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 Where does the NWT Bible Falsify?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by tigger2, Jul 28, 2019.

  1. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,650
    Ratings:
    +8,307
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    You are refusing to see what the Bible itself is telling you. You take verses out of context and spin their meaning to suit your own personal beliefs. They end up saying the exact opposite of what you think they mean.

    Take Exodus ch3 from the second verse and you will see clearly that it was an angel....

    "An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within the thorn bush, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, but the thorn bush was not being consumed."

    The angel spoke as if he were Jehovah, conveying his words exactly as a spokesman should. Is God an angel?

    None so blind apparently.....:rolleyes:
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,658
    Ratings:
    +1,697
    Actual Biblical scholars agree with me, that this verse,
    Exodus 3:2
    Does not mean that God talking to Moses, was an angel, talking to Moses. So, you didn't do your research, because it's quite obvious, that it is God, speaking to Moses.
    Exodus 3:2-14

    The scholars explain this quite plainly, and of course it makes sense. Because that's what we're reading anyway.

     
  3. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,650
    Ratings:
    +8,307
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Actually Bible scholars are a dime a dozen...pick one that says what you want to believe....

    Here it is again....."An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within the thorn bush, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, but the thorn bush was not being consumed."

    I am beginning to think that English is not your first language......If Exodus 3:2 plainly says that an angel spoke to Moses and that he delivered God's words verbatum, then the angel was not God, but his representative, giving Moses a commission from his God concerning the plight of his people in Egypt.

    It is pointless talking to you because you cannot acknowledge what is plainly written in God's word.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,658
    Ratings:
    +1,697
    In english , 'I' is used when speaking in the first person.



    • sure, the biblical scholars are wrong, and you're theory even though it defys the verses, is correct.

    'And God called to Moses'



    It doesn't say, and the angel called to Moses, it says 'God called to Moses'.
     
    #244 Desert Snake, Aug 17, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,658
    Ratings:
    +1,697
  6. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,553
    Ratings:
    +289
    Religion:
    Christian
    Jesus Must be Jehovah - numerous scriptural evidences in the link below

    Jesus Must be Jehovah
     
  7. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,553
    Ratings:
    +289
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes, indeed. There is THE Angel of the Lord in the burning bush speaking as God. But it is no angel. Angel in Hebrew means "messenger". So it is the "Messenger" of the Lord (who is Jesus) identifying himself as God. In addition, the exact same Hebrew word for "angel" in the burning bush account is translated later in the Old Testament as "messenger," and in that passage it is a Messianic prophecy of the Messiah coming to HIS temple.

    "Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty." - Malachi 3:1

    So here are THE Angel (Messenger) of the Lord scriptures that show that that messenger is God. Because THE Angel of the Lord (not "an" or "a," but THE Angel of the Lord) is who is speaking as God in the burning bush account. Here's all the scriptural support for that. So, Jesus is NOT an angel, but God, and Jesus is the messenger of the Lord (the Father) in the burning bush account. This is a great read / study.

    Angel of the LORD | Precept Austin

    Excerpts:

    "Angel in both Hebrew (malak) and Greek (aggelos or angelos) means a messenger and Jesus as the Word of God (Jn 1:1; Re 19:13-note) is the ultimate Messenger sent from the Father with a message of the good news of God's covenant love for sinful mankind..."

    "Dr. Walvoord concludes that "there is not a single valid reason to deny that the Angel of Jehovah is the Second Person, every known fact pointing to His identification as the Christ of the New Testament."

    Cheers...
     
  8. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,553
    Ratings:
    +289
    Religion:
    Christian
    Here's more on THE Angel of the Lord in Post # 247

    Quotes:

    TESTIMONIES FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

    Justin Martyr - "Our Christ conversed with Moses out of the bush, in the appearance of fire. And Moses received great strength from Christ, who spake to him..."

    Irenaeus - "The Scripture is full of the Son of God's appearing: sometimes to talk and eat with Abraham, at other times to instruct Noah about the measures of the ark; at another time to seek Adam; at another time to bring down judgment upon Sodom; then again, to direct Jacob in the way; and again, to converse with Moses out of the (burning) bush."
     
  9. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,658
    Ratings:
    +1,697
    ^
    You might be interested in this.

