not the original but namely, the Codex Leningrad B 19A, used for Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), vowel-points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwah´, Yehwih´ and a number of times Yeho·wah´, as in Ge 3:14. The edition of the Hebrew text by Ginsburg (Gins.) vowel-points YHWH to read Yeho·wah´. While many translators favor the pronunciation "Yahweh," the New World Translation continues to use the form "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it for centuries. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the divine name, YHWH or JHVH. The practice of substituting titles for the divine name that developed among the Jews was applied in later copies of the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and many other translations, ancient and modern. Therefore, A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott (LS), p. 1013, states: "ho kyrios,Hebr. Yahweh, LXX Ge. 11.5, al." Also, the Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, by E. A. Sophocles, Cambridge, U.S.A., and Leipzig, 1914, p. 699, says under (Ky´ri·os): "Lord, the representative of YHVH. Sept. passim (scattered throughout)." Moreover, Dictionnaire de la Bible, by F. Vigouroux, Paris, 1926, col. 223, says that "the Septuagint and the Vulgate contain KURIOS and Dominus, "Lord," where the original contains Jehovah." Regarding the divine name, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, edited by J. Payne Smith, Oxford, 1979 reprint, p. 298, says that Mar·ya´ "in the (Syriac) Peshita Version of the O. T. represents the Tetragrammaton." Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, 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. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, YHVH (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate KS [abbreviation for Ky´ri·os, "Lord"]. 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." For these reasons and others, the long list of Bible translations also "restored" the Divine Name in what is believed to be only what was in the original. Truthfinder |
||||||
144 | Isn’t this playing with the text? | Rev 22:18 | Truthfinder | 79234 | ||
Hi, Obviously you didn't read what I provided. It showed from authoritive sources that the "orignal" NOT merely Greek copies of copies must have had God's name. When these scribs changed it to kurios, that was wrong. Please re-read what I provided. The Jewish tradition was wrong. The Jews with their traditions put Jesus to death! They were no longer God's people and are not today. Truthfinder |
||||||
145 | Radioman - What did God say in Exo 6:3? | Gen 17:1 | Truthfinder | 79029 | ||
Hi Tim :) Yes, for a certainty I agree with Is. 43:10. I also agree with the other texts I have quoted that tell us not interpretation but tell us there are indeed other gods. You cannot ignor other scriptures to make a point in your theology You merely conclude that these other gods are false gods thus not in actuality real gods at all. In all seriousnes is this sound reasoning? I also agree that ‘there is only One True God” as John 7:18,28 and John 17:3 tells us. And the NWT renders ha·´El´ as “the [true] God” in all 32 places where it occurs in Masoretic Hebrew text found in Codex Leningrad B 19A as presented in BHK and BHS in the singular, namely, in Ge 31:13; 35:1, 3; 46:3; De 7:9; 10:17; 33:26; 2Sa 22:31, 33, 48; Ne 1:5; 9:32; Job 13:8; 21:14; 22:17; 31:28; 33:6; 34:10, 37; 40:9; Ps 18:30, 32, 47; 57:2; 68:19, 20; 77:14; 85:8; Isa 5:16; 42:5; Jer 32:18; Da 9:4. The plural of ´el is ´e·lim´. In M ´e·lim´ occurs once preceded by the definite article, namely, in Ex 15:11, where it refers to other gods. It is a given that idols are false gods but nonetheless are gods to some people. In researching the Greek word for “true” (alethinos) on page of 158 of Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words we find that it says it can have one of several meanings, depending on the context and usage of the author or speaker. It can mean:"genuine, ideal, real. A) Of God in contrast to other gods, b) of Christ, c) God’s words, d) His ways, e) His judgments, f) His riches g) His worshippers, h) their hearts, I) the witness of the Apostle John j) the spiritural antitypical Tabernacle. Likewise with Baur-Arndt-Gingrich Greek English-Lexicon (BAGD), alethinos can mean:"genuine, real . . . Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real . . . true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its copies." Allow me to illustrate "reality possessed only by the original or as the BAGD puts it; archetype, not by its copies," consider John 1:9, where John says concerning Jesus, "The true light [to phos to alethinon] that gives light to every sort of man was about to come into the world" (compare 1Jo 2:8). Does this mean that Jesus' disciples (Mt 5:14) are "false" lights? No. It means they are not the original light, but copies of it, giving forth the light they received from Jesus. Similarly, when Jesus contrasted himself, "the true bread from heaven [ton arton ek tou ouranou ton alethinon]," with the manna that God gave the Israelites, did this mean the manna was not really food? (Joh 6:32-33) Surely he meant the manna was not food in the far more excellent sense that his life-saving sacrifice (his flesh-Joh 6:51, 54-56) would prove to be. The manna, and other earthly foods, give only temporary sustenance; they are but a copy of the reality possessed by the real food God gives. Notice the contrast made in Hebrews 8 between the "true tent" (tes skenes tes alethines) in verse 2 and the typical tent God commanded Moses to make. (verse 5; 9:9) In all these texts alethinos is contrasted, not with something "false," but is used to describe that which is the archetype as opposed to that which is a copy of the original. So being reasonable and reasoning on a matter we can come to accurate conclusions as I have shown. |
||||||
146 | Radioman - What did God say in Exo 6:3? | Gen 17:1 | Truthfinder | 78977 | ||
Hi Tim, It has been awhile since you have responded to my notes addressed to you but I will go ahead regardless. Perhaps you recognized what I have said as true and thus choose not to respond. Whatever. But now you are saying that the Hebrew scriptures (I prefer this as opposed to "Old Testament" since it is a misnomer, as I am sure you are aware)is filled with names of God. Which God are you referring to Tim? Satan, the god of this system of things?-2 Cor. 4:4. Or maybe even Moses son of Amram and Jochebed?--Ex. 4:16 Or perhaps the androgyne Baal?--Rom. 11:4 (note the “he”(feminine) definite article in the Greek)(but “hab” (masculine) definite article in the Hebrew). Or a particular angel?-- Psalm 8:5 As you know only two of these gods has had their names revealed to us, and one of them you worship.--John 1:1 I worship him too, in the way I have expounded in detail to you previously. I worship Jehovah as the only “el” though, since Jesus told me to do that. “It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” Or Tim, are you referring to one of the gods of Psalm 82:1, 6, human judges in Israel. Please read your Hebrew and Greek, especially where Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. Wow, Tim this is certainly a fait accompli; the OT IS FILLED WITH NAMES OF GOD as you said. But in all accuracy, please tell me which one YOU are referring to? Truthfinder |
||||||
147 | Radioman - What did God say in Exo 6:3? | Gen 17:1 | Truthfinder | 78914 | ||
God's only unique name. Hi all, Here's my take on you discussion: Professor of Hebrew D. H. says that those who claim Exodus 6:2, 3 marks the first time the name Jehovah was revealed, "have not studied [these verses] in the light of other scriptures; otherwise they would have perceived that by name must be meant here not the two syllables which make up the word Jehovah, but the idea which it expresses. When we read in Isaiah, ch. lii. 6, 'Therefore my people shall know my name;' or in Jeremiah, ch. xvi. 21, 'They shall know that my name is Jehovah;' or in the Psalms, Ps. ix. [10, 16], 'They that know thy name shall put their trust in thee;' we see at once that to know Jehovah's name is something very different from knowing the four letters of which it is composed. It is to know by experience that Jehovah really is what his name declares him to be. (Compare also Is. xix. 20, 21; Eze. xx. 5, 9; xxxix. 6, 7; Ps. lxxxiii. [18]; lxxxix. [16]; 2 Ch. vi. 33.)"-The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, Vol. I, pp. 856, 857. The name Jehovah was not first revealed to Moses, for it was certainly known by the first man. The name initially appears in the divine Record at Genesis 2:4 after the account of God's creative works, and there it identifies the Creator of the heavens and earth as "Jehovah God." It is reasonable to believe that Jehovah God informed Adam of this account of creation. The Genesis record does not mention his doing so, but then neither does it explicitly say Jehovah revealed Eve's origin to the awakened Adam. Yet Adam's words upon receiving Eve show he had been informed of the way God had produced her from Adam's own body. (Ge 2:21-23) Much communication undoubtedly took place between Jehovah and his earthly son that is not included in the brief account of Genesis. Eve is the first human specifically reported to have used the divine name. (Ge 4:1) She obviously learned that name from her husband and head, Adam, from whom she had also learned God's command concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and bad (although, again, the record does not directly relate Adam's passing this information on to her).-Ge 2:16, 17; 3:2, 3. Truthfinder |
