Simon Brown.

Join me on this journey. Let's seek the truth together! 💡 Proverbs 8:34-36 Blessed is the man who hears me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at my door posts. For whoever finds me finds life, and will obtain favor from Yahweh. But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul. All those who hate me love death.” Psalm 84: 11 For Yahweh God is a sun and a shield. Yahweh will give grace and glory. He withholds no good thing from those who walk blamelessly. 12 Yahweh of Armies, blessed is the man who trusts in you. 1 John 5:5 Now who is the one overcoming the world, except the one believing that Jesus is the Son of God.
Showing posts with label Bible Translations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible Translations. Show all posts

Sunday, 23 August 2026

Quick Facts: Jude 1:5 – Who Saved Israel Out of Egypt, the Lord or Jesus?

 

Quick Facts Jude 1:5 study comparing the disputed Greek readings Lord and Jesus with Codex Sinaiticus and Exodus 12:51 identifying Yahweh as Israel’s deliverer.

A detailed Bible research infographic examining the textual variant in Jude 1:5 between “Lord” and “Jesus.” It compares ancient manuscript evidence, Codex Sinaiticus, Bible translations and textual scholarship with Exodus 12:51, which explicitly identifies Yahweh as the One who brought Israel out of Egypt.

QUICK FACTS: JUDE 1:5

WHO SAVED ISRAEL OUT OF EGYPT — THE LORD OR JESUS?

Jude 1:5 contains a genuine and important textual variant.

Some modern Bible translations read “Jesus”, while others read “the Lord.” Because the difference can affect how the verse is understood theologically, this is a passage where we should follow the example of the Bereans:

Acts 17:11 — Berean Literal Bible

“...receiving the word with all readiness, every day examining the Scriptures, whether these things were so.”

So rather than beginning with a doctrine, let's examine the evidence.

TWO DIFFERENT READINGS OF JUDE 1:5

Some modern translations essentially read:

“JESUS...SAVED A PEOPLE OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT.”

The ESV, for example, uses “Jesus.”

This reading has naturally been used as evidence that Jesus personally existed before His human birth and was active during the Exodus.

But many other translations have:

“THE LORD”

rather than:

“JESUS.”

So which reading did Jude originally write?

THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT ALL AGREE

This point is extremely important.

The textual evidence for Jude 1:5 contains several readings, principally:

Ἰησοῦς — Iēsous — “Jesus”

and:

κύριος — kyrios — “Lord”

There are also other manuscript variations.

Therefore, we should not claim that “Jesus” was simply invented by modern translators. There really are ancient Greek witnesses supporting that reading.

At the same time, “Lord” is also an ancient manuscript reading.

This makes Jude 1:5 a genuine textual-critical question rather than a case where every ancient manuscript says “Lord” and modern translators simply changed it to “Jesus.”

That distinction makes our argument much stronger because we're presenting the evidence accurately.

WHAT ABOUT CODEX SINAITICUS?

One particularly important witness is Codex Sinaiticus, one of our oldest surviving Greek biblical manuscripts.

In Jude 1:5, Sinaiticus supports the reading:

κύριος — LORD

rather than:

Ἰησοῦς — JESUS.

That is significant evidence for the “Lord” reading.

But Sinaiticus alone cannot determine the original wording. Other important ancient witnesses support “Jesus.”

So we must look beyond one manuscript.

EVEN TEXTUAL SCHOLARS HAVE DISAGREED

The history of the critical Greek New Testament demonstrates just how difficult this verse is.

Earlier editions of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament preferred “Lord.”

The more recent Nestle-Aland 28th edition instead prints “Jesus.”

Bruce Metzger reported that the textual committee had previously preferred “Lord”, even though “Jesus” had very strong manuscript support.

Metzger himself actually argued that normal textual-critical principles favored “Jesus.”

This is important because it means the evidence is more complicated than simply saying:

“LORD IS THE ORIGINAL AND JESUS IS A FALSE TRINITARIAN TRANSLATION.”

There is a real textual dispute.

But that still leaves us with another extremely important question.

EVEN IF JUDE WROTE “LORD,” WHO SAVED ISRAEL?

For that answer, we can go directly back to the Exodus account itself.

Exodus 12:51 — World English Bible

“It happened the same day, that Yahweh brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.”

Who does Exodus explicitly identify?

YAHWEH.

This is not an inference from Jude.

This is the Exodus narrative itself.

Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt.

THE OLD TESTAMENT REPEATS THIS

The same truth appears repeatedly.

Exodus 20:2

“I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”

And again:

Deuteronomy 5:6

“I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”

The identity of Israel's deliverer is therefore explicit:

YAHWEH, THE GOD OF ISRAEL.

That is the biblical background against which Jude 1:5 must be interpreted.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IF JUDE ORIGINALLY SAID “THE LORD”?

Then Jude's statement fits the Old Testament account naturally:

JUDE:

The Lord saved the people out of Egypt.

EXODUS:

Yahweh brought the children of Israel out of Egypt.

The identification is straightforward:

THE LORD = YAHWEH

in reference to the Exodus deliverance.

BUT WHAT IF “JESUS” IS ACTUALLY THE ORIGINAL READING?

This is the harder question, and it should not be avoided.

If Ἰησοῦς (“Jesus”) is original, then Jude 1:5 becomes genuine evidence used by scholars who believe Jude identifies Jesus with the divine Lord active in Israel's Exodus.

That would be a serious argument for pre-existence.

However, one disputed textual variant should not be interpreted in isolation from the rest of Scripture.

We would still need to ask how this reading relates to the explicit Old Testament statements that:

YAHWEH DELIVERED ISRAEL.

And we would need to examine whether Jude intended to identify Jesus personally with Yahweh, whether “Jesus” arose through textual transmission, or whether some other explanation best accounts for the evidence.

The manuscript question must therefore come before building doctrine upon the verse.

JUDE'S NORMAL WAY OF NAMING JESUS IS ALSO INTERESTING

Elsewhere in Jude, the writer normally uses expressions such as:

“JESUS CHRIST”

rather than simply “Jesus.”

