- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 28 2013,03:00) Of those who are called theos or elohim, where is any single one of them called theos or elohim? I know Jesus is called mighty el. I admit I have to do some research about that one.
It seems like you've answered your own question……… or at least the research you do WILL eventually answer it. You see, I've already done the research you are about to do.You can also add many more scriptures to the argument. Like where Manoah, knowing he had just seen and angel of Jehovah, said, “We have seen a god!”
Or when Jacob, after wrestling all night with an angel of Jehovah, said “I saw a god face to face.”
Of course there are many more examples. But doesn't it seem even the least bit “biased” on your part to claim that while a group of gods can be called “gods”, one of them WOULDN'T BE called “a god”?
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 28 2013,03:05) …..are they qualitatively theos while being an actual angel or a judge etc or are they actually not an angel, or judge but an actual God like God is……….
Therein lies the crux of the problem, t8. You, like almost everyone else in existence today, have a non-Biblical understanding of the words “el” and “theos”.Jehovah was never called “God”, as opposed to “god”, in scripture.
He was called “el” and “theos” JUST LIKE all the others who were called “el” and “theos”.
And while there is no god who is like the MOST HIGH and ALMIGHTY god, Jehovah, it is the terms “MOST HIGH” and “ALMIGHTY” that distinguish Him as greater……….. NOT the terms “el” or “theos”.
So if you accept the “mighty one” definition of “el” and “theos”, then there is no other “mighty one” like Jehovah. But there are indeed many other “mighty ones”.
Satan is one. Jesus is one. Any spirit being is one. None of them are as mighty as the ALMIGHTY mighty one – but they are true mighty ones nonetheless.
If you accepted “mighty one” as the definition of “god” in scripture, as opposed to the “creator of all things” definition you probably have tucked into the back of your mind, then you would be able to see that ALL mighty ones are truly mighty ones, and the only distinguishing factor is that Jehovah is the MOST HIGH mighty one, and the ONLY mighty one to have created all things.
In that way, He can faithfully be called the only TRUE mighty one – without implying that other mighty ones are somehow “false” mighty ones.
You are a smart and faithful man, t8. This stuff will come to as you research into it more.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 28 2013,03:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 28 2013,16:15) I was looking for personal NAMES of three different gods that are described and detailed in scripture.
Save me the trouble and mention them for me.I know that YHWH is literally a god.
Jesus. Satan. Gabriel. Michael. Molech. Dagon. Asteroth. Chemosh.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 01 2013,00:58) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 28 2013,03:05) …..are they qualitatively theos while being an actual angel or a judge etc or are they actually not an angel, or judge but an actual God like God is……….
Therein lies the crux of the problem, t8. You, like almost everyone else in existence today, have a non-Biblical understanding of the words “el” and “theos”.Jehovah was never called “God”, as opposed to “god”, in scripture.
He was called “el” and “theos” JUST LIKE all the others who were called “el” and “theos”.
And while there is no god who is like the MOST HIGH and ALMIGHTY god, Jehovah, it is the terms “MOST HIGH” and “ALMIGHTY” that distinguish Him as greater……….. NOT the terms “el” or “theos”.
So if you accept the “mighty one” definition of “el” and “theos”, then there is no other “mighty one” like Jehovah. But there are indeed many other “mighty ones”.
Satan is one. Jesus is one. Any spirit being is one. None of them are as mighty as the ALMIGHTY mighty one – but they are true mighty ones nonetheless.
If you accepted “mighty one” as the definition of “god” in scripture, as opposed to the “creator of all things” definition you probably have tucked into the back of your mind, then you would be able to see that ALL mighty ones are truly mighty ones, and the only distinguishing factor is that Jehovah is the MOST HIGH mighty one, and the ONLY mighty one to have created all things.
In that way, He can faithfully be called the only TRUE mighty one – without implying that other mighty ones are somehow “false” mighty ones.
You are a smart and faithful man, t8. This stuff will come to as you research into it more.
like it
Mike, so each one of these is a god?
Judas was a devil right?
Even though it says “a devil”, we know he was a man but had the qualities of a devil because he was being deceptive about his friendship with Jesus.These gods you list, are they actually idols that are called gods or gods that are called idols.
Are Gabriel and Michael gods who are called sons of God or sons of God who are called gods?
While most have the good sense to understand that Judas is a man who is called a devil, most understand that he is not actually 'a devil' by race or classification, but a man who is qualitatively devil, devilish, and/or diabolical.
