Yhwh Head Of Christ

[[The following is from a Seminary paper my husband wrote as a student, it is strict academic style and you are almost required to be a Seminarian to fully understand it.]]

Almighty God (YHWH) is The Head of Christ: God is the head of Christ just as a husband is head of the wife. It is not a matter of superior and inferior but superior and subordinate. no doubt is how it should be between a Father and Son.

This,

Father and Son, husband and wife are 2 separate and distinct persons and beings. One came before the other. They do not share an essence, there is no hypostatic union here. However, before He became a man Jesus was not a servant but an equal to God. (This is something I get from Phil 2) Before Jesus became a man, he had a God someone that was God to him (Micah 5:4). What you get from Phil 2 is perhaps not the best way to translate that verse, and many agree: "A vigorous debate still continues around the hymnic passage. However, the suggestion that the hymn has been constructed with a strong allusion to Adam, or even modeled after the template of Adam christology is still persuasive." p. 282, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, by James D.G. Dunn This ambiguity I is simply one that is shared by many translators and exegetes. The Harper Collins Study Bible NRSV states that some of the key words used here "had puzzled interpeters" and are "problematic." Sure, we have the way that Trinitarians like to look at this verse, as is stated in Heinz Cassirer's "did not look upon his equality with God as something to be held in his grasp," but there are many others that do not see this in the same way: "who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men" (American Standard Version; ASV) "who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" (New American Standard Bible; NASB). "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Revised Standard Version; RSV). "Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized, accounted the being equal with God." (Rotherham Bible; RB). "who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped" TCE "Christ Jesus, who, when he was in the form of God, did not regard

equality with God as a prize" Bible in Living English "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped" New Jerusalem Bible "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped" (New American Bible; NAB) "who, though being in God's Form, yet did not meditate a Usurpation to BE like God" Emphatic Diaglott "Who, [beginning] [existing] in a form of God did not consider a seizing, to be equal to God" 21st Century Literal "although he was like God in nature, he never even considered the chance to be equal with God." 21st Century Free "who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." Revised Version "Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God." An American Translation/Goodspeed "who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped" NET Bible "who though he had god-like form, did not regard it as a prize to be equal to God." The Original NT-Schonfield [Footnote: "Referring to the sin which Adam was tempted by Satan to commit, and which Lucifer in his former state had committed (Gen 3:5; Isa 14:12-14). Moses is said to have had a divine form, and as an infant to have received the crown from Pharoah's head (Josephus, Antiq II 232-235). The Christ Above of the Jewish mystics had angelic likeness as a Son of God (Dan 4:25-28; Job 1:6-7)."] "who - did not think it a matter to earnestly desired." -Clarke "Did not regard - as an object of solicitous desire." -Stuart "Thought not - a thing to be seized." -Sharpe "Did not eagerly grasp." -Kneeland "Did not violently strive." -Dickinson "did not meditate a usurpation." -Turnbull If, as the New Scofield Bible says, that this verse is the strongest assertions of Christ's deity, then those who hold such a position have a real problem. These verses are about humility, and how, unlike Adam, Jesus did not try to be equal to God. That is why the preceeding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean that we should try to cling to our equality with God? Of course not. To translate this verse in a way that promotes the deity of Christ robs it of its true force and meaning. The Jews were angry with Jesus and were looking for a reason/excuse to stone Him and that is what Jesus gave them at John 8:58. The other "I am" statements could be seen as part of normal everyday speech but not this one.

Reply: I agree this verse is different, as even many trinitarians agree, and rob it of it connection to the ANY "I am" statements by realizing the force of the Present of Past Action Idiom: The Living New Testament: "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The 20th Century New Testament: "before Abraham existed I was." Noyes, G.R. N.T. (1878) _Jesus said to them, _truly, truly do I say to you, from before Abraham was, I have been.__Hanson, J.W. New Covenant (1884) _Jesus said to them, _truly, truly, I say to you, I am before Abraham was born.__Kraeling, E.G. Four Gospels (1962) _With another amen-saying, Jesus declares to them that before Abraham was, He (Jesus) is (hint of His preexistence). Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T._Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed._ Cotton Patch Version (1970) _To this Jesus replied, _I existed before Abraham was born.__ Ledyard, G.H. New Life Testament (1969) _Jesus said to them, _for sure I tell you, before Abraham was born, I was and sum and always will be._,, Dr. E.C. Dymond N.T. (1972) __Yes, indeed!; said Jesus: _He saw me in prospect. The fact is, that long before Abraham was conceived in his mother_s womb, that individual who I now am had been conceived in God_s mind: He had completed the plan and specifications, so to speak, and therefore He was able to give Abraham a mental preview of me__. Good News for the World (1969) _Jesus answer, _I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born.__ The New Testament, An American Translation by Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham was born." The Complete Bible, An American Translation Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham was born." New Believers Bible, New Living Translation: "I existed before Abraham was even born." The New Testament, C. B. Williams: "I solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born." The Book, New Testament: The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The Living Bible: "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." Lattimore: "Truly, truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born." The New Testament, From the Peshitta Text, Lamsa: "Before Abraham was born, I was." An American Translation, In The Language of Today, Beck: "I was before Abraham." New Testament Contemporary English Version:

"I tell you.that even before Abraham was, I was, and I am." The Unvarnished New Testament: "Before Abraham was born, I have already been." The New Testament, Kleist & Lilly: "I am here-and I was before Abraham." The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams: "I existed before Abraham was born." The New Testament, Noyes: "From before Abraham was, I have been." A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: "Before Abraham was, I have been." Wakefield, G. N.T. (1795): _Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham was born, I am He._ The Syriac New Testament, Murdock: "Before Abraham existed I was." The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Burkitt& The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John Blake & Briere: "Before Abraham came to be, I was." The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant, Sharpe: "I was before Abraham was born." The 20th Century New Testament 1904: "Before Abraham existed I was already what I am." The New Testament, Stage: "Before Abraham came to be, I was." International Bible Translators 1981: _Jesus said to them, _I am telling the truth: I was alive before Abraham was born!__The Coptic Version the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Horner: "Before Abraham became, I, I am being." The Documents of the New Testament, Wade: "Before Abraham came into being, I have existed." Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961): _Jesus answered them: _Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born.__ The Concise Gospel and The acts, Christianson: "I existed even before Abraham was born." A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida: "Before Abraham existed, I existed, or.I have existed." The Simple English Bible: "I was alive before Abraham was born." The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born." The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham." Swann, G. N.T. (1947): Jesus said to them, verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before Abraham was born_International English Version (2001) "I was alive before Abraham was born"

Stephen's blasphemy would have been to say that He saw Jesus in a position > of authority equal to God. Reply: Is being at the "right hand of God" a position of equality? APPENDIX: [1] Heinz writes: Jesus identifies himself as the one "sent" by a superior, he did not come of his own accord (Jn.8:16,29,42,). This superior is identified as "Father" and "God" (8:54). Is not the sender The superior of the one sent? (Jn.13:16 cf Jn. 14:28). Jesus does nothing of his "own initiative" and he can only speak what he was "taught" by the Father (8:28). Jesus does not seek his own glory, but God's and "keeps His word" (8:50, 54). Could this be said of Almighty God? So why do the Jews try to kill him? Probably for the same reason that they stoned Stephen. Does this mean that Stephen was claiming equality with God? Let us look at the context even more closely: Jesus says they will die (v.21) Jesus says they are killers (v.37,40) Jesus says their Father is not God (v.41) Jesus says their Father is Satan (v.44) Jesus says he is above Abraham (vss. 53-58) Says A Rabbinic Anthology, "So great is the [merit] of Abraham that he can atone for all the vanities committed and lies uttered by Israel in this world." (London, 1938, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe, p. 676) It was only after all this, and after FIVE "I AM's" [EGW EIMI vss. 12, 18, 24, 28, 58] that they tried to stone him. The Jews did not understand the I AM to mean that he was saying he was Jehovah, they were upset at him for elevating himself above Abraham, and this is only heightened by the fact that he was hurling the above rebukes at them, simply put. Brian replies: God is the head of Christ just as a husband is head of the wife. It is not a matter of superior and inferior but superior and subordinate. This, no doubt is how it should be between a Father and Son. However before He became a man Jesus was not a servant but an equal to God. (This is something I get from Phil 2) and His being sent was not the same as a servant or slave being sent. Just as He willingly subjects Himself to God when all His enemies have been put under His feet, so He willingly came to earth. As a man His Father became His God also and as a man and a servant Jesus does only as His master, Father and God gives Him to do. He did not act on His own initiative or seek His own glory or teach something out of His own head but followed the lead of His Father in all things. As a man Jesus ('wisdom' as many say) grew in wisdom and stature but Jesus, through all this, stayed the same.(the same, yesterday, today and forever) It is because He stayed the same that we read that He said that He can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do is what He does. Jesus can do nothing but what God does. Even as a man Jesus could do nothing but what God does. (Maybe this means that Jesus could not sin just as God

cannot) The Jews were angry with Jesus stone Him and that is what Jesus statements could be seen as part Stephen's blasphemy would have of authority equal to God.

and were looking for a reason/excuse to gave them at John 8:58. The other "I am" of normal everyday speech but not this one. been to say that He saw Jesus in a position

[2] I agree; the arguments in "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" are often weak. But if you want to really be alarmed, read Ehrman's earlier book, "Jesus - Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium." It is as the sages have said:

"By their 'Lives of Christ' ye shall know them."

