I didn't change the meaning of any of the verses I quoted from Hebrews chapter 1 or in Hebrews chapter 2. Not really.
"Not really", huh? Convincing response.
As I laid out in a previous post, the verse without your commentary excludes ANY angel; the verse with your commentary INCLUDES an angel.
You offered up some examples (NBA, Kentucky Derby), but in each case you've significantly altered the structure of the sentence, omitting a significant element that appears in the NWT (which appears to be your bible of choice):
nwt: "to which one of the angels did he ever say"
eggnog: "to which of the horses will the purse be given"?
and: "to which NBA team will the championship trophy be awarded"
The verse in Hebrews doesn't say "to which of the angels WILL GOD SAY.....". This is a completely different sentence.
The verse in Hebrews says "to which of the angels DID GOD *EVER* SAY....."
A proper comparable (to the sentence in the nwt) would be something like: "To which of the athletes did Dr. Smith EVER administer steroids?"
Note the difference between this sentence and one that omits the word "EVER": "To which of the athletes did Dr. Smith administer steroids?"
Do you see the difference?
To which of the athletes did Dr. Smith administer steroids?
To which of the athletes did Dr. Smith EVER administer steroids?
The second sentence includes a negative assertion and it is this negative assertion that tells us the question is a RHETORICAL QUESTION. This is why many Bible translations render the sentence as an equivalent assertive statement, ie: "God never said to any angel...."
You go on to harp on the significance of the word "one" in Hebrews 1:5 and 13:
Looking at , the words "which one of the angels" mean that only one angel is being singled out from all of the other angels. If the verse had said "which two ... angels," then this would indicate that two angels are being distinguished from among the rest of the angels.
Presumably you are unaware that the NWT has inserted the word "one" into the verse. Grab your Kingdom Interlinear or just compare with any unbiased translation. This being the case, there is no reason to discuss the word.
Does it not give you pause that you must RE-WORD the sentence, or insert (or ignore) words in order to have it line up with your theology? It really should. So far I've seen you insert the word "other"; I've seen you ignore the word "ever"; I've seen you build a case around the word "one", which is an insertion by the nwt....
Not to mention your entire argument is based on the faulty premise that these are NOT rhetorical questions when every Greek scholar on the planet would tell you they are.....
You accused me in this last post of yours of being dishonest, you have impugned my motives in adding the word "other" in my explanation of Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13,
No. I didn't. You inferred that. And it's not important, so let's not get sidetracked.
The explanations I have provided here do not 'reek' of anything having a foul-smelling odor
I said nothing about foul-smelling. Once again, you inferred. Once again, it's not important. Why are you bringing it up?
Why wouldn't an angel be appointed by God to sit at His right hand?
Erm, because Hebrews 1:13,14 says: "God never said to any of the angels, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you!" Angels are merely spirits sent to serve people who are going to be saved."
Repetition for emphasis:
"God never said to any of the angels, 'sit at my right hand...'. Angels are merely spirits sent to serve..."
John 1:1 means, that Jesus existed at the beginning of Jehovah's creative works
If this is true, then when Deut 32 was penned, Jesus existed, was "a god" (according to you) and was "with God". In which case you have a problem, given that Jah said THERE ARE NO GODS TOGETHER WITH HIM.
Now that's unfortunate, @peacedog. Do the agreed-upon terms of this discussion/debate no longer matter to you? Do you feel you're losing ground and feel a change of strategy is now in order
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Given that you're a JW, and someone who has no qualms about inserting or ignoring words in the text, I'm making about as much headway as I expected to...
TRINITY Challenge using ONLY the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures -- Let us debate and reason on the Scriptures about whether God Almighty is a Trinity, or is only One Person.
I see. My bad. I missed this, and certainly never agreed to it. Have fun with that.
You next go on a rant about the CEV. I believe I've answered your concerns already. The text at Hebrews 1:5 and 1:13 are rhetorical questions and as such may be properly rendered as an assertive statement. I'm sorry you seem to have difficulty in comprehending a rhetorical question or at least the significance of a rhetorical question. No one else seems to be having this difficulty. All I can suggest is that you do some research on rhetorical questions and negative assertions..
Secondly, the CEV is hardly the only bible translation to render the rhetorical questions as assertive statements:
5For God never said to any angel what he said to Jesus: “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father.” God also said, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.”
13And God never said to any of the angels, “Sit in the place of honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies, making them a footstool under your feet.”
5This is because God never said to any of the angels, "You are my Son. Today I have become your Father." Nor did God say of any angel, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son."
13And God never said this to an angel: "Sit by me at my right side until I put your enemies under your control."
5God never said to any of his angels, “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father.” And God never said to any of his angels, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.”
13But God never said to any of the angels, “Sit in the highest position in heaven until I make your enemies your footstool.”
5 God never said to any of the angels, "You are my Son. Today I have become your Father." Or, "I will be his Father. And he will be my Son."
13 God never said to an angel, "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your control."
You might also consider the Worldwide English rendering:
5Did God ever say to any of the angels, `You are my Son, and I am your Father today'? Did God ever say to an angel, `I will be your Father and you will be my Son'?
13But did God ever say to any of the angels, `Sit down beside me until I put your enemies under you'?
...and The Message:
Did God ever say to an angel, "You're my Son; today I celebrate you" or "I'm his Father, he's my Son"? When he presents his honored Son to the world, he says, "All angels must worship him."
I suppose all of these translations are biased too, huh? (But the NWT isn't when it inserts words into Colossians that simply don't exist in the greek text... lol)
You quoted the KJV (and ASV):
5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
13But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Tell me. How do you interpret the wording "at any time"? What do these words mean to you?
"To which of the angels has he said AT ANY TIME..."
Do the think the translators of the CEV feel they have a duty to include their own theological understanding of what they believe the apostle Paul to be saying at Hebrews 1:13 in order to help the reader to comprehend the meaning of Paul's words?
Do you believe the translators of the NWT feel they have a duty to include their own theological understanding of what they believe the apostle Paul to be saying at Colossians 1:16 in order to help the reader to comprehend the meaning of Paul's words?
I ask the above in order to demonstrate your own prejudice. When (you think) the CEV does 'X', it's WRONG. When the WTS does 'X', it's RIGHT. So sad...
I believe I already answered you concerns about the CEV translators. Many bible translations render Heb 1:5 and 1:13 as assertive statements because the verses are rhetorical (negative assertion) sentences. It's not about bias. Do some research.
As the apostle John explains at John 2:21, Jesus wasn't referring to his own physical body,
Jesus spoke of a "temple" that would be "destroyed" and that he would "raise" in three days. John said that the "temple" Jesus was referring to was the temple "of his body".
So I guess when his body was destroyed and then raised three days later, it was just a coincidence, huh? Had nothing to do with what Jesus and John were talking about... lol.
Note how the apostle Paul's own words at 1 Corinthians 6:19 makes this point clear: "Do you not know that the body of you people is [the] temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God?"
And just how is this point made clear? At John 2:21 Jesus spoke of "the temple of his body". 1 Cor 6:19 speaks of "the temple of the holy spirit within you". Apples and oranges...
Also, Paul makes the very same point at 1 Corinthians 3:16: "Do you not know that you people are God’s temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in you?"
How is this relevant? At John 2:21 Jesus spoke of "the temple of his body". 1 Cor 3:16 speaks of "God's temple". Apples and oranges...
Again I'm reminded of debator's words about ignoring the obviousness of scripture...
1. Temple will be destroyed, 2. in three days I'll raise it, 3. he's talking about the temple of his body.
Pretty obvious, given that his body was destroyed, and three days later, raised.