Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Brian2]

Since you accept what Bible scholars say then youll accept scholar Dr. Jason BeDuhn

“It Is the Best Interlinear New Testament Available”

Maybe Jason is correct and the literal interlinear translation with the English under the Greek on the left is good. It is however what the Watch Tower has done with that on the right which is questionable. The right hand is what Jason calls a modern English translation of the Bible and that is not what he said meant when he said was talking about the interlinear translation,,,,,,,,,,,,on the left.

 

[Brian2]

BeDuhn also says:

I, believe the NWT to be generally accurate,

No doubt it is generally accurate, but it is very inaccurate in places also.

 

[metis]

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk01VU2ry2Xcj8cKIuy2AQzM_4KX-7w:1606323979364&source=hp&ei=C4--X9_GE8ygtQXuz6fIAg&q=yhwh+pronunciation&oq=&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgEMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnUABYAGCaNGgBcAB4AIABAIgBAJIBAJgBAKoBB2d3cy13aXqwAQo&sclient=psy-ab
The written language showed no vowels, so the pronunciation is not agreed on. However, most academics agree that "Yahweh" is the most accepted way to say it. It has also been pronounced as "Yehova" in Hebrew as a substitute word for the tetragrammaton.

What is YHWH stands for?
Alternative Titles: Jehovah, YHWH. Yahweh, the god of the Israelites, whose name was revealed to Moses as four Hebrew consonants (YHWH) called the tetragrammaton.

No matter how you may try and play this, "Jehovah" is not the same as "YHWH".

BTW, there are about 15 names for God in the Bible, so if always saying one Name is supposedly mandatory, then how could one explain this. [note that this is not a question]

 

[kjw47]

If you check the Commentaries on John 10:30 and the word studies of the word "one" as used in John 10:30 you will see that it means more than one-in purpose.
The Jews to whom Jesus was speaking knew the language and knew that He was claiming equality with God, the Father. Why do you think they wanted to stone Him when He said that?

They were in error in their thinking. Jesus clearly teaches-- The Father is GREATER than i.

 

[Brian2]

They were in error in their thinking. Jesus clearly teaches-- The Father is GREATER than i.

The Father certainly was greater than the Son when the Son was a man on earth. The Father, because He is the Father, has authority over His Son and His Son's life comes from His Father.
But you, like many others, misread "greater" and turn it into "better". However the Father and the Son have the same nature if the Son is truly the Son through whom all things came into existence. (John 1:3)
"Greater" has more of the meaning of position of authority.
But of course the Son who refused to claim the authority that belonged to Him, became a man and suffered and died and so God exalted Him and places His Son in the position of authority next to Him, giving Him all power and authority, which belonged to Him already since He is the Son who inherits all things.
John 16:15 Everything that belongs to the Father is Mine.
The Son, the judge of the earth, even inherits the nations and the name of His Father.
Psalm 82:8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
Psalm 2:7....................
He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have become your father.
8 Ask me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”
Heb 1:4 So He became as far superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is excellent beyond theirs.
Phil 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Since that quote is about Jehovah in the OT and since Jesus has the name above all names, Jehovah, it sort of makes me wonder why the New World Translation does replace "Lord" with "Jehovah" in Phil 2:11.
Isa 45:22 Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. 23By Myself I have sworn; truth has gone out from My mouth, a word that will not be revoked: Every knee will bow before Me, every tongue will swear allegiance.

 

[Brian2]

Hi @Brian2


TAKING A THEOLOGICAL POSITION IS NOT THE SAME AS TRANSLATION OF HEBREWS 1:3

Brian2 said : "That the imprint of God's nature is exactly the same as God's nature goes without saying really, it is what it is. As a man Jesus had the nature of God." (post #762)
I appreciate the fact that you have a personal belief. I honor this.
However, declaring your personal belief is irrelevant to the question of word definition and textual translation of Hebrews 1:3.
The single greek word "Χαρακτηρ" (“character”) still meant “Character” (imprint, etc.) and not "Exact Character" in early Koine greek. Historical vocabulary and historical definitions do not change based on our shared beliefs.

I'm just saying if the Greek means "imprint" or "impress" as most translations seem to have,,,,,,,,,,,and if the "nature of God" is the actual tool/stamp that presses into the material to leave it's imprint, then what is imprinted is the nature of God,,,,,,,,,,,,without variation. It is an exact representation.
It is true that the word "exact" is not in the text but even without it the meaning is "an exact representation".

