Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 48
  1. #1
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727

    Try to use the Bible as evidence against Doctrine of the Trinity? ponder this.......

    *DISCLAIMER* Don't be discouraged by the length of this post. Most of it is scripture references to prove my point. Just make sure you read the beginning, scan the scripture references, and read the end. Oh and scriptfactory- I only copied and pasted the scripture references and the quotes, so you can't call me a plagerizer this time!


    Take a look at a brief overview of the history of the Jehovah's Witnesses' relationship with the scriptures......


    Watchtower Bible and Tract society created by Charles Taze Russell in 1872

    -Russell's teachings denied the doctrine of the trinity, as well as the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

    -Russell started the Watchtower publications. These are magazines and books which initially about 6,000 copies of his first edition magazine were produced. Nowadays the Watchtower produces 100,000 books, and 800,000 magazines daily.

    -Russell claimed that the Bible could only be understood according to his interpretations. He controlled every bit of info allowed in the Watchtower magazines.


    Since their beliefs weren't upheld in the scriptures they claimed to go by, they made this comment publicly in 1910:

    "Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years -- if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with the references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures." The Watchtower, September 15, 1910, p. 298.




    The point here is not to point out how many crazy things JWs believe, or how many bad marks they have in their history. There are many prophecies of their founder which never came true, scandals, and fradulent activities for which Russell was convicted of in court.(If anybody wants to know about that stuff, I'll post it later upon request, as it's pretty interesting) The point is to show how hard they tried to divert their people from the truth in the scripture. Well they couldn't do the job through all their brainwahing and "diverting publications", SO...................



    They published their own translation of the Bible in 1961, called The New World Translation


    "What's an organization to do when its teachings and practices are contradicted by the Bible? Why, you publish your very own version of the Bible. That is precisely what the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society did. In 1961, it published The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT)."http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j02ac.html



    -The NWT is defined by the Watchtower in their Reasoning from the Scriptures as "a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah" (p.276).

    -The members of the "New World Bible Translation Committee" were kept secret. So secret, that the Organization's president wouldn't divulge any names before a judge in Scottish court.

    -It was later revealed that the translation commitee was comprised of four people. And out of the four people, the knowledge and education of biblical languages amounted to only one of them, Fred Franz, taking a few classes in non-biblical Greek.

    -It is clear that the NWT was in fact not a translation, but an editing job. A job that was done to wipe away scriptual evidence of the deity if Christ, and things that conflicted with their other various agendas.


    "The New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself." Dr. Andrew Hoekema

    Changes that were made to brainwash JWs into not believing in the Trinity: (there were many, many others made,approx 55,000 total, but I'm only including the ones that pertain to the Trinity)


    Genesis 1:2
    "Spirit of God" changed to "God's active force."


    The revision modifies the original noun with a more impersonal form as the JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit.

    Exodus 3:14
    "I am" changed to "I shall prove to be."


    The revision clouds the connection between God's self proclaimed title and Jesus' proclamation of being the same in John 8:58, as the JW rejects the deity of Jesus.

    Isaiah 43:10
    "Nor will there be one after me" changed to "after me there continued to be none."


    The original future tense of the verb indicates that there will never be another being sharing in God's divinity. The altered tense suggests credibility to the JW doctrine of Jesus' becoming a "mighty god" while still being less than Jehovah in nature. (See the John 1: I discussion below for another expression of this JW distortion.)

    Matthew 2:11
    "Bowed down and worshipped him" changed to "did obeisance to it"


    The JWs evade recognizing Jesus as worthy of worship as a divine being by altering the form of honor that he receives from men and angels. The Greek word proskuneo literally means "worship." The use of "obeisance" is a NWT adaptation. (Same revision found in Matt. 8:2; 9:18, 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; 15:19; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6.)

    Luke 12:8
    "Acknowledges me" changed to "confesses union with me."


    The addition of "union" suggest something more than what the original Greek actually states and adds further credibility to the NWT distortion presented in John 6:5-6 below.

    John 1:1
    "Word was God" changed to "Word was a god."


    The JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the deity of Jesus. The revision asserts that Jesus was someone other than God Himself.


    John 6:56
    "Remains in me" changed to "remains in union with me."


    The mystical union between the individual human spirit and the Spirit of Jesus is obscured by restructuring "in" with a compound form. The substitution implies more separation between a Christian and Jesus. (Same revision found in John 14:20; Rom. 8:1, 2, 10; 12:5; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 1:13*; 2:10, 13, 15, 21, 22; 3:6; Col. 1:14*, 16*, 27; 2:6, 10*, 11, 12*; 3:3; 1 Thes. 4:16; 5:18; 1 John 3:24; 4:4; 5:20. Verses with an asterisk (*) indicate where the revision uses "by means of" or "in relationship to" rather than "in union with.")

    John 8:58
    "I am" changed to "I have been."


    Same intent as described in Exodus 3:14 above.

    John 14:14
    "IF YOU ask [me] anything in my name, I will do it."
    "me" is omitted to deny the fact we pray to Jesus.


    John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads; "IF YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it." The Greek text in the KIT, however, has ME after ask, so that it should be translated; "If you ask ME anything in my name, I will do it." It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones include it, and most modern editions of the Greek NT include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this in a note!

