JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[jammin]

kerwin,

i think you must read the book of daniel wallace. he knows how to use the greek language.
you should study well kerwin. this is my friendly advise to you

[GeneBalthrop]

Jammin………..IF we read a tritarians explanation of John 1 :1, of course he will try to make the Word be the Person Jesus, what do you expect him to say seeing he is biased in his theology, just as you are. You have been indoctrinated, and will always defend the trinitarians position, that is what 95% of Christianity does, they are all under the same delusions as you are, and twist the texts to say what in fact they do not “SPECIFICALLY” say. Do you really think John was so stupid, that if he meant to say, Jesus was Himself the word, that he would not have just simply written the Name Jesus there? Do you think John was that ignorant to write something that would cause so much confusion in what he was trying to say, a Word is simply a word and belongs to who ever spoke them , unless they are quoting some one a Jesus said he was, the “WORDS” I am telling you are not “MINE”, but the words of Him that sent me. So if Jesus was truly the Word himself then he must have been lying when he said the word were not His right?. Jesus is not God no matter how hard you false teachers try to make him be. If he is God he sure never said he was in any scripture i have ever read.

As far as saying i am not a Scholar, that means nothing, with regards to understanding God's word most so-called scholars disagree with each other also. Running out a grabbing a bunch of trinitarian scholars and saying see they believe in the trinity, so it must be true is pure garbage. That is like saying i have all these false teachers on my side so therefore I am right. That is what you are doing your just going along with these false teachers, and holding on to what you were taught by them. When you have to apply other thought to scripture then what is actually written, and make it say what it simply does not say, you are forcing the text, but you are not alone most trinitarian and preexistence's do the same .IMO

peace and love to you and yours……………………………………….gene

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (jammin @ Nov. 28 2013,12:49)

the apostles said that JEsus is God. john 20.28 phil 2.6

Jammin………No apostle said Jesus was a GOD, God The Father was “IN” him, Just as Jesus said over and over, But that in no way made Jesus himself the God that was “IN” Him, and if you believe Jesus you would have us believe, and what he said about GOD, for thou art the “ONLY” “TRUE” GOD so why lie, do you believe what Jesus said or NOT?. and while you are at it, Here is another one for you to twist, 1 Cor 8:4, we know that there is no Idols in the world, and that there is “NO” God but “ONE”. .

Now work with those scriptures and see how you can reconcile them with you false beliefs, I can give you many many more even what God himself said about other Gods, but go ask your trinitarian scholars how they reconcile them, maybe your, Daniel B. Wallace, has an answer for you , I highly doubt it.  IMO

peace and love to you and yours………………….gene

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ Nov. 28 2013,19:19)

kerwin, heb 11.3 and john 1.1 are not the same. if you check the commentary of AKJV it will tell you that the Word in john 1.1 is Christ himself. you are using the version that does not agree to you. LOL

Jammin,

I see you are still placing your faith in mere men with your use of the word “commentary”.   We are to test the spirit of such teachings not use them for support.  Why do you agree or disagree with this commentary from an AKJV printing or with the words of this Daniel Wallace except they tell you what your itching ears want to know.

Note: correct the spelling of men from me to men.

[carmel]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 28 2013,01:35)

[/quote] Gene wrote:

Quote

don't you remember were he said i am going to “MY” God and “YOUR” God , MY Father and YOUR Father, Jesus is no God Boy.

GENE,

READ THE SCRIPTURE:

John 20:17 Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.

Now the  word ASCEND has nothing to do with JESUS GOES TO HIS FATHER, AND TO HIS GOD

The word ascend always has a meaning TO GO UP! NOT JUST GO! And  to go up it also has various meanings!

ALSO IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREPOSITION TO WHICH IN RESPECT OF THE GREEK COULD MEAN IN VIEW OF AND :INTERFACE WITH;

ASCEND TO, WOULD MAKE THAT VERSE TO BE INTERPRETED THE OPPOSITE WAY YOU ARE CONVINCED OF!

