Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I'm posting with a lot of interruptions today. In the course of this discussion, somehow I got confused and thought I was speaking to Episkopos!
Never mind. I *know* you're a Trinitarian!!!The God-Man in Isaiah 9:6-7
- Thread starter ByGraceThroughFaith
- 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!
Sorry, I'm posting with a lot of interruptions today. In the course of this discussion, somehow I got confused and thought I was speaking to Episkopos!
Never mind. I *know* you're a Trinitarian!!!
Thank you. But I think you mean fundamentalist beliefs...not fundamental Christian beliefs. The abberations in the modern doctrines are due to there being great delusion among those who are unable to endure sound doctrine. The doctrines I espouse are apostolic and backed up by the Spirit and the Word. They are unbreakable...not relying on a few proof texts that contradict the majority of the biblical narrative.
Trinity formulations were always meant as theories...not something supported by all nor by the scriptures. Spiritual things are not easily understood by non-spiritual people. When the masses are converted to a new religion...simple formulas squash deeper truth.
Tertullian avowed that God was a duality (Father and Son) AND a trinity. But he was NOT an apostle..and neither was Luther. Modern believers have been led astray by religious speculations that were never meant to displace deeper spiritual life and truth. I believe we need to put the two back into Tertullian.
Not life...but control. Christianity is a religion of the masses...not a small spiritual group that experiences eternal life in communion with the living God. Those who hold to sunday school dogmatic beliefs are part of the quantity in Christianity...not the quality. Pew warmers need simple dogmatic beliefs. And there is a lot of money to be made for those who support empty creeds that bring no life.
Doctrines should be describing the life found by abiding in Christ. Jesus said that FEW would be able to enter into the kingdom. The many are those who are controlled by the establishment. It really doesn't matter what they think. If you are looking for deeper connection to God...you will have to bear His reproach OUTSIDE the camp. That means that there is NO safety in ecclesiastical numbers. Quite the contrary.
Naturally there will be a counterfeit decoy for what is real and eternal. People are not looking to die with the Lord. So the problem is not just with the small cults that deviate from the truth. The problem is with the majority whom Jesus sends home. Think the 5,000...in comparison to the 12. And to think that people still believe there is safety in numbers!
Last edited:
not necessarily, some of the best Hebrew grammars and lexicons and other technical works, have been written by Gentiles.
“’ă·ḇî·‘aḏ”. is not "witness of my Father", this is a paraphrase, like in the Targums.
Jesus Christ is God the Son, and distinct from God the Father, which is very clear in John 1:1, "καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος". And God the Holy Spirit is also distinct from God the Father and God the Son, as is clear from places like Matthew 28:19, "εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος". Impossible in either place to say that they are the same Person
No abiad (actually Aviad) means MY Father goes on (until)....which is not correct in my estimation. What is says is AVIED (or abied in your rendering) "Witness of My Father"
There are some Gentile scholars to be sure...the best one is actually a Catholic priest (I actually spoke with him). The reason these are important is because of their faith in Jesus. They are not as likely to obfuscate the references to Messiah...but they are indeed subject to their own religious leanings.
LOL Matt 28:19 is not the original wording....Even the Pope (the one that retired) admitted it. Early writings quote that verse as saying....baptizing them in My name. ...which fits in with the rest of the biblical narrative. Just read Acts....no other name under heaven by which men are saved.
You need to look a lot deeper into your Roman beliefs.
I think maybe you realize the Johanine comma was added in MUCH later into the text. More Roman meddling. Now it takes crimes of that sort to convince people of the truth? Or the lie? The Trinity doctrine needs corruption to gain ascendancy.
Last edited:
there is not a single Greek manuscript, or ancient Bible Vresion, like the Old Latin or Latin Vulgate, or Syriac, etc, that has your personal reading! You make things up as you go along to support your beliefs!
