The Bible Is All About Jesus Christ Being Exalted.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: whereislogic

The Reformers were especially upset by Campanus’ beliefs about the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. In his 1532 book Restitution, Campanus taught that Jesus and his Father are two distinct persons. The Father and Son “are one,” he explained, only as a husband and wife are said to be “one flesh”​—united, yet still two persons. (John 10:30; Matthew 19:5) Campanus noted that the Scriptures use the same illustration to show that the Father has authority over the Son: “The head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.”​—1 Corinthians 11:3.

A very good example of this is that when discussing the terrestrial Jesus it must always be with the understanding that you are referencing a terrestrial entity and not a celestial entity. We can somewhat understand a terrestrial entity in that of which we can associate by our terrestrial senses. Even at that there is a hidden portion of a terrestrial entity that we cannot understand and that is the spirit of life in the terrestrial entity.

In a celestial entity we have absolutely no understanding in either the spiritual image or the spiritual life. We understand that there is a spiritual body and a terrestrial body and we understand that the spiritual body has a life source and a terrestrial body also has a life source but we can go no further with this mystery than what is told by the teachings of the Apostles.

Let's have a look at those teachings then to see if they match your way of talking about "this mystery" "that we cannot understand".

2 Corinthian 11:3,4 (KJV)

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Jesus Christ: Insight, Volume 2

Master Teacher. His manner of teaching was remarkably effective. (Joh 7:45, 46) He presented matters of great weight and depth with simplicity, brevity, and clarity. ... His logic, often expressed through analogies, cleared away misguided objections and put matters in their proper perspective. (Mt 16:1-3; Lu 11:11-22; 14:1-6) He aimed his message primarily at men’s hearts, using penetrating questions to cause them to think, arrive at their own conclusions, examine their motives, and make decisions. (Mt 16:5-16; 17:24-27; 26:52-54; Mr 3:1-5; Lu 10:25-37; Joh 18:11) He did not strive to win over the masses but endeavored to awaken the hearts of those sincerely hungering for truth and righteousness.​—Mt 5:3, 6; 13:10-15.

Though considerate of the limited understanding of his audience and even of his disciples (Mr 4:33) and though using discernment in how much information to give them (Joh 16:4, 12), he never ‘watered down’ God’s message in an effort to gain popularity or curry favor. His speech was straightforward, even blunt at times. (Mt 5:37; Lu 11:37-52; Joh 7:19; 8:46, 47)

Something in your comment reminds me of Origen's way of presenting his teachings:

‘Going Beyond the Things Written’
...
Origen accepted some of these unscriptural doctrines, calling them the teaching of the apostles. But he felt free to speculate on other questions. Many of his students were then wrestling with contemporary philosophical issues. In an effort to help them, Origen made a careful study of the various schools of philosophy that were shaping his young students’ minds. He set out to provide his students with satisfying answers to their philosophical questions.

In an attempt to reconcile the Bible with philosophy, Origen relied heavily upon the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures. He assumed that Scripture always had a spiritual meaning but not necessarily a literal one. As one scholar noted, this allowed Origen “the means of reading into the Bible whatever non-biblical ideas were congenial to his own theological system, while professing (and no doubt sincerely imagining himself) to be a particularly enthusiastic and faithful interpreter of the thought of the Bible.”
...
This unrestrained approach to Biblical interpretation blurred the lines between Christian doctrine and Greek philosophy. For example, in his book entitled On First Principles, Origen described Jesus as ‘the only-begotten Son, who was born, but without any beginning.’ And he added: ‘His generation is eternal and everlasting. It was not by receiving the breath of life that he is made a Son, by any outward act, but by God’s own nature.’

Origen did not find this idea in the Bible, for the Scriptures teach that Jehovah’s only-begotten Son is “the firstborn of all creation” and “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14) According to religious historian Augustus Neander, Origen arrived at the concept of “eternal generation” through his “philosophical education in the Platonic school.” Thus, Origen violated this basic Scriptural principle: “Do not go beyond the things that are written.”​—1 Corinthians 4:6.

