Space Merchant
-
Posts
3,129 -
Joined
-
Days Won
26
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by Space Merchant
-
-
47 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:
I put "Jehovah's Witnesses" in Bible hub .....and nothing :))
Let me help you with that, focus on the verse in question, I could not find "Glasglow", "Abraham being selfish" or "God approving brazen conduct" on Biblehub either. The website is verse associated and commentary filled.
Perhaps instead of ignoring the subject matter, check the links. You use to favor biblehub yet when it does not fit your narrative you willfully ignore it.
https://biblehub.com/revelation/5-10.htm
Also if you forgot how to use your favorite website, here is a tutorial, she pretty much points out some of the things I pointed out
On 6/10/2020 at 1:49 PM, Space Merchant said:They are both correct. Case and point.
- https://studybible.info/strongs/G1909
- https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G1909/epi.htm
- https://biblehub.com/greek/1909.htm
As I told @4Jah2me , the same thing. granted all the roots point to 1909, there is no violation of Scripture in the Greek text. Translations indeed look different, but each word still lines up accordingly with the Strong's number itself.
Now, here is an legitimate example. I linked to @4Jah2me 1 Timothy 3:16. There IS A VIOLATION in this verse. This Strong's was added G#2316. The other violates, in passage form would be Acts 8:37, this verse does not exist, hence omitted. Another would be Revelations 1:11 whereas the KJV added a sentence to this verse, likewise to 1 John 5:7.
I linked you the same website a long time ago relating to another verse, same correlation with Bible Strong's in the past:
This goes back to the lesson on Biblical Facts, for you really cannot do much if it is the Bible alone. You've proven my point yet again.
From even then to now, 2020, you still haven't learned, therefore that remark of sharpens of which you stated is contradicting.
-
@4Jah2me Well it does not stop you from citing their viewpoint. If they are in the wrong and or misleading as you claim, can you cite it here please? Even with the Strong's not in use, the context is still there, to which you said it is in err.
Also
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:And back to the Revelation scripture. ABOVE means totally different to ON.
Well if you checked the BibleHub it shows you the usages of all words in the Strong's which are appropriate for the verse in question. That being said, you have not proven anything pertaining to a Greek violation and nothing in this verse points to the latter being different.
That being said, like I said, if Strong's were to be ignored, you'd have people believing God is female, or that Jesus is cruel, which is indeed a reality for those who ignore it.
This goes hand and hand with the "nakedness" verse to which was discussed in the past.
@Srecko Sostar That is an understanding based on as how you view it, but the context and the Strong's gives us that understanding, it shows us what is being conveyed. The context of the verse in question has not changed and everyone agrees on this notion concerning the message itself. I do not see why you, Butler and everyone else is afraid to even go on Biblehub, let alone Bible Gateway, to which some of you use to use here alone.
@JJJ-AUSTRALIA Former JW or not, to go around Strong's and the context of Scripture speaks volumes, a problematic issue in the KJV-Onlyist community as it is here. The conveyance of the verse is the same even outside of the faith community in question.
Also way ahead of you, YHWH is a transliteration, there are 2 modern variations of YHWH in the modern language, Jehovah and Yahweh, Yehovah. Depending on the translation you will see one of these variations. The Tetragrammaton is H#3068. I said this to a Trinitarian a while back who said Jesus is YHWH.
- Ephesians 1:20-22 speaks of The Christ being at the right hand of God, while Philippians 2:9 speaks of Jesus not taking plunder to be equal to God. God’s name YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) is a great name as is spoken of to be The Personal and Divine Name, the Proper name of the God of Israel: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3068.htm | https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=esv&strongs=h3068Â
- Another factor is Jesus’ name [Jesus] means Yahweh/Jehovah is Salvation (Yah/Jah saves for short), evidence of the StrongÂ’s even shows us too: https://biblehub.com/greek/2424.htm   | https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=esv&strongs=g2424
That being said, the problem I see here is not the verse in question, but, because they said it, yet, when the real information is addressed, with source included, and the Strong's to back it up.
-
47 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
I had no doubt that YOU knew it. But there are some people here from the UK, like @4Jah2me (assuming of course that he is the reincarnation of @John Butler). And, I'm not so sure that they had any groups like the Beatles over in the UK. 😉
That is what I was thinking, even speculating granted the recent discussion with him, for Butler tends to add things out of nowhere into a discussion, but I was not entirely sure. At least someone figured that out, and it did not take a Batman level of detective work to do it.
As for the topic at hand, things are getting a bit ridiculous. There are people out there, even in the black community that are referred to as race traitors for not agreeing with BLM, let alone if they speak of statistics involving police killings. And as of recent the MSM is still throwing the cards of racism on the table and people are just grabbing the cards, so to speak.
Not sure if you see this but the BLM aka now dubbed the Woke Religion of the Leftist had an interaction with Jacob, Mayor of Minneapolis. That being said, people think all police officers are guilty, and are not good; all evil, which is absurd. There are a few bad eggs, and like any institution and or group, there are some bad people, they do not define others, namely officers like Anderson of Seattle who spoke of the police while back while in the department prior to him being fired.
-
@4Jah2me It is a defense of the Strong's and it's correlation with Scripture. The most jarring thing is even with the evidence in front of you, you ignore it.
You said there viewpoint is different than you it yourself, as I invited you to post said viewpoint. Which, as with all pertaining evidence, is counted against you.
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:If I am right (and SM will prob's disagree) then SM is a man that studies Religions, plural. He seems to be a Theologist.
So like you, I am suppose to accept the fact that congregants poison their members and never die? Am I to accept and support unity despite sexual sin being rampant? Am I suppose to believe that because of someone's standing he kills his own people for honor and is justified by it? Or am I to believe everyone is guilty, hence to be quick with judgement despite only One holds the power of said judgment?
Clearly no, because I speak truth doesn't mean I have to succumb to the inability to understand things.
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:Having quickly looked at Wiki regarding Strong's, I do not see any mention of God's Holy Spirit being involved.
