Trinitarians, please help me.

[Desert Snake]

Then why haven´t any of the Hebrew scholars who have translated the Bible into English noted this ?

Why is this only recognized by the Jehovahś Witnesses and the small group who created their Bible ?

The alleged translators of the NWT were not scholars, were not trained in Koine Greek or Hebrew, so then their interpretation of Greek and Hebrew, and their explanation of Hebrew grammar is superior to that of all the other translators ?

Strongs is a good concordance, but it isn´t Gospel nor the only concordance that exists,

John 1:1 is in Greek, or Aramaic, the argument is shifting, in other words.
The book of Yohanan is probably from Hebrew, or in that context. Just my take on it.

That word from the concordance...contextual, to my understanding.

If you are referring to something specific, would help to have some reference.

 

[Desert Snake]

Strongs is a good concordance, but it isn´t Gospel nor the only concordance that exists,

I don't use that concordance to 'tell me' what the name or names of God, are.

 

[Katzpur]

Actually, Paul gave witness about Christ being the angel of God. “For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,” (Acts 27:23)

An angel is a heavenly messenger. In this regard, Jesus was an angel. But, as the Only Begotten Son of God, He was definitely in a category by himself. He was unlike every other angel spoken of in scripture.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, but it goes much deeper. Elohim can be rendered God in the masculine sense or gods in the feminine sense when pointing to a creation. In the case of Exodus 7:1 it is can actually be rendered 'a god' in the feminine sense, which in turn means godlike one or like God. Same with the case about the Logos in John 1:1c.

Strong's Concordance
theos: God, a god
Original Word: θεός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: theos
Phonetic Spelling: (theh'-os)
Short Definition: God, a god
Definition: (a) God, (b) a god, generally.

This goes by 'specification'.
Genesis 1:26
For example. Just the name, 'God', although word is Elohim.

 

[Desert Snake]

God means, 'the Biblical God'.

note the difference
The god Thor
False gods
Other gods
'Satan' is the god of this world

God of gods, means, 'the Biblical God, the God of gods'.
This can't mean, anything, because then, it is vague.

 

[Desert Snake]

Then why haven´t any of the Hebrew scholars who have translated the Bible into English noted this ?

Why is this only recognized by the Jehovahś Witnesses and

It's partly correct because if specification. Just to note, JW's don't actually follow this argument,

'I am Tetragrammaton your 'g- d'

For example, if they followed the argument, then the word there would be vague, so forth. Could mean angel, or such.

There are other examples also.

However, noting by specification, Psalm 82
What occurs is the Highest God, talking to angels. Called 'elohim'. By specification, you know the context, and one knows it isn't the main God.

•
Otherwise agree, this isn't just a title, it has meaning, of course.
Speaking of which, Jesus never calls anyone 'gods', either, Jesus there is placing Himself as authority, referencing that Psalm, saying He's divine.
•

Important to note that God actually isn't just a correlate to 'elohim'.

That's another reason that argument just doesn't work. God as a name is used for more than one word, however again, without specification,

God means 'the Biblical God'.

 

[shmogie]

It's partly correct because if specification. Just to note, JW's don't actually follow this argument,

'I am Tetragrammaton your 'g- d'

For example, if they followed the argument, then the word there would be vague, so forth. Could mean angel, or such.

There are other examples also.

However, noting by specification, Psalm 82
What occurs is the Highest God, talking to angels. Called 'elohim'. By specification, you know the context, and one knows it isn't the main God.

•
Otherwise agree, this isn't just a title, it has meaning, of course.
Speaking of which, Jesus never calls anyone 'gods', either, Jesus there is placing Himself as authority, referencing that Psalm, saying He's divine.
•

Important to note that God actually isn't just a correlate to 'elohim'.

That's another reason that argument just doesn't work. God as a name is used for more than one word, however again, without specification,

God means 'the Biblical God'.

Elohim is just one of the titles of God, there are a number of others.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

An angel is a heavenly messenger. In this regard, Jesus was an angel. But, as the Only Begotten Son of God, He was definitely in a category by himself. He was unlike every other angel spoken of in scripture.

You are so right! But angel still means "messenger"...a messenger doesn't speak his own words, rather, he speaks the words of the one who sent him.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Elohim is just one of the titles of God, there are a number of others.

Look at Judges 16:23...Elohim was used to describe Dagon, the fish-god of the Philistines.

Titles can be applied to many entities (as "lord"); but only יְהֹוָ֥ה (in Hebrew) / Jehovah (in English) / Jehová (in Spanish) is used over 6,800 times, and only referring to the God of Israel.

 

[Katzpur]

You are so right! But angel still means "messenger"...a messenger doesn't speak his own words, rather, the one who sent him.

I agree 100%.

 

[Deeje]

If Christ and his Father are one, pretty self evident.

Jesus said that he and his disciples were "one" with him too......it just means being at unity with one another....unless you are suggesting that they were all part of the trinity too...?

If He was going to be stoned for calling himself God, pretty self evident, It was blasphemy for any Jew to worship anyone but God, yet Christ was worshiped, pretty self evident, Paul and Peter referred to him as God, pretty self evident.

Not so. Jesus never said he was God...NOT EVER...not even once. The Jews accused him of claiming to be God because a charge of blasphemy carried the death penalty....they wanted to bring such an accusation against him as an excuse to do away with him. If you see what he said in answer to those Jews....all he said was "I am God's son". (John 10:34-36)

Where do Peter and Paul refer to Jesus as God? Please provide the scripture. There is nothing self evident in any of that. If you have to twist scripture to suggest it then something is very wrong.

I can verify this by 10 different translations of the Bible that I own. One I have I cannot, the New World Translation. However, that alleged translation has altered so much of what was in the Koine Greek original manuscripts, I have little trust in it.

Why? Because we put God's name back where humans without authorization removed it?

Here is proof that ancient copies of the Septuagint retained the divine name in Hebrew characters in the Greek text. (left) and later copies replaced it with Kyrios.(right)

Answer me this.....if the NT writers quoted OT scripture and that scripture contained the Tetragrammaton, why is it wrong to restore the name to its proper place? It was unfaithful Jews who stopped uttering the divine name and removed it from human speech. Is that a valid reason to stop using God's name in whatever language you speak? I am sure that God as the originator of language knows his name in any tongue. It is evident that he had no problem with his ancient servants using his name, which they did quite freely and reverently right throughout the Hebrew scriptures...almost 7,000 times.

To remove it makes a mockery of the text....

Like the one in Exodus 3

From the NASB...
"3 Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?”

14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

15 God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations."

Look at this scripture in the Tanach and see the difference in the rendering, minus the trinitarian slant....

"13 And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"

יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:

14 God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"

ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:

15And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation.

טווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה כֹּ֣ה תֹאמַר֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר: "

First of all we see that God's name is not "I AM" so there is no connection to John 10:31-36 at all.

God's name is not a statement of his existence because the Jews already knew that he existed. His name was a statement of his intentions to "BE" whatever he needed to be in order to fulfill his purpose in connection with them.

In the English translation of the Tanach we see that Jehovah's name is substituted with the title "Lord" but in the Hebrew text you can clearly see the divine name, יְהֹוָ֞ה YHWH.

You will also see God stating that this was to be his name "forever"....to be "mentioned in every generation". The Jews failed again to obey their God. If they had retained the divine name, then the NT would not appear to be so ambiguous. Jesus and his Father would have been readily identified as two separate and distinct entities.

Here is another example in Psalm 83:18...

NASB...
"That they may know that You alone, whose name is the Lord,
Are the Most High over all the earth."

Tanach....
Let them know that You-Your name alone is the Lord, Most High over all the earth.
יטוְיֵֽדְע֗וּ כִּי־אַתָּ֬ה שִׁמְךָ֣ יְהֹוָ֣ה לְבַדֶּ֑ךָ עֶ֜לְי֗וֹן עַל־כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ:"

God's name is NOT "The Lord" as you can clearly see in the Hebrew text.....יְהֹוָ֣ה is the divine name of God.
Just as your name is not "the man" God's name is not "The Lord". Its not hard to understand is it?

I believe that it is your 'pro-trinitarian' "10 translations" who have got it all wrong.

Compare all the verses where you find the divine name in the NWT with the Tanach....you will see the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew text, even if they can't bring themselves to say it, even in English.

Berei**** - Genesis - Chapter 1 (Parshah Berei****)

I'm sorry but your arguments on this issue do not appear to stand up to scrutiny.

 

[shmogie]

Jesus said that he and his disciples were "one" with him too......it just means being at unity with one another....unless you are suggesting that they were all part of the trinity too...?



Not so. Jesus never said he was God...NOT EVER...not even once. The Jews accused him of claiming to be God because a charge of blasphemy carried the death penalty....they wanted to bring such an accusation against him as an excuse to do away with him. If you see what he said in answer to those Jews....all he said was "I am God's son". (John 10:34-36)

Where do Peter and Paul refer to Jesus as God? Please provide the scripture. There is nothing self evident in any of that. If you have to twist scripture to suggest it then something is very wrong.



Why? Because we put God's name back where humans without authorization removed it?

Here is proof that ancient copies of the Septuagint retained the divine name in Hebrew characters in the Greek text. (left) and later copies replaced it with Kyrios.(right)

Answer me this.....if the NT writers quoted OT scripture and that scripture contained the Tetragrammaton, why is it wrong to restore the name to its proper place? It was unfaithful Jews who stopped uttering the divine name and removed it from human speech. Is that a valid reason to stop using God's name in whatever language you speak? I am sure that God as the originator of language knows his name in any tongue. It is evident that he had no problem with his ancient servants using his name, which they did quite freely and reverently right throughout the Hebrew scriptures...almost 7,000 times.

To remove it makes a mockery of the text....

Like the one in Exodus 3

From the NASB...
"3 Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?”

14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

15 God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations."

Look at this scripture in the Tanach and see the difference in the rendering, minus the trinitarian slant....

"13 And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"

יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:

14 God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"

ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:

15And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation.

טווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה כֹּ֣ה תֹאמַר֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר: "

First of all we see that God's name is not "I AM" so there is no connection to John 10:31-36 at all.

God's name is not a statement of his existence because the Jews already knew that he existed. His name was a statement of his intentions to "BE" whatever he needed to be in order to fulfill his purpose in connection with them.

In the English translation of the Tanach we see that Jehovah's name is substituted with the title "Lord" but in the Hebrew text you can clearly see the divine name, יְהֹוָ֞ה YHWH.

You will also see God stating that this was to be his name "forever"....to be "mentioned in every generation". The Jews failed again to obey their God. If they had retained the divine name, then the NT would not appear to be so ambiguous. Jesus and his Father would have been readily identified as two separate and distinct entities.

Here is another example in Psalm 83:18...

NASB...
"That they may know that You alone, whose name is the Lord,
Are the Most High over all the earth."

Tanach....
Let them know that You-Your name alone is the Lord, Most High over all the earth.
יטוְיֵֽדְע֗וּ כִּי־אַתָּ֬ה שִׁמְךָ֣ יְהֹוָ֣ה לְבַדֶּ֑ךָ עֶ֜לְי֗וֹן עַל־כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ:"

God's name is NOT "The Lord" as you can clearly see in the Hebrew text.....יְהֹוָ֣ה is the divine name of God.
Just as your name is not "the man" God's name is not "The Lord". Its not hard to understand is it?

I believe that it is your 'pro-trinitarian' "10 translations" who have got it all wrong.

Compare all the verses where you find the divine name in the NWT with the Tanach....you will see the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew text, even if they can't bring themselves to say it, even in English.

Berei**** - Genesis - Chapter 1 (Parshah Berei****)

I'm sorry but your arguments on this issue do not appear to stand up to scrutiny.

What doesn´t stand up to scrutiny is your organizations erroneous and adulterated translation of the Bible.

You make a big issue of the tetragrammaton, then ignore it.

YHWH, the tetragrammaton was written in the Jewish scriptures because the name of God was never to be said out loud. The tetragrammaton has no vowels, it cannot be pronounced and no one knows exactly how the word was spelled or said. Jehovah is a man made word to show how the word might have been pronounced, it is not the actual name of God. As I pointed out elsewhere, the ¨J¨ was never part of the English alphabet till only a few hundred years ago.

Since I have studied this issue in some detail, I know the composition of your group who ¨translated¨ the Bible. This information is courtesy of one of the inner circle anointed at the time, and as far as I know, and I have looked, your organization never refuted his information.

None of these ¨translators¨ were scholars. None were trained in Koine Greek, the language of the NT, a couple had undergraduate classes in classical Greek, not the same at all.

I would be happy to share their names and qualifications, if you choose.

So now, you Bible is written with the assumption that the tetragrammaton should be in the NT, even though the foundation Koine Greek documents do not reflect this. Further, you assume that the made up name Jehovah should be in the place of the teragrammaton you assume should be in the NT.

So, 236 times your ¨translators¨ arbitrarily substituted their own word for what the Koine Greek scriptures used.

In other words, they manipulated Holy Scripture to say what they wanted it to say, not what it actually said.

This is just the beginning though. Being Arians, scripture that they deemed as too Trinitarian, they modified to where any Trinitarian conclusion could not be drawn from it.

This was in spite of what was actually written in the source manuscripts. I can share some of these with you, if you choose.

So, the New World Translation is not a translation, it is a paraphrase. A paraphrase written to support assumptions by the translators and members of the denomination that are not in the Greek scriptures as written or dictated by the Apostles.

A translation is word for word, and let the chips fall where they may.

Making the Bible say what you want, rather than what it actually says is to me a disingenuous grievous error of the highest magnitude.

 

[Deeje]

You make a big issue of the tetragrammaton, then ignore it.

YHWH, the tetragrammaton was written in the Jewish scriptures because the name of God was never to be said out loud.

Who said? Why would the Hebrew scriptures contain a name that was not to be uttered?
Why would Moses ask for God's name and be told to tell it to the Israelites as the name they should mention forever in all their generations, if it was forbidden to be spoken? That is utter nonsense.

To proud Pharaoh God said through Moses....."But for this very reason I have kept you in existence: to show you my power and to have my name declared in all the earth."

Jesus said of his disciples...."I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”

In the Lord's prayer what is one of the first things that Jesus teaches us to pray for?
"Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name".

The reason why the divine name slipped out of use among the Jews (long before the first century,) was more likely because they were want to making frivolous oaths in Jehovah's name, thereby breaking the 4th Commandment of taking the Lord's name in vain. Instead of working on the problem of not bringing God's name into disrepute by their word and actions, they chose instead to stop saying it. You can't be convicted of taking God's name in vain, if you never use it. Right?

The tetragrammaton has no vowels, it cannot be pronounced and no one knows exactly how the word was spelled or said. Jehovah is a man made word to show how the word might have been pronounced, it is not the actual name of God. As I pointed out elsewhere, the ¨J¨ was never part of the English alphabet till only a few hundred years ago.

"Jehovah" is the English translation of the name of God. The pronunciation of the four consonants of the Divine Name, YHWH, was lost because of the Jewish custom of not saying it even though it was written in the Hebrew text. They would substitute the title "LORD" (Adonai) every time the scriptures were read.There was no command from God to refrain from using his name as the Bible writers did freely and reverently.

It has been suggested by some Jewish scholars that "Yahweh" is probably close to the way it was pronounced (a transliteration) but they cannot be sure. Despite that fact, we know what YHWH means in English because it was revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:13-15, and it retains its meaning in English ( I Will Be What I Will Be) as does the name of Jesus. You don't call Jesus by his Hebrew name yet you believe that he is God. Why balk at God's name in English if you use the name Jesus? Do you wish to change all the "J" names in the Bible? Most of them incorporate Jehovah's name. So to my way of thinking that is a weak argument.

Since I have studied this issue in some detail, I know the composition of your group who ¨translated¨ the Bible. This information is courtesy of one of the inner circle anointed at the time, and as far as I know, and I have looked, your organization never refuted his information.

None of these ¨translators¨ were scholars. None were trained in Koine Greek, the language of the NT, a couple had undergraduate classes in classical Greek, not the same at all.

If all else fails character assassination works...right? No one is better at character assassination than an "ex" with an axe to grind.

"A Greek master text of the Christian Greek Scriptures that attained wide acceptance is that produced in 1881 by Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. It was the product of 28 years of independent labor, though they compared notes regularly. Like Griesbach, they divided manuscripts into families and leaned heavily on what they termed the “neutral text,” which included the renowned Sinaitic Manuscript and the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, both of the fourth century C.E. While Westcott and Hort viewed matters as quite conclusive when these manuscripts agreed and especially when they were supported by other ancient uncial manuscripts, they were not bound to that position. They took every conceivable factor into consideration in endeavoring to solve problems presented by conflicting texts; and when two readings were of equal weight, that, too, was indicated in their master text. The Westcott and Hort text was the one used principally in translating the Christian Greek Scriptures into English in the New World Translation."

Manuscripts of the Bible — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

So now, you Bible is written with the assumption that the tetragrammaton should be in the NT, even though the foundation Koine Greek documents do not reflect this. Further, you assume that the made up name Jehovah should be in the place of the teragrammaton you assume should be in the NT.

So, 236 times your ¨translators¨ arbitrarily substituted their own word for what the Koine Greek scriptures used.

In other words, they manipulated Holy Scripture to say what they wanted it to say, not what it actually said.

Is that what they did? Or did they merely put God's name back into the scriptures that the Bible writers used when the OT was quoted in the NT?

Please provide these errors and lets see how they stack up.

This should prove helpful....

A5 The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is just the beginning though. Being Arians, scripture that they deemed as too Trinitarian, they modified to where any Trinitarian conclusion could not be drawn from it.

This was in spite of what was actually written in the source manuscripts. I can share some of these with you, if you choose.

JW's are not Arians, even though we are not trinitarians.

"In one of the few writings of Arius that has survived, he claims that God is beyond comprehension, even for the Son. In line with this, historian H. M. Gwatkin states in his book The Arian Controversy: “The God of Arius is an unknown God, whose being is hidden in eternal mystery. No creature can reveal him, and he cannot reveal himself.” Jehovah’s Witnesses worship neither the “incomprehensible” God of the Trinitarians nor the “unknown God” of Arius. They say, with the apostle Paul: “There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are.”—1 Corinthians 8:6."

“We Worship What We Know” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

So yes, please share them.....I am sure that if we can explore these pro-trinitarian verses we will see something interesting.

So, the New World Translation is not a translation, it is a paraphrase. A paraphrase written to support assumptions by the translators and members of the denomination that are not in the Greek scriptures as written or dictated by the Apostles.

A translation is word for word, and let the chips fall where they may.

The purpose of a translation is to make the text easy to read and understand to the generation to whom it is provided. Personally, I began my Bible study with JW's using my old KJV. I still saw the truth very clearly but the archaic English was a real hindrance. There was no NWT back then. I still compare translations even today. I have not found the NWT to ever be in error once I researched the meanings of original language words and their use in other parts of the Bible. I am a Bible student and have been for 46 years.

Word for word translations do not really exist because phraseology is very different in many languages and the meanings of words themselves change over time. We will put the NWT to the test and see if it is accurate or not.

Fire away.....provide your examples, but be prepared to receive some back.

Making the Bible say what you want, rather than what it actually says is to me a disingenuous grievous error of the highest magnitude.

Yes, I agree, but who is guilty of this.....lets explore.

 

[Muffled]

God is an omnipresent Spirit.

 

[Muffled]

Christian trinitarians:
I would like to hear a thoughtful explanation of the Trinity without picking one or two bible verses and stretching them to fit into your mind’s view of this concept.

Also, please address my problem when answering.

My problem with the Trinity:
You separate god into 3 persons. Your doctrine specifically says the three persons are distinct.
To me, disinct means you draw a boundary around each, and describe the character and duties of each individually. Yes, a boundary, meaning there is a distinction between each.
Then you say the holy spirit comes to believers. Or he is sent by the father. How is it possible for this concept to make ANY tiny bit of logical sense? I ask this because you also claim that your god is omnipotent and omnipresent. Omnipresence means he is everywhere. That means the distinct person you call the father is everywhere. Everywhere means everywhere. There are no gaps. That would mean that the father is in me. That would mean that he does not have to send another person in his place. He is already here.
There is absolutely no logic to breaking the one God of the universe into 3 persons.

So, the rules are: no cherrypicked bible verses. No bible verses period. Just answer my problem in your own words. Like you were speaking to a small child. Consider me a small child.
Matthew 19:14. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
Think of the words from our Lord in Matthew 19:14. Let them sink in.

Do not hinder the little children with long complicated words like hypostasis, consubstantial, homoousius.
I don’t understand any of that. I’m a small child following my Lord.

I believe I should apologize for my previous post. I thought you wanted an easy answer but reading a later post I see you want an answer to your problem.

I believe there is a difference between being there and being connected. I believe there can be a connection between spirit and body. In Jesus, God is connected to that body. As the Holy Spirit (Paraclete) he is connected to all who wish to have Him be connected.

I believe in the Trinity the Father is the Spirit of God that is outside the body. God is everywhere.

I believe there is no break. God is one wherever He is. So the concept of God in persons is a perspective of God not an essential reality.

 

[Muffled]

1. Modalism

2. Latin Trinitarianism
2.1 Divine Life Stream Theories
2.2 Relative Identity Theories

3. Social Trinitarianism
3.1 Functional Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
3.2 Trinity Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
3.3 Perichoretic Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
3.4 Group Mind Monotheist Social Trinitarianism

4. Mysterianism
4.1 Negative Mysterianism
4.2 Positive Mysterianism

So, of all these, which particular styling of the Athanasian Creed's Trinitarian doctrine do you subscribe to and why?

I believe I do not agree with the Athanasian Creed and neither did the Nicene Council. I believe in the Nicene Creed. I am a modalist but don't agree with Sibellius. His simile breaks down. The Ice, water and steam simile doesn't work either.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

God is an omnipresent Spirit.

I can almost understand that concept.

However, I think I cannot quite get there because I don’t really know what ‘spirit’ means. It’s not a particularly easy thing to define, just like ‘faith’. imo

 

[Workman]

Christian trinitarians:
I would like to hear a thoughtful explanation of the Trinity without picking one or two bible verses and stretching them to fit into your mind’s view of this concept.

Also, please address my problem when answering.

My problem with the Trinity:
You separate god into 3 persons. Your doctrine specifically says the three persons are distinct.
To me, disinct means you draw a boundary around each, and describe the character and duties of each individually. Yes, a boundary, meaning there is a distinction between each.
Then you say the holy spirit comes to believers. Or he is sent by the father. How is it possible for this concept to make ANY tiny bit of logical sense? I ask this because you also claim that your god is omnipotent and omnipresent. Omnipresence means he is everywhere. That means the distinct person you call the father is everywhere. Everywhere means everywhere. There are no gaps. That would mean that the father is in me. That would mean that he does not have to send another person in his place. He is already here.
There is absolutely no logic to breaking the one God of the universe into 3 persons.

So, the rules are: no cherrypicked bible verses. No bible verses period. Just answer my problem in your own words. Like you were speaking to a small child. Consider me a small child.
Matthew 19:14. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
Think of the words from our Lord in Matthew 19:14. Let them sink in.

Do not hinder the little children with long complicated words like hypostasis, consubstantial, homoousius.
I don’t understand any of that. I’m a small child following my Lord.

3 parts that makes 1 whole..is trinity!

1) is your mind(every where like you say)

2) is your Heart(body)

When you find the two above and dedicate to God..(through your heart FIRST than towards your mind) you will than need your third.

3) is your understanding..(To Do) of what Your heart and mind tells you to do.

And if all three you’ve completed..will born you.. Amen(A MAN) so to for woman are included to this being born!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Thanks for your response. I completely agree with what you say here. Our finite minds cannot possibly grasp the infinite, not here or even in heaven.

Then why did Jesus say @ John 4:22-24: "We worship what we know"?

(Really, why did Jesus worship? And who?)

If knowing God is something we "cannot possibly grasp," then why did Jesus pray, "This means everlasting life, their coming to know You, the Only True God, and the one that You sent forth, Jesus Christ"? (John 17:3)

What does "the Only True God" mean, and to whom did Jesus apply it?

Maybe we should? Only?

 

[Bro Rando]

Then why did Jesus say @ John 4:22-24: "We worship what we know"?

(Really, why did Jesus worship? And who?)

If knowing God is something we "cannot possibly grasp," then why did Jesus pray, "This means everlasting life, their coming to know You, the Only True God, and the one that You sent forth, Jesus Christ"? (John 17:3)

What does "the Only True God" mean, and to whom did Jesus apply it?

Maybe we should? Only?

Jesus Christ worshipped his God and Father. When Satan tempted Jesus to worship him what was Jesus response? “It Is Jehovah Your God You Must Worship”

The Apostles would greet one another with the phrase, "Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Peter 1:3) Notice this statement after Jesus' Resurrection. Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17)


How Can You Know God Personally?