John 10:30 – Jesus is The Son of God

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rachel (8thdaypriest),

44 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

0430 is NOT translated as "judge" but the Strong's gives "judges" or "rulers" as possible meanings of "elohim".

I disagree, H0430 Elohim is translated as judges in the KJV, NKJV, NIV translations of Exodus 21:6, 22:8-9 as stated in my previous post.

 

I am very conscious of the many verses that are used to support the pre-existence of Christ, mainly by Trinitarians, though I am not sure that you accept the Trinity. I believe that Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation. I am trying to discuss John 10:30-36 and avoiding a wide range discussion on the Trinity and similar.

 

I believe though that God the Father is the Creator and he used the angels also in this work Genesis 1:26-27, Psalm 8. I have briefly introduced this mainly in conjunction with an exposition of the word Elohim in John 10:30-36, Psalm 82, Exodus 21, 22. I am not sure if you accept these concepts concerning Elohim applying to the judges or angels in these important passages, or have considered this before.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I am confused by the following statement of Trevor L that I  quote below:

Where did you get the  idea that the Hebrew word transliterated Elohim appears in the English 
Bible in John 10:33, 35 & 36?  The actual word is the Greek word transliterated Theos.  This Greek word has then been translated in the English as God.

 

Quote

I have briefly introduced this mainly in conjunction with an exposition of the word Elohim in John 10:30-36, Psalm 82, Exodus 21, 22.

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Greg,

49 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I am confused by the following statement of Trevor L that I  quote below:

Where did you get the  idea that the Hebrew word transliterated Elohim appears in the English 
Bible in John 10:33, 35 & 36?  The actual word is the Greek word transliterated Theos.  This Greek word has then been translated in the English as God.

 

I was not precise in what I stated. I was referring to Jesus’ citation of Psalm 82:6. Yes, John’s record is in Greek, but I suggest that Jesus was speaking to Jews who understood this Scripture. Jesus then suggests why those addressed in Psalm 82 were called “gods” (KJV).

John 10:34-35 (KJV): ³⁴ Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? ³⁵ If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;.

As a (retired !!) Chaplain what is your understanding of John 10:30-36? Does SDA literature have a clear explanation of this passage apart from what I mentioned in the SDA 27 Fundamentals? For my part I am the Librarian at my meeting, but I have a larger personal collection. I have only a few SDA books. Possibly there is a large amount online. 

 

Kind regards

Trevor

 

[JoeMo]

Another verse supporting the pre-existence of Christ:

"And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Cor. 10:4)  By the way, Neither Rachel nor are Trinitarians.

[Gregory Matthews]

TrevorL asked me if SDA literature had an e explanation of the John 10:30-36 passage.  I can not quote every comment in SDA  literature,  which does contain comments on that passage.  However, I will quote from  5SDABC, John 10:34.  NOTE:  This is a partial comment on that verse.

 

Quote

Ye are gods.  The quotation is from Ps. 82:6.  The Psalm is an arraignment of unjust judges, spoken of as ”gods”  (see Introduction to Ps. 82, and on vs. 1, 6).  Rabbinical tradition applied the term “gods” to those who received the law:  “The Israelites accepted the Torah only so that the Angel of Death should have no dominion over them  [Ps. 82:6, 7]”  (Talmud ‘Aabodah Zarah 5a.  Soncino ed., p. 21).  Jesus seems to make His reply in terms of this tradition (see on John 1:35).  However, He was “God” in an altogether different sense from that of Ps. 82:6.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

TrevorL asked a question about SDA publications.  The following URL  will take you to the Theological Studies section of Andrews University Press.

https://www.andrews.edu/universitypress/catalog.php?category=3

Notice that on the left side, there are links that take you to other sections of materials published by them.

Yes, some of the works are for scholars and others publications are for informed lay people.

In the Theology section, I mention the four (4) volume set of Theology.  I have the first three, but I have not gotten very fare in reading through even the first volume.    

Anyway, this is a place where you can find SDA publications that many members may not be aware of.

 

[8thdaypriest]

20 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings again Rachel (8thdaypriest),

I disagree, H0430 Elohim is translated as judges in the KJV, NKJV, NIV translations of Exodus 21:6, 22:8-9 as stated in my previous post.

 

I am very conscious of the many verses that are used to support the pre-existence of Christ, mainly by Trinitarians, though I am not sure that you accept the Trinity. I believe that Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation. I am trying to discuss John 10:30-36 and avoiding a wide range discussion on the Trinity and similar.

 

I believe though that God the Father is the Creator and he used the angels also in this work Genesis 1:26-27, Psalm 8. I have briefly introduced this mainly in conjunction with an exposition of the word Elohim in John 10:30-36, Psalm 82, Exodus 21, 22. I am not sure if you accept these concepts concerning Elohim applying to the judges or angels in these important passages, or have considered this before.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

 

Trevor,  I wasn't sure exactly what you were getting at.  Thanks for giving further explanation. 

And yes, JoeMo are I are NOT Trinitarians.  We believe that God the Father literally beget His Son, before anything was created.  So we are "on the same page" with the Son being literally "begotten".  We are just on in agreement as to the timing. 

Once the Son was begotten, God (the Father) then did everything else "through" His Son.  The Son was the agent of His Father, in creation, in mediation, and in atonement/reconciliation. 

To believe as you do, that Jesus had no prior/heavenly existence, I would have to nullify or ignore many verses in the Apostolic Writings. 

Do you believe the Apostolic Writings were inspired?  and were true?  How much of the Apostolic writings (also known as the New Testament) do you believe were changed or added to somehow? 

YOU may be "very conscious" of those passages which support the pre-existence of Christ, but not everyone is.  When I post here, I am not just writing for you. 

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JoeMo, Greg and Rachel,

13 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Another verse supporting the pre-existence of Christ:

"And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Cor. 10:4)  By the way, Neither Rachel nor are Trinitarians.

When I read your Post this morning, I asked Joyce what did she understand by “that Rock was Christ”. She first mentioned the last few verses of Matthew 7, and then spoke of the living water encounter with the woman of Samaria John 4. When I suggested that you took this as literal, and that this proved that Jesus pre-existed she was extremely surprised. In a similar way to myself, she was brought up in an environment that taught that there is one God and that Jesus is the Son of God, born of the Holy Spirit and Mary. While I have had contact with other views, she has had little contact.

 

I believe that all the things depicted in the wilderness wanderings, and especially the Tabernacle point forward to Christ. Jesus is the Altar of Burnt Offering, the sacrifices, the laver, the door, the veil, the Lampstand, the Table of Shewbread, the Ark of the Covenant, the Cherubim, the Mercy Seat and the Rock that supplied water in the wilderness. He is the Passover Lamb, Aaron's rod that budded and the Hidden Manna.

 

12 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The following URL  will take you to the Theological Studies section of Andrews University Press.

 I appreciate the information, but I was a bit disappointed with some aspects of the explanation concerning "ye are gods".

 

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Do you believe the Apostolic Writings were inspired?  and were true?  How much of the Apostolic writings (also known as the New Testament) do you believe were changed or added to somehow? 

Yes, I believe in the full inspiration and truth of both the OT and NT scriptures. I do not think 1 John 5:7 (KJV) is part of the original text, but other than that I am happier with the KJV text more than translations that omit some portions or cast doubt on their validity. I like the RV OT as it helped to correct some of the KJV errors, and provide a better translation in some portions. But we must be careful to compare all translations and word meanings in their context, and maybe a few additional reference works than Strong's could be helpful. Humility, prayer and meditation on the word is an appropriate approach, as well as the company of those who love the word and discuss it with warmth and enthusiasm and respect. 

 

Kind regards

Trevor

 

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings The Wanderer,

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

But for 1 John 5:7, it is not a mistake, it is a beginning of an opportunity; unless God says so somewhere in the Bible.

There is possibly a divided opinion of whether 1 John 5:7 (KJV) is genuine or not. I have decided to be on the side of those who consider this, and only this verse to be incorrect. Many Trinitarians agree that it is spurious. Barnes Notes is my most comprehensive reference that I have checked so far, but there would be much more comprehensive literature or discussion on this subject. I will allow you to find your own references and draw your own conclusion. I believe in the inspiration of the originals, not the inspiration of every translation. We need to use our discretion as to what we accept. I am a bit reticent to agree or comment on the rest of your post, but I appreciate your participation.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

 

[Gregory Matthews]

TrevorL  said in my quote below:

1)  Yes. there is divided opinion as to whether or not portions of I John 5: 7 & 8 are genuine.  I   consider it not to be genuine.  Regardless of the position that one personally takes, due to the fact that there is substantial belief that it is not genuine, one should never use it in an attempt to prove the Trinity.  To do so simply presents one a ignorant and results in ones ideas being  dismissed.

2)  Whatever one may believe about the  method of inspiration, the original documents (autographs) should be considered to be inspired and not the translations. 

There is possibly a divided opinion of whether 1 John 5:7 (KJV) is genuine or not. * * *  I believe in the inspiration of the originals, not the inspiration of every translation.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The Wanderer said in my quote below:

No informed person ever states that we have the originals (autographs)  available.

Without the autographs, no person can claim that the MSS have translation mistakes.

It can be shown that there are mistakes in the MSS copies that are available to us.  However, the vast majority of these mistakes are minor and of no doctrinal consequence.  These mistakes are mistakes of transcription, not translation.  Yes, the issue of the passage in I John is not a minor issue.  But, it is a rare exception.

 

There are "translation mistakes" in every version, including the alleged "originals." They are no better. Inspired text is text that is in agremment with other text, and not in disagreement with any other.

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer,

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

The passage in 1 John is a minor issue as well and does not in any way contracontradict any other doctrine or Bible text.  Erasamus did not write that in there on a whim.

But did God guide most of the modern translators to drop 1 John 5:7-8 from their translations and “source” Greek text? Some translations add a marginal note to indicate the omission, but a few do not even give a hint at Erasmus’ inclusion in his Greek text. Could I ask you if you use 1 John 5:7-8 to support the teaching held by some, called the Trinity, or another possibility, are you “KJV only”. I encountered another Canadian that was a Moderator on a forum who insisted on the veracity of 1 John 5:7-8, and he reasserted his belief on the last post and then locked the thread, saying the thread had run its course.

 

One project that I would like to complete is to list and compare the differences between the Masoretic text of Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls version(s) of Isaiah. One of my brethren in Canada has given a good talk on this together with slides, but I need to list each variant and decide for myself whether any verse has a slight difference in meaning as a result. My brother assured us in his talk that most of the differences were minor and not doctrinal. I have the disadvantage that my Hebrew skills are poor.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

 

[JoeMo]

52 minutes ago, TrevorL said:

But did God guide most of the modern translators to drop 1 John 5:7-8 from their translations and “source” Greek text? Some translations add a marginal note to indicate the omission, but a few do not even give a hint at Erasmus’ inclusion in his Greek text.

From my research, most translations come up with something like "There are 3 witnesses (or 3 who testify); the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the 3 agree as one."

The footnote in the NIV reads "1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. ⁸ And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)."  The KJV makes no mention of this discrepancy.  IMHO the NIV is more accurate here than is the KJV.  None of the English translations I read constitute a "proof" of 3 Persons in 1 God or the "Trinity".

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer, 

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Im sorry you had that conundrum with some other "canadian moderator."  Whoever he is he does not sound sincere or fair...but I can tell you I dont think this text in 1 John is needed to show the Trinity doctrine from the Bible. That is not my concern here. But I have to save further explanation till I have more time. ?

The moderator was very tolerant of my non-Trinitarian views for a long time on that particular thread, but he was very persistent in using 1 John 5:7 as one of main supports for the Trinity despite objections even by some of his fellow Trinitarians. Yes, I would like to add a few more comments on John 10:30-36, but have not prepared them as yet.

 

I am not sure if I will participate in your new thread, but one comment you may like to consider is: How do you view the KJV translation of Exodus 3:14 by comparison to Tyndale’s translation? Were the KJV committee, comprising mainly of CofE Trinitarians biased?

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 9:53 AM, TrevorL said:

Most translations and commentators accept the present tense “I am that I am”, but notice in the margin of the RV (or ASV) and RSV, an alternative is given “I will be that I will be” or “I will be what I will be”, showing that some modern scholars suggest this alternative reading. Although not popular I accept that this future tense is the correct translation. Not only modern scholars, Tyndale also translated this in the future tense.
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[Samie]

47 minutes ago, TrevorL said:

Most translations and commentators accept the present tense “I am that I am”, but notice in the margin of the RV (or ASV) and RSV, an alternative is given “I will be that I will be” or “I will be what I will be”, showing that some modern scholars suggest this alternative reading. Although not popular I accept that this future tense is the correct translation.

I suggest that we consult the Hebrew scholars themselves who translated to Greek their own Hebrew Scriptures:

hy<+h.a,( rv<åa] hy<ßh.a,( hv,êmo-la, ‘~yhil{a/ rm,aYOÝw:  ^WTT Exodus 3:14

`~k,(ylea] ynIx:ïl'v. hy<ßh.a,( laeêr"f.yI ynEåb.li ‘rm;ato hKoÜ rm,aYO©w:

Exodus 3:14 kai. ei=pen o` qeo.j pro.j Mwush/n evgw, eivmi o` w;n kai. ei=pen ou[twj evrei/j toi/j ui`oi/j Israhl o` w'n avpe,stalke,n me pro.j u`ma/j

evgw, pronoun personal nominative singular from evgw,

eivmi verb indicative present active 1st person singular from eivmi,

w;n verb participle present active nominative masculine singular from eivmi,

For me, the Hebrew scholars who translated their own Hebrew Scriptures to the Septuagint or Greek Scriptures should know better than anybody else.  It appears they understood hy<+h.a,( rv<åa] hy<ßh.a  as referring to the present tense, NOT future tense.

 

[8thdaypriest]

This verse was in my daily devotional this morning.

1 Peter 1:10-11 "Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow."

If "the Spirit of Christ" was IN the OT prophets, then how could He not have EXISTED?

Concerning rulers as "gods". 

I remember that God "sets up kings".  So "rulers" are an extension of God's rule, and those rulers will one day have to answer for their rule - to God who is over them. 

Hebrews 13:17 "Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you." (NIV)

Concerning passages of the NT which may have been "changed".

It is my understanding that a copy of the Book of Matthew exists, in the Aramaic, which is OLDER than any other.  It is pre-Constantine.  In that Aramaic copy, the baptismal formula reads "baptizing them in my name" - rather than "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".  I had always wondered why the disciples went forth baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ, rather than in all three names (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5, Romans 6:3, Gal. 3:27, 1Cor. 6:11). 

I think it worth noting that the Emperor Constantine commissioned and paid for a copying and compilation of the Scriptures now known as the “New Testament”.  The resulting Greek text is known as the “Byzantine”. 

[8thdaypriest]

On my website, there is a series of studies on the nature of God, disputing the doctrine of a Trinity.  My website is prophecyviewpoint.com.

On the home page scroll down to the button "The Nature of God"  That will open up the other studies.  The studies are strictly Bible - no EGW quotations.

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel has mentioned what she believes may be an Aramaic copy of the NT book of Matthew that is older than the Greek MSS that we have.  She did not say enough of evaluate her statement.  However:

1) There are people who believe that all four of the Gospels were first written in Aramaic and  translated later into Greek  It is of interest that the Roman Catholic Church has a position that  would agree with this.

2)  There is an Aramaic MSS that is commonly called the Peshitta.  This was popularized by a man named Lamsa.  He attempted to translate into English the NT from the Peshitta.  NOTE:  There is a variant spelling for the Peshitta.

3)  Lamsa's work is not  generally accepted by scholars in the field.

For more on this there is much on the Internet.  One example is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament

 

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Samie,

5 hours ago, Samie said:

For me, the Hebrew scholars who translated their own Hebrew Scriptures to the Septuagint or Greek Scriptures should know better than anybody else.

My conclusions concerning the future tense “I will be” is based on the context Exodus 3:12, 6:1-8, on Tyndale’s translation, the notes in the RV and RSV margins, and many others who accept this reading. On this basis I reject the LXX as inadequate in this instance. The LXX is not a perfect translation. Some portions of the LXX are considered poor quality and therefore must be carefully weighed and compared with other evidence.

 

I would like to make a few additional comments on the last portion of John 10:30-36:

John 10:34-36 (KJV): ³⁴ Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? ³⁵ If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; ³⁶ Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jesus compares the status of the Judges and their title that they were given because of their status and responsibility, with his own position and title. The Judges had received the word of God, “unto whom the word of God came” and had been given the title “gods’ or Hebrew “Elohim”, while the Father had sanctified Jesus and sent him into the world, and he had been given the title or status of the Son of God. Both had a God given role, and both had a title.

 

At first sight, the title “Elohim” could be considered greater than “son of God”. Even the verse which Jesus quotes has almost these titles in parallel:

Psalm 82:6 (KJV)I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

But the title “the Son of God” is greater than the title “Elohim” when applied to the Judges, because the title given Jesus represents his birth, his moral character and his resurrection and exaltation to the right hand of God the Father. There is one God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

 

[Samie]

44 minutes ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings Samie,

My conclusions concerning the future tense “I will be” is based on the context Exodus 3:12, 6:1-8, on Tyndale’s translation, the notes in the RV and RSV margins, and many others who accept this reading. On this basis I reject the LXX as inadequate in this instance. The LXX is not a perfect translation. Some portions of the LXX are considered poor quality and therefore must be carefully weighed and compared with other evidence.

I don't think the martyr of AD 15th century Tyndale, an Englishman, understood Hebrew better than the 72 Hebrew scholars of 3rd century BCE.  But I respect your choice, brother.

By the way, what do you think would be the implications if the 72 scholars' rendition of Exo 3:14 is to be believed?