That observation was one of the considerations historically raised in discussions over the reading of Jude 1:5.

It does not prove that “Jesus” cannot be original.

But it is legitimate internal evidence to consider alongside the manuscripts.

SIR ANTHONY BUZZARD'S VIEW

Bible teacher Sir Anthony Buzzard argued in correspondence concerning this passage that “the Lord” should be preferred.

His argument included the fact that Exodus explicitly identifies YHWH as the One who delivered Israel and that Jude elsewhere normally says “Jesus Christ.”

His conclusion was therefore that Jude 1:5 should not be used to identify Jesus as the Yahweh who brought Israel out of Egypt.

That represents one side of the textual and theological debate.

Other textual scholars, including Metzger in his personal dissent, have preferred “Jesus.”

So readers should know that serious scholars have disagreed over this verse.

THIS IS WHY ACTS 17:11 MATTERS

We should not choose “Jesus” merely because it supports the pre-existence or deity of Christ.

But neither should we choose “Lord” merely because it supports a Unitarian interpretation.

Instead:

EXAMINE THE MANUSCRIPTS.

EXAMINE THE CONTEXT.

EXAMINE THE OLD TESTAMENT SOURCE.

EXAMINE THE REST OF SCRIPTURE.

That is exactly the Berean approach.

THE UNDISPUTED FACT

Whatever conclusion we reach about the original reading of Jude 1:5, one statement is beyond dispute:

Exodus 12:51 says:

“YAHWEH BROUGHT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT.”

The Old Testament repeatedly identifies Yahweh as Israel's deliverer.

Therefore, anyone using the variant “Jesus” in Jude 1:5 as a proof text must explain how that reading relates to those explicit statements.

It cannot simply be assumed that:

“Jude says Jesus; therefore Jesus is Yahweh.”

That is a theological conclusion that requires further argument.

QUICK FACT CONCLUSION

Jude 1:5 is not as simple as some presentations make it appear.

There is an ancient textual variation:

JESUS

versus:

THE LORD.

Codex Sinaiticus supports:

THE LORD.

Other ancient witnesses support:

JESUS.

Earlier critical Greek editions preferred Lord, while the current Nestle-Aland text prefers Jesus.

Therefore, the strongest case is not to pretend the manuscript dispute doesn't exist.

Instead, return to the Scriptures Jude was referring to.

And there we find:

Exodus 12:51

“YAHWEH BROUGHT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT.”

So before anyone uses Jude 1:5 to prove that Jesus personally existed during the Exodus—or that Jesus is Yahweh—we should first establish which reading Jude originally wrote and then interpret that reading in harmony with the biblical context.

DON'T BUILD A MAJOR DOCTRINE ON A DISPUTED WORD WITHOUT FIRST EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE.

That is not unbelief.

THAT IS BEING A BEREAN.

OLD RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Translations of Jude 1:5 — Who Saved Israel Out of Egypt: The Lord or Jesus?

https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-false-translations-of-jude-15-who.html

Research by Simon Brown
wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

Hebrews 1:10 – Did God Really Say to the Son, “You Laid the Foundation of the Earth”?


Posted by Simon Brown. at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Quick Facts: John 8:40 – Why Do Some Translations Leave Out the Words “A Man”?

 

Quick Facts John 8:40 study comparing Bible translations and the Greek word anthrōpon, meaning man or human being, which appears in the original Greek text.

A detailed Bible research infographic examining John 8:40 and the Greek word anthrōpon, meaning “man” or “human being.” It compares the Berean Literal Bible with several English translations that do not explicitly include the words “a man,” and examines other Scriptures describing Jesus as a man.

QUICK FACTS: JOHN 8:40

WHY DO SOME TRANSLATIONS LEAVE OUT THE WORDS “A MAN”?

John 8:40 contains a remarkably clear statement by Jesus about Himself:

“A MAN”

Yet several popular English translations do not explicitly include those words.

Does the Greek text actually say “a man”?

Let's examine it.

JOHN 8:40 — BEREAN LITERAL BIBLE

Jesus said:

“But now you seek to kill Me, A MAN who has spoken to you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.”

John 8:40 — BLB

Notice exactly how Jesus describes Himself:

“A MAN”

And notice the distinction in the same sentence:

Jesus — “A MAN”

speaks the truth that:

He “HEARD FROM GOD.”

Jesus therefore distinguishes Himself from the God from whom He heard the truth.

The original research highlights precisely this wording.

BUT LOOK AT SOME OTHER TRANSLATIONS

Contemporary English Version

“Instead, you want to kill me for telling you the truth that God gave me. Abraham never did anything like that.”

Good News Translation

“All I have ever done is to tell you the truth I heard from God, yet you are trying to kill me. Abraham did nothing like this!”

New Living Translation

“Instead, you are trying to kill me because I told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.”

Something is missing from all three.

“A MAN.”

These translations communicate much of the sense of the sentence, but they do not explicitly translate the Greek noun ἄνθρωπον — anthrōpon, “man/human being,” in the same way as the BLB.

WHAT DOES THE GREEK ACTUALLY SAY?

The Greek text contains:

ἄνθρωπον — ANTHRŌPON

meaning:

MAN — HUMAN BEING — PERSON

So “a man” is genuinely present in the Greek text.

This is not a phrase invented by the Berean Literal Bible.

That is an important distinction.

However, we should also be careful before accusing individual translators of deliberately removing the word because of Trinitarian theology. Some translations use a more dynamic translation method and restructure sentences rather than translating every Greek word individually.

The undeniable textual fact is simpler:

THE GREEK CONTAINS “MAN.”

And the Berean Literal Bible explicitly preserves it.

JESUS SAID HE WAS A MAN

Jesus did not say in John 8:40:

“You seek to kill Me, God Almighty.”

He said:

“YOU SEEK TO KILL ME, A MAN…”

And then:

“…WHO HAS SPOKEN TO YOU THE TRUTH THAT I HEARD FROM GOD.”

Those two statements deserve to be read together.

