30. Christ's Opinion of the Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity is obviously a doctrine created by the Roman Catholic Church about three hundred years after the death of Christ.  The writers of the New Testament knew nothing about such a theory.  

Over the next number of posts, I will prove that to be true.  

1. We will look at what the Bible says about the subject  
2. We will also glance at the history of the teaching and at 
3. what Trinitarians say the Bible teaches about that subject.

Introduction

Wikipedia defines the Trinity as being "three persons in one Godhead"; the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, The Trinity is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith.

Wikipedia lists eleven non-trinitarian bodies which are included in the list of Christian churches.

The Encyclopedia Britannica states, To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God....They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God's highest creature by Whom all else was created...[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine, namely: the Trinity. ... the nontrinitarian view eventually disappeared in the early Church and the Trinitarian view became an orthodox doctrine of modern Christianity.

The fact that the trinitarian view was so vehemently opposed, till about the fifth century of the church's existence, is not at all surprising because there is much evidence in the New Testament that argues against that teaching.  

It does seem strange that people who insist that we must look to the Bible only for spiritual truths, still somehow endorse the false teaching of the Trinity which is based on Roman Catholic tradition.

The theory of a Trinity is illogical.  For example: just because my daughter has traits which I also have and a similar personality does not mean that she is me, nor does it mean that she is equal to me.  Yet that is similar to the claim that Trinitarians make about Christ who is the Son of God.

Christian trinitarian beliefs are similar to Hinduism.  Trinitarians say that God is three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  The names of India’s gods are Vishnu, (the Supreme being), Brahma, (the creator) who is born to Vishnu, and Kalkin (who is yet to appear).  Most Christians reject the view that God the Father is supreme over Jesus Christ. 

In the Trinity, all three are said to be equal!  Yet they insist that the Son was begotten by the Father.  The word, begotten insists on having a starting point.

Of all the doctrines, which I believe theologians have wrong, this one bothers me the most. It seems so blatantly un-Biblical, and yet preachers can spend whole sermons and whole books defending this theory by using Bible verses that do not even touch on the subject.

To say that God died on the cross is just as absurd as saying that Mary is the Mother of God.  Neither of these two statements can be true. 

• If Mary was the mother of God than God would not have existed before Mary gave birth to Him. 
• Similarly, if God died on the cross, according to the teaching of the bulk of Evangelical Christianity, the universe would have smashed into nothingness because God (according to the Church’s own teachings) would not have been alive to maintain the universe, which He is credited with upholding.

Admittedly, Saint Paul wrote before the doctrine of the Trinity ever became an issue, but in 1 Tim. 1:7 he wrote, They understand neither the arguments they are using nor the opinions they are upholding.  Here Paul makes it sound as if he is talking about those who do teach the doctrine of the Trinity because they ignore much of what the Bible teaches.

Mr Thiessen, DD., writes, it is sufficient to say that the Scriptures … prove His (Christ’s) equality with the Father.  However, he severely mitigates his statement referring to equality between Father and Son by writing, The Father’s communion of life to Him (Christ) is an eternal process.  Surely, he should have seen the weakness in his argument; if One consistently communicates life to the other then they cannot be equal.

There are so many phrases and statements in the Bible that tell us that Christ is not God that I will not even attempt to use most of them.  However, let's look at a few spoken by different leaders of the Christian church.

Christ's Point of View Concerning the Trinity

First, we will look at the fact that Christ Himself taught that His Father was superior to Him; and if superior, then not equal.

He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. Mat.10:40.  The lesser is always sent by the greater; therefore the Father is greater than the son.

Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. Mat. 19:17.  Christ denies His divinity; He says there is no one that is good except Jehovah, and Christ also says that He is not included in the one that “is good”.

Jesus said, you will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but it is for those for whom it was prepared by My Father. Mat. 21:23.  Christ is admitting His Father's superiority over Him.

Christ told us that the Father knows something that he, the Son, did not know; But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. Mat. 24:36. With a statement like this, straight from the Bible, how can anyone claim equality for the two?  

In arguments of this nature, it is stated that Christ was speaking from his human aspect and not from His divine nature.  The only reasonable retort then is: Christ had a split personality; this is also denied by Trinitarians.

