Jesus SEPARATE from Jehovah; calls Jehovah "my God."

[freelight]

The begetting.................

The begetting.................

The following passage shows us exactly when the Lord Jesus was begotten. Notice that from the first verse quoted here to the last the subject under discussion is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus:

"But God raised him from the dead: and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people. And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure [blessings] of David. Because he saith also in another [psalm], Thou wilt not give Thy Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of God, fell asleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: but he whom God raised up saw no corruption" (Acts 13:30-37).​

The Lord Jesus was begotten when He was resurrected from the dead.

Daqq and I have already been over this with you. You continue to diminish the significance of Jesus being anointed, adopted and declared as being God's Son at his baptism, and emphasize his resurrection as being the primary event of he being declared the 'Son of God', - both are significant, but his baptism remains as the first event where the divine decree important to his ministry was confirmed, having the actual seal of the ancient proclamation, by the Voice of 'God' and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. So, there is something about the Adoptionist view here, that has meaning.

As far as Jesus being 'begotten', one can speculate outside of specific instances in scripture of a 'time' of his 'begetting', but whats most important from a Christological perspective that He is the specially 'begotten' of God, begotten in a unique way as the Firstborn, and we who are also begotten by God via the 'new birth' of the Spirit...are his brethren. The special begetting, allows for the corporate or community begetting, where all incorporate in the Messiah as God's Son. While Jesus may have a more unique and special 'begetting',...we also take part of the divine nature thru the 'begetting'.

 

[Nihilo]

whenever you see an article with Kurios in the Gospel accounts, (i.e. "ο κυριος" and the other case forms included), it is "the Master" and not the replacement word for the Tetragrammaton, (YHWH), and is not being intended to be read as the Name of the Father. When you see it without an article it is most of the time the replacement word for the Name of the Father because of how the same practice was first laid out in the Septuagint.

'Sounds reasonable. What about the rest of the time?

They can likely be counted on one hand. For instance, "For the Son of Man is Lord/Master of Shabbat", (Kurios without an article), but clearly not speaking of the Father because the Father is not the Son of Adam.

I see.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

God called Moses Elohim too.

Was Moses a compound unity?

The references to God Himself is in the singular person "He"following the us verse.

God is one person according to almost all language experts.

LA

 

[freelight]

The appearing of God's Glory, in his Son.......

The appearing of God's Glory, in his Son.......

Ah, but that is not what it says now is it?

About Titus 2:13 .....see: here

See these translations of the verse -

looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." (ASV)

Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Douay-Rheims).

the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ. (NAB)

~*~*~

Here we see the emphasis is the appearing of the 'glory' of God, - of course the appearing/coming/parousia of the Lord is the manifestation of God's glory, - that the Son glorifies and reveals THE FATHER goes without saying. Jesus the Messiah is God's glory manifest. This verse does not necessarily make out or prove that Jesus is our God and Savior, for the emphasis is the appearing of God's glory, of which Jesus is the embodiment, being the image of that glory. Its a subtle translation/interpretation issue. - any verse that can be 'construed' to make Jesus into 'God' somehow is used by Trinitarians to their advantage, of course. - so any subtleties are manipulated thereby.

In any case my former statement regarding the 2 verses you posted of God being our SAVIOR stands,.....of course 'God' is our Savior, God the Father is the source of salvation, there is no other. - God saves thru the divine Agent or agencies that He's provided (his begotten ones), so the Agent or Anointed One serving in this manner is our Savior. God and his Servant are one. No matter what agent or agencies God uses,....God and that 'agent' are the saving means, hence....God and his ARM, His horn, His Messiah, his word.....serve as Savior. God is ONE. A fundamentally Unitarian Monotheistic premise and context HOLDS. - now we can trinitize, Christologize all we like, with interesting or complex formulas, Trinitarian constructs, relationally speaking, but conceptual models they remain. Lets first understand essentials. It goes without saying the Lord is our Savior, there is no other,...the Lord God is One,..his Name is One. This One and His anointed are the saving means,...God and his Word are our salvation.

