₦airaland Forum

Truthseeker10:
I am not answering your questions until you tell me the possible grammatical error that can occur by adding "The God" to the kjv English translation.

I've told you several times.

If you don't answer my question then, you have failed already.

So, what do you want to proof from that diagram?

MaxInDHouse:
Keep your evidence while they keep theirs

Even one of the people you keep quoting has WARMED YOU SEVERAL TIMES TO STOP DOING SO.

What does that tell you?

MaxInDHouse:
I told you that appeal differ from command.
So if you love exchanging hurtful words you are free to continue doing so with him at least you can see what many have said about me and my manner of approach:



This person is talking about Janosky that my brother failed to maintain calmness unlike me so that doesn't make him evil he's just growing he will still get there!

But you boast yesterday! And everything I said came to pass not even up to 12hrs

Didn't you change your mouth now?

Hypocrite!

Truthseeker10:
Is "The God" in the kjv? I want to see it.

So, what do you want to proof from that diagram?

I am following your grammatical accuracy and correctness.

Why did you say that "THE GOD" might not be added to the kjv for grammatical accuracy? What is the possible error if one is to add it?

Explained multiple times.

So, what do you want to proof from that diagram?

MaxInDHouse:
Try to convince them nah!

I don't need to convince them, I have plenty evidence.

Truthseeker10:
What's the difference between "was God" and "a God" in John 1:1?

Your eyes went blank on this.

So, what do you want to proof from that diagram?

My point is exactly how the king James put it. There is No "The God" in the king James English Translation.

Yes! I never disputed that there's "THE GOD" in KJV.

You said it might be so for Grammatical accuracy. So why are you putting what is not there?

Where did I put anything in KJV?

I never even quote any translation, you brought KJV issue and I made POV on it.

Now, you're accusing me of PUTTING WHAT IS NOT IN KJV THERE as if I rewrite the whole KJV.

What Grammatical error are you making by adding it?

Explained countless times

I see "God" and not "The God" in the king James version and I stick to it for grammatical accuracy according to you

Better, now let turn your own question around.

Can the word(God) be with God?

According to that diagram of yours

Truthseeker10:
😂😂😂 You are trying to be smart na.

I'm smart before thank God I'm not trying to be daft

Show me "Being" in the Diagram.

No being in your diagram.

So, what do you want to proof from that diagram?

So explain the Grammatical accuracy that you alleded to.....

The grammatical accuracy is that the word WAS GOD not a god!

What Grammatical error are you making by adding The God to this discussion that we are having in English since the Kjv does not add it in its English translation?

I've said I use "The God" for explanation purpose.

To clarify that God which the word was with is different from God who the word IS.

What is your point exactly?

Truthseeker10:
Where does the Diagram that I showed contain the Word "Being" since you are asking where does my Diagram contain the word "Person"?

Useless question.

You already lost in the midst of your own diagram.

Below in the screenshot is the reason you said that kjv did not add "The God" in John 1:1.

Are we speaking Greek or English? So what is your grammatical error in adding The God to this discussion since it was not added in Kjv English translation?

Gosh.....

The @underline shows you're a liar and low in comprehension.

Your screenshot shows I used "MIGHT NOT" yet see how you put it up.

O ma se oooo

MaxInDHouse

Is this not him again.
Can you see the hypocrisy of yours I've been talking about?

Janosky:
[b]In what realm did God command his Son to do the earthly ministry?

Emusan LYING miscreant,allow your deluded brain to function.

The Song is talking about his mission on earth.

Who BREATH in the nostril of Adam?

[b]John 5:19 & Mark 10:6.
President Tinubu through the CBN fixed exchange rate @N1,600 to $1.
Is the Central Bank (CBN) Tinubu?

Tinubu made the pronunciation and CBN carried it out.

Are you saying CBN didn't do anything?

You see why I do say your brain is so empty.

Tinubu only issue command but CBN must CARRY IT OUT.

So, whenever people want to talk about FX issue in Nigeria the attack CBN because they are the one carrying out the command.

So, can CBN be omitted?

Even CBN do things without president.

Emusan is desperately clawing at straws.

Oponu JaNosense

Is the last born of every creature a creature?
Yes.
Is the first born of every creature a creature?
Yes.

The phrase "first born" has been used by ancient people to show POSITION and RANK.

When the Son became part of what He Created, has to take FIRST POSITION/RANK in EVERYTHING Col 1:18

This is too hard for JaNosense to grasp.

Except the gene for self deceit & faithless miscreants is embedded in you.

Keep show casing your ignoramus and delusions.

MaxInDHouse:
Ó mà ṣeo!
So you can't seem to understand what Jesus taught yet you want to argue shey?

Well this is the benefit of being polite:

Atheist


Atheist


Catholic


Interested person


Agnostic




Atheist


With all these even a heartless person will feel touched that only one person is getting such praise for being polite!

As usual just about going out of POV.

You're pained by those hurtful words and the reason you lay emphasis on them.

So, stop your ranting.

Do this people know you as a liar

1. Who claimed I Emusan has multiple monikers on Nairaland?
2. That you know me more than myself?

Truthseeker10:
These were your words below in bold.

"In the garden was the woman, the woman was with the man, and the woman was MAN.

It will be a grammatical error to say

In the garden was the woman, the woman was with the man, and the woman was a man

In line of this, as Genesis uses man for both first male & female, every right thinking person knows the first expression is correct as "...the woman was MAN" is about NATURE not gender or something else.

But the second expression "...the woman was a man" shows the woman is a male gender or something else not about NATURE."

Yes! That is my post.

You claimed calling The woman "a man" was a Grammatical error because "a man" referred to only Adam because Adam was a man.

This shows you lack comprehension and never understand my post from inception.

Calling the woman "A MAN" will be a grammatical error because A MAN is describing another GENDER not what since the WOMAN has been described to be with A MALE GENDER(MAN).

So, every right thinking person will know that the WOMAN can't be THE SAME person she was WITH.

Here is the summary:

Both the first male and female were called MAN!

This means both are not MALE but MAN here talks about NATURE.

Both were described to be together and when describing them, the word MAN is usually used for the MALE to indicate his gender.

In a nutshell, the word MAN was used as a GENDER and NATURE.

So how does that correlate to John 1:1

It perfectly correlate with John 1:1 in a sense that The word was with God and the Word was God.

This shows that, God here just like (MAN) was used for two things.
1. person
2. Nature.

And this answer your question, "how can the word(God) be with God?"

Is "The God" in John 1:1 also a Grammatical error if used for "The son"?

This is totally out of it.

My emphasis is only on the definite article "THE" in front of the first God which shows the first word "God" not to be understood as the second "God"

I've explained this countless times.

You have told me here that King James refused to add The God because of Grammatical accuracy.

Stop lying I never said KJV REFUSED to add THE GOD.

I just give a reason WHY KJV MIGHT NOT INCLUDED and not even KJV. Most translations didn't include it but the fact is the Greek shows the first word translated as God which the word WAS WITH has definite article "THE" which makes it different from the word translated as God which the word IS.

How is this hard for you to understand?

But you keep adding it and claim not to commit a Grammatical error.

I've said I added it for the purpose of clarification just to show you that the first GOD not the same with the second God.

Is this a rocket science to you?

I am not going to answer any of your questions anymore until you tell me the Grammatical error that would happen if "The God" is added to John 1:1.

Pure nonsense.

John 1:1 read: "In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, and the word was God"

1st red color = the first God
2nd red color= the second God.

Your question, how can the word(God; which is according to your diagram) be with God?

So, to you, you're taking the GODin that diagram as a PERSON and I have to clarify (which I even say it openly) that the God in that diagram is about NATURE not PERSON.

Your lack of simple comprehension leads to this confusion.

You agreed with my Trinity diagram that clearly states that GOD is The Father, the son and the Holy Spirit.

Yes! By NATURE

It also clearly states that the father is not the son, the son is not the holy spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

Yes! As person

So how many persons are in the Diagram?

No person in the diagram.

Your question should have been how many BEING PRESENTED AS PERSON?

Which is THREE

If there are no persons in the Diagram according to you, why are you now saying that the God refers to the Father that is the person in John 1:1?

Where PERSON APPEAR IN YOUR DIAGRAM?

I'VE BEEN ASKING YOU THIS QUESTION AND YOU KEEP DODGING IT BUT ONLY TO COME BACK AND START ASKING ANOTHER THING.

No PERSON appear in your diagram

Only God, the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit appear.

MaxInDHouse:
You just like wahala

Not like you.

but trust me i now know you than you know yourself

Waoooo clap for yourself. God!

there is no chances of exchanging hurtful words with me again, that has been buried completely! 2Timothy 3:17

Good for you!

It's actually good for you because you seem hurt by it. Which means you can't take the fire you're burning people with.

Answer this my question:

Where did I used PERSONS(plural)?

As you claimed earlier.

Truthseeker10:
Oga you are just contradicting yourself.

You're the one confusing yourself and lack simple comprehension.

You claimed MAN(nature) is used for male Adam(person) and used interchangeably for male and female ADAM(nature)....

To say I CLAIM shows you are not vast with the scripture.

The word MAN was used for both the first male and female in the SCRIPTURE not my claim.

you later came up with The man(person). Is MAN (person) or (nature)?

No! I only show you how the word MAN which was used for the first male and female means PERSON(in case of the male as seen in the scripture) and NATURE (as also seen in the scripture).

That is why I asked you to read Genesis 2 and see how it was USED.

So the father, the son and holy spirit refers to what?

To the TRINITY according to your diagram

MaxInDHouse:
Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing. 2 Corinthians 1:24

I and Janosky share the same beliefs not that i'm master over his faith, he is standing for what he believes it's his manner of presentation i'm talking about!

So you can be master over another person.

Hypocrite!

Janosky:
John 5:19 "the son can NOT do anything of his own initiative."

But The son was the one carrying out the activities of the CREATION.

Well that verse was talking about The Son in human nature.

My question, will the person be PART OF THE UNIVERSE?

Mark 10:6 "God created THEM" not his son.
Hebrew 1:2 "God created the Universe."

That shows that The Son is God who created Them.

Who BREATH IN THE NOSTRIL OF ADAM?

Mark & John the apostle were taught by his son, Jesus Christ teaching them his Father's commanded, John 12:49-50

The UNIVERSE was created through, so will the Son be PART OF THE UNIVERSE?

Truthseeker10:
Below is your statement in bold

"If you read Genesis 2 you'll notice how the word MAN was used for the male Adam and interchangeably used for both male and female ADAM."

So, is this the rule you're talking about?

Where did I used PERSONS(plural)

You have explained that The God refers to person. Is person not in the Diagram?

No person in the diagram.

MaxInDHouse:
Well at least you can notice how silent Janosky is after that post.

That's how we JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES appeal to reasonableness among our brothers.

The post was for him not you and it has yielded the positive result.

Thanks for your time!

The hypocrisy in you is so glaring, no need for talk talk

You mean JaNosense won't come here again with those words?

Let me wait, but I know you have no shame and if you see him with such post you'll rather divert attention.

MaxInDHouse:
If you are abusive towards me when i'm trying to maintain calmness i will ask you why nah!

The reason is simple because you too do abuse people.

Or you want to claim you haven't use abusive words here?

My point is, you want to remove piece of wood in people's eyes why log of wood it's in your eyes and everyone around you.

MaxInDHouse:
Haba!
We don't call people out like masters over their faith {2 Corinthians 1:24} as i told you we appeal to them honorably as fellow believers!

But you can call others out.

Do you see the hypocrisy I'm talking about?

Truthseeker10:
Where did you get that rule from?

Which rule?

You claimed The God refers to persons.

Where? Notice PERSONS(plural)

You must provide where I said that.

My diagram refers to three persons The Father, The son and The Holy Spirit.

Good, so where did THE GOD appear in your diagram?

MaxInDHouse:
If you are using it for when discussing with him how do you expect him to stop using it for you? Matthew 7:12

The highlighted is a COMMAND not an appeal!

So have you called him out before?

Truthseeker10:
Are you denying The God refers to person in which The son is also a person?

God in the second part of John 1:1 is about PERSON while God in the last part is about NATURE.

The son can be the PERSON because He is the one BEING WITH GOD(PERSON)

IS THAT CLEAR NOW?

it is your question to answer. How many The God is present in the Diagram?

No! It's not until you answer that.

Where was THE GOD appeared in your diagram?

MaxInDHouse:
Perhaps you need to read this again but this time slowly and try to assimilate then you will see how tactful Jehovah's Witnesses deal with matters!

Is that how you have been calling people out for using abusive words?

Hypocrite!

Tell him to his face, stop using abusive words.

Truthseeker10:
which is specific....John 1:1 is not specific it uses The God which The son is part of.

How do you know the son is part of THE GOD?

That question is for you. How many The God(person) do we have according to the diagram that i showed you?

No! It's not for me answer my question.

MaxInDHouse:
This is what most of you don't know about us!

We don't command or condemn people's behavior rather we appeal to them lovingly.

Hypocrite!

Your post show, you condemned people here about their abusive words.

Which you never mentioned about your deluded brother who is doing the same.

So don't expect me to start insulting or abusing Janosky for the way and manner he's responding to you that's between you and him

Can you what I'm saying now?

Who said you should start ABUSING HIM?

Have you ever condemned him for using those words is what I'm asking you?

If you like, be pretending online so that you don't want people to know that JWs do disagree with each other.

i can only appeal to him as my own brother to calmly addressed you not command him!

So where have you ever APPEAL TO HIM ON THIS FORUM.

BRING YOUR EVIDENCE....

Truthseeker10:
Does 1 John 1:2 use The word and The God as used in John 1:1?

No! But it clearly stated who the ETERNAL LIFE which is Jesus was with.

So which one of the The God is used in John 1:1?

Your question should be which one of the The Gods is used in John 1:1?

Is there MULTIPLE OF THE GODS in John 1:1?

Don't skip this question

MaxInDHouse:
True Christians don't command respect we earn it so its appealing to others not ordering then on what to do.
For your information that's the purpose of the post you just quoted!

Hypocrite!

You haven't condemned your deluded brother which you can see his post litter with abusive words the way you want others to stop using abusive words which you have demonstrated openly here.

The post I quoted shows bias and hypocrisy.

Janosky:
MUMU WAILER, "God created the Universe" not his son.

But the UNIVERSE was created through Him.

Now, can Him be part of what HE WAS CREATED?

Oga,Allow your brain to function.

I'll keep hitting your empty skull with that question.

Truthseeker10:
So who does The God refer to?

You used ONLY the Father.

If you want to know who was referring 1 John 1:2 have answer

Did you not say that The God refers to person instead of Nature again?
Is The Father, The son and holy spirit no longer persons according to the diagram?

Did I combine them under THE GOD?

Janosky:
Emusan,allow your deluded brain to function..
Process Hebrew 1:2 again
"Hebrew 1:2 "God created the universe THROUGH another person.".

The point here is THE UNIVERSE.

You agreed it through another person.

So will the person be PART OF THE UNIVERSE?

That "another person" is not the Creator.

The person is the CREATOR.

Emusan,MUMU deluded empty headed soul.

Oponu JaNosense.

How can you CREATE SOMETHING THROUGH ANOTHER PERSON BUT THE PERSON who is actually carrying the activities ISN'T THE CREATOR?

Truthseeker10:
so The God only refers to The Father?

I never said that.

So the father, the son and holy spirit is no longer The God which you claimed refers to person instead of nature?

Where did I say the Father, the son and the holy is THE GOD as a PERSON?

Don't skip this question.

MaxInDHouse:
I've maintained politeness with Emusan, the other Gabriel guy can't discuss without adding insults but i look away since they both claim you are the cause why they can't discuss with us without resorting to abusive speeches.

Now you confess you maintain politeness with with me but look at the post when your deluded brother JaNosense join, have you condemned any of his action the way you want to be controlling others?