John Pye Smith on Hebrews 1:8 - "God is thy Throne"

 

Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing.

"This (Hebrews 1:8) is a quotation from Psalm 45:6. And it is well known that the words of the original will equally well bear to be translated, God is thy throne;' that is, the support of thy throne. See Grotius, Clarke, and Peirce in loc. Mr. Lindsey contends that this must be the proper translation, because it is most analogous to the language of Scripture. 2 Sam. 7:13, 16. 1 Chron. 17:12, 14. Psalm 89:4. Archbishop Newcome translates, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever;' but he remarks, that in the Psalm the same words are addressed to Solomon." - Calm. Inq. p. 230. ""But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and 'ever' or, 'God is thy throne,' i. e. the supporter of thy throne. Psalm 45:6, 7.-q. d. The power and authority of former prophets, such as Moses, Elijah, and others, however great and awful for a time, was but transitory and evanescent; but thy kingdom is immoveable, thy dominion is everlasting." -Ib. p. 208. ~The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah: An Inquiry with a View to a Satisfactory Determination of the Doctrine Taught in the Holy Scriptures Concerning the Person of Christ, Volume 1 By John Pye Smith 1829, p. 343

2 Samuel 7:13, 16 reads: He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever...And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

1 Chron 17: 12, 14 reads: He shall build me a house, and I will establish his throne for ever...but I will settle him in my house and in my kingdom for ever; and his throne shall be established for ever. 

Psalms 89:4 reads: Thy seed will I establish for ever, And build up thy throne to all generations. 

See also: B.F. Westcott on Hebrews 1:8 "God is Thy Throne"

The New World Translation and Hebrews 1:8

God Is Thy Throne (Hebrews 1:8)

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Websites Discussing Granville Sharp's Rule - Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1

 

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

“Those who defend translations that read as if only Jesus is spoken of in both Titus 2.13 and 2 Peter 1.1 attempt to distinguish those two passages from the parallel examples I have given by something called “Sharp’s Rule.” In 1798, the amateur theologian Granville Sharp published a book in which he argued that when there are two nouns of the same form (“case”) joined by “and” (kai), only the first of which has the article, the nouns are identified as the same thing. Close examination of this much used “rule” shows it to be a fiction concocted by a man who had a theological agenda in creating it, namely to prove that the verses we are examining in this chapter call Jesus 'God.'” Jason Beduhn (Truth in Translation)

https://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/text/Sean%20Finnegan%20--%20Scholars%20on%20Titus%202.13.pdf

Buy on Amazon

This scripture (Titus 2:13) can possibly be translated different ways, depending upon the translator's understanding of what is being said, or bias. Albert Barnes, although he contends that Jesus is being called the great God in Titus 2:13, does state: "It is uncertain whether these words should be read together thus, 'the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior,' or separately, as of the Father and the Son, 'the glory of the great God, and of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.'" Since, Jesus is definitely NOT the "one God" of whom are all (1 Corinthians 8:6), the correct procedure should be to view Titus 2:13 from that perspective. 

https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/11/titus-213.html

A parallel arises when comparing Titus 2:13 to Titus 1:4. Titus 1:4 mentions “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” No translator merges the two into “the Father and Savior, Christ Jesus” as though referencing only Jesus. 

https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2019/08/04/titus-213-and-2-peter-11-what-is-the-long-debated-controversial-granville-sharp-rule/

As Nigel Turner (who writes as a Trinitarian) says:

"Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive. Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even when there is clearly a separation in ideas. 'The repetition of the article was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.' (Moulton-Howard-Turner, Grammar, volume III, p. 181. The references is to Titus 2:13)...The same grammatical problem faces expositors of 2 Peter 1:1. Henry Alford is one of many Trinitarians who argue that Jesus is not called 'God' in this verse. For him, the absence of the article is outweighed here, as in Titus 2:13, by the much more significant fact that both Peter and Paul normally distinguish clearly between God and Jesus Christ."

https://jesuswordsonly.org/topicindex/514-titus-213-a-the-granville-sharp-rule.html

