Jack Howell and the Trinity

Jack Howell and the Trinity

Tim
Tim

November 1st, 2010, 4:26 am #1

Jack, the Trinity was made up for Roman political power, that's why they have Popes today instead of Caesars.
As a Pope confessed in 1100 AD, "A king rules borders but Gods successor rules the world"... And that's also why the Catholic church teaches the Pope is the successor of Jesus and Peter and so on. And then through the so called Trinity they make Jesus into GOD, making the Pope the successor of God on earth to mankind.

The bible don't support a Trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost.
The Father is the Holy Ghost, and its just Father and Son.

Jesus makes this very clear in John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Don't let traditions rule your mind, but rather the pure word of GOD.
A renegade church should not dictate scripture, but rather scripture should dictate the church, so it doesn't become a renegade.

Comments anyone?
Quote
Share

Joined: March 11th, 2010, 4:41 pm

November 1st, 2010, 5:58 pm #2

Tim you gave us your opinion and you are entitled to it, but that does not make it the truth for anyone else.

God Bless: Joanne
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 16th, 2010, 8:01 pm

November 1st, 2010, 8:38 pm #3

Jack, the Trinity was made up for Roman political power, that's why they have Popes today instead of Caesars.
As a Pope confessed in 1100 AD, "A king rules borders but Gods successor rules the world"... And that's also why the Catholic church teaches the Pope is the successor of Jesus and Peter and so on. And then through the so called Trinity they make Jesus into GOD, making the Pope the successor of God on earth to mankind.

The bible don't support a Trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost.
The Father is the Holy Ghost, and its just Father and Son.

Jesus makes this very clear in John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Don't let traditions rule your mind, but rather the pure word of GOD.
A renegade church should not dictate scripture, but rather scripture should dictate the church, so it doesn't become a renegade.

Comments anyone?
The word of God is different for every denomination.
We cannot learn anything new because we cannot get past tradition.
Tell us where the pure word of God is.

"I don't speak for God, but somebody has to speak for the bible story."
Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

November 2nd, 2010, 1:20 am #4

Tim you gave us your opinion and you are entitled to it, but that does not make it the truth for anyone else.

God Bless: Joanne
""""Tim you gave us your opinion and you are entitled to it, but that does not make it the truth for anyone else.
God Bless: Joanne""""

Would it matter if Jesus told you Joanne?
Matthew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Joanne, now say; "Jesus you gave us your opinion and you are entitled to it, but that does not make it the truth for anyone else."

What do you think Joanne?

It's time for a, CIBER HUG!!!!

Quote
Share

Tim
Tim

November 2nd, 2010, 1:34 am #5

The word of God is different for every denomination.
We cannot learn anything new because we cannot get past tradition.
Tell us where the pure word of God is.

"I don't speak for God, but somebody has to speak for the bible story."
""""We cannot learn anything new because we cannot get past tradition.""""

Why?.. Does tradition cast a spell upon thou?
Or is it really the secret Powers of the Vatican Vampires?


""""Tell us where the pure word of God is.""""

KJV is the most pure English record we poses.

NKJV, no good.
NIV, no good.
NWT, no good.
Islam, no good.
Hindu, no good.
Buddha, no good.
Confucius, no good.

And the list goes on.. doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo..
And the list goes on.. doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo..
The sound keep pounding the rithom to my brain.. Latty datty dee, latty dotty daa..

Sorry I just had to break into that Sonny and Sher gig.

Quote
Share

Joined: February 16th, 2010, 8:01 pm

November 2nd, 2010, 1:54 am #6

Of course you know that the KJV has been revised and corrected many times.
Personally, I think that any version is as good as any other version. It was during the KJV's monopoly that thousands of doctrinally disagreeing denominations were spawned.
The most important thing is that the story remains intact in evey version.
I prefer the KJV, but it is only because my Strong's is based on the KJV.

"I don't speak for God, but somebody has to speak for the bible story."
Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

November 2nd, 2010, 4:02 am #7

TS understand Bible versions: Our Bible, the King James Version (KJV), is called a literal translations. The purpose of a literal translation is to convey the word-for-word meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as closely as the English language will allow.
But other Bibles, like NKJV and the New International Version (NIV), are called dynamic translations. The purpose of a dynamic translation is to convey the thought behind the text as opposed to the word-for-word meaning of the text.

Does a red flag pop up in your mind? Dynamic translation is to convey the thought behind the text compared to the word-for-word meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts!

The WORD of GOD endureth for ever. And what did Jesus say to Satan? Man shall not live by bread alone, but EVERY WORD that prociedeth out of the mouth of GOD.

Does that give you an idea as to who it was that had the word of GOD changed?

TS, and version other than KJV can convey any meaning they think it should, or that they perceived at the time.

In fact KJV is the ONLY version that places the MARK of the Beast IN the hand like an implant.

I've done much study comparing Bible versions TS.
Even the Jehovah Witness NWT.

And KJV is the one for you and me
Wasn't that a cute closing statement!

Quote
Share

Joined: February 16th, 2010, 8:01 pm

November 2nd, 2010, 12:48 pm #8

Your arguement against dynamic translations also applies to the KJV. If the KJV was a literal, word for word translation, you would not be able to read it because of differences in composition rules. The fact is that all versions of the bible, including the KJV, are paraphrased interpretations. Not only that but all the words deemed to have doctrinal importance have merely been transliterated so that the post-Nicean church can define them the way it wants to. Only the words between the nouns are actually written in the common language of any version, including the KJV. This practice of not actually translating the "religious" words, began with the KJV, and has been carried on in all the newer versions.
While these man-made problems with scripture have allowed interpretations which have caused the formation of thousands of doctrinally disagreeing denominations, the actual story which runs with continuity through the bible, remains intact in every version.
The arguement over versions is a red herring which keeps everyone ignorant of the continuous story of the bible, which interprets all passages, or exposes their poor interpretation/paraphrasing.
Take that!!!

"I don't speak for God, but somebody has to speak for the bible story."
Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

November 3rd, 2010, 2:10 am #9

Tim claims;
""""The purpose of a literal translation is to convey the word-for-word meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as closely as the English language will allow.""""
as closely as the English language will allow.
as closely as the English language will allow.
as closely as the English language will allow.

TS claims;
""""Your arguement against dynamic translations also applies to the KJV. If the KJV was a literal, word for word translation, you would not be able to read it because of differences in composition rules. The fact is that all versions of the bible, including the KJV, are paraphrased interpretations.
The fact is that all versions of the bible, including the KJV, are paraphrased interpretations.""""

Check mate!!!!
I caught that TS, that was an illegal move.
Na na boo boo, I one, your just playing with words
hahahaha

Take that!
Quote
Share

Joined: February 16th, 2010, 8:01 pm

November 3rd, 2010, 3:26 am #10

The King James version of the bible is rendered in perfect 17th century English. The only way that could have happened is for someone to interpret foreign sentences, and paraphrase them into English. It simply cannot be done by the translation of individual words. As I may have pointed out, all the "religious" nouns have only been transliterated. That means that only the words between the nouns are actually in English.
Then we go back to the first century and Koine Greek. It was a bastard language which resulted from communication between the multinational soldiers of Alexander's army.
That Alexandrian language died a natural death during the 4th century, for the reason that any language dies; It was replaced by a more efficient language with which more accurate communication could be made. That language in this case was "Byzantine". Since "Koine" simply means "Common", Byzantine became the new Koine Greek language. If that is not enough, Byzantine was not adapted to the Phoenicean alphabet until the 8th century. That means that while it would still be spoken the same, it would be written differently.
When Erasmus published the first Greek New Testament in the late 16th century, it was refered to in his day as "The Byzantine Text", but it is known today as "The Textus Receptus", and it was the basis for the King James New Testament.
This means that the King James New Testament is based on 16th century Byzantine text, 8 centuries after it had been adapted to the Phoenecian alphabet, and 12 centuries after the Greek of the New Testament writers had become a dead language. Not only that, but Erasmus was a Roman Catholic, and one of Luther's religious opponents.
King James declared that his version of the bible was to be as accurate as possible, but he also ordered that all the old words were to be used. That is why all the religious nouns were never properly translated. For the most part, the newer "dynamic" versions have maintained that bad KJV tradition.
I find it hard to believe that the KJV is any more accurate that any other version.
What do you think of that???


"I don't speak for God, but somebody has to speak for the bible story."
Quote
Like
Share