Christ said I appoint unto you a kingdom as my Father has appointed unto me. Luke 22:29.  If the two were equal there would not be a greater one to appoint a kingdom to the lesser one?  In Christ’s statement, where does one find even a hint of equality?

If Christ, while He lived on earth, knew everything, how is it that in the Garden of the Olive Press (Gethsemane) he prayed if it is possible let this cup pass me by. Mat. 26:39 TJB.  

Christ did not know whether or not it was possible, but, he prayed, if it were at all possible, that He would not need to die on the cross.  In this verse again it seems so obvious that the Father and the Son are not equal; but the doctrine of the Trinity demands that the two are equal.

Not surprisingly, the writers of the New Testament agreed with Christ's viewpoint!  In the next few posts, we will look at some of the things St. John said about this subject.

29. A Mighty God is Born! Oh, Really?

Isaiah's Second Son

For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; 

And the government will be upon His shoulder. 

And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, 

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isa. 9:6-7.

Because of our background, it is easy to see this prophecy referring to the Messiah.  We must be careful not to tear the text out of its context.  Isaiah was still speaking about his own time frame.  

In 7:14 he announced that his second son would be born; the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, in 9:6 the fulfilment of that prediction is announced: unto us a Child is born.  As far as Isaiah was concerned that was the end of that part of his story; the predicted son had been born.

You would look long and hard before you would find any theologian in the Christian church who would admit that our mighty God was born in Bethlehem.  Yet that is exactly what theologians say when they insist that that special child, born in Bethlehem, is equal in every way to Jehovah.  

So, was the church's mighty God born, or not?  If Isaiah 9:6-7 refer to Christ, and if Christ is equal to the Father, as Trinitarians tell us He is, then, our mighty God was born.  If we admit that Jehovah was born we, of course, must admit that He is not eternal.

John Piper, speaking of the deity of Christ and quoting, the words of the Pharisees in, John 5:18: He was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God, said, that because Christ "let it (that statement by the Pharisees) stand", it must be true that Jesus is equal with Jehovah.  The fact that Christ "let it stand" proves nothing except that Christ did not want to argue that point at that time.  To make it say anything more than that is to make the Bible say something that is not written there.

Matthew took the words of Isaiah 9:6-7 and applied them to Christ.  So we, of course, have been taught, that Christ is a mighty God.  In contrast note that a leading Hebrew lexicon records that the word god used by Isaiah is applied elsewhere in Scripture to men of might and rank, as well as to angels. Who is Jesus by Anthony F. Buzzard. 

For a few examples of this use of the word god(s): 

• I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High. Psalms 82:6.
• Jehovah says to the false prophets Prove that you are gods by making your predictions come true. Isaiah 41:23. 

With that in mind, we can see that just because Matthew quoted that verse from Isaiah it does not mean that he thought of Jesus as a Mighty God.  In as far as the prophecy applied to Jesus, it meant only that he would be a man of might and rank.  It should be remembered that Matthew wrote his gospel years after Christ was crucified, so he already knew that Christ had been a man of might and rank.

As for “eternal father,” this title was understood by the Jews as “father of the coming age.” Who is Jesus by Anthony F. Buzzard.  

To render the words, Everlasting Father, into Hebrew, scripture4all.org/ writes, Father-of-future.  This change takes all the strength out of the argument that Isaiah was writing about a God that would be born in the future and abide eternally. 

If, for the sake of argument, we allow that Isaiah was speaking of Christ the most that he said, and Matthew understood him to mean, was that Christ would be a man of might and rank and that he would rule in the future.

Therefore, if Jesus isn't (a) God, He is not eternal, as theologians tell us that Jehovah is. About this idea, Anthony F. Buzzard writes: Matthew and Luke trace the origin of Jesus to a special act of creation by God when the Messiah’s conception took place in the womb of Mary. It was this miraculous event which marked the beginning—the genesis, or origin—of Jesus of Nazareth (Matt. 1:18, 20). Nothing at all is said of an “eternal Sonship,” 

A person does not exist before he is begotten.  Neither did Christ!

A few notes about the birth of Christ.

1. If one believes that the Lord of the Jews is a saucerian, then one must also believe that Jesus Christ is the son of a saucerian, namely: Jehovah of the Old Testament. 

