Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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....
"Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever..."
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.
It's also rendered "God" for 2 Corinthians 4:4.
It's also rendered "God" for 2 Corinthians 4:4.
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?
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.
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".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
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
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
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.
[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
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
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.
You both fail to give a single reference to support your view or to disprove mine.
You are calling all these people 'unfaithful' without supporting your claim by an acceptable argument or by a single reference.
Your counter-argument is just pathetic opposing all that.
All what you gave were some wishful thoughts and you attacked tens of translations and references calling them "unfaithful".
So until you show something useful proving your point and disproving mine, you can consider yourselves both defeated.
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.
No references = useless words.Rev. 5:6-7 ...
"In the midst of" is regarding
Did I really. I don't recall ever saying it or insinuating...
Again, no refs = useless words.Not according to...
I'm familiar enough...
I requested a reference, like I showed references, you should give references too. Not a link to "an expert"!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.
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”, predicate nom. (“your throne is God”, 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.
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? ... "
-A typical Theologically biased case against the words by Wallace. How does it lose its force exactly?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.
attempt 1: angel -> wrong
attempt 2: a god -> wrong
attempt 3: G-d is thy throne -> wrong
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.
I requested a reference, like I showed references, you should give references too. Not a link to "an expert"!
I don't see how Daniel...
Can't you see like 5 greek verses in my post?It's very simple, the Article is NEVER used as a term of addressment...