- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Ed J, I am not following you here.
Quote (Ed J @ June 29 2012,16:55) Hi T8,
It lends support to your belief.
But the fact that the English translators
translated it the way they did, supports my belief.
This is as clear as mud.Let's start again.
“It lends support that men are called malak/angels/messengers” should be:
“It does support that men are called malak/angels/messengers”and then what is it in the translations that supports you view exactly?
Quote (t8 @ June 29 2012,16:28) Ed J, I am not following you here. Quote (Ed J @ June 29 2012,16:55) Hi T8,
It lends support to your belief.
But the fact that the English translators
translated it the way they did, supports my belief.
This is as clear as mud.Let's start again.
“It lends support that men are called malak/angels/messengers” should be:
“It does support that men are called malak/angels/messengers”and then what is it in the translations that supports you view exactly?
Hi T8, let me try to be a bit clearer here for you making THREE points…1) Both words being “nouns” lends support to your claim that men are called Angels.
2) But, because the English translators translated it to messenger instead of Angel – it does not.
3) Plus the fact that there are “two” definitions for each word lends strong-support to my belief that they are not. …for me this is the deciderGod bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ June 29 2012,20:35) 2) But, because the English translators translated it to messenger instead of Angel – it does not.
OK, so this is the evidence for you view.I will take a look at this.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Quote (Ed J @ June 28 2012,17:08) Quote (david @ June 28 2012,16:17) Quote humans are not called Angels; and you know that
T8 has not proved that they are called Angels either.–ed.
This thread drives me insane. I want you to imagine saying these words in Greek Ed. Actually think about how it would sound for you to say these words in Greek. This whole thread would be ridiculous in Greek.
No need to imagine, David…οι άνθρωποι δεν ονομάζεται καλούνται Άγγελοι? και γνωρίζετε ότι.
Τ8 έχει δεν αποδείχθηκε ότι καλούνται Άγγελοι είτε.
Ed, thanks for proving how silly that sounded in Greek.My Greek is more than limited, so I immediately looked up this word:
Άγγελοι: “angel” or “messenger/envoy.”
So, in Greek, you said that “humans are not called [Άγγελοι]
Does the word “messenger(s)” appear in your Bible ed? Does it ever apply to “humans”? If so, case closed.
Curious. Are there non-biblical writings from back then where Άγγελοι is clearly used to refer to people who were messengers?
Quote (kerwin @ June 30 2012,09:45) To all; You all know it is written that the the World to come is not subject to Messengers.
If you state Messengers means both man and angelic beings then you state it is not subject to Jesus Christ.
You know that is not true. That leaves you with two possibilities which are:1} The earth is subject to humanity and the creatures from the realm of spirit are called angels
2} The earth is subject to the creatures from the realm of spirit and humanity is called angels.
Elsewhere it is written that humanity is created a little lower than the Messengers. In that passage it can be seen that:
1} Jesus was created a human
2} The Messengers spoken of are not part of humanity.It is also written that instead of taking on the nature of Messengers he took on himself the seed of Abraham. This teaches us that:
1} the Messengers spoken of are not the seed of Abraham
2} Jesus Christ is the seed of Abraham
3} Jesus Christ does not have the nature of the Messengers spoken of.
Hi T8,I imported this post of Kerwin's from “The Angel of the LORD” thread.
He explains in detail why me and Him have come to the same conclusion.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (david @ June 30 2012,18:25) Ed, thanks for proving how silly that sounded in Greek. My Greek is more than limited, so I immediately looked up this word:
Άγγελοι: “angel” or “messenger/envoy.”
So, in Greek, you said that “humans are not called [Άγγελοι]
Does the word “messenger(s)” appear in your Bible ed? Does it ever apply to “humans”? If so, case closed.
I agree david. But Ed does not, so it is time to disprove his theory as to why he thinks the way he does here. And it would be good to know why he is doing this. I suspect he has a pet doctrine that he is trying to hold onto or perhaps he is just trying to reconcile some NT verses that speak of angels as definitely being of the Heavenly kind only.Whatever the case, he came in all guns blazing and gave an appearance of confidence in his view. Yet when challenged, it was plain to see that his bark was far worse than his bite. In other words, he had scant evidence for his view, yet trumped it up in order to scare away any other view.
His lack of evidence coupled with confidence should certainly be a worry for him at least. But he also does this with his number theory and other doctrines too. I just find his reasons for many doctrines he holds to are weak or even plain wrong.
And I am not in the business of crucifying people when they are wrong, but I will voice my disgust at people who shout their doctrines from the roof tops and yet have very little substance. To me that is a bit deceptive because they are trying to get you to believe them based on the way they are acting and you only see the real reasons for what they believe when you take them to the Supreme Court (Hot Seat).
I am afraid to say that this was the case with Nick too in this matter.
Ed J. I am going to write different posts over a period of time, and will be likely copying and pasting from other sites to save time.
I copied the following from
http://www.thebiblewayonline.com/Studies/A-%20Angels%20General.htmI cannot verify if the quote below is absolutely correct, but I read a few other sites that said pretty much the same thing regarding the percentage of use for angel and messenger from the same word.
c. Predominant Usage in Old and New Testaments.
(1) In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word predominately translated “angel” is malak (111 times), when it refers to a heavenly messenger or agent. When referring to a human personage, it is rendered “ambassador” (4 times, 2 Chronicles 35:21; Isaiah 30:3; 33:7; Ezekiel 15:15) or messenger” (98 times).
(2) In the New Testament, the only Greek word translated “angel” is aggelos (181 times), when thought by the translators to refer to a heavenly agent, which is its predominant usage. Aside from the eight controversial instances in Revelation 1-3, only seven other times (in Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:24-27; 9:52; 2 Corinthians 12:7; James 2:25), is it translated otherwise – namely, as “messenger” – in all of which it definitely refers to human agency unless 2 Corinthians 12:7 is an exception – which speaks of “a messenger of Satan to buffet” the apostle Paul, called by him “a thorn in the flesh,” but not further described.
The point here Ed J is that the use for malak is almost balanced when it comes to heavenly beings and men and the word aggelos is mostly heavenly beings.
This could be the case because the Old Testament has lots of writings from the prophets who were malak whereas the New Testament is sort of different because it contains eye witness accounts and letters, and one Old Testament style book, the Book of Revelation, which is more akin to teh books of Daniel or Ezekiel.
It could also be that aggelos has a more specific meaning than malak even though malak that is quoted in the New Testament uses the word aggelos. Apparently the Greek version of the Old Testament uses the word aggelos in the place of malak. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices in translating from a language that has a word with a specific meaning to a language that lacks such a word, but has a word that can mean that.
So my first point to ponder is that men who are called malak are numerous. Almost as numerous and heavenly beings who are called malak. This does not disprove your view, but it certainly is not helping your view.
I will post again.
Quote (Ed J @ July 01 2012,01:01) Quote (kerwin @ June 30 2012,09:45) To all; You all know it is written that the the World to come is not subject to Messengers.
If you state Messengers means both man and angelic beings then you state it is not subject to Jesus Christ.
You know that is not true. That leaves you with two possibilities which are:1} The earth is subject to humanity and the creatures from the realm of spirit are called angels
2} The earth is subject to the creatures from the realm of spirit and humanity is called angels.
Elsewhere it is written that humanity is created a little lower than the Messengers. In that passage it can be seen that:
1} Jesus was created a human
2} The Messengers spoken of are not part of humanity.It is also written that instead of taking on the nature of Messengers he took on himself the seed of Abraham. This teaches us that:
1} the Messengers spoken of are not the seed of Abraham
2} Jesus Christ is the seed of Abraham
3} Jesus Christ does not have the nature of the Messengers spoken of.
Hi T8,I imported this post of Kerwin's from “The Angel of the LORD” thread.
He explains in detail why me and Him have come to the same conclusion.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Edj I think you held your opinion for different reasons and when they were exposed as weak, you now cling to kerwins post.However I agree there is a good point in kerwins post.
I knew of this before because it was an obvious thing to consider in the subject.
There are a number of ways that you can reconcile this.
Here is one possibility.
The Old Testament equally applies the word malak/angel/messenger to heavenly creatures and men.
In the New Testament, the word angel is predominately but not exclusively used to speak of heavenly messengers.
This could be the case because in Old Testament times, God used almost as many men and heavenly beings as messengers to his people, hence the word did not really favour one over the other.
In the New Testament we don't really have a line of prophets/messengers, but we have gospels, letters, and one Old Testament style writing called the Book of Revelation. So it could be that most messengers were of the heavenly kind and thus the meaning of the word swayed more to mean heavenly messengers as a result.
In English we have words that obviously changed their meanings even subtly due to time passing. In fact this is one of the definitions of a living language that words change and new words are added. A dead language is no longer being extended or added to.
In English the word gay once had a different meaning, but the name morphed into its current meaning one little step at a time. The word malak/anggelos could have once meant any kind of messenger equally but due to the use of heavenly beings being messengers more than men in latter times, it could have adopted the heavenly being meaning with it.
I am not sure if the Greek word anggelos was once used for any messenger regardless of race or species, or that the word has always predominately meant heavenly beings with the odd use referring to men. But we do know that translating malak into Greek means that malak becomes anggelos.
So as we have pointed out before, we need to read the context to determine what kind of messenger is being spoken of. We do the same with the word theos and elohim do we not. Most of the time it is talking about the Father, but not always. In the end, as I said before, context is everything in determining what type of being it is being applied to.
Quote (t8 @ June 30 2012,22:01) Quote (david @ June 30 2012,18:25) Ed, thanks for proving how silly that sounded in Greek. My Greek is more than limited, so I immediately looked up this word:
Άγγελοι: “angel” or “messenger/envoy.”
So, in Greek, you said that “humans are not called [Άγγελοι]
Does the word “messenger(s)” appear in your Bible ed? Does it ever apply to “humans”? If so, case closed.
I agree david. But Ed does not, so it is time to disprove his theory as to why he thinks the way he does here. And it would be good to know why he is doing this. I suspect he has a pet doctrine that he is trying to hold onto or perhaps he is just trying to reconcile some NT verses that speak of angels as definitely being of the Heavenly kind only.Whatever the case, he came in all guns blazing and gave an appearance of confidence in his view. Yet when challenged, it was plain to see that his bark was far worse than his bite. In other words, he had scant evidence for his view, yet trumped it up in order to scare away any other view.
His lack of evidence coupled with confidence should certainly be a worry for him at least. But he also does this with his number theory and other doctrines too. I just find his reasons for many doctrines he holds to are weak or even plain wrong.
And I am not in the business of crucifying people when they are wrong, but I will voice my disgust at people who shout their doctrines from the roof tops and yet have very little substance. To me that is a bit deceptive because they are trying to get you to believe them based on the way they are acting and you only see the real reasons for what they believe when you take them to the Supreme Court (Hot Seat).
I am afraid to say that this was the case with Nick too in this matter.
Quite a tapestry of words you have put together here, T8.
You take your spin on the facts, add some imagined
conspiracy theories, and paint a dark picture.
But that is NOT the way it is at all.There are two definitions of ἄγγελος aggelos and more for מַלְאָך malak
I have explained “WHY” one definition applies to Angelic beings,
and the other to Humans delivering a message of YHVH. …amazing how the simple gets complicated to someGod bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ June 30 2012,22:02) The point here Ed J is that the use for malak is almost balanced when it comes to heavenly beings and men and the word aggelos is mostly heavenly beings. This could be the case because the Old Testament has lots of writings from the prophets who were malak whereas the New Testament is srot of different because it contains eye witness accounts and letters, and the Book of Revelation which is more akin to the prophets of old like Ezekiel and Daniel.
