"The word was a god"?

[Matthias]

So God has not watched over the process of preserving the accuracy of His Word and has allowed error to prevail such that the majority of translations are rubbish and only a little cult founded by false prophets have the truth and everyone else goes to Hell

I don't think so.

I don’t think so either.

 

[Matthias]

what a really foolish argument! The Geneva Bible is WRONG here, because the Greek personal pronoun here, "αὐτοῦ", is MASCULINE in gender! Even the JW's get this right, "HIM", https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/john/1/

as usual posting nonsense on here!

I have a decision to make here. I’ve decided to let you crucify the Protestant Reformation.

I’m weary of defending trinitarians and trinitarianism against the ignorance of people like you. It’s time, in fact, past time, for trinitarians to do it themselves.

You’re on the clock, Protestants.

 

[RedFan]

Revelation 3:14...
KJ21
“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write: ‘These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:
ASV
And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:
BRG
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
DARBY
And to the angel of the assembly in Laodicea write: These things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:
DLNT
“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea, write— These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God.
DRA
And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God:
ESV
“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.

This is just a few translations, there are many more...so are they all wrong?

"ἀρχή archḗ, ar-khay'; from G756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank):—beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule." (Strongs)

We have an interpretive question here. No one is contesting that Rev. 3:14 refers to Christ as the beginning of God's creation. But this use of "beginning" could simply mean Christ originated all creation, as its source, as its cause (a la John 1:3). Strongs tells us that this is a proper translation of arche.

There are two ways to interpret the verse. Plummer's Pulpit Commentary lays out the options:

"The Beginning of the creation of God. There are two ways in which these words might be understood:

(1) that in which "beginning" is taken in a passive sense, and which would therefore make Christ the first created thing of all the things which God created;

(2) the active sense, by which Christ is described as the Beginner, the Author, Moving Principle or Source of all the things which God created. That the latter meaning is the true one is plain from the whole tenor of Holy Scripture. The Arians, attempting to disprove the Divinity of our Lord, quoted this passage, attributing to it the former sense. But ἀρχή is often used actively, and may well be so used here . . ."

I should note that Matthew Henry's Commentary on the verse favors this interpretation ("he is the beginning, that is, the first cause, the Creator").

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

I have a decision to make here. I’ve decided to let you crucify the Protestant Reformation.

I’m weary of defending trinitarians and trinitarianism against the ignorance of people like you. It’s time, in fact, past time, for trinitarians to do it themselves.

You’re on the clock, Protestants.

You like some others on here are only interested in posting from those who agree with your heresies

 

[Aunty Jane]

the NWT reads "BY God" and not "OF God", as Jesus Christ is the CREATOR, unless you think that God the Father is a LIAR? He says in Hebrews 1:10-12, that Jesus Christ is the ACTUAL CREATOR of the entire universe, and is quoting from Psalm 102:24-27, which is used for ELOHIM!

FIRSTBORN is NOT FIRST CREATED, this is another LIE! In Colossians 1:18 Jesus is the FIRSTBORN from the dead, does this mean FIRST CREATED?

”In Psalm 89:27, we read of King David: “Also I will make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth”. We know from 1 Samuel 17:14, that, “David was the youngest”, son of Jesse, which means that the term “first-born”

in Exodus 4:22, “then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Israel is My son, My firstborn.”. And Jeremiah 31:9, “For I am a Father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn”.

Are we to say FIRST CREATED in these passages?

You continue to promote LIES!

You seem to be obsessed with calling people liars simply because they disagree with your interpretation of things.
We are all entitled to our own beliefs and posting them here allows people to read the arguments and make their own evaluations....you seem threatened by anyone whose arguments are scripturally sound, but who are out of step with what you believe is true. Your believing doesn't make anything true. Its only true for you and those who think the same way as you do. Your truth is not my truth.

Now, when you can address all the questions I left you in post #294, then we can get onto other issues...but you haven't addressed any of my points, so I am left to wonder if all you have is your party line answers.....?

You like some others on here are only interested in posting from those who agree with your heresies

"Heresies"......I'm sorry but that is just downright funny....

Pot...kettle?

 

[Aunty Jane]

We have an interpretive question here. No one is contesting that Rev. 3:14 refers to Christ as the beginning of God's creation. But this use of "beginning" could simply mean Christ originated all creation, as its source, as its cause (a la John 1:3). Strongs tells us that this is a proper translation of arche.

There are two ways to interpret the verse. Plummer's Pulpit Commentary lays out the options:

"The Beginning of the creation of God. There are two ways in which these words might be understood:

(1) that in which "beginning" is taken in a passive sense, and which would therefore make Christ the first created thing of all the things which God created;

(2) the active sense, by which Christ is described as the Beginner, the Author, Moving Principle or Source of all the things which God created. That the latter meaning is the true one is plain from the whole tenor of Holy Scripture. The Arians, attempting to disprove the Divinity of our Lord, quoted this passage, attributing to it the former sense. But ἀρχή is often used actively, and may well be so used here . . ."

I should note that Matthew Henry's Commentary on the verse favors this interpretation ("he is the beginning, that is, the first cause, the Creator").

Pick a scholar.....we can all pick the ones that we want to agree with.....but there is just one truth. We either have it or we don't. The scholar we pick is either right or wrong. We need to weigh the evidence carefully, and not be coerced by threats and name calling into believing what scripture does not teach. Just because the majority believe something, doesn't make it correct.....look what happened to Jesus. (Matthew 7:13-14)

There is a lot at stake considering that Jesus comes as judge of all mankind and he will not tolerate those who fail to promote the truth. He will let us know, in no uncertain terms if we have been found "doing the will of the Father"...or not. (Matthew 7:21-23)

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

You seem to be obsessed with calling people liars simply because they disagree with your interpretation of things.
We are all entitled to our own beliefs and posting them here allows people to read the arguments and make their own evaluations....you seem threatened by anyone whose arguments are scripturally sound, but who are out of step with what you believe is true. Your believing doesn't make anything true. Its only true for you and those who think the same way as you do. Your truth is not my truth.

Now, when you can address all the questions I left you in post #294, then we can get onto other issues...but you haven't addressed any of my points, so I am left to wonder if all you have is your party line answers.....?


"Heresies"......I'm sorry but that is just downright funny....

Pot...kettle?

The JWs, are LIARS because they use FALSE information that they TWIST from other peoples works as I have clearly shown, but you ignore because you are a JW yourself!

I see that you cannot deny the FACT that God the Father addresses Jesus Christ as THE CREATOR in Hebrews 1:10-12, which is from Psalm 102:25-27! This is Bible TRUTH, and shows beyond any doubt to those who are HONEST, that Jesus Christ is ALMIGHTY GOD!

 

[Matthias]

You like some others on here are only interested in posting from those who agree with your heresies

Those who read my posts with an honest heart know your accusation is false. Nothing I or they say will convince you of that.

 

[RedFan]

Pick a scholar.....we can all pick the ones that we want to agree with.....but there is just one truth. We either have it or we don't. The scholar we pick is either right or wrong. We need to weigh the evidence carefully, and not be coerced by threats and name calling into believing what scripture does not teach. Just because the majority believe something, doesn't make it correct.....look what happened to Jesus. (Matthew 7:13-14)

There is a lot at stake considering that Jesus comes as judge of all mankind and he will not tolerate those who fail to promote the truth. He will let us know, in no uncertain terms if we have been found "doing the will of the Father"...or not. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Totally agree. But let's not allow confirmation bias to creep in to our interpretations of ambiguous verses. That is always a huge danger.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

I have a decision to make here. I’ve decided to let you crucify the Protestant Reformation.

I’m weary of defending trinitarians and trinitarianism against the ignorance of people like you. It’s time, in fact, past time, for trinitarians to do it themselves.

You’re on the clock, Protestants.

Who needs you who believe in LIES to defend us who hold to Bible TRUTH?

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Those who read my posts with an honest heart know your accusation is false. Nothing I or they say will convince you of that.

RUBBISH! You DISTORT what the Bible says, and never been able to answer Who the Speaker is in Isaiah 48:16, where the passage shows that there are TWO distinct Persons Who are YHWH!

 

[Aunty Jane]

The JWs, are LIARS because they use FALSE information that they TWIST from other peoples works as I have clearly shown, but you ignore because you are a JW yourself!

I see that you cannot deny the FACT that God the Father addresses Jesus Christ as THE CREATOR in Hebrews 1:10-12, which is from Psalm 102:25-27! This is Bible TRUTH, and shows beyond any doubt to those who are HONEST, that Jesus Christ is ALMIGHTY GOD!

You are like a broken record....I am putting you on "ignore"...you are just plain annoying.
You can't even answer the questions put to you because they are outside of your rehearsed responses. Yet you endlessly repeat yourself.

Good bye BGTF.....have a nice life.

 

[Matthias]

Who needs you who believe in LIES to defend us who hold to Bible TRUTH?

I’m not defending you. Your assault on the leaders of the Protestant Reformation and on those who followed them is on you.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

I’m not defending you. Your assault on the leaders of the Protestant Reformation and on those who followed them is on you.

you use a Bible from the 16th century, where the English use was different, and ignore all the others, only because it supports your HERESIES!

 

[Matthias]

you use a Bible from the 16th century, where the English use was different, and ignore all the others, only because it supports your HERESIES!

“It” has always referred to a thing, not a person, in the English language.

 

[Matthias]

RUBBISH! You DISTORT what the Bible says, and never been able to answer Who the Speaker is in Isaiah 48:16, where the passage shows that there are TWO distinct Persons Who are YHWH!

You’re deceiving yourself. You know I’ve answered who the speaker is in Isaiah 48:16. You also know I used trinitarian commentary to do it.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

You’re deceiving yourself. You know I’ve answered who the speaker is in Isaiah 48:16. You also know I used trinitarian commentary to do it.

forget any commentary, YOU show from the context that the Speaker is not Yahweh, and that He is not SENT by Another, Who is also Yahweh. This is exactly as it is in Zechariah 2, where we see in verses 6-11 the Speaker is Yahweh, and is SENT by Another Who is also Yahweh! This is Bible FACT!

 

[Matthias]

forget any commentary, YOU show from the context that the Speaker is not Yahweh, and that He is not SENT by Another, Who is also Yahweh. This is exactly as it is in Zechariah 2, where we see in verses 6-11 the Speaker is Yahweh, and is SENT by Another Who is also Yahweh! This is Bible FACT!

Trinitarian commentary refutes you. If you won’t listen to it you certainly aren’t going to listen to me.

If you had a good moral compass you would have retracted the false accusation you made against me in post #331.

 

[Matthias]

To say that part of the Godhead is an it rather than a He is disrespectful.

“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God;”

(Romans 8:16, KJV)

Do you see this as yet another example of disrespect expressed in a trinitarian translation of the Bible which comes down to us from the Protestant Reformation?

Edit: to add a link to the KJV rendering of Romans 8:16. Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:16 - King James Version

 

[Matthias]

“It is the purpose of this essay to briefly explore the relationship between the GB and the KJV, especially the negative and positive influence the former had on the latter.”

(Matthew Barrett, “The Geneva Bible and Its Influence on the King James Bible”)

The Geneva Bible and Its Influence on the King James Bible

A good read for those who would cast the Geneva Bible into the flames of an incinerator, for those who honor(ed) and use(d) it, and for those who are unfamiliar with it. In short, a good read for all audiences.