6 Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

[Bowman]

Hmm since you replied...
You study Greek? Since you wrote 'Look to the Greek for the meaning of Romans 8' why don't you break it down to prove your point, using the Greek? Prove your point that 'the Spirit of Christ gets the heart ready for the Holy Spirit and then leaves' - I paraphrase what you wrote before.

You posited this scripture for your position in the first place. It is up to you to prove your point from it...otherwise you should not have brought it up in the first place.

Perhaps in the future, you will think twice...

Oh, Trinity isn't three? Then why is it called Trinity? Do you know what that means? And what exactly is your argument then? Lol so many Trinitarians don't even know their own beliefs that they blindly state, but when it gets down to the truth, they backtrack and say God isn't three persons that are not each other. Do you know what your own beliefs are?

The same offer is made to you...bring forth any Biblical verse which you feel somehow thwarts the Trinity, and detail to us why that you think that it does.

This way you can prove to us that you comprehend what the Trinity even is.

Good luck...

 

[Bowman]

Hi Bowman,


If one suspends common sense and already believes in the Trinity, sure. This is just more of your cryptic Trinity 'hints' that you're trying to clue us in to. Under normal circumstances, the mere mentioning of individuals together does not cause you to believe that they are multiple persons sharing one being.Why does that very text only call one of the persons mentioned the 'Almighty'? Why not all of them?

Rev 1.8

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, says the Lord, the One who is, and who was, and who is coming, the Almighty.


I count three.

1) Alpha & Omega
2) Beginning & the End
3) One who is, and who was, and who is coming

I asked you who was the one 'who was, and is, and is to come', to which you responded:

Excellent. This shows that your previous assertion, that Jesus is called the 'Almighty' in Revelation 4 is incorrect:

"Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:
'Holy, holy, holy
is the Lord God Almighty,
who was, and is, and is to come.'" (Revelation 4:8)

Your first clue is what?

Thrice 'Holy'.


Rev 4.8 - 11

And the four living creatures each one had six wings around, and within being full of eyes. And they had no rest day and night, saying, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty," the One who was, and is, and is coming! Isa. 6:3 And whenever the living creatures shall give glory and honor and thanks to the One sitting on the throne, to the One living to the ages of the ages,the twenty four elders fall down before Him sitting on the throne; and they will worship the One living to the ages of the ages, and will throw their crowns before the throne, saying, Lord, You are worthy to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because You created all things, and through Your will they exist and were created.


You never did answer how it is that God was deemed 'worthy to receive' anything?

Little wonder, as the same phrase is applied to the Son, as thus...


Rev 5.12

saying with a great voice, Worthy is the Lamb having been slain to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.


So the One on the Throne is clearly the Son, being worshiped as God.

Again...you are simply stuck.

 

[Bea22]

You posited this scripture for your position in the first place. It is up to you to prove your point from it...otherwise you should not have brought it up in the first place.

Perhaps in the future, you will think twice...

I think I already have typed much more in proving my position then your one sentences here and there.
Its ok if you cannot defend your point. I did say you were wrong and you asked me to prove it, you haven't done much in proving your own since then but it didn't need to turn into an argument. I actually enjoy having these discussions. Sorry if I offended you in saying that you are wrong. You don't have to prove anything to me.

The same offer is made to you...bring forth any Biblical verse which you feel somehow thwarts the Trinity, and detail to us why that you think that it does.

This way you can prove to us that you comprehend what the Trinity even is.

Good luck...

I think... you perhaps knoweth it not, disguising it under the name of Trinity and not comprehending how these three are One. That's just a guess. Again, you don't need to prove anything to me.

 

[Bowman]

After I explained how Acts 13:2 is a TSKS construct, you gave this gem of a reply:
Bowman, you're revealing yet again your own ignorance of these matters. Firstly, I explained to you last time exactly how it is a TSKS, "the (this is the article) Barnabas (this is the substantive) and (this is the 'kai') Saul (this is the other substantive)." Your response to this is merely, "No, brother"?!

Secondly, this shows you're not doing your reading, because I looked up this example in the very book you go on to quote, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, by Daniel Wallace, pages 277-8. Once again, you are 100% wrong.

Acts 13.2 does not fit the criteria as outlined in the 'Sharper TSKS Rule'...in which proper names are excluded and are not part of the rule.

As it is, the rule still proves that Jesus is God even in Wallace's original book.

But, you don't want to talk about that...

