- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2010,18:19) Mike,
Thanks for your post. It seems that whatever translation you are reading, the translators are putting in more “Jehovah's” than what is in the Hebrew as “Jehovah.”
Hi Kathi,This is the info about the “extra” Jehovah's from the Watchtower.
In 134 places the Jewish Sopherim (scribes) altered the original Hebrew text from YHWH to ’Adho‧nai′. Gins.Mas, Vol. IV, p. 28, § 115, says: “We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonaī 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 Adonaī as if it were written [ אדני ] Adonai instead of [ יהוה ] 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, § 115:
Ge 18:3, 27, 30, 31, 32; 19:18; 20:4; Ex 4:10, 13; 5:22; 15:17; 34:9, 9; Nu 14:17; Jos 7:8; Jg 6:15; 13:8; 1Ki 3:10, 15; 22:6; 2Ki 7:6; 19:23; Ezr 10:3; Ne 1:11; 4:14; Job 28:28; Ps 2:4; 16:2; 22:30; 30:8; 35:17, 22, 23; 37:13; 38:9, 15, 22; 39:7; 40:17; 44:23; 51:15; 54:4; 55:9; 57:9; 59:11; 62:12; 66:18; 68:11, 17, 19, 22, 26, 32; 73:20; 77:2, 7; 78:65; 79:12; 86:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15; 89:49, 50; 90:1, 17; 110:5; 130:2, 3, 6; Isa 3:17, 18; 4:4; 6:1, 8, 11; 7:14, 20; 8:7; 9:8, 17; 10:12; 11:11; 21:6, 8, 16; 28:2; 29:13; 30:20; 37:24; 38:14, 16; 49:14; La 1:14, 15, 15; 2:1, 2, 5, 7, 18, 19, 20; 3:31, 36, 37, 58; Eze 18:25, 29; 21:9; 33:17, 20; Da 1:2; 9:3, 4, 7, 9, 15, 16, 17, 19, 19, 19; Am 5:16; 7:7, 8; 9:1; Mic 1:2; Zec 9:4; Mal 1:12, 14.
We restored the original reading in 133 places and rendered it as “Jehovah.” The only exception is Ps 68:26, where BHK and BHS already have the Tetragrammaton.—See Ps 68:26 ftn, “Jehovah.”
Eight Other Changes
According to Gins.Int, pp. 368, 369, in some instances the Jewish Sopherim substituted ’Elo‧him′ for the Tetragrammaton. We restored the original reading in eight places and rendered it as “Jehovah,” namely, in Ps 14:1, 2, 5; 53:1, 2, 4, 5, 6.
Thus we restored the Tetragrammaton in the above 141 places and rendered it as “Jehovah.”
I can't verify the authenticity of this info at this time, but the NWT has never let me down before. Despite what the trinitarians think, these guys are sharp.
My little sister told me that Jeopardy actually had a question asking which translation of the Scriptures was voted the best by a group of multi-denominational scholars – and the answer was the NWT. She said she would google it when she had time. Sorry, I don't right now.
Let me know if you find evidence for or against the “Jehovah/adonai” info, please.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Ed J @ April 26 2010,18:29) For LU. Comments left unanswered…
Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,08:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07)
Hi Kathi,Verse 3 says, Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant
It doesn't seem that Abraham singled one of the men out and said that, for verse 5 says, At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”
It doesn't seem to me that one of the “men” had authority over the others.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07)
But the reason I brought this passage up is 19:13, which says, 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.”God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,
Wow you are picky. I answer most of the comments but not a couple and you are that interested in what I have to say? I didn't make a point of these comments because I thought that I would address the main points. It was late after all.Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07) Hi Kathi,
Verse 3 says, Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant
It doesn't seem that Abraham singled one of the men out and said that, for verse 5 says, At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”
It doesn't seem to me that one of the “men” had authority over the others.
This shows that the three men were in agreement with staying with Abraham, that is all.
Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07) But the reason I brought this passage up is 19:13, which says, 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.”
