Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Christian Forum aspires to be an online community where Christians can come together in fellowship with the purpose to encourage, inspire and build up our faith in Christ Jesus. John 13:34-35
  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

The Absolute Equality of Jesus Christ With God The Father

tigger 2

Member
From
pacific northwest
Gender
Male
Messages
50
Joined
Sep 26, 2020
Who is able to forgive sins but God ?
Is “saviour” (yasha in Hebrew [Strong‘s # 3467], soter in NT Greek [Strong‘s # 4990]) really an exclusive title for God, or can it properly be applied to other individuals?

If Jehovah is insisting that no one but himself is ever to be called “saviour,” then He and His inspired Bible writers would never call anyone else by that exclusive title.

So, when we read that Othniel (Judges 3:9) and Ehud (Judges 3:15) are both called “saviour” (same Hebrew word translated “saviour” at Is. 43:11 is translated “deliverer” in KJV - compare ASV), should we really believe they are both Jehovah because “besides [Jehovah] there is no saviour”? If so, we have a newtrinity”: The Father, Ehud, and Othniel!!

“Mystery” religionists and “plural-oneness God” devotees should be interested in Obadiah 21 also. There they can “prove” that all those saviours are Jehovah. Furthermore, they might “prove” that those saviours are Christians who, therefore, will all be Jehovah! For example, if Jehovah alone is saviour, and Jesus is saviour because he saves (Greek: sosei - Matt. 1:21 and soso - John 12:47) men, then Jesus “must” be God. By this same reasoning, since some followers of Jesus also save (Greek: sosei - James 5:20; 1 Tim. 4:16 and soso - 1 Cor. 9:22) men, then they (the saviours of Obadiah 21?) too, must be God!

We realize that Jehovah, as the only Almighty and Most High God, is the ultimate Saviour and the only origin of salvation, and, in that sense, and by comparison, there are no others.

However, it is obvious that other individuals can be, and are, saviours in a subordinate sense, if Jehovah so wills it. That means, then, that Jehovah is the only ultimate saviour (or the only ultimate source of salvation), and, in the cases of Ehud and Othniel, for example, Jehovah was saviour through them.

Yes Jesus is our savior and king, but he is our only savior in the sense of being the only one (excluding God in heaven the source of that salvation who sent him for this purpose) who gave us the opportunity for eternal salvation. This is explained in John 3:17: “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” - NRSV. God is the source of salvation, Jesus was the instrument.
 

jaybo

 
Supporter
From
Santa Fe NM
Gender
Male
Messages
1,183
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
It takes some effort to learn the honest translation of John 1:1c. It took me many years to finalize my studies of John's use of NT Greek grammar in constructions truly parallel to John 1:1c. And while I have condensed my original 50+ pages to less informative studies, they are still considered too much whenever I try to present them in discussions.

Basically, using data from noted trinitarian NT Grammar experts, I found 19 other examples which were honestly parallel to the construction of John 1:1c. These were all translated into English in all the trinitarian-translated Bibles I examined (20+) as indefinite and using an indefinite article ("a/an"). None of them were ever translated as definite with the definite article ('the').

Therefore, since John 1:1c is literally "god was the word," and does not use the definite article with "god" as John (and the other Gospel writers) do when "God" is intended, it is most likely that it should read "the Word was a god."

"A god" in scripture is applied to Israelite judges, angels, kings, etc. and is not to be applied only to false gods as some trinitarians insist.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2013/02/seven-lessons-for-john-11c-a.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html
Here is the footnote on John 1:1 in the NET: " Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.

You do realize, of course, that translation is as much art as science. I'm going with what virtually every English translation, done by committees of the most competent Biblical scholars, says rather than your opinion of what it says.
 

jaybo

 
Supporter
From
Santa Fe NM
Gender
Male
Messages
1,183
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Is “saviour” (yasha in Hebrew [Strong‘s # 3467], soter in NT Greek [Strong‘s # 4990]) really an exclusive title for God, or can it properly be applied to other individuals?

If Jehovah is insisting that no one but himself is ever to be called “saviour,” then He and His inspired Bible writers would never call anyone else by that exclusive title.

So, when we read that Othniel (Judges 3:9) and Ehud (Judges 3:15) are both called “saviour” (same Hebrew word translated “saviour” at Is. 43:11 is translated “deliverer” in KJV - compare ASV), should we really believe they are both Jehovah because “besides [Jehovah] there is no saviour”? If so, we have a newtrinity”: The Father, Ehud, and Othniel!!

