What's in a name?VI

Find article here.



The more diligent in prayer are wont to subjoin in their prayers the `Hallelujah,' and such kind of psalms, in the closes of which the company respond. And, of course, every institution is excellent which, for the extolling and honoring of God, aims unitedly to bring Him enriched prayer" - Tertullian (3rd cent. A.D.), ch. 27, `On Prayer,' The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, Eerdmans Publ., 1993 printing.

"And afterwards the deacon holding the mingled cup of the oblation shall say the Psalm from those in which is written `Hallelujah' [in the Septuagint].... And afterwards the bishop having offered the cup as is proper for the cup, he shall say the Psalm `Hallelujah.' And all of them as he recites the Psalms shall say `Hallelujah,' which is to say: We praise Him who is God most high" - Hippolytus (c. 160-235 A.D.), `The Apostolic Tradition,' 26:29-30 as quoted from The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Alban Press, London, 1992 ed.

...........................................................................

NOTES

1. The word used in the Hebrew is shav or, more accurately, shawa' (!&X) which is rendered in the NASB as vain, deceit, deceitful, deception, false, falsehood, lies, etc. - p. 1602, New American Standard Exhaustive Concordamce of the Bible, #7723, Holman Publ., 1981.

------------------------------------------------------------------

A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament - shawa' : "…. misuse a name Ex. 20:7" - p. 360, Eerdmans, 1981.

"shawa' `deceit; deception; malice; falsity; vanity; emptiness.' The 53 occurrences of shawa' are primarily in poetry.

"The basic meaning of this word is `deceit' or `deception,' `malice,' and `falsehood.' This meaning emerges when shawa' is used in a legal context [e.g.]: `Put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous [`deceitful'] witness' (Exod. 23:1).^* Used in cultic contexts, the word bears these same overtones [deceit, falsehood] but may be rendered variously. For example, in Ps. 31:6 the word may be rendered `vain' (KJV, `lying'), in the sense of `deceitful' (Cf. Ezek. 12:24). Eliphaz described the ungodly as those who trust in `emptiness' or `deception,' though they gain nothing but emptiness as a reward for that trust (Job 15:31)." - p. 91, Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1980.

_________

^* Ex. 23:1 - shawa' is rendered as `false' or `lying' in this scripture in most Bibles. Here is the full rendering as found in NRSV: "You shall not spread a false [shawa'] report. You shall not join hands with the wicked to act as a malicious witness." If the meaning is `deceit' or `deception' or `falsehood' when used in a legal context, as here, it should also be understood in this way at Ex. 20:7 (`malice' does not fit the context of this verse), which is the ultimate in legal contexts! It should, therefore, probably be rendered something like: "You must not deceitfully misuse the name of Jehovah." It is even possible, since the word nasa may be translated as `take away' (among many other meanings), that it could be rendered: "You must not, by deceit, take away the name of Jehovah."

^{--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------}

"Deceit. - The misleading of another by word or deed, in which it is equivalent to falsehood (Pr 14²⁵, Hos 12⁷) .... It is so characteristic an element of evil that it is frequently used in Scripture as synonymous with it (Ps 119¹¹⁸, Jer 7⁵)." - p. 583, Vol.1, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Greek word used at Ex. 20:7 to render the Hebrew shawa' in the ancient Greek Septuagint is mataios (mataioV).

"mataios means `worthless because deceptive or ineffectual.' .... It may be pointed out that ... `taking in vain' [mataios, mataioV] is a phrase for [deceitful or lying] misuse of the name of God in Ex. 20:7." - pp. 571, 572, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ["Little Kittel"], Eerdmans Publ., 1985.

"The [Greek Septuagint] used mataios ... to translate various Hebrew words .... [including shawa'] .... These words all denote the various ways in which man can resist the reality of God in His revelation and claims on him." - p. 550, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, Zondervan, 1986.

What else could you call the deceitful misuse of God's name by most trinitarian Bible translators (and trinitarian "scholars" and preachers who defend it)? What else could you call the conscious, deliberate removal of God's only personal name in nearly 7000 places where it was originally written in the inspired scriptures and the conscious, deliberate replacement of that God-given name with an entirely different word (usually LORD) in most trinitarian Bibles? What could more clearly be called the "misuse" of God's Name? What could be more appropriate than calling it shawa' or mataios (`deceitful,' `lying')?

The very trinitarian Zondervan Publishing House has published a book by trinitarian scholars Dr. Sakae Kubo and Prof. Walter Specht entitled So Many Versions? It is an examination and critique of the most popular Bible translations of the 20th century. In the chapter devoted to the New King James Version this book says concerning a spurious verse added to 1 John 5 by later copyists:

"The brochure advertising this revision [the NKJV] gives as the purpose of the project "to preserve and improve the purity of the King James Version." To improve the purity would surely include the removal from the text of any scribal additions that were not a part of the autographs [original writing]. No devout reader of the Bible wants any portion of the sacred text as penned by the original authors removed. But neither should he want later additions, in which some passages have crept into the text, published as part of the Word of God." - p. 294, So Many Versions?, Zondervan Publ., 1983 ed.

And yet, in the most blatant and God-defying act of this kind, these two scholars (and most other scholars, priests, preachers, and teachers of trinitarian Christendom) condone the removal of God's only personal name from the original inspired scriptures and its deceitful replacement with an entirely different word and its entirely different meaning!

Yes, even one of the Ten Commandments itself clearly points out one of the major deceptions of most of the trinitarian churches and sects in modern Christendom and condemns it most strongly!

2. Not only is "Jehovah" more used today than "Yahweh," but it is still the preferred usage at some of the highest levels in the U.S. today.

On October 11, 2001, in a nationwide televised memorial to those slain at the Pentagon in the aircraft terrorism disaster, the Chief Chaplain of the U.S. Armed Forces gave the opening prayer. Assembled there were the families of the victims, members of Congress, ex-President Clinton, members of the Cabinet, and President George W. Bush. The Chaplain opened by praying to the Creator God and identified Him by name as "Jehovah"!