Btw, though I recommend the NKJV and WEB, I don't consider the Majority Text equal to the original text. I favor an eclectic approach (without accepting the theory of the Lucianic recension, and with the observation that *if* such a recension were the combination of three ancient threads rather than two, it would still look mighty similar). But I am much more comfortable with translations based on an accretion-rich text that convey the original message accurately than I am with translations based on a somewhat pruned text that don't convey the original message quite as accurately (due to overparaphrasing, or a poor application of "dynamic equivalance," or whatever). The motive for my recommendation of the NKJV and WEB is at least as pastoral as it is scientific -- i.e., there is no perfect option, and I would rather have people reading translations with benign accretions than with not-so-benign deletions and adulterations. Yours in Christ, Jim Snapp II Minister, Wayne Church of Christ Wayne, Ohio www.waynecoc.org [3] Subject: RE: Trinity Argument ;) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:25:44 -0800 (PST) Show Full Headers Back To [INBOX] Bottom of Form Hello Mrs. Puls I'm kind of surprised, but flattered that your son decided to forward my comments to you and I thank you for your words on this subject. I have an answer back though to your "echad" comment. The argument I'm coming back with though came from a Jehovah's Witness actually. While I do not hold to ANY JW beliefs he has more knowledge on the subject of ancient languages and their uses, and makes a better case than I do when it comes to disproving the Trinity, so therefore I took use of his more scholarly knowledge to make my point. I also want you to be made aware of WHAT kind of a Christian I am so I am not subjected to prejudices or misrepresentations. I am non denominational in the PUREST sense. I hold to NO set form of beliefs though Nathan asked in one of his later emails if I was part of the Way. My parents were members of it before Victor Paul Wierwille was caught out in his scandal and they dropped from it when that came out. While I was brought up

with most of the Way's teachings I have also been taught by Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans and an assortment of other denominations so my upbringing as a Christian has definitely been "eclectic" to say the least. The beliefs I hold to are STRAIGHT from the Bible and they are the ONLY truth I hold to, not ANY man's understanding. Though I do claim partiality to Victor Paul Wierwille's views, it is only because I never knew him personally and therefore was only acquainted with his understanding of the scriptures, and that understanding I have so far deemed from my own personal walk was IMPECCABLE. I can not stress that enough because I believe a man's work should&n bsp;not be shadowed by his human weakness and his is a good example in my opinion. The man was a born again believer and spoke to God, no matter that the Devil caused him to fall so far from grace but I do believe he had divine revelation in his understanding of the scriptures. So, with that statement, which is to make certain your understanding on just WHAT I am that way you don't think I'm trying to convert your son to some cult or that I'm secretly working for the JW's I'll get into the argument of "echad". I'm just a simple believing Christian Mrs. Puls that believes in following the Bible to the letter and practicing in faith as the early believers and apostles did. As well if you'd like I could send along the ending argument of the Trinity, as I just finished writing up the e nd chapters of the book, "One God: The Unfinished Reformation" by Bob Carden for the others to benefit from. If you're interested just send a response back and I'll send it in another email. Here is the excerpt: Witnessing to those 'Witnessing to the Witnesses' Series- Part Three: Jehovah's Witnesses and the Doctrine of the Trinity by Mark Larson Deuteronomy 6:4 Here it is written: "Hear O Israel, Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one" (ASV; Dar.; NWT). At first some may think it strange to attempt to use this verse to prove that Jehovah is more than one, since it says He is one. It is said by various Trinitarians: 'The word "one" (Hebrew, echad) has the meaning of several unified into one'. To demonstrate this avowed meaning , Genesis 2:24: "and they shall be one" (echad) flesh", and Numbers 13:23: "a branch with one" (echad) "cluster of grapes", are put into use. Those using these scriptures to promote their view of the word "one", tell us: 'See how the word has a composite sense?' It is true, those scriptures have such a sense. But, Deuteronomy 6:4 does not say, "Jehovah, they are one", nor "Jehovah our cluster of God is one". When "one" is used with plural or composite modifiers it can have a composite meaning. However, we do not find such modifiers at Deuteronomy 6:4. The proffe d examples (already cited) have no bearing on the matter. "One", used without plural or composite modifiers has the significance of, "single", "individual", and "only". We will illustrate: 1) About Lot it was said at Genesis 19:9: "This one (echad) fellow came in to sojourn". Lot was only one person. 2) At Genesis 22:2, Jehovah tells Abraham to offer Isaac on "one" (echad) "of the mountains" of the land of Moriah; not on several of them. 3) The disturbed Esau comes to his father and says: "Hast thou but one" (echad) "my father?" (Genesis 27:38). If "one" meant a group, why was Esau worried? Isaac could have drawn from the 'group' of blessings and given one to Esau; but the "one blessing" for the firstborn, had already been given. 4) Second Samuel 1:15 informs us "And David called one" (echad) "of the young men..and he" (not they) "fell on him". 5) At 1 Kings 4:19 we find: "he was the only" (echad) "officer that was in the land". "Echad", at this location is translated "only", in the Authorized Version (King James, AV); New American Standard Version (NASV); New International Version (NIV); New King James Version (NAV); ASV. (see Is. 51:2; Gen. 40:5; 41:38; 42: 11,13; Ex. 29:3, 15, 23, 39 (AV, NASV) Deut.21:15; Ez. 21:19; 34:23). Strong's Concordance. How clear it is, that "echad", used as it is at Deuteronomy 6:4, without plural

modifiers, has the meaning of a single individual. As to this correct understanding of "echad", we find well recognized commentaries reporting on Deuteronomy 6:4: "He is unique...He is not many, but one...Yahweh is a single unified person..one Lord is also opposite to diffuse...He is single...God's person and his will are single...Israel is called to concentrate it's undivided attention in Yahweh himself. He alone is worthy of full devotion and He is one-single and unique." The Broadman Bible Commentary, in loc. cit. "Yahweh, our God, Yahweh one." ....The object of Israel's exclusive attention, affection, and worship...is not diffuse but single...Israel's attention is undivided: it is confined to one definite being whose name is Yahweh." The Interpreter's Bible, in loc. cit. In the Septuagint Version (LXX), the word the Jewish scholars used to translate "echad" into Greek was "heis". "Heis" has the meaning of "one", the same as "echad". When Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 at Mark 12:29, the word Mark used to translate whatever word Jesus used in Aramaic into Greek, was "heis". We find no plurals employed to denote the oneness of God at Deuteronomy 6:4 nor any quotations of it. Some may point to Acts 4:32 as an example of "heis" having a composite meaning. The scripture reads: "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." (KJV) See also NIV "one in heart and mind" "No one claimed." Here, the first occurrence of "one" is from the Greek "mia" (the nominative singular feminine form of "heis"), and has reference to the "multitude": and does have composite connotations. The second occurrence of "one" has reference to what each one was "saying" in their individual hearts; a singular connotation. So, one must consider the person or thing to which "one" refers and the modifiers which apply to the subject. Then only can one determine if it has singular or composite meanings. One additional related matter that is brought up by some related to our topic in Deuteronomy 6:4, is the Hebrew word from which "our God" is taken. (This has often been presented to Jehovah's Witnesses in their Ministry).The word is "eloheynu. It has been defined , in some publications, and verbally, as "our Gods". Such a translation is totally inaccurate. "Eloheynu", in usage, means , "the God of us, or "our God". (See "The New International Version Interlinear Hebrew -English Old Testament", John R. Kohlenberger III, editor, at Deuteronomy 6:4). Indeed, Jehovah was "God" to the people; not "Gods" to them. Today He is the God worshipped by Christians; not their Gods. At this point, we should mention that, regardless of the above, there are teachers of the Trinity doctrine who will continue to attempt using Deuteronomy 6:4 as a scriptural "proof" of a Trinity as taught in the Old Testament, or Hebrew scriptures. One such person is Robert Morey, in his publication, "The Trinity: Evidence and Issues "(Grand Rapids: Word Publishing, 1996) 88-89. References by Morey relates God as "one" to a "compound unity". Robert Morey states that the Hebrew word for "one" (echad) which is used in Deuteronomy 6:4, "refers to a compound oneness in which a number of things together are described as 'one'". Remarkably, he further claims: "The use of (Echad) in Deut.6:4 is exactly what Trinitarians expect to find in the Bible because it is the only way in the Hebrew language to indicate to the reader that God is a composite unity of several Persons and not just a solitary person. There are no other words in the Heb rew language by which such an idea could be expressed." The distance between Morey's view and the true import of 'echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 could not be greater. He creates a false analogy by comparing the use of echad in eight other verses which contain either a numerical plural or mention more than one item or person, with the use of 'echad in Deuteronomy 6:4. For example, he refers to "the evening and the morning" comprising the "first" or "one" day in Genesis 1:5. But, again, unlike Deuteronomy 6:4 here we are dealing with more than

one item: "morning" and "evening". In Genesis 2:24 it is Adam 'and' Eve (two human beings) who become "one flesh". In Genesis 11:6 the 'people' (a group of persons) become "one". A similar use is found in Genesis 34:16, 22. The references in 2 Chronicles 30:12 (those in Judah are given "one heart"), Ezra 2: 64 (the "congregation" is viewed as "one group") and Jeremiah 32:39 (where the "people" are again given "one heart") are also numerical plurals or impersonal singular term denoting a group (such as "congregation"). But Trinitarians will not accept an impersonal sense or a genuine plural for 'elohim ("God"") in Deuteronomy 6:4! Those who claim that 'elohim, being a plural in form, is somehow consistent with Trinitarianism, fail to realize that intensive or majestic plurals are quite common in the Hebrew Bible, and thus plurals are either genuinely plural (that is, more than one) or intensive plurals. For example, in Genesis 39:2 the plural form of the Hebrew word for "master" or "lord" is used in reference to Potiphar, "the Egyptian" ( a singular reference). So either it means "masters", which cannot be sustained in view of the following singular description in verse 2 ("the Egyptian") or it is an intensive, majestic plural. The same is true for 'elohim. The Hebrew word 'elohim is not only used in reference to Jehovah (Genesis 1:1), but it is also used of Moses (Ex 7:1), the Philistine god Dagon (1 Sam 5:7), Chemosh (Judges 11:24) and others who are not multi-personal beings. That 'elohim is not used in these texts as a numerical plural is clear from the fact that the LXX translates them with singular terms. Thus, in view of these and other uses words that are plural in form but not in meaning, H.W.F. Gesenius rightly calls this usage the 'plural of excellence or majesty'. (See H.W.F. Gesenius, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammer, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley, 2d Eng. Ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 398-399. It is of interest to note that Morey also cites the use of "one" in Genesis 3:22 as though it supports his idea of "compound oneness". He says that this verse speaks of "Adam and Eve becoming 'one' (echad) with God." But Genesis 3:22 does not say anything about Adam and Eve becoming "one with God." [Morey, The Trinity, 88] In fact, the verse does not mention Eve at all, but only "the man" (ha 'adam). Since Morey is intent on proving a "compound oneness" for the use of "echad", it seems he is willing to add persons to the text in order to preserve his view of "echad"! In fact, Genesis 3:22 does not even use "echad" in reference to "the man", but to God and those to whom He speaks, those whom the man has become "like" (note that "echad" has the prefixed preposition (meaning "like" or "as") before it). Indeed, the use of "echad" in passages such as Isaiah 51:2 ("Abraham...was 'one' when I called him" ) shows that it can most certainly be used of a single subject, without implying any kind of "compound oneness". Herein now lies a major blow to Trinitarianism: The distinction Trinitarians make between a "person" and a "being", as it relates to the Trinity, is not supported by the Bible. The Bible does not even imply such a distinction. Rather, what it does say implies that the distinction between the Father and Son is not merely one of "person", but one of essence or nature. They may have the same kind of nature (that is, they are both spirit beings, John 4:24; 1 Corinthians 15:45) but they each have their own individual substance of being, which is why one of them can be considered the "God of" the other. (Revelation 3:12). For the same reason they can be distinguished from one another by using ontological terms such as theos (John 1:1). A plurality of "persons" within the "one God" is also unknown in the Bible. Philosophical arguments regarding God's ability to express perfect love only if God is multi-personal are not scriptural. Attempts to read a multiplicity of persons into the plural word for "God" in Hebrew (elohim) cannot be sustained by the evidence. Either the plural word 'elohim is a genuine plural word (God's) or it is an intensive plural designed to emphasize the majesty or excellence of the subject. Even Trinitarian writers argue against this use of 'elohim, concluding that "the plural form 'elohim for God in the Old Testament cannot be evidence of the Trinity." (See "Why You Should believe in the Trinity, 49).