Norton makes some great points and shows the irrelevance of the Granville Sharp Rule in “proving” the Trinity. Because no ambiguity between Christ and God would arise in the minds of the readers due to the omission of the article, it can be omitted without a problem. Likewise, there was no need for a second article in Matthew 21:12 in the phrase, “all the [ones] selling and buying,” or in Ephesians 2:20 in the phrase, “the apostles and prophets,” because no one would ever think that “sold” and “bought” meant the same thing, or that “apostles” and “prophets” were somehow the same office. This same is true all over the Bible. There is no need for a second article if no confusion would arise without it. The “rule” therefore begs the question. It can be made to apply only if it can be shown that an ambiguity would have arisen in the minds of the first century readers between Christ and God. Because the whole of Scripture clearly shows the difference between Christ and God, and that difference would have been in the minds of the believers, the Granville Sharp “Rule” is not a valid reason to make Christ God.

https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/the-granville-sharp-rule

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

One of the critical flaws of “Sharp’s Rule” as it’s used by apologists seems to involve a deliberate blind spot that causes its proponents to either end the evaluation prematurely, or to dismiss what would seem to be a rather important consideration.

What I mean is, proponents will observe that proper names are excluded, but they fail to ask the next questions, which seem rather pertinent:

(1) Why are proper names excluded; and

(2) Is it possible that the exclusion of proper names can reveal why 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 may be exceptions to the rule?

As to why proper names are excluded, I suspect that this is because such names have high degree of restrictive force in contexts where they appear.

Do the words “God” and “Savior” have a high degree of restrictive force in the contexts in question? Yes, clearly they do, and I would argue that this restrictive force is equivalent to that which applies to proper names.

I suspect that this is why a second article wasn’t needed at Proverbs 24:21. It has nothing to do with differences between “translation Greek” and non-translation Greek, as some have argued in an attempt to avoid the problem this text presents to those who would like to believe that there are no exceptions to the “rule.”

https://trinities.org/blog/why-you-can-ignore-sharps-rule/

Another thing that is noteworthy is that there are textual variants to 2 Peter 1:1 that may well represent the original reading. That would mean that the reading in the majority of the Greek texts is a later alteration to the text. There are Aramaic, Latin, Coptic, Sahidic, and Greek manuscripts (including Sinaiticus and (044)) that have “Lord” instead of God, and read, “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Translations from the Aramaic read: “our Lord and our Savior, Jesus Christ.”...As for the Granville Sharp rule, Greek grammarians such as Turner and Norton show that there is no evidence that there was an actual “rule” of grammar like the Granville Sharp rule, and in any case, there is no need for a second article if no confusion would arise without it. Because Scripture clearly shows a difference between Christ and God, and that difference would have been in the minds of the believers, the Granville Sharp “Rule” does not apply in verses such as Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/comm/2-Pet/1/1

What though of Sharp's Rule? Firstly, Sharp was trying to find a rule to show that Jesus Christ was "God." That was his aim. Also, he only looked at the Greek New Testament. One would be ill advised to obtain a 'rule' from such a small corpus of Greek. These two observations should make one careful about accepting this 'rule' or at least thinking that this rule has to apply in any given Greek sentence where the article-noun KAI noun construction(with all the limitations Sharp and others give it for the one person view)exists. But did Sharp find anything or see something? Yes, he did. What he observed was a principle, not a rule! But not that this principle would show that the "great God" and "Savior Jesus Christ" are necessarily the same person. What he saw can be described as "a combined enumeration." This is "an enumeration of two or more persons or things, joined by a connective particle[such as kai, "and"] and where the Article[ho, "the"] before the first only intimates a connection between the whole, forming one object of thought."(Handbook To the Grammar of the Greek Testament section 232 by Rev. Samuel G. Green). We can find many examples of this in the Greek N.T.(We have highlighted the Greek article and the connective particle in each in red and these ones are in fact Green's examples in the above cited section in his Grammar).