No problem here from a Unitarian View. - our Great God and Savior shall reveal himself in the parousia of the Lord Jesus. Well of course.

 

[daqq]

I see.

But remember that I was speaking only of the Rock foundation for the New Covenant writings which are, of course, the Gospel accounts which contain the Testimony of Yeshua. The epistles of Paul can really be misunderstood and-or twisted without first adhering to the premises laid out in the Gospel accounts. There is a hierarchy of sorts, like building blocks consisting of precepts and principles: Torah, Prophets and Writings, Gospels, Epistles.

 

[daqq]

This is what is said about how JHWH was translated in the LXX:

"Thus, we have three separate pre-Christian copies of the Greek Septuagint Bible and in not a single instance is the Tetragrammaton translated kyrios or for that matter translated at all. We can now say with near certainty that it was a Jewish practice before, during, and after the New Testament period to write the divine name in paleo-Hebrew or square Aramaic script or in transliteration right into the Greek text of Scripture. This presents a striking comparison with the Christian copies of the Septuagint and the quotations of it in the New Testament which translate the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos."​

http://cojs.org/the_name_of_god_in_the_new_testament-_george_howard-_bar_4-01-_mar_1978/​

In the Scriptures God is spoken of under different names in order to reveal some distinct characteristic of His nature. So let us look at how His name 'elohiym is used here:
"

"And God ('elohiym) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God ('elohiym) created man in his own image" (Gen1:26,27).​

The Hebrew word 'elohiym is a plural noun. Here God is spoken of as being a plurality. This is a case of a "compound unity," a concept which is spoken of here:

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery" (Eph.5:31-32).​

This concept is above the reasoning of our finite minds and that is why Paul calls it a "mystery." Nevertheless, the concept of "compound unity" is found in the Bible and that same concept applies to the Godhead.

The Bible reveals that there is One God in three Divine Persons. That is why we read of the "name" (singular) of God here:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt.28:19).​

You said that the Tetragrammaton is also rendered as Theos in the LXX-Septuagint, (as opposed to Kurios). I asked for some examples from the LXX-Septuagint. You have not provided any.

Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart
In the LXX the Hebrew word JHWH is translated theos also.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You said that the Tetragrammaton is also rendered as Theos in the LXX-Septuagint, (as opposed to Kurios).

That is not what I said. Instead I said that the Tetragrammaton is rendered as Theos as well as Kurios, as witnessed by my words here:

In the LXX the Hebrew word JHWH is translated theos also.​

Besides that, I provided an expert on the LXX who supports what I said:

"Thus, we have three separate pre-Christian copies of the Greek Septuagint Bible and in not a single instance is the Tetragrammaton translated kyrios or for that matter translated at all. We can now say with near certainty that it was a Jewish practice before, during, and after the New Testament period to write the divine name in paleo-Hebrew or square Aramaic script or in transliteration right into the Greek text of Scripture. This presents a striking comparison with the Christian copies of the Septuagint and the quotations of it in the New Testament which translate the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos."​

http://cojs.org/the_name_of_god_in_the_new_testament-_george_howard-_bar_4-01-_mar_1978/​

 

[freelight]

I ascend to your God and my God........

I ascend to your God and my God........

Not brain surgery is it?

That Jesus has a 'God' and 'Father',...no. Jesus in his incarnated FORM and even NOW, still has a Father-God, who is the Father of all, the ONE that is Alone truly INFINITE. One God and Father. Not 'brain surgery' or 'rocket science'

We can deify Jesus all we like however, there being Trinitarian, Gnostic and Arian forms to entertain (compounding and confounding Jesus in all sorts of ways)....and more - its all good, if such does not hinder or prevent one from living a truly religious, meaningful and purposeful existence, where one can LOVE most fully and serve life's purpose and joy.

Wisdom and love must guide thru-out.

