• 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!

Where does the NWT Bible Falsify?

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Your statement about what you believe is too vague.
I have my feelings about that. Anyone who keeps writing "g-d" or "G-d," instead of simply writing god or God (at least) has problems in recognizing right from wrong.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I have my feelings about that. Anyone who keeps writing "g-d" or "G-d," instead of simply writing god or God (at least) has problems in recognizing right from wrong.
No, you have problems understanding how the names are associated via words, which is why you can't read the Bible to where it makes sense.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, you have problems understanding how the names are associated via words, which is why you can't read the Bible to where it makes sense.
By the way, which Bible has 'g-d' or 'G-d' written in it with the dash between letters?
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Rev. 3:14 - 'Beginning' or 'Ruler'

The Watchtower Society says that when Jesus called himself “the beginning [Greek – arkhe/arche, ἀρχὴ] of the creation by God” - Rev. 3:14, KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, MLB, Douay, Byington, Rotherham, Lattimore, Lamsa, Phillips, Darby, Webster, etc. - he meant “the first thing created by God.”

Some trinitarians, however, insist that the word arkhe (sometimes written in English as arche) here does not mean “beginning” but should be rendered “source” or “origin.” A few even suggest that John meant “the ruler of the creation of God.”
...................................................

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler [arche] of God’s creation. - NIV.

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning [arche]of the creation of God, says this:" - NASB.

““To the messenger of the church in Laodicea, write: The amen, the witness who is faithful and true, the source of God’s creation, says: - GW.

The BAGD, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt (Translator), F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (Editor), has been revised as the BDAG. On page 138, the interpretation of Rev 3:14 that `ARXH [arche] of creation' means that Christ was created ['beginning of God's creation'] has been upgraded from poss. [possible] to prob. [probable].

"BDAG states that the meaning `beginning = first created' for ARXH in Rev 3:14 `is linguistically probable.' The sense `origin' or `source' hardly seems to fit the context of Rev 3:14. This meaning of the word does not seem to figure in biblical usages here or elsewhere. See Job 40:19." - https://onlytruegod.org/defense/revelation3.14.htm

Greg Stafford writes on this: "...a check of all the occurrences in NT of arkhe followed by a genitive expression ... show that it always denotes a beginning or first part of something." Further on he writes, "Thus the use of arkhe in general, and when used with a genitive expression specifically, favors (statistically at least) the meaning 'beginning' [rather than 'originator'] in Revelation 3:14." -Jehovah's Witness Defended, An Answer to Scholars and Critics, 1st ed.p.109.

It is because of this common Bible metaphor ("begotten," "born") that "father" was considered as synonymous (whether as "creator" or "procreator") with "source"! - See p. 190, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1984.

The famous Biblical Hebrew authority, Gesenius, tells us that "Father" [ab] means:

"Of the author, or maker, of anything, specially of the creator.... And in this sense God is said to be `the father of men,' Is. 63:16; 64:8; [etc.]. All these ... come from the notion of origin." - p. 2, Gesenius' Lexicon.

Trinitarian Robert Young in his Young's Analytical Concordance, p. 331, also shows this meaning for the Hebrew word ab: "Father, ancestor, source, inventor."

God's people have used "Father" synonymously with "source" or "origin" for thousands of years. When they wanted to use a word that denotes absolute "source" they most often used "Father." Obviously the Son is not the "source of creation" - his Father is! (And what could be more appropriate than the Father's very first creation being called his "Firstborn Son"?)

In all the writings of John you will find that he never uses arkhē (ἀρχ) to mean “ruler” but, more properly, always uses arkhōn (ἄρχων). If you will check the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (1981), you will find that even the very trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB) never translates John’s uses of arkhe as “ruler” but does translate arkhon for “ruler” eight times: John 3:1; 7:26; 7:48; 12:31; 12:42; 14:30; 16:11; and Rev. 1:5. Not only is this word (arkhon) always used with the meaning of “ruler” by John, but it is the only word he uses for “ruler”! (underlined verses use the plural form).

Notice that the only use of “ruler” in Revelation by John, is, of course, arkhon: “from Jesus Christ, ... the first-born of the dead, and the ruler [arkhon] of the kings of the earth” (Rev. 1:5, NASB; cf. ASV; JB; NEB; REB; CEB; CEV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; NCV; NIV; NKJV; NLT; ERV; ESV; GNB (TEV); GW; HCSB; ISV; LEB; MEV; Mounce; ETRV; WEB; YLT; Barclay’s translation; and a number of others (such as KJV which render it “prince of the kings...”). And it is highly significant that it is applied to Jesus in a way that most likely would have been duplicated at Rev. 3:14 if he had also meant “ruler” to describe himself there.

