King James Version Only...?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Lambano

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2021
6,228
8,925
113
Island of Misfit Toys
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Can a person hear from God while reading from any of the Bible versions available?

The differences in understanding from the various translations may only be in the minds of men. Does the Holy Spirit speak different meanings according to the version you are reading?

Will any person, truly following, as he is led by the Holy Spirit, be led astray in anything that matters to God due some man's less than perfect translation? Is God dependent upon the best translators and their written Bibles to sort it all out?

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." Matt 5:6 [KJV]

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26 [KJV]

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled" Matt 5:6 [NIV]

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my holy name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you" John 14:26 [NIV]

"Selig sind, die da hungert und dürstet nach der Gerechtigkeit; denn sie sollen satt werden." Matt 5:6 [Martin Luther]

"Aber der Tröster, der Heilige Geist, welchen mein Vater senden wird in meinem Namen, der wird euch alles lehren und euch erinnern alles des, das ich euch gesagt habe." John 14:26 [Martin Luther]

"Bienaventurados los que tienen hambre y sed de justicia: porque ellos serán hartos." Matt 5:6 [Reina Valera Antigua]

Joh 14:26 Mas el Consolador, el Espíritu Santo, al cual el Padre enviará en mi nombre, él os enseñará todas las cosas, y os recordará todas las cosas que os he dicho." John 14:26 [Reina Valera Antigua]

Hey, I still remember enough of my high school German to understand Luther's version!
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So, you believe God is lousy at grammar? The statement in Hebrew and English is nonsensical if it was trying to state that God is just one God!

Facts:
1.If God wanted to say He is the only divine being, He would have inspired Yachid, instead of Echad for the word one- then there is no other
possibility.

2. If God wished to inform Israel He alone is divine (or God), He would have constantly inspired "elowah" (singular) instead of the plural Elohim!

3. Godhead is a biblical term, trinity is a coined word to describe the one true god to contrast it to the pagan triads.

Yes we believe differently. but as long as you continue to post the gnostic and Ariah heresy, I will continue to post the biblical truth.
..........................................................

Echad (‘Plural’ Oneness)

I have seen Deut. 6:4 - “YHWH [Jehovah/Yahweh] our God, YHWH [Jehovah/Yahweh] one [Echad] in Hebrew]” - rendered in several ways. (I prefer "Jehovah [is] our God, Jehovah alone.") Some trinitarians misinterpret this. They often say something like this: “At Deut. 6:4 the word ‘one’ is echad in Biblical Hebrew, which means ‘composite unity’ or ‘plural oneness’.”

First, it certainly wouldn’t be surprising to find that some noted trinitarian authority on Biblical Hebrew had written somewhere that echad means “united or plural oneness.” But I haven’t found one yet!

Here is what I have found written about echad by authorities on Biblical Hebrew:

The only definition given for echad in the trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance is: “a prim[ary] card[inal] number; one”. We find no “plural oneness” there!

The highly respected Biblical Hebrew authority, Gesenius, says that echad is “a numeral having the power of an adjective, one.” He then lists the various meanings of echad as:

“(1) The same,”
“(2) first,”
“(3) some one,”
“(4) it acts the part of an indefinite article,”
“(5) one only of its kind,”
“(6) when repeated [echad ... echad] ‘one ... another’,”
“(7) [K echad] AS one man.” [The initial consonant of this word, “K,” (or k in Hebrew) actually means “as” or “like,” so in this special form the meaning is close to that of a plural oneness. But this is not the form used at Deut. 6:4 !! ]

Gesenius also lists a plural form of the word (achadim, or /*miiydxa in Hebrew script) which means “joined in one, united.” This, too, is not the form used at Deut. 6:4 which context shows, instead, to have meaning #5 above. - See Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, #259, Baker Book House. Surely, if God (or Jehovah) were really a union of persons, a united one, this form which truly means “united one” would have been used to describe “Him” repeatedly in the Holy Scriptures. But it and all other words with similar meanings were never used for God (or Jehovah)!