You need to produce real evidence for your readings in Isaiah 9:6, and Matther 28:19
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
No, I mean that the Trinitarian and Soteriological formulations were Christians coming to grips with the intersection between apostolic doctrine, which was Jewish, and the Gentile/Roman world. Language has always been a matter of translation, and the truths of Scripture not only had to be translated into other languages, but the formulations of their thought had to be translated, as well.
That's why we have fundamental, creedal theology, to keep Christianity on course with apostolic doctrine. The fact the Church Fathers and other great Christian scholars are generally worth listening to is because they based their own formulations on the Scriptures. And the Bible not only gave credence to the apostles, who knew Jesus up personal and close, but Paul also gave credence to the gift of teachers in the church.
To create a sectarian notion of an elite minority within the Church is both a reasonable idea and a bad idea, depending on where you're coming from. Paul absolutely forbade divisions in the Church between genuine believers. Some Christians actually resisted Paul's teachings and attacked him, claiming his theology to be a "false Christianity."
So yes, there is an ecclesiastical Christianity that encompasses both genuine and nominal Christians, and there is a point at which those who act in a sectarian, judgmental way cross the line from genuine Christian fellowship to a false sort of elitism.
On the contrary, Trinitarian formulations were genuine efforts at giving a proper understanding to biblical truth, because heretical cults, like Arianism and Sabellianism, were forming. Gnosticism was relying on imaginary revelations that were subjective and not kept under reins by the Scriptures. So biblical doctrine was essential, and the Church Fathers were quite determined to go about it in a straightforward, Christian way.
Tertullian avowed that God was a duality (Father and Son) AND a trinity. But he was NOT an apostle..and neither was Luther. Modern believers have been led astray by religious speculations that were never meant to displace deeper spiritual life and truth. I believe we need to put the two back into Tertullian.
God did set teachers in the Church. Though they weren't as close to Jesus as the apostles were, the Holy Spirit set many up as teachers and reformers, to keep Christians on track with the Scriptures. Apart from living by a true word from God, Christians fall away.
I don't share your cynicism, nor do I share your elitism. It is one thing to emphasize the importance of spirituality over rote, nominal observance of Christian customs and liturgies. But it is an entirely different thing to *live spirituality.* If you're judgmental, and if you're sectarian, you are *not* spiritual! If you're spiritual at all, it is a different spirit than the spirit of Christ. Christ's Spirit embraces all, to encourage, to correct, but always in the spirit of love.
Doctrines should be describing the life found by abiding in Christ. Jesus said that FEW would be able to enter into the kingdom. The many are those who are controlled by the establishment. It really doesn't matter what they think. If you are looking for deeper connection to God...you will have to bear His reproach OUTSIDE the camp. That means that there is NO safety in ecclesiastical numbers. Quite the contrary.
You have a lot of knowledge, and you teach a lot about spiritual life. But where is it? Without love you're just a "sounding gong!"
I agree that the majority tend to stray. But your judgmental spirit makes you just another one of them. If you're truly spiritual, you will be corrected by God's word in your life, through your conscience. I just don't see that happening, with all due respect.
I'm sorry if it sounds elitist to compare what is for the few as opposed to what is accepted by the many. But that distinction is borne out by both the words of Jesus and lived experience. Is it better to just stay silent and allow the majority to remain in the dark? What is the function of exhortation if the status quo goes unchallenged? Do we surmise that all who are caught in the religious net will never be freed from their restraints? I see things exactly the other way in that regard. Unless there is a witness to deeper truth, the majority will sleep through until it is too late. Nobody likes a wake up call.
Regardless, the Gentile church has left out the Jews and the sensibilities that were brought by the apostles and their writings. I don't see the one New Man coming into being without the Jews turning to Christ in a significant way. As long as the Jews have a legitimate beef against the pagan nature of Gentile beliefs....ie ...making the Spirit of God to be a separate person...we will not see the kind of revival we saw in the early church. Can we be complete without our brothers? Can we surrender our religious theories for the sake of a truth we haven't yet come to understand?
