- This topic is empty.
- Posts
The Trinity doctrine states the Son is coeternal with the Father. Others believe the Son was the first being Yahweh created. Either view believes the “Son” pre-existed prior to his earthly birth. If that is true, how are we to understand the following words Yahweh commanded Nathan to give to David?
“When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be My son.” (2 Sam. 7:12-14)
Although these words primarily applied to Solomon (1 Chr.28:6), ultimately the reference is to Yahshua the Messiah, the “Son of David” (Lu.1:32,33; Heb.1:5). Heb.1:5 reads, ” For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
Since the New Testament clearly links the words, “I will be his father, and he shall be My son” to Yahshua, note well the future tense used. If Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh's coeternal Son or as Yahweh's first act of creation, the words “I am his Father,” and “he is my son,” should have been used. Therefore, this prophetic reference to Yahshua clearly teaches that he became Yahweh's Son at a specific time in history. He did not always exist as Yahweh's Son as the Trinity doctrine teaches. Nor could he have existed as the first act of creation since 2 Sam.7:14 places his becoming the Son at a time that was in David's future.Quote (martian @ Aug. 09 2010,17:36) The Trinity doctrine states the Son is coeternal with the Father. Others believe the Son was the first being Yahweh created. Either view believes the “Son” pre-existed prior to his earthly birth. If that is true, how are we to understand the following words Yahweh commanded Nathan to give to David?
“When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be My son.” (2 Sam. 7:12-14)
Although these words primarily applied to Solomon (1 Chr.28:6), ultimately the reference is to Yahshua the Messiah, the “Son of David” (Lu.1:32,33; Heb.1:5). Heb.1:5 reads, ” For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
Since the New Testament clearly links the words, “I will be his father, and he shall be My son” to Yahshua, note well the future tense used. If Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh's coeternal Son or as Yahweh's first act of creation, the words “I am his Father,” and “he is my son,” should have been used. Therefore, this prophetic reference to Yahshua clearly teaches that he became Yahweh's Son at a specific time in history. He did not always exist as Yahweh's Son as the Trinity doctrine teaches. Nor could he have existed as the first act of creation since 2 Sam.7:14 places his becoming the Son at a time that was in David's future.
Hi Martian,Thanks for the post as it brought up an interesting thought of the language but, it shows how you are thinking.
If the language was in the past as you suggested then that would be referring to Jesus' status of God's only begotten son and the firstborn of all creation.
However, because it is addressing the future then it is obviously talking about Yahshua who was yet to come thru Mary….and his genealogy is entered into the Gospel accounts.
I don't agree that the Son is coeternal with the Father as I can't find it in the Bible. God exists and has no time. Jesus as God's son came into existence thru God and has a beginning point in time.
Jesus is identified as the son of:
1- God; firstborn of all creation; God's only begotten son. Before all things and pre-existed his birth thru Mary.
2-Man; born thru Mary (and the Holy Spirit, the power of God Most High overshadowed her). Called the son of David, son of Abraham, son of Mary, son of Joseph. And because he vacated the body he had in Heaven and his DNA was implanted into Mary he still maintains his position as the son of God.The Professor
Quote (martian @ Aug. 09 2010,09:36) The Trinity doctrine states the Son is coeternal with the Father. Others believe the Son was the first being Yahweh created. Either view believes the “Son” pre-existed prior to his earthly birth. If that is true, how are we to understand the following words Yahweh commanded Nathan to give to David?
“When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be My son.” (2 Sam. 7:12-14)
Although these words primarily applied to Solomon (1 Chr.28:6), ultimately the reference is to Yahshua the Messiah, the “Son of David” (Lu.1:32,33; Heb.1:5). Heb.1:5 reads, ” For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
Since the New Testament clearly links the words, “I will be his father, and he shall be My son” to Yahshua, note well the future tense used. If Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh's coeternal Son or as Yahweh's first act of creation, the words “I am his Father,” and “he is my son,” should have been used. Therefore, this prophetic reference to Yahshua clearly teaches that he became Yahweh's Son at a specific time in history. He did not always exist as Yahweh's Son as the Trinity doctrine teaches. Nor could he have existed as the first act of creation since 2 Sam.7:14 places his becoming the Son at a time that was in David's future.
