Honest Lifter…
I will address those verses from the previous page tonight after my final exam. But you have to promise to show me the verse(s) in the BIBLE (not any Jehovah’s Witness literature) where it says or even hints that Jesus is Michael.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Honest Lifter…
I will address those verses from the previous page tonight after my final exam. But you have to promise to show me the verse(s) in the BIBLE (not any Jehovah’s Witness literature) where it says or even hints that Jesus is Michael.[/quote]
Absolutely. Not a problem. They are there.
[quote]forlife wrote:
John 8:58
See also Exodus 3:14
This seems a clear statement on Christ’s divinity, given that the crowd immediately tried to stone him for sacrilege.[/quote]
I have seen, and asked the same question. I mean, The New World Translation does it differently than almost all other translations. Why?
Here is what I found:
(quoted for accuracy)
The Greek verb there used, eimi’, is literally in the present tense, but in view of its being preceded by the aorist infinitive clause which refers to Abraham’s past, the Greek verb eimi’ must be viewed as a historical present. Regarding the historical present Hadley and Allen’s Greek Grammar says, in section 828: HISTORICAL PRESENT.-In vivid narration, a past event is often thought of and expressed as present:…The present in this use is freely interchanged with the past tenses…"
Says A. T. Robertson’s A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, under “The Historical Present,” pages 866-869: “This vivid idiom is popular in all languages, particularly in the vernacular…it is much more frequent in Greek than in English and is a survival of ‘the original stock of our languages.’ ‘It antedates the differentiation into imperfect and aorist.’ …It is common enough in the LXX [Septuagint], …Hawkins finds the historical present in the LXX 337 times. Josephus uses it also. The New Testament examples are thus ‘dramatic.’ The historical present is not always aoristic. It may be durative like the imperfect…Hawkins…finds 93 historic presents in Matthew (15 of them in Parables), but 162 in John and 151 in Mark. It is rare in the rest of the New Testament. It is most frequent in Mark, John, Matthew and in this order…”
That a historical present in the Greek in the midst of a context of the past tense is properly rendered in English as a past tense is recognized by the best of modern Bible translators. Dr. James Moffatt was on the Revised Standard Version Bible Committee, and note how he translates John 8:58 in his own version: “‘Truly, truly I tell you,’ said Jesus, ‘I have existed before Abraham was born.’”
Professor E. J. Goodspeed was a member of the American Standard Bible Committee, and his translation renders John 8:58 as follows: “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!’”
I have at least 9 other sources that translate it differently than ‘I AM’
…and to conclude:
When any clerical critic tries to claim inaccuracy for the New World Translation at John 8:58, then he is indicting not only it but also all these other scholars, English and foreign language, of inaccuracy. He is entitled to take and accept the version that he prefers because of bias toward a religious doctrine, in this case the trinity, but yet it should be recognized that the New World Translation has plenty of support by acknowledged, widely known translators for its rendering at John 8:58.
But if that is the case, why did the Jews view his statement as sacrilege worthy of being stoned to death?
[quote]forlife wrote:
But if that is the case, why did the Jews view his statement as sacrilege worthy of being stoned to death?[/quote]
Make sure the question you are asking is consistent with the text. Does the scripture(s) say for what reason they tried to stone him? (not speculation, but actually say)
It’s pretty clear that the Jews asked Jesus in verse 57 if he had seen Abraham, and that his response in verse 58 indicated that he had since he claims to have existed before Abraham. Immediately following this claim, the Jews tried to stone him to death. I’m not sure how else you would interpret it?
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s pretty clear that the Jews asked Jesus in verse 57 if he had seen Abraham, and that his response in verse 58 indicated that he had since he claims to have existed before Abraham. Immediately following this claim, the Jews tried to stone him to death. I’m not sure how else you would interpret it?[/quote]
So possible options:
He could be an angel (not a first)
He could be a resurrected prophet
He could be the only-begotten son of God
He could be God himself.
(include any others you think of)
All of which would get great amount of respect.
