Serious Research?

tigger2 · Post by **tigger2** » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:32 pm

Hoghead1 wrote in post 148 of â€œWhat is a soul?â€�

FYI: [A] I've done some serious research on the NWT, which is precisely why I say it is bogus. For one thing, the translators are kept secret. this is the only translation of teh Bible I have ever found where nobody wants to reveal who the translators were. [C]More importantly, the text, key points, has been unduly corrupted to suit the biases of teh WatchTower Society. For example, in the prologue to JN. the indefinite article "a" is inserted, so that the text is mistranslated as "and the Word was a God." The rules of Greek grammar rule out the use of teh indefinite article here, which is why it is absent in the solid, standard translations. The reason why the WatchTower Society want the "a" in there is that this will support their anti-Trinitarian bias. [D]Also, in passages that speak of Hell and torment, the NWT reads "annihilation." That was done to bludgeon Scripture to fit their bias about the afterlife. It is one thing to disagree with Scripture. I respect that. it is quite another to corrupt the translation so that it agree with your position. [E]Also, "Jehovah" is a serious mistranslation. And that is Hebrew 101 material. So I feel I have very good reason to write off the NWT as bogus and corrupt.

I intend to discuss the individual parts (A-E) of the above.

Iâ€™ll save part A for last.

B. You wrote:

â€œFor one thing, the translators are kept secret. this is the only translation of teh [sic] Bible I have ever found where nobody wants to reveal who the translators were.â€�

For the first 30 years at least, the publishers of the NASB kept their translators anonymous:

â€œThe Fourfold Aim of The Lockman Foundation
1.These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew and Greek.
2. They shall be grammatically correct.
3. They shall be understandable to the masses.
4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; no work will ever be personalized.â€� - page v., NASB, Ref. Ed., Lockman Foundation, 1971.

â€œFor many years the names of the NASB translators and editors were withheld by the publisher. But in 1995 this information was finally disclosed.â€� - http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html

Bible translations of the OT and NT texts should be judged according to their accuracy - not the person(s) who did the translation.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Thu Oct 27, 2016 12:58 pm

dakoski wrote:1) what (in your opinion) does the expression "face to face" mean? to see some one

dakoski wrote:2) What does "you cannot see my face" mean? cannot see them

How then do you reconcile that Moses spoke to Jehovah "face to face" and saw Him (Jehovah) if he had been told by Jehovah you cannot my face meaning "you cannot see me"?

dakoski · Post by **dakoski** » Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:07 pm

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

How then do you reconcile that Moses spoke to Jehovah "face to face" and saw Him (Jehovah) if he had been told by Jehovah you cannot my face meaning "you cannot see me"?

The plurality and unity of Jehovah. John 1:18 as I said 'No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.'

Of course the NWT doesn't translate John 1:18 that way to anticipate your response but I think its clearly consistent with what Exodus 33:11-20 is saying. Its also consistent with Genesis 18-19 which I discussed above - and numerous other passages in the Hebrew Scriptures.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:15 pm

dakoski wrote:The plurality and unity of Jehovah

What does this mean? Is that just a fancy way of saying you can see Jehovah and you cannot see Jehovah at the same time? or is it simply a way of saying "I'm clearly contradicting myself but if I use enough religious verbiage hopefully nobody will notice"?

dakoski · Post by **dakoski** » Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:20 pm

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

You keep missing John 1:18: 'No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.'

The Son who is called Jehovah in Exodus 33:11 makes known the Father also called Jehovah in Exodus 33:20. If you have a problem with this then you have a problem with John 1:18.

Its only a contradiction if you presume that only the Father is referred to as Jehovah - Exodus 33 establishes that's not the case.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:35 pm

dakoski wrote: [Replying to JehovahsWitness]

You keep missing John 1:18: 'No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.'

The Son who is called Jehovah in Exodus 33:11 makes know the Father also called Jehovah in Exodus 33:20. If you have a problem with this then you have a problem with John 1:18.

