a look to Isaiah.

by mdb 29 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  moggy lover

  Crunbs,
• 

  moggy lover

  Crunbs,
• 

  moggy lover

  Crumbs, mdb, you sure opened a can of worms here.The problem we have in trying to make sense of Isa 44:6 is NOT what the text SAYS [since we all agree on the words] but HOW it is said [in other words how do we punctuate the words] Either way requires a degree of interpretive exegesis. In my way of thinking we have at least three related problems to sort out: 1 How many commas do we put in the text, without altering in any way the word structure, 2 Who does the "his" as in "his redeemer" refer to 3 What question are we trying to answer.

  Lets take the first item: Suppose I said "Thus says Yahweh the King of Israel and his redeemer, etc etc" then as you can see I am referring only to one Person, Yahweh.This is because there is no comma after Israel [This is especially true if I am using the Roman Catholic NAB Bible, which drops the possessive pronoun and reads "Thus says the LORD, Israel's King and redeemer'']

  But then, suppose I was to say: "Thus says Yahweh the King of Israel, And His redeemer etc etc" Then I am referring to two seperate Persons, each seperated by a comma. 1Yahweh the King of Israel 2 And His redeemer [This is especially true if I am using the Protestant Young Literal Translation which uses a capital "A" for and]

  All I can say is that most commentators feel that here only one Person is referred to

  2 Who does the "his" as in "his redeemer" refer to? The question is moot because there are two antecedents mentioned in the text: 1Yahweh............................. 2 Israel...his. If it refers to no 1 then two persons are referred to If it refers to no 2 only 1 person is referred to. In an ambiguity such as this the general rule of thumb is to go to the nearest antecedent, which in this case is "Israel" which would mean that the text only refers to one Person. [Oddly enough, although this "rule" does not seem to support the Deity of Christ here, the same "rule" does support the Deity of Christ at 1John 5:20]

  All I can say is that most commentators feel the "his" refers to Israel

  3 What question are trying to answer here? Is it: CAN Isa 44:6 refer to two seperate Persons? Then the answer is "yes", provided you put the commas in the right places, use a capital "A" in "and" and suggest that the "his" refers to the further antecedent

  But if the question is: DOES it refer to two seperate Persons, then the answer is, "I don't know" because the only guy who can say dogmatically one way or other is Isaiah himself and he ain't around

  Now come inside and have a cold bottle of beer - or you can have a cold bottle of Lucky's pee. I bottle especially for blokes who open a can of worms

  Cheers
• 

  Shazard

  One of the best pictures of Jesus AND Holy Spirit in OT is Isaiah 6:5-10 and compare it to John 12:39-41
• 

  greendawn

  The trinitarians always have to rely on verses that appear to indirectly prove the trinity at a time when there are many verses that directly and explicitly deny it.
  
  Isn't it strange that Jesus or the apostles never formulated such a doctrine though it is of absolutely central importance? And why would the Bible use words that give the wrong impression like father and son and not even try to give a hint that they are not literally meant?
  
  In the early christian church of Smyrna someone was expelled for teaching that Jesus was Yahveh. As for Paul his writings are clearly anti trinitarian to him Yahveh was "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"
• 

  Shazard

  >father and son and not even try to give a hint that they are not literally meant
  
  Well actually gives! You just do not believe in such claims as "Who hates me hates my father" "who believes in me do not believes in me but in my father" "I and father we are one", "honor son as you honor father", "who has son has father", "father is in me and I am in father" etc. Noone can say this about his father. And antitrinitrians just plainly do not understand what YHWH means thus do not understand what even word "God" means. For them "YHWH" and "God" is like "John Smith" :) Also antitrinitrians can't understand simple hebrew idiom "Son of Men" and "Son of God" relationship. "Son of something" in hebrew means that this Son is of same nature of same "material" that this "something". Antitrinitrians has no problem to render "Son of men" to mean that Jesus is human, but at the same point they can't accept (coz just do not understand) "Son of God" similarity. And this similarity is told in John 5 and John 10, wheere it is very clearly shown that claim "Son of God" is equal to claim "Be Equal to God" :)
• 

  Narkissos

  Shazard,

  You just do not believe in such claims as "Who hates me hates my father" "who believes in me do not believes in me but in my father" "I and father we are one", "honor son as you honor father", "who has son has father", "father is in me and I am in father" etc. Noone can say this about his father.

  What you obviously overlook is that most of these expressions, especially in GJohn, are equally applied to the believers. This fact the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine (at least in its Western form which avoids the doctrine of "divinisation" of believers) doesn't make sense of, and this is exactly the flaw which unitarians use to reduce the unity of Father and Son to a moral register (unity of purpose, intent, etc.). In this I think they are wrong too. But the only other way is to acknowledge the proto-Gnostic view of deity as embracing not only the Father and Son, but the elect too.

  Also antitrinitrians can't understand simple hebrew idiom "Son of Men" and "Son of God" relationship. "Son of something" in hebrew means that this Son is of same nature of same "material" that this "something". Antitrinitrians has no problem to render "Son of men" to mean that Jesus is human, but at the same point they can't accept (coz just do not understand) "Son of God" similarity. And this similarity is told in John 5 and John 10, wheere it is very clearly shown that claim "Son of God" is equal to claim "Be Equal to God" :)

  On the polytheistic background of this notion, cf. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66342/1.ashx
• 

  mdb

  I suggested you look at the grammar of vs 24 and notice the similar construction. The "and" (vs 6 "and his redeemer" vs 24 "and your former") does not imply 2 persons but a second title.

  peacefulpete (and all who have commented or viewed this thread),

  Through prayer and study last night, the Lord showed me my error in regard to His word; specifically, Isaiah 44:6 and the use of which I used it. I became over zealous and with a proud heart spoke not by the Spirit, but by my own tongue. Of this I repent and hope that the posted topic does not lead any to interpret this verse the way that I did through my own eyes (not that the truth about Christ wasn't spoken, but the use of this passage in proving that doctrine was in error). It is evident that the word "his" in the phrase "and his Redeemer" is speaking of Israel, not the Lord. In other words, "the Lord, Israel's King and Redeemer says...". A crucial verse the Lord used in showing me what was meant by "and his Redeemer" was Isaiah 45:11. "...Holy One of Israel, and his Maker..." I trust that others will not use this passage and misunderstand it's meaning the way I did. In humility, I hope you take my apology and will not disregard other posts I have made on the basis of my error here. May God be lifted high and, in humility his servant brought low.
• 

  peacefulpete

  mdb your humility is refreshing. It might be good to realize however that it was a combination of scholarship and your own rational mind that enabled you see your error.
• 

  mdb

  Though I give the glory to God since only he can change the heart, I do realize that he spoke through individuals here to cause me to look further into the word. I do thank you for this.