Ephesians 2:20: "EPI TW QEMELIW TWN APOSTOWN KAI PROPHHTWN," "upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Here, the "apostles" are not the same subjects as the "prophets" but as Green says there is a connection between them, one which is "one object of thought" in Paul's mind here. We see this at Colossians 2:12: "TA ENTALMATA KAI DIDASKALIAS TWN ANQRWPWN, "the commandments and teachings of men." The "commandments" and "teachings" of men were not being here identified as one and the same but "together constituting one system"(Green). Matthew 17:1 : "TON PETRON KAI IAKWBON KAI IWANNHM, "Peter and James and John." The three were not the same person but an inseparable group. This nicely leads us to Titus 2:13. Paul was not there necessarily identifying the "great God" with "Savior Jesus Christ" as one and the same but they were an inseparable two subjects in "the blessed hope and manifestation" Paul mentions here. Green's last example is in fact Titus 2:13 where he writes after giving the Greek and Ellicott's translation:

"Here are two cases of enumeration, each with a single article: (1) the "manifestation" is but another expression for the "hope;" and (2) the latter phrase may imply, on the above stated principle, either that God(the Father) and Jesus Christ the Saviour are so inseparably conjoined that the glory of each is the same(R[evised] V[ersion][1881] marg[in]) or else, as the R.V. has it....that God in this passage is, like Saviour, an epithet of Christ...."

Did you see the two options given by Green there? So, 'Sharp's Rule' is nothing more than the above stated principle(not a rule!)and in connection with Titus 2:13 the Greek is in fact ambiguous and may mean either of the two choices Green gives so that one could legitimately translate and make the "great God" and the "Savior Jesus Christ" two separate subjects(as the New World Translation, New American Bible, the James Moffatt translation and others have done and others give in a footnote as the alternative translation)or one. Yes, the grammar here does not decide it. Any appeal to Sharp's rule as being decisive in this matter then is invalid. What decides the matter in all these texts including those like Titus 2:13 is the author's wider treatment of the person or persons he mentions. In Paul we consistently find he makes a distinction between the one who he says is and thinks of as QEOS and this one's Son. 1 Thessalonians 1:9 is a good example. The author of the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges agrees that “the rule that the one article indicates the one subject… [cannot] be too strongly relied upon as decisive.” Humphreys, A. E., The Epistles to Timothy & Titus, Cambridge University Press, 1895.) 

https://onlytruegod.org/defense/nwtbiased.htm

Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing.

Inconvenient Truths about the New Testament and the Trinity

 

Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing.

From Henry Ware (1832):

 'If the Apostles worshiped God in three persons, it will so appear in their conduct and writings; this circumstance will characterize their devout expressions everywhere. And this the more especially, because they were Jews, - a people who worshipped God with a strict and most jealous regard to his unity. They could not have changed their practice in this particular without the change being most strikingly observable. Yet we have no intimation of such a change. They appear to have gone on with the worship of the One God of their fathers, without any alteration. Look at this fact. When Paul was converted, he must have passed supposing the Trinity to be a christian doctrine from believing Jesus a blasphemous impostor, to believing him the Lord Jehovah. Is there the least hint of such an amazing change? He speaks with admiration and rapture of the new views and feelings which he enjoyed with his new faith. But all the rest together was not so astonishing and wonderful as this particular change. Yet he nowhere alludes to it. Is it then possible that it could have been so? that so great a revolution of feeling should have taken place, and no intimation of it be found in any act or expression? He speaks frequently of his prayers. And how? 'I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 'Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.' Making mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom.' It is plain therefore to whom Paul directed his worship. - His epistles contain many doxologies and ascriptions of praise to God. And in what terms? Always to One person, God the Father. And not once, either in his epistles, or in any other writing of the Bible, is a doxology to be found, which ascribes praise to Father, Son and Spirit, or to the Trinity in any form. This fact is worth remarking. The New Testament contains, I think, twenty-eight ascriptions in various forms; and from not one of them could you learn that the doctrine of the Trinity had been dreamt of in that day."

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

The 1915 Bible Review on John 1:1

 

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

THE Gospel by John begins thus: “'In a beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was a god”[Emphatic Diaglott]-i. e., was a power. The word Logos appears to have no exact equivalent in English and is variously translated. But the statement, "Through it every thing was done; and without it not even one thing was done, which has been done,” and that it “was in the beginning,” shows that the Logos is the first step in the accomplishing of anything.

God created man in his image, that is, man has the same faculties and powers as his Creator, even as a little child has the faculties and powers of its father, tho as yet undeveloped. If man is in the image of his Creator then their manner of operation must be similar. Before one can do anything there must be first the thought or idea concerning that thing. Therefore we may say concerning God, and as well concerning man, in doing any. thing there is first in the beginning the thought, the idea. So we feel that we do no violence to the text to translate it: "In the beginning was the idea, and this idea was with God, and this idea was a power. This (idea) was in the beginning with God. Thru it everything was done, and without it not even one thing was done, which has been done. In it (the idea) was life, and the life was the light of men.” ~Enoch Penn writing in the Bible Review 1915

Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing. 

