The Trinity Doctrine

Participant

Quote

Hi W,
Does your hand feed you?

I thought the Spirit was his finger?

December 28, 2006 at 2:17 am#35446

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 28 2006,00:00)

Quote

Primary principle of hermaneutics is never base a doctrine on ambigous scriptures. Once one deletes the questionable scriptures out of the Trinitarian doctrine the few that seem clear can be easily debuncked.

Even without this method the real test and one i have constantly pursued is the test of function. Every time I have broached the subjest Trinitarians run for the hills because their doctrine does not work within the plan of God. they have a concept in their mind of a triune God and because of this SOME do the following,
1. They filter scripture through preconcieved ideas of doctrine, searching scriptues daily not to seek truth but to prove doctrine. they only dig as far as necessary to find some crumb of evidence that seems to justify their stand.
Example – Elohyim – Is stated as a plural noun. This is as far as most Trinitarians go in research. They found their seeming proof. The truth is that when one studies Hebrew it is clear that the plural nature of Elohyim is that of a plurality of majesty. In otherwords Hebrews use plurality in terms of quality and not quanity. Elohyim indicates the most high God not plural persons of God
2. They believe that head knowledge is suffiicent to have aquired a truth.
Without experiantial testing of it's functional qualities nothing is established except a theory.
Example –
If Jesus is anything other then fully human he can not be a true example for us that are fully human. this denies the entire plan of God for man. Even the dual nature does not solve this problem because if Jesus had a dual nature then that still makes him different then us. They throw out scripture after scripture that they believe proves the trinity and never take into consideration if their doctrine actually produces fruit. Does it actually help us become more like Christ?

M42

No offence. But were you there when Moses under the direction of the Holy Spirit penned the Pentateuch?

How does anyone no what the Hebrew language was then.

4000 years ago. All we have is what is written. We can not begin to read into and change what is written because of what we think they meant.

100s possibly thousands of Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic scholars have been interpreting the languages for centurys, and many of them disagreeing.

We have to take the best that we have with the Holy Spirit and get truth.

Just like in translating the scriptures from one language to another, the rules of “hermaneutics” may change from scholar to scholar.

An example of this is the following link!

Blessings

I hate to say it but I could say the same of your texts. If you are going to throw out some Hebrew scholarship then you have to throw it all out. therefore you can not prove that Elohyim is plural at all. You cannot pick scholarship that only agrees with your doctrine. This has been my point all along. We can argue my proof texts and my experts are better then yours till the cows come home. What is the point? You will not be moved nor will I.

this is the reason why we must determine the truth from conclusions of our respective points of view. In otherwords FUNCTION FUNCTI9ON FUNCTION. Does your doctrine enable you to become perfect like Christ? If it does not, it is false. End of story, end of game.

Everytime I have attempted to force this question. I am ignored. You did this exact thing again.. If you remember, i just countered NH for doing the same thing you are doing right now. You pulled out of context a small detail, used it to make attack and then ignored the general context of functionality. You even said Amen my coment to NH. What is so scary about descussing function.

December 28, 2006 at 2:28 am#35448

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 28 2006,00:00)

Quote

M42

No offence. But were you there when Moses under the direction of the Holy Spirit penned the Pentateuch?

How does anyone no what the Hebrew language was then.

4000 years ago. All we have is what is written. We can not begin to read into and change what is written because of what we think they meant.

100s possibly thousands of Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic scholars have been interpreting the languages for centurys, and many of them disagreeing.

We have to take the best that we have with the Holy Spirit and get truth.

Just like in translating the scriptures from one language to another, the rules of “hermaneutics” may change from scholar to scholar.

An example of this is the following link!

Blessings

Secondly – If you are implying that I cannot use my experts to defend my understanding, then you cannot use your either. As you said “100s possibly thousands of Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic scholars have been interpreting the languages for centurys, and many of them disagreeing.”
Based on this statement, no scholars can be trusted and therefore it is our own opinion based on what we think we percieve from the Holy Spirit. therefore it is just my opinion against yours. I can claim just as much leading of the Holy Spirit as you. To follow your program to the end is – Everybody do what you think is right in your own eyes.

Do you remember my original post on Hermaneutics? you replied to it by saying it was excelent. Now you are saying that hermaneutics cannot be trusted. what has changed? Could it be that I began using these principles to debunck the Trinity so now the principles must be wrong? How very interesting!

December 28, 2006 at 3:08 am#35449

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 28 2006,00:00)

Quote

M42

No offence. But were you there when Moses under the direction of the Holy Spirit penned the Pentateuch?

How does anyone no what the Hebrew language was then.

4000 years ago. All we have is what is written. We can not begin to read into and change what is written because of what we think they meant.

100s possibly thousands of Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic scholars have been interpreting the languages for centurys, and many of them disagreeing.

We have to take the best that we have with the Holy Spirit and get truth.

Just like in translating the scriptures from one language to another, the rules of “hermaneutics” may change from scholar to scholar.

An example of this is the following link!

Blessings

The more I reread this post the more i am dissapointed.

you state –
“No offence. But were you there when Moses under the direction of the Holy Spirit penned the Pentateuch?”

I never claimed to be an expert on Hebrew. that is why on several occasions I have related web sites or pasted copies of experts opinions.
You say –
?How does anyone no what the Hebrew language was then.”

If that is true then no translation whatsoever can be trusted and we better throw out the entire Old Testament.

You say –
4000 years ago. All we have is what is written. We can not begin to read into and change what is written because of what we think they meant.

you just got through saying no one knows what the Hebrew language was so again we cannot trust what the translators wrote. throw out the OT.

You state –
An example of this is the following link!

How very interesting. In another post you said you were not interested in web sites but only in the scriptures. now you refer me to a web site. Is this expert to be trusted because he agrees with a point you are making. How very interesting!!!!

December 28, 2006 at 5:02 am#35456

Participant

Quote

m42

All Im saying is all we have is the inspired word today, the cannon, the scriptures. Now if we are gonna base our religion on the scriptures or our doctrine then it is most important that we first of all use the text that we have with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

All the other stuff is great to bring validaty to our teaching. But if it contradicts the scriptures that we have, then we should rather believe the scriptures rather than any rules of hermaneutics.

And yes proof text are fine, but my point is it should agree with all of scripture.

I am truly sorry if I offended you, if you read my post you will see I was not attacking you. I was simply disagreeing with you.

Now if disagreeing with you means that I am attacking, then I am sorry. But I also have my opinion.

And yes we all have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. I will be responsible for the truth which I recieve and teach. If I can help others to see the truth that God shows me, Great. the Holy Spirit in me and the Scriptures is the final authority.

Blessings

December 28, 2006 at 5:14 am#35457

Participant

Quote

The more I reread this post the more i am dissapointed.

you state –
“No offence. But were you there when Moses under the direction of the Holy Spirit penned the Pentateuch?”

If that is true then no translation whatsoever can be trusted and we better throw out the entire Old Testament.

You say –
4000 years ago. All we have is what is written. We can not begin to read into and change what is written because of what we think they meant.

you just got through saying no one knows what the Hebrew language was so again we cannot trust what the translators wrote. throw out the OT.

You state –
An example of this is the following link!

m42

Now you are misquoting me. I never said that because the transators didnt know what they meant that we should throw out the scriptures.

Im simply saying that if a so called modern day expert comes along to give us some new and different meaning to the scriptures than what we have from the most ancient copies of the scriptures, then I would rather believe the early fathers who gave their lives and even shed their blood to bring us what we have in the Bible today.

But you know again I dont understand your anger. Sorry that I offended you.

If disagreeing with each other is offensive then maybe we shouldnt have dialogue. Because niether one of us will learn, and as you say become Christ like.

Blessings

December 28, 2006 at 7:01 am#35459

Participant

Quote

m42

BTW

I could say that your post was very offence with a bias against trinitarians.

You say…

Quote

Once one deletes the questionable scriptures out of the Trinitarian doctrine the few that seem clear can be easily debuncked.

First of all you have not seen me run to the hills. Because I have no doubts in my faith and the foundation that Jesus has laid in me.

We also could say the same thing about deleting the few scriptures that the Arians use to support their view. At least Trinitarians accept those scriptures also. There has been no denying Jesus as being the Son.

But most here with an Arian view try to squirm and twist the scriptures that suport the trinitarian view, to say what they want or just deny it.

BTW M42 how can you prove function?

How do I know how you live or how your doctrine has changed you. I dont know that you are not into pornagraphy or drugs or adultery, or that you are thief or a liar.

Thats a personal thing between you and God. Doctrine has function when it changes a man yes, but who is the judge of that but the man who recieves it and believes it.

One scripture may speak to me and change my life. The same scripture may not do that for someone else.

