oFor to which of the angels did God ever say, oYou are my Son, today I
have begotten youo? Or again, oI will be to him a father, and he shall
be to me a sono? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world,
he says, oLet all GodAs angels worship him.o Of the angels he says, oHe >makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.o But of the
Son he says, oYour throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of >uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.o (Hebrews 1:5u8, ESV)
Jesus = "son"
Angels = "ministers"
The question "to which of God's angels did God ever say" is rhetorical.
The answer is NONE. To NONE of the angels did God EVER say "You are my
Son". Yet the Father said this to the "Son", Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ
is not any of God's angels. He is the superior "Son".
Jesus = "Your throne, O God"
Angels = "Let ALL God's angels worship him".
God the Father Himself calls Jesus "God". Not "a god", but "God".
God's angels are called on to "worship him" (Jesus as "God").
Jesus created "all" things, including "all" angels
oFor by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or
authoritiesuall things were created through him and for himo
(Colossians 1:16, ESV).
There is no "other" in Colossians 1. Jesus created "all" things,
including the angelic forces and powers. And no, "firstborn" does NOT
refer to being created, but to His rights and privileges as the Creator:
oI will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the
eartho (Psalm 89:27, ESV).
David was the youngest son of Jesse, not the first born. God calls him >firstborn because He gave him supremacy and kingly rank.
oIsrael is my firstborn sono (Exodus 4:22, ESV).
Israel was not the first nation created. God calls Israel firstborn
because of covenant privilege and special standing.
oEphraim is my firstborno (Jeremiah 31:9, ESV).
Ephraim was younger than Manasseh. God assigns firstborn status based on >choice and blessing, not birth order.
oHe is before all thingso (Colossians 1:17, ESV).
Someone who exists before all things cannot be part of the created order.
oFor to which of the angels did God ever say, aYou are my SonA?o
(Hebrews 1:5, ESV).
Scripture separates sonship and inheritance from angels, showing
firstborn language belongs to authority, not creation.
oI will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, aYou are my Son;
today I have begotten youAo (Psalm 2:7, ESV).
This speaks of royal installation and authority, not the beginning of >existence.
In Scripture, ofirstborno consistently denotes rank, inheritance, and >authority given by God, not being created first.
Daniel 10u12
Michael is called oone of the chief princeso (Daniel 10:13, ESV).
oOne ofo places Michael among other angelic rulers. Scripture never
places Jesus among equals (Hebrews 1:3, ESV).
Michael ohas charge of your people,o Israel (Daniel 12:1, ESV).
Jesus has oall authority in heaven and on eartho (Matthew 28:18, ESV).
Scripture never calls Michael Son, Lord, God, Creator, or King.
Scripture repeatedly applies those titles to Jesus (Hebrews 1:2u8, ESV).
Exodus 23; 32; 33 u the angel who led Israel
Scripture never names Michael in these passages (Exodus 23:20; 32:34;
33:2, ESV).
Scripture identifies this angel as acting with divine authority.
oMy name is in himo (Exodus 23:21, ESV).
Angels are never given GodAs name. How could you possibly know that of the millions of angels. The Bible only mentions two angels by name: Gabrial and Michael. Michael was an archangel, which means, "chief angel". And the word is singular, showing just one.
Scripture elsewhere identifies the Angel of the Lord as God speaking as God.
oGod called to him out of the busho when othe angel of the Lord
appearedo (Exodus 3:2u6, ESV).
Scripture never identifies Michael as the Angel of the Lord.
Jude 9 u the dispute over MosesA body
Michael is explicitly called othe archangelo (Jude 9, ESV).
Scripture never calls Jesus an angel.
Michael does not exercise judgment on his own authority.
oThe Lord rebuke youo (Jude 9, ESV).
Michael appeals to a higher authority.
Jesus rebukes Satan directly.
oBe gone, Satano (Matthew 4:10, ESV).
1 Thessalonians 4:16 u othe voice of the archangelo
oFor the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of
command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of
the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.o (1
Thessalonians 4:16, ESV)
Note: "with [en] the sound of the trumpet of God". So we're to
understand that this "actually" means Jesus IS the trumpet? "en"
COMMONLY means "with", when it is associated by things which accompany.
For example:
oHe will baptize you with the Holy Spirito (?? ???????? ????)
(Matthew 3:11, ESV).
This does not mean the person becomes the Holy Spirit. It means the
Spirit accompanies the act as the means.
oHe spoke to them in parableso (?? ??????????) (Matthew 13:3,
ESV).
This does not mean He was inside parables. It describes the manner in
which He spoke.
oThey heard a sound from heaven like a mighty rushing windo (??
?? ??????) (Acts 2:2, ESV).
This does not mean the apostles were inside the sound. The sound
accompanied the event.
oI thank my God always for you because of the grace of God that
was given you in Christ Jesuso (?? ?????? ?????) (1 Corinthians
1:4, ESV).
This does not mean believers are physically inside Christ. It describes >relationship and association.
oTheir voice has gone out through all the eartho (?? ???? ?? ??)
(Romans 10:18, ESV).
This does not mean the voice is contained inside the earth. It describes >extent and accompaniment.
In the same way, owith the voice of an archangelo and owith the trumpet
of Godo describe what accompanies the LordAs descent, not what the Lord
is (1 Thessalonians 4:16, ESV).
Any reasonable person who isn't knowingly trying to impose a lie into
the text would admit that Jesus is NOT a trumpet, and would also admit
He's therefore NOT the archangel who descends "with" Him.
Scripture never says the Lord is the archangel. It doesn't say he is John the Baptist, or King David, or Abraham either. It doesn't say a million billion other things either.
Nothing more needs to be said. Your lies were already refuted, as they
have been over and over. Carry on in your self-delusion.
Regarding "lies", your definition itself is a lie. While you feign your >allegiance to the Bible and how you let the Bible define words, you here >deny what the Bible plainly shows to hold to a faulty human definition.
Observe:
oAnd for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie:o (2 Thessalonians 2:11, KJV 1900)
It clearly shows that it remains a "lie", even though the people
"believe" it to be true. What a person believes about the "lie" doesn't >change make it to "the truth" or an "innocent error" simply because they >hold it to be true. A "lie" remains a lie, whether people believe it to
be true or not.
You can't feign how you allow the Bible to define words like "staurus"
out of one side of your mouth, then claim that some definition which >contradicts the Bible carries authority when you want to deny what the
Bible plainly states. Lies are lies whether people believe them or not.
Now a person may not be "lying" when they claim to believe a lie. They
may be sincerely mistaken in what they believe. However, that doesn't
change the content of their belief (which the Bible calls a "lie"), into
"an innocent error". It's still a lie whether you believe it or not.
So I reject your false definition of the word "lie". You do not get a
pass to tell what I know from the Bible to be lies to me, and then act
as if I have to pretend like they're not lies, simply because you claim
you believe them to be true. You promote LIES.
It clearly shows that it remains a "lie", even though the people
"believe" it to be true. What a person believes about the "lie" doesn't
change make it to "the truth" or an "innocent error" simply because they
hold it to be true. A "lie" remains a lie, whether people believe it to
be true or not.
I'll go by Merriam-Webster.
The Bible says Jesus died on an upright pole. (even a tree) Period. No
amount of other reasoning will change that.
Your misapplication of 2 Thess 2:11 does
not negate the Dictionary definition.
========================================
Mon, 29 Dec 2025 07:48:29 -0500
<04p4lk5sdbd812ae5lfddt6gepke5j1ldh@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote: >========================================
It clearly shows that it remains a "lie", even though the people
"believe" it to be true. What a person believes about the "lie" doesn't
change make it to "the truth" or an "innocent error" simply because they >>> hold it to be true. A "lie" remains a lie, whether people believe it to
be true or not.
Merriam-Webster
"b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be
believed true by the speaker or writer." (merriam-webster.com)
I'll go by Merriam-Webster.
Then why do you disagree with a definition which both the Bible and
Merriam have agreed on?
Observe the hypocrisy:
========================================
Sat, 20 Dec 2025 11:12:03 -0500
<1aidkkp2o2lgkc2bpj51lfdq2ng22bbgcg@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote: >========================================
The Bible says Jesus died on an upright pole. (even a tree) Period. No
amount of other reasoning will change that.
