Posts by rocky

14

Who is the "Lord of Lords"?

by Chalam in

i ran across this before but i think it is worth mentioning in its own thread.. i will quote the nwt for extra effect!.

nwt deuteronomy 10:17. for jehovah your god is the god of gods and the lord of lords, the god great, mighty and fear-inspiring, who treats none with partiality nor accepts a bribe, .

nwt psalms 136:1-3. give thanks to jehovah, o you people, for he is good:.

rocky

Maybe both Jehohovah and Jesus can carry those titles..... and maybe in the same way or in some other meaning.. I do not know so far...
still I found this:

rsp.414par.1Trinity

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.

14

Who is the "Lord of Lords"?

by Chalam in

i ran across this before but i think it is worth mentioning in its own thread.. i will quote the nwt for extra effect!.

nwt deuteronomy 10:17. for jehovah your god is the god of gods and the lord of lords, the god great, mighty and fear-inspiring, who treats none with partiality nor accepts a bribe, .

nwt psalms 136:1-3. give thanks to jehovah, o you people, for he is good:.

rocky

I hope this will give some indication.....??

***it-2p.267Lord***

TheHebrew“Adhohn”and“Adhonai.” The Hebrew word ’a·dhohn′ occurs 334 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It carries the thought of ownership or headship and is used of God and of men. The plural form ’adho·nim′ sometimes denotes the simple numerical plural and is then translated “lords” or “masters.” (Ps 136:3; Isa 26:13) At other places the plural form denotes excellence, or majesty, whether of God or of man (Ps 8:1; Ge 39:2), and in such cases any appositional pronouns or modifying adjectives are in the singular number. (Ps 45:11; 147:5) In some places, two plurals are used side by side to distinguish Jehovah by the plural of excellence from the numerous other lords.—De 10:17; Ps 136:3; compare 1Co 8:5, 6.

*** w059/1p.27QuestionsFromReaders

Readersbasisisthereforsayingthatsuchphrasesas“theonealonehavingimmortality”andtheone“whomnotoneofmenhasseenorcansee”refertoJesusratherthantoJehovah

God?

The apostle Paul wrote: “This manifestation the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times, he the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see.”—1 Timothy 6:15, 16.

Bible commentators generally reason: ‘How could such phrases as “the one alone having immortality,” the “only Potentate,” and the one “whom not one of men has seen or can see” point to anyone other than the Almighty?’ Admittedly, such terms could be used to describe Jehovah. However, the context indicates that at 1 Timothy 6:15, 16, Paul was specifically referring to Jesus.

At the end of verse 14, Paul mentions “the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Timothy 6:14) Hence, when Paul writes in verse 15 that “this manifestation the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times,” he is referring to a manifestation of Jesus, not of Jehovah God. Who, then, is the “only Potentate”? It seems reasonable to conclude that Jesus is the Potentate referred to by Paul. Why? The context makes it evident that Paul is comparing Jesus with human rulers. Jesus truly is, as Paul wrote, “King of those [humans] who rule as kings and Lord of those [humans] who rule as lords.” Yes, compared to them, Jesus is the “only Potentate.” Jesus has been given “rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him.” (Daniel 7:14) No human potentate can make that claim!

What about the phrase “the one alone having immortality”? Again, a comparison is being drawn between Jesus and human kings. No earthly rulers can claim to have been granted immortality, but Jesus can. Paul wrote: “We know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more.” (Romans 6:9) Thus, Jesus is the first one to be described in the Bible as receiving the gift of immortality. Indeed, at the time of Paul’s writing, Jesus was the only one who had attained indestructible life.

It should also be kept in mind that it would have been wrong for Paul to say that Jehovah God alone had immortality, since Jesus too was immortal when Paul wrote those words. But Paul could say that Jesus alone was immortal in comparison with earthly rulers.

Further, it is certainly true that after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to heaven, he can be described as one “whom not one of men has seen or can see.” Granted, his anointed disciples would behold Jesus after their own death and subsequent resurrection to heaven as spirit creatures. (John 17:24) But no man on earth would see Jesus in his glorified state. Hence, it can truthfully be stated that since Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, “not one of men” has actually seen Jesus.

