If you have any trouble with any of my responses, just ask, and I will do my best to clarify where needful.
Proof that Jesus is God
- Thread starter robert derrick
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
There is one LORD - whose name is Yahweh/Jehovah. But what's your point?
Jesus is not Yahweh/Yehovah/Jehovah. If, as you say, Jehovah came down to earth, how could he call down fire from Jehovah in heaven? Why do you figure that the fire coming down from heaven is the Holy Spirit? Remember that Satan also caused fire to fall from the sky, Job 1:12-16 (WEB):
12) Yahweh said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power. Only on himself don’t stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of Yahweh.
13) It fell on a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house,
14) that there came a messenger to Job, and said, “The oxen were plowing, and the donkeys feeding beside them,
15) and the Sabeans attacked, and took them away. Yes, they have killed the servants with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”
16) While he was still speaking, there also came another, and said, “The fire of God has fallen from the sky, and has burned up the sheep and the servants, and consumed them, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”
What they described as the "fire of God" was the work of Satan, not God.
Let's see if this comparison might help:
Mankind example:
"Pharaoh" is the highest position in Egypt.
Multiple persons/beings are identified as "Pharaoh" in scripture, per example (Genesis 12:15, 41:39; Exodus 2:15, 5:1; Ezekiel 30:24).
So when the word "Pharaoh" is used, how do you know which "man" (of the nature of mankind), which person/being it refers to specifically? The context. As for instance, PharaohNechoh (Pharaoh Neco II; 2 Kings 23:34) is not the same person/being "Pharaoh" that Moses knew (who knew at least two persons/beings that were Pharaoh's", and is even a different person/being than the "Pharaoh" that Joseph or even Abraham knew.
God example:
"God" (Elohiym) is the highest position in the Universe. (The word has more uses, but for this exercise I will stick to this comparison)
Multiple persons/beings are identified as "God" in scripture, per example (John 1:1b, John 1:1c; Hebrews 1:8,9,10, &c).
So when the word "God" is used, how do you know which "God" (of the nature Deity), which person/being it refers to specifically? The context. As for instance, "God" (ton theon; John 1:1b) is not the same person/being "God" (theos [h]en o logos; John 1:1c). The same goes for "God" (Hebrews 1:9a, "therefore God") is not the same person/being as "God" (Hebrews 1:9b, "thy God"), but are two individuals with the nature and position of Deity (as in relation to Creation).
Mankind example:
"Pharaoh" is the highest position in Egypt.
Multiple persons/beings are identified as "Pharaoh" in scripture, per example (Genesis 12:15, 41:39; Exodus 2:15, 5:1; Ezekiel 30:24).
So when the word "Pharaoh" is used, how do you know which "man" (of the nature of mankind), which person/being it refers to specifically? The context. As for instance, PharaohNechoh (Pharaoh Neco II; 2 Kings 23:34) is not the same person/being "Pharaoh" that Moses knew (who knew at least two persons/beings that were Pharaoh's", and is even a different person/being than the "Pharaoh" that Joseph or even Abraham knew.
God example:
"God" (Elohiym) is the highest position in the Universe. (The word has more uses, but for this exercise I will stick to this comparison)
Multiple persons/beings are identified as "God" in scripture, per example (John 1:1b, John 1:1c; Hebrews 1:8,9,10, &c).
So when the word "God" is used, how do you know which "God" (of the nature Deity), which person/being it refers to specifically? The context. As for instance, "God" (ton theon; John 1:1b) is not the same person/being "God" (theos [h]en o logos; John 1:1c). The same goes for "God" (Hebrews 1:9a, "therefore God") is not the same person/being as "God" (Hebrews 1:9b, "thy God"), but are two individuals with the nature and position of Deity (as in relation to Creation).
(Isa 48:16) “Come near to me and hear this: “From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it happened, I was there.” Now the Lord Yahweh has sent me, with his Spirit.
Jesus is not Yahweh! You can't change the names in the Scriptures to force it to mean what you want to believe! Jesus is not his Father.
Try reading again, VERY slowly!
Isaiah 48:16-17 (NKJV)
16 "Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have sent Me." 17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, The Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God,
Maybe this will make you feel better?