Here, "No amount of other reasoning" will change what the Bible says. >"Period".
But when the Bible says,
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie..." (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
you now suddenly contend that ANY extra-biblical definition you can find >which contradicts what the Bible shows, constitutes a valid
understanding of the word.
The Bible clearly calls the falsehood that people will "believe" a
"lie". It doesn't change the fact that the content of their belief is
"lie", simply because they "believe" it to be true.
You promote CONFUSION and LIES!
o So much for your "staurus" claim, you waffling hypocrite.
When
you wanted to maintain that a staurus can't include a
patibulum, you acted as if no other understanding could be
added other than what the Bible directly states.
Now that the
Bible refutes your lies by showing that people can "believe" a
"lie", you want to fall back on an extra-biblical definition.
o You seek to confuse the noun form with the verb form. Lie
(noun) is the substance of what you claim. "Lie" (verb) is
whether or not you believe it to be true. The content of your
claims (noun) when false, remains a "lie", whether you believe
it to be true or not. The act of telling what you believe to be
true (verb) is only a "lie" if you seek to mislead.
o Webster confirms this understanding:
Lie (Noun) b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or
may not be believed true by the speaker or writer the lies we
tell ourselves to feel better historical records containing
numerous lies
No need for you to respond to this, unless you're trying to brainwash
people by repeating refuted lies.
Your misapplication of 2 Thess 2:11 does
not negate the Dictionary definition.
You've demonstrated no misapplication. It plainly states the people >"believe" a "lie". The content of their belief, whether they believe it
or not, is a "lie". It doesn't become "an innocent error", simply
because they believe it.
Works Cited
Merriam-Webster.com. "LIE Definition ". Merriam-webster, >https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie. Accessed 29 December. 2025.
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 13:38:07 -0600, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:
========================================
Mon, 29 Dec 2025 07:48:29 -0500
<04p4lk5sdbd812ae5lfddt6gepke5j1ldh@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote:
========================================
It clearly shows that it remains a "lie", even though the people
"believe" it to be true. What a person believes about the "lie" doesn't >>>> change make it to "the truth" or an "innocent error" simply because they >>>> hold it to be true. A "lie" remains a lie, whether people believe it to >>>> be true or not.
Merriam-Webster
"b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be
believed true by the speaker or writer." (merriam-webster.com)
I'll go by Merriam-Webster.
Then why do you disagree with a definition which both the Bible and
Merriam have agreed on?
Good answer. I would have sworn I read where the speaker believed it,
did not make it a lie. Notice:
1) A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false, typically used
with the intention of deceiving or misleading someone.[1(Wikipedia)
2) lied; lying 'li-i?
intransitive verb
1
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
(Merriam-Webster)
1
a
: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
(Merriam-Webster)
Then they add it the way you believe it.
Thus apparently, according to Webster, the speaker can believe it or
not. And it is still a lie.
But other references state it that the speaker knows it is a lie.
"something you say that you know is not true." (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lie)
"A lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is
untrue." (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lie#google_vignette)
"1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving."
(The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com rC| lie)
"something intended or serving to give a false impression. v. to speak falsely, knowing that what one says is not true, as with intent to
deceive: [no object] lied about his age. [~ + object] lying his way
out"
(Global web icon
WordReference
https://www.wordreference.com rC| definition rC| lie)
"to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to
deceive."
(Dictionary
https://www.dictionary.com rC| browse rC| lie)
Etc, etc.
All those listed above DISAGREE WITH one of Webster's
definitions.
So I will stay with my original definition, a lie is to deceive.
Observe the hypocrisy:
========================================
Sat, 20 Dec 2025 11:12:03 -0500
<1aidkkp2o2lgkc2bpj51lfdq2ng22bbgcg@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote:
========================================
The Bible says Jesus died on an upright pole. (even a tree) Period. No
amount of other reasoning will change that.
Here, "No amount of other reasoning" will change what the Bible says.
"Period".
But when the Bible says,
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie..." (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
Your translation differs from mine. Notice:
-- Living Bible
2 Thessalonians 2:11 so God will allow them to believe lies with all
their hearts,
(2 Thessalonians 2:11) That is why God lets a deluding influence
mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, (NWT)
So God PERMITS them to accept lies instead of giving them the truth.
you now suddenly contend that ANY extra-biblical definition you can find
which contradicts what the Bible shows, constitutes a valid
understanding of the word.
Negatrons. The Bible is truth. (John 17:17)
The Bible clearly calls the falsehood that people will "believe" a
"lie". It doesn't change the fact that the content of their belief is
"lie", simply because they "believe" it to be true.
Negatrons. Most references say a lie is a purposeful deception. And
the Bible says God permits the lies to happen. It doesn't say who the
liar is.
You promote CONFUSION and LIES!
Negatrons. Since I only go by the Bible, you are calling the Bible
confusion and lies.
rCo So much for your "staurus" claim, you waffling hypocrite.
The Bible says staurus, an upright pole. Men have ADDED a definition
of "cross" to staurus. But that word is from AT LEAST the FIRST
CENTURY.
When
you wanted to maintain that a staurus can't include a
patibulum, you acted as if no other understanding could be
added other than what the Bible directly states.
What the Bible directly says, is truth. (John 17:17) And shouldn't
follow uninspired men to add to Scripture. That's just what the Devil
wants you to do.
Now that the
Bible refutes your lies by showing that people can "believe" a
"lie", you want to fall back on an extra-biblical definition.
Actually, the Bible condemns any falsehoods by men who made them up.
(like the Scribes and Pharisees and modern day 'Scribes' and
'Pharisees')
rCo You seek to confuse the noun form with the verb form. Lie
(noun) is the substance of what you claim. "Lie" (verb) is
whether or not you believe it to be true. The content of your
claims (noun) when false, remains a "lie", whether you believe
it to be true or not. The act of telling what you believe to be
true (verb) is only a "lie" if you seek to mislead.
rCo Webster confirms this understanding:
Lie (Noun) b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or
may not be believed true by the speaker or writer the lies we
tell ourselves to feel better historical records containing
numerous lies
"something you say that you know is not true." (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lie)
"A lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is
untrue." (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lie#google_vignette)
"1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving."
(The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com rC| lie)
No need for you to respond to this, unless you're trying to brainwash
people by repeating refuted lies.
Alright, if you want to use the word: Your opinions of me are total
lies. I just share Bible TRUTHS with anyone. That's all.
Your misapplication of 2 Thess 2:11 does
not negate the Dictionary definition.
Yes, it does:
(2 Thessalonians 2:11) That is why God lets a deluding influence
mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, (NWT)
You've demonstrated no misapplication. It plainly states the people
"believe" a "lie". The content of their belief, whether they believe it
or not, is a "lie". It doesn't become "an innocent error", simply
because they believe it.
And those other dictionaries disagree with Webster.
Works Cited
Merriam-Webster.com. "LIE Definition ". Merriam-webster,
https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie. Accessed 29 December. 2025.
And my references:
"something you say that you know is not true." (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lie)--
"A lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is
untrue." (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lie#google_vignette)
"1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving."
(The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com rC| lie)
"something intended or serving to give a false impression. v. to speak falsely, knowing that what one says is not true, as with intent to
deceive: [no object] lied about his age. [~ + object] lying his way
out"
(Global web icon
WordReference
https://www.wordreference.com rC| definition rC| lie)
"to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to
deceive."
(Dictionary
https://www.dictionary.com rC| browse rC| lie)
========================================
Sun, 04 Jan 2026 14:49:08 -0500
<28bllk1ru7r13ljareqsaqp6iofdlva3q2@4ax.com>
Waffling Watchtower Hypocrite and Heretic James
<James> wrote:
========================================
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 13:38:07 -0600, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:
========================================
Mon, 29 Dec 2025 07:48:29 -0500
<04p4lk5sdbd812ae5lfddt6gepke5j1ldh@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote:
========================================
It clearly shows that it remains a "lie", even though the people
"believe" it to be true. What a person believes about the "lie" doesn't >>>>> change make it to "the truth" or an "innocent error" simply because they >>>>> hold it to be true. A "lie" remains a lie, whether people believe it to >>>>> be true or not.
