talk to me about my false religious beliefs

[Jedi4Yahweh]

Hi check these verses out:

Phi 2:5-11 Webster Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross. (9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: (10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth; (11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The bible says that Jesus is God yet he humbled himself took off his Deity and humbled himself and became a mere man and subject himself to weakness of man and even death so that he may deliver us from sin, but God raised him from the Dead and exalted him above all and now sits at the right of God.

God bless,

[BobTriez]

The bible says that Jesus is God yet he humbled himself took off his Deity

Where does it say that ?

God bless,

Bob

[Guest yod]

Isaiah 48:12

"Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;

I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.

13

"Surely My hand founded the earth,

And My right hand spread out the heavens;

When I call to them, they stand together.

14

" Assemble, all of you, and listen!

Who among them has declared these things?

The LORD loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon,

And His arm will be against the Chaldeans.

15

"I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him,

I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.

16

" Come near to Me, listen to this:

From the first I have not spoken in secret,

From the time it took place, I was there.

And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit." 17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit,

Who leads you in the way you should go.

Notice the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in red font.

[jmwhalen]

It depends on what body of Greek you look at.  The Nestle Greek makes a difference between the two uses of the word God by having the word the in front of the first.    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with The God, and the Word was God.

It differentiates between the two uses which would put Jesus in his original form as the Word having Deity, but not be the same as the Father (The God).

So it depends on if you will only accept the Textus Recptus as the only true source.

John has given us his thoughts on this many times, so I'd suggest someone just reference this thread to the other one and we can start an eternal loop here and give us something to read forever. 

I appreciate your response, but no, it does not "... depends on if you will only accept the Textus Recptus as the only true source", it depends if you believe that we have a God who, having saved 2 miserable sinners like you and me, and raised His only Begotten Son from the dead, can(i.e., ability) and did preserve His inspired, without error in English in a("a" is singular-you don't have to be an "English Scholar" to figure out that "a" and "the Bible" means 1, not 200) book we call "the Bible". It is simple as that. People just seem to have a problem understanding the very simple concept of BIBLICAL PRESERVATION. Too tough for God to accomplish this????? As Col. Sherman Potter would say(MASH), "Horse Hockey"! Apparently God just could not preserve His Word the last 2000 years, and it took "brilliant" scholars such as Westcott and Hort to "help God out" in the late 1800's. And for the last 100 years or so we need 200 plus "versions" to get it right-one on average every 6 months. And think on this: When will we know when we finally "get it right"? The dance will never end, especially in light of how profitable it is to COPYRIGHT a "new and improved version"(sound like a TV commercial for TIDE detergent).

Being a former "Roman", I admit I am very "sensitive" to any doctrine that says, or even implies, that I am too "stupid" to read and understand God's word(Acts 4:13), and that I must "trust someone else" to explain to me not only what it says, but what it means, whether that "someone else" takes the form of "the Magesterium", a "pope", a priest, a "reverend", a pastor, my parents, a T.V. show, a "a Greek/Hebrew/Chaldean.... scholar", an author, a biblical commentary, and on and on and on.

As I mentioned, I used to play "this game". And why? Before I was saved, I thought I was on "easy" street-just listen to the pope and the priest=Because I wanted to "shift responsibility/accountability" to someone else. And after I was saved, I went "100% the other way" and bought all those fancy word study books-I was "showing off". The LORD God by His grace corrected me in my errant ways.

I ask that you consider the following. Those who say such things as "the Greek says", "we need to check the original Greek"(and I admit I used to be of these types), usually do not know Greek, and even those who may have an elementary knowledge of some "Greek", haven't the slightest clue/notion about the subtle nuances of the Greek language, and that includes me(I have enough on my plate just trying to understand English). Furthermore, "the Greek" words he/she is quoting are not Koine Greek, but Classical, if he/she is using Strong's, Vine's, Kittel, Thayer, BAGD, ad nauseam.

Is it logical to even consider that anyone who can't put three sentences together in Greek, to correct the 47 translators of the KJB who were fluent in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and over 50 other languages and dialects, thus possessing an etymology that exceedingly surpasses that of any man or group of men, before or since? That defies logic, and is contrary to the repeated testimony of the scriptures themselves(too lengthy to discuss here).

People are being "brainwashed" into thinking that they must learn the "holy language" of "the Greek" to understand God's word. And since the average person doesn't have the time or the resources to study manuscripts(over 5000 of them) or the Greek language, the average person must therefore go to "the Greek scholar/expert" and the "text critic" who has an "MBA from heaven" to truly understand what God has said. And thus the circle is now complete-"yea, hath God said....?(Gen 3:1)-the use of "the Greek" from the pulpit, coupled with higher criticism, is today no different in methodology than the use of Latin by the Roman Catholics when I was in grade scool in the 1960's, for it was through the gnosticism of a "holy language" that Rome was able to "control" the masses and thus propagate the very thing that the Lord Jesus said he hated

[AnotherTraveler]

Wow, is it just me, or is this thread all over the place?

Jehovah Witnesses realize Christendom is blinded by Satan

Christendom is a pretty wide paint brush, but anyone that is blinded is likely blinded by either their own lack of love for the light or Satan. I am not persuaded that Jehovah Witnesses realize anything concerning Christianity, but they might be an authority on blindness.

Jesus name mean in Hebrew?it means" Jehovah is Salvation"

Technically, in the Greek (sorry if this offends the anti-greek poster) the name Jehovah does not appear. In the KJV, the name of Jehovah is found four times, yet in every one of these places His name is actually Yehovah (yeh-ho-vaw').

(Exo 6:3 KJV) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

(Psa 83:18 KJV) That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

(Isa 12:2 KJV) Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.

(Isa 26:4 KJV) Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:

As for the name of Jesus in Hebrew, it reads as Yehowshuwa' (yeh-ho-shoo'-ah).

John 1:1 in the greek langauge in which the new teastament was wrote John 1:1 Says the word was a God.

(John 1:1 HG) . . arche:G746 . . logos:G3056 . . logos:G3056 . . theos:G2316 . . logos:G3056 . theos:G2316

746. arche, ar-khay'; from G756; (prop. abstr.) a commencement, or (concr.) chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank):--beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

3056. logos, log'-os; from G3004; something said (including the thought); by impl. a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extens. a computation; spec. (with the art. in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):--account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

3056. logos, log'-os; from G3004; something said (including the thought); by impl. a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extens. a computation; spec. (with the art. in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):--account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

2316. theos, theh'-os; of uncert. affin.; a deity, espec. (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; fig. a magistrate; by Heb. very:--X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].

3056. logos, log'-os; from G3004; something said (including the thought); by impl. a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extens. a computation; spec. (with the art. in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):--account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

2316. theos, theh'-os; of uncert. affin.; a deity, espec. (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; fig. a magistrate; by Heb. very:--X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].

Technically it says "Beginning word word God word God" and "the subtle nuances of the Greek language" render the first grouping of word God as "with" and the doubling as "equal", and there is no "a god" represented here.

As for the KJV version only, having no errors, that is funny. Consider this verse.

(Heb 2:1 KJV) Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.

Now consider the origonal language.

(Heb 2:1 HG) dia:G1223 - touto:G5124 . dei:G1163 . . . perissoteros:G4056 perissoteros:G4056 prosecho:G4337 . . . . . . akouo:G191 mepote:G3379 mepote:G3379 mepote:G3379 pote:G4218 . . . . pararrhueo:G3901

1223. dia, dee-ah'; a prim. prep. denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional):--after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) . . . fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through (-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import.

5124. touto, too'-to; neut. sing. nom. or acc. of G3778; that thing:--here [-unto], it, partly, self [-same], so, that (intent), the same, there [-fore, -unto], this, thus, where [-fore].

1163. dei, die; third pers. sing. act. pres. of G1210; also deon, deh-on'; neut. act. part. of the same; both used impers.; it is (was, etc.) necessary (as binding):--behoved, be meet, must (needs), (be) need (-ful), ought, should.

4056. perissoteros, per-is-sot-er'-oce; adv. from G4055; more superabundantly:--more abundant (-ly), X the more earnest, (more) exceedingly, more frequent, much more, the rather.

4056. perissoteros, per-is-sot-er'-oce; adv. from G4055; more superabundantly:--more abundant (-ly), X the more earnest, (more) exceedingly, more frequent, much more, the rather.

4337. prosecho, pros-ekh'-o; from G4314 and G2192; (fig.) to hold the mind (G3563 impl.) towards, i.e. pay attention to, be cautious about, apply oneself to, adhere to:--(give) attend (-ance, -ance at, -ance to, unto), beware, be given to, give (take) heed (to, unto) have regard.

191. akouo, ak-oo'-o; a prim. verb; to hear (in various senses):--give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), ([shall]) hear (-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.

3379. mepote, may'-pot-eh; or me pote, may pot'-eh; from G3361 and G4218; not ever; also if (or lest) ever (or perhaps):--if peradventure, lest (at any time, haply), not at all, whether or not.

3379. mepote, may'-pot-eh; or me pote, may pot'-eh; from G3361 and G4218; not ever; also if (or lest) ever (or perhaps):--if peradventure, lest (at any time, haply), not at all, whether or not.

3379. mepote, may'-pot-eh; or me pote, may pot'-eh; from G3361 and G4218; not ever; also if (or lest) ever (or perhaps):--if peradventure, lest (at any time, haply), not at all, whether or not.

4218. pote, pot-eh'; from the base of G4225 and G5037; indef. adv., at some time, ever:--afore- (any, some-) time (-s), at length (the last), (+ n-) ever, in the old time, in time past, once, when.

3901. pararrhueo, par-ar-hroo-eh'-o; from G3844 and the alt. of G4482; to flow by, i.e. (fig.) carelessly pass (miss):--let slip.

The tripling of mepote into pote makes the message personal, which would read then "...lest we should let slip"

That's why the other translations say...

(Heb 2:1 NIV) We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.

(Heb 2:1 DNT) For this reason we should give heed more abundantly to the things <we have> heard, lest in any way we should slip away.

(Heb 2:1 NASB) For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.

(Heb 2:1 YLT) Because of this it behoveth us more abundantly to take heed to the things heard, lest we may glide aside,

(Heb 2:1 NKJV) Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away.

KJV says "...lest at any time we should let them slip" referring to what we have heard, but the sentance was relating to US not slipping away, this is NOT a small error.

The entire point of the sentence was incorrect in KJV, but corrected in NKJV as well as many others, notice the "we". This is not to have a portion of truth slip away, it is to have us slip away!

It is funny that the very warning to take heed or to pay attention was mistranslated, but when men do their best, there is still the potential of error, but God kept the WORD available so that we can correct translational errors, thus protecting His word.

[jmwhalen]

AnotherTraveler writes:

"As for the KJV version only, having no errors, that is funny. Consider this verse.

(Heb 2:1 KJV) Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.

Now consider the origonal language".

My comment:

You need to consider a career as a comedian("that is funny") instead of this post. You are a "Bible" corrector, not a Bible believer. The King James Bible has no errors, no one has proven any errors, and your "opinion" masking as "scolarship", may "impress" your friends, but your "cliches" you have regergitated from other websites, usually along the lines of "What this means in the original Greek....a better translation would be....the Hebrew actually says....", are nothing new-just a way of getting rid of distasteful doctrines, and setting up "scholarship"(loosely used here-you most probably know no Greek or Hebrew) as a final authority. Bible correctors resist authority and like to look good in others' eyes=showing off.

The "originals" do not exist, and nowhere in "the Bible" does it say anything about its inspiration being limited to "original autographs" or "original languages"-Nada(maybe I need to consult "the Spanish"). You are demonstrating the "parrot" approach-just repeat "the originals" and impress your friends! -just like "the Mr. Microphone" commercial.

"The entire point of the sentence was incorrect in KJV"

My comment:

Thanks for helping God in correcting His Word. He just cannot "get it right"=preservation.What would we do without you?! What has God done without your "correction"? What have we doing without God's inspired, preserved, infallible Word until you and others decided what we have been reading is "incorrect"? You must have such credentials! Thank you for your "expert" analysis.. So how did you come to this "scholarly" conclusion?

" "Technically, in the Greek ...Technically it says "Beginning word word God word God" and "the subtle nuances of the Greek language"

My comment: Once again, in hopes of impressing everyone, the old "greek game". Despite the fact that there is no such thing as "the Greek", and that there are over 5000 "the Greek" manuscripts and 25-30 "the Greek" texts. And you do not have "the Greek"'s, nor do you have "the original", nor have you seen the original, and even if you thought you had "discovered" the original, you would not be able to prove it is the original.

"nuances "

My comment: Please revise your post. This word needs "correction" because I do not understand it. I think this is French word. I cannot find out what it means since I do not have a French scholar available to check "the subtle nuances of the Greek language"(I did check Gen. 3:1 in "the Holy Bible" in which the word 'subtil' describes Satan in His denial of God's ability to preserve His inspired Word), nor do I have a French dictionary, and I am too lazy to look up a word in a dictionary(seems that my friend said that about the Bible). A better "rendering" of this word would be appreciated.

"It is funny that the very warning to take heed or to pay attention was mistranslated, but when men do their best, there is still the potential of error, but God kept the WORD available so that we can correct translational errors, thus protecting His word.

"His word" and "potential for error" LOL You do not identify what "His Word"is-it cannot be theKing James Bible, since, according to you, it has errors. And then you supposedly quote scripture("the very warning to take heed or to pay attention ") from the very Bible YOU DO NOT BELIEVE is without error. Huh???????????? And then you even say that that same verse("that the very warning to take heed or to pay attention") was "mistranslated". The very verse you use to say "take heed" is, according to you from a corrupt version, is also corrupt!!!!!!!!!!

The illogic, silliness, and inherant nature of man to "show off"(pride) and rebel against authority continues.............Eccl. 1:9.

John W

[apothanein kerdos]

If Jesus wasn't at least part of God, then why is he referred to in both old and new testament as Emmanuel, which means "God with us"?

Ah, how cute. My little niki poo is defending Christianity! :il:

[ted]

Amen, John.

t.

[AnotherTraveler]

This word needs "correction" because I do not understand it.

I have studied the KJV for almost 30 years, I love it, I memorized most of it, and when I preach I use it, and I always have.

It is a translation, not holy of itself, but of the Holy Text. I could care less about impressing anyone.God makes no errors, but men do, and if you want to believe that the KJV is error free, be my guest, I don't really care.

The " about the subtle nuances of the Greek language" was lifted from jmwahlen (that would be you), so if you don't understand it, why do you use the word?

I ask that you consider the following. Those who say such things as "the Greek says", "we need to check the original Greek"(and I admit I used to be of these types), usually do not know Greek, and even those who may have an elementary knowledge of some "Greek", haven't the slightest clue/notion about the subtle nuances of the Greek language, and that includes me(I have enough on my plate just trying to understand English). Furthermore, "the Greek" words he/she is quoting are not Koine Greek, but Classical, if he/she is using Strong's, Vine's, Kittel, Thayer, BAGD, ad nauseam.

and I am too lazy to look up a word in a dictionary(seems that my friend said that about the Bible). A better "rendering" of this word would be appreciated.

You used the word first, being ignorant of it's use, and admit to being too lazy to look it up, yet you attack me?

The illogic, silliness, and inherant nature of man to "show off"(pride) and rebel against authority continues.............Eccl. 1:9.

(Eccl 1:9 KJV) The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Maybe you should stick with the KJV, the one you used there isn't too good. Are you the authority that I am accussed of rebelling against?

My comment: Once again, in hopes of impressing everyone, the old "greek game".

You condemn my motive for studying another language and you are too lazy to look up a word that you used first?

The King James Bible has no errors, no one has proven any errors, and your "opinion" masking as "scolarship", may "impress" your friends, but your "cliches" you have regergitated from other websites,

I do not claim scholarship, and if I was trying to impress my "friends", name them, certainly you are not one. The entire post came from my own computer, while the definations of the words and the word outlay came from Strong's Dictionary, NASC Dictionary, and the various bible translations I quoted, all from my computer, and none lifted from any website anywhere.

Though you have attacked my motives, accussed me falsely of regergitating from other websites, and admitted your own laziness involving study (one word, how hard can that be?), you will no doubt have no problem continuing your selfrighteous attack, rendering to yourself the same error free status that you grant to the KJV translation.

Though I did touch your idol, I do not see where your angry reaction was warrented, but I have seen outbursts like this over the years, and the strange thing is they always come from someone that is either too lazy to study or someone that has been brainwashed by someone too lazy to study.

Whatever the case, I went to many of your posts, and found that you are consistantly pleasent to people that speak with you concerning sports, yet you are rude and obnoxious whenever the KJV bible is the topic, I therefore, will cease to discuss this with you further, perhaps when your cigarette problem is fully under control you will be able to be civil.

(1 Cor 14:38 KJV) But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Edited September 27, 2004 by AnotherTraveler

[jmwhalen]

This word needs "correction" because I do not understand it.

I have studied the KJV for almost 30 years, I love it, I memorized most of it, and when I preach I use it, and I always have.

It is a translation, not holy of itself, but of the Holy Text. I could care less about impressing anyone.God makes no errors, but men do, and if you want to believe that the KJV is error free, be my guest, I don't really care.

The " about the subtle nuances of the Greek language" was lifted from jmwahlen (that would be you), so if you don't understand it, why do you use the word?

I ask that you consider the following. Those who say such things as "the Greek says", "we need to check the original Greek"(and I admit I used to be of these types), usually do not know Greek, and even those who may have an elementary knowledge of some "Greek", haven't the slightest clue/notion about the subtle nuances of the Greek language, and that includes me(I have enough on my plate just trying to understand English). Furthermore, "the Greek" words he/she is quoting are not Koine Greek, but Classical, if he/she is using Strong's, Vine's, Kittel, Thayer, BAGD, ad nauseam.

and I am too lazy to look up a word in a dictionary(seems that my friend said that about the Bible). A better "rendering" of this word would be appreciated.

You used the word first, being ignorant of it's use, and admit to being too lazy to look it up, yet you attack me?

The illogic, silliness, and inherant nature of man to "show off"(pride) and rebel against authority continues.............Eccl. 1:9.

(Eccl 1:9 KJV) The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Maybe you should stick with the KJV, the one you used there isn't too good. Are you the authority that I am accussed of rebelling against?

My comment: Once again, in hopes of impressing everyone, the old "greek game".

You condemn my motive for studying another language and you are too lazy to look up a word that you used first?

The King James Bible has no errors, no one has proven any errors, and your "opinion" masking as "scolarship", may "impress" your friends, but your "cliches" you have regergitated from other websites,

I do not claim scholarship, and if I was trying to impress my "friends", name them, certainly you are not one. The entire post came from my own computer, while the definations of the words and the word outlay came from Strong's Dictionary, NASC Dictionary, and the various bible translations I quoted, all from my computer, and none lifted from any website anywhere.

Though you have attacked my motives, accussed me falsely of regergitating from other websites, and admitted your own laziness involving study (one word, how hard can that be?), you will no doubt have no problem continuing your selfrighteous attack, rendering to yourself the same error free status that you grant to the KJV translation.

Though I did touch your idol, I do not see where your angry reaction was warrented, but I have seen outbursts like this over the years, and the strange thing is they always come from someone that is either too lazy to study or someone that has been brainwashed by someone too lazy to study.

Whatever the case, I went to many of your posts, and found that you are consistantly pleasent to people that speak with you concerning sports, yet you are rude and obnoxious whenever the KJV bible is the topic, I therefore, will cease to discuss this with you further, perhaps when your cigarette problem is fully under control you will be able to be civil.

(1 Cor 14:38 KJV) But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

"I have studied the KJV for almost 30 years, I love it, I memorized most of it, and when I preach I use it, and I always have.

It is a translation, not holy of itself, but of the Holy Text. I could care less about impressing anyone.God makes no errors, but men do