 

[daqq]

That is not what I said. Instead I said that the Tetragrammaton is rendered as Theos as well as Kurios, as witnessed by my words here:

In the LXX the Hebrew word JHWH is translated theos also.​

Besides that, I provided an expert on the LXX who supports what I said:

"Thus, we have three separate pre-Christian copies of the Greek Septuagint Bible and in not a single instance is the Tetragrammaton translated kyrios or for that matter translated at all. We can now say with near certainty that it was a Jewish practice before, during, and after the New Testament period to write the divine name in paleo-Hebrew or square Aramaic script or in transliteration right into the Greek text of Scripture. This presents a striking comparison with the Christian copies of the Septuagint and the quotations of it in the New Testament which translate the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos."
​

http://cojs.org/the_name_of_god_in_the_new_testament-_george_howard-_bar_4-01-_mar_1978/​

I quoted what you said: how can you now deny it with a straight face? And the so-called expert you quoted says what he does about the New Testament right in the statement that you highlighted yet again: "the quotations of it in the New Testament which translate the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos." He appears to be saying that it is the New Testament which sometimes uses Theos for the Tetragrammaton, (when quoting the Septuagint). That is not what you said or what you appear to be trying to say now. Now therefore, in addition, please provide some evidence also concerning what your "expert" says: provide some examples where the New Testament quotes the Septuagint and uses Theos in place of the Tetragrammaton, (which in the LXX-Septuagint would be Kurios). Can you not see that you are doing nothing more than playing a shell game? The Masorete Hebrew text has been altered. You cannot tell where the Tetragrammaton might be rendered Theos in the LXX-Septuagint, even if it was, because of the fact that the Tetragrammaton has been inserted into some places in the Hebrew Masorete text so as to reinforce the Masoretic version of strict monotheism. The only thing you prove is that you put your trust in the Masorete Text which came seven hundred to a thousand years after the advent of Messiah and was compiled and edited by those who did not believe the Messiah had come in the first century.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He appears to be saying that it is the New Testament which sometimes uses Theos for the Tetragrammaton, (when quoting the Septuagint).

You can't understand plain English any better that you can understand either Greek or Hebrew. Here is exactly what he said:

"Thus, we have three separate pre-Christian copies of the Greek Septuagint Bible and in not a single instance is the Tetragrammaton translated kyrios or for that matter translated at all. We can now say with near certainty that it was a Jewish practice before, during, and after the New Testament period to write the divine name in paleo-Hebrew or square Aramaic script or in transliteration right into the Greek text of Scripture. This presents a striking comparison with the Christian copies of the Septuagint and the quotations of it in the New Testament which translate the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos."​

This is not speaking of the New Testament translating the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos BECAUSE the the Tetragrammaton is not found in the NT Scriptures.

He is obviously speaking of the OT written in Hebrew where the Tetragrammaton is actually found. And the Tetragrammaton is translated in the LXX as kyrios or theos.

 

[drbrumley]

About Titus 2:13 .....see: here

See these translations of the verse -

looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." (ASV)

Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Douay-Rheims).

the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ. (NAB)

~*~*~

Here we see the emphasis is the appearing of the 'glory' of God, - of course the appearing/coming/parousia of the Lord is the manifestation of God's glory, - that the Son glorifies and reveals THE FATHER goes without saying. Jesus the Messiah is God's glory manifest. This verse does not necessarily make out or prove that Jesus is our God and Savior, for the emphasis is the appearing of God's glory, of which Jesus is the embodiment, being the image of that glory. Its a subtle translation/interpretation issue. - any verse that can be 'construed' to make Jesus into 'God' somehow is used by Trinitarians to their advantage, of course. - so any subtleties are manipulated thereby.

In any case my former statement regarding the 2 verses you posted of God being our SAVIOR stands,.....of course 'God' is our Savior, God the Father is the source of salvation, there is no other. - God saves thru the divine Agent or agencies that He's provided (his begotten ones), so the Agent or Anointed One serving in this manner is our Savior. God and his Servant are one. No matter what agent or agencies God uses,....God and that 'agent' are the saving means, hence....God and his ARM, His horn, His Messiah, his word.....serve as Savior. God is ONE. A fundamentally Unitarian Monotheistic premise and context HOLDS. - now we can trinitize, Christologize all we like, with interesting or complex formulas, Trinitarian constructs, relationally speaking, but conceptual models they remain. Lets first understand essentials. It goes without saying the Lord is our Savior, there is no other,...the Lord God is One,..his Name is One. This One and His anointed are the saving means,...God and his Word are our salvation.

