Replies

First to Heb. 1:8.
While grammatically it might read and translated as “O God” in looking at the Psalm it is clear the one being honored was the king of Israel sitting on God's throne.

The NAB translates Psalm 45:6 a “a god” and in a footnote explains that the king was called a god since he was a representative of God and that Paul applied the Psalm to Christ.

On John 1:1-3.

“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God”.

First the use of caps is the translators choice and all sorts of arguments made for treating what should be an indefinite “a god” as the definite “God”.

“Trinitarian theory allows God to be presented in human form through the Son. Each time he is, we understand that to be the Son, and the natural role of the Son, to be the perfect expression of the Father. Hence no problem with the exchange between Jesus and Philip.”

Does “Trinitarian theory” allow the Father to be the Son?

Colwell’s Rule, quantitative vs. qualitative, Etc. but most translations follow the AV and the translators own bias.

I owe you a reply, but have become involved, albeit very slightly, in a nearby food fight. When I have cleaned up, I will return to our envigorating conversation. Probably tomorrow morning or thereabouts. Thank you for your patience.

Peace,