 |
| Author |
Message |
    
Timelesspilot
Starlite Member
Username: Timelesspilot
| | Posted on Monday, January 01, 2007 - 08:22 am: | 
|
Alas to all my fellow believers does not the WORD tell us to....
"Work out our own salvation with fear and trembeling"
Many are the hearts that have been torn and decieved by false teachings.
Please do not get caught in a web of deception.
My Faith is in you Lord My Faith is in you!
John 3:3....Luke19:10....Romans 10:9,10
The Timelsspilot
ie." Firewalker"
|
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 07:46 pm: |
|
Perhaps you might pray To God and read John 1..maybe and i really do pray maybe then God will reveal the truth to you 
Michael william James
|
Ashleey NIKO (Ayisha)
Starlite Member
Username: Ayisha
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 08:03 am: |
|
Why does 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 refer to David as the seventh son of Jesse, whereas 1 Samuel 16:10, 11 indicates that he was the eighth?
After King Saul of ancient Israel turned away from true worship, Jehovah God sent the prophet Samuel to anoint one of Jesse’s sons as king. The divine record of this historical event, written by Samuel himself in the 11th century B.C.E., presents David as the eighth son of Jesse. (1 Samuel 16:10-13) Yet, the account penned by Ezra the priest some 600 years later says: “Jesse, in turn, became father to his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimea the third, Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh.” (1 Chronicles 2:13-15) What happened to one of David’s brothers, and why does Ezra omit his name?
The Scriptures state that Jesse “had eight sons.” (1 Samuel 17:12) One of his sons evidently did not live long enough to get married and have children. Having no descendants, he would have no claim in tribal inheritance nor any bearing on genealogical records of Jesse’s lineage.
Now let us think of Ezra’s day. Consider the setting under which he compiled Chronicles. The exile in Babylon ended about 77 years earlier, and the Jews were resettled in their land. The king of Persia had authorized Ezra to appoint judges and teachers of the Law of God and to beautify the house of Jehovah. There was a need for accurate genealogical lists to confirm the tribal inheritances and to ensure that only authorized people served in the priesthood. So Ezra prepared a full account of the nation’s history, including a clear and dependable record of the lineage of Judah and of David. The name of the son of Jesse who died childless would be irrelevant. Hence, Ezra omitted his name.
info taken from w02 9/15 |
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 07:29 am: |
|
There are plenty of Biblical references that prove Jesus Christs deity.
Michael william James
|
ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne)
Starlite Member
Username: Alianne
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Jennifer: I commend for all your reseach and there has been a lot said on this subject but the bottom line is no one has been able to bring forth scriptures where Jesus taught that he is part of a trinity God. No one ever will as there is no such Scripture. If we all used our brains as God intended us to use them and reasoned on a few things, people would get to the truth of this matter. Alas we don't and most won't! Jesus was a Jew and he taught about the Jewish God. God did not change from Abraham's time to the time of of the fourth century. He will always be the same one God that He said He was in the Hebrew Scriptures and He will have no rival. Ask any Jew if he worships a trinity God. Christians need to remember that we are followers of a Jew and worship the Jewish God . All the scriptures say that the Father is God,( I counted 40 last night in the Greek scriptures alone) Even Jesus said that the Father was His God. John 20:10 ( no mention of the holy ghost anywhere) Ephesians 4:5,6 |
Jennifer Maxwell (Jennifer03801)
Starlite Member
Username: Jennifer03801
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal refuted
Below are the Bibles Jehovah's Witnesses will quote to support their false doctrine. They quote them profusely. The fact is that Anti-trinitarians must scrape the bottom by shopping the world and coming up with obscure, corrupt Bibles written by liberal minded Bible haters, with low grade scholarship, no one has ever heard of to prove their point. Often Jehovah's Witnesses will provide a list of up to 50 translations of a single passage that support their view. We have not discussed them because most of them are not Bible translations, but one man's a commentary where in he translates the single Bible verse. These men are usually anti-trinitarians themselves, so the vast majority amount to self-quoting.