True, at first glance, it may seem as if the descriptions found at 1 Timothy 6:15, 16 could apply to God. But the context of Paul’s words—along with the corroboration of other scriptures—shows that Paul was referring to Jesus.[Footnote]

Similar expressions are applied to Jesus at 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6; Revelation 17:12, 14; 19:16.

3

Req French WTLibrary 2008

by rocky in

someone allready has the french wtlibrary (cd) version of 2008?

if so pls share it with me/us.... rocky.

.

rocky

Thanks Motema Bolingo.... I got your cd... but it has a protection on it as you said.... after a lot of trouble (when trying to make a working copy and reiinstal it with you cd).. I had to use a FULL backup with norton ghost...

Also cdclone did the job... so now I have a copy of your (protected) copy without the protection so now I can freely upload it to who likes to have it.
It cost me some hours (more then half a day) to do it... and not ready jet.. (still have to reinstall some proggies like office...)..
who likes it let me know it.. ([email protected])...

Bijbelcursus

27

NT "ho theos", and John 8: 58

by hamsterbait in

the wt says that if john 1 : 1 said the word is god it would have put the word "ho" before theos.. john 20; 28 refers to christ as ho theos.. john 8: 58 in nwt is "before abraham came into existence i have been" (prin abraham genesthai ego en) but the w&h greek text reads "prin abraham genesthaiego eimi".

there are three footnotes in the three editions of nwt to this:.

"perfect indefinite tense" - is this a greek or hebrew tense?.

rocky

Thanx JustHuman14 for info.

I hope you have the wtlibr. 2008 so you can find yourself a lot info about it (if you do not have it look at the next link: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/169948/2/2008-WT-Library-Question-1st-JWN-posting-too if you need help about it mail me to [email protected]) ... like the next here below..

***

Was
THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the NewWorldTranslation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, andtheWordwasagod.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (ANewTranslationoftheBible, by James Moffatt; TheNewEnglishBible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—TheHolyBible—NewInternationalVersion;TheJerusalem
Bible.

Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the NewWorldTranslation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.

The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, TheAnchorBibleDictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”

The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work IntroductiontoSahidicCoptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”

Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.

[Diagram/Pictures

onpage
24]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

JOHN

1:1. SAHIDIC COPTIC TEXT; P. CHESTER BEATTY-813; WITH INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION

In the beginning existed the Word

and the Word existed with

the God and a god was

the Word

[Credit

Line]

Reproduced by Permission of the Chester Beatty Library

27

NT "ho theos", and John 8: 58

by hamsterbait in

the wt says that if john 1 : 1 said the word is god it would have put the word "ho" before theos.. john 20; 28 refers to christ as ho theos.. john 8: 58 in nwt is "before abraham came into existence i have been" (prin abraham genesthai ego en) but the w&h greek text reads "prin abraham genesthaiego eimi".

there are three footnotes in the three editions of nwt to this:.

"perfect indefinite tense" - is this a greek or hebrew tense?.

rocky

T he word eimi can mean more then "is" or "am".....

W 08 4/1pp.27-28TheEucharist—TheFactsBehindtheRitual

“This Means”or“This Is”?

Granted, some Bible translations render Jesus’ words this way: “Take and eat; this is my body,” and, “Drink all of you, because this is my blood.” (Matthew 26:26-28, ConferenzaEpiscopaleItaliana;TheNewJerusalemBible) It is also true that the Greek word e·stin?, a form of the Greek verb “to be,” essentially means “is.” But the same verb can also mean “signify.” Interestingly, in many versions of the Bible, this verb is frequently translated “mean” or “stand for.” It is the context that determines the most precise rendering. For instance, at Matthew 12:7, e·stin is rendered “means” in many Bible translations: “If you had known what this means [Greek, e·stin]: I want mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the blameless.”—CEI;Douay

Version.

