Biblical Proof Text of the Trinity: All Christian Apologists welcome to join.

[MH84]

OK, but my intention was to debate with the OP, not with BibleSteve. However, if you are really keen to defeat a JW, I will show you an easy way. A central plank of JW theology is that Jesus and Jehovah are two different people. If it can be shown from scripture that they are one and the same, that has a devastating effect on their theology. It destroys it completely. Well, that is an easy thing to do. There are many biblical passages that affirm this. Here are some:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple . . . (John 8:58–59).

“I AM” is a direct reference to “Jehovah” of the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14).

And [the Israelites who came out of Egypt] did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and that rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4).

In the Old Testament, that “Rock” was called Jehovah; but here St. Paul informs us that it was in fact Christ.

In the following verses “Lord” is a direct translation of the Hebrew “Jehovah”:

For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour . . . (Isaiah 43:3).

And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto me, cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I [Jehovah] was priced at of them . . . (Zechariah 11:12–13).

The reference to Jesus is obvious (See Matthew 27:3–9).

In that day shall the Lord [Jehovah] defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I [Lord, Jehovah] will seek to destroy all nations that shall come against Jerusalem. And I [Lord, Jehovah] will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me [Jehovah] whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him . . . (Zechariah 12:8–10).

These are clear references to Jesus in His second coming.

Then shall the Lord [Jehovah] go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his [Lord, Jehovah’s] feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in twain in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west . . . (Zechariah 14:3–4).

And the Lord [Jehovah] shall be King over all the earth: in that day shall be one Lord, and his name one (Zechariah 14: 9–10).

These are all references to Jesus’ second coming. Here is probably the most conclusive proof yet:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise up unto David a righteous branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgement and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE Lord [JEHOVAH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jeremiah 23:5–6).

Note in particular that in this verse it says that this new king, who will be called THE Lord [JEHOVAH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, is to be born in David’s line. Thus the reference to the Saviour Jesus Christ is irrefutable; and yet He will be called JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS! No greater argument can be made than that. I believe there is a good reference in the Revelation too; but I can’t think off hand what it is.

zerinus

Seriously these are excellent references. I never realised that Zechariah 12:10 says they will look on **me ** whom they pierced (I aways thought it was him).

Also, the same with Zechariah 11:12-13.

BibleSteve, I looked these up in the KJB, and I can’t see how these are not prophecies relating to Christ. After reading these how can someone deny that these passages point toward Christ being true God.

 

[BibleSteve]

Seriously these are excellent references. I never realised that Zechariah 12:10 says they will look on **me ** whom they pierced (I aways thought it was him).

BibleSteve, I looked these up in the KJB, and I can’t see how these are not prophecies relating to Christ. After reading these how can someone deny that these passages point toward Christ being true God.

Dear MH84,

This is a prophecy about Christ.

But, the answer is that you need to look a little deeper than just the KJB. When investigating such a serious doctrinal topic, look at multiple translations to see if there is absolutely consistency or ambiguity.

Here’s what you’ll find… Some Hebrew manuscripts read “look upon **him **whom they have pierced”, while others read “look upon **me **whom they have pierced”. That is a huge difference…So, there isn’t agreement at the manuscript level.

Now, look how the various translators deal with this…

Rotherham’s translation, on the basis of these manuscript variations, offers in a footnote “him” as an acceptable reading in place of “me”. So does the American Standard Version. Some modern translations, such as Moffatt and An American Translation and Revised Standard Version, use “him” instead of “me” in the main body of the text itself.

So, in your investigation of whether Jesus is YHWH, Zec 12:10 is ambiguous. Where there is ambiguity, there’s no way to make a decision without introducing your own bias.

You’ll have to look at other scriptures like Psa 110:1-5 which has no ambiguity at the manuscript or translation level. In this scripture YWHW is asking Jesus to sit at his side. Thus, Jesus is not YHWH.

And also, Acts 3:13 which refers to YHWH (The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) as glorifying His Servant, Jesus… If Jesus is the servant of YWHW, he isn’t YHWH.

 

[kashef_0909]

Interesting topic over Trinity. As in The Bible (Chapter 23, Matthew), Christ can be the only Teacher. So, in essence to all that, the education of Trinity can be through Christ Only… and belief in His Teachings like a ROCK is the true Church of Christianity (not the 20780 current churches/which can be said as worshipping places/temples).