Merriam-Webster
"b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be
believed true by the speaker or writer." (merriam-webster.com)
I'll go by Merriam-Webster.
Then why do you disagree with a definition which both the Bible and
Merriam have agreed on?
Good answer. I would have sworn I read where the speaker believed it,
did not make it a lie. Notice:
oAnd for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the >truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.o (2 Thessalonians 2:11u12,
KJV 1900)
Are you claiming the Bible is in error here to identify the content of
their "belief" (NOUN FORM) as a "lie", simply because they "believe" the >"lie" (NOUN FORM) to be true?
Observe:
o The Bible calls the content of what these people will believe
(the NOUN form which identifies the substance of their
belief) a "lie", even though they "believe" it.
o Any definition of "lie" (NOUN FORM) which excludes this as a
legitimate understanding, CONTRADICTS and seeks to UNDERMINE
what the Bible teaches.
o This is not to be CONFUSED with what the people's action (VERB
FORM) would be if they expressed their "belief" in the "lie".
So, for example, if they "BELIEVE" the "LIE", they are not
LYING in the sense they are knowingly intending to deceive
people, but that's not the issue. The issue isn't their ACTIONS
in talking about their belief, but the SUBSTANCE of their
belief itself.
This seems to indicate the following:
o You are confusing the noun form of the word which identifies
the content of the belief itself (a falsehood or "lie"), with
the verb form which shows the action and intent of the person
speaking about the falsehood/lie.
As noted many times, the person who believes the "lie" may
fully "believe" the content of their claim to be true. So they
are not "lying" in the sense that they are knowingly trying to
deceive people when they talk about it. However, the content
of their beliefs (noun) do not change to become "truth",
simply because they believe it to be true.
If their belief is
false, it remains a "lie", whether they are deceived about it
and believe it or not.
o When you claim to the effect that you base your beliefs only on
what the Bible itself teaches (such as the idea that "staurus"
must be understood EXCLUSIVELY as a "pole without a cross-beam
attached to it" and that "no amount of reasoning" which comes
from "outside the Bible" matters because the Bible only says
"pole", and not "cross-beam"), how are you not an hypocritical
LIAR who KNOWS that he accepts extra-biblical definitions of
words when it suits his preferred understanding?
1) A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false, typically used
with the intention of deceiving or misleading someone.[1(Wikipedia)
2) lied; lying 'li-i?
intransitive verb
1
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
(Merriam-Webster)
1
a
: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
(Merriam-Webster)
Then they add it the way you believe it.
Thus apparently, according to Webster, the speaker can believe it or
not. And it is still a lie.
But other references state it that the speaker knows it is a lie.
So when you selectively choose to believe and go by a definition that >contradicts the fact that the Bible calls the content of what these
people "believe" a "lie", this is what you identify as you "honestly and >sincerely" (and not selectively or hypocritically) basing your beliefs
only on what the Bible teaches (see "staurus = pole without a cross-beam >because the Bible doesn't say "cross-beam", but only "pole")?
"something you say that you know is not true."
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lie)
"A lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is
untrue."
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lie#google_vignette) >>
"1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving."
(The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com c lie)
"something intended or serving to give a false impression. v. to speak
falsely, knowing that what one says is not true, as with intent to
deceive: [no object] lied about his age. [~ + object] lying his way
out"
(Global web icon
WordReference
https://www.wordreference.com c definition c lie)
"to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to
deceive."
(Dictionary
https://www.dictionary.com c browse c lie)
Etc, etc.
All those listed above DISAGREE WITH one of Webster's
definitions.
So I will stay with my original definition, a lie is to deceive.
Observe the hypocrisy:
========================================
Sat, 20 Dec 2025 11:12:03 -0500
<1aidkkp2o2lgkc2bpj51lfdq2ng22bbgcg@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote:
========================================
The Bible says Jesus died on an upright pole. (even a tree) Period. No >>>> amount of other reasoning will change that.
Here, "No amount of other reasoning" will change what the Bible says.
"Period".
But when the Bible says,
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they >>> should believe a lie..." (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
Your translation differs from mine. Notice:
-- Living Bible
2 Thessalonians 2:11 so God will allow them to believe lies with all
their hearts,
(2 Thessalonians 2:11) That is why God lets a deluding influence
mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, (NWT)
So God PERMITS them to accept lies instead of giving them the truth. And I don't believe God is lying. If God is telling that to people, God is lying, since He knows it to be false.
Your preferred translation(s) maintain that these people "believe" the >"lie". This doesn't help your insistence that the extra-biblical
definitions which you have chosen, contradict what your preferred >translations of the Bible clearly state. The fact these people "believe"
the "lie" doesn't change the content of their belief (NOUN FORM) from
"lie" to "truth", or even "innocent mistake". It's talking about what
the content of their faith IS (NOUN FORM), not their INTENT or sincerity
in talking about the "lie" (VERB FORM).
you now suddenly contend that ANY extra-biblical definition you can find >>> which contradicts what the Bible shows, constitutes a valid
understanding of the word.
Negatrons. The Bible is truth. (John 17:17)
Notice,
o you deny it ("Negatrons"), yet even your preferred translations
show that someone can "believe" a "lie" (NOUN FORM). The fact
they "believe" it doesn't change the way God identifies the
content of their belief (NOUN FORM). He still calls it a "lie"
whether they "believe" it to be true or not.
o You insist that WHAT YOU BELIEVE (noun form) can't accurately
be called a "lie", if YOU BELIEVE what you are saying to be
truth. This is FALSE. The Bible shows that if your belief is
FALSE, it (the CONTENT OF YOUR BELIEF, NOT YOUR INTENT) remains
a "LIE".
o The only basis you gave for your contradiction, Sorry, but no contradiction.
was that you
found definitions for "lie" OUTSIDE THE BIBLE which claim there
has to be an intent to deceive before the content of people's
claims can be accurately called a "lie".
o You can't claim you "honestly and sincerely" base your views
only on what the Bible teaches, when the Bible clearly teaches
these people "believe" a "lie",
and WHILE you are INSISTING to
the contrary that people cannot "believe" a "lie", because they
have to INTEND to deceive someone before it becomes a "lie".
o This is a conscious choice you are making. You understand that
the Bible calls what they "believe" a "lie", without regard for
whether or not they "believe" it to be true, yet you KNOWINGLY
choose a definition which requires that the person must
KNOWINGLY INTEND TO DECEIVE, before you allow that the content
of their belief is a "lie". You are not innocently and
sincerely making a "mistake" when you choose definitions of
words which CONTRADICT AND EXCLUDE what the Bible teaches.
The Bible clearly calls the falsehood that people will "believe" a
"lie". It doesn't change the fact that the content of their belief is
"lie", simply because they "believe" it to be true.
Negatrons. Most references say a lie is a purposeful deception. And
the Bible says God permits the lies to happen. It doesn't say who the
liar is.
Then you're claiming the Bible to be in error when it identifies what
these people "believe" to be a "lie"? And you're claiming your >extra-biblical definitions prevail over what the Bible (including the
NWT) says in this case, yet you "sincerely and honestly" let the Bible >define what words (e.g. "staurus") mean, "Period"? How are you not a >self-deluded hypocrite who flip-flops and waffles to preserve LIES over
the truth?
You promote CONFUSION and LIES!
Negatrons. Since I only go by the Bible, you are calling the Bible
confusion and lies.
o So much for your "staurus" claim, you waffling hypocrite.
The Bible says staurus, an upright pole. Men have ADDED a definition
of "cross" to staurus. But that word is from AT LEAST the FIRST
CENTURY.
The Bible says they "believe" a "lie". How are you denying a person can >"believe" a "lie"?
Your solution to this is to quote an extra-biblical definition which >requires that the person knowingly intend to deceive people before the >content of their belief (NOUN FORM) may accurately be identified as a
"lie"? How are you not contradicting what the Bible says?
When
you wanted to maintain that a staurus can't include a
patibulum, you acted as if no other understanding could be
added other than what the Bible directly states.
What the Bible directly says, is truth. (John 17:17) And shouldn't
follow uninspired men to add to Scripture. That's just what the Devil
wants you to do.
