ijawkid:

Saith the LORD GOD....why didn't u add GOD to the Lord??

According to you, there are two Alpha and Omegas right? Just as there are two saviours - The Saviour and 'saviour of saviours'?

You've still failed to answer my question - where is the reference to Jehovah as 'Jesus saviour'?

The Father-Son relationship is not in dispute here.

@ Frosbel

Let's say we agree it is the 'Lord God' speaking in verse 8.

Care to explain who is speaking in verses 17 and 18? I have taken care not to quote from the 'heavily biased KJV':

Revelations 1:17-18 (NLT)

17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as if I were dead. But he laid his right hand on me and said, “Don’t be afraid! I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave.

NIV
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.18 I am the Living One; I was dead,(BH) and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

frosbel:
You left out the Lord GOD and made it appear as LORD only with that Catholic cultic KJV bible.

Let us look at what some other bible versions say , not that heavily biased KJV cultic Trinitarian bible you seem to be running around with.

New International Version (©1984)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

New Living Translation (©2007)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega--the beginning and the end," says the Lord God. "I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come--the Almighty One."

English Standard Version (©2001)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

International Standard Version (©2008)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," declares the Lord God, "the one who is, who was, and who is coming, the Almighty."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
I am The Alap and The Tau, says THE LORD JEHOVAH God, he who is and has been and is coming, The Almighty.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"I am the A and the Z," says the Lord God, the one who is, the one who was, and the one who is coming, the Almighty.
American Standard Version
I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

In order that the brethren might not be deceived by your shenanigans. . .and misplaced labeling. If sure of what you claim, is there any need to appeal to multiple poor bible translations - that is often a tactic to confuse the weak-minded. For example, does the letter Z occur anywhere in the Greek NT? Do the words Alap and Tau occur as well?

Call the KJV whatever name you wish. . .it is however clearly established that the reliable English NT are translated from the received Greek manuscripts. So we shall go to the Textus Receptus to see what is actually written in the Greek manuscript in Rev 1:8:
Rev 1:8 εγω ειμι το α και το ω αρχη και τελος λεγει ο κυριος ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος ο παντοκρατωρ
Transliterated it reads as follows:

egō (G1473) eimi (G1510) ho (G3588) A (G1) kai (G2532) ho (G3588) Ō (G5598) archē (G746) kai (G2532) telos (G5056) 
I           am           the        Alpha  and         the       Omega     beginning    and         end           
legō (G3004) ho (G3588) kurios (G2962)    
says         the        Lord
ho (G3588) eimi (G1510) kai (G2532) ho (G3588) eimi (G1510) kai (G2532) ho (G3588) erchomai (G2064) ho (G3588) pantokratōr (G3841)
                                                                                                               the Almighty          

It is instructive to note that the word θεός (theos): God is not in the Greek Textus Receptus manuscript. . .It would therefore appear that contrary to what you would have us believe, the KJV translation of Rev 1:8 is the one which remains faithful to the received Greek text while the multiplicity of versions which you posted added a word, probably based on their dependence on the Westcort-Hott Greek text. For one such as you who has railed so much against the Roman Catholic Church, this is ironic given that:

Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt and the Roman Catholic Church. Both Wescott and Hort were known to have resented the pre-eminence given to the Authorized Version and its underlying Greek Text. They had been deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic manuscripts, Vaticanus and Aleph, were better because they were "older." This they believed, even though Hort admitted that the Antiochian or Universal Text was equal in antiquity."

That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible, should not come as a surprise. Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than the writings of the lost histor-ians and philosophers!

It turns out that it is the versions which you hold up above that turn out to be "Catholic cultic" with their reliance on the Westcort-Hort text, rather than the KJV!

What I have written is easily verifiable by anyone consulting the Textus Receptus Greek manuscript and historical works pertaining to Westcort and Hort.

And (to debosky's last post) add Revelation 22

12 “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

aletheia:

In order that the brethren might not be deceived by your shenanigans. . .and misplaced labeling. If sure of what you claim, is there any need to appeal to multiple poor bible translations - that is often a tactic to confuse the weak-minded. For example, does the letter Z occur anywhere in the Greek NT? Do the words Alap and Tau occur as well?

Call the KJV whatever name you wish. . .it is however clearly established that the reliable English NT are translated from the received Greek manuscripts. So we shall go to the Textus Receptus to see what is actually written in the Greek manuscript in Rev 1:8:
Rev 1:8 εγω ειμι το α και το ω αρχη και τελος λεγει ο κυριος ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος ο παντοκρατωρ
Transliterated it reads as follows:

egō (G1473) eimi (G1510) ho (G3588) A (G1) kai (G2532) ho (G3588) Ō (G5598) archē (G746) kai (G2532) telos (G5056) 
I           am           the        Alpha  and         the       Omega     beginning    and         end           
legō (G3004) ho (G3588) kurios (G2962)    
says         the        Lord
ho (G3588) eimi (G1510) kai (G2532) ho (G3588) eimi (G1510) kai (G2532) ho (G3588) erchomai (G2064) ho (G3588) pantokratōr (G3841)
                                                                                                               the Almighty          

It is instructive to note that the word θεός (theos): God is not in the Greek Textus Receptus manuscript. . .It would therefore appear that contrary to what you would have us believe, the KJV translation of Rev 1:8 is the one which remains faithful to the received Greek text while the multiplicity of versions which you posted added a word, probably based on their dependence on the Westcort-Hott Greek text. For one such as you who has railed so much against the Roman Catholic Church, this is ironic given that:

It turns out that it is the versions which you hold up above that turn out to be "Catholic cultic" with their reliance on the Westcort-Hort text, rather than the KJV!

What I have written is easily verifiable by anyone consulting the Textus Receptus Greek manuscript and historical works pertaining to Westcort and Hort.

A load of hogwash !!!

Let's do it in a slightly different way.

Revelation 22:6

The angel said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place."

Revelation 22:16

16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

frosbel:
A load of hogwash !!!

So says frosbel. . .who's good at only cutting and pasting and cannot respond to anything that directly undermines his claims.

This is another typical shallow emotional outburst from you. My challenge still stands.

aletheia:
What I have written is easily verifiable by anyone consulting the Textus Receptus Greek manuscript and historical works pertaining to Westcort and Hort.

[quote author=aletheia]
So says frosbel. . .who's good at only cutting and pasting and cannot respond to anything that directly undermines his claims.

Well, when I copy and paste I quote my sources, I do not post comments and try to pass them off as my personal intepretations.

This is another typical shallow emotional outburst from you. My challenge still stands.

What challenge

That your faulted catholic KJV bible directly contradicts the word of God, adds , removes and modifies any aspects that do not concur with trhe Trinity dogma ?

Am I here to make you reject your Trinity idol, nay sir, I am here to expose this dogma for the fraud that it is , and to open the eyes of the deceived to this doctrine of devils that has held the church in bondage for eons.

At Contender Ministries, we’ve had some interesting discussions and received some interesting emails. Not surprisingly, while we have been blessed to receive some wonderful, encouraging notes from visitors to our site,[size=13pt] we’ve also received our share of hate mail[/size]. [size=13pt]Among the most virulent and spiteful of the comments we’ve received were those that came[/size] not from Muslims, Mormons, or Catholics; but rather [size=13pt]from Christians in the KJO (King James Only) camp.[/size] The KJO crowd believes that the only “authorized” version of the Bible is the King James Version (KJV), and all modern translations are perversions of the Word of God. I’ve even had one KJO apologist tell me that the KJV is the “only true Word of God.” The fact that many of the verses on our website have been taken from the New International Version (NIV) proved to him that we have been deceived by Satan. This caused me to undertake a serious study of the history of the KJV and other translations of the Bible. I present to you now, the fruits of that study.

First, let me reassure the KJV users that nothing in my study has caused me to consider discarding my copy of the KJV. I have always used it and will continue to do so, in conjunction with other translations. It is not my intent to cast aspersions on the KJV translation, nor upon its translators, who were good, God-fearing men who did a wonderful service for the Lord. The focus of this article is not any particular version of the Bible, but rather the contention that the KJV is the only “authorized version” of the Word of God. There are many people who prefer the KJV over any other version, but would not be considered KJO, as they make no claim that the KJV is the only authorized Word of God. This article does not address preferences for one version over another, but rather it speaks to claims of the absolute and exclusive supremacy of the KJV. My wife has informed me that I have a habit of prefacing too much in daily conversation, but I think for this article it is necessary. Having sufficiently prefaced, let us now examine the history of the KJV and modern translations. Let us also discover if some modern translations have removed precious truths from the Bible.

THE AUTOGRAPH S

The whole issue of Biblical accuracy could be quickly put to rest if we had in our possession the original writings of the prophets and apostles. These original writings, called “autographs”, have not been discovered. Yet it is they that were penned under the direct and inerrant inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us that “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16, KJV). 2 Peter 1:21 tells us that “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.” In this verse, the Greek pheromene refers to being carried along, like a ship moved by the wind. In other words, the Holy Spirit directly influenced what was originally written by Moses, John, Paul, etc.

Sometimes I think it would be nice if we were in possession of the autographs, but perhaps it is best that we aren’t. If we had the actual texts penned by Luke, Paul, or John, they could become revered to the point of becoming idols in the faith. After all, it is not the written word that is the object of our worship, but rather the living Word – Jesus Christ.

THE EARLY MANUSCRIPTS

The Old Testament autographs were written primarily in Hebrew (except for Daniel, which was written in Aramaic – a cousin to Hebrew). The New Testament autographs were written in Koine Greek. In order for the Word of God to spread across the globe, to reach people of different languages and carry on through time, it became necessary for the autographs to be copied by scribes, and translated into other languages. These scribes hand copied the original writings onto papyrus and parchment manuscripts. In fact, the word manuscript means “hand copy.” There are many early manuscripts in existence today. The main concern with the copying and translation process was maintaining accuracy. Many of us will remember the children’s game of “Telephone”, and recall how, after several transmissions, there were inaccuracies from what was originally spoken. That is true even with the biblical manuscripts. Among the multitude of manuscripts, we find one to two percent of the Bible has relevant variations. However, these variations do not alter the main messages in the Word of God. God promised His Word would be preserved. Jesus said “The scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). He also said, “heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). Peter stated that the living and abiding word of God is imperishable (1 Peter 1:23). Isaiah said that “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever” (Isaiah 40:8 ). This great promise of God stands fulfilled. After twenty centuries of copying and translating, the key points of the Word of God stand as they always have.

THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

A Dutch Roman Catholic Priest and Greek scholar named Desiderius Erasmus published his first Greek New Testament in 1516. Erasmus put this text together quickly and haphazardly, and numerous revisions followed. From a preface to one of the revisions we get the name “Textus Receptus.” The TR was collated from a relatively small collection (about five or six texts) of Byzantine-era Greek texts dating back to about the twelfth to fourteenth century AD. In his haste to beat the competition to press, Erasmus made the mistake of including some margin notes from the Byzantine texts into the verses of the TR. It is largely from the TR that the New Testament of the KJV was translated.

A ‘MODERN’ TRANSLATION – CIRCA 1611

In 1611, under the rule of King James, a modern translation of the Bible was produced. It was the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible. The purpose of this new translation was to provide a version of the Bible written in the common language of the time. It was to serve as a Bible that everyone could understand. As a preface to the 1611 KJV, the translators wrote a message entitled “The Translators to the Reader.” In it, they said, “happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture and thrice happy that meditate in it day and night. But how shall man meditate in that which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close [veiled] in an unknown tongue?… [Contemporary] Translation it is that opens the window, to let in the light….indeed, without translation into the vulgar [common] tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which was deep) without a bucket or something to draw with…” (pages 3,4). This being said, it is apparent that the KJV translators would not object to modern translations if the intent were the same – to produce a translation understandable in the common language. The translators made no claim that the KJV was to be the only authorized version of the Bible. In fact, they stated, “a variety of translation is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures.” From their own words, it is apparent that the KJV translators would not be among the ardent KJO crowd.

EARLY MISTAKES

Contrary to what some in the KJO camp believe, the 1611 KJV was not without errors. In fact, it took several subsequent editions to arrive at the version that is in use today. For instance, in the 1611 edition, Matthew 26:36 said, “Then cometh Judas”. Today, the KJV renders that verse as “Then cometh Jesus.” This is a rather significant difference. The first edition also contained the Apocryphal books, which were removed in subsequent editions. The 1613 edition inadvertently left the word “not” out of the seventh commandment, thereby encouraging people to commit adultery. This edition became known as the “Wicked Bible.” Another edition earned the nickname “Unrighteous Bible” because it stated that the unrighteous would inherit the kingdom of heaven. Furthermore, in using Erasmus’ TR as the basis of the New Testament, many of Erasmus’ additions of margin notes into the text of the verses found their way into the verses in the KJV. We’ll go more into this quirk shortly.

LATER TRANSLATIONS

In the years since the KJV came about in 1611, and even since the most recent major revisions in 1769, some wonderful discoveries have come to light. In 1859, Count Konstantin von Tischendorf discovered nearly 350 pages of an early Greek text containing all the New Testament works. He discovered this volume in St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai, and it became known as the Codex Sinaiticus.

This Greek New Testament was dated to the mid 4th century AD. [size=13pt] Another discovery, the Codex Vaticanus, is a volume of 757 vellum sheets containing most of the works of the Bible, and it dates to the early 4th century AD.[/size] Other papyri fragments have been discovered that date to the early 2nd century AD! In fact, literally thousands of pieces of the Bible have been discovered dating earlier than the Byzantine texts that were the foundation of the Textus Receptus.

These earlier texts formed the foundation for many of the modern translations in use today, including the NIV and the NASB. Thinking back to the game of Telephone, wouldn’t you consider someone who was twice or three times removed from the original messenger a more reliable source than someone who was ten or twelve times removed? If we can’t get to the original autographs, we would want to at least get to the earliest manuscripts available. The purpose behind many of the modern translations was the same as the purpose behind the 1611 KJV translation – to provide an accurate rendition of the Bible in the common language of the day. [size=14pt]A benefit the NIV and NASB translators had that the KJV translators did not have was access to earlier manuscripts.[/size]

Source

aletheia:
So says frosbel. . .who's good at only cutting and pasting and cannot respond to anything that directly undermines his claims.

This is another typical shallow emotional outburst from you. My challenge still stands.

So the kjv alone is right on this while all the other bible re-enditions frosbel quoted from are false??right??

You can keep hugging the kjv......

It was that same kjv that added spurious verses to the bible...

E.g 1 timothy 3:16 and also 1 john 5:7....

Oya answer this 1 question...

Since the trinity dogma is very hard for u to discard find a way to tell us if the almighty died and was ressurected.......

Can the almighty God die??

Yes or No??

[quote author=debosky]

@ Frosbel

Let's say we agree it is the 'Lord God' speaking in verse 8.

Care to explain who is speaking in verses 17 and 18? I have taken care not to quote from the 'heavily biased KJV':

Revelations 1:17-18 (NLT)

17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as if I were dead. But he laid his right hand on me and said, “Don’t be afraid! I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave.

NIV
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.18 I am the Living One; I was dead,(BH) and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Jesus Christ of course ..


and just to make it plain to you that Jesus Christ himself never claimed to be God, we have the answer to your question in the next chapter v18 as follows :


To the Church in Thyatira

18 “To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:

These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.


If Jesus is GOD , surely he should have said these are the words of God instead he said [these are the words of the Son of God

Can you kindly explain this please !

We are veering off track - let us use a translation acceptable to all and move on - the alleged differences are less than one percent of the text so surely the more substantive issue being discussed here should remain the focus?

If we go by your link Frosbel, the KJV is in no way a 'heavily biased/catholic cultic' translation and is suitable for use.

debosky: We are veering off track - let us use a translation acceptable to all and move on - the alleged differences are less than one percent of the text so surely the more substantive issue being discussed here should remain the focus?

If we go by your link Frosbel, the KJV is in no way a 'heavily biased/catholic cultic' translation and is suitable for use.

don't try and change topic , your buddy can do that himself, I am sure he is capable.

Kindly respond to my response to your initial comment on revelations 1:16-18

thanks

Jesus Christ of course ..

So what did Jesus mean when he said he is the Alpha and Omega/First and the Last? Are there two 'Firsts and Lasts' just like ijawkid claimed there are two saviours - the saviour (Jesus) and the 'saviour of saviours'?

frosbel:
To the Church in Thyatira

18 “To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:

These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.


If Jesus is GOD , surely he should have said these are the words of God instead he said [these are the words of the Son of God

Can you kindly explain this please !

My explanation is quite simple - Jesus had identified himself earlier as the Alpha and Omega (as you agreed above), and hence there is no need for repetition here to 'prove' anything.

Just like God does not need to call himself the Almighty everywhere before we know he is the Almighty.

I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave.

Jesus is the First and the Last - He is God!

debosky:

So what did Jesus mean when he said he is the Alpha and Omega/First and the Last? Are there two 'Firsts and Lasts' just like ijawkid claimed there are two saviours - the saviour (Jesus) and the 'saviour of saviours'?



My explanation is quite simple - Jesus had identified himself earlier as the Alpha and Omega (as you agreed above), and hence there is no need for repetition here to 'prove' anything.

Just like God does not need to call himself the Almighty everywhere before we know he is the Almighty.

I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave.

Jesus is the First and the Last - He is God!

++The title “the Alpha and the Omega” carries the same thought as “the first and the last” and “the beginning and the end” when these terms are used with reference to Yahweh. Before him there was no Almighty God, and there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, forever vindicated as the one and only Almighty God.—Compare Isa 44:6.

++While Jesus is 1st and last in the sense of Him being the 1st born of all creation(the beginning of the creation of Yahweh) and also 1st born from the dead.....


Now do u understand mr??

debosky:

So what did Jesus mean when he said he is the Alpha and Omega/First and the Last? Are there two 'Firsts and Lasts' just like ijawkid claimed there are two saviours - the saviour (Jesus) and the 'saviour of saviours'?



My explanation is quite simple - Jesus had identified himself earlier as the Alpha and Omega (as you agreed above), and hence there is no need for repetition here to 'prove' anything.

Just like God does not need to call himself the Almighty everywhere before we know he is the Almighty.

I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave.

Jesus is the First and the Last - He is God!

Has it ever occured to you and your likes that God cannot die??

Eh??

Can God die??

debosky:

So what did Jesus mean when he said he is the Alpha and Omega/First and the Last? Are there two 'Firsts and Lasts' just like ijawkid claimed there are two saviours - the saviour (Jesus) and the 'saviour of saviours'?

We are now grinding on words instead of sticking to fact.

But hey , I will help you grind these words and even add a bonus and let your pals help you , we are here till the end

Anyway on a more serious note, Jesus Christ is never referred to as Alpha and Omega but First and Last in the context of this chapter .

First let us analyse Alpha and Omega.

Alpha
Word Origin
the first letter of the Gr. alphabet

Omega
O: the last letter of the Gr. alphabet
Original Word: Ὦ
Phonetic Spelling: (o'-meg-ah)
Short Definition: omega
Definition: omega, the last letter of the Greek alphabet.



Now compare that to First and Last which referred to Jesus Christ


First
prótos: first, chief
Original Word: πρῶτος, η, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: prótos
Phonetic Spelling: (pro'-tos)
Short Definition: first, before
Definition: first, before, principal, most important.


Last
eschatos: last, extreme
Original Word: ἔσχατος, η, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: eschatos
Phonetic Spelling: (es'-khat-os)
Short Definition: last, at the last, finally
Definition: [b]last, at the last, finally, till the en[/b]d.


Here we clearly see that First here denotes Christ and his first place in the context of God's creation and his never ending reign , living forever and ever.

My explanation is quite simple - Jesus had identified himself earlier as the Alpha and Omega (as you agreed above), and hence there is no need for repetition here to 'prove' anything.

No he did not, he used the words first and last.

Just like God does not need to call himself the Almighty everywhere before we know he is the Almighty.

show me ONE place in the bible where Almighty is used for Jesus.

I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave.

Jesus is the First and the Last - He is God!

You just debunked your own statement, if he was Dead how can he be God, how can God die .


Btw, who raised up Jesus from the dead, or did GOD raise GOD from the dead, lol.

frosbel:

We are now grinding on words instead of sticking to fact.

But hey , I will help you grind these words and even add a bonus and let your pals help you , we are here till the end

Anyway on a more serious note, Jesus Christ is never referred to as Alpha and Omega but First and Last in the context of this chapter .

First let us analyse Alpha and Omega.

Alpha
Word Origin
the first letter of the Gr. alphabet

Omega
O: the last letter of the Gr. alphabet
Original Word: Ὦ
Phonetic Spelling: (o'-meg-ah)
Short Definition: omega
Definition: omega, the last letter of the Greek alphabet.



Now compare that to First and Last which referred to Jesus Christ


First
prótos: first, chief
Original Word: πρῶτος, η, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: prótos
Phonetic Spelling: (pro'-tos)
Short Definition: first, before
Definition: first, before, principal, most important.


Last
eschatos: last, extreme
Original Word: ἔσχατος, η, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: eschatos
Phonetic Spelling: (es'-khat-os)
Short Definition: last, at the last, finally
Definition: [b]last, at the last, finally, till the en[/b]d.


Here we clearly see that First here denotes Christ and his first place in the context of God's creation and his never ending reign , living forever and ever.





No he did not, he used the words first and last.



show me ONE place in the bible where Almighty is used for Jesus.





You just debunked your own statement, if he was Dead how can he be God, how can God die .


Btw, who raised up Jesus from the dead, or did GOD raise GOD from the dead, lol.

I've been asking debosky this same question since I was born...lol...

Can God die??

If No....then Jesus isn't God...

If Yes...then Jesus is God!!!!!

And then all what we know from the bible is gibberish.....

I'll just be an atheist if I find out God can die.....

frosbel:

We are now grinding on words instead of sticking to fact.

But hey , I will help you grind these words and even add a bonus and let your pals help you , we are here till the end

Anyway on a more serious note, Jesus Christ is never referred to as Alpha and Omega but First and Last in the context of this chapter .

First let us analyse Alpha and Omega.

Alpha
Word Origin
the first letter of the Gr. alphabet

Omega
O: the last letter of the Gr. alphabet
Original Word: Ὦ
Phonetic Spelling: (o'-meg-ah)
Short Definition: omega
Definition: omega, the last letter of the Greek alphabet.



Now compare that to First and Last which referred to Jesus Christ


First
prótos: first, chief
Original Word: πρῶτος, η, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: prótos
Phonetic Spelling: (pro'-tos)
Short Definition: first, before
Definition: first, before, principal, most important.


Last
eschatos: last, extreme
Original Word: ἔσχατος, η, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: eschatos
Phonetic Spelling: (es'-khat-os)
Short Definition: last, at the last, finally
Definition: [b]last, at the last, finally, till the en[/b]d.


Here we clearly see that First here denotes Christ and his first place in the context of God's creation and his never ending reign , living forever and ever.





No he did not, he used the words first and last.



show me ONE place in the bible where Almighty is used for Jesus.





You just debunked your own statement, if he was Dead how can he be God, how can God die .


Btw, who raised up Jesus from the dead, or did GOD raise GOD from the dead, lol.

I've been asking debosky this same question since I was born...lol...

Can God die??

If No....then Jesus isn't God...

If Yes...then Jesus is God!!!!!

And then all what we know from the bible is gibberish.....

I'll just be an atheist if I find out God can die.....

ijawkid:


++The title “the Alpha and the Omega” carries the same thought as “the first and the last” and “the beginning and the end” when these terms are used with reference to Yahweh. Before him there was no Almighty God, and there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, forever vindicated as the one and only Almighty God.—Compare Isa 44:6.

++While Jesus is 1st and last in the sense of Him being the 1st born of all creation(the beginning of the creation of Yahweh) and also 1st born from the dead.....


Now do u understand mr??

thank you jare.

We still have a battle to 'fight' , me and you about the pre-existence of Jesus

ijawkid:

I've been asking debosky this same question since I was born...lol...

Can God die??

If No....then Jesus isn't God...

If Yes...then Jesus is God!!!!!

And then all what we know from the bible is gibberish.....

I'll just be an atheist if I find out God can die.....

It's a toxic wine , this Trinity thing, they are intoxicated by it and almost idolise it.

With time and when they are sober the truth will dawn on them, Amen.

ijawkid:

I've been asking debosky this same question since I was born...lol...

Can God die??

If No....then Jesus isn't God...

If Yes...then Jesus is God!!!!!

And then all what we know from the bible is gibberish.....

I'll just be an atheist if I find out God can die.....

Me too o bro, I tire oh!

frosbel:
This Greek New Testament was dated to the mid 4th century AD. [size=13pt] Another discovery, the Codex Vaticanus, is a volume of 757 vellum sheets containing most of the works of the Bible, and it dates to the early 4th century AD.[/size] Other papyri fragments have been discovered that date to the early 2nd century AD! In fact, literally thousands of pieces of the Bible have been discovered dating earlier than the Byzantine texts that were the foundation of the Textus Receptus.

These earlier texts formed the foundation for many of the modern translations in use today, including the NIV and the NASB. Thinking back to the game of Telephone, wouldn’t you consider someone who was twice or three times removed from the original messenger a more reliable source than someone who was ten or twelve times removed? If we can’t get to the original autographs, we would want to at least get to the earliest manuscripts available. The purpose behind many of the modern translations was the same as the purpose behind the 1611 KJV translation – to provide an accurate rendition of the Bible in the common language of the day. [size=14pt]A benefit the NIV and NASB translators had that the KJV translators did not have was access to earlier manuscripts.[/size]

Source

Another cut-and-paste job. Firstly to dispel your insinuation that one is a KJV-only proponent. I am not. Secondly, you are only reiterating what I wrote using albeit a different form of words and from your anti-KJV bias.

For clarity, I reiterate, the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, while your preferred translations are based on the Westcort-Hott text which is a compilation of Roman Catholic texts (what irony for frosbel the crusading anti-RCC). Or don't you understand what Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus imply?

And your last sentence is untrue: the sources of the Textus Receptus are as old, if not older than the sources used by the NIV and NASB.

Now we come to the acid tests which we will apply to your preferred translations:
A. The omission of Acts 8:37
New International Version - omits Acts 8:37
New Living Translation - omits Acts 8:37
English Standard Version - omits Acts 8:37
New American Standard Bible - sort of omits Acts 8:37
International Standard Version - omits Acts 8:37
GOD'S WORD Translation - omits Acts 8:37
American Standard Version - keeps Acts 8:37

Acts 8:36-38
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
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.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Of course we see just how bereft the verses are when verse 37 is taken out. The message is lost!

B. The omission of the words "through His blood" in Col 1:14.
New International Version - in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
New Living Translation - who purchased our freedom and forgave our sins.
English Standard Version - in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
New American Standard Bible - in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
International Standard Version - through whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
GOD'S WORD Translation - His Son paid the price to free us, which means that our sins are forgiven.
American Standard Version - in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:

Col 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

That we are redeemed through his blood is central to the bible's message from Genesis to Revelation (but of course views such as yours demand that his blood was not necessary for atonement, so I won't be surprised if in time you open threads saying so).

Any version of the Bible which omits Acts 8:37, or "through His blood," in Col. 1:14, evidently has for its foundation a corrupted manuscript. This corruption can be traced to Origen in 200 A.D. He is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts. However evidence to the contrary shows that he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus certain so-called original MSS. are corrupt and it is evidently from this source the translations you are fond of have come. Origen taught the "LOGOS" is "KTISMA," meaning the Lord Jesus Christ is a created being (evidently you and he are in concord on this). Thus, he could easily omit Acts 8:37 and other texts which testify to Christ's deity. . .and it is therefore not surprising that you gravitate to translations that affirm your own views rather than translations that remain faithful to the original Greek MSS.

Here is the history of your Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. . .your supposed earliest MSS.
1. 331 A.D. Constantine ordered that an "ecumenical Bible" be written that would be acceptable to every stripe of Christian that was under his jurisdiction. A man by the name of Eusebius was assigned to direct this undertaking. Eusebius was a follower of Origen who rejected the deity of Christ.

2. 1481 A.D. The Vatican manuscript was discovered in the Vatican Library. This is a corrupted manuscript which repeatedly casts aside the deity of Christ. It reflects the Arianism of Origen and is thought by some to be one of the surviving manuscripts done be Eusebius at the command of Constantine. The date of its writing coincides with the "ecumenical Bible" of Constantine.

3. 1844 A.D. The Sinaitic manuscript was discovered at Mt. Sinai in the monastery of Saint Catherine. It agrees closely with the Vatican manuscript and minimises the deity of Christ and is Arian in nature. It is safe to suggest that these two manuscripts were two of the fifty that were written for Constantine.

aletheia:
Another cut-and-paste job. Firstly to dispel your insinuation that one is a KJV-only proponent. I am not. Secondly, you are only reiterating what I wrote using albeit a different form of words and from your anti-KJV bias.

For clarity, I reiterate, the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, while your preferred translations are based on the Westcort-Hott text which is a compilation of Roman Catholic texts (what irony for frosbel the crusading anti-RCC). Or don't you understand what Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus imply?

You are so desperately anxious that you now refer to every comment I make as cut and paste, lol

The KJV has been proven to be the most unreliable of all bibles and I will prove that to you when I have the time

Now we come to the acid tests which we will apply to your preferred translations:
A. The omission of Acts 8:37
New International Version - omits Acts 8:37
New Living Translation - omits Acts 8:37
English Standard Version - omits Acts 8:37
New American Standard Bible - sort of omits Acts 8:37
International Standard Version - omits Acts 8:37
GOD'S WORD Translation - omits Acts 8:37
American Standard Version - keeps Acts 8:37

But let me indulge you with your favourite v37.

It reads thus ;

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.


Philip , believed that Jesus was and is the Son of God not GOD.

I really do not know what you are trying to prove , but you are running round and round in circles blinded to reason and logic and sticking with tradition.

Could it be possible that your refusal to accept simple truths is due to arrant pride ?

You failed again.

aletheia:

Col 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

That we are redeemed through his blood is central to the bible's message from Genesis to Revelation [size=14pt](but of course views such as yours demand that is blood was not necessary for atonement[/size], so I won't be surprised if in time you open threads saying so).

Any version of the Bible which omits Acts 8:37, or "through His blood," in Col. 1:14, evidently has for its foundation a corrupted manuscript.

Firstly , before I commence, can I call you a LIAR and what a shame it is that you try to make me say we are not redeemed through the blood of Jesus , when I have never made such an outrageous claim. You do know who the father of lies is , right ?


So much for being called a Christian.



Though these bibles may have used scripts that did not record these verses, this truth of our redemption through the blood, is still depicted in their pages in other books and chapters.


Examples


Ephesians 1:7
New International Version (©1984)

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace

New Living Translation (©2007)
He is so rich in kindness and grace that he purchased our freedom with the blood of his Son and forgave our sins.

English Standard Version (©2001)
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

International Standard Version (©2008)
In union with him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our offenses, according to the riches of God's grace

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
For in him we have redemption, and the forgiveness of sins by his blood, according to the riches of his grace,


[size=14pt]and[/size]



Hebrews 9:22
New International Version (©1984)
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
New Living Translation (©2007)
In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.

English Standard Version (©2001)
Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

International Standard Version (©2008)
In fact, under the law almost everything is cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of the blood there is no forgiveness.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Because all things are purged by blood in The Written Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.



So it is clear that these Bibles stand on the TRUTH that without the blood there is no remission of SINS.


stop grabbing at straws to protect your idols..

frosbel:

We are now grinding on words instead of sticking to fact.

But hey , I will help you grind these words and even add a bonus and let your pals help you , we are here till the end

Anyway on a more serious note, Jesus Christ is never referred to as Alpha and Omega but First and Last in the context of this chapter .

Are the terms in the original Greek different?

You just debunked your own statement, if he was Dead how can he be God, how can God die .

But you said Jesus is Mighty God is he not? Answer the question yourself!

Btw, who raised up Jesus from the dead, or did GOD raise GOD from the dead, lol.

It may be funny to you, but this is what Jesus said in John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.

[quote author=debosky]

Are the terms in the original Greek different?

YES , do some study

Lazy student

But you said Jesus is Mighty God is he not? Answer the question yourself!

Mighty god , go back and re-read my post and even if I quoted Mighty God I meant as in god not GOD Almighty.

It may be funny to you, but this is what Jesus said in John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.

You missed out 18b which adds : "This command I received from my Father."

Has it now come to this debosky, I used to respect you until you starting hanging out with those false teachers.

New International Version (©1984)
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

frosbel:

We are now grinding on words instead of sticking to fact.

But hey , I will help you grind these words and even add a bonus and let your pals help you , we are here till the end

Anyway on a more serious note, Jesus Christ is never referred to as Alpha and Omega but First and Last in the context of this chapter .



First let us analyse Alpha and Omega.

Alpha
Word Origin
the first letter of the Gr. alphabet

Omega
O: the last letter of the Gr. alphabet
Original Word: Ὦ
Phonetic Spelling: (o'-meg-ah)
Short Definition: omega
Definition: omega, the last letter of the Greek alphabet.



Now compare that to First and Last which referred to Jesus Christ


First
prótos: first, chief
Original Word: πρῶτος, η, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: prótos
Phonetic Spelling: (pro'-tos)
Short Definition: first, before
Definition: first, before, principal, most important.


Last
eschatos: last, extreme
Original Word: ἔσχατος, η, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: eschatos
Phonetic Spelling: (es'-khat-os)
Short Definition: last, at the last, finally
Definition: last, at the last, finally, till the en[/b]d.


Here we clearly see that First here denotes Christ and his first place in the context of God's creation and his never ending reign , living forever and ever.





No he did not, he used the words first and last.

"[b]show me ONE place in the bible where Almighty is used for Jesus"





You just debunked your own statement, if he was Dead how can he be God, how can God die .


Btw, who raised up Jesus from the dead, or did GOD raise GOD from the dead, lol.

Revelation 1:8
King James Version (KJV)
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.

frosbel:


I will repeat myself here just for the benefit of you.

It's easy to quote scripture out of context which seems to be one of your skills.

You left out the Lord GOD and made it appear as LORD only with that Catholic cultic KJV bible.


To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,”[b]
and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him”;
and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”[c]
So shall it be! Amen.

8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”


1. To him who loved us .................
2. to serve his God and Father
3. I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God

1&2 refer to Jesus
3 refers to GOD

Even my 9 year old can decipher this simple verse of scripture.

I suggest you go read it again, this time with a grain of humility , it just might make the difference.


Let us look at what some other bible versions say , not that heavily biased KJV cultic Trinitarian bible you seem to be running around with.



New International Version (©1984)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

New Living Translation (©2007)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega--the beginning and the end," says the Lord God. "I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come--the Almighty One."

English Standard Version (©2001)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."


International Standard Version (©2008)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," declares the Lord God, "the one who is, who was, and who is coming, the Almighty."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
I am The Alap and The Tau, says THE LORD JEHOVAH God, he who is and has been and is coming, The Almighty.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"I am the A and the Z," says the Lord God, the one who is, the one who was, and the one who is coming, the Almighty.


American Standard Version
I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.



You are so deeply deceived, may God open your eyes to the truth.


Leave that Pagan Trinity nonsense for the Catholics.

Your 9-year-old is in some serious trouble. But the Lord will help him/her.

frosbel:


A load of hogwash !!!

What else would you say, buddy?

frosbel: Mighty god , go back and re-read my post and even if I quoted Mighty God I meant as in god not GOD Almighty.

Did the Hebrew make this distinction of small 'god' and GOD that you are making?

Second question, if Jesus is Mighty god, can Mighty god die? This answer will provide an answer to your question below:

You just debunked your own statement, if he was Dead how can he be God, how can God die .

As for the following:

frosbel: ou missed out 18b which adds : "This command I received from my Father."

Has it now come to this debosky, I used to respect you until you starting hanging out with those false teachers.

I didn't miss it out - I left it out intentionally - for clarity, this is the question you asked:

Btw, who raised up Jesus from the dead, or did GOD raise GOD from the dead, lol.

And I responded Jesus laid down his life and took it up again - I do not dispute that Jesus said he received this command from his Father.

Jesus took laid down his life and took it up again - God the Father didn't give him back his life. so again, how does this support your statement that God 'saved' Jesus? God laid down his life and God took it up again!

I'm a Trinitarian.

debosky:

Did the Hebrew make this distinction of small 'god' and GOD that you are making?

Second question, if Jesus is Mighty god, can Mighty god die? This answer will provide an answer to your question below:

Yes.

Which is why Jesus made this statement :

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?

Yes they died .

They were not GOD but gods, did you know that judges in Israel were also called gods ?

Example God told Moses that he will make him a God to Pharaoh and yet Moses died because he was a Man.

New International Version (©1984)
Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

Only GOD as in Yahweh is immortal.

As for the following:

I didn't miss it out - I left it out intentionally - for clarity, this is the question you asked:

Well rather than clarify your point it introduced more confusion.

And I responded Jesus laid down his life and took it up again - I do not dispute that Jesus said he received this command from his Father.

Jesus took laid down his life and took it up again - God the Father didn't give him back his life. so again, how does this support your statement that God 'saved' Jesus? God laid down his life and God took it up again!

New International Version (©1984)
But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay - Acts 13:37

Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

He received the command from the Father and therefore it was the Father's Power that raised him from the dead.


Read your bible friend.