As a final thought on this matter of Deuteronomy 6:4, it would only be appropriate to bring up some recently published research material pertaining to the writings of the Late Walter Martin. Even JW opposers like M. James Penton refer to a reference publication entitled "They Lie in Wait to Deceive", Volume 3, by Robert and Rosemary Brown, " Robert and Rosemary Brown have thoroughly exposed the dishonesty of the late Walter Martin, the self proclaimed "Bible Answer Man", and one of the best known "anti-cultists" in the world today. But their critique of him does not really serve the purpose they intend. Although Martin was a person of monumental ego who gave a highly misleading picture of himself, that fact in itself says little about the nature of his scholarship." "Nor does it indicate anything about the claim that he made to speak for "orthodoxy" within the Reformed tradition. That Martin's scholarship is bad can be proven by a careful examination of "Jehovah of the Watchtower" and Kingdom of the Cults", two of his best known books...In those works he indulges in ad hominem arguments, character assassination, and demonstrably unsound reasoning. But why discuss his scholarship nearly a year after his death? Would it not be better to let him rest in peace? Quite frankly, no. His books are sold by almost every Evangelical bookstore in North America and are still among the primary "anti-cult" publications distributed today, and they continue to have a major impact on a large number of uninformed readers. Religious communities such as the Christian Scientists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Latter-Day saints, whom those books attack, are open to searching criticism, but such criticism should be fair and scholarly. Unfortunately, Martin's works are neither, and the public needs to be warned that they are not to be regarded as such. Then, too, there is another good reason for outlining just how bad Martin's publications are. Over the years they have been printed, published, and distributed by such Protestant Evangelical publishing houses as Moody press, Bethany House Publishers, and Vision House Publishers, apparently without their showing any interest in examining carefully what they have been selling. Hence, those publishers, whose Owners claim to be Christians, need to be reminded that they have an obligation not to engage in what amounts to the promotion of unsound scholarship and commercialized hate peddling. So with these thoughts in mind, the following article will give a brief analysis of some of the inadequacies of Martin's scholarship which seem to reflect, in part at least, his own strangely warped life." This article totals 14 pages, outlining, in part, the false charges against Charles Taze Russell, Martin's constant slipping into the presentation of "modalism", the idea that the one person of the God of Israel appeared to mankind in different modes or guises at different times. "In at least one case, however, he (Martin) identifies Jehovah with God the Father. Hence, one never quite knows from his writings whether the name Jehovah denotes the first person, or the second person of the Trinity, or the Trinity per se." Also highlighted is Walter Martin's lack of understanding of the Biblical languages, effectively "sabotaging", undermining his own "arguments" against Jehovah's Witnesses, (which arguments Jehovah's Witnesses ha ve "exposed" and "disposed" of time after time both in our Field Ministry and in direct letters to Mr. Walter Martin. However, let us focus on one specific topic. Deuteronomy 6:4. Further we read: "It is strange, too, that Martin made so much of Charles Taze Russell's lack of knowledge of biblical languages, for Martin himself demonstrates ignorance of them. For example, on page 69 of "Kingdom of the Cults", (1985 Edition), he attempts to exegete Deuteronomy 6:4 AV- "Hear, O' Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD"- so that the word "one" in Hebrew, that is echod, is understood as "not solitary, but composite unity." But this old canard, (false rumor, an absurd or extravagant piece of news) which is used to attempt to show that the doctrine of the Trinity is present in the Old Testament, will not do. In Hebrew the word echod is used as is the cardinal number "one" and the ordinal

number "first" in English. That is, it is used to denote one unit or one set, or the first unit or the first set of anything. So there is no necessary concept of composite unity in the word at all. Anyone doubting this should take a look at George V. Wigram's "The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), pages 41 and 42, where the biblical uses of echod are given. Anyone trying to foist the idea that echod necessarily has a composite meaning is either dishonest or unaware of the facts. Thus Martin's safari into Hebrew is specious. It is, however, in his attempt to explicate ("unfold the meaning", "interpret") biblical Greek that he shows real ignorance. In his attacks on Jehovah's Witnesses, Martin often huffs and puffs about their New World Translation and various doctrinal positions which they have taken..." END And there's that As for God's usage of "us" then it must mean the "plural of majesty" as well with regard to Elohim, since the Jews have NO problem understanding that their God was ONE God, not One God who revealed himself in three persons, or MANY Gods. Because that IS the only meaning you could take out of those verses such as "Us" or "We" and a plural form for the name of God was MANY Gods, not a Three in One God in the Jewish understanding. This belief in ONE God was ESSENTIAL since we see that the Jews would run after "many foreign" gods and God had to keep reprimanding them for that. Anyway, as I said before we're not SURE who God is refering to and it is not our place to make something up or "infer" or "assume". That is a mystery of scripture I can attest to, but it in NO WAY proves the Trinity anymore than Elohim does. There are "better" nontrinitarian w ays to explain that scripture and fit in correctly with the Jewish understanding, which was the culture and language the Bible came from. I stand on scripture Ms. Puls and the choice seems just as obvious to me as well. I'm not here to convert, but I'm definitely here to give my fellow believers a better understanding of the Word and to improve them in their walk because a correct knowledge of the Scriptures is VERY important, as Hosea 4:6 makes the case, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" If you let something in that is NOT Biblical, you open up a way for the Devil to decieve and lie to you. And yes it's happened to many great men and women of God so I'm not saying you are not a true Christian or don't know the "Truth" but you've definitely been decieved by this which was a pagan doctrine from the council of Nicaea, a council which the early reformers for Protestant religions held as heresy and abolished most if not all of their decisions, unfortunately ONE of those doctrines has still managed to fester in the new Church, the Trinity is that doctrine. Love in Christ Lauryn [4] Defacto made a excellent comment clearly showing in few words that Almighty God (YHWH) and Jesus (Yeshua) are two separate and distinct beings as follows, "I don't have a problem at all with either of those verses, Ed. The Father is Pure Spirit whereas Jesus gave up His original pure spirit existence so the Father could send Him to us in the flesh! Jn.1:14! There are two! The Father and the Son, period! Among other obvious supporting Scriptures to that fact - is that the Father raised the Son from the dead! Rom.10:9, beside Jesus being with the Father before the World began! Jn.17:5. Then returning to the Father and being seated on His right hand side. Jn.16:5 and Rom.8:34." Let's hope all realize this fact now and we can get onto a subject other than the false doctrine of the trinity. [5] I would like to respond to this message.

I wonder if you mean

that Jesus was limited only in that he left heaven and took the form of man, being a little lesser that angels. However he was further limited even in heaven in that even after the thousand years he turns the Kingdom over to "His God and father" at 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. Also at Philippians 2:8 it says that he "became obedient" and later in verses 9-11 "God exalted him" to a superior position. Further, that "Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Sound to me from the scriptures that he was not only limited but in subjection to his father's headship. [6] Jesus Christ on the Infallibility of Scripture Dr. David Livingston There is considerable debate these days concerning the inerrancy (infallibility) of Scripture. The authority of God's Word is the main issue. But, if one yields to the authority of Jesus Christ (Yeshua HaMoshiach), he must, in turn, yield to Christ's view of the Scripture itself. Anyone and everyone who claims to be a Christian (a believer under the authority of Christ) must hold to the same view He did! What was it? I. Negative Aspects (an argument from silence - but a loud silence!) Jesus (Yeshua) never belittled Scripture (as some modern critics do), or set it aside (as the Jewish leaders of His day had done with their Oral Traditions), or criticized it (although He criticized those who misused it), or contradicted it (although He rejected many interpretations of it), or opposed it (although He sometimes was free or interpretive with it), nor spoke in any way as "higher" critics do of the Old Testament (Tanakh). II. Christ's Use of Scripture As L. Gaussen has asserted, "We are not afraid to say it: when we hear the Son of God quote the Scriptures, every thing is said, in our view, on their divine inspiration - we need no further testimony. All the declarations of the Bible are, no doubt, equally divine; but this example of the Savior of the world has settled the question for us at once. This proof requires neither long nor learned researches; it is grasped by the hand of a child as powerfully as by that of a doctor. Should any doubt, then, assail your soul let it behold Him in the presence of the Scriptures!" 1 1. He knew the Scriptures thoroughly, even to words and verb tenses. He obviously had either memorized vast portions or knew it instinctively: John 7:15. 2 2. He believed every word of Scripture. All the prophecies concerning Himself were fulfilled 3, and He believed beforehand they would be. 4 3. He believed the Old Testament (Tanakh) was historical fact. This is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4, 5) onward, much of what He believed has long been under fire by critics, as being mere fiction. Some examples of historical facts: * Luke 11:51 - Abel was a real individual * Matthew. 24:37-39 - Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27) * John 8:56-58 - Abraham

