6 Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

[TJ12]

Re: Keep trying TJ...

Awww...now look at that, you already gave up performing a simple word search in the LXX as to where 'multitude' is used in the Torah, and seeing who the subject is...

Oh ok, so let's get your new argument straight. You're now saying that 'onoma' in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16 doesn't make Abraham and Isaac two persons in one being, like the word does at Matthew 28:19 for the Trinity, because later on in the verse the word "multitude" appears in relation to Ephraim and Manasseh?

 

[Alter2Ego]

Please show the forum the exact verses of scripture that say Jesus the Son is also Jehovah the Father.

That's not what the Trinity even states.

You just exposed your ignorance....again...

Keep fighting that strawman...

ALTER2EGO -to- BOWMAN:
The's the definition the Catholic Church gives, and they are the one's who formulated the Trinity dogma and made it official church doctrine in the 4th century AD--more than 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene.

But since you are now denying the official Trinity definition that came from those who formulated it, suppose you provide the forum with your version of trinity.

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- BOWMAN:
You are quoting from a Bible that is presenting translation blunders, and you have the nerve to complain about the New World Translation! Jesus could not possibly be the "Originator of Life" because he is himself a created being according to Colossians 3:15.


"{15} He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION; {16}because by means of him [Jesus] all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. {17} Also, he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist." (Colossians 1:15-17)

Verse 17 makes it clear that Jehovah God worked through Jesus. In other words, the power behind the creation was Almighty God Jehovah. Jesus Christ himself acknowledged this.


"Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: 'Most truly I say to you, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner." (John 5:19)


Furthermore, the very scripture you are quoting says Jesus was killed. The Originator of life, Jehovah God, is immortal and cannot die.

ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως


Col 1.15 expresses subordination. The genitive substantive specifies that which is subordinated to, or under, the dominion of the head substantive. In this case, the creation is subordinate to Jesus.

Adding context, (Col 1.9 – 20), clearly and irrefutably demonstrates Jesus’ deity.

Further, Col 1.15 – 20 is a hymn…and, as we all know, hymns are sung to deity, not mortals.

ALTER2EGO -to- BOWMAN:
This is not about what you think Colossians 1:9-20 says. This is about one specific verse which clearly states that Jesus is merely an image of God and that he is the "firstborn of ALL CREATION"--which can only mean one thing: Jesus himself was created because he is listed along with "all creation." Jesus Christ perfectly reflects God's qualities, but he is an image. An image is not the reality or the original.


"He [Jesus] is THE IMAGE of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION;" (Colossians 1:15)



You managed to evade every single direct question I asked you. So determined are you to not be corrected in your Trinitarian thinking that you rejected dictionary definitions that debunk your position when they define the words "create" and "creation." To top it off, you contradicted the scripture that clearly states Jesus was dead for three days and that he had to be resurrected from the dead. To hear you tell it, he wasn't dead at all because the instant his physical body died, he became alive in the spirit. When I asked how someone who isn't really dead can be resurrected, you refused to respond. Now you are claiming that Colossians 1:15 is part of a hymn when it clearly states Jesus is the first among all other creations. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. And you have the nerve to point fingers at Jehovah's Witnesses!

You will keep up this hop, skip, and jump routine to ad naseam because your attitude is that you must win the debate rather than allow God's inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, to correct you from a false teaching that was invented by the Catholic Church. Trinity became official church dogma centuries after Jesus Christ returned to heaven, more than 300 years to be exact.

"{16} All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for SETTING THINGS STRAIGHT, for disciplining in righteousness, {17} that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)



Your behavior reminds me of the atheists that I debate at other websites. Whenever I confront them with indisputable scientific evidence of intelligent design, they do exactly what you do. They dodge direct questions that debunk their position or else they present me with intellectually dishonest answers. That's pretty sad.

I will not proceed with you further as you clearly are not interested in correction from the Bible. Keep worshipping the non-existent trinity god, if that appeals to you. My work with you is done.

