Pr0ton:


It's okay if you choose to believe absurdity because there are more who do, so that your absurdity don't become apparent.

But just know you believe in absurdity, to those who can prove you do. Live a fulfilled life anyway!

JMAN05:


What are you talking about? I asked, how do you determine falsehood from an old manuscript? By what standard do you now weigh it since it is the oldest?
Manuscripts are copied from the autograph. And latter this copied manuscript are further duplicated by copyists. Eg, A is copied from the autograph, and B is copied from A. Now, among A and B, which is the best?
So I dont see the logic in stating if A is false it is false. If A is false, can't we say that B is even more faulty?
If A is false, by which criteria do you arrive at that conclusion?
Make a good point abeg.
General concesus is that those manuscripts are the best.
You can name those scholars that are against those manuscripts as the best, and state there position, let's see them. Also state there preferred manuscripts.
KJV borrowed heavily from another translation, not the original yet that is what God intended for you? So God is no longer interested in what was written by the apostles. He is now is interested in borrowing from a translation? Say something else pls.
God intended a KJV for you, and the translation is constantly being revised. So which revision did God intend for you?
And God is not even interested in the original. Which god do you serve if I may ask?

JMAN05:


What are you talking about? I asked, how do you determine falsehood from an old manuscript? By what standard do you now weigh it since it is the oldest?
Manuscripts are copied from the autograph. And latter this copied manuscript are further duplicated by copyists. Eg, A is copied from the autograph, and B is copied from A. Now, among A and B, which is the best?
So I dont see the logic in stating if A is false it is false. If A is false, can't we say that B is even more faulty?
If A is false, by which criteria do you arrive at that conclusion?
Make a good point abeg.
General concesus is that those manuscripts are the best.
You can name those scholars that are against those manuscripts as the best, and state there position, let's see them. Also state there preferred manuscripts.
KJV borrowed heavily from another translation, not the original yet that is what God intended for you? So God is no longer interested in what was written by the apostles. He is now is interested in borrowing from a translation? Say something else pls.
God intended a KJV for you, and the translation is constantly being revised. So which revision did God intend for you?
And God is not even interested in the original. Which god do you serve if I may ask?

JMAN05:


What are you talking about? I asked, how do you determine falsehood from an old manuscript? By what standard do you now weigh it since it is the oldest?
Manuscripts are copied from the autograph. And latter this copied manuscript are further duplicated by copyists. Eg, A is copied from the autograph, and B is copied from A. Now, among A and B, which is the best?
So I dont see the logic in stating if A is false it is false. If A is false, can't we say that B is even more faulty?
If A is false, by which criteria do you arrive at that conclusion?
Make a good point abeg.
General concesus is that those manuscripts are the best.
You can name those scholars that are against those manuscripts as the best, and state there position, let's see them. Also state there preferred manuscripts.
KJV borrowed heavily from another translation, not the original yet that is what God intended for you? So God is no longer interested in what was written by the apostles. He is now is interested in borrowing from a translation? Say something else pls.
God intended a KJV for you, and the translation is constantly being revised. So which revision did God intend for you?
And God is not even interested in the original. Which god do you serve if I may ask?

dolphinheart:

Pls can you use scripture to describe this Godhead and the holy spirit being part of it.
There is no verse simply because the holy spirit is not a person.
Look at what ur own king james version says:
1 john 5:8
"And there are three that bear
witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Is the water and blood persons too? Cus here they bear witness. If not, then the spirit bearing withness cannot be used as a basis to call the holy spirit a person.
Yes, the holy spirit as a force can do that.
There is none, the words where constructed by those who want to use it to support their views. The scriptures does not support such view.
The scriptures never said he was still God .
Jesus said he received authority,he said he received power, he said he was given power and authority by someone. How can he now be God almighty!.
If it is imposible for one to assume the role of the other, then they are not equal. The scripture says" he became flesh". And even when he went back to heaven, he was subjected to his God.
God was speaking to jesus, but that same God clarified the position of jesus as not equal to him in the next verse
Heb 1:9
”You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."
So who is jesus' God?
Who are jesus's companions that he was set above.?
Why was jesus anointed?
That jesus gave the disciples power and authority does not mean that the disciples where equal to jesus despite doing the powerful things that jesus did like healing the sick, casting out demons, raising the dead etc. Likewise that the father gave jesus power and authority does not make jesus equal to the father!
What is the relationship between the power given to the jesus and that of the disciples?
John again helps give the answer.
John 17:2, 6-8,11-13
2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.
6 “I have revealed you a to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.
7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you.
(therefore, the power jesus gave to his disciples comes from the father)
8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.
11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you.
Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are
one.
12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me.
13 “I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them."
John 20: 21-22
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace
be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”
22 And with that he breathed
on them and said, “Receive
the Holy Spirit. [/b]23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
Acts 1: 2
2 Until the day in which he was
taken up, [b]after he through the Holy Spirit had given
commandments unto the
apostles whom he had
chosen:
4 And, being assembled together with them,
commanded them that they
should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the
promise of the Father, which, said he, you have heard of me.
8 But you shall receive power, after the Holy Spirit has come upon you: and you shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Acts 2:22
22 You men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of
God among you by miracles
and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as you yourselves also know:
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and
having received of the Father
the promise of the Holy Spirit,
he has poured forth this, which
you now see and hear.