Holding up God's standard will always elicit reactions from the flesh. It is assumed that anyone who agrees with the high standard of Christ as being righteous and true must be elitist and claim to be walking at that standard. What is for sure is the one who complains against the standard is reacting in the flesh.
The reason for the anemic condition of the Church is the allowance given to the flesh...in the uncrucified outer man that the majority of believers cling to with the tacit approval of the "ministries" that look to the majority for support. The kingdom realm is upside down to our way of seeing. The majority is always wrong...and it needs to be this way to test those who are called into the life of Christ. ALL who live godly, and agree with the Lord's way WILL be rejected. Nothing can change that reality. Arguing against the messenger of this truth is pointless and counter-productive. All one needs to do is to read the Bible non-selectively to get the same overview.
The reason for the anemic condition of the Church is the allowance given to the flesh...in the uncrucified outer man that the majority of believers cling to with the tacit approval of the "ministries" that look to the majority for support. The kingdom realm is upside down to our way of seeing. The majority is always wrong...and it needs to be this way to test those who are called into the life of Christ. ALL who live godly, and agree with the Lord's way WILL be rejected. Nothing can change that reality. Arguing against the messenger of this truth is pointless and counter-productive. All one needs to do is to read the Bible non-selectively to get the same overview.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
If that is your motive, I applaud you. Unfortunately, the way you judge Christian theologians and the mass of Christianity without even knowing most of them tells me you're not accomplishing your goal of either making them aware or winning their souls.
The love of God does make an appeal to those who are lost, but it also treats them as lost, recognizing that many of them "know not what they do." Paul would've won no souls from among the Jews if he just declared them all "devil's children." He only called them that when a specific individual or group demonstrated incorrigibility.
But you seem to treat nearly all of Christianity as devil's children. Who is that going to save? Just referring them to your "spirituality" would turn them off.
But if what you're trying to do is bring them to their senses, I'm all for it. You just need to adjust your methodology, in my opinion.
Perhaps you're stereotyping? There have been reform movements within Christianity all through its history. Often, that's how new denominations started. If they cool off over time, and spiritually die, there is another reform movement coming on line.
This has never been the basis of Christian revival that I know of? I have heard that focus on Paul's theology in Romans has led in a few revivals. Sometimes it is prayer. Or more importantly, it is God's timing. But I don't think it's ever had a thing to do with the theology of the Spirit being a Person.
If anything, the Pentecostal movement, coming on the heals of the Holiness movement, focused on the Spirit as a Person, and became a 3rd force in Christianity in the West, behind Catholicism and Protestantism. But in the Early Church, good Christians on both sides disagreed on the personhood of the Spirit. What mattered more was their belief in a personal relationship with God.
The Apostles' teaching is encoded in the New Testament. If the theology is actually practiced in our lives it will safeguard a constant renewal process. Peripheral matters of difference can't stop us if we're living the life that Christ modelled for us. Thanks for your response.
Last edited:
People tend to judge as they are...not accurately with what is being presented to them. I never said "devil's children." That is the kind of assumed black and white kind of judgment that the majority have accepted in the face of a more nuanced approach that takes into consideration the depth of the truth. The truth is that believers have 3 possible destinies....and none of them have to do with hell fire or being the devil's.
By exaggerating too far any biblical warning is turned into a caricature where a careful study is called for. The words of Jesus and His apostles should be taken seriously.
Among believers there are the few, the saints. But there are also the righteous and the unrighteous to consider. These make up the majority. Not all in the majority are headed for shame and dishonour. Those who maintain humility and the fear of the Lord...God will deal mercifully with. We will reap as we have sown. But those who push out their flesh and rail against the truth in the Body risk being rejected into outer darkness. At that time, there will be tears of regret and anger at having listened to men rather than God. An eternal regret will rest on those who walked in their own understanding rather than humble themselves to receive grace as a child. They will have followed men rather than God. Many will do so. The righteous will have been more careful to not offend God.
