- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 17 2013,22:53) When will God's counsel (certain men and angels) be yours too?
When the cow jumps over the moon…don't worship the creature, worship the creator, Jehovah, who is God of gods and Lord of lords. Our Father and Lord Jesus Christ.Okay, so theos is not your argument and reasoning behind Jesus being THE Almighty God because others are also called theos as you seem to admit and when the cow jumps over the moon you will then worship those that are called theos.
But you worship Jesus as God and the cow hasn't jumped over the moon yet.
lol.
Jesus is Jehovah of host, that is why He is Almighty. Any others besides the Father and Son who are called theos are not Jehovah and therefore creatures who are not to be worshiped.
Btw, Jesus hung the moon, the Jesus you deny, the Jehovah of hosts, our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. He spread out the heavens with His hands.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2013,00:47) John 6:70 (AKJV)
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”John 6:70 (EJV = Ed J Version)
Jesus answered them, I quite a exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devil
What does “exelexamin ” mean?
It's kind of fun to pit Ed's current claims against his ongoing claim that the AKJV is specifically inspired of God to be the “only legit Bible” or whatever.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 18 2013,03:23) Jesus is Jehovah of host, that is why He is Almighty
Jesus is the Son of Jehovah of hosts. That is why he is the Son of the Almighty.One of our claims is scriptural, Kathi. They can't both be.
Back to the topic: Has anyone who likes the translation “and the Word was God” been able to figure out how the one being known to us as “God” could possibly have been WITH the one being known to us as “God” in the beginning?
Yes Mike, if the Word is God then when the Word was with God, God was with God.
According to Sesame Street, that would make 2 Gods which would then be classified as Polytheism. The worship as God, more than one.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 19 2013,06:10) What does “exelexamin ” mean?
It's kind of fun to pit Ed's current claims against his ongoing claim that the AKJV is specifically inspired of God to be the “only legit Bible” or whatever.
Ed J answered too quickly. In his haste to prove that he is the only one on the planet who is right, he inadvertently destroyed one of the legs that his doctrine and theology sits on.Here are the main legs of his theology.
1) God is a Quinity, a 5 fold dimensional thing or something like that.
2) The AKJV is the only perfect translation and it has English gematria built into it to prove that.
3) Judas is exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devil (no idea what this means).
4) Ed J is important enough to be mentioned personally in scripture. He is a feast or something like that.
Okay. Now to tip the table over.
Point 2 contradicts point 4 as the AKJV and the ED J versions are opposed. (Look for him to reconcile this as this is his only defense.) The explanation will have to be like the Trinity in that it is completely non-plausible and he may have to resort to the “it is a mystery” quote in the end.
Anyhow, if both points 2 and 4 are opposed, then that means that we can safely take away one leg and possibly both of them. If both points are wrong, then the table falls over. But we will give him the benefit of the doubt and pretend that there is 3 legs for now.
In order to tip over a 3 legged table it just needs a nudge. I could easily nudge any of the final 3 legs. I am spoilt for choice.
Ed J. Time for a new table. Go down to the local hardware store and buy some planks, a hammer, and some nails.
As for Kathi, her table fell over 2 years ago I think. But she has resorted to pretending it is a sound structure. But anyone with common sense wouldn't rest even a cup of coffee on that.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2013,17:48) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2013,19:33) Hi T8, What exactly are you saying here? “You agree with yourself Ed J” ?
What does that imply? …That you are the only person in the world who talks like that
…or at least the only person in the world that I know of who talks like that.
You need help Ed J.You are not the only person on Earth who is correct. You are wrong on many things. If you want to improve, then you first need to acknowledge that. Just as an alcoholic first has to admit he is an alcoholic if he wants help.
Hi T8,Name-calling is not a very effective way of trying to convince someone your argument is right.
I merely present my understanding of things based on the “Facts”, whether you agree with me or not is not my concern.
What does concern me however, is when you reject what I'm saying without you even understanding what I'm telling you.“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” (Prov 18:13)
So I'm met by you with much resistance and NO desire on your part to consider whether my view is based on any truth or not.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2013,17:47) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2013,19:32) Hi T8, No it you who doesn't understand, In John 6:70 Jesus was NOT calling Judas 'the devil'
nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil' – Take a look at what the Greek ACTUAL SAYS:απεκριθη αυτοις ο ιησους ουκ εγω υμας τους δωδεκα εξελεξαμην “και εξ υμων εις διαβολος εστιν”
Jesus answered them, I quite a exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devil'one of you is devil' -NO- “one of you to present devil
“Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat
of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” (Psalms 41:9)
(1)Then that means according to your view that the AKJV is wrong, and therefore not perfect as you say elsewhere.(2)You are going to have to concede at least one of these points.
(3)Did the AKJV translated this wrong and Ed J right.
Or does the verse really say “one of you is (a) devil” and Ed J's version of this verse is wrong.(4)Which is it?
John 6:70 (AKJV)
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”John 6:70 (EJV = Ed J Version)
Jesus answered them, I quite a exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devil
Hi T8,1) Once again you are judging things according to your interpretation – I have said no such thing. (Link)
2) Now you are attempting to judge me according to your standard, this is a common mistake.
3) It is YOUR view that when others disagree with you that means they are wrong.
4) Which is it? (please stay tuned, see my next post for the explanation)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2013,17:47)
Did the AKJV translated this wrong and Ed J right.
Hi T8,I lied, I'm going to address this point first.
More revelations have been given in Greek since
the time of the Hebraic Jews. Take for example this verse:“And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another,
even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.” (Ephesians 4:32)This verse means more then what is written in English, in the Greek
it is a command to become nice and forgiving – not just merely a front.This is more than just a command to be nice to others, ones character needs to be
transformed into them actually **becoming** that loving person they wish to portray.So then, is Ephesians 4:32 in the “AKJV Bible” translated wrong and Ed J right? Ed J merely
brings the deeper meanings of GOD forth. You must become the niceness you wish to portray!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 19 2013,03:10) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2013,00:47) John 6:70 (AKJV)
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”John 6:70 (EJV = Ed J Version)
Jesus answered them, I quite a exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devil What does “exelexamin ” mean?
It's kind of fun to pit Ed's current claims against his ongoing claim that the AKJV is specifically inspired of God to be the “only legit Bible” or whatever.
Hi T8 & Mike, Mike please read my last post to T8.Everyone claims translator bias when they don't agree.
So I try to help by removing as much as humanly possible.T8 claims there is a quantitative state of 'gods' and is attempting to use John 6:70 to bolster his premise.
But when we examine his example to see if it exemplifies what he claims, WE SEE IT DOES NOT!
We see this when we look into the Greek, trying to back-translate is a recipe for error.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 19 2013,03:10) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2013,00:47) John 6:70 (AKJV)
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”John 6:70 (EJV = Ed J Version)
Jesus answered them, I quite a exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devil What does “exelexamin ” mean?
Hi Mike,What I did was use “Google translations” of the original Greek.
εξελεξαμην (exelexamin) simply means “chosen”, I did not change
(exelexamin) because the focus was on the LAST PART OF THE VERSE.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Aug. 19 2013,08:57)
Ed J answered too quickly.
In his haste to prove that he is the only one on the planet who is right,
he inadvertently destroyed one of the legs that his doctrine and theology sits on.
Hi T8,It is you who is trying to bolster your view as being the correct one,
and you are trying to project your intentions onto me. As I said before:I merely present my understanding of things based on the “Facts”, whether you agree with me or not is not my concern.
What does concern me however, is when you reject what I'm saying without you even understanding what I'm telling you.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Aug. 19 2013,08:57) Here are the main legs of his theology. 1) God is a Quinity, a 5 fold dimensional thing or something like that.
2) The AKJV is the only perfect translation and it has English gematria built into it to prove that.
3) Judas is exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devil (no idea what this means).
4) (A) Ed J is important enough to be mentioned personally in scripture. (B) He is a feast or something like that.
Hi T8,1) Here is proof that you DON'T UNDERSTAND what I actually said, instead you give your 'spin' and then claim it is mine.
Remember we have talked about this before, and you even agreed with me on how this happens (Here is the Link) (so No, I didn't say that)2) Once again you are putting YOUR 'SPIN' to what I said, CHANGING THE MEANING OF WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.
Remember have talked about this before, and you even agreed with me on how this happens (Here is the Link) (and No, I didn't say that either)3) Well then, have you considered “asking” what I mean before declaring it 'WRONG'?
4A) This topic already exists, if you are interested in what I actually did say
you can read about it (Here) and post about it (Here).4B) Once again this is more proof that you DON'T pay attention to what I actually say.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Aug. 19 2013,08:57)
Okay. Now to tip the table over.Point 2 contradicts point 4 as the AKJV and the ED J versions are opposed. (Look for him to reconcile this as this is his only defense.) The explanation will have to be like the Trinity in that it is completely non-plausible and he may have to resort to the “it is a mystery” quote in the end.
Anyhow, if both points 2 and 4 are opposed, then that means that we can safely take away one leg and possibly both of them. If both points are wrong, then the table falls over. But we will give him the benefit of the doubt and pretend that there is 3 legs for now.
In order to tip over a 3 legged table it just needs a nudge. I could easily nudge any of the final 3 legs. I am spoilt for choice.
Ed J. Time for a new table. Go down to the local hardware store and buy some planks, a hammer, and some nails.
Hi T8,Spin, spin, and more spin. Truth does NOT revolve
around your understanding; though you think it does.T8, it would be prudent for you to first determine what
I actually said before trying to oppose it, don't you think?Ed
Hi Everyone,
Attempting to argue over misconceptions is fruitless.
However that seems to be 'the status quo' here.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2013,16:59) As for Kathi, her table fell over 2 years ago I think. But she has resorted to pretending it is a sound structure. But anyone with common sense wouldn't rest even a cup of coffee on that.
Spoken by the man who fulfills the prophecy of stumbling over the stone, Jehovah of hosts who is Jesus our Christ. 1 Peter 2 and 3 as referring to Isaiah 8.You shouldn't be carrying hot coffee when you go around stumbling over our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 1:1.What Peter calls Jesus in that verse is quite the offense to you, t8. No need to be offended when you let scripture be scripture and God be God.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2013,11:17) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 18 2013,03:23) Jesus is Jehovah of host, that is why He is Almighty
Jesus is the Son of Jehovah of hosts. That is why he is the Son of the Almighty.One of our claims is scriptural, Kathi. They can't both be.
Back to the topic: Has anyone who likes the translation “and the Word was God” been able to figure out how the one being known to us as “God” could possibly have been WITH the one being known to us as “God” in the beginning?
Mike,Quote Jesus is the Son of Jehovah of hosts. Where specifically does it say this in the scripture since you imply that it is a scriptural claim?
Quote Has anyone who likes the translation “and the Word was God” been able to figure out how the one being known to us as “God” could possibly have been WITH the one being known to us as “God” in the beginning? Jehovah God is with Jehovah of Host.
Simple.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
