What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- 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
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Acts16:30-34 I trust scripture. Not someone's flawed interpretation Notice It's Jesus in 31 and God in 34. Tituss 2:13
Last edited:
I posted Strong’s because it provides numerous meanings for the Hebrew phrase el gibbor. That’s the point. Lots of people are called el gibbor in scripture. The translators don’t render it “mighty God” when scripture is speaking of them.
Should we be surprised that the vast majority of trinitarian translators chose to render the phrase as they do in their translations of Isaiah 9:6?
We’re reading a trinitarian interpretation / understanding of what Isaiah - a Jew, not a trinitarian - wrote.
We’ll have a difficult time locating trinitarian translations of Isaiah 9:6 which don’t translate it as the vast majority of trinitarian translations do. The Moffatt translation is one that does. We’ll find it in trinitarian scholarship (ex. TDNT in post #2623), but seldom in trinitarian translations of the Bible.
The NET translators chose to render Isaiah 9:6 as nearly all trinitarian Bible translations do, but the trinitarian commentary in NET provides balance. As I’ve already noted, my position is represented there.
Isaiah 9:6 is a passage which NET didn’t opt for my position. Psalm 110:1:is a passage which NET does opt for my position. Once again, the trinitarian commentary in NET on Psalm 110:1 provides balance. As I said when we discussed Psalm 110:1, your position is represented there.
I opened the Bible (NASB) I’m reading at random to a page in one of the four Gospels. The page I selected “blindly” contains passages from the Gospel of Mark. On the page I looked to see if there was a conversation recorded between Jesus and unbelieving Jews. There was. Here it is.
“They came again to Jerusalem. And as He was walking in the temple, the chief priests and the scribes and the elders came to Him, and began saying to Him, ‘By what authority are You doing these things, or who gave You this authority to do these things?’ And Jesus said to them, ‘I will ask you one question, and you answer Me, and then I will tell you by what authority I do these things.’”
(Mark 11:27-29)
Bold is mine.
Biased or unbiased? Do readers really think “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders” thought of Jesus as “Him” and addressed Jesus as “You”? I wouldn’t doubt it that some do but I hope that most wouldn’t.
What about Jesus? Any translator bias detected in capitalizing the word “Me” in his reply?
Let’s compare it with another trinitarian translation, the New American Bible, Revised Edition. (I selected this translation intentionally. Any and all translations could be used for purposes of comparison.)
“They returned once more to Jerusalem. As he was walking in the temple area, the chief priests, the scribes and the elders approached him and said to him, ‘By what authority are you doing these things? Or who gave you authority to do them?’ Jesus replied, ‘Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.’”
Biased or unbiased? (I selected this particular translation because I knew ahead of time that it was unbiased in its rendering of the conversation.)
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Greek manuscripts that justifies capitalizing the pronouns. The choice to do so was made by the trinitarian translators of NASB, based solely on their own theological belief.
Were the translators of NABRE also trinitarian? Yes, they were. It’s a Roman Catholic translation. Well, don’t the trinitarian translators of NABRE believe the same thing that the trinitarian translators of NASB believe? Yes, they do. The difference is that the trinitarian translators of NABRE refrained from imposing their belief on the reader.
We read translator bias all the time and seldom even give it a second thought.
“They came again to Jerusalem. And as He was walking in the temple, the chief priests and the scribes and the elders came to Him, and began saying to Him, ‘By what authority are You doing these things, or who gave You this authority to do these things?’ And Jesus said to them, ‘I will ask you one question, and you answer Me, and then I will tell you by what authority I do these things.’”
(Mark 11:27-29)
Bold is mine.
Biased or unbiased? Do readers really think “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders” thought of Jesus as “Him” and addressed Jesus as “You”? I wouldn’t doubt it that some do but I hope that most wouldn’t.
What about Jesus? Any translator bias detected in capitalizing the word “Me” in his reply?
Let’s compare it with another trinitarian translation, the New American Bible, Revised Edition. (I selected this translation intentionally. Any and all translations could be used for purposes of comparison.)
“They returned once more to Jerusalem. As he was walking in the temple area, the chief priests, the scribes and the elders approached him and said to him, ‘By what authority are you doing these things? Or who gave you authority to do them?’ Jesus replied, ‘Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.’”
Biased or unbiased? (I selected this particular translation because I knew ahead of time that it was unbiased in its rendering of the conversation.)
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Greek manuscripts that justifies capitalizing the pronouns. The choice to do so was made by the trinitarian translators of NASB, based solely on their own theological belief.
Were the translators of NABRE also trinitarian? Yes, they were. It’s a Roman Catholic translation. Well, don’t the trinitarian translators of NABRE believe the same thing that the trinitarian translators of NASB believe? Yes, they do. The difference is that the trinitarian translators of NABRE refrained from imposing their belief on the reader.
We read translator bias all the time and seldom even give it a second thought.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Are you sure modern Bible translators are Trinitarian? Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2) Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (2/2)
RLT63
Well-Known Member
You say The Father didn't raise Jesus from the dead then say scripture says God the Father over and over. Which is it?
I’m sure trinitarian translations, ancient and modern, are produced by trinitarians.
The point of the exercise is that translator bias is more common than most people think. The example I used with the passage from Mark is of one type of bias.
When the passage is read, this bias is seen by the eye. When the passage is read aloud, this bias isn’t heard by the ear.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
I think you based your opinion on research and didn't reject it offhand like some other people on the forum
RLT63
Well-Known Member
RLT63
Well-Known Member
I don’t reject it at all. It’s a valid translation decision. I embrace it. My only issue with it is that it has the potential to mislead readers.
When you read “mighty God” (Heb. el gibbor) in Isaiah 9:6 doesn’t it scream to you “the deity of Christ!”?
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Some Unitarians believe that Jesus is a lesser God than the Father but still a god. I do see this verse as affirming the deity of Christ
Does “mighty hero” (el gibbor) scream “the deity of Christ!” to a trinitarian audience? I doubt it.
We read about el gibbor in many passages of the OT, and most people never realize it. For example, David’s men of valor are each, individually, el gibbor; collectively, as a group, they are el gibborim. No one in their right mind would ever say that it screams “the deity of David’s leadership team!” to them.
We read about el gibbor in many passages of the OT, and most people never realize it. For example, David’s men of valor are each, individually, el gibbor; collectively, as a group, they are el gibborim. No one in their right mind would ever say that it screams “the deity of David’s leadership team!” to them.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
I am thinking of buying the NET Bible full notes edition. Before I do is there a version online that has access to the notes?
That’s not surprising, but it is inconsistent and incompatible with Jewish monotheism.
I’ve been very hard on the trinitarian clergy. I tend to paint them with a broad brush.
I have Martin Luther warming up in the bullpen. I’m trying to decide whether to give it to you straight or give it to you with a sympathetic nod to some in the trinitarian clergy. (I’m leaning toward the latter.)
RLT63
Well-Known Member
There is. You can read the second version with full notes online at no cost. Here’s the link:
Genesis 1
netbible.org
Last edited:
RLT63
Well-Known Member
- Status
Similar threads