God goes easy on the humble but He resists the proud and self-assured. The truth is not understood by the majority, but the Lord is very careful to protect what is humble and open in the inner man.
There will be anger and deep regret that things like what I'm saying were regarded as unimportant and laughable. The reactions they had will come back on them to condemn them. So then the unrighteous will bear their responsibility at having resisted the truth.
Last edited:
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
You seem to lack submissiveness, which should be a Christian trait. I like that you've learned how to read Hebrew, and that you question things. But questioning translations that are time-tested is a bit much for me. I'm supposed to listen to *you?*
I will give you my brother's response to this. I sent him your post, and asked him for a response. He didn't know I'd be posting this to you, so he isn't trying to be polite to you--he doesn't even know you're reading this. So don't take offence--he's just trying to help me. But I want you to know how he looks at it.
beginning of quotation:
I’m puzzled by some of what he wrote. Is he claiming that the Hebrew translated “Everlasting Father” in the NIV, ESV, NET, etc. should be translated “a witness of My Father”?
I find several problems with that. First, if it is an example of his Hebrew translation skills, I would listen no further. That is not what the Hebrew says.
If he wishes instead of translating the phrase to express some meaning implied by the text in its larger context, he simply fails to support it as the previous writer requested. That doesn’t mean he is wrong, but it is disappointing, and I personally would listen no further.
Lastly, he claims that the Hebrew transliterated as “avi” must be translated “my father.” I think that is a case of knowing just enough Hebrew to be dangerous. (I fear that I may fall into that category at times. Even my seminary professors who were Hebrew scholars and linguists said that they generally [and humbly] deferred to the best translations, especially where they agree, rather than assume they knew better because they had studied the language for many years.) The reason I say that is that I was taught that avi means my father in first-year Hebrew, but language “rules” often have exceptions that one doesn’t learn until later.
Consider for example that upon reading the introduction to “av” in BDB, the best Hebrew-English lexicon that I have, the word “avi” is found in Genesis 4:20-21, where “my father” does not and cannot translate avi. Why is avi used in the Hebrew here and not in other similar constructions? I don’t know, though it may be due to some Hebrew morphology related to a genitival (possessive) or construct usage in these verses.
In the Isaiah passage, avi is connected to a word that I understand may be used as a noun or even a preposition. This expression does not occur elsewhere to my knowledge, preventing the kinds of comparisons we depend upon to better understand the nuances of morphological “rules”. One question I have is, “Could this be understood as meaning ‘father possessing eternity [as an attribute]’?” Of course, no one would translate it that way, but it could be a way of expressing possession, if that was a legitimate nuance here. I’m not at all claiming that, but it is a question I would ask my professors.
The person in question seems more intent on telling than on asking questions or even listening to the question others ask of him. (He doesn’t. He only insists on an expertise we apparently must accept because he says it.) Again, this is not someone I would choose to listen to.
Nicely written. Thank you for the time you have taken. This subject is not that important to argue over since there is no other similar name to compare it to in the Bible. HOWEVER, "Everlasting Father" is definitely not in the text. A name is a composite of ideas in one word....like Daniel (God is judge) or Bethel (house of God), These are names not meant to represent an actual message from God.
The same goes for avied (or aviad). it is a name not a statement.
Everlasting Father as an actual statement would be written with 2 words...like AV OLAM. Just like IMANOU EL. God with us. 2 words are being used to make a statement not just give a name to something. Immanuel is NOT a name...it is a statement. Or Sar Shalom (Prince of peace). Again a statement not a name.
So the translations take a name and make it a statement with 2 words. Then it takes a statement with 2 words and makes it a name. Such confusion.
These things are so basic that one does not need a degree to understand them.
Maran atha! (2 words BTW)
Last edited:
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Nicely written. Thank you for the time you have taken. This subject is not that important to argue over since there is no other similar name to compare it to in the Bible. HOWEVER, "Everlasting Father" is definitely not in the text. A name is a composite of ideas in one word....like Daniel (God is judge) or Bethel (house of God), These are names not meant to represent an actual message from God.