 

[Bowman]

And now you've stepped into your own trap. I've been waiting for you to bring up Sharp's rule for this very purpose. Think about it Bowman, at 1 Timothy 5:21 you just argued that it was the lack of the article before the proper name "Jesus" that set "God" and "Jesus" apart from the "angels" (which is a plural noun requiring a plural article). Yet Wallace says of this, "Always in the NT, whenever proper names are in the equation, distinct individuals are in view." (GGBB, p.277)

Thus, you yourself violated Sharp's 'rule' by not acknowledging that the article there is distributive and applies to the 'distinct individual' God and to the 'distinct individual' Jesus. You just proved your own argument wrong with your mishandling of rules you don't fully understand! You were against Sharp's rule before you were for it.

1 Tim 5.21 does not even fall under the Sharper Rule, brother.

Keep trying...

Yes, I'm aware of this supposed 'rule' of Greek grammar. Dr. BeDuhn says of this in his book Truth in Translation: "In 1798, the amateur theologian Granville Sharp published a book in which he argued that when there are two nouns of the same form ('case') joined by 'and' (kai), only the first of which has the article, the nouns are identified as the same thing. Close examination of this much-used 'rule' shows it to be a fiction concocted by a man who had a theological agenda in creating it, namely, to prove that the verses we are examining...call Jesus 'God.'" In other words, Sharp, like you, was looking for more cryptic Trinity 'hints' in the text.

The TSKS construct is common in Greek literature, and while the two substantives have some relationship, the construct itself doesn't make them identical. There's no proof that making up all sorts of exceptions to the type of substantive somehow transforms the TSKS construct into proof of an identity. Regardless, the term 'God' is particular enough in Paul's writings, especially in the context of these verses, to argue that it's a proper noun, and as such is excepted from Sharp's 'rule'.

Proper nouns cannot occur in the plural, brother.

Theos does occur in the plural...thus, by your very own googled webpaste you have shown that Theos does fit the criteria of Sharp's Rule.

Keep googling for your answers, TJ...

 

[Bowman]

In response to Genesis 48:16 and your misuse of "name" at Matthew 28:19, you said:

Genesis 48:16 says in Hebrew:
ושם אבתיאברהם ויצחק

I've underlined the singular word 'shem' ("name"); it literally reads: "and name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac." Here it is in Greek:

και το ονομα των πατερων μου αβρααμ και ισαακ
"and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac"

Are you willing to admit that you were wrong or should I expect more obfuscation?

What you have underlined in the Hebrew word wə·šêm which means 'names'.

In response to my saying that an angel was referenced earlier on in the verse, you said this:

This is simply your assertion. Nothing in the text requires it.

The OT is full of examples regarding Malek Yahweh and the Trinity, as thus...



Exodus 3.1 - 6

And Moses was feeding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock behind the wilderness and came to the mountain of The Gods, to Horeb. And Malek Yahweh appeared to him in a flame of fire from the middle of a thorn bush. And he looked, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, and the thorn bush was not burned up! And Moses said, I will turn aside now and see this great sight, why the thorn bush is not burned up. And Yahweh saw that he turned aside to see, and Elohim called to him from the midst of the thorn bush, and said, Moses! Moses! And he said, Behold me. And He said, Do not come near here. Pull off your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. And He said, I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he feared to look upon The Gods.


These verses tell us plainly that Moses both saw and spoke with Malek Yahweh (i.e. God the Son) in the midst of the fire.

Observe that the Triune God occupies the Mount (Moses came to the mountain of all The Gods ‘Ha- Elohim’), as the terms Yahweh, Elohim, Malek Yahweh & Ha- Elohim (literally all The Gods!) are used interchangeably.

Who occupied the burning bush?

• Malek Yahweh
• Yahweh
• Elohim
• The Gods (Ha Elohim)





That Malek Yahweh is actually Yahweh, and that Moses spoke to Malek Yahweh, is proven in these verses, as thus…



Deut 4.15 - 19

Therefore you shall carefully watch over your souls, for you have not seen any likeness in the day Yahweh spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, that you not deal corruptly, and make for yourselves a graven image, a likeness of any figure, the form of a male or female, the form of any animal in the earth; the form of any winged bird that flies in the heavens; the form of any creeping thing on the ground; the form of any fish in the waters under the earth; and that you not lift up your eyes towards the heavens and shall see the sun, and the heavens, and you be drawn away and worship them, and serve them; which Yahweh Elohim has allotted to all the peoples under all the heavens.