“Mystery” religionists and “plural-oneness God” devotees should be interested in Obadiah 21 also. There they can “prove” that all those saviours are Jehovah. Furthermore, they might “prove” that those saviours are Christians who, therefore, will all be Jehovah! For example, if Jehovah alone is saviour, and Jesus is saviour because he saves (Greek: sosei - Matt. 1:21 and soso - John 12:47) men, then Jesus “must” be God. By this same reasoning, since some followers of Jesus also save (Greek: sosei - James 5:20; 1 Tim. 4:16 and soso - 1 Cor. 9:22) men, then they (the saviours of Obadiah 21?) too, must be God!

We realize that Jehovah, as the only Almighty and Most High God, is the ultimate Saviour and the only origin of salvation, and, in that sense, and by comparison, there are no others.

However, it is obvious that other individuals can be, and are, saviours in a subordinate sense, if Jehovah so wills it. That means, then, that Jehovah is the only ultimate saviour (or the only ultimate source of salvation), and, in the cases of Ehud and Othniel, for example, Jehovah was saviour through them.

Yes Jesus is our savior and king, but he is our only savior in the sense of being the only one (excluding God in heaven the source of that salvation who sent him for this purpose) who gave us the opportunity for eternal salvation. This is explained in John 3:17: “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” - NRSV. God is the source of salvation, Jesus was the instrument.
What is your purpose in posting these comments? We have a plethora of English Bibles that have been created by the most competent scholars. There is also a plethora of footnotes and commentaries that explain and clarify what the Bible text says, and in cases of uncertainty, what it means.

Why should we believe your interpretation instead of theirs?
 

Hidden In Him

Member
From
Lafayette, LA
Gender
Male
Messages
326
Joined
Sep 10, 2021
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I don't believe I said that Rev. 1:8 referred to Jesus. I quoted Rev. 1:8 from the ASV as "I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

I was trying to make a comparison with God speaking at Rev. 1:8 and John speaking at Rev. 1:9 with Rev. 22:13-15 and 22:16. An attempt to show how, without punctuation, a person could try to show that John had spoken the words attributed to God and, therefore was God. And then showing how that was obviously wrong. And then I tried to show how the words spoken in Rev. 22:13-15 were not the words of the speaker of 22:16. In other words, there is very good reason to believe Jesus was not the one saying "I am the Alpha and Omega."

I also intended to show that "the first and the last" is not a title but simply means "only" in some sense. Whereas Alpha and Omega does appear to be a title reserved for God.

Alright, Tigger. I'm back. Been doing some socializing elsewhere.

If you could, explain to me what you mean by "only" from 1:17 and 2:8. I will post the verses here for easy reference (and my apologies if you already have. I couldn't seem to find it if you did):

17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.

8 And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, "These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life."
 

tigger 2

Member
From
pacific northwest
Gender
Male
Messages
50
Joined
Sep 26, 2020
Alright, Tigger. I'm back. Been doing some socializing elsewhere.

If you could, explain to me what you mean by "only" from 1:17 and 2:8. I will post the verses here for easy reference (and my apologies if you already have. I couldn't seem to find it if you did):

17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.

8 And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, "These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life."
I'm sure you can see how "the first and the last" can mean "only in some sense. I could say that Adam was the first and the last because he was the first human made by God (or made from the earth itself). Jesus was the first and the last (the only one made directly by the Father; all others were made by God through Jesus himself).

But at Rev. 1:17 and 2:8 the term explains itself in context "Fear not; I am the first and the last, 18 and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore," (1:17, ASV) and "These things saith the first and the last, who was dead, and lived again"

Jesus is the first and the last in respect to his resurrection: He was the first and the last to be resurrected to eternal life.
 

Hidden In Him

Member
From
Lafayette, LA
Gender
Male
Messages
326
Joined
Sep 10, 2021
I'm sure you can see how "the first and the last" can mean "only in some sense. I could say that Adam was the first and the last because he was the first human made by God.

Yes, but not the last. Nor was Jesus the last either, unless He was talking about something else (like His Divinity).