We have to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

You say…

Quote

1. They filter scripture through preconcieved ideas of doctrine, searching scriptues daily not to seek truth but to prove doctrine. they only dig as far as necessary to find some crumb of evidence that seems to justify their stand.
Example – Elohyim – Is stated as a plural noun. This is as far as most Trinitarians go in research. They found their seeming proof. The truth is that when one studies Hebrew it is clear that the plural nature of Elohyim is that of a plurality of majesty. In otherwords Hebrews use plurality in terms of quality and not quanity. Elohyim indicates the most high God not plural persons of God

How are you any different here m42. You have started this dialogue with the perception that Trinitarians are wrong, and you are right.

So are you not filtering scriptures through your preconcived Ideas?

As far as “Elohyim” goes, I'm open, show me where you have some new information that our ForFathers or the hundreds of Hebrew and Aramaic experts that translated that word “Elohyim” meant it to be something else. Please show me.

What is your authority?

You say…

Quote

2. They believe that head knowledge is suffiicent to have aquired a truth.
Without experiantial testing of it's functional qualities nothing is established except a theory.
Example –
If Jesus is anything other then fully human he can not be a true example for us that are fully human. this denies the entire plan of God for man. Even the dual nature does not solve this problem because if Jesus had a dual nature then that still makes him different then us. They throw out scripture after scripture that they believe proves the trinity and never take into consideration if their doctrine actually produces fruit. Does it actually help us become more like Christ?

Again you assume that Trinitarians do not live by their beliefs.

How do you know how I live. I can tell you this, by the best of my ability with the help of the Holy Spirit in me I live a Godly and seperate life from the world.

I pray daily and study the word and praise my God. I dont Drink I dont smoke, or cuss.
Im not into porn, nor cheat on my wife, I dont steal nor lie, and I try to treat my nieghbor as I would myself. I fellowship with Gods people and occasionally preach the word to the lost and the saved.

Am I perfect? God knows not. But I look to Jesus who is the Author and Finisher of my faith.

But God forbid that I should boast of any of this because none of it will save me.

I am saved by the blood of the Lamb, Jesus.

Is this what you mean by functionality?

As far as the dual nature of Christ. He emptied himself of his right to be equal with God so he could come in the flesh and show us how to live under the power and athority of his Father. He submitted to the will of the Father by taking on human form and becoming man.

But scriptures in no way teach that he ceased to be God. He was and is the Word/God in the flesh. But he didnt exercise that power as a man. He submitted to the Father.

Jesus made many statements declaring he had power if he wanted to excersise it. He could have called legions of Angels to his defence at the cross, but chose instead to say “not my will but thine be done”.

He said that **he** had the power to lay down **his** life and take it again.

No man before him or after had that power.

And yet Jesus said “Into thy hands I commit my Spirit”

Why is it so hard to understand that Jesus was also diety.

We have God in us dont we. Your argument that Jesus had to just be a man or we could not be like him has no grounds to the truth.

Je
sus told the desciples to tarry untill they be endued with Power from on high.

If we need the Spirit of God in us to be Christ like, then whats wrong with Jesus who is the Eternal life to take on a body like ours without sin. And then overcome sin in that body.

Then offer that body as an eternal sacrifice for us.

This is why he is the **firstborn** of many brethren. He is the second Adam, Because he overcame by submitting his will yes as the Word/God to The Fathers will.

Heb 10:7
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Jesus fullfilled all righteousness, from his baptism even to paying taxs.

Yes trinitarians know and believe Jesus the man, that was born had a God and a Father also.

But His Eternal Spirit was the Word come in flesh. And is truly God.

Hence Incarnation. God in Man. Jesus the Lord of Glory.

I like what the Apostle Paul says uder the direction of the Spirit….

James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

II Cor 13:5
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Again if I offend you because you disagree. Sorry. But I have to stand by what I believe also, unless you can give me valid scriptural reason for change.

Blessings

December 28, 2006 at 7:25 pm#35477

Participant

WJ,
Let's deal with one point at a time. I may have overstated my point of attacking. It was not to indicate a personal attack, but rather the kind of false debating tactic used by some to pull a small point out of an overall context and attempt to sidetrack the conversation from the overall context.
I am delighted that you have ask the questions that you have in these posts. I will attempt to answer then as clearly as I can. This may take some time and will most likely take more then one post. I hope you will bear with me in this.

1. I do not believe that trinitarians are unsaved or in danger of losing their salvation. For all of us I can see having a wrong teaching as part of the learning process. Like the torah. When a son missed the mark, his father would commend him for his effort and then instruct him how to do better the next time. This is the way in which God works and we should be of like character. If I have missed the mark in that respect, I heartly apologise.

You state –
All Im saying is all we have is the inspired word today, the cannon, the scriptures. Now if we are gonna base our religion on the scriptures or our doctrine then it is most important that we first of all use the text that we have with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
All the other stuff is great to bring validaty to our teaching. But if it contradicts the scriptures that we have, then we should rather believe the scriptures rather than any rules of hermaneutics.
And yes proof text are fine, but my point is it should agree with all of scripture.

Response –
Hermaneutics is simply the method of discriminating between truth and fiction based on evidence. Whether we think so or not we all use a form of hermaneutics in nearly every thing we do. (that deals with writing)

You say to use the cannon we have today. I have seen several problems with that approach.

1. There is no translations that are inspired. Only the original manuscripts were inspired. The best we have are copies. There ae a few places where later copies do not jive with earlier ones, but these are not significant. Few really effect doctrine.
2. The real problem occurs when we encounter translations from one language to another. Problems spring up in many ways.
Just one scholars points if you please. John Gill makes two points that are important in this context.

John Gill recognized the significance that the New Testament was written by men who were Hebrew. He saw that in understanding the Hebrew mind set one could better understand the scriptures. Gill soon became a Hebrew scholar without equal in his day. William Cathcart said: “It is within bounds to say that no man in the eighteenth century was so well versed in the literature and customs of the ancient Jews as John Gill. He has sometimes been called the Doctor John Lightfoot of the Baptists.” Gill pastored and taught for 50 years.
His comment –
“Unless it could be thought, that the translators of the Bible into the several languages of the nations into which it has been translated, were under the divine inspiration also in translating, and were directed of God to the use of words they have rendered the original by; but this is not reasonable to suppose.
The papists, plead for their vulgate Latin version; which has been decreed authentic by the council of Trent; though it abounds with innumerable errors and mistakes. No, so far do they carry this affair, that they even assert that the Scriptures, in their originals, ought to submit to, and be corrected by their version; which is absurd and ridiculous. Let not now any be uneasy in their minds about translations on this account, because they are not upon an equality with the original text.”
Here are some problems to consider in translation practices.
A. The literal word for word style.
Some of the problems encountered in this method are that some words do not have the equivelent in another language so a best estimate is made. This amounts to an opinion. The more translations that occur and the further away from the originals the more these opinions are reinforced.
B. Especially when dealing with Hebrew culture a literal translation will not suffice to bring the richness or the clearest understanding of a verse. Since all scripture was written by Hebrews, This is of great importance. Without me taking months to share the important aspects of Hebrew culture and thinking as it compares to our modern western thinking, I invite you as an honorable man to do some research into biblical Hebrew culture. I have in the past suggested one particular website to start. Did you look at it? I tell you honestly I do not know if this scholar is Trinitarian or not. I know that his research is top notch. (The Ancient Hebrew Reserch Center http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/index.html) If you think I am being biased in my choice of scholars, then do your own research. If you give me an honest search, I think you will agree to the significance of understanding Hebrew culture when deciding on the meaning of scripture.
Let me give a simple example of how understanding culture, daily habits and even climate can effect meanings of verse. I chose this verse because it does not have significant doctrinal influince.
Mat 6
16Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

17But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;

18That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
How did the hippocrites disfigure their faces?
Because of the hot dry climate of Judea it was common practice every morining to put olive oil in their scalp and on their faces to protect against the dry pealing and craking skin. When the hipocrites would fast, they would discontinue this habit. Their faces would peal, crack and become (so to speak)”disfigured”. They did this in order to be seen of men as fasting. Without the understanding of culture, climate and daily habits, a richer understanding of this section of scripture is lost. These types of truths cannot always be found in just the cannon of scripture.
C. Culture can also have a very significant effect on the way a people think. Eastern and western cultures think and therefore write in very different ways. Israel for thousands of years held themselves seperate from other cultures by edict of God. Because of this they developed a different way of percieveing the world and communicating. A more modern version of this can be seen in the culture of China. With the building of the Great Wall, China cut themselves off from outside influinces and cultures. They developed a distinct culture far different then other nations and percieved the world in a diffeent way. Their writing and thinking was greatly effected by this distinction. Even with recent Western influince the difference can still be seen.
That there is a difference in the way Hebrew culture thought, wrote and percieved the world is really not in question by any scholar. How they differed is another question altogether. Since Hebrew culture is extinct, and has been far 2000 years we must rely on archeological and linguistic studies to discover these differences. If one chooses to ignor these differences they run a much much higher risk of error.
If you do not agree with my understanding of the differences in the way Hebrews thought and wrote I challenge you to research the matter yourself. I hope you will not take the stand of ignoring this very important part and tool for understanding scripture.

