It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Two Jehovahs of Psalm 110

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Can a force be lied to?
Can a force speak ?
Can a force be grieved?


can a person be poured?
can you be filled with a person?




posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
Can a force be lied to?
Can a force speak ?
Can a force be grieved?


can a person be poured?
can you be filled with a person?



The Holy Ghost is not a person, He's a Ghost. Boo!



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by miriam0566


The versions of the bible you use were derived by Westcott and Hort.

WESTCOTT AND HORT were SECRET PRACTITIONERS OF THE OCCULT !!

They were the founders of the Ghost Club.- Read what Duet:18-11 has to say about that.


lol. i dont really care.

anytime a scripture is in doubt i research the original greek anyway.




If you read Greek, What original manuscript are you referring to?

If Its translated, What Translation are you referring to?



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Except for Christ, no human being has ever directly heard the actual voice of the Father or seen His form and shape (John 1:18; 5:37; 6:46; 1 John 4:12).


john 1:18 - referring to seeing god.
john 5:37 - is specifically referring to a group of jews not humans in general
john 6:46 - again, seeing.
1 john 4:12 - seeing.

times when gods voice was heard.

matt 3:17; mark 9:7; john 12:28


So the Word was indeed the God of the Old Testament


im still failing to see how jesus being spokeperson for God, makes him God.


Of course, since Jesus came to reveal the Father (Matthew 11:27), the logical conclusion is that the Father was not generally known by those in Old Testament times except for a few of the Hebrew patriarchs and prophets. King David, for example, is one who understood (Acts 2:30).


ok, so jesus reveals who the father is. how does this make him the God of the old testament ?


Partially quoted earlier, Hebrews 1:1-2 states: "God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His [or 'a'] Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds."

In this opening passage of the book of Hebrews the clear implication is that the Father is the moving force behind the whole Old Testament. In context, verse 2 interprets verse 1. Though God the Father is the prime mover behind the Hebrew Bible, it is through Jesus Christ that He created the entire universe.


now you are confusing me. God (father) works THROUGH jesus, how does this make jesus Jehovah?


He dealt with man through the agency of the preexistent Word, Christ.


ok i agree, but still dont see how that makes jesus jehovah


Elohim is a noun that is plural in form but normally singular in usage—that is, paired with singular verbs—when designating the true God. For a comparable modern expression, consider the term United States. This proper noun is plural in form but singular in usage. It is used with singular verbs. For example, Americans say, "The United States is going to take action," not "The United States are going to take action." The plural form does signify multiple states—but, taken collectively, they are viewed as one nation.

It is the same with Elohim. The word Eloah, meaning "Mighty One," is the singular form. Elohim, meaning "Mighty Ones," is plural. And, indeed, there were two Mighty Ones, the Father and the Word. But, collectively, as Elohim, the two are seen as one God. Elohim said, "Let Us make man in our image, according to Our likeness" (verse 26).


im sorry but no. there is no comparable english expression.

it is a hebrew grammar rule that is well known. seriously, its not a mystery.

elohim when used with singular pronouns is NOT plural. it simply is NOT referring to multiple entities. this isnt a theory, its a fact.


It is also claimed that the Hebrew ‘Elohim’ is a uniplural or collective noun and that such nouns (e.g. the English noun ‘crowd’) often govern singular verbs. This claim contradicts leading Hebrew grammars, which claim that throughout the OT and when referring to the true God, the Hebrew noun 'Elohim' behaves as a singular noun, and governs only singular verbs, singular adjectives and singular pronouns. And only when 'elohim' refers to a number of pagan gods or humans (e.g. judges), that it behaves as a plural noun; and then governs plural verbs, plural adjectives and plural pronouns. So grammatically ‘Elohim’ is never a collective (uniplural) noun. That in reference to the true God, the noun ‘Elohim’ is singular, is well illustrated in Genesis 1:29, where this noun governs the singular pronoun ‘I’.


www.israelofgod.org...



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil


can a person be poured?
can you be filled with a person?



The Holy Ghost is not a person, He's a Ghost. Boo!


question still stands



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
If you read Greek, What original manuscript are you referring to?


i have a collection i have gained over the years.

i tend not to stick with one version. i find that comparing several usually will give you a better idea of what the scripture is saying.

www.greek-language.com... is a great site i use when i need to do research on a specific transcript

for general research, i use strong's



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
One thing about Miriam her knowledge of the bible and doctrine for a 28 year old woman is exceptional, she puts some pastors to shame.

