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.

dakoski · Post by **dakoski** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:51 am

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

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.

Its ironic that you quote Isaiah 42:8 - why is it then that the angel of Jehovah who you say is not Jehovah is addressed as Jehovah? That verse renders your argument untenable.

As I said before, you're simply making a circular argument - i.e. you assume that Jehovah only refers to the Father. So whenever any one other than the Father is addressed as Jehovah it doesn't meant that. The reason being that Jehovah only refers to the Father.

Such circular logic doesn't allow your doctrine about Jehovah to be impacted by the Bible - if what the Scripture says contradicts your doctrine it gets dismissed. If you were confident that the Bible supported your doctrine you wouldn't need to retreat to a circular argument.

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.

Yes I agree the angel of Jehovah who is addressed as Jehovah (Genesis 18:22) is distinguished from two angels (Genesis 19:1) who are not addressed as Jehovah. I'm glad you agree that the sent one from Jehovah is also referred to as Jehovah and is distinguished from Jehovah in the heavens (Genesis 19:24).

Since Jehovah doesn't give his name to any other - then it seems sensible to interpret that Jehovah is not limited to the Father but refers to both a person in the heavens (i.e. the Father) who no one may see and to the one sent by Jehovah in the heavens (i.e. Jesus).

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".

Jesus called himself the sent one of Jehovah dozens of times - so I have no problem with him being addressed as the angel of Jehovah.

Your response is just a straw man. It misses the context of Exodus 33 - v7-11 are a preface to the encounter with the Father. They are saying the usual experience of Moses was to speak with the Son. But in this occasion Moses is speaking with the Father but not face to face. Its perfectly consistent with Matthew 11 'no one knows the Father except the Son...and those who he chooses to reveal him to.'

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.

As I said above Isaiah 42:8 makes this argument untenable. Someone who is not in fact Jehovah cannot be called Jehovah in Scripture. That you refuse to call Jehovah who the Bible calls Jehovah is something well worth reflecting on.

Deut 6:4 - ×�Ö¶×—Ö¸×“ (echad) can mean numerical oneness or it can also mean unity (Genesis 2:24). If you think Adam and Eve were one numerical person then that would be an interesting interpretation. Interpreting echad as a unity of persons is consistent with Genesis 18-19 and Exodus 33 and many other passages.

dakoski · Post by **dakoski** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:37 am

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

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

You spent several posts telling me that the word for face doesn't mean seeing someone. Yet now you're telling me it does mean seeing someone in v20. In what way does the passage lead you to conclude it means seeing someone in v20 but not in v11? Is it the context of the passage, wording or grammar? The only rationale appears to be that its convenient for your apologetic purposes.The problem with your argument is that your conclusion is included in your premise i.e. that the Bible only refers to the Father as Jehovah.

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say your editing Exodus 33.The author tells you it means that there were two persons called Jehovah one person he saw and spoke with, the other he spoke with but was not allowed to see.

How would you edit v11 to make it more clearly communicate that Moses saw a person called Jehovah who is distinct from another person called Jehovah who he could not see?

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:52 pm

dakoski wrote:you assume that Jehovah only refers to the Father. So whenever any one other than the Father is addressed as Jehovah it doesn't meant that. The reason being that Jehovah only refers to the Father.

Obviously. That the Supreme ruler of the universe shares his personal name with nobody is elementary; it is this name (YHWH/Jehovah) every Jew knew. When Jesus taught his followers to pray "Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be your name" he did not say "hallowed be *our* name because he knew the Divine name belonged uniquely to The Almighty.

This is as much a non-negotiable for any true lover of the word of God as that Jesus and Jehovah are both "Jehovah" is for you. Your foregone conclusion that the Son and the Father are both "Jehovah" of course, leaves you in the unenviable position of having to take the illogical and totally untenable position of there being only one Jehovah while at the same time there is one Jehovah that is unable to be seen by humans and the "other Jehovah" (the other Jehovah of there being one Jehovah) being visible; because I repeat there are not two Jehovahs there is only one (one visible plus one invisible Jehovah equalling = One Invisible/visible Jehovah).

Still if you can successfully contort your reasoning to make this a fundamental of your faith, then you will be free to use any scripture to support that particularly odious manmade dogma. But don't expect anyone not to see it as illogical and circular because it is in fact, both.

JW

dakoski · Post by **dakoski** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:10 pm

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Obviously. That the Supreme ruler of the universe shares his personal name with nobody is elementary; it is this name (YHWH/Jehovah) every Jew knew. When Jesus taught his followers to pray "Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be your name" he did not say "hallowed be *our* name because he knew the Divine name belonged uniquely to The Almighty.

You're again confusing modalism with Trinitarianism.

This is as much a non-negotiable for any true lover of the word of God as that Jesus and Jehovah are both "Jehovah" is for you. Your foregone conclusion that the Son and the Father are both "Jehovah" of course, leaves you in the unenviable position of having to take the illogical and totally untenable position of there being only one Jehovah while at the same time there is one Jehovah that is unable to be seen by humans and the "other Jehovah" (the other Jehovah of there being one Jehovah) being visible; because I repeat there are not two Jehovahs there is only one (one visible plus one invisible Jehovah equalling = One Invisible/visible Jehovah).

The point of dialogue between people who hold different assumptions is to test which assumption is more valid based on an authority we both agree upon i.e. in this context the Bible. But this only works if we're willing to allow the Bible to be the authority over our assumptions. Its a waste of both our times if we make circular arguments that require the Bible to fit with our assumptions and dismiss any content in the Bible that doesn't fit our assumptions. I expect that approach from people who don't think the Bible is authoritative its very problematic when people engage in that manner and yet claim the Bible is authoritative over their doctrine.