The same goes for avied (or aviad). it is a name not a statement.
Everlasting Father as an actual statement would be written with 2 words...like AV OLAM. Just like IMANOU EL. God with us. 2 words are being used to make a statement not just give a name to something. Immanuel is NOT a name...it is a statement. Or Sar Shalom (Prince of peace). Again a statement not a name.
So the translations take a name and make it a statement with 2 words. Then it takes a statement with 2 words and makes it a name. Such confusion.
These things are so basic that one does not need a degree to understand them.
Maran atha! (2 words BTW)
I'm happy you didn't take offence at my brother's counsel that I not listen to you!
I do understand your point about 2 words being a statement and 1 word being a name. And I just can't argue with any degree of expertise. But my gut feeling is that this very text is giving names to Messiah, which means it is the context that determines whether 2 words can give a name or not. Perhaps the name itself is making a statement? Any thoughts on that?
I'm happy you didn't take offence at my brother's counsel that I not listen to you!
But my gut feeling is that this very text is giving names to Messiah, which means it is the context that determines whether 2 words can give a name or not. Perhaps the name itself is making a statement? Any thoughts on that?
I'm not one to take offense from a fellow human.
The reason i piped in about the Is. 9 list of Jesus' qualities is that I am sensitive to how Jesus is portrayed to the Jews. Already they see us as being very pagan influenced. And they do have a point there. What I have found in the Scriptures is the depth of meanings given to the same word. All options are valid. With God it is not an either-or....but a both-and at work.
Jesus is the Sar Shalom...the Prince of Peace. He is the El Gibor...the mighty God. (Notice the singular showing Him as a Person separate from the Father). I can't express how wrong it is to confuse Jesus with His Father...or the "Everlasting Father" based on a one word name.
Jesus is not the Father, He is the Son. it just so happens the name (one word) aviad or avied (my preferred rendering) is being treated as if it was more than just a name...but a descriptive of Jesus. This is a capital mistake in my view.
An example is the word Bethel (house of God). It is a name not a statement. If we went to Bethel would we find God's actual residence? Of course not. It is a honourific name that is not trying to make a statement by the combination of words in the name.
The same goes for avied. However, there is a message in the name. I maintain that Jesus bore witness of His Father on earth. Does your brother believe that Jesus came to bear witness of His Father? If not then there is another agenda at work...that he may deny the plain meaning of a word since it doesn't line up with his prearranged way of thinking. If somebody thinks I'm off about this witness...then I question both their reading skills...but more importantly any kind of spiritual discernment.
Peace
PS. I could care less if someone thinks what I'm speaking is true or not. Consider the contradiction of humans who sin by nature.
only the words of the Lord have any value.
Last edited:
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I'm not one to take offense from a fellow human.
The reason i piped in about the Is. 9 list of Jesus' qualities is that I am sensitive to how Jesus is portrayed to the Jews. Already they see us as being very pagan influenced. And they do have a point there. What I have found in the Scriptures is the depth of meanings given to the same word. All options are valid. With God it is not an either-or....but a both-and at work.
Jesus is the Sar Shalom...the Prince of Peace. He is the El Gibor...the mighty God. (Notice the singular showing Him as a Person separate from the Father). I can't express how wrong it is to confuse Jesus with His Father...or the "Everlasting Father" based on a one word name.
Jesus is not the Father, He is the Son. it just so happens the name (one word) aviad or avied (my preferred rendering) is being treated as if it was more than just a name...but a descriptive of Jesus. This is a capital mistake in my view.
An example is the word Bethel (house of God). It is a name not a statement. If we went to Bethel would we find God's actual residence? Of course not. It is a honourific name that is not trying to make a statement by the combination of words in the name.
