Who is the "ONLY" True God Jesus referred to? (John 17:3)

  • 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!

Who is the "ONLY" True God

  • A God with Three Personalities!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Richard_oti

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2008
1,170
739
113
may I reveal something here. one word "ANOTHER", meaning another Adam, for Adam/man H120 אָדָם 'adam can be translate (KJV) as ANOTHER. Eve is simply "ANOTHER" adam/man. look up the Hebrew word, H120 אָדָם 'adam and see how the KJV can translate it.

I disagree.

You do realize that the KJV only rendered 'adam that way one time, and that one time was in Ecclesiastes 8:9 with regard to the phrase: ha-'adam be-'adam.

You are making the same mistake that I have seen so many before you make. Picking a word which the translators of the KJV happened to translate it (as like in this instance, only once), and thinking that it is some "definition" of 'adam and that it can be readily or randomly translated that way. 'Adam is man / mankind. Properly, one formed from 'adamah, the ground. There is no plural form of 'adam. Perhaps derived from the verb 'adam (H119), to be red. Which perhaps was originally related to dam (H1818) and literally meaning, to be of the color of blood.

Compare Latin: homo ; man : humanus ; human : humus ; ground, soil regarding the relationship of 'adam to 'adamah.

Cognates:

Arabic; 'adima, v
Ethiopian; 'adama v
Phoenician ; 'adam, n
Ugaritic; 'dm, n & v
 

theQuestion

Active Member
Oct 30, 2017
519
66
28
63
seattle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Now THAT is exciting!
The Poll shows MOST here (that voted) DON'T believe in a 'Triune God'!
 
  • Like
Reactions: KBCid

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I disagree.

You do realize that the KJV only rendered 'adam that way one time, and that one time was in Ecclesiastes 8:9 with regard to the phrase: ha-'adam be-'adam.

You are making the same mistake that I have seen so many before you make. Picking a word which the translators of the KJV happened to translate it (as like in this instance, only once), and thinking that it is some "definition" of 'adam and that it can be readily or randomly translated that way. 'Adam is man / mankind. Properly, one formed from 'adamah, the ground. There is no plural form of 'adam. Perhaps derived from the verb 'adam (H119), to be red. Which perhaps was originally related to dam (H1818) and literally meaning, to be of the color of blood.

Compare Latin: homo ; man : humanus ; human : humus ; ground, soil regarding the relationship of 'adam to 'adamah.

Cognates:

Arabic; 'adima, v
Ethiopian; 'adama v
Phoenician ; 'adam, n
Ugaritic; 'dm, n & v
ERROR, Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth".
H120 אָדָם 'adam (aw-dawm') n-m.
ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.).
[from H119]
KJV: X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
Root(s): H119
my source, Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments

NOW Richard what do "ANOTHER" mean? let's see. used to refer to an additional person or thing of the same type as one already mentioned or known about; one more; a further.

WELL U ARE REFUTED THERE, now onto the next point.

Genesis 2:5 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
again, H120 אָדָם 'adam (aw-dawm') n-m.

MUST I go on, but "ADAM".
Genesis 2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
again, H120 אָדָם 'adam (aw-dawm') n-m.

AGAIN U ARE REFUTED. now for (H119). it is never used in the creation account according to the KJV. AGAIN, U ARE REFUTED THERE.

Look, try studying first before U look ignorant again, ok. think about it first before you disagree, ok. thanks in Christ Jesus.
 

KBCid

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2011
764
292
63
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Now THAT is exciting!
The Poll shows MOST here (that voted) DON'T believe in a 'Triune God'!

Huh... how can that be? everyone should know without question that there is indeed a triune god and it is the god of this world;

The devil, who seduced them, was cast into the pool of fire and sulfur, where both the beast and the false prophet shall be tortured, day and night, forever and ever. (Rev. 20:9–10)

 

KBCid

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2011
764
292
63
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I disagree.
You do realize that the KJV only rendered 'adam that way one time, and that one time was in Ecclesiastes 8:9 with regard to the phrase: ha-'adam be-'adam.
You are making the same mistake that I have seen so many before you make.

Richard, this one would argue with God himself.
I gave it a shot before... so, my conscience is clear... it's in Gods hands now from my POV.
As you will see there is not much in the way of constructive discourse... it is simply i'm right your wrong deal with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Richard_oti

theQuestion

Active Member
Oct 30, 2017
519
66
28
63
seattle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Huh... how can that be? everyone should know without question that there is indeed a triune god and it is the god of this world;
The devil, who seduced them, was cast into the pool of fire and sulfur, where both the beast and the false prophet shall be tortured, day and night, forever and ever. (Rev. 20:9–10)

Obviously they are smarter than you give them credit for!
 

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,502
31,680
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Obviously they are smarter than you give them credit for!
Does it really have anything to do with how "smart" they are? Do only the Einsteins understand the Truth of God? The only the smartest men finally saved?

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matt 19:23-24

The riches that hinder men are not only money or the coin of the realm. Our brains can hinder us. Our great opportunities can hinder us. Our education can hinder us. Our rich spirits can hinder us.

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. " Jerem 10:23

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5:3

 

theQuestion

Active Member
Oct 30, 2017
519
66
28
63
seattle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Does it really have anything to do with how "smart" they are? Do only the Einsteins understand the Truth of God? The only the smartest men finally saved?

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matt 19:23-24

The riches that hinder men are not only money or the coin of the realm. Our brains can hinder us. Our great opportunities can hinder us. Our education can hinder us. Our rich spirits can hinder us.

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. " Jerem 10:23

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5:3


Wisdom begins with knowing God.- somewhere in Proverbs
 

Richard_oti

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2008
1,170
739
113
ERROR, Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth".

<hearty chuckle> Which does nothing to refute my previous post. Though you may think that it does. You claim "ERROR" and "refuted", yet in reality, you did nothing. Whatever you "think" you may have done, is only a product of your own vain imaginings.


H120 אָדָם 'adam (aw-dawm') n-m.
ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.).
[from H119]

Look at that, a noun that is from a verb. According to your own source.


KJV: X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
Root(s): H119
my source, Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments

Finally, you answer my repeated question regarding your source. And it is based upon Strong's just as I surmised. So, thank you for that answer.

Now, I want you to notice that "X" just before "another". What is that little "X" indicative of?

Like I said, you make the "ERROR" that I have seen so many before you make. You see a word in which it was translated, and think to yourself, oh look, it's a "definition" of the word. Thus, I can readily and randomly insert it whereever you see fit.

Like I previously showed you, though it either went over your head, or you intentionally and purposely disregarded it, as it does not fit your vanity upon the subject.

'adam, was translated as "another" one time only. Not because it means "another", but for readability in English.

It was done in Ecclesiastes 8:9 with regard to the phrase: ha-'adam be-'adam.

But no, you insist that you can render 'adam as "another" anyplace you see fit. To remain in ignorance with regard to this, is your choice.


NOW Richard what do "ANOTHER" mean? let's see. used to refer to an additional person or thing of the same type as one already mentioned or known about; one more; a further.

WELL U ARE REFUTED THERE, now onto the next point.

<hearty chuckle> Alright, if that's what it takes to sooth your mind. You have my permission in your ignorance to remain ignorant and errant in the manner you desire to use your Strong's. There is nothing wrong with "Strong's", it's a good tool. However, it is also an entry level tool. And you can't even use that properly.


Genesis 2:5 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
again, H120 אָדָם 'adam (aw-dawm') n-m.

MUST I go on, but "ADAM".
Genesis 2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
again, H120 אָדָם 'adam (aw-dawm') n-m.

AGAIN U ARE REFUTED.

<hearty chuckle> STOP! You're killing me! Thanks for the laughs, I haven't laughed this hard in a while now. And, again, if that's what it takes to sooth your mind, you have my permission to remain in your vain imaginings.


now for (H119). it is never used in the creation account according to the KJV. AGAIN, U ARE REFUTED THERE.

<chuckles uncontrollably> I can hardly type! Either what I wrote went over your head, or you are intentionally being obtuse. I never stated that it was. I was revealing to you that the noun 'adam comes from the verb 'adam. Which, your own source, Strong's clear states. The root of the noun 'adam is the verb 'adam. And I quote from above: "Root(s): H119".

Thus clearly revealing a noun from a verbal root. Which, destroys your whole argument that YHVH is a verb and not a name. Just as I have pointed out to you several times now, that the name "Yeshua" which you use, also stems from a verbal.


Look, try studying first before U look ignorant again, ok. think about it first before you disagree, ok. thanks in Christ Jesus.

I do hope your response is intended as satire / parody / humor. Otherwise if I were your "Lord", I would slap the back of your head. <hearty chuckle>.

Thanks for the laughs! Be blessed by YHVH through His beloved Son. More specifically, may a blessing be upon your head.
 
Last edited:

Richard_oti

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2008
1,170
739
113
Richard, this one would argue with God himself.
I gave it a shot before... so, my conscience is clear... it's in Gods hands now from my POV.
As you will see there is not much in the way of constructive discourse... it is simply i'm right your wrong deal with it.

Thanks KBCid, I have noticed that tendency. It is already established by that one that I worship Ba'al since I do not agree with him. But, this is not the first time I have encountered the vain imaginings of men. <raises eyebrows and grins>
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Now, I want you to notice that "X" just before "another". What is that little "X" indicative of?
Richard, you don't know how to read a dictionary, ck it's footnotes at the beginning.... (smile).
'adam, was translated as "another" one time only. Not because it means "another", but for readability in English.
you still can't read a dictionary.

then you ignorantly tried to quote me, Richard what do "ANOTHER" mean? let's see. used to refer to an additional person or thing of the same type as one already mentioned or known about; one more; a further". did you not understand G243 allos, if not, this time get out your Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. listen, G243 Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort". Richard, do you know what "a numerical difference" is, (this will come into play in when I answer your, or the other person 1 Corinthians 15:28 question). but a numerical difference is called "differentiation". and G243 Allos states that this differentiation is not in NATURE, but in form. so again you're refuted.

see, you have no clue of what "diversified oneness" is. get so advice, learn about it..... :D

WELL U ARE REFUTED THERE, now onto the next point.
 

Richard_oti

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2008
1,170
739
113
Richard, you don't know how to read a dictionary, ck it's footnotes at the beginning.... (smile).

It's your "dictionary", I don't own one. Besides, I asked you what it was indicative of. I already know. And "another", is not a "definition" of 'adam. It is the manner in which it was translated in a single occurrence for specific reasons. It is not a manner in which you may attempt to use it as you see fit whereever and whenever you see fit.


you still can't read a dictionary.

What can I say, my eyes are not what they used to be. However, I do know the correct use of one as opposed to the misuse of one.


then you ignorantly tried to quote me, Richard what do "ANOTHER" mean?

Where did the authors of the KJV translate 'adam as "another"? And why was it done in that one instance? Should be easy, I have already given you the verse. I've even given you the phrase.

Or shall you continue to attempt to obfuscate and cast aspersion.


let's see. used to refer to an additional person or thing of the same type as one already mentioned or known about; one more; a further".

First, answer the above. It does not require Greek to answer. All you are doing, is intentionally attempting to obfuscate the matter. Which is evidenced by @theQuestion 's asking for clarity.

<snip attempted obfuscation>

see, you have no clue of what "diversified oneness" is. get so advice, learn about it..... :D

So is that like the population of the U.S.A.? <raises eyebrows>


WELL U ARE REFUTED THERE, now onto the next point.

<chuckle> You keep claiming that. Perhaps if you claim it enough, someone will actually believe you.

BTW: What does it mean "to bear false witness"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KBCid

Richard_oti

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2008
1,170
739
113
101G is trying to make the scripture assert that Eve was simply another man and not part of the original image of God defined by Adam and Eve together but no worries.

Based upon this last round of replies. I am beginning to think the importance of this goes much deeper in the theology of 101G than merely 'Adam and Khavah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KBCid

theQuestion

Active Member
Oct 30, 2017
519
66
28
63
seattle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
101G is trying to make the scripture assert that Eve was simply another man and not part of the original image of God defined by Adam and Eve together but no worries.

It's strange how so many take a scripture just to defecate on it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: KBCid

theQuestion

Active Member
Oct 30, 2017
519
66
28
63
seattle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
ANY who reject the God of Jesus Christ, rejects Jesus, too, and is NOT a REAL Christian.
Simple Truth simple Fact.