Six "Proofs" that Jesus is God according to doubtingthomasbook.com Examined

 

Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing.

Jerry Newcombe at http://doubtingthomasbook.com/thomas-jefferson-and-the-trinity/ gives 6 "proofs" that the Bible says Jesus is God. He writes the following on his website: "Priestley claims that the first writer to claim that Jesus was divine was the Plato-inspired Justin Martyr (of the mid-second century). He claims: 'We find nothing like divinity ascribed to Christ before Justin Martyr.' Yet the Bible claims that:

(a) Jesus could forgive sins, although only God can forgive sins (Mark 2:7)"

Reply: I see that you are working under the assumption that God does not or either cannot delegate authority. John 5:22, 27 says, "Nor does the Father himself judge anyone. He has given his Son the full right to judge...And he has given the Son the right to judge" TEV. Since Jesus was GIVEN the right to judge, this indicates a transfer of power which the Son did not previously have. When Jesus forgave a man of his sins, the people understood that this was a transfer of power. "When the people saw it, they were afraid, and praised God for giving such authority to people." Matt 9:8 TEV. Then Jesus passed on this authority to forgive sins to his apostles (John 20:22, 23). This does not make them God.

(b) Jesus was the Word of God made flesh “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:14, 1);

Reply: The translaton "and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” demonstrates the failure of most Bible versions. The Greek highlights the differences between the two uses ot QEOS / theos / god in this passage, but the majority of Bibles refuse to reveal this difference. There are however many Bible translations and scholars who translate this verse otherwise:

Edward Harwood, "and was himself a divine person"

Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"

La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: “and the Word was a divine being.”

John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god

Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine

Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."

Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."

Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"

International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]

Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"

Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"

Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"

Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”

Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]

J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"

Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London "[A] Divine Person."

Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S.  (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"

Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"

Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"

J. Harold Greenlee, "and the Word was Deity" (A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek)

Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16).  "a God"

George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"

Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"

James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"

Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"

Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"

Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature

...with footnote, "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In the first instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means 'The Word was divine'."

Schonfield's The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine

J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"

Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"

Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."

Bohmer, 1910, "It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being"

Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word"

Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]

Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, "itself a God/god was the Word/word"

Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"

Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"

Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"

Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"

Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"

Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "He was with God and in all like God"

Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"

Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933, "And the Word was divine."

John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"

Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament,  London, Student Movement Christian Press 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"

Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'

(c) the Jews picked up stones to kill Him “for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33)—a claim Jesus did not dispute;

Reply: John 10:33 can also be translated as "a god" as it does in the New English Bible, which makes more sense in the context. “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? {10:35} If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), {10:36} say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am [the] Son of God?” ASV

Here Jesus was quoting Psalm 82 where human judges are called gods. Does it not make sense that the Son of God can be called a god also?

Jesus was adamant about the ignorance of the Jews, so we should not put too much stock in his enemies. Matt. 12:34 "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Matt. 22:29 "But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."

(d) before Abraham was, “I am” (a claim of deity, echoing back to God’s claim before Moses in the burning bush, John 8:58);

Reply: Yet another poorly translated passage, in both instances (John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14). Let us look at the context. Jesus identifies himself as the one "sent" by a superior, he did not come of his own accord (Jn.8:16,29,42,). This superior is identified as "Father" and "God" (8:54). Is not the sender the superior of the one sent? (Jn.13:16 cf Jn. 14:28). Jesus does nothing of his "own  initiative" and  he can only speak what he was "taught" by the Father (8:28). Jesus does not seek his own glory, but God's and "keeps His word" (8:50, 54). Could this be said of Almighty God? 

The word EIMI (am) is in the present tense, but the surrounding context is not. They call this the “Extension from the Past” idiom or PPA (Present of Past Action). The reason for this are the words PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI (before Abraham was). Many grammarians realize this, and have thus abandoned trying to read more into John 8:58. For this reason many Bibles translate John 8:58 in a way that makes more sense:

The (older) Living New Testament: "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." 

The 20th Century New Testament: "before Abraham existed I was." 