Bibles frequently quoted by Jehovah's Witnesses:
Schonfield: is a Greek translation by one individual into English! However, Schonfield, author of "The Passover Plot", makes Jesus into a charlatan, and doesn't even believe in the deity of God the Father! Schonfield, an advocate of the "swoon theory" is quoted by the Muslims in support of their view that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross. Jehovah's Witnesses habitually quote faithless men like this to trash the trinity. ("The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan." (The Paganism in Our Christianity, Arthur Weigall, quoted in "Should you believe in the Trinity, Watchtower Publication)
Johannes Greber: is quoted by the Watchtower, but he is an occult spiritist, who claimed to get his translation through a spirit medium!
New World Translation: Produced by Jehovah's Witnesses for Jehovah's Witnesses. Nothing more than a sectarian paraphrase and not even a translation! The 4 paraphrasers were: Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz. "Fred Franz however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew." ["Crisis of Conscience"; by Raymond Franz; Commentary Press, Atlanta; 1983 edition; footnote 15; page 50]
Moffatt, James: Greek into English but one man translation, whereas all other major translations had between 40-100 different scholars involved in the translation. Regarding James Moffatt, he was a professor at Union Theological Seminary, one of the most radical liberal institutions. His attitude toward miracles and the supernatural is illustrated by the following quotation from his book "Introduction To The Literature Of The New Testament": "A similar consideration bears upon Luke's treatment of the supernatural. On the one hand, the presence of miraculous anecdotes ... is no proof that they are unprimitive. A comparison, e.g., of the historical traditions gathering around figures like St. Patrick or even Thomas a Becket will show that it is the most natural thing in the world for such stories to spring up within a man's lifetime, and the mushroom of legend appeared under certain conditions as rapidly in the East an in the West. This applies in some degree to the miracles in Acts as well as in the gospels." (page 302). Clearly, Moffatt regards the miracles of the Bible, such as Jesus' virgin birth and His raising of the dead, as mere myth or legend. Moffatt claimed that the traditions of national unity and supernatural guidance "are at the heart of the tales and traditions within the first five books of the Bible." He believed portions of the Bible were badly edited and arranged, so he tried to improve on them. He rearranged entire chapters to suit himself.
Goodspeed, Edgar: The Complete Bible, an American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith. Greek into English but a two man translation, whereas all other major translations had between 40-100 different scholars involved in the translation. Goodspeed was a liberal theologian.
Smith, J. M. Powis: The Complete Bible, an American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith. Smith was a professor in a radical liberal institution, the University of Chicago. His attitude toward the virgin birth is evidenced by the way he translated Isaiah 7:14 - "A young woman is with child ..." The Complete Bible renders Matthew 1:23 as "A maiden will become pregnant ..." - again denying the virgin birth. Even if one might debate whether the Hebrew word has to mean virgin, there is no question that the Greek word parthenos in the passage in Matthew means virgin. This is scholarly consensus. His formulation of Matthew 1:23 is unquestionably a mistranslation. Smith regards the miracles of the Bible, such as Jesus' virgin birth, His raising of the dead, and others as mere myth or legend.
Emphatic Diaglott: Produced by a Christadelphian named Benjamin Wilson, with no credentials in Greek. Wilson denied the personal pre-existence of Christ before his birth, the entire incarnation doctrine, being anti-trinitarians himself. It is used widely by Jehovah's Witnesses because of its anti-trinitarian bias.
Kingdom Interlinear: Produced by Jehovah's Witnesses for Jehovah's Witnesses.