Brian2 said : "This can be seen in Phil 2:6 where the present participle indicates that Jesus kept God's nature as a man and keeps it going into the future." (post #762)

I agree with Phillipians 2:6 and I do believe Jesus of the New Testament was Jehovah of the Old Testament.
However, this agreement doesn’t change the ancient meaning of the single greek word "χαρακτηρ" It still meant “Character” and not “exact character”

Jesus of the New Testament was Jehovah of the Old Testament but also Jehovah is the Father of Jesus. So both the Father and Son are Jehovah even though it is clear that they are distinct. 2 in one if we just consider the Father and the Son.

Brian2 said : "“Basically your list above together with Heb 1:3 seems to be a Mormon misinterpretation of the Bible for the sake of it's own doctrines.” (post #762)

Mischaracterization of another theological belief does not change the meaning of the ancient, single, greek word, "Χαρακτηρ".

True.

 

[kjw47]

The Father certainly was greater than the Son when the Son was a man on earth. The Father, because He is the Father, has authority over His Son and His Son's life comes from His Father.
But you, like many others, misread "greater" and turn it into "better". However the Father and the Son have the same nature if the Son is truly the Son through whom all things came into existence. (John 1:3)
"Greater" has more of the meaning of position of authority.
But of course the Son who refused to claim the authority that belonged to Him, became a man and suffered and died and so God exalted Him and places His Son in the position of authority next to Him, giving Him all power and authority, which belonged to Him already since He is the Son who inherits all things.
John 16:15 Everything that belongs to the Father is Mine.
The Son, the judge of the earth, even inherits the nations and the name of His Father.
Psalm 82:8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
Psalm 2:7....................
He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have become your father.
8 Ask me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”
Heb 1:4 So He became as far superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is excellent beyond theirs.
Phil 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Since that quote is about Jehovah in the OT and since Jesus has the name above all names, Jehovah, it sort of makes me wonder why the New World Translation does replace "Lord" with "Jehovah" in Phil 2:11.
Isa 45:22 Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. 23By Myself I have sworn; truth has gone out from My mouth, a word that will not be revoked: Every knee will bow before Me, every tongue will swear allegiance.

John 20:17, ( Back in heaven-Revelation 3:12)
John 17:3--Jesus clearly tells all--The one who sent him( Father-John 5:30) is THE ONLY TRUE GOD. Verse 6=YHVH(Jehovah) 26= YHVH(Jehovah)
The Lords prayer--Hallowed be thy name=YHVH(Jehovah) the Father.) Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.
It all originates with The Father. One must go through Jesus to get to the Father To accomplish this daily-John 4:22-24
Collosians 1:15-- The FIRSTBORN of all creation)= created direct first and last) All other things creaed through the being whocame to be called Jesus on earth= Gods master worker. He speaks at Proverbs 8. It is not God speaking.

 

[JW Minister]

John 20:17, ( Back in heaven-Revelation 3:12)
John 17:3--Jesus clearly tells all--The one who sent him( Father-John 5:30) is THE ONLY TRUE GOD. Verse 6=YHVH(Jehovah) 26= YHVH(Jehovah)
The Lords prayer--Hallowed be thy name=YHVH(Jehovah) the Father.) Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.
It all originates with The Father. One must go through Jesus to get to the Father To accomplish this daily-John 4:22-24
Collosians 1:15-- The FIRSTBORN of all creation)= created direct first and last) All other things creaed through the being whocame to be called Jesus on earth= Gods master worker. He speaks at Proverbs 8. It is not God speaking.

God was speaking to someone when he said;

KJV Genesis 1:26-28
And God said, Let us make man in our image

[us] is an objective case of we,so se was speaking to his son as a helper of creation .

But really it all comes down to why is it important whether Jesus is god or the son of god? For one reason and one reason only salvation in having Jesus apply his ransom
to the bible believer.

The Churches of Christendom teaching Jesus is GOD and Jesus himself said:


New Living Translation
For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up.

So here Jesus gives the plan for salvation ,no one can be saved by coming to Jesus
UNLESS the father draws that person to Jesus.

Now the reason its important as to the deity of Jesus is IF Jesus is the father then its Jesus who does the drawing out of a person to himself for salvation .

But on the other hand if Jehovah is the father and Jesus is his son then salvation can only come from Jehovah not Jesus, this is why this teaching that Jesus is himself GOD has been invented by devilish scribes.

Look at the verse again as to where salvation comes from at the beginning :

GOD'S WORD® Translation
People cannot come to me unless the Father who sent me brings them to me. I will bring these people back to life on the last day.

