- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 31 2011,10:35) Isaiah 54:5 is correctly translated as: “For your Ruler [or “the One who rules over you”] is your Maker, Whose name is the LORD of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth.
None of the English versions I checked translate it that way. E.g.-http://www.biblegateway.com/passage….YLT;ESV
Given that teams of expert translators (sometimes >100) were assigned to these generating some of these translations, I'd say your rendering has got incredibly low odds of being “correctly translated”.
Mike, sometimes you've just got to let reason and logic prevail over your theological presuppositions.
Quote None of the English versions I checked translate it that way. E.g.- http://www.biblegateway.com/passage….YLT;ESV
Given that teams of expert translators (sometimes >100) were assigned to these generating some of these translations, I'd say your rendering has got incredibly low odds of being “correctly translated”.
Mike, sometimes you've just got to let reason and logic prevail over your theological presuppositions.
It's bizarre in the extreme that the only 2 things in your post are:
1. argumentum ad populum
2. stating that we should use “reason and logic.”Is 1:18, you know, it's you who first introduced me to how great the study of fallacious arguments are.
david
It's reasonable to assume that if a team of 100+ grammarians are assigned to the task of translating a bible version that there would be a wide diversity of theological views in a group that size, thereby minimising the margin for error. It's a good safeguard for bias and mitigates what can happen when a small group of untrained zealots set about the task (e.g. the NWT “translators”)
Why is it that virtually everyone who assumes something thinks what they assume is “reasonable?”
Can you demonstrate how a group of small zealots differs from a group of large zealots?
Having a large number of people doesn't reduce the “margin of error” if those people all have the same beliefs already. You can have one Einstein and a thousand trained scientists who disagree with him, and yet, Einstein can still be correct.
Hand the apostle Paul the Hebrew scriptures.
Hand a group of a hundred pharisees the Hebrew scriptures.Ask them both to translate.
If they were truly unbiased, then maybe. If they were simply grammarians and scholars who hadn't heard of the Bible before and didn't have any family or friends who have heard of the Bible, then maybe. But that is not the case at all.
Diversity of theological views doesn't minimize error. It perhaps makes the errors more diverse.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 10 2011,21:49) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 31 2011,10:35) Isaiah 54:5 is correctly translated as: “For your Ruler [or “the One who rules over you”] is your Maker, Whose name is the LORD of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth.
None of the English versions I checked translate it that way. E.g.-http://www.biblegateway.com/passage….YLT;ESV
Given that teams of expert translators (sometimes >100) were assigned to these generating some of these translations, I'd say your rendering has got incredibly low odds of being “correctly translated”.
Mike, sometimes you've just got to let reason and logic prevail over your theological presuppositions.
Paul,Didn't my post show two other scriptures where the same exact word was translated as “ruled over”? Are you saying that the word in 54:5 CAN'T POSSIBLY be translated as “ruled over”?
You speak of MY “theological presuppositions”? I'm not the one illogically trying to claim that the Son OF God is the same exact God he is the Son OF.
As far as the NWT translation, check out Jack's new thread, in which he tries to lambast that translation. I offered him the same challenge I once offered to Keith: Show me a scripture that the NWT translates incorrectly.
Keith soon bailed from our debate on the subject, and Jack has yet to offer his first scripture. Perhaps you'd like to play?
But do so on that thread please. I'd like this thread to remain for the purposes of going through Kathi's long list of scriptures, showing her that not one of them teaches that Jesus is God. And on that note, if you or Kathi can show no solid PROOF that the word “ba'al” can not be translated as “Ruler” in Is 54:5, then it's time to move on to her second scripture.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 30 2011,18:35) Hi Kathi, I'm sorry to hear about your friend's tragic loss.
You have missed the point of this thread because I, like an idiot, once again titled one of my threads with misleading words. The OP shows the intention of this thread, but you sure wouldn't know if from the title I gave it.
I will transfer my OP and compiled results to another thread that is titled correctly. But since the later posts on this thread seem to better fit the title of it, let's discuss your scriptures one at a time, and see if they really do, beyond any shadow of a doubt, show God to be TWO.
Your first scripture:
Isaiah 54:5
“For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the LORD of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth.This is the Hebrew word “ba'al”. It is very similar to the Hebrew word “Ba'al”, which means “master” or “ruler”, and was used to identify the Baals that the nations surrounding Israel worshipped in the days of the Judges and beyond.
The very close form of this word that is used in Is 54:5 IS often translated as “husband”, for a husband WAS the “master” and “ruler” over his wife.
But this form generally means “master” or “ruler”, just like the form of “Ba'al” that was used for the Canaanite's god.
From NETNotes:
ba`al
1) to marry, rule over, possess, own
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to marry, be lord (husband) over
1a2) to rule over
1b) (Niphal) to be marriedThe following two verses have the same exact word in the same exact Qal form, yet they are sensibly translated as “rule over”:
1Ch 4:22
Jokim, the men of Cozeba, and Joash and Saraph, both of whom ruled over Moab and Jashubi Lehem.Isa 26:13
O Lord, our God, masters other than you have ruled over us, but we praise your name alone.Isaiah 54:5 is correctly translated as:
“For your Ruler [or “the One who rules over you”] is your Maker, Whose name is the LORD of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth.
So Kathi, knowing the facts I've just showed you, will you INSIST that the correct translation is “husband”? Or will you at least acknowledge the possibility that the correct translation is “Ruler”?
Because if you are honest, and acknowledge the “Ruler” translation as a possibility, then the scripture is at best ambiguous. And one would have to be desperate to insist that an “ambiguous” scripture is proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus IS Jehovah.
Also consider that if Jehovah consists of both Father AND Son, then the Father would also be listed as a husband of the bride in Rev 21:9. But instead, it is ONLY the Lamb who is the husband – not the “compound unity” that you claim makes up Jehovah.
Rebuttal? Or shall I go on to your next “Jesus is God” proof scripture?
peace,
mike
Here Mike,
This is a very interesting fact to apply to this verse:“For thy Maker is thine husband – Both these words, 'maker' and 'husband,' in the Hebrew are in the plural number.”
Just another verse for the compound unity scripture database
Kathi
Also, thanks for your sympathy. My friends threw a back-to-school dance this weekend in honor of their daughter, she was always full of fun.
Yes Kathi,
Just like “elohim” is plural. It is commonly referred to as a “plural of majesty”. The Hebrews didn't have a capital letter to distinguish between, say, “Lord” and “lord”. The way they did it was to pluralize a word that we today would simply capitalize. Instead of “God”, they would say “gods” as their way of emphasizing that the god in question was a majestic god.
Similarly, while we capitalize the “S” in Solomon's Song of songs, the Hebrews pluralized the first “song” instead, making it literally read: Solomon's songs of songs.
Now, will you address the points I made about Is 54:5, so I can move on to showing you how not one of the scriptures you listed teach that Jesus is God Almighty?
Thanks,
mikeQuote I offered him the same challenge I once offered to Keith: Show me a scripture that the NWT translates incorrectly. I find this quote from jason Beduhn applicable:
“Atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate” may be what some call the NWT, but such a characterization is completely erroneous. Nearly every message I have received since the Watchtower article came out has claimed that “all reputable scholars,” “every Greek or biblical scholar,” etc. has condemned the NWT. It often sounds like people are getting this quote from the same source. But whatever the source, it is a lie. I have looked into the matter, and found almost no reviews of the NWT in academic journals. Most date from the 50s and 60s (the NWT has been improved since then). This kind of blanket condemnation of the NWT does not exist, for the most part because biblical scholars are far too busy to review WBTS publications which are considered outside of academic interest. It is simply something we don't pay attention to. I would welcome the names of any scholar who has written a review of the KIT or NWT; I am looking for these reviews, which seem few and far between. For [this]characterization to be correct, [a critic] would have to point out places in the NWT where the translators deliberately give a false meaning for a word or phrase. Not a meaning within the range of possibility for the Greek, but something actually false and ungrammatical. Despite dozens of contacts in the last month, no one has yet supplied a single example which shows deliberate distortion (and I have checked many passages suggested to me). The fact is that the NWT is what I call a “hyper-literal” translation, it sticks very close to the Greek, even making awkward English reading. There are a few places where the translators seem to have gone far out of their way, sometimes to clarify something suggested by the Greek, often for no apparent reason (maybe my ignorance of fine points of Witness theology prevents me from grasping what they are up to). And if you look at any other available translation, you will find similar instances where interpretation has been worked into the text in a way that stretches, if it does not violate the Greek. Every translation is biased towards the views of the people who made it. It is hard to judge who is right and who is wrong simply by comparing versions. You must go back to the Greek.”
It's not on grounds of grammar, but largely on grounds of “that translation doesn't support my trinitarian view” that people dislike this translation.
Is God Almighty One? Two? Or Three?
What about Four?
My take is that someone is bound to argue for that eventually.
Perhaps God, Son Spirit, Church or something like that given that we can partake of divine nature.
Any takers. Want to be the first to start a false doctrine.
You could be famous.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 11 2011,16:16) It's reasonable to assume that if a team of 100+ grammarians are assigned to the task of translating a bible version that there would be a wide diversity of theological views in a group that size, thereby minimising the margin for error. It's a good safeguard for bias and mitigates what can happen when a small group of untrained zealots set about the task (e.g. the NWT “translators”)
Wrong IS.Bibles today still contain translation errors. Most translators believe in the Trinity and so sway toward that with some verses even when it is completely unjustified.
E.g., the Word was God even when there is no definite article.
While a minority of translations knowing this say the Word was divine or something similar.
Even the KJV includes verses that are not part of scripture.
However, let's take your argument and apply that to science.
Conclusion, evolution is true because the majority of scientists subscribe to the theory.Clang.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 11 2011,12:58) Yes Kathi, Just like “elohim” is plural. It is commonly referred to as a “plural of majesty”. The Hebrews didn't have a capital letter to distinguish between, say, “Lord” and “lord”. The way they did it was to pluralize a word that we today would simply capitalize. Instead of “God”, they would say “gods” as their way of emphasizing that the god in question was a majestic god.
Similarly, while we capitalize the “S” in Solomon's Song of songs, the Hebrews pluralized the first “song” instead, making it literally read: Solomon's songs of songs.
Now, will you address the points I made about Is 54:5, so I can move on to showing you how not one of the scriptures you listed teach that Jesus is God Almighty?
Thanks,
mike
Mike,
Did you say at one time that some earthly king was plural? I just got a new Bible study program that has the morphological codes to the OT words…it's way cool so far but is going to take some time to learn.
KathiYes Kathi,
Here is one example:
2 Chronicles 28:16 NIV
At that time King Ahaz sent to the king of Assyria for help.The word “king” is plural in Hebrew. The LXX and many translations render it as a single “king” however, knowing it refers to Tilgath-pilneser.
Here is one with “lord”:
2 But Jehovah proved to be with Joseph, so that he turned out a successful man and came to be over the house of his master, the Egyptian.The word “master” is the plural form of “adon”.
You're welcome. How about addressing Is 54:5, now that you know about the “plural of majesty”?
God is definitely a “majestic” Maker AND a “majestic” Ruler, right? Therefore the words can be plural to denote majesty instead of quantity. And the “husband” absolutely can be faithfully translated as “ruler”, right?
So……………do we agree that it is ambiguous at best?
mike
Mike,
Quote 2 Chronicles 28:16 NIV
At that time King Ahaz sent to the king of Assyria for help.
This word 'king' is translated as 'kings' in many versions. The commentaries have different ideas about this. One says that 'kings' means the king and his son. (Gill) Another says 'kings' means princes, who may be called kings in a more general signification of the word. (Wesley)
The note on the Geneva Study Bible said this, “To Tiglath Pileser and those kings who were under his dominion, 2Ki 16:7.”So, I don't think that verse qualifies to clearly show a plural majesty.
As far as the other verse, I have to research that one some more.
Kathi
I like to go back to Isaiah 54:5 and see the different version of it…
King James Version (KJV)
Isa 54:5 For thy Maker [is] thine husband; the LORD of hosts [is] his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.New Living Translation (NLT)
Isa 54:5 For your Creator will be your husband; the LORD of Heaven's Armies is his name! He is your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, the God of all the earth.New International Version (NIV)
Isa 54:5 For your Maker is your husband–the LORD Almighty is his name–the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth.English Standard Version (ESV)
Isa 54:5 For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called.New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Isa 54:5 “For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the LORD of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth.Revised Standard Version (RSV)
Isa 54:5 For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called.American Standard Version (ASV)
Isa 54:5 For thy Maker is thy husband; Jehovah of hosts is his name: and the Holy One of Israel is thy Redeemer; the God of the whole earth shall he be called.Irene
Mike! There is nothing plural about Jehovah God, and the Creator and Maker, whatever you want to call our God,,,, He is ONE there is none beside Him…..
American Standard Version (ASV)
Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that Jehovah he is God; there is none else besides him.American Standard Version (ASV)
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah:God is no two or three, no trinity or binity…..
Irene
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 14 2011,23:28) This word 'king' is translated as 'kings' in many versions.
And what about the well educated scholars of the LXX and the many translations that render it as the singular “king”? What was THEIR reasoning?Let me know on the other verse I gave you ASAP. You're going to have a harder time proving that Pharaoh was more than one master.
Also, check how Canaan was foretold to become the “slaves of slaves”. Or how Solomon's song is the “songs of songs”. Or how the Most Holy Place in God's Tabenacle is called the “holies of holies”. I also understand that both Nebuchadnezzar and Artaxerxes were called the “kings of kings”.
That should keep you busy for a minute or two.
Hey, I have a question waiting for you in the “Temptation” thread. Third post down on page 6.
Mike,
I'm still researching this but you can cross off Nebuchadnezzar and Artaxerxes. Neither of them are kings of kings. They are both singular, i.e. king of kings according to the morphology that is in my new study tool.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