Jesus is:

the man speaking

while God is:

the One from whom Jesus heard the truth.

Whatever theological conclusions someone ultimately reaches about Jesus, those are the actual distinctions made in the sentence.

THE APOSTLES ALSO CALLED JESUS “A MAN”

This language does not disappear after Jesus' resurrection.

Paul preached:

Acts 17:31 — Berean Literal Bible

“because He set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness by a man whom He appointed, having provided a guarantee to all, having raised Him out from the dead.”

Again there are two parties:

GOD

who appointed,

and:

A MAN

whom God appointed.

The fuller research makes the same comparison between John 8:40, Acts 17:31 and other passages describing Jesus as a man.

ONE GOD — AND THE MAN CHRIST JESUS

Paul makes the distinction even clearer:

1 Timothy 2:5 — Berean Literal Bible

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

Look carefully:

ONE GOD

and:

ONE MEDIATOR

Who is that mediator?

“THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.”

The verse does not identify the mediator as the one God mentioned immediately before Him.

Instead, Christ mediates between God and humanity.

JESUS WAS ALSO CALLED “THE SON OF MAN”

Jesus repeatedly called Himself:

THE SON OF MAN

And He said:

John 5:27

“And He has given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.”

Again Jesus receives authority.

The source research connects this title with Jesus' humanity and the repeated biblical distinction between Jesus and God.

WHAT ABOUT JESUS PRE-EXISTING HIS HUMAN LIFE?

John 8:40 by itself does not settle every question concerning pre-existence.

But it does establish something important:

Jesus explicitly describes Himself as:

“A MAN.”

The verse itself does not say:

“I was previously an angel.”

It does not say:

“I was previously a spirit being.”

It does not say:

“I was God before becoming a man.”

Those claims must therefore be established from other passages rather than inserted into John 8:40.

The original research develops this broader argument using Hebrews, 1 Peter, John and other passages.

FOREKNOWN DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN PRE-EXISTING

Consider:

1 Peter 1:20 — Berean Literal Bible

Christ was:

“foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but having been revealed in the last times for the sake of you.”

Something or someone can exist beforehand in God's knowledge, purpose and plan without this wording by itself requiring conscious personal existence.

The original research understands Christ's pre-history in precisely this sense: the Messiah was foreknown and prophetically promised before His historical appearance.

JESUS SAID HE WAS BORN

Jesus Himself told Pilate:

John 18:37 — Berean Literal Bible

“For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I may bear witness to the truth.”

Jesus therefore speaks explicitly about His birth.

Luke likewise describes Jesus growing normally:

Luke 2:40

“And the Child continued to grow and become strong, being filled with wisdom. And the grace of God was upon Him.”

And:

Luke 2:52

“And Jesus continued to advance in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.”

These passages form part of the broader biblical evidence considered in the original article.

QUICK FACT CONCLUSION

John 8:40 contains a small phrase with enormous theological importance:

“A MAN.”

The Greek text contains ἄνθρωπον — anthrōpon.

The Berean Literal Bible preserves it explicitly:

“But now you seek to kill Me, A MAN who has spoken to you the truth that I heard from God.”

Jesus identifies Himself as:

A MAN

who:

HEARD THE TRUTH FROM GOD.

Paul later describes Him as:

“A MAN WHOM HE APPOINTED.”

Acts 17:31

And:

“THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.”

1 Timothy 2:5

This gives us a very clear biblical pattern:

GOD → THE ONE WHO SENT AND APPOINTED

JESUS → THE MAN, MESSIAH AND MEDIATOR

So when studying John 8:40, don't overlook two Greek words hidden by the smoother wording of some English translations:

ἄνθρωπον — “A MAN.”

Those words are actually there.

John 8:40 – Jesus said, “You seek to kill Me, a man who has spoken to you the truth that I heard from God.” A comparison of the Berean Literal Bible with translations that do not explicitly include the words “a man.”

A detailed Bible research infographic examining John 8:40 and the Greek word anthrōpon, meaning “man” or “human being.” It compares the Berean Literal Bible with several English translations that do not explicitly include the words “a man,” and examines other Scriptures describing Jesus as a man.

OLD RESEARCH ARTICLE

John 8:40 — The Translations and More Biblical Facts About Jesus' Humanity

https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2020/06/john-840-false-trinitarian-translations.html

Research by Simon Brown
wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

Related articles:

Hebrews 1:10 – Did God Really Say to the Son, “You Laid the Foundation of the Earth”?

Posted by Simon Brown. at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 18 August 2026

John 13:3 & John 16:28 – Did Jesus Really Say He Was “Returning” or “Going Back” to God?

John 13:3 and John 16:28 Greek text comparison examining translations that say Jesus was returning or going back to God, compared with the Greek wording “going to God” and “I go to the Father.”

 This detailed Bible research infographic examines John 13:3 and John 16:28 and asks whether John literally said Jesus was “returning” or “going back” to God. It compares several English translations with the Greek text, showing that John 13:3 says Jesus was “going to God” and that the final clause of John 16:28 says, “I go to the Father.” John 16:28 also contains the Greek word palin, meaning “again,” so its context must be carefully considered when interpreting the passage and the question of Jesus’ pre-existence.

QUICK FACTS: JOHN 13:3 & JOHN 16:28

DID JOHN REALLY SAY JESUS WAS “RETURNING” OR “GOING BACK” TO GOD?

John 13:3 and John 16:28 are frequently used to support the belief that Jesus personally existed with God before His human birth.

Why?

Because several popular translations tell readers that Jesus was:

“RETURNING TO GOD”

or:

“GOING BACK TO GOD.”

For example, the New Living Translation renders John 13:3:

“Jesus knew that the Father had given him authority over everything and that he had come from God and would return to God.”

The English Standard Version says:

“…he had come from God and was going back to God.”

Those translations naturally give the impression that Jesus was previously with God, came to earth, and was now returning to the place where He had personally been before.

But is “back” or “return” actually what John wrote?

Let's examine the Greek.

WHAT DOES THE GREEK OF JOHN 13:3 ACTUALLY SAY?