That is why I encouraged you to do research. A quick glance at something does not negate to automatically understanding Strong's. It takes time, it takes understanding and patience. Understanding Strong's is what enables one to the realm of Hermeuntics and study of Scripture in a proper way, so when a situation comes, such as this one, the truth can be spoken, the same case I make with KJV-Onlyist.
God's Spirit is involved when the early writings were written for God has chosen these men do to as such, from Moses, to Paul, to John, etc. These men were indeed spirit filled, and God is the author of what they have written, hence Paul said in his letter to Timothy, it is God breathed. Granted that we do not have our original manuscripts, we have the copies, of which those long after the Apostles have to work with. From translation to translation and eventually into the modern tongue of which you, me and everyone else here speaks, clearly our modern tongue is not literal Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
That being said, Revelation 5:10 is as clear as day of what it means, what it is conveying. I don't see how that flew past you in this regard.
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:If I am right (and SM will prob's disagree) then SM is a man that studies Religions, plural. He seems to be a Theologist.
And what does my study of religion and all this of Abrahamic Faiths have to do with this subject matter? Is this another tool of deviation on your part because you are unwilling to provide your claims?
Yes I have studied religions for the very reason to counter falsehood and misconceptions. Both you and I can agree that God is not Triune, without the Strong's or Textual Criticism, that concept would be the end of what is true. This is one of the reasons as to why we speak up.
That being said, you have now moved from the study of Scripture to the study of religion. To deviate from what the Strong's pinpoint that is true, JB?
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:As there can be only one true way of serving God then would God supply Holy Spirit to help a person study Theology ?
When it comes to study and teaching, the reader seeks the spirit from God to enable that person to understand. The truth of the matter must be looked for, otherwise, confusion and falsehood will become the person.
Again, we are on the subject of a verse in the Bible, adding on to deviate from the topic at hand is not going to help you here. Granted When it comes to this variation of Textual Criticism, this is where I am most serious. So deviation is, to me, seen as being evasive in the wrong way.
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:Being a Truther, is that what God wants ? If it is then many of us have no chance. Why ?
Now you are tending on another territory. What does me being a Truther have to do with the discussion at hand? Mind you, quite random, as is with the religious studies part.
A Truther is someone who speaks the truth and finds truth. Outside of Christianity, the role of the truther is see what is true and push forth that truth whereas the world sees such things as right, we see it as wrong.
For instance, when it comes to homosexuality, Truthers do not condone that conduct, let alone teaching children immoral and brazen, we speak against it.
That being said, I do not know as to why you interjected Truther here, is that to commit mockery of something? Granted Truthers, in this sense when it comes to immorality are the ones who indirectly give you help by their actions of their hands? That seems like an appeal to motive granted you really do not have anything to help your case - I remain unfazed by that attempt because an appeal to motive just shows the cracks in the armor, in this case.
No chance? This just shows you do not even know what that term means, yet for some reason you had the idea of including it in a discussion for Bible Translation, as you did, with religious studies.
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:Because many of us are of a basic education and many things are deliberately made so complicated as to confuse many.
Strong's are not complicated. That is why I linked you my thread on 1 Timothy 3:16, that there is an obvious example compared to Revelations 5:10.
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:The old old story. If you cannot satisfy them with science, then baffle them with bulls--t. And it works.
What are you talking about? Also, watch the language (Matthew 15:11; Ephesians 4:29; James 3:10)
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:The Leaders of the CCJW have proved that it works, over and over again.
What are you talking about? You went from Rev. 5:10 to religious studies, to truther, to this...
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:I make no apologies to Space Merchant because I think he is sitting on the fence. That's his choice but I don't have to sit there with him
How am I sitting on the fence for agreeing with the Strong's and context?
You said the viewpoint is different - then let's see it, I invited you to cite their findings on the verse. If I can cite my findings on the matter, what is withholding you from doing the same if you stated the viewpoint in the realm of belief is vastly different?
That being said, Strong's Concordance on the literal Greek is not going to show you any mercy if the claim is no different from 99% of the commentaries.
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:Simply put. Why were they in so much of a hurry to run ahead of God and Christ ? Because it has been shown that they did not wait on true spiritual guidance to lead them ..........................
I don't get what you are saying, granted the origin of T.A used in their translation that, in this case, predates them....
-
On 6/9/2020 at 2:48 PM, Matthew9969 said:
I wonder why they are not doing this to all jw's there? Not that I'm wishing for that to happen, but why are they singleing out this one man?
The Duma, The Kremlin, and the RoC have specific targets, not just in faith communities, but other groups such as protesters, activists, etc. There are those in their system that also defend such folks, often times can cause some sort of stigma. On the other side of the spectrum, The RoC does not have a need to press them or anyone else as much because they've caused enough damage.
That being said, ever since 2016, Cyrill and the Pope and all that transpired from there, those who are among the Conquest for peace and security will never go against each other apparently.
If you dwell on all this Russia, there is more that is deemed unknown to you. When I mean search all things Russia, you'd have to type things in the Russian languages to find out.
-
14 hours ago, Witness said:
I often refer to their own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, since many times their translation on the right is in favor of their doctrine.
There is no shift in doctrine because everyone agrees on what this verse conveys, as you can see "EPI" is seen in the verse --> https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_1909.htm
9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:quote 1: There is no change, there is no misinterpretation. Therefore, there is no error.
Because there is no change whatsoever. If there is a change, you'd have to prove that there is something else there that does not correlate with G#1909.
9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:quote 2: We have always used the Bible as the sole authority for our beliefs, so we have adjusted our beliefs as our understanding of the Scriptures has been clarified. *
Such changes are in harmony with the Bible principle stated at Proverbs 4:18: “The path of the righteous is like the bright morning light that grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.” Just as the rising sun reveals details of a landscape gradually, God grants an understanding of divine truth progressively, in his due time. (1 Peter 1:10-12) As the Bible foretold, he has accelerated this process during “the time of the end.”—Daniel 12:4.