I think this is the weakness in your argument. Your reasoning in other areas was solid enough, but this right here strikes me as unconvincing. Not saying it while taking a debater's stance; I'm just putting it forth to you honestly, discussing the matter cordially.
 

tigger 2

Member
From
pacific northwest
Gender
Male
Messages
50
Joined
Sep 26, 2020
Again my clarity was poor. I probably should have skipped the first part of the Adam example: Adam was the first and the last (only) human directly made from the earth by God.

Jesus is the first and the last in respect to his resurrection: He was the first and the last to be resurrected to eternal life by the Father.

QuoteReply
Report
 
From
new york
Gender
Male
Messages
228
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Is “saviour” (yasha in Hebrew [Strong‘s # 3467], soter in NT Greek [Strong‘s # 4990]) really an exclusive title for God, or can it properly be applied to other individuals?

If Jehovah is insisting that no one but himself is ever to be called “saviour,” then He and His inspired Bible writers would never call anyone else by that exclusive title.

So, when we read that Othniel (Judges 3:9) and Ehud (Judges 3:15) are both called “saviour” (same Hebrew word translated “saviour” at Is. 43:11 is translated “deliverer” in KJV - compare ASV), should we really believe they are both Jehovah because “besides [Jehovah] there is no saviour”? If so, we have a newtrinity”: The Father, Ehud, and Othniel!!

“Mystery” religionists and “plural-oneness God” devotees should be interested in Obadiah 21 also. There they can “prove” that all those saviours are Jehovah. Furthermore, they might “prove” that those saviours are Christians who, therefore, will all be Jehovah! For example, if Jehovah alone is saviour, and Jesus is saviour because he saves (Greek: sosei - Matt. 1:21 and soso - John 12:47) men, then Jesus “must” be God. By this same reasoning, since some followers of Jesus also save (Greek: sosei - James 5:20; 1 Tim. 4:16 and soso - 1 Cor. 9:22) men, then they (the saviours of Obadiah 21?) too, must be God!

We realize that Jehovah, as the only Almighty and Most High God, is the ultimate Saviour and the only origin of salvation, and, in that sense, and by comparison, there are no others.

However, it is obvious that other individuals can be, and are, saviours in a subordinate sense, if Jehovah so wills it. That means, then, that Jehovah is the only ultimate saviour (or the only ultimate source of salvation), and, in the cases of Ehud and Othniel, for example, Jehovah was saviour through them.

Yes Jesus is our savior and king, but he is our only savior in the sense of being the only one (excluding God in heaven the source of that salvation who sent him for this purpose) who gave us the opportunity for eternal salvation. This is explained in John 3:17: “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” - NRSV. God is the source of salvation, Jesus was the instrument.
So who is able to forgive sins besides God Himself ?
 
From
new york
Gender
Male
Messages
228
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
- NRSV. God is the source of salvation, Jesus was the instrument.
The blood of Jesus became an instrument for the forgiveness of the sins of the whole world when He was slain as the Lamb of God upon the cross, yes .
But what about the reason He was nailed to the cross to begin with , for claiming the autonomous power to forgive individual sins prior to becoming the " instrument " as the Lamb slain and the shedding of instrumental Blood ?
Pre-Calvary forgiveness of sins vs Post-Calvary forgiveness of sins ?
Blood shed vs No Blood shed ?
Two entirely different circumstances in terms delegated or inherent authority .

Unchecked Copy Box
Mar 2:7
Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
 

JLB

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life
Staff member
Administrator
From
Houston Texas
Gender
Male
Messages
30,260
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
“και παν κτισμα ο εστιν εν τω ουρανω και εν τη γη και υποκατω της γης και επι της θαλασσης α εστιν και τα εν αυτοις παντα ηκουσα λεγοντας τω καθημενω επι του θρονου και τω αρνιω η ευλογια και η τιμη και η δοξα και το κρατος εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων” (Revelation 5:13-14)

"And ALL of the Creation, which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things that are in them, heard I saying, to Him Who sits on the throne, and unto the Lamb, be ALL the Blessing, and ALL the Honour, and ALL the Glory, and ALL the Might, for ever and ever. And the four living creatures said, Amen. And the elders fell down and worshipped." (so emphasized in the Greek)

