Question for any Jehovah's Witness

[twohumble]

Really? Tell me, what is the Hebrew word that is translated "me" at Zechariah 12:10 and demonstrate how these other translations got it wrong. And before you do that, you might want to ask yourself this question, "Has the NASB translated this Hebrew word differently from "me" at other verses?" Furthermore, here is the NASB at John 19:37

"And again another Scripture says, "[size=2]THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED."

Hmm. Now this is strange. The NASB is quoting Zechariah 12:10 at this verse and yet they don’t quote it the way they translated it at Zechariah 12:10. So let's see. Either the NASB translated the term incorrectly or the Apostle John did as it's obvious "me" is not in the Greek. So who are you going with? NASB or slew of other Bibles and John?

You asked this question awhile ago, and I was curious, so I looked some stuff up and found some commentary on it.

The change to the third person ("mourn for Him" in Zech, rather than ”mourn for Me", in John 19) is common in prophetic literature. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

I will go with the majority of interpretations of Zech 12:10 and the Translations rather than transliterations.

In regard to why John used the 3rd person in "Him" rather than "ME": My best guess is that John is simply editorializing here – using Zechariah’s word “Me” which clearly refers to Messiah – and calling Messiah “Him” for the sake of clarity for his readers. John does this editorializing in other places as well – especially in Ch 3 and 4 if I recall correctly. Done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we can be sure of his rendering.

I would like ask you :who is the alpha and omega? Is it the same as the one who is pierced?

[NonTrinitarian]

You asked this question awhile ago, and I was curious, so I looked some stuff up and found some commentary on it.

The change to the third person ("mourn for Him" in Zech, rather than ”mourn for Me", in John 19) is common in prophetic literature. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

I will go with the majority of interpretations of Zech 12:10 and the Translations rather than transliterations.

Buzz. Wrong answer. Try again. This is not why there is a difference of opinion on the translation. Hint: Might want to see what different manuscripts there are. Also, might want to read that whole verse in Zechariah. It has a clue as to whether Jesus is speaking or being spoken of.

In regard to why John used the 3rd person in "Him" rather than "ME": My best guess is that John is simply editorializing here – using Zechariah’s word “Me” which clearly refers to Messiah – and calling Messiah “Him” for the sake of clarity for his readers. John does this editorializing in other places as well – especially in Ch 3 and 4 if I recall correctly. Done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we can be sure of his rendering.

You're right. It's a guess. Again, rather than trying to rationalize this away. Read the whole verse at Zechariah to see if Jesus is speaking or being spoken of. Contemplate the different manuscripts and how they read there and then how John quoted the verse.

I would like ask you :who is the alpha and omega? Is it the same as the one who is pierced?

We already discussed this subject on another thread. Search for it here at TWeb as I'm not retyping it.

[apostle]

I use the JW bible when they come to my home.

And I ask them why they insist that the name of God is Jehovah?
They show me this verse.

Exo 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

I then say OK. What does this verse mean?

Isa 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a NEW NAME, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.

This is normaly where I start.

[NonTrinitarian]

I use the JW bible when they come to my home.

And I ask them why they insist that the name of God is Jehovah?
They show me this verse.

Exo 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

I then say OK. What does this verse mean?

Isa 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a NEW NAME, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.

This is normaly where I start.

And then the JW would take you to Jeremiah 33:16 where the verse in Isaiah is fullfilled: There it reads,
"In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.'" New International Version

I'm sure you recognize what the all caps LORD is referencing. So do you not believe God's name is Jehovah or Yahweh?

[twohumble]

Buzz. Wrong answer. Try again. This is not why there is a difference of opinion on the translation. Hint: Might want to see what different manuscripts there are. Also, might want to read that whole verse in Zechariah. It has a clue as to whether Jesus is speaking or being spoken of.

Wow, wrong answer? I doubt it. I have read the whole vs, and you disagree not just with me, but the majority of OT scholars as well.

You're right. It's a guess. Again, rather than trying to rationalize this away. Read the whole verse at Zechariah to see if Jesus is speaking or being spoken of. Contemplate the different manuscripts and how they read there and then how John quoted the verse.

Again, I did read the verse, and we disagree on what to me and many many others, seems a clear and concise Messianic verse.
The "rationalization" is the use of logic and reason to understand and exegete meaning. You simply take your presups and apply them whimsically as you choose.

You keep throwing "different manuscripts" around, what specifically are you talking about? The Septuagint version maybe?

We already discussed this subject on another thread. Search for it here at TWeb as I'm not retyping it.

My question is somewhat different than your response to "alpha and omega". Also, your response was HUGE and I don't feel like treading through that ...this is simple, a one line or a 3 word answer will suffice.
I would like ask you :is the alpha and omega the same as the one who is pierced?