These adjustments in our understanding should neither surprise nor disturb us. Ancient worshipers of God also had mistaken ideas and expectations and needed to adjust their viewpoint.
Literally has nothing much to do with the subject matter at hand, and according to what you conveyed before, seems to be in reverse. Therefore attempting to use this when the Concordances are there is indefensible, granted the verse in question the context has not changed regardless of which form of 1909 is used.
That being said, the next response would be the past regarding Strong's in other discussion, you best you be prepared for that because the way I see it in the situation of Strong's is nothing more than the KJVO discussions I've been in.
@Outta Here Starting to realize that this is a repeat of 2018.
I remember stating he following:
On 9/25/2018 at 5:17 AM, Space Merchant said:The funny thing about Biblehub is no one pays attention to commentary, the fact that it shows in the both of these misguided ones, who agree with each other and say they read the Bible, is rather telling.
-
17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:
Oh dear. I don't think SM actually wants to understand what I'm saying.
Actually I do, hence my citation, JB.
17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:What I'm saying is the CCJW / Watchtower are using both 'on the earth' and 'over the earth' in written translations.
And? None of the 2 violates the Greek Strong's granted the word in question is still 1909, if it is not 1909, then you have a problem.
17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:BUT they are teaching only 'over the earth'. Because it lines up with what they want to teach.
lol what? You can't be serious.... "upon the earth" and "over the earth" there is no shift in teaching and or interpretation. The context of the verse/passage has not been negated whatsoever. Therefore, the Concordances outweighs your view here, regardless.
That being said, there are commentaries for EVERY SINGLE VERSE in the Bible. And granted as to what is seen by these studies, it puts your notion to shame, in this regard.
17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:If they are writing both and only teaching one, then they are withholding the other viewpoint.
No viewpoint is withheld. It is only you saying that, but the commentary disagrees with you, as is, with those in the Strong's community. The basic significance of the Greek word in question "epi" is upon, on, or before, over, etc, for that is not the only meaning. When used in connection with power, authority, or dignity, epi can also mean over as well. Therefore nothing has been shifted.
If a given translation is possible according to the known usage and rules of Greek (Greek Grammar and Structure), it is intellectually dishonorable to make accusation of a translation trying to make it fit his current beliefs.
The context points to the notion of the one who rules from heaven. And since “epi” can legitimately be translated over and or similar within G#1909, one can see this as the option that most likely reflects the intended meaning.
That being said, that statement of yours does not make much sense granted that the context of this verse alone is easily understood, in fact, nearly 100% of people who study the Bible, specifically Revelations, understand what this verse is about.- As for context: It is regarding God's accomplishment. The purpose of restoring the earth under Kingship by means of the heavenly Kingdom, that consist of Lord Christ Jesus as the King, accompanied by the chosen ones [priests], whom have authority. As a whole, due to their divinity and connection, they make it possible to bring forth the earth into what God intended it to be, harmoniously aligned with God's original promise, thus fulfilling this purpose of restoration.
- More context: Verse 10. - And hast made us unto our God kings and priests; and didst make them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests. Of those whom thou didst redeem from every nation, thou didst make a kingdom and priests. Wordsworth remarks that these honours conferred upon the redeemed imply duties as well as privileges. They receive the princely honours conferred upon them only on condition that they also become priests, presenting themselves, their souls and bodies, a living sacrifice to God.
If you wish, you can post their view here, or quote them granted you deem the view is different, then we can see what is actually correct regarding this verse because from what I have seen, nearly everyone is in agreement with what this verse conveys, even the Restorationist community agrees, as is with even Bible adept commentators. The ones who do not agree are the ones who Creed adheres of MSC.
That being said, no viewpoint as been changed by anyone in this regard.....
17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:Could that be classed as deception ? Because if they are writing both, then they must believe both to be true.
There is no deception, granted one can see the context of this verse is in regards to Jesus and the Chosen ones, having a role in the restoration of the earth, which correlates with God's actual purpose found in The Genesis Act of Creation, not to mention, God's Promise, found in that same book.
17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:If a scripture has more than one possible explanation, shouldn't all explanations be given ?
There is only one explanation granted the context. The problem here is you are injecting your viewpoint from an modern English speaker rather than one who applies Hermeneutics in the Scripture itself.
That being said, I thought your focus was on the wording, now you want to speak of explanation granted it is an obvious one?
I suggest you do the research because the your view vs. the legitimate view of this verse is vastly different: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/5-10.htm
17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:SM says both are right. So why then does the CCJW only teach one of them ?
It is not about teaching, it is about context. The Interlinear is a literal Greek Translation into the Language, however, the latter is a modern day version and or revised, if need be.
The teaching regarding the Kingdom of God and who is to be stationed in said Kingdom has not changed, or has ever changed.
17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:Do they actually forget that they have written the Interlinear Translation, or do they forget that people still use it ?
They haven't forgotten apparently, for they have it listed. Interlinear Bibles in general and or the Hebrew to English Translations are primarily for those that prefer the literal choice, and or do so to learn what this word means and or how it looks in the language in question, etc.
Most modern readers know of these translations too, but prefer to stick to the modern translations.
17 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:Is it possible that the Anointed will be here on Earth, if only 'part time', to teach 'new scrolls' that are to be opened ?
You do realize that God's Kingdom is in heaven - right?
God rule will be over the earth from HIS heavenly realm (Revelation 11:15), This is why the Bible calls, in 2 Timothy 4:18, The Heavenly Kingdom.
God's King will rule from God's Kingdom, and is accompanied by the chosen ones. They govern all things on the earth. The key element here is this: not the area, but the authority which they exercise.
What amazes me is how you missed this context...
And no - regardless of who is of Zion, they are not part time workers, if that is what you are implying.
Seriously - I strongly suggest you read the BASICS in Bible Strong's Concordances because as of now, you are sounding like the KJV-Onlyist I deal with.
-
14 hours ago, Witness said:
Thank you.
"honorable titles for important people" - the meaning of "faithful and discreet slave" has become very important to JWs. Without them, who would supply them, "food at the proper time"?