Note the words, “τω καθημενω επι του θρονου και τω αρνιω”, “to Him Who sits on the throne AND to the Lamb”, where the Greek conjunction, “και”, is used for “sameness”, with absolute equality. Thus, we read in chapter 22, verse 1: “And he showed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb”. The Greek here is very important, “του θρονου του θεου και του αρνιου”, where “του θρονου” (the throne), is in the singular number. God and the Lamb, as “distinct” Persons, are united in Their Rule. This absolute unity, can also be seen in chapter 11:15, “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall Reign for ever and ever”. Note the end, “He shall Reign”, which in the Greek is, “βασιλευσει”, which is in the singular number. It can refer to “His Christ”, or, to “our Lord and of His Christ”, the latter no doubt being the correct meaning, as seen from the main passage from chapter 5, and 22. Let no one suppose that there is some “subordination” with Jesus Christ to the Father, post-Incarnation, as this is proven as completely wrong from these passages in Revelation.

These passages are some of the strongest and clearest in the Holy Bible, that speak of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. It also shows His equality with the Father, and further teaches that there are Two Persons in Scripture, Who are equally Almighty God. We read, "to Him Who (Gk, toi) sits on the throne, and to the (Gk, toi) Lamb". Where it is very clear from the Greek text, that two separate Persons are spoken of, God the Father, and God the Son (the Lamb).

Verse 13 speaks of "every created thing which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things that are in them", which is nothing less than the entirety of the human race, "every created thing", with no exceptions. Here the entire universe ascribes "THE blessing, and THE honour, and THE glory, and THE Might", where in the Greek text, the "article [the]" is repeated with each word, signifying, "whatever blessing, and honour, and glory, and might", there is in the entire universe, as in ALL blessings, honour, glory, might, is here said to belong "to Him that sits on the throne", which is God the Father in this case. So, let us be clear here what is being taught; that, ALL, "THE blessing, and ALL THE honour, and ALL THE glory, and ALL THE might", are said EQUALLY to belong to God the Father, and God the Son. In the Book of Isaiah we read these words: "to whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like? (46:5), and in 42:8, "I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images". It is very clear from these passages, that Almighty God would never "share" His glory, praise with another, nor can He ever be compared with, or made equal with anyone. And yet, in the passage in Revelation, this is exactly what the Apostle John, writing under the guiding of the Holy Spirit, has done! It would be nothing short of blasphemy, for the Apostle John, to have written as he did in Revelation 5:13-14, IF, Jesus Christ was a created being, as some, like the Jehovah's Witnesses falsely teach. How can the Almighty Creator God, be EVER "share" the " blessings, and honour, and glory, and might", with a someone Whom He created? Can the Creator be said to be EQUAL with His creation, IF as some blaspheme, that Jesus is a created being? Jesus Himself says in the Gospel of John, "My Father works until now, and I work" (5:17), which the Jews rightly understood as Jesus "making Himself equal (Gk, isos, "the same in quality". J H Thayer, Greek-English lexicon; "to claim for one's self the nature, rank, authority, which belongs to God, Jn. v.18", p.307. Thayer was a Unitarian, who, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, denied the Deity of Jesus Christ) to God (toi theoi)", because He had called God, "His OWN Father" (verse 18). Thus is their relationship. And in verse 23, Jesus says something that ONLY someone who was coequal to the Father could ever have said. We read: "That everyone (all humans) should honour (Gk, time, "worship, esteem, honour") the Son, even as (Gk, kathos, "just as, even as", indicating comparision) they honour the Father. He that does not honour the Son, does not honour the Father Who sent Him". Can a created being demand that SAME honour that God the Father is given? Regardless of highly exalted Jesus Christ might have been, if He were a created being, there is NO way that He could ever have used language as He does here, without blaspheming. Even as the Incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ demanded EQUAL “HONOUR” with the Father, though He says that “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Here is indeed a Great Mystery!

John then goes on to say in verse 14, “And the elders fell down and worshipped”. This “worship” is here directed to BOTH , “to Him Who sits on the throne, AND unto the Lamb”, which further shows that Jesus Christ, post-Incarnation, is 100% COEQUAL, with God the Father, and in the Godhead, His Deity is no “less”, in any way, than the Father. The fact that BOTH are WORSHIPPED TOGETHER, can only be understood to Their being also COESSENTIAL

Also, in Revelation 1:17, and 2:8, we read of Jesus Christ say of Himself, that He is, "the first and the last". Thayer says of the words, "ho protos kai ho eschatos, i.e. the eternal One" (page, 554). Which can ONLY mean that Jesus Christ is UNCREATED, and ETERNAL. Add to this the words of Jesus Christ in chapter 22, “I am THE Alpha and THE Omega, THE First and THE Last, THE Beginning and THE End”. In Isaiah 44:6, we read, “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am THE First and I am THE Last; besides me there is no god”. It is not only impossible for Jesus to have said these words about Himself, IF, as some teach, that He is no more than a mere “created” being, but, it would also be the highest form of blasphemy. However, we are confident from what we read in the Infallible Word of God, that there can be no doubt, that Jesus Christ, IS indeed ALMIGHTY GOD, without beginning or end, as are God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit.


