KJV and the Only Personal Name of God
This was written primarily for those who believe the King James Version is the infallible, perfect word of God (and for those who wish to discuss it with them).
There are numerous problems with the accuracy of the KJV translation. For examples see the 1 John 5:7 study, and 1 Tim. 3:16 in the MINOR study.
This study however will concentrate on Ps. 83:18 in the KJV and the actual personal name of God.
1. The Hebrew text used by the King James translators is known as the Bomberg (or the Ben Chayyim) text. It may be found here online:
https://www.areopage.net/PDF/BibliaSacra.pdf
Remember to read from right to left in Hebrew!
Psalms p. 1055 - Ps. 83:16-18 (Ps. 83:17 - 19 in Hebrew text) YHWH - :17 (last word) and :19 (next to last word in first line of :19)
Psalm 83:16-18 in the IB:
“Fill their faces with shame, and they will seek Your name, O Jehovah. Let them be ashamed and terrified forever; yea, let them be confounded and perish. And let them know - Your name (is) Jehovah - that You alone (are) the Most High over the whole earth.
2. This text used by the KJV translators contains the name YHWH (יהוה Strong's H3068) in Hebrew characters thousands of times.
3. The Most High God declares that his name is YHWH many times in this text.
4. The KJV translators 'translated' this name as ‘LORD’ (all-capitals) in nearly all of its thousands of occurrences in the Bomberg text.
5. In several places, however, these translators rendered it as ‘Jehovah.’
6. Probably the most important of these is found at Psalm 83:18 in the KJV (which is actually Ps. 83:19 in the Bomberg text used by the KJV translators).
7. Here is how Ps. 83:16-18 reads in the KJV:
“16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.
“17 Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish:
“18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.” (Boldfacing added)
8. Notice how the name YHWH in the Hebrew texts (including the Bomberg text used by the KJV translators) as found in verse :16 (:17 in the Bomberg text) is translated in the KJV: “LORD.”
9. The actual word in Hebrew used for “Lord” and applied to God is “adonai” (ADNI in Hebrew characters). YHWH is an entirely different word, a personal name which means something like “He Will Be.” It is the only personal name that God tells us to use for him. And this is exactly what the ‘infallible’ KJV tells us in verse :18 (:19) - “…thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.”
10. Those who believe the KJV is entirely accurate must believe that ‘Jehovah’ is the only name for the Most High God. There should be no argument by them that it is mistranslated, mispronounced or should be ‘Yahweh’ or similar transliterations.
11. More important, it becomes obvious that the usual translation of YHWH in the KJV as ‘LORD’ (ADNI in Hebrew) is a serious mistranslation! OR, the translation of YHWH as JEHOVAH in several verses is a serious mistranslation! Either way, the KJV has seriously mistranslated and is certainly not infallible.
12. Although still not infallible, the American Standard Version (ASV) uses the KJV’s Elizabethan English but has corrected the thousands of uses of YHWH in the Hebrew text from the ‘LORD’ of most of the KJV verses to ‘Jehovah.’ The Divine Name KJB has done the same - http://www.dnkjb.net/
13. How can we possibly consider the KJV to be infallible (or even the best Bible available)?
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Sunday, September 7, 2014
REDEFIN
REDEFINITIONS
(From the RDB Files)
The relationship between God and his people is frequently described by God as one of marriage. He is the “husband” and his true worshipers are the “wife.” As in a scriptural marriage the true worshipers (“the wife”) must be completely faithful to their head, Jehovah alone. When the worshiper(s) are unfaithful to him, God describes them as “adulterous,” “adulteresses,” “harlots.” He rejects or “divorces” such ones, and they are to be destroyed for their “adultery.” In spite of wanting to be in favor with the one true God, many of His people throughout history have also become enamored with false gods and philosophies and want to add these things to their worship. They have used different rationalizations to justify their infidelity or “adultery.” One of these rationalizations may be called “redefinition” since it takes a well-known term or concept and gives it a new meaning to help justify their “adultery.”
To illustrate, let’s imagine a country where men are in a 3-to-one majority over women. Women, however, have come to dominate in all areas including government. One of the laws of the land handed down through the ages is - “Monogamy must be maintained: One man can have only one wife, and one woman can have only one husband.”
Imagine, then, that Christina is married to Abbot. She knows the law of the land, but she secretly marries Sonny anyway. Later she also secretly marries Hollis. When all this is exposed, she declares that Abbott, Sonny, and Hollis are all her husband. In the one husband, she declares, there are three persons (all equally her one husband). The one woman became “one flesh” with her first husband. The two became one flesh. In like manner, therefore, the three men have become “one flesh” with the woman. Obviously, then, the 3 persons are actually one “husband” (one flesh) to the woman.
The women of this land really like Christina’s interpretation of the law (which is actually based on a redefinition of the terms “husband” and “monogamy”), so they declare that it is the correct legal definition. The law, then, appears to remain the same: only one husband for a woman. But now each woman can marry more than one man. It is still “monogamy” and she still has only one “husband” according to the redefinition. Of course up until this time the term “husband” had always meant one man, and “monogamy” had always meant “one man married to one woman.”
So everyone is happy now! Or are they?
If this law were simply made by humans to satisfy a need at the time, then it certainly can (and should) be changed as needed as time passes. But if this law were a command from the Almighty Supreme Deity and Creator of mankind, His creatures have absolutely no right to change its original meaning to suit their desires.
So this redefinition is, in reality, adultery. It is literal adultery on Christina’s part no matter how she redefines terms. It is literal adultery no matter what the rest of the nation says --- no matter what the “orthodox” is defined (or redefined) to be by the human judges, the spiritual leaders, etc. It is an adultery of the clear meaning of the original terms. It is an adultery of God’s law. It is “adultery” and “harlotry” in the nation’s relationship to God. And it is “adultery” in an individual’s relationship to God if she accepts this new “orthodox” redefinition of God’s law and marries more than one person (or even merely quietly condones this redefinition of God’s word for her fellows)!
The very same kind of redefinition has been used by trinitarians from the beginning (fourth century A.D.) to commit adultery in their relationship to the one true God. In order to ‘legally’ change the ‘orthodox’ knowledge of the only true God and Jesus Christ (which means eternal life - John 17:3), they have made up new meanings for (redefined) “God” and “monotheism”! And in the process they also had to redefine other terms such as (1) “beginning,” (2) “firstborn,” (3) “only-begotten,” (4) “image” [eikon and charakter], (5) “substance/essence,” (6) “eternal generation,” (7) echad, (8) ego eimi, (9) ehyeh, (10) harpagmos, (11) huparchon, (12) morphe, (13) Logos, (14) theos, (15) and even God’s only personal name (%&%*, “Jehovah” or “Yahweh”).
The only true God had always been revealed to His people as a single person. The word “God” as applied to the Creator had no other meaning than one single person! He was known as the Father, and his singular, personal name was “Jehovah”! There was no other meaning for “God” among the Israelites and all their sects (including Christians) until Christendom began to desire a “God” that conformed to the understanding of the very influential, “intellectual” pagan religions and philosophies of the time - (see the ISRAEL and HIST studies).
At this time (around the fourth century A.D. - hundreds of years after the deaths of the Apostles and even the “Apostolic Fathers”) Christendom developed and “legalized” the trinity doctrine of three persons being equally the one God - (see HIST study). To do this (and still claim to keep the Scriptures as the word of God) they tried to change portions of the Scriptures by adding and deleting certain portions as they made new copies. This was only partly successful for them. Over the centuries many of these have been discovered and restored to their original wording. But they also redefined and reinterpreted many parts of the Holy Scriptures. This was more successful for them, although they still had to claim the new doctrine as a “Mystery” that could not be understood since it was still so contradictory, confusing, and unreasonable.
First, of course, the word “God” was redefined by them from the originally intended and understood “single-person” meaning to a “multiple-person” meaning. (This, of course is parallel with our example of the adulterous woman above. She redefined “husband” from the originally intended and understood “single person” meaning to a “multiple-person” meaning.)
Along with this the term “monotheism” had to be redefined (much as “monogamy” in the example above )[A]. What had been considered from the first as “the belief in one person only as the only Most High God” was now redefined as “the belief in one God (who is composed of many individuals).” Now Christendom could have as many persons who were “God” as they liked - the very essence of the highly influential “upper class” polytheistic pagan religions surrounding them - see the HIST study.
This is exactly what the adulterous nation in our example did: “monogamy” was redefined from its original meaning of “marriage of one person to another single person” to “marriage of one person to one multiple-person ‘husband’”!)
In reality, of course, this is merely a method of applying the word “monogamy” to the paganistic practice of polygamy[B]
In the very same way the redefining of the word “monotheism” by Christendom is merely a method of applying the word “monotheism” to the paganistic practice of polytheism![C]
Some Examples of Trinitarian Redefinition
(1) “Beginning” (arkhe in NT Greek). In the writings of the Apostle John there was only one meaning for the NT word arkhe: “beginning.” True, a few NT writers (Paul and Luke) occasionally gave different meanings (“magistrate,” “power,” “principality,” “principle,” “rule” according to Strong’s Concordance) for this word, but John, in all his writings, did not. And he always used other words for “ruler” and “source.”
Many trinitarians, however, had to redefine John’s intended meaning for this NT Greek word because of one scripture: Rev. 3:14. Since the doctrine of Jesus and God that they had invented insisted that Jesus had always existed, they could not allow the originally-intended meaning of John that Jesus was the “beginning of God’s creation.” Instead, they redefined John’s intended meaning of arkhe as either “source” or “ruler” - see NIV; NEB; NAB; LB; GNB. For evidence that this is a false interpretation of John’s intended meaning for this scripture see the BWF study.
(2) “Firstborn” (prototokos in NT Greek). This word in the scriptures has never meant anything but what it literally says: “the one born (or produced) first”! In fact, it is even paralleled in scripture by “the beginning of his father’s [creative or procreative] power” (e.g. Gen. 49:3, which of course also parallels the description of Jesus in #1 above: “The beginning of God’s [Jesus’ Father’s] creation”). Instead, some trinitarians have redefined this word as “the pre-eminent one.” They did this, again, because of one scripture: Col. 1:15. Paul here calls Jesus: “the firstborn of creation”! Since this also clearly means Jesus was the first creation of God (like Rev. 3:14 above), they were forced to redefine prototokos (but only at Col. 1:15). For evidence of the impropriety of this interpretation see the BWF study.