No problem here from a Unitarian View. - our Great God and Savior shall reveal himself in the parousia of the Lord Jesus. Well of course.

In order for your interpretation of Titus 2:13 to actually mean what you think it means, it would have to read thus.

while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of the glories of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Yeah, that isn't happening. So back to the drawing board with you. You failed this question. Please try again.

 

[drbrumley]

want to thank a great father and a great man, Mr. [MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION].

See what I did there.....you utterly just can't grasp the concept can you? I am speaking of one person, not 2.

 

[drbrumley]

looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the words of the great Unitarian and our poster [MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION]."

Hows that for emphasis

 

[daqq]

You can't understand plain English any better that you can understand either Greek or Hebrew. Here is exactly what he said:

"Thus, we have three separate pre-Christian copies of the Greek Septuagint Bible and in not a single instance is the Tetragrammaton translated kyrios or for that matter translated at all. We can now say with near certainty that it was a Jewish practice before, during, and after the New Testament period to write the divine name in paleo-Hebrew or square Aramaic script or in transliteration right into the Greek text of Scripture. This presents a striking comparison with the Christian copies of the Septuagint and the quotations of it in the New Testament which translate the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos."
​

This is not speaking of the New Testament translating the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos BECAUSE the the Tetragrammaton is not found in the NT Scriptures.

He is obviously speaking of the OT written in Hebrew where the Tetragrammaton is actually found. And the Tetragrammaton is translated in the LXX as kyrios or theos.

I have read that statement three times now: it is you that has no reading comprehension. No wonder you are not capable of following the simple systematic logic in those statements from Yeshua in the Gospel of John that have been quoted to you eight times now. The statement you have provided is not evidence of what you assert because you cannot actually tell by what the statement says which one the author intends, as if being specified either way, which the author of the statement does not do, because it says; "the Septuagint and the quotations of it in the New Testament", together with, "kyrios or theos". It is nothing more than a general statement which you are hijacking to suit your purposes. You are putting words into the mouth of the author so as to suit your own ends. There really is no way of knowing for sure if the statement is saying what you are trying to force into it; but this makes one wonder if you did not simply do a quick google search looking for any article online that might be considered "proof" of your assertions. Unfortunately this is the same way you approach the scripture: you start with your theory and set out to prove *you* are correct from searching out select cherry picked passages which you then strip from their contexts to make yourself correct in your delusions.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I have read that statement three times now

Here it is again and then answer what I said about it:

"This presents a striking comparison with the Christian copies of the Septuagint and the quotations of it in the New Testament which translate the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos."

I said:

This is not speaking of the New Testament translating the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos BECAUSE the the Tetragrammaton is not found in the NT Scriptures.​

How is it possible to translate the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos in the NT since the Tetragrammaton is not even found in the NT? It is impossible!

What is being said is that the Tetragrammaton, which is only found in the OT written in Hebrew, was translated in the LXX as kyrios or theos.

Here is more evidence which supports what I said:

"To my knowledge, the most recent discussion of the matter is the recent journal article by Martin Rösel, “The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (2007): 411-28.

"On the question of earliest practice, he offers several reasons for agreeing that from the beginnings of translating the Hebrew scriptures into Greek Jewish translators tended to use “Kyrios” as an equivalent for the divine name, “following a principle of replacing the sacred name with the [Hebrew] word אדני ” [“Adonay“] (p. 425).

"Among his interesting findings is also an observation about how LXX translators chose to use sometimes “Kyrios” and sometimes “Theos” to render the divine name. It appears that many times the choice was shaped by a desire to associate “Kyrios” with more positive aspects of God and “Theos” used for more punishing or judging aspects (or when foreigners are involved)."

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/the-divine-name-and-greek-translation/​

 

[drbrumley]

looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the words of the great Unitarian and our poster [MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION]."

Hows that for emphasis

Oh lookie there, I didn't even need a comma [MENTION=17493]KingdomRose[/MENTION] your smugness

 

[daqq]

Here it is again and then answer what I said about it:

"This presents a striking comparison with the Christian copies of the Septuagint and the quotations of it in the New Testament which translate the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos."

I said:

This is not speaking of the New Testament translating the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos BECAUSE the the Tetragrammaton is not found in the NT Scriptures.​

How is it possible to translate the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos in the NT since the Tetragrammaton is not even found in the NT? It is impossible!

What is being said is that the Tetragrammaton, which is only found in the OT written in Hebrew, was translated in the LXX as kyrios or theos.

Sometimes you need to use a little common sense.

And you still have not provided any examples.

And, dear reader, please remember what this argument is ultimately about: I said to Jerry Shugart that my heavenly Father does not "know" evil and argued my point from a text that is 2300 years old, (the OG LXX-Septuagint), while Jerry Shugart is arguing that his Father does in fact "know" evil and Jerry has made his argument from a 1000 year old text, (the Masorete Hebrew Text).

The word "compound" is not limited to just two things. And just because the example I gave only speaks of two things does not mean that the "compound unity" in regard to God is limited to just two entities.

Here we see a "compound unity" in regard to God:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man in his own image" (Gen1:26,27).​

We've been over that also: your God "knows" evil.
My heavenly Father YHWH does not know evil.

The God I worship knows the evil things which some men do:

"For My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from My face, nor is their iniquity concealed from My eyes" (Jer.16:17).

Does the God you worship not know the evil deeds of some men?

The Seven Eyes of YHWH are not YHWH Himself, but as it is written: the Eyes of YHWH.
Behold, upon one Stone whose name is Tzemach-Branch: Seven Eyes, (Zec 3:9).
And those Seven are the Eyes of YHWH sent forth into all His Land, (Zec 4:10).
And the same are the Seven Spirits before His throne, (Rev 5:6).
Just as Noah found grace in the Eyes of YHWH, (Gen 6:8).

Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Miykael, Sariel-Yisrael, Gabriel, Raamiel.

From a different thread where you were not:

EDIT: WHAT FOLLOWS BELOW IS FROM THIS POST

QUOTE:]The only legitimate conclusion is that they rendered Elohim as Theos in the LXX version of Genesis 1:26 because they were clearly using Theos as a replacement word, borrowed from Greek, for the intensive plural Elohim. That means they are using Theos as an intensive plural and the characteristics of the word therefore have to change in order for the understanding to come through in the translation. It is blatantly obvious, crying out for attention, and yet ignored by every commentator I can think of. What led me in this direction is an even more critical situation that reaches down to the very core of what any one of us here believes. Does our heavenly Father "know" evil? There really is only one place this can directly be derived from what is written. And this kind of "knowing" is the same intimate knowledge spoken of in Genesis 4:1 where it is written that Adam "knew" his wife Eve and she conceived. Does our heavenly Father "know" evil in this intimate way? This is intended for good so my own personal advice would be to not even answer if you are inclined to answer in the affirmative after reading what follows below. It would be better to contemplate, study, pray over such things, and come back to this at a later time as you feel led, (rather than to risk the possibility of blaspheming just so as to defend a doctrine or paradigm). So again I say, rhetorically, (and not expecting an answer especially if it might be in the affirmative), does our heavenly Father "know" evil? According to the Masoretic text they say He does but according to the Septuagint the Tetragrammaton was not originally in the pertinent text:

Genesis 3:22-23 LXX
22 και ειπεν ο θεος ιδου αδαμ γεγονεν ως εις εξ ημων του γινωσκειν καλον και πονηρον και νυν μηποτε εκτεινη την χειρα και λαβη του ξυλου της ζωης και φαγη και ζησεται εις τον αιωνα
23 και εξαπεστειλεν αυτον κυριος ο θεος εκ του παραδεισου της τρυφης εργαζεσθαι την γην εξ ης ελημφθη

Genesis 3:22-23 Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
22 And God said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now lest at any time he stretch forth his hand, and take of the tree of life and eat, and so he shall live forever -
23 So the Lord God sent him forth out of the garden of Delight to cultivate the ground out of which he was taken.

Genesis 3:22-23 Restored Name KJV (Hebrew Text)
3:22 And YHWH Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore YHWH Elohim sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

If from the Septuagint we restore ο θεος, (ho Theos), to Elohim, (which surely is what is meant), then the Septuagint is telling us that the Tetragrammaton was not in the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:22 which they used to render the Hebrew into Greek because Kurios is not in the Septuagint text. In addition, if this be true, it is possible and even more likely that the second portion of the verse becomes an interrogative, as if [the] Elohim were asking, "And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever?" In other words [the] Elohim are shown as not fully knowing all that the Father knows but, unlike the Father, they apparently have known good and evil, and therefore there is a questioning among them. We therefore have a reading that is anywhere from one thousand to thirteen hundred years earlier than the current form of the Masoretic Hebrew text which did not contain the Name of the Father in Genesis 3:22 as the Masoretic now does. And what if indeed the second portion of verse twenty-two is an interrogative which the Father answers to the Elohim by sending the man forth from the garden of Eden? Perhaps this is why the statement which follows in the next verse commences with a word equivalent to "therefore" as this makes perfect sense:

Genesis 3:22-23
3:22 And [the] Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever?
3:23 Therefore YHWH Elohim sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

This gives us great insight into what those who rendered the Septuagint were thinking, (some three hundred years before the advent of Messiah and therefore without bias). It also gives us insight into what may have occurred with the Masoretic Hebrew text, which was compiled some 1000 to 1300 years later, for there are quite a few places where the Tetragrammaton appears to have been inserted into the text which are not found in the Septuagint. Were the Masoretes a little too overzealous in an effort to maintain the strict monotheism which separated them from the Christian doctrines of that time, (700-1000AD)? If they were [then clearly] they went too far in Genesis 3:22 because I know from what is written elsewhere that my heavenly Father does not know evil. When I saw this I saw Genesis 1:26. [END QUOTE.
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...throus-God-of-John-1-1&p=4710777&#post4710777

---

Here is the point yet again Jerry Shugart, (for you and I already discussed this).
Your preferred version derives from the Hebrew Masorete Text:

Genesis 3:22-23 Restored Name KJV (Hebrew Text)
3:22 And YHWH Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Your preferred version of this passage inserts the Tetragrammaton, which is the Name of the Father, and therefore makes Him to intimately "know" evil because that is exactly how that same word is employed in the very next section where Adam "knows" Eve, his wife, and she conceives and brings forth Cain, and says, "I have gotten a man from YHWH", (Masorete Hebrew Text of Gen 4:1). However the LXX Septuagint does not read the same just as the passage quoted above does not read the same:

Genesis 3:22-23
22 And [the] Elohim said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now lest at any time he stretch forth his hand, and take of the tree of life and eat? and so he shall live forever?
23 So YHWH Elohim sent him forth out of the garden of Delight to cultivate the ground out of which he was taken.

It is either Elohim or the Elohim which apparently "know" both good and evil.
The Father YHWH Elohim does not "know" evil.

Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart
In the LXX the Hebrew word JHWH is translated theos also.

Please support your assertion with some examples.

Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart
And that is the Greek word translated "God" here:

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God (theos)" (Jn.20:28).​

As I said, Theos is nothing more than a Greek "loan word' used to render the character and qualities of the word Elohim. You say that Elohim is a "compound unity", correct? Why then do you not treat Theos in the same way, with fairness, honesty, and uprightness? Look how it is rendered in the following passage right from the beginning:

Genesis 1:26 OG LXX-Septuagint
1:26 και ειπεν ο θεος ποιησωμεν ανθρωπον κατ' εικονα ημετεραν και καθ' ομοιωσιν και αρχετωσαν των ιχθυων της θαλασσης και των πετεινων του ουρανου και των κτηνων και πασης της γης και παντων των ερπετων των ερποντων επι της γης
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/01_001.htm

Genesis 1:26 LXX-Septuagint Brenton English Translation
26 And God said, Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of heaven, and over the cattle and all the earth, and over all the reptiles that creep on the earth.

Do you see the problem with your understanding of Theos? If you say that Elohim is a "compound unity" then you must in turn say the same about Theos in the above passage because that is exactly how it is used in the above passage which renders Elohim as "ο θεος" in the Greek LXX-Septuagint. This is a major problem with ignoring the Septuagint when rendering the Greek N/T. The above was rendered some three hundred years BEFORE the advent of Messiah and reveals the thinking and mindset of those Yhudim and Kohanim who rendered the Hebrew text into Greek in that time. And not only that but most all of the N/T Apostolic writings quote from the Septuagint, and this therefore reveals the thinking of the disciples and Apostles of Messiah also; and their thinking is clearly not your thinking.

Okay, you win your argument for yourself, Jerry, your Father knows evil.
But my point stands in my house: my heavenly Father does not intimately "know" evil.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And you still have not provided any examples.

Dear Reader, please notice when daqq is proven wrong he immediately changes the subject in the hope that no one will notice that his ideas have been proven wrong. Here is more evidence that he is wrong:

"To my knowledge, the most recent discussion of the matter is the recent journal article by Martin Rösel, “The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (2007): 411-28.

"On the question of earliest practice, he offers several reasons for agreeing that from the beginnings of translating the Hebrew scriptures into Greek Jewish translators tended to use “Kyrios” as an equivalent for the divine name, “following a principle of replacing the sacred name with the [Hebrew] word אדני ” [“Adonay“] (p. 425).

"Among his interesting findings is also an observation about how LXX translators chose to use sometimes “Kyrios” and sometimes “Theos” to render the divine name. It appears that many times the choice was shaped by a desire to associate “Kyrios” with more positive aspects of God and “Theos” used for more punishing or judging aspects (or when foreigners are involved)."

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/the-divine-name-and-greek-translation/​

 

[daqq]

Dear Reader, please notice when daqq is proven wrong he immediately changes the subject in the hope that no one will notice that his ideas have been proven wrong. Here is more evidence that he is wrong:

"To my knowledge, the most recent discussion of the matter is the recent journal article by Martin Rösel, “The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (2007): 411-28.

"On the question of earliest practice, he offers several reasons for agreeing that from the beginnings of translating the Hebrew scriptures into Greek Jewish translators tended to use “Kyrios” as an equivalent for the divine name, “following a principle of replacing the sacred name with the [Hebrew] word אדני ” [“Adonay“] (p. 425).

"Among his interesting findings is also an observation about how LXX translators chose to use sometimes “Kyrios” and sometimes “Theos” to render the divine name. It appears that many times the choice was shaped by a desire to associate “Kyrios” with more positive aspects of God and “Theos” used for more punishing or judging aspects (or when foreigners are involved)."

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/the-divine-name-and-greek-translation/​

You have not proven anything wrong in what I have said and now you are simply denying the truth of where this current argument began in this very thread. And as I said, the Tetragrammaton has been inserted into various places in the Hebrew text; and just because your "experts" do not wish to admit it does not make you or them correct in your assumptions. What I have said is plainly true from the fact shown above wherein you insist that the Father intimately "knows" evil even after you have been shown the error of your way. The people you are quoting cannot actually prove what they say because of the fact that the Tetragrammaton has been inserted into the Hebrew text, by the strictly monotheistic Masoretes, in many places where it was not originally found. Your error also comes by way of accepting the Masorete Hebrew text just because ye olde king James and his court used it in 1611. Now, with all of the claims of "inspired perfect scriptures", you cannot retract or admit the truth even when it is right in front of your eyes.

 

[daqq]

Genesis 3:22 - 4:1 KJV Restored Name Version
3:22 And YHWH Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know [H3045] good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore YHWH Elohim sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
4:01 And Adam knew [H3045] Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from YHWH.

Genesis 3:22 - 4:1 LXX-Septuagint with Restored Names
3:22 And the Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever?
3:23 Therefore YHWH Elohim sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
4:01 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man by way of the Elohim.
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/01_003.htm
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/01_004.htm