2. Here is one teaching that the church has held for about twenty centuries which is actually found in the Bible.  A message was given to Mary: The Holy Spirit will come down to you, and God’s power will come over you. So your child will be called the holy Son of God. Luke 1:33-35.

3. The idea that the gods had offspring with human women is a recurring thought in ancient writings.  It is found in Greek Mythology, in Babylonian, Hindu and Egyptian writings as well as in the Bible: When the sons of the gods had intercourse with the daughters of men, the Bible tells us, their offspring were mighty men of renown. Gen.6:4 New American Bible.

4. Many theologians, ever since the days of Saint Paul, have agreed that sin entered the human race through Adam, not through Eve.  Paul wrote, Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world. Rom. 5:12.  Eve was deceived, and so, not at fault, but Adam knew what he was doing, therefore he is to blame. 

Isn't it reasonable then, to argue that if a child is born to a virgin, without a human father's involvement, that child would not be burdened with the sinful traits imparted by a human father?

5. Jehovah had made a deal with Satan; simply stated, the deal said, either a perfect human must pay the ransom price for the mortal race or none of mankind will have a chance at eternal ecstasy.  Jesus Christ being both human and the Son of God fulfilled all the requirements laid down by Satan.  

The Lord, having chosen the young woman from among the Jewish people, sent an angel, whose name was Gabriel.  The angel was bearing the divine seed with him, and through artificial insemination, implanted the seed, and the young virgin was pregnant.  Christ is, in fact, the Son of Jehovah and the son of human lineage.

About the statement, Jehovah had made a deal with Satan, someone wrote that Jehovah does not make deals.   Let's not feel so sure about that.  A look at the story of Job might change our mind.  So Satan answered the Lord and said, ... “But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!” And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person. Job 1:9-12.  Satan had the deal he was looking for!

This post has brought us directly to the border of the Christian Church's biggest theological error.  Next week I plan to start a series of posts in which I attack that error.

28. Isaiah's Son - Immanuel.

The Virgin

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Isa. 7:14.

Bible scholars are almost unanimous that this refers to Jesus Christ.  

That Isaiah was not speaking of the birth of Christ becomes obvious when one reads Isaiah 7:14 in the Hebrew language: The damsel, (the) pregnant one. http://www.scripture4all.org/.  

• At the time Isaiah wrote this, about 700 BCE, the damsel was already pregnant. 
• The same picture is given in The Jerusalem Bible, with these words, The maiden is with child and will soon give birth.  
• The Contemporary English Version writes A virgin is pregnant.  

When one considers the present tense of the situation in Isaiah's day, it is obvious that he was not referring to the birth of a future Christ. 

It is also noteworthy that neither TJB or the Hebrew text use the word, virgin, as the KJV does.  The reason for this is that the words, damsel, maiden and virgin are interchangeable in the Hebrew language.  Most newer translations use the word, maiden, as, of course, they should, because Isaiah was speaking of his own wife who was pregnant at the time.

In this context the difficult Hebrew word did not imply a virgin birth. However, in the Greek translation made about 200 B.C. and used by early Christians, the word parthenos (virgin) had a double meaning. While the translator took it to mean "young woman", Matthew understood it to mean "virgin" and quoted the passage (Matthew 1:23) because it was the appropriate description of Mary, the mother of Jesus. A footnote in the CEV.

Most of us who are familiar with the Christmas story, as it is recited annually in most churches, are so biased by the word, virgin, that our minds refuse to allow the various meaning of the word, maiden, to seep into our minds.

The fact that Isaiah's wife was not a virgin is made very clear in Isaiah 8:2, Then I slept with my wife, and she became pregnant and had a son. New Living Translation.  By saying that, Isaiah did not mean, virgin, when he said, maiden,.

I am not saying that Matthew also should have used the word, maiden.  Matthew, speaking of Mary, the mother of Jesus, was absolutely right in using the word, virgin, as we understand that word in our own time.  However, we must not, because of our theological beliefs, make the Old Testament say something that is not written there.

Immanuel

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Mat. 1:22-23.

When Matthew quoted the words of Isaiah, he was right to use the word, virgin, with its modern meaning, because the Bible clearly attests to the fact that Christ's conception was miraculous.  This facet of theology does not hang only on that one troublesome word.  The Gospel of Luke says, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby born to you will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God. Luke 1:34-35.