The important words are:

ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν καὶ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ὑπάγει

Literally:

ἀπὸ Θεοῦ — from God

ἐξῆλθεν — he came forth/went out

καὶ — and

πρὸς τὸν Θεόν — to God

ὑπάγει — he is going

Therefore, a straightforward rendering is:

“HE CAME FORTH FROM GOD AND IS GOING TO GOD.”

Notice what John does not write.

There is no separate Greek word meaning:

❌ BACK

and John does not use a verb here that inherently means:

❌ RETURN

The BLB accordingly reads:

“…that He came forth from God and He is going to God.”

This is an important translation distinction.

COMPARE THE TRANSLATIONS

Some translations make the idea of returning explicit:

NLT

“would return to God”

NIV

“was returning to God”

ESV

“was going back to God”

NASB

“was going back to God”

CSB

“was going back to God”

But compare more literal renderings:

BEREAN LITERAL BIBLE

“…He came forth from God and He is going to God.”

ASV

“…he came forth from God, and goeth unto God.”

DARBY

“…he came out from God and was going to God.”

WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

“…he came forth from God, and was going to God.”

The difference is obvious:

GOING TO GOD

is not linguistically identical to:

GOING BACK TO GOD.

The latter adds an interpretive sense of return.

DOES THIS MEAN THE MODERN TRANSLATIONS ARE BASED ON A DIFFERENT GREEK TEXT?

No.

This is important.

Unlike a genuine textual variant where manuscripts contain different words, the issue in John 13:3 is primarily one of:

TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION.

The Greek text contains the idea of going to God.

Translations using “back” or “return” are interpreting the movement as a return because they understand Jesus' coming “from God” as implying prior personal presence with God.

That theological interpretation may be defended from the wider Gospel of John, but:

“BACK” IS NOT A SEPARATE WORD IN THE GREEK TEXT.

Readers deserve to know the difference.

NOW LOOK AT JOHN 16:28

John 16:28 is even more important because it contains very similar language.

The BLB reads:

“I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; again, I leave the world and go to the Father.”

The Greek is:

ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον· πάλιν ἀφίημι τὸν κόσμον καὶ πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα.

The final words mean:

“AND I GO TO THE FATHER.”

The verb:

πορεύομαι — poreuomai

means:

I go / I proceed / I journey.

Again, the final clause does not literally say:

“I GO BACK TO THE FATHER.”

BUT JOHN 16:28 CONTAINS AN IMPORTANT WORD: πάλιν

We need to be especially careful here.

John 16:28 does contain:

πάλιν — PALIN

which commonly means:

“AGAIN.”

However, its placement is important.

The BLB renders it:

“…again, I leave the world and go to the Father.”

So we should not claim that John 16:28 contains absolutely nothing capable of conveying repetition.

It does.

But the Greek does not simply contain the expression:

“RETURN TO THE FATHER”

or:

“GO BACK TO THE FATHER.”

The translator has to decide how the clauses and πάλιν should be expressed naturally in English.

That makes John 16:28 more nuanced than John 13:3.

DOES “COMING FROM GOD” NECESSARILY MEAN PRE-EXISTENCE?

This is the much bigger question.

Many Christians reason:

Jesus came from God.

Therefore:

Jesus must previously have been personally alive in heaven with God.

But does the expression “from God” necessarily mean that?

Not automatically.

John uses “from God” language in ways that can refer to divine origin, authorization, mission or sending, not necessarily physical travel from heaven.

For example, John 1:6 says:

“There came a man having been sent from God. His name was John.”
— John 1:6, BLB

John the Baptist was:

“SENT FROM GOD.”

Yet this does not mean John the Baptist personally lived in heaven before his birth.

Therefore:

“FROM GOD”

by itself cannot prove personal pre-existence.

Context must determine what John means when he applies this language to Jesus.

JESUS WAS SENT BY GOD

This is one of John's major themes.

Jesus repeatedly describes Himself as:

THE ONE WHOM GOD SENT.

For example:

“…that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
— John 17:3, BLB

Here Jesus distinguishes between:

THE ONLY TRUE GOD

and:

JESUS CHRIST WHOM THAT GOD SENT.

So when John says Jesus came “from God,” we must consider John's extensive language of divine commissioning and sending rather than automatically translating the expression into a statement about Jesus travelling from heaven before His birth.

JOHN THE BAPTIST PROVIDES A USEFUL COMPARISON

Again, consider:

“There came a man having been sent from God. His name was John.”
— John 1:6, BLB

Nobody concludes:

JOHN THE BAPTIST PRE-EXISTED IN HEAVEN

simply because John was:

“FROM GOD”

or:

“SENT FROM GOD.”

Therefore, the expression itself does not settle the pre-existence question.

Jesus' case may involve additional evidence elsewhere in John's Gospel, but that additional evidence must actually be demonstrated.

It cannot simply be inserted into John 13:3 through the English word:

“BACK.”

WHAT ABOUT JOHN 1:1?

This becomes especially important because many Christians identify Jesus personally with:

“THE WORD”

in John 1:1.

They therefore read John 13:3 and John 16:28 through that interpretation:

The Word was with God → Jesus came from God → Jesus went back to God.

But that is already an interpretive chain.

If we are investigating whether Jesus personally pre-existed His birth, we should not assume the conclusion before examining the individual passages.

The question must first be:

WHAT DOES EACH TEXT ACTUALLY SAY?

Only then should we construct our theology from them.

“GOING TO GOD” DOES NOT BY ITSELF MEAN “RETURNING TO WHERE I PREVIOUSLY LIVED”

This is the central point.

Suppose someone says:

“I am going to God.”

That statement alone does not tell us that the person previously lived with God in heaven.

Therefore:

“HE IS GOING TO GOD”

does not grammatically equal:

“HE IS RETURNING TO THE PLACE WHERE HE PERSONALLY EXISTED BEFORE HIS BIRTH.”

That additional conclusion comes from interpretation.

And that is exactly why the words:

“BACK”

and:

“RETURN”

matter when readers are investigating Christ's alleged pre-human existence.