THEREFORE JESUS IS GOD!

NOW WITH EVERY RESPECT READ AND DISCERN!

• ASCEND (verb)
 The verb ASCEND has 6 senses:
1. travel up,
2. go back in order of genealogical succession
3. become king or queen
4. go along towards (a river's) source
5. slope upwards
6. come up, of celestial bodies

SO AS YOU CAN READ,THE WORD ASCEND DOESN'T MEAN TO GO TO  MY FATHER,BUT :

TO GO UP, TO RISE TO A HIGHER STATE, LEVEL, DEGREE, ETC.

AND WITH THE PREPOSITION TO WHICH IN THIS CASE MEANS: IN VIEW OF!

OR  INTERFACE WITH

IT WOULD MAKE THAT VERSE COMPLETELY MEAN THE OPPOSITE

NOW:

IF JOHN WANTED TO MEAN THAT JESUS MEANT THAT HE GOES TO HIS FATHER,   HE WOULD HAVE USED THE SAME WORD IN JOHN 16:10  :And of justice: because I GO TO THE FATHER; and you shall see me no longer.

WHICH IS:

5217. hupagó: to lead or bring under, to lead on slowly, to depart

Short Definition: I go away, depart
Definition: I go away, depart, begone, die.

OR THE SAME WORD IN JOHN 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I GO UNTO MY FATHER

WHICH IS 4198 POREUOMAI

4198. poreuomai TO GO

Short Definition: I travel, journey, go
Definition: I travel, journey, go, die.

NOW IN 14:28  HE USED BOTH WORDS:

FIRST 5217. hupagó, AND THEN 4198 POREUOMAI

JOHN 14:28 You have heard how I said unto you, I GO AWAY,and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I GO UNTO MY FATHER: for my Father is greater than I.

BUT JOHN INSTEAD USED THE WORD ASCEND

WHICH IS:

305 anabainó: to go up, ascend

Short Definition: I go up, mount, ascend
Definition: I go up, mount, ascend; of things: I rise, spring up, come up.

Now read and be aware regarding the preposition

TO: 4314 prós (a preposition) – properly, motion towards to “INTERFACE WITH” (literally, moving toward a goal or destination). IN JOHN’S CASE JESUS WAS STILL MOVING TOWARDS HIS GLORIFICATION, TO BECOME GOD IN THE POWER OF THE FATHER,BUT ONLY AS SOON AS THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHO WAS STILL IN HELL PREACHING THE GOSPEL, UNITES AND BECOME ONE WITH JESUS’ UNIQUE  FLESH BODY AND BECOME THE ONLY TRUE  GOD IN SPIRITUAL FLESH BODY!

Word study:

TO: 4314 (prós) can mean “IN VIEW OF ”  OBVIOUS AGAIN THAT JESUS, WHO WAS STILL IN HIS OWN GLORY AS MAN IN FLESH BODY, WAS REFERRING TO HIS EVENTUAL GLORIFICATION WITH HIS FATHER……

SO JOHN WITH   ASCEND TO MEANT : TO RISE UP IN THE GLORY OF MY FATHER !

NOW IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LETS READ AGAIN THAT VERSE!

John 20:17 Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, OBVIOUS, SHE WAS A MORTAL PERSON, AND BY TOUCHING JESUS, WHO WAS IN HIS OPTIMUM PERFECTION, LACKED THE FATHER’S POWER TO PROTECT MAGDALENE FROM DYING , AND SAID TO HER,for I am not yet IN THE GLORY OF MY  Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I  BE IN THE GLORY OF my Father and your Father, IN THE GLORY OF my God and your God. THEREFORE THERE WON’T BE ANY DANGER AT ALL TOUCHING HIM!

THEN IF YOU CARRY ON READING, FEW HOURS LATER JESUS GLORIFIED AS OUR FATHER AND OUR GOD,  ENTERED THROUGH STONE WALLS, AND SAT IN THE MIDST OF HIS DISCIPLES INGNORING COMPLETELY THE FACT THAT THEY COULD  DEFINITELY NOT JUST TOUCH HIM BUT JUMP ON HIM WITH JOY!