Jesus never would have mentioned the word father as being involved if he alone was the one saving a believer,Jehovahs Witnesses believe the father is Jehovah Jesus is the son that makes more sense when you read


Berean Study Bible
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

No one in the Churches of the world of Christendom has found Jesus why? because of the teaching that Jesus himself is the father,the only way a person can be saved is GOD himself chooses that person and he will draw him out of the world to Jesus there is no other way to be saved.

The Trinity teaching is teachings of Demons ,yes Demons teach doctrines

NET Bible
Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will desert the faith and occupy themselves with deceiving spirits and demonic teachings,

It all stems from John 1-1 from Christendoms King James Verson ;

King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The thing is a person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search thescriptures hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. instead he should want to know what God’s Word itself says.
What these evil scribes did was the opposite he saw scriptures that didnt support his beliefs and had the power to alter the texts

In the chart you directed me to :

William Barclay
When Barclay says that John didn't write that "Jesus was God," he merely means that Jesus was not God the Father

Hans-J�rgen Becker
a god was the Logos

Jason BeDuhn
The bottom line is that "The Word was a god" is exactly what the Greek says. "


Vivian Capel
At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who
produced all things in their order



Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’”


Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·osʹ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb.

Example;

at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

KJ
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?


John 9:17, KJV: "They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet."

John 9:17, NASB: "So they said to the blind man again, 'What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?' And he said, 'He is a prophet.

Its inconsistent is the translating the Greek text when where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb.

My salvation is too important to trust Desiderius Erasmus translation full of errors

 

[FineLinen]

Maybe Jason is correct and the literal interlinear translation with the English under the Greek on the left is good. It is however what the Watch Tower has done with that on the right which is questionable. The right hand is what Jason calls a modern English translation of the Bible and that is not what he said meant when he said was talking about the interlinear translation,,,,,,,,,,,,on the left.

John 1:1 Greek Text Analysis

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

 

[JW Minister]

John 1:1 Greek Text Analysis

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

Maybe Jason is correct and the literal interlinear translation with the English under the Greek on the left is good.So then whats the problem,show what the problem is

 

[JW Minister]

Maybe Jason is correct and the literal interlinear translation with the English under the Greek on the left is good.So then whats the problem,show what the problem is

It says
from a prominent Jehovah's Witness website,

first of all this was not from the Watchtower so what ever prople you have

 

[Clear]

Hi @Brian2

Brian2 claimed : “I'm just saying if the Greek means "imprint" or "impress" as most translations seem to have,,,,,,,,,,,and if the "nature of God" is the actual tool/stamp that presses into the material to leave it's imprint, then what is imprinted is the nature of God,,,,,,,,,,,,without variation. It is an exact representation. It is true that the word "exact" is not in the text but even without it the meaning is "an exact representation". (post #806)


YOUR THEORY DEFIES ACTUAL WORD USAGE

Read your own claim.

Even you had to add the word “exact” to “representation” before it became “exact representation” in making your claim.
It is the same in greek.
The single word “Representation”, alone and unmodified, simply means “representation”
For it to mean “exact representation”, one must modify the word “representation” by adding the adjective “exact”.

Just as you had to use the adjective “exact” in your own description of “impression” to make it “exact impression”. Koine Greek is no different. Impression simply means impression.

Similarly

If you speak of a “speed” without the adjective “exact” is not “exact speed”. It is merely “speed”.

If you speak of a “reproduction” without the adjective “exact” is not “exact reproduction”. It remains merely “reproduction”

If you speak of “change” without the adjective ‘exact” is not “exact change”. It remains merely “change”.



YOUR THEORY HAS MUCH DATA AGAINST IT AND NO DATA FOR IT
Additionally, while I have given you more than 20 examples (posts #688 & 689) of the Greek word “Character” in ancient usage, both in the scriptures and in secular examples and none of them means “exact Character”. We do not have a single example from ancient literature where your claim holds true.

So, while we can find almost two dozen examples where your claim is incorrect.

You cannot give us a single example where your claim holds true.

Unless you have an example where “Character” (gk Χαρακτηρ) as a single word, meant “Exact Charater” (gk Χαρακτηρα ακριβης) then I will consider your claim a dead horse.


Clear
ειφυεινεακω

 

[Oeste]

From my conversation and studies with Jehovah Witnesses they sincerely believe Jesus claims to be “a god” at John 10:33, but they would be wrong…not only from majority Christian standards but by Watchtower standards as well. I believe this is because the WT recognizes the dilemma of proclaiming Jesus “a god” at John 10:33 even if many Witnesses do not.

I and the Father are one Jesus said so does that me Jesus was saying he is GOD?

Hi JW Minister, and welcome to the forum! I appreciate your answer to thread theme.