It really should not come as any surprise that Moses saw and spoke to The Son, as the NT also records that Abraham did likewise…


John 8.56 – 58

Your father Abraham leaped for joy that he should see My day, and he saw, and rejoiced.Then the Jews said to Him, You do not yet have fifty years, and have You seen Abraham?Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came to be, I AM!

 

[Bowman]

You could only provide one example from the Bible that you think that 'arche' means "origin/active source", Revelation 3:14, which is different from how it's used everywhere else in the Bible and is more proof that you are misusing the term. This was your response:

I've already done this several times. This is what I've said:

"Were you aware that in every place John uses this word, it's with the meaning 'beginning', as in first in terms of time? Look them up for yourself: John 1:1, 2; 6:64; 8:25, 44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:7, 13, 14, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 1:5, 6; Revelation 21:6; 22:13.

"Were you aware that when this word is used in terms of rank, it's always accompanied by other terms relating to power or authority, terms which are absent from Revelation 3:14? Look them up for yourself: Luke 12:11; 20:20; Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 1:16; 2:10, 15; Titus 3:1."

Look them up and please get back to me. Why do you define 'arche' at Revelation 3:14 differently than all of these other instances of it?

The term archē does not even occur in most of your listed verses....and the ones in which it does, the lexical definition provided by me fits the context very well...

In regards to 1 Chronicles 29:20, this was your latest non-answer:
Here it is Bowman:
וישתחוו ליהוה ולמלך
"and they are worshipping to Jehovah and to the King"

προσεκυνησαν τω κυριω και τω βασιλει
"they are worshipping the Lord and the King"

You offered up a paraphrase of this (something you should be aware of if you really understand these matters), but in both Hebrew and Greek the very same act of worship is performed at the very same time towards both God and King David. Will you address this fact in a straightforward manner?

Again...adding context to your out-of-context example...

1 Chron 29.20 - 21

And David said to all the congregation, Now bless Yahweh your God. And all the congregation blessed Yahweh the God of their fathers, and worshiped Yahweh, and bowed to the king. And they sacrificed sacrifices to Yahweh, and offered burnt offerings to Yahweh, on the next day after that day: a thousand bulls, a thousand rams, a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in great plenty for all Israel.


Context seals the deal, TJ...

Was David offered burnt offerings?

No.

Was David offered sacrifices?

No.

Was David offered blessings?

No.


The only thing the that David received was a bow....


That's it.

See the difference...?

 

[Bowman]

I think I already have typed much more in proving my position then your one sentences here and there.
Its ok if you cannot defend your point. I did say you were wrong and you asked me to prove it, you haven't done much in proving your own since then but it didn't need to turn into an argument. I actually enjoy having these discussions. Sorry if I offended you in saying that you are wrong. You don't have to prove anything to me.



I think... you perhaps knoweth it not, disguising it under the name of Trinity and not comprehending how these three are One. That's just a guess. Again, you don't need to prove anything to me.

Come back when you can contribute...

 

[TJ12]

Hello Bowman,

Rev 1.8...I count three....Thrice 'Holy'.

This just brings us full circle. Anytime you count three, that's another Trinity 'hint'. 1 Timothy 5:21 has three Bowman. So does Luke 9:26.

You never did answer how it is that God was deemed 'worthy to receive' anything?

The text says it's "because You created all things..." God is the source of all creation.

So the One on the Throne is clearly the Son, being worshiped as God.

He's receiving praise for sure for being God's appointed King and Savior, but he's not being worshipped as God. Because he was given this position by God, all praise given the Son is "to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:11)

Acts 13.2 does not fit the criteria as outlined in the 'Sharper TSKS Rule'...in which proper names are excluded and are not part of the rule.

Bowman, try to keep your own arguments straight. You said earlier that Acts 13:2 was not an example of TSKS; here's your quote: "Your example was not TSKS." That is completely wrong.

Now you're trying to change that into you saying it's not part of the "Sharper TSKS Rule", which is altogether different. It seems you cannot admit even small mistakes on your part.

1 Tim 5.21 does not even fall under the Sharper Rule, brother.

And that's the point, Bowman. You broke the parameters carefully outlined in that 'rule' by insisting that the one article shared by "God" and "Jesus" at 1 Timothy 5:21 made them one; you refused to recognize the article as something distributive to both substantive nouns. You disregarded that 'rule' here, but then suddenly want to abide by it when it suits you.