* Matthew 10:15; 11:23, 24 (Luke 10:12) - Sodom and Gomorrah * Luke 17:28-32 - Lot (and wife!) * Matthew 8:11 - Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28) * John 6:31, 49, 58 - Manna * John 3:14 - Serpent * Matthew 12:39-41 - Jonah (vs.42 - Sheba) * Matthew 24:15 - Daniel and Isaiah 4. He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear: * Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10, 12:26 ("Book of Moses" - the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44 ("Christ's Canon"); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; ("The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.") 5 * Isaiah wrote "both" Isaiah's: Mark 7:6-13; John 12:37-41. * Jonah wrote Jonah: Matthew 12:39-41. * Daniel wrote Daniel: Matthew 24:15. 5. He believed the Old Testament (Tanakh) was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit's inspiration, even though the pen was held by men: Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37. 6. He believed Scripture was more powerful than His miracles: Luke 16:29, 31. 7. He actually quoted it in overthrowing Satan (Hasatan)! The O.T. Scriptures (Tanakh) were the arbiter in every dispute: Matthew 4; Luke 16:29, 31. 8. He quoted Scripture as the basis for his own teaching. His ethics were the same as what we find already written in Scripture: Matthew 7:12; 19:18, 19; 22:40; Mark 7:9, 13; 10:19; 12:24,29-31; Luke 18:20. 9. He warned against replacing it with something else, or adding or subtracting from it. The Jewish leaders in His day had added to it with their Oral Traditions: Matthew 5:17; 15:1-9; 22:29; (cf. 5:43,44); Mark. 7:1-12. (Destroying faith in the Bible as God's Word will open the door today to a "new" Tradition.) 10. He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit: Matthew 25:31; John 5:22, 27; 12:48; Romans 2:16. 11. He made provision for the New Testament (B'rit Hadashah) by sending the Holy Spirit (the Ruach HaKodesh). We must note that He Himself never wrote one word of Scripture although He is the Word of God Himself (the living Torah in flesh and blood, see John, chapter 1). He committed the task of all writing of the Word of God to fallible men - guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. The apostles' words had the same authority as Christ's: Matthew 10:14, 15; Luke 10:16; John 13:20; 14:22; 15:26, 27; 16:12-14. 12. He not only was not jealous of the attention men paid to the Bible (denounced as "bibliolatry" by some), He reviled them for their ignorance of it: Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24. 13. Nor did Jesus (Yeshua) worship Scripture. He honored it - even though written by men.

The above leaves no room but to conclude that our Lord Jesus Christ (Yeshua HaMoshiach) considered the canon of Scripture (Tanakh) as God's Word, written by the hand of men. Although some religious leaders profess to accept Scripture as "God's Word," their low view of "inspiration" belies the fact. They believe and teach that Scripture is, to a very significant degree, man's word. Many of their statements are in essential disagreement with those of Jesus Christ (Yeshua HaMoshiach). From the evidence of their books, we conclude that some Christian leaders are opposite to Christ in His regard for the authority, the inspiration, and the inerrancy of Scripture. And now, the most important point. III. Jesus Christ Was Subject to Scripture Jesus (Yeshua) obeyed the Word of God, not man. He was subject to it. If some leaders' view of inspiration were true, Jesus (Yeshua) was subject to an errant, rather casually thrown-together "Word of Man." Jesus (Yeshua) would have been subject, then, to the will of man, not the will of God. However, in all the details of His acts of redemption, Jesus (Yeshua) was subject to Scripture as God's Word. He obeyed it. It was His authority, the rule by which He lived. He came to do God's will, not His own, and not man's. Note how all of His life He did things because they were written - as if God had directly commanded. He fulfilled Old Testament (Tanakh's) prophecies about Himself. The passages are found all over the Old Testament (Tanakh). We cite here only a very few quoted in the New Testament (B'rit Hadashah): Matthew 11:10; 26:24, 53-56; Mark 9:12,13; Luke 4:17-21; 18:31-33; 22:37; 24:44-47. He Himself IS the Word of God. All the words from His lips were the Word of God. (John 3:34). If He had desired, He could have written a new set of rules and they would have been the Word of God. But, He did not. He followed without question the Bible already penned by men. This is the sensible thing for every believer to do. May all who read this adopt Jesus' (Yeshua's) attitude and become subject BOTH to Him as Living Word (living Torah) AND to the Bible as the infallible, written Word of God. Footnotes 1. Gaussen, L., The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, (Chicago: The Bible Inst. Colportage Association, n.d.), p. 93. 2. Jesus need not verify every passage in the Canon or else we would find the whole Old Testament (Tanakh) requoted in the New Testament (B'rit Hadashah), which is unnecessary. He verifies enough of it to assure us of complete approval of it all, including passages from all but a few books. Yet those also were in His Canon. He did not refute any of them. 3. A good summary of fulfilled prophecy, see: Wenham, J. W., Our Lord's View of the Old Testament, London: Tyndale Press (1953), pp. 23, 24.

4. See: Matthew 26:53-56; Luke 24:25-27; John 5:39-47. 5. The Pentateuch (Torah) is but one book in five parts. Meredith Kline's Treaty of the Great King has demonstrated convincingly that it was written by one person as a unity. Therefore, Christ's reference to any part of it as written by Moses infers He believed it was all written by Moses. The holy Scriptures... make you wise to accept God's salvation (Hebrew yeshua) by trusting in Christ Jesus (Hebrew Yeshua HaMoshiach). The whole Bible was given to us by inspiration from God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives; it straightens us out and helps us do what is right. It is God's way of making us well prepared at every point, fully equipped to do good to everyone. - II Timothy, Chapter 3, Verses 15-17, Living Bible (This paper is an excerpt from Dr. Livingston's M.A. Thesis titled, A Critique of Dewey Beegle's book titled: Inspiration of Scripture. Copyright 2003 David Livingston. [7] The Right Hand. The right hand was considered to be of great importance, symbolically. Joseph was displeased when Jacob crossed his hands in order to lay his right hand on Ephraim, Joseph's younger son. But Jacob did this purposely, to give Ephraim the superior blessing. (Ge 48:13-20) To be on the right hand of a ruler was to have the most important position, next to the ruler himself (Ps 110:1; Ac 7:55, 56; Ro 8:34; 1Pe 3:22), or a position in his favor. (Mt 25:33) Jesus is spoken of in the vision of Revelation as having the seven stars of the seven congregations in his right hand. That is, all these bodies of elders have his favor and are under his full control, power, and direction.-Re 1:16, 20; 2:1. For God to take hold of one's right hand would strengthen that one. (Ps 73:23) Usually the right hand of a warrior was his sword-wielding hand, and it was unprotected by the shield in the left hand. Therefore, a friend would stand or fight at his right hand as an upholder and protector. This circumstance is used metaphorically with regard to God's help and protection to those serving him.-Ps 16:8; 109:30, 31; 110:5; 121:5. The writer of Ecclesiastes says: "The heart of the wise is at his right hand, but the heart of the stupid at his left hand." In other words, the wise one inclines toward a good, favorable path, but the stupid one inclines toward a bad course.-Ec 10:2. Directions. The Hebrew _expressions for "right hand" (Heb., ya•min´) and "left hand" (Heb., semo´l´) are also translated "south" and "north," respectively (Ge 14:15; Ps 89:12), since directions were reckoned from the standpoint of a person facing the E. Hence, S would be to his right.-1Sa 23:19, 24. It is never used to describe someone who is the same person sitting at the right hand of himself. The below comment also shows that a protector or one who fights for someone is at his right hand. Rather than Jehovah being in subjection or as you have put it "God is serving Jesus", he is the Sovereign of the universe and can give rulership to whoever he pleases see (Dan4:17 and especially verse 35 of this chapter) At Daniel 7:13,14 in no way is these scriptures any indication that the son of man is uqual to the ancient of days in

fact to the contrary the son of man knows who the soveriegn of the universe is ( read Ps 83:18 and Is 42:8 where it says that to no one will he give his glory to, that is his soverignty as almighty God. [source ihackman50] [8] 1 Cor 15:42-50 brings out that Jesus was resurrected into a spirtual body, flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom. Also there are no scriptures that shows that Jesus ever ever ever said or even tried to show that he was ever or in the future be equal to his God. In addition you understnding of John 20:28 is faulty. Jesus appearance to Thomas and the apostles was met with disbelief by Thomas and possibly others. Jesus had removed that doubt and the now convinced Thomas exclaimed "My Lord and my God" [literally meaning "The Lord of me and the God {ho Theos} of me! "] Some scholars view this as an exclamation of astonishment spoken to Jesus but actually directed to God, his father. Some though claim (as you have) that this is directed to Jesus as Thomas's God and that the original Greek requires it to be directed to Jesus. Even if this is so the _expression "My Lord and my God" would still have to harmonize with the rest of the inspired Scriptures. The record shows that Jesus had previously sent his disciples the message "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God"there is no reason for believing that Thomas thought Jesus was almighty God. Also John 20:30,31 after recounting this incident said that these signs were given so that you would believe that "Jesus is the Christ, the son of God " not Almighty God [9] But isn't the Son still in subjection to his Father's authority? The one under authority doesn't come out from under authority because of gaining extra privilege. The discreet slave Jesus spoke about was apparently still under subjection (or should have been) while he was away and those who did not comply with his will while he was gone received judgement. We know Jesus always does the will of His Father but that is the point... it is not Jesus' will even during the time period that Scriptures talks about. In that sense Jesus is under subjection... he does things the way Jehovah wants him to do them so in effect it is still Jehovah ruling because what He would do is what is being done... He has just delegated that privilege to His Son. If a rancher has a son and leaves his son in charge of everything while he is away on business... isn't the son still in subjection to his father and doesn't the ranch still belong to his father? [10] On my posting about the new P.E.B. bible, TJ, I see the difference now that you have explained it. Guess I didn't catch the thing about the footnotes. You asked about John 8:58. What I meant was that the translators put "I am" under Ego Eimi in the interlinear, but not in the version. There are times when I think that translators do a disservice by translating word-for-word from the Greek, and I believe this is one

of them. Let's look at the Concordant Version here: "Verily verily I am saying to you, Ere Abraham came into being, I am." I think to many people, the above is nonsensical. It is awkward, and does not convey the proper meaning to the receptor language. There is an idiom at work here called the "Extension from the Past" idiom or PPA (Present of Past Action). The reason for this are the words PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI (before Abraham was). "The verb 'to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its basic meaning of 'be in existence', in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi, which would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was born', if it were not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am'. If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction." John's Gospel," Expository Times (1996): 302-303) 'I am' in John's Gospel BY K. L. MCKAY, MA, FORMERLY OF THE AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY [11] *** w84 9/1 p. 26 "We Worship What We Know" *** "Incidentally, it should not be forgotten that, probably in the fourth century C.E., an overzealous Trinitarian Latin scribe added to 1 John 5:7 the words "the Father, the Word and the holy spirit; and these three are one." This addition, known technically as the "Johannine Comma," was protected by the Vatican until 1927, in spite of the fact that even some Catholic scholars had raised doubts about its authenticity as early as the sixth century." [12] From Carl Conrad [[[One of the greatest Koine Greek scholars of modern times and a former professor at Washington University.]]] "I will agree that the perfect tense is one of the peskier Greek forms to get across into English; one of the reasons is that it is relatively rare in Greek narrative; another is that it corresponds only in part to the English present tense. Properly speaking, of course, the Perfect is an Aspect rather than a Tense: it indicates COMPLETION of the verbal action; it has two tenses, Present and Past (as I would--if I ever wrote a grammar--like to say that the "Imperfect" Aspect indicating acting that is in progress or beginning or uncompleted, which we normally call "Present," also has two tenses Present and Past--what we conventionally call Present and Imperfect). The Present Perfect expresses the present CONDITION of COMPLETION of the action, while the Past Perfect (= Pluperfect) expresses a past CONDITION OF COMPLETION, e.g.: Present: APOQNHiSKEI " ... is dying" Imperfect: APEQNHiSKE(N) " ... was dying" Aorist: APEQANE(N) " ... died" Present Perfect: APOTEQNHKE(N) "is dead" = "has died" Past Perfect: APETEQNHKEI "was dead" = "had died" There are verbs such as OIDA which are, properly (morphologically) speaking, in the perfect tense but which can only be properly