    John 14:17
    "Beholds him or knows him" changed to "beholds it or knows it."


    The revision ignores the context of the pronoun with the Comforter role in the preceding verse to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.

    John 17:5
    "Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you" changed to "glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you."


    The original text reflects the shared deity of God the Father and Jesus before the creation of the world, but the revision suggests different natures as implied by different states of glory.

    John 17:21
    "Are in me" changed to "are in union with me."


    The original statement by Jesus indicates his shared deity with the Father. The revision undermines this by suggesting a greater separation between them.

    Acts 10:36
    "Lord of all" changed to "Lord of all [others]."


    The revision suggests that even though Jesus is highly honored, he is still one among many of God's created beings. (Similar revisions found in Rom. 8:32; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1: 16-17.)

    Acts 20:28
    They change "God purchased the church with His own blood" to God purchased the church with the blood of His son"


    Wrath and indignation will come to every Jw from the Governing Body, who even suggests God purchased the church with His own blood... the blood of Jesus... who is God!

    Romans 2:29
    "By the Spirit" changed to "by spirit."


    Although the definite article 'the" does not literally appear in the Greek, it is implied by the form that (pneuma) appears in. The revision, however, translates pneuma in a more abstract form to evade the reality of the Holy Spirit. (Same revision found in Rom. 15:19; Eph. 2:22; 3:5; Titus 3:5; James 2:26; 2 Peter 1:21.)

    Romans 8:23a
    "Have the firstfruits of the Spirit" changed to "have the firstfruits, namely the spirit."


    This represents another form of disguising the separate personality of the Holy Spirit as in Rom. 2:29 above. The original text refers to the derivatives of the Spirit, but the revision identifies the spirit as a derivative.

    Romans 9:5
    "Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!" changed to "Christ, [sprang] according to the flesh: God who is over all, [be] blessed forever."


    The direction proclamation that Christ is God is obscured by the altered text.

    Romans 10:13
    "Lord" changed to "Jehovah."


    This revision obscures the fact that the Lord referred to in verse 13 is the same Lord called Jesus in verse 9. Since the JWs reject the deity of Jesus, the revision is made accordingly. The Greek word, kurios, translated "Lord" has been revised to "Jehovah" over 200 times in the NWT. The JWs insist that this is the only valid title for God, even though Greek-speaking Jews used "Lord" and "God" in place of "Yahweh" (the source of "Jehovah") throughout their Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Bible contains dozens of names for God other than Lord, Yahweh, or Jehovah.

    1 Corinthians 6:19
    "Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit" changed to "the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the holy spirit."



    To avoid recognition of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, the revision modifies "body" to a more collective form in harmony with the opposing JW doctrine.

    1 Corinthians 10:4
    "The Rock was Christ" changed to "that rock-mass meant the Christ."


    The passage depicts the preincarnate Jesus exhibiting his divine nature by being present many centuries earlier. This revision tries to conceal his eternal nature with a more figurative interpretation of "the Rock."

    1 Corinthians 12:11
    "As he determines" changed to "as it wills."


    The NWT finds many ways to disguise the personality of the Holy Spirit. In this case the third person pronoun exercising individual conscience and will is replaced with an impersonal pronoun.

    1 Corinthians 14:14-16
    "Spirit" changed to "[gift of the] spirit."


    Like several other Biblical passages, this one indicates the distinctive presence of the human spirit as distinguished from the mind and body. The JWs evade these distinctions and try to disguise them with related revisions.
    The phrase GIFT OF THE is added in brackets five times, changing "SPIRIT" to "[GIFT OF THE] SPIRIT." The NWT elsewhere frequently paraphrases the simple word SPIRIT, especially when referring to the immaterial aspect of human nature, to avoid the implication that such a spirit has a reality distinct from the body. For instance, Heb 12:19 "the Father of spirits" (or the spirits) becomes "the Father of OUR SPIRITUAL LIFE." In Gal. 6:18 "your spirit" is paraphrased "THE SPIRIT YOU SHOW." Similar rewording's are introduced in passages where the simple translation of "spirit" or "Spirit" might imply that God's Spirit is a person, contrary to the JW's doctrine that the Holy Spirit is God's "active force." So, Jude's description of certain men as "not having the Spirit" (or more literally, not having spirit") is rendered "NOT HAVING SPIRITUALITY" (Jude 19).

    Galatians 6:18
    "Your spirit" changed to "the spirit YOU [show]."


    Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision above, this one attempts to obscure the reality of the individual human spirit by presenting it more as an attitude of action than an entity.

    Phil 2:6
    "Although Jesus existed in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself" (He grasped equality and let it go to become a man) has been changed to "although Jesus was existing in God's form, he gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God."


    NWT teaches that Jesus was never equal with God nor did he ever grasp at it. Notice the word seizure, which implies grabbing that which is not yours to grab ie equality. If Jesus was created by God, why would He be considered humble for not thinking of himself as equal to God. That is not humility, but reality! However since Jesus was equal to God, it would require great humility to give up his status as God and become a man through Mary.