It could also be that aggelos has a more specific meaning than malak even though malak that is quoted in the New Testament uses the word aggelos. Apparently the Greek version of the Old Testament uses the word aggelos in the place of malak.
So my first point to ponder is that men who are called malak is numerous. Almost as numerous and heavenly beings who are called malak. This does not disprove your view, but is certainly not helping your view.
I will post again.
Hi T8, my view is:Men are NOT called Angels (as you are proclaiming), they deliver a message.
While Angelic beings are being described by the Hebrew word מַלְאָך malak. …this is not that complicated.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd J, read the earlier posts from you.
You came in like a knight ready to defend or help Nick.
You did all these flash moves with your sword, but when we challenged you, your sword nearly fell out of your hand.Here is a quote to look at:
Quote Are multiple types of beings called angels… No. Quote To suggest they are, is to play games with words. Quote Not add, but subtract – in more term – I will define them correctly… מַלְאָך malak: ambassador, angel, king, messenger
ἄγγελος aggelos: angel, messenger.
Quote Hi Mike, 1. Spirit being. …NOUN
2. YHVH's message. …ADJECTIVEDo you have more definitions to add?
Quote No need to imagine, David… οι άνθρωποι δεν ονομάζεται καλούνται Άγγελοι? και γνωρίζετε ότι.
Τ8 έχει δεν αποδείχθηκε ότι καλούνται Άγγελοι είτε.I mean it is clear now that even though you tried to come across as authoritative, you really didn't know about what you were saying.
Is it not better to be humble and speak from a true position rather than shouting out statements that you hope back up your view but you don't really know. It is better to be honest and say 'I think” or “my view is this”. Not “Are multiple types of beings called angels… No.”. That was clearly wrong EdJ.
If you can't figure out what I am saying, then at least pray about it.
Quote (t8 @ June 30 2012,22:22) Quote (Ed J @ July 01 2012,01:01) Quote (kerwin @ June 30 2012,09:45) To all; You all know it is written that the the World to come is not subject to Messengers.
If you state Messengers means both man and angelic beings then you state it is not subject to Jesus Christ.
You know that is not true. That leaves you with two possibilities which are:1} The earth is subject to humanity and the creatures from the realm of spirit are called angels
2} The earth is subject to the creatures from the realm of spirit and humanity is called angels.
Elsewhere it is written that humanity is created a little lower than the Messengers. In that passage it can be seen that:
1} Jesus was created a human
2} The Messengers spoken of are not part of humanity.It is also written that instead of taking on the nature of Messengers he took on himself the seed of Abraham. This teaches us that:
1} the Messengers spoken of are not the seed of Abraham
2} Jesus Christ is the seed of Abraham
3} Jesus Christ does not have the nature of the Messengers spoken of.
Hi T8,I imported this post of Kerwin's from “The Angel of the LORD” thread.
He explains in detail why me and Him have come to the same conclusion.God bless
Ed J
Edj I think you held your opinion for different reasons and when they were exposed as weak, you now cling to kerwins post.However I agree there is a good point in kerwins post.
I knew of this before because it was an obvious thing to consider in the subject.
Hi T8,It sounds like you are saying that you have considered this but I have not. …is this what you are really saying?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ June 30 2012,22:42) Ed J, read the earlier posts from you. You came in like a knight ready to defend or help Nick.
You did all these flash moves with your sword, but when we challenged you, your sword nearly fell out of your hand.(You said) Here is a quote to look at:
Quote Are multiple types of beings called angels… No.
This is true.Quote To suggest they are, is to play games with words.
You are playing word gamesQuote Not add, but subtract – in more term – I will define them correctly… מַלְאָך malak: ambassador, angel, king, messenger
ἄγγελος aggelos: angel, messenger.
