I laff

You said Jesus was a spokesperson? Can you separate a man from his words? Can you separate God from his words?
Jesus never existed as a person in heaven until he resurrected and took off to heaven. He was simply God's spoken word. How then did you conclude he was a spokesperson?
John said AND THE WORD was made flesh, you saying the spokesman was made flesh? God and his words are same, his word was it him from the beginning
,

Jesus is seated at God right hand, it means he is on the seat OF POWER.

What do you mean by 1Col 1v15? I'd assume you mean col 1v15
?

Col 1v15-20 MSG

15-18 We look at this Son and see the God who cannot
be seen. We look at this Son and see God’s original
purpose in everything created. For everything,
absolutely everything, above and below, visible and
invisible, rank after rank after rank of angels—
everything got started in him and finds its purpose in him.
He was there before any of it came into existence and
holds it all together right up to this moment. And when it comes to the church, he organizes and holds it together, like a head does a body.
18-20 He was supreme in the beginning and—leading the resurrection parade—he is supreme in the end. From beginning to end he’s there, towering far above
everything, everyone. So spacious is he, so roomy, that
everything of God finds its proper place in him without
crowding. Not only that, but all the broken and
dislocated pieces of the universe—people and things,
animals and atoms—get properly fixed and fit together
in vibrant harmonies, all because of his death, his blood
that poured down from the cross.

After reading the above you conclude he's a SPOKESMAN for God? Is God mute? Or too busy to speak?

And you got all your quotations wrong eg Col 1 v 15 and Col 1v 19 aint saying what you trying to say. How would you conclude Jesus was created? How? Except you mean God creted his Words right? But your words already resides in you before you say it? No?

God knows man's heart.The Bible says Jesus knew what was in man’s heart.
The Bible says only God can forgive sin. Well we know
Jesus forgave sin. The Bible tells us we’re to worship
God only. Jesus was to be worshipped and He received
worship, especially after His Resurrection.
So the characteristics that God has are described within the Bible, which Jesus contained. He is God the Son. God the Father so loved the world He sent God the Son, who died on our behalf and that’s portrayed in the Storacle of Abraham taking his son Isaac up the
mountain.

You sound Jehova Witness, pls open a thread let's discuss it further. Thanks

JMAN05: this is not a debate, but a continuation of the discussion between Jman05 and Gomb on the trinity doctrine.

please Gomb, I will expect you address my comments one after another like I do yours. if you omit any point, I will assume you ve accepted it.

JMAN05:

You cannot separate a man from his word. Thats true, but for the fact that Jesus sat at the right hand of God, does it not constitute separation?

Will it not be reasonable then to conclude that Jesus was a personality who spoke for God, instead of viewing him as the word in a literal sense? What do you think? Well, that doesnt mean that God cannot speak.

Secondly, Jesus as a spirit person in the heaven can be made flesh. Angels in the past were able to materialise human flesh.

Now if we are to say that Jesus was just a literal word of God, the question is, who spoke from heaven during Jesus' baptism?

I also do not think he was just a word during. his prehuman existence. Why? Let's turn to Dan. 7:13, 14.

13 “I kept on beholding in the visions
of the night, and, see there! with the
clouds + of the heavens someone like a
SON OF MAN + happened to be coming;
and to the Ancient of Days + he gained
access, and they brought him up close
even before that One. + 14 And to him
there were given rulership+ and dignity +
and kingdom, * + that the peoples,
national groups and languages should all
serve even him. + His rulership is an
indefinitely lasting rulership that will not
pass away, and his kingdom one that will
not be brought to ruin. "


I understand that SON OF MAN to be Jesus cos he is the only one who was giving this rulership, kingship etc. What do you think?

You said that he was WITH God in the begining. A thing in you cant be WITH you, rather it will be IN you. Not so?

Can you be separated from your word, so that it is assigned authority, or sits elsewhere instead of in you?

Thanks for your quotation. Now, lets see what verse 15 says. Literally, it says "who is image of the God the invisible, FIRSTBORN of ALL creation". (Wescott and Hott word for word translation)

Now we know that the word firstborn portrays the idea that that one came first, and in the case of ALL other creatures, Jesus was created FIRST. The same greek word appeared in Luke 2:7.


The truth that Jesus was created is emphasized at proverb. It was after his creation that Jesus helped in creating other things.

Proverbs 8:22-30
22 “Jehovah himself produced me * as
the beginning * of his way,+ the earliest
of his achievements of long ago. +
23 From time indefinite I was installed,+
from the start, * from times earlier than
the earth. + 24 When there were no
watery deeps * I was brought forth as
with labor pains, + when there were no
springs heavily charged with water.
25 Before the mountains themselves had
been settled down,+ ahead of the hills, I
was brought forth as with labor pains,
26 when as yet he had not made the
earth + and the open spaces and the first
part of the dust masses of the productive
land. * + 27 When he prepared the
heavens I was there; + when he decreed
a circle upon the face of the watery deep,
+ 28 when he made firm the cloud
masses above, + when he caused the
fountains of the watery deep to be
strong, + 29 when he set for the sea his
decree that the waters themselves should
not pass beyond his order, * + when he
decreed the foundations of the earth, +
30 then I came to be beside him as a
master worker, * + and I came to be the
one he * was specially fond+ of day by
day, I being glad before him all the time."

Note: God is not mute neither did I say He is too busy. No, just like God is not mute or unmovable, but He at times delivers message through the angels.

Jesus has many privileges. Both that of judging and forgiving. The bible shows that God view Jesus as unique, as such God assign him MANY MANY privileges. REMEMBER THAT IT WAS GOD THAT ASSIGNS HIM PRIVILEGES. We read:

John 5:22, 27, 30

22 For the Father judges no one at all,
but he has committed all the judging to
the Son, 27 And he
has given him authority to do judging, +
because Son of man + he is. 30 I cannot do a single
thing of my own initiative; * just as I
hear, I judge; and the judgment that I
render is righteous, + because I seek, not
my own will, but the will + of him that
sent me. "

Did you notice that the son CANNOT do anything of his own initiative? So Jesus can do Many things because God gave him the authority or allowed him. But Jesus states that woeship is for his father alone. Luke 4:8.

Jesus is a servant of God. So he himself calls Him God. So if we see serve or worship assigned to Jesus it means prostrate or that the worship is giving to the almighty through Jesus since Jesus serves Him too.

Ya am one of them, however, we are discussing the bible, not religion.

Please i would expect you to respond to my comments one after the other as I do yours so that you do not omit any point.

If you cnt separate a man from his word, John 1 says Jesus is God's word, meaning they aint separable..simple.
If you say the right hand of God is literal, whereas I said it mean place of total power and authority, I then have questions for you abt the Right hand of God:

1. Does the LORD (Jehovah-God) have a physical right
hand , which defeated the Egyptians, imparted
deliverance to Israel, brought salvation ...etc ?

1. Is Jesus standing (as in Acts 7:55) or sitting (as in
Hebrews 1:3) ?
2. How many thrones are required to contain the Most
High ? See Rev 4:1-5, and Rev 5:1-7
3. Is there complete victory for the people of the LORD (Israel), or is His right hand restrained ?

No it won't be reasonable. You just answered urself
Of a thousand and one places God spoke in d bible where did you see/hear Jesus was his spokesman at the time? If you'd said prophets, priests etc were God's spokesman, then no problem.

Look at this scripture

Ezekiel 36v37 New Living Translation
"This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am ready to hear Israel's prayers and to increase their numbers like a flock.

Pls point out who SPOKE and WHERE JESUS was d spokesman. Find any place in d bible whr Jesus was a spokesman

Is Jesus an Angel? I tot angels are ministers (servants)? And my bible said we believers would Judge angels? Are you saying we are higher than Jesus who you likened to an Angel?

Tot you said Jesus was a spokesman? Who spoke from heaven then if the spokesman was on earth? Go study John 1 hard. Jesus was God's Word made FLESH...

God spoke (this time without his spokesman )
not to His Word (Jesus) but to the Whole Creation..water, land, demons, nairaland, seun, etc. God wasn't addressing Jesus, because Everything He (God) has said (His Word) was embodied in Flesh, Jesus.

Sir I'd appreciate you outline your bible used. And yeah, that's the RIGHT HAND of power av been talking abt. Total rule, dominion, power and authority. This is the same right hand (not physical/literal right hand as you think) he used to defeat israel's enemies, and so on.
And yes, he was God's word before God made him flesh to serve as perfect sacrifice for redemption of man. Daniel saw a vision, just as he did in the latter part of his book, where he saw the End of Time.
He was conceived of the HolySpirit (don't you know what conceive mean) meaning he never existed as a person in Heaven, til he resurrection and ascension, how then did you conclude he was a spokesman? Wen God first spoke in Genesis 1, going by your spokesman analogy, Jesus was formed/created as you said in the other thread, then he became his spokesman...does this seem sound to you?

Again I ask, can you separate a man from his words? Your words are IN you and same as WITH you.
If your words are evil, evil is IN you and WITH you.

President GEJ can be in Aso Rock and his spoken word is having FULL presidential authority in Maiduguri. It doesn't mean he was separated from his word...it means he has authority, so are his words wherever the word goes.

Is Jesus an Angel? I told you to put your bible reference. I'd love you to use KJV or NLT or NIV...because Jehova Witnesses I've come across never use ALL bible translation, except ummm...forgot that its name sef.

Quote the above from ANY bible except this your version, and you'd be shocked at the huge difference your quotation is from other. No?

After you do that, I'd now show you that Proverbs 8 was about Wisdom It self. Hope you know the 7 spirits of God? Wisdom is one of them..checkout Isaiah 11v2 to see the 7 spirits, also Rev 4:5

John 10v30

I and MY FATHER are ONE.

Melchizedek was likened to Jesus, he was unique how many privileges God gave him?

Twas because he was now flesh, he now has his own will, little wonder he said not my will, but your will be done. He had limits as he was in flesh, he felt pain, cried, got tired, etc. He was MAN, and hence needed the father' initiatives to get the work the Father sent him on earth to do, done.

Jesus serves God?
Funny fellow. In heaven now, Jesus is serving God? Col 2v9 tells me that it pleased God that in Jesus should ALL the fullness of the Godhead dwell. Meaning when we Get to heaven, we see Jesus on the Throne...Why!? Because the Godhead dwells in him...for God exalted him and gave him a name that is above ALL (not some) names, that in the name of Jesus ALL (not some) knees should bow, in HEAVEN, on earth, and below the earth

tell me how Jesus in heaven is serving God in heaven?
Jesus worship God while on earth, because he then has his own will as a man, he needed God to fulfil his work on earth, and He needed God for the supernatural life.

My JW people...pls use KJV or any other bible, preferably NLT or NIV or AMP aside your bible version. Else, I won't take your bible quotation serious.

And pls answer ALL d questions I put forth, in a short and precise way. Thanks

Debeloved87: Great..am following, i've got bible scholars here.. But one point to ponder on-john 1: 1-in the begining was the word and the word was WITH God (hotheos), and the word is God(theos).

Debeloved87: Great..am following, i've got bible scholars here.. But one point to ponder on-john 1: 1-in the begining was the word and the word was WITH God (hotheos), and the word is God(theos).

JMAN05:

Being in God's right hand sometimes means being in a favorable position in God's stand point. However God is a person who sits on a throne in heaven.

Granted, To be in his right hand means that the individual has a considerable authority or power, however, the context of where it is used with Jesus shows that Jesus stands as a personality seating NEXT to God, NOT just a literal word without personality.

See this scripture:

"The LORD says TO my Lord: sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your fit". Ps 110:1

a) who made the STATEMENT and to whom?
b) if Jesus was a literal word, how did God speak to him?

- at times the bible uses the right hand of God in another sense. The context helps out.




Q1. Hebrews shows that Jesus occupied a POSITION of authority. This was a literal place next to God, however great power is associated with being there.

Stephen saw Jesus in that position next to God. If he was just talking about authority of one who is IN God, he couldnt have mentioned God and later mentioned Jesus standing there. Could he?

Dont you think that stephen saw at least two persons in that vision?


Q2. Heavenly throne can contain God, He is a person. The throne mentioned in rev. 4:2; 5:1 shows Jehovah's heavenly throne. Of course the bible shows that God dwells in heaven.

Q3. The context will help us. Quote the verse.



a) why then do you think that someone who was assigned a SEAT OF POWER is inside the One who gave him the power? Ps. 110:1



NOTE: I said it before but i dont know why you dont get the point. God CAN speak, He is not dumb. That anyone, even presidents have spokemen doesnt mean that they cant speak. I am saying that the "Word" which refers to Jesus means that he is God's spokesperson, not that Jesus is His word in a literal sense which is your position here.

That President Jonathan has a spokesman doesnt mean that he cant or doesnt speak at times.

Now your saying that no where was Jesus referred to when God spoke is not logical cos 1. God can speak without Jesus.
2. Even if it was Jesus that spoke, the speaker can rightly bear God's name as far as he speaks for God. Eg read Gen. 19:15, 18.




Please my friend i hope you read my responses considering the reason behind them? This your reply was not implied if you really read my coments well. You were saying how a spokesperson can be made flesh, I said it is possible as angels once bore human flesh.
Secondly, Jesus as a spirit in heaven was transferred to the womb of mary.




See my explanation above.



From the above it is obvious you agreed that it was God that spoke from heaven during Jesus' baptism. Not so?



I dont know how you understand the bible. The conception by the spirit is describing the source of Mary's pregnancy as being orchestrated by the holy spirit not by a man.

Could it be that you dont understand the meaning of person? A spirit can be a person. Jesus as a personality in heaven was trasferred into the womb of Mary miraculously. Jesus often says that what he does is what he sees his father doing. Could he be just a word and still be doing that in heaven?


from that Dan. 7:13, 14 kjv answer me;

a) who is the Ancient of Days in that vision?
b) since the Jesus was a mere word of God in heaven how can he 'COME to the Ancient of Days'? And was Daniel describing something inside God or a person outside His body?
c) how can they 'bring him near BEFORE him(Ancient of Days)'?
d) how was 'he GIVEN dominion'? Are these the description of one who has no personality?

d) when God spoke in genesis, whom was he talking to, a person or to the word proceeding out of his mouth?



Your analogy doesnt match the john 1 account.

The word translated "with" in john1 is PROS. this word literally means TOWARDS. (WESCOT AND HOT). While IN corresponds to greek EN. The word "PROS" doesnt refer to what is inside a person but what stays close to him.

I rephrase the question; can you be the same as a person who is TOWARDS you?




can you now tell me why john 1 said that they were separated since i ve giving you the greek difference between IN and WITH?



Did you see an angel in that verse?

Pls respond to my statement on Col. 1:15. Wescot and Hott are not JW. I used an interlinear version of their text.

I repeat:

Thanks for your quotation. Now,
lets see what verse 15 says.
Literally, it says "who is image of
the God the invisible, FIRSTBORN of
ALL creation". (Wescott and Hott
word for word translation)
Now we know that the word
firstborn portrays the idea that that
one came first, and in the case of
ALL other creatures, Jesus was
created FIRST. The same greek
word appeared in Luke 2:7.




my friend, you can read my quotation from any version of your choice and respond accordingly. Though i agree with some scholars who value the NW translation over the KJV, i also compare translations. But in an analytical discussion of this nature, i may use any translation. If the text under discussion generates problem, i go greek or hebrew as the case may be. The bible was not wrtten in english. Pls i dont expect this childish resistance from you. This is not a childish discussion in which translation becomes the problem when you can show me your point against my version through exegetic analysis.

True, that verse talks about wisdom, but this is wisdom personified. Scholars agree with this
. God has always been wise, so no time did He lack wisdom as the verse could suggest when you view it literally. So the wisdom there vividly describes Jesus.

Oga, the spirits stated in revelation is the SEVEN LAMPS OF FIRE. this is symbolically referring to a different thing. It doesnt relate to what was stated in Proverbs.

At Isaiah, this is a prophesy of the qualities with which Jesus will be endowed with when he appears on earth, and six was mentioned NOT seven. These are qualities which God's spirit will help Jesus manifest. The spirit of Jah is one, but it produces different qualities.

The spirit mentioned there were not humans, they were not produced. They are qualities.



Jesus and his father are one in agreement.
If you say they are one in personality, then the same will be true as Jesus said in john17: 22. Does that sound reasonable?


Melchizedek is not Jesus. But his role pictured that of Jesus. That is not the reason why i gave that verse. Please respond based on the issue that gave rise to the reply.




He was still in the flesh when he said I and the father are one. Why the double standard?



So you now ageee that we will see Jesus on the THRONE. if we can see him on the throne, doesnt that mean he is a person there?

I said it before and I wont repeat it unless you prove me wrong exegetically, the word translated Godhead can be translated DIVINE NATURE OR QUALITY.

Every kneel shall bow to the glory of God the Father. Finish it please. Bowing doesnt mean servitude. It shows that he has attained a position higher than anyone except God.

Again, it was God who GAVE him that authority, not so?




Read 1cor. 15:28



Like I said earlier this is not a childish discussion in which translation should be a problem. The bible was never written in english so you can confidently opine that a verse i quoted is wrong presenting your prove in greek just like I did in some of your quotations above.

Some notable bible scholars have attested to the superiority of the NW. You are not a scholar, if so you wont be as mad as you are on translation cos you can be correct in your translation, yet you miss the measage a verse talks about. That is where exegetic analysis is required.

Maybe after, NW vs KJV shall form the topic of our next thread, let me see how far you can go.

i may not respond on saturday and sunday.

JMAN05:

Being in God's right hand sometimes means being in a favorable position in God's stand point. However God is a person who sits on a throne in heaven.

Granted, To be in his right hand means that the individual has a considerable authority or power, however, the context of where it is used with Jesus shows that Jesus stands as a personality seating NEXT to God, NOT just a literal word without personality.

See this scripture:

"The LORD says TO my Lord: sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your fit". Ps 110:1

a) who made the STATEMENT and to whom?
b) if Jesus was a literal word, how did God speak to him?

- at times the bible uses the right hand of God in another sense. The context helps out.




Q1. Hebrews shows that Jesus occupied a POSITION of authority. This was a literal place next to God, however great power is associated with being there.

Stephen saw Jesus in that position next to God. If he was just talking about authority of one who is IN God, he couldnt have mentioned God and later mentioned Jesus standing there. Could he?

Dont you think that stephen saw at least two persons in that vision?


Q2. Heavenly throne can contain God, He is a person. The throne mentioned in rev. 4:2; 5:1 shows Jehovah's heavenly throne. Of course the bible shows that God dwells in heaven.

Q3. The context will help us. Quote the verse.



a) why then do you think that someone who was assigned a SEAT OF POWER is inside the One who gave him the power? Ps. 110:1



NOTE: I said it before but i dont know why you dont get the point. God CAN speak, He is not dumb. That anyone, even presidents have spokemen doesnt mean that they cant speak. I am saying that the "Word" which refers to Jesus means that he is God's spokesperson, not that Jesus is His word in a literal sense which is your position here.

That President Jonathan has a spokesman doesnt mean that he cant or doesnt speak at times.

Now your saying that no where was Jesus referred to when God spoke is not logical cos 1. God can speak without Jesus.
2. Even if it was Jesus that spoke, the speaker can rightly bear God's name as far as he speaks for God. Eg read Gen. 19:15, 18.




Please my friend i hope you read my responses considering the reason behind them? This your reply was not implied if you really read my coments well. You were saying how a spokesperson can be made flesh, I said it is possible as angels once bore human flesh.
Secondly, Jesus as a spirit in heaven was transferred to the womb of mary.




See my explanation above.



From the above it is obvious you agreed that it was God that spoke from heaven during Jesus' baptism. Not so?



I dont know how you understand the bible. The conception by the spirit is describing the source of Mary's pregnancy as being orchestrated by the holy spirit not by a man.

Could it be that you dont understand the meaning of person? A spirit can be a person. Jesus as a personality in heaven was trasferred into the womb of Mary miraculously. Jesus often says that what he does is what he sees his father doing. Could he be just a word and still be doing that in heaven?


from that Dan. 7:13, 14 kjv answer me;

a) who is the Ancient of Days in that vision?
b) since the Jesus was a mere word of God in heaven how can he 'COME to the Ancient of Days'? And was Daniel describing something inside God or a person outside His body?
c) how can they 'bring him near BEFORE him(Ancient of Days)'?
d) how was 'he GIVEN dominion'? Are these the description of one who has no personality?

d) when God spoke in genesis, whom was he talking to, a person or to the word proceeding out of his mouth?



Your analogy doesnt match the john 1 account.

The word translated "with" in john1 is PROS. this word literally means TOWARDS. (WESCOT AND HOT). While IN corresponds to greek EN. The word "PROS" doesnt refer to what is inside a person but what stays close to him.

I rephrase the question; can you be the same as a person who is TOWARDS you?




can you now tell me why john 1 said that they were separated since i ve giving you the greek difference between IN and WITH?



Did you see an angel in that verse?

Pls respond to my statement on Col. 1:15. Wescot and Hott are not JW. I used an interlinear version of their text.

I repeat:

Thanks for your quotation. Now,
lets see what verse 15 says.
Literally, it says "who is image of
the God the invisible, FIRSTBORN of
ALL creation". (Wescott and Hott
word for word translation)
Now we know that the word
firstborn portrays the idea that that
one came first, and in the case of
ALL other creatures, Jesus was
created FIRST. The same greek
word appeared in Luke 2:7.




my friend, you can read my quotation from any version of your choice and respond accordingly. Though i agree with some scholars who value the NW translation over the KJV, i also compare translations. But in an analytical discussion of this nature, i may use any translation. If the text under discussion generates problem, i go greek or hebrew as the case may be. The bible was not wrtten in english. Pls i dont expect this childish resistance from you. This is not a childish discussion in which translation becomes the problem when you can show me your point against my version through exegetic analysis.

True, that verse talks about wisdom, but this is wisdom personified. Scholars agree with this
. God has always been wise, so no time did He lack wisdom as the verse could suggest when you view it literally. So the wisdom there vividly describes Jesus.

Oga, the spirits stated in revelation is the SEVEN LAMPS OF FIRE. this is symbolically referring to a different thing. It doesnt relate to what was stated in Proverbs.

At Isaiah, this is a prophesy of the qualities with which Jesus will be endowed with when he appears on earth, and six was mentioned NOT seven. These are qualities which God's spirit will help Jesus manifest. The spirit of Jah is one, but it produces different qualities.

The spirit mentioned there were not humans, they were not produced. They are qualities.



Jesus and his father are one in agreement.
If you say they are one in personality, then the same will be true as Jesus said in john17: 22. Does that sound reasonable?


Melchizedek is not Jesus. But his role pictured that of Jesus. That is not the reason why i gave that verse. Please respond based on the issue that gave rise to the reply.




He was still in the flesh when he said I and the father are one. Why the double standard?



So you now ageee that we will see Jesus on the THRONE. if we can see him on the throne, doesnt that mean he is a person there?

I said it before and I wont repeat it unless you prove me wrong exegetically, the word translated Godhead can be translated DIVINE NATURE OR QUALITY.

Every kneel shall bow to the glory of God the Father. Finish it please. Bowing doesnt mean servitude. It shows that he has attained a position higher than anyone except God.

Again, it was God who GAVE him that authority, not so?




Read 1cor. 15:28



Like I said earlier this is not a childish discussion in which translation should be a problem. The bible was never written in english so you can confidently opine that a verse i quoted is wrong presenting your prove in greek just like I did in some of your quotations above.

Some notable bible scholars have attested to the superiority of the NW. You are not a scholar, if so you wont be as mad as you are on translation cos you can be correct in your translation, yet you miss the measage a verse talks about. That is where exegetic analysis is required.

Maybe after, NW vs KJV shall form the topic of our next thread, let me see how far you can go.

i may not respond on saturday and sunday.

Gombs:

Told you I won't take you serious if you don't use the KJV or any other version aside JW's NW. In summary, you win,can we now give it a rest?

JMAN05:

where did i use NW in my present write up there?

Emusan: @Jman
What I want to point out which I've seen in many people arguing about Trinity or mostly Jesus as God is this, when Man begins to think that God also has equal power, knowledge and will like a Man(human being) and using this concept to interpret the word of God there'll be a problem.

God is a being who can manifest Himself the way He likes once you know this then you'll see the perspetive of Jesus as God.

Shalom!

Emusan: @Jman
What I want to point out which I've seen in many people arguing about Trinity or mostly Jesus as God is this, when Man begins to think that God also has equal power, knowledge and will like a Man(human being) and using this concept to interpret the word of God there'll be a problem.

God is a being who can manifest Himself the way He likes once you know this then you'll see the perspetive of Jesus as God.

Shalom!

Gombs:

Oya put up the bible version you quoted from.

JMAN05:

didnt u see wescott and hot and kjv there? seems u are not just ready,

Gombs:

Lol
You didn't quote KJV joor...

WESTCOTT AND HORT
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John
Anthony Hort (1828-1892) produced a Greek New
Testament in 1881 based on the findings of
Tischendorf. This Greek NT was the basis for the
Revised Version of that same year. They also developed a theory of textual criticism which
underlay their Greek NT and several other Greek NT
since (such as the Nestle's text and the United Bible
Society's text). Greek New Testaments such as
these produced the modern English translations of
the Bible we have today. So it is important for us to
know the theory of Westcott and Hort as well as
something of the two men who have so greatly
influenced modern textual criticism.
In short, the Westcott and Hort theory states that
the Bible is to be treated as any other book would
be.

Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text which
underlies the KJV was perverse and corrupt. Hort
called the Textus Receptus vile and villainous (Life
and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I,
p.211).
If Westcott and Hort are the fathers of modern
textual criticism and the restorers of the true text,
should we not know something of their beliefs to see
if they are consistent with Scripture? This would be
harmonious with the teaching found in Matthew 7:17.
Here's what Westcott and Hort said about...
The Scriptures:
"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures
overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters
of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).
"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere
compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the
New Testament, p. vii).
"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are,
I fear, still more serious differences between us
on the subject of authority, especially the
authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and
Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I,
p.400)
"Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not
hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity
of the New Testament Text, p.212)


You want me to Go with Westcott and Hort who don't believe in the infallibility of the bible? Who said the bible shd be treated like any other book?

If you won't use KJV or any other aprt from JW's NW, I'm afraid we cnt mov forward on this

JMAN05:
granted, some may fall into the temptation of viewing spiritual matters with human thinking.

however, when i say that your position on a certain subject is incorrect or carnal, you will immediately say I am joking because you are convinced that you are correct. and if you say the same to me, i will still say you are wrong cos i am convinced of what i believe too. Now, if we go along such accusations without a prove, each of us will end up deceiving ourselves. what then do we do?

We then need to follow the apostolic method. how? by proving our point and logically showing the other person from the scriptures why his view is wrong. read acts 17:2; 18:28.

Now any teaching with is not consistence with the WHOLE parts of the bible that has bearing on the subject under discussion is wrong.

I think that this is a good format instead of just saying 'hey! you are wrong.'

JMAN05:

please read errors in kjv version in this link. the errors are too much to copy.

AFTER READING IT, YOU TELL ME WHY I SHOULD TRUST IT.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/kjverror.htm

Secondly, what you are saying about westcot and Hort is hilarious. why?

inshort your comment only show me that you are a learner. W&H text is not a translation to english but a greek text with which translations to english are made. before it TESTUS RECEPTUS was popular. which is what kjv committee compared from.

Now the manuscript used by W&H is the oldest and best than the TR. ask any scholar.

Now comparing W&H and TR, what is the magnitude of errors to the original?

read:

Furthermore, a careful distinction must be made
between the textus receptus (even in its broadest
collective sense) on the one hand, and the
majority text (also known as the Byzantine or
Syrian text) on the other. Though the terms textus
receptus and majority text are frequently used as
though they were synonymous, they by no means
mean the same thing. (7) When the majority text
was being compiled by Hodges and Farstad, their
collaborator Pickering estimated that their
resultant text would differ from the textus
receptus in over 1,000 places ( ; in fact, the
differences amounted to 1,838. (9) In other
words, the reading of the majority of Greek
manuscripts differs from the textus receptus
(Hodges and Farstad used an 1825 Oxford reprint
of Stephanus' 1550 text for comparison purposes)
in 1,838 places, and in many of these places, the
text of Westcott and Hort agrees with the majority
of manuscripts against the textus receptus. The
majority of manuscripts and Westcott and Hort
agree against the textus receptus in excluding
Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; and I John 5:7 from the
New Testament, as well as concurring in numerous
other readings (such as "tree of life" in Revelation
22:19). Except in a few rare cases, writers well-
versed in textual criticism have abandoned the
textus receptus as a standard text. (10)

Gombs:


Tnx for your time...try and address why they said the bible shd be treated as any other book, and that the infallibility of the bible is absurd, if you don't I'd assume you take after their belief too. Meanwhile, let's get bck to trinity issue.

You said God is in heaven, which is true, but when Jesus was on earth, he said something striking

John 14 v 10 New Living Translation
don't you believe that I am in the Father and the
Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own,
but my Father who lives in me does his work through
me.

Tis true dat God lives in heaven, what then did Jesus mean by "my father who lives in me"? If not the Holyspirit (which Jesus called my father, meaning God and Holyspirit are same)

I say tis the holyspirit that Jesus was referring to in this verse because of

Acts 10v38
New Living Translation
38 And you know that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth
with the Holy Spirit and with power. Then Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.

I dare you to post same posts above from the JW's NWT bible...twas so perverted just so that Jesus is not seen as same as God, or the Holyspirit is not seen as God himself

The first thing I say to a JW's before I study with them is that I will not accept anything from the NWT as authoritative. But they won't accept any other Bible in their heart, even though they might allow you to use one.

I then understood thus:

1. The NWT is so extremely biased & perverted, it is
questionable if any Hebrew or Greek scholars worked
on it. It is nothing more than a sectarian paraphrase, not a translation.
2. No one uses the NWT except the Jw's.
3. Jw's on the other hand will use nothing else!
4. It has undergone many revisions. (deny it na, no wonder Westcoff and Hort said the bible shd be treated as any other book)

Pls post NWT version of Acts 10v38 and John 14v 10

JMAN05:

What will we call this your method?

go above and address my reply and you are claiming i too know here. that one is the main issue we are discussing here.

what they said is just your writeup until you provide the source. but pls pls and pls respond to my earlier reply.

Tnx for your time...try and address why they said the bible shd be treated as any other book, and that the infallibility of the bible is absurd, if you don't I'd assume you take after their belief too. Meanwhile, let's get bck to trinity issue.

You said God is in heaven, which is true, but when Jesus was on earth, he said something striking

John 14 v 10 New Living Translation
don't you believe that I am in the Father and the
Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own,
but my Father who lives in me does his work through me.

Tis true dat God lives in heaven, what then did Jesus mean by "my father who lives in me"? If not the Holyspirit (which Jesus called my father, meaning God and Holyspirit are same)

I say tis the holyspirit that Jesus was referring to in this verse because of

Acts 10v38
New Living Translation
38 And you know that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth
with the Holy Spirit and with power. Then Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.

I dare you to post same posts above from the JW's NWT bible...twas so perverted just so that Jesus is not seen as same as God, or the Holyspirit is not seen as God himself

The first thing I say to a JW's before I study with them is that I will not accept anything from the NWT as authoritative. But they won't accept any other Bible in their heart, even though they might allow you to use one.

Your rejecting it and accepting the kjv filled with error shows that your rejection is out of ignorance.

Jehovah's witnesses will allow you to use your preferred translation. but your insistence on translation instead of what the greek says shows you are still learning.

[quote]I then understood thus:

1. The NWT is so extremely biased & perverted, it is
questionable if any Hebrew or Greek scholars worked
on it. It is nothing more than a sectarian paraphrase, not a translation.
2. No one uses the NWT except the Jw's.
3. Jw's on the other hand will use nothing else!

4. It has undergone many revisions. (deny it na, no wonder Westcoff and Hort said the bible shd be treated as any other book)

Pls post NWT version of Acts 10v38 and John 14v 10

Tnx for your time...try and address why they said the bible shd be treated as any other book, and that the infallibility of the bible is absurd, if you don't I'd assume you take after their belief too. Meanwhile, let's get bck to trinity issue.

You said God is in heaven, which is true, but when Jesus was on earth, he said something striking

John 14 v 10 New Living Translation
don't you believe that I am in the Father and the
Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own,
but my Father who lives in me does his work through me.

Tis true dat God lives in heaven, what then did Jesus mean by "my father who lives in me"? If not the Holyspirit (which Jesus called my father, meaning God and Holyspirit are same)

I say tis the holyspirit that Jesus was referring to in this verse because of

Acts 10v38
New Living Translation
38 And you know that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth
with the Holy Spirit and with power. Then Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.

I dare you to post same posts above from the JW's NWT bible...twas so perverted just so that Jesus is not seen as same as God, or the Holyspirit is not seen as God himself

The first thing I say to a JW's before I study with them is that I will not accept anything from the NWT as authoritative. But they won't accept any other Bible in their heart, even though they might allow you to use one.

I then understood thus:

1. The NWT is so extremely biased & perverted, it is
questionable if any Hebrew or Greek scholars worked
on it. It is nothing more than a sectarian paraphrase, not a translation.
2. No one uses the NWT except the Jw's.
3. Jw's on the other hand will use nothing else!

4. It has undergone many revisions. (deny it na, no wonder Westcoff and Hort said the bible shd be treated as any other book)

Pls post NWT version of Acts 10v38 and John 14v 10

JMAN05:

I ve never heard about it before. just give me the source. however their comment may be conmected with the manuscript they were preparing, not just the scriptures cos no one has the original manuscript written by the apostles now. but scholars prefer their text to TESTUS RECEPTUS. that is my concern here. some translators used it too.

JMAN05:
that verse never supported your point at all. your poaition is that Jesus is just a part of God, namely, the word. meaning that he has no personality. this position is what I am against in this discussion. are you in effect stating that the Father has no personality too?

If you interprete that scripture that way, how will you interprete this;

john 17

20 “My prayer is not for them alone.
I pray also for those who will believe
in me through their message,
21[b] that all of them may be one,
Father, just as you are in me and I
am in you. May they also be in us [/b] so
that the world may believe that you
have sent me. 22 I have given them
the glory that you gave me, that
they may be one as we are one—
23 I in them and you in me—so that
they may be brought to complete
unity. Then the world will know that
you sent me and have loved them
even as you have loved me."

"10 Do you not believe that I am in
union with the Father and the Father is in

union with me? + The things I say to YOU
men I do not speak of my own
originality; * but the Father who remains
in union with me is doing his works. "

Your rejecting it and accepting the kjv filled with error shows that your rejection is out of ignorance.

Gombs:

www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/wh-heretics.htm

Knock yourself out. What scholars preffered their text? Names pls



It did, your bible NWT (used only by JWs) is the only bible in the World (stand to be corrected),
that used the word union. My position is that Jesus is GOD, not a part of God. He had no personality till after he was made flesh, died and resurrected into heaven ALIVE. I've answered this na, stop twisting my words. Where did I say God has no personality? It pleased God that in Jesus should ALL the fullness of the Godhead (deity) dwell. Col 2v9, but your NWT perverted Col 2v9 again. Like I said, NWT is not a translation, but a sectarian theory



John 10v30
I and MY FATHER are ONE.
Meaning SAME, and he wants us to be partakers of the divine nature. That why Christianity aint a religion

1jonh 4v17 say as He (Jesus) is (not was), so are we IN THIS WORLD (not when we get to heaven. What he meant by "All of them may be one"
is simply put here

1corinth 12v13 NLT

Some of us are Jews, some are Gentiles, some are
slaves, and some are free. But we have all been
baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit.



Here again the word union is used...lol, use another bible aside your NWT pls...told you NWT is perverted to show that Jesus was created



And your NWT is not with 'errors', and it is the only right bible translation out of
a possible 30?

Oya, leave KJV, use NLT, amplified, GoodNews bible, NIV etc. Or are the 'full or errors' too? Isn't it funny that all translations 'has errors' while your NWT hasn't?
See what your NWT did

John 8:58 says "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. "

The NWT have distorted these beautiful and simple words of our Lord into "Jesus said to them: Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I HAVE BEEN."

I HAVE BEEN? My GOD is not a HAVE BEEN! He's always living, he's not a reincarnate, have been means he lived before, and something happened he ceased to exist, then he later reappeared.
When Moses was on the mount before God, and asked Him what to tell the people when they asked who God was, Did God say 'I HAVE BEEN THAT I HAVE BEEN?' NO!!! Did he tell Moses to tell them "I HAVE BEEN HATH SENT THEE'? NO!! The word of God in Exodus 3:14 says
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he
said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I
AM hath sent me unto you. And by the way, do you
think "before Abraham came into existence" is easier
to understand than "before Abraham was"?

Anyway, if the I AM in Hebrews 8;58 is changed, the
reference to exodus 3:14 is LOST, and anyone
reading it that way will not know that Jesus is the I
AM in John 8:58 and the SAME I AM that spoke to
Moses from the burning bush. (Meaning Jesus and God are same, because you cannot separate God from his word (Jesus))

By the way sef
you never post John 1v1 I asked you to post here from your NWT o.

JMAN05:

If you want to discuss or criticise the new world translation, good. but first you chose a translation you think its the best (i prefer u chose ur almighty kjv). then form another thread let's see how the the kjv can survive it.

I will not respond to any of your comments until you respond to my earlier reply which is the discussion that led to forming this thread.

please form another thread for the new world translation vs kjv.

waiting...

Gombs:

Tot as much, you cudnt ansa anytin in my last post. Not even a try. I'm not criticizing the NWT or discussing it, I am only sayin it perverted what all other bible version stated all in a bid to show that Jesus is not God and that Jesus was created.

The New World Translation is unique in one thing – it is
the first intentional, systematic effort at producing a
complete version of the Bible that is edited and revised for the specific purpose of agreeing with a group's doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society realized that their beliefs contradicted Scripture. So, rather than conforming their beliefs to Scripture, they altered Scripture to agree with their beliefs. The “New World Bible Translation Committee” went through the Bible and changed any Scripture that did not agree with Jehovah’s Witness theology. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, as new editions
of the New World Translation were published,
additional changes were made to the biblical text. Esp the 2012 revised edition

As biblical Christians like I continue to point out Scriptures that clearly argue for the deity of Christ (for example), the Watchtower Society would publish new editions of the New World Translation with those Scriptures changed.

Here are some of the more prominent examples of
intentional revisions:
1. The New World Translation renders the Greek term
word staurós ("cross" as "torture stake" because
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was
crucified on a cross.

2. The New World Translation does not translate the Greek words sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus as "hell” because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in hell.

3. The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of “coming” for the Greek word parousia because Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christ has already returned in the early 1900s.

In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word “other”
despite its being completely absent from the original
Greek text. It does this to give the view that “all other things” were created by Christ, instead of what the text says, “all things were created by Christ.” This is to go along with their belief that Christ is a created being, which they believe because they deny the Trinity.


Now, the most well-known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1:1 which you would no post here, any time I read the NWT version of John 1v1 and compare with the greek version, I can't help but scream .
The original Greek text reads, “the Word was God.” The NWT renders it as “the word was a god.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, "a" or "an", so any use of an indefinite article in English must be added by the translator (Westcoff and Hort). This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.


So, my dear friend, I'm saying the NWT you clinged much to (as JWs won't use another except it) was perverted by JWs themselves,to show Trinity aint true, that Christ aint God, that Hell aint real,m etc. If you would use another bible let's dig into d issue of trinity, fine, else I won't buy anything you have to say from NWT
If you don't wanna reply, fine. I aint opening a thread of NWT and KJV as KJV is not my bible, I use all versions except NWT..so if you wanna debate put up a thread of
NWT vs ALL other Bible version-Which was perverted!?

Cheers mate!

You killed it Bro!
Welcome to the month of fellowship!
*speak with tongues*
I'm with you and @Bidam 100%
PS- Haters go get a life! Don't bother quoting me 'cus I wount reply you!

Kenny4lyfe:

You killed it Bro!
Welcome to the month of fellowship!
*speak with tongues*
I'm with you and @Bidam 100%
PS- Haters go get a life! Don't bother quoting me 'cus I wount reply you!

Gombs:

Tot as much, you cudnt ansa anytin in my last post. Not even a try. I'm not criticizing the NWT or discussing it, I am only sayin it perverted what all other bible version stated all in a bid to show that Jesus is not God and that Jesus was created.

The New World Translation is unique in one thing – it is
the first intentional, systematic effort at producing a
complete version of the Bible that is edited and revised for the specific purpose of agreeing with a group's doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society realized that their beliefs contradicted Scripture. So, rather than conforming their beliefs to Scripture, they altered Scripture to agree with their beliefs. The “New World Bible Translation Committee” went through the Bible and changed any Scripture that did not agree with Jehovah’s Witness theology. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, as new editions
of the New World Translation were published,
additional changes were made to the biblical text. Esp the 2012 revised edition

As biblical Christians like I continue to point out Scriptures that clearly argue for the deity of Christ (for example), the Watchtower Society would publish new editions of the New World Translation with those Scriptures changed.

Here are some of the more prominent examples of
intentional revisions:
1. The New World Translation renders the Greek term
word staurós ("cross" as "torture stake" because
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was
crucified on a cross.

2. The New World Translation does not translate the Greek words sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus as "hell” because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in hell.

3. The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of “coming” for the Greek word parousia because Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christ has already returned in the early 1900s.

In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word “other”
despite its being completely absent from the original
Greek text. It does this to give the view that “all other things” were created by Christ, instead of what the text says, “all things were created by Christ.” This is to go along with their belief that Christ is a created being, which they believe because they deny the Trinity.


Now, the most well-known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1:1 which you would no post here, any time I read the NWT version of John 1v1 and compare with the greek version, I can't help but scream .
The original Greek text reads, “the Word was God.” The NWT renders it as “the word was a god.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, "a" or "an", so any use of an indefinite article in English must be added by the translator (Westcoff and Hort). This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.


So, my dear friend, I'm saying the NWT you clinged much to (as JWs won't use another except it) was perverted by JWs themselves,to show Trinity aint true, that Christ aint God, that Hell aint real,m etc. If you would use another bible let's dig into d issue of trinity, fine, else I won't buy anything you have to say from NWT
If you don't wanna reply, fine. I aint opening a thread of NWT and KJV as KJV is not my bible, I use all versions except NWT..so if you wanna debate put up a thread of
NWT vs ALL other Bible version-Which was perverted!?

Cheers mate!