Bible Study KJVO and the Strongs Concordance

[Dorothy Mae]

Only God can judge the intents of the heart and nothing that man does in secret is hidden from Him.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Jeremiah 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

There are many who think their heart is not known by anyone but God. They are fooling themselves. It is not that difficult to see a persons heart if you have enough time to hear and observe them. But it’s not a common ability, I do admit. Most draw hasty and negative conclusions if that makes feel better. When being sold a bill of goods, they draw hasty and positive conclusions as that then makes them feel better.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Have you read Ms. Riplinger's works? Have you engaged with those who believe the twaddle she writes? I have for well over 15 years, before you accuse any one of maligning her make yourself aware of her twaddle.

Whatever she writes does not excuse those who violate the teachings of Christ by attacking her.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dorothy Mae
This link may help… or maybe not lol! Read post 8 and 9

The absence of the Trinity in early manuscripts of 1 John 5:7

1 John 5:7 in the KJV states as follows: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." However, 1 John 5:7 in the ASV and RSV omits the text found in the KJV. It states instead: "It is the Spirit who bears witness, because...

christianforums.net

There is an error there. The KJV drew heavily from the Masoric texts (OT) and the Greek Received Text (NT). Some phrases are directly out of the Geneva Bible. Erasmus showed the blatant changes away from the Greek that the Catholics had made in the Latin vulgate and so that was not a reliable source.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Yes. Here is something I posted in another thread a little while back:

“The KJV for a long time was the most widely used translation in the world; it also served for several centuries as the classic expression of the English language. Indeed, its translators coined phrases that will be forever embedded in our language (“coals of fire,” “the skin of my teeth,” “tongues of fire”). However, for the New Testament, the only Greek text available to the translators of the 1611 edition was based on late manuscripts, which had accumulated the mistakes of over a thousand years of copying. Few of these mistakes — and we must note that there are many of them — make any difference to us doctrinally, but they often do make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts. Recognizing that the English of the KJV was no longer a living language — and thoroughly dissatisfied with its modern revision (RSV/NRSV) — it was decided by some to “update” the KJV by ridding it of its “archaic” way of speaking. But in so doing, the NKJV revisers eliminated the best feature of the KJV (its marvelous expression of the English language) and kept the worst (its flawed Greek text). This is why for study you should use almost any modern translation other than the KJV or the NKJV." (Fee, Gordon D.; Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (pp. 43-44). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.)


What do you mean by “texts”? If you mean different Bible translations, then you are guilty of the same begging the question fallacy that Riplinger is, and indeed most of KJVOism. You first have to prove that the manuscripts the KJV are based on are superior and correct. Only then can such a claim be made that newer versions “remove” verses.

However, the KJV is based on inferior manuscripts and so the “missing” verses in newer versions are simply those that either shouldn’t or likely shouldn’t have been in the KJV to begin with. In other words, it isn’t the newer versions which have removed verses, it is the KJV which added to Scripture.


That isn’t the verse.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (NIV)

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (NASB)

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

So, without having to explain to someone what “only begotten Son” means, since at first appearances it looks like Jesus was created or brought into being, the newer versions clearly call Jesus God.

The position that the KJV is not based on inferior texts can be successfully argued. The idea that copiers inserted statements as to the deity of Christ is highly doubtful. Their view on scripture was much higher than ours.

Now the problem with removing “begotten” is that it removes the deity of Christ. There are others in the Bible referred to as God’s son. Adam is called “the son of God.” The male followers of Christ today can think of themselves as are “sons of God.” Jesus is the begotten among brothers, all of whom are sons of God. That understanding has been removed from the verse.

Jesus is the one and only begotten son. This is a distinction lost in the new versions. Not to stir up a fight, but this making all sons of God with no distinction between the Son of God and any other son of god is a new age concept.

It would be better to explain the meaning of “begotten” than dumb down the text. In the newer translations of the verse, the powerful understanding of the conception is lost.

 

[kiwimac]

From the work on HAZMAT found on the Bible Versions discussion board and collated by me.

" . . .p. 191 (of HAZMAT) -- Gail Riplinger is attempting to discredit James Strong (of Concordance fame) by complaining about certain entries in the 10-volume McClintock-Strong Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. On this page 191 of HazMat, Gail Riplinger clearly shows her utter ignorance of facts regarding church history to be more than amazing! She writes the following (boldface type Gail Riplinger's;):

"Strong's approved 'friends' and foes reveal much about his thinking. The article entitled 'Fanaticism' says, 'In the Protestant world we find fanaticism in the Anabaptists of Münster...' (vol. 3, p. 482). These good Anabaptists, of course, were the forerunners of today's Baptists, whose doctrine is characterized by orthodoxy, piety, and an adherence to the scriptures. The article on 'Anabaptists' repeats his charge of 'fanaticism.' He reports that one of them 'persuaded the people to devote their gold, and silver, and movable property to the common use, and to burn all their books but the Bible' (vol. 1, pp. 210, 265)."

