- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,01:17) Hi Kathi, You said:
Quote Well, I am not convinced that the oldest manuscripts have 'Jehovah' in 19:18 (that is what you meant, right) what made me reconsider that Lot may be praying is the different word he used in 19:18 for 'Lord' than the one he used for 'lords' in 19:2. Yes, that is what I meant. Why would anyone make up such a thing? What purpose would that serve to anyone? I tried to find those older manuscripts last night, but gave up; it was late. And the older MSS have “adon” in 19:2. And in 19:18, the word the scribes substitude YHVH with is “adonay”. In this occasion it stands for God, for it was used to replace the tetragrammaton.
You said:
Quote I am going to suggest something here. Since Lot said to 'them', and the 'them' is plural (I just noticed that in the NET Bible looking at the LXXM) and the 'Lord' is singular, Lot may have only said “No please” to the angels and then addressed the one in heaven beginning with “Lord, your servant has found favor…” That is plausible, since there is no punctuation in the Hebrew.
You said:
Quote In Gen 18:3, the Lord is singular which tells me that Abe is talking to one of the three men but then the pronouns become plural a little after that which tells me that Abe is now including all three. But how did he know which one was “Jehovah the Son”?
Quote Just reading the conversation between 'Jehovah' and Abe at the end of Gen 18 shows two people that are standing there face to face and one of them says that He is going to destroy the city if their outcry can be verified when He goes down to them. Obviously He went down to them and verified their outcry even though it was not specifically recorded since the angels say this: Gen 19:13
13 for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”
NASUOkay, so “Jehovah the Son” said he would destroy the city. Then the two angels said “we are about to destroy this place”. Then it actually became destroyed by Jehovah in heaven. Seems to me they were all speaking for Jehovah, (or rather, He was speaking through them) since He is the one who ultimately destroyed the cities.
NET Notes says:
Quote Some take the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים (’elohim) as the divine name (“God”) here, but this seems unlikely since v. 21 informs us that Manoah realized this was the Lord’s messenger, not God himself. That was my point. Although Manoah realized it wasn't actually God, he called him God. I think because they were from God, the Hebrews would address angels as “God” or “Jehovah”, knowing full well they weren't actually God in person.
You said:
Quote His wife calmed him down and straightened him out…good, wise wife 
Most women got a bad rap in the Scriptures, eh?You said:
Quote I don't think that Abe had that understanding that He was talking to Jehovah as in the Son of God Jehovah. Then who? He thought he was talking to the invisible God Almighty on earth? You seem to think he knew which one of the three was Jehovah.
You said:
Quote Isaiah knew He was an 'arm' of the Lord and that arm was a person. Yet he kept this info to himself? All the things he spoke from God to all those different people, but the fact that the strictly monotheistic Hebrews actually had two Gods he kept secret?
You said:
Quote Whew…a long one! 
Compared to WJ's “million word march” in our debate, this seemed like one of Nick's posts. peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,Here we go…
you said:
Quote Yes, that is what I meant. Why would anyone make up such a thing? What purpose would that serve to anyone? I tried to find those older manuscripts last night, but gave up; it was late. And the older MSS have “adon” in 19:2. And in 19:18, the word the scribes substitude YHVH with is “adonay”. In this occasion it stands for God, for it was used to replace the tetragrammaton. Are you saying that the manuscript that the NWT was used for translating the OT is older than the Septuagint or the Dead Sea Scrolls? There seems to be no mention of it online. Keep looking if you want.
Quote Okay, so “Jehovah the Son” said he would destroy the city. Then the two angels said “we are about to destroy this place”. T
hen it actually became destroyed by Jehovah in heaven. Seems to me they were all speaking for Jehovah, (or rather, He was speaking through them) since He is the one who ultimately destroyed the cities.
Jehovah the Son said that He was going to destroy Sodom.
The angels said that Jehovah sent them to destroy Sodom.
Then Jehovah in heaven sent the fire and brimstone.I would say that Jehovah the Son went back to heaven and sent the fire and brimstone for the angels to destroy Sodom with.
Jehovah the Son doesn't mention that He was sent by someone but the angels do. If Jehovah the Son was sent by someone greater and thus speaking for someone why is it not mentioned?
