- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Taken from:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/heb-18.htmlHebrews 1:8 is one of the more commonly used scriptures for trinitarian “evidence” in spite of (in reality, because of) its obvious ambiguity.
This is because on the surface (at least as found in some trinitarian-translated Bibles) it looks clear and straightforward. Also not many people have the means or the inclination to examine it more closely.Heb. 1:8 in the King James Version (AV or KJV) is rendered:
“But unto the son he saith, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”
Since “he saith” and the second “is” (found after “righteousness”) in the above verse are not actually found in the original manuscripts and have been added by the KJV translators, they are found in italics in most printings of the KJV.
But more importantly (as a quick glance into any interlinear Greek-English New Testament will show) the first “is” (found after “God”) in the above verse is also not in the original manuscripts but has been added by some modern translators.
Yes, literally the original NT Greek manuscripts read: “Toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age.”
No one should deny that the title theos (NT Greek word meaning “God,” “god,” “mighty one,” “divine,” etc.) can be applied to Jesus (at least in the writings of John – see the DEF and BOWGOD studies), just as it was applied in the scriptures to angels, judges of Israel, Moses, and (according to some trinitarian authorities) even the kings of Israel.
But theos is never applied to Jesus with the most high sense that is given only to the Almighty, Most High, only true God. So it could, perhaps, have been used at Heb. 1:8 in its positive secondary sense: “Your throne, o mighty one [theos], is …”. This seems even more probable when we remember that Paul is really quoting from Ps. 45:6.
Psalm 45 is celebrating an Israelite king's marriage, and the psalmist applies the words of Ps. 45:6, 7 literally to an ancient Israelite king. In fact, the trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, explains in a footnote for Ps. 45:1, “Probably refers to Solomon as a type of Christ.”
So, according to this trinitarian Bible, the words of Ps. 45:6, although figuratively referring to Jesus, were literally applied to an ancient Israelite king (probably King Solomon, it says).
So if Ps. 45:6 is properly translated, “your throne, O God …” then that ancient Israelite King (Solomon?) was also literally called “O God” (or “O god”?).
In fact, the highly trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, 1970, explains in a footnote for this verse:
“The Hebrew king was called … 'God,' not in the polytheistic sense common among the ancient pagans, but as meaning 'godlike' or 'taking the place of God'.”
The trinitarian Easy-to-read-Version also says in a footnote for this passage:
“God …. here the writer might be using the word 'God' as a title for the king.” (Cf. NIV Study Bible f.n. for Pss. 45:6 and 82:1, 6.)
(And the revised 1991 ed. of the NAB actually translates Ps. 45:6, 7 as “Your throne, O god.”) The NAB (1970 ed.) goes on to explain, however, that others have translated this verse as, “Your throne is the throne of God“ and refers us to 1 Chron. 29:23 “where Solomon's throne is referred to as the throne of the LORD [Jehovah].”
Now we're getting closer to the most likely intention of Heb. 1:8. There is good evidence that the proper translation of Heb. 1:8 (as well as Ps. 45:6) should be “your throne is God forever” or “God is your throne forever.”
For one thing, the definite article (“the”) is used in the NT Greek with “God” in this scripture. Not even John (who does, rarely, use theos for Jesus) uses theos with the definite article for anyone except the Only True God – the Father.
Also, if we look at some respected trinitarian authorities, we also see a preference for the “God is thy throne” rendering.
Oxford professor and famous trinitarian Bible translator, Dr. James Moffatt, has been described as “probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day.” His respected Bible translation renders Heb. 1:8 as:
“God is thy throne for ever and ever.”
University of Cambridge professor and noted New Testament language scholar, Dr. C. F. D. Moule writes that Heb. 1:8 may be “construed so as to mean Thy throne is God” – p. 32, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.
An American Translation
(Smith-Goodspeed), renders it: “God is your throne….”And The Bible in Living English (Byington) reads: “God is your throne….”
Another world-acclaimed scholar of trinitarian Christendom has translated this verse similarly and made some interesting comments. Trinitarian Dr. William Barclay,
“world-renowned Scottish New Testament interpreter, was noted as a profound scholar and a writer of extraordinary gifts …. He was the minister of Trinity Church, Renfrew, Scotland, and, later, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow.”
Dr. Barclay, in his translation of the New Testament, has also rendered Hebrews 1:8 as : “God is your throne for ever and ever.” But worse yet (for those wishing for evidence of a trinity from the Book of Hebrews), Dr. Barclay comments as follows:
“The letter [of Hebrews] was written to a Church which had had great days and great teachers and leaders.” – p. 6. “Moreover, it was obviously written to a scholarly group [who] … had long been under instruction and were preparing themselves to become teachers of the Christian faith.” – p. 7.
And just what was this passage that includes Heb. 1:8 (Heb. 1:4-14) intended to prove to this group of long-term dedicated Christian scholars?
“[The author] is concerned to prove [Jesus'] SUPERIORITY OVER THE ANGELS.” – p. 16, The Letter to the Hebrews, Revised Edition, 1976, The Westminster Press.
Yes, this world-acclaimed trinitarian scholar has (perhaps inadvertently) illuminated the truth of the doctrine of God which was understood by first-century Christians! They had absolutely no concept of the 3-in-one God idea which was developed in later centuries. IF these learned 1st century Christians had really considered Jesus “equally God” (as 4th century Christendom began doing), it certainly would have been nonsensical for the writer of Hebrews to attempt to prove that Jesus was superior to all other angels!
