1. 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Why do Jehovah's Witnesses falsify the Bible?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by calm, Jul 8, 2019.

  1. calm

    calm Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Messages:
    419
    Ratings:
    +120
    Religion:
    Natsari
    First fake
    In the old scriptures of the Bible it says in John 1:1
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible?

    but in the "Bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses it says
    ... and the Word was a God.

    The Jehovah's Witnesses want to hide the divinity of Jesus by adding a "one" to this passage. Because "a God" means "Mighty One". The original scriptures prove that there is no "a", a clear forgery.

    Second fake
    In the old scriptures of the Bible it says in Hebrews 1:8
    But with respect to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; and: A scepter of rectitude is the scepter of thy kingdom.
    Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6, "God is thy throne." | CARM.org

    but in the "Bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses it says
    But with respect to the Son: God is your throne, ...

    Again they try to hide the divinity of Jesus. The old scriptures prove that God the Father personally addresses Jesus with the title God. God, the Father, addressed nobody another with the title God, Jesus is the only one. This biblical passage also proves the Trinity.

    Third fake
    In the oldest original copies of the Bible it says in Genesis 1:2
    Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.

    but in the "Bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses it says
    ... and God's power...

    Here they try to present the Holy Spirit as just a "power", but the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is a person.

    Fourth fake
    They claim that Jesus is an angel, but Jesus is not once identified as that. The Bible even makes a clear distinction between Jesus and the angels.
    Hebrews 1: 5-8
    For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
    And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all Gods’s angels worship him.”
    Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.”
    But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

    Fifth fake
    They claim that the Holy Spirit is not a person but only a power. But the Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is a person.
    The Holy Spirit ...
    • teaches the disciples (Luke 12:12, John 14:26, 1 Corinthians 2:13)
    • leads the sons(Romans 8:14, Galatians 5:18)
    • witnesses the forgiveness of sins to Christians (Hebrews 10:15)
    • convict the world of sin, justice and judgment (John 16:8-11)
    • leads believers into the whole truth (John 16:13)

    The Scriptures not only show that the Spirit of God is acting, but are also presented as someone with whom something happens.
    The Holy Spirit can ...
    • to be blasphemed (Mark 3:29-30)
    • be lied to (Acts 5:3)
    • be tried, that is, put to the test (Acts 5:9)
    • to be fought (Acts 7:51)
    • be saddened (Ephesians 4:30)

    Sixth fake
    They claim that Jesus is not God, but the Bible teaches the opposite.
    ........

    Seventh fake
    They teach that the name "Jehovah" is God's(father) name, but that's not true. This name is wrong.
    The name jehovah is a fictitious name of the catholic church, in the 14th or 15th century catholic theologians mixed the title AdOnAi with YHWH and from this came "Jehovah".
    The name Jehovah is wrong not only because it was created by a "mix", but also because the letters J and V are not present in Ancient Hebrew. The J is usually a Y and the V/W is a U (in ancient hebrew there are no J or V/W sound). Also, "YHWH" is wrong, because the letter W did not exist until much later. The W was a "double U" before it was changed. YHUH is the right form and not "YHWH".
    The name Jehovah is not only wrong but also blasphemy, because Je-hovah means earth-disaster. The Je comes from the Greek and means also in Greek earth, Hovah means in Hebrew disaster. Strong's Hebrew: 1943. הֹוָה (hovah) -- a ruin, disaster
    Yud(Y)-Hei(AH)-UaU(U)-Hei(AH) are the 4 letters of the name.
    If you connect all the letters now, then the name YAHUAH comes out. That's the true name of the father. In the ancient Hebrew, YHUH does not mean "I am who I am," , but BEHOLD A HAND, BEHOLD A NAIL.
     
    #1 calm, Jul 8, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2019
  2. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    11,212
    Ratings:
    +3,440
    Religion:
    Christian
    Didn't you post the same thing yesterday?
     
  3. rocala

    rocala Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    629
    Ratings:
    +448
    Religion:
    Buddhism / Druidry
    No, yesterday he was "refuting" Judaism and Islam. Today it's the JW's. Perhaps tomorrow it will be....?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    11,212
    Ratings:
    +3,440
    Religion:
    Christian
    He sure has some strange ideas.
     
  5. rocala

    rocala Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    629
    Ratings:
    +448
    Religion:
    Buddhism / Druidry
    Yes, but I suppose we all do in some others eyes.

    It is easy to stride into a forum, full of ideas and confidence. The next thing, you are shot down in flames. I had it and I do not regret it. It taught me to not only look at my beliefs but at my ability to think critically, to analyze.

    I hope the initial rough ride will not deter @calm and I hope he is welcomed into the RF community.
     
    #5 rocala, Jul 8, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    11,212
    Ratings:
    +3,440
    Religion:
    Christian
    JWs think Jesus went to heaven in 1914..

    Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses - Wikipedia
     
  7. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,470
    Ratings:
    +6,505
    Religion:
    None
    Evrrybody "falsifies" the bible.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. JJ50

    JJ50 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,449
    Ratings:
    +1,161
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,283
    Ratings:
    +5,604
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    From this perspective the Bible has been edited, redacted, and added to, and interpreted in many ways to justify an agenda. The JW is just one more in a long history.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
  10. Nimos

    Nimos Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    837
    Ratings:
    +348
    Why would that hide the divinity of Jesus? The passage is about God not Jesus. And should you follow your own logic. If you read the NIV bible and compare that to the oldest original copy that you do:

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

    Original bible
    18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

    JW bible
    18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.

    Where did "who is himself God" come from, that is not in the original bible? At least to me JW seems to have gotten closest to the original in this verse. So does that mean that Christians are trying to make it appear as if Jesus is God or is that not the same?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  11. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    4,181
    Ratings:
    +2,286
    Religion:
    Jewish Renewal
    This is a really interesting interpretation of the famous 4 letter name of God.

    I have never heard that before.

    However, you are somewhat guilty of the same mistake that you are claiming that the JWs are making.

    The 3rd letter could be a "V" sound. An example is Deut 6:5.

    "And you shall love... " Is pronounced "V'yahavtah" It's the same hebrew letter in the beginning and in the middle as the 3rd letter in the 4-letter-name.

    Whether or not you will believe me, I don't know. But I think it's worth pointing out that the pronunciation by the JWs is not obviously wrong. And the pronunciation that you have provided is not obviously correct.

    But it's still an interesting theory. Thank you for sharing it.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  12. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    26,740
    Ratings:
    +10,829
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    So what are you going to do with all the Christians who subscribe to different renderings of various Bible verses? Verses such as

    Philippians 3:8 (AKJV)
    8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,​

    Where we read "dung" but other bibles us the words

    "refuse" 4 times
    "garbage" 10 times
    "rubbish" 13 times
    "filth" 2 times
    "trash" 6 times
    "worthless" 2 times
    "less than nothing" 3 times
    "manure" 1 time
    "waste" 1 time
    "dirt" 1 time
    "sewer trash" 1 time.​


    And

    Psalm 10:5 (AKJV)

    5 His ways are always grievous;
    thy judgments are far above out of his sight:
    as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them.​

    Where we read "grievous" but other bibles us the words

    Firm
    Prosper
    Secure
    Twisted
    Successful
    Succeed
    Prosperous
    Endure
    Well
    Defouled
    Pain​

    And

    John 14:2 (AKJV)
    2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.​

    Where we read "mansions" but other bibles us the words

    Places
    Dwellings
    Dwelling places.
    Room
    Room to spare
    Rooms
    Abodes
    Places-to-stay
    Homes​


    And

    Isaiah 45:7 (AKJV)
    7 I form the light, and create darkness:
    I make peace, and create evil:
    I the Lord do all these things.​

    Where we read "evil" in 14 different translations, but we find the words

    woe in 9 other translations
    calamity in 7 other translations
    disaster in 7 other translations
    trouble. in 4 other translations
    bad times in 2 other translations
    hard times in 1 other translation
    doom in 1 other translation
    sorrow in 1 other translation
    discord in 1other translation​

    Are they all fake?

    Which Bible do you use, and why is the usage of the word found in the above verses more right in your Bible than all the others?

    .


    .
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. tigger2

    tigger2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    149
    Ratings:
    +115
    Religion:
    JW
    ....................................................

    First 'fake' A.

    The 'original copies' of John 1:1c are in NT Greek are copies from the second century (P66 and P75) and both say: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (θεὸς is in its abbreviated form used throughout the oldest copies). When translated into English, it means 'and the Word was a god."

    If you would actually examine John's grammar and usage for θεὸς and how he always uses the word order which is parallel to John 1:1c, you will see the truth of the above translation.

    First 'fake' B.

    'but in the "Bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses it says
    ... and the Word was one God.'


    This is false and so easily looked up that it is without excuse.

    The NWT has always rendered John 1:1c as "and the Word was a god."

    Second 'fake'

    The 'original copies' of Heb. 1:8 (P46 is the earliest - first to middle part of second century) says Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος. (θεὸς is in its abbreviated form). Yes, literally the original NT Greek manuscripts read: “Toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age.”

    There was no punctuation, so it is honestly translated as either: "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever" OR “God is thy throne for ever and ever” - Dr. James Moffatt's translation (also AT and others).

    Yes, literally the original NT Greek manuscripts read: “Toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age.”

    Even the great NT grammarian A.T. Robertson wrote in his Robertson's Word Pictures of the NT discussing Heb. 1:8:

    "It is not certain whether ο τεος — ho theos is here the vocative (address with the nominative form as in John 20:28 with the Messiah termed τεος — theos as is possible, John 1:18) or ο τεος — ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with εστιν — estin (is) understood: 'God is thy throne' or 'Thy throne is God.' Either makes good sense."

    So, when you wrote: ".... The original scriptures prove that God the Father personally addresses Jesus with the title God. God, the Father, addressed nobody another with the title God, Jesus is the only one. This biblical passage also proves the Trinity" - you are unfairly accusing other translators of dishonesty.
     
    #13 tigger2, Jul 8, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    9,612
    Ratings:
    +2,169
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Obviously, the intent of changing the translations was to try to prove that Jesus was God, but He wasn't God.
    Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus disclaimed it.
    Did the Jews Accuse Jesus of Claiming to Be “God” or “a God”?

    (To see a titled list of over fifty, two-three page posts (easily accessible) about the Bible not saying Jesus is God, click here.)

    By changing the translation the verse ends up making no sense at all. Jesus was either the Son or He was the Father (God). Jesus cannot be both. That is logically contradictory.

    John 1:18
    CSB
    No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side—he has revealed him.
    • So God is at His own side?
    ERV
    No one has ever seen God. The only Son is the one who has shown us what God is like. He is himself God and is very close to the Father.

    CEV
    No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.

    NET
    No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.
    • If the Son is close/closest to God, He cannot also be God because God cannot be close to Himself, since God is Himself.
    NIV
    No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
    • If the Son is in closest relationship with God and made God known, He cannot be God because a relationship implies that there are two entities in relationship with each other.
    https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John 1:18
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  15. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,757
    Ratings:
    +3,309
    Religion:
    Christian
    No, sooda...Jesus was in heaven already (40 days after His resurrection in 33 ce); he was made King of God's Kingdom, in 1914.

    If Wikipedia says that, they are wrong.
     
  16. calm

    calm Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Messages:
    419
    Ratings:
    +120
    Religion:
    Natsari
    "The most well-known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1:1. The original Greek text reads, “the Word was God.” The NWT renders it as “the word was a god.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, "a" or "an"), so any use of an indefinite article in English must be added by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.

    There is a good reason why theos has no definite article in John 1:1 and why the New World Translation rendering is in error. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why.

    1. In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. In English, a sentence is structured according to word order: Subject - Verb - Object. Thus, "Harry called the dog" is not equivalent to "the dog called Harry." But in Greek, a word's function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word's root. There are two case endings for the root theo: one is -s (theos), the other is -n (theon). The -s ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the -n ending normally identifies a noun as the direct object.

    2. When a noun functions as a predicate nominative (in English, a noun that follows a being verb such as "is"), its case ending must match the noun's case that it renames, so that the reader will know which noun it is defining. Therefore, theo must take the -s ending because it is renaming logos. Therefore, John 1:1transliterates to "kai theos en ho logos." Is theos the subject, or is logos? Both have the -s ending. The answer is found in the next rule.

    3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").

    The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.
    The Watchtower, therefore, has no hard textual grounds for their translation—only their own theological bias. While New World Translation defenders might succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have done, they cannot show that it is the proper translation. Nor can they explain the fact that that the NWT does not translate the same Greek phrases elsewhere in the Gospel of John the same way. It is only the pre-conceived heretical rejection of the deity of Christ that forces the Watchtower Society to inconsistently translate the Greek text, thus allowing their error to gain some semblance of legitimacy in the minds of those ignorant of the facts."

    Source: Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible?


    --This is false and so easily looked up that it is without excuse.

    The NWT has always rendered John 1:1c as "and the Word was a god."--

    I'm sorry, I actually mean "a God," not "one God." Was a little mistake of mine. Corrected it. But "a God" is also wrong, see above.
     
    #16 calm, Jul 9, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2019
  17. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    11,212
    Ratings:
    +3,440
    Religion:
    Christian
    https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-doctrine-changes/

    10 Things Everyone Should Know about Jehovah's Witnesses and Their Beliefs

    Jehovah’s Witnesses are mostly quite oblivious to their Millerite origins. Their own version of the “modern-day history of Jehovah’s Witnesses” begins with Charles Taze Russell, decades after Miller. But plainly the Seventh-Day Adventists and the ...
    How do Jehova's Witnesses view their Millerite origins ...
    www.quora.com/How-do-Jehovas-Witnesses-view-their-Millerite-origins



    Jehovah's Witness is there any Adventist or Millerism ...
    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081112010710AABO2yQ
    Nov 12, 2008 · Now, all the Bible Students(now Known as Jehovah's Witnesses) believed that Jesus' Presence is invisible and in the year 1874. This was the teaching until 1943, one year after Rutherford's death. At this point Nathan Knorr proclaimed it was 1914 that Jesus's presence was invisible.
     
  18. Nimos

    Nimos Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    837
    Ratings:
    +348
    If one is to believe in the trinity and read this passage from Matthew which I think is one of the best counter verses to it:

    The Baptism of Jesus
    13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.
    14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
    15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
    16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

    17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

    What exactly is going on here, if the trinity is correct? If all of them are part of the trinity it is basically God that decent on himself and declare that he is pleased with himself. That sounds very strange and unlikely to me, that this is actually meant to be understood like that.
     
  19. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    11,212
    Ratings:
    +3,440
    Religion:
    Christian
    It is strange, isn't it. Doesn't make much sense.
     
  20. calm

    calm Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Messages:
    419
    Ratings:
    +120
    Religion:
    Natsari
    I don't care what the "great" Robertson says, I'm interested in what the scriptures say. And Scripture clearly doesn't say "God is your throne" this sentence is not only wrong but also doesn't make any sense at all.

    "But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness'" The New World Translation.

    In 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 . . . "

    Because of the Watchtower presupposition that Jesus is not God, they choose the first version; otherwise, the Father would be calling Jesus God, and that goes against Jehovah's Witness theology. Yet, most Bibles do not translate it the way the New World Translation does. They choose the other way. Why? Two reasons.

    First, Heb. 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6, which says,

    "Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom" (All Bible quotes are from the NASB).

    In fact, the ASV, KJV, NIV, and NKJV all translated it as "Your throne, O God . . . " The RSV translates it as "Your divine throne endures for ever and ever," "but this is a highly unlikely translation because it requires understanding the Hebrew noun for "throne" in construct state, something extremely unusual when a noun has a pronominal suffix, as this one does . . . The KJV, NIV, and NASB all take the verse in its plain, straightforward sense, as do the ancient translations . . . "1

    When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical requirement for this translation though it is considered to be the best translation by most translators. In and of itself, this is not conclusive because the context of this verse in Psalm 45 is dealing with a king which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as God; but, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another. They knew something we didn't. In fact, in Ezekiel 28:12-17 is a section that deals with the fall of the devil. Verse 13 describes how he was in the garden of Eden. Verse 14 says he was the anointed cherub, (v. 15), etc., but the context of this section begins with an address to the king of Tyre (v. 12). Yet, right after Ezekiel is told to write to the King of Tyre, he then goes on to describe what the great majority of theologians agree with--a description of the devil's fall. So, we need to look at the context into which the writer of Hebrews put Psalm 45:6. He addressed it to Jesus. Therefore, Psalm 45 is a Messianic Psalm and must in interpreted in light of the NT not the other way around.

    Nevertheless, the context of this verse follows:

    "For to which of the angels did He ever say, "Thou are My son, Today I have begotten Thee"? And again, "I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me"? 6And when he again brings the first-born into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." 7And of the angels He says "Who makes His angels winds, and His ministers a flame of fire." 8But of the Son He says, "Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom, 9Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy companions. 10And, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands; 11They will perish, but though remainest . . . " (Heb. 1:5-11).

    To say "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say, "But to which of the angels did he say, God is your throne." What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His throne, and He isn't a throne for anyone else.

    Also worth noting here is verse 10: "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands . . . " This is a quote from Psalm 102:24-25 which says, "I say, 'O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Thy years are throughout all generations. 25Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands.'" Clearly, God is the one being addressed in Psalm 102. It is God who laid the foundations of the earth. Yet, in Heb. 1:10, Jesus is called 'Lord' and is said to be the one who laid the foundation of the earth. This becomes even more interesting when we note that in Isaiah 44:24 it says, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone." If God was laying the foundations of the earth alone, that would mean that either Jesus has to be God, second person of the Trinity, who laid the foundation the same as YHWH did; or we have a contradiction in the Bible. Clearly, this section of Hebrews is proclaiming that Jesus is God. Therefore, contextually, it is best to translate Heb. 1:8 as, "Thy Throne, O God. . ." and the Father call Jesus God. "

    Sorce: Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6, "God is thy throne." | CARM.org
     
Loading...