What was he really saying here? the clue is a prayer :

New World Translation John 17
Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one.

Good News Translation
And now I am coming to you; I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world. Holy Father! Keep them safe by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one just as you and I are one.

No, he couldn’t possibly be referring to the Father at all.

Remember, in the OP I asked Trinitarians to accept, for the sake of argument, that the WT’s “a god” translation was correct. If I go along with what you posted here then the Jews are about to stone Jesus for mistakenly believing Jesus was claiming he and the Father were one God and not one “god”.

Let’s go back to our now “correct” New World Translation:

33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” NWT

As you can see, we immediately run into our first problem: Blasphemy.

The NWT uses a small "g" but the Jews believe the Father is “God”, not “a god”. If Jesus is saying he’s “a god” then he doesn’t get stoned…he’s “a god” just like the emperor, lots of angels, the corrupt Judges of Israel, and many other “powerful people”. Making yourself "a god" is not a blasphemy.

This is born out at JW.ORG:

Blasphemy only occurs when you abuse Jehovah's name, and Jehovah is not "a god" but God.

So if the Jews are mistakenly stoning Jesus for abuse of Jehovah’s name, they are stoning him for making himself God, not “a god” because only the Father is God, at least that’s what the WT tells us. Yet that cannot be possible, for the NWT states, very clearly, that they are stoning Jesus for making himself “a god” rather than “God”.

So, as a Trinitarian sitting in on a free bible study, what we need are bible verses that support rather than assail our new, WT approved, truthful “a god” translation.

Can you help us out and retire this first problem for us?

 

[Oeste]

Clear said : “The single greek word "Χαρακτηρ" (“character”) still meant “Character” (imprint, etc.) and not "Exact Character" in early Koine greek. Historical vocabulary and historical definitions do not change based on our shared beliefs.”

Oeste said : “I see no prohibition against using words that better describe an author’s intent. Translation is tied to the intent of the author and not to a particular word in a dictionary.”

I agree with this to a point.

The problem with using a theology as the dominating criteria underlying translation is that theological opinion is, to a certain extent, arbitrary.
What happens if we allow that sort of arbitrariness determining what the intent of the ancient author was?

You state that you agree “to a point” but you do not define what this “point” is. There is no definition, no criteria, no external, internal, or objective markers where we determine this “point”. So how is your “point” any less arbitrary?

What happens if we allow that sort of arbitrariness to determine what the “point” of an ancient author was?

I agree we should not allow theology or arbitrariness as dominating criteria. However you are assuming theology as the dominating criteria when there are a number of fields which help modern translators reduce (rather than introduce) bias and/or arbitrariness during translation, including: cultural anthropology, archaeology, sociology, hermeneutics, textual criticism, and patristics.

As for a translation that is bias free, it’s just not going to happen until Christ returns (1Cor 13:12).

 

[Oeste]

2) THE PROBLEM WITH VARIOUS RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT CREATING THEIR OWN PARAPHRASE

Each of the many conflicting Christian movements have their own opinions regarding what a specific text means to them.

If each of these religious movements simply creates a bible that paraphrases and supports their own theology without regard to the actual text, there will be a hundred paraphrases instead of accurate translations. For example :

The original codex reads “He reflects the glory of God and [bears] the stamp of his nature, upholding (or bringing forth / carrying / gk φερων) the universe by his word of power."

A trinitarian, using their theology as a guide to creating a bible might render the phrase “Jesus, who is the same being as God the father, therefore radiates Gods glory just as he did as in his manifestation as the father since the two, son and Father are the same being because Jesus is the God, who, as the Word upholds the Universe as the Father."

I’m sure there have been religious movements and denominations that have translated scripture just as you’ve described but this sounds more Oneness than Trinitarian.

Another Christian movement, using their theology as a guide to creating a bible might render the phrase “Jesus was really a good man, even a Godly man and had a godly nature in that he was kind and patient with others. This is what made him Godly and Jesus was grateful in his recognition that God made the universe."

Yes, for instance a religious movement may claim Jesus doesn’t represent God’s intrinsic nature exactly or perfectly, but represents something similar instead, a useful interpretation if said movement has a henotheistic theology.

Each religious movement may assume the authors intent was describing their own theology.

Each movement does, hence the many denominations and flavors of Christianity. Your religious movement is no different in practice or theory than any other in this regard. Neither is mine.

Each movement may create a bible that conforms to their own theology, rather than forming their theology to the text.

It is the original text and fidelity to it that anchors us to early Christian thought and worldviews.