John 1:1 (KJV)1 the Word was God.
(GenevaBible)1 that Word was God.
(ASV)1 the Word was God.
(AMP)1 the Word was God Himself.
(MontgomeryNT)1 the Word was God.
(CEB)1 the Word was God.
(CJB)1 the Word was God.
(Darby)1 the Word was God.
(ESV)1 the Word was God.
(HCSB)1 the Word was God.
(MaceNT)1 the Logos was God.
(NASB)1 the Word was God.
(NIV)1 the Word was God.
(NJB)1 the Word was God.
(NKJV)1 the Word was God.
(NRSV)1 the Word was God.
(RSV)1 the Word was God.
(TLB)1 is himself God.
(WesleyNT)1 the Word was God.
(WEY)1 the Word was God.
(YLT)1 the Word was God;
(Webster's Bible)1 the Word was God.
(MSG)1 The Word was God,
You've drifted into another language again!
Jesus is God's only begotten son, so if he was begotten then that means at some point in time Jesus was not God's son, and that only God (Yahweh) existed.
This tells us that in the beginning of God's creation of the world/environment that we live in, Jesus was with God, and was the 'logos' or spokesperson/intermediary of God, and that he was like God (but not God - "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth", John 1:14).
That should be lowercase g, as in "Thy throne, O god" to avoid confusion with God that is used to refer to Yahweh only.
No, God never says that the Son is LORD (Yahweh). The Son is indeed a mighty one (god):
Colossians 1:18-19 (ASV): And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell;
It pleased God (Yahweh) that his son Jesus should be above all other living beings (apart from Himself), and to have His son create the universe and all life in it.
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
My post contained more than the word ‘weak.’
Not sure what evidence you are looking for. My post went on to analyze why the claim is weak. There is a battle song that includes ‘from the shores of Tripoli,’ which implies the US Marines fought at Tripoli.
In fact, I read a book a few years ago that detailed America’s first conflict after the Revolutionary War was with Muslims, known as the Barbary Pirates. A full 1/3 of the Federal Budget was dedicated to paying Muslims the bribes they demanded to release our merchant fleet.
Of course, just because a place is not in a battle song does not mean a battle did not take place there. This example demonstrates the power - and limits - of logic from just a bit of evidence, a few words in a song. It does not mean Tripoli is heaven, divine, etc.
If you do not understand logic, our conversation(s) will have to come to an end.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Irrelevant to the point, which is there is one God, who alone is LORD and this is the most important commandment.
Some Jews. It does not change the fact that Jews wrote the OT & NT and Jesus fulfills the Jewish prophecies for Messiah. That is, there is not another religion that Jesus fulfills the role of Savior.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
It is amazing how frequently trinitarians refer to this figurative prologue that does not even mention Jesus while ignoring Jesus explicitly saying his Father is the true God @ John 17:3.
No. This is the issue at hand, for you are utilizing the phrase "only begotten" incorrectly, and by this I mean using an incorrect definition/understanding. The words "only begotten" translate from the koine Greek monogene (μονογενη; John 3:16), and it means "only one of the same nature (genes)", and has nothing to do with time, but deals with nature only. The very words have no definition which includes time as an element inherently.
The Father has always been "the Father", eternally, everlastingly.
The Son has always been "the Son", eternally, everlastingly.
Context:
Isa 48:2 For they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel; The LORD of hosts is his name.
Isa 48:11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
Isa 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
Isa 48:13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
Isa 48:14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.
Isa 48:15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
Isa 48:16 קרבו אלי שׁמעו־זאת לא מראשׁ בסתר דברתי מעת היותה שׁם אני ועתה אדני יהוה שׁלחני ורוחו׃
Isaiah 48:16 reveals Three Persons/Beings in context.
"... the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me."
"the Lord GOD" is the Person/Being of the Father in this verse.
"Spirit" is the Person/Being of the Holy Ghost/Spirit of "the Lord GOD" (the Father) in this verse.
"me" is the Person/Being of the Son of "the Lord GOD" in this verse, who is also identified in vss 12-13, as "I am ... the first and also the last", who hath "laid the foundation of the earth ... spanned the heavens", even "the LORD of hosts" in vs 2 (for the Son is the Captain over the armies of His Father, the Son is Michael archangel, being the highest messenger who is like unto God His Father).
