Comments on: The HCSB 2nd Edition and the Tetragrammaton http://maybetoday.org/2009/01/the-hcsb-2nd-edition-and-the-tetragrammaton/ Every matter has its time and measure. (Ecc 8:6) Thu, 05 Aug 2010 01:21:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Gavin G. Young http://maybetoday.org/2009/01/the-hcsb-2nd-edition-and-the-tetragrammaton/comment-page-1/#comment-648 Gavin G. Young Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:15:33 +0000 http://maybetoday.org/?p=567#comment-648 Hello John W Gillis. I meant unity in a unitarian Christian sense, namely that God is one person (the Father) and not a binity of two persons (Yahweh Elohim the Father and Jesus Christ the Son), nor a trinity of three persons (Yahweh Elohim the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit). To me when Jesus Christ said "I and the Father are one" he meant a unity of purpose, rather than claiming he was part of the Godhead of three persons. There are a number of Christian denominations (though non-traditional ones) with this unitarian Christian view of God instead of the binitarian and trinitarian views. I belong to one those non-binitarian/non-trinitarian Christian denominations. Regarding your definition of the word unity being not the same as singularity, my dictionary agrees with you, except that my dictionary also defines unity as "Mathematical: The smallest whole numerical unit: 1." and that is same as my use of the word, just as the prefix "uni" means one (as in the word "unicyle"), whereas the prefix "bi" means two (as in "bicycle"), and whereas the prefix 'tri" means three as in "tricycle"). Hello John J Volk. I agree with your comments about "A Bible is no place to start a Theological Argument." The only reason why I posted my theological views here is counteract the trinitarian theological views posted here by Steve and then by John W Gillis. Hello John W Gillis. I meant unity in a unitarian Christian sense, namely that God is one person (the Father) and not a binity of two persons (Yahweh Elohim the Father and Jesus Christ the Son), nor a trinity of three persons (Yahweh Elohim the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit). To me when Jesus Christ said “I and the Father are one” he meant a unity of purpose, rather than claiming he was part of the Godhead of three persons. There are a number of Christian denominations (though non-traditional ones) with this unitarian Christian view of God instead of the binitarian and trinitarian views. I belong to one those non-binitarian/non-trinitarian Christian denominations. Regarding your definition of the word unity being not the same as singularity, my dictionary agrees with you, except that my dictionary also defines unity as “Mathematical: The smallest whole numerical unit: 1.” and that is same as my use of the word, just as the prefix “uni” means one (as in the word “unicyle”), whereas the prefix “bi” means two (as in “bicycle”), and whereas the prefix ‘tri” means three as in “tricycle”).

Hello John J Volk. I agree with your comments about “A Bible is no place to start a Theological Argument.” The only reason why I posted my theological views here is counteract the trinitarian theological views posted here by Steve and then by John W Gillis.

]]> By: John J Volk http://maybetoday.org/2009/01/the-hcsb-2nd-edition-and-the-tetragrammaton/comment-page-1/#comment-580 John J Volk Sat, 03 Oct 2009 04:39:10 +0000 http://maybetoday.org/?p=567#comment-580 A Bible is no place to start a Theological Argument. The Bible needs to be protected against interpretations while translating the texts. A translation should be just that - taking the words/phrases/syntax and structure from one language and translating it into another language without regard to the current school of thought about what the passage says or does not say theologically. A Bible should not be a book of Theology, but just a faithful and true translation. The translators may have their own perceptions on the meaning of verses, but ultimately only the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of God's Holy Word, not man. Yet the HCSV Bible seems to inject the theology or the finding of men into the text. Like the NKJV substituting Gehenna for Hell. Gehenna is no clearer than Hell. Unless one studies the background of Hell or Gehenna in the New Testament one does not know about the accursed ground where human sacrifices were performed before Israel moved back into their land. But that is a topic for Bible Study, not for Translation. When translating Plato or Homer there is no compelling need to update the text to agree with modern Archeology or Geography. Just translate the text and leave the rest to further study for Pete's Sake! A Bible is no place to start a Theological Argument. The Bible needs to be protected against interpretations while translating the texts. A translation should be just that – taking the words/phrases/syntax and structure from one language and translating it into another language without regard to the current school of thought about what the passage says or does not say theologically. A Bible should not be a book of Theology, but just a faithful and true translation. The translators may have their own perceptions on the meaning of verses, but ultimately only the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of God’s Holy Word, not man. Yet the HCSV Bible seems to inject the theology or the finding of men into the text. Like the NKJV substituting Gehenna for Hell. Gehenna is no clearer than Hell. Unless one studies the background of Hell or Gehenna in the New Testament one does not know about the accursed ground where human sacrifices were performed before Israel moved back into their land. But that is a topic for Bible Study, not for Translation. When translating Plato or Homer there is no compelling need to update the text to agree with modern Archeology or Geography. Just translate the text and leave the rest to further study for Pete’s Sake!

