Is Michael Another Name For Jesus?
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
Matthew 1:23 KJV
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
Isaiah 43:10 KJV
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.”
Isaiah 9:6-8 KJV
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
1 John 5:7
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
John 1:1, 10, 14 KJV
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
-
2
- Show all
.
Converting To Catholicism
FAQ: I'm considering joining the Catholic Church. Would it be a mistake?
REPLY: Catholicism is a very beautiful religion; but it isn't easy.
Once someone is fully committed by completing First Holy Communion and
Confirmation and undergone Christian baptism --God will be holding them
accountable to comply with everything Rome teaches and stands for, e.g.
the Commandments, the Canon Law, the dogma, the rituals, the Traditions,
the Councils, the Bulls, the Encyclicals, the rites, the holy days of obligation,
and the entire Catechism; plus everything that Jesus and the apostles taught
in the New Testament, i.e. all four gospels and all twenty-one epistles, plus
Acts and Revelation.
That's a lot to remember, let alone put into practice.
And then there's the matter of mortal sin. When Catholics leave this life with
just one mortal sin on the books awaiting absolution, just one, they go
straight to Hell. It's a direct flight; no stopover in a Purgatory. Even if a
Catholic managed to be a top performer in faith and practice for fifty years,
none of that will be taken into consideration. They will leave this life as if
they'd been a pagan the whole time. Mortal sins are that lethal.
The paragraph below from CCC 1782 of the catechism of the Catholic
Church; acknowledges everyone's rights and freedoms in regard to selecting
a religion of their own personal choice.
"Man has the right to act in conscience, and in freedom, so as personally to
make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his
conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his
conscience, especially in religious matters."
However, be aware that once someone joins the Catholic Church, they will
have to relinquish those rights and be no longer permitted to either
interpret, or apply, the Holy Bible's teachings sans hierarchy oversight per
CCC 85 which says:
"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether
in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the
living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is
exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of
interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the
successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."
Bottom line is: Catholicism isn't a democratic structure-- it's more like Big
Brother's thought control in George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four".
I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing; only saying that it's a level of
governance that some folks find a mite too strict.
_
Converting To Catholicism
FAQ: I'm considering joining the Catholic Church. Would it be a mistake?
REPLY: Catholicism is a very beautiful religion; but it isn't easy.
Once someone is fully committed by completing First Holy Communion and
Confirmation and undergone Christian baptism --God will be holding them
accountable to comply with everything Rome teaches and stands for, e.g.
the Commandments, the Canon Law, the dogma, the rituals, the Traditions,
the Councils, the Bulls, the Encyclicals, the rites, the holy days of obligation,
and the entire Catechism; plus everything that Jesus and the apostles taught
in the New Testament, i.e. all four gospels and all twenty-one epistles, plus
Acts and Revelation.
That's a lot to remember, let alone put into practice.
And then there's the matter of mortal sin. When Catholics leave this life with
just one mortal sin on the books awaiting absolution, just one, they go
straight to Hell. It's a direct flight; no stopover in a Purgatory. Even if a
Catholic managed to be a top performer in faith and practice for fifty years,
none of that will be taken into consideration. They will leave this life as if
they'd been a pagan the whole time. Mortal sins are that lethal.
The paragraph below from CCC 1782 of the catechism of the Catholic
Church; acknowledges everyone's rights and freedoms in regard to selecting
a religion of their own personal choice.
"Man has the right to act in conscience, and in freedom, so as personally to
make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his
conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his
conscience, especially in religious matters."
However, be aware that once someone joins the Catholic Church, they will
have to relinquish those rights and be no longer permitted to either
interpret, or apply, the Holy Bible's teachings sans hierarchy oversight per
CCC 85 which says:
"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether
in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the
living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is
exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of
interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the
successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."
Bottom line is: Catholicism isn't a democratic structure-- it's more like Big
Brother's thought control in George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four".
I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing; only saying that it's a level of
governance that some folks find a mite too strict.