    Col 1:16-20
    the word "[other]" has been added 5 times where it is not in the Greek


    Awful embarrassing for Jw’s to read this verse with the [other] removed. Why it would mean Jesus was not a creature but God. By adding "other" to "all other things" Jw’s attempt to avoid the obvious original intent of the Greek that Jesus is above all created things implying Jesus is not a creature!
    The addition of the word OTHER is usually justified by an appeal to such texts as Luke 11:41-42 and Luke 13:2,4, where the word OTHER is also added after the word ALL. However, in tese passages (and in others were the same practice is rightly followed) the addition of the word OTHER doesn't change the meaning, but simply makes it read smoother. In Col 1:16-20, however, whether one adds "OTHER" makes a great deal of difference to the meaning! What is so often noticed is that the NWT does this same thing in several other passages as well (Acts 10:36; Rom 8:32; Phil 2:9). In Rom 8:32, the word OTHER is not even placed in brackets, contrary to the work's stated practice. In all of these text, the intent seems to be to undermine the implication of the text that Jesus Christ is God.

    Colossians 1:19
    "His fullness" changed to "fullness."


    The definite Greek article (to), translated "his," indicates that Jesus shares the Father's divine nature as also shown in Col. 2:9. The revisions evade the truth by conce****g the similarity of the two passages.
    Also notable is Col 1:19 "because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him." Here the little word THE is omitted before FULLNESS. This is significant, because NWT renders "ALL FULLNESS" is ambiguous, whereas "ALL THE FULLNESS" clearly refers to the fullness of God's own being (compare Col 2:9).

    Col 2:6-12
    Again, in Col 2:6-12 "IN HIM" and "IN WHOM" (en auto, en ho) becomes "IN UNION WITH HIM" (v.6) "IN HIM" (V.V. 7,9) "BY MEANS OF HIM" (V. 10) and "BY RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM" (V.V..11,12). These variations serve only JW doctrine! They have no other purpose, they undermine the unity of the passage, which is that Christian life consists solely of a supernatural relationship with God through faith in Christ. There are many other passages where IN is paraphrased to avoid the otherwise clear meaning of the text. For example, In Matt. 5:19 IN becomes "IN RELATION TO" so as to avoid the passages teaching that some who disobey the law's commandments and teach others to do so will nevertheless be accepted "in the kingdom of heaven" (which JW's believe will be restricted to the 144,000 special chosen and sanctified believers).

    Colossians 2:9
    "The fullness of deity" changed to "the fullness of the divine quality."


    The Greek theotes, translated "deity," literally means divine essence or divinity. As the JWs reject the divine nature of Jesus, a revision is inserted to suggest that Jesus is limited to only divine-like characteristics.

    I Timothy 4:1
    "The Spirit" changed to "the inspired utterance."


    This revision attempts to obscure the reality and activity of the Holy Spirit by representing it as a message instead of an entity. (Similar revisions found in 1 John 4:1, 3, 6 with "expression" being utilized in place of "utterance.") A straightforward "the SPIRIT says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "Spirit".

    Titus 2:13
    "Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" changed to "the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus."


    Similar to the Rom. 9:5 revision shown above, a distinct proclamation of Jesus as God is obscured by the altered text. (Similar rewording also found in 2 Peter 1:1.)

    Hebrews 1:6
    "But when He again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels worship him' ." (New World Translation, 1950, 1961, 1970 editions,


    The NWT revised 1971 edition was changed to read, "do obeisance to" rather than "worship". This change remains to this day, even though the original word chosen by the 4 NWT translators, was accurate to the Greek. However the Watchtower society was losing so may new converts because of the word "worship" (only God gets worshipped) that they did the typically dishonorable thing and chose the obscure unknown word "obeisance" to complete the deception of new converts.

    Hebrews 1:8
    "Your throne, 0 God" changed to "God is your throne."


    The revision avoids addressing the Son, Jesus, as God to validate the JWs' rejection of his divine nature.

    Hebrews 9:14
    "The eternal Spirit" changed to "an everlasting spirit."


    Similar to the Rom. 2:29 revision above, the switching of the article before the adjective represents the work of the Holy Spirit in a more indirect/ impersonal manner.

    1 Peter 1:11
    "Spirit of Christ in them was pointing" changed to "the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ."


    Another example of the supernatural presence of Jesus in the life of a Christian is obscured again by this revision as the JW doctrinal view presents him as more limited.

    I Peter 3:18-19
    "By the Spirit, through whom" changed to "in the spirit. In this [state]."


    Similar to several examples presented above, in this passage the presence and personality of the Holy Spirit is obscured with a more abstract representation of the Holy Spirit to accommodate the JW doctrine.

    Jude 19
    "Have the Spirit" changed to "having spirituality."


    Similar to Gal. 6:18 above, this revision attempts to obscure the separate presence of the Holy Spirit.

    Revelation 3:14
    "Ruler of God's creation" changed to "beginning of the creation by G
    od."

    The altered prepositions distract from the sovereignty of Jesus indicated in the passage and suggests that the real power of creation was accomplished through the Father, as the JWs believe that Jesus is a created being.







