"Your claim that Heb. 1:6 involves a "reapplication" misunderstands the text's theological intent. " - typical I always "misunderstand" but theologically motivated AQ Is always right - so reapplications identify someone right?
Don't forget Jesus inherited a better name than the angels..
wouldn't the angels already be worshipping him if he was God? This would not need to be established if the writer thought he was God (the writer didn't)
The angels were TOLD to "worship" Christ... not idolatry when the most high God tells them to "worship" him
"Your appeal to translations like Goodspeed’s or Young’s Bible does not invalidate my argument regarding the NWT's theological bias." - how? in what world? Trinitarians do exactly the same as the NWT... your argument is invalid.
you are ignoring evidence here (whats new - you quote mined aswell, in this very same thread, proof is in the link I posted)
"The reference to 1 Chron. 29:20 as a supposed parallel misunderstands the context and semantics of proskyneō. " - both are direct objects of the verb... actually one is technically indirect, but worshipping God would be worshipping his King.
Where does it say they are in different senses? that is YOUR opinion.
yes INTENT AQ INTENT... Why is the Lamb worthy to receive "worship" (or Homage - they are literally synonyms)?
literally 1 verse back will answer your question, Why is God worthy to receive worship try ch. 1
"The NWT's rendering of proskyneō as "do obeisance" here is inconsistent with its own principles, as the same word is translated as "worship" when applied to God in other passages." - shall I point out the same inconsistency in other Bibles? Lets start with catholic bibles I can cite atleast 2 verses that do exactly the same thing.
Which bible(s) do you use? ill check if it (they) does the same thing
"For example, John 1:1 is rendered as "a god" in the NWT, but other similar grammatical constructions (like John 1:6) are not translated with "a" in front of "God." " - this is not rightly pointed out as these constructions are not parallels, if you bother to pick p ANY greek handbook John 1:6 is a Dative and can be definite even without the article... there are NOT paralels, literally anyone with knowledge in Greek can tell you that - these CANNOT be compared.
If you read any Greek handbook you will see that constructions are similar only when a case that plays a similar fuction is employed.. i.e not Dative and Nominative
"This statement implies that the predominance of Trinitarianism automatically invalidates their conclusions." - actually it says that if all are trinitarian we are likely to get only trinitarian bias translations.. unless we get super honest scholars who admit it doesn't exist... most are kicked out of these places for such reasoning
" It is possible to worship while grappling with questions or confusion. Worship arises from recognition of worthiness and reverence for God" - you CANNOT worship if you doubt it... worship by definition means having full faith in the thing you worship. No room for doubt. esp for the persons identity (maybe other things sure, we are talking identity here)
"Mainstream Trinitarian translations undergo extensive peer review by experts in ancient languages, history, and theology to ensure consistency and fidelity." - how many of these are not trinitarian?
"respectful dialogue is essential for meaningful engagement. Constructive criticism is welcome, but dismissing others' views without addressing the substance of their arguments undermines the opportunity for genuine discussion. Fact-checking and thoughtful analysis are integral to meaningful discourse, and this response aims to provide both." - what have you fact checked? nothing
Where are your sources to prove you have fact checked? there are none.. I see none.
"genuine discussion"? How can anyone discuss anything with you? its borderline impossible
"The suggestion that I am driven by theological motivation rather than objective scholarship is ironic, given the demonstrable theological bias of the NWT." - deflection much?
this doesn't address the substance of my claim :) so address it
I can post my research to prove your theologically motivated if you like.. (I warn it wont be pretty, alot of research has been done since these long spammy posts have appeared around the internet)