_
-
1
- Show all
I've must of said this hundreds of times in the last 50 years or so that it's impossible for Jesus to be Michael the arc angel, and I can prove it. It's like saying God telling Moses, "I have made you like God to Pharoh," Obviously Moses is not God nor is he "a god." (Exodus 7:1). Is Moses another name for God? Of course not!
Also, the Hebrew word for angel is "malak" and it simply means "messenger." How the word is used depends on its context. Malachi 3:1, "Behold, I am going to send My "malak/angel/messenger" and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the "malak/angel/messenger" of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming, says the Lord of hosts."
The person who is clearing the way of the Lord is none other than John the Baptist and he ain't no angel. (Mark 1:1-3. Now, who do you think is the "messenger" of the covenant? Guess? Who is coming to "HIS" temple and we will be delighted at His coming? It certainly is not Michael the arc angel.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Also, the Hebrew word for angel is "malak" and it simply means "messenger." How the word is used depends on its context. Malachi 3:1, "Behold, I am going to send My "malak/angel/messenger" and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the "malak/angel/messenger" of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming, says the Lord of hosts."
The person who is clearing the way of the Lord is none other than John the Baptist and he ain't no angel. (Mark 1:1-3. Now, who do you think is the "messenger" of the covenant? Guess? Who is coming to "HIS" temple and we will be delighted at His coming? It certainly is not Michael the arc angel.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
-
3
- Show all
Thursday 1-26-23 5th. Day Of The Weekly Cycle, Shavat 3 5783 37th. Winter Day
Clues that Jesus is the Angel of the LORD of the Old Testament – Christian Apologist (christian-apologist.com)
Love, Walter and Debbie
Clues that Jesus is the Angel of the LORD of the Old Testament – Christian Apologist (christian-apologist.com)
Love, Walter and Debbie
-
2
- Show all
amen possibly this could be Micheal I say that only because the book of Daniel calls him the children of Israel’s prince
“Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.”
Exodus 23:20-21, 23 KJV
So he would be like a representation to those people figure or similitude of God
“and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”
Numbers 12:8 KJV
Like this
“And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.”
Exodus 3:2-4 KJV
It’s an angel representing God and speaking a message from God remembering the eyes which cover the angels God sees and knows d often acts through angels in the ot before he became flesh.
they were most often dealing with angels who God had sent to them and even set over them as lord like that particular angel he gave israel over to
The angel doesn’t have to be Micheal but to my understanding only Micheal is ever named the prince of isreal which is a position of authority over them like that angel was given
“But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth:
and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.”
Daniel 10:21
Which really would solve the confusion of Micheal being Jesus or being a heavenly figure and shadow of Jesus beforehand
“Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.”
Exodus 23:20-21, 23 KJV
So he would be like a representation to those people figure or similitude of God
“and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”
Numbers 12:8 KJV
Like this
“And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.”
Exodus 3:2-4 KJV
It’s an angel representing God and speaking a message from God remembering the eyes which cover the angels God sees and knows d often acts through angels in the ot before he became flesh.
they were most often dealing with angels who God had sent to them and even set over them as lord like that particular angel he gave israel over to
The angel doesn’t have to be Micheal but to my understanding only Micheal is ever named the prince of isreal which is a position of authority over them like that angel was given
“But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth:
and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.”
Daniel 10:21
Which really would solve the confusion of Micheal being Jesus or being a heavenly figure and shadow of Jesus beforehand
The following is what it means that Gods name is in Him. This is from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary;
Exodus 23:20-27 (NAS)
20 "Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21 Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him. 22 But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23 For My angel will go before you and bring you in to the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them. 24 You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars in pieces. 25 But you shall serve the Lord your God, and He will bless your bread and your water; and I will remove sickness from your midst. …
Click link to access powerful study resources in a new window.