    My point is this- The JWs couldn't keep on preaching what they believed with out editing the Bible. I'm sure it was something Russell and many individuals who haven't studied the Bible very thouroughly could believe. But over time, when many people joined this religion, and as they studied the word of God, they were forced to edit the Bible to continue believing what they believed. The bottom line is: You can't use the Bible as evidence against the Doctrine of the Trinity. Every religion that follows this EDITS the Bible. The JWs aren't the only ones who have done this, I just used them as examples.
    Last edited by alphaman; 01-16-2006 at 10:16 PM.

  2. #2
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by alphaman
    The bottom line is: You can't use the Bible as evidence against the Doctrine of the Trinity. Every religion that follows this EDITS the Bible. The JWs aren't the only ones who have done this, I just used them as examples.
    Every English language Bible has been edited. The NIV (New International Version) is particularly awful, almost as bad as the Living Bible.

    You want a good Bible, you gotta get a copy of the original in its original language. Then you've got something. Until then, YOU are trafficking in EDITED Bible texts just as much as the other guys.

    -Tock

  3. #3
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Every English language Bible has been edited. The NIV (New International Version) is particularly awful, almost as bad as the Living Bible.

    You want a good Bible, you gotta get a copy of the original in its original language. Then you've got something. Until then, YOU are trafficking in EDITED Bible texts just as much as the other guys.

    -Tock

    Ha! Way to make a statement. Do you have any hard evidence to back it up?

  4. #4
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Every English language Bible has been edited. The NIV (New International Version) is particularly awful, almost as bad as the Living Bible.

    You want a good Bible, you gotta get a copy of the original in its original language. Then you've got something. Until then, YOU are trafficking in EDITED Bible texts just as much as the other guys.

    -Tock

    I know you won't have any hard evidence, so I'll just reply before hand.

    There is no "original version" of the Bible, it doesn't exist. The KJV was translated from 6 Greek manuscripts from Erasmus. The NIV translators (over 100 scholars from more than 20 denonmonations) had over 5,000 manuscrpits to work from. The NIV went through 7 committes before completion. The purpose of NIV translation is to accurately translate the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic biblical texts into clearly understandable English.
    Last edited by alphaman; 01-17-2006 at 04:39 AM.

  5. #5
    scriptfactory's Avatar
    scriptfactory is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by alphaman
    I know you won't have any hard evidence, so I'll just reply before hand.

    There is no "original version" of the Bible, it doesn't exist. The KJV was translated from 6 Greek manuscripts from Erasmus. The NIV translators (over 100 scholars from more than 20 denonmonations) had over 5,000 manuscrpits to work from. The NIV went through 7 committes before completion. The purpose of NIV translation is to accurately translate the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic biblical texts into clearly understandable English.
    I know you love the NIV but it is a Trinitarian biased work. The evidence is in the phrase that we were discussing in the other thread.

    Here you can see that there is a clear agenda as it widely differs from the other translations... NIV:
    Quote Originally Posted by NIV
    6Also before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back.
    Darby:
    Quote Originally Posted by Darby
    6and before the throne, as a glass sea, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, four living creatures, full of eyes, before and behind;
    King James:
    Quote Originally Posted by KJV
    6And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.
    Young's Literal Translation
    Quote Originally Posted by Youngs
    6and before the throne [is] a sea of glass like to crystal, and in the midst of the throne, and round the throne, [are] four living creatures, full of eyes before and behind;
    The NIV is either not a very good translation or it has a poor source. It's sad when the KJV is more accurate than the NIV...
    Last edited by scriptfactory; 01-17-2006 at 08:47 AM.

  6. #6
    scriptfactory's Avatar
    scriptfactory is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by alphaman
    I know you won't have any hard evidence, so I'll just reply before hand.

    There is no "original version" of the Bible, it doesn't exist. The KJV was translated from 6 Greek manuscripts from Erasmus. The NIV translators (over 100 scholars from more than 20 denonmonations) had over 5,000 manuscrpits to work from. The NIV went through 7 committes before completion. The purpose of NIV translation is to accurately translate the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic biblical texts into clearly understandable English.
    There is the problem. "Clearly understandable English" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Just compare it to other versions and you will have your "evidence".

  7. #7
    scriptfactory's Avatar
    scriptfactory is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by alphaman
    My point is this- The JWs couldn't keep on preaching what they believed with out editing the Bible. I'm sure it was something Russell and many individuals who haven't studied the Bible very thouroughly could believe. But over time, when many people joined this religion, and as they studied the word of God, they were forced to edit the Bible to continue believing what they believed. The bottom line is: You can't use the Bible as evidence against the Doctrine of the Trinity. Every religion that follows this EDITS the Bible. The JWs aren't the only ones who have done this, I just used them as examples.
    You seem to forget that Trinitarians have been doing this for a long, long time... They even resorted to ADDING verses to the Bible to have evidence of the Trinity.

    1 John 5:7-8 (New International Version)
    New International Version (NIV)
    Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


    7For there are three that testify: 8the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

    Footnotes:

    1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)
    Edit: I'm glad to see that you are cutting down on your copying and pasting a bit. You should try putting the copied material in quotes so it's easier to discern what you wrote and what someone else wrote.