Might I suggest that anyone who doesn't know the history of the so-called "Anabaptist rebellion" in Münster back in 1534-35 do a simple Internet search for "Anabaptist, rebellion, Münster, and Jan van Leyden", peruse the information presented, and then see whether "these good Anabaptists" should really be considered such as opposed to "fanatics"! E.g., the following information from Wikipedia (under "Münster Rebellion") is quite accurate and to the point:

". Bockelson, better known in history as John of Leiden, was subsequently installed as king. Claiming to be
the successor of David, he claimed royal honours and absolute power in the new "Zion". He justified his actions by the authority of visions from heaven, as others have done in similar circumstances. He legalized polygamy, and himself took sixteen wives, one of whom he beheaded himself in the marketplace. Community of goods was also established.the Batenburgers under Jan van Batenburg preserved the violent millennialist stream of Anabaptism seen at Münster. They were polygamous and believed force was justified against anyone not in their sect. Not surprisingly, their movement went deep underground after the suppression of Münster If the continuity of a sect is traced in its principles, and not in its adherents, then the Mennonites had little do with their violent, polygamous predecessors." ...

 

[Free]

The position that the KJV is not based on inferior texts can be successfully argued.

Not likely, based on more recent scholarship. The vast majority of manuscript evidence we have has been found after the manuscripts the KJV is based on. And, again, the KJV manuscripts are of newer origin with hundreds of years of copying errors.

The idea that copiers inserted statements as to the deity of Christ is highly doubtful.

Why would that be doubtful? It could very well be that these things weren't done purposefully. Regardless, the newer versions have not willfully tried to remove the deity of Christ as Riplinger falsely teaches.

Their view on scripture was much higher than ours.

Not likely.

Now the problem with removing “begotten” is that it removes the deity of Christ.

Not at all.

There are others in the Bible referred to as God’s son. Adam is called “the son of God.” The male followers of Christ today can think of themselves as are “sons of God.” Jesus is the begotten among brothers, all of whom are sons of God. That understanding has been removed from the verse.

Did you even read the other verses I posted?

"the one and only Son, who is himself God" (NIV)
"the only begotten God" (NASB)
"the only God, who is at the Father's side" (ESV)

These are much clearer than the KJV, with no additional explaining required.

Jesus is the one and only begotten son. This is a distinction lost in the new versions.

It is not at all lost.

Not to stir up a fight, but this making all sons of God with no distinction between the Son of God and any other son of god is a new age concept.

There is simply no way to logically come to that conclusion. One would have to completely ignore the context, which is another significant error Riplinger continually makes, whether its with Scripture or other people's writings.

Joh 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.(NIV)

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (NASB)

Joh 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)

It would be better to explain the meaning of “begotten” than dumb down the text. In the newer translations of the verse, the powerful understanding of the conception is lost.

Again, neither of these things is true. The translations are not at all dumbed-down but rather are clearer and just as forceful.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Not likely, based on more recent scholarship. The vast majority of manuscript evidence we have has been found after the manuscripts the KJV is based on. And, again, the KJV manuscripts are of newer origin with hundreds of years of copying errors.

D: The received text has many more copies spread over the then known world. But I don’t think you’ll be convinced.

Why would that be doubtful? It could very well be that these things weren't done purposefully. Regardless, the newer versions have not willfully tried to remove the deity of Christ as Riplinger falsely teaches.

It’s odd that the target is continually the deity of Christ. In addition, Opponents object to this was “inserted.” Why? Do they think it’s untrue?

Not likely.


Not at all.


Did you even read the other verses I posted?

"the one and only Son, who is himself God" (NIV)
"the only begotten God" (NASB)
"the only God, who is at the Father's side" (ESV)

He’s never called “begotten God” but “begotten son.” Jesus addressed the Father as “father” and the Father spoke of Jesus as “son.” The Father never called him “beloved or begotten God.” Using terms God never used is a deviation from the truth.

These are much clearer than the KJV, with no additional explaining required.


It is not at all lost.


There is simply no way to logically come to that conclusion. One would have to completely ignore the context, which is another significant error Riplinger continually makes, whether its with Scripture or other people's writings.

Not at all. Begotten God is not a concept in the Bible presented as that. Begotten son is now missing. It’s replaced by “only son” which isn’t true.