The debate is circular in nature at this point, like a dog chasing his tail.

Sometimes people need to disagree and move on.

One thing I have noticed lately on ATS is a trend to discredit bibles, not just the NWT, that's not the issue. You quote from another of the dozens of online bibles and they get discredited too, minimizing God's word is a lack of faith that he can and has protected it.

Then eventually these people reveal their true selves through their posts, they are dis-info artists working knowing or unknowingly for the dark side.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
One thing I have noticed lately on ATS is a trend to discredit bibles, not just the NWT, that's not the issue. You quote from another of the dozens of online bibles and they get discredited too, minimizing God's word is a lack of faith that he can and has protected it


when you think about it, its an inevitability. when the bible is used instead of that "feeling" faith talk, then a few heads are bound to turn.

if the bible doesnt agree with your church told beliefs, then there "has to be a reason."

its why people like oliveoil could honsetly believe that the comma (1 john 5:7,8 KJV) belongs in the bible. nevermind what century it was placed, it agrees with the trinity.

i just find it ironic that people are so quick to label others as brainwashed when they themselves will use everything they can to justify false doctrine.

i guess it really is true, god calls you to his organization, not the other way around



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566





its why people like oliveoil could honsetly believe that the comma (1 john 5:7,8 KJV) belongs in the bible. nevermind what century it was placed, it agrees with the trinity.


There is over 5300 original Greek manuscripts in existence.

Out of the 5300 original Greek manuscripts only 501 contain John 1:5. Thats 4799 that do not!

Out of that there are 10 confirmed copies that contain the Johannine Comma. and 10 That are at this time unconfirmed
.
Here they are,

Metzger #61, #88m, #221m, # 429;#636,#918,#2318.
The Ottobonianus #629 Bible Society's 4th edition of the Greek New Testament.
D.A Waite #634 and Omega 110.
There is also 1 copy that appears in the margin of #6359 by Holland

How can anyone say that the Comma does not apper in The Original Greek Text is beyond me.


i just find it ironic that people are so quick to label others as brainwashed when they themselves will use everything they can to justify false doctrine.


I guess that the original Greek manuscripts were false


i guess it really is true, god calls you to his organization, not the other way around


So what your saying is that Gods organization is the Watchtower.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
However, I also believe that in some some early printed Greek texts (notably those of Erasmus) and later versions of the Latin Vulgate, and in the King James Version (which I use) All include the Comma.


so a scripture that doesnt appear in any greek manuscripts until the 1500's is "authentic" to you?

bible.org...


Exactly! Nicely put, well witnessed. What oliveoil refers to is forgery in practise. Why they added what they did, is irrellevant, the fact that they openly did it, only shows what a toy the bible has been for the PTB. Just like how the angel of a certain Talmudian school is "translated" Lucifer instead of Hilel in Isaijah. How the ascension of Jesju was added later, together with stories such as Jesju and the woman who was accused of sex out of wedlock, changing 616 to 666 and much more.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33



One thing about Miriam her knowledge of the bible and doctrine for a 28 year old woman is exceptional, she puts some pastors to shame.


I guess the Watchtower teaches their witnesses well.



One thing I have noticed lately on ATS is a trend to discredit bibles, not just the NWT, that's not the issue. You quote from another of the dozens of online bibles and they get discredited too, minimizing God's word is a lack of faith that he can and has protected it.


How can you even put the NWT in the same category Bible.


Then eventually these people reveal their true selves through their posts, they are dis-info artists working knowing or unknowingly for the dark side.
Were all on the same side. We all believe in ONE true G-d. Jahovah , or what ever you think his name is.

Point is is that there are contradictions in the bible. Contradictions lead to conspiracy
If we can resolve some of these we can have a better understanding of the true meaning of the bible.










posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil

Originally posted by miriam0566





its why people like oliveoil could honsetly believe that the comma (1 john 5:7,8 KJV) belongs in the bible. nevermind what century it was placed, it agrees with the trinity.


There is over 5300 original Greek manuscripts in existence.

Out of the 5300 original Greek manuscripts only 501 contain John 1:5. Thats 4799 that do not!