Proper nouns cannot occur in the plural, brother.

Actually, this is where the flexibility inherent in language comes in. If a common noun that is a title is used in a definitive sense with one person in view contextually, it can be capitalized and treated as a proper noun. We see this with the term "President". The same phenomenon occurs with "God".

What you have underlined in the Hebrew word wə·šêm which means 'names'.

You are wrong. From A Compendious Hebrew Lexicon, by Samuel Pike, page 159:

"שם a name, put upon, or placed and substituted for a person or thing. שמות names."

That's in the singular, both in Hebrew and Greek. Let's see if you can admit this small thing before getting into other topics.


Thanks.

 

[TJ12]

The term archē does not even occur in most of your listed verses....and the ones in which it does, the lexical definition provided by me fits the context very well...

So you cannot find any other scriptural example where 'arche' means "origin/active source", correct?

And David said to all the congregation, Now bless Yahweh your God. And all the congregation blessed Yahweh the God of their fathers, and worshiped Yahweh, and bowed to the king. And they sacrificed sacrifices to Yahweh, and offered burnt offerings to Yahweh, on the next day after that day: a thousand bulls, a thousand rams, a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in great plenty for all Israel.

Bowman, is your translation above a paraphrase? Yes or no?

 

[Bowman]

Hello Bowman,


This just brings us full circle. Anytime you count three, that's another Trinity 'hint'. 1 Timothy 5:21 has three Bowman. So does Luke 9:26.

Again and again you ignore context.

The Holy, Holy, Holy indicates three that are worshiped as the One God, as listed in the epithets which follow it...

The text says it's "because You created all things..." God is the source of all creation.

The Son is God, as already demonstrated to you.

Plus, scripture states that the Son is the Creator...another hint that it refers to the Son here as well.

He's receiving praise for sure for being God's appointed King and Savior, but he's not being worshipped as God. Because he was given this position by God, all praise given the Son is "to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:11)

The phrase 'worthy to recieve' is mentioned regarding the Son and regarding the One on the Throne....thus, the Son is the One on the throne...unless God had to make Himself worthy of receiving something.

You're stuck...

Bowman, try to keep your own arguments straight. You said earlier that Acts 13:2 was not an example of TSKS; here's your quote: "Your example was not TSKS." That is completely wrong.

Now you're trying to change that into you saying it's not part of the "Sharper TSKS Rule", which is altogether different. It seems you cannot admit even small mistakes on your part.

The Sharper TSKS Rule is the rule I have always used, as it is the most current, refined and proven principle.

You are stuck in this one, as well...

And that's the point, Bowman. You broke the parameters carefully outlined in that 'rule' by insisting that the one article shared by "God" and "Jesus" at 1 Timothy 5:21 made them one; you refused to recognize the article as something distributive to both substantive nouns. You disregarded that 'rule' here, but then suddenly want to abide by it when it suits you.

TSKS does not even apply to this passage, TJ.

You are going for broke on this one...

Actually, this is where the flexibility inherent in language comes in. If a common noun that is a title is used in a definitive sense with one person in view contextually, it can be capitalized and treated as a proper noun. We see this with the term "President". The same phenomenon occurs with "God".

'Capitalized' Greek words?!

What are you talking about now...?

You are wrong. From A Compendious Hebrew Lexicon, by Samuel Pike, page 159:

"שם a name, put upon, or placed and substituted for a person or thing. שמות names."

That's in the singular, both in Hebrew and Greek. Let's see if you can admit this small thing before getting into other topics.


Thanks.

That's not even the same word, brother...come on...

 

[Bowman]

So you cannot find any other scriptural example where 'arche' means "origin/active source", correct?

What did I just finish saying?

You already listed many of them for us...

Bowman, is your translation above a paraphrase? Yes or no?

No.

This is the Literal rendering.

 

[Bowman]

Bowman, is your translation above a paraphrase? Yes or no?

Look at this…

You even reject your very own NWT….!


1 Chron 29.20…

And David went on to say to all the congregation: “Bless, now, Jehovah YOUR God.”And all the congregation proceeded to bless Jehovah the God of their forefathers and bow low and prostrate themselves to Jehovah and the king.


Even your very own translators clearly spell out the difference between true worship of God and the mere bowing to the king.

Once gain, you owned yourself royally…

 

[TJ12]

Hello Bowman,

You're beginning to say the same things over and over without really understanding the points I'm making, whether that's purposeful or not. Let's try just this one at Genesis 48:16 and see if you're capable of dealing in fact. I gave you the dictionary definition of 'shem', that it is indeed in the singular at Genesis 48:16, and this is your response:

That's not even the same word, brother...come on...

Ok Bowman, let's go through this again slowly. Here's the verse in Hebrew:

ושם אבתיאברהם ויצחק

The underlined part שם is 'shem' ("name") to which is prefixed the conjuction ו which means "and". Here's the definition I provided you from A Compendious Hebrew Lexicon, by Samuel Pike, page 159:

"שם a name, put upon, or placed and substituted for a person or thing. שמות names."

Look at the first Hebrew word there, that's the exact same word found in Genesis 48:16 above. Do you see that? The second Hebrew word is its plural form; that is not found in Genesis 48:16 above. I'm not sure how to spell this out any clearer. Here's yet another resource, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, by William Holladay, page 374:

"שם...pl[ural] שמ(&#1493ת ... I. name"
Again Bowman, that is not the plural form found in the verse above. Can you admit this or not?


Thank you.

 

[Bowman]

Owned again...

Hello Bowman,

You're beginning to say the same things over and over without really understanding the points I'm making, whether that's purposeful or not. Let's try just this one at Genesis 48:16 and see if you're capable of dealing in fact. I gave you the dictionary definition of 'shem', that it is indeed in the singular at Genesis 48:16, and this is your response:

Ok Bowman, let's go through this again slowly. Here's the verse in Hebrew:

ושם אבתיאברהם ויצחק

The underlined part שם is 'shem' ("name") to which is prefixed the conjuction ו which means "and". Here's the definition I provided you from A Compendious Hebrew Lexicon, by Samuel Pike, page 159:

"שם a name, put upon, or placed and substituted for a person or thing. שמות names."

Look at the first Hebrew word there, that's the exact same word found in Genesis 48:16 above. Do you see that? The second Hebrew word is its plural form; that is not found in Genesis 48:16 above. I'm not sure how to spell this out any clearer. Here's yet another resource, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, by William Holladay, page 374:

"שם...pl[ural] שמ(&#1493ת ... I. name"
Again Bowman, that is not the plural form found in the verse above. Can you admit this or not?


Thank you.

Let's see how the NWT translators render the very same term...


Num 26.33…NWT…

Now Ze‧lo′phe‧had the son of He′pher proved to have no sons, but daughters, and the names (wə•šêm) of the daughters of Ze‧lo′phe‧had were Mah′lah and Noah, Hog′lah, Mil′cah and Tir′zah.



Ruth 1.2…NWT…

And the man’s name was E‧lim′e‧lech, and his wife’s name Na′o‧mi, and the names(wə•šêm) of his two sons were Mah′lon and Chil′i‧on, Eph′rath‧ites from Beth′le‧hem in Judah. Eventually they came to the fields of Mo′ab and continued there.

 

[Bea22]

Come back when you can contribute...

God bless you

 

[Bowman]

TJ...

Your 'arguments' have dwindled down to......nothing...

 

[Alter2Ego]

Two people?


The greeting emanates from a three-fold divine source, as ‘grace’ is the divine favor which is bestowed upon mankind, by God.

Observe…

Rev 1.4 – 6

John to the seven assemblies in Asia: Grace to you, and peace, from the One who is, and who was, and who is coming, and from the seven spirits which are before His throne; even from Jesus Christthe Faithful Witness, the First-born out of the dead, and the Ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him loving us and washing us from our sins by His blood, and made us kings and priests to God, even His Father. To Him is the glory and the might forever and ever. Amen.


See the repeated usage of the Greek preposition ‘opo’, from…?

This greeting then concludes with a doxology of the Son.

You can plainly see the Trinity expressed here.

You can plainly see the Son’s deity here.

ALTER2EGO -to- BOWMAN:
I left this thread two weeks ago after the OP told me to leave him alone, despite the fact that his bait thread is specifically targeted at Jehovah's Witnesses. I've decided to return to this thread for now, but I will no longer address the OP.

With reference to your above argument, during which you quoted Revelation 1:4-6, you debunked your own argument for the pagan Trinity when you quoted that portion of scripture. Posting in large font and coloring it in brilliant blue and red does nothing for your argument. It only makes your error all the more visible. Let me show you why.

