The Word was with God, and the Word was A god

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

However I meant fact in the sense of the actual existence of words in the Bible. And lack of a single instance where Jesus claimed to be God, while we have instances where he denies it outright.

I do commend you on your interest in the material that you listed but actually you don't really need most all of what you listed to prove, theologically, the scriptures [other than John] which tells you that Jesus was and is God your Creator.

As ChesterJohn has written in his above post it is explained by the authors of Hebrews in the following. ----

Heb 1:6-14
(6) But when He [The Most High] again brings the firstborn [first begotten - meaning Jesus and not Adam] into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him. [Jesus]"
(7) And on the one hand he [The Most High] says to the angels, "He [The Most High] who makes His [The Most High] angels spirits and His ministers flames of fire."
(8) But to the Son [Jesus] He [The Most High] says: "Your throne, O God, [Your throne O Jesus] is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your [Jesus] Kingdom.
(9) You [Jesus] have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God [Jesus] , Your God [Most High] , has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your companions."

Translated to mean - Jesus as the Word is our Creator and our God. The Most High El. is Jesus' God and our Most High God. This is the reason The Most High is total Spirit and unknowable to our understanding and the Word was begotten to show The Most High's image to us.

(10) And: "You, LORD [Jesus], in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your [Jesus'] hands.
[11] They [creation] shall perish, but You [Jesus] continue; and they [creation] all shall grow old like a garment;
(12) and like a cloak You [Jesus] will roll them up, and they shall be changed. But You [Jesus] are the same, and Your [Jesus'] years will not fail."
(13) But to which of the angels has He [The Most High El. ] ever said: "Sit at My [The Most High] right hand, till I make Your [Jesus'] enemies a footstool for Your [Jesus] feet"?
(14) Are they not all ministering spirits being sent out to minister for the sake of those who are about to inherit salvation?

As you ponder this you can then understand more of John the first chapter as Jesus being the Creator God. John condensed his understanding as calling Jesus the celestial Word of The Most High El. whereas Timotheus wrote his understanding in a more concise way as he penned the Cepher Ivriym. Believe as you may but you are mistaken in what you have stated. Jesus [as the celestial Word] was and is now our God,

a reply to: ChesterJohn
The AV clearly refutes Trinitarian teachings, philosophy and interpretation (men's understanding).

Hebrews chapter 1 already makes it clear that Jesus is the Son of God, not the God he's already a son of.

KJV (or AV):

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

Clearly it was "God" who appointed "his Son" "heir of all things", meaning they can't be the same God if one is willing to use logic honestly and reasonably and not add their own interpretation (explanation in the form of an excuse) to explain it away why logic doesn't count here or shouldn't be used, discarded in favor of Trinitarian philosophy and theology (men's understanding). It also logically demonstrates that his Son was not "heir of all things" before his Father and his God Jehovah (AV clearly showing this is another individual over and over) appointed him. Like the AV explains at 1 Corinthians 15:27:

For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

He = Jehovah, him = Jesus, clearly again, the AV is making a distinction between these 2 individuals and even stating the obvious that Trinitarians seem to miss as they teach that the Son and the Father are equal, or the same God.

So really, I don't see how you're following the teachings of the AV as opposed to Trinitarian human 'understanding' (interpretation with Pagan Greek and Babylonian philosophy really, Platonic philosophy). You can claim that you do (exegesis) however and probably convince yourself of it, but I clearly see you doing something different. The technical term is eisegesis:

..."the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[2] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective." (From wikipedia)

The AV does not teach your Trinity, not in John 1:1, not in 1 John 5:7, not in Hebrews or any of the other verses that are misrepresented (not talking about mistranslated) by Trinitarians as supporting their arguments while they ignore addressing everything in the bible that contradicts their teachings, even when it's right in the next verse, Hebrews 1:9 (KJV, AV):

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Clearly whoever is spoken to there (and in verse 8) is not the God mentioned in verse 9 as being "thy God" ("your God" in modern English), as in the God of the individual being spoken to. How much clearer does the AV need to get before people stop making claims about their adherence to the AV when they do everything the same way the bible critics who cherrypick their verses that support their arguments do (or at least they can make it sound like they support their arguments; the general behavioural pattern of matrixsurvivor, Heresiarch, Akragon and the rest of the Paul-bashing party)?

OK, forget everything I said cause you're probably just going to categorize it as "men's understanding" (or eisegesis) anyway, are you willing to admit that Jesus has a God as I see the AV teaching? And is Hebrews 1:3 only about Jesus "in the flesh" (timing wise, on earth)? Or also about Jesus after he returned to heaven? Remember the last tine of Hebrews 1:3. Where does that take place?

Acts 7:55 (KJV or AV):

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

Wow, according to Trinitarian philosophy, someone apparently is full of another person that actually is a person in a triune God, what does that make this person? A spirit-eater? Oops, a ghost-eater? Like Casper the Ghost? But then a bit more serious (not trying to ridicule here, just demonstrating what odd concepts are being taught or implied from my impression of Trinitarian piliosophy). Whatever, total side issue.

a reply to: whereislogic

How much clearer does the AV need to get before people stop making claims about their adherence to the AV when they do everything the same way the bible critics who cherrypick their verses that support their arguments do (or at least they can make it sound like they support their arguments; the general behavioural pattern of matrixsurvivor, Heresiarch, Akragon and the rest of the Paul-bashing party)?

Excuse me?

Where have i done such things in this or any other thread?

a reply to: Akragon
You started the disinformation thread about Paul inventing Christianity and you happily let the carnage commence. Don't act all innocent now like Seede when he says he's defending Paul and then claims Paul joined a cult/sect when he actually joined Christianity (in essence calling Christianity a cult/sect as he did on my thread about myths that I linked here before; while saying "I call myself a Christian" on another thread).

For example: about 7 minutes in in your video that you promoted in that thread he cherrypicks Zachariah 8:23 and seems to hope that the mention of the word "Jew" there is interpreted as referring to modern day Jews by his audience. Of course he also skips Zechariah's introduction as to from whom these words originated (perhaps he doesn't want to get bogged down on the whole HaShem routine or draw any attention to that, of course I'm not suggesting he's obligated to use verse numbers and therefore needs to quote the whole verse, but it is Zechariah's introduction that I find quite interesting to think about regarding the behaviour of modern day Jews in relation to God's name, or even just the word "God").

Zechariah 8:23 (NW):

“This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘In those days ten men out of all the languages of the nations will take hold, yes, they will take firm hold of the robe* of a Jew,* saying: “We want to go with you, for we have heard that God is with you people.”’”

1st *: Or “extremity of the garment.”
2nd *: Lit., “a Jewish man.”

Note that "you people" is not one Jew but referring to a group of people. May this terminology "a Jew" or "a Jewish man" be symbolically referring to a group of people that are appropiately referred to in that manner because of their worship and obedience to Jehovah rather than literally Jews as in modern day Jews who have disobeyed Jehovah on many issues for quite a while now? Just like the "ten men" earlier in the verse are not literally 10 men?

a reply to: whereislogic

You started the disinformation thread about Paul inventing Christianity and you happily let the carnage commence.

It wasn't disinformation... it was a question asked to those that might be interested in a theory... and i personally still think its very possible because most of the ideas in Christianity come from Paul...

Said carnage was not my doing... and i attempted to step in on a couple occasions to no avail...

a reply to: Akragon
I do not believe your implied motives for starting that thread. I can see evidence indicating otherwise. Mostly related to my signature and the description under my name. You certainly keep people's minds here busy with a lot of mental poison and it seems that it might be intentional. Pushing the right buttons, promoting interest for misleading debates, keeping people's minds occupied and distracted from the more important and simple subjects to understand about God, his message to mankind, the bible, and just generally what the bible refers to as "wholesome teaching" or "beneficial teaching" and "an accurate knowledge of truth".

But not that you're the only one or that it's your fault or anything, you just seem to be rather proficient at it compared to some others perhaps. It is clear to me though, that your behavioural pattern regarding the bible is the same as those I mentioned (or in the videos you promote).

a reply to: Seede
Why does Hebrews 1:6 not say "let all the angels of Him worship Him?" Why does it make a distinction between "Him" and "God"? Why should we read your Trinitarian or Binitarian philosophical interpretation into what it really says or simply ignore that this distinction is being made with those in mind as if it's no big deal and the verses you added commentary about are more important?

And regarding your interpretation of the first mention of the word "God" in verse 9, did Jesus anoint himself? How does that sentence make any logical sense with your interpretation:

"You [Jesus] have loved...; therefore Jesus?, your [Jesus'] Most High?, has anointed You [Jesus] "?...

It's clearly not talking about 2 persons anointing Jesus, so take your pick, who anointed Jesus? How can you logically interpret the first instance of "God" to be referring to Jesus but the 2nd instance to "Most High" (or perhaps you meant "the Most High") and conveniently ignore the "your" in that sentence? Or that any rational person would have used "you" in that sentence after "therefore" if they were still referring to Jesus (the same "You" as at the start of the sentence and after "anointed")? How can you ignore that with your interpretation the sentence ends up saying that Jesus is the God (or Most High) of Jesus? How can you expect others who see you presenting such a scenario to get the impression that you're actually trying to be honest about this rather than some other possibilities? Such as deliberate deception, manipulation of people's thoughts, promoting propaganda, wishful thinking, self-deception, spiritual insanity or diseased?

What a bunch of mental gymnastics. See, there's no reasoning with that kind of arguing. The bible has some very good descriptions about that behavioural pattern. Mostly in the letters to Timothy, one reason for Paul to be discredited by the very ones that demonstrate this behaviour so well. I like the CEV translation in 1 Timothy 6:4 regarding the phrase "their minds are sick". From a Christian perspective such as Paul's, you would want to help the sick and give them any treatment that might help as long as it does not do serious harm.

Oh, and what's your excuse for ignoring the Greek manuscriptal and biblical evidence regarding the translation of Hebrews 1:8 that I posted? Is Hebrews 1:8 quoting from Psalm 45:6? Does that bring Hebrew manuscripts into play for you? To whom were the words in Psalm 45:6 addressed according to verse 1 (Psalm 45:2, who is doing the blessing again and who is "you" there)?

I would have the same questions for ChesterJohn regarding Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6 minus the "Greek manuscriptial and..." part. But I think people aren't here for the purpose of answering my burning questions regarding some irrational things I'm hearing anyway, so I'm afraid my perceptions about behaviour that I'm occasionally sharing as carefully as I can without upsetting anyone too much, will remain for a while. So sorry if it's offensive whenever I do that but it's hard to ignore when people are saying things about subjects I've just spoken of, including answers to questions that I'm expecting or actually getting occasionally.

a reply to: whereislogic
Or slightly differently and hopefully less offensively phrased, I do not believe your implied motives are the real or only cause for starting that thread, and that it is possible that other motives may also be involved than the ones you implied or may or may not be aware of.

edit comment above: without getting much sensible answers when I ask some questions about how they justify their views.

I forgot to finish my thought there at the end.

a reply to: whereislogic

I do not believe your implied motives for starting that thread.

That is your prerogative... i couldn't care less if you believe me... or if anyone else believes me for that matter

that is what makes me different from yourself and others

I can see evidence indicating otherwise. Mostly related to my signature and the description under my name.

Ironically a quote from Paul...

You certainly keep people's minds here busy with a lot of mental poison and it seems that it might be intentional.

i would be happy to say the same for most "christian" threads and posts on the net... and most sects of Christianity in general, including yours

Though... i point to one person.. IF you call his message poison...

Well, you've abandoned your religion

Pushing the right buttons, promoting interest for misleading debates, keeping people's minds occupied and distracted from the more important and simple subjects to understand about God,

I ask questions that should be asked... i promote no doctrine...

Check yourself brother...

his message to mankind, the bible, and just generally what the bible refers to as "wholesome teaching" or "beneficial teaching" and "an accurate knowledge of truth"

lol... wholesome teaching... beneficial to man kind...

Where is the evidence of such things in Christianity?

But not that you're the only one or that it's your fault or anything, you just seem to be rather proficient at it compared to some others perhaps. It is clear to me though, that your behavioural pattern regarding the bible is the same as those I mentioned (or in the videos you promote).

Clearly you know nothing about me... or what i post...

Rarely will you see me post a thread which is like the one in question...

Did Paul Create Christianity?

its something that needed to be asked... because its a valid explanation for what is wrong with Christianity

strangely enough im on your side in your argument with Chester... Yet you attack me as if im the enemy

perhaps im the devil like others have accused me of being...

Judge me how you will

a reply to: Akragon
I would have to be dishonest if I recognize mental poison but are afraid to call it mental poison because of the debate games being played when one does that. Immediately zooming in on "poison" painting a picture on someone for not being 'Christian' enough as if the main example for Christians, Jesus, never told us to be honest with people when a Christian sees someone else being deceived with the trivial and with wasting their minds on nonsense and mythology, or with deceitful propagandistic information about history related to the bible (including misleading bible criticism, discrediting of bible writers and authenticity, the whole routine you often see being done by so-called "Jewish scholars" or "experts", or people with different backgrounds for that matter, like in the video you promoted).

Quoting you:

i couldn't care less if you believe me... or if anyone else believes me for that matter

that is what makes me different from yourself and others

Well, I'm not sure which others you are referring to, but I seem to get the impression that the same behavioural pattern, or apathic stoic attitude or emotional position, if you want to compare it with stoicism, is present in many who have posted in this thread and on this forum.

a reply to: whereislogic

I would have to be dishonest if I recognize mental poison but are afraid to call it mental poison because of the debate games being played when one does that.

To late bud... you've already accused me of it

Immediately zooming in on "poison" painting a picture on someone for not being 'Christian' enough as if the main example for Christians, Jesus, never told us to be honest with people when a Christian sees someone else being deceived with the trivial and with wasting their minds on nonsense and mythology (in this case mixed with Jewish propaganda).

So i must accept a label that even Jesus knew nothing of to be correct in my arguments?

and of course you know Jesus was Jewish... perhaps not the best at practicing but none the less

a reply to: whereislogic

sigh...

Just make another reply man... why edit?

Well, I'm not sure which others you are referring to, but I seem to get the impression that the same behavioural pattern, or apathic stoic attitude or emotional position, if you want to compare it with stoicism, is present in many who have posted in this thread and on this forum.

Well you know what they say about assuming...

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Akragon
You started the disinformation

Disinformation is presented in an unquestioning, non theoretical method. And false.

That thread was not disinformation as the OP didn't commit one way or the other. At this point it seems you're angry and your true Christian colors are showing with absurd falsehoods.

If you don't want to lose a debate about the validity of your religion, don't debate it because it will happen every time.

No one knows less about Christianity in the religious "arena" than the Christian. By design.

thread about Paul inventing Christianity and you happily let the carnage commence. Don't act all innocent now like Seede when he says he's defending Paul and then claims Paul joined a cult/sect when he actually joined Christianity (in essence calling Christianity a cult/sect as he did on my thread about myths that I linked here before; while saying "I call myself a Christian" on another thread).

For example: about 7 minutes in in your video that you promoted in that thread he cherrypicks Zachariah 8:23 and seems to hope that the mention of the word "Jew" there is interpreted as referring to modern day Jews by his audience. Of course he also skips Zechariah's introduction as to from whom these words originated (perhaps he doesn't want to get bogged down on the whole HaShem routine or draw any attention to that, of course I'm not suggesting he's obligated to use verse numbers and therefore needs to quote the whole verse, but it is Zechariah's introduction that I find quite interesting to think about regarding the behaviour of modern day Jews in relation to God's name, or even just the word "God").

Zechariah 8:23 (NW):

“This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘In those days ten men out of all the languages of the nations will take hold, yes, they will take firm hold of the robe* of a Jew,* saying: “We want to go with you, for we have heard that God is with you people.”’”

1st *: Or “extremity of the garment.”
2nd *: Lit., “a Jewish man.”

Note that "you people" is not one Jew but referring to a group of people. May this terminology "a Jew" or "a Jewish man" be symbolically referring to a group of people that are appropiately referred to in that manner because of their worship and obedience to Jehovah rather than literally Jews as in modern day Jews who have disobeyed Jehovah on many issues for quite a while now? Just like the "ten men" earlier in the verse are not literally 10 men?

😂

a reply to: whereislogic

like I said I will take God's preserved words over men's every time.

If you cannot understand the word of God it is only natural to try and fit pagan stuff, wikipedia junk into it to give your fleshly mind peace about it. I assure you you are incorrect and God is true. You will never know the depth of the word of God until you follow after him with a whole heart something you do not do.

You post is an excellent example of wrongly joining the word of Truth to create and false doctrine in your right hand while refuting what you can a false doctrine in your left.

No longer interested in something that is not good for the hearers. Let the those who will be led astray follow you.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: whereislogic

like I said I will take God's preserved words over men's every time.

If you cannot understand the word of God it is only natural to try and fit pagan stuff,

Like the Romans?

Who are the reason you even have a Bible, though "preserved" is a matter of opinion and certainly not backed up by evidence.

Is it Sons of God or Sons of Israel in Dt32?

Because the Masoretic based KJV and NIV read "Israel" while all the oldest texts say "Sons of God."

That is all the proof needed to realize it's been tampered with.

The Masoretic text changed "God" to "Israel" in their no earlier than 1,000 ad text.

FYI.

wikipedia junk into it to give your fleshly mind peace about it. I assure you you are incorrect and God is true. You will never know the depth of the word of God until you follow after him with a whole heart something you do not do.

You post is an excellent example of wrongly joining the word of Truth to create and false doctrine in your right hand while refuting what you can a false doctrine in your left.

No longer interested in something that is not good for the hearers. Let the those who will be led astray follow you.

As long as nobody is following you the world is safe from Satan.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Israel because that is what God originally said before it was corrupted in the Greek copies to read the sons of God.

Unbelievers have no say I this matter, you'll see.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Israel because that is what God originally said before it was corrupted in the Greek copies to read the sons of God.

Unbelievers have no say I this matter, you'll see.

You have no say in what I have a say in, you see here and now and not later.

Unbeliever is a term for people who don't believe, in this case in God.

Oh but I do. I merely disagree with you.

You are being grandiose if you don't see a difference and an intolerant boob.


This is where you have failed to do your homework, it was not corrupted by the Greeks but the Masorah.

Do some quick research and you will find the community who hid the Dead Sea Scrolls, who had so many similarities with Christianity it is fascinating, left us copies of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic copies of books and fragments of every book with the exception of Esther, even some now called Apocrypha.

One of the most important finds is that "Sons of God" was used in the first century as that particular verse was found and it agrees with the Greek. And obviously earlier.

So it only stands to reason that the original reading that was the only reading prior to the Masoretic text was the correct one, by date and by a factor of 2 to 1 there is no doubt whatsoever that your "sons of Israel" originated, I believe, in Babylon with the Masorah or wherever else they lived though I am pretty sure Babylon was the center of Jewry and home of the Masorah.

Masoretic= 1000-1200 AD

Greek and Septuagint= 300 B.C.-400AD

Dead Sea Scrolls=300BC-70AD (depending on the text and give or take in each case)

Only one didn't exist BC and it was the Masoretic

I see you don't study history or the findings of scholars based on the finding of the world's oldest Biblical fragments and books, some whole and near whole.

How interested could you honestly be in knowledge and information about your religion if you don't know such a thing and make conclusions without the most important facts?

Not much. You follow the tradition of Babylon.

Acts 7:51-57

51 “Obstinate [or, “Stiff-necked”] men and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, YOU are always resisting the holy spirit; as YOUR forefathers did, so YOU do. 52 Which one of the prophets did YOUR forefathers not persecute? Yes, they killed those who made announcement in advance concerning the coming of the righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers YOU have now become, 53 YOU who received the Law as transmitted by angels but have not kept it.”

54 Well, at hearing these things they felt cut to their hearts and began to gnash their teeth at him. 55 But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, 56 and he said: “Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand.” 57 At this they cried out at the top of the voice and put their hands over their ears and rushed upon him with one accord.

Anyone care to share their opinion on why these people "put their hands over their ears"? Here's mine, Zechariah 7:11:

11 But they kept refusing to pay attention, and they kept giving a stubborn shoulder, and their ears they made too unresponsive to hear.

Matthew 15:7-11:

You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” 10 With that he called the crowd near and said to them: “Listen and get the sense of it: 11 It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”

Ephesians 4:29
29 Let a rotten word not come out of your mouth, but only what is good for building up as the need may be, to impart what is beneficial to the hearers.

Whether they want to hear it or consider it or not. Honest accurate descriptions are never equatable with "a rotten word". Jesus gave them (the descriptions of human behaviour for example, or other things) all the time, including about those speaking against Jehovah, no matter how upsetting it might be for those who just don't want to hear it or have other more honest-hearted observers/hearers see what Jesus saw in these people. I find it also noteworthy he used the Hebrew Scriptures, Jehovah's words, to demonstrate the reliability of the bible to describe the human behaviour of those who oppose Jehovah and his "Faithful Witness" and Son.

Revelation 1:5a:
and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,”...

Revelation 3:14b-22:
These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God: 15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or else hot. 16 So because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth. 17 Because you say, “I am rich and have acquired riches and do not need anything at all,” but you do not know that you are miserable and pitiful and poor and blind and naked, 18 I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may become dressed and that the shame of your nakedness may not be exposed, and eyesalve to rub in your eyes so that you may see. 19 “‘All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent. 20 Look! I am standing at the door and knocking. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into his house and take the evening meal with him and he with me. 21 To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.’”

KJV (or AV) regarding Revelation 3:14b:
...the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Also note the verb "conquers" at the end there, seems to imply some kind of war going on doesn"t it? Which may mean the presence of some enemies of Jesus and his Father Jehovah that are quite proficient and experienced at keeping people's minds from doing the things suggested or encouraged in my signature and description under my name.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Yeah which god?

Yourself? other Men? scholars? Maybe Allah?

None of those versions you listed are verifiably accurate and none of them were whole and complete copies.

Why not Just trust the LORD, God Almighty?

Please remember that a man who was a Prophet, a King and a Priest said that the Lord would preserve his words to every generation. As expounded on in an earlier post I gave the reason a for the AV being that God preserved word of God to this generation.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Yeah which god?

Yourself? other Men? scholars? Maybe Allah?

None of those versions you listed are verifiably accurate and none of them were whole and complete copies.

Why not Just trust the LORD, God Almighty?

Chester, why are you deliberately ignoring the facts and calling it a virtue?

Obviously the BC Hebrew and Aramaic texts, whole or not, say what they say.

And they say Sons of God. There is no saying that the Septuagint was corrupt because we HAVE PROOF it wasn't.

Please remember that a man who was a Prophet, a King and a Priest said that the Lord would preserve his words to every generation. As expounded on in an earlier post I gave the reason a for the AV being that God preserved word of God to this generation.