Joh 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.(NIV)

Jesus isn’t the one and only son.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (NASB)

That’s better but the NASB is older than the NIV.

Joh 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)

No longer conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Again, neither of these things is true. The translations are not at all dumbed-down but rather are clearer and just as forceful.

No, less forceful. A reader simply needs to read of the other sons of God in the bible to come to the realization that both cannot be true. Jesus isn’t the one and only son.

 

[Free]

D: The received text has many more copies spread over the then known world. But I don’t think you’ll be convinced.

You are not understanding the issue. It is the manuscripts that underlie the RT. That there are many copies of the RT is irrelevant--many copies of a bad text is just means that there are many copies of a bad text; it doesn't make them more right.

It’s odd that the target is continually the deity of Christ. In addition, Opponents object to this was “inserted.” Why? Do they think it’s untrue?

There is nothing odd about it, and there are probably more verses that have nothing to do with the deity of Christ that are questionable than those that speak of his deity. I am not clear as to what you're asking.

He’s never called “begotten God” but “begotten son.” Jesus addressed the Father as “father” and the Father spoke of Jesus as “son.” The Father never called him “beloved or begotten God.” Using terms God never used is a deviation from the truth.

Not at all. It is to simply state the deity of Christ in clearer terms. It is no less truthful.

Not at all. Begotten God is not a concept in the Bible presented as that. Begotten son is now missing. It’s replaced by “only son” which isn’t true.

Not true. Begotten literally means "unique" or "one and only."

Jesus isn’t the one and only son.

Then he isn't begotten, which, as I pointed out, is a literal meaning of the word. And, again, context is king.

No longer conceived by the Holy Spirit.

What do you mean by this? What are you addressing?

No, less forceful. A reader simply needs to read of the other sons of God in the bible to come to the realization that both cannot be true. Jesus isn’t the one and only son.

Again, context, context, context. One cannot come to such a conclusion if they have read the scriptures.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You are not understanding the issue. It is the manuscripts that underlie the RT. That there are many copies of the RT is irrelevant--many copies of a bad text is just means that there are many copies of a bad text; it doesn't make them more right.

You don’t understand being older doesn’t mean better or more accurate. Older isn’t better or more accurate. The removal of Christ’s deity is suspect and even in the first century his deity was a target. More copies not connected with one another is more reliable than one supposedly old one. One is easy to change. Many is difficult.

There is nothing odd about it, and there are probably more verses that have nothing to do with the deity of Christ that are questionable than those that speak of his deity. I am not clear as to what you're asking.


Not at all. It is to simply state the deity of Christ in clearer terms. It is no less truthful.


Not true. Begotten literally means "unique" or "one and only."

No, begotten means conceived. Even you don’t know what the word means because of these versions. As I said, the meaning is lost.

Then he isn't begotten, which, as I pointed out, is a literal meaning of the word. And, again, context is king.

Wow, you even accept that Jesus is not begotten of the Holy Spirit based on these texts. The leaven is working through the dough.

What do you mean by this? What are you addressing?


Again, context, context, context. One cannot come to such a conclusion if they have read the scriptures.

I think one cannot say Jesus was not begotten of the Holy Spirit unless they haven’t read the scriptures, the real scriptures.

But I see the fruit being born out of these versions. Just comes sooner than I expected.

 

[for_his_glory]

There are many who think their heart is not known by anyone but God. They are fooling themselves. It is not that difficult to see a persons heart if you have enough time to hear and observe them. But it’s not a common ability, I do admit. Most draw hasty and negative conclusions if that makes feel better. When being sold a bill of goods, they draw hasty and positive conclusions as that then makes them feel better.

What we as Christians judge are the fruits displayed in others, but only God knows the intents of the heart.


Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[Free]

You don’t understand being older doesn’t mean better or more accurate. Older isn’t better or more accurate.

Does newer mean more accurate? How could newer be more accurate, given the greater distance from the originals?

The removal of Christ’s deity is suspect and even in the first century his deity was a target.

Again, the argument that newer versions have tried to remove the deity of Christ is utterly fallacious. Look at John 1 in almost any (I haven't read them all) newer, Christian version and they are all full of the deity of Christ.

More copies not connected with one another is more reliable than one supposedly old one. One is easy to change. Many is difficult.

Yes, but that is rather my point--the manuscripts of the KJV are largely connected, copies of copies. Your argument admits that the KJV cannot be as reliable as newer versions.

No, begotten means conceived. Even you don’t know what the word means because of these versions. As I said, the meaning is lost.

