1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured God's First Created Being

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by osgart, Sep 19, 2018.

  1. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,026
    Ratings:
    +759
    Religion:
    Spiritual Naturalist
    Who was it? And How was that being created?

    Adam and Eve were not first. The angels were.
     
  2. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,026
    Ratings:
    +759
    Religion:
    Spiritual Naturalist
    I believe that jw's say that it was Jesus.

    Some say it was Lucifer.
     
  3. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Sorry, just trying to sort the NONSENSE
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    2,702
    Ratings:
    +1,304
    Religion:
    I hope there is something out there that is smarter than me.
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1:1

    You can find a better opinion than the JW.

    Perhaps pick up a used King James Version in a book store and read it yourself, like I did. It won't bite. And, lots of people will tell you that they know more than you, or called by God, or a Prophet of God. There is no one with authority between you and God, save Jesus the Christ.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  4. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,682
    Ratings:
    +712
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Michael was the first of all of Jehovah's creations. How? Through God's holy spirit, in spirit form.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,682
    Ratings:
    +712
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Seriously? The King James Version? The KJV which translates the Hebrew re'em' (wild oxen) as unicorn? Psalms 22:21 / Psalms 29:6. Better rethink the JW opinion which will inform you of the errors of what is possibly the worst translation of the Bible in the history of mankind.
     
    #5 Earthling, Sep 19, 2018
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,026
    Ratings:
    +759
    Religion:
    Spiritual Naturalist
    I like the NIV. I do have a kjv and find it rather lacking for understandability. At least the NIV uses plain english.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,682
    Ratings:
    +712
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Yeah, the NIV isn't bad.
     
  8. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,026
    Ratings:
    +759
    Religion:
    Spiritual Naturalist
    Another question, How was Lucifer born?

    And then how about Satan?
     
  9. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    38,692
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    I've been using King James 1960

    I say.....God First
    and forming spirit in spirit.....is a problem

    you get a reflection of yourSELF
    and you end up speaking to your Echo

    think of the situation as a collection of mirrors
    each one casts your reflection but.....
    there is miscoloring or distortion

    it's You
    but not really You

    and the conversation is lacking in some way
    so......

    Let us make Man
    in our image
     
  10. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,682
    Ratings:
    +712
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Lucifer, which is often mistakenly applied to Satan, was actually applied to Nebuchadnezzar. (Isaiah 14:12) If you go back to Isaiah 14:4 you can easily see who it actually applies to. The term in Hebrew heh‧lel′, means "shining one." The Greek Heosphóros, which means "bringer of dawn." The Latin Lucifer, which means "Light Bearer."

    Satan and Jesus are called similarly, because Nebuchadnezzar would prove to be like the bright 'Morning Star' to appear in the sky just before dawn, a new day. It represented, in the case of Babylon's Dynasty, the end of Jehovah's earthly representatives of Kings as Zedekiah was removed from the throne in Jerusalem and taken captive to Babylon where he died. Jesus would be the next king of the Jews.

    So the new period of the nations began.

    Edit To Add: Forgot about Satan. Satan was created an angel, the most beautiful of angels, in fact, and later was put in charge of protecting the Garden of Eden, where he would sin. So he existed millions of years as a righteous angel, then turned bad. Note the references to Satan in comparison to the King Of Trye, A covering in the garden of Eden, and beautiful (Ezekiel 28:13-15)
     
    #10 Earthling, Sep 19, 2018
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,682
    Ratings:
    +712
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Michael was Jesus' prehuman heavenly spirit form. In other words, Michael is Jehovah's first born (first created of all creation) only begotten (the only act of creation created exclusively by Jehovah) son, the archangel Michael. There is only one archangel. Also, Jehovah's Word, or representative. Spokesperson, if you will. Everything else, heaven, the angels, the universe, earth and all of it's inhabitants were created by Jehovah God with Christ Jesus as master worker. I.e., "Let us make man in our image." and "Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad,"
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    24,506
    Ratings:
    +9,004
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    So what's your Bible of choice?
     
  13. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,682
    Ratings:
    +712
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    New World Translation, of course. You have to ask? :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    4,167
    Ratings:
    +2,414
    Religion:
    Christian
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Sorry, just trying to sort the NONSENSE
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    2,702
    Ratings:
    +1,304
    Religion:
    I hope there is something out there that is smarter than me.
    I hate to bore you, and I hate to make up for the fact that you don't pay attention. I have explained this before. I stay with the KJV because it was the first Bible I read nearly 45 years ago, so am familiar with many of the areas of disagreement. As to the foolish errors that others have made, I can't speak for them, or their errors. No one will have the definitive translation until Jesus brings it here and places it in our hands. I believe that they ideas that are translated are the ones that God wanted.

    AND, the really important things that God wants us to know and do, can be typed in 12, double spaced on a single side of an a-1 sheet of paper, but we humans believing that we are smarter than God, ignore all that, and keep searching for a truth that is not higher than what we have, not higher than our creator.

    I will NOT advise anyone to seek the guidance of any over learned Pastorate who have only listened to the tired pontificating of someone who actually does not believe.

    After all the times that, so called Shepherds, who failed to give sound advice, who threw me out of the body when I was ill, who blamed me for the bad advice from Doctors and Psychologists, that I followed who our society had made into defacto Gods. I never gave up on God, but humans violated me worse than a bloody two day fudge packing session. Now, it has finally come out that some/much of the whole GID treatment protocol is half baked quackery. Too late to do me and many others any good. A section of study called ROGD is sure to ignite a glorious display of indignation, and I say it is high time!

    AND THAT is why I insist that the best approach to getting to know God and his wishes is to read it for yourself! Sadly, I am still frustrated and disillusioned.
     
  16. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    4,167
    Ratings:
    +2,414
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hello, @Ellen Brown, wish you well!

    Just got through posting this, and thought you might find it food for thought:


    **Highly acclaimed scholar and Roman Catholic priest John J. McKenzie, S.J. (a trinitarian), in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317. (Italics and bold type are mine.)

    Why does he say this?

    Because of Koine Greek grammar regarding the usage of definite articles (or lack of) in sentence location.

    In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrouspredicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·osʹ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, The Jerusalem Bible and King James both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

    Other versions are in accord with this:

    ▪ 1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

    ▪ 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)

    ▪ 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)

    ▪ 1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)

    ▪ 1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)

    ▪ 1867: "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

    ▪ 1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)

    ▪ 1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)

    ▪ 1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)

    ▪ 1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago

    ▪ 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.

    ▪ 1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958)

    ▪ 1966, 2001: "...and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible

    ▪ 1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" – The Revised English Bible

    ▪ 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany

    ▪ 1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

    ▪ 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

    When you contemplate the context of the Apostle John's words...if Jesus was God, if that's what John meant....why would he imply Jesus was with God? (He should have just said "the Father".) And a few verses later, why would he write, "No man has ever seen God"? Was he wanting to be deliberately ambiguous?

    Only a faulty interpretation, makes the context ambiguous.

    A well-known encyclopedia once described the Trinity as "an inscrutable mystery". (Yet, supporters still try to describe it.)

    If knowing and describing God really is "a mystery", why would Jesus say @ John 4:22-24 to Samaritan woman, "we worship what we know....the true worshippers will worship the Father" -- only, as the 1st Commandment (Exodus 20:1-5) requires.

    Take care.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    24,506
    Ratings:
    +9,004
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    That's what I thought, but in any case you shouldn't be throwing stones. From a lengthy critique of the New World Translation by By Bruce M. Metzger (I'm sure you've heard of him and have heard JWs denounce him.)

    " It is manifestly impossible to attempt to refute in one brief article even a fraction of the distortions of Biblical interpretation perpetrated in the voluminous writings of this sect. It is proposed, rather, to give consideration to one of the fundamental errors of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, namely, that which concerns the person of Jesus Christ. Today as of old, a proper response to the primary question, “What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?” (Matt. 22:42), constitutes a veritable touchstone of historic Christianity. Certain other aberrations in Biblical understanding may doubtless be tolerated if one is, so to speak, turned in the right direction with regard to Christology. But if a sect’s basic orientation toward Jesus Christ be erroneous, it must be seriously doubted whether the name “Christian” can rightly be applied to such a system. (It will be observed that no judgment is here passed upon individual adherents to such a system, some of whom may be better than they have a right to be on the basis of their professed denial of central Biblical truths.)

    One of the continuing features of this sect, which is taught in the early 10 as well as in the latest writings, 11 is a modern form of the ancient heresy of Arianism. According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christ before his earthly life was a spirit-creature named Michael, the first of God’s creation, through whom God made the other created things. As a consequence of his birth on earth, which was not an incarnation, Jesus became a perfect human being, the equal of Adam prior to the Fall. In his death Jesus’ human nature, being sacrificed, was annihilated. As a reward for his sacrificial obedience God gave him a divine, spirit nature. Throughout his existence, therefore, Jesus Christ never was co-equal with God. He is not eternal, for there was a time when he was not. While he was on earth he was nothing more than a man, and therefore the atoning effect of his death can have no more significance than that of a perfect human being. Throughout there is an ill-concealed discontinuity between the pre-existent spirit creature, the earthly man Jesus, and the present spirit existence of Christ Jesus.

    Since the Jehovah’s Witness makes his appeal to the inspired Scriptures to substantiate his beliefs, the only mode of argument which he will heed is the attempt to show (1) that he neglects to take into account certain important passages which bear upon the deity of Jesus Christ and (2) that he twists the clear meaning of other passages in forcing them to support his Unitarian views.

    1. In the New World Translation the opening verse of the Gospel according to John is mistranslated as follows: “Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” A footnote which is added to the first word, “Originally,” reads, “Literally, In (At) a beginning.” By using here the indefinite article “a” the translators have overlooked the well-known fact that in Greek grammar nouns may be definite for various reasons, whether or not the Greek definite article is present. A prepositional phrase, for example, where the definite article is not expressed, can be quite definite in Greek, 18 as in fact it is in John 1:1. The customary translation, “In the beginning was the Word,” is therefore to be preferred to either alternative suggested by the New World translators.

    Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, “… and the Word was a god,” with the following footnote: “‘A god.’ In contrast with ‘the God.’” It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall.

    As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, “… and the Word was God.” Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. … The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before θεος] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20:28, ‘My Lord and my God’].” 19

    In a lengthy Appendix in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation, which was added to support the mistranslation of John 1:1, there are quoted thirty-five other passages in John where the predicate noun has the definite article in Greek. 20 These are intended to prove that the absence of the article in John 1:1 requires that θεος must be translated “a god.” None of the thirty-five instances is parallel, however, for in every case the predicate noun stands after the verb, and so, according to Colwell’s rule, properly has the article. So far, therefore, from being evidence against the usual translation of John 1:1, these instances add confirmation to the full enunciation of the rule of the Greek definite article.

    Furthermore, the additional references quoted in the New World Translation from the Greek of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, 21 in order to give further support to the erroneous rendering in the opening verse of John, are exactly in conformity with Colwell’s rule, and therefore are added proof of the accuracy of the rule. The other passages adduced in the Appendix are, for one reason or another, not applicable to the question at issue. One must conclude, therefore, that no sound reason has been advanced for altering the traditional rendering of the opening verse of John’s Gospel, “… and the Word was God.”
    ___________________________________________________

    4. In still another crucial verse the New World Translation has garbled the meaning of the original so as to avoid referring to Jesus Christ as God. In Titus 2:13 it reads, “We wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus.” This rendering, by separating “the great God” from “our Savior Christ Jesus,” overlooks a principle of Greek grammar which was detected and formulated in a rule by Granville Sharp in 1798. This rule, in brief, is that when the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, if the article precedes the first noun and is not repeated before the second noun, the latter always refers to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun. This verse in Titus, therefore, must be translated, as in fact the Revised Standard Version (1952) renders it, “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” In support of this translation there may be quoted such eminent grammarians of the Greek New Testament as P. W. Schmiedel, 26 J. H. Moulton,27 A. T. Robertson, 28 and Blass-Debrunner. 28 All of these scholars concur in the judgment that only one person is referred to in Titus 2:13 and that therefore it must be rendered, “Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
    NWT: Titus 2:13
    (while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation) of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ,

    All other Bibles Titus 2:13
    (while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation) of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

    ______________________________________________________

    6. The New World Translation, in harmony with its bold twisting of Col. 1:15-17 (considered above), is also in error at Rev. 3:14, where it makes the exalted Christ refer to himself as “the beginning of the creation by God.” The Greek text of this verse (ἡ αρχη της κτισεως του θεου) is far from saying that Christ was created by God, for the genitive case, του θεου, means “of God” and not “by God” (which would require the preposition ὑπο). Actually the word αρχη, translated “beginning,” carries with it the Pauline idea expressed in Col. 1:15-18, and signifies that Christ is the origin, or primary source, of God’s creation (compare also John 1:3, “Apart from him not even one thing came into existence”).
    source

    Of course I'm in no position to argue any of this, nor would I care to, but it does point up the fact that the NWT translators played fast and loose with its translations so as to better fit its theology that Jesus was not god.

    .
     
    #17 Skwim, Sep 20, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2018
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  18. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    4,167
    Ratings:
    +2,414
    Religion:
    Christian
    What about when they kill their brothers? Or enemies, for that matter? Who is really "following Jesus' footsteps closely"?
    As Jesus said: "By their fruits you will recognize them."

    Give me any 4 translations, and two others (not NWT) of my choice....then I'll let the Bible defend itself.
     
    #18 Hockeycowboy, Sep 20, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2018
    • Like Like x 3
  19. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Sorry, just trying to sort the NONSENSE
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    2,702
    Ratings:
    +1,304
    Religion:
    I hope there is something out there that is smarter than me.

    Thank you. I hope that you do not lose patience with me because of my own stubborn nature. I won't bore you with my whiny explanation.

    As a result of my experiences, distrust and lack of respect colors my view of everything. I won't explain more. I trust in God. It seems clear to me that thousands of years of human existence have not proven humans to have endearing qualities. In our ridgid relationship with the Creator I fear that humanity in it's refusal to rely on God. IN view of that, I think and have said before that the desires of God for us are profoundly simple, and ultimately spiritual beyond our ability to comprehend.

    It seems that perhaps we are nearing the ultimate demonstration of faith and dependence upon our creator, no matter how flawed.

    Thank you for sending me this. I will study it more until I have a better understanding.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Anthem

    Anthem Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2018
    Messages:
    749
    Ratings:
    +155
    Religion:
    Lutheran
    Plankton.

    That was an easy one
     
Loading...