ITimothy 3:16 demystified.

  1 Tim. 3:16 God "manifest in the flesh" KJV

As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God “manifest in the flesh.” 


Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “God” as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: “he” (NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “he who” (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), “who,” or “which.” Even the equally old Douay version has “which was manifested in the flesh.” All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word ὃς (“who”) here instead of θεὸς (“God”).Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16? 


     Noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:
  
“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts .....” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse: 

“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or OC, “who” - masc.] or ὅ [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641. 

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other. 

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse! 

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes: “The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott and Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992. 

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture: 

“He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.
And even hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc. 

Even if we were to insist that those later manuscripts that used theos were, somehow, correct, we would have to recognize that it is the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos which we find. This is rarely, if ever, the form used for the only true God (when the known exceptions are taken into account - see MARTIN study paper). Instead, it either points to the probability that it is a corrupted OC (which of course would not have the article in the first place), or, less probable, but still possible, that Christ is being called “a god” - see the BOWGOD and DEF studies.
Posted by Elijah Daniels

Why an increasing number no longer trust "the science"

 

His fullness demystified.

 

"Fulness of Deity" - Col. 2:9 


Col. 2:9 - "For in him [Jesus] the whole fulness [Gr. pleroma] of deity [theotes] dwells[1] bodily" - RSV. The word theotes appears only this once in the entire New Testament [NT] (and never in the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament [OT]). It has been rendered in various trinitarian translations as follows: "Godhead" - KJV, ASV, NEB, REB, MLB; "deity" - RSV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, NAB, CBW, Mo, By; "divinity" - JB, NJB. It should be remembered also that "Godhead" as found in the older English Bibles (such as KJV) had a different meaning than it has come to have in modern English. "In older English ['Godhead'] was a synonym for divinity"[2] - p. 221, Vol. 2, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, 1988 printing; and p. 362, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell and Scott, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.

Theotes simply does not literally mean "godhead," and the use of "godhead" by the KJV translators was not intended as some would understand it today.[3]Actually, the heavenly Father, alone, is the closest thing to a literal "Godhead" to be found anywhere in the inspired Scriptures - see 1 Cor. 11:3.

Col. 2:9 is also rendered by noted trinitarian scholars with these translations of theotes: "The full content of divine nature" - TEV and GNB (also see Barclay); "God's whole being" - Beck (NT); "God's nature" - AT; "Yet it is in [Christ] that God gives a full and complete expression of himself (within the physical limits that he set himself in Christ)." - Phillips; "In him resides all the fulfillment of the divine" - Lattimore.
* * * * *
The trinitarian argument that Col. 2:9 proves that Jesus is God overlooks the common understanding of "fulness of ..." and "filled with ..." by those who used those common phrases in New Testament times. For example, the person who became "filled with Holy Spirit" (Eph. 5:18) was greatly influenced by that spirit, but he certainly did not become the Holy Spirit.

And having "the fulness" of someone or something could similarly mean being greatly influenced by that person or thing. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says:

"Just as a person can be full of pain, joy, love, and virtue, he can also be said to be filled with God ..., i.e. possessed and inspired by God." - Vol. 1, p. 734.[4]
Surely we wouldn't expect anyone who is "filled with" God or who receives the "fulness of" God to actually be God! Nor would we expect anyone who has the "fulness of" Christ to actually be Christ! In fact it clearly shows that he is NOT the person with whom he is "filled"!

So, when we read Eph. 1:22, 23 - "the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all" - we do not think that all real Christians are actually Christ. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1977) tells us in a footnote for this scripture:

"the Church, as the fulness of Christ, is the complement of his mystic [figurative] person; he is the head, the Church is his body."The noted trinitarian NT Greek scholar, W. E. Vine, explains:

"Fill, Fill Up": "... (a) of the members of the Church, the Body of Christ, as filled by Him", Eph. 1:23 (`all things in all the members'); ... in 3:19, of their being filled ... `with' all the fulness of God; of their being 'made full' in Him, Col. 2:10." - p. 426, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.Yes, at Eph. 3:19 we actually see Paul expressing the thought "that you [Ephesian Christians] may be filled with all the fulness of God" - RSV. And at Eph. 4:13 we find - "until we all attain ... to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" - RSV
.
Even the trinitarian reference work, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, commenting about the word "fullness" at Col. 2:9 ("In his [Jesus'] body lives the fullness of divinity" - JB), tells us:

"this fullness which is described in Col. 1:15-18 is entirely related to Christ's cross (v. 20), death (v. 22), and resurrection (v. 18). For this reason believers also have this fullness in him (2:10)." - Vol. 1, p. 740, Zondervan, 1986. - See AT, CBW, NAB (especially 1991 ed.).

"Outside the NT the word occurs in Ignatius in a sense which is clearly influenced by the NT, and apparently in the meaning of the Divine fulness, as going forth and blessing and residing ["dwelling"] in the Church [the congregation]" - p. 1, Vol. 4, A Dictionary of the Bible, James Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ., 1988.

For exactly the same reasons that we don't allow such figurative language to persuade us that all true Christians actually are (or may become) God or Christ, we should not let it persuade us that Christ is actually God!The Bible tells us how essential to eternal life it is to know God and Jesus (John 17:3 and 2 Thess. 1:8, 9). Therefore, if one "knows" Jesus as God and "knows" God as three (or two) persons and such "knowledge" turns out to be false, then he is certainly not on the road to eternal life!

And as we saw above, if Christians can be "filled with" God and receive the "fulness of" God, we know by this very wording that they are not God! And we know that those Christians who had the "fulness of" Christ could not actually be Christ! The very wording itself shows that someone else is "filling" (or influencing) the person who is being "filled" (influenced). In fact it clearly shows that he CANNOT be the person (or thing) with whom he is "filled"!

