04 Jan '10 04:18>
Originally posted by galveston75I am not interested in games. What do you think it means?
But can you comment on the Kingdom that this scripture is talking about?
Still waiting....
Originally posted by Conrau Krelax my man, all in good time! i think i posted this before, sorry to repeat myself
[b]citing a one dimensional point of view point, with a one dimensional English word from hand picked scriptures is hardly being objective is it? nor surprising, for both Epi, Jaywill and other trinitarians have tried the same tract and i tire of it.
I acknowledge the plurality of meanings (I find it quite ironic that in one post you deride semantics So why can't you provide evidence that Jesus and the apostles taught this doctrine?[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis hardly proves that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. It simply says that Jesus will descend with an Archangel's voice and with God's trumpet. It is telling what will accompany Jesus' return, not what Jesus is.
relax my man, all in good time! i think i posted this before, sorry to repeat myself
The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, “archangel” is never found in the plural. First Thessalonians 4:16, in speaking of the preeminence of the archangel and the authority ...[text shortened]... the title, Lord, associated with archangel, that being Michael. A name with great significance.
Originally posted by menace71peace to a thousand generations to you Manny, for as you are aware my son, the bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, therfore, citing an etymological reference for an English word while interesting but not entirely relevant me thinks, but i could be wrong!
o⋅bei⋅sance
  /oʊˈbeɪsəns, oʊˈbi-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [oh-bey-suhns, oh-bee-]
–noun
1. a movement of the body expressing deep respect or deferential courtesy, as before a superior; a bow, curtsy, or other similar gesture.
2. deference or homage: The nobles gave obeisance to the new king. ...[text shortened]... and character."[2]
They actually sound like both words have a similar meaning.
Manny
Originally posted by Conrau KYes, quite, however you asked for the Biblical reference and here it is, dada! Now why would the Lord have an archangels voice, and not be an archangel? Are you a man and yet have a lions voice? The point is, that an angel simply means a sent one, or a messenger or a spirit son of God, quite far removed from the ideas that are conjured in ones mind form the imagery that adorns Christendom, perhaps this is clouding or at least swaying your thoughts. Now you shall explain why Christ comes with an archangels voice if he is not an archangel. As for other references to Michael, you shall need to give me time Conrau, suffice to say that we hold that he is the glorified and resurrected Jesus Christ! Which you may of course not accept and probably wont, but dont you think its interesting anyway?
This hardly proves that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. It simply says that Jesus will descend with an Archangel's voice and with God's trumpet. It is telling what will accompany Jesus' return, not what Jesus is.
An important question is how is that rendered in the Sahidic manuscript? Is the indefinite article used with 'an archangel's voice'?
Originally posted by menace71if you took care to notice, we like to be different, that is all! actually we spend a long time in deliberation over the translations, and like a good recipe, we try very hard to bring out the different nuances of words and scripture while remaining faithful to the original text, so that it satisfies the spiritual palate with tasty words of wisdom, that is why the New world translation of the Holy scriptures is superior to any other. If you have ever tasted the NIV, you shall understand the taste of cardboard!
Well my reasoning was/is that the JW's seem to be fixed on the word Obeisance. Why is it that most all translations use the word worship? Except of course the New World translation. I bet the words are very closely linked. However peace to you also 🙂
Manny
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI agree the NIV is not the greatest translation. NASB is better. Well so the NWT is the only reliable translation? Does not sound right to me is all. Once again peace be back to you my friend 🙂
if you took care to notice, we like to be different, that is all! actually we spend a long time in deliberation over the translations, and like a good recipe, we try very hard to bring out the different nuances of words and scripture while remaining faithful to the original text, so that it satisfies the spiritual palate with tasty words of wisdom, ...[text shortened]... t for ten thousand generations) says, for i have had hardly time to get my bearings, let me see.
Originally posted by menace71(Hebrews 1:5-6) . . .For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”? And again: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son”? But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”
Well my reasoning was/is that the JW's seem to be fixed on the word Obeisance. Why is it that most all translations use the word worship? Except of course the New World translation. I bet the words are very closely linked. However peace to you also 🙂
Manny
Originally posted by menace71it is as far as i am ware , one of the few translations to restore Gods name to its original place, whence the practice had been, to substitute it with the Greek Adonia and Kyrios (lord) which led to much confusion and in some instances an outright ludicrous translation.
I agree the NIV is not the greatest translation. NASB is better. Well so the NWT is the only reliable translation? Does not sound right to me is all. Once again peace be back to you my friend 🙂
Manny