Its only a contradiction if you presume that only the Father is referred to as Jehovah - Exodus 33 establishes that's not the case.

Okay so you are saying verse 11 Moses was face to face with The Son. And in verse 20 it is saying you cannot see..? Here is where I am lost, WHO cannot be seen? The Father, evidently not the son? Who cannot be seen? If the Son is both the Father and the Son then evidently the Father *can* indeed be seen. So what or who does the "cannot" apply to.

Do you get my question?

dakoski · Post by **dakoski** » Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:45 pm

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Okay so you are saying verse 11 Moses was face to face with The Son. And in verse 20 it is saying you cannot see..? Here is where I am lost, WHO cannot be seen? The Father, evidently not the son? Who cannot be seen? If the Son is both the Father and the Son then evidently the Father *can* indeed be seen. So what or who does the "cannot" apply to.

Do you get my question?

Thanks for clarifying, yeah those are fair questions.

1)The Father cannot be seen - John 1:18. So Exodus 33:20 is referring to the Father.

2) Yes I think Exodus 33:11 refers to the Son who makes the Father known.

3) Modalists think that the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son. Clearly that's not what Exodus 33 is saying.

The Father and the Son are clearly distinct - since Moses sees the Son but not the Father. But they both are called by the divine name Jehovah - so they are not different 'gods'.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:25 pm

dakoski wrote:Does the passage give an indication that an idiom is being used?

So a few things are evident.

- you too have attributed an idiomatic meaning to the expression "face to face". Much as you may object to Jehovah's Witnesses suggesting that "face to face" is figurative speech you are evidently not suggesting that Moses lay his face directly on top of Jehovah's face so the two faces were "face to face". I think it reasonable that you are not even suggesting that they were at all times directly opposite each other so that should Jehovah have stood slightly to his left he would no longer have been "face to face"... Evidently you took the meaning to be within sight of each other. That is an idiomatic attribution.

What does "face to face" mean?

The Hebrew word "face" (paneh) is one of the most widely used words in Hebrew idioms to express attitude or position. For example to â€˜Seeking the faceâ€™ , to â€˜soften anotherâ€™s faceâ€™ â€˜Making oneâ€™s face to shineâ€™ â€˜setting a person before oneâ€™s faceâ€™ etc. Indeed Easton's Bible Dictionary states under the entry "Face" this {quote} "means simply presence, as when it is recorded that Adam and Eve hid themselves from the "face [RSV, 'presence'] of the Lord God" (Genesis 3:8 ; Compare Exodus 33:14 Exodus 33:15 , where the same Hebrew word is rendered "presence"). So in the light of the above, to impose a unnaturally restrictive meaning of "face to face" is contrary to the scope of the word in Hebrew.

Do you see or hear a face?

Notice if we go back to Exodus 33:11 the very particular wording "The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend." New International Version (NIV) Notice it doesn't mention who or what Moses saw, only what he heard and the manner of their interaction. Further evidence that expression "face to face" is not restricted to "see" is found in Deuteronomy 5:4 where Moses, speaking to the Israelite's encounter with Jehovah on Mount Sinai says "The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain" - ESV, although they didn't *see* anyone at all.

Commenting on the above we can refer to the following:

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary "not in a visible and corporeal form, of which there was no trace (De 4:12, 15), but freely, familiarly, and in such a manner that no doubt could be entertained of His presence."

Matthew Poole's Commentary
Not in a visible shape, which was utterly denied, Deu 4:12,15; but personally and immediately, not by the mouth or ministry of Moses; plainly and certainly, as when two men talk face to face; freely and familiarly, so as not to overwhelm and confound you. Compare Exodus 33:11 Numbers 12:8.

Geneva Study Bible
So plainly that you do not need to doubt it.

CONCLUSION: The vast majority of bible scholars recognize that the word "face" can often mean "presence" and that "face to face" refers to direct, frank, open communication and does not necessarily impose seeing the individual in question.