Therefore, those Christians who are "filled with" or have the "fulness" of God are not God! Those Christians who are "filled with" or have the "fulness" of Christ are not Christ! Those men and women who are "filled with" or have the "fulness" of the Holy Spirit are not the Holy Spirit!! And even if we interpret Col. 2:9 as meaning that Christ has the fullness of "Godhood" in him, it still cannot mean Christ is God!!
............................................

Notes1. What about things and persons "dwelling" in us? Does this mean we are those things or persons? Of course not! Compare "dwell" at Ro. 7:20 (sin `dwells' in people); 8:9,11 (holy spirit `dwells' in us); 1 Cor. 3:16 (holy spirit "dwelling" in Christians); Eph. 3:17 (Christ "dwells" in our hearts); 2 Tim. 1:5 (faith "dwelt" in her); 2 Pet. 3:13 (righteousness "dwells"). Actually, the word "dwell" shows we cannot be those things or persons who "dwell" in us!

It is similar to the term "image of ...." If someone is the image of something or someone else, then he cannot be that person or thing. For example, men being the image of God (Gen. 1:26; 1 Cor. 11:7; 2 Cor. 3:18) proves, in itself, that none of them actually is God! No one and no thing actually are their own images! Therefore, when scripture tells us that the resurrected, heaven-dwelling Jesus Christ is "the image of God," it is certain that he is not God! - 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15. [Also "reflection" or "refulgence" in Heb. 1:3, RSV, NRSV, NJB, AT, MLB, GNB, CBW, NAB (`70), NAB (`91).]


2. "Divinity" is a word with various meanings and levels of meanings: "divinity ... 1. a being divine 2. a god 3. theology - the Divinity: God." - Webster's New World Dictionary, 1973.3. "Godhead" has various meanings in modern English besides that of "the nature of God esp. when regarded as triune". In Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary (Unabridged) the #1 definition is "1: the quality or state of being divine" - 1962 ed. And the derivation of the word "godhead" shows that it originally meant "godhood" not "godhead": "fr[om] god + -hed, -hede - hood (akin to ME -hod, -had - hood)" - Webster's 3rd New Int.

"divine ... 1a: of or relating to God: proceeding from God ... b: of or relating to a god: having the nature of a god .... 2a: devoted or addressed to God: religious, holy, sacred ... 3a: Supremely good or admirable ... b: having a sublime or inspired character" - Webst. 3rd New Int.


4. Even in modern English idiom we say things like: "He is full of the Devil." But we don't intend to say he literally is the Devil or even equal to the Devil in the fullest sense. We merely mean that he may, in some respects, show certain "devil-like" or "devil-influenced" qualities! (Cf. Jn 6:70 and Mark 8:33 footnotes in NIVSB.)

Promising,very promising?

 

Even empty space can be overthought?

 

JEHOVAH'S Productivity.

 

1Corinthians8:6 demystified.

  1 Cor. 8:6: `Unitized Title' Vs. `Title with Identifiers'

8:6 - “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from [ex, ‘out of’] whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through [di/dia]whom all things came and through [di/dia] whom we live.” - NIV.

……………………………….......

　

One type of the typical trinitarian “title confusion” trick involves the interpretation of a single title with its appositive (or identifiers) as being, instead, a single compound (or multi-worded ‘unitized’) title.
　 
For example, if a gangster named Percival Grabonski had the nickname of “Mailman Mike,” we would consider that as an exclusive single unitized title of two words.　 We might even say, “There is only one 'Mailman Mike'; he’s unique.”　　 The whole thing (both words: “Mailman” and “Mike”) taken together as a multi-worded, but ‘unitized,’ whole, then, is the complete title.
　
However, if we knew a young man named Mike who delivered our mail every morning, we might tell someone, “This town has only one mailman, Mike.”

　 

In this case the title is “mailman” alone, and “Mike” is an appositive or identifier added to that single title to further identify which “mailman.”　 

　

Since it is not an exact exclusive title, it could even be phrased differently:　 “Mike is our only mailman;” “only one letter carrier, Mike;” “only one mail deliverer, Mike;” etc.　 When the writer (or speaker) intends it in this ‘title with appositive’ manner, the phrase may be understood as actually saying: “only one mailman, [and that is] Mike.”

　

On the other hand, the gangster’s unitized title will not be phrased differently.　 He wouldn’t be called “Mailman Mike” one time and “Mike the Letter Carrier” or “Mike the Postal Person” the next time.　 His exclusive, distinguishing unitized title is “Mailman Mike” and that won’t change (even though he may pick up additional, different titles, e.g. “Percy the Purse-snatcher”).

　

In one case, then (e.g., “mailman, Mike”), we have a single-word title (e.g., “mailman”) followed by a word or words (sometimes even set off by commas in English) which identify that individual.　 In the other case (e.g., “Mailman Mike”) we have a full title composed of two or more words which must be taken together as a complete unit (“unitized”).　 Don't forget that in the original manuscripts there was no punctuation or Capitalization. These have been added by modern translators as they see fit.


　
An example of a single title followed by identifiers (appositives) is found at Matt. 23:10, “you have one master, the Christ.” - RSV.　　 It is clear that Jesus is not calling someone “Master-The-Christ” as a unitized title, but, instead, is calling that person by the single-word title　“master” (or “teacher” or “leader” in some translations) and further identifying that person as “the Christ”!　　 In other words the phrase may be understood as actually saying: “one master, and that is the Christ.”

　

Other trinitarian translations make it very clear what the literal “One is your leader, the Christ” (The Interlinear Bible) at Matt. 23:10 actually means:

　

　　　　　　　　　 “for one is your Leader, that is, Christ.” - NASB.


　　　　　　　　　 “for you have only one Leader, and that is Christ.” - CBW.


　　　　　　　　　 “you have only one Teacher, and that is Christ.” - Beck.


　　　　　　　　　 “your one and only leader is the Messiah.” - GNB and TEV.


　　　　　　　　　 “There is only one Leader and He is Christ.” - NLV.