Out of that there are 10 confirmed copies that contain the Johannine Comma. and 10 That are at this time unconfirmed
.
Here they are,

Metzger #61, #88m, #221m, # 429;#636,#918,#2318.
The Ottobonianus #629 Bible Society's 4th edition of the Greek New Testament.
D.A Waite #634 and Omega 110.
There is also 1 copy that appears in the margin of #6359 by Holland

How can anyone say that the Comma does not apper in The Original Greek Text is beyond me.


i just find it ironic that people are so quick to label others as brainwashed when they themselves will use everything they can to justify false doctrine.


I guess that the original Greek manuscripts were false



I am posting this screen shot AGAIN of the Greek to English Translation of 1 John 5:7 so everybody can see that Oliveoil is lying and he won't even believe his own eyes, so that's stubbornness personified.



Now who doesn't believe the Greek?

Come on people are just Miriam and myself going to be the only ones that call him on this blatant lie that is so plain to see.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
How can anyone say that the Comma does not apper in The Original Greek Text is beyond me.


Below is a quote from Wikipedia, and as far as I can see this view would echo with current knowledge of the Johannine Comma and the Promise of Erasmus, reflected in modern Theology and historical and scientifical religious sciences:


The Comma Johanneum is a comma (a short clause) contained in most translations of the First Epistle of John published from 1522 until the latter part of the nineteenth century, owing to the widespread use of the third edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) as the sole source for translation. In translations containing the clause, such as the King James Version, 1 John 5:7-8 reads as follows (with the Comma in bold print):

5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth
, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

The resulting passage is an explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts, nor in the passage as quoted by many of the early Church Fathers. The words apparently crept into the Latin text of the New Testament during the Middle Ages, "[possibly] as one of those medieval glosses but were then written into the text itself by a careless copyist. Erasmus omitted them from his first edition; but when a storm of protest arose because the omission seemed to threaten the doctrine of the Trinity (although that doctrine had in fact been formulated long before the textual variant), he put them back in the third and later editions, whence they also came into the textus receptus, 'the received text'."[1] Modern Bible translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV and others tend to either omit the Comma entirely, or relegate it to the footnotes.

en.wikipedia.org...

Can you (oliveoil) please explain whether a Greek manuscript copied and produced based on contemporary Latin texts, translated from supposed correct Greek sources which are all gone and probably never existed, in the Dark Ages to found and justify mostly Catholic dogmatic Trinity teachings, are "Original Greek Manuscripts"?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Thanks for that additional insight.

Oliveoil talks about others being brainwashed and taught wrong, when he himself needs to realize he has an emotional attachment to false doctrine that he was taught at some point on this specific scripture.

And everybody can see it, but him.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

Notice how wiki says

'It does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts'

However it does appear in 10 out of the 501 original Greek manuscripts that contain the fifth chapter of John 1.

Metzger #61, #88m, #221m, # 429;#636,#918,#2318.
The Ottobonianus #629 Bible Society's 4th edition of the Greek New Testament.
D.A Waite #634 and Omega 110.

Does it really matter when. These are ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS !



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
There are two types of Greek writings.

Does anyone know what they are?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Metzger #61, #88m, #221m, # 429;#636,#918,#2318.
The Ottobonianus #629 Bible Society's 4th edition of the Greek New Testament.
D.A Waite #634 and Omega 110.

Does it really matter when. These are ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS !


Well, if you concider mideaval copies ORIGINAL, be my guest. Using that chain of thought I could myself penn a Bible in Greek and present it as an Original Greek manuscript. I would certainly be ORIGINAL in that I would naturally write in anything that would fit myself and the group I would represent. If I rewrote the Magna Carta, penning it in perfect Latin, only including the Geneva Convention and UN's Bill of Human Rights, it would be an Original manuscript?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Ok.

Byzantine and Alexandrian.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Blue Jay,

What text type is the one your using?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
There are two types of Greek writings.

Does anyone know what they are?


If you refer to Koine Greek contra "Other kinds of" Greek, for instance Greek Hellenistic dialects and Mideaval Greek, you have a point. All Original Greek NT MSS are written in Konie Greek. LXX OT is written in a highly Hebrew influenced Koine Greek for instance.




top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join