But why would they stone him for any of those claims, outside of being god himself? Especially when you consider that only one biblical translation allows for the possibility that he wasn’t assuming the biblical “I Am” name for god, while the other translations say this is the case.
[quote]forlife wrote:
But why would they stone him for any of those claims, outside of being god himself? Especially when you consider that only one biblical translation allows for the possibility that he wasn’t assuming the biblical “I Am” name for god, while the other translations say this is the case. [/quote]
I said I found at least 9 other translations, so here you go:
Chas. Williams’ The New Testament: “Then Jesus said to them, ‘I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.’”
A. S. Lewis’ “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest: “He said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I have been.”
The Twentieth Century New Testament: “‘Believe me,’ Jesus replied, ‘before Abraham was born I was already what I am.’”
G. M. Lamsa’s The Modern New Testament: “Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was.”
Jas. Murdock’s The Syriac New Testament: “Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was.”
F. Pfaefflin’s Das Neue Testament (German): “Jesus: ‘Before there was an Abraham, I was already there [war ich schon da]!’”
C. Stage’s Das Neue Testament (German): “Jesus said to them: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [war ich].’”
Nacar Colunga’s Nuevo Testamento (Spanish): “Jesus answered: ‘In truth, in truth, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [era yo].’”
F. Delitzsch’s Hebrew New Testament and that by Salkinson-Ginsburg both have the verb in the perfect form “I have been” (haiithi) instead of in the imperfect form.
Ok, I missed that part 
[quote]forlife wrote:
Ok, I missed that part :)[/quote]
That was probably a little my fault, I sneaked that in the middle; hard to see
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Why? Because I do, God didn’t reveal his trinitarian nature to the Jews clearly, because of the very difficulty you have at this moment, he didn’t reveal a lot of stuff because of the difficulty to understand it. They weren’t mature enough, they were too close to cultures that had multiple gods to understand three person’s in one God. In the correct manner. Just like Noah wasn’t chided for his drunkenness.
[/quote]
OK, you are not going to like the following paragraphs, but I am posting them as a response to: “They weren’t mature enough, they were too close to cultures that had multiple gods to understand three person’s in one God.”
(quoted for accuracy)
[THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.
Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it… From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians…Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”]
As you know the Jews (also known as the Israelites) were captives of the Egyptians and lived in Egypt since Joseph.
[/quote]
So, you’re saying because Pagan religions have the concept of trinity, that must mean that the Catholic Church got it from paganism?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
John 8:58
See also Exodus 3:14
This seems a clear statement on Christ’s divinity, given that the crowd immediately tried to stone him for sacrilege.[/quote]
I have seen, and asked the same question. I mean, The New World Translation does it differently than almost all other translations. Why?
Here is what I found:
(quoted for accuracy)
The Greek verb there used, eimi’, is literally in the present tense, but in view of its being preceded by the aorist infinitive clause which refers to Abraham’s past, the Greek verb eimi’ must be viewed as a historical present. Regarding the historical present Hadley and Allen’s Greek Grammar says, in section 828: HISTORICAL PRESENT.-In vivid narration, a past event is often thought of and expressed as present:…The present in this use is freely interchanged with the past tenses…"
Says A. T. Robertson’s A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, under “The Historical Present,” pages 866-869: “This vivid idiom is popular in all languages, particularly in the vernacular…it is much more frequent in Greek than in English and is a survival of ‘the original stock of our languages.’ ‘It antedates the differentiation into imperfect and aorist.’ …It is common enough in the LXX [Septuagint], …Hawkins finds the historical present in the LXX 337 times. Josephus uses it also. The New Testament examples are thus ‘dramatic.’ The historical present is not always aoristic. It may be durative like the imperfect…Hawkins…finds 93 historic presents in Matthew (15 of them in Parables), but 162 in John and 151 in Mark. It is rare in the rest of the New Testament. It is most frequent in Mark, John, Matthew and in this order…”
That a historical present in the Greek in the midst of a context of the past tense is properly rendered in English as a past tense is recognized by the best of modern Bible translators. Dr. James Moffatt was on the Revised Standard Version Bible Committee, and note how he translates John 8:58 in his own version: “‘Truly, truly I tell you,’ said Jesus, ‘I have existed before Abraham was born.’”