(3) “Only-begotten” (monogenes in NT Greek). This word in the scriptures has never meant anything but what it literally says: “the only one born (or generated)”! It is used in scripture to describe one who is the only offspring of a parent. It would not be applied to an adopted child, for instance, but only to the one who, alone, was actually produced, generated, or created by that parent. Instead, some trinitarians have redefined this word as “only” so that “the only-begotten Son” can now be interpreted as “the only Son.” This was done in an attempt to allow for the interpretation that Jesus has always existed and was never created or produced by the Father (although the clear significance of the word ‘Son’ itself even testifies otherwise). For evidence of the impropriety of this trinitarian redefinition see the OBGOD study.
(4) “Image” (eikon and charakter). These words are sometimes applied to Jesus Christ as the “image of God” or the “stamp of God” (as in the stamped impression of a king, president, etc. found on a coin). - 2 Cor. 4:4 and Heb. 1:3.
As any objective person would immediately admit, an image (or stamped impression) of something is merely a representation of the real thing. It cannot actually be the real thing itself simply because it is an image of the real thing! The Greek words above that are applied to Jesus mean, then, that Jesus cannot actually be God!
But trinitarians have “redefined” these terms to mean (only when applied to Jesus, of course) that somehow the image really is the thing it represents! See the IMAGE study (section #2 and endnote #6).
(5) “Substance/essence” (substantia, ousia, and homoousia [“same substance/essence”]). Ousia is used only twice in scripture and means “estate” as in the sense of “possessions, property” - Luke 15:12, 13, NASB; “property,” RSV; cf. NIV. However, those who actually invented the trinity doctrine and forced it upon the rest of the world of Christendom (Council of Nicaea - 325 A. D. and Council of Constantinople - 381 A. D.) desperately sought for justification of their theory of God. So they appealed to the writings of earlier Christians, in particular the extremely influential Origen. Homoousia (never used in Scripture at all!) was apparently used in the paganistic Gnostic religion to describe how “the heavenly powers shared in the divine fullness,” but Origen used it (before 231 A.D.) in the sense of “a unity of will” (see #7, “one,” below). So when the trinitarians appealed to the writings of Origen to justify their “unity of substance” of the Father and Son, they were actually redefining Origen’s well-known (at that time) intended meaning for the term. They also appealed to the writings of Tertullian and his use of “unity of substantia” of the Son of God with God. But, again, trinitarians actually redefined Tertullian’s intended meaning for the word. See the HIST study, notes #86-88 and #105-108.
As an example, here’s a quote from Origen’s Origen De Principiis, IV, 1, 36:
“Everyone who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is a partaker of the same thing. For example, as all eyes participate in the light, so accordingly all eyes which partake of the light are of one nature.” - p. 381, Vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans Publishing, 1989 printing.
So according to Origen’s own example of “one nature”: the bird, cat, man, and angel who are all watching the same light are “of one essence and nature”! All it means is that two or more things have something in common! My dog and I enjoying a swim in the same pond are “of one ‘essence’ and nature” according to Origen’s usage! My beautiful daughter and her cat, Moose, who are both frightened by the same vicious dog are “of one ‘essence’ and nature”!
Apparently even as early as 268 A.D. this term had come to have a different meaning for some Christians. Noted scholar (and trinitarian) Robert M. Grant tells us that the Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, “seems to have been willing to speak of the Logos [the Word] as homoousios with the Father; this notion too was condemned at the final synod of 268.” Grant tells us that this same Council or Synod of 268 A.D. also excommunicated Paul of Samosata! - Augustus to Constantine, p. 218, Harper and Row, 1970.
It would be strange indeed if those Christians who condemned this doctrine believed that homoousios was intended to mean by Paul what it had meant for Origen (and other early Christians). They surely would not have disagreed with the statement that the Word (Logos) was united in will [homoousios] with the Father as Origen and others taught.
Therefore these Christians must have known that the heretical Bishop was intending a new meaning that God and the Word were of one substance in a more literal sense that suggested that Jesus was equally God (and they most emphatically denied that teaching!). At any rate, it is certainly significant that this council so strongly condemned the concept that the Logos was homoousios in a new literal sense with God as late as 268 A.D.!
“The trinity of persons within the unity of nature [substance/essence] is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[reek] philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.” - Dictionary of the Bible by trinitarian J. L. McKenzie (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1965), p. 899.
(6) “Eternal generation.” This, also, is a completely non-scriptural term. However, many trinitarians were unable to deny that Scripture showed that the Son was generated or produced by the Father. They needed a redefinition of this idea to protect their “the Son has existed eternally” idea. So they turned to Origen, again, pointed to his use of the term “eternal generation,” and claimed that this, somehow, meant that, although the Son had been “generated” by the Father, he, nevertheless, had existed eternally. However, as they well knew at that time, Origen did not intend such a meaning. Trinitarian Church historian, Bernard Lohse admits that Origen intended a different meaning for “eternally generated” from what later trinitarians changed it to:
“It has thus an entirely different foundation from that of a similar idea found in the later theology of the Trinity” - p. 47, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, 1985, Fortress Press.
(7) “One” (echad in OT Hebrew). This ancient Hebrew word was used, in this form, echad, to mean numerical oneness. For example, “one cow” would be written as “echad cow.” It was used hundreds of times in scripture and, in this form, never meant “a multiple unity,” “a plural oneness,” etc. However, trinitarians were worried about the clear statement at Deut. 6:4 - “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is one [echad].” God’s chosen people from the time of Moses to the time of the first Christians (in fact Judaism from its beginning down to today still has the same understanding) understood this as meaning God is one person only - Jehovah, the Father! So some trinitarians redefined the clear meaning of echad as “multiple oneness” so they could “interpret” this scripture as “Jehovah [or the LORD] is a multiple oneness” or “a plural unity.” This is a completely false and dishonest translation of echad. - See the ECHAD study.
Also “one” in the NT Greek at John 10:30 has been redefined by many trinitarians. When Jesus said ‘the Father and I are one,’ he clearly meant ‘we are one (or united) in purpose and will.’ - see the ONE study. But you know, of course, what many (most?) trinitarians say this means.
(8) ego eimi (literally, “I am”). There is no doubt that this term is usually translated into English as “I am” (occasionally “I was,” “I have been,” or “it is I”). But at John 8:58 trinitarians want it to mean much more. Among other claims they make for this term at this scripture, many trinitarians claim that since the clause ends with the words “I am” in this scripture this, somehow, makes it “Absolute”! Being “Absolute” causes it to mean, they claim, “I am eternally existent” or “I have existed eternally.” There is absolutely no valid reason to invent such a meaning (or redefine “I am”)! We only have to look at other places where ego eimi is “Absolute” to see that this redefinition is absolute nonsense. 2 Kings (2 Samuel in English Bibles) 15:26 - King David uses the “Absolute” ego eimi “Behold, I AM” - Septuagint. Is. 6:8 - Isaiah identifies himself with the same “Absolute” ego eimi “Behold, I AM” - Septuagint. And, in the New Testament, John 9:9 - The ex-blind man identifies himself with the “Absolute” ego eimi “I am he” - KJV, ASV.
And even when we examine Jesus’ use of this “Absolute” ego eimi, we find the same thing. John 6:20 - Jesus identifies himself to his frightened disciples, who think he is an apparition, by using the “Absolute” ego eimi “It is I” - KJV, RSV. No trinitarian Bible ever interprets Jesus’ identification of himself here as “I am eternal” (and it would be incredibly ludicrous if it did)! Also see John 18:5,8. These (and many other instances of the “Absolute” ego eimi) plainly do not mean “I am eternal,” so why should any honest, rational Bible student claim it must mean that at John 8:58? - See the I AM study.
Some trinitarians have used this same redefinition for another “be” verb: en (hn in NT Greek characters) which is usually translated “was.” They insist that the “was” (hn) found in Jn 1:1 must be defined as meaning that the Word (Jesus) was “eternally” with God and “eternally” was God. This is as ludicrous and dishonest as the above redefinition. -see "Was" and "Beginning" in John 1:1 .
(9) Ehyeh in OT Hebrew. This word means (and is nearly always rendered into English) “I will be” every time it is used in the Scriptures. More important, for discussions of Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58, It is ALWAYS rendered as “I will be” in all of Moses writings! However, trinitarians have redefined this word to mean “I Am” (at Exodus 3:14 only). They have done this in an attempt to provide some basis for a trinitarian “I Am” reasoning for John 8:58. But the word simply does not mean “I am” at Ex. 3:14, and its Greek translation at Ex. 3:14 in the ancient Septuagint (ca. 200 B.C.) also does not mean “I am” (even though some dishonest trinitarians claim it is the very same Greek wording used by Jesus at John 8:58)! - See the I AM study.
(10) Harpagmos in NT Greek. This word occurs only once in the NT at Phil. 2:6. However, it occurs 16 times in the ancient OT Greek Septuagint. In every case it means “taking something by force” or “something taken by force.” We know that the NT Greek word from which harpagmos derived (harpazo) means the “act of seizing or something seized.” It invariably has the meaning of “forceful seizure”: taking something forcefully from someone against his will.
But many trinitarians have redefined this word at Phil. 2:6 because its true meaning disproves the trinity doctrine. So they give harpagmos the new meaning of “cling to,” “held onto,” “retained,” “grasped,” etc. - See the PHIL study.
(11) Huparchon in NT Greek. Although this NT Greek word literally means “under a beginning,” it is commonly translated as one of the “be” verbs (“is,” “was,” “being,” “existed”). However, some trinitarians insist that it means an endless existence! The only time they insist on this meaning is when it is found at Phil. 2:6! It is not difficult to find other uses of this term in the NT. They not only never mean “an eternal pre-existence” or “continuing to exist eternally,” but they clearly are speaking of things that have come into existence. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (trinitarian) even defines huparchon as “to BEGIN under (quietly). i.e. come into existence” - #5225.
In other words, the honest, intended meaning for huparchon could be brought out by translating it into English as “came into existence” but not as “always existed” (or anything comparable)! This means that Phil. 2:6 could be honestly translated “Who, though he came into existence [huparchon] in the form of God (or ‘a god’), did not even consider forcefully seizing [harpagmos] equality with God.” It cannot be honestly translated (with the trinitarian-redefined huparchon) as “he always [huparchon] had the nature [form] of God.” - TEV. See the PHIL study.
