Did Jesus say he was God???

[Awoon]

Jesus and John plainly say "God" is Spirit and Love. So anyone can substitute the word God as Spirit or Love anywhere in any Bible.

 

[Shermana]

Wow, CARM is actually telling some of the truth this time.At least they admit it's possible to render it as "G-d is thy throne" gramatically.

Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6, "God is thy throne." | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


n this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in two legitimate ways:

"God is your throne forever and ever....
and
"Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever..."
​

 

[Mark2020]

Being "made"....he was a being called a "god" who is higher ranked than the "Angels". You are aware there are "Seraphim" and "Cherubim", ranks?

The word "Angel" is not the initial defintion of these "Heavenly beings" who are called "Sons of G-d" in Job 2. They are called "gods" (Elohim, not in the majestic plural), and the Father is called the "god of the gods". They are referred to as "Angels" because of their position.

Thus when it says "Of which of the "Angels", it is meaning that of these beings that were "made" he is the Highest of all, only an Angel to the Father Himself. Yashua himself has his own "angels" if he sends a message via one.

Let the counter start:
Your first try: angels -> wrong
Your second try: a god -> wrong

There is only one God.

To invent something called a god is silly.

 

[Mark2020]

It's also rendered "God" for 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Really?

2 Corinthians 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

 

[Mark2020]

It's also rendered "God" for 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Really?

2 Corinthians 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Funny that you mentioned this verse!

Did you even read it?

 

[Shermana]

Funny that you mentioned this verse!

Did you even read it?

I errored, it seems they all translate it as "the god" in fact. But the NLT has the correct context.

Regardless, the reason why they translate it as "the god" only furthers my point about "gods" in the first place. The article is still there. And there's the issue of Hebrews 1:8 being translated as "God is thy throne". There is no such thing as saying 'O God" in the first place, since its an article. Thus, the "God is thy throne" is the correct way to begin with.

 

[Shermana]

Let the counter start:
Your first try: angels -> wrong
Your second try: a god -> wrong

There is only one God.

To invent something called a god is silly.

How was I wrong exactly? I didn't invent anything, you just completely ignored what I said about Psalms 82:1 and 136:2.

 

[Shermana]

[B-Greek] Hebrews 1.8

With that, let me just repeat that there is no objective, linguistic way to
determine which of the two possible translations of Heb. 1.8 is the correct
one, and one's choice must always be qualified by this fact. I have made an
argument for preferring one translation as more probable, and even with a
retraction of one part of it as too sweeping an assertion, that argument is
still stronger than any with which I am familiar on behalf of the other
possible translation. I would be interested to hear any argument that could
be made on linguistic and literary grounds for preferring the "conventional
translation" to the other

This guy (Author of "Truth in Translation") agrees that it reads as "G-d is thy throne". Grammarians twist it to make it say otherwise, with an odd and peculiar use of the Article as "O" instead of "The".

Can you find anywhere else where the article is ever used in Greek for "O"? Why do the translators even bother including the O? Where else is it ever used as such instead of "The"? The Hebrew agrees.

Linguistic:
1. preponderance of use of hO QEOS as a nominative, rather than as a vocative;
2. lack of parallel to using EIS TON AIWNA as an absolute predicate phrase;
preponderance of its use as modifier of other elements within the predicate;
3. the existence of an alternative way to convey the vocative if it is
intended.

Literary:
1. literary context in Hebrews fails to supply another reference to Jesus as
"God"; functionality of the verse in its context without taking hO QEOS as a
vocative;
2. literary context of original passage in Psalm 45 shows that God is not
being addressed; rather a king is being praised by cataloguing the attributes of his life in the palace.

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Translation-Accuracy-Translations-Testament/dp/0761825568

 

[Mark2020]

How was I wrong exactly? I didn't invent anything, you just completely ignored what I said about Psalms 82:1 and 136:2.

I replied to that yesterday.

 

[Mark2020]

[B-Greek] Hebrews 1.8


This guy (Author of "Truth in Translation") agrees that it reads as "G-d is thy throne". Grammarians twist it to make it say otherwise, with an odd and peculiar use of the Article as "O" instead of "The".

