- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi MB,
All translators except you are dishonest?
Do you not know that Jesus is the great prophet superior to the great John the baptist?Well, most Trinitarian translators are dishonest IMO, but that is besides the point. NO, I don't think dishonesty is the reason we have the word “angel” in our English Bibles. Like I've already told you, the English translators were attempting to “think it out” for us, translating “angel” when they thought the messenger in question was a spirit being.
But the fact remains that “angel” is an English word that is substituted in our Bibles in place of the correct word, which is “messenger”.
Do you accept this fact yet?
No, most priests are not spirit messengers, which you like to call “angels”. But Jesus is.
And I don't recall any spirit messenger of God being called a “prophet” off hand.
Nick,
I await an answer:
Here is Hebrews 1:4 translated as it should be:
So he became as much superior to theangelsMESSENGERS as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.So tell me how Jesus, as a messenger, could be superior to “the messengers”?
Do you want a hint?
Agreed Mike. It is rather annoying that translators take the liberty to translate the same word into multiple English words. Likewise, it annoys me that translators use the word LORD in the place of YHWH. It leads to people saying that Jesus is YHWH because he is lord.
That said, the truth is not completely lost and a little digging reveals the truth.
A more consistent translation would be preferable leaving the reader to determine for himself by the context. Thus there would be no need to even have this discussion if translators were consistent.
So it has been established clearly that men can be called malak/angel/messenger.
The original point of this Hot Seat is now fulfilled.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 25 2012,13:14) Hi MB,
All translators except you are dishonest?
Do you not know that Jesus is the great prophet superior to the great John the baptist?
What does that have to do with the price of fish.Acknowledging the facts would be helpful for him. But we don't need him to acknowledge it to know it is true.
Up to Nick and for Nick's own sake.Hi,
It seems that this site has become a home of deception run by bully boys who do not tolerate dissent.
au revoirWe give you scripture and if that is attacking you in some way, then does scripture need to change
Let me remind you. You stated that men are never called angels.
We gave you scripture. If scripture is bullying you, then do we ban scripture.
The real bully you speak of is Haggai 1:13 and other scriptures that call men, malak/angel/messenger.
Don't shoot the messenger. Pun not intended.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 25 2012,18:19) Hi,
It seems that this site has become a home of deception run by bully boys who do not tolerate dissent.
au revoir
Nwould this mean you will stop of not believing scriptures
Nick, no one is bullying you. You have for years been challenging us on our teaching that men and heavenly beings are both referred to as being malak/angels/messengers. So I personally felt it was high time to sort this out and get to crux of your stance while explaining mine. All the while, allowing others explain why they agree or disagree with each view.
This is what has really happened.
Could I suggest that if you do not wish to see a repeat of this, (as this has obviously been uncomfortable for you), then don't keep challenging people unless you expect a defense such as we have provided here. I mean, surely people have the right to sort out something if you are accusing them of teaching falsely and especially considering that you have denied what we have said about this for years now. Surely defending oneself is a given if you decide to call them out by saying they are teaching something that is not true.
So I am happy that this has been sorted and if any other problems arise elsewhere, we now have a way to get both parties to the table and sort it out once and for all. Even if one party doesn't acknowledge they were wrong due to pride or a lack of understanding, or if they do not answer the question at hand, at least all who read can see the facts and let that speak for itself.
Quote (t8 @ June 25 2012,19:24) I mean, surely people have the right to sort out something if you are accusing them of teaching falsely and especially considering that you have denied what we have said about this for years now. Surely defending oneself is a given if you decide to call them out by saying they are teaching something that is not true.
Amen t8!And I don't see how Nick concluded this is a “home of deception” if the scriptural truth of the matter prevailed in the end.
What I do know, and hope certain people here take notice, is that two subjects on which Nick hounded me, calling me a false teacher, were settled in the Hot Seat. In the first, he bailed from the discussion with a weak “I don't know” answer – just to avoid saying he was wrong. And in the second, he seems to have bailed permanently to avoid saying he was wrong.
When I consider the hundreds of times he called me out on those points, telling others I was a false teacher, I kind of wish he would have at least admitted his error and apologized.
But, oh well…………. perhaps he at least learned something, which is what we are all supposedly here to do.
Hi T8 and Mike,
I'm not satisfied you've proven what you set out to. Let me
explain what I mean. If the Greek word or the Hebrew equivalent
is used as an adjective when referring to people, then you have not proved
your case. Only if it is used as a noun. Looking forward to your further investigation.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 26 2012,12:59) Hi Ed, Where in scripture is it used as an adjective?
Hi Mike,This is your investigation, is it not?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