In this regard, many respected Bible scholars have agreed that the word “is” does not accurately render the thought Jesus was expressing here. For example, Jacques Dupont considered the culture and society in which Jesus lived and concluded that “the most natural” rendering of the verse should be: “This means my body” or, “This represents my body.”

At any rate, Jesus could not have meant that his followers were literally to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why not? After the Flood of Noah’s day, when God gave man permission to eat the flesh of animals, he directly forbade man to consume blood. (Genesis 9:3, 4) This command was repeated in the Mosaic Law, which Jesus obeyed fully. (Deuteronomy 12:23; 1 Peter 2:22) And the apostles were inspired by holy spirit to renew the command against consuming blood, making that law binding upon all Christians. (Acts 15:20, 29) Would Jesus institute an observance that would require his followers to violate a sacred decree of Almighty God? Impossible!

Clearly, then, Jesus used the bread and wine as symbols. The unleavened bread meant, or represented, his sinless body that would be sacrificed. The red wine signified his blood that would be poured out “in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.”—Matthew 26:28.

***w913/1pp.27-28The“NewWorldTranslation”—ScholarlyandHonest

According to Matthew 26:26 in the NewWorldTranslation, Jesus, when instituting the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal, says of the bread that he passes to his disciples: “This means my body.” Most other translations render this verse: “This is my body,” and this is used to support the doctrine that during the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal, the bread literally becomes Christ’s flesh. The word translated in the NewWorldTranslation as “means” (es·tin′, a form of ei·mi′) comes from the Greek word meaning “to be,” but it can also signify “to mean.” Thus, Thayer’s Greek-EnglishLexiconoftheNewTestament says that this verb “is often i.q. [equivalent to] todenote,signify,import.” Indeed, “means” is a logical translation here. When Jesus instituted the Last Supper, his flesh was still on his bones, so how could the bread have been his literal flesh?

27

NT "ho theos", and John 8: 58

by hamsterbait in

the wt says that if john 1 : 1 said the word is god it would have put the word "ho" before theos.. john 20; 28 refers to christ as ho theos.. john 8: 58 in nwt is "before abraham came into existence i have been" (prin abraham genesthai ego en) but the w&h greek text reads "prin abraham genesthaiego eimi".

there are three footnotes in the three editions of nwt to this:.

"perfect indefinite tense" - is this a greek or hebrew tense?.

rocky

***

rsp.417-p.418Trinity
***
John

8:58:

RS
reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am [Greek, e·go′ei·mi′].’” (NE,KJ,TEV,JB,NAB all read “I am,” some even using capital letters to convey the idea of a title. Thus they endeavor to connect the expression with Exodus 3:14, where, according to their rendering, God refers to himself by the title “I Am.”) However, in NW the latter part of John 8:58 reads: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” (The same idea is conveyed by the wording in AT,Mo,CBW, and SE.)
Which rendering agrees with the context? The question of the Jews (verse 57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Jesus’ reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence. Interestingly, no effort is ever made to apply e·go′ei·mi′ as a title to the holy spirit.
Says AGrammaroftheGreekNewTestamentintheLightofHistoricalResearch, by A. T. Robertson: “The verb [ei·mi′] . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [e·go′ei·mi′] (Jo. 8:58).”—Nashville, Tenn.; 1934, p. 394.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1582, 1583.

27

NT "ho theos", and John 8: 58

by hamsterbait in

the wt says that if john 1 : 1 said the word is god it would have put the word "ho" before theos.. john 20; 28 refers to christ as ho theos.. john 8: 58 in nwt is "before abraham came into existence i have been" (prin abraham genesthai ego en) but the w&h greek text reads "prin abraham genesthaiego eimi".

there are three footnotes in the three editions of nwt to this:.

"perfect indefinite tense" - is this a greek or hebrew tense?.

rocky

Thanks Leolaia for the info but the testament of Job is not an inspired part of the bible...