(12) Morphe in NT Greek. A few trinitarian “scholars” even attempt to redefine morphe (again, only at Phil. 2:6) as including the idea of absolute “essence” or “nature”! The word actually is defined in NT lexicons of respected trinitarian scholars as “form in the sense of outward appearance” and “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision” (cf. Mark 16:12).
So morphe is not honestly translated with its trinitarian-redefined meaning: “he always had the nature [morphe] of God.” - TEV. Instead, an honest translation of Phil. 2:6 could be “he came into existence [huparchon] with the outward appearance [“form” - morphe] of God [or ‘a god’].” - See the PHIL study.
(13) Logos (“Word” in NT Greek). This NT Greek word is used by John in the prologue of his Gospel (Jn 1:1-18). He uses it in a way that is not used elsewhere in the New or Old Testament, but he assumes that his readers (late first century Jews) already understand that term since he does not explain it. It is obvious from the way John uses this Logos that it is meant to describe Jesus’ heavenly pre-existence. Jn 1:1 tells us that the Logos (“the Word”) was with God in the beginning. And it even says that the Logos was theos (“God” or “a god” in NT Greek). Trinitarians have interpreted this to mean that John was using the Logos concept of Greek paganism. Therefore, many of them say, John really meant “The Logos was God”! They say that the paganistic Greek Logos was understood to be God, so John, likewise, used the term in that way.
However, it is unlikely that John would use such a pagan term or that he would expect his Jewish readers (who were forbidden by the Holy Scriptures to even read or study such things) to understand such a meaning for that term. But even if he did, the Logos was still not equally God, even in Greek paganism.
There is a meaning for Logos, however, that was popularly known by first and second century Jews. This is the Logos concept taught by the famed first century Jewish scholar Philo. Philo accepted the Holy Scriptures as the infallible, inspired word of God. He tried to teach all men (including the Greeks and Romans) that the Scriptures were the teachings of the only true God, the Father alone. So he adapted (redefined) some of the terms the Greeks were already familiar with (including Logos) to conform to the truth of the Bible. His teachings became very popular among Jews throughout the ancient world.
It is very important to know that the Logos of Philo which most Jews were familiar with, unlike the Logos of paganism, was described by such terms as John used to describe his Logos. These terms include “Son of God” [Jn 1:34]; one who is “with God” [Jn 1:1]; “light” [Jn 1:4]; “manna” [Jn 6:31-51]; “shepherd” [Jn 10:11]; “Paraclete” (‘Comforter,’ ‘Advocate,’ ‘Helper’) [1 Jn 2:1]; one “through [dia] which the cosmos originated” [Jn 1:3]; and one “from which drawing water one may find eternal life instead of death” [Jn 4:14], etc.
But most important, for this discussion, the well-known Jewish Logos of Philo specifically called the “the Word” theos. As all commentators on Philo’s Logos doctrine will attest (including all trinitarians who are willing to discuss it at all), Philo never used the definite article with theos when he intended it to be used for the Logos. Furthermore, he intended the meaning of “a god” by this usage, whereas he always used the definite article with theos when he intended it to be used for God!
So when trinitarians say John intended the meaning of “the Word (Logos) was God” at John 1:1, they are redefining John’s original meanings of both Logos and theos.
(14) the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos (see the BOWGOD study) as found at John 1:1. - Also see the LOGOS and PRIMER studies.
Of course trinitarians have had to redefine many other terms. Perhaps the worst of all trinitarian redefinitions, however, is the actual changing of God’s Most Holy Personal Name. Men may have many titles: President; Boss; Judge; Senator; Doctor; Admiral; Lord; Brother; etc. But every individual person has only one personal name: Theodore Roosevelt; Isaac Newton (“Sir” is a title); Thomas Jefferson; Moses; Joshua; Jesus. Yes, “Jesus” is the only personal name of the Christ (title), the Son of God (title), our Savior (title) and King (title). This personal name has the literal meaning of “Jehovah is the Savior” or “Jehovah Saves.” Think of the sacrilege, the blasphemy of actually redefining Jesus’ very own personal name.
What should we think of anyone who actually rewrote the original manuscripts of the NT by “translating” every instance of the thousands of uses of the personal name “Jesus” found in the inspired scriptures as “LAMB”? Then the name “Jesus” would no longer appear in the thousands of places it was originally written at God’s direction and command. For example Luke 1:31 would now read:
“And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name the LAMB,”
and Phil. 2:10, 11 would now read:
“That at the name of the LAMB every knee should bow .... and that every tongue should confess the Christ, the LAMB is Lord”!
Wouldn’t this be an obvious example of blasphemous redefinition?
(15) Well, then, the very same thing is even more blasphemous when it concerns the only personal name of God himself, “Jehovah” (which has the literal meaning of “He Who Will Be”)! Of the nearly 7000 times the inspired Bible writers used God’s only personal name in the Scriptures, most trinitarian Bibles (e.g., RSV, NASB, NIV, GNB) have redefined them all as the LORD. Some, such as the KJV, have used the proper translation of “Jehovah” (English form) or “Yahweh” (possible Hebrew form) fewer than ten times and then redefined the 6000 (plus) other instances as “the LORD”! They have done this in spite of the fact that God has commanded that his holy personal name be known and used forever!
“Yes, tell [the Israelites], JEHOVAH, the God of your ancestors .... This is my eternal name, to be used throughout all generations.” - Ex. 3:15, Living Bible.
“Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name O LORD [“Jehovah”]. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.” - Ps. 83:16-18, KJV.
True, such redefinition helps trinitarians “interpret” scriptures which would otherwise disprove the trinity, but think of the consequences!
* * * * * *
The real effect of redefining the words used in the inspired Holy Scriptures is that of spiritual adultery. We must be no part of such blasphemous disobedience, dishonesty, and deceit. Those early fourth century Christians who desired the attractive trappings of the world (which included the multiple godhead favored by the surrounding very powerful, very influential pagan nations) became “adulteresses” to the one true God, their “husband and owner”! - See the HIST study paper.
“Do you not realize, you adulteresses, that friendship with the world is enmity toward God? Therefore, whoever determines to be a friend of the world becomes God’s enemy.” - James 4:4, The Modern Language Bible.
We must not participate in the process of blasphemous redefinition, of course. But we must also not continue to teach them or even seem to condone them by our silence or passivity. If we remain (with the “many”) members of an organization that teaches such things, we are condoning those things. Our very presence (or even our name on the membership list) is reinforcing that blasphemy.
And, certainly, if we participate in (or even condone by our silence or passivity) the redefining of the very knowledge of God Himself, we are committing “adultery” in the highest sense and establishing ourselves with the “many” in the middle of the broad road that leads to eternal destruction.
“...those who are real worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth.... God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.” - Jn 4:23, 24, NEB.
“Father, .... this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God...” - Jn 17:1, 3, KJV.
“The Lord Jesus shall be revealed ... taking vengeance on them that know not God ... with everlasting destruction” - 2 Thess. 1:7, 8, 9, KJV.
“Go in by the narrow gate; for broad and roomy is the road that leads to destruction, and many are going in by it. But narrow is the gate and hard is the road that leads to life, and few are they that find it.... Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom of heaven, but only those who practice doing the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, was it not in your name that we prophesied ... and did many wonder-works?’ And then I will say to them openly, ‘I never knew you at all. Go away from me, you who practiced doing wrong.’” - Matt. 7:13, 21-23, CBW.
As in our original example we can easily give our own new meanings, which we and the many around us prefer, but the result is still spiritual adultery.
* * * * *
NOTES
A The word “monotheism” does not refer to a single God (or even “God-nature”) which is composed of many persons! It means, instead, a religion which has one and only one [monos] single person who is worshiped as the Most High God. This really has nothing to do with a “God-nature”! Contrast the word “polytheism” with “monotheism.”
Polytheism is a religion with many persons sharing the worship which is properly due the Most High God Alone. For one function (war, for example) one deity receives the worship and sacrifices. On another occasion another deity (the goddess of love, for example) may receive the worship and sacrifices. It doesn’t matter whether they all share the same nature (as gods), as they most often did. What mattered was the position or authority and power each one held.
B Also note that the NT word for “onlybegotten” (monogenes) means a single individual who alone was directly created (or procreated) by someone. You would not even properly call one twin (or one out of a set of triplets who had somehow all been born at the same instant) “the only begotten” (monogenes) ! Actually they would have to be described as part of a group of “many-begotten” (polygenes) !
C Some ancient Hindus took their polytheism another step. They said that all Hindu gods are really one in nature (and being) with the Supreme God, therefore they were all True God. This did not, however, make them actual monotheists!
In exactly the same way, trinitarians are not monotheists! They could be described as polytheists or, like those ancient Hindus, as having a form of pantheistic polytheism.
REDEFINITIONS
(From the RDB Files)
The relationship between God and his people is frequently described by God as one of marriage. He is the “husband” and his true worshipers are the “wife.” As in a scriptural marriage the true worshipers (“the wife”) must be completely faithful to their head, Jehovah alone. When the worshiper(s) are unfaithful to him, God describes them as “adulterous,” “adulteresses,” “harlots.” He rejects or “divorces” such ones, and they are to be destroyed for their “adultery.” In spite of wanting to be in favor with the one true God, many of His people throughout history have also become enamored with false gods and philosophies and want to add these things to their worship. They have used different rationalizations to justify their infidelity or “adultery.” One of these rationalizations may be called “redefinition” since it takes a well-known term or concept and gives it a new meaning to help justify their “adultery.”
To illustrate, let’s imagine a country where men are in a 3-to-one majority over women. Women, however, have come to dominate in all areas including government. One of the laws of the land handed down through the ages is - “Monogamy must be maintained: One man can have only one wife, and one woman can have only one husband.”
Imagine, then, that Christina is married to Abbot. She knows the law of the land, but she secretly marries Sonny anyway. Later she also secretly marries Hollis. When all this is exposed, she declares that Abbott, Sonny, and Hollis are all her husband. In the one husband, she declares, there are three persons (all equally her one husband). The one woman became “one flesh” with her first husband. The two became one flesh. In like manner, therefore, the three men have become “one flesh” with the woman. Obviously, then, the 3 persons are actually one “husband” (one flesh) to the woman.