     
  10. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    351
    Ratings:
    +280
    Religion:
    JW
    I don't see a lot of examples of the NWT falsifying scripture. How about this?

    So Many Versions? (SMV?), by trinitarian Bible scholars Dr. S. Kubo and Dr. W. Albrecht:


    On p. 108 we find a complaint about the NWT translating the Greek petra as “rock-mass.” But we see The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publ., Vol. 3, p. 381, declaring that petra can mean “a mass of rock,” and that this held true for the writers of the Septuagint (which was quoted in many places in the NT), p. 381.

    And W. E. Vine tells us precisely that

    PETRA (petra) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved.” - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 974.

    Vine also gives Matt. 16:18 as an example of petra used as a metaphor for Christ [“rock-mass”] which is contrasted with the metaphorical word-play petros [“rock” or “Peter”] for the Apostle Peter! (Compare the correct translation of Matt. 16:18 in the NWT with most other translations - also cf. Matt. 7:24.) Also notice the “strange” translations of petra at Matt. 27:60 in NAB (1970) and GNB !

    petra denotes a large ‘rock,’ but also a ‘cliff’ or ‘rocky mountain chain.’ .... petros is more often used for smaller rocks, stones, or pebbles.” - p. 834, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Kittel and Friedrich, abridged and translated by G. W. Bromiley, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 reprint.

    We even find A. T. Robertson admitting in his discussion of Matt. 16: 18:

    On this rock[petra] Jesus says, a ledge or cliff of rock like that in 7:24 on which the wise man built his house. Petros is usually a smaller detachment of this massive ledge.” – p. 131, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 1, Broadman Press.

    And we have the following notes found in C.B. Williams’ New Testament in the Language of the People and in the New American Standard Bible:


    16:18 – “…your name from now on is to be Peter, Rock, and on a massive rock like this [note e] I will build my church” - Note e: ‘A different word from the word trans. Peter [petros]; i.e., petra, a massive rock, meaning faith in the Christ, the Son of God.’- CBW.


    16:18 – “…you are Peter [note 1], and upon this rock [note 2] I will build My church” – Note 1: ‘Gr., Petros, a stone.’ And note 2: ‘Gr., petra, large rock, bedrock.’ – NASB, Reference Edition, Foundation Press, 1975.

    So why is the accuracy of the NWT denigrated by the trinitarian experts of SMV?
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  11. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    351
    Ratings:
    +280
    Religion:
    JW
    SMV criticizes The NWT's Ps. 1:2 - “But his delight is in the law of Jehovah, And in his law he reads in an undertone day and night” vs. the RSV's - “But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates [hagah] day and night.”

    The Hebrew word hagah here means:

    “to meditate; moan, growl, utter, speak... reflecting the sighing and low sounds one may make while musing, at least as the ancients practiced it.” - Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, p. 245, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1980.


    Gesenius also tells us that hagah means

    “(1) to murmur, to mutter, to growl.... (2) poetically, to speak. - absolutely (to utter sound)....[and] (3) to meditate (prop. to speak with oneself, murmuring and in a low voice, as is often done by those who are musing...)...Ps. 1:2” - Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 215, Baker Book House.

    And A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament says of hagah:

    " .... c) read in an undertone Ps I:2" - p. 76, Eerdmans Publ., 1988.

    So, just how do these respected Bible scholars of SMV get away with such a specious criticism of the NWT? Not only can hagah have the meaning of "reads in an undertone," but Ps. 1:2 is specifically mentioned as a verse where this is intended.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    351
    Ratings:
    +280
    Religion:
    JW
    Is. 58:1 - SMV criticizes NWT's “Call out full-throated; do not hold back” vs. RSV's “Cry aloud, spare not.”

    The Hebrew here is qara “to call” and garon “(with) the throat” -Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, pp. 28, 213, Eerdmans Publishing.


    And Gesenius tells us:

    “[garon]...the throat,.... Isa. 58:1 [qara garon] ‘cry with the throat,’ i.e. with the full voice. For those who speak in a low voice use only the lips...while those who cry with a loud voice propel their words from the throat and breast.” - p. 179.

    The NJV (New Jewish Version or Tanakh published by the Jewish Publication Society) is highly praised for its accuracy by SMV:

    “The NJV is a monument to careful scholarship .... It ranks as one of the best translations of the Hebrew Bible [the Old Testament] available.” - p. 143, SMV.

    And how, then, does NJV translate Is. 58:1? - “Cry with FULL THROAT.” Also compare NAB (1970) ['full-throated'], NAB (1991) ['full-throated'], Young’s ['with the throat'], and ASV [footnote: 'with the throat'] and OT Interlinears.

    So, why is this not noted by the authors of SMV? If their “monument to careful scholarship” can render this verse as “cry with full throat,” why should the NWT be criticized for essentially the same (accurate) wording?

    As with so many other critics of the NWT, the points being criticized are often more literally accurate in the NWT than in other more “praiseworthy” works.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    351
    Ratings:
    +280
    Religion:
    JW
    1 Cor. 2:7 - NWT‘s “sacred secret” vs. (according to SMV) RSV’s “mystery.

    Examine NIV, NEB, TEV, and GNB. But above all, look at the RSV, 2nd ed., 1971. This was the current edition of the RSV at the time SMV (1975, rev. 1983) was published. And yet, in spite of the fact that SMV claims to compare the NWT’s “peculiar” translation here with the RSV’s, we find that the RSV, 2nd ed., 1971 (as well as the revised 1952 edition), actually says, “We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God” and not “mystery” as SMV claims! And even the earlier 1946 RSV version reads the same! And the 1989 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) still has “God’s wisdom, secret and hidden” !

    The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology further tells us:

    "Practically everywhere it occurs in the NT mysterion is found with vbs denoting -> revelation or -> proclamation, i.e. mysterion is that which is revealed (cf. TDNT IV 819). It is a present-day secret, not some isolated fact from the past which merely needs to be noted, but something dynamic and compelling." - p. 504, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

    And The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia also tells us of musterion:

    "Its usual modern meaning (= something in itself obscure or incomprehensible, difficult or impossible to understand) does not convey the exact sense of the Gr musterion, which means a secret imparted only to the initiated, what is unknown until it is revealed, whether it be easy or hard to understand. The idea of incomprehensibility, if implied at all, is purely accidental." - p. 2104, Vol. 3, Eerdmans Publ., 1984.

    Notice what the word actually means:

    “In the N[ew] T[estament] mysterion signifies a secret which is being, or even has been, revealed, which is also divine in scope, and needs to be made known by God to men”. - New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., p. 805, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984. (Also see the MINOR study.)

    Even many Catholic scholars admit the above truth:

    “Mystery.... In a derived sense, the word is synonymous with divine secret.... In scripture it must never be taken in the sense (to which catechism has accustomed us) of revealed truth incomprehensible to the human intelligence (for example, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity).” - New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, p. 339 (NT), Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, 1970.

    Now, I ask you, why shouldn’t the NWT translate mysterion (musterion) as “sacred secret” when it actually means “divine secret”? It's too bad more Bibles don't 'falsify' as the NWT is said to.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    8,666
    Ratings:
    +1,320
    Religion:
    Christian
    Wonderful research and thank you!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    351
    Ratings:
    +280
    Religion:
    JW
    Rev. 13:1 - SMV criticizes NWT's “wild beast [therion]” vs. RSV’s “beast.”

    The NT Greek word here is therion. This word (therion) means “wild beast” in distinction to ktenos (“beast” or domestic animal) - New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., Tyndale House, p. 127.

    The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol.1, p. 419, also distinguishes therion as a "wild beast" in contrast to ktenos which is a domesticated beast. - Eerdmans, 1984.

    And W. E. Vine states that therion

    “almost invariably denotes a wild beast....Therion, in the sense of wild beast, is used in the Apocalypse [Revelation]...[Rev.] 11:7; 13:1-18; 14:9, 11...” - p. 95, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson Publ., 1984 printing.

    Noted NT scholar Gerhard Kittel agrees: see p. 333, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (Abridged in one Volume), Eerdmans Publ., 1985.

    And highly respected NT scholars Liddell and Scott write:

    “[therion] a wild animal, beast .... of savage beasts” - p. 396, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell and Scott, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing. (Cf. A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. vi, p. 398.)


    Adam Clarke agrees: Commenting on the word often translated as ‘beast’ in Rev. 13:1, Clarke refers us to its use for the four beasts in the Book of Daniel. The Hebrew word used for these beasts was היח (chaiyah).

    “This Hebrew word [היח, chaiyah] is translated in the Septuagint by the Greek word θηρίον, [therion], and both words signify what we term a wild beast; and the latter is the one used by St. John in the Apocalypse. Taking up the Greek word θηρίον [therion] in this sense, it is fully evident, if a power be represented in the prophetical writings under the notion of a wild beast, that the power so represented must partake of the nature of a wild beast. Hence an earthly belligerent power is evidently designed.” - pp. 1109, 1110, Vol. 6B, Adam Clarke’s Commentary.

    Also examine NAB (1970); CBW; CLV; TPT; Julia Smith; Rotherham; Lamsa; and Weymouth which all use “wild beast” at Rev. 13:1.

    And here’s how most Bibles translate therion at Mark 1:13:

    Wild beasts” - RSV; NRSV; NKJV; KJV; ASV; NASB; JB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); NEB; REB; AB; CBW; Mo; Byington; Webster (and Revised Webster); KJIIV (Green); Darby; Weymouth; and Lamsa. “Wild animals” - NIV; NJB; GNB; AT; NLV, Beck; and Phillips.

    We can see the same thing at Rev. 6:8 where RSV; NASB, ASV; NIV; NEB; REB; NJB; NAB (‘70); MLB; GNB; Moffatt; and Phillips translate therion as “wild beasts.” Also LB; CBW; NRSV; and AT render it as ‘wild animals.’

    Why do you think the authors of SMV criticizes the NWT's translation of therion at Rev. 13:1 when there is so much evidence for it? Hmmmm, I wonder.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    351
    Ratings:
    +280
    Religion:
    JW
    Recently I was informed by LDS missionaries who had knocked at my door that the NWT was a false translation. The example they gave was its translation concerning 'marshmallow'! They said this fluffy candy did not exist at the time Job 6:6 was written.


    Job 6:6 - "Will tasteless things be eaten without salt, Or is there any taste in the slimy juice of marshmallow?"- New World Translation (1971). (bolding is mine throughout.)

    The Hebrew word rendered here by the NWT as "marshmallow" is, according to Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament, [chal·la·muth] transliterated as challamuwth [or hallamuth] (pronounced khal·law·mooth).


    The New American Standard Version reads in part here "...white of an egg," its footnote in its Reference edition informs us "Heb[rew], hallamuth, meaning uncertain. Perhaps the juice of a plant."

    Another Bible translation, this time the English Standard Version reads, in part here:

    "...or is there any taste in the juice of the mallow" (bold mine)

    and its footnote reads: "The meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain."

    The Lexham English Bible renders it: “Can tasteless food be eaten without salt,
    or is there taste in the white of a marshmallow plant?”

    S. T. Byington's translation, The Bible in Living English (1972) reads:

    ".....or is there any flavor in marshmallow?"

    A University of Maryland site tells us:

    “Marshmallow

    “Overview:

    Marshmallow (Althea officinalis) -- the herb, not the white puffy confection roasted over a campfire -- has been used for more than 2,000 years as both a food and a medicine. The Romans, Chinese, Egyptians, and Syrians used marshmallow as a source of food, while the Arabs made poultices from its leaves and applied them to the skin to reduce inflammation. Both the root and leaves contain a gummy substance called mucilage. When mixed with water, it forms a slick gel that is used to coat the throat and stomach to reduce irritation. It is also applied topically to soothe chapped skin.” -

    http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/marshmallow-000265.htm

    https://www.britannica.com/plant/marsh-mallow also writes:

    marsh mallow (althaea officinalis), perennial herbaceous plant of the hibiscus, or mallow, family (malvaceae), native to eastern Europe and northern Africa. It has also become established in North America. The plant is usually found in marshy areas, chiefly near the sea. …. The root was formerly used to make marshmallows, a confection.”

    TheEpicTimes, June 28, 2011:

    Real marshmallow (Althaea officinalis) is a native herb of Europe, where it was also used as a staple vegetable in times of crop failure and can be found growing along the banks of tidal rivers, damp-meadows, in marshes and usually near the sea.


    Note that the plant is spelled as one word, "marshmallow" as well as "marsh mallow."

    Also here [ http://www.purplesage.org.uk/profiles/marshmallow.htm ] where we can read from its "additional comments":


    “Pliny wrote that 'whosoever shall take a spoonful of the Mallows shall that day be free from all diseases that may come to him'. Marshmallow is mentioned in the Bible and in Arabic and Chinese history as a valuable food during times of famine. In rural France, the young tops and leaves are eaten in salads for their kidney-stimulating effects. All members of the mallow family, such as the hollyhock and common mallow, have similar properties and can be used medicinally.”- [bolding mine.]

    In our copy of the Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (College edition, 1964) under "marsh mallow" we find two entries. The second reads: "a plant of the mallow family, with large, pink flowers, growing in marshes..." From this then we doubt very much if a reader of the New World Translation here at Job 6:6 would think the reference to "marshmallow" is anything but a plant.

    So, the fact is that the New World Translation's choice of the English word "marshmallow" is quite acceptable linguistically and above any pedantic, quibbling reproach from those who might prefer another rendition.

    Hence, there is no consensus among Biblical translators and scholars in how this word should be translated into English. Given that this is a fact that cannot be disputed and that there is certainly support for the choice made by the NWT Translation Committee for so rendering this Hebrew word chal·la·muth' as "marshmallow" rather than as "egg" or "purslane/purslain" then that choice is above any criticism even if one is to prefer another meaning such as "egg."

    And it is certainly no 'evidence' that the NWT Translation Committee "mis-translated" this "un-certain," "obscure" Hebrew word!
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    351
    Ratings:
    +280
    Religion:
    JW
    Of all the criticisms of the “peculiar” translations of the NWT that are found on pp.108-109 of So Many Versions?, one of the most interesting to me is that Matt. 6:17 reads “grease [aleipho] your head” in the 1984 NWT whereas the more-respected RSV (and NASB) has “anoint your head.” As minor as this is, it does show the great efforts taken by the NWT translators to translate accurately.

    Since “anoint” in traditional Bible English has strong connotations of “consecration to a holy or sacred use” - Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 40, Bethany House Publ. - and “to signify holiness, or separation unto God” - New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., p. 50, Tyndale House Publ., it should come as no surprise that the accuracy-seeking NWT translators used “grease” for all 8 instances of the word aleipho found in the NT to distinguish it from the word which is more properly rendered “anoint” (chrio in NT Greek).

    “In contrast with the more important word ‘chrio,’ it [aleipho] refers consistently to the physical action of anointing, performed exclusively on people: for care of the body (Matt. 6:17); as a mark of honor to a guest (Lk. 7:38, 46; Jn 11:2; 12:3); to honor the dead (Mk. 16:1); and to heal the sick (Mk. 6:13; James 5:14).” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, p. 120.

    That same source also tells us that

    aleipho ... denotes the process by which soft fat [grease]... or oil ... is smeared upon ... a person.” - p. 119.

    And Thayer tells us that aleipho is “allied with lip-os grease.” - p. 25.

    On the other hand, W. E. Vine tells us

    “‘Chrio’ is more limited in its use than [aleipho]; it is confined to sacred and symbolical anointings .... in the Scriptures it is not found in connection with secular matters.” - pp. 50, 51.

    The RSV has been revised. Significantly, the revisers have changed SMV’s model for the “correct” rendering of “anoint your head” to “put oil on your head.” - NRSV, 1989.

    So the NWT, instead of being criticized, should be praised for properly showing the clear distinction between the actual meanings of these two NT Greek words. The same thing can be said for most, if not all, of the criticisms of the NWT made by So Many Versions?.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    19,586
    Ratings:
    +1,525
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe the law is fulfilled by grace. Everyone knows the two laws but only by grace can one actually keep the law. Otherwise the law is empty words.
     
  19. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    19,586
    Ratings:
    +1,525
    Religion:
    Christian
    I would only say that I believe Isaiah wasn't the last person who heard what God had to say.
     
  20. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    19,586
    Ratings:
    +1,525
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe you think to much of your own opinion which probably isn't yours anyway since you have to parrot JW beliefs.

    "I and my Father are one." That is the most cogent one and there are many others.
     
Loading...