Powered by StudyTagger™ from StudyLight.org
" tooltipenable="true" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(200, 83, 53); font-weight: bold; cursor: pointer;">Exodus 23:20-27
Jehovah would send an angel before them, who should guard them on the way from injury and destruction, and bring them to the place prepared for them, i.e., to Canaan. The name of Jehovah was in this angel (Exodus 23:21 (NAS)
Now, I've stated in other post that it is impossible that Jesus is Michael the arc angel. I base this on Genesis 22. Please read it and tell me starting at vs 11 through vs18 if you believe the angel of the Lord is Michael the arc angel or the preincarnate Jesus Christ?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Exodus 23:20-27 (NAS)
20 "Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21 Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him. 22 But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23 For My angel will go before you and bring you in to the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them. 24 You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars in pieces. 25 But you shall serve the Lord your God, and He will bless your bread and your water; and I will remove sickness from your midst. …
Click link to access powerful study resources in a new window.
Powered by StudyTagger™ from StudyLight.org
" tooltipenable="true" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(200, 83, 53); font-weight: bold; cursor: pointer;">Exodus 23:20-27
Jehovah would send an angel before them, who should guard them on the way from injury and destruction, and bring them to the place prepared for them, i.e., to Canaan. The name of Jehovah was in this angel (Exodus 23:21 (NAS)
Now, I've stated in other post that it is impossible that Jesus is Michael the arc angel. I base this on Genesis 22. Please read it and tell me starting at vs 11 through vs18 if you believe the angel of the Lord is Michael the arc angel or the preincarnate Jesus Christ?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
As we know Context determines word meaning.
Strong's Concordance is not an lexicon.
"Usage: a messenger, generally a (supernatural) messenger from God, an angel, conveying news or behests from God to men."
Strong's confuses some places of usage with definition.
We know Michael is an archangel, not just an angel.
From Thayer's lexicon(I do not know why Strong's uses a lexicon by Thayer).
"
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 743: ἀρχάγγελος
ἀρχάγγελος, ἀρχαγγέλου, ὁ (from ἀρχι, which see, and ἄγγελος), a Biblical and ecclesiastical word, archangel, i. e. chief of the angels (Hebrew שַׂר chief, prince, Daniel 10:20; Daniel 12:1), or one of the princes and leaders of the angels (הָרִאשֹׁנִים הַשָּׂרִים, Daniel 10:13): 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Jude 1:9. For the Jews after the exile distinguished several orders of angels, and some (as the author of the Book of Enoch, 9:1ff; cf. Dillmann at the passage, p. 97f) reckoned four angels (answering to the four sides of the throne of God) of the highest rank; but others, and apparently the majority (Tobit 12:15, where cf. Fritzsche; Revelation 8:2), reckoned seven (after the pattern of the seven Amshaspands, the high est spirits in the religion of Zoroaster). See under the words, Γαβριήλ and Μιχαήλ."
Strong's Concordance is not an lexicon.
"Usage: a messenger, generally a (supernatural) messenger from God, an angel, conveying news or behests from God to men."
Strong's confuses some places of usage with definition.
We know Michael is an archangel, not just an angel.
From Thayer's lexicon(I do not know why Strong's uses a lexicon by Thayer).
"
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 743: ἀρχάγγελος
ἀρχάγγελος, ἀρχαγγέλου, ὁ (from ἀρχι, which see, and ἄγγελος), a Biblical and ecclesiastical word, archangel, i. e. chief of the angels (Hebrew שַׂר chief, prince, Daniel 10:20; Daniel 12:1), or one of the princes and leaders of the angels (הָרִאשֹׁנִים הַשָּׂרִים, Daniel 10:13): 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Jude 1:9. For the Jews after the exile distinguished several orders of angels, and some (as the author of the Book of Enoch, 9:1ff; cf. Dillmann at the passage, p. 97f) reckoned four angels (answering to the four sides of the throne of God) of the highest rank; but others, and apparently the majority (Tobit 12:15, where cf. Fritzsche; Revelation 8:2), reckoned seven (after the pattern of the seven Amshaspands, the high est spirits in the religion of Zoroaster). See under the words, Γαβριήλ and Μιχαήλ."