Then, after Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld spoke, and before the President was to speak, the Band played "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" which repeatedly has the refrain "Glory, Glory Hallelujah." `Hallelujah,' of course, means literally "Praise Jah" ("Praise Jehovah")!

3. "Notice this comment by Robert Hanhart, who contributed the Introduction to `The Septuagint as Christian Scripture.' He stated therein that, `All Greek biblical texts of Jewish origin found to date, whether from pre-Christian or Christian times, transmit the name ['Jehovah'] not in the form ['Lord'] encountered in all the LXX [Septuagint] manuscripts of Christian origin, but in some form of the Tetragrammaton.' (See: `The Septuagint as Christian Scripture,' 2002, book, p.7, by Martin Hengel. Introduction by Robert Hanhart, published by Baker Academic. ISBN 0-8010-2790-X)." - http://www.2001translation.com/Jehovah.htm [2001 Translation – An American English Bible] – Emphasis added.

What's in a name?VII

 

Find article here.

 

 

 

 

4. There is strong evidence that Matthew (and possibly other NT writers) wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic). If this is so, the inspired Bible writer would surely have used the personal name of God! The Hebrew manuscripts at that time (and for many hundreds of years thereafter) contained the Name nearly 7000 times. Whenever Matthew (and the Hebrew-speaking Jesus and his Apostles) quoted from the Hebrew scriptures, he would have used the Name just as it is found in the Hebrew scriptures.

The WT Society also believes Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic):

"In the fourth century, Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate, reported: `Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language.... Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea.' Since Matthew wrote in Hebrew, it is inconceivable that he did not use God's name, especially when quoting from parts of the `Old Testament' that contained the name." - p. 24, The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, WTBTS, 1984.

Noted trinitarian scholar F. F. Bruce agrees that the Gospel of Matthew (at least) was originally written in Hebrew (Aramaic) and cites another source as evidence:

"Aramaic is known to have been the common language of Palestine, and especially of Galilee, in the time of Christ, and was in all probability the language which He and his Apostles habitually spoke. The New Testament writers usually call it `Hebrew,' thus not distinguishing between it and its sister language in which most of the Old Testament was written. Now, we have evidence of an early Aramaic document in another fragment of Papias [c. 60-130 A. D.]: `Matthew compiled the Logia [literally, "the collection" - Thayer] in the `Hebrew' speech [i.e. Aramaic], and everyone translated them [into Greek] as best he could.' " - p. 38, The New Testament Documents, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 printing.

So, whether originally written in Greek or "Hebrew," the writings of the New Testament should have used the Name of God, especially in quotes from the Old Testament.

And when we restore the name of God to the NT, we eliminate the confusing contradiction of Matt. 22:43-45 and its parallels (Mk 12:36-37; Lk. 20:42-44) where Jesus quoted Ps. 110:1.

"How does David in the Spirit call him `Lord,' [kurios] saying, `The Lord [kurios] said to my Lord [kurios], "sit at my right hand, until I put thine enemies beneath thy feet." ' If David then calls him `Lord,' [kurios] how is he his son?" - Matt. 22:43-45, NASB.

Literally this says in the NT Greek:

"How therefore David in spirit is calling him Lord [kurios] saying Said `Lord [kurios] to the Lord [kurios] of me Be sitting out of right hand of me until likely I should put the enemies of you beneath the feet of you'? If therefore David is calling him Lord [kurios], how son of him is he?"- The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, WTB&TS, 1985.

First, of course, it doesn't say "The Lord said..."; it actually says "Lord said..." because the original was "Jehovah" (without "the," of course) and "Lord" was substituted for this name later (still without "the").

Second, in this version there are two uses of "Lord" [kurios], but Jesus speaks as though there is only one (because there really was only one "Lord" [kurios in the Greek here] at the time he spoke it! The other word that later copyists changed to kurios was originally "Jehovah" as can be seen by actually looking at the OT manuscripts that have the scripture Jesus was quoting!).

Third, not only is it confusing to have two uses of kurios here, but, if we insist on this version, it would be grammatically much more accurate to select the first use of this word (the substitute for "Jehovah") as the one Jesus was referring to. Since he said, "If David calls him `Lord'..." but not "David calls him `the Lord' (or `my Lord')...", it would be proper to say that Jesus was referring to the first `Lord' (which is without the word "the") in that quote from the OT. In reality, of course, he was actually referring to the "second" use of kurios as found in modern texts! All this would be smoothed out if the name were simply restored to the NT where it obviously was originally: "Jehovah said to my Lord" as found in the original Hebrew Old Testament Scripture at Ps. 110:1 which Jesus was quoting - ASV.

"Since confession of Jesus as Lord was the mark of the Christian and since for Christians there was no other Lord, it was natural for Paul to speak of `the Lord' when he wished to refer to Jesus. It is true that the same title was used to refer to God the Father, and that this can lead to a certain ambiguity as to whether God or Jesus is meant (this is especially the case in Acts; ...); generally, however, `Lord' is used for God by Paul almost exclusively in quotations from the OT" - p. 590, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publ., 1982.

Again, if the name of God were restored, there would not be so much "ambiguity" because these uses of `Lord' in quotations from the OT were originally `Jehovah' and hence there was no ambiguity or risk of confusion at all until later copyists changed that divine name in the NT manuscripts to kurios!

5. Of course Jesus used the name "Jehovah" in such places. He was a speaker of Hebrew who was quoting (or reading) scripture to other speakers of Hebrew. Of course he would use the Hebrew scriptures rather than the Greek Septuagint scriptures when quoting to these people. It would have been ludicrous for Jesus to have quoted from the Septuagint to these people when most of them would not have understood the Greek language of the Septuagint in the first place.