It seems that in the WTlibrary nothing can be found about it... but surely it is or looks to be an

APOCRYPHA

Rocky

27

NT "ho theos", and John 8: 58

by hamsterbait in

the wt says that if john 1 : 1 said the word is god it would have put the word "ho" before theos.. john 20; 28 refers to christ as ho theos.. john 8: 58 in nwt is "before abraham came into existence i have been" (prin abraham genesthai ego en) but the w&h greek text reads "prin abraham genesthaiego eimi".

there are three footnotes in the three editions of nwt to this:.

"perfect indefinite tense" - is this a greek or hebrew tense?.

rocky

***

it-2pp.55-56JesusChrist
***
What
did Thomas mean when he said to Jesus, “My Lord and my
God”?

On the occasion of Jesus’ appearance to Thomas and the other apostles, which had removed Thomas’ doubts of Jesus’ resurrection, the now-convinced Thomas exclaimed to Jesus: “My Lord and my God! [literally, “The Lord of me and the God (hoThe·os′) of me!”].” (Joh 20:24-29) Some scholars have viewed this expression as an exclamation of astonishment spoken to Jesus but actually directed to God, his Father. However, others claim the original Greek requires that the words be viewed as being 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. Since the record shows that Jesus had previously sent his disciples the message, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and tomyGod and your God,” there is no reason for believing that Thomas thought Jesus was the Almighty God. (Joh 20:17) John himself, after recounting Thomas’ encounter with the resurrected Jesus, says of this and similar accounts: “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.”—Joh 20:30, 31.
So, Thomas may have addressed Jesus as “my God” in the sense of Jesus’ being “a god” though not the Almighty God, not “the only true God,” to whom Thomas had often heard Jesus pray. (Joh 17:1-3) Or he may have addressed Jesus as “my God” in a way similar to expressions made by his forefathers, recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, with which Thomas was familiar. On various occasions when individuals were visited or addressed by an angelic messenger of Jehovah, the individuals, or at times the Bible writer setting out the account, responded to or spoke of that angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah God. (Compare Ge 16:7-11, 13; 18:1-5, 22-33; 32:24-30; Jg 6:11-15; 13:20-22.) This was because the angelic messenger was acting for Jehovah as his representative, speaking in his name, perhaps using the first person singular pronoun, and even saying, “I am the true God.” (Ge 31:11-13; Jg 2:1-5) Thomas may therefore have spoken to Jesus as “my God” in this sense, acknowledging or confessing Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God. Whatever the case, it is certain that Thomas’ words do not contradict the clear statement he himself had heard Jesus make, namely, “The Father is greater than I am.”—Joh 14:28.

27

NT "ho theos", and John 8: 58

by hamsterbait in

the wt says that if john 1 : 1 said the word is god it would have put the word "ho" before theos.. john 20; 28 refers to christ as ho theos.. john 8: 58 in nwt is "before abraham came into existence i have been" (prin abraham genesthai ego en) but the w&h greek text reads "prin abraham genesthaiego eimi".

there are three footnotes in the three editions of nwt to this:.

"perfect indefinite tense" - is this a greek or hebrew tense?.

rocky

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.

Application

toJesusChristbyinspiredBiblewritersofpassagesfromtheHebrewScripturesthatclearlyapplyto
Jehovah

Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29.

Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.

Application

toJesusChristbyinspiredBiblewritersofpassagesfromtheHebrewScripturesthatclearlyapplyto
Jehovah

Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29.

Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.

Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for JesusChrist, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29.

Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one throughwhom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.

Application

to Jesus Christ by inspired Bible writers of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly apply to Jehovah

***

rsp.412par.3-p.414par.3Trinity
***
Alpha
and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong? (1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS,NE,JB,NAB,Dy. (2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition. (3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) (4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it. (5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son. Savior:
Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Italics added.) (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shi′a?, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations. God:
At Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Does this mean that, because Jesus Christ is prophetically called “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be Jehovah? Again, the context answers, No! None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before Jehovah, because no one existed before Jehovah. Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that was able to prophesy. (Isa. 46:9, 10) But that does not mean that Jehovah never caused to exist anyone who is properly referred to as a god. (Ps. 82:1, 6; John 1:1, NW) At Isaiah 10:21 Jehovah is referred to as “mighty God,” just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only Jehovah is ever called “God Almighty.”—Gen. 17:1.