Jesus Christ IS The Great I AM, Yahweh, Almighty God.


But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And:
“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Hebrews 1:8-10


  • But to the Son He says: … You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.

The Son, Jesus Christ created all things.


This is a quote from Zechariah.


The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him: Zechariah 12:1




JESUS CHRST is LORD; YHWH the Lord God.


The only begotten of the Father.






JLB
 

SolaScriptura

Member
From
England
Gender
Male
Messages
201
Joined
Jul 20, 2021
But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And:
“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Hebrews 1:8-10


  • But to the Son He says: … You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.

The Son, Jesus Christ created all things.


This is a quote from Zechariah.


The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him: Zechariah 12:1




JESUS CHRST is LORD; YHWH the Lord God.


The only begotten of the Father.






JLB

The words "Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς" in verse 8 are vocative used in direct address, "Your throne O God"

Likewise in verse 9, the words in the Greek, "ὁ θεός, ὁ θεός σου", are also in the vocative, in continued address by the Father to Jesus Christ, and should be rendered in English as "O God, Your God", where again Jesus is called "God" by the Father. In both verses the noun "θεός", has the definite article in the Greek, "ὁ", which cannot be translated as "a god", or "divine", as some would do.
 

Hidden In Him

Member
From
Lafayette, LA
Gender
Male
Messages
326
Joined
Sep 10, 2021
The words "Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς" in verse 8 are vocative used in direct address, "Your throne O God"

Likewise in verse 9, the words in the Greek, "ὁ θεός, ὁ θεός σου", are also in the vocative, in continued address by the Father to Jesus Christ, and should be rendered in English as "O God, Your God", where again Jesus is called "God" by the Father. In both verses the noun "θεός", has the definite article in the Greek, "ὁ", which cannot be translated as "a god", or "divine", as some would do.

Since you are on this verse, what is your answer to the argument that v.8 should be translated "God is your throne..."
 

SolaScriptura

Member
From
England
Gender
Male
Messages
201
Joined
Jul 20, 2021
Since you are on this verse, what is your answer to the argument that v.8 should be translated "God is your throne..."

if we had the nominative instead of the vocative here, then it would read "God is your throne". The words are from Psalm 45:6-7, where in the Greek Old Testament, we also have "ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός...ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου", which are again in the vocative.

A couple of points here. Firstly, The Hebrew scholar, Aquila, who published a Greek Version of the Old Testament, in the middle of the 2nd century A.D., translates the Hebrew, by the Greek, “ο θρονος σου θεε”, which is undoubtedly the vocative, “Your throne, O God”. Secondly, In the Jewish Targum, the words are addressed to Yahweh, ‘The throne of Thy Majesty, O Yahweh, abideth for ever and ever.’.

Even the Jewish Bible, translates the Hebrew, “Thy throne, O God” (Dr A Benisch; Jewish School and Family Bible, Vol.IV). Also, The New Testament by the Unitarian, Dr George Noyes, reads: “but of the Son: ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”.

see more here, https://christianforums.net/threads/your-throne-o-god-o-god-your-god.88389/
 

Hidden In Him

Member
From
Lafayette, LA
Gender
Male
Messages
326
Joined
Sep 10, 2021
if we had the nominative instead of the vocative here, then it would read "God is your throne". The words are from Psalm 45:6-7, where in the Greek Old Testament, we also have "ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός...ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου", which are again in the vocative.

A couple of points here. Firstly, The Hebrew scholar, Aquila, who published a Greek Version of the Old Testament, in the middle of the 2nd century A.D., translates the Hebrew, by the Greek, “ο θρονος σου θεε”, which is undoubtedly the vocative, “Your throne, O God”. Secondly, In the Jewish Targum, the words are addressed to Yahweh, ‘The throne of Thy Majesty, O Yahweh, abideth for ever and ever.’.

