Trinity

[JLB]

The Father is YHWH - Is. 64:8

If Jehovah is a "false name," then the KJV (and others) is a false translation!: Psalm 83:18, KJV.

Furthermore, the personal name of our Messiah (who trinitarians claim is equally God!) is just as much a “false translation” as is the personal name of God, “Jehovah.” As best we can determine Christ's personal name was something like “Yehoshua”!

Although not the original Hebrew pronunciation, “Jehovah” has been the traditional English transliteration for YHWH for many hundreds of years. Are we to erase it from our translations because of this? If so, we must erase the traditional name of “Jesus” from our translations for the same reason!

Jesus is not YHWH - Ps. 110:1 “YHWH said to my Lord (Jesus) sit at my right hand” (compare Acts 2:34-36). And Ps. 2:2 “The kings of the earth take their stand … against YHWH and against his Anointed (Messiah).” (Compare Acts 4:26, 27.)

YHWH It is not a compound word.

It has nothing to do with Strong’s #1043 (Beth-anath).

Look it up for yourself.

I didn't say YHWH is a compound word.

Jehovah is a compound word.

3050 and 1943

 

[teddy trueblood]

“I didn't say YHWH is a compound word.

Jehovah is a compound word.

3050 and 1943”

…………………..

“Yehowah” (‘Iehouah’) because of pronunciation changes in the English language over the centuries finally changed into “Jehovah.” This is not a compound word.

It came about because of the way it was actually written in the Hebrew text used by English translators. YHWH has vowel points which, for whatever reason, were probably added to it around 600 A.D.

This makes the transliteration of YHWH (together with the attached vowel points) found in the ancient Hebrew OT texts to be literally “Iehouah.” This is not a compound word.

Does this mean that you acknowledge that the rest of my post #19 is correct?

 

[chessman]

Does one have to believe in the trinity to be saved?
...
What say you?

1 Corinthians 12:3
Lexham English Bible (LEB)
3 ... no one is able to say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth “Jesus is Lord” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Example:

Mark 12:36
David himself said by the Holy Spirit, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’

 

[JLB]

…………………..

“Yehowah” (‘Iehouah’) because of pronunciation changes in the English language over the centuries finally changed into “Jehovah.” This is not a compound word.

It came about because of the way it was actually written in the Hebrew text used by English translators. YHWH has vowel points which, for whatever reason, were probably added to it around 600 A.D.

This makes the transliteration of YHWH (together with the attached vowel points) found in the ancient Hebrew OT texts to be literally “Iehouah.” This is not a compound word.

Does this mean that you acknowledge that the rest of my post #19 is correct?

Jehovah is a compound word.

YHWH is not a compound word.

YHWH does not have any vowels.


Jehovah is a compound word made up of -

3050 - Yah. Shortened form of Lord.

1943 - hovah. Ruin or wickedness.

Jehovah is a perverted word.

Ask any Jew or Jewish periodical that addresses the word.

There are no "J's" in Hebrew.

JLB

 

[chessman]

The Father is YHWH - Is. 64:8

Yep. That's His OT Hebrew name.

Jeremiah 23:5-6
Lexham English Bible (LEB)


5 “Look, days are coming,” declares Yahweh,
“when I will raise up for David a righteous branch,
...
and this is his name by which he will be called:

Fullfilled in the NT:

John 17:11
Lexham English Bible (LEB)

11 And I [Jesus] am no longer in the world, and they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given to me[Jesus], so that they may be one, just as we are.

 

[Jesse Stone]

mondar #17

Without the doctrine of the trinity, what a person "knows" is not the one true God.

Or, with the doctrine of the trinity, what a person "knows" is not the one true God.

Or, the same God is known, regardless how the interpretations of Trinitarianism or non-Trinitarianism affect a misunderstanding in their thinking.

All depends on one's point of view.

Personally, I think believers should only be on the narrow road that he mentioned. Referring to himself as the way, the truth, and the life. Christians in their denominationalism think their own denomination is the way, the truth, and the life. And I wonder how much that affects their "knowing" the one true God.