“Falsely Called ‘Knowledge’”
...
By mixing Bible teachings with Greek philosophy, Origen’s theology became littered with error, and the consequences were disastrous for Christendom. For instance, though most of Origen’s wild speculations were later rejected, his views about the “eternal generation” of Christ helped to lay the foundation for the non-Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. The book The Church of the First Three Centuries observes: “The taste for philosophy [introduced by Origen] was destined not to be soon extinct.” With what result? “The simplicity of the Christian faith was corrupted, and an infinity of errors flowed into the Church.”

For his part, Origen could have heeded the apostle Paul’s admonition and avoided contributing to this apostasy by “turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’” Instead, by basing so much of his teaching on such “knowledge,” Origen “deviated from the faith.”​—1 Timothy 6:20, 21; Colossians 2:8.

Source: Origen—How Did His Teaching Affect the Church?

Is. 43:9-13

9 Let all the nations assemble in one place,

And let the peoples be gathered together.

Who among them can tell this?

Or can they cause us to hear the first things?

Let them present their witnesses to prove themselves right,

Or let them hear and say, ‘It is the truth!’” [not a "mystery"]

10 “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah,

“Yes, my servant whom I have chosen,

So that you may know and have faith in me* [Or “and trust me.”]

And understand that I am the same One.

Before me no God was formed,

And after me there has been none.

11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.”

12 “I am the One who declared and saved and made known

When there was no foreign god among you.

So you are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah, “and I am God.

13 Also, I am always the same One;

And no one can snatch anything out of my hand.

When I act, who can prevent it?”

Bringing us back to Jesus reference to "no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father."

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: whereislogic

The answer is the Word of God -- [Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

So since verse 1 clearly identifies "God" as the one doing the talking and judging, everytime the Scriptures clearly identify "God" as the One saying something it's actually "the Word of God" that is saying it? Or do you only interpret this verse that way? In spite of "the Word of God" not even being mentioned in the entire chapter (or melody, cause it's a psalm, a song of praise to God).

Psalm 82:1,2, 5, 6

God takes his place in the divine assembly;* [Or “in the assembly of the Divine One.”]

In the middle of the gods* [Or “godlike ones.”; Hebrew: ʼelo·himʹ] he judges:

2 “How long will you continue to judge with injustice

And show partiality to the wicked?
...
5 They do not know, nor do they understand;

They are walking about in darkness;

All the foundations of the earth are being shaken.

6 “I have said, ‘You are gods,* [Or “godlike ones.”; Hebrew: ʼelo·himʹ]

All of you are sons* of the Most High.

*: NIV, ESV, NASB, CSB, HCSB, ISV, NET, NHEB, JPS Tanakh 1917, ASV, Dy, ERV, WEB and YLT all have "sons" there, even the KJV translates the Hebrew word as "sons" most of the time from the impression I got with my quick glance over on the biblehub page for the Hebrew word and the concordance you get when clicking that particular word on the Hebrew tab. Which reminds me of the phrase 'extremely selective and even deceptive use of Scripture' (bible verses?) if I remember the phrase right from the video with the atheist Professor I shared on page 12.

Cellarius got it right:

Cellarius distinguished the “Heavenly Father” from “his Son Jesus Christ” and wrote that Jesus was one of many gods and sons of the almighty God.​—John 10:34, 35.

That's what I'm seeing in the bible as well. It matches up, unlike some other teachings.

Since I was out of space in my last comment:

Understanding: Insight, Volume 2

The original-language words rendered “understanding” can refer to comprehension of a rather simple kind or can describe a full and profound realization of the inner nature, underlying reasons, and significance of complex matters. Insight, discernment, and perception are all closely connected to understanding.
...
Source of Understanding. Jehovah God is both the Source of understanding and the Supreme Example of its use. The splendid coordination and functioning of the universe, in which each creation serves a particular and harmonious purpose, with no clashes or problems resulting from a lack of discernment on their Creator’s part, manifest God’s understanding. (Job 38:36; Ps 136:5-9; Pr 3:19, 20; Jer 10:12, 13)
...
Knowledge of Jehovah God and discernment of his will combined with faith and trust therefore form the foundation of all true understanding on the part of his intelligent creatures. “Knowledge of the Most Holy One is what understanding is,” and this includes understanding “righteousness and judgment and uprightness, the entire course of what is good.” (Pr 9:10; 2:6-9; 16:20)
...
Those turning from the Source. The person who turns to transgression begins to discount God as a factor to be considered when making decisions and plans. (Job 34:27) Such a person allows his heart to blind him to the wrongness of his ways and he loses insight. (Ps 36:1-4) Even if claiming to worship God, he puts men’s precepts above God’s; he prefers them. (Isa 29:13, 14) He rationalizes and excuses his loose conduct as mere “sport” (Pr 10:23) and becomes perverted, brutish, stupid in his reasoning, to the extreme of assuming that the invisible God does not see or discern his wrongdoing, as though God’s powers of perception had failed. (Ps 94:4-10; Isa 29:15, 16; Jer 10:21) By his course and actions he says, in effect, “There is no Jehovah” (Ps 14:1-3) and leaves him ‘out of the picture.’ Not being guided by divine principles, he cannot judge matters correctly, see the issues clearly, evaluate the factors involved, and arrive at right decisions.​—Pr 28:5.
...
Relationship to Knowledge and Wisdom. Understanding must be based on knowledge, and it works with knowledge, though it is itself more than mere knowledge. The extent and worth of one’s understanding is measurably affected by the quantity and quality of one’s knowledge. Knowledge is acquaintance with facts, and the greatest and most fundamental facts relate to God, his existence, his invincible purpose, his ways. Understanding enables the person to relate the knowledge he acquires to God’s purpose and standards, and thereby he can assess or evaluate such knowledge. The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Pr 15:14) Knowledge must become ‘pleasant to one’s very soul’ if discernment is to safeguard one from perversion and deception.​—Pr 2:10, 11; 18:15; see KNOWLEDGE.
...
Knowledge and understanding together bring wisdom, which is “the prime thing,” the ability to bring a fund of knowledge and keen understanding to bear on problems with successful results. (Pr 4:7) The person who is rightly motivated seeks understanding, not out of mere curiosity or to exalt himself, but for the very purpose of acting in wisdom; ‘wisdom is before his face.’ (Pr 17:24; see WISDOM.) He is not like those in the apostle Paul’s day who assumed to be teachers of others but were “puffed up with pride, not understanding anything,” unwisely letting themselves become “mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words,” things that produce disunity and a host of bad results.​—1Ti 6:3-5.

Gaining True Understanding.
...

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding. -Isaac Newton

Paradox Synonyms, Paradox Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Synonyms for paradox
noun. contradiction, puzzle

absurdity
ambiguity
anomaly
enigma
inconsistency
mystery
[different color scheme]
error
mistake
nonsense

Antonyms for paradox

normality
[different color scheme]
accuracy
certainty
truth
understanding

More words related to paradox
...
fallacy
noun. illusion, misconception

ambiguity
bias
deceit
deception
delusion
equivocation
erroneousness
error
falsehood
misinterpretation
mistake
paradox
untruth

2 Pet 3:16b

...However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant* [Or “untaught.”] and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

"But we have renounced the shameful, underhanded things, not walking with cunning or adulterating the word of God; but by making the truth manifest,...
it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers,..." (2 Cor 4:2-4)

"veiled", as in obscured, ambiguous, unclear, a mystery.

Out of space again...

Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” Why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?

Because the Trinity is “not a biblical doctrine” (among other reasons such as misusing language, warping the meaning of words and logic, not making any sense, overcomplicating and obscuring simple matters and simple facts/certainties/truths, things that are factual/absolute/true/correct, without error,/conclusive related words and synonyms: unambiguous/absolute/unblurred/conclusive/clear, antonyms: ambiguous/obscure/vague, as if it's "veiled"). As is your "mystery" "that we cannot understand".