RELATED POSTS

Genesis 32:30 contradict John 1:18?
viewtopic.php?p=867226#p867226

Who visited Abraham [GENESIS 18:1]?
viewtopic.php?p=937432#p937432

What does the bible mean when it says Moses spoke to God "face to face"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 78#p812578

Did Moses see God's face?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 20#p825120

What does the bible mean when it says Moses spoke with God "face to face"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 75#p825375

"Face" in Hebrew idiom? (tigger)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p825583

Did the 70 elders literally see God?
viewtopic.php?p=1095551#p1095551

To learn more please go to other posts related to ....

GOD, THE DIVINE NAME and ...THE TRINITY

dakoski · Post by **dakoski** » Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:36 pm

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Ok, I've explained to you in detail how I interpret Exodus 33, would you like to explain to me what you think is being meant in Exodus 33:11 and 20?

What does it mean that Moses may not see Jehovah's face and live (v20)? If its not referring to seeing (or not seeing) Jehovah - then what is being meant here?

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:20 pm

dakoski wrote:The Father and the Son are clearly distinct - since Moses sees the Son but not the Father. But they both are called by the divine name Jehovah - so they are not different 'gods'.

When angels are addressed as Jehovah it is only in their capacity as speaking for him; there is no suggestion that their personal names are actually Jehovah or that he shares His personal name with anyone else (including his son) - Compare Isaiah 42:8.

QUESTION Can an angel be presented as Jehovah in scripture?

Yes. Angels are sometimes spoken of as Jehovah in the sense that they are acting for and speaking on behalf of Jehovah, being visible representatives of that one. Note the parallel versese as Moses encounters the angel at the burning bush:

Exodus 3:4, 6 â€œGod called unto him out of the midst of the bush... â€œ
Exodus 3: 2 â€œthe angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bushâ€�.

Evidently the account here refers to the angel as God.

Commenting on Jacob's conclusion in Genesis 32 verse 30, where he (Jacob) says, following his struggle with an angel that he had "seen God face to face", The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges states, {quote} "The face of God was to be seen in the Angel: he that looked on the Angel saw the Presence of Jehovah." (That Jacob actually wrestled with an angel is evident at Hosea 12v4). Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers commenting on the three "men" that visited Abraham (Genesis 18:1, 2) One was â€œthe angel of Jehovah,â€� who came as the manifestation of Deity to Abraham, and the other two were his companions.

Those that contend that Jesus cannot be described as "an angel" (thus forming the basis for their rejection of any possibility that the archangel Michael could in fact be Jesus) no doubt conclude that the angels here must be "Jehovah" only in the sense that they represent Jehovah not that they are part of a trinitaraian God called "Jehovah". While those that content that Jesus can actually be described as an angel, and it was Jesus (the angel, called "Jehovah") that spoke to Moses at the burning bush, have the unenviable task of proving that in the course of one conversation, Jehovah changed from being one separate and distinct individual to another. Namely, in Exodus 33:11 the Jehovah angel that is supposedly the son (Jesus) starting the conversation "face to face" with Moses but by the end of the conversation changing to the non-angelic Jehovah the Father so he could add in the first person (as we read in verse 20 of that same chapter) that "you cannot see my face".

A simpler and more integral reading would be that the the angel with whom Moses and others communicated were simply representing the Father rather than being a part a "truine Jehovah" something totally foreign to scripture (compare Deut 6:4). That if we are to conclude that Jesus materialized in one or more of the angelic manifestations presented in the Hebrew bible, being the spokesman and chief representative of Jehovah, he would be doing so in that same capacity.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:27 pm

dakoski wrote:would you like to explain to me what you think is being meant in Exodus 33:11 ..?

See post #214

dakoski wrote:What does it mean that Moses may not see Jehovah's face and live (v20)?

It means that nobody can see the person of Jehovah and live; that Jehovah is a spirit and cannot be seen by humans. - Compare John 1:18