Quote That was my point. Although Manoah realized it wasn't actually God, he called him God. I think because they were from God, the Hebrews would address angels as “God” or “Jehovah”, knowing full well they weren't actually God in person. It is one thing when a man says who he thinks someone is and another thing what the writer actually says who the certain someone is. Don't you think the narrator is the one inspired to write the scriptures and not the one speaking (unless the one speaking is also the narrator)?
Manoah said the person was God, the narrator said the person was an angel. I think the narrator would be the accurate one.
In Gen 18, the narrator says that Jehovah was talking to Abraham and mentioned two angels. Whatever Abraham or Lot called the two or three or one man isn't as reliable as the narrator defining who they are.
Quote Then who? He thought he was talking to the invisible God Almighty on earth? You seem to think he knew which one of the three was Jehovah. I pointed out to you that Jehovah had appeared to Abraham beforehand, even in chapter 17 of Genesis.
Quote Yet he kept this info to himself? All the things he spoke from God to all those different people, but the fact that the strictly monotheistic Hebrews actually had two Gods he kept secret? He wrote about it as he was inspired to write and he spoke as directed by the Lord.
Remember the two are presented as one in the OT and the NT. Jesus said the Father and I are one. In the OT the ONE is presented as the Lord with the Outstretched Arm. Their oneness is consistent.
All for now.
God bless!Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 02 2010,22:53) Hi LU,
When God told us His name it is I AM WHO AM.
Somehow you hear that as WE ARE WHO ARE??
Nick,
A long time ago there was the first 'Hassan' and he gave his name to his son, and he was 'Hassan' also. They both could say “I am a Hassan.”Hi LU,
So you think I AM WHO AM is not to be taken seriously.
It has no truth in it you can respect??Nick,
Yes, I do accept what God said about Himself. I also accept what Jesus said about the Father giving Him (the Son) His (the Father's) name.
Quote (Lightenup @ May 03 2010,17:07) Nick, Yes, I do accept what God said about Himself. I also accept what Jesus said about the Father giving Him (the Son) His (the Father's) name.
Hi Kathi,I told you all those capped “h's” would confuse things.
Look at you using parenthesis to explain who you're talking about. joking with you,
mikeQuote (Lightenup @ May 03 2010,15:48) Are you saying that the manuscript that the NWT was used for translating the OT is older than the Septuagint or the Dead Sea Scrolls? There seems to be no mention of it online. Keep looking if you want.
Hi Kathi,Okay, I will. This is from Wikipedia (JHWH):
According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, יְהֹוָה (Qr אֲדֹנָי) occurs 6,518 times, and יֱהֹוִה (Qr אֱלֹהִים) occurs 305 times in the Masoretic Text. Since the scribes admit[citation needed] removing it in at least 134 places and inserting Adonai, one may conclude that the four letter Name יהוה appeared about 7,000 times.
The oldest complete Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) versions, from around the second century A.D., consistently use Κυριος (= “Lord”), where the Hebrew has YHWH, corresponding to substituting Adonay for YHWH in reading the original; in books written in Greek in this period (e.g., Wisdom, 2 and 3 Maccabees), as in the New Testament, Κυριος takes the place of the name of God. However, older fragments contain the name YHWH.[32] In the P. Ryl. 458 (perhaps the oldest extant Septuagint manuscript) there are blank spaces, leading some scholars to believe that the Tetragrammaton must have been written where these breaks or blank spaces are.
[edit] Loss of the Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint
Septuagint study does give some credence to the possibility that the Divine Name appeared in its original texts. Dr Sidney Jellicoe concluded that “Kahle is right in holding that LXX [= Septuagint] texts, written by Jews for Jews, retained the Divine Name in Hebrew Letters (palaeo-Hebrew or Aramaic) or in the Greek-letters imitative form ΠΙΠΙ, and that its replacement by Κύριος was a Christian innovation.”[67] Jellicoe draws together evidence from a great many scholars (B. J. Roberts, Baudissin, Kahle and C.H Roberts) and various segments of the Septuagint to draw the conclusions that: a) the absence of “Adonai” from the text suggests that the insertion of the term “Kurios” was a later practice, b) in the Septuagint “Kurios”, or in English “Lord”, is used to substitute the Name YHWH, and c) the Tetragrammaton appeared in the original text, but Christian copyists removed it. There is therefore a strong possibility that the Sacred Name was once integrated within the Greek text, but eventually disappeared.Meyer suggests as one possibility that “as modern Hebrew letters were introduced, the next step was to follow modern Jews and insert 'Kurios', Lord. This would prove this innovation was of a late date.”
