₦airaland Forum

Aemmyjah:
Every born is a creature. Yes or No?
He hit you by surprise and see your response

And the verse didn't use BORN but FIRSTBORN

For you people to be separating the word used shows you people have agenda.

Aemmyjah:
I agree with there the Bible, the Bible leads me to. Is that a problem to you?

I don't have problem with that but provide the date from the Bible.

How is that difficult to you?

False believer, lookin for historians to validate your own faith

Shameless believer, who used historians to validate his own faith of 537BC.

Courz:
Fornicator Aemmyjah, where is your evidence? See evidence boku o. Where is your own? Fake Biologist.

There is no evidence for 697BC that's why you see them preambulating like lost goat.

If there is, they'd have provided it since.

Janosky:
Yes .
Reuben the FIRSTBORN of Jacob was SUPERIOR to his siblings, Gen 49:3.
Jesus Christ is the FIRSTBORN of God (Hebrew 1:5) is SUPERIOR to other ministering spirits.

The term "FIRSTBORN" means the same thing in the whole Bible, every FIRSTBORN is a creature.

The word "BORN" can NOT be TWISTED by Trinitarians desperate to hold tight to their man made fallacy.
Every BORN being is a creature.
Shikena

When you pick your brain from your hall let me know but for now you don't make any sense JaNosense

MaxInDHouse:
The beginning means when creation started it includes Jesus and all other beings apart from the Almighty God that's why the phrase "in the beginning" has to do with all creatures including the first creature or firstborn of all creations: Jesus! Colossians 1:15

But the Father is called THE BEGINNING

Are you insinuating that the Father is also part of Creation? since you said THE BEGINNING means WHEN CREATION STARTED.

Michael547:
col 1:18 says that Jesus was the FIRSTBORN from the dead, meaning that he was the first one to be raised from the dead.

See your life outside.

So FIRSTBORN just means FIRST not FIRST TO BE CREATED

If FIRSTBORN from the dead means FIRST to be raised then that's not the meaning of "FIRSTBORN"

Now Your CEV Translation says that Jesus was not only the superior but also the firstborn son in respect to all creation. So how do you want to argue that Jesus was not the first person to be created?
Now can we also apply the word FIRSTBORN SON Or FIRSTBORN from the dead, in Col 1:18 and Col 1:15 to The God that Jesus was with in John 1:1,2?

The term FIRSTBORN means SUPERIORITY that's how it's being used even in our today's world. CEV used that perfectly.

Additionally, Col 1:18 also dash your previous argument that Jesus was NOT BEFORE THE BEGINNING.

Firstly, it says Jesus is "BEFORE ALL THINGS"
Lastly, it says Jesus "IS THE BEGINNING"

Aemmyjah:
If sticking to the Bible that the Jews spent 70 years leading to 607 BCE as the start date is a problem to you, let it be your own migraine. OK?
Nothing you can teach us

Well, we can see the problem is actually with you.

Just provide the secular historians who ALL AGREED with ESTABLISHED FACT that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607BC.

Why is that so hard for you?

Hypocrite!!!

Michael547:
Oga stop twisting scriptures. Why did you not use the earlier translations i gave you to explain?

The other translation used the translation of the Greek word that appear in that verse not the meaning

The Greek word is 'Prototokos'

You see the reason why you need to enroll for elementary school.

You went to bring scriptures that omitted firstborn.

O ma se oooo

Can we also say that The Almighty God who Jesus was with in John 1:1,2 is also a firstborn?

Where is the answer to my question?

Michael547:
😁😁😁....you think you were wise by bringing Translations that omitted the word 'firstborn son' just to prove your point. But unfortunately your CEV Translation convinced you that Jesus is not only Supreme, but also the firstborn of creation.
But you could not dodge it because you caught yourself 😁😁. Oga you need the school more.

You're a really olodo....only if you understand that.

You want me to tutor you like a primary school pupil, let me help you with that.

The meaning of term FIRSTBORN is what CEV actually emphasize on the last part of the translation "...superior to all creation."

That's why you won't find other translations used the term 'FIRSTBORN' since the meaning was used.

Very pathetic.

I've being answering your questions since now it's my turn.

When the scripture says "Jesus is the 'FIRSTBORN' from the dead" Colo 1:18 does it mean Jesus was the first to be CREATED from resurrection?