Famed trinitarian (Southern Baptist) New Testament Greek scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson acknowledges that either “Thy throne, O God” or “God is thy throne” may be proper renderings: “Either makes good sense.” – p. 339. He also tells us that the inspired Letter to the Hebrews was written to a church of Jewish Christians whose Jewish neighbors
“… have urged them to give up Christ and Christianity and to come back to Judaism…. These Jews argued that the prophets were superior to Jesus, the law came by the ministry of angels, Moses was greater than Jesus, and Aaron than Jesus. [The writer of Hebrews] turns the argument on the Jews and boldly champions the Glory of Jesus as superior at every point to all that Judaism had, as God's Son and man's Saviour, the crown and glory of the Old
Testament prophecy, the hope of mankind. It is the first great apologetic for Christianity and has never been surpassed.” – Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. v, pp. 331, 339.Again, it would have been absolutely absurd for the inspired writer of Hebrews to devote this entire, long letter to proving that Jesus is superior to Moses and the angels if the intended readers, as the spirit-born Christians they were, had already accepted Jesus as God Almighty! And even if they had originally believed that Jesus was God, but were now in doubt, the Bible writer certainly wouldn't waste any time trying to prove Jesus' superiority to Moses and the angels. He would have dedicated the entire letter to proving absolutely that Jesus is God (if he had really believed such a thing himself)!
Furthermore, if those Jewish neighbors had any inkling that these Christians believed that anyone except Jehovah, the Father alone, was Almighty God, they wouldn't have spent any time at all on these other relatively minor aspects. The clamor of the Jews against Christians who called Jesus “God” would have been deafening, overwhelming!
But there is no record of any such thing until after the Trinity Doctrine was declared by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century A.D.!
The American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and The New English Bible (NEB) have provided alternate readings to the traditional trinitarian rendering of the KJV at Hebrews 1:8. These alternate readings (found in footnotes) agree with Dr. Moffatt's, Dr. Barclay's, Smith-Goodspeed's, Byington's, and the New World Translation's renderings of this scripture (“God is your throne”).
Even Young's Concise Bible Commentary (written by the famous trinitarian author of Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible) admits: “[Heb. 1:8] may be justly rendered 'God is thy throne …' in either case it is applicable to the mediatorial throne only.”
Quoted From Ps. 45
In addition to these admissions by trinitarian translators concerning Heb. 1:8, we need to look back at the Old Testament Hebrew scripture (Ps. 45:6) that Paul was quoting when he wrote Heb. 1:8.
The RSV renders it as “Your Divine throne” and a footnote provides this alternate reading: “Or 'your throne is a throne of God.'”
The NEB says: “Your throne is like God's throne.”
The Holy Scriptures
(JPS version) says: “Thy throne given of God.”The Bible in Living English
(Byington) says: “God is your throne.”The Good News Bible (GNB), a very trinitarian paraphrase Bible, renders it: “The kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever.”
The REB has: “God has enthroned you for all eternity.”
And the NJB gives us: “your throne is from God.”
We also see the following statement by respected trinitarian scholars in a footnote for this passage:
“45:6 O God. Possibly the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as 'god.'” – Ps. 45:6 f.n. in the NIV Study Bible.
End of Part 1.
(And yes, for the trinitarians out there who are screaming: “But that doesn't make sense,” well, it does, if you spend a minute and look at how “throne” is used in the Bible and what it represents. But, we'll get to that later.)Part 2:
In addition to the above renderings by many respected translators (most of whom are trinitarian), we have the statement by perhaps the greatest scholar of Biblical Hebrew of all time, H. F. W. Gesenius. In his famous and highly respected Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Gesenius renders Ps. 45:6, “thy throne shall be a divine throne.”
Obviously, then, the charge sometimes made that the NWT is “not being honest or scholarly” with its rendering of Heb. 1:8 is simply untrue, and it certainly may be honestly translated “God is your throne forever.”
Just the admission by so many trinitarian translators (above) that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated as it is in the NWT makes any insistence by other trinitarians that this scripture is acceptable evidence for a trinity doctrine completely invalid!
Even famed Southern Baptist New Testament Greek scholar and rabid trinitarian Dr. A. T. Robertson admits:
“It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative ['your throne, O God'] … or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: 'God is thy throne' or 'Thy throne is God.' Either makes good sense.” – p. 339, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.
However, there is more evidence, evidence which shows not only that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated “God is your throne,” but, indeed, SHOULD be so translated!
Notice the context. Heb. 1:8 and 1:9 are being quoted from Ps. 45:6 and 45:7. In Ps. 45:7, speaking to the Israelite king, it says:
“Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” – RSV.
Just as this makes it clear that the ancient Israelite king was not God but was anointed by God, HIS God, to a position above his fellows, so does Heb. 1:9, as figuratively applied to Jesus, show that he is not God, but was anointed by his God to a position above his fellows! Context, then, shows that the person addressed in Heb. 1:8 is not God, but one who worships God and was anointed by his God!
The renowned trinitarian Bible scholar, B. F. Westcott, wrote:
“The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings [at Ps. 45:6, 7]: [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative in both cases ('thy throne, O God, …. therefore, O God, thy God…') or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case ('God is Thy throne,' or 'Thy throne is God…'), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in the second case ('Therefore God, even Thy God…') …. It is scarcely possible that [elohim] in the original can be addressed to the King. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: 'God is thy throne' (or, 'Thy throne is God'), that is, 'Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.' ” – The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.
Further evidence for the proper translation of Heb. 1:8 is found in the conclusions reached by the trinitarian United Bible Societies' (UBS) Bible Text Committee. The United Bible Societies (composed of the American Bible Society, The National Bible Society of Scotland, The Netherlands Bible Society, and the Wurttemberg Bible Society) appointed an international and interdenominational committee (but trinitarian, of course) of textual scholars to determine the most accurate text possible of the Greek New Testament.