"recognized for their contributions and the like." - "We also need to appreciate Jehovah’s provision of “the faithful and discreet slave,” the body of spirit-anointed Christians through whom he provides spiritual food for the household of faith. (Matt. 24:45)" be study 22 pp. 153-156 -
"These Benefactors are the types to take a lead among the people" - "They recognize, however, that Christ is using a small group of anointed Christian men as a Governing Body to lead and direct his disciples on earth."w10 9/15 pp. 25-29 -
"it should not be confused those among the Christ, to mimic as if they are and or align themselves with world rulers." The GB are entrenched in politics, they practice the opposite of Jesus taught. He never said to his followers to use the system to gain selfish advantage to promote their empire. No, these men are not "among the Christ". I'm sorry to say, that these blind men would not consider you as such, as well.
The scripture is a perfect application of the dual rulership in the WT.
And yet nothing here brands them as benefactors, hence my previous response on the difference between a benefactor who leads vs. a member among the Christ who leads.
And quote:
19 hours ago, Space Merchant said:The term is associated with honorable titles for important people, for instance, a Prince, for these people are recognized for their contributions and the like. These Benefactors are the types to take a lead among the people, however, it should not be confused those among the Christ, to mimic as if they are and or align themselves with world rulers. Faithful servants of the Lord are the opposite.
As of what is seen, you've added your own exegesis, granted, if someone were to read your citation in full, it is counted against you. You've done this before, but it seems you continue to go down that route.
-
In the truther community, by the majority of them in the US and EU, BLM has not just become political, it has become religious minus anything pertaining to God, but religious in a way to deem all police officers as guilty when not all policemen are bad, nor are they racist. BLM is a manifestation of hypocrisy. Therefore, as of recent, I do speak on the matter of BLM, against them and what their timeline is, however, their claims are forfeit to the point they have younger people believing their lies.
-
@Srecko Sostar You do not need to rely on Jehovah's Witnesses for Strong's. Also no one is speaking of Prepositions and masculines/feminines. We are on the topic of Concordances..... As for the word in which @Outta Here is in the right, as with the Strong's. There is no change, there is no misinterpretation. Therefore, there is no error.
Even all this time, your nature remains the same - deviation.
That being said, the claim of yours is false granted we have the concordances and early manuscripts if need be, be it public. That single image does not prove your case here.
-
23 hours ago, JW Insider said:
I don't think I saw that. But I would expect that Russellites of many stripes would carry his beliefs with them mostly unchallenged. Can you point me to that list?
I posted this a long time ago, I'd have to go treasure hunting; will post here when I do find it. One I can recall is DBSA (Dawn Bible Students Association), who Reslight, who is a Bible student with stated to have studied Russell for 6 decades now has mentioned this group several times. They have a similar belief of Satan being cast our and Jesus' Kingship. But the study of the Pyramidololgy was quite popular among Christians, especially those dwelling in Numerology.
-
2 minutes ago, Outta Here said:
That is rather poor research then. I know JW with Bibles with 4 different translations for that verse, and that is just looking through 10 Bibles of the many available. So, as you are already aware of Biblehub, then why not make your own mind up?
Granted due to Srecko's past, he does not like using Bible Hub because it, as with the to others, will be an instrument that would engineer their own demise 6 ways through Sunday.
-
16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:
+ Rev 5 10
Upon all OR over all ? what is more correct? @4Jah2me showed how JW have two Bibles with different translation.
They are both correct. Case and point.
- https://studybible.info/strongs/G1909
- https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G1909/epi.htm
- https://biblehub.com/greek/1909.htm
As I told @4Jah2me , the same thing. granted all the roots point to 1909, there is no violation of Scripture in the Greek text. Translations indeed look different, but each word still lines up accordingly with the Strong's number itself.
Now, here is an legitimate example. I linked to @4Jah2me 1 Timothy 3:16. There IS A VIOLATION in this verse. This Strong's was added G#2316. The other violates, in passage form would be Acts 8:37, this verse does not exist, hence omitted. Another would be Revelations 1:11 whereas the KJV added a sentence to this verse, likewise to 1 John 5:7.
Is it not wise to address this information instead of something that is already deemed as correct?
-
58 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:
@Space Merchant It's kind of simple really. If you believe that the CCJW / JW Org have got it all right and true, you would be one of them.
Can you show me where you address me that question? Because the thing with me, I do not like misinformation and false claims, so I would like you to refresh our memory
Address what you've stated.
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:I have asked him before...
I'm applying 1 John 4:1 for this one.
So I await...
That being said, as I recall telling you, which I can even quote myself, you can agree with them or disagree with them, you can even hate them until Hinnom suddenly starts burning again. But the fact of the matter is, misinformation, falsehood, and misconceptions deems refutation, regardless. If Witness' source believe JWs have guns in their churches, of course I will refute it because it is nonsense. Jack deem Muslims as evil since birth, of course I will refute it. I do not adhere to lies, as I said, I am a TRUTHER, that term holds a whole lot of water because Truthers do not like misinformation, i.e. A Truther can be against religion as a whole, organized or not, but he/she will not accept lies about a faith community, and often the types to, alluded to the 1st Amendment if need be. Often times, they agree/disagree on somethings, but do take lesson to apply it to everyday life, for just receive, Truthers brought up today's events and Sodom and Gomorrah.
58 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:If you believe that you have to be a JW to survive Armageddon (as they believe and teach) you would be one of them.
Refuted so you are a year or two late. As I pointed out, and what JWInsider pointed out to a Trinitarian on here who, invited us to discussion personally, we said otherwise vs your claim, even the JWs who chimed in addressed the same thing regarding God's Day. If you want, I can link both threads of this discussion. We also address to the Atheist here on this forum who brought up the same question.
Bottom-line - God knows who is for him, those saved in God's day is for an obvious reason vs. those who are not.
58 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:But you obviously believe that the type of Unitarianism you are part of is true and right.
And somehow you attempted to link me into believing in interfaith and homosexuality. As a Christian, that is, to me, seen as insulting.