The native-born Jews in Israel spoke, of course, Hebrew. The Roman conquerors and administrators of the Empire spoke Latin. And the many businessmen and commercial travelers who visited and resided in Israel understood, in addition to their own languages, the common language of commerce in the Mediterranean world: Greek.

Of course there were some Jews who could speak Latin and/or Greek. There were some Romans who could speak Greek (and probably even a very few who could speak Hebrew also). And there were undoubtedly some foreigners there who could speak Latin (and probably a very few who could speak Hebrew also). But, by and large, if you wished to communicate with the majority of the Jews, you would have to do it in Hebrew (or the closely-related Aramaic). And if you wished to communicate with the Romans, you would have to do it in Latin, and so on.

So when Jesus was teaching the Jews from the holy scriptures, he was doing so in Hebrew.

If we should doubt such an obvious conclusion that the majority of Jews did not understand Greek (and therefore Jesus would not have taught them by quoting or reading from the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint), we only need to look at John 19:19, 20.

"And Pilate wrote an inscription also .... Therefore this inscription many of the Jews read, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and in Greek." - NASB

Obviously the Latin was so the Romans could read the information about Jesus, and the Greek was so the foreign merchants and travelers could read about Jesus. But Pilate certainly would not have gone to the trouble of writing 1/3 of the sign in Hebrew if most of the Jews could already read one of the other two languages on that sign! It is obvious from this passage alone that many of them could not understand Greek and needed to read Hebrew to understand what Pilate wanted them to know!

Therefore, Jesus must have quoted from the Hebrew Bible when reading to the Jews. And the Hebrew Bible which he quoted at

Mt 21:42 actually says: "This is Jehovah's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes" (Ps. 118:23)

Mt 22:37 - "And you shall love Jehovah your God with all your heart..." (Deut. 6:5)

Mt 22:44 - "Jehovah said to my Lord: `Sit at my right hand...'" (Ps. 110:1)

Jn 12:38 - "... to whom has the arm of Jehovah been revealed?" (Is. 53:1)

6.

"Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Meir [`Second century rabbi who prepared a systematic edition of traditional Jewish law and doctrine, which paved the way for the final edition of the Mishnah' - p. 479, An Encyclopedia of Religion] are said to have made unfriendly puns on the word Euangelion [`the Greek word for "Gospel"' - p. 102] by altering its vowels to make it read 'Awen-gillayon or `Awon-gillayon, meaning [in Hebrew/Aramaic] something like `Iniquity of the Margin' ...." - p. 102, The New Testament Documents - Are they Reliable?, F. F. Bruce, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 printing.

So the word `margin' (gillayon) was used in a derogatory way for a Gospel ("most probably ... the Gospel according to Matthew" as first written in Hebrew or Aramaic - p. 102) of the Christians by these two very early Rabbis.

And when this word is made plural (`margins') it becomes gillayonim (or gilyohnim). Therefore, it is probable that this word was used derogatorily to denote copies of a Christian Gospel written in Hebrew (or Aramaic).

7. "From the middle of the 2^nd century AD [around 150 AD] Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms [instead of the original traditional Jewish terms]" – The New Encyclopaedia Britannica.

8. We can see that the source of Halleluia in existing copies of the Septuagint is really two words in the original Hebrew. For example the Hahlayloo Yah of Psalm 146:1 is obviously two separate Hebrew words: Hahlayloo [`praise ye'] and Yah [`Jehovah']. And yet, our oldest existing copies of the ancient Septuagint show these two words combined into one `new' word in Greek: Halleluia. And the same Greek word, Halleluia [ JAllhlouia], which was found in the earliest copies of John's Revelation, was likewise treated by copyists of the 2nd century. Whether John himself had combined the two words into one for the benefit of those Hellenic Jews to whom he wrote (who were familiar with the term as it was found in the Septuagint) or whether early copyists had done it to conform with the Septuagint is not the point here.

9. And, of course, it was passed along from its Septuagint use to other early Christian writings:

"The more diligent in prayer are wont to subjoin in their prayers the `Hallelujah,' and such kind of psalms, in the closes of which the company respond. And, of course, every institution is excellent which, for the extolling and honoring of God, aims unitedly to bring Him enriched prayer as a choice victim." - Tertullian (3rd cent. A.D.), ch. 27, `On Prayer,' The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, Eerdmans Publ., 1993 printing.

"And afterwards the deacon holding the mingled cup of the oblation shall say the Psalm from those in which is written `Hallelujah' [in the Septuagint].... And afterwards the bishop having offered the cup as is proper for the cup, he shall say the Psalm `Hallelujah.' And all of them as he recites the Psalms shall say `Hallelujah,' which is to say: We praise Him who is God most high" - Hippolytus (c. 160-235 A.D.), `The Apostolic Tradition,' 26:29-30 as quoted from The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Alban Press, London, 1992 ed.

10. Dr. F. F. Bruce correctly points out that, strictly speaking, the LXX deals only with the Law and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, "The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles." (The Books and the Parchments, p.150). This is important to note because the manuscripts which consist of our LXX today date to the third century AD. Although there are fragments which pre-date Christianity and some of the Hebrew DSS agree with the LXX, the majority of manuscripts we have of the LXX date well into the Christian era. And, not all of these agree. - http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/septuag.htm - RDB.

On the supply side:pros and cons.

A giant leap for mankind?:pros and cons.

just a name?

Not so sharp after all.

Find article here.




Sharp's Rule: Primer

In an attempt to prove the trinity doctrine, Granville Sharp made up a rule in 1798. It is often called "Sharp's Rule" by trinitarians. It says, in effect, that when two or more words (nouns) in the original Greek New Testament (NT) text are joined by the word "and," they all refer to the same person if the word "the" (the article) comes before the first noun and not before the other noun(s).

For example, if we saw "the king and _master of the slave" in the Greek text of the Bible, it would always mean, according to Sharp, that only one person was being called both "king" and "master." ("King" and "master" are joined by "and" - - only "king" has the article.)