By using a good Bible Concordance (such as Strong’s or Young’s) we can find all the uses of echad in the Bible. Unfortunately (due to space limitations), Young’s and Strong’s both list the rare plural form (achadim,) and the “AS one” (Kechad, or dxak in Hebrew script) form along with the common singular form (echad) without distinguishing among them.

Nevertheless, since both the plural form and the kechad form are used quite rarely (see Ezek. 37:17 and 2 Chronicles 5:13 for examples), we can see that the overwhelming majority of the uses of echad listed in these concordances (over 500) obviously have the meaning of singleness just as we normally use the word “one” today.

If you should find a scripture listed as using echad in your concordance that definitely has the meaning “plural oneness” or “together,” or “as one,” you should check it out in an interlinear Hebrew-English Bible. If the word in question is really the echad form of the word (as at Deut. 6:4), then it will end with the Hebrew letter “d” (d) in the Hebrew portion of your interlinear. If, however, it is really the plural form of the word (achadim), then it will end in the Hebrew letter “m” (m). And if the word is really Kechad (“AS one”), it will begin with the Hebrew letter “k” (k). Remember, though, that Hebrew reads from right to left (so the LAST letter of a Hebrew word is really the letter at the extreme LEFT.)

Using your concordance along with an interlinear Hebrew-English Bible in this manner, I don’t believe you will ever find echad (as used at Deut. 6:4) literally meaning “plural oneness”!

Further emphasizing the impropriety of this “plural oneness” interpretation of echad are the many trinitarian renderings of Deut. 6:4. In the dozens of different trinitarian Bible translations that I have examined none of them have rendered Deut. 6:4 (or Mark 12:29) in such a way as to show anything even faintly resembling a “plural oneness”!!

Even the highly trinitarian The Living Bible, which, being a paraphrase Bible, is able to (and frequently does) take great liberties with the literal Greek and Hebrew meanings in order to make better trinitarian interpretations, renders Deut. 6:4 as “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone.” Notice that there’s not even a hint of a “plural oneness” Jehovah!

The equally trinitarian (and nearly as “freely” translated as The Living Bible) Good News Bible (GNB) renders it: “The LORD - and the LORD alone - is our God.” - Compare the equally “free-handed” (and trinitarian) The Amplified Bible.

And even among the more literal trinitarian translations of Deut 6:4 we find:

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - New Revised Standard Version.

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!” - New American Bible.

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - The Holy Bible in the Language of Today, Beck (Lutheran).

“Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh.” - New Jerusalem Bible.

“Yahweh is our God, - Yahweh alone.” - The Emphasized Bible, Rotherham.

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed).

“The Eternal, the Eternal alone, is our God.” - A New Transation, Moffatt .

The trinitarian ASV (also the RSV) gives 4 different possible renderings of Deut. 6:4. One of them is identical with The Living Bible, and none of them includes an understanding of a “plural oneness” God!

The paraphrased The Living Bible also renders Mark 12:29 (where Jesus quotes Deut. 6:4 and an excellent spot for him to reveal a “trinity” God --- or even just a “plural oneness” God) as: “The Lord our God is the one and only God.” Notice the further explanation of the intended meaning of this scripture at Mark 12:32, 34. “’... you have spoken a true word in saying that there is only one God and no other...’ Realizing this man’s understanding, Jesus said to him, ‘You are not far from the Kingdom of God.’”

Why doesn’t this highly interpretive trinitarian paraphrase Bible (or any other Bible for that matter) bring out a “plural oneness” meaning at these scriptures (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29) if that can be a proper interpretation for echad?

Surely, if the trinitarian scholars who made this Bible had thought there was even the slightest justification for an echad = “plural oneness” interpretation, they would have rendered it that way: “Jehovah is a composite unity;” or “Jehovah is the United One;” or “Jehovah is a plural oneness;” etc.

Instead they have clearly shown that God (who inspired it), Moses (who wrote it under inspiration), and even Jesus himself (who taught that it was part of the most important commandment of all - Mark 12:28-29, LB; GNB; etc.) intended this scripture to show God as a single person only!

Similarly, the three annotated trinitarian study Bibles I own would certainly explain any intended “multiple-oneness” meaning for echad at Deut. 6:4 (if there were any possibility of such an interpretation). But the extremely trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., gives no hint of such an understanding of echad in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). And the trinitarian The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed., likewise gives no hint of such an understanding in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). And that trinitarian favorite: The NIV Study Bible, 1985, also gives no hint of such a meaning for echad in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). The only possible reason for all these trinitarian study Bibles ignoring this “proof” is that it simply is not true!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GEN2REV

Cassandra

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2021
2,506
2,870
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
He took advantage of finishing the project 14% ahead of schedule. Unfortunately, He had huge cost overruns. Keeping a project both within schedule and under budget is something not even God can do. :p
Guess that is supposed to be funny. I didn't find it so. I thought this was a serious subject.Guess not.
Stage is all yours, Boopy.
 

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,394
31,446
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Not in any version that I can't understand, which now is any other language.

As a Christian brought back to Christ, I needed the NIV. I rarely understood much of what the Bible was saying as a teen because it was the KJV.

Atheists come around with quotes out of context (always in KJV) to discredit the Bible, because they can't actually understand the rest.

It took a lot of growing before I was ready, but I can't say God speaks to me less in one version from another.

I could say as a new reader in the beginning, I wouldn't have heard much from Him at all without the NIV.
Give God the glory sister, because He has spoken to you in spite of which version you did or did not use!
 

Lambano

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2021
6,228
8,925
113
Island of Misfit Toys
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Guess that is supposed to be funny. I didn't find it so. I thought this was a serious subject.Guess not.
Stage is all yours, Boopy.
I'm sorry, Cassandra. I'm going to have to find a way to get back in your good graces.
 
Last edited:

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So, you believe God is lousy at grammar? The statement in Hebrew and English is nonsensical if it was trying to state that God is just one God!

Facts:
1.If God wanted to say He is the only divine being, He would have inspired Yachid, instead of Echad for the word one- then there is no other possibility.
....
Yes we believe differently. but as long as you continue to post the gnostic and Ariah [sic] heresy, I will continue to post the biblical truth.
...................................................
Yachid

A few trinitarians insist that not only does echad mean “plural oneness,” but that, if singleness were intended by the Bible writer, the Hebrew word yachid (dyxy) would have been used at Deut. 6:4.


Here is how it was presented to me by one trinitarian:

“The word for ‘one’ in this great declaration [Deut. 6:4] is not Yachid which is an absolute oneness but rather echad which means ‘united one.’ Had the Holy Spirit desired to state absolute mathematical oneness in this all-important declaration, He could have easily used the word yachid, couldn’t He?”

We have already seen the absolute falsity of the “echad-means-’plural-oneness’” idea. But what about yachid? Did the Bible writers really use it whenever they meant “absolute mathematical oneness”? We have already seen that they really used echad for “absolute mathematical oneness,” and a good concordance will show they did this consistently—many hundreds of times!

Yachid, on the other hand, is only used about 12 times in the entire Bible and then only in a narrow, specific sense.

The Old Testament language authority, Gesenius, tells us that yachid is used in three very specialized ways: (1) “only” but primarily in the sense of “only begotten”! - Gen. 22:2, 12, 16; Jer. 6:26; and Zech. 12:10. (2) “solitary” but with the connotation of “forsaken” or “wretched” ! - Ps. 25:16; 68:6. (3) As yachidah (feminine form) meaning “only one” as something most dear and used “poet[ically] for ‘life’ - Ps. 22:20; 35:17.” - p. 345 b.