I would say we should anchor ourselves to God (Hebrews 6:19) rather than to the text. I believe that was one problem with the Pharisees who mistakenly thought they were “following the law to the letter”.

However I think you bring up an important point about keeping fidelity to the original text. If our language or use of it changes, we need to stay vigilant and keep our bibles up to date. Again, changing the intent of the text is bad, changing a target translation to fit the text is not.

As to your concerns, scripture interprets scripture. If we interpret a word that brings it in conflict with other scripture, our interpretation or understanding of the text should change. You have not shown us how “similar” brings us in harmony with the existing text, or how “exact” disconnects us from it.

I looked back on some of your posts and from what you’ve written so far many of your objections seem based on a mistaken belief there is a pure “word-for-word” translation and that each Greek word has a “best” one word counterpart in English.

For example, in post #763 you mention, on multiple occasions, the “single greek word "Χαρακτηρ” as if to imply this necessitates a single word counterpart in English:

The single greek word "Χαρακτηρ" (“character”) still meant “Character” (imprint, etc.)

However, this agreement doesn’t change the ancient meaning of the single greek word "χαρακτηρ

Mischaracterization of another theological belief does not change the meaning of the ancient, single, greek word, "Χαρακτηρ".

I just want to point out that simply a single word in Greek does not necessitate a single word in English. I'm sure you agree with me on this.

I will agree with you that when possible, a single word is better than a multitude provided the single word adequately conveys what the translators determine to be the author's intent. Sometimes there are many nuances to a source language that may not convey well into a target language. Translators struggle with these but that's expected. Modern translations generally have much larger translation committees than their older counterparts and may at times seek comment from other denominations and disciplines to get fresh perspectives and weed out bias.

While I agree that there is some leeway in wording, Hebrews 1:3 does not need to be changed.
The word “Character” can keep the meaning of “Character” without causing theological upheaval or confusion of meaning.

It hasn't changed. Our modern, 21st century has changed. If you examine the underlying text you'll find Χαρακτηρ is still there. It's just that Χαρακτηρ never meant "similar".

 

[Oeste]

3) THE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF ATTRIBUTING CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES TO GOD

Clear said : If the man Jesus is an “Exact” representation of God’s nature, this will have theological consequences that logically, must follow “exactness”.
IF Jesus and God share the EXACT same nature then God must share characteristics which are not particularly “Godly”. For examples :

God the Father must be a servant of another since Jesus was.
God must have been sent by another as Jesus was.

Oeste replied : “You would have to explain why these things “are not particularly 'Godly'" and how ungodly you think they are.” (post #768)

GOD MUST POSSESS CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE FAITH IN HIM

While the God of the universe may Choose to serve mankind, if God does not have all authority but instead is “sent” by another being to accomplish another beings purpose this undermines the authority and sovereignty of the God of the universe.

I’m not sure what you mean by “If God does not have all authority”. Are you saying once Jesus was given authority God was no longer God? What do you do with the following then? :

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. (Romans 13:1) NIV​

God does not lose authority. Even though Satan is considered a "ruler of this world" he is not the one in authority (if he were we'd all be gone by now).

The Son of Man is man just as the Son of God is God. The Son of Man had to be given authority whereas the Son of God never lost it.

Secondly, I do not understand your assertion that being “sent” by another being to accomplich another beings purpose "undermines the authority and sovereignty of the God of the universe”. Who sent the prophets but God?

While I agree with your initial assertion that “if God does not have all authority…” he is not God, but this simply undermines any argument, at least from my perspective, that Jesus could be another God.

If God is not the most powerful being in the universe, we cannot center our faith in him since a more powerful being could thwart his promises to us.

Agreed, this is why there is only one God and not many.

If God ceases to function due to tiredness and lack of sleep or lack of food then he is subject to external needs to function.

Agreed, but it’s not the Son of God who became tired, it was the Son of Man.

If God is ignorant of certain facts, we could not center our faith in him since there could be things he did not know that could thwart his eternal plans.

Agreed but I think you’ll have a hard time convincing Jehovah Witnesses of this. In the WT God chooses “not to know” certain things.

If God receives his powers and authority from another being, then he may not be the most powerful being and we have no guarantee that he will always have authority and power to carry out his eternal purposes and his promises.

Exactly! Only God is God which is why the Son of Man had to be given authority. Jesus is fully God and fully man.

None of this changes the meaning of the Greek word "Character" into "exact character".

Well first, you have not established that χαρακτηρ does not mean “exact character”. To date we only have your say-so.

Secondly, you have not shown us where any translation uses “exact character”, however it looks like your objection is solely with the word "exact". I'll address this (again) later.