And the Bible says these people will "believe" a "lie". By your >extra-biblical definition, the Bible is in error for identifying the
content of their belief as a "lie", since they "believe" it to be true.
How are you not contradicting the Bible on the basis of an
extra-biblical definition, and how are you not insisting on that >understanding without regard for what the Bible plainly states? How are
you not a flip-flopping hypocrite who insists that we must EXCLUDE any >understanding which the Bible itself does not directly state when you
want to understand that "staurus" MUST mean ONLY "without a cross-beam",
but who then insists that the Bible must NOT be accurate when it
identifies what people "believe" to be true as a "lie"?
Now that the
Bible refutes your lies by showing that people can "believe" a
"lie", you want to fall back on an extra-biblical definition.
Actually, the Bible condemns any falsehoods by men who made them up.
(like the Scribes and Pharisees and modern day 'Scribes' and
'Pharisees')
God's word identifies what these people "believe" as a "lie". Why do you >oppose what the Bible plainly states and what even your NWT translations >concur with?
the verse now, so it doesn't identify what people "believe" as a"lie"?
o You seek to confuse the noun form with the verb form. Lie
(noun) is the substance of what you claim. "Lie" (verb) is
whether or not you believe it to be true. The content of your
claims (noun) when false, remains a "lie", whether you believe
it to be true or not. The act of telling what you believe to be
true (verb) is only a "lie" if you seek to mislead.
He has no answer for this.
o Webster confirms this understanding:
Lie (Noun) b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or >>> may not be believed true by the speaker or writer the lies we
tell ourselves to feel better historical records containing
numerous lies
Notice, he does not dispute that Webster ALLOWS FOR THE BIBLICAL >UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD. Instead, he simply sticks his fingers in his
ears and repeats ONLY definitions which CONTRADICT AND EXCLUDE what both >Webster and the Bible agree on.
"something you say that you know is not true."
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lie)
"A lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is
untrue."
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lie#google_vignette) >>
"1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving."
(The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com c lie)
No need for you to respond to this, unless you're trying to brainwash
people by repeating refuted lies.
Alright, if you want to use the word: Your opinions of me are total
lies. I just share Bible TRUTHS with anyone. That's all.
On the contrary. When I identify that your doctrine contradicts what the >Bible teaches, I may accurately identify that content as a "lie",
whether you claim you "believe" it to be true or not. It is an
evaluation of the CONTENT of your doctrine, not your CLAIMED INTENT.
Your misapplication of 2 Thess 2:11 does
not negate the Dictionary definition.
Yes, it does:
(2 Thessalonians 2:11) That is why God lets a deluding influence
mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, (NWT)
That translation AGREES that people "believe" a "lie". That means their >sincere intent does not CHANGE "lie" to "truth", just because they
"believe" it. It is still accurately identified as a "lie", because it
is FALSE. This shows a DISTINCTION between INTENT and CONTENT. The
CONTENT of their "belief" REMAINS a "lie", whether they "believe" it to
be true or not, or whether they "sincerely" think they are telling the
truth and intend only good when they promote the "lie".
You've demonstrated no misapplication. It plainly states the people
"believe" a "lie". The content of their belief, whether they believe it
or not, is a "lie". It doesn't become "an innocent error", simply
because they believe it.
And those other dictionaries disagree with Webster.
o How are you not re claiming the Bible is in error when it
identifies what people "believe" as a "lie"?
o How are you not showing yourself to be a waffling hypocrite
when you maintain "no reasoning" outside what the Bible teaches
("period"), can support the understanding that a "staurus" had
a patibulum attached to it, because the Bible doesn't
specifically say "patibulum", since you now INSIST that a
definition you derived OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE defines a "lie" in
a way that CONTRADICTS what the Bible flatly states: these
people "believe" a "lie".
Listen. You may DELUDE yourself with the idea that you're an angle of
light who is not a stark-raving hypocrite and who does not intentionally >waffle to make the Bible mean what he wants it to mean, holding to and
using hypocritical double-standards and changing standards whenever you
get cornered in what you say, but don't expect me to SHARE YOUR DELUSION.
Works Cited
Merriam-Webster.com. "LIE Definition ". Merriam-webster,
https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie. Accessed 29 December. 2025.
And my references:
o The problem here is that you can't refute the statement that
people will "believe" a "lie", without contradicting the Bible.
It doesn't help to insist on an extra-biblical definition of
"lie" which EXCLUDES AND CONTRADICTS what the Bible plainly
teaches.
o You are here admitting that when you want to believe something,
you IGNORE and EXCLUDE what the Bible says, and INSIST on
definitions which CONTRADICT what the Bible plainly states:
People will "believe" a "lie".
o Your references included Webster until you realized his
definitions ALLOW FOR THE BIBLE TO BE TRUE while your
consciously chosen definitions contradict and exclude what the
Bible plainly states.
Answer:
Do you not now claim the Bible is in error when it identifies what
people "believe" as a "lie"?
How do you maintain to the effect that "no amount of reasoning that
comes from outside the Bible" can change the meaning of "staurus" to
include a cross-beam, because the Bible doesn't specify there was a >"cross-beam" (on one hand), then turn around and INSIST that a "lie"
must ONLY be defined by sources OUTSIDE THE BIBLE, which CONTRADICT what
the Bible shows?
"something you say that you know is not true."
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lie)
"A lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is
untrue."
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lie#google_vignette) >>
"1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving."
(The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com c lie)
"something intended or serving to give a false impression. v. to speak
falsely, knowing that what one says is not true, as with intent to
deceive: [no object] lied about his age. [~ + object] lying his way
out"
(Global web icon
WordReference
https://www.wordreference.com c definition c lie)
"to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to
deceive."
(Dictionary
https://www.dictionary.com c browse c lie)
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 17:02:28 -0600, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:
========================================
Sun, 04 Jan 2026 14:49:08 -0500
<28bllk1ru7r13ljareqsaqp6iofdlva3q2@4ax.com>
Waffling Watchtower Hypocrite and Heretic James
<James> wrote:
========================================
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 13:38:07 -0600, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:
========================================
Mon, 29 Dec 2025 07:48:29 -0500
<04p4lk5sdbd812ae5lfddt6gepke5j1ldh@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote:
========================================
It clearly shows that it remains a "lie", even though the people
"believe" it to be true. What a person believes about the "lie" doesn't >>>>>> change make it to "the truth" or an "innocent error" simply because they >>>>>> hold it to be true. A "lie" remains a lie, whether people believe it to >>>>>> be true or not.
Merriam-Webster
"b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be
believed true by the speaker or writer." (merriam-webster.com) >>>>
I'll go by Merriam-Webster.
Then why do you disagree with a definition which both the Bible and
Merriam have agreed on?
I don't, and they didn't. MOST references only give my definition of a
lie, the speaker must willfully deceive.
Good answer. I would have sworn I read where the speaker believed it,
did not make it a lie. Notice:
rCLAnd for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.rCY (2 Thessalonians 2:11rCo12, >> KJV 1900)
Are you claiming the Bible is in error here to identify the content of
their "belief" (NOUN FORM) as a "lie", simply because they "believe" the
"lie" (NOUN FORM) to be true?
Observe:
rCo The Bible calls the content of what these people will believe
(the NOUN form which identifies the substance of their
belief) a "lie", even though they "believe" it.
A lie is not based on the listeners beliefs, those references say the
one lying is one who tries to knowingly deceive his listeners.
rCo Any definition of "lie" (NOUN FORM) which excludes this as a
legitimate understanding, CONTRADICTS and seeks to UNDERMINE
what the Bible teaches.
The truth never undermines the Bible. And that is what God desires of
us. (John 4:23,24)
rCo This is not to be CONFUSED with what the people's action (VERB
FORM) would be if they expressed their "belief" in the "lie".
So, for example, if they "BELIEVE" the "LIE", they are not
LYING in the sense they are knowingly intending to deceive
people, but that's not the issue. The issue isn't their ACTIONS
in talking about their belief, but the SUBSTANCE of their
belief itself.
Of course, that goes for all Bible truths.
This seems to indicate the following:
rCo You are confusing the noun form of the word which identifies
the content of the belief itself (a falsehood or "lie"), with
the verb form which shows the action and intent of the person
speaking about the falsehood/lie.
