Results 81 - 100 of 300
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | 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 |
||||||
82 | 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 |
||||||
83 | 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 |
||||||
84 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91170 | ||
(2nd part) Not only Matthew but all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted verses from the Hebrew text or from the Septuagint where the divine name appears. For example, in Peter’s speech in Ac 3:22 a quotation is made from De 18:15 where the Tetragrammaton appears in a papyrus fragment of the Septuagint dated to the first century B.C.E. As a follower of Christ, Peter used God’s name, Jehovah. When Peter’s speech was put on record the Tetragrammaton was here used according to the practice during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E. Most assuredly someone was trying to hide something here. As I have posted in times past, the use of the Tetra in the Christian Greek Scriptures is not speculative but sound evidence as, 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. 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.” This presentation of the facts of history in the transmission of Bible manuscripts is “evidence” clearly not mere “speculation” as you assert. Paul in Romans 10:13 quoted Joel 2:32 where he say, “For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” If I were to read just the NASB or the NIV the whole point would be obscured! If I read Psalm 110:1 in the same versions, “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand.” would be obscured. And likewise Matthew quoted this Psalm at Matt 22:44. How clear can it be? Something in Matthew 22:44 is missing in many modern translations! Yes, God’s name was taken out, when Jehovah God had it initially and intentionally. In conclusion, I believe what Jesus himself told us what he had accomplished while on earth. If he had not used his father’s name, how could he have said as he did in John 17:26, “ I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”? Truthfinder |
||||||
85 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91169 | ||
Hi Tim, You say I speculate? Quite the contrary. It is and I say sadly, modern scholars, in their quest for the “real” Jesus, that have hidden his true identity behind layers of baseless speculation, pointless doubts, and unfounded theorizing. Should God allow the evidence to be so dubious, equivocal and ambiguous as to make any deductions regarding his name mere speculation? I think not! First of all, unlike the thinking of many that post here, the theme of the 66 Bible books, is the vindication of Jehovah’s name and sovereignty and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose for the earth, by means of his kingdom under Christ, the promised “Seed”. Christ’s perfectly fulfilling the reason for being sent here was paramount in the success of this issue settlement. And during his 3 and a half years of preaching how did he show us what his primary purpose was? In his model prayer of Matthew 6:9 his initial words concentrated on the prime issue of vindicating Jehovah’s name and his sovereignty (right to rule), where he says, “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.” We notice the two things of utmost importance to Jesus, since it was first mentioned and it was the “model” prayer. 1) God’s “name” to be sanctified and 2) the kingdom rule. Because of his keeping sinless integrity, Jesus vindicated his heavenly Father as the rightful universal Sovereign and proved the Devil to be a base and gross liar. Proverbs 27:11 can be applied at least in principle if not wholly as Jehovah’s words to his Son Jesus, “Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, that I may make a reply to him that is taunting me.” I adamantly believe that the most wicked Adversary, Satan the Devil, caused men and angels (or demons) to join his opposition to God and man. Satan first showed his opposition in the garden of Eden, where, through cruel and underhanded action, he led Eve and then Adam into a course of rebellion that brought sin and death upon all mankind. In the courts of heaven Satan displayed his antagonism, charging Jehovah with bribing Job for his loyalty, a charge which became this issue of universal importance. Job 1:6-11; 2:1-5. The greatest indignity that modern translators render to the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures is the removal or the concealing of his peculiar personal name. Actually his name occurs in the Hebrew text 6,828 times known as the Tetragrammaton. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, Chicago (1980), p. 13, says: “To avoid the risk of taking God’s name (YHWH) in vain, devout Jews began to substitute the word ´adona(y) for the proper name itself. This was the error ridden tradition that Jesus would have no part in, Tim. Although the Masoretes left the four original consonants in the text, they added the vowels e and a to remind the reader to pronounce ´adona(y) regardless of the consonants. This feature alone occurs more than six thousand times in the Hebrew Bible. The very frequency of the appearance of the name attests its importance to the Bible’s author, whose name it is. (1st of 2 parts) Truthfinder |
||||||
86 | Jesus | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91021 | ||
Hi Radioman2, I have posted over 150 different translations of the New Testament that use Jehovah. So it is NOT "just" the NWT. Secondly, I have presented the evidence for "restoring" not "inserting" the name where it was in the original in past posts. The Kingdom Interlinear Translation is not proof that the originals did not have it in them. The KIL is based primarily on the Greek text by Westcott and Hort 1881 and in the KIL on pages 11 and 12 is the explaination for using older manuscripts when "restoring" the divine name Jehovah where it was originally. Truthfinder |