Third, you have not given us evidence the NWT was “erroneous” in its interpretation of χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3. What you have shown is that Jehovah Witnesses are either unable or not terribly interested defending the NWT in this regard.

Fourth, it’s clear and evident Jesus was not literally formed by an impress. As such, I do not see the rationale for taking a metaphor literally.

Fifth, you haven’t quite explained the difference between “exact representation” and “representation”. Quite simply, if the representation is inexact then by definition it’s no longer a representation.

There are other problems but I don’t see the need to go into them now. But we actually had more agreements here.

Not bad.

 

[Oeste]

WE HAVE BEEN DEBATING TRANSLATION OF HEBREWS 1:3

Oeste said : "We were talking about character like righteousness, faithfulness, loyalty, charity (giving), empathy, mercy, etc. and whether Jesus represents these attributes of the Father “exactly” or “similarly”.

No. We were not.

Then what were we discussing?

We were talking about translation of the single word “Character” in Hebrews 1:3 and whether the single word "Character" meant “Exact Character”.

Look, I understand what you’re trying to say here @Clear. I think you mean “exact representation”. But why go out on a limb on this especially when I’ve already shown examples of dynamic equivalence in your own bible?

At best this appears inconsistent and at worst disingenuous when you scream "exact" but remain silent when heart is substituted for kidney, and Lord is substituted for rock. Shouldn't you fix these things first, then point fingers at other translations?

In Koine Greek and in english, “Character” meant “Character”.
One had to add an adjective such as “exact”, before “Character” becomes “Exact Character”.

χαρακτηρ has always meant “exact representation or ‘very image’ of His nature”.


(χαρακτήρ της υποστάσεως αύτοϋ). The term χαρακτήρ was used of a die for stamping an impression on coins, and it came to mean the impression itself. It then came to mean the distinguishing features or personal characteristics of a person. (J. Gess, “Image”, New Inernational Dictionary of the New Testament Theology, 2:288; U. Wilckens “χαρακτήρ”, Theolgical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 9 (1974), 418-419).

The word ϋπόστασις originally meant "sediment," that is, everything that settles. Then it came to mean "existence" and "reality." Here in Hebrews 1:3 it means the "substance" or "real essence" or something in contrast to what merely seems to be. (Oeste's comment: this goes to context)

In short, the Son is “not merely like the Father, He is of the same essence…[as] the Father.” (Hering, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 9)


χαρακτήρ charaktēr 1× an impress, exact expression, Heb. 1:3 (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words)


Thayer's Greek Lexicon

χαρακτήρ, χαρακτηρος, ὁ (χαράσσω to engrave, cut into), from Aeschylus and Herodotus down;

1. properly, the instrument used in engraving or carving (cf. ζωστήρ, λαμπτήρ, λουτήρ, φυσητήρ; cf. our 'stamp' or 'die').

2. the mark (figure or letters) stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it; hence, universally, "a mark or figure burned in (Leviticus 13:28) or stamped on, an impression; the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect" (cf. facsimile)​

 

[Oeste]

THEOLOGY IS DIFFERENT THAN TRANSLATION OF TEXT

Oeste said : "For example, Person A can be giving, person B can be giving but it does not mean they live the exact same lives even if both are giving the exact same amount or for exactly the same reasons. So it does not follow that two persons of exact character will do the exact same thing, go into the exact same line of work, or experience life exactly the same."

I have always agreed with the theology that Jesus has the same characteristics of “righteousness, faithfulness, loyalty, charity (giving), empathy, mercy, etc.” that characterize God the Father. This doesn’t change the fact that in ancient Koine, the single word “Character” meant “Character”.[/QUOTE]

Excellent! Let’s take our agreements where we can find them.

The fact that they do different things, do different work, and experience a different life means they are not EXACTLY the same in certain ways.

If they DO different things, this is a DIFFERENCE.
If they DO different work, this is another DIFFERENCE.
If they live different lives, this is another DIFFERENCE.

Well the Son of Man and the Father are certainly different persons.

None of this changes the meaning of the Greek word "Character" into "exact character"

1. A change to the Greek is not necessary as “exact representation” is and has always been well within the semantic range of χαρακτήρ.

2. The change in some newer translations from “representation” to “exact representation” is an acknowledgement that modern English has changed. It does not belie a nefarious conspiracy to change or “mistranslate” any underlying Greek.

3. You haven’t defined the difference you see between “representation” and “exact representation”.

4. You have not explained why we should take a metaphor literally.

5. You are asking us to view χαρακτηρ in an extremely myopic sense rather than viewing the verse holistically. In other words, you’re asking us to ignore context.

6. Even if you were correct, you haven’t explained the rule that allows us to replace “kidneys” with “heart”, but precludes “exact” with “representation”.

7. The lack of evidence shows your assertions to be argumentative rather than substantive.

8. The weight of evidence mitigates against your particular point of view. Various new translation use “exact” with Hebrews 1:3, various concordances support it, various lexicons and dictionaries show “exact”, and the context of the verse demands it.

9. Lastly, common sense tells us if there is only one true God (John 17:3) who does not share His glory with another (Isaiah 42:8), then Jesus must be God. There is simply no way you can radiate God's glory without sharing in it.

 

[Oeste]

6) THE CLAIM THAT “CHARACTER” IN LEVITICUS 13:28 TELLS EXACTLY WHAT DESCRIBES LEPROSY AND WHAT DOES NOT

Clear said : “For example, when χαρακτηρ/Characteristic was used in Leviticus 13:28 it speaks of a skin lesion that represents something else (The chapter deals with identifying leprosy)...” The scar is a Χαρακτηρ or Characteristic of the burn. It is NOT an “exact representation” of the burn. It looks, in fact, different. But it is a χαρακτηρ or a sign or identifying mark of the burn. No exactness is implied.

Oeste replied ; “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.”

TESTING THIS CLAIM OF TELLING THE PRIEST "EXACTLY" WHAT MARKS LEPROSY

Clear tested this claim by using an example of a girl with a skin lesion, a “χαρακτηρ”.

Clear asked Oeste : “You claim Leviticus, tells the priest "exactly" what marks leprosy and what does not.
If so, can you use the information from Leviticus, tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was not leprosy.
OR, did I make a mistake and should I call the parents back and tell them their child has leprosy.

As stated previously, "leprosy" as used in the Old Testament encompassed a number of skin diseases. Some were contagious others were not. But let's get the entire quote right because you left out your key initial sentence:

I am a medical clinician and I saw a χαρακτηρ a few days ago on the skin of a teenage girl.

You claim Leviticus, tells the priest "exactly" what marks leprosy and what does not.
If so, can you use the information from Leviticus, tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was not leprosy.
OR, did I make a mistake and should I call the parents back and tell them their child has leprosy.

Since you claim the verse describes “exactly what marks leprosy and what does not”, you can help me out?

Your quote "I am a medical clinician and I saw a χαρακτηρ a few days ago on the skin of a teenage girl" is key to my response.

Let's proceed.

Oeste responded : “A medical clinician has different guidelines and criteria than a priest. In order to make a diagnosis with any exactness they’ll take a skin biopsy and send it to a lab.

Wrong.

No, it's absolutely correct! A medical clinician does have different guidelines and criteria than a priest. In order to make a diagnosis with any exactness for leprosy they'll take a skin biopsy and send it to a lab.

Maybe you are watching too much television.

I average about 30 minutes a day. Perhaps you were playing video games rather then reading my reply? I quoted the CDC guidelines:

Notice how the diagnosis is confirmed. You'll see it mirrors my own.

It was obvious the girl simply had a spot of eczema.

Eczema??!

You were asked me about leprosy, not eczema. As I explained earlier, if a medical clinician suspects leprosy and wishes to make to make a diagnosis with any degree of specificity then a skin biopsy and lab test, not the book of Leviticus, is necessary.

There was no need for any silliness, no waste of money and no waste of time with a biopsy.

The only “silliness” was the interjection of your new medical diagnosis in an imaginary scenario that attempts to meld the ancient practices of Levitical priests with modern medicine in order to build a strawman. This is your second strawman on this thread, @Clear. It wasn't all that bad but lI liked the patience and craftmanship of the earlier one better. This one really feels like it had to launch a bit early.

Oeste responded : “As a medical clinician, you are most likely telling her you have most likely made a general diagnosis, and that are waiting on the lab results prior making a diagnosis of any specificity.

Wrong again.

No it's correct again!

Read the guidelines for leprosy above. As a "medical clinician" you should know them. Unless you have your own lab in house, you're going to have to wait for lab results to confirm your professional suspicion of leprosy. One thing you will NOT do is diagnose her with eczema while you're waiting. If you're not sure what it is, but you do suspect leprosy, you'll give your patient, at worse, a diagnosis of skin disorder, unspecified, or L98.9

Diagnosing eczema when the patient has leprosy is not good for you or your firm's malpractice premiums. Likewise, neither is diagnosing leprosy when the patient has eczema. Even if you're a first year resident such an either or clinical decision is sure to raise a few eyebrows.

