It is not ordinary that “A” be used as a categorization of Aleph. If properly classified, Aleph is classified by the Hebrew character it is named after, א. That, or it is spelled out.
In my honest appraisal, you have lost site of what this discussion is, in fact, all about. My position was (and has) never been about any given translation. The discussion is one that is text critical in nature; about which variant is accurate. In order to translate and interpret you have to know what it is you are translating and interpreting. You are putting too much emphasis on a translational issue, and not enough on what the underlying (of which I am defending) Greek wording says. Translations may supply words such as, “as” to make it’s translation sound smoother. With, or without it in no way hinders my position.
Regardless of how one translates κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν, at the end of the day you are stuck between two very different standards, from a text critical perspective. In this text over here (1 Cor. 10:9) you hold an entirely different set of standards than you do for this text over here (1 Peter 3:15). That’s awfully convenient.
I fail to see how citing a barrage of OT passages and cross referencing them with Rev. 1:8 has anything to do with the passage in Isaiah. The Isaiah passage (9:6) is one of the passages Jehovah’s Witnesses will cite in support of Jesus being one, amongst a pantheon of gods (“a mighty god”). My position says, no, He’s to be reverenced as the Almighty, and that’s where 1 Peter 3:15 comes into play. By citing 1 Peter 3:15, it robs them of one of their chief texts (Isaiah 9:6) to support the notion that Jesus is just one (among a pantheon of gods, i.e., “a mighty god”) and does so by alluding to an OT-YHWH text from within the very same context that Isaiah 9 is placed in. As pointed out previously, Isaiah 9 is apart of a larger discourse that continues through several chapters, going back to and including Isaiah 8. The only problem is that they miss (or blatantly ignore) Peter’s allusion to Isaiah 8 when speaking of Christ as “Lord” (1 Peter 3:15). Christ is referred to as “Lord” in a context that alludes to Isaiah 8; and therefore, there is no reason to understand this reference to Christ as “Lord” any differently than that found in Isaiah 8:13-14. They cannot argue (as they often do) that lords are earthly representatives of their heavenly counterparts (i.e., the gods) when the “Lord” of Isaiah 8 (of which is being cited) refers to none other than YHWH.
Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot even say they revere Christ as they do the Almighty, because for them, the Almighty stands in direct apposition from everything else (including the gods). Therefore, they cannot (with sound mind) say they think of (or revere) Christ “as YHWH.” For the JW, Christ is not on the same exalted level as YHWH. And by not including the Divine Name at 1 Peter 3:15 (as they do elsewhere), this shows they are understanding “Lord” in a titular sense (as a title of Christ), not as a reference to YHWH. Therefore, they are taking “Lord” to be a direct reference to Jesus. Speaking of “direct reference,” in 1 Cor. 10:9 (contrary to your position), the textual variant (“Lord,” “God”) all support my interpretation of the text. Where you state that “Christ” is referred to in 1 Cor. 10:9a, you then go on to suggest that it is “God” who is being addressed in 1 Cor. 10:9b. Don’t tempt Christ, else God will send out judgment as He did in the Exodus. Yet, the variant readings indicate that the person being referred to in 1 Cor. 10:9b is the same figure mentioned in 1 Cor. 10:9a. What’s more, is that you completely miss the connection being made with what Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:9, and what he goes on to say in 1 Cor. 10:21-22, which further demonstrates that Christ was present (and particpant) of God's judgment in the Exodus. As I have pointed out in other threads (and on multiple occasions),
You say,
“Easy,” you say? I would love to see you cite Rev. 1:8 to a JW. Your cross references stand no chance. JW’s are similar to KJV Onlyists in that they have one translation that is authoritative for them, and any that may differ (such as the KJV) are corruptions. So in order for Rev. 1:8 to work, you now need to jump through hoops to prove the KJV is more reliable and accurate, and then if (or when) you’ve managed that (and you never will), you then will need to discuss the textual variants present in Rev. 1:8 (because there are some), and then how they are to be translated and interpreted. Simply put, you might consider a job at your local carnival if you like hoop jumping much. If you want to prove Jesus is “Almighty” from Revelation, you don’t go to Rev. 1:8 to do it. Rather, you cite texts such as Rev. 2:23 (cf. Jeremiah 17:10), and cross reference this OT-YHWH text with what is said in Rev. 22:13. They will deny the speaker in Rev. 22:13 is not Jesus, but the same thematic echoes are in Jesus’ words in the former verse. Also, one can cite intertestamental Jewish literature, such as Wisdom 18:14-16 (“your Almighty Word leaped from heaven… a stern warrior carrying the sharp sword of your authentic command”), which Revelation 19:11-16 (“the Word of God… comes from His mouth a sharp sword”) alludes to. In both, Wisdom 18 and Rev. 19, the Word is depicted as a warrior going into battle, cutting down God’s enemies with the “sharp sword” of God’s command. The fact that Wisdom speaks of the Word as Almighty is another point worth mentioning, especially in regards to other Johannine specific texts (i.e., John 1:1).
There is no hoop jumping if my conclusions of 1 Peter 3:15 are correct. The hoop jumping is now placed back onto the JW. I don’t need to defend a passage from a charge of “corruption.” But they now need to jump through hoops to try to wiggle out of not translating “Lord” with the Divine Name (as they frequently do in other OT-YHWH texts). Why is this the lone exception? You and I both know why.
And if I have a zealous JW, I invite them to the discussion. Those are the only kind I like. My apologetic is particularly focused on JW’s and other proponents of Arianism. Let’s just say, that’s kind of my “specialty,” if you get my gist. I know their arguments; enough, in fact, to know why Rev. 1:8 won’t work unless you want to spend your life never being able to convince them of the accuracy of the KJV.
In my honest appraisal, you have lost site of what this discussion is, in fact, all about. My position was (and has) never been about any given translation. The discussion is one that is text critical in nature; about which variant is accurate. In order to translate and interpret you have to know what it is you are translating and interpreting. You are putting too much emphasis on a translational issue, and not enough on what the underlying (of which I am defending) Greek wording says. Translations may supply words such as, “as” to make it’s translation sound smoother. With, or without it in no way hinders my position.
Regardless of how one translates κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν, at the end of the day you are stuck between two very different standards, from a text critical perspective. In this text over here (1 Cor. 10:9) you hold an entirely different set of standards than you do for this text over here (1 Peter 3:15). That’s awfully convenient.
I fail to see how citing a barrage of OT passages and cross referencing them with Rev. 1:8 has anything to do with the passage in Isaiah. The Isaiah passage (9:6) is one of the passages Jehovah’s Witnesses will cite in support of Jesus being one, amongst a pantheon of gods (“a mighty god”). My position says, no, He’s to be reverenced as the Almighty, and that’s where 1 Peter 3:15 comes into play. By citing 1 Peter 3:15, it robs them of one of their chief texts (Isaiah 9:6) to support the notion that Jesus is just one (among a pantheon of gods, i.e., “a mighty god”) and does so by alluding to an OT-YHWH text from within the very same context that Isaiah 9 is placed in. As pointed out previously, Isaiah 9 is apart of a larger discourse that continues through several chapters, going back to and including Isaiah 8. The only problem is that they miss (or blatantly ignore) Peter’s allusion to Isaiah 8 when speaking of Christ as “Lord” (1 Peter 3:15). Christ is referred to as “Lord” in a context that alludes to Isaiah 8; and therefore, there is no reason to understand this reference to Christ as “Lord” any differently than that found in Isaiah 8:13-14. They cannot argue (as they often do) that lords are earthly representatives of their heavenly counterparts (i.e., the gods) when the “Lord” of Isaiah 8 (of which is being cited) refers to none other than YHWH.
Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot even say they revere Christ as they do the Almighty, because for them, the Almighty stands in direct apposition from everything else (including the gods). Therefore, they cannot (with sound mind) say they think of (or revere) Christ “as YHWH.” For the JW, Christ is not on the same exalted level as YHWH. And by not including the Divine Name at 1 Peter 3:15 (as they do elsewhere), this shows they are understanding “Lord” in a titular sense (as a title of Christ), not as a reference to YHWH. Therefore, they are taking “Lord” to be a direct reference to Jesus. Speaking of “direct reference,” in 1 Cor. 10:9 (contrary to your position), the textual variant (“Lord,” “God”) all support my interpretation of the text. Where you state that “Christ” is referred to in 1 Cor. 10:9a, you then go on to suggest that it is “God” who is being addressed in 1 Cor. 10:9b. Don’t tempt Christ, else God will send out judgment as He did in the Exodus. Yet, the variant readings indicate that the person being referred to in 1 Cor. 10:9b is the same figure mentioned in 1 Cor. 10:9a. What’s more, is that you completely miss the connection being made with what Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:9, and what he goes on to say in 1 Cor. 10:21-22, which further demonstrates that Christ was present (and particpant) of God's judgment in the Exodus. As I have pointed out in other threads (and on multiple occasions),
You say,
“Easy,” you say? I would love to see you cite Rev. 1:8 to a JW. Your cross references stand no chance. JW’s are similar to KJV Onlyists in that they have one translation that is authoritative for them, and any that may differ (such as the KJV) are corruptions. So in order for Rev. 1:8 to work, you now need to jump through hoops to prove the KJV is more reliable and accurate, and then if (or when) you’ve managed that (and you never will), you then will need to discuss the textual variants present in Rev. 1:8 (because there are some), and then how they are to be translated and interpreted. Simply put, you might consider a job at your local carnival if you like hoop jumping much. If you want to prove Jesus is “Almighty” from Revelation, you don’t go to Rev. 1:8 to do it. Rather, you cite texts such as Rev. 2:23 (cf. Jeremiah 17:10), and cross reference this OT-YHWH text with what is said in Rev. 22:13. They will deny the speaker in Rev. 22:13 is not Jesus, but the same thematic echoes are in Jesus’ words in the former verse. Also, one can cite intertestamental Jewish literature, such as Wisdom 18:14-16 (“your Almighty Word leaped from heaven… a stern warrior carrying the sharp sword of your authentic command”), which Revelation 19:11-16 (“the Word of God… comes from His mouth a sharp sword”) alludes to. In both, Wisdom 18 and Rev. 19, the Word is depicted as a warrior going into battle, cutting down God’s enemies with the “sharp sword” of God’s command. The fact that Wisdom speaks of the Word as Almighty is another point worth mentioning, especially in regards to other Johannine specific texts (i.e., John 1:1).
There is no hoop jumping if my conclusions of 1 Peter 3:15 are correct. The hoop jumping is now placed back onto the JW. I don’t need to defend a passage from a charge of “corruption.” But they now need to jump through hoops to try to wiggle out of not translating “Lord” with the Divine Name (as they frequently do in other OT-YHWH texts). Why is this the lone exception? You and I both know why.
And if I have a zealous JW, I invite them to the discussion. Those are the only kind I like. My apologetic is particularly focused on JW’s and other proponents of Arianism. Let’s just say, that’s kind of my “specialty,” if you get my gist. I know their arguments; enough, in fact, to know why Rev. 1:8 won’t work unless you want to spend your life never being able to convince them of the accuracy of the KJV.