 

[feedm3]

ALTER2EGO -to-BOWMAN:
Since when is one prohibited from using modern definitions of common words in the English dictionary to define words in an English translation of the Bible?


ANSWER: Whenever it debunk's Bowman's position.


BTW: I can present you with the very same definitions from a print copy of the dictionary. The reason why I used the Internet is to enable you and others to confirm that I gave the correct definitions.


REQUEST to BOWMAN: Please present the forum with credentialed sources that say one is not to use modern internet dictionaries to define common words such as "create" and "creation" and that to do so is a sign of disrespect. Also be sure and explain who one is "disrespecting" when doing the aforementioned. Provide scriptures that says such a thing is disrespectful.


I will wait.

 

[Tethered]

I have been to these 'other websites'. It ended with cheerios and oats

 

[Bowman]

ALTER2EGO -to- BOWMAN:

You admitted it! "No one has ever seen God the Father and lived." That says it all. All that other stuff that you said in follow-up is contradictory and irrelevant.

What it demonstrates is that the Biblical God is Triune...and that you don't have a reply...

BTW: There are no scriptures in the Old Testament during which God literally manifested himself in human form. But then again, maybe you know something the rest of us don't know. So

please post a few such scriptures for the benefit of the forum. Be sure and provide Bible book, chapter, and verse so that I can confirm it in my own copy of the Bible. Meanwhile, below is another question for you.

Again, and again, in scripture, Malek Yahweh presents Himself, as God Almighty, in the flesh, to man.

Here we have Malek Yahweh (God in the flesh) sitting under an oak tree with Gideon, having a discussion!

Malek Yahweh is directly called Yahweh in Judges 6.14.

The Messenger of God is God.

Another reason not to run from scripture – but rather embrace this most obvious presentation of the Trinity.



And I said to you, I am Yahweh your God. You shall not fear the gods of the Amorite among whom you are dwelling in their land. But you have not listened to My voice. And the Messenger of Yahweh came and sat under the oak which is in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite. And his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the winepress, to hide it from the eyes of Midian. And the Messenger of Yahweh appeared to him, and said to him, Yahweh is with you, mighty warrior. And Gideon said to Him, Oh my Lord, if Yahweh is with us, then why has all this happened to us? And where are all His wonders which our fathers recounted to us, saying, Did not Yahweh bring us up out of Egypt? And now Yahweh has left us, and has given us into the hands of Midian. And Yahweh turned to him and said, Go in this strength of yours, and you shall deliver Israel out of the hand of Midian. Have I not sent you? (Judges 6.10 -14)





Plain as day from Judges Chapter 13, we can see that Malek HaElohim is the very same as Malek Yahweh.

The Messenger of The Gods is the Messenger of Yahweh.

Further, Malek Yahweh is described as being a Man.

Observe that Manoah and his wife offer-up a food sacrifice to Malek Yahweh – with the stipulation from Malek Yahweh that it not be a bread offering, as only a burnt flesh offering will suffice, and it has to be made to Yahweh.

It is at this point that we realize that Manoah did not know that he was speaking with Malek Yahweh. Malek Yahweh clarifies to Manoah that any sacrifice made to Him, would need to be made in the name of Yahweh.

Malek Yahweh is described as being seen rising in the flame of the sacrificial altar. It is at this point that Manoah and his wife understood that by seeing Malek Yahweh, that they had seen Yahweh in the flesh by the statement, “Dying we shall die, because we have seen God.”




And the woman came and spoke to her husband, saying, A Man of The Gods has come to me, and He was seen as the appearance of the Malek of The Gods, very terrifying. And I did not ask Him where He was from, and He did not tell me His name. And He said to me, Behold, you are pregnant and will bear a son. And now do not drink wine or fermented drink, and do not eat any unclean thing, for the boy shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb, until the day of his death. Then Manoah prayed to Yahweh, and said, O my Lord, the Man of The Gods whom You sent, please let Him come again to us and direct us what we shall do to the boy being born. And The Gods listened to the voice of Manoah, and the Malek of The Gods came again to the woman. And she was sitting in a field; and her husband Manoah was not with her. And the woman hurried and ran, and told her husband, and said to him, Behold, He has appeared to me, The Man who came to me that day. And Manoah rose up and went after his wife, and came to The Man. And he said to Him, Are You The Man who spoke to the woman? And He said, I am. And Manoah said, Then let Your words come about. What shall be the way of the boy, and his undertaking? And Malek Yahweh said to Manoah, Let her take heed of all that I said to the woman; she shall not eat of anything that came forth from the grapevine; and she shall not drink wine or fermented drink; and she shall not eat any unclean thing. She shall be careful of all that I commanded her. And Manoah said to Malek Yahweh, Please let us keep You, and prepare before You a kid of the goats. And Malek Yahweh said to Manoah, If you keep Me, I will not eat of your bread. And if you prepare a burnt offering, you shall offer it to Yahweh. For Manoah did not know that He was Malek Yahweh. And Manoah said to the Malek Yahweh, What is Your name? When Your words come about, then we shall honor You. And the Malek Yahweh said to him, Why do you ask this about My name? Yea, it is Wonderful. And Manoah took the kid of the goats, and the food offering, and offered on the rock to Yahweh. And He did wonderfully, and Manoah and his wife were watching. And it happened as the flame from off the altar was going up to the heavens, that Malek Yahweh went up in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife were watching. And they fell on their faces to the ground. And Malek Yahweh did not appear any more to Manoah, or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that He was Malek Yahweh. And Manoah said to his wife, Dying we shall die, because we have seen God. And his wife said to him, If Yahweh desired to put us to death, He would not have received a burnt offering and a food offering from our hands, nor made us see all these things; nor would He now have caused us to hear things like these. (Judges 13. 6 – 23)

QUESTION #10 to BOWMAN: If Jesus Christ is Jehovah the Father in the flesh, what does that do for the scripture that says no man has seen God at anytime? Jesus Christ is also Jehovah God the Father; remember?

Again...

The Son is NOT the Father.

Only you keep repeating this nonsense.

The Son is NOT the Father...the Father is NOT the Son...but each is the ONE God.

Let that bake your noodle...

 

[Bowman]

ALTER2EGO -to-BOWMAN:
Since when is one prohibited from using modern definitions of common words in the English dictionary to define words in an English translation of the Bible?


ANSWER: Whenever it debunk's Bowman's position.


BTW: I can present you with the very same definitions from a print copy of the dictionary. The reason why I used the Internet is to enable you and others to confirm that I gave the correct definitions.




REQUEST to BOWMAN: Please present the forum with credentialed sources that say one is not to use modern internet dictionaries to define common words such as "create" and "creation" and that to do so is a sign of disrespect. Also be sure and explain who one is "disrespecting" when doing the aforementioned. Provide scriptures that says such a thing is disrespectful.


I will wait.

If you want to define Biblical terms then you use lexical resources which define the word(s) as used at that time period.

What a novice...

 

[Bowman]

Re: Keep trying TJ...

Oh ok, so let's get your new argument straight. You're now saying that 'onoma' in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis 48:16 doesn't make Abraham and Isaac two persons in one being, like the word does at Matthew 28:19 for the Trinity, because later on in the verse the word "multitude" appears in relation to Ephraim and Manasseh?

You don't yet understand proper exegesis.

The context in which a word is used defines its meaning to a great extent.

I have amply demonstrated this to you.

For some strange reason, you want to take the definition of a Hebrew word, have it translated into Greek, and then apply that very same definition to the Greek NT, to the total disregard of its context.

Perhaps you should have looked up the origin of 'onoma' in the NT first - because it is not even related to the Hebrew.

All that energy into a failed argument.

You are still in the baby-step-stage of exegesis, brother...

 

[Bowman]

Keep trying...

ALTER2EGO -to- BOWMAN:
The's the definition the Catholic Church gives, and they are the one's who formulated the Trinity dogma and made it official church doctrine in the 4th century AD--more than 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene.

But since you are now denying the official Trinity definition that came from those who formulated it, suppose you provide the forum with your version of trinity.

I'm not Catholic.

Further, the Trinity is defined by scripture.

 

[Bowman]

You have nothing.

I will not proceed with you further as you clearly are not interested in correction from the Bible. Keep worshipping the non-existent trinity god, if that appeals to you. My work with you is done.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Ugh...did it ever start?

 

[TJ12]

Re: Keep trying TJ...

You don't yet understand proper exegesis.

The context in which a word is used defines its meaning to a great extent.

I'm not sure about exegesis, but I'm sure learning a lot about eisegesis from you. Here's the fuller context of the quote from the New English Translation of the Septuagint:

"Then when Ioseph had taken his two sons, both Ephraim in his right hand but on Israel's left, and Manasse in his left hand but on Israel's right, he brought them near him. But Israel, stretching out his right hand, laid it on the head of Ephraim--now he was the younger--and his left on the head of Manasse, his hands crosswise. And he blessed them and said,

"'The God whom my fathers Abraam and Isaak were well pleasing before, the God who sustains me from my youth to this day, the angel who rescues me from all evils, bless these youngsters, and in them my name will be invoked, and the name of my fathers Abraam and Isaak, and may they be multiplied into a great multitude upon the earth.'

"Now when Isoseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it seemed grievous to him, and Ioseph took hold of his father's hand to remove it from Ephraim's head to Manasse's head. And Ioseph said to his father, 'Not so, father; for this one is the firstborn. Put your right hand on his head.' And he world not, but said, 'I know, child, I know; this one also shall become a people, and this one shall be exalted, but his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of nations.'" (Genesis 48:12-19)

So given this context, Bowman, isn't Jacob blessing Joseph's two sons to become a multitude? Aren't Ephraim and Manasseh, the ones receiving the blessing, the "they" in verse 16?

Thanks!

 

[TJ12]

Re: You have nothing.

Ugh...did it ever start?

Just a classy gentleman from start to finish.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Re: You have nothing.

I will not proceed with you further as you clearly are not interested in correction from the Bible. Keep worshipping the non-existent trinity god, if that appeals to you. My work with you is done.

Ugh...did it ever start?

ALTER2EGO -to- BOWMAN:
This is my last and final message to you.

You just don't get it; do you? You got played. Based upon your above arrogant response "Ugh...did it ever start?" it seems I need to explain.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]My entire exercise with you was to expose your intellectual dishonesty for the benefit of the forum. When I say "the forum," I am referring to the thousands of other people that read what is being posted in this thread. Last time I looked, this thread had been read more than 4,000 times.

I saw your display of arrogance by how you were responding to others in this thread. That's why I decided to come back in, and that's I specifically selected you. I wanted to see if you were sincere about your claim that you respect the Bible or whether my suspicions about you were right: that you could care less about what the Bible really says. So I presented you with questions that would (1) force you to rely on what the Bible really says, or (2) thumb your nose at the Bible. You did the latter. Below are my suspicions, which you proved were right on target.

1. I suspected you would dodge my direct questions that debunk your fallacious arguments for Trinity because I've given identical questions to Trinitarians at more than a dozen other websites where I've debated. They displayed your attitude--arrogance--and so they did exactly what you did. They ran from the questions.


2. I suspected you would reject the dictionary definitions that prove Jesus is a CREATED being, based on Colossians 1:15 where he is described as the "firstborn of ALL CREATION." I suspected this, because I've debated Trinitarians at other websites who displayed your attitude and who likewise rejected the dictionary definitions.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]"He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION;" (Colossians 1:15)

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]3. I suspected you would reject those definitions because I've given those same definitions to dozens of other Trinitarians at other websites who display your attitude. They responded with: "that doesn't apply to the Bible"--just like you did.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
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



4. I suspected you would refuse to answer the question regarding why Jesus required a resurrection after being dead three days. You cherry-picked 1 Peter 3:18 as your lame argument that Jesus Christ never really died and that he immediately was "alive in the spirit." Below is part of that conversation.

As scripture states, Jesus' flesh died...not His divinity, as thus...
1 Peter 3.18

Because even Christ once suffered concerning sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit;

The verse at 1 Peter 3:18 is with reference to what happened after Jesus Christ was resurrected--three days after he'd been dead. Below are three questions dealing with Jesus' death. Notice the words in bold print within the scriptural quotation.



"{3} For I handed on to you, among the first things, that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; {4} and he was buried, yes, that he has been raised up the third day according to the Scriptures; (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

QUESTION #7 to BOWMAN: According to 1 Corinthians 15:4, Jesus was not raised from the dead until the third day. Are you telling this forum that He was alive in the spirit all that time, which would amount to he wasn't really dead?


QUESTION #8 to BOWMAN: Should I believe you when you tell me that Jesus was alive in the spirit during the three days the Bible says he was stone cold dead and no longer conscious? Or should I believe God's inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, which says he was dead the entire time?


QUESTION #9 to BOWMAN: What purpose would there have been of a resurrection on the third day, if Jesus Christ immediately became alive in the spirit the instant he died?

I asked you a total of 10 questions, all of which you ran from--just as I suspected you would. I had you pegged. Those questions were meant to force you to either re-evaluate your Trinitarian belief in light of what the Bible is really saying (a sign of humility) or else run and evade like you did, and then claim victory after dodging direct questions (a sign of arrogance).

Unlike others who will waste their time debating Trintarians long after it's clear they will not relent from their fallacious position, I do nothing of the sort. I present them with hard questions that force them to display their intellectual dishonesty for the rest of the forum. That's what I set out to do with you, and that's what I accomplished.


You performed marvelously. Now the entire forum knows what I know: That it is not because people don't have access to the scriptures that they believe false doctrines. It is because they choose to NOT be corrected by the scriptures because they put traditions of men ahead of God's inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible.

 

[GreenNnice]

TJ, sorry , vacating q fewcdays, thanking praising, resting, you, too, I hope and pray in Him

Who is Him?


Falsafiability? God is Jesus in flesh.

Jesus is God .

God is the Holy Spirit.

Still need to analyze your proverbs. Proof text given. I will

He leads .

 

[Bowman]

Re: Keep trying TJ...

I'm not sure about exegesis, but I'm sure learning a lot about eisegesis from you. Here's the fuller context of the quote from the New English Translation of the Septuagint:

"Then when Ioseph had taken his two sons, both Ephraim in his right hand but on Israel's left, and Manasse in his left hand but on Israel's right, he brought them near him. But Israel, stretching out his right hand, laid it on the head of Ephraim--now he was the younger--and his left on the head of Manasse, his hands crosswise. And he blessed them and said,

"'The God whom my fathers Abraam and Isaak were well pleasing before, the God who sustains me from my youth to this day, the angel who rescues me from all evils, bless these youngsters, and in them my name will be invoked, and the name of my fathers Abraam and Isaak, and may they be multiplied into a great multitude upon the earth.'

"Now when Isoseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it seemed grievous to him, and Ioseph took hold of his father's hand to remove it from Ephraim's head to Manasse's head. And Ioseph said to his father, 'Not so, father; for this one is the firstborn. Put your right hand on his head.' And he world not, but said, 'I know, child, I know; this one also shall become a people, and this one shall be exalted, but his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of nations.'" (Genesis 48:12-19)

So given this context, Bowman, isn't Jacob blessing Joseph's two sons to become a multitude? Aren't Ephraim and Manasseh, the ones receiving the blessing, the "they" in verse 16?

Thanks!

Do a word search on the word in blue, like I already told you to do.

This always refers to Abraham, Isaac or Jacob in the Torah.

Perhaps you already have, and you discovered your position to be wanting...

 

[Bowman]

Re: You have nothing.

... I asked you a total of 10 questions...

Your questions have been answered.

 

[TJ12]

Re: Keep trying TJ...

Do a word search on the word in blue, like I already told you to do.

This always refers to Abraham, Isaac or Jacob in the Torah.

Bowman, I'm not sure how you missed this, since I underlined it for you. Look at verse 19:

"Then when Ioseph had taken his two sons, both Ephraim in his right hand but on Israel's left, and Manasse in his left hand but on Israel's right, he brought them near him. But Israel, stretching out his right hand, laid it on the head of Ephraim--now he was the younger--and his left on the head of Manasse, his hands crosswise. And he blessed them and said,

"'The God whom my fathers Abraam and Isaak were well pleasing before, the God who sustains me from my youth to this day, the angel who rescues me from all evils, bless these youngsters, and in them my name will be invoked, and the name of my fathers Abraam and Isaak, and may they be multiplied into a great multitude ('plethos') upon the earth.'

"Now when Isoseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it seemed grievous to him, and Ioseph took hold of his father's hand to remove it from Ephraim's head to Manasse's head. And Ioseph said to his father, 'Not so, father; for this one is the firstborn. Put your right hand on his head.' And he world not, but said, 'I know, child, I know; this one also shall become a people, and this one shall be exalted, but his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude ('plethos') of nations.'" (Genesis 48:12-19)

It says right there that Ephraim is to become a "multitude" (and before that that Manasseh will become "a people"). This is the point of the blessing. You are 100% wrong...yet again. Any other ideas on what makes this different from Matthew 28:19?

 

[Bowman]

Re: Keep trying TJ...

Bowman, I'm not sure how you missed this, since I underlined it for you. Look at verse 19:

"Then when Ioseph had taken his two sons, both Ephraim in his right hand but on Israel's left, and Manasse in his left hand but on Israel's right, he brought them near him. But Israel, stretching out his right hand, laid it on the head of Ephraim--now he was the younger--and his left on the head of Manasse, his hands crosswise. And he blessed them and said,

"'The God whom my fathers Abraam and Isaak were well pleasing before, the God who sustains me from my youth to this day, the angel who rescues me from all evils, bless these youngsters, and in them my name will be invoked, and the name of my fathers Abraam and Isaak, and may they be multiplied into a great multitude ('plethos') upon the earth.'

"Now when Isoseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it seemed grievous to him, and Ioseph took hold of his father's hand to remove it from Ephraim's head to Manasse's head. And Ioseph said to his father, 'Not so, father; for this one is the firstborn. Put your right hand on his head.' And he world not, but said, 'I know, child, I know; this one also shall become a people, and this one shall be exalted, but his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude ('plethos') of nations.'" (Genesis 48:12-19)

It says right there that Ephraim is to become a "multitude" (and before that that Manasseh will become "a people"). This is the point of the blessing. You are 100% wrong...yet again. Any other ideas on what makes this different from Matthew 28:19?

Two entirely different words in two entirely different contexts.

Keep googling...

 

[TJ12]

Re: Keep trying TJ...

Two entirely different words in two entirely different contexts.

Oh right, of course. Two "entirely different" words...except it's the exact same word 'plethos'. And two "entirely different" contexts...except it's within the same passage talking about the same boys receiving a blessing.

Honesty check again. Bowman, does the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version say that Ephraim will become a "multitude" ('plethos') at Genesis 48:19 or not?

 

[Bowman]

Re: Keep trying TJ...

Oh right, of course. Two "entirely different" words...except it's the exact same word 'plethos'. And two "entirely different" contexts...except it's within the same passage talking about the same boys receiving a blessing.

Honesty check again. Bowman, does the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version say that Ephraim will become a "multitude" ('plethos') at Genesis 48:19 or not?

This is where ignorance of the original language gets you into trouble, yet again. The two words are not even derived from the same root word.