||||||
148 | Does any body knows the 12 names of God | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 78749 | ||
Hi Ray, The reason is many Hebrew words include prefixes and suffixes, which at times combine with a base word to make up a complete phrase in translation. Where this is the case, the main part of the transliterated Hebrew word is presented in boldfaced italic type and corresponds with the boldfaced portion of the footnoted English phrase to highlight the base word. In a few instances there is no translation required for the lightfaced portion of the transliteration. This system of lightfaced and boldfaced type also applies to the phrases of Greek, Syriac and Latin words. However, since this contrast applies mainly to the Hebrew language, at times only the word or words under study are shown in the other languages. Examples: Genesis 23:8: Lit., "with your soul," used collectively. Heb., ´eth-naph·shekhem´; Gr., psy·khei´. Mark 10:30: Or, "order of things." Gr., ai·o´ni; J17,18(Heb.), u·va·oh·lam, "and in the order of things." But I am sure the bold face doesn't show up. O-well. Just as I can't write the Hebrew and Greek to facilite explination. Transliterations with no contrast as with 'Abba' correspond to the footnoted word or phrase. Further, transliterations indicate the words quoted but not those omitted by an ellipsis (a speaker's incompleteness of thought indicated by a dash in the text. Actually, 'Abba' in Aramaic corresponds to the emphatic or definite form of Heb. ´av, literally meaning "the father," or "O Father." It was the intimate name used by children for their fathers and combines some of the intimacy of the English word "papa" while retaining the dignity of the word "father," being both informal and yet respectful. It was, therefore, an endearing form of address rather than a title and was among the first words a child learned to speak. This Aramaic word appears three times in the Scriptures. It is always in transliterated form in the original Greek and usually is transliterated in English translations. This is one way I prove that Jesus spoke Aramaic, although I personally think he could speak any human language after his baptism. Truthfinder |
||||||
149 | Does any body knows the 12 names of God | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 78701 | ||
Hi Ray, Please explain what you mean that "Abba" was not in the Greek. The word itself was not in the Greek texts? The word "Abba" was not a Greek word? Truthfinder |
||||||
150 | Almighty and Mighty God | Is 9:6 | Truthfinder | 78555 | ||
Hi Searcher, What's amazing about the NT in Hebrew? Pardon my ignorance but what's your point concerning the Hebrew and the New Testament? Truthfinder |
||||||
151 | Almighty and Mighty God | Is 9:6 | Truthfinder | 78460 | ||
Hi Searcher; Scripture ... Rev 1:8, 11:17, 15:3, 16:7, 14, 19:6, 15 ... Well ... sisterkath, I see Jesus Christ my Lord as being Almighty (Pantokrator). Are the above verses about Christ or the Father? Pan·to·kra´tor Rev 1:8, refers to the Father Jehovah the Almighty (according to my studies and the Hebrew translations) Rev 11:17 refers to the Father Jehovah the Almighty(according to my studies and the Hebrew translations) Rev. 15:3 refers to the Father Jehovah the Almighty(according to my studies and the Hebrew translations) Rev. 16:7 refers to the Father Jehovah the Almighty(according to my studies and the Hebrew translations) Rev 16:14 refers to the Father Jehovah the Almighty(according to my studies ) Rev 19:6 refers to the Father Jehovah the Almighty(according to my studies and the Hebrew translations) Rev 19:15 also refers to the Father Jehovah the Almighty(according to my studies) That was very simple. All Almighty (presidents, powers, GOD) has to be at least Mighty but not all mighty gods are Almighty for there can only be One Almighty of anything, including God. There simply cannot be two Almighty Gods. My question remains unanswered directed to Tim but by anyone now. Why have the ‘majority of the translations, including the NASB ‘changed’ what was originally written by God’s inspiration? I am speaking of changing the tetragrammaton to adonai in the Heb, or kurios in the NT? The LXX started it all and since then others have followed suit. The NWT is most commendable as are many others (over 150 that I know of, for the NT) in “restoring” God’s personal name. Confusion! as to the true identity of our Heavenly Father has resulted because of these translations. I am not confused! The greatest indignity that today’s translators could have done was done! by removing or concealing God’s personal name and identity from their translations and my fellow human companions. Sorry but this is most, most elementary and yet I’m called a “cult” ! Tyndale used God’s name in his translation. The result? Some 3,000 copies were printed and smuggled into England. The bishop of London bought every copy he could find and burned them publicly in St. Paul’s churchyard. Eventually, Tyndale was captured, tried, and convicted of heresy. In 1536 he was strangled and burned at the stake. Today’s clergy still hates God’s personal name! Not my opinion, fact. Truthfinder |
||||||
152 | Almighty and Mighty God | Is 9:6 | Truthfinder | 77906 | ||
The manuscript at cite http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/ is John 1:1-14 in the "miniscule" style of Koine Greek writing (a type of cursive script using upper and lower case letters) from the year 1022 C.E.; Mailand, Biblioteca Ambrosiana (B.56 parte superiore, fol.150). If you study it you will notice that on line eight last word the word for god is in all small letters whereas the other theos is capitalized. Truthseeker |
||||||
153 | Almighty and Mighty God | Is 9:6 | Truthfinder | 77905 | ||
Hi Searcher, Just a note this morning. Tim wrote: Secondly, where is there any support in the Old Testament for 'Almighty God' being a higher level of God than a 'Mighty God'? As I have written before, Jesus is called Mighty God, but never Almighty God. Think about the phrase ‘Almighty God’. Why have it if it didn’t itself impy that there are other Gods? Notice the distinction Jesus himself made and the the fact that he never thought of himself as God Almighty, when he spoke of his Father as “the only true God,” that is, the only God who should be worshiped where he says in John 17:3 ”This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ”. And note his reply to “the god of this system”-2 Cor 4:4) at Mat 4:10, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service. The texts of J1-14,16-18,20,22-24 (21 different Hebrew translations that use Jehovah) Also the texts of J7,8,13,14,16,18 (six different Hebrew translations of the Greek that use Jehovah in Revelation 4:11 says similar to the NWT “You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.” My posts too have clearly shown in the Hebrew (OT) Scriptures, the word “god” can mean “mighty one” or “strong one.” (Exodus 12:12; Psalm 8:5) and as above in the Greek Scriptures at 2 Cor. 4:4. John 1:1 according to: The 3 translations by Moffatt, Schonfield and Goodspeed(An American Translation)has: "...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." 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. Christian 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. Translations that reflect the same meaning as the NWT are: 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) Before Jesus came to earth, he was “a god,” “existing in God’s form.” After his resurrection, he returned to an even higher position in the heavens than he had previously. (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6-11) Further, as I’ve clearly shown in previous posts, the designation “god” carries an additional implication. Judges in Israel were called “gods”—once by Jesus himself. (Psalm 82:6; John 10:35) Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed Judge, “destined to judge the living and the dead.” (2 Timothy 4:1; John 5:30) Clearly, he is well named Mighty God but never Almighty God which is only applied to Jesus’ God, his Father Jehovah. Truthfinder |
||||||
154 | in gen1:26 who is (us) ? | John 1:3 | Truthfinder | 77618 | ||
Hi Hank, I asked you a question awhile back and was still wondering what comment you might have. I understand what the Bible teaches as being different as to what the Holy Spirit is than what you are saying. Can I ask you a question? If Jesus is Almighty God, then do you pray to him or to the Father? And likewise, do you pray to the Holy Spirit, and too what is his name? Also, while I'm asking questions, allow me to entertain just one more. Why is sinning against the holy spirit not forgivenable yet it is against the Son and the Father, since according to your theology they are all God?-Mt 12:31, 32 Truthfinder |
||||||
155 | Exodus 3:14 connected to John 8:58? | Ex 3:14 | Truthfinder | 77001 | ||