Please, do some study before making such arguments. In the NT, the KJV uses "begotten" 15 times. In John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Heb 11:17; 1 John 4:9 are the only instances in the KJV that use the phrases "only begotten of the Father," "only begotten Son," and "only begotten." Those six times are also the only times the Greek word monogenes is used and it only means "unique," "only one," or something very similar along those lines.

The Greek word translated as begotten which means (among many different meanings), "conceived," is gennao.

Wow, you even accept that Jesus is not begotten of the Holy Spirit based on these texts. The leaven is working through the dough.

Based on what texts? What I find interesting is that I haven't made any mention of this. You have either read Riplinger or read her ideas through the writings of others. It's a shame that you believe them to be true.

I think one cannot say Jesus was not begotten of the Holy Spirit unless they haven’t read the scriptures, the real scriptures.

It depends on what you are referring to. Do not conflate the eternal begetting of the Son by the Father with the physical conceiving of the God-man by the Holy Spirit. The eternal begetting of the Son by the Father is what the context of John 1 is speaking.

But I see the fruit being born out of these versions. Just comes sooner than I expected.

Yes, many have come to Christ and to know him and the Father deeply.

 

[for_his_glory]

You don’t get it do you? You require an absurd question be answered.

And I heard her maybe 10 years ago. I’ve also heard others on the history of the Bible. And when I heard the Passion or The Message read in church I was astonished that learned church men could be so fooled as to believe that is what the authors wrote.

Lastly I do not justify her. I condemn the posts who play the Accuser of the sister.

Many mistakenly believe that it is wrong to expose error and to name the guilty teachers; but they are wrong according to the Bible.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

Titus 1: 10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Paul named Peter publicly. Peter was guilty of unscriptural practice. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed , But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:11-14). T

Paul named Demas for loving the world. “For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world” (II Tim. 4:10). Those who forsake the cause of Christ for worldly living and pleasures should be named and exposed.

Paul named Alexander the coppersmith. “Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil. the Lord reward him “according to his works: Of whom be thou ware also, for he hath greatly withstood our words ” (II Tim. 4:14-15). It is clear that this is not a personality problem, but a doctrinal problem. Alexander had withstood the words and doctrine of Paul. He was an enemy to the truth. Godly pastors face the same problem every day. They stand and proclaim the truth, then their members go home and hear this truth disputed by radio and TV preachers.

John named Diotrephes. “I wrote unto the church; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not” (III John 9). He related how this man had prated against him “with malicious words ” (v. 10). He further said, “Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God, but he that doeth evil hath not seen God ” (v. I 1). It is not wrong to name those whose doctrine and practice is contrary to the Word of God.

In fact, the whole Bible abounds in examples of false prophets being named and exposed. All this modern day talk about love, used as an excuse for not exposing error, is not really biblical love but is really sloppy agape.

Moses called the name of Balaam. (See Num. 22-25). Peter exposed “the way of Balaam , who loved the wages of unrighteousness ” (II Pet. 2:15). Balaam was a prophet that was in the work for money, just like some of the TV false prophets today. They beg for money and live like kings, while multitudes of innocent people send them their hard earned money. They are always building colleges, hospitals, TV network satellites, and amusement parks that have a water slide for Jesus. And then we are suppose to keep our mouth shut about these religious charlatans. How can we be silent and be true to God?

Jude exposed “the error of Balaam ” (Jude I 1). John exposed “the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication ” (Rev. 2:14). This gets right to the heart of the matter, concerning the doctrine of separation. Balaam never did curse Israel even though he wanted the wages that he was offered to do so.

False teachers are breaking down the barrier of separation between God’s people and false religion. There is too little preaching and teaching on the doctrine of separation. Balaam breached the doctrine of personal separation by causing the men of Israel to commit fornication with the Moabite women. He breached the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation by causing the men of Israel to bow down to Baal. This brought a curse upon Israel. Until we get back to teaching the truth about personal and ecclesiastical separation, we can expect the continued widespread havoc that we have today.

It seems to be believed by many that some people are too high and mighty to be named or exposed. Men in high places, pastors of large churches, and those with great radio or TV audiences, are supposedly above criticism. Whatever they may do or say, no matter how contrary to the Bible it may be, is supposedly all right. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[for_his_glory]

the real scriptures.

Can you produce what you call the real scriptures?

 

[jaybo]

The position that the KJV is not based on inferior texts can be successfully argued. The idea that copiers inserted statements as to the deity of Christ is highly doubtful. Their view on scripture was much higher than ours.