To do this they examined hundreds of variations in the many thousands of ancient New Testament manuscripts and compared other existing texts by Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Bover, and Vogels.
n 1971 the UBS published A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament which explained why the committee had chosen certain readings as being correct and rejected others. In choosing the text they believed to be closest to the original manuscript of the book of Hebrews, the UBS committee looked at the very oldest and best manuscripts still in existence today. Several methods helped them decide what is probably the original wording. One, of course, is how many of the very oldest and best manuscripts agree.
Another method is to determine which of the variations were most likely to have been changed by later copyists. For instance, when a NT writer is referring to an OT quotation, he often has it worded slightly differently from the exact quote in the Septuagint (Paul is especially noted for this).
So, if one NT manuscript has an OT scripture quoted exactly as it appears in the Septuagint, and another has a slightly different wording, the manuscript that differs slightly is more likely to have the proper, original wording. (Later copyists strongly tended to “correct” the original NT manuscripts by making their OT quotes conform exactly to the wording in the Septuagint version.)
Another consideration is that later Church copyists would often change the wording of a scripture if it seemed to contradict a teaching of the Roman Church.[see below*] Therefore, if the wording of an ancient manuscript seems to contradict a later teaching of the Roman Church, it is more likely to have the original wording than another ancient manuscript which (at the same verse) seems to agree with that Church teaching.
Using these criteria, the UBS Committee unanimously agreed with all the wording of Heb. 1:8 except for one word. They agreed that the original writing of Heb. 1:8 should read literally (in the NT Greek): “toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age and the staff of the straightness staff of the kingdom ['of him' or 'of you'].”
*(((An example of this is the omission of the words “nor the son” in the majority of manuscripts at Matt. 24:36. However, the two oldest and best manuscripts ('Aleph' and B) do have “nor the son” after the word “heaven” (as it is in Mark 13:32). Bible scholars have come to the conclusion that the words were first omitted by a copyist sometime shortly after the development of the trinity doctrine by the Roman Church in the 4th century because it seemed to contradict the trinity doctrine: Jesus as equal to the Father. – See A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 62, United Bible Societies, 1971. Also see The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus, published by the trustees of the British Museum (quoted in the Feb. 1, 1984 WT, p. 7).)))
It was the very last word of Heb. 1:8 that caused a “considerable degree of doubt” among those textual scholars. This very last word was either the NT Greek word sou (translated into English as “of you” or “your”) or autou (translated “of him” or “his”).
Why is it so important? Because these trinitarian scholars agreed that if autou (“his”) were used here by the author of Hebrews 1:8, then the verse “must be” translated “God is thy throne” and not “thy throne, O God”!! If, however, sou (“your”) was the original wording, then it could be translated either way. Obviously, then, a trinitarian would strongly prefer the reading of sou.
In discussing this problem the UBS Committee noted that all the very oldest and best manuscripts (p46 – circa 200 A.D.; 'Aleph' – 4th century; and B – 4th century) all agree that the original wording was “his (autou) kingdom.”
They also noted that later manuscripts which read “your (sou) kingdom” are now in agreement with the corresponding passage in the Greek OT Septuagint! (Remember that the UBS Committee recognizes, as do most Bible scholars, that the NT manuscript that differs slightly from the Septuagint is more likely to be correct than another one which perfectly agrees because copyists strongly tended to deli
berately “correct” Septuagint quotes they found in the NT .)Furthermore, since autou is not repeated near the word in question in this NT manuscript quote of Ps. 45:6, 7, but sou is repeated, before and after, it would have been easy for a copyist to have inadvertently miscopied sou here. Autou, then, is more likely to have been original than sou for more than one reason.
It is also important to realize that all the oldest manuscripts (which were probably written before the full trinity doctrine was officially declared by the Roman Church in 381 A. D. and certainly written well before it was popularly accepted through of the efforts of such men as Augustine in the early 5th century) use the word autou which will not properly allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation. Whereas many of the later manuscripts now use the word sou which will allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation of Heb. 1:8.
Isn't it significant that the very earliest manuscript to use the trinitarian-preferred sou is Manuscript A from the 5th century which is shortly after the trinity doctrine was fully and officially declared at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A. D. and during the highly successful efforts of Augustine and others to defend and popularize this newly established “truth” of the Roman Church? (Remember the correlation between new church doctrines and changes in later manuscripts.) – See the HIST study.
So even though there is overwhelming evidence that “his” (autou) was in the original manuscript of Hebrews 1:8 (even the trinitarian scholars who developed the Westcott and Hort text and the Nestle text use autou at Heb. 1:8), the UBS Committee finally agreed to choose “your” (sou) and label that choice as “having considerable degree of doubt,” anyway!
Why did they bend their own rules of evidence? Because (1) they said there were so many later manuscripts that used sou, and (2) they admitted that they didn't like what that verse actually said if autou had really been used in the original!
Oh, they did soften the arbitrariness of their choice slightly by labeling it as “having considerable degree of doubt,” but if any honest impartial scholar will examine their own comments on the evidence, he must agree that the UBS Committee's choice is purely an emotional one and the evidence rules otherwise (as other trinitarian texts noted above admit).
Sou not only has “considerable degree of doubt,” it is nearly impossible. The UBS Committee's own comments on the evidence make autou virtually certain as the original word, and, therefore, in the committee's own word's, Hebrews 1:8 “must be” translated “God is thy throne” and not “thy throne, O God.” – (study pp. 662-663 in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.)
It might be worthwhile to see that that same UBS textual committee said (p. 522) when discussing Romans 9:5:
“In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ's greatness by calling him God blessed for ever.” And, “Nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate ['the Christ'] as theos ['God' or 'god'].”
So, for those of us who believe that Paul wrote the Bible book of Hebrews, the UBS committee provides yet another reason why Heb. 1:8 must be translated “God is your throne” not “your throne, O God.” (But don't forget that some scholars don't consider Paul to be the author of Hebrews even though they may still consider Hebrews to be inspired scripture.)
***
HERE IT IS:
Some trinitarians have objected that “it does not make sense [or even, 'it's ridiculous'] to call God a 'throne.'”[2] However, to any serious Bible student, it is entirely reasonable and appropriate. Calling God “the throne of Jesus” is an excellent figurative way to show that God approves and upholds Christ's kingly reign (as in Westcott's comment previously quoted).Isn't it terribly strange that famed trinitarian New Testament scholars such as Dr. Westcott, Dr. Moffatt, Dr. Goodspeed (Smith-Goodspeed's AT), and Dr. William Barclay (The Daily Study Bible Series) all prefer the interpretation “Thy throne is God”? (And highly respected trinitarian Bibles ASV, RSV, and NEB also give this rendering as a proper alternate.) Would these respected trinitarian authorities really render this scripture that way if “throne” could only be interpreted in a literal way?
The very trinitarian New Bible Dictionary tells us that in Scripture “the throne symbolizes dignity and authority” – p. 1196 (2nd ed.), Tyndale House, 1984. (Compare Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.)
And the equally trinitarian (and highly respected – by trinitarians) The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia tells us about “throne”: “Usually the symbol of kingly power and dignity …. It symbolizes: (1) The exalted position of earthly kings, … their majesty and power …. (2) The majesty and power of Jehovah as the true king of Israel; …. (3) The rule of the promised theocratic king (the Messiah), its everlasting glory and righteousness. He, too, is Jehovah's representative [so Jehovah is the Messiah's 'throne' (“power,” “authority,” and “glory”)]….” – p. 2976, Vol. IV, Eerdmans, 1984 printing.
Please examine the implied meanings of “throne” in the following scriptures: Gen. 41:40; 2 Sam. 7:13, 14, 16; 2 Sam. 14:9; 1 Ki. 1:37, 47; Ps. 94:20 (“rulers,” RSV, Mo; “tribunals,” JB, NAB) ; Col. 1:16 (compare the very trinitarian TEV and GNB: “spiritual powers” and the Phillips translation: “power”). These clearly do not exclusively mean just “a place” as Bowman insists. In fact, the very trinitarian Good News Bible (GNB) actually renders the Hebrew “throne” at Gen. 41:40 as “authority.” Also note that even IF Heb. 1:8 were translated “Your throne, O God, is forever,” it would certainly mean more than “the seat you sit upon is everlasting”! It still speaks of the kingly power and authority which will last forever! Bowman is clearly wrong in saying that 'throne' must mean the “position or place from which one rules” and denying many other figurative uses.
Calling God “the throne of Jesus” is an excellent figurative way to show that God approves and upholds Christ's kingly reign (as in Westcott's comment previously quoted).
Is God ever called “unlikely” things in a figurative sense that are as equally “ridiculous” as calling him “a throne”? Every Bible student of any experience knows that He is, repeatedly!
Many times he is called someone's “Rock” (e.g., Ps. 78:35).
He is called a “fortress” (e.g., Ps. 91:2).
He is called a “lamp” in 2 Samuel 22:29.
He is called a “crown” (“in that day will Jehovah of hosts become a crown of glory, unto the residue of his people” – Is. 28:5, ASV).
Jehovah is called “our dwelling place” – Ps. 90:1, KJV.
And “Jehovah is my … song” – Ps. 118:14.
Also notice Ps. 60:7, 8 “Ephraim is my helmet, Judah my scepter, Moab is my washbasin,” NIV. And in Is. 22:23 we find Eliakim, whom Jehovah said he would call and commit authority to (Is. 22:20, 21), called a “throne” (“and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house,” RSV).
Not only is it made very clear by many trinitarian translators and text writers themselves that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated “God is your throne,” but all real evidence shows that it should be so translated!
So we find once more that Jesus cannot possibly be God. Just as we saw in the case of the Israelite king in Ps. 45:6, 7, if God is his throne (the one supporting him – giving him power and authority), then he cannot be that God!
Hi All
The evidence leans toward the translation that most major translations read and not the NWTs rendering.
“The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts”. Turn the pages and see the breadth of the translators’ notes, documenting their decisions and choices as they worked. The translators’ notes make the original languages far more accessible, allowing you to look over the translator’s shoulder at the very process of translation.
This is what they say…
24tn Or possibly, “Your throne is God forever and ever.” This translation is quite doubtful, however, since (1) in the context the Son is being contrasted to the angels and is presented as far better than they. The imagery of God being the Son’s throne would seem to be of God being his authority. If so, in what sense could this not be said of the angels? In what sense is the Son thus contrasted with the angels? (2) “The μέν…δέ (men…de) construction that connects v. 7 with v. 8 clearly lays out this contrast: “On the one hand, he says of the angels…on the other hand, he says of the Son.” Thus, although it is grammatically possible that θεός (qeos) in v. 8 should be taken as a predicate nominative, the context and the correlative conjunctions are decidedly against it. Hebrews 1:8 is thus a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ.“
So we see that because of the comparison of Christ to the Angels, the NWT rendering would make no sense.
But they also overlook another valid point in the context of Heb 1:8, and that is how the writer exalts Jesus as the agent by whom all things were created. By his hands he laid the foundations of the earth. Therefore it is not unreasonable and in fact is plausible for the translators to translate the Father calling Jesus God “Theos” seeing that the quote in Heb 1:10 for the Son is from Ps 102 which is referring to YHWH, thus proving that the writer was showing the Hebrews that Jesus is the Creator.
This invalidates the JWs argument that Jesus being God was developed in the 3rd century, for here we clearly see that the writer is elevating Jesus as the Creator of all things and as being called “Theos” of which was never said of the Angels by the Father.
WJ
Here is more information on this…
“But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness'” The New World Translation.
In this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in two legitimate ways:
“God is your throne forever and ever….
and
“Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever…”But because of the Watchtower presupposition that Jesus is not God, they choose the first version, otherwise, the Father would be calling Jesus God and that goes against Jehovah's Witness theology. “Yet, most Bibles do not translate it the way the New World Translation does. They choose the other way. Why? Two reasons“.
First, Heb. 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6, which says,
“Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom” (All Bible quotes are from the NASB).
In fact, the ASV, KJV, NIV, and NKJV all translated it as “Your throne, O God…” The RSV translates it as “Your divine throne endures for ever and ever,” “but this is a highly unlikely translation because it requires understanding the Hebrew noun for “throne” in construct state, something extremely unusual when a noun has a pronomial suffix, as this one does…The KJV, NIV, and NASB all take the verse in its plain, straightforward sense, as do the ancient translations…”1
When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical requirement for this translation, though it is considered to be the best translation by most translators. In and of itself, this is not conclusive because the context of this verse in Psalm 45 is dealing with a king which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as God. But, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another. They knew something we didn't. In fact, in Ezekiel 28:12-17 is a section that deals with the fall of the devil. Verse 13 describes how he was in the garden of Eden. Verse 14 says he was the anointed cherub, (v. 15), etc. But the context of this section begins with an address to the king of Tyre (v. 12). Yet, right after Ezekiel is told to write to the King of Tyre he then goes on to describe what the great majority of theologians agree with, a description of the devil's fall. “So, we need to look at the context into which the writer of Hebrews put Psalm 45:6. He addressed it to Jesus. Therefore, Psalm 45 is a Messianic Psalm and must in interpreted in light of the NT, not the other way around“.
Nevertheless, the context of this verse follows:
“For to which of the angels did He ever say, “Thou are My son, Today I have begotten Thee”? And again, “I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me”? 6And when he again brings the first-born into the world, He says, “And let all the angels of God worship Him.” 7And of the angels He says “Who makes His angels winds, and His ministers a flame of fire.” 8But of the Son He says, “Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom, 9Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy companions. 10And, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands; 11They will perish, but though remainest….” (Heb. 1:5-11).
'To say “God is your throne” doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say, “But to which of the angels did he say, God is your throne.” What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else“.
Also worth noting here is verse 10: “Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands…” This is a quote from Psalm 102:24-25 which says, “I say, 'O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Thy years are throughout all generations. 25Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands.'” Clearly, God is the one being addressed in Psalm 102. It is God who laid the foundations of the earth. “Yet, in Heb. 1:10, Jesus is called 'Lord' and is said to be the one who laid the foundation of the earth. This becomes even more interesting when we note that in Isaiah 44:24 it says, “Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone.” If God was laying the foundations of the earth alone, that would mean that either Jesus has to be God, second person of the trinity, who laid the foundation the same as YHWH did, or we have a contradiction in the Bible. Clearly this section of Hebrews is proclaiming that Jesus is God. Therefore, contextually, it is best to translate Heb. 1:8 as, “Thy Throne, O God. . .” and the Father call Jesus God“.
The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God. Therefore, it cannot permit any verses in the Bible to even hint that Jesus is God. That is why they choose a translation that does not best fit the context or overall theology of the Bible. Source
Somehow David thinks that the WT proves the Trintarian view in scriptures is wrong!
Not at all, the evidence is overwhelmingly in facour of the Trinitarian.
The Arains and the Unitarians have many contradictions in scriptures.
The biggest one is to hold their view you have to be a Polytheist!
WJ
hi WJ
i think i told you before that God does not have or sit on a throne ,the word “throne “means power.
“throne” is a metaphor ,the scriptures say that the earth is his foot stool ,were are the legs of that stool???how can God explain things to ignorant people like us,except in a way that it is understandable to us,In response to WJ's post.
The NET Bible is a completely new TRINITARIAN translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 TRINITARIAN scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
This is what they say…
“Or possibly, “Your throne is God forever and ever.”“
Being experts in biblical languages, they know and understand that yes, a “grammatically possible” translation is “Your throne is God forever and ever.”
So, let's take a moment and acknowledge this fact: Trinitarian scholars (the 25 of the the Net Bible, and many many more, many of whom I quoted above) completely agree that this verse can be translated “Your throne is God forever and ever.”
IT IS NOT BASED ON GRAMMAR THAT THIS TRANSLATION IS DISPUTED! It is based on something else–The fact that they want this verse to be: “a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ.”
As for it not making sense, because they say these verses are contrasting angels with Jesus, let's look at what it actually says in Hebrews.
First, notice 1:13,14:
HEBREWS 1:13-14
“But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”? Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?”So, Jesus will be sitting with God. Then mention is made that the angels are spirits for public service, sent for tho minister.
HEBREWS 1:7-8
“Also, with reference to the angels he says: “And he makes his angels spirits, and his public servants a flame of fire.” But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.”Again, here, we see that the angels are also spoken of as “public servants.” But we note that Jesus has God as his throne, the one supporting him – giving him great power and authority. And then it mentions Jesus' kingdom.
The NET Bible asks this question:
Quote In what sense is the Son thus contrasted with the angels?
As we see above, the contrast is fairly easy to see–that is, unless you are a trinitarian scholar who is being paid to find the deity of Christ wherever possible. And that's NET's conclusion:although it is grammatically possible that θεός (qeos) in v. 8 should be taken as a predicate nominative, the context and the correlative conjunctions are decidedly against it. Hebrews 1:8 is thus a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ.”
But of course, the context is not decidedly against it. They needed to come to that affirmation of the deity of Christ and they were willing to ignore quite a bit….such as the actual quote that it was taken from–Ps 45:6.
NET Bible:
45:6 Your throne, O God, is permanent.
The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of justice.I love the footnote that comes after “O God.” It states:
The king is clearly the addressee here, as in vv. 2-5 and 7-9. Rather than taking the statement at face value, many prefer to emend the text because the concept of deifying the earthly king is foreign to ancient Israelite thinking (cf. NEB “your throne is like God’s throne, eternal”). However, it is preferable to retain the text and take this statement as another instance of the royal hyperbole that permeates the royal psalms. Because the Davidic king is God’s vice-regent on earth, the psalmist addresses him as if he [the king] were God incarnate. God energizes the king for battle and accomplishes justice through him. A similar use of hyperbole appears in Isa 9:6, where the ideal Davidic king of the eschaton is given the title “Mighty God”My question to you, WJ:
If the original quote that Heb 1:8 was taken from (Ps 45:6) is meant to mean only that the king was “God incarnate” and not God himself, then shall we not apply the exact same reasoning to Heb 1:8 with reference to Jesus? ? ? ? ?
Quote But they also overlook another valid point in the context of Heb 1:8, and that is how the writer exalts Jesus as the agent by whom all things were created. By his hands he laid the foundations of the earth. Therefore it is not unreasonable and in fact is plausible for the translators to translate the Father calling Jesus God “Theos” seeing that the quote in Heb 1:10 for the Son is from Ps 102 which is referring to YHWH, thus proving that the writer was showing the Hebrews that Jesus is the Creator.
Well, it's a nice try, I guess…
Except, the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.Quote This invalidates the JWs argument that Jesus being God was developed in the 3rd century, for here we clearly see that the writer is elevating Jesus as the Creator of all things and as being called “Theos” of which was never said of the Angels by the Father. First, although you want this to be a “JW” argument, so you can just repeat the mantra: “It's wrong because JW's believe it,” and hope many will agree, which some will. (But won't you feel bad about such unhonorable methods?) Anyway, although you want it to be such an argument, you'll find that it's an argument of trinitarian against trinitarian. Have you even read my posts above? Almost every reference is from TRINITARIANS and trinitarian Bibles!
Secondly, we most certainly do not “see” that Jesus is being elevated as the Creator in this passage. Have you even read what YOU posted? I'm not sure you have!
And of course thirdly, while the Father of course never calls “angels” his “God” they are referred to as “gods” in his inspired Word. They are not considered “God” (mighty ones) to him, obviously, but are such to humans.Quote (david @ Dec. 22 2009,01:57) In response to WJ's post. The NET Bible is a completely new TRINITARIAN translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 TRINITARIAN scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
David interjected “Trinitarian” in there which is dishonest unless David has proof that they were Trinitarians.Lets see it David!
But even if they were, the are qualified Hebrew and Greek scholars unlike the NWT Translators!
WJ
Quote In this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in two legitimate ways: “God is your throne forever and ever….
and
“Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever…”But because of the Watchtower presupposition that Jesus is not God, they choose the first version
It's true that the vast majority of the Bible paints the picture that God is not a trinity and hence, yes, this verse shouldn't be translated to contrast the rest of the Bible….but that is not why it was translated that way.
Why don't you go and look at where that quote of Heb 1:8 was taken from?
PSALM 45:6
“God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever; The scepter of your kingship is a scepter of uprightness.”–NWTThis scripture in Psalm is talking about a human king. The other way to translate it:
Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
Remember, it's talking about a king. Now, you can say, as the NET Bible does in it's footnote that it is saying that this king was “God incarnate.” See post above for that footnote. “the psalmist addresses him as if he [the king] were God incarnate.”–NET footnote on Ps 45:6.
Let's flip this around. How much sense does that make?
You can't have it both ways WJ. If Jesus is God Almighty because of Heb 1:8, then can it not equally be argued that that human king was God Almighty, since the same words were used, since it is a direct quote?
Quote When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical requirement for this translation, though it is considered to be the best translation by most [TRINITARIAN] translators.
WJ, the number of times you stated or implied falsely that the majority is right because it is the majority has to be approaching the hundreds. Does the Bible state the principle that the majority is right, or rather, does it tend to lean in exactly the opposite direction?Quote the context of this verse in Psalm 45 is dealing with a king which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as God. –wj
Yes, it does make one wonder. It makes one wonder to the exact same extent that one wonders why Jesus would be addressed as God. One is a quote of the other. WJ, how do you feel about that king being called “god.”
Quote The biggest one is to hold their view you have to be a Polytheist!
WJ, I knew you would make some mention of your polythiesm. That's why I underlined this sentence before:In fact, the highly trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, 1970, explains in a footnote for this verse:
“The Hebrew king was called … 'God,' not in the polytheistic sense common among the ancient pagans, but as meaning 'godlike' or 'taking the place of God'.”
If a trinitarian Bible footnote can explain how a Hebrew king can be called “God” (“NOT IN THE POLYTHEISTIC SENSE”) then can a trinitarian (you) not understand how Jesus could be?