||||||
87 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91020 | ||
Hi Tim, We have manuscript proof that "scribes" NOT Jesus changed the originals again and again of the Hebrew yhvh of the Hebrew texts in their translation of the LXX. They even give their reasons. After Matthew (not Jesus) wrote Jesus' words of Matt. 4:10 there is abosolutely no reason for them to suddenly (still after Jesus time) stop their tradition of substituting Lord for the yhvh in their Greek LXX (of the Greek texts) written after Matthew wrote it. We have many many Hebrew manuscripts of the Greek texts though, that have the yhvh but unfortionately no originals. Remember too, that Matthew wrote his book originally in Hebrew. I contend that Jesus used the LXX before it was changed by the scribes. And since we lack the "originals", evidence points stronger toward Jesus' not following the errors of the Jewish tradition and you cannot conclusively say Tim, that Jesus did not use his Father's name on occassion, especially when he "quoted" the Hebrew texts (whether the LXX or Hebrew writtings) that used it. It's interesting that most of the LXX manuscripts, before they were changed kept the Hebrew letters for the yhvh, yet one discovery, (the 4Q LXX Lev(b) ) presented in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. IV, 1957, p 157, shows that the yhvh was translated also as IAO. Truthfinder |
||||||
88 | Jesus | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90982 | ||
Hi Elder, I notice you wrote this back in December, nonetheless, I will simply say that Matthew 4:10 are Jesus' own words that answer your question. Note he is quoting Deut 6:13 which uses "Jehovah". But many Bibles have changed the original to say "Lord". This leads to confusion. But many other Bibles do use Jehovah and in them they say,‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service." Hope this answers your question. Truthfinder |
||||||
89 | Truthfinder: Is Jesus God? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90981 | ||
Hi Hank, No. Truthfinder |
||||||
90 | Where is Jesus called "...the God"? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90976 | ||
Hi Ray, You wrote: The Jehovah's Witness would not agree with us if we said as does John 1:2, "This One was in the beginning with God." Ray, Why did you say that? Quote me one Jehovah's Witness that would not agree that Jesus was in the beginning with God. I know you feel you are doing the right thing here but you are in error, as all witness believe that. That is a verse that clearly shows Jesus is not Almighty God, because he was "with" God. How can you be Almighty God if you as John 1:1 says you as Almighty God are with Almighty God? That too is the reason John 1:1 must be translated as "and the Word was a god". The "context" shows the Word was with Almighty God. Thus for two reasons, 1) the lack of the definite article and 2) the context, tells us that the translation "and the Word was a god" is better than Moffatt's, Schonfield's and Goodspeed's translations that say "and the Word was divine". 3) Another reason must be included; What does the rest of the Bible say about Jesus and Almighty God? This verse must agree with the whole Bible. Note what Vincent Taylor says: "Here, in the Prologue[of John's Gospel]the Word is said to be God, but as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not used(in the final clause). For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine'(Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the absolute sense of the name. The New English Bible neatly paraphrases the phrase in the words 'and what God was,the Word was',....In neither passage[including 1:18]is Jesus unequivocally called God...."- Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?, Expository Times, 73, No.4(Jan.1962), p.118. You also wrote: Looking at verse 8 they would not see the difference between the man called John and the Man called Jesus. John 1:8, "That one [John the baptist] was not the Light, but came that he might bear witness of the Light. There [that One, He] was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." Ray, where do you get your information? This again is not true. Of course Jehovah's Witnesses believe that. That's what the scriptures say isn't it? Well, if the Scriptures say that, then it must be true, through and through. Truthfinder |
||||||
91 | Should we use Religious titles here? | Luke 18:18 | Truthfinder | 90971 | ||
Hi Justme, I for one agree with you. I also think if Jesus were here, he too would agree since he said in Luke 18:18, "Jesus replied: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God." Jesus here recognized that his God was "good" in the ultimate since. We know of course, that he was still "good" but in a lesser yet still perfect since. His life of humility was an example for us all. That's why I like your name, "justme". Truthfinder |
||||||
92 | origanal pronunciation for Jesus Christ | Acts 7:45 | Truthfinder | 90885 | ||
Hi Yoda, Hope this helps. Jesus is the Latinized form of the Gr. I·e·sous´, which corresponds to the Heb. Ye·shu a or Yehoh·shu a and means “Jehovah Is Salvation”. In Greek it is pronounced Hee ay soos. The name I·e·sous´ appears in the Greek text of Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 Truthfinder |
||||||
93 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90883 | ||
