Search results

Greetings Grailhunter, I was speaking about the KJV rendition of John 1:18 and the fact that there is a correct Greek original and an erroneous Greek version. I am very conscious of both the benefits and limitations of the KJV. I read a portion every morning from an interlinear RV/KJV and I...

Greetings again MonoBiblical, The problem is more on the other side. God has revealed himself and the faithful understand what he has revealed. God has no limitation, but most of mankind are oblivious to what is revealed. This is part of the theme of Isaiah's message that despite the clear...

Greetings again HealthyShape, You may be interested in the following excerpts from "History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ" by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905), Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France. Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than...

Greetings again HealthyShape, One or the other is erroneous. I suggest the KJV is correct as it makes sense while the modern renditions are contradictory. I prefer a God who has revealed himself and can be understood. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again HealthyShape, What translation are you using? I prefer the KJV rendition as being correct. John 1:18 (KJV): No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Exactly what happened in the beginning? John 1:1 does...

Greetings again HealthyShape, When did God the Father have or has God the Son? When did God the Father beget God the Son? Scripture please. Did God the Father create another God? Kind regards Trevor

Greetings HealthyShape, Very poor logic. God the Father is called Father because he is the One God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and he is also our father by means of our adoption through Christ, and we are invited to address him as "Our Father" Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again GodsGrace, The Trinity was developed in the first 3 or 4 Centuries and is a corruption of true Christianity. Jesus was condemned because he claimed to be the Son of God, not God the Son. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings TazzJazz, It seems pretty obvious from what you say is that you are a J.W. I agree with some of the JW teachings, but disagree with many other aspects of their teachings. I believe in the literal return of Jesus to this earth Acts 1:10-11, Acts 3:19-21. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again dak, The reference that I checked has a different sequence. Have you swapped the Greek around. But I am not qualified to discuss this. My view is that John 4:26, John 8:24, John 8:28, John 8:58 are all part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again dak, Interesting explanation, but the following uses the same expression, the first by Jesus and the second by the cured blind man: John 4:25–26 (KJV): 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things...

Greetings again dak, It is obvious that "I am he" is an acceptable translation and possibly the better translation. Jesus is not quoting or alluding to Exodus 3:14.. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again shepherdsword, The word "he" needs to be supplied to make proper sense in English. Another example apart from John 8:24,28 is the following and this is also part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ, and this is specifically stated in this verse.. John 4:25-26...

Greetings again shepherdsword, I prefer the translation "I am he", the same as in John 8:24,28 and is part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings shepherdsword, Most translations and commentators accept the present tense “I am that I am”, but notice in the margin of the RV (or ASV) and RSV, an alternative is given “I will be that I will be” or “I will be what I will be”, showing that some modern scholars suggest this...

Greetings again GodsGrace, As previously discussed, the term "Christian" has a wider range of meaning and usage today than in the 1st Century. As far as my fellowship is concerned, the answer is Yes. We do not have an open fellowship. I have never studied any of these writers. One of my...

Greetings again GodsGrace, I simply disagree with this assertion and this is the reason I have contested this from the start. I appreciate the long list of statements from the ECFs, but to me this is a witness to the fact of how early these men fell away from the true teaching of the Bible and...

Greetings again MonoBiblical, You seem to have missed what I was talking about. Without going into detail, the following is the first paragraph from Barnes' Notes on the NT: There is no passage of the New Testament which has given rise to so much discussion in regard to its genuineness as...

Greetings MnoBiblical, Your comment is obscure. I am not sure if you are aware of what has been stated as the history of the inclusion of 1 John 5:7. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Davy, No, I do not accept most of what the SDAs teach, but I endorse many of the time periods as representing the day for a year principle, for example Daniel 7,8 and 12. This makes much more sense than what you are suggesting. I do have a reference that lists the various...