As noted many times, the person who believes the "lie" may
fully "believe" the content of their claim to be true. So they
are not "lying" in the sense that they are knowingly trying to
deceive people when they talk about it. However, the content
of their beliefs (noun) do not change to become "truth",
simply because they believe it to be true.
This has nothing to do with listeners beliefs. This is the speakers responsiblity all the way. If he willingly tries to deceive, he's a
liar. If he says some faulty, but believes it, he doesn't lie.
For example, the speaker says the earth is flat, and gives Scriptures
to support him, he doesn't lie even though most people know he doesn't
say the truth. It's all put on the speakers head, on what he says.
If their belief is
false, it remains a "lie", whether they are deceived about it
and believe it or not.
Me and a bunch of dictionaries, disagree with you. And millions of
JW's. All my sayings are as true as I can say them. I do not lie, and
any Bible qutoes, I fully believe to be true. ESP when a NT text
copies the Tetragrammaton in the OT, THat Tetragrammaton should show
up in the NT. It's a QUOTE. It should be as exact as possible,
including the Tetragrammaton .
rCo When you claim to the effect that you base your beliefs only on
what the Bible itself teaches (such as the idea that "staurus"
must be understood EXCLUSIVELY as a "pole without a cross-beam
attached to it" and that "no amount of reasoning" which comes
from "outside the Bible" matters because the Bible only says
"pole", and not "cross-beam"), how are you not an hypocritical
LIAR who KNOWS that he accepts extra-biblical definitions of
words when it suits his preferred understanding?
Isn't that the point? We were not born with Bible facts. We have to
learn them. Thus understanding the Bible is the preferred
understanding.
1) A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false, typically used
with the intention of deceiving or misleading someone.[1(Wikipedia)
2) lied; lying 'li-i?
intransitive verb
1
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
(Merriam-Webster)
1
a
: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
(Merriam-Webster)
Then they add it the way you believe it.
Thus apparently, according to Webster, the speaker can believe it or
not. And it is still a lie.
You see, that definition is disrespectful to the speaker. The speaker
can be a faithful follower of Jesus. And then gets shot down with
people like you, when he is as innocent as a dove. And then he gets
called a liar. That is not an easy word to have a description of you
floating around. Esp when you knowingly did nothing wrong. Thus there
should be a difference between those both sererios.
But other references state it that the speaker knows it is a lie.
So when you selectively choose to believe and go by a definition that
contradicts the fact that the Bible calls the content of what these
people "believe" a "lie", this is what you identify as you "honestly and
sincerely" (and not selectively or hypocritically) basing your beliefs
only on what the Bible teaches (see "staurus = pole without a cross-beam
because the Bible doesn't say "cross-beam", but only "pole")?
"something you say that you know is not true."
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lie)
"A lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is
untrue."
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lie#google_vignette) >>>
"1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving."
(The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com rC| lie)
"something intended or serving to give a false impression. v. to speak
falsely, knowing that what one says is not true, as with intent to
deceive: [no object] lied about his age. [~ + object] lying his way
out"
(Global web icon
WordReference
https://www.wordreference.com rC| definition rC| lie)
"to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to
deceive."
(Dictionary
https://www.dictionary.com rC| browse rC| lie)
Etc, etc.
All those listed above DISAGREE WITH one of Webster's
definitions.
So I will stay with my original definition, a lie is to deceive.
Observe the hypocrisy:
========================================
Sat, 20 Dec 2025 11:12:03 -0500
<1aidkkp2o2lgkc2bpj51lfdq2ng22bbgcg@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote:
========================================
The Bible says Jesus died on an upright pole. (even a tree) Period. No >>>>> amount of other reasoning will change that.
Here, "No amount of other reasoning" will change what the Bible says.
"Period".
But when the Bible says,
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they >>>> should believe a lie..." (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
Your translation differs from mine. Notice:
-- Living Bible
2 Thessalonians 2:11 so God will allow them to believe lies with all
their hearts,
(2 Thessalonians 2:11) That is why God lets a deluding influence
mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, (NWT)
So God PERMITS them to accept lies instead of giving them the truth. And I don't believe God is lying. If God is telling that to people, God is lying, since He knows it to be false.
Your preferred translation(s) maintain that these people "believe" the
"lie". This doesn't help your insistence that the extra-biblical
definitions which you have chosen, contradict what your preferred
translations of the Bible clearly state. The fact these people "believe"
the "lie" doesn't change the content of their belief (NOUN FORM) from
"lie" to "truth", or even "innocent mistake". It's talking about what
the content of their faith IS (NOUN FORM), not their INTENT or sincerity
in talking about the "lie" (VERB FORM).
I'll go with those other dictionaries, and there is a bunch.
you now suddenly contend that ANY extra-biblical definition you can find >>>> which contradicts what the Bible shows, constitutes a valid
understanding of the word.
Negatrons. The Bible is truth. (John 17:17)
Notice,
rCo you deny it ("Negatrons"), yet even your preferred translations
show that someone can "believe" a "lie" (NOUN FORM). The fact
they "believe" it doesn't change the way God identifies the
content of their belief (NOUN FORM). He still calls it a "lie"
whether they "believe" it to be true or not.
Like I said above, lies are all about the speaker.
rCo You insist that WHAT YOU BELIEVE (noun form) can't accurately
be called a "lie", if YOU BELIEVE what you are saying to be
truth. This is FALSE. The Bible shows that if your belief is
FALSE, it (the CONTENT OF YOUR BELIEF, NOT YOUR INTENT) remains
a "LIE".
And other dictionares say it my way. For example, A lie is an
assertion that is believed to be false, typically used with the
intention of deceiving or misleading someone. The practice of
communicating lies ...
(Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org rC| wiki rC| Lie)
rCo The only basis you gave for your contradiction, Sorry, but no contradiction.
was that you
found definitions for "lie" OUTSIDE THE BIBLE which claim there
has to be an intent to deceive before the content of people's
claims can be accurately called a "lie".
The Bible sometimes accepts info from AI etc. that can support the
Bible amd ots truths.
rCo You can't claim you "honestly and sincerely" base your views
only on what the Bible teaches, when the Bible clearly teaches
these people "believe" a "lie",
That's their problem. Whoever made that statement is the liar.
and WHILE you are INSISTING to
the contrary that people cannot "believe" a "lie", because they
have to INTEND to deceive someone before it becomes a "lie".
Absolutely from the speaker. The listener cannot make somedthing a
lie, no matter what he believes, unless he knowingly tries to decieve. ************************************************
rCo This is a conscious choice you are making. You understand that
the Bible calls what they "believe" a "lie", without regard for
whether or not they "believe" it to be true, yet you KNOWINGLY
choose a definition which requires that the person must
KNOWINGLY INTEND TO DECEIVE, before you allow that the content
of their belief is a "lie". You are not innocently and
sincerely making a "mistake" when you choose definitions of
words which CONTRADICT AND EXCLUDE what the Bible teaches.
The Bible clearly calls the falsehood that people will "believe" a
"lie". It doesn't change the fact that the content of their belief is
"lie", simply because they "believe" it to be true.
Negatrons. Most references say a lie is a purposeful deception. And
the Bible says God permits the lies to happen. It doesn't say who the
liar is.
Then you're claiming the Bible to be in error when it identifies what
these people "believe" to be a "lie"? And you're claiming your
extra-biblical definitions prevail over what the Bible (including the
NWT) says in this case, yet you "sincerely and honestly" let the Bible
define what words (e.g. "staurus") mean, "Period"? How are you not a
self-deluded hypocrite who flip-flops and waffles to preserve LIES over
the truth?
You promote CONFUSION and LIES!
Negatrons. Since I only go by the Bible, you are calling the Bible
confusion and lies.
rCo So much for your "staurus" claim, you waffling hypocrite.
The Bible says staurus, an upright pole. Men have ADDED a definition
of "cross" to staurus. But that word is from AT LEAST the FIRST
CENTURY.
The Bible says they "believe" a "lie". How are you denying a person can
"believe" a "lie"?
Your solution to this is to quote an extra-biblical definition which
requires that the person knowingly intend to deceive people before the
content of their belief (NOUN FORM) may accurately be identified as a
"lie"? How are you not contradicting what the Bible says?