Hi Flinkywood, Did I quote something you disagree with? I quote what I feel is truth and then comment on it to make a point. With so many differing ideas, proper logical reasoning should help us all to come to an accurate understanding of a particular idea. Tradition, miss-translation and philosophy, and yes propaganda are a snare, but I assure you my friend I am not the culprit. Yes, perhaps possessing differing interpretation of many here but I can base my logic and reasoning on what God in the Bible, originally said. Paul tell me at Eph 5:6, Let no man deceive YOU with empty words, for because of the aforesaid things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partakers with them; 8 for YOU were once darkness, but YOU are now light in connection with [the] Lord. Go on walking as children of light, 9 for the fruitage of the light consists of every sort of goodness and righteousness and truth. 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; 11 and quit sharing with [them] in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness, but, rather, even be reproving [them], 12 for the things that take place in secret by them it is shameful even to relate. 13 Now all the things that are being reproved are made manifest by the light, for everything that is being made manifest is light.” For me I do not want to be deceived. I do not want to be in the darkness. I keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord. Sorry I offended you. Please accept my apology. Truthfinder |
||||||
94 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90875 | ||
Hi Mommapbs, I was not implying that you care what Newton believed, I thought you might be interested in what he discovered. He proved that the manuscripts from which many modern translations base their translations on were tampered with. Tampered with to make Jesus appear to be one and the same as his God. Is that not confusing? Jesus' referring so many times to his God, if he himself were God? And John 1:1 the Logos (word) Jesus was "with" God. How can you be God if you are "with" God? Again modern translations try and mislead us by mis-translating John 1:1. I come to realize that so many times a person will believe what he "wants" to believe, but that just simply doesn't make it so. Yes, Jesus is GOD and should be worshipped as GOD, but GOD does not equal Almighty God. God means "mighty one" Jesus is Almighty God's Son. Jesus was the beginning of the creation of Almighty God. He had a beginning. Almighty GOD desirves to be worshipped as the Almighty GOD and his name is Jehovah. Ps 83:18 King James Version Truthfinder |
||||||
95 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90871 | ||
Hi Radioman, You wrote: The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is "a god" is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). First, it should be noted that the text of John 1:1 itself shows that the Word was “with God,” hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty God. (Note also vs 2, which would be unnecessary if vs 1 actually showed the Word to be God.) Again note, the word for “god” (Gr., the·os´) in its second occurrence in the verse is significantly without the definite article “the” (Gr., ho). Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6), stated: “[the·os´] and [ho the·os´] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ ([ho the·os´]; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities.”—John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110. After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb ‘was’ ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os´] is not the same thing as [ho the·os´] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’).” (pp. 110, 111) Elaborating on this point, Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article “the,” preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that “the logos has the nature of theos.” He further stated: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os´] cannot be regarded as definite.” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase: “the Word was divine.”—AT; Sd; compare Mo; see NW appendix, p. 1579. The Hebrew Scriptures are consistently clear in showing that there is but one Almighty God, the Creator of all things and the Most High, whose name is Jehovah. (Ge 17:1; Isa 45:18; Ps 83:18) For that reason Moses could say to the nation of Israel: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. And you must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force.” (De 6:4, 5) The Christian Greek Scriptures do not contradict this teaching that had been accepted and believed by God’s servants for thousands of years, but instead they support it. (Mr 12:29; Ro 3:29, 30; 1Co 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 1Ti 2:5) Jesus Christ himself said, “The Father is greater than I am” and referred to the Father as his God, “the only true God.” (Joh 14:28; 17:3; 20:17; Mr 15:34; Re 1:1; 3:12) On numerous occasions Jesus expressed his inferiority and subordination to his Father. (Mt 4:9, 10; 20:23; Lu 22:41, 42; Joh 5:19; 8:42; 13:16) Even after Jesus’ ascension into heaven his apostles continued to present the same picture.—1Co 11:3; 15:20, 24-28; 1Pe 1:3; 1Jo 2:1; 4:9, 10. These facts give solid support to a translation such as “the Word was a god” at John 1:1. The Word’s preeminent position among God’s creatures as the Firstborn, the one through whom God created all things, and as God’s Spokesman, gives real basis for his being called “a god” or mighty one. The Messianic prophecy at Isaiah 9:6 foretold that he would be called “Mighty God,” though not the Almighty God, and that he would be the “Eternal Father” of all those privileged to live as his subjects. The zeal of his own Father, “Jehovah of armies,” would accomplish this. (Isa 9:7) Certainly if God’s Adversary, Satan the Devil, is called a “god” (2Co 4:4) because of his dominance over men and demons (1Jo 5:19; Lu 11:14-18), then with far greater reason and propriety is God’s firstborn Son called “a god,” “the only-begotten god” as the most reliable manuscripts of John 1:18 call him. Truthfinder |
||||||