The women of this land really like Christina’s interpretation of the law (which is actually based on a redefinition of the terms “husband” and “monogamy”), so they declare that it is the correct legal definition. The law, then, appears to remain the same: only one husband for a woman. But now each woman can marry more than one man. It is still “monogamy” and she still has only one “husband” according to the redefinition. Of course up until this time the term “husband” had always meant one man, and “monogamy” had always meant “one man married to one woman.”
So everyone is happy now! Or are they?
If this law were simply made by humans to satisfy a need at the time, then it certainly can (and should) be changed as needed as time passes. But if this law were a command from the Almighty Supreme Deity and Creator of mankind, His creatures have absolutely no right to change its original meaning to suit their desires.
So this redefinition is, in reality, adultery. It is literal adultery on Christina’s part no matter how she redefines terms. It is literal adultery no matter what the rest of the nation says --- no matter what the “orthodox” is defined (or redefined) to be by the human judges, the spiritual leaders, etc. It is an adultery of the clear meaning of the original terms. It is an adultery of God’s law. It is “adultery” and “harlotry” in the nation’s relationship to God. And it is “adultery” in an individual’s relationship to God if she accepts this new “orthodox” redefinition of God’s law and marries more than one person (or even merely quietly condones this redefinition of God’s word for her fellows)!
The very same kind of redefinition has been used by trinitarians from the beginning (fourth century A.D.) to commit adultery in their relationship to the one true God. In order to ‘legally’ change the ‘orthodox’ knowledge of the only true God and Jesus Christ (which means eternal life - John 17:3), they have made up new meanings for (redefined) “God” and “monotheism”! And in the process they also had to redefine other terms such as (1) “beginning,” (2) “firstborn,” (3) “only-begotten,” (4) “image” [eikon and charakter], (5) “substance/essence,” (6) “eternal generation,” (7) echad, (8) ego eimi, (9) ehyeh, (10) harpagmos, (11) huparchon, (12) morphe, (13) Logos, (14) theos, (15) and even God’s only personal name (%&%*, “Jehovah” or “Yahweh”).
The only true God had always been revealed to His people as a single person. The word “God” as applied to the Creator had no other meaning than one single person! He was known as the Father, and his singular, personal name was “Jehovah”! There was no other meaning for “God” among the Israelites and all their sects (including Christians) until Christendom began to desire a “God” that conformed to the understanding of the very influential, “intellectual” pagan religions and philosophies of the time - (see the ISRAEL and HIST studies).
At this time (around the fourth century A.D. - hundreds of years after the deaths of the Apostles and even the “Apostolic Fathers”) Christendom developed and “legalized” the trinity doctrine of three persons being equally the one God - (see HIST study). To do this (and still claim to keep the Scriptures as the word of God) they tried to change portions of the Scriptures by adding and deleting certain portions as they made new copies. This was only partly successful for them. Over the centuries many of these have been discovered and restored to their original wording. But they also redefined and reinterpreted many parts of the Holy Scriptures. This was more successful for them, although they still had to claim the new doctrine as a “Mystery” that could not be understood since it was still so contradictory, confusing, and unreasonable.
First, of course, the word “God” was redefined by them from the originally intended and understood “single-person” meaning to a “multiple-person” meaning. (This, of course is parallel with our example of the adulterous woman above. She redefined “husband” from the originally intended and understood “single person” meaning to a “multiple-person” meaning.)
Along with this the term “monotheism” had to be redefined (much as “monogamy” in the example above )[A]. What had been considered from the first as “the belief in one person only as the only Most High God” was now redefined as “the belief in one God (who is composed of many individuals).” Now Christendom could have as many persons who were “God” as they liked - the very essence of the highly influential “upper class” polytheistic pagan religions surrounding them - see the HIST study.
This is exactly what the adulterous nation in our example did: “monogamy” was redefined from its original meaning of “marriage of one person to another single person” to “marriage of one person to one multiple-person ‘husband’”!)
In reality, of course, this is merely a method of applying the word “monogamy” to the paganistic practice of polygamy[B]
In the very same way the redefining of the word “monotheism” by Christendom is merely a method of applying the word “monotheism” to the paganistic practice of polytheism![C]
Some Examples of Trinitarian Redefinition
(1) “Beginning” (arkhe in NT Greek). In the writings of the Apostle John there was only one meaning for the NT word arkhe: “beginning.” True, a few NT writers (Paul and Luke) occasionally gave different meanings (“magistrate,” “power,” “principality,” “principle,” “rule” according to Strong’s Concordance) for this word, but John, in all his writings, did not. And he always used other words for “ruler” and “source.”
Many trinitarians, however, had to redefine John’s intended meaning for this NT Greek word because of one scripture: Rev. 3:14. Since the doctrine of Jesus and God that they had invented insisted that Jesus had always existed, they could not allow the originally-intended meaning of John that Jesus was the “beginning of God’s creation.” Instead, they redefined John’s intended meaning of arkhe as either “source” or “ruler” - see NIV; NEB; NAB; LB; GNB. For evidence that this is a false interpretation of John’s intended meaning for this scripture see the BWF study.
(2) “Firstborn” (prototokos in NT Greek). This word in the scriptures has never meant anything but what it literally says: “the one born (or produced) first”! In fact, it is even paralleled in scripture by “the beginning of his father’s [creative or procreative] power” (e.g. Gen. 49:3, which of course also parallels the description of Jesus in #1 above: “The beginning of God’s [Jesus’ Father’s] creation”). Instead, some trinitarians have redefined this word as “the pre-eminent one.” They did this, again, because of one scripture: Col. 1:15. Paul here calls Jesus: “the firstborn of creation”! Since this also clearly means Jesus was the first creation of God (like Rev. 3:14 above), they were forced to redefine prototokos (but only at Col. 1:15). For evidence of the impropriety of this interpretation see the BWF study.
(3) “Only-begotten” (monogenes in NT Greek). This word in the scriptures has never meant anything but what it literally says: “the only one born (or generated)”! It is used in scripture to describe one who is the only offspring of a parent. It would not be applied to an adopted child, for instance, but only to the one who, alone, was actually produced, generated, or created by that parent. Instead, some trinitarians have redefined this word as “only” so that “the only-begotten Son” can now be interpreted as “the only Son.” This was done in an attempt to allow for the interpretation that Jesus has always existed and was never created or produced by the Father (although the clear significance of the word ‘Son’ itself even testifies otherwise). For evidence of the impropriety of this trinitarian redefinition see the OBGOD study.
(4) “Image” (eikon and charakter). These words are sometimes applied to Jesus Christ as the “image of God” or the “stamp of God” (as in the stamped impression of a king, president, etc. found on a coin). - 2 Cor. 4:4 and Heb. 1:3.
As any objective person would immediately admit, an image (or stamped impression) of something is merely a representation of the real thing. It cannot actually be the real thing itself simply because it is an image of the real thing! The Greek words above that are applied to Jesus mean, then, that Jesus cannot actually be God!
But trinitarians have “redefined” these terms to mean (only when applied to Jesus, of course) that somehow the image really is the thing it represents! See the IMAGE study (section #2 and endnote #6).
(5) “Substance/essence” (substantia, ousia, and homoousia [“same substance/essence”]). Ousia is used only twice in scripture and means “estate” as in the sense of “possessions, property” - Luke 15:12, 13, NASB; “property,” RSV; cf. NIV. However, those who actually invented the trinity doctrine and forced it upon the rest of the world of Christendom (Council of Nicaea - 325 A. D. and Council of Constantinople - 381 A. D.) desperately sought for justification of their theory of God. So they appealed to the writings of earlier Christians, in particular the extremely influential Origen. Homoousia (never used in Scripture at all!) was apparently used in the paganistic Gnostic religion to describe how “the heavenly powers shared in the divine fullness,” but Origen used it (before 231 A.D.) in the sense of “a unity of will” (see #7, “one,” below). So when the trinitarians appealed to the writings of Origen to justify their “unity of substance” of the Father and Son, they were actually redefining Origen’s well-known (at that time) intended meaning for the term. They also appealed to the writings of Tertullian and his use of “unity of substantia” of the Son of God with God. But, again, trinitarians actually redefined Tertullian’s intended meaning for the word. See the HIST study, notes #86-88 and #105-108.
As an example, here’s a quote from Origen’s Origen De Principiis, IV, 1, 36:
So according to Origen’s own example of “one nature”: the bird, cat, man, and angel who are all watching the same light are “of one essence and nature”! All it means is that two or more things have something in common! My dog and I enjoying a swim in the same pond are “of one ‘essence’ and nature” according to Origen’s usage! My beautiful daughter and her cat, Moose, who are both frightened by the same vicious dog are “of one ‘essence’ and nature”!
Apparently even as early as 268 A.D. this term had come to have a different meaning for some Christians. Noted scholar (and trinitarian) Robert M. Grant tells us that the Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, “seems to have been willing to speak of the Logos [the Word] as homoousios with the Father; this notion too was condemned at the final synod of 268.” Grant tells us that this same Council or Synod of 268 A.D. also excommunicated Paul of Samosata! - Augustus to Constantine, p. 218, Harper and Row, 1970.
It would be strange indeed if those Christians who condemned this doctrine believed that homoousios was intended to mean by Paul what it had meant for Origen (and other early Christians). They surely would not have disagreed with the statement that the Word (Logos) was united in will [homoousios] with the Father as Origen and others taught.
Therefore these Christians must have known that the heretical Bishop was intending a new meaning that God and the Word were of one substance in a more literal sense that suggested that Jesus was equally God (and they most emphatically denied that teaching!). At any rate, it is certainly significant that this council so strongly condemned the concept that the Logos was homoousios in a new literal sense with God as late as 268 A.D.!