All that is required is a "no its not the same as the one pierced" or "yes, it is"...Dont' make this harder than it is, and don't evade a simple question, if you must refer to another of your posts, then link me, if you don't want to link me, then answer it here, its a simple question, I don't require a long explanation.

[NonTrinitarian]

Wow, wrong answer? I doubt it. I have read the whole vs, and you disagree not just with me, but the majority of OT scholars as well.

And you disagree with a lot of scholars and noted bible translations too.

Again, I did read the verse, and we disagree on what to me and many many others, seems a clear and concise Messianic verse.
The "rationalization" is the use of logic and reason to understand and exegete meaning. You simply take your presups and apply them whimsically as you choose.

Where did I ever say this was not a messianic verse? I do believe it applies to Jesus. Here is the verse from the NIV-

"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."

Notice the change in pronouns. Now fill in the identities of each one. And then factor in the other MSS that do have "one" instead of "me" and then factor in John's quote of it and then factor in that Simeon told Mary that she would be pierced when Jesus died and you can see why this verse is not very convincing to me.

You keep throwing "different manuscripts" around, what specifically are you talking about? The Septuagint version maybe?

No, the LXX is butchered in this verse. It doens't even discuss the piercing. I am refering to about 50 MSS that have "one" instead of "me".

My question is somewhat different than your response to "alpha and omega". Also, your response was HUGE and I don't feel like treading through that ...this is simple, a one line or a 3 word answer will suffice.
I would like ask you :is the alpha and omega the same as the one who is pierced?

All that is required is a "no its not the same as the one pierced" or "yes, it is"...Dont' make this harder than it is, and don't evade a simple question, if you must refer to another of your posts, then link me, if you don't want to link me, then answer it here, its a simple question, I don't require a long explanation.

I smell a trap...which is why you really do need to go and read the information on the A&O that Dee Dee and AV discussed with me. You are making the assumption that the person in Rev 1:7 is the same person as Rev 1:8, that being Jesus. I'm not getting into another A&O debate unless new evidence other than what Dee Dee and AV posted is presented.

[apostle]

I believe the name Jehovah is given as the old covenant name.
The new covenant name I believe is Jesus.

Rev 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a NEW NAME written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

What do you believe the New Name is?

Same God.

[NonTrinitarian]

I believe the name Jehovah is given as the old covenant name.
The new covenant name I believe is Jesus.

Rev 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a NEW NAME written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

What do you believe the New Name is?

Same God.

Don't make this more complicated than it is. If my name is Bill and your name is Joe and I say that I am giving YOU a new name, does that mean MY name is not Bill anymore? And if I say that my mother has a name (say Betty) and I write on YOU MY new name (say I changed it from Bill to George), does that mean my mother's name is not Betty? So please explain to me how the verses you quoted all of a sudden change God's Name from Jehovah to Jesus? Especially when there are a number of scriptures that say that the name Jehovah will be God's Name forever.

I have already demonstrated that the "new name" for God's people that you mentioned in Isaiah still included the name Jehovah. What proof are you offereing that it changed? The scriptures you provided don't SAY anything about God's name changing. You are reading that into them. At most they mention the name THEY are called or the name that JESUS takes on. None of them say ANYTHING about God's Name changing. Go back and read what the verses say and pay special attention to what the DON'T say. I even bolded it for your conveinence.

[twohumble]

And you disagree with a lot of scholars and noted bible translations too.

Really? Cause I have not found a commentary, even by a version that translates it "him" or "one" that does not equate that with Jesus. The point, of course, is that the rest of Zech. is clearly the Father speaking, hence making Himself "one" with the One who is pierced. Its also interesting how Rev 1:7-8 does the same thing. Yet you deny both.

Can you give me a source of a commentary (other than a JW source) that disagrees with me? I have not seen any. I am not saying there are none, I am sure there are, I just don't know of any.

The fact that you may produce a source or 2, is a long cry from the vast majority that agrees with my position, and disagrees with yours. Majority vote does not make it right, but in this case, I go with the majority.

No, the LXX is butchered in this verse. It doens't even discuss the piercing. I am refering to about 50 MSS that have "one" instead of "me".

Simply for your review regarding the use of the LXX's use of "piercing"

"....and there is a remarkable nicety in the choice of the words employed both by the prophet and the Evangelist for “piercing.” The word in Zechariah means to thrust through with spear, javelin, sword, or any such weapon. In that sense it is used in all the ten places, besides this, where it is found. How suitable this was to express the action of the Roman soldier, is manifest; and our Evangelist uses the exactly corresponding word, which the Septuagint certainly does not. Very different is the other word for “pierce” in Ps 22:16, “They pierced my hands and my feet.” The word there used is one signifying to bore as with an awl or hammer. How striking are these small niceties!" Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1998.

