Hosea 5:15

[placebofactor]

Hosea 5:15

I have several questions that need the insight of others. My questions concern Hosea 5:15. The LORD is speaking to the prophet and said to him,

“I will go and return to my place, until they (the Jews) acknowledge (or confess) their offense, and seek my face; in their affliction, they will seek me early.”

When do you think the Lord returned to his place? My response can be found in Acts 1:9 when Jesus “was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.” In other words, when he returned to his Father in heaven.
Your thoughts.

Second question: “What was the offense of the Jews?” I think it was the rejection and the murder of the Son of God.
Your thoughts.

Third question: What affliction is he speaking of? I believe it’s the time of Jacob’s trouble, or the ‘Great Tribulation" the Jews will have to suffer through.
Your thoughts.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #9]

Onewithhim, You wrote, Jehovah's angel is who is in the cloud and in the fire. His angels represent Him who is too glorious to fit Himself onto the earth. See Exodus 14:19.

He went behind the Jews to block the light of the day from the Egyptians, yet the front of the cloud gave light to the Jews. And then by his power, he opened the sea for the Israelites to pass. You're not saying the LORD cannot be in the cloud and open the sea at the same time, are you?

You wrote, "Then the angel of the true God who was going ahead of the camp of Israel departed and went to the rear...

You put quotes on "Then the angel of the true God ----"

You added the word "True" to the verse obviously to make it more emphatic, and agreeable to what you teach. You can't do that. The Bible says we are not to add or subtract words.

My Interlinear says "the One God." I don't think that the NWT is far removed from that meaning when it says "the true God."

[Difflugia]

My Interlinear says "the One God." I don't think that the NWT is far removed from that meaning when it says "the true God."

You're reading that particular verse wrong in your interlinear. It doesn't say "the One God," but "God, the One going." It looks the way it does because the short word הַהֹלֵךְ֙ conveys a lot of information in English and Hebrew is read from right to left.



As an aside in light of our other conversation, Elohim there has a definite article, so it is being used as a title or descriptor rather than a name: "the angel of the god."

[onewithhim]

My Interlinear says "the One God." I don't think that the NWT is far removed from that meaning when it says "the true God."

You're reading that particular verse wrong in your interlinear. It doesn't say "the One God," but "God, the One going." It looks the way it does because the short word הַהֹלֵךְ֙ conveys a lot of information in English and Hebrew is read from right to left.



As an aside in light of our other conversation, Elohim there has a definite article, so it is being used as a title or descriptor rather than a name: "the angel of the god."

I believe I have read my Interlinear Bible correctly. However one looks at that verse, God is One and He is the true God.

[Difflugia]

I believe I have read my Interlinear Bible correctly.

Is it different than the picture?

However one looks at that verse, God is One and He is the true God.

That's a fine theological position that the NWT translators have inserted into that verse, despite the claims that they didn't paraphrase.

[onewithhim]

I believe I have read my Interlinear Bible correctly.

Is it different than the picture?

However one looks at that verse, God is One and He is the true God.

That's a fine theological position that the NWT translators have inserted into that verse, despite the claims that they didn't paraphrase.

How does the "true God" contradict the rendering of the "One God"?

[Difflugia]

How does the "true God" contradict the rendering of the "One God"?

It doesn't, but that's not the problem with your reading. The problem is that the "One God" isn't anywhere in that verse. The NWT is adding something that isn't there, not contradicting something that is.

[onewithhim]

How does the "true God" contradict the rendering of the "One God"?

It doesn't, but that's not the problem with your reading. The problem is that the "One God" isn't anywhere in that verse. The NWT is adding something that isn't there, not contradicting something that is.

Well I think the two renderings mean the same thing, so the NWT is not in error.

[JehovahsWitness]

DOES THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION MODIFY THE MEANING OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT BY REFERING TO THE TRUE GOD IN EXODUS 14:19?

The original Hebrew word for God in this verse is elohim. This is a generic word or title for God (or gods) and can refer to angels, powerful people or gods whether true or false. Strongs concordance however makes the following observation


source: https://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebib ... 4.htm#S430

So depending on the context, to translate "the angel of the God " as " the angel of ...God" subtracting (removing) the 2nd definte article (the) would not reflect the original text. The function of the article ("the") in this text is to distinguis this elohim from all others. The Encyclopaedia Britannica notes the following...