(6) “Eternal generation.” This, also, is a completely non-scriptural term. However, many trinitarians were unable to deny that Scripture showed that the Son was generated or produced by the Father. They needed a redefinition of this idea to protect their “the Son has existed eternally” idea. So they turned to Origen, again, pointed to his use of the term “eternal generation,” and claimed that this, somehow, meant that, although the Son had been “generated” by the Father, he, nevertheless, had existed eternally. However, as they well knew at that time, Origen did not intend such a meaning. Trinitarian Church historian, Bernard Lohse admits that Origen intended a different meaning for “eternally generated” from what later trinitarians changed it to:
(7) “One” (echad in OT Hebrew). This ancient Hebrew word was used, in this form, echad, to mean numerical oneness. For example, “one cow” would be written as “echad cow.” It was used hundreds of times in scripture and, in this form, never meant “a multiple unity,” “a plural oneness,” etc. However, trinitarians were worried about the clear statement at Deut. 6:4 - “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is one [echad].” God’s chosen people from the time of Moses to the time of the first Christians (in fact Judaism from its beginning down to today still has the same understanding) understood this as meaning God is one person only - Jehovah, the Father! So some trinitarians redefined the clear meaning of echad as “multiple oneness” so they could “interpret” this scripture as “Jehovah [or the LORD] is a multiple oneness” or “a plural unity.” This is a completely false and dishonest translation of echad. - See the ECHAD study.
Also “one” in the NT Greek at John 10:30 has been redefined by many trinitarians. When Jesus said ‘the Father and I are one,’ he clearly meant ‘we are one (or united) in purpose and will.’ - see the ONE study. But you know, of course, what many (most?) trinitarians say this means.
(8) ego eimi (literally, “I am”). There is no doubt that this term is usually translated into English as “I am” (occasionally “I was,” “I have been,” or “it is I”). But at John 8:58 trinitarians want it to mean much more. Among other claims they make for this term at this scripture, many trinitarians claim that since the clause ends with the words “I am” in this scripture this, somehow, makes it “Absolute”! Being “Absolute” causes it to mean, they claim, “I am eternally existent” or “I have existed eternally.” There is absolutely no valid reason to invent such a meaning (or redefine “I am”)! We only have to look at other places where ego eimi is “Absolute” to see that this redefinition is absolute nonsense. 2 Kings (2 Samuel in English Bibles) 15:26 - King David uses the “Absolute” ego eimi “Behold, I AM” - Septuagint. Is. 6:8 - Isaiah identifies himself with the same “Absolute” ego eimi “Behold, I AM” - Septuagint. And, in the New Testament, John 9:9 - The ex-blind man identifies himself with the “Absolute” ego eimi “I am he” - KJV, ASV.
And even when we examine Jesus’ use of this “Absolute” ego eimi, we find the same thing. John 6:20 - Jesus identifies himself to his frightened disciples, who think he is an apparition, by using the “Absolute” ego eimi “It is I” - KJV, RSV. No trinitarian Bible ever interprets Jesus’ identification of himself here as “I am eternal” (and it would be incredibly ludicrous if it did)! Also see John 18:5,8. These (and many other instances of the “Absolute” ego eimi) plainly do not mean “I am eternal,” so why should any honest, rational Bible student claim it must mean that at John 8:58? - See the I AM study.
Some trinitarians have used this same redefinition for another “be” verb: en (hn in NT Greek characters) which is usually translated “was.” They insist that the “was” (hn) found in Jn 1:1 must be defined as meaning that the Word (Jesus) was “eternally” with God and “eternally” was God. This is as ludicrous and dishonest as the above redefinition. -see "Was" and "Beginning" in John 1:1 .
(9) Ehyeh in OT Hebrew. This word means (and is nearly always rendered into English) “I will be” every time it is used in the Scriptures. More important, for discussions of Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58, It is ALWAYS rendered as “I will be” in all of Moses writings! However, trinitarians have redefined this word to mean “I Am” (at Exodus 3:14 only). They have done this in an attempt to provide some basis for a trinitarian “I Am” reasoning for John 8:58. But the word simply does not mean “I am” at Ex. 3:14, and its Greek translation at Ex. 3:14 in the ancient Septuagint (ca. 200 B.C.) also does not mean “I am” (even though some dishonest trinitarians claim it is the very same Greek wording used by Jesus at John 8:58)! - See the I AM study.
(10) Harpagmos in NT Greek. This word occurs only once in the NT at Phil. 2:6. However, it occurs 16 times in the ancient OT Greek Septuagint. In every case it means “taking something by force” or “something taken by force.” We know that the NT Greek word from which harpagmos derived (harpazo) means the “act of seizing or something seized.” It invariably has the meaning of “forceful seizure”: taking something forcefully from someone against his will.
But many trinitarians have redefined this word at Phil. 2:6 because its true meaning disproves the trinity doctrine. So they give harpagmos the new meaning of “cling to,” “held onto,” “retained,” “grasped,” etc. - See the PHIL study.
(11) Huparchon in NT Greek. Although this NT Greek word literally means “under a beginning,” it is commonly translated as one of the “be” verbs (“is,” “was,” “being,” “existed”). However, some trinitarians insist that it means an endless existence! The only time they insist on this meaning is when it is found at Phil. 2:6! It is not difficult to find other uses of this term in the NT. They not only never mean “an eternal pre-existence” or “continuing to exist eternally,” but they clearly are speaking of things that have come into existence. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (trinitarian) even defines huparchon as “to BEGIN under (quietly). i.e. come into existence” - #5225.
In other words, the honest, intended meaning for huparchon could be brought out by translating it into English as “came into existence” but not as “always existed” (or anything comparable)! This means that Phil. 2:6 could be honestly translated “Who, though he came into existence [huparchon] in the form of God (or ‘a god’), did not even consider forcefully seizing [harpagmos] equality with God.” It cannot be honestly translated (with the trinitarian-redefined huparchon) as “he always [huparchon] had the nature [form] of God.” - TEV. See the PHIL study.
(12) Morphe in NT Greek. A few trinitarian “scholars” even attempt to redefine morphe (again, only at Phil. 2:6) as including the idea of absolute “essence” or “nature”! The word actually is defined in NT lexicons of respected trinitarian scholars as “form in the sense of outward appearance” and “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision” (cf. Mark 16:12).
So morphe is not honestly translated with its trinitarian-redefined meaning: “he always had the nature [morphe] of God.” - TEV. Instead, an honest translation of Phil. 2:6 could be “he came into existence [huparchon] with the outward appearance [“form” - morphe] of God [or ‘a god’].” - See the PHIL study.
(13) Logos (“Word” in NT Greek). This NT Greek word is used by John in the prologue of his Gospel (Jn 1:1-18). He uses it in a way that is not used elsewhere in the New or Old Testament, but he assumes that his readers (late first century Jews) already understand that term since he does not explain it. It is obvious from the way John uses this Logos that it is meant to describe Jesus’ heavenly pre-existence. Jn 1:1 tells us that the Logos (“the Word”) was with God in the beginning. And it even says that the Logos was theos (“God” or “a god” in NT Greek). Trinitarians have interpreted this to mean that John was using the Logos concept of Greek paganism. Therefore, many of them say, John really meant “The Logos was God”! They say that the paganistic Greek Logos was understood to be God, so John, likewise, used the term in that way.
However, it is unlikely that John would use such a pagan term or that he would expect his Jewish readers (who were forbidden by the Holy Scriptures to even read or study such things) to understand such a meaning for that term. But even if he did, the Logos was still not equally God, even in Greek paganism.
There is a meaning for Logos, however, that was popularly known by first and second century Jews. This is the Logos concept taught by the famed first century Jewish scholar Philo. Philo accepted the Holy Scriptures as the infallible, inspired word of God. He tried to teach all men (including the Greeks and Romans) that the Scriptures were the teachings of the only true God, the Father alone. So he adapted (redefined) some of the terms the Greeks were already familiar with (including Logos) to conform to the truth of the Bible. His teachings became very popular among Jews throughout the ancient world.
It is very important to know that the Logos of Philo which most Jews were familiar with, unlike the Logos of paganism, was described by such terms as John used to describe his Logos. These terms include “Son of God” [Jn 1:34]; one who is “with God” [Jn 1:1]; “light” [Jn 1:4]; “manna” [Jn 6:31-51]; “shepherd” [Jn 10:11]; “Paraclete” (‘Comforter,’ ‘Advocate,’ ‘Helper’) [1 Jn 2:1]; one “through [dia] which the cosmos originated” [Jn 1:3]; and one “from which drawing water one may find eternal life instead of death” [Jn 4:14], etc.
But most important, for this discussion, the well-known Jewish Logos of Philo specifically called the “the Word” theos. As all commentators on Philo’s Logos doctrine will attest (including all trinitarians who are willing to discuss it at all), Philo never used the definite article with theos when he intended it to be used for the Logos. Furthermore, he intended the meaning of “a god” by this usage, whereas he always used the definite article with theos when he intended it to be used for God!
So when trinitarians say John intended the meaning of “the Word (Logos) was God” at John 1:1, they are redefining John’s original meanings of both Logos and theos.
(14) the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos (see the BOWGOD study) as found at John 1:1. - Also see the LOGOS and PRIMER studies.
Of course trinitarians have had to redefine many other terms. Perhaps the worst of all trinitarian redefinitions, however, is the actual changing of God’s Most Holy Personal Name. Men may have many titles: President; Boss; Judge; Senator; Doctor; Admiral; Lord; Brother; etc. But every individual person has only one personal name: Theodore Roosevelt; Isaac Newton (“Sir” is a title); Thomas Jefferson; Moses; Joshua; Jesus. Yes, “Jesus” is the only personal name of the Christ (title), the Son of God (title), our Savior (title) and King (title). This personal name has the literal meaning of “Jehovah is the Savior” or “Jehovah Saves.” Think of the sacrilege, the blasphemy of actually redefining Jesus’ very own personal name.
What should we think of anyone who actually rewrote the original manuscripts of the NT by “translating” every instance of the thousands of uses of the personal name “Jesus” found in the inspired scriptures as “LAMB”? Then the name “Jesus” would no longer appear in the thousands of places it was originally written at God’s direction and command. For example Luke 1:31 would now read:
and Phil. 2:10, 11 would now read:
Wouldn’t this be an obvious example of blasphemous redefinition?
(15) Well, then, the very same thing is even more blasphemous when it concerns the only personal name of God himself, “Jehovah” (which has the literal meaning of “He Who Will Be”)! Of the nearly 7000 times the inspired Bible writers used God’s only personal name in the Scriptures, most trinitarian Bibles (e.g., RSV, NASB, NIV, GNB) have redefined them all as the LORD. Some, such as the KJV, have used the proper translation of “Jehovah” (English form) or “Yahweh” (possible Hebrew form) fewer than ten times and then redefined the 6000 (plus) other instances as “the LORD”! They have done this in spite of the fact that God has commanded that his holy personal name be known and used forever!