DOES THIS PROVE JESUS DID NOT PRE-EXIST?

Here we should avoid going further than the evidence allows.

The absence of the English word “back” from the Greek of John 13:3 does not by itself prove that Jesus did not personally pre-exist.

Likewise, it does not settle every pre-existence passage in John's Gospel.

Those passages—including John 1:1, John 6, John 8:58, John 16:28 and John 17:5—must each be examined in their own context.

But John 13:3 certainly should not be presented as though John literally wrote:

“JESUS WAS RETURNING TO GOD.”

He wrote that Jesus:

CAME FORTH FROM GOD

and:

WAS GOING TO GOD.

Whether that means a return to a previous heavenly personal existence is an interpretive conclusion, not something supplied by a Greek word meaning “back.”

THIS DISTINCTION IS VERY IMPORTANT

Imagine someone reading only the NLT:

“…he had come from God and would return to God.”

The natural impression is:

Jesus was originally with God → Jesus came here → Jesus returned there.

But a reader looking at the Greek sees:

“…He came forth from God and He is going to God.”

Now the theological question remains open:

WHAT DOES “CAME FORTH FROM GOD” MEAN?

That is exactly the question Bible students should investigate.

A translation should not be mistaken for proof of the interpretation it has chosen.

QUICK FACTS — WHAT HAVE WE DISCOVERED?

1. JOHN 13:3 DOES NOT CONTAIN A SEPARATE GREEK WORD FOR “BACK.”

The text says Jesus:

“IS GOING TO GOD.”

2. “RETURN” IN THE NLT IS AN INTERPRETIVE RENDERING.

It expresses how the translators understand Jesus' movement from and to God.

3. JOHN 16:28 ENDS WITH:

“I GO TO THE FATHER.”

4. JOHN 16:28 DOES CONTAIN πάλιν — “AGAIN.”

So this verse must be handled more carefully than simply saying that all concepts of repetition are absent.

5. “FROM GOD” DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY PROVE PRE-EXISTENCE.

John the Baptist was also described as:

“SENT FROM GOD.”

Yet John did not pre-exist his birth.

6. THESE VERSES ALONE DO NOT SETTLE THE PRE-EXISTENCE QUESTION.

The wider Gospel of John must be examined.

7. BUT WE SHOULD DISTINGUISH THE GREEK TEXT FROM THE TRANSLATOR'S INTERPRETATION.

“Going to God” is what the Greek says in John 13:3.

“Going back to God” expresses an interpretation of what that journey means.

FINAL CONCLUSION

Did John literally write in John 13:3 that Jesus was:

“RETURNING TO GOD”

or:

“GOING BACK TO GOD”?

NOT LITERALLY.

John says Jesus:

“CAME FORTH FROM GOD AND IS GOING TO GOD.”

The words “return” and “back” found in several English translations make explicit the translators' understanding that Jesus was returning to a previous heavenly location.

That interpretation may be argued from other passages, but it should not be confused with the literal wording of John 13:3.

John 16:28 similarly concludes:

“I GO TO THE FATHER,”

although that verse also contains πάλιν — “again,” and therefore requires careful contextual interpretation.

So we should not claim these verses prove either side merely by pointing to an English translation.

Instead:

CHECK THE GREEK.

DISTINGUISH TRANSLATION FROM INTERPRETATION.

EXAMINE WHAT “FROM GOD” MEANS THROUGHOUT JOHN.

THEN TEST THE CLAIM OF PRE-EXISTENCE AGAINST THE WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE.

As Jesus said:

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and it will be opened to you.”
— Matthew 7:7, BLB

Research by Simon Brown

wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

Related articles:

John 6:62 — Does “Ascending to Where He Was Before” Prove Jesus Lived in Heaven Before His Birth?

Hebrews 1:10 – Did God Really Say to the Son, “You Laid the Foundation of the Earth”?

Posted by Simon Brown. at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, 17 August 2026

Ephesians 3:9 – Did Paul Really Write “Who Created All Things by Jesus Christ”?

Ephesians 3:9 infographic comparing the KJV phrase “who created all things by Jesus Christ” with the shorter Greek reading “God, the One having created all things,” alongside manuscript evidence and Isaiah 44:24.

This detailed Bible research infographic examines the textual variant in Ephesians 3:9. It compares the King James Bible wording “who created all things by Jesus Christ” with the shorter critical Greek reading, “God, the One having created all things.” It also compares modern Bible translations and Isaiah 44:24, where Yahweh declares that He makes all things and stretched out the heavens by Himself.

QUICK FACTS: EPHESIANS 3:9

DID PAUL REALLY WRITE: “WHO CREATED ALL THINGS BY JESUS CHRIST”?

Ephesians 3:9 contains an important textual difference that every serious Bible student should know about.

The King James Bible reads:

“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.”

Notice the final words:

“WHO CREATED ALL THINGS BY JESUS CHRIST.”

Read naturally, this sounds as though Paul explicitly wrote that:

GOD CREATED ALL THINGS BY JESUS CHRIST.

This wording is therefore sometimes used as evidence that Jesus personally existed before His birth and participated in God's creation of the universe.

But there is a major textual problem:

“BY JESUS CHRIST” IS NOT FOUND IN THE EARLIEST AND BEST GREEK TEXTUAL WITNESSES.

This is not merely a question of how one translates a Greek word.

It is a genuine textual variant.

Let's examine it.

WHAT DOES THE GREEK TEXT SAY?

The shorter Greek reading ends:

τοῦ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντος

Meaning:

“THE ONE HAVING CREATED ALL THINGS.”

A literal rendering of the relevant portion is:

“…the mystery having been hidden from the ages in God, the One having created all things.”

Notice what is absent:

❌ “BY JESUS CHRIST”

The Greek words corresponding to:

“through Jesus Christ”

are:

διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

Those words appear in the later textual tradition behind the KJV, but they are absent from the critical Greek text followed by most modern translations.

Therefore, the shorter reading simply says that the mystery was hidden:

“IN GOD, THE ONE HAVING CREATED ALL THINGS.”