I don't know what the problem is with this? The Jehovah that sent them, was with them while talking and eating with Abraham, this is clear towards the end of chapter 18. Jehovah was telling Abraham that HE would not destroy the city if there were 10 righteous. The third 'man' was the Jehovah that was going to destroy the city. He was going to do it through the two angels.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,11:48) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2010,18:29) For LU. Comments left unanswered…
Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,08:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07)
Hi Kathi,Verse 3 says, Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant
It doesn't seem that Abraham singled one of the men out and said that, for verse 5 says, At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”
It doesn't seem to me that one of the “men” had authority over the others.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07)
But the reason I brought this passage up is 19:13, which says, 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.”God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,
Wow you are picky. I answer most of the comments but not a couple and you are that interested in what I have to say? I didn't make a point of these comments because I thought that I would address the main points. It was late after all.Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07) Hi Kathi,
Verse 3 says, Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant
It doesn't seem that Abraham singled one of the men out and said that, for verse 5 says, At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”
It doesn't seem to me that one of the “men” had authority over the others.
This shows that the three men were in agreement with staying with Abraham, that is all.
Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07) But the reason I brought this passage up is 19:13, which says, 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.”
I don't know what the problem is with this? The Jehovah that sent them, was with them while talking and eating with Abraham, this is clear towards the end of chapter 18. Jehovah was telling Abraham that HE would not destroy the city if there were 10 righteous. The third 'man' was the Jehovah that was going to destroy the city. He was going to do it through the two angels.
Hi LU,When someone reads into the text, and others don't see eye to eye on issues,
shouldn't they explain why they draw the conclusions they do?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,11:48) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2010,18:29) For LU. Comments left unanswered…
Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,08:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07)
Hi Kathi,Verse 3 says, Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant
It doesn't seem that Abraham singled one of the men out and said that, for verse 5 says, At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”
It doesn't seem to me that one of the “men” had authority over the others.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07)
But the reason I brought this passage up is 19:13, which says, 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.”God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,
Wow you are picky. I answer most of the comments but not a couple and you are that interested in what I have to say? I didn't make a point of these comments because I thought that I would address the main points. It was late after all.Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07) Hi Kathi,
Verse 3 says, Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant
It doesn't seem that Abraham singled one of the men out and said that, for verse 5 says, At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”
It doesn't seem to me that one of the “men” had authority over the others.
This shows that the three men were in agreement with staying with Abraham, that is all.
Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07) But the reason I brought this passage up is 19:13, which says, 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.”
I don't know what the problem is with this? The Jehovah that sent them, was with them while talking and eating with Abraham, this is clear towards the end of chapter 18. Jehovah was telling Abraham that HE would not destroy the city if there were 10 righteous. The third 'man' was the Jehovah that was going to destroy the city. He was going to do it through the two angels.
Hi LU,
God is a man or an angel to you??Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2010,19:56) Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,11:48) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2010,18:29) For LU. Comments left unanswered…
Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,08:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07)
Hi Kathi,Verse 3 says, Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant
It doesn't seem that Abraham singled one of the men out and said that, for verse 5 says, At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”
It doesn't seem to me that one of the “men” had authority over the others.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07)
But the reason I brought this passage up is 19:13, which says, 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.”God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,
Wow you are picky. I answer most of the comments but not a couple and you are that interested in what I have to say? I didn't make a point of these comments because I thought that I would address the main points. It was late after all.Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07) Hi Kathi,
Verse 3 says, Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant
It doesn't seem that Abraham singled one of the men out and said that, for verse 5 says, At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”
It doesn't seem to me that one of the “men” had authority over the others.
This shows that the three men were in agreement with staying with Abraham, that is all.
Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07) But the reason I brought this passage up is 19:13, which says, 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.”
I don't know what the problem is with this? The Jehovah that sent them, was with them while talking and eating with Abraham, this is clear towards the end of chapter 18. Jehovah was telling Abraham that HE would not destroy the city if there were 10 righteous. The third 'man' was the Jehovah that was going to destroy the city. He was going to do it through the two angels.
Hi LU,When someone reads into the text, and others don't see eye to eye on issues,
shouldn't they explain why they draw the conclusions they do?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,
I try to. I'm no expert at debate though. It sounds like I have not answered some of your posts like you would like me to. Anyone in particular?Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 26 2010,20:05) Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,11:48) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2010,18:29) For LU. Comments left unanswered…
Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,08:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07)
Hi Kathi,Verse 3 says, Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant
It doesn't seem that Abraham singled one of the men out and said that, for verse 5 says, At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”
It doesn't seem to me that one of the “men” had authority over the others.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07)
But the reason I brought this passage up is 19:13, which says, 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.”God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,
Wow you are picky. I answer most of the comments but not a couple and you are that interested in what I have to say? I didn't make a point of these comments because I thought that I would address the main points. It was late after all.Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07) Hi Kathi,
Verse 3 says, Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant
It doesn't seem that Abraham singled one of the men out and said that, for verse 5 says, At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”
It doesn't seem to me that one of the “men” had authority over the others.