Noyes, G.R. N.T. (1878) _Jesus said to them, truly, truly do I say to you, from before Abraham was, I have been.__ 

Hanson, J.W. New Covenant (1884) _Jesus said to them,_truly, truly, I say to you, I am before Abraham was born.__ 

Kraeling, E.G. Four Gospels (1962) _With another amen-saying, Jesus declares to them that before Abraham was, He (Jesus) is (hint of His preexistence)._ 

Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T._Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed._ 

Cotton Patch Version (1970) _To this Jesus replied, I existed before Abraham was born.__ 

Ledyard, G.H. New Life Testament (1969) _Jesus said to them, for sure I tell you, before Abraham was born, I was and sum and always will be._ 

Dr. E.C. Dymond N.T. (1972) __Yes, indeed!; said Jesus: _He saw me in prospect. The fact is, that long before Abraham was conceived in his mother_s womb, that individual who I now am had been conceived in God's mind: He had completed the plan and specifications, so to speak, and therefore He was able to give Abraham a mental preview of me__. 

Good News for the World (1969) _Jesus answer, I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was 

born.__ 

 

The Complete Bible, An American Translation Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham was born." 

The Living Bible: "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." 

Lattimore: "Truly, truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born." 

The New Testament, From the Peshitta Text, Lamsa: "Before Abraham was born, I was." 

An American Translation, In The Language of Today, Beck: "I was before Abraham." 

New Testament Contemporary English Version: "I tell you.that even before Abraham was, I was, and I am." 

The Unvarnished New Testament: "Before Abraham was born, I have already been." 

The New Testament, Kleist & Lilly: "I am here-and I was before Abraham." 

The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams: "I existed before Abraham was born." 

The New Testament, Noyes: "From before Abraham was, I have been." 

A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: "Before Abraham was, I have been." 

Wakefield, G. N.T. (1795) _Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham was born, I am He._ 

The Syriac New Testament, Murdock: "Before Abraham existed I was." 

The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Burkitt& The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, 

Blake & Briere "Before Abraham came to be, I was." 

The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant, Sharpe: "I was before Abraham was born." 

The 20th Century New Testament 1904: "Before Abraham existed I was already what I am." 

The New Testament, Stage: "Before Abraham came to be, I was." 

International Bible Translators 1981 _Jesus said to them, I am telling the truth: I was alive before Abraham was born!__ 

The Coptic Version the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Horner: "Before Abraham became, I, I am being." 

The Documents of the New Testament, Wade: "Before Abraham came into being, I have existed." 

Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961) _Jesus answered them: Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born.__ 

"I have been in existence since before Abraham was born" Kenneth McKay

The Concise Gospel and The Acts, Christianson: "I existed even before Abraham was born." 

A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida: "Before Abraham existed, I existed, or I have existed." 

The Simple English Bible: "I was alive before Abraham was born." 

The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born." 

The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham." 

Swann, G. N.T. (1947) Jesus said to them, verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before Abraham was born_ 

International English Version (2001) "I was alive before Abraham was born" 

(e) Jesus was Immanuel, which means “God with us” (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23);

Reply: For Matthew 1:23 The use of the titular name Imanuel had its earlier fulfillment is someone other than Jesus Christ:

"Both the context of Isaiah 7 and the use of 'Immanuel' two more times in chapter 8 (vv. 8, 10) raise the distinct possibility that the sign had a near fulfillment that affected Ahaz directly. Such a possibility is supported by the two verses immediately after 7:14 that tell us that the boy will still be young when Ahaz's enemies-the kings of Samaria and Damascus-will lose their power (a prediction fulfilled in 732 b.c.). The birth of a boy who would serve as a sign to Ahaz appears to be closely linked to the birth of Isaiah's son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:1-4. Both Immanuel in 7:15-16 and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:4 are young children when Damascus and Samaria collapse. And in 8:8 the two boys may be identified as Isaiah addresses Immanuel as if he were already present in Jerusalem. Verse 10 contains another occurrence of 'Immanuel' in the words 'God is with us.' The prophet was challenging Ahaz to trust God, who was "with" his people just as he had promised to be with them constantly. In Numbers 14:9 Joshua and Caleb had urged the Israelites to acknowledge that the Lord was with them and to begin the conquest of Canaan, but just like Ahaz the people chose the path of unbelief with its tragic consequences. An earlier king of Judah, Abijah, believed that God was with his people as they faced the numerically superior army of Jeroboam. Abijah's faith was honored as the Lord gave him a resounding victory (2 Chron 13:12-15)." -- Elwell, Walter A. "Entry for 'Immanuel'". "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology". http://www.biblestudytools.net/Dictionaries/BakerEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T366. 1997.

