Results 41 - 60 of 208
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88274 | ||
Hi The Curtman, "Let us make man in our image". Jehovah is speaking to Jesus. (Col. 1:15)I already addressed this issue. Certainly the word elohim is in the plural. But as you know I wanted to know what Lexicon or Hebrew authority has defined "elohim" as you did, "plurality in unity". You quoted the editors of the NIV (known trinitarians)as saying the plural form denotes foregleams of the trinity. All I can say to that is absolute nonsense. You can not ignore as I said earlier that this word is used in the same way for individual pagan divinities, such as Dagon (1 Samuel 5:7) and Marduk (Daniel 1:2), who were not triune gods. Commenting on this, Oxford scholar R. B. Girdlestone writes in his Synonyms of the Old Testament: “Many critics, however, of unimpeachable [Trinitarian] orthodoxy, think it wiser to rest where such divines as Cajetan [a theologian] in the Church of Rome and Calvin among Protestants were content to stand, and to take the plural form as a plural of majesty.” Such Trinitarian theologians doubtless realized that if they took ‘Elo·him´ as a numerical plural (gods), they would become polytheists! Summing up on so-called Old Testament proofs of the Trinity, the Protestant Cyclopædia by M’Clintock and Strong states: “Thus it appears that none of the passages cited from the Old Test[ament] in proof of the Trinity are conclusive . . . We do not find in the Old Test[ament] clear or decided proof upon this subject.” Truthfinder |
||||||
42 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88275 | ||
Hmmm, I don't know how I did that. At any rate,you quoted Titus 2:13 when you wrote, Note what Paul said about Jesus, and remember, this was not easy for him, as he was a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee. He wrote of Jesus, "looking for the blessed hope ad the appearing of the golry of our great God AND Savior, Christ Jesus." I ask why was this not easy for him, as you say he "was" a Pharisee (past tense). Just curious. Anyway, you may or may not know that many Bible translators have rendered the last part of the verse you mentioned as you did as if it meant only one person, Jesus. For example, An American Translation says: “. . . the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.” Such translators often claim that this sort of rendering conforms to a “rule” of Greek grammar. Yet you must come to the conclusion that the Trinity doctrine also inclines them toward such a translation. A literal translation of the Greek phrase is, “glory of the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus.” (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Dr. Alfred Marshall) Observe that there is a single article (the) preceding two nouns (God, Savior) that are joined by the conjunction “and.” Over a century ago, Granville Sharp formulated what is supposed to be a “rule” applying in such constructions. It asserts that, since the article (the) is not repeated before the second noun (Savior), the two nouns refer to the same person or subject. This would mean that “great God” and “Savior” would both be descriptive of Jesus, as if the meaning were ‘of Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior.’ Persons inclined to believe in the deity of Jesus sometimes give the impression that the above position is demanded by proper Greek grammar. But that is not so. In fact, the validity of the “rule” being applied in Titus has been much debated by scholars. For example, Dr. Henry Alford (The Greek Testament, Vol. III) says: “No one disputes that it may mean that which they have interpreted it” as meaning, but he adds that one needs rather to determine ‘what the words do mean.’ And that cannot be settled by grammatical rules. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Moulton-Turner, 1963) states about Titus 2:13: “The repetition of the art[icle] was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.” What, though, about ‘Sharp’s rule’? Dr. Nigel Turner admits: “Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive.” (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965) As to the Greek construction used, Professor Alexander Buttmann points out: “It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the N[ew] T[estament], to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception, . . . ”—A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. In The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Dr. N. J. D. White observes: “The grammatical argument . . . is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before” ‘Savior’ in 1 Timothy 1:1; 4:10. And Dr. Alford stresses that in other passages where Paul uses expressions like “God our Savior” he definitely does not mean Jesus, for “the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another.” (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3-5) This agrees with the overall teaching of the Bible that Jesus is a created Son who is not equal to his Father.—John 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3. Thus, Dr. White concludes: ‘On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ A number of modern translations agree. In the main text or in footnotes they render Titus 2:13 as speaking of two distinct persons, “the great God” who is Jehovah, and his Son, “our Savior, Christ Jesus,” both of whom have glory. (Luke 9:26; 2 Tim. 1:10) See The New American Bible, The Authentic New Testament, The Jerusalem Bible (footnote) and the translations by J. B. Phillips, James Moffatt and Charles K. Williams. Truthfinder |
||||||
43 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88305 | ||
Hi Pastor Glenn, You wrote: ...... ........ .......The scriptures that you give show the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ........ When you say "deity" of the Lord Jesus Christ do you mean Jesus is a mighty spirit being that has been given all authority in the universe and was maker of both the angels in heaven and material universe eons of time ago? Well certainly, I totally agree. But if you mean that our Lord Jesus is the God that Jesus told Satan at Mat. 4:10 you must render sacred service that I will have to agree with Jesus and not you. Yes, the deity of Christ must be relative, otherwise the ransome sacrifice is nulified, Jesus really is not God's "only-begotten son", and each time Jesus called his Father "God" was meaningless. Can you imagine the Father ever saying, "My God" in reference to his son? I can't and don't think any reasonable person would. Yet Jesus does numerous times. Thus Rev. 3:14 tells us that after His resurection the "Beginning of the creation of God", means Jesus was the beginning, the very first creation of his Father eons of time ago. ........Rev 3 14 "And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans[6] write, "These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: We see this as referring to Jesus, after His ressurection, as the firstborn of a new spiritual order of beings. He is the second Adam in the sence that all that have faith in Him can become part of God's family......... ........Col 1 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. Can't you see why He must be God? Not merely "a god"? All scripture pointed to Him to save all that accept Him throughout time......... Col. 1:15 simply says that "He (Jesus) is the image (not God himself) of the invisible God, the firstborn (first not second born son of God) (angels are sons on God but not his firstborn) and verst 16 For by Him (Jesus) all things were created (the Father created all the other sons in heaven and material universe by using Jesus, he was his "masterworker") and verse 17 tells us that Jesus was the firstborn from the dead (he was the first to be resurrected to heaven having died a human). Certainly Jesus being a human proved faithful and made the ransome sacrifice valid. If he had failed then God would have had to made other arrangements for mankind. But if he had been Almighty God himself then where is the love of offering himself on behalf of mankind. No he offered his beloved "son" as a ransom for "all". ........Abraham saw Him. Job saw Him. Jacob wrestled with Him. The mercy seat in the Ark of the covenant represented Him. No one can stand in for God like that. He must "be" God......... Pastor Glenn, please explain this verse then. John 1:18, "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him." You say mere man as actually seen God Almighty? And who is the "only-begotten god" ? Truthfinder |
||||||
44 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88306 | ||
2nd part. ........John 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.......... This translation is with the English capitalization is misleading and bias toward trinitarian thinking. It is grammatically correct but not correct because of the context. Many many other translations have it differently and have it agreeing with the context and also the Greek grammar. The very first English translation (William Tyndale) accurately translated it. Have you read it? I have listed in other posts numerous older translations that translate it differently and in full agreement with both the context and the Bible as a whole. ........14 And the Word became 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. " Certainly the Word Jesus was in heaven before coming to earth and reflected the his Father's glory for he said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. Jesus perfectly reflected his Father's divine qualities through and through. ...........Jesus Christ is not just a "junior partner" to God. A junior partner could not be allowed to stand in for salvation of all men for all time......... .........Truthfinder, throw that NWT away and read Hebrews 11-12 again. Read John chapter 1 again and Hebrews chapter 1 again. A junior partner would have had to say "and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto the father". But instead He said: Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me......... John 12:32, Titus 2:11, and 1 Timother 2:3,4 all refer to “the salvation of all men,” according to the rendering of RS, RS, KJ, NE, TEV, etc. The Greek expressions rendered “all” and “everyone” in these verses are inflected forms of the word pas. As shown in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962, Vol. I, p. 46), pas can also mean “every kind or variety.” So, in the above verses, instead of “all,” the expression “every kind of” could be used; or “all sorts of,” as is done in NW. Which is correct—“all” or the thought conveyed by “all sorts of”? Well, which rendering is also harmonious with the rest of the Bible? The latter one is. Consider Acts 10:34, 35; Revelation 7:9, 10; 2 Thessalonians 1:9. (Note: Other translators also recognize this sense of the Greek word, as is shown by their renderings of it at Matthew 5:11—“all kinds of,” RS, TEV; “every kind of,” NE; “all manner of,” KJ.) No greater dishonor can be done to our heavenly Father than to take his beloved name out of his Holy Book as most "modern" translations have done so as to mislead its readers to believing that He and His Son are one and the same. Don't you get it? That was the reason Jehovah was originally in his Holy Word. If he didn't want it in there why did he put it there 7,000 times. No one on this forum has answered that question since I periodically ask it over the past 6 months. Why do so many people who call themselves "Christian" even dispise God's name Jehovah? Many even say that Jehovah isn't his name because we don't know how it was pronounced in Hebrew! What a copout. They readily use all the other names in their English for, including Jesus! So, you see Pastor Glenn, I believe the Word of God and I believe it when it says Jehovah is the Almighty God and his Son is not Almighty God but indeed his Son. Truthfinder |
||||||
45 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88414 | ||
Hi Pastor Glenn, I have several other Bible translations of which I am reading the verses you quote, in particular Hebrews 1:8. And you know what? Different thoughts are expressed, depending on the Bible version. And you are correct in all that you say in your post concerning Hebrews 1:8 being a quotation of Psalm 45:6 and I certainly see why you conclude that Jesus would be one and the same as Jehovah. Again, I say this because of the way the translations, versions render these passages. Due to the fact that there are at least two renderings and two ideas conveyed, one at least, is wrong. Both could be wrong but at least one is wrong. If you have a leaning toward accepting the trinity doctrine which rendering will you support? Likewise, if you feel the Bible does not teach the trinity then which rendering would you support? The answer is obvious. Perhaps you were not aware of this. This is the key that I mention again and again. In posts past, I have shown and explained many verses that had been mis-translated and some that have been changed, and some that have been added to support the trinity. This is all unacceptable. This is totally heretical. I am sure you are disagreeing with me now because you feel the trinity is "holy" and indeed taught by God through his Word the Bible. Besides the fact that God's personal name had been taken from the Holy Scriptures which in itself should make one question the trinity, I will give you one more example of many and then show that Hebrews 1:8 is yet another. Notice 1 John 5:8 according to the Authorized Version or King James and before it, Wycliffe (1380), and even Tyndale and Cranmer, and also the Geneva version of 1557. "For there are three witness bearers, the spirit and the water and the blood, and 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)." The final part in parenthesis was the added portion. Were you aware of these heretical actions? 1( Removing texts, changing texts,(the yhvh issue) 2) additions made to promote the trinity idea. I feel they are heretical because that do not teach the truth, but you have to agree that they are heretical because they are what Rev 22:18 “I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life. Again please answer for me this question; How do you feel about all this? Do you feel it wrong to remove say just one word from the Bible or to just change a word to something else? An in depth study of Hebrews 1:8, shows first that it is addressed to the Son of God, but can be rendered either, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” or, “God is thy throne for ever and ever,” since there is no verb “is” in either the Greek or in the Hebrew at Psalm 45:6, from which this is a quotation. In keeping with its principles to honor God and remain consistent with the rest of the Scriptures, the New World Translation here reads: “God is your throne forever.” (continued) |
||||||
46 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88415 | ||
2nd part RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, the AT, Mo, TC convery the same idea as the New World Translation which reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. And yes, Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him. Concerning Hebrews 1:8, 9 quoting Psalm 45:6, 7, note what the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os´] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os´ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·him´] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os´] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26. You can believe me on this or ignore it and believe what you want but truth is truth and truth is found in this respect. Truthfinder |
||||||
47 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88482 | ||
Hi again Pastor Glenn, ……….This is why it is better to set trinity discussion aside for now as we determine the question of Jesus being Jehovah. This is the key. Since it is your favorite version, I want to know what the NWT has to say in Psalm 102.……. ………Yes, it is wrong to change the scripture. But, this is a brick wall to say which side is changing it……. Well, I do not know of any Bible scholar that will honestly admit that the original texts did not contain the tetragramaton, do you? I can not come to any other conclusion that these changes by Jewish tradition were seriously wrong and worse yet has mislead untold millions to confusing which “Lord” the Bible is referring to when “Lord” is used. The NWT among many other translations makes this matter clear and simple, by restoring “Jehovah” where it was originally in both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. "An in depth study of Hebrews 1:8, shows first that it is addressed to the Son of God, but can be rendered either, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” or, “God is thy throne for ever and ever,” since there is no verb “is” in either the Greek or in the Hebrew at Psalm 45:6, from which this is a quotation. In keeping with its principles to honor God and remain consistent with the rest of the Scriptures, the New World Translation here reads: “God is your throne forever.” " ……….I would like to know whether you see the NWT is consistant in translating to “God is your throne forever.” in both places: Psalm 45:6, as well as, Hebrew 1:8. What does it say? The same with Psalm 102:25-27 compared to Heb 1:10-12? …….. Well, let us see. In the NWT Psalm 45:6 reads, 6 God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever; The scepter of your kingship is a scepter of uprightness. 7 You have loved righteousness and you hate wickedness. That is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your partners. Again this verse: That is why God (Jehovah), your (King of Israel, also Jesus) God (Jehovah), has anointed you (worshipper of God, King of Israel Solomon, also fulfilled in Jesus) with the oil of exultation more than your partners. Notes: for Ps. 45:6 of the NASB Study Bible says, “Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as “god.” (2 Sam. 19:21) … as a title because of his special relationship with God.” end quote. In this same footnote it says that other men are referred to as “gods” in the Bible. It concludes saying, “In Christ, the Son of David, it is fulfilled.” And Heb. 1:8-12 reads, NWT, ” 8 But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever And Psalm 102:25 reads, NWT, 25 Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself, And the heavens are the work of your hands. Here the psalmist was talking about Jehovah God, but the apostle Paul applied these words to Jesus Christ as you say in Hebrews 1:10, 11 As it turns out, these words apply to Jesus, for he acted as Jehovah’s Agent in creating the universe just as Colossians 1:15, 16 tells us. So Jesus, too, could be said to have “laid the foundations of the earth.” Yes, all three were involved in creating the universe and man. (Let us..), God’s active force or holy, God’s Son and he himself. Truthfinder |
||||||
48 | Which Church is the right one? | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 71403 | ||
Emmaus: "You have made several interesting posts. At least one of your posts references a Watchtower publication. You have an affinity for the use of the title Jehovah and you have now attacked the Trinity which is the central doctrine of Christianity. Am I wrong in coming to the conclusion that you are a Witness of Jehovah?" Emmaus, Years ago I was a Jehovah's Witness, and still favor for the most part most what they teach. Since then I study numerous non-witness publications, mainly concerning the language Hebrew and the God of the Hebrews, Jehovah (God's name as opposed to a "title". Much of what I study, as it turns out supports the beliefs of the witnesses especially monotheism, and Bible translations. Yes, too I have made an in depth study of the Trinity doctrine about 5 years ago and if you (which I know you do and which is your choice)believe in the Trinity, thats fine, but as for me, I believe I am still a Christian even though I do not believe in the Trinity doctrine. Truthfinder |
||||||
49 | Which Church is the right one? | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 71411 | ||
Hi Hank, Allow me to apologize if I affended you, as your response seemed. It is interesting that L. L. Paine, professor of ecclesiastical history, indicates that monotheism in its purest form does not allow for a Trinity: “The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there is utterly without foundation.” Was there any change from monotheism after Jesus came to the earth? Paine answers: “On this point there is no break between the Old Testament and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology. And he accepted as his own belief the great text of Jewish monotheism: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.’” Those words are found at Deuteronomy 6:4. The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) here reads: “Listen, Israel: Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh.” In the grammar of that verse, the word “one” has no plural modifiers to suggest that it means anything but one individual. The Christian apostle Paul did not indicate any change in the nature of God either, even after Jesus came to the earth. He wrote: “God is only one.”—Galatians 3:20; see also 1 Corinthians 8:4-6. Thousands of times throughout the Bible, God is spoken of as one person. When he speaks, it is as one undivided individual. The Bible could not be any clearer on this. As God states: “I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory.” (Isaiah 42:8) “I am Yahweh your God . . . You shall have no gods except me.” —Exodus 20:2, 3, JB. Your understanding agrees with the following: "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three truly distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. --New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. Truth finder |
||||||
50 | Which Church is the right one? | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 71476 | ||
Jesus, the Son of God. Hank, you asked in my theology, who is Jesus Christ. The name and title of the Son of God from the time of his anointing while on earth. The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life. (John 3:13) Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man. (John 6:38,62) because I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me. 62 What, therefore, if YOU should behold the Son of man ascending to where he was before? (John 8:23,42,58) So he went on to say to them: “YOU are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. YOU are from this world; I am not from this world. 42 Jesus said to them: “If God were YOUR Father, YOU would love me, for from God I came forth and am here. Neither have I come of my own initiative at all, but that One sent me forth. 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” John 1:1, 2 gives the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus, saying: “In the beginning the Word [Gr., Lo'gos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god [“was divine,” AT -- The Complete Bible—An American Translation (1939; as printed in 1951), J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed; Mo -- A New Translation of the Bible (1935; as printed in 1954), James Moffatt; or “of divine being,” Böhmer; Stage (both German)]. This one was in the beginning with God.” Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Psalm 90:2) Before the mountains themselves were born, Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God. (Revelation 15:3) And they are singing the song of Moses the slave of God and the song of the Lamb, saying: “Great and wonderful are your works, Jehovah God, the Almighty. Righteous and true are your ways, King of eternity. the Word’s being with God from “the beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works. This is confirmed by other texts identifying Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation,” “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Col 1:15; Re 1:1; 3:14) Thus the Scriptures identify the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) as God’s first creation, his firstborn Son. That Jehovah was truly the Father or Life-Giver to this firstborn Son and, hence, that this Son was actually a creature of God is evident from Jesus’ own statements. He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, “I live because of the Father.” According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice. (John 6:56,57) He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me forth and I live because of the Father, he also that feeds on me, even that one will live because of me. (continued) |
||||||
51 | Which Church is the right one? | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 71477 | ||
Part 2: If the estimates of modern-day scientists as to the age of the physical universe are anywhere near correct, Jesus’ existence as a spirit creature began thousands of millions of years prior to the creation of the first human. As Micah 5:2 says: “And you, O Beth'le·hem Eph'ra·thah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite. And this firstborn spirit Son was used by his Father in the creation of all other things. (John 1:3) All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence (Colossians 1:16,17) because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, And this would include the millions of other spirit sons of Jehovah God’s heavenly family (Daniel 7:9,10) “I kept on beholding until there were thrones placed and the Ancient of Days sat down. His clothing was white just like snow, and the hair of his head was like clean wool. His throne was flames of fire; its wheels were a burning fire. 10 There was a stream of fire flowing and going out from before him. There were a thousand thousands that kept ministering to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand that kept standing right before him. The Court took its seat, and there were books that were opened.” (Revelation 5:11) And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,” as well as the physical universe and the creatures originally produced within it. Logically, it was to this firstborn Son that Jehovah said at Genesis 1:26: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” All these other created things were not only created “through him” but also “for him,” as God’s Firstborn and the “heir of all things.” (Colossians 1:16) because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. (Hebrews 1:2) has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. Without Jesus Christ we are nothing! Jehovah God saw fit to make his firstborn Son the central, or key, figure in the outworking of all His purposes (read Joh 1:14-18; Col 1:18-20; 2:8, 9), the focal point on which the light of all prophecies would concentrate and from which their light would radiate (read 1Pe 1:10-12; Re 19:10; Joh 1:3-9), the solution to all the problems that Satan’s rebellion had raised (read Heb 2:5-9, 14, 15; 1Jo 3:8), and the foundation upon which God would build all future arrangements for the eternal good of His universal family in heaven and earth. (Read Eph 1:8-10; 2:20; 1Pe 2:4-8) Because of the vital role he thus plays in God’s purpose, Jesus could say, rightly and without exaggeration: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Joh 14:6. Truthfinder |
||||||
52 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 81338 | ||
Hi Tim, I have noticed an on-going exchange of thoughts on this matter and thought I might add an additional thought. :)(3 thoughts) Eph 2:8,9 says, “this undeserved kindness (grace), indeed, YOU have been saved through faith; and this not owing to YOU, it is God’s gift. 9 No, it is not owing to works, in order that no man should have ground for boasting. The Bible also says at Romans 3:28, “A man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law.” It also says: “A man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone.” Which is right? Are we declared righteous by faith or by works? And notice James 2:24, “YOU see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone. To be in harmony with the Bible I would say that both Paul and James are correct. It might be noted that for centuries the Law that God gave through Moses had required Jewish worshipers to make specific sacrifices and offerings, to observe festival days, and to conform to dietary and other requirements. But then such “works of law,” or simply “works,” were no longer necessary after Jesus provided the ultimate sacrifice according to Romans 10:4. But the fact that these works performed under the Mosaic Law were replaced by Jesus’ superlative sacrifice did not mean that we can ignore the Bible’s instructions. It says: “How much more will the blood of the Christ . . . cleanse our consciences from [the older] dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God?”--Hebrews 9:14. So then how do we “render sacred service to the living God”? Among other things, the Bible tells us to combat the works of the flesh, to resist the world’s immorality, and to avoid its snares. It says: “Fight the fine fight of the faith,” put off “the sin that easily entangles us,” and “run with endurance the race that is set before us, as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus.” And the Bible urges us not to ‘get tired and give out in our souls.’ As 1 Timothy 6:12; Hebrews 12:1-3; Galatians 5:19-21 all show us. But notice this fact. We do not earn salvation by doing these things, for no human could ever do enough to merit such an astounding blessing. We are not worthy of this magnificent gift, though, if we fail to demonstrate our love and obedience by doing the things that the Bible says God and Christ want us to do. Without works to demonstrate our faith, our claim to follow Jesus would fall far short, because again of what James clearly states: “Faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself.”--James 2:17 So, what is required for salvation? Well, the prime requirement is the one that the apostle Paul stated to the Philippian jailer: “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will get saved.” (Acts 16:31) Heartfelt acceptance of the shed blood of Jesus is essential if we are going to be saved. And what will salvation mean for us? Jesus indicated the answer when he said: “I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed.” (John 10:28) For most, I believe that Bible teaches, salvation will mean everlasting life on an earth restored to paradisaic perfection. (Psalm 37:10, 11; Revelation 21:3, 4) In the case of a “little flock,” however, it will mean ruling with Jesus in his heavenly Kingdom, as Luke 12:32 and Revelation 5:9, 10; 20:4 shows me. Yes, some suggest that belief in Jesus is the end of the matter. “There is just one thing that any one needs to do to get to heaven,” says one religious tract I read a long time ago, “That is, to accept Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour, surrender to Him as Lord and Master, and openly confess Him as such before the world.” Thus, many believe that a sudden, emotional conversion experience is all we need in order to guarantee everlasting life. However, to concentrate on only one essential requirement for salvation to the exclusion of the others is like reading one crucial clause in a contract and ignoring the rest. (continued) |
||||||
53 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 81339 | ||
(Part 2) Yes, believing in Jesus is crucial to our salvation, but certainly more is needed. For instance, Jesus spoke of some who professed faith in him and even did “powerful works” in his name. But he did not recognize them. Why? Because they were “workers of lawlessness” and did not do the will of his Father. (Matthew 7:15-23) The disciple James reminds us of the need to “become doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning.” He also said: “You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder. . . . Faith without works is dead.”—James 1:22; 2:19, 26. Some, though, argue that those who are genuinely saved do all these things anyway. But is that really the case in practice? The ‘saved’ people I have known feel no great need to examine the Scriptures because they think they already have all they need for salvation.” And when I observe the hypocrisy and unchristian acts of many who claim to be saved, this brings the whole subject of salvation into disrepute. But still, many insist that the Scriptures say: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.” (John 3:36, King James Version) Therefore, they conclude that once you have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, you can never again be lost. “Once saved, always saved” is their watchword. But is that what the Scriptures really say? To answer this, we need to consider everything the Bible says on the subject and not hang on just one or two verses. No we would not want to ‘deceive ourselves with false reasoning’ by reading only selected parts of God’s Word. Just my two cents worth. Truthfinder |
||||||
54 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87758 | ||
Hi again JibbyJee, If you had read my profile you would have seen that I am no longer a "Jehovah's Witness". But for the most part the NWT by far is a superior translation than say the NASB or the NIV. These translations have chosen to change words from the oldest manuscripts to cause confusion as to the true identity of the Almighty. Thus I understand why you and others feel that Jesus is one and the same as Jehovah. Translations and more important, manuscripts have promulgated the trinity doctrine. For instance why would you personally use a translation that admits having changed from the oldest manuscripts and no doubt the original the translation of God's name? That in itself accounts for around 7,000 errors. Errors of utmost importance. Why would God have had it in the Bible if he didn't want it there? Something BIG is wrong here. I have seen so many people that even despise that name because of this. So now we have it. Today people think that Jesus is Jehovah. What can I say? If you want to try and make the trinity work, go ahead, but it simply is not truth, never was, never will be. If you want to try and make Jesus Almighty God, go ahead. He's not, he is God's "only-begotten son", "first born of all creation". That's what the Bible tells us and if you want to try make it mean otherwise, and what others have told you go right ahead but that doesn't make it true. As far as John 1:1 is concerned, again the translators such as the NIV and NASB and King James have tried to make the trinity appear as true. I have studied what Greek scholars say defending their translations for and against. Both translations are proved by these scholars as acceptable Greek grammar. But the context, and bias toward the understanding of Jesus' identity dictates how it's translated. This controversy has been debated for centuries. I have studied it for 40 years now and there is no doubt in my mind that the trinity doctrine is one of the greatest injusteses that could have been done to our heavenly Father. One last thought friend, “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) Truthfinder |
||||||
55 | Introducing the English Standard Version | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 94949 | ||
Hi Hank, An oration of such eloquence deserves nothing less than much admiration and praise. I am sure that your command of the English language is most envied by not only myself but others that appreciate God’s Word. Truthfinder |
||||||
56 | Genesis 1: light ? | Genesis | Truthfinder | 72910 | ||
Hi Maydayjohn, 1)The very first verse of the Bible states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) 1)Here is where God created the “sun”. 2)Day 1. ”Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.” Genesis 1:3, 5. 2) So, the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights. Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about Ge:3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible. 3)Day 4 “‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.” Genesis 1:14-16. Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohr', which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In verse 3 , ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma·’ohr' in Ge 1 verse 14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed. An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life. Psalm 136:7-9. Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on. Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22. Truthfinder |
||||||
57 | Genesis chapter 1 | Gen 1:16 | Truthfinder | 96598 | ||
Shalom Tim, What was created when God said, "Bereshit bara elohim hashamaim ve et ha arets"? Gen. 1:1 Also, in verse 3, "yehoo or vahoo or" (Let be light and there was light), what was created? Shalom Truthfinder |
||||||
58 | Genesis chapter 1 | Gen 1:16 | Truthfinder | 96683 | ||
Hi Emmaus, A passage that comes to mind in this regard is, Job 38:4, "Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell [me], if you do know understanding. 5 Who set its measurements, in case you know, Or who stretched out upon it the measuring line? 6 Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?" Apparently the sons of God (angels) were created before the material universe, since they cried out in joy at the creation of the earth. And to me time would begin when the first creation happened (the invisible creatures) because we would have a beginning of events to measure. I appreciate your thought provoking thoughts. Truthfinder |
||||||
59 | Genesis chapter 1 | Gen 1:16 | Truthfinder | 96695 | ||
Hi Emmaus, I don't know if you were asking to tell you what the first song was or check out what you posted as the first song. At any rate, here is the first song recorded in the Bible: Exodus 15:1 Sung by Moses and the men of Israel, to which Miriam and the women responded, upon their deliverance at the Red Sea. 15 At that time Moses and the sons of Israel proceeded to sing this song to Jehovah and to say the following: “Let me sing to Jehovah, for he has become highly exalted. The horse and its rider he has pitched into the sea. 2 My strength and [my] might is Jah, since he serves for my salvation. This is my God, and I shall laud him; my father’s God, and I shall raise him on high. 3 Jehovah is a manly person of war. Jehovah is his name. 4 Phar´aoh’s chariots and his military forces he has cast into the sea, And the choice of his warriors have been sunk in the Red Sea. 5 The surging waters proceeded to cover them; down they went into the depths like a stone. 6 Your right hand, O Jehovah, is proving itself powerful in ability, Your right hand, O Jehovah, can shatter an enemy. 7 And in the abundance of your superiority you can throw down those who rise up against you; You send out your burning anger, it eats them up like stubble. 8 And by a breath from your nostrils waters were heaped up; They stood still like a dam of floods; The surging waters were congealed in the heart of the sea. 9 The enemy said, ‘I shall pursue! I shall overtake! I shall divide spoil! My soul will be filled with them! I shall draw my sword! My hand will drive them away!’ 10 You blew with your breath, the sea covered them; They sank like lead in majestic waters. 11 Who among the gods is like you, O Jehovah? Who is like you, proving yourself mighty in holiness? The One to be feared with songs of praise, the One doing marvels. 12 You stretched out your right hand, the earth proceeded to swallow them up. 13 You in your loving-kindness have led the people whom you have recovered; You in your strength will certainly conduct them to your holy abiding place. 14 Peoples must hear, they will be agitated; Birth pangs must take hold on the inhabitants of Phi·lis´ti·a. 15 At that time the sheiks of E´dom will indeed be disturbed; As for the despots of Mo´ab, trembling will take hold on them. All the inhabitants of Ca´naan will indeed be disheartened. 16 Fright and dread will fall upon them. Because of the greatness of your arm they will be motionless like a stone, Until your people pass by, O Jehovah, Until the people whom you have produced pass by. 17 You will bring them and plant them in the mountain of your inheritance, An established place that you have made ready for you to inhabit, O Jehovah, A sanctuary, O Jehovah, that your hands have established. 18 Jehovah will rule as king to time indefinite, even forever. 19 When Phar´aoh’s horses with his war chariots and his cavalrymen went into the sea, Then Jehovah brought back the waters of the sea upon them, While the sons of Israel walked on dry land through the midst of the sea.” Does it agree with yours? Truthfinder |
||||||
60 | sons of god as in early gen | Gen 6:2 | Truthfinder | 80867 | ||
Hi Radioman2, Only after carefull study have I come to understand that angels definitely did materialize human bodies on occasion, even eating and drinking with men. (Ge 18:1-22; 19:1-3) Jesus' statement concerning resurrected men and women not marrying or being given in marriage but being like the "angels in heaven", as you argue, actually shows that marriages between such heavenly creatures do not exist, no male and female distinction being indicated among them. (Mt 22:30) But this does not say that such angelic creatures could not materialize human forms and enter marriage relations with human women. It should be noted that Jude's reference to angels as not keeping their original position and to them as forsaking their "proper dwelling place" (certainly here referring to an abandoning of the spirit realm) is immediately followed by the statement: "So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example." (Jude 6, 7) Thus, the combined weight of the Scriptural evidence points to angelic deviation, the performance of acts contrary to their spirit nature, occurring in the days of Noah. There seems to me to be no valid reason, then, for doubting that the 'sons of God' of Genesis 6:2-4 were angelic sons. Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [11] >> |