  8. #8
    spywizard's Avatar
    spywizard is offline AR-Elite Hall of Famer~
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    In the Gym, if i could
    Posts
    16,350
    according to scripture, salvation is not dependent on believing in the Trinity or not..

    Thus what's the point in arguing it???
    The answer to your every question

    Rules

    A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
    to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
    one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.


    If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
    we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
    I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.

    Why the Police will Kick your ass

  9. #9
    Phreak101's Avatar
    Phreak101 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,092
    Isn't the Trinity Catholic? Christianity in general sees God, JC, and the HS as one, but Catholics see them as 3 different entities, all joined together by God, hence the "Holy Trinity"

    But I agree with the above. Arguing about which version of the bible is correct is ludicrous, they are ALL tainted by man and I'd imagine the Word of God has been watered down immensely...the 4 gospels are a perfect example...

  10. #10
    boots555's Avatar
    boots555 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looks like a large hand
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Every English language Bible has been edited. The NIV (New International Version) is particularly awful, almost as bad as the Living Bible.

    You want a good Bible, you gotta get a copy of the original in its original language. Then you've got something. Until then, YOU are trafficking in EDITED Bible texts just as much as the other guys.

    -Tock

    Tock doesnt understand the historicity of the New Testament. Lets debate, it will turn into a joke, no offense. When I read your statements, I wonder where they found there origin

  11. #11
    boots555's Avatar
    boots555 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looks like a large hand
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by Phreak101
    Isn't the Trinity Catholic? Christianity in general sees God, JC, and the HS as one, but Catholics see them as 3 different entities, all joined together by God, hence the "Holy Trinity"

    But I agree with the above. Arguing about which version of the bible is correct is ludicrous, they are ALL tainted by man and I'd imagine the Word of God has been watered down immensely...the 4 gospels are a perfect example...

    No trinity is not catholic or ecangelical, it is orthoxy

  12. #12
    boots555's Avatar
    boots555 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looks like a large hand
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory
    You seem to forget that Trinitarians have been doing this for a long, long time... They even resorted to ADDING verses to the Bible to have evidence of the Trinity.



    Edit: I'm glad to see that you are cutting down on your copying and pasting a bit. You should try putting the copied material in quotes so it's easier to discern what you wrote and what someone else wrote.

    Which ones

  13. #13
    boots555's Avatar
    boots555 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looks like a large hand
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory
    There is the problem. "Clearly understandable English" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Just compare it to other versions and you will have your "evidence".

    Your understanding of historictiy sucks. I will make a fool out of you script, no offense, you attempt the same on evangelicals. Your statments are riddleded with holes.

  14. #14
    boots555's Avatar
    boots555 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looks like a large hand
    Posts
    625
    I can only stand back so long, though I respect you.

  15. #15
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory
    There is the problem. "Clearly understandable English" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Just compare it to other versions and you will have your "evidence".
    See, that's your problem. Since you take scipture out of context, you NEED one that is in clearly understandable english.


    "CANTUNDERSTANDscriptUREfactory"

  16. #16
    scriptfactory's Avatar
    scriptfactory is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by boots555
    Your understanding of historictiy sucks. I will make a fool out of you script, no offense, you attempt the same on evangelicals. Your statments are riddleded with holes.
    How does my understanding of historictiy(sic) suck? I don't believe a Bible should be made into "clearly understandable English."

    Make a fool out of me.

  17. #17
    scriptfactory's Avatar
    scriptfactory is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by alphaman
    See, that's your problem. Since you take scipture out of context, you NEED one that is in clearly understandable english.


    "CANTUNDERSTANDscriptUREfactory"
    Jokes aside, you haven't shown me how the NIV is more accurate than other versions of the Bible...

  18. #18
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory
    You seem to forget that Trinitarians have been doing this for a long, long time... They even resorted to ADDING verses to the Bible to have evidence of the Trinity.



    Edit: I'm glad to see that you are cutting down on your copying and pasting a bit. You should try putting the copied material in quotes so it's easier to discern what you wrote and what someone else wrote.


    Mr. Conspiracy Theory again. Everyone knows about that text, you just quoted the NIV, and the footnote says that it was added! That weakens your argument of the trinitarian bias of the NIV, and strengthens my argument that the NIV's purpose is to translate from as many manuscripts (and the most accurate, so that people like you who have no grasp of the context in that context is #1 when reading the Bible, and has no knowledge of Biblical language.

    Maybe you should start quote the New World Translation in stead!


    even better-"scriptURECONSPIRACYTHEORYfactory"

  19. #19
    scriptfactory's Avatar
    scriptfactory is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by alphaman
    Mr. Conspiracy Theory again. Everyone knows about that text, you just quoted the NIV, and the footnote says that it was added! That weakens your argument of the trinitarian bias of the NIV, and strengthens my argument that the NIV's purpose is to translate from as many manuscripts (and the most accurate, so that people like you who have no grasp of the context in that context is #1 when reading the Bible, and has no knowledge of Biblical language.

    Maybe you should start quote the New World Translation in stead!


    even better-"scriptURECONSPIRACYTHEORYfactory"
    Huh? Try making sense next time you decide to write something. So, the NIV is the most accurate but only for people who have "no knowledge of Biblical language?" So you will admit that the NIV is a liberal (as opposed to literal) translation?