“Yes, tell [the Israelites], JEHOVAH, the God of your ancestors .... This is my eternal name, to be used throughout all generations.” - Ex. 3:15, Living Bible.
“Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name O LORD [“Jehovah”]. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.” - Ps. 83:16-18, KJV.
True, such redefinition helps trinitarians “interpret” scriptures which would otherwise disprove the trinity, but think of the consequences!
* * * * * *
The real effect of redefining the words used in the inspired Holy Scriptures is that of spiritual adultery. We must be no part of such blasphemous disobedience, dishonesty, and deceit. Those early fourth century Christians who desired the attractive trappings of the world (which included the multiple godhead favored by the surrounding very powerful, very influential pagan nations) became “adulteresses” to the one true God, their “husband and owner”! - See the HIST study paper.
And, certainly, if we participate in (or even condone by our silence or passivity) the redefining of the very knowledge of God Himself, we are committing “adultery” in the highest sense and establishing ourselves with the “many” in the middle of the broad road that leads to eternal destruction.
“Father, .... this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God...” - Jn 17:1, 3, KJV.
“The Lord Jesus shall be revealed ... taking vengeance on them that know not God ... with everlasting destruction” - 2 Thess. 1:7, 8, 9, KJV.
“Go in by the narrow gate; for broad and roomy is the road that leads to destruction, and many are going in by it. But narrow is the gate and hard is the road that leads to life, and few are they that find it.... Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom of heaven, but only those who practice doing the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, was it not in your name that we prophesied ... and did many wonder-works?’ And then I will say to them openly, ‘I never knew you at all. Go away from me, you who practiced doing wrong.’” - Matt. 7:13, 21-23, CBW.
As in our original example we can easily give our own new meanings, which we and the many around us prefer, but the result is still spiritual adultery.
* * * * *
NOTES
A The word “monotheism” does not refer to a single God (or even “God-nature”) which is composed of many persons! It means, instead, a religion which has one and only one [monos] single person who is worshiped as the Most High God. This really has nothing to do with a “God-nature”! Contrast the word “polytheism” with “monotheism.”
Polytheism is a religion with many persons sharing the worship which is properly due the Most High God Alone. For one function (war, for example) one deity receives the worship and sacrifices. On another occasion another deity (the goddess of love, for example) may receive the worship and sacrifices. It doesn’t matter whether they all share the same nature (as gods), as they most often did. What mattered was the position or authority and power each one held.
B Also note that the NT word for “onlybegotten” (monogenes) means a single individual who alone was directly created (or procreated) by someone. You would not even properly call one twin (or one out of a set of triplets who had somehow all been born at the same instant) “the only begotten” (monogenes) ! Actually they would have to be described as part of a group of “many-begotten” (polygenes) !
C Some ancient Hindus took their polytheism another step. They said that all Hindu gods are really one in nature (and being) with the Supreme God, therefore they were all True God. This did not, however, make them actual monotheists!
In exactly the same way, trinitarians are not monotheists! They could be described as polytheists or, like those ancient Hindus, as having a form of pantheistic polytheism.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
KURIE
(From the RDB Files)
See the “My God” study of John 20:28
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/mygod.html
...............................................................................................
http://concordances.org/greek/kurie_2962.htm
All uses of kurie (κυριε, vocative form or noun of address for kurios: "lord, sir, master.") - 120 in NT. No undisputed uses of the nominative form (kurios) as a noun of address.
Mt 7:21
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord [κυριε, κυριε],' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
………………………………..................................
Mt 7:22
"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord [κυριε, κυριε], did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles ?'
………………………………..................................
Mt 8:2
And a leper came to Him and bowed down before Him, and said, "Lord [κυριε], if You are willing, You can make me clean."
………………………………................................
Mt 8:6
and saying, "Lord [κυριε], my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented."
………………………………...................................
Mt 8:8
But the centurion said, "Lord [κυριε], I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
……………………………….....................................
Mt 8:21
Another of the disciples said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], permit me first to go and bury my father."
……………………………….........................................
Mt 8:25
And they came to Him and woke Him, saying, "Save us, Lord [κυριε]; we are perishing !"
……………………………….......................................
Mt 9:28
When He entered the house, the blind men came up to Him, and Jesus *said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this ?" They *said to Him, "Yes, Lord [κυριε]."
………………………………........................................
Mt 11:25
At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord [κυριε] of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.
……………………………….....................................
Mt 13:27
"The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir [κυριε], did you not sow good seed in your field ? How then does it have tares ?'
………………………………..........................................
Mt 14:28
Peter said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], if it is You, command me to come to You on the water."
……………………………….................................
Mt 14:30
But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord [κυριε], save me!"
………………………………...............................
Mt 15:22
And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord , Son of David ; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed."
……………………………….............................................
Mt 15:25
But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord [κυριε], help me!"
………………………………..............................................
Mt 15:27
But she said, "Yes, Lord [κυριε]; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
………………………………...............................................
Mt 16:22
Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord [κυριε]! This shall never happen to You."
………………………………..............................................
Mt 17:4
Peter said to Jesus, "Lord [κυριε], it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah."
………………………………..............................................
Mt 17:15
"Lord [κυριε], have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water.
……………………………….................................................
Mt 18:21
Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times ?"
………………………………..................................................
Mt 20:30
And two blind men sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, "Lord [κυριε], have mercy on us, Son of David !"
………………………………........................................................
Mt 20:31
The crowd sternly told them to be quiet, but they cried out all the more, "Lord [κυριε], Son of David , have mercy on us!"
………………………………...................................................
Mt 20:33
They said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], we want our eyes to be opened."
……………………………….........................................
Mt 21:30
"The man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered, 'I will, sir [κυριε]'; but he did not go.
………………………………..................................................
Mt 25:11
"Later the other virgins also came, saying, 'Lord, lord [κυριε, κυριε], open up for us.'
………………………………......................................
Mt 25:20
"The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, 'Master [κυριε], you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.'
)
………………………………...............................................
Mt 25:22
"Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, 'Master [κυριε], you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.'
………………………………................................................
Mt 25:24
"And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, 'Master [κυριε], I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
……………………………….................................................
Mt 25:37
"Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord [κυριε], when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink ?
………………………………..........................................
Mt 25:44
"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord [κυριε], when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
………………………………..........................................
Mt 26:22
Being deeply grieved, they each one began to say to Him, "Surely not I, Lord [κυριε]?"
………………………………...........................................
Mt 27:63
and said, "Sir [κυριε], we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.'
.......................................................................
Mr 7:28
But she answered and *said to Him, "Yes, Lord [κυριε], but even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs."
......................................................................
Lu 5:8
But when Simon Peter saw that, he fell down at Jesus' feet, saying, "Go away from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord [κυριε]!"
………………………………...........................................
Lu 5:12
While He was in one of the cities, behold, there was a man covered with leprosy; and when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and implored Him, saying, "Lord [κυριε], if You are willing, You can make me clean."
……………………………….............................................
Lu 6:46
"Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord [κυριε, κυριε],' and do not do what I say ?
………………………………...........................................
Lu 7:6
Now Jesus started on His way with them; and when He was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to Him, "Lord [κυριε], do not trouble Yourself further, for I am not worthy for You to come under my roof;
………………………………..............................................
Lu 9:54
When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord [κυριε], do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?"
……………………………….................................................
Lu 9:59
And He said to another, "Follow Me." But he said, "Lord [κυριε], permit me first to go and bury my father."
………………………………................................................
Lu 9:61
Another also said, "I will follow You, Lord [κυριε]; but first permit me to say good-bye to those at home."
………………………………...............................................
Lu 10:17
The seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord [κυριε], even the demons are subject to us in Your name."
………………………………................................................
Lu 10:21
At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, "I praise You, O Father, Lord [κυριε] of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.
……………………………….......................................
Lu 10:40
But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him and said, "Lord [κυριε], do You not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone ? Then tell her to help me."
……………………………….......................................
Lu 11:1
It happened that while Jesus was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples."
……………………………….......................................
Lu 12:41
Peter said, "Lord [κυριε], are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?"
……………………………….......................................
Lu 13:8
"And he answered and said to him, 'Let it alone, sir [κυριε], for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer;
………………………………........................................
Lu 13:23
And someone said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], are there just a few who are being saved ?" And He said to them,
……………………………….........................................
Lu 13:25
"Once * the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, 'Lord [κυριε], open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know where you are from.'
………………………………...............................................
Lu 14:22
"And the slave said, 'Master [κυριε], what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.'
………………………………................................................
Lu 17:37
And answering they *said to Him, "Where, Lord [κυριε]?" And He said to them, "Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered."
……………………………….......................................
Lu 18:41
"What do you want Me to do for you?" And he said, "Lord [κυριε], I want to regain my sight!"
………………………………......................................
Lu 19:8
Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord [κυριε], half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much."
……………………………….......................................
Lu 19:16
"The first appeared, saying, 'Master [κυριε], your mina has made ten minas more.'
………………………………........................................
Lu 19:18
"The second came, saying, 'Your mina, master [κυριε], has made five minas.'
………………………………........................................
Lu 19:20
"Another came, saying, 'Master [κυριε], here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief;
……………………………….........................................
Lu 19:25
"And they said to him, 'Master [κυριε], he has ten minas already.'
………………………………..........................................
Lu 22:33
But he said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!"
………………………………...........................................
Lu 22:38
They said, "Lord [κυριε], look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."
……………………………….......................................
Lu 22:49
When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord [κυριε], shall we strike with the sword ?"
.............................................................
Joh 4:11
She *said to Him, "Sir [κυριε], You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
……………………………….....................................
Joh 4:15
The woman *said to Him, "Sir [κυριε], give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw."
………………………………......................................
Joh 4:19
The woman *said to Him, "Sir [κυριε], I perceive that You are a prophet.
……………………………….......................................
Joh 4:49
The royal official *said to Him, "Sir [κυριε], come down before my child dies."
………………………………............................
Joh 5:7
The sick man answered Him, "Sir [κυριε], I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, but while I am coming, another steps down before me."
……………………………….......................................