　

Another significant example (although not a single-word title in this case, the principle is the same) may be seen at Eph. 1:17, “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom” - RSV.　

　

Not only does this scripture show that the Father is ”the God of” the  heavenly glorified Jesus, but it clearly illustrates the usage by Paul of a title (“the God of our Lord Jesus Christ”) followed by an  identifier (“the Father of Glory”).

　
For another example of the single-word title followed by identifiers as might be found in the Bible let’s examine the uses of “King/king.”　 Since no capitalization was used by the inspired Bible writers, today’s translators capitalize for their English-speaking readers in the way they think best to bring out the meaning they think was originally intended.  So the word “king” in the original language may be translated as either “King” or “king” at the translator’s discretion.
　
David is king: 

“...and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah.” - 2 Sam. 2:4, KJV.
　
Christ is king:

“For Christ will be King until he has defeated all his enemies .... For the rule and authority over all things has been given to Christ by his Father; except, of course, Christ does not rule over the Father himself, who gave him this power to rule.” - 1 Cor. 15:25,27, Living Bible.

　
Jehovah God is King: 

“But the Lord [Jehovah] your God was already your King, for he has always been your King.” - 1 Sam. 12:12, Living Bible.

　
“And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb [Jesus], saying ‘Great and wonderful are thy deeds, O Lord God [Jehovah] the Almighty.  Just and true are thy ways, O King of the ages...’” - Rev. 15:3, RSV.

　
So, although there are many kings, to Christians there is only one ultimate, most high, supreme King, God himself, Jehovah, the Father.　 Of course there is also only one king directly and immediately over all Christians (with no intermediary): Jesus.  And there have been various kings on earth over God’s people in the past. 


Therefore, since there are many who may be called “king” at various levels, if we wanted to refer to one of them, we should most often use an identifier (appositive) with the word “king.”　 For example:

　
(1) “We Israelites have only one king, David.”
　 
The writer would clearly be understood as using the title “king” and further identifying that individual with an appositive.　 We know it cannot be a single unitized title (“King David”) because the context would make it a ridiculous, senseless statement.　 Obviously the Israelites at that time had only one “King David”!　 It would be ridiculous to think that anyone might have believed that they had several “King Davids”!　 The only other possible interpretation here is that “king” is the title alone which is followed by an identifier (appositive) and, therefore, must mean “we have only one [earthly] king, (and that is) David.”

　

　(2) “We Christian ‘Israelites’ have only one king, Christ.”
　 
The reader would know by this identifier (“Christ”) that the “Israelite” writer was referring to the direct and immediate king over all Christians on earth.　 And, obviously, it should not be considered as a single unitized two-word title (“King Christ”) since the context would make that ludicrous: Of course there is only one “King Christ” - no one has ever suggested that there are two (or more) “King Christs” (or a  multiple-person “King Christ”)!　 Again the meaning has to be: “Christians have only one immediate, heavenly king, (and that is) Christ.”

　
(3) “We Israelites have only one King, the Father.”
　 
The reader would know by this identifier (“the Father”) that the Israelite writer was referring to their heavenly ultimate, Most High King.　 Again, no one would have considered it as a unitized three-word title (‘King the Father’): Everyone knew that “the Father” was a single Person - no one even considered two or more “King the Fathers”!　 It obviously would, again, be a single title (“King”) followed by an identifier (appositive): “we have only one Most High King, (and that is) the Father.”
　
And so it is with “God;” “Father;” and “God, the Father.”　 If the trinity were really true, we should see hundreds of examples of “God” with its identifiers for each of the members of the “Godhead”!　　　　 

Since there are hundreds of uses of “God the Father” (“God our Father,” etc.), there should be hundreds of uses of “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit” (if the trinity were actually true).　 And “God” used alone, without identifiers, if ever used at all, must always mean all three together (not merely any one or two of them).

　
But this is not so.　 There are hundreds of uses of “God, the Father” because the only person who is God is the Father (John 17:1, 3).　 There are no uses of “God, the Son” in the entire Bible because the Father is the only person who is God!　 There are no uses of “God, the Holy Spirit” in the entire Bible because the Father is the only person who is God!

　
Some of the hundreds of uses of “God, the Father” and its equivalents:

Jn 8:41, 42; Ro. 1:7; 15:6; 1 Cor. 1:3; 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:2, 3; 11:31; Gal. 1:3, 4; Eph. 1:2, 3; 4:6; 5:20; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 2:11; 4:20; Col. 1:2, 3; 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:1, 3; 3:11, 13; 2 Thess. 1:1,2; 2:16; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Phm :3; 1 Pet. 1:2, 3; 2 Pet. 1:17; 2 Jn :3; Jude :1; Rev. 1:6 (RSV).　 
Notice how many of these are greetings or blessings wherein the writer wishes to praise those most worthy of praise in his religion.　 How is it, then, that the Father is so often glorified as God, but we never see this honor clearly stated for the Son or the Holy Spirit?　 Does this really make sense if all three are truly and equally God as trinitarians insist?

　
Okay, finally, here is the point:

　

1 Cor. 8:5 tells us that indeed there are many gods and many lords (NASB).

　 
However, in verse 6 it tells us there is only one Most High God.　 “...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from [ex, literally ‘out of’]　whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through [dia] whom all things came and through whom we live.” - 1 Cor. 8:6, NIV - Cf. RSV and NASB.

　
There is no doubt (and never has been), even by trinitarians, that “God the Father” is only one single person.  So if we interpret “God the Father” as a unitized title (as some trinitarians feel they must at 1 Cor. 8:6), we end up in 1 Cor. 8:6 with an absurd, meaningless truism (like, “Elizabeth, John’s mother, was female” or “he died when he ceased to live”).
　　 
Of course there is only one “God-the-Father”!　 Who could have possibly thought there were two “God-the-Father”s?　 What a senseless, useless statement this is if　we interpret 'God, the Father'　as a ‘unitized title’ here!