[NonTrinitarian]

Really? Cause I have not found a commentary, even by a version that translates it "him" or "one" that does not equate that with Jesus. The point, of course, is that the rest of Zech. is clearly the Father speaking, hence making Himself "one" with the One who is pierced. Its also interesting how Rev 1:7-8 does the same thing. Yet you deny both.

You're right, the rest of the verse IS the Father speaking. Which is why "him" is obviously more appropriate than "me" as it harmonizes the pronouns. And you can try to explain away whatever you want however you want. I've got enough comfort knowing the apostle John sees it my way, not yours.

Can you give me a source of a commentary (other than a JW source) that disagrees with me? I have not seen any. I am not saying there are none, I am sure there are, I just don't know of any.

The fact that you may produce a source or 2, is a long cry from the vast majority that agrees with my position, and disagrees with yours. Majority vote does not make it right, but in this case, I go with the majority.

So which is it? First you ask for a source and then, knowing I obviosuly have some, you say even if I gave them to you it wouldn't matter. So forget it. I'm not going to type them out if it won't mean anything anyway. You're like the people Jesus was talking about:

With whom shall I compare this generation? It is like young children sitting in the marketplaces who cry out to their playmates, saying, ‘We played the flute for YOU, but YOU did not dance; we wailed, but YOU did not beat yourselves in grief.’ Correspondingly, John came neither eating nor drinking, yet people say, ‘He has a demon’; the Son of man did come eating and drinking, still people say, ‘Look! A man gluttonous and given to drinking wine, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ All the same, wisdom is proved righteous by its works.”

There's no pleasing you so why even try? And don't blame me because you have a small library.

Simply for your review regarding the use of the LXX's use of "piercing"

"....and there is a remarkable nicety in the choice of the words employed both by the prophet and the Evangelist for “piercing.” The word in Zechariah means to thrust through with spear, javelin, sword, or any such weapon. In that sense it is used in all the ten places, besides this, where it is found. How suitable this was to express the action of the Roman soldier, is manifest; and our Evangelist uses the exactly corresponding word, which the Septuagint certainly does not. Very different is the other word for “pierce” in Ps 22:16, “They pierced my hands and my feet.” The word there used is one signifying to bore as with an awl or hammer. How striking are these small niceties!" Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1998.

I think your confused so I'm gonna help you out on this, not that it will make any difference-
"and they will look upon me, because they performed a victory dance, and they will lament over him, as over a beloved one, and they will suffer as over the loss of of a firstborn."-

That's from the LXX. Notice there is no mention of piercing. What were you trying to prove by your quote?

[twohumble]

You're right, the rest of the verse IS the Father speaking. Which is why "him" is obviously more appropriate than "me" as it harmonizes the pronouns. And you can try to explain away whatever you want however you want. I've got enough comfort knowing the apostle John sees it my way, not yours.

So which is it? First you ask for a source and then, knowing I obviosuly have some, you say even if I gave them to you it wouldn't matter. So forget it. I'm not going to type them out if it won't mean anything anyway. You're like the people Jesus was talking about:

With whom shall I compare this generation? It is like young children sitting in the marketplaces who cry out to their playmates, saying, ‘We played the flute for YOU, but YOU did not dance; we wailed, but YOU did not beat yourselves in grief.’ Correspondingly, John came neither eating nor drinking, yet people say, ‘He has a demon’; the Son of man did come eating and drinking, still people say, ‘Look! A man gluttonous and given to drinking wine, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ All the same, wisdom is proved righteous by its works.”

There's no pleasing you so why even try? And don't blame me because you have a small library.


I think your confused so I'm gonna help you out on this, not that it will make any difference-
"and they will look upon me, because they performed a victory dance, and they will lament over him, as over a beloved one, and they will suffer as over the loss of of a firstborn."-

That's from the LXX. Notice there is no mention of piercing. What were you trying to prove by your quote?

So, I am wrong?? You have more than one source that is NOT from a JW background? No, I didn't think so. MY library is without Jw material, so you are right, I don't have those kind of sources. Funny, it seems that is the extent of yours.

Now, if I am wrong, prove it. Type them out so we can all see the VAST references that support your claim.

[twohumble]

Non Trin...you have suggested I read your discourse with Dee Dee Warren on A&O, yet I only see the response you made without her original, or her rebuttal. Where is the original posted?

[NonTrinitarian]

So, I am wrong?? You have more than one source that is NOT from a JW background? No, I didn't think so. MY library is without Jw material, so you are right, I don't have those kind of sources. Funny, it seems that is the extent of yours.

Now, if I am wrong, prove it. Type them out so we can all see the VAST references that support your claim.

You're humulity is so becoming (cough cough). Here is one: F. F. Bruce. Have you heard of him? Probably one of the most famed theologians in the 20th century and a staunch Trinitarian.