-
1
- Show all
A similiar fallacy I seen in this discussion is
"c. Apostolos - The fact that this word is related to the verb apostello (to send), is often used to argue that the root meaning of "apostle" is "one who is sent." But as Carson points out, the "NT use of the noun [apostolos] does not center on the meaning "the one sent" but on messenger. Now a messenger is usually sent; but the word "messenger" also calls to mind the message the person carries, and suggests he represents the one who sent him. In other words, actual usage in the NT suggests that apostolos commonly bears the meaning of "a special representative" or "a special messenger" rather than someone sent out" (Exegetical Fallacies, p. 29). " https://www.samstorms.org/all-articles/post/how-to-do-a-word-study
"c. Apostolos - The fact that this word is related to the verb apostello (to send), is often used to argue that the root meaning of "apostle" is "one who is sent." But as Carson points out, the "NT use of the noun [apostolos] does not center on the meaning "the one sent" but on messenger. Now a messenger is usually sent; but the word "messenger" also calls to mind the message the person carries, and suggests he represents the one who sent him. In other words, actual usage in the NT suggests that apostolos commonly bears the meaning of "a special representative" or "a special messenger" rather than someone sent out" (Exegetical Fallacies, p. 29). " https://www.samstorms.org/all-articles/post/how-to-do-a-word-study
[N.B. The best treatment of the many fallacies that are committed in the process of doing a word study is provided by D. A. Carson in his book Exegetical Fallacies (Baker, 1984).]
1. The root fallacy
This fallacy is based on the assumption that a word derives it meaning from the shape or components of which it is made. I.e., the mistake is in thinking that meaning is determined by etymology. [The exegetical dictionary by Kittel is often guilty of this mistake.]
Examples:
a. Agapao and Phileo - observe that agapao and its related noun agape are used in 2 Sam. 13:15 (LXX) to describe Amnon's incestuous rape of his half-sister Tamar. See also 2 Tim. 4:10 (agapao); and compare John 3:35 (agapao) with John 5:20 (phileo). See also the famous exchange between Jesus and Peter in John 21:15-17. None of this is to suggest that there isn't a special quality to God's love for us. Certainly his love is sacrificial and divine, etc. But this is not because of some intrinsic meaning in the verb agapao or the noun agape.
b. Monogenes - thought by many to be derived from monos (only) and gennao (to beget), hence "only-begotten". But cf. Heb. 11:17. Hence, the best translation is probably something like unique, special, well-beloved son.
c. Apostolos - The fact that this word is related to the verb apostello (to send), is often used to argue that the root meaning of "apostle" is "one who is sent." But as Carson points out, the "NT use of the noun [apostolos] does not center on the meaning "the one sent" but on messenger. Now a messenger is usually sent; but the word "messenger" also calls to mind the message the person carries, and suggests he represents the one who sent him. In other words, actual usage in the NT suggests that apostolos commonly bears the meaning of "a special representative" or "a special messenger" rather than someone sent out" (Exegetical Fallacies, p. 29).
d. Ekklesia - one often hears that since this word is built from the preposition ek (from) and the verb kaleo (to call) it means "the called out ones" or some such idea. But there is no indication that this was its emphasis in NT times. It simply means "the congregation."
2. Semantic anachronism
This is when a late use of a word is read back into earlier literature. An example is the Greek word dunamis, from which we derive our English term "dynamite." Semantic anachronism would be interpreting the meaning of the first century Greek word by an appeal to the meaning of the twentieth century English word.
Cf. also 2 Cor. 9:7.
3. Semantic obsolescence
This is when the interpreter assigns to a word a meaning that it had in earlier times but that is no longer within the semantic range of the term. [The semantic range of a word is a list of the ways the word was used in the period when the author was writing.]
4. Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings
Cf. kephale (head) in 1 Cor. 11:2-16.
5. False assumptions about technical meaning
Here the interpreter falsely assumes that a word always or nearly always has a certain technical or theologically immutable meaning.