Sharp invented this rule after he noticed this particular construction (sometimes called a "Sharp's construction") was used with "God" and "Christ" in 5 places in the NT. If he could convince others that his "rule" was true, then they would think there was finally (after 1400 years of a "trinity" tradition) absolute grammatical Bible proof (see WALLACE study paper) that God and Jesus are the same "person"!

The 5 "proofs" of Jesus' Godhood according to Sharp are (in the literal wording of the original manuscripts):

(a) Titus 2:13: "of the great God and savior of us Christ Jesus"

τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ

(b) 2 Pet. 1:1: "righteousness of the God of us and savior Jesus Christ"

δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

(c) 2 Thess. 1:12:"the grace of the God of us and Lord Jesus Christ"

τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

(d) 1 Tim. 5:21: "in sight of the God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels"

ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων

(e) Eph. 5:5: "...in the kingdom of the Christ and God"

ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ

Since the first noun ("God" in the first four scriptures) has the article ("the") with it and the following noun ("savior" in the first two scriptures) does not have the article ("the"), then (according to Sharp) God and Christ (the savior, etc.) are the same person!

There are a number of reasons why Sharp's Rule, as applied to these 5 "proofs," is invalid (See the SHARP study paper). One important strike against it is the fact that even many respected trinitarian NT grammar experts and translators have rejected it as a valid rule - e.g., see G. B. Winer; J. H. Moulton; C. F. D. Moule; Dr. James Moffatt (see Titus 2:13; and 1 Tim. 5:21); Dr. William Barclay (2 Thess. 1:12); and Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (2 Peter 1:1).

In vol. 5, p. 257 the respected The Expositor's Greek Testament says: "In the present case [Jude 1:4], however, the second noun (kupiov [“lord”]) belongs to the class of words which may stand without the article .... A similar doubtful case is found in Tit. ii. 13.... Other examples of the same kind are Eph. v. 5 ... 2 Thess. i: 12 ... 1 Tim. v. 21 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1) ... 2 Peter i. 1."

For example, examine the following trinitarian Bible's renderings of these "Sharp's Constructions":

2 Thess. 1:12 - KJV; KJIIV; NASB; NAB (1970); MLB; LB; GNB; RSV; NRSV; NIV.

Eph. 5:5 - KJV; KJIIV; RSV; NRSV; LB; MLB; NIV; NEB; REB; GNB; TEV; NAB (`70,'91).

2 Tim. 4:1 - most trinitarian Bibles.

1 Tim. 6:13 - all trinitarian Bibles.

These many respected Bibles, translated by expert trinitarian New Testament scholars, clearly disregard Sharp's "Rule" at these (and other) places and show two persons being spoken of!

Notice Eph. 5:5, for example. Most trinitarian Bibles translate this example of Sharp's Construction: "in the kingdom of Christ and of God" - KJV; NRSV; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; NAB; Douay; MLB; LB; GNB; TEV; The Amplified Bible; Third Millenium Bible; New Living Translation; New Century Version; God's Word; Holman Christian Standard Bible; Wesley's New Testament; Phillips; and the Webster Bible. This is not the way it would be translated if the two descriptions were of the same person! (At the very least it would be rendered more literally as "the kingdom of the Christ and God.") Instead it clearly shows two persons!

Even trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris notes, in discussing Eph. 5:5, that “It is highly improbable that Paul would introduce a profound, unqualified doctrinal affirmation (Christ is theos) in an incidental manner [such as here], in a context where the assertion is not crucial to the flow of argument.” - p. 262, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles as: "before (in the sight or presence of) God ... and before Christ Jesus...". Although Sharp's Rule insists that this should be translated to show that it is speaking of the same person, it obviously is not! Most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp's Rule is a valid absolute rule!

Of the many reasons invalidating Sharp's Rule grammatically there are at least two of extreme importance - each of which is conclusive by itself.

(1) Prepositional Constructions (with phrases containing prepositions: "of God;" "in the Lord;" "God of...;" etc.) are known by NT grammarians to cause uncertainty of article usage. That is, if a prepositional phrase (including genitives) is attached to a word, that word may sometimes have the article ("the") and sometimes not have it -- without changing the intended meaning! (See A. T. Robertson, pp. 780, 790, 791; C. F. D. Moule, p. 117; J. H. Moulton, pp. 175, 179-180; et al.)

This means that the NT writers sometimes wrote, for example, "The God of me" (with article) and "_God of me" (without article) with exactly the same intended meaning. The definite article ("the") was ambiguous in such cases.

Therefore any grammatical rules which depend on the presence or absence of the article in the NT Greek must not use as examples those scriptures which use a 'prepositional' construction attached to a word (noun) in question if they are to be used honestly and properly.

But if you examine the 5 trinitarian "proofs" above, you will see that they all use such prepositional constructions: "of us" in (a) Titus 2:13 and (b) 2 Peter 1:1 is a "prepositional" genitive, and even "savior" itself is a genitive in both scriptures and literally means "of savior;" "Lord" in (c) 2 Thess. 1:12 is a genitive and literally means "of Lord" (as rendered in the Modern Language Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; Douay Version; New American Bible [1970 ed.]; and Barclay's Daily Study Bible); "Christ" in (d)1 Tim. 5:21 is a genitive and literally means "of Christ" (as in the Good News Bible [and TEV]; New American Standard Bible; Modern Language Bible; Revised Standard Version; and New Revised Standard Version); and "God" in (e) Eph. 5:5 is a genitive and literally means "of God" (as in the King James Version; Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; Living Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; Modern Language Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991); Douay Version; New International Version; Good News Bible; and Phillips translation).

Therefore all 5 Sharp's "proofs" are invalid on the basis of prepositional constructions alone!

(2) New Testament scholars, including noted trinitarian NT grammar experts, point out that the use of proper names ("John," "Moses," "Jesus," etc.) also causes uncertain article usage in NT Greek. (A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 791, and Word Pictures, p. 46, Vol. iv; C. F. D. Moule, p. 115; J. H. Moulton [Turner], Vol. 3, pp. 165-167; et. al.)