You state –
And yes we all have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. I will be responsible for the truth which I recieve and teach. If I can help others to see the truth that God shows me, Great. t
he Holy Spirit in me and the Scriptures is the final authority.

Response –
I agree. My only concern is the method in which we decide what these scriptures mean.

you State –
Now you are misquoting me. I never said that because the transators didnt know what they meant that we should throw out the scriptures.
Im simply saying that if a so called modern day expert comes along to give us some new and different meaning to the scriptures than what we have from the most ancient copies of the scriptures, then I would rather believe the early fathers who gave their lives and even shed their blood to bring us what we have in the Bible today.

Response –
If I read things into what you said my apology.
Trusting the early fathers. This seems on the surface to be a good idea but it also presents several problems.
1. The lack of archeological or manuscript. support. I remember you have said in past poets that you do research the Greek manuscripts so I will not beat this point. I will simply point out for others that significant finds of manuscripts evidence have been made since such translations as the King James Version. These finds have a great deal to offer in support of the voracity of a given scriptural content.
2. The bias of translators –
This could be thrown back and forth as a universal problem among all translators. The real problem arises when one group or another close the door to easily verifiable historical facts concerning a bias in translation or interpretation of scripture. You have ask for evidence so I will include some at this point.
The King James Version —
This first exmple shows a clear Trinitarian bias when translating the KJV.
The scripture is in I John 5 verse 7 and 8..

It is necessary to understand the context so go back to verse 6. The verse literaly reads in the Greek manuscripts of 300 AD. “This is the (one) having come through the water and blood, Jesus Christ not in the water only but in the water and the blood. And the Spirit is bearing witness because the Spirit is the truth
7. Because the three are the bearing witness.
8 the three are for one thing
9 If we recieve the witness of men. The witness of God gives is greater, because this is the witness God gives, ther fact he has borne witness concerning his son.

This entire context is the Fathers witness of Jesus Christ.
1, Water . (water baptism) The father decends as a dove and says “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased”.
2. The Blood– Christ death and resurection
3. The Spirit– God’s Spirit poured out at pentacost,

This is not a witness of the trinity but the Fathers witness and proof of Jesus being His son/messiah

These three proofs also line up with the three major events and feasts in Jewish history. Remember this was written to Jews. They would understand the significance of the Fathers witness of Jesus fullfilling the Feasts He instituted as a sign of the Messiah.
1. The feast of passover. Under the cloud in the water
The exodus from Egypt (baptism)
2. Feast of attonement. The sheeding of Blood/ lamb sacrifice – crucifiction.
The Feast of Pentacost – the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentacost.

Verse 8 reads as follows For there are three that bear witness the spirit and the water and the blood and the three for one thing, agreement.

A foot note states in the NAS “A few LATE manuscripts read—
For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one and there are three that bear witness on earth , the spirit , the water, and the blood and these three are in agreement.
The NAS does not include it in the verse because the evidence would not support it being in the original.
Further research shows that there is no manuscript prior to about 1400 that include this section. It is in the Latin Vulgate translated by the Catholic Church. The latin vulgate was used extensively in the translation of the King James Version and was strongly influinced by the pro Catholic King James. There is evidence that King James used his power to coerce the translators to do nothing that would contradict the Catholic faith or the Church of England, both Trinitarian. The earlier manuscripts of Alepf, B, A. These manuscripts are from several hundred years earlier then the 1400’s. The most well respected translators such as Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Augustinius Merk SJ do not include it.

Another example concerns the practice and method of Baptism —
This particular mistake has been perpetuated in other translations including the NAS. The word is Baptise. In 1611 the church was sprinkling babies and calling it baptising. When the King James translators came upon the Greek word baptiso and researched it's meaning they discovered that it means to immerse. It is used in Greek literature of the first century to describe a ship sinking under water. the Greeks have a completely different word (rontise) to describe sprinkling. Because King James was somewhat pro Catholic and for fear of revealing that the Church of England was also doing it wrong they made a transliteration. Moving the word from Greek to English and hiding the true meaning. Most people of 1611 being illiterate would not know the difference. When you read scripture any time it discusses the water for baptism it talks of rivers ect. If sprinkling was all that was needed, you could have used a cup. No need for a river. Whether you think the formula for baptism is important or not, this is just an example of improper translation.
I am sure you are aware of these obvious mistakes. I use them only as examples of mistranslation.

The previous example can generally be discoverd by an honest search of manuscript evience. The real issue becomes one of motive. Why would these men, devout men of God all, be so willing to throw out obvious truth to support a doctrine or tradition. I cannot accurately judge their motives, but their are clear indications that come both from history and human nature. These topics will come in my next post.

December 28, 2006 at 7:43 pm#35478

Participant

Where is the Holy Spirit in the Bible given a secondary position?

Matt 12
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Now lets take a look at these scriptures.

The word blasphemy is “blasphemia” which means;

1) slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another's good name
2) impious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty

Based on this definition, I think that it is real important as to how we address the Spirit of God.

Impious and reproachful speech **INJURIOUS TO ANOTHERS GOOD NAME”.

Or “REPROACHFUL SPEECH INJURIOUS TO DIVINE MAJESTY”

Did you hear that.

Jesus specifically used the word blasphemy to describe someone being INJURIOS to the Spirit.

To call the Spirit of God a force is not exalting of his “Devine Majesty”

Then Jesus goes on to say “whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him”

“Speaketh against” The word for “against” is kata, which means;

1) down from, through out
2) according to, toward, along

This is where it gets scary.

According to Thayer's Lexicon who (BTW doesn’t favor the Trinitarians) the word “kata” is a preposition denoting motion or diffusion or direction from the Higher to the Lower.

Or we could say from a “person to a force”.

God is not pleased in reducing his own Spirit to just a force.

On another thread I was called Jean-Luke.

What is it but star wars if you call the Spirit of God just a force or power?

It’s amazing to me how those with an Arian view have used these scriptures to disprove the Trinitarian view.

Jesus uses many pronouns describing the Holy Spirit of God as a person.

Did not God say he would pour out his Spirit on all flesh?
Can we pour out our Spirit? Is our Spirit a force or is it a part of who we are?

I Cor 2:11
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

So because we don’t understand everything about the nature of God and his Spirit does not mean we should disregard the words of Jesus or speak against the Spirit by not honoring his “Divine Majesy”.

The bible says that God is a “consuming fire” Does that mean he is not a person.

Jesus said he is a door, or the bread of life, or the vine, or the Lamb of God, does that mean he is not a person.

The Spirit of God has many appellations, as well as the Father and the Son. Can any man fully grasp him?

Do you think that we or anyone can fully know all there is about the Spirit of God?

Look at these verses closely..

Acts 5
[1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
[2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
[4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
[5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
[6] And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
[7] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
[8] And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
[9] Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
[10] Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

Notice. They lied to the Spirit which they said was lying to God.
Also they tempted the Spirit.
That is not just a wind or force or power.

Look at this..

Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Who made them overseers?

Rom 8:
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Who makes intercession for us? Or who searches our hearts? The Spirit of God.

I know why those who hold an Arian view do not want to accept that the Spirit is more than just a force or power. It’s because if they accept that the Spirit of God is personal, then it would mean that only the Trinitarian view would make since in light of all the scriptures.

Lastly, all the major translators use the pronouns He, Him, Whom, referring to the Holy Spirit as a person.

Matt 28:
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The Bible speaks of three.

December 28, 2006 at 9:19 pm#35479

Participant

To anyone else that may wish to chime in on this subject. My apology, but I can only deal at this point on a more or less one on one basis with WJ. He has asked specific questions and has shown a willingness to discuss matters dear to my heart, that I have wanted to discuss for some time. With this in mind I may not respond to others at this time.

To continue my topic of the motives of why some men would missinterpet scripture.
As you have suggested and I agree, our personal opinions do not matter. You have ask for scholarship.
In your post you said you would prefer to trust the Church fathers that have gone before. If you were refering to those who pened the scriptures I will agree. If you are refering to those that came after the close of the apostolic period, then I may question your choice. Let me explain why —
Scripture speaks clearly of the fact that grevious wolves would come among the church to destroy the flock. Though this is usually thought to refer to individuals or groups of individuals, I think it can also be applied to concepts or philosophies that would attempt to counter the truth taught in the scriptures.
You spoke of followers of Arius on this board that deny scriptures that do not support their veiws. First let me say, I am not afraid of any scripture and I am just as confident in my beliefs as you. One thing I am concerned about though is the revisionist history I commonly see among some trinitarians (not saying you) who refuse to accept the history surounding the origins of what is now called the Trinity. Again I ask you as an honorable man to research the following facts for yourself and see if what I say is true.