And exactly in the same way, if we take the last part of this scripture (“Lord-Jesus-Christ”) as a single unitized title, we again have an absurd, senseless statement: “there is but one Lord-Jesus-Christ.”　 Since there couldn’t possibly be any doubt by anyone that this single person with the singular personal name (whom everyone knew was a single person) was anything but one person, it would have been ridiculous for Paul to make such a statement.　 (Unless, perhaps, there had been some significant conclusion such as: “in like manner there is only one baptism and one faith”.)

　

However, if we interpret it in the way that Paul obviously intended it, the two parallel descriptions are single-worded titles (“God” and “Lord”) followed by identifying appositives (“the Father” and “Jesus Christ”).　 In this way, and only in this way, do we have a sensible and significant  statement:　 “Although there are many gods, we Christians have only one God, (who is) the Father, and, in like manner, although there are many lords, we have only one Lord,　(who is) Jesus Christ.”　 

One’s “lord” is his master or head - see 1 Cor. 11:3.　 Sarah’s immediate lord or head, for example, was her husband Abraham, but her God was the Father, Jehovah, who, of course, could also be called her “lord” in the ultimate sense. (Jesus called our one Lord, may refer to his being the one King (kings were addressed as “Lord”) directly over all Christians, or it could refer to his being master (addressed as “Lord”) over his slaves, Christians, who he alone bought with his own blood).

　
Not only would the trinitarian (unitized title) interpretation be a nonsensical statement, but it would be slighting to Jesus (if he were equally God) and terribly slighting to the Holy Spirit (if “he” were equally God).　 After all, the term “God” is only used here for the Father.　 The other two (who trinitarians say are “equally God”) are either given a lesser title (“Lord”) or are not even mentioned at all!

　
And only the understanding that the phrase “one God, the Father” is speaking of a single title　 (“God”) followed by an identifying appositive (“Father”) makes sense with the introduction to it presented in 1 Cor. 8:5:　 “There are many gods.”　 To follow this with “yet there is to us only one God-the-Father” (unitized) would not be a contrast to that initial statement at all!　 It certainly would not preclude other gods “to us”!　 

　

But “only one God, (and that is) the Father” does provide the required contrast to the introductory “there are many gods... but to us....”

It is obvious, then, that the intended meaning by Paul must be that the only god (in the Most High sense: ‘God’ in modern English) for Christians (as for Jews) is the Father alone!  This is clearly brought out in the very trinitarian Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version, World Bible Translation Center, 1992:　 “But for us there is only one God.  He is our Father.” And the equally trinitarian Holy Bible New Life Version [NLV], Victor Books, 1993, renders it, “But we know there is only one God. He is the Father.”

　

If we also analyze Eph. 4:4-6 with a critical eye, we find God (as usual) is the Father only　 (in spite of the fact that Paul is listing nearly everything that a Christian is to hold dear):　 “There is one body [the ‘Church’] and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord [Jesus], one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all.” - RSV.　 If Paul is going to list all the most important stuff, where are “God, the Holy Spirit” and “God, the Son”?　 Or just “God” which we could at least “interpret” as all of them?

　 
Why always “God, the Father” or one person who is “God and Father”?  BECAUSE GOD IS　 THE FATHER ALONE!!　　 In fact, as noted above, the trinitarian NLV actually translates Eph. 4:6: “There is one God.　 He is the Father of us all.”
“In the latest edition (BDAG) [‘a major standard for research on the Greek of the New Testament’], section 6 under πατήρ, which discusses God as Father, gives the following definition: ‘the supreme deity, who is responsible for the origin and care of all that exists…’” [underlining added, boldface is in BDAG] - 

http://www.frame-poythress.org/how-have-inclusiveness-and-tolerance-affected-the-bauer-danker-greek-lexicon-of-the-new-testament-bdag/ 


　
　

Posted by Elijah Daniels

Puppets of Satan?

 

The throne of JEHOVAH'S Son demystified II

  

Another consideration is that later Church copyists would often change the wording of a scripture if it seemed to contradict a teaching of the Roman Church.[1] Therefore, if the wording of an ancient manuscript seems to contradict a later teaching of the Roman Church, it is more likely to have the original wording than another ancient manuscript which (at the same verse) seems to agree with that Church teaching.

Using these criteria, the UBS Committee unanimously agreed with all the wording of Heb. 1:8 except for one word. They agreed that the original writing of Heb. 1:8 should read literally (in the NT Greek): “toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age and the staff of the straightness staff of the kingdom [‘of him’ or ‘of you’].”

It was the very last word of Heb. 1:8 that caused a “considerable degree of doubt” among those textual scholars. This very last word was either the NT Greek word sou (translated into English as “of you” or “your”) or autou (translated “of him” or “his”).

Why is it so important? Because these trinitarian scholars agreed that if autou (“his”) were used here by the author of Hebrews 1:8, then the verse “must be” translated “God is thy throne” and not “thy throne, O God”!! If, however, sou (“your”) was the original wording, then it could be translated either way. Obviously, then, a trinitarian would strongly prefer the reading of sou. [See end note 4]

In discussing this problem the UBS Committee noted that all the very oldest and best manuscripts (p46 - circa 200 A.D.; 'Aleph' - 4th century; and B - 4th century) all agree that the original wording was “his (autou) kingdom.” 

They also noted that later manuscripts which read “your (sou) kingdom” are now in agreement with the corresponding passage in the Greek OT Septuagint! (Remember that the UBS Committee recognizes, as do most Bible scholars, that the NT manuscript that differs slightly from the Septuagint is more likely to be correct than another one which perfectly agrees because copyists strongly tended to deliberately “correct” Septuagint quotes they found in the NT .) 