Was one of Isaiah's sons also God? Of course not!

Harris, in his Jesus As God, has this long, technical, and interesting statement:

"Matthew 1:23 is the first of Matthew's "formula citations" and reflects the LXX version of Isaiah 7:14, to which the evangelist has added O ESTIN KTL. The issue is whether MEQ HMWN O QEOS should be translated "God with us" or "God is with us," that is, whether MEQ HMWN is attributive and functions as an adjective or is predicative and functions as an adverb. It should be observed immediately that both of the above translations are feasible, for in both Hebrew (GKC §141f) and Greek (N. Turner, Syntax 294-98, 309-10) the copula may be omitted.

That Matthew attaches special significance to the name EMMANOUHL is incontestable: he has included in his citation of Isaiah 7:14 a line (KAI KALESOUSIN...EMMANOUHL) which was not directly germane to his purpose of showing that the virginal conception and the birth of Jesus were the fulfillment of Scripture; in addition, he has added a translation of the Hebrew expression El Imanuw-'el that the LXX had simply transliterated.

In arguing in favor of the translation "God with us," J. C. Fenton notes the inclusio in Matthew 1:23 and Matthew 28:20 (MEQ hHMWV hO QEOS-EGW MEQ hUMWN EIMI) and equates the EGW of 28:20 with the hO QEOS of 1:23: "Matthew is saying that Jesus is God" (81). But one may recognize the presence of inclusio without drawing Fenton's conclusion. The Messiah Jesus is now always with his obedient disciples (28:20) because God once deigned to visit his people in this Messiah (1:23). Is it likely that Matthew, whose favorite designation for Jesus is hUIOS QEOU would preface his Gospel with hO QEOS as a christological title?

Fenton also emphasizes that in Matthew META + the genitive almost always means "in the company of" rather than "in favor of" and therefore is more readily applicable to the Son than the Father (81). In the nature of the case, most uses of META in the Gospels denote a literal "being with," but one should not overlook its figurative use "of aid or help be with someone, stand by, help someone of God's help" (BAGD 509a, citing [with a "cf."] Matt. 1:23). Perhaps the closest verbal parallel in the NT to MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS is found in 2 Corinthians 13:11: hO QEOS ... ESTAI MEQ hUMWN. In both texts (EINAI) META denotes divine aid and favor.

Whereas the MT of Isaiah 7:14 reads the third-person singular qara (referring to the child's mother) and the LXX the second-person singular KALESEIS (referring to Ahaz), Matthew has the impersonal third-person plural KALESOUSIN "they (= people) will call him (Immanuel)." If these people are the followers of Jesus, "Immanuel" could here be portrayed as the post-Easter christological confession of the church, comparable to Thomas's confession, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28) . It is unnecessary, however, to restrict this confession to a post-Easter setting when QEOS became an occasional title of Jesus. For when, during the public ministry of Jesus, people glorified God that he had intervened in human history to bring physical or spiritual healing through Jesus, they were in effect giving Jesus the name "Immanuel"-in the person of Jesus "God is with us" to save. For

instance, the crowd at Nain who had witnessed Jesus' raising of the widow's son "glorified God" with the words "God has visited his people" (Luke 7:16), which is equivalent to saying "Jesus is Immanuel" (cf. also Luke 1:68-69).

In favor of the translation "God is with us," it is true that the translation of El Imanuw-'el that Matthew supplies, MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS simply reproduces the word order of the Hebrew, but if hO QEOS were in fact a title of Jesus, one might have expected the translation to be either hO MEQ hHMWN QEOS or hO QEOS MEQ hHMWN (or the more correct Greek hO QEOS hO MEQ HMWN). That is, word order suggests that MEQ hHMWN is predicative rather than attributive, functioning as an adverb rather than as an adjective.