Professor E. J. Goodspeed was a member of the American Standard Bible Committee, and his translation renders John 8:58 as follows: “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!’”
I have at least 9 other sources that translate it differently than ‘I AM’
…and to conclude:
When any clerical critic tries to claim inaccuracy for the New World Translation at John 8:58, then he is indicting not only it but also all these other scholars, English and foreign language, of inaccuracy. He is entitled to take and accept the version that he prefers because of bias toward a religious doctrine, in this case the trinity, but yet it should be recognized that the New World Translation has plenty of support by acknowledged, widely known translators for its rendering at John 8:58.
[/quote]
Quotes for accuracy
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
But why would they stone him for any of those claims, outside of being god himself? Especially when you consider that only one biblical translation allows for the possibility that he wasn’t assuming the biblical “I Am” name for god, while the other translations say this is the case. [/quote]
I said I found at least 9 other translations, so here you go:
Chas. Williams’ The New Testament: “Then Jesus said to them, ‘I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.’”
A. S. Lewis’ “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest: “He said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I have been.”
The Twentieth Century New Testament: “‘Believe me,’ Jesus replied, ‘before Abraham was born I was already what I am.’”
G. M. Lamsa’s The Modern New Testament: “Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was.”
Jas. Murdock’s The Syriac New Testament: “Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was.”
F. Pfaefflin’s Das Neue Testament (German): “Jesus: ‘Before there was an Abraham, I was already there [war ich schon da]!’”
C. Stage’s Das Neue Testament (German): “Jesus said to them: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [war ich].’”
Nacar Colunga’s Nuevo Testamento (Spanish): “Jesus answered: ‘In truth, in truth, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [era yo].’”
F. Delitzsch’s Hebrew New Testament and that by Salkinson-Ginsburg both have the verb in the perfect form “I have been” (haiithi) instead of in the imperfect form.
[/quote]
I have my own translation as well, however, it is not a scholarly translation.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Why? Because I do, God didn’t reveal his trinitarian nature to the Jews clearly, because of the very difficulty you have at this moment, he didn’t reveal a lot of stuff because of the difficulty to understand it. They weren’t mature enough, they were too close to cultures that had multiple gods to understand three person’s in one God. In the correct manner. Just like Noah wasn’t chided for his drunkenness.
[/quote]
OK, you are not going to like the following paragraphs, but I am posting them as a response to: “They weren’t mature enough, they were too close to cultures that had multiple gods to understand three person’s in one God.”
(quoted for accuracy)
[THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.
Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it… From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians…Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”]
As you know the Jews (also known as the Israelites) were captives of the Egyptians and lived in Egypt since Joseph.
[/quote]
So, you’re saying because Pagan religions have the concept of trinity, that must mean that the Catholic Church got it from paganism?[/quote]
You said that the Jews weren’t mature enough to understand the concept of the trinity. I am showing you that you are incorrect in that thinking, because they had a great deal of exposure.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I have my own translation as well, however, it is not a scholarly translation.[/quote]
What are you saying? Are you using a hyperbole to somehow say that the translations that I offered are not good enough?
How about these two:
That a historical present in the Greek in the midst of a context of the past tense is properly rendered in English as a past tense is recognized by the best of modern Bible translators. Dr. James Moffatt was on the Revised Standard Version Bible Committee, and note how he translates John 8:58 in his own version: “‘Truly, truly I tell you,’ said Jesus, ‘I have existed before Abraham was born.’”
Professor E. J. Goodspeed was a member of the American Standard Bible Committee, and his translation renders John 8:58 as follows: “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!’”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
John 8:58
See also Exodus 3:14
This seems a clear statement on Christ’s divinity, given that the crowd immediately tried to stone him for sacrilege.[/quote]
I have seen, and asked the same question. I mean, The New World Translation does it differently than almost all other translations. Why?