So not only did the NT Bible writers sometimes use the article and sometimes not use the article with the very same intended meaning with the very same proper name (e.g. "the James" and "James"), but even when a proper name is used as an appositive it also causes irregular article usage with the other associated nouns. - Robertson, pp. 760, 791.

For example, when "Jesus" and "Christ" are in apposition to each other ("Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus"), they are nearly always (96% of the time - see SHARP study paper) written without the definite article in the writings of Paul regardless of "Sharp's rule" or any other grammatical/syntactical consideration!

If we examine the first 4 of the 5 "proofs" above, we see that the proper name "Jesus" is used as an appositive with the word in question in each case! In other words, "Christ Jesus" is the appositive for "savior" in Titus 2:13. This means sometimes "savior" will have "the" with it in such a situation and sometimes it won't (with no change in meaning). "Jesus Christ" is the appositive for "savior" in 2 Peter 1:1, and article usage (or non-usage) with "savior" in the original NT Greek in such circumstances is virtually meaningless. "Jesus Christ" is in apposition to (an appositive for) "Lord" in 2 Thess. 1:12. And "Jesus" is in apposition (at least) to "Christ" in 1 Tim. 5:21. These examples, therefore, are completely invalid as evidence for Jesus being God even if there were actually some validity to Sharp's "Rule" with proper examples! And the 5th example, Eph. 5:5, is incredibly poor in context alone. Even noted trinitarian scholar A.T. Robertson has to admit that the 'evidence' of Eph. 5:5 is doubtful - Word Pictures, Vol. 14, pp. 46 and 543. No objective person could accept it alone as real evidence of Jesus' Godhood!

Some PREPOSITIONAL examples found in NT Greek:

"The God of Abraham and _God of Isaac and _God of Jacob" - Luke 20:37.

"The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" - Matt. 22:32.

"James, _slave of God and _Lord Jesus Christ" - James 1:1

"By command of _God savior of us and _Christ Jesus" - 1 Tim. 1:1.

"I am the root and the offspring of David" - Rev. 22:16.

Some PROPER NAME examples found in NT Greek:

"having seen _Peter and _John" (no articles) - Acts 3:3.

"holding fast ... the Peter and the John" (both articles) - Acts 3:11.

"beholding the outspokenness of the Peter and _John" (Sharp's) - Acts 4:13.

"But the Peter and _John" (Sharp's construction) - Acts 4:19.

So we see the Bible writer who is recognized as the most knowledgeable in NT Greek (Luke) showing the great ambiguity of article usage with proper names. If we did not exclude proper names as valid examples, we would have to agree that either Luke believed Peter and John were the same person or that he was completely unaware of Sharp's Rule (or any first century equivalent)!

* * * * *

So, although we can find such constructions as "the king and master of the slave" where the first noun (with the definite article, `the') is the same person as the second noun (without the definite article), there is no grammatical reason that this must always be so. Such constructions as "the boy and girl" and "the President and Vice President" (found in Amendment XX [as ratified in 1933] of the Constitution of the United States of America), which refer to more than one individual, are just as grammatically correct in both English and NT Greek.

Marx's Musings:pros and cons.

The Watchtower Society's commentary on the book of Ezekiel.

A reproduction of the Watchtower Society's article



EZEKIEL, BOOK OF

 

 

 

This remarkable book bears the name of the prophet who wrote it. Ezekiel the son of Buzi, a priest, may have completed writing the book in Babylonia in about the year 591 B.C.E. It covers a period of approximately 22 years, from 613 to about 591 B.C.E.—Eze 1:1-3; 29:17.

The book of Ezekiel is distinguished by visions, similes, and allegories, or parables, and especially by performance of symbolic actions, as when Ezekiel was told by God to engrave a sketch of Jerusalem on a brick and then to stage a mock siege against it as a sign to Israel. (Eze 4:1-17) Other symbolic actions were the joining of two sticks, representing the two houses of Israel (37:15-23), and Ezekiel’s digging a hole in a wall and going out with his luggage, representing the captivity of Jerusalem. (12:3-13) The illustration of Oholah and Oholibah is one of the vivid allegories of the book. (Eze Chap 23) Another notable feature of the book of Ezekiel is the meticulous care Ezekiel took to date his prophecies, giving not only the year of King Jehoiachin’s exile but also the month and day of the month.—1:1, 2; 29:1; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1; 40:1.

Authenticity. Proof of the book’s authenticity is to be found in the fulfillment of its prophecies. (For examples see AMMONITES; EDOM, EDOMITES; TYRE.) Further attesting to the authenticity of this book is archaeology. The noted American archaeologist W. F. Albright wrote: “Archeological data have . . . demonstrated the substantial originality of the Books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Ezra and Nehemiah, beyond doubt; they have confirmed the traditional picture of events, as well as their order.”—The Bible After Twenty Years of Archeology (1932-1952), 1954, p. 547.

The authenticity of the book of Ezekiel is supported by its harmony with the other books of the Bible. Although it is not quoted or cited directly by any of the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, allusions to some of its statements and similar expressions are, nevertheless, frequent. Ezekiel and Jesus speak of the drying up of a moist tree. (Eze 17:24; Lu 23:31) Ezekiel and Jesus both speak of a judgment of people as sheep and goats. (Eze 34:17; Mt 25:32, 33) The book of Revelation uses many illustrations similar to those in Ezekiel.—Compare Eze 1:28 with Re 4:3; Eze 10:3, 4 with Re 15:8; Eze 12:25 with Re 10:6; Eze 37:10 with Re 11:11.

It is to be noted that among the Chester Beatty Greek Biblical papyri is one codex containing, among other portions of the Bible, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther. These are all found in one codex, probably consisting originally of 118 leaves. It is a copy written by two scribes, likely in the first half of the third century, indicating the substantial soundness of the book of Ezekiel as it has come down to us.