This shows that the three men were in agreement with staying with Abraham, that is all.
Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07) But the reason I brought this passage up is 19:13, which says, 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.”
I don't know what the problem is with this? The Jehovah that sent them, was with them while talking and eating with Abraham, this is clear towards the end of chapter 18. Jehovah was telling Abraham that HE would not destroy the city if there were 10 righteous. The third 'man' was the Jehovah that was going to destroy the city. He was going to do it through the two angels.
Hi LU,
God is a man or an angel to you??
Nick,
The Most High God is not a man or an angel.
The Most High God's son is God according to His origin and man according to the flesh. He is not an angel.Hi Paul,
Sorry about the “attitude” showing through my last post. I wasn't mad when I wrote it, but after re-reading it, it sounds like I was. I'm going to answer your points, after which you can choose to respond or not.
You said:
Quote Explain to me why a God who is multipersonal could not have a hierarchy between those persons. Give me a rational, logical answer Mike. I gave you 10 quotes, one from the Encyclopedia Americana, in which no one was able to “explain” the mystery of the trinity doctrine. And again you want me to explain it? First of all Paul, the whole “one being with three separate persons” is impossible for me to grasp. How can God be with God as a separate person taking a scroll, but at the same time be encompassed in the same being? The trinity, in my mind, is a very mysterious way of trying to condense three separate gods to fit into a monotheistic belief system. That was the whole point of my “why two thrones” thread. If God is ONE being, why does He need TWO thrones to rule from? And if Jesus is on one of the thrones, separtate from Jehovah, who is on the other, then can they really be the same being?
And can the same being be at once captain AND leiutenant?
Can the same being be at once a priest AND the God before whom he is the priest?
Can the same being be at once a mediator AND the God he mediates for?
Can the same being be at once a servant AND the one he serves?
Those seem to me to be very “rational, logical” ponderings.
You said:
Quote Think it through Mike. If Yeshua has an identical nature/being to the Father on what logical grounds could it be argued that He is an inferior being? First, are you saying that Jesus HAS AN IDENTICAL BEING to the Father? Because that would make two beings, not one.
Second, everything Jesus taught on earth made clear he was inferior to his God. And the fact that his God sent him to do His will implies he was inferior before he came to earth. And the fact that he is now at the right hand of his God as a servant of his God waiting for his God to place his enemies as a footstool implies he is inferior to his God now. There is not a whole lot of “logical grounds” needed if you read and believe the Scriptures.
You said:
Quote There is not one verse in the entire Bible that shows or even aludes to the logos being a “creation” of the Father. You're right. There isn't one, there are many. Anytime it says begotten aludes to his beginning. The “firstborn of all creation” shows it. The “beginning of the creation of God” shows it.
You said:
Quote If he has a divine essence then he is by definition a divine being. Since biblical monotheism affirms the existence of only one divine being then that would make Yeshua YHVH. He is a divine being. But where do you get that only one can be divine? Dictionary.com says:
di·vine /dɪˈvaɪn/ Show Spelled [dih-vahyn] Show IPA adjective, -vin·er, -vin·est, noun, verb, -vined, -vin·ing.
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to a god, esp. the Supreme Being.
2. addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.
3. proceeding from God or a god: divine laws.
4. godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity.
5. heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.Show me that being divine means he has to be God Almighty.
You said:
Quote At the completion of His redemptive work these were restored to Him (Philippians 2:9, Hebrews 1:9; 2:7-9). Then why is he still a servant of God? Why does he sit at the right hand of his ruler? Why does he call the being that he is supposedly an equal part of “my God”?
You said:
Quote I wasn't arguing for that. I was just pointing out your misunderstanding of the phrase “sitting at the right hand of God” What are you saying? Does sitting at God's right hand make him equal to God AND God Himself, or does it make him God's “right hand man”, second only to his God?