Joh 6:34
Then they said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], always give us this bread."
………………………………......................................
Joh 6:68
Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord [κυριε], to whom shall we go ? You have words of eternal life.
……………………………….....................................
Joh 8:11
[She said, "No one, Lord [κυριε]." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."]
……………………………….........................
Joh 9:36
He answered, "Who is He, Lord [κυριε], that I may believe in Him?"
………………………………............................................
Joh 9:38
And he said, "Lord [κυριε], I believe." And he worshiped Him.
……………………………….............................................
Joh 11:3
So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, "Lord [κυριε], behold, he whom You love is sick."
………………………………............................................
Joh 11:12
The disciples then said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], if he has fallen asleep, he will recover."
……………………………….............................................
Joh 11:21
Martha then said to Jesus, "Lord [κυριε], if You had been here, my brother would not have died.
……………………………….............................................
Joh 11:27
She said to Him, "Yes, Lord [κυριε]; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world."
………………………………..............................................
Joh 11:32
Therefore, when Mary came where Jesus was, she saw Him, and fell at His feet, saying to Him, "Lord [κυριε], if You had been here, my brother would not have died."
………………………………..............................................
Joh 11:34
and said, "Where have you laid him?" They *said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], come and see."
………………………………........................................
Joh 11:39
Jesus said, "Remove the stone." Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days."
………………………………..........................................
Joh 12:21
these then came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and began to ask him, saying, "Sir [κυριε], we wish to see Jesus."
………………………………...........................................
Joh 12:38
This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "LORD [κυριε], WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT ? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?"
………………………………..............................................
Joh 13:6
So He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], do You wash my feet?"
………………………………..............................................
Joh 13:9
Simon Peter *said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head."
………………………………..............................................
Joh 13:25
He, leaning back thus on Jesus' bosom, said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], who is it?"
……………………………….............................................
Joh 13:36
Simon Peter said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], where are You going ?" Jesus answered, "Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you will follow later."
……………………………….........................................
Joh 13:37
Peter said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], why can I not follow You right now ? I will lay down my life for You."
………………………………....................................................
Joh 14:5
Thomas said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?"
……………………………….....................................................
Joh 14:8
Philip *said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
………………………………....................................................
Joh 14:22
Judas (not Iscariot ) said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world ?"
………………………………......................................................
Joh 20:15
Jesus *said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping ? Whom are you seeking ?" Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, "Sir [κυριε], if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away."
……………………………….....................................................
Joh 21:15
So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these ?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord [κυριε]; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My lambs."
………………………………....................................................
Joh 21:16
He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord [κυριε]; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Shepherd My sheep."
………………………………........................................
Joh 21:17
He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord [κυριε], You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep.
……………………………….......................................
Joh 21:20
Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord [κυριε], who is the one who betrays You?"
……………………………….........................................
Joh 21:21
So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord [κυριε], and what about this man?"
........................................................
Ac 1:6
So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord [κυριε], is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
………………………………..................................
Ac 1:24
And they prayed and said, "You, Lord [κυριε], who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen
………………………………...................................
Ac 4:29
"And now, Lord [κυριε], take note of their threats, and grant that Your bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence,
………………………………...................................
Ac 7:59
They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, "Lord [κυριε] Jesus, receive my spirit!"
……………………………….......................................
Ac 7:60
Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord [κυριε], do not hold this sin against them!" Having said this, he fell asleep.
………………………………..........................................
Ac 9:5
And he said, "Who are You, Lord [κυριε]?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,
………………………………..............................................
Ac 9:10
Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord [κυριε]."
………………………………..............................................
Ac 9:13
But Ananias answered, "Lord [κυριε], I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem;
……………………………….................................................
Ac 10:4
And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, "What is it, Lord [κυριε]?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God.
………………………………................................................
Ac 10:14
But Peter said, "By no means, Lord [κυριε], for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
……………………………….............................................
Ac 11:8
"But I said, 'By no means, Lord [κυριε], for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
……………………………….............................................
Ac 22:8
"And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord [κυριε]?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.'
………………………………..................................................
Ac 22:10
"And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord [κυριε]?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.'
………………………………...................................................
Ac 22:19
"And I said, 'Lord [κυριε], they themselves understand that in one synagogue after another I used to imprison and beat those who believed in You.
………………………………...................................................
Ac 26:15
"And I said, 'Who are You, Lord ?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
.....................................................................
Ro 10:16
However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD [κυριε], WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT ?"
………………………………...............................................
Ro 11:3
"Lord [κυριε], THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE."
………………………………....................................
Heb 1:10
And, "YOU, LORD [κυριε], IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
....................................................................................
Re 7:14
I said to him, "My lord [κυριε], you know ." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
………………………………......................................
Re 11:17
saying, "We give You thanks, O Lord [κυριε] God, the Almighty, who are and who were, because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign.
………………………………...............................................
Re 15:3
And they sang the song of Moses, the bond-servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, " Great and marvelous are Your works, O Lord [κυριε] God, the Almighty; Righteous and true are Your ways, King of the nations!
………………………………..........................................
Re 15:4
"Who will not fear, O Lord [κυριε], and glorify Your name ? For You alone are holy; For ALL THE NATIONS WILL COME AND WORSHIP BEFORE FOR YOUR RIGHTEOUS ACTS HAVE BEEN REVEALED."
………………………………...........................................
Re 16:7
And I heard the altar saying, "Yes, O Lord [κυριε] God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments."
………………………………...........................................
Re 22:20
He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord [κυριε] Jesus.
..............................................................................
I have found a facsimile of Codex Sinaiticus. It does read κυριε ό κυριος και ό θεος at Rev. 4:11, whereas Codex Alexandrinus does not use kurie at all, but reads exactly as the Westcott and Hort, UBS, and Nestle texts: “Worthy are you, the lord (kurios) and the god (theos) of us, to receive….”
Here is part of an article discussing kurie:
...............................................
As we have noted, the vocative form of κυριος is common within the New Testament, being used 119 times. In fact, looking within the Septuagint we further observe 61 examples with the apocrypha and within the book of Psalms we find 225 occurrences when Lord precedes God where the vocative form is used, without exception.[1]
If we set John 20:28 aside, the one exception we find to the use of the vocative κυριε seems to be Revelation 4:11. The rendering found in most modern day translations for Revelation 4:11 is based on Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century, reading ό κυριος και ό θεος ήμων. At the same time we find that the 4th century Codex Sinaticus reads κυριε ό κυριος και ό θεος.
The reading provided by Sinaiticus demonstrates what is known as Polyptoton.[2]
While many may be quick to note that the verse continues to use the nominative ό κυριος along with κυριε, this is explained as simple apposition, to which we would expect to find the nominative.[3] The use of the nominative here would follow standardized grammar and would not be a demonstration of a nominative for a vocative as ones argue for John 20:28. [emphasis added]
The answer in response to this is founded in Aland’s considering Alexandrinus a superior text. This is interesting, however, as Aland does consider Sinaiticus to be a class one manuscript, being “of a very special quality."[4] This of course does not change the fact that he considers Alexandrinus to be superior to Sinaiticus, but it is worth noting what Steven Thompson writes on the matter, stating: "From this it is evident that the reconstruction of the primitive text of the Apc. [Apocalypse or Revelation] must proceed from a broad textual basis, not overlooking the testimony of any witnesses. It is interesting to note that codex Sinaiticus, while considered to be inferior to the other uncials, in the text of the [Apc.], has preserved more of the Semitised readings cited in this study (a total of six) than has Alexandrinus, which is judged to be the best complete witness to the Apc."[5]
Thompson's study is interesting because it demonstrates that Sinaiticus does at times maintain the original reading over other manuscripts. While this does not specifically address the text of Revelation 4:11, it opens the door wider to the possibility of Sinaticus maintaining the proper reading. There are numerous other manuscripts that do indeed support the reading of κυριε at Revelation 4:11, with Herman Hoskier listing over 60 such examples.[6]
It thus proves beneficial to examine the use of κυριε/κυριος in the book of Revelation. Considering this we find that κυριε is used consistently, as within the rest of the Greek New Testament. This can be demonstrated in several passages: 7:14; 11:17; 15:3, 4; 16:7; 22:20. While it is possible that the Sinaiticus' copyist modified Revelation 4:11 to conform to the remaining texts within the book of Revelation, when we consider the entire weight of evidence for the use of the vocative form with Revelation and the other portions of the New Testament, it does lead to a reasonable level of doubt.
Of course none of this is absolutely conclusive and it is not intended to be taken as such. At present, the critical texts lean heavily on the accepted nominative rendering, and while the points herein made are of interest, they do not overturn the accepted reading. It can be reasonably said that the original reading may have been a vocative or perhaps even the divine name, which would have well fit into Sinaiticus' rendering, but to attempt to force the issue and say so conclusively would be to make an argument without a solid foundation. Therefore, Revelation 4:11 does prove to be a parallel to John 20:28 in respects to the nominative functioning as a vocative [? - see other bold paragraph above], but to use this as an absolute proof would put one on uncertain ground. [Bracketed material and emphasis added]
.....................................................
[1] See below on our discussion of the matter of apposition
[2] Bullinger, E.W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. Explained and Illustrated, 267, states: “Polyptoton means with many cases, i.e., a repetition of the same noun in several cases.”
[3] Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek, Illustrated by Examples, English Edition Adapted from the Fourth Latin Edition by Joseph Smith, 120 explains: “the nominative with the article is always used in appositions added to a vocative.”
[4] Aland, Kurt and Barbara. The Text of the New Testament, An Introduction into the Critical Editions and into the Theory and Modern Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. 105.
[5] Thompson, Steven. The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax, 10.
[6] Hoskier, Herman C. Concerning the Test of the Apocalypse, Collations of All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen’s Third Edition, Together With the Testimony of Versions, Commentaries and Fathers, A Complete Conspectus of All Authorities, p 139.
- http://www.scripturaltruths.com/jesus/j2028/excursus.html
...................................................................
Examples of vocative with vocative appositive
Matt. 11:25; Lu. 10:21; Rev. 15:3; 16:7; 22:20
Examples of vocative with nominative appositive:
Matt. 15:22; 20:30; 20:31; Rev. 11:17
Since all modern texts (including the Majority/Byzantine text) do not use kurie at Rev. 4:11. I believe the understanding of ho kurios kai ho theos is that of an appositive, not nouns of address. Even if Sinaiticus is correct here, we still have all uses of “Lord” used in address as kurie. See the MYGOD study.