When you quote the Bible, or even summarize it, those are quotes and
Bible truths. You can't try to judge the quote, it is already a Bible
truth.
When
you wanted to maintain that a staurus can't include a
patibulum, you acted as if no other understanding could be
added other than what the Bible directly states.
What the Bible directly says, is truth. (John 17:17) And shouldn't
follow uninspired men to add to Scripture. That's just what the Devil
wants you to do.
And the Bible says these people will "believe" a "lie". By your
extra-biblical definition, the Bible is in error for identifying the
content of their belief as a "lie", since they "believe" it to be true.
The listeners don't determined what is a lie.
How are you not contradicting the Bible on the basis of an
extra-biblical definition, and how are you not insisting on that
understanding without regard for what the Bible plainly states? How are
you not a flip-flopping hypocrite who insists that we must EXCLUDE any
understanding which the Bible itself does not directly state when you
want to understand that "staurus" MUST mean ONLY "without a cross-beam",
That's right. It comes with the word.
but who then insists that the Bible must NOT be accurate when it
identifies what people "believe" to be true as a "lie"?
There are many listenees, but only one writer, who is responsible for
a lie or not.
Now that the
Bible refutes your lies by showing that people can "believe" a >>>> "lie", you want to fall back on an extra-biblical definition.
Actually, the Bible condemns any falsehoods by men who made them up.
(like the Scribes and Pharisees and modern day 'Scribes' and
'Pharisees')
God's word identifies what these people "believe" as a "lie". Why do you
oppose what the Bible plainly states and what even your NWT translations
concur with?
I have already remarked on that. The listeners do not make a lie. It's
the speaker. Maybe Watchtower needs to conveniently go back and revise
the verse now, so it doesn't identify what people "believe" as a"lie"?
It won't. Ohly the speaker determines what the word is going to be. A
lie or truth.
rCo You seek to confuse the noun form with the verb form. Lie
(noun) is the substance of what you claim. "Lie" (verb) is
whether or not you believe it to be true. The content of your >>>> claims (noun) when false, remains a "lie", whether you believe >>>> it to be true or not. The act of telling what you believe to be >>>> true (verb) is only a "lie" if you seek to mislead.
He has no answer for this.
rCo Webster confirms this understanding:
Lie (Noun) b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or >>>> may not be believed true by the speaker or writer the lies we >>>> tell ourselves to feel better historical records containing
numerous lies
Notice, he does not dispute that Webster ALLOWS FOR THE BIBLICAL
UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD. Instead, he simply sticks his fingers in his
ears and repeats ONLY definitions which CONTRADICT AND EXCLUDE what both
Webster and the Bible agree on.
"something you say that you know is not true."
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lie)
"A lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is
untrue."
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lie#google_vignette) >>>
"1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving."
(The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com rC| lie)
No need for you to respond to this, unless you're trying to brainwash
people by repeating refuted lies.
Alright, if you want to use the word: Your opinions of me are total
lies. I just share Bible TRUTHS with anyone. That's all.
On the contrary. When I identify that your doctrine contradicts what the
Bible teaches, I may accurately identify that content as a "lie",
whether you claim you "believe" it to be true or not. It is an
evaluation of the CONTENT of your doctrine, not your CLAIMED INTENT.
Your misapplication of 2 Thess 2:11 does
not negate the Dictionary definition.
Yes, it does:
(2 Thessalonians 2:11) That is why God lets a deluding influence
mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, (NWT)
That translation AGREES that people "believe" a "lie". That means their
sincere intent does not CHANGE "lie" to "truth", just because they
"believe" it. It is still accurately identified as a "lie", because it
is FALSE. This shows a DISTINCTION between INTENT and CONTENT. The
CONTENT of their "belief" REMAINS a "lie", whether they "believe" it to
be true or not, or whether they "sincerely" think they are telling the
truth and intend only good when they promote the "lie".
You've demonstrated no misapplication. It plainly states the people
"believe" a "lie". The content of their belief, whether they believe it >>>> or not, is a "lie". It doesn't become "an innocent error", simply
because they believe it.
And those other dictionaries disagree with Webster.
rCo How are you not re claiming the Bible is in error when it
identifies what people "believe" as a "lie"?
rCo How are you not showing yourself to be a waffling hypocrite
when you maintain "no reasoning" outside what the Bible teaches
("period"), can support the understanding that a "staurus" had
a patibulum attached to it, because the Bible doesn't
specifically say "patibulum", since you now INSIST that a
definition you derived OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE defines a "lie" in
a way that CONTRADICTS what the Bible flatly states: these
people "believe" a "lie".
Listen. You may DELUDE yourself with the idea that you're an angle of
light who is not a stark-raving hypocrite and who does not intentionally
waffle to make the Bible mean what he wants it to mean, holding to and
using hypocritical double-standards and changing standards whenever you
get cornered in what you say, but don't expect me to SHARE YOUR DELUSION.
And my references:
Works Cited
Merriam-Webster.com. "LIE Definition ". Merriam-webster,
https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie. Accessed 29 December. 2025. >>>
rCo The problem here is that you can't refute the statement that
people will "believe" a "lie", without contradicting the Bible.
It doesn't help to insist on an extra-biblical definition of
"lie" which EXCLUDES AND CONTRADICTS what the Bible plainly
teaches.
rCo You are here admitting that when you want to believe something,
you IGNORE and EXCLUDE what the Bible says, and INSIST on
definitions which CONTRADICT what the Bible plainly states:
People will "believe" a "lie".
rCo Your references included Webster until you realized his
definitions ALLOW FOR THE BIBLE TO BE TRUE while your
consciously chosen definitions contradict and exclude what the
Bible plainly states.
Answer:
Do you not now claim the Bible is in error when it identifies what
people "believe" as a "lie"?
How do you maintain to the effect that "no amount of reasoning that
comes from outside the Bible" can change the meaning of "staurus" to
include a cross-beam, because the Bible doesn't specify there was a
"cross-beam" (on one hand), then turn around and INSIST that a "lie"
must ONLY be defined by sources OUTSIDE THE BIBLE, which CONTRADICT what
the Bible shows?
The Bible does not contradict itself, unless you interpret it that
way.
"something you say that you know is not true."
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lie)
"A lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is
untrue."
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lie#google_vignette) >>>
"1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving."
(The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com rC| lie)
"something intended or serving to give a false impression. v. to speak
falsely, knowing that what one says is not true, as with intent to
deceive: [no object] lied about his age. [~ + object] lying his way
out"
(Global web icon
WordReference
https://www.wordreference.com rC| definition rC| lie)
"to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to
deceive."
(Dictionary
https://www.dictionary.com rC| browse rC| lie)
You go by Webster, since it supports your oponion. Don't get me wrong, Webster is a good dictionary. But just not in this case.
On 1/7/2026 6:57 PM, James wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 17:02:28 -0600, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:
========================================
Sun, 04 Jan 2026 14:49:08 -0500
<28bllk1ru7r13ljareqsaqp6iofdlva3q2@4ax.com>
Waffling Watchtower Hypocrite and Heretic James
<James> wrote:
========================================
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 13:38:07 -0600, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:
========================================
Mon, 29 Dec 2025 07:48:29 -0500
<04p4lk5sdbd812ae5lfddt6gepke5j1ldh@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote:
========================================
It clearly shows that it remains a "lie", even though the people >>>>>>> "believe" it to be true. What a person believes about the "lie" doesn't >>>>>>> change make it to "the truth" or an "innocent error" simply because they
hold it to be true. A "lie" remains a lie, whether people believe it to >>>>>>> be true or not.
Merriam-Webster
"b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be >>>>> believed true by the speaker or writer." (merriam-webster.com) >>>>>
I'll go by Merriam-Webster.
Then why do you disagree with a definition which both the Bible and
Merriam have agreed on?
I don't, and they didn't. MOST references only give my definition of a
lie, the speaker must willfully deceive.
Good answer. I would have sworn I read where the speaker believed it,
did not make it a lie. Notice:
oAnd for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the >>> truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.o (2 Thessalonians 2:11u12,
KJV 1900)
Are you claiming the Bible is in error here to identify the content of
their "belief" (NOUN FORM) as a "lie", simply because they "believe" the >>> "lie" (NOUN FORM) to be true?