I even addressed to you Unitarianism is different, each of them, comparing me to them was unwise, for as I noted to you, I have a strong hatred to interfaith. If you know what Babylon the Great well, you know my hatred of the true enemy.
58 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:Therefore you seem to be saying that the JWs have not got it all right.
No, what I convey is I address the truth to misinformation directed to them. Likewise with correcting others on other Abrahamic faiths. The misinformation comes from the mainstream Christianity groups.
58 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:Or do you want one foot in each camp ?
Does it look like it? I will not accept falsehood due to someone's emotional disdain. Facts and truth.
58 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:What i call sitting on the fence.
I do not wish to be one sided as you are. If someone tells something false, is it not wise for one to speak the truth?
In this regard, I will give you an example, you stated all of them are guilty and practically loveless, how do you know this? You don't. Because you are going off on your own, for you cannot define everyone due to your misfortune. That is like Iran blaming the US and the UK for the actions of a few eggs in gov't. That does not mean we all commit evil now does it?
Therefore, when things of this nature is said, I do not sit around and accept it - I speak. I take action.
-
11 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:
The 'teaching' in the JW religion (1960's & 70's) used to be that the Elders would be Princes here on the Earth in the 'new 'world'. So they taught that the 144,000 would be up in heaven and the Elders would be in charge here on Earth. It seemed not to be mentioned from then onward but I think the Elders do 'fancy themselves' as princes though.
Do you have a source? Those of Zion are to operate as such, this is elementary Bible knowledge concerning the chosen ones. There is notion to those who are tasked to teach the people of God in the aftermath, so I do not see what you are conveying here.
You seem to be missing the context regarding the verse with that statement.
12 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:I am not going to get into debate with SM about Strong's etc. My point was the CCJW / JW Org / Watchtower, printed quite plainly in their Interlinear Translation that it says 'on the earth', but then they print in the NWT 'over the earth'
There is no debate, they are not in error in this regard. Regardless, it is only a problem if there is a Hebraic/Greek violation, then you would have a problem and in their part, it would be a critical problem. As for the I.L, it does not use TR, the TR is a later source, which the 1611 uses.
Therefore "on the earth" and "over the earth" have no issue. ON and OVER are both the same Strong's. UPON is another one, if that is, you checked the verse on Bible Hub.
14 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:So they have written both themselves. Only one can be right.
The Strong's number is exactly the same, therefore they are both right. It is only an error or a mis-translation if the number does not line up with the source. So for example, if 1909 was somehow 1988, you'll have a problem.
15 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:If the true translation from the GREEK is 'on the earth' then that is what is should be in the NWT.
You are going off on your own exegesis at this rate. Translations of any kind stick to, or try to stick to the originally source, going with what I know about the NWT, regarding this verse, they are sticking to the original source. Granted I mentioned Greek Strong's, they used Westcott-Hort, which is the Batman to The Trinity's Joker, in this sense.
42 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:Only one can be right.
Granted G#1909 is in use, they are, as is with most translations for this verse, are in the right. Both of them.
44 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:The question is, Is anyone actually being guided by God's Holy Spirit to write TRUTH ?
Yes. The writers were inspired to write the Scriptures, as for after the death of the Apostles, spirit led ones picked up and or found the manuscripts and translated the Hebrew and Greek text. Sadly, due to the craziness that is Christianity in the past, people came up with their own narratives and later manuscripts were formed with errors, which resulted in some translations having errors and or not even correctly lining up with the Strong's.
46 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:Is Strong's guided by Holy Spirit ?
By those who provided the Textual Criticism, yes. If it were not for them, Yahweh would be seen as "female", Jesus would have been seen as a hater of women and or insulting the poor, as is with having the ability to make tress burst into song, and being able to grow into the size of a giant.
Makes you wonder how things would be like if it were not for Textual Criticism and Strong's. You'd probably believe today that of inanimate objects "literally" sing about Jesus. Or to the JWs here, they would think and or preach in their gospel that Jehovah is a "she". Such things are absurd, and we should be thankful for those who did what they did, even giving their lives in the process. Bible History is interesting, of course.
That being said, I strongly urge you to read and or learn about Strong's.
I suggest you start here: https://biblehub.com/strongs.htm
But I do warn you, there are some Strong's out there that apply later manuscripts, which can result in some of their own additions, to which both Jews and Muslims today often point out. That is a story for another day.
-
22 minutes ago, Witness said:
So glad you keep tabs on me. I didn't realize it has been 33 times! Who keeps tabs on you?
I always keep tabs it just comes from memory. Even on myself in order to recall something, hence my memory is as thick as the skin of a rhino. Others have done the same, in my regard. Anyways, But you have to convey the statement correctly otherwise there will be confusion. You should know this because the both of us stated the same thing in the past, but now here it is different. So in regards to the latter, the claim of denying of which you provided is in err.
28 minutes ago, Witness said:A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. Luke 22:24-27
I believe I lectured you in the past of what a Benefactor is. A Benefactor (Biblical term, not the modern English term, yet somewhat similar), well the word used in that verse comes from the word (Ancient Greek: Εὐεργέτης, Euergétēs), which means that an individual who is doing good to and or for others. The term is associated with honorable titles for important people, for instance, a Prince, for these people are recognized for their contributions and the like. These Benefactors are the types to take a lead among the people, however, it should not be confused those among the Christ, to mimic as if they are and or align themselves with world rulers. Faithful servants of the Lord are the opposite. They do not partake to be like rulers of the world, but rather, they focus on what it means to be a Christian, a follower of the Christ and lead by example and lesson, as the marginal references in the verses you provided provides context.
In terms of ministering and serving, this citation from verse 26 gives the answer. Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24, which describes the work of those holding religious office within the Christian Church Congregation. We had this conversation parallel conversation on this before, to which you accused me of being misogynistic for agreeing with Scripture.