Even the Jewish Bible, translates the Hebrew, “Thy throne, O God” (Dr A Benisch; Jewish School and Family Bible, Vol.IV). Also, The New Testament by the Unitarian, Dr George Noyes, reads: “but of the Son: ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”.

see more here, https://christianforums.net/threads/your-throne-o-god-o-god-your-god.88389/

Thank you. Copied to file.

So what is the JW response to that?
 

SolaScriptura

Member
From
England
Gender
Male
Messages
201
Joined
Jul 20, 2021
Thank you. Copied to file.

So what is the JW response to that?

The Jehovah's Witnesses, in 2 of their Greek New Testaments, read:

1942 Emphatic Diaglott
and 1985 Interlinear

Also, in their New World Translation online, in Isaiah 9:5, for the Prophecy of Jesus Christ, they read "mighty God", with the captial G, and not g!


 

Attachments

  • 1942ed.png
    1942ed.png
    28.6 KB · Views: 0
  • 1985int.png
    1985int.png
    139.9 KB · Views: 0

tigger 2

Member
From
pacific northwest
Gender
Male
Messages
50
Joined
Sep 26, 2020
Still don't get this one. How will we be raised up, if not by the Father?
After Jesus was created, all other things were made through (dia) him. So it is with those to be resurrected after him.

SS wrote concerning Heb. 1:8: "if we had the nominative instead of the vocative here, then it would read "God is your throne". The words are from Psalm 45:6-7, where in the Greek Old Testament, we also have "ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός...ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου", which are again in the vocative."
.......................................


The vocative for θεός is θεe. Unfortunately, the writers of the NT Greek most often did use the nominative as a vocative for "God."

Literally the NT Greek manuscripts read: “Toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age.” The words for "is" are added at the translator's discretion.


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 noted 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. - See the DEF study.

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....”

Famed trinitarian (Southern Baptist) New Testament Greek scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson acknowledges that either the trinitarian-preferred nominative use of God as a vocative or the nominative use (““God is thy throne” or "Thy throne is God) may be proper renderings: “Either makes good sense.” - p. 339. - Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. v, pp. 331, 339.

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.”

As for Jewish Bibles, my copy of the noted Tanakh (JPS) at Ps. 45:7, we read "Your divine throne is everlasting"

Given the uncertainty about this scripture by noted trinitarians themselves, it should not be so frequently used by trinitarians as a "proof."
 
Last edited:

Hidden In Him

Member
From
Lafayette, LA
Gender
Male
Messages
326
Joined
Sep 10, 2021
The Jehovah's Witnesses, in 2 of their Greek New Testaments, read:

1942 Emphatic Diaglott
and 1985 Interlinear

Also, in their New World Translation online, in Isaiah 9:5, for the Prophecy of Jesus Christ, they read "mighty God", with the captial G, and not g!



They do appear to admit this is a Messianic prophecy and then relegate the terms used to describe Jesus to having more earthly, humanistic meanings.

Found this on Quora:

As for the names Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace, scholars claim that these are titles which portray various functions of the king, using the imagery and ideology of Egyptian origin, probably following the Egyptian practice of giving throne names to the Pharaoh.

As for the title Mighty God specifically, some of these scholars think that it emphasizes the extraordinary skill and strength of the king as a warrior. Others explain the title in relation to the ancient Near Eastern idea of kingship, in which the king was portrayed as the divinity whom he represents.

Also, another of those titles is “Eternal Father”. If we understand that these titles prove that the Messiah is God himself, this would contradict the Trinitarian dogma that the Son is God but is NOT the Father, unless I’m misunderstanding this dogma.

In any case, this interpretation of the term Mighty God perfectly fits with the way Jehovah’s Witnesses understand the Scriptural role and identity of Jesus Christ is.


The first question that comes to mind for me is why would God be borrowing the Egyptian meanings of such expressions? Jesus himself said, "Call no man father upon the earth."

If we are not supposed to call men our spiritual "father," why would God be encouraging us to do so in this verse by such a meaning?

His only justification for not interpreting Jesus as God here is that this would "contradict the Trinitarian dogma that God is not the Father," which seems a weak argument as well. V.9 in Hebrews 1 clearly distinguishes between the two.
 
Top