Can you find anywhere else where the article is ever used in Greek for "O"? Why do the translators even bother including the O? Where else is it ever used as such instead of "The"? The Hebrew agrees.

Amazon.com: Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament (9780761825562): Jason David BeDuhn: Books

Probably he and you never heard of:

Nominative for Vocative (Nominative of Address)



Never read this before?
(Psalms 22:1 [LXX])
(21:1) εις το τελος υπερ της αντιλημψεως της εωθινης ψαλμος τω δαυιδ (21:2) ο θεος ο θεος μου προσχες μοι ινα τι εγκατελιπες με μακραν απο της σωτηριας μου οι λογοι των παραπτωματων μου

(Psalms 22:2 [LXX])
(21:3) ο θεος μου κεκραξομαι ημερας και ουκ εισακουση και νυκτος και ουκ εις ανοιαν εμοι

(John 20:28 [TR])
και απεκριθη ο θωμας και ειπεν αυτω ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου

(Revelation 6:10 [TR])
και εκραζον φωνη μεγαλη λεγοντες εως ποτε ο δεσποτης ο αγιος και ο αληθινος ου κρινεις και εκδικεις το αιμα ημων απο των κατοικουντων επι της γης

(Revelation 15:3 [TR])
και αδουσιν την ωδην μωσεως του δουλου του θεου και την ωδην του αρνιου λεγοντες μεγαλα και θαυμαστα τα εργα σου κυριε ο θεος ο παντοκρατωρ δικαιαι και αληθιναι αι οδοι σου ο βασιλευς των αγιων

Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament:

πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν, ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος​

But to the Son [he declares], “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever”​

There are three syntactical possibilities for θεός here: as a subject (“God is your throne&#8221, predicate nom. (“your throne is God&#8221, and nom. for voc. (as in the translation above). The S and PN translations can be lumped togetherand set off against the nom. for voc. approach. It is our view that the nom. for voc. view is to be preferred for the following reasons: (1) It is an overstatement to argue that if a writer wanted to address God he could have used the vocative θεέ, because no where in the NT is this done except in Matt 27:46. The articular nom. for voc. is the almost universal choice. (2) This is especially the case in quoting from the LXX (as in Heb 1:8; Heb 10:7), for the LXX is equally reticent to use the voc. form, most likely since Hebrew lacked such a form. (3) The accentuation in the Hebrew of Ps 45:7 suggests that there should be a pause between “throne” and “God” (indicating that tradition took “God” as direct address). (4) This view takes seriously the μέν … δέ construction in vv 7–8, while the S-PN view does not adequately handle these conjunctions. Specifically, if we read v 8 as “your throne is God” the δέ loses its adversative force, for such a statement could also be made of the angels, viz., that God reigns over them.
​

Besides the Targum renders the verse of Ps 45:
The throne of your glory, O Lord, lasts forever and ever; the scepter of your kingdom is an upright scepter.

Edit:
Even your book says:
"Both translations are possible, so none of the translations we are
comparing can be rejected as inaccurate. We cannot settle the debate with
certainty. But which translation is more probable? ... "

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't know what you all are arguing about concerning the throne and all, but here is a passage I like:

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (being made holy). Hebrews 10:12-14

The issue about throne is important to understanding who is who in Revelation. Yeshua is standing and his god is sitting on the throne receiving prays from his creation.

Your verse above illustrates that point. Yeshua is at his god's right so we know he isn't "God" and then we must ask ourselves...."Logically", what "enemies" does "God" have considering he is supposed to exist outside of space and time and would be the creator of these supposed "enemies"?

 

[Mark2020]

Now:
Counter++

attempt 1: angel -> wrong
attempt 2: a god -> wrong
attempt 3: G-d is thy throne -> wrong

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I proved my view from references and all translations support my view. I checked some other languages (arabic, french, german, spanish, latin, italian and sahidic coptic) and all have the same meaning.

I am very familiar with those languages as well and have a few copies of the bible here and none of them agree with you. It's a moot point since the language of the NT is in Greek and that's all that matters.

You both fail to give a single reference to support your view or to disprove mine.

Rev. 5:6-7
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Rev. 5:6
And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.