That being said, to deem them as benefactors in this regard when they are not is a misapplication of the verse, therefore, your mixing of verses to fit your own exegesis, as I have and the other alleged chosen one this forum call you out on. This is especially the fact you are dealing with modern day Restorationist, for regardless if they are striving to be of the early church and or lacking, Restorationist will never be caught dead granted of what you claim. It is in-bedded in their Christology after all.
1 hour ago, Witness said:Nowhere in Jesus' words, does it say that one member of his body has the ability to cut off the other from his own body.
Clearly, but this is not the case, and you make this claim when the latter is the opposite, hence why I pointed out it does not make any sense. This goes back to our early discussion about the Spiritual Stones of the Spiritual House, which what you said there contradicts present day regarding the matter. I do not see as to how and why you fancy misapplication.
That being said, my question to you is what if you were in the had said something that had denied even what the Christ as taught, should we look at you as the same, that is, using your claim? Because anything can easily be linked should you say what is not true in regards to question.
-
Unrelated, but remember the AntiJWs I mentioned in the past? These guys do not just dislike JWs, but they also dislike Christianity as a whole. According to them, they spotted some ExJws using the current situation as a tool of some sort. Reasons why I asked you lot if you think you are safe, for you have even some Christians out there that is pretending to be protesters to destroy their own property to fake victimhood.
Anyways,
3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:Would it be fair to surmise your post as a “conspiracy theory?” I am working on a post on that topic now, a few separate items having gelled together over the last few weeks.
Maybe, depending on the action here, I will even put it on this thread—not as a competing idea, nor dovetailing—just the same topic as seen from another angle—with focus on how it relates to our people.
When push comes to shove, all is a manifestation of the whole world lying in the power of the you-know-who of 1 Jn 5:19. It is odd that Tom Irregardless’s remark (quoted from Willie Whitepebble’s recollection) comes across as so stupid on the surface and so spot-on overall:
“And to think that Tom Irregardless, when confronted with some news report he didn’t understand, which was almost anything, would dismiss it all with ‘it just goes to show we need the Kingdom!’ How long had he been saying that?”
I’ve known plenty of people apt to use that quick retort. I becomes exasperating. Still, that does not mean that it is wrong.
Well that is understandable. The crazy thing is due to Cancel Culture, denying BLM will result in a number of things against you. Some people lost their jobs for pointing out the hypocrisy of BLM.
Granted my position because of the skin of my color, people expect me to support BLM. But I do not. These fanatics want to defund the police and deem anyone a threat if you think otherwise. Granted I dwell in business and all things cooperate, I have seen business executive's too afraid to say they do not support BLM, for if they do, they will not just be fired, but their name will be dragged around the mud and tarred, branded a heretic by the US, the EU and Asia. Can you imagine that, your name being thrown about in this matter.
That being said, never accept the mindless mantra of BLM.
2 hours ago, Anna said:Look y'all, all I'm interested in is: When is Armagedon coming?
Soon. But the whole narrative of seeing Yahweh, Jehovah, YHWH being written, vandalized on to property as well as Jesus and or Yeshua being written all over the place, it is understandable as to those out there that seems to be ready for God's day when they haven't even gotten to the End Time Tribulations yet.
On the other side of the spectrum, the UN has made a small movement, as is with the powers that be. These things alone tells you things will not return to normalcy 100%, even for you guys.
-
21 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:
I am curios as to why you do not wish to associate yourself with the jw's, but would rather stick with the unitarian way? You can message your answer if you'd like.
I do not associate myself with anyone. My concern is that I do not like misinformation and falsehood. I get asked the same question about Islam too, does not make me a Muslim, but, if something is said in error, I will speak the truth in the matter. This goes for the Abrahamic Faiths. This also connects with my study of religion and theology as a whole, as is with my position as a Truther.
Depends on what form of Unitarianism you are referring to, but it should be obvious as to where I stand.
Therefore, if someone sees something wrong, of course they will speak truth. But mainstream Christians such as yourself deem people to be silent, and you kind have a not of making accusations because they do not apply mainstream Creeds and the like. Of course you already know what I am referring to.
That being said, there are churches that will not open. There are those who defy the government and end up having consequences follow suit.
35 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:I have asked him before and not got a direct answer.
You never asked me that question. You did try to insult me with that Biblical Unitarian link last time. Last I check, I am not interfaith, I do not support Kairos, Peak, or Elijah's Interfaith Institution. Nor do I support, but rather, I am against the United Nation's L.T. Also, Also, as God is living, I would NEVER support homosexuality and their movement, hence your link.
Even outside of that, if it is Hermeneutics alone, you attack that, when the notion is solely of the Bible.
That being said, as I recall your last attempt failed:
-
@Witness That statement does not make anyone correlation to any sense. To deny Jesus is to deviate from what he teaches, to what his God said unto him, unto the people [you]. As pointed out before the notion of Excommunication has indeed started with the Christ, this was not engineered by any man, as the Bible shows.
Also you are missing verses again, just wanted to point that out, for possible the 33rd time it seems.
-
12 hours ago, JJJ-AUSTRALIA said:
Lol he must have got all the responses from the watchtower, only the watchtower bible translation is correct without any errors... According Space M.
Ignorance is a bliss, no? Actually my sources were from the Strong's Concordances itself (something I take with seriousness). If you can read carefully, you can see I linked a source(s). I didn't include manuscripts because it would seem it would be a bit of a handful for you.
That being said, the correction is not by translation. The source is by Manuscript Sources. There is a different, i.e. There is a reason as to WHY some verses are omitted from revised versions of most translations vs. the KJV.
But I do invite you if you want, let's make it a challenge, for this is what I live for. Pick any verse from any translation. CSE members love Hermenutical/Scriptural challenges concerning Bible verse/passage translations.
17 hours ago, Outta Here said:Don't need to puzzle over this surely??
It is too much of a puzzle for Srecko. Perhaps a difficult as that equals to that of the mystery of a Tomato being either fruit or vegetable - too mind boggling, to difficult for him to comprehend.
@Srecko Sostar On the contrary, there's a concordance for that too. Also God cannot be dead, nor can he die. God is not even a man according to the Bible, even by Job's own words. God is a spirit, as stated by the Christ. Seriously.... That is elementary, I really do not have to bring up the very thing you hate the most ----->>>>> Biblical Facts.
Good times for I remember that inevitable struggle.
-
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:
I'm glad 1914 and the generation do not really matter, because this is becoming a farce.
Outside of JWs, there are groups that adhere to the 1914 teaching of Jesus being King. I had posted a list before of existing and extinct groups that held that view. Everyone knew about what was studied regarding Giza, however, there is more that us of mankind do not know, so it is best to tread the path than stress out over when it will happen. Likewise with Issac Newton.
Only God knows, for we all are imperfect.
That being said, we all know, practically everyone here knows and can agree God has made Jesus King.
1 hour ago, Arauna said:The civil war definitely still affected people as late as 19 sixties..... just as WW2 signs are still affecting me........ There are some people still alive which were born during WW1........so the staggered approach is not as luny as you pretend it to be with sarcasm.
You do not believe in any of the signs and the generation - be honest...... so why would you think further? I suggest you can start quoting all JWs history to prove how incompetent they are........ then you will fulfill your Christian duty to bring the absolute truth to the friends here who love your quotes which is supposed to prove a superior insight. Because after all you have so much inside knowledge!
Well a second Civil War is spoke of as a possibility granted the situation coupled with an uptick in religious tension, people pretending they are better than the Christ and his God in order to carter to those in conquest for peace and security.
I'd like to add that has you or anyone else been paying attention to Babylon the Great's movements?
-
@César Chávez Pretty much, a Christian congregation itself is the church. The church is the people, and the head of the church is the Christ.
-
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:
I think @Space Merchant is proof of this point.
Pardon, I do not understand what you are conveying in this regard. My only issue is I do not like misconception and falsehood of any subject, this includes faith communities. You can agree/disagree with someone of that community, but to speak of something that is misleading and or off the rails, that demands a refute. Outside of that my biggest focus and concern is mainstream Christendom, and the ill use of their own exegesis when it comes to Scripture. Also I am a truther, so I take misinformation very seriously too.
That being said, the fact you mentioned Bill The Kid and referring to him as a parrot.... Relation to John Butler? He refereed to me as a parrot several times when I corrected him on history, race, child abuse statistics by race/sex to which he deemed me racist when I simply use facts straight from the F.B.I. (Federal Bureau of Investigation) itself, and Strong's and Tradition vs. Bible Teachings.
Mr. Butler's engine runs on emotion to the point he evades facts, and the last time I responded to him was concerning an issue, to which he has never updated anyone of of us on regarding a CoCA, something, as I mentioned in my solutions, which is quite difficult to combat even by means of the Law of the Land in the UK (even in the US).
- César Chávez and Arauna
-
2
-
2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:
God is "over all".
Human, angels, 144000 are not. Or?
That's G#1909, therefore, no issue as the Strong's stands as fact. As I recall, I told both you and Witness this in the past, for I remember one of you tried to twisted the Greek Strong's regarding darkness, smoke, destroyer, and I believe pit as well. We will leave it at that for I do not want to expose the cracks in your armure manquant de durabilite, in this thread.
That being said, you guys liked to link biblehub, therefore regarding what @Outta Here mentioned, this is, obviously not to your liking, correct --> https://biblehub.com/ephesians/4-6.htm
It would be wise to sharpen yourself and go to Bible Hub and learn, or simply google Strong's Concordance.
That being said, The Most High is above all, in the heavens and on earth. No one is equal to him and or can surpass him. He is the God of the Christ, he is the God of me, he is the God of you.
@Witness All those verses cited, as pointed out regarding Strong's are correct, but to go around the concordances raises issue. Keep that in mind.
Revelation 5:9,10 - "On the Earth" vs. "Over the Earth"
in Topics
Posted
Of course not, Butler, to even think that is absurd. God's Word is as clear as day as is with the context, nothing has given the notion to go beyond that.
God's Word is indeed inspired, not one is stating putting trust in man, but in what the Scripture is conveying. The learner and the wise can commit to knowing God's Word, but the latter, such as seen here, is asserting negativity in this regard.
All Bibles are Translations of the earliest copies of Manuscripts that we have. We do not have the originals, the ones written by the ones chosen by God to write. So modern day translations are of the copies, reasons why Textual Criticism and Strong's exist is to translate and transliterate God's Word so that you yourself can clearly read.
Oh so finally you clicked on the link I sent to you, and the irony of it all, you speak NOTHING of the commentary because from the way I see it, Butler, you are doing the same thing as you have done before. Now, in this regard, I can freely and willfully use 1 John 4:1 against you in this rebuttal.
Let's begin:
Let's look at the verses from Biblehub of which you highlighted (I can see you only cited 5 out of about 23 verisons of Rev.5:10 and it can easily be seen you did this for a reason), mind you, if you scroll down in Biblehub for THIS verse, this is what is shows us
I did you the favor of posting it all here (only going to highlight Greek Strong's Number 1909)
Granted we have ALL the translations on Biblehub presented in front of us (not your cherry picking of translation), we can see all of them has been using G#1909, granted REGARDLESS of the translation, even the KJV, there is agreement with the manuscript in question.
As for the context of the Scripture, for some reason you didn't even bother to [A] scroll down to see the context of the verse in the commentary and You stated that Jehovah's Witnesses' view on this verse is vastly different, but granted what can be research of the view of the Restoration's on the matter, you are, as I can say this now since I am using 1 John 4:1 against you, are lying, thus makes you a lair. How and why can this be said?
On Biblehub, here are some commentary notes of the context for Revelations 5:10:
Now, 4Jah2me, you said it yourself, that the viewpoint is different, well, I can quote you in this regard, as for you, you stated:
In fact, you, Srecko and Witness said exactly the same thing, but none of you even pointed out as to WHY it is different from the core belief of Jesus and the Chosen Ones, and I would expect Witness to speak on the matter due to the claim of being Chosen, which is interesting because if the verse is in regards to her, she should have said something, but no, so regarding this it is safe for me to agree with Kossnnen who even he called this into question, for he is actually reasonable.but no.