Martian,Jesus was the preexistent Word who became Son. David preexisted his appointment as God's Son (Ps. 89:20-27). So the Word also preexisted His appointment as God's Son.
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 14 2010,16:28) Quote (martian @ Aug. 09 2010,09:36) The Trinity doctrine states the Son is coeternal with the Father. Others believe the Son was the first being Yahweh created. Either view believes the “Son” pre-existed prior to his earthly birth. If that is true, how are we to understand the following words Yahweh commanded Nathan to give to David?
“When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be My son.” (2 Sam. 7:12-14)
Although these words primarily applied to Solomon (1 Chr.28:6), ultimately the reference is to Yahshua the Messiah, the “Son of David” (Lu.1:32,33; Heb.1:5). Heb.1:5 reads, ” For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
Since the New Testament clearly links the words, “I will be his father, and he shall be My son” to Yahshua, note well the future tense used. If Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh's coeternal Son or as Yahweh's first act of creation, the words “I am his Father,” and “he is my son,” should have been used. Therefore, this prophetic reference to Yahshua clearly teaches that he became Yahweh's Son at a specific time in history. He did not always exist as Yahweh's Son as the Trinity doctrine teaches. Nor could he have existed as the first act of creation since 2 Sam.7:14 places his becoming the Son at a time that was in David's future.
Martian,Jesus was the preexistent Word who became Son. David preexisted his appointment as God's Son (Ps. 89:20-27). So the Word also preexisted His appointment as God's Son.
the Roo
JackAmen!
WJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 15 2010,08:28) Quote (martian @ Aug. 09 2010,09:36) The Trinity doctrine states the Son is coeternal with the Father. Others believe the Son was the first being Yahweh created. Either view believes the “Son” pre-existed prior to his earthly birth. If that is true, how are we to understand the following words Yahweh commanded Nathan to give to David?
“When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be My son.” (2 Sam. 7:12-14)
Although these words primarily applied to Solomon (1 Chr.28:6), ultimately the reference is to Yahshua the Messiah, the “Son of David” (Lu.1:32,33; Heb.1:5). Heb.1:5 reads, ” For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
Since the New Testament clearly links the words, “I will be his father, and he shall be My son” to Yahshua, note well the future tense used. If Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh's coeternal Son or as Yahweh's first act of creation, the words “I am his Father,” and “he is my son,” should have been used. Therefore, this prophetic reference to Yahshua clearly teaches that he became Yahweh's Son at a specific time in history. He did not always exist as Yahweh's Son as the Trinity doctrine teaches. Nor could he have existed as the first act of creation since 2 Sam.7:14 places his becoming the Son at a time that was in David's future.
Martian,Jesus was the preexistent Word who became Son. David preexisted his appointment as God's Son (Ps. 89:20-27). So the Word also preexisted His appointment as God's Son.
the Roo
You think?
There are those that base doctrine on English translations as if these translations were inspired themselves. John 1 is a good example and it's mistranslation one reason why their doctrines are flawed.
The Historic Translation of John 1:3-4
Our English Bible gradually developed over the last six hundred years. John Wycliffe is credited with the first English translation of the New Testament which was completed about 1380 C.E. Until that time the Word of Yahweh was locked up in the Latin tongue which was unknown to the common people. The Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome about 400 C.E. was the standard Bible used in the Catholic Church.Wycliffe's translation is based upon the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek. It is therefore a “version of a version.” In Wycliffe's version, John 1:3-4 use the word “him” in reference to the “Word” of verse 1 and is a translation of the Latin “ipsum” and “ipso” (he, she, or it).
The next great English translator was William Tyndale. He was an excellent Greek scholar who had access to the Greek text of Erasmus which Wycliffe did not have. The hand of the Almighty was upon Tyndale as He used him to give us our first English translation based upon the Hebrew and Greek. His New Testament was published in 1526 and revised to its final state in 1534.
Tyndale's translation of John 1:3-4 reads, “All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.” As you can see, Tyndale used “it” instead of “him.” “It” is a translation of the Greek “autou” meaning he, she, or it. What this tells us is that Tyndale did not read Messiah into the “logos” or “word” of verse 1 and he was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate or Wycliffe.
Miles Coverdale, a friend of Tyndale, gave us the first complete Bible printed in English in 1535. It was not a firsthand translation from the Hebrew and Greek, but was based on the Latin Vulgate and Tyndale's translation. Coverdale used “him” in John 1:3-4.
In 1537, John Rogers, using the pseudonym “Thomas Matthew,” published a translation based largely on Tyndale and Coverdale which became known as Matthew's Bible. He uses “it” in John 1:3-4.
The Great Bible followed in 1539 and was a revision of Matthew's Bible. The first edition was prepared by Miles Coverdale. For some reason Coverdale decided “it” was more correct than “him” which appeared in his 1535 version based on the Latin Vulgate and left John 1:3-4 as it was in Matthew's translation, “it” instead of “him.”. The Great Bible was the first authorized English version and was ordered to be placed in every church.
Under Queen Mary the printing of the English Bible ended and its use in the churches was forbidden. This gave rise to a version completed in Geneva. The Geneva Bible of 1560 was the first Bible to have numbered verses, each set off as a separate paragraph. This Bible became the “household Bible of the English-speaking nations.” It held that position for about 75 years. It was Shakespeare's Bible and that of the Puritans who settled New England. Once again, the translation of John 1:3-4 follows Tyndale's example, “it” instead of “him.”
Queen Elizabeth eventually reinstated the order that a copy of the Bible be placed in every church and she encouraged its reading. Since there were not enough copies of the Great Bible, the bishops themselves made a new revision known as the Bishop's Bible. It was published in 1568. It was used mostly by the clergy, not being very popular with the common people. It, too, renders John 1:3-4 using “it,” not “him.”
In 1582, the Roman Catholic version of the New Testament was completed and known as the Rheims New Testament. It was the result of a battle between Papists and Protestants, the former believing the Latin Vulgate to be the standard upon which all translations should be made. It was the work of Roman Catholic scholars based on the Latin. They chose to render John 1:3-4 using “him” as did the previous versions based on the Vulgate.
From that point on, all future versions, beginning with the King James version of 1611, used “him” instead of “it” in their translation of John 1:3-4. As you can see, the following translation of John 1:3-4 is not without historic and linguistic foundation;
“All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.”
The “logos” (Word) of John 1:1 means “the spoken word” or “something said (including the thought).” In that sense the word is an “it,” not a person but a thing. In other words, Yahweh spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Gen.1:3,6,9,11,14,20, and 24, all of which begin, “And Elohim said.” Yahweh spoke and it was done. Ps.33:6,9 says, “By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Not only did Yahweh speak creation into existence, but He also spoke His Son Yahshua into existence; “And the word (Yahweh's spoken word) was made flesh” (Jn.1:14). Yahshua did not become the “Word of [Yahweh]” until his birth as a flesh and blood male child.
De 32:39 says, “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.” Yahweh the Father is speaking here. He is saying there is no other “elohim” or no other God with Him. John 1:1 says, ” . . .and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God.” If the “Word” is the Son and the Son was WITH God and was God, how does that h
armonize with the above verse? In De 32:39, since Yahweh was speaking, then there was no other God with Him, not even the Son.To say the “logos” of John 1:1 is a reference to Messiah is to read him into the text. Roman Catholic scholars had to do this in order to support their unscriptural trinity doctrine. If Messiah did not pre-exist, the trinity doctrine would collapse, it being based upon the belief that all three members of the “godhead” were co-eternal. Since Messiah only pre-existed in Yahweh's plan of salvation and not literally, the trinity doctrine is without foundation.
http://www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/Jn.1.htmlQuote (martian @ Aug. 09 2010,09:36) The Trinity doctrine states the Son is coeternal with the Father. Others believe the Son was the first being Yahweh created. Either view believes the “Son” pre-existed prior to his earthly birth. If that is true, how are we to understand the following words Yahweh commanded Nathan to give to David?
“When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be My son.” (2 Sam. 7:12-14)
Although these words primarily applied to Solomon (1 Chr.28:6), ultimately the reference is to Yahshua the Messiah, the “Son of David” (Lu.1:32,33; Heb.1:5). Heb.1:5 reads, ” For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
Since the New Testament clearly links the words, “I will be his father, and he shall be My son” to Yahshua, note well the future tense used. If Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh's coeternal Son or as Yahweh's first act of creation, the words “I am his Father,” and “he is my son,” should have been used. Therefore, this prophetic reference to Yahshua clearly teaches that he became Yahweh's Son at a specific time in history. He did not always exist as Yahweh's Son as the Trinity doctrine teaches. Nor could he have existed as the first act of creation since 2 Sam.7:14 places his becoming the Son at a time that was in David's future.
Martian…….Absolutely a true Post brother , Jesus it says (SHALL) future tense be a SON to GOD , not that he already was, right on brother, and He was to come into existence through the loins of Kind David, and God brought him forth from among his brethren just as Moses said He would, and He was born from the seed of the Women as God in Genesis said he would be. But these false teachers want to deny His Humanity and our equality and equal identity with our Brother Jesus our Lord. They are destroying not only the work of Jesus Bit the work of God in Humanity also. They are no better then Trinitarians. IMOpeace and love to you and your brother, I pray to GOD He will heal you of your diabetes and continue to strengthen you brother…………………….gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 16 2010,11:20) Quote (martian @ Aug. 09 2010,09:36) The Trinity doctrine states the Son is coeternal with the Father. Others believe the Son was the first being Yahweh created. Either view believes the “Son” pre-existed prior to his earthly birth. If that is true, how are we to understand the following words Yahweh commanded Nathan to give to David?
“When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be My son.” (2 Sam. 7:12-14)
Although these words primarily applied to Solomon (1 Chr.28:6), ultimately the reference is to Yahshua the Messiah, the “Son of David” (Lu.1:32,33; Heb.1:5). Heb.1:5 reads, ” For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
Since the New Testament clearly links the words, “I will be his father, and he shall be My son” to Yahshua, note well the future tense used. If Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh's coeternal Son or as Yahweh's first act of creation, the words “I am his Father,” and “he is my son,” should have been used. Therefore, this prophetic reference to Yahshua clearly teaches that he became Yahweh's Son at a specific time in history. He did not always exist as Yahweh's Son as the Trinity doctrine teaches. Nor could he have existed as the first act of creation since 2 Sam.7:14 places his becoming the Son at a time that was in David's future.
Martian…….Absolutely a true Post brother , Jesus it says (SHALL) future tense be a SON to GOD , not that he already was, right on brother, and He was to come into existence through the loins of Kind David, and God brought him forth from among his brethren just as Moses said He would, and He was born from the seed of the Women as God in Genesis said he would be. But these false teachers want to deny His Humanity and our equality and equal identity with our Brother Jesus our Lord. They are destroying not only the work of Jesus Bit the work of God in Humanity also. They are no better then Trinitarians. IMOpeace and love to you and your brother, I pray to GOD He will heal you of your diabetes and continue to strengthen you brother…………………….gene
Gene,Did you even read the Scriptures Martian posted?
2Sa 7:14 “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men,
This is supposed to be YHWH's son? When he commits iniquity…please!
Talk about false teachers!!!
1Ch 28:6 “He said to me, 'Your son Solomon is the one who shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be a son to Me, and I will be a father to him.
It NEVER goes on to talk about YHWH's son.
YOU say, “Let's post a Scriputre verse and hope that no one looks it up.” In the meantime we will say WHATEVER we want, “ultimately the reference is to Yahshua the Messiah, the “Son of David”….
By the way YHWH's son is not the same as “David's son”.
Your premise is faulty: If Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh's coeternal Son. Your conclusion must be too.
Jesus is not co-eternal. Where do you get this from?
God exists! and has NO time; no beginning and no end.
Jesus is THE BEGINNING; the Eternal Life that was WITH the Father and came to us.
You read but you do not understand….as Irene pointed out: Col 1:16
Col 1:15-18
He (son of God's love) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. v16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. v17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. v18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
Summary: Jesus is God's son; Firstborn of all creation; Creator of everything; Before all things; he is the beginning; preeminent (first-place) in everything.
Jesus is not God but is directly from God and before all things that have come into existence.
Rev 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:
Are you dull of hearing, yet?
God exists! Then Son…”son of God”. Then Creation thru son. Son is Creator….son is NOT God!! Son was born thru Mary…son of Man/David/Abraham.
The Professor
Davidbfun said:
Quote Rev 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:
Wrong! The Greek word “arche” means “ruler.” It means that Jesus is the RULER of creation.dbf:
Quote God exists! Then Son…”son of God”.
Wrong! The Word exists! Then as Son….”Son of God”dbf:
Quote Then Creation thru son.
Wrong! Creation came before the Word became Son.dbf:
Quote Son was born thru Mary…son of Man/David/Abraham.
Wrong! The Word was born of Mary thus becoming the Son.So the Biblical order is as listed: The Word existed. Then the Word created. Then the Word became Son. Then the Son was exalted and became the RULER of creation.
I think I would like to debate David.
the Roo
Gene said:
Quote Absolutely a true Post brother , Jesus it says (SHALL) future tense be a SON to GOD , not that he already was, right on brother, and He was to come into existence through the loins of Kind David, and God brought him forth from among his brethren just as Moses said He would, and He was born from the seed of the Women as God in Genesis said he would be. But these false teachers want to deny His Humanity and our equality and equal identity with our Brother Jesus our Lord.
Gene,I agree with the part that Jesus became the Son of God by being from the loins of David. But He did not come into existence at this time. He preexisted His birth as Son. He was the Word who was in the beginning with God. Only His mode of existence changed at His physical birth.
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 17 2010,12:08) Davidbfun said: Quote Rev 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:
Wrong! The Greek word “arche” means “ruler.” It means that Jesus is the RULER of creation.dbf:
Quote God exists! Then Son…”son of God”.
Wrong! The Word exists! Then as Son….”Son of God”dbf:
Quote Then Creation thru son.
Wrong! Creation came before the Word became Son.dbf:
Quote Son was born thru Mary…son of Man/David/Abraham.
Wrong! The Word was born of Mary thus becoming the Son.So the Biblical order is as listed: The Word existed. Then the Word created. Then the Word became Son. Then the Son was exalted and became the RULER of creation.
I think I would like to debate David.
the Roo
Roo,I wouldn't mind discussing the Bible with you if you would use the Bible and accepting it as it is written.
I've seen your rebuttals and mostly it is about Greek and you disagreeing with the Bible as it is written. If you could, write the Bible parts as you like, so that I can rely on what is written and know ahead of time, so that we can talk.
We will always have a chasm because the Greek doesn't correctly identify the God of the OT and doesn't have the same “identifiers” or “words”.
For example, how many different words (not including adjectives) does the OT have for “God”, and what are they? How many words does the NT have for “God” and what is it?
Also, it seems you have difficulty determing literal and allegorical. Or, if you know it you still want to argue the opposite viewpoint to be ridiculous. I am not into endless argument and the like. You think you “win” when you continue to debate and can't accept information….and as you say, you wear a person down.
Also, you jump around and don't respond specifically and avoid direct questions, or keep asking questions without answering them.
If we were to debate I'd like to limit the conversation to God and who God is and not go out to other topics, ok?
I accept your challenge….do you accept mine?
Quote (martian @ Aug. 09 2010,09:36) The Trinity doctrine states the Son is coeternal with the Father. Others believe the Son was the first being Yahweh created. Either view believes the “Son” pre-existed prior to his earthly birth. If that is true, how are we to understand the following words Yahweh commanded Nathan to give to David?
“When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be My son.” (2 Sam. 7:12-14)
Although these words primarily applied to Solomon (1 Chr.28:6), ultimately the reference is to Yahshua the Messiah, the “Son of David” (Lu.1:32,33; Heb.1:5). Heb.1:5 reads, ” For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
Since the New Testament clearly links the words, “I will be his father, and he shall be My son” to Yahshua, note well the future tense used. If Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh's coeternal Son or as Yahweh's first act of creation, the words “I am his Father,” and “he is my son,” should have been used. Therefore, this prophetic reference to Yahshua clearly teaches that he became Yahweh's Son at a specific time in history. He did not always exist as Yahweh's Son as the Trinity doctrine teaches. Nor could he have existed as the first act of creation since 2 Sam.7:14 places his becoming the Son at a time that was in David's future.
Hi Martian,Who were these a different group of kids?
Job 38:6-7 Where wast thou(Job) when I(YHVH) laid the foundations of the earth?
declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?
or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?
or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Romans 8:29-30)Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
