JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 01 2013,15:08)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 26 2013,16:12) Also Kathi, You didn't address one of my questions.  I wanted to know if “the Word of YHWH” was ever said in the targums to be WITH “YHWH”. In other words, did they ALWAYS change “YHWH” to “the Word of YHWH” – to the point that “YHWH Himself” is not even mentioned at all?  Or are there scriptures where they clearly outline the fact that “YHWH” and “the Word of YHWH” worked together on something, or were with each other, or something that would make us understand that there were two? Please give a targum example of this, if there is one. Mike, If I find something, I will let you know. There are many examples that indicate “Yahweh” was changed to “the Word of Yahweh” and considered Israel's covenant God. You have the same opportunity to look for this information as I do, if you really want to know.

I am not interested in searching in the old writings of mere men for something I consider to be bunk in the first place, Kathi.

But since YOU are the one pushing this “two powers” thing, don't you think you ought to find out a little more about it, so you can answer the first questions that pop into our heads – like the one I asked?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (tigger2 @ Dec. 01 2013,19:27)

Quote 6In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness. Jehovah says HIS name shall be called Jehovah our righteousness!! That would be the messiah's name, btw. None of that disproves the many facts presented in my last post.  But here is more from my studies concerning names: Another name the Messiah is to be called by at Jer. 23:6 is rendered, `The LORD [YHWH] IS Our Righteousness' in the following Bibles: RSV; NRSV; NEB; NJB; JPS (Margolis, ed.); Tanakh; ESV; Byington; AT; and ASV (footnote). Of course other translations render it more literally by calling the Messiah “The LORD [YHWH] Our Righteousness” to help support a `Jesus is God' doctrine. Some of these (such as the NASB) actually render the very same name at Jer. 33:16 as “The LORD [or Jehovah] is Our Righteousness”! – [bracketed information is mine]. Unfortunately for “Jesus is Jehovah” advocates, the very same name given to the Messiah at Jer. 23:16 is given to a city at Jer. 33:16. So if the name means that the bearer is actually Jehovah Himself, then Jerusalem is the Most High God!

Good stuff, tigger.

Of course Kathi already knows these things, but keeps hitting us with the “Jehovah Our Righteousness” claim anyway.

Isn't that right, Kathi?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (tigger2 @ Dec. 01 2013,21:11)

Quote Isaiah 9:6 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. The son of God is called the everlasting Father? Can you explain? wakeup. Yes: See Tigger2 post: Dec. 02 2013,10:42 (page 8)

And on top of that information you posted in the other thread, you could add the LXX translation of Isaiah 9:6, which reads:

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

I prefer the Hebrew, and believe that Jesus is indeed foretold to be called a mighty god, wonderful counselor, prince of peace, and everlasting father.

And he is, after all, a mighty god.  We know this from scripture.  And we know he is a wonderful counselor from scripture as well.  And Paul compares him to Melchizadek, who was the King of Salem (King of Peace) – so that would easily cover “prince of peace”.

As for the everlasting father part, many men in scripture were called “father” in the sense that they were benefactors.  Job was said to have been a “father to the poor”.  Both Elijah and Elisha were addressed by others as “father”.  And there are quite a few other examples if anyone is interested.

So the claim that Jesus would be our “everlasting benefactor” is not a stretch, but the undeniable truth of the matter.  Of course, we aren't to confuse Jesus as our “everlasting father (benefactor)” with Jehovah, the Almighty Father.  Just like King Jehoash wasn't confusing Elisha with the Almighty Father when he spoke the words of 2 Kings 13:14.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2013,07:57)

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 02 2013,04:48) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2013,04:35) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 01 2013,10:39) K. And w There never was an authorized version of the KJV. It only was the common bible version available at the time, T, The original  was authorized by King James of England and it was not common at first.  What is called the Authorized King James Version today is not the one  that was authorized.  There is yet another version that is just called the King James Version. K this is what it says ; King James Version From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see King James Version (disambiguation). King James Version The title page's central text is:”THE HOLY BIBLE,Conteyning the Old Testament,AND THE NEW:Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Comandement.Appointed to be read in Churches.Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie.ANNO DOM. 1611 .”At bottom is:”C. Boel fecit in Richmont.”. The title page to the 1611 first edition of the Authorized Version Bible by Cornelis Boel shows the Apostles Peter and Paul seated centrally above the central text, which is flanked by Moses and Aaron. In the four corners sit Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, authors of the four gospels, with their symbolic animals. The rest of the Apostles (with Judas facing away) stand around Peter and Paul. At the very top is the Tetragrammaton “יהוה”. Abbreviation:KJV or AV Complete Bible published:1611 Read online:King James Version at Wikisource Textual basis:NT: Textus Receptus, similar to the Byzantine text-type; some readings derived from the Vulgate. OT: Masoretic Text with Septuagint influence.[citation needed] Apocrypha: Septuagint and Vulgate. Reading level:US and Canada Grade 8–10[1] Copyright status:Public domain due to age, publication restrictions in the United Kingdom (See Copyright status) Genesis 1:1–3[show] John 3:16[show] The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.[2] First printed by the King's Printer Robert Barker,[3][4] this was the third translation into English to be approved by the English Church authorities. The first was the Great Bible commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII, and the second was the Bishops' Bible of 1568.[5] In January 1604, King James I convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,[6] a faction within the Church of England.[7] and it was never made official in any way , T, That passage states it was third version made official by the kings of England.

K

their apparently is no document that any of the KJV was ever made the “official”version

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 03 2013,06:02)

Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 01 2013,15:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 26 2013,16:12) Also Kathi, You didn't address one of my questions.  I wanted to know if “the Word of YHWH” was ever said in the targums to be WITH “YHWH”. In other words, did they ALWAYS change “YHWH” to “the Word of YHWH” – to the point that “YHWH Himself” is not even mentioned at all?  Or are there scriptures where they clearly outline the fact that “YHWH” and “the Word of YHWH” worked together on something, or were with each other, or something that would make us understand that there were two? Please give a targum example of this, if there is one. Mike, If I find something, I will let you know. There are many examples that indicate “Yahweh” was changed to “the Word of Yahweh” and considered Israel's covenant God. You have the same opportunity to look for this information as I do, if you really want to know. I am not interested in searching in the old writings of mere men for something I consider to be bunk in the first place,  Kathi. But since YOU are the one pushing this “two powers” thing, don't you think you ought to find out a little more about it, so you can answer the first questions that pop into our heads – like the one I asked?

Mike,

I looked and all I found were things I already knew which do not support the ideas Kathy thinks they do.  The Jews called called Sophia the queen of heaven in figurative speech, knowing she was not an actual being.  They even said she was Jehovah's bride just like the church is his Jesus' bride.  Sophia is the Jewish word for wisdom.

There may have been Jews that took the teaching literally but I have not heard of them. There is other similar things as well that I suppose could be misunderstood by someone who was blinded by ideology and lacking in full knowledge.

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 03 2013,07:39)

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2013,07:57) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 02 2013,04:48) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2013,04:35) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 01 2013,10:39) K. And w There never was an authorized version of the KJV. It only was the common bible version available at the time, T, The original  was authorized by King James of England and it was not common at first.  What is called the Authorized King James Version today is not the one  that was authorized.  There is yet another version that is just called the King James Version. K this is what it says ; King James Version From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see King James Version (disambiguation). King James Version The title page's central text is:”THE HOLY BIBLE,Conteyning the Old Testament,AND THE NEW:Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Comandement.Appointed to be read in Churches.Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie.ANNO DOM. 1611 .”At bottom is:”C. Boel fecit in Richmont.”. The title page to the 1611 first edition of the Authorized Version Bible by Cornelis Boel shows the Apostles Peter and Paul seated centrally above the central text, which is flanked by Moses and Aaron. In the four corners sit Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, authors of the four gospels, with their symbolic animals. The rest of the Apostles (with Judas facing away) stand around Peter and Paul. At the very top is the Tetragrammaton “יהוה”. Abbreviation:KJV or AV Complete Bible published:1611 Read online:King James Version at Wikisource Textual basis:NT: Textus Receptus, similar to the Byzantine text-type; some readings derived from the Vulgate. OT: Masoretic Text with Septuagint influence.[citation needed] Apocrypha: Septuagint and Vulgate. Reading level:US and Canada Grade 8–10[1] Copyright status:Public domain due to age, publication restrictions in the United Kingdom (See Copyright status) Genesis 1:1–3[show] John 3:16[show] The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.[2] First printed by the King's Printer Robert Barker,[3][4] this was the third translation into English to be approved by the English Church authorities. The first was the Great Bible commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII, and the second was the Bishops' Bible of 1568.[5] In January 1604, King James I convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,[6] a faction within the Church of England.[7] and it was never made official in any way , T, That passage states it was third version made official by the kings of England. K their apparently is no document that any of the KJV was ever made the “official”version

