₦airaland Forum

MaxInDHouse:
What do you think warranted other translations?

TheDevilsBride:
Very interesting. So if God can't preserve his word through one translation, what makes you think any other translation is foolproof ?

MaxInDHouse:
What do you think warranted other translations?

This is what others have to say about the same verse:

And I heard what sounded like a voice of a great crowd and like the sound of many waters and like the sound of heavy thunders. They said: “Praise Jah, because Jehovah our God, the Almighty, has begun to rule as king! NWT


Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: “Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. ‭NIV‬


So if the word means ALMIGHTY but KJV rendered it OMNIPOTENT then why did the KJV used ALMIGHTY @ Exodus 6:3 and not OMNIPOTENT?


I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God ALMIGHTY, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself fully known to them. ‭NIV‬

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God ALMIGHTY, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. KJV

And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God ALMIGHTY, but with regard to my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them. NWT

So why change the word?

MaxInDHouse:
So in a nutshell you're not interested in what God has to say about Himself what you are yearning for is argument usually the fruit of ATHEISM!

Very interesting. So if God can't preserve his word through one translation, what makes you think any other translation is foolproof ?

GothamCities:
SMH.

If you really know how you sound uttering those ignorant words.

TheDevilsBride:
.

LordReed:
The ignorant joker here is you.

TheDevilsBride:
Very interesting. So if God can't preserve his word through one translation, what makes you think any other translation is foolproof ?

TheDevilsBride:
If we even go further, deep into biblical context/s, the terms "OMNIPOTENT" and "ALMIGHTY" are indeed, often used interchangeably.

GothamCities:
How does that change your reality?

LordReed:
It doesn't but that's because I'm the one already living in reality while you are LARPing.

MaxInDHouse:
I have explained to you but you just want to stick to your preconceived opinion.

Here is the answer again!

In His word we are made to understand that there are humans who serve as agents of Satan and these ones are into misleading honest hearted people {2 Corinthians 11:14 compare to Matthew 24:11} so in other to be on the right path God Himself said we should make sure of all things and hold onto what is fine! 1Thessalonians 5:21 compare to Matthew 7:16-18

So out of all the translations which one has successfully helped people from all nations to become one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers just as God purpose? Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3

If you have found such a translation yet blaming God for the stubbornness in the minds of rebellious people what is my own business with that?

MaxInDHouse:
That's what some people thought but a further research into the meaning of both words shows they don't mean the same thing.

Omnipotent could be translated as able to do all things including evil deeds which totally negates the attributes of the Bible God!

At Genesis 18:25 we read:

"It is unthinkable that you would act in this manner by putting the righteous man to death with the wicked one so that the outcome for the righteous man and the wicked is the same! It is unthinkable of you. Will the Judge of all the earth not do what is right?”

This is what Abraham the person God declared as father of all those having faith {Romans 4:11} said, he told God "i'm sure there are some things you can't do because you are HOLY" but omnipotent does not stop at only doing what is right that's why it's inappropriate to use it for the Bible God who can't even tell a lie! Titus 1:2

SeraphicWind:
There is TRULY a being called the HOLY SPIRIT. "It" is a person

Hello.

You can be an Atheist, Heathen or even Demon. That is not my business.

Just do me a favour.

Simply be open in whatever you are. Ask God to show you his spirit. You will marvel.

I am not even telling you to believe. I want you to have the idea.

The final thing.

Do you know why I don't argue with people on DVINITIES? Because it is 100% real and true.

I can't be arguing with people on certainties. I mean common. It does not even make sense.

I am a man is a true statement. I don't need to proove it.

"Electricity is real" is a true statement. Even though electricity is not visible.

Same with Wind. Even though Wind is not visible. But we can see "windy" effects.

Chairman or Chairlady, The only reason you keep on arguing is because deep in your subconscious, there is an inner you longing for God. You may or may not know. The inner you is seeking answers.

That is why the outer you spends a life time disproving what you don't know about.

How can I even proove to you what you don't know about? Because to people like you; seeing is believing.

It is ok if you believe everything must be empirical. I quite understand you. It is your choice. But can I give you one final advice?

Never you leave this earth without PROFESSING JESUS CHRIST, GETTING BAPTISED AND LIVING A RIGHTEOUS LIFE.

That will be the biggest mistake of your existence be you a spirit, being, or thing.

N.B
Be mindful that this is not an arguement.

I will not respond further to this

I only "shared" premium knowledge with you which you are free to reject in your intellectualism.

Peace Sir. Remain blessed.

SeraphicWind:
SCENARIO 1

Christian = God Created the Universe

Atheist = Who Created God?

Christian = God is an Uncreated reality. He has always been.

Atheist = There is no scientific evidence backing your claim. So, I don't and won't believe. Above all, I won't even be open to investigating "things" of the spirit.

Christian = OK. Peace.


SCENARIO 2

Atheist = The Universe created itself through the big bang.

Christian = Who activated the big bang?

Atheist = The Universe

Christian = Who created the Universe?

Atheist = The Universe

Christian = How can the Universe create itself without first of all existing?

Because even science agrees that even if you remove everything including all the energies both black and white, black holes, planets, wormholes, galaxies etc, existing in the universe or multiverses, there must be "SOMETHING" to activate everything.

Atheist = Yes. There is something. "The God seed". We are looking for that "God seed" through scientific advancements.

Christian = Wow. "God Seed"? Wonderful. But is it not same GOD ALMIGHTY I have been talking to you about?

Atheist = Now I am totally confused.

Christian = You need not be dearest. Same way you see windy effects, "God" effects are all around you. But you rather choose to allow "Dark Energy" to manipulate you and rebel against God.

Atheist = (Kneels down in defeat and starts singing in tears)

"Praise to the Lord, the Almighty,
the King of creation!
O my soul, praise Him, for He is thy
health and salvation!
All ye who hear,
Now to His temple draw near;
Sing now in glad adoration!"

Christian =

GothamCities:
Hilarious!

TheDevilsBride:
!

You're not gonna believe how much I started laughing here, as soon as I viewed this comment, lmao. My hands are still trembling in unbridled amusement as I type this .

So you went and conjured up an imaginary, strawman atheist that completely misrepresents our arguments, and decided to argue with for rhetorical pugilism. Then you proceeded to vanquish this fictional atheist foe with ease, employing arguments that any atheist worth his salt, won't actually make. I can almost picture you, brow furrowed in concentration, conjuring this straw-atheist from the mists of your own misunderstanding, smh. I almost expected a shower of confetti and a chorus of angels to erupt from the screen after you made him fall and confess to your Lord, lmao.

Well, It's sad that you prefer one-sided conversations with sock-puppets to an actual debate. But at any rate, your imagined victory was a hollow one, as your entire fictional exchange just underscores your own struggles with countering the actual arguments of real living atheists like myself. Tell me though, I promise I won't laugh: are you truly so bereft of confidence in your own position that you have no choice but to engage in depressed shadowboxing with phantoms? I'm torn between pity and amusement for your efforts, quite frankly.

...oh and FYI, you're still going against the message in your OP. What happened to your self-awareness? Or have you changed your mind ?

LordReed:
Very!

TheDevilsBride:
!

You're not gonna believe how much I started laughing here, as soon as I viewed this comment, lmao. My hands are still trembling in unbridled amusement as I type this .

So you went and conjured up an imaginary, strawman atheist that completely misrepresents our arguments, and decided to argue with for rhetorical pugilism. Then you proceeded to vanquish this fictional atheist foe with ease, employing arguments that any atheist worth his salt, won't actually make. I can almost picture you, brow furrowed in concentration, conjuring this straw-atheist from the mists of your own misunderstanding, smh. I almost expected a shower of confetti and a chorus of angels to erupt from the screen after you made him fall and confess to your Lord, lmao.

Well, It's sad that you prefer one-sided conversations with sock-puppets to an actual debate. But at any rate, your imagined victory was a hollow one, as your entire fictional exchange just underscores your own struggles with countering the actual arguments of real living atheists like myself. Tell me though, I promise I won't laugh: are you truly so bereft of confidence in your own position that you have no choice but to engage in depressed shadowboxing with phantoms? I'm torn between pity and amusement for your efforts, quite frankly.

...oh and FYI, you're still going against the message in your OP. What happened to your self-awareness? Or have you changed your mind ?

GothamCities:
There's a reason you guys talk the same way, reason the same way and respond to atheistic criticisms the same way, even though you have no common assembly... it's because you're being ruled by the same spirit.

triplechoice:
The psychological phenomenon which you indirectly referred to is called group think. There's no malevolent spirit behind it. . The mind is the cause.

Everyone is susceptible to group think. And religious people, contrary to what you think and want others to believe, are the ones mostly affected by it.

Anyone who strongly identifies with a group, religious or nonreligious , is automatically drawn into the group consciousness which then influences their behaviour at the unconscious level ,making them to think ,say and do things in alignment with the group beliefs and aspirations. The consequences are the reduction of the individual's critical faculty and loss of personal identity which is submerged under the group's identity.



So don't celebrate yet because what you have identified in others is equally affecting you, if not worse. You reason like your peers and act like them without being fully conscious of it.

THEDEEPSIGHT:
All said, there still exists a permanent, self-existent root source of all other things.

GothamCities:
Did you read what I typed?

What is Group Think?
Group think happens when a group of people prioritize agreement over critical thinking, leading to poor or irrational decisions.

This is not what I am saying. So, you obviously don't understand what I said.

TheDevilsBride:
How do we actually verify the existence of this root source, for certain? Divine revelation? Gut feeling? Ouija board?

THEDEEPSIGHT:
Logic, deductive and inductive reasoning.

TheDevilsBride:
Alright then. Logically deduce the existence of this root source and induce its properties. I'm interested to read your train of thought.

THEDEEPSIGHT:
I will devote sometime to it this evening.

But for starters, are you familiar with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

TheDevilsBride:
Just a heads up, Maximus, if you're going to return and edit, or revise your previous post, it would be nice to kindly inform your co-discussant, lest you be seen as a duplicitous character, employing sneaky sleight of hand with ulterior motives .



I'm almost starting to feel sorry for you, as it is evident that your argument is being reduced to a smoldering ruin, even as you forge ahead, still trying to flog the dead horse of semantic hair-splitting. Now, you've tried to propose the use of the word "ALMIGHTY", as opposed to "OMNIPOTENT", not so? Unfortunately, your argument dives and crashes before it even takes off, the moment we take a closer look and examine the etymology of those two words. As we can all see from the screenshots below, both words convey the idea of having unlimited power. They're practically synonyms.

If we even go further, deep into biblical context/s, the terms "OMNIPOTENT" and "ALMIGHTY" are indeed, often used interchangeably. You yourself alluded to this, albeit unwittingly as you tried to insinuate that the two words have different connotations, lmao. Clearly, the biblical authors saw no distinction between the two concepts.

GothamCities:
From Greenland's icy mountains,
From India's coral strand;
Where Afric's sunny fountains
Roll down their golden sand:
From many an ancient river,
From many a palmy plain,
They call us to deliver
Their land from error's chain.

Can men, whose souls are lighted
With wisdom from on high,
Can they to men benighted
The lamp of life deny?
Salvation! O salvation!
The joyful sound proclaim,
Till earth's remotest nation
Has learned Messiah's Name.

Waft, waft, ye winds, His story;
And you, ye waters, roll,
Till, like a sea of glory,
It spreads from pole to pole:
Till o'er our ransomed nature
The Lamb for sinners slain,
Redeemer, King, Creator,
In bliss returns to reign.