Here is what I found:
(quoted for accuracy)
The Greek verb there used, eimi’, is literally in the present tense, but in view of its being preceded by the aorist infinitive clause which refers to Abraham’s past, the Greek verb eimi’ must be viewed as a historical present. Regarding the historical present Hadley and Allen’s Greek Grammar says, in section 828: HISTORICAL PRESENT.-In vivid narration, a past event is often thought of and expressed as present:…The present in this use is freely interchanged with the past tenses…"
Says A. T. Robertson’s A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, under “The Historical Present,” pages 866-869: “This vivid idiom is popular in all languages, particularly in the vernacular…it is much more frequent in Greek than in English and is a survival of ‘the original stock of our languages.’ ‘It antedates the differentiation into imperfect and aorist.’ …It is common enough in the LXX [Septuagint], …Hawkins finds the historical present in the LXX 337 times. Josephus uses it also. The New Testament examples are thus ‘dramatic.’ The historical present is not always aoristic. It may be durative like the imperfect…Hawkins…finds 93 historic presents in Matthew (15 of them in Parables), but 162 in John and 151 in Mark. It is rare in the rest of the New Testament. It is most frequent in Mark, John, Matthew and in this order…”
That a historical present in the Greek in the midst of a context of the past tense is properly rendered in English as a past tense is recognized by the best of modern Bible translators. Dr. James Moffatt was on the Revised Standard Version Bible Committee, and note how he translates John 8:58 in his own version: “‘Truly, truly I tell you,’ said Jesus, ‘I have existed before Abraham was born.’”
Professor E. J. Goodspeed was a member of the American Standard Bible Committee, and his translation renders John 8:58 as follows: “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!’”
I have at least 9 other sources that translate it differently than ‘I AM’
…and to conclude:
When any clerical critic tries to claim inaccuracy for the New World Translation at John 8:58, then he is indicting not only it but also all these other scholars, English and foreign language, of inaccuracy. He is entitled to take and accept the version that he prefers because of bias toward a religious doctrine, in this case the trinity, but yet it should be recognized that the New World Translation has plenty of support by acknowledged, widely known translators for its rendering at John 8:58.
[/quote]
Quotes for accuracy
[quote]
The New World Translation (NWT), the JWsâ?? own Bible version, was created between 1950-61 in several parts, beginning with New Testament (NT). The translation was made by an “anonymous” committee, which transliterated and altered passages that were problematic for earlier JWs. Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel were later identified as the men that created the text, which is used by no other sect. Franz studied non-biblical Greek for two years, and taught himself Hebrew. The rest had no formal training in any biblical language. The text of the NWT is more of a transliteration to fit theological presumptions than it is a true translation. This can be seen in key verses that the WTS changed in order to fit its doctrines.
To undermine the divinity of Christ in John 1:1, the NWT reads, " . . . the word was a god." Non-JW Greek scholars call this “a shocking mistranslation,” “incorrect,” “monstrous,” and “evidence of abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar.” Furthermore, Col. 1:15-17 has been changed to “… by means of him all [other] things were created.” If the text were left as the original Greek reads, it would clearly state that Jesus created all things. However, the WTS cannot afford to say that anyone but Jehovah created all things, so it inserted the word “other” four times into the text.
The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT said that Jesus was to be worshipped (Heb. 1:6), but the WTS changed the NWT so that later editions would support its doctrines. The translators now decided to render the Greek word for “worship” (proskuneo) as “do obeisance” every time it is applied to Jesus, but as “worship” when modifying Jehovah. If the translators were consistent, then Jesus would be given the worship due to God in Matthew. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, and Hebrews 1:6.
At the time of the Last Supper, there were over three dozen Aramaic words to say “this means,” “represents,” or “signifies,” but Jesus used none of them in his statement, “This is my body.” Since the WTS denies the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, they have taken the liberty to change our Lordâ??s words to “This means my body” in Matthew 26:26.
The NWT also translates the Greek word kurios (“Lord”) as “Jehovah” dozens of times in the NT, despite the fact that the word “Jehovah” is never used by any NT author. It should also be asked why the NWT does not translate kurios as “Jehovah” in Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Philippians 2:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, and Revelation 22:21. If it did translate kyrios consistently, then Jesus would be Jehovah!
