04 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Krelax my man, all in good time! i think i posted this before, sorry to repeat myself
[b]citing a one dimensional point of view point, with a one dimensional English word from hand picked scriptures is hardly being objective is it? nor surprising, for both Epi, Jaywill and other trinitarians have tried the same tract and i tire of it.
I acknowledge the plurality of meanings (I find it quite ironic that in one post you deride semantics So why can't you provide evidence that Jesus and the apostles taught this doctrine?[/b]
The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, “archangel” is never found in the plural. First Thessalonians 4:16, in speaking of the preeminence of the archangel and the authority of his office, does so in reference to the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.”
there is only one name other than the title, Lord, associated with archangel, that being Michael. A name with great significance.
04 Jan 10
3 edits
o-bei-sance
–noun
1. a movement of the body expressing deep respect or deferential courtesy, as before a superior; a bow, curtsy, or other similar gesture.
2. deference or homage: The nobles gave obeisance to the new king.
Worship is etymologically derived from Old English words meaning "worth-ship". Giving worth to something.[1] In its older sense in English of worthiness or respect (Anglo-Saxon,worthscripe), worship may on occasion refer to an attitude towards someone of immensely elevated social status, such as a lord or a monarch, or, more loosely, towards an individual, such as a hero or one's lover.
Evelyn Underhill defines worship thus: "The adoring acknowledgment of all that lies beyond us—the glory that fills heaven and earth. It is the response that conscious beings make to their Creator, to the Eternal Reality from which they came forth; to God, however they may think of Him or recognize Him, and whether He be realized through religion, through nature, through history, through science, art, or human life and character."[2]
Actually sounds like both words have a similar meaning.
Manny
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
04 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis hardly proves that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. It simply says that Jesus will descend with an Archangel's voice and with God's trumpet. It is telling what will accompany Jesus' return, not what Jesus is.
relax my man, all in good time! i think i posted this before, sorry to repeat myself
The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, “archangel” is never found in the plural. First Thessalonians 4:16, in speaking of the preeminence of the archangel and the authority ...[text shortened]... the title, Lord, associated with archangel, that being Michael. A name with great significance.
An important question is how is that rendered in the Sahidic manuscript? Is the indefinite article used with 'an archangel's voice'?
04 Jan 10
Originally posted by menace71peace to a thousand generations to you Manny, for as you are aware my son, the bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, therfore, citing an etymological reference for an English word while interesting but not entirely relevant me thinks, but i could be wrong!
o⋅bei⋅sance
  /oʊˈbeɪsəns, oʊˈbi-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [oh-bey-suhns, oh-bee-]
–noun
1. a movement of the body expressing deep respect or deferential courtesy, as before a superior; a bow, curtsy, or other similar gesture.
2. deference or homage: The nobles gave obeisance to the new king. ...[text shortened]... and character."[2]
They actually sound like both words have a similar meaning.
Manny
what is more helpful, is the tones and nuances of the Greek words, for they convey a much broader sense of the actual intent of the writers, than the English translation.
Take for example love, it is not discernible what the Greek writers really meant from this one dimensional English usage, for the ancient Greeks, had four different words, three of which are used are implied in the Bible.
04 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KYes, quite, however you asked for the Biblical reference and here it is, dada! Now why would the Lord have an archangels voice, and not be an archangel? Are you a man and yet have a lions voice? The point is, that an angel simply means a sent one, or a messenger or a spirit son of God, quite far removed from the ideas that are conjured in ones mind form the imagery that adorns Christendom, perhaps this is clouding or at least swaying your thoughts. Now you shall explain why Christ comes with an archangels voice if he is not an archangel. As for other references to Michael, you shall need to give me time Conrau, suffice to say that we hold that he is the glorified and resurrected Jesus Christ! Which you may of course not accept and probably wont, but dont you think its interesting anyway?
This hardly proves that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. It simply says that Jesus will descend with an Archangel's voice and with God's trumpet. It is telling what will accompany Jesus' return, not what Jesus is.
An important question is how is that rendered in the Sahidic manuscript? Is the indefinite article used with 'an archangel's voice'?
04 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71if you took care to notice, we like to be different, that is all! actually we spend a long time in deliberation over the translations, and like a good recipe, we try very hard to bring out the different nuances of words and scripture while remaining faithful to the original text, so that it satisfies the spiritual palate with tasty words of wisdom, that is why the New world translation of the Holy scriptures is superior to any other. If you have ever tasted the NIV, you shall understand the taste of cardboard!
Well my reasoning was/is that the JW's seem to be fixed on the word Obeisance. Why is it that most all translations use the word worship? Except of course the New World translation. I bet the words are very closely linked. However peace to you also 🙂
Manny
Actually i thought i provided a reference stating that an American translation, Youngs literal translation and the New English translation render it as obeisance. i dont actually know what the New World translation of the Holy Scriptures (peace be upon it for ten thousand generations) says, for i have had hardly time to get my bearings, let me see.
04 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI agree the NIV is not the greatest translation. NASB is better. Well so the NWT is the only reliable translation? Does not sound right to me is all. Once again peace be back to you my friend 🙂
if you took care to notice, we like to be different, that is all! actually we spend a long time in deliberation over the translations, and like a good recipe, we try very hard to bring out the different nuances of words and scripture while remaining faithful to the original text, so that it satisfies the spiritual palate with tasty words of wisdom, ...[text shortened]... t for ten thousand generations) says, for i have had hardly time to get my bearings, let me see.
Manny
04 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71(Hebrews 1:5-6) . . .For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”? And again: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son”? But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”
Well my reasoning was/is that the JW's seem to be fixed on the word Obeisance. Why is it that most all translations use the word worship? Except of course the New World translation. I bet the words are very closely linked. However peace to you also 🙂
Manny
First, we have to understand what Paul meant here by worship. He used the Greek word proskyneo.
Unger’s Bible Dictionary says that this word literally means to ‘kiss the hand of someone in token of reverence or to do homage.’
An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine (a trinitarian, spit ding!), says that this word “denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to man . . . or to God.” In Bible times proskyneo often included literally bowing down before someone of high stature.
Consider the parable Jesus gave of the slave who was unable to repay a substantial sum of money to his master. A form of this Greek word appears in this parable, and in translating it the King James Version says that “the servant therefore fell down, and worshipped [form of proskyneo] him [the king], saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.” (Matthew 18:26.) Was this man committing an idolatrous act? Not at all! He was merely expressing the kind of reverence and respect due the king, his master and superior.
Such acts of obeisance, or expressions of respect, were fairly common in the Orient of Bible times. Jacob bowed down seven times upon meeting his brother, Esau. (Genesis 33:3) Josephs brothers prostrated themselves, or did obeisance, before him in honor of his position at the Egyptian court. (Genesis 42:6) In this light we can better understand what happened when the astrologers found the young child Jesus, whom they recognized as “the one born king of the Jews.” As rendered in the King James Version, the account tells us that they “fell down, and worshipped [proskyneo] him.”—Matthew 2:2, 11.
Clearly, then, the word proskyneo, rendered “worship” in some Bible translations, is not reserved exclusively for the type of adoration due Jehovah God. It can also refer to the respect and honor shown to another person. In an effort to avoid any misunderstanding, some Bible translations render the word proskyneo at Hebrews 1:6 as “pay him homage” (New Jerusalem Bible), “honour him” (The Complete Bible in Modern English), “bow down before him” (Twentieth Century New Testament), or “do obeisance to him” (New World Translation).
04 Jan 10
Originally posted by menace71it is as far as i am ware , one of the few translations to restore Gods name to its original place, whence the practice had been, to substitute it with the Greek Adonia and Kyrios (lord) which led to much confusion and in some instances an outright ludicrous translation.
I agree the NIV is not the greatest translation. NASB is better. Well so the NWT is the only reliable translation? Does not sound right to me is all. Once again peace be back to you my friend 🙂
Manny
04 Jan 10
1 edit
We are to pay homage to Christ. To kiss his hand so to speak. To bow down before him. Kinda sounds like worship to me? The argument then can be made why is God Almighty allowing there to be a god before him? The God of the Old Testament was a jealous God. He said you shall have no other gods before me. It sounds contradictory the O.T. god and then the new testament? Or maybe we are missing something here.
Manny