Source is from earlier with the semi-acknowledgement that it is "not a biblical doctrine" quoted as well. Top comment of the previous page and earlier. As Psalm 82:5 also shows, the bible does talk a lot about those who do not understand. Except it doesn't encourage basing your views about theological matters on the teachings about God and theological matters from those types. Whether they acknowledge that they do not understand something they're teaching, believing or otherwise adhering to or not.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Who's the "I" in the quotation Jesus uses above after "written in your Law"? Who is "he" in the next sentence of Jesus?

originally posted by: Seede

The answer is the Word of God --...

Why does Jesus refer to what you interpret to be "the Word of God" (i.e. the Logos, "the Word", mentioned in John 1:1, meaning "Spokesman", not to be confused with God's word as recorded in the bible, or the words that God speaks as recorded in the bible, or with the misleading interpretation of Genesis 1:3 "And God said:...", supposedly referring to 'speaking things into existence' or phrased as "speaks substance" according to that interpretation, connected to the new age sound vibration philosophies as promoted for example by Trey Smith in this video after 6:14 and also referred to in a different manner by Trinitarians like John Lennox, but that's a long story)...

Why does Jesus refer to what you interpret to be "the Word of God" as "he" in the phrase "If he called ‘gods’ those against* [Or “to.”] whom the word of God* came"? (sorry, my side issue became a bit long, *: "the word of God" here is referring to God's word as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures that came to the Jews by divine inspiration, not the Logos mentioned in John 1:1, as shown from the context that says "written in your Law", also referring to God's word,, i.e. the Scriptures, the Hebrew Scriptures in that case since the Christian Greek Scriptures weren't produced yet, the Mosaic Law is part of the "the word of God" as used in that phrase by Jesus)

Isn't "he" a word anymore that is used when referring to someone else? What happened to the normal use of language (since Jesus is "the Word" mentioned in John 1:1, why woud he say "he" then, wouldn't "I" be more appropiate if your interpretation of Ps 82:6 is right)? What happened to your earlier acknowledgement(?) that the term "the Word" as used in John 1:1 is talking about Jesus being a representative or spokesman for God (you acknowledged Jesus was a representative of God if I remember right) and not some other vague philosophical meaning? Why would Jesus refer to himself as "he" as it is phrased in that question? As soon as I see Jesus using "he" in that manner I clearly recognize that he's talking about someone else and not himself. Just like I'm not talking about myself when I say "he's talking about someone else" but I am talking about myself when I say "I clearly recognize". That's the normal rational use of language, no twisting, warping, interpreting, reading into or philosophy required. A short recap (sources listed on page 12)

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.​—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.

[whereislogic: John 17:7,8 (Jesus praying to his God Jehovah)

Now they have come to know that all the things you gave me are from you; 8 because I have given them the sayings that you gave me, and they have accepted them and have certainly come to know that I came as your representative, and they have believed that you sent me.]
...[switching source]
Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” ...
Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma.*
...
The True God Jehovah. The true God is not a nameless God. His name is Jehovah. (De 6:4; Ps 83:18)

Jesus says: "I came as your representative" and "you sent me" when praying to his God, the individual he refers to as "my God" on other occasions.

Is anyone here familiar with the concept of distinguishing between different individuals by the usages of "he", "you", "me", "him", "I", "your", etc.? The concepts of giving and receiving stuff, or a sender and someone who was sent?

When Jesus was with God (Almighty) in heaven before coming to earth, he was "a god/godlike one" in 3-5 senses, 3 or 4 definitions from A Dictionary of Biblical Languages w/ Semantic Domains: Hebrew (OT) apply. Between brackets is mine:

4. [a] mighty one
7. [a] spirit [being]
8. [a] heavenly being [which is essentially or almost the same meaning as 7, so that's why I said 3 or 4, the 5th sense is not listed precisely in this dictionary, see below and above regarding the terms "representatives" and "spokesmen" for Jehovah]
9. [a] majestic one

When Jesus is on earth in the flesh, nr 7 and 8 no longer apply, but he's still "a god/godlike one" in the sense of definitions 4 and 9. He's also still "a god" in his capacity as a representative of and spokesman for Jehovah (a definition that isn't listed that precisely in that dictionary but it falls under definition 5 listed in the video below, allthough that one is incorrect cause it already applies "judges" as the definition just because judges are referred to as "gods", but the word "judges" is not the definition or meaning for elohim, as explained before how these judges were "gods" in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah, that's the meaning):

a reply to: Akragon

Things that are different are not the same. Otherwise God would have preserved them that way in the preserved AV Bible.