Therefore according to the context, "The Lord GOD", and his "Spirit" had sent "the LORD of Hosts".
No, it shouldn't because the context of Hebrews 1:8 also includes Hebrews 1:9-12:
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows [angels, fellow messengers, see vs 2,4,5,6,7].
Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
(Paul) Hebrews 1:8-9 is specifically citing Psalms 45:6-7, when after Paul writes, "he saith", for "he saith" in that Psalm:
Psa 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Psa 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
That is the Father speaking to the Son. Then Paul continues with the word "And" (vs 10), and thus it is still the Father speaking to the Son, and cites another OT text, specifically Psalms 102:12,25-27
Psa 102:12 But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever; and thy remembrance unto all generations.
Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Psa 102:26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:
Psa 102:27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.
Thus the Person/Being of the Holy Ghost, who inspired Paul (writer of Hebrews), told Paul to directly cite Psalms 45:6-7, and Psalms 102:12,25-27 in reference to the Father speaking about and to the Son. The Son is indeed identified as "O LORD", even as the Father is another Person/Being called "LORD".
It is irrefutable, because the Bible itself defines the terms and uses.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
Is. 48:16 - Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD [Jehovah], and his spirit, hath sent me. - KJV.
Commenting on this scripture some trinitarians will say: "The speaker of Is. 48:16 is Jehovah as identified by context in the first part of the verse and as shown by his identification in verse 17 where he continues to speak. But notice that Jehovah, who is speaking, says: `The Lord GOD [Jehovah] ... hath sent me.' Therefore there must be at least two persons who are Jehovah!"
The answer to such "proof" is obvious: "speaker confusion." Isaiah, like most other Bible writers, often interspersed the conversation of one person with statements by others and often doesn't identify the new speakers. Very often they appear to be comments by Isaiah himself.
That this is very likely the case here is shown, not only by context, but by these modern trinitarian Bible translations: The RSV and the NIV Bibles (and others) show by quotation marks and indenting that Isaiah himself made the final comment in Is. 48:16.
The NAB also indicates a new speaker there, and, in the St. Joseph edition of the NAB, a footnote for Is. 48:16 tells us that the final statement was made by Cyrus! And the very trinitarian Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version, World Bible Translation Center, 1992, comes right out and says at Is. 48:16,
" 'Come here and listen to me! ... from the beginning, I spoke clearly, so that people could know what I said.' Then Isaiah said, `Now the Lord [Jehovah] my master sends me and his Spirit to tell you these things.' "
The New English Bible (NEB), The Revised English Bible (REB), and the Bible translation by Dr. James Moffatt (Mo) consider the last statement of Is. 48:16 to be spurious and leave it out of their translations entirely.
Certainly these trinitarian translations would have rendered this scripture (and punctuated it accordingly) to show a two-Jehovah meaning (or given such an alternate rendering in the footnotes) if their trinitarian translators had thought there was even the slightest justification for such an interpretation! (Also analyze Jer. 51:19 - Jacob is the former of all things - Jehovah of hosts is his name, according to this trinitarian-type "speaker confusion" reasoning!)
Some notes by trinitarians on this scripture:
"The prophet himself, as a type of the great prophet, asserts his own commission to deliver this message: Now the Lord God (the same that spoke from the beginning and did not speak in secret) has by his Spirit sent me, v. 16." - Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, Isaiah Chapter 48 verse 16.
.............................................
"And, like almost every other prophecy of Christ in the Old Testament, it is subject to all kinds of interpretations. Calvin and many other scholars have seen it as a prophecy of the sending of Isaiah. Barnes agreed with this, stating that, 'The scope of the passage demands, it seems to me, that it should be referred to the prophet Isaiah.'
"However, we believe that Hailey is correct in his declaration that, 'The coming of Jesus is the theme of this prophecy; the entire Old Testament looks forward to Christ's coming to carry forward the purpose of Jehovah; and the Holy Spirit would accompany Christ on that mission, and then complete the work after the Son's return to the Father; let it be remembered that the prophecy is here declaring new things to come in the future.'
"Lowth explained the passage thus: 'Who is it that saith in Isaiah, "And now hath the Lord sent me and his Spirit"? in which, as the passage is ambiguous, is it the Father and the Holy Spirit who hath sent Jesus; or the Father who hath sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit? The latter is the true interpretation.' The Father sent Jesus when he was born in Bethlehem; and the Father sent the Holy Spirit upon the occasion of the baptism of Christ (Matthew 3:16).
"Thus, as Kidner put it, 'This is a glimpse from afar of the Trinity.' [?] As Cheyne expressed it, 'I cannot but think that we have both here and in Gen. 1:2 an early trace of what is known as the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit.' [?]
"The speaker here is therefore, the pre-incarnate Christ who identifies himself as the one sent ... to convey God's message of salvation to mankind. ....
"Jamieson, noting that Isaiah, not Christ, is the author of the passage, stated that, 'Isaiah here speaks not in his own person so much as in that of the Messiah, to whom alone, in the fullest sense, the words apply.'" - Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, Is. 48:16.
I already showed, from the texts of scripture what that means. It doesn't mean that the Father is the only JEHOVAH (LORD). It means, in context that the Father is the "monon alethinon theon", and the word "alethinon" means 'true', which in context means "underived in nature" (which links to axiom, which links to true, see [1], [2]), for the Son is the "monogene", the "theos [h]en o logos" (John 1:1c) of "ton theon" (John 1:1b). In other words, Jesus uses the phrase "monon alethinon theon" to refer to the Father's eternal nature as Deity, of whom the Son is the only one who shares that same eternal nature of the Father (again the nature of the Holy Ghost/Spirit is not given in scripture, and silence is golden on this, for we cannot add, neither take away from the word of God without violation to the texts). In other words, Jesus in John 17:3 is stating (by using word substitution, the ways of God being equal) that He Himself (the Son) is the only true Son by nature of the Father, whose nature the Son shares. The Father does not have His nature from the Son, but the Son from the Father.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
If we look at some respected trinitarian authorities, we see a preference for the “God is thy throne” rendering.
Oxford professor and famous trinitarian Bible translator, Dr. James Moffatt, has been described as “probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day.” His respected Bible translation renders Heb. 1:8 as:
“God is thy throne for ever and ever.”
University of Cambridge professor and noted New Testament language scholar, Dr. C. F. D. Moule writes that Heb. 1:8 may be “construed so as to mean Thy throne is God” - p. 32, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.
An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed), renders it: “God is your throne....”
And The Bible in Living English (Byington) reads: “God is your throne....”
The Message reads: “Your throne is God’s throne….”
NSB - God is your throne
Mace - "God is thy throne….”
Twentieth Century Translation - ‘God is thy throne….’
Another world-acclaimed scholar of trinitarian Christendom has translated this verse similarly and made some interesting comments. Trinitarian Dr. William Barclay,
“world-renowned Scottish New Testament interpreter, was noted as a profound scholar and a writer of extraordinary gifts .... He was the minister of Trinity Church, Renfrew, Scotland, and, later, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow.”
Dr. Barclay, in his translation of the New Testament, has also rendered Hebrews 1:8 as : “God is your throne for ever and ever.”
Noted trinitarian (Southern Baptist) New Testament Greek scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson acknowledges that either “Thy throne, O God” or “God is thy throne”/“thy throne is God” may be proper renderings: “Either makes good sense.” - p. 339, Word Pictures in the New Testament.
The American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and The New English Bible (NEB) have provided alternate readings to the traditional trinitarian rendering of the KJV at Hebrews 1:8. These alternate readings (found in footnotes) agree with Dr. Moffatt’s, Dr. Barclay’s, Smith-Goodspeed’s, and Byington’s, renderings of this scripture (“God is your throne”).
Even Young’s Concise Bible Commentary (written by the famous trinitarian author of Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible) admits: “[Heb. 1:8] may be justly rendered ‘God is thy throne ....’
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
"the 'theos [h]en o logos' (John 1:1c)"
How even a beginner NT Greek student could mistake ἦν as [h]en is strange indeed.
Examining the Trinity
Again "trinitarianism" is irrelevant. The text, structure and language and uses comparisons to other texts of scripture is all that matters. Please withdraw the strawman, as I am not "trinitarian", nor advocating "trinitarianism" (I believe this is the 6th or 7th time I have stated this in this thread. People surely must be willingly blind by now).
This advice seems apropros:
"... [those] who allow so-called `scholars' to pervert the meaning of this passage are making the same mistake that Eve made when she allowed Satan to explain God's Word to her. ..." - Coffman Commentaries On The NT (Psalms 45:6)- Psalms 45:6 - Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary - StudyLight.org
Which is why I will cite the research that shows the remainder of scripture which has parallel language (see below), and thus the Bible defines the translation/interpretation (just as Genesis 40:8, etc says).
A deeper look at the internal Hebrew language of Psalms 45:6-7:
"... any language has its own rhythms, its own voice, so that anyone with even an average sensibility for said language can tell immediately when certain ways of understanding a phrase are possible, unlikely, or far-fetched. "God is your throne" is not only odd in English, but would have been so to the original readers as well. Given the poetic rhyme scheme of this verse, it is hard to believe that it could even have been construed by a native speaker the way your correspondent suggests. The psalmist has been addressing God all along, so that the most natural way to read the -cha suffix on throne (i.e., meaning "your") is as a continuation of that address, thus making `elohiym (God) a vocative rather than a (hard to explain) predicate. The Masoretes evidently understood this passage in that natural way, for `elohiym is divided from the rest of the verse by disjunctive accents before and after = "Your throne {comma} [O] God {comma}". Whereas we would have expected no disjunction if it were a case of subject/predicate (the alternative translation).
Incidentally, going back to the issue of sensibility and language, the automatic way to read this verse if you are thinking/feeling Hebrew, even if you don't notice the accent marks, is also "Your throne, [O] God, [is] forever and ever". Hebrews 1:8 renders the Hebrew in a rather "literal way". That is, it follows pretty much word for word using the standard conventions of the day for rendering Hebrew into Greek, leaving out the copula, using aion twice (i.e., to mean "forever") for the Hebrew 'olam v'edh, and using the definite article for the vocative. This last feature is, I suppose, not really "literal", for there is no definite article used with `elohiym in the Hebrew. On the other hand, this vocative marker is often left out in Hebrew poetry, so that the less poetic Greek translations often put it in for the sake of clarity (as has happened here). What all this means is that in the Greek of Hebrews 1:8, "the God" = O God. The first half of the verse (i.e., what we are dealing with here) is identical to what is found in the Septuagint version.
As to what the alternative translation, "God is your throne" might mean, I personally can find no easy way to work that notion into any Old Testament mode of expression or theology. The Psalm is clearly Messianic, the Messiah comes before God's throne, shares in God's throne, but God is not "His throne". Since, in my view, it is really not a defensible translation anyway, it is probably not necessary to belabor the point. ..." - https://www.ichthys.com/mail-your throne O God.htm
"... The Targum which is an Aramaic translations of the Hebrew OT ... translated psalm 45:6, "Your throne, of honor, YHWH (YAHWEH) is forever and ever." ..." - Was Psalms 45:6 In our bibles a mistranslation (King instead of God)?
A translation of the Targum into English - "The throne of your glory, O Lord,[30] lasts forever and ever; the scepter of your kingdom is an upright scepter." - Psalm 42
Consider the following study about the words structure itself, showing that it follows the pattern of the other texts, and along with the words themselves, translated as "thy throne, O God, is forever and ever":
(Especially see pages 8-9 for comparisons) http://www.livingwater-spain.com/heb1_8en.pdf
Finally, looking at this historically (meaning across time), can you cite one Jewish commentator (such as a Rabbi, the Talmud, Mishna, etc) or ECF (so called Early church fathers, I'll even accept an Arian 'father'), Lectionary, etc before 1700 that renders the passage as "God is your throne"?, rather than "thy throne O God is forever and ever"?
As for instance, the German Luther, reads:
Psa 45:6 Gott, dein Stuhl bleibt immer und ewig; das Zepter deines Reiches ist ein gerades Zepter.
It cannot be translated "God is your throne".
The French Ostervald reads:
Psa 45:7 Ton trône, ô Dieu, demeure à toujours et à perpétuité; le sceptre de ton règne est un sceptre d'équité.
The Italian of Diodati reads:
Psa 45:6 O Dio, il tuo trono è in sempiterno; Lo scettro del tuo regno è uno scettro di dirittura.
The Spanish Reina Valera reads:
Psa 45:6 Tu trono, oh Dios, eterno y para siempre: vara de justicia la vara de tu reino.
The Wycliffe (1394) translating from Jerome's Latin, etc:
Psalms 45:6 God, thi seete is in to the world of world; the yerde of thi rewme is a yerde of riyt reulyng, ethir of equite. Psalms 45:7 Thou louedist riytfulnesse, and hatidist wickidnesse; therfor thou, God, thi God, anoyntide thee with the oile of gladnesse, more than thi felowis.
Last edited:
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
Quoted From Ps. 45
In addition to these admissions by trinitarian translators concerning Heb. 1:8, we need to look back at the Old Testament Hebrew scripture (Ps. 45:6) that Paul was quoting when he wrote Heb. 1:8.
The RSV renders Ps. 45:6 as “Your Divine throne” and a footnote provides this alternate
reading: “Or ‘your throne is a throne of God.’”
The NRSV says in a footnote: “Or ‘your throne is a throne of God.’”
The NEB says: “Your throne is like God’s throne.”
The Holy Scriptures (JPS version) says: “Thy throne given of God.”
The Bible in Living English (Byington) says: “God is your throne.”
New International Reader’s Version (NIRV): “Your throne is the very throne of God.”
The Good News Bible (GNB), a very trinitarian paraphrase Bible, renders it: “The kingdom
that God has given you will last forever and ever.”
The REB has: “God has enthroned you for all eternity.”
The NJB gives us: “your throne is from God.”
Leeser - “Thy throne, given of God, endureth for ever”
We also see the following statement by respected trinitarian scholars in a footnote for this passage:
“45:6 O God. Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as ‘god.’” - Ps. 45:6 f.n. in the NIV Study Bible (1985).
In addition to the above renderings by many respected translators (most of whom are trinitarian), we have the statement by perhaps the greatest scholar of Biblical Hebrew of all time, H. F. W. Gesenius. In his famous and highly respected Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Gesenius renders Ps. 45:6, “thy throne shall be a divine throne.”
Just the admission by so many trinitarian translators (above) that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated in a non-trinitarian manner makes any insistence by other trinitarians that this scripture is acceptable evidence for a trinity doctrine completely invalid!
In addition to these admissions by trinitarian translators concerning Heb. 1:8, we need to look back at the Old Testament Hebrew scripture (Ps. 45:6) that Paul was quoting when he wrote Heb. 1:8.
The RSV renders Ps. 45:6 as “Your Divine throne” and a footnote provides this alternate
reading: “Or ‘your throne is a throne of God.’”
The NRSV says in a footnote: “Or ‘your throne is a throne of God.’”
The NEB says: “Your throne is like God’s throne.”
The Holy Scriptures (JPS version) says: “Thy throne given of God.”
The Bible in Living English (Byington) says: “God is your throne.”
New International Reader’s Version (NIRV): “Your throne is the very throne of God.”
The Good News Bible (GNB), a very trinitarian paraphrase Bible, renders it: “The kingdom
that God has given you will last forever and ever.”
The REB has: “God has enthroned you for all eternity.”
The NJB gives us: “your throne is from God.”
Leeser - “Thy throne, given of God, endureth for ever”
We also see the following statement by respected trinitarian scholars in a footnote for this passage:
“45:6 O God. Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as ‘god.’” - Ps. 45:6 f.n. in the NIV Study Bible (1985).
In addition to the above renderings by many respected translators (most of whom are trinitarian), we have the statement by perhaps the greatest scholar of Biblical Hebrew of all time, H. F. W. Gesenius. In his famous and highly respected Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Gesenius renders Ps. 45:6, “thy throne shall be a divine throne.”
Just the admission by so many trinitarian translators (above) that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated in a non-trinitarian manner makes any insistence by other trinitarians that this scripture is acceptable evidence for a trinity doctrine completely invalid!
- Status
Similar threads