Please understand, I do not say you agree with the things spoke of in this next portion. I site this evidence only to point out the origin of the concepts of the Trinity.

To begin with are the terms themselves. I believe you have said you do not like using the term trinity because it is not found in scripture. i agree with that action. However, i have read in your posts, the term “incarnation” and Word/Christ. Niether of these terms or scriptural terms, but rather made up terms used to describe your doctrinal stand. It seems we have enough to discuss concerning terms that do come from scripture without adding others and the concepts they convey. You spoke of wanting to stick to scripture. Would it not be prudent to then also stick to scriptural terms?

As to you motives for using these unscriptural terms, I can only ask why? Is not the scripture sufficient to express your beliefs? It seems important also to discuss the history of these terms and the concepts that they convey.

The idea of God being divided into 3 equal but separate persons of God has it's history in many sources. First let us look at the idea of the trinity in ancient history and what well respected historians have said concerning it’s origins.

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”

Alexander Hislop, in his TWO BABYLONS, seems to trace the various ideas of the trinity back to a common heritage. Hislop pointed out the antiquity of the theological concept of the Trinity by giving examples of pagan trinities in Siberia, Japan, and India. He noted that the recognition of the Trinity was “universal in all the ancient nations of the world”. He went so far as to say that “the supreme divinity in almost all heathen nations was triune”. While Hislop was attempting to prove that mankind has always believed in a “trinity”, he also unwittingly shows the pagan origins of the idea of a “trinity”

The trinity is noted in connection with the construction of the Tower of Babel. Diodorus Siculus, in his Bibliotheca, states that in the topmost completed story of the Tower was placed the images of three gods.

Trinitarians today may argue that the pagan trinities were completely different from the model of the Christian Trinity. But some pagan triads have structures which are surprisingly familiar. For example, the Hindu Trinity:

The conception most closely linked with Vedism and Brahmanism is that of the Hindu Trinity, the Trimurti. ‘The Absolute manifests himself in three persons, Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer’.

-Asiatic Mythology

The Egyptian triad of the sun god was “one god expressed in three persons”. He was known as the “noonday sun” (Ra), “the evening sun” (Tum), and “the dawning sun” (Khepera). The sun god reportedly said, “Lo! I am Khepera at dawn, Ra at high noon, and Tum at eventide”. He was one god in three distinct persons.

Clearly it is not correct to say that the structure of pagan trinities do not resemble the Christian Trinity.

Other ancient cultures also had Trinities to describe their Gods. In Phoenicia the trinity of gods were Ulomus, Ulosuros, and Eliun. In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon, and Aidoneus. In Rome they were Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto. In Babylonia and Assyria they were Anos, lllinos, and Aos. Among Celtic nations they were called Kriosan, Biosena, and Siva, and in Germanic nations they were called Thor, Wodan, and Fricco.

Historian Will Durant: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”

One of the sources of the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity is Gnosticism and Dualism.

A one-sentence description of Gnosticism is; A religion that differentiates the evil god of this world (who is identified with the God of the Old Testament) from a higher more abstract God revealed by Jesus Christ, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body. Gnostics conjured up the idea that Christ was a spiritual being in a physical shell in order to avoid the concept of him having an “Evil Physical Body of the “Evil physical realm”.

Dualism is a Greek Philosophy that takes gnosticim even farther. It teaches there are two realms, one evil and one holy. Dualists believe that only the transcendental spiritual realm of God like forces is holy. The lower natural earthly realm was considered evil and nothing good could be of that world.

When Christianity spread to the Greek thinking world it was heavily influenced by their philosophies. Many students of Greek philosophy were being saved and as such brought their concepts into the church. As is often the case some so called “scholars”, from this period forward, began to interpret scripture with preconceived ideas of a gnostic or dualistic world. From gnosticim came the concept of Jesus being a separate God from the God of the Old Testament. From Dualism came the concept that Jesus could never be fully of the natural realm or fully human. His humanity needed to be augmented in some way to avoid him being of the evil natural realm.

Dualism was contrary to Hebrew belief and culture. Hebrews thought of all creation as part of the kingdom of God. Because God was infinite they believed that God was an integral part of the physical realm and, in fact, revealed himself thru the natural world. To the Hebrews everything in the natural realm was in the presence of God and He overshadowed everyhing there.

Many early Christ
ian leaders were influenced by Greek thinking.

Clement of Alexandria (150-213 AD), head of one of the early Christian schools, which was heavily influenced by philosophy and gnosticism, admitted that he was opposed by those who still considered philosophy “evil”. He made light of their opposition and said that they were light and “ignorant”. He denounced the “so-called orthodoxy who, like beasts which work from fear, do good works without knowing what they are doing”. But Clement, of course, knew what he was doing. He had a special gnosis (knowledge) that the ignorant “orthodox” did not possess.

Friedrich Ueberweg says that “Gnosticism was the first comprehensive attempt to construct a philosophy of Christianity”. The more flagrant gnostics, such as Cerdo, Cerinthus, Saturninus, and even Marcion, had been expelled from the church. These more flambuoyant gnostics were only the “tip of the iceberg”. There was still a large remnant in the churches, who obviously began developing some philosophical system of Christianity that would compete, so they thought, in the Gentile world.

The apostle Paul was troubled with gnostics, and spoke against those who clung to “falsely-named science” (knowledge or gnosis) (1 Timothy 6.20).
20) Oh Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge (gnosis)
21) which some have professed and gone astray from the faith.
Paul says that gnosis/gnosticism causes a falling away from the faith.

Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89) saw the Trinity doctrine as flagrantly Hellenistic. It had corrupted the Christian message by introducing an alien “layer of metaphysical concepts, derived from the natural philosophy of the Greeks,” and it had nothing to do with early Christianity.

Gnosticism and dualism had a foot in the door in the early church. Many founding fathers fought against it's beliefs and dogmas.
In the third century gnostics and their philosophy would get their greatest boost from the Emperor of Rome himself.

Constantine emperor of Rome had a problem. His kingdom was in turmoil because of strife between different religious factions. He had christians, gnostics, pagans, druids and many more. Constantine solved this problem by merging all these various factions together and forming The Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Following the example of his father and earlier 3rd-century emperors, Constantine throughout His life was a solar henotheist, believing that the Roman sun god, Sol, was the visible “manifestation” of an invisible “Highest God” {a plural God?} (summus deus), who was the principle behind the universe. Does this sound familiar? This god was thought to be the companion of the Roman emperor.

Constantine's adherence to this faith is evident from his claim of having had a vision of the sun god in 310 while in a grove of Apollo in Gaul.

In 325 AD – Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the Catholic Church and therefore his empire. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that “the Father and the Son are of the same substance” (homoousios). Let me point out that the substance of God is spirit therefor if Jesus is of the same substance then he was spirit and did not live in the flesh and therefor did not really die or be physically raised from the dead.

Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father'.”

The American Academic Encyclopedia states: “Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement.” It is known that many of His former beliefs followed Him into Christianity and that those beliefs strongly influenced the Nicaea council. It is also clear that part of his motives for forming the Holy Roman Catholic Church were to unify his kingdom. It is therefor clear that the council of Nicaea had been called in part to find a way to unify the Roman Empire under a statement of Faith. This council is known for it's Nicaean Creed detailing the doctrine of the Trinity which is the first time God is officially described, in any church document or biblical manuscript, as separated into three, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. It was there at Nicaea that the doctrine of the Trinity was rammed through in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough, thought of himself as God-incarnate. Though Holliwood depected Constantine in a diferent light then history, Constantine the Sun Worshiper only made an official conversion to “Christianity” on his death bed.

One of the early problems encountered by the followers of the Trinity doctrine was that of the nature of Christ. There are very clear scriptures that state that Jesus was a man. This was a problem because this was contrary to the original Trinity Doctrine that Jesus was a co-equal person of God and of the same substance. Jesus as a man also contradicted dualist who could never accept Jesus as fully human of the lower earthly realm. Future councils had the impossible task of defending the Trinity while at the same time dealing with these contradictions. Since no biblical proof could be found, their answer was to contrive the Dual Nature Doctrine, or 100% God and 100% man concept. This doctrine concludes that Jesus is fully man and Fully God at the same time.

There are no such words as Dual Nature or 100% man and 100% God in scripture. In fact the concept is conspicuously absent in any scriptural form whatsoever. Again we must ask ourslves, Where does this concept come from? Simply put these councils were hard pressed to find an answer to the contradictions found in the Trinity. With this in mind they formulated a doctrine with no scriptural proof and just applied it as truth. They went to the scriptures with this doctrine and applied scriptures out of context. By using unclear scriptures they could twist them to seem to validate their doctrine.

Since there are no clear scriptures to define this dual nature of Christ we must look elsewhere to determine it’s origin and history. This doctrine did not happen overnight, but took years to develop. The result was a cocktail of Irithnial and illogical thought leading to meaningless rhetoric. Let’s look at some of the history, by which this doctrine entered the teaching of the church.

Most of the primary tenants of the dual nature doctrine stem from several councils starting in 325 U.S. These councils were formed for the purpose of denouncing what was believed to be false doctrine and for instituting some central statements defining the faith. Unfortunately, as stated before, Christianity had been corrupted by Paganism and Greek philosophy and the councils reflected this influence. The Nicene council stated that Jesus was fully God in response to the Aryans who believed that Jesus was not God.

The Apollianarians Did not believe that Jesus was fully human, therefore the council of Constantinople (381 U.S.) declared he was fully human.

The Nestorianism group denied that Mary could be called the mother of God. They believed that Mary was only the mother of the human part of Jesus. The resulting belief dictated that there exists two Christ's, one divine and one human. In response to this the council of Effuses (431 U.S.) decreed That the two natures of Jesus are one and cannot be separated.

Many of those present at the Council Of Nicaea were opposed the doctrine of the Trinity. Even after the Nicene Creed, the Trinity was still hotly debated for decades and ce
nturies. As the years passed and the power of the Catholic Church increased, no one dared argue against the established doctrines of the Church. Before long a multitude of non – scriptural practices began to emerge resulting in the dark ages and the inquisiition.

If Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then why all the conflicts? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It was not the established teaching, and when some factions, of the church, influenced by Constantine, tried to make it official, the result was major conflict. Constantine surrounded the chamber that housed the council with soldiers and stopped the conflict by banishing or even killing those who spoke against the trinity and used his power to coerce others into adopting the doctrine. Motives for initially adopting this doctrine are pretty clear. Who wants to be banished or killed?

Constantine the Great unified a tottering empire, reorganized the Roman state, and set the stage for the final victory of his version of Christianity at the end of the 4th century. . In one historic moment, under this ruler of non-Judeo-Christian background and with the influence of paganism and gnosticism, the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is formed.

Since the time of Constantine several councils have had the dubious task of defending the Trinity without any clear scripture evidence for support. Unfortunately, the same holds true today. The explanations of the Trinity and the dual nature have become even more confusing and less logical.

Because of the influince of the Catholic Church after the forming of the Trinity doctrine, the beliefs of that doctrine have become ingrained in the very fabric of church history. Any honest historian will admit that when a belief is reinforced over long periods of time it is generally accepted as a fact. It makes no diference if there is real evidence of it’s validity, the time factor gives it credibility.
When one considers the power of the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church, the lack of an educated populace, the influince of Greek Philosophy and the simple time factor, it is fairly obvious why this doctrine has lasted for centuries. It also becomes possible to see motives for it’s inception and support.

Since the Dark Ages the church has continued to come out of the darkness and lies and has sought to find more truth. When Luther began to teach justification by faith rather then by works it took a long time to come out of the traditional works mentality, but many did come out and the protestant faith was born. 700 years of reformation have followed. An unfortunate truth is that many did not come out of the darkness and have missed out on many blessings and further growth in God. In the time since Luther many who were called heritics, by the extablished doctrinal churches, who have endeavored to return to the faith of the apostles that began to be hidden within a few years of the apostles deaths.

Are you aware of these historical facts?
If so, are you willing to accept them as true? If you do not accept them, might I ask why?

December 28, 2006 at 10:52 pm#35482

Participant

Quote

You say to use the cannon we have today. I have seen several problems with that approach.

M42

I agree with most of your post, however I disagree concerning the Inspiration of the translated scriptures.

The scriptures themselves claim and speak of the authority and inspiration of themselves.

I believe that God can preserve the inspiration as he has preserved the text in translation.

Or what do we have? We might as well all throw our Bibles away and go home. IMHO.

II Tim 3
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Lk 24:45
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Rom 16:26
But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

II Tim 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

December 28, 2006 at 11:36 pm#35486

Participant

Quote

Are you aware of these historical facts?
If so, are you willing to accept them as true? If you do not accept them, might I ask why?

M42

Yes I am aware. And I also have studied both sides. You have given me a one sided compilation of claimed facts based on an anti-trinitarian view.

I could also paste hundreds of pages showing the argument from the other side.

Personally I dont want to spend my time arguing and debating over what the scholars and historians fought over.

I didnt recieve my trinitarian view from Constantine or the Roman Catholic church or Athanasius or any of the scolars or historians. My view of the scriptures came from years of study and prayer and research on these things.

I am a waste of your time M42.

I know in whom I have believed and Im persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

Do you know that scripture? That is Paul speaking of Jesus his greatest prize and reward. Think about that. Who are all the believers looking for when he returns? Will they see the Father when he cracks the eastern sky?

Im looking unto Jesus, the author and the finisher of my faith, My Lord and my God.

Now you still havnt answered my questions.

I need scriptural proof from you that “Elohyim” does not mean plural.

And scriptural proof that Jesus is not God.

And no, The scriptures calling him the Son of God is not Proof that he is not God no more than calling God the Father is proof that he is God.

These are titles. Father, Son of God. What about their names and appalations.

What about their substance and essence, their nature. It appears that so many have limited their understanding of God to a Father or to a son.

God is much bigger than this. He is far greater than our punny finite minds can handle. Why limit him?

Lets talk about scripture. If you want to add a little quote here and there of a scholar you respect or an opinion of a particular translator etc., Fine. But I am not interested in wading through mountains of man made opinions sorrounding the scriptures.

I am sorry, if that is what you want, I have been there and have no desire to debate those things.

Blessings

December 28, 2006 at 11:44 pm#35487

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 28 2006,22:52)

Quote

You say to use the cannon we have today. I have seen several problems with that approach.

M42

I agree with most of your post, however I disagree concerning the Inspiration of the translated scriptures.

The scriptures themselves claim and speak of the authority and inspiration of themselves.

I believe that God can preserve the inspiration as he has preserved the text in translation.

Or what do we have? We might as well all throw our Bibles away and go home. IMHO.

Lk 24:45
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Rom 16:26
But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

II Tim 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

I must admit to being a bit flabergasted at your stsnd on this matter. So much so in fact that I never even considered approaching it. Though I agree in pinciple that God could preserve the scriptures, i see nothing in your references proving that He would inspire later translations. There is nothing stating that later translations would be inspired. No assumption of inspiration is valid here.
Perhaps it is a matter of words. When I speak of inspiration, I am saying that in the original manuscripts, every single word was carefully chosen by God to speak exactly what he wanted to say.

I would admit that good and devout men have been involved in the work of translation, but that they partook of the same insoiration as the original iwriters seems a great stretch. Especially with no clear evidence.

If you read both of my posts, and remain in your stand then you will have to admit that God inspired the translators of the KJV to add scripures to I John, that did not exist in the original. This is contrary to Revelation warning us not to add to the book of this prophecy.
Secondly if God intended to inspire and or add to, the translators of scripture, why the warning?

Surely you cannot believe that every crackpot that comes up with a translation of scripture is inspired by God. How do we determine which translations are inspired and which are not?

You state – “Or what do we have? We might as well all throw our Bibles away and go home. IMHO.”
I have to laugh because that might be the way I would react if I had your view. You are passionate like me. I can appreciate that in you, but isn't that a bit like throwing out the baby with the bath water?

You yourself have said that you check the Greek when you research. Why do you do that if the English translation you use is inspired?

Am I missunderstanding your stand on this issue?

December 29, 2006 at 12:07 am#35488

Participant

Quote

M42

Now we are getting picky. To use certain terms to describe a truth in the scriptures is not wrong. As long as the term does not contradict the scriptures.

Some examples of this is the following words…

appellation; an identifying name or title

Examples: Father, Might God, Almighty God, The Door, The Good Shephard.

Agency; the office or function of an agent

Examples: Moses and God, The Pharoah and Joseph,

Bible; the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament

No example needed.

Oh and yes.. Incarnation; the embodiment of a deity or spirit in some earthly form (2) capitalized : the union of divinity with humanity in Jesus Christ

Do I need to post the examples here?

There are many more words that we use that describe our beliefs in the scriptures Im sure.

Which I am fine with. I dont like labels, though it is impossible to avoid them here.

December 29, 2006 at 12:16 am#35489

seekingtruth

Participant

WorshippingJesus,
Is your spirit a separate being? I believe it is to an extent, but in ways we do not understand.

Why does not scripture give us a name for the Holy Spirit, we have a name for the Father and for the Son.

The Holy Spirit is never seen, except as a manifestation, a dove, a mighty wind, etc..

If the Godhead (which I do believe in, sort of) is three beings all equal then why so many verses (shown on my earlier posts) showing the Son as subservient to the Father whether preincarnate, while here on earth, and after the resurrection.

Why didn't Jesus say “you've seen me you've seen the Holy Spirit”?

The statement I made was – My big problem is with saying that the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father. I'm also uncertain how much of a “person” the Holy Spirit is but I agree there seems to be a lot of scripture inferring some level of personhood. Just my opinion. I'm looking for truth and have been open with what I believe and why. I'm open to correction but arguments do not persuade me, scripture does when presented in context and in harmony with the whole.

Quote

Where is the Holy Spirit in the Bible given a secondary position?

Isaiah 45:5 I [am] Jehovah, and there is none else, Except Me there is no God, I gird thee, and thou hast not known Me. 6 So that they know from the rising of the sun, And from the west, that there is none besides Me, I [am] Jehovah, and there is none else, 7 Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.'

Isaiah 40:25 To whom then will you liken Me, that I should be equal to him? says the Holy One.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD. or Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

I believe there is none like Jehovah (the Father) even the Son is only an image. (2 Corinthians 4:4 “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” or Hebrew 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.) If your talking about the source of all things the Father has no equal and in my opinion this includes the Holy Spirit. Where in scripture do you find that that all three are equal?

In my opinion, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are “lieutenants” in a “Godhead”, manifestations of an infinite God for His interaction to His finite creations, Jesus to the corporeal creation, and the Holy Spirit to His Spiritual creation. In them is the Godhead a trinity of sorts but not of the type being taught.

I started this thread in hopes that at least common consideration to my request would allow for those interested to concentrate on what the scriptures say and avoid accusations, I would like to know scripture better, I've heard no end of opinions including my own.

There is a saying “opinions are like a-holes everyone has one and without data your just another a-hole with an opinion.” it's crude but somehow appropriate. let's let scripture speak for us and not be so quick to pass judgment.

December 29, 2006 at 12:38 am#35491

Participant

Quote

You yourself have said that you check the Greek when you research. Why do you do that if the English translation you use is inspired?

Am I missunderstanding your stand on this issue?

M42

I Think you do misunderstand me.

I use the King James version not because I think it is the most accurate. In fact I compare all the translations along with the Greek and Hebrew.

But I use the KJV because that is what I am used to and I like tis language.

Dont get me wrong I know there is no perfect translation. Nevertheless I think that God has given us some pretty powerfull evidence that the scriptures as a whole is Inspired.

The Dead Sea scrolls and the many thousands of most ancient copys that for the most part agree.

But since you want to talk about translations, lets talk.

Ill simply quote a source…

INTRODUCTION
Though this article deals primarily with the New International Version (NIV), the information provided here is relevant to most modern translations of the Bible published since the year 1881. This means that no matter which English Bible translation you may be studying, it would be in your best interests to look up the texts listed in this article to see if your version is true or false. The reader should also study our first article Bible Versions … Which is the real Word of God?
It gives a lot more detail concerning the history of the Bible than this article does.

It is no secret that the Protestant Reformation was greatly accelerated by the publication of the Authorised King James Version (AV or KJV) in the year 1611. Since that time well over 800,000,000 copies of this sacred book have been printed in some 800 languages and dialects. The KJV is still the accepted Holy Bible in many countries of the world and hymns based on its verses are still sung by believers everywhere. The KJV is of course, 'the' Protestant Bible. Because of this fact, during the dark ages, many millions of Protestants were persecuted for possessing, reading and believing its sacred pages. No one knows the exact number of Bible-believing Christians who were martyred over the centuries, but the number certainly runs into many millions. It is also a well known fact that the KJV has never been accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. The reasons go far deeper than any of us can remotely imagine. In this article I will briefly point out why true Christians should return to the study of the Authorised Version (AV).

1. PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION
The first reason is because the AV is the providentially preserved Word of God; divinely preserved through the ages in direct fulfilment of Jehovah's promises to do so. Our faith in providential preservation is based on Bible texts such as:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalm 12: 6-7)
Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven…
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matthew 24:35)
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever… The word of the Lord endureth for ever. (1Peter 1:23-25)
Textus Receptus
The Authorised Version, like all the early Protestant Bibles of countries such as Switzerland, Germany, Holland, France, Spain, Italy etc. was translated from a Text called in the early Reformation days the Received Text (Textus Receptus). Before that time this Text, also known as the Majority Text, was used by the early church in Israel, the Middle East, Asia Minor and Greece. In those lands we see the Almighty preserving His inspired Word as He promised to do. Because of its purity the Received Text was then used by all the early Protestant Reformers of Europe for their translations. Textus Receptus also became the basis of the Authorised Version.

The Westcourt / Hort / Nestle / Aland Greek Text
But a strange and dangerous development began to occur towards the end of the 19th century. New translations of the Bible, based on a vastly different Greek text, known initially as the Westcourt/Hort (W/H) Greek text, began to appear. This text later became the basis of the Nestle/Aland Text which underlies virtually every modern translation of the Bible published since 1881.

According to the Rev. Jack. A. Moorman's book Missing in Modern Bibles – Is the Full Story Being Told? the Nestle/Aland Greek Text is shorter than Textus Receptus by 2886 words! Those 2886 words are equivalent to the books of 1st and 2nd Peter. Pause and consider that stunning fact!

Rev. D.A. Waite writes the following on page 42 of his masterful book Defending the King James Bible: (ISBN #1-56848-000-8).
“No matter how you try to translate the New International Version, let us say, or the New American Standard Version, since they're based on in the New Testament on the Nestle/Aland Text that differs from the Received Text in over 5,600 places, involving almost 10,000 Greek words -there's no way in the world you could make them equal to the King James Bible which is based on the Received Text. The NIV and NAS are perversions of the Word of God because they are based upon a Greek text that is false to the truth and improper in every way. The FOUNDATION IS FAULTY.”

The Nestle/Aland Greek Text is, I understand, now in its 26th edition. Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo M. Martini, who many believe may be the next Pope, was a member of its editorial committee!

From the above we can see that W/H Nestle/Aland Greek Text, which is now gladly accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, differs greatly from the Textus Receptus on which the Reformation Bibles were based. Keep these facts in mind as we now turn our attention to the New International Version (NIV) which is based on the W/H Nestle/Aland Greek Text.

What's The Difference?
The difference between Textus Receptus (TR) and the W/H Nestle/Aland texts is caused by two ancient manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B)). The TR excludes these two manuscripts. The Nestle/Aland text includes them. Codex Sinaiticus was retrieved from a wastepaper basket in a convent at the foot of Mount Sinai in A.D.1844. Codex Vaticanus, a 4th century document, was found in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it had lain virtually unused for over a thousand years. These two ancient manuscripts, both of which were considered unfit for use even by their own custodians, were seized upon in the later half of the 19th century and foisted on the unsuspecting Christian church in place of the trusted Textus Receptus. The following reference from page 554 of G.A.Ripplinger's book New Age Versions (ISBN 0-9635845-0-2) refers:

“Metzger says that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not agree with the majority of manuscripts.
Not only do they disagree with the Majority of manuscripts , but they do not agree with each other. The 8000 changes in B and the 9000 changes in Aleph are not the same changes. When their changes are added together, they alter the Majority text in about 13,000 places. This is two changes for every verse. Together they omit 4000 words, add 2000, transpose 3500, and modify 2000.
They disagree with each other a dozen times on every page.
Colwell says they disagree 70% of the time and in almost every verse of the gospels. Burgon says
: 'It is easier to find two consecutive verses in which these manuscripts differ than two in which they agree.”
The NIV, as do most modern translations, draws heavily from Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, hence its corrupt character.

2. A DIVINE WARNING
No one will doubt but that it is an extremely dangerous thing to produce counterfeit bank notes; because both the printer and those who knowingly trade with counterfeit currency could face severe sentences. Tampering with the Word of God is infinitely more dangerous, both for the publishers and the informed users of counterfeit Bibles. Let all who read this article pay close attention to the following divine warnings: Deuteronomy 4: 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

It is absolutely impossible for me to over emphasise the gravity of the above warning. Let all who read it – beware!

3. DOUBT-LADEN FOOTNOTES
The NIV, like many other modern translations, contains many doubt-laden footnotes such as:

'Many mss.(manuscripts) do not contain this verse.'
'The best manuscripts read.'
'The earliest mss read.'
'Some ancient mss add.'
'Some mss insert.'
'Many ancient authorities read.'
'Not found in most of the old mss.'
'Some late manuscripts.'
'Some manuscripts and certain Jews.'
'Some manuscripts do not have…'
These footnotes clearly show that the NIV translators, whilst putting on a show of apparent fairness, are really unsure of their product; they doubt whether the NIV is God's Word for today. The editors obviously don't know or don't believe it is, else they would not insert so many conflicting footnotes; which not only cast doubt on the King James Bible, but also on their own version. These dubious footnotes all imply that since there are so many disagreeing manuscripts, no one can be absolutely certain as to which is the real Word of God. In effect they say: 'Take your pick, decide for yourself which manuscript or version you want to believe; for the fact is, no one can be certain what God actually inspired His prophets and apostles to write.'

'Yea hath God said?' (Gen.3:1) was, and still is, Satan's main weapon against truth. He deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden by planting doubt concerning God's Word in her mind. Satan is doing the very same thing with the modern translations of the Bible. They all cast doubt on the real Word of God (the KJV); and those insinuating footnotes are the latest Satanic way of saying: 'Hath God said? Is it any wonder there are so few Christians who really believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God!

4. THE PROOF
With these thoughts in mind we will now turn our attention to the actual verses which have been corrupted in the NIV. Remember that these texts are from the Authorised Version (AV) and the words in bold type indicate where the NIV has omitted or corrupted the text.

Genesis 12:18 And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife.
Comment: The NIV says: 'Why didn't you tell me she was your wife? Why did you say she is my sister, so that I took her to be my wife.' This is a serious mistranslation. The NIV implies that Pharaoh had already taken Sarah as his wife and had sexual intercourse with her; which was not the case.
Genesis 49: 10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Comment: The title Shiloh, referring to Christ the Peacemaker, is missing.

LUCIFER: Isa:14:12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Comment: In the book New Age Bible Versions, G A Ripplinger writes on page 43 concerning this passage: “The ultimate blasphemy occurs when the 'morning star' takes Lucifer's place in Isaiah 14. Jesus Christ is the 'morning star' and is identified as such in Revelation 22:16 and 2Peter 1:19. With this slight of hand switch, Satan not only slyly slips out of the picture but lives up to his name 'the accuser'' (Revelation 12:10) by attempting to make Jesus Christ the subject of the diatribe in Isaiah 14.” Modern Reference books also do not include the name Lucifer. As Ripplinger puts it: “The trend to ignore the KJV's Lucifer/Satan connection is shared by Luciferians and new version editors.”
Luke 4: 4: And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Comment: Note the importance of 'every word of God.' Dare we ignore the Saviour's answer to Satan by omitting hundreds of words from Scripture as do the NIV translators?
Luke 4: 8: And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Luke 9: 56: For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
Comment: This vital passage in bold type is [bracketed] in the NASV which was printed some seven years before the NIV. In the NIV this passage is deleted. Notice how step by step modern translations are becoming more and more corrupt! First comes a [bracketed] verse with an insinuating footnote. Then in the next version the text is omitted, but the footnote remains. Finally the text and the footnote will be omitted; and the poor, unsuspecting Christian who doesn't know what the AV says will be none the wiser.
Matt.25: 13: Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
Matt.27: 35: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
Mark 6: 11: And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Mark 13: 14: But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains.
Luke 24: 52: And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.
John 3: 15: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Comment: This is an extremely powerful verse. It guarantees that whoever believes in Jesus (identified in verse 14) should not perish but have eternal life. But what do the NIV translators make of this verse? They mutilate it by deleting the words 'should not perish.' Then they inject uncertainty by using the word 'may.' There is no assurance here, no divine guarantee or promise. Instead, 'the believer… MAY in him have eternal life;' implying thereby that he 'May Not!'
Rom.14: 10: But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Col.3: 6: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the childr
en of disobedience.
1 Tim.3: 16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Comment: The word God has been changed to He. This is an attack on a cardinal truth, namely that Jesus Christ is God incarnate; that is, God in human flesh! To replace 'God' with 'He' is a serious corruption of the text. It casts doubt on the divinity of Jesus Christ.
1 John 4: 3: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Comment: the word Christ means 'the anointed One, the Messiah! In this verse the NIV omits the fact that Jesus is the Messiah, the anointed of God, the Christ! Indeed whenever the word 'Christ' is omitted from its rightful place in a modern translation, the fact that He is the Messiah, the anointed of God who has come in the flesh,' is being silently denied. That denial is itself clear evidence that the spirit of Antichrist is at work!
1 Cor.5: 7: Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.
Col.1: 14: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
1 Peter 4: 1: Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin.
In Me / On Me / Of Christ / In Christ / Through Christ

John 6: 47: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Rom.1: 16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Gal.3: 17: And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal.4: 7: Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Gal.6: 15: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Denial of a Literal Heaven
The NIV translators also have a strange aversion to 'heaven.' Notice how in the following four verses the references to heaven have been removed.

Luke 11: 2: And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, 'Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. 3: Give us day by day our daily bread. 4: And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
Comment: In the NIV this prayer has 34 words. In the KJV it has 58! That's mutilation in any language.
Heb.10: 34: For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.
1 John 5:7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8: And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Comment: Here is another example of massive mutilation.
Rev.16: 17: And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.
Luke 2: 33: And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Comment: The name Joseph has been changed to His father, thereby denying that God was the Saviour's Father not Joseph.
Phil.4: 13: I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
Comment: As stated previously, the word Christ means the anointed One, the Messiah. The NIV replaces this Messianic title with the pronoun Him, which could mean anyone.
2 Cor.4: 14: Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.
Comment: The word by has been changed to with! This change makes the whole sentence total nonsense; because this letter to the Corinthians was written over 25 years after the resurrection of Jesus. So how could any believer at that time be resurrected 'with' Jesus?
Eph.3: 9: And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.
Comment: The Bible plainly teaches that Jesus Christ (the living Word of God) created the universe. His Father was the architect, but the Son was the builder. The NIV translators deny this fact in the above verse by deleting the words 'by Jesus Christ.'
James 5: 16: Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
Comment: The word 'faults' has been changed to 'sins.' There is a big difference between a 'fault' and a 'sin.' A 'fault' is a defect or weakness (i.e. a short temper, an inclination to over drink, over eat etc.) A 'sin' is a direct transgression or violation of a divine command. 'Faults' may lead to sin if no control is exercised. But 'faults' are not 'sins.' 'Faults' are weaknesses which could result in 'sin' if not controlled; but faults are not sins. The practice of confessing sins to a priest is not Bible-based. Should Christians confess their sins to a priest? For the answer see Confession.
Acts 2: 30: Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.
Comment: The NIV renders this part of God's oath as 'he would place one of his descendants on his throne.' Doesn't that make a mockery of God's oath? After all why did the Almighty bother to make an oath when in virtually every kingdom 'one of the king's descendants' succeeds him. That's the normal procedure anyway; there's no need to make an oath about it. But when the Almighty promised king David that 'He would raise up Christ to sit on David's throne' that is totally different; because it contains the promise that the Messiah would come from David's line and; more importantly, that the Messiah would be 'raised up,' that is, 'resurrected from the grave' to sit on David's throne for all time!
DELETIONS FROM THE BOOK OF REVELATION
Though the divine warning in Rev.22:18-19 applies to the whole Bible, it is particularly applicable to the book of Revelation when the book itself would be understood. The NIV editors have ignored the divine warning by omitting the words or phrases in bold type:

Rev.1: 8: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Rev.1: 11: Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Rev.2: 9: I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Rev.2:13: I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is…
Rev.2: 20: Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things
sacrificed unto idols.
Comment: The word 'astray' has been substituted for the word 'fornication.' Any solicitor will agree that God's warning about 'fornication' in this verse has been blurred and weakened; especially in view of the specific instruction about 'fornication' given in Acts 15:20 to the newly converted Gentiles.
Rev. 2: 15: So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
Rev.5: 14: And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
Rev.11: 17: Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
Rev.16: 5: And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
Rev.16: 17: And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.
Rev.21: 24: And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
Comment: As mentioned above, deleting words from the Bible, especially from the book of Revelation, carry an extremely heavy penalty (Rev.22:18-19). In this verses the NIV translators by deleting the words 'of them which are saved' have removed a vital proviso and allowed all nations to enter the new Jerusalem.
The title Lord identifies Jesus as God Incarnate!
This title is repeatedly omitted in the NIV. This is an inexcusable error. It dare not be overlooked or excused as an irrelevance, because that title Lord identifies Jesus as God!

Matt.13: 51: Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.
Mark 9: 24: And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
Mark 11:10 Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.
Luke 9: 57: And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
Luke 22: 31: And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.
Luke 23: 42: And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
Rom.6: 11: Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Cor.15: 47: The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
2 Cor.4: 10: Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
Gal.6: 17: From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
Col.1: 2: To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Tim.1: 1: Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope.
1 Tim.5: 21: I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
2 Tim.4: 1: I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.
Titus 1: 4: To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
2 John 1: 3: Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
John 6: 69: And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Comment: This vital verse which identifies Jesus as the 'Messiah,' the 'Christ,' the 'Son of the living God' has been changed in the NIV to read: the 'holy one of God;' a term which could apply to any prophet or godly person. Pause dear reader and try to take in what that means.
MY Father changed to 'the' Father.
The NIV casts doubt on the fact that GOD, not Joseph, was the Father of Jesus Christ.
In the following four verses my Father is changed to the Father.

John 8: 28: Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
John 10: 32: Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
John 14: 28: Ye 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 the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
John 16: 10: Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more.
5. BRACKETED VERSES
[Bracketed verses] in other modern translations (i.e. NASV) are usually accompanied with misleading footnotes. In the NIV some texts are simply omitted and a footnote appears explaining why. However in large passages involving many texts, such as the two given below, brackets are not used. Instead the passage is simply separated from the main text by a bold line and noted.

Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10: And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11: And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 12: After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13: And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14: Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17: And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18: They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19: So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20: And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Comment: Believe it or not the validity of this entire passage of 12 verses is doubted by the editors of the NIV. Unlike in the NASV these 12 verses are not [bracketed]. Instead they are separated from the normal text by a bold line and accompanied by an insinuating and totally false Note which reads as follows: 'The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.'
John Burgon's book The Last 12 Verses of Mark proves without a shadow of doubt that these verses, which contain many basic Christian doctrines, were all part of Mark's Gospel. To suggest that they were not is to cast doubt on Mark's Gospel and the entire New Testament.

A similar Note and bold line separates the 12 verses between John 7:53 and John 8:11 from the main text. They are all doubted by the NIV editors.
6. NO DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES?
The dictionary defines the word 'doctrine' as 'a principle or set of principles and beliefs held by a religious or other group.' The NASV and NIV have replaced this meaningful word 'doctrine' with 'teaching;' a word which considerably detracts from the meaning God i
ntended and which is a poor substitute for the 'doctrine.' In the following passages the meanigful noun 'doctrine' has been replaced by the nebulous word 'teaching.'
Matt.7:28, Matt.15:9, 16:12, 22:33, Mark 1:22, 1:27, 4:2, 7:7, 11:18, 12:38, Luke 4:32, John 7:16-17, 18:19, Acts 2:42, 5:28, 13:12, 17:19, Rom.6:17, 16:17, 1 Cor.14:6, 14:26, 1 Tim.1:10, 4:16, 5:17, 2 Tim.3:10, 3:16, 4:3, 2 John 1:9, Rev.2:14, 15, 24.

How true were the Apostles words when he wrote:
2 Tim.4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound DOCTRINE;
but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves TEACHERS, having itching ears;

Some believers claim that, even allowing for the above changes, no doctrinal differences can be found in the NIV. Is this the case? Are we making a mountain out of a molehill? I think not. The reader will have noticed that in the passages already quoted many basic Christian doctrines are affected. To name a few:

Is Jesus Christ the Creator? Did he actually make all things?
Is Jesus God? Should he be called Lord? Is He the Son of God, God incarnate, God in human flesh? Or was the carpenter Joseph His father?
Is Jesus the Messiah, the Promised Anointed One, the Christ? If so, then why has His title 'Christ' been omitted so often?
The Resurrection: Did the Lord Jesus Christ actually come from heaven and did He return to heaven after His resurrection? Is he in heaven? Is there a Temple in heaven? If you answer 'Yes' to these questions, then why has the NIV omitted the word heaven so often?
Is Doctrine Important? If so then why has the robust and meanigful noun 'doctrine' been almost phased out of the NIV and NASV? Perhaps it is because the doctrines themselves are slowly but surely being eroded by misguided teachers!
And lastly, are the translators of the NIV confident that their product is indeed the Word of God? Or are those numerous footnotes evidence of their colossal doubt; evidence that they themselves do not believe that there is any such thing today as the infallible WORD OF GOD!
It is poor reasoning to justify a missing doctrine in one text by claiming it can be found in another part of the Scriptures. Who are we to decide or judge how often God specifies a doctrine? If He chooses to repeat a statement, even in the very next verse as in 1 John 4:2-3, let us beware of deleting one occurrence. There is absolutely no excuse for altering God's Holy Word.
As Rev. Samuel C Gipp once said
'Cut just one vein and you could kill a man as surely as if you had blown him to pieces!'
If Satan had altered every text concerning a single doctrine his deception would have been soon discovered by even the casual Bible student. All he needed to deceive God's people was to alter or delete a word or sentence here and another word or sentence there. That was all that was necessary; and that is what he has so successfully done with every modern translation. He has deceived millions of sincere Christians.

In his book Missing In Modern Bibles – Is the Full Story Being Told? Pastor Jack Moorman has actually counted every word in the New Testament Greek Texts, both of the Received Text and the Revised Text. He found that of the 140,521 Greek words in the Received Text, a total of 2,886 words were omitted from the Revised Text of Nestle-Aland and Westcott and Hort. These 2,886 words have affected 356 doctrinal passages! Pause and take note of that astonishing fact!

Pastor Moorman reviews these 356 passages in another of his books entitled Early Manuscripts and The Authorized Version — A Closer Look. If you really want to ensure that the Bible you are studying every day is the very Word of God, then take steps to obtain these books and study them. Another highly recommended book is by Rev. D.A. Waite entitled Defending the King James Bible. These books, and many, many others on this same subject of Bible Versions, are published by The Bible For Today Press: 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108. U.S.A. See also Reference Books on Bible Versions.

7. MISSING TEXTS
Not content with amending scores of texts and tagging them with misleading footnotes, the editors of the NIV have omitted many entire verses from their work. Here is a list of missing verses:

Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 23:17 For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.
John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
Acts 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Acts 24:7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands.
Acts 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which is lost.
Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Acts 8: 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
SUMMARY

Though this article deals exclusively with textual corruption found in the New International Version; the reader may compare any modern translation against the texts listed in this article. The Authorised King James Version on the other hand, is the inspired, preserved and infallible Word of God for today; just as it has been for generations of Protestants for nearly 400 years.
Every single word in the Bible is vital. Any attempt to add, delete or change the text, especially in the book of Revelation, attracts the wrath of Almighty God and could even result in the loss of eternal life. (Rev.22:18-19) Alas, modern man has ignored this awesome warning and produced scores of counterfeit bibles based on corrupt manuscripts. The NIV is one of these counterfeit bibles. It is strongly influenced by the two impure manuscripts: Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These have defiled the entire publication.
Dubious Footnotes in the NIV cause one to conclude that the translators themselves do not believe the NIV (or any other translation) is the infallible Word of God! In other words they do not believe the Almighty providentially preserved His Word as He promised He would. In their opinion even the Bible is evolving; with each new translation coming somehow nearer to the inspired Masters penned by the prophets and apostles.
In over 80 passages listed here, 11 of which are from the book of Revelation, the NIV translators have corrupted the Scriptures! God alone knows how disastrous their act of literary vandalism will turn out to be! Their guilt is great; but so is the guilt of Christians who, after being told the facts, continue to treat the NIV as the very Word of God, which it most certainly isn't.
Bracketed Texts in other translations such as the NASV are simply omitted in the NIV. When they are included, as in Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53- John 8:1-9, they are separated from the main body of text with a bold line and commented upon in a totally false and misleading way.
The idea that Vital Doctrines are unaffected in the NIV is a total fallacy; which only the na
ive will continue to believe. The fact is some 2,886 words that affect 356 doctrinal passages are missing from the Greek text that underlies the NIV! To suggest that these omissions make no doctrinal difference is as foolish as a mechanic suggesting that a bicycle wheel would be unaffected and remain true even were you to remove 6 of its 36 spokes! Or a space programmer claiming that deleting a few lines of computer coding would not affect the shuttle's performance; or supposing that miss-keying one alpha-character in a computer password would make no difference. The fact is, the Word of God is an infinitely precise and delicately balanced document. It is a living, spiritual entity, with which mankind interferes at its peril. Anyone who has studied Michael Drosnin's book The Bible Code will realise how important every letter and word in Scripture is. Remove just one alpha-character and a thousand meaningful sequences and links are affected. The NIV translators have chosen to infect their version with corrupt manuscripts and Christians who knowingly feed on their polluted product will not escape the consequences! Pause and take note of that terrifying prospect!
The foundation text of the NIV (the NASV and most other modern translations) is the Nestle/Aland Greek Text, which is 2886 words shorter than the ancient Textus Receptus on which the KJV is based. The NIV, to my knowledge, totally omits 15 Bible texts. This is in flagrant defiance of the divine threat in Revelation 22:18-19. In the book of Revelation, with full knowledge of the warning in Chapter 22:18-19, the NIV editors omit 45 words that I know of. Pause and think about these stunning facts!

Do you see what I mean? There are two sides. I have chosen mine.

Blessings!

December 29, 2006 at 6:08 am#35521

seekingtruth

Participant

One last thing I would like to respond to is blasphemy, the impious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty. If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are representing the Father then to speak against either is blasphemy but since scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit seals us onto salvation:

1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. 30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

That is a scary thought to grieve the Holy Spirit, it's worth repeating; Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. We could use more grace and edification in our communications.

I am not inferring that I shouldn't be corrected if I'm wrong, but do so by first removing the log (I believe it to be harsh judgment) from your eye so you may show me from scripture my error and in doing so remove the speck from my eye.

December 29, 2006 at 7:01 am#35523