Utter Weakness?

[Musicmaster]

I was struck today with the thought of our weakness and utter helplessness as fallen humans. One angel wiped out an army of 185,000 armed soldiers in one night, and here we are, unable to push away a car that might roll over on top of us, and yet WE will judge the angels.

Movies aplenty have come out, showing man's insatiable appetite and desire for power; to control the world around him, and to control other men through super human powers that had lain undisturbed within.

Interestingly, David, in one of his Psalms, has this to say:

Psalm 8:4-5
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

In verse 5, we see it translated as man having been created a little beneath the angels. Well, I don't buy that, and the reason being that the Hebrew word H430, 'ĕlōhîm, by way of systematic theology studies, betrays to us that this mistranslation is what it is...a mistranslation. The Brown-Drivers-Briggs Hebrew dictionary says this about that title in that verse:

"†b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels"

So, given that the KJV translators chose to follow the path of extreme "humility," they separated man completely from God, with the barrier of angels between God and us. Looking at the dictionary definition, in that the grammatical construct leads a translator to the conclusion that the inspired meaning could be either-or...God-angels...we need to do a systematic study to see which is the likely choice for meaning. I'll keep it simple for ease of understanding for those who are not familiar with systematic approaches to study.

1 Corinthians 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

Who are those angels, one may ask, in how they are addressed in that grammatical and contextual construct? Here is what Thayer's Greek Lexicon says:

"In John 1:51 (52) angels are employed, by a beautiful image borrowed from Genesis 28:12, to represent the divine power that will aid Jesus in the discharge of his Messianic office, and the signal proofs to appear in his history of a divine superintendence. Certain of the angels have proved faithless to the trust committed to them by God, and have given themselves up to sin, Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4 (Enoch c. vi. etc., cf. Genesis 6:2), and now obey the devil, Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:7, cf. 1 Corinthians 6:3 [yet on this last passage cf. Meyer; he and others maintain that ἄγγελοι without an epithet or limitation never in the N. T. signifies other than good angels]."

Folks, the lesser never judges the greater, especially in Heaven's economy. That defies the order of Heaven, and it defies even the order of this fallen world.

So, Psalm 8:5 should read:

"For thou hast made him a little lower than God, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."

Some have dared to claim that the "object" of that verse is Christ since the "son of man" is mentioned in verse 4, but the context is key here. Read it all in context, and one will see what may initially escape the awareness of the misled reader who assumes what is false in the context. It clearly is mankind, with mention of God having such regard for man that He sent the "the son of man" among mankind. Christ cannot be created beneath anyone or anything, for He is Preeminent, above all. He could never be beneath those whom He created.

So, though we are weak in this life, where super powers are concerned, He is our strength, and that's by design. He so desires that we rely completely upon Him, which is as it should be. Amen.

MM

 

[crossnote]

The Author of Hebrews takes up that passage in the Psalms and appears to apply it to Jesus…

Hebrews 2:6-9 NKJV
[6] But one testified in a certain place, saying: "What is man that You are mindful of him, Or the son of man that You take care of him? [7] You have made him a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor, And set him over the works of Your hands. [8] You have put all things in subjection under his feet." For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. [9] But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

 

[Musicmaster]

The Author of Hebrews takes up that passage in the Psalms and appears to apply it to Jesus…

Hebrews 2:6-9 NKJV
[6] But one testified in a certain place, saying: "What is man that You are mindful of him, Or the son of man that You take care of him? [7] You have made him a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor, And set him over the works of Your hands. [8] You have put all things in subjection under his feet." For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. [9] But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

Yes, and the writer of Hebrews includes Jesus, the human side of Him while walking this earth, by choice in obedience to the Father, in that state of walking this earth exhibiting a position beneath the power of the angels...even though He was/is fully God.

So, what are your thoughts in relation to the systematic approach I stated in the OP?

You see, I wasn't speaking only from the perspective of life on this earth, but from the perspective of a more holistic vantagepoint of both this earth and the Heavenly reality to come. The angels do not have the image of God upon them, although mankind does, which also supports what is written in that we will judge the angels; that the greater will judge the lesser.

MM

 

[crossnote]

Yes, and the writer of Hebrews includes Jesus, the human side of Him while walking this earth, by choice in obedience to the Father, in that state of walking this earth exhibiting a position beneath the power of the angels...even though He was/is fully God.

So, what are your thoughts in relation to the systematic approach I stated in the OP?

You see, I wasn't speaking only from the perspective of life on this earth, but from the perspective of a more holistic vantagepoint of both this earth and the Heavenly reality to come. The angels do not have the image of God upon them, although mankind does, which also supports what is written in that we will judge the angels; that the greater will judge the lesser.

MM

I would be very hesitant to gather my theology on the nature of Christ from a Unitarian (Joseph Henry Thayer)

So, Psalm 8:5 should read:

"For thou hast made him a little lower than God, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."

I would be a bit uncomfortable with that take as many commentators say something along the line of...

for a little time lower than the angels

 

[bobinfaith]

I was struck today with the thought of our weakness and utter helplessness as fallen humans. One angel wiped out an army of 185,000 armed soldiers in one night, and here we are, unable to push away a car that might roll over on top of us, and yet WE will judge the angels.

Movies aplenty have come out, showing man's insatiable appetite and desire for power; to control the world around him, and to control other men through super human powers that had lain undisturbed within.

Interestingly, David, in one of his Psalms, has this to say:

Psalm 8:4-5
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

In verse 5, we see it translated as man having been created a little beneath the angels. Well, I don't buy that, and the reason being that the Hebrew word H430, 'ĕlōhîm, by way of systematic theology studies, betrays to us that this mistranslation is what it is...a mistranslation. The Brown-Drivers-Briggs Hebrew dictionary says this about that title in that verse:

"†b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels"

So, given that the KJV translators chose to follow the path of extreme "humility," they separated man completely from God, with the barrier of angels between God and us. Looking at the dictionary definition, in that the grammatical construct leads a translator to the conclusion that the inspired meaning could be either-or...God-angels...we need to do a systematic study to see which is the likely choice for meaning. I'll keep it simple for ease of understanding for those who are not familiar with systematic approaches to study.

1 Corinthians 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

Who are those angels, one may ask, in how they are addressed in that grammatical and contextual construct? Here is what Thayer's Greek Lexicon says:

"In John 1:51 (52) angels are employed, by a beautiful image borrowed from Genesis 28:12, to represent the divine power that will aid Jesus in the discharge of his Messianic office, and the signal proofs to appear in his history of a divine superintendence. Certain of the angels have proved faithless to the trust committed to them by God, and have given themselves up to sin, Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4 (Enoch c. vi. etc., cf. Genesis 6:2), and now obey the devil, Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:7, cf. 1 Corinthians 6:3 [yet on this last passage cf. Meyer; he and others maintain that ἄγγελοι without an epithet or limitation never in the N. T. signifies other than good angels]."

Folks, the lesser never judges the greater, especially in Heaven's economy. That defies the order of Heaven, and it defies even the order of this fallen world.

So, Psalm 8:5 should read:

"For thou hast made him a little lower than God, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."

Some have dared to claim that the "object" of that verse is Christ since the "son of man" is mentioned in verse 4, but the context is key here. Read it all in context, and one will see what may initially escape the awareness of the misled reader who assumes what is false in the context. It clearly is mankind, with mention of God having such regard for man that He sent the "the son of man" among mankind. Christ cannot be created beneath anyone or anything, for He is Preeminent, above all. He could never be beneath those whom He created.

So, though we are weak in this life, where super powers are concerned, He is our strength, and that's by design. He so desires that we rely completely upon Him, which is as it should be. Amen.

MM

Hello MM;

Psalm 8:4-5, 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. - KJV

It is clear to me how God our loving Father cares for all of us no matter how lowly we are in verse 4.

In verse 5 when we dig deeper, Elohim does describe both God and angels in Hebrew. But there are factors that are not clear to me.

It is not clear whether verse 5 is referring to angels in the heavenly glory or earthly glory?

Man is the superior earthly being and has dominion over all other earthly creatures. Does this include or exclude angels?

It is clear that one day we will indeed judge the angels (evil angels) by Christ and His saints in 1 Corinthians 6:3, 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6.

It is not clear to me how man is lower than the angels. Could it be that angels are more glorious than man because they display a more brilliant presence of God's glory? But that's coming from me and my statement could break down.

I interpret verse 5 as a little lower than God, but I have a problem with "a little lower," afterall, God's ways are so much higher than ours.

Isaiah 55:8-9, 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. - ESV

MM, I do agree in your opening thread;

"I was struck today with the thought of our weakness and utter helplessness as fallen humans. One angel wiped out an army of 185,000 armed soldiers in one night, and here we are, unable to push away a car that might roll over on top of us, and yet WE will judge the angels.

Movies aplenty have come out, showing man's insatiable appetite and desire for power; to control the world around him, and to control other men through super human powers that had lain undisturbed within."

Utter Weakness is when man can only "wish imagine" One example, being entertained by movies where one man or woman single handedly takes on a whole army of thugs and destroys them all. But look at all the damage to the buildings and cars. Who's going to restore them?

Instead we can attain faith in the Truth of Holy Empowerment by Almighty God, by doing our part in fervent prayer and study of His Word. Then we can leave it to Him to restore all things.

I have to confess, until I completely understand this passage, I haven't reconciled it's full meaning and how would I apply this context in my daily walk?

Great thread, MM, and thank you for sharing. But keep it going. I don't think we're done with this study.

God bless you and your family, brother.

 

[Musicmaster]

I would be very hesitant to gather my theology on the nature of Christ from a Unitarian (Joseph Henry Thayer)

I would be a bit uncomfortable with that take as many commentators say something along the line of...

for a little time lower than the angels

One thing about a scholar's religious background is that it doesn't always interfere with their scholarship for language, for example. Many other language scholars have applauded and totally endorsed that Lexicon, and I have not found one out there who gainsays his work in that book. It seems that only some out there criticize his work on the basis of assumed corruption on the basis of Thayer's religious background. Do you know of any lexical translation or application note of his that is wrong? If so, then I'd really like to see it so that I can grasp any validity behind the idea that his religious morass crept over into his scholastic endeavors.

Thanks

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Hello MM;

Psalm 8:4-5, 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. - KJV

It is clear to me how God our loving Father cares for all of us no matter how lowly we are in verse 4.

In verse 5 when we dig deeper, Elohim does describe both God and angels in Hebrew. But there are factors that are not clear to me.

It is not clear whether verse 5 is referring to angels in the heavenly glory or earthly glory?

Man is the superior earthly being and has dominion over all other earthly creatures. Does this include or exclude angels?

It is clear that one day we will indeed judge the angels (evil angels) by Christ and His saints in 1 Corinthians 6:3, 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6.

It is not clear to me how man is lower than the angels. Could it be that angels are more glorious than man because they display a more brilliant presence of God's glory? But that's coming from me and my statement could break down.

I interpret verse 5 as a little lower than God, but I have a problem with "a little lower," afterall, God's ways are so much higher than ours.

Isaiah 55:8-9, 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. - ESV

MM, I do agree in your opening thread;

"I was struck today with the thought of our weakness and utter helplessness as fallen humans. One angel wiped out an army of 185,000 armed soldiers in one night, and here we are, unable to push away a car that might roll over on top of us, and yet WE will judge the angels.

Movies aplenty have come out, showing man's insatiable appetite and desire for power; to control the world around him, and to control other men through super human powers that had lain undisturbed within."

Utter Weakness is when man can only "wish imagine" One example, being entertained by movies where one man or woman single handedly takes on a whole army of thugs and destroys them all. But look at all the damage to the buildings and cars. Who's going to restore them?

Instead we can attain faith in the Truth of Holy Empowerment by Almighty God, by doing our part in fervent prayer and study of His Word. Then we can leave it to Him to restore all things.

I have to confess, until I completely understand this passage, I haven't reconciled it's full meaning and how would I apply this context in my daily walk?

Great thread, MM, and thank you for sharing. But keep it going. I don't think we're done with this study.

God bless you and your family, brother.

Hi, Bob. Thanks for the reply.

Ok, so the question is, then, can we, or can we not trust what they said about the Greek from which that verse was translated? Please read again what I shared about that from Thayer's:

"In John 1:51 (52) angels are employed, by a beautiful image borrowed from Genesis 28:12, to represent the divine power that will aid Jesus in the discharge of his Messianic office, and the signal proofs to appear in his history of a divine superintendence. Certain of the angels have proved faithless to the trust committed to them by God, and have given themselves up to sin, Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4 (Enoch c. vi. etc., cf. Genesis 6:2), and now obey the devil, Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:7, cf. 1 Corinthians 6:3 [yet on this last passage cf. Meyer; he and others maintain that ἄγγελοι without an epithet or limitation never in the N. T. signifies other than good angels]."

In other words, the Greek gives us no reason to believe that the angels in that text are the fallen angels. Do you have something from any reputable Greek scholar that says otherwise? This is a very interesting study.

Thanks

MM

 

[crossnote]

Here's a comparison of some of the translations on Ps 8.5

Psalms 8:5
(AMP) Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

(CSB) You made him little less than God and crowned him with glory and honor.

(ESV) Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

(HCSB) You made him little less than God and crowned him with glory and honor.

(KJV) For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

(NAS95) Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!

(NASB) Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!

(NET) You made them a little less than the heavenly beings. You crowned mankind with honor and majesty.

(NKJV) For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

(TLV) Yet You made him a little lower than the angels, and crowned him with glory and majesty! (v.6)

 

[crossnote]

One thing about a scholar's religious background is that it doesn't always interfere with their scholarship for language, for example. Many other language scholars have applauded and totally endorsed that Lexicon, and I have not found one out there who gainsays his work in that book. It seems that only some out there criticize his work on the basis of assumed corruption on the basis of Thayer's religious background. Do you know of any lexical translation or application note of his that is wrong? If so, then I'd really like to see it so that I can grasp any validity behind the idea that his religious morass crept over into his scholastic endeavors.

Thanks

MM

I've heard that argument in the past and admittedly mine is a subjective call. It just makes me wonder why he didn't believe his own 'correct' literary work and leave the Unitarian faith. Something just doesn't add up, again a subjective call on my part.

 

[Musicmaster]

Another aspect of this is the following concerning how Elohim was translated throughout the O.T.:

God (2,346x), god (244x), judge (5x), GOD (1x), goddess (2x), great (2x), mighty (2x), angels (1x), exceeding (1x), God-ward (with H4136) (1x), godly (1x).

Do you see that? Only ONE time was Elohim translated as "angels" throughout the entire O.T. Why? Well, Psalm 8:5 seems to be the one place where the prime example may be seen for subjective bias.

Thoughts?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I've heard that argument in the past and admittedly mine is a subjective call. It just makes me wonder why he didn't believe his own 'correct' literary work and leave the Unitarian faith. Something just doesn't add up, again a subjective call on my part.

Perhaps looking at evolutionary athiests can be an avenue for understanding the answer to your question. Aldus Huxley, in an interview, was asked why scientists leapt at the theory of origins. HIs answer was striking, in that he admitted, on open television, that perhaps the thought of God interfered with the evolutionary scientist's sexual morass. Many of them know that their belief in naturalistic origins is simply indefensible in relation to modern technology and understanding of mathematics, but they stay the course, regardless.

So, perhaps Thayer did, in the back of his mind, realize the vast implications of his work, but only would have converted had he believed that the Greek texts were/are as close as one may possibly get to that which was/is infallible. (shrug) I dunno. Just a thought.

MM

 

[bobinfaith]

1. Who are those angels, one may ask, in how they are addressed in that grammatical and contextual construct? Here is what Thayer's Greek Lexicon says:

"In John 1:51 (52) angels are employed, by a beautiful image borrowed from Genesis 28:12, to represent the divine power that will aid Jesus in the discharge of his Messianic office, and the signal proofs to appear in his history of a divine superintendence. Certain of the angels have proved faithless to the trust committed to them by God, and have given themselves up to sin, Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4 (Enoch c. vi. etc., cf. Genesis 6:2), and now obey the devil, Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:7, cf. 1 Corinthians 6:3 [yet on this last passage cf. Meyer; he and others maintain that ἄγγελοι without an epithet or limitation never in the N. T. signifies other than good angels]."

2. So, Psalm 8:5 should read: "For thou hast made him a little lower than God, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."

Hello MM;

In Thayer's Greek Lexicon is defining all angels and I have no disagreement here.

In point 2 we agree that the "angels" in Psalm 8:5 is the only time referring Elohim = God or angels.

How do you align between point 1 and point 2?

Thanks, brother.

 

[crossnote]

Another aspect of this is the following concerning how Elohim was translated throughout the O.T.:

God (2,346x), god (244x), judge (5x), GOD (1x), goddess (2x), great (2x), mighty (2x), angels (1x), exceeding (1x), God-ward (with H4136) (1x), godly (1x).

Do you see that? Only ONE time was Elohim translated as "angels" throughout the entire O.T. Why? Well, Psalm 8:5 seems to be the one place where the prime example may be seen for subjective bias.

Thoughts?

MM

Here is what I see...I can't make out Elohim or angels...just 'heavenly beings (pl)

 

[Musicmaster]

Hello MM;

In Thayer's Greek Lexicon is defining all angels and I have no disagreement here.

In point 2 we agree that the "angels" in Psalm 8:5 is the only time referring Elohim = God or angels.

How do you align between point 1 and point 2?

Thanks, brother.

Good point, Bob. That did occur to me when I wrote the alternate translation of Psalm 8:5 in relation to 1 John 1:51.

Then, I remembered the many, many times the expression "son of man" appears in the O.T. texts, and is not at all a reference to Christ, and I won't quote them all, but this does bear upon this to question the idea that David had Messiah in mind when he wrote Psalm 8:5:

Numbers 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Job 25:6 How much less man, [that is] a worm? and the son of man, [which is] a worm?

Job 35:8 Thy wickedness [may hurt] a man as thou [art]; and thy righteousness [may profit] the son of man.

Psalm 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Psalm 80:17 Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man [whom] thou madest strong for thyself.

Psalm 144:3 LORD, what [is] man, that thou takest knowledge of him! [or] the son of man, that thou makest account of him!

Psalm 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, [nor] in the son of man, in whom [there is] no help.

Isaiah 51:12 I, [even] I, [am] he that comforteth you: who [art] thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man [that] shall die, and of the son of man [which] shall be made [as] grass;

Isaiah 56:2 Blessed [is] the man [that] doeth this, and the son of man [that] layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

Jeremiah 49:18, 33
18 As in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbour [cities] thereof, saith the LORD, no man shall abide there, neither shall a son of man dwell in it. ...
33 And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, [and] a desolation for ever: there shall no man abide there, nor [any] son of man dwell in it.

Jeremiah 50:40 As God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbour [cities] thereof, saith the LORD; [so] shall no man abide there, neither shall any son of man dwell therein.

Ezekiel 2:1, 3, 6
1 And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee. ...
3 And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, [even] unto this very day. ...
6 And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns [be] with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they [be] a rebellious house.

So, it doesn't seem grammatically consistent to assume that David had Messiah in mind when making use of the expression "son of man." In that context, there is no measure of glorification above the state of fallen mankind for anyone to assume that expression was to any one other than fallen man.

This is some good discussion. I like digging into these kinds of things. Given that the translators chose to break away from textual convention in that one place, obviously thinking that it would be a prideful thing to let the text say what it says in the Hebrew, in that God created us a little beneath Himself, they seem to have assumed it blasphemy to let it speak for itself, thus their having made the choice to bring man down lower than those we will judge. That makes no sense. This is where systematic study causes friction with isolationistic study that focuses on one or two verses at the exclusion of so many other considerations stated throughout scripture along the same topical arena to give us better balance and focus in on the Lord's meaning throughout.

Thank you all who have chimed in on this. I like being sharpened by other irons. Let's keep this up, because it seems important that we understand what this "image" is the Lord has created us, and where He has placed us in relation to himself.

Think about it: Satan was the highest of the angels, and he now sees man having been created above even him, and in a place to judge the angels of God, and, oh, boy, that REALLY stroked his fur the wrong way. He wanted to be AS God (since he knew there was none greater), and he was surpassed by another race.

What does it mean to have been created a "little" beneath God? Well, no man can really state in clear terms what that means, nor establish a measure of which I am aware. We clearly are not on the same level, and I am content with that. He will always be above us, and that is wonderful. I fully accept and embrace that. Having been created above the angels doesn't elicit within me any measure of pride. It seems inconceivable to me that anyone could find an inkling of pride in the thought of being a creation above that of angels. Perhaps there are some out there who do, but it seems foreign to me.

Love you all, and thanks for chiming in on this.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Here's a comparison of some of the translations on Ps 8.5

Psalms 8:5
(AMP) Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

(CSB) You made him little less than God and crowned him with glory and honor.

(ESV) Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

(HCSB) You made him little less than God and crowned him with glory and honor.

(KJV) For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

(NAS95) Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!

(NASB) Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!

(NET) You made them a little less than the heavenly beings. You crowned mankind with honor and majesty.

(NKJV) For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

(TLV) Yet You made him a little lower than the angels, and crowned him with glory and majesty! (v.6)

It's VERY interesting, is it not, that the NASB (which I very much enjoy reading, along with the KJV) translated Elohim consistently with the rest of the O.T.? I still think that some translators assumed it a matter of pride versus humility to have broken away from convention to bring man down lower than the angels, whom we will judge. The KJ translators, and some others, in other words, have messed with the texts, from what I'm seeing in all this.

Caveat, the word of God is infallible. Translations are not.

Just wanted to make sure what I was saying is understood.

So, in other words, it seems that what those translators are guilty of is false humility, in addition to messing around with the word of God, who replaced God with angels in the measure of man as the handiwork of God Himself. Is that an accurate assessment, given the systematic portraiture I have presented here?

MM

 

[crossnote]

I still think that some translators assumed it a matter of pride versus humility to have broken away from convention to bring man down lower than the angels, whom we will judge. The KJ translators, and some others, in other words, have messed with the texts, from what I'm seeing in all this.

OTOH, perhaps they (the translators) may have been trying to exalt the redemptive work of Christ. Man was created lower (whatever that may mean) than the angels yet through Christ's work and faith in Christ, man will be exalted above the angels. I don't know nor have the linguistic expertise to decide. Then there is the fact that mankind was created in the image of God. ouch

Psalm 8:5 (KJV) For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Hebrews 2:7 (KJV) Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Hebrews 2:9 (KJV) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

 

[Musicmaster]

OTOH, perhaps they (the translators) may have been trying to exalt the redemptive work of Christ. Man was created lower (whatever that may mean) than the angels yet through Christ's work and faith in Christ, man will be exalted above the angels. I don't know nor have the linguistic expertise to decide. Then there is the fact that mankind was created in the image of God. ouch

Psalm 8:5 (KJV) For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Hebrews 2:7 (KJV) Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Hebrews 2:9 (KJV) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Hey, CN. I like that. Perhaps you've hit deeper into the concept than what ever occurred to me before. It's another way of thinking about this, but perhaps you've hit close to home of truth, given that the fully man side of Christ was beneath the angels given that his body was subject to damage from nails and being struck by fists.

MM

 

[Peter Luke]

God is mindful of us because we are not even mindful of ourselves in the true sense. Angels are always mindful of God, but we aren't. Our choice to be mindful of God is determined by faith that God exists, and to be conscious of God's Will for us also relies on our 'choice' of unconditional love for God. These demonstrate a degree of self determination/choice which I believe the angels have less of, because they already know the Truth _ where humans are still yet to learn the Truth. Like a father who cares more about their child's progress to the Truth than those who already 'know'.

Understanding comes from both knowing and experience of struggling to attain the understanding. This introduces a depth of compassion that angels may not have; providing us with the gifts of forgiveness, allowance, patience, tolerance, guidance to others, and teaching. In other words, the Counsellor counsels us to become counsellors of Truth to others struggling to attain the understanding of Truth/God, here in this realm we walk through.

When the sheep is lost, it is at its weakest and vulnerable state. When the sheep is found and brought close to the Shepherd, it is strong and fearless. Truth set it free from all its fears. We, the sheep, have to face all our fears to understand the Truth which frees us. We also know what it's like to slip/relapse into denial, and having to face our fears once again to get a better understanding. Thank God for Faith (Jesus Christ), without which we would have no Shepherd to guide us.

 

[Lanolin]

In NZ, the farmers fence the sheep in with barbed wire and get their sheepdogs to chase them around. True. They not real shepherds IMHO.

 

[Musicmaster]

God is mindful of us because we are not even mindful of ourselves in the true sense.

PL, I'm not sure I follow something you said at the outset. When you said the above, can you elaborate? What is that truest sense? Also, how did you arrive at the idea that God is "mindful" of us because we are not "mindful" of Him? I always thought God was/is mindful of us because of His immense grace and mercy, not because of any lack on our part. I thought God chose us because He has an eternal purpose we have not yet seen on this side of eternity, especially when we consider that His thoughts and ways are above ours as the heavens are above the earth.

Hope you don't mind a few questions.

Blessings to you all.

MM