|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4949 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Jesus God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4949 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
EMA writes: It would seem to make more sense therefore, that the expression "firstborn of all creation" would have to do with his birth as a man Im sure Jesus was not the first man to have been born.
EMA writes: Simply put, he cannot be the creator of ALL THINGS, as the scriptures clearly indicate and be a creature before his incarnation It certainly can if you dont ignore the verses surrounding his own creation including Proverbs 8. We are told that Jesus was the first creation of God and that Jesus became a 'master worker' beside his father. So all things that came after Jesus creation could certainly have come into existence by Jesus hand with the help of his father.
EMA writes: the Apostle John was not speaking at all, Jesus was and he clearly describes himslef and the A&O, beginning and end. Revelations 2:8 Revelation chapter 2 does not say Jesus is the A&O. Its not in the passage.
EMA writes: Now what arrogance of any Angel, or created being to declare himself as such. But if he is indeed God, it makes perfect sense Jesus can be declared as the first and the last for a few reasons.He was the first creation of God and the last of Gods direct creations. Jesus was also called 'the last Adam' meaning the last perfect man on earth at 1Cor 15:45. So being called the 'first and last' does not have to mean that he is God. It could be a reference to these other aspects of Jesus being the first and last...aspects that the apostles would have understood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Jesus can be declared as the first and the last for a few reasons. He was the first creation of God and the last of Gods direct creations. Jesus was also called 'the last Adam' meaning the last perfect man on earth at 1Cor 15:45. ...So being called the 'first and last' does not have to mean that he is God. It could be a reference to these other aspects of Jesus being the first and last...aspects that the apostles would have understood. Jesus is declared the First and the Last because He is God incarnate. How could there be a First before "the First"? And how could there be a Last after "the Last". Since both Jehovah God and Jesus proclaim to be the First and the Last, taken with the rest of the Bible's revelation, we are secure to believe that Jesus is Jehovah God incarnate.
"And when I saw Him [One like the Son of Man (Rev. 1:13)], I fell at His feet as dead; and He placed His right hand on me, saying, Do not fear; I am THE FIRST AND THE LAST and the living One; and I became dead, and behold, I am living forever and ever ..." (Rev. 1:17,18) Compare to Isaiah 44:6 "Thus says Jehovah the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts, I am the First and the Last, and apart from Me there is no God." (Isa. 44:6) To the genuine believers in Christ He is "our Savior God". I will prove it: We see "the command of our Savior God" - Titus 1:3We see also "Christ Jesus our Savior" - Titus 1:4 "Grace and peace from God our Father and Christ Jesus our Savior". But we were just told in verse 3 of "our Savior God".Christ Jesus is God incarnate to be our savior. Then again Titus 2:10 informs us of "the teaching of our Savior God". This is followed by verse 13 - "the appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). Jesus Christ is our great God and Savior, our Savior God. Jesus Christ our great God and Savior - "Who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us ..." (v.14) Again we see "our Savior God" in Titus 3:4 - "But when the kindness and the love to man of our Savior God appeared ...". This is followed by verse 6 which says " Whom He poured out [the Holy Spirit] upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior .." Our great God and Savior is the Lord Jesus Christ. Our great God and Savior is the "God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" from Whom we receive "grace and peace" (Titus 1:4) Concerning First Corinthians 15:45 the "life giving Spirit" whom the Last Adam Jesus Christ became, is the same Person as "the Holy Spirit, Whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ" (Titus 3:6) "[T]he last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) means that the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ in His pneumatic form. In His form as "life giving Spirit" which He became, Jesus dispensis the life of God into His redeemed people. He imparts Himself into His lovers. He imparts Himself AND His Father. This is proved by John 14:23 where the Divine "WE" of the Father and the Son come to make an abode with the lovers of Christ:
"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23) The Triune God as the Divine "WE" will dispense the Father and the Son into the innermost being of the believer of Christ. Yet this dispensing is apparently also the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in Titus 3:6. For the Spirit is " the Spirit of life" (Romans 8:2). The "life giving Spirit" that the last Adam became is "the Spirit of life" . So it is no wonder that Christ is identified as the Spirit - "Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17). And "the Lord" in 2 Cor. 3:17 is definitely "the Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 1:2) And of course in the next chapter Paul tells us emphatically - "For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord ..." (2 Cor. 4:5) He is the Savior God, Jesus. And His desire is to come with His Father as the Divine We to make an abode with His redeemed people, to be thier divine and eternal life. Paul goes on in Titus to warn of those who oppose the teaching of the apostles:
A factious man, after a first and second admonition, refuse, Knowing that such a one is perverted and is sinning, though he is condemned by his own self." ( Titus 3:11) I think you are sinning and are self condemned when you continually deny that Jesus is "our Savior God" . Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3663 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
To the genuine believers in Christ He is "our Savior God". I will prove it: I would hate to see you try your hand a mathematics and logic, Jaywill, if this is what you think constitues a good proof Two characters are portrayed: The Saviour God, from whom salvation is providedJesus the Saviour, the vehicle of that salvation provided To claim that the text portrays these as one and the same is simple insanity. The only place where we see some confusion is here:
This is followed by verse 13 - "the appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" And I think it would be good to see the actual Greek at this point. Can you provide that? From Peg's POV of course, this makes complete sense as she regards Jesus as *a* god. This is a prime example of what I was describing earlier - you are seeing what you want to see, not what is written. I'll comment on the rest later if I find the time. But for now, I have to say Jaywill, this is very poor... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4949 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
jaywill writes: I think you are sinning and are self condemned when you continually deny that Jesus is "our Savior God" This debate is not about whether Jesus is a savior or not. I most certainly do believe he is the savior. Its about if he is Jehovah or not. Unfortunately for the trinity doctrine, Jesus was SENT to be the savior, He explained his role in Gods purpose perfectly:
John 6:38-40 I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me. This is the will of him that sent me, that I should lose nothing out of all that he has given me but that I should resurrect it at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone that beholds the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him at the last day. He also explained that after his mission was accomplished, he would submit himself to God and relinquish his position as the king of the kingdom....this is so mankind can have an intimate relationship with God in the same way Adam and Eve did
1Corinthians 15:24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power, and, when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. Jesus subjects himself to God, this proves beyond doubt that he is not equal, is not a part of, is not an incarnation of God...Rather he is a separate entity. Yes, he is the savior of mankind but NO he is not Jehovah. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4949 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
cavediver writes: And I think it would be good to see the actual Greek at this point. Can you provide that? Tit 2:13Gr., τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ(tou me‧ga′lou The‧ou′ kai so‧te′ros he‧mon′ Khri‧stou′ I‧e‧sou′) the NWT renders this verse as "while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus" this is in harmony with the following translations: 1934 of the great God and of our Savior Christ JesusThe Riverside New Testament,Boston and New York. 1935 of the great God and of our Saviour Christ JesusA New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt, New York and London. 1957 of the great God and of our Savior Jesus ChristLa Sainte Bible, by Louis Segond, Paris. 1970 of the great God and of our Savior Christ JesusThe New American Bible, New York and London. 1972 of the great God and of Christ Jesus our saviourThe New Testament in Modern English, by J. B. Phillips, New York. The reason for this translation is that the verse has two nouns connected by καi (kai, and), the first noun being preceded by the definite article τοu (tou, of the) and the second noun without the definite article. Its the same at 2Pe 1:1, 2. A definate distinction is made between God and Jesus in that verse too. Therefore, in Tit 2:13, two distinct persons, Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, are mentioned....Jaywills translation does not make that distinction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
cavediver writes:
I would hate to see you try your hand a mathematics and logic, Jaywill, if this is what you think constitues a good proof Your kidding right CD, you really want to challenge Jaywill in a battle of wits concerning the teaching of the Bible and his logic associated with it. The only reason he would not do this specifically, is because his probably a man of character and class and would not argue the very obvious to the point of silliness Since Ihave some character and only some class, I accept your challenge concerning your challenge of logic and the scriptures. Ill be your huckelberry and Jaywills John Mark lets proceed peg writes:Revelation chapter 2 does not say Jesus is the A&O. Its not in the passage. Your kidding right Peg. Alpha and Omega mean beginning and end, the first and the last. There is no other significance to the these words usages in another language, that they do not convey in English. From Wiki"St. John, writing in Revelation I:8, says: 'I am the Alpha and the Omega'. These are the names of the first and last letters in the Greek alphabet, so it is a metaphor for beginning and end. " They all mean the samethingThe writer in Revelations is simply reinforcing the same meaning with different words Secondly, Isa 44:6 when speaking of God does not state Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, it simply says first and last Should we therefore conclude that God is not God also, because the other phrases are not mentioned here is this passage? Or should we conclude that the writer means the samething concerning God as he does Christ. the fact that he does not use all of the phrases is indicative of the fact and CLOSES THE DOOR on the fact, that they MEAN ABSOLUTELY THE SAMETHING. certainly if they carried a significant enough DIFFERENCE in meaning he would use them consistently and ALWAYS. Isa 44: and Rev 2:8 mean exacally the samething What would Alpha and Omega mean that First and Last does not? What would beginning and end mean that first and last does not
Jesus can be declared as the first and the last for a few reasons. He was the first creation of God and the last of Gods direct creations. Jesus was also called 'the last Adam' meaning the last perfect man on earth at 1Cor 15:45. Again Peg Isa 44:6 uses the very same language concering God that it does concering Christ, "the First and the Last", the expressions are exacally the same meaning as Alpha and Omega, beginning and end If revelations 2:8 is not saying Christ is God, then logically Isa 44 which omits the expressions A&O, beginning and end are saying perhaps that God is not God. Are you prepared for that conclusion? this is where your and CDs logic take us can you provide a meaning in A&O, beginning and end, that First and last does not covey The writer in Isa 44 is the sameone that declared Alpha and Omega beginning and End. Not mentioning all of those things in a FOLLOWING verse in the same book, does not mean he does not believe that about God or changed his mind. IT MEANS EXCALLY THE SAME THING
It certainly can if you dont ignore the verses surrounding his own creation including Proverbs 8. We are told that Jesus was the first creation of God and that Jesus became a 'master worker' beside his father. So all things that came after Jesus creation could certainly have come into existence by Jesus hand with the help of his father. peg you are reading into a passage something you want to see. It does not say Son of Man, jesus or anyother phrase, that would make it anything but wisdom itself Question Peg. Why do you think John used very spcefic language concerning the fact that, "There is NOTHING made that is MADE, that was not made, by and through him" he is trying to show you who and what Christ is. Revelations is trying with the very same language, to show you who and what he was and is
1Corinthians 15:24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power, and, when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. Jesus subjects himself to God, this proves beyond doubt that he is not equal, is not a part of, is not an incarnation of God...Rather he is a separate entity. Yes, he is the savior of mankind but NO he is not Jehovah. This would only be true Peg, if there were not tons of other passages that you have to manuver, to get them to NOT say what they obviously do say Really Peg, mentioning that the words Alpha and Omega are not mentioned in Rev 2:8, does not support or help your case. It only demonstrates you are manuvering to avoid an obvious point Philpians 2 and the rest of the Nt and Ot support the fact that Christ was indeed EQUAL TO God. the rest of the scriptures demonstrate that equality is exacally what the meaning is in Philipians 2. If those other passages were not there,you might have a case EAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given. Edited by EMA, : No reason given. Edited by EMA, : No reason given. Edited by EMA, : No reason given. Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3663 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Your kidding right CD, you really want to challenge Jaywill in a battle of wits concerning the teaching of the Bible and his logic associated with it. Not really, I have better things to do. But when I see the blatent inanity in his so called "logic" I call it out. I see that you offer no rebuttal to my disassembly of his "proof". I guess I can wait...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Not really, I have better things to do. But when I see the blatent inanity in his so called "logic" I call it out. I see that you offer no rebuttal to my disassembly of his "proof". I guess I can wait... I see your tactics havent changed, you simply proclaim something irrelevant, with a wave of the hand, and that somehow constitues a rebuttal. You replace evidence with insults Ill take your refusal to deal with not a single point I made as a compliment and the fact that you have no answer. Come on CD, tell us how Alpha and Omega, differ from First and last. Tell us how Christ is said to have created every single thing in existence, yet he did not create himself, assuming he was also created Please point out the line that shows your disassembly of MY arguments. First you say you disassemble something, then not a single line is provided to demonstrate this point. I believe that is called contradictory, correct I told you I would be your huckelberry, knock yourself out. I hope the BETTER things you have to do, include coming up with some answers EAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3663 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Yawn. I was demolishing Jaywill's "proof" which concerned Titus 1-3. Anything to add regarding Titus 1-3? No, thought not. Back-peddling befits you well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2151 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: Let's look at some modern translations of this verse:
NET: Titus 2:13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Nearly all of the modern translations equate "God" and "Savior". There is a good reason for this: Titus 2:13 satisfies one of the grammatical rules for use of the Greek article which were enumerated by Granville Sharp: NASB: Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the aappearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, NIV: Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, ESV: Titus 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, HCSB: Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. NKJV: Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, NLT: Titus 2:13 while we look forward to that wonderful event when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed. NRSV: Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Weymouth: Titus 2:13 in expectation of the fulfilment of our blessed hopethe Appearing in glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ;
Granville Sharp writes:
As others have clarified, the rule really only applies to nouns in the singular (as in Titus 2:13). The Granville Sharp rule claims that "God" and "Savior" refer to the same person in Titus 2:13. When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle ... (As with many topics, Wikipedia tries to make this one controversial. But leading Greek scholars (e.g. Dan Wallace) seem to agree that the rule is valid, and nearly all modern translators have applied it to Titus 2:13.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4949 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
kbertsche writes: Nearly all of the modern translations equate "God" and "Savior". There is a good reason for this: Titus 2:13 satisfies one of the grammatical rules for use of the Greek article which were enumerated by Granville Sharp:Granville Sharp writes: When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle ... There are other scholars who do not believe this is the case. They say the opposite.
An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p.109 writes: the sense of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ ... is possible in κοινή [koi‧ne′] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article]. The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, pp.439-457. On p.452 writes: In the case before us [Tit 2:13], the omission of the article before σωτῆρος [so‧te′ros] seems to me to present no difficulty,not because σωτῆρος is made sufficiently definite by the addition of ἡμῶν [he‧mon′] (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called our Saviour, ἡ δόξα τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [he do′xa tou me‧ga′lou The‧ou′ kai so‧te′ros he‧mon′], standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [I‧e‧sou′ Khri‧stou′ to so‧te′ros he‧mon′] changes the case entirely, restricting the σωτῆρος ἡμῶν to a person or being who, according to Paul’s habitual use of language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as ὁ θεός [ho The‧os′], so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity The same construction is found in these verses...i would be interseted to see how the translations you quoted render these verses. Could you post them for us to compare?
Constructed with two nouns connected by καί as at Titus2:13 writes: 2thess1:12b "... in accord with the undeserved kindness of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" Acts 13:50 "But the Jews stirred up the reputable women who worshiped [God] and the principal men of the city..." Eph 5:5 "For YOU know this, recognizing it for yourselves, that no fornicator or unclean person or greedy personwhich means being an idolaterhas any inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and of God" 1Timothy 5:21 "I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus..." 1Timothy 6:13 "In the sight of God, who preserves all things alive, and of Christ Jesus" 2Tim 4:1 "I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is destined to judge" kbertsche writes: As others have clarified, the rule really only applies to nouns in the singular (as in Titus 2:13). The Granville Sharp rule claims that "God" and "Savior" refer to the same person in Titus 2:13. Well im sure you can see from the above scriptures that have the same construction as Titus 2:13 that it would be very difficult to render some of these with in the singular. If that were the case then Acts 13:50 would be telling us that the priniple men of the city are God.
kbertshe writes: (As with many topics, Wikipedia tries to make this one controversial. But leading Greek scholars (e.g. Dan Wallace) seem to agree that the rule is valid, and nearly all modern translators have applied it to Titus 2:13.) I understand that may be the case, but I think it should be questioned in light of other verses of similar construction Im sure you realise that some translators will render verses that more closely resemble their own theologies....so its not always safe to assume they are correct. You can see how all those translations i posted in msg 275 that not all scholars (including some modern) agree with the singular rendering. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Therefore, in Tit 2:13, two distinct persons, Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, are mentioned....Jaywills translation does not make that distinction. I am limited this evening on what I can write. However, I for one, never denied that the Father and the Son are distinct. They are not separate. Distinct they are, but not separated. Secondly, I know that the thread is not about whether Christ is or is not the Savior. But it is about whether Jesus is God incarnate or not. And the passages I provided teach that He is our Savior God. (I will consider translation issues latter). How many Saviors are there ? Jehovah God says "I, even I, am Jehovah, And there is no Savior besides Me." (Isaiah 43:11b) He also says that there is no God was formed either before Him or after Him:
"Before Me was no God formed, Neither will there be any after Me" (Isaiah 43:10) The polytheism of Russell and Arius was rightly rejected by the Christian church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4949 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
jaywill writes: Jehovah God says "I, even I, am Jehovah, And there is no Savior besides Me." (Isaiah 43:11b) He also says that there is no God was formed either before Him or after Him: "Before Me was no God formed, Neither will there be any after Me" (Isaiah 43:10) The polytheism of Russell and Arius was rightly rejected by the Christian church. the above scriptures say Jehovah is the savior, yet we know Jesus is the savior also. This is not an issue to who the savior is because if Jehovah never sent Jesus to earth, then there would be no savior at all. In fact, Jesus is the means by which Jehovah will save mankind. They are both saviors but jesus only a savior because he was chosen to be such by Jehovah....the one who is responsible for all salvation. And regarding polytheism...have you looked at a church lately??? how many saints do the parishners pray to? Why is Mary venerated and worshiped...why do people pray to Jesus rather then Jehovah??? Why are the followers bowing down to idols and kissing rings on fingers and stroking the crosses around their necks??? its because the church's promote polytheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2151 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:None of these verses fits the rule. The rule requires the second noun to be indefinite (i.e. NOT a proper noun). Your examples Eph 5:5; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1 fail on this score. 2 Thess 1:12 and 1 Tim 6:13 fail on this, plus have other words besides "kai" between the nouns. The nouns must also both be in the singular; Acts 13:50 fails on this score. Here are some that DO fit the rule:
NET Bible writes:
Rom. 15:6 so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1Cor. 15:24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power. (lit: "the God and Father") 2Cor. 1:3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2Cor. 11:31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is blessed forever, knows I am not lying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4949 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
im not buying it.
the rule is that if two nouns are connected by καi (and) and the first is preceded by the definite article, then it is a reference to two distinct subjects. this is why the translations i posted in msg 275 render the verse at titus asof the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus Here are the verses i asked for from the translations you use where the same construction is found as in Titus:
2Thess 1:12 NET "that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to 18 the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." NASB "that the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." NIV: "that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ" ESV: "that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ."______________________________________________________ Acts 13:50NIV "But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city" ESV "But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city" KJV "But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city_______________________________________________________ Eph 5:5 KJV "in the kingdom of Christ and of God. NLT "the Kingdom of Christ and of God." NRSV " in the kingdom of Christ and of God." NASB "in the kingdom of Christ and God"_______________________________________ 1Timothy 5:21Weymouth: "I solemnly call upon you, in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus" NRSV: "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus" NLT: "I solemnly command you in the presence of God and Christ Jesus" NASV: "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus" KJV: "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ"___________________________________________________ 1Timothy 6:13NASB "I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus" KJV "I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus" HCSB "In the presence of God, who gives life to all, and before Christ Jesus" NLT "And I charge you before God, who gives life to all, and before Christ Jesus"________________________________________ 2 Timothy 4:1NASB "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ" KJV "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ" AB "I CHARGE [you] in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus" ESV "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus
Im sure you can see that in many of these verses the translators have not abided by the rule of Granville sharp. This is because when two nouns are connected by kai (and) and the first noun is preceded by the definite article (tou, of the) then there are two subjects being spoken of...not one. In many of the above scriptures we even see the use of "OF" so tell me why they are not applying the Granville sharp rule here. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024