Some examples include: 1) "sanctification" (1 Thess. 4:3 and 1 Cor. 1:2); 2) "revelation" (Phil. 3:15); 3) "call" or "calling" (in Paul and in the synoptic gospels); 4) "justify" (in Paul and in James); 5) "mystery" (in Col. 1:26-27 and in Eph. 3:4-6); and 6) "foundation" (in 1 Cor. 3:11 and in Eph. 2:20).
6. Unwarranted semantic disjunctions
This refers to the tendency to "offer the reader either/or alternatives and then force a decision. In other words, they demand semantic disjunction, when complementarity might be a possibility" (Carson, pp. 55-6).
7. Illegitimate totality transfer
This fallacy is found in the idea that the meaning of a word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may entail the entire range of a word's meaning. Or, this fallacy "assumes that a word carries all of its senses in any one passage" (Darrell Bock, in Introducing NT Interpretation, p. 110).
The Amplified Bible is often guilty of this fallacy in its attempt to provide us with an expansive paraphrase of the text.
4. The final step is to study the articles on your word found in the various exegetical dictionaries, the three most helpful of which are: 1) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology; 2) Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament; and 3) Kittel.
https://www.samstorms.org/all-articles/post/how-to-do-a-word-study
1. The root fallacy
This fallacy is based on the assumption that a word derives it meaning from the shape or components of which it is made. I.e., the mistake is in thinking that meaning is determined by etymology. [The exegetical dictionary by Kittel is often guilty of this mistake.]
Examples:
a. Agapao and Phileo - observe that agapao and its related noun agape are used in 2 Sam. 13:15 (LXX) to describe Amnon's incestuous rape of his half-sister Tamar. See also 2 Tim. 4:10 (agapao); and compare John 3:35 (agapao) with John 5:20 (phileo). See also the famous exchange between Jesus and Peter in John 21:15-17. None of this is to suggest that there isn't a special quality to God's love for us. Certainly his love is sacrificial and divine, etc. But this is not because of some intrinsic meaning in the verb agapao or the noun agape.
b. Monogenes - thought by many to be derived from monos (only) and gennao (to beget), hence "only-begotten". But cf. Heb. 11:17. Hence, the best translation is probably something like unique, special, well-beloved son.
c. Apostolos - The fact that this word is related to the verb apostello (to send), is often used to argue that the root meaning of "apostle" is "one who is sent." But as Carson points out, the "NT use of the noun [apostolos] does not center on the meaning "the one sent" but on messenger. Now a messenger is usually sent; but the word "messenger" also calls to mind the message the person carries, and suggests he represents the one who sent him. In other words, actual usage in the NT suggests that apostolos commonly bears the meaning of "a special representative" or "a special messenger" rather than someone sent out" (Exegetical Fallacies, p. 29).
d. Ekklesia - one often hears that since this word is built from the preposition ek (from) and the verb kaleo (to call) it means "the called out ones" or some such idea. But there is no indication that this was its emphasis in NT times. It simply means "the congregation."
2. Semantic anachronism
This is when a late use of a word is read back into earlier literature. An example is the Greek word dunamis, from which we derive our English term "dynamite." Semantic anachronism would be interpreting the meaning of the first century Greek word by an appeal to the meaning of the twentieth century English word.
Cf. also 2 Cor. 9:7.
3. Semantic obsolescence
This is when the interpreter assigns to a word a meaning that it had in earlier times but that is no longer within the semantic range of the term. [The semantic range of a word is a list of the ways the word was used in the period when the author was writing.]
4. Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings
Cf. kephale (head) in 1 Cor. 11:2-16.
5. False assumptions about technical meaning
Here the interpreter falsely assumes that a word always or nearly always has a certain technical or theologically immutable meaning.
Some examples include: 1) "sanctification" (1 Thess. 4:3 and 1 Cor. 1:2); 2) "revelation" (Phil. 3:15); 3) "call" or "calling" (in Paul and in the synoptic gospels); 4) "justify" (in Paul and in James); 5) "mystery" (in Col. 1:26-27 and in Eph. 3:4-6); and 6) "foundation" (in 1 Cor. 3:11 and in Eph. 2:20).