Now the problem with removing “begotten” is that it removes the deity of Christ. There are others in the Bible referred to as God’s son. Adam is called “the son of God.” The male followers of Christ today can think of themselves as are “sons of God.” Jesus is the begotten among brothers, all of whom are sons of God. That understanding has been removed from the verse.

Jesus is the one and only begotten son. This is a distinction lost in the new versions. Not to stir up a fight, but this making all sons of God with no distinction between the Son of God and any other son of god is a new age concept.

It would be better to explain the meaning of “begotten” than dumb down the text. In the newer translations of the verse, the powerful understanding of the conception is lost.

In the newer translations of the verse, the powerful understanding of the conception is lost -- in your opinion only. The KJV is a confusing, often misunderstood translation. Nobody on planet earth, including yourself, uses that form of Englyshe.

 

[jaybo]

What is so difficult to understand about this? "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14 NIV

or here...

"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." John 1:18 NIV

... and in many other places.

Clearly deity has not been removed.

BTW, I chose the NIV because it is the best-selling translation.

 

[for_his_glory]

All scripture taken from the KJV

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

IMO, the simplest way to explain the Deity (Trinity) is found in these two scriptures, but yet no one can fully understand the Trinity as that would mean one could fully understand all the complexities of heavens, what can you do? God.

Can you fathom the depths of God or discover the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens, what can you do? Job 11:7, 8; Isaiah 55:9.

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

God is the word from the beginning being one God who exist in three persons. Trinity means three in one Spirit, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

God is Spirit, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

God is the word (Spirit of God),

The word became flesh (Jesus) and dwelt among us,

When the word (Jesus) ascended back up to heaven, once again God sent His Spirit, (Holy Spirit) to indwell us and teach us all things and bring those things back to our remembrance.

Deity (Trinity) is God's Spirit manifested in the person of Jesus as God's plan of salvation through His birth, death and resurrection before the foundation of the world.

Holy Spirit (God's Spirit) was again sent down to permanently indwell those who are Spiritually born again, John 3:5-7, who will teach us all truths of what Jesus, (the word of God made flesh), already taught His disciples who were sent out into the world to make disciples of all of us to help teach others the Gospel of God's grace through faith.

Scriptures that reference Jesus being referred to as God:
John 1:1-14; John 10:30; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8, 9; 1 John 5:7, 8, 20; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 13:14; Isaiah 9:6; 44:6; Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:23; 28:19; John 14:16, 17; Genesis 1:1, 2 (cross reference John 1:1-14); 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:15-17; John 14:9-11; Philippians 2:5-8; Rev 1:8

Scriptures that refer the Holy Spirit as being God:
Psalms 139:7, 8; John 14:17; 16:13; Isaiah 40:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11; Zechariah 4:6; Luke 1:35; Ephesians 4:4-6; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; Titus 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21; Jude 1:20

 

[Dorothy Mae]

In the newer translations of the verse, the powerful understanding of the conception is lost -- in your opinion only. The KJV is a confusing, often misunderstood translation. Nobody on planet earth, including yourself, uses that form of Englyshe.

One poster doesn’t understand that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit because of the modern translations. That is less powerful and truth for them is lost.

The educated can read and understand the KJV as well as Shakespeare. No one says your words about Shakespeare and that’s the same language. Hard as it is to believe, I also read Shakespeare on my own for the pleasure of it. I am not the only one on the planet doing so.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What is so difficult to understand about this? "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14 NIV

or here...

"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." John 1:18 NIV

... and in many other places.

Clearly deity has not been removed.

BTW, I chose the NIV because it is the best-selling translation.

I think we’ve reached the end point.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Can you produce what you call the real scriptures?

If you’re expecting an easy answer, there isn’t one. To desire to find out what was really in the mind of the author (the real scripture) is a requirement for finding it. Most don’t have that on the agenda. It requires reading different translations but needs to include the Greek direct but awkward presentation. It also requires being steeped in the writings of the other authors. Knowing false theology helps to discern when a translator put their personal spin on the words chosen. The question turns on if one wants truth or a more palatable presentation.

 

[jaybo]

One poster doesn’t understand that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit because of the modern translations. That is less powerful and truth for them is lost.

The educated can read and understand the KJV as well as Shakespeare. No one says your words about Shakespeare and that’s the same language. Hard as it is to believe, I also read Shakespeare on my own for the pleasure of it. I am not the only one on the planet doing so.

Shakespeare is not the Bible. His words were not inspired by God.

And I don't understand your comment about one poster. So what? There are many people who misinterpret the KJV because it is written in a dead language.

"The educated can read and understand the KJV as well as Shakespeare" has no basis in fact. None.

The KJV is often misinterpreted. Your comment about "begotten" is a perfect example.