So wateva power or authority given by jesus to his disciples, he received it from the father.
Did you check the scriptures quoted? I which you have quoted the scriptures with its accompanied statements.
Where did you get this from? Pls post the source.
And after quoting this, you still feel they are equal?
After we had decided on what auto means, ill tell you more on my own view of the holy spirit, using the scriptures.

KingEbukasBlog:
@pr0ton ... cows evolving into whales ? Come on man you are better than this

KingEbukasBlog:


I'm not resorting to the God of the Bible . You atheists have not yet shown why life needs no creator

KingEbukasBlog:


Apparently you didn't answer my question .

dolphinheart:

They tell us about the relationship between jesus and the father. It was jesus talking there.
Jesus is expressing the unity between him and his father. This does not mean jesus is the same person as the father or that he is equal to the father. Other scripture verses helps us to understand what he meant by "I and my Father are one."
We read jesus words on mark 10:7- 8 :"For this cause shall
a man leave his father and
mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
Another version renders it thus: and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Is the husband and wife one person?, do they exist in one physical body? are they given the same role and authority under a family in the scriptures?
If ur answers to the above questions is no, then jesus saying that he and the father are one represents the unity he has with his father. Which is due to his absolute loyalty to the father as expressed in john chapter 17.
Another scripture we can look at is the one mentioned earlier
John 17:21:- That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us:[b] that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Jesus wanted two things here.
He first wanted his disciples to be one. Since they are different persons, being one here signifies unity , unity Bourne out of love for one another(john 13:34). Jesus also wanted them to be one with him and the father. These statement annuls the view that jesus is equal to God or is God cus he and the father are one. Cus the disciples being one with them does not make them God or equal to God.
Hope u understand.
Can you also see that the holy spirit is not mentioned here, do you know why?
One fact is that jesus not the father, he is not the same person as the father. So what did jesus mean. The scriptures gives us the answer.
John 5:19-20,30,37,46.
19 Then answered Jesus and
said unto them, Verily, verily, I
say unto you, [b]The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: for
whatsoever things he does,
these also does the Son
likewise.
20 For the Father loves the
Son, and [/b]shows him all things that he himself does: and he will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel.[/b]
30 I can of my own self do
nothing: as I hear, I judge: and
my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who has sent me.
37 And the Father himself, who
has sent me, has borne
witness of me. You have
neither heard his voice at any
time, nor seen his form.
46 For had you believed Moses, you would have
believed me: for he wrote of
me."
Here we know that jesus represents the father, he does the fathers instructions, he gives the fathers messages , he learnt from the father perfectly. So jesus did exactly as his father wanted him to do and in that way, if you see jesus, you have seen the father cus jesus is a perfect representation of the father. But jesus is not the father.
Remember what God told moses in deut 18:18
" I will raise them up a Prophet
from among their brethren, like unto you, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
These view is further supported by the following verses:
John 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.
John 12:49
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who
sent me, he gave me a
commandment, what I should
say, and what I should speak.
That is why jesus is the word of God.
Pls dnt get confused by the deliberate removal of Gods name in those verses. They have removed Gods name and replaced it with "Lord ".
So who is the one God.
John 17:1-3
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast
given him power over all flesh,
that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
1 cor 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
The scriptures has been consistent in telling who God is. It is never in support of trinity, and trinity will have to divide the scriptures for it to be true.

SisterSister:


And, in no way, shape, form or fashion can anyone prove it.

Pr0ton:


What evolutionary theory says cows evolved into whales

Biological analysis and scientific research show there is no need. If there ever should be one then where is it? If it is unreachable from how do we know? If no reasonable answer is provided the idea is discarded as fallacious.

I tried to. I tried explaining both differently so you could see how comparing both processes is utter nonsense.

DoubleDeeX:
Y'all debating trinity need the holy spirit. If the spirit of God lives in you, you wouldn't have any problem understanding the nature of God. God is One, there is no such thing as three persons in one. God only manifested in three offices for the redemption of man; God came in a man to pay the price of redemption that why Jesus was said to be justified in the spirit....He was 100% copy of God in the spirit with the fullness of the Godhead in Him. If the scriptures confuses anyone in understanding this simple truth, then he/she should go for the baptism of the holy ghost. A Christian without the holy spirit of God in him/her is a walking zombie because he/she will never know the requirements for salvation in this age.

Knowing God is progressive, as it is written, His righteousness is revealed from faith to faith and the just shall live by faith (Romans 1:17); but how can you know this without revelation from the holy ghost? For example, how can you know that smoking is a sin when it's not written in the scripture? Only the holy ghost can reveal these things to you. That's why every Christian needs the holy ghost!

If you have the holy ghost you wouldn't be here claiming master of theology because the scripture was written by the inspiration of the holy ghost. With the holy ghost, understanding the scripture is very easy; because if you make any mistake He will correct you through revelations.

So tell me how is one baptised with the Holy Ghost. I understand that one receive the holy spirit when you give your life to Christ and baptism of the Holy Spirit means to be filled with the power and fire of the Holy Ghost which brings revelation to mankind.

SisterSister:


I am talking on the same point as you, just from a different perspective. My point stands. If the manuscript was false from the start, it does not matter what anyone says, how old or recent it is, how many people support it or how many scholars endorse it, it is false-bottom line. The truth is the measuring standard. Manuscripts are written by numerous people and there are thousands. Some are written by witnesses, some are from hearsay, some are actual experiences, some are inspired words from God, etc. Just because it’s a manuscript, again does not make it credible. True, manuscripts are copied and duplicated and as long as the information is true and remains exact, intact, etc. it is counted. Example, if there are 100 manuscripts and 75 of them say the same thing and the remaining 25 give different accounts, what does this mean to you? If there are 5 manuscripts and 70 copies and duplicates but they all say the same thing, what does this say to you? Now, if a group chooses to take the 25 manuscripts and publish their own Bible with it, it does not matter how many people support, follow, or endorse, it is faulty because the manuscripts used are faulty. This should answer your question regarding logic.

If you say general consensus says the manuscripts you share are best, then it’s on you to provide this information supporting it. This is serious months study which I have done for myself personally, not an in the spare time study. I would suggest you do this study for yourself personally, as it is very interesting and more rewarding. In addition, one can easily google link after link of those for and against the large number of manuscripts available but it doesn’t stop there. This is maybe 2-3 months of daily study. I would be interested in your findings upon completion of such a study.

How did you arrive at the notion that God borrows from other translations? It is God who gave the words to be written in the first place. Later, the Bible was translated into the different languages spoken by different groups of people. There was even a group that tried to keep people from reading the Bible on their own, telling them what God says.

You shared KJV is borrowed from another translation, which translation? It’s out of point what you said about God no longer being interested in what was written by the apostles…these are your words, not mines. The apostles wrote what God inspired them to write.

God intended His word for us, as is meant to be and not any other way. Do you speak old English? If you check well, you will find that the content of the KJV is very much intact. Copyright revisions, etc. are man-made money making ploys meant to bring in confusion. That is man doing the wrong thing. God has done and provided all for those who want to hear.

Again, these words come from you… that God is not interested in the original. We are back to the same point…if the original is false from the start, it remains so no matter how many people support it. If the original is from God, God inspired, etc. that one is different than what you are saying. I want God’s original, anyway that it comes and not mans…full stop.

SisterSister:



[b] If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

Author Date
Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies

Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1,100 yrs 2 ----

Plato 427-347 B.C. A.D. 900 1,200 yrs 7 ----

Herodotus 480-425 B.C. A.D. 900 1,300 yrs 8 ----

Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. A.D. 900 1200 10 ----

Caesar 100-44 B.C. A.D. 900 1,000 10 ----

Tacitus circa A.D. 100 A.D. 1100 1,000 yrs 20 ----

Aristotle 384-322 B.C. A.D. 1100 1,400 49 ----

Sophocles 496-406 B.C. A.D. 1000 1,400 yrs 193 ----

Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%

New Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (A.D. 50-100)
2nd Cent. A.D. (c. A.D. 130 f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%


Source: https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence





[/b]

SisterSister:


[color=#550000]
Jesus was sent to earth by God for a purpose but Jesus was in heaven with God first, "In the beginningy was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, as in John 1:1…this is very clear.

If Jesus was not saying that he was God, then why did the Jews mentioned in John 10:29-31, pick up stones AGAIN to stone Jesus?

Who deserves worship? It is God. Would Jesus allow anyone to worship him if He were not God?

John 20:27-29 (KJV)
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Regarding Mark 10:7-8…husband and wife becoming one flesh.
We are not the standard, God is the standard. When a man and a woman have sex, this is how they become one flesh. It is a spiritual union. It can be a godly union or an ungodly union. If married, it is a godly union or spiritually soul-tie. If unmarried, it is ungodly and ungodly soul-tie. It does not mean that the husband and wife exists in one body, nor do they have the same role. You do not set limits for God, nor do mankind. God sets limits for us. God’s nature is not our nature, why does it seem you are stuck on trying to make God fit into what you think He should be? And, yes, Jesus is loyal and completed all that He was to do on earth, then returned to heaven but it does not take away who the scriptures clearly show Him to be.

John 17:21… I do understand. Your comments seem to reflect only on the physical. And, yes there is a physical unity and unity in agreement, etc., but there is also a spiritual unity that is shared among believers in Jesus Christ. Jesus wants them to be one, as He and the Father are. It is more being said here.

The Holy Spirit is not sent to us until Jesus leaves the earth. The Holy Spirit should arrive on the scene in the book of Acts.

John 14:6 (KJV)
Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

What is the context of the above scripture you shared?

John 5:19-20,30,37,46.
19 Then answered Jesus and
said unto them, Verily, verily, I
say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: for
whatsoever things he does,
these also does the Son
likewise.
20 For the Father loves the
Son, and [/b]shows him all things that he himself does: and he will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel.
30 I can of my own self do
nothing: as I hear, I judge: and
my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who has sent me.
37 And the Father himself, who
has sent me, has borne
witness of me. You have
neither heard his voice at any
time, nor seen his form.
46 For had you believed Moses, you would have
believed me: for he wrote of
me."

What is the context of the above scripture you shared?

Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath day and the religious leaders started persecuting him, thus he responded with those words quoted there. Those words shows who gave him the authority and power he uses to perform such acts. That he does not do anything by his own will shows that jesus is subjected to the will of the one who gave him the authority and power.
The leaders do not understand how God is the father of jesus as they know him as the son of Joseph and mary, and jesus wanted them to use his works and miracles as a determinant of whose son he is.

[quote]No, Jesus is not the Father, this is not what is being said or implied in any way. Yes, the Father sent Jesus to save mankind from eternal spiritual death but it does not change anything that God says in the word about Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God made flesh. Though, the scripture is plan but it seems to me you want to make it read differently than what is throughout the entire Bible and focus on verses that share partial while ignoring another portion of scripture, why? The only way to get the full meaning of what God wants to reveal is to read the Bible in its entirety. Slowly over time or as an intense Bible study…God will honor all seekers of truth.

KingEbukasBlog:


To show how the theory is shaky . Its assumed to be hippos/cows .

Please stop , this is not the jokes section

Evolution or Abiogenesis , Panspermia Big Bang are all theories . If Big Bang were to be true , why should there be a new theory that asserts that the universe could be eternal . There is Abiogenesis and there's panspermia (like an escape route seeing that Abiogenesis is ridiculous).

Actually its a very very good question . You can think about it .

Pr0ton:


Thousands years ago, no one knew the Sun is stationary. Thousands years ago no one knew the Earth rotates and revolves round a star. Thousands years ago no one knew the stars are really bigger the the earth. Thousands years ago we all thought the planet Earth was the centre of the universe. These were truths and facts we didn't know then. No one would have the concern and mind to propose such. We'd even find them ridiculous if anyone did because of our total ignorance of them. Our disapproving thought about their possibility didn't change the fact of their actuality. Evolution is that way. It's ridiculous to those who don't understand, especially those who focus on the 'obvious assertion' and ignore 'the build ups' of such assertion. It's okay to find evolution ridiculous when you don't understand, but arguing its impossibilty in such position is lame. Obviously you don't understand evolution. You keep claiming the obvious part like 'ah! Cows evolved into whales. Nonsense!" and never mind to look into the elementary and gradual process that could make a four-legged creature evolve into a whale acknowledging possible extinct creatures making a gap between the two. Go into specification and tell me why a whale can not evolve from such creature. Giving 'a lack of evidence' as a rebuttal is indirectly resorting to the 'obvious assertions', which is reasonable to consider childish and requires less serious reply.

You can keep bad mouthing science about its change in theories. It's an evidence showing their seriousness in finding truth and not a laziness in making up propositions that are prone to being false. Keep ridiculing and let them keep working, in the long run and eventually one is wise and the other a fool.

It's a question showing confusion and ignorance of the topic. It doesn't worth thinking about.

You said, "Here we know that Jesus represents the father, he does the fathers instructions, he gives the fathers messages , he learnt from the father perfectly. So Jesus did exactly as his father wanted him to do and in that way, if you see Jesus, you have seen the father cus Jesus is a perfect representation of the father. But Jesus is not the father.
Remember what God told Moses in Deut 18:18

" I will raise them up a Prophet
from among their brethren, like unto you, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him".

Christians to not believe that Jesus is the Father, as this was clearly stated in earlier discussions.

Other verses in the Bible referring to Deuteronomy 18 is:

John 1:44-47 (KJV)
Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. 46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

Acts 3:22-26 (KJV)
For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 [b]Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, [/b]sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

One cannot use a verse to support while ignoring other verses that reveals more. Error is certain.

John 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

John 12:49
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who
sent me, he gave me a
commandment, what I should
say, and what I should speak.
That is why Jesus is the word of God.

John 17:1-3
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast
given him power over all flesh,
that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 cor 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Actually, you have divided scripture because there are so many other verses that you have totally ignored, and there lies the danger.

Jehovah God begins in Genesis revealing who He is and continues through the book of Revelation. God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as revealed in scriptures and the three are one. The 4 scriptures you shared immediately above all say what God means for them to say in His context; it is not according to your context. [/color]

dolphinheart:

@ SisterSister


And christians should not also also believe that jesus is equal to the father.
* the whole of deut 18 is ommited from my reply.
These verse confirms Gods promise to moses. God did sent to the isrealites a prophet like moses. Moses is a prophet , a messenger and one who serves God. Likewise jesus.
Hope with this, you can now understand the difference between God and jesus.
Jesus is not the almighty God.
You are right
1. What do you understand by the scriptures quoted above, share ur views on each of them.
2 . Can you post the verses I've ignored so that we can examine them?
If you can't see from the numerous verses quoted so far that God is not jesus, father and holy spirit, that the father is the only true God as mentioned by jesus, then there is Little that I can add.
The scriptures never supported the trinity nor even mentioned it. Jesus does not have equality with the father, nor is he the almighty God.

dolphinheart:
Ill like to apologise for replying late.
That is an undisputed fact. But that is not what we are discussing.
*the holy spirit is not mentioned here.
First, there is no gospel account of that incident in which it is recorded that jesus said he was God.
Secondly , when jesus was replying them on their accusations in the earlier verses you mentioned ,what did he say? .
Let's look at the scriptures again
John 10: 34-36
Jesus answered them, “Is it
not written in your Law, ‘I have
said you are “gods” ’ d ? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and
Scripture cannot be set aside—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
Do you notice what jesus said he told them? . He repeated what he told them, that he is Gods son not God himself.
They misunderstood his earlier statements just as people who believe in the trinity do today .
Look at jesus words again
John 10: 25-30
Jesus answered, “I did tell
you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.
Jesus is telling us that the father is the one who owns and gave him the sheep. No one can take them away from the father , thus no one can take them away from the one the father gives the sheep. And the sheep will not be taken away from him because jesus and the father are one. One in unity and purpose. These was further explained and emphasized In john chapter 17
Notice that jesus specifically mentioned the father and not just God. This helps you to understand which God jesus is reffering to.
Notice jesus said it was the father that gave them to him and the father is greater than all(not God is greater than all). These is directly related to the statement : "the father is greater than I am".
So does those verses say jesus is God? No
Does it mention the trinity? No
Does it equate jesus with the father? No.
Let us not misunderstand jesus words like those that tried to stone him did, calling jesus a "mere man".
*the holy spirit is not mentioned here.
The issue of worship is a very controversial issue, and its dependent on how you translate the word used for worship. Cus it also can be translated as obesiance.
But notwithstanding, it was the father that directed such reverence to the son not that the son took it up by himself.
Most translations add the exclamation mark after "God". These shows that it was an exclamation made out of surprise. There are some possible reasons why Thomas would have said these, but that jesus is the almighty God is not one of these reasons. why? Because jesus had told them on several occassions his relationship with the father and that what he has done, talked about and performed came about through the fathers command and power.
To further butress these points , jesus told mary, days before Thomas statement, to tell the disciples(Thomas inclusive the following :
John 20:17
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
So its still a wonder when one claims Thomas(a Jew) exclamation surpports trinity.
That a husband and wife should become one flesh was made by jesus, so the issue of man or Gods standard should not have been mentioned. Is becoming one flesh only talking about only sexual relationship between them.? No. Cus if its true they are only one when they have sex and are not one when they dnt, and that a man can still be one with any woman he has sex with, godly or ungodly.
So what does being one as expressed by jesus mean?
Let us read the verses again
Mark 10:6-9
6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his
wife, 8 and the two shall
become one flesh.’ So they
are no longer two but one
flesh. 9 What therefore God
has joined together, let not
man separate.”
Can you see that jesus is talking about the marriage union between husband and wife and not about sex . It is that union that makes them one and not sex . That union gives them a unity of purpose and responsibility that transcends their physical world, but it does not make them equal in that union.
You did not apply your view to jesus statement that he and the father are one. What do you understand by that statement.?
Are you saying that jesus is equal to the father?
Remember jesus words about his own will.
*note: jesus did not mention he is one with the holy spirit.
I'm also reffering to that spiritual unity. Does that unity between the disciples, jesus and the father make them equal? No. Therefore that scripture does not surpport the trinity view that jesus and the father are equal.!
But the holy spirit was active on earth while jesus was on earth.
I'm confused, is that scripture part of my post or you just want me to tell you my view on it?

JMAN05:


And how does these affect my point?

JMAN05:


You are still dancing dancing and dancing, beating about the bush. Pls my dear, go straight to the point. Which manuscript was kjv written from? and which manuscript was those manuscript copied from? answer that, stop this dance.
which study did you do for months, did you read the bible manuscripts or what? be specific and stop hanging on the air, let me know what you talking about.
You said I should provide my prove of scholarly concensus, yet you are here indicating that you wont accept it as a proof ("link after link". what do you really want?
How did I arrive at? when you view kjv as God's words for you, do you not know tthat it borrowed from a translation? do you think kjv translated from the original?
Now, do you have the original of what the apostles wrote? From where did kjv translate from?
"In 1611 the 54 scholars who produced the King James Bible drew significantly from Tyndale, as well as from translations that descended from his. One estimate suggests the New Testament in the King James Version is 83% Tyndale's and the Old Testament 76%[/color]"
(Tadmor, Naomi (2010), The Social Universe of the English Bible: Scripture, Society, and Culture in Early Modern England, Cambridge UP, p. 16, ISBN 978-0-521-76971-6, citing Nielson, John; Skousen, Royal (1998), "How Much of the King James Bible is William Tyndale's? An Estimation Based on Sampling", Reformation 3: 49–74)
Where is God's original found, in kjv? Did the apostles write there original in kjv, and where did kjv rely on, from the original or mostly from another translation?
I dont know why this point is toooooo hard for you to understand.

JMAN05:


You are still dancing dancing and dancing, beating about the bush. Pls my dear, go straight to the point. Which manuscript was kjv written from? and which manuscript was those manuscript copied from? answer that, stop this dance.
which study did you do for months, did you read the bible manuscripts or what? be specific and stop hanging on the air, let me know what you talking about.
You said I should provide my prove of scholarly concensus, yet you are here indicating that you wont accept it as a proof ("link after link". what do you really want?
How did I arrive at? when you view kjv as God's words for you, do you not know tthat it borrowed from a translation? do you think kjv translated from the original?
Now, do you have the original of what the apostles wrote? From where did kjv translate from?
"In 1611 the 54 scholars who produced the King James Bible drew significantly from Tyndale, as well as from translations that descended from his. One estimate suggests the New Testament in the King James Version is 83% Tyndale's and the Old Testament 76%[/color]"
(Tadmor, Naomi (2010), The Social Universe of the English Bible: Scripture, Society, and Culture in Early Modern England, Cambridge UP, p. 16, ISBN 978-0-521-76971-6, citing Nielson, John; Skousen, Royal (1998), "How Much of the King James Bible is William Tyndale's? An Estimation Based on Sampling", Reformation 3: 49–74)
Where is God's original found, in kjv? Did the apostles write there original in kjv, and where did kjv rely on, from the original or mostly from another translation?
I dont know why this point is toooooo hard for you to understand.

SisterSister:


[color=#000099] Just because you said the scriptures never said or implied does not mean it is actually the case. From your perspective you feel the analogy is wrong or false but it’s just an analogy, an aid. I had originally shared that this is a spiritual truth and the analogy was shared as a glimpse of how the trinity could be somewhat grasped but it does in no way explain in full detail or in depth all of who God is. This is something I just cannot do for you. In accepting Jesus Christ and receiving spiritual life, God who is Spirit will reveal himself to a person’s born-again spirit.

The site is speaking on topic and implying what it is not meant to say may be an issue. You may not agree with what is being said, and sometimes it’s just that way.

If I take parts of the scripture, I too will end in error. The whole word of God must be taken into account, meaning the Bible in its entirety.
My dear, we are covering the same subject matter.

See, you shared the verse we discussed which does speak of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, which is 1 John 5:8.

But, if you read it in context which includes verses 7-10, the understanding in clearer:

1 John 5:7-10 (KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

*** Verse 8 in the above says that the 3 bear WITNESS in the EARTH and those 3 are…the Spirit, the water and the blood and these 3 agree in one which is true.

***What does verse 7 read? There are 3 that bear RECORD in HEAVEN, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these 3 are 1.

The scripture below shares that the Holy Spirit is a He:

John 14:25-26 (KJV)
These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26-27 (KJV)
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

1 Corinthians 2:12-13 (KJV)
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Romans 8:15-16 (KJV)
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

You did not comment on the numerous of scriptures that reads Jesus is the Son of God?

John 9:35-37 (KJV)
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.

John 6:37-39 (KJV)
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

John 10:17-18 (KJV)
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

John 1:1-2, 14 (KJV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Colossians 2:8-10 (KJV)
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Hebrews 1:2-4 (KJV)
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; 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: 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

It may be helpful to read the book of Colossians and the book of Hebrew, if you have not already.

dolphinheart:


It is a very dangerous thing to do. To use an analogy one can think of to explain a doctrine that the scriptures does not teach about. Following such methods can alter what the. Scriptures is telling us.
in my own case, I see what the website is trying to say as false. They try to use philosophy to tell us who God is, while the scriptures has already done that. They manipulate and analyse statements In the scriptures to mean something else other than what it means. This is wrong. No where in the scriptures did the writers indicate that God is a trinity, either 1 in 3,3 in 1 or 1 divided by 3. Some verses they quoted have been shown to be false words added by those who wanted to perpetuate the trinity doctrine.
Take parts , half or whole, the theme of the bible is about the sovereign authority of God, the father.
I only used part of the translation you believe in to ask you a question. A question you have not answered .
The question was :
* taking from the kjv(which has been shown to be spurious)
"And there are three that bear
witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. .Is the water and blood persons too? Cus here they bear witness.
If not, then the spirit bearing
withness cannot be used as a
basis to call the holy spirit a
person.
Even from these false texts, can you now see how its more of manipulation than analysis?
If you believe that the 3 that bear withness in heaven mean those 3 are equal, do you believe the equality of those that bear withness on earth?
The verses does not mention equality among those that bear withness so why do you use these to support trinity.
Can you see the problems this false doctrine has created.
Does the verse say the 3 are God? No.
Does the verse say the three are equal? No.
Is the verse present in most translations of the scriptures? No
Does using "he" for the holy spirit implies that the holy spirit is a person ? No
The greek word translated to "he" is ekeinos.
ekeinos: that one (or neut.
that thing), often intensified
by the art. preceding
Part of Speech: Demonstrative
Pronoun
Short Definition: that, that one
there, yonder
definition: that, that one there,
yonder.
NASB Translation
once* (3), one (4), other (1),
these (1), this (2), those (35),
those things (1), very (1), what
(1).

#1565: ekeinos
(pronounced ek-i'-nos)
from 1563; that one (or (neuter)
thing); often intensified by the
article prefixed:--he, it, the other
(same), selfsame, that (same,
very), X their, X them, they, this,
those. See also 3778.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
ekeinos
1) he, she it, etc.
Part of Speech: pronoun
Relation: from G1563
http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G1565/ekeinos.htm
Personification does not prove
personality. It is true that Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a “helper” and spoke of such helper as ‘teaching,’ ‘bearing witness,’ ‘giving evidence,’ ‘guiding,’ ‘speaking,’ ‘hearing,’ and ‘receiving.’ In so doing, the original Greek shows Jesus at times applying the masculine personal pronoun to that “helper” (paraclete).
However, it is not unusual in the Scriptures for something that is not actually a person to be personalized or personified. Wisdom is personified in proverbs chapter 8 and feminine pronominal forms are
used of it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations. (KJ, RS, JP, AT)
Wisdom is also personified at
Matt 11: 19 and Luke 7:,35
where it is depicted as having
both “works” and “children.”
The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as “kings.” -rom 5:14,17,21 ; 6:12
He speaks of sin as “receiving an inducement,” ‘working out covetousness,’ ‘seducing,’ and ‘killing.’- rom 7:8-11.
Yet it is obvious that Paul did not mean that sin was actually a person.
So, likewise with John’s account of Jesus’ words regarding the holy spirit, his remarks must be taken in context. Jesus personalized the holy spirit when speaking of that spirit as a “helper” (which in Greek is the
masculine substantive
pa·raʹkle·tos). Properly, therefore, John presents Jesus’ words as referring to that “helper” aspect of the spirit with masculine personal pronouns.
On the other hand, in the same
context, when the Greek
pneuʹma is used, John employs a neuter pronoun to refer to the holy spirit, pneuʹma itself being neuter. Hence, we have in John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun in association with pa·raʹkle·tos an example of conformity to grammatical rules, not an expression of doctrine.
The holy spirit lacks personal identification. Since God himself is a Spirit and is holy and since all his faithful angelic sons are spirits and are holy, it is evident that if the “holy spirit” were a person, there should reasonably be given some means in the Scriptures to distinguish and identify such spirit person from all these other ‘holy spirits.’ It would be expected that, at the very least, the definite article would be used
with it in all cases where it is not called “God’s holy spirit” or is not modified by some similar expression. This would at least distinguish it as THE Holy Spirit.
But, on the contrary, in a large
number of cases the expression “holy spirit” appears in the original Greek without the article, thus indicating its lack of personality.
The holy spirit does not have a name.
Texts in the scripture says that people were “filled” with holy spirit, that some were ‘baptized’ with it or “anointed” with it.
Luke 1:41
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit..
Matt 3:11
"I baptize you with water for
repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire..
Acts 10:38
[b]about Jesus who was from Nazʹa·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil, because God was
with him.
These references to holy spirit
definitely do not fit a person.
To understand what the Bible
as a whole teaches, all these
texts must be considered.
What is the reasonable
conclusion? That the first
texts cited here employ a
figure of speech personifying
God’s holy spirit, his active
force, as the Bible also
personifies wisdom, sin,
death, water, and blood.
The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.
Stephen was given a vision of
heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” But he made no mention of seeing the holy
spirit.
Read this page:
http://trinity-exposed..co.ke/2006/10/holy-spirit.html?m=1
And after reading all these verses, did you see any that indicated that jesus is the almighty God? No.
Did any of the verse indicate that jesus is equal to the father? No
Did any of the verses indicate that jesus was commanded by someone else? Yes
Did any of the verses indicate that jesus receives inheritance like a child receives inheritance from the older person? Yes.
Did the verses tell us that jesus was the only begotten of the father?
Did the verses tell us that jesus is the most high or majesty on high ? No
What did the scriptures say about that?
Answer: it says jesus sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high.
Did he just sit there by his own will? No, he was instructed to sit there by God .
To be continued...

This is not the only verse that speaks to the deity of Jesus Christ, the others should not be ignored. It is clear in Hebrews 1:9, God is speaking to Jesus as you rightly said. It is God who formed the flesh that Jesus came to earth in but Jesus remains the 2nd in the trinity; Jesus is the Son/ the Word of God. Yes, Jesus is God. From just this reading, I would say the companions are the saints (more to this). Jesus was anointed to go through the suffering of the crucifixion.

Jesus giving the disciples power and authority is not the same as God coming in the flesh.

The difference, Jesus was already in heaven and came down willingly, dwelt among us and went to the cross to pay our debt of sin.

There is no relationship between the power given to Jesus and that of the disciples per se.

Jesus has power as the Word of God but in his earthly ministry Jesus followed God’s plan to save mankind because that is what He came to do.

Everything comes from Jehovah God through His Word, who is Jesus Christ.

Positionally, the Father sent Jesus to save us, and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide and keep us, etc. Jesus prayed to the Father while he was on earth, in humanity on many occasions; even for us, but do you find an example after Jesus’ earthly ministry? John 17:2, 6-8,11-13, is only part. There are many other scriptures that must be included here.

I have read the scriptures quoted, a better question is did you read them all?
Again, auto means self, like in an autobiography which is noted to be an account of a person’s life written by that person.

The Greek prefix auto- means “self.” Good examples using the prefix auto- include automotive and autopilot. An easy way to remember that the prefix auto- means “self” is through the word autobiography, or the history of a person which is written by that person her"self."
Source: http://membean.com/wrotds/auto-self
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/auto
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=auto-

Referencing John 14:25-27, I don’t feel, God words clearly shows it is so.

John 16:6-7 (KJV)
But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Please, I hope you will or have studied with an exhaustive concordance to look up all of the scriptures that speak of the Holy Spirit in the Bible? That would be awesome! [/color]

SisterSister:



Christians do not say, nor believe that Jesus is equal to the Father.
You are the one saying that Christians say this and it is false.

The Word says that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one.

This does not mean what you want it to mean, it means what God says that it means.

Ok, you omitted Deuteronomy 18 from your response.

John 1:44-47 does not read what your response says it does. I would like to ask you to please read it again?

It says that Philip found Nathanael and said to him, we have found him, of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write about. Who is the one the Philip is speaking of? Jesus of Nazareth.

True, Moses was a prophet. Also true, Jesus was more than a prophet.

From Acts 3:22-26:
All the prophets from Samuel and those after, and as many that have spoken (for Jehovah) have likewise foretold these days. What days does the scripture speak of? Who are the children of the prophets and the covenant which God made with Abraham? How through Abraham’s seed is all on the earth blessed? Who did God raise to bless and turn everyone away from iniquities?

The difference is clear and understood between Jehovah and Jesus. It is just from the outside looking in, others cannot comprehend it.

1. John 6:38, John 12:49, John 17:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:6 are speaking of Jesus when he was here on earth doing what God the Father sent him to do…save mankind.

-Jesus came to do the will of the Father.
-Jesus is the Word of God and speaks what God says.
-Jesus speaks to the Father as the hour of his crucifixion is near.
-There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we in him. One Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him.

2. I apologize; it is not possible for me to post nearly all chapters from the New and Old Testament of the Bible on this thread. It is much easier for one to read the entire Bible, so that whatever thoughts one might have can be measured up against what God’s word says about Him and who He is. Wouldn’t you agree?

The verses shared do not make up the whole entire content of the Bible. Jehovah, the Father, I Am is God. The Word of God, the Son, Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. There is nothing that can be added because God says it all through His word.

God reveals to us in the Bible who He is and we do not have a say in who God is. The word trinity is not found in the Bible but a triune God is clearly revealed and supported throughout the Bible.

SisterSister:


[color=#550000] Regarding late reply; no worries, as time permit.

The Holy Spirit not being mentioned specifically in this instance does not say what you want it to say; nor does it change him where the scriptures do speak of him. Jehovah is not mentioned in every single verse of the Bible, nor is Jesus, nor is the Holy Spirit. This does not take away from who they are.

I previously asked, "What is the context of the above scripture you shared?" which is not below. What is the context of this scripture John 14:6? I don’t want to know your view on the scripture or what you think it says, what is this scripture about?

John 14:6 (KJV)
Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

There are too many scriptures to list regarding Jesus and who he is but here are the five scriptures you requested, plus 12 more:

Matthew 1:23 (KJV)
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Isaiah 9:6 (KJV)
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Colossians 2:8-10 (KJV)
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Isaiah 43:10-11(KJV)
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Revelation 1:17 (KJV)
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

Revelation 2:8 (KJV)
And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

SisterSister:


You asked me about a difference between the last two translations, which manuscript is more trusted an older or newer one, how do I determine whether an older manuscript is false while mentioning that the Sinaiticus and Vatican 1209 are identified by scholars as among the best manuscripts. I don’t know why you say I am dancing around, when I have answered these questions plus others straight. It is false. I am not dancing, dancing, dancing or beating around any bush. I answer the questions (if I can) as they come. And, this one you asked now just came, so please there is no need to blow smoke.

There are over 5000 manuscripts available. The major texts which is TEXTUS RECEPTUS and the minority text which is based on SINATICUS AND VATICANUS.

The Textus Receptus has 95% or more of existing manuscripts supporting it. It is noted that during the Reformation, scripture was translated from Greek into other languages from the Textus Receptus.

The Sinaticus and Vaticanus manuscripts has 5% or more of existing manuscripts supporting it, along with the Alexandrian, Parisian and Bezae manuscripts. The NASB, NIV, New World Translation of JW and most modern translations, do use the Sinaticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, Parisian and Bezae manuscripts.

The King James Version used the Textus Receptus.

Why is the Textus Recptus considered the Majority Texts?

Type of manuscript: Papayus
Total number of this type of manuscript: 88
Numbers that support Westcot & Hort/Minority Text: 13 (15%)
Numbers that support Textus Receptus/Majority Text: 75 (85%)

Type of manuscript: Unical
Total number of this type of manuscript: 267
Numbers that support Westcot & Hort/Minority Text: 9 (3%)
Numbers that support Textus Receptus/Majority Text: 258 (97%)

Type of manuscript: Cursive
Total number of this type of manuscript: 2764
Numbers that support Westcot & Hort/Minority Text: 23 (1%)
Numbers that support Textus Receptus/Majority Text: 2741 (99%)

Type of manuscript: Lectionary (Books that contain collection of scripture)
Total number of this type of manuscript: 2143
Numbers that support Westcot & Hort/Minority Text: 0 (0%)
Numbers that support Textus Receptus/Majority Text: 2143 (100%)

Source: http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/manuscripts.html/

No air hanging here and my responses are quite specific…my suggestion was for you (I have already) to study the information regarding the number of manuscripts available, who support them, why, when, where did they come from, authors, etc. etc. I stated that this TYPE of study would take months. Why? Because, there is a lot of information to weed through. Not only online but there are lots of books that offer a great source of information on this subject matter.

Correction again, what I stated was that just because a group of people believe in it does not make the consensus credible and that is still the truth fact of the matter. As well, just because there is link after link online does not make it credible either. ALL of the information has to be weeded through one by one and this requires time.

A translation is just that…a translation. There are originals, duplicates, copies in numbers and this is what the Bible was compiled from in Hebrew and Greek. Later, these were translated into other languages, including English. If a Bible was translated from credible manuscripts in one language and another receives the Bible and it is translated into their native language. The source of the first Bible used in translation in what needs to be credible and the Bible being translated into another language needs to say the same EXACT thing. If this happens, there is not issue, as the Bible is meant to be shared in all languages. The issue of the first Bible being translated correctly in the first place and from credible manuscripts is a starting point.

I have stated this previously as well, I would rather have a translated copy that is accurate and credible, then a corrupt original anytime, any day, any place.

Tyndale’s work from manuscripts translation is what was used for the first Bible translated into English from Hebrew and Greek, Tyndale died before the completion. Though, John Wycliffe was the first person to produce a hand-written, complete Bible from a manuscript copy.
Here is a source link about the KJV Bible from beginning to end: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
Of course, I do not have the original of what the apostles wrote, nor do you. The original works are kept secure for preservation but there are copies and duplicates.

The point of where the KJV translation comes from has been shared with you in a number of different ways and I have answered all of your questions.