I'll ask that again:
If a trinitarian Bible footnote can explain how a Hebrew king can be called “God” (“NOT IN THE POLYTHEISTIC SENSE”) then can a trinitarian (you) not understand how Jesus could be?
Maybe one more time:
If a trinitarian Bible footnote can explain how a Hebrew king can be called “God” (NOT IN THE POLYTHEISTIC SENSE) then can a trinitarian (you) not understand how Jesus could be?
And, just once more, hoping you see it:
If a trinitarian Bible footnote can explain how a Hebrew king can be called “God” (“NOT IN THE POLYTHEISTIC SENSE”) then can a trinitarian (you) not understand how Jesus could be?
You and your word “polytheistic” is all you seem to have, so I feel bad taking it away from you like this. Scare tactics don't work on people who can read.
david.
David
Just a few points on your erroneous post and then tomorrow I will get to the meat.
Quote (david @ Dec. 22 2009,01:57) First, although you want this to be a “JW” argument, so you can just repeat the mantra: “It's wrong because JW's believe it,” and hope many will agree, which some will. (But won't you feel bad about such unhonorable methods?) 
ROTFL. David do you even think before you intellectually disrobe yourself?
You have done nothing but made this whole argument a Trinitarian argument and yet infer that I am not honorable for going after your WT doctrines and dogmas of which the WT has brainwashed you with.
Didn't you just accuse the NET scholars of being Trinitarian and inferring they are biased like you do every other major tranlsation because they are Trinitarians, yet you do not put up any proof of such.
And you infer that I am being dishonest?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 22 2009,18:07) Quote (david @ Dec. 22 2009,01:57) In response to WJ's post. The NET Bible is a completely new TRINITARIAN translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 TRINITARIAN scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
David interjected “Trinitarian” in there which is dishonest unless David has proof that they were Trinitarians.Lets see it David!
But even if they were, the are qualified Hebrew and Greek scholars unlike the NWT Translators!
WJ
For the Old Testament:Richard E. Averbeck, William D. Barrick, M. Daniel Carroll R. [sic], Robert B. Chisholm, Dorian Coover-Cox, Donald R. Glenn, Michael A. Grisanti, W. Hall Harris III, Gordon H. Johnston, Eugene H. Merrill, Allen P. Ross, Steven H. Sanchez, Richard A. Taylor, and Brian L. Webster.
For the New Testament: Darrell L. Bock, Michael H. Burer, Buist M. Fanning III, John D. Grassmick, W. Hall Harris III, Gregory J. Herrick, Harold W. Hoehner, David K. Lowery, Jay E. Smith, and Daniel B. Wallace.
Do you see any non-trinitarians in this list, WJ? I don't.
I said they were qualified. No question. They're qualitified to understand Greek and Hebrew, well enough. But that's not the issue.
When it comes to a verse that can be translated 2 ways (such as Heb 1:8 or Ps 45:6) and one of those ways is a trinitarian way and the other not….and all of these translators believe in the trinity….
Which of the two ways do you think they'll choose?
But more than that…the people/foundation paying them…I'm guessing they're ….trinitarian.
So, do they even have a choice?
Quote You have done nothing but made this whole argument a Trinitarian argument and yet infer that I am not honorable for going after your WT doctrines and dogmas of which the WT has brainwashed you with. But that is what it is. I created this thread. It is a thread about the trinity. I have quoted many trinitarian translators who say it can be translated either way. But you don't argue against them. You argue against me. And in what manner? By saying I'm a JW or by saying the NWT is made by JW's.
What kind of logic is that? It is the equivalent of name calling. If you can defend your beliefs do so. If you can only label people to feel better about your beliefs…. I know you have to understand what I'm saying.
If you were a lutheran…hey, do you have a denomination? I tend not to care or ask, but in this case, I will.
Imagine I knew that you were a [blank.] And then whenver I talked to you, I didn't address your points, but spent half my time explaining that you were wrong on whatever BECAUSE you were a [blank.] Who would buy that garbage? Well, I guess the people who already want to believe it would. But that doesn't make it right.Quote Didn't you just accuse the NET scholars of being Trinitarian –wj
Is it a shameful thing to be a trinitarian, WJ? I would think that even if they weren't, you wouldn't consider it a bad accusation. By the way, they are. And certainly the ones who translated Heb 1:8 is a trinitarian.
Ok, some proof.
“Although the Introduction does not mention it, seventeen of these people were teachers at DTS; and of the remaining six, five were students at DTS. Only one (William Barrick) has no obvious connection to Dallas Theological Seminary.”
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.htmlDallas Theological Seminary Doctrinal Statement:
http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/Quote *
o
+DTS Doctrinal Statement
Core BeliefsWhile our faculty and board annually affirm their agreement with the full doctrinal statement (below), students need only agree with these seven essentials:
* the Trinity
AT THE VERY LEAST, 24 OUT OF 25, AFFIRMED THEIR AGREEMENT WITH THE DOCTRINAL STATEMENT, THAT INCLUDED, YES………………………..THE TRINITY.
I checked the first 24. You can check the last one yourself. But, they're also a trinitarian. It's kind of obvious, isn't it?
Quote (david @ Dec. 22 2009,02:30) Quote You have done nothing but made this whole argument a Trinitarian argument and yet infer that I am not honorable for going after your WT doctrines and dogmas of which the WT has brainwashed you with. But that is what it is. I created this thread. It is a thread about the trinity. I have quoted many trinitarian translators who say it can be translated either way. But you don't argue against them. You argue against me. And in what manner? By saying I'm a JW or by saying the NWT is made by JW's.
What kind of logic is that? It is the equivalent of name calling. If you can defend your beliefs do so. If you can only label people to feel better about your beliefs…. I know you have to understand what I'm saying.
If you were a lutheran…hey, do you have a denomination? I tend not to care or ask, but in this case, I will.
Imagine I knew that you were a [blank.] And then whenver I talked to you, I didn't address your points, but spent half my time explaining that you were wrong on whatever BECAUSE you were a [blank.] Who would buy that garbage? Well, I guess the people who already want to believe it would. But that doesn't make it right.
DavidYou attack the major translations and accuse them of Trinitarian bias while you quote the NWT and WT sources as being the truth without bias.
So why isn't it fair game to show the other side.
The whole purpose of WT is to attack the Trinitarian view, in fact that is the first obstacle that the JWs are brainwashed to overcome when trying to convert a Christian to their own false religion!
So agian, it is fair game because you claim bias by the Translators, and so do I claim bias by the NWT translators!
WJ
Quote (david @ Dec. 22 2009,02:37) Quote Didn't you just accuse the NET scholars of being Trinitarian –wj
Is it a shameful thing to be a trinitarian, WJ? I would think that even if they weren't, you wouldn't consider it a bad accusation. By the way, they are. And certainly the ones who translated Heb 1:8 is a trinitarian.
Ok, some proof.
“Although the Introduction does not mention it, seventeen of these people were teachers at DTS; and of the remaining six, five were students at DTS. Only one (William Barrick) has no obvious connection to Dallas Theological Seminary.”
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.htmlDallas Theological Seminary Doctrinal Statement:
http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/Quote *
o
+DTS Doctrinal Statement
Core BeliefsWhile our faculty and board annually affirm their agreement with the full doctrinal statement (below), students need only agree with these seven essentials:
* the Trinity
AT THE VERY LEAST, 24 OUT OF 25, AFFIRMED THEIR AGREEMENT WITH THE DOCTRINAL STATEMENT, THAT INCLUDED, YES………………………..THE TRINITY.
I checked the first 24. You can check the last one yourself. But, they're also a trinitarian. It's kind of obvious, isn't it?
DavidNo I am not ashamed that they are Trinitarian, but you should be ashamed for accusing them of bias and even infering that they corrupt the text for money.
But do as you like, they are at least real scholars with real credentials unlike the NWT which also is obvious of their own bias!
WJ
Quote David You attack the major translations and accuse them of Trinitarian bias while you quote the NWT and WT sources as being the truth without bias.
–wj
WJ, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. You certainly haven't read my first post. (It's all trinitarian scholars, and trinitarian Bibles.) I am not attacking the major translations. I'm attacking an error that many (not all) translations have made at Heb 1:8. All translations have errors…even the NET. Sad, but true.
Quote The New Testament has been substantially revised since its first appearance, incorporating many suggestions made by reviewers associated with the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL). In an article published in 2000, one of the editors stated that there had been thousands of such changes, (1) and many more were to be made in the future. Because the version was primarily designed to be an Internet resource, the editors have freedom to experiment with and revise the version as they may see fit.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.htmlI've been reading up on the NET Bible. It's quite an interesting Bible. Feels a bit like wikipedia in it's approach. The gender neutral thing is odd, for me. See link above. It's quite interesting.
Perhaps one of the many changes to come will be Heb 1:8. But, i doubt it.
Quote So agian, it is fair game because you claim bias by the Translators, and so do I claim bias by the NWT translators! E X A C T L Y ! ! !
So, instead of spending pages doing this, (You saying I'm a JW, and me explaining that there are actual reasons behind why many trinitarians say Heb 1:8 can be translated the other way) why don't we actually focus on the actual arguments.
I would love that. If you can tell me what religion you are, then I can take the easy way out the next time you mention “JW's” I think that's fair. So, what is it?
Quote No I am not ashamed that they are Trinitarian, but you should be ashamed for accusing them of bias and even infering that they corrupt the text for money. –wj
It has without question been done before. Would you like me to find you a quote?
When a trinitarian group who believe trinitarian things hire someone who is almost certainly a trinitarian, they are paying that person to come up with trinitarian ideas. They are not paying them to be original.
Hi WJ.
How about debating with evidence that the other possible translation is either wrong because of… or is possible.
An admission that it is possible would go further to supporting your beliefs as it would show that you are non-biased and therefore open and teachable.
So how about proof or an admission that it is possible.
I mean, what other noble options are there?
If a person argues against something and yet has no evidence for it, all the while refuting that which is possible, then how can we trust that persons other beliefs?
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 22 2009,02:57) Hi WJ. How about debating with evidence that the other possible translation is either wrong because of… or is possible.
An admission that it is possible would go further to supporting your beliefs as it would show that you are non-biased and therefore open and teachable.
So how about proof or an admission that it is possible.
I mean, what other noble options are there?
If a person argues against something and yet has no evidence for it, all the while refuting that which is possible, then how can we trust that persons other beliefs?
t8I agree!
But IMO and the opinions of many others, the evidence in context leans to the popular Translation.
WJ
Quote (david @ Dec. 22 2009,02:53) Quote No I am not ashamed that they are Trinitarian, but you should be ashamed for accusing them of bias and even infering that they corrupt the text for money. –wj
It has without question been done before. Would you like me to find you a quote?
When a trinitarian group who believe trinitarian things hire someone who is almost certainly a trinitarian, they are paying that person to come up with trinitarian ideas. They are not paying them to be original.
DavidI am talking about the NET.
Find proof and then make your accusations!
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