I've shown you from Scripture based on context and valid exegesis of these passages (e.g. Exodus 33, Genesis 18-19) that they both indicate there is a person called Jehovah who may be seen by people (indeed even eat and have his feet washed by Abraham) and also another person also called Jehovah who no one may see and live.

I'm not aware of making any a priori assumptions in interpreting these passages. All I've sought to do is to the best of my ability try and understand what they say - whether it contradicts my assumptions or not. If you can show that I've used a circular argument in interpreting these verses - I'd be happy for you to do this as this is not my intention.

If you can show any problems with my exegesis I'm happy to change my mind about how these passages are interpreted. But you have to do it from the passage - you can't say 'well it may say Jehovah but it doesn't meant that because that would contradict my presupposition about Jehovah.' Effectively, you're saying the Bible isn't authoritative over your doctrine. If that's the case there isn't really any ground for dialogue as we have no common standard to compare our doctrine.

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:16 pm

dakoski wrote: [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?

Didn't she just do that? She gave an excellent explanation of all of the Scriptures associated with this discussion. Why don't YOU take her well-presented points and explain just why you disagree?

dakoski · Post by **dakoski** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:28 pm

onewithhim wrote:
dakoski wrote: [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?
Didn't she just do that? She gave an excellent explanation of all of the Scriptures associated with this discussion. Why don't YOU take her well-presented points and explain just why you disagree?

She gave no explanation of:
-why in Exodus 33:11 face doesn't mean seeing but does mean seeing in Exodus 33:20 - its makes no sense to do that given the context of the passage. She simply asserted that this is the case without giving any rationale. The only basis for such an exegesis (actually eisegesis) is that otherwise the passage contradicts your doctrine.

-why in Genesis 18-19 the person who eats with Abraham and has his feet washed is called Jehovah - but isn't actually Jehovah. As she rightly stated Isaiah 42:8 clearly states Jehovah gives his name to no other - so in this case why is he giving his name to another? Isn't the writer of the Pentateuch guilty under the Mosaic law of misusing the name of Jehovah?

The explanations that have been provided are circular arguments that don't allow the Bible to speak for itself. In fact they make the Bible subject to certain doctrinal assumptions. I think it ought to work the other way round - if doctrine and the Bible contradict then let the doctrine change not the meaning of the Bible.

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:20 pm

dakoski wrote:
onewithhim wrote:
dakoski wrote: [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?
Didn't she just do that? She gave an excellent explanation of all of the Scriptures associated with this discussion. Why don't YOU take her well-presented points and explain just why you disagree?

She gave no explanation of:
-why in Exodus 33:11 face doesn't mean seeing but does mean seeing in Exodus 33:20 - its makes no sense to do that given the context of the passage. She simply asserted that this is the case without giving any rationale. The only basis for such an exegesis (actually eisegesis) is that otherwise the passage contradicts your doctrine.

-why in Genesis 18-19 the person who eats with Abraham and has his feet washed is called Jehovah - but isn't actually Jehovah. As she rightly stated Isaiah 42:8 clearly states Jehovah gives his name to no other - so in this case why is he giving his name to another? Isn't the writer of the Pentateuch guilty under the Mosaic law of misusing the name of Jehovah?

The explanations that have been provided are circular arguments that don't allow the Bible to speak for itself. In fact they make the Bible subject to certain doctrinal assumptions. I think it ought to work the other way round - if doctrine and the Bible contradict then let the doctrine change not the meaning of the Bible.

She did explain those things quite adequately. Perhaps going back over her posts will help.

Jehovah never gave his name to another. It is understood that the angel that ate Abraham's food with him was Jehovah's REPRESENTATIVE. Again, re-read JW's posts. She sets things out well. It is YOUR doctrine that should be corrected, because it contradicts other Scriptures---such as "no man has seen God at any time." You have had to adjust doctrine to fit your belief into what the Scriptures say, and your twisted doctrine doesn't make any sense, as JW has pointed out. If no one has seen Jehovah, then Jesus cannot be Jehovah. Hello.

tigger2 · Post by **tigger2** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:27 pm

There are numerous uses of â€˜face,â€™ both literal and figurative, especially when referring to God, so it seems strange to insist on a literal meaning in every instance.

Face - â€œTo â€˜see Godâ€™s faceâ€™ is to have access to him and to enjoy his favor (Ps.17:15; 27:8).â€� - p. 229, Todayâ€™s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publishers, 1982.

â€œThis is also the idea of the prayer: â€˜Cast me not away from thy presenceâ€™ (lit. â€˜face,â€™ Ps 51:11), and of the promise: â€˜The upright shall dwell in thy presence (lit. â€˜face,â€™ Ps 140:13).â€� - p. 1085, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

hoghead1 · Post by **hoghead1** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:36 pm

[Replying to post 220 by JehovahsWitness]

As I pointe out before, "Jehovah" is totally incorrect rendering of God's name, YHWH. Jehovah, no: Yahweh, yes. This is basic Bible 101 material. Seeing that your posts does not honor this, I can put little validity into your claims.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 5:21 am

[Replying to post 225 by tigger2]

Indeed, that is my point exactly, although of course the word can indeed refer to one's literal face, even in English we have many expressions that use the word "face" figuratively "to lose face" "to have egg on one's face" "to face a problem", " to be two-faced" etc...

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