SO  NO DOUBT!

JESUS WAS REALLY IN THE TRUTH THE ONLY TRUE VISIBLE GODMAN IN FLESH AND BONES WHO WALKED ON EARTH!

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

[jammin]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 29 2013,02:16)

Quote (jammin @ Nov. 28 2013,12:49) the apostles said that JEsus is God. john 20.28 phil 2.6 Jammin………No apostle said Jesus was a GOD, God The Father was “IN” him, Just as Jesus said over and over, But that in no way made Jesus himself the God that was “IN” Him, and if you believe Jesus you would have us believe, and what he said about GOD, for thou art the “ONLY” “TRUE” GOD so why lie, do you believe what Jesus said or NOT?. and while you are at it, Here is another one for you to twist, 1 Cor 8:4, we know that there is no Idols in the world, and that there is “NO” God but “ONE”. . Now work with those scriptures and see how you can reconcile them with you false beliefs, I can give you many many more even what God himself said about other Gods, but go ask your trinitarian scholars how they reconcile them, maybe your, Daniel B. Wallace, has an answer for you , I highly doubt it.  IMO peace and love to you and yours………………….gene

are you sure??
you said no apostle said that JESUS WAS GOD

let me post the verse.

Philippians 2:6

New Living Translation (NLT)

6 Though he was God,
   he did not think of equality with God
   as something to cling to.

the bible clearly tells us that JESUS WAS GOD!
the commentary also supports my view

Geneva Study Bible
Who, being in the {d} form of God, {e} thought it not robbery to be {f} equal with God:

(d) Such as God himself is, and therefore God, for there is no one in all parts equal to God but God himself.

(e) Christ, that glorious and everlasting God, knew that he might rightfully and lawfully not appear in the base flesh of man, but remain with majesty fit for God: yet he chose rather to debase himself.

(f) If the Son is equal with the Father, then is there of necessity an equality, which Arrius that heretic denies: and if the Son is compared to the Father, then is there a distinction of persons, which Sabellius that heretic denies.

i think you really dont know the content of the bible.
you should make your own bible LOL

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 29 2013,04:12)

Quote (jammin @ Nov. 28 2013,19:19) kerwin, heb 11.3 and john 1.1 are not the same. if you check the commentary of AKJV it will tell you that the Word in john 1.1 is Christ himself. you are using the version that does not agree to you. LOL Jammin, I see you are still placing your faith in mere me with your use of the word “commentary”.   We are to test the spirit of such teachings not use them for support.  Why do you agree or disagree with this commentary from an AKJV printing or with the words of this Daniel Wallace except they tell you what your itching ears want to know.

im just saying the truth. i say what is written. you say what is NOT written.

btw i still have questions for you boy? dont you want to answer my question? or you may say that you are afraid of the truth.

what did the ancient laws say?

1. the image of GOD is his word?

2. the image of GOD is the Word?

[jammin]

kerwin,

because daniel and akjv know the true meaning of john 1.1 and i also read my bible over and over and we have the same teachings.
the WORD is christ himself and that is why many versions give us the capital W for the word Word to give emphasis and to tell that this Word is no ordinary word but a title of Christ.
see rev 19.13

how about you??? you said the meaning of john 1.1 is GOD is like his word.
where can you read that in john 1.1?| can you give version to support your imagination??? and yet you want people to believe you. you cant even defend your case. think about it boy.

[Wakeup]

Quote (carmel @ Nov. 30 2013,18:00)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 28 2013,01:35) [/quote] Gene wrote: Quote don't you remember were he said i am going to “MY” God and “YOUR” God , MY Father and YOUR Father, Jesus is no God Boy. GENE, READ THE SCRIPTURE: John 20:17 Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God. Now the  word ASCEND has nothing to do with JESUS GOES TO HIS FATHER, AND TO HIS GOD The word ascend always has a meaning TO GO UP! NOT JUST GO! And  to go up it also has various meanings! ALSO IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREPOSITION TO WHICH IN RESPECT OF THE GREEK COULD MEAN IN VIEW OF AND :INTERFACE WITH; ASCEND TO, WOULD MAKE THAT VERSE TO BE INTERPRETED THE OPPOSITE WAY YOU ARE CONVINCED OF! THEREFORE JESUS IS GOD! NOW WITH EVERY RESPECT READ AND DISCERN! • ASCEND (verb)  The verb ASCEND has 6 senses: 1. travel up, 2. go back in order of genealogical succession 3. become king or queen 4. go along towards (a river's) source 5. slope upwards 6. come up, of celestial bodies SO AS YOU CAN READ,THE WORD ASCEND DOESN'T MEAN TO GO TO  MY FATHER,BUT : TO GO UP, TO RISE TO A HIGHER STATE, LEVEL, DEGREE, ETC. AND WITH THE PREPOSITION TO WHICH IN THIS CASE MEANS: IN VIEW OF! OR  INTERFACE WITH IT WOULD MAKE THAT VERSE COMPLETELY MEAN THE OPPOSITE NOW: IF JOHN WANTED TO MEAN THAT JESUS MEANT THAT HE GOES TO HIS FATHER,   HE WOULD HAVE USED THE SAME WORD IN JOHN 16:10  :And of justice: because I GO TO THE FATHER; and you shall see me no longer. WHICH IS: 5217. hupagó: to lead or bring under, to lead on slowly, to depart Short Definition: I go away, depart Definition: I go away, depart, begone, die. OR THE SAME WORD IN JOHN 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I GO UNTO MY FATHER WHICH IS 4198 POREUOMAI 4198. poreuomai TO GO Short Definition: I travel, journey, go Definition: I travel, journey, go, die. NOW IN 14:28  HE USED BOTH WORDS: FIRST 5217. hupagó, AND THEN 4198 POREUOMAI JOHN 14:28 You have heard how I said unto you, I GO AWAY,and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I GO UNTO MY FATHER: for my Father is greater than I. BUT JOHN INSTEAD USED THE WORD ASCEND WHICH IS: 305 anabainó: to go up, ascend Short Definition: I go up, mount, ascend Definition: I go up, mount, ascend; of things: I rise, spring up, come up. Now read and be aware regarding the preposition TO: 4314 prós (a preposition) – properly, motion towards to “INTERFACE WITH” (literally, moving toward a goal or destination). IN JOHN’S CASE JESUS WAS STILL MOVING TOWARDS HIS GLORIFICATION, TO BECOME GOD IN THE POWER OF THE FATHER,BUT ONLY AS SOON AS THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHO WAS STILL IN HELL PREACHING THE GOSPEL, UNITES AND BECOME ONE WITH JESUS’ UNIQUE  FLESH BODY AND BECOME THE ONLY TRUE  GOD IN SPIRITUAL FLESH BODY! Word study: TO: 4314 (prós) can mean “IN VIEW OF ”  OBVIOUS AGAIN THAT JESUS, WHO WAS STILL IN HIS OWN GLORY AS MAN IN FLESH BODY, WAS REFERRING TO HIS EVENTUAL GLORIFICATION WITH HIS FATHER…… SO JOHN WITH   ASCEND TO MEANT : TO RISE UP IN THE GLORY OF MY FATHER ! NOW IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LETS READ AGAIN THAT VERSE! John 20:17 Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, OBVIOUS, SHE WAS A MORTAL PERSON, AND BY TOUCHING JESUS, WHO WAS IN HIS OPTIMUM PERFECTION, LACKED THE FATHER’S POWER TO PROTECT MAGDALENE FROM DYING , AND SAID TO HER,for I am not yet IN THE GLORY OF MY  Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I  BE IN THE GLORY OF my Father and your Father, IN THE GLORY OF my God and your God. THEREFORE THERE WON’T BE ANY DANGER AT ALL TOUCHING HIM! THEN IF YOU CARRY ON READING, FEW HOURS LATER JESUS GLORIFIED AS OUR FATHER AND OUR GOD,  ENTERED THROUGH STONE WALLS, AND SAT IN THE MIDST OF HIS DISCIPLES INGNORING COMPLETELY THE FACT THAT THEY COULD  DEFINITELY NOT JUST TOUCH HIM BUT JUMP ON HIM WITH JOY! SO  NO DOUBT! JESUS WAS REALLY IN THE TRUTH THE ONLY TRUE VISIBLE GODMAN IN FLESH AND BONES  WHO WALKED ON EARTH! Peace and love in Jesus Charles

Carmel.

You are drunken with some other gospel,
and some other Jesus.

wakeup.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ Nov. 30 2013,04:07)

Philippians 2:6 New Living Translation (NLT) 6 Though he was God,    he did not think of equality with God    as something to cling to.

Kerwin,

Remember what I said in the other thread – that eventually Phil 2 will just say, “He was equal to God because he was God”?  

jammin, what does it mean to be God, and still not consider equality WITH God something to cling to?  

[carmel]

Wakeup,Dec. wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

You are drunken with some other gospel, and some other Jesus.

Wakeup,

I respect your maturity,

BUT AT LEAST PICK UP A STATEMENT FROM MINE AND CONTRADICT ME USING SCRIPTURES.

NOT JUST CONFIRMED THAT YOU ARE WITHOUT WORDS, SIMPLY BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ Nov. 30 2013,16:09)

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 29 2013,04:12) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 28 2013,19:19) kerwin, heb 11.3 and john 1.1 are not the same. if you check the commentary of AKJV it will tell you that the Word in john 1.1 is Christ himself. you are using the version that does not agree to you. LOL Jammin, I see you are still placing your faith in mere me with your use of the word “commentary”.   We are to test the spirit of such teachings not use them for support.  Why do you agree or disagree with this commentary from an AKJV printing or with the words of this Daniel Wallace except they tell you what your itching ears want to know. im just saying the truth. i say what is written. you say what is NOT written. btw i still have questions for you boy? dont you want to answer my question? or you may say that you are afraid of the truth. what did the ancient laws say? 1. the image of GOD is his word? 2. the image of GOD is the Word?

Jammin,

They said neither as they were not written in English, the translator chose to capitalize the word “word” for his own reasons.

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ Nov. 30 2013,16:11)

kerwin, because daniel and akjv know the true meaning of john 1.1 and i also read my bible over and over and we have the same teachings. the WORD is christ himself and that is why many versions give us the capital W for the word Word to give emphasis and to tell that this Word is no ordinary word but a title of Christ. see rev 19.13 how about you??? you said the meaning of john 1.1 is GOD is like his word. where can you read that in john 1.1?| can you give version to support your imagination??? and yet you want people to believe you. you cant even defend your case. think about it boy.

Jammin,

So you put your trust in these mere men because even though you cannot make a case for it you still choose to be believe that Scripture teaches that the Jesus is the word of God and the light that is in it.

God word is like God in being divine.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 30 2013,21:08)

Quote (jammin @ Nov. 30 2013,04:07) Philippians 2:6 New Living Translation (NLT) 6 Though he was God,    he did not think of equality with God    as something to cling to. Kerwin, Remember what I said in the other thread – that eventually Phil 2 will just say, “He was equal to God because he was God”?   jammin, what does it mean to be God, and still not consider equality WITH God something to cling to?

Mike,

It is a paraphrase translation by a Trinitarian and due to their bias their thoughts are not God's thoughts.  I have already told Jammin that such translations are less reliable than word for word translations but he chooses not to believe me because they say what his itching ears want to hear.  

The word for word one are difficult enough for humans to translate not to attempt to think like God in more complex ways.

Yes, your were correct on what you said.