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.

Application

toJesusChristbyinspiredBiblewritersofpassagesfromtheHebrewScripturesthatclearlyapplyto
Jehovah

Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29.

Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.

27

NT "ho theos", and John 8: 58

by hamsterbait in

the wt says that if john 1 : 1 said the word is god it would have put the word "ho" before theos.. john 20; 28 refers to christ as ho theos.. john 8: 58 in nwt is "before abraham came into existence i have been" (prin abraham genesthai ego en) but the w&h greek text reads "prin abraham genesthaiego eimi".

there are three footnotes in the three editions of nwt to this:.

"perfect indefinite tense" - is this a greek or hebrew tense?.

rocky

*** Rbi8pp.1582-15836FJesus—InExistenceBeforeAbraham

*** Jesus—InExistenceBefore

Abraham 8:58—“beforeAbrahamcameintoexistence,Ihave

been” πρι`ν?Αβραα`μγεν?σθαι?γω`

ε?μ? ge·ne′sthai e·go′

ei·mi′)

Fourth/Fifth “before Abraham was, Syriac—Edition:

Century I have been” ATranslationoftheFour

GospelsfromtheSyriac

of

theSinaitic

Palimpsest,

by Agnes Smith Lewis,

London, 1894.

Fifth Century “before ever Abraham Curetonian Syriac—Edition:

came to be, I was” TheCuretonianVersion

of

theFourGospels, by

F.Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1,

Cambridge, England, 1904.

Fifth Century “before Abraham Syriac Peshitta—Edition:

existed, I was” TheSyriacNew

Testament

Translatedinto

English

fromthePeshitto

Version,

by James Murdock, seventh

ed., Boston and London,

1896.

Fifth Century “before Abraham Georgian—Edition:

came to be, I was” “The Old Georgian Version

of the Gospel of John,” by

Robert P. Blake and Maurice

Brière, published in

Patrologia

Orientalis,

Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4,

Paris, 1950.

Sixth Century “before Abraham Ethiopic—Edition:

was born, I was” NovumTestamentum. .

.

Æthiopice (The New

Testament . . . in

Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell

Platt, revised by F.

Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

The action expressed in Joh 8:58 started “before Abraham came into existence” and is still in progress. In such situation ε?μ? (ei·mi′), which is the first-person singular present indicative, is properly translated by the perfect indicative. Examples of the same syntax are found in Lu 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Joh 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; Ac 15:21; 2Co 12:19; 1Jo 3:8.

Concerning this construction, AGrammaroftheIdiomoftheNewTestament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: “Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues,—a state in its duration; as, Jno. xv. 27 ?π’ ?ρχη~ς μετ’ ?μου~ ?στ? [ap’ar·khes′met’e·mou′e·ste′], viii. 58 πρι`ν ?Αβραα`μ γεν?σθαι ?γω` ε?μι [prinA·bra·am′ge·ne′sthaie·go′ei·mi].”

Likewise, AGrammarofNewTestamentGreek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: “The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress . . . It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Lk 2 48 13 7 . . . 15 29 . . . Jn 5 6 8 58 . . . ”

Attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some say that ?γω` ε?μ? (e·go′ei·mi′) is the equivalent of the Hebrew expression ’ani′hu’, “I am he,” which is used by God. However, it is to be noted that this Hebrew expression is also used by man.—See 1Ch 21:17 ftn.

Further attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some try to use Ex 3:14 (LXX) which reads: ?Εγ? ε?μι ? ω?´ν (E·go′ei·mihoon), which means “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One.” This attempt cannot be sustained because the expression in Ex 3:14 is different from the expression in Joh 8:58. (See Ex 3:14 ftn.) Throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures it is not possible to make an identification of Jesus with Jehovah as being the same person.—See 1Pe 2:3 ftn; App 6A, 6E.