The Godhead: one God found in three distinct Persons.

[Muckah]

I belive I undersatnd. You are asking for a parlour trick where a single Bible verse declares your concept. So refuse to accept that Hebrews teaches both the father and Son are God.. What happened to line upon line, concept upon concept?

KJV Hebrews 1:8

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

That's a terrible translation.

Translations reflect the inner beliefs of their translators and nearly all of them are slanted toward the trinity because they were - Trinitarian!

The word UNTO means 'to the advantage of' so when you remove the additions like the words "he saith' - the word BUT, and the word IS - you get the correct meaning of the verse.

It should be understood like this, 'Thy throne OH God is toward the Son an eternal sceptre of righteousness of your kingdom.

 

[sethproton]

The word UNTO means 'to the advantage of' so when you remove the additions like the words "he saith' - the word BUT, and the word IS - you get the correct meaning of the verse.

It should be understood like this, 'Thy throne OH God is toward the Son an eternal sceptre of righteousness of your kingdom.

One problem is that your English sentence is awkward and is hard to make sense of

 

[Muckah]

One problem is that your English sentence is awkward and is hard to make sense of

There should be no problem understanding this,

"Thy throne OH God is toward (or 'TO') the Son an eternal sceptre of righteousness and the sceptre of thy kingdom."

Thy throne OH God is toward to the Son an eternal sceptre of righteousness and the sceptre of thy kingdom.

The words, 'HE SAITH' is a Trinitarian addition.

I didn't ADD anything like the KJV is notorious for. https://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/heb1.pdf

 

[Muckah]

I belive I undersatnd. You are asking for a parlour trick where a single Bible verse declares your concept. So refuse to accept that Hebrews teaches both the father and Son are God.. What happened to line upon line, concept upon concept?

Hebrews teaches Jesus was a man. If you go line upon line then you have to get away from translations and do a word study of those lines. Scripture shows Jesus ruling with a rod of iron which indicates an uncompromising strict and accurate rule. NOT that he is God!

Es. 5:2 And it was so, when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she obtained favour in his sight: and the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre that was in his hand. So Esther drew near, and touched the top of the sceptre.

 

[Muckah]

Hebrews 1:8...

The throne of God is to the son an everlasting scepter of His righteousness and His kingdom.

Is that clearer?

 

[Diserner]

Hebrews 1:8...

The throne of God is to the son an everlasting scepter of His righteousness and His kingdom.

Is that clearer?

It's a possible interpretation.

It's just that in the light of the earlier verse:

Who, being an eradiated brightness of his glory, and an exact representation of his very being, also bearing up all things by the utterance of his power, (Heb. 1:3 ROT)

Contextually we would be inclined to see it as an expression of the Son's Deity.

 

[sethproton]

There should be no problem understanding this,

"Thy throne OH God is toward (or 'TO') the Son an eternal sceptre of righteousness and the sceptre of thy kingdom."

Thy throne OH God is toward to the Son an eternal sceptre of righteousness and the sceptre of thy kingdom.

The words, 'HE SAITH' is a Trinitarian addition.

I didn't ADD anything like the KJV is notorious for. https://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/heb1.pdf

I have been studying Bible vwersions for 50 years. The king James and the New American standard are formal translations which means they come as close tp word for word as it gets

 

[Diserner]

I have been studying Bible vwersions for 50 years. The king James and the New American standard are formal translations which means they come as close tp word for word as it gets

I think Young's Literal and Rotherham's are a little more close to literal.

But only an interlinear will show you word for word.

 

[Muckah]

I have been studying Bible vwersions for 50 years. The king James and the New American standard are formal translations which means they come as close tp word for word as it gets

I'm using a few of the manuscripts they used in their translation. The KJV is noted for adding and omitting words. Te NIV fixed a lot of that but not everything.

 

[sethproton]

I think Young's Literal and Rotherham's are a little more close to literal.

But only an interlinear will show you word for word.

i doubt there will ever be a word for. but i appreciate the ones who strive for it

 

[Diserner]

Recommend Rotherham's with his notes, they are very good.

He tries to show the order of the original with markings, very original idea.

Most online versions do not have his extensive markups and paragraphing, as well as informational essays.

Free here:

The Emphasised Bible - Blue Edition.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[Wrangler]

i doubt there will ever be a word for. but i appreciate the ones who strive for it

I generally prefer thought translations myself.

Rather than translate "word" for "word," they tend to translate whole sentences or paragraphs. This makes for a far better translation because of language usage. In Spanish, they put the adjective after the noun, house big. In Japanese, they put the subject before the object, which sounds a bit like Yoda. The book, red it is or policy, company changed.

This is why word for word translations tend to read choppy compared to our modern way of speaking.

 

[sethproton]

I generally prefer thought translations myself.

Rather than translate "word" for "word," they tend to translate whole sentences or paragraphs. This makes for a far better translation because of language usage. In Spanish, they put the adjective after the noun, house big. In Japanese, they put the subject before the object, which sounds a bit like Yoda. The book, red it is or policy, company changed.

This is why word for word translations tend to read choppy compared to our modern way of speaking.

i prefer word for word translations because the Hebrew and Greek helps direct me to the indiviual words in the Hebrew and Greek, so I can see what they mean

 

[civic]

i prefer word for word translations because the Hebrew and Greek helps direct me to the indiviual words in the Hebrew and Greek, so I can see what they mean

Same here !

 

[Wrangler]

i prefer word for word translations because the Hebrew and Greek helps direct me to the indiviual words in the Hebrew and Greek, so I can see what they mean

I speak English. I am Groot.

 

[civic]

I speak English. I am Groot.

Hilarious I love it

 

[sethproton]

I speak English. I am Groot.

Well Groot, how to do establish whether or not the English properly reflects the orininal language?

 

[civic]

Well Groot, how to do establish whether or not the English properly reflects the orininal language?

This is groot from guardians of the galaxy movie

https://static1.moviewebimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/article/PVHgzglPGkDTnZoy0tqzkirQjkiPJ6.jpg

 

[sethproton]

This is groot from guardians of the galaxy movie

https://static1.moviewebimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/article/PVHgzglPGkDTnZoy0tqzkirQjkiPJ6.jpg

yes. Groot. He seems to understand English

 

[Wrangler]

Hilarious I love it

I enjoy speaking in terms of cultural references. If you haven't watched Star Wars, The God Father, Jaws, The Matrix, Marvel movies, you may miss a lot of what I mean when I talk outside of internet forums.

Well Groot, how to do establish whether or not the English properly reflects the orininal language?

I don't. This is a job for translators. Such things only matter when it comes to trying to make the text fit into your doctrine.

By contrast, I have read 4 translations cover to cover, NLT, CEV, NRSV, CJB. Several other translations I have read in part, VOICE, ESV. For whatever reason, certain verses strike me more profoundly in a particular verse.

In my experience, it's not so much that the translations present a new meaning; it's just the word choice personally hits me more. Let me give you an example. Jeremiah 29:13 ESV You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. This resonates with me more than the other translations take on it - even though they get the same point across. (I've taught my granddaughter this one)

NLT: If you look for me wholeheartedly, you will find me.
CEV: You will worship me with all your heart, and I will be with you
VOICE: You will look for Me intently, and you will find Me.

Other verses, it's the VOICE that resonates the strongest, etc.

yes. Groot. He seems to understand English

I am a numbers guy. That is my native language. Yet, I do partially speak Japanese, Italian, French, Spanish and a little bit of English.