THIS IS IMPORTANT: DON'T CALL THIS A “MODERN TRANSLATION” ADDITION

There is an important correction we should make.

The KJV's “by Jesus Christ” was not invented by the King James translators themselves.

The translators were following the Greek textual tradition available to them that contained:

διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ — “THROUGH JESUS CHRIST.”

Therefore, the strongest historical argument is not:

“THE KJV TRANSLATORS ADDED THESE WORDS.”

Rather:

“THE KJV PRESERVES A LATER GREEK READING THAT IS ABSENT FROM IMPORTANT EARLIER MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE.”

That is much more precise.

And importantly, most modern critical-text translations actually REMOVE the phrase rather than add it.

COMPARE THE TRANSLATIONS

KING JAMES VERSION

“…God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.”

Now compare translations following the shorter Greek reading.

BEREAN LITERAL BIBLE

“…God, the One having created all things…”

ESV

“…God, who created all things…”

NASB

“…God who created all things…”

NIV

“…God, who created all things.”

Notice what has disappeared:

“BY JESUS CHRIST.”

Why?

Because the underlying critical Greek text does not contain those words.

SO WHAT DOES EPHESIANS 3:9 ACTUALLY ESTABLISH?

With the disputed phrase removed, the statement is straightforward:

GOD CREATED ALL THINGS.

The verse does not explicitly say:

GOD CREATED ALL THINGS THROUGH JESUS CHRIST.

And it does not explicitly say:

JESUS CREATED ALL THINGS.

Jesus Christ is certainly central to the surrounding mystery and God's purpose—Ephesians 3 repeatedly discusses Christ—but the phrase “through Jesus Christ” at the end of verse 9 is textually disputed and absent from the critical text.

That distinction matters enormously when this particular verse is being used as a proof text for Christ's role in Genesis creation.

NOW COMPARE ISAIAH 44:24

This shorter reading fits naturally alongside Yahweh's declaration in Isaiah:

“Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb: ‘I am Yahweh, who makes all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, spreading out the earth—who was with Me?’”
— Isaiah 44:24

Look carefully at God's words:

“I AM YAHWEH.”

“WHO MAKES ALL THINGS.”

“STRETCHING OUT THE HEAVENS BY MYSELF.”

The language is emphatic.

Yahweh declares Himself to be the Creator.

“WHO WAS WITH ME?”

Isaiah 44:24 contains an especially interesting rhetorical question:

“WHO WAS WITH ME?”

This deserves consideration whenever someone argues that another person was alongside Yahweh performing the work of creation.

The passage presents Yahweh's creative work in emphatically singular language:

I am Yahweh

I make all things

I stretched out the heavens

by Myself

Therefore, if another passage is interpreted as saying someone else participated in creation, that interpretation should be carefully reconciled with Isaiah 44:24 rather than simply assumed.

EPHESIANS 3:9 AGREES WITH THIS BASIC STATEMENT

Remove the disputed words from Ephesians 3:9 and what remains?

GOD — THE ONE HAVING CREATED ALL THINGS.

That is entirely straightforward.

There is no explicit statement in the shorter text saying:

“JESUS CREATED THE UNIVERSE.”

Nor:

“GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE THROUGH JESUS.”

Those ideas would have to be argued from other passages.

They cannot securely be established from the disputed ending of Ephesians 3:9.

WHAT ABOUT THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT?

This is particularly important.

Paul's subject in Ephesians 3 is not primarily how Genesis creation happened.

He is explaining God's previously hidden mystery and purpose now revealed through Christ.

Paul speaks about:

the mystery,

God's eternal purpose,

Christ Jesus,

Jews and Gentiles sharing together,

and God's wisdom being revealed through the church.

So we should not make Ephesians 3:9 say more about cosmology than its textual evidence and context actually establish.

GOD'S PURPOSE CENTERS ON CHRIST

None of this diminishes Christ's extraordinary place in God's purpose.

The New Testament repeatedly presents God's plan as centered upon His Son.

1 Peter 1:20 describes Christ as having been foreknown before the foundation of the world.

Galatians 4:4 says:

“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son…”

God's redemptive purpose was centered upon Christ.

But there is a difference between saying:

CREATION WAS PART OF GOD'S PURPOSE THAT CULMINATES IN CHRIST

and claiming:

EPHESIANS 3:9 EXPLICITLY SAYS JESUS CREATED THE UNIVERSE.

The shorter and better-attested text does not say that.

WHY TEXTUAL VARIANTS MATTER

This is exactly why Christians should examine manuscript evidence instead of relying upon a single translation.

Sometimes later manuscripts contain additional words.

Sometimes scribes accidentally omit words.

Sometimes readings expand through explanatory additions.

Textual criticism compares the surviving manuscripts, their dates, geographical distribution and relationships in an attempt to determine the earliest recoverable wording.

That process should not be feared.

It helps us get closer to the original text.

And Ephesians 3:9 provides a useful example.

DOES THIS PROVE A “TRINITARIAN CONSPIRACY”?

We should be careful here.

The textual evidence strongly supports questioning the phrase:

“BY JESUS CHRIST.”

But the manuscript evidence by itself does not prove why the longer reading arose.

It does not demonstrate that a particular scribe deliberately inserted the words specifically to manufacture the Trinity doctrine.

That would require separate historical evidence.

Therefore, the strongest case is to stick to what we can demonstrate:

THE PHRASE IS TEXTUALLY SECONDARY ACCORDING TO THE CRITICAL TEXT.

That fact is powerful enough without claiming a motive that the surviving manuscripts cannot establish.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACT

Ironically, this textual issue demonstrates why it would be inaccurate to blame “modern Trinitarian translations” generally.

Many modern translations produced by Trinitarian scholars actually reject the longer reading.

They remove:

“BY JESUS CHRIST.”

That includes translations such as the ESV, NASB and NIV.

So regardless of the translators' theology, modern textual scholarship has generally recognized that these words probably were not part of the earliest text of Ephesians 3:9.

That is worth emphasizing because it strengthens the credibility of the textual argument.