I asked you several times to quote them, to cite their viewpoint, but every time you evade, you ignore it, and you pretend that you were not asked the question, and it is evident to the fact you tried to derail the question being interjecting Religious Studies and the Truther Movement into the discussion of a Bible verse. This is an appeal to motive because it was obvious you had no response because it would count against you. For if a man stated a claim about something from HIS word, why is it so difficult for you to bring it forth? I have done you the favor of not just finding on my own.
Aligned with the commentary notes above, this is what I found, which is contradicting to your claim and or statement:
Regarding Revelations 5:10, their viewpoint is this – That Jesus was resurrected from earth to life in heaven, and they believe that others will be with him too, for the Jehovah’s Witnesses are referring to the Chosen Ones, so we can see here, the viewpoint of nearly the majority of Christendom has not changed with them, for as we know, 100% of Restorationist hold this view. Let’s continue, they pointed out John 14:2, 3 whereas Jesus said to his apostles he is going to prepare a place for them. Moreover, Jesus stated he will come back to receive them home and they will evidently be with him. So, granted the context, your statement is in error, thus makes you lair, which can be seen as to WHY when asked several times, you did not want to bring up any citation and or source to your claim of them changing the viewpoint to fit their belief when in REALITY, There viewpoint is no different from what is conveyed by 100% concerning those who believe Jesus is the Son of God and believe that God gives the Bride to the Lord.
Let’s continue, damaging, I know, but I am doing what you refuse to do, Butler. The context of Revelations 5:10 is as clear as the sky you look upon. The verse tells us, even Biblehub states this, it refers to those who are, the chosen ones, who are to reign with the Christ; which begs to differ the so called chosen one here who believes in the dismantling of God’s Order should have brought this up, but instead, becomes a church mouse. Let’s continue some more, The Chosen Ones, along with Jesus, make up the heavenly Kingdom, since I am citing the JWs’ view, they see this Kingdom as a Kingly government, to continue, this Kingdom will eventually rule over the inhabitants of all the earth and bring blessings to them.
From where?
For this is what the Bible shows us this:
The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.”
Regarding The Kingdom and the position of the Chosen, as with the Christ. But as can be seen, you "laughed at" God's Inspired Word, which shows your spirit clearly.
This Kingdom is Heavenly, and they, those chosen by God, govern from up above, as with the Christ, who is seated at the Throne of David. To continue, this is the Kingdom that Jesus told his followers to pray for as can be seen in the Sermon of the Mount found in The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 6 (Matthew 6:9, 10), to which Jesus states the sanctification of The Most High’s name, who is our Father in heaven. Jesus states for God’s Kingdom to come, and for it to take its place as in Heaven also on Earth.
Now granted I did what you alone cannot, tell me, as for your claim, how is their view vastly different to fit their beliefs if the core beliefs of Jesus and the Chosen Ones on Zion has not change for anyone expect those in Trinitarianism?
The VIEW IS ONLY DIFFERENT (and there is evidence to that) when the latter believes that Jesus is God, for when it is under this ideology, THAN the view differs. Reasons why I referenced The KJV-Onlyist crew because they primarily believe that Jesus is God.
Granted the Strong's has never changed, the viewpoint is found in the commentary notes I listed yesterday, I did you the favor of citing it again, or you can go to Biblehub and read it for yourself, that is, if you care to even look it up, but last I checked, you are incapable of doing the research, you even exposed yourself yesterday in this regard.
Christians who believe that Jesus is the Son of God knows that God has chosen him as King. As a King, he has those under him, the Chosen Ones who bear God's name and Jesus' name on their foreheads, who will rule with our Lord, our Christ - Jesus. The Kingdom of which God gives to his Son, he will be stationed their with the Chosen ones to reign over the earth from there. If you cannot take that from the context, this just shows you are Bibically ignorant, and you had the audacity to even go on Biblehub and not even look at what was stated there, which is exactly the same thing.
The Lamb is worthy, the Lamb takes the Scroll, and he is exalted.
This just shows you do not understand anything. Are you literally correlating this with English understanding? If you do not mind, this statement alone I will save, to show those in the Hermeneutics forums, for they themselves will joyfully get a quick out of this, so even there they will immortalize this. All that said, this mentality of yours befits the fact you deemed nakedness of a certain Biblical person as literal.... It is no wonder when it comes to the Bible, such ones as yourself are lacking, for you even claim in the past you lack understanding.
The the Greek word epi, translates to “over, on, upon, above, etc” anything pertaining to that Strong's and it's grammatical structure. The funny thing is there is no way on God's green earth you can refute the fact that this is a different Strong's number because any honest Bible reader, as seen by nearly ALL the commentary on Biblehub and elsewhere, they can understand the context of this verse.
If you think as such and convey in such a manner, as you exposed yourself to present here, it begs question, do you even not just read your Bible, but understand what God's Inspired Word is saying?
That being said, God's Word is inspired, the only true thing you have said thus far, but apparently, The inspired Word cannot be understood by you at all if you think if the Strong's or the manuscript as incorrect when transliterated without any credible proof of mistranslated, This is the same thing you have done with the term "nakedness" thinking a follower of Christian had done the literal when the Bible points to the actual true.
Clearly no, the Strong's helps the reader understand the literal Hebrew to Greek, and it's move to the Modern English speaking Language. God's Word is understood by what the verse and or passage is conveying, so in this instance, you applied your own understanding of the verse rather than what God's Word is telling you, which is evident in the very beginning of this thread.
The irony here is I stated context many times before, so this claim of yours was only said to commit to another appeal to motive, but instead, it shows your ignorant nature and the fact you have nothing whatsoever to back yourself up, therefore, you are but a mere man standing alone here. You only speak when you deviate.
And yet our Apostles study by means of Hermeneutics and the like. Do your research on the Gospel of Matthew, I agree with how that came to be, and thank you for showing that if this was with Matthew, you would also disagree.