For example LORD (JHVH in the TR, not YHWH as in the Alexandrian text) JHVH is translated 220 times in the book of Ezekiel alone from Chapter 2 onward, except for a few chapters (maybe 5 total) as capitalized GOD not the usual God and not the more normally used LORD.

When in Judges it goes from saying angel of the LORD to the angel of God there is a change that is not make them different but shows the Godhead in the OT.

You see the false claim that I just poorly read and skim over scriptures by Noiden is a falsehood. It is quite the opposite, I see details and differences that those who do skim over and poorly read, like Noiden actually does, and I can see unity of scriptures, I can see judgements from that of the past before Genesis 1:2 (a flood that placed water on and around the planet earth that did not have water on it. How do I know in revelation the new earth does not have any seas. I can see the godhead in and throughout the Old and New Testaments.

So give me a break and pay more attention when reading your Bible and compare it to the one I read and see if they are the same. I assure you if you did you would be amazed at what man has done to corrupt the word of God and make profit off publishing their corrupted and destroyed versions of the Bible.

But I am sure you have no time for such things in your busy day.

a reply to: Noinden

What would you know.

originally posted by: whereislogic
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: whereislogic

2 Pet 3:16b

...However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant* [Or “untaught.”] and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

"But we have renounced the shameful, underhanded things, not walking with cunning or adulterating the word of God; but by making the truth manifest,...
it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers,..." (2 Cor 4:2-4)

"veiled", as in obscured, ambiguous, unclear, a mystery.

Compare the scriptures in their context that God has preserved to the underhanded corrupt versions used above by whohasnologic, oh I am sorry whereisthelogic quotes and see the differences in those corrupt versions made for profit.

2Peter 3:14-16 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Cor 4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Did anyone notice there is not a "we" in verse 2 of 2Cor 4:2?

Did anyone notice the deletions and the additions and by all means compare ALL the versions our logic friend uses and see he has to create a context with misquotes and corrupted bibles to deceive this is the way of he Watchtower and Awake known as the teachings of the JW's to lure away people from the truth into their cult.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I know critical thinking and I've had you prosletyize at me before so....

a reply to: Noinden

why don't you just be truthful and say "Nothing".

That is your problem you have too much critical thinking and you use it in the wrong way.

But in reality you don't really have any critical thinking at all, however you do have by and large what we call, Cynical Thinking.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Now I know you would not be calling me a liar neighbor. There is no such thing as too much critical thinking. Your "using it the wrong way" is apparently using free will. I admit to being a cynic (in the classical sense, along with being a stoic) but no critical thinking neighbour, its actually a requirement in my faith.

An fhirinne in aghaidh an tsaoil. I know you don't do well translating. But it means "The Truth before the World" or "or the Truth facing the world" and it is the idea that you speak the truth. But as we know you do not respect others faiths. Thus, I shall not explain this more.

Prolly cuz he was da onlee won hoo exzallted others in hz tyme.

a reply to: Noinden

Ps 116:11 I said in my haste, All men are liars.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Well I am glad you admit to being a liar, your gun control thread amply proved that

However

This does not address the fact you are an anti-intellectual, and can not back your claims up. I have read several versions of the bible. I've also read Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc Holy texts. Can you claim to have done so? No that is right your so called preserved word of god, is no such thing.

a reply to: Noinden

While at the moment, the gun control thread seems such, but when the time comes you will see that the only part that is untrue would be that it didn't come "soon".

I am more intellectually attune than you claim. Not all books are Holy nor had the title holy in them until the late 1800's and that is a satanic doing that causes confusion as to what are the words of the True and Living God and what are not. Unfortunately your assumptions of me, as usual, are incorrect.