I did define them correctlyQuote Hi Mike, 1. Spirit being. …NOUN
2. YHVH's message. …ADJECTIVEDo you have more definitions to add?
– – –Quote No need to imagine, David… οι άνθρωποι δεν ονομάζεται καλούνται Άγγελοι? και γνωρίζετε ότι.
Τ8 έχει δεν αποδείχθηκε ότι καλούνται Άγγελοι είτε.
– – –Quote (t8 @ June 30 2012,22:42) (1)I mean it is clear now that even though you tried to come across as authoritative, you really didn't know about what you were saying. (2)Is it not better to be humble and speak from a true position rather than shouting out statements that you hope back up your view but you don't really know.
(3)It is better to be honest and say 'I think” or “my view is this”. Not “Are multiple types of beings called angels… No.”. That was clearly wrong EdJ.If you can't figure out what I am saying, then at least pray about it.
1) Unproven 'spin'.
2) Done that.
3) Huh?Are we not here to discuss the matter?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEdj. I will spell it out for you.
Your confidence does not match your evidence.
Be real. Being honest and humble is better than exalting your view higher than it should be. Better to say, “I think” than what you have said above.
I mean if you are wrong and you sway people because of your false confidence, then you are doing exactly what Evolutionists do to people who are ignorant of scientific proof.
Quote (Ed J @ July 01 2012,01:33) Hi T8, my view is: Men are NOT called Angels (as you are proclaiming), they deliver a message.
While Angelic beings are being described by the Hebrew word מַלְאָך malak. …this is not that complicated.
EdJ.Read this scripture and tell me if the following point is correct.
John 20:11-13
11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
This scripture must be referring to heavenly angels and cannot be messengers (men), because it specifically says angels in the text and not messengers.
Quote (t8 @ June 30 2012,23:13) Quote (Ed J @ July 01 2012,01:33) Hi T8, my view is: Men are NOT called Angels (as you are proclaiming), they deliver a message.
While Angelic beings are being described by the Hebrew word מַלְאָך malak. …this is not that complicated.
EdJ.Read this scripture and tell me if the following point is correct.
John 20:11-13
11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
This scripture must be referring to heavenly angels and cannot be messengers (men), because it specifically says angels in the text and not messengers.
Hi T8,I conclude they were Angelic beings,
rather than men delivering a message. …you do not?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 01 2012,02:22) Quote (t8 @ June 30 2012,23:13) Quote (Ed J @ July 01 2012,01:33) Hi T8, my view is: Men are NOT called Angels (as you are proclaiming), they deliver a message.
While Angelic beings are being described by the Hebrew word מַלְאָך malak. …this is not that complicated.
EdJ.Read this scripture and tell me if the following point is correct.
John 20:11-13
11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
This scripture must be referring to heavenly angels and cannot be messengers (men), because it specifically says angels in the text and not messengers.
Hi T8,I conclude they were Angelic beings,
rather than men delivering a message. …you do not?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Look at Luke's parallel account.Luke 24:3-5
3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
Remember the two men that appeared with Jesus in heavenly glory. Well it could have been them maybe.
But Lukes says men and John says angels.Both are right if you understand that men can be angels.
One is wrong if this is not possible as you have said quoted below:Quote humans are not called Angels; and you know that
T8 has not proved that they are called Angels either.For him to do that: the word for Angel would have to be
used as a noun, and in reference to a human being. …this he has not done.If he or Mike would provide such evidence,
then I would agree that they are called Angels. …but no evidence in this regard has been provided by either of them.Quote Hi T8, you are blurring the issue here. The bible does not call men Angels, but messengers.
Angels are referred to as other than human: examples…Quote Hi T8, my view is: Men are NOT called Angels (as you are proclaiming), they deliver a message.
While Angelic beings are being described by the Hebrew word מַלְאָך malak. …this is not that complicated.Hi T8,
No conflict here: you must consider all of the bible, not just selected verses.
Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry,
nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
