3

I know this is splitting hairs, and that the assignment of red lettering is not an exact science.

I have read Red-Letter King James Version: Who is speaking in Revelation 21:5–6?

and Why would the speaker in Rev 21 not be considered Jesus?

Rev1:8 in particular refers to the speaker as "The Lord God". (Yes, I know it does not refer to "LORD GOD", how sure are we of this?).

To hard line attribute one utterance of this phrase to Jesus and the other to The Father would surely break the very fibre of the Holy Trinity, or introduce an inconsistency or contradiction. If we treat them as separate beings, one is surely a liar! If we treat them as a Trinity (single entity), there is no problem.

Is there an accepted difference of opinion on these interpretations?

Can we honestly, as humans, distinguish the members of the Holy Trinity in this way unless the Bible gives us an exact word?

I accept that the original Greek may differ from my NIV translation. To me, this simply and strongly confirms the closeness of the Trinity that I, as human, cannot fully comprehend. I would see no reason to have these texts either in red, black or any other color.

1
  • Welcome to Bible Hermeneutics SE and thank you for your contribution. When you get a chance, please take the tour to understand how the site works and how it is different than others.
    – agarza
    Oct 1 at 14:54
1

Red-letter Bibles are the interpretation of whoever edited the Bible. Some authors differ as to which words to mark as spoken by Jesus and thus to print in red.

For example, there is no debate that Jesus spoke the words recorded in John 3:10-15. However, there is a sharp debate as whether Jesus spoke V16-21. Some Bibles have them in red and other do not.

So, who spoke Rev 21:6? This is actually not entirely clear. Let us note Rev 22:3 -

The throne of God and of the Lamb will be within the city, and His servants will worship Him.

Note that the two pronouns, "His" and "Him" are singular with the antecedent, "God and the Lamb" which is plural! Thus, back in Rev 21:5&6 we have:

And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Then He said, “Write this down, for these words are faithful and true.” And He told me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give freely from the spring of the water of life.

Note that both Jesus and the Father are each described as "the first and the last" (Rev 2213, 1:17, 18, Isa 41:4, 44:6, 48:12, etc); and given that "He who sits on the throne" is both the Father and the Son as shown above, it remains debatable who utters the words in Rev 21:6.

0

The original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic texts do not have any capitalization, so any capitalization you see is a product of the translators' interpretation and not the author's true intentions. Also, the use of "LORD" in some translations (e.g. [N]KJV) is due to a somewhat superstitious avoidance of using real name "Yahweh" in the Hebrew writings. The ASV is one of the most accurate translations out there, and it faithfully translates the real name (at that time scholars thought it was "Jehovah"), as well as explaining "the American Revisers...were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament.".

Jesus explicitly said he is not the Father. The author of 1 Cor 15:24-28 also made clear that the Christ is distinct from God. Compare with Gen 41:39-44, where Joseph is distinct from the Pharaoh but was given full authority over all the land except over Pharaoh. By the way, nothing that is written in any writing (ancient or modern) can "break the very fibre" of anything; God and Jesus remain exactly as they are regardless of what is written about them in the Protestant canon.

Neither the word "trinity" nor the concept can be found in the original texts of the Protestant canon. You should read up on the history of the early church including the politics involved in the Nicene councils.

4
  • The Divine Name Bible and the New World Translation also replace Jehovah back into the text.
    – agarza
    Oct 7 at 14:11
  • @agarza: The NWT is translated by what many consider to be a cult. I am unfamiliar with the DNB, but do note that if it is based on the KJV then it contains spurious passages like the Johannine clause.
    – David
    Oct 7 at 14:23
  • Your mention of the "superstitious avoidance of using real name "Yahweh" in the Hebrew writings" was my reason for adding the two translations, whatever their origins because I thought that the re-inclusion of the divine name was important to you. Also, the Emphasized/Rotherham Bible also includes the divine name.
    – agarza
    Oct 7 at 14:28
  • @agarza: I understand. My comment was for the benefit of readers who do not know the provenance of the NWT. Incidentally, I mentioned the 'superstition' only because the asker seemed to be unaware of where the capitalization of "LORD" actually comes from. Personally, I highly value faithfulness to the original text, so I in fact consider the NKJV to be better than most other translations, though the ASV and Darby seem to be much more faithful than the NKJV. Funnily enough, Darby's French translation was so faithful that the widely available English translation of that is still so faithful.
    – David
    Oct 7 at 14:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.