Note: the term in contention here is the "FIRSTBORN"

Michael547:
Oga you have not answered oo....you claim that the original Greek talks about just supremacy but does not talk about Jesus being the first creation.
So please what does the 'firstborn son' in your CEV Translation mean?

To have low IQ is truly a disease.

According to you "you claim that original Greek talks about just SUPREMACY but not talk about Jesus being the first creation" and you went further to ask again what does the term FIRSTBORN SON mean?

Absolutely, just leave this discussion and enroll for elementary school.

Michael547:
Oga why does your CEV Translation call Jesus 'firstborn son' before saying 'Superior'?
What does firstborn son mean.
Or should we ignore 'firstborn son' because it does not appear in greek?😁

I've answered that question come with another.

Michael547:
Was it also in the beginning of the heavens and earth that 'Jesus was with God' according to verse 2 of your translation?
What does 'firstborn son' mean according to your CEV Translation below?

If you have any question apart from this one, let me know!

Michael547:
Oga which translation did you use to back it up.....

I provided it yesterday, or you want to deny you didn't see it.

the one that is confusing you? me

Fixed

You are arguing that the 'beginning' in John 1:1 is the same beginning in Genesis 1:1.

Yes! because there's ONE BEGINNING as we can't have TWO BEGINNINGS which you also agreed with.

So are you saying that the heavens and the earth were the first thing that God created?

That is what God's Word says not me.

"In the BEGINNING, God created the Heavens and the Earth" Gen 1:1

If yes, explain the bible verses below.
Is the heavens and earth both the 'beginning of the creation of God' and the 'firstborn of all creation' in REV 3:14 and Col 1:15?

Both Rev 3:14 and Col 1:15 are talking about SOURCE OF CREATION and SUPREMACY OF CHRIST OVER CREATION not that Jesus was CREATED. According to Greek word USED in those verses.

Scripture is very clear that.

John 1:3 "ALL THINGS were created by HIM(Jesus) and without Him(Jesus) NOT EVEN ONE THING that was created"

"ALL THINGS came into existence through him,+ and apart from him NOT EVEN ONE THING came into existence." - NWT

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth"

If you want to swallow your vomit that there can be TWO BEGINNINGS then come open.

Michael547:
😁😁😁.....oga after I don give you evidence you don dey say make I go Learn English wey you sef dey find hard to comprehend.

Which evidence?

You need to go back to elementary school to learn simple tenses.

Michael547:
So are you saying 'in the beginning was the word' in verse 1 means that Jesus was before the beginning?

Yes!

And I back it up with a TRANSLATION.

Oga think na.

Do you think as well?

Another way to make that statement is 'The word was in the beginning'. How does the two statements prove that 'Jesus was before the beginning' in verse 1.

Stop twisting the scripture.

You already said there can't be TWO BEGINNINGS

So discussing with you further is a waste of one's precious time.

Courz:
Do you know what is so irritating? These people love to quote Bible Scholars and Historians too much. They take so much pride in doing it and claiming that they are established facts! Just go through their publications. It is filled with dates from Secular History. So, I wonder why they just specifically picked 607 out of all the dates to invent themselves because they need their lies to fit with it. That's why I am asking them how they got 607. Are JWs Historians and Archeologists? What ancient documents do they have to back it up? We have been asking them this question since 1914 and they have refused the answer. So, what right thinking person would take such clowns seriously? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

It's only an hypocrite that behave that way.

That is why he was so bold to say, "Do we need everyone's approval to agree with us?"

because he knows that watchtower designed their own rules to suit their own doctrines. Yet the deluded guy will be claiming to be a biologist.

Michael547:
Lol...so if I say, in the beginning was Emusan, do i mean you were before the beginning or you were at the beginning? Which one?
Look at the translations below

What is the usage of past tense verb "WAS" in that sentence?

Man, just go back to primary school for elementary English.

Michael547:
Below are four translations that says in the beginning 'was' the word. Not 'before' the beginning was the word

Go an learn simple English

You're not ripe for this discussion.

Teaching you like a pupil is the height of it.

Courz:
Look at the question you are asking above. Do you even think before you type? Do you need everyone's approval to agree with you on 607? If you don't need Historians approval or their agreement, why did you quote their date 537? Where did you get 537 Bce from? Was it from the Bible? No. From Secular Historians! Why did you point out that 537 is an agreed date in the first place? That's because you still need the agreement and approval from Historians for that date. You need their agreement that's why you mentioned it. You still need their agreement which is why your publications are filled with their information to this day! See? You JWs still depend on Secular History sources for information to this day. Why is It that no single historian and Archeologists agree with you JWs for 607? Where did you get 607 from? Are you JWs historians and Archeologists? Wayo people! And you are busy going about teaching this Lie to gullible people that don't do research. 😂😂😂

You can even imagine the shameless person.

See how he later said "THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T AGREE ON THE SAME THING" when he was the same person who first said "ALL AGREED WITH ESTABLISHED FACT"

Aemmyjah:
Do we need everyone's approval to agree with us?

Here is the real hypocrisy.

When it comes with the date the exile ended, you rely on SECULAR HISTORIANS as ALL AGREED not only that ALL agreed but with ESTABLISHED FACT.

But now, you don't need anybody to AGREED with you even without ESTABLISHED FACT.

And you want to be taking serious.

Ezra, Jeremiah, Daniel confirms that the Jews spent 70 years in exile
Using the Bible chronology, the Jews were freed in 537BCE

Freed in 537BC as agreed by ALL with established fact and also agreed by ALL with archeological evidence that it was 587BC Jerusalem was destroyed. So the Book of Ezra, Jeremiah, Daniel must be misinterpreted by someone to achieve something.

Answer this? How many years did the exile began and elapse?
If anyone has problems with what we base on the Bible, it's their own problem.
Once upon a time, we were insulted that we were the only ones not celebrating Xmas, observing sabbath, abstaining from blood.
Who should be the ones telling us what is fact based on what the Bible says?

I've told you, without answering my question, never asked me any.

My question you haven't been able to answer is, how many secular historians AGREED WITH ESTABLISHED FACT that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607BC?

If the Bible says the Jews spend 100 years in exile, we'll still follow what the Bible says, not some writings of people that don't agree on the same thing. So rest. Out of envy, you criticize us and the scriptures which we dearly follow

@undrlined - see how hypocrisy wants to wound you.

You said initially that "ALL AGREED WITH ESTABLISHED FACT", now to defend rubbish you said "they don't AGREE ON THE SAME THING".

It's envy this time not hatred again

Michael547:
The point is that Genesis 1:1 is referring to the beginning of the creation of the heavens and earth. John 1:1 is referring to the Original or 'Very' beginning that refers to God's first creative act.

Smile...

After you already stated clearly that there can't be TWO BEGINNINGS.

I know you added "ORIGINAL OR VERY" to make it sounds like it's not TWO BEGINNINGS but it's very obvious that you want to eat your cake and also have it.

Sorry, it can't work that way.

There can't be TWO BEGINNINGS as you rightly said.

John 1:1 state that Jesus 'was' in the beginning, not before It.

That's pure lie.

You can see you're the very one doing what you accused me of that time.

You're rewritten God's word.

No translation ever says Jesus "WAS" IN THE BEGINNING in verse one.

verse 2 also shows that it was in that same beginning as verse 1 not before it, that Jesus was with God.

You keep repeating this when I never said Verse 2 says anything BEFORE the beginning.

So, why the manipulation?

So your Erv is not consistent with other translations.

It's consistent because the point John made in that chapter from verse 1 is that The Word is not part of CREATION.

That is why, the phrase like
"In the beginning, before the foundation of the world, before the mountains were brought fought" denote ETERNITY.

ERV isn't the only translation that did that.

Janosky:
Jesus Christ has a Father in the spiritual realm.
Emusan, do you have the same Father with Jesus in the spiritual realm?

It's now SPIRITUAL REALM

This JaNosense won't stop to amaze someone

E get why.

Oga, use your brain & cure your delusion.

Says the jws lying liar who has donated his brain

Michael547:
You yourself know that that translation sounds contradictory.

Very cheap excuse.

That is why most translations uses in the beginning in verse 1.

And what they were explaining is still the same.

Your Erv translation does not even show in verse 1 that Jesus and God were together before the world began.

At this point is when I gave up on you and shows that I've been discussing with a pupil.

You're a chronicle liar.

This is ERV of John 1:1 "Before the world began, the Word was there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I've posted this same verse more than three times, yet you can speed that nonsense up.

Verse 2 of your erv translation explains that 'Jesus was with God' as stated in verse 1, in the beginning of the world not even before. So I don't get where you are getting your explanation from.

You already agreed that there can't be TWO BEGINNINGS.

So what is your point and explanation about John 1:1-2?

Janosky:
Emusan,Your intention was to insult me but you ended up exposing yourself for LYING.
Emusan did not do any "simple task" I first gave him.
LYING man

[/b]

I did and I told you that what I got was that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587BC and not 607BC

So, you can see you're the one disgracing yourself.

Was this prophecy about the number of years of the Jews captivity?
Yes!

Would Jerusalem's destruction take place when & if the Jews where not captured?

No !

I like the fact that you're the one making questions and you're the very one providing the answers

Secular history gave the year 537 BCE that king Cyrus ordered the Jews to return to rebuild Jerusalem's temple. Screenshot evidence.

Good since you agreed with the secular history about 537BC

When was the same secular history say Jerusalem was destroyed?

This is the simple question that you people were running away from because of your double face.

Your holy Bible gave the prophecy of king Cyrus giving that order. Ezra 1:1-4. 2 chronicles 36:20-23.
Go & verify.
Emusan do you agree?

I love the fact that you couldn't gave me the YEAR 537BC from those scriptures.

I have given you enough evidence & answered your questions.

You didn't.

My question was, when did secular historians say Jerusalem was destroyed?

At least you agreed with the same secular historians for gotten the date 537BC right.

So what did they say about the DATE Jerusalem was destroyed.

If you're being truthful to yourself you will provide a screenshot here.

Go & research your Bible on this topic to find out the point you missed.
Emusan start your assignment now.
Don't be a dim wit

I said, I did and the date secular historians said Jerusalem was destroyed was 587BC.

So, can you proof me wrong by providing the secular historians that agreed with you that 607BC was the year Jerusalem destroyed?

JaNosense will come with another twist now just watch.

Janosky:
Your own heart knows that the Watchtower did not add anything to alter the meaning of the holy scriptures.
Don't be DECEIVING YOURSELF.

Of course do I expect JaNosense to disagree

Emusan you agree you came through your Father/Senior.
But you want to shift the goal post because Romans 11:35-36 is bitter pill to your delusion.
Jesus Christ came through his Father/Senior in the spiritual realm.

Where was SPIRITUAL REALM appear in Rome 11:35-36

Just remove the SPIRITUAL REALM from your point and see clearly

In Emusan's Bible Every First born is a creature.

So you created your FIRST BORN

Oga,stick this Bible truth into your brain.

Gaskiya.

The same Bible truth you're running away from.

Michael547:
Oga verse 2 in your translation clearly implies that Jesus was with God in the beginning not before the world began.

And your point it?

Why are you only showing verse 1 na? Show it together with verse 2.

You can combine the two or you can't get ERV?

You're just going round in circles very pathetic.

Michael547:
If the The beginning refers to when the World began, was it that beginning in verse 2 that Jesus was with God?

Yes!

Where was Jesus before the beginning of the world?

I've answered that before.

Don't take us back.

Why did you ignore my question?

Michael547:
Can see that nowhere in verse 1 and 2 the statement Jesus was with God before the beginning was stated?

Kai you need to go back to primary school.

This is ERV John 1:1 again, this time read it like you want to answer it in an exam tomorrow.

"Before the world began, the Word was there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Well, I asked you a question which you turn blind eyes to, why?

Janosky:
"Thou shalt not lie"

That watchtower added words that are not found in the manuscripts to their translation.

Even you know this truth.

https://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm

Emusan Where did you invent your translation?

Where watchtower invented their from.

Did your own Bible say the 2 beings in John 1:1 had the same beginning?

The translation never said THE TWO BEINGS even had a BEGINNING in the first place.

Roman11:35-36, who came through the Father?

JaNosense

Did Emusan come through his Father?

Yes!

Who is the first born in Genesis 49:3

Who is the first born in Colossians 1:15?

You tell us.

Michael547:
Oga put the screenshot here and show me where you got before the beginning statement.

I only use BEFORE for verse 1

Definitely you don't read post before you reply.

Just wasting someone's time.

We'll check the below

Michael547:
Oga quote verse 2. Don't read only verse one.
Here is an Erv translation below

You can read it.

That's not ERV

Michael547:
Oga i have read your post. You are insisting that the beginning in John 1:1 is the same as Genesis 1:1. Now John 1:2 says that it was at that beginning that Jesus was with God. So where was Jesus before the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth?

You don't even need to stress this further.

You already agreed that there can't be TWO BEGINNINGS.

So, which point do you want to make if "In The Beginning" in Gen 1:1 is different from another "In The BEGINNING" from John 1:1-2?