Bible scholars and translators as Eusebius and Jerome (translator of the Latin Vulgate) used the Hexapla. Both attest to the importance of the sacred Name and that the most reliable manuscripts contained the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters.[citation needed]
Jerome[27] speaks of certain ignorant Greek writers who transcribed the Hebrew Divine name יהוה as ΠΙΠΙ.
I'm still looking. And it is a fact that the older copies of the Septuagint had JHWH. They have the actual fragments to prove it. I don't think the Witnesses and Wikipedia lied when they said JHWH used to be in there, but the scribes changed it. Are you willing to amend your belief that “Jehovah the Son” was present if I show proof of the scribes changing JHWH to Adonai?
I ask because your previous comment was a little flippant – like you don't want to accept it because it will ruin the understanding you've developed.
peace and love,
mikeNick,
I never said that the Son became the Father, I said that the Father gave the Son His name Jehovah. This was a typical practice for the Jews…to name the son the father's name. See here regarding John the Baptist:Quote Luke 1:57-65
57 Now the time had come for Elizabeth to give birth, and she gave birth to a son.
58 Her neighbors and her relatives heard that the Lord had displayed His great mercy toward her; and they were rejoicing with her.
59 And it happened that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to call him Zacharias, after his father.
60 But his mother answered and said, “No indeed; but he shall be called John.”
61 And they said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who is called by that name.”
62 And they made signs to his father, as to what he wanted him called.
63 And he asked for a tablet and wrote as follows, “His name is John.” And they were all astonished.
64 And at once his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed, and he began to speak in praise of God.
65 Fear came on all those living around them; and all these matters were being
NASUIf John was called Zacharias that would not make him into his father. They were both men just not the same man. Likewise we know that the heavenly Father gave His Son His own name but that didn't make the Son into the Father. They were both God just not the same God. The Father is the Most High God and the Son is the Mighty God. The Father considers them one and so does the Son.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 04 2010,00:38) Quote (Lightenup @ May 03 2010,15:48) Are you saying that the manuscript that the NWT was used for translating the OT is older than the Septuagint or the Dead Sea Scrolls? There seems to be no mention of it online. Keep looking if you want.
Hi Kathi,Okay, I will. This is from Wikipedia (JHWH):
According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, יְהֹוָה (Qr אֲדֹנָי) occurs 6,518 times, and יֱהֹוִה (Qr אֱלֹהִים) occurs 305 times in the Masoretic Text. Since the scribes admit[citation needed] removing it in at least 134 places and inserting Adonai, one may conclude that the four letter Name יהוה appeared about 7,000 times.
The oldest complete Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) versions, from around the second century A.D., consistently use Κυριος (= “Lord”), where the Hebrew has YHWH, corresponding to substituting Adonay for YHWH in reading the original; in books written in Greek in this period (e.g., Wisdom, 2 and 3 Maccabees), as in the New Testament, Κυριος takes the place of the name of God. However, older fragments contain the name YHWH.[32] In the P. Ryl. 458 (perhaps the oldest extant Septuagint manuscript) there are blank spaces, leading some scholars to believe that the Tetragrammaton must have been written where these breaks or blank spaces are.
[edit] Loss of the Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint
Septuagint study does give some credence to the possibility that the Divine Name appeared in its original texts. Dr Sidney Jellicoe concluded that “Kahle is right in holding that LXX [= Septuagint] texts, written by Jews for Jews, retained the Divine Name in Hebrew Letters (palaeo-Hebrew or Aramaic) or in the Greek-letters imitative form ΠΙΠΙ, and that its replacement by Κύριος was a Christian innovation.”[67] Jellicoe draws together evidence from a great many scholars (B. J. Roberts, Baudissin, Kahle and C.H Roberts) and various segments of the Septuagint to draw the conclusions that: a) the absence of “Adonai” from the text suggests that the insertion of the term “Kurios” was a later practice, b) in the Septuagint “Kurios”, or in English “Lord”, is used to substitute the Name YHWH, and c) the Tetragrammaton appeared in the original text, but Christian copyists removed it. There is therefore a strong possibility that the Sacred Name was once integrated within the Greek text, but eventually disappeared.Meyer suggests as one possibility that “as modern Hebrew letters were introduced, the next step was to follow modern Jews and insert 'Kurios', Lord. This would prove this innovation was of a late date.”
Bible scholars and translators as Eusebius and Jerome (translator of the Latin Vulgate) used the Hexapla. Both attest to the importance of the sacred Name and that the most reliable manuscripts contained the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters.[citation needed]
Jerome[27] speaks of certain ignorant Greek writers who transcribed the Hebrew Divine name יהוה as ΠΙΠΙ.
I'm still looking. And it is a fact that the older copies of the Septuagint had JHWH. They have the actual fragments to prove it. I don't think the Witnesses and Wikipedia lied when they said JHWH used to be in there, but the scribes changed it. Are you willing to amend your belief that “Jehovah the Son” was present if I show proof of the scribes changing JHWH to Adonai?
I ask because your previous comment was a little flippant – like you don't want to accept it because it will ruin the understanding you've developed.
peace and love,
mike
Mike,
You found something, good for you! BTW, you read what I said as sounding flippant but I just meant it as concerned for your time and effort because I couldn't find anything. Remember, you can not hear the tone of someone's voice on here and you shouldn't assume something, ok?your article said:
Quote Since the scribes admit[citation needed] removing it in at least 134 places and inserting Adonai, one may conclude that the four letter Name יהוה appeared about 7,000 times. Adown and Adonai are two different words translated as Lord. Do you agree with that. The first one Adown is Strong's #113 and can be applied to someone divine or man. Adonai according to one source, Biblesoft software, which is Strong's #136 is applicable only to God. So, since Gen 18:3 has the #113 (Adown) Lord in it, then it shouldn't have been changed to Jehovah. Do you see that in the interlinear…Strong's #113-Adown?
So, the verse Gen 19:18 is the one to question why Lot is using the word Jehovah if indeed he is. I have suggested that Lot said “No, please” to the angels and then began a prayer/plea to Jehovah who was back in heaven by then. You said that was plausible. So, it really won't prove anything if you prove that in Gen 19:18 the word “Lord” should read “Jehovah.” Sorry. Lot knew that the angels were getting their direction from Jehovah after all. Why wouldn't he speak directly to Jehovah to make his plea. The change that took place from 'them' which is plural, to 'Lord' or 'Jehovah' which was singular tells us that there is a shift in referent.
Even if Gen 18:3 should read Jehovah where Abe said 'Lord,' I have shown you that the Lord had appeared to Him at other times (see chapter 17) and that could also have been the Son since no one has seen the Father. Abe may have recognized Jehovah from a very recent encounter, probably only a few months before.
As I have said before, what the narrator calls the person is more reliable than what the person in the story calls the person when there is a discrepancy. One was called Jehovah by the narrator, the other two were angels by the narrator.
The Father gave His Son, His very own name…this became a common practice among the Jews, read that here:
Quote Luke 1:57-65
57 Now the time had come for Elizabeth to give birth, and she gave birth to a son.
58 Her neighbors and her relatives heard that the Lord had displayed His great mercy toward her; and they were rejoicing with her.
59 And it happened that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to call him Zacharias, after his father.
60 But his mother answered and said, “No indeed; but he shall be called John.”
61 And they said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who is called by that name.”
62 And they made signs to his father, as to what he wanted him called.
63 And he asked for a tablet and wrote as follows, “His name is John.” And they were all astonished.
64 And at once his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed, and he began to speak in praise of God.
65 Fear came on all those liv
ing around them; and all these matters were being
NASUFather-Jehovah
Son-JehovahThe Son was given the name and when the Son became flesh He was given the name Jehovah Saves. Both include the Father's name.
Goodnight! Thanks for the sharpening
Hi LU,
All the names given in creation do not change who one is.
Jesus is the promised Son of God.
Yahshua.Personally I believe that all references in the OT where God appeared to someone it was Jesus. Jesus was acting as the Father's Agent – An agent is a person who is authorized to act on behalf of another party and represent their interest. It could also be likened to a TV, I saw Obama on TV last night, now I didn't see Obama, I saw his image. The TV basically represents everything about Obama that a TV is capable of and can be trusted to represent him (as long as it is not tampered with) Jesus was God manifested in our reality and could be trusted to fully and accurately represent the Father. So like Obama I most likely will never met him in person, but I have seen him accurately portrayed as an image, the same was true for the OT folks who saw God but lived, they saw the 3D manifestation of the very image of the Father (when you've seen me you've seen the Father).