Elohim [...] is usually employed in the Old Testament for the one and only God of Israel, whose personal name was revealed to Moses as YHWH, or Yahweh (q.v.). When referring to Yahweh, elohim very often is accompanied by the article ha-, to mean, in combination, “the God,” and sometimes with a further identification Elohim ḥayyim, meaning “the living God.”
Source https://www.britannica.com/topic/Elohim

So a literal translation would read "the angel of THE God" and a nonliteral translation would translate the meaning of the article "the" as in. the true/the one true/the supreme God. What a good translation will not do is remove all notion of HA and just render it ... "the angel if [x] God".

CONCLUSION : To translate HA ELOHIM as "the true god" is not adding a notion foreign to the text but translating the contextual fonction of the definite article (HA) .

To learn more please see other posts related to...


GOD , THE DIVINE NAME and ... BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

[placebofactor]

Hosea 5:15

I have several questions that need the insight of others. My questions concern Hosea 5:15. The LORD is speaking to the prophet and said to him,

“I will go and return to my place, until they (the Jews) acknowledge (or confess) their offense, and seek my face; in their affliction, they will seek me early.”

When do you think the Lord returned to his place? My response can be found in Acts 1:9 when Jesus “was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.” In other words, when he returned to his Father in heaven.
Your thoughts.

Second question: “What was the offense of the Jews?” I think it was the rejection and the murder of the Son of God.
Your thoughts.

Third question: What affliction is he speaking of? I believe it’s the time of Jacob’s trouble, or the ‘Great Tribulation" the Jews will have to suffer through.
Your thoughts.

I want to follow the above with, Hosea 6:1-2, "Come, and let us (Israel) return unto the LORD: for he has torn, and he will heal us; he has smitten (stricken), and he will bind us up." The LORD has put out the welcome mat for his people, promising to heal them of their iniquities.

Verse 2: "After two days will he (the LORD) revive us (Israel): in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight." Compared with Luke 24:45-46, Jesus speaks to his disciples, "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." And he said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:"



To raise and to rise in both Hosea and Luke are to be raised from the dead.

Here's my question: Can I apply 2 Peter 3:8 to the two days of Hosea 1:2 and 3? "Be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Two literal 24-hour days make no sense in the context of these verses. Now, if each day represented 1000 years, it would make sense. If you disagree, tell me why.

Can someone respond to the question: Can I apply 2 Peter 3:8 to the two days of Hosea 1:2 and 3? "Be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." Two literal 24-hour days make no sense in the context of these verses. Now, if each day represented 1000 years, it would make sense.
If the Lord returned to his place in heaven 40 days after his resurrection sometime in May of 31 A.D. and we add 2000 years instead of two days, we would find ourselves in the Month and year, May 2031, some 40 days after the Jewish Passover of 2031 A.D.

Does anyone want to venture into this conversation? Someone truly interested in end-time prophesies, someone who believes we are close, real close to the beginning of the Great Tribulation, the time of Jacob's trouble, the revealing of the antichrist, the revealing of the two witnesses of God, and the marking and revealing of the 144,000.

[JehovahsWitness]

...
If the Lord returned to his place in heaven 40 days after his resurrection sometime in May of 31 A.D. and we add 2000 years instead of two days, we would find ourselves in the Month and year, May 2031, some 40 days after the Jewish Passover of 2031 A.D.

Upon what scriptural basis do you apply Hosea 6:1, 2 to the resurrection of Jesus?

• If it does apply to Jesus are we to presume that God struck him when he was executed in the Spring 33 CE.?

HOSEA 1 verse 1
For he has torn us to pieces, but he will heal us./ He struck us, but he will bind our wounds

And if the "us" was Jesus and he was struck down / turn to pieces when he was killed, wouldnt your theory mean he was resurrected two thousand years later?

HOSEA 1 verse 2
He will revive us after two days.

In short if the "returned" part of the prophecy apples to Jesus return to heaven, the the "struck"/"turn To pieces" part of the verse must ALSO apply to him. And that happened two "days" earlier.