YOUR QUOTATION:

Rev 1.4 – 6

John to the seven assemblies in Asia: Grace to you, and peace, from the One who is, and who was, and who is coming, and from the seven spirits which are before His throne; even from Jesus Christthe Faithful Witness, the First-born out of the dead, and the Ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him loving us and washing us from our sins by His blood, and made us kings and priests to God, even His Father. To Him is the glory and the might forever and ever. Amen.

OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF TRINITY:
Christendom's trinity, written in Article I of The Catholic Faith, is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of ONE substance, power, and ETERNITY; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."


ALTER2EGO -to- BOWMAN:
Notice that the Bible clearly states at Revelation 1:5 that Jesus is the "firstborn of the dead," confirming that he died. Now, look at the official Definition of Trinity, which says the Son has the "one eternity" as the Father.



DEFINITION OF "ETERNAL":
"Eternal means not having a beginning or an end."
Eternal | Easy to understand definition of eternal by Your Dictionary

" without beginning or end; existing through all time; everlasting" (Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary)



QUESTION #1 to BOWMAN: Can an eternal person die?


QUESTION #2 to BOWMAN: Since an eternal person has no beginning and no end and exists through all time, how do you explain the death of Jesus Christ?


QUESTION #3 to BOWMAN: Are you telling this forum that when Jesus died and remained dead for three days, he continued "existing through all time" because his life didn't really come to an end, albeit temporarily?


QUESTION #4 to BOWMAN: Is the above Catholic Church's definition of Trininty, where it says the Son is eternal (cannot die), a contradiction of the Gospel accounts of Jesus Christ's death and a contradiction of Revelation 1:5? Yes or No?



"the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see. To him be honor and might everlasting. Amen." (1 Timothy 6:16)


"As for you, O Jehovah, to time indefinite you will dwell, and your memorial will be for generation after generation." (Psalms 102:12 -- New World Translation)


"But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever; and thy remembrance unto all generations." (Psalms 102:12 -- King James Version)



QUESTION #5 to BOWMAN: According to the verses above at 1 Timothy 6:16 and Psalms 102:12, only Jehovah has immortality. If you were in my position, who would you believe? Should I believe you and your insistence that God is not immortal and that he died? Or should I go with what the Bible says?


QUESTION #6 to BOWMAN: According to the verse above at 1 Timothy 6:16, not one of man has seen Jehovah God. But every Tom, Dick, and Harry within sight of Jesus Christ were able to see him while he was on earth. That is a contradiction of what the Bible says. If you were in my position, who would you believe? Should I believe you and your insistence that Jesus Christ is also Jehovah God, which amounts to "God can be seen by humans" and which contradicts the Bible? Or should I go with what the Bible says?

 

[Alter2Ego]

Let’s review Rev 3.14…


και τω αγγελω της εν λαοδικεια εκκλησιας γραψον ταδε λεγει ο αμην ο μαρτυς ο πιστος και [ο] αληθινος η αρχη της κτισεως του θεου

Kai tō angelō tēs en laodikeia ekklēsias grapson tade legei o amēn o martus o pistos kai o alēthinos ē archē tēs ktiseōs tou theou

Rev 3.14 And to the angel in the Laodicea assembly, write: This says the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the origin, the creation, the God:



Concentrating on what you had highlighted as ‘support’ for your Jehovah Witness stance, you seem to want to diminish Jesus’ deity by interpreting an English translation to mean that He was created.

ALTER2EGO -to- BOWMAN:
The very scripture you quoted above says Jesus Christ was created. Look at the words that I bolded in red within your above quotation. So what's your point? Are you telling this forum that "creation" doesn't mean a created being? If so, please present the dictionary where you got such a definition from. Below is how the dictionary defines the words "create" and "creation".



DEFINITION OF "CREATION":
"A creation is something that has been made or brought into existence."
Creation | Easy to understand definition of creation by Your Dictionary



DEFINITION OF "CREATE":
"To cause to exist; bring into being."
create - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education
Create | Easy to understand definition of create by Your Dictionary

 

[TJ12]

Re: Owned again...

Let's see how the NWT translators render the very same term...

Bowman, you are the one arguing that the singular form, when applied to more than one person, makes them the same being. I'm not; the NWT is not. Stop dodging.

Can you admit that the Hebrew word 'shem' is the singular form, according to the dictionary definition, or not?