  20. #20
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Phreak101
    Christianity in general sees God, JC, and the HS as one,

    That, is in essence, the idea of the trinity. One God, but with three different manifestations.

  21. #21
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory
    Huh? Try making sense next time you decide to write something. So, the NIV is the most accurate but only for people who have "no knowledge of Biblical language?" So you will admit that the NIV is a liberal (as opposed to literal) translation?

    I was joking with you. I said that because you obviously have a problem with context. It claims to be a literal translation, and neither you nor I have seen the manuscripts they translated from. And you aren't a biblical scholar. You can't pull one verse out of the NIV, and claim that it's anymore trinitarian the oter translations you quoted! The JWs felt that there was certainly enough evidence for Chirst and the Holy Spirit having divine nature and personality as to outright make something like 55,000 changes that aren't found in any translation!

  22. #22
    scriptfactory's Avatar
    scriptfactory is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by alphaman
    I was joking with you. I said that because you obviously have a problem with context. It claims to be a literal translation, and neither you nor I have seen the manuscripts they translated from. And you aren't a biblical scholar. You can't pull one verse out of the NIV, and claim that it's anymore trinitarian the oter translations you quoted! The JWs felt that there was certainly enough evidence for Chirst and the Holy Spirit having divine nature and personality as to outright make something like 55,000 changes that aren't found in any translation!
    I wasn't arguing that the JWs have a good translation! I was arguing that the NIV is most definitely NOT a literal translation as it tries to present the Bible in "clearly understandable English." The more literal, the better, I say.

    Problem with context? This is coming from the man that doesn't understand how to use a dictionary... If you can't understand the context in a dictionary how can you presume to understand the context in the Bible?


  23. #23
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory

    Problem with context? This is coming from the man that doesn't understand how to use a dictionary... If you can't understand the context in a dictionary how can you presume to understand the context in the Bible?
    That's BS, and you know it. I may have taken a bit of "poetic license" with the dictionary in the past, and you caught it......... Fair enough, I learned my lesson in regards to what I can get past you, and I haven't done it since.

    See..... a real man can admit when he's wrong.

  24. #24
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory
    I wasn't arguing that the JWs have a good translation! I was arguing that the NIV is most definitely NOT a literal translation as it tries to present the Bible in "clearly understandable English." The more literal, the better, I say.

    I know that.

    My whole goal in this thread was to connect your ridiculous idea that you can use the Bible as evidence against the deity of Christ, with the ridiculous Jehovah's Witnesses.

    The thread topic poses a good question. One you've evaded even though you know it was directed mostly at you. I had a feeling that you'd chime in on this thread once the discussion was diverted from the original topic. As a matter of fact, as soon as Tock said something about the NIV, and I responded, I knew you'd be in there when I got home tonight. Did you send him a PM, and tell him to egg me on? (paranoid smiley)

  25. #25
    scriptfactory's Avatar
    scriptfactory is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by alphaman
    That's BS, and you know it. I may have taken a bit of "poetic license" with the dictionary in the past, and you caught it......... Fair enough, I learned my lesson in regards to what I can get past you, and I haven't done it since.

    See..... a real man can admit when he's wrong.
    Haha! I like that, good post.

  26. #26
    scriptfactory's Avatar
    scriptfactory is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by alphaman
    I know that.

    My whole goal in this thread was to connect your ridiculous idea that you can use the Bible as evidence against the deity of Christ, with the ridiculous Jehovah's Witnesses.

    The thread topic poses a good question. One you've evaded even though you know it was directed mostly at you. I had a feeling that you'd chime in on this thread once the discussion was diverted from the original topic. As a matter of fact, as soon as Tock said something about the NIV, and I responded, I knew you'd be in there when I got home tonight. Did you send him a PM, and tell him to egg me on? (paranoid smiley)
    Who's the conspiracy theorist now?

    The problem with the thread is, I don't believe in the methods of the JWs. I believe the Bible supports my beliefs without changing the text. In this area I differ from both the Trinitarians and the JWs.

    No, but really. How can you NOT expect me to jump on a topic I feel strongly about, like liberal translations of the Bible! There are, believe it or not, other people besides me that know about the Bible and don't agree that the NIV is a perfect translation.

    Stay easy, bro.

  27. #27
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory
    Who's the conspiracy theorist now?

    The problem with the thread is, I don't believe in the methods of the JWs. I believe the Bible supports my beliefs without changing the text. In this area I differ from both the Trinitarians and the JWs.
    My point was that the JWs don't believe in the deity of Christ, and over time they were unable to keep these views, and use the any translation of the Bible. As a matter of fact, they held the same beliefs as you (Roman/Pagan influence corrupting the religion). They obviously felt that there was a TON of evidence pointing toward the deity of Christ in the Bible, or else they wouldn't have edited thousands of verses. The funny thing is that originally, they claimed that the NWT was a literal translation, and after they recieved so much criticism, they retracted the statement, and claimed that their translation commitee was divinely inspired!