Furthermore, since autou is not repeated near the word in question in this NT manuscript quote of Ps. 45:6, 7, but sou is repeated, before and after, it would have been easy for a copyist to have inadvertently miscopied sou here. Autou, then, is more likely to have been original than sou for more than one reason.

It is also important to realize that all the oldest manuscripts (which were probably written before the full trinity doctrine was officially declared by the Roman Church in 381 A. D. and certainly written well before it was popularly accepted through the efforts of such men as Augustine in the early 5th century) use the word autou which will not properly allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation. Whereas many of the later manuscripts now use the word sou which will allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation of Heb. 1:8.

Isn’t it significant that the very earliest manuscript to use the trinitarian-preferred sou is Manuscript A from the 5th century which is shortly after the trinity doctrine was fully and officially declared at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A. D. and during the highly successful efforts of Augustine and others to defend and popularize this newly established “truth” of the Roman Church? (Remember the correlation between new church doctrines and changes in later manuscripts.) - See the HIST study paper. 

So even though there is overwhelming evidence that “his” (autou) was in the original manuscript of Hebrews 1:8 (even the trinitarian scholars who developed the Westcott and Hort text and the Nestle text use autou at Heb. 1:8), the UBS Committee finally agreed to choose “your” (sou) and label that choice as “having considerable degree of doubt,” anyway! 

Why did they bend their own rules of evidence? Because (1) they said there were so many later manuscripts that used sou, and (2) they admitted that they didn’t like what that verse actually said if autou had really been used in the original!

Oh, they did soften the arbitrariness of their choice slightly by labeling it as “having considerable degree of doubt,” but if any honest impartial scholar will examine their own comments on the evidence, he must agree that the UBS Committee’s choice is purely an emotional one and the evidence rules otherwise (as other trinitarian texts noted above admit).

Sou not only has “considerable degree of doubt,” it is nearly impossible. The UBS Committee’s own comments on the evidence make autou virtually certain as the original word, and, therefore, in the committee’s own word’s, Hebrews 1:8 “must be” translated “God is thy throne” and not “thy throne, O God.” - (study pp. 662-663 in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.) 

It might be worthwhile to see that that same UBS textual committee said (p. 522) when discussing Romans 9:5: 

“In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him God blessed for ever.” And, “Nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate [‘the Christ’] as theos [‘God’ or ‘god’].”

So, for those of us who believe that Paul wrote the Bible book of Hebrews, the UBS committee provides yet another reason why Heb. 1:8 must be translated “God is your throne” not “your throne, O God.” (But don’t forget that some scholars don’t consider Paul to be the author of Hebrews even though they may still consider Hebrews to be inspired scripture.) 

Some trinitarians have objected that “it does not make sense [or even, ‘it’s ridiculous’] to call God a ‘throne.’”[2] However, to any serious Bible student, it is entirely reasonable and appropriate. Calling God “the throne of Jesus” is an excellent figurative way to show that God approves and upholds Christ’s kingly reign (as in Westcott’s comment previously quoted).

Is God ever called “unlikely” things in a figurative sense that are as equally “ridiculous” as calling him “a throne”? Every Bible student of any experience knows that He is, repeatedly!

Many times he is called someone’s “Rock” (e.g., Ps. 78:35). 

He is called a “fortress” (e.g., Ps. 91:2). 

He is called a “lamp” in 2 Samuel 22:29. 

He is called a “crown” (“in that day will Jehovah of hosts become a crown of glory, unto the 
residue of his people” - Is. 28:5, ASV). 

Jehovah is called “our dwelling place” - Ps. 90:1, KJV. 

And “Jehovah is my ... song” - Ps. 118:14. 

Also notice Ps. 60:7, 8 “Ephraim is my helmet, Judah my scepter, Moab is my washbasin”, NIV. And in Is. 22:23 we find Eliakim, whom Jehovah said he would call and commit authority to (Is. 22:20, 21), called a “throne” (“and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house,” RSV). 

Not only is it made very clear by many trinitarian translators [3] and text writers [4] themselves that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated “God is your throne,” but all real evidence shows that it should be so translated!

So we find once more that Jesus cannot possibly be God. Just as we saw in the case of the Israelite king in Ps. 45:6, 7, if God is his throne (the one supporting him - giving him power and authority), then he cannot be that God!

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


NOTES



1. An example of this is the omission of the words “nor the son” in the majority of manuscripts at Matt. 24:36. However, the two oldest and best manuscripts, Aleph and B (as well as Manuscript A of the 5th century), do have “nor the son” after the word “heaven” (as it is in Mark 13:32). Bible scholars have come to the conclusion that the words were first omitted by a copyist sometime shortly after the development of the trinity doctrine by the Roman Church in the 4th century (see the HIST study) because it seemed to contradict the trinity doctrine: Jesus as equal to the Father. - See A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 62, United Bible Societies, 1971. Also see The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus, published by the trustees of the British Museum (quoted in the Feb. 1, 1984 WT, p. 7) or see the Manuscripts at . http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/ and http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_02 and http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03 



2. Bowman, in his Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, after explaining that Heb. 1:1-6 describes the Son as in essence God, says:

It should come as no surprise, then, that in verse 8 God the Father says “of the Son, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...’” (translating literally). 

To circumvent this plain statement, the NWT renders verse 8 as “God is your throne forever and ever....” On merely grammatical considerations, this translation is possible, and some biblical scholars have favored this rendering. According to such a reading, the point of the statement is then that God is the source of Jesus’ authority. 

However, this seems to be an unusual, if not completely odd, way of making that point. In Scripture a “throne” is not the source of one’s authority, but the position or place from which one rules. Thus, heaven is called “the throne of God” (Matt. 5:34). Surely God does not derive his authority from heaven, or from anyone or anything! But, even assuming that “God is your throne” would be understood as having that meaning, in context this makes no sense. The writer of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 45:6 and applying it to the Son to show that the Son is far greater than any of the angels. However, if all this verse means is that the Son’s authority derives from God, this in no way makes him unique or greater than the angels, since this could be said of any of God’s obedient angels. - pp. 106-107, Baker Book House, 1991 ed. 