QUICK FACTS — WHAT HAVE WE DISCOVERED?

1.

The KJV reads:

“WHO CREATED ALL THINGS BY JESUS CHRIST.”

2.

The words:

“BY JESUS CHRIST”

represent the Greek:

διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

3.

Those words are absent from the critical Greek text and important early manuscript evidence.

4.

The shorter reading says:

“GOD, THE ONE HAVING CREATED ALL THINGS.”

5.

Most modern critical-text translations therefore omit:

“BY JESUS CHRIST.”

6.

This means Ephesians 3:9 cannot securely be used to prove that Paul explicitly wrote:

“GOD CREATED EVERYTHING THROUGH JESUS CHRIST.”

7.

Isaiah 44:24 explicitly presents Yahweh saying that He makes all things and stretched out the heavens:

“BY MYSELF.”

FINAL CONCLUSION

Did Paul originally write in Ephesians 3:9:

“GOD, WHO CREATED ALL THINGS BY JESUS CHRIST”?

The strongest textual evidence indicates:

NO.

The shorter reading is:

“…God, the One having created all things.”

The words:

“BY JESUS CHRIST”

are a later textual variant preserved in the manuscript tradition behind the King James Version.

Therefore, we should not use those disputed words as though their originality were certain—especially when building a major doctrine upon them.

And we should also avoid going beyond the evidence by accusing individual translators of deliberately falsifying Scripture when they were translating the Greek text available to them.

The stronger argument is simpler:

CHECK THE MANUSCRIPTS.

CHECK THE GREEK.

COMPARE THE TRANSLATIONS.

AND DON'T BUILD DOCTRINE UPON WORDS THAT THE EARLIEST TEXTUAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT.

The shorter text leaves us with the simple declaration:

GOD IS “THE ONE HAVING CREATED ALL THINGS.”

And that fits remarkably well with Yahweh's own declaration:

“I am Yahweh, who makes all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself…”
— Isaiah 44:24

Research by Simon Brown

wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

Read more »
Posted by Simon Brown. at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Hebrews 1:10 – Did God Really Say to the Son, “You Laid the Foundation of the Earth”?


Hebrews 1:10 infographic examining whether God said to the Son, “You laid the foundation of the earth,” comparing the Greek text with the NLT and the original quotation from Psalm 102 addressed to Yahweh.

This detailed Bible research infographic examines Hebrews 1:10 and translations that introduce the words “to the Son.” It compares the Greek wording of Hebrews 1:10 with the NLT and Weymouth translations and traces the quotation back to Psalm 102:25–27, where the prayer is addressed to Yahweh. It also considers the surrounding argument of Hebrews 1 and asks how the author applies this Old Testament passage within a chapter concerning the Son.

QUICK FACTS: HEBREWS 1:10

DID GOD REALLY SAY TO THE SON: “IN THE BEGINNING, LORD, YOU LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH”?

Hebrews 1:10 is often presented as powerful evidence that Jesus created the heavens and the earth.

Some translations make that interpretation especially explicit.

The New Living Translation introduces Hebrews 1:10 with:

“He also says to the Son…”

and then continues:

“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundation of the earth and made the heavens with your hands.”

The Weymouth New Testament is even more explicit in its introductory wording:

“It is also of His Son that God says…”

If we read these translations without examining the Greek, it certainly appears that God is directly telling Jesus:

“YOU CREATED THE EARTH AND THE HEAVENS.”

But there is an extremely important fact readers need to know:

THE WORD “SON” DOES NOT APPEAR IN HEBREWS 1:10.

Neither does:

“JESUS.”

So where did “to the Son” come from?

Let's investigate.

WHAT DOES HEBREWS 1:10 ACTUALLY SAY?

A more literal rendering begins:

“And: ‘You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are works of Your hands.’”

The Greek begins:

καί· Σὺ κατ’ ἀρχάς, Κύριε…

Meaning:

καί — and

σύ — you

κατ’ ἀρχάς — in the beginning

Κύριε — Lord

There is no:

Ἰησοῦς — JESUS

and there is no:

υἱός — SON

in Hebrews 1:10.

Therefore, translations that introduce the verse with:

“HE ALSO SAYS TO THE SON”

are making the connection explicit as an interpretive addition based on how they understand the surrounding argument in Hebrews 1.

That distinction is important.

BUT WE MUST ALSO BE CAREFUL

There is another side to this that we should not hide.

Although the Greek of verse 10 itself does not contain the words “to the Son,” Hebrews 1 is comparing the Son with the angels, and verses 8–9 explicitly begin:

“But unto the Son…”

Then verse 10 continues:

“AND…”

So Trinitarian interpreters argue that the quotation beginning in verse 10 continues God's address concerning the Son.

That interpretation cannot simply be dismissed by pointing out that the word “Son” is absent from verse 10.

The real question is deeper:

WHO IS BEING ADDRESSED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGE THAT HEBREWS 1:10 QUOTES?

And this is where Psalm 102 becomes extremely important.

HEBREWS 1:10 IS A QUOTATION FROM PSALM 102

Hebrews 1:10–12 draws from Psalm 102:25–27.

Psalm 102:25 says:

“Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.”

Who is the “You” in the original Psalm?

We don't have to guess.

Look at the heading and opening prayer:

PSALM 102 — A PRAYER TO YAHWEH

The Psalm begins:

“Yahweh, hear my prayer, and let my cry come before You.”

The person praying is addressing:

YAHWEH.

Continue through the Psalm and the identity remains explicit.

Psalm 102:12 addresses:

“You, Yahweh…”

Later:

“So the nations will fear the name of Yahweh…”

And:

“For Yahweh has built up Zion…”

Therefore, in its original Old Testament context, Psalm 102 is unmistakably a prayer addressed to:

YAHWEH.

WHO CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH IN PSALM 102?

The Psalm eventually declares:

“Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.”

The person addressed throughout the prayer is:

YAHWEH.