 

[Jesse Stone]

JLB #18

Jesus is YHWH.
Jehovah is a false name.
It is a compound word.
Strongs. # 3050. Together with -
Strongs # 1043.
Look it up for yourself.

Using a "modern version" of Strong's Concordance:

#3050 logikos meaning reasonable. From 3056 logos meaning word.

#1043 Gabriel.

So I'll presume you mean:

#03050 usually translated as LORD or JAH. contraction for 03068 translated LORD, GOD, JEHOVAH

#01043 translated Bethanath (a place in Naphtali)

I suppose what you said means something. But then I can only understand through the natural man (by your suggestion on the "Proof of Trinity" thread).


Jehovah isn't a false name. It's a translation. A translation most commonly used by English translators. The next most common translation is Yahweh. The Hebrew word YHWH means "the self-existent one". Nothing here that indicates even remotely that Jesus is YHWH. Except under the presumption of Trinitarianism.

Since you suggested so much (inadvertently perhaps) on the other Trinity thread, allow me to plainly make a suggestion. Read the Bible for what it actually says, instead of through the glasses of an interpretation. If you feel compelled to interpret the Bible, resist. Interpretation is an act of the natural man. If you can't resist, understand first what is being said the best you can, then interpret from there. But don't be surprised if one day you find your interpretations are all wrong. Not to worry. That so seldom happens that there are now thousands of denominations based on interpretations in Christianity.

 

[reba]

Hey guys i see this thread is heading into personal attacks .... Drop them.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Reba #28
No personal attack intended. Just a suggestion out of personal perspective and experience.

 

[Free]

Read the Bible for what it actually says, instead of through the glasses of an interpretation. If you feel compelled to interpret the Bible, resist. Interpretation is an act of the natural man. If you can't resist, understand first what is being said the best you can, then interpret from there. But don't be surprised if one day you find your interpretations are all wrong. Not to worry. That so seldom happens that there are now thousands of denominations based on interpretations in Christianity.

As I have said before, it is impossible to read the Bible, or any book for that matter, without interpreting it. As soon as you start reading, you begin interpreting what you are reading at some level.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

First, you must understand what salvation is. Salvation is the process of the Lord saving us from the consequences of the sins we commit. It happens over and over in our lives. And as time goes on, the Lord expects us to learn from our mistakes. In the end, we are pretty much expected to save ourselves:

[12] Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
[13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Phil 2:12-13 RSV

In other words, we need to repent of our sin.

Okay, that is what salvation is. I'm not sure how the Trinity things works into that. Here is my view of the Trinity: The Lord is simultaneously a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a man can simultaneously be a father, son, husband, truck driver, boy scout leader, and whatever else.

This last statement is called modalism, a belief that God is one person rather than 3 distinct persons. A one person God cannot be a trinity.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

It should be noted that the Holy Spirit moves us into a relationship with God the father and Jesus Christ.
Without the Holy Spirit we have nothing.
We know that God the father and Jesus Christ are God.
Without the Holy Spirit, we cannot know God.
I can't imagine how someone can be filled with the Holy Spirit and at the same time deny the deity of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Free #30

As I have said before, it is impossible to read the Bible, or any book for that matter, without interpreting it. As soon as you start reading, you begin interpreting what you are reading at some level.

And as I've said before, I think you're dead wrong on this issue. I'm not questioning the fact that you are in fact interpreting the Bible. I'm questioning your right to do so. I wouldn't care, if it weren't for another fact, that it is a matter of life and death.

To think that what the Bible plainly says, that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life is literally true; is that just an interpretation? How much plainer must the Bible be for you not to interpret it. Do you think that God gave man a Bible, purported to be a revelation from God to man for the good of man, that is so hard to understand that he must interpret it to understand it? Making his salvation dependent not on faith in what God has provided, but on the hope the interpretation that he follows is the correct one?