(From the RDB Files)
See the “My God” study of John 20:28
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/mygod.html
...............................................................................................
http://concordances.org/greek/kurie_2962.htm
All uses of kurie (κυριε, vocative form or noun of address for kurios: "lord, sir, master.") - 120 in NT. No undisputed uses of the nominative form (kurios) as a noun of address.
Mt 7:21
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord [κυριε, κυριε],' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
………………………………..................................
Mt 7:22
………………………………..................................
Mt 8:2
………………………………................................
Mt 8:6
………………………………...................................
Mt 8:8
……………………………….....................................
Mt 8:21
……………………………….........................................
Mt 8:25
……………………………….......................................
Mt 9:28
………………………………........................................
Mt 11:25
……………………………….....................................
Mt 13:27
………………………………..........................................
Mt 14:28
……………………………….................................
Mt 14:30
………………………………...............................
Mt 15:22
……………………………….............................................
Mt 15:25
………………………………..............................................
Mt 15:27
………………………………...............................................
Mt 16:22
………………………………..............................................
Mt 17:4
………………………………..............................................
Mt 17:15
……………………………….................................................
Mt 18:21
………………………………..................................................
Mt 20:30
………………………………........................................................
Mt 20:31
………………………………...................................................
Mt 20:33
……………………………….........................................
Mt 21:30
………………………………..................................................
Mt 25:11
………………………………......................................
Mt 25:20
)
………………………………...............................................
Mt 25:22
………………………………................................................
Mt 25:24
……………………………….................................................
Mt 25:37
………………………………..........................................
Mt 25:44
………………………………..........................................
Mt 26:22
………………………………...........................................
Mt 27:63
.......................................................................
Mr 7:28
......................................................................
Lu 5:8
………………………………...........................................
Lu 5:12
……………………………….............................................
Lu 6:46
………………………………...........................................
Lu 7:6
………………………………..............................................
Lu 9:54
……………………………….................................................
Lu 9:59
………………………………................................................
Lu 9:61
………………………………...............................................
Lu 10:17
………………………………................................................
Lu 10:21
……………………………….......................................
Lu 10:40
……………………………….......................................
Lu 11:1
……………………………….......................................
Lu 12:41
……………………………….......................................
Lu 13:8
………………………………........................................
Lu 13:23
……………………………….........................................
Lu 13:25
………………………………...............................................
Lu 14:22
………………………………................................................
Lu 17:37
……………………………….......................................
Lu 18:41
………………………………......................................
Lu 19:8
……………………………….......................................
Lu 19:16
………………………………........................................
Lu 19:18
………………………………........................................
Lu 19:20
……………………………….........................................
Lu 19:25
………………………………..........................................
Lu 22:33
………………………………...........................................
Lu 22:38
……………………………….......................................
Lu 22:49
.............................................................
Joh 4:11
……………………………….....................................
Joh 4:15
………………………………......................................
Joh 4:19
……………………………….......................................
Joh 4:49
………………………………............................
Joh 5:7
……………………………….......................................
Joh 6:34
………………………………......................................
Joh 6:68
……………………………….....................................
Joh 8:11
……………………………….........................
Joh 9:36
………………………………............................................
Joh 9:38
……………………………….............................................
Joh 11:3
………………………………............................................
Joh 11:12
……………………………….............................................
Joh 11:21
……………………………….............................................
Joh 11:27
………………………………..............................................
Joh 11:32
………………………………..............................................
Joh 11:34
………………………………........................................
Joh 11:39
………………………………..........................................
Joh 12:21
………………………………...........................................
Joh 12:38
………………………………..............................................
Joh 13:6
………………………………..............................................
Joh 13:9
………………………………..............................................
Joh 13:25
……………………………….............................................
Joh 13:36
……………………………….........................................
Joh 13:37
………………………………....................................................
Joh 14:5
……………………………….....................................................
Joh 14:8
………………………………....................................................
Joh 14:22
………………………………......................................................
Joh 20:15
……………………………….....................................................
Joh 21:15
………………………………....................................................
Joh 21:16
………………………………........................................
Joh 21:17
……………………………….......................................
Joh 21:20
……………………………….........................................
Joh 21:21
........................................................
Ac 1:6
………………………………..................................
Ac 1:24
………………………………...................................
Ac 4:29
………………………………...................................
Ac 7:59
……………………………….......................................
Ac 7:60
………………………………..........................................
Ac 9:5
………………………………..............................................
Ac 9:10
………………………………..............................................
Ac 9:13
……………………………….................................................
Ac 10:4
………………………………................................................
Ac 10:14
……………………………….............................................
Ac 11:8
……………………………….............................................
Ac 22:8
………………………………..................................................
Ac 22:10
………………………………...................................................
Ac 22:19
………………………………...................................................
Ac 26:15
.....................................................................
Ro 10:16
………………………………...............................................
Ro 11:3
………………………………....................................
Heb 1:10
....................................................................................
Re 7:14
………………………………......................................
Re 11:17
………………………………...............................................
Re 15:3
………………………………..........................................
Re 15:4
………………………………...........................................
Re 16:7
………………………………...........................................
Re 22:20
..............................................................................
I have found a facsimile of Codex Sinaiticus. It does read κυριε ό κυριος και ό θεος at Rev. 4:11, whereas Codex Alexandrinus does not use kurie at all, but reads exactly as the Westcott and Hort, UBS, and Nestle texts: “Worthy are you, the lord (kurios) and the god (theos) of us, to receive….”
Here is part of an article discussing kurie:
...............................................
As we have noted, the vocative form of κυριος is common within the New Testament, being used 119 times. In fact, looking within the Septuagint we further observe 61 examples with the apocrypha and within the book of Psalms we find 225 occurrences when Lord precedes God where the vocative form is used, without exception.[1]
If we set John 20:28 aside, the one exception we find to the use of the vocative κυριε seems to be Revelation 4:11. The rendering found in most modern day translations for Revelation 4:11 is based on Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century, reading ό κυριος και ό θεος ήμων. At the same time we find that the 4th century Codex Sinaticus reads κυριε ό κυριος και ό θεος.
The reading provided by Sinaiticus demonstrates what is known as Polyptoton.[2]
While many may be quick to note that the verse continues to use the nominative ό κυριος along with κυριε, this is explained as simple apposition, to which we would expect to find the nominative.[3] The use of the nominative here would follow standardized grammar and would not be a demonstration of a nominative for a vocative as ones argue for John 20:28. [emphasis added]
The answer in response to this is founded in Aland’s considering Alexandrinus a superior text. This is interesting, however, as Aland does consider Sinaiticus to be a class one manuscript, being “of a very special quality."[4] This of course does not change the fact that he considers Alexandrinus to be superior to Sinaiticus, but it is worth noting what Steven Thompson writes on the matter, stating: "From this it is evident that the reconstruction of the primitive text of the Apc. [Apocalypse or Revelation] must proceed from a broad textual basis, not overlooking the testimony of any witnesses. It is interesting to note that codex Sinaiticus, while considered to be inferior to the other uncials, in the text of the [Apc.], has preserved more of the Semitised readings cited in this study (a total of six) than has Alexandrinus, which is judged to be the best complete witness to the Apc."[5]
Thompson's study is interesting because it demonstrates that Sinaiticus does at times maintain the original reading over other manuscripts. While this does not specifically address the text of Revelation 4:11, it opens the door wider to the possibility of Sinaticus maintaining the proper reading. There are numerous other manuscripts that do indeed support the reading of κυριε at Revelation 4:11, with Herman Hoskier listing over 60 such examples.[6]
It thus proves beneficial to examine the use of κυριε/κυριος in the book of Revelation. Considering this we find that κυριε is used consistently, as within the rest of the Greek New Testament. This can be demonstrated in several passages: 7:14; 11:17; 15:3, 4; 16:7; 22:20. While it is possible that the Sinaiticus' copyist modified Revelation 4:11 to conform to the remaining texts within the book of Revelation, when we consider the entire weight of evidence for the use of the vocative form with Revelation and the other portions of the New Testament, it does lead to a reasonable level of doubt.
Of course none of this is absolutely conclusive and it is not intended to be taken as such. At present, the critical texts lean heavily on the accepted nominative rendering, and while the points herein made are of interest, they do not overturn the accepted reading. It can be reasonably said that the original reading may have been a vocative or perhaps even the divine name, which would have well fit into Sinaiticus' rendering, but to attempt to force the issue and say so conclusively would be to make an argument without a solid foundation. Therefore, Revelation 4:11 does prove to be a parallel to John 20:28 in respects to the nominative functioning as a vocative [? - see other bold paragraph above], but to use this as an absolute proof would put one on uncertain ground. [Bracketed material and emphasis added]
.....................................................
[1] See below on our discussion of the matter of apposition
[2] Bullinger, E.W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. Explained and Illustrated, 267, states: “Polyptoton means with many cases, i.e., a repetition of the same noun in several cases.”
[3] Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek, Illustrated by Examples, English Edition Adapted from the Fourth Latin Edition by Joseph Smith, 120 explains: “the nominative with the article is always used in appositions added to a vocative.”
[4] Aland, Kurt and Barbara. The Text of the New Testament, An Introduction into the Critical Editions and into the Theory and Modern Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. 105.
[5] Thompson, Steven. The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax, 10.
[6] Hoskier, Herman C. Concerning the Test of the Apocalypse, Collations of All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen’s Third Edition, Together With the Testimony of Versions, Commentaries and Fathers, A Complete Conspectus of All Authorities, p 139.
- http://www.scripturaltruths.com/jesus/j2028/excursus.html
...................................................................
Examples of vocative with vocative appositive
Matt. 11:25; Lu. 10:21; Rev. 15:3; 16:7; 22:20
Examples of vocative with nominative appositive:
Matt. 15:22; 20:30; 20:31; Rev. 11:17
Since all modern texts (including the Majority/Byzantine text) do not use kurie at Rev. 4:11. I believe the understanding of ho kurios kai ho theos is that of an appositive, not nouns of address. Even if Sinaiticus is correct here, we still have all uses of “Lord” used in address as kurie. See the MYGOD study.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)