Results 141 - 160 of 208
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | 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 |
||||||
142 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91224 | ||
Tim, You are seriously wrong. Hebrew word Adonai is the word for Lord, not Jehovah. Yhvh is in English Jehovah. That is consistant. I personally do not have a problem with verbally expressing God's name as did the Jews who added to the Law. I am no dumby when it comes to this subject as you try and make it appear. As far as manuscripts go, we have no "originals" of either the Hebrew nor Greek, so how do you prove anything scripturally? Someone could have changed it. And then you mention consistant in translating word. Show me a translation that is consistant in translating the Hebrew words say, "nephesh", "hades", and yes "adonai". Be accurate in this because I do not think you can do it. As you know it is an easy request but you still wont show me one translation of the Bible that does it. Truthfinder |
||||||
143 | Jesus | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91760 | ||
Hi Ed …Your right there are many translations that based on Westcott and Hort that use the term Jehovah. that is because Westcott and Hott faced the same problem most translators did how to hanbdle YHWH… A Greek master text of the Christian Greek Scriptures that attained wide acceptance is that produced in 1881 by Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. It was the product of 28 years of independent labor, though they compared notes regularly. Like Griesbach, they divided manuscripts into families and leaned heavily on what they termed the “neutral text,” which included the renowned Sinaitic Manuscript and the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, both of the fourth century C.E. Thus, Westcott and Hort did not use manuscripts that contained the Hebrew “yhvh". What they had used kurios (lord). …By the time they did their work, I believe you dated it 1881, they simply used the universally accepted word Tyndale had invented nearly 200 years before Jehovah. Jehovah is a made up word for the term YHWH it was the creation of Tyndale and for you to infer it is anything other is incorrect… Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican order, first rendered the divine name as “Jehova.” This form appeared in his book Pugeo Fidei, published in 1270 C.E Tyndale was also the first English translator to use the name Jehovah in the year 1530 C.E. London scholar David Daniell writes: “It would surely have struck Tyndale’s readers forcibly that the name of God was newly revealed.” You mention Jehovah is a “made up word”? It is the “English” word, using the Hebrew consonants yhvh. Jesus is the English word for the Hebrew consonants vhsha (yeh-ho-shoo-ah )(Strong’s number 3090) So, what’s your point, that we should avoid the made up English words Jesus or Jehovah. Sure they are “made”, as are 100 per cent of the English vocabulary. …..God gave us His name Exodus 3:15 Moreover God said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: "The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.….. This verse illustrates exactly what I have been saying. By reading this Hebrew text of Ex. 3:15 one not knowing better would conclude that the God of Abraham’s name was the title “Lord”, wouldn’t he? Actually the “original” Hebrew text had the “yhvh”, of which only the Almighty God, Jesus’ Father is named. The LXX changed the “yhvh” to “adonai” and what makes matters worse, is the Bible translators today admit that it should have been “Jehovah” or “Yahweh”. An interesting case in point: Julie Moore, formerly of Klamath Falls, Oregon, in a letter dated February 3, 1979, asked the NIV Bible translation committee why it did not use the Sacred Name in their translation. The committee’s executive secretary at the time, the late Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., responded cordially and candidly: Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2.25 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing it down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as “Yahweh is my shepherd.” Anything I have written in this note is all documented again and again by scholars. I hope this helps Truthfinder |
||||||
144 | Jesus | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91785 | ||
Hi Ed, The King James Version tells us simply, God’s name is Jehovah in Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18. It is revealed in a context that shows that the Owner of that grand name has enemies. In describing these, Psalm 83, verses 17 and 18, in the King James Version of the Bible, reads: “Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.” As you know, "Lord" and "God" are not personal proper nouns but Jehovah and Jesus are the English translations. If my comments were unclearly stated, I just wanted to clearify. That is the only point I was making. Truthfinder |
||||||
145 | Jesus | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91836 | ||
Hi Ed, Yes it does clear it up for me, and I thank you. There is so much to learn from the Bible and too, I have learned so much here on the forum. Truthfinder |
||||||
146 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91848 | ||
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, …….This is exactly what happened in the Greek New Testament. The inspired authors always translated 'YHWH' as 'kurios'. The JW's propose all kinds of speculation about the practices of the 1st century Jews, and about the practices of the LXX, but none of this has any meaning as far as the New Testament is concerned……. Tim, you must know what you write is not correct, because as you say, consistent translation is of utmost importance. So now we have two different words Adonai and YHVH translated as kurios. Sarah referred to Abraham as Lord.1 Pet 3:5,6. With past similar reasoning that you have presented to me, am I now to conclude that Abraham is also Jehovah? The problem with your reasoning is all the others words from Hebrew to Greek were translated including Yeshua translated to Jesus. You contend that YHVH was not? Well, the earlier Greek LXX did indeed translate the Heb. YHVH. The papyrus manuscript found in Qumram Cave 4, was dated to the first century B. C. E. A preliminary report of this manuscript was presented in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. IV, 1957, p. 157 and in it the Greek letters IAO rendering the Divine name of Lev 3:12 and 4:27 appear. Also John in Revelation 19:6 used God’s name. Greek (allelouia) English (Praise Jah) Hebrew (Halalooyah) . You also wrote: “Every single Greek manuscript translates 'YHWH' as 'kurios' or 'Lord'. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why we cannot translate 'YHWH' into English as Lord as well. I agree with you Tim, if indeed the originals did, but evidence says otherwise as I’ve shown what Greek scholars (in fact over 150 different Greek scholars) have shown us for the Greek Scriptures. Even Jerome rendered the Tetragrammaton by substituting Dominus, “Lord,” in his Latin Vulgate. He didn’t translate it, he substituted as if the Tetragrammaton were Adonai but it wasn’t. Likewise with the Greek originals that quoted the Tetragrammaton did not translate what Adonai was too. Tim you say the JW’s do this and do that when in fact it’s the scholars that are saying it and I’ve showed you that before. Once again notice what Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, by C. D. Ginsburg, Ktav Publishing House, New York, 1966 reprint says: “: “We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonai in accordance with this Massorah, some of the best MSS. and early editions read the Tetragrammaton, and the question arises how did this variation obtain? The explanation is not far to seek. From time immemorial the Jewish canons decreed that the incommunicable name is to be pronounced Adonai as if it were written [´Adho·nai´] instead of [YHWH]. Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbiden to pronounce.” Following is a list of these 134 places, according to Gins.Mas, Vol. I, pp. 25, 26, par. 115:. . . Tim you write: The JW's try to make this practice into some kind of conspiracy. Yet, we have the Hebrew manuscripts. We have Strong's concordance. Yes, Tim and the Strong’s concordance tells us the Hebrew word in English is Jehovah. Jehovah is both a transliteration and translation, since it kept the four consonants. In my Greek translation it reads for MATTHAIOS 4:7,10 ton IEXWBA tan theo . And in English “it is Jehovah God You wrote, We have countless commentaries, all of which tell us that the Hebrew word was 'YHWH'. Yes, Tim you are correct again and then you stopped! The commentaries also tell us that the (continued) Truthfinder |
||||||
147 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91849 | ||
(Part2) English word for the tetragrammaton is Jehovah. They use the English word. Here are some examples: 19th-century Bible scholar E. Henderson wrote in his commentary on Jer 31:20: “Nothing can excel the touching exhibition of tender parental feeling towards a returning prodigal, which is here presented by Jehovah. . . . Though he had thus spoken against [the idolatrous Ephraimites] and punished them . . . , he never forgot them, but, on the contrary, delighted in the anticipation of their ultimate recovery.” In his commentary on Zephaniah, Professor C. F. Keil wrote: “Zephaniah’s prophecy . . . not only commences with the announcement of a universal judgment upon the whole world, out of which the judgment rises that will fall upon Judah on account of its sins, and upon the world of nations on account of its hostility to the people of Jehovah; but it treats throughout of the great and terrible day of Jehovah.” Tim you wrote, But, our English Bible is not written in Hebrew. ;-) Neither was the Greek New Testament written in Hebrew. The translators of the Bible have simply done the exact same thing that the New Testament writers did when they 'translated' 'YHWH' as 'kurios'. International acceptance of translation of God’s name is seen in their Bible translations. Here are a few of the various translations of the Hebrew “yhvh”: Awabakal - Yehóa Bugotu - Jihova Cantonese - Yehwowah Danish - Jehova Dutch - Jehovah Efik - Jehovah English - Jehovah Fijian - Jiova Finnish - Jehova French - Jéhovah Futuna - Ihova German - Jehova Hungarian - Jehova Igbo - Jehova Italian - Geova Japanese - Ehoba Maori - Ihowa Motu - Iehova Mwala-Malu - Jihova Narrinyeri - Jehovah Nembe - Jihova Petats - Jihouva Polish - Jehowa Portuguese - Jeová Romanian - Iehova Samoan - Ieova Sotho - Jehova Spanish - Jehová Swahili - Yehova Swedish - Jehova Tahitian - Iehova Tagalog - Jehova Tongan - Jihova Venda - Yehova Xhosa - uYehova Yoruba - Jehofah Zulu - uJehova So Tim, Jehovah is the English word for yhvh as most any “commentary” tells us, the prefaces of Bible Translations that do not use it in their main texts, do. You have admitted before that portions of the New Testament very well might have been originally written in Hebrew and you know Matthew most likely was. Thus your conclusion as to the translators’ of the Bible “reason” for changing what was original has no basis. I have already presented “evidence” not mere speculation of the scholars themselves that conclude the Greek and Matthew’s Hebrew originals contained the tetragrammaton and very very early perhaps some of the very first copies were “changed”. Thus no extant copies today. Clear and simple. Truthfinder |
||||||
148 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91901 | ||
Hi Tim, My "perhaps" was in reference as to "when" they would have been changed, since there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts and only the instance in Revelation kept the abbreviated form of the tetragrammaton. The evidence that Matthew was written in Hebrew goes as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century C.E. Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16) Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthew’s account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the “first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6) The scholar Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) wrote in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, that Matthew “composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”—Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series “Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur,” Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8, 9. In the Matthew account it is also noted that the quotations of the Old Testament containing the Tetragrammaton are preserved. When Matthew though, was translated into the Greek, sometime later, those instances of the Tetragrammaton were changed to 'kurios. Truthfinder |
||||||
149 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91967 | ||
Just a brief comment to your post. I assume that you agree with it, otherwise you would not have posted it. Some of it is true but on the other hand some are mere assertions lacking any truth at all. It would have been most commendable in my opinion if the NWT translators were the ones that discovered the fallacy connected with the translation of the words for Lord. The NWT actually followed a precedent set by well over 150 documented Bible scholars, many of which were Trinitarians themselves. If you have had the privilege of engaging in an in depth research of this subject yourself you surely have come to the same conclusion that I have come to. The underlying problem that presents itself in accepting it though, is belief bias. Something we hate to admit and likewise difficult to overcome. I know you know the account of Paul. He had to be struck blind to see the light by our Lord Jesus. Evidently his heart was right, don’t you agree? My basic belief is honoring my heavenly Father as did faithful men and women for thousands of years before the Messiah came on the scene. I don’t believe that has changed. I honor Jesus as the Son of God, nothing more and nothing less. I too believe that my Lord and Savior Jesus repeatedly teaches me to do just that throughout the Gospels. I am a truth finder and I do adjust my thinking from time to time as the Scriptures show me. I pray for an open heart, for a humble heart, to be able to do this. I research and research, making sure of what the “original” tells me. Additionally, I would never share my findings with anyone to mislead them, if I first did not totally believe them and have scriptural basis. Thus, if I offend anyone, I believe it’s the truth of the Word of God that did the offending. Reasoning on the Scriptures has been my life now for almost a half century and I still enjoy it regardless of the response. If you do the same as I, then tell me why the difference in understanding and belief? Sincerely Truthfinder |
||||||
150 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 92704 | ||
Hi Radioman2, You mentioned several verses in this post and most I've already addressed. I still wonder if you truly agree with the quotes you post. They contain many errors. Here is just one example with regards to the text found at Titus 2:13 – Rendered in the NWT: "...while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus." The NASB, in agreement with all other versions, says: "...looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." I now ask is the NASB in truly in agreement with all other versions? If I presented one other version then that statement would be misleading and in error. I believe one should thoroughly research his subject before making such dogmatic statements, as many read these posts. All the tests quoted are indeed scholarly substantiated. Here is not only one version that agrees with the NWT but others too. 1934 “of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus” The Riverside New Testament,Boston and New York. 1935 “of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus” A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt, New York and London. 1957 “of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ” La Sainte Bible, by Louis Segond, Paris. 1970 “of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus” The New American Bible, New York and London. 1972 “of the great God and of Christ Jesus our saviour” The New Testament in Modern English, by J. B. Phillips, New York. You see Radioman2 in reality it is not the NWT that is in error but these versions that you quoted. They are biased toward the Trinity. That is wrong. This verse at Titus 2:13 clearly shows this. You see, in this verse we find two nouns connected by (kai, “and”), the first noun being preceded by the definite article (tou, “of the”) and the second noun without the definite article. A similar construction is found in 2Pe 1:1, 2, where, in vs 2, a clear distinction is made between God and Jesus. This indicates that when two distinct persons are connected by kai, if the first person is preceded by the definite article it is not necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person. Examples of this construction in the Greek text are found in Ac 13:50; 15:22; Eph 5:5; 2Th 1:12; 1Ti 5:21; 6:13; 2Ti 4:1. This construction is also found in LXX. ( Pr 24:21 ftn.) According to An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, the sense “of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ . . . is possible in [koi·ne´] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article].” A detailed study of the construction in Tit 2:13 is found in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, pp. 439-457. On p. 452 of this work the following comments are found: “Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus ‘cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple,’ . No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of (tous) before (agoraontas); here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them. In the case before us [Tit 2:13], the omission of the article before [so·te´ros] seems to me to present no difficulty,—not because soteros) is made sufficiently definite by the addition of [he·mon´] (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called “our Saviour,” [he do´xa tou me·ga´lou The·ou´ kai so·te´ros he·mon´], standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of [I·e·sou´ Khri·stou´ to so·te´ros he·mon´] changes the case entirely, restricting the (so te ros) (he mon) to a person or being who, according to Paul’s habitual use of language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as [ho The·os´], so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression [ka·ta´ ten kha´rin tou The·ou´ he·mon´ kai ky·ri´ou] would naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required before kuriou if two were intended; but the simple addition of [I·e·sou´ Khri·stou´ to ky·ri´ou] makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article.” Therefore, in Tit 2:13, two distinct persons, Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, are mentioned. Throughout the Holy Scriptures it is not possible to identify Jehovah and Jesus as being the same individual. Truthfinder |
||||||
151 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 92706 | ||
Hi again Radioman, Your quote said this: 'Unfortunately, millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide are required to consult the NWT exclusively. That is not true. Here is a quote of the Watchtower magazine: "Too, we note the humility of the committee in acknowledging in their footnotes that there are other ways that passages could be rendered. Appreciating this, we have always both recognized and encouraged the use of a variety of Bible translations. Thus, while deeply grateful for the work of the New World Bible Translation Committee, Jehovah’s witnesses use whatever Bibles are available in the local languages. Whether it be the clear, modern-language New World Translation or another, we encourage all to use the lamp of God’s Word to light life’s roadway.—Ps. 119:105." Truthfinder |
||||||
152 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 92737 | ||
Hi Radioman2, It is indeed good to hear what you say, and thanks. I do remind you though of something I have posted before to others and that is, if I were to want to know what a Baptist believed, I would get more accurate answers by asking a Biptist, and the more knowledgable that Baptist the better. Have a good day. Truthfinder |
||||||
153 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 92805 | ||
Hi Radioman2, Your questions are fair. My objection is merely accuracy. Many churches teach thier their flock that the JW's don't believe in Jesus! You know that that is wrong. What they mean to say is JW's don't believe that Jesus is Almighty God. I too have observed that the "filtered" information from their literature paints an accurate picture of what they present. I understand the complexity of the developement of the Trinity doctrine and why you might have "faith" in its truthfullness. That is why I am here, to present the oppossing understanding. It is not simply, well, JW's have changed the "Bible", they are a "cult", they oppose all that we stand for! That again is simply not true. Of course, though if the shoe fits, then we must humbly wear it. Reasoning from the scriptures, not "twisting" to make a doctrine fit, will lead one to accurate understanding. Many of my JW associates were once Baptists (my mother), Church of Christ (my Grandparents) my wife (Methodist) and I attended their services. Also, if I want to really know what a particular "stand" of a religious group is, I ask a knowlegable member of their group, instead of some web site that opposses that group. Is that not fair? I believe it is. As a result, why would we want to attend a church gathering that teaches what we have left, what we have found to be wrong? So, in answer to your question, yes it is discouraged to attend other religious services. Truthfinder |
||||||
154 | in gen1:26 who is (us) ? | John 1:3 | Truthfinder | 76405 | ||
Hi Hank, Genesis 1:26 is among the earliest texts that refer to the triunity of God. But even in Genesis 1:2 we read that the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) was present at creation "hovering over the face of the waters." And John 1:3 shows that Jesus Christ was involved in creation, as do Col. 1:16,17 and Heb. 1:2. Thus, Genesis 1:26 definitely does not teach polytheism, but attests to the Trinity, the triune nature of God, being one God in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Pagans have falsely accused Christians of believing in polytheism (more than one god). But this is because many pagans do not understand the basic biblical teaching of the triunity of God. --Hank I totally agree with you that all three were involved here, and your texts prove your point very well. I understand that the Bible teaches differently 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 what is his name? However, you then say that because many “pagans” do not understand the basic biblical teaching of the triunity of God. Just for basic knowlege sake, notice what these three reference publications have to say about “pagan”. According to the book Babylonian Life and History (by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, 1925 edition, pp. 146, 147), in ancient Babylon, the pagans did believe in such a thing; in fact, they worshiped more than one trinity of gods. Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, in Babylonian Life and History, says: The demons and devils that made the Babylonian’s life a misery to him were many, but the forms of most of them and their evil powers were well known. Most of all he feared the Seven Evil Spirits, who were the creators of all evil. . . . As there were triads of gods, so there were triads of devils, for example, Labartu, Labasu and Akhkhazu. The first harmed little children, the second caused the quaking sickness, and the third turned the face of a man yellow and black. Another triad comprised Lîlû, Lîlîtu and Ardat Lîli. . . . The Babylonians . . . went to the priest, who often assumed the character of a god, and who exorcised the devils by reciting incantations, . . .—Pages 146, 147 (1925 edition). See also The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edition of 1955, Volume 1, page 373. According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467. Truthfinder |
||||||
155 | in gen1:26 who is (us) ? | John 1:3 | Truthfinder | 76441 | ||
Sorry Hank, Good point. I liked your post and just thought you would be interested in the (pagan) comment I made. Truthfinder |
||||||
156 | 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 |
||||||
157 | 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 |
||||||
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 | 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) |
||||||
160 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [11] >> |