To pretend that “ruler” was intended by John in Rev. 3:14 not only ignores John’s strict adherence to always using forms of arkhon to mean “ruler,” but also ignores the clear scriptural Messianic use of the terms arkhon and arkhe! The well-known Messianic scripture of Micah 5:2 sets the pattern for uses of arkhon as applied to the Messiah. The ancient Septuagint version, often quoted by the NT writers, renders Micah 5:2, “out of thee [Bethlehem] shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler [arkhonta, a form of arkhon] of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning [arkhe]...”. Clearly, if John wanted to use the term ‘ruler’ to apply to the Messiah, it would have been the already scripturally-established arkhon NOT arkhe! Arkhe was also scripturally-established as meaning “beginning” when applied to the pre-existent Messiah.

Conversely, the only NT word John has used when he intended the meaning of “beginning” is arkhe. (The only apparent exception to this is archomai (arkhomai) found at John 8:9 - see p. 139 in the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. However, even trinitarian scholars admit that this verse is spurious, not written by John but added by a later copyist! - [Jn 9:32 should be more literally translated “from of old”.])

“ARCHE (ἀρχὴ) means a beginning. The root arch- primarily indicated what was of worth. Hence the verb archō meant ‘to be first,’ and archōn denoted a ruler.” - p. 103, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine (trinitarian), Thomas Nelson Publ., 1984.

The NWT's rendering is not only honest, but the most likely intended by the original inspired writer.

Not going to argue with you. I will never be accepted by the JW. Special Scriptural circumstances assure my future.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
I have my feelings about that. Anyone who keeps writing "g-d" or "G-d," instead of simply writing god or God (at least) has problems in recognizing right from wrong.

For me, God can be G_d, Allah SWT, Jehovah, or lots of others. Muslims say that Allah SWT has 99 names, but I think there is an issue in the translation between Classical Arabic and English. It is not for me to try to force others to believe exactly as I do.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
A more direct understanding of the other verses that note the Lord interacting, in the Old Testament, would be as I wrote earlier, the Word is the personal aspect of Jehovah, thusly Jesus being a manifested form of Jehovah, the Lord, which is also why Jesus isn't an angel, in accordance with Judaic belief regarding Jehovah.

You do realize that a nameless "Lord" is so easy to confuse with other nameless "Lords"?
That is why YHWH had a name....to distinguish him from other 'gods'.

Paul and the other apostles were not in any doubt about who was God....
1 Corinthians 8:5-6...
"For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him."

No ambiguity there. Their "one God" is "the Father" who is also the God of Jesus. Does one part of God worship himself? In all the situations where Jesus could have clearly identified himself as "God"....never once did he do so. Jesus himself identified his Father as "the only true God" without including himself. (John 17:3)
Even after Jesus returned to heaven to assume his position at God's right hand, he still calls YHWH "my God". (Revelation 3:12)

Nowhere does it say in scripture that Jesus is Almighty God.

• as noted in book of Acts, some of the Christians, were speaking against 'angel worship', yet, as Stephen says, the priests that he is rebuking, Stephen mentions what we might consider 'different gods', in other words, not the Host of God, or Host of the Lord.

If you read that amazing account of Jewish history told by Stephen, you can get an idea of why they wanted to kill him......it was the same stiff-necked rebellious attitude that caused them to want to execute Jesus. Please mention chapter and verse where Stephen mentions "the host of God". Please don't tell me that you have twisted "the Lord of hosts". :facepalm: Reading on, I see you have. Who told you that?

As it seems, when Jesus as a 'different god', or an angel, is argued, then references to the Lord generally, become very interpretive, or just too interpretive to present a direct argument.
• thusly a Traditional belief does work in the texts,

And there you have it....the very reason why the truth about the nature of God became twisted by the religious leaders of Christendom, just as the truth about the Messiah became twisted by the religious leaders of Judaism....man-made TRADITION.

Catholics and Protestants put their traditional beliefs and creeds ahead of God’s Word. I know this because I was once a part of that religious system.

The Jews regard the Talmud, with its compilation of human reasonings, as more precious than the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. To them the Scriptures are explained by the Talmud, but no one questions the interpretation.....Jesus did!...and he exposed their corrupt teachings. All these human traditions, no matter how ancient, will lead to false worship.

Jesus said to the Pharisees: “Why is it you also overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? . . . you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep paying respect to me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” (Matthew 15:3-9)

We do well to heed his words and check to see the origins of our beliefs. The trinity was not adopted as official "church" doctrine until the 4th century. What does that tell you?

• Jesus is a manifestation of the Lord
• the Lord isn't an Angel, and is an aspect of 'God' singular, as noted the Lord of Hosts
• Lord God singular reference means One God, therefore why we default the name Elohim, as singular 'God', when referring to the Biblical God.

Jesus is God's "firstborn" son, the very "beginning" of God's creative acts. (Colossians 1:15-17, Revelation 3:14) He is from God but he is NOT God. He is divine but not deity.