This agrees perfectly with another extremely explicit statement in Isaiah:

“Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb: ‘I am Yahweh, who makes all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, spreading out the earth—who was with Me?’”
— Isaiah 44:24

Notice the force of the statement:

YAHWEH MADE ALL THINGS.

HE STRETCHED OUT THE HEAVENS BY HIMSELF.

That creates an important interpretive question if Hebrews 1:10 is understood as directly identifying Jesus as the creator described in Psalm 102.

WHAT IS HAPPENING IN HEBREWS 1?

Hebrews 1 is not simply a collection of isolated statements.

The author is building an argument concerning God's Son.

Hebrews begins:

“God, having spoken long ago to our fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son…”
— Hebrews 1:1–2, BLB

Notice immediately:

GOD

and:

HIS SON.

The Son is God's appointed heir:

“…whom He appointed heir of all things…”

God is the one appointing.

Jesus is the Son whom God appoints.

The chapter then uses a series of Old Testament quotations to establish the Son's superiority over the angels.

Therefore, we need to distinguish two questions:

1. Who was Psalm 102 originally addressing?

The answer is unquestionably:

YAHWEH.

2. How is the author of Hebrews applying Psalm 102:25–27 within his argument about the Son?

That is the disputed interpretive question.

And that is the question that deserves serious investigation.

THE NLT GOES BEYOND THE WORDING OF VERSE 10

This is why the NLT should be used carefully here.

It reads:

“HE ALSO SAYS TO THE SON…”

But those words are not literally present in Hebrews 1:10.

The Greek has simply:

“AND…”

followed by:

“YOU, LORD…”

The NLT translators have therefore made their interpretation of the connection explicit in the English text.

That does not prove their interpretation is necessarily wrong.

But readers should know:

PAUL—OR MORE PRECISELY, THE AUTHOR OF HEBREWS—DID NOT WRITE THE WORDS “TO THE SON” IN VERSE 10.

And another correction is important: the author of Hebrews never identifies himself in the book, so we should not state as a fact that Paul wrote Hebrews.

DOES “LORD” AUTOMATICALLY MEAN JESUS?

No.

The Greek word:

Κύριε — KYRIE — LORD

does not by itself identify Jesus.

Kyrios is used in different ways depending upon context.

More importantly, Hebrews 1:10 is quoting a Greek Old Testament passage where κύριος (Lord) represents the God addressed in Psalm 102:

YAHWEH.

Therefore, simply seeing:

“LORD”

in Hebrews 1:10 does not, by itself, prove that the original Psalm was speaking about Jesus.

The original context must be considered.

BUT WHY WOULD HEBREWS APPLY A YAHWEH TEXT IN A PASSAGE ABOUT THE SON?

This is the strongest question raised by the traditional interpretation, and it deserves a serious answer rather than being ignored.

Trinitarian scholars argue that the author deliberately applies Psalm 102's language about Yahweh to the Son, thereby placing the Son within the identity and works of Israel's God.

That is a substantial argument.

A non-Trinitarian interpretation must therefore explain why a Yahweh text appears at this point in Hebrews 1 without simply saying:

“THE WORD SON ISN'T IN VERSE 10, CASE CLOSED.”

It isn't case closed.

The grammar, quotation structure, Septuagint wording and argument of Hebrews 1 all need to be examined.

That makes Hebrews 1:10 a far more interesting passage than some popular arguments on either side acknowledge.

WHAT CAN WE ESTABLISH WITH CERTAINTY?

There are several facts that do not depend upon our theological position.

FACT 1

Hebrews 1:10 does not literally contain the name “Jesus.”

FACT 2

Hebrews 1:10 does not literally contain the word “Son.”

FACT 3

The NLT's:

“HE ALSO SAYS TO THE SON”

is therefore an interpretive expansion.

FACT 4

Hebrews 1:10–12 quotes Psalm 102:25–27.

FACT 5

Psalm 102 explicitly addresses:

YAHWEH.

FACT 6

Psalm 102 attributes the laying of the earth's foundation and the heavens to Yahweh.

FACT 7

The difficult question is therefore not merely what one English translation says.

It is:

WHY DOES HEBREWS USE THIS YAHWEH PASSAGE IN ITS ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE SON?

That is the real textual and contextual question.

WE SHOULD NOT ALTER THE QUESTION BEFORE ANSWERING IT

If a Bible prints:

“He also says to the Son…”

many readers will naturally assume those words are directly present in the Greek manuscript.

They aren't.

That interpretation may ultimately be defended from the surrounding context, but it should first be identified as an interpretation.

The more literal wording allows readers to see the actual textual problem:

“And: ‘You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth…’”

Then we can go back to Psalm 102 and ask:

WHO WAS ORIGINALLY BEING ADDRESSED?

The answer is clear:

YAHWEH.

Then we can ask the second question:

HOW IS HEBREWS USING THAT PASSAGE IN RELATION TO THE SON?

That is where the real debate begins.

FINAL CONCLUSION

Does Hebrews 1:10 literally say:

“GOD SAYS TO THE SON, ‘YOU CREATED THE EARTH’”?

NO — NOT IN THOSE WORDS.

The Greek text of verse 10 does not contain:

“JESUS”

or:

“THE SON.”

The words “He also says to the Son” in translations such as the NLT are an interpretive addition intended to make explicit how those translators understand the connection with the preceding verses.

Hebrews 1:10 actually begins:

“AND: YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING…”

And the words that follow come from Psalm 102, where the person being addressed is explicitly:

YAHWEH.

But we should not overstate the evidence in the opposite direction either.

Because Hebrews 1 is unquestionably discussing the Son, the serious question remains why the author places this quotation here and whether he intends to apply Psalm 102's language directly to the Son.

So rather than allowing an English translation to answer the question for us:

CHECK THE GREEK.

READ PSALM 102 IN FULL.

EXAMINE THE CONTEXT OF HEBREWS 1.

AND THEN DECIDE WHAT THE AUTHOR IS ACTUALLY TEACHING.

That is the Berean approach—and it produces a much stronger investigation than simply beginning with the words an English translator has added.

Research by Simon Brown

wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

Related articles:


Posted by Simon Brown. at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)