There are only three occurrences of El Imanuw-'el in the OT, all in Isaiah. Twice the LXX translates the expression by (KURIOS) hO QEOS (Isa. 8:8, 10), and once it transliterates the phrase (Isa. 7:14). Matthew cites the transliteration found in Isaiah 7:14, but when he chooses to add a translation he uses the rendering found in Isaiah 8:8, 10 where, according to BDB 769a, El Imanuw-'el is a "declaration of trust and confidence, with us is God!" That is, the meaning of MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS seems almost indistinguishable from hO QEOS -hUPER hHMWN (cf. Rom. 8:31).

There are therefore strong reasons for believing that in Matthew 1:23 MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS signifies that in Jesus God is present, to bring salvation to his people rather than that Jesus, as hO QEOS is personally present with his people. Matthew is not saying, "Someone who is 'God' is now physically with us," but "God is acting on our behalf in the person of Jesus."" pp. 257, 258 Jesus as God-The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus by Murray J. Harris

(f) we wait for the return of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).

Reply: Again, another Scripture that can be translated differently:

"of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ." New American Bible

"of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." American Standard Version

"of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." King James Version

"of the great God and our Saviour." Revised English Bible margin

"of the great God and our Saviour." New English Bible margin

"of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus." Moffatt

"the magnificent God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus." 21st Century NT

"the great God and our Savior." New Revised Standard Version margin

"the great God and our Savior." Revised Standard Version margin

"our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." Contemporary English Version margin

"our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." Jerusalem Bible margin

"great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ." Concordant Literal NT

"the great God and our Savior Christ Jesus." Rotherham

"the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" Worrell New Testament

"the great God, and if our Saviour Jesus Christ" New European Version 

"the great God and our Savior" New American Standard Bible margin

"the Great God, and of our Deliverer Jesus Christ" The Original New Testament, Schonfield

"our Great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah" Jewish NT

"our great God and our Savior Jesus Messiah." The Power New Testament-Revealing Jewish Roots

"the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" Catholic Douay Bible

"the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" Good News Bible margin

"the Mighty God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ" Eonian Life Bible

"the great God and of our savior, the Annointed One Jesus" David Bentley Hart New Testament 

See also The New Testament in Modern English, by J. B. Phillips; The Riverside New Testament; La Sainte Bible, by Louis Segond; Revised Version Improved and Corrected; Gilbert Wakefield NT; H. Highton NT; Herman Heinfetter NT etc

Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: "I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle's way of writing."-(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421. See also 2Peter 1:2; 1Timothy 1:1,2; 2:5; 6:13; 2Timothy 1:1,2; 4:1; Titus 1:1; 3:6

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

Dutch Catholic Scholar Desiderius Erasmus on This Day in History

 

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

This day in history: Dutch Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus died on this day in 1536. Though Erasmus remained Catholic his entire life, his influence was felt greater on the Protestant side of Christianity. His Greek Testaments passed into the Stephanus Greek New Testament in 1551 (the first New Testament in verses), which came to be called the Textus Receptus, and became the basis for the Geneva Bible New Testament in 1557 and the Authorized King James Version in 1611.

There is a disputed controversy concerning one particular Scripture in his New Testament, that of the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7,8).

It reads in the King James Bible:

"For there are three that bear record (witness) in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

However, most other Bibles have:

"For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree."

Take note of the words that are missing.

Erasmus was attacked for not adding the Comma Johanneum (the Three Heavenly Witnesses). He answered that he had not found the words in any Greek manuscript, including several he examined after publishing his editions. But he unwisely said that he would insert the Comma Johanneum in future editions if a Greek manuscript could be found that contained the spurious passage. Interestingly, one was found, or made, that contained the words. The manuscript was made by a Franciscan friar named Froy(or Roy) in 1520 A.D. Erasmus kept his word and added the passage in his 3rd edition, but he added a long footnote expressing his suspicion that the manuscript had been prepared just so to confute him.

Or at least, that is how the story goes with objections in some quarters.

In one Interrogation of Unitarian Anabaptist Martyr Herman van Vlekwijk, Erasmus' name was brought up repeatedly for promoting Anti-Trinitarianism.

