Quote How about debating with evidence that the other possible translation is either wrong because of… or is possible.–t8We know it's “possible.” WJ's quote said that it was “possible” and “grammatically possible.” And many many many many trinitarians that I quoted agree completely. If it can be translated either way, it is a matter of…[Read more]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html

Hey, does anyone know if WJ has a denomination? He seems to want to refuse to tell me if he does, which makes me think he does. I'm not sure why he wouldn't say though.

Quote No I am not ashamed that they are Trinitarian, but you should be ashamed for accusing them of bias and even infering that they corrupt the text for money.–wjIt has without question been done before. Would you like me to find you a quote?When a trinitarian group who believe trinitarian things hire someone who is almost certainly a…[Read more]

Quote DavidYou attack the major translations and accuse them of Trinitarian bias while you quote the NWT and WT sources as being the truth without bias.–wjWJ, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.  You certainly haven't read my first post.  (It's all trinitarian scholars, and trinitarian Bibles.)  I am not attacking the major tr…[Read more]

I understand why no one wants to touch this one. If I was a trinitarian, I wouldn't either.

But make no mistake…..The Bible does use the word “god” with reference to ones who were neither “false gods” or “The God.”

Quote Didn't you just accuse the NET scholars of being Trinitarian –wjIs it a shameful thing to be a trinitarian, WJ? I would think that even if they weren't, you wouldn't consider it a bad accusation. By the way, they are. And certainly the ones who translated Heb 1:8 is a trinitarian. Ok, some proof. “Although the Introduction does not…[Read more]

Quote You have done nothing but made this whole argument a Trinitarian argument and yet infer that I am not honorable for going after your WT doctrines and dogmas of which the WT has brainwashed you with.But that is what it is. I created this thread. It is a thread about the trinity. I have quoted many trinitarian translators who say it can be…[Read more]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 22 2009,18:07)Quote (david @ Dec. 22 2009,01:57)In response to WJ's post.The NET Bible is a completely new TRINITARIAN translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 TRINITARIAN scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best curre…[Read more]

Quote In this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in two legitimate ways:”God is your throne forever and ever…. and”Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever…”But because of the Watchtower presupposition that Jesus is not God, they choose the first…[Read more]

In response to WJ's post.The NET Bible is a completely new TRINITARIAN translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 TRINITARIAN scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.This is what they say…”Or possi…[Read more]

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 17 2009,20:27)t8 said:Quote If the Trinity doctrine were true, then you would see it written plain and simple.It is written plain and simple for honest people. It is not plain and simple to the blind.I suppose it doesn't bother you that David invokes scriptures against Sharp's rule when Sharp's rule doesn't even apply.The…[Read more]

“Both substantitives “God” and “Jesus Christ” have the article. So they are two different persons.”–thinker (bold and underline in the original quote.)Thinker, aren't they always “two different persons”? Or is it only sometimes that they are? Are they sometimes two different persons and sometimes not? I thought I was the one that was arguing…[Read more]

You can add “faithful and true witness” (Rev 3:14) to the list. Or, “The Faithful Witness.” (Rev 1:4) Actually, there's probably many things that could be added.

Part 2:In addition to the above renderings by many respected translators (most of whom are trinitarian), we have the statement by perhaps the greatest scholar of Biblical Hebrew of all time, H. F. W. Gesenius. In his famous and highly respected Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Gesenius renders Ps. 45:6, “thy throne shall be a divine…[Read more]

I guess this post is part of a much larger topic, that of title confusion trickery.Is it true that because two are referred to by the same descriptive word, which may or may not be a title–make them the same person.Usually, this refers to the word “god.” But it is also used with “savior,” “first and last” and other phrases.Does the very fact…[Read more]

Quote hi DavidI always wander i have seen so many ingeneering done to estabish the right or wrong way of a word in the scriptures,did the apostels took a look at all what they have written before writting it and go to the all possible means of interpretation of there writting in their mind,i don't think so.terraricca, I completely agree. Hence,…[Read more]

Quote You have NOT debunked Sharp's rule in Titus 2:13. In fact, you have become even more incoherent because Jesus could not be “Savior” if He were not God.–thinkerPlease stop trying to switch the subject. I'm not sure why you keep saying this, or why you keep using this false reasoning. Please go see the “Title Confusion Trick”…[Read more]

“The officers came to the chief priests and pharisees””Note: The implication is that the chief priests and pharisees comprised a single group at this juncture” (Syntax of New Testament Greek, p. 76).I am indebted to you for correcting me on Sharp's rule in reference to participles.–the thinkerFirst, we all make mistakes. Don't beat yourself up…[Read more]