T,

I assume you mean other than the one in at least some Authorized King James Versions. There is no doubt that he did from what I have read. He was the head of the Anglican church.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 03 2013,07:50)

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 03 2013,07:39) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2013,07:57) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 02 2013,04:48) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2013,04:35) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 01 2013,10:39) K. And w There never was an authorized version of the KJV. It only was the common bible version available at the time, T, The original  was authorized by King James of England and it was not common at first.  What is called the Authorized King James Version today is not the one  that was authorized.  There is yet another version that is just called the King James Version. K this is what it says ; King James Version From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see King James Version (disambiguation). King James Version The title page's central text is:”THE HOLY BIBLE,Conteyning the Old Testament,AND THE NEW:Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Comandement.Appointed to be read in Churches.Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie.ANNO DOM. 1611 .”At bottom is:”C. Boel fecit in Richmont.”. The title page to the 1611 first edition of the Authorized Version Bible by Cornelis Boel shows the Apostles Peter and Paul seated centrally above the central text, which is flanked by Moses and Aaron. In the four corners sit Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, authors of the four gospels, with their symbolic animals. The rest of the Apostles (with Judas facing away) stand around Peter and Paul. At the very top is the Tetragrammaton “יהוה”. Abbreviation:KJV or AV Complete Bible published:1611 Read online:King James Version at Wikisource Textual basis:NT: Textus Receptus, similar to the Byzantine text-type; some readings derived from the Vulgate. OT: Masoretic Text with Septuagint influence.[citation needed] Apocrypha: Septuagint and Vulgate. Reading level:US and Canada Grade 8–10[1] Copyright status:Public domain due to age, publication restrictions in the United Kingdom (See Copyright status) Genesis 1:1–3[show] John 3:16[show] The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.[2] First printed by the King's Printer Robert Barker,[3][4] this was the third translation into English to be approved by the English Church authorities. The first was the Great Bible commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII, and the second was the Bishops' Bible of 1568.[5] In January 1604, King James I convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,[6] a faction within the Church of England.[7] and it was never made official in any way , T, That passage states it was third version made official by the kings of England. K their apparently is no document that any of the KJV was ever made the “official”version T, I assume you mean other than the one in at least some Authorized King James Versions.  There is no doubt that he did from what I have read.  He was the head of the Anglican church.

k

no,any of the version even the last one, it is fiction to believe that there is such a version “authorized”

if you know of any official doc. show it ,i could not find any

[Wakeup]

Here is to boglle your mind even more

Matthew 23:9 And
**call no man your father upon the earth**:
for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Isaiah 9:6 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.
THE CHILD IS TO BE CALLED EVERLASTING FATHER?
NOW HOLD ON YOU TRINIES: NOT TOO FAST:
HE IS NOT THE FATHER,BUT *THE WORD OF GOD*.

Revelation 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the *Son of man*, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Revelation 1:14
***His head and his hairs were white like wool***, as white as snow; and
***his eyes were as a flame of fire***;

DOES HE LOOK LIKE FLESH AND BONE?

Revelation 1:15 And his feet like
***unto fine brass***, as if they
***burned in a furnace***;
and his voice as
***the sound of many waters***.

DOES THIS LOOK LIKE FLESH AND BONE? NO WOUNDS.

Revelation 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword:

***and his countenance was ***as the sun shineth in his
strength***.

DOES THIS LOOK LIKE FLESH AND BONE?

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not;
***I am the first and the last***:

Revelation 1:18
***I am he that liveth, and was dead***;
and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

WHY DID HE NOT IDENTIFY HIMSELF AS JESUS?

Always remember: There is none else beside God.
And yet the first and the last is not the father?

wakeup.

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 01 2013,08:57)

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.

i believe what is written in the bible.

how can people believe you? you dont give me version about GOD IS LIKE HIS WORD in john 1.1

make your own bible

[terraricca]

K

Quote

God word is like God in being divine.

SO ALL THE PROPHETS THAT RECEIVED GOD'S WORD ARE DIVINE

[Lightenup]

Quote (tigger2 @ Dec. 01 2013,20:27)

Quote 6In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness. Jehovah says HIS name shall be called Jehovah our righteousness!! That would be the messiah's name, btw. None of that disproves the many facts presented in my last post.  But here is more from my studies concerning names: Another name the Messiah is to be called by at Jer. 23:6 is rendered, `The LORD [YHWH] IS Our Righteousness' in the following Bibles: RSV; NRSV; NEB; NJB; JPS (Margolis, ed.); Tanakh; ESV; Byington; AT; and ASV (footnote). Of course other translations render it more literally by calling the Messiah “The LORD [YHWH] Our Righteousness” to help support a `Jesus is God' doctrine. Some of these (such as the NASB) actually render the very same name at Jer. 33:16 as “The LORD [or Jehovah] is Our Righteousness”! – [bracketed information is mine]. Unfortunately for “Jesus is Jehovah” advocates, the very same name given to the Messiah at Jer. 23:16 is given to a city at Jer. 33:16. So if the name means that the bearer is actually Jehovah Himself, then Jerusalem is the Most High God!

tigger2,
I was looking at Jeremiah 33:16 and noticed that it is quite different than Jeremiah 23:6. You should examine the Hebrew. There is a preposition 'to' right before 'Jehovah our Righteousness' in regards to 33:16 and no preposition like that in 23:6. Also, 'the name' is not there in 33:16 but it was commonly added by the translators.

I am starting an online Hebrew class in January so I can get a better understanding on things like this.

From what I can tell, Jerusalem will be called to Jehovah our righteousness. He will not be named 'Jehovah our righteousness.'

That should give you something to think about. Here are the links to compare the two verses in the Hebrew:

Jer 33:16
http://biblehub.com/text/jeremiah/33-16.htm
Jer 23:6
http://biblehub.com/text/jeremiah/23-6.htm

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 02 2013,18:45)

Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 01 2013,13:42) 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. It seems to me that your source calls this “two powers” thing a “heresy within Judah” – and says this belief was “widespread by the first century”. That doesn't sound like it was widespread BEFORE the first century A.D., does it?

It was widespread in the Second Temple period which is the intertestamental period. So this was a belief before the New Testament time.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 02 2013,19:11)

Quote (tigger2 @ Dec. 01 2013,19:27) Quote 6In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness. Jehovah says HIS name shall be called Jehovah our righteousness!! That would be the messiah's name, btw. None of that disproves the many facts presented in my last post.  But here is more from my studies concerning names: Another name the Messiah is to be called by at Jer. 23:6 is rendered, `The LORD [YHWH] IS Our Righteousness' in the following Bibles: RSV; NRSV; NEB; NJB; JPS (Margolis, ed.); Tanakh; ESV; Byington; AT; and ASV (footnote). Of course other translations render it more literally by calling the Messiah “The LORD [YHWH] Our Righteousness” to help support a `Jesus is God' doctrine. Some of these (such as the NASB) actually render the very same name at Jer. 33:16 as “The LORD [or Jehovah] is Our Righteousness”! – [bracketed information is mine]. Unfortunately for “Jesus is Jehovah” advocates, the very same name given to the Messiah at Jer. 23:16 is given to a city at Jer. 33:16. So if the name means that the bearer is actually Jehovah Himself, then Jerusalem is the Most High God! Good stuff, tigger. Of course Kathi already knows these things, but keeps hitting us with the “Jehovah Our Righteousness” claim anyway. Isn't that right, Kathi?

Read my last post to tigger2.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 02 2013,18:59)

Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 01 2013,15:04) From what I can tell, the Father and the Son are in the same classification…the most high classification. And what tells you that?  I read that Jesus is the firstborn of a bunch of spirit sons of God.  I read that he was the firstborn of all creation, and the beginning of the creation by God.  I read that God brought him forth as the first of His works.  I read that his origins are from ancient days of old. I don't read that he dwelled from eternity inside of God before God brought him to the outside. Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 01 2013,15:04) Do you believe that the Father is inherently a god? Do you believe Chemosh, the detestable god of Moab, is inherently a god? If not, what is the Father inherently and what is Chemosh inherently? I don't think “inherently” is the right word for this discussion.  But I believe that the Father God is a spirit being, and that His spirit sons also share in His spirit nature.  That would include Chemosh, who I believe is one of the spirit sons of God who chose to follow Satan when he rebelled. The words “el” and “theos” refer to powerful supernatural beings, of which Jehovah is one, Jesus is one, Satan is one, and Chemosh is one……….. among many, many others. So if you want to call “powerful supernatural beings” a “species”, then you need to include ALL of the members – not just Jesus and his God Jehovah.

I read that He is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son. That messes up your whole argument.

The first work of God was a begettal…not a creation.

I read that He was the eternal life that was with the Father in the beginning.

I read that He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Lord of lords, Jehovah of hosts.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 02 2013,18:59)

Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 01 2013,15:04) From what I can tell, the Father and the Son are in the same classification…the most high classification. And what tells you that?  I read that Jesus is the firstborn of a bunch of spirit sons of God.  I read that he was the firstborn of all creation, and the beginning of the creation by God.  I read that God brought him forth as the first of His works.  I read that his origins are from ancient days of old. I don't read that he dwelled from eternity inside of God before God brought him to the outside. Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 01 2013,15:04) Do you believe that the Father is inherently a god? Do you believe Chemosh, the detestable god of Moab, is inherently a god? If not, what is the Father inherently and what is Chemosh inherently? I don't think “inherently” is the right word for this discussion.  But I believe that the Father God is a spirit being, and that His spirit sons also share in His spirit nature.  That would include Chemosh, who I believe is one of the spirit sons of God who chose to follow Satan when he rebelled. The words “el” and “theos” refer to powerful supernatural beings, of which Jehovah is one, Jesus is one, Satan is one, and Chemosh is one……….. among many, many others. So if you want to call “powerful supernatural beings” a “species”, then you need to include ALL of the members – not just Jesus and his God Jehovah.

Mike,
There are flesh beings and there are spirit beings. There are many classifications of flesh beings. Certainly you can understand that there are many classifications of spirit beings. You seem to just have one classification of spirit beings. Eternal nature as an always existent in the past nature doesn't seem to be in a class of it's own within the spirit beings realm according to your post. Why is that?

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 02 2013,19:02)

Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 01 2013,15:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 26 2013,16:12) Also Kathi, You didn't address one of my questions.  I wanted to know if “the Word of YHWH” was ever said in the targums to be WITH “YHWH”. In other words, did they ALWAYS change “YHWH” to “the Word of YHWH” – to the point that “YHWH Himself” is not even mentioned at all?  Or are there scriptures where they clearly outline the fact that “YHWH” and “the Word of YHWH” worked together on something, or were with each other, or something that would make us understand that there were two? Please give a targum example of this, if there is one. Mike, If I find something, I will let you know. There are many examples that indicate “Yahweh” was changed to “the Word of Yahweh” and considered Israel's covenant God. You have the same opportunity to look for this information as I do, if you really want to know. I am not interested in searching in the old writings of mere men for something I consider to be bunk in the first place,  Kathi. But since YOU are the one pushing this “two powers” thing, don't you think you ought to find out a little more about it, so you can answer the first questions that pop into our heads – like the one I asked?

I have given you much evidence in the past of what the Targums say. They call the Word of Jehovah their God. I have proven that to you on more than one occasion.

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 03 2013,10:08)

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 03 2013,07:50) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 03 2013,07:39) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2013,07:57) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 02 2013,04:48) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2013,04:35) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 01 2013,10:39) K. And w There never was an authorized version of the KJV. It only was the common bible version available at the time, T, The original  was authorized by King James of England and it was not common at first.  What is called the Authorized King James Version today is not the one  that was authorized.  There is yet another version that is just called the King James Version. K this is what it says ; King James Version From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see King James Version (disambiguation). King James Version The title page's central text is:”THE HOLY BIBLE,Conteyning the Old Testament,AND THE NEW:Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Comandement.Appointed to be read in Churches.Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie.ANNO DOM. 1611 .”At bottom is:”C. Boel fecit in Richmont.”. The title page to the 1611 first edition of the Authorized Version Bible by Cornelis Boel shows the Apostles Peter and Paul seated centrally above the central text, which is flanked by Moses and Aaron. In the four corners sit Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, authors of the four gospels, with their symbolic animals. The rest of the Apostles (with Judas facing away) stand around Peter and Paul. At the very top is the Tetragrammaton “יהוה”. Abbreviation:KJV or AV Complete Bible published:1611 Read online:King James Version at Wikisource Textual basis:NT: Textus Receptus, similar to the Byzantine text-type; some readings derived from the Vulgate. OT: Masoretic Text with Septuagint influence.[citation needed] Apocrypha: Septuagint and Vulgate. Reading level:US and Canada Grade 8–10[1] Copyright status:Public domain due to age, publication restrictions in the United Kingdom (See Copyright status) Genesis 1:1–3[show] John 3:16[show] The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.[2] First printed by the King's Printer Robert Barker,[3][4] this was the third translation into English to be approved by the English Church authorities. The first was the Great Bible commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII, and the second was the Bishops' Bible of 1568.[5] In January 1604, King James I convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,[6] a faction within the Church of England.[7] and it was never made official in any way , T, That passage states it was third version made official by the kings of England. K their apparently is no document that any of the KJV was ever made the “official”version T, I assume you mean other than the one in at least some Authorized King James Versions.  There is no doubt that he did from what I have read.  He was the head of the Anglican church. k no,any of the version even the last one, it is fiction to believe that there is such a version “authorized” if you know of any official doc. show it ,i could not find any

T,

It just had it 400th anniversary and BBC put out some documentaries on it.  The evidence may be in those but honestly it is not that important to me to take the time to see if it is.

What is called the Authorized King James Version today is not the same version anyways. I don't even think wakeup and journey know the difference between the what is currently called the authorized version and the KJV that is not called authorized.

[kerwin]

LU,

I looked on the web and could not find anything to reveal that even uncommon Jewish sects held there were two powers in heaven. What I found is the stuff I already knew such as the divine word doctrine, the wisdom personification, the spiritual Adam, and things along that line. None of these are really a second power.

[Lightenup]

Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 27 2013,05:38)

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 27 2013,07:22) Wakeup, I believe that Jehovah is two powers, one is the Father and one is the Son. Both are called Jehovah together and separately and together they act in complete cooperation and interdependency. Jehovah the Father sent Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father gave Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father is not Jehovah the Son. Lightenup. Quote Jehovah the Father sent Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father gave Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father is not Jehovah the Son That sounds like speaking in tongues. Can you show us scriptures saying Jesus is also Jehovah his Father? If not;then its all made up,and contradictory to the scriptures. wakeup.

I never said that Jesus was also His Father. I believe there are two powers in heaven that are both called with the same name. In John 17, Jesus says that He was given the Father's name.

Haven't you ever heard of a son with the same name as his father? I know that can be confusing but nevertheless, it is common.

[Lightenup]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 03 2013,23:44)

LU, I looked on the web and could not find anything to reveal that even uncommon Jewish sects held there were two powers in heaven.  What I found is the stuff I already knew such as the divine word doctrine, the wisdom personification, the spiritual Adam, and things along that line.  None of these are really a second power.

Kerwin,
I suggest you get a hold of the book by Alan Segal and there should be information to substantiate this belief in there.

[Author]

Posts