You said:
Quote Your borrowed analogy has one obvious flaw. Pharoah and Joseph are ontologically equivalents. Your supposed to be arguing for Yeshua having an inferior being to the Father, aren't you? I'm arguing that equal is equal, peroid. Talk about flawed!
You have the same being at once a servant and the one he serves. God made us all, Paul. If God could make angels lesser than himself, why couldn't he have made Jesus lesser than Himself? And if angels are called god, why not the Son of God? Jesus asked this same question, except he referred to men being called god. You act as if we all are God Almighty because we came from God. Is that what you think? You said:
Quote Already answered above. The preincarnate Yeshua “emptied” Himself….. No, you didn't answer the most important point. If Jesus was already God Almighty, how could he have been raised to a superior position? Isn't God Almighty as superior as it gets?
You said:
Quote This is a legitimate refutation of modalism, not trinitarianism…. Okay, let me rephrase it for the trinitarians. If Jesus is a part of the being of God, how can he be seen as a separate being approaching the being of God?
You said:
Quote 1. The phrase “standing at the right hand of God” does not denote these two personages LITERALLY standing next to eachother. 2. Even if it did this is evidence against modalism, not trinitarianism.
1. Again you missed (or avoided) the main point. Why can Stephen see all of Jesus, who is supposedly within the being of God at this time, but he can only see the glory of God? No man can see God's face and live, so why can he see Jesus' face?
2. Rephrase it as above.
You said:
Quote Or if Yeshua is ascibed a personal name, this also is not evidence against Him being God…. No, but the fact that he is one being approaching a completely separate being is evidence that he is not the same being as God.
You said:
Quote The inference is if the fullness of deity has permanently settled on Yeshua's body, thereby making him divine. True believers don't ignore blatant statements of deity ascribed to Yeshua. That is why we will not die in our sins (John 8:24). Ah, but you think to be divine is to be God Almighty. It is not I assure you. But it's okay, because to err is human, to forgive is divine.
You said:
Quote Jesus is an “aweful lot like God” huh? How do you reconcile that statement with this verse? Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,I think you maybe take it a bit too literally, like you do the “all power and authority” verse. We all should strive to be like God, including Jesus, the one who does his Father's will and always does what pleases his Father. And the fact that we were created in God's image implies that in a lot of ways, we are like him also.
You said:
Quote I have quoted you at least one verse that shows the being of the Father is identical to the being of the Son. No, you haven't. “Exact representation” could have been worded as “the exact being as God Himself” if that was what was meant, but it isn't. And what I'm waiting for is the verse that shows that the Father is the same identical being AS the Son. And again you mention two separate beings here. What gives?
And as far as the rest of your answer, the fact that all the NT writers know that there is only one BEING OF GOD, and that is the Father alone, shoots down your flawed belief that Jesus is just a lesser ranked member of that being.
You said:
Quote The word “catholic” in that context means “universal”. The original model was quite a different beast to the Roman Catholic Church we know today. Study early church history Mike. That much I knew. So the inventors of the trinity doctrine was the catholic church of 325, right? Just like I said. It doesn't matter how they've evolved since then, the catholic church – Athanasius in particular- started this leprosy on the Christian religion. Emperor Constantine, for secular reasons, jammed it down the throat of the council. This creed was bitterly denounced by many, and actually revoked by a later council, which changed it to state that the Son is, “…of like substance” with the Father, and “we call the Son like the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call him and teach.”
But the decision of this council did not stand. The church later went back to the Nicene Creed. Even then it took many generations before it became sacrosanct and infallible in the eyes of the church.
The purple part is from a paper I wrote a year ago. Do you want to read the rest? It's 17 pages long, all about the trinity. I could PM it to you.
I have studied a little. But that paper is nothing compared to the depths of understanding you and thinker and wj are taking me to. Thank you all from the bottom of my heart.
And once again, you avoided the best part of my point.
Why wasn't your third god included in 325? Why did it take 55 years to add one of the gods you are now so certain has always existed as God? Do you even realize the gravity of this fact? Your flawed man-made doctrine started off with TWO equal persons in a godhead, not THREE. Yet you are so sure that the Scriptures clearly teach the trinity. If it is so clearly taught by Scripture, why was the Holy Spirit not added until 55 years later?
