- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (david @ Nov. 17 2013,16:22) Why do we think el shaddai means “god suffices.” It's hard finding information to that effect.
That's it?
There is no word in Hebrew nor in Greek that is equivalent to our English word “almighty.” The Hebrew el shaddai means “God suffices,” and the Greek pantakrator means “ruler of all.” Christ fits both and you know it!
Furthermore, in Jeremiah 32 the Hebrew word el gibbor conveys the idea of omnipotence. Jeremiah addressed YHWH as “el gibbor” saying, “nothing is too hard for you,” and YHWH Himself says, “nothing is too difficult for Me.” Thus the use of the word el gibbor in context conveys that God is omnipotent.
Also, there is no definite article in Isaiah 9:6. It does NOT say, “the mighty God.” It says, “God of might.”
And His name shall be called God of might.
As far as “the” not being in the text of Is. 9:6, “Mighty God” translates the Hebrew El Gibbor. Literally this means “God of Might.” This term is applied to Jehovah in Isaiah 10:21, also without “the” in the original text– A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to [ the ] Mighty God. The NWT reads – A mere remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God. In both of these verses Isaiah 9:6 and 10:21 the construction of the Hebrew is exactly the same, El Gibbor, “God of Might.”
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/am_jw_isaiah.pdf
So there is no such thing as two Gods called “the almighty God,” and “the mighty God.” There is only ONE GOD who is “mighty God,” of whom it is said that nothing is too difficult for Him.
The JW's treatment of Isaiah 9:6 is on the kindergarten level.
Quote (david @ Nov. 18 2013,13:50) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Nov. 17 2013,05:48) We all have seen the shallow argument which is put forth by the Jehovah's Witnesses. It goes like this, “The Father is the almighty God. But Jesus is lesser in power and is just a mighty God.”
However, I have some bad news for the JW's. There is no Hebrew or Greek word that is equivalent to our English word “almighty.” Thus the JW's have no scriptural evidence to support their heirarchy of two Gods, namely, the one who is almighty, and the other who is just mighty. While most English translations render the Hebrew el shaddai, and the Greek pantakrator as “almighty,” the fact is that neither word means “almighty.”
The Hebrew word el shaddai: This word actually means “God sufficies.” I direct you to the Hebrew-English Interlinear which ALWAYS translates “el shaddai” as “God suffices.”
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen17.pdfNow the new testament is clear that Christ suffices. Therefore, Jesus is el shaddai.
The Greek word pantakrator: This word also does NOT mean “almighty.” It actually means “ruler of all.” But our English translations render Rev. 19:6 thus, “The Lord God omnipotent reigns.” This reading is NOT based in the in the Greek but in the Latin understanding of the Greek “pantakrator.” The Latins translated the Greek “pantakrator” with their word “omnipotens.” The old King James went with the Latin understanding. This is why it says “omnipotent” instead of “ruler of all.” The newer English translations repeat this error and say, “almighty.”
But as stated above the Greek word “pantakrator” means “ruler of all.” The AMP translation says in parenthesis “the All Ruler.”
The new testament testifies that Christ rules over all. Therefore, Christ is pantakrator.
About the Hebrew word el gibbor: The Hebrew word el gibbor, though it does not mean “almighty,” is used to convey the idea of omnipotence depending upon context. In Jeremiah 32 El gibbor is referenced with the complimentary phrases, “there is nothing too hard for thee,” and, “there is, indeed, nothing too difficult for me.”
The JW's admit that Christ is el gibbor. The old testament says that nothing is too difficult for el gibbor. Therefore, nothing is too difficult for Christ.
I have found a few references that say it means “all suffcient” (or self suffcient)Kj, could you provide another link that works. It tried googling it.
I will try David. I don't get it. Try Google Chrome if you haven't. The Online Hebrew Interlinear works on all other discussion boards except here.The link in the post immediately above was posted to the thread from Google Chrome. I copied and pasted it from the post into the url of Google Chrome and it worked.
If it doesn't work for you I don't know what else to do. Try http://www.scripture4all.org/ and find the Hebrew Interlinear.
Some translators mistranslate 'Jehovah of hosts' or 'LORD of hosts' as 'the LORD Almighty.' See Isaiah 8:13 in parallel translations:
Quote New International Version
The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread.New Living Translation
Make the LORD of Heaven's Armies holy in your life. He is the one you should fear. He is the one who should make you tremble.English Standard Version
But the LORD of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.New American Standard Bible
“It is the LORD of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, And He shall be your dread.King James Bible
Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Nov. 18 2013,11:11) http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
This link worked for me, Jack, and I do not have google chrome.Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 18 2013,23:48) Some translators mistranslate 'Jehovah of hosts' or 'LORD of hosts' as 'the LORD Almighty.' See Isaiah 8:13 in parallel translations: Quote New International Version
The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread.New Living Translation
Make the LORD of Heaven's Armies holy in your life. He is the one you should fear. He is the one who should make you tremble.English Standard Version
But the LORD of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.New American Standard Bible
“It is the LORD of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, And He shall be your dread.King James Bible
Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
LU,They could be using different manuscripts.
Kerwin,
Which manuscript doe the NIV use and what are the Hebrew words used in that manuscript. Are they different Hebrew words than the manuscript used for the NASB?Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Nov. 19 2013,02:09) Quote (david @ Nov. 17 2013,16:22) Why do we think el shaddai means “god suffices.” It's hard finding information to that effect.
That's it? There is no word in Hebrew nor in Greek that is equivalent to our English word “almighty.” The Hebrew el shaddai means “God suffices,” and the Greek pantakrator means “ruler of all.” Christ fits both and you know it!
Furthermore, in Jeremiah 32 the Hebrew word el gibbor conveys the idea of omnipotence. Jeremiah addressed YHWH as “el gibbor” saying, “nothing is too hard for you,” and YHWH Himself says, “nothing is too difficult for Me.” Thus the use of the word el gibbor in context conveys that God is omnipotent.
Also, there is no definite article in Isaiah 9:6. It does NOT say, “the mighty God.” It says, “God of might.”
And His name shall be called God of might.
As far as “the” not being in the text of Is. 9:6, “Mighty God” translates the Hebrew El Gibbor. Literally this means “God of Might.” This term is applied to Jehovah in Isaiah 10:21, also without “the” in the original text– A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to [ the ] Mighty God. The NWT reads – A mere remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God. In both of these verses Isaiah 9:6 and 10:21 the construction of the Hebrew is exactly the same, El Gibbor, “God of Might.”
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/am_jw_isaiah.pdf
So there is no such thing as two Gods called “the almighty God,” and “the mighty God.” There is only ONE GOD who is “mighty God,” of whom it is said that nothing is too difficult for Him.
The JW's treatment of Isaiah 9:6 is on the kindergarten level.
Kj, you seem to want to pick a fight, but I'm not fighting you. If you look back you may notice I said I might have to stop usimg the argument you suggest.Then I also spent many posts trying to figure out why you think it means “suffices” instead of all the other possibilities.
Ad hominems just throw the discussion off. Especially when they are weird ones. I checked about 30 bibles. The kj and it's varieties translate it “the mighty God.” The rest seem to translate it just as the NWT did, “mighty God.”
So, you can say it translates that scripture at a kindergarten level, but you just add, “like almost everyone else.”
Similarly, this while discussion is a bit weird, because as you might know, JW aren't the only ones who argue against the trinity or discuss the word “almighty.”
It's sort of like you are trying to discredit the word “almighty” by association.
Perhaps just stick with logic. Also, I'm using an ipad. Maybe that's why I can't open the link. I don't know.
Can you just explain why you think it means god suffices, instead of the many other possibilities?
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 19 2013,05:25) Kerwin,
Which manuscript doe the NIV use and what are the Hebrew words used in that manuscript. Are they different Hebrew words than the manuscript used for the NASB? I am not able to locate anything one way or another in the time I have.
English title. The AJKV does the same with Yawheh Elohim.
LU,I have seen where the NIV sticks to the Hebrew Masoretic text even when traditional translation favor the various Koine Greek manuscripts that are worded in accordance to more traditional translations.
What I have seen leads me to think it may be a translation choice in that they are what they view as an equivalent
Kerwin,
you said;
Quote I have seen where the NIV sticks to the Hebrew Masoretic text even when traditional translation favor the various Koine Greek manuscripts that are worded in accordance to more traditional translations. What I have seen leads me to think it may be a translation choice in that they are what they view as an equivalent
The KJV used the Hebrew Masoretic text but translates it differently than the NIV.
The KJV
King James Bible
Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.The NIV
The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread.Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 17 2013,15:15) All you hebrew scholars will find one day.
But not the truth.wakeup.
I wonder which language the KJV scholars translated the OT from.And I wonder how they came to know what those words of a different language meant so they could translate them into English.
Perhaps they spent years learning the things that we are right now trying to learn.
Perhaps they were mere men like us, learning as much as they could so they could translate the scriptures into English in the best way possible.
Or perhaps not one of them knew a language other than English, and God just translated the KJV for them.
Come on, Wakeup. Why would you insult us for trying to know more?
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 19 2013,14:00) Kerwin, you said;
Quote I have seen where the NIV sticks to the Hebrew Masoretic text even when traditional translation favor the various Koine Greek manuscripts that are worded in accordance to more traditional translations. What I have seen leads me to think it may be a translation choice in that they are what they view as an equivalent
The KJV used the Hebrew Masoretic text but translates it differently than the NIV.
The KJV
King James Bible
Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.The NIV
The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread.
Hi Kathi and Kerwin,The NET Bible has a few footnotes on that subject – just for your information.
In Psalm 89:8, they translate as “O LORD, sovereign God”, with a note that says, Traditionally “God of hosts.” The title here pictures the Lord as enthroned in the midst of the angelic hosts of heaven.
In Isaiah 1:9, they translate as “the LORD who commands armies”, with a note that says, Traditionally, “the Lord of hosts.” The title pictures God as the sovereign king who has at his disposal a multitude of attendants, messengers, and warriors to do his bidding. In some contexts, like this one, the military dimension of his rulership is highlighted. In this case, the title pictures him as one who leads armies into battle against his enemies.
And in Romans 9:29, they translate as “the Lord of armies”, with a note that says, Traditionally, “Lord of hosts”; Grk “Lord Sabaoth,” which means “Lord of the [heavenly] armies,” sometimes translated more generally as “Lord Almighty.”
The Hebrew word translated by the KJV as “hosts” also means:
1) that which goes forth, army, war, warfare, host
1a) army, host
1a1) host (of organised army)
1a2) host (of angels)
1a3) of sun, moon, and stars
1a4) of whole creation
1b) war, warfare, service, go out to war
1c) serviceBut it's telling that Paul understood it to mean: “Lord of the heavenly armies” when he quoted Isaiah in Romans 9:29.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 20 2013,02:00) Kerwin, you said;
Quote I have seen where the NIV sticks to the Hebrew Masoretic text even when traditional translation favor the various Koine Greek manuscripts that are worded in accordance to more traditional translations. What I have seen leads me to think it may be a translation choice in that they are what they view as an equivalent
The KJV used the Hebrew Masoretic text but translates it differently than the NIV.
The KJV
King James Bible
Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.The NIV
The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread.
LU,Quote Old Testament For their Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),[122] but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[123] For example, the Septuagint reading “They pierced my hands and my feet” was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew “like lions my hands and feet”[124]). Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation – especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such as Kimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in the Masoretic Text;[125] earlier versions had been more likely to adopt LXX or Vulgate readings in such places.
Note: AKJV
The problem you have Jack is to reconcile these words, “ye are gods/theos”.
Jesus quoted an OT scripture which says, “ye are elohim, ye are all sons of the Most High God”.
So if these sons are elohim, and Jesus is the son of God, then it is a no brainer that Jesus is elohim and mighty. And if the Father is elohim and mighty too, then I do not disagree.
But the son is not the Father, and the sons of God are not the Most High God.
Jesus said it himself and yet you are always trying to find a way to prove him wrong.
“this is eternal life, that you may know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent.”
I think I am going to have to side with Jesus and not yourself on this subject.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 19 2013,17:39) ………but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[123] For example, the Septuagint reading “They pierced my hands and my feet” was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew “like lions my hands and feet”………….
I wonder if journey knows that part of the KJV OT was translated from the LXX – a mss she claims never existed.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 21 2013,03:18) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 19 2013,17:39) ………but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[123] For example, the Septuagint reading “They pierced my hands and my feet” was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew “like lions my hands and feet”………….
I wonder if journey knows that part of the KJV OT was translated from the LXX – a mss she claims never existed.
Mike,Journey and wakeup quote some of the worse sources I have seen quoted on this site. The people they quote seem to be plain crooks as they tell outright lies that can easily disproved.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 21 2013,10:59) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 21 2013,03:18) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 19 2013,17:39) ………but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[123] For example, the Septuagint reading “They pierced my hands and my feet” was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew “like lions my hands and feet”………….
I wonder if journey knows that part of the KJV OT was translated from the LXX – a mss she claims never existed.
Mike,Journey and wakeup quote some of the worse sources I have seen quoted on this site. The people they quote seem to be plain crooks as they tell outright lies that can easily disproved.
Kerwin.All I need is proof from anybody that the kjv
has contradictions in it.
And I will proof to you that it has none.I believe in God, and also in his power to preserve his
word of truth.You guys do not believe in God's power.
You have not been lead to the truth.
You are still seeking which bible is the true bible.
Still seeking which flesh of Christ to eat.
In the meantime missing out on the food.wakeup.
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 21 2013,20:05) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 21 2013,10:59) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 21 2013,03:18) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 19 2013,17:39) ………but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[123] For example, the Septuagint reading “They pierced my hands and my feet” was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew “like lions my hands and feet”………….
I wonder if journey knows that part of the KJV OT was translated from the LXX – a mss she claims never existed.
Mike,Journey and wakeup quote some of the worse sources I have seen quoted on this site. The people they quote seem to be plain crooks as they tell outright lies that can easily disproved.
Kerwin.All I need is proof from anybody that the kjv
has contradictions in it.
And I will proof to you that it has none.I believe in God, and also in his power to preserve his
word of truth.You guys do not believe in God's power.
You have not been lead to the truth.
You are still seeking which bible is the true bible.
Still seeking which flesh of Christ to eat.
In the meantime missing out on the food.wakeup.
WQuote All I need is proof from anybody that the kjv
has contradictions in it.
And I will proof to you that it has none.
THIS ANSWER IS HILARIOUS
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