Since Jeremiah and Ezekiel were contemporaries, their prophecies have many things in common. (Compare Eze 18:2 with Jer 31:29; Eze 24:3 with Jer 1:13; Eze 34:2 with Jer 23:1.) Daniel and Ezekiel, also contemporaries, have similarities of expression in their writings. Ezekiel, while bound by cords, prophesied about the kingdom of Judah and designated “a day for a year,” each day of the prophecy corresponding to a year in the fulfillment. (Eze 4:4-8) Daniel spoke of a banded tree stump, a prophecy concerning the Kingdom, and specified the time period until removal of the bands. (Da 4:23) Another time prophecy of Daniel was the 70 weeks in connection with the coming of Messiah the Leader, also using a day to symbolize a year in the fulfillment.—Da 9:24-27.

Arrangement of Material. For the most part, Ezekiel’s prophecies and visions are arranged chronologically as well as topically. The four verses of chapter 29:17-20 are placed out of their chronological order (compare Eze 29:1; 30:20), but topically they belong here with the prophecy against Egypt. Up until the tenth month of the ninth year of the first exile, the central point around which Ezekiel’s prophecies revolved was the complete fall and desolation of Jerusalem, with only brief references to the restoration. Such is the tenor of the first 24 chapters. During the siege of Jerusalem, the prophet turned his attention mainly to pronouncing woes upon the pagan nations foreseen by Jehovah God as rejoicing over the downfall of Jerusalem. After arrival of the news that Jerusalem had fallen, the prophet sounds the glorious note of restoration, which is a dominant theme throughout the remainder of the book.—33:20, 21.

The book of Ezekiel reveals that Babylon’s false religion had been introduced into the precincts of Jehovah’s temple, particularly in the form of worshiping the Babylonian god Tammuz. (Eze 8:13, 14) Besides such detestable false worship at Jehovah’s temple itself, the apostate Jews filled the land of Judah with violence. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that in his vision Ezekiel hears the call for Jehovah’s executioners to come with their weapons for smashing and to stand beside the altar in the inner courtyard of the temple. Jehovah then gives them orders to go through the midst of unfaithful Jerusalem and kill off everybody not marked as a worshiper of Jehovah: “Old man, young man and virgin and little child and women you should kill off—to a ruination. But to any man upon whom there is the mark do not go near, and from my sanctuary you should start.” (9:6) Ezekiel reports that Jehovah’s executioners started by killing first the 70 elderly men who were worshiping idolatrous carvings on the wall in a chamber in the inner courtyard. All the women who were sitting at the gate, weeping for the Babylonish god Tammuz, and the sun-worshiping apostates at the temple porch were also killed. (8:7–9:8) The vision of Ezekiel was but a preview of what was about to befall Jerusalem when Jehovah would make her drink the cup of wine of His rage out of His hand by means of His executional servant, King Nebuchadnezzar (Nebuchadrezzar), and his armies.—Jer 25:9, 15-18.

Ezekiel’s prophecies of restoration must have been of comfort to the exiled Jews. In the 25th year of his exile (593 B.C.E.) Ezekiel had a remarkable vision of a new temple of Jehovah, the pattern of which came from Jehovah God himself, and of an adjacent city called Jehovah-Shammah, meaning “Jehovah Himself Is There.” (Eze 40:1–48:35) In the midst of a land of pagan idolatry, it strengthened hope in the repentant Jewish exiles of again worshiping the true God, Jehovah, at his temple.

Ezekiel’s prophecy emphasizes the theme of the Bible, the vindication of Jehovah’s name by the Messianic Kingdom. It points out that while God would permit a long period of vacancy on the throne of David, God had not abandoned his covenant with David for a kingdom. The Kingdom would be given to the One who had the legal right. Ezekiel thereby pointed the Jews, as did Daniel, to the hope of the Messiah. (Eze 21:27; 37:22, 24, 25) Jehovah caused Ezekiel to say more than 60 times that people ‘will have to know that I am Jehovah.’ Ezekiel magnifies the memorial name of God by using the expression “Sovereign Lord Jehovah” 217 times.—Eze 2:4, ftn.

[Box on page 794]

HIGHLIGHTS OF EZEKIEL

  Prophecies regarding the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the restoration of a faithful remnant. A central theme is that people “will have to know that I am Jehovah”

  Written in Babylon—most of it during the six years before Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E., and some of it as late as about 591 B.C.E.

Jehovah commissions Ezekiel (then an exile in Babylonia) as watchman (1:1–3:27)

  Given awe-inspiring vision of Jehovah’s glory, along with cherubs having four faces and accompanied by wheels having rims full of eyes

  Serious responsibility as watchman

Warning prophecies against unfaithful Judah and Jerusalem (4:1–24:27)

  Ezekiel is directed to enact Jerusalem’s coming siege by lying before an engraved brick for 390 days on his left side and 40 days on his right, while subsisting on meager amounts of food and water

  The land, including sites used for idolatry, to be desolated; unfaithful people to perish, with a remnant to survive; neither gold nor silver of value in providing escape

  Because idolatrous practices are carried on in temple precincts, Jehovah determines to express his rage, showing no compassion; only those marked by secretary clothed with linen to be spared

  Flight of King Zedekiah and people illustrated by Ezekiel’s carrying out luggage through an opening dug in a wall

  Jehovah’s judgment against false prophets and prophetesses

  Eagle-vine riddle indicates bitter consequences because people turn to Egypt for help

  Judgment of Jehovah to be according to individual action and not, as wrongly claimed, merely for sins of fathers

  Wicked Zedekiah’s crown to be removed, and royal rule in David’s line to cease until coming of the One having the legal right

  Unfaithful Samaria and Jerusalem represented as two prostitutes, Oholah and Oholibah; Jerusalem to receive severe treatment from her former lovers