To take things in the order Bowman states them, 

(A) his “literal” translation of Heb. 1:8 is certainly not literal. As we saw at the beginning of this paper, the actual NT Greek literally says “the throne of you the god into the age of the age.” The understood verb “is” may be inserted anywhere in the sentence, but it is not literally in the original manuscript, and to insist that it must be inserted and interpreted as Bowman has done is simply (literally) untrue! In fact it seems much more probable, whether one inserts it before or after “the god,” to mean: ‘the throne of you IS the God into the age of the age.’ (Although it is less likely, it is possible that ho theos could be considered a vocative [‘O God’] - but see trinitarian Dr. Westcott’s quote above). But, at any rate, Bowman is not being truthful when he says he is “translating literally” as ‘your throne, O God, is forever and ever...’! 

Posted by Elijah Daniels 

Darwinism is atheism's creation myth? Pros and Cons.

 

The throne of JEHOVAH'S Son demystified III

  

(B) Bowman declares, “In Scripture a ‘throne’ is not the source of one’s authority, but the position or place from which one rules.”

Isn’t it terribly strange that famed trinitarian New Testament scholars such as Dr. Westcott, Dr. Moffatt, Dr. Goodspeed (Smith-Goodspeed’s AT), and Dr. William Barclay (The Daily Study Bible Series) all prefer the interpretation “Thy throne is God”? (And highly respected trinitarian Bibles ASV, RSV, and NEB also give this rendering as a proper alternate.) Would these respected trinitarian authorities really render this scripture that way if “throne” could only be interpreted in a literal way? 

The trinitarian New Bible Dictionary tells us that in Scripture “the throne symbolizes dignity and authority” - p. 1196 (2nd ed.), Tyndale House, 1984. (Compare Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.) 

And the equally trinitarian (and highly respected - by trinitarians) The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia tells us about “throne”: “Usually the symbol of kingly power and dignity .... It symbolizes: (1) The exalted position of earthly kings, ... their majesty and power .... (2) The majesty and power of JEHOVAH as the true king of Israel; .... (3) The rule of the promised theocratic king (the Messiah), its everlasting glory and righteousness. He, too, is JEHOVAH’S representative [so JEHOVAH is the Messiah’s ‘throne’ (“power,” “authority,” and “glory”)]....” - p. 2976, Vol. IV, Eerdmans, 1984 printing. 

Please examine the implied meanings of “throne” in the following scriptures: Gen. 41:40; 2 Sam. 7:13, 14, 16; 2 Sam. 14:9; 1 Ki. 1:37, 47; Ps. 94:20 (“rulers,” RSV, Mo; “tribunals,” JB, NAB) ; Col. 1:16 (compare the very trinitarian TEV and GNB: “spiritual powers” and the Phillips translation: “power”). These clearly do not exclusively mean just “a place” as Bowman insists. In fact, the very trinitarian Good News Bible (GNB) actually renders the Hebrew “throne” at Gen. 41:40 as ”authority.” Also note that even IF Heb. 1:8 were translated “Your throne, O God, is forever,” it would certainly mean more than “the seat you sit upon is everlasting”! It still speaks of the kingly power and authority which will last forever! Bowman is clearly wrong in saying that ‘throne’ must mean the “position or place from which one rules” and denying many other figurative uses. 

(C) “The writer of Hebrews is quoting Ps 45:6 and applying it to the Son to show that the Son is far greater than any of the angels [see quotes by Barclay and Robertson: HEB 2-3]. However, if all this verse means is that the Son’s authority derives from God, this in no way makes him unique or greater than the angels...” says Bowman. 

However, the complete quote from Ps. 45:6, 7 which begins at Heb. 1:8 includes Heb. 1:9. This verse not only specifies that God is the God of the king (Jesus), but also concludes with “God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Jesus was “anointed” (brought into a position he didn’t originally have) by God and, at that point, came to be above his fellows. This is why Heb. 1:8, 9 was quoted by the writer of Hebrews: to show that Jesus is now (after God appointed [Heb. 1:2, 4] and anointed him) higher than the angels (who had been his “fellows”). 

Corroborating this is respected trinitarian Bible scholar, Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor at the Union Theological Seminary, who wrote: “The author of Hebrews ... thinks of [Jesus] as an angel, whom God had exalted above all others, investing him with his own majesty and calling him by the name of Son.” - p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed. 

And, again, the trinitarian The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible tells us that at this time the Jewish expectation was that the Christ was “a pre-existent, heavenly ANGELIC being who, at the end of time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world [see Acts 7:55-56].” - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962. 

Similarly, that most famous of Jewish scholars and teachers of the first century A. D., Philo (see the LOGOS study), wrote about Hagar erroneously describing her seeing the Angel of God as seeing God:

“For just as those who are unable to see the sun itself see the gleam of the parhelion [a ‘mock sun’ - an optical illusion, not the true sun - RDB] and [erroneously] take it for the sun, ... so some regard the image of God, His angel the Word, as His very self.” - p. 423, Philo, vol. V, “On Flight and Finding,” Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, 1988 printing.

“Angel of the Lord [angel of JEHOVAH] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from JEHOVAH .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant.” - p. 39, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982. 

“Angel of the Lord. ... Christ’s visible form before the incarnation.” - p. 40, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), Hendrickson Publ. 

“ANGEL OF THE LORD, ... is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman [‘word’] .... In the NT [which trinitarians agree explains and amplifies the OT] there is no possibility of the angel of the LORD being confused with God. .... mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a divine being, even though in human form, and is [sometimes] addressed as God” - p. 38, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House (trinitarian), 1984 printing.

“The Angel of the LORD.... Traditional [from 2nd century A. D. (at least)] Christian interpretation has held that this ‘angel’ was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God’s Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [Jehovah] who sent him” - footnote for Gen. 16:7 in the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan Publishing, 1985.