My opinion – Wm
Hi ST,
It is a popular myth.
No substance.But the Spirit of Christ was there[1Peter1]
The Lord is the Spirit.To All…………God (IS) SPIRIT you can not (SEE) Spirit, GOD was (IN) those Angles and Leaders of Israel, by HIS SPIRIT , that was the (CHRISTOS) or Anointing Following the Childern of Israel in the wilderness. Even Moses , Joshua, and the seventy Elders were (ALL) being guided by GOD'S Spirit ON them. The Word (Christ) is simply saying the ANOINTING, Jesus the Person was (NOT) there, the ANOINTING (SPIRIT) was there working in those Angles and Leaders of Israel, manifesting it self in various ways. This was the same SPIRIT that was (IN) Jesus working through Him when He came into existence at the time of his berth by Mary. He recieve his adoption at the Jordan river and there he became a SON of GOD. That was the Day GOD the FATHER (BEGOT) him. “thou art my Son (THIS DAY) i have begotten you”. Those who have this SPIRIT (seed) of GOD in them are (NOW) Sons of the LIVING GOD also. IMO
peace and love to you all……………………..gene
Gene,
We do believe very differently. I believe that the “word” in the beginning was a person as the literal Son of God, not created as the angels but procreated as a literal son would be. He was given His Father's name, Jehovah as the root of David, and His name became Jehovah Saves as the branch of David. We know that the Most High God considered Him His own Outstretched Arm and portrayed them together as ONE. We are shown in the NT that the Outstretched Arm of the Lord is revealed as the Son of God. The Bible doesn't ever say that He became the Son but that He was a mystery and was 'revealed' at the proper time.When you understand this many things become clear.
God bless!Quote (seekingtruth @ May 04 2010,04:53) Personally I believe that all references in the OT where God appeared to someone it was Jesus. Jesus was acting as the Father's Agent – An agent is a person who is authorized to act on behalf of another party and represent their interest. It could also be likened to a TV, I saw Obama on TV last night, now I didn't see Obama, I saw his image. The TV basically represents everything about Obama that a TV is capable of and can be trusted to represent him (as long as it is not tampered with) Jesus was God manifested in our reality and could be trusted to fully and accurately represent the Father. So like Obama I most likely will never met him in person, but I have seen him accurately portrayed as an image, the same was true for the OT folks who saw God but lived, they saw the 3D manifestation of the very image of the Father (when you've seen me you've seen the Father). My opinion – Wm
I agree William!The Son of God has His own will, His own mind and purposefully and willfully obeyed His God-His own Father, as the Father's agent. That shows perfection. We are also called to be agents/ambassador's and to be that for Christ. He was an ambassador for His Father, we are to be an ambassdor for Christ to the glory of the Father.
2 Cor 5:20
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
NASUDefinition of ambassador:
AmbassadorAmbassador
— In the Old Testament the Hebrew word
tsir
, meaning “one who goes on an errand,” is rendered thus (Josh 9:4; Prov 13:17; Isa 18:2; Jer 49:14; Obad 1). This is also the rendering of melits, meaning “an interpreter,” in 2 Chron 32:31; and of malak, a “messenger,” in 2 Chron 35:21; Isa 30:4; 33:7; Ezek 17:15. This is the name used by the apostle as designating those who are appointed by God to declare his will (2 Cor 5:20; Eph 6:20).The Hebrews on various occasions and for various purposes had recourse to the services of ambassadors, e.g., to contract alliances (Josh 9:4), to solicit favours (Num 20:14), to remonstrate when wrong was done (Judg 11:12), to condole with a young king on the death of his father (2 Sam 10:2), and to congratulate a king on his accession to the throne (1 Kings 5:1).
To do injury to an ambassador was to insult the king who sent him (2 Sam 10:5).
(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 04 2010,02:20) Hi LU,
All the names given in creation do not change who one is.
Jesus is the promised Son of God.
Yahshua.
Nick,
The Father's name, Jehovah, given before creation to the Son identified the Son who was the Outstretched Arm of the Lord during creation and throughout the Old Testament and He was the root of David. As promised, He became the branch (offspring) of David and He fulfilled the Messiah annointing. He was 100% root and became 100% branch…100% God, as the Son and 100% man as the Son. And that can be said of no ordinary man.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