]]> By: John W Gillis http://maybetoday.org/2009/01/the-hcsb-2nd-edition-and-the-tetragrammaton/comment-page-1/#comment-541 John W Gillis Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:26:19 +0000 http://maybetoday.org/?p=567#comment-541 Hello, Gavin. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I find if confusing that you say "God is a unity instead of a trinity," because a trinity is a unity: a tri-unity. Perhaps you are confusing unity with singularity, but it would be preposterous for a Christian to say that God is a singularity, because when Jesus Christ says "I and the Father are one." (Jn 10:30), he is speaking of his essential unity with the Father - likewise when he prays for the unity of the Church to be modeled after the unity of Father and Son in Jn 17:11, 17:21, 17:22. A man and a woman become a unity in marriage, but it is illogical to speak of a man being a unity of himself. Unity, or union, requires agreement, coming together, uniting. God is indeed a unity, and every Christian (that is, every Trinitarian) should be quick to proclaim it. Hello, Gavin. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I find if confusing that you say “God is a unity instead of a trinity,” because a trinity is a unity: a tri-unity.

Perhaps you are confusing unity with singularity, but it would be preposterous for a Christian to say that God is a singularity, because when Jesus Christ says “I and the Father are one.” (Jn 10:30), he is speaking of his essential unity with the Father – likewise when he prays for the unity of the Church to be modeled after the unity of Father and Son in Jn 17:11, 17:21, 17:22.

A man and a woman become a unity in marriage, but it is illogical to speak of a man being a unity of himself. Unity, or union, requires agreement, coming together, uniting. God is indeed a unity, and every Christian (that is, every Trinitarian) should be quick to proclaim it.

]]> By: Gavin G. Young http://maybetoday.org/2009/01/the-hcsb-2nd-edition-and-the-tetragrammaton/comment-page-1/#comment-540 Gavin G. Young Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:32:11 +0000 http://maybetoday.org/?p=567#comment-540 Hallelujah! Praise the name of Yahweh, the name of God the Father! I am very happy that the HCSB will greatly increase the use of God the Father's name in the Bible, though ideally I prefer that it appear everywhere the Tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew manuscripts. This Bible may help people to realize that while they should pray in the name of Yeshua (Jesus), there prayers should be addressed to Yahweh (Jehovah) the Father. This Bible might also help people to realize that God is a unity instead of a trinity or binity, though the translators of the HCSB appear to believe that God is a trinity. It may also help Christians to better understand Revelation 14:1, Revelation 13:17,18 and Revelation 3:12 which show that God's true people will the name of God the Father and the name of the Son of God (which are thus two separate names) on their foreheads instead of the mark/number/name of the wild beast. Hallelujah! Praise the name of Yahweh, the name of God the Father! I am very happy that the HCSB will greatly increase the use of God the Father’s name in the Bible, though ideally I prefer that it appear everywhere the Tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew manuscripts. This Bible may help people to realize that while they should pray in the name of Yeshua (Jesus), there prayers should be addressed to Yahweh (Jehovah) the Father. This Bible might also help people to realize that God is a unity instead of a trinity or binity, though the translators of the HCSB appear to believe that God is a trinity. It may also help Christians to better understand Revelation 14:1, Revelation 13:17,18 and Revelation 3:12 which show that God’s true people will the name of God the Father and the name of the Son of God (which are thus two separate names) on their foreheads instead of the mark/number/name of the wild beast.