We find yachid is never used to describe God anywhere in the entire Bible! But it is used to describe Isaac in his prefigured representation of the Messiah (and ‘only-begotten’): Gen. 22:2, 12, 16. It is also used at Judges 11:34 for an only-begotten child. The ancient Greek Septuagint translates yachid at Judges 11:34 as monogenes (“only-begotten”): the same NT Greek word repeatedly used to describe Christ (even in his pre-human heavenly existence - 1 John 4:9). Monogenes, however, like the Hebrew yachid, is never used to describe the only true God, Jehovah (who is the Father alone).

So, if Jehovah were to describe himself as “forsaken” or “wretched,” or were speaking poetically about his “dear life,” or were describing himself as the “only-begotten son” (which he never does anywhere in the Bible!), then he might have used yachid.

But since he was describing his “mathematical oneness” at Deut. 6:4, he properly used echad!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GEN2REV

Lambano

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2021
6,228
8,925
113
Island of Misfit Toys
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Can you make out any discernible difference to the meaning of those two translations? Is one more correct for some reason?

I couldn't see any real difference to what is being stated. In the second version, 'the Lord' is repeated, and 'our God.' is defining who 'The LORD' is. So you can eliminate the first part of it 'The LORD our God, ...' and just have the second part meaning the same thing. '... the LORD is one.'

In other words, 'The LORD our God is one LORD' is exactly the same meaning as 'the LORD is one.'

Do you see it differently?
The way the Rabbi explained it, when read aloud in Hebrew, the divine Name YHWH is NEVER spoken. The reader must substitute "Adonai" (LORD). It would make no sense to say, "YHWH your God is one YHWH". One YHWH? Are there more than one YHWHs? The understanding that is fundamental to Judaism is that YHWH is One. The one and only God. There are no others.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So, you believe God is lousy at grammar? The statement in Hebrew and English is nonsensical if it was trying to state that God is just one God!

Facts:
....

2. If God wished to inform Israel He alone is divine (or God), He would have constantly inspired "elowah" (singular) instead of the plural Elohim!
....

Yes we believe differently. but as long as you continue to post the gnostic and Ariah heresy, I will continue to post the biblical truth.
...............................................

ELOHIM


Many trinitarian apologists will tell us that the Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural because it shows that God is a trinity. For example:

"Among Trinitarian Christian writers it is [often] seen as evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, a plurality in the Godhead." - Theopedia, "Elohim."

......................................................

That the Hebrew plural is often used for a singular noun to denote “a ‘plural’ of majesty or excellence” is well-known by all Biblical Hebrew language experts and has been known from at least the time of Gesenius (1786-1842), who is still regarded as one of the best authorities for Biblical Hebrew!

Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (“long regarded as a standard work for students”), p. 49, shows that elohim, ~yhla , (“God/gods”) is sometimes used in a numerically plural sense for angels, judges, and false gods. But it also says,

“The plural of majesty [for elohim], occurs, on the other hand, more than two thousand times.” And that elohim when used in that sense “occurs in a [numerically] singular sense” and is “constr[ued] with a verb ... and adjective in the singular.”

Gesenius - Kautzsch’s Hebrew Grammar, 1949 ed., pp. 398, 399, says:

“The pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis ... is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification .... So, especially Elohim ... ‘God’ (to be distinguished from the plural ‘gods’, Ex. 12:12, etc.) .... That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”

Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, 1925 ed. Pg. 224:

Elohim "is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

More modern publications (trinitarian Protestant and Catholic) also make similar acknowledgments of the intended plural of majesty or excellence meaning for elohim. (See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. v., p. 287.)

Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, describes elohim:

“The common plural form ‘elohim,’ a plural of majesty.” - Unger and White, 1980, p. 159.

“Pluralis Majestatis: Biblical Hebrew

"The term ‘majestic plural’ or pluralis majestatis refers to the use of a plural word to refer honorifically to a single person or entity. It is also called the ‘plural of respect’, the ‘honorific plural’, the ‘plural of excellence’, or the ‘plural of intensity’. In the Hebrew Bible such plural forms are most commonly used when referring to the God of Israel, e.g., adonim ‘I am a master (lit. ‘masters’)’ (Mal. 1.6), although it can also be used when referring to a human, e.g., abraham adonaw ‘Abraham his master (lit. ‘masters’)’ (Gen. 24.9), an object, e.g. gibroteka ‘your grave (lit. ‘graves’)’ (2 Kgs 22.20), ...." - ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS, p. 145, vol. 3, 2013.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:

“It is characteristic of Heb[rew] that extension, magnitude, and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the pl[ural].” - Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984 ed., Vol. II, p. 1265.

Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publishers, written by trinitarian scholars, says of elohim:

“Applied to the one true God, it is the result in the Hebrew idiom of a plural magnitude or majesty. When applied to the heathen gods, angels, or judges ..., Elohim is plural in sense as well as form.” - p. 208.

The trinitarian scholar, Robert Young, (Young’s Analytical Concordance and Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible) wrote in his Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 1,

“Heb. elohim, a plural noun ... it seems to point out a superabundance of qualities in the Divine Being rather than a plurality of persons .... It is found almost invariably accompanied by a verb in the singular number.”

Exodus 7:1 (KJV and Hebrew text) shows God calling Moses "a god" (elohim). This alone shows the error of some that the plural elohim must mean a "plural oneness" unless we want to believe Moses was a multiple-person Moses!

And The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:

Elohim, though plural in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. ‘gods’). Even a single heathen god can be designated with the plural elohim (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plural is understood as the plural of fullness; God is the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God.” - p. 67, Vol. 2.

The NIV Study Bible says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1:

“This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.” – p. 6, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

And the New American Bible (St. Joseph ed.) tells us in its “Bible Dictionary” in the appendix:

ELOHIM. Ordinary Hebrew word for God. It is the plural of majesty.” – Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970.

A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 220, Hendrickson Publ.) declares:

“The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among [real] scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.”

To show how ancient Jewish scholars themselves understood this we can look at the work of the seventy Hebrew scholars who translated the ancient Hebrew Scriptures (OT) into Greek several centuries before the time of Christ. The Greek language did not use the “plural of excellence” that the Hebrew did. So, if we see a plural used in the Greek Septuagint, it was really intended to represent more than one individual!

So how is elohim rendered in the Greek Septuagint by those ancient Hebrew scholars? Whenever it clearly refers to Jehovah God, it is always found to be singular in number (just as in New Testament Greek): theos ! Whenever elohim clearly refers to a plural (in number) noun, it is always found to be plural in number in Greek (just as in the New Testament Greek): theoi or theois (“gods”).

For example: “I am the Lord thy God [elohim - plural of excellence in Hebrew becomes theos - singular in the Greek Septuagint]” - Ex. 20:2. And “know that the Lord he is God [as always, the plural elohim, as applied to the God of Israel, becomes the singular, theos in the Septuagint] he made us...” - Ps. 100:3.

But when elohim really does mean plural in number, we see it rendered into the Greek plural for “gods” in the Septuagint: “Thou shalt not worship their gods [elohim in Hebrew becomes theois - plural in the Greek Septuagint], nor serve them .... And thou shalt serve the Lord thy God [singular - Greek].” - Ex. 23:24-25.

We see exactly the same thing happening for translations of the plural elohim in the ancient Septuagint and in the Christian NT.

Yes, all the NT Bible writers, whether quoting from the OT or writing their own God-inspired NT scriptures, always used the singular “God” (theos) in NT Greek when speaking of the only true God of the Bible. (If the plural form had been used for the only true God, we would even discover a new “trinity” at John 10:34.)

It is absolutely incredible that John, Paul, and the other inspired NT writers would not have used the plural Greek form to translate the plural Hebrew form of “God” if they had intended in any degree to imply that God was in any way more than one person!
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
12,992
4,798
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It is absolutely incredible that John, Paul, and the other inspired NT writers would not have used the plural Greek form to translate the plural Hebrew form of “God” if they had intended in any degree to imply that God was in any way more than one person!

I love how trinitarians attempt to get around this by parsing synonyms. One being is one person. Begotten means to be created.
 

Lambano

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2021
6,228
8,925
113
Island of Misfit Toys
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
To form an umlaut, depress

ALT 0228 for ä
ALT 0196 for Ä
ALT 0246 for ö
ALT 0214 for Ö
ALT 0252 for ü
ALT 0220 for Ü
Aha! Figured out the trick. I need an external keyboard with a separate Numbers keypad. Activate the Num Lock and then type the extended code.

Danke schön, Herr Amadeus!
 
Last edited:

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,502
3,695
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
'The LORD our God is one LORD' is exactly the same meaning as 'the LORD is one.'

The Lord is one is all that it is declaring.

It states nothing more.

There's nothing else there but that.

then why do you reject John 1:1

"In the beginning, was the Word. And th e Word was with the God, and the Word was God!" that states nothing more and yet you and the Watchtower feel the need to add or make exception to that verse!

And yes, the Shema says that exactly! Jehovah our Elohim, Jehovah is one. That is horrendous grammar on gods part, unless He was trying to say something unique! If God wanted to say He alone was jehovah, He would have inspired it to say : Jehovah our Elohim is alone Jehovah!" And the shema does not say that!
 

GEN2REV

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2021
3,850
1,436
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
then why do you reject John 1:1

"In the beginning, was the Word. And th e Word was with the God, and the Word was God!" that states nothing more and yet you and the Watchtower feel the need to add or make exception to that verse!
This part of your post shows that you are completely confusing me with somebody else. (I'm certain intentionally)
Ronald Nolette said:
And yes, the Shema says that exactly! Jehovah our Elohim, Jehovah is one. That is horrendous grammar on gods part, unless He was trying to say something unique! If God wanted to say He alone was jehovah, He would have inspired it to say : Jehovah our Elohim is alone Jehovah!" And the shema does not say that!
And this part shows that you have some catching up to do in this thread.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
then why do you reject John 1:1

"In the beginning, was the Word. And th e Word was with the God, and the Word was God!" that states nothing more and yet you and the Watchtower feel the need to add or make exception to that verse!

And yes, the Shema says that exactly! Jehovah our Elohim, Jehovah is one. That is horrendous grammar on gods part, unless He was trying to say something unique! If God wanted to say He alone was jehovah, He would have inspired it to say : Jehovah our Elohim is alone Jehovah!" And the shema does not say that!
..............................................


Psalm 83:18


“That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth.” - ASV.

“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.” - KJV.

2 Kings 19:19

“Now therefore, O Jehovah our God, save thou us, I beseech thee, out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou Jehovah art God alone. - ASV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GEN2REV

GEN2REV

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2021
3,850
1,436
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
..............................................


Psalm 83:18


“That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth.” - ASV.

“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.” - KJV.

2 Kings 19:19

“Now therefore, O Jehovah our God, save thou us, I beseech thee, out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou Jehovah art God alone. - ASV.
"I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: ... That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
Isaiah 45:5-7

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."
Isaiah 43:10-11

" I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
Revelation 1:8
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I agree with the morning star comment, but also that verse is in Isaiah and has nothing to do with Satan. I would need to look into it more.

You're looking at over 750,000 words so it makes sense if you have ever edited anything.

Is it perfect? No, but I wouldn't ever discourage anyone from reading a version that makes sense to them.

That was the reason they translated the work into English in the first place. Before there was no Bible for the people, they were forced by law to attend the Catholic church, English Bibles were illegal and people were murdered for translating them into their own language.

So this is a blessing for us in its glory, even with some imperfections. But we should do our research.
Well, I think one should strive for the best and most accurate translation, which is the KJV.

God can use any means to reach a soul, even a Catholic tract(as a stepping stone to Acts 2:38).

However, they must move away from the RCC etc to reach the 1st century church.