"In the midst of" is regarding "nearness". Yeshua is not standing in the center of a throne rather he is standing near the thrones of the elders and standing near the throne of he who is sitting upon the throne (his god). What's more interesting is we get the identity of this one sitting on the throne in chapter 4 and it ain't Yeshua (the Lamb). But we do know that it's his god and as 5:7 says....he came and took the scroll from his god.

You are calling all these people 'unfaithful' without supporting your claim by an acceptable argument or by a single reference.

Did I really. I don't recall ever saying it or insinuating it. I'm saying you're all operating from misinterpretation of your scriptures if you believe Yeshua (the Lamb) who is standing is "God" who is seated upon the throne in possession of the scroll that is to be passed to Yeshua.

Your counter-argument is just pathetic opposing all that.

Not according to our resident expert on the Greek language who actually backs my argument. I'm familiar enough with the language to say with confidence you're wrong in your translations and your interpretation of Rev. 7

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/scriptural-debates/107858-god-throne-lamb-revelations.html

All what you gave were some wishful thoughts and you attacked tens of translations and references calling them "unfaithful".

See the above link I posted and you'll see that the translations are incorrect. And for the record I don't think I've ever said someone was "unfaithful". I don't think it's a word that I've used in this thread. You may have me confused with someone else.

So until you show something useful proving your point and disproving mine, you can consider yourselves both defeated.

Wrong. I've already showed you and The link above backs my view. Before you go crying "foul"....Oberon is very well versed in scriptural historicity and is fluent in the Greek language....even more so than I am.

 

[Mark2020]

I am very familiar with those languages as well and have a few copies of the bible here and none of them agree with you. It's a moot point since the language of the NT is in Greek and that;s all that matters.

lol
Then show it.
And I've shown the meaning in greek.
You couldn't even tell which word meant center, ana or meson.
Can you read this:
(Revelation 7:17 [AraSVDV])
لأَنَّ الْخَرُوفَ الَّذِي فِي وَسَطِ الْعَرْشِ يَرْعَاهُمْ، وَيَقْتَادُهُمْ إِلَى يَنَابِيعِ مَاءٍ حَيَّةٍ، وَيَمْسَحُ اللهُ كُلَّ دَمْعَةٍ مِنْ عُيُونِهِمْ».

Rev. 5:6-7 ...
"In the midst of" is regarding

No references = useless words.

(Revelation 5:6 [NIV])
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Did I really. I don't recall ever saying it or insinuating...

Not you. This post was intended to both you and Shermana.
Anyway who are you to call us misinterpreting our literature?
Need I remind you which meant center : ana or meson ?

Not according to...
I'm familiar enough...

Again, no refs = useless words.
And you are familiar enough not to notice the difference between ana and meson?

Wrong. I've already showed you and The link above backs my view. Before you go crying "foul"....Oberon is very well versed in scriptural historicity and is fluent in the Greek language....even more so than I am.

I requested a reference, like I showed references, you should give references too. Not a link to "an expert"!

 

[Shermana]

Probably he and you never heard of:

Nominative for Vocative (Nominative of Address)



Never read this before?
(Psalms 22:1 [LXX])
(21:1) εις το τελος υπερ της αντιλημψεως της εωθινης ψαλμος τω δαυιδ (21:2) ο θεος ο θεος μου προσχες μοι ινα τι εγκατελιπες με μακραν απο της σωτηριας μου οι λογοι των παραπτωματων μου

(Psalms 22:2 [LXX])
(21:3) ο θεος μου κεκραξομαι ημερας και ουκ εισακουση και νυκτος και ουκ εις ανοιαν εμοι

(John 20:28 [TR])
και απεκριθη ο θωμας και ειπεν αυτω ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου

(Revelation 6:10 [TR])
και εκραζον φωνη μεγαλη λεγοντες εως ποτε ο δεσποτης ο αγιος και ο αληθινος ου κρινεις και εκδικεις το αιμα ημων απο των κατοικουντων επι της γης

(Revelation 15:3 [TR])
και αδουσιν την ωδην μωσεως του δουλου του θεου και την ωδην του αρνιου λεγοντες μεγαλα και θαυμαστα τα εργα σου κυριε ο θεος ο παντοκρατωρ δικαιαι και αληθιναι αι οδοι σου ο βασιλευς των αγιων

Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament:

πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν, ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος​

But to the Son [he declares], “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever”​

There are three syntactical possibilities for θεός here: as a subject (“God is your throne&#8221, predicate nom. (“your throne is God&#8221, and nom. for voc. (as in the translation above). The S and PN translations can be lumped togetherand set off against the nom. for voc. approach. It is our view that the nom. for voc. view is to be preferred for the following reasons: (1) It is an overstatement to argue that if a writer wanted to address God he could have used the vocative θεέ, because no where in the NT is this done except in Matt 27:46. The articular nom. for voc. is the almost universal choice. (2) This is especially the case in quoting from the LXX (as in Heb 1:8; Heb 10:7), for the LXX is equally reticent to use the voc. form, most likely since Hebrew lacked such a form. (3) The accentuation in the Hebrew of Ps 45:7 suggests that there should be a pause between “throne” and “God” (indicating that tradition took “God” as direct address). (4) This view takes seriously the μέν … δέ construction in vv 7–8, while the S-PN view does not adequately handle these conjunctions. Specifically, if we read v 8 as “your throne is God” the δέ loses its adversative force, for such a statement could also be made of the angels, viz., that God reigns over them.
​

Besides the Targum renders the verse of Ps 45:
The throne of your glory, O Lord, lasts forever and ever; the scepter of your kingdom is an upright scepter.

Edit:
Even your book says:
"Both translations are possible, so none of the translations we are
comparing can be rejected as inaccurate. We cannot settle the debate with
certainty. But which translation is more probable? ... "

I don't see how Daniel Wallace's opinion or the Targum disproves what I or the author of "Truth in Translation" said. Replacing it as "The Lord is your throne" doesn't change it. You must have completely ignored what I said. It is never ever used anywhere else as "O Lord", it's only "The Lord", the "O Lord" is purely a translator liberty to get around this fact that the article gets in the way of Theological basis. The "Accentuation" in Psalms 45:7 is not what he says it is. Wallace tells a few fibs here and there as well as more than a few Scholars note when it comes to the Trinity and traditional Christian areas. Do you even understand any of your own quote here to be able to disagree to begin with? Apparently not. Please explain how the quotes from Revelation are relevant, otherwise, feel free to continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about. And the thing about the "Angels" you didn't really disprove, you merely said I'm wrong again. You have a habit of calling people wrong even though you didn't disprove them.



When it says "Both translations are possible", it says that the conventional one is not likely and probably not the case. CARM says my translation is possible and LEGITIMATE. Even if it says the other one is, that's because they have a tradition to defend. Please, show a SINGLE other case where the article is used to address. Just once.

It's very simple, the Article is NEVER used as a term of addressment, I challenged you to find another location where it's used as such. You can't. The Targum still says "The Lord is thy throne", and the Trinitarian translators have a reason to push this biased translation. Unfortunately, they are lying through their teeth since the article is NEVER used as anything but an article, and I challenged you to point out elsewhere, and you didn't. Either way, you can't just ignore the Scholar I brought up (who has no church affiliation) as if Wallace trumps anything he says without getting into detail (And wallace definitely has church affiliation.)

Specifically, if we read v 8 as “your throne is God” the δέ loses its adversative force, for such a statement could also be made of the angels, viz., that God reigns over them.

-A typical Theologically biased case against the words by Wallace. How does it lose its force exactly?

However, if you're at least willing to admit that it's very possible if not very likely to read it as "G-d/The Lord is thy throne", we can agree to a stalemate. But if you insist that I am wrong, then we will continue.

 

[Shermana]

Now:
Counter++

attempt 1: angel -> wrong
attempt 2: a god -> wrong
attempt 3: G-d is thy throne -> wrong

I think I asked specifically where to show that "A god" and "Angel" was wrong, and you repeat yourself stating its wrong once again. That's not how you disprove someone. You have to do something more than say they are wrong just because you disagree with their interpretation. You have to prove that their case can't possibly be right. I'm not even saying I proved you wrong about Hebrews 1:8, just showing how desparate the Conventional translators are and what lengths they go to defend their version with theological reasons alone.