The fact that Christ was called Immanuel does not at all mean that he was God. 

At the time Christ was born, Israel was downtrodden by the Roman government and the Jews were desperately looking for some encouragement.  That is why the angel said, call His name Immanuel because Jehovah has not forsaken His people, He is still with the descendants of David.

there may have been an initial fulfilment in the eighth century b.c. when Hezekiah was born to the wicked King Ahaz. When Hezekiah took over the throne, he did lead many moral reforms that brought the people of Judah closer to God. Some scholars believe this may have been the child Isaiah had in mind when he announced this prophecy. 
Nelson’s new illustrated Bible dictionary:

Then Isaiah writes: The Lord also spoke to me again, saying: ... The king of Assyria ... will pass through Judah, He will ... fill the breadth of Your land, O Immanuel. Since Isaiah was not speaking of the Messiah when he used the name Immanuel, this was a reference to Isaiah's second son, the one who is called, Immanuel.

In reference to the name Immanuel, the gist in many commentaries is that Israel belongs to Jesus, hence the words, Your land, O Immanuel, and that Jehovah is saying to Jesus that Assyria will invade Israel.  

This line of thinking is pushing common sense way out of shape. Because:

1. By the time Jesus was born this invasion by Assyria was history; why make a prophecy that is already history?

2. If Jesus knows everything, as we have been taught, why would Jehovah tell Him the obvious?

3. Till this point in the story, the name, Immanuel, has referred only to Isaiah's son, why the sudden shift from 700 BCE, to a future baby born circa 3 BCE, without any explanation of the time shift?

Notice, also, that in English the words are, Your land, and the word, Your is capitalized which infers that, Immanuel, refers to Christ.  However, in Hebrew, it reads, the land of you, in place of, Your land, and notice that the word, you is not capitalized as it erroneously is in English.  This again shows us that Isaiah was not speaking of the coming Messiah, but rather of his own son.  Judah was the land of Isaiah's second son - Immanuel.

It is so hard for us to let go of ideas that we have been taught for a lifetime.  Ideas that we thoughtlessly accepted because our teachers, priests and preachers taught them to us.  

However, we have our own brains and we are expected to use them to find the truth.  The Hebrew and the Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments are available in English to anyone with a computer and time to use it; we really are left without any excuse for blindly following what others tell us.

Most teachers believe their ideas to be true, and so we cannot blame them for fraud or dishonesty.  At the worst, maybe they are mentally lackadaisical.  Maybe they just cannot move forward to a place where they must do their own thinking.

27. Did Moses write the Books of Moses?

Most Christians have been taught in Sunday school that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. These books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, are often referred to as the Pentateuch or Torah. However, outside of the more conservative seminaries and churches, it is commonly held that Moses did not write these books, that they are a compilation of works by numerous writers over an extended period of time. 

All quotes in this post are from Don Closson in, Did Moses Write the Pentateuch?

So, in short, the answer you would get to the question, Who wrote the Books of Moses, would depend on whom you ask.  There are five basic answers:  

1. The first, of course, is that Moses wrote the books that are attributed to him, even by Christ and other biblical authors.  The other four answers have letter designations: 
2. J; (based on the word, Jahweh), holds that the books were written about 950 BCE, about 450 years after Moses's death.
3. E; (based on the word, Elohist), holds that the books were written about 750 BCE.
4. D; called this because of the contents of Deuteronomy, written about 650 BCE.
5. P; is The Priestly document, holds that the Pentateuch was written after the Jewish exile in 586 BCE.

As I have said earlier, I am basically a literalist, and if the Bible says something I tend to take it at face value.  Yet, at the same time, common sense must prevail, and an honest person must be willing to look at counter-arguments.

As a literalist one can point out Bible verses such as:

Exodus 34:27, "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.'" 

In Matthew 19:8 Jesus refers to laws regarding marriage in Deuteronomy and credits Moses with writing them. 

In John 7:19 Jesus says, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." 

In Romans 10:5 Paul states that Moses wrote the law.

So with these Bible references in mind, it seems like a valid conclusion that Moses wrote the Torah.  However, there are a few arguments against that conclusion.