    I realize that you think the Bible has evidence of your belief, but millions of JWs collectively (over more than a hundered years) couldn't continue to read the Bible that you say has this evidence - they had to edit it. There was obviously much turmoil over it among their followers. They actually said that the Bible was useless without their publications! Why do you think that is?????

  28. #28
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory
    Who's the conspiracy theorist now?



    There are, believe it or not, other people besides me that know about the Bible and don't agree that the NIV is a perfect translation.

    Stay easy, bro.

    Of course there are. You can find that of most any translation. You can also find idiots out there who believe that the KJV is the only worthy Bible.

    I never said the NIV was the most literal translation. I personally believe that would be the New American Standard version.

  29. #29
    scriptfactory's Avatar
    scriptfactory is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by alphaman
    My point was that the JWs don't believe in the deity of Christ, and over time they were unable to keep these views, and use the any translation of the Bible. As a matter of fact, they held the same beliefs as you (Roman/Pagan influence corrupting the religion). They obviously felt that there was a TON of evidence pointing toward the deity of Christ in the Bible, or else they wouldn't have edited thousands of verses. The funny thing is that originally, they claimed that the NWT was a literal translation, and after they recieved so much criticism, they retracted the statement, and claimed that their translation commitee was divinely inspired!

    I realize that you think the Bible has evidence of your belief, but millions of JWs collectively (over more than a hundered years) couldn't continue to read the Bible that you say has this evidence - they had to edit it. There was obviously much turmoil over it among their followers. They actually said that the Bible was useless without their publications! Why do you think that is?????
    They could have simply felt that the Bible left too much up to interpretation and I say again that Trinitarians have had similar thoughts. They probably wanted something concrete so their followers wouldn't ask questions about the "deity of Christ."

  30. #30
    scriptfactory's Avatar
    scriptfactory is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,490
    Double post...

  31. #31
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory
    They could have simply felt that the Bible left too much up to interpretation and I say again that Trinitarians have had similar thoughts. They probably wanted something concrete so their followers wouldn't ask questions about the "deity of Christ."
    Are you kidding? The Gospel of John reveals the nature of Christ much more than any other Gospel, and there has been a manuscript discovered that's dated back to appox 125 CE. There have been NT manuscripts discovered that date back as early as 66 CE. These have all been considered in modern translations. You should do a little studying before you assume that bad intentions were put into the Bible.


    EDIT- The Davinci Code really put a hurtin' on you, I think.
    Last edited by alphaman; 01-18-2006 at 09:23 PM.

  32. #32
    scriptfactory's Avatar
    scriptfactory is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by alphaman
    Are you kidding? The Gospel of John reveals the nature of Christ much more than any other Gospel, and there has been a manuscript discovered that's dated back to appox 125 CE. There have been NT manuscripts discovered that date back as early as 66 CE. These have all been considered in modern translations. You should do a little studying before you assume that bad intentions were put into the Bible.


    EDIT- The Davinci Code really put a hurtin' on you, I think.
    What are you talking about? Did you even read my post? Are the words too big?

  33. #33
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory
    What are you talking about? Did you even read my post? Are the words too big?
    Huh? The doctine of the trinity wasn't introduced until 325 AD. 325-125=200

    Let me be as clear as possible....... How could trinitarians have changed something to make their thoughts become "concrete", when the idea of the trinity didn't even come about until 200 years later? Papyrus that was written in 66 CE was written when the Apostles were still preaching!

  34. #34
    scriptfactory's Avatar
    scriptfactory is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by alphaman
    Huh? The doctine of the trinity wasn't introduced until 325 AD. 325-125=200

    Let me be as clear as possible....... How could trinitarians have changed something to make their thoughts become "concrete", when the idea of the trinity didn't even come about until 200 years later? Papyrus that was written in 66 CE was written when the Apostles were still preaching!
    You don't understand what I am talking about, obviously. Without getting into the whole "deity of Jesus" debate I'm going to simply say that the Bible does not have anything concrete that states explicitly, "God is a duality or trinity." It does not say that belief in a trinity is necessary for salvation. I'm saying that Trinitarians have been liberal with their later translations of the Bible to make their beliefs more concrete. They also added that famous verse.

  35. #35
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory
    You don't understand what I am talking about, obviously. Without getting into the whole "deity of Jesus" debate I'm going to simply say that the Bible does not have anything concrete that states explicitly, "God is a duality or trinity."

    (Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Matthew 1:23 idou <2400> (5628) {BEHOLD,} h <3588> {THE} parqenoV <3933> {VIRGIN} en <1722> {WITH} gastri <1064> exei <2192> (5692) {CHILD SHALL BE,} kai <2532> {AND} texetai <5088> (5695) {SHALL BRING FORTH} uion <5207> {A SON,} kai <2532> {AND} kalesousin <2564> (5692) to <3588> {THEY SHALL CALL} onoma <3686> autou <846> {HIS NAME} emmanouhl <1694> {EMMANUEL,} o <3739> {WHICH} estin <2076> (5748) {IS,} meqermhneuomenon <3177> (5746) {BEING INTERPRETED,} meq <3326> {WITH} hmwn <2257> o <3588> {US} qeoV <2316> {GOD.}

    Matthew 1:23 (Young's Literal Translation)
    23`Lo, the virgin shall conceive, and she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which is, being interpreted `With us [he is] God.'