Then you show Daniel Wallace's (Theologically driven) version of it as if that proves what I said wrong without actually dispelling the case.

You ever stop to think that maybe you should actually defeat people's arguments and prove that they can't possibly be right before you call them wrong? Just saying....

So, once again, please show how you proved the angel and "A god" thing wrong, all it says is that Jesus is higher than the "Angels" but he is still "made", and you seem to not understand (or want to understand) what "Angels" means. Even Justin Martyr agreed that Jesus was "Made" along with the "Angels", just higher than them in rank. Oh yeah, you completely ignored the thing on "Made" when I bolded it twice.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

lol

No references = useless words.

Except for the fact that this subject has been dealt with awhile ago in another thread. It was raised by someone who is highly respected around here and knows and speaks the language. He brought up the subject and used my references to point out your type of misunderstanding of such a description as to who is on the throne. How curious you cut out the links I posted to that debate.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/scriptural-debates/107858-god-throne-lamb-revelations.html

Rev. 4 and 5, even 6 sets the stage for 7. We call this context or continuity. Taking a verse at face value does the reader no good. That's why Oberon and myself dealt with that other poster's claims head on.

(Revelation 5:6 [NIV])
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

New Living Translation
Then I saw a Lamb that looked as if it had been slaughtered, but it was now standing between the throne and the four living beings and among the twenty-four elders.

English Standard Version
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain

New American Standard Bible
And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain

GOD'S WORD® Translation
I saw a lamb standing in the center near the throne with the four living creatures and the leaders. The lamb looked like he had been slaughtered

Weymouth New Testament
Then, midway between the throne and the four living creatures, I saw a Lamb standing among the Elders.


Barnes' Notes on the BibleAnd I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne - We are not to suppose that he was in the center of the throne itself, but he was a conspicuous object when the throne and the elders and the living beings were seen. He was so placed as to seem to be in the midst of the group made up of the throne, the living beings, and the elders.

As for Rev. 7:17 these same translators render it as....

God's Word Translation
The lamb in the center near the throne will be their shepherd.He will lead them to springs filled with the water of life,and God will wipe every tear from their eyes.”


New International Reader's Version
The Lamb, who is at the center of the area around the throne, will be their shepherd. He will lead them to springs of living water. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."


New Living Translation
For the Lamb who stands in front of the throne will be their Shepherd. He will lead them to the springs of life-giving water. And God will wipe away all their tears."

Weymouth New Testament
For the Lamb who is in front of the throne will be their Shepherd, and will guide them to watersprings of Life, and God will wipe every tear from their eyes."

These various translators seem to think it's referring to nearness and not Yeshua sitting in the center of the throne.

I requested a reference, like I showed references, you should give references too. Not a link to "an expert"!

Thank you for recognizing the fact that he is an expert. An expert so much that he took it upon himself to cite my references to a different post. Basically..this "expert" backed my claims and disagrees with your interpretations. We covered situations like this on page 4 and 5 of that post.

 

[javajo]

This verse about the Lamb standing at the center of the throne. One must understand the timing of this. It is a future event wherein he is found to be the only one worthy to open the book and release the seals thereof and start the Tribulation. Right now, according to Hebrews 10, Jesus (God the Son)is seated at the right hand of God the Father. He is our advocate and high priest who ever lives to make intercession for us, so when the accuser of the brethren, Satan says, "look what he just did!", Jesus can say, "Its under the blood, it has been paid for, and he has my righteousness imputed unto him." And the Father declares him justified, that is, righteous.

 

[Mark2020]

I don't see how Daniel...

The quote from Wallace ended before the Targum part. These were my words:
It is O Lord. [vocative not nominative]
Same meaning like the tens of translators in different languages.

Did you even read my post and do you remember what you asked for?!! Apparently not.
I suggest you read our last posts well!

For "angels", the quote from the chapter of Hebrews 1 is enough as an answer, I already posted it.

It's very simple, the Article is NEVER used as a term of addressment...

Can't you see like 5 greek verses in my post?
Can you read (1) in Daniel's points?
Need eyeglasses?

 

[Mark2020]

I think I asked specifically...

And I already replied. Read previous posts.
We can discuss "made" when we finish from this verse.