Quesions about Jehovah (page 2)

Dansk

Sorry PP,

But

Later additions to the text such as At Matt 28,"father son and holy spitit"

had me laughing my socks off! Never a truer sentence was spoken. Let's all spit on this garbage!

Dansk

NeonMadman

Psalms 82:1 says:
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment (Revised standard version)
So the bible itself says there are many gods.

If you read the entire psalm in context, however, you find that the "gods" among whom God is judging are actually mere men, unjust rulers and judges who arrogantly assume godlike status for themselves (sound like any cult leaders we know?). His referring to them as "gods" actually seems to be rather sarcastic in tone, in effect mocking them because of their self-exaltation. There are no true gods in the Bible apart from God Himself.

NeonMadman

Later additions to the text such as At Matt 28,"father son and holy spitit"

What's your evidence of that being an addition? I've never heard anyone accuse that text of being a later alteration (of course, you're right about 1 John 5:7).

City Fan

If you read the entire psalm in context, however, you find that the "gods" among whom God is judging are actually mere men

The context shows the opposite, that they are lesser gods, sons of the Most High Elyon.

Psalms 82 says:

0: A Psalm of Asaph.
1: God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
2: "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? [Selah]
3: Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
4: Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."
5: They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6: I say, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;
7: nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince."
8: Arise, O God, judge the earth; for to thee belong all the nations!

God here is El. He takes his place in the divine council to judge the gods of the nations. He decides that they will become mortal and die like men. Why? Because ‘to thee (El) belong all the nations.

This verse is an Elohist passage from the northern Israelite tribes. El was viewed as the supreme God and Most High or El Elyon. He gave the nations to his sons as an inheritance so that each nation had its own god,

This can be seen from an old passage in Deutoronomy 32:8,9:

8: When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
9: For the LORD's (Yahweh’s) portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

It is interesting to note that for centuries verse 8 was translated as ‘according to the number of the children of ’ not ‘according to the number of the sons of God’ (see King James version). Later bible redactors of the Masoretic text changed this passage to read ‘children of ’ simply because of the polytheistic nature of the verse. A comparison of the older Greek Septaguint with the Dead Sea Scrolls shows how corrupted some of the passages in the Masoretic text had become. The Septaguint and the Dead Sea Scrolls correctly translate this text as ‘the number of the sons of God’.

So the original text of Deut 32:8,9 shows that El was the Most High God and Yahweh was ‘a god’ in a pantheon of gods who was given the people of Israel as his inheritance. In fact Psalms 89 verse 7 calls Yahweh ‘a God feared in the council of the holy ones, great and terrible above all that are round about him’.

Of course in time Yahweh merged with El as the Most High God ‘Yahweh Elohim’. In the bible there are many 'gods' but only one 'Most High' God. The bible sometimes has trouble identifying who this Most High God is.

Valis

Will you Jehovah's Witnesses help me in finding answers??

*LOL* Dude...if there were any JWs here they probably won't admit it...*LOL* Well except for a couple, but they are quite tedious. The short answer would be bad translation in an effort to suit their own need to get rid of any notion of the trinity or any god or other diety superceeding their Jehover...welcome to the forume too.

Sincerely,

District Overbeer

rocketman

I doubt any of us will get mad. Jws on the other hand, well, they usually don't get mad to begin with, but question or debate with many of them for any length of time and they get rather impolite.

There are other threads on this topic, and other translations that use "a god" or a similar rendition at John 1:1.

amac

but question or debate with many of them for any length of time and they get rather impolite.

Do you mean like the many people on this board and the rest of the world for that matter?

the real truth

Ok guys I'm sorry, but noone answered my question. primitivegenius came the closest. He said Jesus was a "lesser" god. Is he a lesser true God or a lesser False God?????? Jehovah's Witnesses only believe in one God. How could Jesus be a God? Is he a true God or a false God, please answer. If you are gonna answer anything from this question, please answer If Jesus is a true God or a false God, because the Jehovah's Winesses translation in John 1:1 clearly says he was "a god."

libra_spirit

I can't imagine why this is so important to you, however if the Bible says to have but one God with a capitol G, and it says Jesus is a god with a small g, then whats your problem? To the JW's it makes perfect sense. They have only one God, Jesus is a lessor god, a mighty god who is Gods chief agent in everything he does with respect to man. Are you beginning to see the difference here? Capitol G God and small g god are different respective positions held by the good side.

Sheesh!

peacefulpete

Neonmadman...Due to the fact that we have no manuscripts older than the 4th century and this is the period of redaction by the Roman Church thee late additions to the text are generally recognised thru textural and grammatical anomolies and anachronisms. In a few cases we are lucky enuf to have church writers coments and quotations that provide proof that a text once read differently than the Received Text. The Matt 28 verse is one of these. Eusebius quoted thw verse something like 18 times, and in every case his version did not include the trinitarian formula. His verse ended with "in my name". Additional evidence is available. Even one early writer flaty rejecting the wording of this verse in the Textus Receptus as being a Gnostic perversion. I can not remember all the details but it is a fairly well known interpolation. Do a word search and I will as well, it's been a while.

Quesions about Jehovah

Share this