    Matthew 1:23 (New American Standard Bible)
    23"(A)BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH (B)CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "(C)GOD WITH US."


    Matthew 1:23 (Darby Translation)
    23Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, 'God with us.'

  36. #36
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory
    It does not say that belief in a trinity is necessary for salvation.

    No, it doesn't say that belief in the trinity is necessary for salvation, but when did Books, max, or myself ever argue that?


    It does say this......

    (Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) John 3:16 outwV <3779> gar <1063> {FOR SO} hgaphsen <25> (5656) o <3588> {LOVED} qeoV <2316> {GOD} ton <3588> {THE} kosmon <2889> {WORLD} wste <5620> ton <3588> {THAT} uion <5207> autou <846> {HIS SON} ton <3588> {THE} monogenh <3439> {ONLY BEGOTTEN} edwken <1325> (5656) {HE GAVE,} ina <2443> {THAT} paV <3956> {EVERYONE} o <3588> {WHO} pisteuwn <4100> (5723) {BELIEVES} eiV <1519> {ON} auton <846> mh <3361> {HIM} apolhtai <622> (5643) {MAY NOT PERISH,} all <235> {BUT} ech <2192> (5725) {MAY HAVE} zwhn <2222> {LIFE} aiwnion <166> {ETERNAL.}


    John 3:16 (Young's Literal Translation)
    16for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

    John 3:16 (New American Standard Bible)
    16"For God so (A)loved the world, that He (B)gave His (C)only begotten Son, that whoever (D)believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.


    John 3:16 (Darby Translation)
    16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal.



    Do you really believe in Him?

  37. #37
    Bryan2's Avatar
    Bryan2 is offline Supplement Guru
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,746
    I always wondered why the tetragrammation was taken out of EVERY Bible and replaced with LORD or God when it is clearly stated over 2000 times myself????



    Sorry a little off track to the original topic but always had me wondering especially when your thread speaks about altering the scriptures

  38. #38
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan2
    I always wondered why the tetragrammation was taken out of EVERY Bible and replaced with LORD or God when it is clearly stated over 2000 times myself????

    Good question. In Judaism, it is considered a sin to pronounce the divine name, YHVH. It is considered blasphemy, and was at one time punishable by death. This is so true, that the actual correct pronunciation of the divine name has long been forgotten, and there is only speculation as to what the correct pronunciation is, really, but most scholars agree that it's Yahweh.

    Hebrew scholars often used the words "Adonai" and "Elohim" in place of the divine name in Hebrew text to remind people not to pronounce the divine name. The carefulness with the divine name carried over into the NT, and we Christians use "Lord", and "God" to describe God just like the ancient Hebrews did.

    Hebrews used the word "Adonai", which translates to "my Lord", in their texts. The word "Elohim", which is also used in their texts is to be translated as "God", because it was used to describe the Hebrew God, as well as Gods of other religions. Elohim is argued to be the plural form of Eloah. The "im" is a plural ending of many Hebrew words, and the word "Eloah" was used to describe God many times in Hebrew scriptures, as in the Book of Job. The word "Eloah" is probably where the arabic word "Allah" (meaning God) came from.

    Jews are still very careful in the way they talk about God. They say "Hashem" when describing God in conversation. Hashem means "the name", or "the word" (John 1:1 [evidence of the divinity if Christ{for scriptfactory}]). When many Jews write the word "God" on paper, they write "G-d", or "L-rd". This is supposed to show respect of the holiness of God, and his name.http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=246605



    Okay.....


    My opinion on this is that it's just a bunch of superstition. While Jews say that it's a mortal sin to pronounce the divine name, the JWs say, "His name is Jehovah, and you must call him by his name!"; I don't think there is ONE word that we can use to describe Him. In all actuality language is nothing but sounds that come out of our mouths and the sounds themselves don't mean anything at all. And whatever word we choose to describe God, as long as it means God, I think He would be fine with that. After all, would such a powerful being even want to be constrained to human words, or language? I think the Bible reflects this view, as there are many, many names of God in the Bible, and the purpose of all these names are to reveal his nature, not to put a label on Him.
    Last edited by alphaman; 01-21-2006 at 01:02 PM.

  39. #39
    Bryan2's Avatar
    Bryan2 is offline Supplement Guru
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,746
    Ive tried to research alittle into the jews 'reasoning' of not pronouncing Gods name

    and They have not 1 significant reason for doing so nowhere in the ANY scripture does it state this???? Unless im wrong not sure

    And im more for calling God by his personal name instead of attributing a title to him



    .... It allows for a more personalized relationship towards him which is basically the ENTIRE message of the bible itself.

  40. #40
    alphaman's Avatar
    alphaman is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Ron Paul War Room
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan2
    Ive tried to research alittle into the jews 'reasoning' of not pronouncing Gods name

    and They have not 1 significant reason for doing so nowhere in the ANY scripture does it state this???? Unless im wrong not sure

    And im more for calling God by his personal name instead of attributing a title to him



    .... It allows for a more personalized relationship towards him which is basically the ENTIRE message of the bible itself.
    God has many names......


    http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/godsnames.html

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •