Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
Ran across this "accidently" today. My eyes just fell on it...
1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one./(KJV)
1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one./(KJV)
Father
One in the Son per Jesus=>Its the Father in me doing His work
Holy Spirit=>Fathers Spirit *Spirit of the Sovereign Lord" (it is One God in all)
One God; One Lord; One Spirit
The Holy Spirit bears witness. What He hears. And any intercession that the Spirit does for us is in accordance with the will of the mind of the Spirit.
God is Spirit per Jesus.
And if you can accept it we are spirit in the tent of the body.
Randy
Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? Why is there still a discussion about the Trinity? How can there be any doubt that the Trinity is true? This is in both the KJV and the NKJV, both translated from a Byzantine text. But not in modern translations translated from the Alexandrian text (e.g., ESV, NASB, NIV).
Why does the Majority text and Wilbur Pickerings translation, both Byzantine text not have this portion? Yet the New Testament used by the Eastern Orthodox has this text?
And here's an interesting phenomena. Why does the Catholic Latin Vulgate on which the Douay version is translated have this text, while their new Latin Vulgate on which the NAB is translated does not?
Any interested party should check out the history of how that text was not in the first edition of the Greek text of Erasmus, then added in the next edition, then out again in the edition following that.
KJV Onlyists of course think the text is legitimate. At least I think they do. Not sure after having a top KJV Onlyist deny another part of the KJV.
A lot of intrigue concerning this verse.
………………………………......."New International Reader’s Version (NIRV): “Your throne is the very throne of God.”
That's not what it says.
New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
“You are God. Your throne will last for ever and ever.
Your kingdom will be ruled by what is right.
.................................Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? Why is there still a discussion about the Trinity? How can there be any doubt that the Trinity is true? This is in both the KJV and the NKJV, both translated from a Byzantine text. But not in modern translations translated from the Alexandrian text (e.g., ESV, NASB, NIV).
Why does the Majority text and Wilbur Pickerings translation, both Byzantine text not have this portion? Yet the New Testament used by the Eastern Orthodox has this text?
And here's an interesting phenomena. Why does the Catholic Latin Vulgate on which the Douay version is translated have this text, while their new Latin Vulgate on which the NAB is translated does not?
Any interested party should check out the history of how that text was not in the first edition of the Greek text of Erasmus, then added in the next edition, then out again in the edition following that.
KJV Onlyists of course think the text is legitimate. At least I think they do. Not sure after having a top KJV Onlyist deny another part of the KJV.
A lot of intrigue concerning this verse.
.................................
Excerpts from my 1Jn57 study:
1 John 5:7 (KJV text)
Dr. William Barclay :
“The facts are as follows. First, it does not occur in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 14th century. The great manuscripts belong to the 3rd and 4th centuries [most scholars date them to the 4th and 5th centuries], and it occurs in none of them. None of the great early fathers of the Church knew it. Jerome’s original version of the [Latin]Vulgate does not include it.” - pp. 110-111, The Letters of John and Jude, The Daily Study Bible Series, Revised Edition, The Westminster Press, 1976.
Noted Trinitarian scholar Daniel B. Wallace admits the same:
https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8#_ftnref3
You will also find the same information admitted by the following Trinitarian scholars: Dr. A.T. Robertson; The UBS (pp. 716-718, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971).
Even The Expositor's Greek Testament says in a note for 1 John 5:7 (as found in the Received Text and the KJV):
"A Latin interpolation, certainly spurious. (I) Found in no Gk. MS. [Greek Manuscript] except two late minuscules - 162 (Vatican), 15th c., the Lat. Vg. [Latin Vulgate] Version with a Gk. text adapted thereto; 34 (Trin. Coll., Dublin), 16th c. (2) Quoted by none of the Gk Fathers. Had they known it, they would have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [325 A.D.]). (3) Found in none of the early versions - in Vg. but not as it [originally] left the hands of St. Jerome." - p. 195, Vol. 5, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
The following modern trinitarian Bibles do not include the spurious words found in the KJV at 1 Jn 5:7: Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; American Standard Version; New International Version; New American Standard Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions); Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; Modern Language Bible; Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version; An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed); and translations by Moffatt; C. B. Williams; William Beck; Phillips; Rotherham; Lamsa; Byington; Barclay; etc.
YHWH is clearly called the Father in a number of Israelite personal names such as Abijah. Scripture clearly states that YHWH is the Father. For example, Is. 64:8: "But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand." - ASV.
But Scripture does not clearly state that the Son is YHWH. Nor do any Israelite names mean anything like the Son (or Messiah, or Firstborn, etc.) is YHWH.
Ran across this "accidently" today. My eyes just fell on it...
1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one./(KJV)
I didn't and wouldn't call God Jehovah!
JLB
The reason we have "Jehovah" as a name is that it is Germanic in origin, Since there is no Y sound as in "you" in German, they adapted the yod, in the Tetragrammaton of the 4 Hebrew words that only and always mean God.
Here is a question for you: In Genesis 1, who did the creating?
Was it God the Father, or God the Son?
Don't read this below until after you have made a choice
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,Not meant to stir up controversy, just fun,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
The reason we have "Jehovah" as a name is that it is Germanic in origin, Since there is no Y sound as in "you" in German, they adapted the yod, in the Tetragrammaton of the 4 Hebrew words that only and always mean God.
Here is a question for you: In Genesis 1, who did the creating?
Was it God the Father, or God the Son?
Don't read this below until after you have made a choice
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,Not meant to stir up controversy, just fun,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
So is Jehovah a German word?
Why would there be a German word in an English Bible who's original language is Hebrew.
Me too. But you asked about it, and I gave you the answer. I an sorry that the answer may have upset you, but it is the truth.I read English. My Bible is in English.
and when the Germans read their Bible they used the term, Jehovah. There is essentially no difference.Lord is how YHWH is rendered in English.
Later, some Christian translators mistakenly combined the vowels of “Adonay” with the consonants of “YHWH” producing the word “YaHoWaH.” When the Scriptures were translated into German during the Reformation, the word was transliterated into the German pronunciation, which pronounces “Y” as an English “J” and pronounces “W” as an English “V” — or “Jahovah.” Then in the early 17th century when the Scriptures were being translated into English with the help of some of the German translations, the word was again transliterated as “Jehovah,” and this unfortunate accident has carried over into many modern English translations.
The term is now recognized by all proficient Bible scholars to be a late hybrid form, a translation error, that was never used by the Jews.
The Jewish Encyclopedia
“Jehovah — a mispronunciation of the Hebrew YHWH the name of G-d. This pronunciation is grammatically impossible.”
(“Jehovah,” The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 7, 1904 ed.)
The New Jewish Encyclopedia:
“It is clear that the word Jehovah is an artificial composite.”
(“Jehovah,” The New Jewish Encyclopedia, 1962 ed.)
The Jewish Encyclopedia states that YHWH is "the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel", and describes the form "Jehovah" as "a philological impossibility".
JLB
God the Holy Spirit did the creating.
God the Son expressed the Fathers will as His Word to create.
JLB
I believe my 2 posts above are clear enough. Jesus is never clearly called YHWH. The Father is.
YHWH is clearly called the Father in a number of Israelite personal names such as Abijah. Scripture clearly states that YHWH is the Father. For example, Is. 64:8: "But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand." - ASV.
But Scripture does not clearly state that the Son is YHWH. Nor do any Israelite names mean anything like the Son (or Messiah, or Firstborn, etc.) is YHWH.
I would if scripture actually said it. It does not.