Hi Tim, I agree with you here as there are no "originals" of any scripture, OT, nor NT, Greek nor Hebrew. There are only hand copies of copies of copies, etc. Even though you didn't address this note to me, thought I would say hi,:). Have a nice day. Truthfinder |
||||||
156 | John 1:18 "only begotten God". | John 1:18 | Truthfinder | 76959 | ||
(part 2) So it is seen that there is ample basis for the New World Bible Translation Committee to have rendered the passage as it did; and that Westcott and Hort had sound reasons for rendering the text the way they did is recognized by others. However, many translators stumbled at the expression “the only-begotten god” and therefore preferred the reading of lesser authorities to that of the best.-Awake published by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society; 06/01/62 p.351. Tim wrote: “We often get discussions about both the Deity of Christ and the accuracy of the doctrine of the Trinity. This verse speaks to both. I was preparing my Sunday School lesson for next week, when I really focused on this verse. Like most people, I tend to focus more on the first couple of verses of John 1. However, note what this verse says about Christ and the Trinity. 1) Of Christ, it says He is the only begotten God. This is as clear a statement as one will find that Jesus is God. John 1:18, No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. The Greek word mo·no·ge·nes´ is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents. Thus, Jesus is God’s “only” ... something. He is special. He is Jehovah’s mighty god! He is the only thing Jehovah “created” by himself. All other things visible and invisible Jehovah used Jesus to create. Jesus did it, Jehovah gets the credit as “Creator”, because it is through Jesus that Jehovah accomplished it. Truthfinder |
||||||
157 | John 1:18 "only begotten God". | John 1:18 | Truthfinder | 76958 | ||
Hi Tim, You wrote: Is. 9:6 calls Jesus the 'Mighty God'. Yet, Jer. 32:18 also calls Jehovah the 'Mighty God'. The same exact phrase is used in both verses. In fact Tim both Isaiah 10:21 and Jeremiah 32:18 speak of Jehovah God as “mighty God.” Of course, if Jehovah is the Almighty God, he has to be a mighty God. But please, please don’t miss the point that only the superlatives and the infinites can dogmatically be limited to Jehovah, such as “the Most High.” Jesus is a god, a mighty god, and so is Jehovah a God, a mighty God. The term in the Hebrew, el gibbór, “mighty God,” is not limited to Jehovah, but the term el Shaddái, “God Almighty,” is. I asked a question the other day about John 1:18. Jesus being "a god" in John 1:18, differs from translation to translation. Why? From what Greek manuscripts are the most popular Bible translations from? Some translations say, “only begotten son” and some “only begotten god”. The phrase "monogenes theos" is found in manuscripts P66 and P75, as well as Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus (and a few other manuscripts). The reading, "monogenes theos" is found in the vast majority of Greek witnesses and ancient translations. This is a classic example illustrating the two lines of manuscripts. --http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/ Thus we have another question: Why lines of manuscripts? One supplanting in a rather ominous fashion, the true identity of the Almighty God, Jesus’ Father, and one promoting a totally different concept. This new concept of making Jesus not only the Father’s Son but Almighty God himself. Another question that must be answered is why ancient manuscripts began to change the original in regards to the Almighty God’s personal name. An honest investigation will contribute considerably to accurately understanding the true identity of our Heavenly Father and his beloved Son whom he gave as a ransom sacrifice for our sins. You answer that one question for me please Tim. Interestingly a few translations, in support of the Trinitarian “God the Son” concept, would invert the phrase mo·no·ge·nes´ the·os´ and render it as “God only begotten.” But W. J. Hickie in his Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament (1956, p. 123) says it is hard to see why these translators render mo·no·ge·nes´ hui·os´ as “the only begotten Son,” but at the same time translate mo·no·ge·nes´ the·os´ as “God only begotten,” instead of “the only begotten God.”-Insight on the Scriptures John 1:18 reads: “No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him.” The apostle John obviously is here referring to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. However, Jesus is not only the only-begotten Son of God but also a god, the only-begotten god. No doubt John used the Greek word for god, theós, here rather than the word huiós, “son,” because he wanted to stress Jesus’ godship rather than his sonship, in keeping with the opening verse of his Gospel in which he says of Jesus, “and the Word was a god.” Interestingly, not a few modern Bible translations that read “only-begotten Son” have footnotes indicating that other manuscripts read “God” instead of “Son.” This is true of the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version and Weymouth. Moffatt reads: “the divine One, the only Son,” but a footnote acknowledges that “theós (’the divine one’) is probably more original than the variant reading huiós.” Rotherham renders the expression: “an Only Begotten God,” and Msgr. Knox’s version states in a footnote: “Some of the best manuscripts here read ‘God, the only-begotten,’ instead of ‘the only-begotten Son.’”(continued) |
||||||
158 | John 1:18 "only begotten God". | John 1:18 | Truthfinder | 76759 | ||
Hi sisterkath, I've been sitting back reading your posts, not contributing. I think you are holding your own quite well. I do have a question for you though but would like to email it as it is lengthly. r21212@yahoo.com |
||||||
159 | Jesus, "a god"--John 1:18 | John 1:18 | Truthfinder | 76557 | ||
Hi Ray, Yes, exactly to both questions. Also,as far as translations go the New Living Bible says, “The Jewish leaders replied, "By our laws he ought to die because he called himself the Son of God." The faithless Jews were accusing Jesus of blasphemy prior to this and now they changed to the charge of sedition, and the penalty was still death. Even Jesus' enemies recognized Jesus was being known as the Son of God. Truthfinder |
||||||
160 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76500 | ||
(Part 2)You wrote: c) Ps. 82:1 and 6 - Verse 6 also uses a different Hebrew word than Is. 43:10.Ps. 82:1 does use the same word. However, there are two issues involved with this verse. First of all, no one is entirely sure what it is to which the word refers. Secondly, the context is poetic. One cannot place a poetic statement over a direct statement of Jehovah in Is. 43:10.Ps. 82: 1 “God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One;In the middle of the gods he judges”Here ´elo·him´ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh atEx 4:16.The 1599 Geneva Study Bible Ps 82:1 «A Psalm of Asaph.» God standeth in the congregation of the a mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (a) The prophet shows that if princes and judges do not do their duty, God whose authority is above them will take vengeance on them. 1. congregation--(Compare Exodus 12:3, 16:1). of the mighty--that is, of God, of His appointment. the gods--or, "judges" (Exodus 21:6, 22:9), God's representatives.Commentary Critical and Explanatoryon the Whole Bible by Jamieson, Fausset, BrownVerses 1-5 We have here, I. God’s supreme presidency and power in all councils and courts asserted and laid down, as a great truth necessary to be believed both by princes and subjects (v. 1): God stands, as chief director, in the congregation of the mighty, the mighty One, in coetu fortis—in the councils of the prince, the supreme magistrate, and he judges among the gods, the inferior magistrates; both the legislative and the executive power of princes is under his eye and his hand. Observe here, 1. The power and honour of magistrates; they are the mighty. They are so in authority, for the public good (it is a great power that they are entrusted with), and they ought to be so in wisdom and courage. They are, in the Hebrew dialect, called gods; the same word is used for these subordinate governors that is used for the sovereign ruler of the world. They are elohim. Angels are so called both because they are great in power and might and because God is pleased to make use of their service in the government of this lower world; and magistrates in an inferior capacity are likewise the ministers of his providence in general, for the keeping up of order and peace in human societies, and particularly of his justice and goodness in punishing evil-doers and protecting those that do well. Matthew Henry Complete Commentaryon the Whole BibleYou wrote: I listed for you several direct statments by Jehovah that there are no 'other' gods. Which are we to believe, Jehovah Himself or Jehovah's so called Witnesses?For myself, I'll take Jehovah's words as truth.Taking the Bible as a whole I definitely believe Jehovah Himself, these Bible Commentators are with me on Ps. 82:1. The only conclusion is that there is only One Almighty God, plain and simple. Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [11] >> |