Yes I have read other religious writings. I have read the śruti and the smṛti, the Tripitaka,the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and Mahayana Sutras. Two different copies in English of the Koran, and also their Hadiths at least three times since 2001. I have read the English versions of the Code of Hammurabi, the writings of Confucius, the Egyptian book of the Dead, the Avatamsaka Sutra, the Lankavatara Sutra, the Vimalakirti Sutra, and the Lotus Sutra as these were the main teachings of Gautama Buddha. Also I read many of the demon led auto-writings of a person they claimed was named St Germain and his teachings of the violet fire. I also read the Ancient teachings of all Ages by Manley P Hall. All of these except the Koran and Hadiths were required reading of the Church Universal and Triumphant of which I was at one time a member back when their headquarters was in Malibu California. I left their group in 1993 after being a member for over 10 years when I got saved through faith upon Jesus Christ.

I also read many different animistic stories from different tribes, especially those that deal with creation or the first couple. Some of these are from SE Asia, the Hawaii myths and stories, Lakota legends and stories, also stories from the Ojibway tribes if the great lakes, the Monacan tribes of Eastern US, the Sioux and Iroquois tribes.
I have read 25 different English Version of the Bible other than the AKJV. And up until 2005 I read over a dozen different commentaries on the Bible since 1993.

So you are not dealing with someone as unread as you have let yourself believe.

BTW, all the writings I listed above are all currently available in English, no need to learn another language to understand them.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Good for you, you've read further. You don't quite get that translation inherently causes data corruption. Just as DNA transcription is not perfect, so too is Translation flawed. Lets dtake the Bible:

"Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live"in reality was in hebrew “Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live.” m’khashepah does not mean witch. Witch in herbrew is chasapah.

Thus your "preserved word of god" is flawed.

QED

a reply to: Noinden
"Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live"in reality was in hebrew “Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live.” m’khashepah does not mean witch. Witch in herbrew is chasapah.

"Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live"in reality was in hebrew “Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live.” m’khashepah does not mean witch. Witch in herbrew is chasapah.

Not quite right Noinden.
In the first place you have nothing of the autographs to try to play the word game. The KJV bible as well as most all other leading translations are using the word Kashaph or Sorcercer/ess which is witch or witchcraft.

The word chasapah is the Latin version of one who could be a poisoner who practices witchcraft. Understand that it could does not mean would or does but means exactly that it could be one who is a poisoner.

Now I hope you understand that you cannot blame the King James translators when they had nothing to do with the translation of Exodus in the first place. The KJV bible used the Masoretic text of the Aleppo Codex of the 9th and 10th centuries. All the translators did was use the same texts that were in play for centuries. You can go back to the Geneva or Tyndale translations and they also use the Masoretic MSS.

a reply to: Noinden

I am not reading a translation from men I am taking God at his word Psalm 12:6,7 that he has given me HIS preserved words just as he originally inspired them in the past but in my generations trade language of the world, which is English.

If a man does a translation without God helping to preserve his words that translation will be flawed.

Have you ever asked yourself why the AV is the most hated and despised Bible of all those who have made their own translations since 1880's? You do know that up until 1880's there was only one Holy Bible in English that was readily available for all men and that was the AKJV. From the 1880's they have made almost 400 different English versions of the Bible and none of them agree with one another. Even the NIV I, II, III and IV do not even agree with each other.

But the Devil knows by allowing men to create a multitude of versions, these conflicting Bibles have made other men think all bibles are corrupt because the plethora of bibles don't agree. And that now it is up to man to try and translate the incomplete copies of original languages into a bible that they believe is the closest and most perfect word of God, as many versions have claimed.

No matter what anyone wants any Greek or Hebrew word to mean, it is God of the AV who used God fearing men to preserve his words, so if he inspired them to use the word Witch, then it is witch not poisoner.

Finding God's preserved words you can hold in your hand is as much as an act of faith as trusting Christ to save you from hell by his righteousness and not of you own good works. I am using you in general terms not specific as in you personally. But it could be applied that way if you want such.