You said:
Quote Mike! You've already conceded Ps 102:25 is a reference to YHVH! The exact same word, from Ps 102:25 (in the Greek septuagint) is applied to Yeshua in Hebrews 1:10!
There can be no further debate on the matter.
Case closed.
And if Hebrews quoting Psalms INSISTS that Jesus is the LORD talked about earlier, then Hebrews quoting 2 Samuel INSISTS that Jesus is the Solomon talked about earlier. Is he?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,14:11) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2010,19:56) Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,11:48) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2010,18:29) For LU. Comments left unanswered…
Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,08:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07)
Hi Kathi,Verse 3 says, Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant
It doesn't seem that Abraham singled one of the men out and said that, for verse 5 says, At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”
It doesn't seem to me that one of the “men” had authority over the others.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07)
But the reason I brought this passage up is 19:13, which says, 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.”God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,
Wow you are picky. I answer most of the comments but not a couple and you are that interested in what I have to say? I didn't make a point of these comments because I thought that I would address the main points. It was late after all.Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07) Hi Kathi,
Verse 3 says, Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant
It doesn't seem that Abraham singled one of the men out and said that, for verse 5 says, At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”
It doesn't seem to me that one of the “men” had authority over the others.
This shows that the three men were in agreement with staying with Abraham, that is all.
Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07) But the reason I brought this passage up is 19:13, which says, 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.”
I don't know what the problem is with this? The Jehovah that sent them, was with them while talking and eating with Abraham, this is clear towards the end of chapter 18. Jehovah was telling Abraham that HE would not destroy the city if there were 10 righteous. The third 'man' was the Jehovah that was going to destroy the city. He was going to do it through the two angels.
Hi LU,When someone reads into the text, and others don't see eye to eye on issues,
shouldn't they explain why they draw the conclusions they do?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,
I try to. I'm no expert at debate though. It sounds like I have not answered some of your posts like you would like me to. Anyone in particular?
Hi Kathi,My goal is NOT to debate with you, only to “fully” clarify your views.
Any inconsistencies I see I'll only ask you to explain 'in detail'; OK?
Arguing serves “no purpose”, it's God's job is to correct, NOT mine!God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,19:47) Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2010,18:19) Mike,
Thanks for your post. It seems that whatever translation you are reading, the translators are putting in more “Jehovah's” than what is in the Hebrew as “Jehovah.”
Hi Kathi,This is the info about the “extra” Jehovah's from the Watchtower.
In 134 places the Jewish Sopherim (scribes) altered the original Hebrew text from YHWH to ’Adho‧nai′. Gins.Mas, Vol. IV, p. 28, § 115, says: “We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonaī 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 Adonaī as if it were written [ אדני ] Adonai instead of [ יהוה ] 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, § 115:
Ge 18:3, 27, 30, 31, 32; 19:18; 20:4; Ex 4:10, 13; 5:22; 15:17; 34:9, 9; Nu 14:17; Jos 7:8; Jg 6:15; 13:8; 1Ki 3:10, 15; 22:6; 2Ki 7:6; 19:23; Ezr 10:3; Ne 1:11; 4:14; Job 28:28; Ps 2:4; 16:2; 22:30; 30:8; 35:17, 22, 23; 37:13; 38:9, 15, 22; 39:7; 40:17; 44:23; 51:15; 54:4; 55:9; 57:9; 59:11; 62:12; 66:18; 68:11, 17, 19, 22, 26, 32; 73:20; 77:2, 7; 78:65; 79:12; 86:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15; 89:49, 50; 90:1, 17; 110:5; 130:2, 3, 6; Isa 3:17, 18; 4:4; 6:1, 8, 11; 7:14, 20; 8:7; 9:8, 17; 10:12; 11:11; 21:6, 8, 16; 28:2; 29:13; 30:20; 37:24; 38:14, 16; 49:14; La 1:14, 15, 15; 2:1, 2, 5, 7, 18, 19, 20; 3:31, 36, 37, 58; Eze 18:25, 29; 21:9; 33:17, 20; Da 1:2; 9:3, 4, 7, 9, 15, 16, 17, 19, 19, 19; Am 5:16; 7:7, 8; 9:1; Mic 1:2; Zec 9:4; Mal 1:12, 14.
