- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 12 2013,18:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 13 2013,06:24) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 12 2013,18:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 13 2013,06:13) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 12 2013,18:09) Mike, You are playing a lawyer.
Just telling it like it is, Kerwin.
Mike,You are not. You are changing the meaning of a word even though you know the meaning you are choosing does not apply as it denies the world to come will be subject to Jesus. Lawyers and politicians do that kind of stuff.
What I'm doing is telling you that the Greek word “aggelos”, and it's Hebrew equivalent “mal'ak” both mean “messenger”.So if Jesus can be a “messenger” who is not included in the teaching of Hebrews 2:5, then Jesus can likewise be an “angel” who is not included in that teaching.
You won't convince any of us that Jesus is the only flesh being in the spirit realm of heaven by using Hebrews 2:5, Kerwin. Nor will you convince us that Jesus is not a “spirit messenger of God”, and therefore an “angel of God”.
Mike,I am not the one claiming Jesus is one of the gods humanity was made a little lower than, you are. Are you now claiming he is not one of them because they are the angels the world to come is not subject to.
And what if the word in the Greek scripture remained “gods” (like the Hebrew), instead of being changed to “messengers/angels”?What if it said the world to come is not going to be subject to “the gods”?
Would you then include Jehovah, as a god, into that statement? Or would you be smart enough to know that Jehovah, although a god, would still rule over the world to come?
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 04 2013,20:52) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 04 2013,15:35) W .???
T.JW's are not allowed to discuss the bible with a
non jw; without an elder.
They are well protected within themselves.
And also watch each other.wakeup.
JW's are not allowed to discuss the bible with a
non jw; without an elder. [FALSE]
They are well protected within themselves. [TRUE]
And also watch each other. [TRUE]Quote (tigger2 @ Nov. 13 2013,08:18) Quote Journey42 wrote:
Does the word Jehovah appear in the Greek text of the New Testatment?According to my research it says this;
The NWT [the Watchtower-translated Bible] translates the Greek word “kyrios” as “Jehovah” more than 25 times in the New Testament (Mt 3:3, Lk 2:9, Jn 1:23, Acts 21:14, Rom 12:19, Col 1:10, 1Thess 5:2, 1Pet 1:25, Rev 4:8, etc.). Why is the word “Jehovah” translated when it does not appear in the Greek text? Why is the NWT not consistent in translating kyrios (kurion) as “Jehovah” in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21 (see Gr-Engl Interlinear)? [Cut-and-paste from one of the many “we hate JWs sites”]
Is this a false statement?
…………………………………
From a list of fallacious arguments (emphasis added):
“Needling:
simply attempting to make the other person angry, without trying to address the argument at hand. Sometimes this is a delaying tactic.
Needling is also Ad Hominem if you insult your opponent. You may instead insult something the other person believes in.”“Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis):
this is sometimes used to avoid having to defend a claim, or to avoid making good on a promise. In general, there is something you are not supposed to notice.”“Failure To State:
if you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic.”
………………………………Good Grief, Journey, stop the flapdoodle and apoplanesis and
Just answer the question: How can the KJV make the clear, definite statement that JEHOVAH [YHWH in Hebrew text] is the only personal name of God (Ps. 83:18), and yet misuse that same name around 6000 times in the rest of the OT?
Holy flapdoodle, batman, I like this guy.Quote (tigger2 @ Nov. 12 2013,14:41) Is the KJV the best version of the Bible? Quote Journey42:
“Tigger mentioned Jehovah. When one carries on about that, 99.9% they are Jehovah Witnesses. They believe theirs is the only true bible, and the rest corrupt.”How can the KJV be the best version if it misuses the only personal name of God thousands of times? Notice what the KJV says about this name (YHWH in Hebrew):
Psalm 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH [YHWH], art the most high over all the earth. – KJV.
And yet this very same translation misuses that very same name about 6000 times in the rest of the OT by changing the same name of YHWH to ‘LORD’ instead of Jehovah.
Notice the irony here in the NIV:
Exodus 20:7 “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD [YHWH] your God, for the LORD [YHWH] will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. – NIV (Compare NRSV below).
“The New Revised Standard Version translates the Third Commandment: ‘You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.’ The meaning of the Hebrew word [shawa], translated “wrongfully use” and “misuse,”—“in vain” in other translations is “deceit; deception; malice; falsity; vanity; emptiness” (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, “Deceit”).” [bolding added]-
http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/third_commandment.htmlIf the KJV is true at Ps. 83:18, then it is misusing the personal name of God about 6000 times in the rest of the OT.
For a more honest English translation of the Hebrew text which uses the personal name of God as found at Ps. 83:18 in the KJV try:
http://www.dnkjb.net/Or
http://www.biblegateway.com/version….V-BibleIf I missed a previous reasonable answer to the above, please point it out to me.
Obviously journey42 is off track about JWs if KJV is accurate at Ps. 83:18 or if the others found in the links are not misusing the Divine Name.
Tigger,
First, enjoying the conversation. I feel your pain. And I also understand the frustration on both sides.Unrelated question, something I've been wondering about. You say:
“How can the KJV be the best version if it misuses the only personal name of God thousands of times?”
Why does the JW app contain a bible that “misuses” Gods name thousands of time? How would you answer this? I sort of feel its only in there so it can be pointed to, for people that attack the NWT. And it can be said: “see, we use many translations.”
But I've wondered this because for years it has been pointed out how there are errors in it and how it is trinitarian, etc. So, why include it?Similarly, wondering about the new NWT. For years people criticized it as being wooden because it was for the most part hyper literal. And it was argued: accuracy is more important than readability. Now, it seems those who criticized its woodenness, have been sort of vindicated, as it's been smoothed out. It used to be said: “time indefinite is more precise than forever.” Now, we go with readability, so have we sacrificed accuracy for what we used to criticize other bibles for? Before it was said that they mainly chose one word and translated that word the same as much as possible. And before, we made arguments why that was he right way to do it. Now, the new NWT has sort of followed the path of many other bibles, bibles that were long looked down on because of the way they were translated.
I know this is off topic. But, I agree with you on gods name in bibles, so, am not interested in discussing that.
David.
Quote Is the KJV the best version of the Bible? –tigger
Well, maybe it is “one of the best,” since it's included with a couple other bibles in the JW app.
If it's not one of the best, why would it be included? Popularity? Do JW do things because they are popular? Am I presenting a fallacy here?
Quote (tigger2 @ Nov. 06 2013,08:01) I see that we have been successfully derailed from the important discussion of why the KJV uses the only personal name of God, JEHOVAH, at Ps. 83:18 and not in nearly 6000 uses of the same Hebrew word in the rest of scripture. I suppose the same tactic will be used to avoid the KJV's inclusion of the spurious ending of Mark 16:9-19. It is this spurious verse in Mark 16:18 which has caused some KJV followers to die from snakebite (and, I suppose poison also).
Tigger2,If you want to have a debate and stay on track without people losing focus, you can open a debate in the debate section.
But since the moderators on this board… Cough cough, mike, cough, do not really try to keep people on topic, despite that being a rule, it sort of became a free for all. There are thousands of topics that start out different but seem to evolve into trinity discussions.
With a debate, if you are arguing a point and someone doesn't answer your question but uses ad hominem abusive, then it's easier to call them out on it, since you are only discussing the subject with one person.
But on the topic of the KJV, most on here won't defend it to the death, except for Ed. People won't engage in discussions they don't think they can win, and your precise discussion on the fact that the KJV uses “Jehovah,” isn't really one anyone wants to be a part of particularly.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 11 2013,16:43) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 11 2013,11:25) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 11 2013,11:13) T, Quote this is clear that Jesus was an angel ,and came down from heaven to die for our sins ;BUT AGAIN YOU DENY CHRIST BUT THIS IS YOUR BIG MISTAKE ;REJECTING THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD ,THAT GOD JEHOVAH AS SEND FROM HEAVEN TO SAVE AS ALL, You are trying to interpret one passage to contradict another passage. You should look for harmony in Scripture.
The question is “who is man” and it is “man” that is put that God put everything under his feet. The man that was made a little lower that the gods is Jesus. There is not one word about him being an angel in that passage and you still have the situation that the world to come is not subjected to angels while it is subjected to Jesus.
KPLEASE BE PRECISE SHOW SCRIPTURES IN WHICH I AM WRONG OR CONTRADICT, OR INTERPRETING WITH MY PERSONAL VIEW
T,I was but I forget you are not a native English speaker.
The passage I quoted literally stated the world to come is not subject to angels.
Hebrews 2:5
New International Version (NIV)5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.
Jesus cannot be an angel if Hebrews 2:5 is true. Nothing you quoted changes that fact.
Hebrews 2:6-8
New International Version (NIV)6 But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
7 You made them a little[a] lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honor
8 and put everything under their feet.”[c]In putting everything under them,[d] God left nothing that is not subject to them.[e] Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.[f]
As you can see the whole passage is speaking of mankind.
Hebrews 2:9
New International Version (NIV)9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
Jesus is made a little lower than the angels because he is one of the human and not one of the angels.
Being crowned with glory and honor does not change him from being one of the humans and make one of the angels. If it did he would be disqualified from having the world to come subjected to him for it is not subject to angels.
I hope this more modern version is easier to understand.
On JOHN 1:1“5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.
Jesus cannot be an angel if Hebrews 2:5 is true. Nothing you quoted changes that fact.”–kerwin.
Did god subject the world to come “to angels”? No. Obviously not.
To THE arch angel? We never find arch angel in plural in the bible.
It can mean: chief angel or as the 7th day Adventists teach, chief OF the angels. Either way, the title fits. Jesus was the prime, chief, Angelos (messenger/angel) of God. Many times the bible says god “sent” Jesus to preach, or convey Gods message, or thoughts, not his own.And no one teaches that the world would be subjected to “angels.”
If it had said: “it is not to AN angel that…” Then, your argument would be extremely valid.
The bible says the “holy ones” and Christ's “brothers” would be kings over the earth. These aren't angels, but co-heirs with Christ, who will “rule as kings.”
No one teaches that the world would be subject “to angels.”
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 13 2013,11:42) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 12 2013,18:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 13 2013,06:24) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 12 2013,18:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 13 2013,06:13) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 12 2013,18:09) Mike, You are playing a lawyer.
Just telling it like it is, Kerwin.
Mike,You are not. You are changing the meaning of a word even though you know the meaning you are choosing does not apply as it denies the world to come will be subject to Jesus. Lawyers and politicians do that kind of stuff.
What I'm doing is telling you that the Greek word “aggelos”, and it's Hebrew equivalent “mal'ak” both mean “messenger”.So if Jesus can be a “messenger” who is not included in the teaching of Hebrews 2:5, then Jesus can likewise be an “angel” who is not included in that teaching.
You won't convince any of us that Jesus is the only flesh being in the spirit realm of heaven by using Hebrews 2:5, Kerwin. Nor will you convince us that Jesus is not a “spirit messenger of God”, and therefore an “angel of God”.
Mike,I am not the one claiming Jesus is one of the gods humanity was made a little lower than, you are. Are you now claiming he is not one of them because they are the angels the world to come is not subject to.
And what if the word in the Greek scripture remained “gods” (like the Hebrew), instead of being changed to “messengers/angels”?What if it said the world to come is not going to be subject to “the gods”?
Would you then include Jehovah, as a god, into that statement? Or would you be smart enough to know that Jehovah, although a god, would still rule over the world to come?
Hey, mike gets it. I retract my negative comment about you a couple posts above. 🙂Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 04 2013,01:21) Quote (tigger2 @ Nov. 03 2013,13:53) If anyone believes the KJV is the most accurate English translation of God's word, he should then believe what Ps 83:18 states: Psa 83:16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.
Psa 83:17 Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish:
Psa 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH [YHWH in Hebrew], art the most high over all the earth. – KJV.If we are to believe that the Most High's name is Jehovah, why does the KJV render nearly all 6000+ uses of the same name (YHWH) as 'LORD'?
And why aren't you and all KJV believers using that name as the KJV did?
Tigger2.Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
HIS NAME IS THE GOD OF ABRAHAM,ISAC,AND JACOB.
UNTO ALL GENERATIONS.Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
1.BY THE NAME OF GOD ALMIGHTY.
2.JEHOVAH.Exodus 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
GOD'S NAME IS IN JESUS. DID JESUS EVER MENTIONED
THE NAME JEHOVAH DURING HIS 3/HALF YRS PREACHING?
WE CAN NOT PUT GOD IN A BOX'; AND CALL HIM BY ONE NAME ONLY; FOR HE IS GOD.
HE ALSO CALLED HIMSELF;ALPHA AND OMEGA.
THE FIRST AND THE LAST.
THE LORD OF HOST IS MY NAME.
THE EVERLASTING FATHER.
HE IS ALL. I AM THAT I AM.wakeup.
“GOD'S NAME IS IN JESUS. DID JESUS EVER MENTIONED
THE NAME JEHOVAH DURING HIS 3/HALF YRS PREACHING?”As you point out, God goes by many titles or names. But he seems to have only one personal name.
I went through the scriptures. I found about 1000 instances where “Jehovah” is unquestionably called “god.” (I could list them if you like)
I only found a few references where Jesus is referred to as “god.”
Surely, this must give us pause.
And although Jesus said he came to make his fathers name manifest, we don't find manuscripts with the divine name in them, because our oldest manuscripts of the NT is a couple hundred years later.
And just as we today seem to like to remove Gods name (thousands of times) from scripture, it seems that back then they also did the same in the NT. They quoted from the OT a lot, and I find it inconceivable that they would alter these hundreds of quotes and references to the OT. I also don't see them following superstition about Gods name.
Why would it go from thousands of times in the OT to no times in the NT? What changed?
Surly there is a difference between all of the titles “god,” “father,” “almighty,” etc, which COMBINED, do not total as much as the divine name, and the divine name itself.
Mike,
Journey and Wakeup are using a common definition of evil instead of the correct usage because they don't listen to the Spirit and don't consult a dictionary or another tool God has provided in order to test their own understanding.
The only fault of the AKJV and KJV in this case is they use what is today an uncommon use of the word evil which those with a limited grammar find hard to understand.
tigger2,Nov. wrote:[/quote]
Quote From Part B of my “Seven Lessons for John 1:1c” linked in
my Nov. 06 2013,08:24 post above which wakeup refused to examine:Quote Some of the trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's angels as gods include:
1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps…,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press,1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible – Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);
18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), – p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.
27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.
28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.
We are not saying that there are no other gods. A god is anyone or anything that is worshiped. These are man made gods. You are giving us commentaries made by MEN. We are looking at the SCRIPTURES here to find truth. Those men, and those people don't mean anything to me.Question: Could you honestly say that IN THE BEGINNING of creation these other gods were sitting beside our Creator, The Lord of Hosts?.
KJV
John 1:1“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”Saying the Word was “A” god is taking away God's glory, and the glory of his Word. It is taking away what he is telling us, that in the beginning (of creation)….when he was about to start creating, that it was just him alone. God and his Word which was inside him. No-one else. That is what he is showing us.
How can those other gods be WITH god in the beginning (of creation) if god hadn't even created them yet?
The angels hadn't been created yet!
and man hadn't even been created yet!
Just God with his Word.
These other gods, only became false gods when MAN started worshiping them.Even a KJV reader could misunderstand John 1:1, which is why they hold the trinitarian doctrine in the first place.
The trinitarians did not translate the KJV according to their beliefs, but created their religions out of this scripture, the Pure Word of God, simply because they could not understand this scripture (and hundreds more, from the KJV)Quote And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others – – including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-Trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine – – also had this understanding for “a god.”
Good on them.
Did they re-word John 1:1 to suit the same version as the one you carry?Quote So “a god” is perfectly reasonable at John 1:1c, for example.
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2013….-a.htmlSo “a god” is perfectly reasonable at John 1:1c,
No it's not perfectly reasonable, it's perfectly UNREASONABLE.David,
Quote On JOHN 1:1 “5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.
Jesus cannot be an angel if Hebrews 2:5 is true. Nothing you quoted changes that fact.”–kerwin.
Did god subject the world to come “to angels”? No. Obviously not.
That is one point we agree on.
Quote To THE arch angel? We never find arch angel in plural in the bible. I looked at the Koine Greek and it is used only twice and in both cases it is a compound word. It is not used in the OT.
Quote It can mean: chief angel or as the 7th day Adventists teach, chief OF the angels. Either way, the title fits. Jesus was the prime, chief, Angelos (messenger/angel) of God. Many times the bible says god “sent” Jesus to preach, or convey Gods message, or thoughts, not his own. I was brought up Seventh Day Adventist and did not catch that subtlety. They are Triniratarians and believe both that Jesus is God and Jesus is the Archangel Michael.
Quote And no one teaches that the world would be subjected to “angels.” If it had said: “it is not to AN angel that…” Then, your argument would be extremely valid.
So you are claiming the world is subject to one god and not multiple gods.
Another subtlety that can be tested.
I see it more of speaking of the godkind that I do not see Jehovah as being a member of.
Quote The bible says the “holy ones” and Christ's “brothers” would be kings over the earth. These aren't angels, but co-heirs with Christ, who will “rule as kings.” I do not know where the JW's get this teaching from.
Then these co-heirs you speak of are not one of the gods the writer of Hebrews calls angels?
David
Was Christ a messenger send by God
Does not scriptures say so I will agree with if you talking about the beings ,
mikeboll64,Nov. wrote:[/quote]
Quote This whole thing started because journey and Wakeup believe God created evil itself.
Yes we do. He said it himself and we believe him. We believe every word he said, and we also know why he created evil and for what purpose.
Quote I suspect that this thought goes against even their common sense, but they are hopelessly linked to one single English translation of the scriptures – as if that translation was inspired of God Himself or something.
Yes it was, and we have a lot of common sense, which is why we are asking the questions in the first place and doing exploits.
Remember we were attacked first, when providing scriptures to correct. We did not initially come on here to discuss bible versions, but to show you the prophesies and prepare you, but you guys have opened up our eyes to what is really going on in christendom, and it's not good, because it's worldy, from Babylon.Quote And because of this “marriage”, they must accept without question the many flaws and inaccuracies their “bride” puts forth.
We have read the New World Translation, page from page, and see the contradictions, and see where the word Jehovah has been put in where it shouldn't.Quote I've pointed out to them that even the KJV translates the Hebrew word “ra” as “adversity” four different times, and so there's no logical or scriptural reason they couldn't have also translated it as “adversity” in Isaiah 45:7.
Keep going, you're getting me on fire!
Mike, do we have proof of the original hebrew manuscripts?
Does anyone hold them? Does your source? No one has the original writings. The ORIGINAL manuscripts of the Old Testament disappeared, vanished into thin air., Also, wasn't the old testament written in Aramaic as well? Why are we always getting all these original “hebrew” words only? I havn't heard one person speak of the “original aramaic”?And wasn't the Hebrew language constantly changing?
So you or the experts cannot prove that the original Hebrew words were mistranslated in the first place, and it was not ALL in Hebrew.
Quote I've received no direct response to this valid point.
Well I'm here now. So take advantage of my lack of understanding!Quote Nor has tigger received a direct response to his simple question. I think he's a she?
Quote I don't want to alienate journey and Wakeup, or try to make them look “bad” or anything.
Why not, every one else does lol!
Quote But what recourse is left us if we keep showing them the PROOF of the KJV flaws, and they still accept it as God's own truth?
You have shown no proof. Only what paid scholars that are set up by the Illuminati have supposedly “found”.
We have given more proof so far and that is by comparing scriptures and showing that your newer versions are contradicting other scriptures in the same one book.
We have shown you on the video's that the Word is being watered down, left out, distorted, and that there is a NEW WORLD ORDER coming, but don't worry they probably wont take your bible off you, but they will definately take our beloved KJV. The most hated bible on the planet of this earth.
Why?
Ask yourself.So we will surrender it when that time comes, because what we have learn't is in our hearts and inside our spirit now, and they can never take that away.
Quote They don't know it yet, but they are more in love with one translation than they are with the actual truth of the scriptures.
I beg to differ.Quote Anyway, do what you want. If you have an easy way to help them out of their dilemma, you should do so, IMO. We all end up doing research for others here on occasion, and there's no good reason to keep your research to yourself, if you ask me.
Good luck to them, we are all ears.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 13 2013,06:42) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 12 2013,18:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 13 2013,06:24) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 12 2013,18:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 13 2013,06:13) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 12 2013,18:09) Mike, You are playing a lawyer.
Just telling it like it is, Kerwin.
Mike,You are not. You are changing the meaning of a word even though you know the meaning you are choosing does not apply as it denies the world to come will be subject to Jesus. Lawyers and politicians do that kind of stuff.
What I'm doing is telling you that the Greek word “aggelos”, and it's Hebrew equivalent “mal'ak” both mean “messenger”.So if Jesus can be a “messenger” who is not included in the teaching of Hebrews 2:5, then Jesus can likewise be an “angel” who is not included in that teaching.
You won't convince any of us that Jesus is the only flesh being in the spirit realm of heaven by using Hebrews 2:5, Kerwin. Nor will you convince us that Jesus is not a “spirit messenger of God”, and therefore an “angel of God”.
Mike,I am not the one claiming Jesus is one of the gods humanity was made a little lower than, you are. Are you now claiming he is not one of them because they are the angels the world to come is not subject to.
And what if the word in the Greek scripture remained “gods” (like the Hebrew), instead of being changed to “messengers/angels”?What if it said the world to come is not going to be subject to “the gods”?
Would you then include Jehovah, as a god, into that statement? Or would you be smart enough to know that Jehovah, although a god, would still rule over the world to come?
Mike,I am a strict monotheist and do not see Jehovah as being a member of the god kind but instead is the single example of his own kind that is called God. The God kind is non-created, the source of all that is good and perfect, all powerful, unable to be tempted by evil, all knowing, all wise, and probably other traits that the god kind do not have. I know that both humanity and god kind are infinity lower than him.
Jesus was made like his the children of Abraham and not like the god kind.
Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 13 2013,16:06) tigger2,Nov. wrote:[/quote]
Quote From Part B of my “Seven Lessons for John 1:1c” linked in
my Nov. 06 2013,08:24 post above which wakeup refused to examine:Quote Some of the trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's angels as gods include:
1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps…,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press,1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible – Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);
18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), – p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.
27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.
28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.
We are not saying that there are no other gods. A god is anyone or anything that is worshiped. These are man made gods. You are giving us commentaries made by MEN. We are looking at the SCRIPTURES here to find truth. Those men, and those people don't mean anything to me.Question: Could you honestly say that IN THE BEGINNING of creation these other gods were sitting beside our Creator, The Lord of Hosts?.
KJV
John 1:1“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”Saying the Word was “A” god is taking away God's glory, and the glory of his Word. It is taking away what he is telling us, that in the beginning (of creation)….when he was about to start creating, that it was just him alone. God and his Word which was inside him. No-one else. That is what he is showing us.
How can those other gods be WITH god in the beginning (of creation) if god hadn't even created them yet?
The angels hadn't been created yet!
and man hadn't even been created yet!
Just God with his Word.
These other gods, only became false gods when MAN started worshiping them.Even a KJV reader could misunderstand John 1:1, which is why they hold the trinitarian doctrine in the first place.
The trinitarians did not translate the KJV according to their beliefs, but created their religions out of this scripture, the Pure Word of God, simply because they could not understand this scripture (and hundreds more, from the KJV)Quote And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others – – including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-Trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine – – also had this understanding for “a god.”
Good on them.
Did they re-word John 1:1 to suit the same version as the one you carry?Quote So “a god” is perfectly reasonable at John 1:1c, for example.
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2013….-a.htmlSo “a god” is perfectly reasonable at John 1:1c,
No it's not perfectly reasonable, it's perfectly UNREASONABLE.
Tigger2?Your post was examined.
Quote (david @ Nov. 12 2013,22:16) But since the moderators on this board… Cough cough, mike, cough, do not really try to keep people on topic, despite that being a rule, it sort of became a free for all. 
You are right, but in all fairness, I have at least twice tried to get Wakeup and journey to directly address tigger's question on this thread……. instead of diverting to JW ad hominems.Quote (david @ Nov. 12 2013,22:32) Hey, mike gets it. I retract my negative comment about you a couple posts above. 🙂
Well good, because you were getting me all on fire!Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 12 2013,23:50) Keep going, you're getting me on fire!
My intention was to light a fire under your butt, to get you moving in the right direction. When the fire hits your butt, you are supposed to start moving – not just sit there until you're completely on fire.You and David have made my day with your humor.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
