Dolphinheart's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Dolphinheart's Profile › Dolphinheart's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 (of 84 pages)
 Politics › Re: How I Engage With APC Supporters And Win Them Over Offline. Part 1 (Corruption) by dolphinheart(m): 2:26am On Jan 19, 2015 |
Matthewbriggs:No child is a saint , no person can say he has not done something bad while he/she was a child. That's why the use of the rod is encouraged . The teeths buhari removed grew back cus he was there for a short while,therefore the short lived effect. if he had been in charge for 6 years, those gums that will grow the teeth would have died, Talk less of teeth growing. You might say I'm harsh on currupt people and they are somebody s parents . But when Iook at the effect of their greed, which include unneccessary deaths in hospitals, effect of fake drugs on sick people. Pain caused by accidents on bad roads, I dnt think I have a choice than to wish them complete , total teeth removal. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 1:49am On Jan 19, 2015 |
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, (this same God told the fathers that his name is jehovah and he alone is the most high God Jesus confirmed this God to be the father, his father , who sent him, who bears withness as to who he is) Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (this God appointed jesus as heir of all things . If jesus is God,how can he inherit what he already owns ? "by whom also he made the worlds " .hope this fully explains of jesus and his role in creation. God used jesus to create the worlds) Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (jesus is not sitting on the throne, but sat down at the right Hand of the father, receiving the glory he had with the father before coming to earth) Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. ("being made" : jesus was made , who made jesus?can God be made? ) Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? (this is my son , who I have approved ) Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: (God almighty gave jesus........ If jesus where God the this verse should read "God gave God " or" God gave himself" ) |
| TV/Movies › Re: What Movie Are You Watching Now? by dolphinheart(m): 5:08pm On Jan 18, 2015 |
dljbd1:U Neva like keanu reeves movies ke! What of speed and Matrix? 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Saturday Or Sunday - When Is The Real Sabbath Day? by dolphinheart(m): 5:02pm On Jan 18, 2015 |
Who is the "you" ^^^^ referring to . |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 4:51pm On Jan 18, 2015 |
johnw74:Sir, I'm not good o ! , only jehovah is good. I'm not saying you should be interested, though personaly I wish you are. We are having a discussion, I learn from you and you might learn from me. For example, until you mentioned 1 ti 3:16 , I never really remembered reading that verse in full context. I just glance over it . And I thank you for bringing it up. I'm not a teacher, I have my own shortcomings and I do not fully know everything on the scriptures, I'm still a learner. So how can I try to be ur teacher. Like I said, I dnt know every, but I do know one thing, one thing that I totally believe in, and which is : " this means evalasting life, their (us, me and you, everyone on these thread) taking in knowledge of you(someone definitely not jesus here) , the only true God , and of the one you sent forth, jesus Christ . John 17:3 The father sent jesus Jesus is not the father The father is the only true God Therefore I worship the father/jehovah/ the only true God. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Saturday Or Sunday - When Is The Real Sabbath Day? by dolphinheart(m): 4:03pm On Jan 17, 2015 |
Uchizzy:He is right and he is also wrong ! He is right in the sense that the Sabbath as pratised by the Jews in on the seventh day. But he is wrong to just attribute it to sarturday . How? Unlike us that starts the first day of the week by midnite on saturday night , or sunrise on sunday morning. The Jews start there week by sunset on sunday evening. So sabath starts sunset on sarturday evening to sunset on sunday evening. There the issue of when the day starts between the isrealites and your friend is the cause of the problem. An example is when the bible stated that jesus died on Nissan 14. Remember he also had the lords evening meal on Nissan 14, but was killed in broad daylight. So if he had a meal in the evening of same date, how can he be said to be killed in the afternoon of that same date. The answer lies in my explanation |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus' Two Natures: God And Man by dolphinheart(m): 3:29pm On Jan 17, 2015 |
Kei144:The Egyptians had trinity Gods when the isrealites where with them , when jehovah liberated them and in other to clear their mind and show them the truth about his person , he told them ,"jehovah ur God is one jehovah ", not three in one or one in three parts. Satan then used other religious nations like the babylonians without reasonable results before he then used the romans. But in an attempt to stay to the truth giving to them by their God, they threw away the baby with the baffing water. They did not shift the dirt out but rather rejected everything they heard about jesus, first mainly for political reasons and secondly an attempt to safeguard their beliefs. The romans really do have part blame . |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 2:26pm On Jan 17, 2015 |
johnw74:Sir , stop cherry picking my posts I gave u explanations and evidences supporting my believes. you refuse to answer questions pertaining to ur beliefs, you refuse to explain(using the scriptures ) bible verses that throw out ur beliefs. You refuse to look at other peoples explanations and proves. I used all the scriptures u quoted to explain to you that trinity is false, you refuse to do that in my case. men translated the word of God into English. Some men translated it to mean "the word was God" and some men translated it to mean "the word was a God" . To show you which of the men is right, I went into issues concerning translation of words from the koine greek to English .you refuse to do that . To show you which of the men is right, I showed you examples on other bible verses that had similar problems in translation and how they where translated by both men , you refuse to do that. To show you which of the men is right, I showed you other statements by the writer of that verse to show you what he really meant. You refuse to do that. To show you which of the men is right, I showed you what other writers think about the issue under discussion, you refuse to do that. To show you which of the statements is right, I showed you what scholars think on translating that verse, you refuse to do that. All you have done is to show "agidi" . An example is when we were discussing on 1 ti 3:16. You stated that the bible translation I quoted are wrong and the bible translations you quoted are right. I then went on to direct(show) you the footnote of one of the bible translations you believe are right (the NKJV) which affirms the statements made by other translations on the issue . Still you no wan belief. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 10:20pm On Jan 16, 2015 |
johnw74:John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.. This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word the·on′ refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the·os′ has no definite article. Was the article mistakenly left out? The Gospel of John was written in Koine, or common Greek, which has specific rules regarding the use of the definite article. Bible scholar A. T. Robertson recognizes that if both subject and predicate have articles, “both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable.” Robertson considers as an example Matthew 13:38, which reads: “The field [Greek, ho a·gros′] is the world [Greek, ho ko′smos].” The grammar enables us to understand that the world is also the field. What, though, if the subject has a definite article but the predicate does not, as in John 1:1? Citing that verse as an example, scholar James Allen Hewett emphasizes: “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.” To illustrate, Hewett uses 1 John 1:5, which says: “God is light.” In Greek, “God” is ho the·os′ and therefore has a definite article. But phos for “light” is not preceded by any article. Hewett points out: “One can always . . . say of God He is characterized by light; one cannot always say of light that it is God.” Similar examples are found at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit,” and at 1 John 4:16, “God is love.” In both of these verses, the subjects have definite articles but the predicates, “Spirit” and “love,” do not. So the subjects and predicates are not interchangeable. These verses cannot mean that “Spirit is God” or “love is God.” Therefore a number of Bible translators did not use the phrase “the Word was God.” Why not? Based on their knowledge of Biblical Greek, those translators concluded that the phrase “the Word was God” should be translated differently. How? Here are a few examples: “The Logos [Word] was divine.” (A New Translation of the Bible) “The Word was a god.” (The New Testament in an Improved Version) “The Word was with God and shared his nature.” (The Translator’s New Testament) 14th century - Wycliffe's Bible (from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate) reads: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word. 1808 “and the Word was a god” - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London. 1864 “and a god was the Word” (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London. 1867 “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God” - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. 1935 “and the Word was divine” - The Bible—An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago. 1955 “so the Word was divine” - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen. 1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin. 1822 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.); 1863 "and the Word was a god." - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863); 1885 "and the Word was a god." - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible ( R. Young, 1885); 1879 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979); According to these translations, the Word is not God himself. * Instead, because of his high position among Jehovah’s creatures, the Word is referred to as “a god.” Here the term “god” means “mighty one.” GETTING MORE FACTS Most people do not know Biblical Greek. So how can you know what the apostle John really meant? Think of this example: A schoolteache r(john) explains a subject to his students (you and I). Afterward, the students differ on how to understand the explanation. How can the students resolve the matter? They could ask the teacher for more information. No doubt, learning additional facts would help them to understand the subject better. Similarly, to grasp the meaning of John 1:1, you can look in the Gospel of John for more information on Jesus’ position. Learning additional facts on this subject will help you to draw the right conclusion. For instance, consider what John further writes in chapter 1, verse 18: “No man has seen [Almighty] God at any time.” However, humans have seen Jesus, the Son, for John says: “The Word [Jesus] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory.” - John 1:14. How, then, could the Son be part of Almighty God? John also states that the Word was “with God.” But how can an individual be with someone and at the same time be that person? Moreover, as recorded at John 17:3, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his heavenly Father. He calls his Father “the only true God.” And toward the end of his Gospel, John sums up matters by saying: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” -John 20:31. Notice that Jesus is called, not God, but the Son of God. This additional information provided in the Gospel of John shows how John 1:1 should be understood. Jesus, the Word, is “a god” in the sense that he has a high position but is not the same as Almighty God. TO CONFIRM THE FACTS Think again about the example of the schoolteacher and the students. Imagine that some still have doubts, even after listening to the teacher’s additional explanation. What could they do? They could turn to another teacher for further information on the same subject. If the second teacher confirms the explanation of the first one, the doubts of most students may be put to rest. Similarly, if you are not sure what the Bible writer John was really saying about the relationship between Jesus and Almighty God, you could turn to another Bible writer for further information. Consider what was written by Matthew, for example. Regarding the end of this system of things, he quotes Jesus as saying: “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matthew 24:36) How do these words confirm that Jesus is not Almighty God? Jesus says that the Father knows more than the Son does. If Jesus were part of Almighty God, however, he would know the same facts as his Father. So, then, the Son and the Father cannot be equal. You might say: ‘Jesus had two natures. Here he speaks as a man.’ But even if that were so, what about the holy spirit? If it is part of the same God as the Father, why does Jesus not say that it knows what the Father knows? Psalm 90:2; Acts 7:55; Colossians 1:15. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 3:02pm On Jan 16, 2015 |
johnw74:Philippians 2:5-7 - Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bond-servant, and coming in the likeness of men. Some other translations read : “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·mon′], namely, that he should be equal to God.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB NWT) Which thought agrees with the context? Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be equal with God”? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (Compare Genesis 3:5.) Such a translation also agrees with Jesus Christ himself, who said: “The Father is greater than I.”— John 14:28. The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·pa′zo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·mon′] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III,aZCswttp pp. 436, 437. ----- Titus 2:13 - looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ American Standard Version looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Douay-Rheims Bible Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, Which translation agrees with Titus 1:4, which refers to “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior”? Although the Scriptures also refer to God as being a Savior, this text clearly differentiates between him and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation. Unless you want to tell us that jesus is the father. Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”—(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421. ----- Hebrews 1:8,9 - But to the Son He (God) says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, YOUR GOD, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” Well, u urself just acknowledge that jesus has a God, superior person to him . ----- 2 John 1:7 - For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Jesus emptied himself and took the form of men, he became flesh, was made flesh by God. So that he became like adam , to fufil his assignment that he was given . ------ Revelation 1:8 - “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” This reference is to jehovah , the father, the almighty . ------- Revelation 22:13 - “I AM the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”... 22:16 - “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches.” The alpha and omega here is refering to jehovah, the father who is the almighty God, the true God . |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus' Two Natures: God And Man by dolphinheart(m): 12:43pm On Jan 16, 2015 |
dd12345:So the devil is right then!, that man cannot serve God without Gods influence. |
| Politics › Re: How I Engage With APC Supporters And Win Them Over Offline. Part 1 (Corruption) by dolphinheart(m): 11:37pm On Jan 15, 2015 |
Most of the bad things I stopped doing while growing up was because of the punishment I received once I commited any wrongdoing. If you steal meat, u get trashed to the extent that you'll hate the local butcher for selling meat to your mum. But if they just keep hiding the meat, I device new ways to steal. In the case of Curruption in government, u cannot hide the meat cus u direct ur children(government officials) to take from the pot(national purse) in other to perform certain duties . So instead of hiding the pot, make sure u remove the teeth of the first child that steals, I can bet u his siblings will think thrice before thinking about stealing meat. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus' Two Natures: God And Man by dolphinheart(m): 9:10pm On Jan 15, 2015 |
While jesus walked the earth, did he have the two natures in him ? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 2:57pm On Jan 15, 2015 |
johnw74:John 8:24 - “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM He, you will die in your sins.” To ignore God’s purpose concerning his Son, to build hopes on any other foundation, to form conclusions regarding one’s life course on any other basis would be to believe a lie, to be deceived, to follow the leading of the father of lies, God’s Adversary. (Mt 7:24-27; Joh 8:42-47) It would mean ‘to die in one’s sins. For this reason Jesus did not hold back from declaring his place in God’s purpose.(Joh 8:23, 24). He is the messiah, the son of God. jehovah is his father and God, that's why Jesus said to these very disciples: “The Father is greater than I am.”— Joh 14:28. If the statement "i am" is the issue here,and you think "I am means "God", then kindly explain the use of the statement in john 14 :28 ------- John 8:58 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” This simply , in its context mean that before abraham , jesus existed. The discussion was on age of existence. --- John 14:6-7 - Jesus said to him, “I AM the way, the truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” No one comes to the father, jehovah, the one true God, our creator,our only God except he accepts jesus as the one he sent to earth, the messaiah, the one he used to redeem us to him, the only one we should follow to gain evalasting life. Jesus and the father are not the same. ---- John 14:9-11 - Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?” Question : is jesus the father? ---- John 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” On the occasion of Jesus’ appearance to Thomas and the other apostles, which had removed Thomas’ doubts of Jesus’ resurrection, the now-convinced Thomas exclaimed to Jesus: “My Lord and my God! [literally, “The Lord of me and the God (ho The·os′) of me!”].” Some scholars have viewed this expression as an exclamation of astonishment spoken to Jesus but actually directed to God, his Father. However, others claim the original Greek requires that the words be viewed as being directed to Jesus. Even if this is so, the expression “My Lord and my God” would still have to harmonize with the rest of the inspired Scriptures. Since the record shows that Jesus had previously sent his disciples the message, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God,” there is no reason for believing that Thomas thought Jesus was the Almighty God. ( Joh 20:17) John himself, after recounting Thomas’ encounter with the resurrected Jesus, says of this and similar accounts: “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.”—Joh 20:30, 31. ---- Acts 4:12 - “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” The only road to salvation is through the one the father sent(gave) to us, now the name of that one is jesus, the lamb of God. We can only be reconciled to God through our faith in jesus and his ransom. ---- You stated that Acts 20:28 - (God purchased us with His own blood) King James Bible Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Darby Bible Translation Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own. Fotenote on Acts 20:28 in New International Version reads : a. Acts 20:28 Many manuscripts of the Lord b. Acts 20:28 Or with the blood of his own Son. Footnote on Acts 20:28 in English Standard Version (ESV) reads : a. Acts 20:28 Some manuscripts of the Lord b. Acts 20:28 Or with the blood of his Own TEV states : " through the death of his own son, like wise some other bible translations Good News Translation (GNT) So keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock which the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he made his own through the blood of his Son. Footnotes: a. Acts 20:28 God; some manuscripts have the Lord. b. Acts 20:28 through the blood of his Son; or through the sacrificial death of his Son; or through his own blood. Which rendering(s) agree with 1 John 1:7, which says: “The blood of Jesus his [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin”? And also Revelation 1:4-6 which says : John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from him who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits that are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood; and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen. As stated in John 3:16, did God send his only-begotten Son, or did he himself come as a man, so that we might have life? It was the blood, not of God, but of his Son that was poured out. To be continued........... |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 5:43pm On Jan 14, 2015 |
johnw74:Isaiah 44:24 ,John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 . This verses does not indicate that jesus is almighty God . The bible explains to us , who created and through whom he created other things. Let's look at the scriptures explanation on creation and what role jesus and his father played in creation . Throughout the Scriptures Jehovah God (the father)is identified as the Creator. He is “the Creator of the heavens, . . . the Former of the earth and the Maker of it.” ( Isa 45:18, Am 4:13, Ac 4:24; 14:15; 17:24) “God . . . created all things.” (Eph 3:9) Jesus Christ recognized Jehovah as the One who created humans, making them male and female. ( Mt 19:4; Mr 10:6) (he did not ascribe the creation to himself here but ascribed it to God) Hence, Jehovah is fittingly and uniquely called “the Creator.”—Isa 40:28. It is because of God’s will that all things “existed and were created.” (Re 4:11) Jehovah, who has existed for all time, was alone before creation had a beginning.— Ps 90:1, 2; 1Ti 1:17. Jehovah reminded Job that He had taken specific steps in founding the earth and barricading the sea and indicated that there exist “statutes of the heavens.” ( Job 38:1, 4-11, 31-33) Furthermore, God’s creative and other works are perfect.—De 32:4; Ec 3:14. Jehovah’s first creation was his “only- begotten Son” (Joh 3:16), “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Re 3:14) This one, “the firstborn of all creation,” was used by Jehovah in creating all other things, those in the heavens and those upon the earth, “the things visible and the things invisible.” ( Col 1:15-17) John’s inspired testimony concerning this Son, the Word, is that “all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence,” and the apostle identifies the Word as Jesus Christ, who had become flesh. ( Joh 1:1-4, 10, 14, 17) As wisdom personified, this One is represented as saying, “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way,” and he tells of his association with God the Creator as Jehovah’s “master worker.” ( Pr 8:12, 22-31) After creating his only-begotten Son, Jehovah used him in bringing the heavenly angels into existence. This preceded the founding of the earth, as Jehovah revealed when questioning Job and asking him: “Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth . . . when the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all the sons of God began shouting in applause?” ( Job 38:4-7) It was after the creation of these heavenly spirit creatures that the material heavens and earth and all elements were made, or brought into existence. And, since Jehovah is the one primarily responsible for all this creative work, it is ascribed to him.— Ne 9:6; Ps 136:1, 5-9. This firstborn spirit Son was used by his Father in the creation of all other things. ( Joh 1:3; Col 1:16, 17) This would include the millions of other spirit sons of Jehovah God’s heavenly family ( Da 7:9, 10; Re 5:11), as well as the physical universe and the creatures originally produced within it. Logically, it was to this firstborn Son that Jehovah said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” ( Ge 1:26) All these other created things were not only created “through him” but also “for him,” as God’s Firstborn and the “heir of all things.”— Col 1:16; Heb 1:2. Jesus in not a co-Creator. The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. ( Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. ( Ps 36:9) Rather than a co- Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.— So the issues on creation does not mean jesus is the father. To be contnued 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 5:38pm On Jan 14, 2015 |
johnw74:I think you are trying to play politics with this discussion, lots of questions has been raised to show you that trinity is false and lots of bible quotation has been used to support this. You have so far refused to answer the questions or tell us what you understand by the quoted verses. You think posting your views all over again will help in asserting ur beliefs as true. I will endeavor to explain most, if not all of the bible verses you quoted to futher show you the falsefullness of ur beliefs. And I do pray that you answer some of the questions posted earlier. Matthew 1:23 - “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” You are claiming that by applying the name Immanuel to Jesus, the Bible teaches that Jesus is God(almighty). If we follow this logic, then the young man Elihu, who comforted and corrected Job, was also God. Why? His name means “My God Is He.” Jesus never claimed to be God(almighty). (John 14:28; Philippians 2:5, 6) But he did reflect his Father’s personality perfectly, and he fulfilled all of God’s promises regarding the Messiah. ( John 14:9; 2 Corinthians 1:20) The name Immanuel well describes Jesus’ role as the Messianic Seed, a descendant of David, the one who proves that God is with those who worship Him. In announcing Jesus’ coming birth, did Jehovah’s angel say that the child would be God himself? No, the announcement was: “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High.” ( Luke 1:32, 35, RS; Jesus was sent into the world by God; so by means of this only- begotten Son, God was with mankind. — John 3:17; 17:8. It was not unusual for Hebrew names to include within them the word for God or even an abbreviated form of God’s personal name. For example, Eli′athah means “God Has Come”; Jehu means “Jehovah Is He”; Elijah means “My God Is Jehovah.” But none of these names implied that the possessor was himself God. I would advise you to also look at the other mention of immanuel in Isaiah to get a better understanding. Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. This verse is refering to jesus. Jesus is called a wonderful councelor - In his teaching, Jesus offered wise counsel for everyday living. He proved himself to be the foretold “Wonderful Counselor.”He had a profound knowledge of God’s Word and will, a keen understanding of human nature, and a deep love for humankind. Hence, his counsel was always practical and in the best interests of his listeners. Jesus uttered “sayings of everlasting life.” Yes, when followed, his counsel leads to salvation.— John 6:68. Jesus is called evalasting father - During his Millennial Reign, Christ will become a father to others also. In fact, all earth’s inhabitants who receive everlasting life will gain it because they exercise faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice. ( John 3:16) He thus becomes their “Eternal Father." Through jesus ransom sacrifice, he has replaced adam, our first father. Jesus was called mighty God - This statement gives solid support to a translation such as “the Word was a god” at John 1:1. The Word’s preeminent position among God’s creatures as the Firstborn, the one through whom God created all things, and as God’s Spokesman, gives real basis for his being called “a god” or mighty one. The Messianic prophecy at Isaiah 9:6 foretold that he would be called “Mighty God,” though not the Almighty God. The zeal of his own Father, “Jehovah of armies,” would accomplish this. ( Isa 9:7 : Darby Bible Translation Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this. Certainly if God’s Adversary, Satan the Devil, is called a “god” ( 2Co 4:4) because of his dominance over men and demons (1Jo 5:19; Lu 11:14-18), then with far greater reason and propriety is God’s firstborn Son called “a god,” “the only-begotten god” as the most reliable manuscripts of John 1:18 call him. When charged by opposers with ‘making himself a god,’ Jesus’ reply was: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?” ( Joh 10:31-37) Jesus there quoted from Psalm 82, in which human judges, whom God condemned for not executing justice, were called “gods.” (Ps 82:1, 2, 6, 7) Thus, Jesus showed the unreasonableness of charging him with blasphemy for stating that he was, not God, but God’s Son. Therefore we can rightly say that jesus is "a God" , but jesus is not "God almighty". Isaiah 43:10,11 - “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior.” The verses are refering to jehovah, the father and not jesus. American Standard Version Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah...... Darby Bible Translation Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah...... World English Bible "You are my witnesses," says Yahweh.... Young's Literal Translation Ye are My witnesses, an affirmation of Jehovah...... Some bible translations remove the word meaning yaweh/jehovah and replaced it with the word LORD/ God . Hence ur confusion . Savior: Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. how? Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the. elationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shi′a‛, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel God, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations. Revelation 1:17-18; Although Jehovah is referred to as “the first and the last” at Revelation 22:13, in that there is none before or after him, the context in the first chapter of Revelation shows that the title “the First and the Last” there applies to Jesus Christ. He was the first human to be resurrected to immortal spirit life and the last one to be so resurrected by Jehovah personally.— Col. 1:18. Isaiah 44:6 and 2 Peter 1:1 The explanation on savior also best explains this scriptures. To be continued...... 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 10:05pm On Jan 13, 2015 |
1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. (NIV) 1. Although the above verse in the NIV does not support the Trinity, there are some Greek manuscripts that read, “God appeared in the flesh.” This reading of some Greek manuscripts has passed into some English versions, and the King James Version is one of them. Trinitarian scholars admit, however, that these Greek texts were altered by scribes in favor of the Trinitarian position. The reading of the earliest and best manuscripts is not “God” but rather “he who.” Almost all the modern versions have the verse as “the mystery of godliness is great, which was manifest in the flesh,” or some close equivalent. http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/1-timothy-3-16 |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Yes, Christ Was Really Born On December 25 by dolphinheart(m): 8:24pm On Jan 13, 2015 |
Ubenedictus:Now I know that no matter what I say, you will always try to twist away from accepting the truth. Are you saying that the 13th month was added cus of the fall of the rabbis? What year, either on the Julian or on the hebrew was the 13th month twitching done ? Was it before 70ad or after ? What are the Christian celebrations that where converted from jewish dates, are those dates mentioned in the bible ? Why was the Nissan 14 date not converted , is it not an important date to christians? Why does the jewish Passover not have a fixed date on the Julian calender , but other non existent date in the bible has.? If you can fix 8/9 tenet ,a date not in the scriptures, why can't they fix nisssan 14, a date mentioned on the bible? The Jews still use the hebrew calender up till date to get the date of some their celebration on the Julian and gregorian calender. It is never on the same date in the Julian calender year after year. The only date that was mentioned with the Passover of the night jesus died was nisssn 14, and it changes every year in other calenders. Wonder why 8/9 tenet does not change. On the calender issue, pls find time to discuss the issues I raised . |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 4:20pm On Jan 13, 2015 |
What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)! Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse! http://examiningthetrinity..com/2009/10/1-tim-316-god-manifest-in-flesh-kjv.html |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 2:05pm On Jan 13, 2015 |
on 29 September 2014, at 2... An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture is a dissertation by the English mathematician and scholar Sir Isaac Newton. This was sent in a letter to John Locke on 14 November 1690 and built upon the textual work of Richard Simon and his own research. The text was first published in English in 1754, 27 years after his death. The account claimed to[citation needed] review all the textual evidence available from ancient sources on two disputed Bible passages: 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16 . Newton describes this letter as "an account of what the reading has been in all ages, and what steps it has been changed, as far as I can hitherto determine by records",[1] and "a criticism concerning a text of Scripture".[2] He blames "the Roman church" for many abuses in the world[1] and accuses it of "pious frauds".[2] He adds that "the more learned and quick-sighted men, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble their knowledge".[3] 1 John 5:7 See also: Comma Johanneum In the King James Version Bible, 1 John 5:7 reads: Using the writings of the early Church Fathers, the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the testimony of the first versions of the Bible, Newton claims to have demonstrated that the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," that support the Trinity doctrine, did not appear in the original Greek Scriptures. He then attempts to demonstrate that the purportedly spurious reading crept into the Latin versions, first as a marginal note, and later into the text itself. He noted that "the Æthiopic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, and Slavonic versions, still in use in the several Eastern nations, Ethiopia, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Muscovy, and some others, are strangers to this reading". [4] He argued[5] that it was first taken into a Greek text in 1515 by Cardinal Ximenes on the strength of a late Greek manuscript 'corrected' from the Latin. Finally, Newton considered the sense and context of the verse, concluding that removing the interpolation makes "the sense plain and natural, and the argument full and strong; but if you insert the testimony of 'the Three in Heaven' you interrupt and spoil it."[6] Today most versions of the Bible are from the Critical Text and omit this verse, or retain it as only a marginal reading. 1 Timothy 3:16 The shorter portion of Newton's dissertation was concerned with 1 Timothy 3:16, which reads (in the King James Version): Newton argued that, by a small alteration in the Greek text, the word "God" was substituted to make the phrase read "God was manifest in the flesh." instead of "which was manifested in the flesh.".[n 1] He attempted to demonstrate that early Church writers in referring to the verse knew nothing of such an alteration.[7] Summary of both passages Newton concludes: "If the ancient churches in debating and deciding the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts, I understand not, why we should be so fond of them now the debates are over."[8] With minor exceptions, it was only in the nineteenth century that Bible translations appeared changing these passages. Modern versions of the Bible from the Critical Text usually omit the addition to 1 John 5:7, but some place it in a footnote, with a comment indicating that "it is not found in the earliest manuscripts". [9] Modern translations of 1 Timothy 3:16 following the Critical Text now typically replace "God" with "He" or "He who", while the literal Emphasized has "who".[10] A number of papers in the years following responded to Newton, notably John Berriman in 1741, who had seen at least some of Newton's text prior to publication. Later, Frederick Nolan in 1815, Ebenezer Henderson in 1830 and John William Burgon in the Revision Revised in 1883 all contributed substantially to the verse discussion. Historical background Newton did not publish these findings during his lifetime, likely due to the political climate. Those who wrote against the doctrine of the Trinity were subject to persecution in England. The Blasphemy Act 1697 made it an offence to deny one of the persons of the Trinity to be God, punishable with loss of office and employment on the first occasion, further legal ramifications on the second occasion, and imprisonment without hope for bail on the third occasion. Newton's friend William Whiston (translator of the works of Josephus) lost his professorship at Cambridge for this reason in 1711. In 1693 a pamphlet attacking the Trinity was burned by order of the House of Lords, and the next year its printer and author were prosecuted. In 1697 Thomas Aikenhead, an eighteen-year-old student charged with denying the Trinity, was hanged at Edinburgh, Scotland. It was published in 1754. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture (more to come ) |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 1:52pm On Jan 13, 2015 |
We will go further now and show more evidence. Greek Manuscripts that have not got the word “God” (Theos) in it: Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892) Constantin von Tischendorf Notice how Westcott, Fenton and Tischendorf three well-respected Scholars, when they read the original Codex Alexandrinus for 1 Timothy 3:16 they did not see the word “God” in it, instead they seen the Greek word ὃς which means “he” or “who.” Corrupt Translations —-King James Bible —-Darby Bible Translation —-Webster’s Bible Translation —-World English Bible —-Young’s Literal Translation Let’s see if the above Translations are right in inserting the word “God” instead of “He”, who” or “which.” Scholars commenting on 1 Timothy 3:16. 1. John Albert Bengel “Theos of the rec. Text has none of the oldest MSS. In its favour, no version as early as the seventh century: and as to the fathers, ex. Gr. Cyril of Alex. And Chrysostom, quoted for theos, sec Tregelles on the printed text of N. T., in which he shows these fathers are misquoted. Theodoret, how ever does support it. Liberatus, Victor Tununensis (both of 6th cent.), affirm that Macedonius, under the Emperor Anastasius, changed OC into theos in order to support Nestorianism. AC corrected, G, read OC. So Memph. And Theb. The old Latin fg and Vulg. Have quod, referring to…, taken as a personal designation for the antecedent. The Syr. Peschito, and in fact all versions older than the seventh cent., have the relative NOT theos. D (A) corrected, alone of the uncials, favours O. The silence of the fathers of the fourth cent., though theos would have furnished them with a strong argument, is conclusive against it.” [1] 2. Anthony Buzzard “Another example of a text which was altered is 1 Timothy 3:16. This verse reads in the KJV: “God was manifested in the flesh .” Modern versions have corrected the word “God” to “He who.” The alteration of an original “He who” (in Greek Oj) was very sneakily accomplished when some scribes changed the O (omicron) into a q (theta) giving qj (theta sigma). The reading THS was an abbreviated form of the Greek word theos, God. All that had to be done was to draw a little line across the middle of the O to produce the Greek letter theta (q). Then the text was made to sound Trinitarian and to support the Incarnation: “God was manifested in the flesh.” “He who” (O j) was made to read “God” (qj).” [2] 3. Isaac Newton “All the Churches for the first four or five hundred years, and the authors of all the ancient versions, Jerome, as well as the rest read ‘ Great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh.’” [3] 4. Bart D. Ehrman “The passage in question, 1 Tim. 3:16, had long been used by advocates of orthodox theology to support the view that the New Testament itself calls Jesus God. For the text, in most manuscripts, refers to Christ as “God made manifest in the flesh, and justified in the Spirit.” As I pointed out in chapter 3, most manuscripts abbreviate sacred names (the socalled nomina sacra), and that is the case here as well, where the Greek word God (QEOS) is abbreviated in two letters, theta and sigma (QS), with a line drawn over the top to indicate that it is an abbreviation. What Wettstein noticed in examining Codex Alexandrinus was that the line over the top had been drawn in a different ink from the surrounding words, and so appeared to be from a later hand (i.e., written by a later scribe). Moreover, the horizontal line in the middle of the first letter, Q, was not actually a part of the letter but was a line that had bled through from the other side of the old vellum. In other words, rather than being the abbreviation (thetasigma) For “God” (QS), the word was actually an omicron and a sigma (OS), a different word altogether, which simply means “who.” The original reading of the manuscript thus did not speak of Christ as “God made manifest in the flesh” but of Christ “who was made manifest in the flesh.” According to the ancient testimony of the Codex Alexandrinus, Christ is no longer explicitly called God in this passage.” [4] 5. Johann Jakob Griesbach “This reading OS, is supported by most ancient witnesses of all classes [manuscripts, versions, and Fathers] and it is recommended also, by its internal indications of truth. On the contrary, the Vulgate Theos, was neither the primitive reading of the Alexandrine, nor of the Western recension: and further, it cannot be defended by arguments drawn from nature [or goodness] of the reading itself; but it is supported only by a number of manuscripts of a later date, belonging chiefly to the Constantinopolitan recension; and by the dubious credit to the more modern Greek Fathers; and could not be found in any monument of antiquity, prior to the close of the fourth century.” (u can read more on this webpage ) http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/07/29/1-timothy-316-did-god-become-manifest-in-flesh/ |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 1:40pm On Jan 13, 2015 |
The followings are taken from web pages on the internet and they are not based on dolphinheart personal views and believes. I'm posting it because they give us a better understanding on the issue under discussion , which is on the words of 1ti 3:16 King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) 1 Timothy 3: 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Although the above verse reads as “God was manifest in flesh”, majority of Trinitarian Bible Translations, read it as: “He was manifest in flesh.” A lot of Scholars agree that the word “God” was not in the original text, but was added by later scribes. The earliest and best manuscripts does not have the word “God” in it but rather “He”, “who” or “which.” Furthermore, even modern (Trinitarian) Bible Translations disagree with the KJV and few other translations, for putting the word “God” in 1 Timothy 3: 16. Let’s now show what the other Bible Translations put for 1 Timothy 3:16. 1. American Standard Version 1901 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh. 2. Common English Bible Without question, the mystery of godliness is great: HE was revealed as a human. 3. Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) Great beyond all question is the formerly hidden truth underlying our faith: He was manifested physically and proved righteous spiritually 4. Douay-Rheims 1899 And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, 5. English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh. 6. NET Bible (©2006) And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He was revealed in the flesh. 7. Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009) And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: He was manifested in the flesh. 8. Good News Translation (GNT) No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: He appeared in human form. 9. Lexham English Bible (LEB) And most certainly, great is the mystery of godliness: Who was revealed in the flesh, 10. THE MESSAGE He appeared in a human body, was proved right by the invisible Spirit 11. Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010) And this Mystery of Righteousness is truly great, which was revealed in the flesh and was justified in The Spirit 12. New Century version He was shown to us in a human body. 13. Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE) And undeniably great is the mystery of godliness, who was revealed in flesh. 14. Revised Standard version Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh 15. Douay-Rheims And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh. 16. New English Translation (NET) And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He was revealed in the flesh. 17. New International Version (NIV) Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:He appeared in the flesh. 18. New International Version – UK (NIVUK) Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:He appeared in the flesh. 19. New American Standard Bible By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh. 20. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh. 21. English Standard Version Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh 22. Revised Version 1881 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh. 23. The Voice (VOICE) And I think you will agree that the mystery of godliness is great: He was revealed in the flesh. So we see from the above Trinitarian Bible translations all agreeing that the word “God” is not in there. This alone should once and for all refute the KJV translation. Because there are some hard-headed Trinitarian’s who will still insist that 1 Timothy 3: 16 in KJV is right and other Christian translations are wrong. We will go further now and show more evidence. Greek Manuscripts that have not go http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/07/29/1-timothy-316-did-god-become-manifest-in-flesh/ |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 1:32pm On Jan 13, 2015 |
johnw74:The issue should not be if the words I posted are mine or not, I'm not dragging intellectual capacity or works with you on this thread neither I'm I trying to get marks for my post. On this thread the issue should be on if what I posted about 1 ti 3: 16 is true or false and not on the source of what I posted. Like I said before, it is easier and best for me to use and adjust already typed words on the internet that best convey my beliefs and thoughts. I dnt believe you will be thinking that I have all the books , scriptures and manuscripts in hard copy with me, cus I'm suprised that you are trying to accuse me that I source for info on this scripture from the internet. Though I still stand by my explanations, I will try not to allow the discussion on the verse not to be derailed by trying to add some of the internet pages I took the words from . I do have a problem with the way u are cherry picking my posts and refusing to answer my questions and views. I've made assertions on why the verses that use "God " in that verse used it and why modern translations of those manuscripts use "he" "which " and "who". If you want to reply to my post, then reply on all the points I mentioned and dnt pick . Now back to the issue . The issue is on the words that should be ascribed to 1ti 3:16 Some versions of the bible use the word "God " and some dnt . I've explained why some use the word and why some dnt and conclusion we should draw from both . Bible translators that translated the manuscripts in the 1600s do not have all the manuscripts and technology used by modern translators to ascertain the authencity of certain words in the manuscripts.(this is my personal view and its left for adjustments if stronger prove are being giving to belief otherwise ) By "mordern " , there is no exact date for it , but I believe it does not include bible translations from the 1600s . The bible translations version that you posted are all from the 1600s 1. There first edition on which other editions take as source of info is from the 1600s 2.other versions that are first published in the mordern era, did not take their translations from the manuscripts but rather from the translations of the 1600s , mainly the king James version . This is why I said that im right when I stated that modern translations do not use the word "God " in 1ti 3:16. U said the modern scriptures are currupt. In my next posts , I will give prove as to the falsehood of these assertions . Before you reply , please read the footnote on 1 ti 3:16 in the new king James version (which I believe u think its not currupt) and tell everyone on this thread what you see there. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Yes, Christ Was Really Born On December 25 by dolphinheart(m): 12:13am On Jan 13, 2015 |
Ubenedictus:Sir, which calender are we now using in celebrating the birth of jesus, the hebrew , the Julian or gregorian calender?. Which calender is the 25th celebration that was just celebrated last year derived from ? I mean 25th Dec 2014, which calender is that? Ur claim on accuracy of the Julian calender will be trashed later below. But first ,I dnt like excuses cus excuses only shows that you have something to hide. The excuse you are using now can be used for children, not for me . Why ? 1. Record on jesus birth cannot be kept in the temple , the isrealites never kept such records of individuals. 2. The destruction of the temple did not stop the Jews from celebrating their festivals on the date it falls on in the hebrew calender centuries after the destruction. 3. The christians dnt worship, use or keep their records in the temple. In fact , christians where hunted down in Jerusalem during those periods , talk less of them going inside the temple! 3. christians never converted any date to the Julian calender For example the events of Nissan 14 recorded in the bible was a hebrew calender date. Up till this moment , christians remember, commemorate ,celebrate that date using the hebrew calender to calculate the day that date will fall on in the Julian and later in gregorian calender. Every year that date is always different on our modern calender as it does not fall on the same date as the previous year. Then why does the christmass fall on the same date? Therefore the question is not harder, but unexplainable due to the false method used in deriving that date. Once something is false, anybody believing it will always be running around looking for ways to cover it up hence the use of some words like "pretty hard to match the two calenders" ,"it seems" and "usually falls". Now let's go to the Calenders itself. The Hebrew or Jewish calendar is a lunisolar calendar. The present Hebrew calendar is the product of evolution, including a Babylonian influence. Until the Tannaitic period (approximately 10–220 CE) the calendar employed a new crescent moon, with an additional month normally added every two or three years to correct for the difference between twelve lunar months and the solar year. When to add it was based on observation of natural agriculture-related events. The Hebrew lunar year is about eleven days shorter than the solar cycle and uses the 19-year Metonic cycle to bring it into line with the solar cycle, with the addition of an intercalary month every two or three years, for a total of seven times per 19 years. Even with this intercalation, the average Hebrew calendar year is longer by about 6 minutes and 2525/57 seconds than the current mean solar year, so that every 224 years, the Hebrew calendar will fall a day behind the current mean solar year; and about every 231 years it will fall a day behind the Gregorian calendar year. The Julian calendar, introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 BC (708 AUC), was a reform of the Roman calendar.[1] It took effect in 45 BC (709 AUC), shortly after the Roman conquest of Egypt. It was the predominant calendar in the Roman world, most of Europe, and in European settlements in the Americas and elsewhere, until it was refined and superseded by the Gregorian calendar. The difference in the average length of the year between Julian (365.25 days) and Gregorian (365.2425 days) is 0.002%.(this shows that the Julian calender which the 25th date was based on was not perfect and if we are to further move the date unto the gregorian calender, then it must shift by 0.002% every year ,so by now that date should not be 25th any longer) The Julian calendar has a regular year of 365 days .A leap day is added to February every four years. The Julian year is, therefore, on average 365.25 days long(showing you the fruitlesness of measuring days with year in a calender as it does not comform to how the earth moves round the sun , thus the calender is neither accurate nor perfect ). It was intended to approximate the tropical (solar) year. Although Greek astronomers had known, at least since Hipparchus, a century before the Julian reform, that the tropical year was a few minutes shorter than 365.25 days, the calendar did not compensate for this difference. As a result, the calendar year gained about three days every four centuries compared to observed equinox times and the seasons. This discrepancy was corrected by the Gregorian reform of 1582. With this explanations above, let us now go to the date u mentioned . If jesus was born on 8/9 Tibet on 3BC, Jesus birth date will be 11 days shorter on the julian calender the next year , making it Dec 13/14th on his first birthday and dec 2/3rd on his second birthdate day . Once thr circle is restored every 4 years , it must still be adjusted by a day every 224 years. Let use bring this calculation to the present time and say 8/9 Tibet falls on 25 Dec 2014, in 2015 ,the date will fall on 12/13th Dec . But I can bet it that christmass will be celebrated on the 25th of 2015. Do you now see the error of the Dec 25th. Futher more , to get the date of jesus birth,just in case he was born on 25th Dec , u must add 2 to 3 days more every 400 years on the Julian calender to maintain that day of jesus birth and Cover up for the innacuracies of the Julian calender, and this was not done throughout the celebration of that date during the Julian calender use which lasted from about 46BC to the 16 century. I can't calculate how many days that date should have been shifted now to comform to the real day jesus was born. Final reason which makes the day useless is that the gregorian calender shifts 0.0002 percent every year. So even if the day was decided to be Dec 25th over 2000 years ago, that day would have shifted by now on the gregorian calender. So my dear sir , that date is not the day jesus was born. Any attempt by humans to fix a date for his birth , a date he never told us to remember will always be false dates. The use of humans measuring time by years has never been accurate or perfect as humans need to add days to years every few years so that the date can come back into place in relation to earths movements. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 9:12pm On Jan 12, 2015 |
bingbagbo:"He appeared in a body" (NIV) "He who was manifested in the flesh" (ASV) "He who was revealed in the flesh" (NASB) "He was manifested in the flesh" (RSV) "Which was manifested in the flesh" (Douey- Rheims) "Who was manifested in the flesh" (NAB)" New Living Translation Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ was revealed in a human body and vindicated by the Spirit. He was seen by angels and announced to the nations. He was believed in throughout the world and taken to heaven in glory. English Standard Version Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. New American Standard Bible By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory. Holman Christian Standard Bible And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. International Standard Version By common confession, the secret of our godly worship is great: In flesh was he revealed to sight, kept righteous by the Spirit's might, adored by angels singing. To nations was he manifest, believing souls found peace and rest, our Lord in heaven reigning! NET Bible And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He was revealed in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. Aramaic Bible in Plain English And this Mystery of Righteousness is truly great, which was revealed in the flesh and was justified in The Spirit; He appeared to Angels and was preached among the Gentiles; He was trusted in the world and he ascended into glory. You have not responded to the other posts that are a continuation of the first post on 1ti 3:16 You have also not answered the question I and others posted on the trinity issue . I hope this put an end to the use of the verse in propagating the false doctrin of trinity. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 7:46pm On Jan 12, 2015 |
johnw74:I do admit that some of the words I posted are taking from a website or . I do this because those words best explain what I'm trying to explain to you concerning 1 ti 3:16 . It will be stupid of me to see an already typed words that best explains my understanding, and now go on typing in my own words when the words and explanations are already there on the internet. You use the words plagiarism. Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work. Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics. Plagiarism is not a crime per se but in academia and industry, it is a serious ethical offense. Now if you accuse me of plagiarism, this is what ill tell you : 1. I have not ascribed the words I posted to myself or my name as the author. 2. I'm not a journalist as I have not produced any journal or book ,talk less of stealing someones work. 3.posting on nairaland is not publishing. If you have an issue with my post , it should be on if what I posted is true or not. You stayed that what I posted (no modern translation use God in 1 ti 3:16) is not true and defended ur statement by quoting bible translations that used the word God in 1ti 3:16. Now let's look at the bible translations you qouted and come to a better understanding. Hebrew Names Version The Hebrew Names Version of the World English Bible is an update of the American Standard Version of 1901. The Revised Version, Standard American Edition of the Bible, more commonly known as the American Standard Version (ASV), is a version of the Bible that was first released in 1900. It was originally best known by its full name, but soon came to have other names, such as the American Revised Version, the American Standard Revision, the American Standard Revised Bible, and the American Standard Edition. By the time its copyright was renewed in 1929, it had come to be known by its present name, the American Standard Version. Because of its prominence in seminaries, it was in America sometimes simply called the "Standard Bible". History The American Standard Version (ASV) is rooted in the work that was done with the Revised Version (RV) (a late 19th-century British revision of the King James Version of 1611). In 1870, an invitation was extended to American religious leaders for scholars to work on the RV project. A year later, Protestant theologian Philip Schaff chose 30 scholars representing the denominations of Baptist, Congregationalist, Dutch Reformed, Friends, Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Protestant Episcopal, and Unitarian. These scholars began work in 1872. The RV New Testament was released In 1881; the Old Testament was published in 1885. The ASV was published in 1901 by Thomas Nelson & Sons. In 1928, the International Council of Religious Education (the body that later merged with the Federal Council of Churches to form the National Council of Churches) acquired the copyright from Nelson and renewed it the following year. Conclusion 1. The HNV is an update of ASV therefore it is not a mordern translation of the original manuscripts . 2. The ASV is linked to the KJV. And published in 1900. I leave you to decide if this is modern . The Darby Translation The Darby Bible (DBY, formal title The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby) refers to the Bible as translated from Hebrew and Greek by John Nelson Darby. Darby published a translation of the New Testament in 1867, with revised editions in 1872 and 1884. After his death, some of his students produced an Old Testament translation based on Darby's French and German translations. The complete Darby Bible, including Darby's 3rd edition New Testament and his students' Old Testament, was first published in 1890. If this is modern , let us know WBT: The Webster Bible Noah Webster's 1833 limited revision of the King James Bible focused mainly on replacing archaic words and making simple grammatical changes. Overall, very few changes were made, and the result is a book which is almost indistinguishable from the King James Bible. It has sometimes been called the "Common Version" (which is not to be confused with the Common Bible of 1973, an ecumencial edition of the Revised Standard Version). It is linked to the KJV and not directly a translation of the manuscripts. I leave you to decide if it is modern. TMB: Third Millennium Bible The Third Millennium Bible (TMB), also known as the New Authorized Version, is a 1998 minor update of the King James Version of the Bible. Unlike the New King James Version, it does not alter the language significantly from the 1611 version, retaining Jacobean grammar (including "thees" and "thous"  , but it doesattempt to replace some of the vocabulary which no longer would make sense to a modern reader. The TMB also, like the original KJV in 1611, contains the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament in between the Old and New Testaments. This has helped win it some support among traditionalist Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox Christians. A version without the Apocrypha (and with formatting changes) is known as the 21st Century King James Version. It is linked to the king James version and not a direct modern translation of the Greek manuscripts of the scriptures . TYN: Tyndal The Tyndale Bible generally refers to the body of biblical translations by William Tyndale. Tyndale’s Bible is credited with being the first English translation to work directly from Hebrew and Greek texts. Furthermore it was the first English biblical translation that was mass-produced as a result of new advances in the art of printing. The term Tyndale's Bible is not strictly correct, because Tyndale never published a complete Bible. Prior to his execution, Tyndale had only finished translating the entire New Testament and roughly half of the Old Testament.[1] Of the latter, the Pentateuch, Jonah and a revised version of the book of Genesis were published during his lifetime. His other Old Testament works were first used in the creation of the Matthew Bible and also heavily influenced every major English translation of the Bible that followed. History The chain of events that led to the creation of Tyndale’s New Testament possibly began in 1522, the year Tyndale acquired a copy of Martin Luther’s German New Testament. Inspired by Luther’s work, Tyndale began a translation into English using a Greek text "compiled by Erasmus from several manuscripts older and more authoritative than the Latin Vulgate" of St. Jerome (A.D. c.340-420), the only translation authorized by the Roman Catholic Church. the first complete edition of his New Testament was published in 1526.[7] Two revised versions were later published in 1534 and 1536, both personally revised by Tyndale himself. After his death in 1536 Tyndale’s works were revised and reprinted numerous times [8] and are reflected in more modern versions of the Bible, including, perhaps most famously, the King James Bible. Tyndale's Pentateuch was published at Antwerp by Merten de Keyser in 1530.[9] His English version of the book of Jonah was published the following year. This was followed by his revised version of the book of Genesis in 1534. Tyndale translated additional Old Testament books including Joshua, Judges, first and second Samuel, first and second Kings and first and second Chronicles, but they were not published and have not survived in their original forms. [10] When Tyndale was martyred these works came to be in the possession of one his associates John Rogers. These translations would be influential in the creation of the Matthew Bible which was published in 1537.[11] Tyndale used a number of sources when carrying out his translations of both the New and Old Testaments. When translating the New Testament, he referred to the third edition (1522) of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, often referred to as the Received Text. Tyndale also used Erasmus' Latin New Testament, as well as Luther’s German version and the Vulgate. YLT: Young's Literal Translation Young's Literal Translation is a translation of the Bible into English, published in 1862. The translation was made by Robert Young, compiler of Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible and Concise Critical Comments on the New Testament. Young produced a “Revised Version” of his translation in 1887, which he based on the 1881 Westcott–Hort text. After Robert Young died on October 14, 1888, the publisher[who?] released a new Revised Edition in 1898. With all the above, will you state that the verses u quoted on 1 ti 3:16 are from modern translations ? So up till now I'm correct to state that no modern translation of the manuscripts use the word "God" |
| Politics › Re: Labaran Maku Governorship Campaign (PHOTO) by dolphinheart(m): 5:33pm On Jan 11, 2015 |
Or like :" I hope those chocks I've been toasting for a while now her to see these pics . I'm now the chickens governor ....sorry the governor chicken . |
| Politics › Re: Labaran Maku Governorship Campaign (PHOTO) by dolphinheart(m): 5:31pm On Jan 11, 2015 |
That bird will be like : " untie me na ! And let me show u what I feel about this embarasment " |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 4:20pm On Jan 11, 2015 |
correctguy0900:The bible made reference to jesus being a god, the bible made reference to Satan as a god. The scriptures let us know that there are many Gods The scriptures let us know that out of all those Gods , there is one true God . Jesus let's us know that that true God is the rather who we must worship , who he worships ,who sent him to do all he has done on earth. Jesus came wholly as a man, but not like anyone else, he was born perfect , through the process of his birth , he did not inherit the sin of his fathers. Jesus as a man did not perform any miraculous works until after he was anointed by a superior being with the holy spirit which enabled him to perform all the works. Just like moses , the prophets and the disciples did. After jesus resurrection by his God, he was giving the glory he requested for , now what glorywas he giving. The scriptures does not mention jesus having a throne before coming to earth . Proverbs 8: 20 -32 helps us to know that he was always beside his God , ready to do his Gods will. After his ressurection ,while he was still on earth, he told his disciples that that all authority has been giving to him. Apostle paul helps us to understand that despite All authority giving to him by his God , he is still subjected to the one who gave him that power. Thereby making that person who gave him such power the almighty of all the Gods. Even after resurrection, and being giving authority, jesus was not giving a throne imediately because upon ascension to heaven, his God , the father , told him to sit at his right hand until............ Unless u want to argue that jesus throne was or is at the right hand of Gods throne . Or that jesus is the same as the father or part of the father? The ransom that jesus payed must be in the form if the one that was lost by adam . If jesus had Any godship in him while paying the ransom means that God is surporting satans course when he said that man cannot serve God without divine influence . Jesus death shows that if perfect man can have the needed , full acurate knowledge of the father, the he can serve the father even till death |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 3:10pm On Jan 11, 2015 |
bingbagbo:It is good that you agree that jesus has a God. Anything that is worshiped can be termed a god, inasmuch as the worshiper attributes to it might greater than his own and venerates it. So there are many Gods or gods depending on who is worshiped and who is worshiping. Therefore anything can be a God to Mr b , but not a God to Mr a. Mr A can make reference to Mr b's God as "a God " or God " but it does not mean that that God is Mr A's God. In the scriptures jesus said that the father(also our father) is "my God"(his God). No where in the bible did the father ever use the word "my God" for jesus. The scriptures helps us to know that jesus always does the willof his God , even to the point of death. The scriptures helps us to know that jesus and the father are two different persons . Jesus said we should follow him and worship him who he(jesus) worships . Jesus said we should worship the only true God . Jesus said the only true God is the father,our father , the one he worships |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 2:45pm On Jan 11, 2015*. Modified: 3:16pm On Jan 11, 2015 |
bingbagbo: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is God Almighty......question Me by dolphinheart(m): 2:32pm On Jan 11, 2015 |
Continued.... God was Justified in the Spirit? Another problem associated with the "God" rendering is that if we just keep reading it would then say that God was justified in the Spirit. It makes no sense to say God was justified in the spirit, God was seen by angels, God was preached among the Gentiles, God was believed on in the world, and God was received into glory." One would have to create quite a theological spin to have this make any good sense. c. Paul's Vocabulary Elsewhere At Colossians 1:27 we read, "the glory of the mystery among the nations which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." The relative pronoun used here is the masculine relative pronoun hos which refers back to the neuter noun "mystery." This is nearly identical to 1 Timothy 3:16 which ends with the phrase "taken up in glory." Hence we can see that hos is the likely relative pronoun to be used at 1 Timothy 3:16. d. Constructio Ad Sensum Trinitarians have sometimes insisted the gender of the pronoun in question necessitates in Greek grammar the "God" rendering. This is highly misleading. Pronouns do not always refer to the immediate antecedent but sometimes to the contextual antecedent. Determining Factors Trinitarians are appealing to a version of a text which is known to be a scribal error. Modern Trinitarian translation reflect that Trinitarian translation scholars admit this is a scribal error. Therefore, they do not translate this passage in a way that supports Trinitarian doctrine We have a pretty good idea that this error was accomplished by either (1) one additional stroke of a pen changing the Greek word from "who" to "God" or (2) by two additional strokes of a pen changing the Greek word from "which" to God, or (3) by ink bleeding through the media. This version of the verse cannot be found absolutely anywhere in early Christian writings before the Trinity was developed. Considering the fourth and fifth century men were having a crisis in the church concerning the nature of Christ and his relationship to God, it is preposterous to claim this version of the verse is valid and they overlooked this passage. No early manuscripts contain this version of the verse. The corrupted version of this text appears only after the doctrine of the Trinity was developed in the fourth/fifth century. The Greek grammar also indicates this rendering is wrong. Conclusion So when we review all the evidence the solution is plain to see. The historical evidence indicates the word "God" was not there before the fifthe century. The manuscript evidence indicates the word "God" was not in the original text. All objections based on grammatical and theological grounds are nothing but vain babblings. Christ is the mystery in question which is why the passage should read, "great is the mystery of godliness who/which was manifested in flesh, justified in spirit..." Very obviously then the passage reads smoothly and makes total sense with the rest of Scripture by using either the word "who" or "which" or "that" instead of the word "God" which is an obvious error or forgery no matter how badly Trinitarian apologists want it to be there and who seem to somehow think they do God a favor by promoting something he never inspired in the first place |
I just skipped to the end.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 (of 84 pages)