[/quote][/quote]
A couple scriptures I would ask that you post please:
Rev 3:9
Matt 18:26
Mark 15:19
Matthew 12:7
Also, please stat which Bible you are getting the verses from.
As regards kurios:
Below are some examples of English translations that have used God’s name in the New Testament:
A Literal Translation of the New Testament…From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter (1863)
The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson (1864)
The Epistles of Paul in Modern English, by George Barker Stevens (1898)
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W.G. Rutherford (1900)
The Christian’s Bible-New Testament, by George N. LeFevre (1928)
The New Testament Letters, by J.W.C. Wand, Bishop of London (1946)
Recently, the 2004 edition of the popular New Living Translation made this comment in its preface under the heading “The Rendering of Divine Names”: “We have generally rendered the tetragrammaton (YHWH) consistently as ‘the LORD,’ utilizing a form with small capitals that is common among English translations. This will distinguish it from the name 'adonai, which we render ‘Lord.’” Then when commenting on the New Testament, it says: “The Greek word kurios is consistently translated ‘Lord,’ except that it is translated ‘LORD’ wherever the New Testament text explicitly quotes from the Old Testament, and the text there has it in small capitals.” (Italics ours.) The translators of this Bible therefore acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) should be represented in these New Testament quotes.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Why? Because I do, God didn’t reveal his trinitarian nature to the Jews clearly, because of the very difficulty you have at this moment, he didn’t reveal a lot of stuff because of the difficulty to understand it. They weren’t mature enough, they were too close to cultures that had multiple gods to understand three person’s in one God. In the correct manner. Just like Noah wasn’t chided for his drunkenness.
[/quote]
OK, you are not going to like the following paragraphs, but I am posting them as a response to: “They weren’t mature enough, they were too close to cultures that had multiple gods to understand three person’s in one God.”
(quoted for accuracy)
[THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.
Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it… From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians…Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”]
As you know the Jews (also known as the Israelites) were captives of the Egyptians and lived in Egypt since Joseph.
[/quote]
So, you’re saying because Pagan religions have the concept of trinity, that must mean that the Catholic Church got it from paganism?[/quote]
You said that the Jews weren’t mature enough to understand the concept of the trinity. I am showing you that you are incorrect in that thinking, because they had a great deal of exposure.
[/quote]
Yes, and they would have understood it as the pagans do, there is not three gods mushed into one. There is still only one God, so the pagan idea of three gods and trying to help the Jews understand three person’s one God instead.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I have my own translation as well, however, it is not a scholarly translation.[/quote]
What are you saying? Are you using a hyperbole to somehow say that the translations that I offered are not good enough?
How about these two:
That a historical present in the Greek in the midst of a context of the past tense is properly rendered in English as a past tense is recognized by the best of modern Bible translators. Dr. James Moffatt was on the Revised Standard Version Bible Committee, and note how he translates John 8:58 in his own version: “‘Truly, truly I tell you,’ said Jesus, ‘I have existed before Abraham was born.’”
[/quote]
Dr. James Moffatt broke from tradition many times in controversial places, the man for instances claimed that the first five books of the OT wasn’t written by Moses, but four different authors and as well he dated books 100’s of years after traditional theologians.
And, Professor E. J. Goodspeed is just an American Moffatt. He assumed along with A.T. Robertson that the Greek wasn’t inspired and was just an common dialect of Greek or “Koine.”
As well, I don’t really see Professor E. J. Goodspeed as an scholar on Ecclesiastical Greek scholar.
All your proofs so far are liberal Protestants that are utmost unorthodox.
Rev 3:9 - Behold, i will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie-behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you.
Matt 18:26 - So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’
Mark 15:19 - And they struck his head with the a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him.
Matt 12:7 - And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.
All of these are from the RSV Bible, and just because Moffatt maybe part of the committee doesn’t automatically mean that he had his hand in the major part of translation.