6. Unwarranted semantic disjunctions
This refers to the tendency to "offer the reader either/or alternatives and then force a decision. In other words, they demand semantic disjunction, when complementarity might be a possibility" (Carson, pp. 55-6).
7. Illegitimate totality transfer
This fallacy is found in the idea that the meaning of a word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may entail the entire range of a word's meaning. Or, this fallacy "assumes that a word carries all of its senses in any one passage" (Darrell Bock, in Introducing NT Interpretation, p. 110).
The Amplified Bible is often guilty of this fallacy in its attempt to provide us with an expansive paraphrase of the text.
4. The final step is to study the articles on your word found in the various exegetical dictionaries, the three most helpful of which are: 1) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology; 2) Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament; and 3) Kittel.
https://www.samstorms.org/all-articles/post/how-to-do-a-word-study
"
Totality Transfer Fallacy
A common word-study fallacy is to assume that the broad semantic range of a word is being used in every specific instance of that word. That is, the totality of the semantic range is illegitimately transferred. Or to put it in laymen's terms, the same writer does not always use the same word in the same way. At some level this is obvious, but it is good to be reminded of it.
"
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/word-study-fallacies
Totality Transfer Fallacy
A common word-study fallacy is to assume that the broad semantic range of a word is being used in every specific instance of that word. That is, the totality of the semantic range is illegitimately transferred. Or to put it in laymen's terms, the same writer does not always use the same word in the same way. At some level this is obvious, but it is good to be reminded of it.
"
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/word-study-fallacies
https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm
"One reason for this is that no language that I know of works in such a way that one cannot understand what is being said without deep technical word studies for the simple fact that words do not have static meaning and language says more than the sum of its definitions. Context is the largest determiner of the meaning of a word. Furthermore, the meaning of sentences and paragraphs are found in the relationship between the sentences and the syntax of each sentence more than in single words. Meaning in human language is not best understood by focusing narrowly on single words, but on looking at the interplay of words in a sentence. Human language is not an equation or formula that can be dissected into unrelated variables that are then added together. " https://dradney.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/word-study-fallacies-2/
My understanding of the fallacy for angel is messenager is read into every use of the word angel in the Bible.
"One reason for this is that no language that I know of works in such a way that one cannot understand what is being said without deep technical word studies for the simple fact that words do not have static meaning and language says more than the sum of its definitions. Context is the largest determiner of the meaning of a word. Furthermore, the meaning of sentences and paragraphs are found in the relationship between the sentences and the syntax of each sentence more than in single words. Meaning in human language is not best understood by focusing narrowly on single words, but on looking at the interplay of words in a sentence. Human language is not an equation or formula that can be dissected into unrelated variables that are then added together. " https://dradney.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/word-study-fallacies-2/
My understanding of the fallacy for angel is messenager is read into every use of the word angel in the Bible.
Looks like I may be wrong,
"
The Malak Yahweh:
Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament1
Part I
By Anthony Rogers
Introduction
A diverse body of writings attests the belief among pre-Christian Jews that the Malak Yahweh, who features so prominently in the Old Testament, was a divine figure, properly denominated Yahweh, but nonetheless distinct from another called Yahweh.2 The earliest Christians,3 as well as many other Christian worthies throughout the centuries,4 have also viewed the Malak Yahweh as a distinct divine person within the Godhead, further explicating it as a Christophany, that is, an appearance of the pre-incarnate Logos or Word of God – the Lord Jesus Christ. The Scriptural basis for this view, beginning with the Old Testament and concluding with the New, is the subject of the following articles.
Theophanies in General
To begin with, the Bible clearly teaches not only the possibility but the willingness and reality of God’s condescending to reveal Himself to His creatures. Although God has surely revealed Himself in other ways, such as through the created order and the internal disposition of man (Psalm 19:1-7; Romans 1:18ff., 2:14-16), as well as in more special ways such as by the communications of created angels to the prophets (e.g. Daniel 8:1-27), and by means of inspiration, inclusive of dreams (e.g. Genesis 37:1-11), visions (e.g. Obadiah 1:1), and putting His words in a person’s mouth (e.g. 2 Samuel 23:2), none of this implies any lack of ability or volition on the part of God to do so in more direct and extraordinary ways, such as by means of an audible voice (e.g. 1 Kings 19:9-18), or through visible means like a smoking firepot (Genesis 15:1-21), a burning bush (Exodus 3:1-14), a pillar of fire and cloud (Exodus 13:21), the Shekinah glory in the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:34-38) and later in the Temple (2 Chronicles 5:11-14), and even human form, the latter of which is sometimes attended by an outward display of glory (Ezekiel 1:22-28) and at other times is very unassuming (Genesis 18), without any outward pomp or comeliness.
Divine manifestations and revelatory experiences of the latter sort are ...As the central figure of the Old Testament, the one who shepherded and redeemed the patriarchs as well as the entire Jewish nation at the time of their deliverance from Egypt and translation into the promise land and beyond, it would be altogether unexpected if it turned out that the Malak Yahweh was just a very special creature-angel and not God. On such a supposition not only would it mean that a creature-angel in the Old Testament occupies center stage; it would mean that God is upstaged by a creature-angel.
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/malak_yahweh1.html
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/malak_yahweh2.html
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/malak_yahweh3a.html
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/malak_yahweh3b.html
"
The Malak Yahweh:
Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament1
Part I
By Anthony Rogers
Introduction
A diverse body of writings attests the belief among pre-Christian Jews that the Malak Yahweh, who features so prominently in the Old Testament, was a divine figure, properly denominated Yahweh, but nonetheless distinct from another called Yahweh.2 The earliest Christians,3 as well as many other Christian worthies throughout the centuries,4 have also viewed the Malak Yahweh as a distinct divine person within the Godhead, further explicating it as a Christophany, that is, an appearance of the pre-incarnate Logos or Word of God – the Lord Jesus Christ. The Scriptural basis for this view, beginning with the Old Testament and concluding with the New, is the subject of the following articles.
Theophanies in General
To begin with, the Bible clearly teaches not only the possibility but the willingness and reality of God’s condescending to reveal Himself to His creatures. Although God has surely revealed Himself in other ways, such as through the created order and the internal disposition of man (Psalm 19:1-7; Romans 1:18ff., 2:14-16), as well as in more special ways such as by the communications of created angels to the prophets (e.g. Daniel 8:1-27), and by means of inspiration, inclusive of dreams (e.g. Genesis 37:1-11), visions (e.g. Obadiah 1:1), and putting His words in a person’s mouth (e.g. 2 Samuel 23:2), none of this implies any lack of ability or volition on the part of God to do so in more direct and extraordinary ways, such as by means of an audible voice (e.g. 1 Kings 19:9-18), or through visible means like a smoking firepot (Genesis 15:1-21), a burning bush (Exodus 3:1-14), a pillar of fire and cloud (Exodus 13:21), the Shekinah glory in the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:34-38) and later in the Temple (2 Chronicles 5:11-14), and even human form, the latter of which is sometimes attended by an outward display of glory (Ezekiel 1:22-28) and at other times is very unassuming (Genesis 18), without any outward pomp or comeliness.
Divine manifestations and revelatory experiences of the latter sort are ...As the central figure of the Old Testament, the one who shepherded and redeemed the patriarchs as well as the entire Jewish nation at the time of their deliverance from Egypt and translation into the promise land and beyond, it would be altogether unexpected if it turned out that the Malak Yahweh was just a very special creature-angel and not God. On such a supposition not only would it mean that a creature-angel in the Old Testament occupies center stage; it would mean that God is upstaged by a creature-angel.
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/malak_yahweh1.html
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/malak_yahweh2.html
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/malak_yahweh3a.html
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/malak_yahweh3b.html