John 14 was said to Jews and was only meant for the Jews. Likewise Acts 4:12. God's messiah for God's chosen people. Has nothing to do with Gentiles at all. Paul misinterpreted what Jesus sent him to do and started a religion for the Gentiles. We only have his own word and the word of his buddy Luke to say it isn't so. A religion that uses the name of Jesus Christ. A Christian religion. And the formulation of the Trinity three hundred years after Paul is just part of that religion. For the Gentiles, there is no Messiah. Except the one of their own devising. Salvation won't be for the Gentiles until the messiah of the Jews returns again to set up his thousand year reign on the earth. They're still dead in their sins until God says otherwise.

How's that for an even narrower view than Calvinism. It's just an interpretation. As good as any other interpretation. And about as reliable as objective truth as any other interpretation. On par with Astrology.

Do you know what Astrology is? It's a way of life lived through interpretations of the positions of the stars. What's the difference between living life interpreting the positions of the stars and living life interpreting a collection of ancient writings? Probably a lot to you. None to me.

Why do you think I'm an Agnostic? Could it possibly be because most Christians think like you do? That it's impossible to read the Bible without interpreting it? That the Bible is textually criticized, compiled, translated, and understood through interpretation? That denominations are created by interpretation? How can you say that anything you believe is true? Or real for that matter? Or is it just a matter of childlike faith, children who will believe anything an authority will tell them? Is your mother The Church (however you understand it), who interprets the Bible for you? Is your Father the Bible, that you can only understand by interpretation?

Were you saved by an interpretation? Are you basing your life on an interpretation. Are you living a life according to your own interpretations? Or maybe someone else's?

As you suggested, every writing of man must be understood by interpretation. If the person who wrote it isn't available to interpret it, then someone else must interpret the writing on his behalf. Are you suggesting that the Bible is no different than any other writing of man?

Seems to me that the Bible doesn't present itself as just another writing of man. Nor is interpreting the Bible relying on some ethereal ghost the Bible calls the Holy Spirit guiding you. You're relying on your own interpretation or someone else's when you rely on interpretation. Ultimately, you're relying on yourself alone, even when you accept that someone else's interpretation is the right one. There is no Bible for you in any significant or substantial sense other than your own interpretation or that of another.

Following the Bible is a lot like following the Law. If you're guilty of interpreting any of it, you're guilty of interpreting all of it. And you become your own Bible. Like a lawless man becomes a law unto himself.

You have suggested that a good case could be made that one who denies the Trinity is not saved.

I suggest to you another good case that could be made: That if you are relying on interpretation to understand the Bible, then maybe it is you that isn't saved. You've only interpreted yourself to be so. In common terms, you've talked yourself into thinking you are what you want yourself to be. Which is nothing that is real. In which case, all I've said before goes against your interpretation, and is sheer nonsense (unreasonable) to you. Because it has to be for you to continue in your own delusion.

I see dead people.

 

[jeff77]

I think we have to interpret some things like Job chapter 1 verse 7 The Lord said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the Lord "From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it."

When I read that verse I didn't interpret it to mean that the Lord ask Satan "where have you come from" because he didn't know.

 

[Free]

And as I've said before, I think you're dead wrong on this issue. I'm not questioning the fact that you are in fact interpreting the Bible. I'm questioning your right to do so. I wouldn't care, if it weren't for another fact, that it is a matter of life and death.

Ask your theologian friends, if they truly exist. It is impossible to not interpret the Bible at some level when you read it. The very act of reading causes one to immediately interpret it. It simply cannot be otherwise.

To think that what the Bible plainly says, that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life is literally true; is that just an interpretation? How much plainer must the Bible be for you not to interpret it. Do you think that God gave man a Bible, purported to be a revelation from God to man for the good of man, that is so hard to understand that he must interpret it to understand it? Making his salvation dependent not on faith in what God has provided, but on the hope the interpretation that he follows is the correct one?

Being plain or difficult has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is interpreting, which just goes to show you don't understand what interpretation is, nor how necessary it is.