  Besieged Jerusalem compared to heated cooking pot, and the inhabitants to meat inside

Prophecies against surrounding nations, a number of which Jehovah foresees as rejoicing over Jerusalem’s downfall (25:1–32:32)

  Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia to be desolated

  Tyre to be besieged by Nebuchadnezzar and, in time, to become a desolated site; destruction likened to the sinking of a fine ship with its cargo; Tyrian dynasty to end because of arrogance and treachery

  Egypt to be plundered by Nebuchadnezzar in payment for his services as executioner of divine judgment against Tyre; Pharaoh and his crowd compared to a cedar that would be cut down

Prophecies of deliverance and restoration of God’s people (33:1–48:35)

  Jehovah to regather his people, his sheep, and raise up his servant David as a shepherd over them

  Whereas Edom is to be desolated, the land of Israel is to flourish like the garden of Eden

  As exiles in Babylon, the Israelites resemble dry, lifeless bones, but they are to be raised to life

  The union of two sticks, one representing Joseph and the other Judah, illustrates the bringing back of the exiled people into a unity under God’s servant David

  Jehovah’s restored people to come under Gog’s attack, but Jehovah promises to protect them and destroy Gog’s forces

  Ezekiel is given vision of a temple and its features; a stream flows from the temple to the Dead Sea, where waters are healed and a fishing industry develops; trees along the stream’s banks yield edible fruit and leaves for healing

  Land assignments are outlined; the city “Jehovah Himself Is There” is described

"Hitler's Pope?":Pros and Cons.

Soak the rich:pros and cons.

May privacy R.I.P.:pros and cons.

God:pros and cons

It was clear that Mr. Hitchens had wrong-footed Dr. Craig by pointing out the fact that no catholics(or protestants for that matter) were excommunicated for their roles in the Nazi atrocities.Or that the Russian Orthodox clergy had no scruples about co-operating with the Atheist state of Stalin's Russia.  


One thing I have to say after watching this is that the failure of false religion is probably a much bigger driver of unbelief than the evangelising of the atheist mission.

I found Hitchens Contention that the atheist worldview is more desirable, i.e that not only should a sensible and moral person suspect that theism in general and(what is generally considered) Christian theism in particular is false but that they should hope that it is, thought provoking. Now in a way it's understandable the mainstream denominations of Christendom have portrayed the deity as a heartless brute who oversees a kind of Auschwitz on a cosmic scale only much worse, at least Hitler had the decency to allow his victims the mercy of death.Worse still some denominations hold that most of mankind were foredoomed to this destiny by the creator from eternity. Likely Hitchens would have agreed with Watchtower Society's founder Charles Russell's statement that:a God who would use his power to create men foreknown by him to eternal suffering could be neither wise, just nor loving, his standard would be lower that of many men.Biblically based theism simply does not promulgate any such nonsense.Rather it offers the only hope for a permanent redress of the imbalances/injustices that seem to irk Mr.Hitchens and his ilk.I think even the most militant Atheist/secular humanist would agree that even if at some future time all of the world's nations were to adopt their views,that this would not mean "the end of history",there would still be conflict,there would still be suffering,and such improvements in personal liberty as may accrue would have arrived far too late for billions and of course eventually after this ill fated struggle against chaos all of mankind would eventually go extinct forever.How is this preferable to the biblically based hope of having the self-existent,superhuman creator of man reassert his rightful sovereignty over this planet.As creator the legitimacy of his sovereignty cannot be rightly questioned,being totally self-existent he is free from the ambition and insecurity that exerts a corrupting influence on even the most morally upright of human rulers and he possesses the technology to bring a complete end to all suffering,strife and even death itself.
   My own personal opinion is that even if I myself am not deemed worthy of it,surely,it is a comforting thought that millions of my fellow humans are going to be granted immortality and participate in building the grandest civilisation this earth has ever seen.Don't get me wrong,like the apostle Paul I've got my eyes on the prize but I am not so vain as to imagine that this is all about me and my salvation.There is something much grander in the works here.Surely whether one accepts the premise as true or not,it is preferable that some of our race go on to immortality and an eternal union with the divine than we all perish(perhaps at our own hand) after a futile struggle against chaos.

A line in the Sand? IV

Find article here.

Obama orders closure of Vatican Embassy

It's very hard to deny that the Obama administration isn't fighting a war on Catholics. In his latest move, Obama has ordered the closure of the U.S. embassy to the Vatican away from the Holy See to a more distant compound in Rome, allegedly for "security reasons."

The war between Obama and the Church continues. The outcome is certain.

---

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - The Obama administration is announcing that late next year the State Department will close the U.S. Embassy in Vatican City, citing security concerns.

The Daily caller was told in an email from the Department of State, "The Embassy will be moved to the U.S. government compound that currently houses U.S. Embassy Rome and the U.S. Mission to UN Agencies in Rome.  At that point, the U.S. government compound in Rome will house three distinct diplomatic missions with three independently accredited ambassadors working in three separate chanceries.  Our Embassy to the Holy See will continue to operate as an independent mission, and our diplomatic presence will remain one of the largest missions accredited to the Holy See."

This will close a mission that has operated at its current location since 1994.

Former ambassadors to the Holy See are blasting the move. Former Boston Mayor and ambassador, Ray Flynn told the Daily Catholic Reporter, "It's not just those who bomb churches and kill Catholics in the Middle East who are our antagonists, but it's also those who restrict our religious freedoms and want to close down our embassy to the Holy See."

Former ambassadors James Nicholson, Francis Rooney, Mary Ann Glendon and Thomas Melady, also criticized the move.

Nicholson told the Daily Catholic Reporter, the move makes "this embassy into a stepchild of the embassy to Italy."

Catholic League President, Bill Donohue said to the Daily Caller, "You could make a principled argument that for security or economic reasons the embassy needs to be moved, but that assumes the person making the argument has principles. This administration certainly wasn't concerned about the safety of its embassy in Benghazi. And as for the economic argument, this is the most fiscally reckless administration in American history. It's risible to think this administration is concerned about our safety."