Lamsa, George M.: This is a translation made from Greek into Aramaic Hebrew, then translated a second time into English. Lamsa admits he was raised in the Nestorian church. Nestorius, who was condemned by the third Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431, taught that Jesus had two persons in one body, one human and one divine. Lamsa said: "the Eastern Christians believe in one God with three attributes, instead of three persons." (George M. Lamsa, The Short Koran, p15) Lamsa believed God communicated directly with him and that he was God's sole chosen Bible translator. Lamsa said of himself, "The author, through God's grace, is the only one with the knowledge of Aramaic, the Bible customs and idioms, and the knowledge of the English language who has ever translated the Holy Bible from the original Aramaic texts into English and written commentaries on it" (George M. Lamsa, More Light on the Gospel, p151) Lamsa denies the physical bodily resurrection of Christ, the actual second coming, the person of the devil and demons. Lamsa believes parts of the Bible have been lost altered and corrupted, questions the inspiration of the Pauline epistles, believes that certain bible passages were "deliberately forged". (George M. Lamsa, New, xiii-xv. 44 Origin, 97. 45 Ibid., 97-98. 46 Bible, v. 47 Origin, 89)
Cotton Patch: Is a paraphrase by one person not a translation, so is completely unreliable.
New English Bible & Revised English Bible: produced by liberal, modernistically minded theologians whose vital faith is troubling even to Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that the word "Christian" is found 32 times in these Bibles, when in fact it is only found three times in the Greek is proof enough that it is unreliable as a literal translation. They not only work against the deity of Christ, but the virgin birth. In Luke 1:34 they mistranslate the Greek, "knew no man-virgin" for "I have no husband." They also mistranslate the Greek "first day of the week" for "Saturday night" in Acts 20:7. (Saturday is the 7th day of the week). They use "Friday" in Luke 23:54, with no supporting Greek at all! They use "Sunday" in 1 Cor 16:2, instead of "first day of the week". They also mistranslate the Greek, "Pentecost" for "Whitsuntide" (a religious festival of the church of England). Overall, the translation bears the stamp of modernism. If they can get big simple stuff wrong, we certainly cannot trust them in John 8:58. Jehovah's Witnesses highlight the anti-trinitarian bias and ignore all the rest of the modernism in this translation. Yet the NEB does get some stuff right on as Barclay notes about John 1:1, "But it is here that that NEB [New English Bible] has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely correct rendering: "What God was the Word was"" (Barclay, William; Many Witnesses, One Lord, 1973, p23-24.)
New Testament in an Improved Version and Newcome's New Translation : Precedents for translating John 1:1, ... "and the Word was a god", we find the Watchtower quoting on page 5 of "The Word Who is He? According to John". "This reading is also found in the "New Testament in an Improved Version", published in London, England in 1808." We are directed to a footnote which reads, "The title page reads "The New Testament in An Improved Version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation with a Corrected Text, and Notes Critical and Explanatory. Published by a Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue, by the Distribution of Books -- Unitarian." Yes, the key word above is "UNITARIAN". This is a cult teaching that Jesus was an extraordinarily good man only, nothing more. Mr. Thomas Belsham after Archbishop Newcome's death, altered Newcome's text! [See page 394, "Manual of Biblical Bibliography".] This altered text dishonoring Archbishop Newcome's careful scholarship also provided a basis for the New World Translation's "...and the Word was a god".(see also the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, page 1160, 1969 ed.) Archbishop Newcome certainly never said, the Word was "a god".
|
Jennifer Maxwell (Jennifer03801)
Starlite Member
Username: Jennifer03801
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:17 pm: |
|
The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was a god." The New World Translation
This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, but Michael the archangel who became a man. Therefore, since they deny that Jesus is divine, they have altered the Bible in John 1:1 so that Jesus is not divine in nature. The New World Translation has added the word "a" to the verse so it says, "...and the Word was a god." The correct translation for this verse is "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." This is how it is rendered in the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, etc.
The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is "a god" is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will respond that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but a "lesser" kind of God. He is the "mighty God" as is referenced in Isaiah 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on His shoulders, and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Therefore, they say that Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God.
The immediate problem with this explanation is that YHWH is also called the Mighty God in Jeremiah 21:18 and Isaiah 10:20. In all three verses, including Isaiah 9:6, the Hebrew word for "mighty" (gibbor) is used.
Isaiah 10:20-21, "Now it will come about in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. 21A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God."
Jer. 32:18, "who showest lovingkindness to thousands, but repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God. the LORD of hosts is His name."
We can see that the Jehovah's Witness explanation is not valid. Both the Son and God are called the Mighty God.