John 14 was said to Jews and was only meant for the Jews. Likewise Acts 4:12. God's messiah for God's chosen people. Has nothing to do with Gentiles at all. Paul misinterpreted what Jesus sent him to do and started a religion for the Gentiles. We only have his own word and the word of his buddy Luke to say it isn't so. A religion that uses the name of Jesus Christ. A Christian religion. And the formulation of the Trinity three hundred years after Paul is just part of that religion. For the Gentiles, there is no Messiah. Except the one of their own devising. Salvation won't be for the Gentiles until the messiah of the Jews returns again to set up his thousand year reign on the earth. They're still dead in their sins until God says otherwise.

How's that for an even narrower view than Calvinism. It's just an interpretation. As good as any other interpretation. And about as reliable as objective truth as any other interpretation. On par with Astrology.

What are you going on about here?

Do you know what Astrology is? It's a way of life lived through interpretations of the positions of the stars. What's the difference between living life interpreting the positions of the stars and living life interpreting a collection of ancient writings? Probably a lot to you. None to me.

Why do you think I'm an Agnostic? Could it possibly be because most Christians think like you do? That it's impossible to read the Bible without interpreting it? That the Bible is textually criticized, compiled, translated, and understood through interpretation? That denominations are created by interpretation? How can you say that anything you believe is true? Or real for that matter? Or is it just a matter of childlike faith, children who will believe anything an authority will tell them? Is your mother The Church (however you understand it), who interprets the Bible for you? Is your Father the Bible, that you can only understand by interpretation?

Were you saved by an interpretation? Are you basing your life on an interpretation. Are you living a life according to your own interpretations? Or maybe someone else's?

As you suggested, every writing of man must be understood by interpretation. If the person who wrote it isn't available to interpret it, then someone else must interpret the writing on his behalf. Are you suggesting that the Bible is no different than any other writing of man?

Seems to me that the Bible doesn't present itself as just another writing of man. Nor is interpreting the Bible relying on some ethereal ghost the Bible calls the Holy Spirit guiding you. You're relying on your own interpretation or someone else's when you rely on interpretation. Ultimately, you're relying on yourself alone, even when you accept that someone else's interpretation is the right one. There is no Bible for you in any significant or substantial sense other than your own interpretation or that of another.

Following the Bible is a lot like following the Law. If you're guilty of interpreting any of it, you're guilty of interpreting all of it. And you become your own Bible. Like a lawless man becomes a law unto himself.

You are simply quite ignorant about what interpretation is and how to go about it.

You have suggested that a good case could be made that one who denies the Trinity is not saved.

I believe it was the denial of the deity of Jesus, not necessarily the Trinity.

I suggest to you another good case that could be made: That if you are relying on interpretation to understand the Bible, then maybe it is you that isn't saved. You've only interpreted yourself to be so. In common terms, you've talked yourself into thinking you are what you want yourself to be. Which is nothing that is real. In which case, all I've said before goes against your interpretation, and is sheer nonsense (unreasonable) to you. Because it has to be for you to continue in your own delusion.

I see dead people.

You don't even actually addressed arguments when they're put to you and you ignore sound reasoning and advice. So once again I must assume that, based on what you've written in this post, you are not at all interested in the truth. You have your mind made up; you are simply looking for some sort of validation for not changing your mind, for rejecting Christianity as you see it and staying where you are at. So be it.

 

[Deborah13]

Free #30


And as I've said before, I think you're dead wrong on this issue. I'm not questioning the fact that you are in fact interpreting the Bible. I'm questioning your right to do so. I wouldn't care, if it weren't for another fact, that it is a matter of life and death.

To think that what the Bible plainly says, that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life is literally true; is that just an interpretation? How much plainer must the Bible be for you not to interpret it. Do you think that God gave man a Bible, purported to be a revelation from God to man for the good of man, that is so hard to understand that he must interpret it to understand it? Making his salvation dependent not on faith in what God has provided, but on the hope the interpretation that he follows is the correct one?

John 14 was said to Jews and was only meant for the Jews. Likewise Acts 4:12. God's messiah for God's chosen people. Has nothing to do with Gentiles at all. Paul misinterpreted what Jesus sent him to do and started a religion for the Gentiles. We only have his own word and the word of his buddy Luke to say it isn't so. A religion that uses the name of Jesus Christ. A Christian religion. And the formulation of the Trinity three hundred years after Paul is just part of that religion. For the Gentiles, there is no Messiah. Except the one of their own devising. Salvation won't be for the Gentiles until the messiah of the Jews returns again to set up his thousand year reign on the earth. They're still dead in their sins until God says otherwise.

How's that for an even narrower view than Calvinism. It's just an interpretation. As good as any other interpretation. And about as reliable as objective truth as any other interpretation. On par with Astrology.

Do you know what Astrology is? It's a way of life lived through interpretations of the positions of the stars. What's the difference between living life interpreting the positions of the stars and living life interpreting a collection of ancient writings? Probably a lot to you. None to me.

Why do you think I'm an Agnostic? Could it possibly be because most Christians think like you do? That it's impossible to read the Bible without interpreting it? That the Bible is textually criticized, compiled, translated, and understood through interpretation? That denominations are created by interpretation? How can you say that anything you believe is true? Or real for that matter? Or is it just a matter of childlike faith, children who will believe anything an authority will tell them? Is your mother The Church (however you understand it), who interprets the Bible for you? Is your Father the Bible, that you can only understand by interpretation?

Were you saved by an interpretation? Are you basing your life on an interpretation. Are you living a life according to your own interpretations? Or maybe someone else's?

As you suggested, every writing of man must be understood by interpretation. If the person who wrote it isn't available to interpret it, then someone else must interpret the writing on his behalf. Are you suggesting that the Bible is no different than any other writing of man?

Seems to me that the Bible doesn't present itself as just another writing of man. Nor is interpreting the Bible relying on some ethereal ghost the Bible calls the Holy Spirit guiding you. You're relying on your own interpretation or someone else's when you rely on interpretation. Ultimately, you're relying on yourself alone, even when you accept that someone else's interpretation is the right one. There is no Bible for you in any significant or substantial sense other than your own interpretation or that of another.

Following the Bible is a lot like following the Law. If you're guilty of interpreting any of it, you're guilty of interpreting all of it. And you become your own Bible. Like a lawless man becomes a law unto himself.

You have suggested that a good case could be made that one who denies the Trinity is not saved.

I suggest to you another good case that could be made: That if you are relying on interpretation to understand the Bible, then maybe it is you that isn't saved. You've only interpreted yourself to be so. In common terms, you've talked yourself into thinking you are what you want yourself to be. Which is nothing that is real. In which case, all I've said before goes against your interpretation, and is sheer nonsense (unreasonable) to you. Because it has to be for you to continue in your own delusion.

I see dead people.

I think this scripture needs very little interpretation.
Joh 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Joh 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

 

[Jesse Stone]

jeff77 #34

I think we have to interpret some things like Job chapter 1 verse 7 The Lord said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the Lord "From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it."
When I read that verse I didn't interpret it to mean that the Lord ask Satan "where have you come from" because he didn't know.

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? Genesis 3:8-9

And how would you have "interpreted" this? Not much of a God. The humans were actually able to hide from this God.

And what about Eve talking to a snake in Genesis 3? Any idiot knows that animals can't talk. Or can they? This one did. God seemed to think that it was a snake. And now you know what Satan really looks like. Forget all those pictures of a red horned creature. A description of Satan's physical appearance is right here. Or you can interpret Genesis to be a metaphor where nothing is what it seems. That's what interpretation is for. An attempt to make the un-understandable understandable.

For God to be God, wouldn't it be natural for God to communicate on a level that humans can understand? So also God communicating with Satan. On his own level. The question didn't seem surprising to Satan. Why should anyone reading it have a problem with it?

 

[Jesse Stone]

Free #35

Ask your theologian friends, if they truly exist. It is impossible to not interpret the Bible at some level when you read it. The very act of reading causes one to immediately interpret it. It simply cannot be otherwise.

My scholarly Christian friends agree with you to a man. Except one. Some are Catholics. I expect such a response from them. It's according to their Tradition. And they add a very reasonable corollary. There has to be an authoritative interpreter. Otherwise one ends up with chaos. And almost 500 years of Protestantism has proven them right. So why am I not a Catholic? I guess because the one who originally gave me a Bible to read was a Protestant. Who never once indicated he believed in interpretation. He gave me the Bible and said read it. What you need to know is there. He was a Baptist. If he still lived, I would ask his advice on how to deal with this kind of situation. He didn't tell me while he was alive. So I deal with it the best I can. Obviously everyone on this forum agrees with you. At least no one has said otherwise.

I believe it was the denial of the deity of Jesus, not necessarily the Trinity.

There's a difference?

You don't even actually addressed arguments when they're put to you and you ignore sound reasoning and advice. So once again I must assume that, based on what you've written in this post, you are not at all interested in the truth. You have your mind made up; you are simply looking for some sort of validation for not changing your mind, for rejecting Christianity as you see it and staying where you are at. So be it.

I really hate it when Christians are so predictable. Especially right after I tell them what they will do. And you did exactly what I said you would do. I take no pleasure in that.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here. I know it's not possible. A couple of billion strong not possible.

But this being one of the two things of importance to me. In relation to Christianity. What you said was just a natural stepping stone.

it is impossible to read the Bible, or any book for that matter, without interpreting it.

How could I pass up such an opportunity? I had to put it out there. How unreasonable it is to follow an interpreted Bible. In the exact way that I did. I know the rest is out of my hands.

If I'm wrong and you're right, then I have to acknowledge the Bible isn't what it's claimed to be. The written word of God. Can't be. It's just more writings of men. Deceitful men? Don't know. I doubt that many religious writings are purposefully written with the intention to deceive. Maybe what they wrote seemed real to them at the time. Just like your interpretations seem real to you right now. I don't see any indication that it's your purpose to deceive. Any more than I think you are unsaved simply because you choose to believe in an interpretation or that interpretation is inevitable. I said that for effect. Think about it kind of an effect. Using your kind of argument.

You keep repeating what amounts to a straw man. You have no way of knowing my state of mind. And the fact you are wrong reveals to me you certainly aren't some kind of mutation that can read minds. How do you know my mind is made up? How do you know I'm looking for "some sort of validation for not changing your mind, for rejecting Christianity as you see it and staying where you are at" How do you know that you aren't helping me to make up my mind right now? Changing it to conform to what may be the actual reality? Unintended consequences.

You've only made a statement. Impossible to read the Bible without interpreting it. And since I'm the one who says that the Bible can be understood without adding any interpretations, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the additions of interpretations are necessary. You've never tried to prove it. I don't think you can. Any more than you can prove a Triune God should or did use personal pronouns to refer to himself. Catholics can prove it. But only on the basis of their own Tradition. If you believe in Bible alone, where does that leave you? Either agree with the Catholics or nothing. Because the Bible plus interpretation can't be thought by any rational man to be the Bible alone.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Deborah13 #36

I think this scripture needs very little interpretation.
Joh 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Joh 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Needs no interpretation when understood according to context.

 

[jeff77]

jeff77 #34




And how would you have "interpreted" this? Not much of a God. The humans were actually able to hide from this God.

And what about Eve talking to a snake in Genesis 3? Any idiot knows that animals can't talk. Or can they? This one did. God seemed to think that it was a snake. And now you know what Satan really looks like. Forget all those pictures of a red horned creature. A description of Satan's physical appearance is right here. Or you can interpret Genesis to be a metaphor where nothing is what it seems. That's what interpretation is for. An attempt to make the un-understandable understandable.

For God to be God, wouldn't it be natural for God to communicate on a level that humans can understand? So also God communicating with Satan. On his own level. The question didn't seem surprising to Satan. Why should anyone reading it have a problem with it?

Then if I can't understand something from the Bible I will have to interpret it and I could have the right interpretation or the wrong one but at least Im trying to understand.