God's preserved Bible in not flawed, it is the minds of unregenerated men that are flawed. They want power over men, they ant recognition they are better than God. If you knew that they have destroyed doctrines of the deity of Christ, faith alone for salvation, Christ substitutionary or vicarious death for all mankind and changed it into doctrines of men by works for salvation which would saved no man at all. With doctrines of Devils that forbid men and women to marry, see teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Or abstaining from meats, specifically animal flesh, see the teachings of the Seventh day Adventist or sabbath observances, also see Seventh day Adventist teaching.

Or take Calvinism and their doctrines of men known as the TULIP, which deny what scripture plainly say for what men and their organizations say. Predestination is not a doctrine that affect any man outside of those who have already professed faith through Christ for their salvation. If one point is flawed it is by nature all flawed. The tulips wilts away when the Av is read in its context and not by an pretext as those who followed Calvin did.

But I have faith that God did preserve all his words to this generation in the current trade of English in the AKJV. He did so for over 300 years before any new English translation took place that would confuse the issue of preservation by inspiration.

As I have said and laid out why I believe the AV is the preserved word of God is not by looking at old corrupt copies of Hebrew and Greek but by comparing all the English versions to one another. And what I have found was, Number one, the AV has all the words, phrases, verses, sections and paragraphs in them. No other English Bible you can get and read today have them all. And all I did was compare the AV to the others.

Secondly I found that I didn't need any English dictionary to define the words in it because the words were defined in the context, not so with many words in the other English translation that are out there.

Three, there were English words that were used, were the ones that best represented the Hebrew and Greek of the copies of the original languages that were available to the men who did the translation. And where there were not any text or clear understanding they relied on God through His Holy Ghost to inspire them or they just left it as it was by transliterating the words to English.

Four, there is a built in cross-references that no man could have intentionally placed in the text by using certain words, phrases and sections in certain books and verses that spiritually connected other scriptures to each other for clearer understanding.

Fifth, by following the command to rightly divide, I have been able to see like many other true men of God, what was historical, doctrinal and spiritual teachings, doctrines and applications for Israel in the past, present and future, and what is for the body of Christ past, present and future.

And six, no man would write such a book that denies them of their own fleshly desires and goals. And that is just ot name six reasons for their are more but this many should suffice to make my point.

The AV is not a flawed book to those who are truly looking for truth, and to men who are truly saved by grace of God through faith on Christ alone.

Once I found that the AV was the fulfillment of what David said in Psalm 12:6,7, I have not had to spend many hours struggling in studying to prepare messages for the Body of Christ in so called original documents. I no longer needed to trust in or read other men's Hebrew and Greek dictionaries, or their commentaries to better understand. I now know I have the Holy Ghost in me to teach me by comparing spiritual things to spiritual and get understanding that comes from God and not from faulty men.

Bibles that are faulty are from men who are faulty, The AV was from men who knew they were faulty but trusted God would teach them what was correct and put it in the AKJV, so we could have God's words in our hands and know his doctrines, teachings and applications for our lives today without any help from other men but from the Godhead himself.

It is all by faith. And faith is not something you can teach any man. It is only something you can show him and it is up to that man to accept it or to reject it.

Good evening and good night.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

That is a mobius stripl level of circular reasoning. See because by faith, I believe what I believe. Except i am willing to admit it is just a grouping of gnoses (that is all faith is). Gnoses are not knowledge that can be proven. This is the point. You thus can not prove your "preserved word of God" is actually that. If I were to apply logic to your statements (as I have) they will not hold up. I don't begrudge you your gnoses, I refuse to accept that your way is correct, and mine is not, as you repeatedly imply. As usual with these discussions, you will end up making a threat against me, or another poster.

a reply to: Noinden

And you can't prove that it isn't preserved by the same argument.

The difference is I put my faith in God, and you put your faith in yourself and men.

Only one gets a man to heaven.

And as usual there was no threat against you or anyone. Assume to much young Skywalker, you do.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Only one gets a man to heaven.

Because a fairy tale tells you so?

You religious nuts need to grow up and stop believing in fairies.