The 1907 Watchtower and John 1:1

 

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

John 1:1 from 1907 Zion's Watch Tower

The first verse of our lesson, although not a bad  translation, fails to give to the English reading the  force, the significance of the Greek, and gives the implication that there are at least two Gods, whereas the Scriptures declare that "there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ." (I Cor. 8:6.) Nowhere in the Scripture are these said to be equal in power and glory. On the contrary, whether we take the words of the apostles, or the prophets, or of the Lord Jesus himself, they all declare in harmony that the "Father is greater than I." "I came not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 14:28; 6:38.)  When we read, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God," that makes two, the Word and the God whom he was with or represented, and then the statement that the "Word was God," we are thrown into confusion. How could the Word and God be God? It is here that the Greek gives the relief and makes the matter plain. It reads, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and the Word was a God; the same was in the beginning with the God." If we accept this just as the Greek gives it, with the emphasis of the Greek article in the one place and not in the other, then all is straightened out— is clear. Then we can see that originally there was but the "one God, the living [self-existent] and true God"; that the glorious personage in this verse called the  Word or Logos was the beginning of the Father's creative work. 

This is in full accord with the Scriptural declaration that Jesus was the beginning of the creation of God— the "Firstborn of every creature." (Col. 1:15.) But some one objects,— "You are making Jesus, the Son of God, a created being." We answer, No; we are making nothing. We are just finding out what the Scriptures say; we are twisting nothing. The fault lies in the error of the "dark ages" in assuming that Jesus was one of three Gods or that he was all of the one God. For neither of these positions is there a particle of Scripture. Let us not be wiser than God. If we accept the Bible as the divine revelation— as the voice from heaven said of our Lord Jesus, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him"— does not the very word son, applied to our Lord, imply that he was not his own father nor coexistent with the Father, but a begotten or subsequent creation? Surely there is no escape from the simplicity of the Scriptural presentation of the subject. "The same was in the beginning with the God" clearly implies a certain time recognized as the beginning, but so far as the heavenly Father himself is concerned, the Scriptures declare, "From everlasting to everlasting thou art God." (Psa. 90:2.) In other words, while it may be beyond our comprehension, it is the Scriptural presentation that the Father alone was without beginning, and that the Son was the beginning of the Father's creative work— created before  angels as well as before man. 

Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing. 

"And the Logos was [a] theos"

 

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

From https://christianityoriginal.com/mp/index.php/worship/john11

We find an interesting thing about Greek – It does not have indefinite articles (‘a’ or ‘an’).

If you wanted to say ‘I saw a tree’ in Greek, you would say ‘I saw tree’ and everyone would know you meant ‘a tree’. Therefore an English translator would automatically supply the ‘a’.

The Greek text of John 1:1 is as below. (We learnt about theos, the Greek word for god/God before).

    ‘In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the theos, and the Logos was [a] theos’.

Should the English translator supply the intended ‘a’ or not?

It’s remarkable that John uses the definite article in the first part - the Logos was with the theos, but deliberately leaves it out in the latter – and the Logos was [a] theos.

We notice the translators had no hesitation in supplying the ‘a’ for the ‘a god’ in Acts 28:6.

Applying the principle translators have used all over the New Testament, this should read in English as,

    ‘the Word was with God (the theos), and the Word was a god (theos).'

Yes, the Logos was with God Almighty in the beginning, and the Logos was a god - a mighty being. It could also be rendered as:

    ‘the Word was with the Almighty (the theos), and the Word was mighty (theos).'

1John 1:2 confirms this too. The same John wrote both texts about the same time, to essentially make the same point.

    John 1:1 says the Word was ‘with the theos’.

  1John 1:2 says the Word was ‘with the Father’.

This clearly shows whom John considered the theos (The God Almighty) - the Father.

........................End of website quote.......................

Now let's take a look at Isaiah 9:6. "For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." NWT.

Now let's take a look at how other Bible translators have handled this passage:

Moffatt

"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; the royal dignity he wears, and this the title that he bears––"A wonder of a counselor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince!"

Steven T. Byington

"For we have a child born to us, a son given to us,––and dominion rests on his shoulder, and he is named Wonder-Counselor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace, for ample dominion and for endless peace"

Revised English Bible

"For a child has been born to us, a son is given to us; he will bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder, and his title will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

New Revised Standard Version

"For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty god, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (notice the small "g")

Other translations might be offered, but these should be adequate to show how the words of Isaiah have been understood.

Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing.