by BelieverInJesus 396 Replies latest watchtower bible
Undisfellowshipped,
You are certainly correct in your assessment that Rev. 3:14 in no way proves that Jesus was created by God. As a matter of fact, instead, it proves that Jesus is the author and origin of creation. He began creation; he is not one of the things created in the beginning. He already existed in the beginning. Jn. 1:1 "In the beginning God..." Gen. 1:1 Would Jehovah's Witnesses suggest that God had a beginning?
You said before that God was not using "I AM" as a Name in Exodus 3:14. Yet, God told Moses, "Say ... 'I AM has sent me to you.' " That is most definitely not the normal way of using "I AM." Normal people do not tell others "I AM has sent you," rather they would say "I sent you."
I didn't say that normal people use it that way, but it is also not being used as a name or a title, it is being used as a way in which he reveals himself. None of this applies to any of the other texts though for none of them use it this way. His name is given in verse 15.... oh and again, "I am" is not the best translation either.
If God was not using "I AM" as a Name in Exodus 3:14, then why did God reply to Moses' question ("What is your Name?") by saying "I AM WHO I AM" and "Tell them 'I AM has sent me'"?Again, the name is given in verse 15, the self revelation is given in verse 14.
If God was not using "I AM" as a Name in Exodus 3:14, then He would have told Moses, "Say to the people of Israel, He has sent me" OR "God has sent me" or "YHWH has sent me."Well YHWH was the name that he gave to Moses. He gave it and said "this is my name..."
It is not normal or natural to say to someone, "Say to this people, 'I AM has sent me.'"Well he didn't say "I am has sent me," literally he said "I will be has sent me." EHYEH was God's way of explaining himself. Perhaps you missed the references I provided on this. Let me requote them.
ISBE: "This has been supposed to mean 'self-existence,' and to represent God as the Absolute. Such an idea, however, would be a metaphysical abstraction, not only impossible to the time at which the name originated, but alien to the Heb[rew] mind at any time. And the imperfect 'ehyeh is more accurately tr[anslated] 'I will be what I will be,' a Sem[etic] idiom meaning, 'I will be all that is necessary as the occasion will arise... The optional reading in the ARV margin is much to be preferred: ‘I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE,’ indicating His covenant pledge to be with and for Israel in all the ages to follow."
HALOT: “I shall be who I shall prove to be”
The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary: "The meaning is obscured by the conventional translation I am who I am, which implies that God is the ground of his own existence. The Hebrew verb denotes, not abstract being, but manifestation in a definite character, or name; and its form indicates habitual manifestation in past, present, or future. Since English requires a tense, the best rendering is 'I will be as I will be.'"
But compare those verses to the following verse, where YHWH says that a the king of Babylon DOES want to be God: Isaiah 14:13 (ESV): You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.'I think you really missed the boat on this one. These are not actually words spoken, but it is language applied to express the ideas in their heart. In the case of Isaiah, the sense is merely that he will take the place of their God. Notice what Keil and Delitzsch explain: "All the foolhardy purposes of the Chaldean are finally comprehended in this, “I will make myself like the Most High;” just as the Assyrians, according to Ctesias, and the Persians, according to the Persae of Aeschylus, really called their king God, and the Sassanidae call themselves bag, Theos, upon coins and inscriptions ('eddammeh is hithpael, equivalent to 'ethdammeh, which the usual assimilation of the preformative Tav: Ges. §34, 2, b)."Also compare the following:
Ezekiel 28:9 (Revised Version): Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou art man, and not God, in the hand of him that woundeth thee.
For Ezekiel, it is not that he views himself as God as in Jehovah, but he looks at himself as elohim, a god, as we see from verse 2.
Mondo
Kenneson,
To say Jesus was the origin of creation would contradict John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2.
Mondo
Mondo1,
In regards to Prov. 8:22:
It seems that the confusion lies in the fact that you claim that wisdom as an attribute of God is eternal, yet wisdom as the person of Jesus is created. Are you, in effect, stating that there are two wisdoms of God (one uncreated and one created)? Why would the writer of Proverbs make such an assertion?
There is Wisdom personified and wisdom an attribute. As the Wisdom of Proverbs 8:22 is personified and is spoken of as coming into existence, it cannot be an attribute that God possesses of which this is not true. It comes to be revealed within the New Testament that this Wisdom is in fact Jesus Christ, and so we progressively come to see that it is a person that is spoken of and who this person is. This is appropriate, for when a person personifies an attribute it is customary to identify them as that attribute.
Mondo
Oy vey indeed.
First of all, hO WN does not mean eternal existence. So I don't know where you got that from.
Strawman. I never said that it meant "eternal existence", I said it meant The Being! Can you read? It`s right there in my post. But: Yahweh calls himself The Being in this text in Exodus, and we bot agree that God has eternal existence, correct? So obviously, the term "The Being", hO WN, when used about God, must contain also the quality "eternal existence", correct? Or do Jehovahs Witnesses now believe that God aka Yahweh aka The Being is not eternal? I get confused with all these "new light"-things...
Second of all, you have contradicted your argument that Jesus is quoting Exodus 3:14. Now you seem to say that he is no longer quoting it, he just means the samething. If they meant the same thing that why are they different??
You must be confused. I allready admitted I was wrong about the wording in Exodus, and that it`s hO WN and not EGW EIMI. However, the term "I AM", EGW EIMI, is used as an introductory statement so many times in the OT that the readers and authors of the NT would automatically associate it with God himself, when coming from the mouth of a) God b)someone claiming to be God (and that would result in stoning). I don`t understand why this is so hard to understand. Also, the term (as you yourself admitted) in John 8, contains a claim of longlasting (I would say eternal) existence.
Ummm.. ever heard of olam? It referred to an unspecified period of past time, but it was often used to describe God as eternal. In Greek we would say aiwnos.
According to Barrs Biblical Words for Time, the word olam means in pertpetuity, not "eternity". Was it often used to describe God as eternal, you say? Even though it doesn`t mean "eternal" at all? Hm, I wonder, could this not be the case of other words and expressions too, such as....(see above).
Mondo1,
I see those passages as confirmation that everything arose, began, or had its existence through Jesus and because of this he is pre-eminent over everything. It doesn't make him one of the things created but above them.
Strawman. I never said that it meant "eternal existence", I said it meant The Being! Can you read? It`s right there in my post. But: Yahweh calls himself The Being in this text in Exodus, and we bot agree that God has eternal existence, correct? So obviously, the term "The Being", hO WN, when used about God, must contain also the quality "eternal existence", correct? Or do Jehovahs Witnesses now believe that God aka Yahweh aka The Being is not eternal? I get confused with all these "new light"-things...
Here is the key part of what you said:
"In other words, the term "The Being" means all that is God, and so does "I am"."
You gave a meaning to "the being" and so from that I got it also meaning eternal existence. It sure seems like that is what you mean to me. Indeed God is eternal, but I don't see "the being" denoting that.
You must be confused. I allready admitted I was wrong about the wording in Exodus, and that it`s hO WN and not EGW EIMI. However, the term "I AM", EGW EIMI, is used as an introductory statement so many times in the OT that the readers and authors of the NT would automatically associate it with God himself, when coming from the mouth of a) God b)someone claiming to be God (and that would result in stoning). I don`t understand why this is so hard to understand. Also, the term (as you yourself admitted) in John 8, contains a claim of longlasting (I would say eternal) existence.Your argument is full of holes, for if it was so often used of God himself that people thought of God when it was used, that would mean that every other time somebody used it they thought the person was claiming to be God. I understand what you're saying, its just absurd.
According to Barrs Biblical Words for Time, the word olam means in pertpetuity, not "eternity". Was it often used to describe God as eternal, you say? Even though it doesn`t mean "eternal" at all? Hm, I wonder, could this not be the case of other words and expressions too, such as....(see above).No it couldn't be a case of that, because olam was the closest thing that had to eternal.
Kenneson,
The reason that it would contradict "source" in Rev 3:14 is because God the Father is always seen as the source, while the son is only seen as the intermediate agent. That is what is in view within all of those texts. So it would be a contradiction.
Your argument is full of holes, for if it was so often used of God himself that people thought of God when it was used, that would mean that every other time somebody used it they thought the person was claiming to be God
I`m just gonna let this one stand for itself, so everyone can see how silly it is.