translated in English in the present tense. Thus OIDA means "I know"-it certainly DOES NOT mean "I have known"--although one might like to conjecture that it originally meant something like "I have a fullformed vision," inasmuch as this is historically and morphologically the perfect-tense form of the verb which we know in the Aorist as EIDON (from the root wEID/wOID/wID). Aristotle somewhere--I don't recall offhand whether it's in the Metaphysics or in the De Anima, probably the former--notes that his idea of ENTELEXEIA, which is usually translated as either "actuality" or "realization," but could just as well be translated "fulfillment," often finds _expression in verbs in the perfect tense. I would say that this is true of hESTHKA, which is the ONLY way that Greek can express the sense, "I am standing." A similar verb is GI(G)NOMAI, where GI(G)NOMAI means " ... come into existence," EGENOMHN means "came into existence," but GEGONA means " ...exist full-formed." Worth looking at are the Greek verbs in John's prologue, 1:3-4: "all things came into existence (EGENETO) through his agency, nor did a single thing come into existence (EGENETO). What has existence (GEGONEN) was, in fact (HN, "philosophic" or "explanatory" imperfect) Life in Him."" [13] Link to history of Bible translations: http://www.geocities.com/metatron32001/biblehistory.htm "Be ready to give the inquirer a course in apologetics." 1 Peter 3:15 Gordon Clark Babylonian Exile - 50 Years, or 70? Read Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews by Rolf Furulihttp://folk.uio.no/rolffu/Chronlgy.htm The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation by Leland Ryken http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1581344643/bibleversions-20 [14] Many do not usually like it when you connect this verse with Jesus, but the parallels are too overwhelming to be ignored. Check out the cross-references of the following Bibles, as they point between Wisdom and the Logos. New American Bible: John 1:1-> Prov 8:22-25 New Scofield Study Bible/KJV: Prov 8:22-> John 1:1; Prov 8:30->John 1:1, 2 Nelson Study Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3, 18 Oxford Annotated Bible/RSV: John 1:3->Prov 8:27-30; Prov 8:22-31>John 1:1-3 NIV Study Bible: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3 MacArthur Study Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3 Zondervan NASB Study Bible: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3 New American Standard Bible Reference Edition: Prov 8:30->John 1:2,3 Geneva Study Bible: Prov 8:22-John 1:1 Matthew Henry: John 1-5->Prov 8:22 John Wesley: John 1:1-> Prov 8:23 Harper Collins Study Bible/NRSV: John 1:1->Prov 8:22

Ryrie Study Bible/NIV: John 1:1->Prov 8 New Jerusalem Bible: John 1:1->Wisdom; Prov 8:22, 23-> John 1:1-3 Lindsell Study (Living) Bible: Prov. 8:22->John 1:1; Col. 1:17; Rev. 3:14 (and 1 Cor. 1:24 in the ftn.) Vine's Expository Reference Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3 Prophecy Study Bible/KJV by Tim LaHaye: Prov 8:22->John 1:1; Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3 NIV Rainbow Study Bible: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3 Men's Study Bible/NIV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3 Nestle-Aland 27th Edition: John 1:1->Prov 8:22; Prov 8:22->John 1:1,2 Oxford Study Bible/REB: Prov 8:22->John 1:1-3; John 1:1-18->Wisd. 9:1-4:8; Ecclus 24:1-12 Even Jesus acknowledges that he is this Wisdom: "Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles; and some of them they shall kill and persecute; that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation" Luke 11:49 ASV But in a parallel account we read, "Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city" Matthew 23:34 ASV Even Paul confirms Jesus as Wisdom, "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." 1 Cor 1:24 ASV [15] From _Differences Between Bible Versions_ (Updated and Expanded Edition) By Gary F. Zeolla "There are currently only three English versions available which adhere to a literal translation principle. Below is a discussion of each. Young's Literal Translation: The first literal English translation to be produced was Young's Literal Translation (YLT), by Robert Young (1822-1888) who also produced Young's Analytical Concordance. YLT was first published in 1862, with a revised edition issued posthumously in 1898. Given that it was translated in the late 1800's, YLT includes many archaic words. Young also used rather awkward wording and punctuation. So it can be rather difficult to read. In addition, there is a serious problem with the Old Testament (OT). It concerns a detail of Hebrew grammar known as the "waw conversive." Without going into technical details, it will just be said that Young did not believe this construction had any significance whereas most every other translator and Hebrew scholar does. This is not a minor point as it affects the way tenses are rendered throughout the OT. As such, it basically renders the OT of YLT useless. However, the New Testament (NT) of YLT is a very literal and reliable translation, though not very readable. YLT is now in the public domain and freely available on many Web sites. The Bibles Online page of Darkness to Light's Web site links to many Web-based Bibles: www.dtl.org/links/christian/bibles.htm. In addition, as of this writing, Baker Book House was still publishing a hardcopy edition of YLT. Literal Translation of the Bible: It was almost a hundred years before another literal translation was

produced. In 1976, Jay P. Green published the first edition of his Literal Translation of the Bible (LITV, for "Literal Version"). A new edition was most recently released in 2000. The LITV is the marginal reading in The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, also by J.P. Green. The LITV is also available separately. The press release for the LITV claims it is, "... the most accurate translation of the Bible in English." And it is very literal and accurate English translation for both the OT and NT, along with being much more readable than YLT. The LITV is available from Christian Literature World ~ PO Box 4998 ~ Lafayette, IN ~ Within the USA: (800) 447-9142; Outside the USA: (765) 447-9143 ~ Fax (765) 449-4870 (www.chrlitworld.com). Analytical-Literal Translation: The third and final literal translation is this writer's own Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament of the Holy Bible (ALT). Now the ALT is only of the NT, so for a literal translation of the OT one would need to consult the LITV. However, the ALT does contain some features which the LITV does not. These features will be discussed later. The ALT is available in hardcopy format from the publisher 1stBooks (www.1stbooks.com) and from conventional and online bookstores. It is available in eBook format from the translator at: www.dtl.org/books/. Greek Text- types: As for Greek text-type, YLT and the LITV are based on the Textus Receptus (TR), while the ALT is based on the Majority Text (MT). Both of these texts are based on the Byzantine textual tradition. The TR and MT are very similar, but there are some differences between them, with a few of these being significant. However, there are a greater number of differences and more significant differences between either of these two texts and the Critical Text (CT), which is based on the Alexandrian text-type. And it should be noted that there is no literal version available based on the CT." I have to take certain anyone Literal Bible, the "Expanded"

umbrage with the above statement. Firstly, I am not would include Zeolla's ALT Version as the ultimate especially when Zeolla also includes his Bible in category.

Secondly, whatever happened to the American Standard Version, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, and the Concordant Version. Are these not literal Bibles also? Do we need to take these steps in order to promote our Versionolatry? He throws the New American Standard Bible in the *Formal Equivalent* category, but then, isn't this the same as saying *Literal*? [16] Let us see what the NWT said about the Greek Grammar as applied by them to John 1:1c: These translations use such words as "a god," "divine" or "godlike" because the Greek word #952;#949;#972;#962; (the•os´) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the•os´. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek

expression #959; #952;#949;#972;#962;, that is, the•os´ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the•os´. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself. In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous #952;#949;#972;#962; in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering. Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns: Reference Bible NWT 6A. (Emphasis added) To condense this issue, the NWT is saying that John1:1c should be translated as "Indefinite" and refers to "quality" or the "characteristic" of the subject. The word "theos" is in the predicate position, which tells you something about the subject and precedes the verb. This is known as "an anathrous predicate noun, proceeding the verb." Let us consider whether such terms exist in Greek grammar to describe a noun (Theos/ God) that is "anathrous", meaning it is not proceeded by the definite article ( 'O/The) and is in the "predicate" position (says something about the subject (Logos/Word). Can such a noun be translated as "indefinite" such as "a man" etc. Is this Grammatically correct? Consider: (2) there is no indefinite article in Greek. Thus we see that anthropos, means "man" or "a man". It does not , however , mean "the man" because the Greek does have a definite article.... The Greek article is used to point out particular identity. This is called the "articular" use of a noun or other substantive. When no definite article is used with the noun (or other substantive), it is called "anathrous' use. The anathrous construction is used to indicate quality or characteristics." Essentials of New Testament Greek, Ray Summers (student of H.E. Dana), Chairman Dept of Religion Baylor University, Waco Texas, 1950 Pg 16. (emphasis added) "...the article is therefore ..., the definite article....It is a pointer... Whenever the Greek article occurs, the object is certainly definite. When it is not used, the object may or may not be definite..." ... "But

