Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemI am talking to you. My statements are as valid for you as yours were to me.
Who are you talking to here? Yourself?
Are you so desperate to argue with people that you don't even wait for the argument to start? 🙄🙄🙄
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarLeviticus. Um, yeah...
Liberal Christians believe that abortion and homosexuality are acceptable to God, but this is what God said recorded in Leviticus 18...
"You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord. 22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. "
We are ...[text shortened]... Israel to kill both men who have homosexual sex. Where was Jesus? What did Jesus think of this?
Show me text from the NT claiming what you claim.
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemMisrepresentation is a 'feature' of his disagreement.
That's what you got from what I wrote?
Are you smoking something very expensive?
I have yet to see him argue with something someone actually said.
Originally posted by @galveston75Read John 1 from a non mormon and non JW Bible and you will know.
2 and 3 are correct. For number 1 what exactly do you mean from the beginning? Thanks...
But since you are JW we will just have to disagree.
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemYou are saying unborn children are not children.
You're not responding to what I actually say. You're guessing at what I might say and arguing against that.
That approach only works for the clairvoyant.
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemSo you know the minimum age for child sacrifice?
No, I did not. Re-read my post.
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemI do not have a burden of proof. God does and He will demonstrate the truth of it in time.
I don't have to. You made the claim that the Anti-Molech laws apply to modern abortion. You have the burden of proof, not I.
Originally posted by @eladarThe Watchtower | November 2008
Read John 1 from a non mormon and non JW Bible and you will know.
But since you are JW we will just have to disagree.
Was the Word “God” or “a god”?
"That question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—The Holy Bible—New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an&rdquo😉 leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.
The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”
The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons.
(((((((((First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine.))))))))))
Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God."
Sure you've read this info before but here it is again for you to think about. The point is if one believes the trinity, then the scripture makes sense that Jesus is also Almighty God. But the rest of the bible does not back that up. Yes he is a god as the bible says there are many gods. Satan is refereed to as being a god. But no where does the bible ever say that there is another Almighty God, not even including Jesus. The Bible says that Jehovah is ( 1 ) god, not 3 as the trinity teaches.
Originally posted by @galveston75Yeah, I already knew that Jehovah Witnesses believe in heritical ideas. Thanks for letting us know.
The Watchtower | November 2008
Was the Word “God” or “a god”?
"That question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render t ...[text shortened]... ot even including Jesus. The Bible says that Jehovah is ( 1 ) god, not 3 as the trinity teaches.