However, I believe that very few would read “the Word was a god” as qualitative. I think given years of Trinity teaching and also Monotheistic teaching, this would lead men into error by making the Word by race or classification 'a god' or another god, instead of thinking that the Word was divine or existing in the form of God. I believe that there is only one God, but that others can legitimately be called theos and elohim in a qualitative way. Just as there is one Devil, but many devils qualitatively.
I am not opposed to using the English indefinite article per se, but I believe it is best to translate verse in a way to get across the true meaning and intent. If a translation causes an issue, go with a translation that is clear.
BTW, where are the scriptures that say that each of these are 'a god' as opposed to just 'theos'?
Jesus. Satan. Gabriel. Michael. Molech. Dagon. Asteroth. Chemosh.
Hopefully that is not too much work, but would appreciate these 8 or so scriptures where these are translated as each being 'a god'.
Cheers.
JDG 11:24 ‘Do you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever the LORD our God has driven out before us, we will possess it.
Archaeologically, Ammon is not well known because extensive excavation has not been undertaken. Surface surveys show that many sites were occupied from the beginning of Iron Age I onward. The capital was Rabbah* Ammon, the modern Amman (Josh 13:25; 2 Sam 11:1; 12:27,29; Jer 49:3; Ezek 25:5; Amos 1:14). The ancient town has disappeared, but pottery* found on Citadel Hill indicates a long occupation, covering even the Middle and Late Bronze ages (c. 1900-1200 B.C.). An important Late Bronze Age tomb (see Grave) was found near the modern airport. Most of the tombs, however, come from the Iron II (see Iron Age) period. These have yielded large quantities of Ammonite pottery,* mostly from the seventh century B.C.; numerous inscribed seals;* some statues,* including small pottery horse*-and-rider figurines; utensils of iron,* limestone, and alabaster;* beads and other ornaments. A broken stone slab carrying eight lines of writing from the middle of the ninth century B.C. and referring to a temple of Molech* (1 Kings 11:5), the god of Ammon, was found in 1961 near the Iron Age fortifications on Citadel Hill. It is the third longest Palestinian inscription known at present.
Several OT references appear to allude to this practice in connection with the Ammonite god Molech* (Lev 18:21; 2 Kings 23:10 et al.), probably the same deity as the Malik or Muluk worshiped during the Third Dynasty of Ur,* and also revered at Mari* c. 800 B.C. In 2 Kings 17:31 the men of Sepharvaim in E-central Syria burned their children as offerings to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the former being the Mesopotamian deity Adad-milki, a variant name for the Syrian Hadad. The cremation of male children in pursuance of this hideous practice is confirmed in N Mesopotamian texts of the tenth to the seventh centuries B.C.
MILCOM. see Molech (Moloch).
MOLECH (MOLOCH) (mo'lek). A deity to whom human sacrifice was offered (2 Kings 23:10; Jer 32:35), and worshiped in Ammon* (1 Kings 11:7; Heb. milcom). The name is an element in many Ammonite names such as Adad-milki. The god was known in other lands and occurs on the Mari* documents, c. 1700 B.C.
The custom of sacrificing children to Molech (Lev 18:21; Jer 7:31) has found illustration from Carthage, the powerful N African colony of Tyre* and major rival of the Roman Republic in the second and third centuries B.C. Modern Tunis, expanding over the site, has accelerated archaeological work, and discoveries in Carthaginian cemeteries provide evidence for the burning of babies by fire.MY TWO PENNIES
Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 08 2013,06:43) JDG 11:24 ‘Do you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever the LORD our God has driven out before us, we will possess it.
Apparently, Jephthah believed that Chemosh was a real god, who can give things to his people.What I want to know is what exactly convinces t8 and the others that he is NOT a real god.
Scripture doesn't say he is not a real god. So why do THEY say he is not?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 10 2013,06:11) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 08 2013,06:43) JDG 11:24 ‘Do you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever the LORD our God has driven out before us, we will possess it.
Apparently, Jephthah believed that Chemosh was a real god, who can give things to his people.What I want to know is what exactly convinces t8 and the others that he is NOT a real god.
Scripture doesn't say he is not a real god. So why do THEY say he is not?
WHY,SOME SAY THE “THE WORD ” OF GOD HIS NOT CHRISTi think “”” it is because they are thinking with their fleshly heart and not the heart that God has given through Christ ,
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 08 2013,04:04) BTW, where are the scriptures that say that each of these are 'a god' as opposed to just 'theos'? Jesus. Satan. Gabriel. Michael. Molech. Dagon. Asteroth. Chemosh.
Hopefully that is not too much work, but would appreciate these 8 or so scriptures where these are translated as each being 'a god'.
It is a lot of work, t8. But I've done the work, and you are putting it off. And although I find it hard to believe that you would sit here and argue with me about it without first doing the work, here goes………..1. Chemosh. Pierre has just listed a scripture.
2. Jesus. Hebrews 1:8, for one.
3. Satan. 2 Kings 1:6 and 2 Cor 4:4.
4. Gabriel and Michael are gods by association. See Judges 13:21-22, where Manoah, knowing he had seen the angel of Jehovah, said, “We have seen a god!” Also, compare Genesis 32, where Jacob wrestled with an angel of God (Hosea 12:4), yet said he had seen a god face to face. (There are other scriptures where Jacob encountered angels and called them gods.)Or you can see scriptures like Psalm 8:5, where David said that God made us lower than the gods, and Paul understood that to mean He made us lower than the angels. (Hebrews 2:7)
The bottom line is that spirit sons of God were called gods in many scriptures.
5. Dagon. See Judges 16:23.
6. As for the rest:
1 Kings 11:33
I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me………Not only is this Jehovah Himself calling these other ones gods, but He uses the plural word “elohim” for all three of them, instead of the singular “el”. And I'm sure you know that the plural in Hebrew either means more than one, or a majestic one.
So I think I've covered all of them. I reject your argument that a group of them being called gods doesn't mean one of them is a god……… unless you can show me this concept somewhere else. For example, if you could show me that a group of leaders can be called “kings”, while one of them can't individually be called “a king”, then I will give that concept a better listen.
t8, the bottom line of this whole thing is that there are indeed many gods mentioned in the scriptures. And since the scriptures don't say any of them are “false gods”, why would YOU say it?
I'm having this discussion in three threads right now. If you'd like to discuss it more, you can join in the discussion here or here.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2013,15:46) I post this not to prove the NWT, but to look at the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1. Does the following page make sense. I don't know anything about the Sahidic Coptic translation. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081013161836AASBOMF
The Sahidic Coptic was translated in the 3rd century, about a hundred years before the Trinity became official church doctrine. The Sahidic Coptic calls the Word in John 1:1 “a god,” not “god” or “the god.”
First or last nail?
The word is referred to as “the god” in second century manuscripts? I don't think so. Definitely not in Coptic, since the Sahidic Coptic was the earliest translation into Coptic. Certainly not in the Greek, or we'd see the variants in Nestle-Aland.
5 years agoI've read what Wallace has said on John 1:1. Yes, he is well respected amongst the Trinitarians. From a non-trinitarian perspective, he doesn't really make a strong case. And some of things he says, especially involving the New World Translation, is quite simply inaccurate.
Remember, Athanasius was from Alexandria also, not just Arius. In the fourth century, the church was split about 50/50 concerning the trinity/non-trinity.
But remember, the Sahidic Coptic translation was made the century before the so-called Arian controversy.
Going by memory (it's been a few years) he said that the NWT's John 1:1c was only an indefinite reading. Then he goes on to state, as Bar Enosh points out below, that the correct meaning is qualitative in meaning. Well, the NWT's rendering can be considered qualitative in nature.
If you have the NWT w/ References edition, you will find that the NWT translators offer, not just one, but three renderings for John 1:1c. All of which can be qualitative.
1. And the Word was a god.
2. And the Word was god-like.
3. And the Word was divine.All three are qualitative in meaning. The Appendix on John 1:1 in the NWT also says that John 1:1c is qualitative.
Another point:
In English, “and the Word was a god” can be considered qualitative. It can also be indefinite. But the phrase “and the Word was God” is not qualitative. It is only definite.Many Greek scholars admit that John 1:1c is qualitative in the Greek, yet insist on a strictly definite English translation.
The NWT is more honest by offering three renderings, all of which are qualitative.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081013161836AASBOMF
Quote The Sahidic Coptic was translated in the 3rd century, about a hundred years before the Trinity became official church doctrine. The Sahidic Coptic calls the Word in John 1:1 “a god,” not “god” or “the god.” I too had kept reading 3d century. Kerwin kept saying 4th century. If I remember I think it was near the end of the third century.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2013,02:38) Thanks for posting that, t8. I'm sure much of it sounds familiar by now. The thing to really remember is that the Coptic language, like English, uses an indefinite article. It is the first language into which the NT was translated that does so.
And that means that the first chance anyone ever got at translating John 1:1c as “a god”……….. THEY DID IT!