the rule holds whoever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate indefinite and undistributed." ... "The word may be either definite or indefinite when the article is absent..." " in the predicate the article is often absent. This is the rule unless the terms are convertible or the predicate is singled out as prominent." A.T. Robertson, A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH, 1934, pgs 756, 767, 794 (emphasis added) The predicate [noun] commonly refers not to an individual or individuals as such, but to the class to which the subject belongs, to the nature or quality predicated of the subject; e.g. Jo I, 1 [kai theos en ho logos], which attributes to the Word the divine nature,-Maximilian Zerwich, S.J., Biblical Greek, Rome, Scriptua Pontificii Instituti Biblici (Pontifical Biblical Scripture Institute), p. 55.(emphasis added) From this we see that the NWT has used proper terminology and has translated in harmony with Greek Grammar. It is not "bad grammar" at all. Nor does it ignore the basic tenets or show "intellectual dishonesty". Nouns without the article in the predicate position can be, and generally are, translated as indefinite and are used to describe, the class, quality or characteristics of the subject. This raises the question of why any of the above would say it is bad grammar, etc? Are they that ignorant of Biblical Greek, or are they dishonest in their representations of the facts? You decide, as we carry this further. Next we will examine point #2 to see if the NWT has used "Bad Grammar" specifically in John 1:1c. Do the above statements apply to John1;1c, indicating that the NWT has properly applied the rules. To clarify the position of John 1:1c from the perspective of Greek grammar, it is necessary to cover some basic rules of the Language. In Greek nouns can be either: 1. Definite. 2. Indefinite . 3. Qualitative. What do Jehovah's Witnesses say about this scripture and how the translate it? These translations use such words as "a god," "divine" or "godlike" because the Greek word #952;#949;#972;#962; (the•os´) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the•os´. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression #959; #952;#949;#972;#962;, that is, the•os´ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the•os´. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he

was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself. In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous #952;#949;#972;#962; in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering. Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns: Refernce Bible NWT 6A. (Emphasis added) Note "indefinite and qualitative" In other words 2b. The first point the is that Jehovah's Witnesses do not indicate that Jesus is "another God". They say he is "a god," "divine" or "godlike" Is this truly in harmony with the Greek language? Consider: B. F. Westcott: "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person... (Your reference rejecting #1 and this is 2a.) Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos." "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87. (your quote rejecting #1 and this is 2a.) C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76. (Your quote. (Totally rejects #1 ) There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite...In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7. (Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with the WT on 2b.) We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite ["qualitative" would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite

absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to "the image of God'' of Paul, Col. 1:15.-G. Lucke, "Dissertation on the Logos", quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428. (Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with the WT on 2b.) There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there in no article and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos so the phrase means 'The Word was divine'.-The Translator's New Testament, p. 451. (Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with the WT on 2b.) It would be impossible to speak about Jesus without considering the words of John's 'Gospel: "The Word was God". The Greek of that phrase is Theos en ho logos. This does not mean Word was God. ... There is noting strange about this. We do the very same in English. When in English, or in Greek, a noun does to have the definite article, it becomes the equivalent of an adjective. ... So then, what the Greek really says [means] in not "The Word was God," but "The word is in the same sphere as God; it belongs to the same kind of life [spiritual life] and is one with God [cp. John 17:20-23 on "one"]. William Barclay, Who Is Jesus, Tidings, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A., 1975, pp. 35-6. (basically is rejecting #1 and is unclear about 2a or 2b.) The rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate indefinite and undistributed.-A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, fourth edition, 1934, p. 767. (Agrees with 2b and the WT) The predicate [noun] commonly refers not to an individual or individuals as such, but to the class to which the subject belongs, to the nature or quality predicated of the subject; e.g. Jo I, 1 [kai theos en ho logos], which attributes to the Word the divine nature,-Maximilian Zerwich, S.J., Biblical Greek, Rome, Scriptua Pontificii Instituti Biblici (Pontifical Biblical Scripture Institute), p. 55. ( Rejects #1 and agrees with 2b as does the WT) In John 1:1...Theos en ("was deity");...The qualitative force is obvious and most important,-Alfred M. Perry, "Translating The Greek Article" in Journal of Biblical Literature, 1949, Vol. l68, p. 331.(Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with the WT on 2b.) Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [theos en ho logos] could be rendered "the word was a god." This leads me to affirm that one may not infer (as is often done) from [E.C. Cowell's] rule 2b [Journal of Biblical Literature, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament", 1933, Vol. 53, pp. 17-21] that anarthrous predicate nouns which precede the verb are usually definite. Indeed, such nouns will usually be qualitative in emphasis.-Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1992, pp. 60, 312. .(Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with the WT on 2b)

"R." wrote: Hey all! Russ here again.I just wan't to take a moment to thank Hollis and Paul for their input on my inquirey.It was most encouraging.Paul I can't wait to read that book.Guaranteed sale right here. Now in all honesty the woman that I was refering to did put up a link to a site that had quotes from "scholars" bashing the NWT.I have been trying to find that link but haven't as of yet.It was a link to the blueletter bible I think.Here is one that I found just looking around www.hyperbible.com/articles/jw4.asp here's another www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm If anyone would care to comment on these sites or the individuals mentioned within then I would love to hear it.Not that any of this bothers me or anything.I just find it interesting.Anyone want a good idea for a book?Write one about all of the biblical "scholars" with their ups and downs.Sort of like a who's who.Give them all a rating from best to worse.Stand back and watch the fur fly.THAT would be interesting. Anyhow,as I mentioned before I asked this woman about the hands in pocket thing as well as about the credentials of these scholars but never got an answer.Come to think of it I'm still waiting on answers from her regarding several issues.Her usual excuses are "I'm behind"or "I missed it" or usually no answer at all.For about a month or more I have been waiting on an answer to one simple question.How can you call Witnesses "wrong" for refering to a bible that was written by a "spiritist"(Greber) yet at the same time you have no problem refering to a bible that was written by a sadistic,homosexual,necrophilic,tyranic beastphile?(James 1st)Still waiting! If anyone has any views on James then I would welcome those also. By the way just in case anyone is wondering all of this is on the infamous "gathering" site.Bashers galore! Well thanks again y'all!-Russ [17] I like the way that Barclay and Wuest handle Col. 1:16: "All things through Him, and with a view to Him stand created." Wuest "He is the agent by whom all things were created." Barclay E. Lohse, "A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon", (The Hermeneia Series) p. 50, note 125 says: "It should be noted that EN (in), DIA (through), and EIS (for) are used, but not EK (from). 'From whom are all things' ( EX hOU TA PANTA) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He is and remains the creator, but the pre-existent Christ is the mediator of creation." The Son is never called "creator", but he is what Robertson calls "the intermediate agent" According to Robertson (Grammar p. 820) the source (direct agent) is most commonly expressed by the Greek preposition hUPO ("by"), and sometimes by APO ("from") and EK ("out of"). The intermediate agent is often identified by DIA ("through"). Matthew 1:22 points this out nicely: "All this took place because what was spoken [aorist passive participle] by [ hUPO] the Lord through [DIA] the prophet must be fulfilled [aorist passive subjunctive]." Here "the Lord" is the source and "the prophet" is the intermediate agent. In John 1:3 we read " Through (DIA) him all

things were made." In Colossians 1:16 we read: "For by (EN) him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by (DIA) him and for (EIS) him. " Please note that the verbs are passive and note the use of prepositions. In the verse we find the preposition EN ("in," "by means of"). This preposition governs AUTW ("him," in the dative case). Most of the 74 occurrences in the NT of EN AUTW in the dative case are locative, that is, they refer to something or someone being in some place. Only one of the examples points to a source. In the last part of verse 16 we find the preposition DIA which governs AUTOU in the genitive case. This is the typical marking of an intermediate agent, so this must be the proper way to view the Son in this context. God is the source of the passive verbs which speak about creation, and that the Son is the intermediate agent? In Colossians 1:12 "the Father" is mentioned, and he is active through verse 20. This is seen in verse 19 where God is the implied subject for the verb, and it is particularly evident in verse 20, because here both the source (God) and the intermediate agent (Jesus) are mentioned. It is said that the reconciliation is "through" (DIA) Jesus and "to" (EIS) God. The same thought is expressed in verse 22. The implied source (grammatical subject) of the active verb "reconciled" is "God." The intermediate agent is Jesus, for it is said that reconciliation occurred "by means of" (EN) his fleshly body and "through" (DIA) his death. [18] The NAB reads "The only Son, God" (yes, the footnote indicates they take MONOGENHS to include a filial relationship with the father, so the noun "Son" is taken from the adjective MONOGENHS. Notice these varied translations, many of them seem to use a noun for the adjective MONOGENHS. CEV "The only Son, who is truly God" CSB "The only Son-- the One" GNB" The only Son, who is the same as God" GW "God's only Son, the one" MSG "This one-of-a-kind God-_Expression" NET "The only one, himself God" NLT "But his only Son, who is himself God" REB "God's only Son" SCON also takes QEOS as a genitive "God's Only-Begotten" The NIV has "God the One and Only" PHIL "the divine and only Son" BARC "the Unique One, the Divine One" TNT "the unique one, who is divine" TNT makes this note This represents two Greek words, of which the literal translation, 'only God', does not make sense. Modern translations vary in their solution to this problem. TT attempts to represent as clearly as possible UBS GNT. Some translations, however, are based on the alternative Greek readings, which yeild the sence either 'God's only Son' or 'only Son'.

[19] > Unless there is a semantic overlap between the two terms allowing "unicus" to

conote temporal procreation as well based on the context. Either way Jerome and Hilary specifically used this word to translate "unicus" when applied to Christ. Therefore given the uncertainty between our understanding the meaning in the Old Latin and that of Jerome and Hilary's day. I don't think appealing to the Latin is conclusive then as a valid "data point".<< I don't think there is any doubt whatsover what *unicus* means in Latin. Anyway, this got me curious as to when and where Jerome translates MONOGENHS *unicus* and *unigenitus*. Jerome translates directly from the Hebrew in the OT, rather than the LXX, but I also thought it would be interesting to see how he handles the passages in the OT where MONOGENHS clearly does not mean "only-begotten" (which list Hollis is studying). I am using Bible Windows (now under the product name Biblioi) 6.0, which uses the latest critical editions of all its original language texts. BTW, here is a link which summarizes Jerome's significant contributions to Biblical scholarship "of all ages..." http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps057.shtml And another link to a somewhat older but still reliable article in the ISBE: http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate1.html Note that I am using Jerome's revision of the Psalms based on the Greek text, not the Hebrew.: ***** In conclusion, the present Vulgate, as Westcott remarks, is a composite of elements belonging to every period and form of the Latin version, including (1) the unrevised Old Latin (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees and Baruch); (2) the Old Latin corrected from the Septuagint (Psalter); (3) Jerome's free translation from the original (Job and Judith); (4) Jerome's translation from the original (the Old Testament except the Psalter); (5) the Old Latin revised from Greek manuscripts (the Gospels); and (6) the Old Latin cursorily revised (the rest of the New Testament). [ISBE Article]. ***** Interestingly enough, the version based on the Hebrew use neither *unicus* nor *unigenitus* in the verses here under discussion. Now, detailed study would include text critical issues and so forth, but reviewing the evidence suggests a consistency in translation which further implies that text critical and revision problems are probably not a big issue with this "data set..." Here are all Jerome's usages of *unicus*: Tob 6:15 et cum sim unicus parentibus meis Tob 8:19 misertus es autem duobus unicis PsG 21:21 et de manu canis unicam meam PsG 24:16 quia unicus et pauper sum ego