Observe:
o The Bible calls the content of what these people will believe
(the NOUN form which identifies the substance of their
belief) a "lie", even though they "believe" it.
A lie is not based on the listeners beliefs, those references say the
one lying is one who tries to knowingly deceive his listeners.
o Any definition of "lie" (NOUN FORM) which excludes this as a
legitimate understanding, CONTRADICTS and seeks to UNDERMINE
what the Bible teaches.
The truth never undermines the Bible. And that is what God desires of
us. (John 4:23,24)
o This is not to be CONFUSED with what the people's action (VERB
FORM) would be if they expressed their "belief" in the "lie".
So, for example, if they "BELIEVE" the "LIE", they are not
LYING in the sense they are knowingly intending to deceive
people, but that's not the issue. The issue isn't their ACTIONS
in talking about their belief, but the SUBSTANCE of their
belief itself.
Of course, that goes for all Bible truths.
This seems to indicate the following:
o You are confusing the noun form of the word which identifies
the content of the belief itself (a falsehood or "lie"), with
the verb form which shows the action and intent of the person
speaking about the falsehood/lie.
As noted many times, the person who believes the "lie" may
fully "believe" the content of their claim to be true. So they
are not "lying" in the sense that they are knowingly trying to
deceive people when they talk about it. However, the content
of their beliefs (noun) do not change to become "truth",
simply because they believe it to be true.
This has nothing to do with listeners beliefs. This is the speakers
responsiblity all the way. If he willingly tries to deceive, he's a
liar. If he says some faulty, but believes it, he doesn't lie.
For example, the speaker says the earth is flat, and gives Scriptures
to support him, he doesn't lie even though most people know he doesn't
say the truth. It's all put on the speakers head, on what he says.
If their belief is
false, it remains a "lie", whether they are deceived about it
and believe it or not.
Me and a bunch of dictionaries, disagree with you. And millions of
JW's. All my sayings are as true as I can say them. I do not lie, and
any Bible qutoes, I fully believe to be true. ESP when a NT text
copies the Tetragrammaton in the OT, THat Tetragrammaton should show
up in the NT. It's a QUOTE. It should be as exact as possible,
including the Tetragrammaton .
o When you claim to the effect that you base your beliefs only on
what the Bible itself teaches (such as the idea that "staurus"
must be understood EXCLUSIVELY as a "pole without a cross-beam
attached to it" and that "no amount of reasoning" which comes
from "outside the Bible" matters because the Bible only says
"pole", and not "cross-beam"), how are you not an hypocritical
LIAR who KNOWS that he accepts extra-biblical definitions of
words when it suits his preferred understanding?
Isn't that the point? We were not born with Bible facts. We have to
learn them. Thus understanding the Bible is the preferred
understanding.
1) A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false, typically used
with the intention of deceiving or misleading someone.[1(Wikipedia)
2) lied; lying 'li-i?
intransitive verb
1
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
(Merriam-Webster)
1
a
: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
(Merriam-Webster)
Then they add it the way you believe it.
Thus apparently, according to Webster, the speaker can believe it or
not. And it is still a lie.
You see, that definition is disrespectful to the speaker. The speaker
can be a faithful follower of Jesus. And then gets shot down with
people like you, when he is as innocent as a dove. And then he gets
called a liar. That is not an easy word to have a description of you
floating around. Esp when you knowingly did nothing wrong. Thus there
should be a difference between those both sererios.
But other references state it that the speaker knows it is a lie.
So when you selectively choose to believe and go by a definition that
contradicts the fact that the Bible calls the content of what these
people "believe" a "lie", this is what you identify as you "honestly and >>> sincerely" (and not selectively or hypocritically) basing your beliefs
only on what the Bible teaches (see "staurus = pole without a cross-beam >>> because the Bible doesn't say "cross-beam", but only "pole")?
"something you say that you know is not true."
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lie)
"A lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is
untrue."
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lie#google_vignette) >>>>
"1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving."
(The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com c lie)
"something intended or serving to give a false impression. v. to speak >>>> falsely, knowing that what one says is not true, as with intent to
deceive: [no object] lied about his age. [~ + object] lying his way
out"
(Global web icon
WordReference
https://www.wordreference.com c definition c lie)
"to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to
deceive."
(Dictionary
https://www.dictionary.com c browse c lie)
Etc, etc.
All those listed above DISAGREE WITH one of Webster's
definitions.
So I will stay with my original definition, a lie is to deceive.
Observe the hypocrisy:
========================================
Sat, 20 Dec 2025 11:12:03 -0500
<1aidkkp2o2lgkc2bpj51lfdq2ng22bbgcg@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote:
========================================
The Bible says Jesus died on an upright pole. (even a tree) Period. No >>>>>> amount of other reasoning will change that.
Here, "No amount of other reasoning" will change what the Bible says. >>>>> "Period".
But when the Bible says,
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they >>>>> should believe a lie..." (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
Your translation differs from mine. Notice:
-- Living Bible
2 Thessalonians 2:11 so God will allow them to believe lies with all
their hearts,
(2 Thessalonians 2:11) That is why God lets a deluding influence
mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, (NWT)
So God PERMITS them to accept lies instead of giving them the truth. And I don't believe God is lying. If God is telling that to people, God is lying, since He knows it to be false.
Your preferred translation(s) maintain that these people "believe" the
"lie". This doesn't help your insistence that the extra-biblical
definitions which you have chosen, contradict what your preferred
translations of the Bible clearly state. The fact these people "believe" >>> the "lie" doesn't change the content of their belief (NOUN FORM) from
"lie" to "truth", or even "innocent mistake". It's talking about what
the content of their faith IS (NOUN FORM), not their INTENT or sincerity >>> in talking about the "lie" (VERB FORM).
I'll go with those other dictionaries, and there is a bunch.
you now suddenly contend that ANY extra-biblical definition you can find >>>>> which contradicts what the Bible shows, constitutes a valid
understanding of the word.
Negatrons. The Bible is truth. (John 17:17)
Notice,
o you deny it ("Negatrons"), yet even your preferred translations
show that someone can "believe" a "lie" (NOUN FORM). The fact
they "believe" it doesn't change the way God identifies the
content of their belief (NOUN FORM). He still calls it a "lie"
whether they "believe" it to be true or not.
Like I said above, lies are all about the speaker.
o You insist that WHAT YOU BELIEVE (noun form) can't accurately
be called a "lie", if YOU BELIEVE what you are saying to be
truth. This is FALSE. The Bible shows that if your belief is
FALSE, it (the CONTENT OF YOUR BELIEF, NOT YOUR INTENT) remains
a "LIE".
And other dictionares say it my way. For example, A lie is an
assertion that is believed to be false, typically used with the
intention of deceiving or misleading someone. The practice of
communicating lies ...
(Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org c wiki c Lie)
o The only basis you gave for your contradiction, Sorry, but no contradiction.
was that you
found definitions for "lie" OUTSIDE THE BIBLE which claim there
has to be an intent to deceive before the content of people's
claims can be accurately called a "lie".
The Bible sometimes accepts info from AI etc. that can support the
Bible amd ots truths.
o You can't claim you "honestly and sincerely" base your views
only on what the Bible teaches, when the Bible clearly teaches
these people "believe" a "lie",
That's their problem. Whoever made that statement is the liar.
and WHILE you are INSISTING to
the contrary that people cannot "believe" a "lie", because they
have to INTEND to deceive someone before it becomes a "lie".
Absolutely from the speaker. The listener cannot make somedthing a
lie, no matter what he believes, unless he knowingly tries to decieve.
************************************************
o This is a conscious choice you are making. You understand that
the Bible calls what they "believe" a "lie", without regard for
whether or not they "believe" it to be true, yet you KNOWINGLY
choose a definition which requires that the person must
KNOWINGLY INTEND TO DECEIVE, before you allow that the content
of their belief is a "lie". You are not innocently and
sincerely making a "mistake" when you choose definitions of
words which CONTRADICT AND EXCLUDE what the Bible teaches.
The Bible clearly calls the falsehood that people will "believe" a
"lie". It doesn't change the fact that the content of their belief is >>>>> "lie", simply because they "believe" it to be true.