It is not uncommon for a trusted servant to actually represent his master in dealings with others. “What a servant says or does is [sometimes] ascribed to the master” - Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation,” Eerdmans Publishing, 1978 printing.

The angel of JEHOVAH “is a heavenly being given a particular task by YAHWEH [JEHOVAH], behind whom the angel’s personality entirely disappears .... because YAHWEH'S holiness could have destroyed Israel, only his angel was to go with the people.” - [see 1 John 4:12; John 6:46.] - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), Vol. 1, p. 101, Zondervan Publ., 1986.

[Even the person speaking to Moses from the burning bush was an angel! Even though he spoke Jehovah's words and seemed to Moses to be JEHOVAH, we know that it was an angel speaking and acting for JEHOVAH: Acts 7:30.]

Please compare the following scriptures: Gen. 16:10, 11 and 13; Gen. 31:11 and Gen. 31:13; Gen. 32:24-30 and Hosea 12:4; Judges 6:16 and 6:20-23. 

It should be obvious that the Angel of JEHOVAH is NOT JEHOVAH himself! Even many trinitarian scholars admit the obvious here. However, some are unwilling to let any opportunity go by, no matter how poor, (since there is no real evidence for it to begin with) to insist that Jesus is JEHOVAH. So, although admitting that Jesus was (or probably was) the Angel of JEHOVAH in the OT (at least part of the time) they also insist that he was also JEHOVAH! 

Consider, however, if “Angel of JEHOVAH ” really meant that the one who had that title was JEHOVAH (even though the term literally means “messenger OF JEHOVAH ”), no inspired prophet of God or inspired Bible writer would ever use that term for anyone else. And yet Luke used it for the angel Gabriel, and Haggai actually used it for himself! 

Yes, Luke tells us at Lk 1:11, 19 “Then there appeared to him the angel of the LORD [the very same wording as found in the Septuagint at Gen. 16:7] .... The angel replied, ‘I am Gabriel who stands in God’s presence, and I have been sent to you’” - The Jerusalem Bible, also see NJB and NAB (‘91).

And the prophet and inspired Bible writer Haggai writes at Haggai 1:13 “Then Haggai, the messenger of JEHOVAH, spoke JEHOVAH’S message to the people.” The words are identical to both the Greek and Hebrew of Genesis 16:7: “the messenger [or angel] of JEHOVAH ”! And, of course, the NT shows that other angels [in addition to the “pre-incarnate” Jesus] may use the same title “angel of the LORD.” Even though the angel may, at times, actually identify himself as God (or JEHOVAH), it obviously does not mean he is JEHOVAH himself! He is perfectly representing JEHOVAH as his messenger and is speaking JEHOVAH’S very words at times. 

(Let’s not overlook the fact that King David was described as being “like the Angel of God.” - 2 Sam. 19:28, NJB (c.f., 2 Sam. 19:27 in NASB, NEB, NKJV, AT, RSV). If this angel were really God Himself, such a statement would not have been made - or tolerated by David when he heard it. Instead, King David is often compared to the Messiah in Scripture!)

When JEHOVAH (God alone) created his workman, his firstborn, as his first and only direct creation (the highest of angels or servants of God: Jesus, the Word), he became the Father. This is why Jesus may be called the “Firstborn” and the “onlybegotten” (only direct creation by JEHOVAH himself). When Jesus (the Word), at the command and direction of JEHOVAH God (the Father), became the instrument by which the material universe was made, the other angels (his fellows) were present. When he spoke to men in behalf of JEHOVAH (often using JEHOVAH’S very words which his Father spoke through him), he was called “the Angel of JEHOVAH.” When he had finished his sacrifice on earth, he became much superior to his fellow angels by appointment and anointment from JEHOVAH (but even at this time he certainly did not become equal to God). 

- - - - - - - - - - 

3. A. Some translations of Heb. 1:8 by trinitarians:

“God is your throne” - AT (Dr. Goodspeed)

“God is thy throne” - Mo (Dr. Moffatt)

“God is your throne” - Byington

“God is your throne” - Dr. Barclay

“God is thy throne” - Dr. Westcott

“God is thy throne” - A.T. Robertson (Alternate translation)

“God is thy throne” - Dr. Young (Alt.)

“God is thy throne” - RSV (Alt.) 

“God is your throne” - NRSV (Alt.)

“God is thy throne” - NEB (Alt.)

“Thy throne is God” - ASV (Alt.)

B. Some translations of Ps. 45:6 (quoted at Heb. 1:8) by trinitarians:

“Your Divine throne” - RSV

“Your throne is like God’s throne” - NEB

“God is your throne” - Byington

“The kingdom that God has given you” - GNB

“God has enthroned you” - REB

“Your throne is from God” - NJB

“Your throne is a throne of God” - NRSV (Alt.)

“Thy throne is the throne of God” - ASV (Alt.)

- - - - - - - - - - -

4. New Testament texts produced by trinitarians in which Autou (“His”) was chosen as part of the original text ("... the scepter of his [autou] kingdom":

Westcott and Hort

Nestle’s

It has been admitted by respected trinitarian scholars (UBS text writers) that if autou ("his") were in the original writing of Heb. 1:8, the proper rendering earlier in the same verse must be “God is your throne”! – p. 663, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.

Even the highly respected NASB renders this as "... the scepter of his kingdom." The Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; The New English Bible; Revised English Bible; AT (Smith and Goodspeed); Rotherham; Byington; C.B. Williams; etc. also render it using "his." 

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

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

Posted by Elijah Daniels 

Isaiah 48:16 demystified.

