TrevorL

Greetings again shiloh357, I may not fully explain the eternity of God, but I can accept this without any concern, just as I can accept that the believers will become immortal at the return of Jesus. Until I hear a reasonable explanation of Jesus being fully God and fully man, especially in his youth, then I will retain my belief that Jesus was a man, the Son of God because the One God, God the Father was his father in the conception / birth process and Mary was his mother Luke 1:35. He grew as a child and grew in wisdom and in favour with God and man Luke 2:52. Yes I do not understand the Trinity, because it is beyond understanding and is a so-called mystery to hide this problem. You are stating the Trinity perspective, not what the Bible teaches Luke 1:35, Romans 1:1-4. A son has a father, and the father of Jesus is God the Father Matthew 11:25. Kind regards Trevor.

Greetings again Shiloh357 and KiwiChristian, I suggest that Trinitarians are forced to say it is a mystery because the Trinity is incomprehensible, but the Bible teaching concerning God is simple and clear. The Trinity is incomprehensible because it has irreconcilable concepts that do not stand up to reasoning or any explanation. The Trinity would have to teach us that Jesus had two minds as a child, the mind of a child and the full mind of God (if he was also fully God) and there would be no real communication between the two minds. Further to my previous Post, the understanding of the use of Elohim for the Angels and Judges is one step towards understanding Thomas’ words in John 20:28. The title “God” as applied to Jesus is less than the title that John assigns him in the next few verses, the title and status of being The Son of God. If John wanted to teach that Jesus is God the Son, would not this be the opportunity. Rather the following summarises John’s stated purpose in writing his account. John 20:30-31 (KJV): 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. The Angels and Judges can be called “Elohim”, but only Jesus has the exalted status of being the Only Begotten Son of God. He was the Son of God by birth, moral character and resurrection from the dead Romans 1:1-4. The Bible teaches that there is one God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings patrick jane, Yes, and God also called the Angels "Elohim" in Psalm 8:5, refer Hebrews 2 and the Judges "Elohim" in Psalm 82:6, refer John 10:30-36. "Elohim" is the usual Hebrew word translated God in the OT and is the word used in Psalm 45:6 when speaking of the future king who would sit upon David's throne in Jerusalem. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again KiwiChristian, I can find many references that say that Jesus is the Son of God, but never God the Son. The following is an explanation of the Yahweh Name, and even though this is fairly lengthy, it is meant to be a summary only. The Name of God was revealed to Moses in the following terms: Exodus 3:14-15 (KJV): 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. Most translations and commentators accept the present tense I am that I am, but notice in the margin of the RV (or ASV) and RSV, an alternative is given I will be that I will be or I will be what I will be, showing that some modern scholars suggest this alternative reading. Although not popular it appears that this future tense is the correct translation. Not only modern scholars, Tyndale also translated this in the future tense. Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you. The word ehyeh is in Exodus 3:14 is the same in the earlier statement in v12, and here the translators give the future tense: Exodus 3:12 (KJV): And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain. Not only does this fix the tense, it also introduces the concept that the Name of God is also associated with some future activity. This future tense and future activity was to be God acting to deliver Israel out of Egypt, so that Israel would become a people for His Name. They would be a living witness to the purpose of God, and a witness to the existence of God. The following passage emphasises this future work in delivering Israel with the future aspect of the Name: Exodus 6:1-8 (KJV): 1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH (or Yahweh) was I not known to them. 4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. 6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: 7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD. When Israel was delivered out of Egypt the Name of God remains the same, but the particular activity has been accomplished: Exodus 15:1-3 (KJV): 1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my fathers God, and I will exalt him. 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. The future tense of God's Name He will be or become has been accomplished, and Yahweh had become Israel's salvation. But this was not the ultimate completion of the Yahweh Name. God's purpose with the earth was not complete with the salvation of Israel out of Egypt. God's purpose was declared in the following, but sadly this was spoken at a time when the very generation that had been born through God's deliverance failed. Numbers 14:21 (KJV): But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD. The above raises the question of how and when will the earth be filled with the glory of God. One indication is found when the Psalmist uses the same words as Moses Song to speak of another deliverance: Psalm 118:14-25 (KJV): 14 The LORD is my strength and song, and is become my salvation. 15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 16 The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 17 I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD. 18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death. 19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD: 20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter. 21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation. 22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. 23 This is the LORDS doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. 24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. 25 Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity. The above is quoted at length to show that there was to be a greater salvation in fulfilment of the Yahweh Name. It is evident from the context that this salvation is by means of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the man of God's right hand, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The greater deliverance is revealed even in the conception and birth of the child: Matthew 1:20-21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. The meaning of the name Jesus is revealed: for he shall save his people from their sins. Was Jesus to be an independent Saviour? No, the name Jesus incorporates the Yahweh Name, Je-sous, Jo-shua, or Yah-oshea. He was to be Yahweh's Salvation. Here then is the extension or fulfilment of the Yahweh Name, Yahweh was to be, to become. He was to become salvation Exodus 15:2, in and through Jesus, the Son of God. Yahweh is the Saviour, Jesus is the Saviour. In other words Yahweh, God the Father is the Saviour through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Yahweh has become salvation. Salvation is now offered in the Name of Jesus Christ: Acts 4:10-12 (KJV): 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Ultimately the revelation in the NT that God is God the Father, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is equivalent to the Yahweh Name, as Yahweh has become Jesus, and will ultimately be All in All 1 Corinthians 15:28. The expression “God the Father” can be translated into every language to convey the simple, clear understanding of God’s purpose and character. No, the source of 1 John 5:7 was not in any of the main recognised manuscripts. It would take you five minutes to Google 1 John 5:7 and consider the various estimations of the veracity and source of the KJV 1 John 5:7. Same as I use the concept that the Bible is inspired, not the KJV, I use “Greek text” as representing the original inspired Greek Bible, Matthew to Revelation, which is represented today by many portions of Greek manuscripts. Some of these would be closer to the original than the others. Various scholars have attempted to put together the original Greek Bible by studying the various manuscripts. They then use this to translate the Greek into English and other languages. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again KiwiChristian, I agree with the first part, but claim that the KJV is helpful in thus coming to an understanding that there is One God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Bible as a whole eventually is necessary not an imperfect translation. For example “I will be” in Exodus 3:14 is an excellent start to understand the character and purpose of God. I will let you research this for yourself. I read one source that stated that Erasmus did not include 1 John 5:7 in the first edition of his Greek text as he could not find it in any Greek manuscript. He was pressured by the Catholic Church and added it to his third edition. I have not studied textual criticism, but when I was young I met a senior Plymouth Brother who studied the Greek text. I suppose he liked the Darby version. He told me on one occasion that he went to the Bible Society shop in Sydney and criticised them for one of their simple translations. What surprised me was that on another occasion he seemed to question a passage of 12 verses that is in the KJV, but since then I have verified that this is definitely part of the Bible to my satisfaction. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again KiwiChristian, This is partly on what I have been discussing with Adstar, but as you seemed to also have some inclination to KJV only, could I ask the following as this is also getting back to your original topic. Do you accept 1 John 5:7 as being true and is it a part of the inspired Scriptures? This is dropped from most modern versions, sometimes with hardly a mention. Quite a few of the readily available commentaries also suggest this is not genuine. For example Barnes' Notes on the NT has a reasonable amount of explanation why he considers it as spurious. I observed a year or more ago a member on a different Protestant forum using this as proof of the Trinity. His fellow members on this forum who were also Trinitarians suggested that 1 John 5:7 was spurious, and yet he continued to claim it as genuine. It was interesting, as he was also one of the moderators, and he actually closed the thread after he added another affirmation of 1 John 5:7. After this I suspected that he was also a KJV only advocate. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Adstar, I am not sure if you have read concerning the early English Bibles and also any accounts of the KJV translation. I am interested in books and have an extensive library, and have a few books on this history and some analysis of the various translations. Some of these are Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, Matthew’s 1537, Great Bible 1539, Geneva Bible 1560, Bishops’ Bible 1568. All of these preceded the KJV 1611, but contributed some detail to the KJV. The KJV is certainly an excellent translation, and I prefer the KJV. I hope eventually you will moderate your position and your estimate of any believer in the inspiration of the Bible who does not at the same time acknowledge the KJV only concept. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Adstar, I accept that the Bible is inspired, but all translations have some deficiencies. Yes, it appears that we have finished, as you will not accept the evidence from Acts 19 that the KJV is not inspired, but the Bible is inspired. If we have difficulty communicating on a simple, non-doctrinal verse or two in Acts 19, then how will we progress on more important verses and teachings? What I consider important is that I endorse Tyndale’s translation and the RV and RSV margins of Exodus 3:14 as “I will be”, not the KJV rendition. I certainly cannot accept the KJV only concept. I appreciate your time and involvement. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again KiwiChristian, My understanding of Jesus is that he was a man, and the evidence that he was approved of God were the miracles that he performed and it was God who performed these miracles through Jesus. Jesus received the Holy Spirit at his baptism. Acts 2:22 (KJV): Ye 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 ye yourselves also know: I am speaking of our normal Bible Class which is similar to most mid-week Bible Classes in our fellowship. I assume then that this is unfamiliar to your experience. I am the librarian for our meeting and record all the meetings on Sunday and mid-week and collect any slides. I then distribute a CD each month to some members and make copies of individual talks and series. I do not post these talks on the Internet but some of our meetings do post, and for example I have a series of 100 talks on Isaiah given over 10 years at another meeting. You may like to comment on my post to Adstar on Church / Temple and also congregation. Also what is your view on the KJV margin “Gr. the temple keeper” instead of the KJV “a worshipper” in Acts 19:35. This does not depend on the MSS on this occasion. The RV has temple-keeper as the translation. Are they wrong? One cap does not fit all. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Adstar, Well done, you have given an accurate explanation despite the minor difficulty with the KJV. I did not know whether you would go to a dictionary to see whether the word church was an archaic word that also applied to pagan temples, or a different translation such as the RV has “robbers of churches”, but rather you seem to have worked out and corrected the KJV by the context. No I do not think that the town-clerk got the word wrong. By the way my KJV margin has “Gr. the temple keeper” instead of the KJV “a worshipper” in verse 35. In your estimation was this marginal note a part of the original translation and also thus inspired, or was this a later addition by an editor? Is "the temple keeper" the correct translation, thus following the original inspired text? The RV has temple-keeper as the translation. Are they wrong? Also do you use a copy of the original 1611 KJV, or a later edition where they changed the spelling and some pronunciation marks? Would you prefer Tyndale’s translation “Congregation” which helps to distinguish between a church building and the members of those believers who have been called out of the world by the gospel message? In many countries the established church is very much in league with the state, and is thus not separate from the world as the word Ekklesia implies. By the way it has been claimed that up to 80% of the KJV is based upon Tyndale's translation, but the KJV translators never acknowledged him because the established Church of England persecuted and killed Tyndale. The Church of England had conflict with non-conformists for many years, so I view the KJV as the official Bible of the established church, often in conflict with the faithful remnant. Nevertheless the KJV is an excellent God given Bible as are the many other Bible versions after this. Only the original Bible was inspired. All translations show some errors including the KJV and German and Italian Bibles. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Adstar, shiloh357and Justin Adams, I believe the Bible is inspired not the KJV. In my meeting we have a German and two Italians. When our German sister goes to Germany to visit her sister and father who do not speak English, what inspired Bible should they use? Similarly with our two Italian brethren, what Bible should they use in Italy? Some time ago I considered the meaning of the Greek word Ekklesia, usually translated church in the KJV. My impression is that the KJV translators were not happy with Tyndale’s translation congregation. Perhaps almost a hint of being non-conformist, and possibly one reason the established Church persecuted and killed Tyndale. Also in the course of checking this I found the expression “robbers of churches” in Acts 19:37. Could you explain the meaning of the word “churches” here in the KJV of Acts 19:37? What churches existed in Ephesus at that time? I appreciate your explanation, but I was responding to the following from Justin Adams. I do not know for sure if what you are saying supports Justin’s claim that the Lamb slain proves Jesus’ pre-existence. Another thought is that “the world” could also be the Jewish world, and Jesus is the Passover Lamb(s) slain in Egypt which brought about the formation of the nation. But the word Elohim is used for the Judges in Exodus 21:6 (KJV). Are you suggesting contrary to Adstar that the KJV is not inspired here? (I am not serious with this last comment, as I do not advocate the KJV only view, but simply hinting at the dilemma of the contrary views expressed here). As far as your Post is concerned, no I cannot accept your view or the 14 page article that you previously referenced. I briefly stated why I rejected the article, or the start of the article. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Adstar, I am not a KJV only advocate, but the KJV is my favourite Bible. I believe that the Bible is inspired, but we do not have the original scrolls and manuscripts and parchments and therefore any of our English Bibles are only sincere attempts to translate the Bible. It is up to you whether you accept what I have stated or not. I believe that the Angel was God’s messenger, not God Himself. Thus what the Angel said was God's words, not his own. What book do you believe in? I believe in the Bible. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again KiwiChristian, Yes I meant to write John 11. John 11:40-42 (KJV): 40 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. 43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. Yes it was Jesus that raised Lazarus, but it is evident that Jesus first prayed to God, his Father. We are not told exactly what he prayed, but it appears that he was given the affirmative to raise Lazarus. “Heard” in this context means more than just listening, but almost consent. No one profound, but simply our Bible Class. The various selected speakers usually run a series, and recent and current topics have been 1 Peter, Isaiah, Zechariah and Hebrews, expounding a chapter per night. I notice on many occasions that their explanation lines up with the RV or NASB in words and sometimes sense. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Justin Adams, Are you suggesting that he was slain twice? Once before the foundation of the world and then again 2000 years ago? Or did God when he contemplated the creation of the world, he also saw the fall of man and the necessity of providing the Lamb of God (not God the Lamb). Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Adstar, The OT Hebrew word Elohim is usually translated God, but in some contexts it is used for an Angel or Angels and also for the Judges. The various translations have had difficulty in deciding what word to choose and the following are some examples where this difference is evident. Psalm 8:4-6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: Psalm 8:4-6 (ASV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him but little lower than God, And crownest him with glory and honor. 6 Thou makest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet: The KJV rendition is confirmed in Hebrews 2 where it not only states that this is angels, but also bases much of his argument on the fact that when Jesus was made or created at conception and birth he was made lower than the angels. Seeing that this was raised in another Post, the Judges in Israel were also called Elohim. When John 10:30-36 quotes and expounds Psalm 82, it is talking about the Judges in Israel. Again the translators had difficulty in deciding what word to select. KiwiChristian will be happy that I prefer the KJV rendition in the above and the following: The translators had difficulty with the relevant verses where the Judges acted in the role of God (Hebrew Elohim): Exodus 21:6 (KJV): 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Exodus 21:6 (ASV): then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever. Exodus 22:8-9 (KJV): 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. 9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. Exodus 22:8-9 (ASV): 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come near unto God, to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbor's goods. 9 For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, whereof one saith, This is it, the cause of both parties shall come before God; he whom God shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbor. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again KiwiChristian, Much of what you have stated is a repeat of what we have already discussed, so I decided to answer a few portions. I would be interested in what Jesus is teaching us in the following: Acts 2:22-24 (KJV): Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. I will give you my assessment. Jesus wanted to raise Lazarus from the dead, but before he does this he had prayed to God the Father. This either implies that Jesus first requested that Lazarus could be raised, or that he be given the power to perform this particular miracle. Whatever the exact request, God answered him in the affirmative. If he was God the Son, why was it necessary to pray to God the Father? What do you suggest that Jesus had requested to God? I have listened to James White discuss the Trinity with Sir Anthony Buzzard. I agreed with most of what Sir Anthony stated. I have a copy of Anthony Buzzard's book. I do not reject the KJV, but heartily endorse it as being the best thing that ever happened with the English Bible(s). You seem to be almost a KJV only advocate. Perhaps you have not read from a RV/KJV interlinear Bible. My mother told me that this was my grandmother’s favourite Bible. She died before I was born. Also in my mother’s estate was an almost unused copy, which my older sister gave me on settlement a few years ago. I like the OT portion, but I accept some of your reservations as I have many doubts about the NT manuscript basis of the RV and most other modern translations. The OT panel attempted to make only minimal alterations and corrections, and the OT is based on essentially the same Hebrew as the KJV. I usually read the top line, the RV, and when it is different then the two are small, and then it is easy to compare with the KJV. I have often sat in a Bible Class and the speaker has to explain the inadequacies of various words in the KJV, while a quick reference to the RV would be sufficient. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings Justin Adams, I appreciate the link and the portion of the article that you have quoted. I have had a brief read of the article after downloading the 14-page pdf. Some of the technical aspects of the language could be a bit difficult for me. On the other hand I disagree with his view as I still maintain after reading his arguments that Psalm 82 is speaking of the Judges. I could take some parts of his article and answer these parts, which would in my opinion dismiss some of his statements, but with your and his Trinitarian perspective you most probably would not agree. This answer would take some time. If you want me to simply highlight my major objections I could mention these. For example his opening argument "First, how is it a coherent defense of John’s well-known high Christology by essentially having Jesus use Psalm 82:6 to say, in effect, that he can call himself the son of God when every other Jew can, too? " is completely outside my view that the Judges were called Elohim. Jesus is talking about the Judges, not every other Jew. Also he immediately takes the view that Jesus is attempting to prove that he is God. Also the paragraph that you have quoted above seems to take the view that the teaching of the Bible is derived from local sources, eg “Ugaritic divine council”, not a Divine revelation. This view is very scholarly, but in my estimation is linked with Higher Criticism, which has as its basis a rejection of what the Bible teaches. They do not believe that the Pentateuch was given by Moses. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again KiwiChristian, God has revealed many things but I simply reject a concept that is contradictory in itself, such as that Jesus was fully man and fully God. I especially reject this as this is never stated in the Scriptures, but is the illogical conclusion of misunderstanding many verses. I think Mormons are more active in NZ than Australia, especially among the Maori population. I have not encountered any and their wrong ideas for 20 years. I am resigned to leaving this in the too hard basket for the moment. If this is the only verse you use to prove the Trinity, then I suggest you are on shaky ground. I agree that Jesus was given this power to raise Lazarus. Please note that Jesus prayed to God first and God heard him John 11:40-42. If Jesus was God he would not have to refer this matter to God the Father. I am glad that you seek the counsel from the wise, as we all need a great deal of help. Nevertheless I have never heard of any that you mention, but I should check for some of these on your recommendation. My preference is the KJV, but see the need to check some aspects such as archaic words with modern translations. My brother in law who extensively studied Job suggested that the RV is better in many verses for this difficult book of poetry. I have already quoted Acts 2 where it says God raised him, and I do not believe that God Himself descended from heaven, but used his power to achieve this. The two Angels may have been active in this work. Because Jesus was raised by God the Father he is the Son of God in a more complete manner, showing that God gave him life Romans 1:1-4. Another subject, but I do not believe that there is consciousness when the body is dead. We sleep in the dust of the earth Daniel 12:2. I do not believe that we have immortal souls, but believe that man is a living soul Genesis 2:7, as were the animals that were created Genesis 1:21. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again KiwiChristian, You may accept this concept, but I cannot reconcile how Jesus could be lacking in knowledge as a man and at the same time having full knowledge as God. Did he have two separate minds? No, Jesus did not lie. On second considerations to my previous explanation, I am willing to put this statement of Jesus back into the difficult basket for the present, as I am beginning to doubt my explanation as being satisfactory. Yes, I believe that the resurrection of Lazarus was providentially provided for our instruction as a precursor to the resurrection of Jesus. I enjoy collecting and reading a wide range of Biblical books and commentaries, and some of these are very helpful, especially as part of my special interest, the Psalms and Isaiah. BTW when you seemed to demand what translation I used and I answered, I also asked you what translation you used or preferred, but I did not receive an answer. I only asked this out of interest, as many have different preferences, and there is some value in each translation. Yes I read this article, but I believe that God the Father raised Jesus from the tomb by means of the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus on the other hand was dead before he was raised, and did not have a consciousness. But as I said, I am willing to leave John 2 in the too hard basket for the moment. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Adstar and Greetings Justin Adams, I appreciate the question, and I was trying to anticipate what Scripture you had in mind, but could not find this for sure. I looked at 1 Corinthians 10 but could not gather what you are suggesting. To give an answer, I believe that the Angel that appeared to Moses at the bush was the same Angel that guided Israel through the wilderness. We have the incidents of Exodus 32-34 where this Angel threatens to withdraw and leave this guidance to a lesser Angel. Then Moses pleads and his request is granted. Moses then asks to be shown His Glory and a manifestation of His Glory is revealed coupled with a pronunciation of Yahweh’s character of abounding mercy, and yet justice. The difference between this Angel and the Angel if Moses had not intervened is that this was an Angel who stood in God’s presence and was most probably Michael the Archangel. To partly anticipate your answer then, I believe that these are real Angels, ministers of God, and neither are the pre-incarnate Jesus, as I do not believe that Jesus pre-existed before he was born, as I believe that Jesus was a man, the Son of God by birth. But many of the incidents in the OT are a shadow of things to come, by parable, by type and many other aspects. Two examples, the offering of Isaac as a burnt offering, and the sufferings and elevation of Joseph. All the furniture of the Tabernacle point forward to God’s future dwelling in the Word made flesh, the only begotten of the Father John 1:14. No it was not God, who in the English sense of this word is God the Father only. We need to understand the Biblical meaning and use of the Hebrew word Elohim. I agree with much of what you say, but I believe that Psalm 82 is not speaking of evil angels in heaven, but the Judges who failed in their responsibility to be merciful to the poor in judgement, and preferred to favour the rich. These are the Elohim spoken of in Psalm 82 and also mentioned in John 10:30-36. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Adstar and KiwiChristian, I appreciate your reply and response. Your suggestion may satisfy your general overall theology, but from my perspective, from my side of the fence I have a number of problems with what you claim. 1. I believe that Jesus was a man, but nevertheless he was the Son of God by birth, moral character and resurrection. But nevertheless he was a man, and when he was crucified he was dead for three days and could not directly raise himself. 2. The verses that I quoted in Acts 2 directly state that God raised Jesus from the dead. In other words he did not raise himself from the dead as you claim. 3. Also the verses in Acts 2 state that Jesus was a man approved of God. There is no hint that Peter preached and the 3000 believed that Jesus was God the Son. 4 The events around Lazarus, his death, his abiding in the tomb for 4 days, are a precursor, a foreshadowing, a guide to the death and resurrection of Jesus, with the difference that Jesus was raised and was changed also into immortality. Now from my side of the fence I have heard a few explanations that would satisfy some of my fellowship, but at the time they did not fully satisfy me, and as a result these verses in John 2 have been what I call a “difficult passage”. The only answer that satisfies me at the moment is the following, but I may re-examine what has been suggested by other members of my fellowship, by conversation, by commentary or magazine article as I cannot fully remember their explanation. My preliminary answer is that Hebrews 1:1-2 states that God has spoken in and through His Son, and therefore what Jesus states in John 2 is actually God’s words, God the Father speaking and stating God was going to raise Jesus. In other words what Jesus actually said was the voice of God speaking through Jesus, and this then fully agrees with Acts 2 where Peter tells us that God raised up Jesus from the grave. There are many examples of this flow from a prophet speaking about God, to the voice of God speaking through the mouth of the prophet. David in Psalm 95:7 speaks about God’s voice, but then in Psalm 95:8 it is God speaking through the lips of the prophet. The transition is seamless, and no warning or prompt is given. So in John 2 the Jews were going to crucify Jesus but God would raise him from the dead. Another example of a seamless flow is when the Angel appeared to Moses. This has a greater perspective, but the Angel speaks as if Yahweh Himself is speaking. The Angel also manifests God’s glory. Acts 2:24 is a quotation from Psalm 110:1 where the One God, Yahweh, that is God the Father, is distinguished from David’s Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Many passages in the OT depict the role of Jesus as Yahweh, because Jesus will represent Yahweh, especially when he sits upon the throne of David in Jerusalem for the 1000 years. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings Adstar, Acts 2:22-24 (KJV):22 Ye 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 ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Acts 2:32-36 (KJV):32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again shiloh357, I do not accept the preexistence of Jesus. I do not accept the concept of the incarnation as taught in the Churches. I believe that Jesus’ life commenced at his conception and birth. As well as Luke 1:30-35 the other two records concerning the birth of Jesus and his origin must be considered. Matthew 1:20-21 (KJV): But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. John 1:14 (KJV): 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. Matthew 1:20-21 speaks of conception being of the Holy Spirit, and John 1:14 speaks of the only begotten. Both of these agree with Luke 1:35 which teaches that God the Father is the paternal father of Jesus while Mary is his mother. I find no hint in any of these that God the Son shrunk from being a Deity and thus abandoning most aspects of His Deity to dwell in the womb of Mary for 9 months and then to be born a babe. At what age did he resume His Deity? I do not find the term hypostatic union in the Bible, neither can I find where it is taught. Take one concept. Jesus was limited in knowledge, but God knows all things. Did Jesus have two minds, and were these not able to communicate with each other and share information? Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again KiwiChristian, Most probably the best that was available in his day. Please note that much of the KJV is attributed to the Tyndale translation and some of the memorable portions of the KJV including some of the words that Tyndale coined. The KJV translators did not openly acknowledge their reliance on Tyndale, because the CofE had persecuted and killed Tyndale. Yes, and “Ehyeh” is “I will be”. The Bible we have on our desk would be without error if we had a photocopy of the inspired original scrolls and manuscripts. They would be in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek. Unfortunately we do not have an exact copy of these, but there exists various old manuscripts including the Dead Sea scrolls, and from these many attempts have been made to translate these into English. What particular version do you use and endorse as being the best and most accurate translation? Yes, the Scriptures teach that there is One God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again shiloh357, Please read again Luke 1:30-35, where God the Father is the father and Mary is the mother, and hence Jesus is the Son of God as stated. I agree that such terms as “sons of thunder” speak of the individual being full of thunder or anger, but you are ignoring Luke 1:35, 2:52 and Romans 1:1-4 which speak of the birth, development and holy character and resurrection of Jesus to fully establish Jesus as The Son of God. Luke 1:35 and John 1:1-3,14 when carefully considered teach the birth and development of Jesus as the Son of God. It is the Word that is pre-incarnate, not Jesus. Kind regards Trevor