We restored the original reading in 133 places and rendered it as “Jehovah.” The only exception is Ps 68:26, where BHK and BHS already have the Tetragrammaton.—See Ps 68:26 ftn, “Jehovah.”
Eight Other Changes
According to Gins.Int, pp. 368, 369, in some instances the Jewish Sopherim substituted ’Elo‧him′ for the Tetragrammaton. We restored the original reading in eight places and rendered it as “Jehovah,” namely, in Ps 14:1, 2, 5; 53:1, 2, 4, 5, 6.
Thus we restored the Tetragrammaton in the above 141 places and rendered it as “Jehovah.”
I can't verify the authenticity of this info at this time, but the NWT has never let me down before. Despite what the trinitarians think, these guys are sharp.
My little sister told me that Jeopardy actually had a question asking which translation of the Scriptures was voted the best by a group of multi-denominational scholars – and the answer was the NWT. She said she would google it when she had time. Sorry, I don't right now.
Let me know if you find evidence for or against the “Jehovah/adonai” info, please.
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,
I don't know about your info but I am suspicious about this quite honestly. The article says “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.” But in Genesis 18, the Hebrew text uses both, the Tetragrammaton and Adonai several times. If the scribes naturally substituted the Tetragrammaton with Adonai then why isn't it consistently substituted within the same chapter?So, I don't buy it, Mike. Have you ever read this book or at least the 12 pages of reviews?
http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Conscience-Raymond-Franz/dp/0914675230You might find the reviews interesting to you.
Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2010,23:01) Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,14:11) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2010,19:56) Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,11:48) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2010,18:29) For LU. Comments left unanswered…
Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,08:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07)
Hi Kathi,Verse 3 says, Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant
It doesn't seem that Abraham singled one of the men out and said that, for verse 5 says, At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”
It doesn't seem to me that one of the “men” had authority over the others.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07)
But the reason I brought this passage up is 19:13, which says, 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.”God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,
Wow you are picky. I answer most of the comments but not a couple and you are that interested in what I have to say? I didn't make a point of these comments because I thought that I would address the main points. It was late after all.Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07) Hi Kathi,
Verse 3 says, Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant
It doesn't seem that Abraham singled one of the men out and said that, for verse 5 says, At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”
It doesn't seem to me that one of the “men” had authority over the others.
This shows that the three men were in agreement with staying with Abraham, that is all.
Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,01:07) But the reason I brought this passage up is 19:13, which says, 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.”
I don't know what the problem is with this? The Jehovah that sent them, was with them while talking and eating with Abraham, this is clear towards the end of chapter 18. Jehovah was telling Abraham that HE would not destroy the city if there were 10 righteous. The third 'man' was the Jehovah that was going to destroy the city. He was going to do it through the two angels.
Hi LU,When someone reads into the text, and others don't see eye to eye on issues,
shouldn't they explain why they draw the conclusions they do?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,
I try to. I'm no expert at debate though. It sounds like I have not answered some of your posts like you would like me to. Anyone in particular?
Hi Kathi,My goal is NOT to debate with you, only to “fully” clarify your views.
Any inconsistencies I see I'll only ask you to explain 'in detail'; OK?
Arguing serves “no purpose”, it's God's job is to correct, NOT mine!God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,
Sounds good.Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 26 2010,22:24) Hi LU,
So your two gods are not equal?
Nick,
They are equal in nature and thus both Gods but not equal in qualifications and thus both are not Most High Gods. A qualification for being the Most High God would be that He always existed. The Son was begotten.Hi Kathi,
That is a good question. I don't know the answer. But the only thing that matters to me right now is that 19:18 has Jehovah in the oldest manuscripts. Knowing this, how do you explain your Jehovah the Son theory? And Ed is right on one thing. You didn't fully explain how Abraham said Jehovah in verse 3, and they all answered in verse 5.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Lightenup @ April 26 2010,15:22) Quote …the sonship of THE Son of God: He began being a son in Mary.
He began being a son at the Jordan baptism.
He began being a son at the resurrection.So, I assume that Nick votes for (He began being a son at the Jordan baptism). How about the rest of you? What is your vote?
Hi LU,These (three) are all “Fractally” true.
