Recent content by keithr

This is getting silly, so this will be my last comment on this! You've just quoted yourself as writing "No, that's incorrect", and focussing on a different word to what I was writing about. Quoting the whole verse - Colossians 1:16 MKJV: (16) For all things were created in Him, the things in...

How do you know that? Just because it's not how mankind normally procreates it does not mean that God cannot create a man with 23 chromosomes. Jesus did not have a human father. God could have supplied 23 chromosomes or just one. God designed and made man, He knows whether or not a man can...

And you've missed my point! I said the the word that's translated as 'through' in both verses is in both cases a translation of the same Greek word. You replied and said that was incorrect, but it IS correct. No. Just because I believe somebody that was a Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) doesn't...

I was correct! :clmSmlx I wrote "In both Romans 11:36 and Colossian 1:16 the word 'through' is translated from the same Greek word dia", i.e.: Colossians 1:16 UASV (16) For by {en} him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or...

No. I believe that the Hebrew version of Matthew that Shem-Tob copied is a genuine copy of the original Scripture. Shem Tob did not write the Matthew Gospel in Hebrew, he merely included a copy of it in his treatise - he was including his source, not writing it! George Howard writes in his...

That verse does not support or prove the Trinity doctrine. It certainly does not "clearly teach the Trinity"! The Bible clearly states that God's Son, Jesus, created everything - Colossians 1:16 WEB: (16) For by him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and...

It 'clearly' is not!

No, I've never studied with them. What Shem Tob wrote was written in the 1300s, but he included a copy of the Hebrew version of Matthew's Gospel which was written earlier. George Howard writes (from page 160 of The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text): Although the Hebrew...

I'm saying that the New World Translation, like most common Bible translations, is a translation of a corrupted version of Matthew's Gospel.

I had written that "baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" was a spurious addition, a corruption of the Scriptures. You had admitted that you couldn't be bothered to read any of the information that I gave (or gave links to) to provide evidence to confirm my claim, saying...

I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Neither have I ever been to any of their meetings. Either way, it is irrelevant. Did you check out the 144 translations of the Bible that don't include the added Trinity corruption? That's 114 translations made between 1863...

Dismissing what I said without bothering to read the reasons/evidence given, shows that you are foolish and can't be reasoned with. As the saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink". I'm sharing information, but I can't make you read it. I want to be sure that...

It sounds as though you haven't bothered to read any of the information in the links that I gave. :rolleyes: No, I wrote that Matthew 28:19 was corrupted and it did not originally say that people should be baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What I wrote was quite plain...

Yep, they're all translating from the same corrupted manuscripts. See Matthew 28:19,20 114 versions with the shorter ending. "The truth is out there" (X-Files).

See my explanation in the thread that I provided the link to - Matthew 28:19 - Trinity corrupted verse. And follow the other links in the discussion too, e.g. in post 15 Wrangler links to a thread "Why The Apostles Repeatedly Disobeyed The Risen Lord" in which he links to a website that has the...