Jehovah’s Witnesses: Can you prove “chief princes” are not “archangels”?
There is solid proof in Daniel 10:13 there are more than one archangels…
13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.
Strong’s definition of “archangel”…
Archangel: 743 ajrcavggeloß Archaggelos (ar-khang’-el-os);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Masculine
from (757) and (32)
archangel, or chief of the angels
Vine’s definition of “archangel”…
Archangel
(1,,743,archangelos)
“is not found in the OT, and in the NT only in 1 Thess. 4:16 and Jude 1:9, where it is used of Michael NTB , who in Daniel NTB is called ‘one of the chief princes,’ and ‘the great prince’ (Sept., ‘the great angel’), 10:13, 21; 12:1. Cp. also Rev. 12:7 …. Whether there are other beings of this exalted rank in the heavenly hosts, Scripture does not say, though the description ‘one of the chief princes’ suggests that this may be the case; cp. also Rom. 8:38; Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16, where the word translated ‘principalities’ is arche, the prefix in archangel NTB .” * [* From Notes on NTB Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine NTB , pp. 142.] In 1 Thess. 4:16 the meaning seems to be that the voice of the Lord NTB Jesus will be of the character of an “archangelic” shout.
Strong’s definition of “prince” can also mean angel…
Prince: 8269 rX Sar (sar);
Word Origin: Hebrew, Noun Masculine
from (08323)
prince, ruler, leader, chief, chieftain, official, captain
chieftain, leader
vassal, noble, official (under king)
captain, general, commander (military)
chief, head, overseer (of other official classes)
heads, princes (of religious office)
elders (of representative leaders of people)
merchant-princes (of rank and dignity)
patron-angel
Ruler of rulers (of God)
warden
Try and prove chief princes are NOT archangels. The definitions make it clear…archangels are chief of angels…angels can be princes…therefore archangels are chief princes, chief princes are archangels. Look at all the definitions written by the top Bible dictionaries and try and prove me wrong. The WBTS literature may say some other definition for chief princes, but the WBTS is not a Bible dictionary. I want solid proof that Michael is NOT one of the many archangels (or chief princes) in the Bible. Good Luck!
Vot…We all know the JWs never put those top Bible dictionaries aside for defining words like "chief princes", so why start now? Convenient, would you say?
Archangels are the chief princes, if you really DO put your doctrines aside and look up the definitions yourself! The first thing a JW will do is look it up in the WBTS literature instead of those top Bible dictionaries, and this is not the right thing to do!
Now where did you get the idea that archangel is not a chief prince? From the Bible dictionary or from the WBTS literature?
If you disagree the chief princes are archangels because of your doctrines, then will you agree one archangel is defined as one chief prince as outlined in the top Bible dictionaries?
Vot…Your flying accusations are not answers to my questions… and I won't hide away from public scrutiny by going into private emails with JWs simply because they won't talk openly. If you won't discuss this in the open, then that is just fine with me!
Do you agree or disagree…One archangel is defined as one chief prince? That was my question…and the answer is……………?
I mean one chief prince is defined as one archangel…agree or disagree???
Also, you will notice there are many legions of angels as Jesus mentioned in Matthews (at least 12). Who was the archangel (archangels) over those legions while Jesus was here on this world taking care of His ministry? I still firmly believe "chief princes" means "archangels" until a JW can prove otherwise!
Since with logic the top Bible dictionaries say "chief prince" (singular) means "archangel" (singular), then who are those other "chief princes" in Daniel 10:13? Michael is one of them, and he is an archangel. Who are the others? Any way to get you JWs thinking on your own???
Who are the chief princes in Daniel 10:13? If you say there is only one archangel who is Michael in the Bible, is Michael all of those chief princes in that verse in Daniel 10:13???
Strange how JWs pretend they lost this question, even though they placed their own stars on this one! There should be no problem coming back to this question unless the JWs would rather run and hide as they always do in my questions because they simply can't provide proof when asked to!!!
Adam's Rib…Who are the FDS and how many of them are the head over the big flock according to your beliefs???
Keiichi…We already do know there is no archangel in Hebrew for the Old Testament like the two Greek words for archangel used in the New Testament. Do you agree the words "chief prince" can be an archangel according to the Bible dictionaries? What else can chief prince mean if Michael is one of those chief princes and he is also an archangel? Who are those other chief princes besides Michael???
It is quite bizzarre the way the JWs will simply not look into the Bible dictionaries unless it suits their own doctrines!!! How many times did the JWs look up the words "theos", "pneuma", "prototokos", etc…, and yet the same JWs refuse to look up the word "archangel" (chief of angels) and "prince" (angel) and see chief of angel is indeed an archangel! So where are the JW reasoning to conclude chief of princes are not archangels? It is their biased doctrines and the WBTS literature!!!
If all the JWs want to prove they are NOT in a cult here, then prove you are NOT under the control of the WBTS literature and look into the Bible dictionaries for yourselves and make up your own judgment what the two words really mean without letting the WBTS control your already biased thoughts and common sense!!!
Such a typical response!!! JW thumb-uppers, if you have nothing to do but thumb-up such a weak analogy, then you really are in the cult zone!!!
If you want to prove you are NOT in a cult here, now is your chance!!! What are your rebuttals, if you have one??? Is there a fear for typing anything?
It is not an exegetically sound practice to blindly use the words "chief princes" in the Bible and neglect to read the definitions in the top Bible dictionaries (Vine's Expository and Strong's Concordance)! Shying away from the whole truth in this matter is only going to keep this question open for seven days and keep opening more questions on this subject in the very near future!!!
This is the reason why so many questions about the flawed JW religion keeps resurfacing. As long as the JW religion remains to have flaws in it as shown by these typical JW responses, the questions will remain to be reopened again and again!!!
Keiichi…Can you honestly look at the definitions for "archangel", "prince" above and tell me according to your reading skills the "chief prince" is NOT an archangel???
You did not see the definition for "prince" clearly, it can be an angel!!!
And somehow you failed to see those "messengers" who are called angels are sons of God, therefore sons of the King, thus they are also princes!!!
Keiichi…You didn't understand my question. When you read the above definitions do you honestly conclude the chief princes cannot be archangels??? Are you also honestly concluding princes cannot be angels???
Keiichi…According to the Insights on the Scriptures Vol.1 p.431, these cherubs and seraphs are angels…
CHERUB
1. (cher´ub). An angelic creature of high rank having special duties, distinguished from the order of seraphs. The first of the 91 times they are mentioned in the Bible is at Genesis 3:24; after God’s driving Adam and Eve out of Eden, cherubs (Heb., keru·vim´) were posted at the E entrance with a flaming blade of a sword “to guard the way to the tree of life.” Whether more than two were stationed there is not disclosed.
Insights on the Scriptures Vol.2 p.897 Seraphs are mentioned as angels…
Of High Rank. These mighty heavenly creatures are angels, evidently of very high position in God’s arrangement, since they are shown in attendance at God’s throne. The cherubs seen in Ezekiel’s vision corresponded to runners that accompanied the celestial chariot of God.
Again I ask you, are chief of princes not archangels, are princes not angels???
You should always paste it. I found the KJV OT Hebrew Lexicon from this site …
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08269&version=kjv
The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong's Number: 08269 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
rX from (08323)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Sar TWOT - 2295a
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
sar Noun Masculine
Definition
prince, ruler, leader, chief, chieftain, official, captain
chieftain, leader
vassal, noble, official (under king)
captain, general, commander (military)
chief, head, overseer (of other official classes)
heads, princes (of religious office)
elders (of representative leaders of people)
merchant-princes (of rank and dignity)
patron-angel
Ruler of rulers (of God)
warden
King James Word Usage - Total: 421
prince 208, captain 130, chief 33, ruler 33, governor 6, keeper 3, principal 2, general 1, lords 1, miscellaneous 4
I'm still waiting for you to say prince is NOT an angel, and chief princes are NOT archangels. My original question is still open…"Can you prove "chief princes" are not "archangels"? How many more lexicons and dictionaries are you going to run to??? Why can't you just accept what I already pasted up above as factual, these are not fantasy dictionaries, they are the real thing!!!
We already do know princes and chief princes can be men! What I asked you to prove is princes are NOT angels and chief princes are NOT archangels!!! Compare the princes and chief princes as men with the princes and chief princes as angels (son of the King), and you will see there is a comparison between men and angels!!! Again, look at the dictionaries and see the word prince can be defined as angel, archangel is a chief of the angels!!! You still haven't proved princes are not angels, otherwise the King (Jehovah in your beliefs) does not have any spiritual sons after all according to your own analogy!!! This makes your Jehovah a God without princes, or princeless!!!
Angel means messenger.
So archangel would mean "chief messenger". Who is God's chief messenger? Who is the word of God? See John 1:1.
There is no Hebrew term "archangel," only malakim or angel. This answerer is unable to locate a passage in Hebrew that uses the term "sar malakim".
Question: Do you agree the words "chief prince" can be an archangel according to the Bible dictionaries?
Prince: Son of a king.
Messenger: One that carries messages
Where all sons of God are princes not all princes perform messenger functions.
"So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
As the above scripture shows, not all sons of God (or princes) are angels. Some are Cherubims others are Seraphim and perform duties for their king besides being a messenger.
Question: concluding princes cannot be angels?
As previously stated all angels are princes but not all princes are angels. The questioner is assuming there is but one type of spirit creature in heaven, an angel. And assumes again there is but one authority over the angels besides God, an Archangel. However the bible gives examples of other types of spirit creatures with different degrees of authority. Any spirit creature with more authority then an angel can be considered a chief prince.
“in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.”
Question: are chief of princes not archangels, are princes not angels???
Hebrew Lexicon for Sar: prince, ruler, leader, chief, chieftain, official, captain, chieftain, leader
Being one of the chief princes, only shows that there are chief princes (rulers, leaders, Captains, Generals, Commanders*), and that here Michael is classified as one of these "chief princes" — Commanders-in-Chief, as we might say today.
It is a military classification, not a classification of rank of being. Nothing is said about these "chief princes" all being equal in being. Nor is there anything here that would make all the angels "chief princes". What brings the classification together, however, is that these are chief rulers — Commanders, Generals, not that they are angels.
*The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Question: Can you prove "chief princes" are not "archangels"?
Yes.
"Therefore, thou son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I [am] against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal"
Gog is not an archangel.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Dictionaries aside- you show Vot a verse in the Bible (any version you prefer) where "archangel" appears in plural.
Then we'll open dictionaries.
=========
Realised it never appears in plural, huh?
Again, your issues with the Society literature aside. Vot is not the Watchtower Society. You want to prove that the chief princes are archangels, I say show Vot where you find any more than ONE archangel in the BIBLE.
Again, Vot emphasises, ANY version you prefer.
*makes second cuppa tea*
=======
*comes to see if Bible verse has been shown*
*not surprised to find a rant instead of a verse*
Simple explanation: ARCHangel= chief of the angels.
Are all the chief princes all "chiefS of the angels" then? Well then, who is the top chief? Again, you come down to a word found only in the singular- a word such as archangel.
Stop letting your bias against the Society cloud your logic.
Send me an email when you find that verse, ok?
*goes to warm dinner*
========
I asked you to email me because I might miss your posting the verse here on the question. I did not mean we have a private discussion.
Surely Vot is not the only one interested in seeing the verse where archangel is in plural?
Anyway, someone will let me know when you post the verse.
Ah… did I say "when"? I meant, "if". Oooops, me English going down the drain!!!
References :
*goes to make a cuppa tea. This could be a long wait*
November 20th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Simple enough. The word Archangel means head or leader. You can not have more than one head. There is order among Jehovah’s organizations. As the Bible states, God is head of the Christ, the Christ is head of the man and man is head over his wife. Too many cooks spoil the pot.
References :
November 20th, 2008 at 3:14 am
You argue proof that your silly doctrines are superior to the silly doctrines of the Jehovah’s. Lol. How idiotic. How childish. How delusional.
The Tooth Fairy is an archangel. Can you prove she isn’t?
References :
November 20th, 2008 at 3:55 am
Angel means messenger.
So archangel would mean "chief messenger". Who is God's chief messenger? Who is the word of God? See John 1:1.
There is no Hebrew term "archangel," only malakim or angel. This answerer is unable to locate a passage in Hebrew that uses the term "sar malakim".
Question: Do you agree the words "chief prince" can be an archangel according to the Bible dictionaries?
Prince: Son of a king.
Messenger: One that carries messages
Where all sons of God are princes not all princes perform messenger functions.
"So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
As the above scripture shows, not all sons of God (or princes) are angels. Some are Cherubims others are Seraphim and perform duties for their king besides being a messenger.
Question: concluding princes cannot be angels?
As previously stated all angels are princes but not all princes are angels. The questioner is assuming there is but one type of spirit creature in heaven, an angel. And assumes again there is but one authority over the angels besides God, an Archangel. However the bible gives examples of other types of spirit creatures with different degrees of authority. Any spirit creature with more authority then an angel can be considered a chief prince.
“in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.”
Question: are chief of princes not archangels, are princes not angels???
Hebrew Lexicon for Sar: prince, ruler, leader, chief, chieftain, official, captain, chieftain, leader
Being one of the chief princes, only shows that there are chief princes (rulers, leaders, Captains, Generals, Commanders*), and that here Michael is classified as one of these "chief princes" — Commanders-in-Chief, as we might say today.
It is a military classification, not a classification of rank of being. Nothing is said about these "chief princes" all being equal in being. Nor is there anything here that would make all the angels "chief princes". What brings the classification together, however, is that these are chief rulers — Commanders, Generals, not that they are angels.
*The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Question: Can you prove "chief princes" are not "archangels"?
Yes.
"Therefore, thou son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I [am] against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal"
Gog is not an archangel.
References :