He began being a son in Mary. (Isaiah 7:14 / Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
He began being a son at the Jordan baptism. (Heb.7:28 / John 1:14-15 / John 12:49)
He began being a son at the resurrection. (Rom.1:4)God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ April 26 2010,22:32) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 26 2010,21:27) Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Hi Isaiah 1:18,How do you reconcile what you Posted to what Isaiah 46:9 “Actually Says”…
Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I God, and there is none else; I God, and there is none like me,
Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done,
saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
There is no being like YHVH. YHVH is in a metaphysical category alone.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2010,14:27) I'm going to answer your points, after which you can choose to respond or not.
I'll pass.Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,15:13) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 26 2010,22:24) Hi LU,
So your two gods are not equal?
Nick,
They are equal in nature and thus both Gods but not equal in qualifications and thus both are not Most High Gods. A qualification for being the Most High God would be that He always existed. The Son was begotten.
Hi LU,
Really?You develop more detail of your dogma each day?
You even apply the qualifications for your gods??Quote (Ed J @ April 27 2010,02:36) Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2010,15:22) Quote …the sonship of THE Son of God: He began being a son in Mary.
He began being a son at the Jordan baptism.
He began being a son at the resurrection.So, I assume that Nick votes for (He began being a son at the Jordan baptism). How about the rest of you? What is your vote?
Hi LU,These (three) are all “Fractally” true.
He began being a son in Mary. (Isaiah 7:14 / Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
He began being a son at the Jordan baptism. (Heb.7:28 / John 1:14-15 / John 12:49)
He began being a son at the resurrection. (Rom.1:4)God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EdJ,I don't think that it was cool for you to give a half quote of my list. You took out two other choices, you took out the numbers of my list and you took out the number in what I said to Nick and added words. That must be a violation of board rules, I'm not sure, but we can ask Nick. Anyway, that appears very manipulative and dishonest whether it was or not.
Here is my original post:
Quote Posted: April 25 2010,23:22
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 25 2010,23:05)
Hi LU,
The sonship we can follow him into brotherhood is only that of the Jordan.
We must be reborn from above.Quote
The way that I see it is this:
These are the opinions on HN about the sonship of THE Son of God:1.He was begotten as in born of God and not created before creation.
2.He was created directly by God and then all things were created through the first one that was created.
3. He began being a son in Mary.
4. He began being a son at the Jordan baptism.
5. He began being a son at the resurrection.When we let God show us truth in this, that is when we can begin a true knowledge of the Father and the Son. This is a vital foundational truth.
So, I assume that Nick votes for #4. How about the rest of you? What is your vote?
found here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=640Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,15:13) Quote (Ed J @ April 27 2010,02:36) Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2010,15:22) Quote …the sonship of THE Son of God: He began being a son in Mary.
He began being a son at the Jordan baptism.
He began being a son at the resurrection.So, I assume that Nick votes for (He began being a son at the Jordan baptism). How about the rest of you? What is your vote?
Hi LU,These (three) are all “Fractally” true.
He began being a son in Mary. (Isaiah 7:14 / Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
He began being a son at the Jordan baptism. (Heb.7:28 / John 1:14-15 / John 12:49)
He began being a son at the resurrection. (Rom.1:4)God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EdJ,I don't think that it was cool for you to give a half quote of my list. You took out two other choices, you took out the numbers of my list and you took out the number in what I said to Nick and added words. That must be a violation of board rules, I'm not sure, but we can ask Nick. Anyway, that appears very manipulative and dishonest whether it was or not.
Here is my original post:
Quote Posted: April 25 2010,23:22
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 25 2010,23:05)
Hi LU,
The sonship we can follow him into brotherhood is only that of the Jordan.
We must be reborn from above.Quote
The way that I see it is this:
These are the opinions on HN about the sonship of THE Son of God:1.He was begotten as in born of God and not created before creation.
2.He was created directly by God and then all things were created through the first one that was created.
3. He began being a son in Mary.
4. He began being a son at the Jordan baptism.
5. He began being a son at the resurrection.When we let God show us truth in this, that is when we can begin a true knowledge of the Father and the Son. This is a vital foundational truth.
So, I assume that Nick votes for #4. How about the rest of you? What is your vote?
found here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=640
Nick,
As the moderator, would you consider this as a violation of board rules? Are we allowed to remove the parts of another persons quote or change it?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