This is yet another example of wrong assumptions.

I totally agree.

Even if you had taken the time to think and ask me questions based on Leviticus which you claim was so "exact", you could not have accurately distinguished leprosy from eczema using the description in Leviticus because leviticus did NOT describe leprosy sufficiently to tell the difference between leprosy and this girl's eczema.

My goodness @Clear, did you actually read any of my responses when you were getting your strawman ready? Look, I don't have all the time I wish to post here, but I afford plenty of time to respond. You don't have to rush to get a response out.

Did you read this?:

A medical clinician has different guidelines and criteria than a priest. In order to make a diagnosis with any exactness they’ll take a skin biopsy and send it to a lab. They are not going to follow any guidance found in Leviticus but they will follow those published by the CDC, AMA or any of the various accredited and Board certified professional societies peculiar to their profession and practice.

This one perhaps?

The diagnosis of a Levitical priest will not match up one-to-one with the International Classification of Diseases v. 10 used by modern medical clinicians.

Or this one?

The Levitical priest will follow the guidelines and criteria as spelled out under the Law. Two different authorities, two different professions, two sets of guidelines, two different diagnoses , two different time periods that are operating under two different domains.

The priest determines exactly who is spiritually clean or unclean before the Lord. They do not make modern medical diagnoses. That's up to the medical clinician who does not consult the book of Leviticus to determine leprosy or eczema.

 

[Oeste]

THE CLAIM THAT “CHARACTER” MEANS “EXACT CHARACTER” DOESN’T WORK.

The claim that the use of “χαρακτηρ” (Character) in Leviticus has "....exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.”
Doesn’t work.

Okay, this is getting a bit exasperating.

It's worked for thousands of years @Clear. True, it may not work for you personally, but it DOES work for some two billion plus Christians on the planet.

THE THEORY DEFIES ACTUAL WORD USAGE

No it doesn't. We've already talked about literal and dynamic equivalence. We've shown you different concordances, lexicons, dictionaries, and scholars that say otherwise, and even explained how scripture needs to keep up with modern English. But what have you given us? From what I've read so far, it's simply "Clear says so".

I seriously doubt ANYONE on this board has a problem with "representation" ...all by it's lonesome self... at Hebrews 1:3. If ANYONE disagrees, feel free to correct me on this. Had you left it alone everything would have been fine and dandy. But then you took issue with a particular translation's use of the word "exact" (and still do, even after showing you the authorized King James version and even the Septuagint make the same types of functional equivalences), told us our translations were in error, and then told us that the representation wasn't "exact" but "similar"!

Look, I appreciate the time and effort you spend to be arbiter of all things Greek (some of your comments have been very good), but the fact is the use of “χαρακτηρ” at Hebrews 1:3 is metaphorical for heavens sake! Why on earth are you making a literal stance on a metaphor?? There's a endless pool of words and grammatical usages in both the Old and New Testaments, and you make a kamikaze stand here? Worse, the entire issue of same vs. similar was made centuries ago, and Hebrews 1:1-4 helped settled the dispute for the church. Had the Mormons been around perhaps things would have been different. Had the Witnesses been around maybe things might have changed (I doubt it though, the idea of Christians from different churches getting together to discuss theology seems "unclean" to them).

Whatever.

Even you had to add the word “exact” to “representation” before it became “exact representation” in making your claim.
It is the same in greek.

Why not come out and explain why you don't like "exact"? I can show you places where Jesus is in the manuscript but "Jesus Christ" is in the translation. I don't think it makes a bit of difference to my theology anymore than it does yours, so obviously it's not "adding a word" that has you concerned. Otherwise you would not have settled on "exact" but would have named hundreds of other instances of "errors" and written off every translation ever made as blithely as you did "exact".

In any event, it's 4:21 am as I write this. I'm tired and if anyone takes my comments the wrong way then I meant them the other way. I enjoy the conversations with everyone, it's a good crowd we have here, but the endless repetition that goes 'round n 'round can get a little frustrating. I would like to see something more substantive than mere conspiracy theories perpetuated by nameless people who gather and vanish mysteriously to make marks and alterations that no one can trace. Clear's avatar was a good example, but it doesn't have to be that explicit. I would also like to see more consistency in arguments. If not, explain why consistency isn't possible.

BTW, the Romans were well known for their numismatics and ability to make coins that exactly matched those of the original impress. Here we are talking, metaphorically, about a heavenly impress made by Divine hands, and suddenly "exact" has to dropped from the equation. Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15), but for some reason this image must be blurry.

It makes no sense.