1. In Exodus 34:27 when the LORD said to Moses, Write down these words, the Lord was speaking of the moral rules and religious instructions which He had given Moses on Mt. Sinai.
2. This same thought also holds in Romans 10:5, For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law.  Note, that even though Moses recorded the laws for the Israelites, he did not write down the ten commandments.  And when He (Jehovah) had made an end of speaking with him (Moses) on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God. Ex. 31:18 the Ten Commandments; ... He (Jehovah) wrote them on two tablets of stone. Deut. 4:13.
3. Moses recorded the precepts he received on Mount Sinai but that did not necessarily include all the history and activity, which are recorded in the Torah, which were going on among the Israelites at that time.  So these verses, and others like it, do not tell us that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible; they say only that he recorded the law. 

Don Closson continues, It would be hard not to attribute either deception or error to Christ and the apostles if Moses did not write the Pentateuch.   The Jews held that the Torah was written by Moses, and when Christ referred to those writings, as being by Moses, He simply could have used the common idiom, without even implying a factual statement.  

Other arguments against the idea that Moses wrote all of the Torah are:

1. If he was the only writer of the Torah, why would he have recorded the creation story twice, with different facts?

2. Most of the Book of Numbers is written in the third person.  If Moses was the writer, why would he write, The Lord spoke to Moses.? Num. 20:23. 

Or, in another example, The writer states, Then they journeyed. Num. 21:4.  As though the writer was not part of the group.  This could even have been written hundreds of years after the events happened.

3. If Moses wrote all of Deuteronomy, why would he, while he was on Mount Pisgah, looking at the promised land, just before his death, write the following And the Lord showed him (Moses) all the land of Gilead. Deut. 34:1.

• The writer speaks of Moses as him (third person).  So the writer was not Moses.
• The writer says that Moses saw as far as Dan, and the names of the places of some other tribes, but the tribes were still all East of Jordan. It certainly sounds as if Deuteronomy 34 was written after the tribes had settled in Canaan, and therefore, could not have been written by Moses.

4. If Moses wrote all five books of the Torah, how could he record his own death in Deuteronomy 34?

A belief among many Jewish Rabbis is that Jehovah inspired the first four books of the Pentateuch and that Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy on his own.  This idea, though, does not explain any of the four points mentioned above.

Those who accept the "J" theory argue that the content of these books should be seen as a mixture of credible historical events and religious poetry sparked by man's religious imagination.  

Holders of this view reject the notion of supernatural revelation.  If we reject supernatural revelation for the Books of Moses, we are certainly free to reject supernatural revelation for any, or all, of the Bible.

Even though the Bible claims divine inspiration for itself, is it not quite feasible that the fundamentalist churches have, by far, exaggerated the meaning of that teaching.

There was a situation in which there was a Bible lying on a coffee table and someone was about to put another book on top of the Bible.  The attending grandmother was aghast that anyone would be brazen enough to put anything on top of the Holy Book.  

In that story, it sounds as if the Bible has taken the place that belongs to Jehovah only.  We must be careful not to worship the printed word.  At best, it is a guide book only; it does not deserve our worship.

26. Mis-Speaks in the Bible?

Mr Qualben in A History of the Christian Church writes, But of the entire Old Testament, only the first eleven chapters are primarily concerned with the early history of the world, or of mankind in general. The remainder of the Old Testament is mainly a record of the founding and development of the Theocratic People, Israel.

It is in that light that we should view the Old Testament; as a book of prose, allegory and history.  Even though the Bible is, in some sense, a supernatural book, we really must drop the idea that the Bible is absolutely perfect and without contradictions.

It was only about a generation ago that many fundamentalist groups still believed that the King James Version was the only right version of the Bible and that it was absolutely word-perfect.  The idea that Christ would speak in allegories (unless he said so), or that He would use hyperboles was not acceptable.  They believed that the Bible means what it says - period. 

I know this to be true because I was brought up in that school of thought.  When a mistake was found in the KJV, the Bible student who pointed it out was discredited and probably shamed by those who hold the "perfect Bible" view, rather than accepting the idea that humans, while writing the Bible, could have created errors, used hyperboles or spoken allegories.

Here is an example of what Bible commentators do to insist on the stance that the Bible is absolutely "word perfect".

And he said to them: I am one hundred and twenty years old today. I can no longer go out and come in. Deut. 31:1-2 NJKV. 

However, note Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died. His eyes were not dim nor his natural vigor diminished. Deut. 34:7

If these two opposing statements were found anyplace else than in the Bible, of course, we would all insist that the author got his facts mixed up.  Theologians who insist that the Bible is perfect have designed ingenious ways of manipulating these words so that they do not mean what they so blatantly say.

Several commentaries I checked simply omitted saying anything about 31:1-2. Was it because they knew that it contradicted 34:7?  The general trend, though, is to say that Moses meant that since he was not allowed to enter the promised land he could no longer lead the nation. Very pointedly, Moses says, I am one hundred and twenty years old now, and can no longer come and go as I will.  Obviously, his statement had nothing to do with him not entering the promised land, he simply meant, I am too old and tired.

Note a few other contradictions in the Bible:

1. all the livestock of Egypt died; Ex. 9:6. 

• Later in the same story, we have these words, Therefore send now and gather your livestock. Ex. 9:19.  
• And the hail struck throughout the whole land of Egypt, ... and smote both man and beast; Ex. 9:25.  
• Later still, in the story, we are given this information, and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, ... and all the firstborn of the animals. Ex. 11:5.  
• The statement is they shall die, future tense after we have been told that they are all dead already.

2. And Moses said to Aaron, “Take a pot and put an omer of manna in it, ... As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, (tablets of the law - The Jerusalem Bible) to be kept. Ex. 16:33-34.

The problem with this statement is that The Law was not given till later, in Exodus 20, so Aaron could not have put the pot of manna next to the (tablets of the law).

Later on, in the history of Israel, we find this revelation. Nothing was in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. 1 Kings 8:9.  

Whatever happened to the pot of manna?  The writer of Hebrews contradicts the statement in 1 Kings 8:9: the ark of the covenant ... in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.

3. The seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan according to their families. And the territory of their inheritance was Zorah, (etc). And the border of the children of Dan went beyond these, ... They called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father. Joshua 19:40-48.  

According to the book of Joshua they received their inheritance at that time, but many years later, the Bible says, And in those days the tribe of the Danites was seeking an inheritance for itself to dwell in; for until that day their inheritance among the tribes of Israel had not fallen to them. Judges 18:1.

4. Then the Lord appeared to him. Gen. 18:1.  The word, Lord, is translated as, Yahweh.

Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel. Ex. 24:9.

I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, So I said: “Woe is me, for I am undone! For my eyes have seen the King, The Lord of hosts.” Isa. 6:1+5.  The first time that the word, Lord, is used here, the Hebrew word is, Adonay, and Strong #136 tells us that it is used as a proper name of God only"; the second time that the word, Lord, is used, the translation is, Yahweh.  Let's not try to make the scene less majestic than Isaiah saw it.  He saw the Lord, Jehovah!

In contradiction to all these statements Saint John writes:

No one has seen God at any time. John 1:18.

Not that anyone has seen the Father. John 6:46.

No one has seen God at any time. 1 John 4:12.

Divine guidance in writing the Scriptures is not to be equated with manipulation of the scribes so as to create a word-perfect manuscript.  To believe that the Bible is without error, or that proverbs, similes and hyperboles were not used in the Bible, is to close one's mind to clear evidence of the use of those tools in the Bible.  Admitting that errors, similes, hyperboles, etc are found in the Bible is not the same as saying that the Bible is not, in some way, inspired by God. 

Some might argue and say that the Bible must be perfect because Saint Peter wrote, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:23.  The argument being, if they spoke as they were moved by God's spirit, the Bible must be perfect, since God's spirit is perfect.

In this regard, though, it should be noted that the words, as they were, are in italics, which is the translator's way of saying, these words actually do not belong in the text.  Of the ten different translations checked, only the King James and the New King James versions include those words.  Other translations have words with this meaning, Holy people spoke when they were guided by God's spirit.  It does not say, as they were moved but rather when they were moved.

That change is important because it means that the writers were still at liberty to make mistakes, however, since they were holy men of God they did their best to "get it right".  

The point, here, being, that Jehovah did His part in writing the Bible perfectly, but when one considers what He used for writers, it should not surprise us if the Bible fell somewhat short of what Jehovah had intended.