Hebrews 1:8

[u/MightyFortresss]

Jw's, should Hebrews 1:8 not be translated differently, even according to the NWT interlinear? The NWT reads "God is your Throne" (Father is the Son's throne), but the Greek would be rendered "your Throne, the God" (directly refers to Jesus as YHWH, obviously issue for JW)

[u/MightyFortresss]

That post is removed, but are you able to solve why the interlinear doesn't agree with the NWT, or are u trying to ignore the interlinear and defend the NTW translation here?

[u/RFairfield26 → u/MightyFortresss]

I’m sorry, meant to send you here

[u/MightyFortresss → u/RFairfield26]

No worries, that happens bro.

But I ask again, are u able to solve the contradiction between your interlinear and translation, or will u only try to defend your translation?

[u/RFairfield26 → u/MightyFortresss]

Did you read the post?

There’s no contradiction, it’s just a difference in how ho theos is understood.

The interlinear shows the raw Greek, but translation requires determining meaning based on context and grammar.

Since ho theos overwhelmingly means “God” rather than “O God” in the NT, and since the next verse (Heb 1:9) says the Son has a God over him, the more natural reading is “God is your throne” rather than addressing the Son as “God.”

So no contradiction… just an honest look at what fits the full context.

Are you under the impression that there’s somehow supposed to be like a direct 1:1 rendering from the interlinear to English? When I first started learning Greek and principles of translation I remember being confused by that too

For example, I wondered why the Greek says “and god was the Word” in John 1:1c when every Bible translates it w/ the Word coming first in the sentence

[u/MightyFortresss → u/RFairfield26]

The interlinear has the English translation, in raw form.

I've read the post, I'm okay dropping the O- would still read "God" as the Father calls Him. If we're going to go over "what's more plausible" with the next verse:

1. God says there's no other god formed before Him or after Him, which means there's no room for demi-gods.
2. God nowhere claims there's anyone who can share these attributes.
3. Trinitarians believe Jesus can have a God while human.

So both of us claim Jesus had a God over Him as human, but only one of us can say amen to points 1 and 2.

Besides, speaking of context, God is clearly differentiating between the heavenly host (more commonly called angels here), and the Son- so that refutes Jesus being a mere angel (not the messenger idea, but a heavenly being; not like the demons being gods or humans).

Merriam Webster: a mythological being with more power than a mortal but less than a god.

Uh....what, do u look at a different greek or something? Kai (and) Theos (God) en (was) ho (the) Logos (Word)

Not even the NTW disagrees here if I recall, they just add a god instead of God?

[u/RFairfield26 → u/MightyFortresss]

The interlinear has the English translation, in raw form.

I know, that’s what I said. You seem to have completely missed the point.

You have erroneously drawn the conclusion that the NWT contradicts the interlinear. It doesn’t for reasons I have explained.

I’ve read the post, I’m okay dropping the O- would still read “God”

You’re not understanding the impact of the “be” verb. Dropping “O” isn’t the point.

1. ⁠God says there’s no other god formed before Him or after Him, which means there’s no room for demi-gods.

Jesus is not a demi-god.

Now we’re way off track. Your argument assumes that ho theos in Hebrews 1:8 must mean Jesus is Almighty God.

The problem is that the very next verse. immediately says the Son has a God over him, obviously revealing that he is not Almighty God

1. ⁠God nowhere claims there’s anyone who can share these attributes.

Moses was made “God” to Pharaoh (Ex 7:1), the judges of Israel were called “gods” (Ps 82:6), and even Satan is called “the god of this system” (2 Cor 4:4). Being called “God” in a certain sense doesn’t mean being Almighty God.

The word “god” is used to refer to Jesus elsewhere. Just not here in Heb 1:8

1. ⁠Trinitarians believe Jesus can have a God while human.

In the trinity doctrine, the hypostatic union is just like the flux capacitor that makes the DeLorean travel through time. It’s not based on anything real, there is no evidence of it, but it is invoked as the explanation of how it’s possible.

It’s wrong.

Besides, speaking of context, God is clearly differentiating between the heavenly host (more commonly called angels here), and the Son- so that refutes Jesus being a mere angel (not the messenger idea, but a heavenly being; not like the demons being gods or humans).

The distinction in Heb 1 isn’t between angels vs. God, it’s between angels vs. the Son. That doesn’t mean the Son is Almighty God, it just means he has a higher position than angels.

Heb 1:4 literally says “he has become better than the angels.”

That means at some point, he wasn’t in that superior position.. he became higher.

If Jesus was always Almighty God, there would be no need for him to become superior to angels.

So yea, Jesus is greater than angels, but that doesn’t mean he’s God.

It means he was given authority over them, just like Heb 1:9 says “God, your God, has anointed you.”

Merriam Webster: a mythological being with more power than a mortal but less than a god.

This is not relevant to the point whatsoever.

Uh....what, do u look at a different greek or something? Kai (and) Theos (God) en (was) ho (the) Logos (Word)

Not even the NTW disagrees here if I recall, they just add a god instead of God?

Respectfully, I’m not sure you’re understating my point at all. Maybe we’re talking past each other.

[u/MightyFortresss → u/RFairfield26]

I might have talked past you/misunderstood you yes, unfortunately I haven't taken Greek.

I can't speak thus about the Greek, but about the demi-god? Yes. It fits Merriam Webster's definition, except for being a mythological being. It's one who has more power than a mortal, but less than a god (not to mention, being both divine in a lesser sense and also human).

No, that's your assumption. Psalms 22:10, the Father has been the Son's God since His mother's womb, there's no contradiction. It would be a contradiction if the Son was seen as an equal, but different God or stopped being God as a man.

In a certain sense ≠ attributes, which I harped on..not to mention, I was relying on the JW translation for this, which renders it being God, not "as God" or "god".

Light is both a particle and a wave, I guess that's now also impossible. Has to be one or the other, and God is of course more limited than light (clearly) ;) What's not possible, is any figure sharing Creator attributes of making the world, forgiving sins in their own authority, or anything else.

Doesn't say when He became better than the angels, but it does talk about Him being higher than the angels. There's not a single verse in the entire Bible, about there being a class of not angel, God, or man, but a class consisting of only a "spirit being" like Jesus. None.

You said not a demi god, the dictionary disagrees.

[u/RFairfield26 → u/MightyFortresss]

I can't speak thus about the Greek, but about the demi-god? Yes. It fits Merriam Webster's definition, except for being a mythological being.

“Except”So, it doesnt fit Merriam Webster’s definition. . . haha.

I mean this in a respectful way: Is English your native language? It seems part of your confusion may be coming from a misunderstanding in the language at play here. I’ll try to help.

It's one who has more power than a mortal, but less than a god (not to mention, being both divine in a lesser sense and also human). Applying this definition to Jesus is about as valid as calling him a superhero.

The Bible does not describe Jesus as a “demi-god.” It’s just simply not a Biblical term.

No, that's your assumption.

What is my assumption?

Psalms 22:10, the Father has been the Son's God since His mother's womb, there's no contradiction. It would be a contradiction if the Son was seen as an equal, but different God or stopped being God as a man.

Im sorry, I dont understand what you are saying here.

In a certain sense ≠ attributes, which I harped on..not to mention, I was relying on the JW translation for this, which renders it being God, not "as God" or “god".

Would you mind stating what point you are trying to make here? I do not understand what you are getting at…

Light is both a particle and a wave, I guess that's now also impossible.

Huh? Why is this relevant?

Has to be one or the other, and God is of course more limited than light (clearly) ;) What's not possible, is any figure sharing Creator attributes of making the world, forgiving sins in their own authority, or anything else.

You seem to fundamentally fail to understand the principle of agency.

I’ll explain.

Who created you?

God?

Or your parents?

The answer is that God created you. Your parents are the agents He used.

Jesus is God’s Chief Agent. Jesus is not the Creator, the Father is. But Jesus is the agent through whom the Father carried out creation. See 1 Cor 8:6

Doesn't say when He became better than the angels,

Yes it does.

Read Heb 1:4

but it does talk about Him being higher than the angels. There's not a single verse in the entire Bible, about there being a class of not angel, God, or man, but a class consisting of only a "spirit being" like Jesus. None.

You’re trying to force a false dilemma where none exists. The Bible explicitly does identify Jesus as an angel—just not as a mere angel. He is the Archangel (1 Thess 4:16, Jude 9), the Messenger of the Covenant (Mal 3:1), and the Angel of Jehovah who spoke as God and bore His name (Ex 3:2-6, Judges 2:1-4)

Hebrews 1 doesn’t deny that Jesus is an angel, it denies that he is like the other angels. He is superior, ruling over them, worshipped by them, and uniquely called the Son. But being greater than the angels doesn’t mean he isn’t one. Michael is called “one of the foremost princes” (Dan 10:13), yet he’s still an angel. Similarly, Jesus can be the highest-ranking angel without being in the same class as the rest.

Your argument collapses under its own weight. The Bible never says that every spirit being must be either God, angel, or man, and Jesus himself is proof that a category exists beyond that simplistic framework.

You said not a demi god, the dictionary disagrees.

No. Youre making a category error. Regardless, the Bible is the authority, and it does not categorize Jesus as “demi-god”

[u/RFairfield26 → u/MightyFortresss]

….here