  Isa. 48:16

Another example of "speaker confusion" I have seen attempted by certain anti-Watchtower trinitarians is found at Is. 48:16 in the KJ

Is. 48:16 - Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD [Jehovah], and his spirit, hath sent me. - KJ

Commenting on this scripture some trinitarians will say: "The speaker of Is. 48:16 is Jehovah as identified by context in the first part of the verse and as shown by his identification in verse 17 where he continues to speak. But notice that Jehovah, who is speaking, says: `The Lord GOD [Jehovah] ... hath sent me.' Therefore there must be at least two persons who are Jehovah!

The answer to such "proof" is obvious: "speaker confusion." Isaiah, like most other Bible writers, often interspersed the conversation of one person with statements by others and often doesn't identify the new speakers. Very often they appear to be comments by Isaiah himsel

That this is very likely the case here is shown, not only by context, but by these modern trinitarian Bible translations: The RSV and the NIV Bibles show by quotation marks and indenting that Isaiah himself made the final comment in Is. 48:16

The NAB also indicates a new speaker there, and, in the St. Joseph edition of the NAB, a footnote for Is. 48:16 tells us that the final statement was made by Cyrus! And the very trinitarian Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version, World Bible Translation Center, 1992, comes right out and says at Is. 48:1

" 'Come here and listen to me! ... from the beginning, I spoke clearly, so that people could know what I said.' Then Isaiah said, `Now the Lord [Jehovah] my master sends me and his Spirit to tell you these things.'

The New English Bible (NEB), The Revised English Bible (REB), and the Bible translation by Dr. James Moffatt (Mo) consider the last statement of Is. 48:16 to be spurious and leave it out of their translations entirel

Certainly these trinitarian translations would have rendered this scripture (and punctuated it accordingly) to show a two-Jehovah meaning (or given such an alternate rendering in the footnotes) if their trinitarian translators had thought there was even the slightest justification for such an interpretation! (Also analyze Jer. 51:19 - Jacob is the former of all things - Jehovah of hosts is his name, according to this trinitarian-type "speaker confusion" reasonin

Some notes by trinitarians on this scriptur

"The prophet himself, as a type of the great prophet, asserts his own commission to deliver this message: Now the Lord God (the same that spoke from the beginning and did not speak in secret) has by his Spirit sent me, v. 16." - Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, Isaiah Chapter 48 verse 1

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

"And, like almost every other prophecy of Christ in the Old Testament, it is subject to all kinds of interpretations. Calvin and many other scholars have seen it as a prophecy of the sending of Isaiah. Barnes agreed with this, stating that, 'The scope of the passage demands, it seems to me, that it should be referred to the prophet Isaia

"However, we believe that Hailey is correct in his declaration that, 'The coming of Jesus is the theme of this prophecy; the entire Old Testament looks forward to Christ's coming to carry forward the purpose of Jehovah; and the Holy Spirit would accompany Christ on that mission, and then complete the work after the Son's return to the Father; let it be remembered that the prophecy is here declaring new things to come in the future

"Lowth explained the passage thus: 'Who is it that saith in Isaiah, "And now hath the Lord sent me and his Spirit"? in which, as the passage is ambiguous, is it the Father and the Holy Spirit who hath sent Jesus; or the Father who hath sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit? The latter is the true interpretation.' The Father sent Jesus when he was born in Bethlehem; and the Father sent the Holy Spirit upon the occasion of the baptism of Christ (Matthew 3:16

"Thus, as Kidner put it, 'This is a glimpse from afar of the Trinity.' [?] As Cheyne expressed it, 'I cannot but think that we have both here and in Gen. 1:2 an early trace of what is known as the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit.' [

"The speaker here is therefore, the pre-incarnate Christ who identifies himself as the one sent ... to convey God's message of salvation to mankind. ..

"Jamieson, noting that Isaiah, not Christ, is the author of the passage, stated that, 'Isaiah here speaks not in his own person so much as in that of the Messiah, to whom alone, in the fullest sense, the words apply.'" - Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, Is. 48:1

Posted by Elijah Daniels 6...?])..'h.'...6.e:g!)y. "6,. f." V.V., Is. 48:16.

Posted by Elijah Daniels 

Substitutionary atonement a brief history.

 

 Substitutionary Atonement 

 Wikipedia 

 Substitutionary atonement, also called vicarious atonement, is a central concept within Christian theology which asserts that Jesus died "for us",[1] as propagated by the Western classic and objective paradigms of atonement in Christianity, which regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, "instead of" them.

Substitutionary atonement has been explicated in the "classic paradigm" of the Early Church Fathers, namely the ransom theory,[2] as well as in Gustaf Aulen's demystified reformulation, the Christus Victor theory;[2][note 1] and in the "objective paradigm," which includes Anselm of Canterbury's satisfaction theory,[3] the Reformed period's penal substitution theory,[4] and the Governmental theory of atonement.[note 2] 

Definition 

Substitutionary atonement, also called vicarious atonement, is the idea that Jesus died "for us".[1] There is also a less technical use of the term "substitution" in discussion about atonement when it is used in "the sense that [Jesus, through his death,] did for us that which we can never do for ourselves".[note 3]

The English word atonement originally meant "at-one-ment", i.e. being "at one", in harmony, with someone.[5] According to Collins English Dictionary, it is used to describe the redemption through Jesus' death and resurrection, to reconcile the world to himself, and also of the state of a person having been reconciled to God.[note 4][6][7]

The word "atonement" is often used in the Old Testament to translate the Hebrew words kipper and kippurim, which mean 'propitiation' or 'expiation'. The word occurs in the KJV in Romans 5:11 and has the basic meaning of reconciliation. In the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible or Tanakh), atonement was accomplished by the sacrifice of specified animals such as lambs to pay for one's sins.[8]

A distinction has to be made between substitutionary atonement (Christ suffers for us), and penal substitution (Christ punished instead of us), which is a subset or particular type of substitutionary atonement.[9] Care should be taken when one reads the language of substitution in, for example, patristic literature, not to assume any particular substitution model is being used but should, rather, check the context to see how the author was using the language.[note 5]