Negatrons. Most references say a lie is a purposeful deception. And
the Bible says God permits the lies to happen. It doesn't say who the
liar is.
Then you're claiming the Bible to be in error when it identifies what
these people "believe" to be a "lie"? And you're claiming your
extra-biblical definitions prevail over what the Bible (including the
NWT) says in this case, yet you "sincerely and honestly" let the Bible
define what words (e.g. "staurus") mean, "Period"? How are you not a
self-deluded hypocrite who flip-flops and waffles to preserve LIES over
the truth?
You promote CONFUSION and LIES!
Negatrons. Since I only go by the Bible, you are calling the Bible
confusion and lies.
o So much for your "staurus" claim, you waffling hypocrite.
The Bible says staurus, an upright pole. Men have ADDED a definition
of "cross" to staurus. But that word is from AT LEAST the FIRST
CENTURY.
The Bible says they "believe" a "lie". How are you denying a person can
"believe" a "lie"?
Your solution to this is to quote an extra-biblical definition which
requires that the person knowingly intend to deceive people before the
content of their belief (NOUN FORM) may accurately be identified as a
"lie"? How are you not contradicting what the Bible says?
When you quote the Bible, or even summarize it, those are quotes and
Bible truths. You can't try to judge the quote, it is already a Bible
truth.
When
you wanted to maintain that a staurus can't include a
patibulum, you acted as if no other understanding could be
added other than what the Bible directly states.
What the Bible directly says, is truth. (John 17:17) And shouldn't
follow uninspired men to add to Scripture. That's just what the Devil
wants you to do.
And the Bible says these people will "believe" a "lie". By your
extra-biblical definition, the Bible is in error for identifying the
content of their belief as a "lie", since they "believe" it to be true.
The listeners don't determined what is a lie.
How are you not contradicting the Bible on the basis of an
extra-biblical definition, and how are you not insisting on that
understanding without regard for what the Bible plainly states? How are
you not a flip-flopping hypocrite who insists that we must EXCLUDE any
understanding which the Bible itself does not directly state when you
want to understand that "staurus" MUST mean ONLY "without a cross-beam",
That's right. It comes with the word.
but who then insists that the Bible must NOT be accurate when it
identifies what people "believe" to be true as a "lie"?
There are many listenees, but only one writer, who is responsible for
a lie or not.
Now that theActually, the Bible condemns any falsehoods by men who made them up.
Bible refutes your lies by showing that people can "believe" a >>>>> "lie", you want to fall back on an extra-biblical definition. >>>>
(like the Scribes and Pharisees and modern day 'Scribes' and
'Pharisees')
God's word identifies what these people "believe" as a "lie". Why do you >>> oppose what the Bible plainly states and what even your NWT translations >>> concur with?
I have already remarked on that. The listeners do not make a lie. It's
the speaker. Maybe Watchtower needs to conveniently go back and revise
the verse now, so it doesn't identify what people "believe" as a"lie"?
It won't. Ohly the speaker determines what the word is going to be. A
lie or truth.
o You seek to confuse the noun form with the verb form. Lie
(noun) is the substance of what you claim. "Lie" (verb) is
whether or not you believe it to be true. The content of your >>>>> claims (noun) when false, remains a "lie", whether you believe >>>>> it to be true or not. The act of telling what you believe to be >>>>> true (verb) is only a "lie" if you seek to mislead.
He has no answer for this.
o Webster confirms this understanding:
Lie (Noun) b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or >>>>> may not be believed true by the speaker or writer the lies we >>>>> tell ourselves to feel better historical records containing >>>>> numerous lies
Notice, he does not dispute that Webster ALLOWS FOR THE BIBLICAL
UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD. Instead, he simply sticks his fingers in his
ears and repeats ONLY definitions which CONTRADICT AND EXCLUDE what both >>> Webster and the Bible agree on.
"something you say that you know is not true."
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lie)
"A lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is
untrue."
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lie#google_vignette) >>>>
"1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving."
(The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com c lie)
No need for you to respond to this, unless you're trying to brainwash >>>>> people by repeating refuted lies.
Alright, if you want to use the word: Your opinions of me are total
lies. I just share Bible TRUTHS with anyone. That's all.
On the contrary. When I identify that your doctrine contradicts what the >>> Bible teaches, I may accurately identify that content as a "lie",
whether you claim you "believe" it to be true or not. It is an
evaluation of the CONTENT of your doctrine, not your CLAIMED INTENT.
Your misapplication of 2 Thess 2:11 does
not negate the Dictionary definition.
Yes, it does:
(2 Thessalonians 2:11) That is why God lets a deluding influence
mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, (NWT)
That translation AGREES that people "believe" a "lie". That means their
sincere intent does not CHANGE "lie" to "truth", just because they
"believe" it. It is still accurately identified as a "lie", because it
is FALSE. This shows a DISTINCTION between INTENT and CONTENT. The
CONTENT of their "belief" REMAINS a "lie", whether they "believe" it to
be true or not, or whether they "sincerely" think they are telling the
truth and intend only good when they promote the "lie".
You've demonstrated no misapplication. It plainly states the people
"believe" a "lie". The content of their belief, whether they believe it >>>>> or not, is a "lie". It doesn't become "an innocent error", simply
because they believe it.
And those other dictionaries disagree with Webster.
o How are you not re claiming the Bible is in error when it
identifies what people "believe" as a "lie"?
o How are you not showing yourself to be a waffling hypocrite
when you maintain "no reasoning" outside what the Bible teaches
("period"), can support the understanding that a "staurus" had
a patibulum attached to it, because the Bible doesn't
specifically say "patibulum", since you now INSIST that a
definition you derived OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE defines a "lie" in
a way that CONTRADICTS what the Bible flatly states: these
people "believe" a "lie".
Listen. You may DELUDE yourself with the idea that you're an angle of
light who is not a stark-raving hypocrite and who does not intentionally >>> waffle to make the Bible mean what he wants it to mean, holding to and
using hypocritical double-standards and changing standards whenever you
get cornered in what you say, but don't expect me to SHARE YOUR DELUSION. >>>
And my references:
Works Cited
Merriam-Webster.com. "LIE Definition ". Merriam-webster,
https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie. Accessed 29 December. 2025. >>>>
o The problem here is that you can't refute the statement that
people will "believe" a "lie", without contradicting the Bible.
It doesn't help to insist on an extra-biblical definition of
"lie" which EXCLUDES AND CONTRADICTS what the Bible plainly
teaches.
o You are here admitting that when you want to believe something,
you IGNORE and EXCLUDE what the Bible says, and INSIST on
definitions which CONTRADICT what the Bible plainly states:
People will "believe" a "lie".
o Your references included Webster until you realized his
definitions ALLOW FOR THE BIBLE TO BE TRUE while your
consciously chosen definitions contradict and exclude what the
Bible plainly states.
Answer:
Do you not now claim the Bible is in error when it identifies what
people "believe" as a "lie"?
How do you maintain to the effect that "no amount of reasoning that
comes from outside the Bible" can change the meaning of "staurus" to
include a cross-beam, because the Bible doesn't specify there was a
"cross-beam" (on one hand), then turn around and INSIST that a "lie"
must ONLY be defined by sources OUTSIDE THE BIBLE, which CONTRADICT what >>> the Bible shows?
The Bible does not contradict itself, unless you interpret it that
way.
"something you say that you know is not true."
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lie)
"A lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is
untrue."
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lie#google_vignette) >>>>
"1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving."
(The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com c lie)
"something intended or serving to give a false impression. v. to speak >>>> falsely, knowing that what one says is not true, as with intent to
deceive: [no object] lied about his age. [~ + object] lying his way
out"
(Global web icon
WordReference
https://www.wordreference.com c definition c lie)
"to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to
deceive."
(Dictionary
https://www.dictionary.com c browse c lie)
You go by Webster, since it supports your oponion. Don't get me wrong,
Webster is a good dictionary. But just not in this case.
I remain disabused from the delusion that your dumb lies and
hypocritical double-standards have not already been exposed and refuted
ad nauseam.
I remain disabused from the delusion that your dumb lies and
hypocritical double-standards have not already been exposed and refuted
ad nauseam.
See above, a Christians' character.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:37:17 |
| Calls: | 743 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| Messages: | 187,735 |