- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
04 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIsaiah 9:6
What about this one:
Isaiah 9:6 KJV
6] 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, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
“And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace….” (NIV)
1. Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Father.” It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed). Thus, if this verse is translated properly, then Trinitarian Christians have a real problem. However, the phrase is mistranslated. The word translated “everlasting” is actually “age,” and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called “father of the [coming] age.”
In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was very important to something was called its “father.” For example, because Jabal was the first one to live in a tent and raise livestock, the Bible says, “he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock” (Gen. 4:20). Furthermore, because Jubal was the first inventor of musical instruments, he is called, “the father of all who play the harp and flute” (Gen. 4:21). Scripture is not using “father” in the sense of literal father or ancestor in these verses, because both these men were descendants of Cain, and all their descendants died in the Flood. “Father” was being used in the cultural understanding of either one who was the first to do something or someone who was important in some way. Because the Messiah will be the one to establish the age to come, raise the dead into it, and rule over it, he is called “the father of the coming age.”
2. The phrase “Mighty God” can also be better translated. Although the word “God” in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or understand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god.” Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. A better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles.
3. A clear example that the word translated “God” in Isaiah 9:6 can be used of powerful earthly rulers is Ezekiel 31:11, referring to the Babylonian king. The Trinitarian bias of most translators can be clearly seen by comparing Isaiah 9:6 (el = “God&rdquo😉 with Ezekiel 31:11 (el = “ruler&rdquo😉. If calling the Messiah el made him God, then the Babylonian king would be God also. Isaiah is speaking of God’s Messiah and calling him a mighty ruler, which of course he will be.
The phrase translated “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 in the NIV in the Hebrew, el gibbor. That very phrase, in the plural form, is used Ezekiel 32:21 where dead “heroes” and mighty men are said, by the figure of speech personification, to speak to others. The phrase in Ezekiel is translated “mighty leaders” in the NIV, and “the strong among the mighty” in the KJV and NASB. The Hebrew phrase, when used in the singular, can refer to one “mighty leader” just as when used in the plural it can refer to many “mighty leaders.”
4. The context illuminates great truth about the verse, and also shows that there is no justification for believing that it refers to the Trinity, but rather to God’s appointed ruler. The opening verse of the chapter foretells a time when “there will be no more gloom for those in distress.” All war and death will cease, and “every warrior’s boot…will be destined for burning” (v. 5). How will this come to pass? The chapter goes on: “for to us a child is born and to us a son is given” (v. 6). There is no hint that this child will be “God,” and reputable Trinitarian scholars will assert that the Jews of the Old Testament knew nothing of an “incarnation.” For them, the Messiah was going to be a man anointed by God. He would start as a child, which of course Yahweh, their eternal God, could never be. And what a great ruler this man would grow to be: “the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Father of the Coming Age, Prince of Peace.” Furthermore, “he will reign on David’s throne (v. 7), which could never be said of God. God could never sit on David’s throne. But God’s Messiah, “the Son of David,” could (Matt. 9:27, et al). Thus, a study of the verse in its context reveals that it does not refer to the Trinity at all, but to the Messiah, the son of David and the Son of God.
Buzzard, pp. 45 and 51
Farley, pp. 47-49
Morgridge, pp. 105 and 106
Snedeker, pp. 397-403
04 Dec 05
Originally posted by checkbaiterRe Exodus 3:14: “I am that I am” is not necessarily a mistranslation. The verb form is imperfect, indicating incomplete action, not necessarily future tense. It could be read, “I am becoming as I am becoming,” or “I continue being as I have been,” or even “I remain as I have been,” since the imperfect in Hebrew can also mean a still-continuing action that has been so in the past—“past continuous,” according to my Hebrew grammar). These are cumbersome translations however. Scholars are divided. Martin Buber argued strongly for “I will be as I will be.” This goes to a saying I have about translations (using this passage as an example): eheyeh asher eheyeh means eheyeh asher eheyeh, with all the depth and range of the Hebrew that a Hebrew speaker would hear. Any translation places limits on that depth and range, even while being technically accurate.
Isaiah 9:6
“And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace….” (NIV)
1. Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Fath ...[text shortened]... zzard, pp. 45 and 51
Farley, pp. 47-49
Morgridge, pp. 105 and 106
Snedeker, pp. 397-403
Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god.”
That one’s a new one on me, although I understood that el could refer to a ruler. You might be interested in Geza Vermes’ Jesus the Jew, wherein he devotes a large part of the book to examining such phrases as “son of God” and “son of Man” from a Jewish historical perspective (Vermes is the only modern “Jesus scholar” that I know of who is a Jew: he is also an Oxford scholar and expert on the Dead Sea scrolls).
04 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoei stand corrected on the candy issue sir
What about this one:
Isaiah 9:6 KJV
6] 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, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
thank you
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
04 Dec 05
Originally posted by vistesdI don't know the verses off hand, but I seem to remember woman refering to their husbands as "god" or Lord. I should look this up.
Re Exodus 3:14: “I am that I am” is not necessarily a mistranslation. The verb form is imperfect, indicating incomplete action, not necessarily future tense. It could be read, “I am becoming as I am becoming,” or “I continue being as I have been,” or even “I remain as I have been,” since the imperfect in Hebrew can also mean a still-continuing ac ...[text shortened]... that I know of who is a Jew: he is also an Oxford scholar and expert on the Dead Sea scrolls).
04 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo. When you troll, it is because you want to belittle and harrass other
It boils down to this: My trolling is trolling, your trolling isn't trolling.
Ha ha ha ...... 😀 😵 😀
members (usually the so-called WolfPack) for a debating approach which
you don't like.
My comment is none of that.
Nemesio
04 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio, you're a master in boomeranging ..... I am the one harrassing and belittling other members .... it is a good thing you add that these members are usually members of the so-called Wolfpack.
No. When you troll, it is because you want to belittle and harrass other
members (usually the so-called WolfPack) for a debating approach which
you don't like.
My comment is none of that.
Nemesio
Nemesio's shadow: "Please Ivanhoe, don't harras the Wolfpack-members when they are insulting, degrading and harrassing other RHP members, otherwise we will accuse you of becoming personal (No1marauder) or otherwise we will accuse you of harrassing others (Nemesio) or we will try and fabricate some other accusation against you ......
My comment is none of that.
Nemesio
Of course not. Trolling is trolling in the way you, Nemesio, define it ... of course it is.