PsG 34:17 a leonibus unicam meam PsH 85:11 unicum fac cor meum ut timeat nomen tuum Wis 7:22 sanctus unicus multiplex Bar 4:16 et abduxerunt dilectos viduae et a filiis unicam desolaverunt Luke 7:12 filius unicus matri suae Luke 8:42 quia filia unica erat illi fere annorum duodecim Luke 9:38 magister obsecro te respice in filium meum quia unicus est mihi 4Ezra/Esdr 5:28 et dispersisti unicum tuum in multis Here are his usages of unigenitus: Gen 21:2 ait ei tolle filium tuum unigenitum quem diligis Isaac Gen 21:12 et non peperceris filio tuo unigenito Gen 21:16 et non pepercisti filio tuo unigenito Judg 11:34 occurrit unigenita filia cum tympanis et Prov 4:3 et unigenitus coram matre mea Jer 6:26 luctum unigeniti fac tibi planctum amarum Amos 8:10 et ponam eam quasi luctum unigeniti Zech 12:10 et plangent eum planctu quasi super unigenitum John 1:13 gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre plenum gratiae et veritatis John 1:17 unigenitus Filius qui est in sinu Patris ipse enarravit John 3:16 ut Filium suum unigenitum daret John 3:18 quia non credidit in nomine unigeniti Filii Dei Heb 11:17 et unigenitum offerebat qui susceperat repromissiones 1John 4:9 quoniam Filium suum unigenitum misit Deus in mundum 4Ezra/Esdr 6:59 quem vocasti primogenitum unigenitum aemulatorem carissimum 15 matches Here are all the Greek LXX and NT occurances of MONOGENHS: Jud-B 11:34 Jud-A 11:34

Ps 21:21 Ps 24:16 Ps 34:17 Tob-BA 3:15 Tob-BA 6:11 Tob-BA 8:17 Tob-S 3:15 Tob-S 6:15 Tob-S 8:17 Ode 14:14 Ps-Sol 18:5 Wis 7:22 14 matches in LXX ======================= Luke 7:12 Luke 8:42 Luke 9:38 John 1:14 John 1:18 John 3:16 John 3:18 Heb 11:17 1John 4:9 9 matches in AGNT Now, of particular intererest here (and remembering that Jerome was working from the Greek text in Psalms, but I have included his translation from the Hebrew as well): PsG 21:21 et de manu canis unicam meam, where the Greek has MONOGENHS. (PsH has *solitariam)

PsG 24:16 quia unicus et pauper sum ego, where the Greek has MONOGENHS. (PsH has *solus*) PsG 34:17 a leonibus unicam meam, where the Greek has MONOGENHS. (PsH has *solitariam*) Wis 7:22 sanctus unicus multiplex, where the Greek has MONOGENHS. (No Hebrew original, of course...) The underlying Hebrew word in Psalms is YaCHiD (in the substantive form YaCHiDaTHi), "one, only, unique." In the NT, the following usages are significant: Luke 7:12 filius unicus matri suae, where the Greek has MONOGENHS, and where the context would lead us to expect *unigenitus*. Luke 8:42 quia filia unica erat illi fere annorum duodecim, where the Greek has guess what? and Luke 9:38 magister obsecro te respice in filium meum quia unicus est mihi, and you know what the Greek says... Now, this suggest to me that Jerome is perfectly aware that MONOGENHS does not simply mean "only begotten" in the literal sense of the word. I find it interesting that he so translates it exclusively of Jesus, but elsewhere, he uses both *unicus* and *unigenitus*. I suspect a theological motivation in this translation, one which was picked up as well by the early English translators up to and including the KJV. Also, where he does translate *unigenitus* of other than the Son, it does not supply evidence that MONOHENHS carried that specific connotation, but simply that the word was perfectly suited to someone who was in fact "only begotten" in the sense of "the only one so born." The range of meaning is therefore established in the biblical literature (broadly understood to include what we now call the Apocrypha), and not just in the extra-biblical literature of the period. N.E. Barry Hofstetter Fecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te... -- Augustine, Confessions 1:1 [20] "The Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered Most modern scholars are convinced that monogenes in John 1.14, 18; 3.16, 18; 1 John 4:9, does not mean 'only begotten'. As a result such modern English versions such as RSV, NEB, NIV, GNB, present renderings like 'only' and 'one and only'. Extensive articles such as those by D. Moody. 'God's Only Son" The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version', JBL lxxii, Dec 1953,pp. 213-19; P. Winter, MONOGENHS PARA PATROS, Zeit. Rel. Geistesgesichte, 5 (1953).pp. 335-63; and Th.C de Kruijf, 'The Glory of the Only Son (John 1:14)', 'Studies in John Presented to Professor Dr. J. N. Sevenster pp. 113-23, support such renderings. Notable exceptions to the view include those of F. Buchsel in TDNT, IV, 737-741, who holds that it 'probably includes also begetting by God'; and of B. Linders, _The Gospel of John_, p. 96, who states that 'of the Father (1:14)...is decisive for 'only begotten'.

In this paper we re-examine the evidence and present what appears to be hitherto unnoticed support for the view that in its Johannine use then word does include the idea of generation. We begin with arguments which have been advanced by those who hold the opposing position. The first argument is etymological. It is stated that monogenes is related to ginomai, 'to become'. Thus -genes means a "category" or a "kind", and monogenes really means "only one of its kind". But derivation from ginomai could have other implication (as well?). The root gen seems to be closely related to genn, the root of gennao, 'to bring forth by birth', so that the idea of derivation, even if not by birth, may well be present. Of course, derivation of a person is by birth, so that, if a word from the root gen were used of a person to convey the idea of derivation it would be implied that the person had been begotten. (Properly speaking, only a man can beget; a woman bears a child. For practical reasons, and because nothing relevant to our study hangs upon it, we are disregarding the distinction.) Moreover, there is evidence that the root gen did convey the idea of derivation, at least sometimes, as gegenes, diogenes, eugenes and suggenes show. In this connection it is to be noted that J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan _The Vocabulary of the New Testament_ pp. 416-17,among others, state that 'only begotten' would be monogennetos, not monogenes. But, if the lexicon of Liddel, Scott and Jones may be trusted, monogennetos does not occur. The possibility must not be overlooked that it does not occur because monogenes was commonly used with the meaning that monogennetos would have had, if it had occurred. Moreover, even if monogennetos was used, this would not make the use of monogenes with a more of less synonymous meaning impossible. Etymology provides no objection to the meaning 'only begotten', it may even provide some support for it. But, of course, meaning is determined by usage, not by etymology." [21] When you say a similar context, do you mean in the context of Christ being firstborn? Of course not, for no other such context exists as this one. However, we note the use of the language, where other is never used in Greek with all, but always considered implied. For example, at Luke 13:2, the following translations add the word "other": ALT, AMP, AUV, BBE, BWE, EMTV, ESV, GB, GNB, Goodspeed, GW, HNV, IEB, ISV, MSG, NASB, NCV, NET, NWT, NIV, RKJNT, RSV, Twenty, Tyndale, WEB. Another example is Luke 21:29, where the following do: AUV, CEV, GNB, GW, LO, NCV, NET, Twenty, Tyndale, NLT, NWT, NAB, NEB. See, if Christ is stated to be within the group of creation, as he clearly is in Colossians 1:15, both by being "born" and being "of all creation", other is clearly implied, just as the "fig tree" is implied as being a tree in Luke 21:29. Thus the addition is simply based on the natural reading of the text, not any bias. [22] Daniel Howard-Snyder, Department of Philosophy at Western Washington University (Bellingham, Washington) has authored a 29-page article "Trinity Monotheism" that appears in the journal _PHILOSOPHIA CHRISTI_ 5.2 (La Mirada, CA: Evangelical Philosophical Society, 2003). On page 385 of the journal, we find Professor Howard-Snyder's critique of Moreland and Craig's Trinitarianism. He states:

>Finally, their Trinity Monotheism seems to be incompatible with their theory of the Incarnation since, according to their Trinity Monotheism, the Son is not an individual substance but, on their theory of the Incarnation, the Son is an individual substance. For, they tell us, on their theory of the Incarnation, the Logos, which is absolutely identical with the Son, "completes the individual human nature of Christ by furnishing it with a rational soul, which is the Logos himself."23 It cannot be the case that a particular rational soul is the Logos himself while the Logos himself is not a particular soul at all. Although I would like to report that Moreland's and Craig's Trinity Monotheism is a smashing success, I am afraid that I must instead register several worries. In section 3, I emphasize worries with respect to what they have to say about the Persons; in section 4, I emphasize worries with respect to what they have to say about God.< Many other illogicalities in Moreland and Craig's work are exposed. Well worth the read. [23] In regard to your PS, you seem to actually miss the point. The point is that while we do translate PRWTOTOKOS as firstborn, the word itself is not limited to simple birth, or, in other words, it does not simply mean firstborn. It can be said to literally mean "first to be" or "first to come into being", as the word comes from PRWTOS (first) and TIKTW (born, brought forth). Because of this, your entire argument based on the narrowing of the semantic range to only include birth is thus invalidated. You're appealing to English, when the the word "born" does not cover the complete semantic range of TIKTW. Your appeal to the limited use with biological entities does not apply to Jesus any more than it would apply to angel. Thus, any argument you make on this point has no real weight. [24] Jesus-A Godlike One; Divine ,John, :L:l-c::-'~and the, Word,was ~ gpd,(godli}{e;. divine):' ; ,'" '.Grr:t Kat ~£o~tjvoJ"oyo~: (kai~1:te'o8' enhoJoty.98) , ' . 1808 ; "and the word was a god" , --- TheNew Testament, in An ImprQved Version, Upon , the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text; London, 1829, , "and the I,.ogos was a,gqd" -- The Monotessaron; or,The Gospel History, ,According to the Four Evangelists, , by John S. Thompson, Baltimore. , 1864 -- "and a god wasth~,Word" -- TheEmphaticDiagiott (.)'2\ lrlteriinear r.eading), by Benjamin V{ilsorl, New York an<;lLondon. ' 1935 "q,nd the ,Word was divine" -- 'l'he Bible-An American .Translation" by " J. M. P. Smith andE. J. Goodspeed, Chicago. 1950 "and the Word was a god"