[Wakeup]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 01 2013,09:07)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 30 2013,21:08) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 30 2013,04:07) Philippians 2:6 New Living Translation (NLT) 6 Though he was God,    he did not think of equality with God    as something to cling to. Kerwin, Remember what I said in the other thread – that eventually Phil 2 will just say, “He was equal to God because he was God”?   jammin, what does it mean to be God, and still not consider equality WITH God something to cling to?   Mike, It is a paraphrase translation by a Trinitarian and due to their bias their thoughts are not God's thoughts.  I have already told Jammin that such translations are less reliable than word for word translations but he chooses not to believe me because they say what his itching ears want to hear.   The word for word one are difficult enough for humans to translate not to attempt to think like God in more complex ways. Yes, your were correct on what you said.

Kerwin.

Are you saying that the kjv is unreliable?
Who is the judge to make that decision?
Are you qualified to be that judge?
Should not the scriptures itself be the judge,rather
than some person,or persons?

Who are they to judge the Word of God,not understanding the scriptures? Are they not all in confusion one with another?

Have the rivers not gone dry? There is a thirst,but not of water,but of hearing the Words of God.

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

wakeup.

[kerwin]

Quote (Wakeup @ Dec. 01 2013,10:10)

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 01 2013,09:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 30 2013,21:08) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 30 2013,04:07) Philippians 2:6 New Living Translation (NLT) 6 Though he was God,    he did not think of equality with God    as something to cling to. Kerwin, Remember what I said in the other thread – that eventually Phil 2 will just say, “He was equal to God because he was God”?   jammin, what does it mean to be God, and still not consider equality WITH God something to cling to?   Mike, It is a paraphrase translation by a Trinitarian and due to their bias their thoughts are not God's thoughts.  I have already told Jammin that such translations are less reliable than word for word translations but he chooses not to believe me because they say what his itching ears want to hear.   The word for word one are difficult enough for humans to translate not to attempt to think like God in more complex ways. Yes, your were correct on what you said. Kerwin. Are you saying that the kjv is unreliable? Who is the judge to make that decision? Are you qualified to be that judge? Should not the scriptures itself be the judge,rather than some person,or persons? Who are they to judge the Word of God,not understanding the scriptures? Are they not all in confusion one with another? Have the rivers not gone dry? There is a thirst,but not of water,but of hearing the Words of God. Amos 8:11   Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: wakeup.

Wakeup,

I am qualified if I am guided by God and it does not care if I am not.

The King James Version is a modern version while Authorized King James is a couple of centuries old.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 01 2013,10:34)

Quote (Wakeup @ Dec. 01 2013,10:10) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 01 2013,09:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 30 2013,21:08) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 30 2013,04:07) Philippians 2:6 New Living Translation (NLT) 6 Though he was God,    he did not think of equality with God    as something to cling to. Kerwin, Remember what I said in the other thread – that eventually Phil 2 will just say, “He was equal to God because he was God”?   jammin, what does it mean to be God, and still not consider equality WITH God something to cling to?   Mike, It is a paraphrase translation by a Trinitarian and due to their bias their thoughts are not God's thoughts.  I have already told Jammin that such translations are less reliable than word for word translations but he chooses not to believe me because they say what his itching ears want to hear.   The word for word one are difficult enough for humans to translate not to attempt to think like God in more complex ways. Yes, your were correct on what you said. Kerwin. Are you saying that the kjv is unreliable? Who is the judge to make that decision? Are you qualified to be that judge? Should not the scriptures itself be the judge,rather than some person,or persons? Who are they to judge the Word of God,not understanding the scriptures? Are they not all in confusion one with another? Have the rivers not gone dry? There is a thirst,but not of water,but of hearing the Words of God. Amos 8:11   Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: wakeup. Wakeup, I am qualified if I am guided by God and it does not care if I am not. The King James Version is a modern version while Authorized King James is a couple of centuries old.

K. And w

There never was an authorized version of the KJV. It only was the common bible version available at the time,

[Wakeup]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 01 2013,15:34)

Quote (Wakeup @ Dec. 01 2013,10:10) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 01 2013,09:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 30 2013,21:08) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 30 2013,04:07) Philippians 2:6 New Living Translation (NLT) 6 Though he was God,    he did not think of equality with God    as something to cling to. Kerwin, Remember what I said in the other thread – that eventually Phil 2 will just say, “He was equal to God because he was God”?   jammin, what does it mean to be God, and still not consider equality WITH God something to cling to?   Mike, It is a paraphrase translation by a Trinitarian and due to their bias their thoughts are not God's thoughts.  I have already told Jammin that such translations are less reliable than word for word translations but he chooses not to believe me because they say what his itching ears want to hear.   The word for word one are difficult enough for humans to translate not to attempt to think like God in more complex ways. Yes, your were correct on what you said. Kerwin. Are you saying that the kjv is unreliable? Who is the judge to make that decision? Are you qualified to be that judge? Should not the scriptures itself be the judge,rather than some person,or persons? Who are they to judge the Word of God,not understanding the scriptures? Are they not all in confusion one with another? Have the rivers not gone dry? There is a thirst,but not of water,but of hearing the Words of God. Amos 8:11   Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: wakeup. Wakeup, I am qualified if I am guided by God and it does not care if I am not. The King James Version is a modern version while Authorized King James is a couple of centuries old.

Kerwin.

How do you know God is guiding you?

wakeup.

[Lightenup]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 26 2013,18:10)

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 27 2013,02:25) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 26 2013,13:02) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,21:09) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 25 2013,17:17) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,00:11) Wakeup, The unbelieving Jews didn't call the Two Powers of Heaven a heresy until the Second Power was identified as Jesus during the Christian era. That in itself gives the idea more credibility as possible since they rejected Jesus as their Messiah and showed their lack of truth. Read above post to tigger2. LU,   Where did you hear that claim? http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/ Quote Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the two powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship. In my dissertation (UW-Madison, 2004) I argued that Segal’s instincts were correct. My own work bridges the gap between his book and the Hebrew Bible understood in its Canaanite religious context. I suggest that the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. For the orthodox Israelite, Yahweh was both sovereign and vice regent—occupying both “slots” as it were at the head of the divine council. The binitarian portrayal of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible was motivated by this belief. The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form.  The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not. Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no second distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea. This explains why these Jews, the first converts to following Jesus the Christ, could simultaneously worship the God of Israel and Jesus, and yet refuse to acknowledge any other god. Jesus was the incarnate second Yahweh. In response, as Segal’s work demonstrated, Judaism pronounced the two powers teaching a heresy sometime in the second century A.D. LU, Alan Segal sounds like the one that made the argument.  Your source seems to have added to it but strangely seem to believe it is a teaching the evolved from earlier teachings. If the Jews understood two powers in heaven as Jehovah in the OT but discredited it later when the Christians were claiming that one of the two was Jesus, would it make any difference to you? LU, I have never seen where the Jews believed in two powers.  They believe the word is the mediator between Jehovah and his creations and they personalize it. That is the closest I know to getting to what Alan Segal concluded.  I am not sure he is a Jew though I heard that he was a theologian and who to me seems to believe in religious diversity.

Kerwin,
Perhaps you should learn more about this topic. You could read Alan Segal's book about it. Here it is:

Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism

http://www.amazon.com/Two-Pow….n+segal

This is what it says about the topic:

Quote

In his now classic Two Powers in Heaven, Alan Segal examines rabbinic evidence about early manifestations of the “two powers” heresy within Judaism. Segal sheds light upon the development of and relationships among early Christianity, Gnosticism, and Merkabah mysticism and demonstrates that belief in the “two powers in heaven” was widespread by the first century, and may have been a catalyst for the Jewish rejection of early Christianity. An important addition to New Testament and Gnostic scholarship by this much revered scholar, Segal's Two Powers in Heaven is made available once again for a new generation.

[terraricca]

kERWIN

Ecc 12:11 The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails—given by one Shepherd.
Ecc 12:12 Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them.
Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.
Ecc 12:13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.
Ecc 12:14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

this is good advice

[Author]

Posts