Furthermore, how many actual gods are there in scripture? The obvious answer is that there is only one God in existence. Though there are others who have been falsely called gods (1 Cor. 8:5-6) or even said to be "as God" like Moses (Ex. 4:16; 7:1), there is only one real God (Gal. 4:8-9; Isaiah 44:6,8). If Jesus is "a god" that was "with God" in the beginning, then is Jesus a true god or a false god?
But, the Jehovah's Witnesses often claim that Jesus is a god in the sense that Moses was called a god. But, Moses was not called a god. Rather, he would be "as God."
"Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and it shall come about that he shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be as God to him, (Exodus 4:16).
"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet,'" (Exodus 7:1).
Why was Moses going to "as God" to Pharaoh? Because Moses was given the authority and power to display powerful miracles that decimated much of Egypt. Was Moses really a god? Being "as God" in regards to power given to perform miracles over Egypt is not the same thing as being called "a god" that was in the beginning with God, (John 1:1).
John was a strict Jew, a monotheist. Does the Jehovah's Witness really think that John would be saying that there was another God besides Jehovah, even if it were Jesus? Being raised a good Jew, the apostle John would never believe that there was more than one God in existence. Yet, he compared the word with God, said the word was God, and that the word became flesh (John 1:1,14).
John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word." Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word for word translation. It is not saying that "a god was the word." That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.
"In beginning was the word..."
(en arche en ho logos)
A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
"and the word was with the God..."
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
This same Word was with God.
"and God was the word." -- Properly translated as "and the Word was God."
(kai theos en ho logos)
This same Word was God.
Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word."1 But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god," or the "mighty god" as was addressed above.
Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3. How do the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context, since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called "a god," besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4?
John 20:28 - "Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'"
In the Greek in John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus, "ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou," "The Lord of me, and the God of me." If Jesus was not God, but "a" god, then shouldn't Jesus have corrected Thomas? Shouldn't Jesus have said, "No Thomas, I am not the God. I am a god."? But Jesus did not. To do so would have been ludicrous. Nevertheless, the Jehovah's Witness will say that Thomas was so stunned by Jesus' appearance, that he swore. This is ridiculous because it means that Thomas, a devout man of God, swore in front of Jesus and used the Lord's name in vain in violation of Exodus 20:7. This is hardly the case since we find no New Testament equivalent of a disciple of Christ using God's name in vain.
In conclusion, John 1:1 is best translated without the "a" inserted into the text. "The Word was God" is the best translation. This way, we do not run into the danger of polytheism, with Jesus being "a god." We do not have Thomas the disciples swearing and using God's name in vain. And, we do not have the problem of Jesus being a "mighty god" and yet not the God -- even though God Himself is called the Mighty God (Jeremiah 21:18; Isaiah 10:20).
|
ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne)
Starlite Member
Username: Alianne
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:05 pm: |
|
Michael I guess you don't see clearly either or you don't read the postings either as you said??? As you can see from an earlier posting , other translators agree with NWT so I guess the NWT is not too far wrong;and that goes for the rest of the NWT.
THE POST: A number of Bible translators did not use the phrase "the Word was God". Why not? Based on their knowledge of the Biblical Greek, those translators concluded that the phrase "the Word was God" should be translated differently. How? Here are a few examples: "The Logos (Word) was divine(A New Translation of the Bible ). "The Word was a god" (The New Testament in an improved Version). "The Word was with God and shared his nature" (The Translator's New Testament). According to these translations, the Word is not God himself. Instead, because of his high position among Jehovah's creatures, the Word is referred to as "a god. ". Here the term "god" means "mighty one."
|
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 08:40 pm: |
|
Alianne what about the errors and spurious additions in the Nwt? They have been proven and people should be aware of them as much as people should be aware of the additions and errors in the King James Version.