If there is a security concern at the Vatican, then State Department officials should share it. If the move is financial, then that too should be stated. However, without an apparently valid reason for the change, Catholics are forced to add this latest point of data to the growing body of evidence that Obama isn't a supporter of the Catholic Church.

The reality is that Vatican security is among the best in the world. Not only is the Holy See situated in the heart of Rome, Italy, a place which takes security and policing very seriously, the Holy Father has an elite security detail of his own. The Swiss Papal Guard is showy, but they are also trained soldiers of the highest moral integrity. Additionally, they are as capable with a rifle as a halberd. The Vatican Corps of Gendarmerie also provides security as well as plainclothes agents. And does not God also watch? But Obama is no man of faith.

Logically, no attack on the U.S. embassy would be of value to terrorists. The Vatican itself is the greater target, the embassy an inconspicuous second compared to the glory of the Vatican. Still, it's all about a literally non-existent security threat.

Nor is the move one of fiscal interest for an administration that has minimal regard for fiscal concerns anyway. Moving the embassy costs much more than leaving it put.

Instead, it's a message, sent to the Catholic Church. Obama has little regard for the venerable institution. That's unfortunate, because he places himself on the losing side of history. Obama is not the first, nor the last of the world's leaders to hold the Church in contempt. However, it should be whispered to him that great men pass, but the Church remains.

Here is a petition you can sign to voice your opposition to this move. 

An oracle? II



What if Christianity actually teaches peace?The confusion is understandable in view of the rather shameful example set by Christendom both historically and(quite frankly) currently see revelation18:24.

 But this uncertainty is easily cleared up by consulting the inspired text itself.

  Matthew5:9NJKV"Blessed are the peacemakers,For they shall be called sons of God."

 

  Matthew26:52NKJV"But Jesus said to him,"put your sword in its place,for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

 

  Revelation13:10NKJV"He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity;he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword.Here is the patience and Faith of the saints."

 

Manifest Destiny?:The pros and cons

Playing God:pros and cons

9/11:pros and cons

Science or storytelling? II

We are all Martians now, revisited

August 30, 2013

fe

possible ancient water site/NASA

Conditions on Mars were better billions of years ago, so life could have accidentally come from there, a major international conference has been told.
Steven Benner, chemist at the Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology admits that the chances of life accidentally forming on Earth are poor because, according to a BBC News account,

The molecules that combined to form genetic material are far more complex than the primordial “pre-biotic” soup of organic (carbon-based) chemicals thought to have existed on the Earth more than three billion years ago, and RNA (ribonucleic acid) is thought to have been the first of them to appear.

Simply adding energy such as heat or light to the more basic organic molecules in the “soup” does not generate RNA. Instead, it generates tar.

(Remember this for when someone tells you that’s all it took.) He thinks there might have been a better chance on Mars:

The minerals most effective at templating RNA would have dissolved in the oceans of the early Earth, but would have been more abundant on Mars, according to Prof Benner.

He suggests that elements such as boron and molybdenum, “key in assembling atoms into life-forming molecules,” came to Earth via meteorites from Mars:

“The evidence seems to be building that we are actually all Martians; that life started on Mars and came to Earth on a rock,” he commented.

Well, evidence for something is building.

“This isn’t really evidence that life came from Mars, but it is evidence that Steven Benner is very clever,” astrobiologist David Grinspoon told NBC.

Doubtless, Benner is clever.
But how clever do you have to be to sell people a product they very much want to buy? Origin of life researchers are at an impasse and willing to consider any thesis, including pure storytelling. Benner again:

“It’s lucky that we ended up here, nevertheless – as certainly Earth has been the better of the two planets for sustaining life. If our hypothetical Martian ancestors had remained on Mars, there may not have been a story to tell.”

But there sure are stories now. Grinspoon again:

“I think chemists always think they know more than they know, because nature has a lot of possible pathways it can try,” Grinspoon said.

Okay, who exactly is “nature”? Someone who “can try” to produce life? Is that like “god” in lower case? And “a lot of possible pathways” is hardly what we are looking for. Except insofar as they produce research grant and interesting conferences and news stories. Heck, it’s interesting. But it’s a bit much to call it serious science

2)“Impossible” for life to start on Earth? Thus, panspermia theory gains new traction?

September 9, 2013

Posted by NewsunderNews, Origin Of Life

Not, it seems, from fresh evidence but from fresh frustration, according to this National Geographic News article:

A long-debated and often-dismissed theory known as “panspermia” got new life in the past week, as two scientists separately proposed that early Earth lacked some chemicals essential to forming life, while early Mars likely had them.

…

“Basically, we went looking on Mars because the origins-of-life options on Earth just aren’t looking very good,” Benner said.

(We have covered Benner’s hypothesis that the elements boron and molybdenum from Mars were key player here. )

The reemergence of the theory of panspermia is intertwined with progress (or lack of progress) in a long-term scientific quest to find out how life began on Earth, a question that synthetic biology experts such as Benner have been working on for decades. Despite some advances, the field has come up against chemical walls that are proving impossible to climb.

Well, the problem is that the fact that origin of life is considered impossible on Earth doesn’t add to the possibility that it arose on Mars. Some faint suggestions that a Mars origin have been advanced, but Benner adds,

“A panspermia solution, after all, produces another panspermia problem,” he said. “If a Martian microbe did make it from Mars to Earth, maybe it would be as if it landed in Eden. But just as likely, it would quickly die.”

Now that he mentions it, there is little reason to expect life from Mars to just accidentally take root in a quite different atmosphere unless design can be factored in. That is why atheists such as Fred Hoyle and Francis Crick toyed with the idea that intelligent aliens were involved. They understood the problems better than their detractors.
Here’s Steve Benner arguing for Mars:

 

Trying to learn the language of peace in the land of war.

A line in the sand? III