The title "Lord of hosts" is not speaking about more than one god in a single entity....nowhere does the Bible teach that God is three. The Shema states "one Jehovah". (Deuteronomy 6:4) God is the Lord of a host of angels...his army. He was Lord of those hosts of angels long before man came along.

Default all you wish...you can't make a single God into a threesome unless you have direct statements from Jehovah or his son to that effect...there is not one.

The trinity is an adoption, not a Bible teaching at all. Look up pagan trinities and see where these trinities of gods come from....

images
images
images
images
images


Trinities of gods have been around longer than Christianity.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
For me, God can be G_d, Allah SWT, Jehovah, or lots of others. Muslims say that Allah SWT has 99 names, but I think there is an issue in the translation between Classical Arabic and English. It is not for me to try to force others to believe exactly as I do.
If God can be G-d, Allah, Jehovah or others to you, then how would you define God? Furthermore, I know and believe this can sound difficult, but unless God reveals Himself to a person, he cannot know God.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
If God can be G-d, Allah, Jehovah or others to you, then how would you define God? Furthermore, I know and believe this can sound difficult, but unless God reveals Himself to a person, he cannot know God.

He is the Creator. We can only know what he reveals. Why is this an issue. This is tiresome. Micah 6:8 "What does your lord require of thee? Love mercy and justice and walk humbly beside your creator."

I think that humanity makes God want to puke. Sometimes I worry that he has walked away in disgust with no plans to come back. Humans are quarrelsome, jealous, divisive and violent. We'll destroy ourselves if we don't REALLY, ACTUALLY seek his will and stop pushing each other down so we can be above them.

This is tiresome.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
He is the Creator. We can only know what he reveals. Why is this an issue. This is tiresome. Micah 6:8 "What does your lord require of thee? Love mercy and justice and walk humbly beside your creator."

I think that humanity makes God want to puke. Sometimes I worry that he has walked away in disgust with no plans to come back. Humans are quarrelsome, jealous, divisive and violent. We'll destroy ourselves if we don't REALLY, ACTUALLY seek his will and stop pushing each other down so we can be above them.

This is tiresome.
The Bible says God will not destroy all humanity. Humans can be very, very bad and awful to the extreme. God will change that scenario in what I believe is the near future.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
He is the Creator. We can only know what he reveals. Why is this an issue. This is tiresome. Micah 6:8 "What does your lord require of thee? Love mercy and justice and walk humbly beside your creator."

I think that humanity makes God want to puke. Sometimes I worry that he has walked away in disgust with no plans to come back. Humans are quarrelsome, jealous, divisive and violent. We'll destroy ourselves if we don't REALLY, ACTUALLY seek his will and stop pushing each other down so we can be above them.

This is tiresome.
I really do appreciate that you quoted Micah 6:8, a very wonderful text telling what God requires. He has not changed. God will not allow mankind to destroy itself. It has been nice talking with you, I hope you (and I) have a peaceful enough night. If it's night in your time zone.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
I really do appreciate that you quoted Micah 6:8, a very wonderful text telling what God requires. He has not changed. God will not allow mankind to destroy itself. It has been nice talking with you, I hope you (and I) have a peaceful enough night. If it's night in your time zone.

Not a secret, but an unknown thing about me. I write post apocalyptic Science Fiction, and one of the most reasonable approaches to certain Religious things is "The Davinci Code". My own experience with Religious belief has been quite brutal. But, the Bible never promised the devout that life would be easy. There were times in my life when I laid in my bed apologizing to God that I could not be Job for him, that I was too weak and imperfect. "Job was perfect in all his ways..."

That may happen again. One of the things that I did to please God nearly landed me in the state Mental Hospital. I read the Bible and believed it. The admonishment from Matt. 5 is almost the same in many versions of the Bible, and no I do not allow mere men to interpret the Bible for me. We have the individual Priesthood of the Believer, and while I would like someone in my life, the Bible says that I do not need that. Notice that many of the prophets were lonely, and often suffered.

I will try to dialogue with those of other beliefs, but it is unlikely that I will yield to anyone. There is One God, One Belief, One salvation. It makes me sad that men try to completely define those things in a way that pleases them and try not to allow mystery to exist. We can not know God beyond what he reveals. The rest is mystery.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Not a secret, but an unknown thing about me. I write post apocalyptic Science Fiction, and one of the most reasonable approaches to certain Religious things is "The Davinci Code". My own experience with Religious belief has been quite brutal. But, the Bible never promised the devout that life would be easy. There were times in my life when I laid in my bed apologizing to God that I could not be Job for him, that I was too weak and imperfect. "Job was perfect in all his ways..."

That may happen again. One of the things that I did to please God nearly landed me in the state Mental Hospital. I read the Bible and believed it. The admonishment from Matt. 5 is almost the same in many versions of the Bible, and no I do not allow mere men to interpret the Bible for me. We have the individual Priesthood of the Believer, and while I would like someone in my life, the Bible says that I do not need that. Notice that many of the prophets were lonely, and often suffered.

I will try to dialogue with those of other beliefs, but it is unlikely that I will yield to anyone. There is One God, One Belief, One salvation. It makes me sad that men try to completely define those things in a way that pleases them and try not to allow mystery to exist. We can not know God beyond what he reveals. The rest is mystery.
God also reveals himself by the creation He is beyond our comprehension but this does not mean we cannot know Him. You quoted an apt scripture.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
You do realize that a nameless "Lord" is so easy to confuse with other nameless "Lords"?

They wrote Lord where the Tetragrammaton is.
That is why YHWH had a name....to distinguish him from other 'gods'.
What other gods? Anywhere where JHVH isn't written? Like Genesis 1:26?
Paul and the other apostles were not in any doubt about who was God....
1 Corinthians 8:5-6...
"For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him."
Yes, "one Lord', makes Jesus a manifestation of JHVH, that is why Jesus is called Lord.
No ambiguity there. Their "one God" is "the Father" who is also the God of Jesus. Does one part of God worship himself? In all the situations where Jesus could have clearly identified himself as "God"....never once did he do so. Jesus himself identified his Father as "the only true God" without including himself. (John 17:3)
Going by your argument, your god wouldn't be JHVH, since JHVH is the Lord.
Even after Jesus returned to heaven to assume his position at God's right hand, he still calls YHWH "my God". (Revelation 3:12)
...
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I think that humanity makes God want to puke. Sometimes I worry that he has walked away in disgust with no plans to come back. Humans are quarrelsome, jealous, divisive and violent. We'll destroy ourselves if we don't REALLY, ACTUALLY seek his will and stop pushing each other down so we can be above them.

I think what people feel is summed up in this George Michael song.......

 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
They wrote Lord where the Tetragrammaton is.
What other gods? Anywhere where JHVH isn't written? Like Genesis 1:26?

Since the tetragrammaton was removed from Jewish lips long before Jesus came to the earth, the ambiguous title "Lord" has been used as a substitute for the divine name ever since, and to this day confuses the true person of God, with the Lord Jehovah and the Lord Jesus fused into one God. Then someone threw in the holy spirit and bingo! There was a trinity all of a sudden......never seen in scripture before and never even been entertained as an idea in Judaism or in first century Christianity.

How many 'gods' are spoken about in Genesis?

Genesis 2:4 is the first mention of the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew scriptures.....(from the Tanach)

"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. [דאֵ֣לֶּה תֽוֹלְד֧וֹת הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִ֣בָּֽרְאָ֑ם בְּי֗וֹם עֲשׂ֛וֹת יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם]"

The divine name appears almost 7,000 times in the Hebrew scriptures, all substituted with "Adonai" (LORD) but not because God commanded it......it was because the Jews got into the habit of making frivolous oaths in God's name and failing to follow through on them, this being in breach of the third Commandment of 'not taking God's name in vain.'
Instead of pulling themselves up about that, they must have decided that not using God's name at all would solve the problem. So right up to the present they can't even write the word "God" without leaving out the vowel. For the life of me, I cannot see how this is supposed to be showing respect.

Exodus 3:14-15.....from the Tanach....
"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:


15 And 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:

What do you see there? "The Lord God" was a replacement for the tetragrammaton but only in English.....the divine name is right there in the Hebrew text. What did God say? "This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation."

Why did the Jews not follow through on that command? For the same reason that they did not follow through on any others. (Matthew 23:37-39)

Yes, "one Lord', makes Jesus
a manifestation of JHVH, that is why Jeus is called Lord.

Sorry, but that is an incredibly weak argument....the title "Lord" was not exclusive to God or Christ as Paul said..."there are many gods and many lords"......but the Father alone is Almighty God.
Sarah called Abraham "Lord". (1 Peter 3:6) Abraham wasn't a manifestation of God....he was a servant, just like Jesus was. (Acts 3:13)

Going by your argument, your god wouldn't be JHVH, since JHVH is the Lord.

At least I have an argument that is substantiated by scripture.....you have assumptions based on what...?...human tradition. All the best with that.....:facepalm:
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Exodus 3:14-15.....from the Tanach....
"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:


15 And 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:

What do you see there? "The Lord God" was a replacement for the tetragrammaton but only in English.....the divine name is right there in the Hebrew text. What did God say? "This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation."
If you read your own Bible, you would know that Jesus means 'Lord with us',
Matthew 1:23
Instead of the 'traditions' that falsly claim it has the same meaning as Yoheshua, or even the same name!

You can't even get Jesus's name correct, yet you're presuming to tell me He isn't the Manifestation of the Lord...
 
Top