Here is commentry on the Trinity, would like to hear your comments on it:

reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-27.html

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

with all respect the bahai faith misses the boat on defining the Trinity newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The hebrew variant for “me” vs “him” simply does not exist in the Hebrew, and in fact the Jewish Talmud and LXX also support “me” there.

Bottom line “him” vs “me” is translated from context. So, we need only discern whom the speaker throughout the chapter is.

The “him” was first introduced in English translation by the Stone edition to get out of Jesus being the Messiah in this text. milechai.com/product/stonechumash.html The same type of logic is applied by Jewish apologetists to get out of Jesus in Isaiah 53 — interpreting both these texts as applying to the Jewish people rather than to the Messiah.

For proof my my claims see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol 3 Messianic Prophecy Objections by Micheal Brown.

Zechariah 12

1 This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares: 2 "I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. 3 On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves. 4 **On that day I will strike every horse with panic and its rider with madness," declares the LORD. "I will keep a watchful eye over the house of Judah, but I will blind all the horses of the nations. 5 Then the leaders of Judah will say in their hearts, ‘The people of Jerusalem are strong, because the LORD Almighty is their God.’
6 "On that day I will make the **leaders of Judah like a firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch among sheaves. They will consume right and left all the surrounding peoples, but Jerusalem will remain intact in her place.

7 "The** LORD will save the **dwellings of Judah first, so that the honor of the house of David and of Jerusalem’s inhabitants may not be greater than that of Judah. 8 On that day the **LORD will shield **those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the Angel of the LORD going before them. 9 On that day **I will set **out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.

10 "And **I will pour **out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. 11 On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great, like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, 13 the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, 14 and all the rest of the clans and their wives.

Bottom line, it is God who is speaking first person throughout the text, therefore “me” or even “him” clearly can only refer to God himself.

 

[BibleSteve]

Bottom line, it is God who is speaking first person throughout the text, therefore “me” or even “him” clearly can only refer to God himself.

Once again, anyone else talking and referring to “him” would be understood to be talking about someone else.

But, YHWH does this and Daniel says this “can only refer to God himself”…

Lacks common sense and basic logic.

The translators can’t decide if it should be “him” or “me”, and these bring two totally different meanings to the text.

How many other “him’s” do you see in the text?

10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on (ME or HIM?), the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for **him **as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for **him **as one grieves for a firstborn son.

 

[zerinus]

Dear MH84,

This is a prophecy about Christ.

But, the answer is that you need to look a little deeper than just the KJB. When investigating such a serious doctrinal topic, look at multiple translations to see if there is absolutely consistency or ambiguity. . . .

Okay, I headed for biblegateway.com/ , and checked the verse against 18 different translations of the Bible that I found there; and all but one of them said “me” rather than “him”. Here is the result:

Zechariah 12:10

New International Version:

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

New American Standard Bible:

I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

The Message:

Next I’ll deal with the family of David and those who live in Jerusalem. I’ll pour a spirit of grace and prayer over them. They’ll then be able to recognize me as the One they so grievously wounded—that piercing spear-thrust! And they’ll weep—oh, how they’ll weep! Deep mourning as of a parent grieving the loss of the firstborn child.

Amplified Bible:

And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace or unmerited favor and supplication. And they shall look [earnestly] upon Me Whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him as one who is in bitterness for his firstborn.

New Living Translation:

Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died.

King James Version:

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

English Standard Version:

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

New King James Version:

And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

New Century Version:

I will pour out on David’s family and the people in Jerusalem a spirit of kindness and mercy. They will look at me, the one they have stabbed, and they will cry like someone crying over the death of an only child. They will be as sad as someone who has lost a firstborn son.

21st Century King James Version:

And I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him as one who is in bitterness for his firstborn.

American Standard Version:

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.

zerinus

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

Young’s Literal Translation:

And I have poured on the house of David, And on the inhabitant of Jerusalem, A spirit of grace and supplications, And they have looked unto Me whom they pierced, And they have mourned over it, Like a mourning over the only one, And they have been in bitterness for it, Like a bitterness over the first-born.

Darby Translation:

And I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and of supplications; and they shall look on me whom they pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for an only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.

Holman Christian Standard Bible:

Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the house of David and the residents of Jerusalem, and they will look at Me whom they pierced. They will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child and weep bitterly for Him as one weeps for a firstborn.

New International Reader’s Version:

I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on David’s family line. I will also send it on those who live in Jerusalem. They will look to me. I am the one they have pierced. They will sob over me as someone sobs over an only child who has died. They will be full of sorrow over me, just like someone who is full of sorrow over an oldest son.

New International Version - UK:

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

Today’s New International Version:

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

The only odd ball I fond that said “him” rather than “me” is the New Life Version:

I will pour out the Spirit of loving-favor and prayer on the family of David and on those who live in Jerusalem. They will look on Him Whose side they cut. They will cry in sorrow for Him, as one cries for an only son. They will cry much over Him, like those who have lost their first-born son.

I think we can safely put that aside as an anomaly in the translations. If there are any Hebrew scholars on board, they can inform us whether it says “me” or “him” in the Hebrew text. I don’t think there is any ambiguity in this verse. It either says “me” or “him”. It can’t ambiguously say both. If there are “variant texts,” we need to know what is their source and origin, and what credence and credibility do Jewish or Hebrew scholars give to them.

You’ll have to look at other scriptures like Psa 110:1-5 which has no ambiguity at the manuscript or translation level. In this scripture YWHW is asking Jesus to sit at his side. Thus, Jesus is not YHWH.

And also, Acts 3:13 which refers to YHWH (The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) as glorifying His Servant, Jesus… If Jesus is the servant of YWHW, he isn’t YHWH.

I am afraid Psalms 110:1–5 and acts 3:13 are were the real ambiguity lies. The word Jehovah in the Bible is also used as a generic title simply meaning “God”. It is used as a Hebrew equivalent of the English word “God”. Thus in Psalms 110:1-5, God (i.e. the Father, here called Jehovah) is addressing His Son Jesus Christ who is also Jehovah. We (LDS) believe that the Father and the Son are two distinct and separate beings. We all know that Jesus addressed His Father as His God. The fact, however, that Jesus is the one who is indeed called Jehovah in the Old Testament is attested overwhelmingly by all the references that I had given. Those references reinforce one another, and their cumulative effect is greater than the sum of their parts. They establish the validity of this doctrine that Jesus in His pre-mortal state was the Jehovah of the Old Testament beyond any doubt.

zerinus

PS: I doubt there are in fact any “variant texts” in this case. Just because a couple of odd ball translations say something different from everyone else, that does not prove that there must be “variant texts”.

 

[kashef_0909]

By the way… native language of Jesus was Aramic (Aramaic)… the ancestor of modern day Arabic. The vocabulary there is the strongest.

 

[zerinus]

By the way… native language of Jesus was Aramic (Aramaic)… the ancestor of modern day Arabic. The vocabulary there is the strongest.

Maybe; but the verses we are discussing are written in the classical Hebrew of the Old Testament, not in Aramaic.

zerinus

 

[kashef_0909]

Maybe; but the verses we are discussing are written in the classical Hebrew of the Old Testament, not in Aramaic.

zerinus

But when we talk about the Trinity, we must place into consideration the sayings of Christ Jesus, which were later compiled into the Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

As these are mostly the day to day life, events, dictations (which are overwhelmingly parables) and advises of Christ Jesus, and his native language being Aramic, we can conclude that His Words on Trinity had also been in that language.

The Aramic was in effect written part in Aramic and part in Hebrew, or wholly in Aramic. Then to Hebrew, and then to Greek…and years later to English.

In the essence of it all … the words of Christ was clear and understandable with belief. The belief comes through understanding and a clear heart. But then, do have a look at the link I provided over Trinity.

Kind Regards,

Kashef.

 

[zerinus]

But when we talk about the Trinity, . . .

We are not discussing the Trinity. We are discussing specific verses on the Old Testament as understood in their own context.

zerinus

 

[BibleSteve]

I am afraid Psalms 110:1–5 and acts 3:13 are were the real ambiguity lies. The word Jehovah in the Bible is also used as a generic title simply meaning “God”. It is used as a Hebrew equivalent of the English word “God”. Thus in Psalms 110:1-5, God (i.e. the Father, here called Jehovah) is addressing His Son Jesus Christ who is also Jehovah.
zerinus

This is simply not true. YHWH is the personal name of Almighty God (Psa 83:13). It is not a title, it is a personal name. All the nations around Israel worshipped other god’s and each of them had a personal name. Do a simple search on “Jehovah” and “name” in your online Bible and you will see many, many occurances overtly referring to “His name is YHWH” not “His title is YHWH”.

Your argument slips into being illogical by quick and unwarranted word changes… The scripture says YHWH is talking to Jesus…You quickly remove YHWH’s personal name and subsitute the title “God”, and then claim “Jehovah” is talking to “Jehovah”.

If the Scripture said: YHWH said to Zerinus: Sit at my side… would you argue that Zerinus is YHWH? Of course not…

The simple obvious truth that lies right before you is that YHWH is talking to Jesus, asking him to sit at his right side, thus Jesus is not YHWH.

Acts 3:13 overtly contrasts “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our Forefathers” from His Servant Jesus. Once gain, this is a description that differentiates YHWH from Jesus.

If the Scripture said: YHWH glorified his servant Daniel", would you make the argument that Daniel is YHWH? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. But that is exactly what you’re arguing here.

 

[BibleSteve]

Just to underscore the difference of opinion in translators from various religious backgrounds, here’s some more that do not use “me”…

“They will look at the one they stabbed to death.”- The Bible in Living English, Byington

“They will look at him they have pierced.”- Living Bible, Taylor

“They will look at the one whom they stabbed to death.”- Todays English Version

"They will look at the one whom they have pierced".- The Jerusalem Bible

“They shall look on whom they have thrust through.”- New American Bible.

“They shall look on him whom they stabbed.”- Moffatt

“They shall look at him whom they have stabbed.”- American Translation, Goodspeed

“They shall look upon Him who they have pierced.”- Modern language Bible

“When they look on whom they have pierced.”- Revised Standard/New Revised Standard Version

“Their eyes will be turned to the one who was wounded.”- Bible in Basic English

“When they see the one they pierced with a spear.”- Contemporary English Bible

“They shall look upon HIM¹ Whom they pierced.”- The Complete Bible in Modern English, F. Fenton.

 

[BibleSteve]

Zerinus did a look for translations and only found 1 that didn’t say “me”. I’ve provided a list of at least 12 Translations that say something else than “me”.

Zerinus says the single translation he found was just an “anamoly” thus his point must be correct. And then refers to “a couple of odd ball translations” that don’t say “me”…

However, The Catholic “Jerusalem Bible” says:

“They will look at the one whom they have pierced”.- The Jerusalem Bible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Bible

[The Jerusalem Bible] carries the Church’s imprimatur as being correct in all matters of faith and doctrine. This means it is an official Catholic Bible. The Jerusalem Bible was considered such a high quality advanced English translation of the Bible that the Holy See used it in the European liturgy and the Mass. This reference for The Jerusalem Bible can be found in the introduction page of the Roman Catholic Missals as the source reference for the readings. **It has also been widely praised for an overall very high level of scholarship, and is widely admired **and sometimes used by liberal and moderate Protestants. The overall text seems to have somewhat of a “Mid-Atlantic” nature, neither overwhelmingly British nor particularly American, making it acceptable to both groups in most instances. Overall, it has come to be considered as one of the better English translations of the Bible made in the 20th Century.

Any Catholics here want to agree that the Jerusalem Bible is an “anomoly” or a “odd-ball translation” as Zerinus says?

My point in all of this is that when Trinitarians insist Zech 12:10 can ONLY be understood as saying “me”, and can ONLY mean that YHWH is the one being pierced… and that ONLY can mean that Jesus is YHWH… they are making a huge leap of assumption… on a key doctrinal hypothesis. When there is this much ambiguity on the translation of a single word, a diligent Bible student must look to other Scriptures that specifically talk about whether Jesus is YHWH, or Jesus is a different being than YHWH. (Psa 110:1-5; Acts 3:13; John 17:3; Rev 3:12)
I

 

[zerinus]

This is simply not true. YHWH is the personal name of Almighty God (Psa 83:13). It is not a title, it is a personal name. All the nations around Israel worshipped other god’s and each of them had a personal name. Do a simple search on “Jehovah” and “name” in your online Bible and you will see many, many occurances overtly referring to “His name is YHWH” not “His title is YHWH”.

Your argument slips into being illogical by quick and unwarranted word changes… The scripture says YHWH is talking to Jesus…You quickly remove YHWH’s personal name and subsitute the title “God”, and then claim “Jehovah” is talking to “Jehovah”.

If the Scripture said: YHWH said to Zerinus: Sit at my side… would you argue that Zerinus is YHWH? Of course not…

The simple obvious truth that lies right before you is that YHWH is talking to Jesus, asking him to sit at his right side, thus Jesus is not YHWH.

Acts 3:13 overtly contrasts “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our Forefathers” from His Servant Jesus. Once gain, this is a description that differentiates YHWH from Jesus.

If the Scripture said: YHWH glorified his servant Daniel", would you make the argument that Daniel is YHWH? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. But that is exactly what you’re arguing here.

I don’t want to belabor the fine points of this verse alone out of all proportion, to the exclusion of all the more important verses I had quoted which settle the issue more clearly.

As for the specifics of the name of the Deity is concerned, the Bible specifically defines the name of God as I AM:

Exodus 3:

13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

The term Jehovah (Hebrew YHWH) apparently comes from the same root, hence Jehovah is defined in various dictionaries as “He that is;” “the existing One;” “self-subsisting;” and he who will be, is, and has been”

The fact that Jesus in the New Testament also refers to Himself as “I AM” I think settles the issue once and for all, without the need for further argument. Jesus is Jehovah:

John 8:

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

John 18:

5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Just to underscore the difference of opinion in translators from various religious backgrounds, here’s some more that do not use “me”…

“They will look at the one they stabbed to death.”- The Bible in Living English, Byington

“They will look at him they have pierced.”- Living Bible, Taylor

“They will look at the one whom they stabbed to death.”- Todays English Version

"They will look at the one whom they have pierced".- The Jerusalem Bible

“They shall look on whom they have thrust through.”- New American Bible.

“They shall look on him whom they stabbed.”- Moffatt

“They shall look at him whom they have stabbed.”- American Translation, Goodspeed

“They shall look upon Him who they have pierced.”- Modern language Bible

“When they look on whom they have pierced.”- Revised Standard/New Revised Standard Version

“Their eyes will be turned to the one who was wounded.”- Bible in Basic English

“When they see the one they pierced with a spear.”- Contemporary English Bible

“They shall look upon HIM¹ Whom they pierced.”- The Complete Bible in Modern English, F. Fenton.

There are literally hundreds (possibly thousands) of translations of the Bible into English. These examples that you have found are probably the result of research that the Watchtower has done into all existing translations. I believe that if all translations are examined, the ratio of “me” to “him” is still around 20 to 1.

Some translations are not literal translations. They try to “interpret” for the reader what they think the reader should understand, rather than what it actually says. These anomalies (I still call them anomalies, because I believe they still represent a tiny minority of translations) are the result of those kinds of “interpretations” rather than literal “translations”. I hope there are Hebrew scholars here who can finalize this discussion.

zerinus

 

[BibleSteve]

Zerinus,

You made a claim that Jesus was YHWH based on Zech 12:10 using the word “me” thinking the word “me” showed that YHWH was being pierced. I put that claim to the test and showed the foundation of your claim proved false… the word “me” is under debate among expert translators of different religious backgrounds.

If you’re really interested in knowing the truth, why would you ignore the fact that various translation experts, including those on the official Catholic Jerusalem Bible choose not to include the word “me” there?

When a datapoint is in question, an unbiased analyst will not insist that datapoint proves his case. He’ll look for datapoints that are not in question.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

You made a claim that Jesus was YHWH based on Zech 12:10 using the word “me” thinking the word “me” showed that YHWH was being pierced.

Not entirely. That claim was made on the basis of many scriptural passages that I had quoted, which make an even stronger case for that claim. This verse was only one of them; and I still maintain that this verse also make a strong case for that claim.

I put that claim to the test and showed the foundation of your claim proved false… the word “me” is under debate among expert translators of different religious backgrounds.

Not true at all. I don’t agree. If the ratio of “me” to “him” is 20 to 1, and that tiny minority belong to those kinds of translations that are in fact “interpretations” rather than “translations,” I would hardly describe that as making “the foundations of my claim false”. Let’s call up some good scholars and translators, and find out exactly why those small minority of translations have rendered it “him” instead of “me,” and then we have something to go by. Until then, I stick to my assertion that the correct translation is “me” rather than “him,” thus proving this verse to be one among many biblical passages demonstrating that Jesus is Jehovah.

If you’re really interested in knowing the truth, why would you ignore the fact that various translation experts, including those on the official Catholic Jerusalem Bible choose not to include the word “me” there?

I am not ignoring them. That is a matter for them (or somebody knowledgeable) to come and explain to me. In the absence of that, I go by what the great majority of reputable translations say. I turn that question round to you: Why do you ignore the vast majority of translations, and stick to a tiny minority? Are you a Hebrew scholar? Do you know the precise linguistic reason why they have chosen “him” in preference to “me”? If so, why don’t you share that information with us so that we will all be enlightened?

As regards the (New) Jerusalem Bible, I have read it, and I think that on the whole it is a good translation. I don’t know what is the linguistic basis on which they have chosen to use “him” instead of “me”. One possibility is that it is influenced by the old Latin Vulgate, which was good bible for its time, but was nevertheless full of errors. But until I know, or somebody is able to explain it to me, I can’t form an opinion on that.

When a datapoint is in question, an unbiased analyst will not insist that datapoint proves his case. He’ll look for datapoints that are not in question.

Exactly! I have given plenty of other “data points” which make an even stronger case for my claim than this verse does. On the basis of the affirmation of those additional (stronger) “data points,” I am more firmly convinced that my understanding of this verse is also correct.

zerinus

PS. Additional information:

I have just looked this verse up in the New Jerusalem Bible, which is a revised and improved version of the older Jerusalem Bible. And it appears that you have misquoted this verse out of context. This is what it actually says:

But over the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem I shall pour out a spirit of grace and prayer, and thy will look to me. They will mourn for the one whom they have pierced as though for an only child, and weep for him as people weep for a first-born child.

“The one whom they have pierced” refers to its nearest antecedent, which it “me” of the previous sentence. They have split the sentence, which has caused the confusion. My guess is that most of the other passages that you have given are equally quoted out of context, and therefore cannot be trusted. If you can give us the complete verses, then we can see if they have been correctly quoted or not. Until then I cannot trust them.

zerinus

 

[BibleSteve]

In the absence of that, I go by what the great majority of reputable translations say. I turn that question round to you: Why do you ignore the vast majority of translations, and stick to a tiny minority? Are you a Hebrew scholar? Do you know the precise linguistic reason why they have chosen “him” in preference to “me”? If so, why don’t you share that information with us so that we will all be enlightened?

To the contrary, I don’t ignore any of these translations… I just don’t make a HUGE theological conclusion on a verse that obviously can be translated 2 different ways.

I don’t view this a “majority rules”. There are a bunch of smart people who think it should be “me” and there are a bunch of other smart people who think it should be “him”.

Given various explanations available on both sides, I am left to conclude theological conclusions based on this highly debatable verse would be inappropriate.

I put Zech 12:10 into a category of not being able to decide the question.

I then look for other scriptures that describe the relationship between YHWH and Jesus that are not subject to translation debates.

For example:

(Psalm 110:1-5) **The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.” 2The rod of your strength Jehovah will send out of Zion, [saying:] “Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.” 3Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day of your military force. In the splendors of holiness, from the womb of the dawn, You have your company of young men just like dewdrops. 4Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret): “You are a priest to time indefinite According to the manner of Mel·chiz′e·dek!” 5 Jehovah himself at your right hand **Will certainly break kings to pieces on the day of his anger.

If you want to believe that Jesus is YHWH, then you’d have YHWH (on the left) talking to YHWH (on the right) telling himself he’s going to be a priest to the manner of Melchizedek.

Do you have any translations that don’t present this simple picture of YHWH talking to Jesus who’s sitting at the right hand of YHWH?