That is important to remember.
(I do wonder why you had to add a “disclaimer” to make sure no one thought you were trying to “prove the NWT”.
I don't agree with every interpretation of scripture that the JWs have, but the NWT is a fine and accurate translation of the scriptures. If you want to challenge the JWs on some of their beliefs, then do that. But why would you fault the NWT? Do you fault the KJV, NASB, NRSV, or the NIV based solely on the fact that Trinitarians and Catholics use them?)
“Thanks for posting that, t8. I'm sure much of it sounds familiar by now.
The thing to really remember is that the Coptic language, like English, uses an indefinite article. It is the first language [THAT WE KNOW OF] into which the NT was translated that does so.
And that means that the first chance anyone ever got at translating John 1:1c as “a god”……….. THEY DID IT!”
–mike***
Kerwin adores propagating the philosophy that there were possibly numerous unknown languages before sahedic Coptic that probably also had in indefinite articles in them, and which may have or may not have used the article in John 1:1.
I find this an odd idea given that we had to wait 1300 more years before the translators were translating it into a language that used indefinite articles. (English)
But if there were others, still, who cares. We don't know they exist. The only evidence we can use is the evidence we have.
Quote (david @ Nov. 21 2013,13:41) But if there were others, still, who cares. We don't know they exist. The only evidence we can use is the evidence we have.
I wonder what Kerwin would do if a manuscript from one of those “other languages” was discovered tomorrow, and they too translated 1:1c as “a god”?
Mike, that won't happen. It would be interesting if it did.
After minutes of research, I am going to confidently say to kerwin:
–Coptic was the first language the New Testament was translated into that uses the indefinite article!!
And equally important:
–Coptic was the only language that uses indefinite articles that was produced while koine Greek was spoken.
Thanks for your work Terr, it is good to have this in one place for easy analysis.
Before I read, I want to stress my point again so that you are not under the impression that I am against you or disagree strongly with you. I am merely testing out your view and want to know why exactly you believe this view. And my view is that even if we differ here, it makes no difference to me regarding our common faith.
Here is my current view and I have held this view for probably a decade now, but I am open to changing that view.
Jesus said of Judas that he was a devil, according to our English translations because Koine Greek has no indefinite article, so it was added in to make sense for us. But we also have enough sense to know that he was not a literal devil or demon, rather that he had the character or nature of the Devil. We also have enough sense to know that any other human whose Father is the Devil is not a literal devil in that we don't brand these people as a devil in English. e.g., I don't call Adolf Hitler a devil or a literal devil.
But when it comes to theos, all sense is thrown out the window and suddenly people are literal gods. Thus Jesus is a literal God/god. Yet who among us calls any man 'a god' to whom the Word of God has come? Am I a god, are you a god. Are we literally gods too? t8 is a god. david is a god. Should I call the 'Believers Section in this forum “Meeting Place of the gods”?
Let's go back to Judas and use the current John 1:1 views out there and apply it to John 6:70, “Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”>
1) Trinitarian: “One of you is THE Devil”.
2) Literal application with indefinite article “one of you is an actual devil”
3) Qualitative application: “One of you is like the devil, shares his character, The Devil is his father”.These are the 3 options for John 1:1 and John 6:70 and I am still in the number 3) camp.
That said, of those who oppose the number 3) view, I don't really have a problem with the 2) camp because it really depends on how they view 'a god'. They may view it qualitatively, thus have a no 3) view anyway. But I do have a problem with the no 1) camp because that is just a ridiculous way to see it. Judas is not THE Devil or Satan and neither is the Word that was with God, literally God himself.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 24 2013,09:05) 1) Trinitarian: “One of you is THE Devil”.
2) Literal application with indefinite article “one of you is an actual devil”
3) Qualitative application: “One of you is like the devil, shares his character, The Devil is his father”.
Hi T8,2) 'one of you is a devil'
If you don't believe #2 why were you arguing for its authenticity
and subsequently tiled me for challenging your understanding of a Qualitative application?
We actually BOTH believe that 'one of you is a devil' is not telling the complete story, with further investigation being required.Look at what John 6:70 says:
John 6:70 (Greek): απεκριθη αυτοις ο ιησους ουκ εγω υμας τους δωδεκα εξελεξαμην “και εξ υμων εις διαβολος εστιν”
(Google translations) Jesus answered them, I quite a exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you is he in devilThe answer is actually #4
4) One of you has brought Devil. Judas brought the devils works
like Peter before him (Ref. Mark 8:31-33) brought the Devil's words.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