This has been done with Zech. 12:10, which foretells a day of great mourning in Jerusalem and the surrounding territory when, as the Masoretic Hebrew text puts it, "they shall look unto me whom they have pierced" (so R.V.). The passage is quoted once and echoed once in the New Testament, and in both places the pronoun is not "me" but "him". This is not so significant in the place where the passage is merely echoed (Rev. I : 7, " and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him"), for that is not an exact quotation. Here the predicted looking to the one who was pierced is interpreted of the Second Advent of Christ. But in John 19:37 the piercing is interpreted of the piercing of Christ's side with a soldier's lance after His death on the cross, and here Zech. 12:10 is expressly quoted: "And again another scripture says, 'They shall look on him whom they have pierced'." It is a reasonable inference that this is the form in which the Evangelist knew the passage, and indeed the reading "him' instead of "me" appears in a few Hebrew manuscripts. The R.S.V. thus has New Testament authority for its rendering of Zech.12:10 , "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall moum for him, as on e mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." Why then is the R.S.V. criticized for conforming to the New Testament here? Because, if the reading "me" be retained, the reference would be to the speaker, who is God, and in view of the application of the passage in the New Testament, there are some who see here an anticipation of the Christian doctrine of our Lord's divine nature. The reading "me" is certainly quite early, for it appears in the Septuagint (which otherwise misses the point of the passage); but the New Testament seems to attach no significance to Zech. 12:10 as providing evidence for the deity of Christ,.... And, whoever the pierced one is, the fact that he is referred to elsewhere in the verse in the third person ("they shall mourn for him....and weep bitterly over him") suggests that he is Yahweh's representative (probably the anointed king), in whose piercing Yahweh Himself is pierced. - History of the Bible in English, pages199, 200, Lutterworth Press, 1979 third edition.

I've got quite a few more but what's the point? You'll probably shrug them off too.

[twohumble]

You're humulity is so becoming (cough cough). Here is one: F. F. Bruce. Have you heard of him? Probably one of the most famed theologians in the 20th century and a staunch Trinitarian.



I've got quite a few more but what's the point? You'll probably shrug them off too.

In reading Bruce, I am not at ALL convinced he agrees with you. But, you have more, please list this "vast" list of references that you refered too.

[NonTrinitarian]

In reading Bruce, I am not at ALL convinced he agrees with you. But, you have more, please list this "vast" list of references that you refered too.

Are you kidding me?

"But in John 19:37 the piercing is interpreted of the piercing of Christ's side with a soldier's lance after His death on the cross, and here Zech. 12:10 is expressly quoted: "And again another scripture says, 'They shall look on him whom they have pierced'." It is a reasonable inference that this is the form in which the Evangelist knew the passage, and indeed the reading "him' instead of "me" appears in a few Hebrew manuscripts. The R.S.V. thus has New Testament authority for its rendering of Zech.12:10 , "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall moum for him, as on e mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." Why then is the R.S.V. criticized for conforming to the New Testament here? Because, if the reading "me" be retained, the reference would be to the speaker, who is God, and in view of the application of the passage in the New Testament, there are some who see here an anticipation of the Christian doctrine of our Lord's divine nature. The reading "me" is certainly quite early, for it appears in the Septuagint (which otherwise misses the point of the passage); but the New Testament seems to attach no significance to Zech. 12:10 as providing evidence for the deity of Christ,.... And, whoever the pierced one is, the fact that he is referred to elsewhere in the verse in the third person ("they shall mourn for him....and weep bitterly over him") suggests that he is Yahweh's representative (probably the anointed king), in whose piercing Yahweh Himself is pierced. - History of the Bible in English, pages199, 200, Lutterworth Press, 1979 third edition.

Now what part of that made you think Bruce supported YOUR position? He said there was "a reasonable inference" that it should be "him", not "me". He acknowledges that those who criticize the RSV rendering (and noticed he said "some" and is obviously separating himself from this group) do so out of a desire to support the Deity of Christ (IE, your obvious bias). He even takes issue with the LXX translation of the whole passage in general, which I pointed out to you earlier and which you typically ignored. Then concludes with his own opinion that the evidence in the passage suggests someone other than YHWH being refered. And he also did something you might want to do as well. He put a very high value on how the apostle John quoted the verse. Like Bruce, I'm going with John over you.

I'm not giving you anymore as you simply can't comprehend English and are apparently blinded by your bias. You go ahead and think you're right. You're interpretation of F.F. Bruce's writing demonstrates to all the veil you wear over your eyes. If you read the above and actually think Bruce supports you, I don't see any reason to discuss anything with you. And anyone reading these will understand why I have no need to respond to you anymore. I'll save my many other references on Zechariah 12:10 for someone else.