Quote from: Jem on July 21, 2013, 05:48:25 pmQuote from: veka on July 21, 2013, 05:14:48 pmYou are rejecting and resisting God's word. That is so sad. Repent and believe in the testimony of the Bible. Forsake those man-made doctrines.veka, the word of God was corrupted a very long time ago. If I may, Jehovah God's word remains as true today as it was when first recorded. I think what you're trying to communicate is that many have gnarled and contorted God's teachings or that many have tried to corrupt God's Word with their specious philosophies, yes?
Quote from: veka on July 21, 2013, 05:14:48 pmYou are rejecting and resisting God's word. That is so sad. Repent and believe in the testimony of the Bible. Forsake those man-made doctrines.veka, the word of God was corrupted a very long time ago.
You are rejecting and resisting God's word. That is so sad. Repent and believe in the testimony of the Bible. Forsake those man-made doctrines.
Exactly right, Snoochies. God cannot be a person.
You are the one lying before God.
@Curt J. O'Brian So why they arguing with me if they agree with me and why are they saying I am calling God a liar?plus, did you not say Jesus is God, but they are three separate beings in the same sentence you quoted to me?who is attacking who? So, I am going nuts, no one is debating me at all?wow Curt
We say they're three persons, and one being. God is one being, who is three persons. You hand is one hand, with five fingers.
Just a question in regards to God before creation took place. Taking the JW doctrine, God (Jehovah) (Father) is alone God. God prior to creation existed by himself. Not sure if you believe Angels to be eternal, correct me if I'm wrong here. If God in his essence was alone and God is 'love', what does he love, himself?
If we are made in Gods image, then wouldn't our nature be to love ourselves first? I guess in todays society that is true, but in general we desire relationship first which tells me that if we are created in Gods image, God then would also require relationship, but prior to any creation at all, how does God fulfil this if he were alone, did he just love himself?
Oh my, first you say I am fighting people that agree with me, and now you say they are fighting with me because they disagree with me.
Dude, I have respect for you, but to compare God to a made up TV show?
God isnt forsay a mind at all.Jesus wasa living person with a mind though
The Holy Ghost is a gift from God, its not a mind either.
Jesus is sitting at Gods right hand, he is not inside God.No where does it say that in the Bible, but it does say where Jesus explained he is sitting at Gods right hand.
No where does Jesus say is is God, he clearly asserts it 8926745478265 times that he is Gods son and the the Holy Ghost is Gods gift.
No one has shown one scripture that supports what they say, I have refuted many that have tried.No one has even attempted to refute the scripture I posted.
The King James version is the only version translated word for word and not twisted.
A better question is, why do you insist on relying on Bible versions that have been disparaged as poor translations of the original Bible languages? These mendaciously render יְהוָ֑ה as "LORD" when the Hebrew word for "Lord" is אדני – "Adonai".
In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as “LORD” in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered “Lord” for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered “Sovereign LORD.”
Quote from: God Is Good on July 21, 2013, 06:26:38 pmThe King James version is the only version translated word for word and not twisted.I saw this quoted by Lapwing and wanted to address it. The KJV actually is a very literally correct translation, which is good. But, the NASB is actually more accurate that the KJV. The KJV Vs. NASB debate primarily comes down to:NASB: More literally correct, uses Alexandrian manuscripts.KJV: Less literally correct, uses Byzantine manuscripts.You'll find that the NASB and KJV are very similar, except the NASB is a bit more readable for a modern person (it doesn't use the older style of English). I think both are good bibles, but I find the NASB preferable as it's more accurate in general than the KJV.You may want to research this yourself, though, to see.