96 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90870 | ||
Hi Radioman, You wrote: No one uses the NWT except the JW's. JW's on the other hand will use nothing else! You error in these assertions. Millions, including myself, use the NWT. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society have the copy rights to, publish, and distribute the following Bible translations in numerous languages: King James Version 1611, The Bible in Living English 1972 by Steven T. Byington, Diaglott of the No. 1209 Vatican Manuscript 1942 by Benjamin Wilson, and the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures 1969 texts of Brooke Foss Westcott D. D. and Fenton John Anthony Hort D. D. 1881 edition. You also wrote: The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1 'In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." The New World Translation You are correct since this is the most accurate translation. Notice the following translations of John 1:1 The Greek Diaglott,1864 Benjamin Wilson. The three different translations by Moffatt, Schonfield and Goodspeed (An American Translation) have: "...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." Reflecting an understanding of John 1:1 with the New World Translation's: "and the Word was a god." we have: The Emphatic Diaglott (1864), Benjamin Wilson London and New York. 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) These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word (the·os´) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os´. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ho theos, that is, the·os´ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os´. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself. You also wrote: This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, These other Greek Scholars, Bible translators (of John 1:1) would most certainly take offense in this comment since they consider themselves Christians. The fact that God sent his “only-begotten” Son to the earth is not an assumption. The Holy Scriptures teach it. Justice required satisfaction. Man, though created perfect, fell from that state through sin and thus Adam and his offspring came under God’s condemnation. Justice and fidelity to principles of righteousness necessitated that God execute the sentence of his law against disobedient Adam. But love moved God to purpose a substitutional arrangement whereby justice would be satisfied, and yet without any violation of justice, repentant offspring of sinner Adam could be forgiven and could achieve peace with God. (Col 1:19-23) Therefore, Jehovah “sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.” (1Jo 4:10) Notice in verse 10 that God sent. It does not say God came. (Heb 2:17) Propitiation is that which makes propitious, or favorable. Jesus’ propitiatory sacrifice removes the reason for God to condemn a human creature and makes possible the extending to him of God’s favor and mercy. This propitiation removes the charge of sin and the resulting condemnation to death in the case of spiritual Israel and all others availing themselves of it. 1Jo 2:1, 2. Romans 6:23 reads, “For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.” Here a clear distinction is made between God and Jesus. If Jesus were the Almighty God of this verse then the ransom does not fulfill its purpose of this substitutional arrangement. Truthfinder |
||||||
97 | IS MOSES GOD? | Not Specified | Truthfinder | 90814 | ||
IS MOSES GOD? Who did the Children of Israel say brought them up out of the land of Egypt? Acts 7:40 Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him. Who did Jehovah say brought them up? Exo 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: Truthfinder |
||||||
98 | IS MOSES GOD? | Acts 7:35 | Truthfinder | 90889 | ||
IS MOSES GOD? Who did the Children of Israel say brought them up out of the land of Egypt? Acts 7:40 Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him. Who did Jehovah say brought them up? Exo 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: Truthfinder |
||||||
99 | IS MOSES GOD? | Acts 7:35 | Truthfinder | 90891 | ||
IS MOSES GOD? Who did the Children of Israel say brought them up out of the land of Egypt? Acts 7:40 Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him. Who did Jehovah say brought them up? Exo 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: Truthfinder |
||||||
100 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90776 | ||
Hmmmmmmm, then why did Origen (185 CE - 251 CE) who is called "one of the most learned teachers and prolific authors of the early church." (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)say what he did? Though coming well after the apostolic period, it is interesting to peruse his Commentary on John, as found in volume 9 of Menzies' "Ante-Nicene Fathers." [Quote] We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences [John 1:1]. He does not write without care in this respect nor is he unfamiliar with the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some cases he omits it...He uses the article when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God...The God who is over all is God with the article, not without it. God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father. [Unquote] For Origen, John 1:1c is the logical outcome of John 1:1b, i.e., the Word is "God" or a divine being *because* he was "with" The God in the beginning, "not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father." What I found interesting was so early a recognition of the relevance of the difference between QEOS and hO QEOS in John 1:1. As Origen explains it, the meaning would be similar to modern translators who render John 1:1 as "the Word was Divine" or "the Word was a divine being" or even -- yes -- "the Word was a god." Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |