Is God Almighty One? Two? Or Three?

This topic is empty.

Viewing 20 posts - 121 through 140 (of 498 total)

←1 2 3…678…23 24 25 →

Author
Posts

September 11, 2011 at 3:49 am#258052

Is 1:18

Participant

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.

September 11, 2011 at 4:53 am#258055

david

Participant

Quote

None of the English versions I checked translate it that way. E.g.-

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage….YLT;ESV

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

September 11, 2011 at 5:16 am#258056

Is 1:18

Participant

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”)

September 11, 2011 at 6:28 am#258058

david

Participant

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.

September 11, 2011 at 4:30 pm#258090

mikeboll64

Blocked

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

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

September 11, 2011 at 4:46 pm#258094

Lightenup

Participant

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 married

The 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.

September 11, 2011 at 5:58 pm#258102

mikeboll64

Blocked

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

September 12, 2011 at 12:18 am#258129

david

Participant

Quote

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.