Michael william James
|
ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne)
Starlite Member
Username: Alianne
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 12:20 pm: |
|
JENNIFER: A number of Bible translators did not use the phrase "the Word was God". Why not? Based on their knowledge of the Biblical Greek, those translators concluded that the phrase "the Word was God" should be translated differently. How? Here are a few examples: "The Logos (Word) was divine(A New Translation of the Bible ). "The Word was a god" (The New Testament in an improved Version). "The Word was with God and shared his nature" (The Translator's New Testament). According to these translations, the Word is not God himself. Instead, because of his high position among Jehovah's creatures, the Word is referred to as "a god. ". Here the term "god" means "mighty one."
JENNIFER YOUR POSTING:John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." |
ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne)
Starlite Member
Username: Alianne
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
Accurately, I listed 5 other translations including the King James to show Protestants as well as Catholic that these translations are in agreement with NWT of JW"S concerning the fact that the Bible says:" the Father is God and not the Son" There is no twisting of that Scripture in the 6 translations.
As for the King James translation Bible Scolars realize there are many errors and some spurious additions and the public needs to be made aware of them. |
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 09:43 pm: |
|
Uumm Alianne you listed the King James to be in agreeance with the Jw's bible NWT, but you also regard the king james version almost as rubbish because it had been edited by men etc. I do not understand this :\
Michael william James
|
Jennifer Maxwell (Jennifer03801)
Starlite Member
Username: Jennifer03801
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 04:42 pm: |
|
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." |
ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne)
Starlite Member
Username: Alianne
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 04:01 pm: |
|
IT WOULD BE A PLEASURE TO READ AND COMPARE WHAT OTHER SCOLARS HAVE TO SAY considering that 5 other translations agree with the NWT.Those 5 Bibles have been named on other threads.
THE POST I AM REFERRING TO : "Robert Countess wrote a well documented and thorough critical analysis of
their New World Translation in which he concluded, "(It) must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly"
|
Bread Crumbs (Bread_crumbs)
Starlite Member
Username: Bread_crumbs
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 11:37 pm: |
|
"Their New World Translation 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" (Anthony Hoekema, The Four Major Cults, pp. 238,239). Greek scholar, Dr. Robert Countess wrote a well documented and thorough critical analysis of their New World Translation in which he concluded, "(It) must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly"
..................................................
Can You Trust the New World Translation?
The New World Translation (NWT), the JWs’ own Bible version, was created between 1950-61 in several parts, beginning with New Testament (NT). The translation was made by an "anonymous" committee, which transliterated and altered passages that were problematic for earlier JWs. Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel were later identified as the men that created the text, which is used by no other sect. Franz studied non-biblical Greek for two years, and taught himself Hebrew. The rest had no formal training in any biblical language. The text of the NWT is more of a transliteration to fit theological presumptions than it is a true translation. This can be seen in key verses that the WTS changed in order to fit its doctrines.
To undermine the divinity of Christ in John 1:1, the NWT reads, " . . . the word was a god." Non-JW Greek scholars call this "a shocking mistranslation," "incorrect," "monstrous," and "evidence of abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar." Furthermore, Col. 1:15-17 has been changed to "... by means of him all [other] things were created." If the text were left as the original Greek reads, it would clearly state that Jesus created all things. However, the WTS cannot afford to say that anyone but Jehovah created all things, so it inserted the word "other" four times into the text.
The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT said that Jesus was to be worshipped (Heb. 1:6), but the WTS changed the NWT so that later editions would support its doctrines. The translators now decided to render the Greek word for "worship" (proskuneo) as "do obeisance" every time it is applied to Jesus, but as "worship" when modifying Jehovah. If the translators were consistent, then Jesus would be given the worship due to God in Matthew. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, and Hebrews 1:6.
At the time of the Last Supper, there were over three dozen Aramaic words to say "this means," "represents," or "signifies," but Jesus used none of them in his statement, "This is my body." Since the WTS denies the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, they have taken the liberty to change our Lord’s words to "This means my body" in Matthew 26:26.
The NWT also translates the Greek word kurios ("Lord") as "Jehovah" dozens of times in the NT, despite the fact that the word "Jehovah" is never used by any NT author. It should also be asked why the NWT does not translate kurios as "Jehovah" in Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Philippians 2:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, and Revelation 22:21. If it did translate kyrios consistently, then Jesus would be Jehovah!
