LOL….I am beginning to despair that your reading skills are in decline…..how many times have I said that the Sabbath given to the Israelites was based on the 7th day in Genesis, but they are two different Sabbaths.
How many different Sabbaths was Israel to observe? Not just one. Some other festive days in the year, as well as the 7th and 50th years, were also called sabbaths.
How long before? Not very long at all. Again the Sabbath observance was given only to Israel and it was incorporated into the Law given through Moses a short time later, along with all the other laws that God’s people were to observe….though his moral laws would have been made known to Abraham and the Patriarchs much earlier.
Until the giving of the manna in the wilderness, Israel had no idea of what a Sabbath was. Moses had to tell them what God had just told him, after their complaints about dying of famine in the wilderness……
Moses wrote Genesis, so how would they have known about the details that Moses included in his Genesis creation account? That information was given to Moses directly.
Again you assume this…..but where is it written that the Sabbath was part of any laws given to Abraham? Did he ever mention the Sabbath? Did any of God’s servants before Moses ever mention a Sabbath?
Before the Law of Moses, God’s dealings with the Patriarchs was individual. All that is written suggests that God spoke with them directly, probably through his Logos.
Out of all of God’s ancient servants, only Abraham was called “Jehovah’s friend”. (James 2:21-23) If the Sabbath observance was a command from God before Israel’s release from slavery then why can we find no mention of it in connection with him?
I think you mistake the NLT for the NWT, which is the translation we prefer.
Regardless of what translation we use, it is necessary to study like the Beroeans…..to prove to ourselves what is true and what isn’t. I have found so many translation errors by consulting Strongs and finding that they have rendered a word incorrectly, even though they admitted that it meant something else.
It is good to study these things instead of just flying blind and accepting a translation because everyone else does. Never have I found the NWT to be in error when translating the original language.
I ditched the outdated KJV decades ago. The errors are plain when you know the truth.
The original Bible was “inspired of God”…but translations are the work of men.
No fruit for those who are not fruitarians. The Bible is clear in its teachings…..Bible translations are ambiguous because they are designed to be….the translators in 99% of cases are trinitarians. Nuff said.
How interesting that you describe things this way……you admit that your sons are like their father, but are completely separate humans.
If both the Father and son of the Bible are like one another in character and personality traits, how come all of a sudden the son takes on the role of Almighty God when he never did? He was and always has been a “servant” of his God. (Acts 4:27) How is the servant now the equal of his God just because they share spirit “form” as Paul says in Phil 2:6…
”who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God”.
Yes, that is what it says…..The Father “sent” his precious son to be “the Savior of the world”. We have to confess that Jesus is the “son of God”….not that Jesus is God. Jesus is “theos” not “ho theos” as the Greek Interlinear will testify. He had God’s spirit in him, no question…..but it was given at his baptism.
That spirit was shared with his apostles.
If you want it to…...but that is not what it says In Revelation 3:14.
”Beginning” (
archē) means…"
- “beginning, origin
- the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader”
If you look up all the verses where this word is used, it is always the commencement of something…..the first person or thing in a series. “In the beginning” means when something started…..God created his firstborn son…..his “only begotten”…the very first life form to exist apart from himself. Why would anyone need to force this word to mean something else?….only a false doctrine that needs propping up.
Scripture says that Jesus preexisted his human birth as the “logos” (one who speaks for God) and we see in all his interactions with sinful mankind that a mediator was required, because no sinful person can come to God directly…sin is a barrier between us and our Creator, necessitating the need for an intercessor. Jesus is our High Priest…the one who goes before God on our behalf, and delivers our prayers to him.
If he was “God” (capital “G”) then we would need a mediator between us and Jesus. But if Jesus is “a godlike one” (also the meaning of “theos”) as the Scriptures indicate, then he is God’s representative in every way.…showing us who the Father is in personality and character, and how we should worship the God that he himself serves, even in heaven. (Rev 3:12)
This is no way detracts from who Jesus is and always was…..God’s precious and obedient son. We owe him our obedience and love, but our worship goes only to his Father.