The same goes for avied. However, there is a message in the name. I maintain that Jesus bore witness of His Father on earth. Does your brother believe that Jesus came to bear witness of His Father? If not then there is another agenda at work...that he may deny the plain meaning of a word since it doesn't line up with his prearranged way of thinking. If somebody thinks I'm off about this witness...then I question both their reading skills...but more importantly any kind of spiritual discernment.
Peace
PS. I could care less if someone thinks what I'm speaking is true or not. Consider the contradiction of humans who sin by nature.
only the words of the Lord have any value.
I got into a modalist Christian cult for a short times many years ago. At that point I began to study the Trinity. And I do have my own unique way of expressing the Trinity. Some have accused me of heresy, but I think I'm perfectly orthodox in my beliefs even if some of my descriptions align with a kind of subordinationism.
I don't find the Messianic name suggesting the Father is Eternal, or "Everlasting Father," is remotely suggestive of the Son being the NT Father. "Father" in the Trinity describes a necessary relationship with the Son, and as such, prevents exact correspondence.
The term only indicates that the Son is God, singular, and that his relationship with God emerges from the same divine identity and substance. The "Father," in the OT, is different from the "Father" in the NT, where it is used to convey relationship between God and the incarnation of His Word in human form.
That being said, I can see why you would be concerned how the Jews might perceive this theological construct, because it seems a built-in contradiction. But it is the product of an infinite Being. And it is understood quite simply as the divine Personality revealing Himself in finite form as a human being. This is not something man could do or fully comprehend. But we can certainly fathom how an infinite God could and did do this.
My brother is very non-theological when he is in "language mode," which is where he is most of the time. He just cares to know the rules of translation and what is actually there--not what somebody's opinion or doctrine is. Thanks for the response.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
Is. 9:6
All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father."
But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) The titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.
....
And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.
Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.
For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King." Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King." Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.
I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.”
Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name 'Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e., `[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.
But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.
Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.”
And John Gill wrote:
“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”
Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as:
"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.
‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, ‘Wonderful, Counselor [IS] The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.’ The two letter word ‘is,’ is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, the ‘is’ is understood.” - https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2016/04/prophecy-about-jesus-mighty-god.html
The Leeser Bible also translates it:
“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”
Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."
From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:
".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"
And,
‘Wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace’ (Hertz 1968).
Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."
And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:
[1]"The Mighty God is planning grace;
[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."
This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means [1]"quick to the plunder; [2] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [1]"For unto us a child is born; [2] unto us a son is given." It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.
So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.
All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father."
But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) The titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.
....
And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.
Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.
For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King." Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King." Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.
I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.”
Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name 'Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e., `[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.
But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.
Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.”
And John Gill wrote:
“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”
Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as:
"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.
‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, ‘Wonderful, Counselor [IS] The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.’ The two letter word ‘is,’ is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, the ‘is’ is understood.” - https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2016/04/prophecy-about-jesus-mighty-god.html
The Leeser Bible also translates it:
“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”
Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."
From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:
".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"
And,
‘Wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace’ (Hertz 1968).
Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."
And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:
[1]"The Mighty God is planning grace;
[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."
This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means [1]"quick to the plunder; [2] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [1]"For unto us a child is born; [2] unto us a son is given." It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.
So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I don't think so. Trinitarian scholars may have issues of translation, but certainly not in attaching the Deity to Jesus. These names, in context, apply divine names to Jesus. The names themselves indicate divine attributes, and they are being applied, as names, to Jesus, the Messiah.
Sometimes the combination of words are all that is necessary to make the point, because the context applies the meaning. If God King in context applies a name to someone, the context itself excludes any statement about God's attributes alone. And it necessarily applies a semblance of those attributes to the person so being named.
If, for example, I named you Hercules, I might be attributing to you some great physical strength you may have. But it certainly doesn't make you Hercules himself.
On the other hand, these names appear to be attributing names to Jesus in a way that makes him equal with Deity. And that's how Trinitarians would view it.
Christ is not just sharing a less than divine attribute of God, but he is sharing God-hood itself. As Son, he is reduced to a finite form, and can only manifest Deity in a lesser form. But he is still projecting Deity.