]]> By: ElShaddai Edwards http://maybetoday.org/2009/01/the-hcsb-2nd-edition-and-the-tetragrammaton/comment-page-1/#comment-357 ElShaddai Edwards Sun, 04 Jan 2009 11:57:21 +0000 http://maybetoday.org/?p=567#comment-357 John - thanks for posting this. I really do appreciate it! John – thanks for posting this. I really do appreciate it!

]]> By: John W Gillis http://maybetoday.org/2009/01/the-hcsb-2nd-edition-and-the-tetragrammaton/comment-page-1/#comment-356 John W Gillis Sat, 03 Jan 2009 06:53:44 +0000 http://maybetoday.org/?p=567#comment-356 Interesting comment, Steve. I'm not sure I quite follow, though. Maybe in part because I just don't see Sabellianism as a significant factor in Christianity these days - at least among those who take theology seriously enough to have opinions. I understand that it's a major force in Pentecostalism - and maybe that's where you're coming from - but is it really a factor anywhere else? Besides, I don't see how you think the use of "Yahweh" in the text would help people distinguish between Persons in the Trinity. To say that the Yahweh who covenanted with Israel was the Triune God, while true, does not say anything distinguishing among Persons. You say that Jesus is not the OT Lord, but I heartily disagree - Jesus is the 2nd Person of the OT Lord (Jn 8:58, 18:6, etc.). Even his name seems to militate against your suggestion: the name of Jesus, the Savior, is basically "Yah(weh) saves" - I just don't get how transliterating the Tetragrammaton would be a safeguard against Sabellianism. Interesting comment, Steve. I’m not sure I quite follow, though. Maybe in part because I just don’t see Sabellianism as a significant factor in Christianity these days – at least among those who take theology seriously enough to have opinions. I understand that it’s a major force in Pentecostalism – and maybe that’s where you’re coming from – but is it really a factor anywhere else?

Besides, I don’t see how you think the use of “Yahweh” in the text would help people distinguish between Persons in the Trinity. To say that the Yahweh who covenanted with Israel was the Triune God, while true, does not say anything distinguishing among Persons. You say that Jesus is not the OT Lord, but I heartily disagree – Jesus is the 2nd Person of the OT Lord (Jn 8:58, 18:6, etc.). Even his name seems to militate against your suggestion: the name of Jesus, the Savior, is basically “Yah(weh) saves” – I just don’t get how transliterating the Tetragrammaton would be a safeguard against Sabellianism.

]]> By: Steve http://maybetoday.org/2009/01/the-hcsb-2nd-edition-and-the-tetragrammaton/comment-page-1/#comment-355 Steve Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:26:56 +0000 http://maybetoday.org/?p=567#comment-355 Metzger didn't like transliterating YHWH; F F Bruce was in favour. I'd love other current EVV, such as the TNIV, to follow suit. Natural language seems to expect a name in many places the EV reader gets a title - lord/master. The more EVV follow the hCSB, the more the general public will become familiar will less Sabellian christology, and see that Jesus the lord was not & is not the 'lord' of the OT - a categorical error. Yahweh was God, the triune, in covenant with a selected people, an intimacy level distinguishing two camps. One person, Jesus, is not the OT LORD. Highlighting 'Yahweh' can help us restore trinitarianism. Metzger didn’t like transliterating YHWH; F F Bruce was in favour. I’d love other current EVV, such as the TNIV, to follow suit. Natural language seems to expect a name in many places the EV reader gets a title – lord/master.

The more EVV follow the hCSB, the more the general public will become familiar will less Sabellian christology, and see that Jesus the lord was not & is not the ‘lord’ of the OT – a categorical error.

Yahweh was God, the triune, in covenant with a selected people, an intimacy level distinguishing two camps. One person, Jesus, is not the OT LORD. Highlighting ‘Yahweh’ can help us restore trinitarianism.

]]> By: HCSB: 2nd Edition text available http://maybetoday.org/2009/01/the-hcsb-2nd-edition-and-the-tetragrammaton/comment-page-1/#comment-354 HCSB: 2nd Edition text available Fri, 02 Jan 2009 01:48:57 +0000 http://maybetoday.org/?p=567#comment-354 [...] The HCSB 2nd Edition and the Tetragrammaton [...] [...] The HCSB 2nd Edition and the Tetragrammaton [...]

]]>