.................................................
INSIGHT ON THE SCRIPTURES
by Randall Watters
The following is a review of the Watchtower's latest achievement in refining their
doctrines and compiling their beliefs-the product of 110 years of flip-flops in doctrine,
false prophecies and dabbling in the occult.
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/insight.htm
"...I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 (1863) of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies..."George Galloway
|
ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne)
Starlite Member
Username: Alianne
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 08:22 pm: |
|
ZAHEER: THE SIGN OF JONAH...ENCYCLOPIDIA, INSIGHT ON THE SCRIPTURES VOL 2 PAGE 941
"A Sign Demanded of Jesus.
During Jesus’ ministry he performed numerous signs that helped many to believe in him. (Joh 2:23) But the signs did not produce faith in hardhearted ones. (Lu 2:34; Joh 11:47, 53; 12:37; compare Nu 14:11, 22.) When on two occasions religious leaders asked Jesus to display to them a sign from heaven, they likely were demanding that he perform, as proof that he was the Messiah, the sign foretold at Daniel 7:13, 14, namely, the “son of man” appearing with the clouds of the heavens to take his Kingdom power. But it was not God’s time for that prophecy to be fulfilled, and Christ would not perform a showy display merely to gratify their selfish demand. (Mt 12:38; 16:1) Rather, he told them that the only sign that would be given them was “the sign of Jonah the prophet.” (Mt 12:39-41; 16:4) After about three days in the belly of a huge fish, Jonah had gone and preached to Nineveh. Jonah thereby became a “sign” to the capital of Assyria. Jesus’ generation had “the sign of Jonah” when Christ spent parts of three days in the grave and was resurrected after which his disciples proclaimed the evidence of that event. In this, Christ was a sign to that generation, but even that did not convince most of the Jews.—Lu 11:30; 1Co 1:22.' |
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 09:52 pm: |
|
Hey scott nice to see your in Good spirit, all the best bud i shall keep you in my prayers.
Michael william James
|
Scott Whitmore (Emhotep)
Starlite Member
Username: Emhotep
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 02:33 pm: |
|
" SORRY
TO DISAPOINT YOU, BUT I'AM BACK ALLIANNE/JASMINE.
  
I missed Y'all while being away, and found out My
problems are FAR FROM OVER, but I just wanted to
take a few moments to say how much Y'all have been
missed.. 
But now how much better that it is reach out again
to eveveryone, I had a few great talks about all
the subjects we have tossed to & fro inside lately
PLEASE TRY WRITE A HELLO BACK...!
  
MAY GOD'S GRACE ALWAYS EMBRACE THINE HEART & SOUL
WITHIIN HIS EVERLASTING LOVE
Scott Whitmore
zanthor2691@aol.com
PS
I'll tell Y'all what the Doctors have told me so
far, and what I can be expecting ahead.
Ona Gwe, Waki
Wm Scott Whitmore
aka
Em~Hotep
|
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 09:17 pm: |
|
Why would God condone something and then suddenly produce a Law saying that it is no longer tolerable?! Did they do ince5t wrong or sinfuly compared to how God approved it in the begginning?!
Michael william James
|
ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne)
Starlite Member
Username: Alianne
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 08:56 am: |
|
God abolished close family marriage when he gave the Israelites the "Law" at Sinai and violation was then punishable by death.
|
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 07:39 pm: |
|
Man is not living according to his will as you see it. But making Gods will his will. Which should not lead you into thinking that we are taking control of Gods will..far from it. Its saying that we submit our lives and will to His because we know our true will is His will anyway. Man does not change the word of God, he simply learns and grows in the word to understand it more. Not by his own mind either..but through God's revelations in the scripture. God has definitely revealed to us that ince5t is frowned upon. So we know not to take the adam and eve story literally to that extreme. What God has given us is the great meaning in that story..while The details have not remained perfect man has constantly studied the scriptures to grow in God and his word. Man of the church do not re-write the Bible..they write of how God has helped there understanding of the scriptures grow. luv,
MiCk.
Michael william James
|
|
|  |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page