johnw74

johnw74:



No not Lie Lie, those Bible verses are true,
but I know you don't believe them, along with a multitude of other Bible verses that you don't believe.

Lie Lie John ,

johnw74

look out Jesus, [size=28] said a Disciple [/size] they are trying to trap you

brocab:
dolphinheart you ask for answers, so we good Christians give them to you, and then you refuse them, by comparing the scriptures, you have argued over words that is written in the bibles, you are trying to turn the word of God against each other, and of course you are calling us lairs because "we" as in you" have shared the word from these bibles we all read from.
Really how can anyone take you serious? Everyone who has access to the net, can find all the information they need about the word. Truly "you are mocking not ourselves' but you are mocking the word of God.
What your problem is your blindness can only take you further away from the truth.

BROCAB, YOU HAVE FOMULATED YOUR DOCTRINE FROM DERIVED AND INDIRECT ANALOGY OF THE SCRIPTURES, THUS YOU CANNOT ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT SHOWS YOUR DOCTRINE TO BE FALSE. YOU ARE READY TO READ SOME SCRIPTURES, BUT WHEN OTHERS ARE BEING POSTED TO YOU , YOU ACT AS IF IT DOES NOT EXIST AND REFUSE TO EXPLAIN THEM.
HERE ARE SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS AND SCRIPTURES
READERS PLS NOTE THAT HE COULD NOT GIVE A REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS OR EXPLAIN THE SCRIPTURES SHOWN TO HIM, HENCE HE IS NOW TRYING TO CHANGE THE ISSUES BEING DISCUSSED


BELOW IS MY RESPONSE TO YOUR POST, PLS RESPOND!

brocab:
Now I am not expecting you to read or understand this page-but their are to types of Christians in this world No 1-Christians believe, No 2-Christians that don't believe.
The word of God is the truth, no man will deny the truth.
Jesus is the most important person who has ever lived since He is our saviour. God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully divine and fully man, In other words Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human. Jesus is the word who was God, and was with God, and was made flesh {John 1:1,14} This means in a single person of Jesus He has both the human and divine nature, God and man. The divine nature was not changed when the word became flesh {John 1:1, 14} Instead the word was joined with humanity {Colossians 2:9} Jesus' divine nature was not altered. Also, Jesus is not merely a man, who had God within Him, nor is He a man who "manifested the God principle. "He is God in flesh. Second person of the trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory, and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word {Hebrews 1:3} Jesus's two natures are not mixed together. Look up the word {Eutychianism} nor are they combined into a new God-man nature. look up {Monophysitism} They are separated yet act as a unit in the One person of Jesus. this is called the {Hypostatic Union}

WHAT DID JESUS OUR SAVIOR SAY ABOUT GAINING EVALASTING LIFE?
King James Version
Joh 17:1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
Joun 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Joh 17:3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

SOME CLAIM JESUS IS FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN BUT CAN NOT EXPLAIN HOW JESUS BEING FULLY GOD WAS :
1. Giving authority by someone else
King James Version
[b]Joh 5:26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
Joh 5:27And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
imagine, claiming someone is fully God yet he being given authority by someone else!

2. giving power by someone else
King James Version
Joh 3:35The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

English Standard Version
On one of those days, as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with him to heal.

Guys, check out the only true god!
Jer 27:4Give them this command for their masters: “‘“This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says; this is what you should say to your masters,
Jer 27:5‘It is I who made the earth, mankind, and the beasts that are on the surface of the earth by my great power and by my outstretched arm; and I have given it to whomever I please.
can you guys see the difference!, yet they claim jesus is fully God.


3. Is not able to take any initiative by himself except what he sees another doing.

King James Version
Joh 5:19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
imagine fully God can do nothing of himself.

4. will be shown greater works
King James Version
Joh 5:20For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

5. calls someone else his God.
[b]King James Version
Joh 20:17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.


6.cannot give certain things
King James Version
Mt 20:23And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

7. does not know certain things
matt 24:36 English Standard Version
“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

8. fully God and yet said this.
King James Version
Mt 27:46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?


SOME PREFER TO USE UNSCRIPTURAL WORDS AND TERMS TO DESCRIBE JESUS, BUT WHAT DOES THE SCRIPTURES SAY WHEN JESUS CAME TO EARTH.

john 1:14
English Standard Version
And the Word BECAME FLESH and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the ONLY SON FROM THE FATHER, full of grace and truth.

King James Bible
And the Word was MADE FLESH , and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

did that verse say Jesus added flesh to his divine nature? no
did it say Jesus had two natures? no
what glory did it say we beheld , God ? no , son of God !
JESUS WAS MADE FLESH, JESUS BECAME FLESH!

WHEN JESUS BECAME FLESH, DID HE RETAIN PART OF HIS DIVINE NATURE , TALK LESS OF ALL OF HIS DIVINE NATURE?

phil 2:7
English Standard Version
color=red]BUT EMPTIED HIMSELF[/color]but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men

International Standard Version
Instead, poured out in emptiness, a servant's form did he possess, A MORTAL MAN BECOMING. In human form he chose to be,

Isa 53:2, 3He will come up like a twig before him, like a root out of parched land. No stately form does he have, nor any splendor; And when we see him, his appearance does not draw us to him.3He was despised and was avoided by men, A man who was meant for pains and was familiar with sickness. It was as if his face were hidden from us. He was despised, and we held him as of no account.


brocab, you know I like asking you questions, telling you to explain the scriptures to me and expecially to thousands of people reading this thread. so pls brocab can you explain this two scriptures?

King James Version
Da 7:13I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Da 7:14And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.


who is the Lamb and who is the ancient of days?

*READERS SHOULD NOTE IF HE WILL EXPLAIN

BROCAB HAS ALSO FAI LED TO ATTEND TO THIS:

And yet no response from you on the issue you yourself raised?
also up till now , you have not answered these questions( more on these will be brought up later)

you have also refused to respond to these questions and scripture:
[b]Just tell us the name of the church you associate with, that you are a member of!. If possible you can include its official website, at least you surpport using technology in Gods work.
Tell us, do you know that Jesus Christ told someone that he has a God? And that statement was recorded in the kjv.? Can you tell us where this can be found?
If you can't answer this question brocab, then you dnt know the truth about Christ!.
Expecially. The one spoken by Jesus himself.
Examine this questions brocab 1. If you say one body, one spirit, was Jesus a spirit before he came to earth?
2. When Jesus was on earth, was the spirit in him his, the father or the holy spirit.?
3. After Jesus left the earth, did he remain in the body or became a spirit?
4. What does Jesus mean by " the father is greater than I am"
5. Why does Jesus say he is going to the father when you are trying to say he is spirit.
6. You asked a question, the answer is yes, but ill like to ask you, what about the soul, why did you remove the soul when fomulating your question.
You cannot answer if Jesus is the same person as the father.
brocab , readers will note(again) that you have NOT quoted and explained ANY of the following scriptures :
1.rev 1:1,6
2. Rev 3, 2,13
3. John 17:1-3
4. Heb 1:1 -9
5. John 20:17
6. 1 cor 11:3
7 . 1 ti 2 :5,6
8.Acts 4:10
9. Acts 2:36
10. Acts 2:24
11. Acts 5:30
12.Acts 10:38,40,43
11. Phil 2:9,11
12. john 14:6
13. Acts 4 : 26,27, 30
14. 1 john 4:14
15. Heb 5:7
16. ps 28:18
And a host of others
Brocab , examine these scripture
Acts 5: 31.
Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
John 3:16.
For God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth
in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life.
Jesus is Gods only begotten son, Jesus is not God almighty![/b]

johnw74:




that's the fourth time you say the same lie,

I did say false jw was queer didn't I

[img]http://jwfacts.com[/img] for you

here are more false jw lies to add to your own:

This is what the Watchtower said about
Eve’s creation and 1975 BEFORE 1975
“According to reliable Bible chronology, Adam and Eve
were created in 4026 B.C.E.” (Awake!, 10-8-68, p. 14)
“Therefore, God’s seventh day and the time man has been on
earth apparently run parallel. To calculate where man is in the
stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years,
we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the
year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. ....Thus,
eight yearsremain to account for a full 6,000 years of the
seventh day. Eight yearsfrom the autumn of 1967 would
bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 yearsinto God’s
seventh day, his rest day.” (The Watchtower, 5-1-68, p. 271)
“At the age of 130 another son was born to her. Eve called
his name Seth....” (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971 ed., p.
538). If this information is compared to the chart in the lower
right-hand corner of page 333 of the same volume, one will
see, “From Adam’s creation to the birth of Seth” was “130
years”. Hence, both Adam and Eve were 130 years old when
Seth was born, implying they were both created in the same
year.
“It would not be by mere chance or accident but would be
according to the loving purpose of Jehovah God for the reign
of Jesus Christ, the ‘Lord of the sabbath,’ to run parallel with
the seventh millenniumof man’s existence.” (Life
Everlasting-In Freedom of the Sons of God, p. 30)
“Even if one cannot see beyond 1975, is this any reason to be
less active? The apostles could not see even this far; they
knew nothing about 1975....If they had delayed or dillydallied
and had been complacent with the idea the end was some
thousands of years off they would never have finished
running the race set before them.” (The Watchtower, 8-15-68,
p. 501)
“Yes, the end of this system is so very near! Is that not
reason to increase our activity?...Reports are heard of
brothers selling their homes and property and planning to
finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the
pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short
time remaining before the wicked world’s end.” (Kingdom
Ministry, May 1974, p. 3) [Question: Was this sound counsel
offered by the Society? What do you think happened to those
who sold their homes and property and spent all the money,
after it was apparent that they were misled about 1975? What
would you have done?]

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/jehovahs-witnesses-answered.htm

to be continued tomorrow



more truth on the sect that is called jehovahs' witnesses at these sites:

http://jwfacts.com/

https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses

if I respond to this, will you discuss it? no
Will you give me a chance to tell my own understanding? no
even if I do attempt to tell you my understanding, will you listen to me? no
Why?, because you dnt discuss with jw's, how do you expect them to answer your questions.
well you can continue in your stance, it saves me time to respond to you.
you are the sole talker here , so continue
once in a while, I'll respond with lie lie john!

johnw74:



bro, there are so many Bible verses showing that the Holy Spirit is personable,
and there is no forgiveness for any who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, and yet false jw say the Holy Spirit is an "it".

They will hold onto one verse and disbelieve a multitude.

God is a Spirit, and God is Holy, Christians know that the Holy Spirit is God, and not an "it",
false jw blaspheme all over the place.

They know nothing but lies, taught them originally by the father of lies.

Joh_8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

@underline, along with satan, the pharasees were part of murdering Jesus Christ.

false jw blaspheme God preaching that Jesus Christ is "a god"
and that the Holy Spirit is an "it"

dolphinheart said that God and the Word is "a two headed god"

You should do what I do, and not commune with them except to show up some of their lies now and then,
we are not supposed to throw our pearls (truth) to dogs and swine.

Jesus said:
Mat_7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

^^^
That's what false jw do isnt it, with all the scriptures we post to them,
they trample them under their feet and then turn and attack you.

There is much in the Bible about pharasee jw and other sectarians and non believers.

pls, pls, pls ,pls pls pls, DNT LIE AGAINST ME!, DNT ALTER MY WORDS TO MEAN SOME THING ELSE.

You can refuse to discuss, but lying against by altering their words is a new low, a really deep one!

[quote author=dolphinheart post=45960614]

I do understand what the post was about, it's from a Web page that tried to give surr port to the Textus Receptus by undermining older manuscripts and texts.

nooo the textus Receptus didn't undermine older manuscripts

It feels that the best way to defend it's own established flaws is to attack the perceived flaws of the manuscripts it deferred from.

if those so called manuscripts have flaws then you can't use it to make a claim. So far the assumptions that since "Alpha and Omega"in revelations1:11 is not in the supposed older manuscripts(which are very few compared to the ones that are lost) then it was added to thetkjv is baseless and flawed, since those older manuscripts also have flaws.

fortunately we are discussing about rev 1:11 and the addition of " Alpha and omega" and not about the book of revelation.
so far, you have just tried to discredit older manuscripts , but you have failed to show how the Textus Receptus came about the word "Alpha and omega" found in rev 1:11

then what proof do you have that Alpha and Omega as found in kjv was added

even in your attempt to discredit those manuscripts, you could not discredit there record of rev 1:11. You believe that making a general reference to perceived flaws in them will affect the credibility of that verse, but I can bet you will balk at it if the same method you are trying to use is used for the Textus Receptus.

you can't say Alpha and Omega was added only because some older manuscripts do not have it

let's even use it:
it is generally believed that the Textus Receptus contained a lot of flaws, flaws that it's author even acknowledged. This proves that the textus Receptus is flawed when it added "Alpha and omega to revelation 1:11! [/right]

you are drawing conclusions from what is generally believed,you have not been able to proveit is so unfortunate that one cannot make you see straight let me tell you revelations was a source of debate during the early times.

another explanation based on assumptions .
The earlier manuscripts that had rev 1:11, are hundreds of years older than the one in the hands of the church fathers, who had already decided that trinity is part of their doctrines.
do you realise that one of the proven allegations about Erasmus texts is the inclusion of words which are not part of the original texts, which are written in margins by the copyist into the original texts to make it look as if the original writer put it THERE?

older manuscripts doesn't mean they where the original one.making alligations as usual,there are hundreds of verses that proves Trinity.

[right]moreover, you have failed to tell us this manuscript that is in possession of these church fathers, that the Textus Receptus copied rev 1:11 from!

good, give us one example of the variants of rev 1:11 since you have proven to have variants.



you and allegations sha!

so pathetic for you

[right]pls let's deal with facts naw!, how can you now be saying you have facts when all you do is talk about allegations!



pls dnt stop, pls tell us how the Textus Receptus come about the words it added to rev 1:11, ""Alpha and omega". where did it get it from?[/q[/

all the facts you are trying to use against revelation 1:11 are just assumptions

johnw74:


Yes, I showed with scripture that "God and the Word is God"

dolphinheart replied "your god is a two headed god"

it's a long time back, do you want me to find and post it?

now what I actually said is different from what you initially gold brocab I said, so pls go ahead, bring out the post and let's see my full reply to you.

solite3:
nooo the textus Receptus didn't undermine older manuscripts

sir, I'll advice that you read my statements very well before you reply, did I say that the Textus Receptus undermine older manuscripts? no! I was talking about the Web page trying to give surpport to the Textus Receptus by undermining older manuscripts and texts that the Textus Receptus defered from.

The Web page, even with all its undermining, could not give a defence as to why the Textus Receptus had " Alpha and omega in rev 1:11

if those so called manuscripts have flaws then you can't use it to make a claim.

like I said earlier, that method of attack is flawed, cus if that same line is used for the Textus Receptus, it will fall like a pack of cards.
fortunately for us, we are not talking about the book of rev in general, we are talking about just one verse! You have failed to show that the much older manuscripts where flawed in that particular verse(note: this is a fact).
Erasmus admitted to having flaws in the Textus Receptus, he thus tried to adjust some of those flaws in subsequent editions, should I use that as a basis for rejecting it's record of rev 1:11 like you are trying to do for older manuscripts?

So far the assumptions that since "Alpha and Omega"in revelations1:11 is not in the supposed older manuscripts(which are very few compared to the ones that are lost) then it was added to thetkjv is baseless and flawed, since those older manuscripts also have flaws.

fact 2: the older manuscripts, which scholars have termed to be more reliable, which Erasmus could not use cus he did not have them ,DO NOT HAVE THE WORDS " Alpha and omega" in rev 1:11
fact 3: the older manuscripts are not "supposed" older manuscripts. They are in fact very much older than the Textus Receptus or the sources the Textus Receptus got its texts from!
like I said, using that general logic to cancel the authenticity of a particular verse has a more lethal and devastating effect on the Textus Receptus.

then what proof do you have that Alpha now Omega as found in kjv was added

I just stated a fact which you failed to respond to :" you have failed to show how the Textus Receptus came about the word "Alpha and omega" found in rev 1:11
that statement is proof enough that the word " Alpha and omega was added to that verse.
If something cannot be found in a particular verse of a manuscript that existed a long time ago, and then was seen in a printed work hundred of years later, it remains for the person who added it to show reasons for the addition. If such one claim that those words where in that verse originally and then removed, SUCH ONE SHOULD SHOW PROOF THAT SUCH WORDS WHERE IN THAT VERSE ORIGINALLY!, failure to show such proof shows that the additions where spurious with no claim.
any attempt to discredit the older manuscripts,but not discreditin their record of that particular verse is not accepted.

you can't say Alpha and Omega was added only because some older manuscripts do not have it

pls list the older manuscripts that have those words in that verse
is not only say it was added, I'm claiming its spurious with no tangible defense for its addition.

you are drawing conclusions from what is generally believed,you have not been able to prove
that Alpha and Omega was added to revelations1:11 you are just making assumptions

I was just showing you how illogical your use of supposed general flaws in the older manuscripts is. It's good to see that the same logic as used by the Web page will not be accepted by you if it's used against the Textus Receptus.

it is so unfortunate that one cannot make you see straight let me tell you revelations was a source of debate during the early times.

anytime you are being asked a thought provoking question you can't answer, you tend to divert away from it, refusing to respond to it!
yes the book of revelevation was a source of debate in earlier times, even up till now it's still a source of debate but:
Does the few that have rev 1:11 in them include the words "Alpha and omega", if so, which one!?
is the late canonisation of the book of Revelation caused by its early corruption? answer and add proof.
is rev 1:11 currupted in the earliest manuscripts?
answer and add proof

older manuscripts doesn't mean they where the original one.making alligations as usual,there are hundreds of verses that proves Trinity.
[right]moreover, you have failed to tell us this manuscript that is in possession of these church fathers, that the Textus Receptus copied rev 1:11 from!

you are just trying to divert again, I did not claim that the older manuscripts where the original ones. but the older manuscripts claimed it's source from the original ones or copies of the original ones, something the Textus Receptus does not even try to claim.

The bolded parts are mine own words, not yours!,SO STOP REMOVING WORDS FROM MY QUOTES AND AD ING IT TO YOURS!

so pathetic for you

you cannot provide just one variant? you make claims and cannot give just one evidence? yet you claim to have done research?

all the facts you are trying to use against revelation 1:11 are just assumptions

1. you failed to defend the fact that you are just posting allegations with no facts to surpport it.
2. I've shown you facts above, you cannot disprove it
3. I've focused my facts on the issue under discussion , which is rev 1:11
4. Once again , you failed to respond to a very important part of the discussion:
pls dnt stop, pls tell us how the Textus Receptus come about the words it added to rev 1:11, ""Alpha and omega". where did it get it from?

Barristter07:
johnw74



Lie Lie John ,

You and dolphinheart keep posting the same Lie lie over and over again
and you called Bible verses Lie Lie

johnw74:



No not Lie Lie, those Bible verses are true,
but I know you don't believe them, along with a multitude of other Bible verses that you don't believe.

dolphinheart:


if I respond to this, will you discuss it? no
Will you give me a chance to tell my own understanding? no
even if I do attempt to tell you my understanding, will you listen to me? no
Why?, because you dnt discuss with jw's, how do you expect them to answer your questions.
well you can continue in your stance, it saves me time to respond to you.
you are the sole talker here , so continue
once in a while, I'll respond with lie lie john!

@bold, Of course you will, false jw loves to lie.

dolphinheart:


pls, pls, pls ,pls pls pls, DNT LIE AGAINST ME!, DNT ALTER MY WORDS TO MEAN SOME THING ELSE.

You can refuse to discuss, but lying against by altering their words is a new low, a really deep one!

Ha ha what a phony,

Lie Lie dolphinheart

dolphinheart:


now what I actually said is different from what you initially gold brocab I said, so pls go ahead, bring out the post and let's see my full reply to you.

Lie lie dolphinheart
you know as well as I do that the conversation wen't something like

johnw74: God and the Word is God

dolphinheart: your god is a two headed god

now you were referring to my God, "God and the Word"

but twist away, it's one of those things false jw do

and bring out the post yourself, you are deluded to think I'm going search back for false jw,
I would do it for brocab a Christian.

johnw74

johnw74:


You and dolphinheart keep posting the same Lie lie over and over again
and you called Bible verses Lie Lie

another encounter in progress

which Lie did I post ? ( * A) expecting ur reply .

Barristter07:
johnw74



another encounter in progress

which Lie did I post ? ( * A) expecting ur reply .

duh, you say I Lie Lie, that is the lie you keep saying over and over again
I explained myself well, but you have been blinded and cannot see any truth.

You also called bible verses Lie Lie, and you are pretending you didn't
read it again: https://www.nairaland.com/2720878/jehovahs-witnesses-17-facts-people/64#45973992

barristter rejected Bible verses calling them lie lie:
https://www.nairaland.com/2720878/jehovahs-witnesses-17-facts-people/64#45973992


Lie Lie barristter, here are more Lie Lie from false jw:


[img]http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/images/jehovahs-witnesses.pdf[/img]

johnw74,

johnw74:


duh, you say I Lie Lie, that is the lie you keep saying over and over again
I explained myself well, but you have been blinded and cannot see any truth.

but I got prove that u lied, u know ? loser

- 1. no disciple ever told our Lord Jesus Christ that look out they are trying to trap you, its a lie by one lie lie John.

- 2. You also lied that u never said it was in the bible. whereas I got solid proof of you telling readers to check translations for ur lie. we search translations and it wasnt found hehehe.


johnw74 actually is a fraud. he thinks his lie will be in the bible thats why he tell me to go and search the translations for it only for him to realise he has entered OnE Chance.

You also called bible verses Lie Lie, and you are pretending you didn't
read it again: https://www.nairaland.com/2720878/jehovahs-witnesses-17-facts-people/64#45973992

hehehe , another lie, please quote me saying bible verses is a Lie.

dolphinheart:

sir, I'll advice that you read my statements very well before you reply, did I say that the Textus Receptus undermine older manuscripts? no! I was talking about the Web page trying to give surpport to the Textus Receptus by undermining older manuscripts and texts that the Textus Receptus defered from.

The Web page, even with all its undermining, could not give a defence as to why the Textus Receptus had " Alpha and omega in rev 1:11


like I said earlier, that method of attack is flawed, cus if that same line is used for the Textus Receptus, it will fall like a pack of cards.
fortunately for us, we are not talking about the book of rev in general, we are talking about just one verse! You have failed to show that the much older manuscripts where flawed in that particular verse(note: this is a fact).
Erasmus admitted to having flaws in the Textus Receptus, he thus tried to adjust some of those flaws in subsequent editions, should I use that as a basis for rejecting it's record of rev 1:11 like you are trying to do for older manuscripts?


fact 2: the older manuscripts, which scholars have termed to be more reliable, which Erasmus could not use cus he did not have them ,DO NOT HAVE THE WORDS " Alpha and omega" in rev 1:11
fact 3: the older manuscripts are not "supposed" older manuscripts. They are in fact very much older than the Textus Receptus or the sources the Textus Receptus got its texts from!
like I said, using that general logic to cancel the authenticity of a particular verse has a more lethal and devastating effect on the Textus Receptus.


I just stated a fact which you failed to respond to :" you have failed to show how the Textus Receptus came about the word "Alpha and omega" found in rev 1:11
that statement is proof enough that the word " Alpha and omega was added to that verse.
If something cannot be found in a particular verse of a manuscript that existed a long time ago, and then was seen in a printed work hundred of years later, it remains for the person who added it to show reasons for the addition. If such one claim that those words where in that verse originally and then removed, SUCH ONE SHOULD SHOW PROOF THAT SUCH WORDS WHERE IN THAT VERSE ORIGINALLY!, failure to show such proof shows that the additions where spurious with no claim.
any attempt to discredit the older manuscripts,but not discreditin their record of that particular verse is not accepted.


pls list the older manuscripts that have those words in that verse
is not only say it was added, I'm claiming its spurious with no tangible defense for its addition.


I was just showing you how illogical your use of supposed general flaws in the older manuscripts is. It's good to see that the same logic as used by the Web page will not be accepted by you if it's used against the Textus Receptus.


anytime you are being asked a thought provoking question you can't answer, you tend to divert away from it, refusing to respond to it!
yes the book of revelevation was a source of debate in earlier times, even up till now it's still a source of debate but:
Does the few that have rev 1:11 in them include the words "Alpha and omega", if so, which one!?
is the late canonisation of the book of Revelation caused by its early corruption? answer and add proof.
is rev 1:11 currupted in the earliest manuscripts?
answer and add proof



you are just trying to divert again, I did not claim that the older manuscripts where the original ones. but the older manuscripts claimed it's source from the original ones or copies of the original ones, something the Textus Receptus does not even try to claim.

The bolded parts are mine own words, not yours!,SO STOP REMOVING WORDS FROM MY QUOTES AND AD ING IT TO YOURS!



you cannot provide just one variant? you make claims and cannot give just one evidence? yet you claim to have done research?


1. you failed to defend the fact that you are just posting allegations with no facts to surpport it.
2. I've shown you facts above, you cannot disprove it
3. I've focused my facts on the issue under discussion , which is rev 1:11
4. Once again , you failed to respond to a very important part of the discussion:
pls dnt stop, pls tell us how the Textus Receptus come about the words it added to rev 1:11, ""Alpha and omega". where did it get it from?

I am not trying to make a case for the textus receptus here but to show you that even those older manuscripts have issues so you cannot say that Alpha and omega in revelation 1:11 was added. Shalom

dolphinheart denies saying God and the Word is a two headed god

johnw74: God and the Word is God

dolphinheart: your god is a two headed god

now if Lie Lie dolphinheart isn't referring to God and the Word as my two headed god
then who is he referring to?


Lie Lie dolphinheart

continue reading 607 & 1914 here:
http://jwfacts.com/watchtower/607-7-times.php

more lies from Lie Lie false jw:

Barristter07:

johnw74,



but I got prove that u lied, u know ? loser

- 1. no disciple ever told our Lord Jesus Christ that look out they are trying to trap you, its a lie by one lie lie John.

- 2. You also lied that u never said it was in the bible. whereas I got solid proof of you telling readers to check translations for ur lie. we search translations and it wasnt found ; D hehehe.


johnw74 actually is a fraud. he thinks his lie will be in the bible thats why he tell me to go and search the translations for it only for him to realise he has entered OnE Chance.

Lie Lie barristter rejected my honest explanation because he has been blinded and cannot see truth

Barristter07:
hehehe , another lie, please quote me saying bible verses is a Lie.

You posted my quote of Bible verses and replied Lie Lie John to it
but Lie lie barristter loves to continue lying.

score
false jw lies = so so many

johnw74 lies = not one

even it it was one, which isn't, wow I'm so far ahead

more false jw Lie Lie tomorrow

johnw74

johnw74:


Lie Lie barristter rejected my honest explanation because he has been blinded and cannot see truth








You posted my quote of Bible verses and replied Lie Lie John to it
but Lie lie barristter loves to continue lying.

score
false jw lies = so so many

johnw74 lies = not one

even it it was one, which isn't, wow I'm so far ahead

more false jw Lie Lie tomorrow

enough of this rant , prove that I post a lie ? you no get!


Lie Lie John

Barristter07:
johnw74



enough of this rant , prove that I post a lie ? you no get!


Lie Lie John

Lie Lie barristter you lie every time that you say I lied


again for the blinded, Lie Lie barrister posted my quote of Bible verses and then replied Lie Lie John to it
if he wasn't referring to my post then why did he quote it

Lie Lie barristter cannot help but Lie Lie
Truth couldn't be proved to Lie Lie barristter who has been blinded
you have proved that yourself in your inability to see the truth

johnw74:


Lie Lie barristter rejected my honest explanation because he has been blinded and cannot see truth








You posted my quote of Bible verses and replied Lie Lie John to it
but Lie lie barristter loves to continue lying.

score
false jw lies = so so many

johnw74 lies = not one

even it it was one, which isn't, wow I'm so far ahead

more false jw Lie Lie tomorrow

johnw74:


Lie lie dolphinheart
you know as well as I do that the conversation wen't something like

johnw74: God and the Word is God

dolphinheart: your god is a two headed god

now you were referring to my God, "God and the Word"

but twist away, it's one of those things false jw do

and bring out the post yourself, you are deluded to think I'm going search back for false jw,
I would do it for brocab a Christian.

when someone wants to lie or defend a lie, the bolded words will Come up.
They will never categorically say " this is what I said and this is where and how I said it"
they are sure of what I said and where I said, but when asked to produce facts, they are now fomulating probabilities.
imagine saying I said something from a conversation that you are not sure of!

johnw74:

dolphinheart denies saying God and the Word is a two headed god

johnw74: God and the Word is God

dolphinheart: your god is a two headed god

now if Lie Lie dolphinheart isn't referring to God and the Word as my two headed god
then who is he referring to?


Lie Lie dolphinheart

continue reading 607 & 1914 here:
http://jwfacts.com/watchtower/607-7-times.php

more lies from Lie Lie false jw:

AND UP TILL NOW YOU COULD NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF WHERE I SAID SO!
lie lie john!

solite3:
I am not trying to make a case for the textus receptus here but to show you that even those older manuscripts have issues so you cannot say that Alpha and omega in revelation 1:11 was added. Shalom

good, so from your research, pls tell us where the Textus Receptus Got rev 1:11 from?

dolphinheart:

good, so from your research, pls tell us where the Textus Receptus Got rev 1:11 from?

can you tell us about the Finished mystery?

dolphinheart:

AND UP TILL NOW YOU COULD NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF WHERE I SAID SO!
lie lie john!

On pgs. 66, 69, 211, 423, 560, 648, and 719 of Jehovah's Witnesses--- 39)? Proclaimers of God's Kingdom the , reference is made to Studies in the Scriptures The Finished Mystery , which was the 7th of series published by the WTS in 1917 (pg 66, 719), and was the major publication of the WTS at that time. On pgs. 88, 648, and 651, a picture of this book appear s, complete with the winged disk symbol of the Egyptian sun god Ra on its front cover. Is it true that The Finished Mystery taught that Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, and the Almighty of Rev 1:8 (pg 15), that Christ established a "Church" (pg 17), that Christ returned invisibly in 1874 (pg 54, 60, 68), that Armageddon was definitely going to occur in the spring of 1918 (pg 62 and 128), that the Holy Spirit has a personality (pg 57), that the great pyramid of Giza was God's stone w itness and was used to predict the year of Armageddon (pg 60), that Christ was crucified (pg 68), that Heb 1:6 is translated, “Let all the angels of God worship him” (pg 104), that Leviathan of the Bible refers to the steam locomotive (pg 85), that Michael are his bishops (pg 188), that Nah 2:3is the Pope of Rome and the angels 6 describes the railway train (pg 93), that the great earthquake of Rev 6:12 refers literally to the Lisbon earthquake of Nov 1, 1775, and it refers symbolically to the American Rev olution (pg 119), that the sun becoming black in Rev 6:12 refers literally to a dark day which occurred on May 19, 1780, and refers symbolically to the light of the papal heavens darkened when Napoleon fined the Pope 10 million dollars and took the Pope a prisoner to France (pg 120), that Christ is eternal, “the same yesterday, today, and forever. Heb 13:8 pg 142), and that the Seventh Volume of Studies in the Scriptures (also known as The Finished Mystery) is “Divinely provided” (pg 145)? According to "current" WTS teachings, Christ began to reign in heaven in 1914 and around 1918 chose the WTS as his earthly organization because they were the only ones teaching "the Truth". If this was so, then Jesus would have known the teachings of the WTS as put forth in The Finished Mystery, published in 1917. Do you really think that Jesus would have chosen an organization which taught so many things that were not correct according to "current" WTS teachings and are no longer taught as "the Truth"? Since God does not tell lies or change his mind (Num 23:19, Ps 89:34, Heb 6:18), and it is clear that the WTS could not have possibly been speaking for God when they taught these things, at least according to current WTS teachings, how do you know that the WTS is speaking for God now?

zodiakzax:
On pgs. 66, 69, 211, 423, 560, 648, and 719 of Jehovah's Witnesses--- 39)? Proclaimers of God's Kingdom the , reference is made to Studies in the Scriptures The Finished Mystery , which was the 7th of series published by the WTS in 1917 (pg 66, 719), and was the major publication of the WTS at that time. On pgs. 88, 648, and 651, a picture of this book appear s, complete with the winged disk symbol of the Egyptian sun god Ra on its front cover. Is it true that The Finished Mystery taught that Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, and the Almighty of Rev 1:8 (pg 15), that Christ established a "Church" (pg 17), that Christ returned invisibly in 1874 (pg 54, 60, 68), that Armageddon was definitely going to occur in the spring of 1918 (pg 62 and 128), that the Holy Spirit has a personality (pg 57), that the great pyramid of Giza was God's stone w itness and was used to predict the year of Armageddon (pg 60), that Christ was crucified (pg 68), that Heb 1:6 is translated, “Let all the angels of God worship him” (pg 104), that Leviathan of the Bible refers to the steam locomotive (pg 85), that Michael are his bishops (pg 188), that Nah 2:3is the Pope of Rome and the angels 6 describes the railway train (pg 93), that the great earthquake of Rev 6:12 refers literally to the Lisbon earthquake of Nov 1, 1775, and it refers symbolically to the American Rev olution (pg 119), that the sun becoming black in Rev 6:12 refers literally to a dark day which occurred on May 19, 1780, and refers symbolically to the light of the papal heavens darkened when Napoleon fined the Pope 10 million dollars and took the Pope a prisoner to France (pg 120), that Christ is eternal, “the same yesterday, today, and forever. Heb 13:8 pg 142), and that the Seventh Volume of Studies in the Scriptures (also known as The Finished Mystery) is “Divinely provided” (pg 145)? According to "current" WTS teachings, Christ began to reign in heaven in 1914 and around 1918 chose the WTS as his earthly organization because they were the only ones teaching "the Truth". If this was so, then Jesus would have known the teachings of the WTS as put forth in The Finished Mystery, published in 1917. Do you really think that Jesus would have chosen an organization which taught so many things that were not correct according to "current" WTS teachings and are no longer taught as "the Truth"? Since God does not tell lies or change his mind (Num 23:19, Ps 89:34, Heb 6:18), and it is clear that the WTS could not have possibly been speaking for God when they taught these things, at least according to current WTS teachings, how do you know that the WTS is speaking for God now?

na you ask question, na you answer!

like I always say those who try go bring these issues to me, I have knowledge only about what Ive learnt and what I'm presently being taught.

zodiakzax:
can you tell us about the Finished mystery?

sorry ,nope.

dolphinheart:

good, so from your research, pls tell us where the Textus Receptus Got rev 1:11 from?

no you prove to me it was added, you were the one who said Alpha and Omega was added to revelation 1:11 failure to do this will to expose you as a liar just like watch tower is been exposed for liars that they are, for me I trust God's word. Also add were you explained Jesus has same nature as God.I can't believe you said that
Dolphins heart: Jesus has same nature as God
Solite:Then Jesus is God
Dolphinsheart: Solite you are lying that's not what I meant
Solite:what do you mean?
dolphins heart: I meant Jesus has same nature with God
Solite: wat do you even mean by the word nature, define it
dolphins heart
Solite

dolphinheart:


na you ask question, na you answer!

like I always say those who try go bring these issues to me, I have knowledge only about what Ive learnt and what I'm presently being taught.

And you sheepishly follow not minding if they are wrong, why do you attack people who have held on to the unchangeable teachings of Christ but follow man made doctrine that changes like chameleon.
The watch tower has a very bad history,can you trust such? Remember what Jesus told you "A bad tree cannot bring forth a good fruit" if the tree ( watch tower ) was not bad it would not have produce a corrupt fruit ( history of lies )shalom

dolphinheart:


na you ask question, na you answer!

like I always say those who try go bring these issues to me, I have knowledge only about what Ive learnt and what I'm presently being taught.

go and make a research into it. Your founder believed in things that the WTS has changed over the years. If you want to know the truth then start questioning your very cult and their doctrines. John 20:28, Thomas here called Jesus my Lord and my God. Your blasphemous bible even translated it as such. Turn to God bfr it's too late for you.

johnw74:
God and the Word is God

dolphinheart:
your god is a two headed god


and now dolphinheart says he didn't call God and the Word "a two headed god"

what a phony

Joh_8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

@underline, the pharasee along with satan were part of Jesus' murder

Lie Lie dolphinheart

Lie Lie barristter


here are more lies from false jw:

Favourite Watchtower Quotes

Watchtower has made an incredible range of audacious statements over the years. For instance:

“If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things.” Awake! 1969 May 22 p.15
Or compare the difference when referring to people who want to join Jehovah's Witnesses, with those that leave:

“No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family.” Awake! 2009 Jul p.29
“Do not look for excuses to associate with a disfellowshipped family member, for example, through e-mail.” Watchtower Study Edition 2013 Jan 15 p.16
Here are some of my favourite.

Continue reading ...http://jwfacts.com/watchtower/favourite-quotes.php



more truth on the sect that is called jehovahs' witnesses at these sites:

http://jwfacts.com/

https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/jehovahs-witnesses-answered.htm