-- New World Translation of the Christian Greek ,

Scriptures, Brooklyn. 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"* Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, GOttingen, Germany.* 1978 "and godlike sort was 'the Logos"" Johannes Schneider, Berlin.* 1979 . "and a god was the Logos""

-- Das Evangelium nach

-- Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by

-- Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Jurgen Becker,

Wirzburg, Germany.* * Translated from German. These translations use such words 'as "a god," "divine," or "godlike" because the Greek word eEO<; (the.os') is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is 'riot preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous "the-os'". The God with whom the Word, or Logos, .was originally is designated here by the Greek expression Qedz, that is, "the-os'". ,proceded by the definite article ho. .This'is an articular,the'os. . The articular construction of the noun 'points' to an identity, a personality,; wher,eas a singular ,anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb pqints to,a quality about someone., Therefore, John's statement that the Word, or Logos,--was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify his as one and the same as God himself.. In the Greek text there,are many cases of a singular antarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as those listed in the accompanying chart. In these places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite aarticle "a"'is. inserted before the anarthrous the'os, in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a" god. The Sacred Scriptures Confirm the correctness of this rendering. In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15: 39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, on p. 85 Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John l:1, "with an arthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate the'os. as definite." On p. 87 of ,. his article, Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite." Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring. before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns, check the following Bibles for the following scriptures: Scriptures, Mark 6:49, Mark 11:32, John 4:19, John 6:70, John 8:44, John 9:17,John 10:1, John 10:13, John 10:33, John 12:6, John 18:37 in the following translations, New World Translation (NWT), Authorized King James Bible (AV), New International Version (NIV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), and Today's English Version (TEV). [24] I had good reason for naming it as I did. But when you look at the definition for contradictions it is readily apparent that what one finds a contradiction, another will not. The Cambridge dictionary defines contradictions

as: contradict [Show phonetics] verb [I or T] (of people) to state the opposite of what someone else has said, or (of one fact or statement) to be so different from another fact or statement that one of them must be wrong: If you're both going to lie, at least stick to the same story and don't contradict each other! [R] He kept contradicting himself when we were arguing - I think he was a bit confused. How dare you contradict (me)! Recent evidence has tended to contradict established theories on this subject. [source - Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary] The Bible is the word of God (YHWH) and God (YHWH) no where contradicts himself. However, many different individuals find what they call contradictions, but this is no surprize as so many have their own beliefs rather than accept the Bible as the Standard; therefore, they claim the Bible has contradictions. However, this claim must be considered in what they are calling contradictions which is anything that does not go with their preconceived view of the world. So of course when many individuals have their own agendas they will of course find many contradictions in the Bible with regard their own view or outlook. For example, one fellow told me he found over 7,000 contradictions in the American Standard Version in that it used God's (YHWH's) most commonly rendered English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton and that this was not the correct pronunciation. True it probably is NOT the correct pronunciation as it was pronounced in ancient Hebrew that did NOT have vowels but only constants. But, this is nothing but a so what! So when reading this or that person says the Bible has contradictions, the question never answered really is contradictions with what. Of course the contradiction is with respect their opinion or outlook which of course accounts for nothing. So claimed contradictions are nothing but a relative thing related to an individuals outlook on the world around them and has no basis in absolute truth or reality. That is why I never give them any count or importance as many in ignorance do. I am NOT into playing games of logomachy as these individuals are really playing with themselves and others who do not have the comprehension to understand that contradictions are not absolutes, but only have any real meaning in context or relation to another point of view. Always one should ask when he/she hears the word 'contradiction' is what it is in relationship to as it has no real meaning standing alone. [25] Let's face it, I know some like to ridicule and oppose those doing the Lord's work per Jude 18, "they said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions" (RSV). However, if others do not respond favorably to my efforts to explain the Bible and true Christian values to them it discourages me not per Ezekiel 3:7-8, " But the house of Israel will not listen to you; for they are not willing to listen to me; because all the house of Israel are of a hard forehead and of a stubborn heart. 8 Behold, I have made your face hard against their faces, and your forehead hard against their foreheads." (RSV). I know, no matter how determined I am to assist others in learning the ways of my Lord and Savior, Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father (YHWH), I am NOT going to be able to convince those who have no desire to learn the truth and be convinced. Lide of old, Pharoh could NOT be convinced by plagues or miracles - not even the personal loss of his firstborn - was able to persuade Pharoh that Moses was speaking on behalf of God (YHWH). So I put my trust and faith in God (YHWH) and

continue to try and assist per Proverbs 3:5-6 & 29:25, "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. 6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths." & "The fear of man lays a snare, but he who trusts in the LORD is safe." (RSV). Just as many told lies and made false accusations against my Lord and Savior, Jesus (Yeshua) when he was on earth telling the people the truth, so do they against me. Why? Simple, they are under the control of Satan the Devil per 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God." (RSV), and they are like their leader of whom the Bible says at John 8:44, "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (RSV). [26] 1 - John 5:26, "For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:" (American Standard Version; ASV) John 6:57, "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me. By the words of Jesus, Jesus was not eternal; he was given to have life in himself and lives because of the Father. A eternal being cannot be given to have life in themselves, and they do not depend on others to live. 2 - John 14:28, "Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I." (ASV). 3 - 1 Corinthians 11:3, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (ASV). 4 - 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, " For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." (ASV) 5 - John 5:29, "Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner. " (ASV). 6 - John 14:24, "He that loveth me not keepeth not my words: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me." (ASV) 7 - John 17:8, "for the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them; and they received [them], and knew of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me." (ASV) [27] But let me use an analogy to assist you with respect understanding. On the

building of a condominium or any other large building, a contractor may employ many workers to assist him as his workers or agents with respect task at hand, but the contractor is STILL the builder. The same holds true for the true God (YHWH) of Abraham. He employed his only begotten son, Jesus (Yeshua), the first of creation or beginning of creation per Revelation 3:14, "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:" (American Standard Bible; AV) as his assistant or master worker. Proverbs 8:22-31 makes it clear that Jesus (Yeshua) is the true God (YHWH) of Abraham's master worker, "Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth; 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. 27 When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep, 28 When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong, 29 When he gave to the sea its bound, That the waters should not transgress his commandment, When he marked out the foundations of the earth; 30 Then I was by him, as a master workman; And I was daily his delight, Rejoicing always before him, 31 Rejoicing in his habitable earth; And my delight was with the sons of men." (ASV). So whereas an employee or worker or agent of a contractor becomes neither a co-contractor or co-builder even though he participated in the building process; neither does the fact that Jesus (Yeshua) was used as a master worker by the true God (YHWH) of Abraham in any way make him a co-creator. [27] Also according to Isaiah 45:5, there is no God beside YHWH. So how can the Son be called God by a God who has no god beside Him? [/quote] It is quite clear that you fail to understand the First of the Ten Commandments found at Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (American Standard Version; ASV) which clearly shows we shall have no other gods before the creator, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, but Jesus (Yeshua) is NOT BEFORE HIM. He is subservient and was given immortality by him as shown by: John 5:26, "[b]For as[/b] the Father hath life in himself, [b]even so gave he to[/b] the Son also to have life in himself:" (American Standard Version; ASV) John 6:57, "As the living Father sent me, [b]and I live because of the Father;[/b] so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me. By the words of Jesus, Jesus was not eternal; he was given to have life in himself and lives because of the Father. A eternal being cannot be given to have life in themselves, and they do not depend on others to live. That is why Jesus (Yeshua) is only spoken of as a mighty god at Isaiah 9:6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (ASV). And NOT God Almighty as is his Father, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham is called at Genesis 17:1, "Ge 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect." (ASV). [28] Many wonder about the substance of God (YHWH) and the Angels, and many theories abound on this subject. But in reality little is known. The Bible itself speaks of God (YHWH) and heaven in earthly terms so we can comprehend, but sheds little light on the substance of God (YHWH). This speaking of heavenly things in earthly terms is called, anthropomorphism.

[29] Any one know how accurate these statements, historians are? Tacitus (CE 55-120), a renowned historical of ancient Rome, wrote in the latter half of the first century that 'Christus ... was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.' (Annals 15: 44). Suetonius writing around CE 120 tells of disturbances of the Jews at the 'instigation of Chrestus', during the time of the emperor Claudius. This could refer to Jesus, and appears to relate to the events of Acts 18:2, which took place in CE 49. Thallus, a secular historian writing perhaps around CE 52 refers to the death of Jesus in a discussion of the darkness over the land after his death. The original is lost, but Thallus' arguments - explaining what happened as a solar eclipse are referred to by Julius Africanus in the early 3rd century. Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian writing after the destruction of the Temple in CE 70, mentions the earlier execution of Jesus, whom he calls a 'King'. The Babylonian Talmud refers to the crucifixion (calling it a hanging) of Jesus the Nazarene on the eve of the Passover. In the Talmud Jesus is also called the illegitimate son of Mary. The Jewish historian Josephus describes Jesus' crucifixion under Pilate in his Antiquities, written about CE 93/94. Josephus also refers to James the brother of Jesus and his execution during the time of Ananus (or Annas) the high priest. [30] I will never understand why it must follow that because God incorporates his qualities and attributes into his Son so that Christ may serve as his most outstanding representative in heaven and Earth for the benefit of humanity he therefore becomes God himself. Jesus Christ is the "image of God" (Col. 1:15), a representation of his very being (Heb. 1:3), and as such, he fully reflects God's ethics, moral qualities and divinity in heaven. Thus he could most certainly respond to Philip's question, "he who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn. 14:9). Dr. Himberto Gilberto Solar. [31] , Let's look at John 16:13-15, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.." (AV), which clearly disproves the Trinity. How so? Let's reason on it, as I will never understand why it must follow that because the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, incorporates his qualities and attributes into his Son so that Christ may serve as his most outstanding representative in heaven and Earth for the benefit of humanity he therefore becomes the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, himself; whereas, the Bible clearly says Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is Colosians 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" (Authorized King James Bible; AV), a representation of his very being per Hebrews 1:3, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" (AV), and as such, he fully reflects the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael's, creator of all there is, ethics, moral qualities and

divinity in heaven. Thus he could most certainly respond to Philip's question at John 14:9, "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" (AV). So there you have your explanation, straight from the word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, the Bible. To learn more, check out the following: [1] http://religioustruths.proboards59.com/ [2] http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209 Religion of Islam [3] http://jude3.proboards92.com/

An Educational Referral Forum A Forum Devoted to Exposing The False

A Free-Speech Forum For All

[4] http://www.freewebs.com/iris_the_preacher Your Friend in Christ Iris89

My web site.